Oh I never said you did, I'm just saying that they who allegedly thought of it would certainly be having serious doubts by now and thus not invading Iran. Don't answer this if it's interfering with your little speed-posting thingy.

905 wrote:

Oh I never said you did, I'm just saying that they who allegedly thought of it would certainly be having serious doubts by now and thus not invading Iran. Don't answer this if it's interfering with your little speed-posting thingy.

It always looked more like an air raid rather than a ground invasion was contemplated. There seem to very deep splits in the US military and administration over Iran and Iraq.

905 wrote:

The shah's dynasty was not the creation of the British; it was the creation of his father, who was shah before him. Iran has a long history of being ruled by shahs. Britain utilised an existing system for their own ends. I am perfectly aware of how the past can interfere with a country. But I am also aware that people are generally held responsible for their own actions. Germany was treated unfairly at the end of world war one but that did not excuse their actions in the second world war, though it did partially explain them. Iran has plenty of problems of its own creation, and hiding behind the past does not justify their autocracy, or their belligerence, though it helps explain them.

Sorry but that's just ridiculous. A fledgling and promisingly-secular democracy was removed from the map of the middle east in a military coup in 1953 and it was done by the US, the UK and BP. Fact.

The Shah was put in place and would rule as a brutal dictator for decades until he was removed in the revolution. What Iranians had once voted for in the 50s, they would now rebel against and swing the country behind their persecuted religion. (sounds similar to old Catholic Ireland non?)

Meanwhile the US is funding extreme fundamentalist terrorist groups within Iran -today.



The historical use of a minority Royal dynasty by the British,-prior to the Iranians obtaining some semblance of independence and democracy- is completely and utterly irrelevant.

I could just as well say, introduce into the debate that the UK has a royal family today and has in the past (and indeed recently had a state reception for the dictator Royal of Saudi Arabia, a state which is a real dicatorship...). Now imagine if I tried to introduce this to justify an attack or a coup say, against the UK by Germany in WWII, because they had certain well placed links with the British Royal Family* ? It was their fault after all what with their backward penchant for aristocracy.


*(and certain elements within the British aristocracy and well to do classes (as highlighted by Orwell at the time in " The Lion and The
Unicorn"))

Right Pax, so would you completely absolve Iran of any responsibility for their current situation?

905 wrote:

Right Pax, so would you completely absolve Iran of any responsibility for their current situation?

Nope, never said I would. That was a strawman repeatedly entered by yourself and, I believe maybe John Fas.

It goes without saying that Iran would not be the nation it is without UK and US imperialism. In all likelihood it would be a secular democratic republic today ( perhaps even with close similarities to our own republic.....Perhaps we should be thankful that we never sat upon a sea of oil or DeValera might have been deposed by a foreign supported Blue-shirted Irish Franco?)

Imperialism directed against Iran and it's neighbours have undoubtedly shaped it's internal politics. This does not absolve Iranians of responsibility, but it puts it into a historical and ongoing context. If you wish to see positive change within the region then the lessons are clear from this history.

To say otherwise is like putting too much weight onto the victims of imperialism, for their resultant actions and in the process absolving the imperialist power. I'm sure there's nothing new in this purposefully 'balancing' game as it can be seen in the press and the literature of the 19 century with respect to the British, Belgian, French, Japanese etc empires.

Right, I agree that Iran's history explains a lot about it's current problems. But it doesn't justify their actions and I felt it was being used to add to the idea that Iran was the damsel in distress in this particular situation.

Maybe we weren't so stupid giving away all our natural gas after all.

Maybe we had no choice in the matter, CF? It's not unlikely that the government gave in to some strong-arming behind the scenes. Who knows.

Back to Iran - here is an excerpt from a good article by Paul Craig Roberts which shows how nutty the idea is that Iran is responsible for the insurgency in Iraq:

Quote :

Having conned the UN, Congress, and the American people, the regime invaded Iraq under totally false pretenses and with totally false expectations. The regime's occupation of Iraq has failed in a military sense, but the neoconservatives are turning their failure into a strategic advantage. At the beginning of this year President Bush began blaming Iran for America's embarrassing defeat by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq.

Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.
On the basis of this absurd accusation--a pure invention--Bush has ordered a heavy concentration of aircraft carrier attack forces off Iran's coast, and he has moved US attack planes to Turkish bases and other US bases in countries contingent to Iran.
In testimony before Congress on February 1 of this year, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said that he expected the regime to orchestrate a "head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large." He said a plausible scenario was "a terrorist act blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran." He said that the neoconservative propaganda machine was already articulating a "mythical historical narrative" for widening their war against Islam.
Why is the US spending one trillion dollars on wars, the reasons for which are patently false. What is going on?
There are several parts to the answer. Like their forebears among the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks of the communist revolution, and the National Socialists of Hitler's revolution, neoconservatives believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the right to impose hegemony on the rest of the world. Neoconservative conquests began in the Middle East because oil and Israel, with which neocons are closely allied, are both in the MIddle East.
The American oil giant,

Scroll down to full article at link: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03012007.html

The Indian/US nuclear programme mentioned by Pax caused almighty ructions in the Indian parliament a few days ago

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072200161.html

Politicians were released from jail and carried in from hospitals to get the vote through. The allegation of a vast cash slush fund to vote for the deal was made.

905 wrote:

Right, I agree that Iran's history explains a lot about it's current problems. But it doesn't justify their actions and I felt it was being used to add to the idea that Iran was the damsel in distress in this particular situation.

And I refuse to get into the business of in any way villifying Iran merely because the US has unilaterally come up with an arbitrary plan to attempt to seize the country's natural resources. Iran is entirely innocent of any wrong-doing in this context and yet a plan is being concocted to bomb and invade the country in some shape or form on the back of a pack of lies which the mainstream media in the west are disgracefully complicit in promoting - exactly as it did with the Iraq situation.

An objective discussion about Iran itself outside of this context is another matter. No country, including Ireland, would come out of such scrutiny without a fair deal of justified criticism. Before we start casting about to find nasty things to say about Iran we ought first of all to deal with our far worse complicity in bringing about the deaths of 1 million Iraqis, for example. We're awash in the blood of all those people. Iraq would have a prima facie case against us - and infinitely more legitimacy in deciding to wage war on Ireland right now than the US/UK axis of evil ever had for invading Iraq - or has now for invading Iran. The trouble with your perspective 905, and I may misunderstand you, is that it appears to assume that the norm is that which is defined by the US/Western perspective - that Iran must measure up to standards defined by 'us' - despite the fact that we are far more guilty of breaching those standards than Iran ever has been. At the front of my mind are the innocent men, women and children who will lose their lives in vast numbers if the US gets its way. These people are indeed in severe distress about the prospect of what the US is proposing.

This website below is a mine of very valuable information about what is happening in Iran. It's the website of a London-based campaign against a US attack on Iran - it has huge support from people across the political spectrum in the UK. You can register for their regular email newsletters etc:

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/

Firstly I want to refute the Paul Craig Roberts quote.

Quote :

The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.

Any imbecile knows that there are numerous insurgency groups in Iraq, many of them Shia. These are the ones the Americans are accusing the Iranians of helping.

Quote :

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said US forces had detained several Iranians suspected of providing weapons technology to Shia insurgents.

source - BBC

Either Roberts very unfamiliar with the situation over there or he’s being deliberately misleading. It doesn’t help his argument one way or the other.

Aragon wrote:

And I refuse to get into the business of in any way villifying Iran merely because the US has unilaterally come up with an arbitrary plan to attempt to seize the country's natural resources. Iran is entirely innocent of any wrong-doing in this context and yet a plan is being concocted to bomb and invade the country in some shape or form on the back of a pack of lies which the mainstream media in the west are disgracefully complicit in promoting - exactly as it did with the Iraq situation.

I refuse to overlook Iran’s many faults merely because she is being picked on by the Americans.

If I might be so bold as to judge your perspective Aragon, I think it is defined by an anti-US prejudice. I’ve no recollection of you ever saying anything positive about the US or Western foreign policy in general. I’m well aware of the many faults, vested interests and sheer avarice associated with the US but I judge each case on its merits, not starting from the basis that they must be wrong and their enemies right.

905 wrote:

Firstly I want to refute the Paul Craig Roberts quote.

Quote :

The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.

Any imbecile knows that there are numerous insurgency groups in Iraq, many of them Shia. These are the ones the Americans are accusing the Iranians of helping.

Quote :

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said US forces had detained several Iranians suspected of providing weapons technology to Shia insurgents.

source - BBC

Either Roberts very unfamiliar with the situation over there or he’s being deliberately misleading. It doesn’t help his argument one way or the other.

Aragon wrote:

And I refuse to get into the business of in any way villifying Iran merely because the US has unilaterally come up with an arbitrary plan to attempt to seize the country's natural resources. Iran is entirely innocent of any wrong-doing in this context and yet a plan is being concocted to bomb and invade the country in some shape or form on the back of a pack of lies which the mainstream media in the west are disgracefully complicit in promoting - exactly as it did with the Iraq situation.

I refuse to overlook Iran’s many faults merely because she is being picked on by the Americans.

If I might be so bold as to judge your perspective Aragon, I think it is defined by an anti-US prejudice. I’ve no recollection of you ever saying anything positive about the US or Western foreign policy in general. I’m well aware of the many faults, vested interests and sheer avarice associated with the US but I judge each case on its merits, not starting from the basis that they must be wrong and their enemies right.

Would you see any postitive aspects to US foreign policy in the middle east?

cactus flower wrote:

Would you see any postitive aspects to US foreign policy in the middle east?

Iran, if war breaks out - bad. Current attitude to Iran anyway is bad.

Iraq - bad generally. I'd prefer to see them in charge than a civil war though. Setting aside the question of the overall American presence in Iraq, I think the surge, should it work, will have been a good thing. Anything that helps stabilise the country is good in my opinion.

Saudi Arabia - bad, bad, bad. They're really not looking further than the oil on this one I believe.

Israel - I think it good that Israel has back-up when faced with one of the more unjustifiable moves against them, Iran threatening them for example. But generally the American support allows the Israelis far too much freedom to go about building settlements and the like.

Gaza Strip/West Bank – Bad generally. Supporting a corrupt Fatah over a democratically elected Hamas and then saying that there’s no democracy in the region is beyond hypocrisy.

The US military - as part of the strategy of dividng Iraq into regional sectors - are encouraging various elements both Sunni and Shia depending on where either is in the ascendant. It's arming and funding them to attack each other in other words. Iran's traditional Shia support in Iraq, inlcuding the Shia dominated government, is as nothing in comparison to what the US is doing itself. In fact, in some instances Iran actually shares the same objectives for certain regions as the US does. When Saddam was toppled, the Iranian government expressed its appreciation of the fact. Accusing Iran of arming and equipping the insurgents is regarded is laughably stupid by anyone who is close the situation - as nothing more than a public relations ploy calculatedly aimed at the ignorance of the vast majority of external observers who may not have had the opportunity to find out what is really going on - and they sure as hell are not going to find it out by reading the mainstream media which is obediently on message for the US 98% of the time.

Secondly, I'm unapologetically and comprehensively critical of the present US administration because of its inescapably evil and corrupt nature. From the first stolen presidential election right to this very minute the Bush administration has been destructive in every single thing it has done - domestically and internationally. Most of the citizens of the United States share that view to a greater or lesser extent - as do many of its opposition politicians. Earlier US administrations have supported many of the same policies as the neocons - albeit in a slightly more tempered way and they too deserve the full brunt of unblinking scrutiny for the appalling crimes they have committed around the world, wherever that is the case. Look around you 905 - we're facing into appalling crises and catastrophes precisely because of the lunatic philosophy of endless growth secured by ruthless assaults on other countries and peoples for their resources. All this has been dressed up as 'democracy' for far too long. Iran is utterly blameless in this context. In fact, it's an outrage that it should find itself accused by the worst offender the world has ever seen - especially so when its violent and destabilising interventions in the Middle East over the last century are taken into consideration.

Its interesting that India, which has a far worse record than Iran on nuclear matters, and which is in a military standoff with Pakistan, another nuclear state, is being treated in a very different way by the US.

02/08/2008 - 08:45:03
India and the United States have moved significantly closer to implementing a landmark nuclear deal with the approval of an inspection plan by the UN nuclear watchdog.

To implement the deal, India must strike separate agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and with the Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries that export nuclear material. It would then go to the US Congress for approval.

The deal would allow India to enter the world market in nuclear fuel and technology – as long as it is for civilian purposes. It had previously been banned from doing so under the terms of a 30-year embargo imposed because of its testing of atomic bombs and refusal to join the global Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Aragon, why would the US divide and conquer and promote stability and central government at the same time? In my opinion neither Iran nor the US has much to gain form an unstable Iraq, so in that sense they share the same aim. If the Americans are trying to get oil out of the area they’ll want a stable situation so it makes no sense at all fir them to de-stabilise the country. At least Iran would have religious links to maintain.

Bias and prejudice are no reasonable basis for a position; however justified they may seem to be. Any pro-war advocate could easily seize on your blatant bias to discredit the argument of the anti-war side. Roberts mind-numbingly stupid assertion that the Iranians wouldn’t fund insurgents because they’re all Sunni, does far more damage to his argument than any Fox News propaganda.

In any context, Iran is governed by an authoritarian regime, with blatant human rights abuses. If the Americans invaded every country in the world and ate their babies this would still not change.

Out of curiosity, what is the plan exactly for getting the resources in Iran? The country’s not going to be invaded. Bombing won’t bring about oil supplies. It would drive up the price of oil, which is a gain in itself. But oil is going up anyway with all the talk of war and sanctions, there’s no need for an actual war. How is this about resources? Is there not the smallest remote possibility that, were there a war, it could be political, that the Americans could be planning to damage their old enemies, that that might be an aim in itself?


Cactus Flower – India’s a little off-topic. But it should be pointed out that Iran has signed the NPT and any dodgy dealings would mean a violation of that treaty. India hasn’t signed the NPT and hasn’t broken international law. Of course the India-US deal was a shameful episode which I think undermines the NPT, the same treaty we wave in Iran’s face. The US-India deal does bring India’s nuclear power under increased IAEA scrutiny so it’s not entirely without benefits.

Two takes here on how stable Iraq is, an Irish journalist's view and a US one - General Petraeus.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/is-the-us-really-bringing-stability-to-baghdad-782425.html

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/mktx;dc_slot=2008;sz=300x250;http://rmedia.boston.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.boston.com/remnant/L22/754575267/CENTRAL/boston/x_dclkadex_ros_BIGAD-anon/x_dclkadex_ros_BIGAD-anon.html/546f6d756e4569574135454142476750?ord=754575267?

It is quite comical to read about Petraeus talking about "beating Al Quaeda in Iraq". Al Quaeda was not in Iraq before the invasion and is an also-ran in terms of insurgency, hated by most Iraqis.

Iraq before the invasion the country was mixed Sunni -Shia and the primary identity was Iraqi. Even before invasion there was a plan to break the country down into factions - this is the classic and essential colonialist tactic throughout history.

India is another indication of the depth of hypocrisy of the US in relation to nuclear technology.

The US seems to be having the same ideas about regime change in Iran as they had about Iraq, before the invasion.

What do you think they are spending the 400 million on?

Iraq has had its ethnic divisions since before the invasion, to say nothing of the Kurds. Even your reporter for the Independent repeatedly mentions tribes and tribal traditions. The coalition has had the difficult situation with the Kurds to deal with, and so the country’s a federation. Divide and conquer theories need a better basis.

The 400 million is probably being spent on various ways to damage the Iranian government. But an invasion is out of the question and a regime change is very unlikely.

As for the success of the surge, I have to say that the Cockburn article put doubts in my mind, even if I thought he was being very dismissive of the figures. It is certainly too early to say whether it has been a success or a failure. I dearly hope it is a success though, as inconvenient to my politics as that might be.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

johnfas said

Quote :

Iran are equally funding all sorts of insurgencies in Iraq, so surely one can equally ask how is it ok that they do that?

Neither is any evidence presented that this is the case, nor is it explained why it should not be done. And no-one had said it was O.K. But this is also presenting the essentially defensive insurgencies in Iraq as equivalent to the invasion by the US.

905 wrote:

First, it is convenient to blame all of the world's problems on the West's aggressive history. Are we going to lay the blame of all the colonial world's problems at our door? Is it not inconceivable that some evil might have arisen independently of our old foreign policies? Why not go back further and blame Western interventionism on the Russians or the Shah's dynasty? Why not blame the British for FF's skulduggery or the IRA's bombing of innocents? Iran has a serious democratic deficiency and no amount of hand-wringing is going to change that.

The first part of this is meaningless hyperbole and is a straw dog. The essence of what you say is "an evil has arisen" and that Iran has "a serious democratic deficiency" - both unspecified. The Shah's dynasty being the creation of British Petroleum, not some imagined primitive and evil arabic tradition, was overlooked.

You need to understand history as a continuity of cause and effect and not just a list of facts to juggle about. The overthrow of two young democracies at the beginning and half way through the twentieth century and the installation of proxy regimes was not just the work of a couple of weekends but had a profound effect on the region for decades.

How do you think the extremely reactionary form of Islam that has emerged from the 1980s came about? It was deliberately fostered by the US to destabilise and overthrow Soviet supported governments and in my view is also the creature of the economic, social and political conditions caused by the way democratic development was repeatedly and deliberately pushed back, leaving a power vacuum and lack of local political leadership.

The US is geared up to fight "multi theatre" war for control of resources and to restrain and overthrow competitor states. As a a part of this in the middle east it has created the monster of islamic extremism and is to some extent has symbiotic relations with it - the main justification for the US remaining in Iraq is terror attacks that are deeply unpopular with much of the Iraqi resistance.

In your response to johnfás' argument you say 'nor is it explained why it (supporting insurgency) should not be done'. Supporting insurgency is what we are accusing the Americans of doing, trying to destabilise a government.

The shah's dynasty was not the creation of the British; it was the creation of his father, who was shah before him. Iran has a long history of being ruled by shahs. Britain utilised an existing system for their own ends. I am perfectly aware of how the past can interfere with a country. But I am also aware that people are generally held responsible for their own actions. Germany was treated unfairly at the end of world war one but that did not excuse their actions in the second world war, though it did partially explain them. Iran has plenty of problems of its own creation, and hiding behind the past does not justify their autocracy, or their belligerence, though it helps explain them.

Reactionary Islam has had many forms, political social, intellectual and cultural. Are they all explained by American foreign policy? Politically, Islamic fundamentalism was mainly a response to corrupt governments, monarchies and the like, just as in Iran. The usual explanation given is a youth bulge across the Islamic world generally, from the seventies to today. These are some of the issues that have to be factored in.

The US is losing in Afghanistan and is stretched beyond capacity in Iraq. It’s not saying much for multi-theatre war when you can’t hold two fronts. If there ever was a master plan to invade numerous countries then I think the present situation might have fostered second thoughts.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

This link is to the very comprehensive New York Times archive of the US overthrow of Iran's democratic government and installation of the Shah's illegal dictatorship. The Shah was so keen on the business that he ran away before the coup was completed and had to be brought back.

The archive includes an account written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners..

I request you to read to the short linked document which is the CIA proposal for the coup. It shows, amongst other things, how the CIA uses agent provocateurs including fake religious and fake communist oppositionists to Mossadeq's democratically elected government.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-appendix-a.pdf

In a nutshell the purpose of the coup was to reduce feared Soviet influence (the CIA thought Harold Wilson's Labout Government was communist) and to get control of Iran's oil resources.

Quote :

Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.
Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.

The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.

The Shah's regime with Savak the notorious secret police jailed, tortured and murdered thousands of political prisoners before it was finally overthrown by the islamic led revolution.

The next stage of US/western interference in Iran was their support for Saddam's invasion of Iran.
This link which I also highly recommend provides documentation of US support for Iraq, and the US and western fostering of the Iraq-Iran war. Russia was opposed to the war which resulted in 100s of thousands of deaths, whereas France, the UK, the US and others provided Saddam with the means of using chemical weapons and provided him with nuclear technology. Nice picture there of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Perhaps you were not aware of the illegal UK/US instigated overthrow of the legal democratic government of Iran. 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said (source Wikipedia):

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

Iran's serious democratic deficiency can be laid firmly at the door of those powers.

Sorry to drag this up again but I only noticed it.
Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown in 1953 largely at the behest of the CIA and the British and largely for oil. You seem to think I have problem with this fact I do not. I do have a problem with the assertion that the position of Shah was the creation of the West. They used an already existing system to further their interests. Can you not concede that Iran's pre 1953 history might have had a part in the coup that occured?

And their continued democratic deficiency is their own fault. They've had plenty of oppertunities to reform, instead they've gone further down trhe road of dictatorship. Part of the reason the Iraq war went on for so long was the power and legitimacy it gave the government.

905 wrote:

Sorry to drag this up again but I only noticed it.
Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown in 1953 largely at the behest of the CIA and the British and largely for oil. You seem to think I have problem with this fact I do not. I do have a problem with the assertion that the position of Shah was the creation of the West. They used an already existing system to further their interests. Can you not concede that Iran's pre 1953 history might have had a part in the coup that occured?

And their continued democratic deficiency is their own fault. They've had plenty of oppertunities to reform, instead they've gone further down trhe road of dictatorship. Part of the reason the Iraq war went on for so long was the power and legitimacy it gave the government.

No 905, I don't agree with you on this. Firstly, no one I know of suggested that "the position of Shah was the creation of the West". It wouldn't be the first time that the US has used a defunct and non democratic form of rule to install a puppet. I note they found a King of Greece (look him up) after WWII and a King of Afghanistan (not much heard about him these days) much more recently. If we don't behave ourselves we may expect to see a High King Declan installed in Ireland I suppose. Did you read the CIA document I linked ? It really doesn't pay too much attention to Iranian history.

cactus flower wrote:

905 I'm not sure what you mean. The Shah was installed by Western intervention to overthrow of a democracy.

Ha! There you said it, you said the Shah was a Western inven... oh wait. Well alright but you're still ignoring Iran's history to duit your arguments. And you're ignoring Iran's present autocracy.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

905 I'm not sure what you mean. The Shah was installed by Western intervention to overthrow of a democracy.

Ha! There you said it, you said the Shah was a Western inven... oh wait. Well alright but you're still ignoring Iran's history to duit your arguments. And you're ignoring Iran's present autocracy.

Iran's present government came out of a popular Islamic revolution, that in turn happened because all normal democratic politics was suppressed in the US and UK backed Shah's regime: religious circles were the only ones in which it was possible to organise. It is pretty horrifying to see people turning back to religion for their government in the 21st century.

cactus flower wrote:

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

905 I'm not sure what you mean. The Shah was installed by Western intervention to overthrow of a democracy.

Ha! There you said it, you said the Shah was a Western inven... oh wait. Well alright but you're still ignoring Iran's history to duit your arguments. And you're ignoring Iran's present autocracy.

Iran's present government came out of a popular Islamic revolution, that in turn happened because all normal democratic politics was suppressed in the US and UK backed Shah's regime: religious circles were the only ones in which it was possible to organise. It is pretty horrifying to see people turning back to religion for their government in the 21st century.

Untrue. While the church was the main sphere of activity, the academia, universities, the judiciary, indeed everyone was in on the rebellion. They were all in for a nasty shock when their revolution was hijacked.

Apart from Patten, I suggested Shirin Ebadi's book for the book club. She was a judge (in her twenties!) at the time of the revolution and she fully supported it, alonmg with everyone else. But she then lost her job, was forced into a veil and had to watch her country fall apart and her neighbours children sent off to die needlessly in the Iraq war. She would still see the Americans at the base of it, but that didn't justify the government's actions in her eyes. Who are we to disagree?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/07/9471/

This article reports in detail on disagreements between the Pentagon and Cheyney on attacking Iraq.