The CIA conducted a coup in Iran in 1953

[ESay]

In any case, it seems that removing of Mossadegh was one of the reasons which led to the Islamic revolution there afterwards.

The Shah cemented his personal power and eliminated his political competitors. He built such political system which could have been changed only through some kind of forceful resistance.

lol the Mullahs supported the Shah in the 1940's and the 1950's against the commies and their puppet boi. 29 years later they're all unhappy with the cut, is all, like most violent thug gangsters always are. You think they just wanted to share it with the peasants or something??? lol that's cute. Why are they spending so much on warheads and missiles when most of the country doesn't even have electricity outside the cities? And spending billions on their Hezbollah troops? Think that money they make off the hashish and heroin trade goes to feed The Children N Stuff? Cuz JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!!! or something?

I think that the Shah should have made the steps toward democratization of political life, but his deeds were exactly opposite. His regime was doomed to failure.

 

[ESay]

In any case, it seems that removing of Mossadegh was one of the reasons which led to the Islamic revolution there afterwards.

The Shah cemented his personal power and eliminated his political competitors. He built such political system which could have been changed only through some kind of forceful resistance.

The Shah had his own Gestapo.. the SAVAK developed by Kermit Roosevelt and Schwartzkoff's father.

Yes, and?

 

[DudleySmith]

In any case, it seems that removing of Mossadegh was one of the reasons which led to the Islamic revolution there afterwards.

The Shah cemented his personal power and eliminated his political competitors. He built such political system which could have been changed only through some kind of forceful resistance.

lol the Mullahs supported the Shah in the 1940's and the 1950's against the commies and their puppet boi. 29 years later they're all unhappy with the cut, is all, like most violent thug gangsters always are. You think they just wanted to share it with the peasants or something??? lol that's cute. Why are they spending so much on warheads and missiles when most of the country doesn't even have electricity outside the cities? And spending billions on their Hezbollah troops? Think that money they make off the hashish and heroin trade goes to feed The Children N Stuff? Cuz JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!!! or something?

I think that the Shah should have made the steps toward democratization of political life, but his deeds were exactly opposite. His regime was doomed to failure.

Pretty much all regimes in the ME are doomed to failure; it's inherent in the insanity of Islam that they all sooner or later collapse into violence; even the Ottomans had frequent civil wars. The Shah was relatively tame compared to his neighbors' regimes, and certainly better than what the alternative was in 1953 and what took his place in 1979. Democracy is incompatible with ME culture. and Islam.

 

[ESay]

In any case, it seems that removing of Mossadegh was one of the reasons which led to the Islamic revolution there afterwards.

The Shah cemented his personal power and eliminated his political competitors. He built such political system which could have been changed only through some kind of forceful resistance.

lol the Mullahs supported the Shah in the 1940's and the 1950's against the commies and their puppet boi. 29 years later they're all unhappy with the cut, is all, like most violent thug gangsters always are. You think they just wanted to share it with the peasants or something??? lol that's cute. Why are they spending so much on warheads and missiles when most of the country doesn't even have electricity outside the cities? And spending billions on their Hezbollah troops? Think that money they make off the hashish and heroin trade goes to feed The Children N Stuff? Cuz JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!!! or something?

I think that the Shah should have made the steps toward democratization of political life, but his deeds were exactly opposite. His regime was doomed to failure.

Pretty much all regimes in the ME are doomed to failure; it's inherent in the insanity of Islam that they all sooner or later collapse into violence; even the Ottomans had frequent civil wars. The Shah was relatively tame compared to his neighbors' regimes, and certainly better than what the alternative was in 1953 and what took his place in 1979. Democracy is incompatible with ME culture. and Islam.

I would say that democracy was the idea of Western countries. Asia civilizations had their own view about the structure of power. Some of them came along the path offered by the West, eventually.

Some form of westernization had its place in the Shah's policy. Except of that, he tried to build a secular state.

 

[Dragonlady]

The impression that places such as Iran and North Korea hate the U.S. for no reason arises from ignorance of history.

The impression we should care what the scum who run those countries think arises from idiocy.

So you just wanna nuke them into oblivion because you can. The idea that Americans don’t have to think anything about any other anyone in any other country is why your foreign policy has simply screwed up the world.

Do you wanna run the world you just don’t wanna know anything about it or any anyone in it

 

[DudleySmith]

The impression that places such as Iran and North Korea hate the U.S. for no reason arises from ignorance of history.

The impression we should care what the scum who run those countries think arises from idiocy.

So you just wanna nuke them into oblivion because you can. The idea that Americans don’t have to think anything about any other anyone in any other country is why your foreign policy has simply screwed up the world.

Do you wanna run the world you just don’t wanna know anything about it or any anyone in it

You can wet yourself and cry over the Iranian terrorist regimes all you want. You should be deported there so you can blow them the rest of your life.

 

[JoeB131]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

I knew about it. I'm sure it was deviously hidden from you in things called "Books".

Our 1953 coup in Iran is why the Iranians still hate us to this very day.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, it was corporate driven.

They rule the world don't ya know

It is the same reason Obama took out Gaddafi.

Some things never change.

It's funny to watch the Right Wing suddenly become anti-Corporation.

After years of doing their bidding, they've been kicked to the curb by Wall Street because they went a little too crazy.

 

[cnm]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

You mean people in the US don't know it? No wonder they get so butt hurt over Iran.

 

[Votto]

Yes, it was corporate driven.

They rule the world don't ya know

It is the same reason Obama took out Gaddafi.

Some things never change.

It's funny to watch the Right Wing suddenly become anti-Corporation.

After years of doing their bidding, they've been kicked to the curb by Wall Street because they went a little too crazy.

Very true.

It reminds me of evangelicals giving their support to people like "W" because they were prolife.

At the end of the day, the GOP quietly laughed at them as "W" appointed people to SCOTUS who had no intention of overturning Roe vs Wade.

You would think they would have learned by now, huh?

 

[cnm]

The impression that places such as Iran and North Korea hate the U.S. for no reason arises from ignorance of history.

It's baffling to see it in action.

 

[cnm]

I and most people read about it in the 1960's. We saved Iran from being turned into a Soviet puppets state under Mosadegh, which of course was a good thing. Most commies now like to pretend it was 'bad n stuff' and 'all about the money', but as usual they're mostly dumbass deviants and bedwetters parroting old Pravda rubbish hoping to sound like they're 'wise' or something.

 

[surada]

In any case, it seems that removing of Mossadegh was one of the reasons which led to the Islamic revolution there afterwards.

The Shah cemented his personal power and eliminated his political competitors. He built such political system which could have been changed only through some kind of forceful resistance.

lol the Mullahs supported the Shah in the 1940's and the 1950's against the commies and their puppet boi. 29 years later they're all unhappy with the cut, is all, like most violent thug gangsters always are. You think they just wanted to share it with the peasants or something??? lol that's cute. Why are they spending so much on warheads and missiles when most of the country doesn't even have electricity outside the cities? And spending billions on their Hezbollah troops? Think that money they make off the hashish and heroin trade goes to feed The Children N Stuff? Cuz JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!!! or something?

I think that the Shah should have made the steps toward democratization of political life, but his deeds were exactly opposite. His regime was doomed to failure.

Pretty much all regimes in the ME are doomed to failure; it's inherent in the insanity of Islam that they all sooner or later collapse into violence; even the Ottomans had frequent civil wars. The Shah was relatively tame compared to his neighbors' regimes, and certainly better than what the alternative was in 1953 and what took his place in 1979. Democracy is incompatible with ME culture. and Islam.

Most Arab states, unlike the Shah, operate on concensus of the merchant class, family, technocrats, tribal leaders and clerics... the Brits wanted to continue paying 6 cents on the dollar in oil revenue. Everyone else was paying 50 cents. Mossadeeg wasn't a Communist. They demonized him to justify their greed.

 

[cnm]

They demonized him to justify their greed.

It's almost as though the sun never set on the British empire because the various gods couldn't trust the British in the dark. Almost.

 

[DudleySmith]

In any case, it seems that removing of Mossadegh was one of the reasons which led to the Islamic revolution there afterwards.

The Shah cemented his personal power and eliminated his political competitors. He built such political system which could have been changed only through some kind of forceful resistance.

lol the Mullahs supported the Shah in the 1940's and the 1950's against the commies and their puppet boi. 29 years later they're all unhappy with the cut, is all, like most violent thug gangsters always are. You think they just wanted to share it with the peasants or something??? lol that's cute. Why are they spending so much on warheads and missiles when most of the country doesn't even have electricity outside the cities? And spending billions on their Hezbollah troops? Think that money they make off the hashish and heroin trade goes to feed The Children N Stuff? Cuz JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!!! or something?

I think that the Shah should have made the steps toward democratization of political life, but his deeds were exactly opposite. His regime was doomed to failure.

Pretty much all regimes in the ME are doomed to failure; it's inherent in the insanity of Islam that they all sooner or later collapse into violence; even the Ottomans had frequent civil wars. The Shah was relatively tame compared to his neighbors' regimes, and certainly better than what the alternative was in 1953 and what took his place in 1979. Democracy is incompatible with ME culture. and Islam.

Most Arab states, unlike the Shah, operate on concensus of the merchant class, family, technocrats, tribal leaders and clerics... the Brits wanted to continue paying 6 cents on the dollar in oil revenue. Everyone else was paying 50 cents. Mossadeeg wasn't a Communist. They demonized him to justify their greed.

And the same rubbish you already repeated. He was totally dependent on the Tudeh Party, and would be in office as well. For one, the U.S. was flooded with oil, see the East Texas field's history for just one, they didn't need Iranian oil, so that argument is the most stupid of the hair-brained claims, and anybody who who tries and sells the bullshit that the Soviets weren't taking over states after WW II is too much of an idiot to take seriously.

 

[surada]

In any case, it seems that removing of Mossadegh was one of the reasons which led to the Islamic revolution there afterwards.

The Shah cemented his personal power and eliminated his political competitors. He built such political system which could have been changed only through some kind of forceful resistance.

lol the Mullahs supported the Shah in the 1940's and the 1950's against the commies and their puppet boi. 29 years later they're all unhappy with the cut, is all, like most violent thug gangsters always are. You think they just wanted to share it with the peasants or something??? lol that's cute. Why are they spending so much on warheads and missiles when most of the country doesn't even have electricity outside the cities? And spending billions on their Hezbollah troops? Think that money they make off the hashish and heroin trade goes to feed The Children N Stuff? Cuz JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!!! or something?

I think that the Shah should have made the steps toward democratization of political life, but his deeds were exactly opposite. His regime was doomed to failure.

Pretty much all regimes in the ME are doomed to failure; it's inherent in the insanity of Islam that they all sooner or later collapse into violence; even the Ottomans had frequent civil wars. The Shah was relatively tame compared to his neighbors' regimes, and certainly better than what the alternative was in 1953 and what took his place in 1979. Democracy is incompatible with ME culture. and Islam.

Most Arab states, unlike the Shah, operate on concensus of the merchant class, family, technocrats, tribal leaders and clerics... the Brits wanted to continue paying 6 cents on the dollar in oil revenue. Everyone else was paying 50 cents. Mossadeeg wasn't a Communist. They demonized him to justify their greed.

And the same rubbish you already repeated. He was totally dependent on the Tudeh Party, and would be in office as well. For one, the U.S. was flooded with oil, see the East Texas field's history for just one, they didn't need Iranian oil, so that argument is the most stupid of the hair-brained claims, and anybody who who tries and sells the bullshit that the Soviets weren't taking over states after WW II is too much of an idiot to take seriously.

The Marshal Plan was fueled by cheap oil from the ME.. Texas couln't compete.. The original cartel, the Texas Railroad Commission, deterimined who could drill and how much oil could be imported. A young papa bush appealed to them.

The Brits had converted their navy from coal to diesel in 1902 and they needed cheap oil.The British Plan was pure exploitation .. They never trained up a labor pool. All 6% of oil revenue went directly iinto the Shah's pocket. This whole fiasco was driven by greed. Every other ME oil producer had a 50-50 revenue agreement.

The oilmen with ARAMCO were furious that Eisehower got sucked into to such a stupid plot.

 

[surada]

They demonized him to justify their greed.

It's almost as though the sun never set on the British empire because the various gods couldn't trust the British in the dark. Almost.

That's true.. The American plan was quite different even from the beginning.. They drilled water wells, tackled malaria, set up clinics and trained up the labor pool. These guy were mostly veterans from WW2 and Korea and they were patriots. Most were Arabists.

 

[AMart]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

I knew about it. I'm sure it was deviously hidden from you in things called "Books".

Our 1953 coup in Iran is why the Iranians still hate us to this very day.

No they don't. A bunch of them came to the USA as foreign students post 1965 and stayed, especially after the revolution. And as many possible came to the USA after the revolution, a bunch of them. Most live in greater Los Angeles and are very successful.

 

[cnm]

Jesus.

 

[there4eyeM]

Most of the population of Iran stayed in that country after their democratically elected government was overthrown by western powers. What would Americans think of countries that replaced our democracy with a monarchy?
The Shah was wrong. The present government in Iran is wrong. The people of Iran suffered and continue to suffer. Like so many good people in the world, such as the Chinese and Russians, they suffer due to failed governments that run on absolutism and terror. America has not done what it could and should have done to make things better. That is not to say that we are not better off in America; we demonstrably are. We should be doing our utmost to share how and why things are better here and attract admiration. Upsetting governments with coups d'état and bombing helpless populations into ashes (see what Curtis Lemay said about our bombing of North Korea) are not going to endear us to anyone.