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

[garbon]

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?

They were really just rhetorical.

[crazy canuck]

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?

They were really just rhetorical.

Which is the point isnt it?  Founding principles are not rendered less important because they have not been followed to perfection but rather it is striving for that perfection that makes them important.

[garbon]

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?

They were really just rhetorical.

Which is the point isnt it?  Founding principles are not rendered less important because they have not been followed to perfection but rather it is striving for that perfection that makes them important.

I don't think we strive for perfection in our founding principles and nor would I agree that such is important.

[Maximus]

Because as I just posted in a series of questions, we bend those all the time.

They are bent sometimes, and sometimes exceptions are made, that does not make them not principles.

Also, I'm not sure how what der was talking about is at fundamental odds with any of those.

You don't see how a military coup against an elected government is at odds with the principle of governments deriving their powers from the consent of the governed?

[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?

They were really just rhetorical.

Oh.

In that case the answers are:

- They should be.
- Only when it is just to do so (unless we fuck up).
- We do, but only when it just to do so (unless we fuck up).
- We do not allow the pursuit of happiness to harm others.
- Yes.
- No, unless you're in the South.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think we strive for perfection in our founding principles and nor would I agree that such is important.

  I must be misunderstanding what you mean.

[garbon]

You don't see how a military coup against an elected government is at odds with the principle of governments deriving their powers from the consent of the governed?

No, nor do I think that "principle" has ever been fully true at any time in history. Not even here within the US.

[crazy canuck]

You don't see how a military coup against an elected government is at odds with the principle of governments deriving their powers from the consent of the governed?

No, nor do I think that "principle" has ever been fully true at any time in history. Not even here within the US.

Ah so you are measuring conduct by a founding principle.  Are you sure of what it is you are trying to say?

[Berkut]

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?

No, that is not what it said at all.

Do we not end the lives of some people?

Indeed we do. That is not in contravention with the founding principle however.

Do we not hamper the liberty of some people?

Yes. Again, not in contravention with the principle that individuals have a fundamental right to liberty.

How far does the pursuit of happiness go? Do we allow that to extent to harming others?

Are you looking for founding principles, or the actual massive set of laws, customs, and regulation that is an effort to put those founding principles into actual practice?

Does our government really derive its powers from each one of us?

I believe that it does - or it should.

Is this Creator part of our founding principles?

No, but the idea that are individual rights are inate rather than derived is.

[Maximus]

No, nor do I think that "principle" has ever been fully true at any time in history. Not even here within the US.

Principles are not true or false. They can be good, or bad, or somewhere in between, they can be followed to a greater or lesser degree. For this particular principle, military coup is about as lesser as it gets.

[Admiral Yi]

You don't see how a military coup against an elected government is at odds with the principle of governments deriving their powers from the consent of the governed?

This probably doesn't change much, but it wasn't a military coup.  It was the head of state exercising his constitutional prerogative to remove the prime minister.

I've argued in the past that it wasn't a coup at all, but folks here seem to have a very elastic definition of coup.

[garbon]

You don't see how a military coup against an elected government is at odds with the principle of governments deriving their powers from the consent of the governed?

No, nor do I think that "principle" has ever been fully true at any time in history. Not even here within the US.

Ah so you are measuring conduct by a founding principle.  Are you sure of what it is you are trying to say?

Well I started this of by saying that I don't think founding principles (/the thoughts of the founding fathers) should override what we see as our national concerns when making foreign policy.

I then said that I think what precisely are our founding principles are nebulous and asked Max what those are. Berk quoted a select passage from the Declaration of Independence.  Now you are right that I should have stopped there and made some sort of questioning with regards to why that specific few lines - though I think those are the most iconic in the declaration of independence.

My bit about conduct is that I'm unconvinced that short set marks the founding principles of our country as we didn't even uphold those while declaring them.

[crazy canuck]

Garbon, the thing that makes those lines so remarkable is that in the space of a very few words profoundingly important principles of modern government were enshrined.   I think Max's point is that such principles are the best possible starting point from which to analyze policy decisions.

[Maximus]

This probably doesn't change much, but it wasn't a military coup.  It was the head of state exercising his constitutional prerogative to remove the prime minister.

I've argued in the past that it wasn't a coup at all, but folks here seem to have a very elastic definition of coup.

Fair enough. I admit I am not well informed on the details. The word "coup" is widely used and I took that to mean military coup. The question remains whether it was a move for or against popular self-government. As you say I am not sure it changes the answer.

[crazy canuck]

You don't see how a military coup against an elected government is at odds with the principle of governments deriving their powers from the consent of the governed?

This probably doesn't change much, but it wasn't a military coup.  It was the head of state exercising his constitutional prerogative to remove the prime minister.

No, it was the US (and particularly the CIA) convincing confederates who had much to gain to go along with the US plot.  You make it sound like this was an internal matter only.