USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[bpro50]

Spy (Quote)
"It's an interesting analogy but it doesn't get us anywhere because you keep on referring to things that happened 60 years ago to support your argument that everything the US does are "necessary evils". So I could take you back 40 years ago and start talking about the Vietnam war and the "advanced techniques" you used back then but it won't get us anywhere either. The fact of the matter remains that you don't have a very good reputation when it comes to human rights and you can't keep those critics at bay who say that you're using double standards. But it's an interesting discussion and at least gives us an insight into the way warmongers think."

************************************************** ************************
You need to find someone else to find out the "way warmongers think". I am no more a warmonger than you would be classified as a pacifist coward. And you are not a coward are you? I did not feel strongly that we should attack Iraq. I knew that Sadaam was a threat and that we had crippled him significantly during the Persian Gulf war. I also felt that if he had WMDs or the potential to develop them, he would. Further, I saw him and his sons as a long term threat to Israel. I wish that we would have held out longer and continued to work the process through the UN. However, once we committed troops to Iraq and removed Sadaam from power, I knew that we had to finish the job. Our soldiers need US support to finish the transformation process and turn the control back to the Iraqis. I don't want one more US soldier to lose his life, especially with the climate being what it is right now. We are there, we need to finish business and go home. To not finish the transition is the worst of all possible worlds and would most likely lead to a civil war between Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions. The worst thing I can do for the troops that are committed to their task is to withdraw support. So, Spy, I'm talking about today and not 60 years ago. What do we do at this point in Iraq? Have any tenable ideas? And, btw, since you want to label everyone, all I see from your post is standard liberal rhetoric that you can get on CNN any day of the week. No value. Just liberal rhetoric I've heard all my life.

[spyretto]

I consider myself as a pacifist coward indeed. I don't think I have a problem with being labelled as such. So are you a warmonger by your own analogy?

Yes, I do not disagree that my rhetoric is liberal crap while your rhetoric is warmongering crap. Let the world decide which one is preferable. I don't watch CNN though.

The troops follow orders, taken by the military leaders based on strategies taken by the political leaders. I don't think they have anything to do with decisions taken in Iraq.
So you invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11. You then invaded Iraq not because Saddam was a more serious threat than others but because his regime was isolated. Being deprived of friends Saddam was an easy target. Your propaganda that it was really the Saddam regime that you were targetting is falling through though. You have failed to convince the Iraqi people of your pure intentions and you're failing to convince the world, especially the Arab world who now see you as a potential threat for the whole region. If "finishing the job" entails the installation of a puppet government and the control of the natural recources of Iraq, then I guess the job has not finished yet.

[bpro50]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khartoun2004
I have to agree with Spy. bpro50, have you forgotten that without France's help during the Revolutionary War we would not be The United States of America? We would be like Canada, Australia, ect. and have to pledge or alligence to the Queen of England. So actually the US should be "kissing" France's ass...
************************************************** ***************************

Agree, with you Khartoun2004, our history books teach that France was a major allie during the Revolutionary War and I for one am very appreciative. Thanks France.

I have a problem though, I have never heard anyone from France acknowledge our help. Do they teach anything in French history about the US helping France?

[Khartoun2004]

Liberal Rhetoric? We wouldn't be in the position we're in if it wasn't for conservative warmongering rhetoric like Spy said. True, control needs to be given back to the Iraqis... but how can that happen when the military is saying that 4 provinces are not stable enough to allow safe voting to occur and yet Bush is still pushing for elections by the end of the month. I'm sorry but contrary to Bush's opinion I think that an illigitamet election is worse than no election at all. And how can the US think that we can run fair elections in Iraq when we couldn't get it right 4 fucking years ago? The fact of the matter is that the US is quickly losing its political, and economic domination of the world. The dollar has lost 1/3 of its valueand the Euro is now the most stable currency in the world. This so called War on Terror is going to destroy our super power status and we will most likely follow in the Soviet Unions foot steps. Welcome to the 21 century where a unified Europe is in control.

[bpro50]

Originally Posted by spyretto

I consider myself as a pacifist coward indeed. I don't think I have a problem with being labelled as such. So are you a warmonger by your own analogy?
The troops follow orders, taken by the military leaders based on strategies taken by the political leaders. I don't think they have anything to do with decisions taken in Iraq.
So you invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11. You then invaded Iraq not because Saddam was a more serious threat than others but because his regime was isolated. Being deprived of friends Saddam was an easy target. Your propaganda that it was really the Saddam regime that you were targetting is falling through though. You have failed to convince the Iraqui people of your pure intentions and you're failing to convince the world, especially the Arab world who now see you as a potential threat for the whole region. If "finishing the job" entails the installation of a puppet government and the control of the natural recources of Iraq, then I guess the job has not finished yet.

No, that what I was trying to tell you. I am not a warmonger. I wasn't using an analogy. I was saying that I would not call you a coward and I don't think you are. I just think you like to play word games. You aren't answering my question though. I know where you stand on why the US made a mistake being in Iraq but you can't get past that. I ask you what should be done now. What is your solution?

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by bpro50

Agree, with you Khartoun2004, our history books teach that France was a major allie during the Revolutionary War and I for one am very appreciative. Thanks France.

I have a problem though, I have never heard anyone from France acknowledge our help. Do they teach anything in French history about the US helping France?

The French have helped us in the past. During the Cold War the french allowed us to put nukes in the country which were pointed at Eastern Germany and several other block countries. The French helped us during 1998 when we were bombing Yugoslavia. So where do you get off saying the French haven't helped us? They have helped us when our actions were legal and justified. I don't blame them for not helping us with Iraq, the war is illegal.

[bpro50]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

Liberal Rhetoric? We wouldn't be in the position we're in if it wasn't for conservative warmongering rhetoric like Spy said. True, control needs to be given back to the Iraqis... but how can that happen when the military is saying that 4 provinces are not stable enough to allow safe voting to occur and yet Bush is still pushing for elections by the end of the month. I'm sorry but contrary to Bush's opinion I think that an illigitamet election is worse than no election at all. And how can the US think that we can run fair elections in Iraq when we couldn't get it right 4 fucking years ago? The fact of the matter is that the US is quickly losing its political, and economic domination of the world. The dollar has lost 1/3 of its valueand the Euro is now the most stable currency in the world. This so called War on Terror is going to destroy our super power status and we will most likely follow in the Soviet Unions foot steps. Welcome to the 21 century where a unified Europe is in control.

I sure hope the Europeans can get control. I would prefer just to use US tax dollars here at home. And, as US dollars lose value to the Euros, we trade less, improve trade balance and Americans stay at home. Go Europe! They prosper, we prosper.

I don't see the US going the way of the Soviet Union. The Soviets went broke and did not have the wealth nor the infrastructure to endure and arms race. We did and we do.

[bpro50]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

The French have helped us in the past. During the Cold War the french allowed us to put nukes in the country which were pointed at Eastern Germany and several other block countries. The French helped us during 1998 when we were bombing Yugoslavia. So where do you get off saying the French haven't helped us? They have helped us when our actions were legal and justified. I don't blame them for not helping us with Iraq, the war is illegal.

We are not communicating, I am saying that we have acknowledged French support and I'll include the comments you just submitted. I am just wondering if the French ever acknowledge US support in its history?

[bpro50]

Originally Posted by spyretto

They - and we- have acknowledged your contribution to winning the war countless of times before. Every time there are D-Day celebrations you're being mentioned and called for.That war was a collective defensive effort to get rid the world from fascism, against an expansionist force. Your war seems to be against isolated regimes. - unless we ackowledge the possibility that your war is against Islam. So you haven't made it quite clear what your war is about. Are you intending to go against the other countries that form the "axis of evil" once the situation in Iraq is controllable? We don't know, all we get from Bush is freedom propaganda.
My solution is to go back to the United Nations and seek a pact with the rest of the Arab countries. But you said already that diplomacy doesn't work and force is the way forward.
I rest my case...

I am not quite sure what you mean. What kind of a pact are you referring to with the rest of the Arab world? An agreement to end hostilities? I am afraid that we may be on the verge of Arab world-wide conflict. And I wonder, what will happen in Iran after or during our stay in Iraq. I think that the mindset is that we have extended ourselves far enough but lately Iran has been in the news quite a lot. I am for diplomacy if there is some "pact" that will solve all of the problems that are facing us. What do you mean?

[haku]

Originally Posted by bpro50

I am just wondering if the French ever acknowledge US support in its history?

Of course we do, the decisive role of the US in WWII is taught in every school to every children.

I live in Normandy, D-Day is celebrated every year, and every 10 year there are even bigger celebrations. There are countless monuments everywhere in remembrance of the event and the dead, including Americans of course. There are countless streets that have been named after D-Day and Americans. There are American flags everywhere, even more than French flags in some parts i'm sure, lol (we are not big on national flags here, you only find them on a few public buildings). Normandy beaches are still even named after the names the American gave them "Juno Beach, Omaha Beach, Utah Beach, etc..." And of course there are dozens of Military cemetaries with thousands of American graves.

The largest museum on D-Day, in Caen.
This museum even has a part on 9/11, with a relic of the WTC.
More pics.

View of American graves somewhere in Normandy.
As you can see, we take good care of it.

Is that enough for you?

[bpro50]

Originally Posted by haku

Is that enough for you?

I was just wondering. In America, we learn of the French resistance in WWII whenever Germany occupied Paris and the leadership of Charles De Gaulle from England. There are stories of his arrogance and resentment of the US military command. In short, I have always heard of the underlying negative sentiment that the French have toward the US and wondered if France even acknowledged that the US ever did anything for them. Additionally, there is a suspicion that I have that hatred toward America runs deeper in history than just the Bush administration.

Thanks for your feedback.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by bpro50

You aren't answering my question though. I know where you stand on why the US made a mistake being in Iraq but you can't get past that. I ask you what should be done now. What is your solution?

I know this wasn't directed to me but I am going to answer it anyhow.

Colin Powell, as we all know, was the only member in the administration who disapproved (though not publically) to the invasion of Iraq because he said that there was no exit strategy. He said the same thing to Bush Sr. during the Gulf War.

Now I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but dagnabit I'm going to say it; the world was safer with Saddam Hussein still in power. Yes he supported terrorism, but not any from his country. Like any dictator, he would never support anything that would rival his power. Kind of like Assad of Syria who slaughter 20,000 Sunni Muslims because they were starting to revolt against his government. The international community could count on the fact the Syria and Iraq would never produce any terrorists. Not so much with Iraq now. In any case, the thing about Saddam is that he treated everybody indiscriminately like shit. His name was once Saddam Tikriti Hussien, "Tikriti" being a prominent Sunni family name. He dropped that later in his life so that he would not tied or obligated to anything. And Kurds were only slaughtered after he knew that they fought with the States and Iran. He is psychotic, but not crazy. His sons on the other hand; shudder.

I am stretching it a bit here when I say this but Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. We all know Saddam was not a humanitarian, but he provided stability which is more important than anything else. Fortunately, I have never been in an unstable nation but I have heard sooo many terrifying stories from my parents, relatives, friends' parents and so on about countries going through revolutions, there is always a period, a power vacuum that produces a completely absence of authority, law and, of course, stability. Of all the memories that have benn recounted to me always one thing pops up, people prefer to live in an authoritative country than anarchy. I am not going to go into the details of why this is, none of us have or, hopefully, will ever experience it, so to describe it would be impossible. It is no coincidence that people Aghanis thought before Allied troops landed there, the Taliban was the best government they had in centuries and this is only because of the stability they provided.


The second the last American soldier leaves Iraqi soil, Iraq will be in utter chaos. So, bpro50, here is my suggestion (not like it matters) of what the US military can do; stay as long as possible. Colin Powell is still right, there is no exit strategy.
The reason why the British are known as being great nation builders (though I think otherwise) is because they have patience. India would not be the world's largest democracy had the British not stayed for generations.
Even the States have contributed so much because of their preserverance. Had the US military not have been stationed in Berlin for over 50 years, the Soviet Union would've swallowed all of Europe. Had the US military not have stayed in South Korea, North Korea would've overtaken it. And had the US military stayed in Iran, surely Iran would not be country we now know it to be.

Stay in Iraq, forget this bullshit election you know it isn't going to work, just install a Pinochet-like Iraqi and rule with an iron fist. All of those Iraqi soldiers that worked under Saddam that the US laid off, yeah, enlist them, form a new military under the guidance of the US military. Yes I know they are now the insurgents attacking your troops but nobody can resist a paycheck from a formidable government. And the former Iraqi beaurocracy that used to be run by the Baath party, hire them back. They know better than anybody how to run the country. Same with the doctors, nurses, police officers, sanitation workers, etc. Practically get all of the people that the US cut off, thinking contractors can replace them. As you can see, they obviously can't.

Of course this will all be temporary (and by temporary, I mean twenty years minimum), this will only bring back the stability Iraq once had. Once Iraq achieves this stability, then you can talk elections and democracy.

PS: When I say Iraq/world is better with Saddam in power, I'm only comparing it relatively to how Iraq is like now. It can get better.

[haku]

Originally Posted by bpro50

I was just wondering. In America, we learn of the French resistance in WWII whenever Germany occupied Paris and the leadership of Charles De Gaulle from England. There are stories of his arrogance and resentment of the US military command. In short, I have always heard of the underlying negative sentiment that the French have toward the US and wondered if France even acknowledged that the US ever did anything for them. Additionally, there is a suspicion that I have that hatred toward America runs deeper in history than just the Bush administration.

Well, you're right, it's rooted in WWII and the distrust between De Gaulle and Eisenhower.

De Gaulle and Churchill were best buds, but it was not the same thing with Eisenhower. Eisenhower didn't trust De Gaulle, he thought that De Gaulle was like Franco in Spain and would create a military dictatorship in France if he gained power. At first Eisenhower didn't want anything to do with De Gaulle and didn't recognize him as the leader of the Free French Forces, Eisenhower even tried to put another French general in De gaulle's place. To make a long story short, it didn't work because Churchill and the French Resistance both supported De Gaulle, not that other General.
From that point, the relations between De Gaulle and Eisenhower became sour, and they only worked together because they had to, for a time.

De Gaulle and Eisenhower had different plans for after the liberation of France. Eisenhower planned to install a provisional American administration in France until new elections could be organized (again to prevent De Gaulle from taking power because he still thought that De Gaulle would become a dictator), this provisional American administration was prepared way before D-Day and their staff were supposed to start administering French cities right after Allied forces would liberate them.
Eisenhower hadn't said anything about this to De Gaulle, but De Gaulle learned of this plan from the British who conveniently "leaked" the information.
De Gaulle made a counter plan with the French Resistance, his plan was simple, the French Resistance simply had to go faster than the Americans and cease the administrative centers before the Americans could arrive.
It was sort of a race, and in the end De Gaulle won, and Eisenhower was unable to install his provisional administration.
Needless to say, at that point the relations between De Gaulle and Eisenhower were far from "cordiale".

After that, De Gaulle and Eisenhower who totally distrust each other became presidents of their respective countries, and their mutual disdain is largely responsible for the gap that appeared between the two countries, a gap that did not exist before WWII.
De Gaulle ended up trusting the Germans much more than the Americans, which is probably the most ironic consequence of all this, but also the foundation for the European Union, but that's another story.

[bpro50]

Great story Haku. History takes another dance. Well, I am sorry that Ike was so distrustful. Wonder why Ike distrusted De Gaulle so much? Could have been that long nose. De Gaulle liked Kennedy though so I guess that time heals some wounds.

P.S. Your story intriqued me so I did a little research and it looks like they made up after de Gaulle took office. I found a CIA log of a meeting between the US, USSR, GB and France, and it states more than once that there was mutual affection between Ike and de Gaulle:

"Khrushchev jumped to his feet and said that unless Eisenhower apologized he would not come. De Gaulle looked at him as one would look at a naughty child and announced that the conference would meet on the following day. Khrushchev, accompanied by his whole delegation, strode out of the room and down the stairs. The other delegations looked at one another. De Gaulle said that he would stay in touch with the Russians. All then rose and started out of the room. De Gaulle came over to Eisenhower and took him by the arm. He took me also by the elbow and, taking us a little apart, he said to Eisenhower, "I do not know what Khrushchev is going to do, nor what is going to happen, but whatever he does, I want you to know that I am with you to the end." I was astounded at this statement, and Eisenhower was clearly moved by his unexpected expression of unconditional support. Only the three of us heard it, but it remains vivid in my mind to this day 15 years later. Eisenhower thanked de Gaulle, who walked down the stairs with him to his car. As we entered the car, Eisenhower, still upset by the whole episode, looked at me and said of de Gaulle, "He's quite a guy." We drove the short distance to the U.S. Embassy Residence, then on Avenue d'Ina, where the U.S. delegation went into a meeting to decide what to do next. "


And, this next quotation sheds additional light at least for me:

"At the time of the fall of France in 1940, Dwight Eisenhower was a lieutenant colonel in command of a regiment. In June 1942, by now promoted to General, he was appointed commander of US forces in Great Britain. General de Gaulle met him for the first time on 22 July 1942. Eisenhower, tasked with preparing the Anglo-American landings in North Africa, had been told to keep de Gaulle and the Free French out of the picture.

De Gaulle encountered Eisenhower again as commander on chief on his arrival in Algeria in May 1943. Eisenhower was constrained in his relations with de Gaulle by the orders he had received from President Roosevelt, who was very hostile to the General, but a mutual understanding and esteem sprang up between the two soldiers, each carrying heavy political responsibilities. For de Gaulle, Eisenhower was "a man of a generous heart who felt that mysterious sympathy which, for almost two centuries, has bound his country close to mine" (War Memoirs). Eisenhower, for his part, was struck by de Gaulle's "powerful personality" alongside which "others seemed like cowards". "

Interesting! Looks like Roosevelt might have been a root cause is this exchange between the US and France. Cool stuff.

[haku]

Originally Posted by bpro50

Wonder why Ike distrusted De Gaulle so much?

Well, Eisenhower was not the only one, the French socialists and communists also thought that De Gaulle wanted to create a military dictatorship, haha, i guess there was something about him.

When De Gaulle wrote the new constitution that founded the French 5th Republic in 1958 which gave much more power to the president, the socialists and communists were hysterical and almost ready to launch a second revolution, they were convinced that this was the beginning of De Gaulle's dictatorship.
De Gaulle escaped several assassination attempts and defeated at least one coup d'etat, lots of people didn't like him.

Anyway, history has shown that De Gaulle was not a dictator, he was far from a liberal, but not a dictator.


PS: I read your PS and made some research myself, and it seems that the distrust for De Gaulle actually came from Rossevelt, and that Eisenhower during the war was merely reflecting Rossevelt's opinion (wich makes sense since Eisenhower was after all under Rossevelt's orders.
If you type "Rossevelt De Gaulle distrust" in Google you get over a 1000 replies, haha.

So yeah, once Rossevelt was dead, i guess De Gaulle and Eisenhower made up. That being said, i've always heard in documentaries that De Gaulle always bore a grudge against the US administration for not trusting him during WWII and that it is what caused the gap between the two countries.

I do remember that De Gaulle was not invited to the Yalta Conference in 1945 between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. Roosevelt didn't want De Gaulle there and it's a well known fact in French history that De Gaulle was furious about that, he never forgave that he was kept away from those crucial discussions.

I aslo remember for example that at first the US were opposed to France having a permanent seat at the UN security council, and again it's the British who convinced the Americans that France should have a permanent seat (something Bush and Blair must have regreted 2 years ago, lol), another thing that quite annoyed De Gaulle.

[bpro50]

Well, there is even more data that confuses me. It appears that Churchill turned his back on de Gaulle and Ike and de Gaulle remained extremely close:

De Gaulle, on whom Churchill had now turned his back, confirmed to Eisenhower his total rejection of the AMGOT (Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories) proposal : "Fighting France cannot associate itself with any occupation of the national soil". The American understood the deep-rooted feelings which motivated the General and treated them with consideration, even occasionally running counter to his instructions from Washington as a result. Instances included the participation of French forces in the Italy campaign, the use of the 2nd Armoured Division in the Normandy landings and its deployment in the liberation of Paris and also in the defence of Strasbourg when the Germans counterattacked in the Ardennes. In such circumstances, Eisenhower was capable of making allowances for the national imperatives behind de Gaulle's position. On 28 May 1945, only a few days after the victory, General de Gaulle marked his gratitude by decorating General Eisenhower with the medal of the Croix de la Libération (Cross of the Liberation).

In the light of that history, when General de Gaulle welcomed Eisenhower to France in September 1959 as the recently-elected President of the USA, he set aside the serious differences created by the divergent interests of the two countries, especially on the issue of NATO, to show his particular regard for his guest and speak warm words of welcome. De Gaulle never failed in later days to keep his US counterpart fully informed of France's plans regarding the Algerian situation, and its intention to develop nuclear weapons.

The relationship between the two men never lost the warm tones of an exchange between two old companions in arms. During de Gaulle's visit to the USA in April 1960, Eisenhower invited him to his Gettysburg farm. In the course of the evening, Eisenhower thanked de Gaulle for having helped him to avoid a defeat by convincing him not to evacuate Alsace during the winter of 1944-1945. "You asked me not to take that decision. A few months later, the Allies would have arrived at Yalta with a defeat behind them… Thank you once again, General !"

The close links between the two men were expressed in a letter from Eisenhower to de Gaulle, dated May 1960, after the failure of the Paris Summit engineered by Khrushchev. "I take away with me from Paris the warmth and strength of your friendship, which I appreciate now more than ever… and I have for you yourself a respect and an admiration that I feel for few other men." De Gaulle made a point of attending the funeral of President Eisenhower on 30 March 1969, only a few days prior to his departure from the Elysée Palace.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by bpro50

I am not quite sure what you mean. What kind of a pact are you referring to with the rest of the Arab world? An agreement to end hostilities? I am afraid that we may be on the verge of Arab world-wide conflict. And I wonder, what will happen in Iran after or during our stay in Iraq. I think that the mindset is that we have extended ourselves far enough but lately Iran has been in the news quite a lot. I am for diplomacy if there is some "pact" that will solve all of the problems that are facing us. What do you mean?

Well, there doesn't seem to be an easy way out of Iraq - unless the hostilities miraculously end once a new government is installed, but I don't think it's going to happen. In the meantime it all points out to a major attack during the elections. How do you carry out elections while the country is in disarray and people's security is threatened every day, and how fair will these elections be? By the way, I can't say I harbour hatred towards America, just a general antipathy because you always want to have it your way, which is accentuated by the current political climate. I have no personal interest in hating America and all that could change of course. It's a blessing that the democratic process will not allow the same person to serve more than two terms in office. Imagine what would happen if George Bush and his cabinet were in a position to serve for another term, and maybe another after that. It's also embarassing for the Democrats to not be able to sway the American public under the present circumstances.
Nothing against Bush, I guess he's a swell guy as you described, it's just his politics that I don't really like.
Will you seek the UN's approval if and when you decide to democratise Iran?

[bpro50]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Will you seek the UN's approval if and when you decide to democratise Iran?

I was thinking that the European community and Russia were laying the groundwork for diplomacy in Iran and a peaceful solution. I know that the US will seek to join in with its "allies" but I honestly don't know if the current effort is being orchastrated within or outside of the UN. On the other point of "democratizing" I think old arguments mandating military effort get really old really fast. In the case of Iran, I think it will be directlry related to the nuclear capability and not so subtle threats to use them. Same with N Korea. As inflamatory remarks escalate, the US gets nervous quickly. Especially with the use of nuclear weapons. There seems to be a consensus amongst the current nuclear community to keep other countries from developing their first or additional weapons of mass destruction, however unfair that may seem. But, that is not just a US policy, right?

[ypsidan04]

He is psychotic, but not crazy.

Please explain the difference, because I see none.

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

And had the US military stayed in Iran, surely Iran would not be country we now know it to be.

Huh? I assume you're talking about the Iraq-Iran War. And we we're on Iraq's side because that was not long after the Iranians took our embassy workers hostage.

[spyretto]

Huh? I assume you're talking about the Iraq-Iran War. And we we're on Iraq's side because that was not long after the Iranians took our embassy workers hostage.

But wasn't the official position of the White House the one of nutrality?
I'm not sure but I think you were initially on Iran's side and changed sides along the way?
That's why it took them so long to codemn Iraq's daily use of chemical weapons while they had full knowledge of what was happening.

By the way, looking at Iran entry on wikipedia.com I stumbled across this bit:

During the 19th century Persia came under pressure from both Russia and the United Kingdom and a process of modernisation began that continued into the 20th century. Iranians longed for change and this resulted in the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905/1911. In 1953, Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944, and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax"). Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After over a year of struggle between a variety of different political groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini.

I mean, I'm so ignorant when it comes to world politics, and surely not knowleadgable as to how many democratic regimes the US & Brits have crushed around the world in the course of history.