canyondweller Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Oh whoops….my bad….I forgot about that last time Iran attacked the USA…..wait….Google cant find anything about an attack by Iran…… Embassies are sovereign territory of a given country. I'm not sure you were alive, at the time, but there was a little thing back in '79 where our embassy was attacked and hostages were taken. I'd consider that an attack on our country; you may not, but you'd be wrong. noliquidity - Maybe you missed the part where GWB sent a letter imploring Pelosi to abandon her pursuit of this resolution, at this time. Further, Nancy Pelosi is not one to go helping the Republicans (remember her little visit to Syria?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Oh whoops….my bad….I forgot about that last time Iran attacked the USA…..wait….Google cant find anything about an attack by Iran…… Embassies are sovereign territory of a given country. I'm not sure you were alive, at the time, but there was a little thing back in '79 where our embassy was attacked and hostages were taken. I'd consider that an attack on our country; you may not, but you'd be wrong. noliquidity - Maybe you missed the part where GWB sent a letter imploring Pelosi to abandon her pursuit of this resolution, at this time. Further, Nancy Pelosi is not one to go helping the Republicans (remember her little visit to Syria?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noliquidity Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Many people have considered the timing here, including eight former secretaries of state who have implored Nancy Pelosi to desist from pursuing this resolution. What Pelosi, in effect, is doing is taking informed action to DE-STABILIZE a currently stable region. Turkey is one of our best allies in that region, not to mention a treaty-bound NATO ally (2nd largest standing army in NATO, after the U.S.) Pursuit of this resolution puts American soldiers at greater risk. For what? Ending, or greatly curtailing, the war in Iraq is small potatoes here. Pelosi is taking steps to actively isolate the U.S. from a strong ally. Another, unconfirmed source has said that the Armenian Lobbyists aren't even pushing this resolution at this time. Makes it even more odd. Dont assume that the Democrats are not actually working with the Bush administration on this one . This is about one move in a longer term strategy. It may be a bargaining chip to get the Turks to back off the Kurds. It may be with the intent to start a low level civil war in the N.Iraq and N. Iran region(many Kurds in N. Iran). It would be a way to tie up Iranian resources in the north of their country while we go at them from the west, south and east. It may be a round about way to prod the moderates in Iran to over throw their theocracy. The timing is too absurd to be a coincidence, as is Bushs timing to recognize the Dali Llama. When you play chess, the move you are making now is almost always based on what advantage it will give you 3 or 5 or 10 moves down the road. Look at the end goal and work backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 now where have I heard that before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Oh whoops….my bad….I forgot about that last time Iran attacked the USA…..wait….Google cant find anything about an attack by Iran…… Embassies are sovereign territory of a given country. I'm not sure you were alive, at the time, but there was a little thing back in '79 where our embassy was attacked and hostages were taken. I'd consider that an attack on our country; you may not, but you'd be wrong. True enough, except the part you left out; the '79 Iran hostage crisis is in no way part of the justification the administration has put forth recently for a possible 'sanctions' against that country. Given our track record for stabilizing the Middle East through military force, I'd say that any attack on any nation in that region, under any pretense, would constitute insanity right about now. Unfortunately, given our administration and its allies (someone who, say, wants our boys and girls to 'go git sum' for a crisis that happened over a quarter century ago, for example), insanity seems to be what we do best these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noliquidity Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 now where have I heard that before? I dont know? I think somebody on page 1 was trying to get it moved to page 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Embassies are sovereign territory of a given country. I'm not sure you were alive, at the time, but there was a little thing back in '79 where our embassy was attacked and hostages were taken. I'd consider that an attack on our country; you may not, but you'd be wrong. Very interesting…..did we attack back? I personally do not think if they attacked a building on their soil…..it is the same as attacking us here in the USA…..Come on dude…..you are grasping at straws…… Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Embassies are sovereign territory of a given country. I'm not sure you were alive, at the time, but there was a little thing back in '79 where our embassy was attacked and hostages were taken. I'd consider that an attack on our country; you may not, but you'd be wrong. Very interesting…..did we attack back? I personally do not think if they attacked a building on their soil…..it is the same as attacking us here in the USA…..Come on dude…..you are grasping at straws…… Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? read. don't post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Embassies are sovereign territory of a given country. I'm not sure you were alive, at the time, but there was a little thing back in '79 where our embassy was attacked and hostages were taken. I'd consider that an attack on our country; you may not, but you'd be wrong. Very interesting…..did we attack back? I personally do not think if they attacked a building on their soil…..it is the same as attacking us here in the USA…..Come on dude…..you are grasping at straws…… Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? read. don't post! He doesn't want to read about Carter. "The worst president ever" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? He doesn't want to read about Carter. "The worst president ever" That is funny Seaboy..... So what does 1979 have to do with bombing Iran today? Think before you answer……. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? He doesn't want to read about Carter. "The worst president ever" That is funny Seaboy..... So what does 1979 have to do with bombing Iran today? Think before you answer……. Never said it did and I don't recall anyone else saying that but I didn't go back and proof read everyones posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (except of course the Chinese who are relishing the prospect of bankrolling all the infrastructure repairs...). While we've been preoccupied with Mid East/Asia Minor policy, the Chinese have been quietly been "colonizing" numerous countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Very interesting…..did we attack back? I personally do not think if they attacked a building on their soil…..it is the same as attacking us here in the USA…..Come on dude…..you are grasping at straws…… Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? Just for context: Iran elected, democratically, a president back in the '50's. The US didn't like this president, because he wanted to nationalize oil assets. So, the US worked in a direct way to foster a military revolution, replacing the legitimate president with a dictator. Needless to say, the dictator didn't become a very popular fellow in Iran, except with the monied classes. Unrest grew, and was squelched with means that compare to Saddam's previous methods. Finally, popular unrest reached proportions uncontrollable by the Shah, culminating in a popular Muslim nationalist overthrow of the government (and the take-over of the US embassy, understandably the target of years of pent-up frustration, since it was the US that kept the Shah in power). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Can you say SAVAK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Very interesting…..did we attack back? I personally do not think if they attacked a building on their soil…..it is the same as attacking us here in the USA…..Come on dude…..you are grasping at straws…… Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? Just for context: Iran elected, democratically, a president back in the '50's. The US didn't like this president, because he wanted to nationalize oil assets. So, the US worked in a direct way to foster a military revolution, replacing the legitimate president with a dictator. Needless to say, the dictator didn't become a very popular fellow in Iran, except with the monied classes. Unrest grew, and was squelched with means that compare to Saddam's previous methods. Finally, popular unrest reached proportions uncontrollable by the Shah, culminating in a popular Muslim nationalist overthrow of the government (and the take-over of the US embassy, understandably the target of years of pent-up frustration, since it was the US that kept the Shah in power). More Context... "On 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, and with the assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara in March, the young Shah appointed Mossadegh to the Premiership. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the nationalization of Iran’s oil, cancellation of the AIOC’s oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriation of the AIOC's assets. Responding to the latter, the British government announced it would not allow Mossadegh's government to export any oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. A de facto blockade by Great Britain, enforced by threat of legal action was established in the Persian Gulf to prevent any attempts by Iran to ship oil out of the country. Furthermore, the AIOC withdrew its British trained technicians when Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry. Thus, many of the refineries lacked properly trained technicians that were needed to continue production. An economic stalemate thus ensued, with Mossadegh's government refusing to allow any British involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain refusing to allow any oil to leave Iran. Since Britain had long been Iran's primary oil-consumer and producer, the stalemate was particularly hard on Iran. While the country had once boasted over a US$100 million a year in exports to Britain, after nationalization, the same oil industry began increasing Iran's debt by nearly US$120 million a year. The Abadan Crisis quickly plunged the country into economic difficulties. Despite the economic hardships of his policy, Mossadegh remained popular, and in 1952, was approved by parliament for a second term. Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would ask the Shah to grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh insisted on the constitutional prerogative of the prime minister to name a Minister of War and the Chief of Staff. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation. Ahmad Qavam (also known as Ghavam os-Saltaneh) was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage. Protestors of all stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah quickly dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously demanded. Taking advantage of his popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained. The already precarious alliance between Mossadegh and Kashani was severed in January 1953, when Kashani opposed Mossadegh's demand that his increased powers be extended for a period of one year. Mossadegh quickly implemented more sociopolitical changes. Iran's centuries old feudal agriculture sector was abolished, and replaced with a system of collective farming and government land ownership. Although Mossadegh has previously been opposed to these policies when implemented unilaterally by the Shah, he saw it as a means of checking the power of the Tudeh Party which had been agitating for general land reform among the peasants..." Still More Context Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 SAVAGE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Just for context: Iran elected, democratically, a president back in the '50's. The US didn't like this president, because he wanted to nationalize oil assets. So, the US worked in a direct way to foster a military revolution, replacing the legitimate president with a dictator. Of course, let's ignore when Mossadeq called Truman "his best friend" and the fact that Mossadeq and the US Ambassador were thick as theives. We're also going to go with a very simplistic view of democracy, and keep the vote away from those pesky peasants over in Bam. I hate it when people start talking about voting when they're not landowners. Finally, popular unrest reached proportions uncontrollable by the Shah, culminating in a popular Muslim nationalist overthrow of the government (and the take-over of the US embassy, understandably the target of years of pent-up frustration, since it was the US that kept the Shah in power). Of course, the pressure exerted by Carter had nothing at all to do with this. I mean, how could stopping the funding of an oil rich country exert any influence on their actions? Anyway, it's a good thing that Carter's do-good-ism died with the realpolitik of the Reagan administration. Could you imagine if Shariati had lived? Good thing the Imams killed him... or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noliquidity Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Very interesting?..did we attack back? I personally do not think if they attacked a building on their soil?..it is the same as attacking us here in the USA?..Come on dude?..you are grasping at straws?? Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? Just for context: Iran elected, democratically, a president back in the '50's. The US didn't like this president, because he wanted to nationalize oil assets. So, the US worked in a direct way to foster a military revolution, replacing the legitimate president with a dictator. Needless to say, the dictator didn't become a very popular fellow in Iran, except with the monied classes. Unrest grew, and was squelched with means that compare to Saddam's previous methods. Finally, popular unrest reached proportions uncontrollable by the Shah, culminating in a popular Muslim nationalist overthrow of the government (and the take-over of the US embassy, understandably the target of years of pent-up frustration, since it was the US that kept the Shah in power). Amazingly the Iranians were actually starting to lean to the west(at least the their populace and and some in upper levels of the government preceding Amedinijad/Iraq war. They were even working with us when we went into Afganistan(obviuosly in their interest since it borders them). But instead of continuing to deal with them and establish diplomatic relations to gain stable access to mid-east oil reserves and central asia pipeline routes we labeled them one of the "axis of evil" and pushed them into the corner. Now unless the Iranian populace overthrows their government we are either going to be involved in a large regional war or be cutoff from mideast oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Of course, let's ignore when Mossadeq called Truman "his best friend" and the fact that Mossadeq and the US Ambassador were thick as theives. We're also going to go with a very simplistic view of democracy, and keep the vote away from those pesky peasants over in Bam. I hate it when people start talking about voting when they're not landowners. You've never had a friendship go sour? Good on ya. And yeah, the democracy improved vitally upon the Shah's rise to power, thank you very much. Of course, the pressure exerted by Carter had nothing at all to do with this. I mean, how could stopping the funding of an oil rich country exert any influence on their actions? Anyway, it's a good thing that Carter's do-good-ism died with the realpolitik of the Reagan administration. Could you imagine if Shariati had lived? Good thing the Imams killed him... or not. I think there is a point you're trying to make in there somewhere, something about the positives of the Shah's reign of autocracy, methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noliquidity Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (except of course the Chinese who are relishing the prospect of bankrolling all the infrastructure repairs...). While we've been preoccupied with Mid East/Asia Minor policy, the Chinese have been quietly been "colonizing" numerous countries. Ya, I believe they just signed a $100 million dollar arms contract with the Iraqi government to arm the Iraqi police force(which is essentially a government sactioned sectarian death squad) And I think it was at the beginning of this year they signed a $20 billion dollar natural gas contract with Iran. Not to mention arming the Venezualans after we backed them into the corner like we did Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 btw, the tudeh party was the iranian communist party... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) You've never had a friendship go sour? Good on ya. And yeah, the democracy improved vitally upon the Shah's rise to power, thank you very much. No, but then again, my friendships don't tend to be dependent on lame duck presidents and I will do my best to make friends with the incoming administration, I promise! I think there is a point you're trying to make in there somewhere, something about the positives of the Shah's reign of autocracy, methinks. Shoot. I was trying to make a point about the counter revolution, the take over by the islamofascists and their usage of the war and the help from new friend in DC (pesky american elections again)... Oh well. edited for bad grammer and the forgotten words "don't tend to be dependent" Edited October 17, 2007 by crackers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 You've never had a friendship go sour? Good on ya. And yeah, the democracy improved vitally upon the Shah's rise to power, thank you very much. No, but then again, my friendships don't tend to be dependent on lame duck presidents and I will do my best to make friends with the incoming administration, I promise! I think there is a point you're trying to make in there somewhere, something about the positives of the Shah's reign of autocracy, methinks. Shoot. I was trying to make a point about the counter revolution, the take over by the islamofascists and their usage of the war and the help from new friend in DC (pesky american elections again)... Oh well. edited for bad grammer and the forgotten words "don't tend to be dependent" next, edit for poor communication of meaning and intent (yes i know, a bit subjective; mebbe you're writing a nice poem a la virendra7, and i'm dissing your artistry. if this is the case, my apologies, and perhaps you could parse it for me....). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Very interesting…..did we attack back? I personally do not think if they attacked a building on their soil…..it is the same as attacking us here in the USA…..Come on dude…..you are grasping at straws…… Them attacking a building in their country in 1979 supports the need to bomb the shit out of the today? WTF? Just for context: Iran elected, democratically, a president back in the '50's. The US didn't like this president, because he wanted to nationalize oil assets. So, the US worked in a direct way to foster a military revolution, replacing the legitimate president with a dictator. Needless to say, the dictator didn't become a very popular fellow in Iran, except with the monied classes. Unrest grew, and was squelched with means that compare to Saddam's previous methods. Finally, popular unrest reached proportions uncontrollable by the Shah, culminating in a popular Muslim nationalist overthrow of the government (and the take-over of the US embassy, understandably the target of years of pent-up frustration, since it was the US that kept the Shah in power). More Context... "On 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, and with the assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara in March, the young Shah appointed Mossadegh to the Premiership. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the nationalization of Iran’s oil, cancellation of the AIOC’s oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriation of the AIOC's assets. Responding to the latter, the British government announced it would not allow Mossadegh's government to export any oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. A de facto blockade by Great Britain, enforced by threat of legal action was established in the Persian Gulf to prevent any attempts by Iran to ship oil out of the country. Furthermore, the AIOC withdrew its British trained technicians when Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry. Thus, many of the refineries lacked properly trained technicians that were needed to continue production. An economic stalemate thus ensued, with Mossadegh's government refusing to allow any British involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain refusing to allow any oil to leave Iran. Since Britain had long been Iran's primary oil-consumer and producer, the stalemate was particularly hard on Iran. While the country had once boasted over a US$100 million a year in exports to Britain, after nationalization, the same oil industry began increasing Iran's debt by nearly US$120 million a year. The Abadan Crisis quickly plunged the country into economic difficulties. Despite the economic hardships of his policy, Mossadegh remained popular, and in 1952, was approved by parliament for a second term. Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would ask the Shah to grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh insisted on the constitutional prerogative of the prime minister to name a Minister of War and the Chief of Staff. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation. Ahmad Qavam (also known as Ghavam os-Saltaneh) was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage. Protestors of all stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah quickly dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously demanded. Taking advantage of his popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained. The already precarious alliance between Mossadegh and Kashani was severed in January 1953, when Kashani opposed Mossadegh's demand that his increased powers be extended for a period of one year. Mossadegh quickly implemented more sociopolitical changes. Iran's centuries old feudal agriculture sector was abolished, and replaced with a system of collective farming and government land ownership. Although Mossadegh has previously been opposed to these policies when implemented unilaterally by the Shah, he saw it as a means of checking the power of the Tudeh Party which had been agitating for general land reform among the peasants..." Still More Context Sweet morsels: The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was allegedly involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) next, edit for poor communication of meaning and intent (yes i know, a bit subjective; mebbe you're writing a nice poem a la virendra7, and i'm dissing your artistry. if this is the case, my apologies, and perhaps you could parse it for me....). Ok. I've got five minutes... Basically, your point about the overthrow of Mossadegh, and the overthrow of the MRS in 1979, portrays US foreign policy as something that is implemented seperately from domestic politics. I don't believe that. I think that US foreign policy is implicitly tied to domestic policy agendas. Eisenhower came into power, and trusted his British friends significantly more than Mossadegh. Ike thought Mossadegh was a wet handed thief. Mossadegh was, as I'm sure you know, rather ill at the time, and thought that he had lost his best hope of retaining the friendship of the Americans. Sure enough... And of course, Carter's election and his implementation of the human rights based foreign policy had a drastic and immediate effect on SAVAK and people seeking change within Iran. Reagan sought out the extreme islamofascists in his negotiations to secretly resolve the hostage crisis...again US domestic politics played trump over our foreign interests. While I probably agree with your conclusions, I prefer a significantly higher level of granularity and knowledge in my prognostication. Of course, black swan type events continue to happen, but it does make the conversation with my taxi drivers in Tabriz significantly more interesting. Finally, I believe, but am not sure, the one of Speaker Pelosi's oldest and best contributors has been lobbying for the armenian genocide bill. it's dinner time, have fun... Edited October 17, 2007 by crackers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.