If most Iranians wanted an Islamic theocracy over the Shah, then no American meddling could be successful. The fact is that plenty of Iranians choose freedom and capitalism over Islamic totalitarianism and Communism. There is no such thing as America running around installing governments most people donât want --another Leftist mirage, by the way. We went in and âinfluencedâ things, sure. The Shah wins and runs the place for decades. Facts are facts: plenty of Iranians liked the Shah. Without that support, we could influence nothing.
In the 70s, however, itâs obvious the Shah lost his way enough to give Islamists the chance to anger the poor. Islamists (like the Left) are always looking for this chance, by the way. Islamists are everywhere in the Muslim World, waiting for any chance to control government, laws, and military. And when a secular government shows signs of weakness, they strike in the name of Islam. Islam is supposed to run government. Itâs in the Koran.
Thatâs why Islamists and the Left are best friends: they both sell humanity short by establishing a perpetual underclass of angry dependent people. Their strategies are different in terms of controlling them with their own anger by passing the blame and hatred to someone else: While the Left blames the wealthy, Islamists blame the ânon-believers.â
Therefore, in the 70s, the Shah screws up, gets corrupt and sick. Meanwhile, America has Carter, who proves to the world that America is pathetic and weak, and the Ayatollah tells Iranâs poor that everything sucks all because of the secular, CIA-meddling Superpower of Non-Believing Evildoers.
Iranâs best and brightest flee to the West (not a bad dividend of the Revolution, by the way.) The rest, frustrated with the Shahâs fledgling regime had to hang their heads low and watch their nation succumb to Islamist oppression. Iran would have been a major economic global player today, but Noooooo. Like all Islamist and Communist countries, everyone becomes poor-but-equal surfs, with economies stuck in molasses.
You challenge my ethical principles? What is so unethical about fighting the spread of Communism and Islamic totalitarianism? Why is it that Communists and Islamists always get the moral green light to spread their shit, and we Americans canât? I bet you think America is the only country trying to influence foreign governments. What do you think CAIR has been trying to do to MY government?
Quote from Dogballoon:
Wow, you have some colorful opinions. I can tell this won't go too far, but I just want to focus on this one issue.
In your opinion the 1979 overthrow of the "Shaw" was not a popular nationalist reaction against a brutal dictator. Grassroots support for the movement had no basis in a reaction to U.S. meddling. None at all. People don't overthrow dictators installed by foreign countries for that reason.
You're saying the revolution was because the dictator <b>was not powerful enough</b>, people were feeling good because of the money the "Shaw" was bringing in, and Carter was not willing to install a better dictator (or invade?). In other words -- none of what ended up happening was the responsibility of the U.S. and the U.K. Am I reading you right?
Your ethical principles are clearly Stalinist realpolitik only, so let me ask you something: if a country nationalizes something another country wants cheap like its oil wells or its copper mines, any country has the duty to either invade that country or install an oppressive dictator without hope of democratic reform to keep the price low. This is both a pragmatic and ethical course of action.Yes?
Just curious, but where did you go to college? And what work did you do before trading?
