• 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!

Irans Prime Minister Mossadegh was NOT democratically elected.

Dayton3

Dayton3

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,687
Reaction score
1,938
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Six Myths about the Coup against Iran's Mossadegh | The National Interest

67 years ago, in 1953, Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown and the Shah retook power. For two thirds of a century, Iranians (along with many U.S. critics) have bitched and moaned that the U.S. "overthrew" their "democratically elected prime minister".

As the link above shows, Mossadegh was far from a "democratically elected" leader. Plus he had massive opposition from within Iran.

Iran's domestic bitching and moaning is largely a reflection of their unhappiness with what they see has the influence of the U.S. Well it sucks to be them. But the U.S. has lots of influence in many nations.
 
Bang that war drum
 
Btw I read your terrible link. Mossadegh wasn’t legit because not everyone liked him. Ok guy.
 
It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

Dayton3 said:
Six Myths about the Coup against Iran's Mossadegh | The National Interest

...
Click to expand...

National Interest gets a fairly clean bill of health from Media Bias (see National Interest - Media Bias/Fact Check)

Or you can read

All the Shah's men : an American coup and the roots of Middle East terror [book] / Stephen Kinzer. c2003, John Wiley & Sons, 955.053 Kinz

Subjects
• Mosaddeq, Mohammad, -- 1880-1967.
• Iran -- Politics and government -- 1941-1979.
• United States -- Relations -- Iran.
• Iran -- Relations -- United States.

Notes
• Good evening, Mr. Roosevelt -- Curse this fate -- The last drop of the nation's blood -- A wave of oil -- His master's orders -- Unseen enemies everywhere -- You do not know how evil they are -- An immensely shrewd old man -- Block headed British -- Pull up your socks and get going -- I knew it! : they love me! -- Purring like a giant cat.

Length xiii, 258 p., [8] p. of plates :

Good, war on the cheap for Prex Eisenhower. Incredible naiveté from the CinC, CIA, State Dept. (the Dulles bros. in the latter two). Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA slipped the leash. UK tried to sell intervention in Iran to Truman (UK wanted to welsh on their contractual agreements with Iran - on sharing income, & on training Iranians to displace Brits in the oil industry & infrastructure & admin) - who told them to go pound sand. UK then approached incoming president Eisenhower, & sold the problem as international Communism. Eisenhower took the bait, & embarked the CIA on overthrows-for-hire.

Of course, the US eventually displaced the Brits anyway. So was it all for naught?

& in view of the news out of Baghdad's airport, Here we are again.

I prefer books myself - index, photos, bibliographies, etc.
 
Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

Bygone days, sadly. Jimmy Carter America's weakest ever president allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran and turn it into an Islamic hellhole which it still is to this day. Damn you Jimmy Carter!
 
Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

lemmiwinx said:
Bygone days, sadly. Jimmy Carter America's weakest ever president allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran and turn it into an Islamic hellhole which it still is to this day. Damn you Jimmy Carter!
Click to expand...

Khomeini was no doubt emboldened by Reagan selling him arms.
 
Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

Decypher said:
Khomeini was no doubt emboldened by Reagan selling him arms.
Click to expand...

Blame Reagan then lol but Jimmy Carter was the president who shafted the Shah and turned Iran over to the mad ayatollahs. How'd that work out?
 
Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

Pretty good for the ayatollahs
 
Decypher said:
Btw I read your terrible link. Mossadegh wasn’t legit because not everyone liked him. Ok guy.
Click to expand...

He was not democratically elected. guy. If you didn't read that much then you didn't read anything.
 
Dayton3 said:
He was not democratically elected. guy. If you didn't read that much then you didn't read anything.
Click to expand...

He was legitimately elected by the electoral process in place at the time. Your effort to muddy the waters in order to somehow diminish the nefarious meddling the US has undertaken in Iran is transparent and contemptuous.
 
Decypher said:
He was legitimately elected by the electoral process in place at the time. Your effort to muddy the waters in order to somehow diminish the nefarious meddling the US has undertaken in Iran is transparent and contemptuous.
Click to expand...

You miss the part where he halted the voting as soon as a quorum was available because he knew his side would lose a huge number of the remaining seats?
 
Dayton3 said:
You miss the part where he halted the voting as soon as a quorum was available because he knew his side would lose a huge number of the remaining seats?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I did miss it as I haven’t read Barbara-Ann Rieffer-Flanagan’s 2013 book, Evolving Iran: An Introduction to Politics and Problems in the Islamic Republic. Have you or did you get your info from Wikipedia?

Regardless, is your exercise in diminishing Mossadegh’s legitimacy an attempt to excuse America’s malevolent activity in Iran over the last 70 years?
 
Dayton3 said:
Six Myths about the Coup against Iran's Mossadegh | The National Interest

67 years ago, in 1953, Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown and the Shah retook power. For two thirds of a century, Iranians (along with many U.S. critics) have bitched and moaned that the U.S. "overthrew" their "democratically elected prime minister".

As the link above shows, Mossadegh was far from a "democratically elected" leader. Plus he had massive opposition from within Iran.

Iran's domestic bitching and moaning is largely a reflection of their unhappiness with what they see has the influence of the U.S. Well it sucks to be them. But the U.S. has lots of influence in many nations.
Click to expand...

Neither was Trump.
 
Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

Decypher said:
Khomeini was no doubt emboldened by Reagan selling him arms.
Click to expand...

According to participants in the trip, the McFarlane mission, on May 28-31, turned out to be a major disappointment for the Reagan Administration, the committee report said. Under an elaborate plan worked out in advance by Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian businessman, and an Israeli official, Amiram Nir, the McFarlane mission was to deliver three planeloads of weapons starting with their flight to Iran. In return, all the American hostages were to be freed in Lebanon.

When no hostages were freed, the group's three days were spent in fruitless argument with low- and middle-level Iranians. The Iranians complained that they had been overcharged for weapons previously sent to them via Israel.
Click to expand...

MCFARLANE TOOK CAKE AND BIBLE TO TEHERAN, EX-C.I.A. MAN SAYS - The New York Times
 
Dayton3 said:
Six Myths about the Coup against Iran's Mossadegh | The National Interest

67 years ago, in 1953, Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown and the Shah retook power. For two thirds of a century, Iranians (along with many U.S. critics) have bitched and moaned that the U.S. "overthrew" their "democratically elected prime minister".

As the link above shows, Mossadegh was far from a "democratically elected" leader. Plus he had massive opposition from within Iran.

Iran's domestic bitching and moaning is largely a reflection of their unhappiness with what they see has the influence of the U.S. Well it sucks to be them. But the U.S. has lots of influence in many nations.
Click to expand...

"National Interest dot org."

Okay.
 
Decypher said:
Perhaps I did miss it as I haven’t read Barbara-Ann Rieffer-Flanagan’s 2013 book, Evolving Iran: An Introduction to Politics and Problems in the Islamic Republic. Have you or did you get your info from Wikipedia?

Regardless, is your exercise in diminishing Mossadegh’s legitimacy an attempt to excuse America’s malevolent activity in Iran over the last 70 years?
Click to expand...

My information is from the link that you obviously have no interest in reading.
 
Dayton3 said:
My information is from the link that you obviously have no interest in reading.
Click to expand...

I’ve now read your link 3 times which is clearly 3 more times than you’ve read it yourself.


While Mossadegh was elected to the Majles (the Iranian Parliament) by democratic means (Iran at the time was not a democracy by any means, though some aspects of it were democratic in nature), the office of Prime Minister was nominated from amongst the Majles deputies by the Shah. In turn, the Majles members either voted for or against the nomination (In his initial appointment Mossadegh was approved by a tally of 79-12). Mossadegh enjoyed massive popularity at different times during his political career, but his position as Prime Minister was never due to a nationwide poll (he was PM on two separate occasions).

This is not to say Mossadegh’s position was not legitimate. He was chosen by his constituency to be a Majles deputy, this is indisputable. He was not however, chosen by the Iranian people to be Prime Minister. This also does not account for the fact that the Majles was mostly comprised of feudal landowners, intrinsically opposed to Mossadegh and his populism.
Click to expand...

Anyway you haven’t answered my question. How does any of this excuse what the US has done in Iran since then?
 
Decypher said:
I’ve now read your link 3 times which is clearly 3 more times than you’ve read it yourself.




Anyway you haven’t answered my question. How does any of this excuse what the US has done in Iran since then?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about it delegitimizing Iranian violence directed at the U.S. using this as an excuse.
 
They make a desert and call it peace.

lemmiwinx said:
Bygone days, sadly. Jimmy Carter America's weakest ever president allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran and turn it into an Islamic hellhole which it still is to this day. Damn you Jimmy Carter!
Click to expand...

Nah, that was the Shah (who didn't have the stomach for wholesale slaughter), & SAVAK (CIA trained internal security) - a fine bunch of torturers, rapists & so on - who were unleashed on the people of Iran & still didn't manage to fend off the revolution. & there's the US - who didn't bother to keep our own networks up & running in Iran - we trusted the Shah to keep a firm hand. He failed.

We could have killed everyone, I suppose - if that's what you mean by allowed.
 
Dayton3 said:
I'm talking about it delegitimizing Iranian violence directed at the U.S. using this as an excuse.
Click to expand...

The Americans and the Brits have been screwing around in that country since WWII. An attempt to dismiss legitimate Iranian grievances by highlighting some point of order from an election in 1951 is shockingly dishonest.
 
Comes the strongman on horseback

Decypher said:
The Americans and the Brits have been screwing around in that country since WWII. An attempt to dismiss legitimate Iranian grievances by highlighting some point of order from an election in 1951 is shockingly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Set the Wayback, Sherman:

In 1907, an Anglo-Russian agreement formally divided Persia into spheres of influence. After WWI, Persia was virtually a British protectorate. (NYT Almanac)

"During World War I, the British occupied much of the territory of western Iran, and fully withdrew in 1921. Meanwhile, a famine in northern Iran killed between eight and 10 million people. The Persian Campaign commenced furthermore in northwestern Iran after an Ottoman invasion, as part of the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. In the course of the Assyrian Genocide of 1914–1920 and the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1917, a large number of Iranian Assyrians and Armenians were subjected to mass murders committed by the Ottoman troops that were crossing the northwestern border, notably in and around Khoy, Maku, Salmas, and Urmia.[148][149][150][151][152]

"Apart from the rule of Agha Mohammad Khan, the Qajar rule is characterized as a century of misrule.[121] The Iranian Cossack Brigade, which was the most effective military force available to the crown, began a military coup supported by the British in February 1921. The Qajar dynasty was subsequently overthrown, and Reza Khan, the former general of the Cossack Brigade, became the new Prime Minister of Iran. Eventually, he was declared the new monarch in 1925—thence known as Reza Shah—establishing the Pahlavi dynasty."

(My emphasis - more @ Iran - Wikipedia )

So no, you're out by 38 years.
 
Re: They make a desert and call it peace.

southwest88 said:
Nah, that was the Shah (who didn't have the stomach for wholesale slaughter), & SAVAK (CIA trained internal security) - a fine bunch of torturers, rapists & so on - who were unleashed on the people of Iran & still didn't manage to fend off the revolution. & there's the US - who didn't bother to keep our own networks up & running in Iran - we trusted the Shah to keep a firm hand. He failed.

We could have killed everyone, I suppose - if that's what you mean by allowed.
Click to expand...

Well in the end you could say the Iranians deserve their ayatollas' version of heaven on earth. Seems to suit them pretty nicely but I wouldn't want to live there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom