I still dont get the people who think the US deserved 9/11 and much more traged to come. It just makes me want to drop a bomb or right hook up side there head. Yeah Im a religous gun totting bitter person if thats the definetion.

Be that as it may even Obama isn't endorsing the attacks on the US. That mentality is whats wrong with the US imo.

As for changing,challenging err political correctness it has just gone to far in this country. Its Ok to hit, fire someone if they arent gay black brown female transexual. There are far worse human rights violations in other countries even Europe compared to the US.

I agree with Byls synopsis by product of the 60s.

I still dont get the people who think the US deserved 9/11 and much more traged to come. It just makes me want to drop a bomb or right hook up side there head. Yeah Im a religous gun totting bitter person if thats the definetion.

The word deserved is too strong... the appropriate sentence would be... "Should have expected"

Kill other people and interfere in their lives, and they are going to want to kill you, and one day... They will find a way.

It isn't too hard to understand.

I still dont get the people who think the US deserved 9/11 and much more traged to come. It just makes me want to drop a bomb or right hook up side there head. Yeah Im a religous gun totting bitter person if thats the definetion.
There's really no possible question about the fact that 9/11 was blowback due to our CIA's action over the past decades.

I just feel not to derail much more. That those who feel that way are the minority and not the majority the US isnt the most corruptable country on the planet. We can have the best intent but were going to piss off someone. For example the 10% rule for education in Texas and how ethnicity plays into the equation.

Bad shit happens even in the best of times, I dont see Somalians or even the cubans driving airplanes into the US. Most of the world wants to be American its the few in power in there countries stiffling there ability to be a capitalist economy allow women to learn ect and for there people to prosper without a foot on there throat.

Heck India is an incredible human rights violating country that gets little attention except for national geographic documentors and we send tons of jobs there way. yet they are gang busters on sending women and castes of people into virtual slavery with no hope of getting out of there caste.

But I havent seen any peace corp polls on the subject why you hate the US while they give them food and medicine.

Im not going to take the side of the church who refuses to help people who wont convert on the spot in times of need but cruise on down the road to find more converts to lend a helping hand to.

The US does alot to help those who hate us, if we were as whole to stop those people would be alot worse off. Hell Why should we increase our aid at our countries time of needs if there just going to hate on the US more after a full belly ?

We took the role of world police but to say that we shouldnt interfere, and suffer for what we did in hindsight is two different things.

I just feel not to derail much more. That those who feel that way are the minority and not the majority the US isnt the most corruptable country on the planet. We can have the best intent but were going to piss off someone. For example the 10% rule for education in Texas and how ethnicity plays into the equation.

Bad shit happens even in the best of times, I dont see Somalians or even the cubans driving airplanes into the US. Most of the world wants to be American its the few in power in there countries stiffling there ability to be a capitalist economy allow women to learn ect and for there people to prosper without a foot on there throat.

Heck India is an incredible human rights violating country that gets little attention except for national geographic documentors and we send tons of jobs there way. yet they are gang busters on sending women and castes of people into virtual slavery with no hope of getting out of there caste.

But I havent seen any peace corp polls on the subject why you hate the US while they give them food and medicine.

Im not going to take the side of the church who refuses to help people who wont convert on the spot in times of need but cruise on down the road to find more converts to lend a helping hand to.

The US does alot to help those who hate us, if we were as whole to stop those people would be alot worse off. Hell Why should we increase our aid at our countries time of needs if there just going to hate on the US more after a full belly ?

We took the role of world police but to say that we shouldnt interfere, and suffer for what we did in hindsight is two different things.

No one can decide whether we deserve punishment or should be hurt except those who we have hurt. You can't sit here touting the good we have done, and compare us to another country and expect to end the debate on whether or not the US should expect to be attacked.

We have overthrown governments, bombed countries, assassinated loved & hated leaders, and so much more we probably don't even know about.

Every time we have had major conflict we have suspended our beliefs of Human rights/the rights of our citizens. From the Japanese, to the Muslims of today. We always fail when it is most important.

We have done a lot of good, but the bad always overshadows the good, and you know that. We constantly look at the negative first when analyzing other countries, and other people for that matter. Yet when it comes to analyzing ourselves, we quickly put aside all our wrongdoings and tout the positive.

Jeremiah Wright had it right... God does not bless a government, or a country. If that country does wrong however, God may damn that country. Makes perfect sense if you believe in god, and the values that he holds dear in his creations.

The day that Americans as a whole realize how much our actions hurt other people, is the day we have taken a major step in the right direction. Until then there will be people like you Nekko, that wonder why they hate us. People that wonder, how they could ever dare to hate us, and people who expect a grieving father to see the good in the same America who bombed and killed his entire family at a wedding.

It is not realistic.

You can say the same of China, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Europe, Africa, Japan and the list goes on.......... Its lonely at the top, and people want to push you off because of hate and envy.

You can say the same of China, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Europe, Africa, Japan and the list goes on.......... Its lonely at the top, and people want to push you off because of hate and envy.

China, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Europe, Africa, and Japan do not claim to be what we claim to be in America. They do not claim to be the champions of Human rights.

You are comparing us to China, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Europe, Africa, and Japan... And you think thats not a bad thing?

And those countries get their share of terrorism as well... So they are also getting the blowback from their actions.

It's not really a question of who is better or worse in terms of human rights or foreign aid.

It's not as if anyone's theorizing about this, and it doesn't really matter if the majority of Americans believe or understand it. If I don't believe in taxes, does it mean I don't have to pay them?

The CIA itself is where the term blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)) came from. They coined it specifically to refer to the consequences of their own actions.

Ironically, it first appeared in CIA documents, referencing our role in helping to overthrow Iran's Democratic government in the 50's.

So the US shouldnt help those in need ? Its a damn if you do damned if you dont issue. There are whole movements by religious people movie stars ect in the US to help drive these movements and aid to other countires.

Be they brought on by the populace bieng duped into helping or a corp. seeking greater gains, it makes no difference we havent interfered as much or more than anyone else in the world.

It just strengthings the whole seperatist idealogy that founded this country if our actions are deserved.
It would be pretty amazing if the US decided to stop helping others. I wonder how much hate, disease, starvation that would cause if we let others fend for themselves or let warmongers commit genocide and get there way accross the world.

It wouldnt be the US stepping in it would be other countries.

The US has alot of work to do on its own and maybe just maybe our resources would be better spent here than abroad and we let europe, china and russia sort the whole mess out.

Deserved is probably the wrong word. It makes it sound as though there is some great cosmic will punishing us as like a bad child for our actions. Rather, we may have earned the actions of the present day. While that certainly doesn't justify what happened, it was a simple matter of cause and effect. Our interference, often in issues that did not concern us, led to a degree of anti-US sentiment that resulted in people driving airplanes into buildings.

So the US shouldnt help those in need ? Its a damn if you do damned if you dont issue. There are whole movements by religious people movie stars ect in the US to help drive these movements and aid to other countires.
So, you'd seriously defend our involvement in things like Operation AJAX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) as helping those in need?

What would your reaction be if Iran funded, helped plan, and backed a Mexican coup to retake Texas? I mean, hey, they'd just be helping Mexicans in need, right?

You can't have it both ways (unless you're cool with hypocrisy, I suppose).

The very definetion of coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) at the fore front of the Ajax operation lends little creditablity to the fact that it wasnt a majority issue for power betwen those who have and those who dont. The majority won out be it with help or not I bet those polled people where greatfull for the help of land that was taken from them when they didnt even know what a deed was until it was to late.

Yeah American Indianish. Still they take my money at the casino not in blood.

As for an Iranian led takeover of Texas from Mexico. Ever been to Fiesta Texas ? Mexicans have more respect for America than most Americans, and Mexicans already have the majority in Texas if they all actually voted

The very definetion of coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) at the fore front of the Ajax operation lends little creditablity to the fact that it wasnt a majority issue for power betwen those who have and those who dont. The majority won out be it with help or not I bet those polled people where greatfull for the help of land that was taken from them when they didnt even know what a deed was until it was to late.


What???


I remember

* I remember how proud the Iranians were for nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian oil company under the leadership of Dr. Mossaddegh. In a plebiscite the majority sided with Dr. Mossaddegh and condemned Mohammad Reza Shah's policies and unconstitutional actions.


I remember how much we loved Dr. Mossaddegh and appreciated his efforts on behalf of all of us . We went in front of the Majlis to protest the Shah's unconstitutional actions against Dr. Mossaddegh in spite of threats against our lives.



I remember when two of our fellow students lost their lives due to penetration of bayonets through their skulls. This was done by the order of the Shah and his cronies.

I remember how angry we became and would not leave.

I remember when the Shah fled due to the heroic actions of Dr. Mossaddegh and his fellow citizens.

I remember when the American CIA toppled the government of Dr. Mossaddegh by a coup d'etat.


Then the Shah returned, jailed, tortured and killed many dissidents through agents who were trained by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad. Unfortunately, we were caught offguard or else we would have organized and fought them the same way we made the Shah flee by using non-violent means. But alas the U.S. changed Iran's course of history from democracy to dictatorship.


Because Dr. Mossaddegh let us taste democracy, albeit only for a brief period, and went to jail instead of succumbing to the Shah and his allies, I nominate him for the title of the Iranian of the century. Parviz N. Soltanpour (psoltanp@ceres.agsci.colostate.edu)

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2000/January/Century/mossadegh.html

The very definetion of coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) at the fore front of the Ajax operation lends little creditablity to the fact that it wasnt a majority issue for power betwen those who have and those who dont. The majority won out be it with help or not I bet those polled people where greatfull for the help of land that was taken from them when they didnt even know what a deed was until it was to late.

I can only assume you chose not to read about what happened in '53? What you just wrote simply doesn't jive with what even the most mainstream history of that debacle.

As for an Iranian led takeover of Texas from Mexico. Ever been to Fiesta Texas ? Mexicans have more respect for America than most Americans, and Mexicans already have the majority in Texas if they all actually voted
You're dodging the point. If Iran (or any outside force) helped to facilitate something like that where you live, even if it was already in the cards, you'd damn sure harbor a fierce grudge over it for a very long time.

Anyone would. It's natural.

Im not dodging it. The fact that a minority harbours ill will and causes great harm to the majority is the fact of the situation.

Im not dodging it. The fact that a minority harbours ill will and causes great harm to the majority is the fact of the situation.


Iran is United in Hatred towards the US for those actions... What are you talking about? Minority? Majority? It is 99.999% of the country!!!

Iran is United in Hatred towards the US for those actions... What are you talking about? Minority? Majority? It is 99.999% of the country!!!


Wow thats a pretty large majority you have anything to back that up ?

From what Ive read the last few weeks Amanutjob is about to be ousted. Looks like policy is working.

Im not dodging it. The fact that a minority harbours ill will and causes great harm to the majority is the fact of the situation.
What if it even is a tiny minority that causes all the trouble? When it's a minority that did not exist until we directly interfered, how can we claim to be the victim? We created the enemy ourselves!

The real point is that if we cannot open our eyes and see the true causality here, we are doomed to continue reaping what we sow. Continuing to rain destruction and social unrest on these countries not only incubates new enemies for decades, but it creates precisely the perfect conditions for our current enemies to flourish.

Then we should just make sure we rule them without fear of uprisal.

Wasnt to many centuries ago that we either wiped out our enemy or converted them to our way of thinking.

How many years before Iran gets over it? Maybe we can just pay them off with a monument. That gesture used to work...

Then we should just make sure we rule them without fear of uprisal.

Wasnt to many centuries ago that we either wiped out our enemy or converted them to our way of thinking.
Rule Iran?

How many years before Iran gets over it? Maybe we can just pay them off with a monument. That gesture used to work...
We've got a damn lot of monuments to buy, if you're just looking at the declassified stuff. I don't even want to imagine what the past few decades of still-classified operations will amount to.

If we even hinted at the hope of taking that tack, I think we'd have a lot less trouble in the world today. Unfortunately, the only thing we seem to understand is escalation, not realizing that it only hurts us more in the end.

So we didnt put the majority of Iran into power ?

Absolutely not.

That is simple historic fact. I beg you to read up on it, if you really believe we were trying to help Iran by overthrowing their Democracy in favor of a Dictatorship.

We, along with England, were working to secure control of the oil interests there. We were running similar game on/with/around Saudi Arabia, when we helped install Saud.

Simple as that.

I still dont get the people who think the US deserved 9/11 and much more traged to come.
Let me be clear about this, also.

I don't believe those people in the twin towers deserved to die. No more than all of the thousands of civilian causalities in places like Iraq have deserved to die, over the years.

I think deserved is a strong word.

However, shying away from accepting the true chain of events that cause things like 9/11 is a gigantic mistake. Whatever semantics you prefer, we must begin understanding the consequences of our actions if we are to see peace and happiness for future generations.

Wow thats a pretty large majority you have anything to back that up ?

From what Ive read the last few weeks Amanutjob is about to be ousted. Looks like policy is working.

LOL Ahmadenijad ousted? He will simply not be reelected because he cannot be. They will be voting for different candidates.

If you do not know the percentage of Iranians that Hate the American government because of the coup, there is nothing further we should discuss. The Majority of Iran is united against us because of our past interference in their country.

Shit... the vast majority of America is united in Hatred of Iran for the hostage crisis... Imagine if they had killed our leader and put a dictator in charge of our country... Then assisted our enemy in an 8 year war against us... You doubt that the majority is pissed at us?

Then we should just make sure we rule them without fear of uprisal.

Wasnt to many centuries ago that we either wiped out our enemy or converted them to our way of thinking.

So now you want to either wipe them out or rule them? Who the fuck do you think you are?

How many years before Iran gets over it? Maybe we can just pay them off with a monument. That gesture used to work...

The only way they will EVER get over it, is if the US policy towards Iran changes, and becomes one of direct dialog and mutual respect.

That will move relations forward more then any other possible form of restitution.

So we didnt put the majority of Iran into power ?

We put the Shah into power in order to stop the nationalization of Iran's Oil.

The Shah was overthrown and his entire government destroyed... Even generals who were loyal to the Shah were exiled or executed. Anyone having anything to do with America was deemed a traitor and killed.

The government we put in place was completely and utterly wiped out.

Pull all aide and only act to protect ourselves in the future.

We find proof turn the offenders into puddles of glass.

Mind you make sure it's proof and make it public that death is inc soon.

No more playing nice, just be done with the rest of the world unless they deal/trade fairly with us.

Fair trade equals fair trade only when it's equal across the board.

Anyone else....doesn't exist, let the ME turn back into the 14th century hell it seems to want to turn into.

It'll be their problem, let them deal with all the ramifications imho.

Anyone having anything to do with America was deemed a traitor and killed.

The government we put in place was completely and utterly wiped out.

and those people rose up as a minority and over threw the goverment before them for no reason other than aid from America french dutch and american intersts ? I think they wanted there land back..

Anyone having anything to do with America was deemed a traitor and killed.

The government we put in place was completely and utterly wiped out.

and those people rose up as a minority and over threw the goverment before them for no reason other than aid from America french dutch and american intersts ? I think they wanted there land back..

The Shah was a brutal dictator... People would disappear and never be seen again... He would torture people, and there was NO DEMOCRACY!

The people rose up because THEY HATED HIM! Wow... read a damn history book.

So his over throw was a good thing ?

So his over throw was a good thing ?

For the Iranian people, in their own opinions.... Yes!

Then why complain about how the over throw came about ?

Uh, Nekko, the Shah was the one we put in power, not the one we helped overthrow.

Then why complain about how the over throw came about ?

What?!

Are you serious?

Everything was fine BEFORE the US overthrew Mossadeq and destroyed the Iranian democracy for a friendly dictatorship.

It was our actions that have shaped Iran since 1953

Nekko Go read some damn history man... your embarrassing yourself.

The Iranian people, in general, did not expect to end up with a reactionary Islamic theocracy when they overthrew the Shah. That has been a subject of large amount of discontent amongst the Iranian population and a mass exodus of those who could not accept the regime that came into power.

The sad part is that we have done nothing but make the situation worse from day one, both by negotiating to extend the hostage crisis to influence our own presidential elections and then having Iraq fight a long and bloody proxy war on our behalf. There has been a significant amount of effort on the part of Iranian middle and upper class people to democratize their nation, but as usual, we are not helping.

The Iranian people, in general, did not expect to end up with a reactionary Islamic theocracy when they overthrew the Shah. That has been a subject of large amount of discontent amongst the Iranian population and a mass exodus of those who could not accept the regime that came into power.

The sad part is that we have done nothing but make the situation worse from day one, both by negotiating to extend the hostage crisis to influence our own presidential elections and then having Iraq fight a long and bloody proxy war on our behalf. There has been a significant amount of effort on the part of Iranian middle and upper class people to democratize their nation, but as usual, we are not helping.

Aye... if it had not been for the Iran Iraq War, the Islamic republic may not have survived, and a new democracy may have formed... the Iranians however, United to fight Iran for 8 years, and all chances of that happening died with that war.

Ok from what has been presented so far. Let me see if I understand this Operation ajax. Was started by the Dutch and English with coaberation from the CIA.

They helped a group of wandering tribesman who never had a vital claim to the land the worked for centuries becaus they didnt believe in paper IE deeds money ect. Those people who took there land back that had oil on it from another people who forced there will on them because they didnt know and couldnt afford ak-47s. Once they found out how they were getting screwed in there minds took control until 79.

Am I missing something here ? If its that easy to over throw a country by some media dollars and a few guns we should own the friggin world.

Ted Turner would be supreme overlord

Ok from what has been presented so far. Let me see if I understand this Operation ajax. Was started by the Dutch and English with coaberation from the CIA.

They helped a group of wandering tribesman who never had a vital claim to the land the worked for centuries becaus they didnt believe in paper IE deeds money ect. Those people who took there land back that had oil on it from another people who forced there will on them because they didnt know and couldnt afford ak-47s. Once they found out how they were getting screwed in there minds took control until 79.

Am I missing something here ? If its that easy to over throw a country by some media dollars and a few guns we should own the friggin world.

Ted Turner would be supreme overlord

BRITISH oil companies owned the IRANIAN oil fields, and paid IRAN BARELY ANYTHING for them... Mossadeq, an elected Iranian prime minister, said "NO". He nationalized the oil, and was murdered for it by the USA and the UK.

Wandering tribesman? What in gods name are you talking about? Iran was a modern country at the time.

You have once again posted complete and utter bullshit. Wow, don't ever post on any International forums... Cause it will be embarrassing to the rest of us, when they brand all Americans as stupid.

Nekko, I think at this point, you might just consider that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You could go the route of most Americans these days and ignore fact in favor of what you're sure is true, or you could go and do some earnest research on the matter.

Either way, please stop embarrassing us all until you have a better handle on the topic, because this is painful.

They paid 16% to the iranians and built ther infrastucure and ability to draw the oil.


Historically, the Qashqai are believed to have come from Central Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], and may have been among the Turkic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples) groups that arrived in Iran in the 11th or 12th centuries. Some of these groups began to identify themselves as Qashqai in the 18th century or possibly earlier.

Yeah this sounds all great but what really happened.



The White Revolution (Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language): انقلاب سفید, Enghelab-e-Sephid) was a far-reaching series of reforms launched in 1963 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963) by the last Shah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_of_Iran) of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi).
The Shah had intended it to be a non-violent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violent) regeneration of Iranian society through economic and social reforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement), with the ultimate long-term aim of transforming Iran into a global economic and industrial power. The Shah introduced novel economic concepts such as profit-sharing for industrial workers and initiated massive government-financed heavy industry projects, as well as the nationalization of forests and pastureland. Most important, however, were the land reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform) programs which saw the traditional landed elites of Iran lose much of their influence and power. Nearly 90% of Iranian share-croppers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share-cropper) became land owners as a result




Critics complain that despite the many economic reforms, the White Revolution failed to include sufficient measures increasing democratic representation in Iran at the executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29) of government, though other democratic changes were implemented, such as extending suffrage to women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage). A number of the reforms were botched or fell victim to corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption). Examples of these were land reform programs which did not give most peasants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant) enough land to live on, creating widespread discontent; the loss of land by illiterate peasants to loan sharks; and the ruin of vital qanats (irrigation works) from lack of maintenance formerly organized by landlords. "When the qanats failed, they took thousands of productive villages with them." [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution#cite_note-0)
Land reform has been criticized for leaving both landowners and rural workers without a "job," i.e. taking their old job without replacing it with a new one; for policies that followed developed countries reform too closely without considering Iran's unique circumstances (some places lacked of water, some places had too much water, etc...) The sometimes family-like bonds between landowners and workers were severed; workers received land they sometimes had no interest in and which they sometimes sold to multinational companies who often produced crops such as artichokes for export rather than domestic consumption. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution#cite_note-1)

The powerful Shi'ite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27ite) clergy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy) were also angered at the reforms that removed much of their traditional powers in the realms of education and family law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_law), as well as lessening their previously strong influence in the rural areas. A "large percentage of the upper echelon of the clergy came from landowning families" deeply affected by the reform and much absentee rent income went directly to the clergy and their institutions. The rents from an estimated 10,000 villages whose rents helped finance the clerical establishment were eligible for redistribution. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution#cite_note-2)
Leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (Shiite Cleric) got his start as a political leader and organizer opposing the White Revolution. In a March 22, 1963 speech at Qom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qom) in honor of students killed fighting against the Shah's reforms, he attacked provisions of the reforms that would allow members of Iran's non-Muslim minority to be elected or appointed to local offices:
I have repeatedly pointed out that the government has evil intentions and is opposed to the ordinances of Islam. ... The Ministry of Justice has made clear its opposition to the ordinances of Islam by various measures like the abolition of the requirement that judges be Muslim and male; henceforth, Jews, Christians, and the enemies of Islam and the Muslims are to decide on affairs concerning the honor and person of the Muslims. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution#cite_note-3)
A couple months later on Ashura Khomeini gave an angry speech attacking the Shah as a "wretched miserable man" [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution#cite_note-4) and asking whether the Shah was an "infidel" Jew.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution#cite_note-5) Two days later on June 5 Khomeini was arrested. This sparked three days of rioting and left several hundred dead. Khomeinists, the riots were remembered in speeches and writings as the time when the army "slaughtered no less than 15,000".[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution#cite_note-6)) Khomeini was released from house arrest in April 1964 but sent into exile that November.

Maybe the new Islam Reforamtion from Turkey will help to usher in the golden age for islam cause its sore in need.

I have no idea of what I read ? Are your facts and interpertation better than mine ? How far back in history of a situation or view do we take to prove who is right or wrong ?

Again its damned if you do damned if you dont attitude, it becomes symantics is your version better than mine ? and why ?

I have no idea of what I read ? Are your facts and interpertation better than mine ? How far back in history of a situation or view do we take to prove who is right or wrong ?

Again its damned if you do damned if you dont attitude, it becomes symantics is your version better than mine ? and why ?

Our version is history

Your version is what you want history to have been.

Nekko, you're still listing the negatives of the dictator we overthrew a Democracy to install. That's precisely the point...

What in the world is your point?

Are you just hoping to copy/paste volumes of Wikipedia, in hopes no one will notice it's not supporting your stance?

Post negatives of Mossadeq, to justify his assassination and the overthrow of his leadership. Or, at least try.

I have no idea of what I read ? Are your facts and interpertation better than mine ? How far back in history of a situation or view do we take to prove who is right or wrong ? So all the over throws in Iran, since that is what this subject became a matter of and the direction of the iranian people.
Wallace just did an interview with the iranian president on the 18th of this month. He has thrown out people from there congress for the last few months imagine if Bush did that. But I know he wont be elected again because the iranian people do not believe in the rehteric he says about iran. Are they wrong ?

Again its damned if you do damned if you dont attitude, it becomes symantics is your version better than mine ? and why ?

I have no idea of what I read ? Are your facts and interpertation better than mine ? How far back in history of a situation or view do we take to prove who is right or wrong ? So all the over throws in Iran, since that is what this subject became a matter of and the direction of the iranian people.
Wallace just did an interview with the iranian president on the 18th of this month. He has thrown out people from there congress for the last few months imagine if Bush did that. But I know he wont be elected again because the iranian people do not believe in the rehteric he says about iran. Are they wrong ?

Again its damned if you do damned if you dont attitude, it becomes symantics is your version better than mine ? and why ?

Yes

And if you want to ask real Iranians what they thought of the US and the Shah... www.irandefence.net

Your free to expand your horizons and learn something.

Im sure these people have different views http://www.israelmilitary.net/

You could learn from as well.

Im sure these people have different views http://www.israelmilitary.net/

You could learn from as well.

Difference is... differing opinions are not allowed on that site... They ban you instantly.

On the one I linked, you can be a fan of Israel and they treat you fairly... Trust me, it is discussed often on the forum i linked.

Why would you link a pro-Israeli site, in regards to Iran in the 50's?

That seems about as a-topical as the Wikipedia copy/paste.

Why would you link a pro-Israeli site, in regards to Iran in the 50's?

That seems about as a-topical as the Wikipedia copy/paste.

I am going to go to sleep, this thread is going nowhere fast!

Why would you link a pro-Israeli site, in regards to Iran in the 50's?

That seems about as a-topical as the Wikipedia copy/paste.


Why is a pro iranian site linked. and just taking Jedds word that the isreal site will auto ban you. Why do I have to feel attacked for my views, I link wikpedia since it seems a realiable source be it shakey and fox isnt worthy to back a source of information that is instantly discredited.

If my view of the situation isnt liked so be it, Ill vote my way and you yours. The fact remains that the world isnt black and white and we can always find someone to fight the fight no matter what we want it to be.

Be it some lesbian fighting for custody of a kid she isnt the parent of to further her cause. Or a bunch of mormons raping 13 year olds.

Why is a pro iranian site linked. and just taking Jedds word that the isreal site will auto ban you. Why do I have to feel attacked for my views, I link wikpedia since it seems a realiable source be it shakey and fox isnt worthy to back a source of information that is instantly discredited.

If my view of the situation isnt liked so be it, Ill vote my way and you yours. The fact remains that the world isnt black and white and we can always find someone to fight the fight no matter what we want it to be.

Be it some lesbian fighting for custody of a kid she isnt the parent of to further her cause. Or a bunch of mormons raping 13 year olds.

/sigh... Before I go.

The reason my link was relevant, and yours was not genius... Is because we were discussing Iran's history, and your lack of knowledge in that regard. Therefore it was a place where you could go speak with Iranians about how they really feel.

That went right over your head though.

Now tell me... where was Israel in our conversation?

http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11272568.html

So Ahmadinejad's speeches that Israel should be wiped off the map are understood in these foreign policy circles as power grabs by domestic Iranian hardliners rather than as declarations that Ahmadinejad will nuke Israel just as soon as he can. Now of course, many experts will concede that it's both - but then they go right on suggesting policy on the basis of this 'sophisticated' insight rather than on the obvious understanding that anyone can take away from the speech (because if you based policy on what everyone can see, why would we need experts?)
During the Clinton years, the assumption of Iranian moderation had center-left foreign policy experts insisting on engagement - the idea was that the Clinton administration would show the Iranian people that the US was not their enemy, and they would in turn win more moderates to their cause by showing that the US is not Iran's enemy. The center-right said that what liberals were calling moderation wasn't moderation – but that even if Khatami was a moderate (which he most certainly wasn't (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=083006F)), the mullahs were in control of everything. So according to the center-right, regardless of whatever subtle current elites could extrapolate from the ratio of headlines in Iranian newspapers, the US should act as if the hardliners are going to be in charge for a long time. And of course it turned out that the people emphasizing Iranian fanaticism over moderation were right - Iran used the 90s to build the literal foundation of their nuclear program, then when they were ready engineered an election to put an Islamist face back on the regime.
But the siren call of 'sophistication' is a strong incentive to keep 'decoding' Arab and Muslim statements as something other then their plain meaning. So Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel becomes a result of internal triangulation between West Bank Palestinians, leaders in Damascus, and funders in Iran - as opposed to evidence that Hamas really wants to wipe out Israel. The elitist mistake isn't that the triangulation isn't happening - of course, that's a small part of what's going on. The mistake is in thinking that this dynamic is what's determining the behavior. The mistake (in this case) is thinking that triangulation is what's causing Hamas's refusal – rather than the triangulation being an echo or result of the triangulation. The consequence is that they end up recommending policies that address triangulation by encouraging Israeli concessions, hoping thereby to get to Hamas's refusal. But Hamas's hatred of Israel is ideological not tactical, and so Israel's concessions are pocketed and ignored – to the confusion of insightful experts.
Democratic foreign policy teams played this game with Arafat for a decade:
Arafat is still appointing people who are involved in terrorism to security positions? It's because he is trying to bolster his credibility against Hamas.
Arafat is still talking about redeeming Jerusalem with the blood of martyrs? It's his strategy for holding off opponents in Fatah.
Arafat is still promising refugees they'll be able to march into Tel Aviv? It's because he needs their support.
Arafat is still publishing schoolbooks advocating the murder of Jews? It's because he has to work within the limitations of Palestinian anti-Semitism.
And all of the explanations that they gave were technically true. Arafat was trying to bolster his credibility against Hamas, he did want to dominate Fatah, he did need the prisoners' support, and he did have to work with Palestinian anti-Semitism. But he was also doing those things because he was on the side of terrorists, wanted to conquer Jerusalem militarily, and intended to see refugees marching into Tel Aviv, and wanted people to murder Jews. Foreign policy elites become invested in the ability to discuss the minutia of Middle East calculations they miss the general tone, direction, and intention of Arab and Muslim leaders and populations. It's not a matter of being mistaken, it's a matter of separating elites from non-elites by their ability to pick up on trivia - and then using the ability to recognize trivia as a sign of elitism. Symptomatic of this collective intellectual back-patting:
SF Chronicle on Arab organizations that want to wipe out Israel: (http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11272380.html) "Hezbollah, which based in Lebanon, and Hamas, based in Palestinian areas, are very different organizations"
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace arms control expert Lee Feinstein on 'Axis of Evil': (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/01/31/usat-targets.htm) "These are three very different countries here"
CSIS security expert Daniel Benjamin on 'Islamofascism': (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4785065.stm) "There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology... The people who are trying to kill us, Sunni jihadist terrorists, are a very, very different breed".
What Benjamin actually meant is that, based on his in-depth knowledge of Mussolini's fascism and jihadism, he can list hundreds of small differences between the two. And we're quite sure that he can. But of course, there is a very significant sense in which jihadists do embrace fascism: they link the ascent of market forces to the loss of cultural hegemony, insisting that this era was marked by and can only be restored through a renewed emphasis on conquest and honor.
30 seconds on Wikipedia make Benjamin's statement that "there is no sense" in which jihadists are fascists outright embarrassing: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)


A recent definition is that by former Colombia University Professor Robert O. Paxton: "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion...
1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign 'contamination'"

A year ago, Ahmadinejad gave a speech a relatively typical speech (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/oct_c_e05.htm). It's impossible not to line it up, almost paragraph by paragraph, to rhetoric of community decline and humiliation – or to notice his emphasis Islamic crises, his justifications for the annihilation of Israel is justified, his suggestions that Khomeini was a leader whose instincts allowed him to see things no one else could, his glorification of global Islamic conquest, and his characterizations of Israel and the West as contaminating Islamic land and minds .




We are in the process of an historical war between... [the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years... the Islamic world has been in retreat... Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...
Today the Palestinian nation stands against the hegemonic system as the representative of the Islamic Ummah [nation]... many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels, and in their hearts they want to empty the Islamic world...
When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go... people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' [and]... we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America... [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [ U.S. ] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it [the U.S.S.R. would collapse... [Khomeni] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented... today [Hussein]... is now being tried in his own country...
[Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [ Jerusalem ] must be eliminated from the pages of history'... The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another [country] to arise in its [own] heart?... The people who sit in closed rooms cannot decide on this matter. The Islamic people cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.
Oh dear people, look at this global arena. By whom are we confronted? We must understand the depth of the disgrace imposed on us by the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave.

This speech is literally the second hit when you search 'iran president ummah' (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iran+president+ummah&btnG=Search) - you don't even have to know who the President of Iran is. You just need two minutes, Wikipedia, and Google to know that anyone who claims that there is "no sense" in which jihadists are fascists has missed something very essential in the jihadist mentality
Now, there's a slim chance that Benjamin's statement "there is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology" was restricted to the more specific "Sunni jihadism" that he talks about in other contexts (in other words, he was leaving open the possibility that Iranian Shiite jihadism can be accurately termed Islamofascism). But then it would awfully dishonest for him to imply that Bush was simplistic, since Bush's speech was in the context of both Sunni and Shiite Muslim terrorists and regimes. Besides, it would still be missing the emphasis on the unity of the ummah, on Western contamination, on Muslim humiliation, and on redemption through violence that's prevalent in Sunni jihadism.
The problem with center-Left foreign policy elites is that they're so professionally, academically, and personally invested in the utility of decades of specialized study that, when policy-making time comes, they overemphasize the utility of that knowledge. And so they're not unaware of what everyone can obviously see and hear - they just tend to put too much emphasis on their own, more specific domains of expertise. And so making generalizations based on surface appearances is ridiculed as 'simplistic' (one more Google search: Juan Cole's site on "simplistic": (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ajuancole.com+simplistic&btnG=Google+Search) 50 hits. Want to bet how many have to do with conservatives missing differences between different Muslim sects that don't really make a difference?) The crucial point - the point where conservatives differ from liberals - is that often the obvious surface appearances are what determine the direction a situation or crisis will take.
So while it's true speeches about the honor and glory of attacking Israel, given to adoring Arab and Muslim crowds, sometimes involve subtle signals to diplomats sitting in obscure post-national European cities. But it's also true that those speeches are about the honor and glory of attacking Israel - and policy should be based on the latter, not the former. Similarly, the existence of subtle signals embedded in a speech doesn't change the brute reality that a crowd responded to that speech with wild cheers of "Death to Israel" - and similarly, policy should be based on the latter not on the former. Just because everyone can see the threats and the cheering doesn't mean that they aren't the most important things to notice - very famously, the Arabs aren't Arabists. They aren't communicating with the West by coded telegram, where a Hamas leader screaming "we will liberate all of Palestine" is suddenly a sign of moderation because yesterday a different Hamas leader declared "we will liberate all of Palestine from the river to the sea". And if you don't believe that foreign policy elites think that way, go back and read the newspapers from right after the Palestinian elections - when some of this country's best minds were desperately trying to find any possible justification for why the Palestinian public was open to peace with Israel.
At the risk of sounding trite, decisions on foreign policy really are made by the people in the room. When someone asks 'is there any reason why we shouldn't pressure Israel to give Hamas concessions', there has to be someone in the room who believes that a majority of Palestinians elected Hamas because Hamas wants to wipe out Israel. And there has to be someone that thinks that, in light of this, the peace process is hopeless and Israel can only be safe if they go in and physically degrade terrorist infrastructure. If the 6 or 7 people in the room all think that Hamas was elected because Palestinians were fed up with corruption and poverty, then no one speaks up and twenty minutes later the Israeli Prime Minister gets a call that more or less links US aid to Israel halting an anti-terrorism operation. Play that out in your mind again, but this time instead of Israel giving Hamas concessions make it the US giving Iran time to negotiate on nuclear inspections (not to worry - we're sure that 'the students' will attack Iran's Heavy Water Reactor for us

Nekko, do you have any thoughts of your own, beyond "we should just make sure we rule them without fear of uprisal"? Linking current Ahmadinejad stuff is even less relevant to blowback than the Israeli site you linked earlier.

I guess that depends upon whose idealogy Im defending.

Your own, of course. You aren't the Wikipedia ambassador to ARo.

Yeah im the only one who feels the way I do in this world. /shiver Im so alone. I guess none of my links are relevant to the situation at hand.

We should only listen to what Jedd says about the Iranian people, polls puts out for our information. How can 99.99% of an unpolled people be wrong.

Lol Is wiki ambassador a voted upon position, I just link facts as a I see them for others to take as they like, if they actually read them and continue to follow the hyperlinks to more information.

Wikipedia is cool and all. Really. It's usually valuable information...

The problem is that you've been linking either detrimental information about precisely the Shah we installed as a dictator to replace the former Democracy in 1953 (this is the opposite of supporting your viewpoint, FYI), or things that happened decades later.

I get the impression you're not even reading this stuff, but searching Wikipedia for "Iran" and copy/pasting as fast as you can. You can't just copy/paste anything from Wikipedia to make a point. It has to be at least ballpark relevant!

For those reasons, I think we'd all be better off if you stuck to what you know. If you don't know, read and learn. Don't just copy/paste. That's a disservice to all of us, as well as yourself.

Sorry you feel that way. As I defend myself against you and Jedds Views.

You both niether diescredit the information I provide but just attack my opinion and or facts even if its based upon your own links.

You implied everything was a brought upon a covert cia operation, It goes much deeper than that. You cant pin point a timeline for the whole entire hate theory that is prescribed. It goes much father and deeper if you use that as a reason for todays issues. Even if you look at both sides.

If the information is so damning that I link then use it against me, in an argument than saying you dont know what your talking about I didnt read your links and there wrong see ?

History is a funny thing it can take alot of views, but its history. Actions and words in the present cause reflection upon the past. They said hitler was to be ignored and stalin the things they say could never come to past.

holy mother of jesus what is wrong with your education nekko

I guess Im reading the wrong sources,, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm


The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans. Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.
The document shows that:
• Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
• The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.
• Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.
• The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.

How a Plot Convulsed Iran in '53 (and in '79)
For nearly five decades, America's role in the military coup that ousted Iran's elected prime minister and returned the shah to power has been lost to history, the subject of fierce debate in Iran and stony silence in the United States. One by one, participants have retired or died without revealing key details, and the Central Intelligence Agency said a number of records of the operation — its first successful overthrow of a foreign government — had been destroyed.
But a copy of the agency's secret history of the coup has surfaced, revealing the inner workings of a plot that set the stage for the Islamic revolution in 1979, and for a generation of anti-American hatred in one of the Middle East's most powerful countries. The document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role British intelligence officials played in initiating and planning the coup, and it shows that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil.
The secret history, written by the C.I.A.'s chief coup planner and obtained by The New York Times, says the operation's success was mostly a matter of chance. The document shows that the agency had almost complete contempt for the man it was empowering, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, whom it derided as a vacillating coward. And it recounts, for the first time, the agency's tortured efforts to seduce and cajole the shah into taking part in his own coup.
The operation, code-named TP-Ajax, was the blueprint for a succession of C.I.A. plots to foment coups and destabilize governments during the cold war — including the agency's successful coup in Guatemala in 1954 and the disastrous Cuban intervention known as the Bay of Pigs in 1961. In more than one instance, such operations led to the same kind of long-term animosity toward the United States that occurred in Iran.
The history says agency officers orchestrating the Iran coup worked directly with royalist Iranian military officers, handpicked the prime minister's replacement, sent a stream of envoys to bolster the shah's courage, directed a campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist Party, and planted articles and editorial cartoons in newspapers.
But on the night set for Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh's overthrow, almost nothing went according to the meticulously drawn plans, the secret history says. In fact, C.I.A. officials were poised to flee the country when several Iranian officers recruited by the agency, acting on their own, took command of a pro-shah demonstration in Tehran and seized the government.
Two days after the coup, the history discloses, agency officials funneled $5 million to Iran to help the government they had installed consolidate power.
The outlines of the American role in the coup were disclosed in Iran at the outset and later in the memoirs of C.I.A. officers and other published accounts. But many specifics have remained classified, and the secret history obtained by The New York Times is the first detailed government account of the coup to be made public.
The C.I.A. has been slow to make available the Iran files. Two directors of central intelligence, Robert Gates and R. James Woolsey, vowed to declassify records of the agency's early covert actions, including the coup. But the agency said three years ago that a number of relevant documents had been destroyed in the early 1960's. A C.I.A. spokesman said Friday that the agency had retained about 1,000 pages of documents related to the coup, besides the history and an internal account written later. He said the papers destroyed in the early 1960's were duplicates and working files.
The chief State Department historian said that his office received a copy of the history seven years ago but that no decision on declassifying it had yet been made.
The secret history, along with operational assessments written by coup planners, was provided to The Times by a former official who kept a copy. It was written in March 1954 by Dr. Donald N. Wilber, an expert in Persian architecture, who as one of the leading planners believed that covert operatives had much to learn from history.
In less expansive memoirs published in 1986, Dr. Wilber asserted that the Iran coup was different from later C.I.A. efforts. Its American planners, he said, had stirred up considerable unrest in Iran, giving Iranians a clear choice between instability and supporting the shah. The move to oust the prime minister, he wrote, thus gained substantial popular support. Dr. Wilber's memoirs were heavily censored by the agency, but he was allowed to refer to the existence of his secret history. "If this history had been read by the planners of the Bay of Pigs," he wrote, "there would have been no such operation."
"From time to time," he continued, "I gave talks on the operation to various groups within the agency, and, in hindsight, one might wonder why no one from the Cuban desk ever came or read the history."
The coup was a turning point in modern Iranian history and remains a persistent irritant in Tehran-Washington relations. It consolidated the power of the shah, who ruled with an iron hand for 26 more years in close contact with to the United States. He was toppled by militants in 1979. Later that year, marchers went to the American Embassy, took diplomats hostage and declared that they had unmasked a "nest of spies" who had been manipulating Iran for decades.
The Islamic government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini supported terrorist attacks against American interests largely because of the long American history of supporting the shah. Even under more moderate rulers, many Iranians still resent the United States' role in the coup and its support of the shah.
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, in an address in March, acknowledged the coup's pivotal role in the troubled relationship and came closer to apologizing than any American official ever has before. "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons," she said. "But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
The history spells out the calculations to which Dr. Albright referred in her speech. Britain, it says, initiated the plot in 1952. The Truman administration rejected it, but President Eisenhower approved it shortly after taking office in 1953, because of fears about oil and Communism. The document pulls few punches, acknowledging at one point that the agency baldly lied to its British allies. Dr. Wilber reserves his most withering asides for the agency's local allies, referring to "the recognized incapacity of Iranians to plan or act in a thoroughly logical manner."
THE ROOTS
Britain Fights Oil Nationalism
The coup had its roots in a British showdown with Iran, restive under decades of near-colonial British domination. The prize was Iran's oil fields. Britain occupied Iran in World War II to protect a supply route to its ally, the Soviet Union, and to prevent the oil from falling into the hands of the Nazis — ousting the shah's father, whom it regarded as unmanageable. It retained control over Iran's oil after the war through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
In 1951, Iran's Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators backing the law elected its leading advocate, Dr. Mossadegh, as prime minister. Britain responded with threats and sanctions. Dr. Mossadegh, a European-educated lawyer then in his early 70's, prone to tears and outbursts, refused to back down. In meetings in November and December 1952, the secret history says, British intelligence officials startled their American counterparts with a plan for a joint operation to oust the nettlesome prime minister.
The Americans, who "had not intended to discuss this question at all," agreed to study it, the secret history says. It had attractions. Anti-Communism had risen to a fever pitch in Washington, and officials were worried that Iran might fall under the sway of the Soviet Union, a historical presence there.
In March 1953, an unexpected development pushed the plot forward: the C.I.A.'s Tehran station reported that an Iranian general had approached the American Embassy about supporting an army-led coup. The newly inaugurated Eisenhower administration was intrigued. The coalition that elected Dr. Mossadegh was splintering, and the Iranian Communist Party, the Tudeh, had become active. Allen W. Dulles, the director of central intelligence, approved $1 million on April 4 to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh," the history says. "The aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party."
Within days agency officials identified a high-ranking officer, Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi, as the man to spearhead a coup. Their plan called for the shah to play a leading role.
"A shah-General Zahedi combination, supported by C.I.A. local assets and financial backing, would have a good chance of overthrowing Mossadegh," officials wrote, "particularly if this combination should be able to get the largest mobs in the streets and if a sizable portion of the Tehran garrison refused to carry out Mossadegh's orders."
But according to the history, planners had doubts about whether the shah could carry out such a bold operation. His family had seized Iran's throne just 32 years earlier, when his powerful father led a coup of his own. But the young shah, agency officials wrote, was "by nature a creature of indecision, beset by formless doubts and fears," often at odds with his family, including Princess Ashraf, his "forceful and scheming twin sister." Also, the shah had what the C.I.A. termed a "pathological fear" of British intrigues, a potential obstacle to a joint operation.
In May 1953 the agency sent Dr. Wilber to Cyprus to meet Norman Darbyshire, chief of the Iran branch of British intelligence, to make initial coup plans. Assuaging the fears of the shah was high on their agenda; a document from the meeting said he was to be persuaded that the United States and Britain "consider the oil question secondary."
The conversation at the meeting turned to a touchy subject, the identity of key agents inside Iran. The British said they had recruited two brothers named Rashidian. The Americans, the secret history discloses, did not trust the British and lied about the identity of their best "assets" inside Iran.
C.I.A. officials were divided over whether the plan drawn up in Cyprus could work. The Tehran station warned headquarters that the "the shah would not act decisively against Mossadegh." And it said General Zahedi, the man picked to lead the coup, "appeared lacking in drive, energy and concrete plans." Despite the doubts, the agency's Tehran station began disseminating "gray propaganda," passing out anti-Mossadegh cartoons in the streets and planting unflattering articles in the local press.
THE PLOTTING
Trying to Persuade a Reluctant Shah
The plot was under way, even though the shah was a reluctant warrior and Mr. Eisenhower had yet to give his final approval.
In early June, American and British intelligence officials met again, this time in Beirut, and put the finishing touches on the strategy. Soon afterward, the chief of the C.I.A.'s Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt, a grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, arrived in Tehran to direct it.
The shah was a problem from the start. The plan called for him to stand fast as the C.I.A. stirred up popular unrest and then, as the country lurched toward chaos, to issue royal decrees dismissing Dr. Mossadegh and appointing General Zahedi prime minister. The agency sought to "produce such pressure on the shah that it would be easier for him to sign the papers required of him than it would be to refuse," the secret history states. Officials turned to his sister for help.
On July 11, President Eisenhower finally signed off on the plan. At about the same time, C.I.A. and British intelligence officers visited Princess Ashraf on the French Riviera and persuaded her to return to Iran and tell her brother to follow the script. The return of the unpopular princess unleashed a storm of protest from pro-Mossadegh forces. The shah was furious that she had come back without his approval and refused at first to see her. But a palace staff member — another British agent, according to the secret history — gained Ashraf access on July 29.
The history does not reveal what the siblings said to each other. But the princess gave her brother the news that C.I.A. officials had enlisted Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf in the coup campaign. General Schwarzkopf, the father of the Persian Gulf war commander, had befriended the shah a decade earlier while leading the United States military mission to Iran, and he told the agency "he was sure he could get the required cooperation."
The British, too, sought to sway the shah and assure him their agents spoke for London. A British agent, Asadollah Rashidian, approached him in late July and invited him to select a phrase that would then be broadcast at prearranged times on the BBC's Persian-language program — as proof that Mr. Rashidian spoke for the British. The exercise did not seem to have much effect. The shah told Mr. Rashidian on July 30 and 31 that he had heard the broadcast, but "requested time to assess the situation."
In early August, the C.I.A. stepped up the pressure. Iranian operatives pretending to be Communists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," seeking to stir anti-Communist sentiment in the religious community. In addition, the secret history says, the house of at least one prominent Muslim was bombed by C.I.A. agents posing as Communists. It does not say whether anyone was hurt in this attack.
The agency was also intensifying its propaganda campaign. A leading newspaper owner was granted a personal loan of about $45,000, "in the belief that this would make his organ amenable to our purposes."
But the shah remained intransigent. In an Aug. 1 meeting with General Schwarzkopf, he refused to sign the C.I.A.-written decrees firing Mr. Mossadegh and appointing General Zahedi. He said he doubted that the army would support him in a showdown. During the meeting, the document says, the shah was so convinced that the palace was bugged that he "led the general into the grand ballroom, pulled a small table to its exact center" and got onto it to talk, insisting that the general do the same. "This meeting was to be followed by a series of additional ones, some between Roosevelt and the shah and some between Rashidian and the shah, in which relentless pressure was exerted in frustrating attempts to overcome an entrenched attitude of vacillation and indecision," the history states.
Dr. Mossadegh had by now figured out that there was a plot against him. He moved to consolidate power by calling for a national referendum to dissolve Parliament. The results of the Aug. 4 referendum were clearly rigged in his favor; The New York Times reported the same day that the prime minister had won 99.9 percent of the vote. This only helped the plotters, providing "an issue on which Mossadegh could be relentlessly attacked" by the agency-backed opposition press.
But the shah still wouldn't move against Dr. Mossadegh. "On Aug. 3rd," the secret history says, "Roosevelt had a long and inconclusive session with the shah," who "stated that he was not an adventurer, and hence, could not take the chances of one.
"Roosevelt pointed out that there was no other way by which the government could be changed and the test was now between Mossadegh and his force and the shah and the army, which was still with him, but which would soon slip away." Mr. Roosevelt told the shah "that failure to act could lead only to a Communist Iran or to a second Korea."
Still haunted by doubts, the shah asked Mr. Roosevelt if President Eisenhower could tell him what to do. "By complete coincidence and great good fortune," the secret history says, "the president, while addressing the governors' convention in Seattle on 4 August, deviated from his script to state by implication that the United States would not sit by idly and see Iran fall behind the Iron Curtain."
By Aug. 10, the shah had finally agreed to see General Zahedi and a few army officers involved in the plot, but still refused to sign the decrees. The C.I.A. then sent Mr. Rashidian to say Mr. Roosevelt "would leave in complete disgust unless the shah took action within a few days." The shah finally signed the decrees on Aug. 13. Word that he would support an army-led coup spread rapidly among the army officers backing General Zahedi.
THE COUP
First Few Days Look Disastrous
The coup began on the night of Aug. 15 and was immediately compromised by a talkative Iranian Army officer whose remarks were relayed to Mr. Mossadegh. The operation, the secret history says, "still might have succeeded in spite of this advance warning had not most of the participants proved to be inept or lacking in decision at the critical juncture."
Dr. Mossadegh's chief of staff, Gen. Taghi Riahi, learned of the plot hours before it was to begin and sent his deputy to the barracks of the Imperial Guard. The deputy was arrested there, according to the history, just as pro-shah soldiers were fanning out across the city arresting other senior officials. Telephone lines between army and government offices were cut, and the telephone exchange was occupied. But phones inexplicably continued to function, which gave Dr. Mossadegh's forces a key advantage. General Riahi also eluded the pro-shah units, rallying commanders to the prime minister's side.
Pro-shah soldiers sent to arrest Dr. Mossadegh at his home were instead captured. The top military officer working with General Zahedi fled when he saw tanks and loyal government soldiers at army headquarters. The next morning, the history states, the Tehran radio announced that a coup against the government had failed, and Dr. Mossadegh scrambled to strengthen his hold on the army and key installations. C.I.A. officers inside the embassy were flying blind; the history says they had "no way of knowing what was happening."
Mr. Roosevelt left the embassy and tracked down General Zahedi, who was in hiding north of Tehran. Surprisingly, the general was not ready to abandon the operation. The coup, the two men agreed, could still work, provided they could persuade the public that General Zahedi was the lawful prime minister.
To accomplish this, the history discloses, the coup plotters had to get out the news that the shah had signed the two decrees. The C.I.A. station in Tehran sent a message to The Associated Press in New York, asserting that "unofficial reports are current to the effect that leaders of the plot are armed with two decrees of the shah, one dismissing Mossadegh and the other appointing General Zahedi to replace him."
The C.I.A. and its agents also arranged for the decrees to be mentioned in some Tehran papers, the history says. The propaganda initiative quickly bogged down. Many of the C.I.A.'s Iranian agents were under arrest or on the run. That afternoon, agency operatives prepared a statement from General Zahedi that they hoped to distribute publicly. But they could not find a printing press that was not being watched by forces loyal to the prime minister.
On Aug. 16, prospects of reviving the operation were dealt a seemingly a fatal blow when it was learned that the shah had bolted to Baghdad. C.I.A. headquarters cabled Tehran urging Mr. Roosevelt, the station chief, to leave immediately. He did not agree, insisting that there was still "a slight remaining chance of success," if the shah would broadcast an address on the Baghdad radio and General Zahedi took an aggressive stand.
The first sign that the tide might turn came with reports that Iranian soldiers had broken up Tudeh, or Communist, groups, beating them and making them chant their support for the shah. "The station continued to feel that the project was not quite dead," the secret history recounts. Meanwhile, Dr. Mossadegh had overreached, playing into the C.I.A.'s hands by dissolving Parliament after the coup.
On the morning of Aug. 17 the shah finally announced from Baghdad that he had signed the decrees — though he had by now delayed so long that plotters feared it was too late. At this critical point Dr. Mossadegh let down his guard. Lulled by the shah's departure and the arrests of some officers involved in the coup, the government recalled most troops it had stationed around the city, believing that the danger had passed. That night the C.I.A. arranged for General Zahedi and other key Iranian agents and army officers to be smuggled into the embassy compound "in the bottom of cars and in closed jeeps" for a "council of war."
They agreed to start a counterattack on Aug. 19, sending a leading cleric from Tehran to the holy city of Qum to try to orchestrate a call for a holy war against Communism. (The religious forces they were trying to manipulate would years later call the United States "the Great Satan.") Using travel papers forged by the C.I.A., key army officers went to outlying army garrisons to persuade commanders to join the coup.
Once again, the shah disappointed the C.I.A. He left Baghdad for Rome the next day, apparently an exile. Newspapers supporting Dr. Mossadegh reported that the Pahlevi dynasty had come to an end, and a statement from the Communist Party's central committee attributed the coup attempt to "Anglo-American intrigue." Demonstrators ripped down imperial statues -- as they would again 26 years later during the Islamic revolution.
The C.I.A. station cabled headquarters for advice on whether to "continue with TP-Ajax or withdraw."
"Headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair," the history states, adding, "The message sent to Tehran on the night of Aug. 18 said that 'the operation has been tried and failed,' and that 'in the absence of strong recommendations to the contrary operations against Mossadegh should be discontinued.'"
THE SUCCESS
C.I.A. and Moscow Are Both Surprised
But just as the Americans were ready to quit, the mood on the streets of Tehran shifted. On the morning of Aug. 19, several Tehran papers published the shah's long-awaited decrees, and soon pro-shah crowds were building in the streets. "They needed only leadership," the secret history says. And Iranian agents of the C.I.A. provided it. Without specific orders, a journalist who was one of the agency's most important Iranian agents led a crowd toward Parliament, inciting people to set fire to the offices of a newspaper owned by Dr. Mossadegh's foreign minister. Another Iranian C.I.A. agent led a crowd to sack the offices of pro-Tudeh papers. "The news that something quite startling was happening spread at great speed throughout the city," the history states.
The C.I.A. tried to exploit the situation, sending urgent messages that the Rashidian brothers and two key American agents should "swing the security forces to the side of the demonstrators." But things were now moving far too quickly for the agency to manage. An Iranian Army colonel who had been involved in the plot several days earlier suddenly appeared outside Parliament with a tank, while members of the now-disbanded Imperial Guard seized trucks and drove through the streets. "By 10:15 there were pro-shah truckloads of military personnel at all the main squares," the secret history says.
By noon the crowds began to receive direct leadership from a few officers involved in the plot and some who had switched sides. Within an hour the central telegraph office fell, and telegrams were sent to the provinces urging a pro-shah uprising. After a brief shootout, police headquarters and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fell as well.
The Tehran radio remained the biggest prize. With the government's fate uncertain, it was broadcasting a program on cotton prices. But by early afternoon a mass of civilians, army officers and policemen overwhelmed it. Pro-shah speakers went on the air, broadcasting the coup's success and reading the royal decrees.
At the embassy, C.I.A. officers were elated, and Mr. Roosevelt got General Zahedi out of hiding. An army officer found a tank and drove him to the radio station, where he spoke to the nation. Dr. Mossadegh and other government officials were rounded up, while officers supporting General Zahedi placed "known supporters of TP-Ajax" in command of all units of the Tehran garrison.
The Soviet Union was caught completely off-guard. Even as the Mossadegh government was falling, the Moscow radio was broadcasting a story on "the failure of the American adventure in Iran." But C.I.A. headquarters was as surprised as Moscow. When news of the coup's success arrived, it "seemed to be a bad joke, in view of the depression that Throughout the day, Washington got most of its information from news agencies, receiving only two cablegrams from the station. Mr. Roosevelt later explained that if he had told headquarters what was going on, "London and Washington would have thought they were crazy and told them to stop immediately," the history states. Still, the C.I.A. took full credit inside the government. The following year it overthrew the government of Guatemala, and a myth developed that the agency could topple governments anywhere in the world.
Iran proved that third world king-making could be heady. "It was a day that should never have ended," the C.I.A.'s secret history said, describing Aug. 19, 1953. "For it carried with it such a sense of excitement, of satisfaction and of jubilation that it is doubtful whether any other can come up to it." still hung on from the day before," the history says

ok, i have no idea where youre going with this, are you saying operation ajax was a good thing? what is wrong with you?

I never endorsed it, or brought it into the conversation. I merely said before the thread was split that to say The US had it coming is BS when so many other countries were involved at the time. you cant point just one finger

and maybe just maybe Isolationism isnt a bad thing

Why do I have to feel attacked for my views...

Because you are posting in a nonsensical fashion, and even the links you are posting are not supporting your views. You are coming across as very ignorant, and unwilling to actually read something before you cut and paste it here.

You have made assumptions, not based upon any fact you have read because if you've actually read the things that you've linked/had linked for you, you wouldn't appear as ignorant as you have for 3 pages now.

Your views are that (or appear to be) that America can do no wrong, or if they do, they aren't held accountable for any wrong doing. That's just ignorant and short sighted.

Have you seen Billy Madison? If so, all your posts in this thread remind me of when Billy did the report on the Puppy that Lost his way: "Mr. Madison (Nekko), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

...

Astounding. Suffice to say, Nekko, that you've done neither your argument nor yourself any favors in this thread. Actions have consequences. Our interference in the Middle East has resulted in a variety of negative consequences -- for ourselves and for actual denizens of that region. At this point, you're chasing your own tail.

Putting aside the thread derail, the problem with what Jedd, Wright, and Obama have been saying is that it gives legitimacy to the actions taken on 9/11. It attributes responsibility and blame on the wrong people. The only people that bear responsibility for 9/11 are the maniacs that took the planes and killed 3000 people.

Put it another context. Should an abortion center bear responsibility when it is bombed even though its actions resulted in the bombing?

When does it end though? They killed 3,000 of us, so we went and killed many thousands of them (along with even more of our own people than died to begin with, along the way).

I'm no pacifist, but I am a pragmatist. We continue doing things that we know will result in even more turmoil in the future. Where's the logic? No one benefits from all of this continued escalation (except maybe the M-I Complex).

You can't compare an abortion clinic to the CIA.

The only way you could is if the doctor performed abortions on mothers while they were happily sleeping in their homes, and wanted their babies. At which point, I doubt anyone would feel sorry for what the doctor had coming.

When does it end though? They killed 3,000 of us, so we went and killed many thousands of them (along with even more of our own people than died to begin with, along the way).

I'm no pacifist, but I am a pragmatist. We continue doing things that we know will result in even more turmoil in the future. Where's the logic? No one benefits from all of this continued escalation (except maybe the M-I Complex).

You can't compare an abortion clinic to the CIA.

The only way you could is if the doctor performed abortions on mothers while they were happily sleeping in their homes, and wanted their babies. At which point, I doubt anyone would feel sorry for what the doctor had coming.

even using this shaky logic, that would have to be one of the widest definitions of 'them' ive ever heard, which you well know ********.

Yes, you're right about that. I'm just used to automatically putting it in terms of "us vs. them", which so many people have allowed themselves to be tricked into believing is actually the case.

I literally cannot convince many people here in Georgia that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. As soon as I suggest Saddam himself didn't order planes into the buildings, they think I'm a nut.

It's absolutely surreal.

Putting aside the thread derail, the problem with what Akipt, Bush, and Rove have been saying is that it gives legitimacy to the actions taken in Iraq. It attributes responsibility and blame on the wrong people. The only people that bear responsibility for the Iraq are the maniacs that took the planes and bombed the hell out of a country.

Let me change a few key nouns here, not because I want to change the subject, but because I want to provide an object lesson in just how myopic people are on this subject in understanding the why behind anti-Western sentiment.

Rover posted this on another thread. RP makes a good point that even the 9/11 Commission's own report cites blowback as cause of 9/11:

rF3NtEWj6ws