CIA finally admits it masterminded Iran’s 1953 coup

[hornadylnl]

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.

I'm not speaking to just oil or Iran. There's hardly a country out there that we don't meddle in.

The fact that we went to Bosnia to stop genocide is absolute bull****. Think of all the genocide that has taken place in Africa that we've never done a damn thing about. What was the real interest in Bosnia?

Meddling in another country's affairs for the benefit of a private corporation is absolute bull****.

 

[88GT]

I think you've missed the entire point of the thread, it's been common knowledge the CIA was responsible for the 1953 coup. It's just that they only publicly admitted it now, 60 years later.
The fact that Americans suffer foreign policy amnesia and lack a knowledge of world history doesn't mean the Iranians forgot what the US govt did way back when.

The irony in this is that violence against Americans is justified by the opposite: an elephant's memory of revisionist history. But somehow the U.S. is the only one held to a standard that eschews hypocrisy. I'm with ViperJock on this one: if long memories are all that is required to seek revenge, then we should own the whole damn world at this point.

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.

Interesting, is it not, that some provocations are more valid than others.

I've said this before, but because it doesn't fit the blame America paradigm, it gets glossed over. The excuses for Muslim/jihadist violence are just that. They will use any and every reason that presents itself as long as it is believable. And since people will believe anything.....The attack on the Buddhists is the perfect example. They bomb the Buddhist holy place because of DOMESTIC policies that harm Muslims thousands of miles away. When I question the validity of the excuse, the usual crowd commences with the same excuse-making the jihadists use. Of course, when the U.S. uses the same justification for retaliation/action, we're the bad guy and such reasons aren't enough.

It's a fool who believes that the jihadists would be satisfied with being left alone.

 

[jbombelli]

I'm not speaking to just oil or Iran. There's hardly a country out there that we don't meddle in.

The fact that we went to Bosnia to stop genocide is absolute bull****. Think of all the genocide that has taken place in Africa that we've never done a damn thing about. What was the real interest in Bosnia?

Meddling in another country's affairs for the benefit of a private corporation is absolute bull****.

Other countries meddle in our politics for the same reason. Foreign-owned corporations donate money to political campaigns in the USA all the time (like BP for example). Foreign governments often weigh in on who they think we should elect and who they like and don't. They don't send troops here because we're more powerful than they are and they'd have their butts handed to them, and they know it. Other wise you can bet some of them would.

I don't know what the real motivation to get involved in Bosnia was if it was not to put an end to genocide. But your implied assertion that we must stop ALL genocides in order to stop ANY genocides is ridiculous. That's like saying the police don't investigate EVERY crime, so they shouldn't investigate ANY crime.

And again, every country meddles in the affairs of others for the benefit of their own economy. You remind me of people saying "we shouldn't have gone to Saudi Arabia because it annoyed Al Qaeda and a bunch of Muslims in other countries..." but who put Al Qaeda and those Muslims in other countries in charge of who Saudi Arabia is allowed to invite into their own country? EVERYONE meddles, and they do it based on their own interests whatever they may be. That's just how it is.

 

[Jludo]

The irony in this is that violence against Americans is justified by the opposite: an elephant's memory of revisionist history. But somehow the U.S. is the only one held to a standard that eschews hypocrisy. I'm with ViperJock on this one: if long memories are all that is required to seek revenge, then we should own the whole damn world at this point.

It's a fool who believes that the jihadists would be satisfied with being left alone.

I don't understand where you make the jump from our actions caused this blowback to our actions justified their actions. No one is saying that. It's not revisionist history, I can't think of a single nation that's ever existed that hasn't made mistakes, it's just that to point out America's somehow makes you a 'blame America first'

Which strategy makes more sense to you, bankrupting ourselves and giving up every freedom in the name of security to catch ghost. Or to not occupy foreign countries and kill innocent people by the thousands. Not only is the latter the morally correct thing to do, it'd go much further towards solving our terrorism problem as well.

 

[Jludo]

Other countries meddle in our politics for the same reason. Foreign-owned corporations donate money to political campaigns in the USA all the time (like BP for example). Foreign governments often weigh in on who they think we should elect and who they like and don't. They don't send troops here because we're more powerful than they are and they'd have their butts handed to them, and they know it. Other wise you can bet some of them would.

I don't know what the real motivation to get involved in Bosnia was if it was not to put an end to genocide. But your implied assertion that we must stop ALL genocides in order to stop ANY genocides is ridiculous. That's like saying the police don't investigate EVERY crime, so they shouldn't investigate ANY crime.

And again, every country meddles in the affairs of others for the benefit of their own economy. You remind me of people saying "we shouldn't have gone to Saudi Arabia because it annoyed Al Qaeda and a bunch of Muslims in other countries..." but who put Al Qaeda and those Muslims in other countries in charge of who Saudi Arabia is allowed to invite into their own country? EVERYONE meddles, and they do it based on their own interests whatever they may be. That's just how it is.

That's just how it is?
That can't possibly be a justification for every US action in the middle east can it?
If a foreign country had it's foot on our throat would we not do everything within our power to get back at them?

 

[jbombelli]

That's just how it is?
That can't possibly be a justification for every US action in the middle east can it?
If a foreign country had it's foot on our throat would we not do everything within our power to get back at them?

"That's just how it is" is not justification. It's just how it is. Every country meddles in the affairs of every other country they can, one way or another. It's called "foreign policy." And foreign policy decisions are always made to benefit your own country at the expense of others. There are no altruistic governments out there. No government works to better mankind at their own country's expense. Except of course ours when you look at it from the standpoint of how many trillions of dollars we've just given away to other countries over the years, or how often we've stepped in to protect them from their neighbors, which of course results in their neighbors not liking us. Aside from that, we're not always the nicest people. But then again neither is anybody else.

Mankind is not a nice bunch. We're greedy, selfish, and very prone to violence. There is no happy utopia on the horizon if everyone would just mind their own business, because nobody will ever just mind their own business. EVER. You better learn that.

 

[88GT]

I don't understand where you make the jump from our actions caused this blowback to our actions justified their actions.

Are you kidding? I don't understand where you find a difference in the two.

No one is saying that.

You obviously haven't spent enough time on INGO. Or you've been absent from the political forum at critical times.

It's not revisionist history, I can't think of a single nation that's ever existed that hasn't made mistakes, it's just that to point out America's somehow makes you a 'blame America first'

One, that isn't the revisionist history I was referring to. Two, highlighting errors in judgement/action is one thing. The glee some exhibit in pointing fingers is something else.

Which strategy makes more sense to you, bankrupting ourselves and giving up every freedom in the name of security to catch ghost. Or to not occupy foreign countries and kill innocent people by the thousands.

Crikey, not the false dichotomy again. Seriously, y'all need to get some new talking points.

Not only is the latter the morally correct thing to do,

Well, buddy, that's where you and I differ. I see no morality in foreign policy.

it'd go much further towards solving our terrorism problem as well.

I know this is a common refrain, but history says otherwise.