On December 18 2011 18:29 nebffa wrote: If you're someone that deals with evidence, you'll clearly note that the current U.S. strategy in the Middle East region hasn't been working, along with the U.S. economic policy. So if you don't support Ron Paul, what ideas do you support GreenManalishi and OsoVega?
Higher interest-rates, huge budget cuts and working towards laissez-faire capitalism and government only being involved in the protection of individual rights. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Invasion of Iran and Saudi Arabia as budget permits but without the nation building.
wow I dont know what to say here without geetting insulting. So you really think invading Iran and Saudi Arabia is going to help America?
First of all this wont happen because it costs way too much money. Second and this is very important, attacking these two countries will not stop or hinder terrorists in any way. The opposite is much more likely. Saudi Arabia and the cities of Mekka and Medina are the most holy places for every muslim in the world. Christians even setting a foot into Saudi Arabia is allready an insult for a lot of muslims and one of the reason why Osama Bin Laden turned to terrorism.
Terrorism doesnt excists because some muslims are jealous of america that is bullshit. Terrorism excists because America and its allies are meddling in the middle east for almost 40 years now and screw up every time.
this is a video from a german cabarett show. Some jokes about germany are in it but important is the development outlined by Volker Pispers that took place in the middle east.
Terrorism will exist as long as Israel exists. The solution to this is not to abandon a free, rights respecting country to brutes, it is to make our intentions clear and efficiently stomp out all capacity of Iran and Saudi Arabia to sponsor terrorism. This is certainly possible and would massively reduce the ability and amount of terrorists. It doesn't take a long war ending in an Iraq like situation. With our current tactics you would be right that an invasion would be far too expensive and would not work but what we need are clear and public intentions and brutally efficient tactics.
Lol you say that 'Terrorism will exist as long as Israel exists' and then claim that it is a 'rights respecting country'!!! Sorry but that was just hilarious. Have you ever had a serious look at Israel's human rights record? If you do that it might explain to you why there will always be terrorism in Israel.......
Sorry about the off-topicness but that post was just too silly
On December 18 2011 19:09 SilverLeagueElite wrote: I'm usually a cynical person, but there is something optimistic about people from other countries talking about Ron Paul, despite him being 'unelectable'. He's managed to bring such a bland subject like economics to a national discourse. I'm talking about major news channels mentioning things like Keynes and Austrian school. At the very least, he has an iota of understanding. Everyone else is spewing the same rhetoric.
Are you being sarcastic when you outline 'unelectable'? I firmly believe he has a chance in winning if people actually learned what he really stands for instead of just being painted by the media as a crazy old uncle that was locked up in the basement. -_-
Yes, that was sarcasm. The news outlets are trying their damnedest to make him sound unelectable. Imagine if all the people who thought he was unelectable instead actually vote for him. I think it'd be a sizable voting bloc.
At first they tried to ignore him. They couldn't. Now they're trying to undermine him. Pathetic.
On December 18 2011 19:06 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:16 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:13 Senorcuidado wrote:
On December 18 2011 17:57 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is anti-Israel, blames America for terrorism and there is an Islamic threat to America and American allies. The only mis-assessment is Manhattan.
/facepalm Okay. I wouldn't dare try to confuse you with reality. 9/11 happened because they hate us for our freedom. Got it.
9/11 happened because America supported a free, rights respecting country in defending itself, chose not to trade with a brutal dictator and placed troops in an allied country (although America shouldn't be allied with them) neighboring a country who had, within just over a decade, invaded another neighbor.
Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian
Thursday 25 September 2008
"Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf."
Bush Signs Nuclear Deal with United Arab Emirates - Lou Dobbs:
To show the UAE is a friendly trading partner with Iran:
In Dubai, which has close trade ties with Iran, ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum broke ranks somewhat with his Gulf allies by suggesting the world listen closer to Iran's claims about not seeking nuclear arms. - Associated Press, 2011
In relevant news, the Bush administration through the IAEA endorsed assisting several other Middle Eastern countries with nuclear technology, a questionable policy considering many candidates for the Republican Nominee propagandize about an Arab Spring. One could suggest that arming your enemy and then getting upset because your enemy has arms is a laughable foreign policy.
The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn.
“They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs." - New York Times, 2007
The Bush Administration also dealt nuclear technology to India.
A video on the Project for the New American Century. At the one hour, nine minute mark, they start documenting the enormous WASTE of the war in Iraq, interviewing people involved, and it's disgusting. It also mentions how Halliburton got paid to provide for troops but just bought luxury cars for themselves and let the troops shower in malaria-infested water. Difficult to believe for some, but WATCH it. This is our REAL foreign policy!
Here are some more videos and articles about the current and previous US foreign relations with Iran: US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (1 of 2)
US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (2 of 2)
P.S. Don't get me started on Paul Krugman
I'm sorry, but it seems the only thing you posted in this entire post the responds to the post your were responding to was the video claiming 9/11 was an inside job which is idiotic. The only other thing that seems to address anything I've posted at all is your "Iran history lesson" which I predicted, and whose implications I disagreed with before you even posted it.
I was merely responding to you again...but like they say. Ignorance is bliss!
P.S. I don't understand why you say he lacks support for Israel? When he was for Israel bombing Iraq back then. He's for the sovereignty and freedom without the USA interfering with them...
He is against imposing sanctions on Iran and opposes Israel from preventing Hamas from acquiring weapons because it is elected.
On December 18 2011 18:29 nebffa wrote: If you're someone that deals with evidence, you'll clearly note that the current U.S. strategy in the Middle East region hasn't been working, along with the U.S. economic policy. So if you don't support Ron Paul, what ideas do you support GreenManalishi and OsoVega?
Higher interest-rates, huge budget cuts and working towards laissez-faire capitalism and government only being involved in the protection of individual rights. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Invasion of Iran and Saudi Arabia as budget permits but without the nation building.
wow I dont know what to say here without geetting insulting. So you really think invading Iran and Saudi Arabia is going to help America?
First of all this wont happen because it costs way too much money. Second and this is very important, attacking these two countries will not stop or hinder terrorists in any way. The opposite is much more likely. Saudi Arabia and the cities of Mekka and Medina are the most holy places for every muslim in the world. Christians even setting a foot into Saudi Arabia is allready an insult for a lot of muslims and one of the reason why Osama Bin Laden turned to terrorism.
Terrorism doesnt excists because some muslims are jealous of america that is bullshit. Terrorism excists because America and its allies are meddling in the middle east for almost 40 years now and screw up every time.
this is a video from a german cabarett show. Some jokes about germany are in it but important is the development outlined by Volker Pispers that took place in the middle east.
Terrorism will exist as long as Israel exists. The solution to this is not to abandon a free, rights respecting country to brutes, it is to make our intentions clear and efficiently stomp out all capacity of Iran and Saudi Arabia to sponsor terrorism. This is certainly possible and would massively reduce the ability and amount of terrorists. It doesn't take a long war ending in an Iraq like situation. With our current tactics you would be right that an invasion would be far too expensive and would not work but what we need are clear and public intentions and brutally efficient tactics.
Lol you say that 'Terrorism will exist as long as Israel exists' and then claim that it is a 'rights respecting country'!!! Sorry but that was just hilarious. Have you ever had a serious look at Israel's human rights record? If you do that it might explain to you why there will always be terrorism in Israel.......
Sorry about the off-topicness but that post was just too silly
I have and generally only see serious violations of the UN version of human rights which aren't rights.
Tell me how terrorism existing as long as Israel exists contradicts it being a rights respecting country.
On December 18 2011 19:27 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:22 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:06 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:16 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:13 Senorcuidado wrote:
On December 18 2011 17:57 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is anti-Israel, blames America for terrorism and there is an Islamic threat to America and American allies. The only mis-assessment is Manhattan.
/facepalm Okay. I wouldn't dare try to confuse you with reality. 9/11 happened because they hate us for our freedom. Got it.
9/11 happened because America supported a free, rights respecting country in defending itself, chose not to trade with a brutal dictator and placed troops in an allied country (although America shouldn't be allied with them) neighboring a country who had, within just over a decade, invaded another neighbor.
Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian
Thursday 25 September 2008
"Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf."
To show the UAE is a friendly trading partner with Iran:
In Dubai, which has close trade ties with Iran, ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum broke ranks somewhat with his Gulf allies by suggesting the world listen closer to Iran's claims about not seeking nuclear arms. - Associated Press, 2011
In relevant news, the Bush administration through the IAEA endorsed assisting several other Middle Eastern countries with nuclear technology, a questionable policy considering many candidates for the Republican Nominee propagandize about an Arab Spring. One could suggest that arming your enemy and then getting upset because your enemy has arms is a laughable foreign policy.
The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn.
“They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs." - New York Times, 2007
The Bush Administration also dealt nuclear technology to India.
A video on the Project for the New American Century. At the one hour, nine minute mark, they start documenting the enormous WASTE of the war in Iraq, interviewing people involved, and it's disgusting. It also mentions how Halliburton got paid to provide for troops but just bought luxury cars for themselves and let the troops shower in malaria-infested water. Difficult to believe for some, but WATCH it. This is our REAL foreign policy!
Here are some more videos and articles about the current and previous US foreign relations with Iran: US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (1 of 2)
I'm sorry, but it seems the only thing you posted in this entire post the responds to the post your were responding to was the video claiming 9/11 was an inside job which is idiotic. The only other thing that seems to address anything I've posted at all is your "Iran history lesson" which I predicted, and whose implications I disagreed with before you even posted it.
I was merely responding to you again...but like they say. Ignorance is bliss!
P.S. I don't understand why you say he lacks support for Israel? When he was for Israel bombing Iraq back then. He's for the sovereignty and freedom without the USA interfering with them...
Nope. If Israel wants to be retarded and bomb Iran. Let them do it on their own accord without the USA telling them or supporting them finanically. Just like what they did to Iraq back then. Quit ignoring history son! You and me both know Israel and the USA props up terrorist with their intelligence agencies.
P.S. Why are you so fixated on Israel? This is an election thread FOR THE USA not Israel.
On December 18 2011 19:27 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:22 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:06 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:16 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:13 Senorcuidado wrote:
On December 18 2011 17:57 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is anti-Israel, blames America for terrorism and there is an Islamic threat to America and American allies. The only mis-assessment is Manhattan.
/facepalm Okay. I wouldn't dare try to confuse you with reality. 9/11 happened because they hate us for our freedom. Got it.
9/11 happened because America supported a free, rights respecting country in defending itself, chose not to trade with a brutal dictator and placed troops in an allied country (although America shouldn't be allied with them) neighboring a country who had, within just over a decade, invaded another neighbor.
Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian
Thursday 25 September 2008
"Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf."
To show the UAE is a friendly trading partner with Iran:
In Dubai, which has close trade ties with Iran, ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum broke ranks somewhat with his Gulf allies by suggesting the world listen closer to Iran's claims about not seeking nuclear arms. - Associated Press, 2011
In relevant news, the Bush administration through the IAEA endorsed assisting several other Middle Eastern countries with nuclear technology, a questionable policy considering many candidates for the Republican Nominee propagandize about an Arab Spring. One could suggest that arming your enemy and then getting upset because your enemy has arms is a laughable foreign policy.
The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn.
“They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs." - New York Times, 2007
The Bush Administration also dealt nuclear technology to India.
A video on the Project for the New American Century. At the one hour, nine minute mark, they start documenting the enormous WASTE of the war in Iraq, interviewing people involved, and it's disgusting. It also mentions how Halliburton got paid to provide for troops but just bought luxury cars for themselves and let the troops shower in malaria-infested water. Difficult to believe for some, but WATCH it. This is our REAL foreign policy!
Here are some more videos and articles about the current and previous US foreign relations with Iran: US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (1 of 2)
I'm sorry, but it seems the only thing you posted in this entire post the responds to the post your were responding to was the video claiming 9/11 was an inside job which is idiotic. The only other thing that seems to address anything I've posted at all is your "Iran history lesson" which I predicted, and whose implications I disagreed with before you even posted it.
I was merely responding to you again...but like they say. Ignorance is bliss!
P.S. I don't understand why you say he lacks support for Israel? When he was for Israel bombing Iraq back then. He's for the sovereignty and freedom without the USA interfering with them...
Nope. If Israel wants to be retarded and bomb Iran. Let them do it on their own accord, without the USA telling them or supporting them finanically. Just like what they did to Iraq back then. Quit ignoring history son! You and me both know Israel and the USA props up terrorist with their intelligence agencies.
P.S. Why are you so fixated on Israel? This is an election thread FOR THE USA not Israel.
How am I ignoring history by pointing out how examples of Ron Paul being anti-Israel? I'm aware that Israel has bombed Iraq and I think it was a wise, self-interested action. I think the US should support Israel in these kinds of actions because it is self-interested to live in a world of free, rights respecting countries. It is self-interested even if it gains us enemies, especially since we could prevent them from getting nukes, sponsoring proxy wars and sponsoring terrorism if we had the conviction.
OsoVega you are so naive I just dont know what to say anymore. If pointing out historic facts that clearly prove ,that your assumption that more war and meddling is going to help fight terrorism, is just plain wrong then it doesnt make sense responding to you anymore.
go on support Israel in everything they do without questioning, you reap what you sow.
On December 18 2011 20:01 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:52 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:27 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:22 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:06 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:16 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:13 Senorcuidado wrote:
On December 18 2011 17:57 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is anti-Israel, blames America for terrorism and there is an Islamic threat to America and American allies. The only mis-assessment is Manhattan.
/facepalm Okay. I wouldn't dare try to confuse you with reality. 9/11 happened because they hate us for our freedom. Got it.
9/11 happened because America supported a free, rights respecting country in defending itself, chose not to trade with a brutal dictator and placed troops in an allied country (although America shouldn't be allied with them) neighboring a country who had, within just over a decade, invaded another neighbor.
Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian
Thursday 25 September 2008
"Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf."
To show the UAE is a friendly trading partner with Iran:
In Dubai, which has close trade ties with Iran, ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum broke ranks somewhat with his Gulf allies by suggesting the world listen closer to Iran's claims about not seeking nuclear arms. - Associated Press, 2011
In relevant news, the Bush administration through the IAEA endorsed assisting several other Middle Eastern countries with nuclear technology, a questionable policy considering many candidates for the Republican Nominee propagandize about an Arab Spring. One could suggest that arming your enemy and then getting upset because your enemy has arms is a laughable foreign policy.
The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn.
“They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs." - New York Times, 2007
The Bush Administration also dealt nuclear technology to India.
A video on the Project for the New American Century. At the one hour, nine minute mark, they start documenting the enormous WASTE of the war in Iraq, interviewing people involved, and it's disgusting. It also mentions how Halliburton got paid to provide for troops but just bought luxury cars for themselves and let the troops shower in malaria-infested water. Difficult to believe for some, but WATCH it. This is our REAL foreign policy!
Here are some more videos and articles about the current and previous US foreign relations with Iran: US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (1 of 2)
I'm sorry, but it seems the only thing you posted in this entire post the responds to the post your were responding to was the video claiming 9/11 was an inside job which is idiotic. The only other thing that seems to address anything I've posted at all is your "Iran history lesson" which I predicted, and whose implications I disagreed with before you even posted it.
I was merely responding to you again...but like they say. Ignorance is bliss!
P.S. I don't understand why you say he lacks support for Israel? When he was for Israel bombing Iraq back then. He's for the sovereignty and freedom without the USA interfering with them...
Nope. If Israel wants to be retarded and bomb Iran. Let them do it on their own accord, without the USA telling them or supporting them finanically. Just like what they did to Iraq back then. Quit ignoring history son! You and me both know Israel and the USA props up terrorist with their intelligence agencies.
P.S. Why are you so fixated on Israel? This is an election thread FOR THE USA not Israel.
How am I ignoring history by pointing out how examples of Ron Paul being anti-Israel? I'm aware that Israel has bombed Iraq and I think it was a wise, self-interested action. I think the US should support Israel in these kinds of actions because it is self-interested to live in a world of free, rights respecting countries. It is self-interested even if it gains us enemies, especially since we could prevent them from getting nukes, sponsoring proxy wars and sponsoring terrorism if we had the conviction.
What are you talking about? lol. Iran sponsoring proxy wars? Sponsoring terrorism? What do they have to sponsor that with?
The only thing that they can sponsor terrorism with is with recruits, and we are the reason that they have any recruits to offer in the first place.
It's not our job to defend Israel. In fact if we weren't supporting Israel it would not necessarily start any wars in the middle-east because Israel has a very powerful military, in fact removing the elephant from the room (us,) would make it easier for them to negotiate with the Muslim countries in the first place, as of right now their hands are tied with respect to negotiations because we support them and in turn they support us and our interests and endeavors in the Middle-east, but if we were to stop those, Israel would have a much easier time finding peace and diplomatic solutions.
On December 18 2011 18:29 nebffa wrote: If you're someone that deals with evidence, you'll clearly note that the current U.S. strategy in the Middle East region hasn't been working, along with the U.S. economic policy. So if you don't support Ron Paul, what ideas do you support GreenManalishi and OsoVega?
Higher interest-rates, huge budget cuts and working towards laissez-faire capitalism and government only being involved in the protection of individual rights. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Invasion of Iran and Saudi Arabia as budget permits but without the nation building.
wow I dont know what to say here without geetting insulting. So you really think invading Iran and Saudi Arabia is going to help America?
First of all this wont happen because it costs way too much money. Second and this is very important, attacking these two countries will not stop or hinder terrorists in any way. The opposite is much more likely. Saudi Arabia and the cities of Mekka and Medina are the most holy places for every muslim in the world. Christians even setting a foot into Saudi Arabia is allready an insult for a lot of muslims and one of the reason why Osama Bin Laden turned to terrorism.
Terrorism doesnt excists because some muslims are jealous of america that is bullshit. Terrorism excists because America and its allies are meddling in the middle east for almost 40 years now and screw up every time.
this is a video from a german cabarett show. Some jokes about germany are in it but important is the development outlined by Volker Pispers that took place in the middle east.
Terrorism will exist as long as Israel exists. The solution to this is not to abandon a free, rights respecting country to brutes, it is to make our intentions clear and efficiently stomp out all capacity of Iran and Saudi Arabia to sponsor terrorism. This is certainly possible and would massively reduce the ability and amount of terrorists. It doesn't take a long war ending in an Iraq like situation. With our current tactics you would be right that an invasion would be far too expensive and would not work but what we need are clear and public intentions and brutally efficient tactics.
Lol you say that 'Terrorism will exist as long as Israel exists' and then claim that it is a 'rights respecting country'!!! Sorry but that was just hilarious. Have you ever had a serious look at Israel's human rights record? If you do that it might explain to you why there will always be terrorism in Israel.......
Sorry about the off-topicness but that post was just too silly
I have and generally only see serious violations of the UN version of human rights which aren't rights.
Tell me how terrorism existing as long as Israel exists contradicts it being a rights respecting country.
are you serious? ever since Israel first came into existence it became a hot-spot of racial and religious prosecution by Jews that were sponsored by wealthy Americans and Europeans to remove the Palestinians from their homes by both legal and illegal means...
Israel basically started off as a fascist terrorist nation, and everyone looked the other way.
By the end of 1952, it had become clear that the mossadeq government in Iran was incapable of reaching an oil settlement with interested Western countries; was reaching a dangerous and advanced stage of illegal, deficit financing; was disregarding the Iranian constitution in prolonging Premier Mohammed Mossadeq’s tenure of office; was motivated mainly by Mossadeq’s desire for personal power; was governed by irresponsible policies based on emotion; had weakend the Shah and the Iranian Army to a dangerous degree; and had cooperated closely with the Tudeh (communist) Party of Iran. In view of these factors, it was estimated that Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain; if that happened it would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the Middle East. No remedial acrtion other than covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs.
It was the aim of the TPAJAX project to cause the fall of the Mossadeq government; to re-establish the prestige of the Sha; and to replace the Mossadeq government with one which would govern Iran according to constructive policies. Specifically, the aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party.
Once it had been determined definitely that it was not in American interests for the Mossadeq government to remain in power and CIA had been so informed by the secretary of State in March 1953, CIA began drafting a plan whereby the aims stated above could be realized through covert action. An estimate entitled “Factors Involved in the overthrow of Mossadeq” was completed on April 16th, 1953. It was here determined that an overthrow of Mossadeq was possible through covert operations. In April it was determined that CIA should conduct the envisioned operation jointly with the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). By the end of April, it was decided that CIA and SIS officers would draw up a plan on Cyprus which would be submitted to CIA and SIS headquarters, and to the Department of State and the Foreign Office for final approval. On June 1953, US Ambassador Loy Wesley Henderson arrived in the United States where he was fully consulted with regard to the objective and aims, as stated above, as well as CIA’s intentions to design covert means of achieving the objective and aims.
The plan was completed by 10th of June, 1953 at which time Mr. Kermit Roosevelt, Chief of the Near East and Africa Division, CIA (Who carried with him the views of the department of State, CIA, and Ambassador Henderson); Mr.Roger Goiran, CIA Chief of station, Iran; and two CIA planning officers met in Beirut to consider the plan. With minor changes the operational proposal was submitted to the SIS in London on 14th of June, 1953.
On 19th of June 1953, the final operation plan, agreed upon by Mr. Roosevelt for CIA and by British Intelligence in London, was submitted in Washington to the Department of State; to Mr. Allen W. Dulles, Director of CIA; and to Ambassador Henderson for approval. Simultaneously , it was submitted to the British Foreign Office by SIS for approval. The Department of State wanted to be assured of two tings before it would grant approval of the plan:
1. That the US government could provide adequate grant aid to a successor Iranian Government so that such a government could be sustained until an oil settlement was reached. 2. That the British Government would signify in writing, to the satisfaction of the Department of State, it’s intention to reach an early oil settlement with a successor Iranian Government in a spirit of good will and equity. The Department of State satisfied itself on both of these scores.
In mid-July 1953, the Department of State and the British Foreign Office granted authorization for the implementation of the TPAJAX project, and the Director of CIA obtained the approval of the President of the US. The SIS, with the concurrence of the CIA Director and Ambassador Henderson, proposed that Mr. Roosevelt assume filed command in Tehran of the final phase of the operation. It was determined by the Department of State that it would be advisable for the Ambassador Henderson to postpone his return to Iran, from Washington consultation, until the operation had been concluded. Arrangements were made jointly with SIS whereby operational liaison would be conducted on Cyprus where a CIA officer would be temporarily stationed, and support liaison would be conducted in Washington. Rapid three-way communications were arranged through CIA facilities between Tehran, Cyprus and Washington. The time set for the operation was mid-August.
In Iran, CIA and SIS propaganda assets were to conduct an increasingly intensified propaganda effort through press, handbills, and the Tehran clergy in a campaign designed to weaken the Mossadeq government in any way possible. IN the US, high-ranking US officials were to make official statements which would shatter any hopes held by Premier Mossadeq that American economic aid would be forthcoming, and disabuse the Iranian public of the Mossadeq myth that the US supported his regime.
General Fazlollah Zahedi, former member of Mossadeq’s cabinet, was chosen as the most suitable successor to the Premier since he stood out as the only person of stature who had consistently been openly in opposition to Mossadeq and who claimed any significant following. Zahedi was to be approached by CIA and be told of our operation and its aim of installing him as the new prime minister. He was to name a military secretariat with which CIA would conclude a detailed staff plan of action.
From the outset, the cooperation of the Shah was considered to be an essential part of the plan. His cooperation was necessary to assure the action required of the Tehran military garrisons, and to legalize the succession of a new prime minister. Since the Shah had shown himself to be a man of indecision, it was determined that pressure on him to cooperate would take the following forms:
1. The Shah’s dynamic and forceful twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlavi, was to come from Europe to urge the Shah to dismiss Mossadeq. She would say she had been in contact with US and UK officials who had requested her to do so. 2. Arrangements were made for a visit to Iran by General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, former head of the US Gendarmo Mission, whom the Shah liked and respected. Schwarzkopf was to explain the proposed project and get from the Shah signed firmans (royal decrees) dismissing Mossadeq, appointing Zahedi, and calling on the Army to remain loyal to the Crown. 3. The principal indigenous British agent, whose bona fides had been established with the Shah, was to reinforce Schwarzkopf’s message and assure the Shah that this was a Joint US-UK action. 4. Failing results from the above, Mr. Roosevelt, representing the President of the US, would urge the Shah to sign the above mentioned firmans. When received, the firmans would be released by CIA to Zahedi on the day called for in the plan. On D-Day, the Shah was to be at some location outside of Tehran so that Zahedi, armed with the royal firmans and with military support, could take over the government without danger of the Sha’s reversing his stand, and to avoid any attempt on the Sha’s life.
Through agents in the Tehran military, CIA was to ensure, to the dgree possible, Tehran Army cooperation in support of the Sha-appointed new Prime Minister.
The following public statements made in the US had tremendous impact on Iran and Mossadeq, and contributed greatly to Mossadeq’s downfall:
1. The publication, on July 9th, 1953 of President Eisenhower’s 29th june letter to Premier Mossadeq made it clear that increased aid would not be forthcoming to Iran. 2. The secretary of State’s press conference of 28th of July stated that “....The growing activities of the illegal Communist Party in Iran and the toleration of them by the Iranian government caused our government concern. These developments make it more difficult to grant aid to Iran.” 3. The President’s Seattle speech at the Governors’ convention, in which he stated that the US would not sit by and see Asian countries fall behind the Iron Curtain, had definite effect. In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq.
After considerable pressure from Princess Ashraf and Gerneral Schwarzkopf, and after several meetings with Mr. Roosevelt, the Shah finally signed the required firmans on 15th of August 1953. Action was set for August 16th. However, owing to a security leak in the Iranian military, the chief of the Shah’s bodyguard, assigned to seize Mossadeq with the help of two truckloads of pro-shah soldiers, was overwhelmed by superior armed forces still loyal to Mossadeq. The balance of the military plan was thus frustrated for that day. Upon hearing that the plan had misfired, the Shah flow to Baghdad. This was an act of prudence and had been at least partially foreseen in the plan. Zahedi remained in hiding in CIA custody. With his key officers, he eluded MOssadeq’s security forces which were seeking to apprehend the major opposition elements.
Early in the afternoon of August 17th 1953, Ambassador Henderson returned to Tehran. General Zahedi, through a CIA-arranged secret press conference and through CIA covert printing facilities, announced to Iran that he was legally prime minister and that Mossadeq had staged an illegal coup against him. CIA agent assets disseminated a large quantity of photographs of the firmans, appointing Zahedi prime minister and dismissing Mossadq. This had tremendous impact on the people of Tehran who had already been shocked and angered when they realized that the Shah had been forced to leave Iran because of Mossadeq’s actions. US Ambassador Burton Y. Berry, in Baghdad, contacted the Shah and stated that he had confidence that the Shah would return soon to Iran despite the apparent adverse situation at the time. Contact was also established with the Shah in Rome after he had flown from Baghdad. Mr. Roosevelt and the station consistently reported that Mossadeq’s apparent victory was misleading; that there were very concrete signs that the Army was still loyal to the shah; and that a favourable reversal of the situation was possible. The station further urged both to make a maximum effort to persuade the Shah to make public statements encouraging the Army and populace to reject Mossadeq and to accept Zahedi as prime minister.
On August 19th, 1953 a pro-shah demonstration, originating in the bazaar area, took on overwhelming proportions. The demonstration appeared to start partially spontaneously, revealing the fundamental prestige of the Shah and the public alarm at the undisguised republican move being started by the Communists as well as the certain National Frontists. Station political action assets also contributed to the beginnings of the pro-shah demonstrations. The Army very soon joined the pro-shah movement and by noon of that day it was clear that Tehran, as well as certain provincial areas, were controlled by pro-shah street groups and Army nits. The situation was such that the above-mentioned military plan could then be implemented. At the station’s signal, Zahedi came out of hiding to lead the movement. He first broadcast over Radio Tehran and announced that the government was his. The General STff offices were seized, Mossadeq’s home was gutted, and pro mossadeq politicians and officers arrested. By the end of August 19th the country was in the hands of the new Premier, Zahedi, and member of the Mossadeq government were either in hiding or were incarcerated.
The Shah returned shortly to Iran where he was giving a rousing popular reception. The Shah was deeply moved by the fact that his people and Army had revolted in the face of adversity against a vindictive Mossadeq and a Communist Party riding the crest of the temporary victory and clearly planning to declare Iran a republic. The Shah felt for the first time he had the mandate of his people, and he returned to determined to regain in firm control of the Army.
In order to give Zahedi badly needed immediate financial assistance so taht month-end payrolls could be met before the US could provide large scale grant aid, CIA covertly made available $5,000,000 with8in two days of Zahedi’s assumption of power.
People are going to shit bricks when Paul wins Iowa. And I really think he will. His ability to campaign in specific areas far surpasses everyone else in the running, especially Newt (he's not really doing much of anything on the campaign trail). His national numbers are low, but national polls this early never matter. In 2008, McCain was polling fifth place during this period. Once Paul wins (or at least gets a close second) in Iowa, the GOP is going to have to realize he's a force to be reckoned with, and he will get the national media coverage that he's not currently.
Regardless of what you (referring to the at least semi educated reader and contributor of this thread) think about his policies, the average American doesn't know or care enough about politics to be critical of his views. To the average American, Ron Paul is going to look like a politician who isn't corrupt, doesn't flip flop, has served in the military, has had a career outside of politics, and adamantly supports withdrawal from war.
That last one: that is what will allow him to win the GOP nod, and then the general. According to recent national polls, 78% of Americans want out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, think the war has been an enormous waste of time and resources, and want nothing to do with any potential war in the future.
Ron Paul is the only candidate (Obama included) that is willing to do that. To the average American, that is his biggest selling point. They just don't know it yet.
On December 18 2011 23:06 ryanAnger wrote: People are going to shit bricks when Paul wins Iowa. And I really think he will. His ability to campaign in specific areas far surpasses everyone else in the running, especially Newt (he's not really doing much of anything on the campaign trail). His national numbers are low, but national polls this early never matter. In 2008, McCain was polling fifth place during this period. Once Paul wins (or at least gets a close second) in Iowa, the GOP is going to have to realize he's a force to be reckoned with, and he will get the national media coverage that he's not currently.
Regardless of what you (referring to the at least semi educated reader and contributor of this thread) think about his policies, the average American doesn't know or care enough about politics to be critical of his views. To the average American, Ron Paul is going to look like a politician who isn't corrupt, doesn't flip flop, has served in the military, has had a career outside of politics, and adamantly supports withdrawal from war.
That last one: that is what will allow him to win the GOP nod, and then the general. According to recent national polls, 78% of Americans want out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, think the war has been an enormous waste of time and resources, and want nothing to do with any potential war in the future.
Ron Paul is the only candidate (Obama included) that is willing to do that. To the average American, that is his biggest selling point. They just don't know it yet.
Yes, and we saw how well winning Iowa did for Huckabee 4 years ago. You guys seem to think that EVERYBODY would support Paul if they just knew what he stood for, but that's not the case. Right now, his staunch supporters have it easy, seeing how they only have to deal with fringe attacks on his stances and politics. If he were to gain the spotlight beyond, "How do you explain Ron Paul's energetic support?!" I'm not certain his campaign could handle the scrutiny. Not because he has so much to hide, but it takes a lot of experience and charisma to deflect attacks.
Personally, I hope he does well in Iowa so he will at least get the media attention he's deserved, even if I don't agree with half of his policies and think he hasn't a chance overall.
On December 18 2011 23:06 ryanAnger wrote: People are going to shit bricks when Paul wins Iowa. And I really think he will. His ability to campaign in specific areas far surpasses everyone else in the running, especially Newt (he's not really doing much of anything on the campaign trail). His national numbers are low, but national polls this early never matter. In 2008, McCain was polling fifth place during this period. Once Paul wins (or at least gets a close second) in Iowa, the GOP is going to have to realize he's a force to be reckoned with, and he will get the national media coverage that he's not currently.
Regardless of what you (referring to the at least semi educated reader and contributor of this thread) think about his policies, the average American doesn't know or care enough about politics to be critical of his views. To the average American, Ron Paul is going to look like a politician who isn't corrupt, doesn't flip flop, has served in the military, has had a career outside of politics, and adamantly supports withdrawal from war.
That last one: that is what will allow him to win the GOP nod, and then the general. According to recent national polls, 78% of Americans want out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, think the war has been an enormous waste of time and resources, and want nothing to do with any potential war in the future.
Ron Paul is the only candidate (Obama included) that is willing to do that. To the average American, that is his biggest selling point. They just don't know it yet.
He was the same candidate who wanted to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. I highly doubt that he wins the GOP nomination and he certainly won't win the general. While he is a straight-shooter and he has a lot of good points on things, somethings he advocates are particularly extreme. IF he or Gingrich wins the nomination then it's another 4 years of Obama. The only candidate I see as having a chance is Romney. We'll see what happens.
On December 18 2011 23:06 ryanAnger wrote: People are going to shit bricks when Paul wins Iowa. And I really think he will. His ability to campaign in specific areas far surpasses everyone else in the running, especially Newt (he's not really doing much of anything on the campaign trail). His national numbers are low, but national polls this early never matter. In 2008, McCain was polling fifth place during this period. Once Paul wins (or at least gets a close second) in Iowa, the GOP is going to have to realize he's a force to be reckoned with, and he will get the national media coverage that he's not currently.
Regardless of what you (referring to the at least semi educated reader and contributor of this thread) think about his policies, the average American doesn't know or care enough about politics to be critical of his views. To the average American, Ron Paul is going to look like a politician who isn't corrupt, doesn't flip flop, has served in the military, has had a career outside of politics, and adamantly supports withdrawal from war.
That last one: that is what will allow him to win the GOP nod, and then the general. According to recent national polls, 78% of Americans want out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, think the war has been an enormous waste of time and resources, and want nothing to do with any potential war in the future.
Ron Paul is the only candidate (Obama included) that is willing to do that. To the average American, that is his biggest selling point. They just don't know it yet.
He was the same candidate who wanted to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. I highly doubt that he wins the GOP nomination and he certainly won't win the general. While he is a straight-shooter and he has a lot of good points on things, somethings he advocates are particularly extreme. IF he or Gingrich wins the nomination then it's another 4 years of Obama. The only candidate I see as having a chance is Romney. We'll see what happens.
Romney has no chance because he's a Mormon flipflopping career politician. Sad but true. And in 2008 the American people as a whole weren't as adamant about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, might I remind you that one of Obamas major campaign points in 2008 was withdrawal? We've seen how well that worked (took nearly four years, and now he's entertaining the idea of bombing Iran). The same trick isn't going to work twice in this case, and that's where Ron Paul has the leg up. Probably the biggest leg up there is right now.
On December 18 2011 20:01 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:52 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:27 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:22 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:06 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:16 OsoVega wrote:
On December 18 2011 18:13 Senorcuidado wrote:
On December 18 2011 17:57 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is anti-Israel, blames America for terrorism and there is an Islamic threat to America and American allies. The only mis-assessment is Manhattan.
/facepalm Okay. I wouldn't dare try to confuse you with reality. 9/11 happened because they hate us for our freedom. Got it.
9/11 happened because America supported a free, rights respecting country in defending itself, chose not to trade with a brutal dictator and placed troops in an allied country (although America shouldn't be allied with them) neighboring a country who had, within just over a decade, invaded another neighbor.
Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian
Thursday 25 September 2008
"Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf."
To show the UAE is a friendly trading partner with Iran:
In Dubai, which has close trade ties with Iran, ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum broke ranks somewhat with his Gulf allies by suggesting the world listen closer to Iran's claims about not seeking nuclear arms. - Associated Press, 2011
In relevant news, the Bush administration through the IAEA endorsed assisting several other Middle Eastern countries with nuclear technology, a questionable policy considering many candidates for the Republican Nominee propagandize about an Arab Spring. One could suggest that arming your enemy and then getting upset because your enemy has arms is a laughable foreign policy.
The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn.
“They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs." - New York Times, 2007
The Bush Administration also dealt nuclear technology to India.
A video on the Project for the New American Century. At the one hour, nine minute mark, they start documenting the enormous WASTE of the war in Iraq, interviewing people involved, and it's disgusting. It also mentions how Halliburton got paid to provide for troops but just bought luxury cars for themselves and let the troops shower in malaria-infested water. Difficult to believe for some, but WATCH it. This is our REAL foreign policy!
Here are some more videos and articles about the current and previous US foreign relations with Iran: US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (1 of 2)
I'm sorry, but it seems the only thing you posted in this entire post the responds to the post your were responding to was the video claiming 9/11 was an inside job which is idiotic. The only other thing that seems to address anything I've posted at all is your "Iran history lesson" which I predicted, and whose implications I disagreed with before you even posted it.
I was merely responding to you again...but like they say. Ignorance is bliss!
P.S. I don't understand why you say he lacks support for Israel? When he was for Israel bombing Iraq back then. He's for the sovereignty and freedom without the USA interfering with them...
Nope. If Israel wants to be retarded and bomb Iran. Let them do it on their own accord, without the USA telling them or supporting them finanically. Just like what they did to Iraq back then. Quit ignoring history son! You and me both know Israel and the USA props up terrorist with their intelligence agencies.
P.S. Why are you so fixated on Israel? This is an election thread FOR THE USA not Israel.
How am I ignoring history by pointing out how examples of Ron Paul being anti-Israel? I'm aware that Israel has bombed Iraq and I think it was a wise, self-interested action. I think the US should support Israel in these kinds of actions because it is self-interested to live in a world of free, rights respecting countries. It is self-interested even if it gains us enemies, especially since we could prevent them from getting nukes, sponsoring proxy wars and sponsoring terrorism if we had the conviction.
Israel is a Socialist Theocratic State. It isn't a 'rights respecting nation'. I also find it laughable how so many faux conservatives who proclaim they are pro-life so wantonly parade about in jackboots singing the praises of war, mass destruction, death, and misery nevermind the fact that Israel has State-funded abortions on demand, which makes their support even more laughably hypocritical and or shows them for the morally bankrupt philosophy of Statism they follow. In any event, perhaps less time supporting the Canadian Neo-Conservative David Frum, and more time supporting people like Stefan Molyneux or Jan Narveson.
Honestly, Americans need to stop caring about the rest of the world and focus on the internal struggles. Americans are losing the last shreds of liberalism (the actual non-Americanized libertarian origin) and when that goes so too does any shred of liberty. I think the US (you mean the Government here), should stop meddling in the affairs of other nations which cost me, and other taxpayers our property, money, and liberties which are so easily taken and stolen in times of war, deceit, and fear-mongering. After-all War is the Health of the State, and truth is one of the first casualties of war.
Who cares what Iran does. Our foreign policy given that it's been a while since the last time the USG followed a policy of Non-intervention should be modeled after Switzerland -- Neutral Non-Interventionism. Strong militia with little to no standing army.
Ron Paul is not anti-Israel. He is Pro-America. A little history lesson needed perhaps:
It's like calling Garet Garett or John T. Flynn anti-Poland, or Anti-Czech's because they oppose American involvement in foreign wars, alliances, and affairs. It's retardedly stupid.
Newt Gingrich on Sunday hammered at the nation’s judiciary system, saying that if a court’s decision was out of step with American popular opinion, it should be ignored.
There’s “no reason the American people need to tolerate a judge that out of touch with American culture,” Gingrich said on CBS’ Face the Nation, referring to a case where a judge ruled that explicit references to religion were barred from a high school graduation ceremony. And Gingrich recently has said judges should have to explain some of their decisions before Congress.
Host Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich how he planned to enforce that. Would you call in the Capitol Police to apprehend a federal judge, he asked.
“If you had to,” Gingrich said. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall in.”
It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
It's also amazing how "liberal" judges are always seen as activist but "conservative" judges don't do the same at all...
On December 19 2011 06:41 Adila wrote: It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
It's also amazing how "liberal" judges are always seen as activist but "conservative" judges don't do the same at all...
How could they be activist when in most cases a Conservative is merely respecting preexisting laws and actions of behaviour? Though I agree with Gingrich that the Supreme court is a joke, and has been a joke for the better part of a century, your completely right that his proposal is very short sighted. Whether it has historical precedent or not it can be abused.
On December 19 2011 06:41 Adila wrote: It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
It's also amazing how "liberal" judges are always seen as activist but "conservative" judges don't do the same at all...
How could they be activist when in most cases a Conservative is merely respecting preexisting laws and actions of behaviour? Though I agree with Gingrich that the Supreme court is a joke, and has been a joke for the better part of a century, your completely right that his proposal is very short sighted. Whether it has historical precedent or not it can be abused.
I don't see how upholding the constitution against mob rule is a joke.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.free-emoticons.co.uk/emoticons/Roll_eye/rolleye0011.gif)
