Who will have the privilege to be 'liberated' by death squads?

All the above have already been "liberated with their own Death Squads". Perhaps we are being visited by parallel universes again, and Detox is an example of one materializing temporarily prior to moving on.

I love this "Alien logic" thing.

Our next "attack" is most likely to manifest itself in the form of the US bombing Iranian Nuclear Facilities, as it is fairly clear that negotiations between Iran and the EU are breaking down fast.

I think it'll be the Space Chiken People of the south west pacific. Their existence is only a rumour, that they have WMD is a possibility, and their ownership of massive oil reserves is tentative. In light of that damning evidence it has to be them.


Ikonoclastia

If you think that we invaded Iraq for oil than you're knowledge of both Foreign Policy and Economics is sadly lacking.

It is those space chicken people who are responsible for the bird flu. Time to polish the tomahawks boys!

Iran next, I think so, too.

But at the moment, our boys are still busy killing Iraqui 'terrorists', before it will be safe for US corporations to feast on the fruits of our conquest.

I'd give it til end of the year, before further invasions will be tackled.

[sarcasm]

How dare the media and U.S. government call Iraqi insurgents "terrorists"? After all they don't use unlawful force against people with the intention of intimidating them for idealogical and political reason.

[/sarasm]

An 'interesting' definition of terrorism implied here...

I wouldn't call it "sarcasm", but I am glad you indicate you are not serious.

Actually, Iran was 'liberated' from beig a democracy by the US (a favor for Britian) , who installed the Shah. Since you are talking about Iran's death squads and all- it should be noted that that is a big reason why we are unpopular in the ME. (Of course the biggest is Isreal, but the Shah most certainly didn't win us any friends)

HUH! Coulda fooled me! Well, what makes Iraq so much more, ummmm, strategic, than, say.... Sudan, Uzbekistan, N Korea?...?

Could it be ... Saddam's human rights violations?
Nope! Why, that would be "fluffy duffy"!

Could it be ... Iraq was a dictatorship?
Nope - can't be that, either! That would be "fluffy duffy", too.

Could it be ... Iraq was supporting terrorists? sorry - Powell called iraq a "bulwark" against Islamism, besides - the terrorists are mostly foreign anyway (at least accoring to FOX NEWS) Prince Bandar's (of Saudi Arabia) was providing direct support to some of the 9/11 hijackers while the stayed in America, but we aren't considering invading because of that!

Could it be WMD?
Nope - you yourself said you didn't think they'd find much of anything usable in Iraq. Besides - we now know that the information was "editied" to make it look like WMD were a much bigger threat than they were. I could go on, but I the threads are there to read. And what about N Korea?


Hmmmm... what COULD it be?

Its a reasonable definition - and reasonable to call the insurgents 'terrorists'

Of course, one also has to include the definition of "illegal" ... As many o the insurgents believe that the US is illegally invading. Tht would make them 'reedom fighters' in their own view.

However, no matter how you look at it, de facto the US is in charge, therefore they define "legal" and so the insurgents are terrorists.

?????? Russia and Britian invaded Iran(NOT THE US) in 1941, forced the resignation of the father and installed the son as Shah. But of course we were aware of this which Im sure in your mind is equivalent to being directly responsible. MARK

uhhhhhh..... try this.



http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Operation-Ajax



It WAS done without an invasion, true- but we are directly responsible.

The major reason the Islamists won power after the Shah was because the US and Britian were strong supporters of the Shah. There was, and still is, strong anti-US sentiment ebcause of that. And not just in Iran.

You are refering to a one week period where the Shah was out of power. Doesnt seem accurate to refer to this as "installed the Shah". And your Mossadegh was the one who disolved the Parliment, the only hint of democracy in Iran. MARK

The US hired basically the Iranian version fo the Hells Angels to go around beating people up, breaking things, intimidation everyone, and shouting pro Mossadegh slogans.

Ajax was a covert operation aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh. Weren;t you the one that strongly supported the "democratically" elected Karimov? Where is your soapbox here?

The same people who fermented dissent to overthrow Mossadegh helped put the Shah in power because he was amenble to British and US interests (read oil).

Where is your history text? on www.FOXnews.com?

Why does nobody seem to care that if we had not put the Shah back in power, the other option would most likely have ended with Iran becoming a Soviet satellite?

Now I am not saying that putting the Shah back in power was a smart move. It was an amazing foreign policy gaffe that ended in Iran's Islamic Revolution. But the CIA had reasons for doing what they did, they didn't just do it out of a general sense of mean spiritedness.

The Shah was our only option? really? BS. What could we have done to make the Shah less, uhhhh, murderous? What other options might we have advanced to keep Iran a democracy?

Anyway, Iran under the Shah was't exactly a US satelite, although he was an ally. The Persians have a strong national identity - they won't be assimilated into a larger terrority without a big fight. And you kow how successful the Russians were in Afghanastan - a MUCH weaker enemy.

The talk about Iran becoming a communist nation was because they wanted to socialize their oil industry - then run by BP. And naturally so - that is in their national financial best interest to be in control of their own oil.


But you are right -it most certainly wasn't out of mean-spiritedness. And Eisenhower did do it because the Brits told him that Iran would become a Communist nation because they wanted to control thei own oil. (Truman would not, however)


You are rationalizing again.

If you had disputed anything I claimed in my post I might know what the hell you are talking about. Seems to be a favored tactic of yours. Dispute what I say by discussing something else. MARK

If I was rationalizing I would not have said I felt it was one of the greatest foreign policy gaffes in American history.

I was providing context, not defending.

true ... you did say that. and I agree with you. It wasn't mean spirited - but it was short sighted.

although you also said that if we didn't reinstall the Shah and support him then Iran most likely would have become a Soviet satellite.

Thats what I was taking exception to.


Out of curiousity ... would you say we were "involved" in Iran?

Well we were of course involved in Iran insomuch as the CIA was directly responsible for the Shah returning to power.

I would say that without the Shah, and if the US had stayed out of the situation, Iran would have been a Soviet satellite. Still I would prefer Iran as a Soviet satellite to Iran run by the Mullahs.

But we weren't involeved with our aid and political support for the guy? What is your definition of 'involvement' anyway?

Which guy are you talking about? You mean the Shah? Or are you referring to Karimov?

But we weren't involved with our aid and political support for the Shah? What is your definition of 'involvement' anyway?