If Chuck Were President... -1 reply

Please wait...

Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#141 12 years ago

Start your own damn flame war.




CologneSky

Death from above

50 XP

30th January 2004

0 Uploads

405 Posts

0 Threads

#142 12 years ago

Fuzzy Bunny;3746081 It's actually a pretty bad comparison, because you're setting abuses committed in a totalitarian country with an atrocious human rights record (Iran/Persia) next to probably not-quite-as-bad but still pretty horrific perversions of justice committed in a country that needs to position itself as a moral authority and example of democracy and freedom (Guantanamo.) [/quote]

Fuzzy you dont seem to get the point. You qualify a country as tyranny only based on the fact, that there is a certain amount of torture used against political enemies and to secure internal stability. Therefore I brought up the example of a country which uses torture to achieve the same, I'm sure we both agree that the US is no tyranny. I could have brought up the example of Israel, but that would open a new pandoras box...

My point: (limited) torture alone (as horrible as we both may find it) does not qualify a country as tyranny!

Fuzzy Bunny;3746081 I thought I detected an insinuation that the US were playing a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" type of game with the PMOI. I may be mistaken. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that they're a bunch of nutjob fanatics, possibly dangerous. I disagree on the amount of influence relative to other groups they had in Iran at any given point in time, even pre-1981.[/quote]

Agreed on the first point, although I think noone knows what the US are planning to do with them. I would not even rule out a deal with Tehran - handing them over, as they are uttely useless nowadays. Their reputation after siding with Saddam is in shambles with the Iranians in Iran and and the exiled Iranians abroad. Concerning the second point I disagree. Their influence pre 1979 was great and I do consider them to be one of the main drivers of the 78/79 events. But lets not get too much into details on these guys, they really dont even deserve out attention.

Fuzzy Bunny;3746081 This is a logical continuation of the above. Many of the nazis' constituency were "normal" Germans, not national socialists, who saw Hitler as a capable counter to what they viewed as a huge communist or anarchist threat in the early 1930s. Furthermore, he brought a message of national pride at a point when Germans, humbled by depression and a vastly diminished international standing after Versailles, were very receptive to it. Another analogy would be Pinochet in 1973 -- there is still a sizeable, even huge segment of the Chilean population who actively supported him, his coup and his methods, because they see him as a bringer of order.

Sorry to say, but both rather bad analogys. On Germany 33: Yes Hitler was regarded by many middle class average germans as countermeasure against communists. The national pride aspect after WW1 is also correct. But where does that compare to our subject of discussion?

Did Iran pre-79 lack national pride? was it internationally isolated? Are you aiming at the misconception of Iran beeing the puppet of the US? Common mistake. Until 73/74/75 I there was very little independence of Iranian foreign policy, but in the last years of the Shahs rule the situation did change. Iran intensified ties with the USSR (after the USSR drew back support for Tudeh), the Shah also became more openly critical of Israel. You might know the US administration was not very happy with Iran in the late 70s..

And certainly not because of humarn rights abuses.. We both know that (sadly) the issue of human rights abuses is normally brought up as pretext when international relation become more severe.

[quote=Fuzzy Bunny;3746081] Egypt has received over $50 billion in US aid since 1975, making it the world's second largest single recipient. Syria is in the unique position of being momentarily able to avoid the ass-whoping it will inevitably receive, because the Israelis, due to their own recent fuckups, cannot afford to help the Lebanese flatten Damascus. My personal bet is on Turkey, but we'll see.

My point? You may also wish to include Belarus, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, North Korea and Zimbabwe in there -- all countries where the status quo is perilously maintained through either international exigencies or disinterest, or both, and whose domestic systems have pretty much collapsed. In counterpoint, I give you Romania, Albania, East Germany, the Phillipines (maybe before your time), Spain, and even Greece.

Concerning Egypt: So if money is able to stabilize an authocratic government it should have been possible to have stabilized Iran with all the petro dollars they had. Brings back my point that if all SAVAK was not effective enought, not too brutal.

I'm really to tired to comment on all the countries you mentioned below, but you have not disproved my original point that severe internal security measures can stabilse a country for a certain time. Whether the government implements the proper reforms and supports development is another cup of tea.

[quote=Fuzzy Bunny;3746081] If you'd prefer to go back to Chuck Norris, we can nonetheless agree to disagree, since at this point I think we're essentially arguing about whether the means justify the ends in a situation like Iran's in the 1970s.

as you wish. we might also diasgree to agree. in case you wish to exchange future thoughts about what a tyranny may be or not we might want to use the attached illustration. In my view, the Shah regime was somewhere in the lower center of the field non-tyrannical government regimes..

So long, tyranniesks6.png

PS. Whats this Dean's list thingy? never heard of it.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#143 12 years ago
CologneSky;3747618Fuzzy you dont seem to get the point. You qualify a country as tyranny only based on the fact, that there is a certain amount of torture used against political enemies and to secure internal stability.

No. I qualify a country as a tyranny when its rulers hang onto power for power's sake. Non-approved political opposition is banned, citizens are intimidated/imprisoned/tortured/murdered for expressing non-approved opinions, the rule of law is subordinated to the personal enrichment and enhancement of personal power of a ruler and his clique.

You may notice some differences.

My point: (limited) torture alone (as horrible as we both may find it) does not qualify a country as tyranny!

Again, not what I claimed. I started out by advocating the point that SAVAK was a brutal, thuggish organization, and that the shah was a tyrant. The shah was not a tyrant solely because of SAVAK, but it certainly was part of the reason.

Agreed on the first point, although I think noone knows what the US are planning to do with them. I would not even rule out a deal with Tehran - handing them over, as they are uttely useless nowadays. Their reputation after siding with Saddam is in shambles with the Iranians in Iran and and the exiled Iranians abroad.

The US have very limited (if any) influence over these guys. As you pointed out, they're whackos. Some American congressmen actually harbor pretty strong sympathies for them, but that's about it.

Concerning the second point I disagree. Their influence pre 1979 was great and I do consider them to be one of the main drivers of the 78/79 events. But lets not get too much into details on these guys, they really dont even deserve out attention.

They were influential insofar as they were partially responsible for motivating a lot of both the shah's and ayatollah's repression, but not numerically and politically/militarily as a force with a real ability to drive events. Fine, we'll disagree strongly on this, and leave it.

Sorry to say, but both rather bad analogys. On Germany 33: Yes Hitler was regarded by many middle class average germans as countermeasure against communists. The national pride aspect after WW1 is also correct. But where does that compare to our subject of discussion?

Pretty directly, insofar as Khomeini, despite his avowed and well-publicized extreme viewpoints, succeeded in rallying, as I said several times, a large percentage of the Iranian moderate factions around himself. The islamists were a minority and could not have made the inroads they did without being able to act as polarizing elements for most of the (considerable) opposition to the shah.

Did Iran pre-79 lack national pride? was it internationally isolated? Are you aiming at the misconception of Iran beeing the puppet of the US? Common mistake.

I don't know where you came up with this.

And certainly not because of humarn rights abuses.. We both know that (sadly) the issue of human rights abuses is normally brought up as pretext when international relation become more severe.[quote]

No objections

[quote]Concerning Egypt: So if money is able to stabilize an authocratic government it should have been possible to have stabilized Iran with all the petro dollars they had. Brings back my point that if all SAVAK was not effective enought, not too brutal.

No. Money is able, under certain circumstances, to partially stabilize certain autocratic regimes.

I'm really to tired to comment on all the countries you mentioned below, but you have not disproved my original point that severe internal security measures can stabilse a country for a certain time.

I never said that they can't. I said that, medium- to long-term they generally don't work unless there are several other externalities. Point is that they are a piss-poor, unreliable method that back-fires as often as not.

as you wish. we might also diasgree to agree. in case you wish to exchange future thoughts about what a tyranny may be or not we might want to use the attached illustration.

This is a fine picture that I find somewhat incomplete, but it disproves none of my arguments. Nor does it say enough about what actually defines a tyrant -- all the ones mentioned, as far as I'm concerned, fall squarely under that definition, regardless of level of fanaticism or corruption.

Pahlavi fits right around the Argentine junta, if you want to limit yourself by the definitions on that graph.

PS. Whats this Dean's list thingy? never heard of it.

The dean is usually the head of a school's academics, in a university there will be deans of each particular college. Dean's list is an honor roll that requries a certain (high) grade level.




{SmB}IcelanDick

Ég tala ekki Íslensku

50 XP

12th June 2004

0 Uploads

661 Posts

0 Threads

#144 12 years ago

This is quite the argument you two are having. And you know that epic arguments lead to epic make-up sex.....

Did anyone come across the recent news that blamed Hitler and all his tyranny on syphilis he picked up from a Jewish prostitute? I don't know if this is a new story or what. And feel free to correct me on my usage of 'tyranny'. I only perused this thread thoroughly and probably missed it's correct definition along the way.




JohnWalker

The Few. The Proud.

50 XP

14th November 2004

0 Uploads

2,330 Posts

0 Threads

#145 12 years ago
{SmB}IcelanDick;3747826This is quite the argument you two are having. And you know that epic arguments lead to epic make-up sex..... .

Oh God, am I glad I don't live in the same building as Fuzzy anymore.




Gen'l Knight

Can't ... give peace a chance?

50 XP

10th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,920 Posts

0 Threads

#146 12 years ago
Fuzzy Bunny;3747510Start your own damn flame war.

I prefer to be a guest inflamer on specific points....:naughty:




RexRaptor

V for Vendetta

50 XP

25th February 2005

0 Uploads

553 Posts

0 Threads

#147 12 years ago
{SmB}IcelanDick;3747826Did anyone come across the recent news that blamed Hitler and all his tyranny on syphilis he picked up from a Jewish prostitute? I don't know if this is a new story or what. And feel free to correct me on my usage of 'tyranny'. I only perused this thread thoroughly and probably missed it's correct definition along the way.

Actually, that holds alot of weight. Simply because the syphilis skewed his reasoning, and ate away at his brain. Now, not trying to take the blame off ol'e Adolf, but the syphilis certainly didn't help things