The US assasinated Iran's Qassem Soleimani - Page 35 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15059319
late wrote:Governments change, or are you saying we should call the Queen, say we're sorry, and that it will never happen again?

I'm saying you can't blame 1979 on 1953.

The US revolution occurred in part because the King did abuse power, but more importantly Parliament did too--imposing taxes on colonists who did not have any franchise to vote in Parliamentary elections, but could vote in their local assemblies. Consequently, independence became a rather obvious answer.

Iran is a very different story. I suppose you could look at a lot of Iran's anti-Semitism as arising from the Reuter concession and Nassir al-Din Shah obviously precarious hold on power, who pretty much sold Iran to Paul Julius Freiherr von Reuter (born Israel Beer Josaphat). It was cancelled almost immediately. He later sold a tobacco concession, which was also cancelled due to public protest and is credited with sparking Iranian nationalism. Ironically, Mossadeq married one of his many granddaughters.

Anyway, the US brokered a 50/50 deal for Iranian oil, and Iran even nationalized that in 1979. The net effect? In 2017, Iran briefly achieved oil output equal to what it had been in 1979.

Image

Again, let's be very clear. Iran was much better off under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah.

late wrote:Trump is trying to become a dictator, and he's getting closer all the time.

:roll: So why do you think he's bothering with an election in 2020? And why do you think he's even marginally close to becoming a dictator? He only gets done what popular will dictates and Nancy Pelosi can't object to. He will definitely be gone by January 2025. It's all but guaranteed. He's too old to even want to rule beyond that time.
#15059320
blackjack21 wrote:Democracy... Iran was much better off under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah.

Both Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi employed secret police, torture, and executions to stifle political dissent.


:lol:
#15059321
Tainari88 wrote: Since the fall of the Shah in the fifties to now, the USA gov't has been actively interfering in the ME for a long time. It is about geo political interests and oil and it is failing in a big way..


Let me complete that picture by saying that Iran also interferes in the affairs of a bunch of other countries: in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, ... The geopolitical interests are being served by both Iran and the USA.
#15059322
blackjack21 wrote:
1) I'm saying you can't blame 1979 on 1953.

2) The US revolution occurred in part because the King did abuse power, but more importantly Parliament did too--imposing taxes on colonists who did not have any franchise to vote in Parliamentary elections, but could vote in their local assemblies. Consequently, independence became a rather obvious answer.

3) Again, let's be very clear. Iran was much better off under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah.




1) You didn't answer the question. Do the people have a right to self determination? Because your argument says they do not, and your defense of Trump simply reinforces that impression.

2) Read what Brit historians have to say about that. You won't of course, the level of taxation was reasonable. American historians don't argue the point, because it's true.

3) As he got older, the repression got brutal. He wasn't given the boot because he was loved...

Seriously, where do you get this BS? You rejected academia, out of hand, without a serious look at why, and without sources. One can only conclude you are ashamed of your source.

You mentioned George F Kennan earlier. As is usually the case, you were wrong. Kennan saw containment as primarily economic, and he was not at all happy with the Red Scare militarism because he understood the limits of Realpolitik.

Which brings me to my concluding thought. Back in the 80s, the CIA was still trying to sell Iran as one of their success stories. Reagan's people told them to cut it out. The West got cheap oil, we got our puppet, but the end result was a bitter enemy that has been a real problem for us ever since.
#15059336
blackjack21 wrote:Again, let's be very clear. Iran was much better off under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah.

So first of all I want to thank you for excellent, highly informed and thought out posts in this thread. I often learn things by, or am encouraged to explore new avenues of history by your posts. I also much prefer your new posting style. As a sympathetic reader, I don't feel using many short quotes in a single post works well with the PoFo forum format, which only give a quote depth of 1. So if respond robustly to individual points, I wouldn't want to that to be seen as disrespect for your overall contribution to the forum.

I feel similar to the Shah as I do about Charles I. Lefties tend to say, everything was wonderful under Charles I, till evil Dutch and German Presbyterian Capitalist agents imposed Oliver Cromwell on us. Look at the current troubles over the Stormont parliament, not the fault of indigenous British people, all the fault of outside German and Dutch Presbyterian Capitalists interventions.

So seriously I think a period of Theocratic rule was inevitable in Iran as it was in England in the 1640s. In some ways Cromwell and his allies were worse. They didn't just ban mini skirts, but also attempted to ban Christmas, which I don't think the Ayatollah tried to do. Twelever Shiaism is not 100% percent Islam. It is perhaps 80 or 90% Islam. Hence Theocratic rule in Iran while horrible has not stopped the development of Iranian society. Twelver Theocracy, what ever its faults is a very different beast to Sunni Theocracy as we have seen with Algeria, the Taliban and the Islamic State. This is why I supported majority rule in Iraq in 2003 and support the revolutionary overthrow of Sunny tyranny in in Bahrain, the Shia regions of Yemen and most importantly Eastern province Saudi Arabia.
#15059339
Drlee wrote:The US is a wealthy and powerful country. It is unreasonable to expect it to allow tyranny to flourish.

:lol: There is absolutely no way you can actually believe this.

Rugoz wrote:Mossadegh was a wanna-be dictator. He dissolved parliament when he had no right to do so.

And yet, that wasn't why MI6 and the CIA launched the coup against him. They overthrew him for nationalising the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

British and American intervention in the Middle East is about controlling oil resources, not "democracy" or "human rights". The fact that the Saudi mafia state still exists is proof of this.
#15059345
blackjack21 wrote:First, I'm making no apologies for the Shah whatsoever.

Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi had power over ministers under the Persian Constitution of 1906. He was perfectly within his power to dismiss Mossadeq from the post of prime minister, which is no different from the Queen of England's powers.

During WWII, the British and Soviets were allied. Reza Pahlavi Shah--becoming Shah by opposing Soviet expansion into Iran

So on the one hand @late will champion George Kennan when it suits him. Then, he will act as if he is utterly ignorant of the Doctrine of Containment and its first major success. You should know that perfectly well too @noemon , since the Truman Doctrine was formalized during the Greek Civil War following WWII. The US had to balance both Turkey and Greece even though neither were particularly democratic, and they hated each other. However, US policy stabilized both Greece and Turkey (at a cost of $400M US in 1950s dollars) to the point that they both became NATO members in 1952--the same year Mohammed Reza Shah Palavi first dismissed and later re-instated Mossadeq as Prime Minister.

However, Mossadeq then tried to depose the Shah with an unlawful referendum: 1953 Iranian parliamentary dissolution referendum. Mossadeq illegally dissolved parliament on August 16, 1953. He officially "resigned" August 19, 1953.

Name one thing I have said that is an "outright falsehood." I would suggest that it is you and @late who are being quite economical with the facts, because you both know perfectly well the back story, the aims and effect of the Truman doctrine, and what Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi did in the White Revolution for the people of Iran--particularly the rights of women.


Your obfuscations and irrelevant trivia are designed to hide the very obvious reality that Iran's Mossadegh was regime-changed by the US and GB just like Greece was bombed, starved and blockaded by its very own British ally during the Greek Civil war right after winning WW2. The people who liberated Greece from the Nazi's occupation were chased down and killed for being "leftists". It was with exactly the same cynicism that the US and GB rolled over all these countries during the height of their power including Iran.

He was. They ultimately squeezed the "Regime Change" doctrine out of him in 1998 as he was being impeached. Are you going to pretend you didn't know that Bill Clinton was the one who signed the "Regime Change" policy for Iraq in to law too?


That is actually news to me but at least you are paying Bill Clinton the ultimate respect by considering him a danger to the US establishment like you favourite Trump. Kudos.

I'm sorry you feel I insulted you. You have my apologies. It was not my intention to insult you. I would certainly have engaged in a profanity- and adjective-laced tirade if it were my intention to insult you.


Okay, accepted and yellow card removed.

Democracy is a European concept. Iran's constitution of 1906 was modelled on the constitution of Belgium.


Democracy is a Greek concept and still the constitution of Greece is modelled on the French. Persians were the first to mix with Greeks and the second in the world to establish a parliament after the Greeks. The Iranians have democratic traditions in their culture and despite the regime's violence and killings they still take to the streets.
#15059347
blackjack21 wrote:Anyway, the US brokered a 50/50 deal for Iranian oil, and Iran even nationalized that in 1979. The net effect? In 2017, Iran briefly achieved oil output equal to what it had been in 1979.

Again, let's be very clear. Iran was much better off under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi Shah.

It's almost as if the USA financing and arming Iraq's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (complete with chemical weapons!), followed by decades of economic sanctions, might have something to do with this. But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
#15059391
At least one Western leader has the courage to put the blame for the escalation and the resulting downing of the Ukrainian plane where it belongs: Trump!

On Tuesday, Justin Trudeau blamed the showdown between Donald Trump and Iran's leaders for the deaths of the 176 people killed, saying they would still be alive if it was not for escalating tensions.


None of this would have happened if Trump hadn't unilaterally cancelled the Iran deal "just to spite Obama" and assassinate an Iranian leader in violation of international law.

The chief criminal is in the White House.
#15059401
A short history of UK/US aggressions against Iran:

1856 Britain fought its first war against Iran (Persia)

1872 The Shah was forced to sign an agreement with the British which has been termed "The most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has ever been dreamed of"

The following years saw many popular uprisings against the stranglehold of the Iranian economy by the British.

1906 Following the discovery of oil, Britain occupies a number of cities in the South of Iran and the British tightened their stranglehold on the government in Tehran.

1921 The British helped overthrow the Qajar dynasty and put Reza Shah on the throne.

1941 British troops invaded neutral Iran and deposed Reza Shah to put his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on the throne

1953 Elected Iranian president Mossadegh was overthrown in an Anglo-American coup because he had nationalized Iranian oil industry. Under US protection the Shah installed a regime of terror that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

1979 After corruption and mismanagement had led to economic hardship the repressive regime of the Shah was finally overthrown by a popular uprising.

1980 Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with US backing. The US provided varied assistance to Iraq such as the targeting of poison gas attacks against Iran. Iran suffered heavy losses.

1979 The US starts to impose economic sanctions on Iran which have grown increasingly sever until the present day to totally strangle the Iranian economy.

2020 The US assassinates the second most important leader in Iran who was on a peace mission.

The list is far from complete; however, it is clear that Iran has suffered non-stop aggression at the hand of the UK/US in the form of illegal invasions, coups, economic warfare, sanctions, poison gas attacks, assassinations, etc., and that not once has Iran been a threat to the UK or the US.

The lies of the imperialists are an insult to our intelligence.
#15059475
Rich wrote:So first of all I want to thank you for excellent, highly informed and thought out posts in this thread. I often learn things by, or am encouraged to explore new avenues of history by your posts.

That's quite flattering. As you know, we often disagree on things. Likewise, I also favor your views to help vanquish my own blind spots.

Rich wrote:I also much prefer your new posting style.

I have to be very delicate about this. I helped host and moderate a board when we were kicked out of George Friedman's Stratfor in the lead up to the Iraq War. Our approach was to kick out advertisers of porn, foreign drugs, and so forth. We also upheld rules much like this board in certain moderated forums and left it open season--other than porn, spam, etc.--for people like @SpecialOlympian to deliver short bursts of satire in an unmoderated fashion. We could always hunker down in an moderated medium.

We actually had a pretty interesting brain trust, but I'm sorry to say that the leftists quit when they could not win by the weight of their arguments.

So in saying that, there is nothing about my posting style that is new. Nothing at all. I just want to be able to engage freely, especially those who think I post outrageous falsehoods and so forth.

Rich wrote:As a sympathetic reader, I don't feel using many short quotes in a single post works well with the PoFo forum format, which only give a quote depth of 1. So if respond robustly to individual points, I wouldn't want to that to be seen as disrespect for your overall contribution to the forum.

I don't dislike @late. It's just that my own flesh and blood served in that region in that time, and I have a certain well-informed and reserved opinion about it.

Rich wrote:I feel similar to the Shah as I do about Charles I. Lefties tend to say, everything was wonderful under Charles I, till evil Dutch and German Presbyterian Capitalist agents imposed Oliver Cromwell on us. Look at the current troubles over the Stormont parliament, not the fault of indigenous British people, all the fault of outside German and Dutch Presbyterian Capitalists interventions.

Without agreeing or disagreeing, I'm saddened by the loss of Sir Roger Scruton. England has for a long time been a check on the excesses of American politics, and right now it's barely able to regulate itself.

rich wrote:So seriously I think a period of Theocratic rule was inevitable in Iran as it was in England in the 1640s. In some ways Cromwell and his allies were worse.

A period? It was already theocratic. Look at the constitution of 1906. The Mullahs were most certainly included. That's why I say that the reaction against Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was that he did such things as give women the right to vote (something we must at least admit, the Ayatollah Khomeini had a point in opposing it).

Rich wrote:They didn't just ban mini skirts, but also attempted to ban Christmas, which I don't think the Ayatollah tried to do.

Yes, but you're jumping across decades and cultures. This is part of why I'm trying to bust @late's balls. Mossadeq was a nationalist, just like Donald Trump. @late hates Trump's nationalism, but for some reason champions the exact same behavior in Mossadeq.

Rich wrote:This is why I supported majority rule in Iraq in 2003 and support the revolutionary overthrow of Sunny tyranny in in Bahrain, the Shia regions of Yemen and most importantly Eastern province Saudi Arabia.

I'm not equipped at present to agree or disagree with that position. However, you can see my by defense of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi that I'm not just some sort of knee-jerk reactionary.

Heisenberg wrote:They overthrew him for nationalising the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

It feels a little weird to point this out, but they overthrew Mossadeq because he was a nationalist--in other words, a whole lot like Donald Trump.

noemon wrote:designed to hide the very obvious reality that Iran's Mossadegh was regime-changed by the US and GB

I'm hiding nothing. I'm stating forthwith why it happened. I think Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was a great man.

noemon wrote:That is actually news to me but at least you are paying Bill Clinton the ultimate respect by considering him a danger to the US establishment like you favourite Trump. Kudos.

I'll take it as an admission that you couldn't find anything to the contrary... or in other words, I was honest about my assessment and your characterization of me was unfair.

Heisenberg wrote:It's almost as if the USA financing and arming Iraq's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (complete with chemical weapons!), followed by decades of economic sanctions, might have something to do with this.

Look, I don't want to hijack the entire thread defending the United States. The US supplied Hueys (UH-1Bs), Colt 1911 pistols and ACP .45 rounds, some hand-held radios, and some agricultural precursors to anthrax with dual-use potential. The US did not back Iraq in any significant way.

Heisenberg wrote:But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Uh huh... okay.
#15059480
blackjack21 wrote:I'm hiding nothing. I'm stating forthwith why it happened. I think Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was a great man.


Iran was regime-changed because Mossadegh tried to nationalise Iranian oil, your trivia is only meant to obfuscate/hide this reality.

blackjack21 wrote:I'll take it as an admission that you couldn't find anything to the contrary...


I did not even look up the off-topic stuff you said about Bill Clinton and do not even care to look for it. It suffices to say that since you pay him the ultimate respect by calling him a victim of the establishment like your favourite Trump, I have nothing else to add on it.

blackjack21 wrote:or in other words, I was honest about my assessment and your characterization of me was unfair.


Not at all, your attempt to obfuscate the facts with your own creative trivia remains a fact.
#15059483
The US has almost completely encircled Iran with its military bases in the ME, yet the US imperialists claim that Iran is a threat to the US. The truth is that the US/UK imperialists have been a threat to Iran for more than a century. They have never halted their aggression.

Image

Iran has a right to self-defense and the US military in the ME is a legitimate target.
#15059487
blackjack21 wrote:
Look, I don't want to hijack the entire thread defending the United States. The US supplied Hueys (UH-1Bs), Colt 1911 pistols and ACP .45 rounds, some hand-held radios, and some agricultural precursors to anthrax with dual-use potential. The US did not back Iraq in any significant way.




"American support for Ba'athist Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, in which it fought against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, and special operations training."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

sig·nif·i·cant
/siɡˈnifikənt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: significant

1.
sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.
#15059489
Atlantis wrote:
A short history of UK/US aggressions against Iran:

1856 Britain fought its first war against Iran (Persia)

1872 The Shah was forced to sign an agreement with the British which has been termed "The most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that has ever been dreamed of"

The following years saw many popular uprisings against the stranglehold of the Iranian economy by the British.

1906 Following the discovery of oil, Britain occupies a number of cities in the South of Iran and the British tightened their stranglehold on the government in Tehran.

1921 The British helped overthrow the Qajar dynasty and put Reza Shah on the throne.

1941 British troops invaded neutral Iran and deposed Reza Shah to put his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on the throne

1953 Elected Iranian president Mossadegh was overthrown in an Anglo-American coup because he had nationalized Iranian oil industry. Under US protection the Shah installed a regime of terror that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

1979 After corruption and mismanagement had led to economic hardship the repressive regime of the Shah was finally overthrown by a popular uprising.

1980 Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with US backing. The US provided varied assistance to Iraq such as the targeting of poison gas attacks against Iran. Iran suffered heavy losses.

1979 The US starts to impose economic sanctions on Iran which have grown increasingly sever until the present day to totally strangle the Iranian economy.

2020 The US assassinates the second most important leader in Iran who was on a peace mission.

The list is far from complete; however, it is clear that Iran has suffered non-stop aggression at the hand of the UK/US in the form of illegal invasions, coups, economic warfare, sanctions, poison gas attacks, assassinations, etc., and that not once has Iran been a threat to the UK or the US.

The lies of the imperialists are an insult to our intelligence.



But those are not alt-facts, so they don't count...

Have you ever seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu47fIkIsY8

#15059564




Ter wrote:Let me complete that picture by saying that Iran also interferes in the affairs of a bunch of other countries: in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq,


It is not interfering when supporting countries defending their land. The groups in the countries you mentioned have legal and moral rights to fight their occupations, including with the use of arms. Whereas what the U.S. is doing in all the countries it has made war on violate international laws, including the assassinations of the Iranian and Iraqi generals.

Iran is not an imperialist state. It is anti the imperialist states. And it is a powerful state with powerful allies. Pushing for war on it when you're one who doesn't profit off that war is cucky to the highest degree.
#15059581
@Heisenberg

Heisenberg wrote::lol: There is absolutely no way you can actually believe this.


I was thinking the same thing :lol: .

@Drlee

Tyranny and oppression can happen and has probably happened in every country. For example, slavery and Jim Crow laws here in the US are examples of tyranny and oppression. Dictatorship can also happen anywhere and generally requires some form of consent to happen. The US is not exempt from having a dictatorship or having forms of tyranny and oppression in it's society.

@Heisenberg

Heisenberg wrote:British and American intervention in the Middle East is about controlling oil resources, not "democracy" or "human rights". The fact that the Saudi mafia state still exists is proof of this.


I agree. I would also assert that controlling oil resources is not the only reason for British and American involvement (and now Russian involvement) it is also because of the strategic location of the Middle East too. It is the gateway between East and West. The UK and the US are not the only major powers that are involved in the Middle East for control of oil resources and it's strategic location, we see Russia is involved and China too (though not always directly with troops on the ground; they are still involved behind the scenes and diplomatically).

Most major powers are going to be involved in the Middle East because of it's oil and strategic location. Here in the US we are known for having cheap gas and part of the reason for having cheap gas in comparison to the rest of the world (even the major countries) is because of our involvement in the Middle East. Of course, we could develop alternative energy resources so that we don't have to be involved in the Middle East for the purposes of oil, but even then we might still be involved in the Middle East solely because of it's strategic location on the global map. The Middle East is important to all major powers around the globe, not just solely the US and the UK.
#15059583
skinster wrote:It is not interfering when supporting countries defending their land.

:lol: that is a funny way to explain Iran's imperial ambitions in the Region

skinster wrote: The groups in the countries you mentioned have legal and moral rights to fight their occupations, including with the use of arms.


you mean like Hezbollah ? :lol:
Since when do the Hezbollah terrorists claim that Israel is their land ?
#15059590
Politics_Observer wrote:Most major powers are going to be involved in the Middle East because of it's oil and strategic location. Here in the US we are known for having cheap gas and part of the reason for having cheap gas in comparison to the rest of the world (even the major countries) is because of our involvement in the Middle East. Of course, we could develop alternative energy resources so that we don't have to be involved in the Middle East for the purposes of oil, but even then we might still be involved in the Middle East solely because of it's strategic location on the global map. The Middle East is important to all major powers around the globe, not just solely the US and the UK.

Oh, no doubt. But at least Russia and China don't have the gall to claim - with a straight face - that their primary concern in the Middle East is the wellbeing of the local population. I remember a few years ago when Jim Mattis was praising Saudi Arabia for its "humanitarian aid" in Yemen, for God's sake. :lol:
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 40

The founders were basically Englishmen that were […]

Kamala Harris

The thing about Kamala is not that she was propone[…]

Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

If I stored heavy ammo right next to your house i[…]

Who is Kamala Harris?

Just a poll to gauge PoFo's collective opinion on […]