US Government negotiates with Taliban

[The Batorys]

Iran was much more stable before the Shah, Mosaddegh was elected democratically. Foreign imperialism isn't a justification for American imperialism.

Was mossadegh a team player with the USA though and by that I largely mean was he willing to sell us oil? If not of course we aren't going to support him and will in fact likely need to work actively to "replace him".

Other countries do not exist to please the USA.

Mossadegh was the legitimate, democratically elected leader of Iran. His economic policy was none of the USA's business. It was morally completely indefensible to overthrow him. Just because I love my country doesn't mean I'm going to try to excuse our fuckups.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Was mossadegh a team player with the USA though and by that I largely mean was he willing to sell us oil? If not of course we aren't going to support him and will in fact likely need to work actively to "replace him".

Other countries do not exist to please the USA.

Mossadegh was the legitimate, democratically elected leader of Iran. His economic policy was none of the USA's business. It was morally completely indefensible to overthrow him.

But then there's Stalin, hanging out right on the Iranian border...

[Llamalandia]

Maybe it was the nationalization that pissed us off and I know that must have pissed of the Brits. Yeah you have to respect property rights. Can't go around seizing other people's companies even if they are on your soil. I think that violation is enough justification. Not to mention it sounds like something a pinko commie would do anyway so no wonder we jumped all over his ass.

So Iranians need to respect our money making machine, but we don't need to respect their right to choose how to live their lives? So your an opponent of democracy, then?

Ok so how do we get done what we need to in that region and at the same time dispell or at least not further reinforce these erroneous beliefs the locals have of us?

By cooperating instead of mandating whenever possible.

Actually your the second person to ask me that in two days and the answer is to an extend yes, I am against democracy. No I often support individual liberty over democracy. I have no problem with letting the Iranians run their country how they want but they signed contracts with British oil, those contracts must be honored nationalization is an affront to that.

[The Batorys]

No, it wasn't stabilization. It was money. The Iranian government wanted to nationalize the country's oil, so to develop the nation's economy and get it less dependent on the west. The US & the UK (who benefited the most from Iran's oil privatization) bulked at that, replaced the Iranian government with one friendly to them, and laughed all the way to the bank while the Shah's government hunted down, tortured, and killed its dissidents. There's no justifying it in a moral sense, not even if the Soviets would've done the same thing.

Honestly, do you think the USA was taking orders from the UK in the 1950s? I would think that the resolution of the Suez Canal Crisis would've cancelled all doubts about that.

That's the point though the us and Britain are at least silent partners with each other in managing Persia, we did something to annoy the Brits and they bailed and washed their hands of the whole thing leaving us to essentially manage this country we didn't want from the shadows.

It was never our right or responsibility to "manage" Iran.

That's the Iranians' job.

[Getrektistan]

So Iranians need to respect our money making machine, but we don't need to respect their right to choose how to live their lives? So your an opponent of democracy, then?

To be fair, we and the British honestly thought Mossadegh was about a week away from either handing the country over to Stalin, or pissing off Stalin to the point where the USSR would invade and seize all the oil.
It was a bit of a scary situation.

Ah, I was unaware of that! That definitely sounds intense, and it makes more sense; I always find it hard to believe when one side is made out to be pure evil, after all.

Even so, Llamalandia, we don't have the right to dictate who others need to vote for in other countries anymore than we do in our own cointry.

[Geilinor]

Was mossadegh a team player with the USA though and by that I largely mean was be will go sell us oil? If not of course we aren't going to support him and will in fact likely need to work actively to "replace him".

I believe Mosaddegh was willing to provide us oil, yes, he simply nationalized a British oil company. But say I'm wrong and they were not willing to sell us oil. Why would that give us the right to overthrow their democratically elected (not to mention wildly popular) leader? Do you think the Cuban government has the right to overthrow President Obama?

It was obvious that Mosaddegh would keep providing us oil, his country's economy needed the money. The US's main problem was that it wouldn't be at the price it wanted. Selfish and imperialistic for sure, but the government justified it with "the national interest lies in cheap oil".

[Llamalandia]

Was mossadegh a team player with the USA though and by that I largely mean was he willing to sell us oil? If not of course we aren't going to support him and will in fact likely need to work actively to "replace him".

Other countries do not exist to please the USA.

Mossadegh was the legitimate, democratically elected leader of Iran. His economic policy was none of the USA's business. It was morally completely indefensible to overthrow him. Just because I love my country doesn't mean I'm going to try to excuse our fuckups.

I'm thinking maybe we were behind the scenes also trying to convince the Brits to come back and take over as puppet master of Iran to be honest. America really has never been happy about policing the world or projecting our hegemony.

No other countries don't exist purely to please the USA but contract law does exist to be honored. Plus Cold War issues no doubt complicate all this calculus to no end.

[Geilinor]

To be fair, we and the British honestly thought Mossadegh was about a week away from either handing the country over to Stalin, or pissing off Stalin to the point where the USSR would invade and seize all the oil.
It was a bit of a scary situation.

Ah, I was unaware of that! That definitely sounds intense, and it makes more sense; I always find it hard to believe when one side is made out to be pure evil, after all.

During the Cold War, everything sounded intense.

[Getrektistan]

So Iranians need to respect our money making machine, but we don't need to respect their right to choose how to live their lives? So your an opponent of democracy, then?



By cooperating instead of mandating whenever possible.

Actually your the second person to ask me that in two days and the answer is to an extend yes, I am against democracy. No support individual liberty over democracy. I have no problem with letting the Iranians run their country how they want but they signed contracts with British oil, those contracts must be honored nationalization is an affront to that.

Mosaddegh was far more supportive of individual liberty than the Shah was, by far. Do you value the liberty of a single company over that of a nation of peaceful people?

[Othelos]

Thanks Obama.

Lol

[The Tiger Kingdom]

To be fair, we and the British honestly thought Mossadegh was about a week away from either handing the country over to Stalin, or pissing off Stalin to the point where the USSR would invade and seize all the oil.
It was a bit of a scary situation.

Ah, I was unaware of that! That definitely sounds intense, and it makes more sense; I always find it hard to believe when one side is made out to be pure evil, after all.

Yeah. I actually had to read about 120 pages of recently-declassified CIA notes on the operation to overthrow Mossadegh for a poli sci class, and it's pretty revealing.
Basically, Mossadegh was too erratic and weird for his own good. Churchill honestly thought he was senile. He was prone to being cold and ruthlessly calculating one minute, and then bawling his eyes out over something the next - which may have been an act, but it was still pretty off-putting. He liked to make threatening comments to US and British diplomats that if they pissed him off, he could always turn elsewhere for support...which, in light of the fact that the Iranian Communist Party was nothing to sneeze at, made the West pretty damn nervous. Nobody knew if he was talking to Stalin or not...but could we safely assume he wasn't?
And what if he wasn't, but Stalin decided to roll in anyways? What then? The USSR would take another massive cut of the world's oil, and be sitting right on the Persian Gulf routes. He'd have straight access right into Iraq/Saudi and the rest of Middle East to the West, and India to the East.

It was not a nice scenario.

[Llamalandia]

To be fair, we and the British honestly thought Mossadegh was about a week away from either handing the country over to Stalin, or pissing off Stalin to the point where the USSR would invade and seize all the oil.
It was a bit of a scary situation.

Ah, I was unaware of that! That definitely sounds intense, and it makes more sense; I always find it hard to believe when one side is made out to be pure evil, after all.

Even so, Llamalandia, we don't have the right to dictate who others need to vote for in other countries anymore than we do in our own cointry.

Yeah kinda. Of course no offense but I'd of told german voters to f right the hell off electing that hitler fellow and we did in fact do that eventually, just far too late. It's fine to elect whoever you want but obviously countries are going to disagree about leaders and even demand change. When the needed change is great enough it may even necessitate more direct interference. I mean its like if Afghanistan had say elected bin laden instead of karsai. Sure it would be democratic decision but not one any sane sensible person would ever feel obligated to respect.

[Hollorous]

So Iranians need to respect our money making machine, but we don't need to respect their right to choose how to live their lives? So your an opponent of democracy, then?

To be fair, we and the British honestly thought Mossadegh was about a week away from either handing the country over to Stalin, or pissing off Stalin to the point where the USSR would invade and seize all the oil.
It was a bit of a scary situation.

That would be scary.

Why?

The coup happened in August. Stalin died in March.

Clearly, Stalin's ghost invading Iran would be a scary situation.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

To be fair, we and the British honestly thought Mossadegh was about a week away from either handing the country over to Stalin, or pissing off Stalin to the point where the USSR would invade and seize all the oil.
It was a bit of a scary situation.

That would be scary.

Why?

The coup happened in August. Stalin died in March.

Clearly, Stalin's ghost invading Iran would be a scary situation.

Well, it was a factor in the planning phases, anyways...

But yeah, even with Stalin gone and Khrushchev in, it was still a pretty scary possibility, especially because we hadn't got Niki's measure yet.

[Getrektistan]

Ah, I was unaware of that! That definitely sounds intense, and it makes more sense; I always find it hard to believe when one side is made out to be pure evil, after all.

Even so, Llamalandia, we don't have the right to dictate who others need to vote for in other countries anymore than we do in our own cointry.

Yeah kinda. Of course no offense but I'd of told german voters to f right the hell off electing that hitler fellow and we did in fact do that eventually, just far too late. It's fine to elect whoever you want but obviously countries are going to disagree about leaders and even demand change. When the needed change is great enough it may even necessitate more direct interference. I mean its like if Afghanistan had say elected bin laden instead of karsai. Sure it would be democratic decision but not one any sane sensible person would ever feel obligated to respect.

There's a difference between going to war and holding new elections, which is the sensible thing to do if a leader presents a clear and present danger, and orchestrating a secret coup and putting our own little yes man in power. I appreciate you being forthcoming with your views, though.

[Llamalandia]

That would be scary.

Why?

The coup happened in August. Stalin died in March.

Clearly, Stalin's ghost invading Iran would be a scary situation.

Well, it was a factor in the planning phases, anyways...

But yeah, even with Stalin gone and Khrushchev in, it was still a pretty scary possibility, especially because we hadn't got Niki's measure yet.

Yeah at that time with Stalin at least it was the devil we knew, Khrushchev was still to much of an unknown. It's like how even today when there's amajor shift in Chinese leadership everybody freaks out and tries to gather every little scap of info about the new guy even what he like in school to try and figure out how he might behave.

[Othelos]

I think that conservatives could spin this negatively either way.

Either Obama is wrong for trading those guys for the deserter, or he would have been wrong for not doing everything he could to rescue an American soldier.

[Lalaki]

Was mossadegh a team player with the USA though and by that I largely mean was he willing to sell us oil? If not of course we aren't going to support him and will in fact likely need to work actively to "replace him".

Other countries do not exist to please the USA.

Mossadegh was the legitimate, democratically elected leader of Iran. His economic policy was none of the USA's business. It was morally completely indefensible to overthrow him. Just because I love my country doesn't mean I'm going to try to excuse our fuckups.

Here here! And by criticizing the nation we both love, we make it stronger.

[Geilinor]

Other countries do not exist to please the USA.

Mossadegh was the legitimate, democratically elected leader of Iran. His economic policy was none of the USA's business. It was morally completely indefensible to overthrow him. Just because I love my country doesn't mean I'm going to try to excuse our fuckups.

Here here! And by criticizing the nation we both love, we make it stronger.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing your country's actions if you think they were wrong. Especially if you didn't play a role in the decision or weren't even alive at the time.

[Hollorous]

Ah, I was unaware of that! That definitely sounds intense, and it makes more sense; I always find it hard to believe when one side is made out to be pure evil, after all.

Yeah. I actually had to read about 120 pages of recently-declassified CIA notes on the operation to overthrow Mossadegh for a poli sci class, and it's pretty revealing.
Basically, Mossadegh was too erratic and weird for his own good. Churchill honestly thought he was senile. He was prone to being cold and ruthlessly calculating one minute, and then bawling his eyes out over something the next - which may have been an act, but it was still pretty off-putting. He liked to make threatening comments to US and British diplomats that if they pissed him off, he could always turn elsewhere for support...which, in light of the fact that the Iranian Communist Party was nothing to sneeze at, made the West pretty damn nervous. Nobody knew if he was talking to Stalin or not...but could we safely assume he wasn't?
And what if he wasn't, but Stalin decided to roll in anyways? What then? The USSR would take another massive cut of the world's oil, and be sitting right on the Persian Gulf routes. He'd have straight access right into Iraq/Saudi and the rest of Middle East to the West, and India to the East.

It was not a nice scenario.

One of the ticks of a multi-polar world, I suppose. "What? That's terrible deal. Fuck y'all, I'm going to the other superpower..."

Of course, if you aren't smart about it, you'll get overthrown, everything you worked for will be undone, and your people will be under the boot of one douchebag or another for seventy years and counting.

[Alien Space Bats]

My own observations on this subject:

1. The Taliban are not a terrorist organization; they are a former government driven into exile who are fighting a protracted guerrilla war against the government who replaced them. Yes, they were allied with Al-Qaeda; but that fact alone does not make them a terrorist group.
   
   
2. It is traditional that wars end with an exchange of prisoners. This action can be seen as just such an exchange, rather than a "hostage exchange" or "ransom" paid in response to the taking of "hostages".
   
   
3. There is no basis for claiming that this exchange places Americans anywhere in the world at risk: Sgt. Bergdahl was a prisoner of war, and as such was taken in the course of normal military operations. He was NOT taken by the Taliban for the purpose of extracting concessions from the US; thus his release (again) falls within the normal range of circumstances surrounding end-of-war prisoner exchanges.
   
   
   1. As a further point, the released Taliban officials will spend the next year in Qatar under house arrest; they won't return to Afghanistan until after American forces have effectively pulled back into a full support role.
      
      
   2. Further, it's unlikely that their return will do anything to boost the Taliban war effort. These are all people who were captured right at the start of the Afghan War, in 2001. If the Taliban has lasted this long (i.e., nearly 13 years) without them, it's not like they're going to have much value any more.
4. Prisoner exchanges historically occur irrespective of whether those taken prisoner were captured in combat or were captured after desertion; historically, the US has not distinguished between prisoners when it comes to negotiating their release on the basis of whether or not the "deserve" to be released.
   
   
   1. On this last point, the Pentagon has not ruled out the possibility that Sgt. Bergdahl will face charges at some point down the line.
5. Most of the other observations made in the right-wing media in this case are utter drivel/bullshit. Specifically:
   
   
   1. Bergdahl looked pretty ill in the video of his prisoner exchange. Specifically, he blinked heavily in the light, grimaced in pain, and appeared thin and emaciated. My suspicion is that he probably has some serious chronic illness (such as cancer), but the exact details remain to be seen.
      
      
   2. I don't find his father's decision to grow a bear or learn Pashtun strange, disloyal, or anything else of that sort. FOX News and its idiot commentators can fondle my fundament.
6. Ideally, the Afghan War needs to end with a peace settlement that will end the fighting and return the Taliban to Afghan society as a political force, rather than encouraging them to continue fighting as an insurgent army. Otherwise, there isn't going to be a lasting peace and our long-term success in Afghanistan will remain in doubt for many years to come.
   
   As the old saying goes, "You can only make peace with your enemies". How in the fuck ELSE was this war supposed to end, if not in a peace agreement between the US and the Taliban?!?!?
   
   
7. This entire teapot tempest smacks of "Obamafication" — namely, the tendency of right-wingers to condemn as illegal, immoral, and godless something they would totally support if it were being done by a Republican President. I'm sorry, but this whole new "scandal" leaves me completely bemused at its utter idiocy.

[Totalise]

you know 70 years ago he would have been shot as a coward

[Hollorous]

That would be scary.

Why?

The coup happened in August. Stalin died in March.

Clearly, Stalin's ghost invading Iran would be a scary situation.

Well, it was a factor in the planning phases, anyways...

But yeah, even with Stalin gone and Khrushchev in, it was still a pretty scary possibility, especially because we hadn't got Niki's measure yet.

At that point, though, there was a (atypically bloodless) power struggle in the USSR between Khruschev and Malenkov though. That said, I don't know if the CIA knew anything at the point, except that there was a post-Stalin power vacuum going on. It was pretty much a common theme for the Soviet's strength to be overestimated though.

[Ashmoria]

luckily we don't let people die in captivity because they may turn out to have done something bad.

The offense he's been accused of in normal war time carries a penalty of ip to death. It doesn't really matter to me too much how such a "sentence" were to be executed (assuming if course he's guilty. Plus as I said before there was no ticking clock on this thing, we had years to take care of this. We could have used that time to preliminarily investigate and draw conclusions about the likelihood of criminality on his part. At the vaery least maybe we could have out less effort into looking for him and then 6 men would still be alive (though I'm not sure on the timeline when that happened exactly).

yes but until he is tried in military court he isn't a deserter.

likelihood isn't the same as being tried and found guilty.

[Ashmoria]

What would have been the point of drawing conclusions before he could even speak in his own defense? So we could build a case for abandoning him?

Well yeah sorta. I mean it sounds like basically everyone he's served with is saying the guy took off on his own, I can't recall hearing anyone other than a few politicians defending or praising him. It's a matter of priority. Sure do we want him back if he did desert? Of course! It's a matter of "how badly we want him" basically that's at issue. I mean I'd hate to be asked to try and risk my life saving a man if I knew or had significant probable cause to believe was a deserter.

leaving his base is not the same as deserting. he didn't have a chance to desert, he was captured too quickly.