Missiles Launched From Iran Hit ISIS Terrorist Bases in Syria

We did give saddam some assistance as payback for overruning the US embassy in tehran

 

Maybe you lot shouldn't have used that embassy to stage a coup against an elected government.

 

Maybe the elected government should not have nationalized BP and alligned with the soviet union

We only assisted the shah and other iranians who did not want to live in a socialist nation

 

And the US will lose that war also (at great cost)

 

Which side are you on?

 

Translation: We stuck our dicks into a sovereign nation's government to bend it to our will to serve our own selfish needs. And some of us, apparently, are stupid enough to wonder why they're still pissed off about it.

 

The one not invading a sovereign country for its own selfish wants.

 

Resisting the expansion of the soviet empire is more than a mere selfish want

Iranians were the ones who overthrew the old regime with assistance from the US and Britain

And frankly Iran would be better off today if they had kept the shah instead of allowing themselves to be ruled by a bunch of bat-**** crazy islamists

 

Whether Iran would be better off, or worse off, is debatable. I don't know how things would have unfolded but my gut instinct is that Iran would have been better off through an evolutionary path, if such a path would have been allowed to Iran. That said, your view of Iran today, and the ideas about those ruling Iran, are entirely baseless and devoid of any genuine understanding of either the country as it is presently constituted or its leaders as they are as opposed to how you imagine them to be.

 

Iran was on an evolutionary path under the shah.

It was the 14th Century clerics who were opposed to the secular development of a modern iran under the shah that thwarted the natural evolution of the country and still do so today

 

I am not as hugely critical of the Shah as many Iranians were at the time of the revolution. And there were undoubtedly some positive developments under the Shah's regime. But the evolutionary path I speak about includes allowing greater public participation and representation in the country's decision-making process and having a government that better reflects the actual socio-political culture of the country. On these points, the Shah was traversing the opposite of any evolutionary path.

As for the current regime, your image and view of Iran seems to me quite distant from the reality that exists.

 

The shah was under attack by the same muslim wacko's who run iran today and who murdered college students in the streets duriing the demonstrations in 2009

The shah was modernizing Iran to the point that no woman had to fear being punished for showing up in public wearing a mini-skirt or western makeup they way they do now

Most monarchies in history have given way to more democratic rule if they can avoid being overthrown by communists or muslims imposing sharia law

 

If you stopped with the labels and misleading characterizations relating to those who opposed the Shah, including those who belonged to the religious and more traditional segments of Iranian society, it would be easier to have a fruitful discussion.

You are right that the Shah did face real threats, which meant loosing up could erupt into something like the revolution we experienced. But ultimately, the entire traditional legitimacy of the monarch in Iranian history after the establishment of the Safavid dynasty drove from two factors, both of which the Shah lacked. The first was the legitimacy accorded to the monarch by the clerical class. The second was the legitimacy of the monarch keeping Iran independent. On the former, the Shah was in the mold of other 'westernizing' leaders in the region who were trying to "modernize" the country by mimicking the west. On the latter, while Shah tried to increase Iran's power and position within a larger western dominated system, he could never truly shun the memory that he owed his throne to a coup largely orchestrated and engineered by the CIA and the British.

There were also two intertwined and equally important elements in Iranian identity, namely the Shia religion on the one hand, and the country's national heritage on the other hand. Under the Shah, these two stands were essentially put in "mutually exclusive quarters", with Iranians asked to choose between them. The Iranians essentially chose their clerics, not because they chose one strand of their identity over the other, but because they came to see those clerics as better representing both strands. In this, the Shah was also the victim of historical forces larger than himself.

In the meantime, your views on Iran's religious establishment is entirely warped and lacking any depth. In fact, your view of Iran's traditional culture seems to lack any understanding of its achievements. In this regard, below I will post 2 videos of Iran. One represents the westernized side of Iran. The other the historic, Irano-Islamic civilization. Whichever is better or superior, neither represents a backward or crazy culture.

 

Thinking that Iran is a terrorist nation is a sure knee-jerk sign of a zion/Saud-washed brain. It isn't Iran that makes people drive into crowds.

It is ISIL, to whom Israel and the Sauds give comfort and support.

Besides, I don't know any other nation that has used terror as much as the US. Who also practices extra-judicial torture, BTW. You're in no place to pronounce "terror" judgements.

 

Iran is 'dangerous' because your idiotic governments and stupidly inept foreign 'policy' has created your own enemy! If you overthrow a legitimate democracy in a sovereign country, and then install a vicious dictator because it's in your (oil) interests, and people revolt against that, you honestly think they'll be eternally grateful to your dumb country? You brought this on yourselves. Well done.

 

Why would millions die? Iran isn't dumb. They know if they ever used them, there'd be no more Iran.
Quit spouting Rush and Fox, they are not worthy of repeating.

 

So who are the real terrorists? From your point and I think you are RW, it's the RW in the USA that are the terrorists. Do as I say or I nuke your country.

 

You can't have meaningful discussions with ignorant, old white Americans who can't see beyond screeching tabloid headlines, and who are too intellectually challenged to work out the real truth. I admire your patience and courtesy.

 

At least you admit the USA has done evil deeds. For those deeds were certainly done and they're documented.

 

America started it in 1953. If it wasn't for your greed for Iranian oil, your overthrow of Iran's secular democracy, and the installation of a vicious dictator by the CIA, you wouldn't have an enemy in Iran now. You, America, caused this. You, America, are reaping what you sowed. ****ing idiots, you never learn.

 

Good, so you will no doubt agree that any US action against civilians, including the firebombing of Tokyo, and the use of napalm and indiscriminate carpet bombing of South East Asia during 'Rolling Thunder', are cowardly attacks deserving of the strongest condemnation. Clearly there are no real men in your 'culture', only cowards.

 

What do you expect when you invade a sovereign nation uninvited, a warm welcome?

 

I cant deny that the opposition to the shah was widespread

His secret police were brutal and deserved their bad reputation

But are mullahs any better?

There is a kind of senseless insanity about the shia theoracy than the shah never sunk to

You obviously like the leadership of iran and support them politically but I dont

I respect the capability of the iranians who are intelligent and clever

But they have chosen to be mortlal enemies of the United States and I take that threat seriously

 

I used the term that the haters of America use so that we can understand each other not because I agree with you

 

How on earth do you imagine Iran is in any position to do you harm? I heard the same idiotic justification prior to your epically inept invasion of Iraq. If Iran wants to harm Americans you have only yourselves to blame.