"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:7l4brvgpq53k3ofctf0s070relhh5npl3q@4ax.com...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
> >news:bc01rvo1ccrj1brkg41b38p5ejoa4ef2n6@4ax.com.. .
> >> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >> >In article <boojos$dmh$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
> >> >Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
> >> >>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> >> >> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
> >> >>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything
liberals
> >stand
> >> >>>>for.<
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the
> >decisions for
> >> >>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut
> >up! They
> >> >>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
> >> >>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
> >> >>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
> >property.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
> >> >Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
> >> >state taxes alone.
> >>
> >> I live in a state that has no income or sales taxes and pays over $1000
> >per
> >> year back to residents.
> >>
> >> But then, I live in the least populous state.
> >
> >The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no income tax
but
> >did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept your word on
> >it./
>
> Oops. Third least populous state. I guess I haven't looked at the
> population numbers for a while.

I suspected that from Matts post. No harm done.

>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

>
> > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > is history.
> >
>
> You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history book
> you read, but it ranks with mythology.

This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
Iran.
See the book:
"All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

This was talked about in National Public Radio.
You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.


Even so, these countries were never
> really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and anti
> communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not necessarily
> to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
they
> are now.
>
> You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
went
> bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US as
> arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
right
> thing to fight Communism.
>

The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person than
to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat blacks
and other non-whites.

 

>
> > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > is history.
> >
>
> You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history book
> you read, but it ranks with mythology.

This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
Iran.
See the book:
"All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

This was talked about in National Public Radio.
You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.


Even so, these countries were never
> really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and anti
> communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not necessarily
> to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
they
> are now.
>
> You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
went
> bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US as
> arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
right
> thing to fight Communism.
>

The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person than
to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat blacks
and other non-whites.

 

>
> > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > is history.
> >
>
> You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history book
> you read, but it ranks with mythology.

This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
Iran.
See the book:
"All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

This was talked about in National Public Radio.
You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.


Even so, these countries were never
> really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and anti
> communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not necessarily
> to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
they
> are now.
>
> You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
went
> bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US as
> arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
right
> thing to fight Communism.
>

The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person than
to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat blacks
and other non-whites.

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > > is history.
> > >
> >
> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
book
> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>
> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
> Iran.

First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
a democracy is a stretch beyond reason. Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
politics being what they were at the time.

The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
ignores the risks of doing so.

There weren't perfect choices to be had.

> See the book:
> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> This was talked about in National Public Radio.

Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?


> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>

Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
to the east).


> Even so, these countries were never
> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
anti
> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
necessarily
> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
> they
> > are now.
> >
> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
> went
> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
as
> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
> right
> > thing to fight Communism.
> >
>
> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
than
> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
blacks
> and other non-whites.
>

The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
Shah.

Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
and be right.

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > > is history.
> > >
> >
> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
book
> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>
> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
> Iran.

First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
a democracy is a stretch beyond reason. Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
politics being what they were at the time.

The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
ignores the risks of doing so.

There weren't perfect choices to be had.

> See the book:
> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> This was talked about in National Public Radio.

Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?


> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>

Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
to the east).


> Even so, these countries were never
> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
anti
> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
necessarily
> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
> they
> > are now.
> >
> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
> went
> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
as
> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
> right
> > thing to fight Communism.
> >
>
> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
than
> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
blacks
> and other non-whites.
>

The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
Shah.

Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
and be right.

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > > is history.
> > >
> >
> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
book
> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>
> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
> Iran.

First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
a democracy is a stretch beyond reason. Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
politics being what they were at the time.

The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
ignores the risks of doing so.

There weren't perfect choices to be had.

> See the book:
> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> This was talked about in National Public Radio.

Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?


> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>

Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
to the east).


> Even so, these countries were never
> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
anti
> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
necessarily
> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
> they
> > are now.
> >
> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
> went
> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
as
> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
> right
> > thing to fight Communism.
> >
>
> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
than
> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
blacks
> and other non-whites.
>

The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
Shah.

Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
and be right.

 

>
> First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century
as
> a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.

Is a matter of degree. Guess America currently is not really a democracy
either. It is mainly governed by corporations who have the finance to buy
political influence.

Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy
(the
> Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and
a
> Secularist.

The CIA tried once to overthrow Mossadeq, but the plan was discovered. They
tried the second time and succeeded. It was a direct intervention that
involved planning from both the CIA and the British. It sure does not sound
like just support for the Monarchy.

Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
> of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor
with
> the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because
it
> gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the
US).
> He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
> getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
> and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
> politics being what they were at the time.
>

I suspect nationalizing the oil industry is where he made the major mistake.
That means major corporations will loose their investments. The US does have
this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was not
communism. It is really totalitarianism.

> The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
> there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
> enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
> assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
> ignores the risks of doing so.
>

That is a weak argument to support a dictator. Hitler also brought the
Germans out of depression, and made them into a world power.

> There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
> > See the book:
> > "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East
Terror"
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
> > =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> >
> > This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>

Love the line about how the --------- are jealous of our wealth so they are
blowing themselves up. Bin Laden's family had more wealth than most American
will ever dream of having. George Bush did business with the family. Bin
Laden himself was a outcast of the family though. k ;l kk fffffggg p

> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
> > Even so, these countries were never
> > > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
> anti
> > > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
> necessarily
> > > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves
as
> > > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into
what
> > they
> > > are now.
> > >
> > > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance.
You
> > > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
> > went
> > > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
> as
> > > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
> > right
> > > thing to fight Communism.
> > >
> >
> > The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would
turn
> > Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza
Shah
> > who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
> than
> > to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> > reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
> blacks
> > and other non-whites.
> >
>
> The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
> war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
> wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
> Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
> Shah.
>
> Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
> dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
> Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say
that
> and be right.
>
>

 

>
> First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century
as
> a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.

Is a matter of degree. Guess America currently is not really a democracy
either. It is mainly governed by corporations who have the finance to buy
political influence.

Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy
(the
> Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and
a
> Secularist.

The CIA tried once to overthrow Mossadeq, but the plan was discovered. They
tried the second time and succeeded. It was a direct intervention that
involved planning from both the CIA and the British. It sure does not sound
like just support for the Monarchy.

Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
> of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor
with
> the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because
it
> gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the
US).
> He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
> getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
> and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
> politics being what they were at the time.
>

I suspect nationalizing the oil industry is where he made the major mistake.
That means major corporations will loose their investments. The US does have
this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was not
communism. It is really totalitarianism.

> The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
> there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
> enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
> assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
> ignores the risks of doing so.
>

That is a weak argument to support a dictator. Hitler also brought the
Germans out of depression, and made them into a world power.

> There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
> > See the book:
> > "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East
Terror"
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
> > =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> >
> > This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>

Love the line about how the --------- are jealous of our wealth so they are
blowing themselves up. Bin Laden's family had more wealth than most American
will ever dream of having. George Bush did business with the family. Bin
Laden himself was a outcast of the family though. k ;l kk fffffggg p

> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
> > Even so, these countries were never
> > > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
> anti
> > > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
> necessarily
> > > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves
as
> > > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into
what
> > they
> > > are now.
> > >
> > > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance.
You
> > > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
> > went
> > > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
> as
> > > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
> > right
> > > thing to fight Communism.
> > >
> >
> > The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would
turn
> > Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza
Shah
> > who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
> than
> > to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> > reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
> blacks
> > and other non-whites.
> >
>
> The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
> war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
> wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
> Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
> Shah.
>
> Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
> dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
> Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say
that
> and be right.
>
>

 

>
> First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century
as
> a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.

Is a matter of degree. Guess America currently is not really a democracy
either. It is mainly governed by corporations who have the finance to buy
political influence.

Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy
(the
> Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and
a
> Secularist.

The CIA tried once to overthrow Mossadeq, but the plan was discovered. They
tried the second time and succeeded. It was a direct intervention that
involved planning from both the CIA and the British. It sure does not sound
like just support for the Monarchy.

Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
> of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor
with
> the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because
it
> gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the
US).
> He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
> getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
> and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
> politics being what they were at the time.
>

I suspect nationalizing the oil industry is where he made the major mistake.
That means major corporations will loose their investments. The US does have
this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was not
communism. It is really totalitarianism.

> The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
> there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
> enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
> assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
> ignores the risks of doing so.
>

That is a weak argument to support a dictator. Hitler also brought the
Germans out of depression, and made them into a world power.

> There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
> > See the book:
> > "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East
Terror"
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
> > =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> >
> > This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>

Love the line about how the --------- are jealous of our wealth so they are
blowing themselves up. Bin Laden's family had more wealth than most American
will ever dream of having. George Bush did business with the family. Bin
Laden himself was a outcast of the family though. k ;l kk fffffggg p

> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
> > Even so, these countries were never
> > > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
> anti
> > > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
> necessarily
> > > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves
as
> > > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into
what
> > they
> > > are now.
> > >
> > > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance.
You
> > > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
> > went
> > > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
> as
> > > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
> > right
> > > thing to fight Communism.
> > >
> >
> > The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would
turn
> > Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza
Shah
> > who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
> than
> > to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> > reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
> blacks
> > and other non-whites.
> >
>
> The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
> war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
> wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
> Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
> Shah.
>
> Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
> dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
> Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say
that
> and be right.
>
>