DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on July 31, 2007, 02:38:55 PM
-
I guess all the talk at Iran, despite knowing that the Sunni insurgents were responsible for the majority of the violence in Iraq has come to fruition. We've chosen our side, the same side Saddam chose and the British Empire before him.
A green light to oppression
Brian Whitaker
July 31, 2007 1:30 PM
link (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007/07/a_green_light_to_oppression.html)
In a move supposedly intended to counter Iranian influence, the US has announced a series of arms deals with Middle Eastern countries.
Apart from Israel, which will receive $30bn in military aid, Egypt will get $13bn. Five Gulf states - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the UAE - will also be sold weaponry to the tune of $20bn, with the lion's share going to the Wahhabi regime in Riyadh.
Thus, in the name of "working with these states to fight back extremism" (as secretary of state Condoleezza Rice put it), the US is arming two of the Arab world's leading human rights abusers: Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The reaction from Tehran was predictable. US policy "is creating fear and concerns in the countries of the region and trying to harm the good relations between these countries", foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran. And he's absolutely right.
If the Bush administration's goal was to inflame Sunni-Shia tensions across the region and to spread the sectarian strife in Iraq to neighbouring countries, it would be hard to imagine a more effective way of going about it.
Although Iran is the worldwide centre of Shia Islam, there's an important distinction to be made between Shia Muslims and the Iranian regime. The question is how many people will actually make it. Marginalised Shia communities in the Gulf states and Egypt will undoubtedly feel more threatened, while others will interpret the American move as a green light to oppress them further.
In Egypt, the tiny Shia population is already harassed by the authorities and treated with suspicion. Some of this has been documented by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. Its report talks of Shia Muslims being arrested - ostensibly for security reasons - but then being subjected to torrents of abuse by state security officers for their religious beliefs.
One officer is quoted as telling a suspect: "I'm going to keep tabs on you. If you try anything, I'll make you regret it. I'm prepared to forgive the members of the Gamaa'a Islamiyya [the armed Sunni Islamist group], although they murder us, but I wouldn't forgive you, because at least the Gamaa'a Islamiyya shares my creed."
In Saudi Arabia, where Shia account for 20% of the population (and, more critically, 75% in the oil-rich region), the official policy, as Matthew Mainen of the Institute for Gulf Affairs noted recently, is to treat them as polytheists, idol worshippers, and as part of a vast Jewish conspiracy against Islam.
"Matching the indoctrination of Saudi Arabia's public education system, governmental practices and policies reinforce the notion that Shia Muslims are subhuman. Shia books, education, music, and art are banned in Saudi Arabia. Shias are further barred from playing any political, social, or religious role in Saudi society, and are not even allowed to provide testimony in courts of law ...
"As long as Saudi Arabia continues to promote and practise an ideology holding that it is the obligation of Sunni Muslims to purge Islam of Shias in the great jihad, hundreds of Saudi insurgents will continue to cross the Iraqi border to further the sectarian violence without hindrance from the Saudi security forces."
As the US state department itself has observed in a report on religious freedom in the kingdom:
"Members of the Shia minority are subject to officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination ...
"Members of the Shia minority are discriminated against in government employment, especially in national security-related positions, such as in the military or Ministry of Interior. While there are some Shia who occupy high-level positions in government-owned companies and government agencies, many Shia believe that openly identifying themselves as Shia would have a negative impact on career advancement ... While there is no formal policy concerning the hiring and promotion of Shia, anecdotal evidence suggests that in some companies -including companies in the oil and petrochemical industries - well-qualified Shia are passed over for less-qualified Sunni compatriots ...
"The Government also discriminates against Shia in higher education through unofficial restrictions on the number of Shia admitted to universities."
Viewed from Washington, bolstering tyrannical Sunni regimes against Iran might seem like pragmatism - a convergence of interests. But it's a dangerous sort of pragmatism because the American and Saudi interests are ultimately different. The Saudi government isn't really worried about Tehran; it's worried about keeping the lid on its Shia population in the oil-rich eastern province - and in the long term that can only rebound negatively on the US.
Just as there is a need to recognise that Jews in general are not responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, nor ordinary Muslims for the actions of al-Qaida, Arab states must be careful not to automatically treat their Shia communities as tools of the Iranian government, or encourage the public to think that they are.
What the region needs most right now is not more arms but a concerted effort to promote religious tolerance, to combat religious discrimination and prejudice, and to draw the Arab Shia communities into the political processes of their home countries before it is too late.
-
Some might say, JS, that there are some very vald reasons for supporting the Sunni over the Shia. Can you think of what these might be?
-
Professor, evocative though vague, the word "clusterfuck" aptly describes what's going on in and about and because of Iraq right now. There are no good choices, as the given wisdom has recognized at least since the Baker-Hamilton Report, and before to wary observers. This is the legacy of Bush's blunders. Our task now is to salvage the best possible outcome from an array of poor alternatives. Is this (aligning with Sunnis) the best we can do? Absurd as it appears, the question nonetheless has to be entertained. That's how bad things have gotten, whilst Bush dreams on of a "victory" only he and his entourage, it seems, can imagine.
-
Professor, evocative though vague, the word "clusterfuck" aptly describes what's going on in and about and because of Iraq right now. There are no good choices, as the given wisdom has recognized at least since the Baker-Hamilton Report, and before to wary observers. This is the legacy of Bush's blunders. Our task now is to salvage the best possible outcome from an array of poor alternatives. Is this (aligning with Sunnis) the best we can do? Absurd as it appears, the question nonetheless has to be entertained. That's how bad things have gotten, whilst Bush dreams on of a "victory" only he and his entourage, it seems, can imagine.
Since a cloyingly sentimental concern for the residents of Iraq after pullout seems to overshadow all other weighings of a possible political solution to Iraq, perhaps we need to crawl out of that codependent hole and be more realistic instead of being more morally righteous.
What will happen to Iraqis will happen, and their eventual destiny is concerned not only with the fact that America under Bush has created the collateral damages they will inevitably suffer, but also with their history of a seemingly chaotic replay loopings that have kept them the way they are for centuries, pitted against one another and ending up mostly settling their differences with the savagery that Saddam Hussein only excelled in, but did not invent.
Perhaps is it morally presumptive and inimical to all concerned that we cannot get past the perfectly conceived solution.
Some things happen, and just cost a lot, and are best handled with a tough love affirmative move, instead of one wallowing endlessly and hopelessly, waiting for a perfect solution.
War and the ending of war, for instance.
Especially wars conceived for third party gains.
-
Frame it as you will, but the legacy of Iraq both in moral terms, which Crane seems to eschew as maudlin, at best, but also as to character of the country -- the concern for more than onself -- will reverberate through the generations as a point we can proudly live up to or as one we can cravenly try to live down.
-
Well, then, your solution is to?
-
My "solution" is to think and offer ideas, endlessly, which you can use or ignore at your whim. Come the time when I HAVE to have a "solution," rest assured, brother, it will be well thought out.
-
Nothing wrong with brainstorming, gipper.
-
My "solution" is to think and offer ideas, endlessly, which you can use or ignore at your whim. Come the time when I HAVE to have a "solution," rest assured, brother, it will be well thought out.
Ahhhh . . . SOOOOOO true!
And, unhampered by your unmatched humility regarding your own efforts, let me add that I especially appreciate--beyond the letter-perfect lattice of your logic, the profound symmetry of the unlimited undeniabilities of your ambidextrous mental contructing, wherein each and every sterling idea is a beam that girds with incredible gravitas--two things:
l) the overwhelming, driving pace, wherein every sentence contains all the yin and yang of a small universe
2) the spectabular roman candle conclusions, always well peppered with buoying toastmaster bromides.
-
I don't accept that the US ha chosen to side with Sunnis .
In Iraq we supported elections that Sunnis nearly boycotted because of the perception that the Shia were our stooges.
That was not true either.
The US hasn't chosen a sect of Islam as favorite, but if you were to ask one of the leaders of one of those sets which we have chosen as a favorite they might point to another sect ,whichever s their own least favorite.
In reality we don't care, but is that truth politicly usefull?
-
I take it, then, that my humble offerings are thus intelligible, if not scintillating, as opposed to yours, which are consistently neither. Hey, Crane, let's do an exercise. Yeah, that's it. You construct a scenario projecting the impact of a quick withdrawal on innocent Iraqis, and why or why not it matters, and I'll respond. I have the feeling that you'll reveal yourself to be an Ugly American indeed, ego-driven and bereft of any hint of morality.
-
My "solution" is to think and offer ideas, endlessly, which you can use or ignore at your whim. Come the time when I HAVE to have a "solution," rest assured, brother, it will be well thought out.
Ahhhh . . . SOOOOOO true!
And, unhampered by your unmatched humility regarding your own efforts, let me add that I especially appreciate--beyond the letter-perfect lattice of your logic, the profound symmetry of the unlimited undeniabilities of your ambidextrous mental contructing, wherein each and every sterling idea is a beam that girds with incredible gravitas--two things:
l) the overwhelming, driving pace, wherein every sentence contains all the yin and yang of a small universe
2) the spectabular roman candle conclusions, always well peppered with buoying toastmaster bromides.
Ah, MAS.
-
It was well known that the Shiites outnumbered the Sunnis in Iraq, as it was also well known that Iran was mostly Shia, and that most of the Ba'athists were Sunni.
In any democratic election in such a situation, the Shia were obviously going to beat out the Sunni. That's why the invasion was so incredibly dippy.
Now Juniorbush's inept administration has decided to back the totally undemocratic Saudis (who are Sunnis) over the partially democratic Iranians. But Israel (who else?) gets the lion's share of the money.
Arming anyone in this part of the world is rather dumb.
-
I don't accept that the US ha chosen to side with Sunnis .
In Iraq we supported elections that Sunnis nearly boycotted because of the perception that the Shia were our stooges.
That was not true either.
The US hasn't chosen a sect of Islam as favorite, but if you were to ask one of the leaders of one of those sets which we have chosen as a favorite they might point to another sect ,whichever s their own least favorite.
In reality we don't care, but is that truth politicly usefull?
The reality is that we do care. This has nothing to do with asking "one of the leaders of one of those sets which we have chosen as a favorite." The evidence is in the actions taken and those actions are to provide massive amounts of funding and military contracts to predominantly Sunni nations that do not hide the fact that they discriminate against Shia Muslims.
Plane, who do you think provides the support for the armed Sunni insurgents? It does not take a lot of deductive reasoning to discover the answer because the leader of the country already told President Bush that he was going to support the Sunni in Iraq. They are our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.
Who causes the most deaths in total and to our troops specifically? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the Shi'a insurgents. Yet, all this administration has done is bitch and moan about Iran. Hell, the Shia don't need an armed revolution - they have the power, if they were allowed to use it.
-
I don't accept that the US ha chosen to side with Sunnis .
In Iraq we supported elections that Sunnis nearly boycotted because of the perception that the Shia were our stooges.
That was not true either.
The US hasn't chosen a sect of Islam as favorite, but if you were to ask one of the leaders of one of those sets which we have chosen as a favorite they might point to another sect ,whichever s their own least favorite.
In reality we don't care, but is that truth politicly usefull?
The reality is that we do care. This has nothing to do with asking "one of the leaders of one of those sets which we have chosen as a favorite." The evidence is in the actions taken and those actions are to provide massive amounts of funding and military contracts to predominantly Sunni nations that do not hide the fact that they discriminate against Shia Muslims.
Plane, who do you think provides the support for the armed Sunni insurgents? It does not take a lot of deductive reasoning to discover the answer because the leader of the country already told President Bush that he was going to support the Sunni in Iraq. They are our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.
Who causes the most deaths in total and to our troops specifically? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the Shi'a insurgents. Yet, all this administration has done is bitch and moan about Iran. Hell, the Shia don't need an armed revolution - they have the power, if they were allowed to use it.
We dd not choose to hate Iran , they chose to hate us , we didn't care what sort of Muslim they were in the time that they were our Allies and we don't care now.
I went to Navy schools in San Diego in 79 , Iranians were all over the place , I never had yet heard about the diffrence between Sunni and Shia but why would I care ? Why would anyone?
Now we have learned the diffrence , there is still no reason to prefer one or the other.
-
We dd not choose to hate Iran , they chose to hate us , we didn't care what sort of Muslim they were in the time that they were our Allies and we don't care now.
First of all you miss the point entirely. This is about Iraq, not Iran. *sigh*
Secondly, Iran did not choose to hate us as if they woke up one day and said, "let's hate the Americans today! Jolly good that sounds like fun!" They dislike us because we overthrew an elected government in Iran in 1953. We helped the Shah establish SAVAK to allegedly remove the communist threat (there wasn't much of one) and in reality it became the state police that kept the Shah in power.
You're right, we didn't care what religion the Shah was, all we knew is that he was our ally and was one of the bloodiest dictators on the planet. To say that they "chose" to hate us is like saying that Jews "chose" to hate the Fascists. I think there was some justifiable cause.
The difference between then and now is that we've "liberated" Iraq and if we establish any kind of real democracy then the Shi'a will take power. It has to be so because the Shi'a are 60% of the Iraqi population.
You say, why do we care?
We care because many of the Shi'a leaders are very friendly with Iran (as are the Kurdish). The only ones who are openly hostile to Iran are the Sunni. If you have not noticed it is a war of sectarian violence.
Have you seen, honestly, anyone discuss the funding and weapons of the Sunni insurgents? They cause the most deaths in terms of civilian casualties and American soldiers, yet all I read is about Iran and Sadr City (Shi'a). Seriously, why are we not discussing the insurgents who are causing the majority of violence?
-
We dd not choose to hate Iran , they chose to hate us , we didn't care what sort of Muslim they were in the time that they were our Allies and we don't care now.
First of all you miss the point entirely. This is about Iraq, not Iran. *sigh*
*sigh* It is about Iran unless you know of another majority Shia country that has twenty minutes of hate for the USA every day. The point that we are chooseing Shia or Sunni is invalid because we are not , we do not have the choice to side with Iran because they are not availibole as allies so if we make an ally at all it will not be Shia dominated . That is the reason for the point .
-
The point that we are chooseing Shia or Sunni is invalid because we are not , we do not have the choice to side with Iran because they are not availibole as allies so if we make an ally at all it will not be Shia dominated . That is the reason for the point .
The facts point out that we are choosing the Sunni over the Shi'a. You have not provided facts to refute that beyond simply stating that "it is not so." The article gives facts. It is a fact that while the Sunni are the insurgents causing the most damage and deaths (even to our own troops), the administration is constantly speaking about Iran and Shi'a militia in Iraq.
Show something to refute this, please. Simply saying it is not so, while the facts say otherwise is not credible.
-
We dd not choose to hate Iran , they chose to hate us , we didn't care what sort of Muslim they were in the time that they were our Allies and we don't care now.
First of all you miss the point entirely. This is about Iraq, not Iran. *sigh*
Secondly, Iran did not choose to hate us as if they woke up one day and said, "let's hate the Americans today! Jolly good that sounds like fun!" They dislike us because we overthrew an elected government in Iran in 1953. We helped the Shah establish SAVAK to allegedly remove the communist threat (there wasn't much of one) and in reality it became the state police that kept the Shah in power.
You're right, we didn't care what religion the Shah was, all we knew is that he was our ally and was one of the bloodiest dictators on the planet. To say that they "chose" to hate us is like saying that Jews "chose" to hate the Fascists. I think there was some justifiable cause.
The difference between then and now is that we've "liberated" Iraq and if we establish any kind of real democracy then the Shi'a will take power. It has to be so because the Shi'a are 60% of the Iraqi population.
You say, why do we care?
We care because many of the Shi'a leaders are very friendly with Iran (as are the Kurdish). The only ones who are openly hostile to Iran are the Sunni. If you have not noticed it is a war of sectarian violence.
Have you seen, honestly, anyone discuss the funding and weapons of the Sunni insurgents? They cause the most deaths in terms of civilian casualties and American soldiers, yet all I read is about Iran and Sadr City (Shi'a). Seriously, why are we not discussing the insurgents who are causing the majority of violence?
Actually, there were positives to the Shah's time in office. He instituted many Western practices, built REAL roads, enabled women to be more visible, even in Government offices and so on. I WAS THERE; many Iranians on the street were happy about these reforms and not so happy after his overthrow. What was one of the first things that transpired AFTER his overthrow? The museums were ransacked and EVERY animal in the zoo was killed, mutilated and left in the sun. And on and on....Contrary to eh MSM, it was NOT a one-sided picture. As only one example, a female acquatiance of mine who was a professor there was assasinated by the Ayotaollah's folks within days of the takeover along with most of her contemporaries. Typical for barbarians.
-
The point that we are chooseing Shia or Sunni is invalid because we are not , we do not have the choice to side with Iran because they are not availibole as allies so if we make an ally at all it will not be Shia dominated . That is the reason for the point .
The facts point out that we are choosing the Sunni over the Shi'a. You have not provided facts to refute that beyond simply stating that "it is not so." The article gives facts. It is a fact that while the Sunni are the insurgents causing the most damage and deaths (even to our own troops), the administration is constantly speaking about Iran and Shi'a militia in Iraq.
Show something to refute this, please. Simply saying it is not so, while the facts say otherwise is not credible.
""
Thus, in the name of "working with these states to fight back extremism" (as secretary of state Condoleezza Rice put it), the US is arming two of the Arab world's leading human rights abusers: Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The reaction from Tehran was predictable. US policy "is creating fear and concerns in the countries of the region and trying to harm the good relations between these countries", foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran. And he's absolutely right.
""
Reminds me of the guy who was looking for his lost keys under a streetlight , a helpfull stranger asked him if that was were he dropped them and he replied , "No , I dropped them over there somewhere but I can't search there , it is too dark"
This article is about makeig freinds with Sunni preferentially to Shia which it makes as a spurious pont , I am pointing out that the point is spurious , if we had some other country to talk about than Iran which was Shia there might be a point to make but there is not is there?
I seem to recall some guy named Chillabi being a Shia with American connections and Iranian connections too , too bad he couldn't make it work , but that wasn't because the US gave him a problem .
If Iran wanted a good relationship with us they could easily have it , then we would be helping a Shia country , but how can we make them freindly without them wanting to be?
The "facts" that this article contains are facts like "While the US has been occupying Iraq ,There has been a dearth of sunlight at midnight" sure they are true , but in each of them ,what would the opposite choice have been?
-
It was well known that the Shiites outnumbered the Sunnis in Iraq, as it was also well known that Iran was mostly Shia, and that most of the Ba'athists were Sunni.
In any democratic election in such a situation, the Shia were obviously going to beat out the Sunni. That's why the invasion was so incredibly dippy.
Is Democracy inherantly bad then ?
Is the disadvantage of any minority in a democracy an evil tied to the philosophy and inescapable ?
Am I anti-minority for supporting Democracy in the US?
-
Actually, there were positives to the Shah's time in office. He instituted many Western practices, built REAL roads, enabled women to be more visible, even in Government offices and so on. I WAS THERE; many Iranians on the street were happy about these reforms and not so happy after his overthrow. What was one of the first things that transpired AFTER his overthrow? The museums were ransacked and EVERY animal in the zoo was killed, mutilated and left in the sun. And on and on....Contrary to eh MSM, it was NOT a one-sided picture. As only one example, a female acquatiance of mine who was a professor there was assasinated by the Ayotaollah's folks within days of the takeover along with most of her contemporaries. Typical for barbarians.
Some of those practices were begun by Mossedegh before the CIA and MI6 backed coup. There are a higher percentage of women attending university in Iran now than ever before in its history.
The problem with your Shah apologist approach is that you forget the history. The Ayotollah is not who began the revolution. In fact, he came and consolidated power later and much to the chagrin of some in Iran. The Shah had built quite a list of enemies by 1978. The Revolution of 1979 included moderate Democrats like Bazargan, Islamic Leftists, Islamic Rightists (the Ayatollah), and socialists.
While the Shah's country was crumbling due to his horrible economics and significant corruption, the Shah was holding $120 million parties - sometimes in regions of his country that were suffering terribly. It wasn't just the poor that saw this, but the middle class, and the religious noted that he drank alcohol with his foreign dignitary friends (often westerners including Americans). Meanwhile, SAVAK tortured, raped, murdered, or just beat the hell out of opponents and it became more routine and more open.
The major opposition at first came not from radical Islam, not from communists, but from liberals (in the European sense of the word) and middle class shopkeepers who were suffering from rapid inflation as the oil boom that the Shah promised would make them all wealthy only led them to poverty and more repression. They worked out of Turkey, Britain, France, and Iraq.
At the time many thought that Khoemeni would form a religious center in Qom, sort of a Vatican for Shi'a Islam (though that isn't the best parallel). It was only later that they saw the more ruthless side of the Islamic Right movement and his popularity with the people of Iran and the popularity for an Islamic Republic.
But to be an apologist for the Shah is to see Iran from a truly colonial view. It is no different than those who are apologists for Pinochet, the Perons, Franco, and the Duvaliers. Sure, there were some who loved these guys. There were people who loved Saddam Hussein and he indeed had Western style reforms in Iraq.
But ultimately the Shah was a terrible individual who led a ruthless regime that benefitted very few (though some defense contractors in the US were among them). He certainly had little respect for his own people, or human beings in general.
-
And I see you have been tainted by liberalism (in the American sense).
Liberals get all bent out of shape when a leader introduces reforms and there are some bumps in the road along the way. No one said the Shah was an angel, but, given time, he would have made Iran a very differenet, e.g. more modern, nation than it is today.
So, let's see. You have a backward nation. A leader comes in and tries to bring it into the 2th century and, wham, he gets slammed for it.
Would I have liked to see a more benevolent Shah? Yep. But, given time, he would have made Iran a better nation than it is today. And, contrary to your assertions, much about Iran's true history has been irrevocably lost due to the events following his demise. An anthropology professor of mine continually laments the artifacts that were destroyed during the aftermath of his fall. Artifacts, and the associated history, that will NEVER be seen again. Did you know that most of the oaks in the country were cut down and bunend during that time since they "stood for the Shah", beautiful tall majestic oaks, zoos were destroyed and their denizens slaughtered, musemus ransacked and burnt to the ground, parks literally uprooted and salted. And on and on. So, liberals, let's see you defend THAT.
Oh, yeah, much better today... <rant over>
-
How many shah-terminated lives and how much stunted, mangled devlopment are those things you list worth, Professor?
-
Gimme a break, gipper. Don't be naive.
Just remember, sometimes, you ACTUALLY DO post some good stuff. Don't mess with your average here.
Tell you what: I'll help you get into Mensa. see http://www.mensa.org/ To go here, you select START...PROGRAMS...Internet Explorer. You use your left mosue button, you know, the button on the LEFT of that roundish thingy attached to a thin cord...
Oops, sorry, can't do that. They expect IQs larger than the number of Cialis you take every day.
<just kidding of course>
-
I think Domer's question is valid Professor.
I'm not "tainted by liberalism." I'm just spelling out the facts of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. You'll notice that nowhere do I insist that Khoemeni was somehow a huge success in terms of human rights. I'm just telling you why the Shah was deposed and that history (real history, not revisionist garbage) shows that it was the middle class that first openly rebelled against the Shah. That should not come as a surprise considering that SAVAK had suppressed many of the other groups you'd be more likely to suspect of open rebellion.
Your theory is interesting because it is exactly what Stalin apologists use as well.
So, let's see. You have a backward nation. A leader comes in and tries to bring it into the 2[0]th century and, wham, he gets slammed for it.
That is exactly what Stalin did in Russia and without a doubt he modernised the country into an industrial state from its former near-feudal agricultural foundation. By your apologist notions that makes both Stalin and the Shah some sort of heroes, despite the blood that had to be shed by those who interfered with the modernisation process.
The problem of course is that Iran was not as backward as you make them out to be, nor are they as backward today as you make them out to be. You deal in your created worldview and not reality. You think the revolution was just because the Shah was a "mean guy." It was much more than that, which I tried to explain, yet you simply chalk it up to being "tainted by liberalism." That makes discussing history with you impossible when things that disrupt your created worldview are simply discounted as being "tainted."
-
"some bumps in the road"
They found guys whose eyeballs had been sliced open with razor blades. That's some fucking "bump," Professor. How much "progress" is THAT worth? You sound more like Faust than an American academic.
The Shah and every CIA-backed crony who supported him should have been sentenced to death and strung up. Instead Carter let him into the U.S. on "compassionate" grounds for cancer treatment. Smart move. But "they hate us for our freedoms." Yeah, right.
For what it's worth, I wasn't there. But I know plenty who were. And, yes, I'll admit, lots of them are pretty nostalgic for "the good old days." They were an elite, a small percentage of the general population. They enjoyed the benefits of the Shah's regime and they didn't give a shit about its victims. I think under Mossadegh, they would have enjoyed a more equitably distributed prosperity, and also the same degree of modernization in their lives, including relative freedom for women. The Shah was not the only modernizing force in Iran - - the Tudeh (Iranian Communist Party) was also a powerful liberating force for women, for Westernization and for freedom from Islamic fundamentalism.
It's a sign of moral decadence and a huge decline in American public morality that the Shah found support in America. He was one of the world's worst tyrants and criminals, his "modernization" such as it was was no different than the "economic miracle" that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis accomplished in "liberating" Germany from the "chaos" of the Weimar Republic. Neither the Shah nor Hitler held any monopoly on modernization and there's no way they should be accorded sole credit for it. It has a force of its own and was well under way before the Shah's return to power.
We also tend to lose sight of the fact that Iran is thousands of years old. It did not need "civilizing" influences from anyone, least of all from the CIA, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and their puppet Shah.
-
"That makes discussing history with you impossible when things that disrupt your created worldview are simply discounted as being "tainted.""
Sorry you feel like that, but I politely disagree with YOUR worldview.
See what typically happens is that liberals try to tell us conservatives that we look at politics too simply when it REALLY is that liberals inject too many irrelevant issues in to their worldview. Sirs has been trying to tell some of you that, but you are not listening.
Sometimes, the simpler explanation IS the correct one. Injecting irrelevant variables may seem "intellectual" whereas it is actually erroneous.
I suggest you read these books on the Best Sellers list. They might EXPAND your worldview. They present simple yet effective solutions. I read them this afternoon at Books A Million. And in order to do THAT, do what I did, read http://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Rapid-Reading-Peter-Kump/dp/073520019X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1097588-7222452?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186537735&sr=1-1
If you don't have the cash, I will send you an extra copy I have.
The books are:
http://www.amazon.com/Final-Move-Beyond-Iraq-Solution/dp/1599791889/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/104-0982662-3601512
and
http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-Nuclear-Iran-Radical-Messianic/dp/1595550755
-
You want me to read a book titled Showdown with Nuclear Iran: Radical Islam's Messianic Mission to Destroy Israel and Cripple the United States? Jerome Corsi, one of the books authors, was author of Unfit for Command, the book about John Kerry that he worked with the "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" to "fact-check."
And here are some select quotes from Jerome Corsi, that paragon of academia:
Corsi on Islam and Arabs:
CORSI: Let's see exactly why it isn't the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where's the proof to the contrary? (04/24/2004)
CORSI: Islam is like a virus -- it affects the mind -- maybe even better as an analogy -- it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects... No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body. (11/26/02)
CORSI: Islam is a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered, and the infidels killed. (11/22/2002)
CORSI: How's this as an analogy -- the Koran is simply the "software" for producing deviant cancer cell political behavior and violence in human beings. (02/15/2002)
CORSI: Think the liberal press will ever let out that these 2 were lovers -- typical Islamic boy-buggering -- older man, younger man -- black Muslims? I doubt it. Not a pretty picture, but one certain to be hidden by PC media. (11/08/2002)
CORSI: Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote "gays in the military." RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together. (11/18/2001)
Corsi on Catholicism:
CORSI: Maybe while he's there he can tell the UN what he's going to do about the sexual crimes committed by "priests" in his "Church" during his tenure. Or, maybe that's the connection -- boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press. (03/03/2003)
CORSI: So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it. (12/16/2002)
And a few extras:
Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"
Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"
Professor, I studied history under some really intelligent folks at university. If you and Sirs wish to keep things "simple" and snicker at the intellectuals that is well within your rights I suppose. But don't expect me to buy into that anti-intellectual claptrap like Jerome Corsi telling me that Islam is a cancer and no one should think twice to remove it. I recognize a Fascist when I see one.