@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:oralloy wrote:No, even among outsiders, the US role was minimal. The primary outside support came from the UK, who was trying to prevent Iran from stealing their oil.
However, all outsiders played minor roles in putting the Shah in power. The people primarily responsible for installing the Shah into power were the same Iranian clerics who later overthrew him.
Virtually everything written about the coup contradicts your statements.
Try this:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/the-great-satan-myth
Quote:"In August 2013 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[11][12] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government." [13]"
-- Wikipedia
The only part that is truly inaccurate is the claim that the coup was carried out under CIA direction.
I don't deny that the CIA was helping the coup. And the CIA was certainly doing so as part of official US policy, approved by the President.
But the CIA was not in charge of what happened in Iran, and was not even the central player. They were merely helping on the sidelines.
It is likely that the Iranian clerics would have succeeded in overthrowing their own democracy even if the CIA had been working against the coup.
@hawkeye10,
Berlin would have my vote but that would be quite a turn around for an organisation started as a anti-axis club, and which charter refers to Germany and Japan as "enemy states".
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Somebody should ask Obama and those in Congress if it is time to do away with the old practice of generally differing to a presidents choice of cabinet secretaries under the theory that a President should be allowed to have the team he wants. Telling other countries who they can and can not have as their representatives is a very dangerous piece of real estate for America to occupy.
Once again, if the UN thinks the US is abusing the right to exclude people from its territory (something it doesn't do very often)...it is free to move its headquarters somewhere else.
We mentioned Paris and Berlin. Since this incident involved an Iranian diplomat...how about putting consideration of Tehran in the mix?
@oralloy,
I hope you realize that quibbling is a form of lying.
I'll play "devil's advocate," here...
The man in question played a part in the Iranian US hostage taking, some years back. He says he was "only a translator." Is there any evidence to say he wasn't a "willing" translator? Was he involved in the mis-treatment of some of the prisoners?
Since the hostage taking, the US and Iran haven't been on the best of terms. Iran openly calls for the total destruction of our #1 ally in the Middle East, Israel, and "death to America." Iran's leadership has denied the Holocaust ever occurred, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If/when Iran gets nuclear weapons, it has threatened to turn them on Israel. We have attempted to negotiate with Iran to get them to stop their nuclear bomb program, without much success. Shy of a military strike by the US and/or Israel, what can the US do to get Iran's attention and negotiate in good faith?
Iran is known to have trained, and is still training, jihadists to promote terroristic activities all around the world. It supplies arms and money to the regime in Syria to kill their own people. It supplies arms and money to the terrorists in Indonesia, Somalia, Congo, Darfur, the sub-Saharan, and Darfur, to name a few. To say these are "nice people" leaves much open to discussion.
I could go on, but I'd better stop here. I can understand the feelings of our Congress and/or the POTUS, in this. We are committed to support Israel and to guarantee its existence as a geo-political force in the Middle East.
From the actions of Iran, in the past and in the present, toward the US, and given the history of the "diplomat" Iran wants to send to the UN, why would the US want to allow him access to our largest city? Has he shown, since the hostage taking, that he's moderated his views toward the US? Has he publicly stated his personal position on terrorism, especially toward the US? What's to stop him from running a terror cell from the UN? I'm not saying he would do any of this, but, given his past and the country whom he's representing, is it too far fetched to give these possible scenarios credence?
Again, I'm playing "devil's advocate," here.
@alabuck,
Quote: Was he involved in the mis-treatment of some of the prisoners?
More importantly, did he play any part in the taking of prisoners? If the USA does not at least have evidence that he did we have zero right to tell Iran that he can not serve in the UN.
Quote:Jordan J. Paust, an international law expert at the University of Houston, said the United States could also rest its case on another aspect of international law: human rights. Under the 1980 International Court of Justice ruling in the Tehran embassy seizure, Professor Paust said, the court found that the arbitrary detention and mistreatment of American hostages violated human rights law and other international law.
Under articles of the United Nations Charter, he said, the United States could argue that denial of Mr. Aboutalebi’s visa request is necessary in this case to enforce “universal respect for, and observance of,” human rights. He also said the Charter specifies that United States obligations under the Charter “must prevail over those under any other international agreement, like the Headquarters Agreement.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/world/middleeast/iran.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
**** that, there is no way that UN Ambassadors should have to pass a US morality litmus test before serving. This is the kind of BS that gives the US a bad name for throwing its weight around, as well as for hypocrisy after Abu Ghraib et al.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote: Was he involved in the mis-treatment of some of the prisoners?
More importantly, did he play any part in the taking of prisoners? If the USA does not at least have evidence that he did we have zero right to tell Iran that he can not serve in the UN.
Quote:Jordan J. Paust, an international law expert at the University of Houston, said the United States could also rest its case on another aspect of international law: human rights. Under the 1980 International Court of Justice ruling in the Tehran embassy seizure, Professor Paust said, the court found that the arbitrary detention and mistreatment of American hostages violated human rights law and other international law.
Under articles of the United Nations Charter, he said, the United States could argue that denial of Mr. Aboutalebi’s visa request is necessary in this case to enforce “universal respect for, and observance of,” human rights. He also said the Charter specifies that United States obligations under the Charter “must prevail over those under any other international agreement, like the Headquarters Agreement.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/world/middleeast/iran.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
**** that, there is no way that UN Ambassadors should have to pass a US morality litmus test before serving. This is the kind of BS that gives the US a bad name for throwing its weight around, as well as for hypocrisy after Abu Ghraib et al.
If the UN thinks the US is abusing its rights to deny certain people entry into this country...it is free to find quarters elsewhere.
The US has decided that this one individual will not be allowed here. It seems pretty obvious that Iran put his name forward in order to embarrass us by having us deny him entry.
We have done so...so it is a win/win situation.
And if the UN thinks this is too great a slap in the fact by the US...IT CAN TAKE ITS HEADQUARTERS ELSEWHERE.
Move it to Tehran...where more freedom is granted.
@Frank Apisa,
Just move all the important meetings to Geneva. Gradually, if this **** continues, Geneva is the ideal place to relocate more and more of the UN bureaucracy. A lot of it is already there.
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Just move all the important meetings to Geneva. Gradually, if this **** continues, Geneva is the ideal place to relocate more and more of the UN bureaucracy. A lot of it is already there.
Sounds fine with me, Olivier.
If the UN honestly feels this is a move too unacceptable...they ought to punish the US by moving more and more of its operations and bureaucracy elsewhere...and Geneva seems like a fine place for it.
I agree that the proposed exclusion of the Iranian ambassador is unfortunate, but it is not so bad that the solution is to move the UN. Who is to say that other countries would not be worse?
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
I agree that the proposed exclusion of the Iranian ambassador is unfortunate, but it is not so bad that the solution is to move the UN. Who is to say that other countries would not be worse?
Ahemmmm.
Perhaps that was my point!
