US foreign policy

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You prefer to deal with ancient history because modern history is far less clear-cut. Afghanistan was an invasion condoned by the United Nations, of a nation run by one of the world's most brutal regimes which itself had seized power through the barrel of a gun and had no legitimacy. It was no more representative of the people's will than Iraq. Why do you believe people who seize and then hold power through mass murder have any legitimacy? At least the ones there now have a sort of legitimacy from being elected, however imperfect those elections.

I guess you have no comments about the US action in Iran and Chile and dismiss it as ancient history even though I said both in Iran and Chile the two nations are STILL paying a heavy price for the US illegal action.

Yes United Nations is under United States but I agree Taliban was brutal and I was very happy they were removed and some of them sent to hell. My post never mentioned a care for the damn Taliban or murderous Saddam but rather the civilians who were caught in cross fire and hundreds of thousands killed by Americans. But you knew that anyways.

Edited June 19, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Afghanistan was an invasion condoned by the United Nations, of a nation run by one of the world's most brutal regimes which itself had seized power through the barrel of a gun and had no legitimacy. It was no more representative of the people's will than Iraq. Why do you believe people who seize and then hold power through mass murder have any legitimacy?

The stunning hypocrisy and the lies. Afghanistan was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. [see below]

AMERICA’S ILLEGAL WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/articles/volume33/issue2/Williams33U.Pa.J.Int'lL.563(2011).pdf

Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. Why, then, do so many Americans see it as justifiable?

http://www.alternet.org/story/93473/afghanistan%3A_the_other_illegal_war

Both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were US creations and US sponsored and US supported. The US was negotiating with the Taliban right up to August 2001. The 

September 27, 1996: Victorious Taliban Supported by Pakistan; Viewed by US, Unocal as Stabilizing Force

  

Taliban forces conquering Afghanistan. [Source: Banded Artists Productions]The Taliban conquer Kabul [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8/19/2002] , establishing control over much of Afghanistan. A surge in the Taliban’s military successes at this time is later attributed to an increase in direct military assistance from Pakistan’s ISI. [NEW YORK TIMES, 12/8/2001] The oil company Unocal is hopeful that the Taliban will stabilize Afghanistan and allow its pipeline plans to go forward. According to some reports, “preliminary agreement [on the pipeline] was reached between the [Taliban and Unocal] long before the fall of Kabul .… Oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America’s, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan.” [DAILY TELEGRAPH, 10/11/1996] The 9/11 Commission later concludes that some State Department diplomats are willing to “give the Taliban a chance” because it might be able to bring stability to Afghanistan, which would allow a Unocal oil pipeline to be built through the country. [9/11 COMMISSION, 3/24/2004]

July-August 1999: Taliban Leaders Visit US

  

About a dozen Afghan leaders visit the US. They are militia commanders, mostly Taliban, and some with ties to al-Qaeda. A few are opponents of the Taliban. Their exact names and titles remain classified. For five weeks, they visit numerous locales in the US, including Mt. Rushmore. All their expenses are paid by the US government and the University of Nebraska. Thomas Gouttierre, an academic heading an Afghanistan program at the University of Nebraska, hosts their visit. Gouttierre is working as a consultant to Unocal at the time, and some Taliban visits to the US are paid for by Unocal, such as a visit two years earlier (see December 4, 1997). However, it is unknown if Unocal plays a role in this particular trip. Gouttierre had previously been paid by the CIA to create Afghan textbooks promoting violence and jihad (see 1984-1994). It is unknown if any of these visitors meet with US officials during their trip. [CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 10/21/2001]

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

The Afghanistan war legal or illegal is debatable. It was the Taliban who had given refuge to Ben Ladin who attacked the US first (the 9-11) similar to Japan's Pearl Harbour. The Taliban itself invaded Afghanistan from Pakistan and took over by force and terrorized and murdered Afghan population over many years and brutalized women and treated them like dirt. It was not a sovereign nation but rather a nation already under occupation which one may look at the invasion as liberation of that nation by US. They deserve what was coming to them. The US should have targeted the Taliban only as many innocent civilians got killed as well.

As for Iraq invasion, it was not as justifiable but Saddam himself illegally invaded Iran in which over one million people were killed. He also illegally invaded Kuwait a sovereign nation. He also gassed the Kurds and purposely killed many innocent civilians. He was brutal. I would say he got what he deserved, though again civilians who got in cross fire is regrettable.

Edited June 20, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[hot enough]

39 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It was the Taliban who had given refuge to Ben Ladin who attacked the US first (the 9-11) similar to Japan's Pearl Harbour.

That is of no consequence. Read the article. The law professor sets out the law clearly. It was an illegal invasion and the war crime continues to this day. 

The US gives refuge to tens of thousands of terrorists. Its CIA has many terrorists. The US armed and supported many terrorist organizations in the US against Cuba. The USA is the largest terrorist group in the world.

What part don't you understand about the US negotiating with the Taliban into August of 2001? The invasion came because the Taliban would not give the US/US business what it wanted.

Edited June 20, 2017 by hot enough

[CITIZEN_2015]

The law professor is not the God and his words are just his opinions not coming from the bible!!.

You did not respond to the other parts of the post for example the fact that Afghanistan was already under occupation by invading Taliban from Pakistan and it was not a sovereign country or the fact that they were brutal and murderous and treated women like dirt and Afghan people wanted them removed and were liberated. The Russians invaded a sovereign country (by staging a coup against Zahir shah in 1973 and installing their puppet regime) and later invaded which you seem to say NOTHING about but American invasion was a liberation of a country already under occupation and suffering real bad under Taliban.

As for the US negotiating with Taliban, they negotiated with many regimes under dictatorship. There are two way to handle brutal regimes and make them moderate one is to negotiate first and if it didn't work then remove them by force. And for God'd sake what business!!!! Afghanistan has nothing. No Oil no resources no infrastructure no nothing.

You seem to be very biased in your posts against America and for Russia and Muslim extremists. For example you say Russia is only not perfect but better than US ignoring all their crimes I listed all over the world and also called forced hijab as a personal choice in your other post!!!!!!. A good political analyst is unbiased and fair and looks at both side and not making one-sided criticism of one entity while ignoring others.

Edited June 20, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

18 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

What on earth are you talking about??

Reality.

18 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

What was on its way out?

His government already had many enemies within, on both left and right, and had been operating on emergency legislation for over a year. His natural inclination seemed to be to gather more and more power to himself. Thus I doubt democracy would have lasted there for long, even without the help of the CIA and M16.

18 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Where there were scores of democracies that turned into dictatorships?

Yes, virtually every new country freed from colonial rule had a UN supervised election which turned out to be their last.

 

 

[Argus]

18 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I guess you have no comments about the US action in Iran and Chile and dismiss it as ancient history even though I said both in Iran and Chile the two nations are STILL paying a heavy price for the US illegal action.

Chile has had democratic rule for some time now. Why hasn't Iran?

18 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Yes United Nations is under United States but I agree Taliban was brutal and I was very happy they were removed and some of them sent to hell. My post never mentioned a care for the damn Taliban or murderous Saddam but rather the civilians who were caught in cross fire and hundreds of thousands killed by Americans. But you knew that anyways.

The US did not kill hundreds of thousands. Most of the casualties in Afghanistan are and have been caused by the Taliban. A lot of the rest are caused by Afghan forces.

According to the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2014)

[DogOnPorch]

This whole 1953 CIA Led Coup meme is really out-to-lunch. 

Iranians still pulled the dang coup.

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Reality.

Yes, virtually every new country freed from colonial rule had a UN supervised election which turned out to be their last.

Educate yourself. In its entire 2500 years history Iran was never a colony neither ruled by colonial rule. It was invaded by many but always got its independence back.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

The US did not kill hundreds of thousands. Most of the casualties in Afghanistan are and have been caused by the Taliban. A lot of the rest are caused by Afghan forces.

According to the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.

The US illegally invaded, committing the ultimate war crime so under international law, the US is responsible for all crimes that occur as a result of the illegal invasion.

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

This whole 1953 CIA Led Coup meme is really out-to-lunch.

That's not what happened, it was just following orders.  Really stupid misguided orders it should have known better than to follow but...at least it fessed up to it.  

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by eyeball

[CITIZEN_2015]

This 1000 page document released for first time in 64 years details the role that CIA and then US president played in 1953 coup wthout which it would have been impossible: Also how the British stole Iranian oil for decades and was unhappy with nationalism of Mosaddegh.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/64-years-later-cia-finally-releases-details-of-iranian-coup-iran-tehran-oil/

Edited June 21, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

On 6/20/2017 at 2:53 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Educate yourself. In its entire 2500 years history Iran was never a colony neither ruled by colonial rule. It was invaded by many but always got its independence back.

You are missing the point. None of those countries stuck to democracy because Democracy requires the willingness to compromise, and a tradition which ensures anyone who has the thought about sticking around after he loses an election will be ignored. There were no such traditions in former colonial countries - and there was no such tradition in Iran or in any other middle east country. So if the CIA and M16 hadn't overthrown him the odds are someone else would have, or he would have refused to cede power after losing an election.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Argus

[CITIZEN_2015]

It would have been very unlikely that Mosaddegh would have lost any free elections because he was very popular as per his success to nationalize Iranian oil against the powerful thief the British. As for someone else would have staged a coup, we can't say this as a certainly. There have been dictatorships without a democratic traditions which turned to democracy (like Greece, South American countries, Eastern European countries, ....) and I think if it wasn't for the CIA coup Iran would have been among them as well. Don't consider Iran at the same level as other Middle Eastern countries. It is by far more advanced in political awareness, science and technology, sports, movies and human resources and has a rich history of  civilization as compared to neighboring Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi A. Central Asian countries and even Egypt most of which were under Iran's (Persian) empire for centuries. More like Turkey I would say which has now a quasi democracy.

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

..... Don't consider Iran at the same level as other Middle Eastern countries. It is by far more advanced in political awareness, science and technology, sports, movies and human resources ....

 

Such was not the case 100 years ago, and not the case in 1953, otherwise Iran would have been able to develop petroleum production, transport, and export markets without British/American capital investment and technology.

[CITIZEN_2015]

2500 years ago it was an empire ruling half the known world and you say 100 years ago it was same as the camel riders in Arabian desert !!!!!!!!. 200 to 300 Years ago it defeated Ottoman empire and resisted against Russian expansionism.

Who says not. After the oil nationalization in 1953, Iranians took over their own oil industry and it it wasn't for illegal British naval blockage they would have been able to produce, transport and export too. Down with Britain or United Kingdom or whatever the **** they call themselves.

Edited June 21, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Who says not. After the oil nationalization in 1953, Iranians took over their own oil industry and it it wasn't for illegal British naval blockage they would have been able to produce, transport and export too. Down with Britain or United Kingdom or whatever the **** they call themselves.

 

I say not, otherwise they would have done so without so much foreign investment and technology.   The Royal Navy was Iran's biggest oil export customer.

"After 1953" we still find many foreigners involved with production and exploration.  

Even today, there are many hundreds of foreign oil services companies keeping Iran's petroleum industry viable:

http://iranoilgas.com/companies/listforeign?p=1

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

2500 years ago it was an empire ruling half the known world and you say 100 years ago it was same the camel riders in Arabian desert !!!!!!!!. 200 to 300 Years ago it defeated Ottoman empire and resisted against Russian expansionism.

Who says not. After the oil nationalization in 1953, Iranians took over their own oil industry and it it wasn't for illegal British naval blockage they would have been able to produce, transport and export too. Down with Britain or United Kingdom or whatever the **** they call themselves.

 

Had Iran not admired Hitler and tried to join-in on the fun going on in the USSR in 1941, perhaps Stalin and the UK would have left Iran alone.

But, alas...

[CITIZEN_2015]

13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Had Iran not admired Hitler and tried to join-in on the fun going on in the USSR in 1941, perhaps Stalin and the UK would have left Iran alone.

But, alas...

Iranian people not so much the government was cozy with Nazi Germany as both nations are Aryans though Persians were geographically in a violent area of planet and frequently invaded and captured by barbarians like Arabs and Moguls and Turks. So now they are mixed. In 1941 in fact the fresh government of Shah Mohamad Reza Pahlavi declared war on Germany after it was occupied by British and Russian. In fact they called Iran the Victory Bridge.

The 1953 coup had nothing to do with any of this. It was the British imperialism who lost a free resource (Iranian oil) in 1953 as a result of oil nationalization by Mosaddegh. They were stealing Iranian resources for decades and they lost this so they designed a devious plan to overthrow Mosaddegh government and tricked US into believing that Mesaddegh is in bed with communists or exaggerate the danger of a communist take over. The US always being a fool was fooled and staged this coup and now both are and will be paying the price for this aggression.

Edited June 21, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Iranian people not so much the government was cozy with Nazi Germany as both nations are Aryans though Persians were geographically in a violent area of planet and frequently invaded and captured by barbarians like Arabs and Moguls and Turks. So now they are mixed. In 1941 in fact the frash government of Shah Reza Pahlavi declared war on Germany after it was occupied by British and Russian. In fact they called Iran the Victory Bridge.

 

 

Uh...I'm referring to the Shah's father. Pretend like you don't know why Persia was renamed Iran. Pretend that Stalin didn't invaded Iran. 

6 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

The 1953 coup had nothing to do with any of this. It was the British imperialism who lost a free resource (Iranian oil) in 1953 as a result of oil nationalization by Mosaddegh. They were stealing Iranian resources for decades and they lost this so they designed a devious plan to overthrow Mosaddegh government and tricked US into believing that Mesaddegh is in bed with communists or exaggerate the danger of a communist take over. 

 

It has everything to do with the Persian Corridor...Lend Lease route to the Soviet Union. All that Western built infrastructure...airports...highways...oil fields...railways...etc. Mousie's deal with the Communist Tudeh Party (that had already tried to make Iran part of the USSR) only sealed his fate in the very hot Cold War environment of 1953...Stalin had just died, etc.

Edited June 21, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

And...unlike the Mullahs who went on an execution spree once they seized power, Mr Mousie was allowed to live out his remaining days in luxury house arrest rather than having his nails pulled-out in Evin Prison by the Ayatollah's goons.

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Uh...I'm referring to the Shah's father. Pretend like you don't know why Persia was renamed Iran. Pretend that Stalin didn't invaded Iran. 

 

It has everything to do with the Persian Corridor...Lend Lease route to the Soviet Union. All that Western built infrastructure...airports...highways...oil fields...railways...etc. Mousie's deal with the Communist Tudeh Party (that had already tried to make Iran part of the USSR) only sealed his fate in the very hot Cold War environment of 1953...Stalin had just died, etc.

Shah's father wanted to have Germany on his side as he was under pressure by Stalin and Churchill to give them Iran's wealth. This was politics. Iran stands for land of Aryans and Stalin alone did not invade Iran the British did too in order to use Iran as a supply route for Russia.  I have already explained the reasons for 1953 coup. It was oil and petroleum not because of what happened more than a decade earlier.

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Shah's father wanted to have Germany on his side as he was under pressure by Stalin and Churchill to give them Iran's wealth. This was politics. Iran stands for land of Aryans and Stalin alone did not invade Iran the British did too in order to use Iran as a supply route for Russia.  I have already explained the reasons for 1953 coup. It was oil and petroleum not because of what happened more than a decade earlier.

 

Apologizing for Nazis. I have you where I want you, eh?

[DogOnPorch]

Also...pretend I didn't already mention the British.

[CITIZEN_2015]

I didn't apologize for Nazis. I just tried to explain why Shah's father (also a shah) was close to Germans because the British and Soviets wanted to divide Iran and capture it. It was playing politics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Surely you are not implying that I am a Nazi are you????

No I don't have to pretend. Your post is up there as evidence. You say Stalin invaded Iran but no mention of Churchill or the British invading Iran at the very same time from the south.