The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Government and Politics

Government and Politics Government and Politics Forum including laws, elections, government structure, and political theory


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 24th, 2009, 02:02 PM   #1
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

Iran: a budding democracy in 1953: what destroyed that democracy?

Guys, come along with me on a trip back in time. The year was 1951. Doctor Mossadegh was voted president of Iran and the election was done fairly and by the will of the iranian people.
Mossadegh was educated (had a PHD)
Mossadegh was progressive
Mossadegh was pro democracy
Mossadegh was peaceful
Mossadegh didnt have a communist or terrorist bone in his body?
What happened and who helped to take him out of power and put a dictactor in power that was not elected by the iranian people, had one of the most brutal police forces and eventually made the iranian people take him out of power and turned to these extremists mullahs like the ayatolla out of sheer desperation.

People what governments were responsible for this.
Ill give you a clue, Ron Paul was the only guy that had the guts or integrity to talk about this and Operation Ajax.

Ok people time for you guys to do some surfing
let me know what you find.
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 25th, 2009, 10:48 AM   #2
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

Well...it was the United States and a CIA operation. What do I win?

I don't know anyone who doesn't know that. We were afraid that he was going to make the country become socialists (there was talk of nationalizing the oil wells). If Iran went socialist then the entire middle east would probably follow and we were scared. So we put in a dictator we could control. He was harsh. The main resistance movement was religion based and started the Iran we know and love after they took control.

I'm not sure about Ron Paul being involved in speaking against it. I hadn't heard any of his commentary on it before.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 25th, 2009, 01:01 PM   #3
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

Parakeet, that wasnt the reason operation Ajax went into effect. Mossadegh was no where near being a socialist and he also wanted a free market to but he wanted a renegotiation of the oil contracts because he and the whole world new that he was selling oil at rediculous prices. He also was complaining about the physical and mental abuse of the iranian oil workers who were basically treated as slaves.

Where do you get your information from?????? Fox news? He was a pro democracy leader but our government and england couldnt have a pro democracy leader in Iran because there was no way we would exploit him or his country of their resources if he was allowed to stay in power so we took him out and destroyed any chances of freedom in iran. The USA embassy in Iran was basically a CIA station.


http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/ron-paul/


here Ron Paul talks about how We took out Mossadegh:






Here also the author of ALL THE SHAHS MEN talk about how mossadegh was the most anti socialist leader of those times.



Here also the author of ALL THE SHAHS MEN talk about how when one of the iranian hostage takers in 1979 was asked by the american hostage why he is doing this to them because they never harmed them. You know what he said to the hostage. " In 1953 you took our country away from us.

Please folks go through this last video between the 7th and 9th minute and Stephen Kinzer will talk about his interview with one of the 1979 american hostages and what he says to his captors and what they tell him back.




Quote:
Originally Posted by The Parakeet View Post
Well...it was the United States and a CIA operation. What do I win?

I don't know anyone who doesn't know that. We were afraid that he was going to make the country become socialists (there was talk of nationalizing the oil wells). If Iran went socialist then the entire middle east would probably follow and we were scared. So we put in a dictator we could control. He was harsh. The main resistance movement was religion based and started the Iran we know and love after they took control.

Parakeet, you have to stop remembering what your highschool history or politics books told you about all this as they will never tell us the real reasons. Folks the book " all the shahs men" goes into great detail about how we destroyed democracy in Iran. Mossadegh was the promise of a budding democracy that our government took away from the iranian people. And for what? Thats right, we destroyed democracy in iran for greed and oil.

I'm not sure about Ron Paul being involved in speaking against it. I hadn't heard any of his commentary on it before.
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 25th, 2009, 01:38 PM   #4
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

I'm still not sure what Ron Paul has to do with any of this. He talked against it...okay. I know a lot of people who were against the action. If I had a little time machine I might go back in time and warn them about what would happen...hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Side Note - Please don't add text to a quote box. List your comments beneath the individual quote. It's less confusing.

I'm not sure what to say about a personal who believes that history textbooks are trying to hide the truth. Every one I read views it as an understandable mistake that was part of the Cold War. We wanted a puppet dictatorship in the Middle East as a counterbalance so we installed one. That was the nature of spy warfare in the Cold War.

I guess I should also note that they were afraid that he was going to be socialist and then communist. Who knows what he would have done in the future. For the moment, he was railing on about worker's rights and evil corporations. That sounded a lot like communist sympathy to the West...so they took action.

We can sit around and judge all we want, but it doesn't change what happened. I've done actual research on this as part of a paper on the Iran embassy crisis. That meant reading more than one book to get a complete view.

By the way...the wikipedia page for your favorite book tends to agree with me (I know it's wikipedia...but...it's wikipedia. That means that the supporters should be correcting it as well).

Quote:
Great Britain had returned the Shah in 1931. The Shah signed a deal selling Iranian oil to the Anglo Persian Oil Company, which today is called British Petroleum (BP). When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to nationalize Iran's oil assets, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy.
The US concerned about Mossadegh now seeking help from local superpower, the Soviet Union, regarding the case against Great Britain agreed in restoring the pro-western Shah to power. In the summer of 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 arranged a coup in Tehran. The Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown successfully. Mossadegh spent the rest of his life on his country estate under house arrest and Iran remained a strong Cold War ally of the West. After more than 20 years of the Shah's rule, there was a bloody revolution in 1979 after which Iran became the Islamic Republic it is today.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 25th, 2009, 02:04 PM   #5
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

Here we go again. You noted the communist and socialist thing 2 times and for teh second time I will tell you again Mossadegh was anti communist and anti socialist and he himself said it. Can you find one fact that supports your belief. NO and this is why no one would answer Ron Paul when he brought it up in front of the global forum. As far as a counterbalance to teh soviet union again you have no facts whatsoever to support this but I do. You know when mossadegh nationalized iranian oil not only did he boot out England and America but he also booted out THE SOVIET UNION. He was purely for the Iranian people. He never once did one thing to show he was a socialist or a communist.

In fact most if not all of his actions throughout his life showed he was anti communist . He was elected democratically and loved by most of the Iranian people. You know that the cia later admitted to bombing an iranian mullahs house back then and then paying a mob to pin the blame on mossadegh.

Maybe to someone like you it was an honest mistake but imagine today that china called itself a democracy and started accusing our president of being a socialist. How would you feel if they came into our country and helped to take out our president and put in a pro chinese president. I can tell you how we would all feel. We would be calling for an all out war against China.

A simple mistake??????? Please dont make me laugh buddy. Maybe the fox news watchers who are totally ignorant would call it a simple mistake, but the people in america that care about the freedom and democracy that our founding fathers through our great constitution would be rolling in their graves right now at our simple mistake.

Mossadegh never once did one thing to show he was a socialist or communist. We took him out because we wanted cheap oil and cheap iranian slave labor oil workers that supported the lifestyle of the top 2% of our elite. How come this info didnt come out in the press until the 1970's through the freedom of information cat? Its simple, because our government didnt want to let the american people find out that we were contradicting everything we stood for by not only helping to not spread democracy throughout the world but but to also help the spread of dictatorships and fascism . The founding fathers had it right when they wanted us to stay out of the affairs of other countries and stop nation building. Those were the heroes that truely support democracy.

Eisnehower had it right in his farewell speech when he warned us to watch out for the growing power of our military industrial complex and that it would soon endanger our freedoms and liberties.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and its for reasons like these that I support him.

Look him up sometime and maybe, just maybe he will also make you see the light also. The way to understand the harm we caused to other countries is to ask the citizens of that country themselves. I have talked to many iranian students and most of them know who mossadegh was and to them he represented the last hope they ever had for democracy and freedom.

A SIMPLE MISTAKE? HAAAAAAAAAA

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Parakeet View Post
I'm still not sure what Ron Paul has to do with any of this. He talked against it...okay. I know a lot of people who were against the action. If I had a little time machine I might go back in time and warn them about what would happen...hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Side Note - Please don't add text to a quote box. List your comments beneath the individual quote. It's less confusing.

I'm not sure what to say about a personal who believes that history textbooks are trying to hide the truth. Every one I read views it as an understandable mistake that was part of the Cold War. We wanted a puppet dictatorship in the Middle East as a counterbalance so we installed one. That was the nature of spy warfare in the Cold War.

I guess I should also note that they were afraid that he was going to be socialist and then communist. Who knows what he would have done in the future. For the moment, he was railing on about worker's rights and evil corporations. That sounded a lot like communist sympathy to the West...so they took action.

We can sit around and judge all we want, but it doesn't change what happened. I've done actual research on this as part of a paper on the Iran embassy crisis. That meant reading more than one book to get a complete view.

By the way...the wikipedia page for your favorite book tends to agree with me (I know it's wikipedia...but...it's wikipedia. That means that the supporters should be correcting it as well).
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 25th, 2009, 04:00 PM   #6
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

Is it sad that this is basically every discussion I've had with a Ron Paul supporter. it does not matter whether we are talking about soybean prices or libertarianism.

I'm so confused by the argument you are making. The summary of your own book said he nationalized oil, broke a contract, and spoke out for workers rights. To a government official in the midst of the Cold War that meant you were getting ready to join the Soviet Union. He did these things at one point. I don't personally think he would have joined the Soviet Union. He seemed to want independence. That doesn't matter now and it really didn't matter then.

Their growing democracy was wrecked because the CIA decided we needed a puppet in the region and a secure oil source. That's basic history and I've never heard anything different.

I really don't get the point you are trying to make.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 25th, 2009, 08:02 PM   #7
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

lord have mercy. How can it mean that. He also booted the soviets out. He nationalized iranian oil because the anglo oil company was abusing the iranian workers and ripping off the iranian government . The british people lived high off the hog and the iranian people were living in poverty conditions. He only nationalized iranian oil because they wouldnt renegotiate the oil contracts to at least make them a little fair to him. This was when the british approached the american government and offered them 50% of the pie if they helped take out mossadegh. Where can you find one bit of info that he wanted to become soviet. Did you read any of mossadeghs policies? Do you know anything about his administration? Arent you the least bit curious or maybe i should give you some pasted links to study on your own and maybe that would open your eyes.

Our government KNEWWW he wasnt drifting to the communist side, there was no ifs , and , buts or or's about it. They destroyed a democracy out of greeddddd. They wanted their oil money so they could live like kings all the while allowing the iranian people to live like peasants.
If anyone else on this forum had this happening to their countries they would have also responded by nationalizing their oil.

If you had ever read mossadeghs own speeches and biographies you would have known that he hated nationalizing iranian oil but saw no other choice because of the way the british were looting his country of all its resources and giving the iranian nothing in return. The shah did the opposite and gave the americans and brits all the best ripoff oil contracts because the shah who was our best friend did as he was told and made some people here very rich while ignoring the plight of his own people.

Again im stating with all the fact on earth, We knew there was no chance that mossadegh was turning commi-red on us. 10000000000000%.
and if you want i can also give you many facts as i have very good knowledge on this subject as I have also debated this on the dp forum.
If you need anymore info just look my posts up.

I just dont understand how you can debate a slam-dunk subject like this????????
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 26th, 2009, 05:27 PM   #8
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

Would you read my posts! I'm not saying he would have actually joined the Soviets. I don't know. I'm not him. It was 50 years ago and we were constantly taking over countries to try and put in dictators we could control. Why are you so focused on Iran? It's not one of the big ones. Prove the oil earnings that came just from having a dictator on board. We didn't care that much about oil profits at the time. We just wanted a secure source of oil that we were 100% sure wouldn't go communist. IT WAS AN OVERREACTION (at best). We did similar things in South America just to make sure that they didn't even think about becoming Communist. It was a shield maneuver that blew up in our faces in the future.

The funny thing is that there are plenty of documented cases about dirty wars for profit. Just look up some of the fighting we did to secure countries in South America so that we could have cheap bananas (I believe this was before the Cold War...I'm thinking 1900 or so). If you are looking for a hyped up war for corporate greed, then there are a few examples out there.

Iran isn't one example. We installed a dictator to make extra sure that the country was ours. We wanted a puppet dictator in a vital region of the world. Having control of the country meant a lot more than having a crack at the oil. If the oil was invovled, the United States would have cared more about the strategic benefits of having a secure fuel source that the Soviets couldn't get. Why do you believe that these are all invalid reasons? Why did it have to just be a front for BP? There are some many other valid and realistic reasons?
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 26th, 2009, 07:22 PM   #9
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

It was the spreading of fascism in anotehr country for the control of that countrys resources. It was no overreaction at all. I will say this for the one hundredth zillion time. WE KNEW THEY WRENT GOING TO GO COMMUNIST 1000000000000000000000%. How much more clear do you need me to get??????

HE
KICKED
OUT
THE
SOVIETS
ALSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
He kicked out the soviets
He kicked out the soviets
He kicked out the soviets
He kicked out the soviets
He kicked out the soviets

Maybe this method will get it through to you. Why in gods name would this guy have even a 1% chance of turning communist if he kicked out the soviets. Its amazing we are even discussing it. It was no overreaction. It was a perfect reaction for the elite to control teh resources of a third world country just as they have been doing for the last 50 yearsssssssssss. The soviets did it also with their block countries and this is why we did it also.

Why am i so focused on IRAN??????????? Why do you think the iranian people turned to the mullahs when they launched their islamic revolution????????????? Because the shah was not elected to office and was brutal. OVERREACTION??????????????????

Its so easy to watch things from a fox news perspective , but that isnt reality. There was NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO chance of iran turning communist, no chance , no chance no chance. This is how someone that doesnt have knowledge outside their world reacts to an injustice.

If the chinese came in america and installed a dictator that was brutal, would we call it an overreaction? NOOOOOOO , we would call it a crime and we would be demanding justice. Perhaps now we can understand why the 1979 hostage crisis happened and why even one of the americans that was taken hostage is protesting any armed action against iran.

Was the gulf of tonkin an overreaction. We didnt even know the full story of the gulf of tonkin for many years later. Why go to fox news for your information? I have talked to vietnam war vets who were at the gulg of tonkin.

Talk to any Iranian about we took their country away from them.
Overreaction???????? That sounds like something that moron Sean Hannity would say. Lets look at this from a view of common sense.

Our elite wanted the power and money that came with cheap stolen iranian oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Parakeet View Post
Would you read my posts! I'm not saying he would have actually joined the Soviets. I don't know. I'm not him. It was 50 years ago and we were constantly taking over countries to try and put in dictators we could control. Why are you so focused on Iran? It's not one of the big ones. Prove the oil earnings that came just from having a dictator on board. We didn't care that much about oil profits at the time. We just wanted a secure source of oil that we were 100% sure wouldn't go communist. IT WAS AN OVERREACTION (at best). We did similar things in South America just to make sure that they didn't even think about becoming Communist. It was a shield maneuver that blew up in our faces in the future.

The funny thing is that there are plenty of documented cases about dirty wars for profit. Just look up some of the fighting we did to secure countries in South America so that we could have cheap bananas (I believe this was before the Cold War...I'm thinking 1900 or so). If you are looking for a hyped up war for corporate greed, then there are a few examples out there.

Iran isn't one example. We installed a dictator to make extra sure that the country was ours. We wanted a puppet dictator in a vital region of the world. Having control of the country meant a lot more than having a crack at the oil. If the oil was invovled, the United States would have cared more about the strategic benefits of having a secure fuel source that the Soviets couldn't get. Why do you believe that these are all invalid reasons? Why did it have to just be a front for BP? There are some many other valid and realistic reasons?
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 26th, 2009, 09:43 PM   #10
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

A. Please stop referring to bloody Fox News. I don't watch them. I get news from the Christian Science Monitor and the Associated Press (Wall Street Journal for economics but that's irrelevant for this).

B. I still don't get the point. You are really trying to tell me that nationalizing oil isn't a sign to frightened 1950/60s politics that he might have a 1% chance of going socialist. We tried and convicted people on a whole lot less back then. Any mention of worker's rights was good enough to cause concern. It wouldn't have really mattered to the US that he kicked out the Soviets. Our policy was that we didn't deal with communists (a very wide category according to their standards). That's been argued as a reason that we lost Cuba as an ally (some believe that they might have allied with us if we hadn't been against their economy and tried the Bay of Pigs operation.

C. I still don't get the point (again). I said we installed a dictator to have control of the oil in the region. OIL HAS STRATEGIC VALUE. Do you really believe that the CIA would do this massive undertaking just to make some money. They did it so we would have a secure oil source for our economy and for our military and presumably one that the Soviets couldn't ever touch. Yes, I'm sure BP made a pretty penny in the process. Do you really intended to hold the position that they did this just for the oil company and not because we might want the fuel for ourselves.

D. What point are you trying to make in the third part? Yes...the US did a whole lot of bad stuff in the name of the Cold War. There's a lot of blood on our hands and we generally try to make it right.

Last edited by The Parakeet; January 26th, 2009 at 09:47 PM.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 26th, 2009, 10:18 PM   #11
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

An additional criticism of your favorite book. Link to Source Material

Quote:
All the Shah's Men is quite thrilling. Kinzer artfully builds suspense, plausibly explains the motivations of all the actors, and provides a blow-by-blow account of "Operation Ajax." He also does a good job of getting the reader up to speed on Iranian history. But he wrongly downplays America's well-founded fears of rising communist sentiments in Iran. Although Mossadegh was not a communist himself, he drew support from Iran's communist Tudeh party, which was growing in power and popularity.
Also, while Kinzer believes the Central Intelligence Agency pulled all the strings to eject Mossadegh, a vast Iranian body of literature suggests that Mossadegh was eventually driven from office because he alienated Iran's clergy and the bazaaris (middle class merchants), whose support is vital for any political figure in Iran. Kinzer's bibliography reveals he did not cite one Iranian source illuminating this view.
Even more problematic is Kinzer's argument that had Mossadegh stayed in power, Iran might have developed into a democracy. He holds that because Washington chose to support Mohammad Reza Shah, whom Kinzer portrays (to a distorted extreme) as a corrupt autocrat, Iran's democratization efforts were stymied. When anger toward the shah boiled over nearly three decades later, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the monarchy, it was a delayed reaction to the 1953 coup. This cause-and-effect analysis is purely speculative, particularly in light of the growing appeal of radicalism throughout the region in recent decades.
Also if we are talking about a small covet action leading to drastic and disastrous change we can't forget about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Razmara

Quote:
On March 7, 1951, Razmara went to a mosque for a memorial service. The police opened a corridor through the inner courtyard for the Prime Minister. The assassin, in the crowd, fired three quick shots, fatally wounding the Prime Minister. Kahlil Tahmassebi, a member of the militant Islamic group Fadayan-e Islam, was arrested at the scene.
Fadayan-e Islam supported the demands of the National Front, which held a minority of seats in Parliament, to nationalize the assets of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. As Prime Minister, Razmara had convinced the majority that nationalization would be folly, but his assassination eliminated the sole voice powerful enough to oppose the demands of the National Front.
The National Front was led by Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, who became Prime Minister within two months of Razmara's assassination. However, control of the party was held by Ayatollah Seyid Abol Ghasim Kashani, the leader of the country's mullahs. Kashani, along with other National Frontists, defended the act as justified. The National Front declared Prime Minister Ali Razmara an enemy of Islam and a traitor to Iran for his opposition to the terms of the Oil Nationalization Law.
Also...Wikipedia had some interesting quote from All the Shah's Men. I can't confirm them, but maybe you can. Page 84 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

Quote:
the United States, challenged by what most Americans saw as a relentless communist advance, slowly ceased to view Iran as a country with a unique history that faced a unique political challenge
Also on page 84 supposedly (if I'm reading the citation right)

Quote:
From the Anglo-American perspective, Iran's internal affairs crisis, featuring the large and popular pro-Soviet Tudeh (Communist) Party, became just another part of the Cold War between Communism and "the Free world"
Supposedly on page 205 of the book

Quote:
1952 was a very dangerous time. The Cold War was hot in Korea. The Soviet Union had tried to take all Berlin in 1948. Stalin was still alive. On no account could the Western powers risk a Soviet takeover of Iran, which would almost certainly have led to World War III
I'll be fair and note that there is evidence supporting your side. There's a long quote about Secretary Acheson trying to convince Eisenhower that there wasn't a communist threat. There's counter evidence that we were also forced to go in because Britain was supporting us in Korea and their government expected help in their long-running campaign for revenge. An angle I hadn't considered.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 26th, 2009, 10:53 PM   #12
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

If you had listened to Doctor Mossadegh's speeches and read most of his writings you would understand That he hated nationalizing the oil industry but he knew no other way to get the parasitic english and soviets out of his country.

The fact that you get your news from the christian science monitor says it all loooooooooooooooooool. As a fellow christian its a shame to see so many christians act like neocons who have distanced themselves from the truth. If you want real info on what we did in iran dont go to some critics of a book who you dont even know what their motives were.

Read a book called the secret team by retired Colonel Fletcher prouty. Prouty was head of weapons procurment for black operations and he dealt intimately with operation ajax. No way did mossadegh alienate the religious clergy. Listen to yourself. Do you think the religious clergy were a bunch of idiots? They favored the american puppet the shah over mosadegh. Its clear now that you dont have the foggiest clue what your talking about when it comes to irans history.

Ill leave it at that. I guess in our bible it says ignorance is bliss.
Christian science monitor lollololol

Next time find some educated older iranian people and ask them about mossadegh instead of getting your news from totally biased sources.

Why do you think I dont go to the catholic message boards online?
Cause they go against even the catholic churchs teachings against preemptive first strike. Most of them just as most right wing christians have become neoconic in their thinking .
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 27th, 2009, 12:04 AM   #13
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

Well...You failed my super secret test . The Christian Science Monitor is well known in the Debate circle (Student Congress for 3 years and debate for 1 year) for providing some of the only unbiased news around. It's actually unbiased, since it is usually just a combination of other newspapers from around the political spectrum (Their online reports usually are at least). Most of the liberals I know (English teachers, debate coaches, etc.) love the paper as a solid starting off point. One of them actually tried to trap me into attacking it in hopes of embarrassing me (long story...lot of hatred there) They also have some neat and eccentric stories. I was quite interested in an in-depth report on collapsing bee colonies and the effect it would have an American agriculture. I digress though. You can read some of their articles at csmonitor.com.

I see you haven't been reading my other posts here. I'm quite upfront about my atheism in them. I'm not even remotely neo-con. I'm not educated on economic policy and trend to the pragmatic middle ground on most issues (Not Israel, I'll own up to that one).

I just presented a contrasting view. You don't even try to address it beyond saying that it's wrong. You could at least explain the basic reasoning you are using to support it.

You also failed to address the quotes I presented from the book that started the thread. They seem to support my point and I'd prefer an answer.

You are also failing to realize what I'm saying. It was wrong! I agree. We messed up a country because it seemed like the right thing to do. There was a whole mess of foreign policy designs that played into it. Why do you wish to simplify it into a matter of the "rich elite" doing it all? Only a conspiracy theorist or simpleton would wish so desperately to do that.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 27th, 2009, 01:25 AM   #14
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Parakeet View Post
Well...You failed my super secret test . The Christian Science Monitor is well known in the Debate circle (Student Congress for 3 years and debate for 1 year) for providing some of the only unbiased news around. It's actually unbiased, since it is usually just a combination of other newspapers from around the political spectrum (Their online reports usually are at least). Most of the liberals I know (English teachers, debate coaches, etc.) love the paper as a solid starting off point. One of them actually tried to trap me into attacking it in hopes of embarrassing me (long story...lot of hatred there) They also have some neat and eccentric stories. I was quite interested in an in-depth report on collapsing bee colonies and the effect it would have an American agriculture. I digress though. You can read some of their articles at csmonitor.com.

I see you haven't been reading my other posts here. I'm quite upfront about my atheism in them. I'm not even remotely neo-con. I'm not educated on economic policy and trend to the pragmatic middle ground on most issues (Not Israel, I'll own up to that one).

I just presented a contrasting view. You don't even try to address it beyond saying that it's wrong. You could at least explain the basic reasoning you are using to support it.

You also failed to address the quotes I presented from the book that started the thread. They seem to support my point and I'd prefer an answer.

You are also failing to realize what I'm saying. It was wrong! I agree. We messed up a country because it seemed like the right thing to do. There was a whole mess of foreign policy designs that played into it. Why do you wish to simplify it into a matter of the "rich elite" doing it all? Only a conspiracy theorist or simpleton would wish so desperately to do that.
You see there you go again. You keep saying " we messed up a whole country because its the right thing to do" . We didnt messup that country because it seemed like the right thing to do at that time. Your inferring good intentions. We didnt care it hurt them and we knew we would be destroying democracy. There was not one good thing about it and our government knew it. Why do you think they didnt let the people vote on this. We have been taught fairy tale history in high school and you still believed that these elements of our government had good intentions behind taking him out. No wonder why people outside our country think we are ignorant looooooooooooooooooool.

Why dont you apply to be our government spokesperson? This way you can explain how we didnt mean to hurt them when everyone on this gods green earth outside of our country knew our intent.
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 27th, 2009, 12:03 PM   #15
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

I really think that you aren't even reading my posts. It obviously wasn't a good thing for them you idiot! It was good for us. We got a secure oil supply, a puppet ruler in a good area, and we got to help the British and cement the relationship. It was win, win, win for us. They obviously got screwed by it. I've covered this point.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 27th, 2009, 08:59 PM   #16
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

Obviously it wasnt but that wasnt why i was commenting to you moron. It was because you kept saying it was an OVEREACTION as if we were doing thsi because they might have a chance of turning socialist or communist. Obviously no one is getting your posts including yourself. I think after 8 posts you would get why i was responding. Hopefully this gets through lol.
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 27th, 2009, 09:10 PM   #17
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

And you come back to the same basic point. For whatever reason you just seem to want this to be a case of some secret elite carrying out a coup for a few dollars. All I've ever asked is that you view it as a complex situation with a lot of factors that ultimately convinced the US to act.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 27th, 2009, 10:48 PM   #18
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Parakeet View Post
And you come back to the same basic point. For whatever reason you just seem to want this to be a case of some secret elite carrying out a coup for a few dollars. All I've ever asked is that you view it as a complex situation with a lot of factors that ultimately convinced the US to act.
It was a secret back then but if you can read and keep abreast on world affairs you would understand what the freedom of information act is. I will surely open up a class. You should be at the front so maybe next time you debate you can present a few facts to support your side instead of asking everyone to present all the facts then you shoot them down without any facts of your own.
pingpong12 is offline  
Old January 27th, 2009, 11:27 PM   #19
Retired Moderator
 
The Parakeet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 639

Yes...I don't know where this thread would have been with the Ron Paul videos.

I asked for your help on the All the Shahs Men quotes and asked for you to defend a claim you were making. Sorry if that was too much for you to do.

I'm also well aware of the Freedom of Information Act. That cool piece of paper unlocked all the Roswell files so that we could learn about the awesome conspiracy to make Roswell look like a conspiracy (Not joking...they really did some of that stuff on purpose).

Not sure what that even has to do with this though. Your statement that BP wanted a hold of the country was about as secret as the IRS at the time. The blockade sorta gave them away.
The Parakeet is offline  
Old January 31st, 2009, 01:25 AM   #20
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 140

The blockade might have given it away but they never knew we were behind the overthrow of a democratically elected leaders of a country, and your wrong about the world knowing the cia was approached by the british to help them do this and in return we were given a 50% return on our dirty little investment, but i guess the christian science monitor never informed you about this lol.
pingpong12 is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Government and Politics

Tags
1953 , budding , democracy , destroyed , iran



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Towards Democracy DGJ Philosophy 6 June 20th, 2012 12:52 AM
Modern day Definition of Democracy: ''Government of the Rich; For the Rich maheenangel74 Government and Politics 4 February 18th, 2012 10:21 AM
Wall Street protests - not on any news channel - This is democracy netanyahoo Government and Politics 9 October 6th, 2011 06:33 PM
When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A New Form of Democracy. Nicholas Popov Government and Politics 15 November 30th, 2010 11:48 PM
Is the US a democracy or plutocracy? deanhills Government and Politics 5 December 2nd, 2009 07:18 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.