Iran; in general

Gen. William Odom on Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imj8YFMfZvI

[piercehawkeye45]

Last time we had a "regime change" in Iran it led to all the problems that we have today.

[elSicomoro]

And of course, there's no guarantee that we'll get the government of our liking.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

But once you get past dates and dried figs, the fruit orchards of the middle east are what...? Satire that's wide of the mark isn't much of a giggle.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

But once you get past dates and dried figs, the fruit orchards of the middle east are what...? Satire that's wide of the mark isn't much of a giggle.

It was just bananas and a few pineapples we fucked over whole countries for. Your right, satire (it wasn't satire it was sarcasm) that's over your head, isn't much of a giggle for you.

[elSicomoro]

I really like Middle Eastern food though. One of my favorite restaurants in St. Louis is Cafe Natasha, which serves Persian cuisine.

[Beestie]

Back in the 70s the Shah of Iran asked the US for help making Iran nuclear capable. The US - or should I say Israel - said no. So Iran went to Russia. So the CIA had the Shah tossed out leading to the return of Islamic theocracy. Oops.

Today, less than 30 years later, Iran is both nuclear capable AND an Islamic theocracy. Double oops.

All that right on the heels of the miserable failure of our domino theory experiment in Vietnam.

And now, our experiment in Iraq.

I'm beginning to think that we need a constitutional amendment to put control of the military under the Senate. The office of the president apparently can't handle the power and has a child's understanding of world affairs.

And just to complete the thought, I don't doubt for an instant that Iran needs a regime change any more than I doubt that Sheryl Crowe needs an underwear change. The problem is a change to what? Or to whom? Its like everyone just pats themselves on the back for coming to the painfully obvious point that the wrong guy/people are in charge of Iran. Well any moron can see that. Who wants to take responsibility for the choice of the new regime when it goes horribly wrong. Again. And again.

Its almost sad to see Bush standing around with his thumb in his mouth trying to figure out exactly that question about Iraq.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Who wants to take responsibility for the choice of the new regime

How about the natives for a change?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Who wants to take responsibility for the choice of the new regime

How about the natives for a change?

That would be nice. Even in Somalia, an Islamic government brought peace after 16 years to the cities, opened schools, and started rebuilding local economies. Therefore it was declared an enemy of the United States. When US supported rebels could not drive them out, then a surrogate army from Ethiopia was deployed. Do you really think Ethiopia took on that war arbitrarily - in direct contradiction even to the UN? As a result, Somalia has returned to turmoil with refugees again fleeing cities in fear and into regions of drought and food shortages. Situation now so bad that refugees must even rent time under shade trees.

A nation that advocates torture in the name of a Christian god has again saved another nation from itself - for a 'political agenda'? This is the neocon agenda that also creates so much 'evil' elsewhere. The word hypocrisy applies.

Details of CIA, et al history are accurate in that it also explains current events. Another nation's people being told by American extremists what is 'good and bad' for them. Just another exmaple of the wacko politics call 'pre-emption'. We must save them from themselves; as we have in Iraq.

Just more reasons why a world is becoming more dangerous for Americans. Americans need not act according to Americans principles because a neocon 'political agenda' of pre-emption justifies all. A 'political agenda' justified by the righteousness of a Christian god.

No wonder the world is slowly sinking back into another cold war. Remember the source of that caution - the same person who warned of the destruction of the Oslo Accords and the mythical WMDs. Christian extremists want Armageddon. Their 'good' stated mockingly in the neocon vocabulary where everything is only 'good or evil'.

World wide instability can be stopped. But informed and intelligent people must mock and harass those who apply religious pagan beliefs into their 'political agenda' - even to pervert science. Those who desire Armageddon called themselves "god's chosen people" to even justify torture, international kidnapping, unrestricted wire tapping, and contempt for the American soldier. Some with so much bias as to selectively limit their knowledge of Persian-American history to minor events such as a 444 day hostage crisis.

How convenient that those same George Jr and Cheney supporters even ignore reality in Somalia. That is how one selectively rewrites history for a 'political agenda' - complete with denials of some CIA history.

Once upon a time, it was the American principle to get the people of a nation choose their own culture and government. That cannot be permitted when the cold war mentality of neocons must fix the world. A policy called pre-emption. Justified by bias from Christian extremist 'good' - such as torture, international kidnapping, and even "Pearl Harboring" a sovereign nation. As if "Mission Accomplished" does not sufficiently define their hypocisy.

[TheMercenary]

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Back in the 70s the Shah of Iran asked the US for help making Iran nuclear capable. The US - or should I say Israel - said no. So Iran went to Russia. So the CIA had the Shah tossed out leading to the return of Islamic theocracy. Oops.

Oh really? Where did you dig up this bit of conspiracy theory? The US, CIA, had the Shah tossed out? What so we could send a bunch of troops over to get the hostages we let them hold on to for 444 days? Hmmmmmm.....

Did the CIA plan to have those guys die in Desert One as well? Maybe Bush did it.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh really? Where did you dig up this bit of conspiracy theory? The US, CIA, had the Shah tossed out?

Yes. In 1953 and again in 1978/9.

Do you think they boys over at Langley just sit on their ass eating jelly donuts all day? No, they are out there stirring up shit wherever they can.

Who was the National Security Adviser under Carter? Hint: A Soviet defector. When did British Petroleum's 1953 agreement to the rights to Iranian oil expire? Hint: It was a 25 year agreement.

I can't believe you even asked me that - its practically common knowledge at this point. Even the CIA won't deny its now well documented role in the 1953 coup that put the Shah in power in the first place.

And of course the CIA didn't anticipate the hostage crisis. As usual, they don't anticipate anything - they just "do." The consequences were left to the peanut brain in the White House at the time who, by admitting the Shah into the US, committed one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of the 20th Century - that probably more than anything led to the hostage crisis.

Here's a couple links that you might find interesting since you apparently think all the CIA does all day is go around the world sticking daisys in gun barrels.

The CIA in Iran
The CIA Manual for the 1953 overthrow
Excerpts from A Century of War - written by a German historian

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Here's a couple links that you might find interesting since you apparently think all the CIA does all day is go around the world sticking daisys in gun barrels.

An interesting ASS-You-Muption.... well stated... Bravo.

I will digest your "proof". Thanks.

[DanaC]

don't doubt for an instant that Iran needs a regime change any more than I doubt that Sheryl Crowe needs an underwear change. The problem is a change to what? Or to whom?

And by whom? and to what purpose?

How about the natives for a change?

Regime change from below is hardly a new phenomenon on Iran. Just because the West didn't like the regime they chose for themselves, does not mean they didn't change their regime.