We Wouldn't Be In This Mess With Iran If

[JusticeHammer]

Gee, I wonder where all these Ph.Ds in history and MYOB peacenicks were when their boi Oboingo was toppling the regimes in Egypt and Libya, and trying to overthrow Assad?

Obama wasn't overthrowing ANYONE. He let the uprisings play out on their own and let the chips fall where they may. That's why the hawks consider him "weak". Because he didn't try to change regimes, but he didn't direct it or try to stop it. He let the people of these nations determine their own governments. Republicans would never allow that, as we've seen in Venezuela and now Iran. Like always, Republicans want CONTROL of people they have no business controlling.

Wrong idiot.

 

[OldLady]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

They'd have never occupied our embassy had we not overthrown their president in 1953 and installed the dictator Shah to do our interests.

I have a question for you, son.

Say, you were a contractor and agreed to do a kitchen remodel. You agreed with a client on a 50 thousand price tag, whereupon you purchased the goods, got the permits and finished the work . upon handing them the bill, howver, they just laughed and said " it's mine now, and I owe you nothing!"

Would you want your government to step in to assure the contract was upheld or defend their reneging on an agreement much to your own detriment?

That's not how I heard it. Britain basically colonized them in order to get that oil. Not like the first time Britain went into an infidel country and took what they wanted. How the fuck do you take home an oil well? A road? A storage facility? C'mon.

 

[JusticeHammer]

That is understandable when you see all the nice things that Obama said about the religious gangsters during his administration......

Obama was a pig and a moron. He is the reason for the crap that is happening now.

The real pig is tramp, said so himself.

No, the real pig was definitely the scum obuthole.

 

[Dragonlady]

Appeasement has never worked in the past. Why should it now?

Because this deal wasn't "appeasement" in any way shape or form.

"Appeasement" is Trump selling nuclear technology to MBS after what he's pulled in Yemen, and with Khashoggi.

You are really confused, aren't you Moon Bat? The Iran deal was the worst deal ever with the possible exception of the Paris Climate Accord.

Thank god Trump pulled us out of both these terrible deals. Trump has a lot of work to undo the damage of the worthless affirmation action shithead, doesn't he?

A deal where no American inspectors, no inspecting military facilities and almost a month prior notice isn't going to do jackshit to stop Obama's Mullah buddies from building nuclear weapons. Throw in billions of dollars in cash to fiance weapons to be used against the US and our allies and to be used to fiance international Islamic terrorism and you have to wonder what Kerry and Obama were smoking when they agreed to that dumb deal.

The answer is probably Obama was not high on drugs. He was just looking forward to his $60K a week vacations in the South of France that he would get as a kickback for giving away the store to the Mullahs.

Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK and China, all stated that Iran was staying within the Accord.
The IAEA. also said that Iran was compliant. The last time the the US didn't believe the IAEA was during the Iraqi War, when the question of an existence of a nuclear program. As historical facts show, the IAEA assessment was correct, the US's guess was wrong.
Everyone knows that Trump is someone,who just doesn't have time for detail, his leaving the agreement wasn't because of what detailed facts he knew, it was 100% political, that's Trump's M.O..
In the real world Trump has very little credibility, due to his constant lies and misrepresentation of facts. Notice what little worldwide support Trump has regarding his approach to Iran. About the only support Trump has is from his masters, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The Ayatollahs are refusing to negotiate with Donald Trump because they don't trust him to keep his word, and why would they? He broke the word of the USA in pulling out of the Paris Accord and the Iran Deal. He's pulled out of every trade or nuclear deal that he's crossed paths with since taking office except NATO, and Congress and the Senate passed a unanimous resolution to prevent him from doing that.

Just look at his recent admission that he ordered an aide to sign an agreement to pay NK $2 million for Otto Warmbier's "care", but never had any intention of ever honoring that agreement. Trump has a long, long history of making deals and then renegging on them. Like his US/Canada/Mexico Trade Agreement, which he just finished negotiating. He already threatened Mexico with tariffs if they didn't do something about the southern border.

Why would anyone cut a deal with Trump, when Trump will just toss it because he woke up in a bad mood, or he's getting bad press at home over his latest stupid decision? The Ayatollah's are not like Trump supporters. They see him with clear eyes and they're not believing his lies or his deflections.

Well, if Iran isn't trying to force a deal with Trump that will stop the sanctions, what ARE they up to? It seems they are begging for attention right now. The Ayatollahs, I'm sure, see the same Trump most of us do, but .... it seems this has to be about getting a change in US policy. So how do they plan to do it, if not negotiating with the US?

Disrupting things in the ME. Causing trouble for the Saudi's, like attacking tankers. Their people are hurting because of US sanctions. They complied with that agreement for two long years, and Trump kicked them in the teeth for it. There were 5 other countries in the world who brokered that Agreement with the Americans and they're hoping that those countries will pressure the US to smarten up and stop the sanctions.

If the USA tries to take on Iran, none of your allies will help you. Trump is on his own here. This won't be a repeat of Iraq, and attacking a foreign enemy on their home soil never works. Think Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Nothing will be accomplished. The locals will attack you at every turn as long as you're there, and it's not your country.

The invaders are always the bad guys. Have you learned nothing from the past 18 years?

 

[Edgetho]

Here's the bottom line.... A Country that HATES the USA, whether it is run by dimocrap scum or Patriotic Republicans, is trying to taunt us into a War with them.

Because War is better for them than their current situation and because they want to change what's going on. They're losing. Badly.

Because they want the ability to continue to murder, commit acts of terror, imprison their own people, and threaten the whole region without us interfering with their megalomaniacal tendencies.

Why, is of no concern for the purposes of this post. It's just the way they are.

The fact is -- They're doing it. Whether it is Jimmy The Peanut Brain's fault, the Lying Cocksucker's fault or Trumps' fault is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that the scum of the fucking Earth -- dimocrap FILTH,instinctively take the side of the enemy. Again. And again. And again.

While we should be concerned about what Trump will or should do, dimocrap SCUM are busy trying to make points for themselves and kicking our current President in the nuts. Whether you like him or not, he is STILL our current President.

We can debate whether or not Trump should have pulled us out of one the worst non-proliferation agreements in human history, as we have done repeatedly in here, but that is beside the point.

The fact is, dimocrap SCUM are defending Iran and not us. The fact is, dimocrap scum are assigning blame to the United States of America instead of to a Country of terroristic, raping, murdering, woman-abusing FILTH.

And what's really funny? The dimocrap scum females (I use the word advisedly) are All-In on it as well.

There is something seriously wrong with these people.

Something so wrong, that they should be excluded from the ranks of decent society. They should be interned and kept out of civil society. Note, I didn't say 'interred' but I'd be okay with that, too.

People, dimocraps are the scum of the Earth.

I'm not just saying that.

They really and truly are the scum of The Earth

 

[Dogmaphobe]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

They'd have never occupied our embassy had we not overthrown their president in 1953 and installed the dictator Shah to do our interests.

I have a question for you, son.

Say, you were a contractor and agreed to do a kitchen remodel. You agreed with a client on a 50 thousand price tag, whereupon you purchased the goods, got the permits and finished the work . upon handing them the bill, howver, they just laughed and said " it's mine now, and I owe you nothing!"

Would you want your government to step in to assure the contract was upheld or defend their reneging on an agreement much to your own detriment?

That's not how I heard it. Britain basically colonized them in order to get that oil. Not like the first time Britain went into an infidel country and took what they wanted. How the fuck do you take home an oil well? A road? A storage facility? C'mon.

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

 

[Edgetho]

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

They've tried that.

They've discovered that it's just so much easier for them to lie.

Something they're really good at.

Educating themselves? Not so much

 

[Flash]

[


Disrupting things in the ME. Causing trouble for the Saudi's, like attacking tankers. Their people are hurting because of US sanctions. They complied with that agreement for two long years, and Trump kicked them in the teeth for it. There were 5 other countries in the world who brokered that Agreement with the Americans and they're hoping that those countries will pressure the US to smarten up and stop the sanctions.

If the USA tries to take on Iran, none of your allies will help you. Trump is on his own here. This won't be a repeat of Iraq, and attacking a foreign enemy on their home soil never works. Think Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Nothing will be accomplished. The locals will attack you at every turn as long as you're there, and it's not your country.

The invaders are always the bad guys. Have you learned nothing from the past 18 years?

You mean like when Obama bombed Libya?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

They've tried that.

They've discovered that it's just so much easier for them to lie.

Something they're really good at.

Educating themselves? Not so much

It starts with unhappiness.

Unhappy people are disgruntled and angry individuals leading unfulfilling lives. Instead of working on themselves, they simply blame their own culture and so become anti-American as a reflex. We are always in the wrong, we can do no good, everything we do messes others up. We are always responsible. They are always in the right. They can do no wrong. They would all be idyllic places if we didn't mess them up. They are never responsible.

That is always the assumption and they never waver from the assumption because they are just miserable individuals incapable of seeing anything good about themselves and therefore us.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Don't blame Carter for the Shah of Iran and the abuse he piled on his people. Before there was Saddam Hussein in the Middle East, there was the Shah of Iran. One of the most brutal dictators who ever lived, but he was a avowed anti-communist. "Better dead than red" was the motto after WWII. The USA installed him as the leader of Iran and they kept him on the Peacock Throne for 38 years where he abused and murdered people at will.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi | shah of Iran

Iranians weren't "emboldened" by "Carter's weakness", they were fed up with the horror show that was the American-backed despot in control of their country. They overthrew the bum and ran him out of the country, and they attacked the embassy of the nation which forced them to accept him as their ruler.

The Iranians have good and valid reasons for hating the United States. If you were an Iranian, you would hate America too.

Canadian deviant makes up some spin or other. lol she claims some rubbish that the Shah was worse than the terrorist regimes supported by the Soviets, and IRan under the Soviets would be, well, like Canada or something. She's a liar,, of course, and she knows better, like most degenerate commie terrorist fans.

lots of Iranians came to the USA when I was a
teen. I never met one who HATED THE SHAH.
Iran had a lousy economy back then and the
odor of Islamism was in the air------so people fled

I find that amusing that not one Iranian "HATED THE SHAH".
I too have met quite a few Iranians, it was about 50-50 regarding whether they hated or didn't hate the Shah. So, let's deal with reality. Shah was a tyrant, that's a fact. Some people don't care if their country's leader is a tyrant, some people want freedom and don't want to be in fear of their lives, because they want freedom.

Yet the choice here is not between freedom and tyranny, but between two different forms of tyranny.

It's impossible to know what would have happened under Mossadeq had he not Nationalized the oil industry (the catching points at the time having to do with his wanting Iran to receive more than the 18% of profits agreed to with those who built the industry), but the Mullah's are not only just as tyrannical, while their tyranny extends to a greater segment of the population.

The Shah was, indeed, brutal with his political opponents. The Mullahs are brutal with everybody.

 

[basquebromance]

Trump: a take no prisoners p*ssy, a radical centrist

 

[candycorn]

Something that happened 43 years ago is the cause of what we have today?

yes

The OP (and now you) are pretty much indicating that you don’t have a clue about the topic.

 

[candycorn]

Something that happened 43 years ago is the cause of what we have today?

It's usually like that.

The law of unintended consequences.

Why stop there? If we go back to Nixon’s twin pillars strategy, it would be more apropos. But you probably don’t know what that is. Do you?

 

[Picaro]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Don't blame Carter for the Shah of Iran and the abuse he piled on his people. Before there was Saddam Hussein in the Middle East, there was the Shah of Iran. One of the most brutal dictators who ever lived, but he was a avowed anti-communist. "Better dead than red" was the motto after WWII. The USA installed him as the leader of Iran and they kept him on the Peacock Throne for 38 years where he abused and murdered people at will.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi | shah of Iran

Iranians weren't "emboldened" by "Carter's weakness", they were fed up with the horror show that was the American-backed despot in control of their country. They overthrew the bum and ran him out of the country, and they attacked the embassy of the nation which forced them to accept him as their ruler.

The Iranians have good and valid reasons for hating the United States. If you were an Iranian, you would hate America too.

Canadian deviant makes up some spin or other. lol she claims some rubbish that the Shah was worse than the terrorist regimes supported by the Soviets, and IRan under the Soviets would be, well, like Canada or something. She's a liar,, of course, and she knows better, like most degenerate commie terrorist fans.

lots of Iranians came to the USA when I was a
teen. I never met one who HATED THE SHAH.
Iran had a lousy economy back then and the
odor of Islamism was in the air------so people fled

I find that amusing that not one Iranian "HATED THE SHAH".
I too have met quite a few Iranians, it was about 50-50 regarding whether they hated or didn't hate the Shah. So, let's deal with reality. Shah was a tyrant, that's a fact. Some people don't care if their country's leader is a tyrant, some people want freedom and don't want to be in fear of their lives, because they want freedom.

It was secular (enough) in those days. Europeans used to live there, in a comfortable and interesting environment.

As bad as the Shah, or any other dictator for that matter, was, one should always bear in mind what could be worse.

The peoples themselves are cruel and violent; most would not be able to create a western style economy nor a democracy. The best one can do is moderate those we have some influence with, and hope we have an honest 4th estate to moderate us in turn. We no longer have an honest 4th estate, and what is supposed to be an honest 4th estate is propagandizing 24/7 for the violent and fascist regimes against the country/countries that allows free speech in the first place.

 

[Picaro]

We Wouldn't Be In This Mess With Iran If

......Trump had left alone what was working to keep Iran's nuclear program in check.

Keeping it in check? lol.


Have you ever done deals with Iranians?

Yes.

Contradicting Trump, U.N. Monitor Says Iran Complies With Nuclear Deal

So have I. Never again.


The NYTimes, and the UN?

Absolutely not.

Yes, absolutely. The international inspectors tasked with ensuring compliance say they are compliant.

You believe those people? Implicitly?

The guys inspecting WMD even had their doubts. Hans Blick included.

Yes, and they weren't allowed to go anywhere they wanted, either. They were repeatedly denied access to many areas.

 

[Dragonlady]

Don't blame Carter for the Shah of Iran and the abuse he piled on his people. Before there was Saddam Hussein in the Middle East, there was the Shah of Iran. One of the most brutal dictators who ever lived, but he was a avowed anti-communist. "Better dead than red" was the motto after WWII. The USA installed him as the leader of Iran and they kept him on the Peacock Throne for 38 years where he abused and murdered people at will.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi | shah of Iran

Iranians weren't "emboldened" by "Carter's weakness", they were fed up with the horror show that was the American-backed despot in control of their country. They overthrew the bum and ran him out of the country, and they attacked the embassy of the nation which forced them to accept him as their ruler.

The Iranians have good and valid reasons for hating the United States. If you were an Iranian, you would hate America too.

Canadian deviant makes up some spin or other. lol she claims some rubbish that the Shah was worse than the terrorist regimes supported by the Soviets, and IRan under the Soviets would be, well, like Canada or something. She's a liar,, of course, and she knows better, like most degenerate commie terrorist fans.

lots of Iranians came to the USA when I was a
teen. I never met one who HATED THE SHAH.
Iran had a lousy economy back then and the
odor of Islamism was in the air------so people fled

I find that amusing that not one Iranian "HATED THE SHAH".
I too have met quite a few Iranians, it was about 50-50 regarding whether they hated or didn't hate the Shah. So, let's deal with reality. Shah was a tyrant, that's a fact. Some people don't care if their country's leader is a tyrant, some people want freedom and don't want to be in fear of their lives, because they want freedom.

It was secular (enough) in those days. Europeans used to live there, in a comfortable and interesting environment.

As bad as the Shah, or any other dictator for that matter, was, one should always bear in mind what could be worse.

The peoples themselves are cruel and violent; most would not be able to create a western style economy nor a democracy. The best one can do is moderate those we have some influence with, and hope we have an honest 4th estate to moderate us in turn. We no longer have an honest 4th estate, and what is supposed to be an honest 4th estate is propagandizing 24/7 for the violent and fascist regimes against the country/countries that allows free speech in the first place.

I love how the entire "English is my second language" crowd are so busy telling us how the MSM is so facist and biased. As someone who lives outside the United States, I am constantly gobsmacked at how many threads in this forum which promote ideas which are against the best interests of the nation - like the MSM is corrupt, or the Deep State opposes Trump.

Anyone who promotes ideas of truth, honor and decency are "out to destroy America", and being opposed to Trump automatically means you're angry, crazy or anti-American. In fact we are in upside-down land. The calm, sane and decent people who stand opposed to a guy who was happy to accept Russia's help to get elected and who has been doing Putin's bidding ever since, are the actual Patriots here.

The MSM outlets are all publically traded corporations with actual shareholders to answer to, whereas all of the major conservative media is all privately owned by people who stand to financially benefit from conservative policies. BIGLY. Look how Rupert Murdoch uses FOX to promote his anti-immigrant agenda. Similarly, the Sinclairs are busy forcing all of their local stations to parrot the conservative lies they're promoting.



The people who are promoting the idea that the left is promoting "fake news" are in fact, lying to you for their own personal benefit.

 

[Picaro]

Fun Fact: The CIA didn't have to do much at all, and spent around $500,000 to support the Shah; Mossyheadedayglo just wasn't the big popular guy the left wingers and conspiratardos portray him as. We spent far more on Tito, and nobody runs around blathering Tito was a 'CIA tool'.

Why the Shah Fell - Commentary

Lastly, the question of repression. There has been a great deal of violence in Iran since World War II. Two prime ministers have been assassinated (Ali Rasmara and Ali Mansur), and there have been attempts to kill others, as well as the Shah. The Iranian government under the Shah responded by mass arrests, by torture, and by executions. According to sources hostile to the regime, there were about 20,000 political prisoners in the early 1970’s; the Shah admitted to only 3,000. But even if the higher figure was correct, it was still proportionately smaller than in countries such as Cuba; and even if more death penalties were imposed in Iran than elsewhere, the number of actual killings was higher in neighboring Iraq, to give but one example. Yet there were no demonstrations in Western capitals in favor of human rights in Cuba or Iraq, and this, of course, is the decisive factor. The impression was created in the Western media that Iran was a more brutal dictatorship than others, whereas it was in fact only less effective.

...


The anti-Shah movement gained momentum not at a time of increased repression, but on the contrary, at a time when the regime was trying to reform itself and to offer a greater degree of liberty, partly under pressure from outside. Was the collapse inevitable? Robert Graham concludes, at the end of a massive indictment of Iranian government incompetence and folly:

To cast the Shah as the villain is in one sense misleading. There is nothing to suggest that another leader or group of leaders in Iran would have done better or behaved much differently under the circumstances. It would be surprising if the same basic motivations did not apply: namely, preservation of personal power, a concern with prestige, a chauvinistic pride in seeking Iranian solutions, and a general impatience with detail. The Shah’s critics decry his authoritarianism, but there is scarcely a liberal tradition in Iranian history.1

Fred Halliday, the author of a study of Iran written from an extreme left-wing point of view, reaches conclusions which are not much different. Noting the internal division of the Iranian Left, its preoccupation with rhetoric, its tendency to look for ideological guidance from notions borrowed from abroad, the subservience of the Tudeh (Communist) party to the Soviet Union, Halliday expresses skepticism about the Left’s ability to administer power, let alone to produce a democratic alternative to the Shah.2

Even the more literate left wingers think the Shah was bettter. lol

As usual, none of the assorted deviants and commies have a bad word to say about Soviet involvement in other countries.

DID THE SOVIETS PLAY A ROLE IN FOUNDING THE TUDEH PARTY IN IRAN?*

https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/docannexe/2207chaqueri-cmr-3-1999.pdf

"The evidence we have examined above clearly demonstrates that the Tudeh was a creation of the Soviet state, through the agency of its Red Army, thus demolishing the thesis that this organization was a genuine party established independently by the progressive elements who had been released from Reza Shah's jails on the morrow of Iran's occupation by the Allies.

 

[Ambivalent1]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Don't blame Carter for the Shah of Iran and the abuse he piled on his people. Before there was Saddam Hussein in the Middle East, there was the Shah of Iran. One of the most brutal dictators who ever lived, but he was a avowed anti-communist. "Better dead than red" was the motto after WWII. The USA installed him as the leader of Iran and they kept him on the Peacock Throne for 38 years where he abused and murdered people at will.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi | shah of Iran

Iranians weren't "emboldened" by "Carter's weakness", they were fed up with the horror show that was the American-backed despot in control of their country. They overthrew the bum and ran him out of the country, and they attacked the embassy of the nation which forced them to accept him as their ruler.

The Iranians have good and valid reasons for hating the United States. If you were an Iranian, you would hate America too.

LOL, and they were SO much better off with he Shia Gov they got after the Shah.

 

[basquebromance]

You all know in your bones that Trump's a coward.

NEVER BACK DOWN! NEVER BACK DOWN! NEVER BACK DOWN! NEVER BACK DOWN!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I love how the entire "English is my second language" crowd are so busy telling us how the MSM is so facist

Would those be the ones who are too stupid to know that the correct word is "Fascist"?