Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Bernie supported the 1979 Embassy takeover

  1. Top | #31
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,996
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,737
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.
    Yeah, this thread is just character assassination.
    Interestingly, the SWP didn't have an official position on Iran. It goes without saying they were against the American imperialism that supported the Shah. In 1979, 14 SWP members went to Iran, some of whom were from there to try to promote democracy, women's rights, and workers' rights. They were arrested for these thing by the Iranians and in 1979 members were protesting the Iranian regime. Some were hoping the proletarian masses would rise up against the Supreme Leader to institute those things. The Iranians also had the hostages which was terrible but had 4 meager demands for their release to include a promise not to engage in Iranian interference and an apology. Carter was willing to meet 3 demands, just not the apology. It's quite ludicrous. At the same time the SWP put forth a Presidential candidate (Pulley) who dangerously stated that the US should meet all 4 demands. Oh noes!

    While there was hope by many in the SWP that the soldiers of Iran would flip, because SWP was an American group, their rhetoric often focused on criticism of American foreign policy. Many, some even in the SWP, might start thinking things like the enemy of my enemy is my ally and that they could be turned to democracy. However, there was also some recognition that the Supreme Leader and Republican Guard represented the bourgeoise counter revolution.

    Now again this was 1979.

    Bernie is alleged to have joined (or been aligned to) the SWP in 1980. This was after the Iranian regime had imprisoned the SWP of Iran. It would make no sense to claim for sure exactly what views Bernie had in 1980. It would not be unreasonable to think he was against the Iraq proxy war, American and British oil corporations trying to own Iranian oil, and the authoritarianism of the Iranian regime.

    To make implications he supported the Iranian regime is indeed a character assassination by a Daily Beast author who has a history of writing superficial articles to attack all Democrats to the left of Third Way Democrats. It's of course not a character assassination because the author is a dick, but instead because of the gross fallacious logic employed.

  2. Top | #32
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    12,014
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    12,721
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    I guess you find it more palatable when it's really really REALLY overt, and coming from someone who is in power.
    Oh - and a right wing extremist - that makes it okay.
    Wrong, as I am not a Trump supporter. But nice try at whataboutism.
    Yeah Derec, I know you're an "I'm not a trumpsucker".

  3. Top | #33
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    25,772
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,245
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    I guess you find it more palatable when it's really really REALLY overt, and coming from someone who is in power.
    Oh - and a right wing extremist - that makes it okay.
    Wrong, as I am not a Trump supporter. But nice try at whataboutism.
    You do share his devotion to women though.

  4. Top | #34
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,609
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    ... throw them out. You don't take them hostage, period.
    I don't hate America but I hate the fact that our government was directly responsible for overthrowing Iran's democratically elected leader in 1953 and replacing him with a brutal dictator for the purpose of maintaining control over their oil reserves and then giving refuge to that dictator when the people rebel. I really hate that, and place much of the blame for the current situation on that incident which would surely have appalled our founders. The trillions of $'s we've spent and the thousands of lives sacrificed due to the policies of our government and the corporations that support them. And so when the Iranian people rise up and are finally able to overthrow that dictator, by whatever means, and then take Americans as hostage because President Carter refused to return of the dictator to face justice, I find it difficult to own our government's actions. Carter payed a price for refusing to return the Shah. America was humiliated and now there's no way for either side to save face. I sympathize with the Iranian people and would apologize to them for what we did in the past. If this is what Bernie Sanders was thinking during the hostage crisis I think it was prescient, and I would now have to agree. Bernie's only fault is that he's a politician who adamantly stands on principles. But if he became President there might be some hope of resolving this thing peacefully.

  5. Top | #35
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,056
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,808
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.
    Huh?

    We are saying that you don't capture spies with diplomatic cover, period. If the claim in the OP is true he's way, way out of line. At the moment that the hostages came under control of the revolutionary government and they didn't hand them over they were engaging in an act of war against the United States.

  6. Top | #36
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,996
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,737
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.
    Huh?

    We are saying that you don't capture spies with diplomatic cover, period. If the claim in the OP is true he's way, way out of line.
    The claim isn't true. I was demonstrating it when you responded, repeating a premise already debunked. Please review before responding.

    At the moment that the hostages came under control of the revolutionary government and they didn't hand them over they were engaging in an act of war against the United States.
    This is a separate question from whether the hit-piece is true or not. It isn't.

    Let's consider it, though. There were already acts of war by the US, Britain, and the Shah they supported against the Iranian people. The Iranian people had a right to self-determination and democracy.

    So the western corporations started it. However, just because they started it doesn't mean taking hostages was appropriate. It wasn't. As an alternative, the embassy could have been booted and the same demands could have been made in order to reestablish an embassy.

    In going down the path of revolution, several groups overthrew that illegitimate Iranian government. As an analogy, picture the so-called Arab spring. In any of the countries theocratic, democratic and foreign factions vied for power or formed coalitions post Revolution. In the case of Iran decades prior, there was a little hope that the peasants would install democracy or rank and file soldiers would support one. Instead, the Aiyatollah crushed dissenting factions, imprisoned people and filled the power vaccuum with himself.

    Going back to the Arab Spring analogy again, it was US policy under Obama to support democratic factions during the power vaccuums left when dictators were overthrown. There ought to also have been popular support for democratic faction in Iran decades before.

    The SWP criticized the authoritarianism, patriarchy, and counter revolution that resulted.

    Let's not over-simplify history or assign positions to SWP they didn't have. Never mind Bernie who came late into it in 1980 and left early in 1982. Allegedly.

  7. Top | #37
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    15,853
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,796
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    So Sanders didn’t back the hostage takers, he backed the people who defended the hostage takers?
    Transitive property of supporting evil regimes.
    That would be a valid response if support for or membership in a party means one necessarily accepts all positions of the party. Since that is patently false, a valid application of that property requires evidence that Mr Sanders backing of SWP was based in part for his support the hostage takers. Without such evidence, this is an exercise of guilt/smear by association.

  8. Top | #38
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,996
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,737
    Rep Power
    71
    From the op article:
    Bernie Sanders joined a Party that "pledged support for the Iranian theocracy." However, the SWP supported equality of women and democracy.

    Here is an article written by a SWP organizer, from 16 Oct 1979, The Los Angeles Times



    Again, the above was written in 1979.

    The op article claims that "In 1977, he [Bernie] left the tiny left-wing Liberty Union Party of Vermont that he’d co-founded, and in 1980 instead aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)..." So, they are saying that Bernie aligned himself with the SWP in 1980 after the SWP of Iran was imprisoned...after the SWP was saying that Iran needed to allow democracy and equality to women.

    How then could anyone with a straight face imply that Bernie "pledged support for the Iranian theocracy?"
    Last edited by Don2 (Don1 Revised); 01-21-2020 at 02:27 PM.

  9. Top | #39
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,056
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,808
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    In going down the path of revolution, several groups overthrew that illegitimate Iranian government. As an analogy, picture the so-called Arab spring. In any of the countries theocratic, democratic and foreign factions vied for power or formed coalitions post Revolution. In the case of Iran decades prior, there was a little hope that the peasants would install democracy or rank and file soldiers would support one. Instead, the Aiyatollah crushed dissenting factions, imprisoned people and filled the power vaccuum with himself.
    Note that the overthrow of the Shah was not a good thing for the people of Iran.

    Going back to the Arab Spring analogy again, it was US policy under Obama to support democratic factions during the power vaccuums left when dictators were overthrown. There ought to also have been popular support for democratic faction in Iran decades before.

    The SWP criticized the authoritarianism, patriarchy, and counter revolution that resulted.

    Let's not over-simplify history or assign positions to SWP they didn't have. Never mind Bernie who came late into it in 1980 and left early in 1982. Allegedly.
    And look what happened with our support for democratic factions. The Arab "spring" was more like winter--a bad thing for the people.

  10. Top | #40
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,996
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,737
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    In going down the path of revolution, several groups overthrew that illegitimate Iranian government. As an analogy, picture the so-called Arab spring. In any of the countries theocratic, democratic and foreign factions vied for power or formed coalitions post Revolution. In the case of Iran decades prior, there was a little hope that the peasants would install democracy or rank and file soldiers would support one. Instead, the Aiyatollah crushed dissenting factions, imprisoned people and filled the power vaccuum with himself.
    Note that the overthrow of the Shah was not a good thing for the people of Iran.

    Going back to the Arab Spring analogy again, it was US policy under Obama to support democratic factions during the power vaccuums left when dictators were overthrown. There ought to also have been popular support for democratic faction in Iran decades before.

    The SWP criticized the authoritarianism, patriarchy, and counter revolution that resulted.

    Let's not over-simplify history or assign positions to SWP they didn't have. Never mind Bernie who came late into it in 1980 and left early in 1982. Allegedly.
    And look what happened with our support for democratic factions. The Arab "spring" was more like winter--a bad thing for the people.
    I tend to agree but this is retrospective and the reasons are different...probably also outside the bounds of the thread op.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •