ETERAZ

Thank you

Please start a new blog if you would like to continue this discussion. You all need to cool down a bit.

how about PC for Pathetic Crap?

So, you semantically speaking you just told another untruth.

Didn't I advise you to read? I used more than one fact in my refutation of your idiotic claim. I used other portions of the book for different reasons in this thread. Can you even read English or do you have someone reading to you right now?

Now I finally understand when they talk about the miserable failings of the American educational system.

It wasn't even a valid example.

Historians agree on what is to be called a democracy, not ignorant retards permmnently stuck in a schoolyard mentality. Don't overstep your limited mental capacity by pretending your self-serving opinion matters.

As I said if you don't think that amount of time makes something "not" a democracy, you would have to say that Mossadegh and George Washington weren't democratic administrations.

Did you just admit that this example is one of your boilerplate talking points?

Did you just admit you are full of crap when you claimed I spent 3 hours researching this on Wiki?

Keep digging deeper, PC, LOL! I think there are still a few people in vegetative states who haven't heard your 3rd grade arguments. We have an obligation to inform them for the good of humanity!

Q should be "F"

For "failed"

I read Schlesinger's book "Bitter Fruit" 12 years ago. I read Bloom's
"Killing Hope" 5 years ago. I guess it's hard for you to imagine, but I
knew these facts from the top of my head.

1) You had 1 fact. You were able to present ONE EXAMPLE of democracy in latin America. A single one. So, yousemantically speaking you just told another untruth.

2) It wasn't even a valid example.

3) Did you just admit that this example is one of your boilerplate talking points? lol

no, my presumptuous friend,

I read Schlesinger's book "Bitter Fruit" 12 years ago. I read Bloom's "Killing Hope" 5 years ago. I guess it's hard for you to imagine, but I knew these facts from the top of my head.

You probably spent 3 hours on wikipedia...

Even if you're so lame to think that this kind of cheap shot actually works, you could at least check the timestamp on the comments! (that is if you are NOT a "mental midget") But even this is a gross exaggeration. It took about 40 minutes for me to check this thread after you made your idiotic statement, and another 40 seconds for me to write the response.

Don't project your own obvious ignorance and inadequacies into other people. I'm not nitpicky at all, the truth is more complex. There are at least a couple other latin American nations we could be talking about. That's not the point as anyone would see you're not interested in truth or learning. When confronted with "mental midgets" whose ego driven self-image is based on cyber bullyism and childish word games, I don't mind performing a public service in the form of handing them their own ass in an argument.

The kind of pathetic distractions that you produce is exactly what a mental midget would do instead of knowing when to quit, dude.

Dude

Ever heard of the expression "you better quit while you're way behind?"

You probably spent 3 hours on wikipedia trying to come up witha democracy in Latin America 50 years ago, and the bets you could come up with was an abortive and short lived attempt in Guatemala? And you bring that to the table? Seriously? Yes, you are absolutley right. Anyone reading this thread can see who the nitpicking mental midget grasping at straws is. No need for me to pass judgment :P

OK Craig, whatever you say

so, since US was able to crush in the first few years, it means it wasn't a democracy! How convinient it means the entire Mossadegh administration, we had no democracy in Iran either. Also, the first term of George Washington was not democratic!

But all that doesn't matter because you don't dispute there could be Latin American democracies older than 50 years, but just not exactly 50 years ago.

Is that basically it?

Oh the irony of you calling people "retarded"... your desperate attempt to save some face by using words like "el stupido" is not working. Anyone reading can spot the real retard in this conversation. Your illogical drivel doesn't even rise to the level of semantics.

Ever heard of the expression "you better quit while you're way behind?"

Q

Second, even those 3 years disproves your BS assertion that there was no democracy 50 years ago. I didn't realize there is a time limit on something being called democracy.

Well, that's because you are retarded. Not my fault. Iraq has had democracy for 3 years as well... how many people are lined up to proclaim Iraq to be a democratic country right now? Nobody. Not even george Bush would claim that democracy is in Iraq to stay.

And besides, 1953 was not 50 years ago. It was 55 years ago. Get your math checked next time, el stupido.You aren't the only one who can argue semantics :P

Craig, honestly, have you no shame?

you:
There wasn't one country in Latin America that had democracy 50 years ago. Not ONE.

you:
it lasted all of 3 years. So, you have not disproven anything I said, despite your bold words.

First of all, genius, it lasted three years because the US overthrew him

The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala.

Second, even those 3 years disproves your BS assertion that there was no democracy 50 years ago. I didn't realize there is a time limit on something being called democracy.

Your pathetic excuse:
I never denied that teh Cold War was fought in Latin America.

What does this have to do with there being a democracy in Guatemala 50 years go? This is completely irrelevant unless you think that overthrowing democratic governments is legitimate thing for US to do.

Your shameless justification:
you could argue that latin America would be better off with a bunch of communist despots, right?

No, actually. I would argue that the entire third world would be better off without the illegal interference of Americans. That's what I would argue. I would argue to not interfere with the wishes of their own people (that's what democratically elected means). In addition, Arbez wasn't a communist he was only labeled a communist so that United Fruit and other US interests could fund the illegal intervention. But even if he was, US had no business overthrowing him.

You are absolutely pathetic in your arguments and shameless in your values and respect for fellow human beings who happen to have been born in a different country. You would not accept for one second if say Russia or China overthrew an elected government in the US, even if you didn't like that government. But you seem to have no problem making such a decision affecting the lesser people of the third world.

And you claim to be a libertarian? Please don't devalue the whole philosophy by associating yourself with it. I was encouraged when you called yourself a libertarian but the only position I have seen from you is reactionary statism.

To Mr. "We did 1953 coup" Kashani: Anyone who after being confronted with facts, evidence and universal opinion of almost all the experts in the field, continues to believe only in his own unsupported opinion is ignorant. That is in fact the politest thing that you can be called. You can follow the footsteps of Khomeini or any other role model you want, but at least now it's clear that despite your own pretenses to objectivity you are not interested in facts.

Once, the great Khomeini

Once, the great Khomeini who’s the idol of the great ignorant Iranian posting articles in this site with a nickname that’s 1 letter only, said, “If the West criticizes you, that’s a sign that you’re right”. So I’m gonna follow that model and say “If this ignorant Iranian calls you “ignorant”…then you really must be way more smarter than you thought you were”.

Mammad, are you wishing for

Mammad, are you wishing for my death? Lol..kidding!

Anyways,

1-     No I didn’t change the subject.

2-     I think you’re confusing yourself. I think I said it 3 times already, and I’m not gonna repeat it for 4th, both Shah and Khomeini had supporters. This regime has supporters, I even estimate it somewhere around 10 million, out of population of 70 million. I don’t know how else to say it. Also, both Shah and Khomeini stayed in power because they had the backing of their SUPPORTERS who are part of the Iranian PEOPLE. Supporters = Part of Iranian people.

3-     You don’t even make any sense. UNSC structure doesn’t permit anyone to use it as they wish. If we go back and count the cases, it’ll take us days.

4-     Its not “DUE” to the U.S. You’re oversimplifying the issue. Many countries that are prosperous have used American technology, scientific advances, military, law, economic power, and other things, to enhance themselves. So the will has to be there to enhance yourself, and then you go after whoever has something to offer to benefit you, whether that country is U.S or Bangladesh. So, if U.S participates in providing assistance, then yes, U.S has contributed to their success. Also, the one million Iraqis who have died lost their lives because of Islamic groups, both Shites and Sunnis, fighting each other and mass murdering people on the opposite side, to take power. All you gotta do is to read any news to realize that fact. That being said, I opposed the Iraq war. But, absolutely, if we kill each other, we shouldn’t blame it on someone else. Seems to me that’s common sense.

My reaction to the rise of leftism in those countries is this. There are two reasons. 1- The failure of the previous model that adopted neo liberal economic policies. Now, those policies themselves have proven effective in other countries, but the reason that it wasn’t effective in Latin American countries is because of the culture of corruption and dog eat dog culture. If those policies were implemented correctly, people would’ve been prosperous, but they weren’t. so poor people felt marginalized and oppressed, and they weren’t getting piece of the pie. So, the charlatan Chavez started this movement. Lets keep in mind, the overwhelming issue in L America is economy, they’re not in a hot zone like the Middle East. So, all these anti American Chavez propaganda doesn’t mean anything to most Venezuelans. They just want a better economical status, specially the poor ones. Also, lets not forget, especially in Chavez and Morales’ case, there is a racial issue going on here, most specifically in Morales. The native Indians who have been oppressed for centuries look at these two as saviors and as on of  “them”. Lets not forget Morales is the first indigenous Bolivian president. 2- Leftist activism: Traditionally, we are nowhere close to how active you guys get politically (But that’s changing rapidly). You guys are ideologically driven, that’s why you were active everywhere there was leftism. You guys did great job reaching power. I admit that all those people were elected democratically, although, Chavez is a dictator who’s ruining Venezuela. Morales is OK. Other ones adhere to democratic rules and processes.

And, Q...

How closely did you examine your own Wiki link?

In March 1951, Árbenz assumed the presidency after Guatemala's
second-ever universal-suffrage election, marking the first peaceful
transition of power in Guatemala's history. He campaigned as a reformer
and garnered 60% of the vote by promising to make Guatemala an
economically independent, capitalist state that would shed its
colonial-era dependence on the U.S. His predecessor, Juan José Arévalo,
had successfully begun a series of reforms to open the political
process to all citizens. Arévalo's extension of voting and labor rights
threatened the power of the traditional elite and led to more than
twenty failed coup attempts to oust him.

Arevalo was Guzman's predecessor.

In March 1951, Árbenz assumed the presidency after Guatemala's
second-ever universal-suffrage election, marking the first peaceful
transition of power in Guatemala's history.

And it lasted all of 3 years. So, you have not disproven anything I said, despite your bold words. I never denied that teh Cold War was fought in Latin America. But the US won, and latin America is democratic now.I know that make syou unhappy, but deal withit Q! Suck it up :P

Or you could argue that latin America would be better off with a bunch of communist despots, right? But that would be a LOSING argument, wouldn't it? You'd rather talk about all the "bad things" the US did in Latin America, and ignore the good outcome.

Atrocity?

You approve of a proven ignorant
Iranian saying the 1953 coup was really "our own fault"? I can't say
I'm surprized. Anything that whitewashes US atorcities seems to be OK
with you.

Operation Ajax was an "atrocity" now? My, what low standards you have! I wonder what you woudl call teh IRI's creation of a violent proxy militia  in Lebanon then? lol.

Craig,

You approve of a proven ignorant Iranian saying the 1953 coup was really "our own fault"? I can't say I'm surprized. Anything that whitewashes US atorcities seems to be OK with you.

There wasn't one country in Latin America that had democracy 50 years ago. Not ONE.

That's not true at all. It's you who don't know anything about the region. Thanks to your Uncle Sam, they had to delay the democracy project 50 years.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_...

Just to give you some advice: Craig, when you challenge other people's knowledge, your insecurities about your own become real obvious.

clarity

Let me point out, the new numbers released BY RUSSIA say 133 people in TOTAL have died in South Ossetia. As opposed to what teh Russians said before, taht 1600 people had been killed on DAY ONE. The Russians were only off by a a little more than an order of magnitude, right? Why did the Russians wait until international observers started arriving on the scene before they started trying to come up with realistic numbers for the "genocide" they alleged?

Georgia

Of possible interest to all the numbnuts who were claiming the Soviets... ooops, Russians!... weren't propagandizing their intervention in Georgia. I'm posting ithere because all teh usual suspects are here, and I'm lazy :P

//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7572635.st...

Russia has issued new, reduced
casualty figures for the Georgian conflict, with 133 civilians now
listed as dead in the disputed region of South Ossetia.

The figure is far lower than the 1,600 people Russia initially said had died.

Mammad

And, by the way, we now have leftist government in Brazil, Venezuela,
Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, and Nicaragua, not to mention a populist one
in Argentina. Any reaction to that? 

Thousands of books and articles have been published by true scholars about what the US has done to the countries that I listed

How much do you know about teh history of any of those countries, Mammad? Nothing except the book syou read about what teh US did "to them"? lol.

There wasn't one country in Latin America that had democracy 50 years ago. Not ONE. Now, they ALL have democracy. Maybe you should be reading a few books about what teh US did *for them* as well? All of those leftist governments you brag about got ELECTED, democratically. Which is a far cry from teh days when a Soveit backed coup used to install communist puppets. Or from the REALLY old days when gangsters used to take turns toppling eachother.

FK, why bother with these guys? They are call agenda driven. They care nothing for facts, they argue based solely on what is best for their political positions. And what their political positions are is up to the reader to decide, but it is pretty clear in my opinion what Iranian Americans hoep to gain by parroting the talking points of the Western left.

FK, you are brilliant

When Einstein died, they examined his brain to find out the reason for his brilliance. I hope that you live a long time, but after you pass away, they should examine your brain to see why you have such a "wonderful" ability for fabricating things, inventing things, changing the subject quickly, reversing yourself, .....

1. All of a sudden, you talk about the bad economic situation in Iran. Were we talking about this? Changing the subject? Hello!

2. First you said to Q that you did not say that Shah had the support. Then, when I reminded you that you did, you reversed yourself, and now say "of course he had the support."

How did the Shah stay in power? The same way that the IRI has, with one difference: Through police, secret agent, military, dictatorship, except that the Shah had the US support also. Hello! How come the Shah stayed in power because he had the support of the people, but not the IRI?

3. No, the topic of our debate regarding the UN was (go back and read my comment): The US uses the UN to the extent that it can, in order to give legitimacy to what it wants to do. But, if it cannot, it declares "independence" from the UN. At the same time, it uses its veto power to protect Israel, even when the Resolution is 14-0 against Israel. You changed the subject again.

4. Here is your "logic:" All the misery that the countries that I listed had (and many still do) is their own fault, but if they are now prosperous, it is due to the US!!!!!! 

US invasion of Iraq has caused the death of up to 1 million civilians, but it is their fault? The US war in Vietnam killed 2 million Vietnamese, but it is their fault? The US supported the military dictatorships in Latin America (through training military officers in School of Americas in Georgia, among other factors) that resulted in the murder of close to 1 million civilians (200,000 in Guatemala alone, such a small country), but it is their fault, but now that they are recovering, if they are, it is due to the US? Is this your "logic?"!!

And, by the way, we now have leftist government in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, and Nicaragua, not to mention a populist one in Argentina. Any reaction to that? 

Thousands of books and articles have been published by true scholars about what the US has done to the countries that I listed and many more (like Vietnam that I forgot). They are all "trash" in your opinion. But, you, a person who has AT MOST a superficial reading of some subject (by using superficial I am being kind to you), are correct? That is another facet of your "logic?" You are "brilliant," indeed. 

Mammad

Kashani/Mammad

Kashni says: "Mammad, it is you guys who are kase as asgh daghtar for many reasons, the most notable is that you deny the shortcomings that the regime itself admits to!"

Kashani, Mammad has criticized the regime more than many times .... and sometimes very harshly (see for example one of his last comments in 'UN not USA' article.....
Kashani_jAn, as I have told you many times you write too much and read/understand too little!
--take it easy kash

Q, it is you guys who

Q, it is you guys who always go back to point one when confronted with logic and facts. All you really doing is making yourself look even more lost and confused.

We argument: for anyone who’s interested in politics and is following political events, it’s very obvious that you have absolutely no knowledge about the political alphabet. Like I always said, one, if not the biggest problem you guys have is that you do not think for a second on how things actually work on the ground. You don’t bother thinking about that. There are 3 reasons for that : 1- you are naïve. 2- You are intentionally twisting logic because you are ideologically driven 3- you mix political logic with non political logic. For example, you’re just unable to understand what it means for an Iranian to go on the streets and get arrested for wearing cloth that the government doesn’t approve of. It is easy for you people to just justify what the regime does in the name of blind anti Americanism, but you don’t know what it means to the average Iranian to go through that, and most importantly, you don’t understand how is it that average Iranian wants to change that. The “WE” argument is the same. You are just mixing up confused rhetoric together that doesn’t make sense to a 5 years old. The term “WE” in common daily conversation is different than the term “WE” in political term. WE could be our nation WE could be our political party, WE could be our geographical area..anything, but in daily conversation, when my friend and I get together for a coffee, that makes us WE having a cup of coffee. Get the point? That’s the problem with confused, brainwashed-by-leftist professors young college educated Americans talking about politics. They don’t understand how it works. They reference pop culture (just watch the Daily Show where most young Americans get their news from) and non-political logic to translate political events.

SAVAK argument: Of course the countries I mentioned are relevant. U.S didn’t have “different rules” for those countries, rather, those countries had “different rules than Iran” for their countries. Also, you’re ignoring the factual logical argument I made about the Rwandan genocide. Those people who killed 800,000 people in a record time, did not have the high tech weapons or sophisticated techniques, all they used were knives and axes. Another thing you guys ignore is “The will of the doer”. Amazing how you guys ignore that. If a dictator is willing to seize power, they will find a way, even, literally, with knives and axes. What you have to look at is the “WILL” not the tools. You have to look at what was Shah’s will, what was Khomenin’s will, what is America’s will. Don’t worry about the tools, look at the will.

CIA: lets use some logic here. You guys make it sound like that the smallest thing that happens anywhere in the world has the CIA hand behind it. Not considering how absurd and childish and ideologically driven hat argument is, lets just think for a second; what is CIA’s capacity to perform all those “evil acts”? how many agents does it need to perform those? How many planners does it have or need? How much budget does it need? How does those agents and funds actually get transferred? How the recipient does uses them for its benefit? How come and because of what does the CIA has this great, never been seen in the history, ultra human, and creativity capability to pull all those things? How come it never fails? How come there are so many traitors all around the world in millions and hundreds of millions of people who just give up their country to CIA like that? What are the reasons behind that love and affection for the CIA in all cultures, religions, races…?? Why are their plans flawless and always successful? Are Americans smarter than other people?

Q, its just doesn’t make sense, it really doesn’t. you can’t explain it. Look, no one is denying that CIA had/has global presence, even the U.S doesn’t deny that, so why should I? No one is denying that the CIA was engaged, for the better of the world, in a brutal fight against communism and KGB. But, a big but, the CIA is not responsible for some of the most ridicules accusations it was made against it, including the Iranian 1953 coup.

All of these accusation are made by a bunch of leftist sour losers that have been hijacking world media and the intellectual scene and bullying everyone to silence them, and now they’re getting strong foothold among U.S media and elite college professors who brainwash people like you. But you know what, its our fault for not acting. We should not have let those people hijack our voice. And that voice has been hijacked everywhere. The average person whether he is in Iran/ France/India/S Arabia/U.S.A laughs at these logics you guys make up, but, you guys make it up anyways, and are motivated behind it,, because you are ideologically driven, and we’re not. We’re not as active as you guys are. That’s reality. But I got some bad news. We are becoming more active than you. We are rising, the world is rising and rejecting theses ideas. Every day, in every corner in this world, there are people who are making difference towards establishing a non leftists, non socialist, capitalist, democratic societies. But you don’t hear about them in the news, the only thing that makes news is the suicide bomber in Iraq. But, again, that’s changing! So get ready!

Mammad, it is you guys who

Mammad, it is you guys who are kase as asgh daghtar for many reasons, the most notable is that you deny the shortcomings that the regime itself admits to! Even some people in the regime confess about bad conditions in Iran, but you don’t! How pathetic is that?

-         Shah: Offcourse he had the support, otherwise he wouldn’t be power. How did he last 30 years or so? By accident? Again, like I said in my previous posting which is very obvious you didn’t even bother to read and probably responded to me based on the first couple of line you read, I said dictators don’t need the support of majority of people. All they need is a few brainwashed base.

-         The coup: Amazing. I am urging here to re-read the sentence you wrote down yourself. I’m just gonna highlight something: Just because some Iranian traitors participated in the coup, it does not make it an Iranian coup. So, how is that not Iranian? Are those traitors not Iranian? Of course they are! You guys are so confused it appears you don’t even believe in your own writings anymore! and like you said yourself, those weren’t just “some” Iranians, they were the King, some of his generals and his supporters in politics and among some people. Furthermore, the coup was a response to a King’s lost of power. He did not like that. He and his supporters planned and executed the coup to bring him back to full power. Whether America or U.S or USSR (Who was also by the way happy because of the coup) happy about the outcomes, is irrelevant. Finally, just to point something out, its hypocritical to call me names when I say Iranians think this and the world thinks that, but t the same time, you’re saying the world think this and that about the coup. Sadly hypocritical.

-         I did not say History is an opinion, I said the interpretation of history and historical events are matters of opinion. I believe gave you an example of the Qadesiya battle. Like I said, Iranians consider that a tragedy, Arabs don’t (Well some at least). No one is claiming that Qdesiya didn’t happen, but reasons, outcomes and motives behind it will always be debated. Hopefully you get the pint.

-         UNSC: I really don’t know how you guys come up with these logics! Well I do, it’s just amazing to me. Look, what the U.S did after it did not get the approval from the U.N is not the topic of our conversation, is it? you said that the U.S uses UNSC, and because of the undeniable facts I represented, it’s very clear that it didn’t/did not want to/unable to. That’s what we were talking about. Please do not make desperate attempts to change the subject.

-         WWII: Those countries, just like Iran, are victims of themselves, their dictators and their circumstances. Many of those countries you listed are prosperous and democratic countries now and enjoy great relations with the U.S. See the point? Also, I’m gonna mention a bunch of countries below that through U.S defeat of communism and Nazism have achieved democracy: Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Greece, Austria, Japan, S Korea, Singapore, …and the list goes on.

Kashani: still wrong, still abusive, still can't admit either

I'm done with you.

You are repeating your own previous banter in a circular fashion without even bothering to understand my specific replies to them. There are only two points where I feel the audience could benefit from my response. And that's what I'll cover.

Your use of the word "we" is wrong. At this point, it's obvious, you care little about the truth but only wnat to be right. Well, this isn't the 5th grade.

It doesn’t matter whether that “WE” was 1% or 99%. That 1% or 99% who are responsible for the coup.

You are wrong. This is elementary logic. I will prove it to you, but I am almost sure you will not accept it and continue to waste time.

Proof: The word "we" must imply majority, so 99% applies but 1% does not. If "we" does not imply at least 50%+1 in the context in which it is used, it will lead to a contradiction which is illogical. pay attention: For example if "we"=5%, that means the following statements are both true:

1) We supported Mossadegh in 1953.
2) We did not support Mossadegh in 1953.

This is a logical contradiction. Both cannot be true, unless you are purposefully impercise or poetic. For "we" to be meaningful it must mean at least a majority, although colloquially it usually implies a large majority.

Therefore your use of the word "we" is wrong as is the follow-up analysis.

My prediction is that you will either not get it, pretend you meant something else or just ignore it. Either way, I'm pretty sure you will not admit your clear mistake.

Second point is on the CIA training. You ignore my reply that the CIA was active in all countries you mentioned, and from what little we know also did participate in illegal activity in those nations. But the fact that US had different rules for different countries is irrelevant to the fact that it did use these tactics in Iran. SAVAK may have existed, but it would not have anywhere near the same effectiveness if it didn't have all the US training, weapons, techniques, surveilance methods and high tech analysis. Of course Reza Khan and Kings going back thousands of years had torture and dungeons, but for the first time CIA offered scientifically tested high tech equipment and knowledge. Advances in human psychology, sociology, computer science, anatomy and small miniature surveilance and torture devices were things the SAVAK could not get on its own.

Now your unbelievably making facts that CIA used techniques to overthrow governments in Asutralia!How absurd is that Q? At least be mature, at least say something that makes at least some, slight, tiny sense.

All your childish insults aside, my adivce to you is read. Just because YOU don't know something or the media does not cover it, doesn't make it wrong or "absurd".

The biggest constitutional crisis in Australian history is when the unprecedented act when the Governor General of that country (A ceremonial post) who was later proven to be a CIA asset belonging to organizations shown to be CIA fronts, dismissed the leftist elected prime minister who had ordered the raid of some CIA facilities in Australia, was vehemently against the Vietnam war and openly talked about stopping intelligence cooperation between US and Australia.

CIA had assets in government and in Unions which organized the fall of the prime minister (Whitlam).

Killing Hope, by Bloom 2003. Chapter 40: Australia 1973-75

The secret history of the Whitlam dismissal

if the words are too much for you, watch this:

FK

When you have nothing to say, just don't say anything. There is actually something to it when people say you do not read the comments carefully and think about them. You are just in a hurry to respond, as if a fast response proves your intellectual abilities or knowledge. It does not.

1. So, if the US did not get the approval of UNSC to invade Iraq, but did it anyway, what does that imply? Does it not actually show the correctness of my argument that UN is a tool for US? If it can use it, fine. If it cannot, it declares "independence," and does what it wants. I do not get this. Think man, think. It is not too hard!

2. Go back and read what I said: I said, since 1945, the end of WW II. The countries you listed were part of the anti-fascism alliance during WWII and have nothing to do with what I said. Plus, in that war, the Red Army of the Soviet Union played at least as a significant role as the US and UK to defeat Nazism. This is not what I say, this is what what historians say. Of course, you do not believe in history. To you, it is just a matter of opinion.

Plus, for every country during WWII that you name, I name a acountry that has been a victim of the US since then:

Chile

Argentina

Guatemala

Honduros

El Salvador

Panama

Cuba

Iran

Congo

South Africa

Namibia

Angola

Iraq

Afghanistan

Grenada

Palestine

................... How many more do you want, and this is just a partial list!

3. Yeah, right. Egypt needs the US to survive, but in return it does its dirty job. As for Jordan, King Hussein was on the CIA payrole for only 100K/year (check the internet). I do not know whether his son, the moron King Abdullah, has given the CIA a discount or not. But, I do know (check the internet) that his chief of security is former George Tenet deputy at the CIA! Go figure!

4. Who the heck made that claim? What is the problem? In your haste to respond, you cannot even read things correctly?

Mammad

You did say it, FK

You did say, once in response to a comment of mine, that,

"the Shah had the support of the big majority of people, and the Army."

So, I asked, if that was so, how come he had to flee the country, and why did he need a coup to go back? But, you never responded.

You are simply "kaaseh daagh tar az aash." As Sadegh said, just too many of the foreign perpetrators themselves have talked proudly of their participation in the coup. The CIA proudly taught the planning and execution of the coup in its classes for nearly 20 years (check the internet), yet you insist that it was not so.

The person who does not get the point is you, FK. Just because some Iranian traitors participated in the coup, it does not make it an Iranian coup. The Rashidian brothers were agents of British intelligence. General Zahedi, the pro-Nazi officer who had been exiled by the British themselves, was brought back for that purpose. Have you ever heard the word, traitor? Hello!! Who is a traitor? Hello!!  Those Iranians who supported the coup.

The 1953 coup was a foreign coup against Iranians and Iran's national interests because,

(1)  it was conceived, planned, and executed, with the help of Iranian triators, by the CIA-MI6;

(2) it overthrew a popularly elected government, and

(3) it was in response to nationalization of Iran's oil industry.

It was an imperialist plan and coup because

(4) the West was worried that Dr. Mosaddegh would become a model for the 3rd world's struggles against colonialism (and the 1950s was the peak of anti-colonial struggle). Dr. Mosaddegh did become a hero of the 3rd world, any way. TYou know why? Because the world does not see the 1953 coup the way you do, a fictional revision of the history.

It is not without a reason that I and people like me tell you that you invent things. This is not, of course, surprising, because you once claimed that historical events are just a matter of "opinion." In other words, there is no such thing as history; you can invent it as you go.

Mammad

Brilliantly done

Brilliantly done Q...even if there is not a chance in hell that FK will accept it...I doubt he would even if Kermit Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Anthony Eden, Ann Lambton, Winston Churchill, Robin Zaehner and everyone else who participated all stared him dead in the face and told him so...A great deal of the participants admit their involvement unashamedly in memoirs and similar documents...Kermit Roosevelt has written a book on it for crying out loud...it's amazing that Kashani is debating issues with the most spurious of intuitions that scholars and world-renown experts settled years ago...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Q, start acting mature and

Q, start acting mature and civilized for once. Your lack of understanding of polities and your confused attempt to connect and define political realities using non political tools and references is sad, to say the least.

-         How can you agree with the fact that Bi Mokh and Zahedi were “in” the coup, but Iranians are not responsible? What logic are you using to come up to that conclusion? How were they “in” the coup? Also, when I say, we, I mean Iranians WE. “WE” against “them”, so, it wasn’t them, but us, WE, Iranians. Again, your misguided logic is mind boggling. The method you use these terms to define political phenomena is laughable. You have to analyze these events using actual political facts and political reasoning, not but being confused over “Well who are WE”? It is obvious who WE are! Are you trying to confuse yourself even more? It doesn’t matter whether that “WE” was 1% or 99%. That 1% or 99% who are responsible for the coup.

-         Its you who’s using an outdated Communist terminology and analogy to make sense of political events. No one is blaming the victim, but what is a “victim”? How can you be a victim? To me, because I’m from the school of self responsibility, discipline and working towards progress and prosperity, victims were for example people of India who were OCCUPIED by foreign powers. In 1953, we were not even close to being occupied by anyone. Now, in India’s case, after being brutally occupied for centuries, now, it has become a great world power. My ultimate question is always, why can India do it and we can’t? Q, people like do not have/do not want to have answer for these types of questions. Because even if you attempt to answer these types of questions, you’re whole entire argument shatters. But for most successful nations, answering those questions is the first step towards progress. Because in the past, we had people who thought like you and spread propagandas like yours, as nation, in 1953 and 1979, we weren’t able to answer those questions. But now we can. We see other people live in peace with themselves and others including the U.S, we see them applying human rights principles, we see them progressing, without having to bow down to the U.S or Russia or China or anyone else. We wanna be like them, simple, and we wanna use their formulas for success, not your formula of backwardness, hate, and clash of civilization, repressiveness, and confusion.

-         About Shah and Chile and Eastern Europe and support of majority: in this case I really don’t think you’re getting the point as oppose to other times when there is a clear attempt to distort the truth. When did I say Shah had the majority or Pinochet? I never did that. Think about it, if I say that, I’m basically saying that people in Iran are happy right now with the IRI, which shatters everything I have said so far. So obviously I’m not saying that! I am however saying and this is completely an undeniable fact, that Shah, Pinochet, Communist regimes in E Europe, IRI has supporters. They have/had supporters who are willing to give up their lives for Shah and Khomeini. And those people have no problem arresting you and me for dissident. They have no problem killing us for opposing the regime, and it doesn’t matter where they were trained or who’s friends the government is with. That’s doesn’t matter. See the point? I’m very reluctant to say this, but I agree with you (darn it hurts to say this!) that neither Shah nor Pinochet had the support of the majority. But it in dictatorships you don’t need the support of majority. All you need is a support of “some” who are brainwashed enough to do anything you tell’em to do. So everything that you said about minority vs majority support is actually what I’ve been saying all along, and like you said about Khomeini’s reception, its we, whether we were minority in 1953 and majority in 1979, or vice versa, are the ones who helped the Shah and helped Khomeini hijack our country. Obviously by saying we, I don’t mean Me and other people. I mean that group of “WE” Iranians.

-         SAVAK: All countries have intelligent services, even Switzerland does, what makes you think Shah didn’t need one? Now, what role Savak took after it was established, is a totally different subject. But the Savak was created to thwart threats against the regime, i.e Shah.

-         CIA support: Let me just try to make this as easily understandable for you as possible, answer this question: is it possible at all, that Savak, without using alleged “CIA torture tactics”, to still use “other forms of torture tactics”? when the Rwandan genocide occurred, the genociders used knives and axes. They didn’t need to use high tech weapons, they didn’t need to be “trained”, get my point? If there is a will to commit crime, they will find a way. That is the point that you people are just unwilling to accept. Also, I gave you examples of all these countries that used CIA “training”. How come they didn’t abuse human rights? You have dodged that question everytime I asked you. Now your unbelievably making facts that CIA used techniques to overthrow governments in Asutralia!How absurd is that Q? At least be mature, at least say something that makes at least some, slight, tiny sense. Hell yes that is the point! You have to look why CIA trained Japanese intelligence service didn’t abuse human rights and why CIA trained Iranian Savak did. That’s the whole point.

Finally, let me just say this, U.S’ contribution to peace and promoting democratic values is rarely, if at all ever, seen in history. its undeniable sacrifices which friends and foes admit themselves in defeating Nazism and Communism, the two biggest devilish systems of oppression in the world, is not something that people like you or Khamenei or Chavez or Chomsky can ever deny. Even Chirac himself, who was a big time anti Bush French president, said himself in Normandy that if it wasn’t for U.S sacrifices, France will not be here today. U.S spent life and money to protect the world against the fascism of communism. See the reception the same GW Bush gets when he goes to any Eastern European country. Overwhelming! Why do you think is that? Because they appreciate what U.S has done for them in freeing them from the brutality of Communism and oppression? That’s something written in history forever. They don’t care who the U.S president is. Your desperate illogical attempts to make up stories and connect CIA to abuses some lunatic dictator did in Iran or Chile to what U.S has done for the world, will fail, miserably.

Take care.

Kashani, you are wrong, but also abusive and non responsive

Kashani, you are grasping for straws and making laughable arguments. You confuse "part" with "whole", and "correlation" with "causation". In addition, you hurl insults left and right for no reason, showing your anger and frustration on this argument which you are losing.

Kashani's first illogical and unscientific point: If Iranians were involved in the coup, that means "we" are responsible.

We all know Iranians like Shabane bi Mokh and Fazlollah Zahedi were involved. No one denied that some Iranians helped. Your claim is that "we" did it, however, is false. What's unscientific about your "fact" (it's not) is that a few people in the coup plot does not equal the Iranian nation (we). When you say "we" that means at least 50% of Iranians.

If only one out of 10 people wanted it, how can you say "we" wanted it? You have no evidence whatsoever that it was anything near 50%, so you can't say "we".

What you are doing is the time honored colonialist tradition of blaming the victim. By your absurd definition, almost every coup was the fault of it's own people. If the fact that some coup executors were Iranian. (And nevermind that most of whom were paid and only did it for the American money). If you really believe this, then you must also believe these:

- People of Chile "wanted" American-backed Pinochet's coup in 1973 because Pinochet and his junta were Chilean.

- People in the Eastern Soviet dominated block in Europe (Poland, Latvia, Romania, East Germany, Czekoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.) really "wanted" a USSR dominated government because all the presidents, communist party members and government officials who came to power were from their own country.

- In fact all US and Soviet backed coups all over the world, during the cold war happened because the people really "wanted" them.

you see how absurd and uscientific this thesis is?

Its amazing how you call my facts as ”opinions” when I say that Shah had the support of many, and ask for evidence, but at the same token, you make the claim that Shah didn’t have support without presenting any evidence!!!

Kashani, you are being abusive again. Having support of some Iranians is not having support of "we" Iranians. You did not prove that Shah had the support of the Majority.

You either didn't read carefully or are pretending you didn't see it when I said Mossaddegh had the support of the majority of Iranians. This is an uncontroversial claim supported by the fact that Mossadegh was appointed PM by the Majlis, the overwhelming majority of Iranians voted in favor Mossadegh's proposal in a referendum, the Shah was forced to back off in face of popular support of Mossadegh and left for Italy. These are all scientific and objective evidence for the fact that majority of Iranians supported Mossadegh against the Shah. But even if you don't take my word for it, I showed you below how CIA veterans (in the Ron Paul video), and respected experts like Stephen Kinzer, agree with this assessment.

So to recap: I have evidence, and backing of experts and you just have your own opinion. The only point you have made so far is a tautology that we all knew ahead of time: that some people supported the Shah and some were willing to get bribed to support a coup for him.

"Shah had supporters" is a moot point. It does not say anythign about "we" as Iranians. It does not prove your point that "we were responsible" for 1953. I specifically told you that in order to show that CIA/MI6 were not instrumental (it means without them it would not have occurred), you have to convince people that the 1953 coup would have occurred anyway. You can't do that, therefore, it is most correct to say: Foreign coup plotters were responsible.

Even many of Mosadegh’s supporters didn’t want the Shah to be removed, they wanted that “father figure” up there.

Once again your opinion is dangerously presumptuous. But even if that is the case, they certainly wanted Mossadegh to have higher power than the Shah. Doesn't change anything.

myself have seen hundreds of pictures of people in thousands in streets greeting Shah when he came back, and there hundreds of books, and interviews, you name it. I will ask you to be mature when you converse. Don’t be either naïve or don’t degrade the level of conversation like that. Friends and foes know that Shah had supporters; he actually still does, unfortunately. What we need to do to see why is that? Not deny it!

The receptions weren't nearly as much as Khomeini received when he came back and he didn't control the media perceptions at that time, like Shah and SAVAK did when Shah returned. But in both cases, they don't prove the substance of the issue. I will ask YOU to be mature. Don't play games with words. First, no one denies that some people did support the Shah. Second, jsut because there was some visible support, doesn't mean people supported the coup. Third, The question is during the 1953 crisis, who had the majority support? And in several publish showdowns including a referendum, people chose Mossadegh over Shah. Why do you deny this?

Look, Savak was created for one reason, to protect the Shah.
Absolutely not. This is your opinion and I don't accept it. There were many more reasons for this including fighting global Communism and furthering US interests.

You want scientific approach, don’t you, here it is: what connection is there between the U.S training the Savak and Savak abusing human rights in Iran?
Plenty of connections. It has been proven that CIA surveilance and torture techniques were used by SAVAK. It has been proven that millions of dollars of weapons and equipment and training was given to SAVAK by the CIA.

Did the U.S trainers told Savak trainees that their mission is to abuse human rights? Did the U.S trainers tell Savak that their mission is to protect American interest? NO! Shah created the Savak and since the U.S had an intelligence system that was designed to fight communism (That’s why we see its ineffectiveness to fight Islamic fundamentalism), U.S trained them. There is no connection.
nonsense, absolute nonsense! You call this scientific? First of all, it doesn't matter what their stated "mission" was. It included creating fear and terror in the population so that they don't think about going toward antiwestern causes: Communist and Islamist. Yes, I agree it was also designed to keep Shah in power. But the human rights abuses were CIA-developed techniques from psychological and physical data driven from experiments that could not have been "copied" by SAVAK. It was made available to SAVAK with the full knowledge and intention that it would be used on the Iranian people.

The fact that US may not have used the same exact techniques in Europe as in the third world is not a refutation of the fact that it did so in Iran. Even so, there is plenty of cold war activity of CIA and local agencies in Europe and Australia including killing and kidnapping people and even overthrowing governments.

Your point is irrelevent. The CIA/US supplied weapons, intelligence and training to SAVAK with the full knowledge that it would be used on Iranian people. The US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq with the full knowledge that it would be used on innocent civilians. The US sent interrogation victims to third world countries to be tortured on purpose. That makes them complicit. No matter how you white-wash the situation, you can't get away from these proven facts.

Lastly, I have had enough of your name calling and abusive tactics. This post will stand here for anyone to read and is plenty explanation for those interested. I'm not sure you are interested in the truth or are simply interested in being "right" about your "theories" that all the experts reject.

I also reserve the right to copy this into it's own blog if it gets lost in your sure-to-be non-sequitur replies.

Have a nice day.

Dearest Kashani, I've

Dearest Kashani,

I've written a 10,000 word paper using British and American declassified documentation showing just how the British and Americans organized and executed the coup of '53...no article of 'dodgy leftist profs' here...

Here you are:

//iranian.com/main/2008/foreign-interests

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Mammad,   1-    

Mammad,

1-     U.S didn’t get approval for Iraq war, for tougher sanction against Iran, for sanctions against Zimbabwe, and other matters, so how does the U.S using the Security Council? Plus, how is it even possible to use the Security Council when arch enemies like Russia and China have veto power? Even France didn’t approve the Iraq war! Remember what I told you about the bubble, well, in your bubble, there are only 3 countries in the world, everything that happens in the world is related to one of these three, and Iran is the utopian system of government that has brought us freedom and prosperity, and U.S and Israel are out to get it because they hate Islam and Iran.

2-     Let me list you the names of only few countries that U.S helped in the war against communism but didn’t abuse human rights, thus negating the argument hat U.S support causes abuse of human rights: England, France, W Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Japan, S Korea, Australia, Canada….and the list goes on.

3-     90% absolutely wrong, the top two absolutely correct. Let me give you the name of another country: Jordan. So U.S supports Muslim people in Jordan and Egypt. If U.S stops supporting those countries, the population of those countries, including the Islamist who kill Americans, will starve to death.

4-     4- I don’t even think Khamenei or Chavez or Chomsky themselves believe the argument that the Iraq war was a compensation for Balkan intervention. I didn’t expect you to make such absurd claim. This is honestly the first time I ever heard such claim. You sound like Q!

Q, amazing. Your trick is

Q, amazing. Your trick is to invent reality, twist the definition of reality, and then, connect events to the reality you made up. Its amazing how you hypocritical and confused you are , and here’s why:

-         don’t invent reality. How did the U.S “Execute” the coup? Explain. What does “executing” a coup mean? What is a coup? And how are coups performed? A typical coup, not saying the 1953 was like that necessarily, is when someone takes armed men and seizes power and removes the person in power from power. That’s the typical one, not all coups are like that, and even those coups have different levels. Some bloody, some not. So, lets examine how “unscientific” your absurd argument is. Answer the following question: 1- Was the person who planned and gathered armed men Iranian or American? 2- The armed men, were they Iranian or American? 3- The person who was in power, was he Iranian or American? 4- The person who seized power illegally, was he Iranian or American? So, based on answers to those questions, which are obvious to the whole world, we can determine who is responsible. And who’s at fault? And the crucial question is, to what extent did foreign influence was effective? Now, I have no doubt that the U.S, but mostly U.K, were delighted to see Shah back in power. Maybe they even give him the wrong advice. But, that does not mean WE DIDN’T do it! We did it!

-         Its amazing how you call my facts as ”opinions” when I say that Shah had the support of many, and ask for evidence, but at the same token, you make the claim that Shah didn’t have support without presenting any evidence!!! How pathetic is this, really? Look, I wish the Shah didn’t have the support, but he did. Because monarchy was rooted in our culture at that time. Even many of Mosadegh’s supporters didn’t want the Shah to be removed, they wanted that “father figure” up there. You’re unable to understand these facts. Plus, all the evidence you need is all over the place of many people supporting the Shah. I myself have seen hundreds of pictures of people in thousands in streets greeting Shah when he came back, and there hundreds of books, and interviews, you name it. I will ask you to be mature when you converse. Don’t be either naïve or don’t degrade the level of conversation like that. Friends and foes know that Shah had supporters; he actually still does, unfortunately. What we need to do to see why is that? Not deny it!

-         France and Turkey claim is exactly what I’ve been saying.

-         Look, Savak was created for one reason, to protect the Shah. You want scientific approach, don’t you, here it is: what connection is there between the U.S training the Savak and Savak abusing human rights in Iran? Did the U.S trainers told Savak trainees that their mission is to abuse human rights? Did the U.S trainers tell Savak that their mission is to protect American interest? NO! Shah created the Savak and since the U.S had an intelligence system that was designed to fight communism (That’s why we see its ineffectiveness to fight Islamic fundamentalism), U.S trained them. There is no connection. The order by Shah to abuse human rights had nothing to do with the Shah being friends of America. Let me ask you, isn’t Singapore, S Korea, Japan (I’m not gonna mention any Western country), Australia, New Zealand …friends of America too? How come their intelligence system don’t abuse human rights? They get trained by America too. How about Japan? Its military is petty much U.S military. How come Japanese people don’t have their rights abused? I hope you see the point, otherwise, you’re helpless.

Q, amazing. Your trick is

Q, amazing. Your trick is to invent reality, twist the definition of reality, and then, connect events to the reality you made up. Its amazing how you hypocritical and confused you are , and here’s why:

-         don’t invent reality. How did the U.S “Execute” the coup? Explain. What does “executing” a coup mean? What is a coup? And how are coups performed? A typical coup, not saying the 1953 was like that necessarily, is when someone takes armed men and seizes power and removes the person in power from power. That’s the typical one, not all coups are like that, and even those coups have different levels. Some bloody, some not. So, lets examine how “unscientific” your absurd argument is. Answer the following question: 1- Was the person who planned and gathered armed men Iranian or American? 2- The armed men, were they Iranian or American? 3- The person who was in power, was he Iranian or American? 4- The person who seized power illegally, was he Iranian or American? So, based on answers to those questions, which are obvious to the whole world, we can determine who is responsible. And who’s at fault? And the crucial question is, to what extent did foreign influence was effective? Now, I have no doubt that the U.S, but mostly U.K, were delighted to see Shah back in power. Maybe they even give him the wrong advice. But, that does not mean WE DIDN’T do it! We did it!

-         Its amazing how you call my facts as ”opinions” when I say that Shah had the support of many, and ask for evidence, but at the same token, you make the claim that Shah didn’t have support without presenting any evidence!!! How pathetic is this, really? Look, I wish the Shah didn’t have the support, but he did. Because monarchy was rooted in our culture at that time. Even many of Mosadegh’s supporters didn’t want the Shah to be removed, they wanted that “father figure” up there. You’re unable to understand these facts. Plus, all the evidence you need is all over the place of many people supporting the Shah. I myself have seen hundreds of pictures of people in thousands in streets greeting Shah when he came back, and there hundreds of books, and interviews, you name it. I will ask you to be mature when you converse. Don’t be either naïve or don’t degrade the level of conversation like that. Friends and foes know that Shah had supporters; he actually still does, unfortunately. What we need to do to see why is that? Not deny it!

-         France and Turkey claim is exactly what I’ve been saying.

-         Look, Savak was created for one reason, to protect the Shah. You want scientific approach, don’t you, here it is: what connection is there between the U.S training the Savak and Savak abusing human rights in Iran? Did the U.S trainers told Savak trainees that their mission is to abuse human rights? Did the U.S trainers tell Savak that their mission is to protect American interest? NO! Shah created the Savak and since the U.S had an intelligence system that was designed to fight communism (That’s why we see its ineffectiveness to fight Islamic fundamentalism), U.S trained them. There is no connection. The order by Shah to abuse human rights had nothing to do with the Shah being friends of America. Let me ask you, isn’t Singapore, S Korea, Japan (I’m not gonna mention any Western country), Australia, New Zealand …friends of America too? How come their intelligence system don’t abuse human rights? They get trained by America too. How about Japan? Its military is petty much U.S military. How come Japanese people don’t have their rights abused? I hope you see the point, otherwise, you’re helpless.