What if the Iranian leader was among those at embassy?

Wouldn't that be a little like King George III asking whether or not the president of the newly formed United States was among those who fought against the British army?

Mills75

Or asking the leader of Viet Nam whether he fought against the US prior to his visit to the US.
Nonsense such as this tends to strengthen my conviction that the leaders of the nation are a bunch of childish horses asses.

In 1953, the Persain Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was ousted by Persian monarchists, supported by the CIA. Mossadegh had nationalized the Persian oil industry over the opposition of the Shah, and continued to enjoy wide-spread popular support. The English blockaded Iran, and brought the Persian oil industry to its knees, but after a failed coup attempt by monarchists, Mossadegh ran the Shah out of Iran. This was far too alarming for the West, hence the English and CIA instigation of and support of a monarchist "counter-revolution."

That the Persians would conceive, therefore, an intense and lasting distrust of and contempt for the United States should surprise no one. Dr. Mossadegh died in prison, twelve yeas after the coup. His National Front was outlawed. In January, 1979, Iranian Air Force cadets lead a street battle which culminated in a successful revolution in Iran. Dr. Mossadegh's government had been duly elected and had always operated within the terms of the 1906 constitution. Since the revolution, whether or not American conservatives like it, the government of Iran has been democratically elected. Upon the flight of the Shah and the return of Khomeini, the oil industry was again nationalized, and all of the reforms of the National Front were put back in place. There was a significant difference now, however--the National Front had been replaced by the rule of the Mullahs. The Mullahs have consolidated all economic power into a corporation which they control, of which they form the board, and of which they constitute the majority share holders. The monster American conservatives allege Iran to be was created by American and English arrogance and interference in the internal affairs of an ancient and proud nation which had been bullied by the West for generations before.

Now, as the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad tout their dedication to democracy in the Middle East, it appears that their notion of democracy consists in the right of a people to elect those of whom they approve, and not anyone of whom they disapprove.

Anyone else here gagging from the acrid stench of hypocricy?

The government which took over Iran was in complete sympathy with the hostage takers right from the beginning. They considered them heroes.

What difference does it make if one of them finally makes it to the top? The Iranian government has been supporting the action all along.

And that is a very good analogy, too, Mills.

Somebody open a window please.

<hack...sputter>

Setanta:

I remember a TV show where they had on a member of the US diplomatic circle stationed in Iran when Mossadegh was overthrown.

The diplomat had an appointment to see either Mossadegh or some high ranking official right in the time period when the overthrow was occurring.

Before the meeting, the diplomat met with a CIA official.

"What am I going to say to this guy?", the diplomat asked. "The CIA is taking over his country even as we talk, and I don't know what to say".

According to the US diplomat, the CIA man told him, "Walk in with a long list of complaints about the treatment of Americans in Iran lately".

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Since two days a similar thread by McG is running on this topic, here.