• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Myth of an American Coup in Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess we had nothing to do with Guatemala in 54 either...
 
Jack Hays said:
I did look them up. I found nothing remarkable.:peace
Click to expand...
Sure Jack Ryan, you made that clear when you thought I referenced the CFR.

I know it was yesterday and you have lots of spinning plates to attend to.....but the remark was "not a neocon" as compared to him being a founding member of a neocon organization.

I understand why, to you, this would not be "remarkable", since it would totally counter you point about "not a neocon"....that is how you roll, while most others would recognize the significance of it.

High quality observation there......:tink:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sure Jack Ryan, you made that clear when you thought I referenced the CFR.

I know it was yesterday and you have lots of spinning plates to attend to.....but the remark was "not a neocon" as compared to him being a founding member of a neocon organization.

I understand why, to you, this would not be "remarkable", since it would totally counter you point about "not a neocon"....that is how you roll, while most others would recognize the significance of it.

High quality observation there......:tink:
Click to expand...

Ah. You believe ISTF is a neo-con organization? Why?:peace
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sure Jack Ryan, you made that clear when you thought I referenced the CFR.

I know it was yesterday and you have lots of spinning plates to attend to.....but the remark was "not a neocon" as compared to him being a founding member of a neocon organization.

I understand why, to you, this would not be "remarkable", since it would totally counter you point about "not a neocon"....that is how you roll, while most others would recognize the significance of it.

High quality observation there......:tink:
Click to expand...

I think you need to reassess. The ISTF co-founder was the Progressive Policy Institute.

Freedom House and Progressive Policy Institute Announce Iran ...

www.freedomhouse.org/.../freedom-house-and-progressive-policy-instit...‎

The Task Force members are:

Andrew Apostolou, co-chair, Freedom House
Joshua Block, co-chair, Progressive Policy Institute
Jim Arkedis, Progressive Policy Institute
Rafael Bardají, Atlantic Council/Fundación para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociales
Jeffrey Herf, University of Maryland
Ken Pollack, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, the Brookings Institution
Steve Beckerman, American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Renee Redman, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center
Ray Takeyh, Council on Foreign Relations
Michael Adler, Woodrow Wilson Center

ADVISORY COUNCIL

David J. Kramer, Freedom House
Will Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute
Larry Diamond, Stanford University
Rob Satloff, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Walter Russell Mead, Bard College:mrgreen:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, because it is made up those holding neoconservative views.

But this is....unremarkable.....I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

I think you need to reassess. The ISTF co-founder was the Progressive Policy Institute.

Freedom House and Progressive Policy Institute Announce Iran ...

http://www.freedomhouse.org/.../free...stit...‎

The Task Force members are:

Andrew Apostolou, co-chair, Freedom House
Joshua Block, co-chair, Progressive Policy Institute
Jim Arkedis, Progressive Policy Institute
Rafael Bardají, Atlantic Council/Fundación para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociales
Jeffrey Herf, University of Maryland
Ken Pollack, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, the Brookings Institution
Steve Beckerman, American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Renee Redman, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center
Ray Takeyh, Council on Foreign Relations
Michael Adler, Woodrow Wilson Center

ADVISORY COUNCIL

David J. Kramer, Freedom House
Will Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute
Larry Diamond, Stanford University
Rob Satloff, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Walter Russell Mead, Bard College:mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
Wrong again.

I think you need to reassess. The ISTF co-founder was the Progressive Policy Institute.

Freedom House and Progressive Policy Institute Announce Iran ...

http://www.freedomhouse.org/.../free...stit...‎

The Task Force members are:

Andrew Apostolou, co-chair, Freedom House
Joshua Block, co-chair, Progressive Policy Institute
Jim Arkedis, Progressive Policy Institute
Rafael Bardají, Atlantic Council/Fundación para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociales
Jeffrey Herf, University of Maryland
Ken Pollack, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, the Brookings Institution
Steve Beckerman, American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Renee Redman, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center
Ray Takeyh, Council on Foreign Relations
Michael Adler, Woodrow Wilson Center

ADVISORY COUNCIL

David J. Kramer, Freedom House
Will Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute
Larry Diamond, Stanford University
Rob Satloff, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Walter Russell Mead, Bard College:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Are you confused as to the policies and ideology espoused by the PPI and Freedom House?

Yes, you are.

This is really poor research on display here, Dr. Ryan.
 
Freedom House:
As of mid-2011, Freedom House’s executive director was David Kramer, a former assistant secretary of state during the George W. Bush presidency whose experience includes working as a fellow for the Project for the New American Century and the German Marshall Fund.[2] Chair of the board of trustees was William H. Taft IV, a professor at Stanford Law School and deputy secretary of defense in the second Ronald Reagan administration.
Freedom House touts itself as having a "bipartisan character," and to a great extent this is reflected in its board of trustees. However, as of mid-2011, the board included a number of people who have been associated with rightist advocacy endeavors, including Ruth Wedgwood, who has also served on the board of the Geneva-based UN Watch, a group affiliated with the American Jewish Committee; Thomas A. Dine, former director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and adviser to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq; Max Kampelman, a retired diplomat who has worked with several neoconservative groups, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Kenneth Adelman, a former arms control diplomat who has supported the work of groups like the Project for the New American Century and the Committee on the Present Danger; Paula J. Dobriansky, the Bush administration’s under secretary of state for democracy who has work for the Hudson Institute, the Independent Women’s Forum, among other rightwing groups; Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative writer formerly based at the American Enterprise Institute; and Mark Palmer, a retired diplomat, member of the Committee on the Present Danger, and vice president of the Council for a Community of Democracies.[3]
Past Freedom House advisers and associates have included former CIA Director James Woolsey


David Kramer is a former Sovietologist who serves as executive director of Freedom House, a U.S. government-funded democracy advocacy group that has been closely associated with neoconservative advocacy for decades. Kramer’s experience also includes working as a fellow at the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a pressure group founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan that was notorious for its efforts to push the United States into war with Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. A political appointee in the Condoleeza Rice-led State Department during George W. Bush’s second term

PPI:

The core principles of the "third way movement" are set forth in the DLC/PPI's 1996 publication, The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. In it, third way leaders argue that enduring progressive values must be adapted to include uncompromising support for free market and free trade economics, a strong military with a global presence, an end to the politics of “entitlement,” a rejection of affirmative action, an embrace of competitive enterprise, and a reduction of the government’s role in development policy.[5]
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Are you confused as to the policies and ideology espoused by the PPI and Freedom House?

Yes, you are.

This is really poor research on display here, Dr. Ryan.
Click to expand...

I suggest that I'm not the confused one here. PPI is most notably identified with the Clinton administration. Eleanor Roosevelt was a co-founder of Freedom House. Neither is especially identified with neoconservatives. And btw, even if they were that would not invalidate the research published by the CFR.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
I suggest that I'm not the confused one here. PPI is most notably identified with the Clinton administration. Eleanor Roosevelt was a co-founder of Freedom House. Neither is especially identified with neoconservatives. And btw, even if they were that would not invalidate the research published by the CFR.:peace
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you keep trying to steer the argument away from the current membership of FH and PPI....oh, snap....of course I do....you don't want to acknowledge their RW/Neocon ideology.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I have no idea why you keep trying to steer the argument away from the current membership of FH and PPI....oh, snap....of course I do....you don't want to acknowledge their RW/Neocon ideology.
Click to expand...

I already listed the ISTF membership. You still have made no point. And you remain absent on the question of Iran.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
I already listed the ISTF membership. You still have made no point. And you remain absent on the question of Iran.:peace
Click to expand...
My point was clear, you keep avoiding it, the membership of the ISTF, including Takeyh, are neocons.

Remember the origin of the discussion?


Jack Hays said:
Doesn't seem to be much of a neocon, especially since he was in the Obama administration. In addition, CFR isn't much of a neocon hangout.

Ray Takeyh.....
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
My point was clear, you keep avoiding it, the membership of the ISTF, including Takeyh, are neocons.

Remember the origin of the discussion?
Click to expand...

And I have clearly shown that the predominant membership in ISTF is not neo-con. Including Takeyh.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
And I have clearly shown that the predominant membership in ISTF is not neo-con. Including Takeyh.:peace
Click to expand...
LOL...by mentioning Eleanor?

Have you fallen into you well worn trying to prove a negative AGAIN?

Poor research, faulty/nonexistent analysis....wow, Dr. Ryan....what a failure!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
My point was clear, you keep avoiding it, the membership of the ISTF, including Takeyh, are neocons.

Remember the origin of the discussion?
Click to expand...

Ray Takeyh, DPhil is an Iranian-American Middle East scholar, former United States Department of State official, and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.[SUP][1][/SUP] He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Born in Tehran, Takeyh obtained his doctorate from Oxford University in 1997. Prior to joining the Council, he was a fellow in international security studies at Yale University, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a professor at the National War College, and a professor and director of studies at the Near East and South Asia center at the National Defense University.
Takeyh has written extensively on Iran and on U.S. policy toward the Middle East. He has testified several times before various committees of the US Senate and has appeared as an Iran expert on a variety of television programs, including the PBS Newshour.
In his writings and public appearances, Takeyh has tended to be skeptical about the efficacy of current U.S. efforts to deal with Iran and its nuclear program. He has characterized the regime in Tehran as an opportunistic power that is seeking to expand its influence in the region rather than as an apocalyptic threat to the world.
In 2009 Takeyh served as an aide to Dennis Ross in the Barack Obama Administration focusing on Iran policy. When Ross moved from the State Department to the National Security Council staff Takeyh returned to the Council on Foreign Relations.
 
Jack Hays said:
I listed the current ISTF membership.
Click to expand...
I know you did Dr. Ryan, but as I pointed out previously, you have avoided their ideologies and associations..... just as I know you reposted the wiki profile of Takeyh that does not include his neocon ideas and current associations.

It is, as usual, ground hog day again, where I have to remind you what has already been posted.

Freedom House and PPI have deep neocon roots, making up the core of ISTF
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know you did Dr. Ryan, but as I pointed out previously, you have avoided their ideologies and associations..... just as I know you reposted the wiki profile of Takeyh that does not include his neocon ideas and current associations.

It is, as usual, ground hog day again, where I have to remind you what has already been posted.

Freedom House and PPI have deep neocon roots, making up the core of ISTF
Click to expand...

Seems like you have a problem with "Neo-cons?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
As usual, the conventional wisdom is wrong. What really happened in Iran in 1953?

The Myth of an American Coup | The Weekly Standard

:cool:
Click to expand...

The U.S. played a role. Even before the release of CIA documents, the major question concerned the extent of the role not the existence of a U.S. role. As is frequently the case, there was a confluence of domestic and external events involved. At the same time, U.S. interests were involved in the evolution of Iran with real concern that Iran could be taken into the Soviet orbit. Such an outcome could, in turn, have given the Soviet Union a much greater ability to project power in the geopolitically vital Mideast.

In terms of scholarship, one should try to better understand the extent of the U.S. role and the reasons behind it. On the other hand, it is difficult to find intellectual merit in narratives aimed at denying such a role.

If one wants to get into policy debates, one can freely discuss whether the role was a reasonable policy response. Addressing that question would entail identifying the U.S. interests that were at stake, the information policy makers at the time had about the risks of various scenarios, the policy alternatives that were available to them, etc. Also bear in mind, that one might conclude based on hindsight could be entirely different from what one might conclude if one only had the information available to those who made the choices.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
So what you are saying is that the unclassified, primary CIA documents from the National Security Archives are less reliable than the CFR? GTFO.
Click to expand...

The information in those documents was already known, and was incorporated in the article I linked. The only thing that changed was the official acknowledgement.:peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom