Timothy has a post addressed to me, in reply to my post yesterday. He makes two arguments. First, he argues that the crimes of communist thugs were often understated and the crimes of anti-communist thugs often overstated. No argument from me on that one. I absolutely agree, and for the record I am not one of those people who downplays the abuses of communism. However, I think it's just a little too simple to say "our thugs were better than their thugs". The history is a lot more complex than that, and my argument is that we often created the problem we were responding to. For instance, Sandefur says:
In international politics, you often must choose the lesser of two evils. As Bruce Herschensohn puts it, the choice in Iran was not between the Shah and James Madisonit was between the Shah and the Ayatollah, and while the Shah was a thug, compared to the Ayatollah, he was practically a saint.
But this is in fact a false choice. I wrote a mini-dissertation on the history of US involvement in Iran when I was in college. The choice there was not between the Shah and the Ayatollah, the choice was between the Shah and Muhammed Mossadegh, a secular, pro-western, democratically-elected leader who was instrumental in kicking the Soviets out of Iran following WWII. The now-declassified documents show a campaign to destabilize Iran under Mossadegh's leadership in retaliation for his having nationalized the Iranian oil fields in order to get a reasonable share of the profits from British and American oil companies. The campaign was hatched in British intelligence and carried out by the CIA under Allen Dulles, and it included producing fake documents to show that Mossadegh had ties to communists, the funding of opposition newspapers, and ultimately his overthrow in 1953.
In his place we installed the Shah in power, sparking a 25 year reign of terror under the thumb of his secret police force, SAVAK (two ironic notes of history: SAVAK was trained largely by Norman Schwarzkopf, father of the future general during the Persian Gulf war, and the CIA operation was led by Kermit Roosevelt, nephew of Teddy). SAVAK was incredibly brutal. One of their favorite things was to kidnap people off the streets at random and use electric drills on them. I don't get this information from classrooms or from Dan Rather - I have sat with political dissidents who escaped this terror. I've interviewed them and their families and heard their horror stories. Believe me when I tell you that this is a perspective-changing thing to do. I've had similar discussions, and read similar tales, from those who have escaped from communist repression, which is why I never bought into the downplaying of communist tyranny in the first place and why I support Sandefur's campaign to help the Victims of Communism Memorial. And while I recognize that sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, it is equally true that sometimes our government used that as a cover for far less noble actions, and Iran is the quintessential example of that.
Not only do I argue that framing it as a choice between the Shah and the Ayatollah is a false dichotomy, I would suggest that the opposite is true, that our installation and support of the Shah and his brutal cronies is what paved the way for the Ayatollahs to take over in 1978. 25 years of oppression radicalizes a population, especially a highly religious and anti-modernist population, and the Ayatollahs rode to power on the horse of anti-American nationalism that was inevitably created by our support for Pahlevi. This is a lesson we have never learned from history. We spent 25 years propping up a murderous dictator and when the people finally overthrew him, they turned virulently anti-American. But you know what? We would have done the same thing if the tables were turned. What happened was absolutely inevitable.
In the early 1950s, Iran had, for the first time, an opportunity to become a strong, independent and democratic nation, a nation that derived its wealth and strength from its own bounty of natural resources. They could, in fact, have been a model for the rest of the middle east. Instead, we crushed that opportunity and made the religious reaction and accompanying anti-American backlash an historical inevitability. As I wrote in that paper some 17 years ago, this may well have been the single biggest mistake we made in the cold war. And it was a mistake that could easily have been avoided. The plot had been circulating for quite some time in Washington. Truman and Dean Acheson tried to talk the British out of it, arguing that if they don't give the Iranians a decent share of the profits from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum), they would push them to the Soviets and undermine our goal to keep the middle east independent. Alas, Truman was out in 1952 and Eisenhower was in, and along with Eisenhower came the Dulles brothers, both of whom had a vested interest in oil company profits (the law firm in which they were partners represented Standard Oil, which had an exclusive supply contract with AOIC in the United States). Had Truman's view prevailed, I believe, the history of the middle east may well have been dramatically different, and for the most part considerably better.
There are other instances in which much the same thing can be argued. Timothy is correct to say that Daniel Ortega and the Sandinista government in Nicaragua was a brutal communist government. But we also helped create the conditions for his revolution to succeed by propping up Somoza in that nation for decades. Somoza was, rather famously, "our son of a bitch" in Nicaragua. If you're a Nicaraguan peasant suffering and starving under his rule (and that was a large portion of the population) and the US is his patron, where do you go for help to change the situation? To the only place you can go at that time, to the enemy of the US, the Soviet Union. For the short term economic gain of supporting a thug who played ball with our corporations and kept his people poor, we created a fertile breeding ground for communism and forced those in opposition into the hands of Castro and the Soviets, who naturally wanted to help them gain a foothold in Central America for their own purposes. He asks:
What would Ed Brayton have us do? Ignore the Soviet-run coups in Central America? (The media and the professors like to claim that these revolutions represented the will of the people, but that is simply not true. So would Brayton have preferred us to sit quietly and watch the Soviets take over nation after nation?0
My recommendation goes back further than that. We should never have supported the likes of Somoza or Baptista or the other thugs in the first place. Doing so helped create the conditions that led to the Soviets having a foothold there. I'm not arguing that the coups represented "the will of the people", but I do think they began as legitimate civilian uprisings that were taken over by power-hungry radicals with ties to the Soviet Union. The complaints that led to the uprising were real and legitimate, but with the US as the backer of the tyrant in power, the only way to counterbalance that was by going to the Soviets for help, which they were of course eager to give because it allowed them to hijack the uprising for their own purposes. The people of those countries were simply turned into pawns in a larger struggle, but our support for brutal dictators is what allowed the Soviets to gain that foothold in the first place.
In situation after situation, our support for tyrants has backfired on us, regardless of how practical or well-intentioned we were. Iraq and Iran are just the most obvious examples. The key, the absolutely vital lesson to be learned, is that our actions must match our principles. We cannot just talk about being a beacon of freedom and democracy, we must walk the walk. History shows that the failure to do so inevitably backfires on us, as well as undermining our credibility when we do act on a principled basis. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I certainly do recognize that we have often faced difficult choices that really did require choosing the lesser of two evils. But I strongly believe that if we were more consistent in sticking to our principles, we would make the world considerably safer for ourselves and others. I believe that advancing the cause of freedom in every circumstance serves us as much practically as it does ideally.
- Log in to post comments
Interesting post.
However the conflict between the West and Muslim countries has been going on for a very long time. The battle of Tours, France was fought in 732 AD.
If it wasn't this reason there would be another.
In my opinion, some people just don't like the West. If we have a NonAggression Pact they holler for us to join the movement, if we meddle they holler that we are influencing the normal flow of the country in question.
Hindsight is 20/20 but there is no way to say that if we had put this guy in instead of that guy there would now be peace on earth.
The Soviets are no longer in power. So maybe we did the right thing.
Sincerely
Steve
Interesting post.
However the conflict between the West and Muslim countries has been going on for a very long time. The battle of Tours, France was fought in 732 AD.
*scratches head* And therefore...what? Therefore it doesn't matter what we do? Therefore there are no foreign policy choices that are better than others? Therefore we shouldn't try to learn the lessons of the past or stick to our principles? I just don't see what the point is of pointing out that there have been a lot of wars in the past between Muslim countries and "the West".
In my opinion, some people just don't like the West. If we have a NonAggression Pact they holler for us to join the movement, if we meddle they holler that we are influencing the normal flow of the country in question. Hindsight is 20/20 but there is no way to say that if we had put this guy in instead of that guy there would now be peace on earth.
Again, and therefore what? In your earlier comment, you chided me for not offering solutions, then you post a message implying that it just doesn't matter what we do, there are no solutions, there's nothing to learn or think about, and bad things just happen for no reason. I just don't get the point.
Despite the disagreement on the appropriateness of the war in Iraq, I hope that the fact that we are pushing for democracy in Iraq instead of another dictator is a good sign that we have learned the lesson to not support tyrants. Just an optimistic thought. Thanks for the interesting piece.
Despite the disagreement on the appropriateness of the war in Iraq, I hope that the fact that we are pushing for democracy in Iraq instead of another dictator is a good sign that we have learned the lesson to not support tyrants. Just an optimistic thought. Thanks for the interesting piece.
I tend to agree with you, actually. When the war started, I said to many people the following: powerful nations act in their own self-interest and morality rarely enters the equation. But at least this time our perceived interests coincided with taking a brutal thug out of power rather than putting one in.
The last line poses a question for debate that may be the possible answer to your misgivings regarding our foreign policies.
History may show that our policies worked in regards to the Soviet Union, but had a side effect. I am sure the side effect was considered but the primary goal was to contain the Soviet Union. We would deal with "our son of a bitch" when it was warranted.
Maybe you could use the Freedom of Information Act to get a complete record of the negotiations at the NSA, CIA,et al in order to get a complete picture of what they were thinking and why our elected leaders made the decision they made.
Maybe by creating an arrangement between our corporations and dictators, the US made more money and were able to invent the CAT Scan and the GPS and a cure for AIDS. Is this morally justified? I guess it depends, doesn't it.
It is little naive, in my opinion, to say..
Him BAD
We Helped
WE BAD
Sincerely
Steve
Steve-
Much of the original documentation regarding our actions in Iran, Nicaragua and other places has been declassified and is available for research. Much of that research has been done by investigative journalists like Jonathan Kwitny, Stephen Kinzer and many others, and is available for us to read. When I wrote my paper on Iran 17 years ago, I relied upon much of that declassified material.
My position is not that history showed that our policies worked against the Soviet Union; it is that history shows that our policies often worked against us in our struggle with the Soviet Union by creating a breeding ground for radicalism that allowed them a foot in the door, which they used to hijack grassroots movements for sinister ends.
Maybe by creating an arrangement between our corporations and dictators, the US made more money and were able to invent the CAT Scan and the GPS and a cure for AIDS. Is this morally justified? I guess it depends, doesn't it.
Holy fanciful rationalizations, Batman.
It is little naive, in my opinion, to say..
Him BAD
We Helped
WE BAD
I agree. Good thing I didn't say that. What I said was that by violating our principles in propping up tyrants, we often undermined both our credibility and our ability to fight off the Soviet Union. We made it easier for them to gain a foothold.
"What I said was that by violating our principles in propping up tyrants, we often undermined both our credibility and our ability to fight off the Soviet Union. We made it easier for them to gain a foothold"
The Soviet Union is gone, they gained a foothold, slipped and fell off the mountain. Now we can sell the little country Coke and Walmarts when they behave.
Here is a question and not a glib one, btw.
What principle are you referring to that precludes us from propping up dictators.
Here is a question and not a glib one, btw.
What principle are you referring to that precludes us from propping up dictators.
I'm having a hard time imagining how that question could be anything but sarcastic, but I'll answer it anyway. I am referring to the principles stated so eloquently by men like Madison and Jefferson - freedom of conscience; the right to speak your mind without fear of retaliation; the right to live your life as you see fit and not to live under the unjust rule of another. All of those things we say we're in favor of and say make our country special. It's not enough to talk about it, though. We need to walk the talk.
Amen brother Ed -- to your original post and your responses to the comments here.
"I am referring to the principles stated so eloquently by men like Madison and Jefferson - freedom of conscience; the right to speak your mind without fear of retaliation; the right to live your life as you see fit and not to live under the unjust rule of another. All of those things we say we're in favor of and say make our country special. It's not enough to talk about it, though. We need to walk the talk."
OK, I am confused.
Given the fact that you have told us we had several options in Iran I must assume that we need to be involved in the affairs of other countries, for humanitarian and other reasons. That leads me to this conclusion.
We need to make Iraq, Iran, et al, the 51st, 52nd, etc. State. This path will be the only way to guarantee that rights of the people in these countries, esp. in the theocracies of Iran and Iraq. We will then be walking the walk, completely.
Sincerely
steve
OK, I am confused.
That was readily apparent.
Given the fact that you have told us we had several options in Iran I must assume that we need to be involved in the affairs of other countries, for humanitarian and other reasons.
No, that's not a logical conclusion. We had two options in Iran - leave them alone or overthrow their elected government. We chose to overthrow their elected government. The first option was the better one, and it meant NOT being involved in their affairs.
We need to make Iraq, Iran, et al, the 51st, 52nd, etc. State. This path will be the only way to guarantee that rights of the people in these countries, esp. in the theocracies of Iran and Iraq. We will then be walking the walk, completely.
I don't think that logically follows either. I don't think we have an obligation to overthrow every dictator in the world. It's not possible to do, and to attempt it would likely bring on World War III (would you like to invade China? Good luck). But I do think we have an obligation not to actively support dictators, certainly not to install them in power. We should not impose on others what we would not accept for ourselves. If we want freedom and national self-determination, we need to respect those things for other nations as well.
Now I am really confused.
You wrote
"The key, the absolutely vital lesson to be learned, is that our actions must match our principles. We cannot just talk about being a beacon of freedom and democracy, we must walk the walk."
We, thru armed conflict, severed our ties with Britain and started a republic based on certain ideals of cultural and personal freedoms.
That is our walk.
It is a true statement to say we should not support or install brutal dictators.
What must we do to walk the walk in the new global landscape? Be the Beacon we claim to be.
If there is a brutal person murdering a minority race or religion in his country and creating millions of refugees, or there is an AIDS epidemic, or there is a dictator who poses a threat to our national security,what are we to do?
Do nothing?
Set up a new republic based on our principles and created with armed conflict, the way we did in the 1700s?
I think that there can be no logical separation of the ideals and the principles from the actions that create and sustain them.
Ideas have consequences. Ideas do not operate in a vacuum.
We cannot wish our ideals on the world, we have to implement them or do nothing.
If we do nothing, then our ideals mean nothing. You implied as much. "The key, the absolutely vital lesson to be learned, is that our actions must match our principles."
Therefore we must action our ideals.
Question:
How do we Be the Beacon of freedom to the world?
How do we action our ideals in Burundi and the Sudan. In Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else there is injustice, intolerance and danger. Do we pick and choose or is there freedom of expression for all.
There are many more questions that I can't get my brain around, but this will suffice as a starting point.
Sincerely
Steve
PS
You posted:
OK, I am confused.
"That was readily apparent."
I am sorry my intentions do not translate well in this forum, I am not used to it. But it is terribly cynical and egotistical to assume that my intentions were not in the pursuit of honest debate. I am confused because I cannot follow your arguments logically to any conclusion. Probably my fault.
S
Steve-
I frankly don't know whether you're genuinely confused or playing coy with the intention of saying, "A ha, gotcha!" about something (though I'm having trouble imagining what that might be about). After my exchange with Matt and having you show up here, I don't think the latter is an unreasonable possibility. If you're genuinely confused, I have no idea why. I've stated my position quite clearly - the US should not be supporting dictators because it violates our stated principles.
Now, one could argue that we should also go around the world overthrowing every dictator there is, but that is a different argument than the one I've made. You can advocate that, or not advocate that, and it has nothing to do with whether the argument I've made is true or not. Indeed, you've admitted that my argument is true. So what on earth is your point? That you're confused about the validity of an argument I didn't make? If you want my opinion on that subject, why not just come out and ask if I think the obligation not to support dictators also brings an obligation to go to war to take them all out of power? If you want to disagree with me, then disagree with me and state your case. Sorry, I'm not buying your pleas of confusion. If you want to make the argument that my position necessitates that we go to war to take all dictators out of power (which your posts seem to imply but won't come right out and say), then make that argument and I'll either agree with it or disagree with it. But enough of the silly games.
Good Morning
Original Post
"My argument is that we often created the problem we were responding to"
We must be involved and we will make mistakes. Do we learn from them?
"What I said was that by violating our principles in propping up tyrants, we often undermined both our credibility and our ability to fight off the Soviet Union. We made it easier for them to gain a foothold."
The Soviet Union is gone.
You wrote
"the US should not be supporting dictators because it violates our stated principles."
That is why I asked what you thought was a sarcastic question earlier.
What principle are you referring to that precludes us from propping up dictators?
I may have phrased the question wrong but the idea was honest. If we have principles that preclude us from propping up dictators then what is the principle and does it address the removal, support or acknowledgement of dictators.
"I am referring to the principles stated so eloquently by men like Madison and Jefferson - freedom of conscience; the right to speak your mind without fear of retaliation; the right to live your life as you see fit and not to live under the unjust rule of another."
The answer must be "no dictators".
You wrote
"Now, one could argue that we should also go around the world overthrowing every dictator there is, but that is a different argument than the one I've made."
I dont believe it is a different argument. I believe you have stated that our principles are all encompassing in everything we do. Our principles are the ideas that should guide our relationships throughout the world. Logically then we must overthrow all dictators, make sure all women drive cars, make sure no gets killed and completely rid the world of all bad things.
Or do nothing.
"The first option was the better one, and it meant NOT being involved in their affairs."
You wrote a paper and said we shouldnt have installed the Shah. We should have taken a look at Muhammed Mossadegh, and yet if we had installed him, wouldnt he have been a dictator? Was Iran ready for an elected government? What if he turned out to be a bad dictator? Why did you offer the option if we shouldn't have been involved?
Therein lies my confusion with your posts.
I believe some cultures like and demand dictators and have had dictators for 1000+ years. Sometimes the dictators turn out bad. If the badness effacts our national security, we remove them. The question then is, do we help the country get another dictator or do we install a republic with our principles?
Note:
I was of the understanding that this whole blogging idea was a silly game, meant to generate discussion of ideas, flame wars, and fun. I didnt realize it was that serious.
I was just having fun. I don't really have any answers, just lots of questions.
I apologize.
Thanks
Steve
I wrote:
Steve replied:
I dont believe it is a different argument.
Steve, I find it hard to believe that you are really this incapable of either reading or reasoning. My argument is that our principles require that we not install and prop up brutal dictators. Your argument, which you finally got around to just saying rather than pussyfooting around it, is that our principles require that we actively go to war to take dictators out of power all over the world. Yet you still say that you don't believe it is a different argument. Well, you're wrong. This is obviously a different argument. I say our principles require X, you say our principles require Y. Ergo, different arguments. It really is that simple.
I believe you have stated that our principles are all encompassing in everything we do. Our principles are the ideas that should guide our relationships throughout the world. Logically then we must overthrow all dictators, make sure all women drive cars, make sure no gets killed and completely rid the world of all bad things.
You believe wrong. I did not say that it should be "all encompassing in everything we do." I said that we should not install and prop up brutal tyrants. Period. I did not say that we have an obligation to rid the world of tyrants, and I certainly didn't say anything about women driving cars (where the hell did THAT come from?), and no one in their right mind would say that we have an obligation to "completely rid the world of all bad things". This is called a straw man argument, Steve. You're substituting a clearly caricatured and ridiculous parody of my position in place of my actual position so you can knock it down.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Let's use an analogous principle: thou shalt not murder. We can both agree that this is a good principle, I'm sure. Now, we would probably both also agree that that principle at least requires that we not help someone else commit a murder as well. If we were to act as a facilitator, by supplying the weapons, giving logistical support to the person committing the murder, helped cover up the murder after it was committed, I'm sure we would both agree that we have violated our starting principle even if we did not personally pull the trigger. A very reasonable corrolary to the stated principle.
A second possible corrolary is that we each have a responsibility to stop every possible murder anywhere in the world, even when it doesn't involve us at all, and even when the consequences of trying to stop it is a war that might end up killing many times more people than the action we're trying to stop. Now, you might be able to make a case for that corrolary, but it's simply not the same as the first corrolary, regardless of how much you want to pretend that it is. It requires an entirely different argument because the situations are obviously not analogous (taking positive action to aid a murder is not the same as not stopping a murder that has nothing to do with you at all), and because the risk/reward scenario is dramatically different and there are a lot more variables to consider. If you want to make that case, feel free to do so. But don't pretend that it just self-evidently flows logically from the initial principle, because it doesn't.
You wrote a paper and said we shouldnt have installed the Shah. We should have taken a look at Muhammed Mossadegh, and yet if we had installed him, wouldnt he have been a dictator? Was Iran ready for an elected government? What if he turned out to be a bad dictator? Why did you offer the option if we shouldn't have been involved?
Oi vey, is it something about the name Powell that just requires that you either read with this little comprehension, or feel justified in totally distorting what someone said while debating them? This is absurd. Go back and reread what I said about the situation in Iran. I did not say that we "should have taken a look" at Mossadegh. Mossadegh was already in power, and he was democratically elected to be in power. We didn't have to do anything to put Mossadegh in power. The only options were to intervene, by installing a brutal thug, or not intervene, and allow the nation to be governed by the only popularly elected leader in Iran's history. The choice was not between intervening to install the Shah or intervening to install Mossadegh, it was between intervening to install the Shah or leaving Iran to govern themselves democratically.
Therein lies my confusion with your posts.
Your alleged confusion stems either from your inability to read and comprehend what I presume is your native language, or from your insistence on distorting my argument to make it appear to be confusing when it's not.
I believe some cultures like and demand dictators and have had dictators for 1000+ years. Sometimes the dictators turn out bad. If the badness effacts our national security, we remove them. The question then is, do we help the country get another dictator or do we install a republic with our principles?
None of which is in any way relevant to what we did in Iran. Iran had, for the first time in their history, done away with dictatorship and built a democratic nation. We went in there, in violation of our principles, destroyed the republic and installed a brutal thug in its place. The only question that comes to mind is why you are so incredibly persistent in misrepresenting that situation and my argument.
I was of the understanding that this whole blogging idea was a silly game, meant to generate discussion of ideas, flame wars, and fun. I didnt realize it was that serious.
I'll take this as an admission that you were not attempting to be either honest or serious in your discussion of the ideas. If that's the case, I strongly recommend playing such games somewhere else. They only irritate me. Intellectual honesty is an important concept, I think.
Ed,
This Steve fellow sounds like he's 12 years old. Perhaps that's why he doesn't seem to be understanding what you wrote in your post, man. And if that's true, he might have intellectually disabled or delopmentally retarded.
Your argument, which you finally got around to just saying rather than pussyfooting around it, is that our principles require that we actively go to war to take dictators out of power all over the world.
No, I intimated your principles require it. Who has the reading comprehension problem here? I have no idea what principles there are that require us to do anything about dictators in other countries other then the Principle of Survival.
Yet you still say that you don't believe it is a different argument. Well, you're wrong. This is obviously a different argument. I say our principles require X, you say our principles require Y. Ergo, different arguments. It really is that simple.
I have not posted any principles. Your quote about Jefferson and Madison are about freedoms in America. I was wondering about how the American principles of Freedom applied to the rest of the world. I said if a dictator poses a national security issue for us, we remove him. I do not view this statement as a principle, but as an action. The principle that this action derives from is the Principle of MY self determination and survival. Again, read what I wrote.
You believe wrong. I did not say that it should be "all encompassing in everything we do." I said that we should not install and prop up brutal tyrants. Period.
This sentence involves no principles. I was wondering what principle this action is derived from.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Let's use an analogous principle: thou shalt not murder. We can both agree that this is a good principle, I'm sure. ..
A second possible corrolary is that we each have a responsibility to stop every possible murder anywhere in the world, even when it doesn't involve us at all, .But don't pretend that it just self-evidently flows logically from the initial principle, because it doesn't.
Thou shalt not Murder. We can agree. But in the practice of this principle we may disagree. Some people think it is murder to kill a chicken. If I have a conversation with this person, the conversation soon becomes irrelevant because we no longer agree on the definition of murder. To say MURDER IS BAD, and not be able to define the why, how and in what instance is naïve. I believe the principle must be defined and then defended. That is the question I asked.
Note: Corollary not corrolary
Oi vey, The only options were to intervene, by installing a brutal thug, or not intervene, and allow the nation to be governed by the only popularly elected leader in Iran's history. The choice was not between intervening to install the Shah or intervening to install Mossadegh, it was between intervening to install the Shah or leaving Iran to govern themselves democratically.
I had to look this up. This may not have been a good source, it was taken from an online Encyclopedia.
The head of the Iranian government at the time of Mossadegh was the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi. The Shah was elected by the same Assembly that elected Mossadegh Prime Minister. The USSR and Britain forced Reza to resign and name his son Shah because of possible ties to Germany before WWII. Later in the century, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant himself increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's radical Muslims, as well as the Iranian Communist Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies. We convinced the new Shah to fire Mossadegh, in part because of the Prime Ministers wish to control the military.
It seems to me because we involved ourselves because of the Cold War. A by-product may have been the anger of the radical Muslims toward America. However, as I posted before, I dont think they like us anyway. And yes the situation in Iran had much to do with oil. Hitler needed oil for Panzer Units; we need oil to fuel our trips to the local sushi house.
But again, I was more interested in the over-all principle of foreign involvement not the one instance of Iran.
None of which is in any way relevant to what we did in Iran. Iran had, for the first time in their history, done away with dictatorship and built a democratic nation. We went in there, in violation of our principles, destroyed the republic and installed a brutal thug in its place. The only question that comes to mind is why you are so incredibly persistent in misrepresenting that situation and my argument.
The Shah, I think, was elected many years before we became involved.
Intellectual honesty is an important concept, I think.
Yes, it is. Intellectual honesty must also not be divorced from reality.
Sincerely
Steve
The US should not support dictators
Q.What principle do you derive this action from?
A.The Principles of American Freedom written by Jefferson and Madison
Q.Do the American Principles apply in all cases of US Foreign Policy, or just some?
If the answer is all, could there be any instances where the American principles come in conflict with the principles of the culture we are involved in.
If the answer is some, then is there a Principle that governs all our Foreign Policy.
Thanks again, I truly enjoyed it and did learn a few things.
Peace out, my friend, Have a good journey.
Sincerely
Steve
Steve-
You have reached the point of boring me completely. And since you have admitted that you see all of this as a "silly game", I see no point in bothering to point out the many errors in your reasoning. Play the game somewhere else, I'm just not interested.
An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.
Criticism is prejudice made plausible.
It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull.
Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth--that the error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it is cured on one error, is usually simply another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.
H. L. Mencken
I really must read more of this man. Very Amusing
Steve