Long before 9-11, America attacked Iran:

"In the early 1950s, the prime minister of Iran nationalized the oil industry, until then under British control. The CIA intervened in 1953, orchestrating a coup that overthrew the Iranian prime minister and placed the Shah in control.  The Shah ruled, as a U.S.-backed dictator, for 26 years until Islamic militants overthrew him
in 1979.  Understandably, they resented the U.S. intervention."

Statement by my friend. His grandfather was the CIA agent in charge of taking over Iran; his great-great-grandfather was Theodore Roosevelt.

This is pretty old news. A few years after the Shah took power, he instituted a program with US help called the "White Revolution", which included land redistribution among citizens, extensive construction, the promotion of literacy, and the emancipation of women, among other things. These are good things. I know quite a few Iranians of the educated class, and they have nothing but good things to say about the Shah.

The problem he had, was he imprisoned many fundamentalist Muslims, who throughout that entire time tried to dispose him. I don't know if I blame him, as he was trying to bring Iran into the modern age. In the end, the fundamentalists gained the support of the poor, and we know what happened after that.

Under the Shah, Iran entered the modern era. The fundamentalists brought Iran back into the dark ages. Obviously, the Shah had the right idea.

What is the fixation here with Iran?

Iran is Islamic. On a different thread people expressed outrage that Muslims declared war on America last week.

In fact, Muslims declared war on America in 1979, a couple of decades before the 9-11 strike.

Yes, I would tend to agree, as from a perspective of international law the Iranian revolution was an internal matter, but in taking our embassy staff hostage they violated international treaties and gave us a casus belli.

i had a friend in school who's father had been a high ranking officer in the Shah's Navy. he told me how the CIA evacuated officers and their families who were loyal to the US and set them up with homes and jobs in the US. one day i just had to ask him what would bring an iranian family to the boonies of rural MD. he corrected me and said "im not iranian...im persian and i love america as did my father before me"   very interesting.

You've thrown around this blanket statement regarding "Muslims" declaring war so many times here and other threads - but it's just plain nonsense.

There are 1.2 BILLION Muslims in the world! Show me a "Declaration of War" signed by ANY Muslim nation.

This is like your "Get America out of Islam" rant from another thread.

Just more prattling nonsense.

Be factual, accurate, precise and consistent in your words. Otherwise there's no sense discussing anything with you.

Total precision would require more writing than is practical. I challenge you to give any example of counter-factual, inaccurate, or inconsistent writing on my part you bitch.

Does the Iranian constitution require a signed declaration for a war? Isn't taking over the American embassy and holding up "Death to America" signs enough?

Quit writing to me if you think I'm a nonsensical prattler.

I would have to say that the 1952-3 CIA-led coup against the legitimate Iranian government violated international treaties and gave them a casus belli. . . .

Achmed:

What treaty would that be? Once the new regime was in place AND RECOGNIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY (which it was) it was the legitimate government under international law. There have been many of these in the 20th century (not that I am a supporter of such things). Fairness is not always connected with law...

To clarify: the present day Iranian government is the same as of that time - as is ours. That was not the case with the Mossadeq regime. The cause of war only exists between sovereign nations.

Okay.

[b]Unsupported by evidence:[/b]
Show me [u]evidence[/u] that the majority (>50%) of Saudi people want America, [u]including all American dollar$[/u], out of Saudi Arabia.
[b]Inaccurate use of terms:[/b]
The American military does not "occupy" Saudi Arabia. It occupied Japan after WWII. If you are unclear as to what "military occupation" means, spend a few weeks reading what MacArthur's responsibilites in Japan were in post-WWII.


[b]Imprecise use of terms ("Muslims"):[/b]
No, only a handful of MoslemMaggots declared war on us, most of the 1.2Billion Muslims have not "declared war" on us.
If you have [u]evidence[/u] that 1,200,000,000 Muslims have declared war on the US - stand and deliver.


[b]Inaccurate, imprecise use of terms:[/b]
"Retaliatory strike" implies that there was an initiating, offensive "strike" that preceded it. Accepting the invitation of the only legitimate and universally-accepted government of Saudi Arabia to base US military forces in Saudi Arabia is NOT, by any international definition, an offensive or aggressive "strike". No one is attacked or injured and no physical damage is incurred by the American military based in Saudi Arabia. You are wrong. 9-11 was not "retaliation" it was unprovoked aggression.


[b]Incorrect, nonfactual, flat-out wrong:[/b]
War was never "declared" by the founding fathers. We declared our [b]Independance[/b]... Remember that little document called the "Declaration of INDEPENDANCE"? It was NOT called the the "Declaration of WAR".

- - - continued - - -

- - - continued - - -




[b]Inconsistent, self-contradictory statements:[/b]
Use of the UNQUALIFIED term "Muslim" in quote #1 then backpeddling and stating that not all "Muslims" think alike in quote #2.


[b]Inconsistent:[/b]
That's not "LOGIC" that's called "HOPE". Your hope that people will simply "lose their hatred" is purely an illogical pipedream.


[b]Incorrect, nonfactual, flat-out wrong:[/b]
The American Revolution was a DEFENSE of the newly-formed Republic of United States against the British Army & Navy. American minutemen did not go over to Britain and bomb their civilians or attack ANY civilians for that matter.


I could go on and on but the point's been made.

I'll end my discussion with you by reiterating what I've said earlier and what you've continued to prove to me by your blathering, nonsensical gibberish-filled posts:

[b][red]"All-in-all Blaze, you seem to have a severe case of self-induced denial, blindness, ignorance of history, ethical confusion, lack of moral clarity and a simmering dislike of America."[/red]




Buh-Bye![/b]

Control your emotions.