NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't mean this as a thread to discuss the advisability of sponsoring a coup d'état in Iran per se, but rather to assess its price tag. I believe that given the public outrage at the current regime and the barely suppressed, simmering hatred against the authoritarianism which has seized Iran in its iron grip, $10 billion dollars should suffice to topple the maleficent government. What would you peg the price of such an act at? Poll coming.

Urgh. Another topic about tearing something down involving Islam....God.

Why bother, sounds like he's fairly powerless now, with the Ayatollah frowning on his every move. Besides, there'll be an election soon enough. It's not like he's a dictator like Mugabe or... some other dictator whose name currently escapes me.

Overthrowing Iranian governments only leads to more trouble down the road. Case in point: Mossadegh.

Urgh. Another topic about tearing something down involving Islam....God.

I know. What is with FAG and destroying everything remotely Arabic or Islamic?

Why bother, sounds like he's fairly powerless now, with the Ayatollah frowning on his every move. Besides, there'll be an election soon enough. It's not like he's a dictator like Mugabe or... some other dictator whose name currently escapes me.

Kim Jong-Il?

some other dictator whose name currently escapes me.

George W. Bush? :D

*runs like hell*

I know. What is with FAG and destroying everything remotely Arabic or Islamic?

Actually, I happen to like the pyraminds very much. Would you mind answering the question instead of posting false, slanderous claims?

Ousting Ahmadinejad: At What Cost?What is the cost for ousting Saddam Hussein again? Triple that.

Actually, I happen to like the pyraminds very much. Would you mind answering the question instead of posting false, slanderous claims?

The pyramids are neither Islamic nor Arabic, FAG.

Actually, I happen to like the pyraminds very much. Would you mind answering the question instead of posting false, slanderous claims?

You can't be serious.

Either you are that daft and have spent a lot of time reading a thesaurus or you are taking the piss.

Overthrowing Iranian governments only leads to more trouble down the road. Case in point: Mossadegh.

What do you mean? The overthrow of Mossadegh led to a period of political stability under the Shah in which a plethora of bonds with the USSR were severed and new ones with the Free World were formed and strengthened. Of course, he was later deposed in a revolution, but only being a critical ally in the Cold War. If we must stage a coup d'état every 25 years to ensure a pro-American government in Iran, I wouldn't mind.

The pyramids are neither Islamic nor Arabic, FAG.

Are you claiming that the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs?

What is the cost for ousting Saddam Hussein again? Triple that.

They are saying it might cost up to a trillion. So according to your calculations, three trillion.

What do you mean? The overthrow of Mossadegh led to a period of political stability under the Shah in which a plethora of bonds with the USSR were severed and new ones with the Free World were formed and strengthened. Of course, he was later deposed in a revolution, but only being a critical ally in the Cold War. If we must stage a coup d'état every 25 years to ensure a pro-American government in Iran, I wouldn't mind.

It's not our job to pick and choose other countries' leaders. If they want to elect asshats like Mossadegh, then hey, that's their choice, not ours.

Also, had Mossadegh never been overthrown, it is extremely unlikely that there would even be an Islamic Republic of Iran today.

What is the cost for ousting Saddam Hussein again? Triple that.

The cost of ousting Saddam was under $50 billion dollars; preserving the peace after his downfall and aiding in reconstruction gobbled up the bulk of our money.

Oh, and F&G, next time you're at the library, here's some reading material for you > All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471678783/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3176378-9595327?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183403764&sr=8-1).

It's not our job to pick and choose other countries' leaders. If they want to elect asshats like Mossadegh, then hey, that's their choice, not ours.

Yes, it's their choice. It also happens to be an implicit declaration of war against the US. In the battle of capitalism vs. communism and good vs. evil, sympathizing with the enemy makes you the enemy.

The cost of ousting Saddam was under $50 billion dollars; preserving the peace after his downfall and aiding in reconstruction gobbled up the bulk of our money.

I'd say multiply the cost of the Iraq mess by nine to get the minimum sum of the cost of an Iranian mess.

The cost of ousting Saddam was under $50 billion dollars.

Yes, but had he not been overthrown, we would not be incurring the horrific costs (in lives and money) that we are now. Thousands of coalition soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would still be alive today.

Yes, it's their choice. It also happens to be an implicit declaration of war against the US. In the battle of capitalism vs. communism and good vs. evil, sympathizing with the enemy makes you the enemy.

I'm not a fan of Mossadegh by any means, but he posed no threat to the United States. None. Nadda. Zip.

Pointless thread. Someone lock please.

Yes, it's their choice. It also happens to be an implicit declaration of war against the US. In the battle of capitalism vs. communism and good vs. evil, sympathizing with the enemy makes you the enemy.

I could do so much with this, FAG. There is just so much wrong with this... too much for me to start in on that.

Yes, but had he not been overthrown...

We were driven by ideological necessity to rebuild the country and ensure that freedom and democracy prospered. However, we could have easily made our exeunt following the capture of Saddam, thus allowing us to retain the billions of dollars which would have otherwise been spent on reconstruction. I'm not talking about lives, here, simply economic cost.

I'm not a fan of Mossadegh by any means, but he posed no threat to the United States. None. Nadda. Zip.

The friends of our enemies are also our enemies. In particular, Iran was being overly cozy with the USSR and engaged in some business transactions which aided the Evil Empire and seemed perilously close to adopting communism; if this event were allowed to transpire, Iran could become a great boon to the USSR. The Cold War was a zero-sum game. If Iran could help the USSR and we were at "war" against the USSR, the transitive property would seem to dictate that we were also at "war" against Iran.

Ahmandinejad is merely elected by the people. He appears to be the one in charge but he's got no real power. The balance of power lies with the Ayatollahs. They are the ones who control Iran. To overthrow the president would achieve nothing as the true seat of power is with the ayatollah.

Ahmandinejad is merely elected by the people. He appears to be the one in charge but he's got no real power. The balance of power lies with the Ayatollahs. They are the ones who control Iran. To overthrow the president would achieve nothing as the true seat of power is with the ayatollah.

I am referring to an overthrow of the entire governmental hierarchy. Khomeini likes to carry an AK-47 around with him, but I'd doubt he'd be able to repel a US-funded coup d'état with it.

I am referring to an overthrow of the entire governmental hierarchy. Khomeini likes to carry an AK-47 around with him, but I'd doubt he'd be able to repel a US-funded coup d'état with it.

As much as the thought must appeal to you of destroying another nation's political hierarchy, it is not in the world's interest for the US to decide who gets to have what government.

The government may be a thorn in the US's side, but for change to truly be accepted, the people have to want change. People may complain about their situation but they won't accept change unless they are truly unhappy about the way their nation is being run. People are reluctant to give up the status quo unless it is not in their favour.

The cost of any coup that isn't supported by the people cannot be measured in monetary values. It is measured in reputation and respect. The US has lost a significant amount of respect since 9/11 due to its policies and is growing more unpopular by the day, with its reputation in tatters.

I'm not talking about lives, here, simply economic cost.

I'm talking about both. In both cases, it was a cost not worth it.

The friends of our enemies are also our enemies. In particular, Iran was being overly cozy with the USSR and engaged in some business transactions which aided the Evil Empire and seemed perilously close to adopting communism; if this event were allowed to transpire, Iran could become a great boon to the USSR. The Cold War was a zero-sum game. If Iran could help the USSR and we were at "war" against the USSR, the transitive property would seem to dictate that we were also at "war" against Iran.

Mossadegh favored a non-aligned course in foreign affairs. He was a socialist, not a communist.

Actually, I happen to like the pyraminds very much. Would you mind answering the question instead of posting false, slanderous claims?

I shall have you know that such a thing is in no way slanderous.

Mossadegh favored a non-aligned course in foreign affairs. He was a socialist, not a communist.

How much do you want to bet he's going to claim that socialism is communism?

How much do you want to bet he's going to claim that socialism is communism?

The two are as different as Holland and the Netherlands.

Mossadegh favored a non-aligned course in foreign affairs.

Thus, he had no qualms about engaging in mutually beneficial trade relations with the USSR, QED.

The two are as different as Holland and the Netherlands.

Holland is part of the Netherlands. Also, have you not heard of anticommunist socialists? Jonas Savimbi was one.

Thus, he had no qualms about engaging in mutually beneficial trade relations with the USSR, QED.

Many so-called "non-aligned" leaders during the Cold War were anything but non-aligned (many, like India, Indonesia under Sukarno, Egypt under Nasser, and Ghana under Nkrumah were Soviet allies), but some socialist leaders actually were non-aligned (including, but not limited to, Mossadegh, Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, etc.).

How much do you want to bet he's going to claim that socialism is communism?

Hehe, you win. Look below. :D

Are you claiming that the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs?

I imagine he is, and if you had a brain within your head you would also.

Nor are the Iranians for that matter... then or now.

Holland is part of the Netherlands.

Exactly, and communism is a distinct subset of socialism.

I don't mean this as a thread to discuss the advisability of sponsoring a coup d'état in Iran per se, but rather to assess its price tag. I believe that given the public outrage at the current regime and the barely suppressed, simmering hatred against the authoritarianism which has seized Iran in its iron grip, $10 billion dollars should suffice to topple the maleficent government. What would you peg the price of such an act at? Poll coming.

Did the US not learn from the blowback they recieved after taking out Mossadegh?

Did the US not learn from the blowback they recieved after taking out Mossadegh?

Sorry, beat you to it there (check page 1). ;)

Exactly, and communism is a distinct subset of socialism.

But they are not the same thing.

I imagine he is, and if you had a brain within your head you would also.

Nor are the Iranians for that matter... then or now.

According to this map, Egypt is part of the Arab world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world

But if it doesn't qualify, I also like that skiing slope in Abu Dhabi or wherever.

But they are not the same thing.

No, they are not. That's why I gave the Holland/Netherlands example.

According to this map, Egypt is part of the Arab world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world

But if it doesn't qualify, I also like that skiing slope in Abu Dhabi or wherever.

Egypt is today, yes. But were the Ancient Egyptians Arabs?

(Since I haven't studied that in ages, I leave it to someone more knowledgeable than myself to answer that. :))

Exactly, and communism is a distinct subset of socialism.

Go read Marx, FAG, you havn't got a clue what you are talking about

No, they are not. That's why I gave the Holland/Netherlands example.

A good example, if somewhat inaccurate. As I noted, there are some socialists who are also anticommunists. Like Jonas Savimbi, a democratic socialist but also a vehement anticommunist.

According to this map, Egypt is part of the Arab world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world

But if it doesn't qualify, I also like that skiing slope in Abu Dhabi or wherever.

You can't possibly be that stupid...

That map is modern, ancient Egypt was in no way Arabic.

And seeing as how he was alledgedly:
claiming that the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs?

He would be entirely correct, and you would be entirely wrong.

People who don't know history should never discuss politics...

You can't possibly be that stupid...

Let's not resort to flames. Maybe he just hasn't studied Ancient Egyptian history.

Are you claiming that the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs?The Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. The reason being is that the Arab tribes originate out of Arabia (close to Egypt, but not Egypt). They also first appear in historical texts around about 800BC. By this point in time the Old Kingdom (the age of Pyramids) is long gone and both Middle and New Kingdoms have come and gone as well. In 800BC Ancient Egypt is well past its zenith.

It was only in the 7th century AD that the Arabs invaded Egypt - over three millennia after the construction of the Great Pyramid.

Why did you think that the Ancient Egyptians were Arabs?

A good example, if somewhat inaccurate. As I noted, there are some socialists who are also anticommunists. Like Jonas Savimbi, a democratic socialist but also a vehement anticommunist.

What I meant to say was that socialism is a set which completely encompasses a smaller and distinct set, communism. That is, all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists.

What I meant to say was that socialism is a set which completely encompasses a smaller and distinct set, communism. That is, all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists.

Ah, okay.

The Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. The reason being is that the Arab tribes originate out of Arabia (close to Egypt, but not Egypt). They also first appear in historical texts around about 800BC. By this point in time the both the Old Kingdom (the age of Pyramids) is long gone and both Middle and New Kingdoms have come and gone as well. In 800BC Ancient Egypt is well past its zenith.

Ah, thanks, I guess you learn something new every day.

Why did you think that the Ancient Egyptians were Arabs?

Well, I know that modern Egypt is Arab (in fact, the official state name of Egypt is the Arab Republic of Egypt). Given that I know next to nothing of Egyptian history, I assumed that the ethnic make-up of ancient Egypt was not that drastically different from modern Egypt; apparently I was wrong. Anyway, this has next to nothing to do with the topic; somebody accused me of hating all things Arab, and I just jokingly said that I liked the pyramids.

Ah, thanks, I guess you learn something new every day.

Indeed.

Which is why there's no reason to flame anyone for not knowing something.

I don't mean this as a thread to discuss the advisability of sponsoring a coup d'état in Iran per se, but rather to assess its price tag. I believe that given the public outrage at the current regime and the barely suppressed, simmering hatred against the authoritarianism which has seized Iran in its iron grip, $10 billion dollars should suffice to topple the maleficent government. What would you peg the price of such an act at? Poll coming.

This is not a cost I'd put in monetary terms. I'd put it at...(gets ledger)...a shitload of human lives, the reputation of a country and it's leader, and the destruction of a million people's hope. Yeah, that balances.

According to this map, Egypt is part of the Arab world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world

But if it doesn't qualify, I also like that skiing slope in Abu Dhabi or wherever.

The pyramids =/= Post-classical to Modern Egypt

The pyramids were there before the Arabs.

Why does it seem to me that all the conservatives want to bring down Iran?

First they say they went into Iraq because the weapons. -Wrong!

Then it's because they supported the terrorists. -Not before we invaded.

And all the while, we claimed we were bringing freedom and democracy.

Oh yeah, and can't forget the "Saddam was bad" excuse. -Which he was, but doesn't justify all the deaths.

But in the end, regardless of the justifications, we have things pretty screwed up right now. And now, people are talking about toppling an elected leader? And don't you realize that Iran will be far harder to deal with then Iraq? Iraq has the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias all opposed to each other right now. Everyone is watching their own back and not giving a sh** what happens to the other groups. But that's not Iran. Iran has a vast Shia majority, and if we invade, we aren't going to be caught in a Civil War, we are going to be facing a united force. The Iraqi resistance to the U.S. invasion is splintered and divided, but it won't be the same in Iran. And now, are ground troops are already stretched, so what do you want to do? Bomb their cities indiscriminately? Make people hate us even more? Or maybe you all just want to start WW3.

What do you mean? The overthrow of Mossadegh led to a period of political stability under the Shah in which a plethora of bonds with the USSR were severed and new ones with the Free World were formed and strengthened. Of course, he was later deposed in a revolution, but only being a critical ally in the Cold War. If we must stage a coup d'état every 25 years to ensure a pro-American government in Iran, I wouldn't mind.

It also led to the massive oppression of a population and general hatred of the United States and all things Western, and therefore directly contributed and led to the Islamic revolution that created such crisis as the American Embassy hostages and the current situation we are now in with Iran.

It is nice when you ignore most of a history for a few years that look rosy when you paint them with half the pallete, but that doesn't give you a complete picture.

They are saying it might cost up to a trillion. So according to your calculations, three trillion.That's just the money. You can quintuple the cost in blood. The US cannot even really afford the mess they've made in Iraq with all its consequences so far, monetarily, politically and in death toll. A similar adventure in Iran is simply beyond the means of the US.

What do you mean? The overthrow of Mossadegh led to a period of political stability under the Shah in which a plethora of bonds with the USSR were severed and new ones with the Free World were formed and strengthened. Of course, he was later deposed in a revolution, but only being a critical ally in the Cold War. If we must stage a coup d'état every 25 years to ensure a pro-American government in Iran, I wouldn't mind.political stability under the Shah? you mean like the silence of a tied up man?

I know. What is with FAG and destroying everything remotely Arabic or Islamic?
Because he's a worthless A**hole who serves no purpose in life?

political stability under the Shah? you mean like the silence of a tied up man?

Politically stable =/= free

It's possible for a country to be politically stable and still be a dictatorship. Examples: Stroessner's Paraguay, Hoxha's Albania, Saddam's Iraq, Mobutu's Zaire (pre 1990-ish), etc.

What do you mean? The overthrow of Mossadegh led to a period of political stability under the Shah in which a plethora of bonds with the USSR were severed and new ones with the Free World were formed and strengthened. Of course, he was later deposed in a revolution, but only being a critical ally in the Cold War. If we must stage a coup d'état every 25 years to ensure a pro-American government in Iran, I wouldn't mind.

Mossadegh ran a democracy. Isn't that what you want? Oh, wait, since it's not Sanctioned by the US of A, it's BAAAAAAD.

Makes me wonder... how much is the cost to stage a successful coup (and relatively bloodless) in the US?

How much does it costs to buy every individual in the US an Iphone?

Makes me wonder... how much is the cost to stage a successful coup (and relatively bloodless) in the US?

It depends on the extent of our participation, the difficulty of arranging and orchestrating said coup, the wishes of the coup plotters, and how much we are willing to pay.

How much does it costs to buy every individual in the US an Iphone?

How much does one cost?

Mossadegh ran a democracy. Isn't that what you want? Oh, wait, since it's not Sanctioned by the US of A, it's BAAAAAAD.

There are usually competing interests and a delicate balance must be struck between them. For example, democracy is sacred; consequently, we must strive to expand its reach. However, communism (especially the Soviet version) is a noxious influence which threatens to shrivel a country into nothing; consequently, we must strive to contain it. As you may recall, the Russian Revolution yielded a leftist democracy prior to collapsing into a Bolshevik dictatorship. The same may have easily happened to Iran. During the Cold War, restricting the USSR's geo-political ambitions was a paramount objective, trumping secondary goals.

How about this: We leave Iran alone. We allow Ahmadinejad to run his nation, and if he does something bad, we respond to it.

The same may have easily happened to Iran. During the Cold War, restricting the USSR's geo-political ambitions was a paramount objective, trumping secondary goals.

Well, it fucking didn't. The USA ousted a popular leader and made democracy a laughingstock in Iran. So you know what? It's all your damn fault for having no democracy in Iran.

Well, it fucking didn't.

We employed a wise pre-emptive policy to ensure that Iran never went down the path to communism. Thus, a potential catastrophe of such a nature was averted. The rewards were obviously reaped in the form of a capitalist, albeit authoritarian, Iran.

It's all your damn fault for having no democracy in Iran.

The blame can be much more directly attributed to the Islamic revolutionaries who hijacked the country and deposed the ailing Shah, although I suppose that it may be argued that the US was the apparent catalyst for the uprising.

How about this: We leave Iran alone. We allow Ahmadinejad to run his nation, and if he does something bad, we respond to it.

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, forcibly disarming it could pose a substantial challenge and lead to horrific casualties. And, anyway, Iran has already done something bad: it has consistently defied UN resolutions mandating it to halt its nuclear-weapons program and refused to submit to the will of the entire world.

... and refused to submit to the will of the entire world.

Whoa, internationalism under the US flag... kinda like Communist internalitionism.

Submit? Whatever happen to the right to choose their own destinies? If nuclear power is one's destiny, you're gonna stop them because they "might" use it against you?

First use that logic on your gun control laws, then tell us if it works, so we can agree with you.

... You as in the US... not F&G.

And, anyway, Isreal has already done something bad: it has consistently defied UN resolutions mandating it to withdraw from the Palestinean territories.

And, anyway, the USA has already done something bad: it has consistently defied UN resolutions mandating it to end its discrimination against foreign companies dealing with Cuba

See how that works? So defying UN charters justifies regime change? by that rationale, prepare yourself for a change of government.

Submit? Whatever happen to the right to choose their own destinies? If nuclear power is one's destiny, you're gonna stop them because they "might" use it against you?

If you're producing highly-enriched uranium and following a path contrary to the mandates of the IAEA and UN, that's because you're seeking nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.

It's all your damn fault for having no democracy in Iran.

F&G overthrew Ahmadinejad!? :eek:

See how that works? So defying UN charters justifies regime change? by that rationale, prepare yourself for a change of government.

Ah, the comparison between the US and Iran. How misguided yet predictable. The US is a prosperous nation with a well-entrenched democracy whose foreign policy impacts or seeks to impact the world in a positive manner. Iran is not a democracy (who elected Khomeini?), economically crumbling, a breeding ground for terrorists, creating local instability, and pursuing a maleficent foreign policy.

We employed a wise pre-emptive policy to ensure that Iran never went down the path to communism. Thus, a potential catastrophe of such a nature was averted. The rewards were obviously reaped in the form of a capitalist, albeit authoritarian, Iran.

Dude, a preemptive policy is never wise. Didn't your mommy ever tell you not to act first and think later?

The blame can be much more directly attributed to the Islamic revolutionaries who hijacked the country and deposed the ailing Shah, although I suppose that it may be argued that the US was the apparent catalyst for the uprising.

The unrest allowing that hijacking of the country was created by Mossadegh's removal. So, yeah, the US is the catalyst.

If you're producing highly-enriched uranium and following a path contrary to the mandates of the IAEA and UN, that's because you're seeking nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.

By power I meant not just electrical power,... power to deter, power to destroy, power to protect, whatever semantics it maybe.

Dude, a preemptive policy is never wise. Didn't your mommy ever tell you not to act first and think later?

Let's consider WWII for a second. Tens of millions of people died because pre-emptive action was not taken against Germany when it could have been easily defeated and deterred from its aggressive, expansionist path. Appeasement is never wise because it simply leads to greater problems later on. Furthermore, you cannot equate such a policy to acting first and thinking later; it can be thoroughly considered prior to executing it, just like any other type of policy.

The unrest allowing that hijacking of the country was created by Mossadegh's removal. So, yeah, the US is the catalyst.

No, that's false. There was a wide degree of stability during the Shah's tenure as supreme ruler.

Ah, the comparison between the US and Iran. How misguided yet predictable. The US is a prosperous nation with a well-entrenched democracy whose foreign policy impacts or seeks to impact the world in a positive manner. Iran is not a democracy (who elected Khomeini?), economically crumbling, a breeding ground for terrorists, creating local instability, and pursuing a maleficent foreign policy.

Iran in the 50s? Nicaragua? Chile? El Salvador? Vietnam? Panama? Need I go on?

To claim this is the height of stupidity and arrogance. Your entire argument revolves around Usa=good, commies=bad. Prove that or shut up.

Iran in the 50s? Nicaragua? Chile? El Salvador? Vietnam? Panama? Need I go on?

No, all these foreign policy actions were instances of deploying forces in accordance to Kennan's containment doctrine. In general, we sought to prevent communism from premeating a country and ultimately seizing control of the state apparatus. We were successful in most of these attempts.

To claim this is the height of stupidity and arrogance. Your entire argument revolves around Usa=good, commies=bad. Prove that or shut up.

Simply look at the state of the USSR prior to its dissolution in order to qualify the differences between the two super-powers. We had achieved unheard-of prosperity and unprecedented well-being whereas the USSR was simply painted rust, slowly being corroded into nothingness.

Let's consider WWII for a second. Tens of millions of people died because pre-emptive action was not taken against Germany when it could have been easily defeated and deterred from its aggressive, expansionist path. Appeasement is never wise because it simply leads to greater problems later on. Furthermore, you cannot equate such a policy to acting first and thinking later; it can be thoroughly considered prior to executing it, just like any other type of policy.



No, that's false. There was a wide degree of stability during the Shah's tenure as supreme ruler.

No thats false. Again you don't know your history. Socially Iran was highly unstable due to social inequalities between the classes. So no, THATs false.

No thats false. Again you don't know your history. Socially Iran was highly unstable due to social inequalities between the classes. So no, THATs false.

Politically Iran was stable. Socially, no.

No, all these foreign policy actions were instances of deploying forces in accordance to Kennan's containment doctrine. In general, we sought to prevent communism from premeating a country and ultimately seizing control of the state apparatus. We were successful in most of these attempts..

That was not the question. The question was whether the policies employed in those nations impacted in a positive manner. You would have to be stark raving mad to say it did. The question had nothing to do with state apparatus or containment doctrine did it?

No thats false. Again you don't know your history. Socially Iran was highly unstable due to social inequalities between the classes. So no, THATs false.

Economic growth rapidly accelerated while the Shah was in charge, improving the well-being of the populace in general. Pseudo-feudal land policies, extant under Mossadegh, stifled growth, yet reforms freed up the economy, jolting it forward. On the economic front, the Shah was a welcome savior delivering the people front the cataclysmic policies of his predecessor. On the other hand, he marginalized the hard-core Islamists, who formed the MEK, the element contributing to the unrest.

The question was whether the policies employed in those nations impacted in a positive manner.

Impacted who? They definitely preserved and safe-guarded anti-communist bastions throughout the world, preventing the spread of the toxic ideology. In that sense, they were globally beneficial.

The question had nothing to do with state apparatus or containment doctrine did it?

On the contrary; in fact, it was the crux of the matter. What do you think it had to do with, if not that?

Economic growth rapidly accelerated while the Shah was in charge, improving the well-being of the populace in general. Pseudo-feudal land policies, extant under Mossadegh, stifled growth, yet reforms freed up the economy, jolting it forward. On the economic front, the Shah was a welcome savior delivering the people front the cataclysmic policies of his predecessor. On the other hand, he marginalized the hard-core Islamists, who formed the MEK, the element contributing to the unrest.

1 - Tell that to the guys at the bottom of the pile. In the Shah's Iran, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

2 - The Shah was not a welcome saviour, otherwise he wouldn't have been so strongly opposed would he?

3 - So you admit that the Shahs actions in marginlizing the Islamists contributed towards unrest? Now you are contradicting yourself.

Simply look at the state of the USSR prior to its dissolution in order to qualify the differences between the two super-powers. We had achieved unheard-of prosperity and unprecedented well-being whereas the USSR was simply painted rust, slowly being corroded into nothingness.

Sigh............ Again FAG you have proved nothing. Proseprity does not equal good. To paint the USA as the saviours of the world is such a fallacy even I can't believe that guys like you exist.

Let's consider WWII for a second. Tens of millions of people died because pre-emptive action was not taken against Germany when it could have been easily defeated and deterred from its aggressive, expansionist path. Appeasement is never wise because it simply leads to greater problems later on. Furthermore, you cannot equate such a policy to acting first and thinking later; it can be thoroughly considered prior to executing it, just like any other type of policy.

Because Mossadegh was a little too leftist for your liking, even though it was a democracy, it was BAAAAAD. Bullshit.

Impacted who? They definitely preserved and safe-guarded anti-communist bastions throughout the world, preventing the spread of the toxic ideology. In that sense, they were globally beneficial.



On the contrary; in fact, it was the crux of the matter. What do you think it had to do with, if not that?

In that sense they were, in the sense that you beleive, not that has been proved.

On whether those countries prospered from US actions or not that what. Now go ahead and claim that the Vietnamese benefited from the US presence in Vietnam. i know you can if you try real hard.

1 - Tell that to the guys at the bottom of the pile. In the Shah's Iran, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Do you have proof of this?

2 - The Shah was not a welcome saviour, otherwise he wouldn't have been so strongly opposed would he?

First of all, I qualified that statement by preceding it with "on the economic front." Second of all, the overthrow of his government was hardly effected by a majority of the Iranian people; rather, the ouster was organized by radical Islamists.

3 - So you admit that the Shahs actions in marginlizing the Islamists contributed towards unrest? Now you are contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not. I stated that there was broad stability. There was a reason I did not claim there was complete stability.

1 - Tell that to the guys at the bottom of the pile. In the Shah's Iran, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Actually, the standard of living increased for almost everyone. The Shah was not opposed because of his economic policies. He was opposed because of his repression and corruption.

In that sense, they were globally beneficial.

To us, yes, at least from a geopolitical perspective. But they were not always beneficial to the people of those countries - in some cases, they caused horrific abuses and atrocities.

On whether those countries prospered from US actions or not that what. Now go ahead and claim that the Vietnamese benefited from the US presence in Vietnam. i know you can if you try real hard.

Alas, that is not so; the Vietnamese succumbed to the communist onslaught. That's the exception to the countries which you listed. In the others, the US experienced almost unqualified success. Had we maintained a military presence in Vietnam, however, it is possible that the outcome would have differed.

Do you have proof of this?



First of all, I qualified that statement by preceding it with "on the economic front." Second of all, the overthrow of his government was hardly effected by a majority of the Iranian people; rather, the ouster was organized by radical Islamists.



No, I'm not. I stated that there was broad stability. There was a reason I did not claim there was complete stability.

1 - No I don't. Do you have proof to the contrary?

2 - The overthrow of the government of the Shah was widely supported at the time. Thats the general definition of popular uprising. The key word here is popular.

3 - You did not say broad. Show me where you did.

But they were not always beneficial to the people of those countries - in some cases, they caused horrific abuses and atrocities.

Yes, that is indeed regrettable. Of course, we don't know what would have happened had we not intervened and had the communists seized power. Stalin's purges far exceeded any capitalist-led slaughters in terms of inhumanity and barbarity. We had to choose between two "evils"; authoritarian capitalism and totalitarian communism. I believe the first to be preferable, although both are horribly repressive.

Alas, that is not so; the Vietnamese succumbed to the communist onslaught. That's the exception to the countries which you listed. In the others, the US experienced almost unqualified success. Had we maintained a military presence in Vietnam, however, it is possible that the outcome would have differed.

And yet in the other countries I mentioned, there was popular support for communism, yet the US saw fit to install tinpot dictatorships for their own purposes.

My own theory here is that far from being for the benefit of the world at large, the US foreign policies over the past 60 - 70 years have solely been about protecting US interests. To pretend they are some sort of act of philanthropy is both insulting and idiotic.

And yet in the other countries I mentioned, there was popular support for communism

Not always. And can support obtained by the barrel of a gun really be considered "popular?"

Not always. And can support obtained by the barrel of a gun really be considered "popular?"

The same could be said of the support of the right wing in those countries, but you do have a point. From history I think we can see there was popular support for communism at the time in Vietnam, and perhaps even in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

1 - No I don't. Do you have proof to the contrary?

Yes: Iranian economic growth averaged an astounding 11.8% while the Shah was in power.

http://countrystudies.us/iran/63.htm

2 - The overthrow of the government of the Shah was widely supported at the time.

Proof? Those supporting it were mostly dedicated Islamists. There were, of course, other elements also in opposition to the Shah who formed an alliance of opportunity with the Islamists, including socialists and secular groups, but they played a smaller role. Note that the Shah was away when this instability was occurring.

3 - You did not say broad. Show me where you did.

Fine, looking back, those weren't my exact words. I said there was a "wide degree" of stability if you want the exact quote. Same thing. The point is, I didn't say "complete."

The same could be said of the support of the right wing in those countries, but you do have a point. From history I think we can see there was popular support for communism at the time in Vietnam, and perhaps even in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

No, not in Viet Nam. Between 1954-1956, almost a million refugees fled from North Vietnam to South Vietnam. And look at all the people who have fled the country since 1975. During the Tet Offensive, the expected popular uprising never materialized. Instead, many flocked to the government's side, even though most South Vietnamese hated their regime. If the communists were genuinely popular, they would have never had to coerce people into supporting them through torture and murder.

In Nicaragua, after the Sandinistas took power, 150,000 people fled - out of a population of 2.2 million (note that this was before the Contras - who were also terrorists in their own right - started stirring up trouble).

As for El Salvador, considering the massive scale of atrocities committed on all sides, I think it's safe to say that no one was popular.

Are you claiming that the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs?

No they were black.


BLACK POWER!!!!!!!!!

:sniper:<that guy is black XD

The unrest allowing that hijacking of the country was created by Mossadegh's removal. So, yeah, the US is the catalyst.

You may be too harsh on the US there- Great Britain, Germany and France were messing up the region way before the Americans became powerful enough to join the fun ;)

The same could be said of the support of the right wing in those countries

In almost all cases, yes.

My own theory here is that far from being for the benefit of the world at large, the US foreign policies over the past 60 - 70 years have solely been about protecting US interests. To pretend they are some sort of act of philanthropy is both insulting and idiotic.

What interest did the US have in Vietnam that was external to the politics of the Cold War?

Yes: Iranian economic growth averaged an astounding 11.8% while the Shah was in power.

http://countrystudies.us/iran/63.htm



Proof? Those supporting it were mostly dedicated Islamists. There were, of course, other elements also in opposition to the Shah who formed an alliance of opportunity with the Islamists, including socialists and secular groups, but they played a smaller role. Note that the Shah was away when this instability was occurring.



Fine, looking back, those weren't my exact words. I said there was a "wide degree" of stability if you want the exact quote. Same thing. The point is, I didn't say "complete."

Sigh................again you quote economic figures which tell us nothing about wealth distribution.

So you admit that opposition to the Shah was widespread, not just amongst Islamists? Again contradicxting yourself.

No you didn't say complete. Thankyou.

What interest did the US have in Vietnam that was external to the politics of the Cold War?

thje containment of communism and the promotion of the AMERICAN way. Not the world wide way, and don't try to pretend otherwise.

Sigh................again you quote economic figures which tell us nothing about wealth distribution.

Well, there was the White Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution), although how successful it was, I'm not sure (obviously not too successful, or it's unlikely there would have been a White Revolution).

No, not in Viet Nam. Between 1954-1956, almost a million refugees fled from North Vietnam to South Vietnam. And look at all the people who have fled the country since 1975. During the Tet Offensive, the expected popular uprising never materialized. Instead, many flocked to the government's side, even though most South Vietnamese hated their regime. If the communists were genuinely popular, they would have never had to coerce people into supporting them through torture and murder.

In Nicaragua, after the Sandinistas took power, 150,000 people fled - out of a population of 2.2 million (note that this was before the Contras - who were also terrorists in their own right - started stirring up trouble).

As for El Salvador, considering the massive scale of atrocities committed on all sides, I think it's safe to say that no one was popular.

Fair comment for Central America, but in my view for Vietnam I think refugees and popular displacement was caused more by economic factors than political differences.

Fair comment for Central America, but in my view for Vietnam I think refugees and popular displacement was caused more by economic factors than political differences.

They were caused by both, actually. In reality, most Vietnamese were pretty apathetic in regards to politics. They just wanted to be left the hell alone to go about their lives peacefully, without any bombing or meddling by any forces, either internal or external. And both North and South Vietnam were repressive dictatorships.

They were caused by both, actually. In reality, most Vietnamese were pretty apathetic in regards to politics. They just wanted to be left the hell alone to go about their lives peacefully, without any bombing or meddling by any forces, either internal or external. And both North and South Vietnam were repressive dictatorships.

True, but I still think that economically the south was far better off, both industry and infrastructure wise.

BTW, I love your comment I highlighted and think it can be safely applied to most people around the world throughout history. If only politicians from all sides would take account of that.

True, but I still think that economically the south was far better off, both industry and infrastructure wise.

I think so.

BTW, I love your comment I highlighted and think it can be safely applied to most people around the world throughout history. If only politicians from all sides would take account of that.

Haha, thanks. I agree. :)

Yeah, try convincing the Iranian Army to overthrow the government.

So you admit that opposition to the Shah was widespread, not just amongst Islamists? Again contradicxting yourself.

No, you're simply committing logical fallacies. For example, opposition to Bush in 2004 was concentrated mostly among Democrats. Did some Republicans also dislike the president? Certainly, but not as significant a portion. Similarly, many Islamists conspired to overthrow the Shah, but only a smaller portion of secularists and liberals aided them in this plot.

thje containment of communism and the promotion of the AMERICAN way. Not the world wide way, and don't try to pretend otherwise.

You claimed that the US did not go to war against Vietnam to further the containment doctrine outlined by Kennan nor for any reason related to the politics of the Cold War. Do you honestly believed we went to war so there'd be a McDonald's in Saigon?

You claimed that the US did not go to war against Vietnam to further the containment doctrine outlined by Kennan nor for any reason related to the politics of the Cold War. Do you honestly believed we went to war so there'd be a McDonald's in Saigon?

No where did I claim that? I claimed that the reason for going to war in Vietnem, and the vast majority of US foreign policy post WWII, was not for the good of the world in general, as you claimed, but for the good of the US.

for the good of the US.

Exactly. So how was going to war in Vietnam "for the good of the US"?

No, you're simply committing logical fallacies. For example, opposition to Bush in 2004 was concentrated mostly among Democrats. Did some Republicans also dislike the president? Certainly, but not as significant a portion. Similarly, many Islamists conspired to overthrow the Shah, but only a smaller portion of secularists and liberals aided them in this plot.

No there are no logical fallacies. In one breath you claim the Shah was widely regarded as a saviour and popularly supported yet opposed by one group, namely the Islamists. In the next breath you claim there was a loose coalition opposing the Shah in league with the Islamists. So which is it?

In one breath you claim the Shah was widely regarded as a saviour

Misleading. I claimed that he was a savior on the economic front; the stunning 11.8% growth rate during his tenure is a testament to the economic miracles which he worked.

yet opposed by one group, namely the Islamists. In the next breath you claim there was a loose coalition opposing the Shah in league with the Islamists. So which is it?

Both. When you talk about WWII, you usually say that Great Britain, the US, and the USSR fought against Italy, Germany, and Japan. If, a few posts later on, you amend your post to say that Spain or Slovakia also fought on the side of the Axis, does that mean your previous statement was false? No, it's simply an elaboration. The Islamists, like Germany, Japan, or Italy, were the major perpetrators of the uprising. There were other, more minor contributors, namely seculars and liberals, who parallel countries such as Slovakia or Spain. They didn't play too critical a role, but they were represented. I'm not going to exhaustively list every single group which participated in the revolt, but I will say that the Islamists were the ring-leaders and constituted a majority of the revolutionaries.

Misleading. I claimed that he was a savior on the economic front; the stunning 11.8% growth rate during his tenure is a testament to the economic miracles which he worked.



Both. When you talk about WWII, you usually say that Great Britain, the US, and the USSR fought against Italy, Germany, and Japan. If, a few posts later on, you amend your post to say that Spain or Slovakia also fought on the side of the Axis, does that mean your previous statement was false? No, it's simply an elaboration. The Islamists, like Germany, Japan, or Italy, were the major perpetrators of the uprising. There were other, more minor contributors, namely seculars and liberals, who parallel countries such as Slovakia or Spain. They didn't play too critical a role, but they were represented. I'm not going to exhaustively list every single group which participated in the revolt, but I will say that the Islamists were the ring-leaders and constituted a majority of the revolutionaries.


Your analogy is false as we are talking about a society as whole here, not a group of nation states.

Now time to stop being obtuse FAG. Here the question. Its a biggie so take your time. Is US foreign policy since WWII ;

A - Selfish and self interested as has been proved time and time again?

B - An act of global philanthropy as you constantly and falsly claim?

B - An act of global philanthropy as you constantly...claim?

Since I constantly claim it, that might be an indication of what I believe it to be. Anyway, don't try evading my question: how was going to war in Vietnam "for the good of the US"?

Since I constantly claim it, that might be an indication of what I believe it to be. Anyway, don't try evading my question: how was going to war in Vietnam "for the good of the US"?

Because you were trying to prevent another country turning communist and therefore denigrating your own idealogical system. Try asking a question before accusing me of evading it. Now how about answering mine with a little more than "I beleive"?

The two are as different as Holland and the Netherlands.

As one with Dutch ancestory I am offended!

I <3 Ahmadinejad, so I refuse to assess how much money it would take to oust him.

Because you were trying to prevent another country turning communist and therefore denigrating your own idealogical system.

So you believe that the invasion of Grenada was similarly in the best interests of the US? Do you believe that the US directly benefited from this excursion, as it prevented the "denigration of its own ideological system"?

Try asking a question before accusing me of evading it.

I did ask you...thrice.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12839781&postcount=105
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12839954&postcount=117
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12840020&postcount=121

Now how about answering mine with a little more than "I beleive"?

We generally seek to export goodwill, freedom, and democracy throughout the world; failing that, we attempt to minimize the damage wrought upon other countries through the vile spreading of damaging ideologies such as communism.

As one with Dutch ancestory I am offended!

I know that Holland =/= the Netherlands! That's why I brought it up! :(

Besides all of it? I deleted the post due to lack of anything intellegent.

Because he's a worthless A**hole who serves no purpose in life?

Let's see if you can figure this out, or if the asterisks obfuscate the response ...

"Warn*d for fl*ming. Kn*ck it *ff"

Honestly, why do people treat F.A.G.'s attention-whoring Bushevik tripe as a serious discussion? Any serious attempts at discussion is merely replied to with more hyperbole and disngenous canard such as The Shah being good for Iran.

Don't feed the troll? Starve it and let this thread die.

I thought teh FaG was an extreme form of liberal. Odd.

Don't squerch me, please. :(

I thought teh FaG was an extreme form of liberal. Odd.

Don't squerch me, please. :(

If by "liberal" you mean "Someone who gladly accepts everything George W. Bush and his administration says as the gospel truth without question to a sycophantic or fanatical degree," then yes he is.

Honestly, why do people treat F.A.G.'s attention-whoring Bushevik tripe as a serious discussion? Any serious attempts at discussion is merely replied to with more hyperbole and disngenous canard such as The Shah being good for Iran.

Don't feed the troll? Starve it and let this thread die.

As asinine as his comments and general rhetoric can be, there is no rule against writing stupid comments here on NSG. If there was, I would have been banned a long time go for the absurd shit I've posted while high.

And as much as it pains me to say it, F&G does have a point, people do call him a troll quite a bit, even when he's not trolling. I know he trolls and I can tell when he does but not everything he has written is worthy of being labelled "trolling".

Any serious attempts at discussion is merely replied to with more hyperbole and disngenous canard such as The Shah being good for Iran.

At least he's trying to debate, and remaining civil about it.

Don't feed the troll? Starve it and let this thread die.

I often disagree with F&G, but he's not a troll just for holding views that are in the minority here.

Well, I know that modern Egypt is Arab

Afraid not...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html

Ethnic Groups: Egyptian 98%, Berber, Nubian, Bedouin, and Beja 1%, Greek, Armenian, other European (primarily Italian and French) 1%

They speak Arabic now...but the people of Egypt are, and always have been, ethnic Egyptians.

Ahamajinad is powerless and nobody in Iran takes him seriously anymore. If he was ousted, there are far more dangerous people that would take his place. Already fundementalists are upset that he's not enough of an extremist.

I believe this thread misuses the phrase "coup d'etat."

Many so-called "non-aligned" leaders during the Cold War were anything but non-aligned (many, like India, Indonesia under Sukarno, Egypt under Nasser, and Ghana under Nkrumah were Soviet allies), but some socialist leaders actually were non-aligned (including, but not limited to, Mossadegh, Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, etc.).

Woot, Soviet allies?

This is because at that time the trend is "anti neo imperialism" which at that time means rampant and unchecked capitalism. Allies of convenience , I'd say.

That doesn't mean that those countries also imported goods and materials from said "imperialistic nations",... at that time it was sort of a buffer movement against the proxy wars of the Cold War,... which, didn't work very well at all.

On the side note, I applaud those countries that back then have the backbone to say no to bullies.

F&G overthrew Ahmadinejad!? :eek:

Well, he's a member of the government. :p

You may be too harsh on the US there- Great Britain, Germany and France were messing up the region way before the Americans became powerful enough to join the fun ;)

Yeah. The Middle East is just everyone's favorite thing to mess up. Bush and Tony Blair are moaning about how it's so screwed up now. Well, quite frankly, they fucked up the Middle East, and this is the price you pay. Payback's a bitch, isnt it?

Woot, Soviet allies?

Yes, Soviet allies.

On the side note, I applaud those countries that back then have the backbone to say no to bullies.

If they had backbone to "say no to bullies," then they would have been genuinely non-aligned, instead of unceasingly kissing Soviet ass at every opportunity.

How dare you speak ill of Ahmadinejad; he's not here to defend himself.

How dare you speak ill of Ahmadinejad; he's not here to defend himself.

No, but he has Andaras Prime to defend him. ;)

If they had backbone to "say no to bullies," then they would have been genuinely non-aligned, instead of unceasingly kissing Soviet ass at every opportunity.

It's a political act of double standards to use one bully against another, and like I was saying, at that time Socialism and it's bastard son, Communism, presents it's self as an answer to those countries that had been "victimized" (note the quotation marks) by "capitalistic imperialism".

As you can see, the Non-Aligned countries at that time were formed by new countries that emerged after WWII. They had enough of the "west" and saw that the Soviets represents themselves as a repressed "proletarian" equal. So it's no wonder that they are rather biased to the Soviets.

But this is all just polemics.

As you can see, the Non-Aligned countries at that time were formed by new countries that emerged after WWII. They had enough of the "west" and saw that the Soviets represents themselves as a repressed "proletarian" equal. So it's no wonder that they are rather biased to the Soviets.

There were also many Western satellites that were "non-aligned," like Zaire and Iran.

But this is all just polemics.

Yeah.

Why should we spend all that money and blood ousting a regime that my not be the most friendly, for various reasons, towards us, but poses no real threat to us? Please answer me this Freedom and Glory. Why should we send our soldiers to die for another pointless cause? What gives us the right to interfere in the internal politics of other countries? Would you want another country barging in and telling us what to do?

Live and let live man. What'd Iran do to you? Nothing.

Why should we spend all that money and blood ousting a regime that my not be the most friendly, for various reasons, towards us, but poses no real threat to us? Please answer me this Freedom and Glory. Why should we send our soldiers to die for another pointless cause? What gives us the right to interfere in the internal politics of other countries? Would you want another country barging in and telling us what to do?

Live and let live man. What'd Iran do to you? Nothing.

Amen.

The money would be better spent if we had our solar power industry people talk to their energy people and implement a widespread solar energy plan. There's an artist who is recreating the Buddhas of Bamayan in Afghanistan via holograms powered by PV panels and battery systems; after the exhibit is over, he's donating the equipment to the people of the village near the installation. If a private artist can bring solar power to Afghanistan, a team of technicians from, say, California can definitely get a solar-powered grid going in Tehran.

Given the state of Iran's air pollution (somewhere between Mexico City and Beijing), they could do with a therapeutic application of zero-emissions power.

I don't mean this as a thread to discuss the advisability of sponsoring a coup d'état in Iran per se, but rather to assess its price tag. I believe that given the public outrage at the current regime and the barely suppressed, simmering hatred against the authoritarianism which has seized Iran in its iron grip, $10 billion dollars should suffice to topple the maleficent government. What would you peg the price of such an act at? Poll coming.

Well I don't expect you to understand or comprehend this, but the real power of the Iranian polity is with the council of experts and Supreme Leader, although the parliament and President have great say over smaller micro/local policy and expenditure, the Supreme Leader and Council are the ones calling the shots, the political system in Iran is actually very complex, with many positions with different powers and the like. The Islamic Republic does not exist because Ahmadinejad is in power, it exists because of the revolution, and the revolution was an uprising in part against the pro-US monarchy, the Islamic Republic is anti-US in nature, and for good reason given the US support ans funding of the Imposed War and other events.

What I mean is, the Supreme Leader himself is anti-US, as in the ideology of the revolution and political system, and no one becomes President without the consent of the SL and experts. You talking about an ideology ingrained deep in the Iranian consciousness, going all the way back to 1979 and beyond. Sure some people dislike Ahmadinejad and his policies, but dislike of a politician means you won't elect him next time, not that you try to overthrow him, once again Freedumb you show your meager knowledge and general stupidity, and points to your reactionary views of US interventionist, which hopefully will be a thing of the past come election time in the US.

What people fail to realise is that should the US try to oust a democratically elected government, or meddle directly in Iranian affairs, or try military efforts to this end, that any loyal opposition in politics to the policies of their elected president would soon fade into insignificance, and millions of Iranians would unite behind a war with the US. Your talking remember about a people that withstood near 8 years of being bombed, gassed, shot and attacked with near the whole world supporting Iraq against them desperately trying to stop the spread of Iran's revolutionary ideals. Ahmadinejad is a hero for helping the poor with welfare and subsidies through oil money, and standing up to US/Israeli imperialist aggression. I would also wait a bit on the sanctions thing, mainly because Ahmadinejad and Chavex have a plan to limit oil supply and drive the OPEC prices up, which they may get support in other countries for.

Are you claiming that the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs?

Ancient Egyptians were a mix of North Africans with a minority of Arabs, Persians and Mediterranean Europeans (after the hellenic conquest) afaik.

EDIT: Whoa, ten pages? Somebody will have already answered this then.

once again Freedumb you show your meager knowledge and general stupidity

Andaras Prime, this sort of thing is unacceptable. Do not insult other players in the course of debate; for one thing it weakens your argument, and for another it is against the rules and will result in things that you do not like if you keep it up. You have been warned.

~ Tsarmageddon

What people fail to realise is that should the US try to oust a democratically elected government,A government that got elected because just about every real alternative was banned from running, or banned altogether (This does, incidentally, include the Tudeh party, which happens to be the Iranian version of the Communist party, in case that you suspect a DEFENCE FROM THE BOURGEOISIE!), and because he covered his opponents in verbal mud (Actually, this may explain why you're so fond of him). Very democratic indeed.

Ahmadinejad is a hero for helping the poor with welfare and subsidies through oil money,Actually, he's severely disliked - his party lost the last regional elections for a reason -, to the point of public protests. People want work, not corruption. He did, unfortunately, provide the latter, not the former. He's kind of an Iranian K-whatever the Polish president is.

Generally speaking, it's worth noting that there's a sizeable Iranian immigration in the west - consisting largely of the communists who fled after the revolution, I counted a few among my friends for a few years - who would love to see the Iranian government being overthrown. Not being overthrown by the US, if possible - but being overthrown nonetheless. And the Iranian people do, by and large, not think particularly differently. An US/ UK backed coup would certainly raise... Issues, given past history, but it's reasonably likely that just about everyone else would be welcomed.

he (Ahmadinejad) is severely disliked - then why did the Iranian people elect him as president??

and.. I assume you swear he is not going to be re-elected.

then why did the Iranian people elect him as president??

and.. I assume you swear he is not going to be re-elected.

They elected him because he appeared to reflect their moral and cultural values. Plus the other guy was a "reformist" which didn't fit the SL's agenda.

then why did the Iranian people elect him as president??

and.. I assume you swear he is not going to be re-elected.

Reading the whole post is your friend.

A government that got elected because just about every real alternative was banned from running, or banned altogether (This does, incidentally, include the Tudeh party, which happens to be the Iranian version of the Communist party, in case that you suspect a DEFENCE FROM THE BOURGEOISIE!), and because he covered his opponents in verbal mud (Actually, this may explain why you're so fond of him). Very democratic indeed.

They elected him because he appeared to reflect their moral and cultural values. Plus the other guy was a "reformist" which didn't fit the SL's agenda.you mean just like Bush appeared to reflect US moral and cultural values ??

But i guess neither Bush or Ahmedjihad.. these two are never going to be re-elected.. right?

;)

you mean just like Bush appeared to reflect US moral and cultural values ??

But i guess neither Bush or Ahmedjihad.. these two are never going to be re-elected.. right?

;)

Precisely. When one runs for office, they have to assume a certain persona; take on an image that will play well with the voter base even if that persona is that not candidate's true persona. They need to create the illusion of a politician that reflects the values and morals of the people.

Bush can't get re-elected because of the two-term limit and Ahmadinejad won't get re-elected because he's not listening to the Ayatollahs and the SL. He's been a baaaaad little puppet.

Bush can't get re-elected because...embarrassing for the Mirror to front-page the wrong election result
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/daily_mirror_bush.jpg
Ahmadinejad won't get re-elected because he's not listening to the Ayatollahs and the SL. He's been a baaaaad little puppet. if Ahmajihad gets re-elected by the Iranian people.. it trashes all the propaganda about the Ayatollahs running the country.
I am betting he gets re-elected, bye bye silly propaganda. ;)

if Ahmajihad gets re-elected by the Iranian people.. it trashes all the propaganda about the Ayatollahs running the country.
I am betting he gets re-elected, bye bye silly propaganda. ;)BTW.. I am not saying the Guardian Counsil has zero power.. they have a lot.

they have as much religious power as the cardinals council has over the Catholic World.

and they have as much political power as the SCrOTUS. (they have the last word interpreting laws)

Precisely. When one runs for office, they have to assume a certain persona; take on an image that will play well with the voter base even if that persona is that not candidate's true persona. They need to create the illusion of a politician that reflects the values and morals of the true true

I don't mean this as a thread to discuss the advisability of sponsoring a coup d'état in Iran per se, but rather to assess its price tag. I believe that given the public outrage at the current regime and the barely suppressed, simmering hatred against the authoritarianism which has seized Iran in its iron grip, $10 billion dollars should suffice to topple the maleficent government. What would you peg the price of such an act at? Poll coming.

The real outrage is red neck Americans like you thatthink that they have some right to goose step around the world and impose their vision of Freedom on the rest of humanity, you are a theocracy, your ku klux klan lynches blacks
you have white power people vandalizing synogogues and mosques..
your poor starve on the street, your rich rape the third world so they can drive huge suv and shove hamburgers in their fat bellies and Mac Donalds
hugo chavez should invade you!
long live france.:sniper:

Reading the whole post is your friend.

Quiet you! How do you expect Oceandrive to straw man people's positions and avoid their arguments if he has to actually read their posts or quote them in context? I've debated him on several occasions (he persists in claiming that Iran is a democracy) but I gave up after it became apparent that he ignores anything which he can't answer or which contradicts his preconceived ideas.

BTW.. I am not saying the Guardian Counsil has zero power.. they have a lot.

they have as much religious power as the cardinals council has over the Catholic World.

and they have as much political power as the SCrOTUS. (they have the last word interpreting laws)

How many times does this have to be explained to you? The Guardian council has far more power than the US Supreme Court, as you know damn well. Does the SCOTUS have the right to veto any candidate for election based on their political or religious views? The Guardian Council does.

The Guardian council has far more power than the US Supreme Court..you are entitled to your opinion.


How many times does this have to be explained to you?posting "I am right you are wrong" 200 times does not make it true.


as you know damn well. so, now you have a magic crystal ball to tell you what do I know.. and what I dont??


Does the SCOTUS have the right to decide who is going to be President?yes they do.

you are entitled to your opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, nobody is entitled to their own facts. The relative power of the SCOTUS and the Guardian Council is a matter of fact, and no amount of whining or hand waving on your part is going to change that.

posting "I am right you are wrong" 200 times does not make it true.

True, and this is exactly what you've been doing. Every time I make a point that you can't answer (which happens very frequently) you either ignore it completely, edit my post so it looks as if I'm making a different point, or change the subject.

so, now you have a magic crystal ball to tell you what do I know.. and what I dont??

I've explained it to you so many times that you'd have to be incredibly dense not to have taken it in. Of course, you always ignore all the arguments which you can't answer...

yes they do.

Bullshit. On ONE occasion the SCOTUS were asked to adjudicate on the constitutionality of hand recounts; the Guardian Council vet EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION. Even if we were to assume that the SCOTUS would abuse their power to adjudicate in this instance on every possible occasion, the chances they'd get to influence the choice of president would still be few and far between. Let's set this out in a simple format so you can understand:

SCOTUS: can decide whether hand counts in a Presidential election are constitutional.

Guardian Council: vet everyone who wants to stand for election, and can ban anyone they don't like.

It never ceases to amuse me that you attack Dubya while simultaneously defending people who are so right-wing they make him look like a anarchist hippie. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't do it. Ahmandinejad is a threat, but a.) he's probably a good person with some loony views and too much power, and b.) the Iranian government has never had any real power. The problem is with the ayatollahs. Iran will never work right unless they are ousted.

It never ceases to amuse me that Occeandrive attack Dubya while simultaneously defending people who are so right-wing they make him look like a anarchist hippie. :rolleyes:LOL..

so (in your mind) now Occeandrive is the defender of extreme ultra right wing people.

I cant wait for you to try to prove that.. please be my guest -use the quote function to- show us where did I do that.