3 ms·

Except Iran was nothing like Afghanistan; it had democratic institutions that Iranians had been fighting to build since 1906. And nobody "took" territory, Whit

by ucee054 13y ago

Except Iran was nothing like Afghanistan; it had democratic institutions that Iranians had been fighting to build since 1906. And nobody "took" territory, Whitey arranged a coup d'etat. Which destroyed the Iranian democratic institutions.Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... If Whitey hadn't smashed them up, Iran's institutions might have been able to stand up to the religious loonies.

pekk 13y ago
First, you do not have any hard evidence that this happened. Like most people making this claim and linking to Wikipedia, I doubt you even know the name of the primary source in which it was claimed - let alone that you have any way to corroborate the claim. Second, the purported event is separated from the Iranian revolution by several decades (53 to 79). Third, the Iranian revolution actually incorporated cooperation from ideologically diverse parties who were betrayed and liquidated by the subsequent leaders of the revolution. That liquidation was not the doing of the US by any stretch of the imagination - and certainly is not a direct result of anything that happened in 1953, even on your assumptions. You are repeating a standard, oversimplified revisionist history which makes the US singlehandedly responsible for Iran's entire fate for all time, blatantly ignoring any other historical, regional or Iranian factor.
- nl 13y ago
  Are you seriously implying that the 1953 coup wasn't orchestrated by Western powers? I've never heard anyone seriously argue that it wasn't. the purported event is separated from the Iranian revolution by several decades (53 to 79) I think the parent was implying that the '53 coup was what the Western powers wanted, but the '79 revolution destroyed that plan. You are repeating a standard, oversimplified revisionist history which makes the US singlehandedly responsible for Iran's entire fate for all time, blatantly ignoring any other historical, regional or Iranian factor. I'm not entirely sure, but I think you are misreading what people are saying here (it isn't exactly clear what they are saying, so I might be wrong too). I think they are saying that the '79 revolution was an Iranian action, which happened in direct opposition to what the Western powers wanted. In either case, I agree with you about the '79 revolution - that was completely Iranian doing.
- ucee054 13y ago
  you do not have any hard evidence that this happened Apart from the fact that Madeleine Albright admitted it when she was Secretary of State. You are just being deliberately ignorant now. Oh, and a jackass. That liquidation was not the doing of the US There was interference by other powers as well such as the UK, and there is also a lot wrong with Iranian society, NONE of which removes at all the CIA's responsibility for the coup and the subsequent torture of Iranians by SAVAK under CIA direction during the decades you mention from 1953-1979. You think the story stopped in 53? betrayed and liquidated by the subsequent leaders of the revolution The people were mad at the two decades of torture and having Iranian oil stolen, and so they hated the pro-US Emperor and they hated the US. They acted on that hatred against the targets and got on the Khomeini bandwagon as a way of overthrowing the Emperor. There wouldn't have been a revolution if there had been nothing to overthrow. Khomeini made his name opposing the Emperor. If the CIA hadn't launched the coup in 53 the democracy would still have existed instead. Mossadegh was everything. Khomeini was nothing. No one was going to follow Khomeini against the democracy. Oh yeah, and Iranians would still love the US like they did in 1950.

by ucee054 13y ago

pekk 13y ago

First, you do not have any hard evidence that this happened. Like most people making this claim and linking to Wikipedia, I doubt you even know the name of the primary source in which it was claimed - let alone that you have any way to corroborate the claim. Second, the purported event is separated from the Iranian revolution by several decades (53 to 79). Third, the Iranian revolution actually incorporated cooperation from ideologically diverse parties who were betrayed and liquidated by the subsequent leaders of the revolution. That liquidation was not the doing of the US by any stretch of the imagination - and certainly is not a direct result of anything that happened in 1953, even on your assumptions. You are repeating a standard, oversimplified revisionist history which makes the US singlehandedly responsible for Iran's entire fate for all time, blatantly ignoring any other historical, regional or Iranian factor.

nl 13y ago
Are you seriously implying that the 1953 coup wasn't orchestrated by Western powers? I've never heard anyone seriously argue that it wasn't. the purported event is separated from the Iranian revolution by several decades (53 to 79) I think the parent was implying that the '53 coup was what the Western powers wanted, but the '79 revolution destroyed that plan. You are repeating a standard, oversimplified revisionist history which makes the US singlehandedly responsible for Iran's entire fate for all time, blatantly ignoring any other historical, regional or Iranian factor. I'm not entirely sure, but I think you are misreading what people are saying here (it isn't exactly clear what they are saying, so I might be wrong too). I think they are saying that the '79 revolution was an Iranian action, which happened in direct opposition to what the Western powers wanted. In either case, I agree with you about the '79 revolution - that was completely Iranian doing.
ucee054 13y ago
you do not have any hard evidence that this happened Apart from the fact that Madeleine Albright admitted it when she was Secretary of State. You are just being deliberately ignorant now. Oh, and a jackass. That liquidation was not the doing of the US There was interference by other powers as well such as the UK, and there is also a lot wrong with Iranian society, NONE of which removes at all the CIA's responsibility for the coup and the subsequent torture of Iranians by SAVAK under CIA direction during the decades you mention from 1953-1979. You think the story stopped in 53? betrayed and liquidated by the subsequent leaders of the revolution The people were mad at the two decades of torture and having Iranian oil stolen, and so they hated the pro-US Emperor and they hated the US. They acted on that hatred against the targets and got on the Khomeini bandwagon as a way of overthrowing the Emperor. There wouldn't have been a revolution if there had been nothing to overthrow. Khomeini made his name opposing the Emperor. If the CIA hadn't launched the coup in 53 the democracy would still have existed instead. Mossadegh was everything. Khomeini was nothing. No one was going to follow Khomeini against the democracy. Oh yeah, and Iranians would still love the US like they did in 1950.