[lit-ideas] Re: Iran (1), The Revolutionary Imperative

  • From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:10:50 EST

 
In a message dated 2/3/2006 11:44:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

With  those three major countries as Islamic 
republics, the rest of the Islamic  world will follow along. The implications 
for the West 
are very severe:  50-70% of the world's oil is in the Middle East. They will 
control the  oil.



HI,
Of course, if Andreas is correct in his prediction, it makes the part of me  
which is familiar with the fundamentalist Muslim very concerned.  (Having  
played with international students on two campuses, I am familiar with both  
sorts. One campus was full of very moderate Muslims--but the other was not. 
Very  
scary group and quite terrified the ones who wanted to go to the different  
outings and parties that we held...)
 
The main reason that I am not sure that I agree with the prediction or with  
the dire viewpoint of what is happening in Iran is that (from what I know),  
there is a great mixiness in Iran ... (Andreas alluded to this in a previous  
post)--the election which happened recently was not a landslide...perhaps one  
could compare it to our current president's 'landslide'--yes, he got a whole 
lot  of votes, but there were a whole lot of votes on the other side, too.
 
There are a lot of people in Iran who would prefer to modernize--prefer to  
NOT have the fundamentalists in charge. I do agree that one reason for the  
fundamentalists (esp in the Middle East, but even here in the USA in various  
elections) is the perception that the secular leadership is corrupt. It's  too 
bad that those running for office on a more secular platform are not able to  
articulate the concept of caretaking outside of using 'faith' as their  
standard...
 
 
But, if Andreas is correct--why does he think that it would be in the best  
interest of the USA to let Iran continue on its path?  If doing so will  lead 
to the fundamentalist Islamic world taking over--then we will have things  like 
what is happening to Hindus in Pakistan (kidnapped girls being forced to  
marry Muslim men and thus converting--and never being allowed to see their  
families again...) and so forth.  Fundamentalism of any sort is not what I  
would 
prefer to see running the world...  
 
But, if he is correct--then in the 'national interest' argument that is a  
part of what drives all nations--the USA ought not get out of Iraq even if it  
cannot or will not do anything about Iran. It sounds like it would be stupid 
for  us to do so (for those of us who won't be able to flee this nation and go  
to another country...those that can run away or pretend that they are not 
going  to be affected because they have plenty of money and can 'hide' in other 
 
countries so as to not be touched are in a different situation...) 
 
I think there best be another argument towards this besides what Andreas is  
stating (which kind of backs up Lawrence's viewpoint, actually...)  I'm  
slightly behind on all these posts so hopefully there is one waiting for me as 
I  
read through them...but otherwise--what Andreas says kind of just states why we 
 best do what Lawrence is saying we BETTER do for our own good in the long  
run...(Having met fundamentalists in both the Christian and Muslim world--if I  
had to choose, I'd rather have to interact with those in the Christian  
world...and that is bad enough most of the time...)
 
 
HOWEVER...we could let Exxon rule the world.  (in regards to the  thought of 
a world government...)  Remember when the oil  companies  were asked if they 
would help with the astronomical heating  bills people are  experiencing this 
year.  They said that, while they  really sympathized and  all, that this was 
really up to the  government.

This from people who, in the normal course of events, don't  think that the  
government should do anything but fight wars and build  highways.  Funny how  
their tune changes when it's either their  pocket, or Uncle Sam's.  (not that 
they want to 'give' anything to Uncle  Sam...)  But, maybe if they were 'the 
government', they would take some  social responsibility...
<wry look>
 
Best,
Marlena in Missouri

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2006