CIA finally admits it masterminded Iran’s 1953 coup

[jbombelli]

No. Not my point at all. Though apparently everyone thinks it is so I must not have been clear. Basically, my point was that "in general"I am tired of hearing all this **** that "if we had only left things alone" that somehow there would be no militant islamist movement. Yes, I'm sure that Iranians, especially the older generations have a bone to pick. I don't think that you can continue to recruit Jihadis based on that. Just the same way Africans were abused and enslaved IMO is no excuse for current african americans to behave badly. Yes the US has done bad things. There isn't a country in the world that hasn't, and I'd say that on the average weare probably as good as any and better than most. Yet "Everyone" calls us a bully etc. I'm calling BS.

BTW the CIA and MI6 enabled the revolution which was rapidly taken over by guess who, Iranians. If the Iranians had not of supported the revolution it would have failed. We didn't have soldiers over there doing it. Nope, they pretty much did it to themselves, all it took was a nudge. Also, the coup was a direct response for violation of international law and the seizure of British Petroleum assets in Iran so it isn't like the CIA just up and decided to overturn a govt for fun of it. The fact that the guy turned out to be such as Ass was probably along the lines of unintended consequences,but maybe not, who knows.

What would the world be like if we still held grudges (and waged terror on their civilians) from every nation that wronged us? England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Japan, etc etc etc. Yep, I guess by that mindset we have a legit reason to blow them all to hell today. ****, bet there are a dozen foreign influences that helped to heap the last 20years of "leadership" dung, that we have had to endure, upon us.

They may have some legitimate gripes, but their current state of barbarism is of their own making. If they would stop blowing stuff up, they would stop getting blown up.

Expropriation is not against international law.

 

[ViperJock]

Expropriation is not against international law.

Hmm. ok. I'll have to take your word on that for now as I am not a lawyer. So we'll just call it simple theft of a ton of of money and the blood of a modern economy. Either way, it was a provocation. But I guess the west should just overlook that kind of thing and pat them on the head.

 

[netsecurity]

American and British intelligence services in Iran then improvized a second stage of the coup, pulling pro-Shah forces together and organizing mass protests on August 19, 1953.

Aha, see? A foreign country or countries can cause a political or violent revolution abroad by simply spending/donating money for political ads, and organizing street protests.

When Obama was elected, he received lots of donations from over seas and support from Europe. In fact, before he started fundraising here, he went on a European tour. I believe our country may have been infiltrated by those we messed with in the past, and they are getting their revenge right now, laughing at our foolishly weak leader. The most likely organizer is Russia. The country we spent decades having a "Cold War" with, before we essentially BANKRUPTED them and caused the Societ Union to dissolve. Does anyone else think Putin is getting his revenge by manipulating us into bankrupting America? Both of Obama's parents were anti-US, card carrying communists, so he would be their first choice if they were to manipulate our politics.

It is no secret that the Hungarian, George Soros, essentially funds, and therefore runs, the Democrat party. As a billionaire, he owns hundreds of liberal media outlets, donates millions to Democrat candidates, and buys ads smearing Republicans, funding the Occupy Wall Street movement, anti-gun movement, healthcare movement, marketing welfare programs, etc.

 

[jbombelli]

Hmm. ok. I'll have to take your word on that for now as I am not a lawyer. So we'll just call it simple theft of a ton of of money and the blood of a modern economy. Either way, it was a provocation. But I guess the west should just overlook that kind of thing and pat them on the head.

Expropriation is the big risk with investing overseas in foreign countries, especially third world countries, where it happens regularly. Every government knows it, every multinational corporation knows it. Every last one of them is aware this happens, and they choose to take the risk. They roll the dice, they take their chances.

 

[mrjarrell]

No. Not my point at all. Though apparently everyone thinks it is so I must not have been clear. Basically, my point was that "in general"I am tired of hearing all this **** that "if we had only left things alone" that somehow there would be no militant islamist movement. Yes, I'm sure that Iranians, especially the older generations have a bone to pick. I don't think that you can continue to recruit Jihadis based on that. Just the same way Africans were abused and enslaved IMO is no excuse for current african americans to behave badly. Yes the US has done bad things. There isn't a country in the world that hasn't, and I'd say that on the average weare probably as good as any and better than most. Yet "Everyone" calls us a bully etc. I'm calling BS.

BTW the CIA and MI6 enabled the revolution which was rapidly taken over by guess who, Iranians. If the Iranians had not of supported the revolution it would have failed. We didn't have soldiers over there doing it. Nope, they pretty much did it to themselves, all it took was a nudge. Also, the coup was a direct response for violation of international law and the seizure of British Petroleum assets in Iran so it isn't like the CIA just up and decided to overturn a govt for fun of it. The fact that the guy turned out to be such as Ass was probably along the lines of unintended consequences,but maybe not, who knows.

What would the world be like if we still held grudges (and waged terror on their civilians) from every nation that wronged us? England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Japan, etc etc etc. Yep, I guess by that mindset we have a legit reason to blow them all to hell today. ****, bet there are a dozen foreign influences that helped to heap the last 20years of "leadership" dung, that we have had to endure, upon us.

They may have some legitimate gripes, but their current state of barbarism is of their own making. If they would stop blowing stuff up, they would stop getting blown up.

Where is anything being blown up in Iran? They're a stable democracy, even if we don't like their current leadership. Hardly a state of barbarism. Unlike the other countries we've been screwing around in like Iraq, Afghanistan and even Egypt. Pretty much everything the US touches in that region turns to ****, because of our history and our continued thinking that we know best. We are largely responsible for the current jihadist movement, (with the exception of the salafis and muslim brotherhood). We gifted the mujahadeen and Bin Laden with tools, training and craptons of money to fight a proxy war against the Russians. We used them. Then, when we kept interfering in their affairs and their countries they turned on us. We bear a load of responsibility for the current state of affairs. Believing in the neocon definition of exceptionalism is folly and a fools errand and will continue to make things worse, not better.

 

[ViperJock]

Where is anything being blown up in Iran? They're a stable democracy, even if we don't like their current leadership. Hardly a state of barbarism. Unlike the other countries we've been screwing around in like Iraq, Afghanistan and even Egypt. Pretty much everything the US touches in that region turns to ****, because of our history and our continued thinking that we know best. We are largely responsible for the current jihadist movement, (with the exception of the salafis and muslim brotherhood). We gifted the mujahadeen and Bin Laden with tools, training and craptons of money to fight a proxy war against the Russians. We used them. Then, when we kept interfering in their affairs and their countries they turned on us. We bear a load of responsibility for the current state of affairs. Believing in the neocon definition of exceptionalism is folly and a fools errand and will continue to make things worse, not better.

Blah blah blah. I'm not just talking about Iran. I'm talking about the blanket statement that people hate us because ofour FP. An implied statement by the sarcasm in some of the first few posts. It just happens to be Iran that had to deal with the FP in this situation. We are not largely responsible. We have some minor responsibility. The world has been going to**** loing before the US was a country. That region was **** long before the CIA got there.

WTF is your definition of a stable democracy? Iran is "stable" because the people are too scared to do any real protesting. ITs funny how you think IRan is just fine but hate our own country so much. I wonder how you'd like Iran if you had to live there? Your view of the world is shaped by your tin foil. "The evil USG destroys everything. If only the USG would cease to exist the world could once again live in peace." Ridiculous.

We gave the Mujahadeed weapons to fight an invading army. The fact that we didn't want Russia expanding doesn't negate the fact that Russia was trying to annex their country into the USSR. WTF. They turn on us because that is what they do. They blame us (or at least the CIA) for all their problems whether or not we are responsible which was the point I was trying to make initially but some people can't see out of their own black and white world.

 

[hornadylnl]

Expropriation is the big risk with investing overseas in foreign countries, especially third world countries, where it happens regularly. Every government knows it, every multinational corporation knows it. Every last one of them is aware this happens, and they choose to take the risk. They roll the dice, they take their chances.

Subsidized security in the form of US foreign policy for international corporations is in the constitution.

 

[jbombelli]

Subsidized security in the form of US foreign policy for international corporations is in the constitution.

What does that have to do with the legalities and likelihood of a host country expropriating foreign-owned business?

 

[hornadylnl]

What does that have to do with the legalities and likelihood of a host country expropriating foreign-owned business?

Speaking to those who think our foreign policy should include business interests.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Expropriation is the big risk with investing overseas in foreign countries, especially third world countries, where it happens regularly. Every government knows it, every multinational corporation knows it. Every last one of them is aware this happens, and they choose to take the risk. They roll the dice, they take their chances.

Unfortunately expropriation happens in the USA today. just go ask Richard Mourdock who filed suit against the Federal government to stop just an appropriation with no good result of course.

 

[jbombelli]

Speaking to those who think our foreign policy should include business interests.

Every country's foreign policy includes business interests. That's where the bulk of a country's economy is - business. If a government DIDN'T include business interests in their foreign policy decisions they'd be morons of the highest order.

 

[LEaSH]

Every country's foreign policy includes business interests. That's where the bulk of a country's economy is - business. If a government DIDN'T include business interests in their foreign policy decisions they'd be morons of the highest order.

It's when they put business interests above human interests/life that some silly pacifist have a problem with. Absurd, eh?

 

[ViperJock]

It's when they put business interests above human interests/life that some silly pacifist have a problem with. Absurd, eh?

Please draw the line between business and human life for me. A country with a strong economy has better healthcare and better nutrition ergo less premature loss of as well as better quality of life. Everything is interconnected. The world exists in gray areas. There is nothing wrong with being a pacifist. Just expect to be the one starving. The problem with all these high minded idealists is that they are benefitting from the very system they despise. I can't abide a hypocrit.

 

[LEaSH]

Please draw the line between business and human life for me. A country with a strong economy has better healthcare and better nutrition ergo less premature loss of as well as better quality of life. Everything is interconnected. The world exists in gray areas. There is nothing wrong with being a pacifist. Just expect to be the one starving. The problem with all these high minded idealists is that they are benefitting from the very system they despise. I can't abide a hypocrit.

A country does indeed benefit as a whole (human/business) when doing its thing off shore.

Aren't you forgetting someone?

 

[jbombelli]

It's when they put business interests above human interests/life that some silly pacifist have a problem with. Absurd, eh?

That's a different argument entirely. I was addressing the lamentation if you will that our foreign policy includes business interests.

 

[ViperJock]

A country does indeed benefit as a whole (human/business) when doing its thing off shore.

Aren't you forgetting someone?

I always forget someone. Not sure what you are referencing though. (BTW not calling your post hypocritical--unless of course you are a high minded idealist that benefits from the policies you rage against, lol.)

 

[hornadylnl]

That's a different argument entirely. I was addressing the lamentation if you will that our foreign policy includes business interests.

Take away Iran's oil. Would we have ever been there meddling in their affairs? Is staging coup's for the oil industry the proper use of our military?

 

[jbombelli]

Take away Iran's oil. Would we have ever been there meddling in their affairs? Is staging coup's for the oil industry the proper use of our military?

We probably would have, with or without the oil, eventually. Why? Remember the Cold War? Remember all the wars by proxy between us and the Soviets? Remember all the testing grounds for our military hardware?

Guatemala has never been a huge oil exporter, yet there we were with United Fruit Company. Chile has never been a huge oil producer, yet we tossed Allende. Cuba was hardly a big oil producing nation and all we've ever done in regards to Cuba is interfere. It's not about oil, it's about money.

Using your logic, since Russia is the biggest oil producer right now, we should have troops on the ground there and we should be installing our own puppet. Why aren't we?

Right or wrong our military is used to enforce the will of our elected leaders. That's part of what it's for. And was it "the military", or was it "the CIA" and their favorite "contractors"? I don't recall mounting an invasion of Iran (other than Jimmy Carter's crashed helicopters, that is).

 

[hornadylnl]

We probably would have, with or without the oil, eventually. Why? Remember the Cold War? Remember all the wars by proxy between us and the Soviets? Remember all the testing grounds for our military hardware?

Guatemala has never been a huge oil exporter, yet there we were with United Fruit Company. Chile has never been a huge oil producer, yet we tossed Allende. Cuba was hardly a big oil producing nation and all we've ever done in regards to Cuba is interfere. It's not about oil, it's about money.

Using your logic, since Russia is the biggest oil producer right now, we should have troops on the ground there and we should be installing our own puppet. Why aren't we?

Right or wrong our military is used to enforce the will of our elected leaders. That's part of what it's for. And was it "the military", or was it "the CIA" and their favorite "contractors"? I don't recall mounting an invasion of Iran (other than Jimmy Carter's crashed helicopters, that is).

I never said our meddling was just about oil. What difference does it make if we send a soldier wearing a uniform or spook from an alphabet agency? Would we as a nation allow other nations to meddle on our soil as we expect them to tolerate us?

 

[jbombelli]

I never said our meddling was just about oil. What difference does it make if we send a soldier wearing a uniform or spook from an alphabet agency? Would we as a nation allow other nations to meddle on our soil as we expect them to tolerate us?

You asked if we would be there if not for the oil. I explained why we probably would, and used examples of countries we've stomped over that had no oil. Now it's not about oil?

Make up your mind as to what you want to talk about. Stop with the constantly moving goal posts.

The bottom line is this: every nation's government takes business interests into consideration in their foreign policy discussions. Business interests are important for obvious reasons. Every country's government puts their own interests ahead of the interests and well-being of the people of every OTHER country. If you think otherwise you're sadly mistaken. If you think it's best to put the well-being of other countries ahead of our own in OUR foreign policy, you're also seriously naïve. You're asking the USA to live up to a specific ideal that nobody else lives up to, to our own detriment.