Did "Iran" really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"?

[Kirk Freeman]

Operation Ajax was America's attempt to wipe the Iranian regime from the Arena of Time.

Ajax? Why are you bringing up the glory years of the CIA.

Ajax was certainly great work, but what does it have to do with the maniacs running Iran and how we can stop them?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ajax? Why are you bringing up the glory years of the CIA.

Ajax was certainly great work, but what does it have to do with the maniacs running Iran and how we can stop them?

Nothing. It's justification to Blame America First by the Hate America Most crowd.

 

[dross]

It's hard to know exactly what he said. Some languages are more nuanced than others. My understanding is that Farsi is this kind of language.

Also ways of saying things don't always translate exactly.

For instance, in German, it's polite to say upon meeting someone, "Freut mich," which I'm told means literally, "joy to me." The English equivalent is, "I'm pleased to meet you."

So, how do you translate it? Do you translate it literally, or in its closest meaning to English.

In politics, translations are always political. You have to know who is translating and what their goals and motivations are.

For instance, I've read that while Arafat was making nice talk in English speeches about reconciliation with Israel, he was calling for blood, death, and destruction on Arabic radio. What's the truth? I'm not qualified to know. I have to take someone else's word for it, someone most likely who has a political agenda.

What if I said, "Rambone, you're going to sleep with the fishes." Perhaps it means I'm going to let you spend the night on my yacht.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Question is, why aren't we running Ajax II?

Instead Obama went for ice cream while Iranians were being shot in the head by those murderous maniacs in bedsheets.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Anywho I don't see how Ajax has anything to do with the lunatics in power in Tehran that want to erase the Jews.

 

[rambone]

Anywho I don't see how Ajax has anything to do with the lunatics in power in Tehran that want to erase the Jews.

That's the act of war that SemperFi doesn't want to acknowledge. Its much easier to believe that Iranians just got pissed off one day in 1979, for no apparent reason, without provocation, and captured an embassy.

Question is, why aren't we running Ajax II?

More of the same failed policy. Swell.

Nothing. It's justification to Blame America First by the Hate America Most crowd.

Nothing more American than running other countries' governments using puppet dictators.

 

[dross]

Nothing more American than running other countries' governments using puppet dictators.

You make a good point. We should put Americans in charge after we topple them.

Finally, something we can agree on.

 

[rambone]

You make a good point. We should put Americans in charge after we topple them.

Finally, something we can agree on.

Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That's the act of war that SemperFi doesn't want to acknowledge. Its much easier to believe that Iranians just got pissed off one day in 1979, for no apparent reason, without provocation, and captured an embassy.

Of course it's an act of war, that's why we have CIA cut outs. Why in the name of Wild Bill Donovan does the CIA exist if not to kill the slimebags who want to harm us.

The Islamists driving the '79 just didn't wake up mad; Ajax had nothing to do with it. Their worldview did.

More of the same failed policy. Swell.

Failed policy? Ajax gave us our SOB in Iran for 25 years, allowed the oil to flow and pointed a chess piece at the granddaddy of terrorist states, the USSR.

Failed? Utter nonsense. It was a masterstroke.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

That's the act of war that SemperFi doesn't want to acknowledge. Its much easier to believe that Iranians just got pissed off one day in 1979, for no apparent reason, without provocation, and captured an embassy.

Isn't there an expiration date on coups that turn into rebellion that turn into an aggressive act of war where the warring party becomes responsible for their own actions?

Nothing more American than running other countries' governments using puppet dictators.

I'm at a loss here. The Shah of Iran was in office between 1941 and 1979. He received power from his father, and there was an unbroken chain of shahs all the way back to Cyrus the Great. The Shah remained in power for another 26 years after Operation Ajax. The only reason he was deposed was the rise in Islamic militancy. He was a friendly ruler of a friendly nation who asked for and received American support throughout his reign. How is that running other countries' governments using puppet dictators?

 

[thebishopp]

Soooooo... what is the expiration date of 9/11?

 

[dross]

I'm at a loss here. The Shah of Iran was in office between 1941 and 1979. He received power from his father, and there was an unbroken chain of shahs all the way back to Cyrus the Great. The Shah remained in power for another 26 years after Operation Ajax. The only reason he was deposed was the rise in Islamic militancy. He was a friendly ruler of a friendly nation who asked for and received American support throughout his reign. How is that running other countries' governments using puppet dictators?

This is where I get confused myself. We're supposed to recognize that bad guys who take over a country by force and rule with an iron hand are a "sovereign nation" and we're supposed to treat them with respect and as friends, not enemies. But then if later someone doesn't like them, we were bad for being their friend.

I think what you're looking for is that whatever we do is bad. I think you'll find your thread of consistency somewhere around there.

Also, if ever in our history we've ever done something bad to someone, they now have the right to do bad stuff to us, and we can't retaliate. Unless of course we capture them, present evidence in an American court, and prove them guilty. Then we can do something to them, but probably not put them in our jails, which would also be wrong.

This much I know for sure: Whatever we do, the standard we must live up to is one that has never existed, never worked in the real world, and does not conform to any reality anyone can point to. Actions that are better and more humane and fair than any that have existed since the beginning of the World are simply not good enough.

 

[steveh_131]

I think what you're looking for is that whatever we do is bad. I think you'll find your thread of consistency somewhere around there.

I think you stumbled onto something that makes sense here, although you did it quite unintentionally.

I can point to a huge percentage of the things our government does domestically and say 'Our government has no business interfering in that', and you would probably agree with the majority of it.

I point to a huge percentage of the things our government does in its foreign policy and say 'Our government has no business interfering in that', and all of a sudden I 'hate America first'.

The principles are the same. Frankly, I think you guys are not able to look at it in an objective manner.

 

[rambone]

Isn't there an expiration date on coups that turn into rebellion that turn into an aggressive act of war where the warring party becomes responsible for their own actions?

You're still holding onto 1979. When is the expiration date when you will stop being pissed about that?

 

[hornadylnl]

Soooooo... what is the expiration date of 9/11?

But that's different.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You're still holding onto 1979. When is the expiration date when you will stop being pissed about that?

Apples and oranges. I'm not suggesting, nor am I in a position, to invade them over it. So your attempted analogy is, well, dumb.

 

[dross]

I think you stumbled onto something that makes sense here, although you did it quite unintentionally.

I can point to a huge percentage of the things our government does domestically and say 'Our government has no business interfering in that', and you would probably agree with the majority of it.

I point to a huge percentage of the things our government does in its foreign policy and say 'Our government has no business interfering in that', and all of a sudden I 'hate America first'.

The principles are the same. Frankly, I think you guys are not able to look at it in an objective manner.

I don't agree with you, so therefore I must not look at it in an objective manner. You sum up the libertarian attitude quite nicely. There are no disagreements, only failures of principle, according to your "objective" world view.

Another option is right in front of your face, but perhaps the blinding light of your brilliant objectivity kept you from seeing it.

What if, and I know this is crazy talk, but what if I think there's a fundamental difference in the two kinds of interference? What if I can explain it according to a consistent philosophy? What if, gasp, we just disagree? Nope, that can't be it. Just like I can't make a principled, logical, choice to vote for a Romney or a Santorum as the best possible choice for freedom. Nope, it's not a disagreement, it's that I don't really love freedom, and that I'm in love with Romney's hair and that I get my marching orders from Rush Limbaugh, and that I just want to be on a winning team.

But thanks, I'll work on my lack of objectivity. I'll use you as my shining example.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think you stumbled onto something that makes sense here, although you did it quite unintentionally.

Don't kid yourself. With Dross it's never unintentional.

I can point to a huge percentage of the things our government does domestically and say 'Our government has no business interfering in that', and you would probably agree with the majority of it.

Yep

I point to a huge percentage of the things our government does in its foreign policy and say 'Our government has no business interfering in that', and all of a sudden I 'hate America first'.

Nope. What makes you Hate America First is when you blame America's actions for whatever bad happens to us.

Saying that America's foreign policy is dumb is the truth. Saying that it led to madmen flying planes into our buildings is a Blame America First strategy.

The principles are the same. Frankly, I think you guys are not able to look at it in an objective manner.

No, the principles aren't the same. They would be the same if you said that McVeigh was justified for blowing up the Federal building in OKC because he was upset about Waco and Ruby Ridge. He was a mad man in search of an excuse. Same with the Islam-o-tweakers.

 

[thebishopp]

We can always retaliate, doesn't make it right.

Heck if someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you, fails, and then you try to kill them, fail, and then they can try to kill you and it can keep going on and on and on till either one of you actually dies or goes to jail and then of course your surviving family members can pick up the torch and keep it going for as long as possible.

I will agree though at some point it has got to stop.

A question though is who is the one responsible for trying to stop it?

I suppose it would help to know who actually started it to begin with but in cases where that is lost in history I would think it would take the mutual desire of both parties and in this case I don't think either one of our governments want a cessation of aggression.

Conflict or threat of conflict is just way more profitable.

 

[rambone]

Apples and oranges. I'm not suggesting, nor am I in a position, to invade them over it. So your attempted analogy is, well, dumb.

No, not dumb. Obviously people have a good memory for being f***ed with.

The Iranians didn't appreciate their democratically elected Prime Minister being removed by the CIA. It didn't "expire" from their memories.

How long would you be bitter about your president being removed by a foreign government? And yet you blame Islam for the blowback once again.