Iran would of been a full fledged democracy if it wasn't for the CIA

I think the mode of government in the majority of Muslim countries plays a major role in the instability of those countries. Look at Egypt's modern history for example, they went from Nasir, a dictator, to Mubarak, with no civilian government, the army ruled, oppressed, jailed, and murdered any decedent it didn't like. Reform was snuffed in the cradle, and the people finally rebelled in 2011. The army removed the brotherhood from power and placed el-sisi, another dictator, in power.

 

Democracy and freedom allows people to not only govern themselves, accountability and checks and balances in place, with a free press, it also creates innovative dialogue about their issues, be it political, sociological, religious and economic - that doesnt exist in the Arab and Muslim world.

 

Add to it American and British interference, that tends to side with the dictators and their clique, it creates and fosters this hatred towards the "west". The Turkish military removed three elected governments and arrested not only politicians, but journalists, activists and anyone who complained. This all happened with American political and military cover.

 

Iran would of been a full fledged democracy if it wasn't for the CIA and MI6 who removed Muhammed Musadaq in 1953 and brought back the Shah, who ruled Iran with an Iron fist till the Iranian people rebelled and removed him.  The anti americanism that runs among the Egyptians, Iranisns and Turks isn't an accident.

Comments

Bill Kamps Added Jan 10, 2019 - 1:49pm
Well certainly the CIA made matters worse not better in Iran.
 
Whether Iran would have been a "democracy" and what that would have meant is debatable.  I say this as someone who has friends in Iran, and as someone who knows we have more in common with the people of Iran, than we do with the Arabs of the MidEast.
 
I am reminded that we call Turkey a "democracy" and there the President has modified their constitution such that he can jail his political opposition and journalists who disagree with him.  Venezuela has in the past been referred to as a "democracy".  So there are all kinds of democracies around the world, and what Iran would have been had the Shah not been put into power by the CIA is something we will never know.
 
The foreign policy of the US for more than 50 years was one of manipulating the strong men of the world to do our bidding.  This was an easy solution, since we only needed to bribe the strong man, rather than win over the people to our desires.  However, it was a very cynical and hypocritical policy that undermined our standing with the people of these countries. 
The Owl Added Jan 10, 2019 - 2:03pm
All nations must play with the geopolitical forces at work in other areas of the world.  To imply that the western powers can direct the political actions of another state is no longer a viable option...That ended with the demise of the Cold War and hasn't been a viable option in the Middle East since 1948.
 
The diplomatic positions of nations often come down to Hobson's choices:  Do you support a reprehensible government if the alternative is a more violent tyranny dedicated to destroying the peace and harmony, not only of their own region but that of larger powers in distant lands?
 
Foreign policy is one of those disciplines where there is no black, there is no white, and there can never be agreement on what the gray actually looks like.
 
Would Iran be a democracy had the CIA and MI6 not removed Mossedeq from power?
 
Who knows?  All one can say is that it would be different.  And, I expect that there would be a significant degree of religious control imposed upon the electorate....
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 10, 2019 - 4:13pm
Thank you all for your responses, this is the first post under my name, and im happy that I got responses - I enjoy politics, especially our "Western world's" effects on the Middle East. I will post more, and participate more. 
Ken Added Jan 10, 2019 - 4:46pm
If you want to be taken seriously, you should at least try to have a grammatically correct title.  "would of" should be "would have"
 
That aside, it isn't the CIA that has destabilized the middle east it is Europe, especially France and Britain who decided to break up the Ottoman empire through Sikes Picot and create countries that would constantly be at war with themselves.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 10, 2019 - 5:41pm
@ Ken
 
Thank you for the correction, I appreciate it.
 
The Sikes-Picot agreement is indeed the the initial "betrayal" of the British and European governments against their own Arab allies, however that does not account for American and British interference, political and military cover both governments gave to tyrants across the Middle East. What happened in Iran is a concrete example of American and British interference where they placed "benefit", "interests", and military economic benefit over their supposed values.
 
What happened in 1953 in Iran is a travesty, something all believers in democracy should take note of, and understand in its historical context so it wont be repeated in our name again.
 
Unfortunately, the same thing happened in Egypt in 2012, after the Muslim Brotherhood was elected, and President Muhammed Mursi only ruled for a short year, the Egyptian military carried out their own coup against him, with American support and backing.
 
I'm not even going to talk about the American invasion of Iraq, and the destruction of that country and its people to bits - So contrary to your proposal, the Sikes-Picot agreement is one thing, American dominance is quite another.
 
Ken Added Jan 10, 2019 - 6:02pm
The coup in egypt in 2012 was not done with American support and backing.  In fact, Obama was a full supporter of Morsi and had no problem with the muslim brotherhood.
 
Considering your article is about how the CIA is doing all of this, no reason you should tal kabout Iraq.  But while I agree with some of your points your conclusions are wrong.  Yes, America has made a lot of mistakes in the middle east looking out for perceived needs rather than our values.  But that was a matter of national policy as set by the executive branch.  The blame goes to the presidents that the events happened under, not the CIA or the military or other agencies that carried out the policy.
Ken Added Jan 10, 2019 - 6:10pm
you can go into your profile and edit your article and correct it...
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 10, 2019 - 7:34pm
My Article is about American interference in the affairs of other countries, and I went on to give examples to support my conclusion. The CIA is a tool of the ruling administration, that is true, and it stands to reason that the decision making is made by said administration, and the subsequent wielding of this tool. I wasnt saying otherwise.
 
As for Mursi and his eventual toppling, UC Berkeley in 2013 conducted an investigative study showing American funding to Egyptian politicians, journalists, activists, and pundits, who pushed for the removal and overthrow of Mursi. The state department was behind the program, it's farcically called "democracy assistance", which funnelled said money directly to those forces.
 
The study also shows who in Egypt got paid, and paints a pretty good picture of how then the Egyptian army interfered, and why the American government stayed silent afterwards. The whole study is available online, you can google it.
FacePalm Added Jan 10, 2019 - 8:15pm
Hussain-
The CIA USED to be a tool of the current admin, as quite a few previous presidents were fully on-board with the NWO/OWG cretins.  Now, there's an internal battle in the CIA, between the White Hat Nationalists and the Black Hat globalists, who maintain their hegemony via "honey traps" and the videotapes that keep gov't agents compliant or else...and world-wide, to boot (except for countries that are not sufficiently industrially developed to be a target of the banking cartel).
 
A "democracy" would not have been good for Iran; it's not good for ANY country.  The word does not appear in the US Constitution for a REASON, as they were not only fully aware of it's existence, but also it's many fatal flaws, some of which are revealed in "The Republic" by Plato.  Recommended reading, if you will.
 
However, the architects and engineers of Socialism are well-aware of the flaws of democracy, and have instigated MANY "democratic revolutions" worldwide, as they considered democracy to be an ESSENTIAL step toward the establishment of their ant-heaps of socialist totalitarianism.
 
If interested, i can trot out several Lenin citations to this effect.
 
In sum, anyone with a historical perspective and knowledge of current and semi-current events is an ENEMY of democracy, not a friend of it; the very IDEA of "democracy" is part and parcel of the highway to hell.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 10, 2019 - 9:03pm
Hi FacePalm,
 
I just want to make sure you and I are talking about the same thing; what's your definition of democracy?
 
I'm not a Lenenist at all, after all, it was he who took power by force and killed his competitors after he lost the elections. 
FacePalm Added Jan 10, 2019 - 9:42pm
Hussain-
Here's a good definition, albeit not concise, contrasting two philosophies of governance:
 
Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.
DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said, "Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".
+++++++++++++++++
i also have several citations from the Founder which prove beyond doubt that they despised democracy and intended America to be a not only a Republic, but a Constitutional Republic.
 
I also have many more citations from very smart people down through the ages who have also despised it; here's one example:
 
“If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of the public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of the public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete.”
—Benjamin Disraeli(1804-1881) Prime Minister of England, British statesman, novelist
Source: (1874)

 Even Aristotle despised it.
Glad you're not a Leninist, either Vladimir or John.
Ana Ross Added Jan 10, 2019 - 9:48pm
FacePalm 
 
Iran would not have been a democracy by your definition either as it was a representative form of government like ours.  Democracy as you think of it has not been possible since ancient Greece as states have become too large to be direct democracies.  All modern democracies are by necessity republics there is no distinction.  The reason the constitution doesnt mention it is because the whole idea would have been silly, to think that across the vast expanse of the colonies a direct democracy would be feasible is ridiculous.  There was no form of rapid communication or transportation across an area from New York to Georgia it wouldnt have even been possible.  The republic was chosen so the colonies could do business with its representatives. 
 
The CIA is not in an internal black/white battle.  The CIA has always been and continues to be an instrument of US foreign policy under the direction of the executive branch.  The CIA covers this by giving the President and VP plausible deniability but there is no evidence that any president has tried to reign in the actions that the CIA has taken to subvert other democracies.  There is a good argument that the terrorist threat we face today is a direct result of that coup in 1952.  Islam as a political force was never taken seriously till Khomeini overthrew the shah.  After successfully holding off an American counter revolution radical Islamists found the confidence to overthrow the soviet backed government in Afghanistan.  We backed this effort and created the taliban as a viable force by providing them with training and weapons via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
 
The idea that Platos Republic is about a republic is just ignorance.  Plato was indeed antidemocratic but he was definitely not in favor of a republic either.  Plato was in favor of  a dictatorship by philosopher kings.  He hated the idea of the poor being able to vote.  The Republic is the Latin translation of platos work politai which only means the state.
FacePalm Added Jan 10, 2019 - 10:01pm
Ana Ross-
You need to re-read your Constitution.  Says in Article 4, section 4: "Every State shall be guaranteed a "........ " form of government."  Fill in the blank.
 
Would you like me to also trot out my many citations to prove the point, or are you satisfied/content with your ignorance?
 
Ok, just one, for now, from the one whom history calls the "Father of the Constitution":
 
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths..."
"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."
~James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)
FacePalm Added Jan 10, 2019 - 10:06pm
As to your contention about the CIA, again you but demonstrate your ignorance of what's really going on world-wide, the battle between  globalists and nationalists, the fight between collectivists and those who promote and value individual Rights(because without individuals, there would be no "collective," would there?).  This fight is also taking place internal to the government of the united States, and there have been firefights, actual shooting at each other.  Apparently, this fight is going on in other governments on this planet, as well...particularly in the EU right now, what with so many member states utterly rejecting the Africanization/Muslimification of Europe against the will of the Citizens.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 10, 2019 - 10:15pm
I'm glad I asked you about the definition you follow FacePalm, because what I call a democracy and you call a Republic are one and the same: Elected government, accountability, minority rights (opposition rights), checks and balances, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, and protection against discrimination. 
 
What Ana wrote above is also true, many people who espouse democratic ideals, seem to be talking about Republicanism. I dont think anyone on this thread is talking about Mob rule, or tyranny in the name of the masses. I think this is what Ana was referring too, shes also correct about Plato, I was going to write that we shouldn't use him as benchmark on what a Republic entails, not in the modern sense because he indeed did favour the concept of a "philosopher King", he was really alluding to himself.
TexasLynn Added Jan 10, 2019 - 10:28pm
As FaceP says, the current battle of civilizations is indeed collectivists (global) vs individual rights (national).
 
Islam, by its nature is, collective and antithetical to democracy, freedom, and liberty.  While the US has probably made things worse; the nature of Islam is why Iran (and every other Muslim nation) is not and never will be democratic.  IMO
The Owl Added Jan 10, 2019 - 10:39pm
Hussain...
 
I think one of your mistakes may be in thinking that the English, and the French, too, thought of their Middle East client states as equals.
 
Nothing could be further from the truth.  The British Empire was an empire with all that that implies.  Same for the French.  What was paramount in their thinking was what was to the advantage of their own welfares?
 
Viewed through that sort of lens makes things much or kaleidoscopic, and every turn of event changes the relationships of all the other pieces.
 
That view began to dissolve in the late 1940s with the independence of India and Pakistan. 
FacePalm Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:12pm
Hussain-
i believe that democracy is a great evil; it always has been, and it always will be.
In America, the Constitution is the exemplar of the Rule of Law; all sworn government employees agree to be bound by it's dictates, and to confine their respective activities to JUST what the Constitution allows, and no more.
 
Unfortunately, not enough Americans are yet hip enough to hold their sworn public servants to account for their failures to obey the Oath of Office, and get rid of them almost immediately on felony perjury charges the FIRST time they breach, just like judges do to the sworn liars caught in courtrooms.(don't know if you noticed, but neither prosecution NOR defense attorneys are EVER sworn; wonder why?).
 
In a democracy, "majority vote" rules, and 51% can vote the remaining 49% into slavery or slaughter; there is NO "rule of law" but the majority.
 
This could well be exactly what happened to the minority Armenian Christians in Turkey, back in the early 1900's.  First, they passed a "law" by majority vote that they had to turn in their weapons; then, they were easy prey to be rounded up and slaughtered, weren't they?
 
This is exactly why MSM trumpets "gun control!" so stridently every time there's a criminal massacre; they know they'll never establish socialism here unless the firearms are first rounded up.  They're already deceiving the more stupid among Americans to vote them into office.
FacePalm Added Jan 10, 2019 - 11:19pm
But yes, what the CIA did to Mossadegh was criminal - as always, not a one has ever been held to account for that and other revolutions and assassinations that were allegedly "in the interests of the United States."  That's bullshit designed to salve seared consciences, that's all.  Murdering people and installing sadists like the Shah is always criminal, and i'm glad for the Iranians who overthrew him and got rid of the Savak, their "security" apparatus, which routinely kidnapped and tortured Iranians for generations.
 
Unfortunately, they got the religious rule of fanatics to take his place, and continued the torturing.  Fortunately, many-if-not-most Iranians are sick to death of the rule of the mullahs today, and MAYBE they can finally get a government in place which is Just.
Stone-Eater Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:53am
Hussain
 
Welcome here, and I agree to 100%. I've been saying that for years, but it has simply been brushed away in discussions, because people don't want to know. Since Europe, and later the US, had the urge to conquer and dictate the rest of the world, it has gotten worse and worse, up to the point where nukes threat the whole human civilization.
Ana Ross Added Jan 11, 2019 - 3:17am
Facepalm
I didn't see an example you gave of a democratic form of government.  That's because there hasn't been one since Athens before the Romans conquered it.  Modern States are too large to administer on the basis of pure democracy and so default to a republic.  If you want to prove how dumb I am just list a single government in the 20 the century that based all of it's decisions on a popular vote like Athens did.  That'll show me. Till then I have no choice but to think you are talking about something you know very little about.  I genuinely look forward to being proved wrong.
 
Your assement of the CIA is an opinion unfounded on facts.  Are you saying Ike didn't know about Iran and Guatemala?  Are you saying Nixon didn't know about Chile? Reagan didn't know about Iran contras?Kennedy didnt know about thetBay of Pigs? The idea that the current administration is some kind of undercover superhero fighting for justice in a corrupt world is delusional.  The CIA will keep doing what it has been doing since it's inception since it is not answerable to the will of the people and can out last anyone who tries to reign it in.
 
So again don't trot out any citations but give me a specific example of a modern democracy.  That will show how dumb I am .And any actual evidence that you have the slightest clue about what the most clandestine organization in American history is doing!
Ana Ross Added Jan 11, 2019 - 3:32am
Facepalm
 Your quote of Madison forgets how well educated our founding fathers were. The quote by Madison is almost certainly referencing the democracies of Ancient Greece which these guys knew like the back of their hands.  He is talking about the way that Greek democracies put Socrates to death and exiled their best minds by voting.  This kind of government was not even possible in the 1700 s.  
Adolf Dick McMenace Added Jan 11, 2019 - 4:02am
What a typical Limey-CanaDUHin post. As if that isn't bad enough, it appears to be the work of someone in third grade. I'm not even going to dignify this silly post with an explanation of why it's so silly beyond the reasons I already mentioned.
FacePalm Added Jan 11, 2019 - 4:50am
Ana-
Once upon a time, there was a fat comedian named Louie Anderson.
As part of his act, he told a story about his little brother.  He was teasing him one day, mercilessly calling him an idiot, 'til finally his brother yelled, "MOM!  LOUIE'S CALLING ME AN IDIOT!"
His mother yelled back, "LOUIE!  YOU APOLOGIZE TO YOUR BROTHER RIGHT NOW!"
 
Sullenly, Louie complied.
 
He turned to his little brother and said, quite sadly, "i'm sorry you're stupid."
 
Now that you're revealed yourself, i must admit i feel very much like Louie right now.
 
But tell me, Oh Ye Mighty In Arrogance, to which country was Disraeli referring in his citation?
opher goodwin Added Jan 11, 2019 - 7:18am
The UK and USA have been instrumental in destabilising the Middle East. Stupid national boundaries taking no account of tribes, propping up dictators, wars and economic shit. What a mess we've made.
Ana Ross Added Jan 11, 2019 - 7:56am
But facepalm amusing as your story was it hardly constitutes rational argument. You have addressed a single one of my concerns with your analysis but literally just called me stupid. Let's say I concede to being stupid, what has that got to do with my argument that there about democracies or the CIA.  Please I try to refrain from ad hominems in my posts and stick to what I believe are facts.  For instance it's a fact that you still haven't given me a single example of a democracy in the modern world.  It's a fact that you still haven't told me from what source you can glean the inner workings of the secretive agency in America when the rest of us aren't privy to the budget of the CIA.  I'm interested in discussing facts not amusing anecdotes you gleened from watching Comedy Central.  Obviously you don't have the answers to these questions.  It's no sweat,  your just going off the cuff but factually your wrong and you won't get  answers to difficult questions watching TV.
 
Stone-Eater Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:09am
Oph
 
Yep.
Stone-Eater Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:12am
Ana
 
Welcome, and: IMHO there never was and never will be a "democracy" anywhere. Nice dream (Radiohead) :-) What we have since the dawn of time is economic dictatorship. Feudal structures. What were kings and queens and popes in the past are now global enterprises and banks.
 
If anyone still believes in democracy he's more delusional than any Hippie on Woodstock 69 was.
FacePalm Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:59am
Thanks, SEFa.
Look, Ana, this thread is about Iran and what it "would" have been might have been, could have been, might still be, etc.
But i take it back.  You're not stupid, just ignorant, and apparently quite content to remain so...which IMO is stupid.
Websearching can be your friend.  i'll give you a clue-by-four:
"Gun battle between CIA and NSA in NYC, 2017."
 
And here is some insight about the utility of "democracies" to the Soviets:
 
"But democracy is by no means a limit one may not overstep; it is only one of the stages in the course of development from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to Communism."
-- Vladimir Lenin
 
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
-- Vladimir Lenin
 
"If democracy, in essence, means the abolition of class domination, then why should not a socialist minister charm the whole bourgeois world by orations on class collaboration?"
-- Vladimir Lenin
 
Democracy provides people naught but the illusion of choice, while rich men behind the scenes pull the strings and set up things so that the hoi polloi have a very difficult time rising above "their station."
 
Last, the word "democracy" does not appear in the Supreme Law of the Land, anywhere, and this was no accident.
 
Everyone who calls America a "democracy" is either ignorant of this fact, has succumbed to YEARS of "talking head" Hitlerian Big Lie propaganda, or is actively complicit in an attempt to destroy the Constitutional Republic this country is and remains.  Those who continue to refer to America as a democracy even though they KNOW the word isn't in the Constitution, from Preamble to the last word of the 27th Amendment, fall in the latter category, as evidenced not only by their determinedly obstinate repetition of a known lie, but by all the evidence of various "democratic revolutions" staged around the globe(esp. in S. and Central America, as well as Africa) which swiftly morphed into socialist nightmare authoritarian dictatorships...like the UK is in great danger of becoming.  After all, they WERE ordered to turn in their firearms and obeyed, didn't they?
 
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone.... Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation ... inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
~ Patrick Henry
Ana Ross Added Jan 11, 2019 - 9:25am
You are making my point. I said that there is no example of a modern democracy. So the distinction between democracy and republic is moot. Ignorant or stupid, neither is an example of a modern democracy., So obviously America would not be a democracy either.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 11:29am
As long as the political class can keep people distracted by Russian ads on facebook, the American personage will remain woefully ignorant and apathetic about the American meddling around the world. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 11:30am
I believe what FacePalm is referring to, is the ongoing Statist attacks on our republic in an attempt to turn it in to a democracy where the slightest of majorities can oppress the largest of minorities. 
Ken Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:08pm
Ward - as long as there is a "political class" America will remain broken, period.  The founders never intended or expected someone to spend their lives making politics a "career".  They assumed people would do their civic duty then turn it over to someone else.  One of the reasons they never specifically defined term limits for politicians.  An unfortunate miscalculation by them.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:28pm
"Ward - as long as there is a "political class" America will remain broken, period.  The founders never intended or expected someone to spend their lives making politics a "career". "
 
Actually, a great many of the founding fathers foresaw this and you can find it in the Anti-Federalist papers, where they openly discuss what they deemed then to be the American Aristocracy and that these days is commonly referred to as the Establishment Elite ... thus my common usage of both terms ... however, I suspect you are absolutely spot on where they presupposed we the people would prevent such a cat ass trophy from occurring. It seems like most books of warning, these were used as instruction manuals by the opposing teams. 
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:30pm
Thank you all for your contribution to my article, its my first article on this site, and it seems im going to enjoy my stay - I was invited to this sight, and im glad that I was - Many of you are conservatives, and I don't interact with conservatives that much outside of my circle, so im happy to be here.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:41pm
Most of us will be reasonable in our debates and discussions, though admittedly, there are some from both sides here that have a difficult time discussin' without the cussin' ... welcome to the Beat. 
The Owl Added Jan 11, 2019 - 1:06pm
Forgive me for saying this, Ana, if one of the criteria that you use is "stick to what I believe are facts", I am afraid that you are no different than others who insist that only their arguments are valid.
 
You do not have the exclusive right to determine what is and is not fact.
 
There is broad agreement that the CIA has interfered with the internal political affairs of other countries.  The Church Committee documented some of those in their report issued in 1975.
 
It is reasonably assumed that the political leadership of the CIA was aware--and remains aware, today--of what its agents are doing clandestinely.  But given the size and the scope of the CIA and its activities, it remains quite possible that the political leadership is not aware of ALL of the clandestine activities engaged in by the agents.  The CIA just has too many moving parts to grant that the top knows much more than the broad outlines of activities.
 
The CIA is made up of career operatives and bureaucrats.  With that sort of staff, both inertia and rogue activities are not only possible but expected, too.  The necessities of operational freedom forestall any effective micromanagement.
 
Note that the whole mess with McCabe, Stzok, Page & Co. is a perfect example of the types of mischief that overzealous actors can put in play, with or without official sanction.  (Personally, I sense that McCabe had high-level political authorization going as high as Lynch and the White House intelligence operation.  We see the smoke but have yet to find the gun that it came from.
 
Note, also, the irony of the US government and the political parties complaining bitterly of the interference of a foreign power in our domestic affairs.  How uncivilized of them!  
 
 
Dino Manalis Added Jan 11, 2019 - 2:48pm
 Possibly, although Iran could have resulted in radical Islamic extremists even worse than we have now, at least they've relied on a theocracy.  I hope Rouhani meets with Trump to improve relations and peace in the Middle East.
Ana Ross Added Jan 11, 2019 - 3:14pm
Facepalm  I owe you an apology.  I started an argument over something relatively trivial, your remarks on democracy which in hindsight was at most a minor mistake which I blew out of proportion.  I was kind of being a jerk because of an argument I recently had elsewhere where I tried being conciliatory and got just endless abuse for my trouble and like a general fighting the last war I became argumentative for no good reason and I apologize.  You are not the idiot I was arguing with before and I was wrong to reply to your post as if you were.  T o be honest I still have a beef with you and thats your idea about the CIA being white hat and I'll try to respond to that later but with a little more humility than I did. So again sincere apologies.
Ken Added Jan 11, 2019 - 3:27pm
Note that the whole mess with McCabe, Stzok, Page & Co. is a perfect example of the types of mischief that overzealous actors can put in play, with or without official sanction
 
And the worst part is, just as it was finally being unraveled, the largest scandal in American history will now be covered up and they will all get away with it as it has all been shut down by the Dems who were part of it all
John Minehan Added Jan 11, 2019 - 5:11pm
"Iran would of been a full fledged democracy if it wasn't for the CIA and MI6 who removed Muhammed Musadaq in 1953 and brought back the Shah, who ruled Iran with an Iron fist till the Iranian people rebelled and removed him." 
 
There is a strong possibility that is true, but we can't know.
 
Mohammad Mosaddegh was a respected figure but the Shah was also popular (or at least regarded as legitimate) at the time.  Possibly, Mosaddegh would have done a better job of keeping good relations with the Mullahs, but that might have become a problem earlier than under the Shah given his reformist bent was not that different from the Shah's later 1960s "White Revolution."
 
Additionally, Mosaddegh, a man of the Left, might not have triangulated among the US, Britain, the USSR as adroitly as leaders  like Tito and Nehru, especially given his internal Charybdis and  Scylla of the Tudeh Party and the Mullahs.
 
 
John Minehan Added Jan 11, 2019 - 5:46pm
"We backed this effort and created the taliban as a viable force by providing them with training and weapons via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia."
 
To get a bit off topic, the Taliban are not the 1980s Mujahidin, whom the US supported.
 
In fact, the Taliban were a second-order effect of the War with the Russians. 
 
With a few exceptions, like Mullah Omar, the Taliban were mostly young men who spent the war in Refugee Camps in Pakistan, who mostly helped their families financially by taking advantage of stipends for studying to become Mullahs offered by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Pakistanis.  The instruction was Deobandi and Wahabi and a bit fundamentalist (or, at least, not in a Sufi tradition).
 
After the Soviet-allied Afghan Government fell, many of the Mujahidin became local warlords and the Taliban opposed them on a sort of a "law and order platform."  Although most were trained as Mullahs, rather than Qadis, the Taliban was (and often still is ) known for running fair courts (really arbitral fora).
 
The Northern Alliance Leader executed on September 11, 2001 was an example of the best of the Mujahidin we supported in the 1980s.  
Ana Ross Added Jan 11, 2019 - 7:40pm
The owl  I didnt mean to imply that the president had operational knowledge of every covert action.  Just that its hard to believe that any covert action of any significance takes place without the direction of someone in the executive branch, Kissinger for example and the 40 committee.  A lot of times the higher ups are kept out of the loop to give them plausible deniability but some subordinate within the executive is still in charge.  All of this is of course speculative because as you rightly point out there are too many operations for anyone person to have detailed knowledge nor if it were possible would it necessarily be desirable.  Nevertheless when it comes to the major operations the President is usually in the loop.  I find it hard to believe that Reagan was unaware of the arms for hostages deal with Iran for example.
 
John Minehan  I will defer to you on this as you seem to be better informed about it than me but my point still stands that without the implicit support of the US the Taliban couldnt have wrested power from the mujahedin.  In fact the US was still negotiating a pipeline deal with Unocal until August 2001 when the Taliban decided to go with a french company instead.  Then the gift that keeps on giving to the military industrial complex, 9/11, occurred
and suddenly Bush jr. suddenly developed an empathy for the oppressed women of Afghanistan.
John Minehan Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:05pm
We will still supporting people like Ahmad Shah Massoud, but we recognized the Taliban had effective control and dealt with them.
 
As the Great Grandson (and namesake) of a Scots Warrant Officer in the British Army who served there , I have to say it never made any sense to me to invade the place. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 12:24am
Some of the families that were Treasurers of the Shah have made a very good life for themselves in the US, greatly enjoying capitalism ... just an interesting side note. 
FacePalm Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:03am
Ana-
What you did there was remarkable and praiseworthy, if for no other reason than it's rarity.  Thank you.
 
But i believe that there ARE both White-hat nationalists AND Black-hat globalists in the CIA, just as there are in every other department and agency of the USG.  If you know where to look, evidence exists of the globalist infiltration almost everywhere, from mailrooms to corporate CEOs; have a gander at the left-wing internet giants censoring and "removing platforms" from Christians, those who use US flags anywhere in their comm, nationalists, libertarians - in short, everyone who is not buying into the leftist, globalist agenda of a NWO/OWG.
 
What i'm sincerely hoping for is that Trump destroys the drug-running CIA operations, both in Afghanistan and the "Golden Triangle," as cutting off the funding (for both their black ops and retirement funds) will go a long way toward restoring justice and balance in this world again.  Trump, being a non-drug user and given his stance about the opioid crisis, would most certainly be well-served by tending to that problem, but he has quite a bit on his plate already, so maybe that's a ways down his priority list, at least until he can get loyal people around him who obey his orders as Commander-in-chief.  The CIA has been caught several times peddling drugs in this country, both in LA and at Mena, Arkansas, though it appears that little has been done to curtail their criminal activity, yet.  i strongly suspect that they are also amongst the most fierce opponents of the Wall, for purely financial reasons.
 
As to Iran, i'm hopeful that those opposing the tyrannical rule of the mullahs succeed - and the sooner, the better.  The history of revolutions, however, is that the formerly persecuted become the new persecutors.  As best i can tell, it's VERY rare for the replacement government to be better than it's predecessor, but with near-universal access to the internet these days, there's still a possibility that a Great government - perhaps based on the polity of one of their greatest ancestors, Cyrus the Great - could be accomplished.  I wish them well.
Stone-Eater Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:33am
Face
 
As to Iran, i'm hopeful that those opposing the tyrannical rule of the mullahs succeed 
 
That's MSM shit, sorry. I know Iranians who live here and they tell me the opposite. one can watch reports about Iran and see how people live there. IF your phrase points to a country that has a tyrannical rule inform yourself about your ally and good friend Saudi Arabia.
Stone-Eater Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:41am
BTW:
 
Know why Iran has been in focus for so long ? Ask Wesley Clark and study the map where US-led NATO is present. Turkey is so far the last corner south-east, the West from Ireland to there is NATO. What comes after looking East ? Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan....and then...China. Afghanistan has been in turmoil for a long time, in 1970 the country was free of any islamic extremism. Pakistan has been accused to harbour AlQaeda and Bin Laden, a US-alllied guy at first. When China falls, NATO will have the ring around Russia - the final goal for decades.
 
Why ? Because Russia is BIG, has nukes and LOTS of resources.
 
I know that many people deny this, but never mind.....
Stone-Eater Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:50am
BTW:
 
Putin knows that and Xi as well. So why do you think that they are actively pushing the new Silk road and North Stream II ? Because they know that Europe has to decide itself in the next years if it wants to stay a vassal of US military force or direct itself economically to the East. That's why the propaganda machine here in Europe has been bashing Putin all the time - and also Trump, when he said he wanted to have good relations with Russia.
 
Our media here are a spinoff of the US big six. Otherwise it would not be logic that our media defends decisions which hurt our OWN economy - like the sanctions of Russia.
 
Many people here are aware of that, very many. But it's still a minority which even starts to questions things.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:52am
"Know why Iran has been in focus for so long ?"
 
Look at their banking system under the current administration. 
 
Axis of Evil ring a bell? He may not have explicitly included Iran but ... the message was there. 
 
I believe China and Russia would stand together ... Putin would have very little choice there, his economy is roughly the size of Italy if I remember correctly ... and the economic and financial systems and the sheer number of Chinese on the border would force that hand to play out. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:55am
India may or may not join them ... and while I have no doubt that they would retain sovereignty, there are also strong indications that India would take the side of Russia and China as well ... even if reluctantly. 
 
And Saudi Arabia only treats their women like chattel ... and foreigners ... and jails you for wearing a cross or carrying a Bible ... and only beheads a few what? Only beheads a few hundred people a year? What's not to love? Besides ... that whole Wasabi thing ... I LOVE WASABI ... it makes for the best tartar sauce you can ever have!
 
What? Wahhabi? Oh. In fond memory of the late, great Roseanne Rosannah Danna ... Never mind! 
Stone-Eater Added Jan 12, 2019 - 12:56pm
Ward
 
No comment needed LOL
Jim Stoner Added Jan 12, 2019 - 1:18pm
I disagree that Islam is inconsistent with democratic government.  The country with the largest number of Muslims in the world (Indonesia) is truly a democracy--not perfect (whose is?)--but surprisingly stable in recent decades.  Islamic law may be inconsistent with true representative government (although Iran has its equivalent of Parliament, etc), but it's more inconsistent with what we would call "liberal democracy" (take for example Pakistan's laws against blasphemy and how they are enforced).  Turkey is a great disappointment, as the democratically-elected President strays further and further, only partially due to championing Islam, but mostly to his lust for power. 
 
Face Palm, I object strongly to your apparent equating of John Lennon--someone I admire deeply, and whose idealistic dreams I share--with Vladimir Lenin (someone who deserves his bad historical reputation).   
 
Welcome to Writer Beat, Hussain. 
 
I'm waiting to see how long it takes for someone to equate Obama with you, slanderously, solely on the name similarity, as FP tried to do above.  It won't be me. 
 
FacePalm Added Jan 14, 2019 - 4:27am
"This old world would not be in such a snarl
Had Marx been Groucho, instead of Karl."
 
NPC humorless twits miss the joke.  Too busy w/"Orangeman bad."
 
Besides, John Lennon in his personal relationships appears to have been quite an asswipe, despite his message.
 
Stone-
i saw an interview with an Iranian guy not long ago, and those he was with are totally opposing the mullahs.  What's not to like about a group that got 150 billion back from D'OhBama, and shared not a cent of it with their countrymen, but spent it on supporting terrorism and war?
i don't care for SA, either; their brand of Wahabbi Islam is absolutely intolerant and radical, and they've used their oil money to export that brand of insanity all around the globe, buying land and building mosques and staffing them with those who preach the most tyrannical forms of Islam known, and every place they've taken over, non-muslims get 3 choices:  Convert, become their slaves by paying the Jizyat tax, or die. 
But back to Iran; ask your friends about the #Restart movement, or this guy.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 14, 2019 - 8:01am
"I'm waiting to see how long it takes for someone to equate Obama with you, slanderously, solely on the name similarity, as FP tried to do above.  It won't be me. "
 
Actually, the only people I have worked with that spelled it that way, have been Pakistani ... though he tends to introduce himself as "The Pakistani Dude" ... but why would I equate either of them to Obama? One is a very dear friend, the other is engaging in civil discourse, not threatening us with a pen and a phone LOL
 
You do seem to worry about some strange things from time to time ... and your obsession with race is very ... revealing.