US vs Iran

[GostHacked]

On 2/12/2017 at 4:32 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

You have zero context otherwise you'd immediately recall the 1946 Iran Crisis. This I can see.

Well what's the context of the Crisis you speak of , oh knowledgeable one?

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Well what's the context of the Crisis you speak of , oh knowledgeable one?

 

The Soviet Union tried to make Iran part of the USSR in 1946...along with the assistance of the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party...oh ignorant one.

Edited February 14, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

On 2/1/2017 at 3:31 PM, drummindiver said:

I know the bigotry towards America is huge on this site,  almost matching the love for Iran. Opinions on whether States should be involved or let Iran take over ME?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/01/security-adviser-flynn-says-iran-on-notice-after-missile-test.html

The US has been unwittingly HELPING Iran take over the middle east. Like putting a Shia Iranian proxy in control of Iraq and its untold oil riches for example. This isn't about nations its about sects. The Shia have Iran and Iraq, and Syria, but they aren't going to be able to go any further than that. They are boxed in by Sunni powerhouses like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan. And they probably will eventually lose control of Syria simply because there's such a large Sunni majority there. Eventually ISIL or some group like them is going to form another Sunni state with part of Syria and Iraq.

If it were not for the US, Iran would have HALF the power and influence they have now.

Edited February 14, 2017 by dre

[kactus]

The attack on Iran from the North by the Russians and the British from the South was done on the basis to take hold of oil reserves and to prevent the supplies to Germans during the war. It is well documented and known...

This has nothing to do with toppling of democratically elected Dr Mossadegh in the coup of 1953 orchastrated by the CIA and MI6 and everything to do with him wanting to nationalise the Iranian oil industry to end the profitable margins that BP enjoyed.

Well guess what that didn't go too well with the Brits who were pissed at the idea of nationalising the oil and they started to make up stories that Iran is falling to the hands of communism by Soviets whilst Dr Mossadegh was the Prime Minister. The Brits convinced the US with this fabricated story which led to the 1953 coup. A group of people were paid and encouraged by CIA to take down the streets of Tehran and protest against Mossadegh and beating up his loyalists. This clash and unrest accross Tehran led to the prosecution of Mossadegh in the court and he was put under house arrest which was not his fault.

No ofcourse it isn't a James Bond style acting since it didn't exist at the time but that's how the inspirations with those movies started in the 60's...

 

Iran's 1946 treaty..,

"After Germany broke its pact with the Soviets and invaded the USSR in June 1941, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union jointly occupied Iran as a preventative measure, starting on August 25, 1941, and justified their invasion by the need to use Iran as a gateway for delivery of Lend-Lease supplies to the Soviet Union.^[5] As a result, Rezā Shāh was forced to abdicate and exiled to Mauritius; his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the crown prince, became the new monarch. Their joint ‘Tripartite Treaty’ of January 1942 declared that their military presence was not an occupation, proclaimed Iran to be their ally, and pledged to withdraw their troops within six months of the end of the war.^[5]

Throughout the rest of the war, the United Kingdom and the United States used Iran as an important supply line to the Soviet war effort against Nazi Germany. Thirty thousand non-combatant US troops arrived to move these supplies, and transit through Iran was later termed a "bridge to victory". At the Teheran Conference in 1943, the Big Three gave additional assurances concerning Iran’s future sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as a promise to assist in its post-war reconstruction and development.^[5]"

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by kactus

[kactus]

2 hours ago, dre said:

The US has been unwittingly HELPING Iran take over the middle east. Like putting a Shia Iranian proxy in control of Iraq and its untold oil riches for example. This isn't about nations its about sects. The Shia have Iran and Iraq, and Syria, but they aren't going to be able to go any further than that. They are boxed in by Sunni powerhouses like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan. And they probably will eventually lose control of Syria simply because there's such a large Sunni majority there. Eventually ISIL or some group like them is going to form another Sunni state with part of Syria and Iraq.

If it were not for the US, Iran would have HALF the power and influence they have now.

I think you are right to a certain extent on the US and Iranian collaboration in Iraq. Afterall, Saddam wasn't exactly an ally of Iran.

The bit that I disagree with your argument is that US has also privided support indirectly to ISIS through the proxy ally Saudi Arabia that practises Wahabism.

If you look at the history most of these fanatics were raised and trained in Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Ladin?

[GostHacked]

9 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The Soviet Union tried to make Iran part of the USSR in 1946...along with the assistance of the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party...oh ignorant one.

So Iran is bad because everyone else tried to make Iran it's bitch?

[DogOnPorch]

6 hours ago, kactus said:

The attack on Iran from the North by the Russians and the British from the South was done on the basis to take hold of oil reserves and to prevent the supplies to Germans during the war. It is well documented and known...

This has nothing to do with toppling of democratically elected Dr Mossadegh in the coup of 1953 orchastrated by the CIA and MI6 and everything to do with him wanting to nationalise the Iranian oil industry to end the profitable margins that BP enjoyed.

Well guess what that didn't go too well with the Brits who were pissed at the idea of nationalising the oil and they started to make up stories that Iran is falling to the hands of communism by Soviets whilst Dr Mossadegh was the Prime Minister. The Brits convinced the US with this fabricated story which led to the 1953 coup. A group of people were paid and encouraged by CIA to take down the streets of Tehran and protest against Mossadegh and beating up his loyalists. This clash and unrest accross Tehran led to the prosecution of Mossadegh in the court and he was put under house arrest which was not his fault.

No ofcourse it isn't a James Bond style acting since it didn't exist at the time but that's how the inspirations with those movies started in the 60's...

 

 

Think again.

The Tudeh Party's support was needed for Mossadeq to win his election. As well, they had helped stop the previous coup against Mossadeq. However, when Mossadeq moved too slow on 'reforms' and refused other 'demands' by the Tudeh Party, they turned on him and started rioting in the streets. Mossadeq called out the Army to suppress the Tudeh Party which was forced to lay down any arms and disperse. The Army, no fan of any Communists...Tudeh or otherwise...at that point said what the heck and conducted its own coup with CIA assistance...the very next day. Commie (and oil) problem solved.

[DogOnPorch]

Then there is Mossadeq, himself...

Dissolved Iran's Parliament and ruled as an autocrat. Lost the support of the people in the process. Jailed his opponents without trial. Allied with the Tudeh Party to keep regular Iranians from demonstrating by using street thugs. Played footsies with the Soviet Union...especially once Stalin croaked. Not to mention he completely tanked his support with the Mullahs when he refused to turn Iran into an Islamic State. A problem that would resurface in the 1970s...

A real Democrat...lol.

 

[kactus]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Then there is Mossadeq, himself...

Dissolved Iran's Parliament and ruled as an autocrat. Lost the support of the people in the process. Jailed his opponents without trial. Allied with the Tudeh Party to keep regular Iranians from demonstrating by using street thugs. Played footsies with the Soviet Union...especially once Stalin croaked. Not to mention he completely tanked his support with the Mullahs when he refused to turn Iran into an Islamic State. A problem that would resurface in the 1970s...

A real Democrat...lol.

 

Interesting documentary I encourage you to watch which talks about the British interference:

 

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

No thanks.

[kactus]

Another documentary the part at 1 min 50 sec....

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/08/20/480859/1953-coup-in-Iran-

 

[DogOnPorch]

Press TV's version...again...no thanks. That's Iran's State broadcaster.

 

[kactus]

11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Then there is Mossadeq, himself...

Dissolved Iran's Parliament and ruled as an autocrat. Lost the support of the people in the process. Jailed his opponents without trial. Allied with the Tudeh Party to keep regular Iranians from demonstrating by using street thugs. Played footsies with the Soviet Union...especially once Stalin croaked. Not to mention he completely tanked his support with the Mullahs when he refused to turn Iran into an Islamic State. A problem that would resurface in the 1970s...

A real Democrat...lol.

 

There is little validity in this as the street thugs were employed by those who were against him.

I am really surprised where you are getting all these stories from as many sources would dispute it all...

[DogOnPorch]

By 1953, economic tensions caused by the British embargo and political turmoil began to take a major toll upon Mossadegh's popularity and political power. The people were increasingly blaming him for the economic and political crisis. Political violence was becoming widespread in the form of street clashes between rival political groups.^[9][11] Mossadegh was losing popularity and support among the working class which had been his strongest supporters. As he lost support, he became more autocratic.^[59][60] As early as August 1952, he began to rely on emergency powers to rule, generating controversy among his supporters.^[60] After an assassination attempt upon one of his cabinet ministers and himself, he ordered the jailing of dozens of his political opponents. This act created widespread anger among much of the general public, and led to accusations that Mossadegh was becoming a dictator.^[9][11]The Tudeh party's unofficial alliance with Mossadegh led to fears of communism, and increasingly it was the communists who were taking part in pro-Mossadegh rallies, and attacking opponents.^[9][11]

[kactus]

20 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Then there is Mossadeq, himself...

Dissolved Iran's Parliament and ruled as an autocrat. Lost the support of the people in the process. Jailed his opponents without trial. Allied with the Tudeh Party to keep regular Iranians from demonstrating by using street thugs. Played footsies with the Soviet Union...especially once Stalin croaked. Not to mention he completely tanked his support with the Mullahs when he refused to turn Iran into an Islamic State. A problem that would resurface in the 1970s...

A real Democrat...lol.

 

errrrrm...Mosadegh died in 1967. Iranian revolution that brought Mullahs to power 1978....

 

Quote

 

On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, cancelling its oil concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets. Mossadegh saw the AIOC as an arm of the British government controlling much of Iran's oil, pushing him to nationalize the Iranian oil industry.^[27] The next month, a committee of five majlis deputies was sent to Khuzistan to enforce the nationalization.^[29][30] Mosaddegh explained his nationalization policy in a 21 June 1951 speech:

“

Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries... have yielded no results thus 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. The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provide that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation. It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention.[31]

”

The confrontation between Iran and Britain escalated as Mosaddegh's government refused to allow the British any involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain made sure Iran could sell no oil. In July, Mosaddegh broke off negotiations with AIOC after it threatened to "pull out its employees", and told owners of oil tanker ships that "receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market." Two months later the AIOC evacuated its technicians and closed down the oil installations. Under nationalized management many refineries lacked the trained technicians that were needed to continue production. The British government announced a de facto blockade, reinforced its naval force in the Persian Gulf and lodged complaints against Iran before the United Nations Security Council.^[29]

 

Mosaddegh shaking hands with Mohammad-Reza Shah in their first meeting after Mossadegh's election as Prime Minister

 

Mosaddegh greets Princess Soraya of Iran; note the kiss of respect.

The British government also threatened legal action against purchasers of oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries and obtained an agreement with its sister international oil companies not to fill in where the AIOC was boycotting Iran. The entire Iranian oil industry came to a virtual standstill, oil production dropping from 241,400,000 barrels (38,380,000 m³) in 1950 to 10,600,000 barrels (1,690,000 m³) in 1952. This Abadan Crisis reduced Iran's oil income to almost nothing, putting a severe strain on the implementation of Mosaddegh's promised domestic reforms. At the same time, BP and Aramco doubled their production in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, to make up for lost production in Iran so that no hardship was felt in Britain.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by kactus

[DogOnPorch]

The problem most certainly re-arose in the 1970s. There was a revolution in 1979.

Quote

errrrrm...Mosadegh died in 1967. Iranian revolution that brought Mullahs to power 1978....

1979...So?

[kactus]

21 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

The problem most certainly re-arose in the 1970s. There was a revolution in 1979.

1979...So?

The point is collusion of communists and Islamist's before revolution remains mooted...The involvement of the US and British is undisputed. There are many sources to validate this as has been already shared. 

Tudeh party consisted of People's Worker's Party, Iranian jews, Azeries and kurds and some others opposed Shah as did Islamist...

 

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by kactus
correction of spelling

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Avoid thread drift. 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Charles Anthony said:

Folks, 

Avoid thread drift. 

 

We're discussing the 1953 Coup which involves both Iran and the USA.

[kactus]

30 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Press TV's version...again...no thanks. That's Iran's State broadcaster.

 

Yes it is....So?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

Commie (and oil) problem solved.

Dictatorship (and extremism) problem created.

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, Charles Anthony said:

Folks, 

Avoid thread drift. 

Have you ever considered the possibility that constantly trying to bury or ignore such an important root cause only causes people to constantly keep digging it up and point it out?

[DogOnPorch]

58 minutes ago, kactus said:

Yes it is....So?

 

It's Iran's State broadcaster.

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Dictatorship (and extremism) problem created.

Mossadeq was indeed a dictator. Islam was already a Jew-hating death cult.

[eyeball]

No he wasn't and so was Christianity.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No he wasn't and so was Christianity.

 

By 1953...yes he WAS. He as jailing his opponents without trial, employing street thugs and ruling by decree.

Christianity had nothing to do with the 1953 Coup in Iran.