Iran thwarts CIA-backed regime change plot

Originally posted by jam321
When are you guys going to realize that countries are no different than animals? It is the survival of the fittest. The top dogs rule and the rest get the crumbs. Nobody is saying that it is right, but that is just the way it is. If Iran really had the capabilities to overthrow our government, I don't think they would hesitate to do so.

Originally posted by huckfinn
reply to post by budski

---

I read it...it said what I thought it would say. What exactly am I missing here?

Let's say it's true, Iran's claim. What Iranian, group or person, will benefit most from this? If the CIA was successful, who would be the new leaders of Iran?

The CIA isn't doing this for themselves. Its Reza Pahlavi...Say it!!

Originally posted by Rasputin13
reply to post by budski

---

I'd hardly call the regime in Iran a "democratically elected government". While it is true that Iran holds elections and that the current government was elected by the people, it is hardly a legitimate democracy. Hundreds of potential opposition candidates are banned from running. For all intents and purposes, there is no opposition. It's no different than the elections held in Iraq where Saddam Hussein would receive 99.9% of the vote.

And furthermore, the real power in Iran belongs to the unelected Mullah's. Iran's "democracy" is a farce. So in that regard, your comments are nonsense.

You do, however, make a valid point with regards to the treaty being violated by the U.S. But at the same time, Iran doesn't exactly adhere to the rule of international law, either. Nor are they above meddling in our affairs (IE: Iraq). They have the blood of American soldiers on their hands, and that alone warrants our government's support for regime change. Let's not forget that it was Iran that allowed, and more than likely orchestrated, the taking over of our embassy in 1979 and the subsequent hostage crisis. A U.S. embassy is considered sovereign land belonging to the U.S. Iran invaded that land and held our people hostage, or at the very least, allowed it to happen. That in itself is grounds for war, and Iran never got so much as a slap on the wrist for it.

I could go even further and link the Iranian-backed Hezbollah truck bombings in Beirut that killed hundreds of U.S. Marines, to the Iranian government. But my point is that you are making the Iranian government out to be saints. While we are hardly perfect ourselves and have committed many acts that I deplore, we are still on the right side here. The Iranian government is evil and does not have the best interests of its people at heart. They are hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and the defeat of America. So, in closing, we should be doing a hell of a lot more than just violating a 30-year-old treaty and meddling in Iran's internal affairs, if you ask me!

Originally posted by Rasputin13
reply to post by budski

---

I'd hardly call the regime in Iran a "democratically elected government". While it is true that Iran holds elections and that the current government was elected by the people, it is hardly a legitimate democracy. Hundreds of potential opposition candidates are banned from running. For all intents and purposes, there is no opposition. It's no different than the elections held in Iraq where Saddam Hussein would receive 99.9% of the vote.

And furthermore, the real power in Iran belongs to the unelected Mullah's. Iran's "democracy" is a farce. So in that regard, your comments are nonsense.

You do, however, make a valid point with regards to the treaty being violated by the U.S. But at the same time, Iran doesn't exactly adhere to the rule of international law, either. Nor are they above meddling in our affairs (IE: Iraq). They have the blood of American soldiers on their hands, and that alone warrants our government's support for regime change. Let's not forget that it was Iran that allowed, and more than likely orchestrated, the taking over of our embassy in 1979 and the subsequent hostage crisis. A U.S. embassy is considered sovereign land belonging to the U.S. Iran invaded that land and held our people hostage, or at the very least, allowed it to happen. That in itself is grounds for war, and Iran never got so much as a slap on the wrist for it.

I could go even further and link the Iranian-backed Hezbollah truck bombings in Beirut that killed hundreds of U.S. Marines, to the Iranian government. But my point is that you are making the Iranian government out to be saints. While we are hardly perfect ourselves and have committed many acts that I deplore, we are still on the right side here. The Iranian government is evil and does not have the best interests of its people at heart. They are hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and the defeat of America. So, in closing, we should be doing a hell of a lot more than just violating a 30-year-old treaty and meddling in Iran's internal affairs, if you ask me!

Originally posted by huckfinn
reply to post by Harlequin

---

I've already put that issue to rest. You'll get your proof soon enough. However, what I think is interesting is speculating on the nature of the Iranian regime and who the CIA is working on behalf of.

Ayad Allawi was their man at the beginning of the Iraq War. Last I heard from him was a dissappointed and broken man.

Maybe their is someone who wants Iran's Oil, but surely there is more to it than that. These Intelligence types often boast of their comprehensive solutions when implementing a regime change. Who's working behind the scenes?

In the 1953 coup they installed the Shah...Who's the CIA's guy now? Is it Reza Pahlavi? How involved is he with this intelligence operation? Who's really working for whom?

Is it the Qajar claimant? Are Pahlavi, Mohammad Hassan Mirza II and Soltan Ali Mirza Qajar cooking up something nasty for the Iranians?

Are Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei just role players for their Emperor, doing their part by luring the stupid Americans into a pretty standard trap?

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed 25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate

Originally posted by johnsky
reply to post by Crakeur

---

Oh we see bias from all media networks toward the countries they're based in.

BBC is pro Britain regardless of what Britain does.
FOX is pro Republican US, regardless of what the Republicans may do.
Russia Today is pro Republican, regardless of what happens.
Press TV is pro Iran, regardless of what they believe.

The list goes on and on and on...

I kind of expected Press TV to have a bias.


As for the US shoving their nose into other countries affairs again, not surprised either. They've been trying to do that to most countries in Central America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, etc.
They usually get caught, but they always wind up convincing some other poor sap to try it again.

There's really not much wrong with the Iranian government system. It functions very similar to the parliamentary monarchy's of Canada, Britain, and Australia.
Sure, the currently elected party has a few odd concepts going, but that's who they voted for, and that's the point of democracy. If the US has a problem with it, too bad, the people voted.
Their backup government system can be thought of like the Governor General of parliaments in other countries.

Recently I've seen them keep quite the level head.
Many of their citizens want a fight with Israel, but their government has told them to calm down, starting a war is the last thing they want right now.

They've got quite the history of peace. They haven't stepped foot into another country since the old days of empires. I get the feeling they want to keep it that way.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
reply to post by budski

---

I'd hardly call the regime in Iran a "democratically elected government". While it is true that Iran holds elections and that the current government was elected by the people, it is hardly a legitimate democracy. Hundreds of potential opposition candidates are banned from running. For all intents and purposes, there is no opposition. It's no different than the elections held in Iraq where Saddam Hussein would receive 99.9% of the vote.

And furthermore, the real power in Iran belongs to the unelected Mullah's. Iran's "democracy" is a farce. So in that regard, your comments are nonsense.