[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
In the grand scheme of things, I love America more than I love my own country.
. . . .
Go tell the Vietnamese or Serbians about how nice Democrats are.
Must be a love/hate relationship.
I recall a pic of Pres. Bill Clinton speaking to our allies the Vietnamese infront of a pic of Ho Chi Mihn. I’ll see if I can find it.
[/quote]
This says it all, doesn’t it?
A big Ho, and an even bigger pimp.
Thanks V.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
According to the Iran/contra fiasco, we sold weapons to Iran. So we helped IRAN in it’s war against Iraq.
Once again I ask:
How many million of dead Iranians were killed by Russian weapons?
[/quote]
Quite a few.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union armed both sides.
Interesting article on the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviet-Afghan War, and their implications on what’s happening today. It’s from GlobalResearch.ca (which I imagine will prejudice quite a few of you against it), authored by a gentleman named Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (a decidedly Iranian name, which I imagine will prejudice even more of you against it), but is nonetheless worth a read.
No surprise, the Grand Puppeteers Zbigniew Blowjobinski and Henry Kissassinger feature prominently.
[i] According to Zbigniew Brzezinski in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, the Soviet Union was baited into invading Afghanistan in 1979 by the Carter Administration and the CIA. High ranking officials within the Carter Administration also contributed to triggering the Iraq-Iran War, after failing to manipulate the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The involvement of the Soviets in Afghanistan prevented them from intervening in a significant way in Iran. With the Soviets busy in Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration was free to fully push Iraq and Iran, the major military powers of the Middle East, against one another.
Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were in an area called the “Northern Tier” by American strategists. This area was believed to be the region from which the Soviet Union could breakout of Eurasia by reaching the Persian Gulf. It was also considered to be the area bordering the Soviet Union’s most sensitive area. It was from here that a game of expansion, containment, and penetration was being carried out. A balance of power was very important in this regard.
One country above all others was vital for the balance of power and that was Iran. If the Soviets overran Iran, they would have direct access to the Persian Gulf and if American or British troops were in Iran they would be directly on the southern and sensitive borders of the Soviet Union. The status quo had been, since the time of the so-called “Great Game” between Britain and Czarist Russia, that Iran would be a military buffer zone.
While Iran was an ally of the U.S. and NATO before 1979, there were also restrictions on it in the context of a longstanding bilateral relationship with the Soviet Union.
Iran severed its military alliance with the United States after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This was seen as a geo-strategic victory by the Soviet Union. Although the Soviets were concerned about the ideology of the new government in Iran, they were relieved that Iran was no longer colluding with the U.S. and its partners. Nonetheless, there was still a state of mistrust between Moscow and Tehran.
The Americans could not intervene militarily in Iran with a view to gaining control over Iran’s oil fields. A bilateral treaty between Iran and the Soviets had allowed the Soviet Union to intervene in Iran if forces of a third party operating within Iran were perceived as a menace to Soviet security. Naturally, Moscow would perceive any American invasion of Iran, on the direct borders of the U.S.S.R., as a threat and invoke the bilateral treaty.
This is where Iraq, a Soviet ally, became useful against Iran. Before the Iraq-Iran War there existed no diplomatic relations between the Iraqi and U.S. governments. Iraq had gravitated outside of the Anglo-American orbit in 1958, after a revolution ousted the Iraqi branch of the Hashemite Dynasty and in 1967 Baghdad cut its ties with America. In 1972 the Soviets and Iraqis had also signed a Friendship Treaty that resulted in large Soviet weapon deliveries to the most independent-minded Arab country in the Arab World, which became a real threat to U.S. and Israeli interests.
According to Henry Kissinger, Iraq was the single most radical Arab country that posed the greatest danger to U.S. interests during the Nixon era. Furthermore, the U.S. was afraid that if Iraq was not neutralized that the Soviets would take the geo-strategic initiative of penetrating into the Middle East and overwhelming Iran. If one remembers Afghanistan also had a pro-Soviet government too. In Henry Kissinger’s words, “The Soviet Union would try to squeeze Iran between [a pro-Soviet] Afghanistan and its Iraqi client.”
Under these circumstances, it was to keep their socialist allies in power in Kabul and to prevent the destabilization of Soviet Central Asia via Afghanistan that Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, in context with the 1978 Soviet-Afghan Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Good Neighbourliness.
Henry Kissinger has written in regards to the danger from Iraq, “Though not strictly speaking a Soviet satellite, once fully armed with Soviet weapons Iraq would serve Soviet purposes by intimating pro-Western government, such as Saudi Arabia; simultaneously, it would exert pressure on Jordon and even Syria, which while leaning to the radical side was far from being a Soviet puppet.” The Americans and their British allies were intent on neutralizing an independent Iraq and an Iran steaming with revolutionary fervor. Also, the other goal of the U.S. and Britain was to regain the lost oil fields of both Middle Eastern countries. The Iraq-Iran War was America’s chance to recover the lost oil fields of Iraq and Iran.
During the bloody Iraq-Iran War, both sides were used to weaken one another. The intention was, quoting Henry Kissinger, to “let them [meaning Iraq and Iran] kill each other.” Thus, the U.S. tried to keep either side from winning and always in a military deadlock. According to a May 20, 1984 issue of Newsday, an American newspaper, the U.S. feared an Iranian victory and developed a contingency plan to militarily intervene on the side of Iraq by using the U.S. Air Force against Iran in a bombing campaign if the Iranians should advance towards Baghdad.[/i]
Interesting article.
It says Iraq was a Soviet ally. Not a US ally.
But the Iranians have no problem being friendly with the Russians and that is my point.
It does not matter who armed who and how many were killed by each side’s arms or money.
What matters is the anti-US propaganda is what is keeping the Iranian Theocracy in power in Tehran and if it were to stop, their nation would experience a second revolution.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Both the United States and the Soviet Union armed both sides.
[/quote]
TRUTH.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What matters is the anti-US propaganda is what is keeping the Iranian Theocracy in power in Tehran and if it were to stop, their nation would experience a second revolution.[/quote]
Nothing personal, but that’s total crap.
The Iranian people had plenty of legitimate reasons to be very angry with the Western powers in general even before the perceived injustices of Bush’s foreign policy. The current government is the public face of that anger.
I suppose it’s possible, though unlikely, that Iran could experience a second revolution, but I think that even a democratically elected government would not be an ally.
WHAT THE FUCK DID HE EXPECT?!
[quote]orion wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
[quote]
Well Russia has never planned the overthrow of a relatively free regime in Iran,[/quote]
You consider Iran to be a free country? It may be free by German standards but the rest of the world has a much different standard of what constitutes freedom and democracy.
[quote]pat wrote:
What else funny is it was the top story on the CNN website this morning, as soon as the reaction to the video broke, you can’t even finds the story on the website anywhere…You just gotta love good old fashion yellow journalism.[/quote]
Keep in mind that FauxNews is more guilty of this than any other network in the United States.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Lixy actually is a perfect case study for American leftists, if only they would pay attention.
He completely refutes their belief that all America has to do is not have George Bush as President but have a nice smiling Democrat, and not do things such as insist – and stick with it – on preconditions but just don’t worry and talk and everyone will be our friends.
Lixy ain’t gonna love America on account of that.
Neither will the terrorists, the mullahs, the ayatollahs, etc.
The only thing that would have them happy, really, is seeing America turned into a smoldering cinder or something of that sort.
(Lixy may say he’d rather just see America humiliated and cut down to size and left unable to affect anyone else in the world – he may not perhaps want us burned to the ground. The degree of antipathy varies, but that it does not depend on the factors the American left thinks it does, does not.)
[/quote]
I don’t see why this surprises anyone. When you’re the champ, everyone wants a piece of you. Especially if the champ walked into other rings and tried to tell the guy how to fight, how to fuck, and how to breath.
America wouldn’t have these problems if we didn’t support Israel. I’m not certain that supporting them is right or wrong, but we are not the innocent little lambs that the right would have us believe.
We are most definitely doing something that burns up the Arab world, and these are the repercussions. Whether it is worth the cost is up to the country.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
You did not read what I wrote according to what it in fact said.
I did.
Nowhere did I “equate” humiliation with non-intervention.
You write that I’d “rather just see America humiliated”. Given that I never alluded to that, I can only deduce that you conflate the two.
I said that only both would please America-haters.
“America-haters”? Do you listen to yourself?
Let me guess…half of Americans and a majority of the world fit that description. Heck, I’ve seen people on this very forum call the POTUS just that.
As to the main point of my post – that you are a perfect example of the folly of the American left in thinking that all that is needed is to put an Obama or other smiling Democrat in power and then America-haters will love us – nothing you wrote at all refutes that.
You have an axe to grind with “the American left”, and that’s between you and them. For me, your “main point” is nothing but a strawman because nobody’s making the argument you’re trying to deconstruct.
Besides, Democrats and Republicans have similar foreign policy. Why should people critical of the latter give a damn if one or the other is in power?
As to your claim that you love America, well, a phrase like that in direct response to being described as an America-hater weighs little against the vast number of posts indicating otherwise.
Good grief! So anyone who criticizes aspects of your country is “an America-hater”?
With people like you around, no wonder the “either with us or against us” twat was elected twice.
But if you’d like to provide quotes of yourself showing your love for America – other than this quote or others equally brief, non-substantive, and forced by the situation – please feel free. Who knows, perhaps they could fill a book.
My “love for America” is rooted in my deep respect for its constitution, founding principles and ideals. They are closer to my personal beliefs than most places.
Believe it or not. I couldn’t possibly care less. [/quote]
Good post lixy.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
According to the Iran/contra fiasco, we sold weapons to Iran. So we helped IRAN in it’s war against Iraq.
Once again I ask:
How many million of dead Iranians were killed by Russian weapons?
Quite a few.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union armed both sides.
Interesting article on the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviet-Afghan War, and their implications on what’s happening today. It’s from GlobalResearch.ca (which I imagine will prejudice quite a few of you against it), authored by a gentleman named Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (a decidedly Iranian name, which I imagine will prejudice even more of you against it), but is nonetheless worth a read.
No surprise, the Grand Puppeteers Zbigniew Blowjobinski and Henry Kissassinger feature prominently.
[i] According to Zbigniew Brzezinski in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, the Soviet Union was baited into invading Afghanistan in 1979 by the Carter Administration and the CIA. High ranking officials within the Carter Administration also contributed to triggering the Iraq-Iran War, after failing to manipulate the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
The involvement of the Soviets in Afghanistan prevented them from intervening in a significant way in Iran. With the Soviets busy in Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration was free to fully push Iraq and Iran, the major military powers of the Middle East, against one another.
Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were in an area called the “Northern Tier” by American strategists. This area was believed to be the region from which the Soviet Union could breakout of Eurasia by reaching the Persian Gulf.
It was also considered to be the area bordering the Soviet Union’s most sensitive area. It was from here that a game of expansion, containment, and penetration was being carried out. A balance of power was very important in this regard.
One country above all others was vital for the balance of power and that was Iran. If the Soviets overran Iran, they would have direct access to the Persian Gulf and if American or British troops were in Iran they would be directly on the southern and sensitive borders of the Soviet Union.
The status quo had been, since the time of the so-called “Great Game” between Britain and Czarist Russia, that Iran would be a military buffer zone.
While Iran was an ally of the U.S. and NATO before 1979, there were also restrictions on it in the context of a longstanding bilateral relationship with the Soviet Union.
Iran severed its military alliance with the United States after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This was seen as a geo-strategic victory by the Soviet Union. Although the Soviets were concerned about the ideology of the new government in Iran, they were relieved that Iran was no longer colluding with the U.S. and its partners. Nonetheless, there was still a state of mistrust between Moscow and Tehran.
The Americans could not intervene militarily in Iran with a view to gaining control over Iran’s oil fields. A bilateral treaty between Iran and the Soviets had allowed the Soviet Union to intervene in Iran if forces of a third party operating within Iran were perceived as a menace to Soviet security.
Naturally, Moscow would perceive any American invasion of Iran, on the direct borders of the U.S.S.R., as a threat and invoke the bilateral treaty.
This is where Iraq, a Soviet ally, became useful against Iran. Before the Iraq-Iran War there existed no diplomatic relations between the Iraqi and U.S. governments. Iraq had gravitated outside of the Anglo-American orbit in 1958, after a revolution ousted the Iraqi branch of the Hashemite Dynasty and in 1967 Baghdad cut its ties with America.
In 1972 the Soviets and Iraqis had also signed a Friendship Treaty that resulted in large Soviet weapon deliveries to the most independent-minded Arab country in the Arab World, which became a real threat to U.S. and Israeli interests.
According to Henry Kissinger, Iraq was the single most radical Arab country that posed the greatest danger to U.S. interests during the Nixon era. Furthermore, the U.S. was afraid that if Iraq was not neutralized that the Soviets would take the geo-strategic initiative of penetrating into the Middle East and overwhelming Iran.
If one remembers Afghanistan also had a pro-Soviet government too. In Henry Kissinger’s words, “The Soviet Union would try to squeeze Iran between [a pro-Soviet] Afghanistan and its Iraqi client.”
Under these circumstances, it was to keep their socialist allies in power in Kabul and to prevent the destabilization of Soviet Central Asia via Afghanistan that Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, in context with the 1978 Soviet-Afghan Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Good Neighbourliness.
Henry Kissinger has written in regards to the danger from Iraq, “Though not strictly speaking a Soviet satellite, once fully armed with Soviet weapons Iraq would serve Soviet purposes by intimating pro-Western government, such as Saudi Arabia; simultaneously, it would exert pressure on Jordon and even Syria, which while leaning to the radical side was far from being a Soviet puppet.”
The Americans and their British allies were intent on neutralizing an independent Iraq and an Iran steaming with revolutionary fervor. Also, the other goal of the U.S. and Britain was to regain the lost oil fields of both Middle Eastern countries. The Iraq-Iran War was America’s chance to recover the lost oil fields of Iraq and Iran.
During the bloody Iraq-Iran War, both sides were used to weaken one another. The intention was, quoting Henry Kissinger, to “let them [meaning Iraq and Iran] kill each other.” Thus, the U.S. tried to keep either side from winning and always in a military deadlock.
According to a May 20, 1984 issue of Newsday, an American newspaper, the U.S. feared an Iranian victory and developed a contingency plan to militarily intervene on the side of Iraq by using the U.S. Air Force against Iran in a bombing campaign if the Iranians should advance towards Baghdad.[/i]
So, in effect, we are allowed to fuck with these nations, and then we bitch and moan about how it was for no reason when citizens of their countries end up striking back.
Only America. This is like the guy trying to rob someone’s house, but falls through the skylight, lands on a kitchen knife, and sues the homeowner.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
So, in effect, we are allowed to fuck with these nations, and then we bitch and moan about how it was for no reason when citizens of their countries end up striking back.[/quote]
Define “we.”
The ones actually doing the fucking (or paying to have the fucking done, which amounts to the same thing) aren’t usually the same ones doing the bitching and moaning, except hypocritically, on TV.
The ones who bitch and moan for real usually either can’t remember that any fucking took place (or are truly unaware of any fucking), or else admit that the fucking happened, but that it was in the other countries’ best interest, and why can’t those ungrateful bastards appreciate the good fucking we gave 'em?
[quote]lixy wrote:
I watched Obama’s “message”. It was pompous double-standard talk.
Obama accepts that Iran should take its “rightful place in the community of nations”, but adds significantly: “That place cannot be reached through terror or arms.” The measure of Iran’s greatness is not “the capacity to destroy”.
Honestly, what is he expecting? That the Iranian people bow to the US? Knowing that the latter supported Hussein when he went on his murderous rampage to the East, that Washington has ties with the Mujahideen Al-Khalk, that it’s got a couple thousands nuclear bombs, that it’s one of the greatest arms dealer the world has ever seen, that it uses terror on a regular basis?
The argument of “stop enriching uranium because I said so” doesn’t work. Especially not given the American support for the Shah, Israel and its numerous bases encircling Iran.[/quote]
He offered them an olive branch and they told him to stick it in his ass. Would you rather he sent in an Israeli airstrike?
He has to appear somewhat non-pussified, to please the home audience, btw. How many votes would he lose if he begged the Iranians?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
So, in effect, we are allowed to fuck with these nations, and then we bitch and moan about how it was for no reason when citizens of their countries end up striking back.
Only America. This is like the guy trying to rob someone’s house, but falls through the skylight, lands on a kitchen knife, and sues the homeowner.[/quote]
We ‘fuck with these nations’ because they threaten to disrupt the peace and especially since they threaten our oil supply. We have enough economic troubles without $400 per barrel oil.
You don’t convince evil people to stop attacking you by telling them that you have no right to protect yourself. If it means we ‘fuck with them’, then so be it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We ‘fuck with these nations’ because they threaten to disrupt the peace and especially since they threaten our oil supply. We have enough economic troubles without $400 per barrel oil.
You don’t convince evil people to stop attacking you by telling them that you have no right to protect yourself. If it means we ‘fuck with them’, then so be it.
[/quote]
So you’re saying that it was because of evil people attacking the United States and threatening our oil supply, that the CIA, in an act of self-defense, attempted to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953?
Incidentally, a barrel of oil in 1953 cost $2.83.
This works out to $22.49 in 2009 dollars.
1953 was twenty years before any perceived “oil shortage.”
So Operation Ajax couldn’t have been because anyone was worried about $400 a barrel for oil, or about any real threats to America’s oil supplies (most of our oil came from domestic sources then, anyway.)
Could it have been primarily about protecting British oil company profits from the threat of nationalization?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
So, in effect, we are allowed to fuck with these nations, and then we bitch and moan about how it was for no reason when citizens of their countries end up striking back.
Only America. This is like the guy trying to rob someone’s house, but falls through the skylight, lands on a kitchen knife, and sues the homeowner.
We ‘fuck with these nations’ because they threaten to disrupt the peace and especially since they threaten our oil supply. We have enough economic troubles without $400 per barrel oil.
You don’t convince evil people to stop attacking you by telling them that you have no right to protect yourself. If it means we ‘fuck with them’, then so be it.
[/quote]
All this trouble for oil. I think Nixon once gave a speech about how America needed to end its dependence on foreign oil… that was about 40 years ago.
Countless dollars spent on military interventions for oil’s sake in otherwise worthless nations, but 40 years later we have only come to the point of having hybrids in the last couple years.
Please. Our economic conditions, especially relating to oil, are a function of our own societal laziness towards fixing the oil dependency issue.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
So you’re saying that it was because of evil people attacking the United States and threatening our oil supply, that the CIA, in an act of self-defense, attempted to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953?[/quote]
And then we wonder why other nations hate us- we overthrow their governments to keep our oil safe.
At the same time, we bitch and moan about the government’s intervention in our own economy, because the government is supposed to let the free market decide the price.
So as long as the “free market” in other countries maintains a good price, we won’t overthrow their government.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
How many million of dead Iranians were killed by Russian weapons?
Yet Iran is all cozy with Russia.
Iran can kiss our ass.
Well Russia has never planned the overthrow of a relatively free regime in Iran, it has not helped a country attack Iran and it does not support Kurdish militias operating on Iran’s territory.
The US however has done that and still does.
I am sure that they got the message what you think of them.
Yes they did, The Russians sold weapons to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.
According to the Iran/contra fiasco, we sold weapons to Iran. So we helped IRAN in it’s war against Iraq.
Once again I ask:
How many million of dead Iranians were killed by Russian weapons?
[/quote]
I guess you are pro gun-control?
If not, your argument makes no sense.