Skip to main content

View Diary: Aug. 19, 1953: When the Eisenhower Administration destroyed Iran's secular democracy (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i'm aware of counterfactuals (0+ / 0-)

    and once again you're changing the subject.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 05:23:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  in your eyes, (0+ / 0-)

      what am I changing the subject from, and to?

      In case this summary helps:

      Philo: Right. Us knocking over Iran's secular democracy really pissed off the Ayatollahs. [...] Not us adopting Israel in 1948? Heck, no. Not that.
      Laurence: the ayatollahs never would have taken power if we'd have left iran alone. sorry that your narrative can't even follow the history.
      Sharon:  that's wild speculation. ... Persian experts I've spoken with wouldn't make such a sweeping and emphatic conclusion [...]. Counterfactual analysis is always problematic and challenging, but one can easily draw up plausible scenarios under which the mullahs would have ended up in power...
      Laurence: sure.  and there are plausible scenarios by which mickey mouse could have become prime minister. prove otherwise. a successful secular democracy and the economic stability provided by nationalized oil would have made a theocratic future all but impossible. [...]
      Sharon: You might enjoy reading about the methodology of counterfactual analysis. [...] you might look up "oil curse". [...] what if the US ambassador had prevailed and support was not given...?
      •  let me make this easy for you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler

        citing counterfsctuals can be used to justify any weak argument. just as citing the oil curse would be as coherent as saying gore would have invaded iraq because, after all, bush did. let me make this even easier for you: if the wealthy nations that exploited the oil producing nations had instead supported legitimate democratic movements in those nations rather than the dictators who were more willing to serve the neoimperialist intentions of those wealthy nations there would be no oil curse. you know, like in iran.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 06:14:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you seem uninterested in learning (0+ / 0-)

          You seem to think you 'know it all.'

          You may be "aware of counterfactuals," but you obviously know little about their use and methodology, and you did not bother to read the links I provided. Otherwise you would not write "citing counterfsctuals can be used to justify any weak argument," and you would not have said something so emphatic as "the ayatollahs never would have taken power if we'd have left iran alone."

          Thanks for the exchange, this has been educational (for me, at least).

          Best wishes.

          •  you seem to think (0+ / 0-)

            that pedantic pseudointellectuality can be used as cover for lack of topical argumentation.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:34:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  worthy of a hide-rate for ad hominem (0+ / 0-)

              But since we're engaged in discussion I won't.

              You engage in name-calling ("pedantic pseudointellectuality"?).

              You've largely failed to address the points I've made throughout. You don't state where you think I'm not addressing your topics.

              Well, our exchange has certainly helped lead me to more critical assessments of Mossadegh, and more nuanced interpretations of US policy failures in Iran, and for that I'm appreciative.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site