Another Iran?


PDA






Fletchette
June 11, 2006, 11:04 PM
Our current proplems with Iran stem largely on our lack of support for the Shah. Jimmy Carter has been roundly criticized by geo-political thinkers for letting the Islamic extremists get control of a country.

The Islamic Jihadists got another country after defeating the Soviets - Afganistan.

Now, it appears that they may have captured a third, and it is largely ignored by our unbiased media.

Last Monday, the Islamists defeated the warlords and seized control of most of Mogadishu (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/11/060611162437.7450zyd1.html)

Note that Klinton, like Carter, was responsible for this mess.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Iran?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bartholomew Roberts
June 11, 2006, 11:28 PM
Mogadishu isn't a country and it would be a stretch to say that any single group controls Somalia.

gc70
June 11, 2006, 11:55 PM
A strong case can be made that our current problems with Iran stem largely from our support for the Shah. Had the US and UK not supported the Shah during his slide from constitutional monarch to absolute monarch, the people of Iran might not have been as ready to embrace the ayatollahs.

Just as the US and UK interfered in Iran's politics, the USSR interfered with Afghanistan's politics. Soviet-backed communist parties took over Afghanistan and quickly alienated the population, requiring Soviet military assistance to maintain power. The thinly-veiled Soviet takeover of Afghanistan drove the population into the arms of the Taliban.

As to Somalia, it has been largely dysfunctional since it was created by grafting together former British and Italian colonies.

greg700
June 12, 2006, 12:29 AM
They can have it.

carebear
June 12, 2006, 01:14 AM
Wasn't the Shah installed by us (the West writ large) in some kind of coup in the '50's?

I seem to recall being told it was yet another "popularly elected Socialist/soon-to-be-Soviet-tool needed replacing" situation.

Also, that it was another "democratically elected leader overthrown by the evil reactionary CIA" situation.

:evil:

slzy
June 12, 2006, 03:37 AM
supposedly,one of the worlds great veins of uranium ore is in somalia. oil off the coast i bet ,too.

.41Dave
June 12, 2006, 07:30 AM
Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the dictatorial Shah, who was friendly to the U.S., but generally terrorized his people and murdered his political opponents and their families with American support and backing for 25 years. This support for a rather vicious dictator is the direct cause of Iranians regarding the U.S. as "The Great Satan". Don't think other middle eastern folks don't know this history either. It is one of the reasons why the U.S. has so little credibility when it comes to "Spreading Democracy" in the region.

Augustwest
June 12, 2006, 09:55 AM
Google SAVAK and then tell me how the rise of the Ayatollas was Carter's fault.

Carter was at best an ineffectual leader, but if the Shah were running the show here, you can bet there'd be a revolution...

armoredman
June 12, 2006, 10:59 AM
Carter caused most of our Middle East troubles, by his ineffectual answers to the hostage taking, and wishy washy leadership when we needed to present a steel hard front, and firmly smash these emerging threats.
We need to smash them back down to nomads, and explain how we will trade oil for shiny things, and clean fresh food...

Hayward Juhbuzzoff
June 12, 2006, 03:38 PM
Middle East problems been brewing for a long time, long before
Carter... and the guys that came before and after Carter haven't done such a great job either.

If you want to simplify our stormy relations in the region down to the bare essentials, it's Oil and Israel...

leadcounsel
June 12, 2006, 03:45 PM
The simplist answer to the middle east problems, and the simplist solution, it oil.

They have power in that useless region because of money from, mostly, Americans and our consumption of the black gold.

When that stops, either through science and/or through economics (it will too expensive in the very near term, probably within 10-20 years) or most likely a combination the region will cease to be a problem. They'll have their 15 minutes of fame and fortune and be long forgotten because they cannot produce anything of value.

Let's just hope they don't buy any nukes during their years of fortune!

And yes, our medling in the region doesn't help matters but it's necessary because we consume so much oil.

Fletchette
June 12, 2006, 11:45 PM
Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the dictatorial Shah, who was friendly to the U.S., but generally terrorized his people and murdered his political opponents and their families with American support and backing for 25 years. This support for a rather vicious dictator is the direct cause of Iranians regarding the U.S. as "The Great Satan". Don't think other middle eastern folks don't know this history either. It is one of the reasons why the U.S. has so little credibility when it comes to "Spreading Democracy" in the region.

It is the content of the history that is up for debate. Yes, the CIA helped overthrow Iran's leader (whether he was indeed "democratically elected" is up for debate). One must remember that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were locked in a struggle to decide the planet's political structure; democracies or communism. Both sides meddled in other countries affairs, as declining to do so would put one at a disadvantage. Got a better strategy?

Also, I contest the level of the Shah's "viciousness". The Shah, while somewhat corrupt, he did indeed spend most of his countries oil revenue on public projects. Iran was the first country in the Middle East to have public schools, hospitals, city services, etc. As for brutality, SAVAK only had about 15,000 members at its height, so by and large you would be left alone unless you were openly trying to overthrow his government.

Compare that to Iran’s present government, which openly executes women for acting like people, hanging their bodies in public.

I am not contesting the facts that the CIA helped install the Shah, that the Shah was corrupt nor that SAVAK was brutal and used torture. However, compared to every other Middle Eastern ruler he was very moderate.

People always criticize the U.S. for supporting “corrupt dictators”. But when a country has a choice between a moderately corrupt dictator and a really bad, brutal dictator, what are we supposed to do?

.41Dave
June 14, 2006, 01:14 AM
I am not contesting the facts that the CIA helped install the Shah, that the Shah was corrupt nor that SAVAK was brutal and used torture. However, compared to every other Middle Eastern ruler he was very moderate.

Well, of course that brings up the fact that pretty much every "modern" nation in the Middle East was artificially created by the "Great Powers" in a last gasp of colonialism at the end of WWI. Blowback is a b****

Preacherman
June 14, 2006, 06:12 AM
Legal and Political
Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Iran?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!