Harleyman Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Only those who never lived with under the SAVAK, I'd wager. In the Brutal Repression stakes there's not much to choose from. Everyone would have definitely preferred to live under the democratically elected popular president, the one openly deposed by the USA. Of course, if they'd never had the Shah in the first place, they wouldn't have needed a popular revolution and might well have continued up to this day with their democracy intact. Sadly, it was not left to the Iranians to decide for themselves, and we have the mess you see now. You're talking about Mohhamed Mossadegh no doubt. Fact of the matter is he nationalized Iranian oil which infuriated the British who had owned Iran's oil under a company called Anglo-Iranian oil. British MI6 asked the CIA to depose him which they did, so it looked like the US did Britain's dirty work for them in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 British MI6 asked the CIA to depose him which they did, so it looked like the US did Britain's dirty work for them in the end. Oh right, so 'British MI6' sets the agenda for America's dirty tricks now? I suppose if they asked the CIA to stick their collective heads in the fire, they would do that as well? We should be so lucky!! :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Oh right, so 'British MI6' sets the agenda for America's dirty tricks now? I suppose if they asked the CIA to stick their collective heads in the fire, they would do that as well? We should be so lucky!! :hihi: No need to laugh. Just look it up on the internet. Type in search words "Mohammad Mosadegh" then scroll down to "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' and click on it. The story is all there in full detail. The British involvement as well as the American. Churchill working to convince Eisenhower that Mosadegh was drifting towards communism and needed to be deposed. The blame has to shared equally for what happened in Iran in 1953. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Nothing wrong witjh any of those operations unless you dont think that Iran under it's present leadership is a destabalizing influence in the middle east and could become a real threat once it acquires nuclear weapons. Many other countries in the world also see Iran in the same light. There's really nothing new in all this. The west and the Soviets played the same game against each other for fifty years You asked for hard evidence and I gave it you. Democracy means acting in accordance with reason and law. Not acting as a rogue president or nation who feels it has the right to undermine anyone they don’t agree with. The moral foundation of their actions whatever good may have been done remains illegitimate and therefore has become a justification for further terrorist acts. We can’t invade dictatorships using Democracy as a justification when the acts themselves can be shown, and have been shown to be the result of illegal and therefore undemocratic principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 You asked for hard evidence and I gave it you. Democracy means acting in accordance with reason and law. Not acting as a rogue president or nation who feels it has the right to undermine anyone they don’t agree with. The moral foundation of their actions whatever good may have been done remains illegitimate and therefore has become a justification for further terrorist acts. We can’t invade dictatorships using Democracy as a justification when the acts themselves can be shown, and have been shown to be the result of illegal and therefore undemocratic principles. I disagree with your opinion that there is some form of censorship being imposed on the media because it is of a "sensitive nature" Issues such as the treatment of prisoners at Abu Gahraib in Iraq and the detainees at Guantanamo were and are openly discussed and often criticised on a daily basis in the news media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 His little Wiki will be leaking quite a lot when they strap him to the chair and fasten the electrodes to his head You'd clearly prefer to remain in total ignorance about what our glorious leaders get up to. In retrospect, that does explain a lot about your posting style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I disagree with your opinion that there is some form of censorship being imposed on the media because it is of a "sensitive nature" Issues such as the treatment of prisoners at Abu Gahraib in Iraq and the detainees at Guantanamo were and are openly discussed and often criticised on a daily basis in the news media I find it a bit ironic that this began with you saying that the press is free and open and in the next breath that Wiki leaks was wrong to publish . Either we are being told the truth, and therefore the Wiki disclosures would have been unimportant, or we are being lied to, and the truth withheld, which to me supports and endorses his disclosures Wiki leaks has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “truth” as we are told it through the (right wing) media is nothing more than a manufactured chimera of propaganda and total brain washing. Supported and perpetuated by the states ability to decide what we should and shouldn’t know about. This is not democracy. This is Stalinist style ministry of truth type manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 You'd clearly prefer to remain in total ignorance about what our glorious leaders get up to. In retrospect, that does explain a lot about your posting style. I occasionally lapse in to moments of flippancy. If you want to take it seriously then that's your problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I find it a bit ironic that this began with you saying that the press is free and open and in the next breath that Wiki leaks was wrong to publish . Either we are being told the truth, and therefore the Wiki disclosures would have been unimportant, or we are being lied to, and the truth withheld, which to me supports and endorses his disclosures Wiki leaks has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “truth” as we are told it through the (right wing) media is nothing more than a manufactured chimera of propaganda and total brain washing. Supported and perpetuated by the states ability to decide what we should and shouldn’t know about. This is not democracy. This is Stalinist style ministry of truth type manipulation. My opinion of the Wikileaks was that the information released could possibly endanger the lives of troops serving in Afganistan. That to me is intolerable. My other point was the involvement of US Army private Manning in downloading information that could also endanger the lives of his fellow soldiers. There have been many arguments in defence of his actions but the fact that he was at that time a serving member of the armed forces make his actions despicable to say the least. As far as "truth" and the "right wing media" are concerned I haven't yet reached that stage of paranoia. I make a habit of listening to right wing views and left wing views and as I've said before the truth of any matter probably lies somehwere in the middle. Those who say "Oh I dont bother to watch that channel or read that paper because it's right/left wing" make me laugh. How can you ever know what the overall picture is and form a genuine opinion of your own if you suffer from a closed mind mentality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 If you want to take it seriously then that's your problem Actually, it is your problem if you word things in such a way to cause confusion/ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.