NO MORE!...We Must Stop The 40-Year Old Obsession With Iran

[irosie91]

who is reciting what "stuff"---------your assertion is in reference to "stuff"?

You. That's who. It's the same disingenuous narrative the neocons and Israeli lobby have been feeding Americans for decades. You're no different. You're just another mouth piece for it. But you have no power beyond a keyboard, so you're contained at least. Downside is that now I've noticed you.

As far as assertions, I've been generous enough not to make any. I'm just letting you know I'm in the neighborhood is all. You have the convenience of a very underinformed audience here who get their daily dose of neocon programming to the point they do not grasp the horse pucky you're reciting. Well...you had the convenience of it.

you should become a diplomat at the UN----you have a talent for
being entirely non-specific---and using lots of words to say nothing

 

[Wyatt earp]

"the ron paul is a loon" part is correct.

Oh, hi, rosie. I've been waiting for you to respond to me. Eagerly.

Show us that wisdom of yours, please, and suport your claim, tell us why you think he's a loon, and I'll correct you afterward. And in front of all of your friends, too.

easy----the USA has not had an obsession with Iran for 40 years.
Our children do not chant "DEATH TO IRAN" nor do they play
with toy zip guns at SHOOTING IRANIANS. I was a very little kid
in the 1950s-------the obsession with Japan was still ongoing the sand
piles of the playground. IRAN? Iran became an issue in
the 1960s when the rise of Islamism resulted in a significant migration
to the USA of Iranian intelligentsia. But Iran was (unfortunately) not yet
seen as a threat to the USA. In fact we virtually spat in the face of
the dying Shah

Huh?


What did you miss bush Jrs axis of evil speech?


.

 

[Natural Citizen]

you should become a diplomat at the UN----you have a talent for
being entirely non-specific---and using lots of words to say nothing

I'm going to just go ahead and assume that you're already aware of how this is going to play out, now that I've noticed you.

 

[Denizen]

Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic idiot nutcase. The only notable thing he did in his life was siphon votes away from Republicans last time he ran for President.

And now you leftists think he's the greatest thing since white bread.

Compared to antichrist Donald Trump Ron Paul is a saint.

Donald Trump is a Christian. He is generous with the things God gave him, and he has given America a good fiscal base, because that's what he's good at.

Donald Trump is a worshipper of Mammon. His objective is to acquire as much filthy lucre as possible.

 

[irosie91]

Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic idiot nutcase. The only notable thing he did in his life was siphon votes away from Republicans last time he ran for President.

And now you leftists think he's the greatest thing since white bread.

Compared to antichrist Donald Trump Ron Paul is a saint.

Donald Trump is a Christian. He is generous with the things God gave him, and he has given America a good fiscal base, because that's what he's good at.

Donald Trump is a worshipper of Mammon. His objective is to acquire as much filthy lucre as possible.

he already did that-----he is moving on

 

[Natural Citizen]

Some of you people are completely brainwashed.

Actually, nm, scratch that idea (or the one that was here before I edited it lol), nothing to be had by it.

 

[Denizen]

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

Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup? | HuffPost

Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?
headshot
By Robert Naiman
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.
Not surprisingly, there hasn’t exactly been a groundswell of popular support in the United States for President Ahmadinejad’s suggestion. Just 11% of U.S. voters think America should apologize for “crimes” against Iran, according to a poll from Rasmussen.
Of course, if you know anything about the United States, you wouldn’t leap to the conclusion that Americans, as a country, are a bunch of jerks who can’t admit when they’ve done anything wrong. Occam’s Razor suggests a simpler explanation: most Americans have little knowledge about the history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As far as they know, the U.S. hasn’t done anything wrong. So why should we apologize?
Unfortunately for us, outside our borders U.S. foreign policy isn’t judged according to what we know, but according to what our government does and has done. And it is well known in Iran and throughout the Middle East that the U.S. (at the urging of and with the assistance of the UK) organized a coup against the democratically-elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossaedgh in 1953, in retaliation for Mossaedgh’s stubborn insistence that Iran’s oil belonged to Iranians. And for the next twenty-five years, the U.S. kept in power a dictatorship in Iran, actions justified in no small measure by the alleged need to protect “our oil” that God had misplaced “under their sand.”
[To brush up on your history, read Stephen Kinzer’s excellent account, a tour de force of accessible writing, or watch the 6 minute version here.]
If you know this history, the proposal that the U.S. apologize for overthrowing Iranian democracy seems a lot more reasonable. Imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose that in 1953, when someone who is now 65 was 10 years old, Iran, together with the British (something we have in common with Iran is the experience of Britain as a colonial power), organized a coup that overthrew the democratic government of the United States and replaced it with a dictatorship that lasted until 1979, when someone who is 39 today was ten years old. And now comes Iran talking about improved relations. Do you think that no-one in the United States would suggest that Iran acknowledge its role in the coup as a step to improving relations?
But if it is reasonable for Iranians to propose that the U.S. apologize for its role in overthrowing Iranian democracy and installing a dictatorship, would it be feasible for the U.S. to do so? I maintain that it would not only be feasible, but useful.
While 1953 is recent enough that there are people alive who remember it, it is long enough ago that those directly responsible for the coup are long gone. In this way it differs from admitting, for example, that Bush Administration officials authorized torture in violation of U.S. and international law - that admission could have immediate legal consequences for the responsible officials.
In contrast, acknowledging the U.S. role in the 1953 coup would not put anyone at risk of prosecution, and would not harm us in any way.
On the contrary, it could be a game-changer in U.S. relations with the Muslim world - indicating that there really is a new guy at the helm.
Is there a precedent? There sure is: a close one. In 1999, President Bill Clinton gave a “near-apology“ for the U.S. role in Guatemala’s civil war.
Guatemala City, March 10 - President Clinton expressed regret today for the U.S. role in Guatemala’s 36-year civil war, saying that Washington “was wrong” to have supported Guatemalan security forces in a brutal counterinsurgency campaign that slaughtered thousands of civilians.
Clinton’s statements marked the first substantive comment from the administration since an independent commission concluded last month that U.S.-backed security forces committed the vast majority of human rights abuses during the war, including torture, kidnapping and the murder of thousands of rural Mayans.
“It is important that I state clearly that support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression of the kind described in the report was wrong,” Clinton said, reading carefully from handwritten notes. “And the United States must not repeat that mistake. We must, and we will, instead continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Guatemala.”
...
Clinton’s aides said the president had thought for some time about how to word his near-apology. The Guatemalan military received training and other help from the U.S. military in an era when the United States supported several Latin American rightist governments fighting leftist insurgents.
The “original sin” of the U.S. role in Guatemala’s civil war was the U.S.-organized overthrow of the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 - the year after it overthrew democracy in Iran.
If President Clinton could “near-apologize” for the U.S. role in Guatemala, is it beyond the realm of imagination that President Obama could “near-apologize” for the U.S. overthrow of democracy and support of dictatorship in Iran?
If President Obama did so, mightn’t it be a “game-changer” in U.S. relations with Iran? What would it cost us to merely state the truth? And doesn’t the righteous man admit fault when he has the opportunity to do so?
Many Americans would be justifiably proud of President Obama if he would apologize to Iran for the 1953 overthrow of Iranian democracy on behalf of the United States. Patch Adams told me this morning: “when you write about this, please say that I support it.”

 

[Denizen]

The US shot down Iran Air flight 655 in Iran's airspace killing 290 civilians.

Iran sued the US in the International Court and won.

The US Commander, Will Rogers, that shot down this civilian aircraft was decorated afterward. He should have been jailed.

The forgotten story of Iran Air Flight 655

The forgotten story of Iran Air Flight 655
By Max Fisher October 16, 2013
Iranian children throw flowers into the sea as part of a 24th anniversary commemoration of the downing of Iran Air Flight 655. (Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)
If you walked into any high school classroom in the United States and asked the students to describe their country's relationship with Iran, you'd probably hear words like "enemy" and "threat," maybe "distrust" and "nuclear." But ask them what the number 655 has to do with it, and you'd be met with silence.
Try the same thing in an Iranian classroom, asking about the United States, and you'd probably hear some of the same words. Mention the number 655, though, it's a safe bet that at least a few of the students would immediately know what you were talking about.
The number, 655, is a flight number: Iran Air 655. If you've never heard of it, you're far from alone. But you should know the story if you want to better understand why the United States and Iran so badly distrust one another and why it will be so difficult to strike a nuclear deal, as they're attempting to do at a summit in Switzerland this week.
The story of Iran Air 655 begins, like so much of the U.S.-Iran struggle, with the 1979 Islamic revolution. When Iraq invaded Iran the following year, the United States supported Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein against the two countries' mutual Iranian enemy. The war dragged on for eight awful years, claiming perhaps a million lives.
Toward the end of the war, on July 3, 1988, a U.S. Navy ship called the Vincennes was exchanging fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Navy kept ships there, and still does, to protect oil trade routes. As the American and Iranian ships skirmished, Iran Air Flight 655 took off from nearby Bandar Abbas International Airport, bound for Dubai. The airport was used by both civilian and military aircraft. The Vincennes mistook the lumbering Airbus A300 civilian airliner for a much smaller and faster F-14 fighter jet, perhaps in the heat of battle or perhaps because the flight allegedly did not identify itself. It fired two surface-to-air missiles, killing all 290 passengers and crew members on board.
The horrible incident brought Tehran closer to ending the war, but its effects have lingered much longer than that. "The shoot-down of Iran Air flight 655 was an accident, but that is not how it was seen in Tehran," former CIA analyst and current Brookings scholar Kenneth Pollack wrote in his 2004 history of U.S.-Iran enmity, "The Persian Puzzle." "The Iranian government assumed that the attack had been purposeful. ... Tehran convinced itself that Washington was trying to signal that the United States had decided to openly enter the war on Iraq's side."
That belief, along with Iraq's increased use of chemical weapons against Iran, led Tehran to accept a United Nations cease-fire two months later. But it also helped cement a view in Iran, still common among hard-liners in the government, that the United States is absolutely committed to the destruction of the Islamic Republic and will stop at almost nothing to accomplish this. It is, as Time's Michael Crowley points out in an important piece, one of several reasons that Iran has a hard time believing it can trust the United States to ever stop short of its complete destruction.
This is not just an issue of historical grievance: It matters in immediate geopolitical terms to the efforts by President Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to find their way to a nuclear deal and perhaps a first step toward detente. For any deal to work, both countries will have to trust that the other is sincere about its willingness to follow through on its promises. For the United States, that means trusting that Iran is really willing to give up any nuclear weapons ambitions and ramp down the program as promised (Washington has real, legitimate grounds to worry about this; Iran has its own history of misdeeds). For Iran, it means trusting that the United States will actually accept the Islamic Republic and coexist peacefully with it.
The eight-year war with Iraq, which is widely seen in Iran as a war against not just Hussein but his Western backers, and the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 that came near its conclusion, have convinced many in Iran that the United States simply cannot be trusted to let Iran be. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Rouhani's boss, often appears to share this deep distrust. Khamenei and other hard-liners could scuttle any deal; a similar drama will likely play out in Washington.
If Iran believes that the United States is so committed to its destruction that it would willingly shoot down a plane full of Iranian civilians, then Tehran has every incentive to assume we're lying in negotiations. It also has strong incentives to try to build a nuclear weapon, or at least get close enough to deter the American invasion that it feared was coming in 1988 and perhaps again in 2002 with President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" speech.
Americans might not know about Flight 655. But Iranians surely do -- they can hardly forget about it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The US shot down Iran Air flight 655 in Iran's airspace killing 290 civilians.

Iran sued the US in the International Court and won.

The US Commander, Will Rogers, that shot down this civilian aircraft was decorated afterward. He should have been jailed.

The forgotten story of Iran Air Flight 655

The forgotten story of Iran Air Flight 655
By Max Fisher October 16, 2013
Iranian children throw flowers into the sea as part of a 24th anniversary commemoration of the downing of Iran Air Flight 655. (Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)
If you walked into any high school classroom in the United States and asked the students to describe their country's relationship with Iran, you'd probably hear words like "enemy" and "threat," maybe "distrust" and "nuclear." But ask them what the number 655 has to do with it, and you'd be met with silence.
Try the same thing in an Iranian classroom, asking about the United States, and you'd probably hear some of the same words. Mention the number 655, though, it's a safe bet that at least a few of the students would immediately know what you were talking about.
The number, 655, is a flight number: Iran Air 655. If you've never heard of it, you're far from alone. But you should know the story if you want to better understand why the United States and Iran so badly distrust one another and why it will be so difficult to strike a nuclear deal, as they're attempting to do at a summit in Switzerland this week.
The story of Iran Air 655 begins, like so much of the U.S.-Iran struggle, with the 1979 Islamic revolution. When Iraq invaded Iran the following year, the United States supported Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein against the two countries' mutual Iranian enemy. The war dragged on for eight awful years, claiming perhaps a million lives.
Toward the end of the war, on July 3, 1988, a U.S. Navy ship called the Vincennes was exchanging fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Navy kept ships there, and still does, to protect oil trade routes. As the American and Iranian ships skirmished, Iran Air Flight 655 took off from nearby Bandar Abbas International Airport, bound for Dubai. The airport was used by both civilian and military aircraft. The Vincennes mistook the lumbering Airbus A300 civilian airliner for a much smaller and faster F-14 fighter jet, perhaps in the heat of battle or perhaps because the flight allegedly did not identify itself. It fired two surface-to-air missiles, killing all 290 passengers and crew members on board.
The horrible incident brought Tehran closer to ending the war, but its effects have lingered much longer than that. "The shoot-down of Iran Air flight 655 was an accident, but that is not how it was seen in Tehran," former CIA analyst and current Brookings scholar Kenneth Pollack wrote in his 2004 history of U.S.-Iran enmity, "The Persian Puzzle." "The Iranian government assumed that the attack had been purposeful. ... Tehran convinced itself that Washington was trying to signal that the United States had decided to openly enter the war on Iraq's side."
That belief, along with Iraq's increased use of chemical weapons against Iran, led Tehran to accept a United Nations cease-fire two months later. But it also helped cement a view in Iran, still common among hard-liners in the government, that the United States is absolutely committed to the destruction of the Islamic Republic and will stop at almost nothing to accomplish this. It is, as Time's Michael Crowley points out in an important piece, one of several reasons that Iran has a hard time believing it can trust the United States to ever stop short of its complete destruction.
This is not just an issue of historical grievance: It matters in immediate geopolitical terms to the efforts by President Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to find their way to a nuclear deal and perhaps a first step toward detente. For any deal to work, both countries will have to trust that the other is sincere about its willingness to follow through on its promises. For the United States, that means trusting that Iran is really willing to give up any nuclear weapons ambitions and ramp down the program as promised (Washington has real, legitimate grounds to worry about this; Iran has its own history of misdeeds). For Iran, it means trusting that the United States will actually accept the Islamic Republic and coexist peacefully with it.
The eight-year war with Iraq, which is widely seen in Iran as a war against not just Hussein but his Western backers, and the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 that came near its conclusion, have convinced many in Iran that the United States simply cannot be trusted to let Iran be. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Rouhani's boss, often appears to share this deep distrust. Khamenei and other hard-liners could scuttle any deal; a similar drama will likely play out in Washington.
If Iran believes that the United States is so committed to its destruction that it would willingly shoot down a plane full of Iranian civilians, then Tehran has every incentive to assume we're lying in negotiations. It also has strong incentives to try to build a nuclear weapon, or at least get close enough to deter the American invasion that it feared was coming in 1988 and perhaps again in 2002 with President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" speech.
Americans might not know about Flight 655. But Iranians surely do -- they can hardly forget about it.

No one forgot that story, the only good Iranian is a dead one.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup? | HuffPost

Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?
headshot
By Robert Naiman
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.
Not surprisingly, there hasn’t exactly been a groundswell of popular support in the United States for President Ahmadinejad’s suggestion. Just 11% of U.S. voters think America should apologize for “crimes” against Iran, according to a poll from Rasmussen.
Of course, if you know anything about the United States, you wouldn’t leap to the conclusion that Americans, as a country, are a bunch of jerks who can’t admit when they’ve done anything wrong. Occam’s Razor suggests a simpler explanation: most Americans have little knowledge about the history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As far as they know, the U.S. hasn’t done anything wrong. So why should we apologize?
Unfortunately for us, outside our borders U.S. foreign policy isn’t judged according to what we know, but according to what our government does and has done. And it is well known in Iran and throughout the Middle East that the U.S. (at the urging of and with the assistance of the UK) organized a coup against the democratically-elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossaedgh in 1953, in retaliation for Mossaedgh’s stubborn insistence that Iran’s oil belonged to Iranians. And for the next twenty-five years, the U.S. kept in power a dictatorship in Iran, actions justified in no small measure by the alleged need to protect “our oil” that God had misplaced “under their sand.”
[To brush up on your history, read Stephen Kinzer’s excellent account, a tour de force of accessible writing, or watch the 6 minute version here.]
If you know this history, the proposal that the U.S. apologize for overthrowing Iranian democracy seems a lot more reasonable. Imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose that in 1953, when someone who is now 65 was 10 years old, Iran, together with the British (something we have in common with Iran is the experience of Britain as a colonial power), organized a coup that overthrew the democratic government of the United States and replaced it with a dictatorship that lasted until 1979, when someone who is 39 today was ten years old. And now comes Iran talking about improved relations. Do you think that no-one in the United States would suggest that Iran acknowledge its role in the coup as a step to improving relations?
But if it is reasonable for Iranians to propose that the U.S. apologize for its role in overthrowing Iranian democracy and installing a dictatorship, would it be feasible for the U.S. to do so? I maintain that it would not only be feasible, but useful.
While 1953 is recent enough that there are people alive who remember it, it is long enough ago that those directly responsible for the coup are long gone. In this way it differs from admitting, for example, that Bush Administration officials authorized torture in violation of U.S. and international law - that admission could have immediate legal consequences for the responsible officials.
In contrast, acknowledging the U.S. role in the 1953 coup would not put anyone at risk of prosecution, and would not harm us in any way.
On the contrary, it could be a game-changer in U.S. relations with the Muslim world - indicating that there really is a new guy at the helm.
Is there a precedent? There sure is: a close one. In 1999, President Bill Clinton gave a “near-apology“ for the U.S. role in Guatemala’s civil war.
Guatemala City, March 10 - President Clinton expressed regret today for the U.S. role in Guatemala’s 36-year civil war, saying that Washington “was wrong” to have supported Guatemalan security forces in a brutal counterinsurgency campaign that slaughtered thousands of civilians.
Clinton’s statements marked the first substantive comment from the administration since an independent commission concluded last month that U.S.-backed security forces committed the vast majority of human rights abuses during the war, including torture, kidnapping and the murder of thousands of rural Mayans.
“It is important that I state clearly that support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression of the kind described in the report was wrong,” Clinton said, reading carefully from handwritten notes. “And the United States must not repeat that mistake. We must, and we will, instead continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Guatemala.”
...
Clinton’s aides said the president had thought for some time about how to word his near-apology. The Guatemalan military received training and other help from the U.S. military in an era when the United States supported several Latin American rightist governments fighting leftist insurgents.
The “original sin” of the U.S. role in Guatemala’s civil war was the U.S.-organized overthrow of the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 - the year after it overthrew democracy in Iran.
If President Clinton could “near-apologize” for the U.S. role in Guatemala, is it beyond the realm of imagination that President Obama could “near-apologize” for the U.S. overthrow of democracy and support of dictatorship in Iran?
If President Obama did so, mightn’t it be a “game-changer” in U.S. relations with Iran? What would it cost us to merely state the truth? And doesn’t the righteous man admit fault when he has the opportunity to do so?
Many Americans would be justifiably proud of President Obama if he would apologize to Iran for the 1953 overthrow of Iranian democracy on behalf of the United States. Patch Adams told me this morning: “when you write about this, please say that I support it.”

More Obama nonsense of running around the world and apologizing?


.


They can kiss my ass

 

[Natural Citizen]

End of the day, nobody will be messing around with Iran. Nobody. These are the Persians. They're almost 82 milllion strong and it's among the world's oldest civilizations, they go back as far as the fourth millennium.

Get real.

Though that stark reality never stops the neocons in DC and the lobby from spewing their disingenuous horse pucky all over the airwaves and social media in the hopes that an underinformed American electorate will just buy into it and fork over billions more dollars we don't have and get into more undeclared wars with people who haven't done anything to us. Who benefits from that?

These people have been fighting for thousands of years and they'll be fighting for thousands more.

 

[JGalt]

Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic idiot nutcase. The only notable thing he did in his life was siphon votes away from Republicans last time he ran for President.

Actually, you just showed everyone how underinformed you are.

Ron Paul lost me when he said "Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? We have them."

No thanks.

 

[beautress]

Donald Trump is a Christian.

Not a very good one...

The only difference between a Christian and other human beings, Nat, is that Christians are forgiven. Being forgiven by God does not necessarily mean that nonbelievers will forgive us. I'm pretty certain President Trump's life is a big fishbowl of inspection by spectators. All we can do is to pray for him when he makes mistakes, and our instructions are clear on prayers--that we pray, believing for God's will to be done. After that, it's in God's hands, for he is the only one I know who can look on the heart of a sincere man or woman and pronounce them forgiven. As for us, we ain't God, and this earth ain't Heaven.

 

[Godboy]

Thank you, Dr. Paul.

Hes a fucking fool. How on earth does he have any followers with all the stupid shit hes said over the years?

 

[Godboy]

People are disregarding the fact that the USA deposed the 35th democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh.

The USA imposed the despot Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to rule Iran until the people overthrew the corrupt despot.

So? They still suck, so lets depose every fucking leader they present until a good one appears. Easy peasy.

 

[Godboy]

People are disregarding the fact that the USA deposed the 35th democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh.

The USA imposed the despot Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to rule Iran until the people overthrew the corrupt despot.

Iranians deposed Mohammad Mosaddegh------not a single USA boot was
involved in the fight------you are a gross liar. Try discussing the matter with
an Iranian

I denounce you as a liar. The USA even apologized to the Iranians for the CIA coup.

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

1953 Iranian coup d'état
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d'état was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project[5] or "Operation Ajax"),[6][7][8][9] and the first United States covert action to overthrow a foreign government during peacetime.[10] ...

Explain why anyone should care that the US overthrew a bad guy? Did a new bad guy pop up in his place? Lets get rid of him too then.

 

[Godboy]

End of the day, nobody will be messing around with Iran. Nobody. These are the Persians. They're almost 82 milllion strong and it's among the world's oldest civilizations, they go back as far as the fourth millennium.

Get real.

Though that stark reality never stops the neocons in DC and the lobby from spewing their disingenuous horse pucky all over the airwaves and social media in the hopes that an underinformed American electorate will just buy into it and fork over billions more dollars we don't have and get into more undeclared wars with people who haven't done anything to us. Who benefits from that?

These people have been fighting for thousands of years and they'll be fighting for thousands more.

Are you really this delusional? The only reason Iran exists is because the United States hasnt decided to wipe them out. Take nukes out of the picture; if we wanted to go in there and kill every Iranian using only bullets and bombs, we could easily make that happen.

Iran is weak because their culture is weak.

 

[beautress]

Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic idiot nutcase. The only notable thing he did in his life was siphon votes away from Republicans last time he ran for President.

And now you leftists think he's the greatest thing since white bread.

Compared to antichrist Donald Trump Ron Paul is a saint.

Donald Trump is a Christian. He is generous with the things God gave him, and he has given America a good fiscal base, because that's what he's good at.

Donald Trump is a worshipper of Mammon. His objective is to acquire as much filthy lucre as possible.

It is not an easy thing for a rich man to be spiritual, but neither is it impossible. Even so, President Trump has opened himself up to doing right by the fiscal community to bring prosperity to Americans. It is only with prosperity that people can learn charity. Being born into wealth opens doors others may never find unless they are persistent and have a gift to employ other people and bestow wealth on those who earn it. It also means they are constantly bombarded with invitations from people who want to learn how to make money on a large scale, or to sell something to the wealthy man for profit. President Trump has offered his expertise at profit making to the nation, because his specialty is promoting good things to other people for a profit. He will make the nation prosperous for these purposes: giving millions of young people opportunities to do well in a land that offers the best of them. We can either accept the good gift he is giving, or we can cave to his enemies over petty things and human foibles and let them continue their little spending spree for pet rock projects that causes people to lose their jobs and accept state gifts. This was not the goal of the founders, who were spiritual men, mostly Christian. They did the math and decided if this nation was to be able to support itself, it must prosper. So they devised a fiscal system that would keep the nation clothed and fed for generations to come. You can call them devils who worshipped wealth, or you can call them angelic men who ensured that all people who could work for wages would have a job to support themselves and their families. And they didn't want anybody to suffer the whims of a king or oligarchy that routed wealth only to themselves. They did their job.

You can say what you wish to say, because we have freedom of speech. I too, have a view, and believe that Trump is a man who takes but also gives back in generous proportions, and unfortunately for him, he requires fidelity and competency from those who work for him. And he is working in earthly parameters, not heavenly ones.

 

[JGalt]

Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic idiot nutcase. The only notable thing he did in his life was siphon votes away from Republicans last time he ran for President.

And now you leftists think he's the greatest thing since white bread.

Compared to antichrist Donald Trump Ron Paul is a saint.

Donald Trump is a Christian. He is generous with the things God gave him, and he has given America a good fiscal base, because that's what he's good at.

Donald Trump is a worshipper of Mammon. His objective is to acquire as much filthy lucre as possible.

I bet it really pisses you off that he moved our embassy to Jerusalem.

Every other President who promised that (including Obama) failed to do that.

 

[irosie91]

People are disregarding the fact that the USA deposed the 35th democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh.

The USA imposed the despot Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to rule Iran until the people overthrew the corrupt despot.

Iranians deposed Mohammad Mosaddegh------not a single USA boot was
involved in the fight------you are a gross liar. Try discussing the matter with
an Iranian

I denounce you as a liar. The USA even apologized to the Iranians for the CIA coup.

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

1953 Iranian coup d'état
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d'état was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project[5] or "Operation Ajax"),[6][7][8][9] and the first United States covert action to overthrow a foreign government during peacetime.[10] ...

Explain why anyone should care that the US overthrew a bad guy? Did a new bad guy pop up in his place? Lets get rid of him too then.

we did not overthrow a good guy-----we favored the monarchists over
the Russian favored communists------it was during DA COLD WAR.
That was 1950s. I ran into lots of Iranians in the mid sixties----young
people escaping the rise of Islamism-----and then a BRAIN DRAIN--of
young professionals who also fled. From where do you imagine those
JERKY Kardashians arose? Islamism WON-----just what part of the
population did Islamism win? Not Teheran which harbors the
intelligentsia of Iran-------the AYATOILETs won the hearts of the mostly
illiterate country side hicks. Speak to any Iranian here in the USA.
Believe it or not-----there are still Iranian monarchists out there---weird
but true. Some of the people who post here are delighted that Iranian
children are taught to fart out DEATH TO AMERICA