Hey, genius (Yeah, you philosopher) - We had no right do depose ANY democratically elected govt. ANYWHERE. People don't like it.
Unfortunately, here in the United Snakes of Amnesia, we forget how utterly incompetent we are, despite our unparalled military budget. Tell me - How did Vietnam work out for you? Was it worth THREE MILLION dead civilians? F*ck the troops! They CHOSE their fate - the civilians didn't.

..And NO govt. supports us, unless they're bullied or bought.

war against terror is in no way going to turn into WW111. those wackos over there have been fighting and blowing **** up since the birth of their nations. i never had a problem with fighting terrorists for what they did but it never should have been directed at iraq and called iraqi freedom, destruction of the axis of evil and hunt for WMD's. they shoulda labeled it what it was instead of trying to make excuses. who here really gives a **** if iraqis have freedom? at least if they had the balls to call it what it really was we wouldn't be held accountable to rebuild their country at our own expense. american politicians lost their heart and their balls and it's disgusting.

Prior to the Shah,

Within Iran, Mosaddeq's social democratic policies, as well as the growth of the communist Tudeh Party, weakened the always-tenuous support of his few allies among Iran's religious class, whose ability to generate public support was important to Mosaddeq's government. In August 1953, following a round of political skirmishing, Mosaddeq's quarrels with the shah came to a head, and the Iranian monarch fled the country.

Iam not contesting your statement that the CIA had some influence in the fall of Mosaddeq. However Reza Shah had some history of authority in Iran


Within a week of his departure, Mohammad Reza Shah returned to Iran and appointed a new prime minister.

Resa Shah was the predecessor to Mosaddeq.


In 1961 the shah dissolved the 20th Majles and cleared the way for the land reform law of 1962. Under this program, the landed minority was forced to give up ownership of vast tracts of land for redistribution to small-scale cultivators. The former landlords were compensated for their loss in the form of shares of state-owned Iranian industries. Cultivators and workers were also given a share in industrial and agricultural profits, and cooperatives began to replace the large landowners in rural areas as sources of capital for irrigation, agrarian maintenance, and development.

The land reforms were a mere prelude to the shah's “White Revolution,” a far more ambitious program of social, political, and economic reform. Put to a plebiscite and ratified in 1963, these reforms eventually redistributed land to some 2.5 million families, established literacy and health corps to benefit Iran's rural areas, further reduced the autonomy of tribal groups, and advanced social and legal reforms that furthered the emancipation and enfranchisement of women. In subsequent decades, per capita income for Iranians skyrocketed, and oil revenue fueled an enormous increase in state funding for industrial development projects.

Prior to Mosaddeq

Between 1921 and 1925 Reza Khan—first as war minister and later as prime minister under Ahmad Shah—built an army that was loyal solely to him. He also managed to forge political order in a country that for years had known nothing but turmoil. Initially Reza Khan wished to declare himself president in the style of Turkey's secular nationalist president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk—a move fiercely opposed by the Shi'ite 'ulama'—but instead he deposed the weak Ahmad Shah in 1925 and had himself crowned Reza Shah Pahlavi.

During the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, educational and judicial reforms were effected that laid the basis of a modern state and reduced the influence of the religious classes. A wide range of legal affairs that had previously been the purview of Shi'ite religious courts were now either administered by secular courts or overseen by state bureaucracies, and, as a result, the status of women improved. The custom of women wearing veils was banned, the minimum age for marriage was raised, and strict religious divorce laws (which invariably favoured the husband) were made more equitable. The number and availability of secular schools increased for both boys and girls, and the University of Tehran was established in 1934, further eroding what had once been a clerical monopoly on education. Nonetheless, Reza Shah was selective on what forms of modernization and secularization he would adopt. He banned trade unions and political parties and firmly muzzled the press. Oil concessions were first granted in 1901, during the Qajar period, and the first commercially exploitable petroleum deposits were found in 1908. Reza Shah renegotiated a number of these concessions, despite the ire these agreements raised among the Iranian people. The concessions were to remain a violent point of contention in Iran for decades to come.

Reza Shah's need to expand trade, his fear of Soviet control over Iran's overland routes to Europe, and his apprehension at renewed Soviet and continued British presence in Iran drove him to expand trade with Nazi Germany in the 1930s. His refusal to abandon what he considered to be obligations to numerous Germans in Iran served as a pretext for an Anglo-Soviet invasion of his country in 1941. Intent on ensuring the safe passage of U.S. war matériel to the Soviet Union through Iran, the Allies forced Reza Shah to abdicate, placing his young son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi on the throne


Mohammad Reza Shah succeeded to the throne in a country occupied by foreign powers, crippled by wartime inflation, and politically fragmented. Paradoxically, however, the war and occupation had brought a greater degree of economic activity, freedom of the press, and political openness than had been possible under Reza Shah. Many political parties were formed in this period, including the pro-British National Will and the pro-Soviet Tudeh (“Masses”) parties. These, along with a fledgling trade union movement, challenged the power of the young shah, who did not wield the absolute authority of his father.

Chill, cbx.

The troops didn't choose to go into Iraq-they had their orders.

Regardless of how you feel about this war, the troops are doing a great job over there, and deserve our support. Your comment is insulting, degrading, and childish.

I've read several of your posts. Two things are obvious:

1-You get all your "information" from websites(Prison Planet, ect.)that specialize in wild conspiracy theories.
2-You hate America.

Can't do anything about point one. Thanks to people like those brave soldiers fighting for us at a moment's notice, people like you are allowed to read anything you want, no matter how ignorant the stuff is.
Point two has a much easier solution, however. If you hate this country so much--
GET THE HELL OUT!!!AND DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS!!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!!!!

..And what do you suppose Savak's connection to the U.S. was?

So basically Mosaddeq was a spit on the landscape of Iranian history, Having marginal influence for about 3 years. The Shah on the other hand had been established a dynasty going back to 1921. His Father Reza Khan, built the country out of his long fought reforms and through coalitions of honorable men supporting his actions.

The fall of Mossadeq was more like a nudge than a battleground. His popular support was not there ever and strong pro Khan support had remained in effect throughout.

Iran was highly multinational going back to before WW1, with strong Soviet influence and British influence as well. Besides all that, BP was the major beneficiary or the oil industry in Iran at the time of the Mossadeq's failure and flight from the country in ignominy, not the United States.

Hey, toughguy (yeah, YOU knoxman) I'll leave when you grow the balls to throw me out. Apparently, you think this is YOUR country more than mine. I was born here - It's as much mine as anyone's
and any bloated jackass who tries to throw me out will suffer.
Secondly, I just started on the computer five months ago.
Most of my info does NOT come from it.
Third, do you really think it takes "bravery" when the Iraqis die 100 to 1 compared with U.S. troops? (I can see YOU'RE not a fighter..)

Read it for yourself and if you want to call me genius, mean it. I'm only taking exception to your tone after all. Gardner had some points to make and you want to come here acting like the authority of the middle east, calling everyone Einstein. What do you THINK people are going to do when you want to come in here and malign the CIA and support the Ayatollah in the same breath?

The British crown OWNS all the major U.S. oil co's through
subsidiaries (including Exxon), philosopher.

'tell you what, knoxman - You can be "brave" just like a real soldier - give me an email address, I'll tell you where I live and you can come throw me out. O.K., toughguy?

I think, CBX, you neglected to give a balanced statement by neglecting to mention the sources of support given the Ayatollah in his coup. Could it be that you only consider influence by foreign governments being unreasonable when the United States benefits?

In this country there are a lot of really fine people who work hard and support families and build things. They invent new technologies and produce new products and bring them to the rest of the world. They contribute to charities all around the world and pay taxes at home. They make a fine effort at maintaining fair relations around the world based on contracts and law.

For some countries this is not good enough. When it is not good enough they cheat and steal and whatever they can do to gain advantage. In the US there are some who try to take advantage of the system for their own gain, but we have a system of laws that helps to keep them in check, under control.

If this model of behavior is not reasonable to you, then you're not being realistic or perhaps you are not being honest. YOU. You want better but all you're doing is supporting worse. That is foolish. Humanity can not advance with such folly at the forefront of political discussion.

Philosopher - What do you THINK happens when people go to strange countries waving guns around and killing hundreds of thousands
of civilians to install a govt. that YOU approve of? Is THAT democracy in action? ..and NO, I DIDN'T mean "genius literally.

..Nor did I support the ayatollah. You assumed that. That's
part of the reason I call you "genius"..

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/red-symphony.html

i think the best thing we could do is to start making the iraqi government responsible for their country. that doesn't need a full withdrawal of troops but it does warrant a major reduction which would still allow us to continue going after terrorist organizations and cells.

One more thing, "knoxman" - The troops DID have a choice.
They could have chosen not to enlist in an incompetent
death machine, knowing there's a good chance of deployment to a hot zone, where the majority of the victims are always women and children. Once in, they STILL had the choice, if not the OBLIGATION to REFUSE illegal and unjust orders.
...but then, THAT would require a backbone. Going along to get along does not.

Just keep your names to yourself. I don't actually give a da mn what you think anyway, and I don't make assumptions your support for the ayatollah, I just read your words.

Your point about what happens when you go to a country waving guns around killing hundreds of thousands is lost on this topic. Americans did not go to Iran waving guns and killing hundreds of thousands to get the Shah in power, neither did they Americans instill the ayatollah in that manner.


I'll remind you one more time that the ayatollah took power in Iran in a coup. Furthermore the coup was extremely regressive for the country. Effectively putting all the oil revenues, not in the hands of the country, but in the hands of a very small number of zealots for their own purposes, which were horrible for the most part anyway.

With the control of the oil revenues and the military and their own internal police force, Iran's new government essentially seized all wealth from around the country and placed it in the hands of the religious leaders, who then used it to bully and kill and imprison the people who built influence over the previous 50 years. Then they began exporting anarchy and terror around the world and in the middle east in particular.

Supporting the Shah was not a mistake. Failing to get rid of the Ayatollah early and fast was the mistake. It was a mistake for world peace. It was a mistake in terms of the harm to the Iranian people. It was a mistake in terms of overall international relations for the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and even the far East and Russia.

No business nor peace can flourish under corrupt governments with evil intent such as exist in Iran.

Unfortunately there is no end to the fools who will support the underdog, just because they resent the success of hard working creative individuals. And unfortunately there is no limit on their foolishness when they overlook the deficiencies of those they support in the name of fairness.

"Rule of law", philosopher? is THAT what you think this govt.
adheres to? (Gee, you really ARE a genius!)