Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (52124)	9/14/2001 5:46:09 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

> I am sure all these books will show that indeed there is no connection between...is instilling the fear of cultural absorption... Do not be so sure Zeev. The book I suggested is far more recent than the Mosadegh saga of the 50s you are referring too. It is about the Islamic revolution in a very modern context. Sullivan was an expert on North Korea and SEA. As such he objected to his assignment in Tehran in 1978 on the grounds that he has no understanding of the Middle East. His answer from the State department was that he is more than qualified, as he is a specialist in overthrowing dictatorships (in this case presumably the Shah, who in turn had been aided to power by CIA 3 decades earlier). What conclusion do you draw from this information? To show you an example of how US gets itself and many parts of the world into trouble due to short sighted foreign policies, let me share with you what I have gleaned from numerous books on this topic. While a US ally for decades, the Shah did not wish to be a US puppet anymore. I can't remember which of the US attaches was quoted reporting (and complaining) that Shah has started to negotiate various deals and asks for justifications before purchase of arms and assignment of contracts. This did not sit well with the big business and the Carter administration. As well, many Iranians were unhappy with Shah due to governmental corruption and lack of political freedom. I should mention that this lack of freedom was a direct result of US demand that Shah should silent any socialistic or anti-American voice. The corruption too had a US base, as the foreign trade was predominantly awarded to US businesses based on political connections rather than their own merits. These factors made a fertile ground for a revolution to happen. BUT, without US (and to a smaller degree UK) sponsorship and guidance of the opposition, there was enough internal support for Shah to avoid a downfall by conceding reform. Now let's look at the geo-political picture. Iran's western neighbor, Iraq, was a close ally of the soviets. But, the Iraqi social structure is such that it is highly unstable. In particular there is a huge Shiite population which has always been oppressed. These people feel a close to tie to the only Shiah country in the region, Iran. As well there is a large Kurdish population in Iraq, which (depending on circumstances) could also relate to Iran. On the north, Iran had a 1600-mile boarder with the Soviet Union. But, there are huge cultural and historical attachments between many of southern soviet republics and Iran. What is more, that population is largely Muslim. In the East of Iran lies Afghanistan, which at the time was under Soviet occupation. The Afghans (and their southern neighbor Pakistan) are also Muslim and very religious. So the Carter administration comes up with what they deem as a most ingenious plan. They choose to remove Shah (who is not as obedient anymore) and replace him with an Islamic fundamentalist regime. The idea being that an Islamic Iran will be the source of support for a wave of Islamic revolutions in the region, thereby (a) galvanizing the Afghans against the Russians, (b) causing a rebellion against soviet supported Iraqi regime (c) creating a wave of Islamic uprising within the "infidel" communist regime in all the southern soviet republics. Sounds like such a perfect solution doesn't it? (well yes I know but you have the benefit of hind sight). So what happened? True to the initial plan, Shah left and the Islamic wave did send tremors in the region and initially everything seemed to be going as planed. For those who do not know, Khomeini was not a very well known figure in Iran. That he was considered an uneducated old man with no political knowledge worked in his favor. The US thought that it would be easy to control him, as did various opposition factions in Iran (including the communists who thought the ayatollah would be a better choice than the Shah). The Afghan Mujahideen (holly warriors) were successful in pushing the Soviets out (with the help of huge financial aid from CIA). [so far so good?] And the soviet republics did start unrest. [Sadly some of them are still struggling with Islamic fundamentalism] But none of these really worked out the way it had been pictured. Iran turned anti-American because (a) many revolutionaries hated US for its support of Shah (b) the monarchists hated America for letting Shah down, and (c) the communists wanted nothing better. That combined with the weakening of Soviet Union (even before its collapse) made Islamic fundamentalism a bigger threat to US than Communism, a threat that had been largely created by the US. Now Iran's was not the only government to have had closer links to the US than to its people. This was (and is) true for many countries in the region (and even outside the region). These people (like many people around the world) blame their governments for their plights. But because their governments are more interested in what Washington wants than what their populace needs, the people's anger gets redirected towards the United States instead of their own government. So when the Iranian students took the US embassy hostage, (a move that was done independently but was taken advantage of by the fundamentalists) suddenly you had a David and Goliath scenario with many impoverished nations rooting for Iran and secretly (and sometimes not to secretly) wishing they could do something to help the "David". This created a very dangerous situation for the Americans around the world and its effects still remain. BTW, because the Iranian military used exclusively US made armament, Carter administration decided to take advantage of historical animosity between Iran-Iraq and Sadam's illusions of grandeur and encourage Sadam to attack Iran. The idea being that to defend itself, Iran needs to buy spare parts from the US and cannot do that without releasing the hostages. This too went wrong as US misunderstood how power hungry the fundamentalist were and how little regard for the people's life they had. As the war was prolonged and Iranians found ways to defeat Iraq, US was forced to increase its involvement in helpping Sadam. As a result Sadam gained access to tremendous amount of modern armament. Guess what did he do with all those arms he got with our help? How am I doing so far? Can anyone tell me what US interests were served during the 15 years that I covered here? What was the good that came to the American people out of all the "calculations" and "strategic initiatives"? And what was the human cost? How many Americans were killed or taken hostage? What about the countries involved? Have you seen what the Taliban, who came to power under direct US support have done their people and the country? What about the tens and tens of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis who died during the 8 year war? Yes they fought each other, but not quite on their own accord. How about the Kuwaitis who were attacked by the weapons that Sadam gathered under US support? At least there, the outcome was better than most places, though still negative on the balance. Zeev, we are not talking about small damages here so we can say, "sorry I bumped into you". Time and again, the human nature proves too difficult to predict. So it is best that we leave the world alone and concentrate on keeping our people safe. BTW re such as the "strange" concept of equality between men and women... Don't even try to pretend you understand what western concepts fly there and which ones do not, or what motivates different people. Unless you actually live for months (years?) among the people you are talking about (and I don't mean living in a hotel or a segregated part of the city) you won't know what their perspective is. Even then, there are huge cultural and ideological differences between Palestinians, Turks, Kurds, Iranians, Pakistanies, etc. So you cannot paint them with the same brush. Sun Tzu PS one of my Jewish friends who lived in Israel for a while was telling me how this Israeli teenager killed his sister who had returned from 5 years of study in the US because despite his warnings, she was sun tanning with skimpy bikini and was disgracing him.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (52124)	9/14/2001 6:05:52 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

slavery ... is still practiced widely out there Zeev, I basically agree with most of what you have said. But isn't slavery fundamentally inimical to Islam? One of the reasons Islam has been so successful in India, for example, has been as an antidote to the rigid caste system. Islam preaches that there is no difference between the untouchable and the Brahmin, a subversive and most appealing message to the disenfranchised. So how could Islam be compatible with slavery? I have visited several Islamic nations including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia and never heard of or saw slavery. I have, of course, heard of a "white slave market" in North Africa but know nothing about it. I would not be totally surprised if this barbaric practice still exists in some remote part of the world. But can you provide any evidence whatever to back up your statement that "slavery ... is still widely practiced out there"? [emphasis mine] Practiced somewhere perhaps, but how widespread? As for the condemnation of "decadent western music" that you point out, here perhaps is an area for potential dialog and rapprochement with these "aliens". On this point I would gladly join the subversive band of Jesse Helms and the Ayatollahs. ;-) Shalom, Sam