I've just watched the movie "W" by Ollie Stone(r)

[Luke Gu]

Democracy and freedom for all! Everyone deserves it, so do you, my friend.

Sure about it.Then how to delimit Democracy and freedom?Do we have same idea about it?Do the American's democracy is suitable to other nations?And help is one thing,aggression is another matter.When Japan invade China,Japanese also said they were helping Chinese.

[dalem]

Sure about it.Then how to delimit Democracy and freedom?Do we have same idea about it?Do the American's democracy is suitable to other nations?And help is one thing,aggression is another matter.When Japan invade China,Japanese also said they were helping Chinese.

Yeah, but I think the bloom might've come off of that rose pretty much when they started burning Chinese alive and enslaving them. So it's a leeeeeeeetle bit different.

-dale

[rj1]

Not watched the movie. When it came out it struck me as too exploitationist. Like Stone thinking, "this guy's presidency is about to end, I'll release a bio film about him and his administration and make money". When I first saw the trailer, I couldn't figure out if it was a serious movie or a satire.

[gunnut]

Then please don't use human right or democracy as excuses to attack other nations。All these things are good，but all these things make me feel Vomiting when US use it to get its interests
。

I have never advocated invading another nation based on human rights or democracy.

Our government may say that, but it's just to sell the war.

[pate]

Sir，can I ask a question：what's your thought when you support US invade Iraq，for the interest of US，or Iraqis？If for the interests of US，you don't need find so many High-sounding excuses，It is only self-deceiving。

If this question was directed at me here is my answer:

The first time my country had a conflict anywhere near Iraq (early 1990's I think, apologies I was a child at the time) I felt that Saddam Hussein was an awful man who killed his own people (I was not so young that I didn't remember the news footage of the dead people, women, children, etc with flies feeding on their corpses) that I saw after the leader of the country in 1988(?) had gassed his own people. So in the early nineties I saw both a war against a nation, and in my own mind a war against an awful man who was leading the nation in question.

That first war was concluded, and the United States of America was in a unique position to carry the UN mandated war to a more 'just' war in the great scheme of things; i.e. an awful man who had been in control of his country since the 70's(?) could have been eliminated and his people (who he apparently felt free to gas, kill etc)....

Okay, I am about to get angry. Saddam Hussein was an evil man; the world shouldn't miss him. I certainly don't. In my opinion it would have been better for the world (humanity {yellow, black, tan, white} in other words) that Saddam Hussein is no longer running a country or even alive... I just don't miss him; I don't miss hitler either, and I think that death came far too late...

Godwin's Law, I lose the argument I guess... Still, I don't think that the fact that Iraq was invaded whether it was for the express purpose of preventing weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of a madman, or just to eliminate a madman leading a country was a bad thing.

The end justifies the means in this case is all I wanted to say.

Human rights justifications? Heck, Iraq was a tiny country, easy to defeat, we could do it. Taking on China for Human Rights? What does that mean?

Does China massacre its own people? I dunno, it took "Nixon to go to China" you tell me; do you massacre your own people?

Why do you feel so threatened? Do you plan to massacre your own people?

Is there a genuine fear of how you deal with you billion people from us, other than you pacify them? You already have weapons of mass destruction, and I think the world recognizes that. Do you plan on going 'rogue' and expanding your borders, or eliminating people you don't agree with?

Are you a threat to the Republic of Pate?

If you are, then damn right you better be worried.

[Mobbme]

If this question was directed at me here is my answer:

The first time my country had a conflict anywhere near Iraq (early 1990's I think, apologies I was a child at the time) I felt that Saddam Hussein was an awful man who killed his own people (I was not so young that I didn't remember the news footage of the dead people, women, children, etc with flies feeding on their corpses) that I saw after the leader of the country in 1988(?) had gassed his own people. So in the early nineties I saw both a war against a nation, and in my own mind a war against an awful man who was leading the nation in question.

That first war was concluded, and the United States of America was in a unique position to carry the UN mandated war to a more 'just' war in the great scheme of things; i.e. an awful man who had been in control of his country since the 70's(?) could have been eliminated and his people (who he apparently felt free to gas, kill etc)....

Okay, I am about to get angry. Saddam Hussein was an evil man; the world shouldn't miss him. I certainly don't. In my opinion it would have been better for the world (humanity {yellow, black, tan, white} in other words) that Saddam Hussein is no longer running a country or even alive... I just don't miss him; I don't miss hitler either, and I think that death came far too late...

Godwin's Law, I lose the argument I guess... Still, I don't think that the fact that Iraq was invaded whether it was for the express purpose of preventing weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of a madman, or just to eliminate a madman leading a country was a bad thing.

The end justifies the means in this case is all I wanted to say.

Human rights justifications? Heck, Iraq was a tiny country, easy to defeat, we could do it. Taking on China for Human Rights? What does that mean?

Does China massacre its own people? I dunno, it took "Nixon to go to China" you tell me; do you massacre your own people?

Why do you feel so threatened? Do you plan to massacre your own people?

Is there a genuine fear of how you deal with you billion people from us, other than you pacify them? You already have weapons of mass destruction, and I think the world recognizes that. Do you plan on going 'rogue' and expanding your borders, or eliminating people you don't agree with?

Are you a threat to the Republic of Pate?

If you are, then damn right you better be worried.

Pate, as time goes on, and as your posts pile up, brother, I'm getting more and more respect for you. I enjoy your posts. Guys like us might be a dime a dozen, but hey, we're here, respect bro,

[Luke Gu]

The first time my country had a conflict anywhere near Iraq (early 1990's I think, apologies I was a child at the time) I felt that was an awful man who killed his own people (I was not so young that I didn't remember the news footage of the dead people, women, children, etc with flies feeding on their corpses) that I saw after the leader of the country in 1988(?) had gassed his own people. So in the early nineties I saw both a war against a nation, and in my own mind a war against an awful man who was leading the nation in question.

Are you saying Gulf War？It happened in 1991.I'm 2 years old at that time.As for the crime of Saddam Hussein，I just want to ask you ：what US have done during Iran-Iraq War？I think you also need to search how much military aid US offered to Iraq。And when the crime of Saddam happened，what you guys did at that time？Offer him enough money and support him？I don't know if it's true that US helped Iraq make Biological and chemical weapons ，maybe you can give me the answer。

i.e. an awful man who had been in control of his country since the 70's(?) could have been eliminated and his people (who he apparently felt free to gas, kill etc)....

Check what US had done from 1982 to 1989 to Iraq，then tell me you're just。

Human rights justifications? Heck, Iraq was a tiny country, easy to defeat, we could do it. Taking on China for Human Rights? What does that mean?

Oh，you can't take on China，but you can take on other tiny nation in the name of human rights。

Why do you feel so threatened? Do you plan to massacre your own people?

Can you tell me how do you Definite human rights？What kind of human rights violations would trigger your attacks？The scope of human rights violations are too big。I don't feel threatened because I know who you are ，I just feel sorry for the poor tiny nation，especially these don't have a good relationship with US。

Is there a genuine fear of how you deal with you billion people from us, other than you pacify them? You already have weapons of mass destruction, and I think the world recognizes that. Do you plan on going 'rogue' and expanding your borders, or eliminating people you don't agree with?

Are you a threat to the Republic of Pate?

If you are, then damn right you better be worried.

Are you asking me ，CPC or China？How do you judge expanding borders and eliminating people we don't agree with?Is it expanding borders if we Reunification with Taiwan，get the dispute land ?Is it Clear dissidents if we think they‘re
Separatists but you think they are not？Do you know how many things are hard to judge it's right or wrong？What I can say is we needn't fear no one，though China isn't strong enough，we can send some missiles to the intruder‘s home at least。
At last，I want to ask you another question：why do you guys overthrow the democratic government of Iran and Support the autocratic Mohammad Reza Sabalewei（the Shah） in 1953。When Eisenhower decided to overthrow the Mossad goverment，did he ever think about Why Mossad to implement the oil nationalization or hear Mossad’s explanation about it？I don't know when Eisenhower celebrate his victory，if he know how big disaster he had brought to Iranian people。

[Luke Gu]

Kinzer makes seven salient points. The first is that the 1953 coup was an American plot, not a spontaneous uprising by the Iranian people to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, though both the American government and the former monarchy have propagated this myth. Virtually all politically active Iranians knew about the role of the United States and Britain in the 1953 coup, but the U.S. government and the Iranian regime under the monarchy tried to conceal that information, and Islamic fundamentalists have tried to suppress scholarship on their role. It is therefore not surprising that criticism of Kinzer's book has come from these quarters.
.................................................. ...............................
The shah's regime, installed by the CIA coup, would severely punish anyone who tried to gain access to such evidence in Iran; research from 1953 to 1979 was virtually impossible. After the revolution, Khomeini and his supporters also tried to conceal the role of high-ranking Shia clerics and close Khomeini allies in the coup organized by the "Great Satan."3
.................................................. ..............................
Kinzer shows that throughout his life, Mossadegh was impeccably honest and incorruptible. This contrasts sharply with the avaricious Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza, who looted the treasury, confiscated private property, and lived a life of conspicuous consumption in a land of terribly poor people.9 Corruption has only worsened in the post-revolutionary period.10
.................................................. ..............

iranian.com: Masoud Kazemzadeh, Stephen Kinzer, Mossadegh, 1953 coup

[rj1]

iranian.com: Masoud Kazemzadeh, Stephen Kinzer, Mossadegh, 1953 coup

Luke, if you're going to try and tell us that 55 years ago our country and others did some not so nice things, well, no shit, we're not ignorant children. The only posters on this forum that thinks their country has never done anything wrong are possibly you, a couple Iranian posters, and a few Europhiles that get banned after a month because they're not able to realize that a reality exists outside of their worldview. But if you'd like to open up the can of worms to explore items from 55 years ago and expand upon those things to present day events, I and probably others would be more than happy to debate such things with you on the Rise of China forum. Although it may result in your internet connection getting cut off by your government. ;)

As I kind of stated in another thread though regarding American actions in the past and current rhetoric from "rogue" world leaders, I don't see why the Americans organizing a coup in Iran in 1953 has anything to deal with Iran aiming to build a nuclear missile program in order to threaten the local geopolitical order, predominantly Israel. If you believe that than you believe the Germans were justified for starting World War II because the conditions imposed upon them in the World War I peace treaty was too severe.

American foreign policy, especially in the era of the Iranian coup, had a simple basis, anti-communism thanks to our major competitor for world power the Soviet Union using communist and some socialist states as vassals against us, especially after your country where Mao overthrew Chiang and 25% of the world population became communist with a snap of the fingers. Mossadegh was a self-proclaimed socialist that campaigned to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. This obviously hurt the interests of the company that was heavily in Iranian Oil, British Petroleum, and with control of oil even then increasingly overlapping control of geopolitical order, the Brits and Americans organized a coup using anti-communism as the reason. Was that right? In hindsight, probably no, but a lot of things that happen in politics and geopolitics usually are not. And anyone that thinks the world order tends itself toward "100% morality and always do the right thing that doesn't hurt anyone" is living in fantasyland. That said, I back my country's actions more often than not. You may think the Chinese were wrong on some things they've done in the past 55 years but that doesn't you don't back their position most of the time. So using stuff from 55 years ago to say why something can't be done now is 100% wrong.

[Luke Gu]

You didn't get my point：did I say US is wrong or right？I Cite Iran as an example to prove that the U.S. is the pragmatists，what you want to get is interests，not Democracy。
And you can forget it because it did not much impact your daily life and your nations‘ history，what about Iran？Do you think how do they avoid this event when they write their history book？You just want to say：forget it！So you don't understand why Iran your enemy。And this just happened 55 years ago，Some guys experienced it is still alive。US changed a nation's fate，and then forget it。Isn't it sad to Iran？
OK，I wouldn't say much about it because it Away from the subject。