Also they have some of their history wrong. Mosaddegh was an aristocratic autocrat that ruled largely by decree and made several mistakes regarding the economy, which helped fuel the coup against him (which was largely orchestrated by the UK and the US) and when he was overthrown, at first a lot were happy (not that foreign powers had intervened, but that Mosaddegh was gone). Also the current theocratic government does not like his legacy or the reformers who invoke him :p
""On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.""
SO in fact, the Shah was always the Shah, and he wasnt re-instate after the owerthrowing of Mosaddegh. In fact, the Shah himself was at a later point overthrown by Khomeine, which many western countries liked.
PART 1 There are some huge flaws in what they state here. First of all, The Shah was always in power. He ruled Iran from 16.september 1941 to 1979, as the Shah (which is a monarchistic title).
Mohammed Mosaddegh was simply the prime minister of Iran from 1951 until he was owerthrown in 1953.
My dad served in the military several years ago. They visited Iran when it was controlled by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was the last shah of Iran if I remember correctly. Sure, it was a dictatorship, but compearing the living standard to how people lived under his regime, to how people lived under Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, clearly showes that Khomeine was just as bad, if not even worse.
Iran was a Constitutional Monarchy in 1953 not a Democracy. Plus how is this critical? Khomeini supported the Shah in 1953 and he continued to support the Shah until 1963 when the Shah gave women the right to vote and the Shahs land reforms. You can tell The video was made by the lobbyists for the Mullahs (aka Trita Parsi). The only thing the Mullahs know how to do well is lie.
@gulbirk he became leader of Iran after 1979 but he still supported the Shah in 1953. Then when the Islamic Revolution took place, Khomeini declared all people part of Mossadeghs party to be apostates and ordered them all executed. Ayatollah Kashani even called for the execution of Mossadegh in 1953.
Plus the Shah had the power to dismiss the Prime Minister in 1953.
However, the Shah actually gave him power in 1951
"""On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership."" (wikipedia)
You have to remember, the shah was in power from 1941-1979.
@gulbirk Mossadegh also resigned from power in 1952. The point that the Shah gave Mossadegh power in 1951 amounts to nothing. Plus 3 weeks before Operation Ajax, Mossadegh had the Shah's twin sister arrested then exiled from Iran. If I was the Shah and someone did that to my twin sister, I would make sure they spent the rest of their life in prison which is exactly what happened.
@knight4justice Ok, then open wikipedia and read. THe shah was in power BEFORE 1951 (when Mossadegh took over), there was no revolution, and all of the sudden the Shah wasnt in power anymore. Yeah, that makes sense.
@gulbirk Shah and Mossadegh were in power at the same time. Mossadegh was Prime Minister and Shah is the word for king. The Shah was in power from 1941-1979. He only lost power briefly when Mossadegh staged a coup in 1953 which is when the Shah fled Iran to Baghdad then Rome. 5 days later the Iranian Army led by General Zahedi staged a counter coup and removed Mossadegh in 1953 putting the Shah back in power (people like to blame the CIA for the actions of the Iranian Army).
@knight4justice CIA and Britains M16 DID overthrow Mossadegh. Thats available information that can be found on every single site about history and every single history book. There is no dispute that that point. In 1953 Mossadegh was removed from power, and that is called Operation Ajax.
@gulbirk it was General Zahedi that led the coup against Mossadegh not the CIA and MI6. The CIA plan was to have the Shah use the authority given to him the Iranian Constitution to dismiss Mossadegh. Mossadegh said the Shahs order was fake and refused to step down then forced the Shah out of the country. The CIA plan was a total failure. What followed was the Iranian Army led by General Zahedi rising up against Mossadegh which the CIA had nothing to do with. No one disputes that.
why does dawahfilms care? i thought you want shariah in iran, saudi arabia, india, malaysia, palestine, america, europe, africa and every corner of the world.
@hallavast 1a side from it being a blashmey in Islam,democracy by its nature will always get the *best*liar,the *better*hypcrate,the greedy,selfcenterd blood & power thirsty person in power,becoz when u put forword 2 or more persons to compete for that seat,the IGNORANT masses will always choose the *best* they think,thats why today u find in almost evry country that called its self democracy u find the most corrupt being its leader,from berluskoni of italy,to sarkosi of france,to obama in usa,,
@elnasser41 2-the elit in the usa divided them selves into rebublican&democrates making the IGNORANT masses to beleive they have a *chioce*
AND why is it that when compared undemocratic china with democratic india(which both started from the same point 60 years ago)u find the UNdemocratic china is in a much better place today.
WHY is it that democratic nations r the most nations to wage wars agianst other nations(i know they want to beleive other wise
Now I don't know a lot about militairy operations but wars in relatively small countries like Iraq and Afghanistan already seem to be a rather large problem for the budget, and the PR of the US government. (both in and outside of the US itself)
I don't think we need to worry about the US attacking Iran but a more friendly relation between the two of them probably wouldn't hurt that bad. And come on, the US is allied to Saudi-Arabia so the fact that Iran isn't too democratic shouldn't matter.
Watching this reminded me of the Cuban movement towards one-party rule under Castro. Castro was very much in favour of a liberal-democratic capitalist system. They were forced into the arms of the Soviet Block.
I didnt know too much about Iranian history. Thnx a heap Ali!
I wish Iran all the luck and fortune. And I wish USA some BRAINS for God's sake. It's crystalclear that Iran is NOT the same story as the fractured Iraq. Iran is far more unified. If US attacks, woo them I say.
Was the overthrow of a democratically elected sovereign a travesty? most definitely. Is it relevant to Iran's or the United States' moral standing and relationship?
It definitely shouldn't be. The Islamic republic of Iran is a very different entity from the one that the CIA established. Interesting that this video was primed with questions like "why can't you have democracy?". That they had a democracy before the 50s is no excuse for their lack of a democracy today.
@migkillertwo "That they had a democracy before the 50s is no excuse for their lack of a democracy today."
Well... do you know how hard it is to fight a totalitarian regime? you either overthrow it, which is, to be honest, very hard without external support, or negotiate for years to find a peaceful transition towards it, or wait till the asshole dies (Like Franco)
"do you know how hard it is to fight a totalitarian regime?"
That Iranians themselves installed freely? Pretty difficult I imagine, but they are the guilty party. They freely chose to replace the dictator with another dictator. Its not like the United States assisted in creating the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Iranians installed a reactionary government that was supposed to be based on democratic process with religious foundations, that eventually just became more and more restrictive over time.
They installed what they saw as a good alternative to what was forced on them. The U.S. did assist in creating the REPUBLIC of Iran, by forcing them into a reactionary corner.
None of this would have ever come about had the U.S. stayed out of their business.
That is quite a novel way to dodge blame. My overreactions aren't wrong because you "forced" me into a reactionary corner?
I wonder, then, what you think of Israel's continuing blockade and sporadic bombing of Gaza. After all, Hamas terrorists have repeatedly and deliberately killed israeli citizens. Are they not, then, "forcing" israel into a reactionary corner?
sometimes it aint easy being a 'westerner' and not feeling sick knowing that our comfortable lifestyle came about through the exploitation of others. Now i cannot be held resposible for the crimes of my previous generation, never-the-less i am profiting from those said crimes
"sometimes it aint easy being a 'westerner' and not feeling sick knowing that our comfortable lifestyle came about through the exploitation of others"
Bullshit. Our way of life is as it is because of capitalism and civil society. The wealth of the west has nothing to do with "exploitation" of the developing world. If anything, colonial policies have cost us. Great Britain's economy started growing faster AFTER they left India. Occupying India was more expensive...
The only way this COULD be true is that western policies have prevented other countries from nationalizing their oil industries. But this only forces them to sell at a market clearing price. Western countries oppose nationalizing oil reserves for good reason; it helps nobody and harms everybody, including the citizens of the oil producing countries.
BS. The United States first got wealthy off of the World Wars and has been a war economy ever since. The "Capitalism" of the United States first started with pumping out bombs and tanks and lots of natural resources as foreign aid. Exploiting the resources of others has also been profitable since we don't use our own anymore (its more expensive if we do).
If you honestly believe oil has nothing to do with this then you don't know anything about economics.
"The United States first got wealthy off of the World Wars"
Comparatively speaking, the United States has been an extremely wealthy country since colonial times. The only sense in which you would be right is the labor shortage caused by Europe's huge demand for arms in WWI. But the production of armaments in WWII didn't make us wealthier. The private economy during WWII plummeted and only revived once the govt. rolled back the enormous wartime spending.
"mmh yeah, we really suffered during the whole slave trade thing, eh?"
Slavery didn't make us richer. There's a reason why we had a "fugitive slave" clause in the constitution, because in limited government, slavery is an unsustainable and inefficient economic model.
If you don't believe my words, i may make a video about the whole thing. It's pretty new, that some muslims in antiamericanistic furor now have to realize, that it's not that simple.
It's not the Muslims making these sort of claims, it's non-Muslims and former CIA, and Historians. It may not be "that simple", but it's the gist of it.
These facts are quite newly presented. I won't blame these historians for not having heard about them. Especially if they are a lobby network against conservative policies.
My comment was deleted for no reason, so i repeat it:
I never said, that Iranians would be like that, i know, that they are a quite liberal, secular society. But this society is often endangered by the iranian clerics, the mullahs, as not only 1905, 1953, but especially 1978 until today can be seen. I wanted to direct the attention to these guys, as they are often too much seen as a good source, and the US as the only bad, although in this case the clerics had the main influence.
One of the, later reluctant, followers of borudjerdi at that time was by the way the later ayatollah khomeini... who later blamed the US for being responsible for the shah being reinstated, as he overthrew him and the iranian democracy and established his totalitarian regime. He lied a lot and with system, by the way. This blaming is the reason, why this correction of historical understanding is neccessary. Khomeini and the clerics use it everyday for their propaganda.And we help them?
No. The problem is, this guy was the revolutionary leader of Iran and a very powerful and accepted cleric, being the great-ayatollah or even the new mahdi. And the islamic republic of iran is still using his methods dealing with dissidents, etc. The problem is just, that the clerics were no help for this society. And if such a utter a******* was able to become greatayatollah and mahdi and his mullahs the leaders of Iran, and borudjerdi responsible for reinstating the shah, what next?
Sorry, but your entire video is misleading propaganda. The pro-shah-demonstrations were made by the iranian cleric borujerdi, not the CIA, after the US dealt with Mossadegh being in his position. That's not my opinion, but the one of Darioush Bayandor, who wrote about the CIA and Iran 2010.
you're a moron... you might want to join the flat earth society because it's not your opinion but some other dumb schmuck has thought of it first. there is overwhelming evidence of us involvement in the overthrow of mossadegh, both by western and iranian sources. one dumb guy repeating another dumb guy's moronic claims doesn't make this overwhelming pile of evidence go away.
"Pro Shah demonstrations were made by Iranian Cleric..."...who supported the Shah which was placed into power by the the U.S. after Iranian military were paid off to forcefully remove Mosedegh from power.
Yeah, you're right, but you're not. No pwnage for you.
That's not correct. It's correct, that the US made this "operation ajax" trying to overthrow mossadegh because of his sympathy and collaboration with the communists, which is, as we know, against the new US Truman-doctrine of that time. As this coup, which wanted to establish the contracommunist general zahedi as prime minister, terribly failed, the US accepted Mossadegh, although they knew he was not really a friend of democracy, and the US was not interested in the shah to return..
But the pro-shah demonstrations on the 19th August were organized by the ayatollahs, especially borudjerdi, because they feared, that mossadegh would establish a secular democracy. They gathered and borudjerdi demanded the shah to return, so they organized the protests, who led to the shah being reinstated. The shah thanked borudjerdi for his efforts in a telegram, which borudjerdi responded by saying, that mossadegh and his secular ideas would be a calamity to islam and the shah...
And it's pwned, because this documentary mostly concentrates on the shah being reinstated, which is a clear antidemocratic movement, but the US only wanted to overthrow the pro-tudeh-party mossadegh, who also forbid protests against him and violated the iranian constitution. The role of the US and the CIA is not very nice, but they didn't participate in the antidemocratic move of reinstating the shah. Instead the clerics, so, as you wish, ISLAM was responsible for this move. Pnwed
1. No. Reinstating the shah by the clerics doesn't make the US intervention make better. And i did not deny that.
2. Not only. The US involvement may often be unjustified power policy, but it's too single-sided to only blame the US for problems, which in this case are not just done by the US. It only brings problems, if the US is taking US interests more seriously than humanistic ones. Libya for example is a positive example, or for some instance the gulf war 1.
@fruitikay: No, before America became overwhelmingly the most militarily funded and technologically advanced economic superpower in the history of mankind, it was usually England's fault. America is a superpower. Superpowers are not suicidal, they aim to maintain their status as superpowers and in the process, they make potentially catastrophic mistakes. For as long as America remains a superpower, you will have to live with a lot of criticism. Deal with it.
@fruitikay: MAYBE you should reconsider what you write, then. You know what that looks like, how was I supposed to respond? Non-Americans get that attitude a lot, and it gets sickening considering America's status in the world. If I somehow misunderstood you, I offer no apologies and I honestly don't know how else to interpret what you said.
@fruitikay: Right, and I was supposed to read your mind as opposed to interpret that as what it looks like? - Obviously you and I operate on different levels. Have a nice day.
I did say I didn't agree with it. Also, I don't know much about America's history, but I'm not at all proud to be an american. That is why I plan to move to Japan when I am older and leave this so called "Free and proud" country.
I Don't agree with this, but the reason America is so damn nosy is because of what happened in WWII. America didnt get involved when the jews were being killed because they didnt know how bad it was. So to avoid that happening again, America wants to make sure they know what is happening in other countries.
@BoddShamWoW Really?? Then how come, Nixon and Kissinger meddled in south america? and actually enabled for Pinochet's coup that deposed Salvador Allende... and led one of the most brutal dictatorships in south amrica from september 11, 1973 to march 11, 1990. Care to explain that?
Michael Townley, former CIA agent, working for Pinochet commited the terrorist attack against Orlando Letelier in 1976... right on Washington DC... ohh... and right now he is on witness protection.. not in jail.
Thank you DawahFilms. This is just a part of the history of the West that has been intentionally forgotten and there are so many more examples: Batista, Samosa, Marcos, Norriega, the list can go on and on showing examples of the US' failed foreign policies. And so many wonder why we are so hated around the world.
@SatiricalStewie: It's fine that you stick your nose in other people's business when it's to ENCOURAGE democracy and freedom. The problem is that economic and militaristic interest come long before the rights of other countries' citizenry. If US foreign policy really were about spreading freedom and democracy, it wouldn't be a problem. But while America is internally relatively free, externally it's just another superpower that accordingly acts like one; to secure and safeguard its own interest.
We read a novel in one of my near east politics classes called "All the Shah's Men". It explains this whole story. Great novel for anyone who wants more information about this situation.
@ATCFDrummer yes it is non-fiction but the way it was written was more of a novel format if I am not mistaken, or maybe that was the other book we read that year...but I'm sure it is written in novel format...I can't remember.
well well well I'll just have to research this myself!...this was a good video and very informative it will make me research it but with a better eye for the truth. Thanks for posting this
Lets see: we stuck our nose in Iran and now we have issues with them. We stuck our nose in Iraq and had to fight a war with them. We stuck our nose in Afghanistan and now we're at war with them. When in the hell our we going to learn that we need to keep our nose out of other's business? Good video, Ali.
Seems reasonable enough. While I should say that I disagree with (American) liberals that we should never interfere in other countries affairs (except when conforming to their agenda), I also disagree with the "ends justify the means" politics of the past, and even today. But like the US-Iran situation, that isn't going to be a quick fix either, nor do I think it's ever going to be.
@jcrebel18 Actually, (American) liberals don't tend to argue that we should never interfere in other countries affairs (except when conforming to their agenda). That position would be more likely to be held by (American) libertarians and anarchists. Liberals sometimes agree on international issues with libertarians and anarchists, but often not.
Yes, except for all the liberals that I know of have argued that Iraq is a demonstration of why we should do exactly that, but wouldn't oppose it if it were say, opposing female circumcision, which has become quasi-traditional certain countries, and the females there often don't know any different. This may be countered by education, but it would take more to counter a deeply rooted tradition than that. This is also not to say liberals don't support the soldiers.
@jcrebel18 Liberals don't like acts of violence for the sake of violence, demonstrations of power for the sake of power. Liberals, instead, want violence and power to be used toward some greater good. Short term benefits and satisfaction isn't worthy at the cost of long term risks and problems. What is the point of attacking an enemy if you end up creating even more enemies than you had before. Liberals tend to be more pragmatic when it comes to international affairs going case by case.
Bin Laden was our enemy before Bush took to the WH, and made a few attacks on us as well. Of course, we launched a few missles, which only ended up hitting empty terrorist training camps. Unless, you're talking about some other group. As for violence for the sake of violence, who said conservatives wanted that?
@jcrebel18 "Unless, you're talking about some other group."
I wasn't referring to anything specific in my comment. I was speaking more generally about the liberal preference of pacifism unless some greater purpose necessitates violence.
"As for violence for the sake of violence, who said conservatives wanted that?"
Right-Wing Authoritarians (which correlates to social conservatives) like violence.
I hate it when someone tries to tell me that Islam is the most violent religion in the world ab initio and their violence has nothing to do with political intervention.
Political intervention is the foundational core of all violence ranging from the Nazis, Rwandan genocide, Middle East, Pearl Harbor, and more. Idiots who blame religion do not realize that the issue is the political intervention first, religious ideas second. Ignorance is bliss.
Also they have some of their history wrong. Mosaddegh was an aristocratic autocrat that ruled largely by decree and made several mistakes regarding the economy, which helped fuel the coup against him (which was largely orchestrated by the UK and the US) and when he was overthrown, at first a lot were happy (not that foreign powers had intervened, but that Mosaddegh was gone). Also the current theocratic government does not like his legacy or the reformers who invoke him :p
ProgressiveAudio 1 week ago
Ironically The Mosaddegh government was a secular government which islamic religious movements opposed and help oust.
ProgressiveAudio 1 week ago
PART 2
This is from Wikipedia
""On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.""
SO in fact, the Shah was always the Shah, and he wasnt re-instate after the owerthrowing of Mosaddegh. In fact, the Shah himself was at a later point overthrown by Khomeine, which many western countries liked.
gulbirk 1 month ago
PART 1 There are some huge flaws in what they state here. First of all, The Shah was always in power. He ruled Iran from 16.september 1941 to 1979, as the Shah (which is a monarchistic title).
Mohammed Mosaddegh was simply the prime minister of Iran from 1951 until he was owerthrown in 1953.
gulbirk 1 month ago
My dad served in the military several years ago. They visited Iran when it was controlled by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was the last shah of Iran if I remember correctly. Sure, it was a dictatorship, but compearing the living standard to how people lived under his regime, to how people lived under Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, clearly showes that Khomeine was just as bad, if not even worse.
gulbirk 1 month ago
Iran was a Constitutional Monarchy in 1953 not a Democracy. Plus how is this critical? Khomeini supported the Shah in 1953 and he continued to support the Shah until 1963 when the Shah gave women the right to vote and the Shahs land reforms. You can tell The video was made by the lobbyists for the Mullahs (aka Trita Parsi). The only thing the Mullahs know how to do well is lie.
knight4justice 4 months ago
@knight4justice Thats not true. Khomeine got power after owerthrowing the Shah.
gulbirk 1 month ago
@gulbirk he became leader of Iran after 1979 but he still supported the Shah in 1953. Then when the Islamic Revolution took place, Khomeini declared all people part of Mossadeghs party to be apostates and ordered them all executed. Ayatollah Kashani even called for the execution of Mossadegh in 1953.
Plus the Shah had the power to dismiss the Prime Minister in 1953.
knight4justice 1 month ago
@knight4justice Yeah, they both disliked Mossadegh.
However, the Shah actually gave him power in 1951
"""On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership."" (wikipedia)
You have to remember, the shah was in power from 1941-1979.
gulbirk 1 month ago
@gulbirk Mossadegh also resigned from power in 1952. The point that the Shah gave Mossadegh power in 1951 amounts to nothing. Plus 3 weeks before Operation Ajax, Mossadegh had the Shah's twin sister arrested then exiled from Iran. If I was the Shah and someone did that to my twin sister, I would make sure they spent the rest of their life in prison which is exactly what happened.
knight4justice 1 month ago
@knight4justice Ok, then open wikipedia and read. THe shah was in power BEFORE 1951 (when Mossadegh took over), there was no revolution, and all of the sudden the Shah wasnt in power anymore. Yeah, that makes sense.
gulbirk 1 month ago
@gulbirk Shah and Mossadegh were in power at the same time. Mossadegh was Prime Minister and Shah is the word for king. The Shah was in power from 1941-1979. He only lost power briefly when Mossadegh staged a coup in 1953 which is when the Shah fled Iran to Baghdad then Rome. 5 days later the Iranian Army led by General Zahedi staged a counter coup and removed Mossadegh in 1953 putting the Shah back in power (people like to blame the CIA for the actions of the Iranian Army).
knight4justice 1 month ago
@knight4justice CIA and Britains M16 DID overthrow Mossadegh. Thats available information that can be found on every single site about history and every single history book. There is no dispute that that point. In 1953 Mossadegh was removed from power, and that is called Operation Ajax.
gulbirk 1 month ago
@gulbirk it was General Zahedi that led the coup against Mossadegh not the CIA and MI6. The CIA plan was to have the Shah use the authority given to him the Iranian Constitution to dismiss Mossadegh. Mossadegh said the Shahs order was fake and refused to step down then forced the Shah out of the country. The CIA plan was a total failure. What followed was the Iranian Army led by General Zahedi rising up against Mossadegh which the CIA had nothing to do with. No one disputes that.
knight4justice 1 month ago
Shia are disguised jews....we arab know them very well
LieExtinguisher 4 months ago
Well this is Interesting
Thanks for the info Bro!
akib89 6 months ago
lol iranian rafida government are kuffar.
alithelin1234 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The religious conspiracy theorists are out in full force. By the way, M. was ousted by the Iranians.
shirehorse9 8 months ago
@539678
No
DawahFilms 8 months ago
@DawahFilms Yes?
JRChadwick 4 months ago
why does dawahfilms care? i thought you want shariah in iran, saudi arabia, india, malaysia, palestine, america, europe, africa and every corner of the world.
halflifeproductionz 8 months ago
iran is a jewish republic not islamic.
CHRISTxJESUS 8 months ago
will the iranian government and us are indeed cooperating in some cases. the iranians helped the americans in both afghanistan and iraq.
ahmadov 8 months ago
God bless Islamic Persia!!!!!
truebeliever786 8 months ago
one need to make a shilling
thenephilin1 9 months ago
Democracy is not freedom.
hallavast 9 months ago
@hallavast 1a side from it being a blashmey in Islam,democracy by its nature will always get the *best*liar,the *better*hypcrate,the greedy,selfcenterd blood & power thirsty person in power,becoz when u put forword 2 or more persons to compete for that seat,the IGNORANT masses will always choose the *best* they think,thats why today u find in almost evry country that called its self democracy u find the most corrupt being its leader,from berluskoni of italy,to sarkosi of france,to obama in usa,,
elnasser41 9 months ago
@elnasser41 2-the elit in the usa divided them selves into rebublican&democrates making the IGNORANT masses to beleive they have a *chioce*
AND why is it that when compared undemocratic china with democratic india(which both started from the same point 60 years ago)u find the UNdemocratic china is in a much better place today.
WHY is it that democratic nations r the most nations to wage wars agianst other nations(i know they want to beleive other wise
AND why all democratic n r declining today.
elnasser41 9 months ago
Just because your country nationalizes doesn't mean it is a Communist one. Also, he nationalized only one company.
ComradeMr 9 months ago
America actually had a democracy once.
NewMargaritaville 9 months ago
Now I don't know a lot about militairy operations but wars in relatively small countries like Iraq and Afghanistan already seem to be a rather large problem for the budget, and the PR of the US government. (both in and outside of the US itself)
I don't think we need to worry about the US attacking Iran but a more friendly relation between the two of them probably wouldn't hurt that bad. And come on, the US is allied to Saudi-Arabia so the fact that Iran isn't too democratic shouldn't matter.
Evilanious 9 months ago
Watching this reminded me of the Cuban movement towards one-party rule under Castro. Castro was very much in favour of a liberal-democratic capitalist system. They were forced into the arms of the Soviet Block.
I didnt know too much about Iranian history. Thnx a heap Ali!
kommissarw 9 months ago
And to think that Iran could have been the vanguard of democratisation of the middle east but once again UK/US interference has screwed things up.
kawaiigardiner 9 months ago
American foreign policy fail here. Ashamed this is part of my government
kenshin304 9 months ago
I'm suprised at some of the comments...this is all rather uncontrovercial history.
DasAmericanAtheist 9 months ago
I wish Iran all the luck and fortune. And I wish USA some BRAINS for God's sake. It's crystalclear that Iran is NOT the same story as the fractured Iraq. Iran is far more unified. If US attacks, woo them I say.
myowngenesis 9 months ago
No commentary? Follow up video perhaps?
cmbmachine 9 months ago
"without preconditions"
Not even renouncing support for Hezbollah? Not even ending their fatwah against Salman Rushdie!?
migkillertwo 9 months ago
Was the overthrow of a democratically elected sovereign a travesty? most definitely. Is it relevant to Iran's or the United States' moral standing and relationship?
It definitely shouldn't be. The Islamic republic of Iran is a very different entity from the one that the CIA established. Interesting that this video was primed with questions like "why can't you have democracy?". That they had a democracy before the 50s is no excuse for their lack of a democracy today.
migkillertwo 9 months ago
@migkillertwo "That they had a democracy before the 50s is no excuse for their lack of a democracy today."
Well... do you know how hard it is to fight a totalitarian regime? you either overthrow it, which is, to be honest, very hard without external support, or negotiate for years to find a peaceful transition towards it, or wait till the asshole dies (Like Franco)
BaronesaReturns 9 months ago
@BaronesaReturns
"do you know how hard it is to fight a totalitarian regime?"
That Iranians themselves installed freely? Pretty difficult I imagine, but they are the guilty party. They freely chose to replace the dictator with another dictator. Its not like the United States assisted in creating the Islamic Republic of Iran.
migkillertwo 9 months ago
@migkillertwo
The Iranians installed a reactionary government that was supposed to be based on democratic process with religious foundations, that eventually just became more and more restrictive over time.
They installed what they saw as a good alternative to what was forced on them. The U.S. did assist in creating the REPUBLIC of Iran, by forcing them into a reactionary corner.
None of this would have ever come about had the U.S. stayed out of their business.
DawahFilms 9 months ago
@DawahFilms
"by forcing them into a reactionary corner."
That is quite a novel way to dodge blame. My overreactions aren't wrong because you "forced" me into a reactionary corner?
I wonder, then, what you think of Israel's continuing blockade and sporadic bombing of Gaza. After all, Hamas terrorists have repeatedly and deliberately killed israeli citizens. Are they not, then, "forcing" israel into a reactionary corner?
migkillertwo 9 months ago
sometimes it aint easy being a 'westerner' and not feeling sick knowing that our comfortable lifestyle came about through the exploitation of others. Now i cannot be held resposible for the crimes of my previous generation, never-the-less i am profiting from those said crimes
darkdawg100 9 months ago
@darkdawg100
"sometimes it aint easy being a 'westerner' and not feeling sick knowing that our comfortable lifestyle came about through the exploitation of others"
Bullshit. Our way of life is as it is because of capitalism and civil society. The wealth of the west has nothing to do with "exploitation" of the developing world. If anything, colonial policies have cost us. Great Britain's economy started growing faster AFTER they left India. Occupying India was more expensive...
migkillertwo 9 months ago
...than any benefits brits gained.
The only way this COULD be true is that western policies have prevented other countries from nationalizing their oil industries. But this only forces them to sell at a market clearing price. Western countries oppose nationalizing oil reserves for good reason; it helps nobody and harms everybody, including the citizens of the oil producing countries.
migkillertwo 9 months ago
@migkillertwo
Yes, because good ole America knows what's best for everyone.
DawahFilms 9 months ago
@migkillertwo
BS. The United States first got wealthy off of the World Wars and has been a war economy ever since. The "Capitalism" of the United States first started with pumping out bombs and tanks and lots of natural resources as foreign aid. Exploiting the resources of others has also been profitable since we don't use our own anymore (its more expensive if we do).
If you honestly believe oil has nothing to do with this then you don't know anything about economics.
DawahFilms 9 months ago
@DawahFilms
"The United States first got wealthy off of the World Wars"
Comparatively speaking, the United States has been an extremely wealthy country since colonial times. The only sense in which you would be right is the labor shortage caused by Europe's huge demand for arms in WWI. But the production of armaments in WWII didn't make us wealthier. The private economy during WWII plummeted and only revived once the govt. rolled back the enormous wartime spending.
migkillertwo 9 months ago
@DawahFilms
"Exploiting the resources of others"
How many sociology courses have you taken? No really, I'm curious.
We don't "exploit" the resource of other nations. Buying what other countries have to sell isn't "exploitation" in any sense.
"if you honestly believe oil has nothing to do..."
I never said that, not once. I only said that oil nationalization harms everyone, us AND them. Were our ancestors' motives selfless? hardly.
migkillertwo 9 months ago
@migkillertwo mmh yeah, we really suffered during the whole slave trade thing, eh? ... pfft
darkdawg100 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkdawg100
"mmh yeah, we really suffered during the whole slave trade thing, eh?"
Slavery didn't make us richer. There's a reason why we had a "fugitive slave" clause in the constitution, because in limited government, slavery is an unsustainable and inefficient economic model.
migkillertwo 9 months ago
If you don't believe my words, i may make a video about the whole thing. It's pretty new, that some muslims in antiamericanistic furor now have to realize, that it's not that simple.
MardasMan 9 months ago
@MardasMan
It's not the Muslims making these sort of claims, it's non-Muslims and former CIA, and Historians. It may not be "that simple", but it's the gist of it.
DawahFilms 9 months ago 6
@DawahFilms
These facts are quite newly presented. I won't blame these historians for not having heard about them. Especially if they are a lobby network against conservative policies.
MardasMan 9 months ago
@MardasMan
this shit happened, it really did
i know it's easier to believe that the Iranians are just a bunch of savage monkeys, but truth is, they are a very liberal, very secular society.
bla34112 9 months ago
@bla34112
My comment was deleted for no reason, so i repeat it:
I never said, that Iranians would be like that, i know, that they are a quite liberal, secular society. But this society is often endangered by the iranian clerics, the mullahs, as not only 1905, 1953, but especially 1978 until today can be seen. I wanted to direct the attention to these guys, as they are often too much seen as a good source, and the US as the only bad, although in this case the clerics had the main influence.
MardasMan 9 months ago
@MardasMan
well nowadays this extreme right wing gov. they have are.. bad.. no doubt
This video was about the events before todays gov. though.
bla34112 9 months ago
@bla34112
One of the, later reluctant, followers of borudjerdi at that time was by the way the later ayatollah khomeini... who later blamed the US for being responsible for the shah being reinstated, as he overthrew him and the iranian democracy and established his totalitarian regime. He lied a lot and with system, by the way. This blaming is the reason, why this correction of historical understanding is neccessary. Khomeini and the clerics use it everyday for their propaganda.And we help them?
MardasMan 9 months ago
@MardasMan
Wait.. so you find one crook who has a certain opinion, and you immediately dismiss said opinion, just cause a guy holding it is a crook?
bla34112 9 months ago
@bla34112
No. The problem is, this guy was the revolutionary leader of Iran and a very powerful and accepted cleric, being the great-ayatollah or even the new mahdi. And the islamic republic of iran is still using his methods dealing with dissidents, etc. The problem is just, that the clerics were no help for this society. And if such a utter a******* was able to become greatayatollah and mahdi and his mullahs the leaders of Iran, and borudjerdi responsible for reinstating the shah, what next?
MardasMan 9 months ago
Sorry, but your entire video is misleading propaganda. The pro-shah-demonstrations were made by the iranian cleric borujerdi, not the CIA, after the US dealt with Mossadegh being in his position. That's not my opinion, but the one of Darioush Bayandor, who wrote about the CIA and Iran 2010.
Sorry, pwned :D
MardasMan 9 months ago
@MardasMan
you're a moron... you might want to join the flat earth society because it's not your opinion but some other dumb schmuck has thought of it first. there is overwhelming evidence of us involvement in the overthrow of mossadegh, both by western and iranian sources. one dumb guy repeating another dumb guy's moronic claims doesn't make this overwhelming pile of evidence go away.
ufster81 9 months ago
@MardasMan
"Pro Shah demonstrations were made by Iranian Cleric..."...who supported the Shah which was placed into power by the the U.S. after Iranian military were paid off to forcefully remove Mosedegh from power.
Yeah, you're right, but you're not. No pwnage for you.
DawahFilms 9 months ago 4
@DawahFilms
That's not correct. It's correct, that the US made this "operation ajax" trying to overthrow mossadegh because of his sympathy and collaboration with the communists, which is, as we know, against the new US Truman-doctrine of that time. As this coup, which wanted to establish the contracommunist general zahedi as prime minister, terribly failed, the US accepted Mossadegh, although they knew he was not really a friend of democracy, and the US was not interested in the shah to return..
MardasMan 9 months ago
@MardasMan
But the pro-shah demonstrations on the 19th August were organized by the ayatollahs, especially borudjerdi, because they feared, that mossadegh would establish a secular democracy. They gathered and borudjerdi demanded the shah to return, so they organized the protests, who led to the shah being reinstated. The shah thanked borudjerdi for his efforts in a telegram, which borudjerdi responded by saying, that mossadegh and his secular ideas would be a calamity to islam and the shah...
MardasMan 9 months ago
@MardasMan
And it's pwned, because this documentary mostly concentrates on the shah being reinstated, which is a clear antidemocratic movement, but the US only wanted to overthrow the pro-tudeh-party mossadegh, who also forbid protests against him and violated the iranian constitution. The role of the US and the CIA is not very nice, but they didn't participate in the antidemocratic move of reinstating the shah. Instead the clerics, so, as you wish, ISLAM was responsible for this move. Pnwed
MardasMan 9 months ago
@MardasMan
Right... and in september 11, 1973 they just wanted to remove Allende and the support they gave to Pinochet was simply incidental, right?
It is the USA involvement in all of these that causes the problems. And that involvement is not limited to just middle east.
USA supported the military coups in south america, giving room to some of the most brutal totalitarian regimes.
BaronesaReturns 9 months ago
@BaronesaReturns
1. No. Reinstating the shah by the clerics doesn't make the US intervention make better. And i did not deny that.
2. Not only. The US involvement may often be unjustified power policy, but it's too single-sided to only blame the US for problems, which in this case are not just done by the US. It only brings problems, if the US is taking US interests more seriously than humanistic ones. Libya for example is a positive example, or for some instance the gulf war 1.
MardasMan 9 months ago
It's always America's fault, right?
fruitikay 9 months ago
@fruitikay always? mmm no... but a lot of the time? yes
gwu edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
BaronesaReturns 9 months ago
@fruitikay: No, before America became overwhelmingly the most militarily funded and technologically advanced economic superpower in the history of mankind, it was usually England's fault. America is a superpower. Superpowers are not suicidal, they aim to maintain their status as superpowers and in the process, they make potentially catastrophic mistakes. For as long as America remains a superpower, you will have to live with a lot of criticism. Deal with it.
SentientRaven 9 months ago
@SentientRaven It's amazing how many assumptions someone can make about my stance on things from just one sentence.
fruitikay 9 months ago
@fruitikay: MAYBE you should reconsider what you write, then. You know what that looks like, how was I supposed to respond? Non-Americans get that attitude a lot, and it gets sickening considering America's status in the world. If I somehow misunderstood you, I offer no apologies and I honestly don't know how else to interpret what you said.
SentientRaven 9 months ago
@SentientRaven It wasn't a sarcastic statement. I was serious.
fruitikay 9 months ago
@fruitikay: Right, and I was supposed to read your mind as opposed to interpret that as what it looks like? - Obviously you and I operate on different levels. Have a nice day.
SentientRaven 9 months ago
@SentientRaven Your the one who commented. You too.
fruitikay 9 months ago
I did say I didn't agree with it. Also, I don't know much about America's history, but I'm not at all proud to be an american. That is why I plan to move to Japan when I am older and leave this so called "Free and proud" country.
BoddShamWoW 9 months ago
Good video Ali...
Interventionism was also the cause of most of the dictatorships and several human right violations commited in south america, like the "plan Condor"
BaronesaReturns 9 months ago
I Don't agree with this, but the reason America is so damn nosy is because of what happened in WWII. America didnt get involved when the jews were being killed because they didnt know how bad it was. So to avoid that happening again, America wants to make sure they know what is happening in other countries.
BoddShamWoW 9 months ago
@BoddShamWoW
Oh please America is not the world's police. Where were they when the Palestinians were being massacred?
cbluver22 9 months ago
@BoddShamWoW Really?? Then how come, Nixon and Kissinger meddled in south america? and actually enabled for Pinochet's coup that deposed Salvador Allende... and led one of the most brutal dictatorships in south amrica from september 11, 1973 to march 11, 1990. Care to explain that?
Michael Townley, former CIA agent, working for Pinochet commited the terrorist attack against Orlando Letelier in 1976... right on Washington DC... ohh... and right now he is on witness protection.. not in jail.
BaronesaReturns 9 months ago
@BoddShamWoW They may be part of it, but another factor was that in the beginning of WWII the German weapons were a bit better than American weapons.
opivy07 9 months ago
Thank you DawahFilms. This is just a part of the history of the West that has been intentionally forgotten and there are so many more examples: Batista, Samosa, Marcos, Norriega, the list can go on and on showing examples of the US' failed foreign policies. And so many wonder why we are so hated around the world.
ATCFDrummer 9 months ago
We really need to learn to keep our noses out of other people's business
SatiricalStewie 9 months ago
@SatiricalStewie: It's fine that you stick your nose in other people's business when it's to ENCOURAGE democracy and freedom. The problem is that economic and militaristic interest come long before the rights of other countries' citizenry. If US foreign policy really were about spreading freedom and democracy, it wouldn't be a problem. But while America is internally relatively free, externally it's just another superpower that accordingly acts like one; to secure and safeguard its own interest.
SentientRaven 9 months ago
America only likes it when THEMSELVES are the only "democracies", not any other country, especially if its a Muslim/Middle East country.
Y3M37H 9 months ago
@Y3M37H Don't get too cocky, Brit. your country was the one that convinced us to get involved in Operation Ajax (Re-instate the shah of Iran).
SlyHeathen 9 months ago
@SlyHeathen My country? Get your head out of your ass.
Y3M37H 9 months ago
We read a novel in one of my near east politics classes called "All the Shah's Men". It explains this whole story. Great novel for anyone who wants more information about this situation.
xZemmax 9 months ago
@xZemmax It's not a novel, it is non-fiction.
ATCFDrummer 9 months ago
@ATCFDrummer yes it is non-fiction but the way it was written was more of a novel format if I am not mistaken, or maybe that was the other book we read that year...but I'm sure it is written in novel format...I can't remember.
xZemmax 9 months ago
History; it keeps getting in the way of our bullshit narratives.
whistlingdust 9 months ago 3
well well well I'll just have to research this myself!...this was a good video and very informative it will make me research it but with a better eye for the truth. Thanks for posting this
Unworshipediety 9 months ago
Lets see: we stuck our nose in Iran and now we have issues with them. We stuck our nose in Iraq and had to fight a war with them. We stuck our nose in Afghanistan and now we're at war with them. When in the hell our we going to learn that we need to keep our nose out of other's business? Good video, Ali.
TheCurmudgen 9 months ago 12
Seems reasonable enough. While I should say that I disagree with (American) liberals that we should never interfere in other countries affairs (except when conforming to their agenda), I also disagree with the "ends justify the means" politics of the past, and even today. But like the US-Iran situation, that isn't going to be a quick fix either, nor do I think it's ever going to be.
jcrebel18 9 months ago
@jcrebel18 Actually, (American) liberals don't tend to argue that we should never interfere in other countries affairs (except when conforming to their agenda). That position would be more likely to be held by (American) libertarians and anarchists. Liberals sometimes agree on international issues with libertarians and anarchists, but often not.
MarmaladeINFP 9 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Yes, except for all the liberals that I know of have argued that Iraq is a demonstration of why we should do exactly that, but wouldn't oppose it if it were say, opposing female circumcision, which has become quasi-traditional certain countries, and the females there often don't know any different. This may be countered by education, but it would take more to counter a deeply rooted tradition than that. This is also not to say liberals don't support the soldiers.
jcrebel18 9 months ago
@jcrebel18 Liberals don't like acts of violence for the sake of violence, demonstrations of power for the sake of power. Liberals, instead, want violence and power to be used toward some greater good. Short term benefits and satisfaction isn't worthy at the cost of long term risks and problems. What is the point of attacking an enemy if you end up creating even more enemies than you had before. Liberals tend to be more pragmatic when it comes to international affairs going case by case.
MarmaladeINFP 9 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Bin Laden was our enemy before Bush took to the WH, and made a few attacks on us as well. Of course, we launched a few missles, which only ended up hitting empty terrorist training camps. Unless, you're talking about some other group. As for violence for the sake of violence, who said conservatives wanted that?
jcrebel18 9 months ago
@jcrebel18 "Unless, you're talking about some other group."
I wasn't referring to anything specific in my comment. I was speaking more generally about the liberal preference of pacifism unless some greater purpose necessitates violence.
"As for violence for the sake of violence, who said conservatives wanted that?"
Right-Wing Authoritarians (which correlates to social conservatives) like violence.
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2011/01/28/do-rightwingers-love-war/
MarmaladeINFP 9 months ago
I hate it when someone tries to tell me that Islam is the most violent religion in the world ab initio and their violence has nothing to do with political intervention.
Political intervention is the foundational core of all violence ranging from the Nazis, Rwandan genocide, Middle East, Pearl Harbor, and more. Idiots who blame religion do not realize that the issue is the political intervention first, religious ideas second. Ignorance is bliss.
Audiofalcon7 9 months ago
Good clip.
lvl70shampally 9 months ago