See "Iranum" for free

[sjw]

None of that argues for why it's legitimate for US or British governments to intervene. At best it argues that these companies had the right to take a private militia in, not bring in US soldiers to get killed because a businessman made a stupid decision about where to build a well.

Basically the businessman took a stupid risk, it didn't pan out, and now the US government ends up paying for everything. Sounds familiar. Just like the fascist 2008 bailout of big business, that Objectivists run to the defense of. Objectivists are amazing, absolutely amazing.

Shayne

Well, if we are looking for the "full context", please remember what triggered the 1953 coup:

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, after a period of great difficulty and fruitless exploration

(they nearly gave up on ever finding oil in Iran and had burned through their cash),

finally struck oil in 1908, and single-handedly turned Iran into a major producer.

Mossadegh thanked them by attempting forced nationalization of their company,

with broad public support. It is probably the case that AIOC (formerly APOC,

now BP) should have offered Iran a better deal by 1951.

In any case, anti-western feeling led to the 1953 coup, not the other way round.

Mike

I watched enough of it to tell that it's misleading at best, as they don't provide the full context for the source of anti-Americanism. E.g., they leave this important bit out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Shayne

[Selene]

Iran Arrests Dissidents, Sites Report .

President O'biwan, In Hawaii, on vacation, condemned the violence against protesters and called for the release of those "unjustly detained."

Pathetic.

[mfgreaves]

None of that argues for why it's legitimate for US or British governments to intervene. At best it argues that these companies had the right to take a private militia in, not bring in US soldiers to get killed because a businessman made a stupid decision about where to build a well.

Shayne

That's because I *wasn't* arguing for it's legitimacy.

I was (and do) contest your assertion that the coup led to anti-western sentiment.

I assert that you have it backwards: there already *was* anti-western sentiment;

the US and UK feared communist influences, and that led to the CIA intervention.

You are parroting the line that the coup led to anti-western feelings; and that is false.

On the other hand, I am sure that it did nothing to dissipate them...

Mike

[sjw]

None of that argues for why it's legitimate for US or British governments to intervene. At best it argues that these companies had the right to take a private militia in, not bring in US soldiers to get killed because a businessman made a stupid decision about where to build a well.

Shayne

That's because I *wasn't* arguing for it's legitimacy.

I was (and do) contest your assertion that the coup led to anti-western sentiment.

I assert that you have it backwards: there already *was* anti-western sentiment;

the US and UK feared communist influences, and that led to the CIA intervention.

You are parroting the line that the coup led to anti-western feelings; and that is false.

On the other hand, I am sure that it did nothing to dissipate them...

Mike

The common-sense analysis from your premise is:

1. They didn't like us already.

2. Businessmen take risks drilling wells. It doesn't pan out. Iranians commit an entirely predictable *act of theft* and take the wells.

3. Businessmen get the US to bail them out -- by the US initiating an ACT OF WAR.

You're going to have to help me with your reasoning. What is your point? That the ACT OF WAR just made them hate us slightly more than they did before the ACT OF WAR? If so, then ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

The 1953 coup was in the context of the U.S. technically being at war with the U.S.S.R.

What does "technically being at war" mean here?

--Brant

[sjw]

The 1953 coup was in the context of the U.S. technically being at war with the U.S.S.R.

What does "technically being at war" mean here?

--Brant

It means moral principles no longer apply and therefore there is no need to justify our actions.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

It means moral principles no longer apply and therefore there is no need to justify our actions.

Shayne

Arrrghhh! Smart as paint ye arrrre! I like the cut of your jib.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

Yes and my coup strategy was also welcomed by many Iranians so what's your point? You notice the Shah remained in power for some twenty years before there was another revolt. Even still, I think the revolts that took place in the seventies were the result of communist and Islamist influences in which they got the revolution right that time.

You will also note in the movie that once the Islamists took power in Iran they killed all of the people associated with the Shah in and outside of Iran. I am sure they also executed many of the people who helped them too such as the communists and secularists who helped with the protests against the Shah.

In terms of Mossadegh being democratically elected, I would advise caution on your part when making an assertion such as this. My family grew up in Italy when Benito Mussolini was dictator.

Mussolini was democratically elected at first like Mossadegh was and then consolodated his power just like Hitler did in Germany. I am sure Mossadegh if given time might do the same thing. No one would elect to have themselves enslaved either by fascists or communists.

Simultaneously there is no right to enslave individuals which, as I am sure you are aware, the destruction of individuality is the central tenet of fascism and communism.

You do not strike me as such as person who would prefer people to live under the iron-fist of collectivism yet the logic behind your point will lead to such a result.

It's obvious why it's not relevant that the US overthrew a democratically chosen ruler? I.e., the ruler that the majority of Iranians wanted? You don't think that's going to piss a lot of people off?

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

The U.S. and U.S.S.R. mutually agreed to a state of detente between the 2 countries. This I believe means that neither country would directly attack the other and verify in times of hostility in order to avert a nuclear exchange.

However, this did not mean they would stop the cat and mouse game when it came to foreign affairs. Including when it came to the U.S.S.R. seeking sattelite colonies in and outside of its region of control such as its support of left-wing movements (politicial or violent) in Latin America.

The U.S. would kick out people or governments friendly to the U.S.S.R. (like seen in Iran, Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala) and install ones not only friendly to the U.S. but also embraced semblances of capitalism such as seen in the case of the Shah but also Augusto Pinochet and Alberto Fujimori.

Regime changes were (rightly) done by the U.S. to stamp out the spread of communism and, by and large, fortunately such actions were successful since they avoided direct military conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union since doing so could lead to a nuclear exchange which neither side wanted.

Free countries (like the U.S.) have the right (though not an obligation) to conduct acts of aggression against dictatorships since they are based not only on the complete destruction of the individual but also rule by fear, intimidation and force. Ms. Rand said it best that a country guilty of the outrages specific to a dictatorship forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

The 1953 coup was in the context of the U.S. technically being at war with the U.S.S.R.

What does "technically being at war" mean here?

--Brant

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

Free countries (like the U.S.) have the right (though not an obligation) to conduct acts of aggression against dictatorships ...

Free countries get consent first. I didn't consent. Some in Congress like bringing up the concept of the draft. In which case there will be plenty of soldiers who didn't consent either.

By what right do you deliver military charity at my expense? If you want to make the "war is charity" argument then make the argument for war as charity. Argue for true Second Amendment rights of US citizens. Argue that the the US should permit interested parties to go around the world freeing people from dictatorships. Because all you're doing is making the argument that the US government has the prerogative to forcibly drag all of us into a war we don't all want, thereby making many of us an unwilling target for all the people who are angered thereby.

Shayne

[sjw]

You do not strike me as such as person who would prefer people to live under the iron-fist of collectivism yet the logic behind your point will lead to such a result.

Your first mistake is not actually addressing the point, namely, whether it is not in fact relevant to the current state of affairs that we overthrew their democratically elected leader. Your second mistake is presuming to be able to see the logic behind my point.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

dup deleted

Edited February 28, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

This is technically not being at war.

--Brant

Edited February 28, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Free countries (like the U.S.) have the right (though not an obligation) to conduct acts of aggression against dictatorships ...

Free countries get consent first. I didn't consent. Some in Congress like bringing up the concept of the draft. In which case there will be plenty of soldiers who didn't consent either.

By what right do you deliver military charity at my expense? If you want to make the "war is charity" argument then make the argument for war as charity. Argue for true Second Amendment rights of US citizens. Argue that the the US should permit interested parties to go around the world freeing people from dictatorships. Because all you're doing is making the argument that the US government has the prerogative to forcibly drag all of us into a war we don't all want, thereby making many of us an unwilling target for all the people who are angered thereby.

Shayne

Governments have no rights. They violate rights. When they go to war they ramp up their rights' violations. This is just the way things are. Where do we go from there?

--Brant

[sjw]

This is technically not being at war.

--Brant

Was better before you edited it.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

I thought I did in my previous posts. Then I will attempt to again and this will be my final post on this matter.

The reason why it was relevant or proper to kick out Mossadegh was that with him in charge Iran could have ended up going the way of Cuba by eventually becoming a communist state. Especially since he had the strong backing of Iran's Stalinist-leaning Tudeh party in the Iranian parliament.

I think and the C.I.A. concluded that, like Fidel Castro, Mossadegh was a communist at heart. He would not openly admit it.

States based on collectivist ideologies that become or are dictatorships are a threat to civilized countries since most times will not only commit humanitarian crimes internally but will also export their ideology. By and large dictatorships or totalitarian states support groups or individuals that achieve their revolutionary goals like what was seen with the U.S.S.R. with its support of communistic movements and Iran with its support of terrorism.

This goes back to my point that there is no right to enslave and that the people of Iran would not consent to a communist or Islamist state anymore than the people of Italy would consent to a fascist one.

Your first mistake is not actually addressing the point, namely, whether it is not in fact relevant to the current state of affairs that we overthrew their democratically elected leader. Your second mistake is presuming to be able to see the logic behind my point.

Shayne

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

Governments have no rights. They violate rights. When they go to war they ramp up their rights' violations. This is just the way things are. Where do we go from there?

--Brant

We have two basic choices. First, we can either settle into the status quo by either turning our minds into pretzels as MR and most Objectivists try to do, or we can settle into it by throwing our hands in the air and saying that ideas and consistency don't matter. Or second, we can use our ideas to paint a proper vision of how things ought to be and hope that by doing so we inspire people to accept it and to help move toward this vision.

I think people like us are mostly politically irrelevant, so trying in some way to fit in with the status quo doesn't make much difference, the only way to have the slightest chance at making a difference is to take the visionary approach. Also, as Ayn Rand said, when we fight for the future, we live in it today. This isn't wholly true but there is truth in it.

Governments, qua associations, have rights in the same manner that all coalitions have rights: as an expression of the conservation of rights of their consenting members. Governments ought not violate rights. They have always done this, but it need not be so.

Shayne

[sjw]

The reason why it was relevant or proper to kick out Mossadegh

I see that you've finally introduced the word that represents the concept that was at the top of your mind as you have continued ignoring my question: "proper." You mean to argue that it is not relevant that we helped overthrow a government because it was allegedly morally proper to overthrow it. And implicitly, you must think that since it was, allegedly, morally proper, that therefore it may be taken as a metaphysical given. And therefore things could not have been otherwise, and therefore it is, in your words, "obvious" why it's not relevant to bring the fact of the US-sponsored coup into the conversation.

“As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.” --Voltaire

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

This is technically not being at war.

--Brant

Was better before you edited it.

Shayne

I garbled it all up, technically, so I came with the short version.

The U.S. has not been technically at war since it declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941. It had been conducting a de facto war against both countries.

--Brant

edit: I should have said since WWII was concluded with the surrender of Japan

Edited February 28, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Shayne:

You are in favor of democracy as the organizing principle of government?

Adam

[sjw]

Shayne:

You are in favor of democracy as the organizing principle of government?

Adam

Consent is the only proper principle. What you do once all parties consent is up to the consenting parties.

See my book for details.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

You are in favor of democracy as the organizing principle of government?

Adam

Consent is the only proper principle. What you do once all parties consent is up to the consenting parties.

See my book for details.

Shayne

Shayne:

I am working on that.

However, consent and democracy are not the same.

My question to you is 50.000001 of the "consenters" in a given territorial area known as the "government of x" would constitute consent in your model?

Adam

[sjw]

However, consent and democracy are not the same.

My question to you is 50.000001 of the "consenters" in a given territorial area known as the "government of x" would constitute consent in your model?

Adam

I am curious how after reading my posts for so long you could come to the conclusion that I'd be happy with the majority ordering me around. In other words, no, that is not consent. More precisely, it is consent for the 50.000001%, it is unacceptable usurpation of consent for the rest. Of course, this is not how it really works. In reality, everyone's consent is always violated 100% of the time, because some people consent to some things, and others consent to others, but there is always a set of things where some individual's consent is violated, which is completely unacceptable barbarism.

The model based on usurpation of consent has become the norm so it's hard to imagine it working any other way. Ergo we get the debate between anarchists and minarchists, with both camps saying that it's impossible to have a government based on true consent, and then taking different sides of this false coin. I do not call myself a "minarchist" because I am not for "minimal" government that "minimally" usurps consent on a totalitarian scale. I am for a government based on true consent, and there is nothing in that concept that necessarily implies anything about smallness, because some people do want a big government, and would consent to it, and should not be coerced by "libertarians" into having a small one. Nor am I an anarchist, because I believe in geographic jurisdictions, some monopolistic, where the men with the prerogative get to create and apply rules there.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

That is what I thought, as you pointed out after all this time of reading your posts, what you meant by "consent."

Which is why I am asking the question about democracy.

You were arguing, were you not, that we should be morally pure and should have supported the pre-Shah government in Iran because it was democratically elected...correct?

Adam

[Mike Renzulli]

So am I understanding you correctly that you think that people consent to live in dictatorships?

Consent is the only proper principle. What you do once all parties consent is up to the consenting parties.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mike Renzulli