Europe submits voluntarily

[Jayjay]

You forget that democracy and Islam are not compatible in that part of the planet.

It was a democratically elected government that separated Church from State and sought to modernise the country. The reason for staging the coupe stemmed from British Oil interests. This opportunity is now gone.

The brief democratic period in Iran's history was hardly any more secular than the monarchy before and after it. In fact, Iran became more secular under Shah. Of course that doesn't justify the 1953 coup, but it's as misleading to say that US put an end to "secular democracy" in Iran, as it is to say that Obama's election made America into a country where a black person is the president and slavery is abolished.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It was a democratically elected government that separated Church from State and sought to modernise the country. The reason for staging the coupe stemmed from British Oil interests. This opportunity is now gone.

The brief democratic period in Iran's history was hardly any more secular than the monarchy before and after it. In fact, Iran became more secular under Shah. Of course that doesn't justify the 1953 coup, but it's as misleading to say that US put an end to "secular democracy" in Iran, as it is to say that Obama's election made America into a country where a black person is a president and slavery is abolished.

There is nothing to suggest that the Shah put an end to secular democracy which was seeking to modernise the country as it became a secular dictatorship which also sought to modernise the country. It put an end to a secular democracy. Basically the US tried to correct something which did not exist and ended up with what it had hoped would not come about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're ignoring the Soviet meddling that was going on.

It's the usual story, blame the west when they attempt to counter Soviet meddling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

What meddling; Only the Americans at the request of the British meddled. The dispute stemmed from Iran's nationalisation of British oil interests. The British didn't like the way talks over its oil interests went and called for USA assistance.

Showing western meddling isn't a rebuttal of Soviet meddling.

- - - Updated - - -

It was a democratically elected government that separated Church from State and sought to modernise the country. The reason for staging the coupe stemmed from British Oil interests. This opportunity is now gone.

The brief democratic period in Iran's history was hardly any more secular than the monarchy before and after it. In fact, Iran became more secular under Shah. Of course that doesn't justify the 1953 coup, but it's as misleading to say that US put an end to "secular democracy" in Iran, as it is to say that Obama's election made America into a country where a black person is the president and slavery is abolished.

Yeah. While Shah-era Iran was not democratic it was pretty secular and the people were doing well. I was there in 1975 and it was a big step up compared to it's neighbors to the east.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It was a democratically elected government that separated Church from State and sought to modernise the country. The reason for staging the coupe stemmed from British Oil interests. This opportunity is now gone.

The brief democratic period in Iran's history was hardly any more secular than the monarchy before and after it. In fact, Iran became more secular under Shah. Of course that doesn't justify the 1953 coup, but it's as misleading to say that US put an end to "secular democracy" in Iran, as it is to say that Obama's election made America into a country where a black person is the president and slavery is abolished.

It's not as simple as Ayatollah = bad. The point of putting Khomeini in power was for him to assume the role of a monarch in a constitutional monarchy. He was supposed to be above secular matters. That was the promise he made and why he was so popular. The fact that he made a play for power and turned out to be the worst kind of secular dictator really came out of left field. Nobody saw that the guy was exceedingly shrewd and skilled at real-politik. Clever as fuck. The guy had an impeccable track record before this. Albeit, nowhere near that kind of power. Yeah, I know, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The event that allowed Khomieni to consolidate power and make himself supreme leader was the Iraq - Iran war. Without it I don't think Khomeini would have stood a chance pushing through the anti-democratic reforms that he did. Once the war was over it was too late to stop him.

Basically... it's all complicated. History is a complex interplay of all manner of things. Seemingly random and disparate events can effect each other and push history into unexpected directions.

 

[whichphilosophy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

What meddling; Only the Americans at the request of the British meddled. The dispute stemmed from Iran's nationalisation of British oil interests. The British didn't like the way talks over its oil interests went and called for USA assistance.

Showing western meddling isn't a rebuttal of Soviet meddling.

- - - Updated - - -

It was a democratically elected government that separated Church from State and sought to modernise the country. The reason for staging the coupe stemmed from British Oil interests. This opportunity is now gone.

The brief democratic period in Iran's history was hardly any more secular than the monarchy before and after it. In fact, Iran became more secular under Shah. Of course that doesn't justify the 1953 coup, but it's as misleading to say that US put an end to "secular democracy" in Iran, as it is to say that Obama's election made America into a country where a black person is the president and slavery is abolished.

Yeah. While Shah-era Iran was not democratic it was pretty secular and the people were doing well. I was there in 1975 and it was a big step up compared to it's neighbors to the east.

As I quoted even the US now admits this was a 'mistake'. The reason for this was Britain's post colonial imperialist interests whereby it sought to plunder the oil of another country. This was because the Iranian government at the time nationalised foreign oil interests. Post war history shows that Imposing a government to serve the West eventually backfires creating worse problems than those perceived at the time.

The democratically elected government was the one who started the reforms not the Shah. Between 1953 and 1957 Iran received more in grants from the USA than it did for oil revenues.

http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/esf...an - Iranian Economy in Twentieth Century.pdf

U.S. grants during 1953-57 amounted to $303 million, which exceeded the government's receipt from oil exports

The papers seems objective and shows a rapid rise in the economy and especially and surprisingly for some in the non oil sector. Nonetheless, its not a matter of right or wrong alone but of strategy. Buying a government is not always a long term solution especially when it commits atrocities.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The brief democratic period in Iran's history was hardly any more secular than the monarchy before and after it. In fact, Iran became more secular under Shah. Of course that doesn't justify the 1953 coup, but it's as misleading to say that US put an end to "secular democracy" in Iran, as it is to say that Obama's election made America into a country where a black person is the president and slavery is abolished.

It's not as simple as Ayatollah = bad. The point of putting Khomeini in power was for him to assume the role of a monarch in a constitutional monarchy. He was supposed to be above secular matters. That was the promise he made and why he was so popular. The fact that he made a play for power and turned out to be the worst kind of secular dictator really came out of left field. Nobody saw that the guy was exceedingly shrewd and skilled at real-politik. Clever as fuck. The guy had an impeccable track record before this. Albeit, nowhere near that kind of power. Yeah, I know, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The event that allowed Khomieni to consolidate power and make himself supreme leader was the Iraq - Iran war. Without it I don't think Khomeini would have stood a chance pushing through the anti-democratic reforms that he did. Once the war was over it was too late to stop him.

Basically... it's all complicated. History is a complex interplay of all manner of things. Seemingly random and disparate events can effect each other and push history into unexpected directions.

To simply put it, a Western type government imposed on Iran plus a rise in nationalism as a result of the Western backed Iraqi war against it served the Khomeni more than well.

 

[angelo]

America has always held the view that Western style democracy can be transplanted to any country on earth, and that the inhabitants will applaud it. Some have, in all moslem countries , it has failed. In most cases it's made things worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

America has always held the view that Western style democracy can be transplanted to any country on earth, and that the inhabitants will applaud it. Some have, in all moslem countries , it has failed. In most cases it's made things worse.

Are you sure you simplified the world enough there?

 

[untermensche]

The brief democratic period in Iran's history was hardly any more secular than the monarchy before and after it. In fact, Iran became more secular under Shah. Of course that doesn't justify the 1953 coup, but it's as misleading to say that US put an end to "secular democracy" in Iran, as it is to say that Obama's election made America into a country where a black person is a president and slavery is abolished.

There is nothing to suggest that the Shah put an end to secular democracy which was seeking to modernise the country as it became a secular dictatorship which also sought to modernise the country. It put an end to a secular democracy. Basically the US tried to correct something which did not exist and ended up with what it had hoped would not come about.

That's like saying if some foreign power came to the US removed the president with force then installed an un-elected kind dictator as head of state in his place, and the dictator re-established the trappings of democracy according to his whims, that would equate to no change in US democracy.

The US and Britain destroyed Iranian secular democracy and we ended up with a religious state as a result.

And they did it for one reason, greed.

That is what drives both nations. To understand their actions you must understand it is unmitigated apish greed behind all of it.

 

[Jayjay]

There is nothing to suggest that the Shah put an end to secular democracy which was seeking to modernise the country as it became a secular dictatorship which also sought to modernise the country. It put an end to a secular democracy. Basically the US tried to correct something which did not exist and ended up with what it had hoped would not come about.

That's like saying if some foreign power came to the US removed the president with force then installed an un-elected kind dictator as head of state in his place, and the dictator re-established the trappings of democracy according to his whims, that would equate to no change in US democracy.

The US and Britain destroyed Iranian secular democracy and we ended up with a religious state as a result.

And they did it for one reason, greed.

That is what drives both nations. To understand their actions you must understand it is unmitigated apish greed behind all of it.

US did not end secularism in Iran. It ended brief period of democracy, which may or may not have lasted, and replaced it with a more secular autocracy. The theocracy that took over a quarter century later was not a foreseeable result, and it could have happened with or without the Shah anyway.

 

[untermensche]

That's like saying if some foreign power came to the US removed the president with force then installed an un-elected kind dictator as head of state in his place, and the dictator re-established the trappings of democracy according to his whims, that would equate to no change in US democracy.

The US and Britain destroyed Iranian secular democracy and we ended up with a religious state as a result.

And they did it for one reason, greed.

That is what drives both nations. To understand their actions you must understand it is unmitigated apish greed behind all of it.

US did not end secularism in Iran. It ended brief period of democracy, which may or may not have lasted, and replaced it with a more secular autocracy. The theocracy that took over a quarter century later was not a foreseeable result, and it could have happened with or without the Shah anyway.

What the US did was de-legitimize the government in the minds of the people.

It created the cracks that the religious leaders needed to take power.

I can't believe anybody would defend direct meddling in the internal affairs of another nation, especially over the concerns of a profitable corporation that didn't think it was getting paid enough.

If it is right for you then it is right for anybody to do it.

There is no such crime as treason.

 

[whichphilosophy]

America has always held the view that Western style democracy can be transplanted to any country on earth, and that the inhabitants will applaud it. Some have, in all moslem countries , it has failed. In most cases it's made things worse.

Here, the US replaced a democratically elected government with an oppressive dictatorship, and the series of events stemming from this leads to today.

 

[whichphilosophy]

US did not end secularism in Iran. It ended brief period of democracy, which may or may not have lasted, and replaced it with a more secular autocracy. The theocracy that took over a quarter century later was not a foreseeable result, and it could have happened with or without the Shah anyway.

What the US did was de-legitimize the government in the minds of the people.

It created the cracks that the religious leaders needed to take power.

I can't believe anybody would defend direct meddling in the internal affairs of another nation, especially over the concerns of a profitable corporation that didn't think it was getting paid enough.

If it is right for you then it is right for anybody to do it.

There is no such crime as treason.

What many don't realise is the crimes of the Shah directly led to the current government system in Iran. It was all over Oil.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is nothing to suggest that the Shah put an end to secular democracy which was seeking to modernise the country as it became a secular dictatorship which also sought to modernise the country. It put an end to a secular democracy. Basically the US tried to correct something which did not exist and ended up with what it had hoped would not come about.

That's like saying if some foreign power came to the US removed the president with force then installed an un-elected kind dictator as head of state in his place, and the dictator re-established the trappings of democracy according to his whims, that would equate to no change in US democracy.

The US and Britain destroyed Iranian secular democracy and we ended up with a religious state as a result.

And they did it for one reason, greed.

That is what drives both nations. To understand their actions you must understand it is unmitigated apish greed behind all of it.

Exactly. There was nothing wrong with Iranian democracy prior to the Shah. Mosaddegh was unhappy about how the British were extracting the oil with little kick-backs to Iran. While Iran was suffering from great inequalities. A well educated middle-class in the cities and a horribly poor farmers. They were transitioning into industrialisation. So he did a Chavez move and nationalised the oil industry. With predictable reactions from the major powers.

 

[untermensche]

That's like saying if some foreign power came to the US removed the president with force then installed an un-elected kind dictator as head of state in his place, and the dictator re-established the trappings of democracy according to his whims, that would equate to no change in US democracy.

The US and Britain destroyed Iranian secular democracy and we ended up with a religious state as a result.

And they did it for one reason, greed.

That is what drives both nations. To understand their actions you must understand it is unmitigated apish greed behind all of it.

Exactly. There was nothing wrong with Iranian democracy prior to the Shah. Mosaddegh was unhappy about how the British were extracting the oil with little kick-backs to Iran. While Iran was suffering from great inequalities. A well educated middle-class in the cities and a horribly poor farmers. They were transitioning into industrialisation. So he did a Chavez move and nationalised the oil industry. With predictable reactions from the major powers.

It is more than a "Chavez" move. It is a sane move any leader looking after the interests of their nation would choose.

But sanity and looking after the interests of your own nation are not allowed.

And nationalization is not theft. The corporations that took advantage of corrupt leaders are paid for their equipment.

 

[4321lynx]

Exactly. There was nothing wrong with Iranian democracy prior to the Shah. Mosaddegh was unhappy about how the British were extracting the oil with little kick-backs to Iran. While Iran was suffering from great inequalities. A well educated middle-class in the cities and a horribly poor farmers. They were transitioning into industrialisation. So he did a Chavez move and nationalised the oil industry. With predictable reactions from the major powers.

It is more than a "Chavez" move. It is a sane move any leader looking after the interests of their nation would choose.

But sanity and looking after the interests of your own nation are not allowed.

And nationalization is not theft. The corporations that took advantage of corrupt leaders are paid for their equipment.

And it has been a great success in Mexico where Pemex, the government owned company has a monopoly and manages it very well since about 1938-40.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And nationalization is not theft. The corporations that took advantage of corrupt leaders are paid for their equipment.

Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.

 

[Juma]

And nationalization is not theft. The corporations that took advantage of corrupt leaders are paid for their equipment.

Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.

Bloody shit. Are you a believer in such metyphysical crap as "natural law"?

 

[untermensche]

And nationalization is not theft. The corporations that took advantage of corrupt leaders are paid for their equipment.

Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.

Only an idiot would call paying people for their equipment "theft".

 

[Jayjay]

US did not end secularism in Iran. It ended brief period of democracy, which may or may not have lasted, and replaced it with a more secular autocracy. The theocracy that took over a quarter century later was not a foreseeable result, and it could have happened with or without the Shah anyway.

What the US did was de-legitimize the government in the minds of the people.

It created the cracks that the religious leaders needed to take power.

I can't believe anybody would defend direct meddling in the internal affairs of another nation, especially over the concerns of a profitable corporation that didn't think it was getting paid enough.

If it is right for you then it is right for anybody to do it.

There is no such crime as treason.

Pointing out that one infraction over half a century ago doesn't make America responsible for everything that Iran has done since isn't the same as "defending" said meddling. Everyone who was involved in that incident is long dead, and Iranians are grownups who are responsible for their own follies.