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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (86230)	3/25/2003 4:53:18 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

> I dont have evidence that they are there... Ah! The old, "I don't have evidence but it is widely known" argument. How convincing...NOT! > We have been hoping for iranians attaining freedom for a long time Sun. No. We have been pushing for a US friendly Iran for a long time. It is not the same thing as wishing freedom for Iranians. If I recall correctly, nobody in US was pushing for Iranian freedom when Shah was in power...nor for that matter Saddam was considered such an evil person when he was fighting Iran. > Stop being so sensitive. I am not being sensitive. But I can't let gross factual errors and "it must be obvious but I have no evidence" arguments pass by. The most that you can say is that 20 years ago Iranian students took over the American embassy and those students were initially supported by the hardliners and communists. You must not forget that this was as much adolescent revolutionary fervor as it was internal politics by hardliners to rise to power by increasing the stakes. When it became obvious that the government would not be allowed to release the hostages (something akin to a government inside the government had been formed) the government resigned. What is more, many of the same students who have survived, are now the strongest of the opposition. Some of them have actually met with their former captives and tried to make up. To bring this out of context after 20+ years is absurd. > I kind of think the opposite that the results of an iraqi defeat will give iranian democratic movement legs. This is what the administration has said and it shows how little they know. They still haven't managed to win over the Afghan population. They will have a harder time winning over the Iraqis. And both of these regimes are orders of magnitude worse than what the Iranian regime was even in its worst times. So how can it help? Did you read Cook's interview? He said exactly what I said. That the direct result of including Iran in the "axis of evil" policy was to strengthen the hardliners. What many people don't seem to understand is that the Iranian revolution was not really about Islam. It was about regaining the control of their country which they saw as being sold off to America via Shah. It so happens that Shah had destroyed all other factions except the religious ones because the religious group would help him out against the Marxists (whom Shah considered the number one threat). As a result the fundamentalists led a vast coalition who mostly did not agree with their views. This is why it was necessary for the fundamentalists to use all sorts of clever tactics to consolidate their power; they did not have a broad support base. So guess what? If America puts too much pressure on Iran, people are going to flock to the faction whom they are sure will defend them against America. Sun (too many Americans just can't believe not everyone wants to be an American too) Tzu