Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CAVY on November 20, 2004, 09:51:18 AM
-
I remember 25 years ago...when a pansy named Jimmy Carter was president of the USA...Iran began what we now call terrorism against the USA, when they kidnapped 52 american hostages from the embassy in Tehran.....Wel, now we've come full circle...During the Reagan and Bush years they kept themselves out of the limelight, due mainly to the consequences they would have suffered in the event they tried to cause problems for the USA or it's allies.....Now we are faced with the most disturbing threat from a rouge nation, that frankly makes me uncomfortable....Nuclear Weapons....During the Clinton years while he was busy doing things in the whitehouse that are deplorable..He goes and sends Aunt Bee Madelyn Albright to deal with the North Koreans..that eventually led to them gaining all of the technology for Nuclear weapons...and them distibuting such technology like Yankee yearbooks to any takers on the market.. Iran being one of them leading them to become A#1 threat to the US and its allies.. Thank God George W. Bush is at the helm and not DO CHO PHAN John Kerry
-
Yup. *Takes a sip of beer*
-
Originally posted by CAVY
Iran began what we now call terrorism against the USA, when they kidnapped 52 american hostages from the embassy in Tehran.....
How about adding the reasons which did lead to that hostage crisis?
Without knowing the backgrounds what happened in Iran you shouldn't make any conclusions.
Shah's actions, with aid from US, terrorized his own country and created the basis for "coup d'etat" and US hostages were just a tools in this overtake.
Basically you could say terrorism in Iran begun when Shah and US terrorized Iranian people first and couldn't handle the results of their own actions.
-
Originally posted by Staga
How about adding the reasons which did lead to that hostage crisis?
Without knowing the backgrounds what happened in Iran you shouldn't make any conclusions.
Shah's actions, with aid from US, terrorized his own country and created the basis for "coup d'etat" and US hostages were just a tools in this overtake.
Basically you could say terrorism in Iran begun when Shah and US terrorized Iranian people first and couldn't handle the results of their own actions.
That's a pretty big load of manure there Staga. May be a while before you're free from the stench.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
May be a while before you're free from the stench.
Oh the irony...
-
Originally posted by Staga
How about adding the reasons which did lead to that hostage crisis?
Without knowing the backgrounds what happened in Iran you shouldn't make any conclusions.
Shah's actions, with aid from US, terrorized his own country and created the basis for "coup d'etat" and US hostages were just a tools in this overtake.
Basically you could say terrorism in Iran begun when Shah and US terrorized Iranian people first and couldn't handle the results of their own actions.
We're are you getting your history from???
-
Reza Pulavi was a mean sob, yes. SAVAK of course wasnt very nice. Yes the usa did protect the shah after his little medicalk trip. However I dont think it was terribly nice or smart of France to host and support khameni as they did either as he subjected the Iraians to just another type of terror as the revolution ran its course to clerical dictatorship....
-
Originally posted by AKIron
That's a pretty big load of manure there Staga. May be a while before you're free from the stench.
Sorry Ak, you are wrong. The shah of iran was an american puppet during the cold war era. Iran, I suppose had some sort of strategic importance, possibly oil, possibly its locatin, or both. The shah of iran maintained control over the vast number of differing religiuos clans, much the same way Saddam did in Iraq, and just the same way as the US is doing in Iraq now. Brutal supression of those that do or will oppose the interests of the occupying forces. The shah was hated by the majority of the muslim people in and out of iran, and Iran, was the first taste the muslims had of its forced exported 'democracy', and the US became the Devil tot he muslim people.
Lets not dilute the issues here, the US has been looking to capture and control the muslims oil since about 1970. They are doing it now. It is deemed urgent by those that are running the show now, not necessarily Bush, but probably Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. I believe that they believe they are doing what is best for national interest of the USA and maybe they are. I dunno. But the US military will be in the middle east until the oil bearing countries govt's are all friendly to the US interests. (until the terrorist are all dead).
-
Putting the Shah in power was not democracy, he was a hereditary monarch. The situation was nothing like we are doing in Iraq where we want the people to vote and decide for themselves. The only people we are by your words "brutally opressing" in Iraq are those who want to blow up and shoot up the polling places next year and kill the voters in order to stop the Iraqi people having a democracy... Your defense of these criminals as poor opressed freedom fighters is beyond ridiculous, its lunatic...
-
People is this thread should google the following words: Mohammed Mossadegh 1953 CIA
Basically Britain and US overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh (who had just nationalised the oil, funnily enough) and installed their dictator puppet, the Shah Reza Pahlavi.
So basically, if you're going to blame Iranian radicalism on anybody, it really is the US and UK.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
People is this thread should google the following words: Mohammed Mossadegh 1953 CIA
Basically Britain and US overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh (who had just nationalised the oil, funnily enough) and installed their dictator puppet, the Shah Reza Pahlavi.
So basically, if you're going to blame Iranian radicalism on anybody, it really is the US and UK.
True on most counts except that I say France did nobody a favor by providing khameni a safe and secure base so he could wait out the shas reign and assume power. On that account France was a guilty of the current situation as anyone considering they sheltered the man who truly radicalized the otherwise reasonable revolution against the shah. Basically what I have heard from several Irianian friends who were there before and during the revolution was that in the beggining of the revolution the situation was more free and many voices came out to express their positions openly for the first time in a long time. Howver khameni and his allies under his leadership started taking them out and banning them one by one until it was just another absolutist terror government with clerics at the top instead of the shah and the security forces. So considering that one really cant give the French a pass on this one, they protected the man who made the Iran situation pracxtically as bad as before under the shah except that this new government now hated the west and caused global terrorism and regional instability. If the accounts fromm y friends are accurate then this was not neccesarily a foregone conclusion at the start of the revoltion.
-
Its very easy to pick the embassy-hostage event out of the whole context for an example how barbaric and terroristic all iranians are.
But you have to see the whole history which led to this event.
During WW2 the neutral Iran has been invaded and occupied by soviets and british forces, because the Shah of Iran Reza Khan refused to join the allies and declare war to the German Reich.
The relationship between the German Reich and Iran were good - and was no reason to declare a war to this country.
After the allies invaded Iran, they deposed the Shah and replaced him with his weak son, Reza II, who became a puppet of the Allies.
Promptly Iran became a member of the Allies and declared war to Germany. Iran was used as a supply base for the Soviets.
After WW2 Iran became a friend of the USA - and in these first decade it was a real friendship.
The USA were a "new" nation in this area. Unlike nations like England, France or Russia there were no diplomatic damage done to Iran by the USA.
The USA helped Iran by forcing the USSR-occupation forces to leave iranian territory after WW2 and also they supported Iran when they attacked and destroyed the first Kurdish nation, which was built in the soviet occupation area - the Kurdish Republik of Mahabad.
The soviets didnt acted when imperial iranian troops marched to the capital of this kurdish country, arresting the whole kurdish government and executed them in public after a short military trial.
The USA and the americans who worked in Iran impressed the iranians with their way of life and their democracy.
And so many young intellectual iranians, who had visited european and american universities and adopted the US way of life were more than happy, when the Prime Minister of Iran, Mr. Mossadegh, managed to depose the Shah in an unbloody revolution and sent him to italian exile.
That was the time when Iran could have become the most important stabilizing factor in the region.
It was a chance to create a democratic Iran - and this democracy would have built not by foreigners, but the Iranians themself.
But this chance failed.
The british and the US intelligence service deposed Mossadegh and put again the Shah on "power".
The US command centre of this operation was the embassy of the USA in Teheran. (And also in 1979 the CIA command centre was in this embassy).
With US help the SAVAK became a monster. This secret police of the Shah killed in the years that followed the deposal of Mossadeh tenhousands of Iranians - year by year.
Many of them just dissappeared.
The lucky one, who had relatives in powerful positions, were able to flee from Iran.
But most of them became victims of the terror regime of the Shah.
The Shah himself was considered a puppet of the USA.
And so the hate started to grow. Also the democratic forces in Iran had severe losses, because their prominent people were killed by the SAVAK.
So the radical elements - those who always fought in terroristic ways - like the communist Tudeh-partymembers and the radical islamists survived, because they were "trained" in acting with the SAVAK.
This terror lasted decades. And finally in 1979 there came the bloody revolution in Iran.
It was a time of total madness, where most of the Iranians only had the wish to end the terror regime of the Shah.
They forced the Shah to leave Iran and Ajatollah Khomeini came back to Iran to build a new iran - the Islamic Republic.
And all the time the people feared that the same could happen what happened after Mossadegh deposed the Shah in the 50ties: That the USA could start an operation to depose Khomeini and bring the Shah back to power.
The US embassy was defined as the CIA-command centre - especially by the students of the Teheran universities, who finally attacked it and took the hostages.
Most of the people didnt knew that one terror regime - the one of the Shah - was finally replaced by another one - the one of the Mullahs.
Ayatollah Khomeini - although very charismatic - was in the middle of an innerpolitical fighting for the power of Iran.
And many people didnt see what a dangerous man he was. Not only the iranians, who were so glad that the terror-regime of the Shah had ended and wished that he could continue the work of Mossadeh.
Also President Carters advisors called Khomeini "a second Ghandi who shouldnt be stopped".
That this "Ghandi" would build the next terror regime, which was responsible for the death of a million iranians wasnt seen in these days.
In these days the Iranians wanted to create their own democratic country. Many political factions were struggling bitterly how the new Iran should look like.
The one with the most power was the group of the Khomeini followers, but there were also many other factions.
And then something happened which ended any discussions: The Arabs attacked and tried to invade iran.
Saddam - in these days a nice friend of the civilized western nations - started the Iran-Iraq-War which lasted 8 long years.
Many of you think that the iranians consider Israel as the biggest enemy of Iran, but its not Isral but the arabs.
The innerpolitical fightings stopped immedeately.
And so - ironicly it was Saddam who gave with his attack against Iran Ayatollah Khomeini the whole solidarity of all iranian factions. He united all Iranians who had only the goal to kick the arabs out of Iran as their ancestors did centuries ago.
And so Khomeini could stabilize his terror-regime in Iran.
But today many thing in Iran have chanced. The mullahs were already loosing their power and democracy was growing again in Iran.
Then 9/11 happened and the stupid Axis-of-Evil Speach of Bush helped again the Mullahs to stabilize their power.
The mullahs know that they are loosing the inner political fightings against the iranian democratic powers - so they indeed need something or someone to help them.
I am totally convinced that the iranians will replace the mullahregime with a democratic system made by iranians within the next 5 years.
But if there is an attack against Iran by foreigners then we would have the same setback we had when England and the USA destroyed the democracy in Iran in the 50ties and replaced it by a terroristic regime.
-
Nice writeup babek, are you Iranian?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nice writeup babek, are you Iranian?
nice writing..to bad it makes no sence
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nice writeup babek, are you Iranian?
Yes - a part of my family (especially all of them who were officers in the imperial iranian army) had to leave Iran during the revolution.
So I live today in Germany.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Reza Pulavi was a mean sob, yes. SAVAK of course wasnt very nice. Yes the usa did protect the shah after his little medicalk trip. However I dont think it was terribly nice or smart of France to host and support khameni as they did either as he subjected the Iraians to just another type of terror as the revolution ran its course to clerical dictatorship....
Too bad you were not in France with your cristal ball in the 70's
-
Originally posted by CAVY
nice writing..to bad it makes no sence
Having troubles comprehending? Babek has posted this same detailed explanation in past threads. It's spot on.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
That's a pretty big load of manure there Staga. May be a while before you're free from the stench.
Really? Somehow I expected that you'd prove my points wrong; just answering "Big load of manure" isn't enough.
Sometimes I wonder what is the level of knowledge of world's history in US: it seems like it's usually pretty low; just like in this case.
_____________________________ ___
Originally posted by Cavy
nice writing..to bad it makes no sence
Same goes to you; you might want to read at least something about world history before throwing those oh so intelligent "oneliners".
If you say "to bad it makes no sense" your opinion is worth of ****; if you would continue that sentence with "because..." someone could actually read your opinion about the issue.
-
Originally posted by CAVY
nice writing..to bad it makes no sence
You mispelled 'sense'.
-
It makes perfect sense, and is true, though biased to one particular viewpoint. Primarily, I would say that EVERY regime in Iran has been tyrannical; you can not pick and choose the "good" ones or the "bad" ones.
-
*sits in his Texas Chair and listens intently to the Bashing..and shakes his head*
Heard one time something about opinions....Butts...and stinking. I'm older now and it's all a bit fuzzy....but I'm sure it will come to me.
Continue:lol
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Putting the Shah in power was not democracy, he was a hereditary monarch. The situation was nothing like we are doing in Iraq where we want the people to vote and decide for themselves. The only people we are by your words "brutally opressing" in Iraq are those who want to blow up and shoot up the polling places next year and kill the voters in order to stop the Iraqi people having a democracy... Your defense of these criminals as poor opressed freedom fighters is beyond ridiculous, its lunatic...
Grun..as you are going to painfully see in the next cupple of years, there is only one government that works in Iraq. And it aint gonna be a democratic one. Saddam Hussien was in power for 20 + years. Call him what you want, but that fact alone is testimony to his political savvy and what it takes to run an orderly Iraq. Saddam brutally eliminated his enemies, just as the US is brutally eliminating the new govts enemies. There is no difference.
The simple fact that the US has to kill off, by its own admission, tens of thousands of insurgents, in order to hold peaceful elections, is so rediculously oxymoronic, that I cant even find words to describe it.
We are there for the oil, we are going to kill all that will stand in our way of getting the oil, and we are not going home until the oil is secure. Cut and paste.
-
The difference is that they are enemies of the Iraqi's by their own choice. They can be part of the Democratic process if they like, but since they are thugs and murderers, they know they have no chance in an election. Do not blame their actions on the US or the Iraqi's.
-
I like New England Clam Chowder. Saltines and a Dr. Pepper.
Liz...Call it a hunch...but no matter what the argument..there are those here that will make it the U.S. fault.
Could be wrong though:lol
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
The shah of iran maintained control over the vast number of differing religiuos clans, much the same way Saddam did in Iraq, and just the same way as the US is doing in Iraq now. Brutal supression of those that do or will oppose the interests of the occupying forces.
WH, I am really starting to think you are the reincarnation of GS. The bovine scat your spewing is remarkably similar.
What the US is doing in Iraq now doesnt even begin to compare to those other instances.
Fist of all the insurgants/combatants are the extreme minority. Making up a very very very small portion of the population. And I have seen plenty of newsclips of Iraqis over there being critical of the US and nothing at all happening to them.
The only ones I see being brutally supressed are the ones kidnapping and beheading innocents, indescriminantly blowing things up both military and civilian targets. and those shooting at US.
And I'll tell ya what. if you were to pull a knife or a gun on me I'd "Brutally supress" you too
Bottom line is those being "Brutally supressed" in Iraq deserve to be brutally supressed.
If anything they were the brutal supressors
executing,beheading ,cutting arms hands and fingers off or ripping the toungues from the mouths of anyone who dissagreed with them.
As is usual with the posts I've read of yours as of late.
They are short on substance and long on unfactual rhetoric
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
The simple fact that the US has to kill off, by its own admission, tens of thousands of insurgents, in order to hold peaceful elections, is so rediculously oxymoronic, that I cant even find words to describe it.
We are there for the oil, we are going to kill all that will stand in our way of getting the oil, and we are not going home until the oil is secure. Cut and paste.
Lets see your source
Last I heard in Falluja there were originally an estimated 3,000 insurgents, Around 1,000 were killed, around another 1,000 were captured and it is assumed around another 1,000 left before and during the fighting.
How does that equate to tens of thousands?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I like New England Clam Chowder. Saltines and a Dr. Pepper.
Liz...Call it a hunch...but no matter what the argument..there are those here that will make it the U.S. fault.
Could be wrong though:lol
Hey, redtop. No fair being the poodle yapping behind the big dog.
Lets hear your opinion. Why are we in iraq? Try to use the official reasons to back up your justification. E.g. WMD's, etc.
I find it curious that while we were building up to invade Iraq, N Korea was standing upon the hill screaming that it had Nukes and it was gonna use them unless demands were met. How curious that we choose to go into Iraq? N Korea knew full well what was going on and had no fear whatsoever of being invaded by the US.
As the Perpretators of this great costly hoax were drumming up 'dan rather' style evidence to fool the US into capturing oil for dick cheney, the N koreans were admitting to the same evidence step for step, no US invasion of Korea.
I say, we are in Iraq for the worlds second largest oil reserve, and exclusive rights to that oil for dick cheneys former company, Haliburton. I am not saying that is good or bad. We all beneifit from cheap energy here in the states. But lets call it as it is and quit *****footing around. *****footing is getting US troops killed.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Really? Somehow I expected that you'd prove my points wrong; just answering "Big load of manure" isn't enough.
Sometimes I wonder what is the level of knowledge of world's history in US: it seems like it's usually pretty low; just like in this case.
_____________________________ ___
Same goes to you; you might want to read at least something about world history before throwing those oh so intelligent "oneliners".
If you say "to bad it makes no sense" your opinion is worth of ****; if you would continue that sentence with "because..." someone could actually read your opinion about the issue.
OOOO that hurts...
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
You mispelled 'sense'.
yeah I saw that but it was to late
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Hey, redtop. No fair being the poodle yapping behind the big dog.
Lets hear your opinion. Why are we in iraq? Try to use the official reasons to back up your justification. E.g. WMD's, etc.
I find it curious that while we were building up to invade Iraq, N Korea was standing upon the hill screaming that it had Nukes and it was gonna use them unless demands were met. How curious that we choose to go into Iraq? N Korea knew full well what was going on and had no fear whatsoever of being invaded by the US.
As the Perpretators of this great costly hoax were drumming up 'dan rather' style evidence to fool the US into capturing oil for dick cheney, the N koreans were admitting to the same evidence step for step, no US invasion of Korea.
I say, we are in Iraq for the worlds second largest oil reserve, and exclusive rights to that oil for dick cheneys former company, Haliburton. I am not saying that is good or bad. We all beneifit from cheap energy here in the states. But lets call it as it is and quit *****footing around. *****footing is getting US troops killed.
I like poodles...they have curly hair and yap big. They also give ole widow women someone to talk to , who don't look at em funny when they have their teeth out.:lol
I'm more like a Chijuajua (sp?)..I like Taco Bell and I'm a smart a** .
-
>>I remember 25 years ago...when a pansy named Jimmy Carter was president of the USA...Iran began what we now call terrorism against the USA, when they kidnapped 52 american hostages from the embassy in Tehran.....Wel, now we've come full circle...During the Reagan and Bush years they kept themselves out of the limelight, due mainly to the consequences they would have suffered in the event they tried to cause problems for the USA or it's allies.....Now we are faced with the most disturbing threat from a rouge nation, that frankly makes me <<
A history major you are not.
The Iran problem started in 1953 with CIA propping up Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Durring the Reagan years, the US played boths sides (Iraq and Iran) leading to problems we now have in Iraq and Iran. During the Reagan transition, Wiliam Casey negotiated with Iran and delayed the release of the hostages until the inauguration. Do you think for one second, that timing was spontaneous or fear? That was planned and the hostage's release was delayed for weeks by William Casey.
-
The Iran problem started in 1953 with CIA propping up Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Durring the Reagan years, the US played boths sides (Iraq and Iran) leading to problems we now have in Iraq and Iran. During the Reagan transition, Wiliam Casey negotiated with Iran and delayed the release of the hostages until the inauguration. Do you think for one second, that timing was spontaneous or fear? That was planned and the hostage's release was delayed for weeks by William Casey.
Nor are you, my friend.
-
Then point out the factual errors, Liz.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Shah and US terrorized Iranian people first and couldn't handle the results of their own actions.
What evidence do you offer to prove your accusation that the US terrorized or supported terrorizing the Iranian people? Enlighten me with some of this history you so smugly claim to know.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What evidence do you offer to prove your accusation that the US terrorized or supported terrorizing the Iranian people? Enlighten me with some of this history you so smugly claim to know.
How about you educate yourself for once? As Dowding suggested, a simple Google search should get you started. I can suggest some books dealing with modern Iranian history too if you like?
Or are you too frightened of what you may discover?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Lets see your source
Last I heard in Falluja there were originally an estimated 3,000 insurgents, Around 1,000 were killed, around another 1,000 were captured and it is assumed around another 1,000 left before and during the fighting.
How does that equate to tens of thousands?
2 weeks of battle and the reports are over 2000 dead insurgents. You look up the figures that the US claims to have killed thus far for the entire war or even just after the declaration of the 'end of hostilities'. Dont forget the civilians killed indirectly by destroyed infrastructure to their cities and towns. The towns most likely to vote for the US interests govt are the first to get thier water and electric and medicine. The towns most likely to suppor the Iranian friendly govt are not going to get much in the way of 'rebuilding' money until long after the elections.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I remember 25 years ago...when a pansy named Jimmy Carter was president of the USA...Iran began what we now call terrorism against the USA, when they kidnapped 52 american hostages from the embassy in Tehran.....Wel, now we've come full circle...During the Reagan and Bush years they kept themselves out of the limelight, due mainly to the consequences they would have suffered in the event they tried to cause problems for the USA or it's allies.....Now we are faced with the most disturbing threat from a rouge nation, that frankly makes me <<
A history major you are not.
The Iran problem started in 1953 with CIA propping up Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Durring the Reagan years, the US played boths sides (Iraq and Iran) leading to problems we now have in Iraq and Iran. During the Reagan transition, Wiliam Casey negotiated with Iran and delayed the release of the hostages until the inauguration. Do you think for one second, that timing was spontaneous or fear? That was planned and the hostage's release was delayed for weeks by William Casey.
I give you the Casey situation...however I'n not buying the propping up of the Sha...The US chose the lesser of two evils and picked the Sha..which mind has nothing to do with Iraq today
-
Originally posted by Momus--
How about you educate yourself for once? As Dowding suggested, a simple Google search should get you started. I can suggest some books dealing with modern Iranian history too if you like?
Or are you too frightened of what you may discover?
I've read what some have claimed. Hardly constitutes evidence. Staga can speak for himself I believe.
-
AKIron; I can't tell you anything more than Babek already wrote in previous page.
For refreshing your memory it's quoted here:
Originally posted by babek-
Its very easy to pick the embassy-hostage event out of the whole context for an example how barbaric and terroristic all iranians are.
But you have to see the whole history which led to this event.
During WW2 the neutral Iran has been invaded and occupied by soviets and british forces, because the Shah of Iran Reza Khan refused to join the allies and declare war to the German Reich.
The relationship between the German Reich and Iran were good - and was no reason to declare a war to this country.
After the allies invaded Iran, they deposed the Shah and replaced him with his weak son, Reza II, who became a puppet of the Allies.
Promptly Iran became a member of the Allies and declared war to Germany. Iran was used as a supply base for the Soviets.
After WW2 Iran became a friend of the USA - and in these first decade it was a real friendship.
The USA were a "new" nation in this area. Unlike nations like England, France or Russia there were no diplomatic damage done to Iran by the USA.
The USA helped Iran by forcing the USSR-occupation forces to leave iranian territory after WW2 and also they supported Iran when they attacked and destroyed the first Kurdish nation, which was built in the soviet occupation area - the Kurdish Republik of Mahabad.
The soviets didnt acted when imperial iranian troops marched to the capital of this kurdish country, arresting the whole kurdish government and executed them in public after a short military trial.
The USA and the americans who worked in Iran impressed the iranians with their way of life and their democracy.
And so many young intellectual iranians, who had visited european and american universities and adopted the US way of life were more than happy, when the Prime Minister of Iran, Mr. Mossadegh, managed to depose the Shah in an unbloody revolution and sent him to italian exile.
That was the time when Iran could have become the most important stabilizing factor in the region.
It was a chance to create a democratic Iran - and this democracy would have built not by foreigners, but the Iranians themself.
But this chance failed.
The british and the US intelligence service deposed Mossadegh and put again the Shah on "power".
The US command centre of this operation was the embassy of the USA in Teheran. (And also in 1979 the CIA command centre was in this embassy).
With US help the SAVAK became a monster. This secret police of the Shah killed in the years that followed the deposal of Mossadeh tenhousands of Iranians - year by year.
Many of them just dissappeared.
The lucky one, who had relatives in powerful positions, were able to flee from Iran.
But most of them became victims of the terror regime of the Shah.
The Shah himself was considered a puppet of the USA.
And so the hate started to grow. Also the democratic forces in Iran had severe losses, because their prominent people were killed by the SAVAK.
So the radical elements - those who always fought in terroristic ways - like the communist Tudeh-partymembers and the radical islamists survived, because they were "trained" in acting with the SAVAK.
This terror lasted decades. And finally in 1979 there came the bloody revolution in Iran.
It was a time of total madness, where most of the Iranians only had the wish to end the terror regime of the Shah.
They forced the Shah to leave Iran and Ajatollah Khomeini came back to Iran to build a new iran - the Islamic Republic.
And all the time the people feared that the same could happen what happened after Mossadegh deposed the Shah in the 50ties: That the USA could start an operation to depose Khomeini and bring the Shah back to power.
The US embassy was defined as the CIA-command centre - especially by the students of the Teheran universities, who finally attacked it and took the hostages.
Most of the people didnt knew that one terror regime - the one of the Shah - was finally replaced by another one - the one of the Mullahs.
Ayatollah Khomeini - although very charismatic - was in the middle of an innerpolitical fighting for the power of Iran.
And many people didnt see what a dangerous man he was. Not only the iranians, who were so glad that the terror-regime of the Shah had ended and wished that he could continue the work of Mossadeh.
Also President Carters advisors called Khomeini "a second Ghandi who shouldnt be stopped".
That this "Ghandi" would build the next terror regime, which was responsible for the death of a million iranians wasnt seen in these days.
In these days the Iranians wanted to create their own democratic country. Many political factions were struggling bitterly how the new Iran should look like.
The one with the most power was the group of the Khomeini followers, but there were also many other factions.
And then something happened which ended any discussions: The Arabs attacked and tried to invade iran.
Saddam - in these days a nice friend of the civilized western nations - started the Iran-Iraq-War which lasted 8 long years.
Many of you think that the iranians consider Israel as the biggest enemy of Iran, but its not Isral but the arabs.
The innerpolitical fightings stopped immedeately.
And so - ironicly it was Saddam who gave with his attack against Iran Ayatollah Khomeini the whole solidarity of all iranian factions. He united all Iranians who had only the goal to kick the arabs out of Iran as their ancestors did centuries ago.
And so Khomeini could stabilize his terror-regime in Iran.
But today many thing in Iran have chanced. The mullahs were already loosing their power and democracy was growing again in Iran.
Then 9/11 happened and the stupid Axis-of-Evil Speach of Bush helped again the Mullahs to stabilize their power.
The mullahs know that they are loosing the inner political fightings against the iranian democratic powers - so they indeed need something or someone to help them.
I am totally convinced that the iranians will replace the mullahregime with a democratic system made by iranians within the next 5 years.
But if there is an attack against Iran by foreigners then we would have the same setback we had when England and the USA destroyed the democracy in Iran in the 50ties and replaced it by a terroristic regime.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I've read what some have claimed. Hardly constitutes evidence. Staga can speak for himself I believe.
You mean people like Dr. Donald Wilber?
His CIA docs went public back in 2000.
Knock yourself out....
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
-
Originally posted by Staga
AKIron; I can't tell you anything more than Babek already wrote in previous page.
For refreshing your memory it's quoted here:
The botom line is this..the last people on earth who should have any type of a nuclear CAPABILITY is Iran...I don't care about how they got where they are today...Even the Finnish people should be looking over their shoulders if these people get a bomb
-
Why? We didn't shoot down their airliner.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Shah's actions, with aid from US, terrorized his own country and created the basis for "coup d'etat" and US hostages were just a tools in this overtake.
The embassy was seized and hostages were taken after the Shah was deposed and departed the country to seek medical attention in the USA. (Cancer)
The hostages were taken as a barganing chip to return the Shah so the Islamic Government of Iran could deal with him. He died in Panama before they could get him.
The hostages were held long after his death.
-
Bebak,
Yes - a part of my family (especially all of them who were officers in the imperial iranian army) had to leave Iran during the revolution.
Your history is spot on except for one thing:
The United States does not control the actions of other governments.
As someone with some experience enacting American Foreign Policy I can tell you that is one of our biggest failings. We align ourselves sometimes with rulers who tell us one thing and then do something else on the ground.
In the end we get blamed for it.
This is one of the major changes in American Foreign Policy since 9/11. If these governments do not enact the reforms or follow the ideals they claim to get our help in the first place then there are consequences. Sanctions, widthdrawal of support, and in extreme cases direct action to intervene.
Just like in real life if you betray a friend then there are consequences for that friendship.
In the end it was your own countrymen who caused the situation in Iran.
We certainly made a mistake in backing the Shah's government. However, Americans were not "pulling the strings" on the secret police. It took Iranians serving in it and carrying out the Shah's orders while he is telling the United States what we wanted to hear. You can only accomplish so much screaming "stop" on the side lines.
I fully agree that left alone Iran will have a Democracy of their own making in 5 years. Unfortunately if the current regime gets Nuclear Weapons that may not happen. It certainly will be much more painful because other democratic nations will be powerless to help.
If you think this is about oil you are both dead wrong and absolutely correct. Your dead wrong in the belief the United States NEEDS Middle Eastern oil. We have the technology, based off the synthetic fuel production technology the Germans developed in WWII, to not only be completely self sufficient without ANY fossil fuels but can manufacture enough to export it. It is cheaper and better than Fossil Fuels. Unfortunately The Middle East, Europe, and the rest of the world run off an oil based economy. If we yank the rug out from underneath it, their economies will collapse. This would be a bad thing all around.
You are correct in that it is about oil. It's about Oil, minerals, rugs, Luxury Items, tourism, and all the things that make up a free market economy. Equitable trade is how lasting peace is built.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
2 weeks of battle and the reports are over 2000 dead insurgents. You look up the figures that the US claims to have killed thus far for the entire war or even just after the declaration of the 'end of hostilities'. Dont forget the civilians killed indirectly by destroyed infrastructure to their cities and towns. The towns most likely to vote for the US interests govt are the first to get thier water and electric and medicine. The towns most likely to suppor the Iranian friendly govt are not going to get much in the way of 'rebuilding' money until long after the elections.
I'd still like to see your sources because I havent been able to find a single report that claims 2000 were killed in the last two weeks.
"U.S. officials have raised their estimates of the size and financial support of Iraq’s insurgency, The New York Times reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources. The resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 rebels, counting foreign fighters, the network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and home-grown insurgents, the Times cited the officials as saying. When sympathizers are added, the number burgeons to more than 20,000, the newspaper said. Those estimates are greater than earlier intelligence reports — in which the number of insurgents has varied between 2,000 and 7,000, the Times said. According to military and government officials in Iraq and Washington cited by the Times, the core of the Iraqi insurgency now consisted of as many as 50 militant cells that draw on “unlimited money” from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and relatives of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein."
So how can we have killed tens of thousands of insurgants when there are barely "tens of thousands" in the insurgancy itself"
"the core of the Iraqi insurgency now consisted of as many as 50 militant cells that draw on “unlimited money” from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and relatives of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein"
Hmmm arent those the ones we went in to get out of power to begin with.
All in all in total the largest estimates for Iraqi dead since the war started are around 100K but those numbers are estimates based on surveys and not actual numbers and the way those estimates were arrived at can be questioned as to their validity as well as accuracy based on the way those surveys were conducted. and I suspect by the way those suveys were conducted that number is greatly inflated.
but I will also admit the number in the end will also be higher then the previous estimates of 10-30K
BUT both estimates only count total "estimated"death due to war and do not discriminate by whom or how they were killed and also includes those that were killed/executed by the insurgents themselves.
But that number doesnt really surprise me as the Iraqi military had rougly 425,000 in service prior to the invasion
As for the "towns most likely to support the Iranian friendly government"
In over an hour of searching I have yet to find a single source to back your claim or even mention an Iranian friendly government in Iraq
Unless your talking about the government in place in Falluja which was executing anyone who didnt follow their rules or spoke out against them.
Perhaps you have some credible site that can enlighten me.
-
Originally posted by CAVY
I give you the Casey situation...however I'n not buying the propping up of the Sha...The US chose the lesser of two evils and picked the Sha..which mind has nothing to do with Iraq today
What do you mean you dont buy it? You're choosing to remain ignorant simply because you want to deny the actual events that lead up to the current situation?
Thats like saying Mexico has nothing to do with the Texas border in present day.
Your arguement makes no sense if you flat out refuse to even consider what Babek said. There's a lot of grey out there - nothing is black and white. Until you atleast consider other arguments, you have zero chance of winning by claiming "I dont buy it." A vast majority don't care if you buy it or not, you're simply reinforcing your choice to remain in the dark.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
What do you mean you dont buy it? You're choosing to remain ignorant simply because you want to deny the actual events that lead up to the current situation?
Thats like saying Mexico has nothing to do with the Texas border in present day.
Your arguement makes no sense if you flat out refuse to even consider what Babek said. There's a lot of grey out there - nothing is black and white. Until you atleast consider other arguments, you have zero chance of winning by claiming "I dont buy it." A vast majority don't care if you buy it or not, you're simply reinforcing your choice to remain in the dark.
AHHHH.Go Back to Richard Simmons
-
Originally posted by CAVY
AHHHH.Go Back to Richard Simmons
HMMMMMMM I'm not listening HMMMMMMMMM
lol
What does someone of Iranian descent know about Iran anyway ?
-
He is my idol.
-
There is no 'Iran problem'. Iran is already a working democracy (flawed) and does not need 'liberating'. It is not much of a threat to it's neighbours either except Israel and little enough to them.
If any lesson was learned from Iraq, it's the difficulty in controlling a small minority of rebels even when a large part of the population welcomed the removal of Saddam. Imagine trying to control Iran with the whole country in rebellion to an occupation?
No Iran like North Korea will be left severely alone at least militarily. Politics will decide their future.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
There is no 'Iran problem'. Iran is already a working democracy (flawed) and does not need 'liberating'. It is not much of a threat to it's neighbours either except Israel and little enough to them.
If any lesson was learned from Iraq, it's the difficulty in controlling a small minority of rebels even when a large part of the population welcomed the removal of Saddam. Imagine trying to control Iran with the whole country in rebellion to an occupation?
No Iran like North Korea will be left severely alone at least militarily. Politics will decide their future.
Actually a very large portion of the population was pro USA right up to to the point where Bush included Iran in his Axis of Evil speach
Including Iran. OR I should say saying "Iran" instead of Saying "the government of..." was a major blunder on his part.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
2 weeks of battle and the reports are over 2000 dead insurgents.
"According to US military figures, more than 1,200 insurgents have been killed in the intense fighting, as well as 51 US troops and eight Iraqi personnel."
Source (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1248394.htm)