Why Iran Should Get the Bomb

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
The rural fundies you speak of didn’t have a voice during that period.

And anyways this is all besides the point, it’s like bringing up Italy during WW2 and somehow equating it to meaning they are some kind of twisted Joo hating people.

And many people could agree that the US helped overthrow the Shah, not just Joo hatin turban headed people. You are completely aware of the British and US involvement in Iran and that whole region so please don’t try to play dumb.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I wasn’t talking about the Shah. I was talking about the rural, tribal fundies who wanted to overthrow him. The same ones who led the 79 revolution and now complain about us overthrowing the Shah because they need a pretence to hate us.[/quote]
[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is playin, people just weighing in with whatever pieces of the story they have, or believe in, or have faith in. Most aren’t even interested in the facts or differing perspectives.

142

Guys stop saying the US overthrow the Sha. It was Mohammad Mosaddegh that was overthrown. The Sha was put in power after
the coup.

"In 1951 Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran’s petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.[82]

After the coup, the Shah became increasingly autocratic. Arbitrary arrests and torture by his secret police, SAVAK, were used to crush all forms of political opposition. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah’s White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah sent him into exile. He went first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. By the mid-1970s, there was growing unrest with the Shah’s repressive regime." ( Wikipedia article on Iran. 25.11.2013 )

143

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
.[/quote]

This must be your favorite picture. You have posted it twice. Did you catch the ghey?[/quote]

You’re the one with pictures of a fat man jumping into a swimming pool on your desktop. Or are those from your family vacation? I’m not the one that comes to a weightlifting website with half naked dudes on the front page to “discuss politics”. Seriously man, why do you even bother coming to a fucking weightlifting site? Do you like the back pages of certain weightlifting magazines too?[/quote]

Awe…So you did catch the ghey.

144

Push, it matters because Iran went through a revolution and has had a turbulent 50 years or so coupled with a lot of western meddling.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And I doubt if the Iranians ever imported actual Nazis to help them with their propaganda or weapons programs.
[/quote]

Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.[/quote]

Understanding of course that by “Iranians” we are talking about the current incarnation of the Republic, post-1979 revolution. Perhaps you have some evidence of collusion between aging Nazis and the Ayatollah Khomeini that I am unaware of. If so please share.

Whether the Shah was in bed with the Nazis during the second world war is beside the point. His administration is as irrelevant to this discussion as is Cyrus the Great’s. [/quote]

Well, of course. I guess we’d better start delineating when we’re talking about the US too – understanding of course that by “Americans” we are talking about the current incarnation of the republic, post-1945 after the Roosevelt administration – and such.

Why do you get to arbitrarily chop up the history of the Persian nation and dictate that some current parts of it are irrelevant?

Why is the Iran/Nazi connection which occurred all of 15 - 20 years before I was born beside the point? Fact is, current history has Persian/Iranians in bed with Nazis fairly recently. A reasonable man would admit that makes it relevant. A reasonable man wouldn’t try to sweep that out of the discussion with a reference to a Persian king that lived 2500 years ago.

Aren’t you a reasonable man?[/quote]

146

Sexmachine, islamofundies as you put them are not all the same. There is no single cause as with your fellow Joos They have come about by different means ‘conveniently’ or ‘inconveniently’ in different parts of the world for different reasons. Again it’s more complicated than that and you are well aware of that. US foreign policy knows this even if you don’t, some have been western allies and some enemies again for completely different causes.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And I doubt if the Iranians ever imported actual Nazis to help them with their propaganda or weapons programs.
[/quote]

Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.[/quote]

Understanding of course that by “Iranians” we are talking about the current incarnation of the Republic, post-1979 revolution. Perhaps you have some evidence of collusion between aging Nazis and the Ayatollah Khomeini that I am unaware of. If so please share.

Whether the Shah was in bed with the Nazis during the second world war is beside the point. His administration is as irrelevant to this discussion as is Cyrus the Great’s. [/quote]

THe Islamo-fundies sided with the Nazis as they did elsewhere in the ME. The same Islamo-fundies that run the country today. Same pathological anti-Semitism, same propaganda - Jooos ruling the world and using Arab babies’ blood in their passover bread and so on.[/quote]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, was many things, but an “Islamo-fundie” was not one of them. He was a secular moderate.

And as I mentioned, the government in Iran that sided with the Nazis (Pahlavi’s government, which also sided with the United States, and was propped up after the coup that ousted Mossadeq, and whose leader was given sanctuary in the United States after the revolution) is not the same government that is running the country today.

AND…that’s beside the point, because my post was a sarcastic stab at the fact that even if the government of Iran didn’t import Nazis after the war to work on their aerospace and missile systems, chemical and biological weapons programs, and intelligence, surveillance, and propaganda programs, I can think of at least two countries that did. [/quote]

I wasn’t talking about the Shah. I was talking about the rural, tribal fundies who wanted to overthrow him. The same ones who led the 79 revolution and now complain about us overthrowing the Shah because they need a pretence to hate us.[/quote]

I have a hard time believing that Varq thinks the Islamo fascists just popped up out of the desert sand one fine morning in 1979, a completely undiscovered species of vermin until then.[/quote]

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And I doubt if the Iranians ever imported actual Nazis to help them with their propaganda or weapons programs.
[/quote]

Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.[/quote]

Understanding of course that by “Iranians” we are talking about the current incarnation of the Republic, post-1979 revolution. Perhaps you have some evidence of collusion between aging Nazis and the Ayatollah Khomeini that I am unaware of. If so please share.

Whether the Shah was in bed with the Nazis during the second world war is beside the point. His administration is as irrelevant to this discussion as is Cyrus the Great’s. [/quote]

THe Islamo-fundies sided with the Nazis as they did elsewhere in the ME. The same Islamo-fundies that run the country today. Same pathological anti-Semitism, same propaganda - Jooos ruling the world and using Arab babies’ blood in their passover bread and so on.[/quote]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, was many things, but an “Islamo-fundie” was not one of them. He was a secular moderate.

And as I mentioned, the government in Iran that sided with the Nazis (Pahlavi’s government, which also sided with the United States, and was propped up after the coup that ousted Mossadeq, and whose leader was given sanctuary in the United States after the revolution) is not the same government that is running the country today.

AND…that’s beside the point, because my post was a sarcastic stab at the fact that even if the government of Iran didn’t import Nazis after the war to work on their aerospace and missile systems, chemical and biological weapons programs, and intelligence, surveillance, and propaganda programs, I can think of at least two countries that did. [/quote]

I wasn’t talking about the Shah. I was talking about the rural, tribal fundies who wanted to overthrow him. The same ones who led the 79 revolution and now complain about us overthrowing the Shah because they need a pretence to hate us.[/quote]

I have a hard time believing that Varq thinks the Islamo fascists just popped up out of the desert sand one fine morning in 1979, a completely undiscovered species of vermin until then.[/quote]

AND…that’s beside the point, because my post was a sarcastic stab at the fact that even if the government of Iran didn’t import Nazis after the war to work on their aerospace and missile systems, chemical and biological weapons programs, and intelligence, surveillance, and propaganda programs, I can think of at least two countries that did.

148

Wait, what?

The Shi’ite fundamentalists who overthrew the Shah in 1979 and took control of the country are now complaining about the United States overthrowing the Shah? Is that what you just said?

150

[quote]Severiano wrote:
After the cold war there was this realization that with such weapons we could destroy the planet. We started to disarm some of our missiles as did Russia, and we figured out a way to utilize the warheads for energy.

No countries are able to use the power of nuclear energy in a responsible way. We have seen what can happen to nuclear plants via Fukushima, yet we still have plants in places like Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, sitting on top of fault lines.

Kinda seems like we need to clean up ourselves, we can’t even do nuclear energy safely. We are a power hungry and controlling nation, kinda seems like nobody should have nuclear weapons. We seem to be no more responsible or trustworthy or morally better than anyone else in the big picture. Just look at our track record.

If someone else has them then yeah, we should too. But it seems like the effort of disarming is pretty retarded, we have grown dumber and not learned from history, collectively as a species.[/quote]

Hehe not being a dick but the San Onofre plant has been retired. Gas-fired and wind generation are making up for the lost capacity.

I don’t think the world needs to get rid of nuclear energy. There is a lot of potential in the technology. But yea I know I’m way off-topic so I’ll stop there.

151

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I wasn’t talking about the Shah. I was talking about the rural, tribal fundies who wanted to overthrow him. The same ones who led the 79 revolution and now complain about us overthrowing the Shah because they need a pretence to hate us.[/quote]

That is incorrect and an over-simplification of the Iranian people and their mindset. It’s not accurate to portray the majority of Iranians as rural, tribal fundamentalists even in the late 70s. There haven’t been tribes in Iran in thousands of years. It is not Afghanistan or an Arab country with legacies of a nomadic, tribal life style. The people take pride in not being a tribal society including the rural folk.

It’s an educated populace desperately trying to be as modern as their government will allow. The people who led the 79 revolution were students and in the beginning it was not an islamic revolution. Rather the islamic theocracy gained control of the revolution at a strategic time. Also an overwhelming majority of Iranians in Iran and in diaspora both past and present hate the Shah. It has nothing at all to do with pretense for hating America. It has to do with the Shah being a puppet dictator who was ruthless, vainglorious, and did not respect the will of the people.

Iranians by and large are a secular society especially relative to the region they are in. I understand the majority of you reading this will scoff at that remark but it is the truth. I can’t prove that with facts and figures but neither can any of you disprove it. Quoting statements from the regime and mentioning propaganda videos (that come from the Iranian regime) does not prove the population has a fundamentalist character.

Propaganda that the Iranian government releases to the world media showing anti-U.S. protests is not the reality of the country. The video footage you see is propaganda, designed to show that the regime is powerful and has the backing of the people. Of course there are hard-line supporters of the regime that maintain a revolutionary zeal but they are in the minority and looked down upon. The Iranian government provides both payment and transportation for people to show up to scheduled protests.

Generally, Iranian people are pro-Western and welcome all the benefits of modern, Western society. Of course I’m talking about the general populace and not the regime and I’m talking in generalities and not in absolutes. My take-home point is that the Iranian populace is not merely comprised of members of the IRGC and Basij militias. It seems like many of you hold this view.

152

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Wait, what?

The Shi’ite fundamentalists who overthrew the Shah in 1979 and took control of the country are now complaining about the United States overthrowing the Shah? Is that what you just said?[/quote]

Typo. As florelius said I meant Mossadegh. The fundies who hated Mossadegh and wanted to overthrow him now complain about the US doing exactly that.

154

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

That is incorrect and an over-simplification of the Iranian people and their mindset. It’s not accurate to portray the majority of Iranians as rural, tribal fundamentalists even in the late 70s.

[/quote]

I didn’t say ‘majority.’

I think ‘tribes’ is a reasonable description of the Baluchi Khannates in the rural provinces.

Actually the Baluchi tribes cross over into Afghanistan and lead a similar sort of lawless, independent existence.

I disagree. The urban Iranians are educated and Westernised. The rural Baluchi not so much.

I know. It was then hi-jacked by Islamo-fundies.

I know.

TYpo. I was talking about Mossadegh. They complain about the US ‘meddling’ by deposing Mossadegh when they hated him and would’ve deposed him themselves.

The Shah modernised and Westernised the country. Read his wife’s autobiography instead of leftist propaganda. He was the most liberal leader Iran has ever had. Under his rule women went to university and didn’t wear tents.

I disagree. See above.

155

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, was many things, but an “Islamo-fundie” was not one of them. He was a secular moderate.
[/quote]

Absolutely agree.

I know.

156

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
The rural fundies you speak of didn’t have a voice during that period.

And anyways this is all besides the point, it’s like bringing up Italy during WW2 and somehow equating it to meaning they are some kind of twisted Joo hating people.
[/quote]

Not really. Because Italy didn’t take up anti-Semitism during the war(except to a small degree right at the end.) Italy actually protected Jews in the South of France from the Nazis.

158

His opinions are pretty much spot on, Chushin.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I wasn’t talking about the Shah. I was talking about the rural, tribal fundies who wanted to overthrow him. The same ones who led the 79 revolution and now complain about us overthrowing the Shah because they need a pretence to hate us.[/quote]

That is incorrect and an over-simplification of the Iranian people and their mindset. It’s not accurate to portray the majority of Iranians as rural, tribal fundamentalists even in the late 70s. There haven’t been tribes in Iran in thousands of years. It is not Afghanistan or an Arab country with legacies of a nomadic, tribal life style. The people take pride in not being a tribal society including the rural folk.

It’s an educated populace desperately trying to be as modern as their government will allow. The people who led the 79 revolution were students and in the beginning it was not an islamic revolution. Rather the islamic theocracy gained control of the revolution at a strategic time. Also an overwhelming majority of Iranians in Iran and in diaspora both past and present hate the Shah. It has nothing at all to do with pretense for hating America. It has to do with the Shah being a puppet dictator who was ruthless, vainglorious, and did not respect the will of the people.

Iranians by and large are a secular society especially relative to the region they are in. I understand the majority of you reading this will scoff at that remark but it is the truth. I can’t prove that with facts and figures but neither can any of you disprove it. Quoting statements from the regime and mentioning propaganda videos (that come from the Iranian regime) does not prove the population has a fundamentalist character.

Propaganda that the Iranian government releases to the world media showing anti-U.S. protests is not the reality of the country. The video footage you see is propaganda, designed to show that the regime is powerful and has the backing of the people. Of course there are hard-line supporters of the regime that maintain a revolutionary zeal but they are in the minority and looked down upon. The Iranian government provides both payment and transportation for people to show up to scheduled protests.

Generally, Iranian people are pro-Western and welcome all the benefits of modern, Western society. Of course I’m talking about the general populace and not the regime and I’m talking in generalities and not in absolutes. My take-home point is that the Iranian populace is not merely comprised of members of the IRGC and Basij militias. It seems like many of you hold this view.[/quote]

That’s a whole lot of opinion.

What’s it based on?[/quote]

159

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
His opinions are pretty much spot on, Chushin.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I wasn’t talking about the Shah. I was talking about the rural, tribal fundies who wanted to overthrow him. The same ones who led the 79 revolution and now complain about us overthrowing the Shah because they need a pretence to hate us.[/quote]

That is incorrect and an over-simplification of the Iranian people and their mindset. It’s not accurate to portray the majority of Iranians as rural, tribal fundamentalists even in the late 70s. There haven’t been tribes in Iran in thousands of years. It is not Afghanistan or an Arab country with legacies of a nomadic, tribal life style. The people take pride in not being a tribal society including the rural folk.

It’s an educated populace desperately trying to be as modern as their government will allow. The people who led the 79 revolution were students and in the beginning it was not an islamic revolution. Rather the islamic theocracy gained control of the revolution at a strategic time. Also an overwhelming majority of Iranians in Iran and in diaspora both past and present hate the Shah. It has nothing at all to do with pretense for hating America. It has to do with the Shah being a puppet dictator who was ruthless, vainglorious, and did not respect the will of the people.

Iranians by and large are a secular society especially relative to the region they are in. I understand the majority of you reading this will scoff at that remark but it is the truth. I can’t prove that with facts and figures but neither can any of you disprove it. Quoting statements from the regime and mentioning propaganda videos (that come from the Iranian regime) does not prove the population has a fundamentalist character.

Propaganda that the Iranian government releases to the world media showing anti-U.S. protests is not the reality of the country. The video footage you see is propaganda, designed to show that the regime is powerful and has the backing of the people. Of course there are hard-line supporters of the regime that maintain a revolutionary zeal but they are in the minority and looked down upon. The Iranian government provides both payment and transportation for people to show up to scheduled protests.

Generally, Iranian people are pro-Western and welcome all the benefits of modern, Western society. Of course I’m talking about the general populace and not the regime and I’m talking in generalities and not in absolutes. My take-home point is that the Iranian populace is not merely comprised of members of the IRGC and Basij militias. It seems like many of you hold this view.[/quote]

That’s a whole lot of opinion.

What’s it based on?[/quote]
[/quote]

Seems to correlate with Iranians I know but it is just opinion. All of them that I know are decidedly non religious. They do all live here though.