Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 83 of 83
  1. #76
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Because elites who stockpile money do not care about the future and will easily launch nuclear strikes without regard to their own.
    No, just those guys.

  2. #77
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    27
    We disagree with quite a bit here. I'll just remind you that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some pretty inflammatory words, and is the highest ranking official of any nation with power advocating the destruction of Israel. His words alone, weather he can order things to happen stir the hears of the radicals.

    As for 4th world nation? Is that term really used? My take of it is that Iran has been in a downturn ever since the Iranian revolution. Their policies created the situations where the UN and USA decided to take the stances we have. Iran was a very nice Islamic country to live in before 1979. They were adopting western ideas and cultures.
    He is no Hitler. Again, Ahmadinejad has no power over Iran's Nuclear Program and Iran's Armed Forces. And Ahmadinejad's supposed advocacy of the destruction of Israel is a matter of some debate. It may come down to translations. Considering that Israel is not that concerned with it....

    Iran went into a downturn after the CIA-Sponsored removal of Mossadeqh in 1953. What policies created the conditions that led to the growth of the "Revolution?"

    Most Iranians do not consider Iran a "very nice Islamic country" to live in between 1953 and 1979. Too many of them died at the hands of the STAVAK.

  3. #78
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Iran went into a downturn after the CIA-Sponsored removal of Mossadeqh in 1953. What policies created the conditions that led to the growth of the "Revolution?"
    We're getting into areas I know little of, but I know this much. This was something that would have happened anyway. We just helped.

    Most Iranians do not consider Iran a "very nice Islamic country" to live in between 1953 and 1979. Too many of them died at the hands of the STAVAK.
    Maybe not right after 1953, but before 1979, it was an awesome place to live, unless you lived by strick Islamic laws...

  4. #79
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    27
    We're getting into areas I know little of, but I know this much. This was something that would have happened anyway. We just helped.

    Maybe not right after 1953, but before 1979, it was an awesome place to live, unless you lived by strick Islamic laws...
    Mossadeqh was a popularly elected leader. Cite a source that says the Mossadeqh Government was going to collapse within 5 years. It was the British and the CIA that conspired to bring down Mossadeqh. Madeline Albright admitted to the complicity.

    March 2000

    “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadeqh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.
    Again, Iran was no paradise for many Iranians. There is a reason Khomeini was welcomed by millions when he returned from exile in 1979.

  5. #80
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Mossadeqh was a popularly elected leader. Cite a source that says the Mossadeqh Government was going to collapse within 5 years. It was the British and the CIA that conspired to bring down Mossadeqh. Madeline Albright admitted to the complicity.
    I didn't say it would have collapsed on it's own. The British were the ones who started this, they convinced us to help by playing into the Red Scare. The British would have found a way to do it without our help.

    Again, Iran was no paradise for many Iranians. There is a reason Khomeini was welcomed by millions when he returned from exile in 1979.
    Well, my understanding is different. It was a secular nation before the 1979 revolution. It was the Islamic who wanted a religion controlled government who were noit happy. I would equate the 1979 revolutioon to something like the Christian Radicals taking over America, and reestablishing the Laws of Moses. A few poeple would welcome that, but it would destroy America as it is.

  6. #81
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    27
    I didn't say it would have collapsed on it's own. The British were the ones who started this, they convinced us to help by playing into the Red Scare. The British would have found a way to do it without our help.


    Well, my understanding is different. It was a secular nation before the 1979 revolution. It was the Islamic who wanted a religion controlled government who were noit happy. I would equate the 1979 revolutioon to something like the Christian Radicals taking over America, and reestablishing the Laws of Moses. A few poeple would welcome that, but it would destroy America as it is.
    So the State would be the same, just the Path would be different. Again, the US was manipulated by the Brits.

    Iran was a secular nation in 1953 when the WEST sponsored the removal of Mossadeqh. Why? Mossadeqh was going to nationalize Oil Interests when Anglo-Iranian Oil, today's BP, refused to honor profit sharing arragements with Iran by not opening up their books to the Iranian Government. Was Mossadeqh wrong to try to secure greater oil revenues for his country?

    What went wrong was when the Shah was restored to power, he began a violent crackdown on Religious Figures and Parties.

    The Shah was a perceived as a US backed despot who did not tolerate dissent.

    1975

    “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the cons ution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t… A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”

  7. #82
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Was Mossadeqh wrong to try to secure greater oil revenues for his country?
    Not at all. I never said the actions starting in 1953 were right either. I think they were wrong.

    What went wrong was when the Shah was restored to power, he began a violent crackdown on Religious Figures and Parties.
    Yes, he was unpopular with the Islamic Extremists, especially since he tried to eradicate the radicalized ones! He dealt with them rather harsh, but the general population was safe, well educated, and progressing rather well since the Shah believed in western ideals.

    The Shah was a perceived as a US backed despot who did not tolerate dissent.
    True. Rather than focusing on how we got there, answer me this please. The Shah supported western ideals, and a friendship with Israel. Do you think the Iranian revolution made things better or worse? Would it had happened if we didn't have Carter for president in 1979?

    I think a more thoughtful president would have assisted the Shah in keeping Iran in order. Iraq fell during the same timeframe. I believe 1979 was the crossroads for the Middle East becoming what is today. Could we have stopped those two events? I don't know, but I think we should have tried at least. I am a firm believer that if Saddam didn't overthrow the Iraqi government in 1979, and the same with the Iran events, that we probably would have a peaceful Middle East today.

  8. #83
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Stratfor notices Iran is trying to refurbish its declining oil refining industry by planning 8 new refineries. But it needs the money. Can it continue to punch the West in the face while pulling money out of it's pocket?

    Iran's national oil company announced plans Nov. 2 to build eight new oil refineries with the ultimate goal of becoming a net exporter of refined oil products. Bringing foreign investors in on the project will prove essential to provide the necessary know-how, but given the current state of international condemnation bearing down on them, the Iranians may have to choose between international brinksmanship and energy independence.
    My guess is that Iran can both punch the West and reach into its wallet at the same time. There's a school of thought which asserts that if we are nice enough, the enemy will give us a break. The New York Times magazine describes an interview with Barack Obama aboard his campaign airplane in an article curious en led Is (His) Biography (Our) Destiny?.

    “If I am the face of American foreign policy and American power,” Barack Obama mused not long ago aboard his campaign plane, “as long as we are also making prudent strategic decisions, handling emergencies, crises and opportunities in the world in an intelligent and sober way. . . .” He stopped. He wanted to make sure he got this just right, and he had got a little caught up in rebutting the claim, which Hillary Clinton has artfully advanced, that he is not prepared to handle emergencies. Obama stopped picking at his grilled salmon in order to stare out at the sky for a few moments. “I think,” he said, in that deep and measured voice of his, “that if you can tell people, ‘We have a president in the White House who still has a grandmother living in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria and has a sister who’s half-Indonesian, married to a Chinese-Canadian,’ then they’re going to think that he may have a better sense of what’s going on in our lives and in our country. And they’d be right.”

    Perhaps they would. Obama’s supporters believe that his life story and the angle of vision it affords him hold out the possibility of curing the harm they would say we have done to ourselves through our indifference to the views of others and through the insularity of a president who seems so incurious about the world.
    The idea is appealing enough. If we care about others then they will care about us. But is it true or true only if we assume foreign statesmen are motivated by the same values that motivate us? The logical problem with Obama's assertion is that it assumes that people -- especially leaders in other countries -- care anything about grandmothers living on the shores of Lake Victoria or half-Indonesians living anywhere. All the available evidence suggests that many foreign leaders couldn't care less if their people lived or died. What slack they might cut us if they knew he had a grandmother in Africa is anybody's guess.

    My fearless prediction is that there will be any number of enlightened politicians who, like Obama and McFud, will fall all over themselves in a rush to provide whatever Iran needs -- whatever Iran does.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •