[Dave]

Yes, and the same "forces of economic modernization" did a great job in the US recently, didn't they.

The Ayatolah may have prevented several market meltdowns, and saved Iran from the Shock Doctrine that really feeds modern economies.

As is common, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Shah's regime had nothing to do with neoliberalism, and the Shah presided over a tremendous, sustained economic boom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution

To think anything America did to overthrow a foreign government was "in their best interests" is to expose yourself as a partisan hack with a master-race ideology.

When did I say this was done in the interests of other countries? Our foreign policy is to be conducted in our own interests, not those of foreigners. Occasionally it has been in their best interest, but not always.

The UN was created to make sure countries like the US couldn't do things like overthrow democratically elected governments in other countries.

Newsflash: the UN was created by the victors of World War 2 and primarily serves their interests.

[QatzelOk]

Dave, if the White Revolution was so successful, why did the Shah have to torture and imprison millions of people there?

Privatization of the Government Owned Enterprises, manufacturing plants and factories by selling their shares to the public and the old feudal lords, thus creating a whole new class of factory owners who could now help to industrialize the country.

Nothing to do with neoliberalism, eh?

Most of the rest of the "revolution" (which was really an Exxon coup d'etat) that the Shah staged was just a warmed over version of what the socialist Mohammed Mosaddeq had been ELECTED to do.

[Dave]

Dave, if the White Revolution was so successful, why did the Shah have to torture and imprison millions of people there?

The clergy, landed elite, and the deeply religious were opposed to the loss of privilege and to modernization in general.

Privatization of the Government Owned Enterprises, manufacturing plants and factories by selling their shares to the public and the old feudal lords, thus creating a whole new class of factory owners who could now help to industrialize the country.

Nothing to do with neoliberalism, eh?

This was done before neoliberalism existed as a coherent ideology and was sold to Iranians themselves, not foreign multinationals. It was very similar to the land reform and privatization program pursued in Taiwan some time earlier.

Most of the rest of the "revolution" (which was really an Exxon coup d'etat) that the Shah staged was just a warmed over version of what the socialist Mohammed Mosaddeq had been ELECTED to do.

Your point?

I don't care what the Iranian people wanted. The only reason I brought this up was to point out flaws in the normal narrative about the Shah.

[Conservationist]

Everyone thought Regan was going to be a horrible president. Everyone thought his military build up would lead to war. Everyone was wrong.

Everyone thinks Obama is going to be wonderful. I think everyone is wrong. I think we are doomed.

Most people are always wrong. They react emotionally and impulsively.

They follow trends, not think through the issue.

As a result, there's a small minority who have a clue and everyone else runs a dog and pony show while, behind the scenes, oligarchs steal everything they have.

[Milo Jacks]

This has been one the most eye opening elections of my life and I couldn't be happier with the way things have gone. Across America, and the world, people are seeing the true colors of the Republican party.

GOP = Lies, Deception, Intolerance and Incompetence.

[beascott]

Either way? It'll be an "interesting" post-11/4 we'll all be living in.

[Bill Thompson]

Bill Ayres is his ghost writer.

Not someone I can trust

[Lightman]

So, Mr Thompson, if someone says something without backing it up with facts, and it's about Barack Obama, it's automatically to be believed?

[Demosthenes]

Dave-

You don't care? You have to be kidding me. You don't care?

You'll care when Xin Ching and his neo Chinese oil congomerate decide Chinese interests are best served by deoposing George Bush the IV in 30 years, while they install a modern "People's Republic" in the United States won't you?

That kind of outright, thoughtless, completely morally barren sense of foreign policy is the hallmark of European Colonialism that we allededly sought refuge from when we murdered all the Indians in North America. Oh right...the American Revolution was just a European import of those very values.

I'm sorry dude, but that attitude is flat wrong. Self interest is one thing, and I do expect it, but allowing that excuse to lead to a justification of the Shah is just flat out inexcusable.

Particularly when we will then later condemn the Pol Pots of the world for their lack of "humanitarian" values.

I hate saying this, but I'm with Qatz. This shit is fucked up. It's ok to support murderous, dictatorial regimes as long as they play for us? WTF?

You can have better foreign policy than that and not be "a pussy".

[Negotiator]

I havent heard that Obama was a pacifist ? Quite on the contrary, he wants to continue the war in Afghanistan, only he wants help of other countries for it.

But I like his concepts about the US economy. They sound decent. And maybe, maybe, maybe NOW is the time the US americans get a common health care too. And some better schools. And all the other stuff they miss. We'll see how many miracles Obama is able to pull there.

About your figures, they arent really interesting, as they show absolute values. A serious graph would of course show the progression after inflation. An US dollar in 1800 was something very different from an US dollar in 1900 and that was very different from the US dollar today. Without inflation, the curve at best gives a hint. In fact, for those versions that come without a logarithmic curve, not even that; all you can see is the progression in the very end.

Reagan's foreign policy was just as retarded [...] except for the fact that he got lucky with the USSR collapsing, the latter, incidentally, getting its own Jimmy Carter, though one that did not just "think" about what he thinks is right, but did.

Wasnt Reagan attacking the UDSSR specifically so they would collapse ?

[Bill Thompson]

Does it matter that Obama has Bill Ayres as a ghostwriter? If not, do you know who Bill Ayres is?

Lightman"
"So, Mr Thompson, if someone says something without backing it up with facts, and it's about Barack Obama, it's automatically to be believed? "

If you listen to that broadcast, he backs it up with facts.


Negotiator"
"I havent heard that Obama was a pacifist ? Quite on the contrary, he wants to continue the war in Afghanistan, only he wants help of other countries for it. "

That is really bad and it shows that Obama does not have what it takes to be Commander-In-Chief and/or just says what he thinks what the people want to hear.
As General Patton once said, "never let your enemy choose the battlefield". Obama is a commander-in-chief like Kennedy was. And Kennedy was horrible and
made blunders that almost cost all of civilization.

[Thomas Erastus]

Thompson,

As to your claim that Obama is like Jimmy Carter and therefore a pacifist, do you know anything about Obama's foreign policy platform?

Obama in his Renewing American Leadership article in the Foreign Affairs Journal committed himself to:

"expand[ing] our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas... That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills...Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others. At the same time, we need to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness."

"I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701f ... mode=print

-Reserving the right to preemptively use unilateral force
-expanding the strike capability and readiness of the US military
-Increasing the size of the marines and army

Bill Thompson, how exactly is this consistent with Obama's alleged pacifism?