|
|
|
|
|
by srean
65 days ago
|
|
This "both sides" game does not carry much weight when one side, the US and Britain, made the bad faith move on Iran first. Stubbing one's toe and complaining "both sides" - the pebble and me. Complaining I am being hit back because I hit first, does not elicit support. Especially, when one is less than forthcoming about who made the move on a sovereign country first. Made a move just because that country had resources you are interested in. If you want the resource then buy it. Norway nationalised it's oil, Iran had equal sovereign right to do so. You and I agree on many things. This one is not one of them. |
|
Trying to disentangle who did what first in the Middle East is a fool's errand. Practically any living human can trace descendence to someone who was harmed by any other group in that region because that's where the first civilisation was born and almost every one after it had cause for crossroads.
> Complaining I am being hit back because I hit first, does not elicit support
If one dude stabs another, they're at fault. If that dude stabs the first one back, I'm sympathetic to their cause of action but not how they prosecuted it.
> Norway nationalised it's oil, Iran had equal sovereign right to do so
If Iran nationalised its oil and then didn't go on a vendetta against Israel, together with various spawned proxy groups dotting the region, every one of their neighbors wouldn't be standing by today while they get pummeled.