Ok, I have to admit I don't know much about this... but from reading Wikipedia (not the best source, I know)...





But the gist of it is that the UK and the US openly backed a coup de tat in Iran that overthrew a Democratically elected official, and then put in place a puppet dictator and even assisted that dictator in brutally squashing political opposition through tyrannical means. IT seems the only reason America and the UK did this... was so we could maintain favorable oil trade agreements with the west..





Is there something I'm missing here? If I'm looking at this event in history right... how can we as America ever claim to be the defenders of Democracy everywhere? How can we claim the "moral high ground" and claim we are any better than our imperialistic/expansionist/tyrannical enemies? Do we sacrifice our values, whenever there is an economic incentive? How could we justify what we did then?



 

Consider the source, wikipedia is over run by radical liberals who re write history, and facts to suit there agenda, I tried to correct them once, and got banned for my trouble, it's just like du over there.

Even if what they say were 100% true, so what?  We as a country must look out for OUR interests, it's the same for any country.  Sure lets all have a hippie group hug, and dance around the fire singing kumbia like a bunch of fairies, but get in our way, and you've got to go, that's just the way of things, it's great when we get to help the good guys, but occasionally we have to help a bad guy to, it's just business

SOP back in those days.  I have no direct knowledge of the operation you speak of, but we did the same thing in various places of the world.  Usually the justification was to fight communism.  Cuba, Chile, Phillipeens, ROK, and a host of others all pretty much had a dictator/military junta-type government that was backed by the USA at one time or another.  The CIA was famous for organizing take overs of other countries that would end up with a friendly government.  "He may be a tin-horn dictator, but he's our tin-horn dictator" was a familiar spoof phrase on the situation back then.  As long as they weren't communist and we had an advantageous position, we really didn't care two cents what went on in other countries.  Kinda the same thing China does today.  Back who they need to for their own agenda, and not really care too much who it is or what goes on inside that country.    

You pretty much have to place it in the overall cold war context.  It was all about fighting the enemy back then.  So anything you did to stop the "red menece" was free game.  Anything that goes on in the Middle East is fueled by oil in the end.  When you look at a map and see how close the old Soviet Union was to the main source of oil for Europe, and even the USA, you can see why you don't get an outcry from the more "cultured" nations of the world either.  They knew it had to be done to not upset their apple cart and they were just as happy we were doing it as anyone could be.  Back in those days alot of countries would make some noise about it, but secretly be patting us on the back for doing it.  Much of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and the pre-positioning/base use capability, that we used in Desert Storm, and still use today was based on the Soviet Union making a move into the Middle East and the US having to respond to it.  Having friends with an iron grip in charge in those countries that actually shared a border with the old Soviet Union was far more important than if an ethinic group was being treated fairly.

It just the way it was back then.

So I guess if Hitler could have been some use to us... it would be perfectly ok to have helped him stabilize his regime?

I understand looking out for our Interests... but when we get in bed with really evil people... we completely lose our moral high ground. We become no better than the Communists, the Islamo fascists, etc. We really have no right to call ourselves Defenders of Freedom and Democracy... when we help other countries deny it to their own citizens... just so we can reap economic rewards from it.





 

I can understand coup de tats to support one dictator over another... but taking down a fairly civil leader who was democratically elected and who poses no threat to us... sounds wrong. Mussedeq wasn't in any way threatening agression against his neighbors... he wasn't allying himself with the Soviets (which if he was, would justify the Operation, as it would prevent a more brutal Soviet dictatorship). I understand the concept of letting one dictator win, so that a worse one doesn't. But in this case... the "Communist threat" rhettoric, was just that. Even the CIA seems to admit that there really was no threat of Communist influences taking over Iran.
 

There were other instances where the US has covertly overthrown other regimes.. those I don't really have that much an issue since there usually were circumstances that justified it from a moral standpoint. IE, overthrow one dictator for another. Afterall, if the place is going to have a dictatorship, at least have it friendly towards US Interests. No issue there, Just replacing one bad guy with a slightly less bad guy. Other instances had Democratically elected leaders who were well on their way to becoming dictators/despots.... or were committing acts of aggression against our allies.



I don't see an issue with the US Government backing a coup that overthrows a tyrant...even if he is only replaced with another. My issue is with taking down a man, who it seems, wasn't a brutal tyrant at all, had committed no agression, had widespread support of his people... and we basically went in and instituted a dictatorship.



How can America claim to support "Self-determination".... and then turn around and put a dictator in charge of a country, because we disagree with their population's trade agreements? Did not the Iranian people have a right to determine how to handle their own oil exports?



I'm not arguing for hippy-love-fests... I think America SHOULD pursue its own interests... but it should not be getting itself in bed with evil regimes. Besides... that usually ends up biting us in the butt later. Look at the problem we have with Iran today. We likely wouldn't have such a lack of respect in the middle east, if it wasn't for that one Operation. We would have avoided a lot of anti-western animosity had we stuck to our values as a country. We showed the world that we were hipocrites.



Besides... I truly think there were other ways to have resolved that issue. Trade Embargoes would have likely forced Mussedeq to either denationalize the oil company... or at the very least provide favorable oil deals to the Americans and Britts. Iran was faced with bankruptcy because of the Embargoes already faced.. There was NO REAL NEED to carry out the coup.

Then you would have forced them into the open arms of the soviets (the Brits at the time thought the Soviets had a hand in the Nationalization).

and It didn't matter what the U.S. did, Britain was either going to overthrow him or seize the refinery, so the U.S. may as well get something out of the ordeal.

Better the Shah than some puppet of the Russians.

It sucks when we step on another nation's sovereignty that way, but it was the Cold War era and the CIA & Pres did what they thought they had to do (assuming the Pres backed the operation.)

But consider what happened after the Shah was put in place. Research the White Revolution, which should be a leftist wet dream, but some don't want to admit the Shah could do something right (even if it increased his power in the process, it did have certain human rights benefits.)

First off, it's a coup d'etat. It has nothing to do with tatoos.

We also threw in with Joseph Stalin during World War II. All that stuff about moral high ground is very nice to say but it doesn't work in reality.We do what we have to do to survive. Sometimes it is very ugly.

Yeah I mean god forbid someone dare sell their oil to someone besides US...



 

Not quite what i was talking about