President George Bush Kicking A$$

[Cynthia]

What Iran needs is more democracy and a whole lot less religion.

This statement brings an "aha" moment to my mind. Iran is EVERYTHING religion". How many people in this data based slice of pie (debate gate members) are "religious? If this were a board of Persians, Iraqis or Saudis, I would venture to bet that the number of "religious" souls would out number those who are on the fence, atheists, or in a state of "duh"?!

We have to realize as Americans that we must be able to meet the cultures of many middle eastern" nations abroad half way" in terms of religion first and politics second. We can not expect a makeover of sorts--- based on what our country expects or desires. . . (thus your point of the failure of the CIA, I suppose?)

Religion, being the bottom-line criteria or baseline of many of the nations in the  middle east demands that we look at the problems we face in a more non-political way.
Why aren't we meeting them at their religious platform? (Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc) , most nations will not be able to secure a democratic government as we  in the US of A demand it. So, why aren't we stepping up our intel to meet the "other side"  with more of a realistic knowledge and sharing of what is logical and workable?  aka ...a more religous base?
To design CIA, ORG... ETC, an org which sneaks in, circling the camp with no real  desire to make diplomacy work..why then do we assign such baffoons( the CIA)?

Iran is never going to change. Persia is there for an eternity.... as a fingerprint of culture... as is Egypt and many cultures which are cemented in the depths of this globe. You bring up such an interesting comment/point...albeit a side bar point. 

Our little cushy-culture in America has no real conscious idea of how to get along with such nations.  The CIA is all wrong for that job, if that's the case.

I has occured to me that we have it all backwards.  Our approach is not feasible. When will our arrogance get a clue?

Religion is solid. Religious based cultures/gov.'s are even more solid.

Send in the Monks.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Of course, Iran would be more modern if it did have less emphasis on religion and more on democracy.
This seems to be the major difference between the more democratic nations of the Middle East (Turkey, Lebanon) and the rest. It would appear that the UAE and Qatar have also managed to become more free societies. This would appear to be because Emiris and Qataris are swimming in so much money that they have become free from class differences as well as any sort of unappealing labor.

There is little or no way that the CIA could possibly make Iran less religious. As in Turkey, this must come from within the local community. Lebanon is less religious simply because there are four religions there, none in the majority: Sunni, Shia, Drise and Christian.

[sirs]

Of course, Iran would be more modern if it did have less emphasis on religion and more on democracy.  There is little or no way that the CIA could possibly make Iran less religious.

Nor should they,  It's not our business......until it becomes a security threat to the U.S. & its citizens both here & abroad

[Xavier_Onassis]

Nor should they,  It's not our business......until it becomes a security threat to the U.S. & its citizens both here & abroad

==========================================
No matter whether is becomes a security threat to the US or not, it is impossible, and therefore should never be attempted.

Imagine what Iranian intelligence might do to abolish Baha'i and/or  Jehovah's Witnesses in the US. This would be totally  insane, and for the same reasons.

[sirs]

Nor should they,  It's not our business......until it becomes a security threat to the U.S. & its citizens both here & abroad

==========================================
No matter whether is becomes a security threat to the US or not, it is impossible, and therefore should never be attempted.

Wrong.  When there is a threat to the U.S., we "attempt" what needs to be attempted, with war being the last resort

[Lanya]

Sirs, I think XO's point is that it isn' t possible, and to try would not give good results.


Think about a patient who still uses a crutch or a cane to walk, because his leg still hurts.  You're given the job of walking him without the cane, to gain strength in his affected leg.
He doesn't react well at all to this, because the problem of leg pain has not been addressed. 
In fact he uses the crutch even more.  If before he could hobble to the bedside table without it, now he sure doesn't. Because his leg hurts more, and because no one will believe him. He guards his leg, won't let anyone near enough to touch it,  is suspicious of any who come into his room (are they going to take his crutch?) etc.

I probably wandered pretty far afield in making up this story, but really, if someone tried to make our country less religious, wouldn't praying people just pray harder? Wouldn't we just hold services in our homes, and be even more observant to the rituals of our faiths?

My apologies to all who don't like the analogy of religion and crutch. I don't think of it that way myself.  I just couldn't think of another way to express my point. 

[hnumpah]

Religion...Crutch...

Works for me.

[sirs]

Sirs, I think XO's point is that it isn' t possible, and to try would not give good results.

No, the point is, that no one is advocating taking religion away from Iran, or making Iran into a Democracy regardless of what Iranians want.  The point is, we are to intervene, starting from least resitive to the last resort of war, IF America or Americans are being threatened.  Pure and simple

Religion...Crutch...Works for me.

Opinion duely noted......and discarded, for me

[Cynthia]

Of course, Iran would be more modern if it did have less emphasis on religion and more on democracy.
This seems to be the major difference between the more democratic nations of the Middle East (Turkey, Lebanon) and the rest. It would appear that the UAE and Qatar have also managed to become more free societies. This would appear to be because Emiris and Qataris are swimming in so much money that they have become free from class differences as well as any sort of unappealing labor.

There is little or no way that the CIA could possibly make Iran less religious. As in Turkey, this must come from within the local community. Lebanon is less religious simply because there are four religions there, none in the majority: Sunni, Shia, Drise and Christian.

There is little or no way that the CIA could possibly make Iran less religious.


Nor should they, Xavier.

Why can't a nation live with a balance of both.....assign a difference  between church and state as do we. We are no less religous in this country, and yet we are capable of multi tasking, are we not? 


It would appear that the UAE and Qatar have also managed to become more free societies. This would appear to be because Emiris and Qataris are swimming in so much money that they have become free from class differences as well as any sort of unappealing labor.


Money makes for a "nothing else matters" mentality......

[BT]

Religion...Crutch...

Works for me.

Depends on how you perceive the word.

Is a crutch like a pacifier to a six year old or is a crutch more like a tool. In the religion analogy ( which wasn't a bad analogy) i choose to view it as the latter.

[sirs]

ditto

[Cynthia]

Sirs, I think XO's point is that it isn' t possible, and to try would not give good results.

No, the point is, that no one is advocating taking religion away from Iran, or making Iran into a Democracy regardless of what Iranians want.  The point is, we are to intervene, starting from least resitive to the last resort of war, IF America or Americans are being threatened.  Pure and simple

Religion...Crutch...Works for me.

Opinion duely noted......and discarded, for me

Explain to what degree we should intervene from least resistive to the last resort. Threatened can take on many meanings in terms of "fighting back" or intervening. We ARE TO INTERVENE. How?
Sanctions, intel, spying, etc?

[Cynthia]

I'm not saying Khoemeni was great. That's a strawman and you may sacrifice it all you like. But the Shah was hated, and was a tyrant as well as a murderer. There is little doubt of that, and the people who'd like to have him back are the very few who profited from his wealth.

You may not be saying that Koumani was great , but Khoemeni is what we got as an alternative to the Shah, I think examineing the alternatives is fair , not strawman building.

When I was in Navy Training there were Iranian trainees all over the place , the Shah really did want literacy and practical education to flourish that isn't a few people.

The Shah had good intentions, this is true..... but quite frankly, I have to admit that there are two faces to many an Iranian's story. This link outlines the "intentions of the Shah" The White Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution



Here are two very different interviews by two very different women; Barbara Walters and a young Iranian Feminist.


 
#1
IN a television interview with Barbara Walters in 1977, two years before he was overthrown in a popular revolution, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi talked bluntly -- about women and his wife.

The interview went like this:

Walters: I'm quoting Your Majesty. ''In a man's life, women count only if they are beautiful, graceful and know how to stay feminine. You may be equal in the eyes of the law, but not in ability. You have never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach or even a great cook. You are schemers. You are evil. All of you.'' Your Majesty, you said all these things?

Shah: Not with the same words, no.

Walters: Well, the thought, ''You've never produced a Michelangelo, a Bach, or even a great. . . .''

Shah: This I have said.

Walters: So you don't feel that women are in that sense equal, if they have the same intelligence or ability.

Shah: Not so far. Maybe you will become in the future. We can always have some exceptions.

Walters: Here and there? Do you feel your wife is one of these rare exceptions?

Shah: It depends in what sense.

Walters: Well, do you feel your wife can govern as well as a man?

Shah: I prefer not to answer.

At the time, the shah was married to Farah Diba Pahlavi. A commoner 19 years his junior, she was also beautiful, graceful and knew how to stay feminine. She was chosen to replace Soraya Esfandiari Bakhtiari, whom the shah divorced because they failed to have children. He divorced his first wife, Princess Fawzia, the sister of King Farouk of Egypt, after she produced only a daughter.
 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506EFDB153AF931A35756C0A9629C8B63






#2


As across the world, the "woman question' unsettles the neat paradigms of human rights discourses",[6] a renewed commitment to women's inalienable human rights requires a vigilance and a constantly critical perspective beyond regime changes and shades of ideologies. As Oriana Fallaci discovered during her interviews with the so-called liberal and woman-friendly Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran in 1973, the thinly disguised misogyny of the Iranian monarch spoke openly of a persistent patriarchy that links the Islamic Republic to the authoritarian monarchy it succeeded. In his interview with Fallaci, the Shah showed complete and utter disgust towards women, with unabashed and frightening phrases: 

 

Oriana Fallaci:  Majesty ? you're a Muslim.  Your religion allows you to take another wife without repudiating the Empress Farah Diba. 

 

Mohammad Reza Shah: yes, of course.  According to my religion, I could, so long as the Queen gave her consent. And to be honest, one must admit there are cases when?for instance, when a wife is sick, or doesn't want to fulfil her wifely duties, thereby causing her husband unhappiness ? after all!  You'd have to be hypocritical or na?ve to think a husband would tolerate such a thing.  In your society, when a circumstance of that kind arises, doesn't a man take a mistress, or more than one? Well, in our society, a man can take another wife.  So long as the first wife consents and the court approves?.   

 

Oriana Fallaci:  I am beginning to suspect that women have counted for nothing in your life ? 

 

Mohammad Reza Shah:  Here I am really afraid you've made a correct observation? women are important in a man's life only if they're beautiful and charming and keep their femininity and?this business of feminism, for instance. What do these feminists want?  What do you want?  You say equality.  Oh!  I don't want to seem rude, but?you're equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability. 

 

Oriana Fallaci:  No, Majesty? 

 

Mohammad Reza Shah: No. You've never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You've never even produced a great chef. And if you talk to me about opportunity, all I can say is 'are you joking?  Have you ever lacked the opportunity to give history a great chef? You've produced nothing great, nothing! ?You're schemers, you are evil. All of you.[7]

 

Yes?women (all of them categorically evil in His Majesty's eyes) have not produced a Michelangelo or a Bach, for these are all male musicians who rose to prominence in European social conditions no less patriarchal and misogynistic than the worst in the so-called "Third world".  But women have against all odds and defying debilitating yokes that monarchs, sultans, vazirs, feudal war lords, very modern presidents, monks, priests, rabbis, mullahs, pundits alike have imposed on them, produced, just on the Iranian corner of their world, Forough Farrokhzad, Parvin E'tesami, Shahrnoush Parsipour, Simin Daneshvar, Shirin Neshat, Samira Makhmalbaf, Golnosh Khaleghi, Pari Zangeneh, and scores of many many other distinguished mothers, artists, scientists, physicians, university professors, athletes, journalists and yes a Great Chef as well, her name is Najmieh Batmanglij and she has gracefully globalised Iranian cuisine around the world.

 

Towards the end of His Imperial outburst against women, Mohammad Reza Shah asks Oriana Fallaci rhetorically, "Tell me, how many women capable of governing have you met in the course of your interviews?". Fallaci responds with such examples as Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi.  Mehrangiz Kar, I would add to that list today, as well as Shirin Ebadi, Shahla Sherkat, Shahla Lahiji, Fatemeh Haqiqatjoo, Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani, Roya Tolou'i, Parvin Ardalan, Nayereh Tohidi, Valentine Moghaddam, countless other leaders of women NGOs, millions of my sisters among Iranian student activists -- to whose honourable cause I now submit this eyewitness to history.

http://www.iranian.com/Bashi/2006/March/Montazeri/index.html

[Cynthia]

http://impact.users.netlink.co.uk/namir/martyrs.htm

I tried, but could not locate the name of my ex father in law on this list or any other, lest I subscribe to the archives. :(sadly, he held one of the highest ranking postitions in the Iranian Navy back then.....

Being married to Amir, albeit we were two young college students living in the middle of the Vietnam "affair" as well and oblivious to anything else around us but our own "heated love" and getting through college!!  As it turns out because Amir's father was a high ranking officer, we were indeed being "watched by the SAVAK" back then. It was a bit of overkill on their part we would maintain, because there was no real need to do so, as we were not a threat. Amir was able to secure his status in the states with a student Visa and had a green card etc...eh was on his way to going to Med School when we divorced. . . .   I've never really wanted to go back and read up on this revolution but today I have spent a  great deal of time doing just that. I am more than intrigued. I am enjoying learning more about it. The pain of it all was too great for many of us back then, as our friends were dying in Tehran. Those "friends" could have stayed in America and yet chose to go back home.

I maintain that the killings and the rapes and the horrors  have been much worse in the land of Persia since the fall of the Shah. He was quoted as blaming his Prime Minister Amir-Abbas Hoveida




I don't like to quote from Wiki, but here's an interesting note;
Legacy
In 1969, the Shah sent one of 73 Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to NASA for the historic first lunar landing.[28] The message still rests on the lunar surface today. He stated in part, "...we pray the Almighty God to guide mankind towards ever increasing success in the establishment of culture, knowledge and human civilization." The Apollo 11 crew visited the Shah during a world tour.

Shortly after his overthrow, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi wrote an autobiographical memoir R?ponse ? l'histoire (Answer to History). It was translated from the original French into English, Persian (Pasokh be Tarikh), and other languages. However, by the time of its publication, the Shah had already died. The book is his personal account of his reign and accomplishments, as well as his perspective on issues related to the Iranian Revolution and Western foreign policy toward Iran. His love for his country vividly come through in his final memoirs, and it is clear that at the end of his life, he realized some of the mistakes he made. The Shah places some of the blame for the wrongdoings of SAVAK and the failures of various democratic and social reforms (particularly through the White Revolution) upon Amir Abbas Hoveyda and his administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

[sirs]

Explain to what degree we should intervene from least resistive to the last resort. Threatened can take on many meanings in terms of "fighting back" or intervening. We ARE TO INTERVENE. How?  Sanctions, intel, spying, etc?

I'm not privvy to standard escalation protocols, Miss Cynthia, perhaps Pooch or MajorStrictland would.  That said, from this civilian's standpoint, you've already touched on some, though I'd consider intel as one of the most basic, starting with simple electronic & sattelite surveillance.  But if their are Americans (such as in embassy's) or America itself is under a direct threat, and that threat can be connected to ....... let's say Iran, than sanctions are indeed in order, hopefully with the compliment of UN & US diplomatic efforts, in order to help Iran see the error of their ways (the threat they are facilitating).  If the threat is not reduced, then harsher sanctions are in order, and here's where military saber rattling can also be considered.  Parking a pair of Carrier Battle Groups in the gulf, with large scale military "drills", in nearby airspace.  If the threat continues or escalates, you then can start calling in military assets and park them off the border.  As I said, war is a LAST resort, but becomes necessary if the enemy is not backing down or adhering to the will of the International community

And let me add, as I've referenced from the time Bush went into Iraq, even though Bush did get UN unanimity that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441, and that serious consequences would ensue if found that to be the case, when it comes to our own national defense, we're not obliged to seek UN approval to defend ourselves.  I am impressed Bush even went so far as to get that.  It wasn't necessary in my book, given the intel we had at the time