World must rally against Iran, says Bush

This is a good but brief summation of the story of war in the US since WWII.
Funds and armaments are all grossly mismanaged/squandered/overstocked.
.
I was literally appalled.

Originally posted by xmotex
Because our culture does such a good job convincing us of our own inherent righteousness, we almost never question it.

Tetsuo's post is a good example.

I suggest you read it in detail before you brand me an Establishment fuddy-duddy.

And I am a firm believer in Western Civilization. By that I mean Plato, Aristotle, the Renaissance and Enlightement, Voltaire, Smith, Jefferson, and the like. Not Jesus, Marx, George III, George Bush, and the like.

Everyone knows about the Iranian hostage situation, gets worked up about it, and glosses over why it occurred. Apparently the crazy Iranians did it because they hate Mom, the Flag, Apple Pie and all the rest....

As opposed to the sane Turks who love Mom, the Flag, Apple Pie, women's rights, democracy, literacy, and all the rest.

Originally posted by xmotex

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo

I agree that some sort of military action against Iran in the early 1980s was justified, if only to teach those bullies a lesson.

Bullies?!?

Do you even know why they took the hostages?

Yes, and it doesn't make that tribal mob any less childish and cowardly. They were winning their revolution anyway, and had no need to violate an embassy. Even now, the Iranian government and some of the original militant pseudo-students admit the hostage-taking was a mistake.

Hint: it might have something to do with the brutal dictatorship we put in power there and propped up for 25 years, and having a trump card in case we tried to put it back in power

It worked, too.

That brutal dictatorship of the Shah tried to drag a nation, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century. It failed. Right after WWI, Turkey had its own dictatorship that succeeded in modernization, that of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He was no less brutal than the Shah, and used many of the same methods, but far more competently. In the end, Ataturk became a god-like figure, the Washington and Lincoln of his nation; while the Shah died in exile as "The Great Satan".

A nation does have the right to chart its own course, to accept or reject Western civilization as it pleases. But a nation also is made up of individual people. The Islamic Republic of Iran, and its "unholy alliance of red and black", won its revolution, and the right to force women into chadors and stone them to death for adultery. I wonder if those women appreciate being "liberated" from the Shah, SAVAK, and the dreaded Evil Jooz of Israel?

(And before you mention Saint Mossadegh, tell me how much you know about him, and if he would never have become a corrupt tyrant himself given the chance. Perhaps a communist too, or more likely someone who would have steered Iran toward a crippling "neutrality" like the Gandhi dynasty did with India.)