Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.


Brent P wrote:
>
> The people of those countries are just trying to make some money and
> get some food on the table. IMO, if the environmentalists and labor
> unions really put their fundamental beliefs before politics there would
> be a huge outcry about the pollution and the total lack of worker
> protections in these countries. Instead there's a whimper now and then
> about jobs going overseas, protecting US jobs and which famous person
> has their signature line made in a sweat shop somewhere in the 3rd world.
> If there really was a desire to protect US jobs and the environment they
> would be pushing for laws that prevented the sale of products unless the
> production met set a standards. This way the workers would have a safe
> work environment, a clean environment, etc and so on.


There's the other side of that coin on which the local people are being
paid slave wages but resent idealistic U.S. college students protesting
the sweat shops, and the result being that the sweat shops close down
over the publicity and pressure, and instead of, say, a young girl
having a poor paying job in a sweat factory, she is now forced into
prostitution in order to live. I heard a program on NPR in which they
interviewed some of the angry foreigners about that while college
protests were going on in the U.S. (OK OK - I admit it - I sometimes
listen to NPR, or IPR or whatever they're calling themselves these
days).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.<<

>
>> Then why is it so hotly debated? <

>
>It is only "hotly debated" beccause the Leftists must have massive &
>continual revenue stream increases to fund their plans for ever increasing
>government & its attendant patronage. They must therefore attempt to fool
>the public into thinking "the rich" need to be taxed more & more. Any review
>of tax codes shows "the rich" turn out to be anyone making more than $50k a
>year, with the threshold creeping lower year on year.


I'm paying a smaller percentage of my income to tax now than when I made
$20k less.

So, the only thing that runs through my head at the people that whine about
the rich being over taxed is that they are lying or just plain stupid.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> And the majority of voting shares are controlled by the financial elite. <

>
>I suppose that's a problem, huh? The people who understand business and take
>the biggest risks shouldn't have a voice? BTW, I'm not of the "financial
>elite" but I get to vote on every holding I have. Every shareholder has that
>right.


I don't. I pay for a number of shared in Microsoft. About 100 shares or
so as a guess. But I don't have a vote. Why? Because, like many others,
I have mutual funds that are managed by others.

The amount of stock I do own directly is inconsequential, as it is for all
small investors. The majority of stock owned in large companies is owned
by large companies or people with more than $1,000,000 per year incomes.
Despite the claims to the contrary, the vast majority of voting stock is
controlled by the financial elite.

Yes, I vote what I own directly. But like all other non-elite, my votes
are inconsequential.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Steve Stone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >What is a liberal these daze ?
>> >

>> A "liberal" is anyone that thinks that corporations should be held liable
>> for their illegal actions. A "liberal" is someone that thinks that what a
>> person does in their own home alone or with consenting adults is only the
>> business of those present.

>
>Ohhh - please! Don't get me started!


Please start. I've never heard so many lies as a conservative describing
the "typical" liberal. I'm due for a good laugh.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals

>stand
>> >>>>for.<
>> >>>>
>> >>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the

>decisions for
>> >>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut

>up! They
>> >>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>> >>>
>> >>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>> >>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>> >>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and

>property.
>> >
>> >Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
>> >Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
>> >state taxes alone.

>>
>> I live in a state that has no income or sales taxes and pays over $1000

>per
>> year back to residents.
>>
>> But then, I live in the least populous state.

>
>The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no income tax but
>did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept your word on
>it./


Oops. Third least populous state. I guess I haven't looked at the
population numbers for a while.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 


Marc wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> "Steve Stone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >What is a liberal these daze ?
> >> >
> >> A "liberal" is anyone that thinks that corporations should be held liable
> >> for their illegal actions. A "liberal" is someone that thinks that what a
> >> person does in their own home alone or with consenting adults is only the
> >> business of those present.

> >
> >Ohhh - please! Don't get me started!

>
> Please start. I've never heard so many lies as a conservative describing
> the "typical" liberal. I'm due for a good laugh.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"


Nah - it would all be true, but I don't feel like getting into a p***ing
contest over it. All one has to do is observe with blinders off and
eyes wide open.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
> >> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything

liberals
> >stand
> >> >>>>for.<
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the

> >decisions for
> >> >>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut

> >up! They
> >> >>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
> >> >>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
> >> >>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and

> >property.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
> >> >Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
> >> >state taxes alone.
> >>
> >> I live in a state that has no income or sales taxes and pays over $1000

> >per
> >> year back to residents.
> >>
> >> But then, I live in the least populous state.

> >
> >The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no income tax

but
> >did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept your word on
> >it./

>
> Oops. Third least populous state. I guess I haven't looked at the
> population numbers for a while.


I suspected that from Matts post. No harm done.

>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"



 

>
> > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > is history.
> >

>
> You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history book
> you read, but it ranks with mythology.


This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
Iran.
See the book:
"All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471265179/qid=1068997504//ref
=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

This was talked about in National Public Radio.
You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.


Even so, these countries were never
> really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and anti
> communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not necessarily
> to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what

they
> are now.
>
> You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that

went
> bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US as
> arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the

right
> thing to fight Communism.
>


The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person than
to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat blacks
and other non-whites.


 

"Benjamin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
> > > is history.
> > >

> >
> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history

book
> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.

>
> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
> Iran.


First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
a democracy is a stretch beyond reason. Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
politics being what they were at the time.

The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
ignores the risks of doing so.

There weren't perfect choices to be had.

> See the book:
> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471265179/qid=1068997504//ref
> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>
> This was talked about in National Public Radio.


Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
having created the terrorist threat it is now fighting. What's your point?


> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>


Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
to the east).


> Even so, these countries were never
> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and

anti
> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not

necessarily
> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what

> they
> > are now.
> >
> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that

> went
> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US

as
> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the

> right
> > thing to fight Communism.
> >

>
> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person

than
> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat

blacks
> and other non-whites.
>


The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
wouldn't support the allies against the Nazis, so the British and the
Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
Shah.

Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
and be right.


 

>
> First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century

as
> a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.


Is a matter of degree. Guess America currently is not really a democracy
either. It is mainly governed by corporations who have the finance to buy
political influence.

Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> the government is wrong. It is true that the US supported the Monarchy

(the
> Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and

a
> Secularist.


The CIA tried once to overthrow Mossadeq, but the plan was discovered. They
tried the second time and succeeded. It was a direct intervention that
involved planning from both the CIA and the British. It sure does not sound
like just support for the Monarchy.

Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
> of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor

with
> the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because

it
> gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the

US).
> He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
> getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
> and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
> politics being what they were at the time.
>


I suspect nationalizing the oil industry is where he made the major mistake.
That means major corporations will loose their investments. The US does have
this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was not
communism. It is really totalitarianism.

> The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
> there. He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
> enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
> assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
> ignores the risks of doing so.
>


That is a weak argument to support a dictator. Hitler also brought the
Germans out of depression, and made them into a world power.

> There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
> > See the book:
> > "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East

Terror"
> >

>

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471265179/qid=1068997504//ref
> > =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> >
> > This was talked about in National Public Radio.

>
> Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the terrorist threat it is now fighting. What's your

point?
>


Love the line about how the terrorist are jealous of our wealth so they are
blowing themselves up. Bin Laden's family had more wealth than most American
will ever dream of having. George Bush did business with the family. Bin
Laden himself was a outcast of the family though. k ;l kk fffffggg p

> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,

and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >

>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade

routes
> to the east).
>
>
> > Even so, these countries were never
> > > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
> > > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and

> anti
> > > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not

> necessarily
> > > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves

as
> > > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into

what
> > they
> > > are now.
> > >
> > > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
> > > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance.

You
> > > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that

> > went
> > > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US

> as
> > > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the

> > right
> > > thing to fight Communism.
> > >

> >
> > The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would

turn
> > Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza

Shah
> > who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person

> than
> > to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
> > reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat

> blacks
> > and other non-whites.
> >

>
> The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
> war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
> wouldn't support the allies against the Nazis, so the British and the
> Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
> Shah.
>
> Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
> dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
> Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say

that
> and be right.
>
>



 
> Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the terrorist threat it is now fighting. What's your

point?
>
>
>
> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,

and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >

>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade

routes
> to the east).
>
>


So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect Country.
Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like Soviet
Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference between
teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues. Politics are
influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect the
decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to show
both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today are
going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city America
hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
builds up.
The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other than
that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries that
were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the terrorist are
just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
Just remember, we have until the terrorist gets their hands on a nuclear
weapon to solve this Middle East issue.

Ben



 


Benjamin Lee wrote:
> ...The US does have
> this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
> the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was not
> communism. It is really totalitarianism.


A form of gov't can be judged by how well it prevents (or tends to
prevent) those who would be despots from taking control, and how
resistant it is from evolving into totalitarianism. In that sense, yes,
communisim is/was the problem. It sure didn't take Stalin and Lenin
very long to "evolve" far from the "ideal".

So far our constitutional republic form of gov't has met the criteria
the best of any other form (I did not say it was perfect, just the best
so far).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Benjamin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >
>> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
>> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
>> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
>> > > is history.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history

>book
>> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.

>>
>> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
>> Iran.

>
>First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
>a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.



For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.

>Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>the government is wrong.



What would you call organizing a coup then?

>It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
>Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
>of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
>the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
>gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).



So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them to
help groups try to overthrow the US government?


>He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
>getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
>and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
>politics being what they were at the time.
>
>The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
>there.


And SAVAK really improved life there.


> He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
>enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
>assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
>ignores the risks of doing so.


Yeah, democracy is always a risk. Totalitarian regimes are so much easy to
control -- deal with a dictator, one person. No wonder the US supported them
in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Cuba, South Vietnam,
etc., and continues to support them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.

>
>There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
>> See the book:
>> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>>

>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471265179/qid=1068997504//ref
>> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> This was talked about in National Public Radio.

>
>Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
>(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
>having created the terrorist threat it is now fighting. What's your point?
>
>
>> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
>> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
>> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>>

>
>Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
>public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
>outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
>to the east).
>
>
>> Even so, these countries were never
>> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
>> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and

>anti
>> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not

>necessarily
>> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
>> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what

>> they
>> > are now.
>> >
>> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
>> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
>> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that

>> went
>> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US

>as
>> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the

>> right
>> > thing to fight Communism.
>> >

>>
>> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
>> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
>> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person

>than
>> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
>> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat

>blacks
>> and other non-whites.
>>

>
>The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
>war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
>wouldn't support the allies against the Nazis, so the British and the
>Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
>Shah.
>
>Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
>dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
>Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
>and be right.
>
>

 

"Benjamin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century

as
> > a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.

>
> Is a matter of degree. Guess America currently is not really a democracy
> either. It is mainly governed by corporations who have the finance to buy
> political influence.
>


Let's just say that in America, the voters are pandered to. They weren't so
much in Iran. With the constitutional monarchy, certain groups had power
and others didn't. The clergy were out of the loop with both Prime Minister
and the Shah. Now it's the other way around.

In the US, corporations have self interest to be sure. Nothing wrong with
that. Not everything they want is bad or evil either as the anti-globalists
would have you believe. Even Democrats know that, though you wouldn't think
that by listening to their rhetoric.

The left, Socialists and Communists, would have you believe the answer to
corporate power is to fight them; to create trade unions or tax them into
submission or outright take them over (nationalize them). I think a better
counterbalance is education. The uneducated poor are in a bad way
regardless of who has the economic power, the government or private
enterprise.


>
> > Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
> > of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor

with
> > the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets)

because it
> > gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the

US).
> > He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake

of
> > getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the

Shah
> > and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold

War
> > politics being what they were at the time.
> >

>
> I suspect nationalizing the oil industry is where he made the major

mistake.
> That means major corporations will loose their investments. The US does

have
> this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
> the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was

not
> communism. It is really totalitarianism.
>


You cannot dismiss the US side of the Cold War as a mere phobia or an
irrational fear. FromWWII to the 60's the USSR gained in military power to
the point that the US couldn't defeat them on the battlefield (Western
Europe) except to use nuclear weapons. The Soviets were so aggressive at
the time that our good friend Charles de Gaul pleaded with the US to promise
to use nukes as a first strike if the Soviets invaded Europe.

Communism doesn't work and can only persist by force. It stifles the
creation of wealth and in the end everyone is equally poor and miserable
except for a few connected to the party elite. The Soviets made no secret
of their intent to bring about revolution in the 3rd world: Southeast Asia,
Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and Africa. They made no
secret of their intent to retake West Berlin. Phobia not required to be
worried.


 
In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen wrote:

> The left, Socialists and Communists, would have you believe the answer to
> corporate power is to fight them; to create trade unions or tax them into
> submission or outright take them over (nationalize them). I think a better
> counterbalance is education. The uneducated poor are in a bad way
> regardless of who has the economic power, the government or private
> enterprise.


A critical mass of educated buyers of products most certainly can hold
corporations in check. They control the profits of the corporations,
so companies *HAVE* to listen or perish. A market forces arguement
really. The buyers demanding this or that.

The problem is that educated people are a threat to those who want
power. They are especially a threat to those who seek power by making
the populace dependent upon government. This is why the answer becomes
government control rather than educating people to stand on their own.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Benjamin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
> >> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
> >> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
> >> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when

they
> >> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the

US,
> >> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
> >> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory,

this
> >> > > is history.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> >> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history

> >book
> >> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
> >>
> >> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy

in
> >> Iran.

> >
> >First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century

as
> >a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.

>
>
> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>
> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> >the government is wrong.

>
>
> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>
> >It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
> >Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and

a
> >Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the

onset
> >of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor

with
> >the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because

it
> >gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the

US).
>
>
> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them

to
> help groups try to overthrow the US government?



Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.


 

"Benjamin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> > (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US

itself
> > having created the terrorist threat it is now fighting. What's your

> point?
> >
> >
> >
> > > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The

only
> > > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,

and
> > > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> > >

> >
> > Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin

in
> > public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> > outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade

> routes
> > to the east).
> >
> >

>
> So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect

Country.
> Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like

Soviet
> Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference

between
> teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues


Oh good heavens no. Education should be dispassionate and fair as much as
possible. It should not be afraid of making judgements, but to me, the US
is special in history and has been such a force for good in the world that
it stuns me that people can want to transform education of the US into a
long list of evil deeds.

The mistakes the US has made should be taught in context of the truth.
There is evil in the world. Tyranny and despotism is worth fighting and a
fight is never clean.

> Politics are
> influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
> corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect

the
> decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
> consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to

show
> both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today

are
> going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
> Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city

America
> hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
> someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
> builds up.


It works both ways. Why was there such a hatred and distrust of blacks?
Does anyone ever talk about that? It almost always starts with white racism
as a given.

> The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
> guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
> forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other

than
> that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries

that
> were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
> ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the terrorist are
> just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
> Just remember, we have until the terrorist gets their hands on a nuclear
> weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
>


You might be suprised to know that people like me believe that it was a
mistake for the Europeans to go into the world (colonialism) to exploit the
natural resources of Asia, Africa and America only looking after only
profits and power instead of the welfare of local populations.

But again, one HAS to remember the context of the time. Almost every place
the Europeans went, the local populations were barely, if at all, out of the
stone age. That mattered. There was also the political realities inside
Europe with wars and threats of war occuring. That mattered.

You can't just start with "whites are racist, therefore...", or "the
Europeans selfishly exploited their colonial subjects, therefore...".
Wrong? Mistakes? Sure, but people move on. The bad things we try to fix,
the good things we try to keep.

The middle east problem would be different or less without oil to be sure.
But the politics of the middle east are "as much" about the failure of
middle east countries in to develop their own selves. One reason Israel
came to be is that there was no prosperous Palestinian nation or culture.
The whole place was sleepy and backwards. Jews came for years and began to
use the land prosperously. The nomadic Arabs had no use for oil... at least
at the time. The power shifted to outsiders. Terrorism is about
re-acquiring power. They aren't lunatics, but they turn otherwise normal
people into suicide bombing lunatics. Islam and xenophobia is the hold on
the people, but if they were solely interested in Islam, in religion, there
wouldn't be this terrorism.

> Ben
>
>
>



 
In article <[email protected]>,
"FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Benjamin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> >> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> >> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> >> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when

>they
>> >> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the

>US,
>> >> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> >> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory,

>this
>> >> > > is history.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> >> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>> >book
>> >> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>> >>
>> >> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy

>in
>> >> Iran.
>> >
>> >First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century

>as
>> >a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.

>>
>>
>> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>>
>> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>> >the government is wrong.

>>
>>
>> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>>
>> >It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>> >Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and

>a
>> >Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the

>onset
>> >of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor

>with
>> >the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because

>it
>> >gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the

>US).
>>
>>
>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them

>to
>> help groups try to overthrow the US government?

>
>
>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>
>

At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
 
> >> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
> >> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history

book
> >> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
> >>
> >> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy

in
> >> Iran.

> >
> >First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century

as
> >a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.

>
>
> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>
> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
> >the government is wrong.

>
>
> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>


The British and US supported the shah over the PM. One of them was going to
prevail over the other. The Soviets were behind the other side. Cold war
politics for certain.


> >It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
> >Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and

a
> >Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the

onset
> >of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor

with
> >the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because

it
> >gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the

US).
>
>
> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them

to
> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>


They can try. Our enemies have been funding these groups for years. The
Chinese certainly did what they could to make sure Clinton was re-elected.

>
> >He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
> >getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
> >and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
> >politics being what they were at the time.
> >
> >The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
> >there.

>
> And SAVAK really improved life there.
>


The Soviet threat was bigger and badder than SAVAK. Again, cold war
politics. Would all be well in Iran had the Shah not been allowed to seize
power in 1952? I'll bet you think you know. Would the Soviets have left it
alone?


 

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ex7ub.225943$Fm2.227037@attbi_s04...
> In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen

wrote:
>
> > The left, Socialists and Communists, would have you believe the answer

to
> > corporate power is to fight them; to create trade unions or tax them

into
> > submission or outright take them over (nationalize them). I think a

better
> > counterbalance is education. The uneducated poor are in a bad way
> > regardless of who has the economic power, the government or private
> > enterprise.

>
> A critical mass of educated buyers of products most certainly can hold
> corporations in check. They control the profits of the corporations,
> so companies *HAVE* to listen or perish. A market forces arguement
> really. The buyers demanding this or that.
>
> The problem is that educated people are a threat to those who want
> power. They are especially a threat to those who seek power by making
> the populace dependent upon government. This is why the answer becomes
> government control rather than educating people to stand on their own.
>
>


Amen!


 
Back
Top