Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

[Mega]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

I wish i had not started this post.............
Mike

[jtabeb]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

I wish i had not started this post.............
Mike

Hogwash! Great discussion. Good job. There are worse things in life to be than thought provoking. (That's a compliment)

[Guest]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

What do you think Miker, does Jtabeb need a haircut or what? How do they let a guy with hair like that into the Air Force? And the beard?? What were they thinking?

[renewable]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Just a footnote here:

Iran used to have a pro-Western, pro-US, pro-democracy, pro-Isreal, pro-progress, pro-energy, pro-intellectual, LIBERAL, AND SOMEWHAT TOLERANT GOVERNMENT. And these stinkers, these Islamo-fascists, toppled the Shah of Iran and took over the Iranian Govn't.

These Islamo-fascist thugs are still running Iran to this day. They are just as radical as ever, and don't think for one moment that they won't use their atomic bomb once they get it.

How shameful--- and I mean SHAMEFUL---that BBC America and the BBC World Televison runs news programmes which showcase life in Islamic countries and make life in those countries, even in Iran, seem attractive. There is also sympathy for Islamo-fascists on university campuses to-day, campuses such as UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz. Sadly and amazingly, this sympathy with Islamic-radicals is by leftists.... Again, how shameful!

Hmmm... A little bit of history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Knox_D%27Arcy (British Petroleum founded in Iran 1909)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état (Operation Ajax)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ignpolicy.iran

Britain and the US crushed Iran's first democratic government. They didn't learn from that mistake

...

The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms.

edit: The BBC did an audio show on how the US & UK overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in Operation Ajax: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20050822.shtml

[Guest]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Renewable -

Yes, we are aware of this history. No one is trying to get the US / UK off the hook for that, and Iran would indubitably have been a far better country under Mossadeq than under the Shah. To argue otherwise or attempt to whitewas that would be stupid. The point being made was different. You can't use the overthrow of Mossadeq 50 years ago to whitewash a current Iranian government that is downright toxic and gets openly murderous to its own people (not to mention using the Palestinians as cannon fodder for it's incitements and geo-political machinations with Israel) - to attempt that kind of argument is every bit as bankrupt ethically as was the original American intervention. At least that's my view. You can't mangle history by picking and choosing which events you'll string together just to make all the pieces "align" to illustrate a single ideological direction.

I've seen video footage of a live man having his head sawn off with a foot long crude knife, by a ten year old boy, (a very tough minded and brainwashed little bugger too, who started looking a little "ideologically doubtful" about what he was doing only after he was three quarters finished with the job). The "grown ups" organized it and drafted him as an example of "right minded revolutionary guard youth", to inspire the other youngsters presumably, and as an exercise in capital punishment for public spectacle, to "teach a lesson" to other groups. This occurred in Iran, inthe past two or three years, and was under the auspices of the revolutionary guards. Most notably, this evidently occurred under the "benign neglect" of the Mullah government because they otherwise observe and control every last action within that country with absolute authority.

This ancient, venerable society, full of beautiful genial, intelligent, secular minded, civilized people, home to some of the most illustrious universities across the centuries, is a focal point of some considerable state condoned barbarism today. The outright barbarism of course exists only in small pockets, at the fringes of the society, while the majority of society goes about it's business with a semblance of civic normality - but when that stuff appears it is shockingly apparent that this group of theocrats have some very peculiar, and rather sickly ideas about the meaning and fundamental mores of "civilization". Some of us realise that, of course, but others may not, especially if they are "moral relativists" who are adept at turning themself into pretzels-on-demand by explaining such actions today based upon what the US did reprehensibly to that country 60 years before.

Meanwhile, the art of turning a blind eye to these atrocities is accomplished by means of a finger sternly pointed at the US as the culprit in terms of "original sin", for having overthrown Mossadeq so many decades before, rather than pointing that morally wavering finger instead directly at the militia policemen or ideological gestapo who have actually taught that ten year old how to stomach this kind of hands on theocratically inspired butchering. The point is, there is little or no real "linkage" remaining today 50 years later, between the CIA's brutal instigations against Mossadeq and the shockingly brutal forays into occasional barbarity which occur with the blessings of the Mullahs today. If you are a decent person today you have to insist that we not get too "sophisticated" about this point - the current Iranian government (a self-perpetuating theocracy without any parliamentary means of recall) must be recognized by all people of elementary decency as being really, truly, a bit of an aberration.

I have a sense from what your post "does not say", as opposed to what it "does say", that you may be inclined to skate over these issues, in which case I must reiterate that Steve has got this call down closer to the core current issues than do your "sophisticated" historical rejoinders.

[metalman]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Renewable -

Yes, we are aware of this history. No one is trying to get the US / UK off the hook for that, and Iran would indubitably have been a far better country under Mossadeq than under the Shah. To argue otherwise or attempt to whitewas that would be stupid. The point being made was different. You can't use the overthrow of Mossadeq 50 years ago to whitewash a current Iranian government that is downright toxic and gets openly murderous to its own people (not to mention using the Palestinians as cannon fodder for it's incitements and geo-political machinations with Israel) - to attempt that kind of argument is every bit as bankrupt ethically as was the original American intervention. At least that's my view. You can't mangle history by picking and choosing which events you'll string together just to make all the pieces "align" to illustrate a single ideological direction.

I've seen video footage of a live man having his head sawn off with a foot long crude knife, by a ten year old boy, (a very tough minded and brainwashed little bugger too, who started looking a little "ideologically doubtful" about what he was doing only after he was three quarters finished with the job). The "grown ups" organized it and drafted him as an example of "right minded revolutionary guard youth", to inspire the other youngsters presumably, and as an exercise in capital punishment for public spectacle, to "teach a lesson" to other groups. This occurred in Iran, inthe past two or three years, and was under the auspices of the revolutionary guards. Most notably, this evidently occurred under the "benign neglect" of the Mullah government because they otherwise observe and control every last action within that country with absolute authority.

This ancient, venerable society, full of beautiful genial, intelligent, secular minded, civilized people, home to some of the most illustrious universities across the centuries, is a focal point of some considerable state condoned barbarism today. The outright barbarism of course exists only in small pockets, at the fringes of the society, while the majority of society goes about it's business with a semblance of civic normality - but when that stuff appears it is shockingly apparent that this group of theocrats have some very peculiar, and rather sickly ideas about the meaning and fundamental mores of "civilization". Some of us realise that, of course, but others may not, especially if they are "moral relativists" who are adept at turning themself into pretzels-on-demand by explaining such actions today based upon what the US did reprehensibly to that country 60 years before.

Meanwhile, the art of turning a blind eye to these atrocities is accomplished by means of a finger sternly pointed at the US as the culprit in terms of "original sin", for having overthrown Mossadeq so many decades before, rather than pointing that morally wavering finger instead directly at the militia policemen or ideological gestapo who have actually taught that ten year old how to stomach this kind of hands on theocratically inspired butchering. The point is, there is little or no real "linkage" remaining today 50 years later, between the CIA's brutal instigations against Mossadeq and the shockingly brutal forays into occasional barbarity which occur with the blessings of the Mullahs today. If you are a decent person today you have to insist that we not get too "sophisticated" about this point - the current Iranian government (a self-perpetuating theocracy without any parliamentary means of recall) must be recognized by all people of elementary decency as being really, truly, a bit of an aberration.

I have a sense from what your post "does not say", as opposed to what it "does say", that you may be inclined to skate over these issues, in which case I must reiterate that Steve has got this call down closer to the core current issues than do your "sophisticated" historical rejoinders.

love your posts, luke. always learn from you. dltbkud... don't let the bastards keep you down.

[Guest]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Thanks Metalman.

Steve gets a lot of flak around here for "sounding like" some sort of ultra-right conservative on certain issues to do with theocratic nations, and their "viral" appeal to other nations to spread a "movement" for a pan-theocratic society. I actually vehemently agree with that - it's toxic and it's stealthily advancing in appeal across a whole range of countries in terms of the manipulated opinions of the man on the street. We have it in the US too, in the form of Creationism taught in our schools. But in some places in the Middle East the theocratic supremacy is exercising a truly viral appeal straight across national borders, and it's a very big deal (look for Pakistan to potentially fall to it at some point?). It is the enemy of secularism worldwide, and I personally have a deep feeling in my guts that this is the true "face of the devil" in modern times - (I'm not religious, but that's my gut feeling about it). This religious absolutism is really, truly toxic, and may become a much bigger part of our future, somehow inextricably tied up with the critical issue of oil as well. Somewhere in the midst of that is a potential new holocaust for the entire world.

So some readers may think Steve is some sort of knee jerk conservative type - but when you read his posts about the US, he is squarely in the democrat / liberal camp instead on many issues. And not just tentatively - he's really far over in that direction. Of course, when it comes to climate change, Al Gore, and drilling for oil off the coast of Malibu or the Carolinas, he seems to recover his ultra-conservative stripes somewhat! :rolleyes: ). For those that read his posts and aggregate what they've learned about the guy, Steve is not easy to "pigeonhole", but his pronouncements about what the issues are regarding "viral theocratic regimes" are centered around a core of real issues that a lot of people consider the product of trashy newschannels like FOX, but actually regardless of FOX NEWS manipulation of these topics, the issues are not only real, but will probably be critical in the next 15 years!). I see Steve's way of describing these issues regularly pushes a lot of buttons around here among people looking more for a readily identifiable "standardized political position" on these topics. Unfortunately not everyone can be so handily stuffed into an ideological "shoebox".

Bottom line: If orderly, easy to peg positions across the spectrum of political issues (those nice profiles that fit neatly into tidy shoeboxes) is what you like, Starving Steve will drive you crazy, or bewilder you, or both. This guy's all over the map. He sure drove me crazy on that climate change thingy. I can't even talk to the guy about that stuff any more.

[renewable]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Renewable -

Yes, we are aware of this history.

From Steve's post on the previous page, that was completely unclear.

I have a sense from what your post "does not say", as opposed to what it "does say", that you may be inclined to skate over these issues, in which case I must reiterate that Steve has got this call down closer to the core current issues than do your "sophisticated" historical rejoinders.

You've "read" an awful lot into a couple of links.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Steve gets a lot of flak around here for "sounding like" some sort of ultra-right conservative on certain issues to do with theocratic nations,

So some readers may think Steve is some sort of knee jerk conservative type - but when you read his posts about the US, he is squarely in the democrat / liberal camp instead on many issues.

For those that read his posts and aggregate what they've learned about the guy, Steve is not easy to "pigeonhole"

I see Steve's way of describing these issues regularly pushes a lot of buttons around here among people looking more for a readily identifiable "standardized political position" on these topics.

Bottom line: If orderly, easy to peg positions across the spectrum of political issues (those nice profiles that fit neatly into tidy shoeboxes) is what you like, Starving Steve will drive you crazy, or bewilder you, or both. This guy's all over the map.

Are you conflating two posters? I must have missed a whole litany of posts from Steve putting forth the U.S. democrat/liberal viewpoints.

Otherwise, we've seen:

- ultra hawk on everything Arab and Muslim related
- rants about 'pot parties' on college campuses
- pro-off shore drilling

I find his responses on the political threads entirely predictable.

[Guest]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Babbittd -

You wrote:

Otherwise, we've seen:

- ultra hawk on everything Arab and Muslim related
- rants about 'pot parties' on college campuses
- pro-off shore drilling

Portraying the above as "kneejerk conservative" hallmarks in our present global predicament seems more like dumbed down US political party apparatchik stereotypes than intelligent politically agnostic observations to me. I have a great respect for the caliber of all your other posts, but this is not one of the more probing (or intelligent, frankly).

You've got private groups bombing and mangling the shit out of each other in a half dozen countries throughout the region, with the Palestinian state, the Israeli state, the Lebanese state, the Iraqi state, the Afghani state and now also the Pakistani state all getting hollowed out by "non-state-actors" all coldly butchering hundreds of civilians at a time to make their "political statements", and you characterize anyone objecting strenuously to those who openly finance and arm this indiscriminate butchery as "ultra hawks"?

What is a decent, peaceloving person to say here then? Nothing at all, to escape being tarred with your "ultra-hawk" brush? :rolleyes: Do you find it more decent to sit around complacently and suggest that if the entire region becomes a flaming anthill of "non-state actors" all ratcheting up the tempo of general butchery our most ethical stance is to suggest that we not lift a finger? Somehow our more passive approach will communicate a general inclination to more genteel and civilized "forms of disagreement" among these groups?

On the topic of drugs in the schools - last time I checked emerging nations like India and China are graduating three times as many skilled professionals (engineers) as the US, and are eating our lunch in terms of future competitiveness. So now if we speak up about epidemic recreational drug use on our campuses precisely because we are talking about national competitiveness, in your view this is interpreted instead as merely an expression of sclerotic reactionary noise? What about that competitiveness? Maybe the epidemic recreational drug use has some relevance to our future economic rank as well?

And "pro-offshore-drilling"? This is to your mind the "hallmark of an ultra-conservative"? We have Peak Cheap Oil, and Mexico one of our largest suppliers will stop selling oil to the US in a mere 5 years - what exactly else should concerned US citizens be doing alongside developing alt-energy? Alt-energy in the best of worlds won't cover but 5% - 10% of our national needs in 10 years. You think it's preferable to see national GDP contract by 3% a year while we insist offshore drilling will remain permanently off limits? That is not a very pragmatic approach to our stunningly large approaching dilemma. To decry someone in 2008 America as "Pro-offshore-drilling" - as though this were some sort tell-tale of a "sclerotic conservative" is not exactly realistic OR constructive to our national emergency.

I have a very high regard for the great majority of all your posts here Babbittd, but the above are more a reiteration of the grip that homogenized party-line thinking has on your view than anything else this year. All the above issues present extremely good reasons why Steve's points actually constitute an essential component of whatever solutions we devise. I struggle to comprehend that a majority of polarized Democrats in America should continue to view these three issues as "hallmarks of knee-jerk conservatives" rather than as burning issues we must address pragmatically.

Are you conflating two posters? I must have missed a whole litany of posts from Steve putting forth the U.S. democrat/liberal viewpoints.

Otherwise, we've seen:

- ultra hawk on everything Arab and Muslim related
- rants about 'pot parties' on college campuses
- pro-off shore drilling

I find his responses on the political threads entirely predictable.

[0tr]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

title of thread: Why the Dollar Bubble is about to Burst?

fact: it burst seven years ago.

I'm confused. With the Fed printing like crazy, 'quantitative easing' to the hilt, with poom phase inflation round the corner, isn't the dollar bubble about to go where no bubble has gone before? (after a period of suitable disinflation) Or is this a resurrected dollar bubble? This would not be the first time my mis-comprehension has gone off half-c0cked. Could be I'm looking at it backwards.

Oh yes, one other thing. Can we monetize debt deflation? Or is that something only Goliath Sachs can do?

[0tr]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

never mind, I figured it out.

[nero3]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

I have written about this before, but there is a pattern in the berkshire stock of Warren Buffet that is interesting. I consider him to be a genius, and he is not exactly bullish on the dollar.

BTI, is an inflation hedge stock, and behaves well in times of high inflation.


I have made a small chart to show my reasoning. I have marked the explosive phase/peak of each bubble

Back in late 98-99-feb00 there was a growing bubble in the nasdaq, but rising yields was not good for quality stocks, and money flew from quality into the nasdaq, this was the end of a strong dollar trend. China then stepped up to the plate, and saved US from hiking rates more, through supporting the long end of the market, that kept the housing bubble going.

Now, it's the same pattern repeating, but the long bond bubble appears to have behaved like the nasdaq in 98-00, in the sense that it sucked money out of quality into junk (the long bond). Given the huge following decline the nasdaq, the bubble of that time had, it would not suprise me if the treasury bond market will suffer a similar decline. That is unless China or the US printing press step up to save the bond market (as china did in feb 2000), and if that happens I suspect the dollar will take the blow.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Babbittd -

You wrote:

Otherwise, we've seen:

- ultra hawk on everything Arab and Muslim related
- rants about 'pot parties' on college campuses
- pro-off shore drilling

Portraying the above as "kneejerk conservative" hallmarks in our present global predicament seems more like dumbed down US political party apparatchik stereotypes than intelligent politically agnostic observations to me. I have a great respect for the caliber of all your other posts, but this is not one of the more probing (or intelligent, frankly).

You've got private groups bombing and mangling the shit out of each other in a half dozen countries throughout the region, with the Palestinian state, the Israeli state, the Lebanese state, the Iraqi state, the Afghani state and now also the Pakistani state all getting hollowed out by "non-state-actors" all coldly butchering hundreds of civilians at a time to make their "political statements", and you characterize anyone objecting strenuously to those who openly finance and arm this indiscriminate butchery as "ultra hawks"?

What is a decent, peaceloving person to say here then? Nothing at all, to escape being tarred with your "ultra-hawk" brush? :rolleyes: Do you find it more decent to sit around complacently and suggest that if the entire region becomes a flaming anthill of "non-state actors" all ratcheting up the tempo of general butchery our most ethical stance is to suggest that we not lift a finger? Somehow our more passive approach will communicate a general inclination to more genteel and civilized "forms of disagreement" among these groups?

On the topic of drugs in the schools - last time I checked emerging nations like India and China are graduating three times as many skilled professionals (engineers) as the US, and are eating our lunch in terms of future competitiveness. So now if we speak up about epidemic recreational drug use on our campuses precisely because we are talking about national competitiveness, in your view this is interpreted instead as merely an expression of sclerotic reactionary noise? What about that competitiveness? Maybe the epidemic recreational drug use has some relevance to our future economic rank as well?

And "pro-offshore-drilling"? This is to your mind the "hallmark of an ultra-conservative"? We have Peak Cheap Oil, and Mexico one of our largest suppliers will stop selling oil to the US in a mere 5 years - what exactly else should concerned US citizens be doing alongside developing alt-energy? Alt-energy in the best of worlds won't cover but 5% - 10% of our national needs in 10 years. You think it's preferable to see national GDP contract by 3% a year while we insist offshore drilling will remain permanently off limits? That is not a very pragmatic approach to our stunningly large approaching dilemma. To decry someone in 2008 America as "Pro-offshore-drilling" - as though this were some sort tell-tale of a "sclerotic conservative" is not exactly realistic OR constructive to our national emergency.

I have a very high regard for the great majority of all your posts here Babbittd, but the above are more a reiteration of the grip that homogenized party-line thinking has on your view than anything else this year. All the above issues present extremely good reasons why Steve's points actually constitute an essential component of whatever solutions we devise. I struggle to comprehend that a majority of polarized Democrats in America should continue to view these three issues as "hallmarks of knee-jerk conservatives" rather than as burning issues we must address pragmatically.

More than being a liberal or a social-democrat or a libertarian, I am a person who is a pragmatist. I want to see things done and accomplished, especially things that help people.

So, I favour socialized medicine because socialized medicine works. It doesn't always work well, but it works. Everyone gets access to a reasonable degree of healthcare. The for-profit, private healthcare system retained by the U.S. for more than half-a-century has been a disaster and a failure, in all respects: life span, mortality, costs, lawsuits, access to healthcare, needless defensive medicine, etc.

I favour nuclear power because nuclear power works, and it works well. I also favour drilling for oil. I favour upgrading heavy oil to light oil. I also favour hydro-electric power because it works. And I favour conservation too. But I do not favour solar power, windmills, tidal power, geo-thermal power because of the costs of scaling such power up to meet the needs of the world in any practical way.

I favour American foreign policy in the Middle East because the alternative, Islamo-fascism and Islamic Republics have proven to be totally unpalitable.

I favour a solution between Isreal and the Palestinians that is fair, just, and NON-religious. So, I favour making Isreal and Palestine into one country called, Isreal and Palestine which is NON-religious.... I got this idea when the Palestinians and Isrealis both joined hands in Jeruselum recently and made a circle for peace.

I am pro-Isreal but not always pro-Zionist because Zionism can be intolerant of non-Jews, just as Islamic Republics can be intolerant of non-Muslims.

I am anti-religious. I see that religion has hurt the world far more than it has helped it.

I am pro-Obama because the Republicans in America have shown themselves to be nothing more than xenophobic hillbillies and bible-thumpers from the South. If the Republicans had more moderate or even liberal leaders, I might re-think my position about their party.

I am rather pro-Shah now because the opposition to the Shah of Iran has proven themselves to have been 1000 times worse.

I am totally opposed to Mr. A who now runs Iran. He reminds me of Adolf Hitler.

I am rather forgiving of Stalin because his Red Army did a vital service to the world; it liberated Eastern Europe and crushed the Nazis. After WWII, Stalin, more than any other world leader, insisted that the leaders of the Nazi Party be brought to justice. Sadly, the other world leaders after WWII wanted to "forgive and forget".

Yes, Stalin was a murderer. Yes, Stalin had his gulag. Yes, Stalin specialized in terrorism. Yes, Stalin liquidated people. But Stalin got the job done: He helped to win WWII for the good guys.

As for pot, I favour its legalization. On the other hand, I see nothing good in pot, and pot-head liberalism has accomplished nothing for the world.

Real liberalism is about doing for the world, helping people to survive. Smoking pot is about wasting one's time with intoxication. And in the end, the pot-smoker often enough ends-up with lung cancer.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

I have some very highly educated and intelligent Iranian friends. They are not conservative or liberal. They are to a great extent apolitical. The sum of what I point out here is the sum of what they've had me understand. And you need to acknowledge the point without any fudging. In many, many countries of the world these almost stereotypically American ideas, of the "sanctity of constitutional democracy" are regarded as decidedly second tier concerns. What is the primary concern is for their economies to flourish, their children to obtain good secular educations and be competitive in the global workplace. If you go there and start waving your arms around haranguing them about the fact they are slave consumers with a ring through their nose to the state, they will tell you to "get real" and come live in their family and understand their number one priority - and that is to get ahead, and see their children climb above their station in life. If they can get that with an enlightened despot, or even just a strictly average despot, they will jump at that chance and tell you to take your ivory tower notions of the criticality of democracy somewhere else.

That's the point, and the corrollary is that under the Shah a great many working class Iranians had at least some doors open to higher education and joining the country's meritocracy. Under the Mullahs these opportunities are severely degraded in comparison. I wonder if you get this point - no-one is protesting the lack of democracy in China. They see a vast number of peasants with at least some more opportunities than they had under the Maoist theocracy, and that is a "good thing". That's the "black and white difference between the Shah's Iran, and Ahmedinejad's Iran. I trust those Americans most who have the cultural horizons to understand that a vast part of the world's population does not have our rather spoiled political heritage - for them every small step towards a non ideological government, a government dedicated exclusively to growing the working populations's wealth pragmatically, is a government they are happy to endorse. Are you on board with this distinction, and if so, do you recognise that our dismissals of societies that are merely "free to shop" is actually a somewhat unobservant outlook derived from having been somewhat spoiled by the constitution and centuries of parliamentary democracy?

These are very good points with which I totally agree.

However; I do NOT agree we can place to one side the history of Iran. Instead, I believe that there are very great lessons from past stupidities. But first I want to return to another of your posts Luke where you made the comment"

"a ten year old boy, (a very tough minded and brainwashed little bugger too, who started looking a little "ideologically doubtful" about what he was doing only after he was three quarters finished with the job"

Some of you will know that the BBC has just broadcast, this week, a new film called V for Victorious in which they portray a similar, totally extreme government, but here in the UK. The film ends with the people over running the police and the destruction of Parliament in an enormous explosion.

On another front, The Times has also recently opened the debate with this:

June 19, 2009


Iran's distrust of 'evil Britain' rooted in history of imperial meddling

"Britons, bemused by the deeply held Iranian suspicion of their country, usually have no idea of its historical roots. Iranians are steeped in the history of British imperial meddling in Iran in the 19th and 20th centuries. The defining moment was in 1953 when British intelligence joined with its American counterpart in a coup that overthrew Iran’s popular, elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadeq, and returning power to the unpopular Shah.

To those few Britons who know of the coup, the episode might seem like ancient history – but it remains very current to most Iranians who still view Britain as a great power with global reach."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6537063.ece

My point is that, here in the West, we have a long history of stepping in and - making things worse; indeed, far far worse. We should stop and think about any idea of doing the same thing again. Why?

I return to the quote about the boy sawing off the head. You yourself tell us his attitude changed. I will bet my right arm that that young boy will grow up to believe that he was wrong to have done that deed. That in time, he will realise that hatred and terror has no place in his society. ON EITHER SIDE.

The US and the UK, in the past, has tried every dirty trick imaginable to destabilise other nations. But has it succeeded over the long term. No! - It has not. At the end of the day, all it has brought us is more of the same thing in return.

I believe that Iran is about to prove that in the end, the majority of any nation, left to sort out their own problems, will bring to the surface of their societies, honest, vibrant leaders; that will turn their backs on the hatred and terror. I also believe that that process will occur faster without our intervention. Indeed, in a large part, the problems we have today with Iran have been escalated by the US intervention in Iraq.

Leave them alone and they will sort themselves out. Yes, we may not agree with everything they do. But I grant you this. They, as a separate people, have every right to their own version of freedom. Not some CIA inspired idea of freedom. For it is that latter idea that has signally failed over the last few decades.