Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
International Politics
Iran before 1979
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mindlight" data-source="post: 59695547" data-attributes="member: 21246"><p>Oh great you are going to share some facts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That is debatable- there are severe restrictions on who can stand in elections:</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8083867.stm" target="_blank">BBC NEWS | Middle East | Big test for Iranian democracy</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Churchill as Primeminister of the UK in 1953 had oversight of Mi6 as did Eisenhower over the CIA and it was these two who agreed the terms of TPAJAX.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Shahs regime was enhanced by Churchills actions against Mossadegh and endured as you say till 1979 almost 15 years after churchills death and a generation from the date of the coup in 1953. So you are correct the real reasons for the coup in 79 were probably not Churchill related.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What that means in practice is a withdrawal of American activity and influence from most of its present positions leaving a dangerous vaccum. Thus Ron Paul is naive AND isolationist. It was Clintons failure to sort out the Taliban earlier that led directly to 911. You fight them over there or at home. Safer to do it over there.</p><p></p><p>America has almost no military assets directly employed in Libya, has left Iraq have achieved its main aims and will leave Afghanistan in the main by 2014 also having achieved its main aims. I am not sure there would have been any good result under Ron Paul in any of these successful operations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mindlight, post: 59695547, member: 21246"] Oh great you are going to share some facts. That is debatable- there are severe restrictions on who can stand in elections: [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8083867.stm]BBC NEWS | Middle East | Big test for Iranian democracy[/url] Churchill as Primeminister of the UK in 1953 had oversight of Mi6 as did Eisenhower over the CIA and it was these two who agreed the terms of TPAJAX. The Shahs regime was enhanced by Churchills actions against Mossadegh and endured as you say till 1979 almost 15 years after churchills death and a generation from the date of the coup in 1953. So you are correct the real reasons for the coup in 79 were probably not Churchill related. What that means in practice is a withdrawal of American activity and influence from most of its present positions leaving a dangerous vaccum. Thus Ron Paul is naive AND isolationist. It was Clintons failure to sort out the Taliban earlier that led directly to 911. You fight them over there or at home. Safer to do it over there. America has almost no military assets directly employed in Libya, has left Iraq have achieved its main aims and will leave Afghanistan in the main by 2014 also having achieved its main aims. I am not sure there would have been any good result under Ron Paul in any of these successful operations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
International Politics
Iran before 1979
Top
Bottom