20 Aug 07
Originally posted by MacSwainIndeed? Remember that while the economy in the U.S. and gross domestic product is indeed in the trillions, that in Iran one U.S. dollar equals 879 tomans, and several thousand rials. For the area, 50 billion is a sizeable sum.
Where to begin. I have only just now read your start of this thread and some of the responses. I saw you asked for input instead of criticism. So I will start with this point.
I would like you to realize, while 50 billion dollars is huge to a high school lad in Tennessee, USA, it is but the tiniest of ripples in world economics and will hardly cause the down-fall of Europe, Middle East and Southeast Asia.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by MacSwainI didn't say a ruling secular government. I said a country which will be able to produce cheap, effective goods--- and ruin Iran's ability to trade with countries and sell its less cheap products.
First, why would a ruling secular government in Iraq (which a majority believe will never happen) cause Iran to collapse? Please re-think this, as I doubt you have read any economic reports that would lead you to believe this.
Second, Irans’ collapse (for any reason at all) would never cause the collapse of markets throughout Europe, Mid-East and Asia. ...[text shortened]... quite have the impact you assign quite yet. When they achieve nuclear weapons -- perhaps then?
China, India, Pakistan, and others may disagree with your second point, considering they are developing countries hungry for oil. Naturally, Iran does not have as much sway in global markets as the U.S., but they do have a measurable impact.
Who said anything about nuclear weapons? The U.N. inspectors sure didn't find anything in over 2,000 searches that may lead them to believe Iran may be creating weapons.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by MacSwainSince when is the U.S. interested in having democratically elected leaders in other countries?
The USA passively backed Castro in his effort to overthrow Batista by giving freedom continually visit the USA to raise funds. Much credence is given to the fact of 'covert' aid given, in the form hardware, supplied by the USA government.
USA thought Castro's intent was to install a capitalistic democracy when the 'evil' dictatorship was deposed.
Surp ...[text shortened]... d with Cuba all along.
Cuba is just another example of the failure of communism.
1953-Mohammad Mossadegh, democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, is overthrown by U.S. coup. Replaced by Shah (dictator who was pro-U.S)
1961-Patrice Lumumba, democratically elected leader of the Congo, os overthrown by U.S. Replaced with Motubu (dictator who was pro-U.S.).
etc...
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by abejnoodI didn't say a ruling secular government. I said a country which will be able to produce cheap, effective goods--- and ruin Iran's ability to trade with countries and sell its less cheap products.
I didn't say a ruling secular government. I said a country which will be able to produce cheap, effective goods--- and ruin Iran's ability to trade with countries and sell its less cheap products.
China, India, Pakistan, and others may disagree with your second point, considering they are developing countries hungry for oil. Naturally, Iran does not have ...[text shortened]... d anything in over 2,000 searches that may lead them to believe Iran may be creating weapons.
Answer- You said “if USA is successful” and USA is trying to establish a secular (all religious sects inclusive) capitalist government.
China, India, Pakistan, and others may disagree with your second point, considering they are developing countries hungry for oil. Naturally, Iran does not have as much sway in global markets as the U.S., but they do have a measurable impact.
Answer- Ok, the target group has changed and excludes the fall of Europe, Russia, et al.. That’s fine though, let me propose this: If present Iranian government were to fall, would not the oil still be there?
Who said anything about nuclear weapons? The U.N. inspectors sure didn't find anything in over 2,000 searches that may lead them to believe Iran may be creating weapons.
Answer- I said something about nuclear weapons. In trying to make a point to you that Iran does not have as much global influence as you subscribe ….until and if, they should aquire these weapons.
Hope that answers your questions
I have a question for you. Back to item one above. What are the “less cheap products” Iran exports? Thanks.
20 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by abejnoodAhhh .. intrigue! I would suppose that the reason would be the same as a certain Iranian backed organization would have in doing a bit of work for Syria and liquidating Rafik Baha ad-Din Hariri in Lebanon. 14 FEB 2005
Since when is the U.S. interested in having democratically elected leaders in other countries?
1953-Mohammad Mossadegh, democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, is overthrown by U.S. coup. Replaced by Shah (dictator who was pro-U.S)
1961-Patrice Lumumba, democratically elected leader of the Congo, os overthrown by U.S. Replaced with Motubu (dictator who was pro-U.S.).
etc...
(edit to add date)
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by MacSwainFirst of all: I didn't really have any "questions", so you didn't really "answer" any.
I didn't say a ruling secular government. I said a country which will be able to produce cheap, effective goods--- and ruin Iran's ability to trade with countries and sell its less cheap products.
Answer- You said “if USA is successful” and USA is trying to establish a secular (all religious sects inclusive) capitalist government.
China, India, Pakista ...[text shortened]... for you. Back to item one above. What are the “less cheap products” Iran exports? Thanks.
In response to your first point, it seems to me that you've misunderstood the point I was making in my original post. I was talking about the U.S. being successful in this plan of theirs.
Regarding your second: Do you really think that an economic crisis in China, India, etc would not cause a global panic? Russia, Europe, and more will be affected on a large scale. Recently, I was looking at an American flag only to see, printed on its pole, "Made In China". An American flag? Made in China? A situation in China would no doubt affect countries worldwide, including the U.S.
Sure, the oil will still be there, just like there's oil in Alaska and Russia and who knows where. But who will take it out? The U.S., as well as any country, would be mad to attack Iran from the ground.
To your question: Iran exports a variety of household and other products, as well as agriculture (pistachios, pomagranites, etc.). You can look them up on Wikipedia if you want a full set.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by MacSwainThat made absolutely no sense.
Ahhh .. intrigue! I would suppose that the reason would be the same as a certain Iranian backed organization would have in doing a bit of work for Syria and liquidating Rafik Baha ad-Din Hariri in Lebanon. 14 FEB 2005
(edit to add date)
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by abejnoodIf even a smart and educated Iranian kid like you believes this gigantic mound of manure, I can only imagine what more susceptible people think.
So the U.S. has recently claimed they are putting 50 billion to industrialize Iraq. This spells doom for Iran and the ultimate, final success for the U.S. A good thing? Depends on who you are. Not if you're Iran, obviously. Who else? Unfortunately, many don't realize that Iran's demise will also spell doom for many countries. The U.S.'s "greatest threat", o ...[text shortened]... ideals that founded America, before the U.S. becomes the next Empire to rule and fall.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by abejnoodI ABSOLUTELY think an economic crisis in China, India, etc would cause an economic crisis..not a panic. And Iran is NO China, Iran is NO India.
[b]Do you really think that an economic crisis in China, India, etc would not cause a global panic? Russia, Europe, and more will be affected on a large scale.
PLEASE READ YOUR OWN POST! The crux of your opening argument was: The fall of IRAN would cause Europe, Russia, China, et al, to fall.
If you continue like this, I'm afraid I must join with SMSBear716's earlier post and ask - I do want to know what you are smoking?
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's my analysis, not something I read and believed. So why not tell us why you disagree with it?
If even a smart and educated Iranian kid like you believes this gigantic mound of manure, I can only imagine what more susceptible people think.
21 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by abejnoodMohammad Mossadegh was democratically elected to the parliament, and as leader of the nationalists was twice appointed as prime minister by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, after a positive vote of inclination by the parliament Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran.
Since when is the U.S. interested in having democratically elected leaders in other countries?
1953-Mohammad Mossadegh, democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, is overthrown by U.S. coup. Replaced by Shah (dictator who was pro-U.S)
1961-Patrice Lumumba, democratically elected leader of the Congo, os overthrown by U.S. Replaced with Motubu (dictator who was pro-U.S.).
etc...
Due to a multitude of disagreements with his former allies, especially the communists and Islamists, and disagreements with the Shah and with the parliament over his handling of the talks regarding compensation of the British side, he dissolved the parliament using a referendum to avoid impeachment. This act was characterized as unconstitutional by some of his closest allies as well as opponents, and led to the Shah's dismissing him from office on August 16, 1953 . Mossadegh later insisted that the text of the constitution was subject to interpretation, and that his actions had been in accordance with its spirit rather than its text . He eventually was removed from power on August 19, 1953, by military intervention. The coup was supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and led by General Fazlollah Zahedi
Just to clear up a few points, the paragraph above was taken from Wikipedia. You stated that Mohammad Mossadegh was democratically elected to the position of Prime Minister. Seems he was elected to Parliment and appointed to the position of Prime Minister. And by whom? The Shah of Iran.
Seem that he then dissolved the body to which he was democratically elected to using some mechanism which even his supporters said was unconstituional and avoid imprechment through some trickery along with smoke and mirrors (ala Bill Clinton).
Sounds to me like he wasn't the saint you'd have us believe.
21 Aug 07
Originally posted by SMSBear716http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
Mohammad Mossadegh was democratically elected to the parliament, and as leader of the nationalists was twice appointed as prime minister by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, after a positive vote of inclination by the parliament Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran.
Due to a multitude of disagreement ...[text shortened]... mirrors (ala Bill Clinton).
Sounds to me like he wasn't the saint you'd have us believe.
"For many years there was much speculation over the roles that western governments had played in the prime minister's murder. With the disclosure of certain documents by author Ludo De Witte, it was finally established that Belgian soldiers were in position around Lumumba at every stage of the assassination, right up to his death.
Under its own 'Good Samaritan' laws, Belgium was clearly legally culpable for failing to prevent the assassination from taking place. On a more formal level and (more importantly) straightforwardly proven, Belgium was in breach of its obligation (under U.N. Resolution 290 of 1949) to refrain from acts or threats "aimed at impairing the freedom, independence or integrity of another state."[3]
The Belgian Commission found that Belgium had not actively sought the death of Lumumba by his transfer to Katanga, but did not show foresight either; he died within five hours of his arrival there. Neither did they try to establish his welfare at any point.
[edit] US and Belgian plots
Interestingly the same report mentions that there had previously been U.S. and Belgian plots to kill Lumumba. Obviously either they failed or they were abandoned. Among them was a CIA-sponsored attempt to poison him, which may have come on orders from U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower.[5] CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb was a key person in this by devising a poison resembling toothpaste. [6] [7][8][9] However, the plan is said to have failed because the local CIA Station Chief, Larry Devlin, had a conscience issue and did not go forward.[7][8][10]
The Belgian Commission's 2001 report led to an official apology. In February of 2002, the Belgian government apologized to the Congolese people, and admitted to a "moral responsibility" and "an irrefutable portion of responsibility in the events that led to the death of Lumumba." In July of the same year documents released by the United States government revealed that while the CIA had been kept informed of Belgium's plans, it had no direct role in Lumumba's eventual death.[7]
However, this same disclosure showed that US perception at the time was that Lumumba was a Communist.[11] Eisenhower's reported call, at a meeting of his national security advisers, for Lumumba's elimination must have been brought on by this perception. Both Belgium and the United States were clearly influenced in their unfavourable stance towards Lumumba by the Cold War. He seemed to gravitate around the Soviet Union. Arguably that was because that was the only place he could find support in his country's effort to rid itself of colonial rule, and not because he was a communist[12] (ironically, the United States was the first country Lumumba requested help from[13]). Lumumba, for his part, not only denied being a Communist, but said he found colonialism and Communism to be equally deplorable, and professed his personal preference for neutrality between the East and West.[14]
However, the United States were very wary of him becoming too close to the Soviets, and influenced by them. On the other hand Belgium obviously had other additional, more pragmatic, reasons for opposing him. Among others they apparently felt that the Belgian interests in the Congo were not served by his government. Additionally, the Belgian head of state - i.e. the King - seemed to have an even more hostile stance than his government; he had a different attitude than the ministers of Foreign Affairs and African Affairs, who were handling the Congo case. In the words of the Belgian there was a conflict between the King and his government, which led to him taking individual actions and withholding important information from his ministers.
"