Iranian ship fires on cargo ship

Gkhan · May 2, 2015, 9:15pm

I read it. From your post:

“Roosevelt also reassured the Shah by noting “the statements to the Iranian Government by the British and Soviet Governments that they have no designs on the independence or territorial integrity of Iran”. However, in 1945, the Soviets would be responsible for backing two breakaway territories in the north.”

And as the “Anglos” left Iran at the conclusion of the war, the Soviets remained, as I stated above. So no hard feeling towards the Soviets for backing the breakaway territories of Iranian Kurdistan & Azerbaijan?

From your post:

“The Soviets wanted to make Iranian Azerbaijan and the Turkmen Sahra part of the Soviet Union, and possibly turn Iran into a communist state.”

No hard feelings toward Russia for any of this??!!

loppar · May 2, 2015, 9:38pm

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

No hard feelings toward Russia for any of this??!![/quote]

They cannot afford hard feelings, as they have no other geopolitical options. Sanctions.

They’re pretty much following the time-tested logic the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” or in this case a temporary alignment of business and political interests. However, this is pretty much in the air, as trade relations are still low.

They are hoping that Russia would be interested in stemming the Saudi influence in the Caucasus, while not losing an opportunity to annoy the US.

Sifu · May 3, 2015, 4:06am

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
They’ve been telling us for years that Iran is this “young nation,” where everyone wants cell phones and more freedom. Is this like total bullshit?

Is “The East” always going to be the enemy of “the West?”[/quote]

There is a lot of disinformation about Iran. ie The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh is pretty much gospel. What never gets mentioned is his predecessor Razmara was assassinated by the ayatollah Kashani so he could install Mossadegh as PM. So much for democracy.

[/quote]

Huh?

Mosaddeq was appointed Prime Minister by the Shah after being nominated by the Iranian parliament in a 79-12 vote. He was wildly popular, which is why he replaced Razmara’s successor, Hossein 'Ala, after only one month.

Are you implying that Ayatollah Kashani influenced seventy-nine members of Parliament to vote for his man?

Are you implying that Operation Ajax was NOT orchestrated by CIA and MI6?

Are you implying that Razmara WAS “democratically elected”?

[/quote]

The Ayatollahs had Razmara assassinated so they could replace him with their man Mossadegh. A handful of Ayatollahs in the parliament using murder and intimidation to get their way is not what a rational person would call a democratic process. Calling that democracy is like calling Nazi Germany a democracy because Hitler was democratically elected.

The Shah was pressured into selecting Razmara as PM on June 26th 1950 because on June 25th 1950 a communist army backed by Stalin had invaded south Korea and just about captured the entire country. The US was concerned that as soon as Korean was finished invading Iran was going to be Stalin’s next move. I wouldn’t call Razmara democratically elected PM either, but there were good reasons for him being PM.

My point is this. When I learned the back story I realized that there is a lot more to the story of what happened between the west and Iran at that time than the simplistic leftist orthodoxy of the big bad US was being a bully to poor little Iran just so we could steal their oil.

This was cold war maneuvering for position against people who weren’t being idealistic Boy Scouts. Stalin was playing dirty and for keeps. In the west, people who had just been through world war two, so they were capable of understanding that war is hell and you don’t win by being really nice.

Gkhan · May 3, 2015, 4:34am

Here’s what Iran says about the ship seizure.

Varqanir · May 3, 2015, 4:51am

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Calling that democracy is like calling Nazi Germany a democracy because Hitler was democratically elected. [/quote]

Still a democracy in both cases.

Democracy is not intrinsically good. It only means “rule by the people”. A country ruled by a majority of bad people is still a democracy.

loppar · May 3, 2015, 4:36pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Calling that democracy is like calling Nazi Germany a democracy because Hitler was democratically elected. [/quote]

Still a democracy in both cases…

[/quote]
Initially a democracy would be more accurate, no?
[/quote]

Technically speaking, the German Federal Elections of 1932 were the last democratic elections and were held on 6th of November, with the NSDAP winning 33% of the votes, compared to 20,5% for the Social Democrats and roughly 15% for the Communist Party.

Elimination of democracy begun on 30th of January 1933 with the “Machtergreifung” or “seizure of power” and proceeded with the Enabling Act of March 1935. The last vestiges of the democratic government were dissolved by the summer of 1935, although this is still a matter of pedantic scholarly debate.

The popular opinion that the Nazis came to power through the ballot box is not entirely accurate - almost immediately as Hitler received the chancellorship through the tragic miscalculation of the conservative coalition he began dismantling the Weimar government.

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

The same thing occurred, albeit on a slightly longer time scale, in Russia from 1999, where Putin was initially selected by the Yeltsin cronies as a pliable interim puppet. The building of Putin’s now formidable security-propaganda apparatus began almost immediately.

As far as Iran and Middle East is concerned, the chaotic nature of a ME democracy ( Lebanon) and even quasi-democratic governments to the Western observer may seem confusing and cannot easily be comprehended.

Sifu · May 5, 2015, 3:05am

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Calling that democracy is like calling Nazi Germany a democracy because Hitler was democratically elected. [/quote]

Still a democracy in both cases.

Democracy is not intrinsically good. It only means “rule by the people”. A country ruled by a majority of bad people is still a democracy.[/quote]

Oh my God! You can’t be serious. Do you realize how much of a fool you look right now for writing that after you wrote this?

"Mosaddeq was appointed Prime Minister by the Shah after being nominated by the Iranian parliament in a 79-12 vote. He was wildly popular, which is why he replaced Razmara’s successor, Hossein 'Ala, after only one month.

Are you implying that Ayatollah Kashani influenced seventy-nine members of Parliament to vote for his man?

Are you implying that Operation Ajax was NOT orchestrated by CIA and MI6?

Are you implying that Razmara WAS “democratically elected”?"

You are funny. First you go banging on about democracy like it’s a good thing, then reverse yourself by saying it’s not intrinsically good.

Personally, while I do favor democracy or at least representative government I am pragmatic about it. Back then with the cold war heating up decisions had to be made without the benefit of hindsight that we enjoy today.

At the end of world war two the Soviet Union was supposed to pull it armies back to Russia and allow democratic elections in eastern Europe. Not leave the army there as an army of occupation and install puppet dictatorships.

They were playing dirty and gobbling up other nations. So it’s not like we had much choice in how we dealt with Iran. We could either be nice and lose it and next the entire Persian Gulf, or we could do what we had to do to hang in to it.

Varqanir · May 5, 2015, 3:41am