# Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?



## Kevin_Kennedy (Feb 8, 2009)

> When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.



Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?


----------



## Annie (Feb 8, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> > When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?



Should Carter apologize for overthrowing the Shah and letting Khomeni walk in?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 8, 2009)

Anyone who understands anything about the middle east knows that  apologies come from a position of weakness.
Why do you think the Iranians freed the hostages on the day Ronny Raygun took office? They knew he meant business that's why.
Obama is only projecting weakness.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 8, 2009)

tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES.  And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.


----------



## editec (Feb 8, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> Anyone who understands anything about the middle east knows that apologies come from a position of weakness.
> Why do you think the Iranians freed the hostages on the day Ronny Raygun took office? They knew he meant business that's why.
> Obama is only projecting weakness.


 
Ayatolla Khomainie wanted to prove he could effect the outcome of a US election. 

He showed the Islamic world how easy it was to topple a POTUS.

He knew that holding the hostages would do just that.

He bragged about it _as he was doing it. _

Carter fell for his trap. 

It would not have mattered who America elected. It happened to be Reagan.

Those hostages were going to be released immediately after Carter was out of office.

Did Khomainie fear, Reagan?

To do what? Invade? Drop the big one?

I think Khomainie wasn't too worried about either of those.

He didn't need the hostages, post Carter. They'd served their purpose. 

Ayatolla proved his point...that our democracy was easy to manipulate because our President was easy to manipulate.

I wonder what Reagan would have done, had he been in Carter's shoes on day one of the hostage crises?

I doubt he'd have been so easy to maipulate as Carter, but what _would _Ron have done if he'd been President on Nov. 4, 1979?

What would any of you have done on that date had you been POTUS on that first day?

Obviously storming the embassy was an act of war.

It pissed off a lot of Americans and I was one of them.

I thought at the time, that turning Tehran into a sheet of glass might alert the Iranians that we were not amused.

I may have been over reacting a bit.

But I'd have taken a harder line than Carter did.

The so-called hostages were POWs as far as I was concerned. They were after all, spooks, state department professionals and Marine guards.

I'd have begun systematically destroying Iranian oil facilities and all military infrastructure by air.

I'd have escalated even to the point of invasion.

I'd have tracked Khomainie down, and I'd have hanged the bastard.

Storm _our _embassy?

_Die, foreignor die!_

I've mellowed since then.


----------



## Modbert (Feb 8, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> t*HE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES. * And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.



I dare you to say the same about the holocaust. I DARE YOU. 

Hypocrite in that aspect much Sarge?

Unlike you, I care about both incidents and not just one. This changed the future of Iran easily; one can only imagine how it might be today if we had not done what we did.


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 8, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES.  And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.



Dumbest post of the week.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Feb 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> > When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?



The article presents one way to spin the story.  Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not.  During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets.  After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it.  The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.  

There can be little doubt but that the USSR would have turned Iran into a Soviet satellite state if Mossadeq had managed to break relations with the UK and US, and then Iran would have had no control over its oil production or oil revenues.  In fact, had the Soviets not gotten bogged down in Afghanistan, they would almost certainly have tried again to take over Iran after the Islamic Revolution.  

Instead asking for an apology from the US, Amadinejad should apologize to the US for its decades of ingratitude.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Feb 9, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > > When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
> ...



Yes, what ingrates.  We give them a perfectly good military dictator to rule over them and they dare question us?

Maybe the Soviets would have taken over Iran, key word being maybe.  The choice, however, was for the Iranian people to make, and they clearly chose Mossadeq.


----------



## RodISHI (Feb 9, 2009)

Yet they get to make those choices today?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 9, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES.  And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.



Iranians are not Arabs, in case that was your implication. If it was, a skewed understanding of Middle Eastern affairs leads to a skewed perspective on how best to handle them.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Feb 9, 2009)

RodISHI said:


> Yet they get to make those choices today?



No, however we can't know what would have happened had we not taken out their elected government to re-install a military dictator back into power.  Had that not happened, maybe they would.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 9, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> The article presents one way to spin the story.  Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not.  During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets.  After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it.  The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.
> 
> There can be little doubt but that the USSR would have turned Iran into a Soviet satellite state if Mossadeq had managed to break relations with the UK and US, and then Iran would have had no control over its oil production or oil revenues.  In fact, had the Soviets not gotten bogged down in Afghanistan, they would almost certainly have tried again to take over Iran after the Islamic Revolution.
> 
> Instead asking for an apology from the US, Amadinejad should apologize to the US for its decades of ingratitude.



There's little basis for such claims, first considering that Mossadeq was a democratic socialist with little connection to the state capitalist political ideology of the Soviet Union, and then considering that he was hostile toward foreign intervention in Iran.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 9, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > tHE EVENT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO, WHO THE HELL CARES.  And as been pointed out Iranians and Arabs , muslims in general, think if you say your sorry it is cause you are afraid and weak. Since no one is still alive that was in power when the coup happened we have nothing to apologize FOR.
> ...



That, retard, would be why they both, Iranian and arab are listed, cause they are NOT the same. They both however are Muslim AND they both think like Muslims, which is that apologizing is a sign of weakness.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 9, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That, retard, would be why they both, Iranian and arab are listed, cause they are NOT the same. They both however are Muslim AND they both think like Muslims, which is that apologizing is a sign of weakness.



These crude comparisons and conflations are a chief basis for your ignorance of commendable Middle East and Islamic policy. Much like GWB, who was unaware that there were sect differences in Islam while he was planning the invasion of Iraq, you simply don't have the sufficient knowledge of the region to understand that a Persian, Shi'a government is not likely to develop nuclear weapons (on which Supreme Leader Khameini has declared  a fatwa, incidentally) only to surrender control of them to an unaccountable Arab, Sunni, and jihadist organization, just to take a common example.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Feb 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



There is no question but that the Soviets would have tried to take over Iran, and with the UK and US not supporting the government, there would have been nothing to stop them.  The real choice the Iranians had was between the Shah and a Soviet dictatorship.  

In fact, the Shah was a constitutional monarch who succeeded his father to the throne in 1941, and after the war instituted extensive social, economic and political reforms, some of which alienated the clergy which joined in a loose political alliance with the communists to oppose the Shah.  Mossadeq, who was a member of the Qajar royal family the Shah's father had overthrown in 1921 had not been allowed to participate in politics until after the new Shah had instituted those reforms.  

After Mossadeq nationalized the oil industry, the British blockaded Iran, preventing the country from selling any oil, and as the economy crumbled, the people demonstrated daily in the streets for and against everything.  Mossadeq became increasingly worried that the crowds would turn against him or that the Shah or his supporters would try to depose him, so he demanded that the Shah sign over to him control of the military which the constitution vested in the Shah.  

The Shah, never a strong or courageous man, signed papers to that effect, but then had a change of heart and exercised his constitutional authority to remove Mossadeq as PM and appoint some one else, but Mossadeq refused to step down and fired up his followers against the Shah, who then fled the country out of fear.  It was at this point the US and UK agents persuaded the Shah to return to Iran, assert his constitutional authority and to rally his supporters and the military to support this move.  Mossadeq had in the meantime, facing some opposition in the parliament, declared a state of emergency and began to rule by decree.  With the assistance of US and UK advice and money, the Shah's supporters began a propaganda campaign to rally support for the Shah among the people and the military, and then the Shah had Mossadeq arrested for treason for refusing to abide by the Shah's order to step down from the office of PM and other offenses.  

So did the US and UK help the Shah depose Mossadeq in a coup or did they prevent Mossadeq from deposing the Shah in a coup?  When Mossadeq demanded the Shah give him control over the military was he acting within his legal powers, or had he exceeded his legal authority?  When he closed the parliament and began to rule by decree, had he effectively ended democracy in Iran?  There are accounts of these events that support all of these points of view, but when we consider that the main opposition to the Shah were the Soviet inspired communists and the hardline Islamists, it is clear that without the Shah, there was no likelihood Iran would remained a democracy.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Feb 9, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > The article presents one way to spin the story.  Another would suggest Iran should thank the US and UK for preventing Mossadeq from delivering Iran over to the USSR intentionally or not.  During WWII, Iran had been occupied by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK so that aid, mostly from the US, could be delivered to the Soviets.  After the war, Stalin refused to withdraw his troops until the UK with the support of the US demanded it.  The USSR then for years sought to persuade some outlying provinces to secede, and this agitation continued during the the events of 1953.
> ...



And you believe the Soviets would have asked Mossadeq his opinion?  What we know for a fact is that the USSR wanted Iran and that without the support of the US and UK there was little Iran could have done to resist them.  If Mossadeq didn't intend to make Iran into a Soviet satellite state, then he was a fool to think he could have prevented it.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 9, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> And you believe the Soviets would have asked Mossadeq his opinion?  What we know for a fact is that the USSR wanted Iran and that without the support of the US and UK there was little Iran could have done to resist them.  If Mossadeq didn't intend to make Iran into a Soviet satellite state, then he was a fool to think he could have prevented it.



Then the preferable solution would have been to support a democratically elected leader against Soviet intrusion, not undermine him so as to effectively replace him with a brutal dictator and his murderous SAVAK police. Clearly, the motive was British opposition to Mossadeq's oil nationalization plans.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 9, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > That, retard, would be why they both, Iranian and arab are listed, cause they are NOT the same. They both however are Muslim AND they both think like Muslims, which is that apologizing is a sign of weakness.
> ...



I am not worried about them giving them to some other faction, they will USE them themselves or give them to their terrorist puppets. And by the way, when they do, they will pay in LOTS of blood as Israel and the US NUKE the hell out of Iran.


----------



## editec (Feb 9, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > > When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
> ...


 
That argument really depends entirely in the premise that Mopssadeq would have willingly turned Iran into a Societ client state.

Frankly, I doubt that.

Obviously you believe it.

If you are right, then the coup was a good thing.

If I am right, then the coup was a bad idea.

What evidence do you bring to the table to support your contention?


----------



## editec (Feb 9, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



hey loony tunes do you have  a link to this Muslims view apologies as weakness thing...


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 9, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> > When President Obama told al-Arabiya, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad's suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. "crimes" against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Naiman: Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?



I had a lot of Iranian friends in College and still do.  They're great people.  The ball is in Obama's court.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 9, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




The US is not going to nuke iran.  Israel sure the hell is not going to nuke iran.  We won't start another cold war with Russia just to suck some jewish dick.  Sorry.  I guess you'll have to figure out a way to instigate the Tribulation some other way.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Feb 9, 2009)

editec said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



What Mossadeq would have willingly done is irrelevant.  The USSR had been trying to gain control of Iran since the end of WWII, not only because of its oil but also to gain Iran's ports on the Persian Gulf.  The principal opposition to the Shah came from a loose coalition of communists and hardline Islamists who were united only in their opposition to the Shah's social, political and economic reforms aimed at turning Iran into western style secular democracy.  It was this coalition of communists and Islamists that Mossadeq depended on in his efforts to unseat the Shah, and had the Shah left and the UK and US withdrawn their support for the Iranian government, a civil war between the communists and the Islamists would certainly have followed with the communists backed by the Soviets next door in Afghanistan.  

The communists would have declared they were the legitimate government of Iran and asked the USSR to help them put down the Islamist insurrection, much as the communist government in Afghanistan did some years later, and the USSR would have recognized the communist government as legitimate and sent troops from Afghanistan to crush the Islamist rebellion.  Soon after that a Soviet fleet would have had a home base in the Persian Gulf.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Feb 9, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > And you believe the Soviets would have asked Mossadeq his opinion?  What we know for a fact is that the USSR wanted Iran and that without the support of the US and UK there was little Iran could have done to resist them.  If Mossadeq didn't intend to make Iran into a Soviet satellite state, then he was a fool to think he could have prevented it.
> ...



Britain's concern was over the nationalization of Iran's oil, but the US concern was the fear of a Soviet takeover of Iran.  As for democracy in Iran, by the time the US took an active role, Mossadeq had already declared a state of emergency and begun ruling by decree, citing the authority of an old Iranian law, and had demanded the Shah cede to him, without legal authority to do so, control over the military, in effect, Mossadeq was acting in defiance of the very constitution under the authority of which he held office.  Although he had once been democratically elected, one could make a strong argument that his actions had the effect of dismantling democracy in Iran.  

While the Shah's government did evolve into a brutal dictatorship, although no more brutal than many other ME and central Asian dictatorships, one should remember than it was this Shah that had brought democracy to Iran by instituting political reforms overturning his father's harsher government and that it was this Shah that had allowed Mossadeq to participate in the government again after thirty years.  One should also remember that it was Mossadeq who incited and exacerbated the resentments of the communists and Islamists over the Shah's westernizing reforms, which included the only real democracy in the area other than Israel's, and in that way created the chaos that later led him to declare a state of emergency and rule by decree and unlawfully demand the Shah surrender control of the military to him.  

One could argue that given the chaos in the streets and the deterioration of the government under Mossadeq, it would have been irresponsible of the Shah not to have exercised his constitutional authority to replace him as PM, and in fact, this was the argument the US made to him to persuade the Shah to return from Baghdad.  Mossadeq's extraordinary actions to keep control of the government show he was aware that his government was on the verge of collapse, and the US believed once that happened civil strife would lead inevitably to a Soviet takeover and a Soviet fleet based in the Persian Gulf.  

CIA secret documents released in 2000 show the US was not opposed to Mossadeq's government or interested in Britain's oil dispute with Iran, but did not believe the Mossadeq government could withstand Soviet efforts to takeover Iran and so concluded that the Shah, not as brave or strong a leader as they would have liked, was the best option for preserving Iran's independence from Soviet domination.


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 9, 2009)

Right after Iran appologizes for killing people all over the world and funding terror movements everywhere.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 9, 2009)

HA!  

tell us more about "killing people all over the world" mr. exterminate arabs.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


great post


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 10, 2009)

Shogun said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Agnapostate said:
> ...



Hey retard, after Iran uses a nuke we sure as hell will, well unless a cowardly Leftist is in the White House. Iran will either use it themselves or give one to their terrorist clients and hope somehow no one knows they did it. Obama is already sucking up to the Iranians as we speak.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hey retard, after Iran uses a nuke we sure as hell will, well unless a cowardly Leftist is in the White House. Iran will either use it themselves or give one to their terrorist clients and hope somehow no one knows they did it. Obama is already sucking up to the Iranians as we speak.



Don't be an idiot. Iranian leaders aren't so irrational so as not to fear mutually assured destruction. Moreover, Israel could not launch an Osirak-style strike on Iran due to the far different technical structure of its nuclear program than Iraq, which involves spread out underground facilities. You'll have to specify which "terrorist client" you're referring to this time...as though it's likely for a Shi'a, Persian government to develop nuclear weapons (against Supreme Leader Khameini's fatwa, at that) for the purpose of surrendering control over them to an unaccountable Sunni, Arab jihadist organization, though you've ignored that point the first time and you'll likely ignore it again.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

cause there are no Shia jihadist groups


----------



## elvis (Feb 10, 2009)

How much power does Ahmadinejad really have?  The Mullahs or clerics call the shots.  Are these Mullahs/clerics as crazy as Khoemeni was?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Britain's concern was over the nationalization of Iran's oil, but the US concern was the fear of a Soviet takeover of Iran.  As for democracy in Iran, by the time the US took an active role, Mossadeq had already declared a state of emergency and begun ruling by decree, citing the authority of an old Iranian law, and had demanded the Shah cede to him, without legal authority to do so, control over the military, in effect, Mossadeq was acting in defiance of the very constitution under the authority of which he held office.  Although he had once been democratically elected, one could make a strong argument that his actions had the effect of dismantling democracy in Iran.



That's not an entirely accurate summary of the political climate within Iran, or the sequence of events that occurred. Interest in halting Soviet intrusion did indeed exist, but so do declassified CIA documents that indicate that warnings of Soviet intrusions supported by Iran's pro-Soviet Tudah were largely inaccurate and functioned as a smokescreen, as later admitted by Dean Acheson. 

1952 CIA coup in Iran, by ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN



> 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 British and American governments knew Mossadeq was as distrustful of the Soviet Union as of the West. In fact, they often complained to each other about his neutralism. They knew perfectly well that the so-called fellow-travelers were staunch nationalists (after the coup some of them obtained refuge in the United States). They also knew that the Tudeh, even though the largest political organization, was in no position to seize power (F0 371/Persia 1952/ 98597; FO 371/Persia 1953/104573; Declassified Documents/1981/CIA/ Doc 276). Despite 20,000 members and 110,000 sympathizers, 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 (FO 371/Persia 1051/1530). The Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat (FO 371/ Persia 1952/98608). 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 (Roosevelt, 1979, 88). Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen.



I would recommend adopting a somewhat more skeptical perspective of this matter, since merely assuming that the U.S. had some benevolent interest in preventing Soviet intrusion in the region is superficially and unduly optimistic, especially considering Mossadeq's hostility toward all varieties of foreign intervention. 



toomuchtime_ said:


> As for democracy in Iran, by the time the US took an active role, Mossadeq had already declared a state of emergency and begun ruling by decree, citing the authority of an old Iranian law, and had demanded the Shah cede to him, without legal authority to do so, control over the military, in effect, Mossadeq was acting in defiance of the very constitution under the authority of which he held office.  Although he had once been democratically elected, one could make a strong argument that his actions had the effect of dismantling democracy in Iran.



Mossadeq's emergency powers were granted by parliamentary decree, and were not seized or forcefully taken, as your summary succinctly insinuates. Moreover, his powers were often utilized to check monarchical power of dubious constitutionality, and their expansion was certainly far more democratic than the monarchical authorities. Moreover, the Shah did indeed "cede control" (not an entirely accurate term) over the military to Mossadeq in response to protests, so perhaps the "strength" of your arguments would be better applied to Pahlavi, if you believe that transferring power from a monarch to a democratically elected prime minister has the consequence of "dismantling democracy."



toomuchtime_ said:


> While the Shah's government did evolve into a brutal dictatorship, although no more brutal than many other ME and central Asian dictatorships, one should remember than it was this Shah that had brought democracy to Iran by instituting political reforms overturning his father's harsher government and that it was this Shah that had allowed Mossadeq to participate in the government again after thirty years.  One should also remember that it was Mossadeq who incited and exacerbated the resentments of the communists and Islamists over the Shah's westernizing reforms, which included the only real democracy in the area other than Israel's, and in that way created the chaos that later led him to declare a state of emergency and rule by decree and unlawfully demand the Shah surrender control of the military to him.



Such claims are similarly inaccurate, not least of which being the reference to Israeli democracy, which did not exist in a sufficient manner then and continues to be insufficient today. Mossadeq was a secularist himself who is today ignored by Islamic clerics in favor of Ayatollah Kashani when it comes to the celebration of oil nationalization, so your claim that he was hostile to Western reforms is dubious in more way than one. 



toomuchtime_ said:


> One could argue that given the chaos in the streets and the deterioration of the government under Mossadeq, it would have been irresponsible of the Shah not to have exercised his constitutional authority to replace him as PM, and in fact, this was the argument the US made to him to persuade the Shah to return from Baghdad.  Mossadeq's extraordinary actions to keep control of the government show he was aware that his government was on the verge of collapse, and the US believed once that happened civil strife would lead inevitably to a Soviet takeover and a Soviet fleet based in the Persian Gulf.



Your reference to "constitutional" authority would be better applied to monarchical authority. Greater protests and unrest came after the initial resignation of Mossadeq and Qavam's attempt to re-open negotiations with foreign powers with oil interests in the region, considering that nationalization efforts were strongly supported by large portions of the electorate. Indeed, it is more arguable that foreign interference in the region not only increased the "civil strife" and unrest caused by Qavam's unacceptable policies, but increased Mossadeq's increasing wariness of foreign intervention and increased use of authoritarian policies, which occurred after he became aware of plots against him. 



toomuchtime_ said:


> CIA secret documents released in 2000 show the US was not opposed to Mossadeq's government or interested in Britain's oil dispute with Iran, but did not believe the Mossadeq government could withstand Soviet efforts to takeover Iran and so concluded that the Shah, not as brave or strong a leader as they would have liked, was the best option for preserving Iran's independence from Soviet domination.



I've seen indication of alternate motivations.



> On 19 June 1953, the final operational plan, agreed upon by Mr. Roosevelt for CIA and by British Intelligence in London, was submitted in Washington to the Department of State; to Mr. Allen W. Dulles, Director of CIA; and to Ambassador Henderson for approval. Simultaneously, it was submitted to the British Foreign Office by SIS for approval. The Department of State wanted to be assured of two things before it would grant approval of the plan:
> 
> 1. that the United States Government could provide adequate grant aid to a successor Iranian Government so that such a government could be sustained until an oil settlement was reached;
> 
> ...



My contention would be that merely taking a rosy view of U.S. planners benevolently and generously wishing to protect the Iranian and American peoples from Soviet intrusion in the Middle East is hopelessly optimistic, even naive, and that a more skeptical, rational view of the matter ought to be considered.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> cause there are no Shia jihadist groups



Is that a reference to Hezbollah? They pose a regional threat to Israel (which functions as a strategic liability to the U.S.), not to the U.S.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > cause there are no Shia jihadist groups
> ...


thats one of them, there are others


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> thats one of them, there are others



Really? In your view, which Shi'a jihadist organization poses the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its citizens?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > thats one of them, there are others
> ...


they all pose a threat
how many knew anything about Al Qaeda before 9/11?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> they all pose a threat
> how many knew anything about Al Qaeda before 9/11?



Al Qaeda is not a Shi'a organization. Are you able to answer the question sufficiently?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > they all pose a threat
> ...


no shit sherlock, are you complete unable to read and comprehend at the same time?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no shit sherlock, are you complete unable to read and comprehend at the same time?



In other words, you can't think of an answer.


----------



## strollingbones (Feb 10, 2009)

Mad Scientist said:


> Anyone who understands anything about the middle east knows that  apologies come from a position of weakness.
> Why do you think the Iranians freed the hostages on the day Ronny Raygun took office? *They knew he meant business that's why*.
> Obama is only projecting weakness.




you would be of course, referring to reagan trading arms for the hostages...of course that would be considered "business" right...or would it be consititutional treason?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > cause there are no Shia jihadist groups
> ...



Are you insane? Iran will nuke Israel the first chance they get. THAT is the point. And when they do WE will nuke them back. WE will help Israel retaliate.

The clerics in Iran are looney toons. They want the end of the world more than any christian ever did. And they believe they can cause their 13th Iman to appear by destroying Israel. They have been VERY clear on what they intend. You just ignore the facts.


----------



## editec (Feb 10, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


 
Interesting theory.

So essantially what you're suggesting is that British Petroeum's interests had nothing to do with it.

That is wasn't retribution for nationalizing the oil?

That once Moss was removed, the Soviet union was magically now what..._no threat?_

And you believe that, do you?

Do you also believe that Swarharto was going to be a communist? The CIA tried to have him killed, even after he's killed hundreds of thouands of communists

You see...I just don't believe that story. Neither does anyone else in Iran. 

You want to know why nobody in the MidEast believes that story?

Because communism is an anthema to Islam, and Mossadeq was an extreme Iranian nationalist.

So much so, in fact, that he wouldn't screw Iran for the benefit of British petroleum.

And _that_ is why the CIA staged a coup and PAID thugs to have it.  NOt fear of the Soviets, but fear that the Iranians might actually take control over their oil.

Read _Legacy of Ashes._

It might wake you up to the reality of our foreign policy and what the CIA was really doing (and why)  during that period.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 10, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Your retarded "return of jesus" brain may think slower than the average science user but it really is true that you can't predict the fucking future any better than anyone else.   You don't know what iran will do.  You don't know what anyone would do.  You ASSUME as much because it facilitates your crusty old fucking outmoded jesus myth after being sorely disappointed that the world didn't blow up on 1am, January 2001 but you are no expert on the ME.  THANKFULLY, western dogma junkie nutters like you are being muzzled like every ironic muslim hating talking point that you reiterate.  


ps, the US won't nuke iran.  Israel won't nuke iran.  RUSSIA WILL build fucking reactors in iran.  You can grovel and cry on the fucking ground all day long in front of jews everywhere but this won't stop being the case.  LET israel nuke iran and see what happens.  This pre-emptive defense shit is just not convincing anyone these days.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > no shit sherlock, are you complete unable to read and comprehend at the same time?
> ...


wrong, i gave you an answer, only you are too fucking stupid to understand it


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Feb 10, 2009)

editec said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



British interest was about the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, but US companies and the US government had no interest in Iranian oil at that time.  At the time the US was in a panic about China becoming communist, the Soviet A bomb, the McCarthy hearings and the HUAC hearings and, of course, the war in Korea against an attempted communist takeover of South Korea.  Stalin had tried to take over Iran at the end of WWII, but had backed down to UK and US pressure, and in the following years, communists continued to try to persuade the northern provinces to secede from Iran to form an independent communist state.  

Russian revolutionary ideas first reached Iran in the late 19th century and in the first years of the 20th century, Lenin ordered Bolshevik Party publications translated into Persian and sent them along with agents to try to organize revolutionary parties in Iran.  In 1917, a more serious effort was made by Russian communists to organize Iran and by 1920 the Social Democrat Party joined with several smaller Russian inspired revolutionary parties to proclaim themselves the Communist Party of Iran, and immediately took control of the northern province of Gilan with the intention of declaring it an independent state.  Iranian troops with the help of British intelligence put down the insurrection, but many other attempts were made at armed uprisings over the next few years until all communist activity was finally banned by the Shah's father in the late 1920's.  

However, the communists, those that were not in prison, continued to operate underground until in 1941 when the Shah succeeded his father to the throne and lifted the ban on communist activity and participation in government and freed all political prisoners.  The communists immediately formed the Tudeh Party and by 1953, the Tudeh Party was one of the largest and most influential political party in Iran and the principal supporter of Mossadeq's nationalization of the oil industry both in the parliament and in the street.  

Clearly, the long history of Russian and communist influence in Iran, and the temper of the times and the fact that Mossadeq depended on the Tudeh Party for support in the parliament and in the streets was cause for any reasonable person to worry that the when the Mossadeq government, already teetering on the brink of collapse, fell, with the Shah gone, the Soviets would move to realize the Russian dream dating from Czarist times of winning a port on the Persian Gulf.  There is no need to speculate about communism and Islam.  Anyone who has bothered to read the history of these events knows the communists were a powerful force in Iran at the time.  

Now I understand you claim to speak for all the people of Iran as well as all the people of the ME and I understand that the story of CIA participation in the coup that overthrew Mossadeq is  a sacred myth to many on left and is recited with reverence in somber tones, perhaps needing only organ music to make it sound like a prayer, but there is no basis in fact or logic for calling Mossadeq's removal a coup, since the Shah acted lawfully, and there is no basis in fact or logic for characterizing Mossadeq as a defender of democracy, since he was ruling by decree at the time of his removal, and there is no basis in fact or logic to say Mossadeq was removed by thugs since he was lawfully arrested by the Iranian military upon the Shah's lawful order.  

As for the USSR giving up their efforts to capture Iran because the Shah stayed, they never did.  The Shah went from being the most liberal and democratic leader in the region before the events in 1953 to being the ruler of a typically brutal and repressive government, for the region, because of near constant acts of terrorism and conspiracies to overthrow the government from both the communists and the Islamists.


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 10, 2009)

Thanks Toomuchtime for the "fantasyland" history lesson.

It was very entertaining!!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Thanks Toomuchtime for the "fantasyland" history lesson.
> 
> It was very entertaining!!


he knows more about the issue than you could ever hope to know


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Toomuchtime for the "fantasyland" history lesson.
> ...


I am sure he does, if you want to believe a bunch of right wing nonsense


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


of course to someone as delusional as you, you dont know the truth when you see it


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 10, 2009)

Even the History Channel special on Iran verified that the Shah was put into power by a CIA lead coup.

The Shah was an American puppet who brutilized his people for 25 years.

The United States government owes the people of Iran an apology for the thousands of people who were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Shah.


----------



## Annie (Feb 10, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Even the History Channel special on Iran verified that the Shah was put into power by a CIA lead coup.
> 
> The Shah was an American puppet who brutilized his people for 25 years.
> 
> The United States government owes the people of Iran an apology for the thousands of people who were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Shah.



And who led to his overthrow and the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini? The Palis and Iranian's favorite President. Have they erected a statue yet?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you insane? Iran will nuke Israel the first chance they get. THAT is the point. And when they do WE will nuke them back. WE will help Israel retaliate.
> 
> The clerics in Iran are looney toons. They want the end of the world more than any christian ever did. And they believe they can cause their 13th Iman to appear by destroying Israel. They have been VERY clear on what they intend. You just ignore the facts.



Are you insane? Israel has thus far shown itself to be a far more unstable agent in the region than Iran. (Israel secretly developed nuclear weapons, concealed them from American inspectors, and still refuses to declare the existence of their arsenal, to say nothing of their blatant noncompliance with international consensus.) Iran, on the other hand, is hundreds of miles away and has never directly threatened Israel. 



DiveCon said:


> wrong, i gave you an answer, only you are too fucking stupid to understand it



You're full of shit. You couldn't name one Shi'a jihadist organization that poses a threat to the U.S.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Are you insane? Iran will nuke Israel the first chance they get. THAT is the point. And when they do WE will nuke them back. WE will help Israel retaliate.
> ...


no shit asshole
how many could have named Al Qaeda as a threat prior to 9/11


and before you show your idiocy again, i don't give a shit that they are a wahabbist sunni sect, it has to do with their anonymity


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no shit asshole
> how many could have named Al Qaeda as a threat prior to 9/11
> 
> and before you show your idiocy again, i don't give a shit that they are a wahabbist sunni sect, it has to do with their anonymity



Your replies remain as inane and moronic as ever. See, my contention is that the Incredible Hulk could be a dire threat to national security too. It has to do with his anonymity, you see. No one believes he's real. And I can't prove he's real, of course. But he's a threat nonetheless.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > no shit asshole
> ...


fuck off asswipe
you are the moronic one


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> fuck off asswipe
> you are the moronic one



Shut your fucking mouth, you venereal cockgoblin. 

You've failed.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > fuck off asswipe
> ...


no, it is YOU that has failed
fucking moron


----------



## Annie (Feb 10, 2009)

Why did I click this thread again? Flame thread now.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no, it is YOU that has failed
> fucking moron



jillian and DavidSTD aren't here to save your pathetic ass, so don't rely on your little daisy chain to bail you out.

You lose the game, fucker.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > no, it is YOU that has failed
> ...


i dont need anyone to bail me out, moron
you have failed


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> i dont need anyone to bail me out, moron
> you have failed



You rancid piece of shit; do you actually not realize that you fucking *failed* in your pathetic claims about Shi'a militias? Is your brain floating in your rectum?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > i dont need anyone to bail me out, moron
> ...


no moron, you are showing what an ignorant fool you are
there ARE shia jihadi groups, there is no denying that
and just like Al Qaeda was an unknown entitiy to most people back in 2000, they might be now
but things change


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> no moron, you are showing what an ignorant fool you are
> there ARE shia jihadi groups, there is no denying that
> and just like Al Qaeda was an unknown entitiy to most people back in 2000, they might be now
> but things change



And since you're a grotesque clown with shit for brains, you can say nothing to this, apparently. I already tested you, and you inaccurately claimed that Hezbollah was a "jihadist" group, indicating that you believe that any Islamic paramilitary organization is necessarily religious or engages in jihad. You know nothing.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > no moron, you are showing what an ignorant fool you are
> ...


LOL yeah, sure
you are a moron


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> LOL yeah, sure
> you are a moron



Just out of curiosity, are you just trying to cover up your idiocy or are you really so fucking stupid that you think you won?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > LOL yeah, sure
> ...


its an internet message board, define "win"

LOL
this is why you are a moron


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> its an internet message board, define "win"
> 
> LOL
> this is why you are a moron



I'm up against you. The fact that you're a loser means I win by default.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > its an internet message board, define "win"
> ...



keep thinking that, i'm sure it helps you sleep better


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 10, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> keep thinking that, i'm sure it helps you sleep better



Sleep better? No, it helps me kick your pathetic little ass to the curb because of your miserable lack of evidence to support your idiocy.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > keep thinking that, i'm sure it helps you sleep better
> ...


and yet i am LMAO at you because you actually think you won something


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 11, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Are you insane? Iran will nuke Israel the first chance they get. THAT is the point. And when they do WE will nuke them back. WE will help Israel retaliate.
> ...



Never directly threatened Israel? What planet do you live on? Hamas is supplied, financed, trained and equiped by Iran. Hezbula gets weapons and materials from them as well. Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel. Their Imans and their Government leaders have proclaimed that Israel must cease to exist and that any means to bring that about is A OK with them.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> and yet i am LMAO at you because you actually think you won something



You're just too idiotic to realize how miserably you failed.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Never directly threatened Israel? What planet do you live on? Hamas is supplied, financed, trained and equiped by Iran. Hezbula gets weapons and materials from them as well. Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel. Their Imans and their Government leaders have proclaimed that Israel must cease to exist and that any means to bring that about is A OK with them.



...And Hezbollah has stated their willingness to honor the two-state solution if the Palestinians do, and while Hamas does not formally respect Israel's existence as legitimate, they maintained a ceasefire with them until the IDF broke it. Your reference to "proclamations" by imams and government leaders is false, and is likely an inaccurate reference to the mistranslated "wiped off the map" statement by Ahmadinejad. 

And thanks for not addressing the issue of Israel's nuclear stockpile, developed while deliberately concealed from American inspectors, and still not formally declared.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 11, 2009)

says the fucking moron thats still trying to claim a win he never got


----------



## Neubarth (Feb 15, 2009)

We have one obligation to IRAN.  We need to nuke those sons of bitches to hell.  There shall be no further discussion on this issue.  Talk softly but carry a big fucking stick.  Guess what? It is BIG FUCKING STICK TIME!


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 15, 2009)

Neubarth said:


> We have one obligation to IRAN.  We need to nuke those sons of bitches to hell.  There shall be no further discussion on this issue.  Talk softly but carry a big fucking stick.  Guess what? It is BIG FUCKING STICK TIME!



Why?

They are No threat to the US


----------



## Neubarth (Feb 15, 2009)

If we do not nuke iran, we are not safeguarding the christian world.  Then we impeach the idiot who is president.


----------



## Neubarth (Feb 15, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> > We have one obligation to IRAN.  We need to nuke those sons of bitches to hell.  There shall be no further discussion on this issue.  Talk softly but carry a big fucking stick.  Guess what? It is BIG FUCKING STICK TIME!
> ...



As usual, you pretend to not know that Iran is behind all of the worlds Radical Islamic terrorism.  We need to kill Radical Islam where ever it is found.  No questions asked.


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 15, 2009)

Neubarth said:


> If we do not nuke iran, we are not safeguarding the christian world.  Then we impeach the idiot who is president.



So murdering millions of innocent Iranian people would safeguard Christianity and exhault Jesus name at the same time ?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Feb 15, 2009)

Neubarth said:


> If we do not nuke iran, we are not safeguarding the christian world.  Then we impeach the idiot who is president.



Nuking Iran will only destroy what little credibility we have left in the world, and inspire far more hatred for the United States within the Muslim world.  Not to mention all the innocent Iranian civilians that will suffer as a result.  It is not the duty of the United States to safeguard the Christian world.  We should be spreading diplomacy, not nuclear war.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 15, 2009)

But the Christian Right believes that it's the duty of America to uphold the values of the Christian world, even through military force.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> But the Christian Right believes that it's the duty of America to uphold the values of the Christian world, even through military force.


wrong


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > But the Christian Right believes that it's the duty of America to uphold the values of the Christian world, even through military force.
> ...



Right. 

As I noted during Bush's presidency:



> We have seen a recurrence of Christian terrorism, and we have seen it manifested through American foreign policy under the Bush regime. George Bush believes that the &#8220;war on terror&#8221; is a &#8220;crusade,&#8221; in his words. His views on American foreign policy are informed by the book of Revelations. The evangelical cult that Bush is a member of believes that conflicts in the Middle East are a sign of the end times, and would likely be all too willing to welcome a nuclear conflagration to speed up the occurrence of the Rapture and the subsequent Great Tribulation. Bush likely believes that Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and other foes of Israel are influenced by demonic forces, no matter if they are democratically elected governments or not. Hence, his religious beliefs are the guiding principles behind his support for campaigns that strengthen American and Israeli influence in the Middle East, even at the cost of innocent lives. The rationale behind his fierce opposition to Israel&#8217;s enemies is captured in these Bible passages:
> 
> _Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, &#8220;Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of *Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal*, and prophesy against him,&#8221; and say, &#8216;Thus says the Lord GOD: &#8220;*Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal*. I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords. Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet. Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all its troops-many people are with you.
> -Ezekiel 38:1-6_
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Agnapostate said:
> ...


thats utter BULLSHIT
typical for you though


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> thats utter BULLSHIT
> typical for you though



You're simply completely unfamiliar with the teachings of evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. Most of those verse references are from notes I took when I was an evangelical at a sermon on Middle East affairs and Bible prophecy.


----------



## Ardent15 (Feb 15, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> > If we do not nuke iran, we are not safeguarding the christian world.  Then we impeach the idiot who is president.
> ...



Agreed.

You do not spread democracy at the barrel of a gun.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > thats utter BULLSHIT
> ...


then you attended some fucked up shit
no one i know asscribes to that nonsense nor did i see anything even remotely like that in the way Bush served as POTUS


btw, not the actual scriptures, but your analysis of them


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> then you attended some fucked up shit
> no one i know asscribes to that nonsense nor did i see anything even remotely like that in the way Bush served as POTUS
> 
> btw, not the actual scriptures, but your analysis of them



Then you don't know the Christian Right of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson. Don't pretend to.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > then you attended some fucked up shit
> ...


Fallwell's, not so much, the other two, i do
and they never taught it that way
so stop lying


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 15, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Fallwell's, not so much, the other two, i do
> and they never taught it that way
> so stop lying



You don't know what you're talking about. Ask your pastor about those verses' relation to the Great Tribulation sometime.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fallwell's, not so much, the other two, i do
> ...


sorry, you fail
that was complete and total bullshit


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 16, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sorry, you fail
> that was complete and total bullshit



You can't cover up the fact that you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about, idiot. Shut your mouth.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sorry, you fail
> ...


actually, i do

but fuck off asshole


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 16, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > thats utter BULLSHIT
> ...


For many years I was a hard core evengelical/fundamentalist Christian and was really into Bible prophecy concerning the End Times and the Middle East. 

Gog and Magog were taught by Preachers as being the Soviet Union, and Communism was the evil religion embraced by the Anti-Christ and the Beast of Revelations.

The Christian bookstores were full of apocalyptic books explaining how Russia was going to invade Israel and start the battle of Armageddon. Thus initiating the return of Jesus and the End Times.

Then one day, the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union and Communism just evaporated like a rain drop in the desert.

I never heard not even one Bible prophecy or End Times preacher say they were wrong or made a mistake. Many ministers had claimed divine revelation or that God had spoke to them about the comming end times events.

For several years there was complete silence................

Then slowly, I started hearing the exact same Preachers spewing the exact same nonsense.

Except now, various Muslim countries such as Syria, Iran, or Egypt had taken the place of Russia.

And the Islamic religion is now the feared demonic force. Where before it had been Communism. 

Now you can go to the Christian bookstore and the shelves are full of books about Islam and End Times prophecy.


----------



## editec (Feb 16, 2009)

Ardent15 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Neubarth said:
> ...


 
_What?!_

You mean you can't BOMB a nation's people into loving democracy?

Has anyone bothered to explain that to our foreign policy mavens?

I'm not sure they really get that.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> For many years I was a hard core evengelical/fundamentalist Christian and was really into Bible prophecy concerning the End Times and the Middle East.
> 
> Gog and Magog were taught by Preachers as being the Soviet Union, and Communism was the evil religion embraced by the Anti-Christ and the Beast of Revelations.
> 
> ...



That's the obvious truth...some are too blind to see it. In fact, the quote I supplied in my analysis originally specified the Soviet Union...I replaced it with [Russia].


----------



## Godboy (Feb 16, 2009)

editec said:


> Ardent15 said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Yes, you CAN spread democracy from the barrel of a gun, just look at Iraq. Hell, Hitlers Germany is also a great example of a nation that turned to democracy after they got bombed. The same can be said about Japan, and many other nations in world history. Enough with the bull shit peace mantra already, because it has no place in the real world. Sometimes you need bombs to spread democracy, because thats how you stop evil dictators. Do you guys even bother referencing world history before you come up with these silly ideas about what bombs can and cant accomplish?


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 16, 2009)

Or overthrow them.


----------



## Godboy (Feb 16, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Or overthrow them.




The first thing dictators take care of, is ensuring the people dont have the ability to overthrow them. Often times it requires another nation to remove them, through the use of military might.


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 16, 2009)

Would it kill Iran to behave this is the 21st century and not the 7th?


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 16, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Would it kill Iran to behave this is the 21st century and not the 7th?


Actually, they have a better and more moral society than we currently have.


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Would it kill Iran to behave this is the 21st century and not the 7th?
> ...



give me the top ten things.......


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Would it kill Iran to behave this is the 21st century and not the 7th?
> ...


then, why don't YOU move there


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 16, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


Alcohol is forbidden
Gambling is forbidden
Homosexuality is a crime
Abortions are illegal
Drugs are illegal
Pornography is illegal
Boys and girls are taught to remain virgins till marriage
Teen pregnancy is basically zero
AIDS and STD's are almost unknown
Adultry is a crime


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 16, 2009)

No wonder they're so pissed off.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2009)

really???

[youtube]8t0FNDrMXPs[/youtube]


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 16, 2009)

Two rolls on Khatami.


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 16, 2009)

In any society there are criminals who break the law.

But there is No legal gambling like we have in Las Vegas or Atlantic City


----------



## Godboy (Feb 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Only a muslim wackjob would even think these are the top priorities for a happy society. Every time i turn around, someone gives us a new reason to hate muslims. God i hate them. Muslims are the shittiest people on earth. Not a single redeeming quality about them. They fucking blow.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2009)

Godboy said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...


dont hate man
not good for you


----------



## Godboy (Feb 16, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Maybe if i was a Jedi this would be a problem, but since im not, ill hold onto my hate. Its fun sometimes.


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 16, 2009)

Godboy said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...


So what would be your top ten things for a better and more moral society?


----------



## Godboy (Feb 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Well, you can start with not basing whats moral from what some dumbass religious book tells you. How about having the the freedom to live my life how i see fit as long as im not hurting anyone else? If im born a woman, even though im married, i shouldnt be stoned to death for sleeping with other men. If im born gay, i dont want to be beheaded because some religous freak doesnt like it. Hey, how about you dont stone and behead people in public, or anywhere for that matter? Theres a good start.

I think the number 1 priority for a healthy society is to make absolutely certain there is no hint of Islam in your government, telling you what to do. After that, anything is possble. Islam is poison, but you dont have to take my word for it, just look at the lack of success muslim nations have world wide. Every muslim nation has massive problems, but they are evil people, so i dont know why you would expect any other result.


----------



## Sunni Man (Feb 16, 2009)

Godboy said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...


So basically you couldn't come up with ten things, and had to resort to a senseless rant to cover your failure


----------



## Xenophon (Feb 16, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Would it kill Iran to behave this is the 21st century and not the 7th?
> ...


I hate to break this to you, but there is nothing 'moral'or better  about stonings, hanging or beatings.


----------



## Modbert (Feb 16, 2009)

Godboy said:


> Only a muslim wackjob would even think these are the top priorities for a happy society. Every time i turn around, someone gives us a new reason to hate muslims. God i hate them. Muslims are the shittiest people on earth. Not a single redeeming quality about them. They fucking blow.



Gee, can you be anymore racist?


----------



## elvis (Feb 16, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Only a muslim wackjob would even think these are the top priorities for a happy society. Every time i turn around, someone gives us a new reason to hate muslims. God i hate them. Muslims are the shittiest people on earth. Not a single redeeming quality about them. They fucking blow.
> ...



It's religious intolerance, not racism.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Robert_Santurri said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...


actually i think its more bigotry but its religious bigotry


----------



## Godboy (Feb 16, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Only a muslim wackjob would even think these are the top priorities for a happy society. Every time i turn around, someone gives us a new reason to hate muslims. God i hate them. Muslims are the shittiest people on earth. Not a single redeeming quality about them. They fucking blow.
> ...



Yes, i probably could, but right now we are talking about religion, so i dont know what your point is.


----------



## Godboy (Feb 16, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Santurri said:
> ...




Yes, that is a good way of describing me. I AM a religious bigot. I think all religion is stupid. Just some are worse than others.


----------



## Modbert (Feb 16, 2009)

Godboy said:


> Yes, that is a good way of describing me. I AM a religious bigot. I think all religion is stupid. Just some are worse than others.



Or you're just an ignorant bigot. Either way, you're ignorant.


----------



## Godboy (Feb 17, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that is a good way of describing me. I AM a religious bigot. I think all religion is stupid. Just some are worse than others.
> ...




No, thats incorrect. I said i was a religious bigot, and you said "or you might be an ignorant bigot", so im not ignorant  EITHER way, because ignorance only applies to one of those descriptions. Since YOU are stupid and wrong about everything (ill use your last post as proof), that must mean im just a plain old ordinary religious bigot.

...though technically speaking, a bigot is someone who is intolerant of beliefs that differ from his own, and being an atheist, ive had to tolerate a lot of crap from religious people over the years. I dont really have a choice since just about everyone in the US is a christian.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 17, 2009)

Godboy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Ardent15 said:
> ...



HA!

yea.. let's look at Iraq... Were the US military not chest deep in that country we all know goddamn well that the hilarious little purple fingered PR scams would amount to two things: jack and shit.


Yes, let's talk about historic examples.. That shit worked wonders in Vietnam, didn't it?  Korea?  Any Latin American state that comes to mind?  ISRAEL?  Killing off people who don't agree with you only ensures that the same cycle of excuses and violence rolls on.  But, hey, why ELSE would we still need fucking military bases in each of these "democracy loving" nations?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 17, 2009)

Godboy said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...





Hey, dickface, maybe you should spend less time wondering why some muslims enjoy blowing up your shit and more time working on installing a mirror.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 17, 2009)

Godboy said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...



Funny, the same shit was said about jews in German society  But, hey.. so much for that "historic perspective" we heard so much about!




muslims are EVIL people, eh?




whatever you say, baby killer.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Robert_Santurri said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...



yea dude.. because you know damn well Dickfaceboy is thinking about Caucasian muslims!


----------



## Shogun (Feb 17, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that is a good way of describing me. I AM a religious bigot. I think all religion is stupid. Just some are worse than others.
> ...



I think you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Godboy (Feb 17, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...




Why is it ok for muslims to hate me because im an American, yet i cant hate them for being muslim? The difference between me and them is, i like explaining my displeasure for them over the internet, while they like wiring themselves with explosives so they can blow up children.

On a side note, why is it that the crazy people on these boards are the same people who use the "cuckoo" emoticon over and over again?


----------



## Shogun (Feb 17, 2009)

Godboy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...



Not all muslims hate you, you stupid fuck.  6 year old toddlers who became zionist bomb fodder don't know who the fuck you are.  No, there really is no difference between you and those who you want to hate.  They assume all westerners are narrow minded fucks like you and you insist that they are all born with a bomb in one hand and a rocket in the other.  Peaceful westerners and peaceful muslims get to become collateral damage while your stupid ass keeps rolling the same cycle down the hill.

On your side note, I guess you'd need to put in a little more time around here to fathom who uses what emoticons but, clearly, that option didn't pop into your narrow, reptilian brain.  I guess this is just another example of what makes you the mental equivilance of the turd my dog shat out last night.


----------



## Godboy (Feb 17, 2009)

> Not all muslims hate you



Yeah, well, truth be told, i dont hate all muslims. I just dont want to have to preface every negative comment i have about muslims with "but not all of them are like this". I simply hate the ones that are anti-western, and unfortunately, theres millions of them.

I would like to make it perfectly clear though, i DO hate the religion of Islam and only good things can come from purging the world of this poison.


----------

