<b>"There is no such thing as America running around installing governments most people donât want." </b>
<b>"Facts are facts: plenty of Iranians liked the Shah. Without that support, we could influence nothing."</b>
Wrong.
What, there's no such thing as an illegitimate or unpopular governemnt that seizes and maintains power through force? Every governemnt that exists, exists with the support of the people? I'm sure oppressed satellites like the Czechs and the Afghanis agreed when it came to the USSR. Hey, people liked the Soviets, otherwise they couldn't have influenced anything!
Listen. Mossadegh was democratically elected and POPULAR, and was NOT turning toward the USSR. The Shah was not popular, was an autocrat, and used the horrible SAVAK for a lot of wonderful things. The whole reason Khomeini won popularity among the students AND conservative nationalists, as well as hardline traditional Muslims, was <b>because</b> the Shah was so close to the U.S. Iranians hated how Carter let him on U.S. soil. Hardliners gained the general support of parts of the populace because Iranians were afraid of being a pawn of Western (or Russian) control -- which they knew was a very real danger after decades years of dictatorship. Mossadegh was the most popular, most Western, most sane option there was, and he was booted for the sake of oil. To quote Albright:
<i>"The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."</i>
This is history, these are the facts, and you can read them anywhere. Your bizarre spin based on your need to project your psychological conflicts onto history, is not.
Pinochet. Panama. Saddam. The Shah. Marcos. Suharto. These are all examples of unpopular regimes that were either implanted by the U.S. or supported by the U.S. in the name of realpolitik. The USSR did it too, and they were just as responsible for what came after.
I also don't think you understand anything about how there were different Communist and Socialist ideas as they existed in certain regions in the past. For instance, you justified Pinochet's brutal dictatorship based on the idea that the "Communists" were going to go wild and kill all the capitalists. Allende was democratically elected. He was a democratic socialist. He had 6 years to be President before the opportunity for another to be elected. He had NO control over the military (that was Pinochet), and the Christian Democratic opposition party was represented in government. There was NO way he could have massacred anyone -- especially when his platform was popular among everyone but the landowners and business class. If you have no revolutionary militia and the military doesn't like you, you can't kill anyone. He was assassinated based on the flawed, narrow minded ideology of the time -- which no politician afterwards, left or right, could comfortably justify.
The violent, evil Marxist regimes in Cuba, Cambodia, China, the USSR were different from what was happening in places like Vietnam (would have been popularly elected, hated the Chinese and Russians), or Chile, and Venezuela and Bolivia today. I am by all means no Marxist in even the slightest sense, but I recognize that during these times Marxism became a way to push out damaging Western influence and move toward self-determination. Down the road, with different alignment, they would have the opportunity to open markets if they chose, just like China has done, or bankrupt their country until a legitimate pro-liberal party got voted in. The U.S. was also protectionist, mercantillist, state-subsidized early on in its development. If it hadn't it wouldn't exist like this today, and capitalism wouldn't function today in this way.
By all means, Communism and Islamic totalitarianism should disappear from history. Nigeria is a backwards, horrible part of the world. Cuba is still run by oppressive tyrants who once were a threat to U.S. security. But when the majority of U.S. voters are people who can't understand history outside of some cliched "left vs. right" conflict, and have no ethical principles -- who justify decades of brutal dictatorship BECAUSE OIL IS PRICEY (you did say that) -- you can anticipate progress in at-risk countries will be set back by generations. I absolutely question your ethics because I think they're either painfully uninformed or borderline sociopathic.
The issue is learning how to step outside of one's own national interest and observe world events objectively, and to understand how cause and effect work. Because you have no ethics, I bet if you had been born in North Korea, you'd be railing -- not against leftists or some paranoid conspiracy theory about CAIR -- but against the American Imperialist dog. If China had staged a coup in the U.S. to overthrow Bush and replace him with a sympathetic proto-Communist, while organizing sanctions against us, you would be rattling your sabre and calling for blood -- not trying to spin some ridiculous notion that China has a right to meddle in any country's affairs to protect its national interests.
<b>"Facts are facts: plenty of Iranians liked the Shah. Without that support, we could influence nothing."</b>
Wrong.
What, there's no such thing as an illegitimate or unpopular governemnt that seizes and maintains power through force? Every governemnt that exists, exists with the support of the people? I'm sure oppressed satellites like the Czechs and the Afghanis agreed when it came to the USSR. Hey, people liked the Soviets, otherwise they couldn't have influenced anything!
Listen. Mossadegh was democratically elected and POPULAR, and was NOT turning toward the USSR. The Shah was not popular, was an autocrat, and used the horrible SAVAK for a lot of wonderful things. The whole reason Khomeini won popularity among the students AND conservative nationalists, as well as hardline traditional Muslims, was <b>because</b> the Shah was so close to the U.S. Iranians hated how Carter let him on U.S. soil. Hardliners gained the general support of parts of the populace because Iranians were afraid of being a pawn of Western (or Russian) control -- which they knew was a very real danger after decades years of dictatorship. Mossadegh was the most popular, most Western, most sane option there was, and he was booted for the sake of oil. To quote Albright:
<i>"The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."</i>
This is history, these are the facts, and you can read them anywhere. Your bizarre spin based on your need to project your psychological conflicts onto history, is not.
Pinochet. Panama. Saddam. The Shah. Marcos. Suharto. These are all examples of unpopular regimes that were either implanted by the U.S. or supported by the U.S. in the name of realpolitik. The USSR did it too, and they were just as responsible for what came after.
I also don't think you understand anything about how there were different Communist and Socialist ideas as they existed in certain regions in the past. For instance, you justified Pinochet's brutal dictatorship based on the idea that the "Communists" were going to go wild and kill all the capitalists. Allende was democratically elected. He was a democratic socialist. He had 6 years to be President before the opportunity for another to be elected. He had NO control over the military (that was Pinochet), and the Christian Democratic opposition party was represented in government. There was NO way he could have massacred anyone -- especially when his platform was popular among everyone but the landowners and business class. If you have no revolutionary militia and the military doesn't like you, you can't kill anyone. He was assassinated based on the flawed, narrow minded ideology of the time -- which no politician afterwards, left or right, could comfortably justify.
The violent, evil Marxist regimes in Cuba, Cambodia, China, the USSR were different from what was happening in places like Vietnam (would have been popularly elected, hated the Chinese and Russians), or Chile, and Venezuela and Bolivia today. I am by all means no Marxist in even the slightest sense, but I recognize that during these times Marxism became a way to push out damaging Western influence and move toward self-determination. Down the road, with different alignment, they would have the opportunity to open markets if they chose, just like China has done, or bankrupt their country until a legitimate pro-liberal party got voted in. The U.S. was also protectionist, mercantillist, state-subsidized early on in its development. If it hadn't it wouldn't exist like this today, and capitalism wouldn't function today in this way.
By all means, Communism and Islamic totalitarianism should disappear from history. Nigeria is a backwards, horrible part of the world. Cuba is still run by oppressive tyrants who once were a threat to U.S. security. But when the majority of U.S. voters are people who can't understand history outside of some cliched "left vs. right" conflict, and have no ethical principles -- who justify decades of brutal dictatorship BECAUSE OIL IS PRICEY (you did say that) -- you can anticipate progress in at-risk countries will be set back by generations. I absolutely question your ethics because I think they're either painfully uninformed or borderline sociopathic.
The issue is learning how to step outside of one's own national interest and observe world events objectively, and to understand how cause and effect work. Because you have no ethics, I bet if you had been born in North Korea, you'd be railing -- not against leftists or some paranoid conspiracy theory about CAIR -- but against the American Imperialist dog. If China had staged a coup in the U.S. to overthrow Bush and replace him with a sympathetic proto-Communist, while organizing sanctions against us, you would be rattling your sabre and calling for blood -- not trying to spin some ridiculous notion that China has a right to meddle in any country's affairs to protect its national interests.
