5 ms·

Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? Do you realize the US funded Sadam Hussein in a war against Iran?

Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? Do you realize the US funded Sadam Hussein in a war against Iran? Do you realize the US invaded Iraq? Do you realize the US has supported terrorist Muslim organizations when they benefited from that? The most recent example the "moderate fighters" against al-Assad whose American weapons ended in hands of the most fanatical ISIS groups. Imperial ambitions? Let me ask you something: What the Hell is doing the US of America tens of thousands of miles afar from his country? For me Imperial ambitions applies to other countries much better than Iran.

throwaway997324 11y ago
>Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? No, when was that government "democratically elected"? EDIT: Removed bickering that was distracting from my real question
- meric 11y ago
  Mossadeagh, before the Shah. His ousting was the cause of resentment that fuelled the rise of Iran's political system today. You can google when that happened and read the history from then to now and see its all connected.
  - refurb 11y ago
    Mossadeagh was about to be booted by his own people. There were mass protests as he had become very unpopular. Claims the US had a hand in his downfall is being very generous.
    - fencepost 11y ago
      It's possible that he was very unpopular. I'm pretty sure it's confirmed from CIA papers since released that the mobs of protesters were organized, paid for and in some cases paid by the CIA, so there's at least an argument that his unpopularity was purchased.
      - refurb 11y ago
        The protests against Mossadegh included tens of thousands of Iranians. Is it possible to create that kind of unpopularity out of thin air using money?[1] "A startled CIA reported to the White House that "an unexpectedly strong surge of popular and military reaction to Prime Minister Mossadeq's government has resulted, according to the latest dispatches from Tehran, in the virtual occupation of the city by forces professing their loyalty to the Shah and to his appointed Prime Minister Zahedi." I'm not saying US didn't get it's hands dirty, but to assume that Iran would be a peaceful, democratic country otherwise is being naive. [1]http://www.cfr.org/iran/myth-american-coup/p30900 http://www.cfr.org/iran/myth-american-coup/p30900
        fencepost 11y ago
        I don't think they paid all of them, no, but I think it's entirely possible to fund a group of organizers who could motivate a significant-sized protest. I make no assumptions about how peaceful and democratic any country in the Middle East would be, with or without US involvement.
    - mahyarm 11y ago
      So instead of electing someone else, they would install a shah?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - refurb 11y ago
        The Shah already existed. He just used his power to dismiss Mossadegh (which was constitutional).
- throwaway997324 11y ago
  Reply to meric, since it won't let me. >Mossadeagh, before the Shah. When was he elected. Or if it's like the british system, then when was the parliament that appointed him, elected?
  - Chathamization 11y ago
    My understanding is that the Shah nominated him and he was approved by the elected Majlis. By the time of the coup, though, Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament and was able to unilaterally declare laws by fiat.
  - djur 11y ago
    He became Prime Minister in 1951 after his party, the National Front, won a majority in the Iranian Parliament (the Majlis).
  - gunn 11y ago
    As best I can make make out he was appointed in 1951[1], as per the British system, by the parliament elected in 1950[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Appointment_as_Prime_Minister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Appointment... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_...
marcoperaza 11y ago
>Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? You have to understand the context in which that happened. It had only been a few years since the Soviets tested their first nuke. Stalin had just died that same year. The Soviet-allied Tudeh Communist Party in Iran was infiltrating the military and political establishment. There was no way that the West was going to let the Soviets gain another foothold. The Soviets were masters of infiltration and political intrigue. You should read up on how they turned Eastern Europe into satellite states. I'm not informed enough to pass judgment of the Iranian coup, but suffice to say, it's not a clear-cut issue.
- hackuser 11y ago
  I think you raise excellent points. However, I could see Iranians being very angry that people in the U.S. government decided for the Iranian people that it was best that the Iranians should live under a brutal dictatorship. I can only imagine if the situation were reversed ... > The Soviets were masters of infiltration and political intrigue. You should read up on how they turned Eastern Europe into satellite states. I don't know about that particular example: I believe the E. European client states were occupied by the Red Army after WWII, dominated by secret police services, and later when they rebelled in Hungary and Czechoslovakia the tanks were sent back in. Not much intrigue needed. But they did manage to acquire allies in many parts of the world, so generally I'd agree they seemed good at it.
  - meric 11y ago
    It's a controlled democracy, it's not brutal and it's not a dictatorship[1]. What gives U.S. the right besides it's carrier groups to say what kind of government the Iranian people should live under? The head of state the Iranian people last officially recorded as having overwhelmingly supported in 1979 is more legitimate than any kind of leader or government U.S. might say they would like to foist onto the Iranian people. The U.S. has indirectly caused multiple times more deaths and suffering in Iran that it's current government ever did. Who is brutal, and who is trying to dictate? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran
jahitr 11y ago
A terrorist nation from the very beginning.

throwaway997324 11y ago

>Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? No, when was that government "democratically elected"? EDIT: Removed bickering that was distracting from my real question

meric 11y ago
Mossadeagh, before the Shah. His ousting was the cause of resentment that fuelled the rise of Iran's political system today. You can google when that happened and read the history from then to now and see its all connected.
- refurb 11y ago
  Mossadeagh was about to be booted by his own people. There were mass protests as he had become very unpopular. Claims the US had a hand in his downfall is being very generous.
  - fencepost 11y ago
    It's possible that he was very unpopular. I'm pretty sure it's confirmed from CIA papers since released that the mobs of protesters were organized, paid for and in some cases paid by the CIA, so there's at least an argument that his unpopularity was purchased.
    - refurb 11y ago
      The protests against Mossadegh included tens of thousands of Iranians. Is it possible to create that kind of unpopularity out of thin air using money?[1] "A startled CIA reported to the White House that "an unexpectedly strong surge of popular and military reaction to Prime Minister Mossadeq's government has resulted, according to the latest dispatches from Tehran, in the virtual occupation of the city by forces professing their loyalty to the Shah and to his appointed Prime Minister Zahedi." I'm not saying US didn't get it's hands dirty, but to assume that Iran would be a peaceful, democratic country otherwise is being naive. [1]http://www.cfr.org/iran/myth-american-coup/p30900 http://www.cfr.org/iran/myth-american-coup/p30900
      - fencepost 11y ago
        I don't think they paid all of them, no, but I think it's entirely possible to fund a group of organizers who could motivate a significant-sized protest. I make no assumptions about how peaceful and democratic any country in the Middle East would be, with or without US involvement.
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    So instead of electing someone else, they would install a shah?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - refurb 11y ago
      The Shah already existed. He just used his power to dismiss Mossadegh (which was constitutional).
throwaway997324 11y ago
Reply to meric, since it won't let me. >Mossadeagh, before the Shah. When was he elected. Or if it's like the british system, then when was the parliament that appointed him, elected?
- Chathamization 11y ago
  My understanding is that the Shah nominated him and he was approved by the elected Majlis. By the time of the coup, though, Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament and was able to unilaterally declare laws by fiat.
- djur 11y ago
  He became Prime Minister in 1951 after his party, the National Front, won a majority in the Iranian Parliament (the Majlis).
- gunn 11y ago
  As best I can make make out he was appointed in 1951[1], as per the British system, by the parliament elected in 1950[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Appointment_as_Prime_Minister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Appointment... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_...

marcoperaza 11y ago

>Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran? You have to understand the context in which that happened. It had only been a few years since the Soviets tested their first nuke. Stalin had just died that same year. The Soviet-allied Tudeh Communist Party in Iran was infiltrating the military and political establishment. There was no way that the West was going to let the Soviets gain another foothold. The Soviets were masters of infiltration and political intrigue. You should read up on how they turned Eastern Europe into satellite states. I'm not informed enough to pass judgment of the Iranian coup, but suffice to say, it's not a clear-cut issue.

hackuser 11y ago
I think you raise excellent points. However, I could see Iranians being very angry that people in the U.S. government decided for the Iranian people that it was best that the Iranians should live under a brutal dictatorship. I can only imagine if the situation were reversed ... > The Soviets were masters of infiltration and political intrigue. You should read up on how they turned Eastern Europe into satellite states. I don't know about that particular example: I believe the E. European client states were occupied by the Red Army after WWII, dominated by secret police services, and later when they rebelled in Hungary and Czechoslovakia the tanks were sent back in. Not much intrigue needed. But they did manage to acquire allies in many parts of the world, so generally I'd agree they seemed good at it.
- meric 11y ago
  It's a controlled democracy, it's not brutal and it's not a dictatorship[1]. What gives U.S. the right besides it's carrier groups to say what kind of government the Iranian people should live under? The head of state the Iranian people last officially recorded as having overwhelmingly supported in 1979 is more legitimate than any kind of leader or government U.S. might say they would like to foist onto the Iranian people. The U.S. has indirectly caused multiple times more deaths and suffering in Iran that it's current government ever did. Who is brutal, and who is trying to dictate? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran

jahitr 11y ago

A terrorist nation from the very beginning.