PDA

View Full Version : Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime


Taco John
05-02-2006, 10:49 AM
Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime

Posted May 01, 2006

Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, told the editors of HUMAN EVENTS last week that in the next two to three months he hopes to finalize the organization of a movement aimed at overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran and replacing it with a democratic government.

He believes the cause is urgent because of the prospect that Iran may soon develop a nuclear weapon or the U.S. may use military force to preempt that. He hopes to offer a way out of this dilemma: a revolution sparked by massive civil disobedience in which the masses in the streets are backed by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the United States, said he has been in contact with elements of the Revolutionary Guard that would be willing to play such a role, and activists who could help spark the civil disobedience.

He also said that the U.S. and other governments can help by imposing ďsmart sanctionsĒ on the leaders of Iranian regime, but he categorically opposes U.S. military intervention.

After the revolution he envisions, Pahlavi said, he would be willing to become a constitutional monarch in Iran if an Iranian constitutional convention offered him that role. ďIím ready to serve in that capacity,Ē he said. ďIf the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor.Ē

The following are excerpts from the interview with the editors of HUMAN EVENTS in which Pahlavi explained why and how he thinks his country can be transformed from an Islamist dictatorship into a free democracy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under any circumstances, would you support U.S. military action against Iran?

As a matter of principle thereís no way that I can support any kind of military intervention regardless of the crisis because as a matter of principle, and as a nationalist, I cannot even imagine the fact that my country could be attacked, and today itís a very different scenario from, letís say, the Second World War where you are occupied by Nazi forces and thereís a liberating force coming in. This is a strike against Iranian installations that are part of our national assets. That itís used wrongly by the wrong people is beside the point. So thereís no justification as far as Iím concerned.

Even if we had absolutely certain knowledge the regime in Iran was on the threshold of actually building a nuclear weapon, you would oppose U.S. military intervention to stop that from happening?

First of all, whether the U.S. does it or not is its affair. I would still be critical of it only because I think that if we come back to a position in which we are today, thereís time to remedy the situation and I will get to other options later. But I can tell you one thing: The best gift that you can give the current regime is, in fact, to attack it. Why? Because, one, it will immediately consolidate the nation, two, it will neutralize all elements of the military and paramilitary forces who have a role to play in the options that I will present later and they will be forced into a position of defense. So they are out of the equation.

Three, it will stir this entire regional emotion, once again, against the West, while we are trying to get help from the very same West to promote a democratic ideal.

Fourth, if itís a race against time, as in the sense, ďWill this regime become nuclear first or will the Iranian people achieve democracy?Ē thereís no way youíre going to win the race by doing so. You may prolong the inevitable armament of Iran, but you will certainly push back the democratic cause for many years, if not for good.

And, ultimately, I donít know if itís going to be effective. Weíre not talking about Iraq. Weíre talking about a country with a multitude of installations, some of which you happen to know about and many of which we still donít know about. Many of these entities are hidden under civilian areas, the actual stockpiling.

You would be willing to renounce that idea that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon?

Iím against developing any weapons of mass destruction. I work to see the world develop a process of disarmament because otherwise it will be madness. If we build it, tomorrow the Turks will build it, then the Saudis want to build it, then the Egyptians want to build it. Believe me, in that part of the world, thereís some track record how stable the world will feel having a whole bunch of nuclear warheads in the hands of all these people. Forget it. Iíd be the first one proposing a plan to reverse the cycle of proliferation.

You donít believe Iran needs a nuclear weapon to balance Israelís nuclear weapon?

No.

You would not demand that Israel disarm?

Since when has Israel been a threat to anyone? Israel just wants to be left alone and live in peace side by side with its neighbors. As far as Iím concerned, Israel never had any ambition to territorially go and invade, I donít know, Spain or Morocco or anywhere else. And let me tell something else about Iran: Unlike the rest of the Islamic or Arab world, the relationship between Persia and the Jews goes back to the days of Cyrus the Great. We take pride as Iranians of having a history where Cyrus was the most quoted figure in the Torah, as a liberator of Jewish slaves, who went to Babylon and gave them true freedom for them to worship and in fact helped them build a temple. We have a biblical relation with Jews, and we have no problem with modern day Israel. As far as regional politics, I believe, I think many Iranians believe so, that as much as Israel has a right to exist, so should the Palestinians. They have to work the problem between each other. And we have no business interfering, and we need to help get as much stability in the region.

A democratic regime in Iran would be doing that, but a clerical regime in Tehran that sends money to Hamas and to Hizballah and to all the terrorists around the globe obviously is not promoting stability and peace, it is doing the reverse.

In your argument for why you could not see supporting, under any circumstances, the United Statesí using military action against Iran, you said this would turn the Iranian people against Americans.

Yes, theyíre your best natural allies. What they see, rather than helping usóbecause we are your best weapon against this regime. Why do you want to bypass us? And youíre attacking our resources.

Last year, Iran elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a viciously anti-American president. Heís threatening the destruction of Israel. Heís threatening the United States. Why is it that the same country that can elect this guy has a pro-American population?

Because thatís what the Iranian people are like. Iran is the only country that has the most pro-Western people with the most anti-Western governmentóunlike the rest of the countries in the region.

Why did that develop? In 2000 you had the reformer, President Khatami, everyone said the parliament is for reform. Then suddenly, five years later, you have someone else elected by an overwhelming margin who is supposedly anti-West. And, of course, he defeated Rafsanjani.

Again, you see the tree but you donít see the forest.

Explain it.

The whole regime, in its entirety, is hostile and antagonistic to what we understand in the free world as being our definition of human rights and individual freedoms. This regime is dedicated to implement a viewpoint which is the most extreme interpretation of religion and Godís law on Earth, anywhere around the globe, starting with itself, the region and beyond. If tomorrow they can do it in Washington, they will do it. Or anywhere else. They donít see eye to eye with you. This is a regime that is dedicated to that.

But youíre not explaining the change from 2000, when they had reformers in there, and people thought they had a chanceó
Reformers to reform what? To sustain the regime or to change it? The reformers were not committed to end the regime. They were committed to preserving it. And so was Khatami. Donít get me wrong. Thatís part of the typical mistake the West has been making, including the U.S. government.

It still would have been a more moderate regime than the present one.

Come on, who are we kidding? You said the same thing about Andropov. You said he drinks whiskey and listens to jazz, therefore heís more moderate. He was Communist for Godís sake.

How would you change it now?

The reason the regime was using Khatami as the smiling face talking about a dialogue of civilizations was just to buy time. The same way that in the nuclear race they played the game of buying time by saying weíre going to negotiate with Russians or weíre not going to talk to themóbuying time. Three years of endless negotiations has produced nothing. Why? The regime gained an extra three years. All Iím saying is that now, when you look at the future, we have a delicate time frame within which we can bring about change.

How long?

I cannot give you an expert, scientific opinion about how close Iran is to actual fissile material. . .

Newt Ginrich told us in our interview with him that we had two to three years to change the regime in Iran, or else he wanted to go to war.

That I think is realistic. Plus or minus six months or so.

Gingrich says if we canít get the regime changed in two to three years we have to invade Iran. Whatís your answer to that?

My answer is that I think that while the analysis that the options are running out as time goes by is true, the most important option that has been the least talked about has yet to be even considered, let alone tried.

Which is?

Which is, where Iím coming from. What Iím coming from is that, short of military strikes, which I donít think is going to help at all with the ultimate solution, the much better way is to find the best way of enforcing the hand of the people of Iran. I need to explain that because itís a complex issue.

Assume youíre directly advising Condoleezza Rice and George Bush. Bush is going to be in office for two more years. How can they help you and your people get rid of this regime in the next two years?

We have to find a combination of internal elements working with exterior elements within the Iranian opposition and a coordination of such a movement with a number of key countries who in concert will act on this plan to make it happen.

You want to see a systematically organized general strike, people going into the streets against the government in Tehran?

Well look, civil disobedience, we can find examples of it from Argentina to India.

Thatís what you want. Thatís your tool.

Thatís one of the tools. The other thing is the military and paramilitary power. Understand one thing: The basic powerbase of this regime is the Revolutionary Guards, at the end of the day.

They report to [Ayatollah] Khamenei, not to Ahmadinejad?

Itís a mixed bag. Ultimately, Khamenei is the supreme leader. But letís face it, Khamenei doesnít have single-handed control. In fact, Khamenei went all the way to take the risk of alienating some of the Revolutionary Guards by publicly referring to the talks between [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq] Zalmay Khalilzad and Iranians over the Iraqi issue. What was he trying to do there? He was much more concerned about the rising disenchantment inside Iran. He wanted to just pour ice water on their head, by saying, ďOh, weíre talking to the AmericansĒóat the risk of alienating his own militia.

That explains the psychology of the regime. It also explains that the whole militia is not under one core unit. Itís a whole mafia. There are various families of Revolutionary Guards. Each has its own portfolio and agenda. Some are behind Al Qaeda. Some are involved in Syria. Some are involved in Bekaa Valley. Some are involved in Iraq, etc. And they have their own independent means of finances. They donít have to report back to the government. They have their own bases of income, free ports, what have you.

You think you can exploit this to turn some elements of the Revolutionary Guards against the regime?

Yes, for a number of reasons. Because like in any totalitarian system, they know that at the end theyíll fall. The question is, how do they negotiate their exit strategy? No. 2 is because a lot of their families are not as wealthy as we think. There are some preferred ones, but many are still having to make ends meet. We have ranked officers who have to drive taxicabs at three oíclock in the morning, as a major or colonel returning from base, because they donít have enough money to pay the rent. The disenchantment is there.

So what you see happening is a general strike, people going into the streets, refusing to work, calling for the overthrow of the regime, and then their being backedó

Sustained. Sustained.

And then being sustained by significant elements of the Revolutionary Guards who say, ďYouíre goneĒ?

And Iím talking about a blitzkrieg of media supporting, like the BBC did before the revolution, which was practically announcing the night before where there would be a demonstration the next day. This is not myth, it is fact.

Are you in contact with some of the commanders of these [elements]?

Absolutely. Absolutely. And in fact, they keep on saying that we are being under-utilized, we have a role to play, we know the time for it, but we cannot just take the initiative. They are in No Manís Land. You have to understand.

Are you the person who puts together the master plan? Are you the commander-in-chief of this counteraction?

Look, I think I can be effective, and the reason I have stayed behind until now was because I wanted to exhaust every avenue of possibility so that the opposition can gather itself and collectively work on a common agenda. Within the next two or three months, weíll know if the result of two or three years of intense effort is going to pay off.

Two or three months?

Two or three months. This summer.

Are you going to have a unity council of sorts?

Yes, the goal was to have some kind of congress, or, we call it a forum, where all these [exiled Iranian opposition] groups, albeit under their own umbrellas and structure, could agree on a common agenda of action under common points that we all agree, and act like that. Thatís the best we can hope to make something out of the fabric of the known opposition. But what I have told them, and what I am telling them right now, as much as thereís a deadline on anything, there should be a deadline for that, too. And Iíve exhausted every avenue to act as a catalyst to bring as many people together so they can work together. But if, for any reason, this strategy does not work, then I would be ready to step in and take any initiative that is necessary. But I would do that only if the other option does not work.

Specifically, what youíd like to do, if you can get this umbrella of these outside groups together, is use their collective ability to communicate back with all these atomized groups inside Iran to call for things like a general strike.

Then orchestrate a massive campaign of resistance and civil disobedience to bring as much pressure within domestically. Meanwhile, the international community can play a much bigger role as well in pressuring the regime even further. Thatís where I get to the smart sanction part. For instance, why penalize the people that are already bleeding and hungry? Why donít you, for instance, in terms of the UN sanctions, demand a complete obstruction of travel for Iranian officials? Or denying them visas or from entering other countries, things of that nature? Why donít you talk to all these countries that have intelligence and data on all those dummy corporations and bank accounts that the regime has in different countries and freeze those accounts?

You basically send a very strong message to the regime, you penalize their officials, you donít necessarily declare war on Iran or economically put more pressure.

Then itís also a challenge to Russia and China. You know Russia and China might be able to legitimately argue why they would veto any Security Council resolutions on sanctions. China, obviously, because itís dependent on Iranian oil, and Russia because I think Putin and Peter the Great are not that far apart, in terms of their being the big boys in the region. But they will be hard pressed to object to any smart sanction, because failure to do so basically means they are in cahoots with the Islamic regime. I donít know if they want to take that public position in the court of public opinion.

While youíre doing this, how concerned are you about your own security here in the United States?

Look itís beyond concern. I put faith in the Almighty and I said whatever it takes. You know, what can you do? You cannot live in a shell.

In your Iran, Mahmoud Abdullah, the Afghan who converted to Christianity, would have every right to do that and the state would protect him from retaliation by radical clerics?

God, I hope so. I hope so. Because if we are basing our constitution on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights thatís one of the most fundamental rights that any human being should have. Iím sick and tired of hypocrisy and all this dubious attitude that is so typical of our region. If you believe in something you say it, you donít fool around. I mean, thatís where Iím coming from. I havenít lived 45 years of my life to fool around with these things. If Iím willing to lose my life for it, hell Iím going to fight for these rights, otherwise itís not worth it. Frankly itís not worth it! I might as well forget about Iran and become a citizen and live my life in this country. No. I want to have the same rights you have over here over there. Thatís what Iím fighting for! Otherwise why bother?

Do you think the Iranian population as a whole agrees with you today or do you feel you have to convert them to your point of view?

It doesnít take a rocket scientist to find out that the minute you criticize any aspect of this regime you are going to be at the very least incarcerated, possibly tortured, and at the very worst, executed. Last week, there were six bodies of women found in South of Tehran, because of the new edict by Ahmadinejadóand Iím not saying ďedictĒ as a cleric because heís not, but the new lawóto further strengthen the strict code of how you dress! People can be fined if they happen to have a dog on a leash because dogs are supposed to be bad in Islam. You cannot even walk your dog on the street and not be fined. Imagine if you were to criticize the regime! Donít you think people get that? They do.

Would you rather participate in a democratic parliamentary election like Iraq or simply come back as a constitutional monarch?

I appreciate the question. I know what my function is today, and my function today is to be a catalyst that promotes unity as opposed to being an element that brings polarity. My role today is not institutional, itís political. My role today is not someone who will be a symbolic leader under that institution, but a national leader that is fighting for freedom. ... My job today is to be a liberator, as opposed to representing an institution. However, as an option, certainly the Iranian people should consider that beyond the content of the future, which I described to youósecular, democratic, based on human rightsówhat should the ultimate form be? Do we want to have a parliamentary monarchy like we do Sweden, or Japan, or Holland, or Belgium? Or do we want to have a republican system like you have in this United States or France or elsewhere? That debate is not todayís debate. That is the debate that will be the responsibility of the next constitutional assembly that will have to bring in a new constitution and draft a new one.

At that time, there probably will be a lot of debates between those who are advocates of a monarchic system and those who are advocates of a republican system.

But you donít rule it out?

I think it is, in my personal opinion, I think that that institution will better serve the purpose of the institutionalization of the democracy in Iran rather than the republican form. I can, case in point, use the example, of a post-Franco [Spain] with King Juan Carlos.

Youíre not renouncing the throne, in other words? Youíll take it, ifó

Look, itís not a matter what I choose to do. I think that if monarchy has to be decided it should be based on people wanting it, not me arguing it. I have faith that this is an appropriate institution. Itís not a coincidence it survived more than 25 centuries. It is very much imbedded in Iranian culture and tradition and identity. In modern days, it can play just as effective a role. And I think that one of the things that I often find, thinking of the way Americans look at monarchy, which is immediately George III in your mind, is that you should at least liberate yourself from that aspect and see that the name ďrepublicĒ doesnít mean anything. Most of your enemies are republics. Saddam Hussein is one. Syria is one. ďRepublicĒ doesnít automatically mean democratic. The Soviet Union was a republic. Most of your allies in Europe and NATO, half of them were monarchies. ... I think itís not the form of the regime, itís the content that matters. I think a monarchy is just as compatible to be committed to be democratic as a republic is. In some countries, a monarchy works better than a republic. Usually, history has shown us, in countries that are heterogeneous, in other words that have a lot of different groups, ethnicities and religion, the gelling factor, the unifying factor, has been the institutional mind, with the difference that this institution has to remain above the fray and not be engaged in the politics. Thatís the big difference. Because the only time it can maintain neutrality and be for all is by not being engaged. Because the minute you become political then you have to take sides and that defeats the purpose, which is pretty much the problem we had under the previous regime, because the person of the king was directly involved in making policy, which is the last thing you want to do.

Having said that, yes, Iím fully committed to that. Iím ready to serve in that capacity. If the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor. But at the end of the day, what I tell them is, first and foremost, Iím an Iranian and Iíd be just as happy to serve my country in whatever capacity. But if you give me that choice, that opportunity, I think I could do a good job for you.


http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14424

Radar Chief
05-02-2006, 10:59 AM
:eek: :hmmm: I just hopeíe didnít let the cat outía the bag too soon, if heís actually doín whatíe claims.

banyon
05-02-2006, 11:04 AM
This guy is just looking for publicity.

Bushco would certainly support this, but Ahmenajad (sp?)'s approval ratings are probably higher than Bush's right now.

HC_Chief
05-02-2006, 11:17 AM
Talk is cheap.

Best course of action for EVERYONE (excluding Islamofascists of course) would be for the Iranian people to overthrow the radical nutjobs in charge. Unfortunately that will not happen w/o arms. The nutjobs control the military... the people would simply be slaughtered.

Now, if the people, backed by the military, realized a coup would is possible (ie backed by the US + allies), we could avoid unneccessary bloodshed.

Cochise
05-02-2006, 11:45 AM
Maybe we can finally get a chance to correct Jimmy Carter's mistake.

Bowser
05-02-2006, 11:54 AM
Most importantly, he has suprsie on his side! They'll never see this coming!

BucEyedPea
05-02-2006, 12:01 PM
The whole reason we got the mullahs in Iran was because we overthrow their elected leader in the 1950's. The shah wa ruthless and hated.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-02-2006, 01:03 PM
If he's going to overthrow the government, he better have help from the Iron Sheik

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9K-wEUCCvE0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9K-wEUCCvE0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Frankie
05-02-2006, 01:07 PM
:eek: :hmmm: I just hopeíe didnít let the cat outía the bag too soon, if heís actually doín whatíe claims.

You guys are just hearing about it. The Iranian/American community has openly known this for years. If it sounds like important info, it is not. In that it's been going on a long time. While he does have some followers, and admittedly strikes one as quite knowledgable, the majority of the IAs distrust him and his dad's state of U.S. puppet-ness. Don't forget, the majority of IAs want the current regime gone. But they want it followed by a true democracy (ala Dr Mossaddegh whome the CIA overthrew in the early 50s), not a throw-back to puppet regimes.

Frankie
05-02-2006, 01:08 PM
Most importantly, he has suprsie on his side! They'll never see this coming!
ROFL

Frankie
05-02-2006, 01:11 PM
Talk is cheap.

Best course of action for EVERYONE (excluding Islamofascists of course) would be for the Iranian people to overthrow the radical nutjobs in charge. Unfortunately that will not happen w/o arms. The nutjobs control the military... the people would simply be slaughtered.

Now, if the people, backed by the military, realized a coup would is possible (ie backed by the US + allies), we could avoid unneccessary bloodshed.
Here's a guy who has figured things out.

Radar Chief
05-02-2006, 01:17 PM
You guys are just hearing about it. The Iranian/American community has openly known this for years. If it sounds like important info, it is not. In that it's been going on a long time. While he does have some followers, and admittedly strikes one as quite knowledgable, the majority of the IAs distrust him and his dad's state of U.S. puppet-ness. Don't forget, the majority of IAs want the current regime gone. But they want it followed by a true democracy (ala Dr Mossaddegh whome the CIA overthrew in the early 50s), not a throw-back to puppet regimes.

I was wonderín Ďbout this. Ifíes really got all this support whyís he talkín bout it from outside Tehran? Youíd think heíd drop all this AFTER a successful coup. :shrug:
Ah well, at least itís good to hear that not all Iranians are as psychopathically opposed to the existence of Israel as their leaders would have us believe.

Frankie
05-02-2006, 01:25 PM
I was wonderín Ďbout this. Ifíes really got all this support whyís he talkín bout it from outside Tehran? Youíd think heíd drop all this AFTER a successful coup. :shrug:
Ah well, at least itís good to hear that not all Iranians are as psychopathically opposed to the existence of Israel as their leaders would have us believe.
While I question creation of a whole country based on religious mythology, the idea of dismantling it after it's already been established is silly.

the Talking Can
05-02-2006, 01:39 PM
Chalabi II

at least we never learn...

stevieray
05-02-2006, 01:40 PM
While I question creation of a whole country based on religious mythology, the idea of dismantling it after it's already been established is silly.

what is religious mythology?

go bowe
05-02-2006, 01:53 PM
While I question creation of a whole country based on religious mythology, the idea of dismantling it after it's already been established is silly.i assume you're talking about israel...

there was a lot more than religious mythology involved in the creation of israel...

btw, iran is currently a whole country based on religious mythology too, is it not?

go bowe
05-02-2006, 01:56 PM
what is religious mythology?this wikipedia article (http://snipurl.com/py1d) only deals with christian mythology, but the principles are the same for any religion...

Frankie
05-02-2006, 02:42 PM
what is religious mythology?
I don't want to get involved in personal beliefs argument. But I have read the old testament and it strikes me mostly of man-written mythology. The parallels to the Greek, Persian and other mythology from that area of the world are amazing. If this is worth having an intelligent argument over, let's not hijack this thread with it.

Frankie
05-02-2006, 02:43 PM
i assume you're talking about israel...

there was a lot more than religious mythology involved in the creation of israel...

btw, iran is currently a whole country based on religious mythology too, is it not?
The current Iran or the ancient Iran?

go bowe
05-02-2006, 03:03 PM
The current Iran or the ancient Iran?okay now, i'm slow sometimes, but didn't the word 'currently' in my post give you a clue? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

memyselfI
05-02-2006, 03:18 PM
Oh great...

Replace a whack for a US hack. Yeah, compared to their current leadership the Shah was good. But that is like comparing Elvis Grback to Ryan Leaf...

except without many corpses and the corruption of a country.

Frankie
05-02-2006, 04:00 PM
okay now, i'm slow sometimes, but didn't the word 'currently' in my post give you a clue? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
I plumb overlooked it sir go bo. :redface: The slowness is all mine. Chalk it up to my soon to be root-canalled tooth that kept me up all last night. the answer to your post is yes it is. In a different way but yes. The difference to what I was pointing out is one country was created based on "religious mythology," and the other was already there when "religious mythology" of a different sort took it over. I have no problem with Israel as a country (though I do think the plight of generations of people it was secured from is sadly and now dangerously overlooked). Just don't tell me it's there because God promised it to some select people. This is with all due respect to the jewish planeteers who may disagree.

Frankie
05-02-2006, 04:02 PM
Oh great...

Replace a whack for a US hack. Yeah, compared to their current leadership the Shah was good. But that is like comparing Elvis Grback to Ryan Leaf...

except without many corpses and the corruption of a country.
That's a great comparison. Rep-worthy, if you had your rep on.

BIG_DADDY
05-02-2006, 06:23 PM
<IMG SRC="http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/piss2.gif"; <IMG SRC="http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/piss.gif";

That's a great comparison. Rep-worthy, if you had your rep on.

Adept Havelock
05-02-2006, 06:52 PM
The difference between the current government in Iran, and the Shah's regime was summed up by an apocryphal quote I've seen attributed to both FDR and Harry Truman speaking about Anastasio Somoza:

"He's an SOB, but he's our SOB."

In the case of the Shah, bought and paid for. Along with those wonderful chaps at SAVAK. :shake:

As for making an alliance with the Shah's decendents to help overthrow the regime...Do they leave much to be desired? Yes. However, it makes just as much sense as the alliance with Stalin did during WW2, from my perspective.

BucEyedPea
05-02-2006, 10:40 PM
As for making an alliance with the Shah's decendents to help overthrow the regime...Do they leave much to be desired? Yes. However, it makes just as much sense as the alliance with Stalin did during WW2, from my perspective.

Which wound up making the world safe for communism...'er at least Eastern Europe.

I think it's just a matter of time that Iran will get rid of the mullahs on their own. Their youth have had access to the net, want to democratize, trade etc.

I think we should give it up...and learn to live with a nuclear Iran if we had to. Afterall, we did it with the Soviets.

memyselfI
05-03-2006, 07:12 AM
Which wound up making the world safe for communism...'er at least Eastern Europe.

I think it's just a matter of time that Iran will get rid of the mullahs on their own. Their youth have had access to the net, want to democratize, trade etc.

I think we should give it up...and learn to live with a nuclear Iran if we had to. Afterall, we did it with the Soviets.

Yes, the Iranian youth want change...

but they are also savvy enough to see the debacle on going next door thus they are not going to want the US within a billion miles of anything they do to try to bring a democratic change within their country. If anything, the US action in Iraq has not only firmed up support for whacko politicians but actually EMBOLDENED the whackos. Great job, Neocons!!!! :clap: :rolleyes:

Adept Havelock
05-03-2006, 06:24 PM
Which wound up making the world safe for communism...'er at least Eastern Europe.

90% of the German Divisions destroyed in WW2 were lost on the Russian Front. Should we have let Hitler overrun them, and then strangle Britian with a U-Boat blockade? After all, at that point he could have focused solely on dealing with England.
:hmmm:


I think it's just a matter of time that Iran will get rid of the mullahs on their own. Their youth have had access to the net, want to democratize, trade etc.

I think we should give it up...and learn to live with a nuclear Iran if we had to. Afterall, we did it with the Soviets.

:thumb:
Careful, suggesting that MAD works around here as I have in the past, will lead some people will try to paint you as the next Neville Chamberlain.

penchief
05-03-2006, 08:47 PM
Chalabi II

at least we never learn...

You would think that we would know by now that the primary reason Iran hates our guts to begin with is that we installed a puppet regime after advocating the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran which installed the Shah initially.

It would be fair to say that the retrocons in this country never learn because they continue to wish for a return to the failed past, over and over and over again.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-03-2006, 08:50 PM
You would think that we would know by now that the primary reason Iran hates our guts to begin with is that we installed a puppet regime after advocating the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran which initially installed the Shah.

It would be fair to say that the retrocons in this country never learn because they continue to wish for a return to the failed past, over and over and over again.

Bingo. The Shah was a worldclass c*cksucker.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2006, 10:16 PM
90% of the German Divisions destroyed in WW2 were lost on the Russian Front. Should we have let Hitler overrun them, and then strangle Britian with a U-Boat blockade? After all, at that point he could have focused solely on dealing with England.

My post was not about the merits of demerits of being involved in WWII...it was about a bastard being ours because he helps us in one case...the results are often not what they are made out to be, but actually mixed--or worse a toss-up! That's more what I meant.

However, now that you mention it, your example seems to indicate that Stalin did not even need to be our ally...as the German's were being destroyed without out our involvement. Russia was destroying the Germans per some historical scholars, who have used this to take such a stand. The victors write history books.


Careful, suggesting that MAD works around here as I have in the past, will lead some people will try to paint you as the next Neville Chamberlain.

Thank you. I've seen the same response elsewhere as well.
NeoCons love making WWII analogies. Just like this ain't Nam...it ain't WWII either.

Adept Havelock
05-03-2006, 10:27 PM
My post was not about the merits of demerits of being involved in WWII...it was about a bastard being ours because he helps us in one case...the results are often not what they are made out to be, but actually mixed--or worse a toss-up! That's more what I meant.

However, now that you mention it, your example seems to indicate that Stalin did not even need to be our ally...as the German's were being destroyed without out our involvement. Russia was destroying the Germans per some historical scholars, who have used this to take such a stand. The victors write history books.

Oh, Uncle Joe absolutely needed us. Without lend-lease, the Red Army never would have had the strength to hold in '42. Between the Winter counterattack at Moscow, and the debacle of the Kharkov offensive, the Reds had pretty much stretched themselves paper thin. After the Germans succeeded with Case Blue and cut the oil supply lines between the Centre (Moscow) and the Caucasus Oil Fields, the Soviets would have been screwed by late '43 at best. Also, food. We kept the Red Army fed almost single-handedly for most of the war. SPAM and such. At most, Hitler would have had to leave a few hundred thousand troops for anti-guerilla and occupation duties. The really dangerous part for the West would have been the amount of industrial capability that could have been switched to airpower/U-boat production. England could have been starved into surrender within a year or two at most, IMO.

They wouldn't have had to deny us the Atlantic, only the area around England. Hell of a long way to project sufficent Naval power with that mostly being deployed to the Pacific.


Thank you. I've seen the same response elsewhere as well.
NeoCons love making WWII analogies. Just like this ain't Nam...it ain't WWII either.

Isn't that the truth. As far as Iraq, the closest historical parallel I've found is the Spanish-American War of 1898. Right down to the Yellow Journalism, Jingoism, and all. There's also been a nasty streak of the vibe that led to the WW1 "sedition laws" going around till the last year and a half or so.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2006, 10:33 PM
Oh, Uncle Joe absolutely needed us. Without lend-lease, the Red Army never would have had the strength to hold in '42. After the Germans succeeded with Case Blue and cut the oil supply lines between the Centre (Moscow) and the Caucasus Oil Fields, the Soviets would have been screwed by late '43 at best. Also, food. We kept the Red Army fed almost single-handedly for most of the war. SPAM and such. At most, Hitler would have had to leave a few hundred thousand troops for anti-guerilla and occupation duties. The really dangerous part for the West would have been the amount of industrial capability that could have been switched to airpower/U-boat production. England could have been starved into surrender within a year or two at most, IMO.

They wouldn't have had to deny us the Atlantic, only the area around England. Hell of a long way to project sufficent Naval power with that mostly being deployed to the Pacific.

So you're saying his taking half of Europe afterwards was a fair exchange...or win win situation?



Isn't that the truth. As far as Iraq, the closest historical parallel I've found is the Spanish-American War of 1898. Right down to the Yellow Journalism, Jingoism, and all. There's also been a nasty streak of the vibe that led to the WW1 "sedition laws" going around till the last year and a half or so.
I know.

Adept Havelock
05-03-2006, 10:42 PM
So you're saying his taking half of Europe afterwards was a fair exchange...or win win situation?



I don't know how on earth you got that from my post. :hmmm:

All I'd say is that his taking half of Europe afterward was largely inevitable, given Churchills agreement to trade SE Europe for a free British hand in Greece, and FDR's poor negotiating (largely due to his health IMO.)

What was the alternative? Take Patton's idea and go after the Soviet Union in late '45-'46? They still had 20 Million men under arms in Europe compared to 2 Million allied troops, and a vastly superior armored force. Who wants to go up against tens of thousands of T-34's, let alone JS-3's in the Ronson lighter that was the Sherman, even the up-gunned model?

Even with our advantage in Strategic air power and the A-Bomb (BTW-We didn't have more than a dozen in the stockpile by late '46) it would have been an even more costly fight than knocking out the Germans was. That, and the little problem that historically marching on Moscow has been a military blunder ranking up there with getting involved in a land war in SE Asia, or attempting a long-term hostile occupation of Afghanistan (ask Rudyard Kipling and the Brits or the Soviets about that one.);)

Then of course, would have been a decades long occupation and rebuilding effort, because the Russian soldier has historically taken two approaches to war.

1)He decides it's not worth fighting, sticks his rifle in the ground, and goes home (most recently seen in WW1).

2)He decides his homeland has been invaded, and fights like one of the meanest SOB's the world ever created, against outrageous odds.

The latter being much more likely in that scenario, I believe it would have made the Iraq insurgency or even Vietnam look like a skirmish.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2006, 10:48 PM
I don't know how on earth you got that from my post. :hmmm:

All I'd say is that his taking half of Europe afterward was largely inevitable, given Churchills agreement to trade SE Europe for a free British hand in Greece, and FDR's poor negotiating (largely due to his health IMO.)

I got it because my original point was that Stalin being our bastard produced mixed results.

What was the alternative? Take Patton's idea and go after the Soviet Union in late '45-'46? They still had 20 Million men under arms in Europe compared to 2 Million allied troops, and a vastly superior armored force. Who wants to go up against tens of thousands of T-34's, let alone JS-3's in the Ronson lighter that was the Sherman, even the up-gunned model?

Even with our advantage in Strategic air power and the A-Bomb (BTW-We didn't have more than a dozen in the stockpile by late '46) it would have been an even more costly fight than knocking out the Germans was. That, and the little problem that historically marching on Moscow has been a military blunder ranking up there with getting involved in a land war in SE Asia, or attempting a long-term hostile occupation of Afghanistan (ask Rudyard Kipling and the Brits or the Soviets about that one.);)

I'm not making this case at all. But you have enlightened me on some of the military aspects. Since a lotta people, including myself, thought we shoulda gone after the Soviets afterwars.

Adept Havelock
05-03-2006, 10:57 PM
I got it because my original point was that Stalin being our bastard produced mixed results.

No doubt. It was a crappy option. Sadly, frequently it's not a matter of best case/worst case. It's a matter of bad case/worse case. That's realpolitik for you.


I'm not making this case at all. But you have enlightened me on some of the military aspects. Since a lotta people, including myself, thought we shoulda gone after the Soviets afterwars.

Thanks, and as always, One is glad to be of service.

BTW- If your interested in the post-war period, a great starting point is Patterson's "On Every Front:The Origins of the Cold War".

However, If you want a really fun (and extremely optimistic fictional read) try "A Damn Fine War". Can't remember the Author's name for the life of me, but you can find it at Amazon. It postulates Stalin attacking into Central Europe in late '45, and George Patton as the new SACEUR "dealing" with it. Fun WW2 romp, even with the rose-colored glasses.

A slightly more realistic (and entertaining IMO) is "Fox on the Rhine" and it's sequel "Fox at the Front". The 44 plot to kill Hitler succeeds, Himmler takes over, and Rommel and Patton end up as reluctant allies in an effort to keep the Reds out of Germany.

All of them are a pleasant way to kill an evening or three. :thumb:

Morning comes early, so I've got to sign off now. Nice chatting w/you.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2006, 11:05 PM
Thank you Mr. Havelock. I noticed you were a reader.
That is one era I am not familiar with. I like cultural, daily life history and non-fiction in general. So thanks.

Also, I believe you may have missed a post of mine #108...when you ever get a chance.

I just got in from working, myself...but good night.

Frankie
05-04-2006, 06:40 AM
Yes, the Iranian youth want change...

but they are also savvy enough to see the debacle on going next door thus they are not going to want the US within a billion miles of anything they do to try to bring a democratic change within their country. If anything, the US action in Iraq has not only firmed up support for whacko politicians but actually EMBOLDENED the whackos. Great job, Neocons!!!! :clap: :rolleyes:
Related to this is a video I just received via e-mail:

www.current.tv/video/?id=1765747

I find it informative, yet displaying the complicatedness of the whole situation.

go bowe
05-04-2006, 02:38 PM
so much for the young people overthrowing the mullahs...

sounds like a very large part of the under 25 population actually supports the iranian president... :(

Frankie
05-04-2006, 04:55 PM
so much for the young people overthrowing the mullahs...

sounds like a very large part of the under 25 population actually supports the iranian president... :(
All that means is if the U.S. mounts a military attack on Iran these folks will line up in support of the regime. Ahmadinejad is Iran's Bush. That's not just because they both have beady eyes and a goofy smile. Like Duhbya he is supported and helped into his current position by the conseravatives and the powerful radical religion (through questionable elections, no less). Like Bush he talks big and powerful and manipulates some Iranians' minds to gain a form of pseudo-patriotism. That is sure to attract some simpler more naive minds to him for now. But also like Bush, his radical policies will backfire and his support will disappear. Any military action by the U.S. will certainly undo that trend.

Donger
01-05-2011, 12:25 PM
Whatever came of this? Nothing?

mlyonsd
01-05-2011, 01:26 PM
Whatever came of this? Nothing?

I don't know, but "his radical policies will backfire and his support will disappear" didn't come about either.

:doh!:

Donger
01-05-2011, 02:17 PM
I don't know, but "his radical policies will backfire and his support will disappear" didn't come about either.

:doh!:

Yeah, it's actually kind of interesting. The Iranian people hate the present government which is oppressing them but would fight us if we attacked, even with someone like Pahlavi leading the way.

Frankie
01-05-2011, 02:23 PM
Yeah, it's actually kind of interesting. The Iranian people hate the present government which is oppressing them but would fight us if we attacked, even with someone like Pahlavi leading the way.

I don't think they would want to go back to either past.

Norman Einstein
01-05-2011, 02:23 PM
All that means is if the U.S. mounts a military attack on Iran these folks will line up in support of the regime. Ahmadinejad is Iran's Bush. That's not just because they both have beady eyes and a goofy smile. Like Duhbya he is supported and helped into his current position by the conseravatives and the powerful radical religion (through questionable elections, no less). Like Bush he talks big and powerful and manipulates some Iranians' minds to gain a form of pseudo-patriotism. That is sure to attract some simpler more naive minds to him for now. But also like Bush, his radical policies will backfire and his support will disappear. Any military action by the U.S. will certainly undo that trend.

That is pretty much the most stupid thing you have ever posted.

EPIC FAILROFL

Donger
01-05-2011, 02:28 PM
I don't think they would want to go back to either past.

Indeed. It seems they are quite content with where they are.

Frankie
01-05-2011, 02:32 PM
Indeed. It seems they are quite content with where they are.

The bank robber has you and other patrons on the floor. They hold the automatics and all the cards. You are faced down on the floor with your hands behind your neck. I watch this on TV from the comfort of my home and say, "Donger is quite content where he is."

I get it.

Donger
01-05-2011, 02:34 PM
The bank robber has you and other patrons on the floor. They hold the automatics and all the cards. You are faced down on the floor with your hands behind your neck. I watch this on TV from the comfort of my home and say, "Donger is quite content where he is."

I get it.

Well, that would be applicable if I invited the bank robbers into the bank. Since I didn't, it is not.

Frankie
01-05-2011, 02:36 PM
Well, that would be applicable if I invited the bank robbers into the bank. Since I didn't, it is not.

You invited them in because they didn't look like bank robbers before the revealed the automatics. Then of course you'd be "quite content where you are."

Huffmeister
01-05-2011, 02:44 PM
The bank robber has you and other patrons on the floor. They hold the automatics and all the cards. You are faced down on the floor with your hands behind your neck. I watch this on TV from the comfort of my home and say, "Donger is quite content where he is."

I get it.

If I had watched him lay down for 30+ years, I'd assume he was probably content where he was at. Otherwise, he would have gotten up and done something about it.

Frankie
01-05-2011, 02:44 PM
If I had watched him lay down for 30+ years, I'd assume he was probably content where he was at. Otherwise, he would have gotten up and done something about it.
:rolleyes:

Donger
01-05-2011, 02:47 PM
You invited them in because they didn't look like bank robbers before the revealed the automatics. Then of course you'd be "quite content where you are."

Huh?