Here is where we will forever disagree, it is NOT additional, it is equal!!!
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > There's no persecution of Gays Plain Ol'. Right now, you have "Additional > Rights" and this is fundamentally wrong. Because of your sexuality, you > have now claimed that you're entitled to: (1) Redefine the term "Marriage"; > and (2) Based on who you choose to crawl in the sack with, "marry" a > person outside of the confines of what a marriage is. > > This is wrong, and it will be addressed soon. > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:40 AM, plainolamerican < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I do disagree with Plaino though as far as Sir Bernard is concerned, >> sounds like a very decent human being to me. >> --- >> he sounds like a fucking You Norker barking like a dog to me ... and so >> does Trump. >> Do you really want either of these men representing America? >> >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 7:55:24 PM UTC-6, pluto of brougham wrote: >> >>> the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI >>> that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or >>> Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall >>> ever >>> be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the >>> United States.” >>> >>> Full marks to Plaino for that interesting essay, surely the above >>> should disqualify that woman who refused gay marriage licences from holding >>> a govt. post, as well as the judges on the high court bench to put aside >>> their religious beliefs in considering different cases, however, I >>> recognise that very few of us can be so totally dispassionate, unless we're >>> Vulcans of course. >>> >>> I do disagree with Plaino though as far as Sir Bernard is concerned, >>> sounds like a very decent human being to me. >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:01 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> [email protected] >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/politicalforum/topics> >>> Google >>> Groups >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> >>> Topic digest >>> View all topics >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/politicalforum/topics> >>> >>> - [grendelreport] Colonials >>> >>> <#985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_0> >>> - 5 Updates >>> - [grendelreport] What If Iran's Guardian Council Managed U.S. >>> Elections? >>> >>> <#985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_1> >>> - 6 Updates >>> - [grendelreport] Who Is Bernie Sanders? >>> >>> <#985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_2> >>> - 4 Updates >>> - [grendelreport] NY SHOOTOUT: Devout Muslim AMBUSHES, FIRES at 8 >>> NYPD Cops, Two OFFICERS Injured >>> >>> <#985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_3> >>> - 2 Updates >>> - [grendelreport] Cops are asking Ancestry.com and 23andMe for their >>> customers' DNA >>> >>> <#985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_4> >>> - 2 Updates >>> - [New post] If you’ve never seen Islamic ‘halal’ slaughter, force >>> yourself to watch this, then share it with those who haven’t >>> >>> <#985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_5> >>> - 5 Updates >>> - [grendelreport] Border Walls >>> >>> <#985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_6> >>> - 1 Update >>> >>> [grendelreport] Colonials >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/t/bf451f2b69b8bc43?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> >>> plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 09:49AM -0800 >>> >>> but we do remember when they persecuted everyone with different >>> religious >>> beliefs (or no beliefs at all). >>> >>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:41:28 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: >>> Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 01:21PM -0500 >>> >>> I will probably regret asking this, but who is it that you are alleging >>> are, "They", and when did this allegedly happen? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:49 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] >>> plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 10:30AM -0800 >>> >>> America's True History of Religious ToleranceThe idea that the United >>> States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and >>> utterly at odds with the historical record. >>> >>> >>> In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came >>> to >>> America aboard the *Mayflower* in search of religious freedom in 1620. >>> The >>> Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious >>> dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their >>> governor >>> John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the >>> same, >>> coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which >>> everyone was free to practice his or her own faith. >>> >>> The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real >>> story >>> of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently >>> embarrassing >>> and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school >>> texts >>> either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent >>> conversation >>> about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this >>> comforting tableau. >>> >>> >>> From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has >>> often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the >>> foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” >>> natives >>> already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of >>> early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between >>> various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and >>> Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held >>> notion >>> that America is a “Christian nation.” >>> >>> First, a little overlooked history: the initial encounter between >>> Europeans >>> in the future United States came with the establishment of a Huguenot >>> (French Protestant) colony in 1564 at Fort Caroline (near modern >>> Jacksonville, Florida). More than half a century before the *Mayflower* >>> set >>> sail, French pilgrims had come to America in search of religious freedom. >>> >>> The Spanish had other ideas. In 1565, they established a forward >>> operating >>> base at St. Augustine and proceeded to wipe out the Fort Caroline >>> colony. >>> The Spanish commander, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, wrote to the Spanish >>> King >>> Philip II that he had “hanged all those we had found in [Fort Caroline] >>> because...they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these >>> Provinces.” When hundreds of survivors of a shipwrecked French fleet >>> washed >>> up on the beaches of Florida, they were put to the sword, beside a river >>> the Spanish called Matanzas (“slaughters”). In other words, the first >>> encounter between European Christians in America ended in a blood bath. >>> >>> The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England >>> in >>> the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these >>> religious >>> dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the >>> Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing >>> religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked >>> no >>> dissent, religious or political. >>> >>> >>> The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams >>> and >>> Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and >>> policy. From Puritan Boston’s earliest days, Catholics (“Papists”) were >>> anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other >>> non-Puritans. >>> Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for >>> persistently >>> returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs. >>> >>> Throughout the colonial era, Anglo-American antipathy toward >>> Catholics—especially French and Spanish Catholics—was pronounced and >>> often >>> reflected in the sermons of such famous clerics as Cotton Mather and in >>> statutes that discriminated against Catholics in matters of property and >>> voting. Anti-Catholic feelings even contributed to the revolutionary >>> mood >>> in America after King George III extended an olive branch to French >>> Catholics in Canada with the Quebec Act of 1774, which recognized their >>> religion. >>> >>> When George Washington dispatched Benedict Arnold on a mission to court >>> French Canadians’ support for the American Revolution in 1775, he >>> cautioned >>> Arnold not to let their religion get in the way. “Prudence, policy and a >>> true Christian Spirit,” Washington advised, “will lead us to look with >>> compassion upon their errors, without insulting them.” (After Arnold >>> betrayed the American cause, he publicly cited America’s alliance with >>> Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so.) >>> >>> In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws >>> regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to >>> hold >>> public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing >>> papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics >>> from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics >>> had >>> full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming >>> belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South >>> Carolina, had official, state-supported churches. >>> >>> In 1779, as Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill >>> that >>> guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those >>> of >>> no religion—in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously >>> wrote, >>> “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods >>> or >>> no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But Jefferson’s >>> plan >>> did not advance—until after Patrick (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”) >>> Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for “teachers >>> of >>> the Christian religion.” >>> >>> Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully >>> argued essay titled “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious >>> Assessments,” the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid >>> out >>> reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. >>> Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison’s argument became a fundamental >>> piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the >>> secular state that “should be as familiar to students of American >>> history >>> as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” as Susan >>> Jacoby >>> has written in *Freethinkers*, her excellent history of American >>> secularism. >>> >>> Among Madison’s 15 points was his declaration that “the Religion then of >>> every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every...man >>> to >>> exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an >>> inalienable right.” >>> >>> Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should >>> understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, >>> a >>> threat to religion. “Who does not see,” he wrote, “that the same >>> authority >>> which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, >>> may >>> establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in >>> exclusion of all other Sects?” Madison was writing from his memory of >>> Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia. >>> >>> As a Christian, Madison also noted that Christianity had spread in the >>> face >>> of persecution from worldly powers, not with their help. Christianity, >>> he >>> contended, “disavows a dependence on the powers of this world...for it >>> is >>> known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without >>> the >>> support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.” >>> >>> Recognizing the idea of America as a refuge for the protester or rebel, >>> Madison also argued that Henry’s proposal was “a departure from that >>> generous policy, which offering an Asylum to the persecuted and >>> oppressed >>> of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country.” >>> >>> After long debate, Patrick Henry’s bill was defeated, with the >>> opposition >>> outnumbering supporters 12 to 1. Instead, the Virginia legislature took >>> up >>> Jefferson’s plan for the separation of church and state. In 1786, the >>> Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, modified somewhat from >>> Jefferson’s original draft, became law. The act is one of three >>> accomplishments Jefferson included on his tombstone, along with writing >>> the >>> Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (He omitted his >>> presidency of the United States.) After the bill was passed, Jefferson >>> proudly wrote that the law “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of >>> its >>> protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the >>> Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” >>> >>> Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he >>> went >>> to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed >>> in >>> Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article >>> VI >>> that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or >>> Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall >>> ever >>> be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the >>> United States.” >>> >>> This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention >>> God or a deity (except for a pro forma “year of our Lord” date) and that >>> its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would >>> infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders’ >>> resolve >>> that America be a secular republic. The men who fought the Revolution >>> may >>> have thanked Providence and attended church regularly—or not. But they >>> also >>> fought a war against a country in which the head of state was the head >>> of >>> the church. Knowing well the history of religious warfare that led to >>> America’s settlement, they clearly understood both the dangers of that >>> system and of sectarian conflict. >>> >>> It was the recognition of that divisive past by the founders—notably >>> Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison—that secured America as a >>> secular >>> republic. As president, Washington wrote in 1790: “All possess alike >>> liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship. ...For happily the >>> Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to >>> persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its >>> protection should demean themselves as good citizens.” >>> >>> He was addressing the members of America’s oldest synagogue, the Touro >>> Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island (where his letter is read aloud every >>> August). In closing, he wrote specifically to the Jews a phrase that >>> applies to Muslims as well: “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, >>> who >>> dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the >>> other >>> inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and >>> figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” >>> >>> As for Adams and Jefferson, they would disagree vehemently over policy, >>> but >>> on the question of religious freedom they were united. “In their >>> seventies,” Jacoby writes, “with a friendship that had survived serious >>> political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with >>> satisfaction >>> on what they both considered their greatest achievement—their role in >>> establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be >>> required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views.” >>> >>> Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: >>> “And >>> I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one >>> has >>> done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater >>> purity, >>> the less they are mixed together.” >>> >>> While some of America’s early leaders were models of virtuous tolerance, >>> American attitudes were slow to change. The anti-Catholicism of >>> America’s >>> Calvinist past found new voice in the 19th century. The belief widely >>> held >>> and preached by some of the most prominent ministers in America was that >>> Catholics would, if permitted, turn America over to the pope. >>> Anti-Catholic >>> venom was part of the typical American school day, along with Bible >>> readings. In Massachusetts, a convent—coincidentally near the site of >>> the >>> Bunker Hill Monument—was burned to the ground in 1834 by an >>> anti-Catholic >>> mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent >>> school. In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic >>> sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the >>> Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches >>> were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed. >>> >>> At about the same time, Joseph Smith founded a new American religion—and >>> soon met with the wrath of the mainstream Protestant majority. In 1832, >>> a >>> mob tarred and feathered him, marking the beginning of a long battle >>> between Christian America and Smith’s Mormonism. In October 1838, after >>> a >>> series of conflicts over land and religious tension, Missouri Governor >>> Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be expelled from his state. Three >>> days later, rogue militiamen massacred 17 church members, including >>> children, at the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill. In 1844, a mob >>> murdered >>> Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum while they were jailed in Carthage, >>> Illinois. No one was ever convicted of the crime. >>> >>> Even as late as 1960, Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy >>> felt >>> compelled to make a major speech declaring that his loyalty was to >>> America, >>> not the pope. (And as recently as the 2008 Republican primary campaign, >>> Mormon candidate Mitt Romney felt compelled to address the suspicions >>> still >>> directed toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Of >>> course, America’s anti-Semitism was practiced institutionally as well as >>> socially for decades. With the great threat of “godless” Communism >>> looming >>> in the 1950s, the country’s fear of atheism also reached new heights. >>> >>> America can still be, as Madison perceived the nation in 1785, “an >>> Asylum >>> to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.” But >>> recognizing that deep religious discord has been part of America’s >>> social >>> DNA is a healthy and necessary step. When we acknowledge that dark past, >>> perhaps the nation will return to that “promised...lustre” of which >>> Madison >>> so grandiloquently wrote. >>> >>> *Kenneth C. Davis* is the author of *Don’t Know Much About History* and >>> *A >>> Nation Rising*, among other books. >>> >>> >>> >>> Read more: >>> >>> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/#70lZu2DqhQhfYm66.99 >>> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! >>> http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv >>> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter >>> >>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:21:51 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 01:42PM -0500 >>> >>> So your little abridged historical story pretty much buttresses what I >>> was >>> thinking: In general, we are a tolerant accepting culture founded upon >>> Christian principles and tenets, and accepting of all who want to be a >>> part >>> and parcel of this society. >>> >>> You should probably read your little abridged historical story, it would >>> be >>> a good thing. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 10:57AM -0800 >>> >>> So your little abridged historical story pretty much buttresses what I >>> was >>> thinking: In general, we are a tolerant accepting culture founded upon >>> Christian principles and tenets, and accepting of all who want to be a >>> part >>> and parcel of this society. >>> --- >>> history says otherwise ... can't you read, lawyerboy? >>> Jefferson and Madison put religious myth believing asshole like you in >>> their place. >>> take your religious persecution to israel or iran where it will be >>> appreciated. >>> >>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:42:44 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> Back to top >>> <#985604885_872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_digest_top> >>> [grendelreport] What If Iran's Guardian Council Managed U.S. Elections? >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/t/42cd656023cd9bf2?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> >>> Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 12:21PM -0500 >>> >>> Most Progressives like Plain Ol" conveniently "Forget" the USSR's >>> involvement in the region, and what was the causation of the United >>> States >>> involvement. >>> >>> Not that Plain Ol's post has anything remotely to do with the initial >>> post, >>> but it's "*Typical*": >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/age-reagan/essays/iran-and-united-states-cold-war >>> >>> Both of these circumstances—Iran’s location between the USSR and the >>> Persian Gulf, and the presence of major oil reserves—guaranteed the >>> country’s importance during the Cold War. In addition, a third factor >>> came >>> into play: the emergence, even before the end of World War II, of the >>> global military and ideological competition between the United States and >>> the Soviet Union. Fear of losing influence in a vital part of the world >>> to >>> Soviet-led Communism motivated much of American foreign policy for the >>> next >>> several decades. American sentiment about competition and democracy was >>> spelled out, sometimes in almost Biblical terms, in conceptual documents >>> like NSC-68 and in numerous policy papers over the years. >>> >>> In two key incidents in Iran from the post-war period these precepts were >>> plainly evident, and produced consequences for the United States that >>> were >>> in some ways utterly unanticipated. At other moments later in the Cold >>> War, >>> described further below, Washington’s fixation on the Soviet threat left >>> it >>> unprepared to deal with crises of local origin that were equally >>> significant for America’s standing in the region. >>> >>> The first of these earlier episodes unfolded at the end of the Second >>> World >>> War when the USSR threatened to abrogate its agreement with Britain and >>> Iran to remove its large troop presence from Iran’s northern province of >>> Azerbaijan within six months of the cessation of hostilities. Anxious to >>> gain an oil concession that would balance Britain’s privileged access in >>> the south of the country, as well as to create a buffer zone in a >>> vulnerable border region, Joseph Stalin planned to solidify Soviet >>> influence in the southern Caucasus region—perhaps even to annex part of >>> Azerbaijan province, according to Soviet archival records—but met >>> surprising resistance from President Harry Truman, who gave a range of >>> support to the young Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Stalin >>> ultimately >>> decided to withdraw from the country in late 1946. The actions of the >>> United States were seen as a sign of genuine respect for the rights of >>> sovereign states—highly unusual for a major power—and made a powerful >>> impression on the Iranian people. To this day, the Azerbaijan crisis >>> accounts for some of the positive views many still have of the United >>> States. >>> >>> Less than a decade later, however, a second major incident dramatically >>> changed many Iranians’ opinion of the United States. In 1951, Iran’s >>> recently elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, nationalized the >>> country’s petroleum industry, long the domain of the British-dominated >>> Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The move pitted the two governments >>> against each other in a bitter political fight, leaving the United States >>> once again to play the intermediary. But while the Truman administration >>> had tried to work with both sides, President Dwight Eisenhower and his >>> advisers quickly concluded that Mosaddeq represented the problem rather >>> than the solution to the crisis. Based strictly on Cold War calculations, >>> Eisenhower authorized a preemptive covert operation to oust Mosaddeq >>> before >>> Moscow might have an opportunity to do so. The coup in August 1953 was >>> carried out at US and British instigation but relied on a variety of >>> Iranian groups and individuals for its eventual success. >>> >>> The overthrow achieved the immediate objective of restoring to the throne >>> the Shah, who had fled the country during the turmoil, and replacing >>> Mosaddeq with a more amenable figure. For the next twenty-five years, >>> Mohammad Reza Shah remained in power and made significant contributions >>> to >>> the interests of his superpower patron. But even though the coup had had >>> the support of significant segments of Iranian society at the time, it >>> came >>> to be seen by many Iranians as a sea change in American conduct—from >>> munificent protector of smaller countries to archetypal great power >>> pursuing its own interests regardless of the wishes of local populations. >>> This view of the United States gained currency inside Iran over the >>> course >>> of the Shah’s reign as he proceeded to exercise more and more arbitrary >>> and >>> dictatorial power at the expense of his subjects with little visible >>> effort >>> at restraint from Washington. In fact, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, >>> and >>> Johnson did press the Shah repeatedly to enact reforms, but that strategy >>> effectively ended with the assertion of the Nixon Doctrine in 1969. >>> Reflecting the heavy strain on American military resources caused by the >>> Vietnam War, the new doctrine relied on regional powers to act as the >>> first >>> line of defense against potential Soviet expansionism. For the next >>> several >>> years, the Shah not only gained access to sophisticated American weaponry >>> he had long coveted, but also obtained tacit White House permission to >>> forgo any serious effort at reform. >>> >>> By the 1970s, conditions inside Iran that were purely local in >>> origin—with >>> no connection to the Cold War—had begun to emerge that the United States >>> was ill-equipped to address. Internal resentment against the Shah’s >>> political and economic policies was building to a peak (and extending to >>> his US sponsors), but the depth of the problem escaped the notice of >>> American decision-makers. Led by Ayatollah Khomeini, a fierce public >>> critic >>> of Iran’s reliance on American backing who had been exiled for years for >>> his views, Iran’s growing anti-Shah sentiments burst into open revolution >>> in 1978–1979. After Khomeini’s triumphant return to Iran in early 1979 it >>> was only a matter of months before the revolution gelled in the form of a >>> theocratic state, not surprisingly characterized by significant >>> anti-American overtones. >>> >>> In the context of the Cold War, the revolution appeared to many Americans >>> to signify the “loss” of Iran to Soviet influence, a loss that was >>> magnified by the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. In >>> fact, >>> Moscow was never able to gain a foothold in Iran because of the Islamic >>> Republic’s deep suspicion of Russia’s history of aggressive behavior and >>> the religious leadership’s antipathy for official Soviet atheism. This >>> did >>> not necessarily bode well for Washington, however. Instead, it was a sign >>> of the rise of another factor in international politics that would have >>> implications beyond the Cold War: Moslem fundamentalism, which not only >>> incorporated the concept of national sovereignty (captured in the phrase >>> “neither East nor West”) but was animated at its core by the ambition of >>> creating a theocratic state and spreading Islam across the region. >>> >>> Hand in hand with the revolution came another event with momentous >>> implications for US-Iran relations: the storming of the US embassy in >>> Tehran and the seizure of American hostages in November 1979. Iranian >>> accounts indicate that the country’s leadership was initially unaware of >>> the student-led plan to assault the embassy (which the students claimed >>> was >>> a response to years of perceived US antagonism dating back to the 1953 >>> coup), but Khomeini was quick to embrace the move for domestic political >>> reasons. While it helped to consolidate radical rule over the country, >>> however, the takeover also created a political crisis for Iran, landing >>> it >>> in long-term diplomatic isolation, and engendering extraordinary enmity >>> from Washington. The bitterness of the hostage crisis continues to poison >>> official American attitudes toward the Islamic regime. >>> >>> One other episode from this period was critical in forming the current >>> antagonistic relationship between Iran and the United States. From 1980 >>> through 1988, Iran and Iraq fought a horrific war initiated by Saddam >>> Hussein’s opportunism but fueled by historical animosity, among other >>> factors. In retrospect the record is clear that the United States sided >>> with Baghdad (as the lesser of two evils), providing political, economic, >>> and even military support for Saddam’s war effort, including tacit >>> acquiescence to Iraq’s use of chemical weapons and missile attacks on >>> Iran’s cities. Toward the end of the conflict, US forces directly engaged >>> elements of Iran’s navy and Revolutionary Guards, and in July 1988 a US >>> naval ship mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian jetliner, killing all >>> 290 on board. Ironically, these encounters helped lead to a cease-fire by >>> persuading Iran’s leaders that America would stop at nothing to defeat >>> them. >>> >>> The Iran-Iraq War took place during the Cold War but it had virtually >>> nothing to do with the East-West conflict; it was a local dispute sparked >>> by indigenous factors. Washington’s actions, however, did grow out of the >>> American mindset of that era: a desire to protect the flow of oil from >>> the >>> Persian Gulf and a determination to block the Soviets from gaining >>> influence in the region. Regardless of each side’s intentions, the war >>> produced a number of enduring results. One was that the leaders of Iran’s >>> revolution were able to link their cause to the survival of the nation >>> itself. Another was the elevation of the status of the Revolutionary >>> Guards, eventually rivaling even the power of the clerical leadership. >>> (The >>> country’s current combative president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, was a member >>> during the war.) Still another outcome, of direct relevance to US >>> standing >>> in the region, was the cementing of the perception among the country’s >>> hardliners of Washington as an irreconcilable enemy of the Islamic >>> Republic. >>> >>> Although the Cold War ostensibly came to an end twenty years ago, the >>> United States still confronts circumstances in Iran that emerged during >>> that crucial period. Some are unchanged—the critical need for oil, for >>> example. Other challenges have been altered or eliminated, but new ones >>> take their place. The Communist threat has disappeared, for instance, but >>> the menace of international terrorism has strengthened. Meanwhile, >>> certain >>> US strategic concepts rooted in the ideological thinking of the Cold War >>> have been temporarily revived. George W. Bush’s national security >>> doctrine >>> reasserted Washington’s Cold War–era determination not to permit the >>> emergence of another rival power (like the Soviets, or in an earlier era, >>> the Nazis) to threaten American interests, and echoed Eisenhower’s >>> concept, >>> employed in Iran in 1953, of preempting a perceived threat. Although >>> current US strategy no longer focuses on some of these ambitious >>> concepts, >>> their impact can be seen in the history of American involvement in the >>> Middle East and continues to be felt across the region. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:45 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] >>> plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 09:35AM -0800 >>> >>> Most Progressives like Plain Ol" conveniently "Forget" the USSR's >>> involvement in the region, and what was the causation of the United >>> States >>> involvement. >>> --- >>> yeah yeah ... and Britain was also involved ... that doesn't exonerate >>> US >>> actions. >>> >>> Not that Plain Ol's post has anything remotely to do with the initial >>> post, >>> but it's "*Typical*": >>> --- >>> it was a good example of US involvement with Iran politics ... but since >>> you'll justify anything that the US does to middle east countries it >>> doesn't matter what you think ... interventionist warmonger. >>> >>> >>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:21:47 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> Keith In Tampa <ke >>> >>> ... >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
