Christopher hitchens supported saddam hussein then calls him a tyrant?

Logic your under the impression that eisenhower is the main decision maker of our country. Did you not see what he said in his farewell speech to the nation. He specifically told us to watch out for the growing power and influence of the military industrial complex. If you want the full speech I can find it for ya. As far as Eienhowers full intentions I have honestly not studied them fully as they arent the main focus of why he approved the authorization of this act, but I do know why we participated in this act. That was clear. Mossadegh was booting all countries out of iran, because he saw the way the brits and everyone else treated the iranian oil workers and also the unfair oil contracts which were making the brits and everyone else rich beyond belief and the iranian people poor beyond belief.

If you go to mossadeghs site he deplored the action of nationalizing iranian oil, but saw the need to defend his country against the CIA plot that was allready fomenting agianst his country. Go and ask the iranian proesters what they think of mossadegh. He is a hero to them because he stood against the tyranny of operation ajax. Get to know these young protesters who are fighting for their lives and their freedom because of our meddling in their country in 1953. Why do you think I believe we shouldnt be the moral police of the world. If you would like me to study eisenhow a bit more I can do that but to me the president is the secondary issue here. Eisenhower did one good thing in his presidency and that is to warn us about this growing military industrial complex threat. Believe me, I am a fan of eisenhower as I spent alot of time with my uncle ernie who was a ww2 vet and his favorite person next to patton was good ole IKE. IKE was probably a little smarter then JFK as to not anger the establishment. I still need to watch the galloway hitchens debate thraxed

 

No. I'm not under that impression, that would be retarded, because he is dead. But I do think that when he was president that he was the main decision maker. In fact, he is the one who authorized the CIA to get involved, something that Truman would not do.

Oh, I know the speech. In fact, there is an anti-war, anti-us propaganda (think it's called "why we fight" or something) video out there that seems to base its whole argument around this speech. I found it funny that in that video, they never mentioned that Eisenhower was actually the one to give the OK on overthrowing a democracy.

You can't have it both ways pong. Either Ike opted to let the CIA help the British overthrow a democratically elected government because he was a bad person, or because he thought it was overall the moral and right thing to do. This decision was so big that he had to be one of three things: 1) an unadulterated bastard 2) someone who was defending the west and trying to lessen the chance of another huge war 3) a puppet by the NWO or some other conspiratorial body

I'm not saying Eisenhower was right, I'm not even saying that the fears of soviet expansion into Iran was rational or justified, but Eisenhower's intentions were not to hinder freedom, but in fact to help preserve it for the majority of the world, by stopping the soviets from seizing more control through the Tudeh Party and especially over an important part of the world's oil, which would help them to further their expansionist goals elsewhere, and would aid them if war did break out.

Eisenhower may or may not have fucked up by authorizing it, but you have to look at it through the eyes of a man who was responsible for the lives of millions just years earlier, had seen what unchecked authoritarianism and complacency towards it could do to the world.

So was Ike just a puppet of the people that he "exposed" in his speech -- the military industrial complex?

 

Oh come on Logic, im not trying to have it both ways and you know it. Did you get to study the presidential comission study on the bay of pigs? The cia wanted that mission to fail so that JFK would send in the airforce for a full invasion. Im saying the president can be pressured into most decisions as he is a puppet. As far as him being dead, very funny hehehe, you caught me using a present tense when I should have used a past tense, but we both know what I meant. Like I said, the president is a figure head. It was a completely different time with truman .Im glad we got away from stox's idol hitchens. This debate is much better challenge.
After reading a bit it turns out that you were right about IKE. Even though he did give a great farewell speech, What he did to Iran was wrong in 1953. Turns out you can teach an old dog new tricks. I still believe the elite would have pressured IKE into doing it even if he didnt want to but it does appear that he wanted this carried out because. I still need to gather more info on IKE's opinions on this operation but like I said, if the cia wanted it done it would have found a way to do it. As far as western meddling in iranian affairs it seems like 1953 wasnt the first time.

This is a very good bit of information here.


http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Operation_Ajax

 

Pong, can't you post a link instead of pasting the entirety of someone elses website/content?

And you don't really need to school me on the circumstances, apparently I already know a lot more about the history than you do, even though you're the one who parrots on about the event at least once a week.

And like I said, I'm not saying it was the right decision. I'm saying that you have to look at it from the perspective of someone who had been the supreme allied commander in one of the bloodiest chapters of human history, which all came about because of an authoritarian and ambitious government, that really wasn't all that different from the soviets. If Ike's administration was a abit overzealous or a little too easily pursuaded because of fear, you can hardly blame them.

And no, you chose the wrong colored pill. Instead of making the choice that Ike was indeed a decent man and living in the world of facts, as you had apparently believed, I guess you choose to believe in the world where all the world's alleged powerful leaders are mere puppets of a secret ruling organization. But hey, if you'll believe in the story about the man and rib woman in the garden with the talking snake just because that's what was passed down to you, then I guess believing in a shadowy world government that is responsible for every important world event isn't that far of a leap.

 

Wow so your making excuses for him now? First of all Logicflux eisenhower knew that mossadegh wasnt a communist, wasnt a dictator and didnt sponsor terrorism in any way. Its incredible that your even trying to justify this. Here we go again, when I present facts you go and paint a broad belief of my views having to do with something in the book of genesis. Apparently you werent listening when I posted about genesis. Go back and read what I posted again before putting words in my mouth, and again whose talking about a shadowy government???????? When did I bring that up. Im talking about what our government did to iran. Even though your trying to justify it apparently because of the era we were in you still didnt provide one fact about why eisenhower would approve this operation. NOT ONE. Did they believe mossadegh was a dictator, did they believe that mossadegh was turning commi? What do you believe was the reason for this? Apparently Ike was pressured just enough to do something like this but the reason why most of teh elite in our government wanted this was because they wanted control of irans oil at a very cheap price.

Your saying its wrong, but your also saying why you think it was justified, but you cant give one fact as to why they did it? If you say they were paranoid that he was turning commi, thats a lie as we allready knew that he wasnt. If you say he was athreat like hitler, thats a bold faced lie because we allready accessed that iran was never building its miltary up and didnt until the USA plant the shah was in power.

There is absolutely no reason you can give to justify this operation. NONE
Please also, before posting what you think I believe about the book of genesis please go back and read my posts. Like I said before, the cia and the elite would have eventually overthrown mossadegh anyways. presidents dont come into power by just the peoples vote. they owe favors. the point of the matter was this operation was done for control of a countries resources. Mossadegh is a hero.

 

He didn't know that the Tudeh party, who was sympathetic with the USSR would not stage their own coup, which possibly may even be backed by the USSR.

No, I'm saying you're wrong to use it as an example of the US being pro-authoritarianism or anti-freedom. Two world wars had been waged in Europe in the span of only about 20 years. On the eastern front, after WWII, the lives of many simply went from being under the rule of one tyrant to the rule of another after Hitler was defeated.

I believe after the war was won, in the west, the consensus among high ranking officials was that the soviets had to be fought and kept from gaining more power and strategic advantage. The wounds of WWII still fresh, they feared another European tyranny plunging the world into war again and forcing its rule on others wherever it could. The soviets did not want democracy in the territories that it took control over. The US and UK did. If the US and Britain saw Iran as having such strategic importance, you damn well better believe that the USSR did, and would also be willing to take part in a coup that would benefit them. Any strategic victory for the USSR would only serve to embolden them, as Hitler was embolden by being given the Sudetenland, and make war more likely, and make them able to wage war more effectively.

You're right. Eisenhower did it to serve his elite overlords.

 

Logic, what does mossadegh have to do with the tudeh party? How do u connect the 2? Tudah were communists. How do you connect the tudeh party with mossadegh? This is really reaching and giving out an excuse for this illegal overthrow. Anothe rcase of invading over flimsy evidence at best. If the tudeh wanted to stage a coup why didnt the usa just support mossadegh instead of arming the minority non-elected leader the shah who was hated by most iranians and was a brutal dictator. Logic, listen to yourself. Does this answer make much sense to you. The tudeh never wanted a coup with mossadegh as he had good relations with them as well as everyone else. No, our government wanted a stooge that would give them the continually cheap oil instead of negotiating with mossadegh and allow him to use this money to help his own people.

How can you in good conscience use this excuse which makes no sense to justify this coup. This is why i dont support our meddling in the middle east. We have a track record of caring for power and oil over spreading democracy. Ron Paul hit the nail right on the head

 

Ron Paul is a foreign policy idiot. If we had decided to ignore the soviet annexation of the Baltics in the 40s, its forcing of communism over areas it controlled after the war, its role in backing north korea's invasion of south korea -- which we went to war for before the coup -- and the communist influence that was growing inside of Iran, you and Ron Paul very well might not have had the opportunity to be bitching about our government's intervention at all.

If we'd followed Ron Paul style foreign policy we would have never got involved in WWII, leaving the fate of a great amount of the world to twist in the wind.


The world war wasn't even completely over when the coup occurred and we were in the middle of yet another war with communists in Korea.

WWII was not even formally finished when the Soviets backed communist expansion/invasion of South Korea. The Communists were obviously jockying for as much control as possible in the following years after WWII. At the time that Eisenhower OK'd the coup, we were at war with Soviet backed communists in Korea.

So leading up to the Iranian nationalization crisis, in just about a 7 or 8 year time span, the British and Americans had been involved in a world war involving one authoritarian regime which favored annexation by force, and now was facing another in the USSR.

It was about the worst time for Iran to decide that they didn't want to honor a deal that they had had with Britian, and had made about 50 years earlier, to pay off debts in exchange for letting Britain seek oil.

But leave it to the ME to force a crisis coming off the heals of the greatest war in history and in the middle of another to keep the surviving, dominant authoritarian regime of Europe from claiming more victims.

So here are the main points:

1) Iran had a made a deal 1901 to pay off debts by letting Britain seek oil in their country.

2) By the time the crisis was forced, Britain depended on Iranian oil to fuel a big part of their military machine.(and that machine was a force for good)

3) Authoritarian expansionism was raging, and guess who were the main forces to fight it? The US and Britain. Sorry, I know any desire for oil is supposed to be seen as evil, but if the spicket had been cut off to the western allies it could have severely damaged the abilities of the US and Britain to fight further authoritarianism expansion in Europe and Asia and elsewhere. And remember, it wasn't just the US who was presently fighting a "hot" war in Korea, the British were there too.

4) By Iran forcing the crisis and not wanting to honor the deal it had made, and by being hostile to the west, it was jeopardizing the freedom of the world at large. If you don't believe me, look at the countries that Britain and the US took control over after the war and look at the ones the Soviets took control over. (hint: the ones on the left side of the red line became freer)


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/post-ww2.htm

 

Logicflux we started out with the commi angle then when i debunked that you diverged again. I allready have the answer to this post youmade that partially hits the truth. What I dont understand is why did you even bring this post up because if you did your homework you would know I would drill the post down easily. I have gathered the full truth on this but my answer will be pristine. I really thought only stox posted this way?
Now after I totally crush this post, will you come up with more half truths? Or will this one be settled?

But I must say this, You do gather facts pretty well. With stox i didnt even need to break a sweat, but with this last post of urs , I really needed to research hard. I do respect you on this point. I will post an answer on a good amount of rest time as i must debunk every single microscopic detail

I must say this though man, you are bringing out the best in me, but my brain is going to need a holiday after this debate. whew

 

Thank you so much Stox for posting an answer so I could post mine without getting in trouble with the mods. You are a godsend. I knew god brought you into my life for a reason

EDIT: Mods If im violating any rule please someone merge both my posts together, AS STOX conveniently deleted his post to try to get me penalized.
Thank you mods (whoever is in charge of this thread)


Logicflux, again you did not do your research. You conveniently forgot to add that the terms of the aggreement were originally violated by the good ole saintly brits. As you can see below they were the one who did not live up to the contract aggreement. Saint Britain owed iran 32 million pounds serling between 1914 and 1920 and only paid them 10 million pounds. So you still need to go back and do RESEARCH. Your research was not quite stoxian but its still lacking in full facts.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anglo-iranian-oil-company
Because of its bias, the 1901 concession was not ratified by the parliament of the Constitutional Revolution of 1905 - 1911. Moreover, APOC did not consistently follow the terms of the agreement. For example, during World War I from 1914 to 1920, oil output had increased from 274,000 to 1,385,000 tons (250,000 to 1,255,000 t) annually; by 1933, the company had made a profit of 200 million pounds sterling. By contrast, Persia had received only some 10 million of the 32 million pounds sterling due contractually - less than one-third of the share to which it was entitled by the concession.


and again post WW2 where the AIOC refused to allow auditing of accounts to determine whether the iranian government was being paid in full under the current contract of that era. Debunking your view that the agreement was fair . If the british government was fair things would have been different.All of these events eventually lead to mossadegh understanding the greed of the brits and that they could be trusted to act fairly and with good ethics to the iranian people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Early_oil_development
Post-World War II
In Iran, a constitutional monarchy since 1906, nationalist leaders became powerful in seeking reduction of long-term foreign intervention in their country — especially the greatly profitable British oil concession. In particular, the AIOC's refusal to allow auditing of accounts to determine whether or not the Iranian government was being paid its due royalties in full. The AIOC's refusal escalated nationalist demands to: an equal share of petroleum revenue. Finally, the crisis was the AIOC's closing rather than accepting Iranian government "interference" in its business. The AIOC and the Iranian government resisted nationalist pressure to a renewed deal in 1949




How do you explain this logic: an oil contract made in 1933 that extended until 1993 . This is called controlling a countries resources because of incessent greed that went beyond the explanation you gave of stopping foreign expansionism. Another point debunked.

In 1933, Reza Pahlavi terminated the concession of 1901 and concluded a new agreement with the British that reduced the area of concession from 400,000 to 100,000 square miles (1,036,000 to 260,000 sq. km), assured a minimum payment of 225,000 to 300,000 pounds sterling annually as a tax on the production of crude petroleum, and provided for a specific royalty of 4 shillings per ton of the oil sold. Iran was also to receive 20 percent of the net profit over and above a dividend guarantee of 671,250 pounds sterling. The agreement changed the company's name to the Anglo - Iranian Oil Company and, in 1935, Persia officially became Iran.
For Britain, the new agreement had certain advantages over the 1901 concession. It extended British control over Iranian oil for an additional thirty-two years, until 1993, while the previous concession was due to expire in 1961. Unlike the concession of 1901, the 1933 agreement was not a contract between a private individual and the shah of Iran, which could be terminated without much difficulty. The 1933 agreement had the character of public law because it had been ratified by the Iranian parliament; it could not be annulled without entailing political complications. The 1933 agreement, however, was not as beneficial to Iran, and some of its terms were particularly disadvantageous. For example, prices for refined petroleum products in Iran were based upon average Romanian or Gulf of Mexico f.o.b. (free on board) prices - whichever was lower - plus actual transportation and distribution costs, less a 10 percent discount. The bias of the agreement was argued based on the production cost of oil in the Middle East averaging only US $1.2 per ton compared to US$12.45 per ton in the United States. The AIOC's labor and housing policies were also less than satisfactory from the Iranian perspective

Oh it doesnt stop there my friend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYutojeC5Kk The brits treated iranian oil workers like SLAVES!!!!
The contract itself even if it was fair was raping the iranian people
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_34/b3846024_mz005.htm

Above all, Mossadegh was a man of high principle. This set him on a collision course with the big powers and especially with Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Anglo-Iranian, which developed Iran's reserves, enjoyed an enormously favorable position in Iran, paying the government only around 15% of the tens of millions in revenue

Abadan, the company's center of operations, was "a classic colonial enclave," Kinzer writes. British administrators "enjoyed handsome homes with terraces and manicured lawns." Iranian workers "lived in slums and long dormitories with only primitive sanitation." At one point, there were public "water fountains marked 'Not for Iranians

This was an authoritarian regime (the brits) exercising the corrupt influence and military might on the iranians. Logicflux, if you bothered to read about mossadeghs personal feelings, he really wanted just a fair renegotiation of the oil contracts, but saw that teh corrupt and oil greedy british government was in love with teh incredibly rich profits that made so many of its personal investors rich beyond their wildest dreams. It was easy money at teh expense of iran and its people who were living in extreme poverty. Mossadegh also argued that if the oil contracts more favored the iranian people they could end this poverty. Bringing out general facts without delving into all of the facts here are why I will be able to debunk you 10000000% on this. Its hard to present half truths and half facts, but when you are debating on the of truth it takes much less effort to explain your side.

At first even the American government thought the brits were wrong in not trying to renegotiate the contract to more fair terms. IT WAS THE GREED OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND INVESTORS CONNECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT LEAD TO MOSSADEGHS DECISION TO NATIONALIZE, and mossadegh even said it himself when he told people that nationalization was something he dreaded but had no choice , as opposed to letting everyone (especially the brits RAPE his country). This is when our glorious government stepped in and took mossadegh out.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_34/b3846024_mz005.htm

The Americans thought the British were wrong in not trying harder to cut a deal with Mossadegh. After all, during the same period, U.S. oil companies had struck a 50-50 profit-sharing arrangement with the Saudis. "We tried to get the blockheaded British to have their oil company make a fair deal with Iran," lamented President Harry S Truman

Notice how even president truman called the british government a bunch of BLOCKHEADS.

I think this subject is done. You have been debunked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logicflux I had high hopes for you. I really thought you did your full research unlike stox who will never bring up hitchens again, since I fully debunked the leader of the neo-atheistic movement. Hitchens should work full time in a bar as i think his expertise would be put to better use their and not in the real world with reasoning humans.


Logicflux, again you did not do your research. You conveniently forgot to add that the terms of the aggreement were originally violated by the good ole saintly brits. As you can see below they were the one who did not live up to the contract aggreement. Saint Britain owed iran 32 million pounds serling between 1914 and 1920 and only paid them 10 million pounds. So you still need to go back and do RESEARCH. Your research was not quite stoxian but its still lacking in full facts.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anglo-iranian-oil-company
Because of its bias, the 1901 concession was not ratified by the parliament of the Constitutional Revolution of 1905 - 1911. Moreover, APOC did not consistently follow the terms of the agreement. For example, during World War I from 1914 to 1920, oil output had increased from 274,000 to 1,385,000 tons (250,000 to 1,255,000 t) annually; by 1933, the company had made a profit of 200 million pounds sterling. By contrast, Persia had received only some 10 million of the 32 million pounds sterling due contractually - less than one-third of the share to which it was entitled by the concession.


and again post WW2 where the AIOC refused to allow auditing of accounts to determine whether the iranian government was being paid in full under the current contract of that era. Debunking your view that the agreement was fair . If the british government was fair things would have been different.All of these events eventually lead to mossadegh understanding the greed of the brits and that they could be trusted to act fairly and with good ethics to the iranian people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Early_oil_development
Post-World War II
In Iran, a constitutional monarchy since 1906, nationalist leaders became powerful in seeking reduction of long-term foreign intervention in their country — especially the greatly profitable British oil concession. In particular, the AIOC's refusal to allow auditing of accounts to determine whether or not the Iranian government was being paid its due royalties in full. The AIOC's refusal escalated nationalist demands to: an equal share of petroleum revenue. Finally, the crisis was the AIOC's closing rather than accepting Iranian government "interference" in its business. The AIOC and the Iranian government resisted nationalist pressure to a renewed deal in 1949




How do you explain this logic: an oil contract made in 1933 that extended until 1993 . This is called controlling a countries resources because of incessent greed that went beyond the explanation you gave of stopping foreign expansionism. Another point debunked.

In 1933, Reza Pahlavi terminated the concession of 1901 and concluded a new agreement with the British that reduced the area of concession from 400,000 to 100,000 square miles (1,036,000 to 260,000 sq. km), assured a minimum payment of 225,000 to 300,000 pounds sterling annually as a tax on the production of crude petroleum, and provided for a specific royalty of 4 shillings per ton of the oil sold. Iran was also to receive 20 percent of the net profit over and above a dividend guarantee of 671,250 pounds sterling. The agreement changed the company's name to the Anglo - Iranian Oil Company and, in 1935, Persia officially became Iran.
For Britain, the new agreement had certain advantages over the 1901 concession. It extended British control over Iranian oil for an additional thirty-two years, until 1993, while the previous concession was due to expire in 1961. Unlike the concession of 1901, the 1933 agreement was not a contract between a private individual and the shah of Iran, which could be terminated without much difficulty. The 1933 agreement had the character of public law because it had been ratified by the Iranian parliament; it could not be annulled without entailing political complications. The 1933 agreement, however, was not as beneficial to Iran, and some of its terms were particularly disadvantageous. For example, prices for refined petroleum products in Iran were based upon average Romanian or Gulf of Mexico f.o.b. (free on board) prices - whichever was lower - plus actual transportation and distribution costs, less a 10 percent discount. The bias of the agreement was argued based on the production cost of oil in the Middle East averaging only US $1.2 per ton compared to US$12.45 per ton in the United States. The AIOC's labor and housing policies were also less than satisfactory from the Iranian perspective

Oh it doesnt stop there my friend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYutojeC5Kk The brits treated iranian oil workers like SLAVES!!!!
The contract itself even if it was fair was raping the iranian people
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_34/b3846024_mz005.htm

Above all, Mossadegh was a man of high principle. This set him on a collision course with the big powers and especially with Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Anglo-Iranian, which developed Iran's reserves, enjoyed an enormously favorable position in Iran, paying the government only around 15% of the tens of millions in revenue

Abadan, the company's center of operations, was "a classic colonial enclave," Kinzer writes. British administrators "enjoyed handsome homes with terraces and manicured lawns." Iranian workers "lived in slums and long dormitories with only primitive sanitation." At one point, there were public "water fountains marked 'Not for Iranians

This was an authoritarian regime (the brits) exercising the corrupt influence and military might on the iranians. Logicflux, if you bothered to read about mossadeghs personal feelings, he really wanted just a fair renegotiation of the oil contracts, but saw that teh corrupt and oil greedy british government was in love with teh incredibly rich profits that made so many of its personal investors rich beyond their wildest dreams. It was easy money at teh expense of iran and its people who were living in extreme poverty. Mossadegh also argued that if the oil contracts more favored the iranian people they could end this poverty. Bringing out general facts without delving into all of the facts here are why I will be able to debunk you 10000000% on this. Its hard to present half truths and half facts, but when you are debating on the of truth it takes much less effort to explain your side.

At first even the American government thought the brits were wrong in not trying to renegotiate the contract to more fair terms. IT WAS THE GREED OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND INVESTORS CONNECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT LEAD TO MOSSADEGHS DECISION TO NATIONALIZE, and mossadegh even said it himself when he told people that nationalization was something he dreaded but had no choice , as opposed to letting everyone (especially the brits RAPE his country). This is when our glorious government stepped in and took mossadegh out.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_34/b3846024_mz005.htm

The Americans thought the British were wrong in not trying harder to cut a deal with Mossadegh. After all, during the same period, U.S. oil companies had struck a 50-50 profit-sharing arrangement with the Saudis. "We tried to get the blockheaded British to have their oil company make a fair deal with Iran," lamented President Harry S Truman

Notice how even president truman called the british government a bunch of BLOCKHEADS. The not only raped iran unfairly , but refused auditing of the contract. Now let fair, justice minded people view this post and tell me your opinions instead of people like logicflux that is looking at it through rainbow colored glasses. The truth has been told.
I think this subject is done. This much much harder then debunking stox ,but still this post was needed
God bless you llogicflux for bringing us closer to the truth

You have been debunked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why don't we go straight to the source? There are several documents that were declassified or leaked several years ago after a freedom of information act lawsuit.

Here is a list of some: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm


State Department, 'U.S. policy regarding the present situation in Iran'," Top Secret Memorandum, March 20, 1953




Later in the same document:




CIA, "Zendebad, Shah!": The Central Intelligence Agency and the Fall of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, August 1953," Top Secret Draft History, History Staff, Central Intelligence Agency, June 1998.
Source: Freedom of Information Act lawsuit

This 139-page internal history prepared by the CIA's History Staff became available in highly redacted form after the National Security Archive filed a lawsuit with the CIA in 1999 for materials relating to Iran in 1953. At first it was denied in its entirety, then upon review sections already marked Unclassified were released (for the most part), along with a single section previously marked Secret (but apparently based primarily on a published account). The document is potentially of great historical value because it was prepared by a trained historian with the benefit of a variety of still-classified supporting documentation and many years of historical perspective. As such, it would be extremely useful to compare it with the only other extant internal history, which by contrast was written by one of the coup's main architects, Donald Wilber, just a few months after the operation. In its current largely inaccessible state, however, the document is mostly a testament to the continuing obstacles faced by researchers to a more complete understanding of the coup.





Mark Gasiorowski is perhaps the leading authority on the subject of the 1953 coup, he wrote a book called "Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran (Modern Intellectual and Political History of the Middle East)". In 1987, he wrote a long article called "The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran". The whole article can be found here. His final appraisal of the US's part in the coup is that the US feared soviet expansion into Iran. He wrote this years before top secret government documents were declassified that would eventually confirm his appraisal.

This extremely important document is one of the last major pieces of the puzzle explaining American and British roles in the August 1953 coup against Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq. Written in March 1954 by Donald Wilber, one of the operation’s chief planners, the 200-page document is essentially an after-action report, apparently based in part on agency cable traffic and Wilber’s interviews with agents who had been on the ground in Iran as the operation lurched to its conclusion.


For any reasonable person(I'm not saying you, pong) there should be enough documentation at those link destinations to show that the US did indeed fear a destabilization of Iran(it already wasn't all that stable) that would at least be partly due to the crisis with Britain that would lead to communist infiltration.

The US was between a rock and a hard place. We were actually pretty much on Iran's side during the Truman years and we actually probably kept Britain from outright invading them, in '52, I believe it was.

Britain put a lot of pressure on Iran that was making them more susceptible to destabilization and communist expansion/infiltration.

Eisenhower, being the supreme allied commander who just a few years earlier had defeated one strain of European authoritarianism which jeopardized the liberty of the world, and had recently been involved in another war to fight communist expansion across the korean peninsula, knew that humankind was at a pivotal point in its history and being a general who was trained in the history of warfare knew all too well that liberty and passivity are often incompatible.

It's probably a good thing that he didn't sit back and play it safe with his fingers crossed on account of fear that his decision may be criticized by US haters and appeasers of authoritarians some 60+ years later.

PS the red underling in the images posted was done by me to emphasize certain points

 

Bravo, bravo, bravo LOGICFLUX - YOU ARE DA MAN!!!!!! That was so brilliant that I was knocked unconscience by your incredible facts and logic. You did it mannnnnnnnnn 14th round knockdown, 14th round knockdown!!!!!!!! . Pingpong is down folks, but waitttt, hes getting back up. Where is he getting this energy from. Has to be my lord and savior JESUS CHRIST. JC IS DA MAN, and with no further adieu, time for logicflux to be relegated to stoxian level. Big shout out and a big hug to my buddy and fellow debater logic flux. Give him a round of appaluse folks for an awesome TRY (try is the keyword here)

Notice I said 14th and not 15th. Like I said before, when you have the truth on your side the debate just gets easier and easier.

You will be relegated to Stoxonian level when im through with this debate. Why oh why Logic, when you know deep down inside that your wrong, that you keep bringing out the best in me. Ok you said that we planned the coup because we were afraid of a soviet coup, the tudeh taking control and or mossadegh bending before their will. Ladies and Gents, please forgive me for debunking logicflux. The stoxians have spoke, let it be written , let it be done.


NOW LETS TAKE A LOOK AT THE FULL story STOX NO 2 opps i meant logicflux!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Among the controversies involved in the coup is the importance and/or legitimacy of American and British fears of Communist influence in Iran. In Iran, the well-organized, pro-Soviet Tudeh (Communist) Party, exceeded the National Front in the size of its rallies as the financial crisis caused by the global boycott, arranged by the British, of Iranian oil worsened.[39]
In the view of American mainstream public opinion, the crisis in Iran was perceived as a part of a Cold War conflict rather than as a nationalist struggle against Western colonialism.[40]
But in the words of Ervand Abrahamian, the coup d'état was "a classic case of nationalism clashing with imperialism in the Third World". Secretary of State Dean Acheson admitted the “`Communist threat` was a smokescreen” in responding to Pres. Eisenhower's claim that the Tudeh party was about to assume power.[41]
Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue — i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mossadeq was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen.[41]




http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/1953-coup-Iran-CIA.html
Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue — i.e., it was part of the cold-war discourse. The British and American governments knew Mossadeq was as distrustful of the Soviet Union as of the West. In fact, they often complained to each other about his “neutralism.” They knew perfectly well that the so-called “fellow-travelers” were staunch nationalists (after the coup some of them obtained refuge in the United States). They also knew that the Tudeh, even though the largest political organization, was in no position to seize power (F0 371/Persia 1952/ 98597; FO 371/Persia 1953/104573; Declassified Documents/1981/CIA/ Doc 276). Despite 20,000 members and 110,000 sympathizers, the Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger and warned if Mossadeq was not helped the Tudeh would take over (FO 371/Persia 1051/1530). The Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat (FO 371/ Persia 1952/98608). But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger (Roosevelt, 1979, 88). Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen






This is Allen Dulles a decade later stating that communism had taken over the control of the iranian government. This was known by everyone including the cia ass a lie which even your dinky memo Logicflux with many pages blanked out would even tell us.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html

The standard "textbook" account of what took place in Iran in 1953 is that-whatever else one might say for or against the operation-the United States saved Iran from a Soviet/Communist takeover. Yet, during the two years of American and British subversion of a bordering country, the Soviet Union did nothing that would support such a premise.
When the British Navy staged the largest concentration of its forces since World War II in Iranian waters, the Soviets took no belligerent steps; nor when Great Britain instituted draconian international sanctions which left Iran in a deep economic crisis and extremely vulnerable, did the oil fields "fall hostage" to the Bolshevik Menace; this, despite "the whole of the Tudeh Party at its disposal" as agents, as Roosevelt put it. Not even in the face of the coup, with its imprint of foreign hands, did Moscow make a threatening move; neither did Mossadegh at any point ask for Russian help.
One year later, however, the New York Times could editorialize that "Moscow ... counted its chickens before they were hatched and thought that Iran would be the next 'People's Democracy'. At the same time, the newspaper warned, with surprising arrogance, that "underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."
A decade later, Allen Dulles solemnly stated that communism had "achieved control of the governmental apparatus" in Iran. And a decade after that, Fortune magazine, to cite one of many examples, kept the story alive by writing that Mossadegh "plotted with the Communist party of Iran, the Tudeh, to overthrow Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevl and "hook up with the Soviet Union."



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

Moreover, Mossadegh was opposed to the Tudeh Party and to communism, having a great respect for private property. However, he also had a great social spirit. Following his orders, the monthly salary he had to receive each time he was deputy or minister was distributed to poor students. Contrary to the majority of the Iranian political personalities, Mossadegh paid his taxes very scrupulously and had become one of the greatest taxpayers of Iran. During the White Revolution of the Shah, he voluntarily distributed all his estates and ordered his children to do the same.
Mossadegh is regarded as a great democrat who did everything he could to defend the people of Iran. He was also a secular person: he did not let Mehdi Bazargan take the post of Minister of Culture because he considered him being too religious for this post, thinking he would "put the veil on the head of all the girls in schools".

Again, to make sure you are debunked 1000000000% this is part of a book and a secret cia memo that came out. The book was written by donald wilbur who was the master architect of operation ajax. This memo and book thoroughly shows that the cia and the eisenhower administration knew there was no communist threat by the tudeh or the soviet union. Now if you would like to debate this memo, it is from our precious CIA, and if you want to debate the slight differences between the 2 memos, i just cant do that. That would be calling them liars. Logic flux that would be too much for me to do to your multicolored " kumbaya, the government never lies" glasses. Logicflux, in the real world 14 round knockdowns dont win it. Its the last round that counts.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/01/a-stir-of-echoes.html
Wilber also writes that suitable articles were planted in Western papers and then replanted in Iranian newspapers. Publications such as Newsweek raised the hue and cry that the country was on the edge of falling into the communist abyss (August 10, 1953). They claimed that the Tudeh had infiltrated the National Front; that leading members of the government — namely, Fatemi, Abdol-Ali Lofti, the Justice Minister, and Mehdi Azar, the Education Minister — were secret fellow-travelers; that Mossadeq was about to make a deal with the Soviets; and that if he did not do so the Tudeh was poised to launch an armed insurrection.
Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue — i.e., it was part of the cold-war discourse. The British and American governments knew Mossadeq was as distrustful of the Soviet Union as of the West. In fact, they often complained to each other about his “neutralism.” They knew perfectly well that the so-called “fellow-travelers” were staunch nationalists (after the coup some of them obtained refuge in the United States). They also knew that the Tudeh, even though the largest political organization, was in no position to seize power (F0 371/Persia 1952/ 98597; FO 371/Persia 1953/104573; Declassified Documents/1981/CIA/ Doc 276). Despite 20,000 members and 110,000 sympathizers, the Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger and warned if Mossadeq was not helped the Tudeh would take over (FO 371/Persia 1051/1530). The Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat (FO 371/ Persia 1952/98608). But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger (Roosevelt, 1979, 88). Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen.


Someone has been T K O E D , Its the ones they never see coming lol

 

pong, I'm not going to read all those. I browsed the urls and all I see is wikipedia and a bunch of other sites that I've never heard of. Of course you can find a bunch of unsubstantiated sites without much credibility to support your view.

In fact most of the information out there about this subject will be by "anti-imperialist" types like yourself who have an agenda. That's why I tried to take the debate towards the more credible by going to government memos/documents and to an article by an authority on the subject that predates the web.

Like I said, there is absolutely no reason for anyone capable of reason and for someone who is willing to analyze the facts without bias and passion to think that the US government did not seriously fear losing Iran to the communists.

Like I said before, if you want to argue that the US overstepped its bounds and had no right to get involved, that's a respectable argument, I'm not even arguing against that position. What I am arguing against is this notion that starts from a place that first assumes the US is and always has been imperialistic and that Iran is proof of this. It's just not that simple. And all those government documents and the article I linked to show that conclusively to anyone who is willing to be impartial(again, not talking about you).

If someone wants to become more informed or help themselves form an opinion based on facts(mostly provided by me) then they have enough resources in this thread to reach that end.

I know that you can be quite impervious to logic and reason and I know you can wiggle back and forth forever, while keeping the discussion from ever really moving anywhere. You keep stox spinning his wheels all the time and you keep my(and I'm sure others) head spinning by your inability or unwilingness to concede the facts, admit you're wrong and move on.

Like I said, anyone who wants to form an unbiased opinion has the resources to do it. As for you, you can talk to yourself for all I care. I'm not going to fall into the pit of obtuseness like stox always does.

 

Sorry logic the links are in wikipedia but there are many citations there to cia memos, especially the one that got leaked in 2001, plus the former secretary of state lolololol.
I told you logicflux, when you have the truth on your side your opponent will eventually run out of half truths to fuel his imaginery image of the truth.
I just love the pacman dont you.
Ready to say UNCLE yet Logic? Its good that you quite now because I would have debunked you even further.
I have to change my mind on stox now. When he was debunked he A. knew when to quite or B. knew when to delete his post. It was a huge thrill to know I can get someone to delete their own post because they were afraid of the truth , but its an even great thrill to debunk someone who just doesnt know when to quite. Notice I said the word citations, as I am very careful to have links to articles that have citations from cia memos. Just say you were wrong, believe me logicflux being wrong is very liberating and it humbles you as a human being.
May the grace of our jesus christ bless you always

SIGNED , SEALED and DELIVERED. This subjectis done.

Someone who doesnt know when to quit either.