To the surprise of absolutely no one, the CIA was indeed behind the 1953 coup in Iran.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397133/CIA-finally-admits-1953-coup-deposed-Iranian-prime-minister-stood-West.html#ixzz2cQrYDQbd
QuoteCIA finally admits it was behind 1953 coup which deposed Iranian prime minister who stood up to the West
- Mohammad Mossadegh was deposed in a military coup on August 19, 1953
- CIA and MI6 have long been thought to have orchestrated the operation
- But today U.S. officials admitted responsibility for the first time ever
Today marks the 60th anniversary of the coup in Iran which deposed prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he restricted the flow of oil to the West.
However, it is only now, six decades on, that the CIA has finally admitted that it was behind the revolution, which was one of the most significant landmarks in modern Iranian history.
It has long been widely acknowledged that the U.S. and British authorities were behind Mossadegh's overthrow - one factor behind the anti-Western sentiments shared by many in Iran which led to the 1979 Islamist revolution in the country.
However, the CIA has never publicised its role in the operation, claiming that it needs to maintain secrecy in order to protect its working methods and sources of information.
But today the agency released documents to the National Security Archive in which it admits that the coup 'was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy'.
The operation, codenamed 'TPAJAX', was 'conceived and approved at the highest levels of government', the documents - entitled 'The Battle for Iran' and compiled in the 1970s - reveal.
The agency admits that the coup, which saw the Shah persuaded to sack Mossadegh and replace him with Fazlollah Zahedi, was a 'last resort' and a 'policy of desperation'.
It took place on August 19, 1953, after negotiations between Britain and Iran over securing UK access to Iranian oil broke down.
MI6 is thought to have asked the CIA to remove Mossadegh and install a pro-Western leader, and the U.S. authorities readily agreed as a way of getting the upper hand over the Soviets in the Cold War.
The internal dossier says: 'It was the potential of those risks to leave Iran open to Soviet aggression that compelled the United States in planning and executing TPAJAX.'
One alternative possibility was a unilateral invasion of Iran by British forces, similar to the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis three years later.
However, that prospect was apparently unacceptable to the U.S., as it would lead to a Soviet backlash and the West would permanently lose access to Iran's oil supply.
'The Soviet army would have moved south to drive British forces out on behalf of their Iranian "allies",' the CIA documents say.
'Then not only would Iran's oil have been irretrievably lost to the West, but the defence chain around the Soviet Union which was part of U.S. foreign policy would have been breached.'
They continue: 'Under such circumstances, the danger of a third world war seemed very real.'
Although the coup was extremely successful in the short term, with Mossadegh being swiftly removed and imprisoned, its long-term effects were less positive.
The U.S. intervention in Iran's internal politics created a strong strain of anti-American sentiment in the country, which culminated in the hostage crisis following the Islamic revolution of 1979.
The UK's involvement in the coup - which has never been officially recognised - also created a backlash within Iran, with many regarding Britain with even more hostility than they do the U.S.
The newly released CIA documents acknowledge these ill effects, stating the the coup is regarded by many observers as being 'near the top of their list of infamous Agency acts'.
While the CIA itself has never previously alluded to its role in carrying out the coup, officials as senior as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have acknowledged that the operation had U.S. backing.
It is unclear why intelligence chiefs have now decided to own up to the true origins of the coup.
I am shocked, shocked to find coups going on in here! :o
How dare we act in our national interest.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
How dare we act in our national interest.
derPinochet.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
How dare we act in our national interest.
What does that have to do with it? Or do you think anything is justified so long as it is in national interests?
I doubt you could find anyone who would agree with the strawman valmy.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 08:26:17 AM
I doubt you could find anyone who would agree with the strawman valmy.
Obviously not.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2013, 08:24:58 AM
What does that have to do with it?
Quite a lot, actually.
QuoteOr do you think anything is justified so long as it is in national interests?
Not necessarily. But national interest should be the prime consideration in forming our foreign policy.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
How dare we act in our national interest.
And how's that working out for you?
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
How dare we act in our national interest.
In hindsight it wasn't.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2013, 08:58:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
How dare we act in our national interest.
In hindsight it wasn't.
With 20/20 hindsight, possibly not. But you can only go with what you know at the time.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 09:08:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2013, 08:58:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
How dare we act in our national interest.
In hindsight it wasn't.
With 20/20 hindsight, possibly not. But you can only go with what you know at the time.
Possibly not?
I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 09:24:07 AM
I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.
Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:41:08 AM
Not necessarily. But national interest should be the prime consideration in forming our foreign policy.
As opposed to, say, the founding principles of our country.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 09:24:07 AM
Possibly not?
I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.
On the one hand the outcome is not good.
But on the other hand, I really don't see how anything that has happened in Iran has really impacted US interests. The Arabic world + Iran + countries that end in -stan are ultimately on the other side of the world, not significant trading partners of the US, and not major powers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 09:25:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 09:24:07 AM
I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.
Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.
Sure, but there were some warning signs. The attempted gangbang on Israel for one. A savvy observer at the time could have realized that was a Muslim thing and not just an Arab thing.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2013, 09:29:55 AM
But on the other hand, I really don't see how anything that has happened in Iran has really impacted US interests. The Arabic world + Iran + countries that end in -stan are ultimately on the other side of the world, not significant trading partners of the US, and not major powers.
Dude, Iran was the model for the Nixon Doctrine's application to the Middle East, and the primary US-sponsored centerpiece for the region in promoting US regional military interests from the 1950s through the 1970s.
It very much impacted US interests, and the Islamic Revolution and losing the Shah derailed the entire Nixon Doctrine model of using specific regional powers as surrogate US representatives.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 09:25:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 09:24:07 AM
I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.
Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.
It wasn't tough to see that the Shah would have a hard time staying in power over the long haul with no strong base of support in civil society.
1953 was the year after Nasser's coup and so it wouldn't take a ton of imagination to conceive how things might go badly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2013, 09:35:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 09:25:49 AM
Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.
Sure, but there were some warning signs. The attempted gangbang on Israel for one. A savvy observer at the time could have realized that was a Muslim thing and not just an Arab thing.
Islamic populist movements were in their infancy in the 1950s, and only the most esoteric observers in the ivoriest of towers would've foreseen those movements in Iran as growing steam, compared to the substantially larger parallel communist activities at the time.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 09:24:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 09:08:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2013, 08:58:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
How dare we act in our national interest.
In hindsight it wasn't.
With 20/20 hindsight, possibly not. But you can only go with what you know at the time.
Possibly not?
I can't imagine a much worse long term outcome for US interests.
Iran falling under the Soviet sphere of influence would have been pretty bad. Not to say that would've happened with any certainty (again with 20/20 hindsight) but that was the fear at the time.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 09:44:20 AM
Iran falling under the Soviet sphere of influence would have been pretty bad. Not to say that would've happened with any certainty (again with 20/20 hindsight) but that was the fear at the time.
Nonsense. It was about the oil nationalization.
The high water mark of the Tudeh Party was the the Azerbaijan crisis in 46/47 - they never fully recovered from that. Mossadeq was a nationalist , anti-communist, and anti-Soviet.
The coup had nothing to do with any risk of Soviet domination. It took place a few months after Stalin's death when the USSR was hardly in a position to extend influence. Soviet weakness -- not Soviet strength -- promoted the coup, as the plotters knew that the Soviets would not be in a position to counter their activities.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 09:44:20 AM
Iran falling under the Soviet sphere of influence would have been pretty bad. Not to say that would've happened with any certainty (again with 20/20 hindsight) but that was the fear at the time.
Nonsense. It was about the oil nationalization.
The high water mark of the Tudeh Party was the the Azerbaijan crisis in 46/47 - they never fully recovered from that. Mossadeq was a nationalist , anti-communist, and anti-Soviet.
The coup had nothing to do with any risk of Soviet domination. It took place a few months after Stalin's death when the USSR was hardly in a position to extend influence. Soviet weakness -- not Soviet strength -- promoted the coup, as the plotters knew that the Soviets would not be in a position to counter their activities.
And lets not forget that the CIA involvement was a dramatic shift in US policy in the region. Prior to that British were in favour of supporting a coup because of the loss of British oil rights in the country (actually more like the Iranians finally charging a realistic royalty for the oil) but the Americans did not support the idea. One election cycle in the US changed all that and the US began to actively support a coup.
As for long term damage. It would have been pretty easy to understand that the change in policy was at best a dangerous gamble for the sake of some oil concessions by the new regime which had zero popular support.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 09:41:56 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2013, 09:35:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 09:25:49 AM
Kinda tough to foresee 1979 in 1953, though.
Sure, but there were some warning signs. The attempted gangbang on Israel for one. A savvy observer at the time could have realized that was a Muslim thing and not just an Arab thing.
Islamic populist movements were in their infancy in the 1950s, and only the most esoteric observers in the ivoriest of towers would've foreseen those movements in Iran as growing steam, compared to the substantially larger parallel communist activities at the time.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthtalk13.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F08%2Framboiiicredits.jpg&hash=cd42f636dcec8fbfa77798eee9d60babe2d4e7a1)
Considering that Rambo was chumming up with the Taliban in the 80s, I'd say that muslim extremism was something that was not high up in CIA priorities at that time. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
Nonsense. It was about the oil nationalization.
It was for the Brits. But I don't think that was the US's motivation.
QuoteThe high water mark of the Tudeh Party was the the Azerbaijan crisis in 46/47 - they never fully recovered from that. Mossadeq was a nationalist , anti-communist, and anti-Soviet.
He was a nationalist, but I think you're over-selling the anti-communist, anti-Soviet bit. Not saying he was necessarily pro- those things but the fear on the part of the US was that he might turn to the Soviets as he pulled away from the West.
QuoteThe coup had nothing to do with any risk of Soviet domination. It took place a few months after Stalin's death when the USSR was hardly in a position to extend influence. Soviet weakness -- not Soviet strength -- promoted the coup, as the plotters knew that the Soviets would not be in a position to counter their activities.
While there may be some truth to this, the quoted article states:
QuoteThe internal dossier says: 'It was the potential of those risks to leave Iran open to Soviet aggression that compelled the United States in planning and executing TPAJAX.'
Quote from: The Larch on August 20, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
Considering that Rambo was chumming up with the Taliban in the 80s, I'd say that muslim extremism was something that was not high up in CIA priorities at that time. :P
Yeah, and so fucking what anyway, the Islamotards were sworn to defeat the godless Soviets, which just so happened to be our aim, too. Enemy of my enemy and all that, and why the fuck not.
You know, all you fuckers love to just smugly sit back and judge the governing philosophies of state actor
realpolitik of the past from the cheap seats of the present.
ZOMG PRUSSIA'S SECRET ALLIANCE WIFF ITALY IN 1866 TOTALLY FUCKED UP GERMANY'S OFFENSIVE COORDINATION WIFF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY IN 1914
Gotta love revisionism on a long enough timeline.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 10:49:32 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 20, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
Considering that Rambo was chumming up with the Taliban in the 80s, I'd say that muslim extremism was something that was not high up in CIA priorities at that time. :P
Yeah, and so fucking what anyway, the Islamotards were sworn to defeat the godless Soviets, which just so happened to be our aim, too. Enemy of my enemy and all that, and why the fuck not.
You know, all you fuckers love to just smugly sit back and judge the governing philosophies of state actor realpolitik of the past from the cheap seats of the present.
ZOMG PRUSSIA'S SECRET ALLIANCE WIFF ITALY IN 1866 TOTALLY FUCKED UP GERMANY'S OFFENSIVE COORDINATION WIFF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY IN 1914
Gotta love revisionism on a long enough timeline.
I don't know if you realize it, but I was actually agreeing with you. ;)
Quote from: The Larch on August 20, 2013, 11:01:36 AM
I don't know if you realize it, but I was actually agreeing with you. ;)
Yeah, by mocking one of our most treasured national icons. Do not insult the Rambo! :angry:
Quote from: The Larch on August 20, 2013, 11:01:36 AM
I don't know if you realize it, but I was actually agreeing with you. ;)
I know, and I don't know if you realize it, but not every sentence in every post is directed at the poster. ZOMG SO SELF-CENTERED
I hope this pattern of disclosure continues. In 10 years, we'll know who killed JFK.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2013, 11:44:22 AM
I hope this pattern of disclosure continues. In 10 years, we'll know who killed JFK.
:lol:
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 08:41:08 AM
Not necessarily. But national interest should be the prime consideration in forming our foreign policy.
As opposed to, say, the founding principles of our country.
I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2013, 11:44:22 AM
I hope this pattern of disclosure continues. In 10 years, we'll know who killed JFK.
The Colonel with the gun from the study
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2013, 09:29:55 AM
But on the other hand, I really don't see how anything that has happened in Iran has really impacted US interests. The Arabic world + Iran + countries that end in -stan are ultimately on the other side of the world, not significant trading partners of the US, and not major powers.
Dude, Iran was the model for the Nixon Doctrine's application to the Middle East, and the primary US-sponsored centerpiece for the region in promoting US regional military interests from the 1950s through the 1970s.
It very much impacted US interests, and the Islamic Revolution and losing the Shah derailed the entire Nixon Doctrine model of using specific regional powers as surrogate US representatives.
I was really trying to challenge whether any of that stuff actually matters to US interests. :P
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.
I said nothing about slave owners.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 10:47:34 AM
QuoteThe internal dossier says: 'It was the potential of those risks to leave Iran open to Soviet aggression that compelled the United States in planning and executing TPAJAX.'
of course it does.
Hell back then the reason they gave for building the highway system was to deter the Soviets.
When ever this topic comes up I always recommend all the Shaw's men. And I will do it again. I drafted a lengthy post but it has frozen and will likely be lost. So instead I will just link to a scholars observations of the book which has some interesting observations about US intentions at that time and the long term damage the US decision had on the region and US international relations to this day.
http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/Kazemzadeh/kinzer.htm
I think the takeway in hindsight is not so much was it goo or bad in the long run. I think things in Iran (in the long run) turned out pretty obviously bad for the US, but I agree that it is pretty much useless to judge the actions of 40 years ago by what we know happened over the next 40 years.
The better point is to realize that while they could not know that things would turn out so badly for the US, they also could not know that things would turn out better - the reality is that it is incredibly hard to tell what the consequences of actions are going to be, and hence, taking radical action in the present is almost always impossible to justify on the basis of projecting how things will turn out over the long run. It is simply much too hard to tell, which suggests that NOT doing things like organizing coups unless there is a very, very compelling short term pressure *and justification* for those actions.
You should be able to justify an action as radical as fomenting a coup without a need to imagine some long term state, because the reality is that the long term state is almost impossible to predict after introduction of some massive variable like "Hey, lets overthrow the government via outside influence!"
That, IMO, is the lesson to be learned here.
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
I don't really care what those slave owners had to say.
I said nothing about slave owners.
Who creates founding principles?
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 12:37:00 PM
I think the takeway in hindsight is not so much was it goo or bad in the long run. I think things in Iran (in the long run) turned out pretty obviously bad for the US, but I agree that it is pretty much useless to judge the actions of 40 years ago by what we know happened over the next 40 years.
The better point is to realize that while they could not know that things would turn out so badly for the US, they also could not know that things would turn out better - the reality is that it is incredibly hard to tell what the consequences of actions are going to be, and hence, taking radical action in the present is almost always impossible to justify on the basis of projecting how things will turn out over the long run. It is simply much too hard to tell, which suggests that NOT doing things like organizing coups unless there is a very, very compelling short term pressure *and justification* for those actions.
You should be able to justify an action as radical as fomenting a coup without a need to imagine some long term state, because the reality is that the long term state is almost impossible to predict after introduction of some massive variable like "Hey, lets overthrow the government via outside influence!"
That, IMO, is the lesson to be learned here.
But if you look at what people were thinking (through their diaries and other materials) and saying publicly the Americans were quite concerned about supporting the democratic process in Iran as a fundamental good and they recognized that interference would have negative implications. The Brits simply didnt care. They really did just want their oil and the rest be damned.
It is too simplistic to say that it is only through hindsight that this could be viewed as a bad idea.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 12:41:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 12:37:00 PM
I think the takeway in hindsight is not so much was it goo or bad in the long run. I think things in Iran (in the long run) turned out pretty obviously bad for the US, but I agree that it is pretty much useless to judge the actions of 40 years ago by what we know happened over the next 40 years.
The better point is to realize that while they could not know that things would turn out so badly for the US, they also could not know that things would turn out better - the reality is that it is incredibly hard to tell what the consequences of actions are going to be, and hence, taking radical action in the present is almost always impossible to justify on the basis of projecting how things will turn out over the long run. It is simply much too hard to tell, which suggests that NOT doing things like organizing coups unless there is a very, very compelling short term pressure *and justification* for those actions.
You should be able to justify an action as radical as fomenting a coup without a need to imagine some long term state, because the reality is that the long term state is almost impossible to predict after introduction of some massive variable like "Hey, lets overthrow the government via outside influence!"
That, IMO, is the lesson to be learned here.
But if you look at what people were thinking (through their diaries and other materials) and saying publicly the Americans were quite concerned about supporting the democratic process in Iran as a fundamental good and they recognized that interference would have negative implications. The Brits simply didnt care. They really did just want their oil and the rest be damned.
It is too simplistic to say that it is only through hindsight that this could be viewed as a bad idea.
I think I was saying that it was not a bad idea because in hindsight it turned out badly, I am saying it is a bad idea because messing around with the internal politics of another state in such a manner is dangerous and leads to largely impossible to predict results in the long run. So unless there is a REALLY compelling reason in the short run, you should probably just wait and see what happens.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 12:47:41 PM
I think I was saying that it was not a bad idea because in hindsight it turned out badly, I am saying it is a bad idea because messing around with the internal politics of another state in such a manner is dangerous and leads to largely impossible to predict results in the long run. So unless there is a REALLY compelling reason in the short run, you should probably just wait and see what happens.
That's fair. The good thing is we've progressed far beyond that & would never make a mistake like that again :P
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 12:52:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 12:47:41 PM
I think I was saying that it was not a bad idea because in hindsight it turned out badly, I am saying it is a bad idea because messing around with the internal politics of another state in such a manner is dangerous and leads to largely impossible to predict results in the long run. So unless there is a REALLY compelling reason in the short run, you should probably just wait and see what happens.
That's fair. The good thing is we've progressed far beyond that & would never make a mistake like that again :P
:D
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2013, 12:52:36 PMThat's fair. The good thing is we've progressed far beyond that & would never make a mistake like that again :P
:cheers:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
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!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 01:09:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 01:24:55 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 12:41:14 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 01:37:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 12:41:14 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 01:30:24 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 01:37:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 12:41:14 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
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?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 01:48:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 01:37:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 12:41:14 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
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?
QuoteWe 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
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.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 01:46:19 PM
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)
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 01:58:23 PM
QuoteWe 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?
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 02:06:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 01:30:24 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:09:45 PMAre 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?
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:09:45 PMAre 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.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:09:45 PMAre 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:23:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:09:45 PMAre 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.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:10:50 PM
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.
Quote
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?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:09:45 PMAre 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.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:24:17 PM
I don't think we strive for perfection in our founding principles and nor would I agree that such is important.
:huh: I must be misunderstanding what you mean.
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:09:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 01:58:23 PM
QuoteWe 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.
Quote
Do we not end the lives of some people?
Indeed we do. That is not in contravention with the founding principle however.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
Does our government really derive its powers from each one of us?
I believe that it does - or it should.
Quote
Is this Creator part of our founding principles?
No, but the idea that are individual rights are inate rather than derived is.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:27:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 02:31:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 02:31:58 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 20, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:36:46 PM
I think Max's point is that such principles are the best possible starting point from which to analyze policy decisions.
And I disagree. I don't think it would be a good idea to stick to such principles if they led to say - the destruction of the state (aside from the sort of reason that the DoI further outlines). So for instance if we choose not to institute a coup against an elected government that we fear is out to destroy us - I think that's a mistake.
Not speaking with regards to this coup, but just an example.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:38:51 PM
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.
No, I make it sound like it wasn't extra-constitutional. The confederate happened to be the Iranian head of state and he happened to have the constitutional power to remove the prime minister.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:40:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:36:46 PM
I think Max's point is that such principles are the best possible starting point from which to analyze policy decisions.
And I disagree. I don't think it would be a good idea to stick to such principles if they led to say - the destruction of the state (aside from the sort of reason that the DoI further outlines). So for instance if we choose not to institute a coup against an elected government that we fear is out to destroy us - I think that's a mistake.
Not speaking with regards to this coup, but just an example.
But that is an example of what I said in action. You start from the proposition that a democratically elected government is good. You then introduce a fact which, in very limited circumstances justifies taking some action.
This is nothing more than Berkut's observation that there better be a damned good reason before this sort of thing is done.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:38:51 PM
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.
No, I make it sound like it wasn't extra-constitutional. The confederate happened to be the Iranian head of state and he happened to have the constitutional power to remove the prime minister.
Which is complete bullshit. The CIA enlisted the help of pro-monarchy military leaders within the armed forces to pull off the coup. Hell the CIA agent in question was riding around in a jeep with a machine gun in hand making sure the military assets at his disposal were taking control of key centres. It was only after the CIA led military units had taken control that your so called "constitutional" transition took place.
The analogy would be if the US somehow pursuaded the Govenor General of Canada to select a different governing party. On paper sure you could say that was constitutional but it would turn a recklessly blind eye to what was actually happening.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:49:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:40:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:36:46 PM
I think Max's point is that such principles are the best possible starting point from which to analyze policy decisions.
And I disagree. I don't think it would be a good idea to stick to such principles if they led to say - the destruction of the state (aside from the sort of reason that the DoI further outlines). So for instance if we choose not to institute a coup against an elected government that we fear is out to destroy us - I think that's a mistake.
Not speaking with regards to this coup, but just an example.
But that is an example of what I said in action. You start from the proposition that a democratically elected government is good. You then introduce a fact which, in very limited circumstances justifies taking some action.
This is nothing more than Berkut's observation that there better be a damned good reason before this sort of thing is done.
But that's what I take issue with. I don't start with the assumption that all democratically elected governments are equal so I wouldn't say that any specific democratically elected government is good.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 02:48:39 PMNo, I make it sound like it wasn't extra-constitutional. The confederate happened to be the Iranian head of state and he happened to have the constitutional power to remove the prime minister.
What difference does that make?
That it was constitutional does not make it any less anti-democratic, nor any less CIA initiated.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:55:13 PM
But that's what I take issue with. I don't start with the assumption that all democratically elected governments are equal so I wouldn't say that any specific democratically elected government is good.
I didnt say all democratically elected governments are equal. Before you start making the analysis of which are good and which are bad you still start from the proposition that democracy itself is good. Otherwise you wouldnt need to carry out the further analysis at all. You could just remove all democratically elected governments if you didnt think democracy was worth anything.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 03:00:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:55:13 PM
But that's what I take issue with. I don't start with the assumption that all democratically elected governments are equal so I wouldn't say that any specific democratically elected government is good.
I didnt say all democratically elected governments are equal. Before you start making the analysis of which are good and which are bad you still start from the proposition that democracy itself is good. Otherwise you wouldnt need to carry out the further analysis at all. You could just remove all democratically elected governments if you didnt think democracy was worth anything.
Well actually I'd step backwards and say that we need to have a damn good reason to decide to overthrow any government regardless of whether or not it is democratic. Now perhaps one might lower the bar for that reason on a dictatorship for example, but I think it still needs to be significant.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 03:09:29 PM
Well actually I'd step backwards and say that we need to have a damn good reason to decide to overthrow any government regardless of whether or not it is democratic. Now perhaps one might lower the bar for that reason on a dictatorship for example, but I think it still needs to be significant.
Sure, but the fact you might require better reasons for overthrowing a democratic government speaks to a reference back to the founding principle of the importance of democracy. incidentally, to bring this all back to the topic - that is exactly the uneasiness the Americans first had about any intervention.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:52:54 PM
Which is complete bullshit. The CIA enlisted the help of pro-monarchy military leaders within the armed forces to pull off the coup. Hell the CIA agent in question was riding around in a jeep with a machine gun in hand making sure the military assets at his disposal were taking control of key centres. It was only after the CIA led military units had taken control that your so called "constitutional" transition took place.
The analogy would be if the US somehow pursuaded the Govenor General of Canada to select a different governing party. On paper sure you could say that was constitutional but it would turn a recklessly blind eye to what was actually happening.
Complete bullshit to me means that my facts are incorrect, which they are not.
A coup is (in my understanding) a function of the legality of the seizure of power, not whether the US has a preference in the outcome. A senate impeaching a president, even if the US is happy to see him go, and even if the US lobbied the senate in question to do so, is not a coup. A monarch removing a PM from office, when the constitution of the country grants him that power, is not a coup.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 03:00:13 PM
What difference does that make?
That it was constitutional does not make it any less anti-democratic, nor any less CIA initiated.
You could ask Crazy Canuck the same question. Why is he so set on holding on to the word coup to describe what happened? I already mentioned to Max that I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm not contesting that it was CIA-initiated, nor am I contesting that Mossadegh had won his office fairly by the rules of the game.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 02:52:54 PM
Which is complete bullshit. The CIA enlisted the help of pro-monarchy military leaders within the armed forces to pull off the coup. Hell the CIA agent in question was riding around in a jeep with a machine gun in hand making sure the military assets at his disposal were taking control of key centres. It was only after the CIA led military units had taken control that your so called "constitutional" transition took place.
The analogy would be if the US somehow pursuaded the Govenor General of Canada to select a different governing party. On paper sure you could say that was constitutional but it would turn a recklessly blind eye to what was actually happening.
Complete bullshit to me means that my facts are incorrect, which they are not.
A coup is (in my understanding) a function of the legality of the seizure of power, not whether the US has a preference in the outcome. A senate impeaching a president, even if the US is happy to see him go, and even if the US lobbied the senate in question to do so, is not a coup. A monarch removing a PM from office, when the constitution of the country grants him that power, is not a coup.
Complete bullshit in the sense of being complete bullshit of ignoring most of the facts to come to a fantasy world conclusion that the democratic government of Iran was overthrown following some wierd concept of due process.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 03:23:27 PM
Complete bullshit in the sense of being complete bullshit of ignoring most of the facts to come to a fantasy world conclusion that the democratic government of Iran was overthrown following some wierd concept of due process.
The only facts that are relevant to my conclusion are the words that were written in the Iranian constitution in 1953.
I agree with Yi that "coup" is probably not an accurate term. I think "overthrow" is probably a fair term. Also fair to say "the Shah, using his constitutional authority, dismissed the prime minister".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 03:31:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 03:23:27 PM
Complete bullshit in the sense of being complete bullshit of ignoring most of the facts to come to a fantasy world conclusion that the democratic government of Iran was overthrown following some wierd concept of due process.
The only facts that are relevant to my conclusion are the words that were written in the Iranian constitution in 1953.
I see, so if a gun was being held to the head of the person signing the document it would matter not one wit to you so long as the proper paperwork was filed. Gotcha.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 03:38:18 PM
I see, so if a gun was being held to the head of the person signing the document it would matter not one wit to you so long as the proper paperwork was filed. Gotcha.
:lol: No, you're right. It would also matter if the CIA had implanted a mind-control chip in the Shah's brain.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 03:38:18 PM
I see, so if a gun was being held to the head of the person signing the document it would matter not one wit to you so long as the proper paperwork was filed. Gotcha.
Obviously it makes a difference. The signature doesn't quite look the same when your hands are shaking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 03:19:16 PM
You could ask Crazy Canuck the same question. Why is he so set on holding on to the word coup to describe what happened? I already mentioned to Max that I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm not contesting that it was CIA-initiated, nor am I contesting that Mossadegh had won his office fairly by the rules of the game.
Okay, so the issue is not that the CIA engineered a the downfall of a popularly elected Prime Minster through dirty tricks; it's merely whether it's technically accurate to call that a "coup" or not?
If so, I'll leave the field to you and CC.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 04:20:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 03:19:16 PM
You could ask Crazy Canuck the same question. Why is he so set on holding on to the word coup to describe what happened? I already mentioned to Max that I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm not contesting that it was CIA-initiated, nor am I contesting that Mossadegh had won his office fairly by the rules of the game.
Okay, so the issue is not that the CIA engineered a the downfall of a popularly elected Prime Minster through dirty tricks; it's merely whether it's technically accurate to call that a "coup" or not?
If so, I'll leave the field to you and CC.
I think Yi is in part channelling Obama.
Meanwhile McCain was actually talking about 53, not 3rd July.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 04:20:21 PM
Okay, so the issue is not that the CIA engineered a the downfall of a popularly elected Prime Minster through dirty tricks; it's merely whether it's technically accurate to call that a "coup" or not?
If so, I'll leave the field to you and CC.
Dirty trick is in the eye of the beholder.
In the quibble department, Mossadegh was not popularly elected; he was elected by a vote of the Majlis, which he won with 7 votes out of 12.
Quote from: mongers on August 20, 2013, 04:28:41 PM
I think Yi is in part channelling Obama.
The opposite. Egypt was clearly a coup.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 04:29:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 04:20:21 PM
Okay, so the issue is not that the CIA engineered a the downfall of a popularly elected Prime Minster through dirty tricks; it's merely whether it's technically accurate to call that a "coup" or not?
If so, I'll leave the field to you and CC.
Dirty trick is in the eye of the beholder.
In the quibble department, Mossadegh was not popularly elected; he was elected by a vote of the Majlis, which he won with 7 votes out of 12.
An in similar quibble territory, the US president isn't directly elected and the British PM is just invited by a unelected person to form a government.
I don't think you understand the quibble concept mongers.
Jacob said Mossadegh was popularly elected. I corrected him, but not a big deal, therefore a quibble.
No one claimed the US president or the British PM are popularly elected.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 04:29:16 PM
Dirty trick is in the eye of the beholder.
Sure.
I'm getting a bit confused what you're getting at in this discussion. Do you have a particular claim or interpretation of event that you think holds, or are you just quibbling around the edges?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 04:41:45 PM
I don't think you understand the quibble concept mongers.
Jacob said Mossadegh was popularly elected. I corrected him, but not a big deal, therefore a quibble.
No one claimed the US president or the British PM are popularly elected.
Oops, my bad I thought you were addressing the substance of the claim. :blush:
Mossadeq was removed from power by an armed mob organized by a foreign power. At that time, the Shah was in Italy. That smells a lot like a coup, not so much a normal constitutional transfer of power.
"Coup, Not a Coup-- You Make the Call"
I feel like we've played this game before :D
I also think it is a bit rich to talk about the Constitutional power of the Shah when the very existence of the Pahlavi dynasty was the result of an extra-constitutional deposition of the Qajars.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 04:48:00 PM
Sure.
I'm getting a bit confused what you're getting at in this discussion. Do you have a particular claim or interpretation of event that you think holds, or are you just quibbling around the edges?
False dichotomy. I believe my particular claim of the constitutionality of the Shah's action holds up, and I've already said it doesn't change much of anything.
Quote from: mongers on August 20, 2013, 04:52:04 PM
Oops, my bad I thought you were addressing the substance of the claim. :blush:
Then your response about the US electoral college and the Westminster system still make no sense. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 05:28:55 PM
False dichotomy. I believe my particular claim of the constitutionality of the Shah's action holds up, and I've already said it doesn't change much of anything.
You're quibbling about the use of "popularly" and you're saying the actions in question were constitutional, but that that fact "doesn't change much of anything"... that sounds like quibbling around the edges to me.
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 07:27:59 PM
You're quibbling about the use of "popularly" and you're saying the actions in question were constitutional, but that that fact "doesn't change much of anything"... that sounds like quibbling around the edges to me.
Sure. And my quibble holds up. False dichotomy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 07:35:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 20, 2013, 07:27:59 PM
You're quibbling about the use of "popularly" and you're saying the actions in question were constitutional, but that that fact "doesn't change much of anything"... that sounds like quibbling around the edges to me.
Sure. And my quibble holds up. False dichotomy.
Your quibble holds up, most definitely. No argument from me at all on either of the points you were quibbling about.
I was wondering if you had some perspective to offer beyond the integrity of your two quibbles; my curiosity has been satisfied on this point now.
Quote from: The Larch on August 20, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthtalk13.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F08%2Framboiiicredits.jpg&hash=cd42f636dcec8fbfa77798eee9d60babe2d4e7a1)
Considering that Rambo was chumming up with the Taliban in the 80s, I'd say that muslim extremism was something that was not high up in CIA priorities at that time. :P
Not the Taliban who did not exist back then, but an idealised Afghani resistance based on Ahmed Shah Massoud cf. the Mujahed leader Masoud in the movie :contract:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095956/trivia?item=tr0667035 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095956/trivia?item=tr0667035)
QuoteThe character Masoud (Spiros Focás) is a reference to Ahmad Shah Masoud, a real-life leader of the Afghani resistance against the Russian occupation, minister of defense of Afghanistan (after the Russian occupation ended) and later again a leader of the resistance, this time against the Taliban regime.
The real problem was funneling money through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which supported their own agendas and men. Massoud being a Tadjik and close culturally to Iran was not exactly seen very well by sunni fundies.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 21, 2013, 02:28:03 AM
....
QuoteThe character Masoud (Spiros Focás) is a reference to Ahmad Shah Masoud, a real-life leader of the Afghani resistance against the Russian occupation, minister of defense of Afghanistan (after the Russian occupation ended) and later again a leader of the resistance, this time against the Taliban regime.
The real problem was funneling money through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which supported their own agendas and men. Massoud being a Tadjik and close culturally to Iran was not exactly seen very well by sunni fundies.
Assassination of, first 'shot' in the Saudi Wahhabist war on the West ?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2013, 02:09:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 01:58:23 PM
QuoteWe 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
Is this Creator part of our founding principles?
I'm reading the Vermont Constitution, adopted in 1777 for a (de jure) independent republic, and in the Declaration-esque preamble, I found a more literary substitute: "the Author of existence." :swiss:
QuoteWhereas, all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever those great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent, to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness.
And further along, "the Great Governor of the Universe":
QuoteWe the representatives of the freemen of Vermont, in General Convention met, for the express purpose of forming such a government, confessing the goodness of the Great Governor of the Universe (who alone, knows to what degree of earthly happiness, mankind may attain, by perfecting the arts of government), in permitting the people of this State, by common consent, and without violence, deliberately to form for themselves, such just rules as they shall think best for governing their future society;
Vermont is so cool. Much cooler than those asshole neighbors of theirs to the right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 07:23:11 PM
Vermont is so cool. Much cooler than those asshole neighbors of theirs to the right.
Well, they don't have a coastline to be warmed by the waters of the Gulf Stream. ;)
Good luck trying to collect, suckers.
QuoteIran considers lawsuit against US over 1953 coup
Parliament gives preliminary approval to bill calling for creation of committee to study issue before legal action is launched
Iran's parliament has given preliminary approval to a bill requiring the government to sue the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected prime minister.
The bill follows the release of formerly classified documents offering more details of the CIA's role in orchestrating the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh 60 years ago.
It calls for the creation of a committee to study the issue and provide a report within six months before legal action is launched against the US government in an international court.
Of the 196 MPs attending the session of parliament, which was broadcast live on state radio, 167 voted in favour of the bill and five opposed it.
The MP Mahdi Mousavinejad said Iran should take legal action to ensure the US take responsibility for its actions. "America's oppressive behaviour [in 1953] shows that the Iranian nation has to stand up and pursue its trampled rights," he said.
But Mohammad Mahdi Rahbari, another MP, opposed the bill, saying it would not bring anything tangible for Iran. "Pursuing this bill has no benefits for our country. It will waste the parliament's time," he said.
The coup restored the despotic regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been overthrown in the 1979 Iranian revolution.
MPs said the documents proved that the US had a history of malevolent intervention in Iran and that the admission was sufficient evidence to demand compensation.
In a document revealed this month entitled The Battle for Iran, the CIA reveals the coup plan was called Operation TPAJAX.
The unnamed author of the history writes that previously published accounts miss the point that "the military coup that overthrew Mossadegh ... was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government".
The US cut off diplomatic relations with Iran after militant students stormed the US embassy in Tehran to protest against Washington's refusal to hand over the toppled shah to Iran for trial.
The two countries remain at loggerheads over Iran's disputed nuclear programme. Iran denies claims by the US and Israel that it is aiming to build weapons, saying its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.
The truly ironic thing is that the US-sponsored "coup" against Mossadegh failed. It was Mossadeqh's over-reaction to his victory 9specifically, in dissolving parliament and adoption of rule by decree) that convinced the army to act against him the next day.
I think that the argument that this was not a coup because it was legitimized post-facto by the Shah is a bit of a blind. It was a coup.
And Mossadegh was as "democratically elected" as any PM is; he had a 79-12 majority in the parliament. I think it is always a far riskier thing to help overthrow a leader that has a popular mandate than one who does not. The idea that government derives its just powers from the consent of the government is pretty widely accepted (I think China is about the only major society that doesn't believe this), and if you act against the consent of the governed, the replacement government will have a hard time establishing its legitimacy.
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2013, 09:49:38 AM
The idea that government derives its just powers from the consent of the government is pretty widely accepted
True. :(
Quote from: The Brain on August 29, 2013, 09:51:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2013, 09:49:38 AM
The idea that government derives its just powers from the consent of the government is pretty widely accepted
True. :(
:console:
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2013, 09:49:38 AM
The truly ironic thing is that the US-sponsored "coup" against Mossadegh failed. It was Mossadeqh's over-reaction to his victory 9specifically, in dissolving parliament and adoption of rule by decree) that convinced the army to act against him the next day.
You are partially correct. It is true that the first attempted coup failed. But then Roosevelt - the CIA operative on the ground and in charge of the operation organized a second coup. That is why people blame the CIA and the US for the overthrow. ;) It is true that Mossadegh did over react. But if you read the link I provided up thread you will see how Roosevelt very skillfully manufactured that overreaction.
For years the CIA tried to take the position that it was in fact a popular overthrow but that story has been discredited.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 10:32:52 AM
You are partially correct. It is true that the first attempted coup failed. But then Roosevelt - the CIA operative on the ground and in charge of the operation organized a second coup. That is why people blame the CIA and the US for the overthrow. ;) It is true that Mossadegh did over react. But if you read the link I provided up thread you will see how Roosevelt very skillfully manufactured that overreaction.
For years the CIA tried to take the position that it was in fact a popular overthrow but that story has been discredited.
Roosevelt has retold the story to make himself look better, but the facts on the ground remain the facts on the ground, and the fact is that Roosevelt's coup failed. It is definitely the case, IMO, that the CIA's coup attempt laid the ground work for the successful coup 3 days (IIRC) later, but the latter occurred without Kermit Roosevelt doing a thing - it was a response to the dissolution of the parliament and the relaxation of martial law (which allowed newspapers to print the Shah's decrees dismissing Mossadegh). Don't believe everything you read, even when it plays into your own preconceptions.