Russia and Syria

inimalist

It is a really weird situation for sure. I think the US-Bahrain relationship might be a good analogy though, only, there is no "Iran" equivalent in the region for Russia...

However, just doing some quick Google and Wiki searches, it looks like the Syrian base (though not large enough to accommodate aircraft carriers) is the only major Russian base in the Mediterranean. Given the closeness to the Caucuses, like Ossetia, the Russians may see it as a strategic location to prevent further NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.

As cynical as it sounds, I really don't think Russia is going to have to dig in too hard. The Qatari seem to be the only people really pushing for intervention, even the rest of the GCC and Arab League seem ready to leave Syria to itself (Qatar and Saudi Arabia have had a major rift over this issue, and Iraq will soon replace Qatar as the head of the Arab League, and they, obviously, are not too keen on foreign intervention). The strategic importance of Syria is negligible, especially considering the Iranian influence. The Syrian air-force is really not doing anything, so the guise of a no-fly zone isn't possible here, and ground troops in Syria will spark a proxy battle between the intervention force and Iran, probably as disastrous as what occurred in Iraq, likely drawing Hezbollah and Israel into another conflict. Like I said, I might be cynical here, but Russia's position is almost giving the Americans and NATO cover to say things like "gee, we'd love to help, but those damn Russians...", because we all know NATO is very careful to follow the will of the international community.

itsWanguCunt

Russia and Syria. great nations. Russia is colder than Syria!

Omega Vision

I'd advocate the creation of buffer zones within Syria by the Turkish military on the Turkish-Syrian border.

All the bullshit about Syria's sovereignty aside, the situation is very much an issue of national security for Turkey as Syria's handling of the uprising is creating a humanitarian disaster on the border.

If it goes on for much longer and the situation gets worse and (and I think this is inevitable) Syria starts to support the Kurdish insurgents in Turkey to spite Turkey then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Turkey deciding that Assad needs to be toppled. The International Community and plenty of Syrians would probably give them a medal for it.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes, the Russians have a point. Russia failed to stop the barbaric attack on Libya, and thus they have decided to grow a spine and stop intervention in Syria.

Well...glossing over your...interesting view on the Libya situation, Russia has already admitted that they wouldn't be able to stop intervention if it happened, just that they won't support a UN sanctioned attack.

But back to your view...do you really honestly believe that Assad should keep power? And if so, why? Is it because you fear the alternative?

And while I'll admit that NATO way overstepped the bounds of their UN mandate I don't see how you could say they were being "barbaric". Opportunistic and at times careless, yes, but barbaric?

You sound like a Qadaffi propagandist.

Bentley

Yeah, half Europe is sort of happy that Russia is vetoing any attack, it gives the perfect excuse.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You sound like a Qadaffi propagandist. Incidentally, Gadhafi's daughter is quite the little b*tch...

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd advocate the creation of buffer zones within Syria by the Turkish military on the Turkish-Syrian border.

All the bullshit about Syria's sovereignty aside, the situation is very much an issue of national security for Turkey as Syria's handling of the uprising is creating a humanitarian disaster on the border.

If it goes on for much longer and the situation gets worse and (and I think this is inevitable) Syria starts to support the Kurdish insurgents in Turkey to spite Turkey then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Turkey deciding that Assad needs to be toppled. The International Community and plenty of Syrians would probably give them a medal for it.

Well...glossing over your...interesting view on the Libya situation, Russia has already admitted that they wouldn't be able to stop intervention if it happened, just that they won't support a UN sanctioned attack.

But back to your view...do you really honestly believe that Assad should keep power? And if so, why? Is it because you fear the alternative?

And while I'll admit that NATO way overstepped the bounds of their UN mandate I don't see how you could say they were being "barbaric". Opportunistic and at times careless, yes, but barbaric?

You sound like a Qadaffi propagandist.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Incidentally, Gadhafi's daughter is quite the little b*tch...

Well here's the deal.

When NATO starts bombing any country for any reason, everyone immediately turns into an expert on that particular country and/or region - Wikipedia helps this process a lot coupled with BBC and CNN.

So,

Yes, Assad should be kept in power. He has, as much as humanly possible, kept the rabid Mullahs and Ayatollahs away from the government. As strange as this will sound to you and as bizarre as this is going to sound in the face of CNN propaganda pictures, majority of Syrians in fact support al-Assad.
Those who are opposed are (shocker!!) NGO foreign-government funded groups just as it has been the case in Libya.

And yes, I am a Gaddafi supporter too and I think current situation in Libya will demonstrate the most obvious reason why.
As we all know (from history and such), Libya is in fact a lot more tribal region than other Middle Eastern countries- Gaddafi has managed to unite these tribes under one Libya and has governed successfully thus far, providing his people with one of the best living conditions in Africa.
While Gaddafi was in power, health, education and housing were either totally free or subsidised and Shari'a free. Now, under ''new Libya'' what was the first thing rebels declared? Shari'a law. Oil will be sold, no free or subsidised housing or food or school. Furthermore, all the tribes that were once Libyans will now return to being tribes once again as majority of Libyans do not, in fact support the rebels and the country is slowly, but surely going to hell.

Now, why was Gaddafi all of a sudden an enemy after being so good for so long? Well, rich Libyan oil fields (now hear me out) made Libya quite rich (cha-chiiing! Gaddafi, too!), so Gaddafi, underestimating the desperation of the West proposed a gold standard. What is gold standard? Well, they'll no longer trade in US dollars, instead, they'll trade in gold. A gold dinar. (bliiing!)
This way, the oil rich countries (which would be much of the Middle East) and the entire Africa would benefit immensely from trading in gold, and not money. HOLD IT! Who can actually afford this to happen? The answer is - nobody, except, of course the Africans and the Middle Easterners. (possibly the Chinese, because, well, the Chinese are, were and always will be in some ways awesomer than anyone else on the planet. Forever.)

So, was Gaddafi riding a unicorn through a candy field with rainbows shooting out of his ass? The answer is no, he wasn't. But he wasn't a mass murderer as Western propaganda would have us believe. It isn't black and white and as long as people keep viewing it as this it will become pointless.
As for barbaric - yes it was. They bombed civilians and cities. Hilary Clinton then laughed on TV at the atrocious death of Gaddafi (if you ask me, he's still alive, oooh yeah!) which was perpetrated by those who were in fact funded by the West.

In conclusion,

Hang in there al-Assad!

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Now, under ''new Libya'' what was the first thing rebels declared? Shari'a law.

That is literally as far from reality as you could possibly have gotten without adding dragons to the story. People who were protesting the Transitional Government demanded that they institute Shari'a law.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/21/189534.html

Omega Vision

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well here's the deal.

When NATO starts bombing any country for any reason, everyone immediately turns into an expert on that particular country and/or region - Wikipedia helps this process a lot coupled with BBC and CNN.

So,

Yes, Assad should be kept in power. He has, as much as humanly possible, kept the rabid Mullahs and Ayatollahs away from the government. As strange as this will sound to you and as bizarre as this is going to sound in the face of CNN propaganda pictures, majority of Syrians in fact support al-Assad.
Those who are opposed are (shocker!!) NGO foreign-government funded groups just as it has been the case in Libya.

What the Hell are you talking about? It's a case of minority rule, the Alawite Sect is oppressing the Sunni majority.

And Libya could have fooled me...what with Qadaffi's support falling out from under him the very instant that rebels reached the outskirts of Tripoli.

I don't actually think Qadaffi was evil, but that's because I don't believe in the concept of evil as a real quality.

I think he was crazy.

You know what he also did? He intentionally gimped his military so it couldn't turn on him, even Stalin trusted his own people more than that. It didn't work out that well and only managed to draw out the suffering of the Libyan people.

Do I think that Libya is in a better place than it was with Qadaffi? No actually, I don't.

But do I think it's future is more hopeful? Yes, yes I do.

And please, would you tell me where you get your news from? You seem to disdain anything that's Western as automatically biased and bankrupt.

Is it from China's state run media?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is literally as far from reality as you could possibly have gotten without adding dragons to the story. People who were protesting the Transitional Government demanded that they institute Shari'a law.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/21/189534.html
I give her one more post tops before she slinks off like last time.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is literally as far from reality as you could possibly have gotten without adding dragons to the story. People who were protesting the Transitional Government demanded that they institute Shari'a law.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/21/189534.html

Did you just google that quickly now? Or did you follow the entire Libyan conflict?

Rebels declared Shari'a will be instituted, transitional government declared so, as in, Mustafa Abdel Jalil himself, all the way back in October last year.
This deceleration has been made after Gaddafi was murdered. Read the entire text you presented to me, not just the first two lines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8844819/Libyas-liberation-interim-ruler-unveils-more-radical-than-expected-plans-for-Islamic-law.html

Omega Vision

Just curious...but why exactly is a brutal secular dictatorship better than a brutal religious dictatorship?

Because that seems to be what your view is on why Assad should stay in power and if so you'd probably have been a supporter of the Shah of Iran as well.

Or do you just like anyone who's Anti-American?

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Just curious...but why exactly is a brutal secular dictatorship better than a brutal religious dictatorship?

Because that seems to be what your view is on why Assad should stay in power and if so you'd probably have been a supporter of the Shah of Iran as well.

Or do you just like anyone who's Anti-American?

If theocratic dictatorship is somehow by even a nuance better then 'secular dictatorship', then Iran now is better than Libya under Gaddafi.

Gadafi wasn't secular at all, and neither was Libya. Libya was and is Muslim and Gaddafi was also Muslim and a proud one. You should, know that Muammar Gaddafi was known as the 'Imam of the Muslims'.
However, he was also a leader and did not want ridiculous theocratic rules to be bases for his government.
When he came to power he executed religious extremists in his country and has kept the Islamists pretty repressed. He did not tolerate al-quaida operations in his country.
Maybe that alone saved few Libyan and American/European lives.

Shari'a is the worst form of government where women are treated as well as domestic animals are, where Jews and Christians are subjected to humiliating 4th class citizenship, where other non-Muslims are either killed of forcefully converted and where countries become a breeding ground for terrorists and rabid Muslim leaders.

What exactly has improved in Libya after Gaddafi? It is now tribal, poor, extremely divided and headed by Al-quaida.
Anyone who sees this Libya better than the one under Gaddafi is either new to planet Earth or totally ignorant.

Also, I am not anti American. There are countless American politicians, academics and people in general who are smart, alert and absolutely aware of everything that's going on. Those who are not aware simply aren't because it does not interest them, since they have many problems in their own lives, but they don't come on raido or TV and pretend they know everything.
And I respect this very much.

American government system, however, is corrupted to the core. Rotten.
Yet, ironically, they go around invading and 'fixing' other countries.

USA should invade the USA and win the hearts and minds of the American people by rebuilding the country and giving jobs and liberation to the residents there.

Thing's aren't simple nor are they black and white. Simplifying it is just frustrating...

Omega Vision

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If theocratic dictatorship is somehow by even a nuance better then 'secular dictatorship', then Iran now is better than Libya under Gaddafi.

Gadafi wasn't secular at all, and neither was Libya. Libya was and is Muslim and Gaddafi was also Muslim and a proud one. You should, know that Muammar Gaddafi was known as the 'Imam of the Muslims'.

Lol and who gave him that title?

He kept religious extremists in check because they threatened his rule. When it suited him he played the part of a devout Muslim and when it didn't he played the part of a secular ruler. Every reporter who's ever interviewed him commented on how Qadaffi changed personalities and personas as he changed his costumes. He was like Murdock from the A-Team only in control of an entire country.

Any form of government that subjugates its own people and forces them into crystallized roles is horrible. In the case of Syria you have the Alawite minority essentially running the show while the Sunni majority is almost a Plebian caste.

Al Quaeda? Seriously? You're spouting nonsense.

And good to see you IGNORED my first post completely. I admitted that Libya is in a poorer state now than two years ago in terms of the people's living conditions, but that's the case with ANY civil war.

And what about this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/30/libya-maid-of-colonel-gaddafi-s-daughter-in-law-tortured-with-boiling-water-115875-23382040/

Try to whitewash that. Go ahead. Say it never happened. Say she was asking for it. Say that there's some excuse for that.

Really, I want to laugh today. Go for it.

As they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. No good leader breeds that kind of repugnant cruelty in his own children. Only a corrupt leader who's only interested in his own power and believes that Might makes Right Absolutely instills those kinds of values.

No they're not simple, but you also can't simply excuse a man for killing thousands of his own people just because the alternative to him ruling might be worse.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If theocratic dictatorship is somehow by even a nuance better then 'secular dictatorship', then Iran now is better than Libya under Gaddafi.

Gadafi wasn't secular at all, and neither was Libya. Libya was and is Muslim and Gaddafi was also Muslim and a proud one. You should, know that Muammar Gaddafi was known as the 'Imam of the Muslims'.
However, he was also a leader and did not want ridiculous theocratic rules to be bases for his government.
When he came to power he executed religious extremists in his country and has kept the Islamists pretty repressed. He did not tolerate al-quaida operations in his country.
Maybe that alone saved few Libyan and American/European lives.

Shari'a is the worst form of government where women are treated as well as domestic animals are, where Jews and Christians are subjected to humiliating 4th class citizenship, where other non-Muslims are either killed of forcefully converted and where countries become a breeding ground for terrorists and rabid Muslim leaders.

What exactly has improved in Libya after Gaddafi? It is now tribal, poor, extremely divided and headed by Al-quaida.
Anyone who sees this Libya better than the one under Gaddafi is either new to planet Earth or totally ignorant.

Also, I am not anti American. There are countless American politicians, academics and people in general who are smart, alert and absolutely aware of everything that's going on. Those who are not aware simply aren't because it does not interest them, since they have many problems in their own lives, but they don't come on raido or TV and pretend they know everything.
And I respect this very much.

American government system, however, is corrupted to the core. Rotten.
Yet, ironically, they go around invading and 'fixing' other countries.

USA should invade the USA and win the hearts and minds of the American people by rebuilding the country and giving jobs and liberation to the residents there.

Thing's aren't simple nor are they black and white. Simplifying it is just frustrating... I would figure that, as a female, you'd argue more against killing, and brutality, and corruption as a whole, without regard to specifics or preferences. But it's refreshing to hear you effectively support killing and oppression, so long as it maintains order.

Very refreshing.

Omega Vision

She reminds me of the government from V for Vendetta.

Something for her to finger herself to:
Iu_30-8ZlmQ
131

Edit: Looks like China and Russia vetoed it again. Not really surprising.

Guess now its either leave it be, go in without UN approval, or wait for Turkey to get fed up. At this point I'm not sure there is a right thing to do. Ambiguous ethics ftw.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I would figure that, as a female, you'd argue more against killing, and brutality, and corruption as a whole, without regard to specifics or preferences. But it's refreshing to hear you effectively support killing and oppression, so long as it maintains order.

Very refreshing.

As opposed to, as a male, I'd be all for brutality regardless?

Interesting.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As opposed to, as a male, I'd be all for brutality regardless?

Interesting.
Yeah there was an unfortunate implication to what he said, but he did raise a good point.

Namely that you're okay with brutal repression so long as the people have running water and electricity and there's no Sharia Law.

Lucius

"Hang in there Assad!"

Really? Really, really? That sounds so absurd coming out of my mouth when I say it outloud . . . the man is a ruthless and murderous tyrant. What fantasy land do you live in?

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As opposed to, as a male, I'd be all for brutality regardless?

Interesting. As a stereotype you'd be all about feelings and emotion, not logic and critical thinking. Since you're not, I like the cut of your jib. Brutality, killing, oppression, tyranny is all okay, so long as nothing better is foreseeable. You're playing in to my stereotype, which is unusual for a girl.

Omega Vision

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He kept religious extremists in check because they threatened his rule. When it suited him he played the part of a devout Muslim and when it didn't he played the part of a secular ruler. Every reporter who's ever interviewed him commented on how Qadaffi changed personalities and personas as he changed his costumes. He was like Murdock from the A-Team only in control of an entire country.

Please state the sources of at least few of 'every reporter who's ever interviewed him''.
I'd really like to see this.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Al Quaeda? Seriously? You're spouting nonsense.

Actually, it's you that's spouting nonsense as you're totally ignorant of the entire situation.
you tend to google bits and pieces which you think would counter my argument, when in fact, as far as conflicts in the middle east are concerned you are clueless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/us-libya-usa-intelligence-idUSTRE72S43P20110329

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And good to see you IGNORED my first post completely. I admitted that Libya is in a poorer state now than two years ago in terms of the people's living conditions, but that's the case with ANY civil war.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And what about this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/30/libya-maid-of-colonel-gaddafi-s-daughter-in-law-tortured-with-boiling-water-115875-23382040/

Try to whitewash that. Go ahead. Say it never happened. Say she was asking for it. Say that there's some excuse for that.

Really, I want to laugh today. Go for it.

As they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. No good leader breeds that kind of repugnant cruelty in his own children. Only a corrupt leader who's only interested in his own power and believes that Might makes Right Absolutely instills those kinds of values.

What can I say about that - It's terrible and barbaric.

I also thing it's interesting you're bringing up unrelated story about Gaddafi's children to support your argument how barbaric NATO strikes were good for Libya.

I have nothing to whitewash there - awful, terrible people doing awful terrible stuff.
But I guess NATO killing Gaddafi's son and his three children by bombing their home, is humanitarian.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570

But please, do explain to me, how the merciful NATO's actions against Gaddafi's son and his three children was good. Please, please, do tell me about it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
No they're not simple, but you also can't simply excuse a man for killing thousands of his own people just because the alternative to him ruling might be worse.

No, I am not making excuses for anybody - but I am a Gaddafi supporter.
Apart from having an all around aggressive and baiting tone because you indeed have no better argument, it is wise to reflect on your own leaders who committed atrocities against numerous populations around the world.
Gaddafi would have to have done a lot more killing in order to catch up with NATO and US death toll.

But that doesn't matter, right? American massacres are humanitarian.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
As a stereotype you'd be all about feelings and emotion, not logic and critical thinking. Since you're not, I like the cut of your jib. Brutality, killing, oppression, tyranny is all okay, so long as nothing better is foreseeable. You're playing in to my stereotype, which is unusual for a girl.

So it is.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, I am not making excuses for anybody - but I am a Gaddafi supporter.
Apart from having an all around aggressive and baiting tone because you indeed have no better argument, it is wise to reflect on your own leaders who committed atrocities against numerous populations around the world.
Gaddafi would have to have done a lot more killing in order to catch up with NATO and US death toll.

But that doesn't matter, right? American massacres are humanitarian.

I'm not really following your thought process here. Why is it good when Gaddafi murders huge numbers people in the name of stability, human rights, and preventing even more severe campaigns of violence but bad when NATO does the same thing? Like, you seem to be falling into exactly the same fallacy you accuse OV of.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not really following your thought process here. Why is it good when Gaddafi murders huge numbers people in the name of stability, human rights, and preventing even more severe campaigns of violence but bad when NATO does the same thing? Like, you seem to be falling into exactly the same fallacy you accuse OV of.

It isn't. Both sides are wrong. The problem is the thought process which claims that NATO is NEVER wrong.

Even if someone is to suggest that NATO are wrong in a particular case and that their actions are wrong, it can't possibly be true, as they're the ''good'' guys and everyone they oppose MUST be dictators (regardless if they are, or they aren't).

I support Gaddafi over rebels. He has indeed proven to have been better for majority of Libyans than the rebels thus far.I don't think he should rule the world or that he's a model leader (far from it, he isn't) but due to absolutism that seems reign around here when it comes to NATO wars, I get sucked into a debate that appears as such.

EDIT: In fact, I let myself get sucked into it...when really I shouldn't.

inimalist

so you essentially take a position against every revolution ever?

Omega Vision

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Please state the sources of at least few of 'every reporter who's ever interviewed him''.
I'd really like to see this.

Obviously it was a hyperbolic statement.

That translates to Al-Qaeda "running" Libya?

Interesting take. Very interesting. I would say you just did exactly what you accuse me of doing.

How is that unrelated? You honestly think a man who lets his kids use their power to treat people like that should have stayed in power?

You seem to be of the view that I think NATO is humanitarian. I have no such illusions. NATO is a ruthless military organization just like any other. But most of the time they take out the right ones and at the very least try for precision when they bomb people.

Really now? You could have fooled me. "If it weren't for Assad Sharia!" "Qadaffi increased the HDI of Libya a lot, who cares if he killed lots of people and suppressed democracy!"

And your tone is passive aggressive to an extreme.

If Qadaffi's military was operating on a global scale and had the capabilities of NATO...good lord I don't even want to think about it.

I never said that. When I heard that those American soldiers were getting let off after murdering innocent Iraqis I felt ashamed to be an American.

But I can't ever imagine being a supporter of someone like Qadaffi or Al-Assad.

Originally posted by inimalist
so you essentially take a position against every revolution ever?
She seems to take a position against NATO which means she's a supporter of anyone they attack regardless of how awful said second party is.

Isn't that what Nietzsche called Slave Morality, or am I getting that wrong? Been a while since I've read that old bastard.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It isn't. Both sides are wrong. The problem is the thought process which claims that NATO is NEVER wrong.

NATO is often wrong. They are also often the better alternative.

Like with most military and law enforcement agencies my primary issue with them is not that they do bad thing, no group avoids that, it's more that they subsequently get away

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I support Gaddafi over rebels. He has indeed proven to have been better for majority of Libyans than the rebels thus far.I don't think he should rule the world or that he's a model leader (far from it, he isn't) but due to absolutism that seems reign around here when it comes to NATO wars, I get sucked into a debate that appears as such.

But the new government hasn't done very much yet. The country is still reeling from a Civil War. It took the US four years to even get a Constitution made and it wasn't until four years after that, that the country enshrined a variety of important human rights in law (or perhaps they never did at all if you listen people like Ron Paul).

Your entire problem with Sharia seems to come from the delusion that it means the same thing to you as it does to everyone else. The fact that in 2012, after the constitution mentioned Sharia in the vaguest possible way (but, yes, that was my error they do talk about it), there were people trying to kill the head of the government for not instituting Sharia properly should be evidence against that.

Or we can delve straight into the text of their Constitution with guarantees both religious freedom for non-Muslims and full political and economic rights for female citizens. Again, though, the document isn't very specific. There's a lot of room to take it in any direction.

Omega Vision

This is like an Empire vs Stormcloaks debate IRL.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by inimalist
so you essentially take a position against every revolution ever?

Not really. I support revolution done by the people of the country alone, not prompted by the NGOs of other random countries for reasons other than freedom of opression.

I can't image NATO helping Middle East to liberate them, because in order to do that, Saudi family should be removed first and foremost, as they are the worst violators of human dignities and rights and freedoms and main exporter of religious fundamentalism and terrorism. That then gets spilt over everywhere else in the Middle East and West.

Seriously, the day that NATO announces that they will be putting their efforts to fight the Al Shabab for example, will be the day I stop doubting NATO efforts in the Middle East and Africa.

SamZED

Originally posted by Lucius
"Hang in there Assad!"

Really? Really, really? That sounds so absurd coming out of my mouth when I say it outloud . . . the man is a ruthless and murderous tyrant. What fantasy land do you live in? Just talked to my friends from Damascuss on skype. They're sunni. Their entire block is throwing a party and blessing Russia and China. My other friends left Syria few days ago forever. Not because they're affraid of the old mean Assad, but because they're affraid of where the country is headed with the revolution. I used to visit them from time to time. They weren't opressed nor murdered. In fact their life was pretty good there, at some point I seriously concidered moving in for awhile. I have no illusions about Assad being a noble leader. He's a dictator, but he really did do a lot for the country. Media is blowing everything out of proportion. The majority really DOES support Assad. The minority (rebellions) suffer from Assad's troops but even more often get their asses kicked by Assad's supporters who are ordinary citizens who dont want their country turning into a hell hole for the sake of fitting in the modern democratic world.

Omega Vision

@Sam, I'm fairly certain the majority of any country will support stability, that doesn't mean that the majority would be sad to see Assad go so much as worried about the future. And that's all assuming the majority really do support Al-Assad. I've heard too many conflicting reports to think it's as cut and dry as that. Or conversely that he's without supporters, that's also unrealistic.

A question I've never been able to answer to myself is this: would you rather the world burn or be enslaved?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really. I support revolution done by the people of the country alone, not prompted by the NGOs of other random countries for reasons other than freedom of opression.

I can't image NATO helping Middle East to liberate them, because in order to do that, Saudi family should be removed first and foremost, as they are the worst violators of human dignities and rights and freedoms and main exporter of religious fundamentalism and terrorism. That then gets spilt over everywhere else in the Middle East and West.

Seriously, the day that NATO announces that they will be putting their efforts to fight the Al Shabab for example, will be the day I stop doubting NATO efforts in the Middle East and Africa.
I agree with this, the Saudis are the worst example of hypocrisy in western politics, even worse than the one sided support for Israel.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
NATO is often wrong. They are also often the better alternative.

Like with most military and law enforcement agencies my primary issue with them is not that they do bad thing, no group avoids that, it's more that they subsequently get away

But the new government hasn't done very much yet. The country is still reeling from a Civil War. It took the US four years to even get a Constitution made and it wasn't until four years after that, that the country enshrined a variety of important human rights in law (or perhaps they never did at all if you listen people like Ron Paul).

Your entire problem with Sharia seems to come from the delusion that it means the same thing to you as it does to everyone else. The fact that in 2012, after the constitution mentioned Sharia in the vaguest possible way (but, yes, that was my error they do talk about it), there were people trying to kill the head of the government for not instituting Sharia properly should be evidence against that.

Or we can delve straight into the text of their Constitution with guarantees both religious freedom for non-Muslims and full political and economic rights for female citizens. Again, though, the document isn't very specific. There's a lot of room to take it in any direction.

You see, I don't believe they're the better alternative in many situations, as they're rarely where they're supposed to be (in terms or location/areas/countries and such).

Once the whole Russian cold war fiasco ended, NATO lost its actual purpose.

It has always seemed strange to me, that an organisation which had in fact done what it was originally meant to do, found a way to keep itself in the existence through random wars of aggression which were explained as a humanitarian intervention (every single time).
This has greatly impacted how I viewed NATO and their actions had not helped that (overall).

As for the new government - Shari'a law is not in line with democracy in any shape or form nor any sort of freedom. It is, as it's already been mentioned a theocratic dictatorship of the worst kind.
The problem here is that while we can point fingers at a particular dictator for doing disgusting thing, it becomes a lot more difficult to do so when the reasoning for such behaviour is ''God told us so''.

Also, because Libya is so tribal and divided amongst ethnic (but mostly tribal) lines, it's going to be (dare I say it) virtually impossible to put everyone together under one Libya. Gaddafi supporters are still strong, as I understand, and that won't go away...maybe for a really long time. Maybe....speculation here.
This is perhaps one thing that makes Libya a bit more different than other countries (such as Egypt for example).

SamZED

Originally posted by Omega Vision
@Sam, I'm fairly certain the majority of any country will support stability, that doesn't mean that the majority would be sad to see Assad go so much as worried about the future. And that's all assuming the majority really do support Al-Assad. I've heard too many conflicting reports to think it's as cut and dry as that. Or conversely that he's without supporters, that's also unrealistic.

A question I've never been able to answer to myself is this: would you rather the world burn or be enslaved?
People wouldn't go around beating the crap out of rebellions if they were just supporting stability. They support Assad. I ofcourse can't speak for majority. But I visited Syria so many times Ive been to most of its cities (doesnt take a lot of time even by car) and made plenty of friends (both christians and muslims) got a lot of contacts and talk to them all the time.

That's the thing, people in Syria weren't being enslaved. It was nowhere near that bad. When you're oppressed you dont get to go to an airport anytime you want, buy a ticket and leve the country. But they ARE going to burn if the revolution is a success.

People hear "no democracy" they instantly assume the life is terrible there. Well, I live in Russia, ive been to America, Germany etc. You know what is the only difference I noticed? Frighed chicken tastes better in Syria. Also you can't choose a president (which is the same in Russia anyway). So the correct question here is: "Would I rather live with a leader I didnt choose but still have a great life OR overthrow the leader for the sake of some stupid democratic ideology but live in a dumpster afterwards?"

Lord Lucien

Omega Vision

Originally posted by SamZED
People wouldn't go around beating the crap out of rebellions if they were just supporting stability. They support Assad. I ofcourse can't speak for majority. But I visited Syria so many times Ive been to most of its cities (doesnt take a lot of time even by car) and made plenty of friends (both christians and muslims) got a lot of contacts and talk to them all the time.

That's the thing, people in Syria weren't being enslaved. It was nowhere near that bad. When you're oppressed you dont get to go to an airport anytime you want, buy a ticket and leve the country. But they ARE going to burn if the revolution is a success.

People hear "no democracy" they instantly assume the life is terrible there. Well, I live in Russia, ive been to America, Germany etc. You know what is the only difference I noticed? Frighed chicken tastes better in Syria. Also you can't choose a president (which is the same in Russia anyway). So the correct question here is: "Would I rather live with a leader I didnt choose but still have a great life OR overthrow the leader for the sake of some stupid democratic ideology but live in a dumpster afterwards?"
Fair enough, I was a painting with too broad strokes. I didn't mean that Syrians are literally enslaved, that was as figurative as the notion of the world "burning".

What I meant is that is that if you ultimately can't decide what to do with your life and only have what freedoms your government allows you, can you really be said to be free? (Note, I have the same concerns with America, how much of our "freedom" is actual freedom and how much is the illusion of freedom) I have the same problem with Theists who believe in an All Powerful God with a "Plan" for the world but still insist that free will exists.

I can't say what I would do if I lived in Syria. The truth is I'm something of a coward and given to complacency so I'd probably avoid taking a side, though I'm not proud to say that one bit.

But if you asked me who I'd admire more: a person who's willing to support a corrupt, brutal dictator due to fear of the unknown or a person who's ready to risk anything for what they believe in...I'd say at least on an abstract level I'd admire the second more.

Now it depends on how "noble" those ideals are, but for the most part the idea of self-determination is a noble one.

Bentley

You argue the strangest things at times OV.

And while I don't know much about the situation in Syria, it all depends in the level of tolerance towards a certain amount of chaos, most of stable countries work in a pact-among-criminals implicit morality. If there is something wrong in Syria it would be that Assad is openly against some of those criminals instead of striving for complete stability, the main problem is that you don't just destroy your minorities, at some point they bounce back and you get screwed. If it's not this revolution, it will be the next one.

lil bitchiness

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Bentley
You argue the strangest things at times OV.

Probably because half the time when I finish typing a post my view of the whole situation has changed either subtly or radically and I forgot what I thought in the first place. embarrasment

I'm an unreliable narrator.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Probably because half the time when I finish typing a post my view of the whole situation has changed either subtly or radically and I forgot what I thought in the first place. embarrasment

I'm an unreliable narrator. I awoke several hours later in a daze.

SamZED

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Fair enough, I was a painting with too broad strokes. I didn't mean that Syrians are literally enslaved, that was as figurative as the notion of the world "burning".

What I meant is that is that if you ultimately can't decide what to do with your life and only have what freedoms your government allows you, can you really be said to be free? (Note, I have the same concerns with America, how much of our "freedom" is actual freedom and how much is the illusion of freedom) I have the same problem with Theists who believe in an All Powerful God with a "Plan" for the world but still insist that free will exists.

I can't say what I would do if I lived in Syria. The truth is I'm something of a coward and given to complacency so I'd probably avoid taking a side, though I'm not proud to say that one bit.

But if you asked me who I'd admire more: a person who's willing to support a corrupt, brutal dictator due to fear of the unknown or a person who's ready to risk anything for what they believe in...I'd say at least on an abstract level I'd admire the second more.

Now it depends on how "noble" those ideals are, but for the most part the idea of self-determination is a noble one. I can relate to that. But like you said, on an abstract level. But if I was a father, had a wife, say 4 small kids and a pretty good life I know i would rather support a dictator than risk everything in hopes of a brighter future with noble uncorrupted leaders who will most definitely never come. But to lose everything just in order to switch one political regime for another with the same corrupted leader? Is it really worth it?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sounds like utopian slavery. No such thing as absolute freedom unless you live somewhere in a forest or a desert. Some have more freedoms, others have less. Doesnt make them all slaves.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by SamZED
I can relate to that. But like you said, on an abstract level. But if I was a father, had a wife, say 4 small kids and a pretty good life I know i would rather support a dictator than risk everything in hopes of a brighter future with noble uncorrupted leaders who will most definitely never come. But to lose everything just in order to switch one political regime for another with the same corrupted leader? Is it really worth it?

Is it meaningless to try to win an unwinnable game?

Not to say that there can't be a better system in Syria than the current one of that tyranny is inevitable...just a hypothetical question. If every day you roll the boulder up the hill and it falls back down is it really superior to just lie down and quit than to try again and hope for better?

RE: Blaxican

Yes. I imagine it would be a much more relaxed life, anyway.

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by SamZED
Doesnt make them all slaves. Hence the utopia. You have no say, and your rights are forfeit when we say, but here, have a plane ticket. The day my government starts marching on its own citizens is they day I consider myself a willing slave to a powerful master, no matter how nice my car is, or how tasty the chicken is.

inimalist

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really. I support revolution done by the people of the country alone, not prompted by the NGOs of other random countries for reasons other than freedom of opression.

I can't image NATO helping Middle East to liberate them, because in order to do that, Saudi family should be removed first and foremost, as they are the worst violators of human dignities and rights and freedoms and main exporter of religious fundamentalism and terrorism. That then gets spilt over everywhere else in the Middle East and West.

Seriously, the day that NATO announces that they will be putting their efforts to fight the Al Shabab for example, will be the day I stop doubting NATO efforts in the Middle East and Africa.

my bad, I thought your point about Ghaddafi was that he had the support of large numbers of his people and he had been good for them, when you could say this of nearly every regime brought down by revolution.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I agree with this, the Saudis are the worst example of hypocrisy in western politics, even worse than the one sided support for Israel.

thumb up

Omega Vision

ini, do you think if Iran was friendly the west would be less indifferent to Saudi human rights abuses and meddling (i.e. Bahrain)?

Like, if it weren't for the fact that most other major supplies of oil are held by anti-Western countries (Iran, Venezuela) would the Saudis still have free reign to do as they will without criticism?

SamZED

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Is it meaningless to try to win an unwinnable game?

Not to say that there can't be a better system in Syria than the current one of that tyranny is inevitable...just a hypothetical question. If every day you roll the boulder up the hill and it falls back down is it really superior to just lie down and quit than to try again and hope for better? A hypothetical? I guess id keep trying. That is unless every time that boulder fell back down it crushed my foot and at the same time ran over my friends who were following me up that hill.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Hence the utopia. You have no say, and your rights are forfeit when we say, but here, have a plane ticket. The day my government starts marching on its own citizens is they day I consider myself a willing slave to a powerful master, no matter how nice my car is, or how tasty the chicken is. Well, congratulations then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ChtkSparT0

Again, just because they live under a different regime that doesnt match your understanding of the perfect state that doesnt make them slaves. Your own interpretation of the word is a different story. Imagine that one hundred years from now there will be a regime where people will say "Hey the day I wont be able to walk into the president's house, bitchslap him in the face and tell him to shut up ill consider myself a slave". Will that make you a slave?

Omega Vision

Originally posted by SamZED
A hypothetical? I guess id keep trying. That is unless every time that boulder fell back down it crushed my foot and at the same time ran over my friends who were following me up that hill.

Jean Paul Sartre talked about a case where a student approached him asking for advice during the Occupation of France. The student had a choice between staying in France to help his sick mother (and thus not actively resisting the Germans) or going to England to join the Free French Army (and thus abandoning his mother).

Sartre essentially told him that both choices could be completely wrong and that whatever he chose no one could really tell him with authority that he was making the right or wrong decision.

Edit: Incidentally have you ever read anything by Nikolai Gogol?

SamZED

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Jean Paul Sartre talked about a case where a student approached him asking for advice during the Occupation of France. The student had a choice between staying in France to help his sick mother (and thus not actively resisting the Germans) or going to England to join the Free French Army (and thus abandoning his mother).

Sartre essentially told him that both choices could be completely wrong and that whatever he chose no one could really tell him with authority that he was making the right or wrong decision.

Edit: Incidentally have you ever read anything by Nikolai Gogol? Well said. It's not that I cant understand that some people arent happy with Assad and want more for themselvs, I get that. At the same time the price is very high they dont even know what exactly they're paying for. There's no right or wrong here, the story you told pretty much sums it up.

As for Gogol, sure, he's a must read for school, but years ago. Why?

Omega Vision

Originally posted by SamZED
Well said. It's not that I cant understand that some people arent happy with Assad and want more for themselvs, I get that. At the same time the price is very high they dont even know what exactly they're paying for. There's no right or wrong here, the story you told pretty much sums it up.

As for Gogol, sure, he's a must read for school, but years ago. Why?
I'm starting to read him as part of my research on Ukrainian culture (for my writing, the main character of the story I've been working on for two years now is from a Slavicesque culture that speaks Ukrainian) and so far I'm really liking him.

Poshlost ftw stick out tongue

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by SamZED
Again, just because they live under a different regime that doesnt match your understanding of the perfect state that doesnt make them slaves. Your own interpretation of the word is a different story. Imagine that one hundred years from now there will be a regime where people will say "Hey the day I wont be able to walk into the president's house, bitchslap him in the face and tell him to shut up ill consider myself a slave". Will that make you a slave? Short answer: yes.

Long answer: F*ck yes.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Omega Vision
ini, do you think if Iran was friendly the west would be less indifferent to Saudi human rights abuses and meddling (i.e. Bahrain)?

Like, if it weren't for the fact that most other major supplies of oil are held by anti-Western countries (Iran, Venezuela) would the Saudis still have free reign to do as they will without criticism?

Saudis are backed by the West and I think they would have been so unless there were some dramatic changes. Saudi Arabia, even without oil, would be filthy rich.

Imagining that there isn't so much oil in the Arabian peninsula, the second largest revenue for the Saudis comes from Hajj pilgrimage. (Unless they start exporting sand). Millions of people come to Saudi Arabia every year, spending their life savings on the whole ritual of Hajj. To Saudi Arabia, this mounts to about $30 billion a year in religious tourism.
For a country of bit over 27 million people- this is good. Very very good.

Also, Saudi government has made it clear that anyone killed in the stampedes is not the responsibility of the government, thus they are not obliged as such to have any crowd control (and they don't). Basically, get the money, let the people get in Mecca, anything that happens isn't our responsibility, if you die, Allah wished it so.

I went on a tangent here, but the answer is speculative at best. However, had Iranians not had the revolution and had they not gotten Ayatollahs in the power, the situation in the Middle East would look a lot different.
I believe Iran would have continued modernisation and would have been a 'friendly' country (more neutral, I think. They would keep their relations with Russia and China, but again, this is a speculation).

Bentley

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Poshlost ftw stick out tongue

Poshlost is awesome, really, slavic societies strive in a sort of spiritual non-life which makes them wonderful to ponder about. What have you read about Gogol?

inimalist

Originally posted by Omega Vision
ini, do you think if Iran was friendly the west would be less indifferent to Saudi human rights abuses and meddling (i.e. Bahrain)?

it sort of depends when they would have started being friendlier.

if Iran turned around tomorrow and appeased every Western wish, I don't think it would help them at all, nor would it change the American position on the region. Much like how many people in the American military still view Russia in terms of cold war era containment, people in the establishment today would probably never make a massive change in how they approach the region. Obviously it is not always appropriate to compare the context of one nation to the next, but if we consider the abuses that are ongoing in a place like the DRC, and how the West ignores that, for whatever reason, even though almost all of our electrical equipment contains minerals that were taken from the Congo by child or slave labour and atrocious treatment of women. I guess what I am saying is that barring any reason not to, the West will gladly ignore abuses.

In fact, now that I think about it, this might be the best case situation for the Bahraini. In the context of containing Iran, America has a major naval base there, which causes reporters to pay even the smallest attention when there are civilians murdered or when America makes an arms shipment. If the straight of Hormuz weren't such a flash point, it isn't so much that the Americans would be more interested in abuses, its that there would be no reason to be interested. A compliant Iran would almost be a blank cheque to Saudi abuses, as now they aren't being done with any attachment to American interests, and there is no reason for the West to pay attention to it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Like, if it weren't for the fact that most other major supplies of oil are held by anti-Western countries (Iran, Venezuela) would the Saudis still have free reign to do as they will without criticism?

ya, again, I almost see it the other way. If America wasn't interested in Saudi oil, we wouldn't hear anything about the abuses.

Now, there are lots of different consequences that would exist, which I'll list in a second, but in terms of our interest in human rights abuses, I don't think we would be more aware of them if we didn't engage in trade with the Saudis. I think we would be happy to leave them be.

However, without our support, the Saudis would quickly fall to internal pressure from their citizens. Without American military hardware they would have been likely crushed by Saddam at some point during the 80s or 90s (especially in a world where Iran and Iraq are both American allies ). Additionally, the parts of the 9-11 Commission report that were redacted because of concerns about Saudi involvement would be public knowledge, and America might have been able to actually deal more effectively with the root support structure around Al Qaeda (might... As we know, Mr. Bush jr wasn't so interested in this anyways, and may still have struck at Iraq, though, the whole Kuwait issue becomes far more complex if there were no Iran-Iraq war).

inimalist

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I went on a tangent here, but the answer is speculative at best. However, had Iranians not had the revolution and had they not gotten Ayatollahs in the power, the situation in the Middle East would look a lot different.
I believe Iran would have continued modernisation and would have been a 'friendly' country (more neutral, I think. They would keep their relations with Russia and China, but again, this is a speculation).

I know this isn't exactly your point, but I have to say it...

I'm not sure if you can actually tease apart the installing of the Shah and the Ayatollahs like that. Like, I think it might be possible to ask, what if the Shah was never put in power in the first place? or even, what if a different Shah were put in place? but I feel once he was, the revolution as it occurred was almost inevitable.

Now, I'm not saying in every situation we end up with Khomeini, but there was a massive movement of people revolting in the revolution from many parts of Iranian society (one of the narratives of the revolution is from the socialist and marxists, who feel Khomeini sold them out after they risked their lives for change). So maybe you end up with a Soviet proxy instead of an Islamist, who know, and maybe there is less pressure for an Iran-Iraq war, for sure, it would change the face of the region. However, I don't think there is a scenario where the Shah exists in some stable regime. His policies and decadence essentially sealed his fate, especially in the context of widespread decolonialization during the 60s/70s.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by inimalist
I know this isn't exactly your point, but I have to say it...

I'm not sure if you can actually tease apart the installing of the Shah and the Ayatollahs like that. Like, I think it might be possible to ask, what if the Shah was never put in power in the first place? or even, what if a different Shah were put in place? but I feel once he was, the revolution as it occurred was almost inevitable.

Now, I'm not saying in every situation we end up with Khomeini, but there was a massive movement of people revolting in the revolution from many parts of Iranian society (one of the narratives of the revolution is from the socialist and marxists, who feel Khomeini sold them out after they risked their lives for change). So maybe you end up with a Soviet proxy instead of an Islamist, who know, and maybe there is less pressure for an Iran-Iraq war, for sure, it would change the face of the region. However, I don't think there is a scenario where the Shah exists in some stable regime. His policies and decadence essentially sealed his fate, especially in the context of widespread decolonialization during the 60s/70s.

You're right, it wasn't my point, but I do like the discussion.

I don't think we have to go that far back into speculation. The main problem with the revolution in Iran, or rather the biggest mistake was that the educated and the middle class underestimated the religious nuts in the revolution.

What they initially thought was going to happen was, if the religious won out, they'd be too stupid for anything to happen and thus democracy and freedom would be easy to install - or rather, they thought it would have been a lot easier to manipulate them and ultimately remove them once the Shah was out.

Unfortunately this proved to be a fatal mistake that lead Iran into a hell hole it's now in.
The most ironic thing is, that while Shah was how he was overall, he modernised Iran. Ayatollahs pushed Iran back into 7th century.

I think the best question to ask is, what if the middle classes, the professors, doctors and the well educated activists did not underestimate the religious nuts and had not let them get into power after Shah.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Bentley
Poshlost is awesome, really, slavic societies strive in a sort of spiritual non-life which makes them wonderful to ponder about. What have you read about Gogol?
I'm starting 'May Night, or the Drowned Maiden'

inimalist

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You're right, it wasn't my point, but I do like the discussion.

I don't think we have to go that far back into speculation. The main problem with the revolution in Iran, or rather the biggest mistake was that the educated and the middle class underestimated the religious nuts in the revolution.

What they initially thought was going to happen was, if the religious won out, they'd be too stupid for anything to happen and thus democracy and freedom would be easy to install - or rather, they thought it would have been a lot easier to manipulate them and ultimately remove them once the Shah was out.

Unfortunately this proved to be a fatal mistake that lead Iran into a hell hole it's now in.
The most ironic thing is, that while Shah was how he was overall, he modernised Iran. Ayatollahs pushed Iran back into 7th century.

I think the best question to ask is, what if the middle classes, the professors, doctors and the well educated activists did not underestimate the religious nuts and had not let them get into power after Shah.

I'm not sure they even saw them as religious nuts in the first place

like, the middle and educated class were largely the ones who supported the Shah, as he had legitimately opened the country up for them, and women in these classes were much less likely to feel repressed by things like the anti-veil laws. One of the reasons there is a huge class element to the revolution was that the success of these classes and the affluence of the Shah himself became associated with corruption and greed because of how little of the wealth made it down to the poorer classes.

However, especially in the modern "muslim world", there is a very strong link between movements for social and political rights and religious institutions. In theory, it is because such institutions provide cover for people to speak frankly about the plight of man. For instance, this is why Al Qaeda had marginal success after 9-11 or the why the Taliban were able to take Afghanistan (not the only reason in either case, no, but there is an apparent lack of non-religious social institutions in the "muslim world" until the arab spring). In this way, the tapes of Khomeini being smuggled into Iran weren't being looked at in terms of what they meant for national policy, but about having a good life worthy of being lived.

But that is a good question, what if it was the Marxists who had one the day? Or what if the Shah had never done the more controversial policies, like the veil ban?

One real question as a result might be, would Iraq have been too strong then to have stopped in the Kuwait invasion? Or would NATO have backed the Kuwaitis regardless?

EDIT: or jeez, imagine the Marxists win, and instead of the Iran-Iraq war being between Saddam and Khomeini it becomes a straight proxy war between the US and USSR.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure they even saw them as religious nuts in the first place

like, the middle and educated class were largely the ones who supported the Shah, as he had legitimately opened the country up for them, and women in these classes were much less likely to feel repressed by things like the anti-veil laws. One of the reasons there is a huge class element to the revolution was that the success of these classes and the affluence of the Shah himself became associated with corruption and greed because of how little of the wealth made it down to the poorer classes.

However, especially in the modern "muslim world", there is a very strong link between movements for social and political rights and religious institutions. In theory, it is because such institutions provide cover for people to speak frankly about the plight of man. For instance, this is why Al Qaeda had marginal success after 9-11 or the why the Taliban were able to take Afghanistan (not the only reason in either case, no, but there is an apparent lack of non-religious social institutions in the "muslim world" until the arab spring). In this way, the tapes of Khomeini being smuggled into Iran weren't being looked at in terms of what they meant for national policy, but about having a good life worthy of being lived.

But that is a good question, what if it was the Marxists who had one the day? Or what if the Shah had never done the more controversial policies, like the veil ban?

One real question as a result might be, would Iraq have been too strong then to have stopped in the Kuwait invasion? Or would NATO have backed the Kuwaitis regardless?

EDIT: or jeez, imagine the Marxists win, and instead of the Iran-Iraq war being between Saddam and Khomeini it becomes a straight proxy war between the US and USSR.

Had Marxists had their way, I think all of the Middle East would have looked a lot different than now.

As you know, Persians hate the Arabs, because at the back of their mind, these ''lizard eating desert savages' (words of an Iranian), subjugated Persia and their glorious history of enlightenment ended and with it their empire (but yes, I will accept that perhaps, Arabs or not, Yazdgerd III's Persia would have fallen apart anyway - but that's a whole different discussion).

Persians, although Muslim, remember this so deeply, it's actually a phenomenon on its own that one could write a thesis on it. (As opposed to, for example Egyptians or Phoenicians or even Assyrians who identify themselves as Arabs today.)

Point being, Marxists could have actually succeeded in keeping the power in Iran and might have even rooted out the religion altogether with a real possibility of support from the people to the point that the future Islamic republic would simply be unimaginable. (as opposed to other Middle Eastern places where Marxism would not have had even the slightest chance of flourishing).
This doesn't mean a whole lot, because N. Korea did that, but it didn't turn out so well.

Perhaps, regardless of whether Marxists or Islamists won, Iran was going to be put in an awful situation after the revolution, and either of those would have eventually made Iran the enemy.

Out of the two, though, Shah or Khomeini, Shah did a much better job for Iran.