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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9080)	5/19/1999 9:14:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Steven, Jeane did not argue that developing countries were incapable of democracy. She argued that local conditions might not be ripe, and that authoritarian regimes were by- and- large better than totalitarian regimes, partially because they were more capable of evolving into democracies...Perhaps the Shah was nothing but a bastard. Or perhaps there was something to fear. Egypt is quasi- democratic, and the Muslim Brotherhood still threatens stability greatly...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9080)	5/19/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: Yaacov	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

Can you pls. tell me how did we win the cold war?' We won through people like Franco, Salazar, Shah,Somoza, Diem, Batista, Chiang Kai-Shek, Marcos, Noriega! We used them and then discarded them! We could have never won the cold war with liberal middle of the road christian democrats in Phillipine, Iran, Greece, Spain, etc! Democracy is weak and unworkable in most countries. It could have never stood to the organization and the dicipline of the Communists. (we all not all Swiss from Canton Uri!!) We needed strong men to lead in countries were we were facing the danger of Communist take over! These strong men happened to be corruptand cruel, but they served their purpose. So go easy and save us your protestant moralism. Now on to your comments: The Shah, the SAVAK, and the Iranian army made the mistake of believing that an insurrection could be controlled by repression, which only fuels more insurrection.>> 1.The insurrectioned was fueled by the uncontrlled violence, brouth about by the liberalization of politcal activities, and CIA,KGB covert operations for control of Iranian territory and peorleum. >>So he should have had the army gun down Iranian citizens for daring to oppose his regime? And the US should have urged him to do it? By what right did he rule Iran in the first place? By appointment from Washington DC?>> Yes! By what right? For 2,500 years these people have been ruled by kings? Working our way backward, Pahalavi's, Qjars(Ak-qkionlù' kara-qionlà ,) Zands, Apshars, Il-Khans, etc have ruled Iran for centuries and they didn't need a consitutional right to be kings. Same goes of England, Japan, China, Spain and all other monarchies. A secret study made by the Israeli Intelegence Services in 1968, and passed on to CIA at that time, predicted the fall of Pahlavi dynesty and asendecny(??) of Islamic fundementalism that could had unstablize Middle East.This report was ignored by the CIA at the time. Wh US foreign policy.>> Don't kid yourself, you have none, you make one on daily basis! which will provide boundless delight to the grammar and spelling lab>> I knew your a gentelman!!!