Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
Yorick, these personal attacks are so thinly veiled these days that they'd make a belly dancer blush with shame.
|
What personal attacks? Stay on topic Skunk.
Quote:
The Shah's dicatorship was put in place and maintained by BOTH the Britain and the US - both had an oily reason for him to stay in power (and some cold war reasons too) - the Shah was not afraid of the British anymore than he was of the US. The SHAH loved Britain and the US for that - the people who suffered and died under the regime did not - hence the popular revolution that removed him and the level hate seen for the US and Britain during the embassy siege of '79.
Anyway, this discussion wasn't about the shah's dictatorship or middle-eastern history, it's about the current situation. And in today's world, Iranians are very COLD to the idea of having the US on their borders - not just the leadership, but the people too.
Democracy is shaky in Iran, but it's better than what they had before.
|
According to Karl E. Meyer, Reza Shah's ascension was endorsed and encouraged by Sir Edmund Ironside, the Englishman running the show in Persia. All the USA did was choose not to reverse the British decisions or contracts. The "partition" of Persia between Britain and Russia happened well before that.
As to "living in today" Central Asians have a longer and stronger collective memory than westerners. It's easy for the victorious affluent westerner to revel in the now, much harder for the people who's glories lie centuries in the dust. It is vitally important to understande the "sins of the past" if we're to understand today.
USAs problems in the area are inheritted from British imperialism. Period. What causes suspicion? Past actions. Britian were Machiavellian in manipulating the politics of areas outside their direct control. As I stated, Persia/Iran, learned their politics from the British, so, if true, the scenario of duping America into a war, is not far fetched at all. Would be, as I stated, a delicious irony in fact.