Its time to militarily conduct regime change in Iran

[Diuretic]

I am not blaming solely the U.S. I am aware that it was primarily Great Britain's objective to overthrow Mossadegh, and that the U.S. went along. I'm simply reserving my criticism for my own government's role.

Look at it this way. The overthrow of Mossadegh by Britain and the US governments who were acting in the interests of western oil companies was at least about something useful - oil. Invading Iran to protect human rights from the theocracy is a bit wussy and should be dismissed.

 

[Diuretic]

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?

How about a hyperactive and broken military?

There's the government scanning the world for the next about-to-become powerful nation to invade. As has been pointed out - perpetual war or at least perpetual war-readiness.

However at least my country would be safe

 

[Soaring]

"There's nothing wrong with a strong defense, but going to war to prevent what might happen is wrong. "
__________________

It's not just wrong Kevin, it would be just plain stupid for the U.S. to meddle in the political affairs of Iran because Iran has the right to run their own country without the interference of any other nation, unless there is mass genocide or a declaration of war by Iran. They have not produced an Atom bomb yet, and if they do and aim it at anybody, to include our allies in the ME, it will be taken out post haste. We have a powerful defensive military. Let's keep it defensive and well informed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 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.

 

[Soaring]

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?

You don't know much about WWII do you TooMuch? At the time we attacked in North Africa, the American soldier got his ass kicked royally. Our military had been downsized so much between 1918 and 1939 that the draft had to be made into law, and the training of troops had to start from scratch. The soldiers we sent to North Africa were rookies, and cut and ran under fire. So, invading the Nazi Army which was made up of seasoned troops was an impossibility.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn- you are a fucking idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge. You are a typical middle american idiot asshole, who I would gladly trade for 3 halfway functional africans or chinese; at least they might add something to this great nation, and not weasel off of it like a turd like you...

You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...negotiations?

Wrong ****...ever heard of the EU-3 or the IAEA, you stupid fucking asshole?

Timeline: Iran´s Nuclear Programme

"October 2003: After meeting French, German and UK foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment."

Excuse me, make that SIX years of failed diplomacy, not five.

Are you talking about 2001 and 2002...OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?

No I am talking about the overtures from Clinton, when they stood him up at the UN, making him look like an asshole, or the dozens of other times American presidents have reached out, and not been reciprocated.

A dictatorship like this that exists solely through the re-direction towards external enemies will never, ever negotiate in good faith.

6 years ago - undoubtedly, when you were in second grade, the hawks like me said fine, we will grant the Europeans the option and room to negotiate, instead of a military strike - and it got nowhere - except to buy them more time to construct a nuclear weapon. Judging by your low intelligence and arrogance, it sounds like you are a typical leftist POS anti-American, who wants to see a nuclear-armed iran.

Someday an idiot like you might present an original thought, assuming it landed on you.

LOL... judging from your hyper response, you're toast; and bluster is all you have...and faux attacks...

You are the typical right wing scum bag that has no regard for human life...the MOST UN American creature ever created...

I'll take you back more than 46 year ago, when I WAS a young man...CIA moron war hawks like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell neglected to inform our new President that a band of exiles had NO chance of overthrowing Castro without a US invasion...their intent: when the exile invasion failed, the president would cave...he didn't...Dulles and Bissell were fired. Then more Joint Chief war hawks like Lyman Lemnitzer, Arleigh Burke and Curtis LeMay pushed the same President a year later to invade Cuba and assured him there were no nuclear warheads on the island and no fire ready sites...WRONG...had that president invaded Cuba, half the cities within 1000 miles of Cuba would have been reduced to radioactive rubble; smoking holes, and the American men women and children that inhabited those cities; shadows...the lucky ones anyways. Add to the ignorance of you war hawk morons, had we invaded Cuba, the enclave of West Berlin would have been taken over by the Soviets...American troops in Germany were so outnumbered, it would been America that was forced to resort to a nuclear attack, or face defeat...

JFK had it right..."The one thing about the military and their solutions, if they fail, there will be no one left to tell them they were wrong"

You pea brains are driven by FEAR...the strongest human EMOTION...

Ironic; in your time line, Iran's cooperation begins to significantly deteriorate after 2003... refer back to your history lesson I was kind enough to provide for you...

Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
General Douglas MacArthur

BTW, I love to quote fellow "leftists"...LOL

Hey, you never answered...HOW do you plan to PAY for your mass murder...Pea Brain Scholar???

 

[elvis]

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 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.

You would prefer we allow the kaiser to sink our ships at will? You speak of free trade, yet the Kaiser was sinking the American ships bound for Britain, which interferes with free trade. but you think we should have let the Kaiser continue sub warfare at will.

 

[elvis]

Bfgrn- you are a fucking idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge. You are a typical middle american idiot asshole, who I would gladly trade for 3 halfway functional africans or chinese; at least they might add something to this great nation, and not weasel off of it like a turd like you...

You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...negotiations?

Wrong ****...ever heard of the EU-3 or the IAEA, you stupid fucking asshole?

Timeline: Iran´s Nuclear Programme

"October 2003: After meeting French, German and UK foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment."

Excuse me, make that SIX years of failed diplomacy, not five.

Are you talking about 2001 and 2002...OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?

No I am talking about the overtures from Clinton, when they stood him up at the UN, making him look like an asshole, or the dozens of other times American presidents have reached out, and not been reciprocated.

A dictatorship like this that exists solely through the re-direction towards external enemies will never, ever negotiate in good faith.

6 years ago - undoubtedly, when you were in second grade, the hawks like me said fine, we will grant the Europeans the option and room to negotiate, instead of a military strike - and it got nowhere - except to buy them more time to construct a nuclear weapon. Judging by your low intelligence and arrogance, it sounds like you are a typical leftist POS anti-American, who wants to see a nuclear-armed iran.

Someday an idiot like you might present an original thought, assuming it landed on you.

LOL... judging from your hyper response, you're toast; and bluster is all you have...and faux attacks...

You are the typical right wing scum bag that has no regard for human life...the MOST UN American creature ever created...

I'll take you back more than 46 year ago, when I WAS a young man...CIA moron war hawks like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell neglected to inform our new President that a band of exiles had NO chance of overthrowing Castro without a US invasion...their intent: when the exile invasion failed, the president would cave...he didn't...Dulles and Bissell were fired. Then more Joint Chief war hawks like Lyman Lemnitzer, Arleigh Burke and Curtis LeMay pushed the same President a year later to invade Cuba and assured him there were no nuclear warheads on the island and no fire ready sites...WRONG...had that president invaded Cuba, half the cities within 1000 miles of Cuba would have been reduced to radioactive rubble; smoking holes, and the American men women and children that inhabited those cities; shadows...the lucky ones anyways. Add to the ignorance of you war hawk morons, had we invaded Cuba, the enclave of West Berlin would have been taken over by the Soviets...American troops in Germany were so outnumbered, it would been America that was forced to resort to a nuclear attack, or face defeat...

JFK had it right..."The one thing about the military and their solutions, if they fail, there will be no one left to tell them they were wrong"

You pea brains are driven by FEAR...the strongest human EMOTION...

Ironic; in your time line, Iran's cooperation begins to significantly deteriorate after 2003... refer back to your history lesson I was kind enough to provide for you...

Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
General Douglas MacArthur

BTW, I love to quote fellow "leftists"...LOL

Hey, you never answered...HOW do you plan to PAY for your mass murder...Pea Brain Scholar???

another jackass calling people who don't agree with her unamerican.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We can't know what would have gone wrong, which is why we need to apply a non-interventionist foreign policy in all cases not just a select few.

But since we do know what went wrong when we didn't intervene in 1979 to keep the Shah in power and that it was catastrophic, and since it is unimaginable, apparently even to you, that intervention could have led to worse outcomes, clearly we should consider intervention in an uncertain situation as a valid option.

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.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn- you are a fucking idiot moron, who has no intelligence and thinks that calling people insults will make up for your lack of knowledge. You are a typical middle american idiot asshole, who I would gladly trade for 3 halfway functional africans or chinese; at least they might add something to this great nation, and not weasel off of it like a turd like you...



Wrong ****...ever heard of the EU-3 or the IAEA, you stupid fucking asshole?

Timeline: Iran´s Nuclear Programme

"October 2003: After meeting French, German and UK foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment."

Excuse me, make that SIX years of failed diplomacy, not five.



No I am talking about the overtures from Clinton, when they stood him up at the UN, making him look like an asshole, or the dozens of other times American presidents have reached out, and not been reciprocated.

A dictatorship like this that exists solely through the re-direction towards external enemies will never, ever negotiate in good faith.

6 years ago - undoubtedly, when you were in second grade, the hawks like me said fine, we will grant the Europeans the option and room to negotiate, instead of a military strike - and it got nowhere - except to buy them more time to construct a nuclear weapon. Judging by your low intelligence and arrogance, it sounds like you are a typical leftist POS anti-American, who wants to see a nuclear-armed iran.

Someday an idiot like you might present an original thought, assuming it landed on you.

LOL... judging from your hyper response, you're toast; and bluster is all you have...and faux attacks...

You are the typical right wing scum bag that has no regard for human life...the MOST UN American creature ever created...

I'll take you back more than 46 year ago, when I WAS a young man...CIA moron war hawks like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell neglected to inform our new President that a band of exiles had NO chance of overthrowing Castro without a US invasion...their intent: when the exile invasion failed, the president would cave...he didn't...Dulles and Bissell were fired. Then more Joint Chief war hawks like Lyman Lemnitzer, Arleigh Burke and Curtis LeMay pushed the same President a year later to invade Cuba and assured him there were no nuclear warheads on the island and no fire ready sites...WRONG...had that president invaded Cuba, half the cities within 1000 miles of Cuba would have been reduced to radioactive rubble; smoking holes, and the American men women and children that inhabited those cities; shadows...the lucky ones anyways. Add to the ignorance of you war hawk morons, had we invaded Cuba, the enclave of West Berlin would have been taken over by the Soviets...American troops in Germany were so outnumbered, it would been America that was forced to resort to a nuclear attack, or face defeat...

JFK had it right..."The one thing about the military and their solutions, if they fail, there will be no one left to tell them they were wrong"

You pea brains are driven by FEAR...the strongest human EMOTION...

Ironic; in your time line, Iran's cooperation begins to significantly deteriorate after 2003... refer back to your history lesson I was kind enough to provide for you...

Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
General Douglas MacArthur

BTW, I love to quote fellow "leftists"...LOL

Hey, you never answered...HOW do you plan to PAY for your mass murder...Pea Brain Scholar???

another jackass calling people who don't agree with him unamerican.

Yea elvis, she has a lot of nerve!

 

[Paulie]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 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.

You would prefer we allow the kaiser to sink our ships at will? You speak of free trade, yet the Kaiser was sinking the American ships bound for Britain, which interferes with free trade. but you think we should have let the Kaiser continue sub warfare at will.

And Great Britain was blockading and setting mines in international waters around Germany. Germany's submarine-warfare was a result of the blockade, and anyone willing to travel in a declared war-zone does so at their own risk.

 

[elvis]

LOL... judging from your hyper response, you're toast; and bluster is all you have...and faux attacks...

You are the typical right wing scum bag that has no regard for human life...the MOST UN American creature ever created...

I'll take you back more than 46 year ago, when I WAS a young man...CIA moron war hawks like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell neglected to inform our new President that a band of exiles had NO chance of overthrowing Castro without a US invasion...their intent: when the exile invasion failed, the president would cave...he didn't...Dulles and Bissell were fired. Then more Joint Chief war hawks like Lyman Lemnitzer, Arleigh Burke and Curtis LeMay pushed the same President a year later to invade Cuba and assured him there were no nuclear warheads on the island and no fire ready sites...WRONG...had that president invaded Cuba, half the cities within 1000 miles of Cuba would have been reduced to radioactive rubble; smoking holes, and the American men women and children that inhabited those cities; shadows...the lucky ones anyways. Add to the ignorance of you war hawk morons, had we invaded Cuba, the enclave of West Berlin would have been taken over by the Soviets...American troops in Germany were so outnumbered, it would been America that was forced to resort to a nuclear attack, or face defeat...

JFK had it right..."The one thing about the military and their solutions, if they fail, there will be no one left to tell them they were wrong"

You pea brains are driven by FEAR...the strongest human EMOTION...

Ironic; in your time line, Iran's cooperation begins to significantly deteriorate after 2003... refer back to your history lesson I was kind enough to provide for you...

Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
General Douglas MacArthur

BTW, I love to quote fellow "leftists"...LOL

Hey, you never answered...HOW do you plan to PAY for your mass murder...Pea Brain Scholar???

another jackass calling people who don't agree with him unamerican.

Yea elvis, she has a lot of nerve!

Fixed it. You're still a jackass.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But since we do know what went wrong when we didn't intervene in 1979 to keep the Shah in power and that it was catastrophic, and since it is unimaginable, apparently even to you, that intervention could have led to worse outcomes, clearly we should consider intervention in an uncertain situation as a valid option.

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?

 

[Bfgrn]

another jackass calling people who don't agree with him unamerican.

Yea elvis, she has a lot of nerve!

Fixed it. You're still a jackass.

It takes one to know one...LOL

 

[toomuchtime_]

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 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?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 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.

 

[Paulie]

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?

Because we're America, and only WE'RE entitled to the standards that we desire.

 

[elvis]

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.

Wilson's stroke had a lot to do with the unfair treaty signed in the Hall of Mirrors.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Hysterical how clowns like you don't even see the massive self-ownage you perpetrated here. No reference point is needed. You really should buy a new mirror, yours is kaput.

Lets see now, complete inability to debate a point, sticks to personal insults, continuing the same inability from prior threads, I guess you don't get tired of being made to look like an idiot?

You still never admitted how stupid you looked from the other iran thread, where you demanded proof, I posted it from the jerusalem post within 2 minutes, and then you spent days trying to spin your way out of that one. Yeah, your credibility is somewhere between the current iranian fascists and Baghdad Bob.

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

my answer @ 06-17-2009, 08:52 AM

thanks for the attempt, but this is not enough.

some alleged lebanese almost 10 years ago do not make the basij primarily palestinian.

you as an ME expert surely know the difference between shiite lebanese hizbullah and sunni palestinians. there are rumors that NOW about 5000 lebanese hezbullah fighters are among the basij. unconfirmed of course.

you'd be better off to retract your claim.

J-post to the rescue, here i come @ 06-17-2009, 10:40 AM

LOL, perfect timing, J-Post to the rescue

Protesters tell "Post' Hamas helping Iran crush dissent | Iran news | Jerusalem Post
...

..

When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. "Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets… The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want… [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country."

..

what can you learn from this? your sense of time sucks. and you think an anonymous rumour gets you off the hook. you once posted there were more than 11 million in the basij, now how many palestinians do there have to be among the basij to make your statement become true? primarily? i would not be riding this at all if you weren't such a pathetic punk who has to exaggerate all the time and cannot admit to the simplest mistakes. that and you have a clear anti muslim/arab/palestinian agenda. the palestinian one is the strongest.

my last post in that thread:

...can you point to where in the J post article is said that Basij were primarily made up of Palestinians?

You are correct, the article does not mention they are "primarily" palestinians, but IIRC both you and the other turd challenging me on this point claimed incorrectly that "there were no palestinians involved", which the article showed to be false.

The other poster claimed that the article was false outright, which is bullshit, as this fact is all over iranian-based blogs by iranians inside iran, and is a claim that has been around for a long time.

All I had to do was edit my post to remove "primarily," but you both were wrong about the overall facts in the case. Arabs HAVE been attacking iranians as part of paramilitary groups aligned with the government, and if you refuse to believe it, fucking good for you.

I guess I am the other turd. I am here to inform you, that you did not recall correctly.

If i am also the "other poster", you misrepresent what i stated. I did not claim the article was false alright. I don't care for your Jpost rumors that rescued you, bwahah. I called your statement "on the face false". And it is.

You made an indefensible stupid exaggerated statement, i called you on it. You could have retracted, you could have edited your post to delete "primarily". but you also had to slam "the media" additionally to palestinians.

But apart from your ongoing misrepresentations your last post was actually the kind of clarification i was looking for.

Arabs HAVE been attacking iranians as part of paramilitary groups aligned with the government

if you had used this sort of statement in the first post, i would never have butted in. i have never seen anything but rumors though supporting this statement.

so, now, why do i do this and don't add anything worthy to your precious thread? that is because i read previous statements from you:

right now, both candidates claim an election victory.

Haha, yeah. Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering. Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote. Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.

They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.

I'm rooting for Adminiejihadist, so there is no veneer for the european idiots to hide behind and say: "but we need to negotiate more..."

With Moussavi, the Left can say: "But but but we now have a person we can TALK to, as if the iranian pres has any real power, which they do NOT.

Electing the little monkey to another term would allow the realists and intelligent to come out clean and give the US/Israel plenty of cover in which to light the iranian fascists up like the animals they are...

and this gem:

Why does that surprise you? The Iranian government is hostile to the US.

The fact that the protests aren't spontaneous and have to be sponsored by the government demonstrates that there is not widespread animosity towards America in Iran, or at least not moreso than most other countries. This thread is about the Iranian population, not the Iranian government.

Most Iranians were born after the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis.

Current polling shows massive support for the dog admadinejihadist, close to half the pop, and the Basij - the True Believers - number some 11 million. That's alot of people and is why I support a military strike to conduct regime change; it is like Nazi Germany or Hirohito's Japan, the people for the most part support the current awful government because they are not really being made to suffer directly the violent consequences of its militaristic adventures.

Just like in WW2, once the supporting populations began to be bombed like their armies did to the rest of Europe, their support for the War decreased significantly.

Nothing would please me more than to see Israel and a few other nations establish proxy armies on Iran's borders and lob missiles, mortars and rockets into iran aimed at civilian population centers, and to detonate bombs inside iranian malls and shopping centers.

I think that once they have been made to endure the shit these fucking assholes have put so many others through, they will cease their support for it - political opportunism via terrorism.

all this work in finding your shit just to tell you to fuck off. my time management sucks.