Monday, November 05, 2007
Meet the New Boss, Worse Than the Old Boss
The followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini say anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000. Ouch, that's a lot, but is it accurate?
Well here is an answer from Iranians. For the period 1963 to 1979, 3,164 were killed by the Savak. Well, that's a lot less.
What about since the Shah was deposed in 1979 and the benevolent paradise of the Iranian Islamic Republic was established; how many of the Mullah's political enemies have been executed since then? Steven Hayward, in his book about the triumph of President Jimmy Carter's administration, The Real Jimmy Carter, says that more people were executed in Iran in the first year of Khomeini's rule than during the entirety of the Shah's Savak's harsh reign.
Here are some more figures. The Brit paper The Telegraph reports executions of Iranians merely for political party affiliation, in just the year 1988, which numbered over 30,000.
For the period prior to that, namely 1979 to 1986, Amnesty International recorded at least 6,500 executions. Since then, it is difficult to get reliable figures.
OK, reviewing the bidding--for the period 1963 to 1979 (16 years), under the Shah, 3,164.
For the period 1979 to 1989 (10 years), under Khomeini, at least 36,500.
Boy am I glad Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter helped get rid of the Shah, he was a bad human rights abuser.
It surprises me that someone who has a "this day in history" blurb every few days would be so in the dark about how key of an ally the Shah was to the US. We REALLY did everything possible to keep into power, including taking him into the US for medical treatment and selling him military equipment.
There is a reason why murders committed by Uncle Joe, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. is a complete non starter. The mere fact that one is a Democrat or that one opposes some of the Neoconservative policies exercised by the current administration does not mena that one endorses Communism, Socialism, or the excesses of the tyrants who were the practicioners of those failed ideologies.
Accordingly, given the failures of Neoconservative policy, I would suggest that perhaps the only political ideology that one should consider following is pragatism tempered by morality. I suppose that is hopelessly idealistic.
The reason I bring up the right-wing dictatorships is because of the America's implicit help in those murders. What Mao did, I don't have control over. But what my country does with my tax money concerns me.
Is that so hard to understand?
Also, your logic basically goes something like this: we have killed less than Stalin so Stalin is bad and we are good.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Even a kindergartener knows that.
Ok, did you do it? Seriously, read them.
Ok, now, honestly you wonder why we feel that you are suggesting that we, as "current liberals" are, in YOUR ESTIMATION somehow tied to Stalin?
Come on man. Don't play dumb, it doesn't become you.
As to the Truman Doctrine, the answer is ostensibly yes. However if you look at the economics, you will see another picture. But you don't look at economics.