SEARCH VEGSOURCE:
Custom Search

 


Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home


From: Tom ZeCat (z-cat.vegsource.com)
Subject:         No, you've distorted history (as usual)
Date: September 15, 2007 at 10:28 am PST

In Reply to: You don't get it posted by Bart on September 14, 2007 at 3:50 pm:

By your reasoning, you're saying that the Iraqis and the US both share blame for the awful situation in Iraq today, for the 1-million plus innocent murders there.

Not what I said. I said they share the blame for our bad relations. I stand by that. There's nothing you've said that justifies the taking of those hostages. One can understand why they did it, but that's not the same as justifying it. They took innocent people hostage who had nothing to do with the Shah's coming to power or any of the crimes he committed. You'd better believe that hurt US/Iranian relations. I don't know how that could be more obvious. If we have to take responsibility for the wrongs we've done to Iran, they should have to take responsibility for the wrongs they've done to us. That's reasonable.

I don't think I could trust the accuracy of the book you recommend if it claims the US created that Shah. That's a distortion of history. What happened was he (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) took over the throne from his father (Reza Shah) when the WW II allied powers, including the Soviets, forced Reza Shah to abdicate. He took the throne in a monarchy that already existed. It happened in what's known as the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, and here's an article about it: Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran The British and the Soviets were much bigger players in that invasion than we were. It was all about preventing Iranian oil from falling into Nazi hands and keeping it secure for the allied war effort. If you have a book that says the US alone simply got greedy for oil and therefore put Mohammad Reza Pahlavi into power, you have a book that distorts history. Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran was an act of the allies forces and the Soviets and was for the purpose of winning World War II. And it did make a huge difference in the eventual allied victory. Read the article. It's well supported by multiple sources.

The Iranians were upset by the Shah's ruthless and brutal methods of rule that supported torture and his corrupt accumulation of wealth. And, yes, they were upset that we supported him. If they thought we created him, they were misinformed. It's more complicated than that.

I do know my history. It's not tainted by fanatical far left extremists who want to simply blame the US for everything without weighing multiple sides. If we have to take responsibility for our mistakes, then others have to take responsibility for theirs. That's reasonable, but the far left is rarely reasonable and is too often into the "blame America only" game. I haven't even gone into Iranian anti-Semitism, but that's rampant and very much a problem. Many people in Iran would have preferred that Nazi Germany win WW II so that even more Jews could be murdered. We should, of course, have no sympathy for that. The discussion of Iranian anti-Semitism will have to wait for another day, however. I'm out of time.

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home


Follow Ups:


    


Post Reply

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:



See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  


Want to see more videos? Subscribe to VegSource!

Every time we post a new video, we'll send you a notice by e-mail.

No spam ever and you can easily unsubscribe at anytime.

Enter your email address, your first name, and press Submit.


Your Email:
First Name:
Newsletter archive

Infomercial production direct marketing