Rich wrote:So first of all I want to thank you for excellent, highly informed and thought out posts in this thread. I often learn things by, or am encouraged to explore new avenues of history by your posts.
That's quite flattering. As you know, we often disagree on things. Likewise, I also favor your views to help vanquish my own blind spots.
Rich wrote:I also much prefer your new posting style.
I have to be very delicate about this. I helped host and moderate a board when we were kicked out of George Friedman's Stratfor in the lead up to the Iraq War. Our approach was to kick out advertisers of porn, foreign drugs, and so forth. We also upheld rules much like this board in certain moderated forums and left it open season--other than porn, spam, etc.--for people like @SpecialOlympian to deliver short bursts of satire in an unmoderated fashion. We could always hunker down in an moderated medium.
We actually had a pretty interesting brain trust, but I'm sorry to say that the leftists quit when they could not win by the weight of their arguments.
So in saying that, there is nothing about my posting style that is new. Nothing at all. I just want to be able to engage freely, especially those who think I post outrageous falsehoods and so forth.
Rich wrote:As a sympathetic reader, I don't feel using many short quotes in a single post works well with the PoFo forum format, which only give a quote depth of 1. So if respond robustly to individual points, I wouldn't want to that to be seen as disrespect for your overall contribution to the forum.
I don't dislike @late. It's just that my own flesh and blood served in that region in that time, and I have a certain well-informed and reserved opinion about it.
Rich wrote:I feel similar to the Shah as I do about Charles I. Lefties tend to say, everything was wonderful under Charles I, till evil Dutch and German Presbyterian Capitalist agents imposed Oliver Cromwell on us. Look at the current troubles over the Stormont parliament, not the fault of indigenous British people, all the fault of outside German and Dutch Presbyterian Capitalists interventions.
Without agreeing or disagreeing, I'm saddened by the loss of Sir Roger Scruton. England has for a long time been a check on the excesses of American politics, and right now it's barely able to regulate itself.
rich wrote:So seriously I think a period of Theocratic rule was inevitable in Iran as it was in England in the 1640s. In some ways Cromwell and his allies were worse.
A period? It was already theocratic. Look at the constitution of 1906. The Mullahs were most certainly included. That's why I say that the reaction against Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was that he did such things as give women the right to vote (something we must at least admit, the Ayatollah Khomeini had a point in opposing it).
Rich wrote:They didn't just ban mini skirts, but also attempted to ban Christmas, which I don't think the Ayatollah tried to do.
Yes, but you're jumping across decades and cultures. This is part of why I'm trying to bust @late's balls. Mossadeq was a nationalist, just like Donald Trump. @late hates Trump's nationalism, but for some reason champions the exact same behavior in Mossadeq.
Rich wrote:This is why I supported majority rule in Iraq in 2003 and support the revolutionary overthrow of Sunny tyranny in in Bahrain, the Shia regions of Yemen and most importantly Eastern province Saudi Arabia.
I'm not equipped at present to agree or disagree with that position. However, you can see my by defense of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi that I'm not just some sort of knee-jerk reactionary.
Heisenberg wrote:They overthrew him for nationalising the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
It feels a little weird to point this out, but they overthrew Mossadeq because he was a nationalist--in other words, a whole lot like Donald Trump.
noemon wrote:designed to hide the very obvious reality that Iran's Mossadegh was regime-changed by the US and GB
I'm hiding nothing. I'm stating forthwith why it happened. I think Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was a great man.
noemon wrote:That is actually news to me but at least you are paying Bill Clinton the ultimate respect by considering him a danger to the US establishment like you favourite Trump. Kudos.
I'll take it as an admission that you couldn't find anything to the contrary... or in other words, I was honest about my assessment and your characterization of me was unfair.
Heisenberg wrote:It's almost as if the USA financing and arming Iraq's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (complete with chemical weapons!), followed by decades of economic sanctions, might have something to do with this.
Look, I don't want to hijack the entire thread defending the United States. The US supplied Hueys (UH-1Bs), Colt 1911 pistols and ACP .45 rounds, some hand-held radios, and some agricultural precursors to anthrax with dual-use potential. The US did not back Iraq in any significant way.
Heisenberg wrote:But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Uh huh... okay.
"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned."
-- Ayatollah Khomeini