IranianPride

Of course an article by a right wing Jewish Zionist can't possibly be biased... Of course you'll accept at face value, an article by a guy who's made a career out of writing books about how every one from IBM, to the Arabs to Iran was an anti-semite. No it isn't, no one except you and Edwin Black thinks that Iran has a nazi past. You're a racist idiot.

You're still not making any sense. You're just coming across as an angry schoolkid that has an irrational hatred for Iranians. Racism is a serious sickness. Your evidence for these ridiculous claims is a single article by a right wing Jewish Zionist, Edwin Black, that has absolutely no sourcing. None of the mainstream encyclopedias confirm Edwin Black's claims. Here's an article that refutes his propaganda article: http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/iran-hist...s-irans-history So far all you've revealed is your racist bias against Iranians, not any logical arguments. LOL, you and ridiculous posts. This is another compelling reason to discount the rationale for US policy on repressing Iran when there are such openly racist individuals among the constituency wishing malice towards Iranians and pushing for these policies.

Iran wasn't pro Nazi. It was neutral. When did they entertain Nazi delegations? When did they ponder the possibility of allowing Nazi troops on their soil? The historical record doesn't back up your claims.

And the US was doing business with Nazi Germany after 1933. No one thought the camps were death camps until the end of the war.

No one knew about the concentration camps in 39-41. The Soviet Union on the other was an accomplished mass killer by 39, yet the US sent it the equivalent of $150 billion worth of today's dollars during the war. This was a regime that had starved 5 million Ukrainians to death in 1932-33, yet the US and UK embraced it within open arms, and even praised it in their press. Your ridiculous attacks on Iran only reveal your own intolerance and prejudice.

The Shah wasn't 'pro-German', as in pro-Nazi during the war. Iran offered no war support to any party in WWII, and it declared itself neutral during the war. I agree with that.

History doesn't disagree. No where does the historical account say he was pro-Nazi. Iran was invaded to secure the oil fields, and a supply line to the USSR. The invasion was a strategic consideration bereft of any regard for the sovereign rights of Iran. I'm simply disagreeing with your explanation of why they invaded. How is foreign domination funny?

JerrySeinfeld, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyRocketHits.svg Rockets being fired from Gaza had almost stopped completely until the November 4th Israeli attack that killed seven Hamas members

It's only clear to any one brainwashed by the ideology created by the Israel lobby and other assorted racists. Like I was saying.

He was not pro-Nazi. He was simply not an enemy of the Nazis, he was neutral. To equate that with being pro-Nazi is a lie. That's irrelevant, we're discussing Reza Shah and why they invaded. It was only because of oil and the war, and the Shah's insistence on neutrality, not for any other manufactured reason. That's another argument. You probably think Mossadeq was wrong without knowing how the original oil concessions were brought about by a weak Iranian monarchy dominated by the British. I simply pointed out 1953 because the US Embassy was where the coup was orchestrated from.

^ The US embassy seizure was done by a group of students, during a revolution, it was not a nationally coordinated initiative to invade another nation for territorial expansion, like Saddam's invasion of Iran. The 1979 embassy seizure must be viewed in its historical context where Iran's democratic leader in 1953 was over-thrown in a CIA-orchestrated coup (using mullahs and the monarchy) organized out of the US embassy. This is nonsense, Reza Shah was not pro-Nazi, he was simply trying to play the foreign powers against each other to attempt to keep Iran independent. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was waged so that England and the Soviet Union could secure Iran's oil fields, and instate a leader who they could control and rely on during world war 2. It had nothing to do with the west trusting or not trusting Iran, but with control of Iran. Your revisionist account of history is flawed.

This is absolutely remarkable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyRocketHits.svg Rockets being fired from Gaza had almost stopped completely until the November 4th Israeli attack that killed seven Hamas members.

My point about him being the president was a side-point, a PS, not a counter-argument. As far as whether he's nuts, my point is that if there are nuts guiding the Christian Right/Israel lobby wing of the Republican party, and they seem to be able to use nuclear technology responsibly, then there's no reason Iran can't.

Wild Bill can't stand Arabs speaking up and having a voice. His extremism is over-flowing.

This doesn't matter to Israel's cheerleaders. It's never Israel's fault. Israel can do no wrong, and Hamas is pure evil. All the deaths are Hamas' fault, etc. They're just like the extremists on the Hamas side, except they have 200 nuclear bombs and the support of western politicians.