Why did the US support the Shah (a known tyrant hated by his own people)?

Because he kept the oil wells of Iran free from communist tyranny.

Ooooooooooooooooh I get it...

The Shah was a brutal dictator who was hated by his own people. The US supported him just because he provided the US with a steady supply of cheap oil.

Then after the Shah was deposed and an anti-American government was installed by the Iranians (surprise surprise), the US began to support another brutal dictator because he served as a counterweight to the threat of the evil Iranians.

hehe for a minute I thought that America was actually being tyrannical and hypocritical.

silly me.

we get it shithead. just save us all the reading time and repeatidly type "the us stinks and is the source of every single problem facing mankind today" I'm sure the assbackward country you call home has maintained a clean slate throughout history. If you go back even further i bet you can find even more dirt. Isn't that exciting? Keep on truckin dude i'm pretty sure your actually having an effect on something.

hehehehehe
thanks for acknowledging man

but u should do something about it.
coz the US doesnt smell like roses outside of its own borders.

smell like roses. But I have a plan. Since it seems the US has never done anything to help anyone around the world ever, (we only lie, steal, and cheat), I have proposed to president Bush we build a wall. 1 mile high. 1 mile thick. around the entire country so we may never harm the innocents of the world again. If we do this though you sneaky arabs have to promise not to fill it with water when it's done.

it's not just a matter of supporting shah reza pahlevi politically and financially.

it's a matter of arming and training Iran's state security forces--the military and SAVAK.

it's a matter of working with these forces in order to eradicate any progressive voices within the country--democratic, anti-monarchist, socialist, communist, whatever.

it's a matter of using iran to funnel weapons and fascist emigre groups to embattled areas in the region--to a) destabilize progressive regimes and to b) prop up other rightist groups.

all of this to control oil wealth and to maintain a strategic position vis-a-vis the ussr, which had successfully closed off over one third of the world from exploitation by capital.

the notion that the us was protecting the world/the us/oil supplies from communist tyranny with monarchic & fascist tyranny is manifestly absurd.

and we shouldn't forget that the us not only supported the shah from at least 1953 to 1979, but also installed him. this was the coup d'etat which destroyed iranian democracy. mossadegh was a liberal by all accounts, not "anti-west," not a communist--but committed to independent iranian development, which was heavily protectionist; nationalization of the iranian oil was a big step in iran's national development, as was remaining outside of client relations with either cold war power bloc.

it should go without saying that the us actions here have turned iran into a basket case for the foreseeable future, after destroying its democracy and then aiding in liquidating any remaining democrats therein.

isn't all of this obvious? isn't the us crime here bloody fucking obvious by now to you moronic us apologists?

can you provide me with some sources regarding Mossadegh's policies and US involvement in Iran 1950-1980?

... load of horse meat!!
Animal Farm II
...the bitter version...

This isn’t just an american issue. The individuals who control policies in the U.S. and world are of no specific nation or loyalty. To them, the borders of the nations of the world are like fences on a farmers land.
They live in the house where it’s safe and warm.
Sometimes they come out and harvest some more of the flock, herd or
stockyard when they’re not fighting for ownership of the farm.
They have gone ‘beyond humanity’ in their own mind while they foul the
earth and create true terror as they feast on the world.

Whoa, Sheepdog, waxing a bit rhapsodic?

Listening to Mozart's Reqiuem again? That stuff is too depressing, man. Trust me, listen to a little Ludwig Van. He'll get your blood pumping proper.

Now, New X, we've been through this little exercise of yours, but your conclusions are all out of whack.

The United States supported the Shah as a counterweight to Soviet clients in the Middle East, and as a buffer to Soviet adventurism in that region.

The subsequent overthrow of the Shah by an Islamic fundamentalist movement changed the dynamics of the region dramatically. The revolutionaries of Iran were actively and vocally interested in the export of their revolution to all other Muslim countries in the region. This would have destabilized the area, and since the Iranian revolutionaries were so antagonistic towards the West, this promised to be a re-alignment that would work out in favor of the Soviets, eventually.

To forstall such a calamity, we began to more actively support Saddam Hussein. He possessed the largest military and population in the region, and was corrupt enough to be bought out of the Soviet camp. It was never our intention that he would win his conflict with the Iranians, of course. We supplied information to both sides to help ensure a bloody stalemate.

In the end this was an ineffectual stop-gap. The Iranians were keen on exporting their revolution 'by other means' namely, terrorism. It is a sad fact that the United States' failure to deal more forcefully with the Islamic revolution while it was in it's infancy has led to the calamities of the last 25 years.

to anti-empire: blum's killing hope has a decent chapter on the fall of mossadegh. his bibliography should direct you from there.

simple simon: "The United States supported the Shah as a counterweight to Soviet clients in the Middle East, and as a buffer to Soviet adventurism in that region."

which "soviet clients"? in saudi arabia? nope. in pakistan? nope. in afghanistan? nope. in india? nope. in iraq? nope. in syria? nope. in egypt? nope. in any near or middle eastern state? NOPE. and which "soviet adventurism"? isn't it true that the truman doctrine and kennan's containment doctrine are all about guaranteeing us corporate hegemony in the numerous outposts of the empire? aren't these doctrines about making sure that soviet *ideas* can't be transmitted to the people in various nations in the region who were suffering under us supported neo-fascist regimes? please, there's no need to be dishonest and manufacture "soviet clients" when none existed in this region of the world in the early 1950s or to assume the existence of "soviet adventurism" when in fact there is no record of such in history outside of the 1979 "invasion" of afghanistan--itself provoked by us incursions. overall you can distort the issue all you want--but the us supported the shah as a regional "cop" to enforce us corporate and strategic interests--that the us consistently uses monarchists and fascists to do so should be instructive.


simon: "The subsequent overthrow of the Shah by an Islamic fundamentalist movement changed the dynamics of the region dramatically. The revolutionaries of Iran were actively and vocally interested in the export of their revolution to all other Muslim countries in the region. This would have destabilized the area, and since the Iranian revolutionaries were so antagonistic towards the West, this promised to be a re-alignment that would work out in favor of the Soviets, eventually."

oh gods. this explains why the reagan administration connived with the iranian fundamentalists? this explains why the us actively continued to encourage islamist fundamentalism throughout the region up to and including the present moment? and how you can suggest that the iranian revolutionaries would "destablize the region" more than the us had already done by making them the only possibility is beyond disingenuous. how islamist fundamentalism in iran works out for atheist communism in the ussr also defies any reasoned account of the historical record.

simon: "To forstall such a calamity, we began to more actively support Saddam Hussein. He possessed the largest military and population in the region, and was corrupt enough to be bought out of the Soviet camp. It was never our intention that he would win his conflict with the Iranians, of course. We supplied information to both sides to help ensure a bloody stalemate."

yes, a bloddy stalemate. and bloody oil supplies. and bloody geostrategic goals. the hussein regime nationalized its oil industry in 1972 and cut deals with the soviets for conventional weaponry. this is an example of a third world administration trying to be neutral in the cold war--a "sin"for which mossadegh, arbenz, sukarno, and many others were ousted by united states. of course, that you admit the us crime in regards to the hussein regime hardly absolves the us of its crime vis-a-vis iran in 1953 and following.

simon: "In the end this was an ineffectual stop-gap. The Iranians were keen on exporting their revolution 'by other means' namely, terrorism. It is a sad fact that the United States' failure to deal more forcefully with the Islamic revolution while it was in it's infancy has led to the calamities of the last 25 years."

ie you're saying really that "it is a sad fact that us fascism didn't have a more tight control over events in the middle east." at least you're honest enough to concede the point that the us policies are failures, even if you are too blinded and/or craven to admit that these "failures" are simultaneously crimes against humanity.

Way to go. Whenever we conservatives don't have a valid argument, we can always rationalize. Great job!

Anti Empire
Nice Nickname. One wonders which empire you oppose?

“which "soviet clients"? in saudi arabia? nope. in pakistan? nope. in afghanistan? nope. in india? nope. in iraq? nope. in syria? nope. in egypt? nope. in any near or middle eastern state? NOPE”

Actually, son, the answers are: nope, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, and finally yep. Furthermore, your assessment that there had been no Soviet Adventurism with the exception of the Afghan invasion conveniently omits the Hungarian invasion 1956, the Czech invasion 1968, the Korean War 1950-53, and a host of lesser-known engagements. Sure, the Soviets limited their commitment to massive arms shipments and intelligence support in most cases, but they were actively involved in dozens of ‘revolutions’ which occurred worldwide.

“oh gods. this explains why the reagan administration connived with the iranian fundamentalists? this explains why the us actively continued to encourage islamist fundamentalism throughout the region up to and including the present moment? and how you can suggest that the iranian revolutionaries would "destablize the region" more than the us had already done by making them the only possibility is beyond disingenuous. how islamist fundamentalism in iran works out for atheist communism in the ussr also defies any reasoned account of the historical record.”

Well, my simple friend, you’re putting the cart a little before the horse here, historically. Ronald Reagan didn’t ‘connive’ with anyone. He used the Iranians for cash which was funneled to the Contras. In this way he circumvented the Democratic Party’s attempt at promoting a Communist dictatorship in Central America. Second of all, we don’t now, nor have we ever ‘encouraged’ Islamic fundamentalism. We have used it. We have promoted it when it could be turned to our aims and eradicated it where it could not. You should stay tuned. A lot more of the latter is coming.

The area was destabilized by the Islamic revolutionaries. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a deadly struggle and the Islamic Revolution upset the apple cart. It caused a massive reappraisal of regional strategy. Furthermore it is both childish and ignorant to believe that antagonists with different world-views cannot join forces against a common foe. One need only look at the example of the West and the Soviet Union during the Second World War.

“yes, a bloddy stalemate. and bloody oil supplies. and bloody geostrategic goals. the hussein regime nationalized its oil industry in 1972 and cut deals with the soviets for conventional weaponry. this is an example of a third world administration trying to be neutral in the cold war--a "sin"for which mossadegh, arbenz, sukarno, and many others were ousted by united states. of course, that you admit the us crime in regards to the hussein regime hardly absolves the us of its crime vis-a-vis iran in 1953 and following.”

I have admitted to no crime. I have merely stated the historical facts. We played the Iraqis and the Iranians like a harp. And wait a damn minute. I thought you said Iraq wasn’t a Soviet client. Now you say in 1972 they were making arms deals with the Russians. Curious. We don’t look at trading with the Russians for arms as being ‘neutral’. Nice try though.

“ie you're saying really that "it is a sad fact that us fascism didn't have a more tight control over events in the middle east." at least you're honest enough to concede the point that the us policies are failures, even if you are too blinded and/or craven to admit that these "failures" are simultaneously crimes against humanity.”

No, what I am saying is that the US should have put an armored boot up the backside of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and rolled the Islamofascists under our tank treads. Then the Western world wouldn’t be threatened today by ignorant unwashed religious Luddite zealots who want to kill what they cannot fathom. If these creatures were Christian, do you really think we’d see such efforts at restraint by the press? If these creatures were Jewish do you really think we’d see such support for them from the Leftists? I tend to doubt it.

simon: "Actually, son, the answers are: nope, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, and finally yep."

complete bs. you are making up some serious falsification of history here. in 1953, when the shah was installed, there were no soviet client regimes in the region. pakistan was under us suzerainty; egypt's free officers corp had not yet broken from the cia; iraq was still a pro west monarchy; india pursuing somewhat successfuly an independent course; israel orbiting the us; afghanistan a monarchy not friendly to the soviets; jordan a dying monarchy begging for brit help; lebanon a us client; syria contested by the us and britain; and the gulf monarchies all us or british. overall, stop lying.

simon: "Furthermore, your assessment that there had been no Soviet Adventurism with the exception of the Afghan invasion conveniently omits the Hungarian invasion 1956, the Czech invasion 1968, the Korean War 1950-53, and a host of lesser-known engagements. Sure, the Soviets limited their commitment to massive arms shipments and intelligence support in most cases, but they were actively involved in dozens of ‘revolutions’ which occurred worldwide."

haha yes got me there; overzealous in my refutation of your facile post. apologies. soviet adventurism can be listed as: hungary 1956, czechoslovakia 1968, poland in the 50s and 80s, the afghan "occupation" 1979-1989, and various relations with destated groups in africa. the korean connection is so minute that it is laughable--especially in comparison to us support of the fascist syngman rhee regime and slaughter of millions of folks in dprk. and vietnam? a jest, surely. proxy war in angola, mozambique, nicaragua, and all of the other spots aroudn the globe claimed by the us empire as soviet expansionism? certainly this is just paranoid international communist conspiracy bs. you can't be serious. in any event, soviet "adventurism" works to maintain a limited empire in some cases, help revolutionary movements fight fascists and monarchists in others, and counter us incursions. if you think that massive us adventurism is good while decrying the relatively small amount of soviet adventurism, then you are clearly a crass propagandist and not serious.

simon: "Well, my simple friend, you’re putting the cart a little before the horse here, historically. Ronald Reagan didn’t ‘connive’ with anyone. He used the Iranians for cash which was funneled to the Contras. In this way he circumvented the Democratic Party’s attempt at promoting a Communist dictatorship in Central America. Second of all, we don’t now, nor have we ever ‘encouraged’ Islamic fundamentalism. We have used it. We have promoted it when it could be turned to our aims and eradicated it where it could not. You should stay tuned. A lot more of the latter is coming."

of course reagan connived with the iranians. october surprise? iran/contra? how can you admit the arms for hostages and the contra crack/arms stuff and deny reaganite conniving? are ye insane? and the notion that the dems supported the sandinistas, who actually ran elections, btw, is manifestly absurd, given the dem voting record. in any event, admitting to this us crime, consistent with the icj ruling in 1986, at least is honest of you. and: used or encouraged? what is the difference? you are grasping at patriotic straws here. your callous admission of us guilt in playing both ends against the middle here is admirable insofar as it is honest, though the us triumphalism is fairly grotesque. im not sure if the us have ever "eradicated" islamist fundamentalism, however.

simon: "The area was destabilized by the Islamic revolutionaries. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a deadly struggle and the Islamic Revolution upset the apple cart. It caused a massive reappraisal of regional strategy. Furthermore it is both childish and ignorant to believe that antagonists with different world-views cannot join forces against a common foe. One need only look at the example of the West and the Soviet Union during the Second World War."

uhh...your hypothetical deduction of an iranian-soviet alliance against the us is plausible as a hypothesis--but there is *no* evidence of such, since fundamentalists hate the soviets and would be just as likely to join up with the us, given hypotheticals. you need evidence--not innuendo. and your example of the west-soviet alliance during ww2 is fairly under theorized. have you no knowledge of the tremendous hatred in us ruling circles for the soviets and love for the fascists? capitalists love fascism. why do you think that the us built the third reich and rescued nazi war criminals after the war?

simon: "I have admitted to no crime. I have merely stated the historical facts. We played the Iraqis and the Iranians like a harp. And wait a damn minute. I thought you said Iraq wasn’t a Soviet client. Now you say in 1972 they were making arms deals with the Russians. Curious. We don’t look at trading with the Russians for arms as being ‘neutral’. Nice try though."

the facts of history to which you have admitted are crimes. pretty simple deductive logic. and i said that iraq wasnt a soviet client in the period to which you had referred. stop producing straw men. such fallacious reasoning works on clearchannel, but not here. and it is "neutral" if a nation buys weaponry from both power blocs and weds itself to neither exclusively. neutral, contrary to popular american belief, does not mean becoming part of the us empire. sheesh.

simon: "No, what I am saying is that the US should have put an armored boot up the backside of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and rolled the Islamofascists under our tank treads. Then the Western world wouldn’t be threatened today by ignorant unwashed religious Luddite zealots who want to kill what they cannot fathom. If these creatures were Christian, do you really think we’d see such efforts at restraint by the press? If these creatures were Jewish do you really think we’d see such support for them from the Leftists? I tend to doubt it."

a series of red herrings and straw men here. the issue is us support for fascism, not "WE ARE AMARICA AND WE WIL GET YUO!!!" for fucks sake man! stop distorting the issues and examine the evidence.

**which "soviet clients"? in saudi arabia? nope. in pakistan? nope. in afghanistan? nope. in india? nope. in iraq? nope. in syria? nope. in egypt? **
Um I think you need to look in to this a bit further before speaking again.

Let me elaborate...
I Do Not in anyway defend the U.S. support of the shah.
However "when the shah was installed" it (by 'it' I'm mean the course of human history) was not evident that the shah was the tyrant that he was. When the US supported the shah (the 30+ years) however there were indeed "Soviet agents" in the region (case in point Afghanistan). Not much of an excuse I'll agree.
But at the same time it is obvious that no other nation has ever made military blunders (so as to not confuse... **sarcasm**). The Maginot Line. Canada's Japanese Canadian relocation camps. Nazi Germany's death camps. Any number of Britain's colonies. USSR's north Korea. China's Tibet. Iraq's Kurds. Hell if we want to get into holly wars the Arab's Zoroastrian's. Catholic's crusades. Spanish Inquisition. Pol Pot. Want to get Personal? India's dowry burning. South Africa's apartheid. US's native American wars.
Everybody's got history.
And we can all pick and chose what best suits our cause, but once you look at the whole picture, it looks like shit.
As it ( by it I mean the present state of mankind and the reality which we live in) stands now war is a tool, not an act of irrationality but a tool. No governmental leader gets up and decides that she'll send her nations able body persons to possible death.
The very nature of war is such its best not to use it.
The US presently employs the tool of war as it is the prudent action according to people who, quite candidly, are smarter then you, or I, who have more facts then you or I.
That doesn't mean that the war protester should 'shut up' it does however imply that a better argument then "No war for oil" (frankly I still have trouble even seeing this as an argument) or "the US has made mistakes in the past... [at this point the argument generally lapses into a debate over various US actuated tragedies... then some rhetoric about September Eleventh... perhaps maybe a few words about patriotism... then freedom of speech] should be made.
Don't expect to have much of an audience at this point, Im sure some one is busy disputing my facts, but its like Plato said "just think It"...
No Plato didn't actually say that ... as far as I know.

For text articles, URLs will be converted to clickable links. You may also use LINK in plain text articles (other tags will be ignored unless you select "html format").

This is a sorry page. For those racists who equate Iranians with arabs, whom they subsequently put down, I say go read a real history book and you'll know who to call arabs and who to call Iranian. The US is parochial and in its infancy as far as foreign political matters are concerned.

It is a FACT that the Shah was put in power by the US, and a FACt the the cia helped to put Khomeini in power, and denied all support to the Shah (who by the was hardly a "brutal dictator"--how many civilians did khomeini's bloody rule and empire kill for over 20 years, which to this day continues?).

Please keep your uninformed and extremely ignorant comments off this post, lest you want to showcase your lack of knowledge about the history of Iran and US involvement in the middle east.

How would YOU like it if some country didn't like your president and took over your land and killed thousands, replaced your government while kiiling and maiming your children? The US has waged no LESS than 47 covert war operations in the mid-east, eastern europe and south america in the past half a century. Gee, i wonder why you're so damn unpopular?

The CIA had Mossadeq, the democratically elected Prime Minsiter of Iran, killed in 1953 because of his move to nationalize oilfields (gee, they wanted to keep what was theirs...the GALL of dem Persians...). He was replace by the Shah, a CIA puppet and brutal dictator, who used his secret police, the Savak (trained by Mossad) to crush dissent. Mossadeq was no communist...he was a democrat and a capitalist. It was simply a matter of control of Iranian oil, and to frame it in cold war terms is shear idiocy, as if, even if true, that lie would be enough to justify the reprehensible behavior of the US.

USA=evil
Everyone else=good

Class dismissed.

Blah blah OIL blah blah blah USA BAD blah blah blah
KILL WHITY blah blah blah EVIL BUSH blah blah I AM VERY STUPID blah blah blah

>The US presently employs the tool of war as it is the prudent action according to people who, quite candidly, are smarter then you, or I, who have more facts then you or I. <
Smarter? This is something that will have to be demonstrated before I believe it.
More evil, sure. Without compassion or remorse is a given, but smarter? Compared to the author of this comment, this is clear. What is so 'smart' about producing hate and escalating the threat towards the population of common folk that live here?
We are being treated as chum on a fishing trip for power and wealth most of us will never see. This is stupid if you believe it.

First, let this be understood.

I am not anti-american. I love Americans. They are basically good people (mostly), but so very naieve and misled...

It is their government that is to blame. Bush can hardly speak for shit, that fact combined with the fact that every business venture he made BEFORE running for president went down the shitter speaks enough about the fact that the man is a moron, and add to that the fact that he had to destroy thousands of legal ballots from democrats who voted for gore, and prevent thousands more democrats ('coincidentally', most were black) from registering to vote, and then add to that list the amount of debt ($687 BILLION by now) he has managed to rack up from what used to be a surplus (left over by Clinton - $300 billion surplus turned to 687 billion debt, what a brilliant businessman) and you can see, this guy is a puppet, with little real power, who just does what his corporate buddies tell him. The corporate CEOs, defense contractors, oil companies, and other top-ranking businessmen and military goons use the CIA, their "secret (world) police," or rather, their "Global Gestapo" to carry out strategic assassinations and overthrows of governments around the world that don't do what they have been told by the powers-that-be. All the dictators in South America, and many in the Middle East, were installed by them. The CIA sold info to both sides, while ensuring American economic superiority in that region. The US government is, quite simply, a bunch of murdering monsters. Congress, the Senate -they've all had the wool pulled over their eyes, they cannot see what is being done.

Go here, or here, or here, or here, or HERE to see the truth:
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/mar99/23_54_123.html
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/...07132001/330066
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~cpa/garchive/937usa.htm
http://www.media-alliance.org/media...3/pinochet.html
Here's some on the Shah:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
http://www.irvl.net/USMI.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php
http://www.nytimes.com/library/worl...-cia-index.html
http://ali.sdc.uwo.ca/satan1.html
http://cicg.free.fr/diremp/usasie.htm
Here's some latin South American dictators for you. Roberto Viola, Manuel Noriega, Gualtipoli (if you haven't heard of any of them I wouldn't be surprised - the men in charge of the government of the USA like to keep this stuff quiet):
http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_sup...tators8303.html
http://www.iss.k12.nc.us/schools/ni...uelnoriega.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/...n/m0027070.html
http://www.warprofiteers.com/cards/hearts/two.html
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollyw...an/georgia.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterr...,583254,00.html
http://historicaltextarchive.com/se...ticle&artid=100
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermai...ber/000136.html
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/sp...df/Backyard.pdf
And for the lover of Egyptian history, this will be useful:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2001/0105egypt_body.html

Atrocious and disgusting. Yet you all remain either blind or indifferent, or supportive of these atrocities. Bastard facists...

I'll be here all week! And all the rest of your life, so deal with it!

Well, I can't speak for all the actions of the U.S. government. I agree with some, don't like others, and wonder what kind of naive site of socialist ranting I've stumbled onto.

How can anybody make such wild statements as "Bush is in the hands of 'big business'" or "the government is an evil conspiracy to rule the world"? Unless you are witness to the private meetings and briefings of Congress and the Executive, I think you'd sound a lot smarter if you kept your comments more prudent.

We supported the Shah because, at the moment, it was good for our interests. Oil is a vital strategic resource, and we are justified to spy, assassinate, rearrange governments, and even go to war to protect it. Without oil, our country collapses.

Any of our Middle East policy during that time period (post WWII to 1980's) was with two aims: 1) keep the Soviets out and 2) get ourselves in. So what if we supported one dictator or another or one religious sect or another; there were more important things going on.

We kept Africans from voting? How? Don't you think it would be on some country's news somewhere if SWAT teams (Special Weapons and Tactics police, for our friends to the north!) were barricading polling places and tossing tear gas at groups of Africans? Many of those people who complained of having their right to vote denied simply tried to vote wrong. They either showed up at the wrong polling place, had unacceptable forms of identification, or any other number of problems. Bush destroyed ballots of people who voted for Gore? Not only is this wildly impossible, but to make such an accusation is unthinkable. What evidence have you? This is just as horrific though: Hundreds of Democratic Party volunteers gathered in Florida to inspect ballots. If there was a "pregnant dimple" it meant that the voter really supported Gore, or if there was a "hanging dimple" it mean the voter intended something else, if the chad was "pregnant" then...etc. Were they a bunch of psychics? Who are they to decide who the voter meant to vote for or not. God forbid! What if the voter actually meant to vote for the person they selected? ~gasp~ The fabric of democracy is unraveling--people get to choose for themselves who they vote for! Look, why is it so hard for you people to believe that President Bush actually got more votes in that state than Mr. Gore? It happens, you know, Republicans do get elected now and then.

Hey, you ignorant son of a bitch, why don't you take an Econ 101 class? The president doesn't control the economy. He's the commander in chief of the military, not the economy. How does the government make money? Answer: collecting taxes. What makes taxes? A: Business creating wealth. And what inhibits the creation of wealth? A: High taxes. So, what should the government do if it wants to collect taxes? A: Have lower tax rates and get the hell out of business's way so it can go about making wealth. By the way: Everyone is so concerned about "Bush's" economic failures. As I'm writing this, the market is climbing like never before. We're back to a bull market. The thing moves line a sine curve; and gov't has very little to do with it other than raising or lowering interest rates (and the President doesn't control that).

Also, at the risk of sounding racist, I provide this: Maybe your Marx-like intellectuality (I mean that to be derogatory) has blinded you in a way? I want you to find a map. I want you to mark in red every region of the world that is predominantly Islamic--not Arab, mind you, Islamic. Now I want you to think long and hard about how many of those regions are 1) in turmoil 2) gross abusers of human rights 3) lacking stable governments 4) generally crappy places to live (i.e. economy sucks, no services, hard to find clean water, no modernization, etc.) I don't mean to say anything about Islam, but, well, its people aren't very good at the whole making-decent-countries thing. Let's choose sense over sensitivity.

As for the "fascist bastards" comment (maybe you can learn a clearer way of organizing your paragraphs and sentences while your learning to be more polite), I'm speechless. Well, I guess at least the uniforms are snappy, "America Über Alles!"

Until next time,
--Chris