Author Topic: Iran promises "harm and pain" to US  (Read 2502 times)

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #105 on: March 09, 2006, 06:13:41 PM »
I hate to piss off the Muslims.  But, I've already slept with the 70 Virgins.

Karaya
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #106 on: March 09, 2006, 06:31:33 PM »
It really stems back to the 1950s, SoA2. Iran was, for all practical purposes, occupied by the Allies after WWII, without being an enemy. The British and the US had two purposes: They wanted the oil and its location as a buffer and place to monitor (spy) on the Soviet Union.

The British, as they had done in other oil colonizations of Arab nations, wanted the oil, but didn't want to actually pay for it, or share the revenues with countries or people whose land it came from. They just took it (well, they paid about 1% of the going rate) by bribing the leaders, and/or installing leaders who would repel uprisings by the people.

Iran was a democracy with a parliamentary government. The Shah replaced his father, who was pretty much a despot. His son was installed, but he wasn't the brightest guy politically. He was prone to indecision and became reliant on deception and strongarm tactics to maintain power. He knew that the US and the British would butter his bread better than the Russians, so he was easily led.

He was violating the Iranian constitution, since the power was not centered with the King, but with the Prime Minister and parliament. He imprisoned, tortured, expelled and murdered those who wanted Iran to remain a democracy, not a dictatorship, and also Islamic clerics who wanted to maintain their influence over the people also. And they were not 'radical' Islamics, at least not yet. We needed a few years to turn them into radicals.

The CIA and British orchestrated a coup of the premier, who was constitutionally in power, to strengthen the Shah's position. The premier and the people of Iran wanted the British to pay a reasonable amount for the oil and invest more into the building the economy of Iran, than just taking the oil. Negotiations were stalled, until it was realized that it was cheaper to overthrow the premier, than pay a fair price for the oil.

The CIA even went so far as to bomb a mosque to fuel tensions. I know that seems shocking, but, unfortunately, it is how the world works, sometimes.

In the 1960s, many Iranians emigrated to the US to escape the Shah's police state. The US played both sides of the coin - allowing the immigration to maintain a 'humanitarian' public image, while simultaneously helping the Shah remain in power by his brutal means. The problem came when Iranians learned of the double-cross by the US and British a decade later from newspaper reports from leaked CIA information.

Those documents are (reluctantly) unclassified now.

Here>> is the summary.

It's simply amazing how history repeats and repeats. Ironically, it was the NYT that broke the story and fought for decades to get the confirming documents de-classified.

And the ultimate irony is that the CIA conceived and executed a plan to bomb a mosque to give the Shah a plausible excuse to take a hard line against terrorists, who bomb mosques. Unfriggin'believable, isn't it?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2006, 06:41:40 PM by Rolex »

Offline dmf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Re: Re: Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #107 on: March 09, 2006, 08:23:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Sure... and astrology and tarot cards and Revelation and any number of whack job predictions of the future. :rolleyes:


They say a lot of his predictions have come true. Personally I'm starting to believe it when my mom says the end is near, she hasn't been wrong so far in teh 24 years that I've been alive.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #108 on: March 09, 2006, 08:40:25 PM »
I'll promise "marm and pain" if you're at my house for breakfast.

(That'd be marmelade and bread.)

Deth To Somebodyeeka!
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #109 on: March 09, 2006, 08:55:16 PM »
Toad....speaking of grub....when's the next lunch?

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #110 on: March 09, 2006, 08:59:46 PM »
We are overdue... what day?

I'll have to "check my schedule" like a real working stiff now though.

Have your people call my people.  ;)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #111 on: March 09, 2006, 09:24:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rolex
It really stems back to the 1950s, SoA2. Iran was, for all practical purposes, occupied by the Allies after WWII, without being an enemy. The British and the US had two purposes: They wanted the oil and its location as a buffer and place to monitor (spy) on the Soviet Union.

The British, as they had done in other oil colonizations of Arab nations, wanted the oil, but didn't want to actually pay for it, or share the revenues with countries or people whose land it came from. They just took it (well, they paid about 1% of the going rate) by bribing the leaders, and/or installing leaders who would repel uprisings by the people.

Iran was a democracy with a parliamentary government. The Shah replaced his father, who was pretty much a despot. His son was installed, but he wasn't the brightest guy politically. He was prone to indecision and became reliant on deception and strongarm tactics to maintain power. He knew that the US and the British would butter his bread better than the Russians, so he was easily led.

He was violating the Iranian constitution, since the power was not centered with the King, but with the Prime Minister and parliament. He imprisoned, tortured, expelled and murdered those who wanted Iran to remain a democracy, not a dictatorship, and also Islamic clerics who wanted to maintain their influence over the people also. And they were not 'radical' Islamics, at least not yet. We needed a few years to turn them into radicals.

The CIA and British orchestrated a coup of the premier, who was constitutionally in power, to strengthen the Shah's position. The premier and the people of Iran wanted the British to pay a reasonable amount for the oil and invest more into the building the economy of Iran, than just taking the oil. Negotiations were stalled, until it was realized that it was cheaper to overthrow the premier, than pay a fair price for the oil.

The CIA even went so far as to bomb a mosque to fuel tensions. I know that seems shocking, but, unfortunately, it is how the world works, sometimes.

In the 1960s, many Iranians emigrated to the US to escape the Shah's police state. The US played both sides of the coin - allowing the immigration to maintain a 'humanitarian' public image, while simultaneously helping the Shah remain in power by his brutal means. The problem came when Iranians learned of the double-cross by the US and British a decade later from newspaper reports from leaked CIA information.

Those documents are (reluctantly) unclassified now.

Here>> is the summary.

It's simply amazing how history repeats and repeats. Ironically, it was the NYT that broke the story and fought for decades to get the confirming documents de-classified.

And the ultimate irony is that the CIA conceived and executed a plan to bomb a mosque to give the Shah a plausible excuse to take a hard line against terrorists, who bomb mosques. Unfriggin'believable, isn't it?


TY for the history.  I read some of this but the rest is new to me.  Not that Iran has ever been my main focus of study, only peripherally as part of my study of the history of the region and the rise and fall of cultures there.

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #112 on: March 09, 2006, 09:58:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by babek-
2. The religion
Once Iran was conquered by the arabs. But while other nations who suffered the same fate were assimilated and gave up their culture and language and became arabs (like egypt or syria) the iranians fought a bitter war and were successful. The iranian language was not replaced by the arab language. The arabs were finally driven out of iran.  And even the religion was transformed by mixing elements of the old iranian religion with islam, creating the shi ´ite islam of today.
Never asked yourself why most of the shi ´ites live in the borders of the old sassanid iranian empire ? Made of today Iran, the eastern province of Iraq, and the western province of Afghanistan - which were once part of the Empire? The old sassanid capital is SE Bagdad.
And even the Mullahs of Shi ´ite islam have the same style of cloth like the old iranian priests.
There is great hate between sunnites and shi ´ites. Both sides consider each other as heretics. That was one reason why Iran supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan long before these creatures were defined as bad guys. In these days the Taliban were officially supported by the sunnite Pakistan.
And today the sunnite arab Al kaida is targeting shi ´ites in Iraq - defining them as heretics.

So dont make the mistake by putting these two groups together as allies.


The only thing I find to dispute is your origin of "Sunni" vs "Shi ' ite" Muslims.  The religious of Persia were Zoroastrians.  Not Islamic.  You cannot combine the two.  The Shi ' ites derive their name from the Arabic word shi ' at meaning 'party' or 'faction' of Ali, who was both cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad.  The Shi ' ites refused to recognize the claims to authority of the first three Caliphs who succeeded Muhammad, a refusal which precipitated civil war in the early Islamic community.  The Sunnis on the other hand recognize and revere the early caliphs and attribute no special status to Ali and his decendants.  It has nothing to do with the prevailing religious beliefs of Persia before they were conquered by the Arabs and made part of the Dar al Islam, and converted to the Islamic faith.  I agree though, with your final statement.  Dont make the mistake of trying to put them together as allies.  Note the current sectarian violence in Iraq as proof that old feelings die hard.

3. Iran during Arab-Israeli War
Someone wrote that he could find march orders of the iranian army to support the arabs.
In fact Iran delivered to Israel oil during Israel-Arab war. The Iranians always considered the sunnite arabs as the enemy. So the construction of an iranian-arab-alliance is ridiculous.
The Shah of Iran made fun of arab guests by welcoming them in official visits in Iran in front of the iranian honor guard which was equipped with israeli UZIs.
Arabs and iranians will never be allies.
Best example was during the Kuwait-Gulf War. While many arab countries sent volonteers to Saddam not a single Iranian supported them (with the exception of the MEK-terrorist, iranian traitors who fought side by side with arabs in iran-Iraq War and still live today in iraq in their military bases).


Obviously I was wrong in my beliefs about the Iran of that period.  Rolex's post was very enlightening, as is your view.  I have no problem with being educated when I'm wrong.  Thank you for sharing.


4. The embassy thing
When the USA and GB destroyed the iranian democracy in the 50ties (Operation Ajay) their command post was the US embassy in Iran.
From there the democratic prime minister Mossadegh who had kicked out the Shah to italian exile in an unbloody revolution, was deposed.
That was a tracig day for Iran, which had managed to create a democracy by itself.

Then there came the decades of Shah-terror. With his Gestapo-like secret police, the SAVAK, he killed tenthousands of iranians per year. In the infamoud Evin-Prison in Teheran thousands of democrats were tortured and killed.

It was well known that the command centre of Operation Ajax was the US embassy in Teheran.

So - when finally the bloody revolution came and the people forced the Shah to leave their country they feared that the history would repeat itself. That another Operation would become reality and the Sha and his terror regime would be reinstalled.

That was one of the reasons why they attacked the embassy. Definitvly a wrong action but not a surprise.


More blanks filled in.  Thanks again.



5 Iran and wars
In the last 100 years Iran has not attacked another country. In contrary it was attacked.
In WW1 it declared itself neutral. And was attacked
In WW2 it was pro-german and declared itself neutral. It was occupied by UK and USSR, the Shah was deposed and his son was installed and it was forced to join the allies and declare war to Germany.
After WW2 foreign organisations destroyed our democracy and installed a terror-regime which tortured Iran for 30 years and the result was the next terror regime of the Mullahs
Iraq - in those days under control of the "good guy" Saddam attacked Iran and an 8 year war followed, in which Iraq used Gas-weapons. 130.000 iranian soldiers died because of the effect of these gas weapons.

But again: Iran has not attacked another country in the last 100 years.


I never said Saddam was a "good guy".  What I said was, you didnt see anyone jumping in to defend Iran.  It was pretty clear even then that Saddam was a despot and a cruel dictator.  He used the confusion in Iran to his benefit and rose quickly to prominence in Iraq.  He used the fact that Iran's military equipment was mostly American and they could no longer get parts, along with the fact that the military in Iran was badly disorganized to further his plans for invasion.  When two of the richest oil producing countries in the world go to war, the rest of the world wants the war over with quickly.  Who to side with?  The dictator or the religious zealot?  Most people figured the dictator would be easier to deal with, and sided with Saddam.  Nobody wanted to side with Iran.  Perhaps, given some of the information above, I can see why they would be leery of outside "assistance", but how many Iranians were needlessly killed by Saddam when just a little bit of tolerance on their part would have opened the door to alot of aid from outside?  How many possible allies are turned aside today because of the rhetoric coming out of Tehran?  If they keep talking the talk they are now, they are going to end up buried in a big pile of rubble.

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #113 on: March 09, 2006, 10:24:11 PM »
You said Saddam was easier to deal with than Kohmeni.....the facts say you are wrong.

Saddam invaded Kuwait.....Iran didn't.

We invaded Iraq to deal with Saddam, as of now, we have not invaded Iran.

Offline MrCoffee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 934
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #114 on: March 10, 2006, 12:42:19 AM »

Offline MrCoffee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 934
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #115 on: March 10, 2006, 12:45:12 AM »

Offline Delirium

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7276
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #116 on: March 10, 2006, 07:28:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Skuzzy
How many fish can the trolls catch today?  


Lock the thread...

Besides, its not like it matters how any of us feel about the situation anyway, unless something dramatic happens, people are going to die before their time. Do any of us really have a say?

Yes, you can take my above statement both for, and against military action. I'm undecided... it is a theoretical 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.

None of us know...
Delirium
80th "Headhunters"
Retired AH Trainer (but still teach the P38 selectively)

I found an air leak in my inflatable sheep and plugged the hole! Honest!

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #117 on: March 10, 2006, 07:36:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by babek-
1. Persia / Iran Iran as an non-arab country

Its IRAN - not PERSIA.

In its 2500 years of existance we never called our country Persia but Iran, which means "Land of the Aryans".
It was called Persia by ancient greek historicans because the dynasty of the Achemenids (Cyrus, Xerxes; Darius and so on) came from that province.
While it was called Persia by foreigners until the 20th century the iranians themself never called it so.

It would be the same if I would call the USA "Texas" because the ruling dynasty is from this province.


2. The religion
Once Iran was conquered by the arabs. But while other nations who suffered the same fate were assimilated and gave up their culture and language and became arabs (like egypt or syria) the iranians fought a bitter war and were successful. The iranian language was not replaced by the arab language. The arabs were finally driven out of iran.  And even the religion was transformed by mixing elements of the old iranian religion with islam, creating the shi �ite islam of today.
Never asked yourself why most of the shi �ites live in the borders of the old sassanid iranian empire ? Made of today Iran, the eastern province of Iraq, and the western province of Afghanistan - which were once part of the Empire? The old sassanid capital is SE Bagdad.
And even the Mullahs of Shi �ite islam have the same style of cloth like the old iranian priests.
There is great hate between sunnites and shi �ites. Both sides consider each other as heretics. That was one reason why Iran supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan long before these creatures were defined as bad guys. In these days the Taliban were officially supported by the sunnite Pakistan.
And today the sunnite arab Al kaida is targeting shi �ites in Iraq - defining them as heretics.

So dont make the mistake by putting these two groups together as allies.

3. Iran during Arab-Israeli War
Someone wrote that he could find march orders of the iranian army to support the arabs.
In fact Iran delivered to Israel oil during Israel-Arab war. The Iranians always considered the sunnite arabs as the enemy. So the construction of an iranian-arab-alliance is ridiculous.
The Shah of Iran made fun of arab guests by welcoming them in official visits in Iran in front of the iranian honor guard which was equipped with israeli UZIs.
Arabs and iranians will never be allies.
Best example was during the Kuwait-Gulf War. While many arab countries sent volonteers to Saddam not a single Iranian supported them (with the exception of the MEK-terrorist, iranian traitors who fought side by side with arabs in iran-Iraq War and still live today in iraq in their military bases).

4. The embassy thing
When the USA and GB destroyed the iranian democracy in the 50ties (Operation Ajay) their command post was the US embassy in Iran.
From there the democratic prime minister Mossadegh who had kicked out the Shah to italian exile in an unbloody revolution, was deposed.
That was a tracig day for Iran, which had managed to create a democracy by itself.

Then there came the decades of Shah-terror. With his Gestapo-like secret police, the SAVAK, he killed tenthousands of iranians per year. In the infamoud Evin-Prison in Teheran thousands of democrats were tortured and killed.

It was well known that the command centre of Operation Ajax was the US embassy in Teheran.

So - when finally the bloody revolution came and the people forced the Shah to leave their country they feared that the history would repeat itself. That another Operation would become reality and the Sha and his terror regime would be reinstalled.

That was one of the reasons why they attacked the embassy. Definitvly a wrong action but not a surprise.


5 Iran and wars
In the last 100 years Iran has not attacked another country. In contrary it was attacked.
In WW1 it declared itself neutral. And was attacked
In WW2 it was pro-german and declared itself neutral. It was occupied by UK and USSR, the Shah was deposed and his son was installed and it was forced to join the allies and declare war to Germany.
After WW2 foreign organisations destroyed our democracy and installed a terror-regime which tortured Iran for 30 years and the result was the next terror regime of the Mullahs
Iraq - in those days under control of the "good guy" Saddam attacked Iran and an 8 year war followed, in which Iraq used Gas-weapons. 130.000 iranian soldiers died because of the effect of these gas weapons.

But again: Iran has not attacked another country in the last 100 years.


He shoots... he scores!

Good post.

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #118 on: March 10, 2006, 11:37:48 AM »
Babek,
Thanks for your spin on Iranian history.  Sounds reasonable to me.

So, whats up with the Iranian president talking such harsh smack about Israel, Europe, UN and and the USA?

Do the common people in Iran feel so militantly towards the world as does their president?  

Would Israel be justified in defending itself against Iranian beligerance before it is attacked, rather then afterwards when there might not be an Israel to retaliate?
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Iran promises "harm and pain" to US
« Reply #119 on: March 10, 2006, 11:40:21 AM »
Ya know... they heard the "Axis of Evil" speech too.

They're not stupid. They saw what happened to Iraq. They will be more prepared.

**** happens when you telegraph a punch.
sand