You're viewing a single thread.
Most of the time when you destroy the system you get a much worse system.
Iran got rid of the Shah and got the current freedom loving regime.
The Russians kicked out the old Communist Party and got a KGB trained billionaire in charge.
Iran got rid of the Shah and got the current freedom loving regime.
Why, and what came before. 🤔
Also ignoring the US involvement.
Yeah that's my point
what came before. 🤔
A better system that was destroyed and replaced by worse one? Proving Dagwood222 right?
Why?...
Why?...
Is that in any way relevant to the point Dagwood222 was making?
Yes, it is. History and medfling does in fact matter in explaining current world events.
He is not explaining current world events, he is making one simple statement. The why has no relevance to the truth of that one statement (as far as I can tell). It seems to me you don't like the statement, so you try to bring in irrelevant points instead of accepting it. This is the kind of irrational thinking that makes people vote for Trump. I am not saying this to insult you, all humans are prone to this kind of thinking. I say it so you can strive to improve.
Of course, if I am mistaken, then just ignore this.
Blaming the US for the excesses of the Iranians is like excusing Charles Manson because he was abused as a child.
Are you intetionally this ignorant or did the school system fail you?
Mohammad Mosaddegh (Persian: محمد مصدق, IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɢ] ⓘ; 16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967) was an Iranian politician, author, and lawyer who served as the 30th Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, elected by the 16th Majlis. He was a member of the Iranian parliament from 1923, and served through a contentious 1952 election into the 17th Iranian Majlis, until his government was overthrown in the 1953 Iran coup aided by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom (MI6) and the United States (CIA), led by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
In his place, they installed the brutal regime of the Shah. Obviously when you have external influence hindering progress like that the backlash is often strong men and autocracies as are more resistant to such meddling.
If you want we can continue with how the US government went on to help and fun the Iraq/Iran war following the, unfortunately theocratic, revolution.
So, you're saying that because the Shah was terrible in 1979 it's okay for the current people to be terrible now?
Right now Vietnam is a very popular tourist destination for Americans. I know people who have been there several times and want to go back.
Literally two comments ago you were saying this:
Most of the time when you destroy the system you get a much worse system.
Was the Shah good or bad? Is it important that what came before the Shah was a popular democratic system that the US destroyed? Is that destruction justified if it becomes a great vacationing spot for Americans?
You're all over the place bud.
So we agree. The revolution didn't actually improve things for most people.
No lol, we do not agree.
There are numerous examples of revolutionary change bringing better, more equitable systems of governance.
The only pattern I see is that the ones where the US is involved end up turning to shit.
lol!
And of course there's no chance that the US power structure would be involved if the US had a systemic break down.
Blackwater/Academi and the CIA probably already have detailed plans in place. They'll do what ex-KGB agent Putin did in Russia; let the people throw out the old leadership, then swoop in and buy up the resources for pennies on the dollar.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.
Lmao, the CIA fomenting violent revolution in their own country in order to install a pro-western dictator/monarch would be very on-brand, I will grant you that
That's entirely besides the point.
How is it 'beside the point' when it's exactly my point?
"Yeah, well, not enough of you people chose to die horrible, painful deaths at the hands of the brutal blood soaked dictator our country put into power. Therefore, it's your fault too."
Strangely enough I suspect a significant amount of Americans would excuse Charles Manson. There's a giant movement right now to get the Menéndez brothers out of prison because they were abused. Charles Manson would also be helped by the fact that he was a racist white dude trying to ignite a race war.
Destroying a system means there isn't anything in place and also that you weaken the power of your own side because you had to go through all the violence needed.
That's obvious but it also explains why worse system can rise, but also that it's not always a doomed endeavor. I think the context has a lot to do with what will occurs next.
The best exemple i could give is the French Revolution. It was followed by the worst Napoleonic wars. But its philosophers founded the building block for the republic that's still in place to this day.
The red revolution against tsarist has brought a lot of positive foundation from which Russian could arguably have builded upon after the war, if not for Gorbachev.
I'm not gonna go to much into any hypothetical but what Lenin created had a real and positive influence in the rest of Europe at least.
At the worst end of the spectrum Iran really had nothing left to build upon, the situation there is catastrophic on all front. So if not for the US the country isn't gonna stand on its legs any time soon.
I think the evolution of the end of a system, even through those three exemple, can go into so many different path. It's hard to really predict anything, especially without taking into account all the parameters and context.