DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 37 minutes ago, kactus said: Non-sequitur..... I do not think anyone disputes the the involvement of Anglo-Soviet invasion... It is rather your bizarre connecting the dots by linking Shah to Stalin that is questioned by Citizen and myself time and time again.... If anything, Shah was an ally of US and the West! Stalin...like it or not...did not want yet another Axis Power invading his turf. Go figure. Of course The Shah was pro-West. The Persian Corridor assured that. And not one single Iranian soldier wanted to see the inside of a Soviet POW camp again...no matter Mr Mossadeq's assurances that the Russians were their friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 12 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: Non-sequitur. The topic is Iran. Specifically the rewriting of history where The Shah was "installed", as you so put it...not by Stalin...but rather by Kermit Roosevelt. You're free to support such a fairy tale if you so choose. I prefer to stick to history where WW2 happened... How was it non-sequitur? This should be good for a laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 5 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: Stalin...like it or not...did not want yet another Axis Power invading his turf. Go figure. Of course The Shah was pro-West. The Persian Corridor assured that. And not one single Iranian soldier wanted to see the inside of a Soviet POW camp again...no matter Mr Mossadeq's assurances that the Russians were their friends. Non Sequitur , this is about Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: Stalin...like it or not...did not want yet another Axis Power invading his turf. Go figure. Of course The Shah was pro-West. The Persian Corridor assured that. And not one single Iranian soldier wanted to see the inside of a Soviet POW camp again...no matter Mr Mossadeq's assurances that the Russians were their friends. The connection of Mossadegh to communism to this extent because of Tudeh party is highly disputed and is used as a cover up for the US and british involvement to orchastrate the 1953 coup against Dr Mossadegh....It is a known fact that british interests i.e BP was compromised by prime minister Dr Mossadegh, who wanted to nationalise the Iran oil. The british were pissed off at this decision and decided to topple Dr Mossadegh under the pre text that he is turning Iran into communism and cosying up to Russians! Go figure.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 37 minutes ago, kactus said: The connection of Mossadegh to communism to this extent because of Tudeh party is highly disputed and is used as a cover up for the US and british involvement to orchastrate the 1953 coup against Dr Mossadegh....It is a known fact that british interests i.e BP was compromised by prime minister Dr Mossadegh, who wanted to nationalise the Iran oil. The british were pissed off at this decision and decided to topple Dr Mossadegh under the pre text that he is turning Iran into communism and cosying up to Russians! Go figure.... Highly disputed by YOU. Not historians. The Tudehs were Commies and Mousie used them to win his 'democratic election'. These were the same lovelies that tried to hand Iran over to the USSR in 1946. The ironic thing about those Tudehs was that they turned on their benefactor once the Iranian Army Coup started...hoping to get all the pie for themselves. Didn't work... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 On 2018-03-20 at 8:30 PM, kactus said: You do realise that Bahrain used to be part of Iran? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain–Iran_relations Yes. I think it should stay independent of Iran now, but with majority rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 Iran, like Russia, needs democracy - specifically, liberal democracy with rule of law and religious tolerance - but it cannot be imposed from outside. We are going to have wait this one out. The Iranians I have met have nearly all been unequivocally secular in their outlook, which is encouraging, but the rise of illiberal democracy in countries like Turkey suggests the possibility of a different and darker future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 7 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: Iran, like Russia, needs democracy - specifically, liberal democracy with rule of law and religious tolerance - but it cannot be imposed from outside. We are going to have wait this one out. The Iranians I have met have nearly all been unequivocally secular in their outlook, which is encouraging, but the rise of illiberal democracy in countries like Turkey suggests the possibility of a different and darker future. Agreed....The last thing Iranians want is yet another intervention in their affair by the West. The 1953 coup against the democratically elected prime minister of Iran is a clear example where the British and Americans had violated the thriving democracy for the sake of their own greed and oil interests....That ultimately led to the 1979 revolution and the rise of islamists....Some people here even admit that it was all because of oil and some just wash it off that Iran was getting closer to communist Russia through Dr. Mossadegh and exonerating MI6 and CIA involvement which saw the demise of democracy in Iran. Whichever way you look at it that era of intervention has played in the psyche of many Iranians and created mistrust of motives of foreign powers vis a vis oil and opportunity for genuine democracy flourishing. History taught us that and quite rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 7 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: Yes. I think it should stay independent of Iran now, but with majority rule. Independent yes but they are Shia and that's where it becomes political... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 4 hours ago, kactus said: Agreed....The last thing Iranians want is yet another intervention in their affair by the West. The 1953 coup against the democratically elected prime minister of Iran is a clear example where the British and Americans had violated the thriving democracy for the sake of their own greed and oil interests....That ultimately led to the 1979 revolution and the rise of islamists....Some people here even admit that it was all because of oil and some just wash it off that Iran was getting closer to communist Russia through Dr. Mossadegh and exonerating MI6 and CIA involvement which saw the demise of democracy in Iran. Whichever way you look at it that era of intervention has played in the psyche of many Iranians and created mistrust of motives of foreign powers vis a vis oil and opportunity for genuine democracy flourishing. History taught us that and quite rightly so. Play footsies with the Nazis...get invaded by the Commies. Poor Iran just can't win. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 22, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Play footsies with the Nazis...get invaded by the Commies. Poor Iran just can't win. All while being continually screwed over by the UK,, US ect ect ect .. Ohhhhh Iran soooooooo bad , yet the west LOVES those head lopping terrorists in Saudi Arabia. When that hypocrisy stops we can start to make some progress in the world. Why do western nations love one terrorist over another? Whats the difference between Iran and Saudi Arabia? I never hear you complain about the Saudis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, GostHacked said: All while being continually screwed over by the UK,, US ect ect ect .. Ohhhhh Iran soooooooo bad , yet the west LOVES those head lopping terrorists in Saudi Arabia. When that hypocrisy stops we can start to make some progress in the world. Why do western nations love one terrorist over another? Whats the difference between Iran and Saudi Arabia? I never hear you complain about the Saudis. Interesting that you think I support ANY Islamic sh!thole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 22, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said: Interesting that you think I support ANY Islamic sh!thole. Well, the notion goes that if you are not vocally against it, you are for it. The Saudis are more of a problem for us in the west than Iran would ever be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, GostHacked said: Well, the notion goes that if you are not vocally against it, you are for it. The Saudis are more of a problem for us in the west than Iran would ever be. Your notion does, eh? So much for your notions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 3 hours ago, GostHacked said: The Saudis are more of a problem for us in the west than Iran would ever be. If we are talking about governments not so. It is Iran government who is creating problems for the entire region (and the west's interest is the keep the region stable for an unintrrupted oil flow) by their proxies everywhere whereas the Saudis are the stabalizing force. In terms of the people (that is 99% of people excluding the rulling party) yes Iran nation is much friendlier to the west and much more westernised than Saudis. If there is a regime change in Iran then you may have the friendliest country to the west in the region who culturally also very close. A large portion of Iranians are westernised and love western culture like romance, valentine's day, parties, western music and dance, western goods and dress and many western values (unlike Saudis and many other countries like Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, UAE or Afghanistan who despise all that). 50 years of Pahlavi dynasty put its mark on the history and Iran and it is irreversible no matter what the mullahs do. Even mullahs who pretend hating the west consume western goods all of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 22, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: Your notion does, eh? So much for your notions. Let's not resort to incorrect projections that lead to a hailstorm then a locking of the thread. That should have read " The notion does, eh? So much for the notion'. That would mean you disagree with that statement, but I don't want to falsely accuse you of something you never said. I don't want to sink that low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 22, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: If we are talking about governments not so. It is Iran government who is creating problems for the entire region (and the west's interest is the keep the region stable for an unintrrupted oil flow) by their proxies everywhere whereas the Saudis are the stabalizing force. I would say that is incorrect. Iran is not the only factor that is creating problems in the region. Ignoring the intervention in Iraq, Syria, Yemen (where the Saudi's are really causing issues) with the help of western nations. I won't say Iran is NOT a problem, however I do not think they are the biggest problem in the M.E. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, GostHacked said: I would say that is incorrect. Iran is not the only factor that is creating problems in the region. Ignoring the intervention in Iraq, Syria, Yemen (where the Saudi's are really causing issues) with the help of western nations. I won't say Iran is NOT a problem, however I do not think they are the biggest problem in the M.E. Incorrect. Yes they are indeed the only factor. The Saudis are there (in Iraq, Yemen) because Iran regime STARTED the problems. If it wasn't for Iranian revolution, None of these would have heppened. Time to clean up the mess that a peanut brain farmer Carter created. Edited March 23, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: Incorrect. Yes they are indeed the only factor. The Saudis are there (in Iraq, Yemen) because Iran regime STARTED the problems. If it wasn't for Iranian revolution, None of these would have heppened. Time to clean up the mess that a peanut brain farmer Carter created. It wasn't Carter's fault. He was just being 'the nice guy'. It was the French who decided the Ayatollah should be allowed to return to Iran to steal the Revolution from the Persian people. And had the Mullahs not preached hate in Iranian mosques in regards to Persia's military cooperation with Israel, it is unlikely that the Shah would have turned into the arrest-happy semi-dictator he was near the end of his reign. Things were pretty great in Iran in the 60s-70s...there wasn't any want or need for a revolution until the Mullahs started laying on the Jew-hatred. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) But it was. If it wasn't for Carter the Shah would have cracked down on mullahs as he did in 1963 but in 1979 he was under pressure as Carter was elected on human rights. Btw, Trump hasn't done much better. There will not be a regime change by just talking about it. Edited March 23, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: But it was. If it wasn't for Carter the Shah would have cracked down on mullahs as he did in 1963 but in 1979 he was under pressure as Carter was elected on human rights. Indeed Carter knew that the situation in Iran was volatile but he was giving Shah the false hopes. Carter was part of the reason for Shah's downfall. There is a theory that Shah has served the interest of the West and it was time for him to go. Khomeini's transport by the plane from France was just a vehicle for this transition and minor detail... Look, I am with SpankyMcFarland on this one. We are where we are now.... The foundations for change in Iran has to come from within to bolster the democratic values. You cannot import western style democracy and hope miracles are achieved as we have witnessed in Iraq and Libya. Frankly, the absence of credible opposition right now provides a vacuum and I am reluctant to see the removal of the current system in Iran when the unknowns can have far more devastating consequences thereby creating divisions between ethnic groups and religions. The history tells us that the western intervention recently created more instability and wars in the region than peace. It's good business for arms manufacturers and employment. That's no brainer! But it isn't good for Iran. The balkanisation of former Yugoslavia, Iraq WMD and divisions of Shia, Sunni and Kurds and Libya are just a few legacies the West has left behind and still carrying on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Poor Ayatollah. How can he be held responsible for turning Iran into an Islamic terror state when it was clearly Jimmy Carter? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, kactus said: Indeed Carter knew that the situation in Iran was volatile but he was giving Shah the false hopes. Carter was part of the reason for Shah's downfall. There is a theory that Shah has served the interest of the West and it was time for him to go. Khomeini's transport by the plane from France was just a vehicle for this transition and minor detail... Look, I am with SpankyMcFarland on this one. We are where we are now.... The foundations for change in Iran has to come from within to bolster the democratic values. You cannot import western style democracy and hope miracles are achieved as we have witnessed in Iraq and Libya. Frankly, the absence of credible opposition right now provides a vacuum and I am reluctant to see the removal of the current system in Iran when the unknowns can have far more devastating consequences thereby creating divisions between ethnic groups and religions. The history tells us that the western intervention recently created more instability and wars in the region than peace. It's good business for arms manufacturers and employment. That's no brainer! But it isn't good for Iran. The balkanisation of former Yugoslavia, Iraq WMD and divisions of Shia, Sunni and Kurds and Libya are just a few legacies the West has left behind and still carrying on.... I agree that the change should come from within Iran but the regime is too brutal for such change to happen anytime soon. They have blocked slightest changes in 40 years even jailed or killed their own gang who wanted slightest reform. They are ready to get rid of half the population if they have to in order to survive. This is not Soviet Union in early 90's and Iran leader is no Gorbachev. Iran nation needs support and all non-military help they can get from the West. The policy of appeasement has totally failed and while the regime lasted 4 decades changng a paradise to hell on earth for their people using every trick in the world like entertaining Iran nation with promises of reforms which never materialized and those pretenting to be reformists or occupying their people with purposely created wars while destroying their lands and seas and stealing the nation's wealth for themselves, but Iran nation has become alert and has realized all that now. They are also using the Iraq civil war excuse to frighten the population from rising up, without alering to the fact that it was THEM who created chaos and civil war in Iraq without them a peaceful post-invasion transition would have very likely emerged. The question is what kind of help? I think we all agree that a ground invasion similar to Iraq should not be an option but full support for opposition groups and political pressure on the regime and full economic sanctions may just work as well to galvanize Iran nation to rise up in masses especially an oil blockage may mean that the regime may not have funds to finance their supporters and the guards to suppress Iran nation. Iran is a civilization of 2500 years history where they (Persians, Kurds, Lors, Azaris, Baluchis ) all share the love for their homeland. They lived in peace and harmony under one flag and are strongly tied to each other for centuries and extremely nationalist regardless of race and religion and they share the same values and traditions like Nowruz or Yalda and same history too. For example when the Turks took over Azeri province the whole population left the cities in protest so the turks left too back home as there was no point to occupy empty towns and cities. Even the Arabs fought on Iran side when Iraqi Arabs invaded province of Khuzestan in 1980. Most of Kurds also fought on the side of Iran. The same scenario that happened in Iraq is very unlikely to happen in Iran. Edited March 23, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: If we are talking about governments not so. It is Iran government who is creating problems for the entire region (and the west's interest is the keep the region stable for an unintrrupted oil flow) by their proxies everywhere whereas the Saudis are the stabalizing force. I would disagree with this opinion. Going into Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, etc, did the opposite of stabilizing. I believe that the more instability there is, the more the major industries like the military industrial complex and the government friendly contractors, like Halliburton make more money. These companies rely on instability and war. Look at all of the weapons that are being sold to the Arab countries. The more dangerous Iran is seen to be and the more conflict between Iran and the Arabs is created, the more $$$ the industries around war will make. Saudi is anything but a 'stabilizing force'. They are the ones funding groups like ISIS and Al Quaeda. They are the ones who are carpet bombing Yemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 9 hours ago, kactus said: Indeed Carter knew that the situation in Iran was volatile but he was giving Shah the false hopes. Carter was part of the reason for Shah's downfall. There is a theory that Shah has served the interest of the West and it was time for him to go. Khomeini's transport by the plane from France was just a vehicle for this transition and minor detail... Exactly. The Shah wanted to nationalize the oil and give the profits to the Iranian people. He was no longer valuable to the West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.