Iranian "elections"

[Skud]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/world/middleeast/15iran.html?_r=1&hp

Given that the Ayatollah has more power than the president in Iran, I would imagine that the hardline religious nuts will always win the elections.

[mapes]

Yes the power is in the hands of Ayatullahs. We should have left their secular socialistic democratically elected government in place in the 50's

[Todd98]

Yes the power is in the hands of Ayatullahs. We should have left their secular socialistic democratically elected government in place in the 50's


I agree with yea mapes but i don't believe it would have lasted for much longer if it had.

[Hammy]

Actually- Terrorism would have found us much sooner if we handn't extended Western Support through the parties who were asking us for help.

I love the negative portrayals in this area of the world- the context is always in the sense that we came in uninvited.

While you say we should have left them the way they were, the human rights issues they have now are kindergarten compared to the way it was in the 1950s.

I know that some of you have read books, and etc., but I am sick and tired of the anti-american context that lies below the surface when these comments come up.

Cuba, France, or Dubai would be a great place to consider moving since we are all so evil here in the US.

[mapes]

The point I'm trying to make is not that the US is bad. Its that one policy choice deposing Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh has changed how we were viewed in Iran and by extension the middle east from then on. There is a ton of info that it lead to the religious extremists taking power after the Shah. Because there was no other political party. For fear of Communism we backed the Brits who were by all accounts raping the country. No joke the facts are documented(search Anglo Iranian Oil). We installed the Shah who was weak and evil and horrible human rights record (search Savat).

When you over throw peoples democratic governments they tend to get a little pissed.

Nor were we hated in that country. We were looked upon as a great example by a good portion of the world. Iran was viewed by the Brits as a colonial holding. They even invaded to secure oil for the British Navy during WWII. The Iranians looked to us for mediation during the disagreement. Instead Eisenhower approved operation Ajax.

Here is the guy we dsposed admiring the Liberty Bell

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/displayimage.php?pointer=3228&people=Mossadegh%2C+Mohammed%2C+1880-1967%3B+Samuels%2C+Bernard&listid=4

It's policies like these that don't help our position in the world.

Thats my point.

[Hammy]

The point I'm trying to make is not that the US is bad. Its that one policy choice deposing Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh has changed how we were viewed in Iran and by extension the middle east from then on. There is a ton of info that it lead to the religious extremists taking power after the Shah. Because there was no other political party. For fear of Communism we backed the Brits who were by all accounts raping the country. No joke the facts are documented(search Anglo Iranian Oil). We installed the Shah who was weak and evil and horrible human rights record (search Savat).

When you over throw peoples democratic governments they tend to get a little pissed.

Nor were we hated in that country. We were looked upon as a great example by a good portion of the world. Iran was viewed by the Brits as a colonial holding. They even invaded to secure oil for the British Navy during WWII. The Iranians looked to us for mediation during the disagreement. Instead Eisenhower approved operation Ajax.

Here is the guy we dsposed admiring the Liberty Bell

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/displayimage.php?pointer=3228&people=Mossadegh%2C+Mohammed%2C+1880-1967%3B+Samuels%2C+Bernard&listid=4

It's policies like these that don't help our position in the world.

Thats my point.

Again, we were supported within, how does this this "overthrow" by the "evil" Brits and US "rapists" occur without that?

It sounds good to your point to say these things this way, but it doesnt really mend well when we look at the way the world actually works. That would be like saying in the darkness of night, someone came in, knocked off Obama, replaced him with someone else, and no one noticed until a few years later.....

[mapes]

Again, we were supported within, how does this this "overthrow" by the "evil" Brits and US "rapists" occur without that?

It sounds good to your point to say these things this way, but it doesnt really mend well when we look at the way the world actually works. That would be like saying in the darkness of night, someone came in, knocked off Obama, replaced him with someone else, and no one noticed until a few years later.....

It is nothing of the sort. The facts are well documented and not liberal blather. For gods sake don't take my word for it. Read up on it. I suggest looking at Kermit Roosevelt and anything on the disputes by the Iranians and the British filed in the International Court of Justice. In fact the Brits were pissed that we agreed with the Saudis on a 50-50 split. This put them in a rather bad light.

I just find it embarrassingly hypocritical when we say over and over we spread democracy when in fact on numerous occasions we don't. Unless it suits our needs. If they disagree with us well then no democracy.

I highly recommend "All the Shahs Men" as a good place to start. I mean after all I'm still reading Mr. Savages book that you recommended. I ask before posting something along the lines of "This is the way the world works" you perhaps do me the same favor I accorded you and read a little about it.

[Hammy]

I'll check it out after I am done reading The SnowballL Warren Buffett and the business of life.

You see its about a Republican that was able to accumulate wealth using capitalism and relationships.