Tuesday, June 26, 2012

I've come to believe that some countries deserve to be ruled... Change? Democracy?

They just can't handle it!

Two perfect examples are Iran and Egypt:

When Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Shah of Iran) ruled Iran, There was never a thought of instability in that region.

He kept the Muslim (Nut Case) clerics in their place (Mosques) and ran the country with a tight fist and western influence.

In the context of regional turmoil and the Cold War, the Shah established himself as an indispensable ally of the West. Domestically, he advocated reform policies, culminating in the 1963 program known as the White Revolution, which included land reform, the extension of voting rights to women, and the elimination of illiteracy....

....The shah's regime suppressed and marginalized its opponents with the help of Iran's security and intelligence organization, the SAVAK. Relying on oil revenues, which sharply increased in late 1973, the Shah pursued his goal of developing Iran as a mighty regional power dedicated to social reform and economic development.
During this period, The Shah had close ties with Israel.

Then came the uprisings of 78-79....The U.S, being critical of the Shah ( you guessed it....President Carter)...Ayatollah Khomeini returning from exile....taking of American hostages...Democracy at work?

Then there is Egypt and Mubarak who came to power after the assination of Anwar Sadat. Both of these men ruled with a tight fist keeping the Muslim (Nut Case) clerics in the Mosques WHERE THEY BELONG!

Stability in that region...cordial relationships with Israel and the U.S.

Then...Kdafi's downfall in Morroco....discontent in Egypt...U.S. being critical of Mubarak (Cartet 2..I mean President Obama)....riots...Mubarak forced out....Let Freedom ring....Do you think?

Democracy sure worked great in these instances?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


cimbri said...

The current idiotic democracy movement started by the neocons had it's roots in the Carter administration, who championed "human rights", rather than strongman stability. Reagan re-instituted Realism and the support of friendly dictators who could promote stability and American interests. Now we have come full circle, the 2000s neocons now realize the insane blunder of nation building Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are slowly back on the path towards Realism again.

Bob said...

If we couldn't say something nice about Mubarak, The Obama administration should have kept our mouth shut.

Asking him to step down only fed the desires of the crazies and religious fanatics.

Terrye said...

I think you meant to put a "not" in that first sentence.

And I think you are over simplifying things.

The day of the strong arm man had passed in places like Egypt...Mubarak was an old man and his time had come. The fact that he had not allowed for any kind of political opposition to exists in that country actually helped the Muslim Brotherhood because they could exist underground.

The idea that Americans should support tyrants or dictators because we think that will bring stability has helped get us where we are...blaming the neo cons is absurd. The neocons did not create the mullahs, or Saddam or Gaddafi. And Mubarak had his own rape rooms and torture police as well...meanwhile he would run anti Israeli propaganda on Egyptian TV. It is called playing both ends against the middle and we can see where that ended.

The truth is that once a dictator is gone there is a vacuum and since dictators do not allow for political culture or discourse there is rarely a Thomas Jefferson ready and willing to take over.

I do not know if representative government can work in that part of the world, but even if it can it will be years before we will see it. And we can thank guys like Mubarak for that as much as we can thank the mullahs.

Terrye said...

I mean come on..Mubarak took that American aid money and put it into a bank account for his family, meanwhile the average Egyptian was living on less than $2 a day. If he he had just spent some of that money on clean water and health care and education it would have helped him a lot.

The bottom line is that the people of Egypt were sick of him after four decades..that should not be a surprise to Americans who want a president gone in two terms.

BOSMAN said...


Mubarak was everything you said....He was also, EVERYTHING I SAID.

The point is, folks in those countries are like sheep. He forced them to behave, whether the liked it or not.

The fact that he had his hand in the till, was the least of problems.

Look at it as payment for keeping the nuts there in line.

CEO of Egypt!

Terrye said...

Bosman....the last time anyone tried to run against Mubarak the man ended up in prison for 4 years.

Mubarak was 83 years old when he was overthrown and he had made absolutely no attempt to see to it that there would be a peaceful transition of power when he passed. He could have cared less about the US or Israel once he was gone. We paid the man to keep the treaty, he was not exactly a friend.

And I am not going to support some freaking dictator. I am an American. I actually believe in all that stuff about democracy and liberty.

Terrye said...

BTW, look at the region....dictators like Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad, Mubarak have not exactly left those countries stable or pro American.

I mean come on...Mubarak's government is the same government that put out the story that the shark attacks off of the Egyptian coast a couple of years ago were caused by the Jews.

He also allowed all sorts of anti American propaganda to be put on TV and in the papers.

Like I said, he played both ends against the middle.

As for those people...well after decades of rule from men like this it might well take a generation for them to even begin to create a political culture that actually includes parties and candidates.