Hi Poirot,

So ..... whatever consequences follow from an action by the US to overthrow a legitimate government, no matter how long afterwards, the US is responsible for ?

So, because of their machinations in, say, China in the forties, they were directly responsible for the success of the Revolution in 1949 ? Because of their installation (and subsequent assassination) of Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam in the late fifties, they were responsible for its liberation and absorption into the Democratic Republic of Vietnam ?

So ..... whether the US opposes or supports a particular side in a political battle, they are directly responsible for whatever the outcome may be, Left or Right ? The US is all-powerful, responsible for pretty much everything that happens, like Arjay believes ?

Three-year-olds believe their daddy or mummy causes it to rain, and get angry with them when they can't go out to play. Join the club, Poirot :)

Joe

Gosh, Loudmouth, you run a nice line in twisty-turny logic.

Are you denying that The Shah ruled as a puppet of the U. S. and that the ensuing Islamic state was more likely to arise out of such a situation?

Of course, there always exists a number of variables in any given situation, but the fact remains that some actions are more pertinent to outcomes than others.

dont leave out the affect of iraq attacking iran
via sadman insane [cia]

and who gave them a nuclear reacter?

the middle east is the result of war mongers
look no further than a co,loniser [pbriton]...handing israel to the capoes/zionists[northern bolchovics]..

via lol a letter..[belfore]..
lest we ignore the us..base..in bah/reign
or the ties with the royal house of saud

[colonisation
one oh one]

usa
all the way
[each dog has its day]
war is over if we want to

all we are saying is give peace a chance
and then live with demon/ocracy
instead of demonic auto-crazey

Poirot,

Was it absolutely certain that a theocracy would follow the overthrow of the Shah ? We know now that such things are possible, but nobody would have dreamt of it back in the seventies, except perhaps the ayatollahs, in exile in Iraq.

But there could have been other outcomes, even if we assume that somehow, the US would have opposed them:

* a social-democratic revolution, organised by a old Labour Party-type coalition - such things had happened in Lebanon before 1979;

* the Shah falling out with the US and inviting the Russians in - after all, his father had done something like this in the forties;

* invasion from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan;

* civil war and the breaking-up of Iran into a dozen mini-states, Azeri, Kurd, Sistani, Baluchi, Arab, Pashtun, Turkmen/Turcoman, etc.

All of these would have been as unlikely as a Shi'ite theocracy, and none of them would have been to the liking of the US or the oil companies. I'm not so sure that the US plays dice with its interests.

But according to your understanding of how the world works, whatever happened would have been the fault of the Americans. With respect, doesn't that require a slightly twisted logic ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

Any one of those scenarios could have taken place - except that they didn't.

I'm simply drawing a conclusion from events that "did" unfold.

But you seem to have a problem with that.

I do indeed, Poirot :)

Just because something happens, doesn't mean it HAD to happen: it would have been one of many possibilities. You need to find some way to show that

(a) the descent into a reactionary theocracy was by far the most likely outcome of all the political goings-on in Iran in the seventies;

(b) the US somehow engineered, or allowed, this outcome; and

most unlikely, that:

(c) the US has benefited out of overthrow of 'their' Shah.

Good luck !

Joe