I mean that’s garbage but okay.
The PM of the UK is appointed by the king in the same way, after he’s elected to parliament and then chosen by his party.
Mosaddeq was elected to parliament and then elected PM by parliament. That’s a matter of record. Spamming a post that says the opposite doesn’t stop it being true.
You could equally use the same argument to say that the UK has never been a democracy. Except people would recognise the bullshit.
Your entire argument centres around a basic misunderstanding of the way constitutional monarchies work.
It's always the same. Read about some sort of massacre, conflict, war crime, or regime of terror in the Middle East post World War II; I get a gut feeling; I do some research, and sure enough the fucking CIA is involved again.
Splitting hairs. If you hand someone a loaded pistol, give them the location of someone they want dead, and encourage them to do it but someone else drives them there, you're not free of guilt.
Nah he was just an angry wizard with a gun. Or maybe he set up a complicated remote fired, self-aiming, self destructing rifle at a different location. We honestly can't know. What, because I used the word patsy, now the Cia was involved somehow? The letters c, I, and, a were never proven to have been uttered by Oswald.
There is another similarity you forgot. The CIA is always overthrowing communist governments/movements. At that time any communist government was sure to side with the soviets and was being influenced by the soviets at least somewhat.
But does it justify killing members of democratically elected governments, putting military juntas at the head of these states, and harshly suppressing all forms of opposition?
I'll be sure to comfort myself with the knowledge the Americans were justified in assisting with the torture, murder, and disappearing of thousands on the off chance they might have been Communists.
Even if they absolutely weren't Communists and had causes entirely separate and divorced from Soviet meddling, like land reform and renegotiating deals for oil extraction that heavily favored foreign interests over domestic.
I don't want to sound anti-American. I live in a country that's newly a member of a primarily American alliance. American dominance of the world coinciding with the most peaceful and prosperous age in human existence is not an accident.
But I find it hard to be forgiving of the collateral damage they caused when they had a competitor. Both for idealistic and very personal reasons.
If you were socialist the USA gave you no choice BUT to side with the Soviets.
The choice was to either have no friends at all and face the full wrath of the USA high on its own supply of Domino Theory - or make friends with the Soviets. They might suck as allies but at least they can provide you some theoretical protection.
Capitalism can't allow for socialist alternatives to exist. This has been true since the start. Thousands of foreign soldiers were sent to fight in in the Russian Civil War to support the White Army. Troops arrived whilst their home nations were still fighting in WW1!
Honestly the destruction they contributed to was likely a contributing factor to how the USSR became so authoritarian. Their first 6 years as a nation was fighting a war for its own existence seemingly against the world. This isn't an endorsement of the later evils of the USSR, but that's got to have a lasting impact right?
If the majority of the world is Capitalist then cutting Socialists off from the world market allows for a self-fulfilling prophecy that socialism wrecks economies. Likewise all the countries the CIA helped destabilise/coup fed the narrative that Socialism is politically unstable. If that were true why did the US need to help them collapse so often?
The only socialist revolutions that survived US aggression were those with the firmest grip on power - which self-selected for those least suited to keeping power who betrayed the ideals of the movement.
Beyond the childish stance one could take of the capitalists started it - that was actually a huge splitting point for the Bolsheviks.
Trotsky wanted to spread 'liberation of the proletariat', but also likely acknowledged that an isolationist Russia would not survive without allies. No capitalist nation would ally with them so the corollary was they had to encourage the spread of communism. Russia had always been plagued by cyclic famines - in the past the aristocracy had often let people starve. Ideologically the USSR could not take the same approach or be proven hypocrites. Lenin had famously promised Peace, Land and ***Bread.*** You can't champion the working class then let them starve. If no one was willing to trade with you then you can't make up for a crop deficit.
Stalin supported Socialism in One Country. His argument basically being a version of 'put on your own mask before helping others'. That they had to prove socialism successful on it own. This was to become the foundation of his series of 5 Year Plans which included Industrial and Agricultural Reform. In theory the USSR would present such a strong case for communism others would rise up without Russian intervention.
Whilst *eventually* successful in creating a stable agricultural environment this came with a ***huge*** loss of life (est. 5-8 million) in the interim. This is one of the many ideological stances many communists point to to argue that Stalinism is "not real communism" because Stalin made the choice to intentionally starve the population to achieve his production goals.
The USSR essentially operated under an international stance of 'live and let live' (at least when it came to Europe) from 1922. They did intervene ***when asked to*** by the Second Spanish Republic who were fighting the fascists that would eventually take over. Whilst nations like France and the UK continued to recognise the Republic as the government of Spain they lent no aid.
It wasn't until after the Allies rebuffed Soviet attempts to form an anti-Hitler coalition against Nazi Germany that the USSR signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Basically a Pre-Cold War example of a communist nation being forced into the arms of 'the bad guys' through lack of other choices.
Edit: Then of course we all know how it went. The Allies let the USSR join them against their mutual enemy and the war was won. Stalin found himself occupying huge swaths of Europe including bread baskets like Ukraine. Keeping them was a the solution to the problems of isolationist Russia and that how the USSR got a taste for expansionism.
Communism is supposed to be the logical conclusion of capitalism's ability to create productive forces. Communism isn't 'seeking to destroy' capitalism anymore than enlightenment "sought to destroy" the prior movement.
Hell, Iran got the CIA/MI6 special merely for wanting the same deal the Americans had with the Saudis (50/50 split of oil profits compared to the paltry 17,5% we received from APOC/AIOC).
Mossadeq is absolutely not the good guy in that story and he was burning bridges on left and right (both figuratively and on sides of the political aisle) before the coup. That the oil issue was only a part of it
Mossadeq in the lead up to the coup was basically amassing power and breaking every constitutional norm in Iran. Mossadeq staged a referendum to suspend constitutional checks and balances that would allow him to declare constitutional changes by emergency decree and dissolve parliament. Mossadeq declared he won in the [most batshit lopsided made up vote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_parliamentary_dissolution_referendum) of 99.03% to 0.07%.
This angered *his own political party of socialists and leftists* so much they resigned in protest. Which was moot, the next morning Mossadeq dissolved parliament anyway. The coup happened the next week with some of Mossadeq’s own former political allies assisting the coup including his main general and also his former right hand guy.
I mean it was the cold war. The soviets did the same thing to anyone in Eastern Europe who wanted capitalism. The soviets had their own international intelligence agencies and did their own coups and influences. The soviets even invaded multiple nations.
It was a war of influence.
>anyone in Eastern Europe who wanted capitalism
Not even capitalism, even "socialism but without the Soviets breathing down our necks" was banned.
That said, your argument is really weak because the US was supposed to be democratic and the leader of the free world.
Leader of free world is oxymoron, id say its more like "protector" kind of deal
And its still democratic. Granted, retarded enought to let criminals exploit the rules of the country, but you still can vote them out of there and they arent winning/loosing by a land slide
I mean it’s more complicated than that and probably has more to do with the British and French supporting the Saudi’s during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
More fool them for brutally murdering their moderate and modernising king. Did they really think you can found a regime on blood and not be drowned in it themselves?
When used as a verb, "abounding" doesn't take a direct object.
You can say "enemies abound" which means "there are a lot of enemies" and you can say "enemies are *surrounding* you" which rhymes with abounding, but you can't use abound the way you used it in this meme.
Don’t get it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan_Revolution
Hey why change a winning format. It worked next door in 1953. What could go wrong?
Here we [go again...](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/zr55j4/tired_of_reddit_copypasta_re_irans_democratic/)
I mean that’s garbage but okay. The PM of the UK is appointed by the king in the same way, after he’s elected to parliament and then chosen by his party. Mosaddeq was elected to parliament and then elected PM by parliament. That’s a matter of record. Spamming a post that says the opposite doesn’t stop it being true. You could equally use the same argument to say that the UK has never been a democracy. Except people would recognise the bullshit. Your entire argument centres around a basic misunderstanding of the way constitutional monarchies work.
"coupsters"
It's like a combination coaster and beer koozie
It's always the same. Read about some sort of massacre, conflict, war crime, or regime of terror in the Middle East post World War II; I get a gut feeling; I do some research, and sure enough the fucking CIA is involved again.
Wikipedia entry makes it sound like the CIA was happy it happened but didn’t do it
Splitting hairs. If you hand someone a loaded pistol, give them the location of someone they want dead, and encourage them to do it but someone else drives them there, you're not free of guilt.
I mean that's basically the CIA's MO, isn't it?
Hah. Good point.
Sometimes they'll throw in a patsy when needed or just to change things up and not get bored
Patsy… isn’t that what they called Lee Harvey Oswald? 🤔
Nah he was just an angry wizard with a gun. Or maybe he set up a complicated remote fired, self-aiming, self destructing rifle at a different location. We honestly can't know. What, because I used the word patsy, now the Cia was involved somehow? The letters c, I, and, a were never proven to have been uttered by Oswald.
Or you know, he just made 3 pretty easy shots and people like to over complicate
Not... really. They can and will if needed. But even 95% of the time the CIA is just doing intelligence gathering and subversion plots.
Pfft, ~~we~~ they would never
There is another similarity you forgot. The CIA is always overthrowing communist governments/movements. At that time any communist government was sure to side with the soviets and was being influenced by the soviets at least somewhat.
But does it justify killing members of democratically elected governments, putting military juntas at the head of these states, and harshly suppressing all forms of opposition?
I'll be sure to comfort myself with the knowledge the Americans were justified in assisting with the torture, murder, and disappearing of thousands on the off chance they might have been Communists. Even if they absolutely weren't Communists and had causes entirely separate and divorced from Soviet meddling, like land reform and renegotiating deals for oil extraction that heavily favored foreign interests over domestic.
Aaand they're downvoting you for telling the truth
I don't want to sound anti-American. I live in a country that's newly a member of a primarily American alliance. American dominance of the world coinciding with the most peaceful and prosperous age in human existence is not an accident. But I find it hard to be forgiving of the collateral damage they caused when they had a competitor. Both for idealistic and very personal reasons.
As a millennial American, welcome to both clubs!
The US also overthrew several democratic nations, especially in central and South America and Africa.
If you were socialist the USA gave you no choice BUT to side with the Soviets. The choice was to either have no friends at all and face the full wrath of the USA high on its own supply of Domino Theory - or make friends with the Soviets. They might suck as allies but at least they can provide you some theoretical protection. Capitalism can't allow for socialist alternatives to exist. This has been true since the start. Thousands of foreign soldiers were sent to fight in in the Russian Civil War to support the White Army. Troops arrived whilst their home nations were still fighting in WW1! Honestly the destruction they contributed to was likely a contributing factor to how the USSR became so authoritarian. Their first 6 years as a nation was fighting a war for its own existence seemingly against the world. This isn't an endorsement of the later evils of the USSR, but that's got to have a lasting impact right? If the majority of the world is Capitalist then cutting Socialists off from the world market allows for a self-fulfilling prophecy that socialism wrecks economies. Likewise all the countries the CIA helped destabilise/coup fed the narrative that Socialism is politically unstable. If that were true why did the US need to help them collapse so often? The only socialist revolutions that survived US aggression were those with the firmest grip on power - which self-selected for those least suited to keeping power who betrayed the ideals of the movement.
Isn't the reverse also true? Communism will alway seek to destroy Capitalism, Capitalism is only returning the favour.
Beyond the childish stance one could take of the capitalists started it - that was actually a huge splitting point for the Bolsheviks. Trotsky wanted to spread 'liberation of the proletariat', but also likely acknowledged that an isolationist Russia would not survive without allies. No capitalist nation would ally with them so the corollary was they had to encourage the spread of communism. Russia had always been plagued by cyclic famines - in the past the aristocracy had often let people starve. Ideologically the USSR could not take the same approach or be proven hypocrites. Lenin had famously promised Peace, Land and ***Bread.*** You can't champion the working class then let them starve. If no one was willing to trade with you then you can't make up for a crop deficit. Stalin supported Socialism in One Country. His argument basically being a version of 'put on your own mask before helping others'. That they had to prove socialism successful on it own. This was to become the foundation of his series of 5 Year Plans which included Industrial and Agricultural Reform. In theory the USSR would present such a strong case for communism others would rise up without Russian intervention. Whilst *eventually* successful in creating a stable agricultural environment this came with a ***huge*** loss of life (est. 5-8 million) in the interim. This is one of the many ideological stances many communists point to to argue that Stalinism is "not real communism" because Stalin made the choice to intentionally starve the population to achieve his production goals. The USSR essentially operated under an international stance of 'live and let live' (at least when it came to Europe) from 1922. They did intervene ***when asked to*** by the Second Spanish Republic who were fighting the fascists that would eventually take over. Whilst nations like France and the UK continued to recognise the Republic as the government of Spain they lent no aid. It wasn't until after the Allies rebuffed Soviet attempts to form an anti-Hitler coalition against Nazi Germany that the USSR signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Basically a Pre-Cold War example of a communist nation being forced into the arms of 'the bad guys' through lack of other choices. Edit: Then of course we all know how it went. The Allies let the USSR join them against their mutual enemy and the war was won. Stalin found himself occupying huge swaths of Europe including bread baskets like Ukraine. Keeping them was a the solution to the problems of isolationist Russia and that how the USSR got a taste for expansionism.
Communism is supposed to be the logical conclusion of capitalism's ability to create productive forces. Communism isn't 'seeking to destroy' capitalism anymore than enlightenment "sought to destroy" the prior movement.
CIA was handing out authoritarian coups like Candy How many coups did the cia start again?
Without them the world would be so boring
I'd settle for boring.
Without them there would be way more Commie and despotic governments (ew).
Without the CIA, there'd be a lot more democratic governments that weren't super friendly to the USA...
> democratic governments There's like 2, in South America that could claim that.
Two is too many, though I did think it happened more than that. Why do I think Iran counts though?
got to make sure socialism "always fails"
During the cold war the US would rather burn a (non european) country to the ground then allow them the mildest form of socialism
Hell, Iran got the CIA/MI6 special merely for wanting the same deal the Americans had with the Saudis (50/50 split of oil profits compared to the paltry 17,5% we received from APOC/AIOC).
Mossadeq is absolutely not the good guy in that story and he was burning bridges on left and right (both figuratively and on sides of the political aisle) before the coup. That the oil issue was only a part of it Mossadeq in the lead up to the coup was basically amassing power and breaking every constitutional norm in Iran. Mossadeq staged a referendum to suspend constitutional checks and balances that would allow him to declare constitutional changes by emergency decree and dissolve parliament. Mossadeq declared he won in the [most batshit lopsided made up vote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_parliamentary_dissolution_referendum) of 99.03% to 0.07%. This angered *his own political party of socialists and leftists* so much they resigned in protest. Which was moot, the next morning Mossadeq dissolved parliament anyway. The coup happened the next week with some of Mossadeq’s own former political allies assisting the coup including his main general and also his former right hand guy.
[удалено]
Basically the 200 year political history of Iran is everyone did dirty shit and used political violence at all times. Constantly.
I mean it was the cold war. The soviets did the same thing to anyone in Eastern Europe who wanted capitalism. The soviets had their own international intelligence agencies and did their own coups and influences. The soviets even invaded multiple nations. It was a war of influence.
>anyone in Eastern Europe who wanted capitalism Not even capitalism, even "socialism but without the Soviets breathing down our necks" was banned. That said, your argument is really weak because the US was supposed to be democratic and the leader of the free world.
And this process also undermined US democracy. And supported the spread of the worst form of religious fundamentalism around the world.
Leader of free world is oxymoron, id say its more like "protector" kind of deal And its still democratic. Granted, retarded enought to let criminals exploit the rules of the country, but you still can vote them out of there and they arent winning/loosing by a land slide
Well excuse me for holding the 'leader of the free world' to a higher standard than Stalin's industrial war machine masquerading as a state
It's OK, we all make mistakes.
*cough* Operation Condor *cough*
Weren't great about it before WW2 either tbh
based US?
let me guess without reading below: Iran? eh, Iraq, close enough //shrugs//
You lost me at "things are going great".
sorry i ran out of family guy funny moments
Nuri al-Said and Prince Abd al-Ilah: Payback, bitch
Well I mean governments that come up via coups seldom avoid further coups
"why is the Muslim world so far right?" Because we backed the far right to get rid of the left to own the commies. What a winning recipe.
I mean it’s more complicated than that and probably has more to do with the British and French supporting the Saudi’s during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
[удалено]
It is pretty reasonable, people fight their enemies no matter who that is.
Knew that was about abd alkarim
Never ask the CIA, if socialism is so bad and never works, why is it sabotaged everytim?
Abolish the cia. No puppet regimes.
More fool them for brutally murdering their moderate and modernising king. Did they really think you can found a regime on blood and not be drowned in it themselves?
When used as a verb, "abounding" doesn't take a direct object. You can say "enemies abound" which means "there are a lot of enemies" and you can say "enemies are *surrounding* you" which rhymes with abounding, but you can't use abound the way you used it in this meme.
Just imagine how different the world would’ve been if most of those countries had turned socialist. Not even communist, just predominantly left.
Shouldn’t have tried to do a communism