^ Spoco2: why is it so unbelievable really? Has there never been government conspiracies or secrets? In your context of your argument the Government never killed Kennedy even after coming up with the idea of backing money to silver, pulling out of Vietnam, or dis-banding the CIA... Though i am sure it was one shooter with one bullet that went all nimbly bimbly bouncing around the car and pushing Kennedy back and to the left. That was how long ago and we still don't know all the facts on it.... I am sure as shit not that naive to think it was one guy from a 3rd floor book depository with a bolt action rifle... or the coincidences that Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy were all killed within the same time frame... Or how about over throwing the Shah in Iran or the contras in Nicaragua.... Man the list is overwhelming.... Trillions of dollars in Oil will make people do i am sure just about anything....

"was the CIA/SAS backed coup of democratically elected(yes,iran used to be a democracy,until we showed up)mossadeq so that a much more "west-friendly" dictator in the form of the shah could be installed.(mossadeq kicked BP out of iran to nationalize the oil fields)."

imho, there's a lot more to that story than is often bandied about... this may be seen as nitpicking, but the shah was 'already' in power when mossadeq tried kicking 'him' out -- also, mossadeq wasn't what we would call a 'popularly elected' prime minister - under iran's constitutional monarchy (the democracy you're referring to), the shah 'appointed' a prime minister (who if he already held a popularly elected post, must resign to accept the appointment), and then the iranian parliament (majlis) did a 'pro-forma' ratification

understanding this clearly would have your point being similar to saying that former supreme court justice, sandra day o'connor, was democratically elected

mossadeq's ousting had as much (or more) to do with his farcical referendum to dissolve iran's then-only-democratic governing body: the majlis... as it did with us fears of mossadeq's strengthening alliance with iran's communist party: the tudeh (tpi)... not to mention britain's (admittedly greed-driven) desire for revenge at iran's 'nationalizing' a fortune's worth of british refining equipment

the white house keeping its distance is the best foreign policy move i have seen from the white house in?..god,feels like forever.Iran has many pro-american constituents,but not from the mullahs.right now islam is so incredibly fractured it is a powder keg.i know i am just stating the obvious,but something has to be done and it wont help if its from an outside source,it has to come from within.

thats why i was cheering the protesters when they bogus election blew up in the mullahs faces.they may have restored some order after many deaths (nede being the most prominent)and many imprisonments but the word is out.now its just a matter of time.my hope is that the west stays out of it.there is a time to offer the hand of assistance,now is NOT that time.it would be too easy for iranian leaders to pounce on that and propagandize it to their own machinations.

if i had to point to a group to blame it would be the neo-liberals,now known as neo-conservatives.mrFisk posted an amazing doc today concerning just that topic so its fresh in my mind.i started paying attention to these guys around 2002,did some research and found an almost hidden group of empirialists who were pretty upfront about their goals.PNAC is a document i have posted about ever since.these guys mean business.
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-American-Century

one more point.
while much is addressed in this documentary.it's prudent to know why Iran has a problem with the US.it was not just ONE thing,it was many.
but the two biggest,i feel anyways.
was the CIA/SAS backed coup of democratically elected(yes,iran used to be a democracy,until we showed up)mossadeq so that a much more "west-friendly" dictator in the form of the shah could be installed.(mossadeq kicked BP out of iran to nationalize the oil fields).
the second of course was the espionage game played with both iran and iraq to keep the region unstable and therefore unlikely to consolidate and take over oil production,THEIR oil production.that war lasted NINE years and the US played both sides.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book called the grand chessboard.its an eye-opener on foreign policy,and explains many of the reasons why the US what they did.they were not exactly altruistic reasons.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
the consequences of such actions?
chalmers johnson has the amswer:blowback
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson
interviews here:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=chalmers+johnson
brzinzski here:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=Zbigniew+Brzezinski

>> ^Dignant_Pink:
is it pronounced shay-man? i've always said shah-man


both are correct

is it pronounced shay-man? i've always said shah-man

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906049,00.html

"Shiite Muslims mourn their dead on the third, seventh and 40th days after a death, and these commemorations are a pivotal part of Iran's rich history. During the revolution, the pattern of confrontations between the shah's security forces and the revolutionaries often played out in 40-day cycles.

The first clashes in January 1978 produced two deaths that were then commemorated on the 40th day in mass gatherings, which in turn produced new confrontations with security forces — and new deaths. Those deaths then generated another 40-day period of mourning, new clashes, and further deaths. The cycle continued throughout most of the year until the shah's ouster in January 1979. "

It's a shame there aren't more videos in the top list; there certainly are plenty available. There have been two so far, though; a Chris Matthews clip, and a riot.

Iran did have a parliamentary democracy; the US overthrew this government in 1953. A good history of this subversion is in the book "All the Shah's Men" by Steve Kinzer.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

That may be (I don't believe it) but I'm responding to this video where Reza cites the IAEA in 2003.

Citing "U.S. intelligence agencies" doesn't give me a lot of confidence considering they did not in fact know India had nukes (yes they knew they were pursuing them. Germans were pursuing them in WW2. I mean "had nukes" as in they actually had them. Ready to use. It was 1973 when India detonated one to the shock of intelligence communities around the world) .. But of course this is the intelligence apparatus that determined there were WMD's in Iraq.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.

You're changing the whole argument here to something that has nothing to do with this video. Now it's about Israel and Palestine. I know it's America's fault somehow because you mentioned oil and the Shaw. Not sure what is your point though? Does Iran resent and hate us because of the Shaw yet the people in the street now want to engage us and move past that? Bonus points if you can actually make it relate to this video.

Should Israel dial back it's rhetoric of what? That it will defend itself? They are faced with an enemy that is bent on their destruction. Iran. A sovereign state has made it a mandate that they will seek the extinction of this people. That's kind of rude huh? One of the main stumbling blocks for US foreign policy is Israel. Is that because Israel is so fucked up or because there are so many Islamic run regimes that are committed heart and soul to seeing Israel annihilated? Personally, it doesn't matter how you look at it .. they are our allies, and like Britain, Australia, Japan or any of America's trusted friends .. we are bound to defend and support them. It would be a lot easier to turn our back on our allies, but that isn't going to happen.

Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

I actually don't know what that last sentence means. Sorry.
Would the world be better if no one had nukes? Maybe. Will it be better if everyone has nukes? Of course not.

First strike policy is not pursued by any state. Actually, I think that's bullshit. Every nuclear state is trying to develop a first strike plan. We already know such plans exist with "acceptable losses" and such. The good news is M.A.D. has been affective and no one has really figured out an acceptable first strike strategy, yet. The problem is people like money, and what one state uses as a deterrent another emerging state uses as ransom. Iran and other "rogue" states could not actually assure destruction of the US the way the Soviets could during the cold war. So M.A.D. doesn't apply. It's just a threat .. like the Somali pirates. Fear our power. Pay the ransom. Iran (like N. Korea) see nukes as an an extortion tool. A bargaining chip. A chance to wield power and control a spot at the table of world affairs. Some of this is "give in to us or we sell it to others".

We know there are groups out there though that don't fear any retaliation. They don't have a state, don't give a shit if their people live or die because they are on a "mission from God" (sorry Blue's Brothers) .. and those groups buy these technologies from rouge states. So any state emerging with that technology deserves international scrutiny. Obviously.

We can't let every nation on Earth become nuclear states. If you want to argue about the US, Russia, China, etc and other nations that already have them then the only way to solve the problem is to build a time machine. Those nations already have them now and the only way to deal with it is to draw down the numbers of weapons in the stockpiles. Not increase the threat to the entire world by adding new members to the club.

Lastly, I specifically said it was not the Iranian people in general that are the problem, but the hard line psychos in charge. Yet, don't forget there are demonstrations in the streets for Ahmadinejad too. So they say.

>> ^burdturgler:
It is complete speculation on his part that there is no nuclear weapon ambition or program in Iran.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."


The C.I.A. and the rest of Earth found out because India detonated one.

India announced the pursuit of atomics in 1946, in 1968 it did not sign the NPT, in 1974 it conducted its first tests. This doesn't sound like lack of knowledge to me. The information was kept from the general public to avoid a preemptive atomic confrontation between India and Pakistan. That issue as a whole is entirely different then the one in the Middle East.


Iran needs to dial back it's rhetoric and hate speech and get more in line with the international cooperation and dialog that it's people wants.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.


Does anyone honestly think a nuclear armed Iran is a viable option for world stability and peace?


Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

No nation attains nuclear weapons for the purpose of using them anymore. It just doesn't make sense politically, ever since the US detonated the Hiroshima bomb and the nuclear arms race of the Cold War that nuclear weapons simply exist as means of deterrence. First strike policy is not pursued by any state because its admission and allowance to be attacked first preemptively. Thus everyone claims base deterrence use.

I don't find it acceptable that Israel has UNDECLARED nuclear weapons still and somehow that is okay. The threat of them striking Iran is just as great in my eyes. Shit they bombed Syria and Iraq just for the smallest whiff of nuclear capability. But what kind of action is that? How is that acceptable.

Further more your entire line about Iranians being made into anti-Israel haters flies in face of the protests taking place now trying to depose a president who was clearly illegally placed into power and has spent the last 4 years doing nothing but talking garbage. I don't know why people are so willing to think Bush was retarded in his foreign policy assessments and somehow take Iran's president seriously.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bollywood, chaiya, shah, rukh, khan, train' to 'bollywood, chaiya, shah, rukh, khan, train, A R, Rahman' - edited by JTZ

3 decades? Try nearly 6 since the US reinstated the Shah.

We've been vilified since long before Nam, and in some cases rightly so. Look up the history of Iran for example. Any idea why they hate us so much? Do you think us deposing a rightful and Democratic Prime Minister back in the 50s to install the Shah might have had something to do with it?

The CIA warned us at the time that there would be blowback, that's on record, and what we saw a couple of decades later after the extremist movement had time to ferment and grow under the Shah was that blowback. It wasn't an extremist nation in the 50s. And we always act like we don't have any idea why they were pissed.

Nothing excuses a terrorist or extremist but that kind of anger often has roots somewhere, in that case it was in our concern over them wanting to control their own oil. We thought nationalization of it was a big problem. In "dealing" with that we just created a bigger one. We've got a habit of that. It's not that we don't have a right to do anything, just that we too often decide to do the wrong thing and are too aggressive about it so trade small problems for big ones as a result. Instead of pretending that we're simply misunderstood and there's no reason for the anger we'd be better served to try to find the roots of it and deal with the problems.

The UK government banned the entry of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for his extremist views yet I don't see you complaining about his freedom of speech being infringed do I? I mean his views should also be allowed in the market place of ideas. What about Holocaust deniers in Germany, France and Netherlands. The double standard of censorship is there so spare me the freedom of speech arguments.

Furthermore the UK is already a police state. This has been proven time and time again since 9/11 and the countless anti-terrorism decrees pushed forward by labor.

What you are saying makes it seem like the minority of Islamic extremists have some kind of sway over the actions of the British and Netherlands government, they don't. Muslims support Palestine and are against Israel, has this policy been influenced in either nation, e.g. the BBC screening of Gaza aid ads?

The idea that there is a differentiation between the minority and the whole is simplistic given that that is not the thrust of media coverage developed in the Western world that is transmitted to the East. You forget Islamaphobia fever of the last 7 years. Look no further then the comment histories of QM, Pprt and mharvey42 for more information. I still contend that the West suffers from an amnesia of political events that the East recalls. Most people in the US don't even know of the collusion between the US and Saddam, the CIA and the installion of the Shah in Iran and so on.

Both governments clearly are focused on the maintenance of public order and cohesion, the air ring of Wilders ideas on the higher profile is not productive, something I would be against also if a Muslim person would create film meant to explain why its okay to kill Christians. Would the same response occur? Of course not.

But since his arguments are something that are on the mind of many due to fear and misunderstanding we have a huge public clusterfuck over it. Will it lead to more peace and understanding and eventual aculturilisation of Muslims in the west? Or simply create more divisions because there is an inherent hypocrisy?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'iraq, us, shah, iran, gulf, chalmers johnson' to 'iraq, us, shah, iran, gulf, chalmers johnson, why we fight' - edited by kronosposeidon

Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves
Scheherezad-ie had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves
You got a brand of magic never fails
You got some power in your corner now
Some heavy ammunition in your camp
You got some punch, pizzazz, yahoo and how
See all you gotta do is rub that lamp
And I'll say

Mister Aladdin, sir
What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order
Jot it down
You ain't never had a friend like me
No no no

Life is your restaurant
And I'm your maitre d'
C'mon whisper what it is you want
You ain't never had a friend like me

Yes sir, we pride ourselves on service
You're the boss
The king, the shah
Say what you wish
It's yours! True dish
How about a little more Baklava?

Have some of column "A"
Try all of column "B"
I'm in the mood to help you dude
You ain't never had a friend like me

Can your friends do this?
Do your friends do that?
Do your friends pull this out their little hat?
Can your friends go, poof?
Well, looky here
Can your friends go, Abracadabra, let 'er rip
And then make the sucker disappear?

So doncha sit there slack jawed, buggy eyed
I'm here to answer all your midday prayers
You got me bona fide, certified
You got a genie for your chare d'affaires
I got a powerful urge to help you out
So what-cha wish? I really wanna know
You got a list that's three miles long, no doubt
Well, all you gotta do is rub like so - and oh

Mister Aladdin, sir, have a wish or two or three
I'm on the job, you big nabob
You ain't never had a friend, never had a friend
You ain't never had a friend, never had a friend
You ain't never had a friend like me
You ain't never had a friend like me, hah!