"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpar8i$k2h$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gYVtb.33146$pE3.5099@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
>
> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>
> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> >the government is wrong.
>
>
> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>
> >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).
>
>
> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
to
> help groups try to overthrow the US government?


Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fzZtb.273640$0v4.17680062@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > 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).
> >
> >
>
> So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect
Country.
> Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like
Soviet
> Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference
between
> teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues

Oh good heavens no. Education should be dispassionate and fair as much as
possible. It should not be afraid of making judgements, but to me, the US
is special in history and has been such a force for good in the world that
it stuns me that people can want to transform education of the US into a
long list of evil deeds.

The mistakes the US has made should be taught in context of the truth.
There is evil in the world. Tyranny and despotism is worth fighting and a
fight is never clean.

> Politics are
> influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
> corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect
the
> decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
> consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to
show
> both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today
are
> going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
> Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city
America
> hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
> someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
> builds up.

It works both ways. Why was there such a hatred and distrust of blacks?
Does anyone ever talk about that? It almost always starts with white racism
as a given.

> The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
> guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
> forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other
than
> that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries
that
> were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
> ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
> just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
> Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
> weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
>

You might be suprised to know that people like me believe that it was a
mistake for the Europeans to go into the world (colonialism) to exploit the
natural resources of Asia, Africa and America only looking after only
profits and power instead of the welfare of local populations.

But again, one HAS to remember the context of the time. Almost every place
the Europeans went, the local populations were barely, if at all, out of the
stone age. That mattered. There was also the political realities inside
Europe with wars and threats of war occuring. That mattered.

You can't just start with "whites are racist, therefore...", or "the
Europeans selfishly exploited their colonial subjects, therefore...".
Wrong? Mistakes? Sure, but people move on. The bad things we try to fix,
the good things we try to keep.

The middle east problem would be different or less without oil to be sure.
But the politics of the middle east are "as much" about the failure of
middle east countries in to develop their own selves. One reason Israel
came to be is that there was no prosperous Palestinian nation or culture.
The whole place was sleepy and backwards. Jews came for years and began to
use the land prosperously. The nomadic Arabs had no use for oil... at least
at the time. The power shifted to outsiders. Terrorism is about
re-acquiring power. They aren't lunatics, but they turn otherwise normal
people into suicide bombing lunatics. Islam and xenophobia is the hold on
the people, but if they were solely interested in Islam, in religion, there
wouldn't be this terrorism.

> Ben
>
>
>

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fzZtb.273640$0v4.17680062@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > 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).
> >
> >
>
> So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect
Country.
> Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like
Soviet
> Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference
between
> teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues

Oh good heavens no. Education should be dispassionate and fair as much as
possible. It should not be afraid of making judgements, but to me, the US
is special in history and has been such a force for good in the world that
it stuns me that people can want to transform education of the US into a
long list of evil deeds.

The mistakes the US has made should be taught in context of the truth.
There is evil in the world. Tyranny and despotism is worth fighting and a
fight is never clean.

> Politics are
> influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
> corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect
the
> decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
> consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to
show
> both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today
are
> going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
> Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city
America
> hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
> someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
> builds up.

It works both ways. Why was there such a hatred and distrust of blacks?
Does anyone ever talk about that? It almost always starts with white racism
as a given.

> The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
> guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
> forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other
than
> that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries
that
> were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
> ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
> just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
> Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
> weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
>

You might be suprised to know that people like me believe that it was a
mistake for the Europeans to go into the world (colonialism) to exploit the
natural resources of Asia, Africa and America only looking after only
profits and power instead of the welfare of local populations.

But again, one HAS to remember the context of the time. Almost every place
the Europeans went, the local populations were barely, if at all, out of the
stone age. That mattered. There was also the political realities inside
Europe with wars and threats of war occuring. That mattered.

You can't just start with "whites are racist, therefore...", or "the
Europeans selfishly exploited their colonial subjects, therefore...".
Wrong? Mistakes? Sure, but people move on. The bad things we try to fix,
the good things we try to keep.

The middle east problem would be different or less without oil to be sure.
But the politics of the middle east are "as much" about the failure of
middle east countries in to develop their own selves. One reason Israel
came to be is that there was no prosperous Palestinian nation or culture.
The whole place was sleepy and backwards. Jews came for years and began to
use the land prosperously. The nomadic Arabs had no use for oil... at least
at the time. The power shifted to outsiders. Terrorism is about
re-acquiring power. They aren't lunatics, but they turn otherwise normal
people into suicide bombing lunatics. Islam and xenophobia is the hold on
the people, but if they were solely interested in Islam, in religion, there
wouldn't be this terrorism.

> Ben
>
>
>

 

"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fzZtb.273640$0v4.17680062@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > 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).
> >
> >
>
> So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect
Country.
> Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like
Soviet
> Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference
between
> teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues

Oh good heavens no. Education should be dispassionate and fair as much as
possible. It should not be afraid of making judgements, but to me, the US
is special in history and has been such a force for good in the world that
it stuns me that people can want to transform education of the US into a
long list of evil deeds.

The mistakes the US has made should be taught in context of the truth.
There is evil in the world. Tyranny and despotism is worth fighting and a
fight is never clean.

> Politics are
> influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
> corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect
the
> decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
> consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to
show
> both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today
are
> going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
> Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city
America
> hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
> someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
> builds up.

It works both ways. Why was there such a hatred and distrust of blacks?
Does anyone ever talk about that? It almost always starts with white racism
as a given.

> The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
> guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
> forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other
than
> that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries
that
> were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
> ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
> just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
> Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
> weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
>

You might be suprised to know that people like me believe that it was a
mistake for the Europeans to go into the world (colonialism) to exploit the
natural resources of Asia, Africa and America only looking after only
profits and power instead of the welfare of local populations.

But again, one HAS to remember the context of the time. Almost every place
the Europeans went, the local populations were barely, if at all, out of the
stone age. That mattered. There was also the political realities inside
Europe with wars and threats of war occuring. That mattered.

You can't just start with "whites are racist, therefore...", or "the
Europeans selfishly exploited their colonial subjects, therefore...".
Wrong? Mistakes? Sure, but people move on. The bad things we try to fix,
the good things we try to keep.

The middle east problem would be different or less without oil to be sure.
But the politics of the middle east are "as much" about the failure of
middle east countries in to develop their own selves. One reason Israel
came to be is that there was no prosperous Palestinian nation or culture.
The whole place was sleepy and backwards. Jews came for years and began to
use the land prosperously. The nomadic Arabs had no use for oil... at least
at the time. The power shifted to outsiders. Terrorism is about
re-acquiring power. They aren't lunatics, but they turn otherwise normal
people into suicide bombing lunatics. Islam and xenophobia is the hold on
the people, but if they were solely interested in Islam, in religion, there
wouldn't be this terrorism.

> Ben
>
>
>

 

> >> > 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.
>
>
> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>
> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> >the government is wrong.
>
>
> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>

The British and US supported the shah over the PM. One of them was going to
prevail over the other. The Soviets were behind the other side. Cold war
politics for certain.


> >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).
>
>
> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
to
> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>

They can try. Our enemies have been funding these groups for years. The
Chinese certainly did what they could to make sure Clinton was re-elected.

>
> >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.
>
> And SAVAK really improved life there.
>

The Soviet threat was bigger and badder than SAVAK. Again, cold war
politics. Would all be well in Iran had the Shah not been allowed to seize
power in 1952? I'll bet you think you know. Would the Soviets have left it
alone?

 

> >> > 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.
>
>
> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>
> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> >the government is wrong.
>
>
> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>

The British and US supported the shah over the PM. One of them was going to
prevail over the other. The Soviets were behind the other side. Cold war
politics for certain.


> >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).
>
>
> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
to
> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>

They can try. Our enemies have been funding these groups for years. The
Chinese certainly did what they could to make sure Clinton was re-elected.

>
> >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.
>
> And SAVAK really improved life there.
>

The Soviet threat was bigger and badder than SAVAK. Again, cold war
politics. Would all be well in Iran had the Shah not been allowed to seize
power in 1952? I'll bet you think you know. Would the Soviets have left it
alone?

 

> >> > 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.
>
>
> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>
> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> >the government is wrong.
>
>
> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>

The British and US supported the shah over the PM. One of them was going to
prevail over the other. The Soviets were behind the other side. Cold war
politics for certain.


> >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).
>
>
> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
to
> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>

They can try. Our enemies have been funding these groups for years. The
Chinese certainly did what they could to make sure Clinton was re-elected.

>
> >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.
>
> And SAVAK really improved life there.
>

The Soviet threat was bigger and badder than SAVAK. Again, cold war
politics. Would all be well in Iran had the Shah not been allowed to seize
power in 1952? I'll bet you think you know. Would the Soviets have left it
alone?

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ex7ub.225943$Fm2.227037@attbi_s04...
> In article <2e7ub.34760$pE3.32657@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > The left, Socialists and Communists, would have you believe the answer
to
> > corporate power is to fight them; to create trade unions or tax them
into
> > submission or outright take them over (nationalize them). I think a
better
> > counterbalance is education. The uneducated poor are in a bad way
> > regardless of who has the economic power, the government or private
> > enterprise.
>
> A critical mass of educated buyers of products most certainly can hold
> corporations in check. They control the profits of the corporations,
> so companies *HAVE* to listen or perish. A market forces arguement
> really. The buyers demanding this or that.
>
> The problem is that educated people are a threat to those who want
> power. They are especially a threat to those who seek power by making
> the populace dependent upon government. This is why the answer becomes
> government control rather than educating people to stand on their own.
>
>

Amen!

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ex7ub.225943$Fm2.227037@attbi_s04...
> In article <2e7ub.34760$pE3.32657@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > The left, Socialists and Communists, would have you believe the answer
to
> > corporate power is to fight them; to create trade unions or tax them
into
> > submission or outright take them over (nationalize them). I think a
better
> > counterbalance is education. The uneducated poor are in a bad way
> > regardless of who has the economic power, the government or private
> > enterprise.
>
> A critical mass of educated buyers of products most certainly can hold
> corporations in check. They control the profits of the corporations,
> so companies *HAVE* to listen or perish. A market forces arguement
> really. The buyers demanding this or that.
>
> The problem is that educated people are a threat to those who want
> power. They are especially a threat to those who seek power by making
> the populace dependent upon government. This is why the answer becomes
> government control rather than educating people to stand on their own.
>
>

Amen!

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ex7ub.225943$Fm2.227037@attbi_s04...
> In article <2e7ub.34760$pE3.32657@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > The left, Socialists and Communists, would have you believe the answer
to
> > corporate power is to fight them; to create trade unions or tax them
into
> > submission or outright take them over (nationalize them). I think a
better
> > counterbalance is education. The uneducated poor are in a bad way
> > regardless of who has the economic power, the government or private
> > enterprise.
>
> A critical mass of educated buyers of products most certainly can hold
> corporations in check. They control the profits of the corporations,
> so companies *HAVE* to listen or perish. A market forces arguement
> really. The buyers demanding this or that.
>
> The problem is that educated people are a threat to those who want
> power. They are especially a threat to those who seek power by making
> the populace dependent upon government. This is why the answer becomes
> government control rather than educating people to stand on their own.
>
>

Amen!