Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The Truth of Anglo American complicity in the Shahs downfall and Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:24 |
Yes, it is and was you.
America on its own stopped Iran being divided between the UK and USSR - that was before it became party to the Anglo doctrine of divide and conquer... 1953 is the most prominent year in which it departed from its previous largely benevolent foreign policy, but that America is long gone, history.
So, what's your point again?
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:35 |
My point is these are silly stories made up by Leftists feeling sorry for themselves.
Oh the horror of Capitalist Western countries, how dare they try to protect their interests and combat the virtuous bastons or all that is good on Earth the righteous Soviets.
Listen, the only reason you can even talk about such issues is because of the freedom's of these societies, it was inconceivable to have such open discussions and rights in that society.
The Shah wasn't democratic and if he payed more attention to the needs of the people the revolutionaries would not have been able to gather the popular support needed for such an act.
Thus, don't blame your problems on others.
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 16:16 |
My point is these are silly stories made up by Leftists feeling sorry for themselves. |
Proof? You know nothing of the author nor his motivation, yet you have the audacity to make such a wild and obnoxious claim? Pleaase... get over yourself.
Listen, the only reason you can even talk about such issues is because of the freedom's of these societies, it was inconceivable to have such open discussions and rights in that society. |
Irrelevance.
The Shah wasn't democratic and if he payed more attention to the needs of the people the revolutionaries would not have been able to gather the popular support needed for such an act. |
It is already known what happened to the government that tried to pay attention to the needs of the people in 1953.
Thus, don't blame your problems on others. |
Thus, you have no point, refer to:
Originally posted by Zagros
This is a history forum, bright spark, this is one aspect of modern Iranian history that is completely ignored in contemporary post modern Iranian analysis (both in the media, by politicians and members of this very forum). I am sorry if that bothers you, but that was that was the primary reason for its posting.
Secondly, it is the West that constantly moans that:
Iran is not democratic (1953!);
and that Iran is oppressive (1979!) -
while ignoring the fundamental part that it played in the creation of those facts.
So why don't you stop crying and go gratify yourself over your concept of "Turan" instead? |
Edited by Zagros - 22-May-2006 at 16:18
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 16:49 |
Originally posted by Zagros
Yes, it is and was you.
America on its own stopped Iran being divided between the UK and USSR - that was before it became party to the Anglo doctrine of divide and conquer... 1953 is the most prominent year in which it departed from its previous largely benevolent foreign policy, but that America is long gone, history.
So, what's your point again? |
America departed from its benevolent foreign policy because it had to. The luxury of isolation, and of scolding Britain and France for imperialist possessions evaporated with the realization that neither of those powers any longer had the strength or will to continue their previous roles. This became critical in 1949-53. The US was the last man standing and had no choice but to assume those roles along with its own. it was not a preference, it was circumstance.
Point: USSR consolidating control of all east Europe and pushing down into Greece, 1947-49. (Yes I know about Yalta and Teheran during the war, but Greece was not one of the sacrificial lambs)
Point: Chinese communist victory in the civil war, 1949. North Korean invasion of the south, 1950.
Point: British communist problems in Malaya; French communist problems in Indochina; communist insurgency in the Phillipines.
It looked like a problem and smelled like a problem. When the possibility of Iran turning toward or falling under Soviet influence was seen as a concern the Korean War was still on. The Brits could not engage that problem singlehanded any longer. The possibility of Soviet presence or control of the Persian Gulf could not be tolerated, so the US put on that old Savile Row suit and changed its foreign policy forever. Dr. Mosadegh probably was not going red, but the chance could not be taken. Mosadegh was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Tough world. Tough choices. No crystal ball to see 20, 30, 50 years down the road. What's done is done.
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 17:23 |
1953 had nothing to do with the USSR though, that is a simplistic way to look at it - it was sparked by sore British whinging against Mossadegh's nationalisation of the country's oil assets to the Americans. The foreign policy of which I speak is epitomised by today's predicament in Iraq, 15 years after the collapse of the Soviets.
If you note the title of the book, it is: A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 17:31 |
Originally posted by Zagros
1953 had nothing to do with the USSR though, that is a simplistic way to look at it - it was sparked by sore British whinging against Mossadegh's nationalisation of the country's oil assets to the Americans. The foreign policy of which I speak is epitomised by today's predicament in Iraq, 15 years after the collapse of the Soviets.
If you note the title of the book, it is: A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. |
The USSR and its influence could not be separated from events in Iran in 1953. Mosadegh had not only nationalized the AIOC but had institutionalized collective agriculture and pressured the shah into relinquishing control of the army. The possibility of his drift toward Moscow (Russia was then on Iran's border) and the elimination of Western influence, including the possible invitation of Soviet technicians, managers, etc. to run the oil industry, was seen as presaging Soviet presence in the Persian Gulf. That chance could not be taken. Once there, they would not have left short of war.
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 17:42 |
That was the scare mongering tactic that the British used to get the Americans on board, Mossadegh was a nationalist and was backed by the anti-communist National Front (Jebhe Melli).
At this time, the British were bank rolling the Mullah movement (something which was started in the early 40s) as a counter to Iranian nationalism, tempering them in preparation for what they eventually became.
|
|
Dark Lord
Janissary
suspended
Joined: 10-Mar-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 00:54 |
Alot of Iranians claim that the ascension to power of the Mullahs was a
British conspiracy, and the British control the current regime - but I
find this highly unlikely. It exaggerates British influence, based on
an old order - today, Britain is, at best, a second-rate power which
kowtows whatever policy America pursues, as a sort of 'junior partner'.
In 1979, British intelligence did not have the capacity to orchestrate
a seemingly spontaneous movement. Futhermore, the current Iranian
regime does not give any particular preference to British firms -
unlike a $40 billion liquid gas contract that was signed with China.
And it is unlikely that China has any influence over Iranian policy
because of it. It is true that Carter was hypocritically censuring the
Shah-regime over "human rights abuses" which were perpetrated by the
same secret service agency (SAVAK) that was trained by the West to
maintain the Shah's power and control political dissent. But the
revolution itself was a combination of different aspects: leftists,
Islamists, and a motley of groups who opposed the Israeli Mossad
trained SAVAKs systematic torture and assassination of dissidents, or
even mildly disgruntled individuals. When the revolution occured, the
multitude of protestors on the streets had no idea the Shah would be
replaced by a theocracy. But the Shah was a weak leader, hence the term
"suitecase monarch". Under his hard exterior lay the same insecure boy
who travelled to Swiss bording schools and was more accustomed to
drinking champagne with European high-society then going to a local
Tehran kabob house. Khomeini, for most of his life, was an obscure
renegade cleric, shunned by the mainstream clergy from such notables as
Grand Ayatollah Borujerdi, and was kicked out of one country to another
for his rabble-rousing and political agitation. But Khomeini was a
shrewd and wise man, and utilized the prevailing discontent to his
advantage - rallying around the anti-Shah bandwagon, while
surreptitiously concealing his intentions to enforce a
'velayat-e-faqih'. The revolution did not benefit US policy, as it
denied them the huge market to dump their goods and the Shah was a
loyal gendarme of the US, making huge investments in the military from
US arms sales. In fact, Iran was given preference over any other
country to the purchase of, what was at the time, the Americans latest
fighter plane, the F-16 tomcat - even before Israel. The Iranian
Revolution was simply a botched US policy, which was speerheaded by the
only group that could unite the various political factions under one
banner: Islamists. You must remember, at that time, during the
pre-revolution era, religious clerics still held a sort of mystic among
the masses, who viewed the 'holy men' - who're recently impoverished of
their stipend donations and land monopoly (under the Shah's 'white
revolution') - as somehow benevolent and genuine. Now their pockets are
fat, and so are their bellies.
Iranians should take responsibility for the 1979 revolution and the
current situation and not scapegoat others. The toppling of the Shah
and the installment of a clerical regime, in retrospect, was a positive
occurence. It abolished an outdated hereditary monarchy that has
plagued us for eons and exposed the religious clerics for the
self-serving shysters they are. These are the same holy fakirs that
tried to gain monopoly over State power during Darius' time - same
racket, different robes. Their time is finished - if not in our
generation - but they are finished. The Land of the Aryans will be free.
Dark Lord.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 07:43 |
Dark Lord:
Interesting post. Thanks for the perspective. I do feel the Iranians are going to have to handle this themselves.
Unfortunately for both of us, the Shah, as well as Jimmy Carter, were both weak, vacilating leaders. I do believe that there is a history lesson to be had from the handling of types like Khomeini (and bin Laden): Don't exile them, shoot them. Better them than many thousands of others.
Any cleric that gets rich is nothing by a con man. That goes for the self-serving shysters in Iran as well as the American TV evengelicals with their polyester hairdos and "Christian" elevator music.
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 08:19 |
Originally posted by Dark Lord
Alot of Iranians claim that the ascension to power of the Mullahs was a British conspiracy, and the British control the current regime - but I find this highly unlikely. It exaggerates British influence, based on an old order - today, Britain is, at best, a second-rate power which kowtows whatever policy America pursues, as a sort of 'junior partner'. |
Agreement with all but this section.
However....Britian is a second rate power but you need to mention so is most of the world. The only first rate power is America. Britian on paper isnt all that brilliant but the sheer depth of the Commonwealth, the good feelings in some colonies (balanced by the whinging from others, most of whom are of course within their right and true but also often just as bad, can anyone say Mugabe?). There is also the cultural influence (just look at how everything is Anglo-American, Britain has had probably the largest effect on America, not least the Constitutional monarchy, Parliament, Magna Carta etc). Not to mention the influence on countries like S. Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. Next is the amount of money, services and specialists in the country. London retains its right as one of the economic giants, as does the FTSE, despite being a rock smaller than just about most countries in the world. Next we have a very good economy (top 30 I believe), brillaint (if tiny and underequipped) army, good diplomats and civil service. Plus a very good Intelligence bureau (all of them).
And we dont "kowtow", generally we have gone along with American power because it was out only hope (for the world too, cue the Cold War). Aside from that its payed off, compared to most of Europe Britain is pretty well off (striking French, German economic meltdown). And it keeps the Americans on side, always a good thing. Plus they rarely cost anything and work.
|
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 08:29 |
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the 3rd most populated nation of the European Union with approximately 60 million people. It was also a founding member of NATO and the United Nations, in which it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The British economy is the second largest in the European Union and the fourth largest in the world, with a GDP of 2.1 Trillion USD. The British capital, London, is one of the most important economical and financial centres in the world, alongside New York. The United Kingdom also yields a very formidable, technologically advanced, military. It's defence spending is the fifth largest in the world. The Royal Navy is the second largest navy in the World in terms of gross tonnage and is in charge of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear arm. It consists of four SSBNs armed with Trident D5 SLBMs.
Don't underestimate the power and sphere of influence we have and don't forget either that underestimation is a powerfull weapon while blagging being arrogant and over confident is a weakness
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 08:52 |
Well I think Bulldog illustrated that pretty damn well...
|
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 09:58 |
Argentina underestimated UK's capabilties in 1982 with disastrous consequences.
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 10:17 |
That said we underestimated their Exocets which nearly ruined that whole perilous campaign...
|
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 16:38 |
Originally posted by Dampier
That said we underestimated their Exocets which nearly ruined that whole perilous campaign... |
It is not that you underestimated the exocets. Regardless of Anglo feelings about French attitudes, their modern military equipment is first rate. And that would not have changed the outcome of the war.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-May-2006 at 16:39
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 17:16 |
Nah, I've always respected Fench armed forces. Anyway they sent us a team to help avoid Exocet disasters.
Outcome of war though...one of those on a carrier and bang there goes the force.
|
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-May-2006 at 11:41 |
The French millitary isn't what is once was and has lost respect in regards to actions in Algeria and Ruwanda.
In today's world probobly more than at any other time in history big money talks. Due to the increasingly globalising world you don't need to occupy countries through millitary measures or occupy etc were in a new age. The new age warriors, armies and conquerors can be found in the business room, they have immense power and control. Ofcourse millitary is still very important buts its more as a back-up measure, if you've got a powefull economy you need a strong millitary to back it up or you'll just get pushed around.
Territorially Britain isn't what it once was but the people who take this as a weakness are greatly mistaken, keeping an Empire of such magnitude afloat is a huge burdon and expense and is unessecary today.
The reason for this is the English language has become the Lingua Franca of the World we don't need to invade and occupy anywhere anymore as the language of Business, trade and dialogue today is English which shows our influence and power today.
We don't need to adapt, the world has to adapt to our norms, we have strong strategic bases in key areas of the ex-colonial land and influential people at the highest level of most areas of commerce not to mention the Common-Wealth .........
Regards
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-May-2006 at 18:55 |
French military of today is very good and its been underestimated this whole century. After all did Britian, America or Russia do any better in conflicts similar to Algeria- look at Malaya, Afghanistan, Vietnam and the like.
|
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-May-2006 at 08:32 |
Hey at least we didn't leave an ever lasting hatred and don't have people claim that we killed over a million people half a century ago which are re-surfacing today
The most successfull victory we have had has been the war over language, we were always underestimated while the French thought the whole world would embrace their language. (as apparently its superior, which is evidently not, one only has to mention Shakespear, Chaucer, Dickens....)
Our language was underestimated but look at the today, were all writting and speaking in this world-wide lingua Franca.
Edited by Bulldog - 26-May-2006 at 08:40
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2006 at 06:04 |
But they will mention Voltaire...and there my French literature runs out.
French used to be the language of civilisation, diplomacy and the like. Before that it was Latin. Now it is English. I wouldnt be surprised if in a few years it was Indian or Chinese.
|
|
|