NationStates Jolt Archive

Consider these issues:

A) He was in favor of various civil rights efforts, and put this into practice, removing fundamentalist laws and encouraging free expression. Women in particular benefited and many of the liberal policies were, in fact, quite popular. This is admittedly largely responsible for the formation of a revolution against him, but the fundamentalists were more of an outspoken force who worked for what they believed to be common good, not a reflection of the average sentiment.

B) He created a stable, pro-western nation on the USSR's doorstep which could have been armed with nuclear weapons and used as a bargaining card against the USSR.

C) The oligarchy which replaced him is still quite unpopular among the Irani population, moreso than the Shah was at any point. The revolution also enticed a greedy Iraq to invade Iran and effectively ended up making the west another enemy as we didnt fund and support the Iraqi efforts (which ironically led to the invasion of Kuwait in a desperate attempt to find new income sources to cover the cost of the defeat at the hands of Iran.)

And D) He was not installed unjustly by America. His "installment" was a counterrevolutionary effort against a previous coup which overthrew him. From our perspective, we were in fact restoring the rightful government, not installing a new ruler.

So, what exactly makes the Shah so bad? Im not entirely certain, especially since even today we continue to support sympathetic police states like South Korea and Israel.

The Shah of Iran vs. his successors is a case of secular fascism vs. theocracy. Both have their good and bad points, both systems enjoy widespread support, neither can satisfy everyone. For the West, the former was far more convenient in terms of a business relationship.

NationStates shows us that there is no good and bad way to run a country, only ways which will satisfy and annoy different groups of people. One's opinion on this is a matter of personal politics.

He used his secret police to imprison, torture and kill his political opponents.

I work with an Iranian who moved here (UK) at the age of 15. He pretty much said the same thing about the Shah vs the current regime. The Shah was 'in bed' with the US. I'm not saying this is any bad thing as such, but it can be conceived as a little strange. Maybe the same situation can be shown between the relationship between Saudi Arabi and the US. As far as I can gather the Saudi regime is far less tolerent than Saddams Iraq, not that I'm supporting his regime before anyone flames me. But correct me if I'm wrong. In Saudi, women are not allowed to drive, nor are they allowed outside without a male escort, nor are they allowed to show any part of their body in public. Also, in Saudi, swords can still be used to remove heads, hands etc. in public for those who have been deemed to comitt crimes.

So, is it hypocritcal for the US to be friends with Saudi and to have been enemies of Iraq, purely based human rights issues. Granted Saddam has a big business in killing his opposition, does this go on in Saudi?

Yea, he improved the economy.. but benefited only a very small group and succeeded in disaffecting the vast majority of the population, by being basically a fascist dictator, whose secret police SAVAK killed like 15000 people and tortured many more.

So Michael Moore is anti-American? I know he can be a bit of a tit, but he is only being as radical as many of the ultra-right. He just seems anti-American coz he's a rare breed of loud mouthed Liberal who is also prepared to twist the facts to make his case. I still don't think this is anything worse than many extreme right-wing commentators in the US. What's the name of that mad women how has had dolls made of her and when you pull the strings it says things like 'Liberals are the scum of the earth', and also she once said that America should invade middle-east countries and convert them to Christianity?

He used his secret police to imprison, torture and kill his political opponents.

The point was: he was still very much a liberal, pro-western, anti-communist leader, and his replacements have proven to be worse in this regard. I am suprised Europeans are so nonchalant about a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iran which threaten their commercial and diplomatic interests, while crying over a nuclear-armed Isreal who will not use their capabilities to threaten or extort Europeans unless there is a drastic and sudden rise of anti-semetic foreign policy into practical application, which will likely do little more than destroy Isreal utterly. Not really likely to happen though, especially considering that in spite of all the preaching out against Israel, the French have never had issues siding with Isrealis and other semetic nations (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt come to mind,) when there is money involved.

the French have never had issues siding with Isrealis and other semetic nations (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt come to mind,) when there is money involved.
Neither did the Americans.

So, is it hypocritcal for the US to be friends with Saudi and to have been enemies of Iraq, purely based human rights issues. Granted Saddam has a big business in killing his opposition, does this go on in Saudi?

Well, we arent exactly friends with the Saudis, really. They take our money and extort us and we keep military bases there just in case, but it wasnt an alliance to nearly the same degree as the one which occured with the Shah. The chief reason why the Saudis get off is because they have significant clout in the OPEC industrial monopoly.

Neither did the Americans.

Actually, we condemned Isreal alongside the USSR for their intervention in Egypt. We condemned Iraq for attacking Iran in spite of the fact that they were really doing us something of a favor. We condemned and intervened when Iraq attacked Kuwait, which caused an impressive deterioration and a hostage situation. We also condemned Syrian and Egyptian sieging of Israel, but still maintained trade sanctions on the Israelis anyway and didnt send aid. The US has definitely had moral policy in regards to the middle east, although OPEC forced significant change (the cuban missle crisis didnt really lead to any changes there that werent going to happen anyway.)

So Michael Moore is anti-American? I know he can be a bit of a tit, but he is only being as radical as many of the ultra-right. He just seems anti-American coz he's a rare breed of loud mouthed Liberal who is also prepared to twist the facts to make his case. I still don't think this is anything worse than many extreme right-wing commentators in the US. What's the name of that mad women how has had dolls made of her and when you pull the strings it says things like 'Liberals are the scum of the earth', and also she once said that America should invade middle-east countries and convert them to Christianity?

The diffrence being, Michael Moore openly stated he was anti-American, although he admittedly hasnt consistently described himself as one. It depends on the audience he is speaking to. He is just an example though, I could have used, say, Gigatron.

Ann Coulter is the name you are looking for. She has written questionable books similar to Moore's, but fortunately, she has for the most part failed to achieve the same popularity Moore did.

The point was: he was still very much a liberal, pro-western, anti-communist leader, and his replacements have proven to be worse in this regard. I am suprised Europeans are so nonchalant about a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iran which threaten their commercial and diplomatic interests, while crying over a nuclear-armed Isreal who will not use their capabilities to threaten or extort Europeans unless there is a drastic and sudden rise of anti-semetic foreign policy into practical application, which will likely do little more than destroy Isreal utterly. Not really likely to happen though, especially considering that in spite of all the preaching out against Israel, the French have never had issues siding with Isrealis and other semetic nations (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt come to mind,) when there is money involved.


Yes, he was all that. But he still mistreated is people, that choose to tople him. If they (the iranians) choose to put freak religious zealots in power, who are WE to tell them they are wrong? The shah was a puppet of the West, anyway.

About Europe.. well, i dont know if you knew this, but an agreement was just signed to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons, just nuclear energy. And Europe cries over Israel due to their treatment of the Palestinian people. Israel may choose to ignore Europe, but they are in no position to threaten us.. what are they going to do? Nuke us? We'd nuke them back.

And as someone said, nor the US had any problems siding with anyone for money.

please can you explain to me how moore is anti american? Sorry I'm english. I get to say what I like about how my country's run and not get accused of being anti english. Oh and us brits don't have a freedom of speech clause in our constitution. Maybe we should have yours it's clearly wasted on you lot.

He used his secret police to imprison, torture and kill his political opponents.
so? bush said putin is doing a good job in russia

You do know that Iran does not have a Shah anymore...

The diffrence being, Michael Moore openly stated he was anti-American, although he admittedly hasnt consistently described himself as one. It depends on the audience he is speaking to. He is just an example though, I could have used, say, Gigatron.

Ann Coulter is the name you are looking for. She has written questionable books similar to Moore's, but fortunately, she has for the most part failed to achieve the same popularity Moore did.

Ahh.. that's the one. Yeah it's weird how popular Moore has become, but maybe because he's quite a rare beast and also is prepared to be pretty extreme. An extremesit Liberal.. weird. He must be pretty clumsy at times to describe himself as anti-American to audiences that suit him. Sticking to plainly being against particular policies/actions of a particular set of people(e.g - the current US Administration) would give less fuel to those that oppose him. I can see where he's coming from though, it's okay for Conservatives to use rhetoric and half-truths but not Liberals, he obviously thinks this isn't fair so tries to play the same game. Unfortunately it just makes things worse with Conservatives view of him, then again could a different approach make their view any better? Who knows?

Yes, he was all that. But he still mistreated is people, that choose to tople him. If they (the iranians) choose to put freak religious zealots in power, who are WE to tell them they are wrong? The shah was a puppet of the West, anyway.

About Europe.. well, i dont know if you knew this, but an agreement was just signed to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons, just nuclear energy. And Europe cries over Israel due to their treatment of the Palestinian people. Israel may choose to ignore Europe, but they are in no position to threaten us.. what are they going to do? Nuke us? We'd nuke them back.

And as someone said, nor the US had any problems siding with anyone for money.

No, no, no, you misunderstand. Just because they can make them doesnt mean they are the ones who will use them. Nuclear warheads can be made to dissapear and reappear in nasty ways if you know the right people. Seeing as there is no indication Iran will follow anti-proliferation treaties they have signed, its perfectly forseeable that they may request some foreign help to keep their warheads safely in Irani government hands.

This is exactly why Isreal is not a threat. As for their treatment of Palestinians, look at your own internal discrimination problems of Turkish and Pakistani residents first. Isrealis do it by law and for tactical motives. You do it by innercultural movement and for social motives.

Also, you guys seemed quite upset when there was a democratic descision to put a religious nut in power here, so excusing an installment via coup which far worse nut in power in Iran seems a bit hypocritical.

As for the Cold War, the US rarely intervened for profit, in fact, we wasted a lot of money on aid to western europe to improve conditions there, and refused to join purely commerical interventions even in dire situations, which is largely why OPEC still lives on to "ease production" for the purpose of raising oil prices in a summit coming very shortly. The only profitable effort we ever made was in Iraq during the first gulf war, and that was only because Europeans were returning foreign aid money invested in them by the US earlier while taking credit for aiding US efforts in the gulf.

Neither did the Americans.
Not exactly. We stuck by Israel mostly for idealogical reasons, and it can be argued that Iraq was invaded for the same reason. Remember, only in the 1980s did Israel escape the status of an extremely underdeveloped country.

No, no, no, you misunderstand. Just because they can make them doesnt mean they are the ones who will use them. Nuclear warheads can be made to dissapear and reappear in nasty ways if you know the right people. Seeing as there is no indication Iran will follow anti-proliferation treaties they have signed, its perfectly forseeable that they may request some foreign help to keep their warheads safely in Irani government hands.

This is exactly why Isreal is not a threat. As for their treatment of Palestinians, look at your own internal discrimination problems of Turkish and Pakistani residents first. Isrealis do it by law and for tactical motives. You do it by innercultural movement and for social motives.

Also, you guys seemed quite upset when there was a democratic descision to put a religious nut in power here, so excusing an installment via coup which far worse nut in power in Iran seems a bit hypocritical.

As for the Cold War, the US rarely intervened for profit, in fact, we wasted a lot of money on aid to western europe to improve conditions there, and refused to join purely commerical interventions even in dire situations, which is largely why OPEC still lives on to "ease production" for the purpose of raising oil prices in a summit coming very shortly. The only profitable effort we ever made was in Iraq during the first gulf war, and that was only because Europeans were returning foreign aid money invested in them by the US earlier while taking credit for aiding US efforts in the gulf.

Well, Iran has as much credibility as the US, or China, or any other country, which is, none. That is why they must be controled, and that is what is being done. And as right of now, they arent building any nuclear warheads, they are being barred the technology.

Israel is a threat as big as Iran, or bigger: They DO have nuclear weapons, only god knows how many, and they arent being controled.

And yes, Europe as discrimination problems, don't all countries?Doesnt your own country have it? We have that and more: We have poverty, corruption, pedofile rings, etc.: But we also have one thing: A genuine desire to improve ourselves, to perfect ourselves. And we currently arent actively opressing any people, as policy, are we?

And we where upset with the election of Bush. And we accepted it, didnt we?

And about the rest of your post... No. Well, you got the Iran-contra scandal, you didnt had profit on that. But you made money out of selling chemical weapons to Iraq :D

And about the rest of your post... No. Well, you got the Iran-contra scandal, you didnt had profit on that. But you made money out of selling chemical weapons to Iraq :D

We supplied less than 4% of Iraq's weapons, and it amounted to anti-aircraft missles and little more. Chemical weapons were manufactured internally. You are free to conspire how Iraq developed that capability.

I cannot think of a situation in the Cold War in which money was a motive for US intervention.

We supplied less than 4% of Iraq's weapons, and it amounted to anti-aircraft missles and little more. Chemical weapons were manufactured internally. You are free to conspire how Iraq developed that capability.

I cannot think of a situation in the Cold War in which money was a motive for US intervention.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1381.htm

You, the Dutch and the French kinda gave them the weapons and know how..

And who said that the US intervened for money? You DIDNT interneved for money, that is the reverse.

Bed time now..

Ann Coulter is the name you are looking for. She has written questionable books similar to Moore's, but fortunately, she has for the most part failed to achieve the same popularity Moore did.

Debateable. If anything, among their respective educated political punditocracies, Coulter is given far more credibility by conservatives than Moore is by liberals (Coulter, for instance, is a regular guest and guest host on several Fox News shows, whereas I'm not familiar with Moore being afforded a similar status among the "serious" left). I think this goes for quasi-educated liberal and conservative lay-people, too.

The Shah of Iran vs. his successors is a case of secular fascism vs. theocracy. Both have their good and bad points, both systems enjoy widespread support, neither can satisfy everyone. For the West, the former was far more convenient in terms of a business relationship.

NationStates shows us that there is no good and bad way to run a country, only ways which will satisfy and annoy different groups of people. One's opinion on this is a matter of personal politics.
Of course, nationstates assumption of what certain things do to a country tend to be violently off base of what would really happen in certain situations.

The US not intervening for money during the Cold War? LOL. They would have had to have been incompetent not to. Money and resources are everything in any conflict.

The point was: he was still very much a liberal, pro-western, anti-communist leader, and his replacements have proven to be worse in this regard. I am suprised Europeans are so nonchalant about a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iran which threaten their commercial and diplomatic interests, while crying over a nuclear-armed Isreal who will not use their capabilities to threaten or extort Europeans unless there is a drastic and sudden rise of anti-semetic foreign policy into practical application, which will likely do little more than destroy Isreal utterly. Not really likely to happen though, especially considering that in spite of all the preaching out against Israel, the French have never had issues siding with Isrealis and other semetic nations (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt come to mind,) when there is money involved.

Your an idiot, simply because somebody alligns themselves with your interests, e.g. preservation of the empire, you consider that a good point. And don't tell us Europeans what to do, we don't believe attacking Iran will do any good so we are negotiating and we are making some headway. And the fact Israel has nuclear weapons is part of the factor of why the Iranians want them, they want a credible detterent against US or Israeli attack, thats what you get if your aggressive towards nations and it will increase proliferation. Oh and the Shah killed more than the Ayatollahs, and at least the Parliament has some degree of independence now, there are a lot of Liberal voices in the Parliament which is better than when The Shah basically appointed the Parliament and Prime Minister himself and they never went against him.

Again, send your marines in there, but when Iran nukes New York and I see all the stupid 'New Yorkers' crying like they did on 9/11 I'll just laugh myself to sleep. I despise Ameriscum and the more dead the better.

We supplied less than 4% of Iraq's weapons, and it amounted to anti-aircraft missles and little more. Chemical weapons were manufactured internally. You are free to conspire how Iraq developed that capability.

I cannot think of a situation in the Cold War in which money was a motive for US intervention.

Nope, you gave iraq by far the largest loan out of all Western Nations, $10 Billion. You also provided many of the raw materials needed to make Chemical weapons, which, as you say, were then developed internally.

Debateable. If anything, among their respective educated political punditocracies, Coulter is given far more credibility by conservatives than Moore is by liberals (Coulter, for instance, is a regular guest and guest host on several Fox News shows, whereas I'm not familiar with Moore being afforded a similar status among the "serious" left). I think this goes for quasi-educated liberal and conservative lay-people, too.

Yes, but Fox isn't a real news channel is it? ;-) More like the Al Jazeera of the USA.

I had a quick look at it the other day, and within minutes there was a slur on the French, totally unacceptable for a so-called serious news channel. It was something like..."blah blah blah... and the favourite French pasttime of American bashing". So tar a whole country with a brush of bashing the USA, great serious news commentry that.

I think the Shah of Iran is held up as an example of the failure of pro-dictatorship Cold War foreign policy. To claim that anyone who criticises the undoubtedly brutal regime he ran is somehow "anti-American" is, if you ask me, indicative of some very confused thought-processes indeed.

Iran under the Shah was a corrupt and brutal dictatorship. It was so bad that it eventually provoked a successful popular revolt. Do you have any idea how bad a government has to be to provoke a popular revolt, let alone a successful one? The theocracy which replaced him is also corrupt and brutal, but it has the (temporary) advantage of being native-born, and not imposed from outside by the CIA after the overthrow of a nascent democracy.

This goes to the heart of what is wrong with the foregn policies of all Western powers. They allowed themselves to be deluded into thinking that the Cold War was a conflict between "capitalism" and "communism", when in reality it was a continuation of the conflict between democracy and dictatorship. Britain and America connived in the overthrow of a native Iranian democracy, because a) that democracy was suspected of being a bit left-wing (by the standards of the British and American Establishments), and b) because it concerns with labour rights, wages, fair taxation etc. were inconvenient to the corporations who have been allowed to buy up Western political power.

The history of the Cold War is replete with popular -- i.e. essentially democratic, in that they represent the collective will of the people -- movements in numerous developing countries being opposed by the supposedly pro-democracy Western countries and being driven for help to the pseudo-socialist military dictatorships of the USSR and China. The message was all too clear: democracy is fine for us, we hold the will of our people sacrosanct (at least every 4 or 5 years), but you poor folks will take the governments we pick for you and like it. We supported monsters like Pinochet, and Batista, and the Shah, and the Contras, and tried to impose their brutalities on their people, against their will.

The current experiment in Iraq is interesting, to say the least. If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy then it is almost guaranteed to fragment. Will the West allow the Iraqis true democracy? This remains to be seen. However, we still haven't lost our knack of cosying up to psychotic dictators when it suits us, or fostering anti-democratic forces when we think it might be politically or commercially advantageous. This is aiding and abetting the enemy, because dictatorship is our enemy. In times of crisis, it might be the only option -- like supporting Stalin against Hitler -- but what's the excuse now?

The one currently brewing under the mullas of Iran?

The one currently brewing under the mullas of Iran?

Not remotely the same scale of threat. The crisis that's getting everybody exercised just now has a hell of a lot more to do with the rapid dwindling of global oil supplies than it does with whether or not Iran gets a nuke or two. Of course, the two factors are interlinked: but present-day Iran is not Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's USSR.

We're going to have to get used to the idea that nuclear weapons are going to become more and more common. They're not exactly high-tech any more. This is an unpleasant but undeniable fact. I am not at all comfortable with apocalyptically-minded religious zealots having access to nuclear weapons, but life is far from perfect and to be honest the glassy looks on the faces of Bush and Blair don't give me great cause for cheer either.

So, we're going to have to learn to live in a world where we can't just resort to large-scale violence whenever we feel like it. We're going to have to think a lot more, and achieve a lot more international consensus, and we're going to have to foster democracies, no matter how inconvenient their local decisions may be to "our" megacorporations, because one thing democracies are really bad at doing is going to war with each other. That includes supporting countries like Iran, where they get it right. Like it or not they are still one of the most stable quasi-democracies in the region. Frankly, I'm not optimistic about our long-term chances, but what choice do we have?

My point was the brewing revolution, not the nuke situation, sorry for the mix up.

The real issue is the shawl of Irene. She's my late aunt. Uncle Dan said that her shawl was radioactive, because when he rubbed it on the cat, it made the fur stand up. Meeeow!

My point was the brewing revolution, not the nuke situation, sorry for the mix up.

Ah. My apologies. Still, I got a few things off my chest. :)

The Second Coming
By William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The Shah was corrupt, at least that's how the fundamentalists saw him. I suppose no one remembers that after the revolution, it was discovered the Shah actually possessed a solid-gold toilet?

Oh, those were the days...

The Shah of Iran vs. his successors is a case of secular fascism vs. theocracy. Both have their good and bad points, both systems enjoy widespread support, neither can satisfy everyone. For the West, the former was far more convenient in terms of a business relationship.

NationStates shows us that there is no good and bad way to run a country, only ways which will satisfy and annoy different groups of people. One's opinion on this is a matter of personal politics.

It's a nice way to put it.

I'd say it's a case of whatever vz islam.
Islam is evil and must be destroyed.
Everything else is a secondary consideration.