Originally Posted by reefedjib

I hope the US is involved, as it would mean Obama is serious about regime change. Between terrorist attacks on Republican Guard commanders and Qom clerics opposing the Ayatollah, things may continue to deteriorate for the government of Iran.

Originally Posted by Agnapostate

I would recommend adopting a somewhat more skeptical perspective of this matter, since merely assuming that the U.S. administration of the time had some benevolent interest in preventing Soviet intrusion in the region is superficially and unduly optimistic, especially considering Mossadeq's hostility toward all varieties of foreign intervention.

But I wouldn't use a possessive pronoun to refer to the actions of a political administration that most Americans are genuinely unaware of, as that would imply some degree of culpability for the consequences of that anti-democratic action to people who don't deserve it.

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

I would have hoped that the U.S govt is sensibile enough not to have been involved . By supporting an openly sectarian organisation that kills shia civillians they would merely be helping to bolster the regimes legitimacy among the Shia. Even from a self interested perspective it would have been a stupid thing to do. Detoriating secuirity situations work brilliantly for authortarian regimes. Look at Stalin.

Originally Posted by reefedjib

I never said benevolent interest. But given the times, "Mossadeq's hostility toward all varieties of foreign intervention" was reason enough to replace the regime with our own. We ended up with a compliant regime in our interests for a time.

Originally Posted by reefedjib

I don't think they were involved, but you never know. But, "Detoriating secuirity situations work brilliantly for authortarian regimes" also work well for pro-democracy forces. The more the government cracks down, the more people will be willing to take action against them.

Originally Posted by Agnapostate

If there's a central problem with your posts, it seems to be a lack of awareness that persons other than Anglo-Saxon U.S. citizens are capable of happiness and suffering.

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

Yes but obviously the shia are the majority here. If the government cracks down on people who have a habbit of trying to kill shia civillians they are likely to be more sympathetic.

Originally Posted by reefedjib

So, what? What's your point as it applies to now?

Originally Posted by reefedjib

In you are going to call me a racist, you should get that into the open instead of being oblique. I'm not.

Originally Posted by reefedjib

What in this post:

has anything to do with Anglo-Saxons?

Originally Posted by reefedjib

That others are also interested in happiness and have an aversion to suffering is secondary to the needs of my country. I'm delighted when they are congruent.

Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan

My point is that we have a very bad track record when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other nations -- bad meaning that, while we may have had good intentions, our actions caused unintended consequences that end up biting us on the as for decades to come.