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.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I know more about history than you can ever hope to know (and actually planned to teach it at one time - with special emphasis on WWII). I was simply "dumbing down" the discourse and not going into all the grim details because in this particular instance the details don't change the overall situation and I was afraid I would simply confused ignorant posters such as yourself. However, since I see that you are ALREADY totally confused, let me expand a little. The West intervened TWICE on the Shah's behalf - the first time to was to depose his father during WWII (the incident you mentioned) for the basic reason the the UK and the USSR were afraid that Hitler would gain an ally in his father (again, this is the short answer - but it's good enough for this discussion). The 2nd time was in 1951 when the US and Britain removed Prime Minister Mossadegh (who had been attempting to Democratize Iran) so that the Shah could return to power (he had fled when the first attempt to remove Dr. Mossadegh failed - again a long story made short here). If you want to know more about the long and sordid story of the US support for the Shah and our involvement in supporting this nasty guy there's plenty of info out there - you just have to look for it. This post is neither the time nor the place for all those details.
PS - as a personal aside, during my final years in high school I attended East Hampton High out in ritzy East Hampton (Long Island) and my best friend at the time was the son of one of the ex-VP's of (what was then) ESSO - later Exxon - for the Iranian oil fields, and his family knew the Shah personally, with the house full of photos of his dad and mom with the Shah. He had a lot of interesting stories to tell of life there at the time.
Nice spin, but it does not negate your previous lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
It's the fault of the previous administrations that help put the Shah in power and prop him up long after it became clear the guy was a brutal dictator.
There were no US administrations ever involved in putting the Shah in power or propping him up. As I previously stated, the Shah came into power on September 16, 1941, replacing his deposed father as the lawful and legitimate ruler of Iran. Long before the US became involved in the region.
Even though you NOW know that it was the Iranian Prime Minister that the US helped to oust in 1953, and not the Shah, I have no doubt you will continue to spew your liberal lies.
Nice spin, but it does not negate your previous lie.
Not a lie. We helped put the guy in power. Our allies did it the first time and we contributed directly the 2nd time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
There were no US administrations ever involved in putting the Shah in power or propping him up. As I previously stated, the Shah came into power on September 16, 1941, replacing his deposed father as the lawful and legitimate ruler of Iran. Long before the US became involved in the region.
Even though you NOW know that it was the Iranian Prime Minister that the US helped to oust in 1953, and not the Shah, I have no doubt you will continue to spew your liberal lies.
Where did I say we "ousted the Shah"??????
I never said that - in fact I said just the opposite - we ousted the Prime Minister so the Shah could return to power.
Well DUH! You DO know that you just contradicted yourself in your OWN POST - first saying we didn't put the Shah in power and then ADMITTING that we DID. (LOL)
The statement I marked in RED is exactly what I was referring to. Here is what I said: "the US and Britain removed Prime Minister Mossadegh (who had been attempting to Democratize Iran) so that the Shah could return to power". Do you ALWAYS have this much problem with comprehension?
And yes we DID prop him up - both with general economic aid and with military aid.
"Over the period 1946-1990 Iran recieved nearly $12 billion in U.S. arms transfers. After postwar military assistance of about $110 million, U.S. military assistance fell to only $16.6 million through 1953. With the restoration of the Shah and settlement of the oil problem, U.S. military assistance increased dramatically, especially with Tehran's accession to the Baghdad Pact in 1955. Washington expanded the MAP to Iran and provided F-84 and F-86 aircraft, and M-24 and M-47 tanks as well as moder infantry weaponry to establish, modernize, and strengthen Iran's armed forces."
So tell me, what part of $12 billion in military aid does not consitute "propping him up"?
If so, How? and what difference has it made? Thanks.
That is a very assumptive statement. When did we lose our good status? Why should we let our government be run by the popular opinion of other countries? Sounds like a bad idea...
Not a lie. We helped put the guy in power. Our allies did it the first time and we contributed directly the 2nd time.
Where did I say we "ousted the Shah"??????
I never said that - in fact I said just the opposite - we ousted the Prime Minister so the Shah could return to power.
Well DUH! You DO know that you just contradicted yourself in your OWN POST - first saying we didn't put the Shah in power and then ADMITTING that we DID. (LOL)
The statement I marked in RED is exactly what I was referring to. Here is what I said: "the US and Britain removed Prime Minister Mossadegh (who had been attempting to Democratize Iran) so that the Shah could return to power". Do you ALWAYS have this much problem with comprehension?
And yes we DID prop him up - both with general economic aid and with military aid.
"Over the period 1946-1990 Iran recieved nearly $12 billion in U.S. arms transfers. After postwar military assistance of about $110 million, U.S. military assistance fell to only $16.6 million through 1953. With the restoration of the Shah and settlement of the oil problem, U.S. military assistance increased dramatically, especially with Tehran's accession to the Baghdad Pact in 1955. Washington expanded the MAP to Iran and provided F-84 and F-86 aircraft, and M-24 and M-47 tanks as well as moder infantry weaponry to establish, modernize, and strengthen Iran's armed forces."
So tell me, what part of $12 billion in military aid does not consitute "propping him up"?
You said that the US put the Shah into power in the first place. That was yet another liberal lie. The US had absolutely nothing to do with putting the Shah into power or keeping him there. He was the lawful ruler of Iran and took power legally long before the US was ever involved with Iran.
You said that the US put the Shah into power in the first place. That was yet another liberal lie. The US had absolutely nothing to do with putting the Shah into power or keeping him there. He was the lawful ruler of Iran and took power legally long before the US was ever involved with Iran.
No I didn't. Here is what I said (EXACTLY):
"We dodged a bullet in Pakistan (at least so far) - but were not so lucky in Iran. Carter paid a political price for that, and the US is still paying a diplomatic price (and a military price in nearby Iraq) for that today. The fact is though, the fault is not really Carters. It's the fault of the previous administrations that help put the Shah in power and prop him up long after it became clear the guy was a brutal dictator. We didn't care though - because he was on our side against the Soviets. It was a stupid policy to begin with - one that Carter paid the price for even though it was not really his doing."
Note the block of text in RED. I said nothing about "in the first place". The British and Soviets put him in power "in the first place" - we put him in power with OUR Backing after he was forced to flee when his attempt at subverting Iranian Democracy (in effect, changing it from a Constitutional Monarchy to outright rule by the King) failed. That's a fact. It was the very first covert operation against a foreign government that the CIA undertook (along with the British MI6 organization) and is very well documented. WE did it - we took the ousted Shah and put him in power in a coup.
It's also a fact that even the FIRST time he was put into power it was by OUTSIDE influence (Britain and the USSR) who forced his father from power. That time wasn't us, but the 2nd time SURE WAS. If we had kept our nose out of Iran's business he wouldn't have been put in power again and Iran would have had a Democracy. We "killed" that Democracy by helping the guy into power (again) - whereupon he - with plenty of US money and US weapons and training - used his army to keep his own people subjegated. Sounds kind'a like Saddam don't it? - only with US money and support instead of Soviet money and support.
You REALLY need to hone your reading skills.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-16-2009 at 04:45 PM..
If so, How? and what difference has it made? Thanks.
Nothing has changed because even though George W. Bush is no longer in the White House, there are still millions of people in the Muslim world who would love to see Israel and United States get wiped off the face of the earth.
The election of Barack Hussein Obama has not given us world peace like millions of his kool-aid drinkers thought would happen.
Nice spin, but it does not negate your previous lie.
There were no US administrations ever involved in putting the Shah in power or propping him up. As I previously stated, the Shah came into power on September 16, 1941, replacing his deposed father as the lawful and legitimate ruler of Iran. Long before the US became involved in the region.
Even though you NOW know that it was the Iranian Prime Minister that the US helped to oust in 1953, and not the Shah, I have no doubt you will continue to spew your liberal lies.
The Shah had lost almost all power. Until our president and CIA helped get rid of their elected PM. This was how the Shah, a US friend, a monarch (you know - what America originally fought against), and a dictator who had people tortured, came back into prominence.
"We dodged a bullet in Pakistan (at least so far) - but were not so lucky in Iran. Carter paid a political price for that, and the US is still paying a diplomatic price (and a military price in nearby Iraq) for that today. The fact is though, the fault is not really Carters. It's the fault of the previous administrations that help put the Shah in power and prop him up long after it became clear the guy was a brutal dictator. We didn't care though - because he was on our side against the Soviets. It was a stupid policy to begin with - one that Carter paid the price for even though it was not really his doing."
Note the block of text in RED. I said nothing about "in the first place". The British and Soviets put him in power "in the first place" - we put him in power with OUR Backing after he was forced to flee when his attempt at subverting Iranian Democracy (in effect, changing it from a Constitutional Monarchy to outright rule by the King) failed. That's a fact. It was the very first covert operation against a foreign government that the CIA undertook (along with the British MI6 organization) and is very well documented. WE did it - we took the ousted Shah and put him in power in a coup.
It's also a fact that even the FIRST time he was put into power it was by OUTSIDE influence (Britain and the USSR) who forced his father from power. That time wasn't us, but the 2nd time SURE WAS. If we had kept our nose out of Iran's business he wouldn't have been put in power again and Iran would have had a Democracy. We "killed" that Democracy by helping the guy into power (again) - whereupon he - with plenty of US money and US weapons and training - used his army to keep his own people subjegated. Sounds kind'a like Saddam don't it? - only with US money and support instead of Soviet money and support.
You REALLY need to hone your reading skills.
Ken
No matter how you try to spin it, saying "It's the fault of the previous administrations that help put the Shah in power" is a flat out lie. The US did not put the Shah in power, in any administration.
Since the Election of Obama there has brought a huge new respect for America abroad.
Many countries have openly said that his election is a huge step in the right direction.
In the UK there is now a positive feeling about the seriousness of the American People. There is NO party politics when foreign nations look at Obama..he is judged by his actions and NOT because he is a Democrat.
So to answer your Question as a Native from abroad.......YES obama has regained a lot of the lost status that America had with foreign Nations.
There is a HUGE difference between talking to your enemies and grovelling. Obama is talking to Americas enemies and believe me the enemies KNOW that Obama is NO pushover and would resort to action if needed. No need to jump up and down and make threats. A strong man listens, talks, waits and then acts. A scared man jumps up and down, shouts, threatens and shows that he is more scared than his Enemy.
Obama is doing it right and the outside world NOW respects America more because of Obama.
A huge new respect? NK has launched more missiles and set off more nuclear bombs than any previous presidency. Iran laughs at Obama and pretty much smacked that hand he reached out to them with. The rest of the world condemns the elections in Iran and Obama's best stance is we don't know what happened and we'll wait to see what the false investigations hold.
No matter how you try to spin it, saying "It's the fault of the previous administrations that help put the Shah in power" is a flat out lie. The US did not put the Shah in power, in any administration.
Typical liberal, has to lie about everything.
Really?
"In the early 1950s a struggle for control of the Iranian government developed between the shah and Mohammad Mosaddeq, a zealous Iranian nationalist. In March 1951 Mosaddeq secured passage of a bill in the Majles (parliament) to nationalize the vast British petroleum interests in Iran. Mosaddeq’s power grew rapidly, and by the end of April Mohammad Reza had been forced to appoint Mosaddeq premier. A two-year period of tension and conflict followed. In August 1953 the shah tried to dismiss Mosaddeq but was himself forced to leave the country by Mosaddeq’s supporters. Several days later, however, Mosaddeq’s opponents, probably with the covert support
and assistance of the United States, restored Mohammad Reza to power."
"Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossadegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. This plan was known as Operation Ajax.[4] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.
Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup initially failed, causing the Shah to flee to Baghdad, then Rome. After a brief exile in Italy, the Shah returned to Iran, this time through a successful second attempt at the coup. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and sentenced to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life. Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh.[5]"
"Eventually, the decision was made in Washington that Mossadeq had to go. Brigadier General Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the Gulf War commander) and CIA guru Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy) were ordered to begin a covert operation designed to remove Mossadeq and restore the Shah to absolute authority. A complex plot, codenamed Operation Ajax, was conceived and executed from the US Embassy in Tehran.
Using CIA assets in the Iranian military and various minor political parties, an uprising was staged."
"Operation Ajax, in short, was when the CIA overthrew Muhammad Mossadeq’s democratic government in 1953 and reinstalled the Shah to the throne of Iran. In 1951, a British company (AIOC) had control of Iran’s oil fields. The Iranian people believed that their deal with the AIOC was unfairly benefitting the company and a political controversy ensued. A man named Muhammad Mossadeq, a member of Iranian parliament, demanded a renegotiation of the standing agreement and the Iranian people were quick to rally behind him and make him their honored leader. The previously ineffective parliament then became the primary government in the area, leaving the Shah, who had ruled as an authoritarian monarch powerless. Since Mossadeq was backed by the majority of the people in Iran, it appeared to be Iran’s first democratically elected leader."
Now, let's talk about LYING shall we? I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were simply woefully ignorant, but the fact is, your continued denial in the face of clear documentation of Operation Ajax (as the operation was called) can (sadly) only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to avoid the clear and obvious truth. You are like the kid with his hand caught in the cookie jar but not honest enough to admit it - even when caught red-handed. The fact is, existence of this operation had been leaked many many times over the years and now Obama has admitted that the operation did indeed take place - something that is no surprise to anyone who has studied Middle-East history. The fact that YOU still cling to the old lies is entirely irrelevant. You can certainly CHOOSE to remain ignorant (as you apparently HAVE) but make no mistake about it - you are deliberately making a choice to remain ignorant - either that or dishonest. I'll leave it up to others out there to decide which. Me, I'll go with what has longggggg been suspected and is now admitted.
Ken
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.
(LOL)
