The Wests Mission Accomplished in Iran, Iraq and Libya. Now Syria. Part 2. (4 parts)


by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

What the West, lead by the USA/UK/France/Germany want is to meet their national interests, in terms of reduced competition and cheap primary resources their economies need. In addition to selling weapons and dominating other societies to force them to buy and sell using their currencies. These so-called "Civilised Nations" and "Free Democratic Societies" have no interest in helping countries be democratic and their number one goal as a result of their Most important National interest is to thwart any power that would try to make this happen.

The wests approach is to support extremists covertly (which itself proves they are not after supporting pro-democrats) and overthrow powers not under their control, under the plausiable excuse of being "for democracy" and "for human rights", while they oppose these with all the resources they have. This Politics is based on the idea of divide and rule and it is where anti-intellectuals among pro-democracy supporters are of value to the west.

Anti-Intellectuals which are a large part of pro-democracy supporters (though not all pro-democracy supporters are anti-intellectuals) are used to divide the societies and achieve the wests goals. So in practice the west really doesn't support them at all it discards them at the end of reaching their number one goal, thwarting the societies that it divided against themselves using the ideal of democracy and media coverage. This results in greater poverty, corruption, violence and tyranny.

Iranians who are not aware of what the USA did to the late shahs team or how anti-intellectuals were used in pursuit of democracy to bring the mullahs to power are among the minority these days. Most Iranians know how divide and rule was used against the entire society and how the people of Iran and their human rights, means less than nothing to the leaders in the west in practice. Iranians mistake was to not understand the basics of politics and to see american, british, french and german "people" and think they seem okay and then trusting their governments thinking their governments are made of the people and we are okay with them, with out knowing of the inhumanities and crimes their governments commit 24/7 against the world and humanity on the whole.

Anti-intellectuals used to be a dime a dozen, from 1953 to 1979, though due to the experience of 1979 their numbers have dwindled and the younger generation living in the USA created and maintained tyranny of Iran understands that the west doesn't give a damn for their human rights at all. Don't expect different in any of the other countries, syria, libya, iraq, afghanistan to do so would be anti-intellectual.

More On the American Genocide, //

More On Part 1 //


Recently by amirparvizforsecularmonarchyCommentsDate
Nov 22, 2012
Let Us Unite, With Humanity.
Nov 10, 2012
Nov 03, 2012
more from amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

On views by fg

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

There is so much evidence its not even funny, to be in denial about it is to have an agenda in my view, you could disagree with the evidence, the researchers, the information, but you are not disagreeing, you are even denying the evidence even exists. 



Saying my views are similar to the IRI regimes, ridiculous claims their elections were not rigged is not clear to me why?  With regards to the IRI my view is that No election ever held in IRI has had neutrally appointed observers and observers from each candidate to validate the results, so no election held has ever been legitimate.  What on earth does the regimes claims have any bearing to do with my claims? Are the IRI and I one entity to have comparable credibility?  Do we even share a similar goal?  I want to see the USA imposed IRI gone and for no extremists to replace them and am making it clear to all the IRI was brought and kept by the USA and allies and the USA is only interested in supporting extremists for Iran.

On having a contradiction, that is the easiest point to clear up, at no point in time should the USA interfer in the politics of any country.  No one ever asked the USA to step in for the Shah against the Masses of people.  What occured was totally clear, SAVAK had over 1500 extremist leaders in its custody and the USA forced the Shah to let them out, when they were out there were mass violent protests, when they were in there was total quiet.  Savak was prevented from fulfilling its lawful role by USA pressure. 

When the Shah left Iran the Iranian miltary had a lawful role to defend the constitution, in this case the military met with a USA appointed colonel sent on order of the US president, his name Huyser, he gave the Iranian military the order from the US president to not interfer in the CIA funded protests (Cia's role is to not mention its activities, though its activities can be traced by research which the author of the above book does with precision as for evidence.)  Also the head of french intelligence discusses in detail with the late shah, the extent of CIA involvement in plans to remove him using popular protest and of the stage of those plans and of the meetings he was in and with whom regarding the strategy of using extremism to neocolonialise the entire region.  The head of french intelligence opened up regarding this in his book before he died. 

The generals that refused to sign the order and left the meeting with the US colonel sent by Carter never made it to their bases alive, they and their body guards were killed by unknown sources.  US chief of Nato General Alexander Haig in response to this act resigned from the US administration and in interviews later confirmed that the order to Neutralize the Iranian Military was given by the US President, via a colonel Huyser in his command and in his view was clearly against the constitution of the USA as the USA was a law bound ally of Irans based on a congressionally signed pact that a president must uphold and not betray and therefore he felt he must resign. 

Let me know how you are doing with this so far and if you are open minded enough to do your own research or if you are addressing the politics of Iran with a pre-determined agenda and this evidence does not fit with your goals?????????? 


Amir means the West's imaginary mission

by FG on

The only such missions arise inside his nutty little head.  His simpllistic theories (no evidence required) resemble exactly the regime claims that all the complaints about rigged elections stemmed from plots by western agents.

I'll bet this guy was a 1979 refugee who is caught in a time warp.  Even as he decries "imperialism," he's still for it in some cases--for example in his complaints that we failed to save the Shah's regime from the Iranian people.  In this case we should have behaved as imperialists and stopped on the faces of the Irania people, according to this character who doesn't see the contradiction in his complaints.