BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
ESS Tuning
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-24-2008, 12:10 PM   #1
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

History Lesson: Iran, Iraq & The U.S

I think a lot of people on this board have no clue how our involvement with Iran and Iraq came about. Outside of oil, many things took place over the last 60 years that put us in the position we are in now. I have documented that below for everyone to read. There is no spin in this, just facts.


Starting in 1952 Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran went on a quest to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (Now known as British Petroleum or BP). At that time profits were split 85% British-15% Iranian but the company withheld their financial records from Iran, so the Iranians had no real way to tell if the British were screwing them over or being honest with the profit sharing. Because of this Iranian support for the nationalization of BP grew intensely and the Iranian Parliament unamiously voted to nationalize is peice of BP.

Obvioulsy the British were not happy about this and wanted to overthrough Mossadeq in hopes that they could get someone more simpathetic to the British cause, which was cheap & profitbale oil. The Persian Shah went with the British & U.S. Plan to overthrough Mossadeq, because before that it was the British who put the Shah in power...and the Shah made Mossadeq prime minister before all of this mess. When the operation to overthrough Mossadeq failed, the Shah fled the country fearing for his life. After a second try to overthrough Mossadeq, it worked and the Shah returned to Iran. During the years to follow the Shah received lots of support from the U.S. and grew close ties to Washington with his plan to westernize Iran. Many Iranians did not like the Shah's idea of turning Iran into the next U.S. However the Shah continued with his plans and Universities were created in Iran similar to Ivy leagues here in the U.S. and donations from the Shah were large as a thank you.

Now this is where everything started to go downhill...

The Jimmy Carter administration:
Carter started to create a strain between the U.S. and Iran when he started to criticize the Shah and his human rights record in Iran. Other presidents in the past just turned a blind eye to the issue, but Carter wouldn't let it go. The last thing the U.S. wanted was a weak Iran that wouldn't be able to protect itself from communisim.

Now remember earlier when I said some Iranians weren't happy about the Shah plan to westernize Iran? Well now here comes the Iranian Revolution...

To make a long story short, the Shah was ousted and replaced with an Anti-western named Khomeini. Issues with the U.S. did not arise until Khomeini and his government wanted the Shah extradited back to Iran and executed. I do not remember where the Shah was staying at the time, but he was suffering from cancer wanted to come to the U.S. for treatment. Khomeini insisted that the U.S. not grant him this request because they wanted to improve relations with the U.S. and this was definately not going to help. So the American embassy agreed. However after lots of pressure from Kissenger and Rockefeller to let the Shah into the U.S., Carter agreed.

Now the Iranians are pissed off with the U.S. going back on its word. Khomeini used this action by the U.S. to to justify his claims that the Shah was an American puppet. This got the Iranian people outraged and led to Iranian students storming the American embassy in Iran and taking 52 americans hostage.

Eventually everything got sorted out through the signing of the Algiers Accords in 1981, however from that point on to this every day all diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Iran were done with.

During this time Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning because a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long suppressed Shia majority influenced by Iran's Islamic revolution. Iraq quickly got its butt kicked by Iran. Iran eventually took back much of the island's that Iraq stole.

The U.S. while still pissed at Iran thought now would be a great time to get even with Iran by helping out Iraq. The U.S. supplied Iraq with intelligence, economic aid, and weapons. Ronald Reagan said that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran." The U.S. created Saddam Hussein and gave him the tools needed for him to grow in power. The U.S. viewed Saddam Hussein as a symbol of anti-communism in the 60's, and a tool to punish Iran in the 80's. They used him as their instrument for more than 40 years. Qassim the leader before Saddam made a huge mistake in withdrawing from the Baghdad pact in 1959. Saddam who was only in his 20's joined a U.S. plot to remove Qassim because of this move. After Qassim was finally killed, the Baath Party took over, lead by Saddam.

However during this time the U.S. was also selling Weapons to Iran, known as the Iran-Contra Affair. U.S. officials were using the profits of weapons sold to Iran to fund Contras militants in Nicaragua.

The war between Iraq and Iran eventually ended. But now a new problem arised when Saddam attacked Kawit....and the story goes on.


So from what I gather a lot of what we are experiencing today was done to prevent the spread of communisim, maintain cheap oil, and yes even payback...

Last edited by TMNT; 09-24-2008 at 01:22 PM.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 01:03 PM   #2
742
Major
 
Drives: E90 325i; F10 528i; 2002tii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PA

Posts: 1,190
iTrader: (0)

Iranians hated the Shah for reasons other than his Westernizing the country. Start with his secret police, SAVAK, whose brutal murders and horrific torture rank right up there with Saddam Hussein. And SAVAK was trained and equipped by the CIA. And the CIA operated out of the American embassy.
742 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 01:18 PM   #3
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Good, keep it coming so we can add it to thread. Your peice helps explain Jimmy Carter's disdain for the Shah...human rights abuse.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 02:16 PM   #4
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

The US did not "create" Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a Soviet client from the time he took power until the USSR collapsed. The US did not even have diplomatic relations with his regime until the early 80's.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 02:52 PM   #5
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
The US did not "create" Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a Soviet client from the time he took power until the USSR collapsed. The US did not even have diplomatic relations with his regime until the early 80's.

Incorrect. Saddam was anti Soviet. Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a "bulwark" of anti-communism. Your confusing him for Qassim...your getting the two confused.

Has far as diplomatic relations, that's correct, but let's not forget that the CIA helped put Saddam in power. The main reason the U.S. got involved with Saddam was when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating Qassim. Qassim was pro Soviet, Saddam was not. Iraq was regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Once Qassim bailed on the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was created to defend the region, the U.S. wanted Qassim gone and used Saddam to assist. The whole Baath party takeover involved the killing of any official who who was suspected of being a communist. It was a complete coup

Last edited by TMNT; 09-24-2008 at 03:08 PM.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 03:04 PM   #6
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
Incorrect. Saddam was anti Soviet. Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a "bulwark" of anti-communism. Your confusing him for Qassim...your getting the two confused.
Saddam Hussein was a Soviet client. The vast majority of his military equipment was of Soviet origin.

If you are really interested, Russian-Iraqi Relations: A Historical and Political Analysis.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 03:17 PM   #7
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Saddam Hussein was a Soviet client. The vast majority of his military equipment was of Soviet origin.

If you are really interested, Russian-Iraqi Relations: A Historical and Political Analysis.

This is from your own article:
Quote:
When the pro-western monarchy was overthrown by a military coup on 14 July 1958, the new leader of the country, General Abd-al-Karim Quasim immediately re-established diplomatic ties with Moscow and started to buy Soviet arms. (5)
Like I said, Quasim was a client, not Saddam. Your article proves that.

Quote:
Since then, for about forty years until the Gorbachev Perestroika in the late 1980s, Soviet-Iraqi cooperation was both close and multi-faceted, and for most of the period it was even officially called a "strategic partnership". However, this did not mean that during all that time their mutual relations had always been equally friendly and without serious political differences. In no instance, however, did their leaders "compromise their own national interests or become Soviet stooges."
Still...nothing here stating Saddam was pro Soviet.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 03:23 PM   #8
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

More from the article:

Quote:
Despite all these tensions and even serious political disagreements, Soviet-Iraqi relations remained fundamentally friendly for all that period until the end of the 1980s, and mutual cooperation continued without major disturbances. Condemning the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein nevertheless declared that: "Iraq would not change the trends of its general policy in its relations with the Soviets." (26) The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 1972 has never been suspended and by 1990 fifty more specific treaties had been concluded. (27) According to a Russian scholar: "In spite of some problems Soviet-Iraqi relations might have been characterized as very stable and fruitful, opening great prospects for the future." (28) In the late 1970s, Sadat of Egypt turned his country towards an openly pro-American position and the Islamic Revolution in Iran proved to be both anti-Communist and anti-Soviet. Thus, Iraq's importance for the Soviets increased even more. For the USSR it became almost the only remaining instrument of influence in the region. (29) However, Iraqi leaders were well aware of the Soviet difficulties and in exchange for the political loyalty and anti-colonial ideals as well as even verbal acceptance of the socialist ideas, constantly demanded economic support and arms supply. (30) Iraq was taking about half of all Soviet exports to the region and the total value of Soviet contracts with Iraq amounted to 37.4 billion U.S. dollars. (31) During the thirty years of cooperation, Soviet specialists built about eighty big factories in Iraq, (32) and prior to 2 August 1990, almost 8,000 Soviet citizens worked in Iraq. (33)
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 03:33 PM   #9
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
More from the article:
All that sounds like to me is that Saddam used the Soviets to get what he wanted just has long as he remained "friendly." But he was still anti-communisits. The Soviets did all they could to win him over, but he just kept accepting their gifts and giving them nothing substantial in return. No? the Soviets did all they could to keep Iraq on their side, but Saddam just used them.

Last edited by TMNT; 09-24-2008 at 08:58 PM.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 03:37 PM   #10
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

The Iraqi forces that faced us in the first Gulf War were equipped with predominately Soviet equipment. On the ground the Republican Guard had T-72's and BMP-1's.

The Iraqi Air Force fielded Su-17, Su-20 and Su-22M Fitters, Su-24MK Fencer-Ds, Su-25 Frogfoots, MiG-21 Fishbeds, MiG-23 Floggers, MiG-25 Foxbats, MiG-29 Fulcrums, as well as some French Mirage F1's.

Also, the missiles Saddam launched at Saudi Arabia and Israel were Soviet SCUDs.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 03:39 PM   #11
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
All that sounds like to me is that Saddam used the Soviets to get what he wanted just has long as he remained "friendly." But he was still anti-communisits. The Soviets did all they could to win him over, but he just kept excepting their gifts and giving them nothing substantial in return. No? the Soviets did all they could to keep Iraq on their side, but Saddam just used them.
So he was a bulwark of anti-communism but friendly with the Soviets?

What is the source of your info?
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 03:53 PM   #12
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Saddam Hussein was a Soviet client. The vast majority of his military equipment was of Soviet origin.

If you are really interested, Russian-Iraqi Relations: A Historical and Political Analysis.
key : If you are really interested...

I dont think he is really interested in the truth.
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 04:00 PM   #13
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...0/205859.shtml

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=9id...sult#PPA188,M1
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 04:09 PM   #14
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sayemthree View Post
key : If you are really interested...

I dont think he is really interested in the truth.
And what do you know? How about you provide some insight into the conversation instead of jumping in blind with empty hands.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 04:19 PM   #15
OverDrive
CHEAT TO WIN!!
 
OverDrive's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto

Posts: 1,328
iTrader: (0)

It would've been much better if Shah was still ruling Iran (or his son to the throne Mohammad Reza Pahlavi since Shah died). I'd prefer him over these freaking retarded religious Mullah's (akhoonds). All the problems that Iran is now facing is because of Islam. I personally blame the Arabs back then that attacked Iran (known as the Persian Empire back then) and brought Islam which was like around 1000 years ago.

Any who, back to the topic...lol
Shah wasn't a bad ruler, it was just that the west saw how Iran was becoming a big super power, so they were threatened and therefore called it off on Shah and overthrew him by using Khomeini.
________
Mercedes-Benz Ssk
________
Los angeles dispensary
________
Kitchen Measures
________
FISTING VIDS

Last edited by OverDrive; 04-14-2011 at 09:32 PM.
OverDrive is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 04:21 PM   #16
ganeil
Colonel
 
ganeil's Avatar
 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,050
iTrader: (0)

The US did not have diplomatic relations with Iraq from June 1967 until Nov 1984. Iraq signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1972.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was no friend of the US.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
ganeil is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-24-2008, 10:11 PM   #17
742
Major
 
Drives: E90 325i; F10 528i; 2002tii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PA

Posts: 1,190
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OverDrive View Post
...Shah wasn't a bad ruler, it was just that the west saw how Iran was becoming a big super power, so they were threatened and therefore called it off on Shah and overthrew him by using Khomeini.
Great ruler, if you didn't mind the risk of having your arm strapped into a meat slicer and run back and forth. And that was one of the nicer methods of dealing with political opponents.

We support these thugs and then act all self righteous and indignant when their people funnily rise up. Mark these words; next up -- Saudi Arabia.
742 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-26-2008, 01:54 AM   #18
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

let's see ? should we support the thugs that will work with us or support the thugs that would kill us? hmmmm hard decision?
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-26-2008, 06:03 AM   #19
742
Major
 
Drives: E90 325i; F10 528i; 2002tii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PA

Posts: 1,190
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sayemthree View Post
let's see ? should we support the thugs that will work with us or support the thugs that would kill us? hmmmm hard decision?
How about support neither. We don't need to be the World’s Policeman, and every time we try we seem to just make it worse. Even World War II, which may well have been the result of our intervention in World War I.

Whoever has the oil will sell it on the open market. And the only way to fix a corrupt government is for the people themselves to rise up and deal with it. Meanwhile the western world’s neutral countries are humming along just fine.
742 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-26-2008, 08:33 AM   #20
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sayemthree View Post
let's see ? should we support the thugs that will work with us or support the thugs that would kill us? hmmmm hard decision?
What do you think this thread is about? It's about thugs we once supported who now want to kill us. Is everyone is SoCal like you? Clueless?

Iran
Iraq
Afganistan
who's next...?
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2008, 01:51 AM   #21
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

[quote=742;3378833]How about support neither. We don't need to be the World’s Policeman, and every time we try we seem to just make it worse. Even World War II, which may well have been the result of our intervention in World War I.

[quote]

oh nice comment . brilliant! without WWii the Nazi's would own the oil and Barack would be a second class citizen and slave.
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-27-2008, 08:01 AM   #22
742
Major
 
Drives: E90 325i; F10 528i; 2002tii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PA

Posts: 1,190
iTrader: (0)

[quote=sayemthree;3383397][quote=742;3378833]How about support neither. We don't need to be the World’s Policeman, and every time we try we seem to just make it worse. Even World War II, which may well have been the result of our intervention in World War I.

Quote:

oh nice comment . brilliant! without WWii the Nazi's would own the oil and Barack would be a second class citizen and slave.
Read what I wrote again. Slowly this time.
742 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST