March 21, 2007: "Know Your War!"
(click for archives)
I compiled this particular comic because, the more I read about Iraq, the more it seemed that the media had never bothered to really explain the forces at work over there. Therefore most of the people I meet really don't know what's going on over there other than knowing that some folks can't get along. So here's a simplified version of what I know. If anyone thinks I'm wrong on something or should add something, let me know!
Labels: dumbstruck, war
21 Comments:
One line from the "Aliens" movie
pretty well sums it up.
To quote Ripley, more or less:
"I say we nuke the whole place. It's the only way to be sure."
Very nice, succint analysis of the current situation, Chuck. Though it's hard to capture the nuances of these conflicts and alliances (such as the Iranian population's largely pro-West stance pre-Iraq war), I think you've given people enough of a lead to at least start reading up on their own; which, by the way is something that the uninformed Anonymous barbarian who posted before me really needs to do, assuming he can. That was one of the most anti-American things I've read in a long time; Ann Coulter would be proud...
Thanks, Ian, although I think the Iranians were happy enough with us until the CIA overthrew their democratically elected president and installed our own. That's enough to make anyone mad at us.
As for nuking them all, I often feel that way about the entire District of Columbia...
Oh Ian, my goodness, I'm not such a bad guy....once ya get to know me. To show you that my heart's in the right place, I'll even help you with your spelling, if you'd like. And, even though it was a joke (you do have a sense of humor, don't you) I'll admit that nuking them is probably a bit extreme. Instead, we could load up all of our B-52's with Rosie O'Donnell's dirty drawers and drop them all over the Middle East but, then again, that might be even more extreme than the nukes.
And, you say "barbarian" like it's a bad thing.
And, grabbag guy, I'll have to admit that you've stumped me. Please tell me when it was that the CIA overthrew Iran's "Democratically" elected president and just exactly who he might have been? I have obviously missed something, being uninformed and such, but I have an inquiring mind and inquiring minds want to know.
Take it easy there guy. No need to get worked up over this.
Anyways, the event I was referring to was Operation Ajax in which the CIA worked to overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh, Iran's democratically elected prime minister, in 1953 because he was not as pro-Western as we would have liked. We reinstalled the Shah as their ruler. But the Iranians didn't like this, which eventually led to them to overthrow the Shah in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution which swept the current Islamic theocracy into power.
Shazam! Blinded by facts!
For the record, I would like to apologize for having left out the third "c" in "succinct"; that's what I get for posting messages before the second cup of coffee. As for the sense of humor comment, the time for that kind of talk has long past. It's not funny anymore, especially when our leaders have left the nuclear option on the table. It's an ignorant, ugly comment, much like your Rosie O'Donnell "joke". You might consider doing something helpful with your freedom of speech, other than channeling Larry the Cable Guy. Just a thought...
Hey Grabbag Guy, I don't get worked up. I'm not an activist. But blinded by the facts!...??? I don't think so. I'll get back to you in a minute, but first a few words for Ian.
Now then Ian, you don't know me do you? Yet you've chosen to call me ignorant, un-American, uninformed, and a barbarian. You've compared me to Ann Coulter and Larry the Cable Guy. Why not throw Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Idi Amin into the mix also? Why do you do this? Is it because you assumed that I didn't think you knew how to spell? I'm 100% sure that your omission of the "c" in "succinct" was a typo. Most guys, as a general rule, are pretty crappy typists. I know that I am. Oops, that was sexist statement wasn't it? HEY! Maybe that's it. You don't think that I'm politically correct...do you? If that's what you think, then you'd be right. My original post (the nuke 'em thing) was a joke. Nothing more than a quote from a movie. But you were, for whatever reason, seemingly offended because I appeared to be advocating the use of nuclear weapons. You were all over me like a cheap suit. In Grabbag Guy's post he stated the following:
"As for nuking them all, I often feel that way about the entire District of Columbia..."
You made no comment on his statement. Your question for tonight is: Why is it OK for Grabbag Guy to seemingly advocate nuking people and it's not OK for me? I already know the answer, but I'm not telling.
Goodnight Ian. Sleep well.
Because you can.
Hi Grabbag Guy. I'm familiar with Operation Ajax. It was mentioned in all the news coverage, that deluged the airwaves, when the Shah left in 1979, not long after the Carter Administration had pulled the rug out from under him. I'd just never considered that there was anything democratic about Mossadegh's alledged election. He was only in power for a couple of days. Please feel to expound, a little, on your previous post regarding Operation Ajax. What was it about Mossadegh's stance that wasn't as pro-Western as the Brits would have liked. Operation Ajax was, after all, conjured by MI5, not the CIA.
Told you guys that boys can't type. Left out an "n" in my "uninformed barbarian" userid, screenname thing in my last post to Ian. I'm such a silly. Go ahead Ian. Let me have it. You've earned the right. Heh Heh.
Goodnight Grabbag Guy
Hey, Barb...
In order for jokes to be funny, the audience needs context. I don't know you. Chuck doesn't know you. No one knows you because you have not made yourself known. Therefore, you cannot be expected to be taken as anything but a right-wing lunatic when you simply drop a "nuke 'em all" comment in the middle of an art blog that is clearly trying to reach out and educate people on the nuanced Middle-Eastern conflict. If you'd used your real name, we could have said, "Oh, that Murray! Always making fun of militaristic blowhards!" Barring that, you could have written, "Hey, you know there are militaristic blowhards out there who've watched too much 'Aliens'; they probably want to 'nuke the whole place from orbit'". But you've given us nothing to go on.
Also, if you consult the CIA's web site, you'll find that TPAJAX was, in fact, a CIA operation. The Brits were marginally involved, and certainly wanted the "right kind" of stability in Iran, but it was Central Intelligence's Kermit Roosevelt who lead the charge...
https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
Please consider that I'm not an expert on any of this. It all happened a good 20 years before I was born. However, Mossadegh was elected to the position of Prime Minister by the Iranian parliment, which is a democratically elected body. Thus, logically, he can be considered democratically elected by the people. He, in fact, was in power for 2 1/2 years, from April 1951 to August 1953.
As for why the west didn't like him: he nationalized Iran's oil fields, basically taking them away from the U.K. Britain wanted total control over the oil fields.
Now that Ian and I have provided all these facts, perhaps you could cough up some facts asserting your own point of view other than "I heard otherwise on TV back in 1979."
Hi Ian,
I checked out your link.
Declassified CIA documents? Do you really think that the CIA totally declassifies all documents related to one of their operations, even under the FOI Act? Do you trust them? I don't?
I also liked the kid's line:
"The mostly come at night.......mostly."
I'm shortening my name to UnBar.
Sounds caveman-like, so maybe I can get a job in one of the Geico commercials.
I've also noticed the times of your posts. Assuming the time on this blog is correct, you must be either an early riser or work the graveyard shift.
Later,
UB
Hi Grabbag Guy,
In 1979, how else would I get my info other than what I heard on television or read in a newspaper or magazine? All of these 24-hour news networks didn't exist in 1979 and Al Gore had't yet invented the Internet.
Like I told Ian, I don't necessarily buy everything that the CIA has to sell, but that doesn't mean that I feel that the CIA should be done away with. It also does not bother me that they are listening to my phone conversations if, in fact, they are.
I never said that TPAJAX wasn't a CIA led operation. I said that it was the Brits idea. But you are right on one point. For the Brits it was about oil (which is not a bad thing). They had conjured the idea, approached the Truman Administration and tried to convince Harry that he should help carry out the Operation. Harry declined, so Eisenhower was approached, after he was sworn into office, with the same plan.
Now remember that, in 1953, we were in a cold war with the Soviets and a hot war in Korea.
You're also right on another point.
Mossadegh wasn't as pro-West as we would have liked. Mossadegh was a Communist so, in looking out for our national interests, Ike agreed that he had to go before he jumped into bed with the Soviets or they forced him into bed with them. That was how they dealt with most countries who didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union. And even if, on our part, it had been about oil, then, so what? It would also not have been in our best interest to allow the Soviets to control Iran's vast quantities of crude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
Time to call it a night Grabbag Guy.
Later,
UB
Called it a night too quickly. Forgot my question of the night.
Here it is:
Why, since the U.S. is not a Democracy, do our elected, appointed, whatever, officials believe that other countries should covert to a Democratic form of government???? Riddle me that.
Really calling it a night this time. Starting to make typos out the kazoo.
Goodnight Guys
For the record, Wikipedia is not a valid source. Any site whose historical information can be edited by a fifth-grader with a grudge cannot be used to support real-world arguments...
Regarding the CIA's credibility in discussing its role in AJAX, I would be suspicious if they claimed to have had nothing to do with the operation. Since they've copped to it on their own web site, I can take them at face value...
And don't try to back out of your MI5 statement, either. You said that MI5 "conjured" the operation. If by "conjured" you meant that Winston Churchill mused that it would be fun to launch a clandestine assault on a sovereign nation one day, you'd be partially correct (he wanted to be less discreet, actually). But in your initial post on the subject, it you unmistakably suggested that the CIA were not leading the charge.
The United States is a shaky democracy at best (when One Man One Vote becomes the norm, we might have a better chance at truly representative government, assuming more people vote than they do now). However, the reason for wanting to spread democracy has less to do with human rights and dignity than with allowing free market capitalism to get a foothold in countries that value spriitual concerns (the interpretaion and execution of which is subjective) over monetary ones. Saying that were spreading democracy is like saying we were trying to defeat communism in the 50's. It sounds nice, but is impractical and false below the rhetorical surface...
I assume, of course, that you know all of this, and that you're having fun with this discussion. But I'm done now, because whether or not you're being deviously naive I have other matters on which to focus my energy...
I will say, however, that patriotism is dangerous. Yes, it's nice to be proud of one's country; more often than not, though, American patriotism is more about being grateful that one was born well-off in a land that doesn't have the restrictions or disadvantages of other countries; this carries with it a fear that the disadvantaged will somehow try to steal those comforts for themselves, or enslave or kill those they see as being "evil". The only part of that that's true is that if we as Americans continue to mess with everyone else because we don't see eye to eye, people will actually try to wipe us out, nuke us from orbit.
We must remember that we're all human beings, and that we all need the same things, namely love and understanding.
Before my entire argument is ridiculed and discounted because of a grammatical error, I would like to admit that I left out an apostrophe in the word "we're". I was rushing out the door to my job as I wrote the above post, and only now had the chance to proof it...
And, yes, I'm an early riser, though I don't see the relevance in that. I work from five-thirty to four P.M. every day at an office, and then draw or write for another few hours in the evening...
The point I made originally was that one of the big reasons Iran doesn't like us is because we ousted their elected leader. I believe we all agree on that now. Ironically, Mr. Anonymous, you seem to be saying that it was a good thing. Would it be a good thing if someone did the same to our president? Or would we harbor the same ill will towards the offending country as Iran has done towards us?
Hi Ian,
1. The Wikipedia link came up when I plugged my keywords into the search engine, along with a gazillion other links. A few Dumbstrucks back, before Grabbag Guy changed his web page, he mentioned that he had posted some of his stuff on Wikipedia and provided a hyperlink. From the way he talked about Wikipedia it seemed that, in his view, this was a valid site. Now I can't find his posts anymore. Had no idea that it could have been fifth graders that zapped him. Anyway, the Wikipedia link said essentially the same thing as the CIA link, the NY Times link, and ad infinitum.
2. I was wrong about the MI5 thing, it was the SIS(MI6)that came up with or "conjured" the idea. I fully acknowledge that the CIA carried out the OP. But I went back and re-read my post and, for the life of me, I can't see anything about it that indicates that I suggested the CIA didn't lead and carry it out. Or maybe I'm splitting hairs here.
3. The United States is not a Democracy, shaky or otherwise. Never has been and, hopefully, never will be.
4. Spiritial concerns????? Holy crap!!! By "spiritual concerns" do you mean using children as a decoys in a car, so you can blow up a few people whose most heinous crime of the moment is shopping? Or do you mean sentencing a 16- year old girl to death because she didn't fight back hard enough while being raped by some Iranian dirtbag? Or would it be hijacking and flying airplanes into buildings in order to kill over 3000 people? More than were killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor, which was an actual military target. And since when did a spiritual concern trump my right to live?
5. Yes, patriotism is dangerous. It was dangerous in 1776 and it's dangerous today. Born well-off?
Maybe I was. In fact, I guess you could say that I was born into the landed aristocracy of this country. My parents owned the wall which their backs were up against. "Disadvantaged" indeed. These people are brainwashed religious fanatics who strap bombs to their butts in order to receive 72 virgins. These people want to kill me, Ian. These people want to kill you. I have neither sympathy nor empathy for them. The fact that they do not like us and want to kill us doesn't have a damn thing to do with some coup that happened 53 years ago. They want to kill us because we're not them. And, the average Joe Six-Pack Muslim would probably accept love and understanding, but the fanatics aren't going to accept anything from you. They want you to die.
6. The fact that you're an early riser isn't relevant. It's just something that I noticed and decided to comment on. Also, I addressed the spelling thing in an earlier post. I'm sure you can spell.
Have a good night Ian.
Later,
UB
Hi Grabbag Guy,
I haven't agreed to anything. Mossadegh was a powerful guy. The fanatics loved him. He actually bypassed the Iranian Parliament by conducting a national referendum and won approval for the Parliament's dissolution. That's how he came to power. Sounds more like coup to me. For my own opinion as to why the Iranians don't like us, please see item number 5 in my reply to Ian. And, if the President found a way to bypass and disolve the Legislative and Judicial branches of this government and get himself installed on the votes of religous fanatics, then hell yes it would be a good thing if someone removed him from office. But, thankfully, in this country it won't and doesn't have to happen that way.
If we think the President is a dirtbag we can just vote him out of office.
As Yakov Smirnoff would say, "What a country!"
Goodnight,
UB
UB:
I think you have a your facts slightly mixed. Mossadegh didn't try to dissolve the parliment until after he was already in power. I mean, why would the parliment vote him in as PM if he was trying to get rid of them?
Also, you've got your facts about Iran and the "brainwashed religous fanatics" wrong as well. The extremists who attacked us on 9/11- al Qeada- are Sunni extremists, backed by Sunni countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. When they're not abroad killing Westerners, they're in the Middle East slaughtering Shias, whom they consider heretics and blasphemers to Islam. Iran is a country of mainstream Shias (Shi'ites). They do not hold those same bizarre extemists beliefs and are, in fact, the ones these extremists persecute. It's those kinds of misunderstandings that I hoped to clear up with the comic we're all commenting on. Apparently it didn't work all that well...
Post a Comment
<< Home