Russia and Syria

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.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sounds like utopian slavery.

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?

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?

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

Originally posted by SamZED
Doesnt make them all slaves.

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.

👆

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

Poshlost ftw 😛

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?

Long answer: F*ck yes.

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).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Poshlost ftw 😛

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?

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 [less motivation to engage in the iran-iraq war if Saddam doesn't think he has American support]). 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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

imo russia,india,syria and cuba should form a nato like alliance.