We do not guarantee anybody food and shelter, we have at any time between 2. 5 and 4 million homeless in the U.S.

Over 50,000,000 Americans are lacking medical insurance.

Education costs here more than in any Westwern democratic country.
We lie about the % of unemployed. We call 4% ‘full’ employment.
The real unemployment is at least two times greater than the ‘official’.

We still have the capital punishment. In our ‘democracy’ we have
yet to execute a single very rich person in more than 250 years of our so called Justice system.

As for the last right, the free speech, let us not forget all the repessive laws passed by the administrations to silence criticism, the Loyalty Oaths, and alike.

I do not expect our leaders to tell the truth, lest their election depended on it. We shall find the truth about the reasons for the war 50 yeras later when it does not matter since all the cuprits will be dead by then.

All it needs now is for Ashteroth, Lord of all Darkness, to lead us in a chorus of `give peace a chance’ & the picture will be complete.

No, The Shah did not set up residence in Dallas. He eventually, briefly set up residence in Mexico, Panama and eventually Cairo, Egypt.

“He (the Shah) was recognized by the ‘world political body’ as the leader of Iran”, this is apparently in October of 1979, 8 months after the return of Khomeni. No, wrong again. The Shah was roundly determined to be a gonner when he got on his plane in January of 1979. And what do you mean by the ‘world political body’. Please, please please, don’t make up crap.
Operation Ajax, as explained by Kermit Roosevelt in his book, Countercoup, and Stephen Kinzer’s brilliant book, All The Shah’s Men, goes in to this in great details, almost hour by hour and describing the connections of American, British and Iranian players. There’s no doubt that it was an American operation. Whatever your little account from Harvard says is far from reality, “allowed the British to enlist…”. I have read several discredited accounts paid for by the CIA to reduce their exposure. I’m not impressed.
“Neo con mentors” did not negotiate the hostage release. This is a crazy assertion. Unless Warren Christopher, the two French lawyers and the Algerians are being confused as neo cons. Too funny. You have a talent for comedy my friend (not an expression of endearment). And, the negotiators were not involved with Arms/drugs. I advise you to stop watching too much TV.
Meanwhile I agree with Mr. Buk. Sleepwalking in to a conflict with Iran is nothing short of criminal.
Iran, by the way, has the RIGHT to enrich uranium. And Mr. Bush sitting in his comfy chair in Washington cannot speculate on Iran’s “nooculour ambitions”.
And I also agree that the Congress is indeed “broken” due to AIPAC’s influence. Nonetheless apartheid Israel is becoming more of a recognized reality to the American public, it cannot continue indefinitely.

Prior to that it was our alliance with a dictatorial ruler, the Shah, that caused problems. Anyone remember Carter praising him as a great friend?

Had we paid more attention to human rights before the Shah fell, the history of that region would be very different.

It is totally insane (that is to say, “typical conservative thought process”) to now contend that “Carter’s weakness” caused our problems there or that “Reagan knew how to deal with them.

Comment by Jericho #65

…that’s what YOU think…

I accept your apology. You were 100% wrong when you tried to claim that Britain played no role in the Iran 1953 coup and your ignorant and incorrect assertion that the CIA overthrew Allende when the fact is — as we now all know — that Allende’s downfall came about as an indigenous revolt by the Chilean people against his communist dictatorship.

Oops! How embarassing for you. Live and learn, Turtle-Boy. Go read yourself some history.

Newly declassified U.S. government records put Washington’s role in the Chilean coup in sharper focus than ever before. The papers also shed light on corners of the story that previously had been suspected, but not proven.
The documents describe how an angry Nixon demanded a coup, if necessary, to block the inauguration of Marxist Salvador Allende following his victory in the 1970 Chilean elections.
The documents reveal that an early coup plan — known as “Track II” — continued through the assassination of pro-constitutional Chilean Gen. Rene Schneider, who was gunned down by military plotters on Oct. 22, 1970. The fuller documentary record contradicts the long-standing claim by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that “Track II” was shut down a week before Schneider’s murder.
After Allende’s inauguration, Nixon did not give up. The documents detail what his administration did to make the Chilean economy “scream,” how the CIA spread “black” propaganda, and how Washington finally goaded the Chilean army into the coup of 1973.
The Chilean coup leader, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, held power for the next 17 years, relinquishing control in 1990 only after arranging immunity for himself and his top generals.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/ChileCoup_USHand.html

Yeah, buddy, US is a real democracy supporter.

Very sad but true.

It’s not left wing-babble anymore to speak of Impeachment.

I said you distorted on two counts:
1. the US was THE major player by far in the 1953 coup – not a mere ‘participant’ .
2. I never said you stated the CIA had a role in the revolution, but as you quote in your post – without the CIA and the US actively conducting overt and covert economic warfare against Allende, Pinochet would not have been able to mount his coup. And yet, Kissinger was in quick with Operation Condor right afterwards eh? Ever been to Chile Exlax? Your distortion is of course the impression you try to give that the US had nothing at all to do with the overthrow – when it actively sought to destabilize the country even before Allende took office and create the conditions for the coup.

Nice self-pantsing on post #42 by the way.

The Iranian President is just a figurehead in Iran with no real authority. As President, Ahmadinejad cannot appoint his cabinet, he cannot appoint military or judicial leaders and most importantly, he is not even the Commander-in-Chief of Iran’s military (that constitutional authority lies with Iran’s Supreme Leader). Iranian President Ahmadinejad is increasingly under criticism from the Iranian Majlis, Iran’s parliament. Ahmadinejad is steadily becoming marginalized by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, who is in turn supervised by the Iranian Mujtahids (council of 86 Islamic legal experts), who are also critical of Ahmadinejad. Growing numbers of the rest of the Marjas (Grand Ayatollahs) of Iran are marginalizing Ahmadinejad. Parviz Davoodi, First Vice President to Ahmadinejad, also strongly disagrees with Ahmadinejad on some very big issues (there are 10 Vice Presidents in total). More and more Iranian citizens are becoming disenchanted with Ahmadinejad. Ali Larijani, the chairman of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), is progressively alienated by Ahmadinejad and shares Khamnei’s reservations of Ahmadinejad’s policies, especially his confrontational anti-US rhetoric on foreign policy (mind you that criticism of Ahmadinejad ranges from democratic reformers and dissidents within the majority of Iranian civil society to theocratic traditionalists among Iran’s clerics). This mounting criticism will probably dissipate if the US invades Iran, and the rising resentment towards Ahmadinejad will probably be redirected towards the US and a lengthy retaliation against the US will likely stem from a revitalized, consolidated coalition among Ahmadinejad, the Iranian Majlis, the Majras, the Mujtahids and Iranian civil society. They will likely put aside their differences and unite against any US invasion force, probably solidifying and even intensifying Iranian support for Ahmadinejad’s anti-US rhetoric. If we invade Iran, any hopes Iranian society has for democracy will likely be replaced with hatred and contempt for the US presence there. If we invade Iran, we can say goodbye to any hopes for a stable Iranian democracy for (at least) another decade, which in turn will further destabilize the already imperiled Middle East and upset the chances of peace in the region.

If we invade Iran, we will be hurting its chance at stability and democracy. We will also be giving the Iranians every reason to rally around Ahmadinejad and consolidate his anti-US rhetoric into actual policy. Specifically, we might cause the Supreme Leader to transfer his Commander-In-Chief responsibilities to Ahmadinejad, giving him the reigns of Iran’s military and thereby adding military strength to his anti-U.S and anti-Israel rhetoric. Iran’s military is significantly larger than Iraq’s, more experienced and better equipped for a war. Plus, there’s a real chance that Hizballah might come in to help their sponsors, brining in their extra firepower- in effect reinforcing Iran’s already powerful military. Our military is already stretched thin in the Middle East, currently in Iraq and Afghanistan and our generals and the NeoCons (notably Richard Perle and Francis Fukuyama) are already saying Iraq is a losing battle. In short, we will be making a disastrous mistake if we invade Iran. Considering Iran’s vastly superior military and intelligence capabilities compared to Iraq’s, we will be there longer than we’re spending in Iraq.

Alas, our President recently authorized the use of force against Iranian scientists in Iraq. So in the end, Bush might not have given the American public a choice. This pessimistic view is further cemented by foriegn policy experts who say Bush et al are trying to provoke Iran into a war (notably, Zbigniew Brzezinski holds this view). In effect, he’d be sending more of our men, women and children to die for a plan he should by now know will fail and that he will be recklessly adding more blood to the bloodbath that he helped create.

“It would be wrong, however, to blame Chile’s problems solely on
Washington’s harassment. Allende was no democrat. He began building a
Cuban-armed personal militia outside the military structure and
financing left-wing guerillas. He also helped destroy his country’s
economy with a large-scale nationalization of private industries.
Washington played no direct role in planning the military coup in 1973
that toppled Allende and led to his death. By then it had no need to:
Allende’s policies combined with the economic pressures applied by the
U.S. had created a climate that was ripe for an indigenous coup.”

Walter Isaacson
TIME Magazine / CNN

You really need to work on your reading skills. I never denied the CIA was involved in the Iran coup of 1953. In fact, I say above our involvement was a terrible mistake. What I did say — and which has you apparently confused — is that the coup plan was initiated by the British who then sought our aid and assistance which we gave. You might want to read the Harvard article again:

“The rigidly polarized worldview of John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles, both high-ranking figures in the Eisenhower administration, allowed the British to enlist American support for the coup. ”

So, as we see, I was right…again. I realize that you were unaware of the British role in the coup. But now you know. You are welcome.

By the way, here is another link for ya:

Iran, Past and Present: The US-British Coup

In the summer of 1953, the U.S. and British governments toppled the nationalist and popular government of Dr.
Mohammad Mossadegh through a military coup and brought Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi back into power.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/psa/events/2004-05/ipap/coup.utf8.html