June 25, 2009

"I have added her to the list of my daughters."

Reza Pahlavi — son of the Shah — carries a picture of Neda, "The Angel of Iran."

45 comments:

Aaron said...

Okay, question... should the son of the Shah be saying anything on the subject. I mean, I have said Obama should be more forceful and to his credit he has been getting better about this as it goes along, but I also recognized the concern that it might do more harm than good. my view was 1) the iranian protesters clearly wanted our help and 2) we were going to be blamed anyway, so f--- it we might as well do it.

But those considerations don't apply to the family of the Shah. I appreciate that the man has his heart in the right place, but i suspect he would help those people more if he kept his mouth shut.

But that is just me being theoretical. maybe the true facts are that the shah is now remembered fondly and his endorsement is a positive influence. in other words, i could be wrong.

Lem said...

If she is a martyr of this revolution does that mean she’s going to get a number of virgin boys?
Never mind – bad joke.

MadisonMan said...

I agree with Aaron -- having the Shah' son weigh in on this can only bolster the present regime, even though very few people on the streets of Iran likely remember the Shah anymore.

There was an interesting point made on the radio yesterday re: Iran: There is a schism in Iranian leadership between the 'students' of the 1970s, the ones who were radicals then and who are now 'reformists', and the people like Ahmadinejad, who are students of the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s and are far more militant today.

I have resolved not to watch Neda dying -- but if her death sows the destruction of Iran's "Religious" Leaders, I say Allah Akbar. Dictatorial Thugs never seem to learn that killing citizenry is no way to keep the hearts and minds of those you are ruling behind you.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well if anything comes from her death, I hope it opened Obama's eyes as to the sadistic regime he wanted so much to have a dialogue with. All she wanted was reform and was fucking shot to death for it.

AllenS said...

If there is to be change in Iran, it will be encouraged by people like the son of the Shah, and not by a boy like Obama.

Meade said...

America should stand for freedom, rule of law, and government by, for, and of the people. Everything else comes second.

Carter gave conflicting signals. Obama is giving conflicting signals.

G W Bush did not. That's why I love G W Bush.

traditionalguy said...

Pres. Obama's message to the Iran: A Supreme Leader knows who needs to die for the State. And she was only someone's woman. I, the Obama, understand the ways of Islam. Peace comes only when god's Rulers say so, because god needs obediance!

Salamandyr said...

America should stand for freedom, rule of law, and government by, for, and of the people. Everything else comes second.

Carter gave conflicting signals. Obama is giving conflicting signals.

G W Bush did not. That's why I love G W Bush.


But that's not Realist, Meade. We need to be Realists.

Other countries having Supreme Leaders is awfully convenient for the United States. We always know exactly who to talk to.

T J Sawyer said...

My god, Meade! I love you too.

Robert Cook said...

"America should stand for freedom, rule of law, and government by, for, and of the people."

Yes, we should. I wonder when we will?

Oh...are you talking about in Iran? Well, I suppose it is pro forma for us to lecture other nations about their obligations to allow democratic participation and to follow the rule of law. Self-righteousness is always easier than setting the example.

If we follwed your prescription, GW Bush would be in jail awaiting prosecution for his criminal acts and abuse of office. For that matter, if Americans were as passionate about having democracy as the Iranians seem to be, GW Bush would never have violated the White House with his presence.

Ah, but I indulge myself in partisan rancor; the occupant of the White House changes every few years, but our pretense at "democracy" never gains any greater foothold in reality, and remains always but the delusion of serfs who see themselves as kings.

NKVD said...

Ah, a lecture from a Nader voter. Back in the loony bin with you.

Aaron said...

Sal

> Other countries having Supreme Leaders is awfully convenient for the United States. We always know exactly who to talk to.

Well, who is being realistic? Of course someone can be in charge. We can call them “President” instead of “your highness” or “dictator” however. Sheesh.

The fact is that democracies are better neighbors. If you don’t realize that the pathologies of the middle east is due largely to them being non-democracies and that those pathologies led directly to the terrorist threat, you are just not paying attention.

Cook

> If we follwed your prescription, GW Bush would be in jail awaiting prosecution for his criminal acts and abuse of office.

Okay, I’ll bite. What criminal acts?

> For that matter, if Americans were as passionate about having democracy as the Iranians seem to be, GW Bush would never have violated the White House with his presence.

Riiight. Because Gore really won! Loser.

> I indulge myself in partisan rancor

Nice to hear you admit it.

> but our pretense at "democracy" never gains any greater foothold in reality,

Well, if America is so awful, then give me your address and I will give you a one way ticket to the paradise of Iran.

Der Hahn said...

Aaron, Jimmy Peanuts hung the Shah, who though authoritarian was liberalizing Iran in ways that angered the mullahs, out to dry.

We might have gotten an Iran via the Shah akin to Chile via Pinochet. He was one of the reasons why Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Ronald Reagan insisted there was a difference between 'totalitarian' and 'authoritarian'. Instead we got 400+ days of US impotence and started down the road to the current mess in Iraq and Iran.

I'm willing to bet that more than a few Iranians remember the secularization that the Shah was fostering, and his son's support for the protests carries some weight.

Aaron said...

Der Hahn,

i said in the beginning i might be wrong, so logically, you might be right.

Robert Cook said...

"Okay, I’ll bite. What criminal acts?"

To remain unaware of Bush's crimes at this late stage can only be the result of willful ignorance, an obdurate refusal to pay attention. (Okay, I'll be charitable, there's always the other explanation: a frankly cynical refusal to hold all equally accountable to the law, a willingness to justify the crimes of one's own while calling out the dogs for all others.)

In short, there's no educating those who will not see or who do not understand or truly respect the rule of law.

Robert Cook said...

"...one of the reasons why Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Ronald Reagan insisted there was a difference between 'totalitarian' and 'authoritarian'.'

Also stated as: brutal dictators who are useful to us are "authoritarian," brutal dictators who are not useful to us are "totalitarian."

I'll note the fine distinction is surely lost on those who must suffer under the policies of the respective types of brutal dictator.

Pogo said...

" there's no educating those who will not see"

Calling policy disagreements a 'crime' is for banana republics and communists.

We'll be there soon enough, Robert, so you'll get your wish.

Hoosier Daddy said...

To remain unaware of Bush's crimes at this late stage can only be the result of willful ignorance, an obdurate refusal to pay attention.


In other words I have no idea myself but it sure sounds good to call him a criminal.

Aaron said...

Cook

Really? Bush is clearly guilty of a specific crime? That you can’t specify?

Well, let’s try a favorite accusation. Torture. Except to call it torture is only a dubious reading of the law. The fact is it only talks about severe pain and suffering, which begs the question “how severe is ‘severe’?” Combined with the doctrine of lenity, the chances that even waterboarding would be found to be torture under the criminal code is about slim and none.

Or another. Wiretapping. Well, its funny you brought up the even application of the law, because Clinton not only did it as well, but his program was worse and less-justified. So I guess both are war criminals.

Or we might notice that we have bugged and/or intercepted (as appropriate) enemy communications in every war we have ever engaged in, and thus demonstrated a 200+ year reality that our constitution does not handcuff us when it comes to spying. Sheesh.

Or illegal war in Iraq. Only of course the first gulf war ended in a cease fire agreement. Now, I know this is really complicated legal speak, but under a cease fire agreement, you have to CEASE FIRING. And Saddam never did. So the war was back on any time we chose.

So really, my question was, “what lame Bushitlerburton hobbyhorse was this guy riding?” And you replied with snottiness instead of substance.

Of course if you wrap yourself up enough in your liberal cocoon where your hatred of Bush goes utterly unchallenged you might think that Bush’s status as a war criminal was beyond dispute. But for the rest of us it is quite disputed. Indeed, the fact that neither Bush nor any of the people following his orders have faced criminal charges for war crimes is prima facie evidence that he is not even reasonably accused of a war crime.

Ann Althouse said...

"G W Bush did not. That's why I love G W Bush."

Me too! I love George Bush... and Meade.

Robert Cook said...

"Clinton not only did it as well, but his program was worse and less-justified. So I guess both are war criminals."

Yes.

Robert Cook said...

"Indeed, the fact that neither Bush nor any of the people following his orders have faced criminal charges for war crimes is prima facie evidence that he is not even reasonably accused of a war crime."

It shows that we do not observe the rule of law, or, that in America as in so many nations whose governments we hypocritically decry, those who control the law, rule. See my comments in re: "serfs who see themselves as kings."

Pogo said...

Cook, yer a gas.

It's Sparticus!

No, I am a war criminal!!
No, it is I, I am the war criminal!!

Roger J. said...

re athoritarian vs totalitarian--Hannah Arendt did a brilliant job on that distinction in her 1950 (I think) book.

Frodo Potter said...

Der Hahn may have a point in that the Shah has a *far* better track record in terms of women’s rights than the Mullahs. It’s not even close. So, for a lot of women, this could be a plus. The Mullahs and the Old Boys will be angered but that is their natural state, so no big deal. In general though, I don’t think it will be much of an influence. I think it would be a bigger deal (for good or ill) if Obama were to have her picture.

In fact, apropos of Obama and that wristband he used to wear, that’s an idea for some astute marketer—why not sell wrist bands with Neda’s name and picture on them? At the very least, the wrist bands could say something like “I will remember Neda.”

Madison Man, I have to quibble with you about Ahmadinejad being a student of the 1980’s. He was born in 1956 and entered university in 1976. He was through his undergraduate schooling by the time the Iraq-Iran war broke out, though he later did return for a PhD. He also has been accused of being one of the students who took the Americans hostage in 1979. I would say he is very much of the 1970’s.

Frodo Potter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

Invidious comparisons between the Shah and the mullahs: He received criticism for the amount of money he spent to celebrate his ascension to the Peacock Throne. I wouldn't think that money is a fraction of what Iran pays for its nuclear program. Iran has a greater need for cyrstal glassware than it does for radioactive isotopes.....He was criticized for his special relationship with the United States. When that relationship was broken by the Ayatollah, Iran was invaded by Iraq. They suffered more than a half million casualties in the subsequent war. Perhaps there was a point to the Shah's special relationship with the US.....The Shah used harsh tactics to suppress popular discontent. His tactics were less harsh than those used by the mullahs. And the mullahs are just getting started....The Shah was criticized as an agent of Western Imperialism. The mullahs and their ignorant followers define the bad effects of Western Imperialism not so much in terms of Coca Cola and loud music but in terms of women who irreligiously seek the same rights as men. The Shah was an unlikely champion for women's rights and no feminist in the world supported him, but there you have it......The mullahs have been able to harness the forces of nationalism, religious fervor, and sexism for their revolution. The Shah wished to unleash the forces of modernity under the cloak of monarchical absolutism. It didn't work, but, on the whole, he offered a better deal than the mullahs.

Aaron said...

Cook

You’re a parody, right? You aren’t really so goofball a liberal that you would outlaw spying in a time of war, right? No one is that goofball...

> It shows that we do not observe the rule of law

Right, right. So why exactly is it that not only the current POTUS, but all the individual US attorneys have not even charged bush with anything, democrat, republican indifferent. I mean, shit, we had how many months of investigation over the Plame issue and ended up charging a person with obstruction of justice for lying to cover up nothing. But they let whatever your silly hobbyhorse is, go? Even the democrats.

Because Democrats were all about protecting Bush, you know.

Seriously, you are a parody, right? Talk about willful blindness, are you willfully blind to how much people like you hate Bush, and have wanted him to be tried. So if he hasn’t been, its not because everyone likes him so much they wouldn’t dare.

And, by the way, before you claim that the fact that someone was not arrested for a crime means that we are not observing the rule of law, you have to prove they actually committed a crime. So far you haven’t even specifically alleged a crime, except in a sort of back-handed way. And no, i don't accept ordinary surveillance of our terrorist enemies to be a war crime. indeed, even if it was a crime, it wouldn't be a war crime (and its not a crime, either). only an ignoramous who has no idea what the term means would all it as such.

Joseph said...

The 1979 revolution (and the existence of the current repressive regime) would not have happened but for the Shah's antidemocratic and violent oppression of the people. Whatever the many faults of the Iranian government, it is more representative of the people of Iran than the Shah's regime. I don't know much background on the son of the Shah but it seems to me he would be among the least credible voices of dissent against the current regime.

Cedarford said...

Aaron - But those considerations don't apply to the family of the Shah. I appreciate that the man has his heart in the right place, but i suspect he would help those people more if he kept his mouth shut.

No, the Shah's son has been a consistent, and apparantly welcome voice in the Iranian Diaspora for human rights, for over 20 years. He also adamantly opposes any foreign attack against Iranian infrastructure, inc. nuclear, or any foreign attack aimed at regime change.
Wiki - "Pahlavi has used media appearances to urge Iran's theocratic government to accept a referendum that used independently verifiable international standards and observation mechanisms.
He has also urged Iranians to engage in a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience,"

(His opposition to foreign intervention comes from conviction) that the people of Iran alone have the power to bring about change in their governmental system and society."
==================

Meade - Carter gave conflicting signals. Obama is giving conflicting signals.
G W Bush did not. That's why I love G W Bush.
.


I guess that is why followers of George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ralph Nader, the Burmese Junta, Dennis Kuchinich love them so much. Their complete absence of conflicting signals.

Robert Cook said...

"So why exactly is it that not only the current POTUS, but all the individual US attorneys have not even charged bush with anything, democrat, republican indifferent."

There's all sorts of possible reasons: Obama is spineless and doesn't want to fulfill his legal obligations if it means he'll have to fight a tough fight; Obama desires to avoid facing punishment for his own continuation of criminal Bush policies; few in Washington (Obama not being one of the few) are independent or truly see their role as being to serve the Constitution, but instead are self-serving power-mongers who are complicit to greater or lesser degree in various criminal conspiracies with one another; it's an old-boys' club and no one wants to spoil the party; they are minions of the oligarchs and fear (or simply do not care) to disobey their masters; these and more are likely explanations for the abject failure of those in Washington to serve the people and fulfill their oaths of office. I do think there are a few there who have integrity and who have good intentions, but they cannot sway the behemoth that is our military/industrial/media/government complex.

The illegal spying on Americans was a crime,but not a war crime; the war crimes were the illegal invasion of Iraq and the mass murders, torture, widespread destruction, and mass (and often secret) imprisonments that have resulted therefrom.

Pogo said...

" the war crimes were the illegal invasion of Iraq and..."
and uh zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh God, please kill me before Cap'n Cook posts again.

Pogo said...

And if You do kill me, please charge Robert with a war crime.

Aaron said...

Robert Kook

> There's all sorts of possible reasons: Obama is spineless and doesn't want to fulfill his legal obligations if it means he'll have to fight a tough fight;

You mean Obama doesn’t want to try Bush because he doesn’t think he will win the case. Then doesn’t that suggest that the case isn’t that strong in the first place?

> Obama desires to avoid facing punishment for his own continuation of criminal Bush policies

Well, then that wouldn’t exactly be uneven justice, now would it?

> few in Washington (Obama not being one of the few) are independent or truly see their role as being to serve the Constitution, but instead are self-serving power-mongers who are complicit to greater or lesser degree in various criminal conspiracies with one another

Well, not all US Attorneys are in Washington. Its amazing that you are condemning a system that you clearly don’t even understand enough to condemn.

> it's an old-boys' club and no one wants to spoil the party

What a silly comment. What party? You mean the war? Well, the Democrats just got just about a supermajority in congress and you have the presidency, so that “party” in Iraq can end whenever they want to. Where is this groundswell of democrats who want to keep the Iraq war going just because it is a “party?”

> are minions of the oligarchs

Lol. You ARE a parody... Seriously, you write like a guy who has watched Stone’s JFK one too many times.

> they cannot sway the behemoth that is our military/industrial/media/government complex.

See? Classic Oliver Stone shtick.

Psst, here is a hint: if you wrap tin foil around your head you will block the thought rays.

Seriously, who are these oligarchs? The freemasons? The Illuminati? The Hare Club for Men? And are they in league with the Saucer people?

I could see them doing a South Park on this sort of thing, illustrating your personal mythology with the words “This is what Robert Cook really believes” on the screen as they do, because otherwise no one would believe anyone would believe anything this silly. Just like the scientologists.

Of course I am sure you will come back claiming that I am ignorant, sticking my head in the sand, etc. Its part of the appeal to this kind of conspiracy nuttiness is that it gives you the sense of superiority of thinking you are privy to a secret truth that few others really know. It allows you to assuage your other shortcomings.

> The illegal spying on Americans was a crime

Then I guess Lincoln was a criminal because he did that. So did Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson and so forth and so on all the way to FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and so on. Every wartime president did this and many non-wartime presidents did too. Which kind of belies the notion that it is a crime at all, or unconstitutional, and certainly belies the claim that there is some kind of even justice. It would be unusual if Bush was called to task for it.

> but not a war crime

The words you are looking for are “you were right.”

> the war crimes were the illegal invasion of Iraq

Already addressed. Under a cease fire agreement, you are required to cease firing. Saddam never did.

> the mass murders

What mass murders? There were none.

> torture

Already addressed.

> mass (and often secret) imprisonments

So we can’t even take the enemy prisoner. Lol.

P.S.: Bonus points if anyone knows what I mean by the “Hare Club for Men.” The only hint I will give is it is not a misspelling.

Pogo

Sorry we can't charge Robert with a crime. Being lame is not a war crime.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Oh God, please kill me before Cap'n Cook posts again.


I don't even bother reading his crap anymore. Anyone who voted for Nader pretty much tells me you're not dealing with anyone with both oars in the water. Bush is a war criminal, Obama is a war criminal. Everyone is a war criminal, except Nader and maybe Barney and the Teletubbies. I live in a lawless nation run by war criminals but go about my daily life complaining about how bad things are in the lawless USA while sipping my double mocha decaf latte.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Seriously, who are these oligarchs? The freemasons? The Illuminati? The Hare Club for Men? And are they in league with the Saucer people?

Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as the Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.

Tony Giardino: So who's in this Pentavirate?

Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tets-up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

Aaron said...

Hoozier

Lol, i love "So, I married an ax murderer." I call it "My Big Fat Scottish Wedding."

My wife wanted me to wear a traditional filipino tux (called a barong tagalog) for the wedding (she is filipino and i am a white mutt who has some scottish blood). Now i ain't got nothing against it per se, but honestly i have enough of a gut that it would look terrible on me. so i got tweeked her by suggesting a traditional scottish wedding and then showed her that movie. she was horrified.

I ended up with a traditional tux. No kilt involved.

And to this day my brother and i can make the other laugh by going "we have a piper down!"

Hoosier Daddy said...

Lol, i love "So, I married an ax murderer." I call it "My Big Fat Scottish Wedding."


One of the funniest movies ever and I love Stuart McKenzie.

"Head! Pants! Now!"

or another classic

"Show her the picture of Chollie when he shit his pants at Niagra Falls!"

Aaron said...

Hoosier

Nothing beats the moment when he is singing Rod Stewart at the wedding.

dbp said...

he puts a secret ingredient in his chicken that makes yoou crave it fortnightly ...

madawaskan said...

I love how all of a sudden Liberals are for-

let them do it on their own like we did.

Raaaarrrr...

Pull themselves up by their own boot straps...

rrraaaarrrr.....

Like sudden macho pirates.

Let the women folk sling it out-damn it arm yourselves...

What a bunch of haters.

Honestly it's disgraceful....they let their hatred of George W. Bush eclipse everything and darken everything that they are, that they do, that they see.

In the face of all they have witnessed Liberals tremble in fear that it will cost them if Obama even uses-

Tough language...

OMG! The Humanity if he does that...

You know to creeps that are shooting women in the streets.

If the media hadn't of been MIA all along about what Iran was doing to it's own people-we'll there have been hundreds of "unseen Nedas" but be damned if the media would tell you about that....it would benefit Bush's theories too much.

It's ironic that the press bemoans being forced out now-something they did voluntarily for almost a decade.

As soon as Bush declared the current Iranian regime-"evil" -the trials and tribulations of the Iranian people-fell of the map.

That is something the regime knows about the press-if they can't be in there making the story about themselves and how heroic and compassionate they are to report it-it is over.

You have to love the Liberal Americans who demand they do it on their own. How did their ancestors get here? Maybe they simply moved here because they didn't like what was going on in their countries of origin.

America got out from under England but England was far removed and we had help-

from the French.

Women who enjoy freedom in the US-well at one time at some place you had that handed to you-you had to get help from-

men.

It's that simple-you really didn't achieve that in a vacuum outside of the values and without the foundation that is United States.

When Ataturk noticed that his country-Turkey had missed the Enlightenment-one of the first things that he did-he got rid of the burka.

Ironically that brings us to his name Ataturk-Father of the Turks.

Obama I can't imagine him being remembered as the Father of much-unless it happens by accident or is unwarranted-well hell the Father of Nationalized Health Care.

but George W. Bush -if the world was fair deserves to be remembered as a Global LIncoln for Women.

bagoh20 said...

Cedarford said: "I guess that is why followers of George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ralph Nader, the Burmese Junta, Dennis Kuchinich love them so much. Their complete absence of conflicting signals."

The message being a good one is, of course, assumed. Does he really have to spell that out?

Do you think Ann would put up with him loving a Junta. I mean they have diseases don't they?

NKVD said...

Cook is serious. Serious and slightly askew. Skewed, serious and a Nader voter. Seriously skewed, but moral, in an immoral world. It's not easy being Cook. It's not easy being Nader, either. I mean he has to deal with the old man smell, the fact that no one likes him, the fact that he's an old communist - these are difficult issues to deal with.

But he has his followers, and they keep him strong.

If you say Nader three times he will show up in your house. Nader is all powerful, and only occasionally a war criminal.

Michael McNeil said...

Then there's Bush's record with regard to AIDS in Africa, which Bono has praised on numerous occasions.

Aaron said...

nkvd

lol, that description of cook almost sounded like the lyrics to the theme of shaft.

"He's a bad mother- (shut your mouth!)
I'm just talking about Cook!"