UN Security Council drafting angry letter

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

No, I recognize the USA as being "Western"

I was thinking more of NAZI Germany.

Bob Emmett wrote:

Just wondered which other Western country has his approach to democracy?

Israel.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Synaptrik]

I guess that my main point was that our relations with Iran did not come about because of Carter and his lack of support for the Shaw, but rather from our involvement in replacing their democratic governemnt with the Shaw. Our initial support for the Shaw is IMO the root cause of our problems with Iran.

This statement is false

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

I was thinking more of NAZI Germany.

More Nordic than Western.

Oakman wrote:

Israel.

Israel is a one-party state?

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Synaptrik wrote:

with the Shaw

Shah, or Shahanshah. It means king of kings and was the title of Persian monarchs back to the days of Xerxes and Darius the Great. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah long before Mossadegh came to power as the Shah's prime Minister. When Mossadegh's party nationalized the British-owned Iranian oil company, the US sided with Britain over this expropriation of property, as did the Shah. A civil war resulted with Mossadegh receiving strong support from the communist party and, for a short period of time the Shah was in exile, but with the backing of the two great powers, and after the communists turned against Mossadegh, he ultimately regained control of the country he had ruled since 1945. Was the US involved? Thoroughly. Mostly with the money to hire gangs of street thugs and bribe politicians to oppose Mossadegh. Was Mossadegh popularly elected? Sort of. He was elected by his political party in coalition with the communists. Mossadegh was brought low not because he was elected; not because he was some sort of revolutionary (he was a monarchist though he favored putting limits on the monarchy); but because he nationalized British property. The Shah promised to give it back and thus received the Brits backing, and - at the request if Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, that of the U.S. Was that nice of the U.S.? Not really, but to tell the Brits who were still trying to hang on to the remnants of their Empire and who had been our closest friends and allies since before the turn of the century, to take a dump in their hats and live with it wouldn't have been very nice either. Did backing the Shah create problems for the U.S.? You bet your bippee. The Shah was infuriating the Shi'a clergy by doing things like getting rid of that abominable dress code; granting equal right - even (horror of horrors) the vote - to women. He was the first Arab leader to recognize Israel. He gave shares in their factories to those who worked in them; he created a modern network of schools. He established thousands of scholarships for Iranian students to study in the US and elsewhere, and though a Muslim, he chipped away at the power of the clergy anyway he could - often with the use of a Secret Police Force modeled after the NKVD. He was seen as a friend of the U.S. by his followers and by those who opposed him and wanted to institute Shari'a law if for no other reason, at least to put women back in their place. When they rose up, the

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

More Nordic than Western.

You mean like Mussolini's Italy? That kind of Nordic? Like Franco's Spain? That kind of Nordic? C'mon Bob, if that's the best you can do, concede the point.

Bob Emmett wrote:

Israel is a one-party state?

No. Are you switching from Western being nice guys to having a multi-party political system? Is that the only criteria?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

You mean like Mussolini's Italy? ... Like Franco's Spain?That kind of Nordic?

The fascist regimes in Europe were primarily nationalist (to quote Stan "We're great, you suck"), each harking back to their own traditions: Hellenic, Nordic, Roman. You gave Hitler's Germany as an example - I gave you Nordic. Each had removed all opposition and were effectively dictatorships, consequently, they were not, by current standards, "western".

Oakman wrote:

Are you switching from Western being nice guys to having a multi-party political system?

No. The critical point in my quote was: "A person who does not enter the new political party ... is ... a traitor.". Iran was a one-party state ruled by an autocratic monarch. Again, not "western".

Bob Emmett

[Synaptrik]

Thanks for the history lesson. If you're on the ground in Iran they will cite this as a source of their opposition. That's all I was saying. But I appreciate history. thanks

This statement is false

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

The fascist regimes in Europe were primarily nationalist

A fine old Western tradion, honored in Attic Greece and the 21st century equally. To claim that only the fascist countries look to their own roots as the basis for their civilization is, it seems to me, to be trying to piss up a rope.

Bob Emmett wrote:

Each had removed all opposition and were effectively dictatorships, consequently, they were not, by current standards, "western".

So only democracies that meet some, as yet not totally defined, criteria are "Western?" A quick review of the history of western civ, as I learned it at least, suggests some problems with that theory, even though - by throwing out most of that history - you support your thesis.

Bob Emmett wrote:

Iran was a one-party state ruled by an autocratic monarch. Again, not "western".

Again - check out the history of western civilization.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Synaptrik wrote:

If you're on the ground in Iran they will cite this as a source of their opposition.

There is a legitimate argument that when Truman set out to save the world from Communism, he set us up for a lot of the problems we have today. Imho, the US has wasted much money and many lives trying to turn the rest of the owrld into a mirror image of itself. We shouldn't have interferred in Iran; we shouldn't have created NATO going; the United Nations should have remained the name the Allies called themselves during WWII and nothing else, we should have let Korea reunify under the North.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

I have probably not defined my use of "western" clearly enough. "Western" = current western civilization, which is much as it was at the time of President Carter. The accepted "western" method of government is democracy, which is why we are presently attempting to install it in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Shah did away with democracy - so he was not "western".

Oakman wrote:

To claim that only the fascist countries look to their own roots as the basis for their civilization

No such claim was made. Me: NAZI Germany - More Nordic than Western. You: Like Mussolini's Italy? That kind of Nordic? Like Franco's Spain? That kind of Nordic? Me: The fascist regimes in Europe were primarily nationalist, each harking back to their own traditions: Hellenic, Nordic, Roman. I don't see an "only" in there - and neither did you. You're just plain ornery. :) We all look to our past as the basis of our civilization, usually with a gauze lens and a rose-pink filter on our chronoscopes.

Oakman wrote:

So only democracies that meet some, as yet not totally defined, criteria are "Western?"

Well, no criteria have been set. I live in a Monarchy, you live in a Republic. Our Head of State is, constitutionally, powerless; yours is Commander-in-Chief. Both countries are democracies, both "western".

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

I have probably not defined my use of "western" clearly enough.

Interesting, since my OP was the one that introduced the use of the word. I would've thought that you would have asked for my definition rather than introducing one that, I am afraid, seems to have changed from one of your posts to the next.

Bob Emmett wrote:

I don't see an "only" in there - and neither did you.

Then why did you introduce their national heritage into the discussion at all? If, as you now claim, you were talking about democracy, I should point out that the Nordic Allthing was one of the first recorded democracies in Europe.

Bob Emmett wrote:

You're just plain ornery

I have a bull-shite protector that is set quite high. Some people calim that makes me ornery.

Bob Emmett wrote:

Well, no criteria have been set

What this exchange seems to have boiled down to, is that I said the Shah was "Western." You decided that I meant 'favoring Democracy,' and have been trying to convince me that I meant what you thought rather than what I thought I meant. Something along the lines of a Graeco-Roman Classical and Renaissance cultural influence, concerning artistic, philosophic, literary, and legal themes and traditions, as well as a tradition of rationalism in various spheres of life, developed by Hellenistic philosophy, Scholasticism, Humanisms, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, and, yes indeed, a leaning towards freedom of thought and widespread suffrage. I stand by my definition of the word, and my application of it to the last Shah of Iran.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

I questioned "western" because the Shah had removed democracy (hence the quote). You then revealed that your use of "western" meant the Western tradition from Attic Greece to the 21st century. Seeing that we were at cross purposes, I explained what I meant by "western" and why, to me, the Shah was not "western".

Oakman wrote:

I would've thought that you would have asked for my definition

I didn't have to, you had already indicated it (the Western tradition from Attic Greece to the 21st century).

Oakman wrote:

Then why did you introduce their national heritage into the discussion at all?

You introduced NAZI Germany. I said, flippantly, that it was more Nordic than Western. You seemed to assume that I meant Fascism was Nordic, and introduced Italy and Spain.

Oakman wrote:

rather than introducing one that, I am afraid, seems to have changed from one of your posts to the next.

I hope you don't mean the nice guys thing, that was yours not mine: "Unless you insist on defining "western" as nice guys who wouldn't hurt a fly."

Oakman wrote:

You decided that I meant 'favoring Democracy'

No, I explained that I meant 'being a democracy'.

Oakman wrote:

and have been trying to convince me that I meant what you thought rather than what I thought I meant.

How could I? Why would I even try?

Oakman wrote:

Something along the lines of a Graeco-Roman Classical and Renaissance cultural influence, concerning artistic, philosophic, literary, and legal themes and traditions, as well as a tradition of rationalism in various spheres of life, developed by Hellenistic philosophy, Scholasticism, Humanisms, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, and, yes indeed, a leaning towards freedom of thought and widespread suffrage.

The Western tradition, I got that.

Oakman wrote:

I stand by my definition of the word, and my application of it to the last Shah of Iran.

And I prefer my more exclusive definition of the word.

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

And I prefer my more exclusive incorrect definition of the word.

FTFY ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

FTFY

If it ain't broke ... :)

Bob Emmett