[Opinion] The Abnormal Demand to ‘Behave Like a Normal Nation’

[Mormolyce]

So if someone wrongs you over 70 years ago, this gives you a license to funding terrorism forever and ever?

The US today faces the fallout from its terrible foreign policy decisions years ago, just as Trump's terrible foreign policy decisions will affect the US for generations to come. That is the point.

The US's history of foreign policy blunders also includes funding terrorists, incidentally.

[Ihavewaffles]

I am rather disturbed by the use of Norway as the gold standard for good wholesome nations. I have nothing against Norway, but I doubt the fact it is 94% white is a coincidence given they keep bringing it up. Norway is as socialist as Venezuela, but since Norway is white and Christian, this administration keeps claiming it as some sort of paradise. This is some straight up Nazi levels of fetishizing Scandinavians.

Anyway, as far as Iran, I am not a fan of how they are acting, but their circumstances are vastly different then Norway's circumstances. However, 400 years ago, Norway (As part of Denmark) faced a situation not that dissimilar from Iran today. Northern Europe was an unstable and wartorn area, rife with religious conflict, and the conflicting agendas of dozens of major powers. Sweden was a military juggernaut bordering Norway, and so war came. Again, and again, and again. Norway has seen its share of religiously driven bloodshed, it has fought superpowers and defied agreements like the Treaty of Roskilde that bound her.

The point is that Norway acts the way it does because it is a stable and secure nation... for now. When that wasn't true, Norway acted like every other nation in crisis.

Sweden a military juggernaut? Are u being serious?

[Thekri]

Sweden a military juggernaut? Are u being serious?

Yes... read a book. Swedish Empire was a thing.

Just because Sweden isn't a military juggernaut now (Although they are respectable by European standards), doesn't mean they never were.

[Ihavewaffles]

Yes... read a book. Swedish Empire was a thing.

Just because Sweden isn't a military juggernaut now (Although they are respectable by European standards), doesn't mean they never were.

They had a king, not an emperor, beat some of their smaller neigbors, took on Russia n lost badly.

[Powerogue]

Living in the US, still was surprised to find the title wasn't referring to the US.

edit: Having a swell time looking into this guy and finding a long, long trail of BS. From ignoring the separation of church and state in favor of pandering to evangelicals to "Federal policy should be about the American family, not worshipping a radical environmental agenda." as his explanation for fighting any efforts against climate change, he seems like a Grade A nut. To no one's surprise, appointed by Trump.

edit2: I'm sorry this is becoming a tangent but it just gets funnier the more I read. "He refused to sign on to a joint statement addressing the need for protection of the Arctic region from the threat of rapidly melting ice unless all mentions of climate change were removed from the document. He stated "climate change is actually good for the Arctic, since melting ice caps are 'opening up new shipping routes' and thus making it more economically viable to expand oil drilling in the region."

Captain planet villains are real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo

[Wyrt]

So if someone wrongs you over 70 years ago, this gives you a license to funding terrorism forever and ever? That's an interesting take on the situation.

That's not what this situation is though.

The US has been crippling Iran economically for decades since they overthrew our puppet government. It's not just Iran being pissy about something that happened 70 years ago. This is an on going conflict that has been continuing for 70 years. Iran didn't just wake up in 2017 when Trump became President and decide to start doing shit because something from 70 years ago.

[Powerogue]

The US today faces the fallout from its terrible foreign policy decisions years ago, just as Trump's terrible foreign policy decisions will affect the US for generations to come. That is the point.

The US's history of foreign policy blunders also includes funding terrorists, incidentally.

I thought I'd have to dig harder but hot damn, even that has its own Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ored_terrorism

"Support was also geared toward ensuring a conducive environment for American corporate interests abroad, especially when these interests came under threat from democratic governments."

I mean I'm not even sure if I can make it through this, just reading that makes me ill. It's so contrary to what was hammered into me over and over.

[Wyrt]

"Support was also geared toward ensuring a conducive environment for American corporate interests abroad, especially when these interests came under threat from democratic governments."

Guatamala and Chile are both examples of this.

Iran is an example of the US doing this with the UK for the interest of UK corporations. So at least we aren't the only baddies.

[Ihavewaffles]

I thought I'd have to dig harder but hot damn, even that has its own Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ored_terrorism

"Support was also geared toward ensuring a conducive environment for American corporate interests abroad, especially when these interests came under threat from democratic governments."

I mean I'm not even sure if I can make it through this, just reading that makes me ill. It's so contrary to what was hammered into me over and over.

Didn't even know about Italy n I'm European...

[Draco-Onis]

So if someone wrongs you over 70 years ago, this gives you a license to funding terrorism forever and ever? That's an interesting take on the situation.

Let me illustrate the stupidity of this statement do you think the US would still be feeling the fallout if we didn't participate in WW2 and the Nazis won? How about if we never split from the British? I mean for fuck sake even in your own life one decision can change everything for you and your grand kids it's worse for nations.

[Pannonian]

They had a king, not an emperor, beat some of their smaller neigbors, took on Russia n lost badly.

Gave the germans a good trashing in the 30 years war. Not sure if military juggernaut is the description i'd take, but they definitley were a big player in Europe at the time, and their army was excellent (yeah the lost out to the russians in the end, but everyone playing EU4 knows that Quantiy is ultimately better than Quality)

[Ihavewaffles]

Gave the germans a good trashing in the 30 years war. Not sure if military juggernaut is the description i'd take, but they definitley were a big player in Europe at the time, and their army was excellent (yeah the lost out to the russians in the end, but everyone playing EU4 knows that Quantiy is ultimately better than Quality)

When germany was made up of 1000 city-states?..

[Pannonian]

When germany was made up of 1000 city-states?..

Seriously? Ok, maybe you don't know about the history of the 30 years war and european history in general, so, let's take it slowly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(German) - also there were dozens of city states, but not thousands, not even hundred. There were also biggger countries: Austria/Bohemia, Brandenburg, Palatine, Braunschweig, etc.

So yeah, there were big war parties, and one of them was trashed by Gustav Adolf.

And even after his death, the swedish army was one of the best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Northern_War

Not to forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Empire

[Ihavewaffles]

So, like I said, when germany was divided

Thx for links, sweden + finland (whose history is to be constantly conquered by everyone) a lil piece of balticum, germany (Lvebeck?), basically nothing, I don't see how that's an 'empire' lolz

[Pannonian]

So, like I said, when germany was divided

Thx for links, sweden + finland (whose history is to be constantly conquered by everyone) a lil piece of balticum, germany (Lvebeck?), basically nothing, I don't see how that's an 'empire' lolz

Because that's how an empire is defined? Seriously, how can you be so proud and unreflected on your, obvious, lack of knowledge? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

The simple fact that they ruled over other people (than the swedish) and expanded out of their natural location makes them an empire. This is something that is not up to debate in historic circles.

No, you feeling that they don't qualify doesn't change they fact that they'd been an empire for 150 years.

Germany divided. Ok, let's take a step back HRE != germany. Germany as an idea comes up in the mid of the 18th century.

Actually i do like to discuss history, but its hard if someone doesn't even want to open up to new ideas, and instead revels in their own ignorance. "i don't see how that's an 'empire' lolz" - really is nice summary.

[Ihavewaffles]

Because that's how an empire is defined? Seriously, how can you be so proud and unreflected on your, obvious, lack of knowledge? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

The simple fact that they ruled over other people (than the swedish) and expanded out of their natural location makes them an empire. This is something that is not up to debate in historic circles.

No, you feeling that they don't qualify doesn't change they fact that they'd been an empire for 150 years.

Germany divided. Ok, let's take a step back HRE != germany. Germany as an idea comes up in the mid of the 18th century.

Actually i do like to discuss history, but its hard if someone doesn't even want to open up to new ideas, and instead revels in their own ignorance. "i don't see how that's an 'empire' lolz" - really is nice summary.

Lol

Word empire is over-used, miss-used af...

Ur not an 'empire' cuz u conquered one neighbor n tiny other pieces of other neighbors...basically all states did that to their neighbors, so don't wave the word empire around so easily...

Russia was an empire for having 1/3 of europe n stomping most, not because of their much larger entire northern asia territory, cuz conquering a few eskimo tribes that didn't fight, hell they had no formal states or borders to speak of.

What territory of significance did sweden ever conquer n hold?

They had their chance with charles XII who defeated denmark, poland the initially russia, but then he lost so he never capitalized on his victories, ran to the ottoman sultan begging for aid, failing that he fought in norway where some stray norwegian bullet took him out...that is the swedish 'empire'..

Well, this is too off-topic, thread is supposed to be about iran (which was a true empire)

[Pannonian]

Lol

Word empire is over-used, miss-used af...

Ur not an 'empire' cuz u conquered one neighbor n tiny other pieces of other neighbors...basically all states did that to their neighbors, so don't wave the word empire around so easily...

Russia was an empire for having 1/3 of europe n stomping most, not because of their much larger entire northern asia territory, cuz conquering a few eskimo tribes that didn't fight, hell they had no formal states or borders to speak of.

What territory of significance did sweden ever conquer n hold?

They had their chance with charles XII who defeated denmark, poland the initially russia, but then he lost so he never capitalized on his victories, ran to the ottoman sultan begging for aid, failing that he fought in norway where some stray norwegian bullet took him out...that is the swedish 'empire'..

Well, this is too off-topic, thread is supposed to be about iran (which was a true empire)

So the entire historic community and their classification is wrong, because of your feelings. Got it. Just because you think Finland + Baltikum + Pommerania + Lübeck + Bremen is tiny, doesn't make it so in reality. Again, your feelings isn't a good source. Maybe try to refute my sources instead of just argue what you feel?

True, Charles XII wasted it, but that's why this is commonly known as the end of the swedish empire.

[Spectral]

So if someone wrongs you over 70 years ago, this gives you a license to funding terrorism forever and ever? That's an interesting take on the situation.

Whether it gives license or not isn't really the point - the origins of the disputes and hatreds between the nations are relevant to developing a narrative history that helps one understand why there isn't a meaningful peace in sight. This is easier to see when we look at historic examples that we aren't personally invested in. Were various gothic tribes justified in repeatedly sacking Roman cities? That hardly even seems like a useful question to ask - the reality created by centuries of warfare was that the moment the defenses of Rome slipped, those cities were going to get sacked. Thinking about the geopolitics behind US-Iran relations with an eye towards how we can expect nations to behave makes the whole thing make a lot more sense than just asking "what would a reasonable person do here?".

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what this situation is though.

The US has been crippling Iran economically for decades since they overthrew our puppet government. It's not just Iran being pissy about something that happened 70 years ago. This is an on going conflict that has been continuing for 70 years. Iran didn't just wake up in 2017 when Trump became President and decide to start doing shit because something from 70 years ago.

Likewise, let's be clear - Iran hasn't behaved as some helpless, innocent bystander that's just continuously being beaten down by the United States. The history of mutual antagonism has lasted for the entirety of the existence of the modern state of Iran. Expecting normalization of relations is about as expecting the ancient Macedonians to have settled on getting together with the Persians for a nice cuppa. These are natural geopolitical rivals. I'm fine with placing more blame on Western nations (looking particularly at the USA and UK) for how they treated the Middle East prior to Iran returning to having any meaningful power, but we really need to avoid thinking of this like it's two guys who could just make up and play nice.

[Ihavewaffles]

So the entire historic community and their classification is wrong, because of your feelings. Got it. Just because you think Finland + Baltikum + Pommerania + Lübeck + Bremen is tiny, doesn't make it so in reality. Again, your feelings isn't a good source. Maybe try to refute my sources instead of just argue what you feel?

True, Charles XII wasted it, but that's why this is commonly known as the end of the swedish empire.

Dude, u simply don't get it. Vonquering Finland is like conquering siberia...had swe instead conquered entire france n other regions of heavy resistance n significance then we could talk...
Conquering some trees, lakes, mooses in finland...im not trying to insult finland, but they have always been on the side-lines of history.

France, britain, russia, others never bothered with conquering scandinavia, its either not worth effort or they simply fold..

[Pannonian]

Dude, u simply don't get it. Vonquering Finland is like conquering siberia...had swe instead conquered entire france n other regions of heavy resistance n significance then we could talk...
Conquering some trees, lakes, mooses in finland...im not trying to insult finland, but they have always been on the side-lines of history.

France, britain, russia, others never bothered with conquering scandinavia, its either not worth effort or they simply fold..

So more misinformation.. Russia never bothered with conquering scandinavia? Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War never happened? And they simply folded? now, here is an appropriate location to add the "lolz"

And again, your feelings aren't really relevant. It was an empire by any commonly used definition of empire, it is referred to as swedish empire at the time and by historians up until now.

Can you give me any other reason why it has not been an empire apart from your feelings?

Also, i'm not your dude, pal.