The CIA conducted a coup in Iran in 1953

[surada]

The operation was initiated by the Brits who wanted to preserve their influence on Iranian oil sector. Mossadegh was considered to be leaning toward socialism and the Americans didn't want his influence to become stronger.

The operation was well organized and realized. Almost a textbook for a covert operations of this type.

They painted Mossadeeg as a Communist because the Brits wanted to continue paying 6 cents on the dollar in oil revenues.

They painted Mosadegh as a puppet socialist who would have relied on the Communists to form a government and would have been their butt boi, especially when they hit the streets with their stockpiles of arms and and' prurged all da evul imperialsts' from the country, using the usual mass murders commies so love. You of course are a big fan of that stuff, hence your silly lies and nonsense posts.

I was in Iran in 1953.

 

[DudleySmith]

Well, there would have been no coup if the Iranians had simply pleased the British and the Americans and obeyed them.

The United States after World War II decided to become the world's big brother, suggesting what kind of government was best for various nations. If necessary, it would encourage coups, as in Iran, Chile, and Vietnam.

Why blame only the CIA?

At the turn of the century, Mexico had a democratically elected president named Francisco Madero. The army did not like him. It wanted to overthrow him. The American ambassador said it would be fine with him. So the army did. It also murdered the president. Why? Because he tried to escape. Yeah, right!

Do you think letting the Soviet and Red Chinese imperialists run around the globe setting up dictatorships would have been the better strategy?

 

[Votto]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

I and mot 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.

What leads you to believe they would have been puppets for the Kremlin?

The Communists had some 45% of the votes, Mosadegh maybe 10%. It's not a 'belief', it's a political reality on the ground at the time. The Mullahs in that day were on our side then.

Most modern day tyrants seem to come to power via democracy.

In fact, even though voters in Venezuela are eating out of garbage cans, I bet they still believe in socialism and would vote for it.

It's a sickness.

But should the will of the people be thwarted, that is, even if that will has been manipulated by the Left?

The Left are experts at brainwashing the populace.

 

[DudleySmith]

The operation was initiated by the Brits who wanted to preserve their influence on Iranian oil sector. Mossadegh was considered to be leaning toward socialism and the Americans didn't want his influence to become stronger.

The operation was well organized and realized. Almost a textbook for a covert operations of this type.

They painted Mossadeeg as a Communist because the Brits wanted to continue paying 6 cents on the dollar in oil revenues.

They painte Mosadegh as a puppet socialist who would have relied on the Communists to form a government and would have been their butt boi, especially when they hit the streets with their stockpiles of arms and and' prurged all da evul imperialsts' from the country, using the usual mass murders commies so love. You of course are a big fan of that stuff, hence your silly lies and nonsense posts.

Iran nationalized their oil, which kicked the UK out.

Part of our post-war strategy was de-colonizing countries from theri colonial owners, so that isn't a bad thing, plus' nationalization' didn't end their reliance on western oil technology and markets, and the Brit companies were still there as well.

Gaddafi did the same.

Was Gaddafi a puppet of the Kremlin as well?

So what? Heedend up getting his ass bombed by Reagan, and supported left wing terrorist groups and their training camps. Do you think he wasn't in bed with the Kremlin?

 

[TheParser]

Well, there would have been no coup if the Iranians had simply pleased the British and the Americans and obeyed them.

The United States after World War II decided to become the world's big brother, suggesting what kind of government was best for various nations. If necessary, it would encourage coups, as in Iran, Chile, and Vietnam.

Why blame only the CIA?

At the turn of the century, Mexico had a democratically elected president named Francisco Madero. The army did not like him. It wanted to overthrow him. The American ambassador said it would be fine with him. So the army did. It also murdered the president. Why? Because he tried to escape. Yeah, right!

Do you think letting the Soviet and Red Chinese imperialists run around the globe setting up dictatorships would have been the better strategy?

Good question.

I have no answer.

But I do think it would have been just dandy to overthrow Fidel Castro.

I know that this is not in the conspiracy forum, but it seems awfully fishy that after all these years the United States has never succeeded in overthrowing the Castro brothers. Did they have powerful friends in the American Swamp?

 

[DudleySmith]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

I and mot 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.

What leads you to believe they would have been puppets for the Kremlin?

The Communists had some 45% of the votes, Mosadegh maybe 10%. It's not a 'belief', it's a political reality on the ground at the time. The Mullahs in that day were on our side then.

Most modern day tyrants seem to come to power via democracy.

In fact, even though voters in Venezuela are eating out of garbage cans, I bet they still believe in socialism and would vote for it.

It's a sickness.

But should the will of the people be thwarted, that is, even if that will has been manipulated by the Left?

The Left are experts at brainwashing the populace.

And we know there are a lot of ;cultures' around the world where 'democracy' doesn't work. Do you think the U.S. should have wet itself and hid under its bed while commiex toppled dozens of govts around the globe? Do you think they would have adopted that 'free trade' myth libertoons think exists and we would all have lived happily ever after?

 

[Votto]

The operation was initiated by the Brits who wanted to preserve their influence on Iranian oil sector. Mossadegh was considered to be leaning toward socialism and the Americans didn't want his influence to become stronger.

The operation was well organized and realized. Almost a textbook for a covert operations of this type.

They painted Mossadeeg as a Communist because the Brits wanted to continue paying 6 cents on the dollar in oil revenues.

They painte Mosadegh as a puppet socialist who would have relied on the Communists to form a government and would have been their butt boi, especially when they hit the streets with their stockpiles of arms and and' prurged all da evul imperialsts' from the country, using the usual mass murders commies so love. You of course are a big fan of that stuff, hence your silly lies and nonsense posts.

Iran nationalized their oil, which kicked the UK out.

Part of our post-war strategy was de-colonizing countries from theri colonial owners, so that isn't a bad thing, plus' nationalization' didn't end their reliance on western oil technology and markets, and the Brit companies were still there as well.

Gaddafi did the same.

Was Gaddafi a puppet of the Kremlin as well?

So what? Heedend up getting his ass bombed by Reagan, and supported left wing terrorist groups and their training camps. Do you think he wasn't in bed with the Kremlin?

When I look at the political wars around the globe that the US started after WW2, I have to ask myself, were any of them worth it?

In Korea, for example, the US still has to maintain a military presence and remains in the middle of a nuclear show down with Rocket man.

Look at Vietnam. A total loss

Look at Iraq, a country that went South quickly after ISIS formed.

However, was it all worth it just to held save the people of South Korea?

Tough questions.

 

[Rambunctious]

The CIA conducted a coup in Iran in 1953


And today they did it here.....

 

[DudleySmith]

Well, there would have been no coup if the Iranians had simply pleased the British and the Americans and obeyed them.

The United States after World War II decided to become the world's big brother, suggesting what kind of government was best for various nations. If necessary, it would encourage coups, as in Iran, Chile, and Vietnam.

Why blame only the CIA?

At the turn of the century, Mexico had a democratically elected president named Francisco Madero. The army did not like him. It wanted to overthrow him. The American ambassador said it would be fine with him. So the army did. It also murdered the president. Why? Because he tried to escape. Yeah, right!

Do you think letting the Soviet and Red Chinese imperialists run around the globe setting up dictatorships would have been the better strategy?

Good question.

I have no answer.

But I do think it would have been just dandy to overthrow Fidel Castro.

I know that this is not in the conspiracy forum, but it seems awfully fishy that after all these years the United States has never succeeded in overthrowing the Castro brothers. Did they have powerful friends in the American Swamp?

Maybe the answer is the U.S isn't the Big Giant Oppressor all the conspiracy nuts and right wing ideologues rely on for much of their whining and bullshit theories? In any case, the American 'middle class' lost its ability to govern itself in the 1960's if not earlier, and it will never get that back. If the 'right wing' was so great and smart and wonderful and had such a successful record, we wouldn't have a shithead criminal like Biden and his predecessor Obama as Presidents.

 

[StormAl]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

We were taught that the democratically elected government was a commie group. They were socialists.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Well, there would have been no coup if the Iranians had simply pleased the British and the Americans and obeyed them.

The United States after World War II decided to become the world's big brother, suggesting what kind of government was best for various nations. If necessary, it would encourage coups, as in Iran, Chile, and Vietnam.

Why blame only the CIA?

At the turn of the century, Mexico had a democratically elected president named Francisco Madero. The army did not like him. It wanted to overthrow him. The American ambassador said it would be fine with him. So the army did. It also murdered the president. Why? Because he tried to escape. Yeah, right!

Do you think letting the Soviet and Red Chinese imperialists run around the globe setting up dictatorships would have been the better strategy?

Good question.

I have no answer.

But I do think it would have been just dandy to overthrow Fidel Castro.

I know that this is not in the conspiracy forum, but it seems awfully fishy that after all these years the United States has never succeeded in overthrowing the Castro brothers. Did they have powerful friends in the American Swamp?

Maybe the answer is the U.S isn't the Big Giant Oppressor all the conspiracy nuts and right wing ideologues rely on for much of their whining and bullshit theories? In any case, the American 'middle class' lost its ability to govern itself in the 1960's if not earlier, and it will never get that back. If the 'right wing' was so great and smart and wonderful and had such a successful record, we wouldn't have a shithead criminal like Biden and his predecessor Obama as Presidents.

You forget there was NEVER a "right wing" majority in America.

 

[StormAl]

Well, there would have been no coup if the Iranians had simply pleased the British and the Americans and obeyed them.

The United States after World War II decided to become the world's big brother, suggesting what kind of government was best for various nations. If necessary, it would encourage coups, as in Iran, Chile, and Vietnam.

Why blame only the CIA?

At the turn of the century, Mexico had a democratically elected president named Francisco Madero. The army did not like him. It wanted to overthrow him. The American ambassador said it would be fine with him. So the army did. It also murdered the president. Why? Because he tried to escape. Yeah, right!

Do you think letting the Soviet and Red Chinese imperialists run around the globe setting up dictatorships would have been the better strategy?

Good question.

I have no answer.

But I do think it would have been just dandy to overthrow Fidel Castro.

I know that this is not in the conspiracy forum, but it seems awfully fishy that after all these years the United States has never succeeded in overthrowing the Castro brothers. Did they have powerful friends in the American Swamp?

Maybe the answer is the U.S isn't the Big Giant Oppressor all the conspiracy nuts and right wing ideologues rely on for much of their whining and bullshit theories? In any case, the American 'middle class' lost its ability to govern itself in the 1960's if not earlier, and it will never get that back. If the 'right wing' was so great and smart and wonderful and had such a successful record, we wouldn't have a shithead criminal like Biden and his predecessor Obama as Presidents.

. . . or Trump.

 

[StormAl]

Well, there would have been no coup if the Iranians had simply pleased the British and the Americans and obeyed them.

The United States after World War II decided to become the world's big brother, suggesting what kind of government was best for various nations. If necessary, it would encourage coups, as in Iran, Chile, and Vietnam.

Why blame only the CIA?

At the turn of the century, Mexico had a democratically elected president named Francisco Madero. The army did not like him. It wanted to overthrow him. The American ambassador said it would be fine with him. So the army did. It also murdered the president. Why? Because he tried to escape. Yeah, right!

Do you think letting the Soviet and Red Chinese imperialists run around the globe setting up dictatorships would have been the better strategy?

Good question.

I have no answer.

But I do think it would have been just dandy to overthrow Fidel Castro.

I know that this is not in the conspiracy forum, but it seems awfully fishy that after all these years the United States has never succeeded in overthrowing the Castro brothers. Did they have powerful friends in the American Swamp?

Maybe the answer is the U.S isn't the Big Giant Oppressor all the conspiracy nuts and right wing ideologues rely on for much of their whining and bullshit theories? In any case, the American 'middle class' lost its ability to govern itself in the 1960's if not earlier, and it will never get that back. If the 'right wing' was so great and smart and wonderful and had such a successful record, we wouldn't have a shithead criminal like Biden and his predecessor Obama as Presidents.

You forget there was NEVER a "right wing" majority in America.

There is certainly an electoral majority at times.

 

[Votto]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

I and mot 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.

What leads you to believe they would have been puppets for the Kremlin?

The Communists had some 45% of the votes, Mosadegh maybe 10%. It's not a 'belief', it's a political reality on the ground at the time. The Mullahs in that day were on our side then.

Most modern day tyrants seem to come to power via democracy.

In fact, even though voters in Venezuela are eating out of garbage cans, I bet they still believe in socialism and would vote for it.

It's a sickness.

But should the will of the people be thwarted, that is, even if that will has been manipulated by the Left?

The Left are experts at brainwashing the populace.

And we know there are a lot of ;cultures' around the world where 'democracy' doesn't work. Do you think the U.S. should have wet itself and hid under its bed while commiex toppled dozens of govts around the globe? Do you think they would have adopted that 'free trade' myth libertoons think exists and we would all have lived happily ever after?

We are all taught by academia and the press that democracy fixes all. By itself, it is a virtue. We understand this to be a lie based on historical outcomes like Venezuela. So why is it pushed? It is because everyone understands that the citizens should have some say in their government, but more importantly, it is because the Left are experts at manipulating public opinion.

At the same time, without the populace having the ability to change their government is equally as troubling.

Not sure there is a good answer.

 

[DudleySmith]

The operation was initiated by the Brits who wanted to preserve their influence on Iranian oil sector. Mossadegh was considered to be leaning toward socialism and the Americans didn't want his influence to become stronger.

The operation was well organized and realized. Almost a textbook for a covert operations of this type.

They painted Mossadeeg as a Communist because the Brits wanted to continue paying 6 cents on the dollar in oil revenues.

They painte Mosadegh as a puppet socialist who would have relied on the Communists to form a government and would have been their butt boi, especially when they hit the streets with their stockpiles of arms and and' purged all da evul imperialsts' from the country, using the usual mass murders commies so love. You of course are a big fan of that stuff, hence your silly lies and nonsense posts.

Iran nationalized their oil, which kicked the UK out.

Part of our post-war strategy was de-colonizing countries from theri colonial owners, so that isn't a bad thing, plus' nationalization' didn't end their reliance on western oil technology and markets, and the Brit companies were still there as well.

Gaddafi did the same.

Was Gaddafi a puppet of the Kremlin as well?

So what? Heedend up getting his ass bombed by Reagan, and supported left wing terrorist groups and their training camps. Do you think he wasn't in bed with the Kremlin?

When I look at the political wars around the globe that the US started after WW2, I have to ask myself, were any of them worth it?

In Korea, for example, the US still has to maintain a military presence and remains in the middle of a nuclear show down with Rocket man.

Look at Vietnam. A total loss

Look at Iraq, a country that went South quickly after ISIS formed.

However, was it all worth it just to held save the people of South Korea?

Tough questions.

View attachment 481384

South Korea is prosperous. Vietnam was abandoned, and it played the major role in bankrupting the Soviet Union and shutting down the Kruschev and Brezhnev doctrines in 1973, so it was hardly 'a total loss'. Iraq attacked allies we had defense agreements with; blame Iraq on Iraqis and their stupidity and the Bushes idiotic policies. Viet Nam along with the Israeli victories in 1967 and 1973 cost them Soviets their credibility with the Arab countries and also in Africa and South America; they were dependent on western refined petroluem products and food imports from 1973 to the final soft landing we engineered, all without a nuclear war. Some things might have been done better in hindsight, but that is meaningless whining. Cold wars are a lot more desirable than hot wars. Like Kissinger said, many times with foreign policy all the choices are bad, so the goal is to pick the least bad options.

What wars did we start after WW II?

 

[DudleySmith]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

I and mot 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.

What leads you to believe they would have been puppets for the Kremlin?

The Communists had some 45% of the votes, Mosadegh maybe 10%. It's not a 'belief', it's a political reality on the ground at the time. The Mullahs in that day were on our side then.

Most modern day tyrants seem to come to power via democracy.

In fact, even though voters in Venezuela are eating out of garbage cans, I bet they still believe in socialism and would vote for it.

It's a sickness.

But should the will of the people be thwarted, that is, even if that will has been manipulated by the Left?

The Left are experts at brainwashing the populace.

And we know there are a lot of ;cultures' around the world where 'democracy' doesn't work. Do you think the U.S. should have wet itself and hid under its bed while commiex toppled dozens of govts around the globe? Do you think they would have adopted that 'free trade' myth libertoons think exists and we would all have lived happily ever after?

We are all taught by academia and the press that democracy fixes all. By itself, it is a virtue. We understand this to be a lie based on historical outcomes like Venezuela. So why is it pushed? It is because everyone understands that the citizens should have some say in their government, but more importantly, it is because the Left are experts at manipulating public opinion.

At the same time, without the populace having the ability to change their government is equally as troubling.

Not sure there is a good answer.

I cited a letter by John Adams in a thread here somewhere, about democracies always committing suicide. Venezuela wouldn't be a shithole if the right wingers had been competent managers; let's not pretend otherwise. They alienated a lot of people with their corruption and arrogance, and left a large percentage of their people with little reason for maintaining the status quo. In the U.S., it's the same pattern.

Ah, found the Adams cite:


Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.--JOHN ADAMS, letter to John Taylor, 1814

The first writing on this I ever read was in the bible, when Saul was made a king; before that, the Hebrews were a tribal confederacy operating on democratic type principles. They then voted in a 'monarchy', then a Temple state, and it was downhill all the way to the Babylonian conquests.

 

[StormAl]

How many people were taught this or knew this?

Show of hands

I and mot 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.

What leads you to believe they would have been puppets for the Kremlin?

The Communists had some 45% of the votes, Mosadegh maybe 10%. It's not a 'belief', it's a political reality on the ground at the time. The Mullahs in that day were on our side then.

Most modern day tyrants seem to come to power via democracy.

In fact, even though voters in Venezuela are eating out of garbage cans, I bet they still believe in socialism and would vote for it.

It's a sickness.

But should the will of the people be thwarted, that is, even if that will has been manipulated by the Left?

The Left are experts at brainwashing the populace.

And we know there are a lot of ;cultures' around the world where 'democracy' doesn't work. Do you think the U.S. should have wet itself and hid under its bed while commiex toppled dozens of govts around the globe? Do you think they would have adopted that 'free trade' myth libertoons think exists and we would all have lived happily ever after?

We are all taught by academia and the press that democracy fixes all. By itself, it is a virtue. We understand this to be a lie based on historical outcomes like Venezuela. So why is it pushed? It is because everyone understands that the citizens should have some say in their government, but more importantly, it is because the Left are experts at manipulating public opinion.

At the same time, without the populace having the ability to change their government is equally as troubling.

Not sure there is a good answer.

Winston Churchill, I think it was, said, to wit: "Democracy is a terrible system, but it is the best one we have."

Ah, here it is.

1. Quote by Winston S. Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form ...
   www.goodreads.com › quotes › 267224
   “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” ― Winston S. Churchill tags: criticism , democracy , humour , politics

 

[there4eyeM]

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

 

[harmonica]

...most Americans don't know shit about history

 

[DudleySmith]

Well, there would have been no coup if the Iranians had simply pleased the British and the Americans and obeyed them.

The United States after World War II decided to become the world's big brother, suggesting what kind of government was best for various nations. If necessary, it would encourage coups, as in Iran, Chile, and Vietnam.

Why blame only the CIA?

At the turn of the century, Mexico had a democratically elected president named Francisco Madero. The army did not like him. It wanted to overthrow him. The American ambassador said it would be fine with him. So the army did. It also murdered the president. Why? Because he tried to escape. Yeah, right!

Do you think letting the Soviet and Red Chinese imperialists run around the globe setting up dictatorships would have been the better strategy?

Good question.

I have no answer.

But I do think it would have been just dandy to overthrow Fidel Castro.

I know that this is not in the conspiracy forum, but it seems awfully fishy that after all these years the United States has never succeeded in overthrowing the Castro brothers. Did they have powerful friends in the American Swamp?

Maybe the answer is the U.S isn't the Big Giant Oppressor all the conspiracy nuts and right wing ideologues rely on for much of their whining and bullshit theories? In any case, the American 'middle class' lost its ability to govern itself in the 1960's if not earlier, and it will never get that back. If the 'right wing' was so great and smart and wonderful and had such a successful record, we wouldn't have a shithead criminal like Biden and his predecessor Obama as Presidents.

. . . or Trump.

Trump was a political moderate; he was also not part of the GOP establishment. His votes didn't come solely from Party partisans. He is afluke of history. He will influence a few local elections, but the Democrats now have it all rigged, and the GOP is back to its old self, i.e. supporting big biz over American interests as always. We'll see if there is any light left in the coming mid-terms, but I personally doubt any big new trend develops.