As opposed to what?No not really. It just changed the source of it's authoritarianism
Khomeini was an Iranian leader, embraced by the Iranians. He wasn't elected, but neither was Trump. They have their ways and we have ours.
Tom
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
As opposed to what?No not really. It just changed the source of it's authoritarianism
I agree.The Islamic government is not a continuation of that government.
But it's important to consider which responses are best.Nationalization of foreign companies' assets has consequences.
I agree.
Ameristan made their democracy completely fubar
by installing a leader doomed to replacement with
a theocracy.
But it's important to consider which responses are best.
And that means analyzing the consequences, both short & long term.
Regarding the latter, the 1953 coup has been a complete disaster
for both Ameristan & Iran.
That's an interesting irony.....we had to take over Iran's governmentIt could have reverted to it's socialist government from before.
I'm taking a general approach to current foreign policy.Have you done this or is this just more 20/20 hindsight talking?
My dog ate it.I await your report.
We set the stage for their current government.An Iran's current government has done nothing to improve that.
That's an interesting irony.....we had to take over Iran's government to prevent
their socialism....& yet, we have Democrats advocating socialism here.
I'm taking a general approach to current foreign policy.
It is certainly guided by experience, including our successful
coup, which resulted in unsuccessful foreign policy effects.
But understand that the important thing to recognize is that
Iran has good reason to want WMDs, given our various attacks
upon them. The 1953 coup must be recognized for its role.
We set the stage for their current government.
But whether they're doing what they should or not,
Ameristan has the ability to control its own actions.
I advocate doing that which achieves peace without
going to war.
It's disturbing that so many prefer violent conflict
when that hasn't yet worked. Yet war lust remains.
I don't see that distinction as being significant to staging a coup or not.The latter is due to lack of education in economics and history. The former was ideological.
That would be beyond the scope of this venue.You are just repeating known history here. No actual methodology.
I never proposed that nukes would prevent a coup.As does Iran's support of terrorism now which far outweighs 53. After all the coup was not done by the military. Seems like your evaluation is flawed if you think nukes will stop a coup by the CIA.
Uh oh....the old "whine" dissing.As does Iran yet people ignore that factor instead they whine about the 50s.
This gives me the impression that if they do somethingSo does Iran. Too bad for Iran it made the wrong choice.
There are more paths than appeasement or all out war.Except you seem to advocate do nothing. Iran seizes vessels, do nothing. Iran mines the Gulf, do nothing. Iran military leaders in Iraq helping terrorists, do nothing. You advocate appeasement while only fooling yourself by calling it something more.
It seems that you don't mind waging war, & killingIran messed up. Too bad for Iran.
I don't see that distinction as being significant to staging a coup or not.
That would be beyond the scope of this venue.
Nonetheless, the combined wisdom of our leaders over the last 70
odd years has resulted in continual conflict with Iran.
It looks clearthat whatever analysis they're doing isn't benefitting anyone.
Iran has become an enemy, & has remained one.
Attacking them hasn't borne fruit yet...what makes you think that it'll
work this time?
If war is the answer to countries which are socialist & belligerent,
should we have attacked USSR, Cuba, N Korea, PRC, etc?
I never proposed that nukes would prevent a coup.
Uh oh....the old "whine" dissing.
A lesser poster would accuse you of whining
about Iran being mean to Israel & Ameristan.
Fortunately, I'd never use such a retort.
This gives me the impression that if they do something
we don't like, it's license for us to do anything we want,
no matter how many die, or how much it costs.
There are more paths than appeasement or all out war.
Perhaps you've missed my advocacy for negotiation.
That last word is characterized by trading commitments
to behave in specified ways.
It seems that you don't mind waging war, & killing
vast numbers of people....all because they deserve it
(in your opinion).
I don't see things in such a fire & brimstone hand of a
vengeful God sort of way. I see potential in a change
of tack, ie, try peaceful behavior & negotiation.
I don't say they're innocent either.It is not like Iran did nothing and is completely innocent. Add that to your so-called evaluation.
It's an assertion backed up by reality, ie, that our acts towardsAssertion
I'm not looking for excuses for the state of things. Instead, INot like Iran is trying to change that.
Correct. The USA goal has been change thruYou are assuming a goal then projecting it.
We waged a proxy war using Iraq to attackThere has been no war against Iran.
I'll clarify.You used the coup as part of the rational for nukes.
I pointed out nukes would prevent a coup.
I notice that when a poster has no rational argument,You are the only that seems to ignore Iran's own acts only focusing on the US. That is why I called it whining.
We've been doing that for a long time.Ergo limited strikes like the one recently.
I didn't miss it.Perhaps you missed the fact that Iran agreed to terms then violated those terms.
During the agreement, they didn't acquire nukes.Tried and failed.
You're advocating military strikes.Assertion. I never suggested a war.
You should take a break, & then return to read yourYou are arguing against your own strawman. Impressive.
Well that certainly ain’t gonna happen now. You guys just assassinated a beloved public figure.American support for the Shah of Iran ended nearly four decades ago, perhaps it's now time for the Iranian people to finally get over this hatred towards America. ....
Is Trump trying to provoke Iran into attacking us so he can get us into a war that will rally enough voters to his side in time for him to get reelected?
If so, (1) why do you think so, and (2) why do you think his method of getting us into a war will help him get reelected, as opposed to help him get thrown out of office? Basically, why do you think enough American's to reelect Trump are dumb enough to fall for the oldest trick in the book of politics?
Honest questions:According to our Commander in Chief Donald Trump, he ordered the killing of Qassim Soleimani in order to 'stop a war' with Iran
Indeed it does not!That makes no sense.
You are much too enamored of the Great Man Theory, and much too clueless about how things are outside of the Fox News fictions.If the U.S. military would've been able to kill Adolf Hitler in 1932, then this might have prevented war. Right? Iran's military leader plotted lethal attacks against Americans, so likewise, this Iranian top General's demise by U.S. military drones might've helped prevent further conflict between the U.S. and Iran. Right?
We do not have to be creative.How does this attack fit into the Trump is Putins puppet narrative?
Be creative
Honest questions:
1) Do you believe him?
2) Do you think he believes that?
3) Do you think he expects anyone to believe in that?
Trust me, it is all other nations.Are you sure it's all other nations or are you just playing loosey goosey?
Don't complain that I am assuming, then.1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes
You are much too enamored of the Great Man Theory, and much too clueless about how things are outside of the Fox News fictions.
You have shown evidence of the stomach that one has to have to endure it.How did you know I like watching Fox News?
Trust me, it is all other nations.