Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh, what source besides every history book and the news media? According to the iranian constitution, the PM is APPOINTED by the shah, but you already knew that, didn't you? I'll bet you also knew that the shah by that same constitution had control over the military, foreign policy, etc., which mossadegh attempted to usurp. So many iranians decided to remove him from power, and would have done so with or without US involvement, which consisted of paying them to do so, and printing posters. Big deal.
Yes the Prime Minister was appointed, from the recommendation of the Iranian assembly (which Mosaddegh was given 79-12), of and from duly elected representatives. It's similar to the UK Prime Minister, who is normally the leader of the majority party of the house of commons, but the Queen can choose another minister to be Prime Minister and form a cabinet.
Which specific articles of the 1906 Iranian Consitution did Mosaddegh try to usurp? And since he resigned and retired in 1925 when Reza Shah was appointed in protest for the constitutional violation, only to return at the request of Mohammad Reza Shah in 1941 why would he have then gone on to violate the constitution he originally resigned in protest over violations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Again, go do some research before sounding even more ignorant. Clearly you've read too many dailykos posters with the blathering "US overthrew a democratically-elected government" nonsense without having done any, so today would be a good time to start.
Goose, Gander meet sauce. Iran never had the same election process as the US, because the executive was predetermined (much like the UK). Democratically elected does not have to mean that the whole country elected that person (which also applies to the President of the US who is not directly elected, but who is elected by the Electoral College), but that they were elected by representation of persons who were elected to represent their constituents, or elected by their constituents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
No it wasn't, there was never a law on the books, including the Nuremberg laws of 1933, where it was ever legal to murder anyone. Do you make this nonsense up as you go along?
The Nuremberg laws were of 1935, not 1933.
Katzenberger was executed for one witness seeing him leave the apartment of Seiler (who was Aryan and was claimed he was having an affair with) after dark. Since Seiler was German, Katzenberger was Jewish which is a crime, and because of the blackout laws (any person taking advantage of the blackout in the commission of a crime was eligible for a capital punishment) the judge passed the death sentence on Katzenberger and he was guillotined. This is pretty famous by the way.
Murder is defined by law as the unlawful killing of a person. Katzenberger was not unlawfully killed, he was executed. It is perfectly legitimate, if other laws permit it, to create a law that just "being" something can be a capital offense pick your poison, race, religion, educational attainment, etc. That being so any people executed for that offense are not murdered. While a subsequent regime change may find these to be defacto murder, at the time of the execution it is not. It would be unusual for any government to murder people, as it's easier and more palatable to change the law to permit them to execute their real or perceived enemies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Really? Why is that? The british burned down the white house in 1812, but the US doesn't hold a grudge. Russia had troops and puppet, oppressive/murderous regimes in 21 whole countries from 1945 to 1989, yet we don't see blowback or any of those 21 countries murdering russians. Wonder why that is...
The War of 1812 was a long time ago, no one who was alive then is alive now. 1953 is not so long ago, and there are a number of people who are alive now who were then.
As far as Russia, sure you see blowback. Georgia and Chechnya are a good example and of course the current Ukraine situation. When you get into "western" Eastern Europe the blowback has been demonstrated by them leaping into the EU and NATO, since more violent means would need to pass through other countries borders and/or airspace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Really? How so?
In 1984 it was known that the Iraqi's were using chemical weapons in their war with Iran (precursors were generally obtained from Western Europe), the US began an intelligence sharing program with Iraq that supplied information on troop masses, logistics and support sites in Iran basically supplying satellite data to them. Of course in 1988 there was the gassing of Kurds in Halabja.
Here's some declassified docs, you might like to read (you can fill in the redacted sections of some of these just through basic comprehension)...
Yes the Prime Minister was appointed, from the recommendation of the Iranian assembly (which Mosaddegh was given 79-12), of and from duly elected representatives. It's similar to the UK Prime Minister, who is normally the leader of the majority party of the house of commons, but the Queen can choose another minister to be Prime Minister and form a cabinet.
Which specific articles of the 1906 Iranian Consitution did Mosaddegh try to usurp? And since he resigned and retired in 1925 when Reza Shah was appointed in protest for the constitutional violation, only to return at the request of Mohammad Reza Shah in 1941 why would he have then gone on to violate the constitution he originally resigned in protest over violations?
Goose, Gander meet sauce. Iran never had the same election process as the US, because the executive was predetermined (much like the UK). Democratically elected does not have to mean that the whole country elected that person (which also applies to the President of the US who is not directly elected, but who is elected by the Electoral College), but that they were elected by representation of persons who were elected to represent their constituents, or elected by their constituents.
The Nuremberg laws were of 1935, not 1933.
Katzenberger was executed for one witness seeing him leave the apartment of Seiler (who was Aryan and was claimed he was having an affair with) after dark. Since Seiler was German, Katzenberger was Jewish which is a crime, and because of the blackout laws (any person taking advantage of the blackout in the commission of a crime was eligible for a capital punishment) the judge passed the death sentence on Katzenberger and he was guillotined. This is pretty famous by the way.
Murder is defined by law as the unlawful killing of a person. Katzenberger was not unlawfully killed, he was executed. It is perfectly legitimate, if other laws permit it, to create a law that just "being" something can be a capital offense pick your poison, race, religion, educational attainment, etc. That being so any people executed for that offense are not murdered. While a subsequent regime change may find these to be defacto murder, at the time of the execution it is not. It would be unusual for any government to murder people, as it's easier and more palatable to change the law to permit them to execute their real or perceived enemies.
The War of 1812 was a long time ago, no one who was alive then is alive now. 1953 is not so long ago, and there are a number of people who are alive now who were then.
As far as Russia, sure you see blowback. Georgia and Chechnya are a good example and of course the current Ukraine situation. When you get into "western" Eastern Europe the blowback has been demonstrated by them leaping into the EU and NATO, since more violent means would need to pass through other countries borders and/or airspace.
In 1984 it was known that the Iraqi's were using chemical weapons in their war with Iran (precursors were generally obtained from Western Europe), the US began an intelligence sharing program with Iraq that supplied information on troop masses, logistics and support sites in Iran basically supplying satellite data to them. Of course in 1988 there was the gassing of Kurds in Halabja.
Here's some declassified docs, you might like to read (you can fill in the redacted sections of some of these just through basic comprehension)...
Which specific articles of the 1906 Iranian Consitution did Mosaddegh try to usurp?
"The situation worsened when, amid increasing unrest inside and outside the Majlis, Mossedeq attempted to take over the constitutional position of the Shah as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, rule by emergency powers legitimized by a referendum and bypass the responsibility of the Majlis. He thus isolated himself from some of the close colleagues, including Seyyed Abol Qazem Kashani, the speaker of the Majlis, and laid himself open to criticism of dictatorial rule, inviting a direct confrontation between his government and conservative forces." (Saikal, Amin, The Rise and Fall of the Shah, Princeton University Press, 1980, p.43-4)"
....right off the web....
Quote:
Goose, Gander meet sauce. Iran never had the same election process as the US, because the executive was predetermined (much like the UK). Democratically elected does not have to mean that the whole country elected that person (which also applies to the President of the US who is not directly elected, but who is elected by the Electoral College), but that they were elected by representation of persons who were elected to represent their constituents, or elected by their constituents.
My point was that many of the far left/anti-america trash accuse the US of overthrowing a government, they did nothing of the kind.
Quote:
The Nuremberg laws were of 1935, not 1933.
Congratulations for finding a typo, but Nazi germany passed laws against jews starting in 1933:
Murder is defined by law as the unlawful killing of a person....
None of which shows that nazy germany passed laws allowing the murder of jews. Posting long-winded nonsense about irrelevant items does not strengthen a claim, it weakens it. At no time did germany pass a single law or publish a single executive order authorizing the murder of jews.
Quote:
The War of 1812 was a long time ago, no one who was alive then is alive now. 1953 is not so long ago, and there are a number of people who are alive now who were then.
It was 70 years ago, the US is trading with viet nam only 35 years after that war ended. The fact is that iran is using the '53 events as an excuse for its cancerous, diseased dictatorship to retain an exterior enemy, a fundamental need for all such regimes. It is long past its sell-by time.
Quote:
As far as Russia, sure you see blowback. Georgia and Chechnya are a good example and of course the current Ukraine situation.
By "blowback" we are referring to what the US has pulled against the US, like massive terrorism and acts of war.
Quote:
When you get into "western" Eastern Europe the blowback has been demonstrated by them leaping into the EU and NATO, since more violent means would need to pass through other countries borders and/or airspace.
None of the former satellites have done a single act that comes anywhere near what iran has done to the US for doing far, far less.
Quote:
In 1984 it was known that the Iraqi's were using chemical weapons in their war with Iran (precursors were generally obtained from Western Europe), the US began an intelligence sharing program with Iraq that supplied information on troop masses, logistics and support sites in Iran basically supplying satellite data to them. Of course in 1988 there was the gassing of Kurds in Halabja.
Did the US have troops in iraq using the weapons against iran? No, it did not.
But let's say we use your "logic," can israel bomb russia for providing intel to its arab allies in 1967? How about '73 for pushing egypt and others into attacking israel?
How about flattening/destroying iran for arming, training and supporting hamas and hezbollah, who have been attacking israel for decades?
"The situation worsened when, amid increasing unrest inside and outside the Majlis, Mossedeq attempted to take over the constitutional position of the Shah as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, rule by emergency powers legitimized by a referendum and bypass the responsibility of the Majlis. He thus isolated himself from some of the close colleagues, including Seyyed Abol Qazem Kashani, the speaker of the Majlis, and laid himself open to criticism of dictatorial rule, inviting a direct confrontation between his government and conservative forces." (Saikal, Amin, The Rise and Fall of the Shah, Princeton University Press, 1980, p.43-4)"
....right off the web....
Right off the web, and we know the old Abe Lincoln quote don't we "The problem with information on the internet is that information is often made up.". No hint of CIA involvement that the CIA themselves admit. Hell Madeleine Albright all but apologized for it when she was Secretary of State in 2000.
How do you think a countries leader would react should the know there is a plot to remove them, and they're a populist leader?
Mosaddegh was such a populist leader, in 1952 he resigned, and after 5 days of rioting where even the army returned to barracks for fear of mutiny, and 250 were killed or seriously injured, he was reinstated by the Shah who gave him control of the Military. Personally given that state of affairs I'd much rather the CIA had planned a coup against the Shah in support of Mosaddegh on condition of renegotiation of the oil consortium's licensing, but that's just me, since Mosaddegh had far bigger stones than the Shah.
Do you think they should perhaps continue as normal, or should they tighten and centralize control?
Look it was no surprise that Mosaddegh was targeted for removal, the Brits were spitting and cussing and jumping up and down shaking their fists and stamping their feet over what he did to AIOC and this was the #2, or #3 power in the world at the time, they even threatened to prosecute anyone who bought Iranian oil. They felt cheated, and lured the US into the plan to return oil revenues. There wasn't much threat of Mosaddegh being a communist he hated the Tudeh party the only risk would have been if he'd been driven there, and if he hadn't been deposed, then chances are the failure of the operation would have led to him going to the USSR for support.
Kashani was the titular leader of Fadayan e-Islam, the group that assassinated Mosaddeghs predecessor, did you know that..? Don't you think it interesting that he jumped ship towards the end...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
My point was that many of the far left/anti-america trash accuse the US of overthrowing a government, they did nothing of the kind.
What are you talking about, Iran went from a fledgling democracy to a dictatorial monarchy overnight, I dunno about you but I'd consider that a step in the wrong direction of political development. It all happened because of British and US interests in extracting Iranian oil. Think what you like, justify it however you want, but it was what it was.
Look I'm not accusing the US of overthrowing a government, I'm stating it as a fact, you did it, get over it. I'm not waffling around the whole "no we didn't" "yes we did", because I believe that we did what was done for the benefit of the US and UK and if the boot had been on the other foot, then I'm sure that the other side would have done the same to the US or UK. That said I'm not going to self delude that it was more than it was, or less than it was. I also understand why Iran is anti-US, there are no good guys or bad guys out there, there are only guys.
If you think there are good guys, then do you also believe in unicorns and dragons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Congratulations for finding a typo, but Nazi germany passed laws against jews starting in 1933:
Yes but not the Nuremburg laws.
Your link even shows it...
Quote:
1935
May 21
Army law expels Jewish officers from the army.
September 15
Nazi leaders announce the Nuremberg Laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
None of which shows that nazy germany passed laws allowing the murder of jews. Posting long-winded nonsense about irrelevant items does not strengthen a claim, it weakens it. At no time did germany pass a single law or publish a single executive order authorizing the murder of jews.
No because they issued execution orders. Or are you saying that Jews were not executed?
Do you agree that someone should be sentenced to death on suspicion of having an affair because of difference in religion?
The definition of murder is not irrelevant, look if there's a law that states having blonde hair and blue eyes is a crime against society and people guilty of it may be summarily executed and a bounty of $1000 paid for every confirmed kill. If people with blonde hair and blue eyes are then shot and the bounties claimed, the person who claimed the bounty is not a murderer, he may be an executioner, but not a murderer. The only thing that may prevent it is if there is language in the laws of the country that prevent summary sentencing (5th + 14th Amendment), and that prevent discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
It was 70 years ago, the US is trading with viet nam only 35 years after that war ended. The fact is that iran is using the '53 events as an excuse for its cancerous, diseased dictatorship to retain an exterior enemy, a fundamental need for all such regimes. It is long past its sell-by time.
Yes because it was a war, and we lost, and Viet Nam has something we want.
Iran is using the period of 1953-1979 as an excuse if you want to call it that 26 years of the Boy who would be king, and mismanagement of their country, they were so desperate to be rid of the Shah that even the intelligensia were prepared to accept the loon Khomeini in his stead. He spent money stupidly he bought freaking F-14's but didn't have a carrier, or the cash to keep them flying, why would you buy a naval aircraft without a naval ship to launch them from? He oppressed Iran do badly that Jimmy Carter eventually had to capitulate to international opinion and cultivate Saudi as a better alternative.
That's two whole generations of people who grew up and matured knowing their enemy. Now the third generation only knows what the other two speak about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
By "blowback" we are referring to what the US has pulled against the US, like massive terrorism and acts of war.
None of the former satellites have done a single act that comes anywhere near what iran has done to the US for doing far, far less.
What did Iran do precisely? 9/11 nope Saudi's financed most of it, al-Quaeda executed it (or claimed responsibility) and the operatives used were primarily Saudi too 15 of them, there wasn't an Iranian in the bunch. They did fly an airliner towards USS Vincennes (which did not result in any loss of US life).
So which acts are we discussing? Speaking threatening words on the international stage?
It's not financing, because recently I provided a list of US backed terrorist organizations from the end of WW2 to now. If we can do it, then clearly its endorsed by the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Did the US have troops in iraq using the weapons against iran? No, it did not.
What does that have to do with the price of cheese? The US supported with intelligence a regime that it knew to be violating the Geneva Conventions on chemical weapons use. Hey I don't mind the US giving intel, I'm not happy about Iraq using Chemical Weapons. What I'm unhappy about is that the US supplied intel to Iraq when they knew that Iraq was using Mustard gas and Tabun.
Use of chemical weapons changes the entire complexion of the engagement, especially when the nation who is using them is a signatory of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 against another signatory nation. It sets a dangerous precedent Syria may be the first example of the precedent it set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
But let's say we use your "logic," can israel bomb russia for providing intel to its arab allies in 1967? How about '73 for pushing egypt and others into attacking israel?
But Israel won, they occupied the West Bank and Gaza, they defeated Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq during the six day war. They won the Yom Kippur war too even though surprised and vastly outnumbered. So whatever Russian intelligence supplied (if indeed they did) was of no benefit. If Israel wants to bomb Russia, they're capable of doing so, and they're capable of dealing with any retaliation that Russia chooses to respond with, and it's none of our business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
How about flattening/destroying iran for arming, training and supporting hamas and hezbollah, who have been attacking israel for decades?
Well Israel have been planning it for a while, but that's none of my business, nor is it any business of the US. Indeed right now the US is funding Hamas, so we're to blame too do you support Israel attacking the US?
In 1984 it was known that the Iraqi's were using chemical weapons in their war with Iran (precursors were generally obtained from Western Europe), the US began an intelligence sharing program with Iraq that supplied information on troop masses, logistics and support sites in Iran basically supplying satellite data to them. Of course in 1988 there was the gassing of Kurds in Halabja.
The US was also providing Iran with intelligence on Iraqi military positions. The goal was to ensure that neither side had a significant victory, and it worked. After 8 years of fighting neither Iran nor Iraq gained any additional territory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
