• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shots fired in Iranian anti-government protests

Yes, a possibility. What sort of odds or probability of this being the case?

In a risk / reward evaluation the probability of the outcome you want, the probability of the outcome you don't want, and the probability of another outcome all need to be weighed.

This was the case when something similar happened back on Obama's term, just as it is happening now.

Does this mean that Iranian dissidents give each US president a try?

Slim and none, but it would pay off exponentially to be a friend to the folks who overthrow the Ayatolla. What's Iran going to do? Hate us? Call for "death to America"?
 
What part of illegally invading and overthrowing a sovereign nation being the ultimate war crime don't you understand, RUSN?

What can't you grasp about torturing people and stealing people's wealth is amoral, deeply evil, just plain wrong?

Except for the fact that the regimes you support have repeatedly invaded other countries. So cut the crap. You don’t care about this fantasy idea you keep spewing; your ideology can be summed up very simply as “US bad; facts don’t matter”.
 
Amazingly enough, we’ve never stolen the “wealth of the Iranian people”. Had Mossadegh stayed in power, however, it’s quite likely that the Soviet Union could have started stealing the wealth of the Iranian people.

Mossadegh did not have any intentions of siding with the Soviet Union.
 
Ayatollah.

That's laughable. The last "let's try to create a pro-American government" resulted in a failed, war-torn state, decade long quagmire and an opening for the rise of ISIS.

Hence the reason we support a coup to overthrow the ayatolla (I don't a **** how you spell that clown's title).
 
We already had a pro american govt of iran once, when we installed a brutal dictator that rivalled stalin, there is a reason iran hates the united states and israel, and much of that goes back to the shah who was controlled by the us and israel, his rule was so oppressive it caused a revolution which lead to religious authorities controlling the country.

:lamo

What a joke. The Shah even on his worse day was nowhere near as bad as Stalin. The lunatics running the country hate the US and Israel because the Shah didn’t send terrorists and commandos to attack the West. These are the guys who during the Iran Iraq War cleared minefields by charging child soldiers through them.
 
Slim and none, but it would pay off exponentially to be a friend to the folks who overthrow the Ayatolla. What's Iran going to do? Hate us? Call for "death to America"?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see nothing better. But I'm also sure that the calculus being evaluated is several layers and levels deeper using information not at our disposal, and that risk / reward is part of that calculus.
 
How was it worse? the current iran is the most modern and western islamic country, vs the iran under the shah people would be executed for even questioning the govt, there was no freedom under the precious govt in iran, for them living under the shah was like living under stalin in the soviet union.

I hate to burst your bubble but the “Islamic Republic” is more than willing to kill you for questioning their government.
 
It's the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

The Shah's Iran didn't get involved in the 6-Day War.

The shahs iran did not get involved because it was a us puppet govt. But then again has the current iranian govt invaded anyone either?

On iran being the largest state sponsor of terror, I ain't buying that, many countries iin the middle east suport terrorism yet do not get labelled, while the united states by legal definition is actually the largest state sponsor of terror, going back to reagan and funding contra rebels to help them commit acts of terrorism, or even further back when we backed afghan extremists who later became the taliban, heck there is even a wiki article on the subject, I bet many countries have a similiar list going for them as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
 
Mossadegh did not have any intentions of siding with the Soviet Union.

Mossadegh was increasingly reliant on support from the Tudeh(Iranian Communists); preempting the possibility of a Tudeh takeover was a major motivation behind Operation Ajax.
 
The shahs iran did not get involved because it was a us puppet govt. But then again has the current iranian govt invaded anyone either?

On iran being the largest state sponsor of terror, I ain't buying that, many countries iin the middle east suport terrorism yet do not get labelled, while the united states by legal definition is actually the largest state sponsor of terror, going back to reagan and funding contra rebels to help them commit acts of terrorism, or even further back when we backed afghan extremists who later became the taliban, heck there is even a wiki article on the subject, I bet many countries have a similiar list going for them as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

The current government in Iran props up Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
 
Mossadegh was increasingly reliant on support from the Tudeh(Iranian Communists); preempting the possibility of a Tudeh takeover was a major motivation behind Operation Ajax.

And the Shah’s Creation of a single party state should be applauded?
 
The shah’s savak would likely have done the same.

For all their flaws, the Savak did not send child soldiers running into minefields. They weren’t great people, but comparing them to the NKVD is laughable.
 
And the Shah’s Creation of a single party state should be applauded?

Was it better than ending up with hundreds of thousands dead, the inevitable result of a communist takeover? Yes, it was.
 
I hate to burst your bubble but the “Islamic Republic” is more than willing to kill you for questioning their government.

so that is your justification of a brutal dictator? Soas long as the guy is on our side he can torture and murder all he wants because the guys who replace him might kill political dissidents as well?

You should actually google the navak, and their special prison devoted to torturing often to death political prisoners, or the shahs dismantling of irans constitution and basic human rights. Hell the shah is almost as brutal as the chili dicator backed by the us that kicked communists out of helicopters.
 
Was it better than ending up with hundreds of thousands dead, the inevitable result of a communist takeover? Yes, it was.

Was there a communist takeover in the works?

Or did we go looking for excuses to get rid of a Democraticly elected prime minister?
 
For all their flaws, the Savak did not send child soldiers running into minefields. They weren’t great people, but comparing them to the NKVD is laughable.

Iranian children were sent into the minefields because of a brutal war between iran and iraq with iraq having superiority, as well as wmds supplied by the united states, and military equipment supplied by many western and arab powers.
 
The current government in Iran props up Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.

The current govt of iran does not prop up al queada, the other two are true but the latter is complete bs, iran and al quaeda are sworn enemies, as one of their goals is to eradicate all non sunni people and guess what iran is shia.
 
Shots fired in Iranian anti-government protests

Or...Maybe they were just celebrating something....wedding, sporting event, birthday party?


 
so that is your justification of a brutal dictator? Soas long as the guy is on our side he can torture and murder all he wants because the guys who replace him might kill political dissidents as well?

You should actually google the navak, and their special prison devoted to torturing often to death political prisoners, or the shahs dismantling of irans constitution and basic human rights. Hell the shah is almost as brutal as the chili dicator backed by the us that kicked communists out of helicopters.

I hate to break it to you, but once more the guys who replaced him did kill political dissidents as well as scores of other innocent people, not to mention sponsored a multitude of terrorist attacks and trained such groups across the globe.

Your delusional comparison of the Shah to Stalin lacks any sort of basis in fact.

Oh, I know all about the Savak. Considering you are defending a regime whose secret police far exceed them in body count, I find your hypocrisy amusing.

And yes, Pinochet was another ruler who took power in the face of a “legitimate government” which was getting in bed with the Soviets. The KGB considered Allende an asset and bribed potential opponents not to run against him.

https://www.amazon.com/World-Was-Going-Our-Way/dp/0465003133
 
Was there a communist takeover in the works?

Or did we go looking for excuses to get rid of a Democraticly elected prime minister?

As I stated before, Mossadegh was increasingly reliant on the Tudeh for support.

At a time in which the USSR was deeply interested in continued expansion of communism, by force of arms if necessary.

Ajax spared Iran from a regime that would have made the Shah’s look like kindergarten
 
As I stated before, Mossadegh was increasingly reliant on the Tudeh for support.

At a time in which the USSR was deeply interested in continued expansion of communism, by force of arms if necessary.

Ajax spared Iran from a regime that would have made the Shah’s look like kindergarten

Was the Tudeh interested in a millitary coup? Yes or no?
 
Iranian children were sent into the minefields because of a brutal war between iran and iraq with iraq having superiority, as well as wmds supplied by the united states, and military equipment supplied by many western and arab powers.

No, the only “Western Power” involved was France, which at that time was taking pride in carving an independent path from the rest of the West.

I don’t care how “superior” your enemy is, it doesn’t justify forcing kids to run into minefields.
 
Back
Top Bottom