Why They Hate Us

Road Dawg · 05-09-08, 02:00 PM

Why They Hate Us
by Sheldon Richman, Posted May 9, 2008

What’s more obnoxious than a person who constantly whines about the real and imagined injustices committed against him while ignoring his own injustices against others?

A country that does the same thing.

One of the great myths accepted by the American people is that historically, the United States * more precisely, the U.S. government * has been a gentle giant, powerful and rich but entirely peaceful and well-meaning, and slow to anger when wronged. The truth is nearly the diametric opposite.

We often hear American politicians and commentators reciting a list of “terrorist” acts committed against the “United States.” It typically includes the 1982 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1996 bombing of U.S. Air Force housing in Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen. Reciting this string of attacks supposedly demonstrates, without further argument, that the United States has been the major victim of violence on the world stage * unprovoked violence perpetrated by “Islamofascists” because we are free and represent democracy. Indeed, it is widely believed that the attacks on September 11, 2001, were in part the result of “our” failure to retaliate for those unprovoked earlier attacks.

But this is sheer balderdash. The attacks, while often criminally misdirected, were hardly unprovoked. They were not bolts out of the blue. On the contrary, they were seen by the perpetrators as retaliation against the world’s dominant imperial power.

The last century-plus of U.S. foreign policy has largely been a story of aggression and empire-building. American presidents have intervened and interfered in every region of the world, not in self-defense, but in the name of U.S. “national interest,” which in reality means the interest of well-connected corporations and their ambitious political agents who felt appointed by history to bring order to the world. In the view of the policy advocates, the best interests of America, as they conceived them, and the best interests of the people of the world coincided. Of course the people of the world were given no say in the matter. What was in their interest was decided for them by American policymakers and their foreign agents.

Most Americans haven’t gained by this approach to foreign affairs * in fact, they have paid dearly in money and lives. But not as dearly as those on the receiving end of that policy. For all the pious moralizing about democracy and human rights, American foreign policy has treated foreign populations like garbage, beginning with the brutal repression of the Filipino uprising against American colonial rule from 1899 to 1902. That war and its related hardships killed 250,000 to a million Filipino civilians and 20,000 Filipino rebels. In other words, foreigners have been regarded as highly as the Indians were.

How many Americans know that?

Intervention and blowback

Since that time American presidents have intervened, directly or by proxy, in countless places, including Cuba, Haiti, Colombia (Panama), Chile, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. On many occasions American administrations have engineered regime changes (sometimes with assassinations) to install leaders friendly to “American interests.” Rarely has intervention occurred without the murder of innocent civilians, degrading hardship for survivors, and arms and (taxpayer) money for repressive “leaders.” The paradigm is the 1953 intervention in Iran, when the CIA helped drive an elected, secular prime minister from office so the autocratic shah could be restored to power. His brutal U.S.-sponsored repression of the Iranian people finally provoked an Islamic revolution in 1979, creating an anti-American theocracy that has been a thorn in the side of U.S. presidents ever since.

Coincidence? Of course not. Americans may be ignorant or forgetful; the victims seldom are.

To this day we routinely hear references to the Iranian takeover of the U.S. embassy and the 444 days the American hostages were held. Rarely do those references mention that the flare-up of violence followed a quarter century of cruel dictatorship, in which torture was a state policy * all sponsored by U.S. administrations. One can criticize the embassy seizure and the holding of hostages. But it is wrong to think that America was an aggrieved party. But that’s how it works in big-power politics. An imperial force can wreak all kinds of havoc in a weaker foreign country, but there is no outrage in the domestic population until the victims strike back, usually with pathetically meager force compared with what the aggressive power employed.

Iran was neither the first nor the last case of “blowback,” the CIA’s term for what happens when a foreign operation explodes in one’s own face. Indeed, American foreign policy from the end of the 19th century onward can be viewed as a series of blowbacks.

None of this means that innocent American civilians deserve to be killed or injured in retaliation for the government’s conduct. The American people did not “invite” the 9/11 attacks. Not even the U.S. government did that, if by “invite” we mean “sought” or “welcomed.” Arguing that issue is a distraction from what really matters.

The point is that U.S. policy in the Middle East was bound to create victims who sooner or later would want revenge. That they were less than discriminating in whom they sought revenge against does not alter that fundamental fact. To comprehend is not to excuse. If a victim of a crime goes on to commit a crime himself, that should not be a reason to ignore the initial crime. A country keeps itself safe from terrorism first by not forcibly imposing itself on others.

Every imperial power has been the target of what is called “terrorism.” But this term itself should make us suspicious. To be sure, horrific crimes against innocents are included under that label. But one must ask how legitimate the concept is in light of the fact that applying it to any U.S. conduct is impermissible virtually by definition. Something is wrong when the United States in the eyes of many Americans is incapable of committing terrorism, but any resistance to U.S. impositions is condemned with that term. Who controls the definitions controls the future.

How many Americans have any inkling of the crimes * yes, crimes * their government has committed against foreign people in their name over the last century? Most don’t know and don’t care * and that’s fine with their rulers because when vengeful foreigners assault American civilians (unjustifiably) or military occupiers, U.S. leaders and jingoist supporters can say, “America was the victim of another unprovoked attack. Why do they hate us?”

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with history will know the answer. It doesn’t take much effort to learn the truth. Reputable scholars and journalists have turned out a library full of books in the last six years documenting the U.S. government’s record as an international bully. There’s no excuse for ignorance.

Let’s stop whining and get curious. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo put it, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

http://www.fff. org/freedom/ fd0802b.asp

DimeDR · 05-10-08, 05:02 AM

Quote:

The paradigm is the 1953 intervention in Iran, when the CIA helped drive an elected, secular prime minister from office so the autocratic shah could be restored to power. His brutal U.S.-sponsored repression of the Iranian people finally provoked an Islamic revolution in 1979, creating an anti-American theocracy that has been a thorn in the side of U.S. presidents ever since.

operation ajax ... kinda got the whole middle east thing rolling, and its where the term blowback first gestated ...

The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the harmful effects to friendly forces when some weapons are used under certain conditions (for example nuclear fallout, chemical weapons, etc. used upwind from friendly troops or assets, or a torpedo circling and hitting the firing vessel, etc.). The word is believed to have appeared for the very first time in the CIA document on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état titled "Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953."

In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. In one case, covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran-Contra Affair, while covert support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States.

Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Doctrine advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.

DimeDR · 05-10-08, 05:07 AM

America, Iran, and Operation Ajax: The Burden of the Past

by Steven LaTulippe
by Steven LaTulippe

The news has been abuzz recently with stories about President Bush’s alleged plans for "regime change" in Iran. Just last week, rumors were reported of US Air Force fighters violating Iranian air space for the purposes of testing their air defense system. As the nuclear crisis continues to simmer, the next incursions may be of a more belligerent nature.

Obviously, America’s relationship with Iran has been extremely hostile over the past several decades. From the perspective of most Americans, the seminal event of US-Iranian relations was the siege of the US embassy in Tehran and the subsequent holding of its staff as hostages back in the 1970s.

Although that hostage-taking was brutal and unjustified, many Americans lack a more global perspective of the history of American interactions with Persia. One of the most critical events in that relationship occurred over 50 years ago during the Eisenhower Administration. While Americans may know little about Operation Ajax, its memory still evokes intense anger from nearly every Iranian.

The brief version (for a more thorough history of the events surrounding Operation Ajax, I refer the reader to Sandra Mackey’s excellent book The Iranians) concerns the overthrow of Muhammad Mossadeq’s short-lived, democratic government by the CIA in 1953 and the reinstallation of the Shah to the throne of Iran.

In 1951, the control of Iran’s oil fields by a British company (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC) became a hot political topic. The Iranian people believed, with some justification, that the existing deal between the Iranian government and AIOC unfairly benefited the company. Muhammad Mossadeq, then a member of the Iranian parliament, took the lead in demanding a renegotiation of the pact. The masses of the Iranian people rallied to his standard and quickly made him the most revered leader in the land. The Shah, who then ruled as an authoritarian monarch, lost control of events as his previously powerless parliament (the Majlis) took on a life of its own.
As Mackay notes:

With Mossadeq leading the charge against Iran’s economic master, the Majlis, on March 15, boldly nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company…On April 29, the same Majlis elected Muhammad Mossadeq prime minister. While the shah sat on the throne as a mere shadow, Muhammad Mossadeq basked in the acclaim of the vast majority of Iranians, who for the first time in decades gave their genuine respect, devotion, and loyalty to their recognized leader.

While I certainly don’t condone his socialistic tendencies or his seizure of the oilfields, it is undeniable that by the time of his elevation to prime minister, Mossadeq had the backing of the overwhelming majority of the Iranian population. For the first time in its long history, Iran had a democratically elected leader.

By 1953, Mossadeq was in an increasingly difficult situation. Oil revenues had plummeted due to a boycott of Iranian oil and the economy slumped. The Soviet-backed Iranian communist party was becoming increasingly aggressive, and Washington began to worry. Iran was a vital chess piece in the Cold War and the American oil companies had their eyes on future concessions there. Mossadeq had become an "issue" for some very powerful people.

Eventually, the decision was made in Washington that Mossadeq had to go. Brigadier General Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the Gulf War commander) and CIA guru Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy) were ordered to begin a covert operation designed to remove Mossadeq and restore the Shah to absolute authority. A complex plot, codenamed Operation Ajax, was conceived and executed from the US Embassy in Tehran.

Using CIA assets in the Iranian military and various minor political parties, an uprising was staged.

Mackey describes the climax:

For nine hours, the pro-shah army, utilizing American-style military strategy and logistics, battled pro-Mossadeq demonstrators. At least 300 people died. By nightfall, the Mossadeq partisans had drawn into a tight cordon around the premier’s palace. Inside, the aged and always ailing prime minister threw a coat over his pajamas, leaped over the garden wall, and went into hiding. Forty-eight hours later he was arrested. The brief euphoric moment when the followers of Mossadeq believed that he held Iran’s destiny in his hands evaporated.

The Shah, who had fled to Rome at the first whiff of gunpowder, rode back to power on the tip of American bayonets.

In essence, the United States had engaged in a massive covert operation designed to remove a democratically elected leader from power and reinstall an authoritarian monarch (a move which makes a mockery of our currently stated desire to "spread democracy" in the Middle East).

This affair had several disastrous ramifications for the future of American-Iranian relations. First, the Shah, from that point forward, was viewed as a creature of America. Consequently, America became an accessory to his every oppressive act during the subsequent 26 years of his rule. Second, the American embassy in Tehran was permanently marked as a "nest of spies" in the eyes of the Iranian populace. And third, Iranian democracy was strangled in its crib.

The next time the populace rose to overthrow the Shah (in the 1970s), they viewed America as their enemy and were cheering a leader who was significantly less democratic than Mossadeq. When rumors began circulating that the Americans were going to bring the Shah back via yet another covert operation, the Iranian mobs responded by seizing the US embassy in Tehran and holding its workers hostage.
If Mossadeq’s regime had been permitted to continue, it is entirely possible that Iran could have evolved into an authentic democracy. American interventionism destroyed that opportunity and set the stage for many of the tragedies currently haunting the Middle East.

If America is ever to have even remotely cordial relations with Iran, we must accept responsibility for the terrible effects of Operation Ajax and admit that we had no right to intervene in a controversy that was wholly the business of the Iranian people. That exploit was unworthy of the Land of Washington and Jefferson.

While the American public often quickly forgets the interventions and mischievous actions of its government, our overseas victims seldom do. The current climate of international terrorism should prompt the American people to take a more active interest, since these transgressions often come back to haunt us in the most unexpected ways.

Anti GWB · 05-10-08, 07:56 AM

No commentaries from the FLOCK members?

Road Dawg · 05-10-08, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti GWB

No commentaries from the FLOCK members?

Did you expect one, Anti?

The information here is so far over their heads, they wouldn't know where to begin. Add that to that fact that they refuse to acknowledge that America causes or exacerbates as many problems in the world than they purportedly "solve" by spreading Democracy.

Pay the Snucka · 05-10-08, 11:18 AM

You guys know that they hate us for our freedom. Our president wouldn't lie to us.

Anti GWB · 05-10-08, 11:50 AM

Pay:

Bush normally doesnt lie unless he is awake

Thor4140 · 05-10-08, 12:27 PM

You mean these muslims have been provoked for years and they are not savages like we are led to believe?

Anti GWB · 05-10-08, 12:41 PM

Why would they hate a country who ilegally invades and occupies a Muslim
country for 5 yrs and now is threateing to spread war across the entire
Gulf region ....

I am cmon .... "Our" God is better than their God and a little approved torture is nothing but just what Rush?

Here's Rush's sociological evaluation of what really happened at Abu Ghraib, as quoted in a piece in The New Republic on Limbaughism:

"I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?"

mr merlin · 05-10-08, 01:44 PM

Obviously those are pictures of docs "sexual dungeon". you really are a sick f**ker aren't you?

Nicolos_Darvas · 05-10-08, 01:52 PM

Quote:

The last century-plus of U.S. foreign policy has largely been a story of aggression and empire-building. American presidents have intervened and interfered in every region of the world, not in self-defense, but in the name of U.S. “national interest,” which in reality means the interest of well-connected corporations and their ambitious political agents who felt appointed by history to bring order to the world. In the view of the policy advocates, the best interests of America, as they conceived them, and the best interests of the people of the world coincided. Of course the people of the world were given no say in the matter. What was in their interest was decided for them by American policymakers and their foreign agents.

I totally agree with this paragraph. What I think we ought to do is let all these nations that are run by facists, totalitarians, dictators, socialists and communists just fuckin starve. I am tired of watching our nation go save their ass only to have them turn against us later on.

Let's start with North Korea. Let these motha fuckers starve. When the world complains that the United States did not come to help we can turn around and simply say, "Sorry, we did not feel it would be prudent to interject ourselves into the internal affairs of your country.

Fuck Em !!!! They don't deserve our good graces.

And while we are at it -- Let's call Israel and tell them the Arabs are their problem. You can start tomorrow by fuckin' up the Palestinians for all we care. Kill em all if you need too.

4625 · 05-11-08, 03:03 PM

Stop the world!!!!! Something is definitely amiss!!!! I agree with Nic!!!!

!

Nicolos_Darvas · 05-11-08, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4625

Stop the world!!!!! Something is definitely amiss!!!! I agree with Nic!!!!

!

See, if you try hard enough you can always find something you have in common.

DimeDR · 05-11-08, 04:30 PM

respond to this, merlin, you are hiding once again ....

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/prisoner.jpg

ever heard of abu ghraib, not one of the poor guys they brought in off the streets and tortured were ever proven to have done a thing wrong or kept for any of the neocons perverted, criminal suppositions ... thats the facts, dispute it ... and cheney will stop at nothing to humliate people ... heck he murdered 3k on 9/11 of his own, sat in bunker and watched an unmanned bomb of some type kill hundreds at pentagon ... you are the king sheep of the flock ... you amuse me how uninformed and gulliible you are ... you really need to read and educate yourself bc you are just dissected every time you open your confused mouth

mr merlin · 05-11-08, 06:57 PM

All that crap about supposed abuse at abu-ghraib is just that. Nothing happened there, there was no torture, nothing - you see, it's clearly a deeply embedded conspiracy by people who want to discredit us and our fine reputation.

DimeDR · 05-11-08, 07:44 PM

there you go, merlin, opening your mind and feeling a draft

ps ... i grew up in the 60s

just curious, how old are you, and where do you live? are you afraid to admit to these things?

mr merlin · 05-11-08, 07:58 PM

48, live in minnesota and I'm not a paranoid schitzo.

And how on earth can you possibly take that abu-gharaib story at face value? Nothing is at it appears -NOTHING, its all part of the plan, dont you get it?

DimeDR · 05-11-08, 08:24 PM

explain the masterplan about torturing people to us?

i cant believe you are 48 and this uneducated.

mr merlin · 05-12-08, 02:30 AM

So let me get this straight, you think the story the media is putting out about abu-g is accurate? no hidden truths? no secret adgendas? no grand conspirators behind the scenes? no altered film? cmon - thats perposteros!

DimeDR · 05-12-08, 03:06 AM

why do you chose to believe this conspiracy, are you a nut job?

4625 · 05-12-08, 04:21 AM

Merlin is yankin' ur chain. . . .

Anti GWB · 05-12-08, 06:39 AM

I thought the State of Minnesota had a solid educational system ....

I guess that info is false based on Merlin's "ramblings"

DimeDR · 05-12-08, 07:50 AM

yeah i was yanking his back

Anti GWB · 05-12-08, 07:57 AM

Dime / 4625:

Merlin is right .... according to his "source" there was no torture @ Abu Gharaib:

Hours before President George W. Bush announced plans to address the Arab world to condemn the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison, Rush Limbaugh justified the U.S. guards' mistreatment of the Iraqis, stating that they were just "having a good time," and that their actions served as an "emotional release."

05-09-08, 02:00 PM	#1 (permalink)
Road Dawg Always leave them wanting more Join Date: Jan 02, 2007 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 6,318	Why They Hate Us Why They Hate Us by Sheldon Richman, Posted May 9, 2008 What’s more obnoxious than a person who constantly whines about the real and imagined injustices committed against him while ignoring his own injustices against others? A country that does the same thing. One of the great myths accepted by the American people is that historically, the United States * more precisely, the U.S. government * has been a gentle giant, powerful and rich but entirely peaceful and well-meaning, and slow to anger when wronged. The truth is nearly the diametric opposite. We often hear American politicians and commentators reciting a list of “terrorist” acts committed against the “United States.” It typically includes the 1982 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1996 bombing of U.S. Air Force housing in Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen. Reciting this string of attacks supposedly demonstrates, without further argument, that the United States has been the major victim of violence on the world stage * unprovoked violence perpetrated by “Islamofascists” because we are free and represent democracy. Indeed, it is widely believed that the attacks on September 11, 2001, were in part the result of “our” failure to retaliate for those unprovoked earlier attacks. But this is sheer balderdash. The attacks, while often criminally misdirected, were hardly unprovoked. They were not bolts out of the blue. On the contrary, they were seen by the perpetrators as retaliation against the world’s dominant imperial power. The last century-plus of U.S. foreign policy has largely been a story of aggression and empire-building. American presidents have intervened and interfered in every region of the world, not in self-defense, but in the name of U.S. “national interest,” which in reality means the interest of well-connected corporations and their ambitious political agents who felt appointed by history to bring order to the world. In the view of the policy advocates, the best interests of America, as they conceived them, and the best interests of the people of the world coincided. Of course the people of the world were given no say in the matter. What was in their interest was decided for them by American policymakers and their foreign agents. Most Americans haven’t gained by this approach to foreign affairs * in fact, they have paid dearly in money and lives. But not as dearly as those on the receiving end of that policy. For all the pious moralizing about democracy and human rights, American foreign policy has treated foreign populations like garbage, beginning with the brutal repression of the Filipino uprising against American colonial rule from 1899 to 1902. That war and its related hardships killed 250,000 to a million Filipino civilians and 20,000 Filipino rebels. In other words, foreigners have been regarded as highly as the Indians were. How many Americans know that? Intervention and blowback Since that time American presidents have intervened, directly or by proxy, in countless places, including Cuba, Haiti, Colombia (Panama), Chile, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. On many occasions American administrations have engineered regime changes (sometimes with assassinations) to install leaders friendly to “American interests.” Rarely has intervention occurred without the murder of innocent civilians, degrading hardship for survivors, and arms and (taxpayer) money for repressive “leaders.” The paradigm is the 1953 intervention in Iran, when the CIA helped drive an elected, secular prime minister from office so the autocratic shah could be restored to power. His brutal U.S.-sponsored repression of the Iranian people finally provoked an Islamic revolution in 1979, creating an anti-American theocracy that has been a thorn in the side of U.S. presidents ever since. Coincidence? Of course not. Americans may be ignorant or forgetful; the victims seldom are. To this day we routinely hear references to the Iranian takeover of the U.S. embassy and the 444 days the American hostages were held. Rarely do those references mention that the flare-up of violence followed a quarter century of cruel dictatorship, in which torture was a state policy * all sponsored by U.S. administrations. One can criticize the embassy seizure and the holding of hostages. But it is wrong to think that America was an aggrieved party. But that’s how it works in big-power politics. An imperial force can wreak all kinds of havoc in a weaker foreign country, but there is no outrage in the domestic population until the victims strike back, usually with pathetically meager force compared with what the aggressive power employed. Iran was neither the first nor the last case of “blowback,” the CIA’s term for what happens when a foreign operation explodes in one’s own face. Indeed, American foreign policy from the end of the 19th century onward can be viewed as a series of blowbacks. None of this means that innocent American civilians deserve to be killed or injured in retaliation for the government’s conduct. The American people did not “invite” the 9/11 attacks. Not even the U.S. government did that, if by “invite” we mean “sought” or “welcomed.” Arguing that issue is a distraction from what really matters. The point is that U.S. policy in the Middle East was bound to create victims who sooner or later would want revenge. That they were less than discriminating in whom they sought revenge against does not alter that fundamental fact. To comprehend is not to excuse. If a victim of a crime goes on to commit a crime himself, that should not be a reason to ignore the initial crime. A country keeps itself safe from terrorism first by not forcibly imposing itself on others. Every imperial power has been the target of what is called “terrorism.” But this term itself should make us suspicious. To be sure, horrific crimes against innocents are included under that label. But one must ask how legitimate the concept is in light of the fact that applying it to any U.S. conduct is impermissible virtually by definition. Something is wrong when the United States in the eyes of many Americans is incapable of committing terrorism, but any resistance to U.S. impositions is condemned with that term. Who controls the definitions controls the future. How many Americans have any inkling of the crimes * yes, crimes * their government has committed against foreign people in their name over the last century? Most don’t know and don’t care * and that’s fine with their rulers because when vengeful foreigners assault American civilians (unjustifiably) or military occupiers, U.S. leaders and jingoist supporters can say, “America was the victim of another unprovoked attack. Why do they hate us?” Anyone who is the least bit familiar with history will know the answer. It doesn’t take much effort to learn the truth. Reputable scholars and journalists have turned out a library full of books in the last six years documenting the U.S. government’s record as an international bully. There’s no excuse for ignorance. Let’s stop whining and get curious. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo put it, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” http://www.fff. org/freedom/ fd0802b.asp

05-10-08, 05:07 AM	#3 (permalink)
DimeDR EOG Addicted Join Date: Mar 23, 2008 Posts: 918	Re: Why They Hate Us America, Iran, and Operation Ajax: The Burden of the Past by Steven LaTulippe by Steven LaTulippe The news has been abuzz recently with stories about President Bush’s alleged plans for "regime change" in Iran. Just last week, rumors were reported of US Air Force fighters violating Iranian air space for the purposes of testing their air defense system. As the nuclear crisis continues to simmer, the next incursions may be of a more belligerent nature. Obviously, America’s relationship with Iran has been extremely hostile over the past several decades. From the perspective of most Americans, the seminal event of US-Iranian relations was the siege of the US embassy in Tehran and the subsequent holding of its staff as hostages back in the 1970s. Although that hostage-taking was brutal and unjustified, many Americans lack a more global perspective of the history of American interactions with Persia. One of the most critical events in that relationship occurred over 50 years ago during the Eisenhower Administration. While Americans may know little about Operation Ajax, its memory still evokes intense anger from nearly every Iranian. The brief version (for a more thorough history of the events surrounding Operation Ajax, I refer the reader to Sandra Mackey’s excellent book The Iranians) concerns the overthrow of Muhammad Mossadeq’s short-lived, democratic government by the CIA in 1953 and the reinstallation of the Shah to the throne of Iran. In 1951, the control of Iran’s oil fields by a British company (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC) became a hot political topic. The Iranian people believed, with some justification, that the existing deal between the Iranian government and AIOC unfairly benefited the company. Muhammad Mossadeq, then a member of the Iranian parliament, took the lead in demanding a renegotiation of the pact. The masses of the Iranian people rallied to his standard and quickly made him the most revered leader in the land. The Shah, who then ruled as an authoritarian monarch, lost control of events as his previously powerless parliament (the Majlis) took on a life of its own. As Mackay notes: With Mossadeq leading the charge against Iran’s economic master, the Majlis, on March 15, boldly nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company…On April 29, the same Majlis elected Muhammad Mossadeq prime minister. While the shah sat on the throne as a mere shadow, Muhammad Mossadeq basked in the acclaim of the vast majority of Iranians, who for the first time in decades gave their genuine respect, devotion, and loyalty to their recognized leader. While I certainly don’t condone his socialistic tendencies or his seizure of the oilfields, it is undeniable that by the time of his elevation to prime minister, Mossadeq had the backing of the overwhelming majority of the Iranian population. For the first time in its long history, Iran had a democratically elected leader. By 1953, Mossadeq was in an increasingly difficult situation. Oil revenues had plummeted due to a boycott of Iranian oil and the economy slumped. The Soviet-backed Iranian communist party was becoming increasingly aggressive, and Washington began to worry. Iran was a vital chess piece in the Cold War and the American oil companies had their eyes on future concessions there. Mossadeq had become an "issue" for some very powerful people. Eventually, the decision was made in Washington that Mossadeq had to go. Brigadier General Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the Gulf War commander) and CIA guru Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy) were ordered to begin a covert operation designed to remove Mossadeq and restore the Shah to absolute authority. A complex plot, codenamed Operation Ajax, was conceived and executed from the US Embassy in Tehran. Using CIA assets in the Iranian military and various minor political parties, an uprising was staged. Mackey describes the climax: For nine hours, the pro-shah army, utilizing American-style military strategy and logistics, battled pro-Mossadeq demonstrators. At least 300 people died. By nightfall, the Mossadeq partisans had drawn into a tight cordon around the premier’s palace. Inside, the aged and always ailing prime minister threw a coat over his pajamas, leaped over the garden wall, and went into hiding. Forty-eight hours later he was arrested. The brief euphoric moment when the followers of Mossadeq believed that he held Iran’s destiny in his hands evaporated. The Shah, who had fled to Rome at the first whiff of gunpowder, rode back to power on the tip of American bayonets. In essence, the United States had engaged in a massive covert operation designed to remove a democratically elected leader from power and reinstall an authoritarian monarch (a move which makes a mockery of our currently stated desire to "spread democracy" in the Middle East). This affair had several disastrous ramifications for the future of American-Iranian relations. First, the Shah, from that point forward, was viewed as a creature of America. Consequently, America became an accessory to his every oppressive act during the subsequent 26 years of his rule. Second, the American embassy in Tehran was permanently marked as a "nest of spies" in the eyes of the Iranian populace. And third, Iranian democracy was strangled in its crib. The next time the populace rose to overthrow the Shah (in the 1970s), they viewed America as their enemy and were cheering a leader who was significantly less democratic than Mossadeq. When rumors began circulating that the Americans were going to bring the Shah back via yet another covert operation, the Iranian mobs responded by seizing the US embassy in Tehran and holding its workers hostage. If Mossadeq’s regime had been permitted to continue, it is entirely possible that Iran could have evolved into an authentic democracy. American interventionism destroyed that opportunity and set the stage for many of the tragedies currently haunting the Middle East. If America is ever to have even remotely cordial relations with Iran, we must accept responsibility for the terrible effects of Operation Ajax and admit that we had no right to intervene in a controversy that was wholly the business of the Iranian people. That exploit was unworthy of the Land of Washington and Jefferson. While the American public often quickly forgets the interventions and mischievous actions of its government, our overseas victims seldom do. The current climate of international terrorism should prompt the American people to take a more active interest, since these transgressions often come back to haunt us in the most unexpected ways.

05-10-08, 07:56 AM	#4 (permalink)
Anti GWB EOG Dedicated Join Date: Apr 16, 2008 Posts: 2,691	Re: Why They Hate Us No commentaries from the FLOCK members?

05-10-08, 11:18 AM	#6 (permalink)
Pay the Snucka Umphreak Join Date: Jan 16, 2007 Location: Earth Posts: 436	Re: Why They Hate Us You guys know that they hate us for our freedom. Our president wouldn't lie to us.

05-10-08, 11:50 AM	#7 (permalink)
Anti GWB EOG Dedicated Join Date: Apr 16, 2008 Posts: 2,691	Re: Why They Hate Us Pay: Bush normally doesnt lie unless he is awake

05-10-08, 12:27 PM	#8 (permalink)
Thor4140 EOG Veteran Join Date: Jun 02, 2007 Posts: 1,888	Re: Why They Hate Us You mean these muslims have been provoked for years and they are not savages like we are led to believe?

05-10-08, 01:44 PM	#10 (permalink)
mr merlin EOG Veteran Join Date: Oct 19, 2005 Posts: 1,483	Re: Why They Hate Us Obviously those are pictures of docs "sexual dungeon". you really are a sick f**ker aren't you?

05-11-08, 03:03 PM	#12 (permalink)
4625 Gravity is a "theory" Join Date: Aug 19, 2006 Posts: 2,209	Re: Why They Hate Us Stop the world!!!!! Something is definitely amiss!!!! I agree with Nic!!!!!

05-11-08, 04:30 PM	#14 (permalink)
DimeDR EOG Addicted Join Date: Mar 23, 2008 Posts: 918	Re: Why They Hate Us respond to this, merlin, you are hiding once again .... http://www.armchairsubversive.org/prisoner.jpg ever heard of abu ghraib, not one of the poor guys they brought in off the streets and tortured were ever proven to have done a thing wrong or kept for any of the neocons perverted, criminal suppositions ... thats the facts, dispute it ... and cheney will stop at nothing to humliate people ... heck he murdered 3k on 9/11 of his own, sat in bunker and watched an unmanned bomb of some type kill hundreds at pentagon ... you are the king sheep of the flock ... you amuse me how uninformed and gulliible you are ... you really need to read and educate yourself bc you are just dissected every time you open your confused mouth

05-11-08, 06:57 PM	#15 (permalink)
mr merlin EOG Veteran Join Date: Oct 19, 2005 Posts: 1,483	Re: Why They Hate Us All that crap about supposed abuse at abu-ghraib is just that. Nothing happened there, there was no torture, nothing - you see, it's clearly a deeply embedded conspiracy by people who want to discredit us and our fine reputation.

05-11-08, 07:44 PM	#16 (permalink)
DimeDR EOG Addicted Join Date: Mar 23, 2008 Posts: 918	Re: Why They Hate Us there you go, merlin, opening your mind and feeling a draft ps ... i grew up in the 60s just curious, how old are you, and where do you live? are you afraid to admit to these things?

05-11-08, 07:58 PM	#17 (permalink)
mr merlin EOG Veteran Join Date: Oct 19, 2005 Posts: 1,483	Re: Why They Hate Us 48, live in minnesota and I'm not a paranoid schitzo. And how on earth can you possibly take that abu-gharaib story at face value? Nothing is at it appears -NOTHING, its all part of the plan, dont you get it?

05-11-08, 08:24 PM	#18 (permalink)
DimeDR EOG Addicted Join Date: Mar 23, 2008 Posts: 918	Re: Why They Hate Us explain the masterplan about torturing people to us? i cant believe you are 48 and this uneducated.

05-12-08, 02:30 AM	#19 (permalink)
mr merlin EOG Veteran Join Date: Oct 19, 2005 Posts: 1,483	Re: Why They Hate Us So let me get this straight, you think the story the media is putting out about abu-g is accurate? no hidden truths? no secret adgendas? no grand conspirators behind the scenes? no altered film? cmon - thats perposteros!

05-12-08, 03:06 AM	#20 (permalink)
DimeDR EOG Addicted Join Date: Mar 23, 2008 Posts: 918	Re: Why They Hate Us why do you chose to believe this conspiracy, are you a nut job?

05-12-08, 04:21 AM	#21 (permalink)
4625 Gravity is a "theory" Join Date: Aug 19, 2006 Posts: 2,209	Re: Why They Hate Us Merlin is yankin' ur chain. . . .

05-12-08, 06:39 AM	#22 (permalink)
Anti GWB EOG Dedicated Join Date: Apr 16, 2008 Posts: 2,691	Re: Why They Hate Us I thought the State of Minnesota had a solid educational system .... I guess that info is false based on Merlin's "ramblings"

05-12-08, 07:50 AM	#23 (permalink)
DimeDR EOG Addicted Join Date: Mar 23, 2008 Posts: 918	Re: Why They Hate Us yeah i was yanking his back