> No, we didn't: the rightful government (the Shah's) overthrew an attempted dictator. Mossadegh lived out the rest of his life in peace, and died in bed.Only if you define "rightful" as the government that the UK and US decided was favorable to them, and not the one supported consistently by the Iranian people via elections. I don't see how you can argue this point — both the US and UK have outright admitted to their actions (fomenting and supporting the coup) and to their reasons for doing so (oil). And Mossadegh was sentenced to execution, but his life was personally spared by the Shah.
> No, it wasn't reckless: the electronic data gave Vincennes good reason to believe that it was being attacked by an Iranian fighter.
"Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles." Is this not reckless?
"Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of USS Sides, the warship stationed nearest to Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft 'marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago'." Reckless according to his own colleague.
"Throughout its final flight, IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before Vincennes launched its missiles. According to the U.S. Navy investigation Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency."
Obviously the Vincennes didn't commit a brazen attack for no reason at all. They had some reason to believe they might be attacked. But sailing into another country's waters and airspace with no ability to differentiate between fighter and commercial jet is reckless, and furthermore it was done by a captain with a history of reckless behavior.
> The 2 million South Vietnamese who fled their country after North Vietnam conquered sure seemed to have appreciated our defense: while we were there, they didn't take to the sea in boats, fleeing for their lives.
They were forced to fight a war they didn't support for decades, under a brutal and unpopular autocratic leader, Diem. He forced his pro-Christian and anti-Communist sentiments on his people and oppressed those who disagreed until he was eventually assassinated. Meanwhile the US devastated the country and drove the North into a fight-or-flight state of desperation. Of course the people of the South didn't want to stick around to face their vengeance.