Has bin Laden won if the U.S. military changes its deployment in Saudi?

I live here and am more than happy to do so I completely agree with your two points. I don't think most Americans would agree with the foreign policy either if they were shown clearly whats happening. However it worries me when people like Tree who are clearly well informed still have the same opinion of arrogance.

Tree you don't think Iran's system (even if we presume your right and their only goal is to destroy America) is there because America overthrew their democratic, constitutional, non 'fundamentalist' government and installed the brutal Shah? Hence the blame is on American foreign policy for being too oil hungry.

 

I thought it was IAPAC who was behind all the evils in the world? Make up your mind. Is it the Jews, or is it the oil interests? Ahhh, they must be working together...

And BTW, there's no "presuming" whether or not I'm right about Iran's govt wanting us dead. It is a stated policy of theirs, and has been for 22 years. And just go take a look at the fountain area at Tehran Airport. In big, blood-colered letters it reads "Death to America". This is what greets passengers when they arrive in Tehran by air... And you wonder why our government has no lovefest with Iran?

Anyway, I find it interesting that you appear to lay 100% of the blame for the Shah's overthrow on us. Couldn't have anything to do with those brainwashed college students, naw...

 

You seem to think that the Shah had no control over the colleges.

I don't think US is to blame for the overthrow of the Shah. I do believe US is to blame for putting the Shah in power, which is a fact.

On September 8th, 1978 the Shah killed more of his OWN people than the terrorists did on September 11th, 2001.

 

boy:

Oh, we put him there, I'm not debating that fact. Savak was bloody ruthless, too. He was not exactly a kind leader (although that was not our fault - it was his)... I don't blame the Iranians for overthrowing him.

If he'd have had more control over the colleges (and other hotbeds of fundamentalism) then he might not have fallen.

It's not the fact of his overthrow that bothers me (or our govt, for that matter). It's the fact that a fanatically fundamentalist regime replaced him. I guarantee you that the second a democratic regime that is not hostile towards us comes to power there - or anywhere else - we will jump at the chance to become their best buddies/allies on the planet.

Do you really think that we like dealing with these despotic a-holes? We only do it because the alternative (a hostile Islamic govt - like Iran's current govt) would be even worse.

I simply do not understand why you have such a hard time understanding why we oppose hostile governments? It's not that difficult a concept...

 

Tree I understand why America wouldn't like the government of Iran however I consider it hypocritical.

I don't understand how you can't understand why the opposite of the Shah would be a very anti American government. The government that was elected democratically in the early 50s wasn't all that fundamentalist at all. It was a nice collection of religious leaders and secular folks however that did not work. So your comment on America wanting to deal with a more 'moderate' government today might be true but it certainly was not in the 50s.

 

boy:

Well, it's good to see that you actually understand that.

In hindsight, propping up the shah was a foreign policy blunder that blew up in our faces. Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy now to see how there would have been a backlash against the US for it, but it was not apparent then. If we had a time machine, we could go back and support secular democratic opposition movements all over the region...

At the time, it was all about the Cold War. You need to understand the Cold War geopolitical context in order to understand why we did what we did. We were far more worried about the Soviets propping up a communist regime in Iran than we were about the (at the time, budding) fundamentalist movement. Frankly, Iran wouldn't have been any better off under a Soviet proxy government than it was under the Shah... But we simply didn't see the fundamentalist threat at the time. Hell, we didn't really start waking up to that threat until just the past couple of years (1979 notwithstanding).

But get with the present. How about we start that by funding a secular democratic opposition in Iran to overthrow the mullahs?

Most of the country's people hate the mullahs and want to mend relations with us, so it wouldn't be too difficult. It is not a coincidence that the only pro-US rallies in the region since 9/11 have taken place in Iran. They have all, of course, been brutally suppressed by the mullahs...

 

Treeman, you agreed with my post. You stayed true to your US foreign policy objectives as the key value. You oppose democracy for countries in the middle east unless you could be sure that they would agree with US foreign policy. Since it is unlikely they would support, for example, present US policy toward Israel you oppose demoracy in the middle east.

I still feel it is hypocritical for you to oppose democracy in the middle east at this time and yet criticize those countries for not having democracy.

Are there any democracies in Europe Latin America, or Asia that you would like to see overthrown to further US foreign polcy objectives.

Would you ever think to question US foreign policy objectives if it leads you to continued opposition to democracy around the world?

 

glynch:

OK, numbnuts, I'm really getting tired of your accusation that I am anti-democracy - the implication is that I'm a Nazi, which is a strange accusation coming from a communist... And do I even have to point the logical fallacy in the above argument?

Get this straight, because it is the last time I'm going to repeat myself (and read it several times, please, because you obviously did not understand my last post on the subject):

- I will support any democratic government (it doesn't have to be secular, and the democracy part is negotiable) anywhere that is not inherently hostile towards the US

- I will not support any government of any kind that is hostile towards the US; any American who would support someone who wanted to see them die is one dumb MF

- the ME has no democratic tradition - none whatsoever - that is unarguable; that is a simple fact

- if a nonhostile democratic movement arises in any country that we are currently allied with (or not allied with for that matter), then I will support it over the nondemocratic government that currently exists

This happens to be the way our government feels as well. Guess what dumbass? Nations do not support governments that are hostile towards them! And if you take a look at opposition groups across the ME, you will come to a startling realization: none of them are democratic in nature (except for your buddy's enemy, the INC). They are all, with the exception of the INC and the new Iranian student movement (both of which I support), either fundamentalist or communist movements that are hostile towards the US. Check it out.

Although I'm sure you'll be happy about the scattered socialist/communist groups, and will soon be decrying me for not supporting them...

Does the fact that you have had to revert to baseless and totally false insinuation mean that you've given up actually trying to argue points of merit? Jesus, calling me 'anti-democracy'...

We aren't getting desperate, are we?