Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

[r16]

nobody has asked my opinion but when this next Crusade liberates Iran and all the liberal losers start on on how inhumanely the liberation is , all the liberal losers in CFC will remember how much they were put of by the attitude .

 

[inthesomeday]

nobody has asked my opinion but when this next Crusade liberates Iran and all the liberal losers start on on how inhumanely the liberation is , all the liberal losers in CFC will remember how much they were put of by the attitude .

Agree with the general sentiment, but... I mean do you see anyone here echoing the typical liberal pro-interventionist rhetoric? I feel like most folks are actually relatively aware of the reality of those threats.

 

[Lexicus]

Speaking for myself, after two of my family members said they thought Iraq was a good idea, just botched by the Bush Administration, I told them that's why the US government needs to be militarily destroyed, because even the so-called "progressives" turn out to be murderous imperialist swine.

 

[Dachs]

Speaking for myself, after two of my family members said they thought Iraq was a good idea, just botched by the Bush Administration, I told them that's why the US government needs to be militarily destroyed, because even the so-called "progressives" turn out to be murderous imperialist swine.

whereas calling for the "military destruction" of the US government would not qualify someone as murderous swine?

 

[Lexicus]

Little more than calling for the military destruction of Nazi Germany.

 

[Lexicus]

And bee tee dubs, I don't mean to suggest the crimes are equivalent - simply that the United States voting public has, like Hitler, demonstrated that it only understands force, and its aggression can only be checked by force.

 

[inthesomeday]

Needs to be more than a symbolic defeat. Hyper militarism is a fundamental part of American national identity, it needs to be a total demilitarization.

 

[Takhisis]

If you defeat the US militarily you'll have the same defeat myths as there were in Germany in the 1920s, so you'd better have another plan.

Now, back to the Persians…

 

[r16]

it was once said here that CFC was the 160th biggest web forum in the world , according the the number of members . Those forums that involve women out of clothes might not be fully relevant to public perception of stuff , say , if Tahran is nuked in shock and awe II , so , without blaming anyone of anything , it might just be a thing a guy does among 100 other things in a day , to look like respectful of the heritage of mankind in general and a particular nation and smear himself in "Jewish Press" and whatever that implies . Yours idiotly can not shake off the US State Department , according to the laughter of people in the town , hence ı will suggest the reality is not really important : That the forum might be well aware of a certain antagonism (towards some exists in the ruling elites of the West) does not really matter anything .

and ı will like obviously invade the whole US of A , now that the question of plans have come up .

 

[REDY]

Well I recognize wrong doing of US on Iran, as well Soviet and British. The thing is that current Iranian independent solution is much worse especcialy for Iranians. Strong progressive Iran would be enormous help for region.
I dont know enough about shah secret police and such, but his reforms were impressive, bringing changes in society and economy really quick. Maybe too quick. But its at least experience and memory in the nation. Something what Arabians or Chinese do not have.

 

[inthesomeday]

We really don’t need to get started about progress again, I think. Either way the latter “reforms” of the shah were almost ubiquitous failures, and the earlier reforms basically just saw him serve as little more than a figurehead. His legacy is more in his nationalist ideology, something he and his family did actually steward.

 

[REDY]

Oh I mixed Reza Shah Pahlavi and Muhammad Reza Pahlavi together. But still, nationalist? Failures? Bigger failures were all leaders in the region, with exception of Attatürk.

 

[caketastydelish]

Attaturk was very successful and I think Iran can't move away from being an Islamic theocracy without a leader like that. Personally, I'd be all for it. It would modernize and nationalize the country, rather than holding onto a theology that isn't in the people's best interest.

 

[r16]

atatürk's success naturally depends on the almost a century long efforts that preceded him , things like Western like natural sciences based education , which used to happen in the madrassas and the like in the ascendant days of Muslim Powers . And a recognition that there was no salvaging of the Ottoman Empire . (Iran would carefully observe what the Ottomans were doing and they still do with what happens due West of theirs .) And with the current status of the world and the like and not as an Iranian to boot , ı would offer that Iran's current status does a lot to keep the world in peace . Sad for the Iranians , but other forms of Goverment might have got them invaded already .

 

[caketastydelish]

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King may have had some issues with the press, but they weren't stupid enough to turn it into a conspiracy about Jews.

Not completely true for Malcolm X. He had publicly made anti-semetic statements on a myriad of occasions.

 

[caketastydelish]

atatürk's success naturally depends on the almost a century long efforts that preceded him , things like Western like natural sciences based education , which used to happen in the madrassas and the like in the ascendant days of Muslim Powers . And a recognition that there was no salvaging of the Ottoman Empire . (Iran would carefully observe what the Ottomans were doing and they still do with what happens due West of theirs .) And with the current status of the world and the like and not as an Iranian to boot , ı would offer that Iran's current status does a lot to keep the world in peace . Sad for the Iranians , but other forms of Goverment might have got them invaded already .

I highly doubt "other forms of government would have got them invaded already." I'm an American and was a teenager throughout most of the Iraq war, so I remember it well and was old enough to understand politics and "the real world" at the time and the implications of the event...

it didn't take long before people were absolutely sick of the Iraq war. Iran is 3 times larger than Iraq, and unlike Iraq features lots of territory much better suited for guirella warfare such as mountains, forests, hills unlike the mostly flat desert terrain of Iraq. The cost and casualties of a war with Iran (to try to invade the country and hold it for any prolonged amount of time) would be astronomical. I don't think the current US even has the manpower for that. They would either need to install a draft, something that would be wildly unpopular, or have far more allies to join the coalition than they did in Iraq.

If the Iranian people were to topple their current government and a populist strongman were to emerge out of it (kind of like what happened with the French revolution and Napolean) then all of what I'm saying would be entirely feasible. maybe not likely, but it would hardly take a miracle. Their current government is pretty unpopular with the Iranian people. Especially the younger ones who are less religious and conservatives. Time is not on the side of the regime meaning they either have to make reforms or face complete collapse at some point.

It's worth noting that even if this were to occur (a successful revolution and regime change) it is hardly a guarantee that the Iranian people universally would want a more liberal, secular government.

America successfully had a revolution from the British (the largest and most powerful of the world at the time) but the colonies were very divided at the time of the revolution. Only one third of colonists actually wanted to rebel, one third wanted to stay with the crown, and one third were indifferent. Plenty of times when revolutions happen, not everyone was revolting for the same reason, or want the same change. They are simply unified by wanting to end their current regime but nothing more, necessarily.

 

[r16]

you are clearly wishing to be welcomed by lranian women offering you salt and flowers and whatnot , as if this was Ukraine in the summer of 1941 . Nothing will be done for regime change in lran . Nothing will be done in the name of friendship with America as well , because it doesn't exist . Considering New Turkey has received its marching orders to make believe fight against Taliban , and uh , the population that the Turk might use as justification and the schwerpunkt and village guards to optimize search and destroy enough talibs so that the oft quoted and much derided nation building could gain traction are already on the roads as refugees , supposedly 10 million of them because good old boys from Langley has been misled into the war willingness of the Kurds and Sunni Arabs , most necessary for the stab in the back .

and yes "Democracy" came to this country , as if it wasn't around previously , only to dismantle any deterrence of the State and funnily enough when it didn't work out , there are no "complaints" from the West , with regards to to the relentless decay of stuff . lranian democracy would have been invaded already , because smart people would be all about how Democracies do not fight each other and there is no need for rockets ...

 

[caketastydelish]

Iran wasn't invaded militarily, they just had a regime coup backed by the US and the UK. Something I think would be far less likely to happen if they were to have another revolution any time soon.

edit: I'm not referring to what happened WW2 when I say not invaded militarily. I'm talking about overthrowing the democracy they had and replacing it with the Shah.