Nuclear program in Iran tied to Pakistan

[DemoCoder]

We got the Ayatollahs BECAUSE of the Shah and his abuses and our support for the overthrow of duly elected Mossadegh. And demo coups and the cia and general western support for such isnt the product of left wing nut conspiracy theories its the common history and behavior of the 20th century. Try reading up on it a bit.

No pax, there have been direct examples of the CIA pumping massive money, arms, and training to arrange a coup (Iran took more than one try). But because of that history, every coup or loss of a leftwing candidate is now proposed as a CIA plot. That's the indymedia leftwing nuts. E.g. Chavez's troubles are merely the result of a CIA plot, and not his behavior. If millions are protesting Chavez in the streets, these are obviously CIA bought mobs like in Iran?

The massive dissatisfication with the government in Tehran is not the result of CIA funding subversion, and any coming coup is more likely to be the result of reformist plotters. But the Tehran government blames anything and everything on the CIA. For example, the massive student protests that happened for a whole week? A CIA organized event.

Havent you ever wondered that a secret agency as the CIA still manages to make public its involvement with several of the coups that occured in the 20th cent? I mean it IS supposed to be a secretive agency isnt it? So by that definition shouldnt MOST coups have little or no indication that the cia was involved? Tip of the iceberg...

Conspiracy nut thinking. Oh, we only know about a few high-tech aircraft from PhantomWorks/Skunk Works. Since most government projects in the military are secret, tip of the iceberg... they must have StarShips by now!

Too much credit is given to the CIA. The CIA clandestine service has been mostly a dismal failure over the last 50 years. Their few successes become legendary and the basis for assigning all-knowing-all-controlling status. They were unable to penetrate the upper levels of the Soviets, Chinese, or North Koreans, unlike the levels of success the KGB had against US and NK against SK and Japan. The service consists of mostly fake diplomats who attend cocktail parties, and pay slush funds to people claiming to have information, often which is of dubious quality. It is a shadow of it's pre-1970s self.

Any hand that the CIA would have in an Iranian coup would be more or less giving some money and intelligence to reformists (who are the popular ELECTED representatives of the country) and possibly some veiled threats to the military that a violent represession would bring about a US conventional attack, to stop the military from cracking down.

The nature of what's going in on Iran now is completely different than what happened in the 50s and 60s. The US isn't "installing" anyone, they are providing assistance to democratic movements just like NGOs who funnel money into grassroot groups.

For example, if the US carpet bombed North Korea with mini-satellite dishes and radios so every NK citizen could see what the outside world is like, and then if those people decides to revolt, do you really think this is the same as a direct CIA intervention where they send in paramilitary advisers, buy stinger missiles and ak-47s for people, and install a rushless "king" or dictator?

 

[pax]

Notice Im not saying that I dont think the cia should overthrow dictators. Its when they help to overthrow democratically elected govs who will face elections that we in the left get worried. And the reputation of the cia is suffice it to say less than stellar.

To call my 'tip of the iceberg' nut thinking is easy demo. Its just plain logic that secretive agencies try not to get noticed. You could argue they fail most of the time and you may be right. But you cant dismiss that logic out of hand.

As for millions protesting chavez sure if you keep counting the same locked out oil workers who were locked out by their employers to protest and for months couldnt get their jobs back as chavez had way more supporters than detractors. Typical pro chavez demonstrations were in the hundreds of thousands and anti chavez tens of thousands. But of course chavez is a controversial figure. He had the balls to build an infrastructure from health care to schools thoughout the country by upping the royalties on their national asset , oil, to a whopping 30%. But in doing that he took the country which was largely dead poor even tho a major oil producer for over 50 years, into the 20th century.

But of course we cant let democracy decide if that was good or not. We have to publically encourage military coups's in the guise of public protest to depose chavez.

Notwithstanding Venezuela needs more than just infrastructure for its living standards to survive as oil production slowly and inevitably wanes. Itll need to build a varied economy for a post oil Venezuelan economy... They have about 20 years to do it... But of course the middle class will not like either the transition nor the loss of income from that ever lowering production of oil. So Chavez's days may indeed be numbered.

So tho the Iranian issue dates from the 50s we still see similar behavior in recent years. This can only encourage the doubt many lefties have about the us admin and its various agencies such as the cia.

Edit cuz xmas got the way

 

[DemoCoder]

I hope your not getting your information from The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, a film "documentary" that was blantantly forged with phony editing in the tradition of Michael Moore. It is a propaganda film designed to portray Chavez as Robin Hood.

And it still has very little to do with the CIA. The principle people opposing Chavez were everyone in the establishment (e.g. everyone with money) CIA or no, a resistance was going to happen because of Chavez's radicalism. Chavez would like to scapegoat the CIA and blame the whole thing on a few spooks teaching surveillance classes, but the funding for the coup came from the wealthy of his own country. Which only goes to prove my point of overcrediting the CIA with coup execution, when in fact, the majority of the Chavez coup was locally designed and executed by those who stood to lose out on his radical socialist agenda.

But I see you've already bought into the Chavez mystique like the left has bought into Castro. As long as he builds some hospitals, that makes up for everything else. I suppose if Mugabe builds some schools and hospitals, he will one day be rehabilitated as a Robin Hood figure by some British filmmakers.

I'm all for democracy and not overthrowing democratically elected leaders, since presumably, if they are bad for the economy or country, they will be tossed out by a voter's coup instead of a military coup. But is a president who modifies his country's constitution less than one year into his term so he can serve up to a 12 year term really democratic? I see a person who is more interested in "locking in" himself, his revolution, and his party rule, rather than let it be up to the people to decide when to end it.

I have no problem with oil producing nations using oil money to clean up their cess pools. I don't want another Saudi Arabia, but there are less radical ways of doing it besides becoming a socialist pariah like Chavez is heading for (e.g. his belligerent behavior and rhetoric)

 

[Willmeister]

It's interesting how people bring up Mugabe. You should read up on him. He's definitely the by-product of Smith's uber-Apartheid Rhodesia. I applauded him from withdrawing from the Commonwealth actually. No one ever paid attention to the region when blacks were being screwed over, but, suddenly when history was catching up to the white population, THEN the Commonwealth decided to speak up. White landowners had DECADES to institute meaningful land-reform and never did (feature of all British-controlled regions, including Palestine). They continued to create a underclass and regularly rounded up blacks into 'protective villages' (we call them concentration camps). Rhodesia was as bad as Botha's South Africa but collapsed well before Apartheid became du jour.

The fact is, Mugabe is a hero to most of the population. Same as Castro because people still remember Smith or Battista first-hand. Same with Chavez...

It is a propaganda film designed to portray Chavez as Robin Hood.

Well, how is that any different from what people see on Fox or CNN?

 

[akira888]

The fact is, Mugabe is a hero to most of the population. Same as Castro because people still remember Smith or Battista first-hand. Same with Chavez...

Hitler was a hero to the Germans. Stalin was to the Russians. Kemal still is to the Turks.

So what does that tell us about these absolute monsters? Nothing.

Also, it doesn't neccessarily follow that a nation under harsh colonial rule will become a basket case state. Look at Armenia or Georgia. Both were held by the Turks for 500+ years, only to be "saved" by the Russians, whose rule was still oppresive (obviously). Yet look at them today, despite their terrible geostrategic position and horrible history they are the stars of the former CCCP, Baltics excepted. It's also kind of hard to blame external conditions for Chavez when many other similiar states in the region, except Colombia which is the fault of the fucking "drug war," are much more stable.

On the other hand you have Saudi Arabia which was never held under colonial rule after the days of Darius' Persian Empire - and it's an utter basket case of a society kept (barely) afloat by petrodollars.

 

[DemoCoder]

White landowners had DECADES to institute meaningful land-reform and never did (feature of all British-controlled regions, including Palestine). They continued to create a underclass and regularly rounded up blacks into 'protective villages' (we call them concentration camps). Rhodesia was as bad as Botha's South Africa but collapsed well before Apartheid became du jour.[

The fact is, Mugabe is a hero to most of the population. Same as Castro because people still remember Smith or Battista first-hand. Same with Chavez...

Rhodesia is not Zimbabwe, and the conditions in Zimbabwe right before the thugs grabbed the land were unlike those in Smith's time. And yet somehow Zimbabwe went from being the breadbasket of Africa and a net-exporter of food to a net-importer of food and the agriculture industry is in shambles now. Like all communist land grabs, looks good to the peasants, but property grabbers under the redistributionist banner are usually nothing more than thugs and prove inadequate to run the industries they are grabbing.

The Zimbabweans are far worse off now, proving once again how flawed redistributionism is, being a philosophy of thugs. And if he is an hero of the population, why did he have to beat up the opposition parties violently in elections. Wouldn't a hero of the population be easily reelected without needing to beat voters into submission?

All, how the left loves democracy until people start protesting Marxism's failures, and then it all becomes a CIA plot or the fault of someone else because it didn't work yet again, and anyone protesting is obviously a rich guy cause the commie's are the heros.

It is a propaganda film designed to portray Chavez as Robin Hood.

Well, how is that any different from what people see on Fox or CNN?

CNN and FOX usually don't have to creatively edit stock footage to make it appear to show something it doesn't. And if they do interpret some footage wrong, they get called on it. There is a difference between what Michael Moore does, for example (e.g. interview people, then splice up their words and splice in other video to make it appear they are talking about something they aren't) and what CNN and FOX do. At best, major media will selectively quote people who are defending themselves against accusations leaving out some of their explanations. But they don't rearrange footage and insert stock footage to outright lie.

 

[Willmeister]

Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in 1979 IIRC. Mugabe was first elected then too, again IIRC.

First, it was a net exporter of food because, like a lot of other third-world countries, preceedents were set for exporting, not for domestic sale. No one ever expects that a nation that exports food doesn't have famine problems; people mistakenly believe that these nations have their own house in order, so to speak. A lot of nations that suffered through continual famines in Africa usually produced enough to greatly avoid chronic famine, but sold internationally to raise hard currency to repay World Bank loans (or they grew 'cash' crops). And they were also hit when they had to suddenly compete with subsidized American and European products, which kept dropping the price down, which means they needed to export more for more currency, leading to more famine. But this didn't apply to Rhodesia. This was greed on the part of the institutional farmers who could get more money selling abroad then selling domestically, similar to the whole NEP issue here in Canada during the Trudeau years. This is the CLASSIC trap Africian governments have had to deal with and why suddenly Western leaders now speak of debt relief because debt is one of the reasons for widespread famine actually. People have started to catch on. It's become fashionable for 'leaders' to suddenly speak of this publicly. The only time actual famine makes the news is only when it's catastrophic; any other time it's just not out of the ordinary. Look at how people's attitudes changed when Ethiopia and Eritrea switched sides during the Cold War and how the West played favourites depending on which side they where on at the time...

The peoples of Rhodesia were often malnourished. Famine was never reported until it could be used as a 'gotcha' issue to use against Mugabe and friends. Zimbabwe also IMPORTED a lot too. You'd never know that Canada was a net producer of oil given our reliance on importe oil... same with Zimbabwe.

 

[Willmeister]

But they don't rearrange footage and insert stock footage to outright lie.

They barely do that anyway. All they do is regurgitate what some spokeman says, gets a few 'analysts', then splice in some sports scores.

They're the worst form of propagandists IMHO. They let these spokemen get off way too easily, as Lou Dobbs most recent interview with Colin Powell clearly showed.

 

[Willmeister]

On the other hand you have Saudi Arabia which was never held under colonial rule after the days of Darius' Persian Empire - and it's an utter basket case of a society kept (barely) afloat by petrodollars.

The Ottomans ruled over much of the Pennisula. They controlled Mecca and Medina. In fact, there is an old Ottoman fort overlooking Medina IIRC. One of the two anyway.

 

[pax]

Well no I dont think cia had much to do in the case of chavez. It was pretty obvious it was state dept supporting the old corrupt elites own coup attempt and it was publically done. I didnt feel the docu the revolution will not be televised portrayed chavez as a robin hood. It barely made mention of his reforms. It pretty much was a straightforward bit on the coup itself and not much else. I got most info through web and news articles.

Chavez has bad habits and I dont agree with everything hes said and done as he himself led a coup in the early 90's and he visited Iraq of all places in a show of support for saddam but his reforms are a good starting point to bring a better quality of life to the nation. It should have happened a long time ago tho. Im not sure he'll be successful. Oil production is dropping steadily in a country with little else. That he can be president for 12 years doesnt mean an election every 12 years... he's due up in 2006.

The other countries in the area are more stable as they arent experiencing economic decline akira. Yet those in surrounding countries are much poorer than the average venezuelan. People can take a lot of abuse as long as things dont get worse. Lower us incomes 10% over the next decade and there would be a lot of hell to pay even tho the average ameriacn would be immesely better off than many south american countries that are very stable for quite some time now. Heck Mexico was very stable for about 70 years until the economic unrest of the 80's te most mexicans were dead poor during all that time...

Front Line did a good docu on him...

 

[DemoCoder]

I can't believe the twisted logic you try to dance on Willmeister in order to maintain such a bogus worldview. UN and several other NGOs claim Mugabes land grab has left a large amount of farms in Zimbabwe idle and barren. Those taken over by his buddies switched to producing tobacco.

You try and act as if nothing changed and the land grab simply switched othership with no change on the well being of the economy. Fact the facts, the redistribution fucked up one of the best functioning agrarian economies in Africa.

 

[pax]

The land redictributyion was badly handled but it was inevitable. The poverty in the country was too stark. Had mugabe not done anything the large number of squatters were about to engage in large scale guerilla warfare... That the best lands were taken by white farmers originally made the situation tenous at best...

I dont think it was and is an easily solved situation...

 

[Willmeister]

I can't believe the twisted logic you try to dance on Willmeister in order to maintain such a bogus worldview. UN and several other NGOs claim Mugabes land grab has left a large amount of farms in Zimbabwe idle and barren. Those taken over by his buddies switched to producing tobacco.

You try and act as if nothing changed and the land grab simply switched othership with no change on the well being of the economy. Fact the facts, the redistribution fucked up one of the best functioning agrarian economies in Africa.

Did I somehow attempt to not blame Mugabe for some of it? Mugabe took a bad agricultural situation and made it worse. But it's unfair (not to mention dangerous) to dump all of Zimbabwe's famine problems at his feet either. All I was trying to point out is that people like Mugabe are inevitable if the situation is allowed to unfold. We see it over and over again. Mugabe inherited a bad situation, was a product of an environment that was created by his predecessors.

1) The largest Zimbabwean export pre-land grab was sugar, and
2) The next was tobacco.

Both were for EXPORT, not for domestic purposes; both are cash crops. Tobacco production has leapfrogged sugar since Mugabe took office, but again, sugar is not a subsistance crop like grain. I know this because Stiglitz used Zimbabwe as a good example of how many nations export at the expense of domestic concerns in order to pay off foreign debts (and how falling commodity prices have boinked them). Of course, you'll brush off Stiglitz as some left-wing crackpot as you usually do...

 

[Willmeister]

Had mugabe not done anything the large number of squatters were about to engage in large scale guerilla warfare.

Indeed, and this is something rarely covered by certain media networks, especially BBC World. I don't think I've ever heard an analyst or report mentioning this (not that they're reporting on Zimbabwe anyway). Makes one wonder just what else is not being reported in other countries around the world that will eventually become newsworthy after it's too late to head it off...

 

[akira888]

On the other hand you have Saudi Arabia which was never held under colonial rule after the days of Darius' Persian Empire - and it's an utter basket case of a society kept (barely) afloat by petrodollars.

The Ottomans ruled over much of the Pennisula. They controlled Mecca and Medina. In fact, there is an old Ottoman fort overlooking Medina IIRC. One of the two anyway.

False - there was an Ottoman garrison at Mecca and one at Medina. 90% of the peninsula was not under their control, and there's no real way it could have been. In fact, they often lost Mecca to the Sauds camped in the interior and had to use yeni ceri slave troops to regain it.

 

[pax]

I did catch that bit on BBC actually... some docu on BBC canada. Tho its true that the white farmers weer well organized and had a lot of support from many blacks who worked for them and lived in those areas the situation of other rhodesians was so dire and the disparities so great there was no way the white minority could expect the status quo whether mugabe stayed in power or not.

Mugabe did it badly but I doubt anyone could have taken that land away without serious probs from white farmers who wouldve balked at any land redistribution and done everything they could to stall a judicial or other legal process with radical squatters who wouldnt wait much longer for change of their situation. Especially since they had won the war as many were veterans but werent seeing any benefits from that victory.

Squatters had already invaded many farms and chased away whites before mugabe actually legitimzed their actions.

He was simply following on what was already going on in order to not become irrelevant in the eyes of much of his constituency.

It would have been preferable for both sides to accomodate but the playing field just didnt allow for delay nor were either side really willing to compromise...

As for chavez for all his faults his 'radical socialism', which it isnt really as venezeula is very much a typical largely privatised society along the lines of the west, is the best thing to happen to that country in 50 years. 'Free market capitalism' created vast poverty for 80% of the small population even tho oil exports should have made opportunities available to everyone long ago as the country had one of the worlds largest oil reserves with 15% of us imports.

His rhetoric may be radical but its pretty much normal he rose to power on popualr support considerign the abuse and rape of its oil wealth that country endured for much of the 20th century... a typical latin american syndrome and story.

I suspect that chavez laid a groundwork that will have to be followed on. Hes electrified the countryside and built roads throughout the country. Health and education and other basics cant be taken back without the risk of civil war. Any successor to chavez and theres a good chance hell be replaced in 2006 as the economy continues to naturally slowly degrade will have to keep things going even if they come from the old elites who run the main political groups in the country.

Truth is what chavez has done is pretty much bring his country up to the standards we expect and have in the US and other western countries... its not socialism at all... it is social democracy tho.

 

[DemoCoder]

Puh-lease pax, where do you get your facts? Brang the country up to western standards? Who fed you this pablum? So in a scant 5 years, something not even FDR's New Deal or Tennesse Vallery Authority was unable to do, you would have be believe he electrified and build roads to all the shanty towns and 85% of the population no longer lives in poverty? UN reports on Venezuela say that Chavez's "reforms" amount to virtually no change in the standard of living for the average citizen.

"Free market capitalism" did not create poverty in Venezuela. The people were already impoverished. The oil oligarchies just failed to lift everyone, but that's the fallacy of trying to base an entire economy on a single industry. If world oil prices collapse (as they did in the 90s), your oil export economy collapses.

Latin American societies need property rights, proper courts, titling, transparency, and to stamp out corruption. Nationalizing the oil companies just trades one set of corrupt officials for another, and just ties the government's social spending directly to the world price of oil. As as Russia and Iraq export more, Chavez's revenues will go down.

 

[pax]

Demo compared to what the country was before chavez came along yeah I can use the term western standards where we have access to education and health care that is really a luxury in most latin american states.

The reforms went a long way to try and bring the country up to speed and avoid a civil war that was looming.

I get my facts thru google and most press outlets like every one else.

BTW do you have any links to denounce the docu the rev will not be televised as its becomigng a bit of a broken record to denounce anything that has any hint of a progressive bias by claiming its distorting facts. Back up those claims as Ive never read any such nor can find anything on google. I can find plenty about chavez's reforms tho. Hes done a lot of good for all his bad rhetoric and many of the people down there loved him for it.

I dont see how else the economy of pre chavez venezuela couldnt be described as free market as the us gov certainly thought so and considered them a good ally at the time. So much so they sought the return of the oligarchs. That the corruption kept the economy under for so long didnt seem to faze many in DC or other western capitals.

That standard of living in terms of income isnt improving is obvious as Ive already stated why. But the fact is he did electrify the country and build roads and hospitals and provide schooling where there was none ni the first 2 years of his presidency met with great approval in his country and he was for a time very popular for it. These things alone cant raise incomes they are merely infrastructure. It will take years if not decades for the education system to produce the minds capable of earning more. He didnt go out and give checks he built the basics up so that people can earn by themselves and not expect a hand out from a ressource as we all know is on its way out.

Sounds pretty damn good to me as a policy. But corruption is the biggest issue. The old elites still basically own much of the economy. But doing that wont be easy. I put free market capitalism in brackets to showcase that such didnt exist it was sarcasm. But of course without a regulatory infrastructure such as the reforms we know are needed down there you cant have a level playing field.

But those arent enough chavez needed to rebuild the country and he went a long way to doing just that. Whether he wants regulatory reforms or can bring them about is another story.

 

[Sxotty]

Like all communist land grabs, looks good to the peasants, but property grabbers under the redistributionist banner are usually nothing more than thugs and prove inadequate to run the industries they are grabbing.

I think this is a byproduct of the fact that it is easier to convinve illiterate uneducated people in a mob to help you, than to do it in a logical manner.

For example, in the stated case the government could simply have either raised taxes and used the money to buy land, or they could have retained the owners as managers, but instead it was a grab land, kill owners, sell irrigations systems/tractors, and whatever else. Generally imo the quicker the gratification, the worse the solution.

 

[DemoCoder]

Try this, and read some of the comments of the 10,000 who have signed
http://www.petitiononline.com/gusano03/


Why don't you post some hard numbers as to what Chavez has done, for instance, with roads or power? You're trying to sell us this idea that he has spectacularly transformed the country, so how many KM of roads and power lines did he build (of projects that were not already being worked on and planned when he took power) and how does this compare as a percentage of the country?

I can't find anything (hard numbers) that allows one to decide if what has been done so far is anything more than a token effort.