Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Iran's problems began with the U.S.-backed illegal coup that overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh. He was a democratically elected leader. If we hadn't gotten involved, there wouldn't have been an Islamic Revolution. The Shah was brutal and was truly hated by most Iranians.
how do you know that the shah was HATED? no doubt he was hated by people who got in trouble with SAVAK------but I never met an Iranian in the USA who LEFT
IRAN because of the shah -------or hated him------or did not like him. -------1965 thru 1990 was the time period in which I encountered LOTS OF IRANIANS who were recent migrants. I met lots who hated the AYATOILETS. Is there an entity called
LEGAL COUP. according to the brits----Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were CRIMINALS
They may have supported him, but most Iranians didn't. The Revolution ousted him in about a 2 days. He didn't have enough support there to fight back. Very few came to his defense. He ran for his life and fled the country immediately.
Like i said, we shouldn't have backed the illegal coup that overthrew a democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Shah was from a Royal line like the Saudis. He was a Dictator. It was another case of Blow Back. We have to move away from all the meddling around the world.
a discussion of that which took place in Iran in 1979 during a time when Iran was
in GREAT ECONOMIC STRESS and when a religious fervor led by the animal
AYATOILET KHOMEINI was sweeping the land---especially among the MAJORITY---uneducated, does not preclude the POPULARITY OF THE SHAH
in 1941---- after a "reign" as "king" for a full 38 years. Also---keep in mind---
THE SHAH was from a "royal household"-----he did not jump out of the wilderness
with a band of wicked CIA agents and TAKE OVER. Getting back to my sources------IRANIANS------the big issue about which they complained (the few who actually complained and were optimistic about the "revolution" ) regarding
the shah was-----ECONOMIC STRESS AMONGST THEIR COUNTRYMEN---due
to corruption-----a condition which the AYATOILET KHOMEINI WAS SURE TO
CURE ------
If we had left things alone there, we probably wouldn't have seen an Islamic Revolution. Mohammad Mosaddegh was fairly popular. He wasn't a religious radical either. The People supported him for the most part. He was democratically elected.
The Shah came to power by way of an illegal coup. Things went downhill in Iran ever since. We liked the Shah because he was our Dictator Puppet. But we underestmated how much the Iranian People despised him.
and if adolf had not been born----world war II would not have happened. Your statement is silly----the REAL galavanizing forces that fueled the IRANIAN
CULTURAL REVOLUTION----were ----RELIGION------Khomeini did not do it all
on his own--------the Islamic "religious revival" has been gaining in momentum
for MANY DECADES. It is all mixed up with 'UMMAH PRIDE' ---a kind of
weird nationalism (baathism is actually a nationalistic manifestion of the same
"EMOTION" ) -----and complicated by economic disaster. How do I know???----
the stuff was introduced to me by real Iranians with real minds way back in the
late 1960s------the growing "FANATICISM" -------so I was told by my good friend---
came to the US to get training in his field---"INTERNAL MEDICINE"----a top
student in Teheran---in fact published-------one of his several brothers had fallen under the sway of THE FANATICS (circa 1968)----the other one----the neurologist----was incensed about the corruption and poverty which he KNEW
would "go away" under the ayatoilets (1978) ---------despair and religiosity are
the BIG FORCES in lots of Islamic lands------Pakistan too<<< that's where
sunnis are so distressed that they shoot Shiites in the streets --in "DRIVE-BYS"
IT's virtually a world wide thing---for quite awhile------as you should have noticed
Well, the problem with that is all of the stuff you're talking about happened after Obama left Iraq in 2012. Bush had been out of office almost 4 years.ROFLMAO since you know nothing about Shiites and sunnis and their
ONGOING feud------why do you comment?-----the CHANGE in the Iranian approach
to the area came when the IDIOT OF THE CENTURY -----JUMMAH CARTER stuck his tongue up the ass of KHOMEINI---------maybe you are too young to remember
The first muslim I knew WELL-------was a Shiite from India. He DESPISED
HINDUS-----and was not shy about discussing it with shy little youthful me. -------
that was about almost 50 years ago. When I commented "if hindus are so awful why did your family not migrate to Pakistan in 1948" ? The young surgeon
got so DISTRESSED that I thought he would die a cardiac death. I did not know ---way back then that Shiites were being shot in the streets of Pakistan and HE
did not tell me anything about it. It took me a few years to figure out why IRANIANS DESPISE PAKISTANIS--------real palpable hatred whenever they encountered each other ---------VIRULENT stuff
Hey man, wake up. Bush's horrific debacle handed Iraq over to Iran and the Shiites. You wanna be angry at someone, be angry at Bush and his crony assholes. Iran and the Shiites had less power & influence in the region before Bush's idiotic invasion.
No, Bush's blunder opened the door to Iran and the Shiites seizing the power. They run the show in Iraq now. Before the war, Iran and the Shiites had almost no power & influence in Iraq. Just more Blow Back. The Iraq War should have never hppened.
wrong again----SADDAM and his barbaric practices OPENED THE DOOR TO THE
REALLY ANGRY SHIITE MAJJORITY's TAKE OVER-----Saddam was a glorious
BAATHIST------<<< a fascist ideology which did not have much of a track record---
ANYWHERE
You hate Iran and the Shiites so much, yet you still defend the buffoon who invaded and handed them all the power. I think you're very confused. Or you're just very stubborn.
US never had full control of Iraq. Still doesn't. Now you know.How did we lose?US tried to stop communists from taking Korea and lost.No it doesn't"Lost" means "didn't win". Now you know. Fool.Since WWII, US lost in Korea, Nam, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and got their ass booted in Somalia, Lebanon, Yemen and Libya. Did I leave anyone out?
Many of these you claimed we lost. I think you had best redefine your terms, because you don't know what "lost" means.
Most wars in history haven't ended with total victory. Typically both sides would grow tired and some truce would be declared
England and France fought for a hundred years. Neither side "won"
US tried stopping communist from taking Nam and lost.
US lost helping Iraq attack Iran and trying to save its hostages (ok, not technically their own war loss)
US tried to subdue Iraq and Afghanistan with war and lost on both counts.
US also tried to invade Canada twice and lost both time.
We are still standing
We got involved in political conflicts we had no business getting involved in. We found the deaths were not worth the expected gain.
We "won" Iraq. Invaded, kicked their ass, put in a government of our choice. Still didn't work
Shows how effective military force is in resolving political conflicts
how do you know that the shah was HATED? no doubt he was hated by people who got in trouble with SAVAK------but I never met an Iranian in the USA who LEFT
IRAN because of the shah -------or hated him------or did not like him. -------1965 thru 1990 was the time period in which I encountered LOTS OF IRANIANS who were recent migrants. I met lots who hated the AYATOILETS. Is there an entity called
LEGAL COUP. according to the brits----Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were CRIMINALS
They may have supported him, but most Iranians didn't. The Revolution ousted him in about a 2 days. He didn't have enough support there to fight back. Very few came to his defense. He ran for his life and fled the country immediately.
Like i said, we shouldn't have backed the illegal coup that overthrew a democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Shah was from a Royal line like the Saudis. He was a Dictator. It was another case of Blow Back. We have to move away from all the meddling around the world.
a discussion of that which took place in Iran in 1979 during a time when Iran was
in GREAT ECONOMIC STRESS and when a religious fervor led by the animal
AYATOILET KHOMEINI was sweeping the land---especially among the MAJORITY---uneducated, does not preclude the POPULARITY OF THE SHAH
in 1941---- after a "reign" as "king" for a full 38 years. Also---keep in mind---
THE SHAH was from a "royal household"-----he did not jump out of the wilderness
with a band of wicked CIA agents and TAKE OVER. Getting back to my sources------IRANIANS------the big issue about which they complained (the few who actually complained and were optimistic about the "revolution" ) regarding
the shah was-----ECONOMIC STRESS AMONGST THEIR COUNTRYMEN---due
to corruption-----a condition which the AYATOILET KHOMEINI WAS SURE TO
CURE ------
If we had left things alone there, we probably wouldn't have seen an Islamic Revolution. Mohammad Mosaddegh was fairly popular. He wasn't a religious radical either. The People supported him for the most part. He was democratically elected.
The Shah came to power by way of an illegal coup. Things went downhill in Iran ever since. We liked the Shah because he was our Dictator Puppet. But we underestmated how much the Iranian People despised him.
and if adolf had not been born----world war II would not have happened. Your statement is silly----the REAL galavanizing forces that fueled the IRANIAN
CULTURAL REVOLUTION----were ----RELIGION------Khomeini did not do it all
on his own--------the Islamic "religious revival" has been gaining in momentum
for MANY DECADES. It is all mixed up with 'UMMAH PRIDE' ---a kind of
weird nationalism (baathism is actually a nationalistic manifestion of the same
"EMOTION" ) -----and complicated by economic disaster. How do I know???----
the stuff was introduced to me by real Iranians with real minds way back in the
late 1960s------the growing "FANATICISM" -------so I was told by my good friend---
came to the US to get training in his field---"INTERNAL MEDICINE"----a top
student in Teheran---in fact published-------one of his several brothers had fallen under the sway of THE FANATICS (circa 1968)----the other one----the neurologist----was incensed about the corruption and poverty which he KNEW
would "go away" under the ayatoilets (1978) ---------despair and religiosity are
the BIG FORCES in lots of Islamic lands------Pakistan too<<< that's where
sunnis are so distressed that they shoot Shiites in the streets --in "DRIVE-BYS"
IT's virtually a world wide thing---for quite awhile------as you should have noticed
Yeah, please try to refrain from falling back on the old tired 'Everyone's Hitler and Nazis' stuff. And I find it interesting you don't blame any of it on us supporting an illegal coup which overthrew a democratically elected leader. And then placing a Dictator Puppet in power. Bottom line is, most Iranians didn't want the Shah. We blew it in Iran. Just another ugly example of Blow Back.
Nah.Well, the problem with that is all of the stuff you're talking about happened after Obama left Iraq in 2012. Bush had been out of office almost 4 years.Hey man, wake up. Bush's horrific debacle handed Iraq over to Iran and the Shiites. You wanna be angry at someone, be angry at Bush and his crony assholes. Iran and the Shiites had less power & influence in the region before Bush's idiotic invasion.
No, Bush's blunder opened the door to Iran and the Shiites seizing the power. They run the show in Iraq now. Before the war, Iran and the Shiites had almost no power & influence in Iraq. Just more Blow Back. The Iraq War should have never hppened.
wrong again----SADDAM and his barbaric practices OPENED THE DOOR TO THE
REALLY ANGRY SHIITE MAJJORITY's TAKE OVER-----Saddam was a glorious
BAATHIST------<<< a fascist ideology which did not have much of a track record---
ANYWHERE
You hate Iran and the Shiites so much, yet you still defend the buffoon who invaded and handed them all the power. I think you're very confused. Or you're just very stubborn.
I was not aware of your "fact" that some buffoon had INVADED IRAN-----in fact---
just who do you imagine is KILLING SHIITES? SHIITES is going down
by the hands of sunnis----in some places and sunnis is going down by the hands of
Shiites in other places. Saddam was a bigtime Shiite murderer------he was not
my uncle. Sunnis in Pakistan like to kill Shiites. Pakistanis and Iranians were the muslims I BEFRIENDED IN MY YOUTH and why I came to see the HATRED
they had for each other ------likely before you were born. I was astonished ----
but since way back then I was a flower child of the 60s (sans marijuana) I was
SURE THAT THE SHIT WOULD VANISH---shortly--
No nation in the world has anything to compare to our B-1 bomber fleet. They alone would pulverize Iran the first day of warfare. They are currently being upgraded to make them more awesome than they already are.
There is no threat the U.S. military can't deal with. As long as we don't start a war with Iran, i doubt there will be one. Iran fully understands it's own position. It can't possibly win a war with the U.S. So if we play it smart and don't try to invade and occupy Iran, we'll be fine. The only way there will be war with Iran, is if the U.S. starts one.
INVADE IRAN? what for?------we are going to have to deal with Iran's growing
INVASIONS of other lands and ambition for control of sea trade routes----
<<<<THAT'S where our military comes into play
US never had full control of Iraq. Still doesn't. Now you know.How did we lose?US tried to stop communists from taking Korea and lost.No it doesn't"Lost" means "didn't win". Now you know. Fool.Many of these you claimed we lost. I think you had best redefine your terms, because you don't know what "lost" means.
Most wars in history haven't ended with total victory. Typically both sides would grow tired and some truce would be declared
England and France fought for a hundred years. Neither side "won"
US tried stopping communist from taking Nam and lost.
US lost helping Iraq attack Iran and trying to save its hostages (ok, not technically their own war loss)
US tried to subdue Iraq and Afghanistan with war and lost on both counts.
US also tried to invade Canada twice and lost both time.
We are still standing
We got involved in political conflicts we had no business getting involved in. We found the deaths were not worth the expected gain.
We "won" Iraq. Invaded, kicked their ass, put in a government of our choice. Still didn't work
Shows how effective military force is in resolving political conflicts
The US has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in recent times, so I guess the answer would be: the US is talking about invasion. Always.Not saying he was an angel, but neither is Putin, China's leader, North Korea, Iran, most of Africa... Is the US going to invade everyone?Yep......innocent little dictator Saddam Hussein. Ummmm....ummmmm..Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMD. A bogus invasion so that Cheney's friends could get the oil and contracts in Iraq. And Saddam had better control of the region than anyone since.He was an enemy to ALL CIVILIZED PERSONS
(not you)
Ummmmm
It is not clear to me why so many of you (fellow posters) continue to talk about
INVADING countries-------who is advocating INVASION?
They may have supported him, but most Iranians didn't. The Revolution ousted him in about a 2 days. He didn't have enough support there to fight back. Very few came to his defense. He ran for his life and fled the country immediately.
Like i said, we shouldn't have backed the illegal coup that overthrew a democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Shah was from a Royal line like the Saudis. He was a Dictator. It was another case of Blow Back. We have to move away from all the meddling around the world.
a discussion of that which took place in Iran in 1979 during a time when Iran was
in GREAT ECONOMIC STRESS and when a religious fervor led by the animal
AYATOILET KHOMEINI was sweeping the land---especially among the MAJORITY---uneducated, does not preclude the POPULARITY OF THE SHAH
in 1941---- after a "reign" as "king" for a full 38 years. Also---keep in mind---
THE SHAH was from a "royal household"-----he did not jump out of the wilderness
with a band of wicked CIA agents and TAKE OVER. Getting back to my sources------IRANIANS------the big issue about which they complained (the few who actually complained and were optimistic about the "revolution" ) regarding
the shah was-----ECONOMIC STRESS AMONGST THEIR COUNTRYMEN---due
to corruption-----a condition which the AYATOILET KHOMEINI WAS SURE TO
CURE ------
If we had left things alone there, we probably wouldn't have seen an Islamic Revolution. Mohammad Mosaddegh was fairly popular. He wasn't a religious radical either. The People supported him for the most part. He was democratically elected.
The Shah came to power by way of an illegal coup. Things went downhill in Iran ever since. We liked the Shah because he was our Dictator Puppet. But we underestmated how much the Iranian People despised him.
and if adolf had not been born----world war II would not have happened. Your statement is silly----the REAL galavanizing forces that fueled the IRANIAN
CULTURAL REVOLUTION----were ----RELIGION------Khomeini did not do it all
on his own--------the Islamic "religious revival" has been gaining in momentum
for MANY DECADES. It is all mixed up with 'UMMAH PRIDE' ---a kind of
weird nationalism (baathism is actually a nationalistic manifestion of the same
"EMOTION" ) -----and complicated by economic disaster. How do I know???----
the stuff was introduced to me by real Iranians with real minds way back in the
late 1960s------the growing "FANATICISM" -------so I was told by my good friend---
came to the US to get training in his field---"INTERNAL MEDICINE"----a top
student in Teheran---in fact published-------one of his several brothers had fallen under the sway of THE FANATICS (circa 1968)----the other one----the neurologist----was incensed about the corruption and poverty which he KNEW
would "go away" under the ayatoilets (1978) ---------despair and religiosity are
the BIG FORCES in lots of Islamic lands------Pakistan too<<< that's where
sunnis are so distressed that they shoot Shiites in the streets --in "DRIVE-BYS"
IT's virtually a world wide thing---for quite awhile------as you should have noticed
Yeah, please try to refrain from falling back on the old tired 'Everyone's Hitler and Nazis' stuff. And I find it interesting you don't blame any of it on us supporting an illegal coup which overthrew a democratically elected leader. And then placing a Dictator Puppet in power. Bottom line is, most Iranians didn't want the Shah. We blew it in Iran. Just another ugly example of Blow Back.
BS------Iranians Nazi propaganda. THE EXCUSE-------mixed with the hatred
of "AMERICA" (the west) -------part of the scapegoat thing that justified the
filth YOU support------which--does include GENOCIDE of minorities in Iran------
talk to a Zoroastrian-----
Why? You think the US just got fed up and left?Ya, the US left Nam on their own free will to let the communists have Nam.So the US didn't lose in Nam?Since WWII, US lost in Korea, Nam, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and got their ass booted in Somalia, Lebanon, Yemen and Libya. Did I leave anyone out?
We didn't lose anything
We intervened militarily in global conflicts because we thought it was in our best interests. When we realized it wasn't worth the cost...we got the hell out
Most of those we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place
No, we didn't "lose". We left!
You have this bizarre concept of history. Did you have liberal history teachers?
No nation in the world has anything to compare to our B-1 bomber fleet. They alone would pulverize Iran the first day of warfare. They are currently being upgraded to make them more awesome than they already are.
There is no threat the U.S. military can't deal with. As long as we don't start a war with Iran, i doubt there will be one. Iran fully understands it's own position. It can't possibly win a war with the U.S. So if we play it smart and don't try to invade and occupy Iran, we'll be fine. The only way there will be war with Iran, is if the U.S. starts one.
INVADE IRAN? what for?------we are going to have to deal with Iran's growing
INVASIONS of other lands and ambition for control of sea trade routes----
<<<<THAT'S where our military comes into play
As i said, there will only be war with Iran if the U.S. starts one. Iran knows it can't defeat the U.S. in a war. And how many nations has Iran invaded in the last 100 or more years? How many nations has your own country invaded in that same time period?
I don't dispute why those wars were lost, that's you who is fixated on "the REAL reasons" why the US lost.US tried to stop communists from taking Korea and lost.No it doesn't"Lost" means "didn't win". Now you know. Fool.Since WWII, US lost in Korea, Nam, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and got their ass booted in Somalia, Lebanon, Yemen and Libya. Did I leave anyone out?
Many of these you claimed we lost. I think you had best redefine your terms, because you don't know what "lost" means.
Most wars in history haven't ended with total victory. Typically both sides would grow tired and some truce would be declared
England and France fought for a hundred years. Neither side "won"
US tried stopping communist from taking Nam and lost.
US lost helping Iraq attack Iran and trying to save its hostages (ok, not technically their own war loss)
US tried to subdue Iraq and Afghanistan with war and lost on both counts.
US also tried to invade Canada twice and lost both time.
Oh please! Go back to school and learn the REAL reasons those ended that way.
I am sure the South Koreans might disagree with your first stupid point.
A loss is still a loss.US never had full control of Iraq. Still doesn't. Now you know.How did we lose?US tried to stop communists from taking Korea and lost.No it doesn't"Lost" means "didn't win". Now you know. Fool.
Most wars in history haven't ended with total victory. Typically both sides would grow tired and some truce would be declared
England and France fought for a hundred years. Neither side "won"
US tried stopping communist from taking Nam and lost.
US lost helping Iraq attack Iran and trying to save its hostages (ok, not technically their own war loss)
US tried to subdue Iraq and Afghanistan with war and lost on both counts.
US also tried to invade Canada twice and lost both time.
We are still standing
We got involved in political conflicts we had no business getting involved in. We found the deaths were not worth the expected gain.
We "won" Iraq. Invaded, kicked their ass, put in a government of our choice. Still didn't work
Shows how effective military force is in resolving political conflicts
who has "FULL CONTROL" over any country--------as far as I understand----
the US did not want "FULL CONTROL"-------the idiot concept was "SHOW THEM
THE RIGHTEOUS NATURE OF DEMOCRACY" and they will fall all over themselves to BECOME "DEMOCRATIC" and our good buddies. Its
the "Christian" way
a discussion of that which took place in Iran in 1979 during a time when Iran was
in GREAT ECONOMIC STRESS and when a religious fervor led by the animal
AYATOILET KHOMEINI was sweeping the land---especially among the MAJORITY---uneducated, does not preclude the POPULARITY OF THE SHAH
in 1941---- after a "reign" as "king" for a full 38 years. Also---keep in mind---
THE SHAH was from a "royal household"-----he did not jump out of the wilderness
with a band of wicked CIA agents and TAKE OVER. Getting back to my sources------IRANIANS------the big issue about which they complained (the few who actually complained and were optimistic about the "revolution" ) regarding
the shah was-----ECONOMIC STRESS AMONGST THEIR COUNTRYMEN---due
to corruption-----a condition which the AYATOILET KHOMEINI WAS SURE TO
CURE ------
If we had left things alone there, we probably wouldn't have seen an Islamic Revolution. Mohammad Mosaddegh was fairly popular. He wasn't a religious radical either. The People supported him for the most part. He was democratically elected.
The Shah came to power by way of an illegal coup. Things went downhill in Iran ever since. We liked the Shah because he was our Dictator Puppet. But we underestmated how much the Iranian People despised him.
and if adolf had not been born----world war II would not have happened. Your statement is silly----the REAL galavanizing forces that fueled the IRANIAN
CULTURAL REVOLUTION----were ----RELIGION------Khomeini did not do it all
on his own--------the Islamic "religious revival" has been gaining in momentum
for MANY DECADES. It is all mixed up with 'UMMAH PRIDE' ---a kind of
weird nationalism (baathism is actually a nationalistic manifestion of the same
"EMOTION" ) -----and complicated by economic disaster. How do I know???----
the stuff was introduced to me by real Iranians with real minds way back in the
late 1960s------the growing "FANATICISM" -------so I was told by my good friend---
came to the US to get training in his field---"INTERNAL MEDICINE"----a top
student in Teheran---in fact published-------one of his several brothers had fallen under the sway of THE FANATICS (circa 1968)----the other one----the neurologist----was incensed about the corruption and poverty which he KNEW
would "go away" under the ayatoilets (1978) ---------despair and religiosity are
the BIG FORCES in lots of Islamic lands------Pakistan too<<< that's where
sunnis are so distressed that they shoot Shiites in the streets --in "DRIVE-BYS"
IT's virtually a world wide thing---for quite awhile------as you should have noticed
Yeah, please try to refrain from falling back on the old tired 'Everyone's Hitler and Nazis' stuff. And I find it interesting you don't blame any of it on us supporting an illegal coup which overthrew a democratically elected leader. And then placing a Dictator Puppet in power. Bottom line is, most Iranians didn't want the Shah. We blew it in Iran. Just another ugly example of Blow Back.
BS------Iranians Nazi propaganda. THE EXCUSE-------mixed with the hatred
of "AMERICA" (the west) -------part of the scapegoat thing that justified the
filth YOU support------which--does include GENOCIDE of minorities in Iran------
talk to a Zoroastrian-----
We gave them good reason to hate the U.S. and the West. We meddled in their country for many years. We brought them years & years of Dictator misery. Their resentment was justified.
No nation in the world has anything to compare to our B-1 bomber fleet. They alone would pulverize Iran the first day of warfare. They are currently being upgraded to make them more awesome than they already are.
There is no threat the U.S. military can't deal with. As long as we don't start a war with Iran, i doubt there will be one. Iran fully understands it's own position. It can't possibly win a war with the U.S. So if we play it smart and don't try to invade and occupy Iran, we'll be fine. The only way there will be war with Iran, is if the U.S. starts one.
INVADE IRAN? what for?------we are going to have to deal with Iran's growing
INVASIONS of other lands and ambition for control of sea trade routes----
<<<<THAT'S where our military comes into play
As i said, there will only be war with Iran if the U.S. starts one. Iran knows it can't defeat the U.S. in a war. And how many nations has Iran invaded in the last 100 or more years? How many nations has your own country invaded in that same time period?
your are repeating the idiot lines that you have already posted a thousand times.
Iran has an EMPIRE (aka CALIPHATE) complex and are CERTAINLY
working on it-----historically Iran has been a big conquest program. ------
A loss is still a loss.US never had full control of Iraq. Still doesn't. Now you know.How did we lose?US tried to stop communists from taking Korea and lost.No it doesn't
Most wars in history haven't ended with total victory. Typically both sides would grow tired and some truce would be declared
England and France fought for a hundred years. Neither side "won"
US tried stopping communist from taking Nam and lost.
US lost helping Iraq attack Iran and trying to save its hostages (ok, not technically their own war loss)
US tried to subdue Iraq and Afghanistan with war and lost on both counts.
US also tried to invade Canada twice and lost both time.
We are still standing
We got involved in political conflicts we had no business getting involved in. We found the deaths were not worth the expected gain.
We "won" Iraq. Invaded, kicked their ass, put in a government of our choice. Still didn't work
Shows how effective military force is in resolving political conflicts
who has "FULL CONTROL" over any country--------as far as I understand----
the US did not want "FULL CONTROL"-------the idiot concept was "SHOW THEM
THE RIGHTEOUS NATURE OF DEMOCRACY" and they will fall all over themselves to BECOME "DEMOCRATIC" and our good buddies. Its
the "Christian" way
If we had left things alone there, we probably wouldn't have seen an Islamic Revolution. Mohammad Mosaddegh was fairly popular. He wasn't a religious radical either. The People supported him for the most part. He was democratically elected.
The Shah came to power by way of an illegal coup. Things went downhill in Iran ever since. We liked the Shah because he was our Dictator Puppet. But we underestmated how much the Iranian People despised him.
and if adolf had not been born----world war II would not have happened. Your statement is silly----the REAL galavanizing forces that fueled the IRANIAN
CULTURAL REVOLUTION----were ----RELIGION------Khomeini did not do it all
on his own--------the Islamic "religious revival" has been gaining in momentum
for MANY DECADES. It is all mixed up with 'UMMAH PRIDE' ---a kind of
weird nationalism (baathism is actually a nationalistic manifestion of the same
"EMOTION" ) -----and complicated by economic disaster. How do I know???----
the stuff was introduced to me by real Iranians with real minds way back in the
late 1960s------the growing "FANATICISM" -------so I was told by my good friend---
came to the US to get training in his field---"INTERNAL MEDICINE"----a top
student in Teheran---in fact published-------one of his several brothers had fallen under the sway of THE FANATICS (circa 1968)----the other one----the neurologist----was incensed about the corruption and poverty which he KNEW
would "go away" under the ayatoilets (1978) ---------despair and religiosity are
the BIG FORCES in lots of Islamic lands------Pakistan too<<< that's where
sunnis are so distressed that they shoot Shiites in the streets --in "DRIVE-BYS"
IT's virtually a world wide thing---for quite awhile------as you should have noticed
Yeah, please try to refrain from falling back on the old tired 'Everyone's Hitler and Nazis' stuff. And I find it interesting you don't blame any of it on us supporting an illegal coup which overthrew a democratically elected leader. And then placing a Dictator Puppet in power. Bottom line is, most Iranians didn't want the Shah. We blew it in Iran. Just another ugly example of Blow Back.
BS------Iranians Nazi propaganda. THE EXCUSE-------mixed with the hatred
of "AMERICA" (the west) -------part of the scapegoat thing that justified the
filth YOU support------which--does include GENOCIDE of minorities in Iran------
talk to a Zoroastrian-----
We gave them good reason to hate the U.S. and the West. We meddled in their country for many years. We brought them years & years of Dictator misery. Their resentment was justified.
I have a very strong impression that you never actually met an Iranian. I will check----what are the early steps in doing SAFFRON RICE ?
The Iraq war was one for the loss column. These noobs here think it's a win.A loss is still a loss.US never had full control of Iraq. Still doesn't. Now you know.How did we lose?US tried to stop communists from taking Korea and lost.
US tried stopping communist from taking Nam and lost.
US lost helping Iraq attack Iran and trying to save its hostages (ok, not technically their own war loss)
US tried to subdue Iraq and Afghanistan with war and lost on both counts.
US also tried to invade Canada twice and lost both time.
We are still standing
We got involved in political conflicts we had no business getting involved in. We found the deaths were not worth the expected gain.
We "won" Iraq. Invaded, kicked their ass, put in a government of our choice. Still didn't work
Shows how effective military force is in resolving political conflicts
who has "FULL CONTROL" over any country--------as far as I understand----
the US did not want "FULL CONTROL"-------the idiot concept was "SHOW THEM
THE RIGHTEOUS NATURE OF DEMOCRACY" and they will fall all over themselves to BECOME "DEMOCRATIC" and our good buddies. Its
the "Christian" way
ok-----true----the Iraqis did not DISCOVER DEMOCRACY-----so that
program was a failure-----YOUR POINT?
Why? You think the US just got fed up and left?Ya, the US left Nam on their own free will to let the communists have Nam.So the US didn't lose in Nam?We didn't lose anything
We intervened militarily in global conflicts because we thought it was in our best interests. When we realized it wasn't worth the cost...we got the hell out
Most of those we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place
No, we didn't "lose". We left!
You have this bizarre concept of history. Did you have liberal history teachers?
Btw, that's also called a loss.
No nation in the world has anything to compare to our B-1 bomber fleet. They alone would pulverize Iran the first day of warfare. They are currently being upgraded to make them more awesome than they already are.
There is no threat the U.S. military can't deal with. As long as we don't start a war with Iran, i doubt there will be one. Iran fully understands it's own position. It can't possibly win a war with the U.S. So if we play it smart and don't try to invade and occupy Iran, we'll be fine. The only way there will be war with Iran, is if the U.S. starts one.
INVADE IRAN? what for?------we are going to have to deal with Iran's growing
INVASIONS of other lands and ambition for control of sea trade routes----
<<<<THAT'S where our military comes into play
As i said, there will only be war with Iran if the U.S. starts one. Iran knows it can't defeat the U.S. in a war. And how many nations has Iran invaded in the last 100 or more years? How many nations has your own country invaded in that same time period?
your are repeating the idiot lines that you have already posted a thousand times.
Iran has an EMPIRE (aka CALIPHATE) complex and are CERTAINLY
working on it-----historically Iran has been a big conquest program. ------
Please list all the nations your Iranian 'EMPIRE/CALIPHATE has invaded in the last 100yrs or so?
