Blizzard cuts off Iranian gamers

karma_

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19399375

US trade sanctions have led game maker Blizzard to cut off access to World of Warcraft (Wow) in Iran.

Blizzard posted a statement to its player-forum site after hundreds of Iranian players said they had lost access to the game.

Access was lost recently, it said, because it had "tightened up its procedures" to comply with sanctions.

This also meant, said Blizzard, that it could not give refunds to players or transfer their accounts...

Surprised this has not appeared on boards yet, I first saw it on the BBC site late last night.

What Blizzard have effectively done is for 6 months, accepted payments for game-time and the new WoW expansion then without warning cut off access for Iranian, Sudanese and Syrian gamers. Only after many forum posts did they then make a statement on their forums citing the US Trade sanctions and advising that they would not be refunding these players either.

It's pretty poor form on the part of Blizzzard and could have been handled much better. It pretty much amounts to theft.

juan.kerr

Did the players get the benefit of 6 months play?

wes

Bad form from Blizzard, where they have taken money from players knowing full well, they would cut them off.

Also, how exactly does cutting people off from a video game, stop Iran's nuclear energy program . Seems Western sanctions are petty and vindictive in nature. Surely cutting off Iran from the rest of the world is a bad thing.....

karma_

juan.kerr wrote: »

Did the players get the benefit of 6 months play?

Looks like any game time that was not used, or any money used to purchase the yet to be released expansion is now forfeit.

Tenger

karma_ wrote: »

Looks like any game time that was not used, or any money used to purchase the yet to be released expansion is now forfeit.

Bad show Blizzard. However I would not be surprised if they were told not to warn the gamers. The US authorities would not want to offer apologies ahead of time.

wes wrote: »

........how exactly does cutting people off from a video game, stop Iran's nuclear energy program...Seems Western sanctions are petty and vindictive in nature. Surely cutting off Iran from the rest of the world is a bad thing.....

I agree with you.
However I feel that the sanctions against Iran are to make the regimen seem oppressive to the population. While the nuclear program is a target it is not the long term aim of the sanctions. The US have this funny theory that sanctions will impose hardship on the population who will then rise up and overthrow their political leadership. The Iranians run a very tight ship, they have history,religion and culture to bind them together. Unlike the Iraqi's who were already split along tribal/religious/racial lines.

juan.kerr

Tenger wrote: »

The US have this funny theory

Not just the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

Manach

I'd agree in the main with the OP, though it is not entirely Blizzard's fault given the US Policy in that regard. They've recently shown by imposing a heavy fine on a bank that did business with Iran that these sanctions have the full force of law behind it. But it is ironic given that this effects gamers, a very international friendly open community, that by playing WoW is engaging with a rapport with other players.

wes

Tenger wrote: »

While the nuclear program is a target it is not the long term aim of the sanctions. The US have this funny theory that sanctions will impose hardship on the population who will then rise up and overthrow their political leadership. The Iranians run a very tight ship, they have history,religion and culture to bind them together. Unlike the Iraqi's who were already split along tribal/religious/racial lines.

Yes, in agreement with you. Surely petty sanctions that stop people from playing a MMO, will piss off the average Iranian, not at there government, but at the West.

Retr0gamer

Another reason why DRM sucks.

Shiminay

These things are unfortunately meant to piss off the populace and have them angry with the government/regime that they live in so that when the US and the rest of the "free" world finally invades them for their Oil, they'll be seen as liberators and not invaders.

ahnowbrowncow

And how pissed off would you be at not being able to play a single player game like Diablo, blizzard are going downhill

Don't cry for me...Ayatollah.

ShadowHearth

I just wish US stop rubbing it's cock on to Everything.

I wonder when the rest of the world will say to "**** off" to them for a change...

Overheal

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I just wish US stop rubbing it's cock on to Everything.

I wonder when the rest of the world will say to "**** off" to them for a change...

When the rest of the world (or sure, let's call it Europe) has an interest in doing so. The EU has no standing army and no organization which can match what the US does. You'd see more Cambodia's and Rwanda's when nobody's around to even debate whether there should be international interference or not (instead the current situation is a relatively luxurious "why dind't the US step in?" affair).

Not saying I wouldn't mind it, but what happens when the US pulls all of it's bases and missile defense systems out of Europe and the Middle East?

juan.kerr

And I'd much rather it was the US intervening that the Chinese.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

When the rest of the world (or sure, let's call it Europe) has an interest in doing so. The EU has no standing army and no organization which can match what the US does.

The EU and the US are not comparable entities. Individual countires have armies in the EU. So no standing army for the EU doesn't mean anything, as it isn't suppose to have one.

Overheal wrote: »

Not saying I wouldn't mind it, but what happens when the US pulls all of it's bases and missile defense systems out of Europe and the Middle East?

Nothing? There is no country in the Middle East, that present any kind of actual threat to Europe. There are farily useless militarily.

Either way, banning people from playing a MMO is just petty, and to be fair its not just the US who are responsible for sanctions, but several other countries as well.

ShadowHearth

Overheal wrote: »

When the rest of the world (or sure, let's call it Europe) has an interest in doing so. The EU has no standing army and no organization which can match what the US does. You'd see more Cambodia's and Rwanda's when nobody's around to even debate whether there should be international interference or not (instead the current situation is a relatively luxurious "why dind't the US step in?" affair).

Not saying I wouldn't mind it, but what happens when the US pulls all of it's bases and missile defense systems out of Europe and the Middle East?

I don't want to start debate about US cock, but in a lot of cases US is to blame for all that.

juan.kerr

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I don't want to start debate about US cock, but in a lot of cases US is to blame for all that.

:rolleyes:

ShadowHearth

juan.kerr wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Rolleyes are just so cool!

gizmo

Odd that there's no mention of Iran blocking the Battle.net IPs recently.

The reasons are rather amusing...

1. Promotion of superstition and mythology
2. Promotion of violence due to too much violence (I'm not exaggerating this is exactly what they wrote).
3. Abolishing the deformation in sin.
4. Demonstration of inappropriate clothing and slutty outfits for female avatars.

The thread does go on to mention that there have been several thousand exemptions made for companies to trade with Iran so it should be interesting to do Activision/Blizzard make the effort to apply for one.

Dermighty

Meh!

Blizzard are almost as much a bunch of f*cking c*nts as the Iranian government is!

wes

gizmo wrote: »

Odd that there's no mention of Iran blocking the Battle.net IPs recently.

So Blizzard and the West, have helped Iran out then. So not only are the sanctions petty, there also helping the Iranian regime in some cases, by preventing there people accessing stuff that the regime doesn't like. Good job with those sanctions, I guess......

Nody

wes wrote: »

Bad form from Blizzard, where they have taken money from players knowing full well, they would cut them off.

Also, how exactly does cutting people off from a video game, stop Iran's nuclear energy program . Seems Western sanctions are petty and vindictive in nature. Surely cutting off Iran from the rest of the world is a bad thing.....

Not really; the whole sanction and what's allowed with what permissions is a mine field (the company I work for exports to Iran among other countries in the region) and one bank which was ok to send/receive money to/from today may be on the black list tomorrow with out any notice.

What most likely happened was that Blizzard thought they were in the green and now someone has updated a black list/changed policy and they are not. The funny thing is Blizzard are now legally obliged NOT to refund because sending back money would be against the sanctions.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

So Blizzard and the West, have helped Iran out then. So not only are the sanctions petty, there also helping the Iranian regime in some cases, by preventing there people accessing stuff that the regime doesn't like. Good job with those sanctions, I guess......

Huh? If the Iranian government had blocked those IPs then gamers wouldn't have been able to access Battle.net directly, regardless of what Blizzard were forced to do.

Note the emphasis on forced there folks, it's not like they want to cut gamers off.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

Huh? If the Iranian government had blocked those IPs then gamers wouldn't have been able to access Battle.net directly, regardless of what Blizzard were forced to do.

They either didn't ban all of them, or Iranians found a work around. Now, they can't play, which is apparently what the regime wanted. Still have no idea why the US etc thinks this will stop Iran nuclear program, and as such the whole thing seems petty to me.

Overheal

wes wrote: »

The EU and the US are not comparable entities. Individual countires have armies in the EU. So no standing army for the EU doesn't mean anything, as it isn't suppose to have one.

Correct. This is a problem, given that EU entities have proven pretty limited in what they can actually accomplish. Libya kinda proved this, it wouldn't have worked without US involvement. Small situations like the Falklands are one thing, but there are larger conflicts, and they are conflicts the EU or indeed the UN is not prepared to tackle effectively without the US.

Nothing? There is no country in the Middle East, that present any kind of actual threat to Europe. There are farily useless militarily.

In the Middle East. I'd have been more concerned about an expansionist Russian regime myself. You have to consider all possibilities if you are looking at the power vacuum left behind if suddenly the US presence vanished from all but 1 hemisphere. My only point being that if that were to occur, the EU would be extremely wise to restructure and appoint their own unified military.

Either way, banning people from playing a MMO is just petty, and to be fair its not just the US who are responsible for sanctions, but several other countries as well.

I can't smoke Cubans either.

juan.kerr wrote: »

And I'd much rather it was the US intervening that the Chinese.

Truth be told if China wanted to, they could. They have historically been isolationist though. As a nation I think they're more focused on solving their internal issues. The income disparity between rural and urban China is staggering, for instance. They have a laundry list of things they need to fix before they can even think about most "first world problems" like poor work conditions (Foxconn) among other things.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

They either didn't ban all of them, or Iranians found a work around. Now, they can't play, which is apparently what the regime wanted. Still have no idea why the US etc thinks this will stop Iran nuclear program, and as such the whole thing seems petty to me.

Well I did say directly, so it's probably at an account level now which is why there's no way to get a refund. This is opposed to the Iranian side of things where it was just the Battle.net IPs which were blocked internally, something gamers would have been able to circumvent.

There have been various sanctions in place since the 80s so to say they're simply in response to the Iranian nuclear program isn't particularly true.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

I can't smoke Cubans either.

No good reason for that either btw.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

There have been various sanctions in place since the 80s so to say they're simply in response to the Iranian nuclear program isn't particularly true.

The current more extreme sanctions are solely due to the nuclear program, so in this case, it is imho fair to say its about the program.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

The current more extreme sanctions are solely due to the nuclear program, so in this case, it is imho fair to say its about the program.

Perhaps. The odd thing is, the last Executive Order issued with regard to trade sanctions was back in November last year so technically Blizzard shouldn't have been offering services since then at the very least. A better arrangement would have been to at least inform their subscribers that there was a possibility of access being removed so they wouldn't have wasted more money on extending their subs.

AlmightyCushion

Overheal wrote: »

Correct. This is a problem, given that EU entities have proven pretty limited in what they can actually accomplish. Libya kinda proved this, it wouldn't have worked without US involvement. Small situations like the Falklands are one thing, but there are larger conflicts, and they are conflicts the EU or indeed the UN is not prepared to tackle effectively without the US.

In the Middle East. I'd have been more concerned about an expansionist Russian regime myself. You have to consider all possibilities if you are looking at the power vacuum left behind if suddenly the US presence vanished from all but 1 hemisphere. My only point being that if that were to occur, the EU would be extremely wise to restructure and appoint their own unified military.

The EU doesn't need it's own military (obviously having one would have certain benefits and drawbacks) because NATO performs this function. Of course some EU members aren't members of NATO and vice versa. As for Russia, the UK and France spend nearly as much on their military as Russia does in actual dollar values, when you take into account the differences in purchasing power between the UK, France and Russia, then the UK and France still out spend Russia. If you take into account other EU and NATO members military spending it would far surpass that of Russia's.

Plus, back in 2010 the UK and France signed a treaty that has them join together on nuclear weapons research and also pool their military resources (You can read more here). I imagine in the future they may look to expand it's influence and possibly even include other countries.

Your claim that EU forces are limited in their capabilities is laughable. The UK were more than capable in Iraq and same with UK and NATO forces in Afghanistan. If their capabilities were so limited why would the US invoke article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to get NATO involved in Afghanistan after September 11th or form a coalition with the UK and other nations (although the US and UK obviously formed the bulk of the troops) for Iraq.

Also, you can't just say that if the US kept to itself, the EU would be fúcked. Their would be a power vacuum for a period but I think it's safe to say that most countries (at least the bigger ones anyways and especially former US allies) would increase their military spending and their commitment to NATO.

blatantrereg

What did Iran do to earn such enmity?

Its foreign policy is based on deterence, and it has the lowest percentage of its budget spent on the military of any Middle East country.
Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war, and was supported by the USA. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran (I think they were supplied by the USA). Iran did not retaliate in kind to my knowledge. Iran did come up with a new surgical technique for treating headwounds though.

I have an aweful suspicion that the religious looney image they get comes down a great deal to selective editing. A bit like if people filmed a lot of BNP meetings and suggested they reflected the UK in general. I've met a few Iranians and found them normal and surprisingly gentle [in academic contexts mind].

The zealots got in power in the first place because of the revolution against the puppet dictator installed by the USA and the UK in the 50's. Before that they had a secular democratically elected government. That government was the target of a coup because it nationalised its oil supply, breaking contract with BP [called something else back then].

Israel's position that they need to pre-emptively attack Iran or they will be attacked with nuclear weapons does not ring true with me. There are loads of muslims in Israel for one thing. For another, why on earth would Iran doom itself by such an act?

All in all, even if they are developing nuclear bombs, they have demonstrated themselves to be a less aggressive nation than plenty of countries that already have them - including the USA and Israel.

hightower1

Politics forum

---

> this way. :pac:

Overheal

wes wrote: »

No good reason for that either btw.

At the time it was enacted it was. Now it just seems silly. 50 years later.

The EU doesn't need it's own military (obviously having one would have certain benefits and drawbacks) because NATO performs this function.

You mean the NATO that's pretty much aka. America and Friends?

The UK were more than capable in Iraq and same with UK and NATO forces in Afghanistan. If their capabilities were so limited why would the US invoke article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to get NATO involved in Afghanistan after September 11th or form a coalition with the UK and other nations (although the US and UK obviously formed the bulk of the troops) for Iraq.

Honestly, I feel it was mostly for Politics, at the behest of the UN. Making it a NATO op gave it more legitimacy in international terms.

Also, you can't just say that if the US kept to itself, the EU would be fúcked. Their would be a power vacuum for a period but I think it's safe to say that most countries (at least the bigger ones anyways and especially former US allies) would increase their military spending and their commitment to NATO.

Hopefully they would. Unfortunately this is being talked about though in the US (actually even tonight in the Republican Convention. The feeling is that the US needs to be in the world until someone who shares our values wants to step up. The EU hasn't indicated much enthusiasm with that, nor any of it's members. The fear being that the vacuum would be filled by something like Russia, or even an Islamic state or the formation of an Islamic superpower. All hypothetical of course, but it would be nice of Europe to indicate they are willing.

Israel's position that they need to pre-emptively attack Iran or they will be attacked with nuclear weapons does not ring true with me. There are loads of muslims in Israel for one thing. For another, why on earth would Iran doom itself by such an act?

All in all, even if they are developing nuclear bombs, they have demonstrated themselves to be a less aggressive nation than plenty of countries that already have them - including the USA and Israel.

Indubitably. But the US doesn't seem to feel that being neutral in the matter is a smart option, hence the sanctions. Sanctions have been proven not to be terribly effective; it's just the equivalent of a finger wag.

Personally I think the big fear is a new middle eastern superpower emerging which, could potentially happen if there wasn't so much Western interference. I neither agree nor disagree with the policy: ideally it would be wonderful if the Middle East entered an age of peace (and there's nothing to say in the future there wouldn't be such a peaceful Islamic power) but the worry is if such a power did emerge, it would be expansionist or otherwise violent; the kind of war that analysts probably spend their careers postulating over, and would probably have a death toll in the hundreds of millions. But this conversation is too deep and too hypothetical for Gaming..

WarZoneBrother

Have not read much in this thread but to do that to any country is a disgrace..

Tenger

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

..............Your claim that EU forces are limited in their capabilities is laughable. The UK were more than capable in Iraq and same with UK and NATO forces in Afghanistan. If their capabilities were so limited why would the US invoke article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to get NATO involved in Afghanistan after September 11th or form a coalition with the UK and other nations (although the US and UK obviously formed the bulk of the troops) for Iraq.........

They are very limited in terms of power projection......yes with boots on the ground the UK and other European forces are quite capable in their chosen area of operation. But the ability to support an expeditionary military force is an asset that the US reserve for themselves at present.
Libya may have looked like a EU heavy force....but Libya could not have happened without the USAF logistical support of tankers and AWACs. While the French had a carrier offshore,most sorties were from land based aircraft in Italy,France and the UK.
Even China cannot project power in the same way as the US, they currently have less than 50 aerial tankers.(The US have 400+, while France/UK have approx 15/12 respectively)

As for invoking article 5 of the treaty, by having allies you make your campaign seem less aggressive and more defensive/peace keeping in nature.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

At the time it was enacted it was. Now it just seems silly. 50 years later.

Yes, back then it made sense, but as you say now its silly.

blatantrereg

blatantrereg wrote: »

What did Iran do to earn such enmity?

Its foreign policy is based on deterence, and it has the lowest percentage of its budget spent on the military of any Middle East country.
Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war, and was supported by the USA. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran (I think they were supplied by the USA). Iran did not retaliate in kind to my knowledge. Iran did come up with a new surgical technique for treating headwounds though.

I have an aweful suspicion that the religious looney image they get comes down a great deal to selective editing. A bit like if people filmed a lot of BNP meetings and suggested they reflected the UK in general. I've met a few Iranians and found them normal and surprisingly gentle [in academic contexts mind].

The zealots got in power in the first place because of the revolution against the puppet dictator installed by the USA and the UK in the 50's. Before that they had a secular democratically elected government. That government was the target of a coup because it nationalised its oil supply, breaking contract with BP [called something else back then].

Israel's position that they need to pre-emptively attack Iran or they will be attacked with nuclear weapons does not ring true with me. There are loads of muslims in Israel for one thing. For another, why on earth would Iran doom itself by such an act?

All in all, even if they are developing nuclear bombs, they have demonstrated themselves to be a less aggressive nation than plenty of countries that already have them - including the USA and Israel.

The sanctions first came about after the ousting of the Shah and the capture of the American embassy staff and then subsequent hostage situation. The Shah simply had to go because he was allowing such dangerous things as the right for women to vote.

Since then, Iran has been in bed with Terrorists and is pretty much unanimously hated and feared by every other country within a thousand mile radius. In the west, when some lunatic calls a computer game "the work of the devil" we all laugh. In Iran, it becomes LAW.


So yeah, Iran has made it's own bed and as such is free to lie in it.

wes

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The Shah simply had to go because he was allowing such dangerous things as the right for women to vote.

The Shah was put in power, after the CIA got rid of a democracy.....

Also, allowing everyone to vote in a dictatorship, is pretty much useless, what with the dictator being there.

Also, Women in Iran can vote today, and 9% are in the parliment, which is like before sort of usless, when you have Religous leaders who can override the parliment.

So you claim in regards to the Shah is nonsense. People wanted rid of him, due to his oppressive regime. The next regime being repressive as well, doesn't make the earlier one less repressive.

blatantrereg

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The sanctions first came about after the ousting of the Shah and the capture of the American embassy staff and then subsequent hostage situation. The Shah simply had to go because he was allowing such dangerous things as the right for women to vote.

Since then, Iran has been in bed with Terrorists and is pretty much unanimously hated and feared by every other country within a thousand mile radius. In the west, when some lunatic calls a computer game "the work of the devil" we all laugh. In Iran, it becomes LAW.


So yeah, Iran has made it's own bed and as such is free to lie in it.

The hostage thing was by students. Is there good reason to think it was sanctioned by the government?

The Shah was a monarch, and he created a single party political monopoly.

His regime was oppressive. Troops used live ammunition against protestors for example.

Here is a summary of what he did to inspire such enmity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_and_causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution#Policies_and_policy_mistakes_of_the_Shah

blatantrereg

blatantrereg wrote: »

The hostage thing was by students. Is there good reason to think it was sanctioned by the government?

The Shah was a monarch, and he created a single party political monopoly.

His regime was oppressive. Troops used live ammunition against protestors for example.

Here is a summary of what he did to inspire such enmity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_and_causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution#Policies_and_policy_mistakes_of_the_Shah

There was distance put between the Ayatollah and the hostage situation at the beginning, but within days the students had received the full backing of the government.

The Shah wanted Iran to be a modern country, and we all know how much diehard Shia's love modernity. The Ayatollah and the Shah originally butted heads over the right for women to vote. It brought thousands out onto the street in support of the Ayatollah and his Stone Age beliefs.

You act like middle eastern armies wouldn't use live ammunition during a dangerous and violent protests by militant muslims today. He was in power for almost 40 years, you know. Do a few incidents of which he had no direct involvement make him a monster?

wes wrote: »

The Shah was put in power, after the CIA got rid of a democracy.....

Also, allowing everyone to vote in a dictatorship, is pretty much useless, what with the dictator being there.

Also, Women in Iran can vote today, and 9% are in the parliment, which is like before sort of usless, when you have Religous leaders who can override the parliment.

So you claim in regards to the Shah is nonsense. People wanted rid of him, due to his oppressive regime. The next regime being repressive as well, doesn't make the earlier one less repressive.

You're condensing the last 70 years of Iranian history into one or two incidents there, wes. Sure people wanted the Shah gone - of course they did! People want Enda Kenny gone. People want Ahmadinejad gone.

What about the people who didn't want to live in an Shia Islamic theocracy? Do they count?

By the way, the CIA had far less involvement in the return of the Shah than you are making out. At best, they were able to mobilize his base, who were until then afraid to take to the streets - and with good reason.



And you're right - women have the vote now. Does that mean the Ayatollah Khomeini was full of shít in the first place? And that the Shah was right all along?

wes

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

You're condensing the last 70 years of Iranian history into one or two incidents there, wes. Sure people wanted the Shah gone - of course they did! People want Enda Kenny gone. People want Ahmadinejad gone.

Enda Kenny is democratically elected, so no comparison to the Shah. Who was a dictator.

As for Ahmadinejad, yes people want him gone, even the Ayotollah, but again he is no comparison the the Shah, as he has feck all power. The power is with the Ayotollah.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What about the people who didn't want to live in an Shia Islamic theocracy? Do they count?

Well, maybe if the CIA and the Shah didn't get rid of the secular democracy that existed before this whole mess, none of this would have never happened. Again, the next regime being bad, is no excuse for the regime before it. Both regimes were undemocratic, and both repressed there people. Being against the Shah, doesn't equal support for the regime that came after. I already said both were oppressive, and both undemocratic.

People who supported the Shah are not better than those who support the theocrats. There both undemocratics, and both oppressed the people of Iran.

Also, the Shah being a monarch, claimed his power was God given, so it not like he didn't appeal to Religion when it suited.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

By the way, the CIA had far less involvement in the return of the Shah than you are making out. At best, they were able to mobilize his base, who were until then afraid to take to the streets - and with good reason.

The CIA (and the Brits) are held largely responsible for the overthrow of democracy, and imho rightly so.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And you're right - women have the vote now. Does that mean the Ayatollah Khomeini was full of shít in the first place? And that the Shah was right all along?

You seem to have some sort of either thing going here. The Shah ran a oppressive regime, and so does the current regime. Neither are good for the Iranian people.

Again, your defense of the Shah is bizarre. The guys after him don't justify his oppressive regime from before.

IMHO, if it wasn't for the CIA, the Brits and the Shah, Iran may very well be a secular democracy today. Iran is a perfect example of the West interferring in the ME for there own gain and wrecking the place.

blatantrereg

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

There was distance put between the Ayatollah and the hostage situation at the beginning, but within days the students had received the full backing of the government.

The Shah wanted Iran to be a modern country, and we all know how much diehard Shia's love modernity. The Ayatollah and the Shah originally butted heads over the right for women to vote. It brought thousands out onto the street in support of the Ayatollah and his Stone Age beliefs.

You act like middle eastern armies wouldn't use live ammunition during a dangerous and violent protests by militant muslims today. He was in power for almost 40 years, you know. Do a few incidents of which he had no direct involvement make him a monster?



You're condensing the last 70 years of Iranian history into one or two incidents there, wes. Sure people wanted the Shah gone - of course they did! People want Enda Kenny gone. People want Ahmadinejad gone.

What about the people who didn't want to live in an Shia Islamic theocracy? Do they count?

By the way, the CIA had far less involvement in the return of the Shah than you are making out. At best, they were able to mobilize his base, who were until then afraid to take to the streets - and with good reason.



And you're right - women have the vote now. Does that mean the Ayatollah Khomeini was full of shít in the first place? And that the Shah was right all along?

But Enda Kenny doesn't torture us [fawning around foreign dignitaries doesn't count]

This from wikipedia:

Sources disagree over how many victims SAVAK had and how inhumane its techniques were. Writing at the time of the Shah's overthrow, TIME magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[25] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963-79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails." [26] According to a former CIA analyst on Iran,[27][28] Jesse J. Leaf, SAVAK was trained in torture techniques by the CIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

Dunno what your question about people not wanting to live under Islamic theocracy is about. Nobody is saying the current situation is ideal.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Not saying I wouldn't mind it, but what happens when the US pulls all of it's bases and missile defense systems out of Europe and the Middle East?

1988 called, it wants its Cold War back.

blatantrereg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RfaVCljGiI

wes

wes wrote: »

Enda Kenny is democratically elected, so no comparison to the Shah. Who was a dictator.

As for Ahmadinejad, yes people want him gone, even the Ayotollah, but again he is no comparison the the Shah, as he has feck all power. The power is with the Ayotollah.



Well, maybe if the CIA and the Shah didn't get rid of the secular democracy that existed before this whole mess, none of this would have never happened. Again, the next regime being bad, is no excuse for the regime before it. Both regimes were undemocratic, and both repressed there people. Being against the Shah, doesn't equal support for the regime that came after. I already said both were oppressive, and both undemocratic.

People who supported the Shah are not better than those who support the theocrats. There both undemocratics, and both oppressed the people of Iran.

Also, the Shah being a monarch, claimed his power was God given, so it not like he didn't appeal to Religion when it suited.



The CIA (and the Brits) are held largely responsible for the overthrow of democracy, and imho rightly so.



You seem to have some sort of either thing going here. The Shah ran a oppressive regime, and so does the current regime. Neither are good for the Iranian people.

Again, your defense of the Shah is bizarre. The guys after him don't justify his oppressive regime from before.

IMHO, if it wasn't for the CIA, the Brits and the Shah, Iran may very well be a secular democracy today. Iran is a perfect example of the West interferring in the ME for there own gain and wrecking the place.

Who's defending the Shah? Pointing out the violence and hypocracy brought about by the islamists does not a shah supporter make. Also there is absolutely no regard for the geopolitical nature of the post war period here. Just US blahh..
I cant really reply properly on my phone but we'll just leave it as 'Amerikkka suxxxxxx'.

wes

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Who's defending the Shah?

You were:

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The Shah simply had to go because he was allowing such dangerous things as the right for women to vote.

Making out that the Shah, a monarch, gave Women the right to vote, was the reason he was gotten rid of. You know ignoring the torture etc by his secret police and general oppression. Seems pretty straigh forward case of defending the man.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Pointing out the violence and hypocracy brought about by the islamists does not a shah supporter make.

No, you claimed that he was gotten rid of due to Women getting the vote is defending him.

Also, I offered no defense of the current regime. In the context of the thread, it made very little sense to bring up the Shah, and then defend him, as being over thrown due to giving Women the vote, which even the current regime allows.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Also there is absolutely no regard for the geopolitical nature of the post war period here. Just US blahh..

Oh please, the US and the Brits stuck there nose into Iran, over oil. Very well established.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I cant really reply properly on my phone but we'll just leave it as 'Amerikkka suxxxxxx'.

I am not being childish like that, and the straw man your using is really rather silly. You would rather ignore what is being said, to make excuse for really stupid crap that was done in the past.

The fact remain the US and the Brits messed up Iran. Doesn't mean they haven't done good elsewhere, but the US seems to do almost as much bad for all the good they do.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Read a book.

:rolleyes:

Anyway to get back to the current thread. Not allowing people to play WOW, doesn't stop Iran nuclear program or hurt the regime, it just hurts the people, and whole thing seems petty.

blatantrereg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT44NJhhquE

wes, you've pieced your history together from the back of cereal packets.

Honestly, do you really believe the world to be so black and white? It's an embarrassingly simplistic view of a massively complex situation.

blatantrereg

The documentary I linked above discusses the geopolitical setting pretty well I think. However, whatever about the USA's motivations, the suggestion for a coup came from Churchill, whose stated motive was interference with UK economic interests. (Also noteworthy that Truman rejected the plan the first time it was suggested; the plan only went ahead when Eisenhower replaced him).

wes

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

wes, you've pieced your history together from the back of cereal packets.

Coming from someone who made the following claim:

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The Shah simply had to go because he was allowing such dangerous things as the right for women to vote.

Your claims are really rich. Rewriting the over throw of the Shah, as some sort of uprising against Women voting, despite the current regime allowing it (even if it is useless due to the theocrats being able to over rule the parliment).

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Honestly, do you really believe the world to be so black and white? It's an embarrassingly simplistic view of a massively complex situation.

It isn't black and white. I condemned the Shah and the people who put him in power, and also condemned the current regime. You seem to have a very simplistic view of things, where you make excuses for the people who put the Shah in power, by saying how complicated the post war situation was etc. The context doesn't make over throwing a democracy right. Its bad no matter who is involved.