Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 55377 reads   258 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 121 through 130 (of 258 total)
  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 02:51pm

    #122
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: The Hubris Of Empire

[quote=Farmer Brown]

[quote=VanityFox]

Patrick,

No offence, but the line that I’ve darkened above is a phrase that has been force fed into the minds of the people of the United States since it was misquoted and run with over four years ago now. It was formed by the usual multi-media culprits. Whenever I see this misquote, I do my best to educate how it came about. This video below is correct in every way : –

[/quote]

You have got to be kidding.  That wasn’t much of a misquote if at all.  What he said after the famous line may make it sound as if all he wants is democracy, but that’s pretty hard to believe given all his other rants, and his denial of the holocaust.  Or is that a misquote too?  Look, I have no illusions about the US’s past motives for war or its policy in the middle east, but as bad as any of that may have been, it would pale in comparison to what the Ahmadinijads of the world would do with it if they held it in their hands.

[/quote]

Patrick,

I’m not arguing with you. The democracy that the UK and US promote is far more devastating than anything Iran could promote. 2000 tons of depleted uranium inhaled as dust from the invasion of Iraq for example, has, and is, already doing more harm than any bomb Iran could build from now until the end of oil production in Iran. I smell the stench of hypocracy floating about me, how about you?

By reading the article posted above by Mike – Permanent War Economy – I sense that would ordinarily be discovery enough a generation or two back, but not in this day and age it seems. Obviously, the book I offered you read has greater depth by far; there is more than just a bias at stake here.

Incidentally, for those readers that feel an emerging discovery that I hold some loathing for the United States capacity for perpetual war as political will and philosophy to financial profit and stability, you would only be wrong as far as the depth of my revile and disgust, that couldn’t possibly match the words in which you’d use for reply. I am fully replete with a magnitude of equalling disgust at the river of sh*t that stands proud as that of the flag waving debauchery known as the United Kingdom, if anyone were to ask. Neither population are to blame before you ask, since I stated “political will” before someone pipes up at the back.

No matter. The U.S and UK is sure to invade some country it sold missiles to a few years back, within a year or two. It helps to entertain their populations, so their sons and daughters can lose life and limb to promote humility, and gain education sponsorships to a college education, so as to bare the fruit of the next crop of young eager minds for a war harvest. It’ll put both countries GDP back on the map for another year or two, while we feast on Iranian oil reserves, and drive four-by-four at 12mpg about both style framed metropolis’ of Babylon. For me, I’ll be sipping a toast in my four remaining minutes in the next ten years, because I won’t be here to witness New York or London go up where I’m situated. I’ll become that most cherished of carbon atom, that’ll serve a purpose in re-building the next future ideology, come what may.

Whatever you postulate of Iran’s intention’s, it isn’t Iran that is the issue. Iran is just the stage for a war. Just as with Iraq and Afghanistan. The real war is between Russia, China and the United States. But we wouldn’t want a war on our lands, and not when we’ve about used up all of our resources back home. No, that would be destructive, and how could companies such as Haliburton make ten-fold profit if the very country they’re given contract in rebuilding the infastructure of is the self same country of origin?

Nothing is as it seems …

~ VF ~

 

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 03:54pm

    #123
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

G’Day Mates,

I’m in Ahwaz, Iran right now hugging O&G wells.  There is NO way the US will directly attack.  It will only be after Israel does something dumb and Iran responds.  There is also NO way that the US can invade Iran.  They’ll bomb the hell out of it and just exacerbate the problem, but the US will feel like it has to do something when the US loses an aircraft carrier (blame Israel?).  Iran can easily put up an army the size of Iraq’s whole population.  It would be WWIII and everyone who is anyone knows it.  The Iranians will do nothing to start this.  The US won’t start anything because of the consequences.  It will be the Israelis and Iran’s involvement in Palestine.  If Hezbollah moves against the PLO with the aid of Iran, then Israel will respond and no one else will like what they will do.  Israel will look after Israel and to hell what may come.  That’s the scenario as I see it.

It’s interesting to note the soldiers here in Iran. They are everybody’s brother and everybody’s son.  They are paid virtually nothing, but since every able bodied man has served in the military, They’ll be called up by the millions.  It would be a bloodbath that should be on the hands of anyone that starts it. 

Most Iranians have no time for the Arabs and the Arabs have no time for them.  They LOVE the US.  They don’t like the British because of what they have done politically in the past.  When I came here, I was hoping Obama and the NEW Iranian president would sit down have a cuppa tea.  Alas, not to be.

You’ve got to appreciate that the people in the top power, now in Iran, were at the bottom before the revolution and now there is no where for them to go if they abdicated.  They are definitely between a rock and a hard place. The people generally don’t support the their power but have NO power to change it.  There will be NO revolution here because the power base is Sepah or ‘Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.  It will be the target of US, if aircraft carriers start sinking.  I foresee in the future Sepa having a go running the country, if they aren’t right now.

Anyhow, it’s cool to see everything around here titled “In the name of God”.  People in Iran are great. No one I know of says anything bad about the Israelis.  I think it’s the displaced Jews from Iran who are making all the noise in Israel.  All in all, the people here are great and the government is sus.  Just like the US eh?  I just hope ya’ll go green this coming  2nd Tuesday in November and recycle all the pollies in Washington…PLEASE!  You owe it to yourselves. A little reset in Washington will do a WORLD of good.  Maybe, forestall Armageddon.

The sanctions are just pushing Iran to China.  Iranians would love to buy all  Ford and GM products.  Anything from the US is held in awe.  Everyone here loves US goods.  They would buy from the US if they could, but alas it’s Chinese junk.  China can’t afford to let Iran go down the  girgiler and won’t.  So all the sanctions are doing is denying the US a big market. 

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 04:08pm

    #125
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: The Hubris Of Empire

[quote=Vanityfox451]

Hunt down this book by Noam Chomsky called What We Say Goes, and read the sections on Iran. From the original democracy that brought Mosaddegh to power in 1951, through to his subsequent fall by intervention of the CIA with a coup de etat, what is evolving politically today has its roots firmly established in the past. What happens next in Iran is a continuing series of blow-backs, as a cause and effect that was begun by the United Kingdom, and the United States.

I leave you with the words of the then Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh, on the 21st of June 1951, and ask whether there is more to compare the past with the present than that which is promoted to our nation’s today, who’s people today, and without thought and study of their own, have more belief in the facts that are filtered daily into their homes by the box in their living-rooms; as proof by the lack of viable and relevant reading material on their empty book-shelves.

[quote=Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh]

“Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.
The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provide that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation…
It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention…

[/quote]

~ VF ~

[/quote]

Stop 100 people at the voting booth in America and ask them what they think of Operation Ajax. You’ll get 99 blank stares.

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 04:08pm

    #124
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

V wrote: V

PS I for one would love to see Israel wiped off the map. 

Wow.  You really might want to think about retracting that comment.  But thanks for letting us all know exactly where you stand.

+1. Disappointed to see comments like this on the Martenson site…degrading to say the least!

Woomera quote:The Iranians will do nothing to start this.

I dunno but doesn’t building nuclear reactors & threating to wipe Israel off the map seem be a little over the top LOL..If the tables were  turned & the leaders of Iran were in control of the nukes Israel has my guess is they would have already used them.

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 04:39pm

    #126
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

[quote=woomera]

G’Day Mates,

I’m in Ahwaz, Iran right now hugging O&G wells.  There is NO way the US will directly attack.  It will only be after Israel does something dumb and Iran responds.  There is also NO way that the US can invade Iran.  They’ll bomb the hell out of it and just exacerbate the problem, but the US will feel like it has to do something when the US loses an aircraft carrier (blame Israel?).  Iran can easily put up an army the size of Iraq’s whole population.  It would be WWIII and everyone who is anyone knows it.  The Iranians will do nothing to start this.  The US won’t start anything because of the consequences.  It will be the Israelis and Iran’s involvement in Palestine.  If Hezbollah moves against the PLO with the aid of Iran, then Israel will respond and no one else will like what they will do.  Israel will look after Israel and to hell what may come.  That’s the scenario as I see it.

It’s interesting to note the soldiers here in Iran. They are everybody’s brother and everybody’s son.  They are paid virtually nothing, but since every able bodied man has served in the military, They’ll be called up by the millions.  It would be a bloodbath that should be on the hands of anyone that starts it. 

Most Iranians have no time for the Arabs and the Arabs have no time for them.  They LOVE the US.  They don’t like the British because of what they have done politically in the past.  When I came here, I was hoping Obama and the NEW Iranian president would sit down have a cuppa tea.  Alas, not to be.

You’ve got to appreciate that the people in the top power, now in Iran, were at the bottom before the revolution and now there is no where for them to go if they abdicated.  They are definitely between a rock and a hard place. The people generally don’t support the their power but have NO power to change it.  There will be NO revolution here because the power base is Sepah or ‘Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.  It will be the target of US, if aircraft carriers start sinking.  I foresee in the future Sepa having a go running the country, if they aren’t right now.

Anyhow, it’s cool to see everything around here titled “In the name of God”.  People in Iran are great. No one I know of says anything bad about the Israelis.  I think it’s the displaced Jews from Iran who are making all the noise in Israel.  All in all, the people here are great and the government is sus.  Just like the US eh?  I just hope ya’ll go green this coming  2nd Tuesday in November and recycle all the pollies in Washington…PLEASE!  You owe it to yourselves. A little reset in Washington will do a WORLD of good.  Maybe, forestall Armageddon.

The sanctions are just pushing Iran to China.  Iranians would love to buy all  Ford and GM products.  Anything from the US is held in awe.  Everyone here loves US goods.  They would buy from the US if they could, but alas it’s Chinese junk.  China can’t afford to let Iran go down the  girgiler and won’t.  So all the sanctions are doing is denying the US a big market. 

[/quote]

woomera,

Thanks for that “on-the-ground” assessment.  I think you’re spot on with most everything that you say, from what I’ve learned.  Two things that you said are particularly noteworthy.  Israel will make a mistake which will be one trigger and the first loss of a U.S. nuclear carrier will be another trigger.

And V,

Please tell me you don’t really mean that.

  

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 05:04pm

    #127
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: The Hubris Of Empire

[quote=MarkM]

[quote=Vanityfox451]

Hunt down this book by Noam Chomsky called What We Say Goes, and read the sections on Iran. From the original democracy that brought Mosaddegh to power in 1951, through to his subsequent fall by intervention of the CIA with a coup de etat, what is evolving politically today has its roots firmly established in the past. What happens next in Iran is a continuing series of blow-backs, as a cause and effect that was begun by the United Kingdom, and the United States.

I leave you with the words of the then Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh, on the 21st of June 1951, and ask whether there is more to compare the past with the present than that which is promoted to our nation’s today, who’s people today, and without thought and study of their own, have more belief in the facts that are filtered daily into their homes by the box in their living-rooms; as proof by the lack of viable and relevant reading material on their empty book-shelves.

[quote=Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh]

“Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.
The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provide that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation…
It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention…

[/quote]

~ VF ~

[/quote]

Stop 100 people at the voting booth in America and ask them what they think of Operation Ajax. You’ll get 99 blank stares.

[/quote]

 

Further elucidation…..

By Stephen Kinzer
http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/stephenkinzer

“The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was the most lucrative British enterprise anywhere on the planet… After World War II, the winds of nationalism and anti-colonialism blew through the developing world. In Iran, nationalism meant one thing: we’ve got to take back our oil. Its new democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh promised that, henceforth, oil profits would be used to develop Iran, not enrich Britain. Finally, the British turned to Washington and asked for a favor: please overthrow this madman for us so we can have our oil company back… American President Dwight D. Eisenhower, encouraged by his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a lifelong defender of transnational corporate power, agreed to send the Central Intelligence Agency in to depose Mossadegh. The operation took less than a month in the summer of 1953. It was the first time the CIA had ever overthrown a government… At first, this seemed like a remarkably successful covert operation. The West had deposed a leader it didn’t like, and replaced him with someone who would perform as bidden — Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. From the perspective of history, though, it is clear that Operation Ajax, as the operation was code-named, had devastating effects. It not only brought down Mossadegh’s government, but ended democracy in Iran.” [33 other foreign governments would subsequently fall prey to similar CIA machinations. Suggested reading: Rogue State by William Blum.]
____________________________

To frustrated Americans who have begun boycotting BP: Welcome to the club. It’s great not to be the only member any more!

Does boycotting BP really make sense? Perhaps not. After all, many BP filling stations are actually owned by local people, not the corporation itself. Besides, when you’re filling up at a Shell or ExxonMobil station, it’s hard to feel much sense of moral triumph. Nonetheless, I reserve my right to drive by BP stations. I started doing it long before this year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

My decision not to give this company my business came after I learned about its role in another kind of “spill” entirely — the destruction of Iran’s democracy more than half a century ago.

The history of the company we now call BP has, over the last 100 years, traced the arc of transnational capitalism. Its roots lie in the early years of the twentieth century when a wealthy bon vivant named William Knox D’Arcy decided, with encouragement from the British government, to begin looking for oil in Iran. He struck a concession agreement with the dissolute Iranian monarchy, using the proven expedient of bribing the three Iranians negotiating with him.

Under this contract, which he designed, D’Arcy was to own whatever oil he found in Iran and pay the government just 16% of any profits he made — never allowing any Iranian to review his accounting. After his first strike in 1908, he became sole owner of the entire ocean of oil that lies beneath Iran’s soil. No one else was allowed to drill for, refine, extract, or sell “Iranian” oil.

”Fortune brought us a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams,” Winston Churchill, who became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, wrote later. “Mastery itself was the prize of the venture.”

Soon afterward, the British government bought the D’Arcy concession, which it named the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It then built the world’s biggest refinery at the port of Abadan on the Persian Gulf. From the 1920s into the 1940s, Britain’s standard of living was supported by oil from Iran. British cars, trucks, and buses ran on cheap Iranian oil. Factories throughout Britain were fueled by oil from Iran. The Royal Navy, which projected British power all over the world, powered its ships with Iranian oil.

After World War II, the winds of nationalism and anti-colonialism blew through the developing world. In Iran, nationalism meant one thing: we’ve got to take back our oil. Driven by this passion, Parliament voted on April 28, 1951, to choose its most passionate champion of oil nationalization, Mohammad Mossadegh, as prime minister. Days later, it unanimously approved his bill nationalizing the oil company. Mossadegh promised that, henceforth, oil profits would be used to develop Iran, not enrich Britain.

This oil company was the most lucrative British enterprise anywhere on the planet. To the British, nationalization seemed, at first, like some kind of immense joke, a step so absurdly contrary to the unwritten rules of the world that it could hardly be real. Early in this confrontation, the directors of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and their partners in Britain’s government settled on their strategy: no mediation, no compromise, no acceptance of nationalization in any form.

The British took a series of steps meant to push Mossadegh off his nationalist path.

They withdrew their technicians from Abadan, blockaded the port, cut off exports of vital goods to Iran, froze the country’s hard-currency accounts in British banks, and tried to win anti-Iran resolutions from the U.N. and the World Court. This campaign only intensified Iranian determination. Finally, the British turned to Washington and asked for a favor: please overthrow this madman for us so we can have our oil company back.

American President Dwight D. Eisenhower, encouraged by his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a lifelong defender of transnational corporate power, agreed to send the Central Intelligence Agency in to depose Mossadegh. The operation took less than a month in the summer of 1953. It was the first time the CIA had ever overthrown a government.

At first, this seemed like a remarkably successful covert operation. The West had deposed a leader it didn’t like, and replaced him with someone who would perform as bidden — Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

From the perspective of history, though, it is clear that Operation Ajax, as the operation was code-named, had devastating effects. It not only brought down Mossadegh’s government, but ended democracy in Iran. It returned the Shah to his Peacock Throne. His increasing repression set off the explosion of the late 1970s, which brought to power Ayatollah Khomeini and the bitterly anti-Western regime that has been in control ever since.

The oil company re-branded itself as British Petroleum, BP Amoco, and then, in 2000, BP. During its decades in Iran, it had operated as it pleased, with little regard for the interests of local people. This corporate tradition has evidently remained strong. 

Many Americans are outraged by the relentless images of oil gushing into Gulf waters from the Deepwater Horizon well, and by the corporate recklessness that allowed this spill to happen. Those who know Iranian history have been less surprised

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMGhVVAKMXw&feature=related

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 05:26pm

    #128
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

[quote=MarkM]

Stop 100 people at the voting booth in America and ask them what they think of Operation Ajax. You’ll get 99 blank stares.

[/quote]

Hi Mark,

Isn’t that the truth!!!

Maybe educating a few here will help discussion move forward better : –

1953 Iranian coup d’état

[quote=Wikipedia]

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d’état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.

The crushing of Iran’s first democracy launched 25 years of dictatorship under Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, who relied heavily on U.S. support to hold on to power until he was overthrown in February 1979. “For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhanded methods to overthrow a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests”, the Agence France-Presse reported.

In 1951 with near unanimous support of Iran’s parliament, Mosaddegh nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).”The 1933 agreement under which it was operating was widely regarded as exploitative and an infringement on Iran’s sovereignty. Iran’s oil was the British government’s single largest overseas investment. Moreover, the AIOC had consistently violated the terms of the 1933 agreement and was reluctant to renegotiate, even as Iran’s movement for nationalization grew in the late 1940s.

Even though AIOC was “highly profitable,” historian Mark Gasiorowski wrote that “its Iranian workers were poorly paid and lived in squalid conditions.” Meanwhile, Gasiorowski said, the AIOC, which was 51 percent owned by the British government, bankrolled disruptive tribal elements in Iran and some politicians with the purpose of causing intrigue. Iranians blamed Britain for most of its problems and public support for nationalization was very strong.

Despite Mosaddegh’s popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically. Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world’s largest, but Prime Minister Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott.

With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran’s government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup. The U.S. spy agency tried to persuade Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to dismiss Mosaddegh, and at first he refused. The Central Intelligence Agency pressured the weak monarch while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.

At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of August 15–16, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On August 19, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh’s residence. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah’s military court. On December 21, 1953, he was sentenced to solitary confinement in a jail cell in Central Teheran for three years, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.

Mosaddegh’s supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah’s military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953. “The triumphant Shah (Pahlavi) ordered the execution of several dozen military officers and student leaders who had been closely associated with Mohammad Mossadegh… Soon afterward and with help from the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, the shah created a secret police force called Savak, which became infamous for its brutality.”

In the wake of the coup, Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the next prime minister of a military government, and Shah Pahlevi made the appointment but dismissed him two years later. Pahlevi ruled as an authoritarian monarch for the next 26 years, until he was overthrown in a popular revolt in 1979.

The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran’s elected government was a share of Iran’s oil wealth as well as resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.

Washington continually supplied arms to the unpopular ruler, Pahlavi, and the CIA trained SAVAK, his repressive police. In Foreign Policy magazine, former CIA agent Richard Cottam wrote that “The shah’s defense program, his industrial and economic transactions, and his oil policy were all considered by most Iranians to be faithful executions of American instructions.”

The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western royal dictatorship with the anti-Western Islamic Republic of Iran.

{Continued …}

[/quote]

Click this link to read Noam Chomsky doing a wonderful credit to the subject of Iran

CIA’s 1953 Coup In Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHWXFSSOWxU

Here is an 80 to 100 page preview copy of the book – All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror – by Stephen Kinzer to complement the film.

~ VF ~

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 05:30pm

    #129
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Mike,

Talk about alike minded …Laughing… !!!!!!

~ VF ~

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 07:13pm

    #130
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

VF,

I’ve never met you, but we may be brothers from another mother.

As my favorite author said, the winners forget very easily, but the losers never do. If the West had respected who really owns the oil, we would not be referred to today as the “Great Satan.” The entire course of history would have been altered. The Global War on Terror would not exist as a propaganda tool for usurping the resources of others.

The scourge of the earth goes by many names – predatory capitalismdisaster capitalism, neoliberalism, but the results are the same.

  • Sun, Oct 31, 2010 - 10:19pm

    #131
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

[quote=woomera]

G’Day Mates,

I’m in Ahwaz, Iran right now hugging O&G wells.  There is NO way the US will directly attack.  It will only be after Israel does something dumb and Iran responds.  There is also NO way that the US can invade Iran.  They’ll bomb the hell out of it and just exacerbate the problem, but the US will feel like it has to do something when the US loses an aircraft carrier (blame Israel?).  Iran can easily put up an army the size of Iraq’s whole population.  It would be WWIII and everyone who is anyone knows it.  The Iranians will do nothing to start this.  The US won’t start anything because of the consequences.  It will be the Israelis and Iran’s involvement in Palestine.  If Hezbollah moves against the PLO with the aid of Iran, then Israel will respond and no one else will like what they will do.  Israel will look after Israel and to hell what may come.  That’s the scenario as I see it.

It’s interesting to note the soldiers here in Iran. They are everybody’s brother and everybody’s son.  They are paid virtually nothing, but since every able bodied man has served in the military, They’ll be called up by the millions.  It would be a bloodbath that should be on the hands of anyone that starts it. 

Most Iranians have no time for the Arabs and the Arabs have no time for them.  They LOVE the US.  They don’t like the British because of what they have done politically in the past.  When I came here, I was hoping Obama and the NEW Iranian president would sit down have a cuppa tea.  Alas, not to be.

You’ve got to appreciate that the people in the top power, now in Iran, were at the bottom before the revolution and now there is no where for them to go if they abdicated.  They are definitely between a rock and a hard place. The people generally don’t support the their power but have NO power to change it.  There will be NO revolution here because the power base is Sepah or ‘Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.  It will be the target of US, if aircraft carriers start sinking.  I foresee in the future Sepa having a go running the country, if they aren’t right now.

Anyhow, it’s cool to see everything around here titled “In the name of God”.  People in Iran are great. No one I know of says anything bad about the Israelis.  I think it’s the displaced Jews from Iran who are making all the noise in Israel.  All in all, the people here are great and the government is sus.  Just like the US eh?  I just hope ya’ll go green this coming  2nd Tuesday in November and recycle all the pollies in Washington…PLEASE!  You owe it to yourselves. A little reset in Washington will do a WORLD of good.  Maybe, forestall Armageddon.

The sanctions are just pushing Iran to China.  Iranians would love to buy all  Ford and GM products.  Anything from the US is held in awe.  Everyone here loves US goods.  They would buy from the US if they could, but alas it’s Chinese junk.  China can’t afford to let Iran go down the  girgiler and won’t.  So all the sanctions are doing is denying the US a big market. 

[/quote]

Alas, the problems in the U.S, are so deep, so philosophically stubborn,  it’s not likely any political recycling will help. There may not be a political solution to the foreign policy debacle.  Maybe the best thing that ever happened to the world is the U.S. cratering as an economic power. The Chinese aren’t going to continue to fund proxy battles that undermine their own geo-strategic dominance and energy policies. I’m happy to hear the Iranians you are meeting apear to be politically saavy. They are remarkable people; well educated, culturally refined.

Viewing 10 posts - 121 through 130 (of 258 total)

Login or Register to post comments