"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > > is history.
> > >
> >
> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
book
> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>
> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
> Iran.
First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
a democracy is a stretch beyond reason. Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
politics being what they were at the time.
The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
ignores the risks of doing so.
There weren't perfect choices to be had.
> See the book:
> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471265179/qid=1068997504//ref
> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> This was talked about in National Public Radio.
Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
having created the terrorist threat it is now fighting. What's your point?
> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>
Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
to the east).
> Even so, these countries were never
> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
anti
> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
necessarily
> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
> they
> > are now.
> >
> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
> went
> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
as
> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
> right
> > thing to fight Communism.
> >
>
> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
than
> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
blacks
> and other non-whites.
>
The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
wouldn't support the allies against the Nazis, so the British and the
Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
Shah.
Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
and be right.
