Ron Paul and Michele Bachman square off

I know, I know. As long as you don't count everything. (like the 14 trillion)

 

actually, it is 15 trillion now!

 

let me know when you can come up with a relevant response

 

Relevant response to what exactly?

 

the fact that there hasn't been a depression in more than 70 years

 

There hasn't? A "recession" maybe.

 

Bury your head in the propoganda if it makes you feel better. It's ok.

 

and Worship your idiot president if it makes you feel better.

 

The Tudeh party was founded in 1941 by STALINISTS with help from STALIN and the SOVIET UNION when they invaded with the British.

I know. The extent to which the First National Front was connected to the Soviet Union is debatable.

Mostly right from what I remember.

Debatable again. I realize he was in opposition to Tudeh - that's why I said 'courting their vote' - he could not have governed as Socialist/Democrat - the hardcore Communists in the Tudeh Party would've been incited to overthrow him and install a Communist regime compliant to Stalin/Soviet Union.

That wasn't really my point. My point was:

1. If people wish to make statements such as '53 coup = 79 revolution + everything since' they need to explain how. They can't explain how because it's nonsense.

2. If people wish to criticize US/UK foreign policy in Iran they need to explain what should have been done instead.

No, I didn't. I stated that that does not make them resonsible for SAVAK's actions.

You must only be familiar with revisionist history in relation to Israel. I'm not going to go into the Lebabon war here but I can see you are...

Revisionism. Not interested. I've read the revisionism and serious historical works on the subject.

Oh, but you haven't. And that's my entire point. When Khomenei came to power he banned all images of Mossadeq from being displayed - he didn't want anyone celebrating over Mossadeq's 'old bones' because Mossadeq 'would've slapped Islam.' To try to blame the Islamic revolution and everything since on the fact that US/UK aided the Shah's coup a quarter of a century earlier is utter nonsense.

More nonsense and a loaded statement.

The caliphate came to the U.S.? Nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You're comparing the American revolution with the Iranian Islamic revolution? Oh that's rich.

Is that what I said? Idiotic statement. It would be like arguing Germany has a right to protect itself in 1938. Meaningless nonsense.

So do we pal.

One of my closest friends is an Iranian exile who fled the revolution. I have a pretty good knowledge of Persian history.

Okay.

That would be because at the time of the 79 revolution CIA did not even have a single asset in Iran. They weren't "meddling" in any way whatsoever other than having normal diplomatic relations with the Shah.

Obama deliberately ignored the 2009 protests in Iran yet egged on the Spring protest in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world.

We already are and no it wouldn't. It would be far worse than foolish if we did not confront them. We have been buying time by attacking their nuclear program since the 90's. The Stuxnet virus and the explosion in the IRG missile facility have bought us 18 months.

Stupid wasn't it? Another Obama foreign policy blunder.

You obviously know nothing about how the Middle East works. And it's not "democracy" - see Tunisia and Egypt.

 

ron paul specifically said, "the recession that’s coming will not be a recession at all but it will a depression and it will probably be bigger than the one we had in the 1930's"

 

But you dont believe in him, so no trouble I guess!

 

Hey Dujac, tried to sell your house lately?

 

i doubt that i'm ever going to want to sell my house and acreage

 

He specifically cited invasion as the cause which is my point is valid.

There is no defense against committed terrorists. Do you really think they wouldn't start attacking here MORE often?

 

And? Did they leave? Yes. As I said.

Did Bin Laden stop attacking? Nope. As I said.

So what exactly is your point Margot?

 

The FATAL FLAW of people who make this argument. Super imposing your moral values on a completely different people and culture.

Then explain who were we invading on 9.11?

 

To ALL Ron Paul supporters.

Do you agree with him that the US itself has killed one million Iraqis as Paul said in the debate?

 

He also said we killed a million Iraqis, which was false. By his logic, we are responsible for every jihadist who strapped a bomb to his chest and blew up a crowd of 50 people.

 

Exactly right. I expect a liberal to spew this lie but not someone claiming to be running as a conservative.

 

Paul would explain away his claim by suggesting that our foreign policy caused those Islamofacists to indiscriminately kill civilians in Iraq.

The man needs some serious mental health treatment.

 

No youre wrong actually.

If you include the casualties from the years of sanctions the numbers added with that of the invasion would come very close indeed to a million.

Actions, such as sanctions have consequences.

And the terrorism you mentioned in iraq didnt happen before the advent of the coalition policy.

 

Sanctions alone killed 500k children. I'm sure bombing the country to the stone age didnt help matters.

 

The estimates range from a low of 100,000+ to several million. Being that the war has proved unwarranted, the blood of these people is on our hands. We opened that can of worms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

http://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

The Tudeh party was founded in 1941 but not by Stalinist, it was until late 1941, early 1942 did they encompass what we would consider Stalinist. This went hand in hand with the Soviets move to stay in Northern Iran. Tudeh party's power base with in Northern Iran. Never reaching more then 10 or 20% in the rest of the country.

So Mosaddegh and the National Front wasn't an outright communist or even connect to the Soviet Union? So you are you admitting the British lied to the US about who Mosaddegh was and who he hoped to side with during the Cold War? That they knew Mosaddegh and the National Front just wanted a better Oil deal and nothing else?

This is a prime example on why Ron Paul keeps his position on Foreign policy.

Okay, so you do agree that Mosaddegh was looking for a better oil deal for Iran and nothing else.

Wait a second.. because a Politician proposes an idea that would cut opposition from another party in half it's courting the vote? Does this apply to American politics as well? Or is it a double standard?

Of course it wasn't your point but it's the reality that's left. I've clearly laid out issue between the US and Iran since 1953. You choose to ignore it in the typical fashion of those who don't understand the term blow back or even action and reaction.

US/UK foreign policy in Iran in 1953 was pretty simple. UK needed to give Iran an oil deal. US needed to support Iran in this. It would have put Iran on the US/UK side during the Cold War, keeping the Shah as "king" and still have Mosaddegh as PM. The Soviets would have been out in the cold when it came to getting oil from Iran after 1979. It would have also put the US/UK in a position of dealing with the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan a little bit better then relying on Sunni Mujahideen, which we all know as the base of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda today.

So when US funds from USAID is used to fund secret police with training from the CIA and connections to the CIA, US has no responsibility for those actions? That's what you are saying?

So if someone sends money to Al-Qaeda, they are not responsible for Al-Qaeda's actions?

Same kind of situation and under the law (foreign and domestic), you do become responsible for those actions of those others. Especially if you have knowledge of their activities. The US holds Iran and Syria responsible for sending money to Hezbollah. The UK held Libya responsible for arming and funding the IRA during the 1980s. The list can go on but I think you get my point.. unless you are gonna use the typical double standard line.

No, it's non revisionist history. I only provided information from a man who was in command of the 221 US Marines that died Col. Timothy J. Geraghty is someone you should read. He holds the same position as you on Iran. But clearly stats that the US did side with the Maronites.

So you've listened to and read the revisions of Brigitte Gabriel?

You do realize you've just made my point here. When the Shah was put in full power when the US removed Mosaddegh, Mosaddegh was the only person who had the support of the Ayatollahs and the support of the people. Removing that kind of person from power and putting the Shah who made a deal with Ayatollah Borujerdi in the matter of more control with things like Religion in schools, cinemas and offensive secular entertainment, it was the actual start of the Ayatollahs gaining power. When Borujerdi died in 1961 in allowed Ayatollah Khomenei to start his campaign of Revolution over the next 18 years. The Iranians hoped Khomenei was mainstream, but were wrong, and that happens anytime you are subjected to years of a tyrant (or whatever) and want change. We saw this type of behavior in the US over Obama. Do you not think 8 years of Bush provided a situation which allowed Obama to win?

LOL, so you would have no problem if China decided the US needed a new leader and then gave it to the US? Maybe your issue isn't that you know this stuff is wrong, but you don't think it can happen to you.

But it does. As an American would you sit by while somebody else decides who your leader is and what type of Government you have? No, you wouldn't.

It is the same. The American Revolution overthrow a British monarchy. In Iran the 1979 Revolution the Iranians overthrew the Shah (a monarch). The difference comes when after the Revolution. For example the US went to a Constitutional Republic, Iran went to an Islamic Republic. If you deny this you deny the most basic facts.

Yes, it is. You think Ron Paul's position on Iran is wrong. His position is that Iran has every right to defend itself and to develop Nuclear energy. Germany in 1938 had every right to protect itself as well. What Germany didn't have the right to do was invade countries in 1939.

And you don't think I know a few people on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to Iran.

The CIA didn't have any assets in Iran during 1979? Wow.. you really need to read up. Mr. Mehdi Bazargan and Dr. Ebrahim Yazdi were CIA assets who the CIA backed to run the new Government. They were PM and Deputy PM in 1979. You probably didn't know that and probably didn't know that the US was trying to get these 2 into power so Iran would be a pro-Islamist state like Pakistan was (you know when the US overthrew Bhutto for Muhammed Zia al Haq .

Yep and they are still pro-American and pro-Democracy in Iran. Egypt is what now? Heading towards a Muslim Brotherhood Government.

Are "we" are aren't "we" confronting them? You insist we aren't but list a few things that says "we" are.

And just so you know there is no conclusive evidence Iran is building a nuke. If there was, Israel would have bombed them already, like they did to Iraq in the 1980s.

Nope. The bastard had to go. Just like the 4,000 or so residing in Saudi Arabia.

Actually, I do. It's democracy despite what you think. In the end the people of the recent Arab springs will decide what they want. That my friend is Democracy.

 

No. Mossadeq would have played off all sides against each other to stay in power. He also spouted crude Stalinist-style anti-British propaganda.

They wanted to reneg on the deal the British had made with Iran.

Of course not.

Of course it applies to American politics - all politics. ?

Ignore what? You have yet to explain how US involvement in the coup had anything to do with the Islamic revolution.

Yes. Good plan.

? Don't know what you mean.

What would have put US/UK in a better position RE Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation?

No. I'm saying you are playing moral relativist games. US provided some level of support to the Shah's regime. You cannot say that US is therefore responsible for everything SAVAK does.

Moral relatavism. al-Qaeda and SAVAK are not comparable organizations.

Sending money? You obviously know nothing about the ME. Hezbollah and literally hundreds of other terrorist groups are veritable arms of the Iranian regime. They train, arm and coordinate and supply logistical experts, bomb making experts, safe houses etc They control the overall strategy and approve and carry out every major attack.

Yes I do. You are playing ridiculous moral relatavism games.

I know all about Lebanon and I know about Col. Timothy J. Geraghty. It doesn't really relate to what we are discussing here.

Absolutely. Only it's not revisionism. I don't agree with her about everything but she is not from the revisionist school.

Of course. He was closer to the Ayatollah's ideologically wasn't he? You just cemented my point.

How could he govern without coming to terms?

No.

Nonsense comparison. And I am aware of the threat China poses.

Like I said, nonsense comparison.

Finally a reasonable point. Yes, the 79 revolution began as a genuine democratic reform movement but was hi-jacked by Khomenei's students. If you think that some different scenario in 1953 would have made Islamic fundamentalists less radical or less popular you are foolish. If anything the coup held off the crazies for a quarter of a century.

Don't give me that. You are a reasonably intelligent person so don't try to pretend that you believe that.

Missed the point didn't you? See the first volume of Churchill's 6 volume History of the Second World War - the theme is "How the English-speaking peoples, through their unwisdom, carelessness and good nature, allowed the wicked to rearm"

How would I know? You're some poster on an internet forum?

I mentioned my source. It's true. When the hostage rescue was being planned by Delta Force Col. Charlie Beckwith met with a CIA liason officer to coordinate the rescue. Beckwith asked about assets in country and was told in no uncertain terms that there weren't any. Not one. Happy to dig up the quote if you would like.

No, they were pro-western politicians - no connection to the CIA whatsover.

No, that's a nonsense conspiracy theory. Al Haq certainly enjoyed the support of the US but the CIA did not overthrow Bhutto. Perhaps you were unaware that the Soviet Union killed Zia al Haq, US ambassador Arnold Raphel, US attache to Pakistan, ISI chief Gen. Akhtar Abdul Rahman and 28 others when they planted a bomb on their C-130.

I agree about Egypt. Obama should've support Mubarak.

I mean seriously confront them.

Here we go. I don't believe that you believe that. You can read and write quite well and have comprehension skills and I don't believe that you believe that.

Hidden, underground facilities like the ones North East of Qum that are inside a mountain.

Well in the classical sense yes. It is democracy - mob rule which degenerates into dictatorship in accordance with the eternal political laws first explained by Polybius and Cicero. I meant representative government with a "mixed government" constitution in which the executive, judicial and legislative branches have equal power and are held in status via checks and balances.