Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe. Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that. I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.
There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved. How can this be wrong?
Had we not gotten into WWI, perhaps the war would have dragged on for years longer, millions more would have died and in the end Germany would have lost and been severely punished by the victors, leading to Hitler's rise to power, WWII, which we would have stayed out of if we follow your non interventionist policy, Britain would have fallen, Russia would have been unable to mount a strong enough resistance because we would not have been supplying them with weapons and vehicles, and tens of millions more would have died as this war dragged on and on and on, until all of Europe were either at war or occupied, with no end in sight.
On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war. The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
It was because of the United States' involvement in WW1 that the allies were able to impose the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, which allowed Hitler to rise to power by denouncing the repressive treaty and appealing to the Germans' nationalistic pride. Had the U.S. not gotten involved the allies would have had to have adopted a more agreeable peace treaty for Germany.
Wilson's stroke had a lot to do with the unfair treaty signed in the Hall of Mirrors.
Yet had we not intervened in 1953 perhaps by 1979 Iran would have maintained it's elected officials and not had a revolution, and maybe they would not have taken American citizens as hostages. And maybe we wouldn't hear "Death to America!" chants there today. Which all goes back to what I said before, we need to apply non-interventionism in all cases instead of picking and choosing where we want to meddle.
By the time the UK and US intervened in 1953, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree and was demanding powers forbidden to him by the Iranian constitution. In addition, the USSR had twice been forced to abandon attempts to take over Iran by the threat of a UK and US intervention since WWII. At the time when we intervened, the constitutional government had collapsed, the economy was in ruins, chaos ruled in the streets, civil war seemed probable and a USSR takeover seemed plausible. Given the history, context and realities of the situation, our intervention to restore the Shah to power give the best possible outcome for both the Iranian people and for us. This is not to say keeping the Shah in power was a good outcome, but it was likely the best possible outcome.
The CIA has in the last few years released some contemporaneous documents showing this was the analysis at the time based on reports from officials in Iran that led to the decision to intervene. I have seen no facts or reports that would dispute it, so there is no basis for assuming that if the US had not acted as it did, the outcome would have been different than predicted.
And yet the Iranian people clearly preferred him to the repressive Shah, and it is their government after all. What right does the United States have to go in and decide for the Iranian people what government they should have?
Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place. Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
Had we not gotten into WWI, perhaps the war would have dragged on for years longer, millions more would have died and in the end Germany would have lost and been severely punished by the victors, leading to Hitler's rise to power, WWII, which we would have stayed out of if we follow your non interventionist policy, Britain would have fallen, Russia would have been unable to mount a strong enough resistance because we would not have been supplying them with weapons and vehicles, and tens of millions more would have died as this war dragged on and on and on, until all of Europe were either at war or occupied, with no end in sight.
On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war. The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
It was because of the United States' involvement in WW1 that the allies were able to impose the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, which allowed Hitler to rise to power by denouncing the repressive treaty and appealing to the Germans' nationalistic pride. Had the U.S. not gotten involved the allies would have had to have adopted a more agreeable peace treaty for Germany.
Personally I don't think it is a good time for America to go over to Iran. We have so much on our plate right now and our military is already to thin. I think it's about time someone else hike up their undies and help those people out in Iran.
I agree that something needs to be done. I agree. But I don't think we have the ability at this point in time to lead any kind of invasion.
WWIII. Everyone ready?
By the time the UK and US intervened in 1953, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, was ruling by decree and was demanding powers forbidden to him by the Iranian constitution. In addition, the USSR had twice been forced to abandon attempts to take over Iran by the threat of a UK and US intervention since WWII. At the time when we intervened, the constitutional government had collapsed, the economy was in ruins, chaos ruled in the streets, civil war seemed probable and a USSR takeover seemed plausible. Given the history, context and realities of the situation, our intervention to restore the Shah to power give the best possible outcome for both the Iranian people and for us. This is not to say keeping the Shah in power was a good outcome, but it was likely the best possible outcome.
The CIA has in the last few years released some contemporaneous documents showing this was the analysis at the time based on reports from officials in Iran that led to the decision to intervene. I have seen no facts or reports that would dispute it, so there is no basis for assuming that if the US had not acted as it did, the outcome would have been different than predicted.
And yet the Iranian people clearly preferred him to the repressive Shah, and it is their government after all. What right does the United States have to go in and decide for the Iranian people what government they should have?
Some of the Iranian people preferred Mossadegh to the Shah, but it is not clear the majority did. In any case, although Mossadegh, a member of the Qajar royal family who was only allowed to run for office because of reforms the Shah made when he succeeded his father to the throne, was democratically elected, by dissolving the Parliament and abandoning the constitution, he had removed any means by which the Iranian people could choose their government other than through street violence, and this was the means by which the Shah was restored and Mossadegh's coup was undone. Our intervention there was organizational advice and money to the Shah's supporters, which would have been meaningless and useless if Mossadegh had not already destroyed the constitutional government and used street violence as his means of holding on to power.
There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved. How can this be wrong?
NO way to know that. We very well could have been overwhelmed by Hitler's blitzkrieg, a style of warfare never seen before. The Brits were EXTREMELY lucky that Hitler failed to slaughter them at Dunquerque.
What power are you talking about. Iran has no power other within its' own borders. What does Lebanon and Hungary have to offer us in exchange for our military might? The American people are finally waking up to the bullshit expenditures our legislators and presidents are spending to keep other nations afloat financially and politically. Ron Paul is certainly not a moron who wishes to bring our troops home and basically close our borders to foreign invaders and use our troops to protect our American citizens and not some rag heads whose religion dictates they kill Americans. Whose fuckin' side are you on?Other than securing the flow of Iran's oil to the United States, there is absolutely zero reason for us to go to war with them just like it was zero reasons to go to war with Vietnam. Right now we don't have the money or the military strength to take on anybody else. Who elected the U.S. as the country who protects everybody else's countrymen? Let them protect themselves. I guarantee you that Iran would not send troops to create a political change here in the United States. Neither would any other country. We Americans would be saddled with doing that.
So its alright to see our allies in the middle east fall under iran's power - and watch lebanon vanish as a satellite of iran like hungary and the other eastern european countries did under russia?
So it is alright to see japan, saudi arabia, jordan and egypt and others be driven to develop nuclear weapons because their primary protector, the US, failed to do so?
The Ron Paul moronic notion of pulling back into our hemisphere is just that, a completely failed and absurd idea, and noone major politician with an ounce of respectability could present as viable.
Since the animals that have illegally and illegitimately retained power continue to attack and beat civilians, including trespassing into their homes at night, as the Basij cowards are smashing into the homes of people when they see them chanting on their roofs in the evening, the regime can no longer be tolerated.
A dictatorship that would attack and murder sleeping college students - sending in armed thugs into dorms, again late at night, is not one that can be trusted - or negotiated with.
THERE IS NOTHING FOR OBAMA TO DISCUSS WITH THEM, NOTHING.
Only an outside military intervention to destroy the regime, the IRGC, and certainly the Basij, is a feasible method of stopping the onslaught internally in iran, and the external funding of terrorist proxies abroad.
To those that screech about the past history of Western imperialism and colonialism, it is not a justification for iran's internal repressions or stoking of terrorist flames throughout the middle east. Nor is it acceptable to allow more iranian civilians to suffer because of Western guilt over past misdeeds.
In 1945, the US liberated China from Japan, 5 years later China sent troops and support into North Korea, so it goes both ways. The US deposed Mossadegh 50 years ago, that event has exhausted its political mileage and capital long ago. The only reason its even mentioned is so that filth like Ahmadinejihadist can continue to try and deflect his government's abject failings onto manufactured external enemies.
Given that the regime will continue to use infinite amounts of force internally to retain power, and is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons and prevent external threats, time is running out on deposing this monstrous regime - and our children will never forgive us for failing to do so when we had the chance.
I see the regime as an existential, apocalyptic, lunatic death cult who is a threat to the safety and security of not just the middle east, but entire planet. It is well known amongst clandestine agencies it has developed and maintained terrorist cells throughout the West, who must be located and exterminated when the military campaign is initiated.
Further concerns that iranians will "rally around the government" should the West attack are no longer valid, given that their choice is to be further tormented and murdered indefinitely by a known devil - or take their chances with a new regime formulated by the people, for the people, as in the case with Iraq.
The US and West know that they cannot implant a pliant dictatorship as in the past; there are too many obstacles to doing so, not least being the fact that past history proves one will not last without using the same horrific methods the illegal regime has just used itself.
A major initial strike, with the major regime figures captured and/or killed, regime defense forces liquidated, and a representative, secular democracy implanted - and an accounting for and termination of funds and support for the various proxy armies.
See:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/..._iran_election
And yet the Iranian people clearly preferred him to the repressive Shah, and it is their government after all. What right does the United States have to go in and decide for the Iranian people what government they should have?
Some of the Iranian people preferred Mossadegh to the Shah, but it is not clear the majority did. In any case, although Mossadegh, a member of the Qajar royal family who was only allowed to run for office because of reforms the Shah made when he succeeded his father to the throne, was democratically elected, by dissolving the Parliament and abandoning the constitution, he had removed any means by which the Iranian people could choose their government other than through street violence, and this was the means by which the Shah was restored and Mossadegh's coup was undone. Our intervention there was organizational advice and money to the Shah's supporters, which would have been meaningless and useless if Mossadegh had not already destroyed the constitutional government and used street violence as his means of holding on to power.
Mossadegh was clearly the preferred leader considering the Shah felt it necessary to flee the country to Rome for his safety.
Some of the Iranian people preferred Mossadegh to the Shah, but it is not clear the majority did. In any case, although Mossadegh, a member of the Qajar royal family who was only allowed to run for office because of reforms the Shah made when he succeeded his father to the throne, was democratically elected, by dissolving the Parliament and abandoning the constitution, he had removed any means by which the Iranian people could choose their government other than through street violence, and this was the means by which the Shah was restored and Mossadegh's coup was undone. Our intervention there was organizational advice and money to the Shah's supporters, which would have been meaningless and useless if Mossadegh had not already destroyed the constitutional government and used street violence as his means of holding on to power.
Mossadegh was clearly the preferred leader considering the Shah felt it necessary to flee the country to Rome for his safety.
Mossadegh was the preferred leader by those who were threatening the Shah's safety, but we have no way of knowing how many these were. We do know that Mossadegh dissolved the parliament because they would no longer support his unconstitutional demands, so at least the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people no longer preferred Mossadegh.
As Mossadegh's demands and threats to the Shah mounted, to the dismay of many in Iran, the Shah refused to rally his supporters to resist Mossadegh, but when you consider that the US aid to Shah consisted of nothing more than help organizing his supporters to resist Mossadegh's coup, it's arguable that more Iranians supported the Shah than supported Mossadegh in the end.
In fact, we and every other nation do base much of our foreign policy planning on what if scenarios; that's why we have the anti missile systems you are relying on to keep us safe. Both Iran and North Korea appear to be working hard to develop missiles that can reach us and nuclear warheads to place on those missiles, and while Gates assured us we will be able to stop anything North Korea can launch at us for the next several years, it would be imprudent to assume we will always be able to do that. I would argue that the fact we believe we need such a defense against these countries is, in itself, a strong argument in favor of preventing them from acquiring a capability to attack us.
There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong.
Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved. How can this be wrong?
Whether or not Carter had a pair back in 1979 is irevelant today. Obama needs to grow a pair and answer the Iranian challenge, if indeed there actually is a challenge. I don't see it.Personally I don't think it is a good time for America to go over to Iran. We have so much on our plate right now and our military is already to thin. I think it's about time someone else hike up their undies and help those people out in Iran.
I agree that something needs to be done. I agree. But I don't think we have the ability at this point in time to lead any kind of invasion.
WWIII. Everyone ready?
If Carter would have had a pair we wouldn't be dealing with Iran now. My biggest problem with Bush was that he picked Iraq to invade. Iran is the mother of the terrorist state. Heck we probably could have got Saddam to support us then once we were done with Iran then we could have attacked Iraq or given the Israels the green light to get some payback for all those SCUDS Saddam shot at them during the Gulf War.
rhodescholar is just TEARING this thread up
Not only does he make his points via the use of the nastiest names he can think of to call someone, he misspelled his own username, and actually made a reference to a movie to back up one of his points!
You sold me rhodes, I've decided to advocate your position. You're just too damn good.
On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war. The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
statement made @ 06-16-2009, 08:39 AM
called the first time @ 06-16-2009, 08:51 AM
called the second time when i saw you posting in the thread @ 06-17-2009, 02:35 AM
your first try to provide a shred of proof @ 06-17-2009 08:22 AM
......
what can you learn from this? your sense of time sucks. ....my time management sucks.
I personally blame Timur for the mess in Iran.
statement made @ 06-16-2009, 08:39 AM
called the first time @ 06-16-2009, 08:51 AM
called the second time when i saw you posting in the thread @ 06-17-2009, 02:35 AM
your first try to provide a shred of proof @ 06-17-2009 08:22 AM
......
what can you learn from this? your sense of time sucks. ....my time management sucks.
1st 4 links don't work, which isn't a surprise since you have no brains, and the 2 posts I linked support me perfectly.
You can try to whine and scream, insult and whatnot - but the facts remain, you demanded proof, got it from a mainstream reputable source, and, as all defeated Leftist monkeys do: blame and attack the source.
I'll take my winnings in cash, thank you.
