What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

[Mothership Earth]

:rofl Well, be it fight one cause or another world politics are like a game of chess, but with multi player applications. So, in order to maintain some sense of control, one has to pick & choose sides to obtain the end result. follow me here?
Now I can already hear that squeaky wheel will say, "why do we need to have control?" My thought is if we aren't the big kid on the block with our allies, we may have to learn another language and culture one day, and not by choice. I would like to leave with this thought too....I'm not saying here that i have a perfect solution, there may never be one, who knows? I do wish to see this.... I always like opposing views on topics, right or wrong. This is how we, as mankind can work out our differences and arrive at acceptable solutions for all. Thanks for reading this and (insert favorite deity here) Bless & Peace to all.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How many times am I going to have to say this? We didn't do it. We did not do the coup. We helped. He admitted to helping.

He meant we helped them by setting the conditions, not by actually helping them.

Do you have any way of contradicting that statement,

Yes the CIA documents which you provided that show exactly what he meant by that comment IE aiding opposition political and media outlets which falls right in line with the "set the conditions as much as possible," part of his statement.

Not as much, no. Are you asking me why the CIA releases some files and keeps others secret? The CIA is not a transparent organization. I can't see through concrete. For all you know, they haven't released the rest of the Chile files because they can't find them. But there are still documents about Chile unreleased. That's a fact.

I'm asking you why would the CIA admit to supporting the coup plotters in Iran and then after an indepth analysis of their documents state that we did not aid the coup against Allende? Why is it you want to take some of their statements at face value while discounting others?

Sure, but Kissinger tells us we helped those who did to remove him from power.

That's not what he meant as is proven by the released CIA documents.

Sure. We gave them money, we gave them intelligence, we made Chileans think they wanted a coup, we stifled opposition, we assisted the coup plotters, we helped the coup plotters, we supported the coup plotters.

How exactly did we support the coup plotters outside of funding opposition media outlets and opposition political groups? Things which would also have aided in removing Allende from power by Democratic means.

The documents released as of now do not deal with our direct involvement in the coup. Kissinger is talking about direct involvement, he is saying that the U.S. helped them. They are two completely different things, on two different topics.


Duke

It is made clear by the released CIA documents that Kissinger was saying that we did not directly support them which is why he first said "we didn't do it," and went on to qualify his statement by adding: "created the conditions."

 

[EAGLE1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by EAGLE1
In 1950 the Iran's Monarchy Constitution, Mashrouteh, was ruined towards absolute dictatorship by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The 1950 amendment granted the Shah the right to dissolve the parliament at any time and under any circumstances.

But that was before Mossadeq was deposed.

And?

Quote:
Simple answer to that, who had jurisdiction in the country?

Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community, once, in May 1951, at The Hague, and again in October, at the United Nations Security Council. Both times, Mossadeq won, hands down. At The Hague, he argued against Britain's complaint that Iran had broken an agreement, saying that since the contract had been signed between a company and Iran, rather than between two states, the court at The Hague had no jurisdiction. In June 1952, the issue was again dealt with at The Hague, and the case was decided in favor of Iran.

So that answers my questions how exactly? I don't care what the Hague says, Mossadeq stole British built assets.

ToT this isnt your own personal blog, the fact you dont care what the Hague says matters not. All that can matter is what kind of argument can you make for the benefit of other readers as to why a country should be invaded or interfered with because it has nationalised its own resources.
If your going to state that govsd have no legitimacy if they nationalise industries then perhaps you should include all those govs of the last century that have taken land and resources from private citizens in the name of development and security. The British Gov for example, has done this time and time again, as has the US gov. No one's advocating they are illegitimate are they?

Quote:
There was no legitimate election in the Shah’s regime whatsoever. The members of the parliament used to be hand picked by the Shah not by the people’s vote and the rest was FAKE elections.

Source?

http://users.sedona.net/~sepa/histo-1.html

This section is of some use here I find;

elections were carefully controlled by the authorities. Only the Mardom Party and, later, the Pan-Iranist Party, an extreme nationalist group, were allowed to participate in them. Neither party was able to secure more than a handful of Majlis seats, and neither engaged in serious criticism of government programs. In 1969 and again in 1972, the shah appeared ready to permit the Mardom Party, under new leadership, to function as a genuine opposition, i.e., to criticize the government openly and to contest elections more energetically, but these developments did not occur. The Iran Novin's domination of the administrative machinery was further made evident during municipal council elections held in 136 towns throughout the country in 1968. The Iran Novin won control of a large majority of the councils and every seat in 115 of them. Only 10 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in Tehran, however, a demonstration of public indifference that was not confined to the capital.

Quote:
The censorship office was established to monitor journalists, literary figures and academics throughout the country. It took appropriate measures against those who fell out of the regime's line.
Ya namely the Islamic Fascists and Communists.
Quote:
Universities, labor unions and peasant organizations, amongst others, were all subjected to intense surveillance by the Savak agents and paid informants. The agency was also active abroad, especially in monitoring Iranian students who publicly opposed the Shah's government. Interrogation, torture and long term imprisonment by Savak for reading or possessing any forbidden books. The prohibited books were removed from the book-stores and libraries; even the Tozih-ol-Masael written by Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini was forbidden.
And that's a bad thing? You do know who Khomeini is right?
Quote:
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain, brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the country as well. Many of those activities were carried out without any institutional checks.
And that's a hell of a lot different than the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

ToT whats your problem with democracy? If people wanna vote for clerics or communists that’s their prerogative. Besides you forgetting the National Front.

I do know who Khomeini is. I also know what free speech is, do you? Mein Kampf is still widely available in the democracies, as is Karl Marx.
Actually its no different, it’s the same thing. Thank you very much UK and USA.

Quote:
Is that the democracy you're talking about ToT?
Better than what came after it.

Gotta love those conjobs, they’ll justify anything….. freedom, democracy, just words easily discarded if the politics doesn’t suit them.

Quote:
Read the CIAs own report ToT, Im not reminding you what country we're talking about or doing your research for you anymore.
Well the obvious answer to my question was yes there was massive legitimate opposition to Mossadeq at the time of his overthrow, if there had not been the countercoup would not have been successful.

Massive legitimate opposition, you must mean ‘Shaban the Brainless’ Jafari, but Im not doing any more research for you just because you’re too lazy to expand on your point.

Quote:
No our mistake was interfering in another country and getting blowback years later.
Ya because Mossadeq's policies didn't interfere with economy of the U.K. did it?

Brilliant reply ToT, a masterstroke. Therefore the next time the US takes a decision to end a defence contract in Britain and put thousands of workers on the dole you wont mind if we take steps to mess with your democratic institutions will you? Bribe senators, congressman, perhaps even get your President and House Speaker overthrown, just as long as we get our contract back.

Quote:
Simple answer here. Two questions.First I'll make it an easier multiple choice. What country are we talking about ToT?A: Egypt or B: IranNext question; What was the Shah's record on rigged elections and referendums ToT after 1953?
I'm fairly sure that elections below the executive level were conducted legitimately.

Sure ToT, as long as you vote for the parties assigned for you ToT. Where have we seen this before?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And?



ToT this isnt your own personal blog, the fact you dont care what the Hague says matters not. All that can matter is what kind of argument can you make for the benefit of other readers as to why a country should be invaded or interfered with because it has nationalised its own resources.

It didn't just nationalize its own resources it also nationalized British owned, built, and payed for refineries which are very very expensive.

If your going to state that govsd have no legitimacy if they nationalise industries then perhaps you should include all those govs of the last century that have taken land and resources from private citizens in the name of development and security. The British Gov for example, has done this time and time again, as has the US gov. No one's advocating they are illegitimate are they?

Ten years of Progress in Iran

This section is of some use here I find;

elections were carefully controlled by the authorities. Only the Mardom Party and, later, the Pan-Iranist Party, an extreme nationalist group, were allowed to participate in them. Neither party was able to secure more than a handful of Majlis seats, and neither engaged in serious criticism of government programs. In 1969 and again in 1972, the shah appeared ready to permit the Mardom Party, under new leadership, to function as a genuine opposition, i.e., to criticize the government openly and to contest elections more energetically, but these developments did not occur. The Iran Novin's domination of the administrative machinery was further made evident during municipal council elections held in 136 towns throughout the country in 1968. The Iran Novin won control of a large majority of the councils and every seat in 115 of them. Only 10 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in Tehran, however, a demonstration of public indifference that was not confined to the capital.

Ya not seeing where it says that members of parliament were hand picked by the Shah.

ToT whats your problem with democracy? If people wanna vote for clerics or communists that’s their prerogative. Besides you forgetting the National Front.

There was no Democracy under Mossadeq atleast under the Shah there was a parliament.

I do know who Khomeini is. I also know what free speech is, do you? Mein Kampf is still widely available in the democracies, as is Karl Marx.
Actually its no different, it’s the same thing. Thank you very much UK and USA.

Khomeni was calling for the overthrow of the state which he infact accomplished and replaced with an Islamic Fascist state more horrific than anything under the Shah.

Gotta love those conjobs, they’ll justify anything….. freedom, democracy, just words easily discarded if the politics doesn’t suit them.

There was no Democracy under Mossadeq he dissolved Parliament and made himself dictator.

Brilliant reply ToT, a masterstroke. Therefore the next time the US takes a decision to end a defence contract in Britain and put thousands of workers on the dole you wont mind if we take steps to mess with your democratic institutions will you? Bribe senators, congressman, perhaps even get your President and House Speaker overthrown, just as long as we get our contract back.

I don't see the U.S. confiscating foreign assets and investments do you? If we did we would expect economic repercussions.

Sure ToT, as long as you vote for the parties assigned for you ToT. Where have we seen this before?

Better than having no Parliament at all as was the case under Mossadeq.

 

[EAGLE1]

Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by EAGLE1 In 1950 the Iran's Monarchy Constitution, Mashrouteh, was ruined towards absolute dictatorship by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The 1950 amendment granted the Shah the right to dissolve the parliament at any time and under any circumstances. But that was before Mossadeq was deposed.
And?

Are you going to answer that ToT?

ToT this isnt your own personal blog, the fact you dont care what the Hague says matters not. All that can matter is what kind of argument can you make for the benefit of other readers as to why a country should be invaded or interfered with because it has nationalised its own resources.

It didn't just nationalize its own resources it also nationalized British owned, built, and payed for refineries which are very very expensive.

Well despite the fact that compensation was offered I'll answer with just a simple question. Who's sovereign in that country ToT? The British or the Iranians?
Very very expensive you say? Worth as much as the oil itself? Thought not.
Next I'll just ask you ToT. How did the British get the original concession ToT? Fair and square? The natural moves of market forces? Do some research for a change.

Quote:
Ten years of Progress in Iran

This section is of some use here I find;

elections were carefully controlled by the authorities. Only the Mardom Party and, later, the Pan-Iranist Party, an extreme nationalist group, were allowed to participate in them. Neither party was able to secure more than a handful of Majlis seats, and neither engaged in serious criticism of government programs. In 1969 and again in 1972, the shah appeared ready to permit the Mardom Party, under new leadership, to function as a genuine opposition, i.e., to criticize the government openly and to contest elections more energetically, but these developments did not occur. The Iran Novin's domination of the administrative machinery was further made evident during municipal council elections held in 136 towns throughout the country in 1968. The Iran Novin won control of a large majority of the councils and every seat in 115 of them. Only 10 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in Tehran, however, a demonstration of public indifference that was not confined to the capital.


Ya not seeing where it says that members of parliament were hand picked by the Shah.

Alright ToT have it your way. Who created the Mardom and Novin parties? The Iranian people? :lol: This is your democracy ToT. I've not even started on the creation of the one Resurgence party state. Here's a link about that;

in the 1970s as the shah disbanded both parties and announced the formation of the Resurgence Party, which was to be the sole party of the state and an agent of popular mobilization for the shah's government. Furthermore, in an attempt to combine the authoritarian benefits of a one-party system with the appearance of legitimate debate in a two-party system, the shah maintained the fiction of two wings within the party, though the leaders of the "progressives" and "liberals" were in fact chosen by the shah himself.

http://janda.org/icpp/ICPP2000/Countries/7-MiddleEastNorthAfrica/77-Iran/77-Iran63-00.htm

Quote:
ToT whats your problem with democracy? If people wanna vote for clerics or communists that’s their prerogative. Besides you forgetting the National Front.

There was no Democracy under Mossadeq atleast under the Shah there was a parliament.

Stop wriggling ToT, whats your problem with democracy? Why cant people vote for who they want?

Quote:
I do know who Khomeini is. I also know what free speech is, do you? Mein Kampf is still widely available in the democracies, as is Karl Marx.
Actually its no different, it’s the same thing. Thank you very much UK and USA.

Khomeni was calling for the overthrow of the state which he infact accomplished and replaced with an Islamic Fascist state more horrific than anything under the Shah.

People in the West call for its overthrow all the time ToT. Whats your problem with free speech?

Quote:
Gotta love those conjobs, they’ll justify anything….. freedom, democracy, just words easily discarded if the politics doesn’t suit them.

There was no Democracy under Mossadeq he dissolved Parliament and made himself dictator.

Declared himself dictator ToT? Or is it acheiving emergency powers for a period of six months?
Furthermore if youd read the CIAs own report you'd see what he was up against. The coup plan initially called for bribing members of Iran's parliament to vote Mosaddeq out of office and enlisting prominent Iranian clergymen to create disturbances that would facilitate the coup (pp. A4, B18-B22). If these efforts did not succeed in bringing Mosaddeq down, a full-scale military coup would be launched. The CIA station was authorized to spend approximately $11,000 per week to purchase members of parliament (p. 19). This never came to fruition because Mosaddeq closed down the parli ament, at least partly because he knew about these efforts (p. 31).

Also, despite tremendous pressure, Mossadegh respected the civil liberties not only of Communist Tudeh party members but also of right-wing monarchists and Islamists, all of whom were engaged in outright slander and violence against his own pro-democracy followers. For example, as part of their psychological operations against Mossadegh, CIA agents were planting rumors in the Iranian press about Mossadegh being of Jewish parentage, being a Communist or Communist fellow traveler, having secret sympathies for the British, and having designs on the throne Mossadegh neither harassed nor suppressed any paper that published these false charges.

Lastly, throughout his life, Mossadegh was impeccably honest and incorruptible. This contrasts sharply with the avaricious Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza, who looted the treasury, confiscated private property, and lived a life of conspicuous consumption in a land of terribly poor people. Feel free to prove my words are factually inaccurate here ToT.

Just to expand on the point here for a moment ToT to continue your schooling.

Your problem is that you'll never see the real problem here because of your screwed vision, lazy approach to research and a reliance on right wing blogs (I assume this because you are so poor on historical detail ).

If you knew what your talking about then instead of bitching about the subsequent Fundamentalst Islamic regime youd see that the CIA coup smashed Iranian democracy and brought to power a despotic monarchy.

The shah's ruthless regime succeeded in suppressing the secular liberal democrats (Mossadegh and the National Front) and the left (the pro-Moscow Communist Tudeh party).

However, by so disarticulating the democratic and modernist political forces, the shah left the field open to right-wing Islamic fundamentalists, who, in 1979, succeeded in overthrowing the shah and establishing the first contemporary Islamist government.

Khomeini's regime brought hitherto marginalized forces to the center of politics in much of the Muslim world. Khomeini's success illustrated that Islamic fundamentalists could overthrow an incumbent regime and create their own.

Moreover, the Iranian revolutionaries provided assistance to myriad Islamist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas. Thus, the Shia success in Iran provided a model for Sunni fundamentalists around the Islamic world, including Osama bin Laden.

Once again thanks alot UK & USA. If thats not blowback then tell me what is?

Quote:
Brilliant reply ToT, a masterstroke. Therefore the next time the US takes a decision to end a defence contract in Britain and put thousands of workers on the dole you wont mind if we take steps to mess with your democratic institutions will you? Bribe senators, congressman, perhaps even get your President and House Speaker overthrown, just as long as we get our contract back.

I don't see the U.S. confiscating foreign assets and investments do you? If we did we would expect economic repercussions.

Hah ToT, you really are a weasel sometimes. But let me help you define your argument for you. Remember your orginal comment here?

Quote:
Quote:
No our mistake was interfering in another country and getting blowback years later.
Ya because Mossadeq's policies didn't interfere with economy of the U.K. did it?

According to your comments so far;
Mossadeq interferes with the UK economy by the nationalising their own industry and therefore deserves political interference by the UK & USA.

Therefore if the USA takes a decision that negatively affects the economy of another country it too deserves politcal interference in its own body politic by said affected country.
Sound right ToT?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Are you going to answer that ToT?




Well despite the fact that compensation was offered I'll answer with just a simple question. Who's sovereign in that country ToT? The British or the Iranians?

That still doesn't give them the right to confiscate U.K. built and payed for assets.

Very very expensive you say? Worth as much as the oil itself? Thought not.

Umm actually crude isn't worth that much it is the refineries that make the oil worth something.

Next I'll just ask you ToT. How did the British get the original concession ToT? Fair and square? The natural moves of market forces? Do some research for a change.

If the Iranians didn't want the British to build the refineries they should have said so, afterall they could have built there own, oh that's right they lacked the money and the technology to do so.

Alright ToT have it your way. Who created the Mardom and Novin parties? The Iranian people? :lol: This is your democracy ToT. I've not even started on the creation of the one Resurgence party state. Here's a link about that;

It's more of Democracy than what Mossadeq had established.

in the 1970s as the shah disbanded both parties and announced the formation of the Resurgence Party, which was to be the sole party of the state and an agent of popular mobilization for the shah's government. Furthermore, in an attempt to combine the authoritarian benefits of a one-party system with the appearance of legitimate debate in a two-party system, the shah maintained the fiction of two wings within the party, though the leaders of the "progressives" and "liberals" were in fact chosen by the shah himself.

Party Politics in Iran, 1963-2000

Ofcourse you have some evidence that they were chosen by the Shah himself?

Stop wriggling ToT, whats your problem with democracy? Why cant people vote for who they want?

Who ignored the Iranian Constitution, who dissolved Parliamen, and who declared himself defacto dictator, oh that's right Mossadeq.


People in the West call for its overthrow all the time ToT. Whats your problem with free speech?

Declared himself dictator ToT? Or is it acheiving emergency powers for a period of six months?

Dude you're such a liar after dissolving Parliament he extended his emergency powers indefinately.

Furthermore if youd read the CIAs own report you'd see what he was up against. The coup plan initially called for bribing members of Iran's parliament to vote Mosaddeq out of office and enlisting prominent Iranian clergymen to create disturbances that would facilitate the coup (pp. A4, B18-B22). If these efforts did not succeed in bringing Mosaddeq down, a full-scale military coup would be launched. The CIA station was authorized to spend approximately $11,000 per week to purchase members of parliament (p. 19). This never came to fruition because Mosaddeq closed down the parli ament, at least partly because he knew about these efforts (p. 31).

Also, despite tremendous pressure, Mossadegh respected the civil liberties not only of Communist Tudeh party members but also of right-wing monarchists and Islamists, all of whom were engaged in outright slander and violence against his own pro-democracy followers.

The Islamists and Communists were in league with eachother especially in the subsequent overthrow of the Shah, ever hear of MEK?

For example, as part of their psychological operations against Mossadegh, CIA agents were planting rumors in the Iranian press about Mossadegh being of Jewish parentage, being a Communist or Communist fellow traveler, having secret sympathies for the British, and having designs on the throne Mossadegh neither harassed nor suppressed any paper that published these false charges.

Ya because he was removed from power before he could. And regardless I wish the Shah had done more to suppress the Communists and Islamists who have turned Iran from a prosperous and pro-western nation with equal suffrage for the entire citizenry into a nation led by crazy people who hate the west, who have destroyed the Iranian economy, and who still stone women to death for sex outside of marriage.

Lastly, throughout his life, Mossadegh was impeccably honest and incorruptible. This contrasts sharply with the avaricious Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza, who looted the treasury, confiscated private property, and lived a life of conspicuous consumption in a land of terribly poor people. Feel free to prove my words are factually inaccurate here ToT.

What a load of crap under the Shah Iran enjoyed the most economic prosperity in the nations history and if you call dissolving parliament, flaunting the Constitution, and declaring himself dictator to be impeccably honest and incorruptable then you quite frankly have no idea what you're talking about.

Just to expand on the point here for a moment ToT to continue your schooling.

Your problem is that you'll never see the real problem here because of your screwed vision, lazy approach to research and a reliance on right wing blogs (I assume this because you are so poor on historical detail ).

If you knew what your talking about then instead of bitching about the subsequent Fundamentalst Islamic regime youd see that the CIA coup smashed Iranian democracy and brought to power a despotic monarchy.

Umm actually it was a Constitional Monarchy and it was Mossadeq who ended Iranian Democracy, you can make all the justifications for it you want but the fact of the matter is that Mossadeq dissolved Parliament through a fraudulent referendum and declared himself dictator, that's some Democracy pal.

The shah's ruthless regime succeeded in suppressing the secular liberal democrats (Mossadegh and the National Front) and the left (the pro-Moscow Communist Tudeh party).

However, by so disarticulating the democratic and modernist political forces, the shah left the field open to right-wing Islamic fundamentalists, who, in 1979, succeeded in overthrowing the shah and establishing the first contemporary Islamist government.

Khomeini's regime brought hitherto marginalized forces to the center of politics in much of the Muslim world. Khomeini's success illustrated that Islamic fundamentalists could overthrow an incumbent regime and create their own.

Which never would have happened if Carter had not abandoned the Shah in the first place.

Hah ToT, you really are a weasel sometimes. But let me help you define your argument for you. Remember your orginal comment here?


According to your comments so far;
Mossadeq interferes with the UK economy by the nationalising their own industry and therefore deserves political interference by the UK & USA.

Therefore if the USA takes a decision that negatively affects the economy of another country it too deserves politcal interference in its own body politic by said affected country.
Sound right ToT?

lol, Mossadeq destroyed the economy and declared himself dictator, he confiscated British built and British payed for assets, and the Shah was far more progressive than Mossadeq ever was, which is proven by the fact that he gave equal suffrage to women for the first time in a majority Muslim nation not only that but the Iranian economy had never been so successful as it was under the Shah.

 

[EAGLE1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by EAGLE1
Are you going to answer that ToT?




Well despite the fact that compensation was offered I'll answer with just a simple question. Who's sovereign in that country ToT? The British or the Iranians?

That still doesn't give them the right to confiscate U.K. built and payed for assets.

Actually ToT it does. Thats what sovereignty is all about. Gonna answer the point yet ToT?

Quote:
Very very expensive you say? Worth as much as the oil itself? Thought not.

Umm actually crude isn't worth that much it is the refineries that make the oil worth something.

Ah right. So refineries are an equally as valuable as the oil ToT?In that case how does one make a profit from oil ToT?

Quote:
Next I'll just ask you ToT. How did the British get the original concession ToT? Fair and square? The natural moves of market forces? Do some research for a change.

If the Iranians didn't want the British to build the refineries they should have said so, afterall they could have built there own, oh that's right they lacked the money and the technology to do so.

When you speak of 'the Iranians' who exactly do you mean ToT?
Actually the British installed a man in the name of Shah that would give them a very favourable concession ToT.

Quote:
Alright ToT have it your way. Who created the Mardom and Novin parties? The Iranian people? This is your democracy ToT. I've not even started on the creation of the one Resurgence party state. Here's a link about that;

It's more of Democracy than what Mossadeq had established.

Really ToT? Wanna prove that? Tell us about this democracy of yours, shall we speak of the Mardom, Novin and resurgence parties? Or do you have something else in mind?

So far its only me giving the detail here, show me what you got.

Quote:
in the 1970s as the shah disbanded both parties and announced the formation of the Resurgence Party, which was to be the sole party of the state and an agent of popular mobilization for the shah's government. Furthermore, in an attempt to combine the authoritarian benefits of a one-party system with the appearance of legitimate debate in a two-party system, the shah maintained the fiction of two wings within the party, though the leaders of the "progressives" and "liberals" were in fact chosen by the shah himself.

Party Politics in Iran, 1963-2000

Ofcourse you have some evidence that they were chosen by the Shah himself?

Nah it says enough right there ToT, I'll let you bring some detail about the Shah's democracy yourself for a change.

Quote:
Stop wriggling ToT, whats your problem with democracy? Why cant people vote for who they want?

Who ignored the Iranian Constitution, who dissolved Parliamen, and who declared himself defacto dictator, oh that's right Mossadeq.

What's your problem with democracy ToT? Who ignored the Iranian constitution ToT? The Shah himself. Feel like answering to the point above ToT about the Shah amending the constitution without support in 1950 yet ToT?

Quote:
Declared himself dictator ToT? Or is it acheiving emergency powers for a period of six months?

Dude you're such a liar after dissolving Parliament he extended his emergency powers indefinately.


Quote:
Furthermore if youd read the CIAs own report you'd see what he was up against. The coup plan initially called for bribing members of Iran's parliament to vote Mosaddeq out of office and enlisting prominent Iranian clergymen to create disturbances that would facilitate the coup (pp. A4, B18-B22). If these efforts did not succeed in bringing Mosaddeq down, a full-scale military coup would be launched. The CIA station was authorized to spend approximately $11,000 per week to purchase members of parliament (p. 19). This never came to fruition because Mosaddeq closed down the parli ament, at least partly because he knew about these efforts (p. 31).

Also, despite tremendous pressure, Mossadegh respected the civil liberties not only of Communist Tudeh party members but also of right-wing monarchists and Islamists, all of whom were engaged in outright slander and violence against his own pro-democracy followers.

The Islamists and Communists were in league with eachother especially in the subsequent overthrow of the Shah, ever hear of MEK?

Finally ToT, an inkling of detail yet very little source. Care to provide ToT?

MEK? Sure Ive heard of MEK? What would you like to say about them and their links to Mossadeq ToT?

Quote:
For example, as part of their psychological operations against Mossadegh, CIA agents were planting rumors in the Iranian press about Mossadegh being of Jewish parentage, being a Communist or Communist fellow traveler, having secret sympathies for the British, and having designs on the throne Mossadegh neither harassed nor suppressed any paper that published these false charges.

Ya because he was removed from power before he could. And regardless I wish the Shah had done more to suppress the Communists and Islamists who have turned Iran from a prosperous and pro-western nation with equal suffrage for the entire citizenry into a nation led by crazy people who hate the west, who have destroyed the Iranian economy, and who still stone women to death for sex outside of marriage.

Hah, again you show your ignorance. Mossadeq forbade the closing down of the critical press in 1951, just after he took office as PM. He wasnt ousted in the Coup untli 1953. Therefore the idea that he was removed from power before he could is redundant especially as it was in those early years that he had the most power.

The Shah himself with the help of the UK & USA caused the rise of these Islamists ToT by allowing no other public expression bar religion. Mossadeq on the other hand acted against both Communist AND Islamists AND foreign powers. You cant get more patriotic than that.

Quote:
Lastly, throughout his life, Mossadegh was impeccably honest and incorruptible. This contrasts sharply with the avaricious Reza Shah Pahlavi and his son Mohammad Reza, who looted the treasury, confiscated private property, and lived a life of conspicuous consumption in a land of terribly poor people. Feel free to prove my words are factually inaccurate here ToT.

What a load of crap under the Shah Iran enjoyed the most economic prosperity in the nations history and if you call dissolving parliament, flaunting the Constitution, and declaring himself dictator to be impeccably honest and incorruptable then you quite frankly have no idea what you're talking about.

Whats a load of crap ToT? What exactly?

Quote:
Just to expand on the point here for a moment ToT to continue your schooling.

Your problem is that you'll never see the real problem here because of your screwed vision, lazy approach to research and a reliance on right wing blogs (I assume this because you are so poor on historical detail ).

If you knew what your talking about then instead of bitching about the subsequent Fundamentalst Islamic regime youd see that the CIA coup smashed Iranian democracy and brought to power a despotic monarchy.

Umm actually it was a Constitional Monarchy and it was Mossadeq who ended Iranian Democracy, you can make all the justifications for it you want but the fact of the matter is that Mossadeq dissolved Parliament through a fraudulent referendum and declared himself dictator, that's some Democracy pal.

Its alot better than what came after ToT, plus the country was suffering foreign interference. Mossadeq's previous record as an elected member speaks for itself. Mossadeq ended Iranian democracy ToT? Bring your case.

Quote:
The shah's ruthless regime succeeded in suppressing the secular liberal democrats (Mossadegh and the National Front) and the left (the pro-Moscow Communist Tudeh party).

However, by so disarticulating the democratic and modernist political forces, the shah left the field open to right-wing Islamic fundamentalists, who, in 1979, succeeded in overthrowing the shah and establishing the first contemporary Islamist government.

Khomeini's regime brought hitherto marginalized forces to the center of politics in much of the Muslim world. Khomeini's success illustrated that Islamic fundamentalists could overthrow an incumbent regime and create their own.

Which never would have happened if Carter had not abandoned the Shah in the first place.

Oh now its all down to Carter ToT? Hah, bringing Carter in as the cause of all this when your on the ropes speaks volumes.

Quote:
Hah ToT, you really are a weasel sometimes. But let me help you define your argument for you. Remember your orginal comment here?


According to your comments so far;
Mossadeq interferes with the UK economy by the nationalising their own industry and therefore deserves political interference by the UK & USA.

Therefore if the USA takes a decision that negatively affects the economy of another country it too deserves politcal interference in its own body politic by said affected country.
Sound right ToT?

lol, Mossadeq destroyed the economy and declared himself dictator, he confiscated British built and British payed for assets, and the Shah was far more progressive than Mossadeq ever was, which is proven by the fact that he gave equal suffrage to women for the first time in a majority Muslim nation not only that but the Iranian economy had never been so successful as it was under the Shah.

Another weasel response ToT. Care to answer the point ToT, specifically;

if the USA takes a decision that negatively affects the economy of another country it too deserves politcal interference in its own body politic by said affected country.
Sound right ToT?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually ToT it does. Thats what sovereignty is all about. Gonna answer the point yet ToT?

The oil was theirs I'm not disputing that, but the refineries were owned by the British, if the Iranians wanted to steal the British refineries they should have expected economic repercussions, why would the British allow British and allied protected waters to be used to transport oil which was refined by British made and British payed for refineries?

Ah right. So refineries are an equally as valuable as the oil ToT?In that case how does one make a profit from oil ToT?

Oil is worthless without refineries if the British didn't build those refineries in the first place the oil wouldn't have done the Iranians alot of good because they lacked the funding and the technology needed to build them, the British did them a favor and in return expected compensation by sharing in their oil profits for a set period of time after which the refineries would have been fully owned by the Iranians, but Mossadeq couldn't wait he wanted it now now now, and he payed the price through economic sanctions.

When you speak of 'the Iranians' who exactly do you mean ToT?
Actually the British installed a man in the name of Shah that would give them a very favourable concession ToT.

Under the Iranian Constitution agreed to by the Parliament Mossadeq dissolved, the Shah not the PM was the head of state it was a Constitutional monarchy in fact it was the most liberal Constitutional Monarchy in any Muslim majority nation.

Really ToT? Wanna prove that? Tell us about this democracy of yours, shall we speak of the Mardom, Novin and resurgence parties? Or do you have something else in mind?

The Shah did not dissolve Parliament and the Shah granted equal suffrage to all Iranian citizens including women, it was a two party system and you have not shown any evidence that the heads of the parties were selected by the Shah, his country was in a period of modernization and liberal reform unfortunately we will never know how far that reform might have went but the policies of the White Revolution give us a glimpse:

1- Land Reforms Program and Abolishing Feudalism: The government bought the land from the feudal land lords at a fair price and sold it to the peasants at 30% below the market value, with the loan being payable over 25 years at very low interest rates. This made it possible for 1.5 million peasant families, who had once been nothing more than slaves, to own the lands that they had been cultivating all their lives. Given that average size of a peasant family was 5, land reforms program brought freedom to 9 million people, or 40% of Iran's population.

2- Nationalization of Forests and Pasturelands: Introduced many measures, not only to protect the national resources and stop the destruction of forests and pasturelands, but also to further develop and cultivate them. More than 9 million tress were planted in 26 regions, creating 70,000 acres of "green belts" around cities and on the borders of the major highways.

3- Privatization of the Government Owned Enterprises, manufacturing plants and factories by selling their shares to the public and the old feudal lords, thus creating a whole new class of factory owners who could now help to industrialize the country.

4- Profit Sharing for industrial workers in private sector enterprises, giving the factory workers and employees 20% share of the net profits of the places where they worked and securing bonuses based on higher productivity or reductions in costs.

5- Extending the Right to Vote to Women, who had no voice and were suppressed by Islamic traditions. This measure was widely criticized by the clergy.

6- Formation of the Literacy Corps, so that those who had a high school diploma and were required to serve their country as soldiers could do so in fighting illiteracy in the villages. At this point in time 2/3 of the population was illiterate.

7- Formation of the Health Corps to extend public health care throughout the villages and rural regions of Iran. In 3 years, almost 4,500 medical groups were trained; nearly 10 million cases were treated by the Corps.

8- Formation of the Reconstruction and Development Corps to teach the villagers the modern methods and techniques of farming and keeping livestock. Agricultural production between 1964 and 1970 increased by 80% in tonnage and 67% in value.

9- Formation of the Houses of Equity where 5 village elders would be elected by the villagers, for a period of 3 years, to act as arbitrators in order to help settle minor offences and disputes. By 1977 there were 10,358 Houses of Equity serving over 10 million people living in over 19,000 villages across the country.

10- Nationalization of all Water Resources, introduction of projects and policies in order to conserve and benefit from Iran's limited water resources. Many dams were constructed and five more were under construction in 1978. It was as a result of these measures that the area of land under irrigation increased from 2 million acres, in 1968, to 5.6 million in 1977.

11- Urban and Rural Modernization and Reconstruction with the help of the Reconstruction and Development Corps. Building of public baths, schools and libraries; installing water pumps and power generators for running water and electricity.

12- Didactic Reforms that improved the quality of education by diversifying the curriculum in order to adapt to the necessities of life in the modern world.

13- Workers' Right to Own Shares in the Industrial Complexes where they worked by turning Industrial units, with 5 years history and over, into public companies, where up to 99% of the shares in the state-owned enterprises and 49% of the shares of the private companies would be offered for sale to the workers of the establishment at first and then to the general public.

14- Price Stabilization and campaign against unreasonable profiteering (1975). Owners of factories and large chain stores were heavily fined, with some being imprisoned and other's licenses being revoked. Sanctions were imposed on multi-national foreign companies and tons of merchandise stored for speculative purposes were confiscated and sold to consumers at fixed prices.

15- Free and Compulsory Education and a daily free meal for all children from kindergarten to eighth grade. In 1978, 25% of Iranians were enrolled in public schools alone. In that same year there were 185,000 students of both sexes studying in Iran's universities. In addition to the above there were over 100,000 students pursuing their studies abroad, of which 50,000 were enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States.

16- Free Food for Needy Mothers and for all newborn babies up to the age of two.

17- Introduction of Social Security and National Insurance for all Iranians. National Insurance system provided for up to 100% of the wages during retirement.

18- Stable and Reasonable Cost of Renting or Buying of Residential Properties (1977). Controls were placed on land prices and various forms of land speculation.

19- Introduction of Measures to Fight against Corruption within the bureaucracy. Imperial Inspection Commission was founded, consisting of representatives from administrative bodies and people of proven integrity.

His education reforms also took power away from the clerics who until that time dominated the school systems, one of the many policies that angered the Islamic Fascists.

So far its only me giving the detail here, show me what you got.

Under Mossadeq women couldn't vote, that is not Democracy, under Mossadeq the Parliament was dissolved through a fraudulent refendum and he declared himself dictator that is not Democracy, under Mossadeq the Constitution was shredded as a matter of policy that is not Democracy. The Shah for the first time implemented equal suffrage to all of Iran's citizens, yes he had to keep tight control over the country but that was because it was very volatile, for example due to the Shah's progressive westernized agenda the clerics hated him IE they didn't even want women to drive cars let alone vote. The Shah implemented many progressive policies and though there was a legitimate deficit of Democracy Iran was moving in the right direction but the modernization was ended due to the Islamic Fascist revolution which has thrown Iran back to the stone age.

Nah it says enough right there ToT, I'll let you bring some detail about the Shah's democracy yourself for a change.

They can say whatever they want, but they don't offer any evidence to back their claim. You made the claim the burden of proof is on me.

What's your problem with democracy ToT? Who ignored the Iranian constitution ToT? The Shah himself.

No he didn't.

Feel like answering to the point above ToT about the Shah amending the constitution without support in 1950 yet ToT?

He amended the Constitution to allow him to dissolve parliament but he never dissolved Parliament, Mossadeq did, and furthermore where is your source that he didn't have the consent of the Parliament?

MEK? Sure Ive heard of MEK? What would you like to say about them and their links to Mossadeq ToT?

They're my evidence that the communists and Islamic Fascists were in collusion not diametrically opposed as you claim.

Hah, again you show your ignorance. Mossadeq forbade the closing down of the critical press in 1951, just after he took office as PM. He wasnt ousted in the Coup untli 1953. Therefore the idea that he was removed from power before he could is redundant especially as it was in those early years that he had the most power.

Umm no he had the most power after he dissolved Parliament and extended his "emergency" powers.

The Shah himself with the help of the UK & USA caused the rise of these Islamists ToT by allowing no other public expression bar religion. Mossadeq on the other hand acted against both Communist AND Islamists AND foreign powers. You cant get more patriotic than that.

He worked with the Communists and the Islamists not against them.

Whats a load of crap ToT? What exactly?

Your description of Iran under the Shah, under the Shah Iran has never enjoyed so much economic prosperity and a rise in the standard of living of the citizenry.

Its alot better than what came after ToT, plus the country was suffering foreign interference. Mossadeq's previous record as an elected member speaks for itself. Mossadeq ended Iranian democracy ToT? Bring your case.

It's been my main point the whole time, he dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum in which he got a 99.9% yay vote then he granted themself dictator. How is that Democracy?

Oh now its all down to Carter ToT? Hah, bringing Carter in as the cause of all this when your on the ropes speaks volumes.

Had we continued to support the Shah we would have been able to repress the Islamists and Iran today would be a prosperous, pro-western and, liberalized nation rather than the monstrosity it has become.

Another weasel response ToT. Care to answer the point ToT, specifically;

if the USA takes a decision that negatively affects the economy of another country it too deserves politcal interference in its own body politic by said affected country.
Sound right ToT?

No if we sieze private property of foreign nations then we should expect an economic retaliation.

 

[Mr. X]

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant scholar in the field of linguistics. I particularly like his theories and studies on the innate nature of language. They really are fascinating. If I want to learn more about linguistics, I read him. I don't give him the same deference on politics or electrical engineering or the pygmy fruit eating bat.

Andrew Jackson was a president who kicked the Indians out of their native lands and presided over a nasty point in the history of the United States. What this has to do with Iran invading Mexico? Nothing. Kind of like how this thread has nothing to do with the situation in Iran, Iraq, the Middle East or the contemporary political issues we must address today.

 

[Gardener]

I don't give him the same deference on politics or electrical engineering or the pygmy fruit eating bat.

.

and this is a good thing because what he has to say in the field of politics is so hackneyed and formulaic in nature.


What bothers me most about Chomsky is the manipulative nature of his various screeds which are so pumped up with bloated adjectives chosen for emotional impact that I have a difficult time understanding why he is even taken seriously as a political commentator. As a linguist he, especially, should be well aware of the myriad ways in which words affect us, and the fact that his words are so hyperbolic indicates that he is aiming for an almost visceral reaction against that which his words target.

I find it highly ironic that a man who speaks of manufactured consent works with such self-conscious diligence in regards to manufacturing perception.

People call him the world's foremost intellect. When it comes to politics, though, he is but a pamphleteer.

 

[Duke]

He meant we helped them by setting the conditions, not by actually helping them.

So, you are telling me that when Kissinger said "We helped them", he didn't actually mean "we helped them", he meant something else, something that he never bothered to talk about. Did you see that? Yeah, I think that was any credibility you had left leaving quickly.

Yes the CIA documents which you provided that show exactly what he meant by that comment IE aiding opposition political and media outlets which falls right in line with the "set the conditions as much as possible," part of his statement.

He said we helped them and created the conditions for the coup as great as possible. The CIA documents describe supporting opposition, but not helping the coup plotters the way Kissinger said we did.

I'm asking you why would the CIA admit to supporting the coup plotters in Iran and then after an indepth analysis of their documents state that we did not aid the coup against Allende? Why is it you want to take some of their statements at face value while discounting others?

Pinochet fell from power later, closer to the current date, and he was put in power much later as well.

But why are you asking me to divine the workings of the Central Intelligence Agency? They are opaque for a reason, you know.

It's simple. The CIA has not implicated itself. Would you? Unfortunately, someone outside of the CIA, but knowledgeable of its workings and activities, Kissinger, implicated it. Whoops.

That's not what he meant as is proven by the released CIA documents.

Not at all. Those documents describe indirect support of vague things like opposition papers. They do not describe helping the coup plotters or creating the conditions as great as possible for coup the way Kissinger said.

Why are you trying to tell me what he meant when he made it perfectly clear in the first place?

How exactly did we support the coup plotters outside of funding opposition media outlets and opposition political groups?

We helped them. Or are you accusing Kissinger of lying to Nixon?

It is made clear by the released CIA documents that Kissinger was saying that we did not directly support them which is why he first said "we didn't do it," and went on to qualify his statement by adding: "created the conditions.

Trajan, I refuse to believe that you are too stupid to understand this. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State, said we didn't do the coup. Nope, we didn't. But he elucidates his statement by saying we helped them, the coup plotters. He says we did so by creating the conditions as great as possible for them. Maybe we gave them intel, maybe we gave them weapons, maybe we gave them money. The CIA hasn't declassified the documents about our direct involvement with the coup plotters like Kissinger describes. Any hypotheses about this are purely devoid of fact, the facts aren't in yet. You can't be dumb enough not to understand this. You simply can't.


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So, you are telling me that when Kissinger said "We helped them", he didn't actually mean "we helped them", he meant something else, something that he never bothered to talk about. Did you see that? Yeah, I think that was any credibility you had left leaving quickly.

Look it's very simple by helping them he meant setting the conditions.

He said we helped them and created the conditions for the coup as great as possible.

He didn't say AND we created the conditions, he qualified his statement of "helping them," with "we set the conditions as great as possible," that's what he meant by helping him.

The CIA documents describe supporting opposition, but not helping the coup plotters the way Kissinger said we did.

That's not what he meant, technically cutting off loans, funding opposition political and media groups did help the coup plotters.

Pinochet fell from power later, closer to the current date, and he was put in power much later as well.

But why are you asking me to divine the workings of the Central Intelligence Agency? They are opaque for a reason, you know.

It's simple. The CIA has not implicated itself. Would you? Unfortunately, someone outside of the CIA, but knowledgeable of its workings and activities, Kissinger, implicated it. Whoops.

The statement of Kissinger taken into conjunction with the CIA documents proves what he meant by that statement.

Not at all. Those documents describe indirect support of vague things like opposition papers. They do not describe helping the coup plotters or creating the conditions as great as possible for coup the way Kissinger said.

What do you call cutting loans to hurt their economy and formenting discontent among the populace by funding oppostion media outlets if not setting the conditions?

Why are you trying to tell me what he meant when he made it perfectly clear in the first place?

Yes he did make it perfectly clear first he said "we didn't do it," and then he qualified his "I mean we helped them," statement with "we set the conditions."

We helped them. Or are you accusing Kissinger of lying to Nixon?



Trajan, I refuse to believe that you are too stupid to understand this. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State, said we didn't do the coup. Nope, we didn't. But he elucidates his statement by saying we helped them, the coup plotters. He says we did so by creating the conditions as great as possible for them. Maybe we gave them intel, maybe we gave them weapons, maybe we gave them money. The CIA hasn't declassified the documents about our direct involvement with the coup plotters like Kissinger describes. Any hypotheses about this are purely devoid of fact, the facts aren't in yet. You can't be dumb enough not to understand this. You simply can't.


Duke

The CIA did an indepth investigation into its records and concluded that we did not aid the coup plotters, you say that the CIA would never admit their complicity with the coup but that is disproven by the fact that they have admitted to aiding coup plotters in Iran and Guatemala.

 

[EAGLE1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by EAGLE1
Actually ToT it does. Thats what sovereignty is all about. Gonna answer the point yet ToT?

The oil was theirs I'm not disputing that, but the refineries were owned by the British, if the Iranians wanted to steal the British refineries they should have expected economic repercussions, why would the British allow British and allied protected waters to be used to transport oil which was refined by British made and British payed for refineries?

Again ToT, thats what sovereignty is all about ToT. If a gov wants to nationalise any asset in the country it has that right. The only exception may be if theyve already signed to up international agreements on certain trades. In this case the British took the case to international courts twice and lost. Game set match.

Oil is worthless without refineries if the British didn't build those refineries in the first place the oil wouldn't have done the Iranians alot of good because they lacked the funding and the technology needed to build them, the British did them a favor and in return expected compensation by sharing in their oil profits for a set period of time after which the refineries would have been fully owned by the Iranians, but Mossadeq couldn't wait he wanted it now now now, and he payed the price through economic sanctions.

Where the hell do you get this stuff from? You have to have some profit in order for there to be an industry. The oil comes before the refineries ToT. Thats not even economics its just physics.
The British did them a favour? Would you like a list of British politcial interference in Iran long before 1953 ToT?
Actually, it was the British that originally insisted that the oil was theirs and only when they realised the implacable opposition of the Iranians did they offer a 50-50 split by which time the Iranians had long lost patience.

Quote:

Under the Iranian Constitution agreed to by the Parliament Mossadeq dissolved, the Shah not the PM was the head of state it was a Constitutional monarchy in fact it was the most liberal Constitutional Monarchy in any Muslim majority nation.

So what ToT? Am I right about the British here? Care to respond to the point made?

Quote:

If the Iranians didn't want the British to build the refineries they should have said so, afterall they could have built there own, oh that's right they lacked the money and the technology to do so.

Answer the question ToT.

Under the Iranian Constitution agreed to by the Parliament Mossadeq dissolved, the Shah not the PM was the head of state it was a Constitutional monarchy in fact it was the most liberal Constitutional Monarchy in any Muslim majority nation.

Again, how did the British get the original concession ToT? Fair and square? The natural moves of market forces? Who do you mean when you speak of iranians, how did their representative get to that position ToT? Are you going to examine ANY of the history ToT? Can you?
Why do you keep talking about 'the most liberal constitution', whats the significance?

Quote:


The Shah did not dissolve Parliament and the Shah granted equal suffrage to all Iranian citizens including women, it was a two party system and you have not shown any evidence that the heads of the parties were selected by the Shah, his country was in a period of modernization and liberal reform unfortunately we will never know how far that reform might have went but the policies of the White Revolution give us a glimpse:

The Shah did not dissolve Parliament? Incorrect. Parliament was dissolved in 1961.

The monarchy of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was in need of both legitimacy and support in the early 1960s after experiencing the debacle of the National Front era and the humiliation of being restored and propped up by Western powers. The shah dutifully called for majlis (parliament) elections to occur in 1960, which his government promptly and clumsily fixed. After an unexpectedly strong response from the electorate, the shah called for new elections to take place in 1961, which if possible were even more flagrantly rigged than the previous ones. When the populace again reacted poorly, the shah dissolved the majlis and ordered the prime minister to rule by decree in contravention to the constitution.

Iran
Party Politics in Iran, 1963-2000
Next.



Source for the proposition that the heads of Mardom and Novin were selected by the Shah.

The events leading to the establishment of the Iran Novin and the appointment of Mansur as prime minister represented a renewed attempt by the shah and his advisers to create a political organization that would be loyal to the crown, attract the support of the educated classes and the technocratic elite, and strengthen the administration and the economy. The Iran Novin drew its membership almost exclusively from a younger generation of senior civil servants, Western-educated technocrats, and business leaders. Initially, membership was limited to 500 hand-picked persons, and it was allowed to grow very slowly.
Iran - State and Society, 1964-74

As a result of pressure for democracy and in the hope of giving the appearance of a two-party system, the Mardom party was established as an "opposition" party under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's rule in Iran in 1957. Its founder, Amir Asadollah Alam, was a large landlord, a former prime minister, and a close associate and confidant of the shah. The party's official platform included such issues as raising the standard of living for farmers, workers, and government officials, as well as facilitating the acquisition of land by the farmers. Together with the "official" government party, the Nationalist party or Hezb-e Melliyun, however, the Mardom party came to have a reputation for being a government organ, the Nationalist being known as the "yes" party and the Mardom as the "yes, sir" party. In 1975, the Mardom party was dissolved when the shah decided to revert to a one-party system and started the Rastakhiz party. Many people point to the establishment and dissolution of the Mardom party, both government-inspired, as indications of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's failure in developing Iran's political system.
Mardom Party: Information from Answers.com

Quote:
So far its only me giving the detail here, show me what you got.
Under Mossadeq women couldn't vote, that is not Democracy, under Mossadeq the Parliament was dissolved through a fraudulent refendum and he declared himself dictator that is not Democracy, under Mossadeq the Constitution was shredded as a matter of policy that is not Democracy. The Shah for the first time implemented equal suffrage to all of Iran's citizens, yes he had to keep tight control over the country but that was because it was very volatile, for example due to the Shah's progressive westernized agenda the clerics hated him IE they didn't even want women to drive cars let alone vote. The Shah implemented many progressive policies and though there was a legitimate deficit of Democracy Iran was moving in the right direction but the modernization was ended due to the Islamic Fascist revolution which has thrown Iran back to the stone age.

What do you mean ‘under Mossadeq women couldn’t vote’? He was only in power for 2 years for gods sake and he a lot bigger issues to deal with than women’s sufferage. Furthermore this was situation that had been in existence since 1906!

Parliament was dissolved after its business was deliberately frozen by the its members. The referendum was indeed fraudulent but no more than any other plebiscite before or since, plus there were two sides seeking to commit fraud, on this occasion Mossadeq got the upper hand in a good cause.

The reason the country was very volatile was because its struggling democracy was subverted even before it had fully bloomed, giving the mullahs more credibility than they ever could hope for. In fact the only people that had any power in the country where the Shah and his cronies and the mullahs, the two factors that held power by force or religious conviction/ force. The sensible voices of normal politics had already been suppressed.

Quote:
Nah it says enough right there ToT, I'll let you bring some detail about the Shah's democracy yourself for a change.

They can say whatever they want, but they don't offer any evidence to back their claim. You made the claim the burden of proof is on me.


Quote:
What's your problem with democracy ToT? Who ignored the Iranian constitution ToT? The Shah himself.

No he didn't.


Quote:
Feel like answering to the point above ToT about the Shah amending the constitution without support in 1950 yet ToT?

He amended the Constitution to allow him to dissolve parliament but he never dissolved Parliament, Mossadeq did, and furthermore where is your source that he didn't have the consent of the Parliament?

Jeez ToT, Im not even asking for proof. Im just wanting some detail to back what you say. Is that so hard?

Wait a minute ToT. So you spend your time bitching about how Mossadeq asked for and was granted dictatorial powers even though you knew that previously the Shah had perhaps asked for and been granted powers to dissolve Parliament any time for any reason?! What kind of hypocrite are you?

Quote:
MEK? Sure Ive heard of MEK? What would you like to say about them and their links to Mossadeq ToT?
They're my evidence that the communists and Islamic Fascists were in collusion not diametrically opposed as you claim.

Hmmm….when was the MEK?

Besides again ToT, whats your problem with democracy?

Did you know that Mossadeq acted against both the communists and the mullahs? Whats the Mossadeq connection here?

Quote:
Whats a load of crap ToT? What exactly?
Your description of Iran under the Shah, under the Shah Iran has never enjoyed so much economic prosperity and a rise in the standard of living of the citizenry.

No…I asked what specifically is a load of crap about my words ToT?

Quote:

It's been my main point the whole time, he dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum in which he got a 99.9% yay vote then he granted themself dictator. How is that Democracy?

He was forced to as the country was under foreign interference and Parliament was frozen, due again to foreign interference….read the accounts.

Quote:
Oh now its all down to Carter ToT? Hah, bringing Carter in as the cause of all this when your on the ropes speaks volumes.
Had we continued to support the Shah we would have been able to repress the Islamists and Iran today would be a prosperous, pro-western and, liberalized nation rather than the monstrosity it has become.
Why not just leave them alone, create a reason for people to believe in democracy?

Quote:
if the USA takes a decision that negatively affects the economy of another country it too deserves politcal interference in its own body politic by said affected country.Sound right ToT?
No if we sieze private property of foreign nations then we should expect an economic retaliation.

Leaving blockades of international waters aside ( surely an act of war) what about political retaliation? Specifically the interference of Senate and the HoR plus orchestrated campaigns of violence and mis-information? Happy with that ToT. Don’t weasel out again this time.

 

[Duke]

Look it's very simple by helping them he meant setting the conditions.

Call me crazy on this one, Trajan, but I think by saying "We helped them", he meant, "We helped them". Sounds a little radical, I know, but bear with me here. I am sure that in helping the coup plotters, we made the conditions as great as possible for a coup, for he said that too. But he never said we just set the conditions, or what we did in setting the conditions.

He didn't say AND we created the conditions, he qualified his statement of "helping them," with "we set the conditions as great as possible," that's what he meant by helping him.

He said one thing we did to help them. You are making stuff up again. You don't know that we only set the conditions, you don't know that that is what he meant by helping them or only part of what he was saying. You are making assumptions totally without basis in fact. When he said, "we helped them", he could have meant a hundred things. He also said we made the conditions as great as possible for a coup, that could also mean a hundred things. That could mean killing probable opposition to a coup, that could mean arming coup plotters, that could mean giving the coup plotters intelligence, that could mean many things. One thing that Kissinger made perfectly clear in his conversation with Nixon is that the United States was directly involved with the coup. You cannot argue that, you can't fight his own words.

That's not what he meant, technically cutting off loans, funding opposition political and media groups did help the coup plotters.

How can you be so certain of exactly what he meant? You're simply filling in the blanks to fit your position. You don't have a clue what he specifically meant, you're pulling stuff out of a hat.

What do you call cutting loans to hurt their economy and formenting discontent among the populace by funding oppostion media outlets if not setting the conditions?

I'm sure that was part of setting the conditions. But according to the CIA documents, that's not helping the coup plotters, like Kissinger said we did. There may be many other things we did to set the conditions. Face it, you don't know.

Yes he did make it perfectly clear first he said "we didn't do it," and then he qualified his "I mean we helped them," statement with "we set the conditions."

How do you know that we only set the conditions, and didn't help them directly, as he implied? Oh yeah, you don't. You are just guessing. For all you know, he could be saying that we armed them, gave them money, et cetera.

The CIA did an indepth investigation into its records and concluded that we did not aid the coup plotters,

That's brilliant. Ask a serial killer if they committed this particular murder, then take them at their word. I'm sure you'll get the true answer.

Don't get me wrong. The CIA might be a serial killer, but it's our serial killer.

you say that the CIA would never admit their complicity with the coup

When did I say that? Oh wait, I didn't. Making stuff up again? Putting words in my mouth, being dishonest? Lying? How usual for you, Trajan.


Duke