bloodyminded Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Do you expect me to defend words I never said? The revolution had support from much of the populace because there was wide disappointment with the failure of the Shah's social policies to deliver anything but economic paucity, far from the prosperity that was promised. As well as taking advantage of the Shah's weakness, the mullahs and Communists jumped on that pre-existing popular discontent and enflamed it by playing up Pahlavi as a man who was simultaneously a tyrant and a puppet of the United States. Iranians had much to be concerned about under the last Shah; but, a huge mass of them was misled by self-interested individuals and their supporters. Just like the French of the late 18th century, who brought the Reign of Terror upon themselves by pulling Louis XVI off the throne and leaving a vacuum to be filled by real despots, the Iranians, as a consequence of their haste, driven by propaganda and passion over logic, wound up learning what tyranny actually means. I hope Egyptians don't end up repeating the pattern yet again. I don't disagree with any of this. What I disagree with is your implication that the reason the West supported the Shah was for, essentially, benign reasons. (i.e. fighting evil commies.) Like everything we do. I mean, we're so fucking good, yes? International politics simply doesn't work that way. The powerful Western nations are every bit as terroristic as any hardcore Islamist. To believe otherwise is to take the doctrinal, propoagandized view on sheer faith. Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 What I disagree with is your implication that the reason the West supported the Shah was for, essentially, benign reasons. (i.e. fighting evil commies.) I'm sure there were more reasons than one. But, the Shah's friendliness towards the West (indeed, his desire to Westernise Iran) and the fact that he and the West both held Communism as a common enemy were reasons the West supported him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I agree that the Revolution breeded something worse than the Shah I think thats hard to say for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm sure there were more reasons than one. But, the Shah's friendliness towards the West (indeed, his desire to Westernise Iran) and the fact that he and the West both held Communism as a common enemy were reasons the West supported him. Not just communism...but any secular leftism, or nationalism. These were also the enemy. The fact is, we have always deemed the natural resources to be our property, though under other people's feet by an accident of geography. The West, then as now, wants resources and wealth; access to resources and wealth; and strategic power. And will kill democrats, secularists, communists, Islamists, and apolitical peasants alike to get what it wants. It's not evil men chuckling over murder, mind you; it's thoroughly institutionalized. And by the way, "communism" has not infrequently been defined as everything to the Left of Pinochet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Not just communism...but any secular leftism, or nationalism. These were also the enemy. Given that the Shah was himself secular and left in comparison to the traditionalist mullahs and their followers who were against his reforms, I find that hard to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Given that the Shah was himself secular and left in comparison to the traditionalist mullahs and their followers who were against his reforms, I find that hard to believe. Everyone is leftist compared to the Mullahs. That's not an apt comparison. The Iranian left despised the Shah. (Which exposes their rationality, not their extremism.) I have trouble beleiving that this was some sort of pop-psychology self-hatred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) The Shah was essentially a Pan Arab Ba'Athist without being Arab (because he was Persian).It's classic Fascist Nationalism. BM...The West has used Fascists to take care of things,however,those places have been used as proxies...Kinda like an empire on the cheap! Central and South America,for example... Edited February 2, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Everyone is leftist compared to the Mullahs. That's not an apt comparison. Of course it is. You said Pahlavi was against "any secular leftism". He wasn't. The Iranian left despised the Shah. No doubt they did, given his aversion to Communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Of course it is. You said Pahlavi was against "any secular leftism". He wasn't. No doubt they did, given his aversion to Communism. Fascists always hate Communists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Of course it is. You said Pahlavi was against "any secular leftism". He wasn't. No, the comparison is unreasonable. No one is poor, because Haitians are poorest of all; no one is conservative, because look at the Taliban! no one is left-wing, because of leftist extremists. No doubt they did, given his aversion to Communism. Most leftists aren't, and weren't, communists. But you know this; you're just being mischievous. Like your notion, of which I'm trying to disabuse you, that you alone get to determine all parameters of comparison, as if it's objectively set in convenient alignment with your politicized disposition. Or like offering aplogetics for a killer and torturer, simply because he hated commies. Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 the huns weren't germanic they were asiatic, likely mongolians... germanic tribes...no, the germanic tribes (Franks) controlled france after the fall of the western roman empire and formed it's first royal dynasties the merovingians and the carolingians so at that time it was germanic(Franks) vs other germanic tribes...the truly french entity came later after the Franks were assimilated into the population... Richelieu made it official policy... Whatever... Timelines don't match... You could be right... It's irrelevant... This is what I was referring to... Tribes Invade Europe To the north of the Roman Empire there were people who spoke a language that is like today's German. They were called the Germanic tribes. In the 5th century these Germanic tribes overran the Roman Empire. The Eastern Goths came from Russia and the Ukraine. They conquered most of Italy, Greece and the western Balkans. The Franks took over today's France and the Saxons conquered the southern parts of England. The Huns originally came from Central Asia. They overran the Chinese Empire at about 200 B.C. and the Chinese emperor had to build a great wall to keep them out. At about 400 A.D. Attila became the leader of the Huns. They came to Europe and forced other tribes to move westward. The Huns destroyed everything that was in their way. They had no interest in the land they conquered - they only plundered and set fire to villages. When Attila died, the Huns didn't have a strong leader. In the following years, the Goths and other Germanic tribes defeated them. --- Over the hundreds of years "Hun" span we could both be right... http://asianhistory.about.com/od/timelinesattilathehun/a/AttilaOnePage.htm Now back to the thread topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Whatever... Timelines don't match... You could be right... It's irrelevant... This is what I was referring to... Tribes Invade Europe To the north of the Roman Empire there were people who spoke a language that is like today's German. They were called the Germanic tribes. In the 5th century these Germanic tribes overran the Roman Empire. The Eastern Goths came from Russia and the Ukraine. They conquered most of Italy, Greece and the western Balkans. The Franks took over today's France and the Saxons conquered the southern parts of England. The Huns originally came from Central Asia. They overran the Chinese Empire at about 200 B.C. and the Chinese emperor had to build a great wall to keep them out. At about 400 A.D. Attila became the leader of the Huns. They came to Europe and forced other tribes to move westward. The Huns destroyed everything that was in their way. They had no interest in the land they conquered - they only plundered and set fire to villages. When Attila died, the Huns didn't have a strong leader. In the following years, the Goths and other Germanic tribes defeated them. --- Over the hundreds of years "Hun" span we could both be right... http://asianhistory.about.com/od/timelinesattilathehun/a/AttilaOnePage.htm Now back to the thread topic... This is all wonderful that we're discussing Charlemagne,Charles Martel,and,Edward the Confessor..Along with the Teutonic Knights,however.. WTF does this have to do with Bismarck,The Franco-Prussian War vis a vis French vengeance at Versailles? Which has nothing to do with what is going on in Egypt???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 The Shah was essentially a Pan Arab Ba'Athist without being Arab (because he was Persian).It's classic Fascist Nationalism. BM...The West has used Fascists to take care of things,however,those places have been used as proxies...Kinda like an empire on the cheap! Central and South America,for example... I think you may have missed this, or I missed your reply... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17889&view=findpost&p=621891 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm not shocked that 'aid" for a Fascist like Mubarak goes almost soleley to his military...That's been the MO of the US State Department for 70 to 80 years.In this case,not only does it line the pockets of the corporations you mentioned,but most importantly,it is a strategic play to protect Israel's Western flank. Maybe rightwingers just aren't capable of seeing issues from other perspectives than their own interests, but let's imagine that you're an Egyptian who has grown up under the Mubarak Regime, and have to deal with food shortages and 40% unemployment your entire life; yet for some reason, you believe the average Egyptian should give a crap about Israel's security! If the close relationship the Mubarak Regime has with Israel causes blowback, and a similar situation as Iran in 1979, that's the price you pay when you try to manipulate entire nations as pawns on a chessboard. If the clips Bobby has provided are any indication,that protection may be in flux very shortly.... I've never paid a great deal of attention to what Israel is, and is not doing, but I am sick of the Harper Government's changing of Canada's historic position of working for peace, to one that offers unqualified support for whatever Israeli governments want to do. If they want to plant their flag and takeover most of the West Bank, why the hell is our Government supporting them? As Israel has progressed from its beginnings as a secular Jewish state, to one dominated by Orthodox Jews, real democracy is disappearing there. It's time for the West to start to realize that the real demographic bomb for Israel is not Palestinian Arabs, but importing Orthodox Jews from around the world, which are breeding like rabbits, and calling every settlement they build 'holy land' that must stay Jewish forever. Israel will eventually turn into a Jewish theocracy, and no longer resemble a free, democratic state. There has always been an inherent contradiction between having a Jewish state and a democratic state. This contradiction was submerged for the first few decades because the Arab population was small enough to allow them full participation without worrying about losing that Jewish character. But, as the Arab population has grown, the restrictions have increased on the non-Jewish population. If Israel wants to build a state for every Jew in the world to go to, and correspondingly push out everyone who is not Jewish, then they should have to stand or fall by that choice. It's stupid for the West to be dragged into blanket support for Israel because of the powerful Jewish Lobby and idiot Christian Zionists, who want to foment a big war because the dumbasses think it will fulfill end-time prophecy.....I have to mention them because I think Harper's playing of the Israel card has more to do with appealing to Christian fundamentalists than it does to sucking up to Ezra Levant & co. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Most leftists aren't, and weren't, communists. Don't tell that to the US State Department... Two words... Mohammed Mossadiq Two more... Salvador Allende Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Given that the Shah was himself secular and left in comparison to the traditionalist mullahs and their followers who were against his reforms, I find that hard to believe. So do I...such was simply not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Ummm, remember that "1000 Prisoners Escaped" news item that was a minor news item on day 3 (I think), about the same time as the police retreated and security forces went "absent" in all this? I wondered about that at the time, now I can stop wondering... This is starting to look like a rerun of an early '30s Newsreal... Appointing his "Spy Guy" as vice-president, nice touch, wasn't it? Mubarak's 82, wonder where he got those ideas... Some things leave lasting impressions on the young... One more thing, the composition and actions so far, of the Egyptian military, is what gives me the most hope for a relatively good outcome of this event, after 30 years, its very hard to fire on sons and daughters and parents... They also are unlikely to become, or support, too religious, or extreme, a regime... UNLESS, they aren't kept fat and happy, catch my drift? THAT was the biggest mistake of the whole Iraq war, dispanding the Iraqi Military, if the U.S. hadn't done that -?!?!- well, I guess we'll never know... Sorry... I was shovelling snow! You don't think that the prison break was staged,do you??? Like they may have shot one to make it look legit ,but it was really a "Release the Hounds" kinda moment? Where would Fascists learn about this from history??? Hmmm??? I know...Did'nt Herr Schickelgruber fill the SA and SS up with psychopathic lunatics who derived twisted pleasure in torturing and hurting others who disagreed with them...And paid these stellar citizens handsomely??? Just throwin' that one out there... I did notice the stand in for Mubarak once he's gone...Kinda like putting Heinrich Himmler in charge if Herr Schickelgruber took a permanent walk.... Don't worry folks,it the NEW and IMPROVED face of Pan Arab Ba'Athism... Kind of a "Ceaucescuian Moment" if you ask me.And it shows just how far gone someone like Mubarak is to think people would fall for that gag... "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains...I am the Great and Powerful Oz!!!" The actions of the military have been laudable..I'm not sure it's going to stay that way after today.... Edited February 2, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 No, the comparison is unreasonable. No one is poor, because Haitians are poorest of all; no one is conservative, because look at the Taliban! no one is left-wing, because of leftist extremists. I never said anything even remotely close to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I never said anything even remotely close to that. Ok, sport. Revise at will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Revise at will. That seems to be your talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) That seems to be your talent. No, you're too kind; you remain the revisionist master. Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 This is all wonderful that we're discussing Charlemagne,Charles Martel,and,Edward the Confessor..Along with the Teutonic Knights,however.. WTF does this have to do with Bismarck,The Franco-Prussian War vis a vis French vengeance at Versailles? Which has nothing to do with what is going on in Egypt???? Right on !! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) This is all wonderful that we're discussing Charlemagne,Charles Martel,and,Edward the Confessor..Along with the Teutonic Knights,however.. WTF does this have to do with Bismarck,The Franco-Prussian War vis a vis French vengeance at Versailles? Which has nothing to do with what is going on in Egypt???? discussion of the beginning of french german conflicts, it was not the Franco-Prussian war it went further back than that, I said it was Cardinal Richelieu GWiz claimed it was much further back and we disagreed...events of today find their cause in history, if you don't understand history you can't solve the problems of today...and you and eyeball started off on the tangent GWiz and I took it to it's conclusion... Edited February 2, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 discussion of the beginning of french german conflicts, it was not the Franco-Prussian war it went further back than that, I said it was Cardinal Richelieu GWiz claimed it was much further back and we disagreed...events of today find their cause in history, if you don't understand history you can't solve the problems of today... Yaeh...We all miss Charlemagne,the last great European uniter after the Roman Empire.. Kierkegard wrote about him... I don't think what Cardinal Richelieu had anything to to do with how nonplussed the French felt after losing a war it instigated with a group of people they have historically felt were inferior... I just don't understand what Cardinal Richelieu has to do with Otto Von Bismarck and united colonial Germany??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Don't tell that to the US State Department... Two words... Mohammed Mossadiq Two more... Salvador Allende this has nothing to do with being a leftist or a rightist. this has to do with whether these people would accept becoming puppets. mossadiq no longer wanted to give out iranian oil to the u.s. and england and instead wanted to nationalize it so that the iranian people could benefit from it. for that reason, he had to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.