DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 No kidding, its time America and the UK got with the program. As for the rest of your post, go tell it to a truth commission. You're free to point out where my post is inaccurate. But, you didn't. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
KrustyKidd Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 No kidding, its time America and the UK got with the program. As for the rest of your post, go tell it to a truth commission. Not sure what your beef is with DOP's version of what happened. Way I see it, Iran was aligned with enemies of the West and, later, was influenced to stop further alignment with the USSR. I certainly prefer that to a situation possibly escalating to USA/USSR direct confrontation and nuclear war. Quote We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters
Bonam Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 I think the Iranian regime will succeed with its repression of the people, at least for now. Now that they've increased the level of violence they are applying against protesters, the protests are dying down. The people will live on in fear and continue to serve the theocracy for the conceivable future. Perhaps a seed of rage against the regime has been planted in the current generation, which will one day be rekindled with greater success, but for now the grip of the Islamic revolution still rests too heavily on Iran. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 No kidding, its time America and the UK got with the program. As for the rest of your post, go tell it to a truth commission. They already have......it's the same program. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 Not sure what your beef is with DOP's version of what happened. Way I see it, Iran was aligned with enemies of the West and, later, was influenced to stop further alignment with the USSR. I certainly prefer that to a situation possibly escalating to USA/USSR direct confrontation and nuclear war. I believe he's suggesting that this event was some how swept under the rug. Perhaps I'm wrong. Either way, I get a kick out of the self-rightousness of the presumed left. Sort of like Viet-Nam...all that anti-war effort eventually got the US out of Viet-Nam. What happened after that? Blood on a scale similar to the Holocaust. Gee...why was there a war in Indochina again? "Gosh...did we do that? Nah...it had to be Nixon." Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 I believe he's suggesting that this event was some how swept under the rug. Perhaps I'm wrong. Either way, I get a kick out of the self-rightousness of the presumed left. Sort of like Viet-Nam...all that anti-war effort eventually got the US out of Viet-Nam. What happened after that? Blood on a scale similar to the Holocaust. Gee...why was there a war in Indochina again? My only guess is that these types have their own demons to reconcile. Self-rightousness will do that. B-52's don't care..... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 My only guess is that these types have their own demons to reconcile. Self-rightousness will do that. B-52's don't care..... I honestly don't think they notice. Seriously...do you think the average 60s hippie turned yuppie blames themselves a moment for the Killing Fields or the Boat People? I know Jon Voight does...lol...but he's just one guy. No...those things were just a side effects of the conflict...which by then (1973-75) had been twisted into something America had started while the poor NVA et al were merely freedom fighters. Iran...same deal. The Shah in hindsight was a pretty nice dude next to the jokers they have in power now. I wonder how many died under the Islamic Republic's clubs and brass knuckles as opposed to SAVAK's? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 ...Iran...same deal. The Shah in hindsight was a pretty nice dude next to the jokers they have in power now. I wonder how many died under the Islamic Republic's clubs and brass knuckles as opposed to SAVAK's? See...that's the thing...try as you might to provide the facts in historical context. Any putz can sit back now and pronounce judgement about what happened there or anywhere. How hard is that...... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) See...that's the thing...try as you might to provide the facts in historical context. Any putz can sit back now and pronounce judgement about what happened there or anywhere. How hard is that...... It's them interwebs I tellz yah. Online doctorin' is my favorite. Doctor Chip says: "You have Ebola". Edited June 22, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dub Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Like hell. Mosaddeq deserved what he got. The Shah...while leftie media has demonized him, was a pretty good deal for civilization in the area. Besides...we didn't put him into power. Iranians had a coup w/ CIA support and then let the monarchy take over. Iran profited beyond its wildest dreams via the Shah's close relationship with various US presidents/governments...until one certain president let him down.You might think it's a good idea to kiss a mullah's azz...but not me. I want to kick them in the same area...hard. you are a simple and dull person. if one believes that removing a democratically elected leader and then putting in a puppet is wrong, it doesn't mean that they agree with what the mullahs have done. Edited June 22, 2009 by dub Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 you are a simple and dull person.if one believes that removing a democratically elected leader and then putting in a puppet is wrong, it doesn't mean that they agree with what the mullahs have done. So why apologize to them if you don't agree with them? By the looks of it, your mullah friends killed a woman on camera...I wonder how that will go over with the citizens of Iran? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dub Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 So why apologize to them if you don't agree with them? By the looks of it, your mullah friends killed a woman on camera...I wonder how that will go over with the citizens of Iran? who apologized for them? what are you babbling about now? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 who apologized for them?what are you babbling about now? Suggest reading entire thread. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
WIP Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 Any amount of "awwwww shucks" might as well be an apology.History already aknowledges Operation Ajax...as it aknowledges the Iran Hostage Crisis. Plus...again...it was the Cold War and Mosaddeq was certainly under no illusion that his (what amounts to) theft of British property and flirting with Communists was going to cause a stir. He gambled...he lost. I suspect he thought he'd get a lot more help from the Russkies. But, they were kinda busy with their post Stalin power struggles. If it helps, Truman tought it was a bad idea, too...but he was out and Ike was in. As well...again...Iranians actually carried out the coup...so SOMEONE there in Iran didn't like him or there could have been no coup. But...let's be clear. This is how the Shah came to initial power. If it's worth dredging up this story, it's worth noting that right at the bottom of your link, it informs us about how badly the British were ripping off Iran and paying little for the oil they were pumping out of the ground and shipping back home. If you're going to charge Mossadeq with theft, you first have to acknowledge the theft of natural resources by British Petroleum. Mosaddeq explained his nationalization policy in a 21 June 1951 speech: Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence. and England responded with a blockade, and tried to bankrupt the country, and Winston Churchill told the Americans that Mossadeq was a communist to get the U.S. to change sides in the dispute: Despite Mosaddeq's open disgust with socialism, Winston Churchill told the United States that Mosaddeq was "increasingly turning towards communism" and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears.[31][32][33][34] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 While American theocrats -- fans of Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich, who proclaim America as a Christian nation favoured by God himself -- cheer on the secular revolution against theocratic government in Iran, and hope that their Islamic theocracy is coming to an end, they should pause and reflect on the direction they are trying to take their own nation: Theocracy and its Discontents We are watching the fall of Islamic theocracy in Iran. I don't mean by this that the Iranian regime is about to collapse. It may—I certainly hope it will—but repressive regimes can stick around for a long time. We are watching the failure of the ideology that lay at the basis of the Iranian government........... http://www.newsweek.com/id/202979?from=rss Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 If you're going to charge Mossadeq with theft, you first have to acknowledge the theft of natural resources by British Petroleum. You can charge them all you wish. I'm sure BP was raking in the dough. That however doesn't excuse Mossadeq. We can pretend that American secret agents in dark sunglasses actually pulled off this coup rather than Iranians with US help. Plus we can believe that the Shah was put into power at this time by said fellows in dark sunglasses. Whatever makes us feel better about history, I suppose. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 Whatever makes us feel better about history, I suppose. That's a two way street if there ever was one. We can also pretend that fighting a cold war conflict between two super-powers on or over other people's countries and resources made it necessary to stage coups and support dictators but I'd rather hear officials from those super-powers that authorized their interference on these grounds to either defend their decisions or acknowledge the unintended consequences and blowback they caused. With the exception of Madeline Albright and I suppose Obama no one from the West has officially acknowledged that what was done in Iran in 1953 has acted to complicate affairs in and with Iran and the surrounding region to this day. As for the USSR obviously it can't speak for itself anymore but I'm quite certain there are still people who can speak to the decisions it made. Listening to what some posters have to say about this its clear they think this past interference was a good thing and there is nothing to reconcile with. Again, that's fine for us in a forum like this, but I think it would be better for everyone if these issues were discussed in a international forum. What would anyone have to lose? Face, credibility a black mark on their historical record, what exactly? Wouldn't these be worth the goal of long term peace? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) ....With the exception of Madeline Albright and I suppose Obama no one from the West has officially acknowledged that what was done in Iran in 1953 has acted to complicate affairs in and with Iran and the surrounding region to this day. As for the USSR obviously it can't speak for itself anymore but I'm quite certain there are still people who can speak to the decisions it made. You're right...you can't speak for either side and hardly know what has or has not been "acknowledged". The foreign policies of any nation have details that go beyond whatever you can scrape up using Google. Listening to what some posters have to say about this its clear they think this past interference was a good thing and there is nothing to reconcile with. Again, that's fine for us in a forum like this, but I think it would be better for everyone if these issues were discussed in a international forum. What would anyone have to lose? ...or gain? What would be the point of such an exercise? We have historians and journalists to fill the "void". Face, credibility a black mark on their historical record, what exactly? Wouldn't these be worth the goal of long term peace? No.....are you purposely being naive, or at least demanding such acknowledgements (apologies) from all of histories sinners? Edited June 22, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 ...or gain? What would be the point of such an exercise? Left-wing satisfaction, mainly. The worst possible reason to do anything. Next up, apologizing for D-Day as it interfered with the workings of the German government. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dub Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 Left-wing satisfaction, mainly. The worst possible reason to do anything. Next up, apologizing for D-Day as it interfered with the workings of the German government. oh god. stop being so dull and one-dimensional. all this shit about left and right is for the kiddies who watch foxnews and the situation room. mossadeq wanted to nationalize the oil so that the people of iran made money from it and not some foreign company. mossadeq is still regarded as one of the favourite leaders in iran's history. the iranian people, most that you speak to, will tell you this. just because you're okay with iranian oil money going to a foreign company and not to the people, it doesn't mean the iranian people feel the same way. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 ....just because you're okay with iranian oil money going to a foreign company and not to the people, it doesn't mean the iranian people feel the same way. Really? Then why didn't the "people" extract, transport, and refine the oil themselves? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dub Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 Really? Then why didn't the "people" extract, transport, and refine the oil themselves? because the shah got mad bling for allowing the foreign companies to set that up. there was no money for him and his buddies to allow iran to develop their own. why else would it be? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 because the shah got mad bling for allowing the foreign companies to set that up. there was no money for him and his buddies to allow iran to develop their own. why else would it be? Iran wasn't developing anything of the kind without foreign investment.....hell....that even happens in Canada to this day. That's the problem with revisionists.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 oh god.stop being so dull and one-dimensional. After you, my Jew baiting opponent. all this shit about left and right is for the kiddies who watch foxnews and the situation room. Pretty sure we talked about the political spectrum in Poli-Sci. Will Wikipedia do for yah, duk? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum mossadeq wanted to nationalize the oil so that the people of iran made money from it and not some foreign company. Iran was a wealthy nation under the Shah. mossadeq is still regarded as one of the favourite leaders in iran's history. the iranian people, most that you speak to, will tell you this. Except for women. It was the Shah that gave Iranian women rights as we know them...only to have them taken away when your Islamist buddies stole the revolution from the moderates Bolshevik style. But that's not a problem to one keen on Fundemental Islam...eh? just because you're okay with iranian oil money going to a foreign company and not to the people, it doesn't mean the iranian people feel the same way. Again...Iran was a wealthy, practically 1st world, nation right up until your Jihadi pals stole the show away from Bakhtiar. Then came the Dark Ages...or in your case...good times. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Posted June 22, 2009 ....Again...Iran was a wealthy, practically 1st world, nation right up until your Jihadi pals stole the show away from Bakhtiar. Then came the Dark Ages...or in your case...good times. That is a 100% no shitter....I trained right next to Iranian military back in the 70's. They bought the best Yankee kit available, and ironically, are the only nation flying F-14 Tomcats on the front line (when spare parts can be found). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.