U.S. funding millitant groups against Iran

Iran an Islamic state? would make me laugh if it was not so tragic for the muslims through out the world specifically palestine and to some extent pakistan too. most dangerous enemy is the one you cannot see within your "own group" for they have the same names as Muslims and outwardly practice same as you.
 
NoName55 said:
Iran an Islamic state? would make me laugh if it was not so tragic for the muslims through out the world specifically palestine and to some extent pakistan too. most dangerous enemy is the one you cannot see within your "own group" for they have the same names as Muslims and outwardly practice same as you.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. I have heard a thousand time that there are no "Islamic States".
But then you need to conceder the pre-teen source. :thumbs_up
 
wilberhum said:
You call me ignorant. Da! :skeleton:

The Islamic republic Of Iran didn’t exist in 1953. :?
Click to expand...

the islamic republic came as a result of your overthrowing a legitimate goverment, it seems you want to play ignorant.

your goverment overthrew a popular iranian goverment, installed the shah whom no one liked, which led them to support the islamic party hence they were in charge, the islamic party would never come to power if you didnt carry operation ajax out!

why did your goverment overthrow a legitimate iranian goverment? why? thats what you should be answering instead of evading this.
 
Sami Zaatari said:
the islamic republic came as a result of your overthrowing a legitimate goverment, it seems you want to play ignorant.

your goverment overthrew a popular iranian goverment, installed the shah whom no one liked, which led them to support the islamic party hence they were in charge, the islamic party would never come to power if you didnt carry operation ajax out!

why did your goverment overthrow a legitimate iranian goverment? why? thats what you should be answering instead of evading this.
Click to expand...
Here we go with this "I will start history where it best suites my argument" routine again.
After all you said:
lets deal with the LATEST problem
Click to expand...

Change the time line, change the rules, Good technique. :skeleton:

Well I might as well use one of your pre-teen tactics.

I Win, debate over. :thumbs_up
 
Encolpius said:
Ahem. They're not terrorists because they're on the Americans' sides. There was a time when Saddam Hussein was a staunch US ally in the War on Ayatollah-based Fundamentalism, and when the Taleban were US allies in the war on Soviet invaders.
Click to expand...

Listen Encopresis;

Under no definition of the word "staunch", could Saddam ever have been considered a "staunch ally" of the US. He wasnt armed by the US and he certainly wasn't directed by the US. The Iraqis did get some satellite intel from the US when it appeared the Iranians might actually win a battle :)

As Henry Kissinger once said, "the unfortuante thing about the Iran/Iraq Was is that BOTH sides couln't lose".
 
Sami Zaatari said:
why did your goverment overthrow a legitimate iranian goverment? why? thats what you should be answering instead of evading this.
Click to expand...

It was done because that "legitimate" government was socialist, and friendly toward the Soviet Union, which was our arch-enemy. It was in our national inerest to have Iran on our side. This is an unfortunate example of when the solution to one problem sowed the seeds of the next. The Eisenhower administration did the right thing at the time.
 
August said:
It was done because that "legitimate" government was socialist, and friendly toward the Soviet Union, which was our arch-enemy. It was in our national inerest to have Iran on our side. This is an unfortunate example of when the solution to one problem sowed the seeds of the next. The Eisenhower administration did the right thing at the time.
Click to expand...

well this action has led to iran becoming your enemy and the forming of the mullah's and the islamic republic, and i think most americans should take responsibility for causing the hostilities with iran and taking the first shot.
 
Sami Zaatari said:
well this action has led to iran becoming your enemy and the forming of the mullah's and the islamic republic, and i think most americans should take responsibility for causing the hostilities with iran and taking the first shot.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have become our enemy if Carter hadn't abandoned the Shah. Like I said, solving one problem often causes another. The truth is, that dealing just with what's going on right now, if Iran would stop threatening and antagonizing the world, there would be no hostilities between us.
 
Sami Zaatari said:
well this action has led to iran becoming your enemy and the forming of the mullah's and the islamic republic, and i think most americans should take responsibility for causing the hostilities with iran and taking the first shot.
Click to expand...
Us? When did you become one of Us? You are as anti-West as they come. :? :enough!:

And No I do not take responsibility for causing the hostilities with Iran and I don't know any one that does.
My country, the US, has done many things wrong. So I don't buy any to the my country right or wrong BS. But taking hostages was the work of Khomeini.

In my opinion Khomeini was one of the more evil modern day leaders. :raging: :raging:
He deceived his people and turned into you typical power hungry tyrants.
The world was a better place the day he died. :thumbs_up
 
To the topic:

Nobody wash his hands in innocence. That USA do a lot of illegal actions is well known. Even all Banktransfers worldwide are controlled by them (SWIFT). But NOBODY should pretend, that Iran does not use illegal actions against other countries. Everybody do it. There is nothing new about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The US never considers the consquences of it's actions when it's arming or supporting one group against the other, IMO this tactic is quite myopic to be frank. Let say the US succeeds in toppling the current Iranian government through proxies, how do they know the groups there supporting today won't in a few years time shift back in the same track as the current Iranian Government when there no longer dependent on US support?

They don't! and they don't care!
 
AHMED_GUREY said:
The US never considers the consquences of it's actions when it's arming or supporting one group against the other, IMO this tactic is quite myopic to be frank. Let say the US succeeds in toppling the current Iranian government through proxies, how do they know the groups there supporting today won't in a few years time shift back in the same track as the current Iranian Government when there no longer dependent on US support?

They don't! and they don't care!
Click to expand...

To some extent that is true. For example, the PKK was founded as a Marxist organization. :D They have changed their tune a bit to attract a greater following. They cold certainly make trouble for the Turks (ah..too bad) and would likely be a force to agitate for an independant Kurdistan (not the end of the world either). Similarly, the Baluchistan nationalists could make trouble for Afghanistan (part of ethnic "Baluchistan" is in Afghanistan).

Still, you have to consider the alternatives:

1) Nuclear armed Iran isolated by sanctions. New nuclear arms race in the ME (Arab states ..the Suadis for eg.)
2) Israel attacks Iran by air..at best a temporary delay
3) Overt war with Iran..oil delivery from the ME disrupted for many weeks or months..possible world-wide recession

That is the problem with the real world. The choices are often imperfect.
 
Cognescenti said:
Listen Encopresis;

Under no definition of the word "staunch", could Saddam ever have been considered a "staunch ally" of the US. He wasnt armed by the US and he certainly wasn't directed by the US. The Iraqis did get some satellite intel from the US when it appeared the Iranians might actually win a battle :)

As Henry Kissinger once said, "the unfortuante thing about the Iran/Iraq Was is that BOTH sides couln't lose".
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I stand corrected in the use of the word "staunch" but please have the decency to spell my name correctly.
 
Encolpius said:
Fair enough, I stand corrected in the use of the word "staunch" but please have the decency to spell my name correctly.
Click to expand...


Fair request on your part, sir. It was a cheap gag. Sorry.

For extra credit..who can identify where Hussein got the anti-ship missile that nearly sank the USS Starke in the Persian Gulf during the Iran/Iraq War.

:)
 
Last edited:
Cognescenti said:
Fair request on your part, sir. It was a cheap gag. Sorry.

For extra credit..who can identify where Hussein go the anti-ship missile that nearly sank the USS Starke in the Persian Gulf during the Iran/Iraq War.

:)
Click to expand...

I think it was a French exocet.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top