And you all thought that waterboarding was bad ...

[Realitycheck]

Check out this little bit of history.

 

That history shows how the CIA in 1953 staged a coup against Iran's popular Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq. A crucial factor in its success were mobs organized by CIA-paid agents to rampage and take over the streets; others soon joined the rioters.

 

 

To read more about it, check out Operation Ajax.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

 

All over oil.

 

Mosaddeq decided that Iran ought to begin profiting from its own vast oil reserves and took steps to nationalize the oil industry which had previously been controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later changed to the British Petroleum Company). Britain pointed out that Iran was violating the company's legal rights and spearheaded a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that submerged the regime into financial crisis.[6] The monarchy supported by the U.S. and Britain invited western oil companies back into Iran.[6] "The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms," Dan De Luce wrote in The Guardian in a review of All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer, a reporter for The New York Times, who for the first time revealed details of the coup.

[Pangloss]

I don't understand what the point of this history lesson is.

[Realitycheck]

I just ran across this episode and it really piqued my interest. I am just contrasting the magnitude of immorality involved between waterboarding and raping and pillaging another sovereign nation, especially one that was newly democratic. Plus, it kind of gives everybody some insight as to why Iran hates us so much. Given the inherent value system embodied in Islam, in general, it also potentially displays the amount of care and hands-off approach required to keep Iraq subdued in the future.

[Saryctos]

This is not new information. Just a heads up.

[Realitycheck]

That did occur to me.

[CDarwin]

The Mossadeq affair was pretty shameless, yes. It's interesting on a few levels. For one: It shows something of what the Iranians have to be angry about. Western powers really have been messing around in their country to protect commercial interests.

 

Beyond the guilt trip though, I think its an excellent case study belying the idea that in the Middle East "pro-democracy" = "pro-Western." Mossadeq was a secular, democratic leader, but he was also a rabid nationalist. Today we have plenty of political movements who are just fine with free and fair elections... to install Sharia Law.

 

It's an interesting paradox, and a pretty tough nut to crack for those who might want to protect individual liberties. Do you do that best by allowing democracy to take its course, or do you suppress democracy in the name of liberty?

[ParanoiA]

This is the event that Dr Paul references when explaining the "blow back" principle that the CIA has understood for years - actually any breathing, thinking human can make that deduction...except for Rudy Guiliani.

 

This is the type of interventionist activity that has earned us hatred by the middle east. Many of us believe it's this kind of activity that encourages terrorism against the west - not simply because we're rich and free.

[Pangloss]

We've discussed Mossadeq before (I've brought him up myself), and I think he's an interesting case, and perhaps we would have been better off today had we let him stay in power. Probably not; he or one of his successors would likely have just turned into a Saddam Hussein in the end.

 

But more to the point, I grow weary of the notion that two wrongs make a right. In the end, Iran is responsible for its current situation. Nobody else. And history lessons mean nothing at the bargaining table -- every country has things that suck in its backstory. We'll either find common ground and peaceful means, or we won't.

 

Iran has to set aside that hatred if it wants to be part of the international community. That simple.

[Mr Skeptic]

But more to the point, I grow weary of the notion that two wrongs make a right. In the end, Iran is responsible for its current situation. Nobody else.

 

So who is responsible for bombing the twin towers then? The US, and nobody else?

 

Edit: somehow I misread Iran as Iraq. For some reason I always mix up the two. My above comment makes no sense.

[Pangloss]

No, what I'm saying is that the list of those responsible for the bombing of the twin towers does NOT include the US, no matter how many people would like for it to be so. Put another way, no matter how eggregious our foreign policy, there simply are no circumstances under which two wrongs can make a right, so the US is not "partly to blame" for acts like 9/11, no matter how many Sean Penns or Noam Chomskys say it's so.

 

Were we wrong to invade Iraq? I believe we were. Does that make us responsible for Al Qaeda in Iraq? I believe it does NOT. Al Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Those boys made up their own minds to blow people up. I'm not responsible for that poor decision. Could I do a better job producing a situation where that's less likely to happen? Absolutely -- I WANT that criticism because I want to do a better job of it next time. But am I to blame for their actions? No friggin' way.

 

I'm all about changing our tune to produce a better world. If I'm going to hold others responsible for their mistakes, then I certainly have to hold us responsible for ours. And I support the notion of leading by example -- we should be out in front on global warming, not lagging pathetically behind, and the very same may be said of our foreign policy.

 

But it's not our fault Iran has a nuclear weapons program, it's Iran's. It's not our fault North Korea has a nuclear weapons program, it's North Korea's. It's not our fault there's piracy off the coast of Somalia, it's Somalia's. It's not our fault there's terrorism in Iraq, it's the fault of those participating in it.

 

'Nuff said.

[CDarwin]

But more to the point, I grow weary of the notion that two wrongs make a right. In the end, Iran is responsible for its current situation.

 

That's a bit of a straw man. No one's making a moral equvilation here. The point is that our actions in the Middle East have had and continue to have consequences, and we should remember than when we make foreign policy.

[Pangloss]

It wasn't a refutation, it was a widening of the discussion. Frankly a lot of people in this country very MUCH equate consequences to moral equivalency, and hold us responsible for 9/11, Iran's nuclear weapons program, and so forth. Many complaints about "Mission: Accomplished" and "you're either with us or against us" aren't just complaining about mistaken policy, they're holding George Bush personally and directly responsible for Iran's actions.

 

How many times have we heard the phrase "... but we supported Saddam during the 1980s, so...." used as a direct refutation for going to war in Iraq? The implication of that approach is not that we made a poor choice in the 1980s, but that we were responsible for the present situation in Iraq.

[CDarwin]

How many times have we heard the phrase "... but we supported Saddam during the 1980s, so...." used as a direct refutation for going to war in Iraq? The implication of that approach is not that we made a poor choice in the 1980s, but that we were responsible for the present situation in Iraq.

 

Is it possible that we could be? I ask this more as a theoretical. At what point does it really become your "fault" that a country that you've "had dealings with" in one way or another goes down the toilet? It's an interesting question.

 

If the US provides arms to a dictator (which we have certainly done) are we responsible for what the dictator does with those arms? Partially? Wholly?

 

If Great Britain colonizes a nation and trashes its social institutions (which they have quite undoubtedly done), is it responsible for the dire political and economic straits of the country once it become independent?

[DrDNA]

Listen to me when I'm talking to you....what I'm saying now makes absolutely no sense....

[Pangloss]

Is it possible that we could be? I ask this more as a theoretical. At what point does it really become your "fault" that a country that you've "had dealings with" in one way or another goes down the toilet? It's an interesting question.

 

At no point. You try your best, you do what seems like the right thing, for the right reasons, and you hope for the best. Sometimes it doesn't work out, and you take your lumps and move on. That's really all there is to it.

 

Should we allow easy access to powerful weapons on the streets of America? No, IMO we should not. But that doesn't make me responible for the various shootings that take place. Not ever. There is no "at some point" to consider, and it's not an interesting question at all. It's completely moot.

 

Likewise, we need to make sure that when we have foreign involvements, we listen to what's actually wanted and needed locally, that we don't allow corruption to enter into things, that we think long term and that we ponder alternatives carefully at all times. But in the end, even if we screw up, we should not be held responsible for things we didn't actually do.

 

Not that I fault you for asking the question, mind you -- I'm all about thinking and discussing and arriving at your own conclusions, not having them force-fed to you by either the TV news OR a zealous politics-board moderator.

[Severian]

You try your best, you do what seems like the right thing, for the right reasons, and you hope for the best.

 

Are you saying that subverting and ultimately ousting a democratic government, and putting a puppet dictatorship in power so that you can secure the oil interests of your own national companies is "trying your best" and doing "what seems like the right thing"?

[CDarwin]

Likewise, we need to make sure that when we have foreign involvements, we listen to what's actually wanted and needed locally, that we don't allow corruption to enter into things, that we think long term and that we ponder alternatives carefully at all times. But in the end, even if we screw up, we should not be held responsible for things we didn't actually do.

 

Those two seem to contradict for me. If we "screw up," than we did "do" something.

 

Why should a nation not be held responsible for the damage it does with its foreign policy? Did the French and British have no responsibility to stand up to the Germans and stop them from taking Czechoslovakia? Disregarding responsibility retrospectively ("It wasn't our fault") means you must also disregard it prospectively ("We have no duty").

 

That means you remove ethics completely from policy. No one's going to say you can't, but it has some troublesome implications that you have to be comfortable with.

[Pangloss]

Are you saying that subverting and ultimately ousting a democratic government, and putting a puppet dictatorship in power so that you can secure the oil interests of your own national companies is "trying your best" and doing "what seems like the right thing"?

 

No, that would be an example of making mistakes, letting inappropriate and incorrect influences dictate bad decisions.

 

Why should a nation not be held responsible for the damage it does with its foreign policy? Did the French and British have no responsibility to stand up to the Germans and stop them from taking Czechoslovakia? Disregarding responsibility retrospectively ("It wasn't our fault") means you must also disregard it prospectively ("We have no duty").

 

That means you remove ethics completely from policy. No one's going to say you can't' date=' but it has some troublesome implications that you have to be comfortable with.[/quote']

 

I do believe a nation that has caused damage should be responsible for that damage. I just don't think it should be demonized for the next 18 generations for unintended, undesired consequences, especially when its influence was largely positive and demanded internationally.

[iNow]

I do believe a nation that has caused damage should be responsible for that damage. I just don't think it should be demonized for the next 18 generations for unintended, undesired consequences, especially when its influence was largely positive and demanded internationally.

 

 

What activity was engaged in 18 generations ago for which someone is still being demonized?

 

 

My mom would be one, my grandfather two, my great grandfather three, my great great mother four, my great great great grandfather five, my great great great great grandfather six, my great great great great... Whoa... 18s a lot!

[Pangloss]

I suppose that would be a lot, especially since nobody is more than 99 times removed from anyone else on the planet (or is that just a netmyth?), so if you go back too far you end up demonizing yourself!

[ecoli]

I do believe a nation that has caused damage should be responsible for that damage. I just don't think it should be demonized for the next 18 generations for unintended, undesired consequences, especially when its influence was largely positive and demanded internationally.

 

But the thing is... we don't learn from our mistakes!

 

history has shown time and time again the danger of setting up military type empires. Intervening in foreign nations, whether it is to stop a genocide or to impose our economic will, generally end in failure. For how much longer can we continue to use the excuse, "but we have good intentions..." before we realize that our actions have a real and damaging long term consequences when we use force when dealing with sovereign, and far away nations.

 

As much as we don't like seeing human rights being violated in far off countries, when have we ever been successfully been able to stop it? You can make the argument for WWII, but I think that's about it.

 

No, that would be an example of making mistakes, letting inappropriate and incorrect influences dictate bad decisions.

 

Yes... but when will we finally figure out that we have to stop making the same mistakes over and over. We keep trying to do these 'honorable' things, while the military-industrial complex and oil companies are really the ones profiting. Yet, nobody in power is effectively attempting to stop this flagrant violation. Those that try are scoffed at and marginalized.

 

The whole system needs changing, but the Americans, the majority of whom are perfectly content with being sheep, refuse to change the system. Well, they'll have no choice when the economic toll of trying to be the world's policeman hits. There's a reason why no empires have survived to present day.