Sunday, August 14, 2011

Ron Paul's Libtard Iranian Policy

Whenever you debate a Libtard about American foreign policy, eventually the 1953 Iranian coupe comes up. Ron Paul’s evocation of this popular myth is disturbing, particularly coming from a Republican presidential contender.

I wrote about this last year. Here is an excerpt:

If you have talked to anyone on the left, they always use operation AJAX and the C.I.A. as an example of Yankee arrogance and duplicity. Yet, these self-loathing Americans don’t know or refuse to acknowledge that the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was a popular uprising.

Mohammed Mossadegh became prime minister of Iran in 1951. His meteoric rise came from a coalition of nationalist, Islamist, and communist known as the Tudeh Party. This confederation was belligerent to British oil interest in Iran, and they confiscated their assets. Great Britain responded with a naval blockade.

This international crisis led the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh. However, supporters of the prime minister took to the streets, and the Shah reinstated the Doctor. Mossadegh became increasingly belligerent. He eventually dismissed parliament, called for a national referendum in which he received 99.9% of the vote; a feat reminiscent of Saddam Hussein, and then established emergency powers circumventing the Constitutional Monarchy. The Shah again tried to dismiss Mossadegh, but the prime minister had the messenger arrested. The Shah fled Iran.

Great Britain convinced the United States that Mossadegh was seeking agency with the Soviet Union. Iran whose geographic location overlooks the Straits of Hormuz is a strategic gateway to the Persian Gulf. Eisenhower dispatched a handful of C.I.A. agents under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, and a budget of $1million dollars of which only $72,000 was used.

Eventually the blockade along with Mossadegh’s disastrous socialist economic policies, such as collectivist farms, alienated his supporters. Hundreds of thousands of citizens took to the streets, where the army joined them to overthrow Mossadegh.

The Lefties and their American hating confederates would have us believe that a handful of C.I.A agents and $72,000 could overthrow a so-called popularly elected prime minister. That kind of sentiment does not reflect highly on the intelligence of the Iranian people.

Not only has Ron Paul misinterpreted history, he completely ignores the existential threat of this Iranian theocracy. They’re not like the Soviets. The Mullah’s are fanatics bent on establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate. This regime is funding a network of terrorist organizations around the world, namely Hezbollah, who by the way have established roots in Mexico.

Ron Paul’s wacky foreign policy stance is reason enough why I can’t support him.


1 comment:

'Niceguy' Eddie said...

There's nothing Liberal about Ron Paul. And his foreign policy is based in the CLASSICAL CONSERVATIVE theory of ISOLATIONISM. INTERVENTION is what the LIBERALS tended to do: WWI (Wilson), WWII (FDR), Korea (Truman), Vietnam (JFK/LBJ)... And EVERY TIME there were Conservtaives opposing them, preaching Isolationism. The roles have reversed soemwhat, but isolationism is still YOUR DEAL. Libs will still intervene, just for different reasons. And while the anti-war crowd to be Liberal, far from all Liberals are anti-war. (I, for one, supported Afghanistan wholehearted and continue to. All the same, Iraq was a policy of deceitful and moronic Lunacy and I've yet to hear any reasonable case otherwise.)

But you people tend to have aknee-jerk reaction to CHEERLEAD ALL wars, which is just absurd. (Look at Iraq! Still cheerleading that?!) Hey: I think Ron Paul's a bit of a nut too, but you guys still own him, and WE DON'T WANT HIM. He's YOURS, make no mistake about it.

BTW... "Libtard?" Reveals you to be three things: (1) Conservtaive. (2) An Idealouge. And (3) Kind of stupid, actually. If you're going to use snarky names, at least create a few original ones. Just sayin'.