Posted on 02/02/2005 8:38:23 PM PST by Dr. Marten
ooops, it looks like the format didn't hold too well.
I fail to see the author's logic about this. Ok so the UK dissolved an elected leader in Iran? And this would of stopped the Mullahs from taking over eventually how? In fact they might have acted sooner.
We dissolved an elected leader in Iran.
By we, of course, I mean the Eisenhower administration.
Even if this guy is right, which I don't know if he is or not, bad behavior doesn't justify more bad behavior.
Oh, and a LOT of things would be better in the Middle East had Carter not sold out the Shaw of Iran.
Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
The operation wasn't entirely unjustified.
Not necessarily. The Shah in Iran was a brutal tyrant, and the coup of Mossadegh in 1953 only showed Iranians that a democratic, liberal, independent leader was too weak to stand up to the United States and the UK, and only a fascist dictator could keep Iran independent.
The logic this article uses is that if there were no coup in Iran, the Shah never would have taken absolute power in Iran, and there never would have been an Islamic Revolution. The book, All the Shah's Men, is a good one, and I highly reccomend it.
Not it was not entirely unjustified, but the events of history has shown it to be a collosal failure. That doesn't mean we have to apologize for something that happened 50 years ago, it's just a long gone mistake in history we still feel the effects from today.
The author makes a fallacious and erroneous argument that somehow all of those events in the past are the mistakes of the present administration.
The President isn't outlining what we did, but what we're going to do. The President has basically put out for the world to see a comprehensive agenda to promote freedom, thereby preventing the realpolitik of the past from re-exerting itself in a similar manner.
Realpolitik is the tool of the weak. When a man acts with the full force of moral justification, and with the strength of an entire nation of willing and informed citizens - that nation can overcome just about anything.
Being able to set aside your morals to achieve a goal is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of a fundamental weakness of character.
Lumumba was entirely different from Mossadegh, and I have to side with you on that one.
Since every almost sentence, or even sentence fragment, seems to warrant its own paragraph.
Like this.
Or this.
It gets annoying.
And by the way, they really should learn how to spell the Secretary of State's first name. Getting that wrong, in the first sentence especially, tends to make the reader discount whatever follows.
Which, in this case, would be a wise decision.
What's the point here?
Just, golly. Get over yourselves Bob and Russ. If you want to see a republic being turned into tyranny, you don't have to look much further than WA state, and an entire Dem apparatus, from the highest judiciary on down, willing to promote massive vote fraud and stuffing the ballot box in order to put their candidate in office - in 2005 (not 1935, 2005).
Hahaha.... Isn't this the Soviet-installed communist dictator of Iran??? Hahahaha....
I never understood those sorts of arguments. "We did something stupid in the past...let's keep on doing it that way!"
Duhr!
No he was the democratically elected Moderate Prime Minister of Iran.
Your point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.