Yeah, and our CIA was involved in the overthrow of their democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953.
Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach the U.S.
- Thread starter DirtyDawg
- Start Date
Yeah, and our CIA was involved in the overthrow of their democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 0
And the Shah jerked them out of the middle ages into a modern society with books, radios, TV, and toilet paper.
Do you think average Iranians are still mad because they lost the age old tradition of wiping their butts with their left hands instead of using toilet paper?
Because the Islamic extremists sure seem to be!
i dont understand that last one sigsilly...
good things came of their actions. it's ok to do evil as long as good things come out of it.
what good things came from who's actions?
I was talking with a friend of mine a couple of months ago about the state of the world.
I see three options that we can attempt, none of which are all that easy.
1) Go with status quo. Balance on the edge and try to keep everyone happy. While not bound to fail, I don't see that it'll have great success unless we can negotiate something to bind China, Russia, and most of the rest of the world (current allies are assumed on board) for some true-to-god hardcore sanctions. (Which really seem to only hurt the citizens of targets country anyways)
2) Make a massive swing in doctrine and become an introverted state. Leave everyone else alone. (Don't see that happening)
3) Replace the UN with some other global council with each country sending X% of their military force and if there's a trouble making country, roll in with 500,000 - 1,000,000 troops to pacify the place. This would be wildly unpopular and probably quite bloody. Possible abuse abounds and potential to become like the current UN seems somewhat high (offense by committee ect ect) . Half a century with low-moderate bloodshed and occasional points of massive retaliation should be just enough to pull it off.
New World order? Nah.
I see three options that we can attempt, none of which are all that easy.
1) Go with status quo. Balance on the edge and try to keep everyone happy. While not bound to fail, I don't see that it'll have great success unless we can negotiate something to bind China, Russia, and most of the rest of the world (current allies are assumed on board) for some true-to-god hardcore sanctions. (Which really seem to only hurt the citizens of targets country anyways)
2) Make a massive swing in doctrine and become an introverted state. Leave everyone else alone. (Don't see that happening)
3) Replace the UN with some other global council with each country sending X% of their military force and if there's a trouble making country, roll in with 500,000 - 1,000,000 troops to pacify the place. This would be wildly unpopular and probably quite bloody. Possible abuse abounds and potential to become like the current UN seems somewhat high (offense by committee ect ect) . Half a century with low-moderate bloodshed and occasional points of massive retaliation should be just enough to pull it off.
New World order? Nah.
And we will become very rich while we do it. So just smile ad welcome us as your new Overlords.
Hummmph...
Overlord. Has kind of a nice ring to it.
Right up to the point that the serfs decide to - uhhhhh - shall we say - relieve the overlord of his duties.
Nations aren't people and what works for individuals is way different from what works for nations.
And to paraphrase another saying - he who has the biggest stick makes the rules.
We have to liberate them because they don't have "lawyers, politicians, and unions to destroy them from the inside."
Ahhh...
But soon after we liberate them they will.
