Well Russia has never planned the overthrow of a relatively free regime in Iran,
You consider Iran to be a free country? It may be free by German standards but the rest of the world has a much different standard of what constitutes freedom and democracy.
[/quote]
I think right now, the world considers Europe to be relatively free and the US moderately less so.
Then, Iran was a relatively free country, much more so than todays US, until the US re-introduced the monarchy that is.
So you’re saying that it was because of evil people attacking the United States and threatening our oil supply, that the CIA, in an act of self-defense, attempted to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953?
And then we wonder why other nations hate us- we overthrow their governments to keep our oil safe.
At the same time, we bitch and moan about the government’s intervention in our own economy, because the government is supposed to let the free market decide the price.
So as long as the “free market” in other countries maintains a good price, we won’t overthrow their government.[/quote]
Please tell me you guys aren’t stupid enough to believe the liberal lie that America over threw a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.
So you’re saying that it was because of evil people attacking the United States and threatening our oil supply, that the CIA, in an act of self-defense, attempted to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953?
And then we wonder why other nations hate us- we overthrow their governments to keep our oil safe.
At the same time, we bitch and moan about the government’s intervention in our own economy, because the government is supposed to let the free market decide the price.
So as long as the “free market” in other countries maintains a good price, we won’t overthrow their government.
Please tell me you guys aren’t stupid enough to believe the liberal lie that America over threw a democratically elected prime minister in Iran. [/quote]
Like the liberal lie of how America overthrew Allende in 1973?
Yea, it would really be a stretch to figure that America would overthrow someone who was democratically elected.
Well Russia has never planned the overthrow of a relatively free regime in Iran,
You consider Iran to be a free country? It may be free by German standards but the rest of the world has a much different standard of what constitutes freedom and democracy.
I think right now, the world considers Europe to be relatively free and the US moderately less so. [/quote]
That made me laugh. You are joking. Right? The US is far more freer than Europe. Governments in Europe commit all manner of acts that would be against the law over here. You guys don’t even have freedom of speech or assembly. Europe is a joke, everyone knows that.
So you’re saying that it was because of evil people attacking the United States and threatening our oil supply, that the CIA, in an act of self-defense, attempted to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953?
And then we wonder why other nations hate us- we overthrow their governments to keep our oil safe.
At the same time, we bitch and moan about the government’s intervention in our own economy, because the government is supposed to let the free market decide the price.
So as long as the “free market” in other countries maintains a good price, we won’t overthrow their government.
Please tell me you guys aren’t stupid enough to believe the liberal lie that America over threw a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.
Like the liberal lie of how America overthrew Allende in 1973? [/quote]
Don’t try and change the subject to Chile. Besides Allende was a soviet stooge.
Only an idiot would consider Mossadeq democratically elected. How many times do I have to debunk that myth?
Please tell me you guys aren’t stupid enough to believe the liberal lie that America over threw a democratically elected prime minister in Iran. [/quote]
Which part do you perceive as being a liberal lie?
That Mossadeq was democratically elected, or that the United States orchestrated the coup that took him out?
Because Prime Minister Mossadeq was elected by the lower house of the Iranian Parliament by a vote of 79-12, which seems to satisfy the requirement for democratic election.
And the CIA (which at least in theory works on behalf of the United States government) was most definitely behind the coup, although they did get some help from the British SIS. Here’s the CIA’s own document, as presented by the New York Times, outlining all the whos, the whats, the wheres, the whys and the hows of Operation Ajax.
"It was the aim of the TPAJAX project to cause the fall of the Mossadeq government; to reestablish the prestige and power of the Shah; and to replace the Mossadeq government with one which would govern Iran according to constructive policies.
Specifically, the aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement."
It doesn’t get much more incontrovertible than this.
Well Russia has never planned the overthrow of a relatively free regime in Iran,
You consider Iran to be a free country? It may be free by German standards but the rest of the world has a much different standard of what constitutes freedom and democracy.
I think right now, the world considers Europe to be relatively free and the US moderately less so.
That made me laugh. You are joking. Right? The US is far more freer than Europe. Governments in Europe commit all manner of acts that would be against the law over here. You guys don’t even have freedom of speech or assembly. Europe is a joke, everyone knows that.
Then, Iran was a relatively free country, much more so than todays US, until the US re-introduced the monarchy that is.
You are clueless. [/quote]
Look, you can have two systems.
One is fitting for free people where you have few laws that are draconian-
Then you can have lots of laws nobody gives a shit about expect for the real ones-
What you cannot have is a country that has lots of draconian laws that are arbitrarily enforced if you still want to call it a free countzry.
So yes, I guarantuee you that Austria is freer than the US.
Socialism and all.
Sorry.
As for Iran, well, google is your friend.
The freest regime Iran ever had was toppled by the US-
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.
Headhunter seemed to imply that the United States was justified in “fucking with” other nations in order to “convince evil people to stop attacking.”
My counterpoint was that the CIA did some “fucking” in Iran in 1953, which was quite unrelated to attacks on the United States perpetrated by evil people, but entirely for commercial and ideological reasons.
What else funny is it was the top story on the CNN website this morning, as soon as the reaction to the video broke, you can’t even finds the story on the website anywhere…You just gotta love good old fashion yellow journalism.
Keep in mind that FauxNews is more guilty of this than any other network in the United States.[/quote]
Please tell me you guys aren’t stupid enough to believe the liberal lie that America over threw a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.
Which part do you perceive as being a liberal lie?
That Mossadeq was democratically elected, or that the United States orchestrated the coup that took him out?
Because Prime Minister Mossadeq was elected by the lower house of the Iranian Parliament by a vote of 79-12, which seems to satisfy the requirement for democratic election. [/quote]
You are clueless about Iranian history. Mossadegh was elected because the Ayatollah Kashani had Prime Minister Razmara assassinated because Razmara was opposed to the nationalization of Iran’s oil fields.
Mossadegh got elected because his predecessor was assassinated by a Mossadegh supporter and the electors in the Majlis were threatened with the same fate. That was not democracy.
You would have to be a complete moron to call that democracy like Jimmy Carter did.
Here read up on it yourself.
Razmara (an adopted name loosely translated as “war planner” or more accurately “battle organizer”) was born in Tehran and studied at the military academy of Saint-Cyr in France and climbed his way up and eventually became Prime Minister in 1950.
He was assassinated by 26 year-old Kahlil Tahmassebi of the Fadayan-e Islam organization with 3 bullets in Tehran at the age of 49. Razmara was the first Iranian Prime Minister to be assassinated.
Ali Razmara came closer than any other prime minister to successfully ratifying the Supplemental Oil Agreement between Iran and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which would have improved the revenues paid to Iran by the company.
Razmara pressed the AIOC hard for better terms, and might have succeeded in bringing the Majlis and the company to a workable compromise.
On March 7, 1951, Razmara went to a mosque for a memorial service. The police opened a corridor through the inner courtyard for the Prime Minister. The assassin, in the crowd, fired three quick shots, fatally wounding the Prime Minister. Kahlil Tahmassebi, a member of the militant Islamic group Fadayan-e Islam, was arrested at the scene.
Fadayan-e Islam supported the demands of the National Front, which held a minority of seats in Parliament, to nationalize the assets of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
As Prime Minister, Razmara had convinced the majority that nationalization would be folly, but his assassination eliminated the sole voice powerful enough to oppose the demands of the National Front.
The National Front was led by Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, who became Prime Minister within two months of Razmara’s assassination. However, control of the party was held by Ayatollah Seyid Abol Ghasim Kashani, the leader of the country’s mullahs.
Kashani, along with other National Frontists, defended the act as justified. The National Front declared Prime Minister Ali Razmara an enemy of Islam and a traitor to Iran for his opposition to the terms of the Oil Nationalization Law.
Although it was well known that Ayatollah Kashani controlled the Fedayan, there is no evidence that he or any other National Front member, was ever officially implicated in the assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara.
At a public demonstration the following day attended by more than 8,000 Tudeh Party members and National Front supporters, Fadayan-e Islam distributed leaflets carrying a threat to assassinate the Shah and other government officials if the assassin, Khalil Tahmassebi, was not set free immediately. Threats were also issued against any Majlis member who opposed Oil Nationalization.
The second Iranian official to suffer at the hands of the assassins was Education Minister Dr. Abdul Hamid Zangeneh. Zangeneh was dean of Law at Tehran University and was not shy about voicing his opposition to oil nationalization. A few days later authorities uncovered the details of the plot to assassinate the Shah and other officials on the morning of the Persian New Year. This led to the arrests of several Fedayan members, including its leader, Navab Safavi.
But the troubles continued with the attempted assassination of the Queen’s cousin, Yaya Bakhtiari, who was severely wounded but survived. All of this occurred in conjunction with riots and demonstrations orchestrated by the outlawed Tudeh Party and National Front supporters.
In November 1952, the Parliament voted a full pardon for Tahmassebi. He was hailed as a hero and was granted an audience with Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh barred photographers from the meeting.
The assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara effectively put an end to the democratic aspirations of Iran. Iran was plunged into a period of assassination, threats of assassination, and mob rule. For the next few years political leaders would not endure the inconvenience of appealing to the people’s best judgment.
Rather, they would call on the mob to upset order until their aims were met. These riots and demonstrations were usually accompanied by threats against political enemies who made constant use of the privilege of bast.
On March 12, 1951 the Majlis voted to nationalize Iran?s oil. Not one Majlis member voted against the Act. A spectator in the gallery is reported to have shouted “Eight grains of gunpowder have brought this about.” This was followed by a vote on March 28th to expropriate the AIOC properties at Abadan.
The Shah appointed Hussein Ala to succeed Razmara as Prime Minister. This move was met by further assassinations, riots, and demonstrations throughout the country. Ala ultimately resigned his post as Prime Minister. The Shah opted to go with former Primer Minister Sayyid Ziya al-Din Tabatabai but the Majlis, led by the National Front, voted on a referendum naming Mohammed Mossadegh to the post.
Although the Shah had sole constitutional authority to appoint prime ministers, he reluctantly acquiesced and gave Mossadegh his appointment on April 28, 1951.
[quote]
And the CIA (which at least in theory works on behalf of the United States government) was most definitely behind the coup, although they did get some help from the British SIS. Here’s the CIA’s own document, as presented by the New York Times, outlining all the whos, the whats, the wheres, the whys and the hows of Operation Ajax.
"It was the aim of the TPAJAX project to cause the fall of the Mossadeq government; to reestablish the prestige and power of the Shah; and to replace the Mossadeq government with one which would govern Iran according to constructive policies.
Specifically, the aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement."
It doesn’t get much more incontrovertible than this. [/quote]
That New York Times article is disingenuous crap. Look at this excerpt from “the roots”.
“In 1951, Iran’s Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators backing the law elected its leading advocate, Dr. Mossadegh, as prime minister.”
There is no mention of Prime Minister Razmara or how the nationalization debate was settled by Mossadegh supporters assassinating Razmara and threatening to kill anyone else who opposed them.
Then they add this bit.
" Britain responded with threats and sanctions.
Dr. Mossadegh, a European-educated lawyer then in his early 70’s, prone to tears and outbursts, refused to back down."
Not only is there is no mention of the killings and threats by Mossadegh’s supporters but they try to portray him as just a sensitive, kindly old man.
What is going on here is this. The New York Times is deliberately trying to portray the US and UK as the bad guys.
So they have deliberately left out the history which shows that Mossadegh and the Ayatollahs were gangsters who got their way by killing their opponents and threatening to kill anyone else who opposed them.
This is garbage journalism on the part of the New York Times. Because it completely ignores what happened to Prime Minister Razmara. If one follows the NYT accounting of events one would think that Razmara didn’t even exist, that Mossadegh and the Ayatollah Kashani were “good guys” who the mean, awful, US went gangster on.
Hey, according to Wikipedia, the Russians and British invaded Iran and actually installed the Shah to power. Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister under the Shah. The Shah was still in power when Operation Ajax went down.
So, if this history is true, (being Wikipedia after all), the Iranians are dealing with the very people who put the Shah in power to begin with.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
America wouldn’t have these problems if we didn’t support Israel. I’m not certain that supporting them is right or wrong, but we are not the innocent little lambs that the right would have us believe.
We are most definitely doing something that burns up the Arab world, and these are the repercussions. Whether it is worth the cost is up to the country.[/quote]
We should just stay out of everyone’s shit. If someone is a direct threat to us, get in, take care of it, and get out.
If these people can’t build there own nation after we get rid of the murdering dictator, that’s their fucking problem.
Same thing with Afganistan. Bomb the shit out of the terrorist camps that pose a direct threat to us and get out. If they sprout up again, bomb the shit out of them again.
We need to get out of the UN and NATO as well. The more we can keep our guns and tax payer money within our own boarders the better off we will be.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:
What else funny is it was the top story on the CNN website this morning, as soon as the reaction to the video broke, you can’t even finds the story on the website anywhere…You just gotta love good old fashion yellow journalism.
Keep in mind that FauxNews is more guilty of this than any other network in the United States.
you’re kidding right?[/quote]
No, I’m not. They do everything short of make up news and paste it on their front page. They are a disgrace to the entire journalistic industry.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
America wouldn’t have these problems if we didn’t support Israel. I’m not certain that supporting them is right or wrong, but we are not the innocent little lambs that the right would have us believe.
We are most definitely doing something that burns up the Arab world, and these are the repercussions. Whether it is worth the cost is up to the country.
We should just stay out of everyone’s shit. If someone is a direct threat to us, get in, take care of it, and get out.
If these people can’t build there own nation after we get rid of the murdering dictator, that’s their fucking problem.
Same thing with Afganistan. Bomb the shit out of the terrorist camps that pose a direct threat to us and get out. If they sprout up again, bomb the shit out of them again.
[/quote]
While I agree with the basic premise of staying out of everyone’s shit, I worry about leaving Afghanistan in the state it’s in.
We did this once after the Soviets withdrew, and not helping them rebuild was a crime.
[quote]
We need to get out of the UN and NATO as well. The more we can keep our guns and tax payer money within our own boarders the better off we will be.[/quote]
NATO has outlived its use. The point of that was to oppose the Soviet-bloc countries, and that was done. We won, game over.
However the UN I think, still matters. In this world you cannot be an isolationist- it’s just unreasonable. I agree with keeping our guns and our money home, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have dialogue with other countries.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, a barrel of oil in 1953 cost $2.83.
This works out to $22.49 in 2009 dollars.
1953 was twenty years before any perceived “oil shortage.”
So Operation Ajax couldn’t have been because anyone was worried about $400 a barrel for oil, or about any real threats to America’s oil supplies (most of our oil came from domestic sources then, anyway.)
Could it have been primarily about protecting British oil company profits from the threat of nationalization?[/quote]
What’s wrong with that? The British developed the fields. The fields are their property. Sure, the Iranians can charge a fee but they’d have never developed those fields on their own. They thought oil was a curse from Allah, sent to poison the goats.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation. [/quote]
You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules.
Stalin and the Soviets weren’t playing by “the rules”. So grow up, because the real world isn’t like Star Trek.
[quote]
Headhunter seemed to imply that the United States was justified in “fucking with” other nations in order to “convince evil people to stop attacking.”
My counterpoint was that the CIA did some “fucking” in Iran in 1953, which was quite unrelated to attacks on the United States perpetrated by evil people, but entirely for commercial and ideological reasons. [/quote]
We were jockeying for position in order to either prevent world war three or at least have the upper hand. The people who were making the decisions back then had really come of age during world war two. They had a perspective that was very different from ours.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hey, according to Wikipedia, the Russians and British invaded Iran and actually installed the Shah to power. Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister under the Shah. The Shah was still in power when Operation Ajax went down.
So, if this history is true, (being Wikipedia after all), the Iranians are dealing with the very people who put the Shah in power to begin with.
The US never invaded Iran.
The US did not install the Shah.
Can a third party verify this?[/quote]
General Haj-Ali Razmara, the Shah?s choice, was approved as prime minister June 1950. On 3 March 1951 he appeared before the Majlis in an attempt to persuade the deputies against “full nationalization on the grounds that Iran could not override its international obligations and lacked the capacity to run the oil industry on its own.”
He was assassinated four days later by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam.[15]
The Shah appointed Hussein Ala to succeed Razmara as Prime Minister. This move was met by further assassinations, riots, and demonstrations throughout the country. Ala ultimately resigned his post as Prime Minister. The Shah opted to go with former Primer Minister Sayyid Ziya al-Din Tabatabai but the Majlis, led by the National Front, voted on a referendum naming Mohammed Mossadegh to the post.
Although the Shah had sole constitutional authority to appoint prime ministers, he reluctantly acquiesced and gave Mossadegh his appointment on April 28, 1951.
The National Front was led by Majlis Member, Mohammed Mossadegh, whose leading ally in Parliament was Assembly Speaker Ayatollah Kashani.
Kashani was also a friend and mentor to future Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
While I agree with the basic premise of staying out of everyone’s shit, I worry about leaving Afghanistan in the state it’s in.
We did this once after the Soviets withdrew, and not helping them rebuild was a crime.
[/quote]
why was it a crime? did we destroy afganistan? if we do damage we should repair the damage. We shouldn’t be responsible for nation building.
[quote]
However the UN I think, still matters. In this world you cannot be an isolationist- it’s just unreasonable. I agree with keeping our guns and our money home, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have dialogue with other countries. [/quote]
We don’t need the UN to have dialog with other countries.
I am certianly not an isolationist. I beleive in free trade and freedom of association. Tax payers can choose to send their money or support to anyone they choose. I have a problem with politicians making the decision for us based on questionalbe motives.
They shouldn’t forcably restrict us from associating with anyone outside our borders, and they shouldn’t force us to associate with others outside our borders.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
While I agree with the basic premise of staying out of everyone’s shit, I worry about leaving Afghanistan in the state it’s in.
We did this once after the Soviets withdrew, and not helping them rebuild was a crime.
[/quote]
It was a crime because we helped those people defeat the Soviets. They did our fighting for us and when the Soviets left, their warring factions turned the nation into a shithole. It was this atmosphere which brought the Taliban in from Pakistan to restore order.
If we would have supported the Afghans after the Soviet war, there would have been no need for the Taliban, and hense no home there for Al-Qaeda.