quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Hum, it seems the Soviet Union had a political policy to provide the Middle East arms in order to create instability. They'd do it at a loss, being good communists, to further the instability policy. Who knew?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Hum, it seems the Soviet Union had a political policy to provide the Middle East arms in order to create instability. They'd do it at a loss, being good communists, to further the instability policy. Who knew?

US Foreign policy not your strong point then ? The above sounds much like the Bush Doctrine, or the Bay Of Pigs etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'

Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

OK MJ but not only did I not specify but that doesn't change anything. I am hardly a leftist ideologue and in fact quite the opposite.

Was brought up in a conservative repub family in Mich.

As I've written many times, this is not...my father's repub party. I don't much mourn the fate of the repub party especially if it continues to appeal and pander to radicals for whom compromise is a dirty word.

Oh and feel free to 'disprove' anything you can and the quotes are...equally ridiculous.

I apologize then. Some of the statements you make appear to me as far more ideological than factual.

I hate to say this publicly, but just a while longer and I may have a convert. Hehe

No apology necessary. Keeping the discussion on a respectful level, is not insulting. I am perfectly willing to discuss facts. I will also debate ideology. They are two different intellectual pursuits.

Did you think I apologized to you? Don't be silly. I was discussing MJ. And I didn't apologize to him. When I see you being civil, then the discussion will be civil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


FR

Standing everything you think you know about Islam on its head: Islam Through The Looking Glass

quote:

quote:

he most significant event of the period these essays cover was the Iranian revolution, the origins of which continue to be misunderstood today. The standard narrative is that the cruelty and oppression of the Shah’s regime drove the Iranian people to overthrow his rule, leaving behind anger and resentment at the U.S. for its neo-imperialist support of its puppet in the region. For example, much is made of the crimes of the Shah’s secret police, the Savak.

But as Kelly writes in a book review, the author of a Marxist interpretation of the revolution “might have been outraged less by [the Savak’s methods] if he had studied the history of Iran a little more and discovered that the Iranians have a distinct talent for devising bizarre methods of punishment.” Indeed, it took the mullahs who succeeded the Shah only a few years to kill more political enemies than the Shah had in thirty-eight. So too today, under the “moderate” president Hassan Rouhani, the regime’s enemies continue to be imprisoned, tortured, and assassinated. As Kelly reminds us, it wasn’t the cruelty of the Shah, unexceptional in the region even today, that sparked the revolution, but his ostentatious corruption and, most important, his alienation of the clerical class brought on by his liberalizing and secularizing reforms which were seen as threats to Islam.