Posted on 07/30/2026 7:30:56 AM PDT by Trump20162020
Two-thirds of Americans believe the war in Iran has not been worth fighting.
A new AP-NORC poll found that roughly two-thirds of U.S. adults say the war that began Feb. 28 is not worthwhile. The sentiment is shared by the vast majority of Democrats (87%) and independents (68%), as well as 37% of Republicans.
The AP-NORC poll, conducted July 23-27, surveyed 1,165 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
In all seriousness, though my masochism may be debated, my actual intent is not to convince those I’m debating with. Fixed beliefs that are firmly held are rarely changed. Rather it’s in the hope that a third party reading the exchange might be motivated to consider other than the popular narrative. After all, wouldn’t AOC consider January 6 an attempted coup?
Your “Two Minutes Hate” classification of my stance is extremely shallow.
As if I just came to this point of view when a bunch of other people did. I’m sure with your link you can find at least one example. Good job.
Have you noticed that people aren’t as upset about the batshit crazy Korcoms having nuclear weaponry?
Have you wondered why?
Maybe, just maybe, it is because they don’t parade around the streets shouting “Death to America”.
And maybe, just maybe, the KorComs haven’t spent the last half century killing Americans around the globe the same way the Iranian government has, thus showing it isn’t just rhetoric.
One more link:
https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-antius-rallies-leaflets-13d61a2ef5c3f2b9dca0b8b3216030d3
I don’t label Iran as criminally violent and deserving of all efforts to deny them nuclear weaponry because of their rhetoric.
I categorize them that way because of the thousands of Americans they have killed and murdered over the last half century.
How many Americans have been murdered and killed by North Korea since 1979?
Go ahead and ask AI that question. (I will tell you in advance it is zero just to save you time, but I didn’t need to ask AI that in order to send you a link. I happen to know it is zero.)
Also North Korea has no desire to export their flavor of communism- Juche any further then South Korea. Maybe not even that since “Juche” essentially means self-reliance. (NK sort reverting back to the original Korean foreign of “No foreign policy!) The most proven international thing NK currently does is enable Asian drug trade for hard currency, sell 1950s-1960s arms for hard currency. If they pick up their game more with selling nuclear technology then maybe and intervention might be called for.
If I had a few million bucks and a PR firm—and a lobbyist that caught the attention of the WH—I could have you screaming for North Korean blood in no time at all.
Okay.
If that is pretty much the level of discourse one can expect from you, not interested.
You insisted initially on describing my stance as “Two Minutes Hate”, then you used AI to try to find links to support your argument, then you openly state I am shallow enough to be swayed in no time at all by a focused PR campaign.
If that’s the best you have to offer to this forum, then don’t bother responding to me...and I won’t respond to you.
That is reasonable discourse. I can agree or disagree to that without resorting to insults. Thank you. It is why I come here.
Well. I learn something nearly every day from FReepers willing to engage in civil and intelligent discourse.
I had never heard that word “Juche” so I had to look it up-interesting. It appears to be Nork specific, too.
Yes it is!
You seem to not understand that what is considered “anti semitic” keeps changing. That is why you failed to notice it before. The more it is used to silence people, the more they dislike and start to push back.
Now it is used just like black people using the old “race card” for everything.
That in itself creates animosity and more hate because it is disingenuous and is used to shut down discussion and any criticism of behaviors in one case and of a government’s behavior in the other.
Neither means you hate the people of another race or that you hate Jews.
“Neither means you hate the people of another race or that you hate Jews.”
Which part of from the river to the sea Palestine will be free do you not agree with?
Wow, you really want your name on that disgusting hunk of BS? Take it back. Have the mods delete it.
All I know is that the people who keep obsessing about Israel, (to the point where they are lying or misrepresenting things) always seem to let their inner Nazi emerge when poked enough.
For example, this tendency to assert the war against Iran is *ONLY* for the purpose of benefiting Israel, is just lying. It ignores the threat Iran poses to us, Europe and the entire middle east. (Not to mention Iran supplying oil to China.)
Iran is currently ruled by religious fanatics who will stone people to death for "sin." So far as they are concerned, all we "infidels" are "sinful" and rightly deserve to die. They also believe if they start the final war, their great prophet "the Mahdi" will emerge, and lead all the forces of Islam to victory over all the infidels.
They are freaking *DANGEROUS* in a religious fanaticism sort of way, and they absolutely will strike the "Great Satan" with nuclear fire, and they will not be dissuaded by the idea we can vaporize them back.
So *WE* are under the same threat from Iran as Israel, but the difference is *WE* have the power to do something about it, and it's long past time that we did do something about it. We actually waited too long. We finally did something at the 11th hour.
And a bunch of @$$holes on Free Republic want to make it all about Israel?
Tired of it.
For 30 years.
It's because I have the CIA acknowledging it was a coup of an elected leader. There are other sources below which also say that. Against that are your sources saying "it was not a coup."
Mosaddegh did just that. (ignore the constitution)
So did just about every Iranian leader including the Shah, when it suited their agenda. It's like that old joke about "The Ten Suggestions".
Mosaddegh was elected to the Majlis.
So what? How does that in any way justify our instigating a coup?
And you can stop posting that revisionist "the coup that wasn't" link. I'm not impressed.
I’m not sure how one is expected to answer “blah, blah, blah” but I guess you choose to ignore the facts I presented to you.
Let's just say that I don't consider your sources the final word on this, especially when the CIA itself says differently. Just because your sources can write a book or an article on the Internet doesn't make them accurate.
At the risk of invoking Goodwin’s Law, I will was point out that so was Hitler.
Hitler also wrote a book, but no one believes any of it beyond what he stated he planned to do.
It was the Iranians themselves who removed him.
Then why were they so angry with us afterwards? If what you say is correct, wouldn't they have thanked us for putting the Shah back in (real) power?
That nationalization led to the British pulling out their personnel and only Italy was willing to allow their people in to fill the void. Coupled with the British boycott oil production in Iran dropped drastically, with exports cratering to zero in 1953.
And you can't see the problem with that? They couldn't exploit Iran's resources anymore, so they resorted to bullying.
Here's more on that.
Iran 1953: MI6 plots with Islamists to overthrow democracy
OBTW, in addition to the CIA, these sources also refer to the incident as a coup.
Mossadegh was unwilling to negotiate and the crippling result caused his support to wane. In that context it was the fear of a communist takeover that led Eisenhower to take action.
He was unwilling to allow Iran's resources to be plundered as if they were a colony. It was Britain who refused to negotiate in good faith.
As for the communist threat, that was the CIA's justification to Eisenhower at the time, but it was the nationalization of the oil fields that triggered all of this.
No, they really became angry in 1963, when the Shah launched the so called “White Revolution.”
Maybe angrier, but that distinction doesn't help your case anyway because he was who we sided with, and supported until 1979.
The Pahlavi Dynasty tried to modernize the country. They built roads, schools, hospitals, attempted land reform and even and eventually gave women the right to vote, before Switzerland did.
Those were the "popular reforms" that Mosaddegh also tried to implement. One of those reforms was the nationalization of the Iranian oil fields, which is why he fell afoul of Britain and the US.
Yes, the CIA conducted covert operations in Iran in 1953. So did MI6 and the KGB.
Maybe if we had supported the elected government and dealt fairly with them rather than instigate a coup, again according to the CIA, we might have reached a deal that would have prevented all of that. It might not have been the sweetheart deal that we got with the Shah, but Americans wouldn't have died for it either.
So you take the CIA’s word without question? Do you accept all the sources that say, and it is the standard narrative, that January 6 was an insurrection?
No, I did my own research to verify their claims.
BTW, I would like to thank YOU for the challenge to do that. I had saved some links, but they are now behind firewalls and I don't expect you to sign up just to view them, so I looked for more.
Do you accept all the sources that say, and it is the standard narrative, that January 6 was an insurrection?
No, because there are other sources that don't call it an insurrection. It was labelled an insurrection by some DC courts, but a bi-partisan report from the Senate declined to use that description. Of course the leftists are pushing that narrative, but nothing requires me to take their word for it, regardless of whether I believe the CIA's report on 1953.
Before I respond to your post line by line, perhaps we can take a step back and see if we have any areas of agreement. Do you dispute any point listed below.
The lawful government of Iran in 1953 operated under the constitution of 1906, with revisions adopted in 1907 and 1948.
That government was divided into three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial.
The head of the legislative branch was the king, known as the shah.
The head of the legislative branch was the prime minister.
The shah held the power under Article 46 of the constitution to appoint and dismiss the prime minister.
Are any of these untrue?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.