IRAN has attacked no one in 100 yrs? How many countries has USA?? =L

page: 13
61
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Yes a CIA backed coup isn't a form of aggression, only the response to it.

Smart man you are.


The CIA backed coup....

Operation Ajax.

Meanwhile the Shaw himself "Appointed" the guy in the first place that he {years later} overthrew ...

Also the "Democratically elected" part of the story get's a fair amount of play with regards to discussing Operation Ajax. However it needs to be represented in it's proper historical context IMHO. It wasn't a general/popular election as many envision...



Mohammad Mosaddegh



Election as prime minister

On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.



Mosaddegh shaking hands with Mohammad-Reza Shah in their first meeting after Mossadegh's election as Prime Minister

Source

In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves
edit on 10-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


I am proud of you. Plagiarism is a really low down dirty,
deceptive practice. Props to you for coming correct.

I have also looked into those #'s
You do know 25% of those countries we have less than 10 TEN military personnel, right?
So we are occupying if we have a military consultant... right right... Epic FAIL! You Mad Bro?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AlertInMi
 


I never stated what was occupation and what wasn't. I merely said games are shown to military personnel in 175 countries and you tried to make me seem like an idiot for saying such a thing. I proved you wrong. Sorry.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Well if yall love Iran so much move there and then you can live in the most "righteous" counttry in the world.

No wait you wouldn't get to sit there and bash it like you do your own country at the moment.

Yes there are politics in this thread.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The US paid for and sponsored terrorism in Iran in 1953.

This is a perfect example of the unbelievable US hypocrisy twoards "dictators" and just foreign policy in general.

The United States overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in order to install a brutal military dictatorship over the people.

What was the crime committed by the Iranians to have deserved the murdering of hundreds of people?

The oil industry of Iran was nationalized!!! Meaning a private company would not be making money off of the peoples natural resource but rather it would enrich the people as a whole. Iran's prime minister at the time had the balls to stand up to western demands and say NO!
This also meant the US could not get their grubby paws on the oil money in the form or US corporations (the real decision makers when it comes to wars) being able to run the operations.

So naturally the response by the US in the 1950's to this was to murder hundreds and install a brutal dictatorship that lasted until 1979.

How does this blatant hypocrisy of might makes right not stand out to those pounding on the war drums for a conflict with Iran today?

The premise of this thread was to say that despite what the western media wants you to think about Iran, the truth is that Iran in the last 100 years has not attacked another country. At first the response was Iraq war with Iran, but the simple truth there is that Iran was attacked and only acted in defense.

Next the Iranian hostage crisis was brought up, one person even blamed Carter for being a "weak" president who could not get the hostages released forgetting completely (or perhaps never actually learning) that Reagan and his criminal cronies made a backdoor (and treasonous by every definition of the word) deal with the Iranian hostage takers that the American hostages would not be released until after Reagan's inauguration. In fact the Reagan Administration rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks!!

Now the justification being spewed for why we need to rain thousands of hellfire missiles down onto Iranian citizens, indiscriminately, is because Iran was sending supplies to Iraqi insurgents who were fighting US soldiers.

Ummm, but why were we in Iraq in the first place?? I know, I know you will say that is irrelevant, though I would think it to be very relevant since the US placing our soldiers in harms way was an unnecessary move to begin with. It was the same people like you in 2003 saying Iraq was a threat to global security. They were begging for war by standing up to the US big business interests.

I hate to say this but it really seems true now, especially after what just happened in Libya, as well as Obama's secret wars going on throughout Africa. The United States is showing the sign of a waning empire in its death throes.

Perpetual warfare is needed in order to keep this sinking empires economy, jobs, money, etc, etc all relevant and flowing.

I want this to be wrong and invalid, but unfortunately it is what most great empires do before the inevitable collapse from within.

If any people in this country have any reason left in their brains, or compassion for the innocent who will be most afflicted in these future wars, you will say NO when these war drums for Iran are being beaten on our television sets. When our leaders say they will defend us and Israel from any threats. Say NO!!!

NO to the corporations who want to put their greedy scaly hands into Irans oil money!
NO to the billions that will be made by General Electric, Lockhead Martin, Haliburton, Enron, and the like.....
NO to dropping cluster bombs and hellfire missiles onto innocent Persian woman and children who did nothing to us as a nation.
NO to the Politicians demanding your submission and servitude (or at the very least indecisive silence) in the cause of destroying another ancient people and their land.
NO to the war cry and propaganda being portrayed every day and night on CNN, CBS, FOX, etc etc

When they and the rest say that it is time, America, to defend our borders and interests in a fight that is over 6,000 miles away from where you or I live just say NO!!!

NO WAR
NO WAR FOR GEOPOLITICS
NO WAR FOR BUSINESS INTERESTS
NO WAR FOR IMPERIALISTIC AMBITIONS
NO WAR FOR BANKERS
NO WAR FOR SATAN
NO WAR



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


It is not about loving Iran or not.

I am American, and I love the United States, it is where I was born, and where I will die.

This is about whether or not Iran is really the threat the media, Israel, and our leaders are trying to say they are.

The answer is NO they are not that threat they are trying to be made out to be.

This is about Oil; money and power! Religion and racial rivalries play a distant second to the nature of the beast which is ultimately about Bankers making money on war (as always), big business getting government contracts to steal other peoples resources, and having a puppet regime that oesnt bite the hand of the US and Israel.

Ahmadinajaad is only a "dictator" and "supporter of terrorism" in the US media is because he stands up to the US big business interests looking to steal the Iranian peoples birthright, same as they steal from us in our own country!!

Again I love my country, but that does not mean I will support it in bombing and killing thousands of innocents in order to satisfy the greedy ambitions of a few capitalists!!

The whole concept is really making me sick actually! And that people buy into all the hate-filled propaganda.....it is just really disheartening at times.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienStalker
 


Umm...this thread is about whether Iran has attacked anyone in the last 100 years; nothing more, nothing less, right?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienStalker
 


Tell that to those American's who died in Iraq at Iranian action's no wait you can't.

Iran is a threat and they have always been a threat.

edit on 10-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienStalker

NO WAR FOR SATAN




OK now that you've spewed your rhetoric all over the keyboard this last bit here explains it all.
First off who is advocating WAR?

Not I.

You're just mad because I've posted some facts that flies in the face of your probably long held and erroneous belief about the Shaw of Iran and Operation Ajax which actually "Restored the Shaw" But you can't handle that can you?

NO WAR FOR SATAN...

You left out calling the US the Great Satan.

edit on 10-11-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


You stated no facts that have not been refuted, and you are running from the truth that this whole war is being asked for by business interests and nothing more.

To the member who says to explain it to the dead soldiers who died at the hands of Iranian decisions I would say take the logical step and see who's decision it was to put our young men and women over in harms way....hint hint, it was an American politician who put them there and got them killed.

Don't read too far into the Satan comment as I am an atheist, so that attempt to discredit me by saying I called the US the great Satan is total BS and nothing more.

Just because I don't believe in God does not mean however that I can't see who the real satanists of the world are aka our leaders and politicians who cry out for blood sacrifice as well as the peasants who blindly agree to such hostilities and even offer up their children as food for the machine.

Slayer, your facts are unfounded, you still have yet to state one country Iran has attacked unprovoked.

To the other member who said this thread is just about Iran not attacking another country in 100 years, you are right, however there are many keys to this conversation so don't try to dumb down the conversation by saying to just talk about one thing only, this is a multifaceted world we live in with many points to have attention payed to.

But in the spirit of this being about who Iran has attacked in the last century I will ask you Slayer, being the loudest chicken hawk in the group, to please supply the answer of which country Iran has attacked in the last 100 years?

hint....the answer is 0



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienStalker
 


Overtly 0

Covertly about 4 or 5.





posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienStalker
 




Just because I don't believe in God does not mean however that I can't see who the real satanists of the world are

So you don't believe in god but you DO believe in Satan/satanists?
Do you believe in the Grinch but not Santa, too?

Do you believe in dark but not light?



Skeptic personally. Can't believe anything without full and complete supportable facts -- yet even then can't believe it unquestioningly
edit on 11/10/2011 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/10/2011 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienStalker
Don't read too far into the Satan comment as I am an atheist, so that attempt to discredit me by saying I called the US the great Satan is total BS and nothing more.



I guess I was confused. Most people mean what they type. So you've lost credibility by throwing whatever you could in a drastic attempt to garner support against the wall in hopes it would stick.

While others here post what they believe and mean.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Well, if you determine the situation by comparing how many times Iran and the US have invaded a country, obviously you will come to the conclusion that the US is "evil".

But, in the past 200 years, when has Iran ever had the military or financial capability to attack anyone for any reason? And when has Iran ever had the diplomatic strength to pull off such a feet?

Since the early middle of the 20th century, who has been in a position to exert influence, for democratic and global financial needs, over the rest of the Planet?

Of course, the USA has had the ability to do all of these things, where as Iran simply has not. If Iran were the most powerful nation in the world, and basically responsible for crediting the entire planet, im sure the tables would be turned.

But, history did not work out that way. This is the world we live in, and the fact that the USA has invaded more countries is more indicative of the history of great power politics then it is of any immediate "moral imperative".

Of course, people will always find non-sensical reasons to point the finger.

Not that i support the US in their middle eastern crusade, but it makes sense to look at things from a logical historically relevant standpoint when forming an argument.

Its easy for us all to say "Iran isnt guilty", but who here knows for sure? For all we know, the USA could by lying about their knowledge of Iran building Nukes, and at the same time Iran could actually (coincidentally) be building Nukes, and lying to the USA.

For anyone here to say "Iran is not guilty" and immediately side with them, seems like an argument born out of ignorance.

We wont actually find out what happened for 50 years.
edit on 10-11-2011 by ClydeFrog42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ClydeFrog42
 


And don't forget that the USA did not enter WWII until it was Attacked. Things were going south all over Eastern and Northern Europe before, without the US sending troops. Yes the US sent supplies to friends but did not attack.

Once Japan was ballsy enough to attack Pearl Harbor, it became personal.

After that the Korean War helping the half of the country/peninsula that wanted help from being taken over. Help.

When weaker countries are in dire straits--after the US helped save Europe's ass--the US became the go-to country to ask for military assistance in clashes. The US sided w/ who it agreed with.
As does the U.N.--yet all the other countries in the U.N. forces are never blamed.
edit on 11/10/2011 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienStalker
NO to the corporations who want to put their greedy scaly hands into Irans oil money!
NO to the billions that will be made by General Electric, Lockhead Martin, Haliburton, Enron, and the like.....
NO to the Politicians demanding your submission and servitude (or at the very least indecisive silence) in the cause of destroying another ancient people and their land.





Are we discussing Iran here or OWS?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


That is like saying "So you don't believe in God, but you believe in Christians?"

I simply recognize the fact the despite myself not believing in a greater (and lesser) deity, does not mean that others feel the same. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are people that worship death and destruction as opposed to life and harmony.

Slayer, my point exactly.

So since they have not attacked a country with their military, the point trying to be made, is that they are not warmongers.

The US military on the other hand has been invading countries for the last century like it was a full time job (even putting in over time and working off the clock)

Here are some common themes to US interventionism in the world,

Quoting external site:

COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable."

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive."

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.

Quoted from: academic.evergreen.edu...

Also from there I found a quote that I think aptly sums up where these conversations are going, and how to stop them from occurring should you feel violence is not the answer (just like we teach our kids):

"Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent."

So I am attempting to speak up as I continue to hear the war drums for Iran beating...



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yeah.
I think maybe AlienStalker got his/her wires crossed.
Surprise surprise.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


No you still misunderstand, I do mean and believe everything I say here,

You can try to distract the issue all you want, the point here is Iran has attacked 0 (zero) countries in the last century while the US has invaded well over 150 in the same amount of time.

Facts can be a funny thing I know.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BurningSpearess
 


I guess you got me with your little Arabic signature. Well here's one back at ya. ( $@%!&(, & (&##!%%^ ) It can mean anything you want it too. I know what I want it to mean.... How long you think it's gonna take me to interpret that signature? Or any body else on here?





top topics
 
61
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join