View Single Post
  #45  
Old 22.07.2015, 23:41
crazygringo crazygringo is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,984
Groaned at 68 Times in 51 Posts
Thanked 5,052 Times in 1,797 Posts
crazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Iran nuclear talks: 'Historic' agreement struck

Quote:
View Post
I find that recounting of history somewhat shallow. Did you read up on this in depth, or through a magazine article? Was it published by the current government of Iran? I think it glosses over a number of salient topics:
-Context of the Cold War
-The role of Britain
-The role of Iranians themselves
-The present situation

I never saw free oil, and I don't believe US troops were involved in Iran's political turmoil.

I find national interests, which peace is one of them, a much more reliable motive and objective than wishful thinking. But yeah, Obama desperately needed to appear like he accomplished something in his presidency.
it is only in the last couple of years that the CIA has come clean as to its involvement in the coordination of the 1953 coup in Iran. there is more than enough publicly-available information, including through the CIA website, to connect the dots. yes, the Brits were in cahoots with us, but that doesn't excuse our actions.

I think the Cold War is helpful to explain our actions in Korea and Vietnam, and to explain our historical support of the Saudis and Israel, but less so when talking about Iran. after all, we were more than happy with Iran so long as the Shah was there doing our bidding.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank crazygringo for this useful post: