Article Image
News Link • WAR: About that War

Times poll shows GOP schism on interventionism

• Washington Times
Nearly half of all Republican primary voters say it's time the U.S. stops intervening in world affairs and focuses on domestic priorities instead, signaling a persistent rift that is playing out in the party's presidential nomination battle.

In the latest poll from The Washington Times and JZ Analytics, 48 percent said the U.S. should maintain a policy of intervening where its interests are challenged. But 46 percent disagree, saying the country is "in a new global era" where it can no longer take such an active role.

 

4 Comments in Response to

Comment by TL Winslow
Entered on:

{Vis a vis Iran, the organization who made the video you posted apparently favors a non-interventionist policy.

And, the information in this video shows how muted Paul was in his comments about nation building and promotion of democracy around the world.}

Haha, I posted it to prove my point that leftists are being made suckers of by Islam AGAIN.  A U.S. invasion of Iran would cause the entire pop. of Iran to rise against it? The truth is that the mullahcracy is only supported by the hicks in the provinces, and the city people hate it, it's called the Green Movement. As to Ron Paul, he' not clueless, he's the DEVIL'S ANTICHRIST, because though I can't prove it in court I believe he's a George Soros man, and his goal is to have the U.S. cut Israel loose for the final extermination while holding the U.S. military back and trying to forestall a mutiny.  Sure Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, whose bankers fronted George Soros for decades :)  There's 13 million Jews and 1.5 billion Muslims - who do Soros and the bankers believe is worth more to them? And Soros was born a Jew - historically the Jews have been filled with traitors in the ranks, go figure.

As to Iran, I have some good material on it in my Islam Historyscope, which is repeated in my Muslimscope, all on my Historyscoper.com site.  Why not spend the time?

 

 

 



 
Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

Thanks for the information, TL Winslow. 

I don't know if the A&E article was that far off or if my memory is that faulty.  Either way, you appear to have more accurate information.  AND, this helps explain the wiki article's description of 15 years of exhile for Khomeini.  If he had fled in 1953, that would have been 26 years of exile.  I saw that and wondered before posting . . .

Vis a vis Iran, the organization who made the video you posted apparently favors a non-interventionist policy.

And, the information in this video shows how muted Paul was in his comments about nation building and promotion of democracy around the world.

Etc.

DC Treybil

Comment by TL Winslow
Entered on:

{According to this article, in the early 1950's, Iran recieved 10% of the revenue generated by its oil.  The other 90% of the money went to "the west".  Ayatollah Khomeini advocated "Iranian oil money for Iranian people."  Naturally, this position was popular among Iran's people and he got a lot of support based on this.

A street demonstration was planned to install Khomeini as Iran's leader.  I forget the exact number of people who showed up and what percent of Iran's population that represented.  But it was a BIG number.  Essentially, the plan was at a given time, the crowd would be assembled outside a building where Khomeini was and they would begin shouting, "We want Khomeini!  We want Khomeini!" etc.}

Sorry, until the death of more senior Shiite clerics in 1961, nobody was clamoring for Khomeini to rule anything because he wasn't the official Grand Assaholah.  He supported the shah until 1963, when the shah announced the White Revolution of Western reforms that Shiites hate, esp. literacy programs and liberation of women, and gave an anti-Shah speech and began his little war that resulted in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which was only possible because Pres. Carter refused to keep backing the shah, much like Pres. Obama refused to keep backing Mubarak in Egypt so that Islamists could have a free hand while pretending it was a flowering of democracy.  Actually, it was Savak dir. Gen. Hassan Pakravan who saved Khomeini's life by talking the shah into letting him get a promotion to ayatollah, for which he got replaced, so they did have their chance to take care of him internally.

Treybil failed to mention the SOVIET UNION, which like the Tsardom before it thought it owned Iran, and which skewed the U.S. response to it, the CIA talking Ike into the Mossadegh coup because they thought he was courting them, while the Shah could be trusted to be loyal to the U.S. and fight Communism, the only thing they feared at the time.  Actually, the benevolent U.S. did everything it could to help the Iranian people rise out of ignorance and become Westernized, but thanks to horrible ISLAM it backfired.  Yes, BP looted them, and it had a lock on the U.S. since WWI, maybe they thought they were helping Britain rebuild or something, but let's say that Mossadegh got to keep 90% while the Soviets began dominating him, making him use it for military expenditures to fight the West, would that have been better?  Another joke is that the shah talked us into giving him a nuclear reactor, back when it was unthinkable that you know what; when the Assahollah took over, they couldn't just bomb the reactor because of the nuclear pollution problem.

The joke is that all the way up to the 1979 Iranian Rev., Khomeini courted the Marxists and leftists, until he got the shah's regime out of the way and consolidated his power, after which he betrayed them and set up the Islamic Republic of Iran that openly hates all infidels U.S. and otherwise, and wants Islam to dominate the world after ending the Jewish state of Israel, after which the entire West has had to face that Islam is baaack like Ahnuld in The Terminator, put on your burqa or you're under arrest.  After the Soviet Union fell, Russia still thinks it owns Iran, and is now making noises to test the U.S. response, as if it wants the mullahcracy any more than we do.

At least back in 1953 the CIA had to clear operations with Ike first. It's sad that ever since JFK the CIA and president aren't necessarily always on the same team, and Ike's warning about the MIC getting too much power have come true.  Of course they'd never try assassinating a 5-star general, but the Navy loser who couldn't steer a boat was given a pass apparently.

Either way, the Islamic Republic of Iran must go, it really must go, and it's too bad the poll wasn't limited to Iran alone, so it's pretty much worthless. A Republican president is needed at this critical juncture who will do what's needed and not worry about *!?! Mossadegh.

Master the entire history of Islam including Iran free in your browser with the Historyscoper this year and understand current events better:

http://go.to/islamhistory

Clueless leftists want us to be friends with the mullahcracy, showing utter ignorance of the Muslim way of being friends with infidels:

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11038/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior

 

 

 

Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

Excerpt:  The first statement read: "America is the most powerful nation in the world not only because of its strong military but because of the values of personal freedom it represents. America must intervene in the affairs of the world whenever its interests are challenged." The second statement read: "America is in a new global era and cannot afford to spread its resources too thin. It must rely on strong alliances with other nations and take care of its domestic priorities first."

While 48 percent chose the first statement, 47 percent chose the second. The rest said they weren't sure. (end excerpt)

As is later acknowledged in the article, this question is posed in a less-than-satisfying way.  It borders on being a false dichotomy.  This places the value of the results of the poll in question.

What is "inteventionism"?  True, interventionism includes the military adventures currently underway, but interventionism is not limited to overt wars involving actual battles and combat.

"Operation Ajax" is an example of covert interventionism not involving military battles and combat.

Oliver North testified about Operation Ajax during the Iran-Contra hearings.  This occured before Waco and I dismissed it as a "face-time" opportunity for everybody, including North.  In the mid-1990's, I watched a few episodes of a series on A&E called "Spies" narrated by Bill Curtis.  They did a segment on "Operation Ajax".  The fires at Waco had awakened me to the fact that "our government" wasn't always the good guys.  I saw this segment after that and I paid attention.

According to this article, in the early 1950's, Iran recieved 10% of the revenue generated by its oil.  The other 90% of the money went to "the west".  Ayatollah Khomeini advocated "Iranian oil money for Iranian people."  Naturally, this position was popular among Iran's people and he got a lot of support based on this.

A street demonstration was planned to install Khomeini as Iran's leader.  I forget the exact number of people who showed up and what percent of Iran's population that represented.  But it was a BIG number.  Essentially, the plan was at a given time, the crowd would be assembled outside a building where Khomeini was and they would begin shouting, "We want Khomeini!  We want Khomeini!" etc.

When a crowd that large assembles and coronates an individual as ruler, that individual is the ruler.  Period.

The CIA got wind of this.  Knowing that anytime somebody rises to power like this, there are 20 others with similar desire and standing just waiting and wanting the same position, the CIA identified and recruited the man who President Jimmy Carter later called "our friend the Shah of Iran".

An arrangement was worked out such that Iran's cut of the oil revenue would be raised to 20% and the Shah was given a $120 million dollar coronation.  That much money in 1953 was several billion in today's dollars.  (I'm guessing)  Let's face it.  There aren't enough caterers and belly dancers in the world to cost THAT much money.  The Shah used the money to buy off everybody who could be bought off.  Doubtless, they all did like Huey Long said he did - take the money and vote the way he was going to anyway.

In exchange, the Shah agreed to do "the west's" bidding with their support.

With that arrangement in place, it became the CIA's mission to get the Iranian public to go along.  This was done by co-opting the street coronation of the Ayatollah Khomeini.  Just before the demonstrators were to begin chanting "We want the Ayatollah", CIA operatives begin chanting "We want the Shah".  The crowd picked that up and began chanting that in unison.  According to the A&E article, Khomeini, being of sound mind and body, immediately fled the country upon hearing this, thinking he had been doublecrossed - which he had.

26 years later, the American embassy in Tehran was overrun.

These events are directly related.

The ruse of Operation Ajax worked, but I bet it didn't take Khomeini and his supporters 10 minutes to figure out what had been done and by whom, once they were safe in France.

Do you want to know how strongly Iranians (and others abroad) feel about such interference?  Any American who is not "abiotic" between the ears and who has ever discussed the Civil War very much has a frame of reference.  I DC Treybil, who was nominated for TIME magazine's "Milquetoast of the Year" award more than once, have become blind raging mad (something like 3 times over the years) in such discussions - discussions which began in earnest calm rational polite discourse.  And this is over 150 years after those events.

How much hotter must passions run for those more recently wounded by such events!

Such is the effect of covert interventionism.

Suffice it to say, Operation Ajax is but one example of covert operations whose unintended consequences reverbrate into current events.

And with the effects of this operation in view, the limited aspect of the polls question become painfully apparent.

I don't know what the alternative is, but there has to be something more generally profitable than war, which as Smedley Butler pointed out, is of profit to a very few.  We should be looking for that viable alternative.

'nuff said.

DC Treybil


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


Free Talk Live