No surprise: 1953 Iran coup "carried out under CIA direction"

[Admiral Yi]

Nonsense.  It was about the oil nationalization.

Am I mistaken in my understanding that it was primarily (or only) British interests affected by the nationalization?

[CountDeMoney]

Nonsense.  It was about the oil nationalization.

Am I mistaken in my understanding that it was primarily (or only) British interests affected by the nationalization?

No, you would not be mistaken.  But it's about friends helping friends!

[crazy canuck]

Nonsense.  It was about the oil nationalization.

Am I mistaken in my understanding that it was primarily (or only) British interests affected by the nationalization?

No, you would not be mistaken.  But it's about friends helping friends!

Correct, at first the Americans pursuaded the Brits not to intefere with the government in Iran but then elections were held in both countries (Britain and the US) and not only did the US begin to favour intervention but the CIA became an active participant in setting up the coup.  Put simply, but for the CIA and the dogged determination of the agent on the ground, the coup would never have happened.

[CountDeMoney]

Put simply, but for the CIA and the dogged determination of the agent on the ground, the coup would never have happened.

I miss the days of effective government agencies.

[Berkut]

I wonder how much shit happens just because there are people out there with a job to do, and doing nothing is just not seen as doing your job.

I mean, who is going to get promoted at the CIA for arguing that the right course of action in some crisis is to do nothing at all?

[Maximus]

I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.

I said nothing about slave owners.

Who creates founding principles?

It doesn't matter. Principles stand or fall on their own merits.

[garbon]

I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.

I said nothing about slave owners.

Who creates founding principles?

It doesn't matter. Principles stand or fall on their own merits.

Maybe in an ideal world.

[CountDeMoney]

I wonder how much shit happens just because there are people out there with a job to do, and doing nothing is just not seen as doing your job.

I mean, who is going to get promoted at the CIA for arguing that the right course of action in some crisis is to do nothing at all?

It all depends on the political needs for using the Agency at the time.  What to construct a pretense for invasion, the CIA will happily fit a square intelligence peg into a round hole for you when ordered.  But even when the CIA says don't do anything, it gets ignored anyway, just like how the White House totally ignored its documented opinions on post-war instability in Iraq in removing Hussein.  And for its hubris in speaking out--what with employing actual experts in the field--got a substantial amount of its input in the policy decision-making processes removed to the Pentagon.

CIA's always damned if they do, damned if they don't.  But I wouldn't blame the worker bees in the CIA for it--they're simply instruments for the political will of any given Administration at the time.

[garbon]

I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.

I said nothing about slave owners.

Who creates founding principles?

It doesn't matter. Principles stand or fall on their own merits.

Maybe in an ideal world.

Also Max, it is kind of nebulous. What would you say are the founding principles of the US?

[Berkut]

I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.

I said nothing about slave owners.

Who creates founding principles?

It doesn't matter. Principles stand or fall on their own merits.

Maybe in an ideal world.

Also Max, it is kind of nebulous. What would you say are the founding principles of the US?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

[Maximus]

Thanks Berk, that was exactly it. Some principles could be argued whether they are founding principles, but I don't see how you could argue those.

Maybe in an ideal world.

Are you saying a good principle can become a bad principle by being endorsed by a bad person? (leaving aside the trouble with defining a "bad" person)

[garbon]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Are all men treated as equals?
Do we not end the lives of some people?
Do we not hamper the liberty of some people?
How far does the pursuit of happiness go? Do we allow that to extent to harming others?
Does our government really derive its powers from each one of us?
Is this Creator part of our founding principles?

[garbon]

Thanks Berk, that was exactly it. Some principles could be argued whether they are founding principles, but I don't see how you could argue those.

Because as I just posted in a series of questions, we bend those all the time. Also, I'm not sure how what der was talking about is at fundamental odds with any of those.

[derspiess]

I mean, who is going to get promoted at the CIA for arguing that the right course of action in some crisis is to do nothing at all?

I'd say more people than you think. 

[Jacob]

Are all men treated as equals?
Do we not end the lives of some people?
Do we not hamper the liberty of some people?
How far does the pursuit of happiness go? Do we allow that to extent to harming others?
Does our government really derive its powers from each one of us?
Is this Creator part of our founding principles?

I would've thought they'd cover those topics in undergrad?