M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 No I just think Iran and anyone doing business with it should have been left to sort out their issues themselves. Years of reading your posts makes it crystal clear that you believe interfering in the affairs of other democratic countries and abandoning their people to some bloody regime is peachy. Its sick and it's this exact type of thinking that has contributed the most to the mess the world is in today. This canard of your's about the quality of democracy in Iran in 1953 being the justification for intruding into another people's governance is pure bullshit. At the time many of our own democracies in the west had barely extended the vote to women and people of other ethnicities. We were in no position to be preaching about democratic standards let alone imposing them on anyone yet we did and still do - while looking the other way when the bloodthirsty governments' we enable torture and murder their own people. That's a freedom that's probaby worth hating alright. It's no wonder things like 9/11 happen. excuse me I need a moment to chuckle.... At the time many of our own democracies in the west had barely extended the vote to women and people of other ethnicities. Go ahead...it's nineteen fifty three....please list these rogues democracies.... Meanwhile you would have been just fine with a blood thirsty Mossy who had no problem with a dictatorship of his own...no probelm stealing power, no problem rigging elections and no problem crushing opposing views. your double standard is quite amusing Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 your double standard is quite amusing Your's is rather disgusting. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Your's is rather disgusting. Enough emoting and produce the list.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Rogue democracies... that's cute. I meant developing democracies like many that have been practicing and experimenting with different forms for only a couple of centuries. It wasn't until 1940 that women in Quebec were allowed to vote. It wasn't until 1906 that even one country in the world made suffrage universal. England didn't get there until 1928. In the US...Arizona was still testing minorities for literacy in the attempt to limit their voting as late as 1962. Iran's democracy in 1953 was merely different than ours, it could just barely be called less primitive. So basically what happened is, we overthrew their government because we hated their freedoms. That's just peachy. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 ....Iran's democracy in 1953 was merely different than ours, it could just barely be called less primitive. Actually, it was far more developed....Canada didn't re-patriate a constitution or create the Charter until 1982. By then, Iran had done it twice !! So basically what happened is, we overthrew their government because we hated their freedoms. That's just peachy. ...just like Haiti ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 Iran's democracy in 1953 was merely different than ours, it could just barely be called less primitive.So basically what happened is, we overthrew their government because we hated their freedoms. That's just peachy. We didn't overthrow it, unless by we you mean the iranians. What we, the iranians overthrew was a man who illegally siezed power, killed those who spoke out, rigged a referendum, shut down parliament indefinately and took it upon himself to don emergency powers of a dictator. Your limited knowledge betrays your limited knowledge. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 We didn't overthrow it, unless by we you mean the iranians. What we, the iranians overthrew was a man who illegally siezed power, killed those who spoke out, rigged a referendum, shut down parliament indefinately and took it upon himself to don emergency powers of a dictator.Your limited knowledge betrays your limited knowledge. Your bullshit knows no limits. You actually think your jaded view of history stacks up against a secretary of state and president's interpretation? You're positively filled to overflowing with yourself. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 Your bullshit knows no limits.You actually think your jaded view of history stacks up against a secretary of state and president's interpretation? You're positively filled to overflowing with yourself. I doubt their interpretation is any different. They have access to the same facts. The difference is they seem to think that defending your nations interests and supporting your allies is bad. I happen to think that is not only their job, it's their legal duty. Which is another reason I think Obama is a fool, you don't apologize for defending your interests. The only apology that the US State Department should give is to say they are sorry they abandoned the Shah and allowed a half crazed uncivilized tyrant take control. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 ....You actually think your jaded view of history stacks up against a secretary of state and president's interpretation? You're positively filled to overflowing with yourself. Hmmmmm.....Sec'y of State and President's interpretation.....now where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah.....WMD's in Iraq ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 ....The only apology that the US State Department should give is to say they are sorry they abandoned the Shah and allowed a half crazed uncivilized tyrant take control. Ain't that the truth......what a difference a day makes. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 There were no WMDs in Iraq. http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/cwwarhead.jpg Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 There were no WMDs in Iraq.http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/cwwarhead.jpg Nope...just missiles that violated Gulf War surrender instruments and undeclared artillery shells! That's the last time I ever trust the Sec'y of State or President to know what they are talking about ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 All those Israelis hiding in bunkers with gas masks and atropine auto-injectors were simply overreacting. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 And take away your opportunity to prove it was the CIA who over threw the unconstitutional regime? I asked you first since it is your claim that the CIA did the deed, please detail their work. Please show where I have said or implied it was the shah's sole initiative. what? is that another weasel move in the making? Somehow your earlier forceful delivery seems to be weakening, a tad Ya see... with such a definitive forcefulness, you've previously stated that, "it was the Shah who overthrew", "the Shah and the Iranians who valued the rule of law looked for international support to uphold the Iranian constitution", "an ally of the west asking for and getting aid", "all the leg work was done by the Iranians", etc. Why, one might form an impression that you're suggesting the Shah initiated the overthrow... he did the overthrowing... on his own volition... that he reached out for support - all this by his own hand, by his own initiative. you wear squirm quite well; however, we can quickly dispatch with this if you'll simply clarify that "initiative" aspect. Who precipitated all this in the first place? Just say absolutely... it was entirely the Shah's idea/his want/his initiative that instigated the overthrow. That is, if that's your position, considering you're quite insistent that the CIA didn't play a leading role in overthrowing the government. That's what you're saying, right? That the CIA didn't play a leading role in overthrowing the Iranian government - right?... that's your position - right? to circumvent an additional weasel outlet it would also be preferred if you could actually say what the CIA did... just high-level, broad summation should suffice. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 what? is that another weasel move in the making? Somehow your earlier forceful delivery seems to be weakening, a tad Ya see... with such a definitive forcefulness, you've previously stated that, "it was the Shah who overthrew", "the Shah and the Iranians who valued the rule of law looked for international support to uphold the Iranian constitution", "an ally of the west asking for and getting aid", "all the leg work was done by the Iranians", etc. Why, one might form an impression that you're suggesting the Shah initiated the overthrow... he did the overthrowing... on his own volition... that he reached out for support - all this by his own hand, by his own initiative.you wear squirm quite well; however, we can quickly dispatch with this if you'll simply clarify that "initiative" aspect. Who precipitated all this in the first place? Just say absolutely... it was entirely the Shah's idea/his want/his initiative that instigated the overthrow. That is, if that's your position, considering you're quite insistent that the CIA didn't play a leading role in overthrowing the government. That's what you're saying, right? That the CIA didn't play a leading role in overthrowing the Iranian government - right?... that's your position - right? to circumvent an additional weasel outlet it would also be preferred if you could actually say what the CIA did... just high-level, broad summation should suffice. That's quite a long winded response. A simple "no I can't tell you how the CIA overthrough the illegal regime, but I really really really feel they did.." would have taken less bandwidth. Okay, maybe someone smarter can... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 That's quite a long winded response. A simple "no I can't tell you how the CIA overthrough the illegal regime, but I really really really feel they did.." would have taken less bandwidth. your deflection... your avoidance... c'mon, just fess up and absolutely and definitively state/acknowledgment your position. We simply need to work through your chuckin' and jivin' routine. If the earlier two-paragraphs were a bit much for you to digest, how about this abridged form: I, M.Dancer, absolutely and definitively state that the U.S./CIA didn't initiate the overthrow of the Iranian government and didn't play a leading role in planning the overthrow of the Iranian government. simply confirm that is your position... or not. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 your deflection... your avoidance... c'mon, just fess up and absolutely and definitively state/acknowledgment your position. We simply need to work through your chuckin' and jivin' routine. If the earlier two-paragraphs were a bit much for you to digest, how about this abridged form: I, M.Dancer, absolutely and definitively state that the U.S./CIA didn't initiate the overthrow of the Iranian government and didn't play a leading role in planning the overthrow of the Iranian government. simply confirm that is your position... or not. So sad.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 So sad.... yes, your deflection... your avoidance... your unwillingness to absolutely and definitively state your position concerning the U.S./CIA involvement in the overthrow of the Iranian government... so sad... Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 Here, I will throw you a bone cause you try so hard. The US did not initiate the coup d'etat. Now see if that might enlighten you, but I doubt it... I am amazed in the face of so much evidence you continie with this line of reasoning. What are you able to show what the US did? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 baby steps... evidence? You mean all the wiki stuff offered up around here ok, ok... that was a good bone - but I'm still hungry. you've now confirmed a position that states the U.S. (by inference U.S./CIA) didn't initiate the coup can I have another bone that states your position is that the Shah initiated the coup... by reaching out to the west for support/aid? can I have a final bone that states your position is that the U.S./CIA didn't play a leading role in planning the overthrow? just a couple more bones to go..... Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 baby steps...evidence? You mean all the wiki stuff offered up around here ok, ok... that was a good bone - but I'm still hungry. Oh you are about to be soooo humiliated.. are you ready? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) The Iranians asked for help In March 1953, an unexpected development pushed the plot forward: the C.I.A.'s Tehran station reported that an Iranian general had approached the American Embassy about supporting an army-led coup. Who initiated the covert plan? The Americans? Nooooo... Britain, it says, initiated the plot in 1952. The Truman administration rejected it, but President Eisenhower approved it shortly after taking office in 1953, because of fears about oil and Communism. What about the democratic process? Dr. Mossadegh had by now figured out that there was a plot against him. He moved to consolidate power by calling for a national referendum to dissolve Parliament.The results of the Aug. 4 referendum were clearly rigged in his favor; The New York Times reported the same day that the prime minister had won 99.9 percent of the vote. This only helped the plotters, providing ''an issue on which Mossadegh could be relentlessly attacked'' by the agency-backed opposition press .So much for the democaritic government. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/16/world/se...?pagewanted=all Edited September 17, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 So...America willingly walked into this quagmire after it was invited to? Okay, if you say so. Still, the C.I.A. took full credit inside the government. The following year it overthrew the government of Guatemala, and a myth developed that the agency could topple governments anywhere in the world. The myth still lives on to this day - just like the repercussions. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Topaz Posted September 17, 2009 Report Posted September 17, 2009 America, oil and Islam and this article tells what the Bush gang reasons for Iraqi invasion. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=13921 Quote
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.