Kerry's Speech on Iraq

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by lightblue
Meant Iran in the 80's. Now the poor and oppressed realise that a theocracy doesn't hold their interest in hands either, so they're ready for trying something else. I wouldn't want a theocratic Saudi state for 15-20yrs though before they realise it.

Some people need to realize their mistakes the hard way to understand it isn't what is best suited for them. I've seen people stumble over and over again, and after a few times finally realize their errors.

Pax:

That is why the Iranians revolted in the 70's and that is why the Iranians are looking to change their form of government without U.S. involvement. Iran is a prime example of the will of the people at work.

Laughable at best. It has to do with mainly the regular people staying in their houses, and radicals going out seizing power. It had nothing to do with the will of the people... that's the biggest pile of rubbish I ever heard. All I've heard from you is pretty inaccurate of the reality at any rate.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Laughable at best. It has to do with mainly the regular people staying in their houses, and radicals going out seizing power. It had nothing to do with the will of the people... that's the biggest pile of rubbish I ever heard. All I've heard from you is pretty inaccurate of the reality at any rate.

How is it rubbish when you just rephrased my statement?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It has to do with mainly the regular people staying in their houses, and radicals going out seizing power. It had nothing to do with the will of the people... that's the biggest pile of rubbish I ever heard.

Do you have any idea what happened in Iran in the '70s, Fez? The Shah was a thug, pure and simple. He was just as bad as Castro and we should have never backed him. The regular Iraqi was sick and tired of living in a police state and, at the very least, the Ayatollah offered a different police state (to be fair, it isn't as oppressive as the Shah's... imagine that) .

[GePap]

The Shah got into trouble for several reasons: 1. He was an autocrat who created a police state.
2. He was attempting rapid "westernization" in an autocratic manner, and more conservative social forces were resistant.

So he was brought down by a huge popular revolt emcompassing most sectors of society. In the aftermath of the fall of the Shah it turned out the clerics were the most organized and determined, so they came out on top.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Of course, it was French deterrence that saved the day.

Of course, given that the USSR never had any intent of attacking Western Europe in the first place... but that's probaby already too much history for you.

Mind you, France did have a nuclear arsenal, and it was quite large. American missiles, though, were manufactured with the words "deterrence" written on them so they were more efficient than the French ones at it.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Some people need to realize their mistakes the hard way to understand it isn't what is best suited for them. I've seen people stumble over and over again, and after a few times finally realize their errors.

That's the problem though. Do you want a hardline islamist state in Saudi Arabia, with the resources they got? You think we have issues with Islamist terrorism now.. wait till that happens.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ned


Did you actually listen to the speech as I did? That may have been the best speech ever delivered to the UN.

It was a great, campaign speech. He might as well have said, "make sure to vote for me this fall," at the end of it.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, that did happen in Iran in 52. But, what happened in '53?

The US supported a monarchist coup against a democratically-elected government IIRC.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Of course, given that the USSR never had any intent of attacking Western Europe in the first place... but that's probaby already too much history for you.

Maybe we should ignore the Hungarian and Czech experience. That would make the Sovs look more peace loving.

Anyone who thinks the Red Army was kept out of Western Europe by anything other than the threat of the USAF is deluded.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boshko

The US supported a monarchist coup against a democratically-elected government IIRC.

No, the US backed a Brit coup against a usurper who siezed total power.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry Ned. Mohammed Mossedegh was democratically elected as Prime Minister not just once, but twice (reelected to the position by the Majlis in 1952). The Brits and US were made that he nationalized the oil industry.

Yes, he was trying to consolidate power in '53, but to call him an 'usurper' is ridiculous.

[Ned]

Imran, he was twice "elected" by parliament to be prime minister. However, as in the UK, he actually was appointed prime minister by the Shah. The Shah replaced him when he demanded control of the army. There were riots. So the Shah he reappointed him and gave him control of the army. Then Mossadegh dismissed parliament permanently so he could rule by decree. He granted himself all sorts of emergency powers and begain to rule by decree. There was no sense in which this man was not a dictator, especially after he forced the Shah to flee the country and ruled alone.

Democratically elected my ass. Tell the truth you f*cking fascists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Democratically elected my ass.

From your post:

he was twice "elected" by parliament to be prime minister

The Majlis voted for Mossedegh twice because of his immense popularity to be the Prime Minister.

Mossedegh only turned to consolidate his power because the CIA and MI6 were clandestinely trying to oust him from power and this is documented. CIA director Allen Dulles approved $1 million to be used in any way to bring about the fall of Mossadegh. Operation Ajax was intended to bring about his fall. They did this BEFORE Mossadegh dismissed parliament!

With all that, can you blame the man for consolidating power and trying to get rid of the Shah for his complicity in the matter.

Before you dismiss this as an anti-American story, it was acknowledged by SecState Albright and the New York Times blew the cover off the the US's involvement in attempting to overthrow a democratic government. It was democratic when Operation Ajax was implimented. Because it turned less so during the operation is immaterial.

Though I do love how you have to resort to insults because you realize your untenous position.

[DinoDoc]

Why can't we have that CIA again? I want an agency to be that competent.

[muxec]

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

America must pay 150$ for throwing grenades at terrorists