THIS is why Sarah is our most deadly enemy.

[sofia]

I walk into a Deli this morning and the owner has Glen Beck show on. He's an elderly Italian man...nice guy.

I struck up a conversation based on Beck's show. He started ranting about how both parties suck and that in his day people relied on family, church, and community to take care of each other...not the government.

I shook my head in agreement. "You're right. They all suck. The only one I trust is that Dr. from Texas, Ron Paul."

He responded very positively:

"Yeah. He's one of the few. He's a good man."

So far so good I thought.....but then he dropped the other shoe:

"But the one that they are all afraid of is Sarah Palin. Did you hear her speak at the convention this weekend? That woman isn't afraid of anybody. She reminds me of St. Joan of Arc. She'll clean out the place if she becomes president...blah...blah..blah"

I mentioned her supprt for the bailout, and for bombing Iran....but he was so infatuated by her that I could not penetrate. Remember, this is a man who LIKES Ron Paul a lot.

Sarah is our main enemy because she will be preventing people like this Deli owner from coming our way in 2012 (assuming RP runs)


...a very discouargaing....yet eye-opening conversation....

This one incident may not be a scientific survey....but it adds weight to my hunch.......Kristol's girl is cutting into our ranks!

[Nemesis]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

[sofia]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

you get off from killing women and children who have done nothing to us???

[Liberty Star]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

Israel bombed USS Liberty in 67 and killed many American troops, should US bomb them also in your view?

[gls]

Are there any actual differences between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush? As far as I can tell they advocate the exact same policies. Of course Bush did finish his entire term as Governor...so that's something.

[dannno]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

YouTube - IRAN US RELATIONS - 1950's to PRESENT - Understand the PAST to UNDERSTAND THE PRESENT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_nDvrdasJ4)

[TruthisTreason]

We are our own worst enemies... I see it everyday on this board. :p

[Liberty Star]

Are there any actual differences between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush? As far as I can tell they advocate the exact same policies. Of course Bush did finish his entire term as Governor...so that's something.

While GW also supported starting wars, he also prosecuted aipac leaders for spying whereas Palin is in their lap all the way. GW was also not accused by NE of spleeping with his spouse's friend.

[Original_Intent]

While GW also supported starting wars, he also prosecuted aipac leaders for spying whereas Palin is in their lap all the way. GW was also not accused by NE of spleeping with his spouse's friend.

Thanks for the Sarah Palin lapdance image.

[Elwar]

I mentioned her supprt for the bailout, and for bombing Iran....but he was so infatuated by her that I could not penetrate. Remember, this is a man who LIKES Ron Paul a lot.


Back when oil was up near $5 a gallon, Democrats were calling for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Hillary was for it, Obama was for it...talk show hosts were screaming about how those evil Democrats were Socialists because of it...

Meanwhile, a little state to the northwest had a female governor who went ahead with her Republican Congress and passed a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

For some reason, that little bit of information has faded away...

[Carole]

Actually, I believe Perry finished Bush's term once Bush became President. :D

[disorderlyvision]

Are there any actual differences between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush? As far as I can tell they advocate the exact same policies. Of course Bush did finish his entire term as Governor...so that's something.

LMAO


Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

Have they invaded us? or anyone else for that matter? NO, to my knowledge they have only fought defensively.

But fret not, we are posturing to do this very thing. You and all your warmonger buddies may soon have their wish

[The Patriot]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

We declared war on them in 1953 when we overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power.

[Lord Xar]

I walk into a Deli this morning and the owner has Glen Beck show on. He's an elderly Italian man...nice guy.

I struck up a conversation based on Beck's show. He started ranting about how both parties suck and that in his day people relied on family, church, and community to take care of each other...not the government.

I shook my head in agreement. "You're right. They all suck. The only one I trust is that Dr. from Texas, Ron Paul."

He responded very positively:

"Yeah. He's one of the few. He's a good man."

So far so good I thought.....but then he dropped the other shoe:

"But the one that they are all afraid of is Sarah Palin. Did you hear her speak at the convention this weekend? That woman isn't afraid of anybody. She reminds me of St. Joan of Arc. She'll clean out the place if she becomes president...blah...blah..blah"

I mentioned her supprt for the bailout, and for bombing Iran....but he was so infatuated by her that I could not penetrate. Remember, this is a man who LIKES Ron Paul a lot.

Sarah is our main enemy because she will be preventing people like this Deli owner from coming our way in 2012 (assuming RP runs)


...a very discouargaing....yet eye-opening conversation....

This one incident may not be a scientific survey....but it adds weight to my hunch.......Kristol's girl is cutting into our ranks!

You are absolutely correct. I have some good friends who I've turned into Ron Paul supporters. Die hard neoconic drones. They wised up. But then they say ".... they are afraid of Sarah Palin, I think she makes alot of sense...". I just shake my head.

This is where the media manipulation comes in. This is exactly what they did for Obama. They will now do for Palin. The Neo-cons shill. They will keep attacking her. Always aligning her to the tea-party/conservatism and against the big gubbment Obama and his tactics..... and soon, all the republican/independent drones will see her as the zombies saw Obama. Everyone hated Bush so bad, they'd vote for ANYBODY with the opposite message.. so they voted Obama. Now, the media will do the same for Palin. They will vote for anyone preaching opposite Obama... ie Palin. We are in deep shit. I think we need to start disassociating ourselves from her. Not just the liberty movement, but republicans in general. She is another tool.

[Todd]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?


So...bomb any country that declares war on the U.S? LOL!! The Mouse that Roared. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared)

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - SA@TAC - Sarah Palin's Bad Tea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnDJIFgE0nU&feature=player_embedded)

[tron paul]

We declared war on them in 1953 when we overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power.

Mossadegh declared war on us first, via the 1951 assassination of Prime Minister Razmara and nationalization (theft) of our oil fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Support_for_oil_nationalization

The camel-farking towelheads didn't develop the oil fields, the British did.

The idea, that camping in the sand above some oil gives you the right to extort or expropriate profit from the ones that actually develop the resource, is asinine!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

The phrase "Lockean Proviso" was coined by political philosopher Robert Nozick. It is based on the ideas elaborated by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke's ideas of self-ownership allow a person the freedom to mix his or her labor with natural resources, originally common property, thus making it their private property. Locke concludes that people need to be able to protect the resources they are using to live on, their property, and that this is a natural right. Nozick used this idea to form his Lockean Proviso which governs the initial acquisition of property in a society. Like Locke, Nozick believes in self-ownership and thus is a libertarian. But in order for his ideas of ownership of property to get off the ground and be cogent, he devised the criterion to determine what makes property acquisition just, which is the proviso. The proviso says that though every appropriation of property is a diminution of another's rights to it, it is acceptable as long as it does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property.

Locke's proviso has been used by geoists and socialists to point to land acquisition as illegitimate without compensation.


Later, they invaded our sovereign Embassy and took hostages, both of which are acts of war.

[CapitalistRadical]

It seems that the stolen oil fields that were British-owned and operated.

[The Patriot]

Mossadegh declared war on us first, via the assassination of Razmara and nationalization (theft) of our oil fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Support_for_oil_nationalization

The camel-farking towelheads didn't develop the oil fields, the British did.

The idea, that camping in the sand above some oil gives you the right to extort or expropriate profit from the ones that actually develop the resource, is asinine!




Later, they invaded our sovereign Embassy and took hostages, both of which are acts of war.

Razmara wasn't an American. Secondly, they weren't American oil fields, they weren't sovereign American territory. They were oil fields owned by british and american corporate interests and he nationalized them, the Mossadegh Regime didn't attack anyone. The idea that we as a nation have the right to override national sovereignty by allocating taxpayer dollars to perpetrate violence for corporate interests is absurd.

We committed the first act of war by overthrowing their regime, Iranians struck back in 78 and took back their country, since then, we have been waging illegal CIA operations in Iran to overthrow the Islamic Republic government.

[White Knight]

Are there any actual differences between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush? As far as I can tell they advocate the exact same policies. Of course Bush did finish his entire term as Governor...so that's something.

Yes. Bush knows about the NWO and bows to the head(s) of the Shadow Government. Palin in generally a good woman who is misinformed. She really thinks the Patriot Act will fight terror. Bush knows what it's really for and used it against us. She will see the light.

[tron paul]

It seems that the stolen oil fields that were British-owned and operated.

That's partially correct. The US owned them as well:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
The economic and political crisis in Iran that began in early 1952 with the British-organized worldwide boycott of Iranian oil, ended with the signing of the Consortium Agreement of 1954. Pahlavi signed the agreement with the result that, for the first time, United States oil companies shared in the control of Iranian oil, with the U.S. and UK evenly splitting 80% and the remainder divided between French and Dutch interests.


;)It seems that energy security is a key component of national security and that major disruptions are not good for strategic stability (ie peace):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
The ejection of the British staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) from the nationalized refineries in Iran triggered a crisis at Abadan, the world's largest refinery, in what came to be called the Abadan Crisis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadan_Crisis

In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company "would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians" and would also "cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living." [3]

British warships blockaded Abadan. On August 22, British cabinet imposes a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks. [4]

After the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute." [5]

In July 1952, its ships intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's oil was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.

;)It also seems that oil doesn't discover and pump itself out of the ground, and that developing the oil fields took lots of hard work, money, perseverence, and luck:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Company
D'Arcy hired geologist George Bernard Reynolds to do the prospecting in the Iranian desert. Conditions were extremely harsh: "small pox raged, bandits and warlords ruled, water was all but unavailable, and temperatures often soared past 50°C".[2] After several years of prospecting, D'Arcy's fortune dwindled away and he was forced to sell most of his rights to a Glasgow-based syndicate, the Burmah Oil Company."

By 1908 having sunk more than £500,000 into their Persian venture and found no oil, D'Arcy and Burmah decided to abandon exploration in Iran. In early May 1908 they sent Reynolds a telegram telling him that they had run out of money and ordering him to "cease work, dismiss the staff, dismantle anything worth the cost of transporting to the coast for re-shipment, and come home." Reynolds delayed following these orders and in a stroke of luck, struck oil shortly after on May 26, 1908.

[sratiug]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

Absolute bullshit.

[dannno]

Razmara wasn't an American. Secondly, they weren't American oil fields, they weren't sovereign American territory. They were oil fields owned by british and american corporate interests and he nationalized them, the Mossadegh Regime didn't attack anyone. The idea that we as a nation to override national sovereignty by allocating taxpayer dollars to perpetrate violence for corporate interests is absurd.



Thank you.

When you operate in another nation, you operate under their rules.

Just because you have a bunch of capital doesn't mean you can take land that belongs to other people and kick them off by paying politicians in said country to allow you to do so. That is how sovereignty is destroyed. Uprooting people from their land and moving them into cities and then taking their resources without adding anything of benefit back to the people who owned the land in the first place is stealing.

[CharlesTX]

Yes. Bush knows about the NWO and bows to the head(s) of the Shadow Government. Palin in generally a good woman who is misinformed. She really thinks the Patriot Act will fight terror. Bush knows what it's really for and used it against us. She will see the light.

If somebody would just write that on her hand while she's asleep, she may just start believing it.

[moostraks]

Yes. Bush knows about the NWO and bows to the head(s) of the Shadow Government. Palin in generally a good woman who is misinformed. She really thinks the Patriot Act will fight terror. Bush knows what it's really for and used it against us. She will see the light.

*bangs head on keyboard*

please, please, PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm ^^^^^^^^

[sratiug]

Mossadegh declared war on us first, via the 1951 assassination of Prime Minister Razmara and nationalization (theft) of our oil fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Support_for_oil_nationalization

The camel-farking towelheads didn't develop the oil fields, the British did.

The idea, that camping in the sand above some oil gives you the right to extort or expropriate profit from the ones that actually develop the resource, is asinine!




Later, they invaded our sovereign Embassy and took hostages, both of which are acts of war.

Deposing a president and installing a dictator is not an act of war? They invaded our embassy because we used it to get rid or their former president and invoke 25 years of terrorism.

[White Knight]

*bangs head on keyboard*

please, please, PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm ^^^^^^^^

No, it's not. What part don't you agree with me on? There are a lot of Neo-Cons who just are misinformed. I was a Bush-boy in 1992. I saw the light and now believe he is the main cause of the NWO and many crimes (and big conspiracies). She can be turned too, she doesn't seem generally evil.

[JK/SEA]

No, it's not. What part don't you agree with me on? There are a lot of Neo-Cons who just are misinformed. I was a Bush-boy in 1992. I saw the light and now believe he is the main cause of the NWO and many crimes (and big conspiracies). She can be turned too, she doesn't seem generally evil.

said the spider to the fly.......

[The Patriot]

Thank you.

When you operate in another nation, you operate under their rules.

Just because you have a bunch of capital doesn't mean you can take land that belongs to other people and kick them off by paying politicians in said country to allow you to do so. That is how sovereignty is destroyed. Uprooting people from their land and moving them into cities and then taking their resources without adding anything of benefit back to the people who owned the land in the first place is stealing.
Absolutely, I might disagree with nationalization. In fact, I strongly disagree with what Chavez is doing economically. However, Venezuela as a nation has the right to set it's own course economically. Chavez has a clear endorsement from his electorate to establish socialist institutions. I support free markets, however I don't support forcing people to accept them against their will. I am a non-interventionist first. I certainly don't support toppling a socialist regime by practicing corporatist intervention and using the state(military) to forward the agenda of big oil(corporations). I support free trade and communication with Venezuela. We need to trade with them and influence them in a positive and peaceful way to move towards free markets.

[RM918]

No, it's not. What part don't you agree with me on? There are a lot of Neo-Cons who just are misinformed. I was a Bush-boy in 1992. I saw the light and now believe he is the main cause of the NWO and many crimes (and big conspiracies). She can be turned too, she doesn't seem generally evil.

While I also held neoconnish beliefs, I only held them because I was horribly misinformed and didn't care about politics at all. I'd never seen an 'opposing' point of view aside from the Democrats. Sarah Palin is not some innocent, pure person who's merely led astray, she's delved into politics for a hell of a lot longer time than I have, she's encountered the opposing viewpoints and chose to remain a neocon. Unless she changes her stance on the wars, there's no hope for her.

[tron paul]

Razmara wasn't an American. Secondly, they weren't American oil fields, they weren't sovereign American territory. They were oil fields owned by british and american corporate interests and he nationalized them, the Mossadegh Regime didn't attack anyone. The idea that we as a nation to override national sovereignty by allocating taxpayer dollars to perpetrate violence for corporate interests is absurd.

We committed the first act of war by overthrowing their regime, Iranians struck back in 78 and took back their country, since then, we have been waging illegal CIA operations in Iran to overthrow the Islamic Republic government.

I never claimed that Iranian Prime Minister Razmara was an American. :rolleyes: But go ahead and state an obvious, uncontested fact as if I wasn't aware of it and your revelation is some kind of 'gotcha' that makes a difference in the larger argument.

Newsflash: national and corporate interests intersect at the point of energy security. Also, many Americans were shareholders in the oil companies.

You think we were going to let the Russians have all that oil? Or did it not even occur to you to place Op Ajax in the context of the Cold War?

The only national sovereignty that was violated was America and Britain's:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Company#Exploration_and_discovery
In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with the Shah Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received £20,000, an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits.[1]

Letting the Russians steal the oil we paid to discover and develop, while western energy markets, economies, and militaries had heart attacks, was NOT in our national interest.

[CapitalistRadical]

I really appreciate the level of discourse on this forum. Never before have I heard the pro-coup argument laid out, and I must admit, it seems to have some merit.

[tron paul]

When you operate in another nation, you operate under their rules.

Just because you have a bunch of capital doesn't mean you can take land that belongs to other people and kick them off by paying politicians in said country to allow you to do so. That is how sovereignty is destroyed. Uprooting people from their land and moving them into cities and then taking their resources without adding anything of benefit back to the people who owned the land in the first place is stealing.

We were operating under their rules:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Company#Exploration_and_discovery
In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with the Shah Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received £20,000, an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits.

They got greedy, despite getting something for nothing, and wanted to renege on this agreement.

The shah wasn't a politician, he was the Emperor of Iran. His Word was Law; he owned the country as its sole Sovereign!

It takes capital and technology to find, pump, refine, and transport the oil. The Shah understood that such feats were beyond his very considerable powers. So he brought in the Brits.

Are you taking the socialist position, that Lockean Proviso implies land acquisitions are illegitimate without compensation?

Camping in the sand and riding your camel around over an undiscovered oil field doesn't do JACK SQUAT to produce value from the resource.

Camping in the sand and riding your camel around over a future oil field doesn't do JACK SQUAT to make you a shareholder, or even a (barf) stakeholder.

[moostraks]

No, it's not. What part don't you agree with me on? There are a lot of Neo-Cons who just are misinformed. I was a Bush-boy in 1992. I saw the light and now believe he is the main cause of the NWO and many crimes (and big conspiracies). She can be turned too, she doesn't seem generally evil.

She is a shark. She is not some bumpkin from Podunk as msm is reporting her to be. She has years of experience and has proven herself to be a liar and manipulative. You don't get recognized on a national stage without a certain amount of awareness. It is an act so that people will let their guard down.

Your position and experience in politics would be? (not to be abrasive but have you been a governor of a state or candidate for Vice-presidency of the nation??) Think of how much more knowledge she has then yourself along with exposure to various 'conspiracies' in politics.

[georgiaboy]

wow, this board seems to have more and more palin spammers all over it. Courting of the RP Republicans big time all over the place. Really? wow again.

Just so we're clear, Palin was McCain's running mate, still supports McCain, supported bailouts, supports interventionist foreign policy, and on and on, and thinks these are common sense solutions. RP Republicans will not, will not, support her in this incarnation.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I find it funny Palinites are trying to court libertarians. Are you insane? We aren't your run of the mill average incompetent in the political and philosophical arena joes. We will tear you a new one in any discourse.

Anyways, Palin is to this movement as Reagan was to the libertarian movement of the 70s. We must distance ourselves, and out her as the tyrant Neo-Con she is! She does not represent Minarchism, or Market-Anarchist principles whatsoever! She does not represent liberty, natural law, or the NAP!

We must attack Palin on her positions and on her failing philosophy and intellect. God forbid we have another Reagan moment :(

[The Patriot]

I never claimed that Iranian Prime Minister Razmara was an American. :rolleyes: But go ahead and state an obvious, uncontested fact as if I wasn't aware of it and your revelation is some kind of 'gotcha' that makes a difference in the larger argument.

Newsflash: national and corporate interests intersect at the point of energy security. Also, many Americans were shareholders in the oil companies.

You think we were going to let the Russians have all that oil? Or did it not even occur to you to place Op Ajax in the context of the Cold War?

The only national sovereignty that was violated was America and Britain's:


Letting the Russians steal the oil we paid to discover and develop, while western energy markets, economies, and militaries had heart attacks, was NOT in our national interest.

Actually it does. You said the fact he was assassinated is an act of war on America, which is patently absurd as he isn't an American. If you were aware of your own stupidity than you wouldn't have made the comment about Razmara; I had to call you out on it and than you rolled your eyes at me pointing out the stupidity of the very comments you made. You are only insulting yourself and making yourself look like a total d-bag.

First of all, we got very little of our oil form Iran, secondly, we have no right to dictate the economic policy of other nations by enforcing corporate interests through a state apparatus. That is immoral and runs contrary to just war theory.

Claiming "many Americans" own shares in the company is patently absurd and there is no proof to back up your claims. Secondly, it isn't the job of the Federal Government to secure the investments of stockholders and bail them out when investments go sour.
There is also no proof they were "giving" the oil to the Russians.
"But in the words of Ervand Abrahamian, the coup d'état was "a classic case of nationalism clashing with imperialism in the Third World". He claims that Secretary of State Dean Acheson admitted the “`Communist threat` was a smokescreen” in responding to Pres. Eisenhower's claim that the Tudeh party was about to assume power.[42]
Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue—i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mossadeq was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

The only peoples' sovereignty who was violated was the Iranians when we deposed their government and enforced the corporatocracy. We used the state to enforce corporate domination in a foreign nation.

[disorderlyvision]

So...bomb any country that declares war on the U.S? LOL!! The Mouse that Roared. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared)

That was an awesome book!

[Dreamofunity]

We are our own worst enemies... I see it everyday on this board. :p

YouTube - Lit - My Own Worst Enemy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc5iTNVEOAg)

[tron paul]

Deposing a president and installing a dictator is not an act of war? They invaded our embassy because we used it to get rid or their former president and invoke 25 years of terrorism.

Not at all, given the larger context of cause-and-effect.

Assassinating the Prime Minister was an act of Civil War against the Shah. He asked us to help him defeat the Soviet-backed Moooslim Fundy nutjobs. We said "yes" because energy security is key to national security.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Oil_nationalization_and_the_ 1953_coup
Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddeq with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. This plan was known as Operation Ajax.[6] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mosaddeq as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

Deposing our ally, the Shah, and disrupting the world's major source of oil, which the Brits had paid to prospect/pump/refine/distribute, was certainly an act of war. Doubly so considering the Soviet Union's involvement.

You remember them right? They had like 50,000 nukes pointed at us, and bio stuff that was just as hideous.

They helped depose the Shah, ending 2,500 years of unbroken Persian monarchs and bringing a still-present autocracy to Iran:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Overview

Clashes with the Islamists, increased communist activity and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mosaddeq, eventually leading to Mosaddeq's ousting, caused an increasingly autocratic rule.

[Nemesis]

Absolute bullshit.

Excellent come-back.

I guess you're clueless about what I'm refering to.

Stay off the board till you graduate from college.

[The Patriot]

Since when did retards from Free Republic start infiltrating the board?

[Nemesis]

We declared war on them in 1953 when we overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power.

Sorry, you are wrong. The Shah became the recognized leader as with his government.

[Nemesis]

Since when did retards from Free Republic start infiltrating the board?

Given you were kicked off of Free Republic why don't you tell us?

Share is caring!

[The Patriot]

Sorry, you are wrong. The Shah became the recognized leader as with his government.

No you are wrong. We put the Shah in power. Him being recognized as a leader doesn't negate the historical fact that the CIA and British Intelligence overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power.

[Nemesis]

No you are wrong. We put the Shah in power. Him being recognized as a leader doesn't negate the historical fact that the CIA and British Intelligence overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power.


Excuse me, the Iranian military overthrew Mosaddeq with the help of the CIA.

You seem to forget your history quite easilyi. The Shahs father himself was disposed by the British and Russians in 1941.

All we did was re-install a government that was:

A. pro-American.
B. Was the legitimate government in the first place.

No charge for the tutoring lesson in history!

[Nemesis]

No you are wrong. We put the Shah in power. Him being recognized as a leader doesn't negate the historical fact that the CIA and British Intelligence overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power.

I bet you didn't know that the Shah's father was the decendant of 2500 years of continous rule, until the Russians and British OVERTHREW him in 1941.

Sucks to be you!

We put the Shah back in power, where he belonged.

You seem to be in the left-wing school of thought when it comes to whom stays in power and who doesn't.

Would you be against the CIA removing Chavez?

[tron paul]

Actually it does. You said the fact he was assassinated is an act of war on America, which is patently absurd as he isn't an American. If you were aware of your own stupidity than you wouldn't have made the comment about Razmara; I had to call you out on it and than you rolled your eyes at me pointing out the stupidity of the very comments you made. You are only insulting yourself and making yourself look like a total d-bag.

First of all, we got very little of our oil form Iran, secondly, we have no right to dictate the economic policy of other nations by enforcing corporate interests through a state apparatus. That is immoral and runs contrary to just war theory.

Claiming "many Americans" own shares in the company is patently absurd and there is no proof to back up your claims. Secondly, it isn't the job of the Federal Government to secure the investments of stockholders and bail them out when investments go sour.
There is also no proof they were "giving" the oil to the Russians.
"But in the words of Ervand Abrahamian, the coup d'état was "a classic case of nationalism clashing with imperialism in the Third World". He claims that Secretary of State Dean Acheson admitted the “`Communist threat` was a smokescreen” in responding to Pres. Eisenhower's claim that the Tudeh party was about to assume power.[42]
Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue—i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mossadeq was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

The only peoples' sovereignty who was violated was the Iranians when we deposed their government and enforced the corporatocracy. We used the state to enforce corporate domination in a foreign nation.

It's nice of you to finally explain why your previous statement of the obvious matters.:rolleyes:

But, it's not absurd to consider Razmara's assassination an act of war. He was a key ally of Britain and America and vital to our interests, as I have already demonstrated at length. If you feel that's "stupidity" you can just talk to the Shah, because he made the deal with us in the first place.:p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Mozaffar-ed-Din_Shah_Qajar_-_1.jpg

I've already explained that corporate interest align with national interests at the point of energy security. That Iran was the Britain and much of the western world's major source of oil has also been previously stated, without dispute.

Ervand Abrahamian? The one being interviewed by Communist apologist and NPR Bolshevik Amy Goodman?!?!?!?!?!?!

I'm going to have to roll my eyes again. I'm deeply sorry. Try to brace yourself, I know these emoticons can be rough on you.

Ervand Abrahamian's blame-America-first, dimestore Noam Chomsky knock-off, narrative as told to AMY GOODMAN??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyway, it sure is easy to downplay the Soviet threat now that it's passed. Just more hard-left Monday morning quarterbacking.

Whatever kumbaya lovefest of alternative, speculative historical fiction you wish had happened didn't, couldn't, and never will happen.

Too many Americans died to free Persia from the Nazis to just hand it over to the expanding Soviets.

[Nemesis]

It's nice of you to finally explain why your previous statement of the obvious matters.:rolleyes:

But, it's not absurd to consider Razmara's assassination an act of war. He was a key ally of Britain and America and vital to our interests, as I have already demonstrated at length. If you feel that's "stupidity" you can just talk to the Shah, because he made the deal with us in the first place.:p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Mozaffar-ed-Din_Shah_Qajar_-_1.jpg

I've already explained that corporate interest align with national interests at the point of energy security. That Iran was the Britain and much of the western world's major source of oil has also been previously stated, without dispute.

Ervand Abrahamian? The one being interviewed by Communist apologist and NPR Bolshevik Amy Goodman?!?!?!?!?!?!

I'm going to have to roll my eyes again. I'm deeply sorry. Try to brace yourself, I know these emoticons can be rough on you.

Ervand Abrahamian's blame-America-first, dimestore Noam Chomsky knock-off, narrative as told to AMY GOODMAN??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyway, it sure is easy to downplay the Soviet threat now that it's passed. Just more hard-left Monday morning quarterbacking.

Whatever kumbaya lovefest of alternative, speculative historical fiction you wish had happened didn't, couldn't, and never will happen.

Too many Americans died to free Persia from the Nazis to just hand it over to the expanding Soviets.

Excellent points Tron. Mr. patriot is young, he doesn't understand the threat that the Russians/communist were to Iran and the rest of Asia at the time.

[The Patriot]

Excuse me, the Iranian military overthrew Mosaddeq with the help of the CIA.

You seem to forget your history quite easilyi. The Shahs father himself was disposed by the British and Russians in 1941.

All we did was re-install a government that was:

A. pro-American.
B. Was the legitimate government in the first place.

No charge for the tutoring lesson in history!
No, the CIA initiated the coup, not the iranian military. Learn about Operation AJAX.

It was the Allies that deposed the Shah(which includes the Americans). Just because Britain engaged in persistent nation building doesn't make it right.

That is not true, we deposed a Democratically elected government at the will of AIOC. we enforced the corporatocracy. We used the state(CIA) to enforce corporate domination of Iran. That is corporatism. All we did was secure corporate interests, under the smokescreen of anti communism. This is admitted by Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Mossadegh wanted to make a deal with AIOC. He wanted to split profits 50/50. At that point, AIOC refused and began to put into motion a coup to overthrow Mossadegh.

[Schiff_FTW]

Let's borrow another trillion "dollars" from the communist Chinese in order to start a third concurrent war in the Middle East! Go America!!

[Anti Federalist]

I bet you didn't know that the Shah's father was the decendant of 2500 years of continous rule, until the Russians and British OVERTHREW him in 1941.

Sucks to be you!

We put the Shah back in power, where he belonged.

You seem to be in the left-wing school of thought when it comes to whom stays in power and who doesn't.

Would you be against the CIA removing Chavez?

What a load of horseshit.

I can't believe some people here are trying to justify the unconstitutional acts of war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of men, women and children, not to mention the scores more dead and brutalized under the Shah's regime, based on nothing more than Cold War lunacy and the fact that some corporate interests and Limey poofsters got burned in shaky business deals.

Go read my great uncle Smedley's "War is Racket".

Let him explain, as a two time medal of honor winner, why soldiers should never "follow the dollar" to protect corporate and banking interests around the world.

Jesus, what neo-con rock did you crawl out from under?

[tron paul]

I really appreciate the level of discourse on this forum. Never before have I heard the pro-coup argument laid out, and I must admit, it seems to have some merit.

When I only hear one side of an argument presented, it makes me suspect the other side is the correct one.

[Anti Federalist]

Given you were kicked off of Free Republic why don't you tell us?

Share is caring!

Oh.

That explains a lot.

And you're going to take your little war over here.

FFS...

[The Patriot]

It's nice of you to finally explain why your previous statement of the obvious matters.:rolleyes:

But, it's not absurd to consider Razmara's assassination an act of war. He was a key ally of Britain and America and vital to our interests, as I have already demonstrated at length. If you feel that's "stupidity" you can just talk to the Shah, because he made the deal with us in the first place.:p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Mozaffar-ed-Din_Shah_Qajar_-_1.jpg

I've already explained that corporate interest align with national interests at the point of energy security. That Iran was the Britain and much of the western world's major source of oil has also been previously stated, without dispute.

Ervand Abrahamian? The one being interviewed by Communist apologist and NPR Bolshevik Amy Goodman?!?!?!?!?!?!

I'm going to have to roll my eyes again. I'm deeply sorry. Try to brace yourself, I know these emoticons can be rough on you.

Ervand Abrahamian's blame-America-first, dimestore Noam Chomsky knock-off, narrative as told to AMY GOODMAN??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyway, it sure is easy to downplay the Soviet threat now that it's passed. Just more hard-left Monday morning quarterbacking.

Whatever kumbaya lovefest of alternative, speculative historical fiction you wish had happened didn't, couldn't, and never will happen.

Too many Americans died to free Persia from the Nazis to just hand it over to the expanding Soviets.

Yes it is absurd, Razmara isn't an American, and Mossadegh didn't commit the Assassination.You are wrong on both counts. Razmara isn't an American citizen, he isn't American military, he isn't American territory. He has nothing to do with America.

They don't, corporate interests don't align with America's interests, at least those of the American people. Using the state to enforce corporate interests is corporatism. American tax dollars should not go to fund violent regime change at the behest of big oil. First, you have given no proof we got most of our oil from Iran, secondly, you have no proof Mossadegh wanted to stop giving us oil. All he wanted to do was nationalize. Mossadegh said nothing about cutting off oil.

You didn't disprove a single thing I said. All you did was rant about you hate Amy Goodman, you did nothing to disprove Ervand's claims.

[The Patriot]

Would you be against the CIA removing Chavez?

Absolutely 100%

[tron paul]

What a load of horseshit.

I can't believe some people here are trying to justify the unconstitutional acts of war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of men, women and children, not to mention the scores more dead and brutalized under the Shah's regime, based on nothing more than Cold War lunacy and the fact that some corporate interests and Limey poofsters got burned in shaky business deals.

Go read my great uncle Smedley's "War is Racket".

Let him explain, as a two time medal of honor winner, why soldiers should never "follow the dollar" to protect corporate and banking interests around the world.

Jesus, what neo-con rock did you crawl out from under?

Cold War lunacy? Easy for you to say, now that the threat has passed.

You may discount energy security, Lockean Proviso, and contract law all you wish.

Decisions regarding these things are made by people with guns and power, not you.

Notice I didn't mention money. That's because this is about POWER, not mere finance.

Nobody is "following the dollar," it's more about following the energy, i.e. power.

All you are doing is conjuring up emotional adjectives like "neo-con," "lunacy," "poofster," and "shaky" to denigrate the reality of history. While I have quoted unvarnished facts from the wiki to support my analysis, you have not.

The horror of modern Iran is the legacy of Soviet terror. Stop blaming America first!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Cold War lunacy? Easy for you to say, now that the threat has passed.

You may discount energy security, Lockean Proviso, and contract law all you wish.

Decisions regarding these things are made by people with guns and power, not you.

Notice I didn't mention money. That's because this is about POWER, not mere finance.

Nobody is "following the dollar," it's more about following the energy, i.e. power.

All you are doing is conjuring up emotional adjectives like "neo-con," "lunacy," "poofster," and "shaky" to denigrate the reality of history. While I have quoted unvarnished facts from the wiki to support my analysis, you have not.

The horror of modern Iran is the legacy of Soviet terror. Stop blaming America first!

I just had to chuckle a bit.

[The Patriot]

Cold War lunacy? Easy for you to say, now that the threat has passed.

You may discount energy security, Lockean Proviso, and contract law all you wish.

Decisions regarding these things are made by people with guns and power, not you.

Notice I didn't mention money. That's because this is about POWER, not mere finance.

Nobody is "following the dollar," it's more about following the energy, i.e. power.

All you are doing is conjuring up emotional adjectives like "neo-con," "lunacy," "poofster," and "shaky" to denigrate the reality of history. While I have quoted unvarnished facts from the wiki to support my analysis, you have not.

The horror of modern Iran is the legacy of Soviet terror. Stop blaming America first!
You like Wiki until I use your source to show you Mossadegh didn't kill the prior prime minister and show you that the United States Secretary of State said anti communism was a smoke screen. Than it is just commie crap:rolleyes:

[tron paul]

Razmara isn't an American

Yes he is! Razmara was born in Ohio. And Razmara served in the US Coast Guard after attending Columbia University in New York.:p He's American as Mom, the Superbowl, and apple pie.:p

Amy Goodman and Democracy Now can go jump in the lake with Noam Chomsky and the other Communist sympathizers. I don't care what sociological Bolshevik 'people-power' nonsense her latest class-warfare historical revision specialist wants to spout.:rolleyes:

[Nemesis]

Absolutely 100%

So you're for a communist dictator remaining in power, spreading communism to all of Latin America.

You're also against efforts to remove Castro in the sixties, even though he helped to spread communism in Africa and latin American (El Salvador and Nicaragua).

Please confirm these are your political beliefs.

[The Patriot]

Yes he is! Razmara was born in Ohio. And Razmara served in the US Coast Guard after attending Columbia University in New York.:p He's American as Mom, the Superbowl, and apple pie.:p

Amy Goodman and Democracy Now can go jump in the lake with Noam Chomsky and the other Communist sympathizers. I don't care what sociological Bolshevik 'people-power' nonsense her latest class-warfare historical revision specialist wants to spout.:rolleyes:

Lol. He was Born in Tehran and studied at the military academy of Saint-Cyr in France.

It doesn't matter if you don't care, it is a fact.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So you're for a communist dictator remaining in power, spreading communism to all of Latin America.

You're also against efforts to remove Castro in the sixties, even though he helped to spread communism in Africa and latin American (El Salvador and Nicaragua).

Please confirm these are your political beliefs.

Have you ever heard of the Christian Just War Theory? What about the Non-Aggression Axiom? I am for those things. What are you for? War, war war. Growth of the State apparatus. Ceding of liberty. More violent appropriation via taxation. Murder.

23rd President Benjamin Harrison:

“We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.”

[Nemesis]

Cold War lunacy? Easy for you to say, now that the threat has passed.

You may discount energy security, Lockean Proviso, and contract law all you wish.

Decisions regarding these things are made by people with guns and power, not you.

Notice I didn't mention money. That's because this is about POWER, not mere finance.

Nobody is "following the dollar," it's more about following the energy, i.e. power.

All you are doing is conjuring up emotional adjectives like "neo-con," "lunacy," "poofster," and "shaky" to denigrate the reality of history. While I have quoted unvarnished facts from the wiki to support my analysis, you have not.

The horror of modern Iran is the legacy of Soviet terror. Stop blaming America first!

You are correct. These fools are well intentioned, but have no idea what the world would be like had we not engaged in the activities we did engage in.

Hell, even Dr. Paul fought in an unconstitutional war!

[Anti Federalist]

The horror of modern Iran is the legacy of Soviet terror. Stop blaming America first!

Stop wrapping yourself up in the flag to justify unwarranted and unconstitutional bloodshed.

Our job is not to undo Soviet terror.

That's what brought us Osama.

Blame is blame. These acts were carried out by a murderous US government that has gone rogue, it does not represent me, it does not represent America.

That is where the blame lies and where I assign it.

[Nemesis]

Have you ever heard of the Christian Just War Theory? What about the Non-Aggression Axiom? I am for those things. What are you for? War, war war. Growth of the State apparatus. Ceding of liberty. More violent appropriation via taxation. Murder.


Fighting against all communism is the most just of just-wars.

Sorry, but they are a threat to us and closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears won't make the threat go away.

[Nemesis]

Stop wrapping yourself up in the flag to justify unwarranted and unconstitutional bloodshed.

Our job is not to undo Soviet terror.

That's what brought us Osama.

Blame is blame. These acts were carried out by a murderous US government that has gone rogue, it does not represent me, it does not represent America.

That is where the blame lies and where I assign it.


Yes, our job is to fight the communist as they intend on destroying us.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Fighting against all communism is the most just of just-wars.

Sorry, but they are a threat to us and closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears won't make the threat go away.

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Founding Fathers disagree with you. History disagrees with you. I disagree with you.

[Nemesis]

23rd President Benjamin Harrison:

“We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.”


Silly man, just because you find a quote you think that makes the communist threat go away?

How naive are you?

[Nemesis]

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Founding Fathers disagree with you. History disagrees with you. I disagree with you.

Yeah man, you just continue working on creating your own reality and get back to us when your little utopia is complete.

[sofia]

So you're for a communist dictator remaining in power, spreading communism to all of Latin America.

You're also against efforts to remove Castro in the sixties, even though he helped to spread communism in Africa and latin American (El Salvador and Nicaragua).

Please confirm these are your political beliefs.

maybe u didnt get the memo....but the Cold War is over. Putin is actually more free market oriented than Obama.

Chavez may be a scumbag, but he's no threat to us.,...U wanna send marines to die in Venezuela????....Why not attack China too....how about u sign up?

[Nemesis]

Lol. He was Born in Tehran and studied at the military academy of Saint-Cyr in France.

It doesn't matter if you don't care, it is a fact.

Yeah, I present you many a fact and you run and hide.

[The Patriot]

So you're for a communist dictator remaining in power, spreading communism to all of Latin America.

You're also against efforts to remove Castro in the sixties, even though he helped to spread communism in Africa and latin American (El Salvador and Nicaragua).

Please confirm these are your political beliefs.

Well he won't, he doesn't want to, and you have no proof he does. And he isn't a dictator, he was elected. He is a socialist, not a communist, there is a difference. I don't care if Venezuela is socialist, it isn't my business. I don't think Americans should die to enforce big oil interests by deposing Chavez.

It isn't my business. The funny thing is, when we helped Batista get to power in the first place, he had the support of the communists and was ardently pro union. He then lost in the late 40s in came back in the 50s with another coup. This time he was backed by America and organized crime. It isn't my concern that Castro wanted to oust a guy involved with the Mafia. Maybe if we hadn't backed this corrupt guy in the first place the conditions wouldn't have come about for Castro to gain power. If it were up to me, we wouldn't have backed Batista in the first place and aided him into power.

[CapitalistRadical]

Currently, international communism poses no threat to us. During the Cold War, the KGB was actively infiltrating and sabotaging America. Check the declassified Venona papers and the Mitrokhin archive, which revises history and exonerates Joe McCarthy! In the 1950s it was not at all clear that the Soviet system would collapse and that China would remain noninterventionist.

[tron paul]

You like Wiki until I use your source to show you Mossadegh didn't kill the prior prime minister and show you that the United States Secretary of State said anti communism was a smoke screen. Than it is just commie crap:rolleyes:

Of course Mossadegh himself didn't murder his Prime Minister predecessor, but his Soviet-backed buddies in Fada'iyan-e Islam, the Majlis, and Tudeh had everything to do with the murder:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj-Ali_Razmara#Assassination

On March 7, 1951, Razmara went to a mosque for a memorial service. The police opened a corridor through the inner courtyard for the Prime Minister. The assassin, in the crowd, fired three quick shots, fatally wounding the Prime Minister. Khalil Tahmassebi, a member of the militant Islamic group Fadayan-e Islam, was arrested at the scene.

Fadayan-e Islam supported the demands of the National Front, which held a minority of seats in Parliament, to nationalize the assets of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. As Prime Minister, Razmara had convinced the majority that nationalization would be folly, but his assassination eliminated the sole voice powerful enough to oppose the demands of the National Front.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq#Support_for_oil_nationalization

Another force for nationalization was the Tudeh or Communist party. In early April 1951 the party unleashed nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis.

Why do you insist on blaming London and Washington for what Moscow's aggressive communist international has caused?

[sratiug]

Excellent come-back.

I guess you're clueless about what I'm refering to.

Stay off the board till you graduate from college.

Fuck you. You are an ignorant piece of troll shit.

[Nemesis]

Currently, international communism poses no threat to us. During the Cold War, the KGB was actively infiltrating and sabotaging America. Check the declassified Venona papers and the Mitrokhin archive, which revises history and exonerates Joe McCarthy! In the 1950s it was not at all clear that the Soviet system would collapse and that China would remain noninterventionist.


I guess you haven't been paying attention to its spread in Latin America.

You might want to study what is happening in Latin America before you make that statement.

[Nemesis]

Fuck you. You are an ignorant piece of troll shit.



I see you're basically admitting I was right. You are ignorant of history.

I wish you well young one.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I guess you haven't been paying attention to its spread in Latin America.

You might want to study what is happening in Latin America before you make that statement.

Yeah. Otto Guevara got 21%. Alright Latin America!!!

[CapitalistRadical]

Why do you insist on blaming London and Washington for what Moscow's aggressive communist international has caused?

The novelty of getting out from under the mainstream propaganda machine, and discovering the misdeeds of Washington, can lead to overcompensation.

[sofia]

I guess you haven't been paying attention to its spread in Latin America.

You might want to study what is happening in Latin America before you make that statement.

dude..

we have a god damn communist in the white house and you're worrying about a few inconsequential lefties in Bolivia and venezuela?

what do ya wanna do? Invade?

get out of here with that neo con bullshit

[The Patriot]

Of course Mossadegh himself didn't murder his Prime Minister predecessor, but his Soviet-backed buddies in Fada'iyan-e Islam, the Majlis, and Tudeh had everything to do with the murder:






Why do you insist on blaming London and Washington for what Moscow's aggressive communist international has caused?

There is absolutely no proof Fada'iyan-e Islam had ties to the USSR or Mossadegh. Tudah has no ties to Fada'iyan-e Islam with the assassination. All they supported was oil nationalization. They acted independently.
However...
"Although the Fadayan strongly supported the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, they turned against the leader of the nationalization movement, Mohammad Mossadeq, when he became prime minister because of his refusal to implement the sharia law and appoint strict Islamists to high positions.[9] The danger from the Fada'iyan "was one of the primary factors accounting for Mosaddeq's decision to move the prime minister's office to his own residence."[10] Another assassination attempt on February 15, 1952 (25 Bahman 1330) badly wounded Hossein Fatemi, "Mosaddeq's dynamic and capable aide" and foreign minister, left Fatemi "badly wounded and effectively disabled for almost eight months." This was planned by the group's second in command, Abolhossein Vahedi, and executed by a teenage member of the group.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fada'iyan-e_Islam

Fada'iyan-e Islam wanted to kill Mossadegh and implement Sharia law. They despised the secular Mossadegh.

[Nemesis]

Well he won't, he doesn't want to, and you have no proof he does. And he isn't a dictator, he was elected. He is a socialist, not a communist, there is a difference. I don't care if Venezuela is socialist, it isn't my business. I don't think Americans should die to enforce big oil interests by deposing Chavez.

It isn't my business. The funny thing is, when we helped Batista get to power in the first place, he had the support of the communists and was ardently pro union. He then lost in the late 40s in came back in the 50s with another coup. This time he was backed by America and organized crime. It isn't my concern that Castro wanted to oust a guy involved with the Mafia. Maybe if we hadn't backed this corrupt guy in the first place the conditions wouldn't have come about for Castro to gain power. If it were up to me, we wouldn't have backed Batista in the first place and aided him into power.

Yes, we do have proof of his aiding FARC in Columbia.

I thought you were on top of these issues. What has happened? Do you need me to produce the proof?

Or do you not care? I mean you bring up the illusion he isn't spreading marxist revolution in Latin America. If I can disprove it will it matter to you?

Do you believe that Castro was/is an enemy of the United States?

[Nemesis]

dude..

we have a god damn communist in the white house and you're worrying about a few inconsequential lefties in Bolivia and venezuela?

what do ya wanna do? Invade?

get out of here with that neo con bullshit

I'm not a neo-con, but we know you slander people without proof.

Just because I want Chavez removed and communism stopped doesn't make me a neo-con. They sure didn't do anything against commuism!

[CapitalistRadical]

I guess you haven't been paying attention to its spread in Latin America.

You might want to study what is happening in Latin America before you make that statement.

What? I see Cuba is rotting, Zelaya is out, Chávez is increasingly unpopular, Chile just elected Pinera. How is Lula doing?

[tron paul]

Lol. He was Born in Tehran and studied at the military academy of Saint-Cyr in France.

It doesn't matter if you don't care, it is a fact.

I've found the best way to argue with someone that insists on repetitively stating the obvious is to simply goad them, by directly contradicting their previously uncontested factoid.

I never claimed Razmara was American, and even specified that he was Iran's PM. Yet I get told over and over "he's not American." :rolleyes:

So I'll simply claim that he was American, giving greater noticeably undeserved glory to the genius with the keen grasp on the non-issue.:D

PM Razmara is a great American! :p

[CapitalistRadical]

Just because I want Chavez removed and communism stopped doesn't make me a neo-con. They sure didn't do anything against commuism!

Pardon me? Anti-Kremlin policy was the defining mark of Neoconservatism. Butthurt over Stalin's domination over the Trotsky sect was their guiding motivation all the way until the 90s. But I agree that you're not a neocon.

[The Patriot]

Yes, we do have proof of his aiding FARC in Columbia.

I thought you were on top of these issues. What has happened? Do you need me to produce the proof?

Or do you not care? I mean you bring up the illusion he isn't spreading marxist revolution in Latin America. If I can disprove it will it matter to you?

Do you believe that Castro was/is an enemy of the United States?

That isn't proof they want to run all of Latin America. You said Chavez wants to control all of south America. We aid Columbia, we aid and have aided several latin american governments and rebellious movements in the region. Does that mean we want to control the region? Oh wait, never mind, we do want to secure corporate domination of the region. I have no problem with Latin Americans securing their sovereignty from Multinational corporations and United States influence.

No, I don't think Castro is a threat to me. I think the Federal Government is far more of a threat to our Constitutional Liberties and economic Prosperity than Castro. However, if you think isolating Cuba economically is conducive to creating pro american sentiment than you are ignorant of human nature. When you impoverish a people they dislike you more, and the leaders use what the USA does in regards to the embargo a propaganda to keep up support for their regime.

Do I like Castro? No, I don't. But I don't believe we as a country have the right to impose ourselves on the rest of the world. We are a Republic, not an empire.

[Anti Federalist]

The horror of modern Iran is the legacy of Soviet terror. Stop blaming America first!

Stop wrapping yourself up in the flag to justify unwarranted and unconstitutional bloodshed.

Our job is not to undo Soviet terror.

That's what brought us Osama.

Blame is blame. These acts were carried out by a murderous US government that has gone rogue, it does not represent me, it does not represent America.

That is where the blame lies and where I assign it.

[The Patriot]

Pardon me? Anti-Kremlin policy was the defining mark of Neoconservatism. Butthurt over Stalin's domination over the Trotsky sect was their guiding motivation all the way until the 90s. But I agree that you're not a neocon.

He is a Neo Con in the voting booth. These freepers always proclaim their conservative bonafides before election. Clamoring over Thompson or Giuliani or Tancredo but then they go out an vote for McCain in the general and fork over tons of money in donations.

[tron paul]

There is absolutely no proof Fada'iyan-e Islam had ties to the USSR or Mossadegh. Tudah has no ties to Fada'iyan-e Islam with the assassination. All they supported was oil nationalization. They acted independently.


Fada'iyan-e Islam wanted to kill Mossadegh and implement Sharia law. They despised the secular Mossadegh.

Of course they all "acted independently." :rolleyes:

I'm sure there was no KGB or ComIntern coordination or other involvement whatsoever.:rolleyes:

It's all just a lucky coincidence that the US/UK's guys got killed by the USSR guys that later took all the power and oil.:eek:

London and DC are always at fault; The Soviet Kremlin in Moscow is perpetually innocent (just like modern Tel Aviv!).:rolleyes:

BTW, your quote says Fada'iyan-e Islam turned against Mossadegh later, after Razmara was dead and buried.

[jmdrake]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

The modern republic of Iran didn't even exist until 1979. So it's impossible for them to have "declare war" on us in 1978. There was a revolution against the puppet government that the U.S. CIA installed via a coup. The CIA admits on its own website that it engaged in "false flag terrorism" against the democratically elected government of Mohamed Mossedeq and installed the Shah as dictator.

Since the revolution, Iran has tried to reach out to the west in general and to the U.S. in particular. Here's what many people don't know.

Amadinijad is a figurehead. The man who actually runs the country is the supreme leader Ayotolla Khamanei. He can be forced out by a vote of the assembly of experts. The assembly of experts is chosen by popular vote. Prior to Amadinejad there was another president named Mohammed Khatami. When Khatami was president, Iran reached out to the U.S. government by taking the following steps:


joining the U.S. led coalition to drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml)
offered to cooperate by trading Al Qaeda prisoners for MEK terrorists who attacked Iran (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html). (The MEK is an Islamo-Marxist terrorist (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm) organization that the U.S. supports)
sending the offer of a "grand bargain (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html)" through back channels where Iran promised to end support for Hamas and Hezbollah and to fully cooperate on WMDs.


Despite all of this, Iran was labeled part of the "Axis of Evil"*. So Iran switched gears and put a bellicose "crazy man" in charge in order to get us to back up.

Ron Paul has in the past mentioned the fact that the CIA caused "blowback" by overthrowing democracy in Iran and installing the Shah.

YouTube - Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE)

* Note. Bush pulled the "Axis of Evil" designation right out of his colon. None of the countries mentioned had anything to do with 9/11 and he knew it. This was misdirection pure and simple. When Northern Alliance leader Mahmood Ahmed was assassinated, the Northern Alliance came out with the following statement (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/mahmoud_ahmed.htm):

What is omitted is the official statement: A "Pakistani ISI- Osama - Taliban axis" [was responsible for] plotting the assassination by two Arab suicide bombers. [...] "We believe that this is a triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence section of the Pakistani Army, and the Taliban." [The Northern Alliance Statement released on September 14, 2001, quoted by Reuters News Service on September 15, 2001]

But the "powers that be" behind Bush had already decided that Pakistan was to be treated as an ally. Someone had to take the blame and Bush decided to recast the "axis" to be Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

[sofia]

I'm not a neo-con, but we know you slander people without proof.

Just because I want Chavez removed and communism stopped doesn't make me a neo-con. They sure didn't do anything against commuism!

how do u propose we remove Chavez?


sending more americans to die and more tax dollars down the drain as we go broke?


why?...

[sratiug]

I see you're basically admitting I was right. You are ignorant of history.

I wish you well young one.

Are you even old enough to remember the Iranian "revolution" that deposed the Shah you stupid fuck?

[The Patriot]

Of course they all "acted independently." :rolleyes:

I'm sure there was no KGB or ComIntern coordination or other involvement whatsoever.:rolleyes:

It's all just a lucky coincidence that the US/UK's guys got killed by the USSR guys that later took all the power and oil.:eek:

London and DC are always at fault; The Soviet Kremlin in Moscow is perpetually innocent (just like modern Tel Aviv!).:rolleyes:

BTW, your quote says Fada'iyan-e Islam turned against Mossadegh later, after Razmara was dead and buried.
Unless, you can find proof otherwise, you are just talking out of your a**.

However, we do have proof this same group tried to assassinate Mossadegh and had no ties to Tudah in regards to the assassination. So to claim some grand communist conspiracy with Mossadegh pulling the strings is absurd and void of the facts. Fada'iyan-e Islam was a radical islamic group, they were not tied to the Soviet Union.

[tron paul]

Our job is not to undo Soviet terror.



Not always. But....

When Soviet terror threatened our main Cold War ally's energy supplies, you better believe that we're going to undo that terror.

Do you, or anyone on this thread, really think that energy security is not a huge part of national security?:confused:

You probably feel that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts "carried out by a murderous US government that has gone rogue" too.:rolleyes:

Meanwhile, back in the real world (made safe and cozy by hard men with guns), we sleep soundly thanks to free, stable energy markets and open global trade routes.

No thanks to the Chomskian "Blame America First and Moscow Last" Left.

[HRD53]

I like the guy who flung the brilliant insult, 'get back to me when you graduate from college', as if the only path to enlightenment is a diploma hanging from your wall.

As a person who actually graduated from college I can tell you that a lot of what was presented to me as fact (e.g. Keynesian Economic theory of more government spending during times of recession to stimulate growth) were anything but cold hard truth, but rather opinions presented as fact.

I enjoy a good argument, but one of the beauties of this board is that i can get away from the narrow-minded discussions I hear on a day to day basis so please go back to whatever hole you crawled out of and there you can get into spirited debates over which nation you want to preemptively attack in the name of Democracy.

[Elm]

So you're for a communist dictator remaining in power, spreading communism to all of Latin America.

You're also against efforts to remove Castro in the sixties, even though he helped to spread communism in Africa and latin American (El Salvador and Nicaragua).

Please confirm these are your political beliefs.


Exactly what is it you fail to understand about the difference in disliking an arrangement that others have but seeing it one's place to use force to make other people do what you desire?

Is nuance a word that does not exist in your vocabulary or are you simply suffering under a desperate case of willfull ignorance?

[someperson]

I'm not a neo-con, but we know you slander people without proof.

Just because I want Chavez removed and communism stopped doesn't make me a neo-con. They sure didn't do anything against commuism!
May I ask who's funds you wish to steal in order to fulfill this desire? Perhaps the state should just print the money, while borrowing from China? May I ask which individuals' lives you're willing to put on the line in order to coerce? The desire for interventionism is bankrupting this nation, in more ways than one. Some individuals want the state to steal money and lives in order to fix Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Darfur. You've added Venezuela.

I think you may wish to reevaluate your position on interventionism and where it leads to. You may find you're moving the philosophy of Chavez into your own home, while evicting him from across the street.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Ever get the feeling that some of the people posting here are just playing folks for fools ?

[angelatc]

It just proves they hate the left more than they hate the government.

[angelatc]

So you're for a communist dictator remaining in power, spreading communism to all of Latin America.

You're also against efforts to remove Castro in the sixties, even though he helped to spread communism in Africa and latin American (El Salvador and Nicaragua).

Please confirm these are your political beliefs.

Look up non-interventionism. Unless Chavez attacks the US, I could not care any less about how he runs his country.

[jmdrake]

Just read through the rest of the thread. One thing I don't get. Why would anyone who really believes that we have the right to invade other countries and depose whoever we want support a candidate who as repeatedly called for the end of the CIA precisely because he feels such operations weaken rather than strengthen America? This isn't one of the "side issues" like abortion or gay marriage or creation versus evolution that people can easily put aside. This is a major plank of the Ron Paul platform. Is it just that you can't find anybody else who agrees with your expansionist military views but also is against the federal reserve? :confused:

[Tina]

The camel-farking towelheads didn't develop the oil fields, the British did.

The idea, that camping in the sand above some oil gives you the right to extort or expropriate profit from the ones that actually develop the resource, is asinine!


How very boring and typical of a racist neocon.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Ever get the feeling that some of the people posting here are just playing folks for fools ?

^ ^

[someperson]

Look up non-interventionism. Unless Chavez attacks the US, I could not care any less about how he runs his country.
This. I believe the philosophy of non-interventionism, both foreign and domestic, forms the foundation of this movement. It is critically important to understand non-interventionism, individualism, and the NAP. I'd rather not assume malicious intent by some of these individuals, so I'll post this video; maybe it'll shed some light on some things. The statements at around 3:30 and 6:30 are particularly applicable.

YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I)

[Anti Federalist]

Ever get the feeling that some of the people posting here are just playing folks for fools ?

No, they're serious.

Some Tea O Cons wandered in here from Free Republic.

They are not happy unless their extorted tax dollars are being used for scorching the skin off some kids somewhere.

[The Patriot]

No, they're serious.

Some Tea O Cons wandered in here from Free Republic.

They are not happy unless their extorted tax dollars are being used for scorching the skin off some kids somewhere.
They believe God's will is being done...:mad:
http://thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/____/us_israel_attacks_on_gaza-/fatma_burned_by_white_phosphorus_us_attack.jpe

http://monkeysmashesheaven.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/large_gaza-burn-victim-jan11-09.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01239/GAZA_1239729c.jpg

http://novalight.org/ThankYouMrOlmert.jpg

[sofia]

god damn dirty zionists!

those photos break my fucking heart......and STILL some people here actually like that bitch Sarah Palin (who wears an Israeli flag pin)...


"they hate us cuz we are rich and free"

[Anti Federalist]

Ever get the feeling that some of the people posting here are just playing folks for fools ?

Double post nvm

[tron paul]

Unless, you can find proof otherwise, you are just talking out of your a**.

However, we do have proof this same group tried to assassinate Mossadegh and had no ties to Tudah in regards to the assassination. So to claim some grand communist conspiracy with Mossadegh pulling the strings is absurd and void of the facts. Fada'iyan-e Islam was a radical islamic group, they were not tied to the Soviet Union.

If you don't think that sweet, innocent Moscow was pursing an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, I guess you've never heard of the Great Game::o



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game#British-Soviet_rivalry_in_Afghanistan

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/IranUSSRBritain.jpg

Caption from a 1911 English satirical magazine reads: "If we hadn't a thorough understanding, I (British lion) might almost be tempted to ask what you (Russian bear) are doing there with our little playfellow (Persian cat)."

As for specifics regarding the death of Razmara, here you go. If you still think this nexus of typical Soviet sponsored "nationalist" insurgency and assassination is all just a nasty accident, I don't know what else to show you.:confused:


http://persepolis.free.fr/iran/personalities/shah.html
In 1949 an assassination attempt on the Shah, attributed to the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, resulted in the banning of that party and the expansion of the Shah's constitutional powers.

In the context of regional turmoil and the Cold War, the Shah established himself as an indispensable ally of the West. Domestically, he advocated reform policies, culminating in the 1963 program known as the White Revolution, which included land reform, the extension of voting rights to women, and the elimination of illiteracy.

These measures and the increasing arbitrariness of the Shah's rule provoked both religious leaders who feared losing their traditional authority and students and intellectuals seeking democratic reforms.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Assassination_attempts
According to Vladimir Kuzichkin, a former KGB officer who defected to the SIS, the Shah was also allegedly targeted by the Soviet Union, who tried to use a TV remote control to detonate a bomb laden Volkswagen Beetle. The TV remote failed to function.[21] Also, High ranking Romanian defector Ion Mihai Pacepa also supported this allegation, claiming that he was targeted and was attempted to be assasinated by the Soviet Union for many years.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navvab_Safavi#Career
When the Shah appointed National Front leader Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh to the post of prime minister, Safavi expected his objectives would be furthered.[citation needed] He demanded the government drive the British out, and that it release “with honor and respect” the assassin of Razmara. When that didn't happen, Safavi announced “We have broken away irrevocably from Kashani's National Front.

The last quote demonstrates that, at the time of PM Razmada's assassination, Safavi's Fundy Mooslim group, Fada'iyan-e Islam, was allied with the Marxist National Front, AKA Tudah.

If you know Cold War history, you are already aware that sponsoring and instigating crypto-communist, pseudo-nationalist movements directed against the 'Imperial Western Powers' was par for the Soviet ComIntern's course.

[tron paul]

How very boring and typical of a racist neocon.

Are you really playing the race card? How boorish and unoriginal. It's called misanthropy! Get it straight.

Too bad you can't dispute the facts.

1. The Persians could breed camels a lot better than they could produce oil.

2. Oil does not find and process itself, rather it takes tons of tech and money.

3. Herding camels over an oil field does not give you the right to any of that oil.

It's obvious you resort to calling me "neo-con" because you lack the facts or wit to dispute my position, and despite that label being as overused here as 'anti-semite' is on www.ADLForums.com.

Please enjoy your emotional, self-indulgent, preening snit, while I enjoy learning more about recent Persian history and the Lockean Proviso.

BTW, I think the entire dirka-dirking region is filled with a$$hole cave-men, Israel included, and we should NEVER have a single American troop risking their life there.

[Stary Hickory]

What is it with you guys and Sarah Pallin? This forum looks ridiculous these days. 20 posts on Sarah Pallin a day. I mean Sarah Pallin is a heck of a lot better than other politicians who are never being bashed so hard.

This hysteria is downright comical.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

This. I believe the philosophy of non-interventionism, both foreign and domestic, forms the foundation of this movement. It is critically important to understand non-interventionism, individualism, and the NAP. I'd rather not assume malicious intent by some of these individuals, so I'll post this video; maybe it'll shed some light on some things. The statements at around 3:30 and 6:30 are particularly applicable.

YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I)

Thanks for that ! :D

[The Patriot]

If you don't think that sweet, innocent Moscow was pursing an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, I guess you've never heard of the Great Game::o



As for specifics regarding the death of Razmara, here you go. If you still think this nexus of typical Soviet sponsored "nationalist" insurgency and assassination is all just a nasty accident, I don't know what else to show you.:confused:








The last quote demonstrates that, at the time of PM Razmada's assassination, Safavi's Fundy Mooslim group, Fada'iyan-e Islam, was allied with the Marxist National Front, AKA Tudah.

If you know Cold War history, you are already aware that sponsoring and instigating crypto-communist, pseudo-nationalist movements directed against the 'Imperial Western Powers' was par for the Soviet ComIntern's course.
You are talking about the Shah, not Razmara, Razmara was assassinated by Radical Islamists who also tried to kill Mossadegh because he was a secular. Nothing you posted discusses how the soviets killed Razmara. None of your quotes show any ties between Fada'iyan-e Islam and Mossadegh or the Soviet Union and Mossadegh, or between the Soviet Union and Fada'iyan-e Islam. Fada'iyan-e Islam despised secularism.

The Tudeh opposed Mossadegh originally and than supported him when he got elected. However, Tudeh then protested Mossadegh because he supported the Constitutional Monarchy, and Mossadegh sent out troops on the Tudeh Party, driving them underground.

All your quote shows is that Navvab Safavi(the founder of Fada'iyan-e Islam), wanted the guy who killed Razmara released, that isn't a surprise, of course they want their guy free. Your source also shows the Fada'iyan-e Islam was never part of Mossadegh's political movement and opposed Mossadegh, it taks nothing os a marxist conspiracy.

[sofia]

What is it with you guys and Sarah Pallin? This forum looks ridiculous these days. 20 posts on Sarah Pallin a day. I mean Sarah Pallin is a heck of a lot better than other politicians who are never being bashed so hard.

This hysteria is downright comical.

sarah is a neo-con devil who is being used to steal people away from our movement...


she is bush in a dress...



maniupulative, money hungry, adulteress, israel worshipper, war mongerer, uneducated, cunning, quitter, rotten mother

[Nemesis]

sarah is a neo-con devil who is being used to steal people away from our movement...


she is bush in a dress...



maniupulative, money hungry, adulteress, israel worshipper, war mongerer, uneducated, cunning, quitter, rotten mother

While I agree with you that Sarah is a flawed candidate, did you provide the proof of your allegation that she is an adultress?

Hope all is well.

[Nemesis]

Are you really playing the race card? How boorish and unoriginal. It's called misanthropy! Get it straight.

Too bad you can't dispute the facts.

1. The Persians could breed camels a lot better than they could produce oil.

2. Oil does not find and process itself, rather it takes tons of tech and money.

3. Herding camels over an oil field does not give you the right to any of that oil.

It's obvious you resort to calling me "neo-con" because you lack the facts or wit to dispute my position, and despite that label being as overused here as 'anti-semite' is on www.ADLForums.com.

Please enjoy your emotional, self-indulgent, preening snit, while I enjoy learning more about recent Persian history and the Lockean Proviso.

BTW, I think the entire dirka-dirking region is filled with a$$hole cave-men, Israel included, and we should NEVER have a single American troop risking their life there.

Excellent points! We need more people such as yourself here at Ronpaulforums!

[Nemesis]

Look up non-interventionism. Unless Chavez attacks the US, I could not care any less about how he runs his country.

Look up "destabilization" and see how he's doing it to nations friendly to ourselves.

[tron paul]

They believe God's will is being done...:mad:

You know the butchers of Tehran also consider themselves agents of God's will, right?

You know that waving the bloody shirt is a logical fallacy, right?

You know that it's considered propaganda by every high school English class, right?

No? Fine, I'll try to 'speak' your colorful pictographic language:


http://politicalastrologyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/haj_razmara_dead_1951.jpeg
1951: Haj Ali Razmara laying in the hospital after the assassination. One of the Tehran butcher's first victims.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/Sxx9shUFUDI/AAAAAAAALTM/AOOYimoUAbg/s400/iran_neda_montage_577988a.jpg
2009: 16 year old Neda agha-Soltan, dead at the hands of the Moscow-backed butchers of Tehran. Her last words were, "I'm burning, I'm burning!"

These are only two of the bloody regime's many victims killed between 1951 and 2009.

http://activistchat.com/images/FreeIranLionEagleSolidarity.jpg

http://iranprotestpictures.com/pics/3/34d21f5bdbaa1c5f0d45c03f31122011.jpg

http://activistchat.com/images/FreeIranNedaDemands100.jpg

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/legacyimg/2009/07/neda_agha_soltan_03a.jpg

http://www.tweeterblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/NEDA.jpg

http://blogs.theage.com.au/worldview/st_neda2-420x0.jpg

http://weareallneda.com/images/we-are-all-neda.gif

[sofia]

While I agree with you that Sarah is a flawed candidate, did you provide the proof of your allegation that she is an adultress?

Hope all is well.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/65481

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-battles-natio_n_123696.html

[JK/SEA]

Look up "destabilization" and see how he's doing it to nations friendly to ourselves.

your point is?

[Stary Hickory]

sarah is a neo-con devil who is being used to steal people away from our movement...


she is bush in a dress...



maniupulative, money hungry, adulteress, israel worshipper, war mongerer, uneducated, cunning, quitter, rotten mother

LOL look at this stuff! The tea party was never firmly in the Ron Paul camp. They shared the same hatred of big government and that is where it ended. However, a lot of good has been done. The conservative movement has become a bit more libertarian. They are receptive.

Sarah Pallin hasn't stolen anything. I don't think all this rage is healthy. She worries me a lot less than many other politicians out there. I do not want her to run for POTUS. But we will see, I am a realist, I think as a result of the libertarians and the bridge that exists to conservatism we will get a more libertarian/conservative candidate in office next time. This is my hope.

I was thinking a guy like Sanford(course he ruined that). I'd love to see Ron Paul take it and us elect a 100 libertarians to senate and fill the house as well. But this is not going to happen. The Neocons are invested in the wars in the middle east, and hate looking foolish. To openly embrace Ron Paul would mean admitting they are all wrong.

The way I see it our job(or at least mine) is to keep eroding the foundations of neoconservatism with logic and truth. But as politicians go...Sarah Pallin is better than tons of them..she did endorse Rand Paul.

[Tina]

Excellent points! We need more people such as yourself here at Ronpaulforums!

:rolleyes:

[The Patriot]

Sorry, I don't support Bush and Obama's CIA psy-ops in Iran.

[JK/SEA]

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/65481

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-battles-natio_n_123696.html

reason she quit?....ha!

[american.swan]

I haven't a clue if the "affair" rumor is correct or not, but let's say it IS true, it would be a great way to "control" her. Do what we say or we "ruin" you with the truth about your affairs.

[Vessol]

You know the butchers of Tehran also consider themselves agents of God's will, right?

You know that waving the bloody shirt is a logical fallacy, right?

You know that it's considered propaganda by every high school English class, right?

No? Fine, I'll try to 'speak' your colorful pictographic language:


It's really quite painful. Part of me hates the Iranian regime as it is corrupt and a horrible theocratic government.

On the otherhand, if their horrible government is replaced. What will it be replaced by? Very much likely to be a Israeli-American puppet government. Look at the Shah and how he treated his people, he was backed by Israel and America.

It's choosing between two evils.

The demonstrations last year and lately have all the markings of a Color Revolution which has swept many post-Soviet nations and installed pro-American stooge governments which have no respect for their own people, but America doesn't care as they work for us.

[sratiug]

Got this notification...

Just so you know, I did report you for your vulgarity.

I hope you have a nice day and that you can work out the anger issues.

God bless.

What's the matter little baby? Can't explain when or how Iran declared war on the US? Can you remember the Iranian revolution that threw out the Shah? Because if you can't, you certainly shouldn't be deriding me for being too young to have any sense. Why do you feel the need to run to mama, is it to stop the beating you are taking on this thread? Fuck off and have a nice day.

[someperson]

Thanks for that ! :D
:)

[White Knight]

wow, this board seems to have more and more palin spammers all over it. Courting of the RP Republicans big time all over the place. Really? wow again.

Just so we're clear, Palin was McCain's running mate, still supports McCain, supported bailouts, supports interventionist foreign policy, and on and on, and thinks these are common sense solutions. RP Republicans will not, will not, support her in this incarnation.

Since McCain made her, I really can't fault her for supporting his reelection. It would kind of make her look like an ingrate. You know, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Did she really, truly support the bailouts? McCain did a month before the election. Maybe she had to go along? Not defending her, but do you have any quotes of her defending it AFTER the election?

[White Knight]

Anyways, Palin is to this movement as Reagan was to the libertarian movement of the 70s. We must distance ourselves, and out her as the tyrant Neo-Con she is! She does not represent Minarchism, or Market-Anarchist principles whatsoever! She does not represent liberty, natural law, or the NAP!

You are right about Palin (although I still have hope she can be turned). However, you're wrong about Reagan.

[Nemesis]

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/65481

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-battles-natio_n_123696.html

Invalid hit pieces. Sad. you've discredited yourself in my eyes and many others.

I'll pray for you.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You are right about Palin (although I still have hope she can be turned). However, you're wrong about Reagan.

Reagan ballooned the Federal Government twice as big as Carter. Reagan was very protectionist and interventionist. Looks like Reagan smooth talk worked on another who hasn't researched his policy and action.

[Nemesis]

Got this notification...


What's the matter little baby? Can't explain when or how Iran declared war on the US? Can you remember the Iranian revolution that threw out the Shah? Because if you can't, you certainly shouldn't be deriding me for being too young to have any sense. Why do you feel the need to run to mama, is it to stop the beating you are taking on this thread? Fuck off and have a nice day.

Why yes! Iran took over the US embassy. That was US territory and is sovereign to the United States.

Thus, if your opposed to take out Iran for declaring war on us you should admit you are a pacifist.

You'd let the Mexicans take us therefore.

What sort of a man would not want to defend his nation when attacked?

Oh, the sort which engages in child-like attacks like yourself.

[Tina]

I'll pray for you.

LMAO, I'm sure that will make it all better.:p

[amy31416]

Are you really playing the race card? How boorish and unoriginal. It's called misanthropy! Get it straight.

Too bad you can't dispute the facts.

1. The Persians could breed camels a lot better than they could produce oil.

2. Oil does not find and process itself, rather it takes tons of tech and money.

3. Herding camels over an oil field does not give you the right to any of that oil.

It's obvious you resort to calling me "neo-con" because you lack the facts or wit to dispute my position, and despite that label being as overused here as 'anti-semite' is on www.ADLForums.com.

Please enjoy your emotional, self-indulgent, preening snit, while I enjoy learning more about recent Persian history and the Lockean Proviso.

BTW, I think the entire dirka-dirking region is filled with a$$hole cave-men, Israel included, and we should NEVER have a single American troop risking their life there.

I guess you're not familiar with the Golden Age of Islam, despite your knowledge of Persian history, which seems odd. It also seems odd that you'd refer to Persians as towel-headed camel-fuckers or something along those lines, then go on to deify Neda, who is apparently a towel-head camel-fucker, may she rest in peace.

If we should never risk an American life in the Middle East, as you say, then what is the argument?

[jmdrake]

Why yes! Iran took over the US embassy. That was US territory and is sovereign to the United States.

Thus, if your opposed to take out Iran for declaring war on us you should admit you are a pacifist.

You'd let the Mexicans take us therefore.

What sort of a man would not want to defend his nation when attacked?

Oh, the sort which engages in child-like attacks like yourself.

The nation of Iran didn't take over the embassy. Some students did. Regardless, Ronald Reagan came to a negotiated settlement that included selling them weapons. That could be considered a "peace deal". Are you now calling Reagan a pacifist?

[White Knight]

Reagan ballooned the Federal Government twice as big as Carter. Reagan was very protectionist and interventionist. Looks like Reagan smooth talk worked on another who hasn't researched his policy and action.

He spoke out against the Trilateral Commission, railed against big government more than any before or since, and didn't get us into long and unjust wars (a smattering of bombings don't count). We needed to get involved in the Cold War, it's not like today's non-threats. That speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987 was HUGE. He was no Bush neo-con.

[ghengis86]

Why yes! Iran took over the US embassy. That was US territory and is sovereign to the United States.

Thus, if your opposed to take out Iran for declaring war on us you should admit you are a pacifist.

You'd let the Mexicans take us therefore.

What sort of a man would not want to defend his nation when attacked?

Oh, the sort which engages in child-like attacks like yourself.

Seriously nemesis, drop some knowledge on these fools, yo!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

He spoke out against the Trilateral Commission, railed against big government more than any before or since, and didn't get us into long and unjust wars (a smattering of bombings don't count). We needed to get involved in the Cold War, it's not like today's non-threats. That speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987 was HUGE. He was no Bush neo-con.

Listen. Reagan increased spending enormously. He ballooned the Federal Government and increased regulation in many areas. He instituted protectionist policies, and enacted a far larger more onerous Federal Government. He did not reduce Government in any area. He increased it. I don't care what he talked about. I care about reality, and the reality of the situation is that Reagan was the biggest hypocrit to ever walk the Earth.

[Stary Hickory]

He spoke out against the Trilateral Commission, railed against big government more than any before or since, and didn't get us into long and unjust wars (a smattering of bombings don't count). We needed to get involved in the Cold War, it's not like today's non-threats. That speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987 was HUGE. He was no Bush neo-con.

No Reagan was a good prez. I mean look at what we have had before that. He did spend alot but he did have to do battle with a Democratic Senate and House. I read the Reagan diaries. Gave me perspective. His weakness was his perceived need for defense spending. It gave the Democrats all the leverage they needed to keep the budget large. The deficit was one of Reagan's regrets.

Sure he was not perfect, but he did do a lot to give credit to small government and to blast large government. He was more aware than many many presidents we have had. He also supported Volcker when we kept interest rates very high, and basically turned off the Federal Reserve for awhile. I wish we had a prez like that now.

[White Knight]

Listen. Reagan increased spending enormously. He ballooned the Federal Government and increased regulation in many areas. He instituted protectionist policies, and enacted a far larger more onerous Federal Government. He did not reduce Government in any area. He increased it. I don't care what he talked about. I care about reality, and the reality of the situation is that Reagan was the biggest hypocrit to ever walk the Earth.

Ron Paul disagrees with you. I'm isolationist now, but back then we needed someone to be tough on the USSR. He was the right person for the 80's.

[Bruno]

Invalid hit pieces. Sad. you've discredited yourself in my eyes and many others.

I'll pray for you.

And I'll count the days until your departure from RPF :p

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron Paul disagrees with you. I'm isolationist now, but back then we needed someone to be tough on the USSR. He was the right person for the 80's.

No. Reagan destroyed the libertarian movement. He used the talking points, but did the complete opposite in every area. He was a hypocrit! Now people associate limited-Government with Reagan when he was nothing, but.

So, I take it you take the word of Ron Paul over factual occurences? Do I need to lay out every detail for you? Want me to go through every sector of the Federal Budget? Through the many onerous laws instituted? Through the massive Foreign interventions?

Let's even go back to when he was a Governor. Shall I do that too?

[Bruno]

Just Say No to Reagan-love affair

[Old Ducker]

Are you really playing the race card? How boorish and unoriginal. It's called misanthropy! Get it straight.

Too bad you can't dispute the facts.

1. The Persians could breed camels a lot better than they could produce oil.

2. Oil does not find and process itself, rather it takes tons of tech and money.

3. Herding camels over an oil field does not give you the right to any of that oil.

It's obvious you resort to calling me "neo-con" because you lack the facts or wit to dispute my position, and despite that label being as overused here as 'anti-semite' is on www.ADLForums.com.

Please enjoy your emotional, self-indulgent, preening snit, while I enjoy learning more about recent Persian history and the Lockean Proviso.

BTW, I think the entire dirka-dirking region is filled with a$$hole cave-men, Israel included, and we should NEVER have a single American troop risking their life there.

If you knew shit about Persia you'd know they breed horses, not camels.

[White Knight]

No. Reagan destroyed the libertarian movement. He used the talking points, but did the complete opposite in every area. He was a hypocrit! Now people associate limited-Government with Reagan when he was nothing, but.

So, I take it you take the word of Ron Paul over factual occurences? Do I need to lay out every detail for you? Want me to go through every sector of the Federal Budget? Through the many onerous laws instituted? Through the massive Foreign interventions?

Let's even go back to when he was a Governor. Shall I do that too?

He had faults, but was the best president in the last 30 years - easily. Now I know that that's not saying much, but ending the Cold War and making us feel good to be Americans, not getting us into long wars, taking away civil liberties, boy he would be great to have in the WH today. He even opposed the creation of MLK Day, only signing it when the House and Senate had enough votes to over-ride the veto. You're waiting your time, I love Reagan and will never change. Let's focus on who we agree with, Ron Paul and liberty candidates. Let's end the neo-con influence on the Republican Party.

[someperson]

If I recall correctly, Dr. Paul called Reagan's presidency a failure. Reagan never followed through with his pre-election rhetoric, which Dr. Paul supported and endorsed. Dr. Paul subsequently ran against Reagan's vice-president in 1988. I think we know who that was ;)

[Nemesis]

Ron Paul disagrees with you. I'm isolationist now, but back then we needed someone to be tough on the USSR. He was the right person for the 80's.

Agreed. It is so easy for some of these people to make the comments they are making when they weren't adults back then.

[belian78]

cant help but notice that this post wasnt ever addressed. :D


The modern republic of Iran didn't even exist until 1979. So it's impossible for them to have "declare war" on us in 1978. There was a revolution against the puppet government that the U.S. CIA installed via a coup. The CIA admits on its own website that it engaged in "false flag terrorism" against the democratically elected government of Mohamed Mossedeq and installed the Shah as dictator.

Since the revolution, Iran has tried to reach out to the west in general and to the U.S. in particular. Here's what many people don't know.

Amadinijad is a figurehead. The man who actually runs the country is the supreme leader Ayotolla Khamanei. He can be forced out by a vote of the assembly of experts. The assembly of experts is chosen by popular vote. Prior to Amadinejad there was another president named Mohammed Khatami. When Khatami was president, Iran reached out to the U.S. government by taking the following steps:


joining the U.S. led coalition to drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml)
offered to cooperate by trading Al Qaeda prisoners for MEK terrorists who attacked Iran (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html). (The MEK is an Islamo-Marxist terrorist (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm) organization that the U.S. supports)
sending the offer of a "grand bargain (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html)" through back channels where Iran promised to end support for Hamas and Hezbollah and to fully cooperate on WMDs.


Despite all of this, Iran was labeled part of the "Axis of Evil"*. So Iran switched gears and put a bellicose "crazy man" in charge in order to get us to back up.

Ron Paul has in the past mentioned the fact that the CIA caused "blowback" by overthrowing democracy in Iran and installing the Shah.

YouTube - Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE)

* Note. Bush pulled the "Axis of Evil" designation right out of his colon. None of the countries mentioned had anything to do with 9/11 and he knew it. This was misdirection pure and simple. When Northern Alliance leader Mahmood Ahmed was assassinated, the Northern Alliance came out with the following statement (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/mahmoud_ahmed.htm):

What is omitted is the official statement: A "Pakistani ISI- Osama - Taliban axis" [was responsible for] plotting the assassination by two Arab suicide bombers. [...] "We believe that this is a triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence section of the Pakistani Army, and the Taliban." [The Northern Alliance Statement released on September 14, 2001, quoted by Reuters News Service on September 15, 2001]

But the "powers that be" behind Bush had already decided that Pakistan was to be treated as an ally. Someone had to take the blame and Bush decided to recast the "axis" to be Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

[Nemesis]

The nation of Iran didn't take over the embassy. Some students did. Regardless, Ronald Reagan came to a negotiated settlement that included selling them weapons. That could be considered a "peace deal". Are you now calling Reagan a pacifist?


Is it your contention that the students acted in opposition to the wishes of the Iranian government???

[reardenstone]

I walk into a Deli this morning and the owner has Glen Beck show on. He's an elderly Italian man...nice guy.

I struck up a conversation based on Beck's show. He started ranting about how both parties suck and that in his day people relied on family, church, and community to take care of each other...not the government.

I shook my head in agreement. "You're right. They all suck. The only one I trust is that Dr. from Texas, Ron Paul."

He responded very positively:

"Yeah. He's one of the few. He's a good man."

So far so good I thought.....but then he dropped the other shoe:

"But the one that they are all afraid of is Sarah Palin. Did you hear her speak at the convention this weekend? That woman isn't afraid of anybody. She reminds me of St. Joan of Arc. She'll clean out the place if she becomes president...blah...blah..blah"

I mentioned her supprt for the bailout, and for bombing Iran....but he was so infatuated by her that I could not penetrate. Remember, this is a man who LIKES Ron Paul a lot.

Sarah is our main enemy because she will be preventing people like this Deli owner from coming our way in 2012 (assuming RP runs)


...a very discouargaing....yet eye-opening conversation....

This one incident may not be a scientific survey....but it adds weight to my hunch.......Kristol's girl is cutting into our ranks!


The elites of the neocons are somewhat smarter than we think.
They observed and learned from the Ron Paul revolution of 2008 then came in and co-opted our talking points on fiscal conservatism and co-opted the movement and tea party as well.

[Nemesis]

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Founding Fathers disagree with you. History disagrees with you. I disagree with you.

That's fine. When you set up your theocracy with all these Saints let me know!

I don't take my marching orders from Rome. You do.

[jmdrake]

Is it your contention that the students acted in opposition to the wishes of the Iranian government???

The Iranian government in 1978? Most certainly. You doubt that? Do you actually believe they were acting on the Shah's behest? I also see that you didn't address my point about Reagan. Was he a pacifist for the way he dealt with Iran?

[Nemesis]

Sorry, I don't support Bush and Obama's CIA psy-ops in Iran.

You still haven't answered the question.

Did Iran declare war by taking over our embassy.

Is that not caus belli? if it isn't, what is???

[jmdrake]

cant help but notice that this post wasnt ever addressed. :D

Thanks. :D Certain people will never address facts that don't fit their worldview. Sad really.

[jmdrake]

Agreed. It is so easy for some of these people to make the comments they are making when they weren't adults back then.

Reagan's claim to fame was talking to his enemies though back channels and cutting deals with them while portraying a "tough" front. He did that with Iran and with the USSR. He never attacked either.

[rich34]

Excellent points! We need more people such as yourself here at Ronpaulforums!

Nemesis I have one question for you. Why are you here? Ron Paul supports non-intervention NOT policing the world. We can go on and on over who's right about who did what and when, but when it comes down to it you appear to be a neocon based on your interventionist views on foreign policy. I'm not going to go negative towards you because you do seem to know some history, but the fact is your talking points are the opposite of Ron Paul so again I ask, why are you here? Ron Paul is also the most fiscal conservative in Washington DC. Do you know how much wars cost? Being prowar and policing the world is not very fiscal conservative, so again we have another issue where you and Ron Paul disagree. So why are you here? I think you have well meaning intentions, but they are the opposite of what most people believe here and Ron Paul himself. I'm not trying to give you a hard time I'm just curious, why are you here? Thanks.

[Nemesis]

The Iranian government in 1978? Most certainly. You doubt that? Do you actually believe they were acting on the Shah's behest? I also see that you didn't address my point about Reagan. Was he a pacifist for the way he dealt with Iran?

Mea culpa! I meant 1979.

Yes, Reagan should have bombed the crap out of Iran.

[Nemesis]

Nemesis I have one question for you. Why are you here? Ron Paul supports non-intervention NOT policing the world. We can go on and on over who's right about who did what and when, but when it comes down to it you appear to be a neocon based on your interventionist views on foreign policy. I'm not going to go negative towards you because you do seem to know some history, but the fact is your talking points are the opposite of Ron Paul so again I ask, why are you here? Ron Paul is also the most fiscal conservative in Washington DC. Do you know how much wars cost? Being prowar and policing the world is not very fiscal conservative, so again we have another issue where you and Ron Paul disagree. So why are you here? I think you have well meaning intentions, but they are the opposite of what most people believe here and Ron Paul himself. I'm not trying to give you a hard time I'm just curious, why are you here? Thanks.

Unlike you, I am not some mind-numbed robot who agrees 100% with EVERY candidate.

I agree with Paul on about 90% of the issues.

Is that okay? Or is this place only for those who are lock-step in line with the rest of the einsatzgruppen?

Are you capable of thinking for yourself on each and every issue? Or do you just parrot what Dr. Paul says?

I respect the man for his limited government stance. I think the USG should be reduced to about 10% of it's current state.

Is that acceptable? Or is Paul, and you, in favor of the USG being only 20% of it's current state?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Unlike you, I am not some mind-numbed robot who agrees 100% with EVERY candidate.

I agree with Paul on about 90% of the issues.

Is that okay? Or is this place only for those who are lock-step in line with the rest of the einsatzgruppen?

Are you capable of thinking for yourself on each and every issue? Or do you just parrot what Dr. Paul says?

I respect the man for his limited government stance. I think the USG should be reduced to about 10% of it's current state.

Is that acceptable? Or is Paul, and you, in favor of the USG being only 20% of it's current state?


According to the Constitution we should not have a standing Army. The Militia is our military. Only in times of declared wars shall a standing Federal Army be constituted, and it cannot be appropriated for more than 2 years at a time. So sayeth the Constitution and our Founding Fathers who abhorred Standing Armies.

Ron believes the Government should be 1% of its current size. I happen to believe it should be 0%.

[Promontorium]

I know no one here is talking about the original post, but I want to comment on it.

The idea that Sarah Palin is harming the cause, because maybe a year from now she'll be running for president, and maybe Ron Paul will too, is just a bit much for worrying's sake.

Our most deadly enemy is failure. Sarah Palin running against Ron Paul in what I guarantee will be a huge steaming pile of Republicans is not what I'm worrying about.

If Sarah Palin really will captivate the people as you say, then Ron Paul didn't have a chance to begin with. Because there is no wool in Ron Paul's closet. If she's somehow more magical than any other Republican, it is a very cynical discernment to declare her our worst enemy. She'll be more of the same.

Status quo isn't our enemy. I'd much rather a social change to take place in relative peace, than another civil or global war. If the benefit of your life, as well as for a system that doesn't maliciously harm others is a goal, then now is the time. Not when things really start falling apart.


And how so disapointed I am, that you do not see the logical falacy. Sarah Palin will not make herself president. No body makes themselves president. When they run, they are not simply fighting each other, they must win the people.

If Sarah Palin's hypothetical campaign crushes Ron Paul's (and somehow in this scenario she was the spoiler) hypothetical campaign, it will be America's doing. Not Sarah Palin. However cynically you look at the wiles of a politician, know you have no backstage pass, everyone's seeing what you're seeing, they're intentionally supporting the wiley politician.

Ultimately, if your goal is to just win elections, you have sold out. I am not interested in winning for the sake of winning, I am interested in winning because people have learned something, and now support a new path.

You could fill the house and the senate and the governorships and the mayorships and the presidency with all your favorite politicians, but if it was acheived in any deceptive manner, if the people voting did not believe in what is being proposed, it will fail. Terms will end. It will all be for naught.

[dannno]

I respect the man for his limited government stance. I think the USG should be reduced to about 10% of it's current state.



How do you do that without ending our overseas empire and occupations?

[Annihilia]

I like how the word 'pacifist' is being thrown around like some sort of insult.

[jmdrake]

Mea culpa! I meant 1979.

Yes, Reagan should have bombed the crap out of Iran.

Well you were just praising Reagan for his handling of the USSR and he basically did the same thing. (Talk tough. Engage in back channel negotiations. No frontal assault). In fact many "hawks" were secretly pretty peeved at Reagan for taking such a moderate approach with the USSR.

As for Iran 1979, they came to power after the embassy had already been taken. But even if you accept that as an act of war by the Iranian government, Reagan's negotiated settlement put an end to that claim. You can't go back decades later and say "You committed an act of war against us so now we're going to bomb you". Not if you want to be seen as a sane political actor. If we're going to take that idea then I guess China would be justified to bomb us over our involvement in putting down the Boxer rebellion.

Lastly, I see you totally ignore the points I raised about Iran fighting with us against the Taliban and making other attempts to cooperate in the war against Iran's enemy Al Qaeda. Iran was actually fighting against the Taliban before 9/11. Is that a smart way to treat potential allies? Ignore their contributions post 9/11 and bomb them for what happened in the late 1970s?

[Met Income]

Unlike you, I am not some mind-numbed robot who agrees 100% with EVERY candidate.

I agree with Paul on about 90% of the issues.

Is that okay? Or is this place only for those who are lock-step in line with the rest of the einsatzgruppen?

Are you capable of thinking for yourself on each and every issue? Or do you just parrot what Dr. Paul says?

I respect the man for his limited government stance. I think the USG should be reduced to about 10% of it's current state.

Is that acceptable? Or is Paul, and you, in favor of the USG being only 20% of it's current state?

How much would you reduce the military-industrial complex?

[Dianne]

For the past few days, the Huffington Post lead stories and bloggers are almost entirely anti tea party thanks to Palin and that jerk Phillips.

They have this image now of tea party people as complete racists and hate mongers.

I can't even go back there with stories such as "Tea Party is a national disgrace".

Anything we do now, it is doubtful we can shake the image of last weekend's hate fest.

[Promontorium]

For the past few days, the Huffington Post lead stories and bloggers are almost entirely anti tea party thanks to Palin and that jerk Phillips.

They have this image now of tea party people as complete racists and hate mongers.

I can't even go back there with stories such as "Tea Party is a national disgrace".

Anything we do now, it is doubtful we can shake the image of last weekend's hate fest.

Because of Sarah Palin? No. President Jimmy Carter called them all racists many many months ago, and he's not hip. A hundred people told him they were racist before he opened his mouth.

Sarah Palin didn't trash the Tea Parties. They've been trashed since day one with every hateful word possible.

Try again.

[erowe1]

Just curious here, but why not bomb Iran given that they declared war on us in 1978?

Go right ahead. Just don't fund your crusade with money taken from your neighbors without their consent by lethal force.

[erowe1]

I agree with Paul on about 90% of the issues.


No you don't.

[Mini-Me]

I like how the word 'pacifist' is being thrown around like some sort of insult.

Technically speaking, a pacifist is one who would attempt to "pacify" even the most violent, insatiable, and sociopathic aggressor before raising a hand in self-defense. Because most of us are ardent supporters of self-defense against violence, it makes sense that most of us attach a negative connotation to the word. Plus, actually expecting success attempting to pacify that which cannot be pacified - as a literal "pacifist" would - is foolish, and recognition of that adds additional pejorative meaning.

[devil21]

I'm not a neo-con, but we know you slander people without proof.

Just because I want Chavez removed and communism stopped doesn't make me a neo-con. They sure didn't do anything against commuism!

I find it funny, in a sad way, when neo-cons cry about communism in other countries yet are fast on the trigger to vote for US politicians that support endless bank bailouts, automobile manufacturing nationalization, real estate market nationalization, and every other manner of socialism/communism on OUR soil. Yet this same person wants to spend who-knows-how-much money to stop communism in other countries. Maybe you should concentrate on AMERICA for a while?

[Dianne]

I find it funny, in a sad way, when neo-cons cry about communism in other countries yet are fast on the trigger to vote for US politicians that support endless bank bailouts, automobile manufacturing nationalization, real estate market nationalization, and every other manner of socialism/communism on OUR soil. Yet this same person wants to spend who-knows-how-much money to stop communism in other countries. Maybe you should concentrate on AMERICA for a while?

Neocons are basically dumb people. These choose the republican party, only because that year there is someone there they think they might be able to beat.

Look at McCain and Palin... do you ever look at those two, and say... wow, they are brilliant. Hannity and O'Reilly, wow are they brilliant?

Nope... they have no clue. If they say something and they make money from it; well that's the only thing they understand.

[Arklatex]

We are our own worst enemies... I see it everyday on this board. :p




Quote of the year

we can be our worst enemy, but if we liked each other and channeled all our energy in synergy nothing could stop us =0

[Anti Federalist]

Unlike you, I am not some mind-numbed robot who agrees 100% with EVERY candidate.

I agree with Paul on about 90% of the issues.



Non interventionism is a key part of the "liberty philosophy".

It cannot be rejected.

Limited government, except for unlimited overseas wars and occupations is not the liberty "message".

It is not even a conservative philosophy.

It is neo-conservatism.

[Captain Shays]

I never claimed that Iranian Prime Minister Razmara was an American. :rolleyes: But go ahead and state an obvious, uncontested fact as if I wasn't aware of it and your revelation is some kind of 'gotcha' that makes a difference in the larger argument.

Newsflash: national and corporate interests intersect at the point of energy security. Also, many Americans were shareholders in the oil companies.

You think we were going to let the Russians have all that oil? Or did it not even occur to you to place Op Ajax in the context of the Cold War?

The only national sovereignty that was violated was America and Britain's:


Letting the Russians steal the oil we paid to discover and develop, while western energy markets, economies, and militaries had heart attacks, was NOT in our national interest.

Energy security doesn't necessarily mean oil security for energy and oil are not necessarily synonymous.

When you say "we" do you mean "me and you" or somebody else in this forum? Did you actually help develop that oil? If not, what you are advocating for is sending US troops and someone else's son or daughter to protect corporate oil profits. Do you believe in the virtues of free market capitalism? If yes, then how are we going to factor into the prices at the pump all the military expenses incurred by the taxpayers to protect "our" oil?

The oil wells in Iran were leased not owned. They didn't at any time "belong" to US citizens nor did the oil that was extracted. Would you be willing to send your own son to Iran or to go fight the Russians to secure oil? If yes, what other products are you willing to see your son come home in a body bag for? Or, somebody else's son for that matter?

Being that necessity is the mother of all invention and it was the individual inventors from the United States that invented most of the wonderful life improving products and technologies that benefited the entire world, I am confident that if the Russians, the Iranians,, Iraqi's, Chinese or ANY other country cuts off "our" oil that Americans if left alone by their own government will develop new sources of energy and new forms of transportation and ways to heat and cool their homes without oil. Trust the people of this country.

To say that the only sovereignty that was violated was that of the US and Briton is not only short sighted but ludicrous. How can anyone say that and mean it when our CIA engineered a coup de atat to depose the leader of another sovereign nation and install one that was more favorable to Western oil interests especially knowing what a ruthless and heartless dictator he was?

Come on man! What if we found out the Iranians killed JFK so that Johnson would enable them to extract our timber?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Energy security doesn't necessarily mean oil security for energy and oil are not necessarily synonymous.

When you say "we" do you mean "me and you" or somebody else in this forum? Did you actually help develop that oil? If not, what you are advocating for is sending US troops and someone else's son or daughter to protect corporate oil profits. Do you believe in the virtues of free market capitalism? If yes, then how are we going to factor into the prices at the pump all the military expenses incurred by the taxpayers to protect "our" oil?

The oil wells in Iran were leased not owned. They didn't at any time "belong" to US citizens nor did the oil that was extracted. Would you be willing to send your own son to Iran or to go fight the Russians to secure oil? If yes, what other products are you willing to see your son come home in a body bag for? Or, somebody else's son for that matter?

Being that necessity is the mother of all invention and it was the individual inventors from the United States that invented most of the wonderful life improving products and technologies that benefited the entire world, I am confident that if the Russians, the Iranians,, Iraqi's, Chinese or ANY other country cuts off "our" oil that Americans if left alone by their own government will develop new sources of energy and new forms of transportation and ways to heat and cool their homes without oil. Trust the people of this country.

To say that the only sovereignty that was violated was that of the US and Briton is not only short sighted but ludicrous. How can anyone say that and mean it when our CIA engineered a coup de atat to depose the leader of another sovereign nation and install one that was more favorable to Western oil interests especially knowing what a ruthless and heartless dictator he was?

Come on man! What if we found out the Iranians killed JFK so that Johnson would enable them to extract our timber?


I don't think Tron realizes this, but he has just presented one of the central themes and tenents of Mercantilism. Tron is a mercantilist.

[rich34]

Unlike you, I am not some mind-numbed robot who agrees 100% with EVERY candidate.

I agree with Paul on about 90% of the issues.

Is that okay? Or is this place only for those who are lock-step in line with the rest of the einsatzgruppen?

Are you capable of thinking for yourself on each and every issue? Or do you just parrot what Dr. Paul says?

I respect the man for his limited government stance. I think the USG should be reduced to about 10% of it's current state.

Is that acceptable? Or is Paul, and you, in favor of the USG being only 20% of it's current state?


That's cool man, you can believe and post what you want that's no problem, I'm just going to say that don't be surprised when people react aggressively towards you for having interventionist views on foreign policy. And no I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything either, but he is the candidate most aligned with the constitution bar none and what this board is all about.

I'd also say the majority here believes Palin is a neocon lite at the very least. She was for the bank bailouts, and is in favor of perpetual war. How is that fiscal conservative? I'm just sayin, but welcome to the board.

[Pepsi]

Israel bombed USS Liberty in 67 and killed many American troops, should US bomb them also in your view?


Rep. Mike Pence: Israel should dictate U.S. policy. Yes we should attack Israel if they attack us.

http://www.themajlis.org/2010/02/04/rep-mike-pence-israel-should-dictate-us-policy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMajlis+%28The+Majlis%29

[YumYum]

Rep. Mike Pence: Israel should dictate U.S. policy. Yes we should attack Israel if they attack us.

http://www.themajlis.org/2010/02/04/rep-mike-pence-israel-should-dictate-us-policy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMajlis+%28The+Majlis%29

This guy Pence is retarded. He has no nutsack. I bet he needs Israel to tell him when to eat and when to poop. Disgusting.

[Pepsi]

This guy Pence is retarded. He has no nutsack. I bet he needs Israel to tell him when to eat and when to poop. Disgusting.

I wonder how many other members of Congress wants to put Israel ahead of America besides the Neocons.

[CapitalistRadical]

But about Palin (and TX Gov Perry), it's written (http://biggovernment.com/edondero/2010/02/10/palin-perry-a-new-breed-of-western-style-conservatism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+(Big+Government )&utm_content=Google+International)


Though, both are generally social conservatives, the fiscal issues are front and center, in the tradition of Western-style conservatism. It’s a brand of conservatism virtually identical to libertarian beliefs. But it’s a more mainstream, more palatable libertarianism, clothed in patriotism, and strong support for the military, as opposed to a fringe Ron Paul view.

:eek:

[Danke]

Hell, even Dr. Paul fought in an unconstitutional war!

That is a bit of a stretch.

He was a Flight Surgeon in the Air Force.

* Flight Surgeon, United States Air Force, 1963-1965
* Flight Surgeon, United States Air National Guard, 1965-1968



And our bankers (NY FED) helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution.

Fighting Communism, what a joke.

[Captain Shays]

I don't think Tron realizes this, but he has just presented one of the central themes and tenents of Mercantilism. Tron is a mercantilist.


No doubt. I am waiting for his answers to my questions while sitting on the edge of my seat. My guess is that there might be other commodities he would be willing to see American sons die for as well but, which ones would he be willing to put his own American son's head on the block for?

[Promontorium]

That is a bit of a stretch.

He was a Flight Surgeon in the Air Force.

* Flight Surgeon, United States Air Force, 1963-1965
* Flight Surgeon, United States Air National Guard, 1965-1968


Service is service. You can't have anyone on the front lines if you don't have ten times as many people backing them up. This is why many nations fell during WW2 even when they had millions of soldiers. Their infrastructure collapsed and the soldiers had to surrender. It's also why Russia couldn't fight without paying for it with millions of lives.

[Promontorium]

Israel bombed USS Liberty in 67 and killed many American troops, should US bomb them also in your view?

1. Israel is not the only Middle Eastern nation to attack us (just to respond to that spammed lie)

2. The Israeli attack was not meant to provoke the United States, it was gross error.

We happened to be covertly spying on the Israelis during their war with all their friendly neighbors when this happened.

I met the survivors from the USS Liberty during an official ceremony for them at the Center for Cryptology in Pensacola, Florida. They were presented with a plaque of recognition and some of the items from their ship (including the bridge log, which I read) were placed in the cryptology museum on base.

They weren't angry at Israel, they were angry at the United States for covering it up. Which is interesting hearing Navy vets bad-mouthing the government at an official ceremony honoring them. Even the CO of the base was supporting them and was very apologetic.


Aside from this, I've seen a pervasive anti-Israel attitude from a lot of people on RPF. It goes much further than Ron Paul's position, which is my position, that we shouldn't be funding them, or anyone.

There's a lot of specific hatred that gets spewed, and I think you people try to get away with it under the guise of supporting Paul's stance.

No nation should go to war over a misunderstanding. Especially not the United States.

The USS Vincennes, a ship I have been very personally familiar with ( I could tell you some stories you won't find on Wikipedia) shot down an Iranian airliner. They thought the aircraft was attacking, so they shot it down.

Should Iran have gone to war with us for that?

Both instances resulted in payouts to the families of the dead on the part of the faulted government.



As for this "Only Israel has ever attacked us" lie I've been reading repeatedly.

In 1987 the USS Stark was hit by 2 Exocet missiles fired from an Iraqi F-1

Now, at this time remember we were arming Iraq against Iran. They were business partners at a minimum. Not enemies.

Should the Iraq war have begun in 1987?


These are all examples of accidents, or bad judgment on the part of lowlevel "government employees".


And to pile on the incidents of non-Israel Middle Eastern countries attacking us, on numerous occasions during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran fired on US ships and aircraft, except these instances weren't accidents and they often led to fire fights, many ships, helicopters, oil rigs were destroyed, killing people on both sides, and the U.S. almost went to war with Iran. Which also explains why the Vincennes was so on edge, with many US vessels taking missile fire from Iranian aircraft and ships.

And of course as has been mentioned on other threads, there are the attacks from Lebanon, both in modern times, and as the song says "To the shores of Tripoli".


So Iraq has attacked the US, Iran has attacked the US, Lebanon has attacked the US, all before the US had attacked them. And sure, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, UAE, Egypt, etc. have all managed to have training camps for people to attack and kill Americans and destroy American property, but I know how some people don't believe in the concept of "terrorism" so maybe they don't count.