Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (86693)	3/26/2003 5:29:51 PM
From: NOW	Respond to of 281500

About time for everyone to reread old testimony on BNL loans to Iraq i'd say..... some very familiar names and faces....

To: Thomas M. who wrote (86693)	3/26/2003 5:42:03 PM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I remember quite accurately one of the Shah written interviews, in March 73, to the "Figaro", from Gstat, Switzerland. : "Sure, I have five thousand young communists sitting in my jails. So what? You think I should set them free? Do we need a Marxist revolution here ?"

To: Thomas M. who wrote (86693)	3/27/2003 1:04:33 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

This was an interesting link you provided thirdworldtraveler.com Let's see if we can summarize it: Earlier in the Year, the New York Times had noted that "prevailing opinion among detached observers in Teheran" was that "Mossadegh is the most popular politician in the country". During a period of more than 40 years in public life, Mossadegh had "acquired a reputation as an honest patriot". In July, the State Department Director of Iranian Affairs had testified that "Mossadegh has such tremendous control over the masses of people that it would be very difficult to throw him out. " ... But popularity and masses, of the unarmed kind, counted for little... Roosevelt stated that a number of pro-Shah officers were given refuge in the CIA compound adjoining the US Embassy at the time the Shah fled to Rome. ... In February 1955, Iran became a member of the Baghdad Pact, set up by the United States, in Dulles's words, "to create a solid band of resistance against the Soviet Union". ... The standard "textbook" account of what took place in Iran in 1953 is that-whatever else one might say for or against the operation-the United States saved Iran from a Soviet/Communist takeover. Yet, during the two years of American and British subversion of a bordering country, the Soviet Union did nothing that would support such a premise. When the British Navy staged the largest concentration of its forces since World War II in Iranian waters, the Soviets took no belligerent steps; nor when Great Britain instituted draconian international sanctions which left Iran in a deep economic crisis and extremely vulnerable, did the oil fields "fall hostage" to the Bolshevik Menace; this, despite "the whole of the Tudeh Party at its disposal" as agents, as Roosevelt put it. Not even in the face of the coup, with its imprint of foreign hands, did Moscow make a threatening move; neither did Mossadegh at any point ask for Russian help. In other words, a popularly independent patriotic government was over thrown by US even though it posed no danger to America. Any American who is wondering why there is such a mistrust of them in the region, should read this article. People do not just wake up one day and decide, hey I think I am going to hate someone half way around the world whom I've never met and has never done me any harm. I wonder how most people on this thread would have felt if the shoe was on the other foot? What would have been LindyBill's response if Iran had arranged to kill the president and placed a dictator in charge so as to keep American under its reign? Sun Tzu so JB, do you still feel that America had no responsibility towards Iranians given that it took over by proxy and it is still solely Shah's fault for whatever went on in Iran?