Irans Prime Minister Mossadegh was NOT democratically elected.

[southwest88]

Re: They make a desert and call it peace.

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.

Yah. & you could argue that the Germans deserved their Nazis,

The Japanese deserved their emperor & conquest-crazed military dictatorship,

Give or take millions of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, intellectuals, professors, writers, editors, journalists, any dissident political groups, unions, Socialists, Communists, plus the soldiers & citizens (French, UK, USSR, Polish, US, & all the others who died directly or indirectly as a result).

So sure, it's not really our problem, eh?

 

[Craig234]

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.

Typical right-wing crap. Yes, Mossadegh was not simply an 'elected Prime Minister'. But he was appointed under a relatively democratic system, and was serving the interests of the people of Iran, as opposed to the dictator puppet put in place by the US, to rule the country corruptly, serving a foreign power ahead of Iran.

These right-wing monsters refer to opposing such murderous tyranny as "bitched and moaned" as they defend it. I used to wonder where Hitler found so many willing supporters. It's gotten a lot easier to answer.

 

[Craig234]

Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

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?

So tired of right-wing lies. Carter did exactly the right thing OTHER than not throwing Reagan in jail for his treason contacting Iran to prevent the release of the hostages. Iran HATED Carter because he let the Shah come to the US for medical treatment, which is why the hostages got taken by furious Iranian revolutionaries. Why have I never heard a (modern) Republican attack Reagan for his lawbreaking?

 

[Dayton3]

Typical right-wing crap. Yes, Mossadegh was not simply an 'elected Prime Minister'. But he was appointed under a relatively democratic system, and was serving the interests of the people of Iran, as opposed to the dictator puppet put in place by the US, to rule the country corruptly, serving a foreign power ahead of Iran.

These right-wing monsters refer to opposing such murderous tyranny as "bitched and moaned" as they defend it. I used to wonder where Hitler found so many willing supporters. It's gotten a lot easier to answer.

The Shah of Iran was hardly a "murderous tyrant". Overall he was a relatively benign one.

And why do you label The National Interest as "right wing"?

 

[Dayton3]

Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

So tired of right-wing lies. Carter did exactly the right thing OTHER than not throwing Reagan in jail for his treason contacting Iran to prevent the release of the hostages. Iran HATED Carter because he let the Shah come to the US for medical treatment, which is why the hostages got taken by furious Iranian revolutionaries. Why have I never heard a (modern) Republican attack Reagan for his lawbreaking?

Probably because

1) It was never proven.
2) Even if proven it was not against the law.

 

[Craig234]

Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

Probably because

1) It was never proven.
2) Even if proven it was not against the law.

Your not being informed doesn't make facts disappear. And yes, it was against the law. See the first sentence.

 

[Craig234]

The Shah of Iran was hardly a "murderous tyrant". Overall he was a relatively benign one.

And why do you label The National Interest as "right wing"?

The Shah was utterly a tyrant, using his secret police force supplied by the US, Savak, to terrorize, torture, murder thousands of Iraqis, and he was massively corrupt. Try learning something for a change instead of just making things up.

I didn't call the source right wing, I called the lies right-wing.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

The nefarious meddling on behalf of the British may have been unwise, but Mosaddeq was his own worst enemy and, in a sense, had it coming.

 

[Craig234]

The Shah was utterly a tyrant, using his secret police force supplied by the US, Savak, to terrorize, torture, murder thousands of Iraqis, and he was massively corrupt.

Er, Iranians.

 

[snakestretcher]

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.

Far-right revisionism. Awesome, wrong and stupid. No wonder conservatives lap up this crap.

 

[snakestretcher]

Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

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?

It worked out as expected. Had the CIA with Britain's connivance not overthrown a democratically elected government and installed a US-friendly puppet dictator, the Islamic revolution would never have happened. As usual American stupidity has brought about everything you're now whining about.

 

[snakestretcher]

I'm talking about it delegitimizing Iranian violence directed at the U.S. using this as an excuse.

Yes, if your country had been subjected to an enforced regime change by another nation, replacing a legitimate government with a vicious and violent dictator (US-friendly, of course), what the hell do you expect; flowers on your birthday? If you don't want blowback, here's a tip. Don't stick your arrogant American snouts where they aren't wanted. Simple enough even for a conservative to figure out. Your country brought everything you now whine about, on yourselves after decades of meddling in Iran. Own it or shut up.

 

[Port & Starboard]

The Shah was utterly a tyrant, using his secret police force supplied by the US, Savak, to terrorize, torture, murder thousands of Iraqis, and he was massively corrupt. Try learning something for a change instead of just making things up.

I didn't call the source right wing, I called the lies right-wing.

Then the Mullah's took over and did the same things, and still continue to do the same things.

 

[snakestretcher]

The Shah of Iran was hardly a "murderous tyrant". Overall he was a relatively benign one.

And why do you label The National Interest as "right wing"?

"Relatively benign"! :lamo

Comment | Parviz Sabeti and the Murder of Political Prisoners under the Shah - Tehran Bureau | FRONTLINE | PBS

Savak Agent Describes How He Tortured Hundreds - The New York Times

Years of Torture in Iran Comes to Light - The New York Times

SAVAK - Wikipedia

Yes, the Shah was indeed a murderous tyrant-but of course you will maintain he had no knowledge of the thousands of political opponents tortured and murdered at the hands of the CIA-trained SAVAK secret police. Life under the Shah was about as "relatively benign" as life under Stalin and the Cheka, OGPU and the KGB.

 

[Dayton3]

"Relatively benign"! :lamo

Comment | Parviz Sabeti and the Murder of Political Prisoners under the Shah - Tehran Bureau | FRONTLINE | PBS

Savak Agent Describes How He Tortured Hundreds - The New York Times

Years of Torture in Iran Comes to Light - The New York Times

SAVAK - Wikipedia

Yes, the Shah was indeed a murderous tyrant-but of course you will maintain he had no knowledge of the thousands of political opponents tortured and murdered at the hands of the CIA-trained SAVAK secret police. Life under the Shah was about as "relatively benign" as life under Stalin and the Cheka, OGPU and the KGB.

Still relatively benign. Especially compared to Iran under the Ayatollahs afterwards. The college my mother, my sisters, and I all graduated from used to have literally hundreds of Iranian students studying there and we got to know a great many of them quite well. They didn't have many complaints about life under the Shah. Unfortunately after the revolution in 1979 most had to return to Iran and quite a few were murdered by the Ayatollahs regime.

So don't babble to me about how bad the Shah of Iran was especially compared to what came after.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Re: They make a desert and call it peace.

Yah. & you could argue that the Germans deserved their Nazis,

The Japanese deserved their emperor & conquest-crazed military dictatorship,

Give or take millions of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, intellectuals, professors, writers, editors, journalists, any dissident political groups, unions, Socialists, Communists, plus the soldiers & citizens (French, UK, USSR, Polish, US, & all the others who died directly or indirectly as a result).

So sure, it's not really our problem, eh?

I know it's not our problem look at all the failures we've had trying to change societies. Most notably Iraq and Afghanistan what a wasted effort you can't change tribalism and religious extremism.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

So tired of right-wing lies. Carter did exactly the right thing OTHER than not throwing Reagan in jail for his treason contacting Iran to prevent the release of the hostages. Iran HATED Carter because he let the Shah come to the US for medical treatment, which is why the hostages got taken by furious Iranian revolutionaries. Why have I never heard a (modern) Republican attack Reagan for his lawbreaking?

Reagan is beloved he's as revered as MLK or Bobby Kennedy even more so.

 

[southwest88]

Re: They make a desert and call it peace.

I know it's not our problem look at all the failures we've had trying to change societies. Most notably Iraq and Afghanistan what a wasted effort you can't change tribalism and religious extremism.

So What were we doing there, then? Pres. W didn't want to do the nation-building thing @ all, he fired all the Pentagon logistics people who told him he was going in light (to both). Then, when (relative) success was in sight in Afghanistan, he pulled lots of those troops to invade Iraq. & again, we went in light, & quickly lost control (did we ever have it?) of routine government functions.

I get that we (the US) had to do something after 09/11. We trounced Al Qaeda in Afghanistan fairly quickly - but we didn't clean up the cadre, & they escaped to fight another day - because we wouldn't staff up enough to keep the Afghan/Pakistan border sealed, as was necessary.

In Iraq, it turns out that we would have done better to have left S. Hussein in charge; @ least he didn't allow Shia Islam to run riot in the country. The net result - we're down massive amounts of money, we've lost lots of troops & injured, & we're no closer to resolving terrorism than we were before we got there. & while we've been playing Whack-a-mole in the war against terror, Russia & China have been building alliances & expanding their influence in the World.

If we were trying to change societies, we failed miserably in Afghanistan & Iraq. I contend we weren't trying - or only half-trying. & the half-baked results are what you get for only putting in half the effort.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Re: They make a desert and call it peace.

So What were we doing there, then? Pres. W didn't want to do the nation-building thing @ all, he fired all the Pentagon logistics people who told him he was going in light (to both). Then, when (relative) success was in sight in Afghanistan, he pulled lots of those troops to invade Iraq. & again, we went in light, & quickly lost control (did we ever have it?) of routine government functions.

I get that we (the US) had to do something after 09/11. We trounced Al Qaeda in Afghanistan fairly quickly - but we didn't clean up the cadre, & they escaped to fight another day - because we wouldn't staff up enough to keep the Afghan/Pakistan border sealed, as was necessary.

In Iraq, it turns out that we would have done better to have left S. Hussein in charge; @ least he didn't allow Shia Islam to run riot in the country. The net result - we're down massive amounts of money, we've lost lots of troops & injured, & we're no closer to resolving terrorism than we were before we got there. & while we've been playing Whack-a-mole in the war against terror, Russia & China have been building alliances & expanding their influence in the World.

If we were trying to change societies, we failed miserably in Afghanistan & Iraq. I contend we weren't trying - or only half-trying. & the half-baked results are what you get for only putting in half the effort.

Money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan today is just going down a rathole. There's no sense in it noting's ever going to change over there. Not until their citizens stand up and demand decent leadership.

 

[Craig234]

Re: It's possible we (the US) should have steered clear of the whole mess

Reagan is beloved he's as revered as MLK or Bobby Kennedy even more so.

Not even close. But he has his misguided nutjobs who don't understand how horrible he was and how much he pushed America toward the disastrous plutocracy it's become.