I didn't know where to post this, so I flipped a coin. I thought it was interesting in many ways. Simplistic? Maybe, but that don't mean it's not accurate.

Baron Max
*********

"Do you know ...why so many American blacks converted to Islam?" Kennedy asked.

"No," Castillo admitted.

"Because they hate 'whitey' as much as the 'ragheads' hate all infidels," Kennedy said. "And for exactly the same reason; They got left behind and they don't like it."

"That's what it's all about, Charley," Pevsner said. "The Muslim world getting left behind. Think about it.

"Take away their oil reserves and what do they have?" He continued. "They once dominated the known world. Now, with the exception of their oil, they are completely unimportant - more to the point, powerless - in the modern world. They simply don't have the skills and the culture to compete in the modern world. They gave the world mathematics, and some of the most wonderful architecture - so long as (it) is based on one stone laid on top of another.

"All the skyscrapers in the Arab world were designed and built by the infidels. And their airplanes were designed and build by infidels. And their telephone systems ...even their sewers. And they need infidels to keep everything running.

"This isn't the way Muhammed told them it was going to be. He promised them, in the Koran, that they would control the world. And they all know this because higher education in the Arab world consists mostly of men - only men - memorizing the Koran. And since nothing is their fault, it has to be someone else's fault ...the infidel's fault."

"That seems pretty simplistic," Castillo complained.

"Because an answer is simple doesn't mean it's not the answer."

"The Muslim world is four hundred - maybe five hundred - years behind the Western world. And adding to that problem is their religious hierarchy who likes it that way. People in power are never in favor of a system change that will see their own power diminished.

"That's also true in the Western world, of course. ... The difference is that as the influence of the Christian hierarchy on their societies diminished over time, the Muslim hierarchies' influence has grown."

"They have - as we see examples about every day - thousands, tens of thousands ...of faithful Muslims who are perfectly willing to sacrifice their lives because their mullahs tell them it will please Allah. And also send them directly to heaven, where they will receive the attentions of grateful whores. This, I think you'll agree, makes for a very dangerous situation for Western society."

from the novel: The Order of the President, by W.E.B. Griffin

Interesting, but I suggest the issue isn't lack of skills to compete in the modern world, but resources. Without oil revenue, the middle east just cannot support a large population. Much of that revenue didn't even end up in the hands of the average person, but rich monarchs.

Interesting, but I suggest the issue isn't lack of skills to compete in the modern world, but resources.

Don't you find it interesting that the Jews came into the Middle East in the late 40's and turned essentially a desert into a thriving and prosperous region that's still growing today in leaps and bounds? While the Arabs and Muslims, even with all of their oil wealth do little or nothing? ...except, perhaps, blame America and the west for their own failures?

Baron Max

Israel is a net importer of food, isn't it? Water is also becoming a major issue there, and all the Israelis I know are moving to the US.

While the Arabs and Muslims, even with all of their oil wealth do little or nothing?

But wasn't America producing all of the oil it needed at this time? So we didn't need arab oil. So it was basically worthless then?

I think the issue is that the religion of Islam hasn't been reformed. Think about it. A thousand years ago, one could argue that the Arab world was more civilized than Europe. But during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when religion became dcoupled from western society, culture progressed very rapidly.

Appologies to all of the reformed Muslims. I just realized that there were some Muslims with a sensible world-view, but these are largely outweighed, at least in the middle east, by Muslims with unsensible world-views.

The Muslim world is four hundred - maybe five hundred - years behind the Western world. And adding to that problem is their religious hierarchy who likes it that way. People in power are never in favor of a system change that will see their own power diminished. That's also true in the Western world, of course. ... The difference is that as the influence of the Christian hierarchy on their societies diminished over time, the Muslim hierarchies' influence has grown.That's the key. Islam was founded 600 years after Christianity and it has tracked 600 years behind it with amazing precision. Right now it is having its Crusades and Inquisition. If you think this is bad, wait for the wars and persecution its Reformation will bring!

We can only hope that in 600 years the world of Islam will be as secularized as Christendom is today, with only a few diehards hanging on.

And hope that yet another wacked-out patriarchal, monotheistic, evangelical offshoot of Abrahamism does not at that moment metastasize out of the Middle East like a cancer epidemic and start the whole cycle all over again.

Appologies to all of the reformed Muslims. I just realized that there were some Muslims with a sensible world-view, but these are largely outweighed, at least in the middle east, by Muslims with unsensible world-views.Whose unsensible worldview was it to invade Iraq and immerse ourselves in this region to begin with? The invasion and Israel's invasion of Lebanon has fueled the radical elements in Islam all over the globe. Greatest recruiting tools ever because it proves the Islamic fundie chant about Western and Israeli aggression toward Muslims is in fact true.

Muslims Left Behind? I don't think so, because right now the modern Saladin is getting stronger than ever, we'll see his forces spread in inmense way in the following years.

Whose unsensible worldview was it to invade Iraq and immerse ourselves in this region to begin with? The invasion and Israel's invasion of Lebanon has fueled the radical elements in Islam all over the globe. Greatest recruiting tools ever because it proves the Islamic fundie chant about Western and Israeli aggression toward Muslims is in fact true.

Who's decision was it to fly two planes into the World Trade Center?

Who's decision was it to fly two planes into the World Trade Center?The decision of several Muslims and a tiny radical splinter group. Do you even know the Muslim population worldwide? The actions of a handful of people can't represent a religion with billions of members. Now we've killed more Americans than died on 9/11, killed more Iraqis than Saddam, invaded the wrong country and still you justify a war on Islam. From your profile you're young enough to suit up and validate your username. What's keeping you?

don't think so, because right now the modern Saladin is getting stronger than ever,


Who is the modern Saladin ? could you spesify his function.:)

Don't you find it interesting that the Jews came into the Middle East in the late 40's and turned essentially a desert into a thriving and prosperous region that's still growing today in leaps and bounds? While the Arabs and Muslims, even with all of their oil wealth do little or nothing? ...except, perhaps, blame America and the west for their own failures?

Baron Max

Do you find it interesting that Iran was a liberal democracy in the 50s and before, until the CIA idiotically decided to assassinate a democratically elected president and install a dictatorial shah, who proceeded to arrest and/or murder all political opponents? A democratic, capitalist system would have been amazing in Iran had the US used a bit of foresight and even a tiny bit of brain power. In fact, they could've been a shining example in the Middle East and we wouldn't be in the situation we are today by the simple fact that the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian revolution would NOT have occurred.

The problem isn't Islam or Muslims.

Any country that is dedicated to the one-two punch of democracy and capitalism will thrive in our modern world. And I emphasize dedicated.

Israel has learned that. Japan learned that. South Korea learned that. Taiwan learned that. Brazil has learned that. Arab leaders need to learn that. It could've worked in Iran, but as I've stated above, we the Americans stifled that.

That's why China will eventually become democratic, which is why I hope we don't strain ties with them. To be the best or to overtake America, China will have no choice but to be democratic.

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that the Arab world adopts democracy.

It could've worked in Iran, but as I've stated above, we the Americans stifled that.

I doubt that is the whole story, may not even be true.

Interesting, but I suggest the issue isn't lack of skills to compete in the modern world, but resources. Without oil revenue, the middle east just cannot support a large population. Much of that revenue didn't even end up in the hands of the average person, but rich monarchs.I know this sounds odd but I thought that about 95% of our own Western-wealth is not in the hands of the general populations .. ... ... ... is it?

Baron Max:

Off topic slightly, but do you have the year of publication of the novel:

The Order of the President, by W.E.B. Griffin

I'm worried the text might be plagiarised.

That's the key. Islam was founded 600 years after Christianity and it has tracked 600 years behind it with amazing precision.Amazing precision ... are you sure?

It seems IMHO Europe and the ME have followed different paths with the only common denominator being that both were infected with monotheism.

If we consider ancient Greece and Rome then Europe was startlingly more advanced then about anywhere in the World - including compared with Islamic countries a 1000 years later - during their Golden Era. In Europe, following the Xian meme + a series of devastating plagues + a very serious minor ice age (the last unique to Europe) they culturally and technologically declined and it just so happens that the ME was prospering during this time - but that is relative to Europe, not due to it and certainly not relative to China, the ME was still way behind. So the ME at this point doesn't seem to be tacking 600 years behind Europe. They were ahead of Europe.

Also I think of Islam as a revolution and sometimes during the following redistribution of wealth society prospers. The ME didn't change the system og governance so much but they did redistribute wealth and they did have a monopoly on the silk and spice trade routes and so they prospered - over that of Europe, but maybe not that of China.

I just don't see the tacking along 600 years behind?

At some points the ME were "ahead" and at other times Europeans were ahead and at other time they were both about at the same level. It wasn't until the Portuguese sailed around Africa that the jig was up for the ME (and has been ever sense). And that wasn't connected to monotheism. It was purely due to a need to get a better deal on goods - that trade route was worth BILLIONS of dollars.

Also, ME rulers have been trying to secularize the ME for 100 years - it isn't working. Further, the ME has been exposed to the ideas of Democracy and Republic for over 2500 years - that also isn't taking. Whereas in Europe these are their homegrown ideas. So again, I don't see the tacking behind Europe. If anything then considering those ideas the ME is tacking at about 2500 years behind Europe and counting!


I don't know what the future holds but with todays information highway I don't think they have a 600 year lag-behind to fall back on (weather a true caricature or not). In the next 600 years the West/East will have made monumental leaps forward scientifically. The ME really doesn't have the propensity to make the leap with us. It's just not part of their culture or they would have already done so.

Michael

I agree withb parts of people comments

Also, ME rulers have been trying to secularize the ME for 100 years - it isn't working. Further, the ME has been exposed to the ideas of Democracy and Republic for over 2500 years - that also isn't taking. Whereas in Europe these are their homegrown ideas. So again, I don't see the tacking behind Europe. If anything then considering those ideas the ME is tacking at about 2500 years behind Europe and counting!

Michael

Which rulers? And why do you think it is not working?

Baron Max: Off topic slightly, but do you have the year of publication of the novel: The Order of the President, by W.E.B. Griffin

I'm worried the text might be plagiarised.

Plagiarizing? Is that like accusing me of lying? :D

Worry not, James, it was copyrighted in 2004 ...pages 232-233, and I copied the text as best I could, tho' I did leave out some superfilous text.

Oh, and I fucked up the name slightly, it's "By Order of the President", not "The......"

Baron Max

The decision of several Muslims and a tiny radical splinter group.

The point is that Islam, by and large, hasn't been reformed. Of course there will be pockets of radicals---the US certainly holds a few radical Christian sects. But by and large there are no religous wars fought in the name of Jesus. You don't see Americans dancing in the street waving flags when we drop 2000 lb bombs on Iraq, unlike the Palestinians after 9/11. There is a broad support across the middle east for Islamic fundamentalism, whereas Christian fundamentalists just get laughed at in America.

I was talking to a colleague who grew up in Turkey. I mentioned to him something about radicals hijacking the Muslim faith, and he got white in the face. He quickly corrected me and told me that this wasn't the case. According to him, Muslims leave no room for interpretation in their sacred texts, in contrast to most Christians. I will trust his judgement as he lived in Turkey, instead of yours.

From your profile you're young enough to suit up and validate your username. What's keeping you?

Nothing, really. I can kill a deer (or, presumably an Arab waving an AK47) at 400 yards with my 300 Win Mag, but I'd rather pursue my PhD in physics, as my country would be better served by my genius than my marksmanship.

Which rulers? And why do you think it is not working?When I wrote that I was specifically thinking of the founder of modern Turkey ... *hold on a minute* *typing wiki* *Ahh!* Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

That period isn't exactly my favorite Historical time and I'm not that interested in it. But, I suppose from my lay perspective, it seems that at this period countries as diverse as Turkey to Japan were trying to modernize and secularize their governments - modeling themselves after the European or American systems. This was because it was very apparent at just how successful these system were at governing. Also, I'm sure Marie Antoinette's head hitting the basket was a wakeup call a hundred years before ... Love is in the air ... la da da dee da ... :) Things moved much slower back then.

From speaking with my friends who grew up in the ME, yes most are Iranian and Lebanese but some are also Yemeni and Armenian. They all tell me that secular Democracy will not work for the middle east simply due to Islam. I'd say that such isn't so when a lot of money is flowing around + a bit of will power (Kuwait and UAE come to mind).

Anyway, I think we can agree that the people in the ME have been exposed to Democracy for longer than 2500 years yet they're never adopted it as a part of their culture have they?

When I wrote that I was specifically thinking of the founder of modern Turkey ... *hold on a minute* *typing wiki* *Ahh!* Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

That period isn't exactly my favorite Historical time and I'm not that interested in it. But, I suppose from my lay perspective, it seems that at this period countries as diverse as Turkey to Japan were trying to modernize and secularize their governments - modeling themselves after the European or American systems. This was because it was very apparent at just how successful these system were at governing. Also, I'm sure Marie Antoinette's head hitting the basket was a wakeup call a hundred years before ... Love is in the air ... la da da dee da ... :) Things moved much slower back then.

From speaking with my friends who grew up in the ME, yes most are Iranian and Lebanese but some are also Yemeni and Armenian. They all tell me that secular Democracy will not work for the middle east simply due to Islam. I'd say that such isn't so when a lot of money is flowing around + a bit of will power (Kuwait and UAE come to mind).

Anyway, I think we can agree that the people in the ME have been exposed to Democracy for longer than 2500 years yet they're never adopted it as a part of their culture have they?

Wrong, Iran could've been a secular democracy in the 50s, but the British and Americans squandered by implementing a dictatorial shah instead of a more Iran-centric, democratically-elected ruler.

Wrong, Iran could've been a secular democracy in the 50s, ....

So ...you know what "could have been" back through history? How do you do that? With a crystal ball or do you use tea leaves in the bottom of a cup?

Baron Max

Anyway, I think we can agree that the people in the ME have been exposed to Democracy for longer than 2500 years yet they're never adopted it as a part of their culture have they?

Isn't it interesting that the Muslims seem to prefer a form of dictatorial rule over individual freedom? I can't help wondering if that's not a major part of the Koran ....taught to them from babyhood.

Every other people/culture in the world are opting for individual freedom at every turn in history ....except the Muslims, who continually opt for less individual freedoms. And some people think we can "negotiate" with such people.

Baron Max

Wrong, Iran could've been a secular democracy in the 50s, but the British and Americans squandered by implementing a dictatorial shah instead of a more Iran-centric, democratically-elected ruler.

Certainly this is true in hindsight. The world was different in that time---the US needed a US friendly government in the Middle East in case the Russians did something stupid, like try to invade Afghanistan.

The point is that Muslims in general, whether they be in the middle east or in Africa, tend to have oppressive rulers who have hard line interpretations of Islam. What happens in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq will tell us if Muslims can live with Western (secular) democracy.

A notable exception to this is, of course, Turkey, and to some extent Iran. But I don't know how secular the democracy in Turkey is. Despite the Iranian president being an absolute crackpot, and his maniacal drive to get nuclear weapons, Iran is a somewhat functioning country.

Every other people/culture in the world are opting for individual freedom at every turn in history ....except the Muslims, who continually opt for less individual freedoms.

I don't know about this. I have a hard time believing that anyone wants to be oppressed. I do think that free thought (and thus any real opposition to the ruling power) is suppressed in these countries, and minority parties (like Hezbollah in Lebanon) can mobilize their constituents calling it their duty to God.

Wrong, Iran could've been a secular democracy in the 50s, but the British and Americans squandered by implementing a dictatorial shah instead of a more Iran-centric, democratically-elected ruler.Maybe you are right, but.... my own personal opinion is that if the will of the people is to have Democratic representation then no small amount of politicking by a few other people is going prevent it. The British and USA didn't militarily conquer Iran they meddled in it's politics. Surely a people with the resolve for a modern secular Republic would not let such a pittance prevent their gaining this goal?!?

Wouldn't you agree???

India didn't.

Also, think about this, Persians have been exposed to democratic principals for thousands of years, The area was even conquered completely by Greeks who were earnest in their desire to Hellenize that area. Yet the Persians did not eventuate into democracy. Why point to a small event that happened 60 years ago and say THIS is why. What of the 3000 years prior?

Another different perspective could be Vietnam. Even with a massive amount of "meddling" the USA could not prevent the Vietnamese from forming the kind of government they thought would work best for them - Communistic.

So, in hindsight yes the meddling may have interfered, but this doesn't explain the 3000 years prior and it also demonstrates the small scale of the support for democracy that was in existence. If the Vietnamese could gain a Communist government against the massively offensive Military campaign of the USA (and coalition) then surely Iranians could have overcome a small amount of Politicking.

Wouldn't you think so?


It's almost as if you're just looking for someone to blame and hey the USA and Britain sound good at the moment. What of the people of Iran? Don't they have a say in the kind of Government they have? Couldn't that at this very moment oust their few ruling leaders and within the week have a secular democracy? If that was the overwhelming will of the people - nothing could stop them.

Michael

Isn't it interesting that the Muslims seem to prefer a form of dictatorial rule over individual freedom? I can't help wondering if that's not a major part of the Koran ....taught to them from babyhood.

Every other people/culture in the world are opting for individual freedom at every turn in history ....except the Muslims, who continually opt for less individual freedoms. And some people think we can "negotiate" with such people.

Baron MaxI'm not Muslim but I have had ex-Muslim friends of mine say yes this is the case. My friend Reza was telling me just two days ago that he was taught it is a sin punishable by hellfire to even think about God. Do not think he said. There are angles with scales on your shoulders, watching your every move and weighting your every thought. Just don't think - only do as you are told and you will be rewarded in heaven. Certainly don't question ... no no no! That's a sure way to find yourself in Hell!

Well, so he said anyway, which is why when he left Islam he felt truly free for the first time in his life.

Michael

Maybe you are right, but.... my own personal opinion is that if the will of the people is to have Democratic representation then no small amount of politicking by a few other people is going prevent it. The British and USA didn't militarily conquer Iran they meddled in it's politics. Surely a people with the resolve for a modern secular Republic would not let such a pittance prevent their gaining this goal?!?

Wouldn't you agree???

India didn't.

Also, think about this, Persians have been exposed to democratic principals for thousands of years, The area was even conquered completely by Greeks who were earnest in their desire to Hellenize that area. Yet the Persians did not eventuate into democracy. Why point to a small event that happened 60 years ago and say THIS is why. What of the 3000 years prior?

Another different perspective could be Vietnam. Even with a massive amount of "meddling" the USA could not prevent the Vietnamese from forming the kind of government they thought would work best for them - Communistic.

So, in hindsight yes the meddling may have interfered, but this doesn't explain the 3000 years prior and it also demonstrates the small scale of the support for democracy that was in existence. If the Vietnamese could gain a Communist government against the massively offensive Military campaign of the USA (and coalition) then surely Iranians could have overcome a small amount of Politicking.

Wouldn't you think so?


It's almost as if you're just looking for someone to blame and hey the USA and Britain sound good at the moment. What of the people of Iran? Don't they have a say in the kind of Government they have? Couldn't that at this very moment oust their few ruling leaders and within the week have a secular democracy? If that was the overwhelming will of the people - nothing could stop them.

Michael

I don't think having a dictator with CIA trained secret police that excels in torture for 25 years, that imprisons and tortures anyone with democratic inclinations can be called a pittance. It took the Indians 200 years to overthrow their demons.

I don't think having a dictator with CIA trained secret police that excels in torture for 25 years, that imprisons and tortures anyone with democratic inclinations can be called a pittance. It took the Indians 200 years to overthrow their demons.
who are these people sam, name them.

who are these people sam, name them.

The CIA destroyed all the documents related to the coup, but some documents survived (although shredded, they were painstakingly put together) and are published by Iranians on a regular basis.

Philip Agee ex-CIA wrote about it in his book On the Run.

When Iranian revolutionaries took over the U.S. embassy in Teheran in 1979, they seized dozens of hostages whom they wanted to exchange for the departed Shah, so that they could place him on trial. Philip Agee, the former CIA officer who became notorious for his efforts to expose CIA officers under cover, came up with a counter-proposal:

"What other solution would the Iranians accept [besides return of the Shah]? What about the CIA's files on its operations in Iran? Would the Iranians accept a 'files for hostages' deal instead of 'Shah for hostages'?"

"Those files are their history, all the details on how the Agency set up the SAVAK [secret police], trained its officers, supported that murderous institution in every way possible," Agee wrote. (On the Run, pp. 315-24).


Some documents are in London

http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/thesaurus/thes_search?keyword=SAVAK%20%7C%20Iranian%20domest ic%20and%20foreign%20intelligence%20agency&acc_type=3

Many documents in the US are not declassified due to CIA refusal to reveal its history.

A minority argued that a coup d'etat had taken place but the majority accounts disputed that assertion. Time magazine said, "This was no military coup, but a spontaneous popular uprising." The Washington Post commented that Iran had been saved from falling into communist hands. That became the official version of history, and was taught in colleges and universities worldwide for the past five decades. The minority version has now been validated by the unofficial release of the C.I.A.'s secret history about the Iranian coup of 1953.

The 200-page document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role American and British intelligence services played in initiating and planning the coup. It shows that Washington and London-who constituted the coalition of two in the recent war against Iraq-shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil. Donald Wilbur wrote the document in March 1954, based on agency cable traffic and interviews with agents on the ground in Iran. Excerpts were published by James Risen in the New York Times in April 2000 and the entire document was subsequently posted on the Times web site. Recent events in Iraq have given Wilbur's history a new salience, and it is featured in the May 19 issue of Time magazine.

nothing in your link validates what you said in post 31.

nothing in your link validates what you said in post 31.

Of course, you can take the position that having no documents makes it easy for you to ignore that it ever happened.

But the Iranians know it happened and your not believing in the complicity of the CIA does not lessen their torture at all.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/langguthleaf.html

The coup: (http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm)

According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, 'that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.' (59) One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs as supporters of the Communist Party - Tudeh - in order to provide a suitable pretext for the coup and the assumption of control by the Shah. Cottam observes that agents working on behalf of the British 'saw the opportunity and sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They were more than just provocateurs, they were shock troops, who acted as if they were Tudeh people throwing rocks at mosques and priests'. (60) 'The purpose', Brian Lapping explains, 'was to frighten the majority of Iranians into believing that a victory for Mussadeq would be a victory for the Tudeh, the Soviet Union and irreligion'. (61)

The head of the CIA operation also sent envoys to the commanders of some provincial armies, encouraging them to move on to Tehran. (62) In the fighting in the capital, 300 people were killed before Musaddiq's supporters were defeated by the Shah's forces. AUS general later testified that 'the guns they had in their hands, the trucks they rode in, the armoured cars that they drove through the streets, and the radio communications that permitted their control, were all furnished through the [US] military defence assistance program'. (63)

Of course, you can take the position that having no documents makes it easy for you to ignore that it ever happened.

But the Iranians know it happened and your not believing in the complicity of the CIA does not lessen their torture at all.

Everything is the fault of the USA, huh, Sam? Do you find that pretty tiresome to keep posting? And don't you think that you're giving the USA a helluva lot of credit for being able make such monumental changes in the world with just a few CIA operatives?

Is there any problems in the world, Sam, that's NOT the fault of the USA? I mean, even the problems in India, you could indirectly blame on the USA, couldn't you?

But I still wonder why you give the USA so much credit for doing so much with so few operatives. I'm sure that the CIA thanks you for you continued compliments on their abilities.

Baron Max

Everything is the fault of the USA, huh, Sam? Do you find that pretty tiresome to keep posting? And don't you think that you're giving the USA a helluva lot of credit for being able make such monumental changes in the world with just a few CIA operatives?

Is there any problems in the world, Sam, that's NOT the fault of the USA? I mean, even the problems in India, you could indirectly blame on the USA, couldn't you?

But I still wonder why you give the USA so much credit for doing so much with so few operatives. I'm sure that the CIA thanks you for you continued compliments on their abilities.

Baron Max

Whats a few thousand lives when you can drive around at $2 a gallon?

'I owe my throne to God, my people, my army - and to you', the Shah told the head of the CIA operation responsible for installing him; by 'you' meaning the US and Britain. (77) Now that the 'dictator' had been installed in line with Foreign Office wishes, 'stability' could be restored, initially under the auspices of the favoured candidate for Prime Minister, General Zahidi. Thus the British understanding, outlined in 1951, that the Shah 'does not sufficiently check the members of his family and their entourage from interference in politics and their profitable incursions into business' and that 'the chief complaint of his political critics [is] that he wishes to monopolise power for himself', became a harsh reality. (78) An agreement was signed the year following the coup establishing a new oil consortium in which Britain and the US both had a 40% interest, and which controlled the production, pricing and export of Iranian oil.

Of course, you can take the position that having no documents makes it easy for you to ignore that it ever happened.

But the Iranians know it happened and your not believing in the complicity of the CIA does not lessen their torture at all.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/langguthleaf.html

The coup: (http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm)
uh, i meant like documents from the CIA.

uh, i meant like documents from the CIA.

They destroyed (http://www.iranian.com/History/June97/CIA/index.shtml) all the documents.

Which in itself is rather telling.

Here are some documents from NYT

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

They destroyed all the documents.

Which in itself is rather telling.
then quite frankly sam it's HEARSAY isn't it?

i really think that as a mod you should know better.

Whats a few thousand lives when you can drive around at $2 a gallon?

Just a few CIA operatives did all that, Sam? Gee, maybe we should get the CIA to workin' on the global warming issue .....in just a few days, they could have it back to cool and comfortable, huh? :D

Damn, the USA is powerful, ain't it? ..LOL!

Baron Max

They destroyed all the documents.

But somehow you, of all the people in the world, know about them, right, Sam? Is that 'cause you're somehow a party to something that we aren't supposed to know about?? I mean, what secrets are you keeping from us, Sam?

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

I'm beginning to think that I should change that to; "Revenge is mine, sayeth Samcdkey."

Baron Max

then quite frankly sam it's HEARSAY isn't it?

i really think that as a mod you should know better.

I thought people wanted to hear only my POV?

see edit.

I thought people wanted to hear only my POV?

Point of view, yes. But that doesn't mean that you can just throw out unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct against a nation of the world, does it?

I am glad to see that you're doing some of your own thinking and posting instead of letting others think for you via links and posts opinions not your own.

But I must say, it seems that you're getting more and more angry unlike you did before. Why is that?

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

I thought people wanted to hear only my POV?

see edit.
it's a newspaper article sam.
when i clicked on the "cia's role" button wouldn't you know? the server is down.

Point of view, yes. But that doesn't mean that you can just throw out unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct against a nation of the world, does it?

I am glad to see that you're doing some of your own thinking and posting instead of letting others think for you via links and posts opinions not your own.

But I must say, it seems that you're getting more and more angry unlike you did before. Why is that?

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

You're a silly fellow, Baron.

Why should I be angry? I know both you and leo well.

Unfortunately, its not me you should be directing your anger at.

it's a newspaper article sam.
when i clicked on the "cia's role" button wouldn't you know? the server is down.

That is interesting, considering it opens just fine for me.:rolleyes:

Sam is pissed (American for angry) when she uses the word silly.

Sam is pissed (American for angry) when she uses the word silly.

No I'm not. :p

Anyway, seek and ye shall find, sayeth the Lord, and the truth shall set ye free.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/index.html

No I'm not. Anyway, seek and ye shall find, sayeth the Lord, and the truth shall set ye free.

Is there anything in the world, any problems in the world, that you don't blame the US for causing, Sam?

Baron Max

Is there anything in the world, any problems in the world, that you don't blame the US for causing, Sam?

Baron Max

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to actually address the problem?

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to actually address the problem?

So, when will the mighty Islamic state reel in their extremists?

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to actually address the problem?

But first we have to know the problems before we can address them, don't we?

So, please, just list all of the horrors that the USA has foisted upon an unsuspecting world, then we'll just pick n' choose which to deal with, okay?

Baron Max

That Bible quote is speaking of the salvation of God, Sam, how low can you sink?

But first we have to know the problems before we can address them, don't we?

So, please, just list all of the horrors that the USA has foisted upon an unsuspecting world, then we'll just pick n' choose which to deal with, okay?

Baron Max

Lets start with Iran, shall we?

the following excerpt is from a document classified as "restricted", declassified in 1999.

3-a) anti-americanism in the arab world. anti-americanism i resurging in the arab world. the bombings at our legations in beruit and damascus; vitriolic public statements by syria's dawalibi, iraq's suwaidi and other high officials; diatribes and fantastic rumors in the vernacular press of syria, egypt, and iraq; all testify to the rekindling of arab animosity against the united states. whether prompted by communists or moslim extremists, whether encouraged by irresponsible journalists or by weak government officials who seek to divert attention from their own inadequacies, or whether attributable to a sincere objection to americas part in palestine developments, the current emotionalism bodes no good for the interests of the united states, nor for that matter the arab states themselves

That Bible quote is speaking of the salvation of God, Sam, how low can you sink?

God is in the details or didn't you know that?:)

the following excerpt is from a document classified as "restricted", declassified in 1999.

3-a) anti-americanism in the arab world. anti-americanism i resurging in the arab world. the bombings at our legations in beruit and damascus; vitriolic public statements by syria's dawalibi, iraq's suwaidi and other high officials; diatribes and fantastic rumors in the vernacular press of syria, egypt, and iraq; all testify to the rekindling of arab animosity against the united states. whether prompted by communists or moslim extremists, whether encouraged by irresponsible journalists or by weak government officials who seek to divert attention from their own inadequacies, or whether attributable to a sincere objection to americas part in palestine developments, the current emotionalism bodes no good for the interests of the united states, nor for that matter the arab states themselves


Let me guess, this was a CIA document? :rolleyes:

That is interesting, considering it opens just fine for me.:rolleyes:
sure it does. :rolleyes:

Let me guess, this was a CIA document? :rolleyes:
department of state

"God is in the details," may I quote you on that Sam? That's awesome.

sure it does. :rolleyes:

Yep

By JAMES RISEN



Requires Adobe Acrobat



The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.

Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

The document shows that:

# 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.


• Send your comments to The New York Times on the Web Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company

"God is in the details," may I quote you on that Sam? That's awesome.

I believe someone else has the copyright on that, but sure why not?

Thats the way I feel about God, that He is in the details.:)

And far too big to fit in one religion.

Oh, so now you're not a Muslim Sam?

News Flash: Sam is now a Bahai.

Oh, so now you're not a Muslim Sam?

Now how in heaven's name do you go from A to Ass?:p

You said that God is too big for your religion, not me.

I don't think having a dictator with CIA trained secret police that excels in torture for 25 years, that imprisons and tortures anyone with democratic inclinations can be called a pittance. It took the Indians 200 years to overthrow their demons.Historically speaking it was a pittance. Kings, Sultans, Emperors, Shogunate, Caliphs, Shahs, Monarchs and any of the other names Dictators have assumed have been continually overthrown by the people they rule over for the last 7000 years.
ALL of them.
I am 100% positive those Dictators used techniques of torture that would make your skin crawl to maintain control. It did not stop the people from taking back control.

BUT - most of those people for most of that time did not replace their government with democracies. They usually opted for another dictator and hence the cycle started again.

Iranians easily deposed of their Shah - at that point they could have opted for a secular democracy, instead they favored the theocratic dictatorship they live under now.
It was their choice not the USA to install a Theocracy.
Agreed?
And it's not like MANY pro-Democratic Iranians were not living abroad and could have returned just as the Ayatollah did. Anyway, Iranians are not idiots they do know what Democracy is and I think we can agree that if enough of them wanted it bad enough nothing would stand in their way.

I like Persian history and I have had many conversations with my Iranian friends about the Shah and his family. He was not the oft he can sometimes be made out to be. But, like all Kings, the land and its people litteraly belonged to him, he thought he could do with it as he liked, he lived in the same bubble as Bush and many other people raised in families of power.

That still doesn't excuse the Iran people for their choices.


That aside, why is, do you think, that the ME has never been Democratic? They were hellenized by the Greeks and they prospered in the Roman Empire. They lived under elected Roman officials. Yet they never became Republics themselves.. .. ..

Why? Why is it that Europeans became Democratic and the Middle East didn't?

Colonisation, of course.

The West just extended its sphere of influence and moved beyond its borders to obtain its resources.

The difference between the East and the West is that the East became a part of the culture it extended to, the West either destroyed it or took over it.

Colonization, of course.

The West just extended its sphere of influence and moved beyond its borders to obtain its resources.

The difference between the East and the West is that the East became a part of the culture it extended to, the West either destroyed it or took over it.I don't buy it.

The rational doesn't explain how Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, The Philippines, Taiwan, etc... were able to become democratic. It also doesn't explain why Vietnam, N.Korea, China etc were able to overthrow their governments to become Communist.

No one can stop the will of the people.

Japan in particular was atomic bombed twice and controlled militarily by the USA.
Japan is a Democracy.

The ME has had dictatorships since well before Northern Europeans could even read and write. I think there is much more to it than simply colonization.
I'm not buying the argument.
The Arabs colonized N. Africa, Persia, India, Iraq, Greece, Spain, Sicily, E. Europe, Persia, etc... yet that did not precipitate Arab democracy. Mongolians conquered huge amounts of territory - they didn't become Democratic so why did the Europeans do so? Their democratization was post-colonization. For many it was post-WWII.

The USA was a colony and the people living back then fought the then superpower of the world and became a democracy. I now live in a country that peacefully became a Democracy - AU.





No one is stopping Iran or KSA from becoming Democratic - other than the people that live there.

Don't you agree?


Also, that doesn't explain the 3000 years prior nor does it explain why they choose a Theocracy now.


Michael



Also, yes the West was horrid in that the scale of their atrocity was so large. The means were not by any manner unique. My Goddess woman - what about the Arab annihilation of Persia! Well, almost annihilated. Farsi is still 30% percent "Persian". And their native religion does have one seat in Parliament - even though many mainly exists outside of Iran.

I'll speak with my buddy Reza about the Shah sometime later in the week, he's read a lot of autobiographies about the Shah's family and has spoken with people who really take that period of Iranian history very seriously. People who lived it.
Do you have any questions? If so then I will ask him.

I'll speak with my buddy Reza about the Shah sometime later in the week, he's read a lot of autobiographies about the Shah's family and has spoken with people who really take that period of Iranian history very seriously. People who lived it.
Do you have any questions? If so then I will ask him.

No doubt the Shah was a very willing accomplice to the West. Undounbtedly since he never turned against the West, they never "discovered" any WMDs in his backyard either.

You might ask him about the SAVAK adopted by the Ayatollah as a good way of keeping the people under control, a legacy of the Shah. And about Iran under Mossadegh.

Your earlier post:

India and other post WWII countries adopted the democratic system already established by the British. The ME could not do that (although they wanted independence too and were promised it by the British) because of the discovery of oil. The hand picked puppets and dictators supported by the West ensured that no democracy was ever established, no nationalising permitted. Both Iran and Lebanon are examples.

Remember the system that exists in India today would not have been possible without the opportunity to form a democratic government post independence. After all we had no democratic government before independence. A coup and a dictator at the time of the Hindu-Muslim massacres during partition would have destroyed the Indian democratic functioning, much as the military coup and the Western support for the fundamentalist Zia ul Haq destroyed that of Pakistan.

The system in Japan was established by the Americans who bombed innocent civilians to prove their weapons technology was superior. Hardly non coercive. They too had to agitate to get rid of the US and the Americans had no interest in them because there was no oil. Not like Baghdad, where they are building the world's biggest US embassy and 10-12 military installations.

Both Africa and the ME provide too much in terms of resources to be allowed independence. A constant supply of funds and arms ensures they don't get it. Starvation and oppression keeps them conflicted. Its a sweet way to make money.

As for past history, well who's doing the oppressing NOW? Supporting starvation and armed conflict is big business for which countries? Not the ME.

As for past history, well who's doing the oppressing NOW? Supporting starvation and armed conflict is big business for which countries? Not the ME.
Only because they're not really in a position to do so, Sam.
Why do people always imagine that groups not currently in a position of power would not take it if the opportunity arose?

The difference between the East and the West is that the East became a part of the culture it extended to, the West either destroyed it or took over it.
And how in hell do you figure that? Even the Ottoman's supposed "tolerance" for other cultures was only by comparison with western/christian attitudes of the time.

Only because they're not really in a position to do so, Sam.
Why do people always imagine that groups not currently in a position of power would not take it if the opportunity arose?


And how in hell do you figure that? Even the Ottoman's supposed "tolerance" for other cultures was only by comparison with western/christian attitudes of the time.

Its history Look it up.

The Americas, Australia, Asia, Africa.

India and other post WWII countries adopted the democratic system already established by the British. The ME could not do that (although they wanted independence too and were promised it by the British) because of the discovery of oil. The hand picked puppets and dictators supported by the West ensured that no democracy was ever established, no nationalising permitted. Both Iran and Lebanon are examples. Sam Sam Sam ....

Samcdkey, I do agree (in the case of Iran) the USA wanted to prevent the Shah from nationalizing Iran’s oil. However, Iran’s present Theological governmental structure was a product of Iranians - not the USA. Iranians.
The Little Green-Book Ayatollah told Iranians that there was so much oil wealth to go around (now that the greedy evil Shah was disposed of) that everyone would live in opulence and no body would have to work. Iranians bought it hook-line-and-sinker.

If Iranians had had a strong desire for secular democracy they’d have lynched the Ayatollah and his mob and be one. They didn’t because they don’t have the propensity for democracy. If it were as easy as picking a puppet then the USA would be in complete and utter control of Iraq at this moment. It is not. Saddam may have been America’s-man-in-Baghdad, but he ruled not on the grace of Uncle Sam but because of 1000000 other reasons. What, you think some CIA goon says: “Hey yoos O’erder – yooos now runs this here joint see … and wez runs yous…goddit?” and *poof* you run the place?

Hardly.


I wonder?
Maybe India and other countries became democracies because they are not majority Islamic? Maybe there is something undemocratic about Islam?

I really don’t know.

Well, what do you think? You seem like a logical girl. Do you think most Muslims believe that a Secular Democracy founded on Common Law and separation of Church and State is much better than an Islamic Theocracy founded on the principals of the Qur’an and Islamic Law?

Which is a better system?

Secular Democracy or Qur'an based Theocracy?


(I still wonder, why is Singapore a beacon of industrial might and wealth while Malaysia and Indonesia are not? Is it a USA conspiracy?!?)

Remember the system that exists in India today would not have been possible without the opportunity to form a democratic government post independence. What you seem to miss is India created that opportunity - the people desired a democratic government. A billion little decisions by 100s of millions of people gave you todays Democratic India and continue to maintain it today. Not some British Legacy but real world day-to-day choices.

A coup and a dictator at the time of the Hindu-Muslim massacres during partition would have destroyed the Indian democratic functioning, much as the military coup and the Western support for the fundamentalist Zia ul Haq destroyed that of Pakistan. A coup d'état needs a LOT of internal support.

Sam, you say the ME is in the mess it’s in because of colonialism - then I show you a number of nations that were colonized that are either successful democracies or are well and truly on their way. Then you say well it’s really because of the oil but the Iranians have oil and are run by someone we can be sure did not receive support from the West! Then we look at oil poor Pakistan and you say well it's because the West supported Zia ul Haq and so it’s goes - its the West’s fault again.

Is it the West’s fault the ME never Hellenized 2500 years ago? Or is that the Greeks and Romans fault? Or ooo I don't know - maybe the ME people's choice?:)


IMHO the people in the ME do not appear to have the propensity for secular democracy. If they did the Ayatollah would have been hanged, the Shah would have been denied his official power and left as a symbol and Zia ul Haq would not have had the popular support he garnished.

I guess if you can not see that, then I can not show you.:(

Michael

PS:
Really, I don’t you are giving your forefathers the esteem they deserve. You’re living in the Worlds biggest Democracy not because India was exposed to the system by the British, they knew about Democracy long before the English knew of it, India is a Democracy because Indians would not stand to have it any other way. That’s the difference b/w India and the ME.:)

I think you're prejudiced here. Indonesia is very much like Thailand and India ethnically, and they are doing as well as one or the other.

A coup d'etat engineered from the outside does not need a lot of internal support. It needs money and arms, which the US is always willing to supply.

Why did Singapore and Hong Kong do well? Because they are trading ports like Bombay and trading ports in general do well depending on their location.

Iran's present theological government is a retreat into fundamentalism by a people made anti-American through US policies. When people are threatened as a culture and people they always go back to their roots, like the Marathis Shiv Sena and the Hindu Vishwa Parishad in India. The amount of support they get is directly related to the amount of discrimination or suffering faced.

Indians have never had a democratic form of government either, not in 5000 years before Independence. When the British came to India we were still monarchies. The reason why we succeeded as a democracy is that no one interfered in the process during its establishment. Which ME country can say the same?

People are inherently the same and want similar things. e.g. did the ME people in other countries seem inherently alien until the whole war on terror started? It is only after Muslims from there felt their culture under attack that they became more extreme in their expression. Why else would you find more British Muslims wearing the hijab than in Pakistan? Why would third generation Britishers take to the hijab to assert their identity?

The Iranians (and other places in the ME) have had a taste of "Western" democracy that is to them associated with horrors and torture. To them, Western is equated with bad. Even then you'll find most Iranians do not agree with the way things are done in their country. I doubt you've ever been in a situation where you could not express yourself without fear. Its easy to judge other people for a situation you've never been in. Could they lynch the Ayatollah and get away with it? Well quite simply, could YOU do it to your president, if you don't agree with his policies?

As for the Hellenisation of the ME. India was never Hellenised either and Alexander came to India. So whats wrong with us? After all a 1000 years of Buddhism never eliminated the caste system.

And do you see any parallels in the ME and Latin America?

Isn't Lebanon an example of how people in the ME could have a secular government? Notwithstanding the constant bombardment by the Israelis?

I think you're prejudiced here. Indonesia is very much like Thailand and India ethnically, and they are doing as well as one or the other. I tended to think India is doing much better - but I you know better than I, we will see how it goes over the next few years.

A coup d'etat engineered from the outside does not need a lot of internal support. It needs money and arms, which the US is always willing to supply. This is where we will have to disagree. You seem to think that some meddling by the USA stopped Iran or KSA or the whole bloody ME from becoming democratic. That’s way overstating the influence of the USA in the ME.

The ME is not democratic because of the people in the ME.

Think about this.
How does the ME compare with Vietnam in terms of meddling? The USA brought the full weight of its army against the Vietnamese. It more than meddled – it outright supported the S. Vietnamese government, gave 100s of billions of dollars, 100s of millions of rounds of arms, used chemical weapons, used every diplomatic ploy at it’s disposal, used full sanctions, used everything it cold muster outside of A-bombs to stop the Vietnamese from becoming Communist.
Did it work?
NO!
They became Communist because the Vietnamese people supported that ideology.

Now you are telling me that the USA is to blame for the ME not being democratic because some CIA guys supported someone? The USA is to blame for the Iranians supporting their Theistic government because some CIA guys supported someone? The KSA is a dictatorship because the of CIA. Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Egypt, North Africa, Afghanistan, Maraco – there were or are dictatorships because of the big-bad CIA.

Man! We could have used those guys in Vientnam or the Korean War or even Iraq right now!

So let me make sure I have this correct?

The Vietnamese could become Communist against the full onslaught of a USA military invasion (supported by a draft) and remained vigilant even in the face of continued sanctions for DECADES but the people of the ME are so weak willed that they can not become democratic because of some of come CIA trained boogie men are supporting their dictators? Oh, and the Iranians choose and support their Theocracy because of the CIA? They were sooo utterly weak-kneed and scared shitless because of the CIA spooks lurking under their beds they retreated to Islam for comfort like a baby to a mother’s breast.

Is that correct?
Why did Singapore and Hong Kong do well? Because they are trading ports like Bombay and trading ports in general do well depending on their location. Yes, Singapore and Hong Kong are port cities. But Malaysia and Indonesia have port cities AS WELL AS HUGE amounts of natural resources. Malaysia’s port is directly next to Singapore’s.

Why is Singapore rich and they are poor?

I personally think it has to do with Chinese work ethic.

Indians have never had a democratic form of government either, not in 5000 years before Independence. When the British came to India we were still monarchies.And so were the English.

The reason why we succeeded as a democracy is that no one interfered in the process during its establishment. Sure people did interfere. Wasn’t the then USSR very keen on India becoming Communist. The two were very close.

India is Democratic because of the will of the people of India.

Which ME country can say the same? 1) See the Vietnamese analogy.
2) See the American Revolution.
3) See the French Revolution.

4) Let me try another example:
While it may appear today that Japan became a democracy because of the presence of the USA military that is not so. There were many Japanese sympathetic for an Emperor again- MANY. There were many Japanese sympathetic towards Communism. I am sure Russia gave lots of $$$ to those sympathetic towards Communism. But, there were many many more that wanted a Democracy. The support of these 10s of millions of people during VERY hard times (bear the unbearable) gave Japan it’s modern Democracy.

People are inherently the same and want similar things. e.g. did the ME people in other countries seem inherently alien until the whole war on terror started? It is only after Muslims from there felt their culture under attack that they became more extreme in their expression. Why else would you find more British Muslims wearing the hijab than in Pakistan? Why would third generation Britishers take to the hijab to assert their identity? True, I wonder why they see themselves as Muslim first and British second?

Do you think it is good towards integration to see yourself as Muslim first and X-nationality second? Why not the other way around?

The Iranians (and other places in the ME) have had a taste of "Western" democracy that is to them associated with horrors and torture. To them, Western is equated with bad. Even then you'll find most Iranians do not agree with the way things are done in their country. I doubt you've ever been in a situation where you could not express yourself without fear. Its easy to judge other people for a situation you've never been in. Could they lynch the Ayatollah and get away with it? Well quite simply, could YOU do it to your president, if you don't agree with his policies? If the President of the USA thought he’d make himself king, the people of the USA would lynch him, of that 99.9% of all Americans would agree. His support base would evaporate and yes I would be among those people to see him hanged. That’s our democratic culture.

In such a light I see Iran, which it’s Islamic culture came it’s Islamic government. What’s so hard to see about that? It seem plainly obvious to me. Doesn’t it?

Let me ask again:

Which is a better system of government to you and which do you think most Muslims would say is the better system if asked.

1) A Secular Democracy
or
2) A Qur'an based Theocracy

Michael

sam
i've been reading about the CIA's role in the '53 coup in iran.
it appears the coup was carried out by iranians
that requires significant help from the inside.

michael
forget it man, sam is so rabidly anti-american she probably blames the US for the common cold.

leopold99,

i've been reading about the CIA's role in the '53 coup in iran.
it appears the coup was carried out by iranians
that requires significant help from the inside.

That is something that people like sam tend to ignore, you can only pull a coup if you have support of the indigenous people in the country.

I've read that Muslim theocracies are a reaction to dictators. Turn to the church to get rid of the tyrant.

At least the new tyranny walks with God.

Michael:

There is was no oil in Vietnam.

And the US never left the ME. Not from the moment it was formed.

sam
i've been reading about the CIA's role in the '53 coup in iran.
it appears the coup was carried out by iranians
that requires significant help from the inside.

michael
forget it man, sam is so rabidly anti-american she probably blames the US for the common cold.

Don't have to be anti-American.

The Shah was from Iran. So was the Savak. But they needed arms and funding to bring about a coup, just like the militants in Iran that the US is NOW funding.

Just look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran today.

The Lebanon war last year.

I've read that Muslim theocracies are a reaction to dictators. Turn to the church to get rid of the tyrant.

At least the new tyranny walks with God.

Correct. What makes you so smart Roman?

Michael:

There is no oil in Vietnam.

There was some in the Gulf of Tonkin that was recently discovered.

And the US never left the ME. Not from the moment it was formed.

I don't think the US had anything to do with the ME until the first or second world war.

Or do you mean its present day form?

Correct. What makes you so smart Roman?

That I'm not blaming your religion for the bloodthirst of the Arab?
;)

There was some in the Gulf of Tonkin that was recently discovered.

Yes, I wonder what will happen there next. China has already solidified that asset.



I don't think the US had anything to do with the ME until the first or second world war.

Or do you mean its present day form?
I mean from when the present lines of sovereignty were drawn.

That I'm not blaming your religion for the bloodthirst of the Arab?
;)

No that you can see through the BS.:)

Don't have to be anti-American.

The Shah was from Iran. So was the Savak. But they needed money and funding, just like the militants in Iran that the US is NOW funding.

Just look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran today.

The Lebanon war last year.
as usuall you are completely avoiding the issue.
the issue being IRANIANS carried out the coup.

as usuall you are completely avoiding the issue.
the issue being IRANIANS carried out the coup.

A coup is generally carried out by people from within the country.

The CIA masterminded it and trained the secret police that dealt with any democrats.

Like all the coups and dictators installed everywhere by the US.


You can add these to your reading list:
http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805078614

http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179

Michael:

There is was no oil in Vietnam.

And the US never left the ME. Not from the moment it was formed.That doesn’t explain Pakistan? Come on... India has much more influence on Pakistan than America ever will, blame Indians - just don't dare blame Pakistanis .. no no no, that'd not due. It's everyone else's fault. I mean America has been holding the ME back for all these past 7000 years - didn't you know???
:D

Not to mention Egypt? Syria? Morocco? Algeria? Tunisi? Libya, Somalia? Sudan? Albania? Bosnia and Herzegovina? Bangladesh? They are all overflowing with oil?

Is Venezuela's Hugo Rafael Chávez America's man? I really don't think so - yet Venezuela has a bucket of oil and America is very dependent on that oil. Hmmm, maybe S. Americans are just stronger willed people than ME peoples? I mean America has had a desire that Cuba not be Communist for decades - I wonder why the CIA/FBI wonder-twin-powers haven't active and made it so? They must have big balls those S. Americans ;)

A coup is generally carried out by people from within the country.

The CIA masterminded it and trained the secret police that dealt with any democrats.

Like all the coups and dictators installed everywhere by the US.


You can add these to your reading list:
http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805078614

http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179
don't you know what it means to deal with OFFICIAL documents sam?

furthermore this wasn't solely an american operation.
can you name the other 3 players?

Sarcasm aside I seriously do want to know your opinion on which you think is a better system of government as well as which you think most Muslims would say is the better system - if anyone ever bothered to ask.

1) A Secular Democracy
or
2) A Qur'an based Theocracy

So?
Michael

That doesn’t explain Pakistan? Come on... India has much more influence on Pakistan than America ever will, blame Indians - just don't dare blame Pakistanis .. no no no, that'd not due. It's everyone else's fault. I mean America has been holding the ME back for all these past 7000 years - didn't you know???
:D

Not to mention Egypt? Syria? Morocco? Algeria? Tunisi? Libya, Somalia? Sudan? Albania? Bosnia and Herzegovina? Bangladesh? They are all overflowing with oil?

Is Venezuela's Hugo Rafael Chávez America's man? I really don't think so - yet Venezuela has a bucket of oil and America is very dependent on that oil. Hmmm, maybe S. Americans are just stronger willed people than ME peoples? I mean America has had a desire that Cuba not be Communist for decades - I wonder why the CIA/FBI wonder-twin-powers haven't active and made it so? They must have big balls those S. Americans ;)

Guess you missed Venezuelan history then.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8705

don't you know what it means to deal with OFFICIAL documents sam?

furthermore this wasn't solely an american operation.
can you name the other 3 players?

Past is unchageable.

Who is the major player funding terrorism TODAY?

The region is too complex to pinpoint one reason why it's in such turmoil.

Religion, massive disparity of wealth, constant interference by foreign powers, center of multiple proxy wars, rich in resources considered to be of 'vital national interest' to a super power, a former super power, and a growing super power, a culture at odds with modern morality.

Layer on top of that the oil and Israeli lobby, the power of the Christian Right, multiple monarchies, and various arms dealers, and of course you're going to have a volatile region.

Fixing any one of those issues won't diffuse the situation. Blaming Jews or Muslims, while partly right, ignores the whole of the issue. That issue is an undeveloped region mired in a self- and outside induced Dark Age.

The ruling elite don't mind the wealth disparity, or the human rights abuses. They want to stay leaders, and force is the easiest way to do that. The US doesn't care who the rulers are, so long as the oil doesn't stop.

Add to that the very real threat of Israel and the US, who make perfect infidel scapegoats, the oil men and arms dealers who get very wealthy brokering to corrupt sultans and brutal warlords, and you have a region flush with weapons and people willing to use them. Violent Wahabist ideology makes an attractive banner for the desperate, especially when one is beset on all sides by foes- real or percieved.

Most ME nations are enemies. Ancient enemies, that can be traced back thousands of years. They share only two things in common- religion and threat from outside the region. In this, they can rally to a common cause. But each nation adds to their cache of weapons for the day when they'll march against their neighbors.

Meanwhile, the people languish in poverty and ignorance. Who needs to invest in human capital when you poke a hole in the ground and wealth comes up at $60/gallon?

Sarcasm aside I seriously do want to know your opinion on which you think is a better system of government as well as which you think most Muslims would say is the better system - if anyone ever bothered to ask.

1) A Secular Democracy
or
2) A Qur'an based Theocracy

So?
Michael

Under present circumstances?

Lets see. Do you think Iraq would welcome Western ideology?

Iran? Lebanon? Palestine? Jordan? Somalia? No and quite possibly not any of the others who are getting fat on US benefits to them in exchange for keeping the dollar afloat.

Past is unchageable.

Who is the major player funding terrorism TODAY?
shut the fuck up sam.
just shut up.
all you know how to do is flap those lips of yours without ANY regards as to the facts.

scream racism now you coward.

Sarcasm aside I seriously do want to know your opinion on which you think is a better system of government as well as which you think most Muslims would say is the better system - if anyone ever bothered to ask.

1) A Secular Democracy
or
2) A Qur'an based Theocracy

So?
Michael

What would you say is the better system of government:

1) An American Corporate Republic
or
2)A Socialist Finn Welfare State

??

shut the fuck up sam.
just shut up.
all you know how to do is flap those lips of yours without ANY regards as to the facts.

scream racism now you coward.


Profanity does not change history.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6308.htm

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tett-cn.htm

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_Somalia_0104,00.html

http://mondediplo.com/focus/iraq/r1465

Profanity does not change history.

thats right sam. the FACTS are that there were 4 major players in the iranian coup of '53, so far you've mentioned only one.

thats right sam. the FACTS are that there were 4 major players in the iranian coup of '53, so far you've mentioned only one.

Lets ignore the fact that the CIA engineered the whole thing, that it was all paid for by the US.

Lets focus on other players instead.:rolleyes:

I don't get it.
With so much else going on in the Middle East, why is it that everyone blames the Muslims? Violent Islam is the product, not the cause.

Take away Islam, and you'll find some other belief system to rally the troops to. People do the same shit EVERYWHERE, regardless of which particular creed of 'frag a bitch' you subscribe to.

Lets focus on other players instead.:rolleyes:
name them

Lets ignore the fact that the CIA engineered the whole thing, that it was all paid for by the US.


this is an outright lie sam. you are a LIAR.

I don't get it.
With so much else going on in the Middle East, why is it that everyone blames the Muslims? Violent Islam is the product, not the cause.

Take away Islam, and you'll find some other belief system to rally the troops to. People do the same shit EVERYWHERE, regardless of which particular creed of 'frag a bitch' you subscribe to.

Because blaming Muslims avoids addressing the real causes of the turmoil, the corrupt business practices that sustain this conflict.

No one wants to think about Iraqi blood flowing when they're filling the gas in their cars. Making them less than human makes it so much easier to swallow the BS.

this is an outright lie sam. you are a LIAR.

Its called Operation Ajax. Look it up

The leader of Operation Ajax was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA agent, and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. While formal leadership was vested in Kermit Roosevelt, the project was designed and executed by Donald Wilber, a career contract CIA agent and acclaimed author of books on Iran, Afghanistan and Ceylon.



Here is the transcript of the US government coming clean

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html

Its called Operation Ajax. Look it up
i did look it up.
and it WASN"T called ajax.
willing to bet your modship on it against me being banned?

hmmm sam?

i've read the declassified documents on the matter sam.

It's not just the oil, though. It's not just Western influence. The ME was on a downward slide before the Turks chose the wrong side in WWI. Most trace the slide to embracing Islam too tightly. While the West set up secular democracies through the 19th century, the ME backpeddled.

Africa's in the shitter, and no one gives a damn about them. It's not just foreign influence that ruins a country.

The West's involvement in the ME changes the scale of conflict and strife. That is, with more money, the war machine is that much bigger. Yet the willingness to use it doesn't change. Regardless of whether or not there was oil, you'd still have the same tyrants doing the same thing. They'd be doing it with scimitars and rifles, but with the same eagerness. You only have to turn to Africa to see this is true.

what's up sam? your balls fall off?

nah, i forgot you flap them lips of yours just for the breeze.

It's not just the oil, though. It's not just Western influence. The ME was on a downward slide before the Turks chose the wrong side in WWI. Most trace the slide to embracing Islam too tightly. While the West set up secular democracies through the 19th century, the ME backpeddled.

Africa's in the shitter, and no one gives a damn about them. It's not just foreign influence that ruins a country.

The West's involvement in the ME changes the scale of conflict and strife. That is, with more money, the war machine is that much bigger. Yet the willingness to use it doesn't change. Regardless of whether or not there was oil, you'd still have the same tyrants doing the same thing. They'd be doing it with scimitars and rifles, but with the same eagerness. You only have to turn to Africa to see this is true.

Perhaps you should look at Africa more closely.

what's up sam? your balls fall off?

nah, i forgot you flap them lips of yours just for the breeze.

You can look up Operation Ajax and then get back to me.


Operation Ajax (1953) (officially TP-AJAX) was a covert operation by the United Kingdom and the United States to remove the democratically elected nationalist[1] cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power, to support the Pahlavi dynasty and consolidate the power of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in order to preserve the Western control of Iran's hugely lucrative oil infrastructure[2].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Or you can continue to make a prime ass of yourself, whatever you like.

Post-colonialism and the Cold War, right?

You can look up Operation Ajax and then get back to me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
wiki? what a laugh.
i repeat, do you even know what an official document is?

and when are you going to name the other players in the '53 iranian coup?

Post-colonialism and the Cold War, right?

Like Somalia for instance

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0121somalia.htm

You can look up Operation Ajax and then get back to me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Or you can continue to make a prime ass of yourself, whatever you like.
i'm looking at the declassified documents right now.
IT WAS NOT CALLED AJAX.

Guess you missed Venezuelan history then.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8705Hugo is still President and that is not what the USA wants. I didn't say the USA hasn't tried to change the situation to its advantage. I said it didn't succeed. It didn't succeed because Hugo is massively popular with the many poor.

Agree?
Michael

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html

Yawn

The CIA history of operation TPAJAX excerpted below was first disclosed by James Risen of The New York Times in its editions of April 16 and June 18, 2000, and posted in this form on its website at:

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

This extremely important document is one of the last major pieces of the puzzle explaining American and British roles in the August 1953 coup against Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq. Written in March 1954 by Donald Wilber, one of the operation’s chief planners, the 200-page document is essentially an after-action report, apparently based in part on agency cable traffic and Wilber’s interviews with agents who had been on the ground in Iran as the operation lurched to its conclusion.

Hugo is still President and that is not what the USA wants. I didn't say the USA hasn't tried to change the situation to its advantage. I said it didn't succeed. It didn't succeed because Hugo is massively popular with the many poor.

Agree?
Michael

You mean Saddam was popular only with the US?

Like the Shah of Iran? And King Saud? :rolleyes:

Hugo plays on the anti-Americanism in his country.

So why doesn't the US attack him? After all it won't take the same posturing from Iran.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html

Yawn
was it called ajax sam?

read it and tell me it was funded exclusively by the US.

find out who the other players were, then blame the US for it you ho.

Under present circumstances?I didn't pick a country or a time or set any circumstances I just asked a general question.

Which is a better form of government: a Secular Republic or a Qur'anic Theocracy?

Lets see. Do you think Iraq would welcome Western ideology?

Iran? Lebanon? Palestine? Jordan? Somalia? No and quite possibly not any of the others who are getting fat on US benefits to them in exchange for keeping the dollar afloat.What is "Western Ideology"? You mean Democracy?What is "Western Ideology"? You mean Democracy?

No I expect Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Somalia to support the kind of government that is natural to them. Probably a dictatorship of some kind. That's my guess anyhow.

How foolish was the American administration to think that could replace Saddam with a secular democracy! Pure imbeciles!!!

I didn't pick a country or a time or set any circumstances I just asked a general question.

Which is a better form of government: a Secular Republic or a Qur'anic Theocracy?

What is "Western Ideology"? You mean Democracy?What is "Western Ideology"? You mean Democracy?

No I expect Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Somalia to support the kind of government that is natural to them. Probably a dictatorship of some kind. That's my guess anyhow.

How foolish was the American administration to think that could replace Saddam with a secular democracy! Pure imbeciles!!!


I don't think they will be going secular any time soon.

In fact, I predict they will become much more extreme as a rejection of all things Western.

And I doubt any altruism was part of the US policy. The military installations and giant embassy say otherwise.

What would you say is the better system of government:

1) An American Corporate Republic
or
2)A Socialist Finn Welfare State

??What is an "American Corporate Republic" and what is a "Socialist Finn Welfare State"?

Are they both democracies?

Is it the people within those democracies that decide to publicly support Corporations or Welfare?
Is it possible for the same people to change their "collective" mind in the future if things seem to be going in the wrong direction? Can, for example, the people living in the "Corporate Republic" decide to decrease their support for Corporations and increase their support for Welfare?
Can the people living in the Welfare State decrease Social subsides if they find a rather large segment of the population are no longer interested in working very hard?

I guess I can really tell the two apart yet so I am having difficulty making a decision.

Michael

I don't think they will be going secular any time soon.

In fact, I predict they will become much more extreme as a rejection of all things Western.

And I doubt any altruism was part of the US policy. The military installations and giant embassy say otherwise.I didn't ask that. I asked you what you think.

Not what might happen or did happen or is going to happen.

Which do you SamCDKey think is a better form of government: A Secular based Republic or a Qur'anic based Theocracy?

I'd have thought it a simple enough question?
Michael

I didn't ask that. I asked you what you think.

Not what might happen or did happen or is going to happen.

Which do you SamCDKey think is a better form of government: A Secular based Republic or a Qur'anic based Theocracy?

I'd have thought it a simple enough question?
Michael

Well I'm from India so for me a secular republic obviously is better.

What is better for others is best decided by them, I think.

Its not for me to decide how people should live their lives, is it?

And I doubt any altruism was part of the US policy. The military installations and giant embassy say otherwise.I agree, but anyone will take a win-win over a win-lose any day of the week. The USA thought they'd have a win-win. Iraq democracy with a USA-friendly government and of course Iraqi crude oil flowing cheaply to American automobiles. I huge drop in oil $$ and thus the teeth of Iran, Russia and KSA all pulled that the same time.

Oh, and the Neocon far-Reich were gunny for happy little Xians mushrooming all over the ME :) You know, the love of Jesus and all ::p

I agree, but anyone will take a win-win over a win-lose any day of the week. The USA thought they'd have a win-win. Iraq democracy with a USA-friendly government and of course Iraqi crude oil flowing cheaply to American automobiles. I huge drop in oil $$ and thus the teeth of Iran, Russia and KSA all pulled that the same time.

Oh, and the Neocon far-Reich were gunny for happy little Xians mushrooming all over the ME :) You know, the love of Jesus and all ::p

Yeah too bad about all the Iraqis they'd have to trample to get there.:rolleyes:

Well I'm from India so for me a secular republic obviously is better.Well, I'm glad it's obviously so :)

Yes I agree it's not for us to decide. So we should accept that they have chosen to support their respective governements. I'm all for the USA trying it's damnest to stop importing oil from the ME and simply letting them do as they wish. I promise to cast my vote for anyone who supports such a plan!

:)
Michael

Yeah too bad about all the Iraqis they'd have to trample to get there.:rolleyes:I've never ever once supported the war. I've been anti-war even before the war. I hope we pull out 100% ASAP.

Its history Look it up.

The Americas, Australia, Asia, Africa.
I noticed you avoided the first comment. Something you'd prefer not to think about?

As for the reply - as I said, the Ottomans were only tolerant by comparison with western cultures of the time. Were they any more "tolerant" than latter day western occupations? I'd say no. They conquered, and then allowed a certain freedom of religion and culture. Sound familiar?

The only difference between east and west in this regard, Sam, is in the capability to act on belief. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that certain religious fundamentalists in power in the East are even more likely to attempt subversion than the west is - were they in a position to try it. It is the current western ideology of freedom holding them from complete domination, even if their governments would undoubtably sometimes prefer that ideology did not exist.
Would you disagree?

I noticed you avoided the first comment. Something you'd prefer not to think about?

As for the reply - as I said, the Ottomans were only tolerant by comparison with western cultures of the time. Were they any more "tolerant" than latter day western occupations? I'd say no. They conquered, and then allowed a certain freedom of religion and culture. Sound familiar?

The only difference between east and west in this regard, Sam, is in the capability to act on belief. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that certain religious fundamentalists in power in the East are even more likely to attempt subversion than the west is - were they in a position to try it. It is the current western ideology of freedom holding them from complete domination, even if their governments would undoubtably sometimes prefer that ideology did not exist.
Would you disagree?


What Western ideology of freedom?:rolleyes:

The one that applies only to the West?

We had the Mughals (800 years) AND the British (200 years).

Guess who destroyed the country and partitioned it on a religious basis?

I've never ever once supported the war. I've been anti-war even before the war. I hope we pull out 100% ASAP.
I've always supported the war. I was even pro-war before the war. I hope we pull out 0%. ASAP.

What Western ideology of freedom?:rolleyes:

The one that applies only to the West?

We had the Mughals (800 years) AND the British (200 years).

Guess who destroyed the country and partitioned it on a religious basis?
Guess who threw the Brit's out and made their own country the way they wanted to, and then made it into the country you all love to hate because you can't do the same thing with 5 times the available workforce?

You folks have been around for much longer than us upstart Americans, yet you're just now getting around to answering our phones and reading from prepared scripts.

What's up with that?

:P

We had the Mughals (800 years) AND the British (200 years).

Guess who destroyed the country and partitioned it on a religious basis?Of course the British - they are monotheists after all. That's what monotheists do. They distinguish people based on faith and then use the public domain to exploit this difference - its simply a way to control the newly ruled. Muslims did the exact same thing to the people in the contries that they controlled. I think the Qur'an even sets out rules on who gets taxed such and such and who gets plum nice-paying military careers, etc...

So I absolutely agree with you - having the government distinguish people by faith and then enacting Public Law for each faith accordingly is barbaric and sickening. Totally backwards and unjust! Pathetic even!

Hey .. ... .. we agree!

Yea us :)
Michael

Of course the British - they are monotheists after all. That's what monotheists do. They distinguish people based on faith and then use the public domain to exploit this difference - its simply a way to control the newly ruled. Muslims did the exact same thing to the people in the contries that they controlled. I think the Qur'an even sets out rules on who gets taxed such and such and who gets plum nice-paying military careers, etc...

So I absolutely agree with you - having the government distinguish people by faith and then enacting Public Law for each faith accordingly is barbaric and sickening. Totally backwards and unjust! Pathetic even!

Hey .. ... .. we agree!

Yea us :)
Michael

The Mughals were also monotheists.:rolleyes:

But they enhanced the history and made the country richer.

The British raped it.

East vs West.

Guess who threw the Brit's out and made their own country the way they wanted to, and then made it into the country you all love to hate because you can't do the same thing with 5 times the available workforce?

You folks have been around for much longer than us upstart Americans, yet you're just now getting around to answering our phones and reading from prepared scripts.

What's up with that?

:P


Did they?

It was the slaves that built America.

What Western ideology of freedom?:rolleyes:
The one which prevents the US and its allies from reducing the middle east to a smoking wreck, Sam. Care to deny it is within their capability? Do you know what a MOAB is?

What is it which stops the US from achieving its aim of complete control over middle eastern economies, Sam? What has it divided against itself?

Think of Japan. Do you not remember how quickly they came to heel in the face of complete and utter destruction? Do you think the US has forgotten that lesson, and do you wonder why they do not dare do it again?

It is not US or allied military ineptitude which is the cause for this conflict going badly for them, Sam. How odd that you refuse to acknowledge the one thing which keeps the west from assuming complete control over the middle east, and has it torn, divided against itself - its own ideology. Its lack of Will.

The one that applies only to the West?
Hardly. Iraq is still in one piece. Baghdad is still a city, and not a pile of rubble.
You don't see it, do you. It would cost the US less to rebuild Iraq and the oil wells after blowing the place to hell, than it is to keep this "conflict" going. For you, this has no significance.

We had the Mughals (800 years) AND the British (200 years).
And? Cultures from all over the globe have been supplanting each other for millenia. It isn't a western thing - its a human thing.
The demise of the west will come, too. Even now, the internal tearing has begun. Does it make you smile?
I wonder what will fill the vaccuum. Perhaps it will be those peaceable, tolerant Muslims. Or, of course - they would be peaceful, if only... *sniff* everyone would just... leave them alone.

The east is no different. They have simply had little opportunity in recent centuries to assert themselves. I suppose being on the throne at the head of a legion of idealists absolves you of any need to acknowledge or even explore that thought.
There is little more effective than outside support to bolster ones own ideals and prevent one from examining them to closely, hmm?

The one which prevents the US and its allies from reducing the middle east to a smoking wreck, Sam. Care to deny it is within their capability? Do you know what a MOAB is?

What is it which stops the US from achieving its aim of complete control over middle eastern economies, Sam? What has it divided against itself?

Think of Japan. Do you not remember how quickly they came to heel in the face of complete and utter destruction? Do you think the US has forgotten that lesson, and do you wonder why they do not dare do it again?

It is not US or allied military ineptitude which is the cause for this conflict going badly for them, Sam. How odd that you refuse to acknowledge the one thing which keeps the west from assuming complete control over the middle east, and has it torn, divided against itself - its own ideology. Its lack of Will.


Hardly. Iraq is still in one piece. Baghdad is still a city, and not a pile of rubble.
You don't see it, do you. It would cost the US less to rebuild Iraq and the oil wells after blowing the place to hell, than it is to keep this "conflict" going. For you, this has no significance.


And? Cultures from all over the globe have been supplanting each other for millenia. It isn't a western thing - its a human thing.
The demise of the west will come, too. Even now, the internal tearing has begun. Does it make you smile?
I wonder what will fill the vaccuum. Perhaps it will be those peaceable, tolerant Muslims. Or, of course - they would be peaceful, if only... *sniff* everyone would just... leave them alone.

The east is no different. They have simply had little opportunity in recent centuries to assert themselves. I suppose being on the throne at the head of a legion of idealists absolves you of any need to acknowledge or even explore that thought.
There is little more effective than outside support to bolster ones own ideals and prevent one from examining them to closely, hmm?

I don't doubt the Americans would bomb the ME out of extinction, if they could only figure out a way to support their economy in its absence. Its not yet completely out of the question either.

Its not like they are squeamish about destroying countries.

I've always supported the war. I was even pro-war before the war. I hope we pull out 0%. ASAP.
Actually, I think the best thing you could do to bring the middle east completely to its knees would be to find a viable alternative to oil, immediately. I don't doubt your capability, only your focus, or your will to do so.
The adjustment would be enormous - but better to take that step now when you are far enough ahead to absorb it, than when you are forced to.

No, you should not have gone to war in Iraq. You had neither the stamina nor will to do it properly. Destroy - then rebuild. By conducting the conflict in the manner you are, you merely give your enemies the structure and means to continue the fight.

This is one of the main problems America now has - a lack of men who would take it upon themselves to ensure success by being truly innovative.
The freedom to bypass those power groups keeping you from advancing even further might well be your achilles heel.

Actually, I think the best thing you could do to bring the middle east completely to its knees would be to find a viable alternative to oil, immediately. .

IMO That would be the best thing to happen to the ME.

I don't doubt the Americans would bomb the ME out of extinction, if they could only figure out a way to support their economy in its absence. Its not yet completely out of the question either.
The American public would not allow it, Sam.

Its not like they are squeamish about destroying countries.
Oh yes, it is. It is very much a case of that. It is called "public opinion".
In short - Ideology. Ideology controls the votes. Western governments spend enormous sums of money trying to convince the public they are doing what is necessary - there would be no need to do that if that ideological public weren't so important.

Vietnam had little or no oil, and little to offer the American economy. Are you trying to say the Americans refused to conduct that war in the way it was necessary, in order to win it quickly and completely, because