A History Lesson: U.S. and Iran

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Krypt, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. Krypt

    Krypt New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The video below is for those unaware of the history between our 2 countries and why things are the way they are today...

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yweQn_bXYxE"]History of Iran USA in 10 min, Every American must watch this!! YouTube - YouTube[/ame]
     
  2. ObamaYoMoma

    ObamaYoMoma New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As soon as I heard the words, “overthrow Iran's democracy” and “1953,” I stopped listening instantly because I knew this was going to be another blame America first propaganda hit peace. Indeed,democracy in the Islamic world is absolutely impossible. As a matter of fact, out of the 57 Islamic states that altogether comprise the OIC, how many of them are true legit Westernized liberal democracies where freedom and liberty are intrinsic? The answer is zero. Why? Because freedom, liberty, and democracy, along with the rule of man as opposed to the rule of Allah, are all abominations and antithetical to everything that Islam is, which is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology.

    Furthermore, the notion that the Islamic revolution was spawned by the ouster of Mossadegh, who was a secular and blasphemous Muslim apostate, as opposed to a Muslim and loyal slave of Allah, is utterly absurd and laughable to the extreme. Indeed, if Mossadegh had still been alive back in 1979 when the ruling Mullah regime ruthlessly seized power, he would have been among the first apostates put to death, just like that Pastor in Iran today that is about to be executed for apostasy. Indeed, the new Mullah regime ruthlessly put to death any and all perceived threats whether or not they were actual threats soon after seizing power, and that included thousands of delusional leftist useful idiots that had been invaluable in helping to bring about the Islamic revolution in Iran.

    Thus, the only people that can be dumb enough to believe that absurd propaganda are people who are extremely gullible and that are completely oblivious of Islam and mentally incompetent at the same time when it comes to history. In other words, people that are dumb enough to have their ignorance's exploited to the hilt, like Ron Paul anarcho-kooks and moronic delusional leftists addicted to group think who blindly always follow their political elites religiously no matter what or else.
     
  3. ObamaYoMoma

    ObamaYoMoma New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    By the way, what did nationalizing the oil company really mean? It meant voiding all contracts and stealing the property and assets of the British oil company. Indeed, it would have been stupid to let Mossadegh get away with that theft with impunity, as it would have spawned further such actions throughout the Middle East. Not to mention that when Mossadegh aligned with the Iranian Tudeh party, which was the Soviet backed communist party in Iran, that was the straw that broke the camel's back, because the last thing the West needed at that point was for Iran and its oil to fall into the Kremlin's hands.

    Now if Iran would have fell into the hands of the Kremlin, would it have meant freedom, liberty, and democracy for the Iranians? Not really, as all Soviet satellites were totalitarian hellholes. Indeed, look at the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe today, more than 2 decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they are still decades away from catching up with Western Europe.
     
  4. marbro

    marbro New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Translation= as soon has I heard the truth I covered my ears and went lalalalalal.

    we had no right to (*)(*)(*)(*) them over. You reap what you sow
     
  5. Krypt

    Krypt New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As soon as I read the words "I stopped listening instantly because I knew this was going to be another blame America first propaganda hit peace." I stopped reading instantly. Why bother to comment if you didn't even watch. It's factual history and you are afraid to accept it.

    By the way...this has nothing to do with Paul. I knew this to be factual history way before I even started supporting Paul. It's called paying attention in school and taking interest in learning. What's happening now between Iran and us has NOTHING to do with religion...
     
  6. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wait... so Iran didn't have a democracy that we overthrew because the Middle East has a bad track record with democracy? Uh... okay, terrible reason. By the way, maybe democracy would have been more popular in the Middle East had we not backed dictators throughout the region such as Saddam, Gaddafi, Saddat, and Mubarak then maybe they would have a better track record, huh?

    The reason for the Islamic Revolution had to do with who we put into power after the ousting of Mosaddegh, not because of the ousting. Most of what you are saying is just completely irrelevant to our history with Iran. I mean, what exactly is the point of these bolded words? So, if Mosaddegh was in power he would have been overthrown and killed... the problem is that the '79 revolution dealt with the injustices the Iranian people have to endure under the Shah. WE PUT THE SHAH IN POWER. The SAVAK, the Shah's secret police that was used to arrest, torture, and kill political dissetners, was created and funded by the CIA. And you people wonder why these people so despise us?
     
  7. ObamaYoMoma

    ObamaYoMoma New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With respect to the Shah, he tried to lift up his country out of 7th century Islamic barbarianism and into 20th century modernism. Thus, he implemented numerous reforms to achieve his objective, such as giving females the opportunity to be educated for the first time ever in Iranian history, doing away with the requirement for females to wear the Islamic veil, allowing females to drive and go to work, to vote, and giving them equal rights with men. The Shah also did away with the feudal system that had been in force for more than a thousand years, by seizing the land from the Islamic Waqf that had previously held the land, and redistributed it to the peasants.

    Of course, all of these un-Islamic, very blasphemous, and numerous reforms intended to help modernize Iran severely angered the Mullahs in Iran, as they had previously held enormous power and considerable sway and precipitated what was an extremely violent and brutal jihad waged against the Shah, his supporters, and his government.

    Hence, is it true that the Shah was extremely ruthless? Of course, he was because he didn't have any other choice in the matter, if he wasn't ruthless he would have been utterly obliterated by his jihadist enemies. Is it true that the Shah and his SAVAK secret police kill innocent people. No, they acted in self-defense. In any event, the Shah wasn't ruthless enough because he ultimately was ousted.

    Indeed, any other similar leader of an Islamic country that decided to do the same thing today, that is lift their country out of 7th century Islamic barbarianism and into 21st century modernism, would also have to do the same thing the Shah did, because they inevitably would also have to fend off an extremely brutal and ruthless jihad waged against them as well.
     
  8. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
  9. Abu Sina

    Abu Sina New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,370
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    0
    great post!
     
  10. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great post.
     
  11. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, because the British Empire at the time certainly wasn't taking advantage of a weaker country :rolleyes:

    Yes, and we couldn't let those countries that the West was taking advantage of to get away with that! Nationalization could have been avoided had the AIOC actually renegotiated decent terms with the Iranians, but they decided to not do that.

    Now if Iran would have fell into the hands of the Kremlin, would it have meant freedom, liberty, and democracy for the Iranians? Not really, as all Soviet satellites were totalitarian hellholes. Indeed, look at the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe today, more than 2 decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they are still decades away from catching up with Western Europe.[/QUOTE]

    The United States certainly didn't believe Mosaddeq to be pro-Communist before Eisenhower took office and we actually considered him a bulwark against Communism and the Soviet Union.
     
  12. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is QUITE the claim. So he had to be ruthless because of JIHADISTS? Yes, I understand that Khomenei was against the Shah because of Westernization, but that didn't start until 1963. Not only that, but perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, things wouldn't have turned out the way they had if the Shah had allowed true political representations, not been a pawn of the United States, not created a secret police that tortured and killed INNOCENT PEOPLE (Apparently you think some people aren't innocent because the Shah had to stay in power. Let me ask you if that makes Saddam Hussein's actions justifed?), not become a corrupt oil dealer who ended up with billions while the gap between rich and poor grew in the country, etc.

    So, instead of eventually promoting a more modernized Iran through democratic reform, we had to overthrow their government and install a bloody dictator. What a statement.
     
  13. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great post OYM. You and I think much alike. The nutty Hamas huggers and naive SCP* apologist's wing-nuts have no holocaust history or otherwise to blame for their current plight, so they fabricate what they lack. PM me if you want.

    reva
     
  14. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is rather obvious that he does not share the same belief although he knows your version of history is accurate. Maybe too much patriotism?
     
  15. ObamaYoMoma

    ObamaYoMoma New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like I said ignorance of history and complete obliviousness of Islam at the same time are two of the primary reasons why it is so easy for gullible people to have their ignorance's exploited to the hilt, and thanks for demonstrating and proving it. I appreciate it very much.

    Anyway, not only was the British Empire defunct by then, but Iran was never part of the British Empire in any event. Hence, don't lose your day job in this economy, because I have a feeling you will have an extremely difficult time finding another.

    In any event, if the Brits were taking advantage of a weaker country as you ignorantly allege, then why did the Iranian authorities sign the contracts? Indeed, the Brits were far from the only country capable of doing oil exploration, production, and distribution. Did the Brits hold a gun up to their head or something?

    Not only that, but why do you automatically assume it was the Brits or in another situation the Americans that were taking advantage and exploiting those countries? Could those Islamic countries have found the oil and produced it on their own otherwise? Was a gun held to their heads when they signed those contracts? Apparently, you swallow what is utterly absurd communist propaganda lock, stock, and barrel blindly, another indicator that you are not the brightest bulb in the pantry.

    As for as the Brits losing in the ICC goes, that's utterly absurd and totally false propaganda. The ICC wouldn't hear the case because they claimed they didn't have jurisdiction. As for as the AIOC negotiations, the Iranians refused the Brits terms. Hence, it was actually the other way around. Nevertheless, the Brits lived up to their end of the bargain, but the Iranian government, on the other hand, didn't. Thus, the Brits should have been the ones that held out for better terms to cover the risk, as it was the Iranians that not only breached their contract, but also stole their property and assets on top of it.

    Certainly not, that is until Mossadegh aligned with the Tudeh Party, then it became a risk that could not be tolerated.

    Nevertheless, Mossadegh had nothing whatsoever to do with the 1979 revolution in any event. As for as the ruling Mullahs were concerned, Mossadegh was a blasphemous apostate. Indeed, like I said, had Mossadegh still been alive in 1979, he would have been one of the first apostates to be executed by the new Mullah regime.

    Indeed, the ruling Mullahs are currently on the verge of executing a Christian Pastor as I type, because he has been convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death.

    You Ron Paul kooks and self-hating delusional leftists are all completely oblivious of Islam and ignoramuses when it comes to history, which explains why it is so easy for charlatans and Muslim taqiyya artists to exploit you guys ignorance's to the hilt.
     
  16. ObamaYoMoma

    ObamaYoMoma New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With respect to the first part of your post, it is too mentally incompetent to warrant a response. Let's just suffice it to say that hopefully history wasn't your best subject, and common sense isn't exactly your strong suit.

    Like I said, your post are almost too mentally incompetent to warrant a response, but nonetheless democratic reforms in the Islamic world? Are you a comedian? Again, out of the 57 Islamic states that comprise the OIC today, how many of them are legit Westernized democracies where freedom and liberty are intrinsic? Indeed, like I already said, it is incredibly easy for kooks like Ron Paul and Muslim taqiyya artists to exploit the ignorance's of people like you that are completely oblivious to Islam and incredibly ignorant of history at the same time.
     
  17. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Instead of discussing anything, you start personal attacks. You know, this type of behavior shouldn't be accepted in debates because it is a complete fallacy. Address the qualms, stop the ad hominems.

    First, wrong. The British Empire didn't officially end until the relinquishment of Hong Kong. And in anyways, decolonization of Africa and other countries by the British Empire didn't end until the 1960s. So, nice job calling me ignorant of history when it is pretty clear you have no clue about what you're typing.

    There is no if about it, the "Brits" were taking advantage of Iranian oil capacity. Not only did they provide promises to Iranian workers such as better pay and promises to build schools, roads, and hospitals which it had never done so. No, instead they reaped enormous profits while giving Iran the bare minimum.

    Dude, if you don't understand the concept that some people in the government of a country can screw over their people by giving concessions to foreign countries, then sorry. You're acting as if the entire country of Iran brokered a deal with the British Empire.

    Because they were.

    Yes, this is Communist propaganda and not historical facts :rolleyes:

    Uh, what? Who brought up the ICC?

    Uh... no. The Iranians demanded a 50/50 split of profits and the AIOC rejected that split.

    You're making an ass out of yourself by assuming that the Iranian Revolution would have still occurred under a democracy that didn't involve a dictator or a brutal secret police.
     
  18. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like I said:
    Because his version of history takes much, if not all, the blame away from the US, and for that matter, England.
     
  19. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep. Very sad, huh? Apparently bringing up facts about our relations with another country is Communist propaganda or "blaming America". People are so unwilling to admit mistakes by their country. I have no doubt in my mind that these kind of people that call us anti-American because of our dissent would be totally fine with putting me into a political prisoner camp.
     
    Jango and (deleted member) like this.
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    36,781
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In my opinion, our elected representatives to government have merely been wasting our exorbitantly expensive superpower.
     

Share This Page