• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

Is this a fair and accurate analogy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • No

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • Maybe (if other conditions were present)

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Not even close!

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • Total voters
    16

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
"All we are is the air that we breathe" - the Hollies

The purpose of this thread, is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the gullability of some American's and the failure of the mainstream (corporate) media in disseminating the truth of our foreign policy, which has resulted in the suppression of the Marketplace of Ideas.

The proof of this can be illustrated in this basic premise...
...the Party Line...becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.
It should be noted, in discussing the following scenario, is the concept of American propaganda. Many on this board echo this behavior like Pavlov's Dog. This is the formula... If we are to put things in perspective with Iran and the seizure of British sailors, we must look at the shoe on the other foot.

Now the scenario for the thread... Is this a fair and accurate analogy?

Is this the air that you breathe?
 

No it's the usual Chomskyist bullshit, comparing an Islamic Fascist state like Iran to the United States is like comparing apples and oranges, Iran would be invading liberal Democratic Nations to set up dictatorships while the U.S. has liberated dictatorships and set up Democracies, and when Chomsky throws in little jabs like "called liberation of course," to imply that the U.S. has not liberated Iraq and Afghanistan from brutual tyrants and has not freed over 60 million of their citizens from brutal repression, he loses all credibility. He also implies that we are arresting innocent Iranian representatives in Iraq, again no credibility what so ever in that the people he is reffering to are people; such as, the head of the Al-Quds division of the Iranian revolutionary guard whose only possible reason of being there would be to aid the insurgency. And I love that little "vicous tyrant," section too, let's review shall we, Mossadegh was not elected he was appointed by the Shah the Shah was the head of state according to the Iranian Consitution which Mossadegh continously ignored, and according to that same Constitution the Shah could dismiss Mossadegh at any time, it was not a coup it was counter coup, at the time of his removal from power Mossadegh had dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial emergency powers, as well as, ran the Iranian economy into the ground, the counter coup could not have succeeded if not for the fact that the masses wanted his as$ out office. Now as to the Shah, the Shah modernized Iranian agriculture and industry bringing Iran more prosperity than they had experienced before or since, he implemented equal suffrage for all Iranian citizens (including women), and was a staunch ally of both the U.S. and Israel, under the current regime the economy has been thrown back 100 years, women are stoned to death for sex outside of marriage, and their national passtime is burning the American flag while chanting "death to the great and little satan," the U.S. and Israel incase you were wondering. "Nuclear energy programs," lmfao ya in your braw, and the uber Deushe of the universe award goes" to: Cambodian genocide enabler, terrorist apologist, traitor, Communist propagandist, and all around ****ing scum bag . . . Noam Chomsky.
 
Last edited:
I voted Maybe...as the situations are far from similar.

1) It is well understood,that Mexico is under the protection of the United States as far as its independance as a country. It follows therefore, that any invasion of the country would be met with immediate reprisals from its Northern protector. Iraq has no such insurance policy from its neighbors.

2) At present,and indeed going back into history, there are no actions against Mexico, taken by the "World Community".

3) Mexico does not have a history of attacking its neighbors in recent memory, and does not sit in a position to pose a threat to anyone on its borders.

4) Iran does not have the power to take on such a mission in the first place,and in this respect does not deter retaliation on a large scale.

If this scenario were reality, the Iranians are well aware that by attempting to take over a neighbor of the United States, they would pose an unacceptable threat to the most powerful nation (militarily) on Earth, and would be eliminated without question.
 
I have no doubt, your hardest part, was editing this down under the 10,000 word limit.
 
The situations are different. The Iranians would understand that any invasion in our hemisphere would be as effective as a declaration of war, as per the Monroe Doctrine.
 
"All we are is the air that we breathe" - the Hollies

Noam Chomsky?

You’re kidding, right?

What if Bush publicly denied the holocaust?
What if Bush publicly declared his intention to eradicate all eastern civilization?
What if Bush publicly declared and was currently taking steps to bring about an Armageddon under the notion that doing so would bring back his god?

What if the US sponsored ultra radical Christians in flying Iranian aircraft into Iranian buildings?

I reject the credibility of your source and find your argument to be based on a false premise; therefore the analogy is grossly inaccurate.
 


You've got a twisted view of America. Let's play a game: you name the number of times we've overthrown a government and put in a democracy, and I'll name the number of times we've overthrown a government and put in a dictatorship. Let's go! Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, (here we overthrew democracies and put in dictators), Iran, Panama, and possibly El Salvador.


Duke
 

A) There is no evidence that we supported the coup plotters in Chile Marxism not the U.S. was responsible for the fall of Allende who even though was elected was establishing a Communist dictatorship in Chile.

B) We did not foment a Coup in Nicaragua, we did support the Contras, however, if you consider the Sandinistas to be Democratic I want some of what you're smoking.

C) Arbenz was also establishing a Communist state in Guatemala.

D) Mossadegh dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial powers. Some Democracy. :roll:

E) What Democratic leader did we oust in Panama and what dictator did we install?

F) Same thing as E).

G) Every nation that you mentioned (aside from Iran) is now a liberal Democracy rather than a Communist dictatorship proving that our defense of Capitalism and opposition to Communism worked out pretty damn well.
 
Originally posted by TOT
Every nation that you mentioned (aside from Iran) is now a liberal Democracy
You're going to have to renounce conservatism before we let you out of the closet and allow you to admit you're just a "Blue State Boy" at heart!
 


Fact-slapping is imminent:

Pick up a copy of the Church Committee report. Thanks the the Freedom of Information Act.

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

The Chilean coup was Made in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista

The Sandinistas did establish democratic elections. We overthrew them. See Church Report, Freedom of Information documents.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.1/streeter.html

Arbenz was not a Communist nor was he beginning a Communist state, he was simply nationalizing national resources. United Fruit Co. got pissed, bought the CIA, and they did their work. See Church Report.

I never said Mossadegh was democratic. Did so much as read my post?

http://www.chavezthefilm.com/pdfs/usa.pdf

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

We've got a long history of intervening in Panama, and never for the good of democracy.

G) Every nation that you mentioned (aside from Iran) is now a liberal Democracy rather than a Communist dictatorship proving that our defense of Capitalism and opposition to Communism worked out pretty damn well.

Reactionary rubbish. The first three countries I mentioned were functioning democracies, not Communist dictatorships. Why did America, the Father of Democracy, attack these foreign democracies and establish dictatorships? Money. Private American companies stood to lose interests, United Fruit Co. in particular. These upstart nations thought they could take away from a corporation, so America had them eliminated and put fascists who wouldn't touch the companies again. Isn't it ironic, though, that America, so proud of our own democracies, obliterates democracies abroad without second thought? Your statement that America, with our higher moral ground, would not even contemplate doing what Iran would do, that is, set up a dictatorship, and instead we would make another freedom-loving democracy, was naïve to an extremity. Making such grievous errors like saying that America played no part in the Chilean coup while its common knowledge that the CIA was the driving factor of the whole affair only reaffirms this conclusion that your too wrapped in the shell of what your patriotism would want you to believe to see what America really does.


Duke
 
Fact-slapping is imminent:

Pick up a copy of the Church Committee report. Thanks the the Freedom of Information Act.

U.S. Dept. of State FOIA - Church Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973)

The Chilean coup was Made in America.

Read it there is no evidence what so ever that the U.S. played a direct or indirect roll in the coup de'ta of Salvador Allende.

Sandinista National Liberation Front - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sandinistas did establish democratic elections. We overthrew them. See Church Report, Freedom of Information documents.

Did you just say the Sandinistas established a democratic system of governance? That's what I thought you said. I can't stop laughing I really can't. The Sandinista regime was a totalitarian dictatorship, there elections were about as Democratic as those in the former Soviet Union. And BTW we never overthrew the Sandinistas in the first place we supported the freedom fighting Contras in their battle against the tyrannical sandinista regime.


Who do you think was behind Arbenz's "land reforms," what was the first thing that Castro did upon siezing power? Oh ya land reforms and nationalization, that's the first step of every communist in history.

I never said Mossadegh was democratic. Did so much as read my post?

http://www.chavezthefilm.com/pdfs/usa.pdf

U.S. Interventions in Latin America

We've got a long history of intervening in Panama, and never for the good of democracy.

You asserted that we overthrew a Democratically elected government in Panama, and installed a dictatorship, prove it or p!ss off.

Reactionary rubbish. The first three countries I mentioned were functioning democracies, not Communist dictatorships.

Chile was not a functioning Democracy, Allende violated the Chilean Constitution almost as a matter of policy and it was not until he refused to resign that Pinochet was ordered by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies to remove him from power for his numerous violations of the Constititution that I will put in the post following this one. Only a far out leftist would ever consider the genocidal Sandinista regime to be Democratic in nature, and Arbenz was coseying up to the Communists and the Soviets.

Why did America, the Father of Democracy, attack these foreign democracies and establish dictatorships? Money.

Umm no every nation that you mentioned was a communist state in the making.


Only the third nation you listed could by any stretch of the imagination be considered a Democracy.


It's common knowledge is it? Well that's the problem with you leftists you believe what you want to believe and to hell with the facts, and the fact of the matter is that there is 0 evidence that the CIA was either directly or indirectly responsible for the Chilean coup de'ta, none, zero, zip.
 
Last edited:
Agreement of the Chamber of Deputies August 22, 1973

The Resolution

Considering:

1. That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

2. That the legitimacy of the Chilean State lies with the people who, over the years, have invested in this legitimacy with the underlying consensus of their coexistence, and that an assault on this legitimacy not only destroys the cultural and political heritage of our Nation, but also denies, in practice, all possibility of democratic life;

3. That the values and principles expressed in the Constitution, according to article 2, indicate that sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation, and that authorities may not exercise more powers than those delegated to them by the Nation; and, in article 3, it is deduced that any government that arrogates to itself rights not delegated to it by the people commits sedition;

4. That the current President of the Republic was elected by the full Congress, in accordance with a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated in the Constitution for the very purpose of assuring that the actions of his administration would be subject to the principles and norms of the Rule of Law that he solemnly agreed to respect;

5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;

6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

7. That the administration has committed the following assaults on the proper role of the National Congress, seat of legislative power:

a) It has usurped Congress’s principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country’s social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country’s institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority;

b) It has consistently mocked the National Congress’s oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land, or who commit other offenses specified by the Constitution, and;

c) Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.

8. That it has committed the following assaults on the judicial branch:

a) With the goal of undermining the authority of the courts and compromising their independence, it has led an infamous campaign of libel and slander against the Supreme Court, and it has sanctioned very serious attacks against judges and their authority;

b) It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;

c) It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives and, when so accused by the Supreme Court, the President of the Republic has gone to the unheard of extreme of arrogating to himself a right to judge the merit of judicial sentences and to determine when they are to be complied with;

9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller’s Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

10. That among the administration’s constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile’s Channel 9, by assaulting that university’s new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;
d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>
 
<<<CONTINUED>>>

f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;

12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens’ security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile’s institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,

The Chamber of Deputies agrees:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.
 
You mean to tell me that 8 million of my tax dollars went to "...0 evidence?"
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
And where is the evidence that that money was used to directly or indirectly support the coup plotters?
In that "Church Report" you told Duke to read.

The link is in his post.
 
In that "Church Report" you told Duke to read.

The link is in his post.

I've read it, there is no evidene what so ever, that we directly or indirectly financed or supported the 1973 coup plotters in any way, shape, or form, if you have it please present it, it would make national headlines because you'de be the first. Infact the Church Report makes no mention of attempting to oust Allende after he assumed power.
 
Last edited:
If you mean the part of the U.S.A. (Texas-N.Mexico-Etc,) that Mexicans have infected, then YES, we would have no choice to defend our Country.
Now if you mean the other Country of Mexico then I guess we would have to defend them also.
_____
And there you once again have the truth from>>>>>>>>>:2usflag: seargent
STINGER1 :2usflag:
 
Last edited:
What's an "evidene"? Where's your evidene?
 
Read it there is no evidence what so ever that the U.S. played a direct or indirect roll in the coup de'ta of Salvador Allende.

I'm afraid you are totally wrong.

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

I've got it all worked out for you in the next posts.



Wrong again:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista


Who do you think was behind Arbenz's "land reforms," what was the first thing that Castro did upon siezing power? Oh ya land reforms and nationalization, that's the first step of every communist in history.

Seeing the would-have-been future again, eh, TOT? Then I suppose that the US will become a fascistic dictatorship, because he's doing the things fascistic dictators do, he's spending way more on the military and he's attacking countries.


You asserted that we overthrew a Democratically elected government in Panama, and installed a dictatorship, prove it or p!ss off.

Don't put words into my mouth: I never said we overthrew a democracy in Panama. We did, however, support the installation of this dictator:






So you bought Allende's opposition propaganda campaign as God-given fact? That's just pathetic. What's more, you don't even provide a link.


Umm no every nation that you mentioned was a communist state in the making.

I see. I suppose you took a peek into your crystal ball there, TOT, to see what these countries would have become if we didn't overthrow their democracies in the name of freedom and set up dictatorships.





See above. You are so certain you are right, but you are so, so wrong. It's comically tragic.


Duke
 
"The United States sought in 1970 to foment a military coup in Chile; after 1970 it adopted a policy both overt and covert, of opposition to Allende; and it remained in intelligence contact with the Chilean military, including officers who were participating in coup plotting.

The CIA gave support in 1970 to one group whose tacticts became more violent over time. Through 1971 that group received American money through third parties for specific purpose. And it is possible that money was passed to these groups on the extreme right from CIA-supported opposition political parties.

After Frei's decisive majority victory, in which he received 57 percent of the vote, he began to implement what he called a "revolution in liberty". That included ñagrarian, tax, and housing reform. To deal with the American copper companies, Frei proposed "Chileanization", by which the state would purchase majority ownership in order to exercise control and stimulate output.


In the clandestine collection of intelligence, the purpose of the relationship is the gathering of information. A CIA officer establishes a relationship with a foreign "asset" -paid or unpaid- in a party or government institution in order to find out what is going on inside that party or institution. There is typically no attempt made by the CIA officer to influence the actions of the "asset". Yet even that kind of covert relationship may have political significance. Witness the maintenance of CIA's and military attaches' contacts with the Chilean military after the inauguration of Salvador Allende: although the purpose was information-gathering, the United States maintained links to the group most likely to overthrow the new president. To do so was to walk a tightrope; the distinction between collecting information and exercising influence was inherently hard to maintain. Since the Chilean military perceived its actions to be contingent to some degree on the attitude of the U.S. government, those possibilities for exercising influence scarcely would have had to be consciously manipulated."


Duke
 
Here's some more facts:


And I've got so much more where that came from that I'd just love to show you.


Duke
 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…