@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:That is utter bullshit.
No. As usual, everything that I say is completely true.
Setanta wrote:You're just making sh*t up as you go along again.
I never do that. I always refer to established historical fact. That's why no one can point out anything that I'm wrong about.
Setanta wrote:The government of Iran was lead by the Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had been democratically elected, as was his majority in the parliament, in 1951. He had announced his intention to nationalize the oil fields, so MI6 went crying to Central Intelligence, and the CIA organized a coup which put the Shah back in the saddle in 1953.
The UK had a legitimate grievance. Iran was stealing their oil. Their participation in the coup was entirely understandable.
However, that is not the reason why the US became involved. The American response to the Iranian clerics rebelling against Iran's democracy was to try to mediate between the two sides.
Only when it became clear that the Iranian clerics' coup against their democracy was going to happen with or without us did we begin to participate in it.
Setanta wrote:This is another case of you offering your uninformed opinion, and claiming it is fact.
There has never been a case of that happening. This is another case of me pointing out facts and reality that other people don't want to hear about.