Afghanistan and Oil

[DogOnPorch]

Who cares

I care. Historical revisionism abounds. The Americans didn't put the Shah on the throne. He had been monarch since his daddy was removed from power for dealing with Nazis in 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

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

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

[GostHacked]

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm

When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

I suggest this book for readin. Picked it up about 4 years ago, and actually I should read it again. The US has a very aggressive policy for the Middle East.

[Oleg Bach]

I care. Historical revisionism abounds. The Americans didn't put the Shah on the throne. He had been monarch since his daddy was removed from power for dealing with Nazis in 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

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

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

Was it you who said if I put down the bottle for a month it would "do wonders" for me? Well if it was thanks for the advice...besides the stuff no longer serves me...having uttered that...admission to being weak - I know all about revisionism and slander..they are brother and sister....Look at the Catholic term ..."emaculate conception" - Most if not all so-called Christians actually believe that it has something to do with the conception of Jesus Christ....It has nothing to do with Jesus...It is the conception of Mary the mother of Jesus...YET the church allows millions of Christians to go on believing this misconception because it serves their agenda. Revisionism abounds in our personal lives - It seems that humans like to revise the past.....it gives them a sense power..but it also harms the present and future - YOU can not be right untill you admit to being wrong - and no one likes to be wrong ever - so they stay wrong.

[waldo]

It is a fact that Mosaddeq's power grab was unconstitutional. That is not in Question. Nor is it in question that Mosaddeq's referedum which saw him win 99.9% of the vote was rigged.

Nor is it in question that the Shaw's overthrough of Mosaddeq had wide popular support.

or at least as popularly influenced by the CIA... yes... it's also not in question that the U.S. influenced coup d'etat replaced an elected secular democracy with a pro-U.S. dictatorship, widely held as the impetus towards the Iranian Revolution and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. How's that one worked out... so far?

Nope. Keep trying.

The Shah ousted a dictator who made an unconsitututional power grab.

Whose troops were used?

100% persian.

Did the shaw eliminate elections?

No.

whaaaa! I suggest a U.S. influence in the coup d’etat that replaced an elected secular democracy… and you don’t agree there was a U.S. influence…

For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government.

what's your interpretation of that Obama statement?

[M.Dancer]

what's your interpretation of that Obama statement?

Obama is a fool.

The democratically elected government was illegally usurping power it had no constitutional right to.

The Shah and the Iranians who valued the rule of law looked for international support to uphold the Iranian constitution. He found it. It is in fact something to be proud of, not something to cringe about.

[DogOnPorch]

Had Mosaddeq not done what amounted to as theft of Britain's largest overseas investment, he might well had remained in power and got what he wanted in the end anyways. It's not like Iran didn't deserve a healthy cut of the profits. But I think Mosaddeq was expecting a different reaction from the US re: the nationalization of British assets...that is: favorable. But his well known Communist sympathies didn't play well to an America deep in the midst of the McCarthy Era. The fear that Iran would become yet another pawn of the Soviets was quite real to the folks living at the time.

[fellowtraveller]

this has little or nothing to do with Afghanistan, which has no oil.

[eyeball]

The Shah and SAVAK were putting the screws to the very same a$$holes in charge now.

To not understand this event in a NATO vs Warsaw Pact light leads to revisionism. Lines were clearly drawn in those days.

To not understand the Cold War in light of the torture chambers of some of our allies is to ignore the principles upon which most of the west are based and which we were apparently defending during the Cold War. These principles are lines that were drawn long before the Cold War. It is this fundamental contradiction between our stated principles and those of the assholes we supported that lie at the heart of any need to revise history.

I think the worst blowback from Operation Ajax is that it's success emboldened our governments and the interests they often serve to keep following this new path - which brings us to the swamp that the world is now mired in.

Edited September 15, 2009 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

When it comes to the corporate bottom line..supporting evil sadistic people who rule semi-failed state nations is considered normal...a buck is a buck....If the TD bank for instance had this notion that in order to double their profits - that some water boarding of some poor soul would ensure this, they would have no quams about using sadism as a percieved tool - they would hire someone indirectly to do the dirty work. Sad part is most of the super rich and influential are also so power crazed that they are delluded and would probably be so enthrawled with the prospects of dominating a human being, that they would torture the wrong person...just like war for fun and profit..It does not matter who dies as long as it's somebody.

[waldo]

It is a fact that Mosaddeq's power grab was unconstitutional. That is not in Question. Nor is it in question that Mosaddeq's referedum which saw him win 99.9% of the vote was rigged.

Nor is it in question that the Shaw's overthrough of Mosaddeq had wide popular support.

or at least as popularly influenced by the CIA... yes... it's also not in question that the U.S. influenced coup d'etat replaced an elected secular democracy with a pro-U.S. dictatorship, widely held as the impetus towards the Iranian Revolution and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. How's that one worked out... so far?

Nope. Keep trying.

The Shah ousted a dictator who made an unconsitututional power grab.

Whose troops were used?

100% persian.

Did the shaw eliminate elections?

No.

whaaaa! I suggest a U.S. influence in the coup d’etat that replaced an elected secular democracy… and you don’t agree with that influence…

For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government.

what's your interpretation of that Obama statement?

Obama is a fool.

Obama's a fool... that's it - that's your comeback to being shown an out-loud acknowledgment of the U.S. role in overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh government... a role you said didn't occur?

former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, was considered the first prominent U.S. official to allude to a CIA role in overthrowing the Iranian government... and even then she didn't fully acknowledge it. That Obama was the first U.S. President to do so, speaks to the significance of the recognized U.S. policy shift towards engaging the Muslim world in a more meaningful - and open - dialogue... somewhat of a departure from the cowboy-Bush years of the recent past.

[M.Dancer]

That Obama was the first U.S. President to do so, speaks to the significance of the recognized U.S. policy shift towards engaging the Muslim world in a more meaningful - and open - dialogue... somewhat of a departure from the cowboy-Bush years of the recent past.

This has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with an ally of the west, faced with an undemocratic, unconsitutional ueupage of power, asking and getting aid.

Why not detail in minutae exactly what that aid was, given all the leg work was done by Iranians.

[waldo]

This has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with an ally of the west, faced with an undemocratic, unconsitutional ueupage of power, asking and getting aid.

Why not detail in minutae exactly what that aid was, given all the leg work was done by Iranians.

oh... I see... you'd now like to spin that role you stated didn't exist into a simple form of aid exchange - "CIA aid exchange", no less. A role that resulted in the overthrow of a democratically elected secular government... a CIA coup... that ultimately led to the Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran. All of that from just a little ole' innocent exchange of "aid". Who would have imagined ousting a peoples elected government and installing a brutal dictatorship would result in 25 years of burgeoning hate toward the Americans - go figure.

as for the earlier Muslim reference it was offered only in the context that Obama acknowledged the U.S. role in overthrowing the democratic government of Iran during his speech to the Muslim world... recognized as emblematic of a changing policy toward dialogue with the Muslim world. I provided you the link previously - it's roughly an hour long but don't be shy to enlightening yourself.

[M.Dancer]

oh... I see... you'd now like to spin that role you stated didn't exist into a simple form of aid exchange - "CIA aid exchange", no less. A role that resulted in the overthrow of a democratically elected secular government... a CIA coup... that ultimately led to the Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

You keep glossing over the fact that Mossy unconstitutionally grabbed power and rigged a referendum which saw hos tally at 99.9%.

Besides, Mosaddeq was the one who dissolved the parliament and took emergency powers. The claim that the US overthrough a democratically elected government is a canard. The democratically elected government ceased to exist. The new government was a Mosaddeq dictatorship.

All of that from just a little ole' innocent exchange of "aid". Who would have imagined ousting a peoples elected government and installing a brutal dictatorship would result in 25 years of burgeoning hate toward the Americans - go figure.

It's a bit of a stretch claiming that the installation of the theocratic ayatollahs is rooted in the ouster of a "secular" dictatorship. The Ayatollahs leveraged widespread disatistfaction with the Shaw's attempts to westernize Iran. In fact, the Shah's regime was far more secular than anything previous.

Brutal is sunjective. The Shah was far less brutal than any of the regions other regimes and certainly less than the Ayatollahs...

as for the earlier Muslim reference it was offered only in the context that Obama acknowledged the U.S. role in overthrowing the democratic government of Iran during his speech to the Muslim world... recognized as emblematic of a changing policy toward dialogue with the Muslim world. I provided you the link previously - it's roughly an hour long but don't be shy to enlightening yourself.

That's why obama is a fool. The help the US and Britain gave Iran saving it from a brutal dictaot should be seen in a global context and not a muslim one.

[eyeball]

It's a bit of a stretch claiming that the installation of the theocratic ayatollahs is rooted in the ouster of a "secular" dictatorship.

Its not a stretch at all.

One day I attended a book party for an older Iranian

woman who had written her memoirs. She spoke for an hour about

her eventful life. Although she never touched on politics, she mentioned

in passing that her family was related to the family of

Mohammad Mossadegh, who served as prime minister of Iran for

twenty-six months in the early 1950s and was overthrown in a coup

d'etat staged by the Central Intelligence Agency.

After she finished speaking, I couldn't resist the temptation to

ask a question. “You mentioned Mossadegh, ” I said. “What do you

remember, or what can you tell us, about the coup against him?”

She immediately became agitated and animated.

“Why did you Americans do that terrible thing?” she cried out.

“We always loved America. To us, America was the great country,

the perfect country, the country that helped us while other countries

were exploiting us. But after that moment, no one in Iran ever

trusted the United States again. I can tell you for sure that if you had

not done that thing, you would never have had that problem of

hostages being taken in your embassy in Tehran. All your trouble

started in 1953. Why, why did you do it?”

This outburst reflected a great gap in knowledge and understanding

that separates most Iranians from most non-Iranians. In Iran, almost everyone

has for decades known that the United States was responsible

for putting an end to democratic rule in 1953 and installing what

became the long dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah. His dictatorship

produced the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which brought to

power a passionately anti-American theocracy that embraced terrorism

as a tool of statecraft. Its radicalism inspired anti-Western fanatics

in many countries, most notably Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda and

other terror groups found homes and bases.

These events serve as a stark warning to the United States and to

any country that ever seeks to impose its will on a foreign land. Governments

that sponsor coups, revolutions, or armed invasions usually

act with the conviction that they will win, and often they do. Their

victories, however, can come back to haunt them, sometimes in devastating

and tragic ways. This is especially true in today's complex

and volatile Middle East, where tradition, history, and religion shape

political life in ways that many outsiders do not understand.

The violent anti-Americanism that emerged from Iran after

1979 shocked most people in the United States. Americans had no

idea of what might have set off such bitter hatred in a country

where they had always imagined themselves more or less well liked.

That was because almost no one in the United States knew what the

Central Intelligence Agency did there in 1953.

In his time, Mohammad Mossadegh was a titanic figure. He

shook an empire and changed the world. People everywhere knew

his name. World leaders sought to influence him and later to depose

him. No one was surprised when Time magazine chose him over

Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill as its

Man of the Year for 1951.

Operation Ajax, as the CIA coup against Mossadegh was codenamed,

was a great trauma for Iran, the Middle East, and the colonial

world. It was the first time the United States overthrew a

foreign government. It set a pattern for years to come and shaped

the way millions of people view the United States.

This book tells a story that explains a great deal about the

sources of violent currents now surging through the world. More

than just a remarkable adventure story, it is a sobering message

from the past and an object lesson for the future.

All The Sha's Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror

Brutal is sunjective.

I doubt if anyone being subjected to it would think so. To draw on the lessons of child abuse, if it feels like its happening, it is. To draw another analogy between diddling with a child or a country, when the abuser is imbued with power and moral authority, like a priest or a teacher or any other Shining Beacon for example, the act becomes all the more horrific and disgusting. Finally, and again in the context of abuse, when the abuse is not truthfully reconciled with the dysfunction usually never goes away and of course it goes without saying that denial is the hallmark of both the abusers and their apologists.

[M.Dancer]

Its not a stretch at all.

I gosh, after reading that, I think I may cry. Or belly laugh.

PLease, leave the emoting for those who aren't capable of thinking....

[DogOnPorch]

This outburst reflected a great gap in knowledge and understanding

that separates most Iranians from most non-Iranians. In Iran, almost everyone

has for decades known that the United States was responsible

for putting an end to democratic rule in 1953 and installing what

became the long dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah. His dictatorship

produced the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which brought to

power a passionately anti-American theocracy that embraced terrorism

as a tool of statecraft. Its radicalism inspired anti-Western fanatics

in many countries, most notably Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda and

other terror groups found homes and bases.

This is just wrong. The US didn't 'install' the Shah as 'dictator' in 1953.

[M.Dancer]

This is just wrong. The US didn't 'install' the Shah as 'dictator' in 1953.

Never mind the facts, he emoting...

Group hug in 5,4,3,2......

[eyeball]

This is just wrong. The US didn't 'install' the Shah as 'dictator' in 1953.

Well, I've got an American secretary of state and a president who say otherwise.

You're just a dog on a porch so who gives a fuck what you think?

[DogOnPorch]

I doubt this 'little old Iranian lady' knew the difference between life under the Shah and life not under the Shah.

[M.Dancer]

Well, I've got an American secretary of state and a president who say otherwise.

You're just a dog on a porch so who gives a fuck what you think?

Now that your emotical link has been shown to be worthless, would you like a hug and a hankie?

[DogOnPorch]

Well, I've got an American secretary of state and a president who say otherwise.

You're just a dog on a porch so who gives a fuck what you think?

But he wasn't put on the throne by the Americans...Stalin and Churchill put him on the throne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

So you might give a darn because I'm not kidding.

[M.Dancer]

..Someone's clueless lord, Kumbaya...

[bush_cheney2004]

.....You're just a dog on a porch so who gives a fuck what you think?

Welll...gee....(sniff sniff)...I care !

[eyeball]

But he wasn't put on the throne by the Americans...Stalin and Churchill put him on the throne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

So you might give a darn because I'm not kidding.

The more super-rogues you throw into the mix the better eh?

Bow wow.

[DogOnPorch]

The more super-rogues you throw into the mix the better eh?

Bow wow.

So the WW2 Allies are 'super rogues' now, eh?

You would have prefered the Iranians joined the Axis? Dealt that final death blow to the Soviets? Is that the world you'd have liked to be part of?

Iran was far from innocent...except in your eyes and other revisionists....eh.