Philip Galanter on Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:52:01 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what's da matta wit atta

Title: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what's da matta wit atta
Opinions among Iranians, just like all large bodies of people, are split.
Getting into a detail recounting of who did what to who when is a game without end.  But it is worth at least mentioning in passing that Iran is not without a record of overt hostile actions against the US.

The US (and the West in general) is in a no-win situation because non-democratic states offer no possibility of a rational relationship in a 21st century civilized world.

To deal with the current leaders (dictators) is to become the enemy of future leaders (dictators).  To oppose current leaders is to offend that country and perhaps a number of other Islamic states...except of course those Islamic states which happen to be at war with them...until the next overthrow that is when the deck is again shuffled and history again rewritten.

And if the US simply does nothing...that too is viewed as an assertive choice of hostility.  Even limiting it to the realm of non-military trade, if the US chooses to trade it is viewed by some (either now or at some point in the future looking back at history) as supporting despots.  And of course if the US cuts off trade, then we are viewed as hurting the innocent citizens of that country and more or less committing human rights violations.

So the general point still stands.  Those in power in the Middle East have to be held responsible for the state the Middle East is in, not the US.  The US, at best, can merely cope with the Middle East, and it certainly can't control or define it.

Those moderate Islamic voices who so resent any attempts by the US to influence Middle Eastern affairs could best achieve their goal of self-determination by simply cleaning their own houses. Two big steps in that direction would be (1) not supporting radical terrorist causes under the table and (2) working towards political and social democracy and...dare I say it...an acceptance of multi-culturalism within their own borders.

The world is now a very small place, and it should be obvious to all that it is impossible for the 12th century and the 21st century to peacefully coexist.  The past must, as always, make way for the future.


Philip



At 3:19 PM +1300 10/18/01, may-ling sie wrote:
 
Philip Galanter wrote:
And there are many many Iranians, some here, some there, who wish
Iran had never taken the giant leap back into the middle ages it did
when the Shah was overthrown.
Try asking an Iranian. I did and he told me that under the Shah it was easier to make money, but people were often arrested, tortured and/or murdered by the secret police. Under the current regime it is harder to make money, but the human rights situation was better. On balance he thought that things were better after the Shah because you could speak freely. He didn't think that you could do this in Iraq.
Like all Iranians of his age he had served in the Iran-Iraq war, but because his mother was Iraqi he was not asked to go to the front, so he drove trucks. He told me that he had blown two of these up. When I asked him how he had destroyed these trucks he told me that either he hadn't put enough oil in them, or, he hadn't put enough water in but that now he is always careful to check the oil and water in any vehicle he drives.
I don't know how this corresponds with your idea of Iran's
giant leap back into the middle ages
For my part, I have always argued that for many reasons, Iran is a natural and obvious ally of the United States in the region. Iran is politically much more reliable than Iraq was (and still is), especially now that Iran appears to be undergoing a process of democratic reform. Unfortunately, the United States is limited in its capacity to make anything of this because there is a history of very unfortunate events that have poisoned this relationship. This is a great shame in view of the circumstances in which the US finds itself today.

Let me remind you of some these events Philip.
-the United States government supported the Shah of Iran even though it knew that the Shah's regime was violently oppressive of human rights.
-the United States government armed and funded Saddam Hussein and encouraged Iraq to prosecute a war against Iran. (Thanks a lot for that.)
-the United States Navy shot down an Iranian airliner full of civilian passengers and has still not apologised. To the contrary, the father of your current president said that the United States has nothing to apologise for in this matter, and went on to promote the naval commander in charge at the time. The families of non Iranian passengers were compensated, but when the families of the Iranian passengers who were killed applied to your government for compensation they were told to piss off.
Look, this discussion is just getting silly.
The US does not control the destiny of the Middle East.  The people
of the Middle East do...but not in any sense either you or I would
want for ourselves.  None of the Arab states are democracies, power
is unfairly distributed, and there are social and political
structures that are typically *the opposite of* multi-cultural,
adaptive, progressive...all the things I assume you believe in.
In general things are the way they are in the Middle East because
that is how those in power in the Middle East have made them.
If the US was the puppetmaster you claim, then events would have been
steered in our favor.  Things are clearly not in our favor.  Things
are clearly not under US control.
It is time to hold those in control responsible for their misdeeds.
To not treat the leaders of the Middle East as responsible moral
agents is to commit a form of racism.
Philip
At 1:55 AM -0700 10/17/01, Terrence Kosick wrote:
>Terrence writes;
>
>The shaw of Iran was put there by the west. Who do you think gave him and his
>family asylum?
>
>T.
>
>Philip Galanter wrote:
>
>>  So if it weren't for America, suddenly the royal families would give
>>  away their wealth to the poor, and the military juntas would
>>  instantly declare open and free elections, and overnight the Mideast
>>  would become a democratic middle class paradise?
>>
>>  And it is actually the US preserving these structures from the middle ages?
>>
>>  If that were the case bin Laden would love us, not hate us!
>>
>  > Philip
>>
+ 0100100100100100100100010110010010010010010011001101011101001100011011
-> Rhizome.org
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3