The Official: Iranian Revolution Thread

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

absolutely.  He wanted the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company back in Iran. 

Ah...well, if it involves oil certainly any allegations of communist taint are obviously false. All Winny had to do was call up Ike, drop the C-word and Ike fell over himself rushing to topple Mr Sweet-Guy on the UK's behalf. Eisenhower was such a tool...lol

And no, I support no uprising, and I support no action their government takes, since it's simply not up to me or any American to decide what happens in Iran.  Of course, its contradiction because you don't agree with it.  What a shocking statement from you.

This may come as a shock to you but American is better than the mullahocracy in every quality but vast quantities.

And though you choose pretend otherwise failure to support an internally driven regime change serves as the first, best course to drag the US into a war.

Do you really think Israel (a sovereign nation that poses no threat to Iran) will simply sit back and allow those jack-holes to acquire nukes? Do you really think Iran won't retaliate against us if Israel hits them not matter how many buses Obama throws them jews under? Do you want a nuclear Iran to have leverage over every nation that depends on Persian Gulf resources? Do you think the US economy would not suffer if Iran turned-off the spiget to Europe and Asia? Or if the Arab states ended-up in a protracted naval conflict with Iran? Russia recently conducted deep-blue exercises with the Iranian navy, wouldn't that add an interesting spice into the mix?

[Eupher]

I think I understand Mr. Matrix's stance on the issue of Iran and how the U.S./Israel should handle Iran.

1.  Grab a shovel.
2.  Dig a hole about 1' x 1' x 1'.
3.  Insert head into same hole.
4.  Fill up the rest of the hole.

[JohnMatrix]

Ah...well, if it involves oil certainly any allegations of communist taint are obviously false. All Winny had to do was call up Ike, drop the C-word and Ike fell over himself rushing to topple Mr Sweet-Guy on the UK's behalf. Eisenhower was such a tool...lol
This may come as a shock to you but American is better than the mullahocracy in every quality but vast quantities.

And though you choose pretend otherwise failure to support an internally driven regime change serves as the first, best course to drag the US into a war.

Do you really think Israel (a sovereign nation that poses no threat to Iran) will simply sit back and allow those jack-holes to acquire nukes? Do you really think Iran won't retaliate against us if Israel hits them not matter how many buses Obama throws them jews under? Do you want a nuclear Iran to have leverage over every nation that depends on Persian Gulf resources? Do you think the US economy would not suffer if Iran turned-off the spiget to Europe and Asia? Or if the Arab states ended-up in a protracted naval conflict with Iran? Russia recently conducted deep-blue exercises with the Iranian navy, wouldn't that add an interesting spice into the mix?

right, i'm sure if you had a foreign state controlled oil company selling all oil extracted from this country, you would be incredibly happy.  Its also interesting that the British Foreign Office and Truman's Secretary of state admitted that there was no danger of a communist takeover.

Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue — i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mossadeq was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen

from here
Yea, right, regime change did a great job making the "Islamic Republic" of Iran possible.  They were so happy with the guy we put in power that they let him take a vacation from his own country. Permanently.  They appreciated us so much that they took Americans as hostages.  You can see that they really love us now since we treated them so well.  Do you really think that interfering in the same manner again is going to be any different?  I guess its true, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Who's talking about Israel here?  They, as a sovereign nation, can defend themselves by using whatever means they wish to use.  How's Iran going to retaliate exactly? They can't strike them militarily. Are they going to give more weapons to hezbolla? That'll just give israel an excuse to crush them.  Why do we have to babysit Israel? Shouldn't they be allowed to take care of their own business, as any sovereign nation should?  If Iran turns off the spigot, all they are going to do is kill their own economy even faster.  Are you sure you're not confusing that with their recent naval exercise with India?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Oh Johnny.

Are you really painting US presidents as the patsy of British national oil-profiteering interests?

Of course why would a president have to be ashamed for protecting merchant intersts in foreign lands?

Even still, Carter made it pretty plain he was throwing the Shah under the bus and look how he was repaid. We also kept a hands-off approach to Afghanistan after helping them eject your peace-loving Russians. In fact from Kuwait to Bosnia to Africa we've spent blood and treasure with a bent towards leaving them alon when we were done.

Oddly, one of the 9/11 hijackers in his suicide video cited the Serbian genocide against muslims as his motive for attacking the US.

It's like you just can't win some days.

As long as you're on your little history cycle why not talk about all the times NON-intervention has proven so effective. We can even bring up the British again.

Why don't you bitch about something useful...like the puppet-regime we installed in Japan c. 1945. I mean, we even went so far as to dictate the modification of the shinto religion.

Right?

[Eupher]

JohnMatrix:

Who's talking about Israel here?  They, as a sovereign nation, can defend themselves by using whatever means they wish to use.  How's Iran going to retaliate exactly? They can't strike them militarily. Are they going to give more weapons to hezbolla? That'll just give israel an excuse to crush them.  Why do we have to babysit Israel? Shouldn't they be allowed to take care of their own business, as any sovereign nation should?

Wow. Right out of the Biden playbook:

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself—it's a sovereign nation—what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed. What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?

BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

Georgie Porgie, Puddin' and Pie

Been watchin' Any Batshit Communist network lately, John?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Who's talking about Israel here?  They, as a sovereign nation, can defend themselves by using whatever means they wish to use.  How's Iran going to retaliate exactly? They can't strike them militarily.

The Straits of Hormuz can be easily closed by truck-launched anti-ship missiles. If you thought hunting SCUD's in the desert was fun wait until you're looking for things as small as an Exocet.

Imagine Obama sending countless sorties out to comb southern Iran looking for launchers as the world economy strangles and the thugs in Tehran have nothing left to lose. Who do you think would give up first?

Are they going to give more weapons to hezbolla? That'll just give israel an excuse to crush them.

Yeah, because world opinion is so even-handed in regards to Israel.

Why do we have to babysit Israel? Shouldn't they be allowed to take care of their own business, as any sovereign nation should?

And yet for as much as L'il B tries to throw them Jews under the bus--and Honduras as well--it never seems enough to these yahoos; they keep calling him another Bush.

Maybe because when they see him chucking people under the bush they know they can push harder to get what they want...which is exactly our point that appeasement only encourages those who already possess malicious intent.

Your entire line of argumentation bears this out as you're saying Israel is free to deal with Iran any way it sees fit...but why does Israel even have to deal with Iran in the first place? What offense has Israel offered to Iran? So the notion that leaving Iran alone = peace is absurd on its face.

But then your sort always whines about why do we have to be friends with Israel. How about...because it is in our interests to do so and just because some deranged zealot threatens us is NOT a reason to abandon a friend. All that proves is you were never much of a friend to begin with and that you can be pushed around. It's odd that you sit safely cocooned within a society wherein your betters have come together for the common purpose of creating a community free of the threats of force and fraud. Beyond this we live in a world where the ultimate expression of foreign policy is quickly being decided by a ballistic flight trajectory. As surely as we have murderers and thieves in our neighborhoods so too do we have them running nation states.

It ain't 1801 anymore (although even then American presidents were known to wage war in the name of merchant interests).

[JohnMatrix]

The Straits of Hormuz can be easily closed by truck-launched anti-ship missiles. If you thought hunting SCUD's in the desert was fun wait until you're looking for things as small as an Exocet.

Imagine Obama sending countless sorties out to comb southern Iran looking for launchers as the world economy strangles and the thugs in Tehran have nothing left to lose. Who do you think would give up first?
Yeah, because world opinion is so even-handed in regards to Israel.
And yet for as much as L'il B tries to throw them Jews under the bus--and Honduras as well--it never seems enough to these yahoos; they keep calling him another Bush.

Maybe because when they see him chucking people under the bush they know they can push harder to get what they want...which is exactly our point that appeasement only encourages those who already possess malicious intent.

Your entire line of argumentation bears this out as you're saying Israel is free to deal with Iran any way it sees fit...but why does Israel even have to deal with Iran in the first place? What offense has Israel offered to Iran? So the notion that leaving Iran alone = peace is absurd on its face.

But then your sort always whines about why do we have to be friends with Israel. How about...because it is in our interests to do so and just because some deranged zealot threatens us is NOT a reason to abandon a friend. All that proves is you were never much of a friend to begin with and that you can be pushed around. It's odd that you sit safely cocooned within a society wherein your betters have come together for the common purpose of creating a community free of the threats of force and fraud. Beyond this we live in a world where the ultimate expression of foreign policy is quickly being decided by a ballistic flight trajectory. As surely as we have murderers and thieves in our neighborhoods so too do we have them running nation states.

It ain't 1801 anymore (although even then American presidents were known to wage war in the name of merchant interests).

except the thugs in Iran actually do have something to lose, its called their "economy."  Also, Iran would give up first, unless they want war with all their neighbors that depend on oil exports as well. 

Who cares about world opinion?

Who cares that they call him another Bush? that is completely irrelevant.  Why does Israel have to deal with Iran? Simple, because they are being threatened.  War in that case is fine, as long as the threat is genuine.  Who said that leaving Iran alone=peace?

Israel isn't a friend.  It would be better to call them a welfare recipient.  Our "friendship" has done nothing but made them completely dependent on us.  They, like any other country, need to live without the help of others.  That being said, they can take care of themselves with regards to Iran.  They would even have the support of arab countries around them, since they too don't want a nuclear Iran. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

except the thugs in Iran actually do have something to lose, its called their "economy."  Also, Iran would give up first, unless they want war with all their neighbors that depend on oil exports as well. 

Who is going to invade them when all they have to do is drive up a truck, launch a missile and retreat? Do you really think the Arabs could cobble together an expeditionary force?  If they did how long would it take vs. the world's economy going tits up (HINT: it took the US 14 months to build-up for Iraq vs the 3 to 5 days of oil on the market on any given day)?

Who cares about world opinion?

Assuming you had a position of responsibility: you would as soon as goods stopped flowing to the US because global manufacturing tanks, prices skyrocket and what few US goods are shipped abroad have no buyers because these markets have nothing. Remember: it'll take months to shut Iran down vs their ability to wreak global economic chaos in a matter of days. Imagine if they had nukes.

Kinda makes you wish we could do SOMETHING before then.

Who cares that they call him another Bush? that is completely irrelevant.

Your president.

Why does Israel have to deal with Iran? Simple, because they are being threatened.  War in that case is fine, as long as the threat is genuine.

 
Swing and a miss.

I said Iran threatening Israel counters your argument that non-involvement

Who said that leaving Iran alone=peace?

You're the one who keeps claiming that if we leave Iran alone all will be well with the US.

Israel isn't a friend.  It would be better to call them a welfare recipient.  Our "friendship" has done nothing but made them completely dependent on us.  They, like any other country, need to live without the help of others.  That being said, they can take care of themselves with regards to Iran.  They would even have the support of arab countries around them, since they too don't want a nuclear Iran.

 
Yeah and NATO and our allies in WW2 and the rest.

****ing Brits should've learned to live with the Germans, it's their fault for getting tied-up with Poland.

Ditto Reagan. ****ing moron taking on the USSR, what was he thinking?



I see life like this: if we **** with them they're gonna **** with us.

If we don't **** with them they're still gonna **** with us.

And willingness is a poor cure for rape.

[JohnMatrix]

Who is going to invade them when all they have to do is drive up a truck, launch a missile and retreat? Do you really think the Arabs could cobble together an expeditionary force?  If they did how long would it take vs. the world's economy going tits up (HINT: it took the US 14 months to build-up for Iraq vs the 3 to 5 days of oil on the market on any given day)?
Assuming you had a position of responsibility: you would as soon as goods stopped flowing to the US because global manufacturing tanks, prices skyrocket and what few US goods are shipped abroad have no buyers because these markets have nothing. Remember: it'll take months to shut Iran down vs their ability to wreak global economic chaos in a matter of days. Imagine if they had nukes.

Kinda makes you wish we could do SOMETHING before then.
Your president.
 
Swing and a miss.

I said Iran threatening Israel counters your argument that non-involvement
You're the one who keeps claiming that if we leave Iran alone all will be well with the US.
 
Yeah and NATO and our allies in WW2 and the rest.

******* Brits should've learned to live with the Germans, it's their fault for getting tied-up with Poland.

Ditto Reagan. ******* moron taking on the USSR, what was he thinking?



I see life like this: if we **** with them they're gonna **** with us.

If we don't **** with them they're still gonna **** with us.

And willingness is a poor cure for rape.

Yes, the arabs could "cobble together" an expeditionary force.  Also, again, you fail to realize that they would kill their own economy by firing at any ships there.

Again, wreaking "global economic chaos" will be particularly bad for them, since they depend on exporting oil.  They would have a real revolution on their hands if they tried that.

And the president caring about what others think of him is irrelevant.

"swing and a miss"
Iran threatening israel counters nothing.  Israel (again) can take care of itself.  You think we should support some people in the streets in order to get them to stop threatening israel?  Do you really think anything would actually change if the other guy actually gets in power?

No, i said we should stay out of their internal political business. 

yea, **** the brits who we helped militarily after the germans declared war on us, and after the japanese attacked us Apples =/= oranges
yep, ditto reagan who outspent the soviets.  apples=/= oranges

That's a sad way to see life.