Argo

[kennyo7]

Tremendous historical movie. I saw a private screening yesterday. Was absolutely fantastic.

I am glad the movie started with a historical background explaining Operation Ajax. So many people dont know/refuse to believe that the Iranian Revolution was a response to US/UK intervention to remove a popular, democratically elected leader and replace him with a corrupt, puppet dictatorship to the US/UK liking.

Highly recommend this movie.

[Borgoguy]

Thanks for the recommendation. Can't wait to see the flick.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

So many people dont know/refuse to believe that the Iranian Revolution was a response to US/UK intervention to remove a popular, democratically elected leader and replace him with a corrupt, puppet dictatorship to the US/UK liking.

Oh?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The 1978-79 Iranian Islamic Revolution was a populist, nationalist and Shi'a Islamic revolution that replaced an ancient monarchy with a theocracy based on "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists" (or velayat-e faqih).

Its causes — why the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was overthrown and why he was replaced by an Islamic Republic — are a subject of historical debate. The revolution was in part a conservative backlash against the Westernizing and secularizing efforts of the Western-backed Shah,[1] and a not-so-conservative reaction to social injustice and other shortcomings of the ancient regime.[2] The Shah was perceived by many Iranians as beholden to — if not a puppet of — a non-Muslim Western power (the United States)[3][4] whose culture was contaminating that of Iran. The Shah's regime was seen as oppressive, brutal,[5][6] corrupt and extravagant;[5][7] it also suffered from basic functional failures — an overly-ambitious economic program that brought economic bottlenecks, shortages and inflation.[8]

Shah and the United States

Facing a revolution, the Shah appealed to the United States for support.[citation needed] Because of Iran's history and strategic location, it was important to the United States. Iran shared a long border with America's Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and was the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Shah had long been pro-American, but the Pahlavi monarchy had also recently garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its human rights record.[85] In the United States, Iran was not considered in danger of revolution. A CIA analysis in August 1978, just six months before the Shah fled Iran, had concluded that the country "is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation."[86]

According to historian Nikki Keddie, the administration of then President Carter followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[87] The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski “repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully." On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." But at the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department and the White House staff believed the revolution was unstoppable but largely went unheard until Ambassador Sullivan issued the "Thinking the Unthinkable" telegram, which formally discussed policy options if the Shah were to fail to quell the fervor.[88][89] After visiting the Shah in the autumn of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[90] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support.

Sociologist Charles Kurzman argues that rather than being indecisive, or sympathetic to the revolution, the Carter administration was consistently supportive of the Shah and urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" even after the government's cause was hopeless.[91]

Many Iranians believe the lack of intervention and the sympathetic remarks about the revolution by high-level American officials indicate the U.S. "was responsible for Khomeini's victory."[87] Another position asserts that the Shah's overthrow was the result of a "sinister plot to topple a nationalist, progressive, and independent-minded monarch."[92]

I suggest that you may want to hop on wikipedia and correct the apparent historical inaccuracy, as it does not mention any of what you claim.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

So many people dont know/refuse to believe that the Iranian Revolution was a response to US/UK intervention to remove a popular, democratically elected leader and replace him with a corrupt, puppet dictatorship to the US/UK liking.

An "intervention"??

That's lipstick on a pig. We incited religious violence and paid former Nazi's over 5 million bucks in order to help a foreign oil corporation make moar profits.

To the people who helped shape Iran into what it is today...Bud Light salutes you, you real f*cktards of genius.

[kennyo7]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Oh?



I suggest that you may want to hop on wikipedia and correct the apparent historical inaccuracy, as it does not mention any of what you claim.

I suggest you stop being so lazy and pick up a history book instead of relying on quick wiki search to learn about an event. I suggest All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer.

But since you like wiki so much...

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

[Ruby2]

Looks awesome, very excited to see it.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

I suggest you stop being so lazy and pick up a history book instead of relying on quick wiki search to learn about an event. I suggest All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer.

But since you like wiki so much...

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

The "1953 Iranian coup d'état" is not the "Iranian Revolution". And the coup certainly played a role in the events that followed 20+ years later, but it certainly was not the sole cause, nor is projectionism as to what the unseated pre-53' regime "would have done" a legitimate defense for what actually did happen.

Look, I'm all about non-interventionism. Unlike say, a Republican (who backed Iraq) or yourself (who backed Libya, Egypt and more under Obama), I'm a BIG fan of staying the **** out of it in other Nations when there is no direct threat to us. But with that said, if we're going to be interventionist, the burden is on us to continue to be so and support our guy or depose our guy after the fact and replace him too. Carter, obviously, said one thing and did another, allowing the Shah to be overthrown in the Revolution, and equally bad decision as the one made by the U.S./U.K. in 53'.

Thats the problem with the U.S., interventionsim followed by immediately forgetting why and what we intervened for, and ignoring the places we've intervened in. I.e. Iraq today, Libya in about a year (if not already), and Afghanistan in about 3 years.

Given the reality of the time, the very recent end of WWII and the rise of the Cold War and it's imminent and looming threat of additional War, Eisenhower could be forgiven to some degree for valuing U.S. Interests over Iranian "nationalist democracy". Doesn't make it right, no, but if you can play history revision to claim that if we didn;t act all would be roses, I can play histroical revison and ask aloud what the Soviets would have done in Iran if we hadn't, as they did all across their own borders. Iran was no Afghanistan remember, in terms of defensabillity.

And again, Carter does not get off scott free either, as his actions/inaction during the actual Revolution, allowing our "puppet" to fall and the Islamists to rise is equally bad in my book. Frankly, if we had a puppet, we sure as **** should have made sure he wasn't as bad as the Shah was, so blame falls on every President from Eisenhower through Carter. Same goes for Egypt tbqh under Mubarek.

From your link, I found this section very interesting, and goes hand in hand with some of what I said above:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

In 2004, Gasiorowski edited a book on the coup[90] arguing that "the climate of intense cold war rivalry between the superpowers, together with Iran's strategic vital location between the Soviet Union and the Persian Gulf oil fields, led U.S. officials to believe that they had to take whatever steps were necessary to prevent Iran from falling into Soviet hands."[90] While "these concerns seem vastly overblown today"[90] the pattern of "the 1945–46 Azerbaijan crisis, the consolidation of Soviet control in Eastern Europe, the communist triumph in China, and the Korean War—and with the Red Scare at its height in the United States"[90] would not allow U.S. officials to risk allowing the Tudeh Party to gain power in Iran.[90] Furthermore, "U.S. officials believed that resolving the oil dispute was essential for restoring stability in Iran, and after March 1953 it appeared that the dispute could be resolved only at the expense either of Britain or of Mosaddeq."[90] He concludes "it was geostrategic considerations, rather than a desire to destroy Mosaddeq's movement, to establish a dictatorship in Iran or to gain control over Iran's oil, that persuaded U.S. officials to undertake the coup."[90]

Faced with choosing between British interests and Iran, the U.S. chose Britain, Gasiorowski said. "Britain was the closest ally of the United States, and the two countries were working as partners on a wide range of vitally important matters throughout the world at this time. Preserving this close relationship was more important to U.S. officials than saving Mosaddeq's tottering regime." A year earlier, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill used Britain's support for the U.S. in the Cold War to insist the United States not undermine his campaign to isolate Mosaddegh. "Britain was supporting the Americans in Korea, he reminded Truman, and had a right to expect `Anglo-American unity` on Iran."[91]

Again, perhaps they can be forgiven for the decision to set up the puppet, but the U.S cannot be forgiven for ignoring what that puppet did afterwards. Whereas we could have helped guide the Shah towards western democracy and freedom, we didn't, we allowed his abuses and much more. Of course, even if we had held teh Shah to the fire, the Revloution itself was at it's core also a rejection of Westernization and a promotion of Islamic Theocracy, neither of which would have been avoided by a peace-and-freedom-lov'in Shah, it should be reminded.

In addition, it should also be mentioned that if the Iranians had not nationalized AIOC, but instead simply pressed on with the "democracy" part, the initial crisis may never have occured, and teh subsequent events avoided. The millitant action (and a rather Communistic one) of Nationlizing a foreign-owned industry is certainly part of the causes of the eventual coup, and one factor that led to the U.S. and G.B. beliving Iran could become a USSR puppet rather than their own. I would imagine you would, if consistent, agree that the Iranian nationalizes should have kept workign diplomaticly over the disagreements rather than simply taking control. Of coure, the histroy of why G.B. had control is a deep and bad one as well, further complicating matters.

[JetPotato]

I'm holding out hope for a remake already. One that doesn't include Ben Affleck.

[PlumberKhan]

The US made its middle eastern bed.

Hey!! We'd rather have religious people in charge of Iran! For the oil. Just so that 50 years later an Internet scholar can tell everyone that they're dumb for extrapolating that our actions are directly responsible for the climate in the same region that we hired Ex-Nazis to overthrow governments in.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...