You can say whatever you like, and you do. You insult people, and then get in a huff when they reply in kind. You drag Iran into any discussion in D&D, if there is the slightest opening for you to do so, but run away from questions as to why you have what I would describe as a fanatical interest in the country. Frankly, I find it amusing that you would call anyone a hypocrite. I'm not a mod of this site. I'm not going to repeat, for the nth time, why I post, "Keep D&D Civil." Longtime members here, that have earned my respect, can say pretty much what they damn well please, and it doesn't bother me. As Gable said at the end of a great flick... frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. It's debate and discussion, not tea and crumpets. What you frequently do, in my opinion, is not debate and discussion... it's hit and run. I don't respect that. Those I respect, whether they get rowdy, or not, contribute far more to D&D than I've seen, so far, from your 20 posts a day. Not that you should care what I think. You really shouldn't. Seriously. Keep D&D Civil.
Man, it's a good thing I wasn't sipping a Coke, or I would have ruined another keyboard! What a riot! Keep D&D Civil.
Plenty of threads. the will we go to war with iran, another thread about irans rightfull right nucelear technology. and some more.
I've had family members who risked there lives for iran. i've had my dad and uncle put there lives on the line in the sky against the iraqi invasion. my cousin at 17 was fighting in the frontline. i doubt mr creepyfloyd has ever been to iran. he is so out of touch it's hillarious. anyone who thinks the current dictatorship has any real support is out of the loop.
Nice post. One of the fears against the Shah was that modernity was a means rather than an end. The West didn't care as much because it was their companies providing the path of modernity for Iran. It's dangerous then as it is now to forget the details and assume that everyone benefited from the exchange. History has a tendency to forget that lunches are never free. But as you alluded, maybe the article isn't discussing history. It's more more like a popularity contest. Any gal can win as long as you pair a less attractive person with her.
My favorite part was the nice folksy ending to the article about putting the dictator's son in power like we did his papa-- in the name of demcoracy, of course. "The nice lady" who drove the writer there and who "quite naturally referred to her boss as HIs Majesty". Touching and sort of humorous (you know the Iranians can be humorous in a way , though , of course, unintentionally). Yet the writer stopped just sort of overdoing it. Kudos to Hayes for giving us this article. It is interesting to observe the course of pro-war propaganda in its various forms. The belligerent, the folksy, the pseudo adademic from the right wing think tanks etc. The WSJ editorial page, where this article came from or shold have come from, is a particularly interesting source.
I have and will do so when I feel it is warranted. This is an opinion piece and I was expressing an opinion on it that I felt that the writer was overly favorable to the Shah and ignored many of the reasons why the Shah was overthrown. That doesn't mean that I won't also criticize an opinion piece that paints an overly rosy picture of the Ahmedinajad or the Mullahs. No I don't and explained why. The Shah created a facade of modernity and stability that hid the turmoil that was brewing underneath. Turmoil that was caused by the Shah's own repressive rule. The Shah's regime was only considered a lynchpin of ME stability in minds of US planners who simply counted on who were allies in the region rather than considering how stable their rule was. Under the same reasoning Saddam Hussein should've, and was, considered a lynchpin of ME stability in the 80's. I don't disagree with it but elaborate on why this may not be due to great fondness for the wonderful rule of the Shah. Yes he has and I appreciate his answers and IMO shows that he isn't purely an idealogue on the issue but is willing to consider history and address the complexity of the issue even though it is one he is very passionate about.
Creepy; I disagree with Hayes a lot and find many of his post infuriating but not because he is making things personal but because he's a clever and skillful debater. He can be maddening at times but I've never felt that he was personally attacking me or most of the other posters. In my dealing with Hayes he has pretty much stuck to the issues and (surprise surprise) even come across as quite reasonable. Hayes' responses to you are that you're the one who's been attacking him on a personal level and IMO this is a situation of applying the Golden Rule. If you don't want people attacking you personally don't attack them. Most of the posters here, with a few exceptions, are reasonable people and if treated with civility will treat you the same way. Even some posters, like Blazer Ben, who are extremely passionate about certain issues and at first glance might seem to be idealogues are very reasonable if you engage them in a reasonable manner. I'm sorry if you feel like you're being picked on but you're not the only poster who seems to feel like they're being unfairly picked on and insulted but from where I sit y'all seem are bringing it upon yourself.
Wow, called out in a thread I'm not even in, thanks tigger...guess I struck a nerve, eh? I never critiqued the balance of the board, just individual posters. And not everyone at that...e.g. it would be downright silly to expect balance from say... creepy. But he doesn't really project himself that way, does he?
I don't always...maybe often...don't agree w/ you Sishir Chang, but posts like this increase your credibility and make .. at least me... far more interested in your posts and ideas. It implies a more critical, rasonable and balanced approach to forming your opinions.
What a loser, lol. Are you saying that wasn't 'cursing?' Your responses get more pathetic by the day. Are you sure you didn't just skip to the end, glynch? He proposes neither being 'put' into power by us nor war with Iran (thus I fail to see his connection to anything 'pro-war').
Tigermission, it is interesting that you are on to Cohen's frequent projecting of his persona as the voice of moderation or evenhandedness on the bbs, while maintaining fairly consistent positions on many issues, that are obvious to most. Often this approach is employed to bolster faulty arguments or occasionally reserarch, if he bothers to do so. I must warn you that he can get very testy if you point it out that you think this recurrent tactic is wearing thin.
Fair enough. I'm not sure why you say it was a facade of modernity. I don't think there's much of an argument there that the Shah did anything but moved the country towards modernity in a pretty significant way. As for the lynchpin of stability argument, again I think you're being revisionist - Iran was a stabilizing influence in the ME. Saddam could hardly be called a stabilizing influence since he attacked Iran (why he did this is irrelevent - it just is certain that it isn't 'stabilizing') and then Kuwait.
It is a facade because the commitment to modernity wasn't a widespread movement but one that had been forced upon the populace and maintained by a brutal regime. Also the idea of "modernity" generally implies support of liberal social and political values. A dictatorial regime isn't socially liberal or political. I will agree that in the 70's Iran was thought of as a stabilizing influence but IMO that was a mistaken view since it hid the turmoil underneath the image that the Shah projected. As for Saddam he also projected a veneer of modernity and while he did invade Iran in the eyes of the US and the other Arab states that was seen as a good move to take out what they saw as a destabilizing Shiite / Persian threat.
