Me too. This should be good.Originally Posted by Stu-6
US support for the Ayatollah? Supporting his rise to power? I am intrigued please elaborate.
I Am Intrigued Too...
Me too. This should be good.
Brzezinski mentioned it during an interview with a French reporter. Look it up yourself if it is so intriguing.
If you are going to utter purported statements of fact that go so strongly against the grain of established wisdom, then you should be able to back it up with some type of source. One good thing about these boards is that you are so easily able to hot-link sources and references into your discussion. If you simply make bald statements of opinion masquerading as fact, and refuse to back them up, you lose credibility.
ol' karl.com
You do the rest. I can't help you there.
There is nothing in your link regarding support to the Ayatollah. The focus of the piece you've provided is that US support for the Afghan mujahideen began prior to the Soviet intervention, in an effort to destabilize what we perceived as a Soviet client state. Not exactly an earth shattering revelation, of the nature of your original statement.
Of course, the source that you provided is heavily slanted in an obvious direction. For more detail, and a more neutral look at the unfolding of those events, I highly recommend the GWU National Security Archive, the premier free-to-the public source for FOIA releases:
Afghanistan: The Making of US Policy 1973-1990
...Weeks after the Herat uprising and while President Carter was absorbed by the Iran hostage crisis, Brzezinski pushed a decision through the Special Coordination Committee (SCC) of the National Security Council (NSC) to be, as he put it, "more sympathetic to those Afghans who were determined to preserve their country’s independence."
Although deliberately vague as to what this meant, the evidence indicates that Brzezinski called for moderate covert support for Afghan dissident groups which had set up headquarters in Pakistan. Some, such as forces under the command of Rabbani and Hekmatyar, had been operating out of Pakistan without much outside aid for years. According to a former Pakistani military official who was interviewed in 1988, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad had asked Pakistani military officials in April 1979 to recommend a rebel organization that would make the best use of U.S. aid. The following month, the Pakistani source claimed, he personally introduced a CIA official to Hekmatyar who, while more radically Islamic and anti-American than most Afghans, headed what the Pakistani government considered the most militant and organized rebel group, the Hizb-i Islami (Hekmatyar).
Freedom of Information Act requests for records describing these meetings have been denied. But CIA and State Department documents seized by Iranian students during the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, reveal that, starting in April 1979, eight months before the Soviet intervention and immediately following Brzezinski’s SCC decision, the United States had, in fact, begun quietly meeting rebel representatives. Although most of the cables and memoranda released to date show that U.S. officials politely turned down rebel requests for U.S. assistance, others reveal CIA support for anti-DRA demonstrations and close monitoring of Pakistani military aid for rebel parties based in Pakistan’s NWFP...
It was googled. Considering SWJ links the site in their library.....(note: the library of congress omits this interview in the French article)
Freedom of Information Act requests for records describing these meetings have been denied.
and most was burned before the embassy was seized....But CIA and State Department documents seized by Iranian students during the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, reveal that, starting in April 1979, eight months before the Soviet intervention and immediately following Brzezinski’s SCC decision, the United States had, in fact, begun quietly meeting rebel representatives.
If I were to link it to the enigma surrounding Desert One, that would be pretty far fetched, or would it not?
Last edited by GorTex6; 06-10-2006 at 08:58 AM.
...all your winking smilies and clipped comments aside, you are still begging the question. This was your original statement that the other members and I would like to see a reference for:
We also covertly supported the Ayatollah and assisted in his rise to power, destablizing the Soviet puppet in Kabul and luring the bear to invade Afghanistan.
All Points of View Welcomed Here...
But must be posted with a logical argument / theme based on the poster's point of view and backed with research and a logical and substantive text of explanation.It was googled. Considering SWJ links the site in their library.....(note: the library of congress omits this interview in the French article
and most was burned before the embassy was seized....
If I were to link it to the enigma surrounding Desert One, that would be pretty far fetched, or would it not?
Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of chasing down your one-liner "drive by" posts. It is a waste of my time and the limited resources we have here at the SWC.
Points of view are one thing - agendas are another. I refuse to let this board become your personal bitch-of-the-moment soapbox. I am posting this here on the forum only because I've had this discussion with you via PM several times in the past.
I am not going to argue this point any further. Get with the program or move on.
Last edited by SWJED; 06-10-2006 at 05:20 PM.
Gladly if you would be so kind as to give some details (what kind of support wa given, etc.) I will certianly try to find out what I can.
FOIA- As though the government will admit it.....
Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam , Robert Dreyfuss (Brzezinki/Iran in particular- pp 241, 251-256)
In an effort to thwart the spread of communism, the U.S. has supported--even organized and funded--Islamic fundamentalist groups, a policy that has come back to haunt post-cold war geopolitics. Drawing on archival sources and interviews with policymakers and foreign-service officials, Dreyfuss traces this ultimately misguided approach from support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1950s, the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, the ultraorthodox Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, and Hamas and Hezbollah to jihads in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. Fearful of the appeal of communism, the U.S. saw the rise of a religious Right as a counterbalance. Despite the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the declared U.S. war on terrorism in Iraq, Dreyfuss notes continued U.S. support for Iraq's Islamic Right. He cites parallels between the cultural forces that have promoted the religious Right in the U.S and the Middle East and notes that support from wealthy donors, the emergence of powerful figures, and politically convenient alliances have contributed to Middle Eastern hostilities toward the U.S. A well-researched and insightful book. Vanessa Bush
'Le Nouvel Observateur' (ie supported agents of the Ayatollah)
Last edited by GorTex6; 06-12-2006 at 12:33 AM.
Are you able to admit that you have no substantive source stating that the US provided support for Ayatollah Khomenei on his rise to power? (as you originally stated) You are going around in circles, implying content that doesn't exist in material that you link that is only peripherally related to the specific question to hand. You specify pages in a given book, yet you quote a book review. The 'Le Nouvel Observateur' interview you've referred to several times does not mention agents of the Ayatollah, as you state in your last post. Is it simply creative interpretation on your part?
You are still begging the question, and your personal credibility is at zero.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hanlon's Razor
This is an inteview about US support Mujahadeen in Afghanistan is it your opinion that the Mujahadeen were agents of the Ayatollah?
Iran, Iraq, and the United States
Just posted at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Insititute - Iran, Iraq, and the United States: The New Triangle's Impact on Sectarianism and the Nuclear Threat by Dr. Sherifa D. Zuhur.
This monograph considers the issues of Iranian influence in Iraq, and its impact on continuing sectarian violence there. It also questions the claims that a Shi'a crescent of power is solidifying by examining the distinct features of Iraqi versus Iranian Shi'ism and political Islam. Iran and Iraq have historically influenced and threatened each other. Today, the situation has been further complicated by the post-2003 change in the Iraqi Shi'a community’s status, Iran's development of a nuclear program, and international efforts to contain that program. These issues are now influenced by a new pattern of Iraqi-Iranian, U.S.-Iraqi and Iranian-U.S. dynamics. This new triangle of state relations must also be considered in light of Iraq and Iran’s neighbors.
Negotiate With Iran?
Yea, that's the ticket... 5 November AP:
Iran, whose president has described the Holocaust as a "myth," said Tuesday it will hold a conference to discuss the evidence of the World War II genocide.
The two-day conference scheduled for next week was initiated by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi said.
"The president simply asked whether an event called the Holocaust has actually taken place ... No rational response was ever given to Ahmadinejad's questions," Mohammadi said, explaining the reason for the conference....
Willful ignorance on the Holocaust
Anyone who says they have not seen a rational response considering the question of whether the holocaust took place has to be engaged in conscience avoidance of the facts and history. If that is so, what value is their word on any agreement?
I was having lunch the other day with an Iranian (where I work that is pretty much a given), and he said something that was interesting. When I asked how he would describe his nationalism he said "Persian". Talk about a different take on the entire cultural war. Whereas I had though of Iran being a cohesive nation state of Islamic fundamentalism here was somebody basically shattering that misconception. He put it into perspective of the religious fundamentalists in the United States taking over the government by force and forcing their agenda.
Last edited by selil; 12-07-2006 at 02:10 AM.
Call me paranoid, but if you consider the following.Iran, whose president has described the Holocaust as a "myth," said Tuesday it will hold a conference to discuss the evidence of the World War II genocide.
1) Above statement
2) Just a few days ago, he also said that soon israel would dissapear (or something along thoselines)
3) Repeated comments on the destruction of israel, palestine getting "all" their territories back (read israel).
Is it not reasonable to conclude that if they do not "find" any evidence, that they (Iran) will may take actions to recover those territories? Why else hold a conference, if not to take action on the findings.
Selil,
Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" had some interesting points about how many of the problems we have in dealing with Islamic cultures comes from their adherence to religious, cultural and tribal identities over national boundaries. We think of Iranians, Iraqis, Afghanis...they think of Shi'a, Sunni, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Persians, al-Sauds, Wahhabists, Hashemites, etc. It's just such a fragmented system that they follow that I wonder how anyone could have believed that Western democratization would be able to take hold as Bush was proposing.
Of course, the confusion is somewhat understandable since in the case of many of those countries (Afghanistan to name a prominent example) the people of the region weren't the ones who drew up national boundaries...Western nations were (as with the Durand Line, which the Pashtuns largely don't recognize). That's not really anyone's fault today, and certainly not Bush's of course, but it's something we should be aware of when engaging in that region with an eye towards reform.
If we can realize these issues, discuss them, and even come up with plans to operationalize them why can't it be enacted as foreign policy?
I know it sounds like sour grapes it just seems so trivial as a problem. Then I start thinking about. Unsolvable problems or unresolved imbalances are the preludes to war which is the instrument of nature balancing mans inadequacies.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks