Bodies do not vanish into thin air just because the murderers were disorganised.

I am talking about the physical need to get rid of the bodies. You cannot simply say that because you don't see how the logistics would have worked, they wouldn't have been necessary. You can safely assume that if it was possible to get rid of bodies without furnaces or mass graves, Hitler and Saddam Hussein would have done so.

You seem to argue that the Shah had such a (magical) method at his disposal. And your argument for that seems to be that those who resorted to mass graves or furnaces to solve the problem only did so because they didn't have to use the other (magical) method.

Arguing that somebody doesn't have the MEANS to do X doesn't in any way imply that the problem solved by doing X simply disappears, although I see why one could fall for such a fallacy.

The organised death programs were solutions to actual problems that occur when you kill so many people. If Saddam and Hitler COULD have killed everyone they wanted to kill WITHOUT leaving evidence, they would have. Neo-Nazis have been trying to discredit the evidence for decades. But vanishing bodies really is surprisingly difficult.





No, it wasn't. You are still assuming that making up a number creates a tragedy and that after a number was made up, the tragedy remains, even if the number was wrong.

I wasn't saying that since Khomeini said it was less than 100,000 it was OK. I was saying that I specifically doubted YOUR number because even Khomeini did.

I don't believe his numbers either.

You are still accusing the Shah of major crimes and if the best evidence you can come up with is a number of victims disputed even by the Shah's enemies, we are back to square one and you haven't proved anything.

I do not doubt that the Shah executed political opponents. But that's, unfortunately, normal and, possibly, necessary. I have seen what his political opponents are doing now. The Shah was RIGHT to try to stop them.





It is completely irrelevant who made the number up. What is relevant is that no mechanism has been found that the Shah might have used to vanish the bodies. And the argument that he wouldn't have had such a mechanism because the deaths were not an organised state program doesn't explain how the bodies vanished without a mechanism.




I have had it with "different perspectives" on history and "expanding" my mind. I am sick and tired of revisionists and conspiracy nuts.

I have met supporters of the Nazis and supporters of the Shah. If you just talk to them for a few minutes you will notice that the two have completely different opinions on whether it is acceptable to kill a few hundred thousand people or not. And this difference of opinion is well-represented in their respective leaders' choice of death program policy.

You forgot to mention that the US funded and supported that war, making us partially responsible for the deaths there. The reason we know of this number is because the Nazis and the Soviets were great record keepers and knowing they were going to win the war they listed most of the kills by name.





As was pointed out a few times the people that took over went through the records and came up with less than a hundred thousand deaths by the Shah. People who write books that have never been in the country are saying 300 thousand. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, his name is Firooz, he was not in love with the Shah, but as a rich land owner in the country he was on vacation in America when the Shah fled Iran, he now works for homeland security. My other friend Sharom, he was a college student when the Shah fled Iran. He went back because he was a kid without a job and his family was there. He was killed as a CIA spy.

If the enemy of the Shah states a low number and they have closed off their nation to most people so we can’t have any serious investigations what would lead you to believe the estimate of 300 thousand is correct or valid? All the authors can do is guess at a number. Unlike with the Nazis which kept good numbers that were captured. 12.5 million Killed in death camps. A total estimate of 25 million world wide died during WWII on both sides of the war.

If your academic was given free access to the records in Iran, and had a team to people to search the country it would give some validity to his numbers. I did not think you made up the numbers I was challenging the author of the books you use. I think they made up the numbers. Getting rid of that many people without the general population not noticing is difficult to do. an enemy will look hard and long to dig up anything to vilify the Shah so when they say less than 100 thousand I would think the numbers were inflated to get to that point.

Seeing the people that are killed by Iran now as opposed to the people killed back then you have 70% of the nation wanting to end the current rule. This was done by a telephone poll by an Iranian university. The professor that conducted and then published the report on the internet lost his job and has not been heard from since. Is he dead? Don’t know. But keeping a nation under the thumb of the current leaders is not easy to hide or control without the threat of the use of force.

Ironically the US were able to support the Soviet Union because the Shah (or evil incarnate, as he is known among liberals) allied Iran with the Americans and allowed (and protected) transports of goods and food to reach Russia via Iran.

Of course, without evil incarnate's help the Germans would have overrun the Soviet Union and killed millions more. So perhaps we can blame the Shah for the deaths of Stalingrad? Certainly his supplies killed the Germans there.

So what can liberals do if a man becomes ruler of Iran during World War II and stops the Nazis from killing millions more?

Accuse him of becoming ruler in 1953 and killing hundreds of thousands, of course!

That is how the (liberal) world thanks the Shah for saving Russia and Europe.

 

And our own country. Iran was a pivot point that helped win the war. without the Shah it would have been much more difficult and more costly. We repay this by helping getting him ousted. Yeah, support America and we will screw you. That is the message we send to our friends. Thanks Liberal Democrats.

It didn't help that Carter was President at the time.

He also screwed over Anwar Saddat.

Carter got his Nobel Peace Price for Saddat's effort and success and he thanked Saddat for it by making friends with Saddat's murderers.

Egypt named a street in Cairo after the Shah in the early 1980s.

 

What? As opposed to Bush engineering the invasion of Iraq to please his "humanitarian base of nuts". After all when it became obvious that the WMD excuse was a sham democracy became the new reasoning.

 

One of these days you partisan hacks will realize that both parties have dirtied their hands in oil based foreign policy and both parties are equally responsible for terrorist actions against U.S. interests.

Like hell it all started with the Shah.....You might want to go back to Rockerfeller's era and start tracing which countries were involved with wars in the various mideast oil producing countries starting after the breakup of Standard Oil.

 

It collapsed because of 10 years of war in Afghanistan.....Imagine what a few more years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan just might do to the US economy.

 

You keep saying this but you have yet to prove it.

One of these days you will learn that oil is not the problem you think it is. For right now could you please explain what you mean?

You sound like one of my porfessors at NYU back in the 60's might i remind you that all but one rockefeller was a democrat. The crap you are speaking comes from a comic book put out to trash Nelson Rockefeller who was a republican governor of NY at the time.

Wow, if you only bothered to do some research you would lean that this was untrue.

It is so tiring to see people spouting talking points without thinking.  And not even understanding what they are saying.

Please, if you want to repeat talking points, do not insult our intelligence with them.  Either back them up with facts (you cant, that is why they are talking points) or go spout them to the bots.

It's simple.

If it's the US, it's evil and because of oil.

If it's anybody else, it's a defence against imperialism and a fight against big oil.

Unless it is Israel, in which case it is genocide.

 

Paladin -

After reading through this thread (just spotted it today for some reason), I must agree with one of your early points.  Reading comprehension matters, and too many can't comprehend what they read.

Props to you for going to all this trouble to present facts and historical data, as opposed to emotional diatribes devoid of facts or sufficient thought, filtered through a prism of fundamental dislike, even hatred, of the US.

Your partisanship makes you miss the whole point. It has nothing to do with political party. Both parties have been involved in creating policy to facilitate economic security in regards to protecting the flow of global oil supplies.

 

Not necessarily evil or imperialistic.  After all keeping mideast oil flowing benefits global economies, not just the U.S economy. Oil or more generally speaking control of various natural resources is just one of several causes for conflict around the globe.

Actually I read that comic book on the Rockefellers when I was a democrat at NYU. It was must reading for political science. Can you guess why? Lol.

 

Next is your point of both parties having this policy.

It is the duty of our leaders to ensure our security. Economic and military, oil provides both.

Thanks! I look at both sides of an argument and try to be honest while I point out why I believe what I believe. According to you I succeeded thank you.

2002 address to the UN by President Bush, if you bother to notice that more than one reason was listed and the justification was clear. It is not the fault of the American government if the news media and people only chose to pay attention to one or two reasons. It is the fault of the liberals to pick and choose the reasons that make their case while ignoring the rest. It is your fault if you chose to only pay attention to the one reason that you like while ignoring the rest.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

But oil is not the only solution and current geopolitical circumstance shows that we must start moving towards alternative solutions. How many deaths and how much conflict does it take to convince people that oil is quickly becoming more of a security problem than a solution. 9/11 didnt create the wake up call that it should have.  If it takes more than that i'm afraid a lot of people are going to have a very rude awakening.

 

Please name one oil substitute that is ready to go right now. we as a nation have been moving towards alternatives since the 1970’s this is not new or hidden. When we get a solution we will use it.

 

I don’t understand how you come up with this please explain.

I again fail to see your logic please explain.

Theres plenty of alternatives out there. Unfortunatly the politicians are all getting bankrolled by opposing energy interests.

Name two.

 

That was not what I asked of you. I asked you to name one that is ready to replace oil. You provide nothing but conspiracy theory. Going through the different articles you show a pattern of not answering any challenge with specifics. Why is that?

Its not a matter of replacing oil as a whole. You have to take into account its various uses and see which uses can be substituted with other sources of energy in order to bring the demand for oil resources down. Natural Gas for example is a decent replacement for many uses of oil derivatives and already has a decent distribution infrastructure throughout much of the country. Over the past couple of decades it has replaced oil and coal in a significant % of power plants.

 

Because the majority of my time is better spent doing other things. You claim I only provide conspiracy theory but the fact that nations use political, economic, and military influence and pressure to gain access to various sources of energy supplies is no conspiracy theory. It is something that has been going on since the first wildcatter said Eureka.

And what's the point of that?

The reason we use oil instead of natural gas is because oil is cheaper.

What do u mean we use oil instead of natural gas?  We use both for different purposes.

If the US was still using as large a percentage of oil in power generation and home heating as it did 30 years ago, the demand for oil would be substantialy more than it currently is. Oil is actually currently more expensive than natural gas in most US markets atleast , but neither is intrinsically cheaper and it is very regional thing as well. The difference in crude and ng prices is market driven and fluctuates greatly over time. One of the reasons oil does stay relatively cheap though is because there are alternatives for various uses.

 

Oh, boy...

I asked you to give examples for oil replacements. You mentioned natural gas.

I was STILL talking about the areas where oil could be replaced by natural gas.

When in doubt, assume I didn't change the subject.

 

But im not advocating any "replacement" just a need to diversify more. Natural gas vehicles for example do exist and are currently cheaper per mile to operate. It is not a total solution because ng isnt piped to many rural areas but it is an extremely viable "alternative" for many who have ng piped into their homes or for business and government uses that don't require a network of filling stations.

The fact is that the majority of US ng supplies come from domestic sources or foreign imports from democratic peaceful friendly nations. Unlike US oil Imports for which a large portion are from not so friendly often not so stable coutries with nationalized oil industries.

 

So what you are saying is that we need to keep doing what we have been doing since the 70’s. Great point you make. You say we need to diversify, but we are already doing that. It took 30 years for solar and wind power to begin to be more than something to test. Nuclear power has been around but idiots have stooped its growth for 30 years and it is only now starting to move forward. Think of the advances we could have made with nuclear power had we not sat on our hands for the last 30 years.