It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does Iran really hate us? Is Ron Paul right?! And how wars will be the downfall of America..,

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
All the warmongering in last nights debate really got to me and I know most people here have opened their eyes and mind. But to those who are uninformed here goes:


In 1953, the US government overthrew the democratic government of Iran (which was pretty secular) and put in its place the Shah. The CIA trained Iran's political policy, which was responsible for killing and imprisoning thousands of Iranians. The popular revolt created the Revolution in 1979, which installed an Islamic regime in Iran. BECAUSE of US interventions, Iran became a fierce anti-American country. Let me ask you this: what is the cause and what is the effect? So, Iran didn't attack the US. Quite the contrary, US attacked Iran, via CIA, in 1953. This is a fact. In 1953 there was already a report saying that this intervention would generate blow-back. Blow-back is not ONLY the unpretending consequences of an action. It's an unpretending consequence of an action which is hidden from the public, so that the people CAN'T put cause and effect together. No, I'm not inventing this: former CIA specialists use the term in this way...

In 1998 Ron Paul said that, because of the disproportion of forces, the only way people in the Middle East could retaliate American aggressions would be through terrorism. And, as America intervene more and more, the terrorist threat would be greater. So, yes, terrorism is a retaliation tactic. Everybody knows that terrorism CAN'T be used as war strategy. So we should be concerned with attacks from Islamic terrorists. OK, Ron Paul is too. BUT he understands the causal relationship in these matters. What the other candidates are suggesting as a strategy to avoid terrorism is EXACTLY what causes them.

In 1947, George Kennan wrote an article under the pseudonym Mr. X, in which he said that the expansionism of the Soviet Union would demand an ever increase of its military expenditures. This would eventually bring them down. That's exactly what happened. Same as Bin Laden's strategy. He said he would put the US in a PERPETUAL war in the Middle East and that would crush America in the same way it did with the USSR. Most candidates are willing to accomplish Bin Laden's strategy. Sun-Tzu always advised that, to win a war, you must know your enemy. And what do a lot of well-intentioned Americans do? Well, they do EXACTLY what our enemy wants us to do. Let's put it this way: We have all been acting as a Bin Laden puppet, without having a clue about this...


Finally, what's the big deal with Iran having a nuke? Let's just assume that it happens - and we don't have any indication of this, except from the same sources of war propaganda that led to the Iraq War. Again, what's the big deal? Do you think they're going to use it? In the moment they do this, they would be wiped off the face of Earth. Ron stated this in a former debate. Israel has 300 nukes. But why are they striving to get a nuke, if they really are? Ron gave the correct answer: it's about respect. How does America treat North Korea? You know, North Korea HAS a nuke, is profoundly anti-American, and was not invaded. Why? Because they have nukes! What happened to Lybia? It had nuclear power. Then they gave that power away. What was the consequence? Well, America and other countries created a mess and Gaddafhi is dead!

EVEN if Iran gets a nuke (and, again, ONLY WAR PROPAGANDA suggests that -- the exact same allegation was brought up in a 2007, that Iran would get a nuke within one year), that doesn't mean a threat. It means that America must use DIPLOMACY, not BOMBS to deal with them. And that's great. Look at Vietnam: to prevent the communist takeover, America engaged in a nonsensical war and, eventually, lost. They became communist. BUT, when America stopped dropping bombs and started trading and talking with them, they became a friend and are now westernized. THAT'S what Ron is talking about. That's what George Washington advised: befriend every country, trade with them. In this way, both countries establish an interdependent relation and the chance of having a conflict is significantly reduced...

WHEN America was a principled country, when it really defended liberty, peace, free markets etc., then America was loved all around the world!! Others LOVED the freedoms America once HAD. Yes, had: We are loosing it, We are becoming a tyrannical Police State. People around the world don't hate America's freedom: they hate the negation of the true American values that our government forces on other countries.

To anyone who doesn't understand or were still asleep I hope this will open your mind and wake ya up.
edit on 16-12-2011 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
i whole heartedly agree with you on this , and i do believe that most of americans are not really aware of whats going on .
the same goes for the uk people really do need to wake up and see that our governments no longer care what the public thinks about them , they no longer govern, they dictate .



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Reply to post by ker2010
 


I can't star or flag on my mobile, but that is the most sense I've seen on these boards in a while.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


Yep, you are right on... roughly 99.999% of the problems the US has with Iran is the fault purely and simply of the US. The gov't of Iran, pre Shah, was not terribly hostile to the US. The Shah of course was a US puppet. And since then the US has been reaping the result of 1953.

But doesn't Bachman also believe the earth is some 8,000 years old, and people can have the gay cured by God?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I completely agree, people in this country need a good history lesson. We have created all of this hatred and animosity towards us. Watching that debate last night made me sick. Not just because of the other candidate's viewpoints, but also because of the audience reaction to those viewpoints as well. Have we learned nothing from recent history? Iraq was a disaster, why would Iran be any different?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


Hey I agree with what you said. And last nights debate and then this mournings political radio shows proved to me there is still a strong showing of Neo Con Ideology out there, Believe it or not I was listening to this guy who was filling in for Glenn beck and he said yeah will still need troops and bases in Japan in germany I am worried about the return og german nazism. I was like WHAT???

This is what were dealing with this locked mind set of these Neo Cons. We have been at war for 10 plus years and it seems thats all they know.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 



Here we go with the Mossadegh was "democratically elected" canard. Like every good (C)communist, Mossadegh’s version of democracy was one man, one vote, one time. Mossadegh was given “emergency powers” for 2 separate 6 month terms. As with anyone given the reigns of unlimited power, he abused it and went after his political and personal enemies. When the majlis (Iran’s parliament) began to protest Mossadegh held a referendum whose options were the dissolution of the Iranian majlis or the dismissal of his cabinet. Naturally, like any good (C)communist Mossadegh was able to rig the referendum (unless anyone can explain to me how he got 99.9% of the vote) and ordered the dissolution of the parliament.

Ousted with the help of the Brits and the CIA, yes .... a "democrat" ... not so much.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 





In 1998 Ron Paul said that, because of the disproportion of forces, the only way people in the Middle East could retaliate American aggressions would be through terrorism. And, as America intervene more and more, the terrorist threat would be greater. So, yes, terrorism is a retaliation tactic. Everybody knows that terrorism CAN'T be used as war strategy. So we should be concerned with attacks from Islamic terrorists. OK, Ron Paul is too. BUT he understands the causal relationship in these matters. What the other candidates are suggesting as a strategy to avoid terrorism is EXACTLY what causes them.


It is true , you call it terrorism , but people here call it sacrifice.

A necessary sacrifice to keep your kids , women , old people intact. And it happens by suicide bombing , because people here don't have guns , there are not much guns here , like us.

So , people defend themselves that way.




Finally, what's the big deal with Iran having a nuke?


Iran doesn't need to have nukes , Iran is just demanding to use alternative ways to produce electricity. Iran is going to sell less oil to other countries , US is just mad about this.

US has virgin oil and gas sources , and has already decided to keep them for the energy crisis. Iran is just going to pump less oil and gas out of the earth.

US govt is just mad about this and is just trying everything to legitimate invading Iran. Other broken Europe countries are mad , too. they like to continue their neo-colonialism.

So , they are just on the same side against Iran. But Russia is concerned about US presence near itself and is a big oil exporter itself. So it's not going to let US take over Iran.

Israel is just US representative in the region . maybe US is Israel representative in America. So , they have many common interests + Israel ( without any border ) doesn't like another rival powerful country in the region , specially an Islamic one.

In my thread here , I posted a Iran's nuclear timeline to say that Iran has been cooperating with all concerned sides , but those concerned sides are just saying " Stop Uranium enrichment ". It is because they know :

Uranium enrichment ==> using alternative way to produce electricity ==> getting less oil pumped out of the wells + More electricity for industry ==> Iran gets less dependent to oil ==> reduce selling oil ==> neo-colonialism will end ==> other Middle Eastern countries will learn ==> there won't be any neo-colonialism at all.

And at last US was the one who used two first and last nuclear bomb on other nation.

I hope you find a peacekeeper president in US , but I doubt you could. because all those people have to borrow much money to run for president , and those who lend are not so noble.

hmdphantom.
From Iran.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
reply to post by ker2010
 

But doesn't Bachman also believe the earth is some 8,000 years old, and people can have the gay cured by God?


She must have thought it worked on her husband. That man is camper than a row of tents at Christmas.


Sorry, had to get that one in there. Any opportunity to bash the Bachmann's should not be missed, we all have a personal responsibility to do it.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hmdphantom
 




Good to hear from you,, some of us are desperately trying to do just that and get a peace keeper in office.
edit on 16-12-2011 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


Great post. I like to learn, and I sometimes find it overwhelming trying to sort through information to put things in perspective. If only the American people were more educated about their history, and the history of other nations. I completely agree with you, and I really hope that Ron has a chance of being the next President of the U.S. I'm not American, but I really feel that the next president is going to make or break us as a species.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Things were also exacerbated by the fact Iranian oil was essentially being stolen by Anglo-Iranian Oil, or what was later to become British Petroleum since the early 1900's. After half a century of this, it led Iranians to call for the nationalization of its oil fields, in steps the CIA and the U.S and along comes the Shah.

The spice must flow im affraid.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
mis post
edit on 17-12-2011 by Ixtab because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


Here's a little more informative history I wanted to add to you're informational thread:

If you were to look at pictures from before the 1979 Islamic revolution, you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart from life in California of all places. Blue jeans, tee shirts, pop culture, etc... you name it. Even today, were you to take a good look at Iranian culture, you'll quickly see that the face of Iran as a hardline Islamic republic is mostly a facade which portrays a culture far more extreme than the one adopted by most of its citizens. The reasons for this are many, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between an Iranian and American, both wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, eat most of the same food, study the same subjects, follow similar pop culture (at least before the revolution anyway), etc... So why aren't both best buddies?

It's because we're #ing dumb-asses that's why. In the early 1900s, Britain made foreign investments in Iranian oil fields under a company named APOC (Anglo Persian Oil company) and for over 50 years, their refinery in Iran was the largest in the world. The agreement between APOC and the Iranian government afforded Iran only ~15% of the net profits from the refinery. This was seen as exceedingly unfair by many Iranians and popular opinion felt that Iran should have a greater stake in the exploitation of their own resources.

The great depression caused royalties paid to Iran to fall to next to nothing, despite APOCs continued production. In 1933 a new agreement was met which was somewhat more favorable to the Iranians but many still felt that it was a wasted opportunity. The important thing to note here is that this agreement had a duration of 60 years.

By 1950, APOC had the largest refinery in the world and controlled all oil production in Iran. At this point, the 1933 agreement was still in effect which guaranteed Iran only a small share of the operation and provided APOC many loopholes and Iran no legal recourse.

In 1951 the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize APOC and elected a pro-nationalization prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Britain didn't take kindly to the nationalization of its foreign assets (can't really blame them, you would too) and put pressure on other countries to avoid buying Iranian oil. The US attempted to intervene diplomatically by proposing an arrangement similar to the one that the USA had with Saudi Arabia and stop the crisis but their attempts were rejected by both Britain and Iran.

A couple years later, in 1953, the cold war was brewing and both the USA and Britain felt that if Iran's nationalist government fell to communism that the oil reserves and existing foreign investments would be lost completely (as opposed to their existing nationalized state in which negotiations were sporadically ongoing).

Here's where things gets messy for the lack of proper word. Rather than put diplomatic pressure on the PM, the CIA and British Intelligence bribed dissidents within Iran to stage a military coup and ouster the democratically elected PM. The pro-western leader of the coup, an army general, was installed as the new PM and simultaneously the monarch Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi transitioned into an authoritarian leader, abandoning the state's constitutional monarchy.

From 1953-1979 the Shah used US support to hold on to power despite his authoritarian rule being widely unpopular in an otherwise secular and democratic state (sound familiar?). Besides simple military support, the CIA was also responsible for training the Shah's personal secret police force, something straight out of Hitler's playbook.

There were several consequences of the coup:

1. The Oil started flowing from Iran again

2. Iran was established as a western aligned outpost in Central Asia

3. The Shah's authoritarian rule provided a convenient nuclei for opposition movements such as Islamism to foster

Opposition movements (both secular and religious) started to show their strength in the late 1970s and came to a head in 1979 when the Shah was ousted completely and replaced with an Islamic government.

Hope that helped

PS: APOC is now called BP (British Petroleum)
edit on 18-12-2011 by Ek Bharatiya because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13

log in

join