Lets not forget our Liberal Democrats helped create Funamental Iran...

[cheguevara]

yes it was mostly liberal democrats who did it. Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, etc

Shah was our puppet for most of his reign, hell we created the coup that installed him. But the moment Shah decides to take Iran to the next level and nationalize all oil plants and charge oil at its real face value(not the ripoff value we initially gave him in 1953), US said fuck that.

We started a propaganda war (possibly one of the first major media propaganda war in history) as shown in the video and betrayed him by basically leaving him alone vs a united front of Communists and Muslims Extremists

One of the worst foreign policy moves in our history. Especially given that we opened the door for USSR to create the Iranian revolution and basically propped up the Ayatollah as the next leader.

Well it bit us in the ass almost immediately when our embassy was taken.

so next time an idiot says "thanks for Iraq repugs" you can say "thanks for Iran democrap"


n-grR1e6dw8

[pgardn]

This happened before Carter.

Point understood.

Kissinger was far from a liberal Democrat.

[boutons_deux]

You're FULL OF SHIT

The shah was installed to replace democratically elected Mossadegh.

It was Mossadegh, not the shah, who was going to nationalize UK oil operations (Anglo-Iranian Oil, my uncle worked for them in Iran).

The war-weakened UK got the CIA, under REPUG Ike, to install the Shah who was an extremely oppressive, brutal, muderous dictator, just another one the USA has loved for decades.

25 years under shah led to the Iranian revolution, the Embassy hostage crisis the Repugs exploited. extended to defeat Carter, and created the HATE in Iran for The Great Satan USA.

iow

YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT

[cheguevara]

This happened before Carter.

Carter was in charge the last years of the Shah. Didn't lift a finger to help him. He's as guilty as the rest.


Kissinger was far from a liberal Democrat.

so is Obama yet he's considered one

[cheguevara]

You're FULL OF SHIT

The shah was installed to replace democratically elected Mossadegh.

It was Mossadegh, not the shah, who was going to nationalize UK oil operations (Anglo-Iranian Oil, my uncle worked for them in Iran).

The war-weakened UK got the CIA, under REPUG Ike, to install the Shah who was an extremely oppressive, brutal, muderous dictator, just another one the USA has loved for decades.

25 years under shah led to the Iranian revolution, the Embassy hostage crisis the Repugs exploited. extended to defeat Carter, and created the HATE in Iran for The Great Satan USA.

iow

YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT

beg to differ. Direct quote from the Shah:


In 1973 we succeeded in putting a stop, irrevocably, to sixty years of foreign exploitation of Iranian oil-resources.... In 1974, Iran at last took over the management of the entire oil-industry, including the refineries at Abadan and so on.... I am quite convinced that it was from this moment that some very powerful, international interests identified, within Iran, the collusive elements, which they could use to encompass my downfall.

[pgardn]

Carter was in charge the last years of the Shah. Didn't lift a finger to help him. He's as guilty as the rest.



so is Obama yet he's considered one

Carter did abandon the Shah. He was a bit guilt ridden which sadly makes for poor leadership.

Obama is considered a liberal when considering what issues? When placing a label on someone's scalp, don't you look at the totality of their views on different issues? What is Donald Trump?

[boutons_deux]

HK a liberal Dem? you're full of shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Foreign_policy

[cheguevara]

Carter did abandon the Shah. He was a bit guilt ridden which sadly makes for poor leadership.

Obama is considered a liberal when considering what issues? When placing a label on someone's scalp, don't you look at the totality of their views on different issues? What is Donald Trump?

if you truly look at the totality of their ACTIONS (not views) you will see there is not much different between a democratic and republican president. I was referring to their designation by the american public and media.

[DarrinS]

Lol, were you guys even alive when all that happened?

[pgardn]

if you truly look at the totality of their ACTIONS (not views) you will see there is not much different between a democratic and republican president. I was referring to their designation by the american public and media.

Ok

Then don't label Kissinger a liberal Democrat.

[pgardn]

Lol, were you guys even alive when all that happened?

Why?

Correct my takes if you wish. This is the purpose of this part of ST I thought?

[DarrinS]

Instead of blaming an R. or a D., why not blame the Iranian people, who supported an Islamic theocracy over a secular semi-monarchy that was pro-western. This, in spite of the fact that Iran was fairly prosperous at that time.

[DarrinS]

Why?

Correct my takes if you wish. This is the purpose of this part of ST I thought?

Yeah, I guess you're right. Disregard.

[boutons_deux]

"took over the management of the entire oil-industry"

nationalized? confiscated? kicked out US, UK, etc oilcos?

the Shah is self-servingly ignoring, covering up his record of 20+ years of brutal repression, murder, esp against the mullahs like the exiled Khomeini, whose followers led the revolution that kicked the Shah out.
Where's the evidence for the Shah's claim that (non-Khomeini, non-Muslim) "international forces" were to blame?

[cheguevara]

Instead of blaming an R. or a D., why not blame the Iranian people, who supported an Islamic theocracy over a secular semi-monarchy that was pro-western. This, in spite of the fact that Iran was fairly prosperous at that time.

Iranian people loved the Shah. He had 90% popularity.

what happened is the US abandoned him and allowed the fundamentalists united with communists to start the revolution. The BBC became the Ayatollah's voice in Iran. Fundamentalists/Commies started terrorist attacks.

Then finally the tactic of having snipers shoot crowd during communist/fundamentalist demonstrations.

So Iranian people were merely tricked and used.


I do have to say the Shah's biggest mistake is that he was too nice. Not only he pardoned any person who tried to assasinate him, he also abided to every US request to let the people revolt. (for example, he opened up his prisons at US request as a sign of peace. this only worsened things obviously)

[cheguevara]

"took over the management of the entire oil-industry"

nationalized? confiscated? kicked out US, UK, etc oilcos?

the Shah is self-servingly ignoring, covering up his record of 20+ years of brutal repression, murder, esp against the mullahs like the exiled Khomeini, whose followers led the revolution that kicked the Shah out.
Where's the evidence for the Shah's claim that (non-Khomeini, non-Muslim) "international forces" were to blame?



LOL you seriously ignoring Soviet Communism involvement in the Iranian revolution? :lol

and the BBC not becoming the Ayatollah's voice? wow. you need to read up some

the Ayatollah (who was exiled) was treated like a king in Paris, France giving daily interviews to Western media.

are you seriously saying there was no international forces responsible for his downfall???? :lol

[DarrinS]

Iranian people loved the Shah. He had 90% popularity.

what happened is the US abandoned him and allowed the fundamentalists united with communists to start the revolution. The BBC became the Ayatollah's voice in Iran. Fundamentalists/Commies started terrorist attacks.

Then finally the tactic of having snipers shoot crowd during communist/fundamentalist demonstrations.

So Iranian people were merely tricked and used.


I do have to say the Shah's biggest mistake is that he was too nice. Not only he pardoned any person who tried to assasinate him, he also abided to every US request to let the people revolt. (for example, he opened up his prisons at US request as a sign of peace. this only worsened things obviously)


And yet, millions turned out to greet Khomeini when he returned.

[boutons_deux]

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

any "nice" stuff from Shah in the mid/late '70s was a doomed attempt to quell the people's hate for him and murderous military, secret police.

[cheguevara]

And yet, millions turned out to greet Khomeini when he returned.

as millions of Egyptians celebrated the army's stepping down from power only to have millions again months later to ask for the army back

[ChumpDumper]

Instead of blaming an R. or a D., why not blame the Iranian people, who supported an Islamic theocracy over a secular semi-monarchy that was pro-western. This, in spite of the fact that Iran was fairly prosperous at that time.Actually the Iranian people supported a democracy until the US helped to overthrow it in 1953.

[DarrinS]

Actually the Iranian people supported a democracy until the US helped to overthrow it in 1953.


Well, somewhere along the way, they decided they wanted to be an Islamic republic.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, somewhere along the way, they decided they wanted to be an Islamic republic.Just imagine how you might feel toward a country that overthrew your democratically elected government and installed a dictator whose army murdered scores of religious protesters in the streets among other things.

Would you admire and trust that country, Darrin?

[boutons_deux]

Well, somewhere along the way, they decided they wanted to be an Islamic republic.

... my guess: after 20+ years of the US/UK puppet of the Shah's brutal, murderous, oppresive, non-democratic regime.

[cheguevara]

... my guess: after 20+ years of the US/UK puppet of the Shah's brutal, murderous, oppresive, non-democratic regime.

:lol boy the western media has done a number on you

you have been lied to my friend.

Shah's main opponents were communists and radicals. oh boy

[boutons_deux]

:lol boy the western media has done a number on you

you have been lied to my friend.

Shah's main opponents were communists and radicals. oh boy

Khomeini inspired, led that revolution from France, then was installed as top, adored mullah on his return to Iran. The radicals were the mullahs.

Communists? :lol they made out really well under the Iranian theocracy. :lol

[cheguevara]

Communists? :lol they made out really well under the Iranian theocracy. :lol

so did the West who supported the Ayatollah huh? :lol

the Communists and the West both who supported Ayatollah got bitten in the ass.

boy you are just a shill

now you are going to tell me Israel had nothing to do with the takedown of the Shah??? :lol

here, check out this interview and tell me if te Shah says anything that is not true:
4bEhffsQNZ0

[boutons_deux]

so did the West who supported the Ayatollah huh? :lol

the Communists and the West both who supported Ayatollah got bitten in the ass.

boy you are just a shill

now you are going to tell me Israel had nothing to do with the takedown of the Shah??? :lol

here, check out this interview and tell me if te Shah says anything that is not true:
4bEhffsQNZ0

"From the establishment of the State of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Establishment_of_the_State_of_I srael) in 1948 until the Iranian Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution) and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Israel and Iran maintained close ties."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations#Israeli_independence _to_Iranian_revolution_.281947.E2.80.9379.29

and of course, Israel has made out wonderfully from the Iranian theocracy. :lol

[hater]

Lol boutons with the Disneyland version of history :lol

[pgardn]

:lol boy the western media has done a number on you

you have been lied to my friend.

Shah's main opponents were communists and radicals. oh boy

Then a lot of people wanting a Democracy got labeled communists and radicals.