Iranian hatred of the USA unabated

[Serpentine]

Musaddiq was going to do it (but wealthy Iranians got him before he could do his socialist commie handjob)

No offense dear, but your posts regarding Iran are no longer of any value, because you are both biased somehow and also lack some basic information about our country, the above sentence demonstrates it very well.

So instead of calling yourself a historian, please learn not to use insults in every 3 words you use and then people will begin taking you seriously, only after you studied some 'real' history stuff.

We are not running around talking about Pakistan's history, because we haven't studied it thoroughly and for someone like this, it's always the best to stay silent.

 

[FaujHistorian]

No offense dear, but your posts regarding Iran are no longer of any value, because you are both biased somehow and also lack some basic information about our country, the above sentence demonstrates it very well.

So instead of calling yourself a historian, please learn not to use insults in every 3 words you use and then people will begin taking you seriously, only after you studied some 'real' history stuff.

We are not running around talking about Pakistan's history, because we haven't studied it thoroughly and for someone like this, it's always the best to stay silent.

A mod should not attack a person

If you want to show your support for Musaddiq's socialist agenda, then say so. ,

Please contribute specific points.

Why Musaddiq was hated by a section of Iranian society.

Why?

 

[Serpentine]

A mod should not attack a person

If you want to show your support for Musaddiq's socialist agenda, then say so. ,

Please contribute specific points.

Why Musaddiq was hated by a section of Iranian society.

Why?

I did not attack you, I just told you not to use inappropriate words in your words and refrain to comment like this on issues you many not have enough information. This whole "mod" thing is becoming old tactic, a mod is free to express his own opinions.

No leader in the whole history of mankind has had 100% support from people and Mossadeq was not an exception.

Calling Mossadeq a communist shows that you should read a bit further about history of Iran in past century.
Mosadeq was supported by the majority of the society, but his actions (most importantly nationalizing Iran's oil industry and challenging long years of British interference in Iranian affairs) prompted the British, Americans and the Shah to overthrow his government. Shah was simply a doll of the west, especially in first 20 years of his rule.

Tudeh (Iranian branch of communism) did help the Mosadeq in some occasions, like informing him of the first coup (3 days before the second one that overthrew the government), but that doesn't make Mosadeq a Communist, not by any means. Communists opposed Shah's rule so they would do anything to challenge his rule.

CIA and MI6 organized a gang 3000 strong armed men, paid them money and organized the whole coup. A good portion of Iranian society were illiterate back at the time and many were easily brainwashed, again, by using religious feelings of the people, starting a massive propaganda movement against him claiming that Mosadeq was against religion or that he was gonna destroy the only Shia empire! in the world by his actions. The irony is that it all came from Shah and his goons who were not religious by any means.

Believe me, if Mosadeq didn't have any popular support, there wouldn't b any need for CIA and MI6 to interfere directly and Shah could get rid of him directly.

One of the CIA operatives in Iran says in his book that they bought some loyalist mullah's fatwas and gave money to thugs to bring them to streets. Even American diplomatic vehicles were used to transfer them to Mosadeq's house.

And lastly dear, I don't claim to be an expert in history, but I do know one or 2 about history of my own country.

maybe my friend, @rmi5 can help you much better about details of that part of Iranian history.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I did not attack you, I just told you not to use inappropriate words in your words and refrain to comment like this on issues you many not have enough information. This whole "mod" thing is becoming old tactic, a mod is free to express his own opinions.

No leader in the whole history of mankind has had 100% support from people and Mossadeq was not an exception.

Calling Mossadeq a communist shows that you should read a bit further about history of Iran in past century.
Mosadeq was supported by the majority of the society, but his actions (most importantly nationalizing Iran's oil industry and challenging long years of British interference in Iranian affairs) prompted the British, Americans and the Shah to overthrow his government. Shah was simply a doll of the west, especially in first 20 years of his rule.

Tudeh (Iranian branch of communism) did help the Mosadeq in some occasions, like informing him of the first coup (3 days before the second one that overthrew the government), but that doesn't make Mosadeq a Communist, not by any means. Communists opposed Shah's rule so they would do anything to challenge his rule.

CIA and MI6 organized a gang 3000 strong armed men, paid them money and organized the whole coup. A good portion of Iranian society were illiterate back at the time and many were easily brainwashed, again, by using religious feelings of the people, starting a massive propaganda movement against him claiming that Mosadeq was against religion or that he was gonna destroy the only Shia empire! in the world by his actions. The irony is that it all came from Shah and his goons who were not religious by any means.

Believe me, if Mosadeq didn't have any popular support, there wouldn't b any need for CIA and MI6 to interfere directly and Shah could get rid of him directly.

One of the CIA operatives in Iran says in his book that they bought some loyalist mullah's fatwas and gave money to thugs to bring them to streets. Even American diplomatic vehicles were used to transfer them to Mosadeq's house.

And lastly dear, I don't claim to be an expert in history, but I do know one or 2 about history of my own country.

maybe my friend, @rmi5 can help you much better about details of that part of Iranian history.

3000 men cannot overthrow an elected government.

There is much more to it


nationalization was typical tool used in the 50s that was purely directed against the Western economic system.

Iran was not the only one. There were many many countries that did the same and ended up jeopardizing their countries economy and global standing.


And elected government has every right to do stuff in the country

------------ MINUS

taking any actions that will put country under any kind of international sanctions.

Elected people are not Gods

but servants of people who are supposed to use local and global relations to enhance the life style and increase prosperity.

Musaddiq's actions too were ideological nay idiot-ological that put his country into very tough corner.

In some ways Iranian educated elite cannot figure out the true role of the government

and thus now they are AGAIN ruled by a despicable religious regime

Shah was bad. Yeap

But he tried to guide his country much better than anyone before or after him so far.

1 dollar = 50 or so Ryals during Shah
1 dollar = 25,000 to 35,000 ryals under Mullahs (musaddiq would have done the same thing)


Hope this helps.


Thank you

 

[Serpentine]

3000 men cannot overthrow an elected government.

There is much more to it

nationalization was typical tool used in the 50s that was purely directed against the Western economic system.

Iran was not the only one. There were many many countries that did the same and ended up jeopardizing their countries economy and global standing.

And elected government has every right to do stuff in the country

------------ MINUS

taking any actions that will put country under any kind of international sanctions.

Elected people are not Gods

but servants of people who are supposed to use local and global relations to enhance the life style and increase prosperity.

Musaddiq's actions too were ideological nay idiot-ological that put his country into very tough corner.

In some ways Iranian educated elite cannot figure out the true role of the government

and thus now they are AGAIN ruled by a despicable religious regime

Shah was bad. Yeap

But he tried to guide his country much better than anyone before or after him so far.

1 dollar = 50 or so Ryals during Shah
1 dollar = 25,000 to 35,000 ryals under Mullahs (musaddiq would have done the same thing)


Hope this helps.

Thank you

So it was Mosadeq's actions that put the country in jeopardy? Preventing western countries from stealing your oil is a crime now? There is a reason that some countries exist to be slaves of others, being used for greater purpose of the bigger players, and that's the mentality you are using. Only because western countries may become angry by preventing them from stealing your oil, you should sit back and watch, or just be their lapdog like Shah. yeah that's the right thing to do indeed. Even Shah figured that out in final years of his rule, starting to stand up to western countries' interference in the country, but it was too late, he had 30 years of time and didn't use it.


If Shah was smart enough, he could have prevented the revolution, and if he was really a good leader, he could have saved himself from anger of the public.

 

[ResurgentIran]

A mod should not attack a person

If you want to show your support for Musaddiq's socialist agenda, then say so. ,

Please contribute specific points.

Why Musaddiq was hated by a section of Iranian society.

Why?

Mossadeq was a secular aristocrat that DESPISED communism. Read his biography or dont speak of things you have no clue about, unless you want to look like a fool.

 

[FaujHistorian]

So it was Mosadeq's actions that put the country in jeopardy? Preventing western countries from stealing your oil is a crime now? There is a reason that some countries exist to be slaves of others, being used for greater purpose of the bigger players, and that's the mentality you are using. Only because western countries may become angry by preventing them from stealing your oil, you should sit back and watch, or just be their lapdog like Shah. yeah that's the right thing to do indeed. Even Shah figured that out in final years of his rule, starting to stand up to western countries' interference in the country, but it was too late, he had 30 years of time and didn't use it.


If Shah was smart enough, he could have prevented the revolution, and if he was really a good leader, he could have saved himself from anger of the public.

you my dear sir are using emotional slogans like Slaves, stealing oil etc.

IN the world market place, you produce some stuff and you sell it if you have extra.

If you cannot or haven't produced something, and asked others to come find it in your land, then you cannot stop them once they have helped you discover it


Oil under Iran or KSA or others is something the locals have no forking idea about
No technology, know how to pump it or use it.

Western couantries developed the tech, made agreements and came in to find and clean and use the oil

No one steals anything. They make agreements with locals

There is a profit sharing deal

iranians had the profit sharing deal with British companies,

No slavery

just business deals

Please get this thing cleared first.

Thank you

Mossadeq was a secular aristocrat that DESPISED communism. Read his biography or dont speak of things you have no clue about, unless you want to look like a fool.

Yeap

many in third world come from aristocratic background and end up towing socialist and maraxist ideals.

nothing unique about Iran either

same $hit happened in many many countries like Egypt, Pakistan, india etc.

 

[Khan_patriot]

Hatred of the US government exists everywhere, even inside mainland US, they should really consider why the whole world hates them....

 

[Irajgholi]

@FaujiHistorian unfortunately you are wrong about mossadegh my friend, i wish you could understand persian, if u understood persian i would refer you to some sources that would allow you to become more familiar with mossadegh's thoughts.

anyway i do believe that one shouldnt get stuck in the past, its time to move on and if a possible relation with the u.s. turns out to be beneficial to both of us? why not?

 

[rmi5]

@FaujHistorian , you are so wrong buddy. I am very short in time these days, but as dear @Serpentine mentioned me, I will explain you some general facts here. Unfortunately, as @Serpentine said, your information about Iran is limited and many times they are wrong, such as our previous discussion about Safavids.
Mosaddegh was the leader of National Front of Iran, which it has been the biggest alliance of Iranian liberals so far. So, saying that Mosaddegh was socialist or commi is exactly like saying that jesus was a satanist!
BTW, there was numerous different parties in the National Front, including Pan-Iranists, ultra liberals, moderate liberals, and one social democrat party. Actually, Tudeh party, which was the representative of Leftists, including communists, and socialists was heavily against the National Front and Dr. Mosaddegh. Royalists, and religious backwards, like Navab Safavi, were also against him, specially after, 30 Tir 1331.
president Truman was actually in favor of Dr. Mosaddegh, since he was an open-minded person and as an educated person, including the history of USA and the world, and the efforts against colonizer powers, he was feeling sympathy with anti-colonizer movements, and Nationalizing oil industry of Iran as an example of it. what you don't know is about the oil income sharing laws between those companies and the owners, in which they were barely receiving even 10% of the income. BTW, the oil was not the only important factor, and kicking Britains completely out of Iran was even the main motive. Gaining your freedom is even much more important than having a slightly better economic conditions if you ask me or Iranian liberals such as Dr. Mosaddegh. Although, the economic boom of Iran started after these years, and gaining much more oil income by nationalizing oil industry.
BTW, when the president changed in USA, Dulles brothers, in which they had personal business with Anglo-Persian oil company, got elected as the head of CIA, and secretary of state. No wonder that they made Eisenhower believe that Mosaddegh has given communists too much freedom in which makes them able to capture Iran. Royalists also started rumors about Mosaddegh in the world and Iran that his policy is socialism which was a ridiculous claim, to attract US attention. But, all of these were only pure non-sense lie.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian , you are so wrong buddy. I am very short in time these days, but as dear @Serpentine mentioned me, I will explain you some general facts here. Unfortunately, as @Serpentine said, your information about Iran is limited and many times they are wrong, such as our previous discussion about Safavids.
Mosaddegh was the leader of National Front of Iran, which it has been the biggest alliance of Iranian liberals so far. So, saying that Mosaddegh was socialist or commi is exactly like saying that jesus was a satanist!
BTW, there was numerous different parties in the National Front, including Pan-Iranists, ultra liberals, moderate liberals, and one social democrat party. Actually, Tudeh party, which was the representative of Leftists, including communists, and socialists was heavily against the National Front and Dr. Mosaddegh. Royalists, and religious backwards, like Navab Safavi, were also against him, specially after, 30 Tir 1331.
president Truman was actually in favor of Dr. Mosaddegh, since he was an open-minded person and as an educated person, including the history of USA and the world, and the efforts against colonizer powers, he was feeling sympathy with anti-colonizer movements, and Nationalizing oil industry of Iran as an example of it. what you don't know is about the oil income sharing laws between those companies and the owners, in which they were barely receiving even 10% of the income. BTW, the oil was not the only important factor, and kicking Britains completely out of Iran was even the main motive. Gaining your freedom is even much more important than having a slightly better economic conditions if you ask me or Iranian liberals such as Dr. Mosaddegh. Although, the economic boom of Iran started after these years, and gaining much more oil income by nationalizing oil industry.
BTW, when the president changed in USA, Dulles brothers, in which they had personal business with Anglo-Persian oil company, got elected as the head of CIA, and secretary of state. No wonder that they made Eisenhower believe that Mosaddegh has given communists too much freedom in which makes them able to capture Iran. Royalists also started rumors about Mosaddegh in the world and Iran that his policy is socialism which was a ridiculous claim, to attract US attention. But, all of these were only pure non-sense lie.

Agha Jan

What you say simply shows Musaddigh tried to run before learning to walk.

 

[rmi5]

Agha Jan

What you say simply shows Musaddigh tried to run before learning to walk.

Why?!!! Dude, it is a very bad habit to judge others, specially when you have very limited knowledge about them
FYI, Mosaddegh was born in the royal Qajar family, and was familiar with politics from his youngster when he got elected to the parliament. He later became a governor, and minister. He also went to Switzerland and received a PhD in law. Even Obama who is a highly educated and successful person, had not such a background for governing the country when he got elected as a president. BTW, the history showed that he was right, and that's why we see that people are getting more interested in his thoughts and actions by time when they get educated more.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Why?!!! Dude, it is a very bad habit to judge others, specially when you have very limited knowledge about them .

I view elected leaders to be modern day CEOs.

Their mandate comes from people with ONE main objective.

you know what that objective is or should be?

Objective for the elected leader:

-- Navigate the nation safely through turbulent waters while managing expectations of ALL the stakeholders (local and global).

Sort of a driver of a very large bus carrying millions of passengers through hilly and treacherous terrain.

So he should never jerk the handle or play with the breaks or try to drive the bus without fuel or properly inflated tires. He is supposed to be the most careful person as not to drive the national bus into a dangerous ditch or waters that are deeper than the height of the tires.


Musaddigh was a bad driver just like the modern day Ayatullahs (though their philosophies may seem different).


Hope you understand and do not take this as a personal insult.


Thank you

 

[rmi5]

I view elected leaders to be modern day CEOs.
Their mandate comes from people with ONE main objective.
you know what that objective is or should be?
Objective for the elected leader:
-- Navigate the nation safely through turbulent waters while managing expectations of ALL the stakeholders (local and global).
Sort of a driver of a very large bus carrying millions of passengers through hilly and treacherous terrain.
So he should never jerk the handle or play with the breaks or try to drive the bus without fuel or properly inflated tires. He is supposed to be the most careful person as not to drive the national bus into a dangerous ditch or waters that are deeper than the height of the tires.
Musaddigh was a bad driver just like the modern day Ayatullahs (though their philosophies may seem different).
Hope you understand and do not take this as a personal insult.
Thank you

Please be more specific and tell me exactly, which one of his actions as a leader has been wrong and why and what else should have been done?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Please be more specific and tell me exactly, which one of his actions as a leader has been wrong and why and what else should have been done?

His political and economic decisions that lead to his overthrow.