Ignorance: Let's talk about Mossadegh, and let's talk about the Iraqi Bush War

I knew who Mossadegh was ...

  • ... before I opened this topic

    Votes: 11 73.3%

  • ... I don't know

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • ... I had to go and look him up

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Total voters
    15
Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
Okay, it is a grim moment I've come to. The stunning depth of ignorance I've found in the war party is amazingly frightening.

In the topic Cowards US, I was asked to offer a point in thirty words or less. I did it in 18:
- Israeli atrocities against Palestinians
- US support of Israelis
- Mossadegh
- Pahlavi
- Rumsfeld and Hussein
- US military in Arab countries
Click to expand...
Strangely, these words were written off: Looks like more irrelevant BS to me.

Yet, the poster in question singled out part of that list and commented on it:
- Mossadegh
- Pahlavi
- Rumsfeld and Hussein

Ans:? No Idea what that is about.
Click to expand...
Now, aside from the poster's desperate need to set the criteria of discussion, I found this largely annyoing because someone with no idea of a history dares to call it irrelevant BS.

So it struck me that the history of how the US came to support Saddam Hussein's atrocities against human beings doesn't seem important to the war party. I'm starting to wonder, however, how common the stunning ignorance shown by at least one of the war dogs is among the pack.

Thus, it's simple questions, and you anti-war folks are welcome to answer, too:

- Does the name "Mohammed Mossadegh" mean anything to you?
- How about General H. Norman Schwarzkopf?

It's a very simple connect-the-dots between Mossadegh and the current war. But people don't seem to understand how important it is. I feel like I'm still arguing with a guy who called the US "blameless" throughout its history.

I'll start filling in the story if needed, but are people really unaware of how we go from Schwarzkopf in Iran to Schwarzkopf in Iraq?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
You're absolutely right about this. The sad fact is that most people(in the US anyway) do NOT know about Mossadegh and others like him. Why would they? He(and others like him) aren't in our history textbooks and they're not mentioned in the news. Many on the far left have heard of him simply because to be on the far left in this country you probably had to do some independant research on your own(as one could hardly be on the far left in this country if ones only source of information were the news and history textbooks) My guess is that almost no one who favors this war has any idea who he was(they certainly haven't in my experience). Its troubling to say the least that people can have such strong opinions on an issue when they're completely ignorant of the relevant facts surrounding it.
 
So let's hear the connection between Mossadegh-Pahlavi and Hussein-???

I'm interested what you have to say.
 
It's not like Mossadegh's removal in favor of Pahlavi/Shah by the CIA/MI6 is any great secret. If anyone took an international relations course in college it was likely discussed; I know I require grad students to read articles on the coup in my diplomatic history grad course. Hell, if anyone was paying attention during the Iranian hostage crisis it was even covered in some network documentaries.

The story goes that in 1951 after Iran held its last democratic elections Mossadegh went about nationalizing the British oil company that dominated Iranian oil. Mossadegh also feared that the British, Americans and Soviets were going to attempt to cut up Iran, colonial-style. Schwarzkopf's father paid $5 million in funneled funds to an Iranian general and some CIA-backed Iranians posed as communists to stir up controversy with the Shiite dominated Iranians and turn them against Mossadegh. And Mossadegh was removed and the Pahlavi was put in power. Iranians have since claimed that the US supported the Shah's oppression of his people.
 
From what i can understand, a classic case in what the U.S. does regarding international affairs. We take out leaders who dont agree with us, put in leaders that can agree with us, and there's usually oil involved, or communism. See our support of the Taliban during their war against the Soviets, our installing SADDAMM to power.. countless others that i don't know about because i am the product of an american secodnary education.
 
The question seems simple, then

I admit, I'm surprised at the nine votes that say they knew Mossadegh's name before opening this topic.

However, that makes it easier.

(1) The US overthrows Mossadegh, essentially, for oil
(2) US and UK help Shah builld a massive army (3rd strongest) and a hideous secret police (Savak)
(3) Shah begins "westernizing" Muslims, putting them in suits and ties, mandated shaving, &c.
(4) The people of Iran rose up against the Shah, and installed Ayatollah Khomeni
(5) Khomeni would not play ball with oil, and saw the West as an enemy
(6) Saddam Hussein, fearing the Shia, goes to war with Iran
(7) United States backs Saddam Hussein despite reports of nerve and biological agents used in Iran as Donald Rumsfeld began restoring the recently-removed-from-the-terrorist-list Iraq.
(8) The war with Iran ended; Iraq was bankrupt
(9) Enforcing an ancient and dubious claim to Kuwait, Hussein invades Kuwait in order to begin repairing the books with plunder.
(10) The United States, seeing a massive potential threat to its oil dependency, liberates Kuwait.
(11) George H.W. Bush (Poppy, 41) chooses to not go to Baghdad because it exceeds his mandate as President and the traditional and legal mandates concerning the use of our military forces.
(12) George W. Bush (Dubya, 43) issues National Security Strategy policy, the "Bush Doctrine", effectively declaring the nation's intent to transgress its prior boundaries as a defensive force.
(13) Saddam Hussein stands on principle: I was good enough when it was Iran, and now I'm just inconvenient: come and get me.

Nobody can say what would have happened if Mossadegh was not overthrown. The United States government has treated Iran and Iraq as if letting nature take its course is the most unacceptable policy.

But that's part of the point: When has the warring way ever been effective in managing US interests in the Middle East and throughout the Arab world?

What makes anyone think it will work this time?

I'm not speaking here of the hypocritical principles of invasion (e.g. Why not Zimbabwe? Because there's no oil or WMD, so the human rights situation is acceptable to people), but rather the objective history of the military solution in the Arab world.

Insofar as I can tell, the only reason the military solution will work is if we do what we normally do with military objectives: call the mission complete and a success if we achieve narrow objectives and sack the rest of it.

In the meantime, I'm reading through an interesting piece in The Iranian, with a few other historical links on the page.

The Iraqi Bush War, for instance, will be successful in the sense that it will get Saddam Hussein. But it will be at least twenty and possibly a hundred years before the rest of it plays out. It will most likely be more successful than the pounding we gave Al Qaeda and the Taleban, both of whom are regrouped and poised to create havoc.

What of the rest of the Axis of Evil? More to the point at hand, what of Iran? What western press coverage it gets characterizes the Aghajari debacle as having explosive potential insofar as a New Iranian Revolution is concerned. What happens if we alienate that "revolution"? Can we foster peace in Iran, or is the next two-front war going to be Syria and Iran, with Baghdad as the field HQ? And will the armed domination of the world (PNAC) come into conflict with a possible organic revolution?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
First off im not trying to say what the CIA did was right but your missing some facts.

A large reason why the CIA conducted operation ajax was because of the USSR. Mossadegh had socialist views which frightened the CIA and alot of his followers. His supporters did not really like it when he tried to nationalize oil. The CIA started a riot threw persuasion (prolly bribes and threats of violence) and installed the old shah. The people didn't like Mossadegh but they hated shah more. The USSR wanted afghanastan but we had to fend them off there by training rebels such as the taliban. They wanted Iran which has an incredible strategic postion.

It has no only oil but a warm water port. Im not saying it was a good idea but what were basically trying to get at USSR not so much the oil.

So it exploded in our face and we are still hated today but the USSR never took hold of Iran so you never know.
 
It seems to me that the obvious question that knowledge of Mossadegh would cause one to ask is "If they were willing to destroy democracy in Iran to get oil, how can they be trusted to install democracy in Iraq?"
 
True enough, Salty (plus waxing philosophical)

I won't argue against that point, Salty. But it does lead back to what is my central purpose with the topic,

- But that's part of the point: When has the warring way ever been effective in managing US interests in the Middle East and throughout the Arab world?
- What makes anyone think it will work this time?

And that's my whole agenda with this. JPS has got a good point about democracy and the US in general; it is not, "You have the right to self-determination," but, "You have the right to agree with and rubber-stamp us."

People tend to focus on the fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. This is so acknowledged that I don't think even his most "trusted" circle can ignore it.

But what's more important is what makes Saddam a bad guy: People are suffering needlessly.

The present solution, while dressed in noble garb, does not have a solid historical precedent, and cannot be said to be the most efficient means to accompishing the more important goal, the reduction of suffering.

Yes, we will unseat Saddam Hussein. Whether or not the people of Iraq are raised, how much they are raised, and how long it takes are far more interesting and important issues.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
We are no longer at war with the USSR. We are even trading partners (go forbid if there is some embargo). We no longer have to make puppet goverments, arm monsters, and train terrorist to hault each others foriegn agenda. What we did was wrong no doubt but the USSR was a real threat at that time.

America has come out as the only super power in the world. Look at afghanastan they won against the most powerful army in the world at the time and we beat them in like less then a couple weeks. We don't need fashist dictators that just have to say soviets suck and we arm them anymore. Our main concern is terrorism and not nuclear annhilation.

The best way to stop terrorism in the long run is to make poor countries our trading partners.
 
Salty,
The US continues to work towards overthrowing elected governments and replacing them with pro US governments...the recent attempts t oust Chavez seem like clear examples of this
 
I have to agree and disagree with Salty. It was definitely a contest between the US and USSR as far as control of Iran in the Cold War-era. The Soviets attempted to leave troops in Iran and hoped to prop up a pro-communist government. And like Salty said, Iran held a strategic position in the Middle East. However, oil was still a prize in a time when the importance of oil was becoming fully realized (Japan's dash for the Dutch East Indies and Hitler's Germany pushing towards the oil fields of the Caucus Mtns., Mussolini's admirals telling him the fleet didn't have the oil,necessary to wage war). But George Kennan's "X" policy paper, and its successor, Paul Nitze's NSC-68, both called for containment of communism (though NSC-68 was more of a call for military containment) for fear of the 'domino effect,' and echoed the Truman Doctrine.

Truman jumped the gun formally recognizing the new state of Israel in 1947 over loud objections from the State Department. The Eisenhower administration, with his Sect. of State John Foster Dulles and Dulles' "roll back" policy for dealing with communism, continued to misread feelings in the Middle East.
 
Originally posted by jps
Salty,
The US continues to work towards overthrowing elected governments and replacing them with pro US governments...the recent attempts t oust Chavez seem like clear examples of this
Click to expand...

I know what your talking about. I don't know a whole lot about it though. He was the president that would stop America from exploting the mines in Venezuela. The CIA killed him I think.

Well I guess we will see if were still assholes soon.
 
Originally posted by Salty
I know what your talking about. I don't know a whole lot about it though. He was the president that would stop America from exploting the mines in Venezuela. The CIA killed him I think.

Well I guess we will see if were still assholes soon.
Click to expand...

Actually, It is oil and not mines in venezuela (largest oil supply in south america). And he wasn't going at full oil production to keep the prices higher so the CIA got one of his generals to stage a coup. The people protested and Chavez was restored with the general imprisoned. And Chavez was democratically elected, although he is friends with Castro. He is not dead as far as I know. I'm not 100% on these facts, but it should be pretty acurrate.
 
Blankc,
That sounds about right. He's definitely alive and well, at least until the next coup attempt.
 
Salty,
yeah there was a similiar situation in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvadore Allende was killed and replaced with the brutal dictator Pinochet.
I know it can be hard to keep track of all the democraticly elected leaders the US government has murdered(or attempted to), there's so many of them.
 
Like I said though we were mean when we had to worry about the USSR. Now we can afford to be kind because we have to worry about terrorism and not nuclear annihalation.
 
tiassa, whatever gave you the impression the anti-war "party" is any less ignorant of these things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top