Sunday, April 18, 2004
"...I know which choir box I am in."
http://rogerlsimon.com/
I've read a great deal of the blogger-back-slapping and I'm less than impressed. The problem with activistchat.com, and some of the linking sites, are the ads for the Shah's family. Quite honestly, the whole thing smells like a right-wing pr effort. Activistchat.com is now being linked to by LGF and some of the other "war-blogs". The Shah was the original problem. A leftist solution was not a culturally acceptable alternative to the western puppet so Islamic fundamentalism was able to garner the strength to overthrow the Shah. I don't think there is an American reading this that would want to live under the Shah's secret police.
It would seem that now would be a good time for an evolution in American thinking about foreign policy. Previously we have employed client states and surrogates with less than sterling results (see Iraq, Iran and South America). We need a philosophy that is neither of the right nor left, not isolationist nor expansionist but uniquely American in a basic fairness. Before we prop up another tin-horn despot we should ask ourselves a question about the people of that country. In the cause or struggle that we need that dictator, is it reason enough that we ourselves would be willing to endure the hardships that a people living under such a regime will?
Posted by penheaded @ 04/13/2004 06:38 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
penheaded, that activistchat has been linked by lgf or anyone else is proof of nothing. I would recommend the use of more specific proof than this form of guilt-by-association. If ativistchat is some kind of apologist for the Savak, I would be against them. But so far I have seen no evidence of this.
Posted by Roger @ 04/14/2004 11:04 AM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger,
My objection to activistchat was clearly noted, they appear to be pimping the return of the Shah's regime (ads and articles about the glorious days of the Shah). The site came on my radar when it hit some of the blog indices and I noted who was linking to it for the rankings. The linkings by LGF,et al are just part of the conservative meme spread.
Posted by penheaded @ 04/14/2004 02:04 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ActivistChat is not advocating a return of the Shah's regime.. Regarding articles about the glory days of the Shah - yes, if Iranian want to they may freely discuss those days which were 1 million times better than the days of the jackoff mullahs.. Penheaded - you are an apologist for the Mullahs - anyone that goes to your piece of lowsy site can see this. Also, if when Iran is free - the Iranian people want Reza Pahlavi to come and serve some position of the government they are free to do so. All Reza Pahlavi is advocating is that the Iranian people be free to choose their own government, not the government by the mullahs who are advised by the British. Seriously, make your case in an xtreme left whacko site, not this quality blog..
Better luck convincing the ANSWER type than the people here..
Posted by Swordfish @ 04/14/2004 02:50 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishy,
Looking forward to the useability study on your site. One of the things I am trying to do is provide an outlet for a great many of the democratic aspirations being voiced in Iran. There are links that are put into context. Two such links are activistchat and the official government news agency. Both are appropriately labeled for their propaganda.
My particular perpective on Iran comes from knowing people who lived under the threat of Savak. It was obviously bad enough that the people of Iran thought the mullahs would be better. There was a lot of popular support for the revolution. Anybody can make a mistake, we elected Bush.
Yes, you are right, anybody should be free to discuss anything they want. But why would they want to discuss the Pahlavi's in the context of a democratic society? Perhaps, if they were supported by them. I don't think it has been lost on the Pahlavi's how that hack, Chalabi, manipulated the situation in Iraq.
Thanks very much for your suggestions on other venues. I know which choir box I am in.
Posted by penheaded @ 04/15/2004 03:53 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶ 4/18/2004 11:36:00 AM
I've read a great deal of the blogger-back-slapping and I'm less than impressed. The problem with activistchat.com, and some of the linking sites, are the ads for the Shah's family. Quite honestly, the whole thing smells like a right-wing pr effort. Activistchat.com is now being linked to by LGF and some of the other "war-blogs". The Shah was the original problem. A leftist solution was not a culturally acceptable alternative to the western puppet so Islamic fundamentalism was able to garner the strength to overthrow the Shah. I don't think there is an American reading this that would want to live under the Shah's secret police.
It would seem that now would be a good time for an evolution in American thinking about foreign policy. Previously we have employed client states and surrogates with less than sterling results (see Iraq, Iran and South America). We need a philosophy that is neither of the right nor left, not isolationist nor expansionist but uniquely American in a basic fairness. Before we prop up another tin-horn despot we should ask ourselves a question about the people of that country. In the cause or struggle that we need that dictator, is it reason enough that we ourselves would be willing to endure the hardships that a people living under such a regime will?
Posted by penheaded @ 04/13/2004 06:38 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
penheaded, that activistchat has been linked by lgf or anyone else is proof of nothing. I would recommend the use of more specific proof than this form of guilt-by-association. If ativistchat is some kind of apologist for the Savak, I would be against them. But so far I have seen no evidence of this.
Posted by Roger @ 04/14/2004 11:04 AM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger,
My objection to activistchat was clearly noted, they appear to be pimping the return of the Shah's regime (ads and articles about the glorious days of the Shah). The site came on my radar when it hit some of the blog indices and I noted who was linking to it for the rankings. The linkings by LGF,et al are just part of the conservative meme spread.
Posted by penheaded @ 04/14/2004 02:04 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ActivistChat is not advocating a return of the Shah's regime.. Regarding articles about the glory days of the Shah - yes, if Iranian want to they may freely discuss those days which were 1 million times better than the days of the jackoff mullahs.. Penheaded - you are an apologist for the Mullahs - anyone that goes to your piece of lowsy site can see this. Also, if when Iran is free - the Iranian people want Reza Pahlavi to come and serve some position of the government they are free to do so. All Reza Pahlavi is advocating is that the Iranian people be free to choose their own government, not the government by the mullahs who are advised by the British. Seriously, make your case in an xtreme left whacko site, not this quality blog..
Better luck convincing the ANSWER type than the people here..
Posted by Swordfish @ 04/14/2004 02:50 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishy,
Looking forward to the useability study on your site. One of the things I am trying to do is provide an outlet for a great many of the democratic aspirations being voiced in Iran. There are links that are put into context. Two such links are activistchat and the official government news agency. Both are appropriately labeled for their propaganda.
My particular perpective on Iran comes from knowing people who lived under the threat of Savak. It was obviously bad enough that the people of Iran thought the mullahs would be better. There was a lot of popular support for the revolution. Anybody can make a mistake, we elected Bush.
Yes, you are right, anybody should be free to discuss anything they want. But why would they want to discuss the Pahlavi's in the context of a democratic society? Perhaps, if they were supported by them. I don't think it has been lost on the Pahlavi's how that hack, Chalabi, manipulated the situation in Iraq.
Thanks very much for your suggestions on other venues. I know which choir box I am in.
Posted by penheaded @ 04/15/2004 03:53 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶ 4/18/2004 11:36:00 AM
