How the CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy in Four Days in 1953 (2019)
npr.orgMost western people are very negative about countries like Iran, China and Russia because they are the 'bad guys'.
Well this article again shows that there are few countries that will not gain power over dead people. It's sad but true.
Now imagine you were living in Iran and came to know about the work of the CIA. Whould you think the USA is the greatest country in the world and democracy is the way to go?
I think it would be best if we look at people in other countries without judgement and try to understand their point of view. Leaders are to blame but most of the people in this world are just living their life.
Iran is still suffering heavily from that coup.
That was the closest we ever were to a democracy. However, democracy is very fragile, specially at the beginning.
And it was shattered and to this day, we never got as close. Tyrant regimes come and go and we still think what might've been. We could've easily been another France in middle east.
Source: Iranian living in the U.S.
I agree. It's really sad. Iran had/has so much potential.
As an Iranian living in the US, what's your perspective on the recent claims by US officials: things like Iran attacking civilians in Saudi Arabia and US forces in SA and Iraq, seizing tankers, and supporting militias who were attempting to take over Iraq and killing protestors there?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-says-iran-may-have-ki...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-officials-iran-off...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/middleeast/british-tanker-sei...
They didn't happen in a vacuum. The U.S. is suffocating Iran. The sanctions doesn't allow anybody in the world to have any commerce with Iran.
I was fully onboard with Obama's sanctions. They had a clear ask: Stop the nuclear development. Everybody understood it and is was clear.
Iran agreed to JCPOA and stopped any nuclear development.
Why is Iran under sanctions now? They have given a list of demands and it's basically a big fuck you to the Islamic Republic that is never going to happen.
If someone tries to suffocate you, you are going to kick back.
I'm not a fan of Islamic Republic. Fuck them. But at least during the Obama administration, the immediate threat (Nuclear development) was stopped and there was a dialogue. The two countries had direct lines of communication and even helped each other out fighting ISIS.
Reformists in Iran gained credibility and power, and slowly Iran could've gotten back to a democratic path.
Now, reformists are cast out and have 0 credibility with people. Hardliners in Iran have power. And they are being suffocated, so they kick back by attacking ships, drones or tankers or arresting innocent people.
If could understand if Iraq struck back at the US. But kicking back at the US by seizing a British oil tanker or attacking Saudi civilians and Iraqi protestors?
1. I'm not saying they are good or rational people.
2. This is the only leverage they have. Do you want them to do drone strikes on the U.S. soil?
I just think there's more going on than merely kicking back at the US. They're even cracking down on protestors inside Iran.
How was Mossadeq a democrat when he was starting to pay people off in the Majlis?
> Most western people are very negative about countries like Iran, China and Russia because they are the 'bad guys'.
As a resident of Europe, I don't think that's accurate. I think there are negative views of these countries in the west but I think the negativity is _much_ stronger in the US than the rest of the west.
Personally I find the US itself to be a much bigger problem than any of these countries and it seems I'm definitely not alone [0].
Oh, right, thank you for opening our collective eyes. I didn't know that it is USA who invaded my country, annexed territories as big as whole Belgium and killed tens of thousands soldiers and civilians only in recent years. I was too negative to the poor innocent Russia while all the time I should have known that it was USA all along. The BIGGER problem indeed.
Whatever Russia has done, I don't see it as a threat to the security of the world as a whole. Russia lacks the ability to project force around the world (e.g. it lacks aircraft carriers and a modern air force) and the EU's military spending alone is ~4x Russia's _before_ the Ruble collapsed.
The US however has an obscene amount of military power and has shown that it's happy to use it for a full-scale invasion of another country based on fabricated nonsense. I'm not aware of Russia doing anything remotely similar since its birth (where "birth" refers to the collapse of the USSR).
That's not exactly a fair comparison, since Russia hasn't had the funding to make any large-scale invasions since then. However they were more than happy to cut off oil to Europe just a few years ago, invade Ukraine, and generally act in a belligerent way toward several different countries in an effort to destabilize their neighbors.
And that is insanely stupid.
Russia doesn't profit from war, but by selling gas. They can't sell it with profit to Russians, so selling it to Europe is very important to them.
Ps. I've never noticed the cut off though ( Belgium) and wasn't aware. So I think it's not that big of a threat.
Indeed, Gazprom lost over $1 billion as a result of the shutdown.
I’m not really sure why I was downvoted before: the actions here targeted Ukraine, but impacted several countries in Europe. Perhaps someone disagrees with me, but that’s not sufficient for a downvote, as I understand it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_d...
I got downvoted too, some commie trolls probably.
If they don't give a reaction, I don't care ;)
> That's not exactly a fair comparison, since Russia hasn't had the funding to make any large-scale invasions since then
I don't understand how this makes the comparison unfair. Whatever the reason (e.g. lack of funding), Russia can't have quite the same impact in conventional warfare as the US.
> However they were more than happy to cut off oil to Europe just a few years ago, invade Ukraine, and generally act in a belligerent way toward several different countries in an effort to destabilize their neighbors.
The original article shows that the US is also happy to use various methods available to it to screw around with other countries. Unlike Russia, it's able to get away with it (perhaps due to its conventional military might).
The portion of your comment I disagreed with was here:
> I'm not aware of Russia doing anything remotely similar since its birth (where "birth" refers to the collapse of the USSR).
While I agree that Russia _cannot_ have the same impact, it’s not for lack of trying. The “unfair” part was comparing 243 years of history with 28. However even within the past few decades you seem to be ignorant of or ignore Russia’s actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria; the violence Putin used to gain and hold power; killing Russian citizens who are political adversaries; and the active belligerence and aggression that Russian Intelligence has shown toward other countries, especially in the last few years.
None of this excuses aggressive behavior by any other country, but to say that Russia has been exemplary or that they’ve not engaged in horrific behavior as well is simply untrue.
All of Russia’s actions have been within its neighborhood, the parent is talking about force projection in places far away from your motherland. Not to say that it justifies Russian action.
Their involvement in Syria alone has stretched budgets. Whereas the US can and has fought multiple wars simultaneously in places far way from the homeland without being constrained by finances.
Russia's conventional forces are not on par with the United States and they can't project that power globally.
But Putin's Russia has shown willingness and ability to achieve their geopolitical goals using espionage, propaganda, and direct military aid to bad actors, particularly in the Middle East. Putin has assassinated people in multiple countries in Europe, and had a hand in disinformation/propaganda campaigns aimed at weakening NATO and weakening international rule of law. Putin is actively attempting to sow discord in Western governments for the benefit of his government.
The United States' military action has caused far more death and destruction to be sure. And with American politics getting more and more volatile, partisan, and irrational, it seems likely we'll see more unnecessary conflicts and foreign policy crises in the future. Not to mention all of the damage to the international order done by Trump.
But just because Russia is no longer a traditional military superpower, make no mistake, they are working actively to undermine Western hegemony using asymmetrical means.
You might be directly impacted, but in terms of most countries invaded or people killed over the last say 100 years I think the US is rather ahead. Making them a bigger problem for the world even if Russia is a bigger problem for you.
Personally as an American I kind of like being part of the ‘evil’ empire. But, I can definitely understand why others might take issue with our actions.
USA killed more people that Russia/USSR over last 100 years? USA annexed more territories than Russia/USSR over last 100 years? Please tell me you are kidding. China is indisputable leader in killing civilians EVER in human history and also quite happy to annex nearby territories. Iran - about the same. If you want to glorify objectively worse entities just for the sake of hating on USA (justified or not) - feel free to do so, I have never seem USA haters to change their opinions.
I said invaded not annexed, the US is not trying to directly expand it’s borders.
But roll back 100 years and the US was occupying, Nicaragua 1912–1933, Haiti 1915–1934, and the Dominican Republic 1916–1924. Which is outside WWI when we invaided Germany, Austria-Hungary, and pre USSR Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Note, that’s a conservative list excluding the Vietnam and Korean War etc, assignations and or drone strikes for example the recent killing of Qasem Soleimani in Iran etc. As well as policing actions where we invade for humanitarian reasons etc.
PS! Also, the USSR ‘annexed’ several countries which where all part of Germany at the time and thus no longer existed. Though that’s somewhat arguable from a political if not practical standpoint.
>USA killed more people that Russia/USSR over last 100 years?
If we are counting only people outside of the US\Russia\USSR - than yes, USA killed more. The only major war USSR\Russia faught after the WW2 is Afganistan. All other conflicts USSR\Russia was in resulted in less dead people than the latest Iraq war alone.
There is this tedX talk. I forgot the name. Someone made an app that connects people with polar opposite views. They meet in person and talk. Many times, they Gain respect for other person’s view point, and many people changed their opinion too.
We all live in our bubbles, me included. If we took 5 mins to look from opposite side, we’d have less conflicts.
The internet was supposed to bring people together. Instead we are all in some echo chamber or the other. Companies like Facebook profit handsomely from it too
Most western people are against the authoritarian regimes governing the aforementioned countries, for the obvious reason that they are an abomination to people who believe in human flourishing. The countries themselves are not capable of being good or bad, as they exist only in the human imagination.
I'm not sure what kind mental leap would take one from "USA has terrible foreign policy" to "authoritarianism is the way to go for my country". It just doesn't seem to be plausible. The fun thing about authoritarianism though is that you don't really have to want it to end up under it.
I'm not sure that's the argument people are making. For Iran, it was US overthrew our fledgling democracy and replaced him with a tyrant, whose oppression led to a(n Islamic) revolution, which just gave us a different kind of tyrant.
Part of the issue we see in the Middle East, IMO, is that Islamists got the upper hand because they were the only organizations that were tolerated under the oppressive regimes that existed in so many places (Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf states, Egypt,...).
Regarding Iran, the Shah was a stooge and Western influence was seen as too strong. We often see pictures of women in miniskirts in Tehran during the 70s like if that was a sign of a great time... except that the Iranian population was more conservative and did not see that as a positive.
The Islamists were both nationalists and traditionalists and got the upper hand because of that.
Iran is a great and old culture and civilisation and, like perhaps China, they won't let foreigners take over and dictate the rules.
Unfortunately, it looks like the USA still don't get that.
How do you assess the POV of someone under a regime of control and propaganda from dictators or tyrants? Assume they’re suffering and just hoping for a better tomorrow and you might be wrong. Hostages are known to grow emotions for their captors, after all. And outside attacks on groups lead to in-group insulation and doubling down on beliefs. Studying cultists has shown this trend.
So I don’t know. One thing a lot of these regimes have in common is oil wealth. Oil wealth tends to drive any other industries out of a country, insulate power around the ruling class, and lead to dictatorships and similar. Definitely getting humanity to use non oil energy sources ASAP would help lower the pressures, I hope.
What if you are under a regime without healthcare, loads of homeless people, extreme border patrol and police, and all you hear is that it's the land of opportunities where you can make it?
The above might sound unfair but think about it. I believe there is propaganda in almost every country.
And when oil is gone there will be something else. Probably Artificial Intelligence. Also check out a current trending item in HN about the US limiting the export of AI.
"the land of opportunities where you can make it"
The above is old propaganda. It was true. It is becoming less and less true.
The things you listed are all connected.
Yes, but to a broader perspective the western world has at least 'some' degree of freedom. The same cannot be said for many parts of the world including much of the middle east
In the western world 'debt' is also promoted as freedom. So it's all about your definition of what freedom is.
My personal definition of freedom is 'free of debt'
Freedom is basically capital, because the US is a plutocracy. You're either lucky enough to inherit economic freedom, or you can buy it - if you make enough money to be free of all debt and acquire substantial capital.
The opportunities to do this are strictly limited and anyone starting cold is against very tough odds. And the activities that are rewarded are strongly biased towards rent-seeking and monopolistic market exploitation over less aggressively self-serving provision of goods and services.
Obviously it's not impossible. But if you want true economic freedom, your personal and professional choices are - ironically - very tightly constrained.
You are a billionaire or in prison in the US?
This isn’t a perfect observation but 25% of Beverly Hills is Persian. Of course, these were a lot of wealthy families who left Iran in the 70s and then helped build one of the best cities in the United States. With a fairly high percentage of Orthodox people.
Is it the systems involved, the religions, the wealth applied to a free society or just luck that created these two outcomes?
China is harassing all of its coastal neighbours and trying to politically infiltrate just about every major country on the face of the earth.
Russia is invading neighbours, actively escalating military tensions and sabre rattling.
They don't really fit the same profile as Iran currently does.
Feel free to walk me through the 'good guy' point of view of the people who invaded my home country, shot down a passenger plane, and got away with complete impunity.
There are no good or bad guys. All the superpwers are dicks, that's how they got to being superpwers.
The Iranian regime helped kill at least half a million people in Syria - possibly more, the UN simply stopped counting a few years ago - and is busy killing protesters over half the middle east including in its own country. All while sabre rattling against Israel and the Arab Gulf state.
The only reason Iran doesn't entirely fit your profile is because it's not a real superpower but merely a wannabe empire, not able to entirely get away with the evil stuff it does.
> Feel free to walk me through the 'good guy' point of view of the people who invaded my home country, shot down a passenger plane, and got away with complete impunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Someone did something bad.
Therefore it's no longer bad for someone else to do it.
?
I'm not seeing the 'good guy' POV here.
Alas you won't find an audience willing to provide such countenance to the mainstream Western narrative so easily.
Its a very untidy and uncomfortable discussion to have. All you have to do, is gain an understanding of the people who have been victimised by the Wests' illegal wars.
All other political biases fall to the side when confronted with an armless orphan who has been carried across Europe by her younger brother.
Geographically, Americans do not have the wherewithal to deal with this reality. American tourists don't go to the refugee camp facilities - they'd rather see the concentration camp museum.
If they did, indeed, have an idea of what life is like as a war refugee, say .. as a Yemeni or Syrian or Libyan or Iraqi child .. I believe the American people would finally arrest their war criminals. That is really the only way for the people of America to redeem themselves, and yet it gets harder and harder every day ..
Both are bad. Let's punish both. Are you up for the task? Ready to start sanctioning the US? And as long as first one gets away the others would do the same. This is how it works. Has nothing to do with good/bad because on that high level they're all big bad guys and had caused and keep causing lots of people die and suffer. They do not really give a shit as long as it advances their goals.
Just pointing out how that description applies equally well to the canonical "good guys" too.
Your last sentence hits it right on the head. Also want-to-be superpowers are dicks which leads to issues, often for them.
It seems like there should be a better system globally but right now it's like a struggle of ant hills and maybe this is how the human race got to the level it is at. Through struggle and selection.
Iran has been treated badly by the west no doubt. But their hands are not clean either. Was not this commander killed in Iraq organizing pro Iranian militias? From the point of view of the US can they allow Iran to become the dominant power in this oil rich world crossroads region? They can't and they won't. It's really that simple. "Right" only marginally enters into this equation. I guess I'd feel much more badly had the commander been killed in Iran organizing soup kitchens for the poor. But he was poking a bees nest and the results were as expected.
> Russia is invading neighbours, actively escalating military tensions and sabre rattling.
In the specific case of Crimea, it's much more complicated than that. It is an invasion, but there's much more about it than just "Russia invading neighbors", you're oversimplifying things.
Russia invaded the Crimean Oblast within Ukraine, rather than all of Ukraine.
In the Soviet Union, Crimea was an Oblast of the Russian SFSR. First secretary Nikita Khrushchev, who was of Ukranian origin, transferred the governance of the Crimean oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 as a "symbolic gesture".
But after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many Russians (an ethnic majority inside Crimea) were not satisfied with the resulting situation.
You're myopically selecting a single incident out of a multitude of hostilities and invasions such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War which by the way included a prototype 'field test' of the disinformation strategy that was later wielded against US and EU with terrifying effectiveness.
I'm sure if one tries hard enough, they can find some kind of justifications for a lot of Russia's actions, but the bigger picture remains unchanged: Russia is a giant dick and most of its neighbours are afraid of it. Hence NATO.
> Russia is occupying the Crimean Oblast within Ukraine
Russia also occupying parts of Donetsk and Luhansk.
> many Russians were not satisfied with the resulting situation, including Russians living in Crimea
Pre-war sociology shows 38% of Crimean residents wanted to join Russia, that number declining over time: https://www.km.ru/world/2012/09/14/polozhenie-russkoyazychno... (Russian). 38% is indeed many people, but that’s still a minority.
This thread is not about Ukraine, but, if we must ...
The protests in Kiev and other cities were violent and out of control. Ukraine was 6 months away from an election which they could have normally voted out their president, but, the people overthrew the government instead. Since then, the country has been so much worse off economically and socially. People have barely any money to pay their gas bills or buy luxury food items such as almonds. The GDP is currently one of the lowest of any countries in the world.
Other regions in the country such as the Donbass also never wanted to overthrow their president, which is why they began their separatist movement which led to its current civil war.
Crimea got a lucky break that it had the history that it does, and that all the Russian speaking population was there, and that there was Russian military presence there to enforce peace.
Maybe pre-sociology shows 38% pre Ukrainian protests in 2012, but, a lot changed in 2 years during that complete anarchy in most Ukrainian cities such as Kiev, Odessa, and the atempted Anarchy in Donetsk. The people of Crimea very simply just want stability and peace, like most people do.
> 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 89 percent voter turnout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
> were violent and out of control
Technically that’s true, but it’s important to remember the protest was peaceful for couple months. Then police started the violence. People have a right of self-defense.
> the country has been so much worse off economically and socially
Despite Ukraine have been fighting Russian army for almost 5 years now, what you’re saying is not true: https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/gdp-per-capita-ppp
> one of the lowest of any countries in the world
Not true. Ukraine is near the median, doing better than India or Philippines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PP...
> which is why they began their separatist movement which led to its current civil war
Neither of that is true. The “separatists” for the “separatists movement” were Russian military personnel or special forces. The war ain’t civil, there’re tons of factual evidence of direct Russian army involvement.
Hostile "migrants" that later revolt, claim independence and join their country of origin?
Wow, that sounds familiar. Like Hawaii, California Bear revolt, Texas revolution.
Again, not a post about Ukraine, but, ok ...
>Technically that’s true, but it’s important to remember the protest was peaceful for couple months. Then police started the violence. People have a right of self-defense.
Violent protest is not the answer, not when they had an election coming up very soon.
> Despite Ukraine have been fighting Russian army for almost 5 years now, what you’re saying is not true:
Millions of people have fled the country to work abroad in countries like Poland and Russia, among other countries in Western Europe. The common people do not have enough money to pay their gas bills, to pay for their heating in brutal winters. Your graph displaying some growth "per capita growth", have a look at this graph showing the value of their currency
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=UAH&to=USD&view=10Y
In terms of socially, absolutely it is worse. No one can afford to buy any import goods. There are dozens of reports of mass emigration, and the people that stay now almost all own guns in fear. You can't tell me that this is socially better than how Ukraine was before the revolution.
>Not true. Ukraine is near the median, doing better than India or Philippines:
Ukraine was a developed nation. It had all the potential to be a manufacturing and tech powerhouse. It was a country filled with brilliant minds, engineers and hardworking people. Many of which have now fled the country. If you seriously want to compare Ukraine to India (where they don't have access to clean water or sanitation) and make that the bar for Ukraine then this discussion with you truly is fruitless.
>Neither of that is true. The “separatists” for the “separatists movement” were Russian military personnel or special forces. The war ain’t civil, there’re tons of factual evidence of direct Russian army involvement.
I think it's pretty clear that the Donbass separatists are backed with Russian aid. No one is disputing that. But it is not Russian Military doing the fighting, which is a difference.
It's the people of the Donbass fighting for their own rights. The people on the front lines are people of the Donbass. USA sends military personnel to train the Ukrainian Army, and Russia probably trains people of the Donbass as well. At the end of the day it's the people of the Donbass on the front lines fighting for their rights.
This tit for tat argument needs to end. Seriously, people in Ukraine are so much worse off today than they were before the revolution.
> Violent protest is not the answer
Too bad the old Ukrainian government didn’t know it, and started to use violence against it’s own people.
> Millions of people have fled the country to work abroad
The economy is global, air travel is cheap, Internet simplified things a lot. Ukraine is no exception. Globally, 258 million people, myself included, are living outside their country of birth.
> Your graph displaying some growth "per capita growth", have a look at this graph showing the value of their currency
That graph is in USD after adjustments for purchasing power. Currency exchange rates are irrelevant.
> No one can afford to buy any import goods
In 2018, Ukraine has imported goods worth 56 billion USD, smartphones alone were just under $1B: http://www.worldstopexports.com/ukraines-top-10-imports/
> There are dozens of reports of mass emigration
There’s no mass emigration, net migration is around zero: https://blogs.elenasmodels.com/en/ukrstat-migration-statisti...
> But it is not Russian Military doing the fighting
Russians started the war, and they did the fighting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Strelkov_(officer) Their armed forces are still there. It doesn’t matter they deny that, way too much documentary evidence of their direct involvement, for instance read links from that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_...
You're now fighting with me on two different conversation threads, what seems like just for the sake of fighting at this point.
Violent protest is always greeted with crowd control. In Every Country. You seem to be forgetting that the Ukrainian population caused a revolution, instead of waiting for the election for a few more months.
Have a look at the violence from protestors just before it all fell apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stK3YPz6WTc
The people are worse off today than they were before. Not everyone supported their revolution, and you can deny that all you want, but, the people in the Donbass don't want to be a part of the circus that is Ukraine in its current state.
> Currency exchange rates are irrelevant.
Clearly I'm beating a dead horse. I don't know where to begin explaining to you that currency is not irrelevant.
About the mass emigration, these are people who have not filed for citizenship with other countries because in a lot of circumstances they cannot. No one is coming to Ukraine looking at it as a desirable place to live at the moment. There are less jobs in Ukraine, there is less trade in Ukraine, people have no choice but to work abroad.
Yes, I am also aware of the cases of some defected ex-Russian military helping the Donbass fighters, but, again you keep ignoring the fact that 99% of the population enlisted in fighting are citizens of the Donbass...
How can you honestly argue that the status quo is better than it was before the revolution? What are you even arguing?
Apart from the stuff mentioned in the sibling comment, the numbers don't even pass a smell test.
That's 89% turnout, with international observers being denied entry. Compared to presidential election 2010 where Crimea had only 63.1% voters that bothered to act.
Okay, it doesn't pass your smell test...
If there was another referendum today, and the people were given an option today, what do you think they would vote for?
You never hear from Crimeans complaining about the referendum result in any way.
Those people dodged a huge bullet and they know that. Ukraine is a mess, and perhaps one day when the fighting in Ukraine ends, when the corruption ends, someone should ask those people what they want to do.
> If there was another referendum today, and the people were given an option today, what do you think they would vote for?
Depends on how you define “the people”. Are you going to ask Russians who moved to Crimea after the annexation? Are you going to ask Ukrainians who were unhappy with the shenanigans, and fled their homeland?
> You never hear from Crimeans complaining about the referendum result in any way.
Lack of complains can’t be interpreted as a sign as support, because many people were imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for such complains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
You're seriously just arguing for the sake of arguing and it's absurd.
Sure, I will clarify what I meant to you. Ask the same people that lived in Crimea at the time the original referendum took place.
>Lack of complains can’t be interpreted as a sign as support, because many people were imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for such complains:
Lots of footage in Crimea during that time. There were no protests against the referendum. Vice News was filming the whole thing, along with other members of the press. No one was tortured to join Russia as you say. There was a vote, with some minorities that were upset by the outcome.
Economically speaking the people of Crimea caught a huge break. Ukraine has to realize that it needs to work with all neighbours. Look to countries that are successful by example. Do you see France boycotting Germany? Do you see China boycotting Japan? Fighting is the problem. Not listening to your people is the problem. Using scapegoats and boogymen instead of fighting internal corruption is the problem. Ignoring economic development is the problem.
I took that from Encyclopedia Britannica:
> Ethnic Russians constituted a majority of the population in Crimea
https://www.britannica.com/place/Crimea/History
About other oblasts like Donetsk and Luhansk, I don't think Russia has a way to make those territorial claims look legitimate.
> the USA is the greatest country in the world
> and democracy is the way to go
Democracy = USA? Hmmm, didn't know that.
> try to understand their point of view
Everything would be better in this world if we did.
Unfortunately most people cannot see things from another’s point of view.
The world is not black and white but I would say that democracy, with all its faults, offers more instruments for a good change and sadly people are not educated to play a role.
> Whould you think the USA is the greatest country in the world and democracy is the way to go?
Why would anyone think that?
It's an absurd question frankly. You don't need to feel that way to be an ally of the US. Is there a single US ally that thinks that at this point? The US is deeply flawed country, even more than most.
The difference is that Iranians have every reason to hate the US.
The People of America may not want war. But the people of USA™, Inc. do. Which one are you?
>Leaders are to blame but most of the people in this world are just living their life.
The people get the leaders they deserve. This is because people are the ultimate power - convince enough people to go along with you overtly: you're a dictator. Covertly: you're a 1% of 1%'er, who knows the right strings to pull in the world.
In the end, neither of these conditions can occur unless the people, in their enthusiasm or in their apathy, allow it.
> The people get the leaders they deserve.
No, they don't. There's no voting system that allows everyone to be represented.
Can we have a new site rule to not allow straw men?
Well what else can we make of this? The only way forward is to stop judging people and come closer so we can start to understand each other.
Arguments that start on false premises can lead anywhere and appear valid. It’s logically not constructive. I’m thinking of the logic table for the implication.
Can you explain what you are trying to say?
Do you think the base of my argument is false? If so it would be helpful to point out why you think it is.
I already did.
Can you please point out where you think it is flawed. Constructive criticism can lead to truth, so, if you disagree you should state so, but, also state why you disagree so that there can be a discussion.
We can and should discuss reasons which led to current state of the world but there is nothing ambiguous about Iran, China and Russia being bad guys today. No need to put it in quotes. They are indiscriminately killing people in tens of thousands, annexing neighbor territories and in general maintain inhuman totalitarian regimes. And this happens today.
and you can say the same about the US. You don't have to repeat it all over the thread. we should stop looking at everything as black and white. Lets discuss reason why it ia in the current state. Would Iran be in this position today if we hadn't tried to install our democracy to them back in the 50s?
First - I never said that USA is good or did nothing bad. Second - what I was saying is exactly what you have said - world is not black and white, there is lots of grades in between. And in such fine grained world USA is higher (whiter) than Russia, China and Iran, and by a lot.
Now to your direct question - USA did a lot of bad stuff and nobody denies it, they did bad stuff in 20th century and in 21st. But again - in comparison China, Russia and Iran are much worse. We can't deny punishment for a killer because of bad childhood, at best we can find killer's offender and punish him too accordingly. Same with USA - they should be held accountable, but only for their own actions, same as other countries.
Stealing oil from the Iranian people was/is the priority. Just like stealing lithium from the Bolivian people is.
No, western people do not care about Iran and China, providing they are not actively making their lives worse. And vice versa.
I think the attitude you are expecting people to have is insulting both ways. You are denying the Iranians and Chinese have any agency...Do you really think they or their Goverments spend all their time just reacting?
Ps. If you say to someone in the west "What do you think of those re-education camps?" they will reply "Sounds like a university". Sadly, they are not completely wrong.
I completely agree with you. I do think China is becoming more and more the example people are looking at how to make progress. Politics aside the growth in wealth and it's distribution over the last 30 years have been magic.
Most people living outside the USA are very negative about the United States because this president is a very "bad guy". I'm not under such a opinion but I find it increasingly hard to have a normal conversation about the USA and it's form of the human experiment without hitting a wall of generalised criticism that ends up in stalemate.
Considering what we know what the CIA has done in the past. What kind of shadow government is functioning without consent of the people. The media institutions that suppose to keep that power in check never really informed the public on these developments. And on top the revelation of the catholic church being the biggest pedofile network that hitted the American society probably a lot harder than Europe because of stronger religious sentiments. All things combined for me it is not strange an anti establishment campaign won the presidency.
Friends, family, people that have watched movies like the Irishman, Spotlight, the Good Shepherd are not really open to adjust their point of view on the States. Iran, China and Russia are however topics where nuanced opinion still is expressed.
"Most people living outside the USA are very negative about the United States because this president is a very "bad guy""
That's a very simplistic view of people outside the USA. Unlike US news that do no mention US proxy wars, veto votes and the like, other countries are well aware of US foreign policy and the terror it brings with it, be it in south America, Africa, the middle east or elsewhere.
Off course my opinion is based on a very selective draw during traveling to many countries. However the conversation has been trending more and more negative on the United States topic and it's form of "democracy".
Noam Chomsky has written elaborate on corporatism and i think this POTUS function as an amplifier.
I argue people are not bad informed but do generalize bad malpractice elements of the USA to all Americans. The election of this president and everything that followed is seen as evidence by many people the USA is crazy.
And my understanding of the people living in the USA is they are still viewing bad malpractice as unintended consequence of the capitalism experiment initiated by the other politic parties behavior on either side of the coin.
In contrast Putin is not Russia and Xi is not China.
The current president was not president in 1953. He didn't create our horrible policies, and they certainly won't be changed when he leaves office. Many Americans are just as confused about this as some non-Americans may be.
And even nowadays that resentment against Great Britain from Iran is very much still alive, while we hear mostly about the US getting involved in these regions
For those interested, Jack Straw (former UK Foreign Secretary) wrote a book, "The English Job", about the history of the UK and Iran (but of course touching on a lot more) is very readable. Having been published in 2019, it's also pretty up-to-date.
There is apparently a joke amongst diplomats that 'Iran is the only country in the world which still regards the United Kingdom as a superpower'. There is a phrase in Iran, which translates as something like "It's always an English job", applied to something that has been botched and mishandled. I'd definitely say that for the layman, if you want to understand the relationship twixt the West and Iran (which is so much more than just the US and Iran) this book has a place on your reading list.
'Uncle Napoleon' might be helpful too
Curious how world politics will change once electric vehicles become mainstream and there is little need for oil.
We'll still be dependent on materials like plastic. Entire categories of good production, like corn processing, depend on using parts of processed oil. Ships burn oil and they're not going to switch to electric any time soon.
Our oil dependency isn't just about the cars we drive.
Just about all applications of oil and natural gas have similar features as their use in the transportation sector: other energy sources could be used, but they are more expensive.
There are no circumstances in sight that would make oil/gas extraction uneconomical, especially in light of the rise of demand from developing countries.
So we'll have to arrange for the oil extraction reductions using international agreements.
It's not about oil necessarily. It's about energy source or more generally - a valuable resource. If lithium batteries become the new "oil", then lithium rich countries will become targets and oil countries will be ignored. But I think oil will be valuable for many decades to come. Oil use is projected to increase worldwide by every regulatory body.
As long as oil is valuable, we'll fight over it. If lithium becomes valuable, we'll fight over it. Times change, but sadly people remain the same. Especially the greedy elite.
> If lithium batteries become the new "oil", then lithium rich countries will become targets
Like Afghanistan, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan#Lithium
If lithium reaches a certain price point, then it will just be extracted from ocean water.
I suppose asteroid mining would be a next step.
One hope is for more stability. But I can imagine a duality where countries developed enough for EVs will decouple somewhat from countries developing on oil. This assumes oil remains vastly cheaper for under developed regions.
... and we’re dependent instead on rare earth elements and the like
The people of Bolivia have recently learned this to their great misfortune. The USA government hasn't even been shy about its support for that coup against a democratically elected leader who lifted so many out of poverty. The regime who took over celebrated the fact that they are white Christians and not brown natives.
"Democratically elected" is a really odd way to say "defied a referendum on term limits and rigged an election".
Even if that were true (it's not!), the coup plotters evicted him by threatening his sister's life, before his new term started.
The USA issued statements supporting the ousting of Morales. That was the extent of USA's involvement. That does not really make it a "USA backed coup". Unless you believe it just because that's what Morales claimed.
We might strongly suspect it, based only on the fact that CIA has done this in dozens of nations since the episode described in TFA. Or, you know, we could just pay any attention at all to actual journalism [0].
[0] https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/13/bolivian-coup-plotters-sc...
Indeed, one step at a time tho.
I wish society required manufacturers to provide reclamation of the resources used in their discarded products. Ie when I’m done with my car battery the lithium is reclaimed from it for future use by someone with all the info and resources necessary to do it efficiently. Make the regulation such that recycling is factored into the design process.
I think we are not that dependant on oil right now either and we are just used to continue the same failed tactics if the past. The people who make these decisions are just not making them economically and they are just used to continue the same policies.
Iran is in Israel's and Saudi Arabia's cross hairs. It is my feeling that the US is mostly antagonistic to Iran because of the influence of these two regional rivals of Iran.
...in the middle of the cold war.
And as soon as the cold war ended, in 1989, the USA invaded Panama to put their own man as president. In the process, the USA killed more than 3000 civilians. The man who ordered the invasion was George H W Bush, a former director of the CIA.
And if you're looking for more recent cases, the USA supported the military coup in Egypt in 2013. The government even refused to call it a coup because of legal implications. This was an important blow to democracy in the region. The authoritarian evolution in Turkey is partly due to this.
I'm not saying other democracies are better than the USA. I'm French, and my country still cannot face its past in Algeria. And France still supports dictators, like a 2018 bombing in Chad recently proved. But over the last couple of decades, I don't think any country killed more foreign civilians than the USA did, by a large margin. Even Saudi Arabia and UAE, with their wars in Yemen and Lybia, can't compare.
As recently as last year a USA backed coup removed the president elected by more than 50% in Bolivia because they nationalized gas and were exploiting lithium themselves.
No. Evo Morales is a would-be dictator who ignored term limits and rigged an election to stay in power. He was forced out of power because the Bolivian army refused to kill Bolivian people to suppress protests against him.
The facts to counter the propaganda:
- https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/16/was-there-a-cou...
- https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodig...
No. Constitutional Tribunal allowed Evo to participate in the elections because of an international treaty that allows anyone to participate in elections. Also, right wing local magnate Camacho confessed to conspiring with police and military to oust Evo. The OAS is a know USA puppet organization and presented no proof of any wrongdoing in the election.
Confesión Camacho https://www.pagina12.com.ar/238942-luis-fernando-camacho-con...
Convencion Americana sobre Derechos Humanos 23, b) de votar y ser elegidos en elecciones periódicas auténticas http://www.oas.org/dil/esp/tratados_B-32_Convencion_American...
Evo Morales is the legitimate president? Where are the thousand dissapeared persons? Where are them? We want them alive! What about the 50 persons who died in the protest against the regime installed by USA?
The USA issued statements supporting the ousting of Morales. That was the extent of USA's involvement. That does not really make it a "USA backed coup". Unless you believe it just because that's what Morales claimed.
For starters the OEA central role in sustaining the hypothesis of electoral fraud without any proof, setting this discourse and mantaining it with the help of mainstream media. You can see Pompeo and others telling Evo not to participate, then calling fraud, then supporting the coup. This was already setup and known by many in advance. There are audio proofs of that since before the election.
Then through the Escuela de las Americas "educating" and controlling the military and police. For example Williams Kaliman who asked Evo to resign left immediately after the coup to USA and lives now there. There's also many politicians from the previous era who live in the USA, some of whom have capture orders for the killings that happened before the Morales era.
Finally by financing local groups to cause caos and "effect campaigns", like attacking local politicians, humiliating them and later publishing videos or making them march nude in the streets or covered in paint. You can see how the modus operandi is the same as the "guarimbas" in Venezuela, young groups, travelling by 2 in motorcycles, hitting and running.
Of course this supports on local groups and politicians without whom it would be harder or more evident to do.
https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/opinion/442254/rol-embajad...
Panama was ruled by a dictator who was in fact leaning towards the Soviet block. He also ignored election results against him. And in the world of realpolitik the US was not going to ignore the strategic value of the Panama Canal. The Soviet Union was very aggressive at winning over other nations with military aid, similar to China today with financial aid. And Panama was a lot cleaner than the mess in the Middle East today.
> Mossadegh thought he was in the clear, but Roosevelt hadn't given up. He orchestrated a second coup, which succeeded. Mossadegh was placed on trial and spent his life under house arrest.
Never become complacent.
Please if you are interested in this read more. This article is just garbage.
Start with wiki it is actually surprisingly good.
“The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mosaddegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[13][14][15]”
Say Boris Johnson dissolves parliament takes all of the power into his own hands and his ministers. Queen tries to relieve him(coup!!!!) has to run away to France :o He then starts imprisoning anyone who has a problem with that.
I also like the legend about CIA managing to bribe a bunch of communists party members to burn down part of Tehran trying to start revolution, at the same time they were bribing: media, army, other counter protestors, security, religious leaders. Just how many agents did they have running this masterclass operation? Nobody in in Tehran clearly had any will of their own.
Interestingly enough your surprisingly good starting point (I can't tell since Wikipedia political articles are often heavily biased, so if I trust this one as impartial I'd be suffering from Gell-Man amnesia again) has this to say:
> The Shah himself initially opposed the coup plans, and supported the oil nationalization, but he joined after being informed by the CIA that he too would be "deposed" if he didn't play along.
It also has this to say:
> During the coup, Roosevelt and Wilber, representatives of the Eisenhower administration, bribed Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen. They also bribed street thugs to support the Shah and oppose Mosaddegh. ...
> Another tactic Roosevelt admitted to using was bribing demonstrators into attacking symbols of the Shah, while chanting pro-Mosaddegh slogans. ...
Is this surprisingly good or is it laughable legend again?
In my own read Roosevelt was clearly heavily involved in the first attempt. Second one he mostly took credit for things he wish he could do.
Wiki might be incomplete but compared to npr agitprop it is much better