How the CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy in Four Days in 1953 (2019)

> That you are supposedly informed makes this worse, because if true, you know ISIS/Al-Qaeda have zero chances of prospering in Iran yet still made that argument.

You seem to assume ISIS penetrated Iraq because Iraq was Sunni and people accepted ISIS.

ISIS would penetrate _anywhere_ that is unstable enough to be penetrated.

I don't think living under a murderous dictator like Saddam was better.

I said invaded not annexed, the US is not trying to directly expand it’s borders.

But roll back 100 years and the US was occupying, Nicaragua 1912–1933, Haiti 1915–1934, and the Dominican Republic 1916–1924. Which is outside WWI when we invaided Germany, Austria-Hungary, and pre USSR Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

Note, that’s a conservative list excluding the Vietnam and Korean War etc, assignations and or drone strikes for example the recent killing of Qasem Soleimani in Iran etc. As well as policing actions where we invade for humanitarian reasons etc.

PS! Also, the USSR ‘annexed’ several countries which where all part of Germany at the time and thus no longer existed. Though that’s somewhat arguable from a political if not practical standpoint.

BTW, without even discussing a credibility of this page, why it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA. The country can be a very strict dictatorship (Singapore) or violate human rights even more aggressively than Saddam Hussein ever did (UAE) - but it's never an issue. As long as the country economics decisions are dictated by USA (e.g. investing almost all country income in US treasuries and/or buying US weapons) - they can do whatever they want - up to dismembering people in their embassies - no problem, no shouts about human rights violations and lack of democracy that has to be immediately corrected by dropping bombs on their heads - because it's probably the most effective way to install "democracy".

>And you think destabilizing it will be followed by a democratic government and not a rush of ISIS-Taliban-Al-whatever?

From what the media sources I follow has told me about the Iranian people, they are all fairly educated and the country has an established scholarly system that enables most citizens to achieve greater education. As I saw further down in the thread that you are actually an Iranian yourself, please correct me if I am wrong.

>This is sickening. You _saw_ what the U.S. did to Iraq and Afghanistan and you're "still" thinking the way to bring democracy to the country next to them is bombs?

I was 4 years old when the Iraq war began. I did not "see" anything about the war and all the information I have has been provided to me by news organizations and various social media that I try to follow to educate myself on the topic. I have not been in Iraq myself nor spoken to Iraqi people so I have no way of knowing what the war has done to them other than what the media says. And since the media does not provide a unified narrative, it is rather difficult for me to decipher the truth.

As for bringing democracy...I do not know any way to bring democracy to a theocracy without violence. I do not believe it has ever happened peacefully in world history. I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating for war in Iran, but replying to the OP (hence why I said "in that regards") who said:

>I agree. It's really sad. Iran had/has so much potential.

In my view, destabilizing the regime provides some path to democracy, while keeping it in place provides no path to democracy.

>Don't you think you should be more responsible than that? What if you are wrong? What if another Iraq came out of this?

As I said before, I don't believe there is any "responsible" way to perform regime change. I am an optimist, and I am simply hoping that this ends up going in a positive direction for the sake of my country and the sake of the Iranian people.

>By withdrawing from Iran's nuclear deal, U.S. practically destroyed any chance of a peaceful path for Iran to democracy.

As an Iranian yourself, do you really think it was ever possible that the hardliners would voluntarily step down themselves? I agree that JCPOA should have been upheld, but I frankly don't know enough to say if it would have set Iran on a path to democracy.

>But U.S. is a democracy and people who do have the power, get their power from your thoughts and your vote.

I was not old enough to vote for Trump in 2016 and I will not be voting for him. As stated before, I do not support a war in Iran.

>So I do hold you responsible for the actions of your government.

I have not yet made enough money to pay federal taxes, so my hands are clean for at least the next few months. I do understand your point though.

I think it is important to point out that this strike was approved by one man and one man only. I was not given a choice to vote on it. My Representatives and Senators were not given a choice to vote on it. They were not even informed. The closest the common American got to voting on this was in the popular vote in 2016, which...Trump lost.

That is perhaps a bigger problem than all of this.

>My apologies for personal attack.

No need for apology. I understand you just want the best for your country. I have met several Iranian friends in college and I would like to see a democratic revolution that would make them proud. I personally do not believe Iran is at its best right now, and I doubt you do too. I can only optimistically hope that this conflict leads to a democratic Iran and a more righteous United States, for I do not have any way to alter what happens for now until November.