Originally posted by FMF My point is contained in the question you have ignored: if what you say is true, why did the U.S. have to prop up the regimes?
It was the whole Cold War thing -- the US would prop up a bunch of pro-US regimes to prevent a pro-USSR regime from taking power -- or as we saw in Iran, an anti-both sides theocratic regime.
One reason I was glad to see the Cold War end was that we could get rid of the argument that we need to support this or that tyrant to prevent the Commies from taking over the world.
Although, a similar argument could have been made regarding Saddam - that we needed to support him (or at least tolerate him) because otherwise the terrorists would move in. But in this case, we took a different route.
Originally posted by FMF My point is contained in the question you have ignored: if what you say is true, why did the U.S. have to prop up the regimes?
They had to do it in order to prevent the Russians from having influence in the region.
However, Im not sure if they would be democratic anyway, that's why I mentioned Iran, which got rid of a US-backed leader, only to install a theocracy.
Originally posted by generalissimo They had to do it in order to prevent the Russians from having influence in the region.
However, Im not sure if they would be democratic anyway, that's why I mentioned Iran, which got rid of a US-backed leader, only to install a theocracy.
So? To get back to the start of this sub-plot discussion, was sh76 justified when he commented on 'freedom' in the region and declined to mention that the the U.S. armed and payrolled vicious authoritarian regimes there for decades, and that a change in U.S. priorities might partly explain these regimes' weakening grip and developing freedom?
They had to do it in order to prevent the Russians from having influence in the region.
Why couldn't the U.S. have backed democracy vigorously to undercut or preclude the influence of the Soviets? Why didn't the U.S. support Mohammed Mossadegh?
Would you really have us believe that the projection of U.S. power in the region is irrelevant to an analysis of freedom, and lack of freedom, both historically and currently?
Originally posted by FMF So? To get back to the start of this sub-plot discussion, was sh76 justified when he commented on 'freedom' in the region and declined to mention that the the U.S. armed and payrolled vicious authoritarian regimes there for decades, and that a change in U.S. priorities might partly explain these regimes' weakening grip and developing freedom?
I'm sorry. I guess I must be missing something. Where did I bring up 'freedom' in the region.
My only previous post on this thread, in its entirety, is:
Secularization is probably the best antidote to major conflict right now. It happens in all societies; it's just a matter of time. Eventually, people wake up and realize that it's better for them to be able to choose their own lives than to have them dictated by religious extremists.
Do you see the word 'freedom' there?
I said that secularization beats theocracy. What does that have to do with whether the US is responsible for past dictatorships in the region? My post was henceforth, not about the past.
And, why do you put the word 'freedom' in quotes when I didn't use that word? That seems to be the one bad habit you just can't seem to kick- putting words in people's mouths.
Originally posted by FMF My point is contained in the question you have ignored: if what you say is true, why did the U.S. have to prop up the regimes?
Originally posted by sh76 Secularization is probably the best antidote to major conflict right now. It happens in all societies; it's just a matter of time. Eventually, people wake up and realize that it's better for them to be able to choose their own lives than to have them dictated by religious extremists.
There is precious little evidence that 'it happens in all societies; it's just a matter of time.'. How much time may I ask?
Originally posted by generalissimo Whats your point? Iran got rid of the shah (who was influenced by foreign powers) and what did they have instead? a democracy? no.
What popular democratic movements do you speak of?
My understanding was that the US supported Saddam Husein and helped him become a dictator in preference to a democracy. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by FMF Duh! Yours is the first response to an OP and thread topic called "The developing freedom in the middle-east".
Were you responding to something else? How so?
Okay; so now I'm bound to incorporate, in every post, not only the entirety of the text of the author to which I'm responding, but also the thesis of the title of the thread. Is that about right?
Well, for future reference, regardless of what is implied by the thread title of what someone else posted, I hereby declare, specifically for your benefit:
I mean nothing more than what I say. I often respond to the post and not to the thread title. I often respond to parts of people's posts and not to every word in their posts. If I want to discuss something that regards freedom or any other concept, I will say so explicitly.
In addition, I see nothing wrong with posting a statement regarding an issue without treating the entirety of the issue comprehensively from a historical perspective. This is a message board discussion, not a law review article. The fact that I don't reference some historical fact does not mean that I intend to deny its existence or "airbrush" it from the pages of history.
I hope this will serve to avoid further confusion.
The developing freedom in the middle-east
25 Jun '09 16:50
Back to Top