Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 182
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Question is, who started? It seems fair to say the US did: in 1953, the CIA orchestrated the removal of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, later the US supported the ruthless and greedy dictator Shah Pahlawi who got the power afterwards, supported the even more ruthless and cruel dictator Saddam Hussein in his unprovoked attack on Iran and the subsequent war (1980-88, about 1 million casualties), even when Saddam used nerve gas against the Iranian troops...

    A certain degree of Anti-Americanism in Iran is not surprising given the history of US-Iranian relations. It seems doubtful to me that Iran would have such an extremist clerical government without the US support of the Shah.

    However, don't get me wrong: I am not saying Iran should get the possibility of blackmailing the surrounding world with nuclear bombs, nor do I support actions like the kidnapping of US embassy personnel or the support of terrorism.
    Thanks for the history lesson, clulup. But you forgot a few elements: first, the Shaw didn't "get power" after the coup of the Prime Minister. He was appointed Shah in 1941 by his father who held it since 1925. Second, that "democratically elected" Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, was actually appointed by the Iranian parliament. He then began enacting social reforms that were choking the country--including appropriating oil revenues from the Ango-Iranian Oil Company (which resulted in a British blockade of Iranian ports). Curiously, the previous PM who opposed nationalization of the Iranian oil industry was assassinated by Muslim radicals and Mossadegh was himself backed by Muslim radicals. But I digress. Mossadegh was officially dismissed by the Shah when he suggested the Shah leave the country. When Mossadegh refused to step down (arguably, an act of treason under the Monarchy), the Shah acquiesced to British and American intelligence and left the country while Mossadegh was deposed by pro-Monarchy forces.

    Third, the Shah, for all his faults, was actually enacting some democratic reforms such as women's suffrage in 1963. As you might imagine, these reforms angered the religious establishment who then used Iran's poor economy to engender popular support for an overthrow of the Monarchy.

    Just thought I'd clear that up.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #82  
    Hoovs, you really have to stop countering the Bush bashing party with facts, it's a real downer you know. If we ignore the facts and history we have something to make Bush look bad. OOOPS, I mean the Poser in Chief, I did not mean to show respect to the position of an elected office.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Hoovs, you really have to stop countering the Bush bashing party with facts, it's a real downer you know. If we ignore the facts and history we have something to make Bush look bad. OOOPS, I mean the Poser in Chief, I did not mean to show respect to the position of an elected office.
    Sorry, I can't help it. Even as much as Bush frustrates me, I refuse to jump on the bandwagon. Either bandwagon, for that matter.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    --yet Bush is the bad guy.
    I say let bush and whatshisface tug it out in one-on-one match to the death, we can even make it a pay per view event.

    How can anyone be "okay" with nuclear warfare? who will be the victims here? The dictator who probably has a nuclear bunker under his palace, just waiting for an event like this or tens of thousand or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who's voices a silenced by an oppresive regime?

    People - lets be reasonable here. A nuclear strike (no matter the offending or receiving party is) is a clear loss for all of us...are those is support of a nuclear strike on iran even sane? God help us all...
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Thanks for the history lesson, clulup. But you forgot a few elements: first, the Shaw didn't "get power" after the coup of the Prime Minister. He was appointed Shah in 1941 by his father who held it since 1925. Second, that "democratically elected" Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, was actually appointed by the Iranian parliament. He then began enacting social reforms that were choking the country--including appropriating oil revenues from the Ango-Iranian Oil Company (which resulted in a British blockade of Iranian ports). Curiously, the previous PM who opposed nationalization of the Iranian oil industry was assassinated by Muslim radicals and Mossadegh was himself backed by Muslim radicals. But I digress. Mossadegh was officially dismissed by the Shah when he suggested the Shah leave the country. When Mossadegh refused to step down (arguably, an act of treason under the Monarchy), the Shah acquiesced to British and American intelligence and left the country while Mossadegh was deposed by pro-Monarchy forces.

    Third, the Shah, for all his faults, was actually enacting some democratic reforms such as women's suffrage in 1963. As you might imagine, these reforms angered the religious establishment who then used Iran's poor economy to engender popular support for an overthrow of the Monarchy.

    Just thought I'd clear that up.
    Thank you for these interesting, if biased, pieces of information. Why not refer to www.encarta.com for a more balanced view? (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...0_12/Iran.html)
    Throughout his political career, Mosaddeq consistently advocated three goals: to free Iran of foreign intervention, to ensure that the shah remained a democratic monarch and not a dictator, and to implement social reforms. ... Beginning in 1945 he led a successful campaign to deny the Soviet Union an oil concession in northern Iran. ... Although Mosaddeq advocated Iranian neutrality in the Cold War conflict, neither side wanted to “lose” Iran. Consequently, the United States decided to use its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to help overthrow Mosaddeq. ... the coup, carried out in August 1953, failed initially, and the shah was forced to flee the country. After several days of street fighting in Tehrān, which were instigated by the CIA, army officers loyal to the shah gained the upper hand. Mosaddeq was arrested, and the shah returned in triumph. ... Because of his collaboration with the CIA to overthrow Mosaddeq in 1953, the shah was never able to overcome a popular perception that he was merely a tool for foreign interests. Mosaddeq’s ouster had shocked the nation, and over the years his image as a national hero had grown stronger despite the fact that the shah’s government had banned any publications that mentioned his name. Furthermore, because of the CIA’s role in the overthrow, most Iranians saw the United States, even more so than Britain or the USSR, as a threat to Iran's national interests. ... The shah also failed to win mass support among the secular middle class of professionals, bureaucrats, teachers, and intellectuals. This social group, created as a result of his father’s reforms and expanded during the 1960s and 1970s due to the shah’s own development plans, tended to be highly nationalistic and looked back nostalgically to the Mosaddeq period as an era of genuine democracy.
    So, again, it is not really the case that Iran is "at war with [the US] since 1979", as 1911sforever put it. In 1979, extremist Iranians took 66 hostages in the US ebassy. While this is bad, from the point of view of the Iranian people it is understandable that they don't consider it as bad as the US support for Saddam Hussein following his attack on Iran, when instead of an easy victory, Saddam was faced with successful counter-attack.
    As the war continued, Iraq’s defense grew increasingly desperate. Probably as early as 1983 the armed forces used poison gas against Iranian troops. ... In 1986 Iran captured the Iraqi gulf town of Al Fāw. Iraq responded with more effective techniques—especially the use of massive amounts of poison gas—to thwart Iran’s frontal assaults. Iraq also stepped up its attacks on Iranian cities, oil installations, and shipping, drawing severe Iranian reprisals against Iraqi oil production and shipping that prompted more American activity in the gulf. Although clashes between American and Iranian forces fell far short of full-scale battles, the American presence nevertheless brought an end to Iranian superiority over Iraq at sea, giving Iraq time to resupply its weaponry and stop the Iranian ground advance. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...-Iraq_War.html
    I seems fair to say that the failed foreign politics of US and the West in general helped a lot to establish the extremist Islamistic government of Iran.

    Would the extremist Ahmadinejad have been elected without the US invasion of Iraq? Seems far from certain to me.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Thank you for these interesting, if biased, pieces of information. Why not refer to www.encarta.com for a more balanced view?
    Was any of what I said wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So, again, it is not really the case that Iran is "at war with [the US] since 1979", as 1911sforever put it. In 1979, extremist Iranians took 66 hostages in the US ebassy. While this is bad, from the point of view of the Iranian people it is understandable that they don't consider it as bad as the US support for Saddam Hussein following his attack on Iran, when instead of an easy victory, Saddam was faced with successful counter-attack.
    Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Why wouldn't we have supported Saddam over an extremist Islamic government that takes US citizens hostage? Had the Iranian Revolution never happened we would most certainly have been on the side of Iran if involved at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I seems fair to say that the failed foreign politics of US and the West in general helped a lot to establish the extremist Islamistic government of Iran.
    I don't know. Without the failed social policies of Mossadegh, would the Islamist have been able to garner such public support?

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Would the extremist Ahmadinejad have been elected without the US invasion of Iraq? Seems far from certain to me.
    Who knows. Why was the extremist Hamas government elected after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza?
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Was any of what I said wrong?
    Most of it was not factually wrong, just presented in a quite misleading, biased manner. Of course Pahlawi had been Shah before Mossadeq, but the problem for Pahlawi was that Mossadeq was becoming more powerful than him, so indeed he "took power" again after Mossadeq was removed form power.
    Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Why wouldn't we have supported Saddam over an extremist Islamic government that takes US citizens hostage?
    So it's ok for you to support a dictatorial agressor, even one who kills his own people and foreign troops with nerve gas? You seem to support just about anything if it suits your needs.
    Had the Iranian Revolution never happened we would most certainly have been on the side of Iran if involved at all.
    Had you not removed the elected Iranian prime minister from his office and supported a greedy dictator against the Iranian people, there would not have been an Iranian Revolution at all. Iran used to have a well educated middle class, it was not radical before it became so due to the coup d'etat and the Shah's reign, thanks to the US.
    Why was the extremist Hamas government elected after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza?
    Because the former PLO leaders were too corrupt. What has that got to do with it?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Sorry, I can't help it. Even as much as Bush frustrates me, I refuse to jump on the bandwagon.
    I get the impression your valuation of Bush's abilities and achievements has made great progress.

    How useful is the military power of the US if it is guided by such a source of frustration?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I get the impression your valuation of Bush's abilities and achievements has made great progress.

    How useful is the military power of the US if it is guided by such a source of frustration?
    Sometimes I wish I had never joined the military. But as soon as I give up on the IDEALS of America, I give up on America itself, and I'm not ready to do that yet. *cue patriotic music*
    Why are ringtones always such a big issue? Don't people realize that they're obnoxious!? And why the Nintendo 'Wii'? What th-!?
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonElements
    Sometimes I wish I had never joined the military.
    Why is that?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Why is that?
    Because sometimes I feel like I'm fighting for a cause I don't believe in. BUT, I never signed up to fight causes I believed in, I signed up to fight for causes believed in by our great country as per the voters of our nation - even if they are a tad misrepresented by the vast amount of people who don't vote. Regardless, I love my country, and the day I give up on her ideals is the day I move to Canada(which I doubt will happen in my lifetime).
    Why are ringtones always such a big issue? Don't people realize that they're obnoxious!? And why the Nintendo 'Wii'? What th-!?
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonElements
    Because sometimes I feel like I'm fighting for a cause I don't believe in. BUT, I never signed up to fight causes I believed in, I signed up to fight for causes believed in by our great country as per the voters of our nation - even if they are a tad misrepresented by the vast amount of people who don't vote. Regardless, I love my country, and the day I give up on her ideals is the day I move to Canada(which I doubt will happen in my lifetime).
    There's always that chance. I've been in that situation, but that's something you have to deal with. Still, I have some of my fondest memories ever from my time in the military.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    However, don't get me wrong: I am not saying Iran should get the possibility of blackmailing the surrounding world with nuclear bombs, nor do I support actions like the kidnapping of US embassy personnel or the support of terrorism.
    I'm going to hate myself in the morning for lumbering into this intellectually dishonest series of posts, but for me, the key word in this whole dialog is blackmailing.

    The very first time that thug makes his first blackmailing attempt: overt, covert, direct, indirect, or even just a "little hint" then strike first. Teddy Roosevelt said it best - "Walk softly and carry a big stick." What would be so wrong with our stated policy being "You will not get the nuclear bomb." Period - no discussion of how or in what manner we will respond - diplomatic, economic, militaristic.

    Go ahead and hate Bush if you want - there's NEVER been a president who wasn't hated by some group (even Washington - remember the Whiskey Rebellion), so get over it. This Iranian nut job is a threat to the region and the U.S., so it's about time we learn to draw a line in the sand and really mean it for once.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    There's always that chance. I've been in that situation, but that's something you have to deal with. Still, I have some of my fondest memories ever from my time in the military.
    Absolutely. I'm happy to leave, yet sad to go. I certainly won't miss all the politics, but I'll most definitely miss the camaraderie. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not to join the reserves.
    Why are ringtones always such a big issue? Don't people realize that they're obnoxious!? And why the Nintendo 'Wii'? What th-!?
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonElements
    Absolutely. I'm happy to leave, yet sad to go. I certainly won't miss all the politics, but I'll most definitely miss the camaraderie. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not to join the reserves.
    You gotta know when it is the right time to go. When I decided it was right, 23 years, I knew I would miss the camaraderie, thought I would not miss the politics, I was right the politics are just as bad in the civilian sector. The difference is there are fewer routes to correct the politics in the civilian sector, and the one obvious route of changing employers but then you get to put up with their politics.

    I am not sure I would reccomend reserves to anyone right now, fewer benefits, as much deployment. That is hard for me to say after encouraging young people to join the military for so many years. I served through the rebuilding years and the years that saw the erosion of the troop levels.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    What is difficult to understand about that? Don't you see how a country with the bomb has to be dealt with differently than a country without?
    Certainly that's how both iran & N. Korea see things.

    They may not be lead by the sharpest tacks in the drawer, but when they listened to junior's posturing "Axis of Evil" tirade they got his meaning. Nuke up or die.

    If junior had even half a thimblefull of intelligence, and any knowledge of history he'd not have made a threat toward multiple targets -- when they had yet to become formal adversaries, and when he had not the capability to deliver on the final threat itself. Those "enemies" though, would inevitably need to act as if he would.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    So, are you saying that it would be okay to give at least tacit approval to the Saddam regime because of the "counterweight" it provided for Iran? Would you say the same about certain US-backed governments in, say, Central America? Or do you think the Marxist rebels just want a peaceful coexistence?
    again, if he had even a half a thimblefull of intelligence, and any knowledge of history he would not have invented the fiction that Sadamm was a sponsor of Al Queda and how the next smoking gun would be coming from Sadamm's mushroom cloud. He needed to the frighten people and congress to semi-consent to his catastrophic war -- though Sadamm was no threat to us, while his tyrany served to distract and counterbalance Iran, while keeping Iraq free of Al Queda's threatening terrorists.

    As for S. America -- I hope that the people there are allowed to find their own way without people subjected to our assinations, coups de etats, and cia plots. The average Cuban -- despite the austerity of our 40+ year embargo -- are better off than the average mexican who is without a relative in the US (I think there are maybe 10-15 Mexicans left in that category.)
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/21/2006 at 04:07 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Most of it was not factually wrong, just presented in a quite misleading, biased manner. Of course Pahlawi had been Shah before Mossadeq, but the problem for Pahlawi was that Mossadeq was becoming more powerful than him, so indeed he "took power" again after Mossadeq was removed form power.
    And so it goes in Monarchies. That's been the way of life in Iran/Persia for centuries. If we want to talk about who altered the Iranian way of life we should look at the Ayatollah.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So it's ok for you to support a dictatorial agressor, even one who kills his own people and foreign troops with nerve gas? You seem to support just about anything if it suits your needs.
    That's rich. But how about keeping it above the belt lest we look back at some of your past comments. Saddam hadn't used gas on his own people until 1988. In 1979, the choice for the US was a strong-arm dictator who had a reputation for being anti-Communist and anti-Islamist or an Islamist revolutionary government that was hostile to the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Had you not removed the elected Iranian prime minister from his office and supported a greedy dictator against the Iranian people, there would not have been an Iranian Revolution at all. Iran used to have a well educated middle class, it was not radical before it became so due to the coup d'etat and the Shah's reign, thanks to the US.
    That's not only biased but not very factual. Look at the history of Iran. Mossadegh's socialist plans of collective farming and nationalization of business and agriculture were choking Iran. If he was popular at all it was because of his cowtowing to the Islamists.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Because the former PLO leaders were too corrupt. What has that got to do with it?
    Right. Hamas' radical anti-Israel stance had nothing to do with it.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I get the impression your valuation of Bush's abilities and achievements has made great progress.

    How useful is the military power of the US if it is guided by such a source of frustration?
    Don't confuse the reasons for my frustration with this administration with the reasons for your frustration.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Thanks for the history lesson, clulup. But you forgot a few elements: first, the Shaw didn't "get power" after the coup of the Prime Minister. He was appointed Shah in 1941 by his father who held it since 1925. Second, that "democratically elected" Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, was actually appointed by the Iranian parliament. He then began enacting social reforms that were choking the country--including appropriating oil revenues from the Ango-Iranian Oil Company (which resulted in a British blockade of Iranian ports). Curiously, the previous PM who opposed nationalization of the Iranian oil industry was assassinated by Muslim radicals and Mossadegh was himself backed by Muslim radicals. But I digress. Mossadegh was officially dismissed by the Shah when he suggested the Shah leave the country. When Mossadegh refused to step down (arguably, an act of treason under the Monarchy), the Shah acquiesced to British and American intelligence and left the country while Mossadegh was deposed by pro-Monarchy forces.

    Third, the Shah, for all his faults, was actually enacting some democratic reforms such as women's suffrage in 1963. As you might imagine, these reforms angered the religious establishment who then used Iran's poor economy to engender popular support for an overthrow of the Monarchy.

    Just thought I'd clear that up.
    some other relevant history info for you hoovs -- The shah CRUSHED all dissent -- his internal Savak intelligence was notorious for their savagery and brutality.

    If a middle class student voiced any dissent they were arrested and tortured.

    The shah, using what he thought was a clever mechanism for control -- allowed the growth of fundamental islam -- and this became the channel through which opposition to the shah found protected expression.

    Second -- by destroying the democratically chosen genuinely popular Mossadegh and contriving to reimpose onto the Iranians that posturing phoney of a junior monarch (parallels anyone ???), we permanently made Mossadegh a martyr and the junior shah a poisonous phoney.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Certainly that's how both iran & N. Korea see things.

    They may not be lead by the sharpest tacks in the drawer, but when they listened to junior's posturing "Axis of Evil" tirade they got his meaning. Nuke up or die.

    If junior had even half a thimblefull of intelligence, and any knowledge of history he'd not have made a threat toward multiple targets -- when they had yet to become formal adversaries, and when he had not the capability to deliver on the final threat itself. Those "enemies" though, would inevitably need to act as if he would.
    Come on, Barye! You aren't going to tell me that NK and Iran were not formal adversaries until Bush made his "axis of evil" remark. Are you? NK had nukes long before that and Iran had aspirations long before that. And, in case you forgot, Iran hasn't had normalized relations with the US since 1979.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    As for S. America -- I hope that the people there are allowed to find their own way without people subjected to our assinations, coups de etats, and cia plots. The average Cuban -- despite the austerity of our 40+ year embargo -- are better off than the average mexican who is without a relative in the US (I think there are maybe 10-15 Mexicans left in that category.)
    And that's our fault?

Posting Permissions