Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Another Iran?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Fletchette, Jun 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    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

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

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Mogadishu isn't a country and it would be a stretch to say that any single group controls Somalia.
     
  3. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
  4. greg700

    greg700 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    428
    They can have it.
     
  5. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    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:
     
  6. slzy

    slzy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    supposedly,one of the worlds great veins of uranium ore is in somalia. oil off the coast i bet ,too.
     
  7. .41Dave

    .41Dave Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    655
    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.
     
  8. Augustwest

    Augustwest Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Southern New England
    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...
     
  9. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,213
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    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...
     
  10. Hayward Juhbuzzoff

    Hayward Juhbuzzoff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    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...
     
  11. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    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.
     
  12. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    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?
     
  13. .41Dave

    .41Dave Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    655
    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****
     
  14. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page