berman@ihuxm.UUCP (09/06/84)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Liberal writes: > Private statements, actions, and policies of the KGB (also reflective > of the Soviet government's position) indicate that an active unremitting > campaign has been in progress for at least 30 years with the principal > goal of undermining Western and Western-sympathetic governments, > institutions, and philosophies. (yes, yes, yes, I know; we have the > sometimes suspect actions of our CIA as an albatross--all the more > reason to keep them under control and prevent them from making de facto > policies and taking unilateral actions). A Conservative responds: >>All the more reason, I think, for giving it more power so that >>it can effectively challenge the KGB in these countries (and >>undermine USSR-sympathetic governments). You have to fight fire >>with fire, and if half the country knows exactly what the CIA is >>up to all the time, and whether or not it will do some espionage >>must be determined by a vote of congress, it can't be very effective. >> >> Wayne ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The context of this debate is in never-never land! Today's newspaper reports rebellion in the streets of South Africa by a very oppressed people against a racist regime. It reports bloddy supression of strikers in Chile by a fascist government incapable of keeping the feeble economy alive. It reports new unity in the opposition to Phillipines Dictator Marcos. All three repressive regimes are part of the "free" world and are friendly to the US Government. All three regimes are facing the just wrath of their population. Yet the debate on the net is not over the nature of these rebellions. It is not even over CIA efforts to keep these doomed regimes alive. The debate ASSUMES that the KGB is behind it all and the only question is how much to unleash the CIA to counter the KGB!!!!. Tom Jefferson surely turns in his grave. Andy Berman +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/13/84)
> Today's newspaper reports rebellion in the streets of South > Africa by a very oppressed people against a racist regime. > It reports bloddy supression of strikers in Chile by a > fascist government incapable of keeping the feeble economy > alive. It reports new unity in the opposition to Phillipines > Dictator Marcos. All three repressive regimes are part of > the "free" world and are friendly to the US Government. > All three regimes are facing the just wrath of their > population. > > Yet the debate on the net is not over the nature of these > rebellions. It is not even over CIA efforts to keep these > doomed regimes alive. The debate ASSUMES that the KGB is > behind it all and the only question is how much to unleash > the CIA to counter the KGB!!!!. Undoubtedly the KGB is behind a lot of it, but that's not the point. The USSR supports any and all countries which are willing to cooperate with it in foreign policy, which includes undermining the governments of other countries, whether they are democratic and reasonable or fascist. They don't care about human rights. We do care about human rights, and we should do all we can to change the governments under our influence that violate human rights. But this doesn't mean abandoning them entirely to revolutionary (whether KGB-sponsored or not) forces, if the new government wouldn't support us. We need all the help we can get from whomever can give it to us to fight the Soviet policy of "exporting revolution" (setting up puppet Marxist-Leninist governments), and we can't afford to be too picky. Besides, this sort of sympathy for revolutionary forces tends to lead to supporting acts like the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, who, despite the claims of Khomeni, was a very good ruler, and whose only mistake was limiting the power of the Islamic church in Iran. Because of people who thought, "They're complaining, so their government must be bad", a bunch of religous fanatics were allowed to come into power and reverse years of social and political advances under the Shah. Wayne
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/14/84)
>Besides, this sort of sympathy for revolutionary forces tends to >lead to supporting acts like the overthrow of the Shah of >Iran, who, despite the claims of Khomeni, was a very good ruler, >and whose only mistake was limiting the power of the Islamic >church in Iran. Because of people who thought, "They're >complaining, so their government must be bad", a bunch of religous >fanatics were allowed to come into power and reverse years of >social and political advances under the Shah. > > Wayne Sometimes I wonder what else you believe. I bet you also think that Amnesty International is a KGB subsidiary. If not, I would recommend that you read some of their reports on political repression in Iran during the Shah's rule. You might find there evidence of a few more things he did wrong. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (09/17/84)
>>the Shah of >>Iran, who, despite the claims of Khomeni, was a very good ruler, >> Wayne > >I would recommend >that you read some of their reports on political repression in Iran >during the Shah's rule. You might find there evidence of a few more >things he did wrong. >Sophie Quigley I'm afraid Sophie's right Wayne; I'm sure that, according to her defn. no one has ever been a good ruler. But Sophie, consider this: don't you think that he was probably the best ruler Iran ever had, and is the best that could be hoped for today? sdcrdcf!alan
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/18/84)
> > Besides, this sort of sympathy for revolutionary forces tends to > lead to supporting acts like the overthrow of the Shah of > Iran, who, despite the claims of Khomeni, was a very good ruler, > and whose only mistake was limiting the power of the Islamic > church in Iran. > Wayne Let me tell you what one of my friends from Iran told me about the Shah and his regime. (this "very good ruler") He was a sociology student which meant reading Marx whether agreeing with Marx or not. He went to the library and could never find any volumes of Marx' writings. Suddenly one day some of Marx writings appeared in the library and he went to check them out. His name was placed on a list of subversives--as were all those students who checked out any of Marx' writings--within a few weeks all of Marx writings were again taken out of the library. The SAVAK had discovered the "subversives" they wanted. (actually my friend was really moderate and basically apolitical) This is an incident I have direct awareness of through a friend. But I also know that the Shah's secret police (the SAVAK) was frequently cited by human rights groups for murders and torture. When the Shah of Iran was deposed all of the Iranian students where I went to school (Indiana University) had a big party to celebrate the event. What does that say about the Shah's support among his people? These students were not just peasants but the middle class and elite of Iran who could afford to come to America to go to school. Of course these students are now disappointed with the regime of Khomeini. Some of them are trying to organize against Khomeini's regime. But I have never heard any Iranians I know of, say they wish the Shah were back or that he hadn't been deposed. And who do you suppose put this "very good ruler" on his throne? The CIA in 1954 when they overthrew the government at the time to put the Shah back in power. And Ronald Reagan blames the rest of the world for their anger with the power-politics of the US and Soviet Union! Tim Sevener Bell Labs, Whippany whuxl!orb
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/20/84)
From: alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak): >But Sophie, consider this: don't >you think that (the Shah) was probably the best ruler Iran ever had, >and is the best that could be hoped for today? The Shah was installed in a coup that overthrew an elected government in Iran. It is widely believed that this coup was orchestrated by the CIA; it is rather difficult to prove these things, but in any event an elected government was overthrown by a tyrant who murdered thousands of his own people to stay in power. Just who the hell are you to say who is "probably the best ruler Iran ever had," anyway? Mike Kelly
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (09/21/84)
>>>the Shah of >>>Iran, who, despite the claims of Khomeni, was a very good ruler, >>> Wayne >>I would recommend >>that you read some of their reports on political repression in Iran >>during the Shah's rule. You might find there evidence of a few more >>things he did wrong. >>Sophie Quigley >I'm afraid Sophie's right Wayne; I'm sure that, according to her defn. >no one has ever been a good ruler. But Sophie, consider this: don't >you think that he was probably the best ruler Iran ever had, and is the >best that could be hoped for today? > sdcrdcf!alan Quvum, the Prime Minister immediately after World War II, was adept diplomatically at preserving Iranian independence from Soviet intrusion. Also, Mossadegh (spelling?), the Prime Minister overthrown by the CIA to install the Shah, was superior to the Shah, both in manevering the Iran diplomatically and not needing to torture as an instrument of rule domestically. There, that's two modern examples. Of course, the Shah was the (marginally) best ruler since 1954, but of course it's easy to the best when you are virtually the only... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (09/26/84)
If Mossadegh was so much superior to the Shah in manipulating the superpowers, how come he hardly lasted any time at all as a ruler of Iran while the Shah was there for years?
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (09/28/84)
>Just who the hell are you to say who is "probably the best ruler >Iran ever had," anyway? > >Mike Kelly Jeesh, Mike, why the heat? You don't need a license and written approval to say who is..etc. And, anyway, i never SAID who is..etc. The reason i made my stmt to Sophie is that from what i have learned about the Shah he was doing what i consider to be about the most important things an Iranian leader could do. He was bringing Iran into the 20th century. He allowed dancing and movies, things which you cannot do under the present religious regime. He also allowed religious freedom, or at least a lot more than is allowed in the typical Islamic state today. He tried to force his people to be tolerant of the beliefs of others and to face the realities of the world today. This, i guess, was his downfall, not the atrocities he was responsible for. The atorcities are being committed in Iran today and the leader is loved. I don't really think it's a good idea to open a big can of worms getting into it about socio-centricity. I thought it was fairly clear what i was trying to say in my stmt to Sophie. I'm surprised you got so hot under the collar and blasted me about it. sdcrdcf!alan
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (H. Reza Taheri) (09/29/84)
>> From: martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) >> If Mossadegh was so much superior to the Shah in manipulating the >> superpowers, how come he hardly lasted any time at all as a ruler of >> Iran while the Shah was there for years? You are right. Mosaddegh (the d is pronounced twice not the s) was very superior to the Shah in "being manipulated" by the superpowers. (Shah was not manipulated by the US government; he was controlled by them and he "knew" it). Mosaddegh's biggest source of popularity was his refusal to bow to the colonial wishes of the British Empire. In this, he was openly and secretly encouraged by the United States! Letters from the US Secretary of State at the time to Mosaddegh are in the public domain. How little did he know that the support he received from the US was only to get rid of the British influence in Iran through a third party and to later on practically colonize the country. He even received indirect support from the Soviet Union. The Tudeh Party (the Communist party) was a part of his coalition government. It has been said that the sudden pull-out of the Tudeh Party out of the cabinet and their ensuing opposition to Mosaddegh was partly responsible for his demise. H. Reza Taheri ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza (312)-979-1040 P.S. I hope I am not boring the net with my accounts of the history of a country that is not directly involved in the debate. I am just trying to show that the situation in the third world countries has not changed and continuing the old practices will result in more countries like the present Iran.
newton2@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (10/01/84)
"Boring the net"? Yeah, I guess you are. We Americans haven't a whole lot of patience with all that detailed history crap (aka "bunk"). Couldn't you just sum it up in a headline, with film at eleven? If you need help adapting to our culture, here's a summary of all world affairs, past present and future, which has proved quite servicable: "U.S.A. Numbah One!!!!" [repeat as needed]
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (10/23/84)
>>>the Shah of >>>Iran, who, despite the claims of Khomeni, was a very good ruler, >>> Wayne >> >>I would recommend >>that you read some of their reports on political repression in Iran >>during the Shah's rule. You might find there evidence of a few more >>things he did wrong. >>Sophie Quigley > >I'm afraid Sophie's right Wayne; I'm sure that, according to her defn. >no one has ever been a good ruler. But Sophie, consider this: don't >you think that he was probably the best ruler Iran ever had, and is the >best that could be hoped for today? > > sdcrdcf!alan (Alan Algustyniak) > Indeed, even the US (gasp!) has recently been under attack by Amnesty International because of their new medical techniques to administer the death penalty. I do not know enough about Iranian history to be able to compare its different rulers. For a while, towards the end of the shah's regime and at the beginning of Khomeini's it did seem that it would be possible to have some semblance of democracy in Iran. I do not think that Khomeini is much better than the Shah (actually I think he is much worse), but he does seem to have a much bigger following in Iran than the shah did, and no matter how despotic and cruel he is, he is ruling Iran because the iranians wanted him. So they've only got themselves to blame for the current situation! Hopefully this experience will be useful in the next government transition. I personnally do not see any reason why things could not improve in the future. The iranian revolution is still quite new, and looking at history, one often finds a period of very strong backlash after many revolutions (e.g the french and russian revolutions) followed by a relaxation. It is quite possible that the Iranian revolution will follow a similar pattern, as it is possible it won't. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley