Why We Fight
My lovely and amazing cousin, Pooja, blogs about a film called "Why We Fight" which I saw this morning on the web through the website www.informationclearinghouse.org, which I have blogged about earlier. It is a striking piece of work - a sort of Fahrenheit 9/11/Bowling for Columbine with intelligence and gravitas.
As a litigator, I love these sorts of documentaries which seek to find the truth by a thorough forensic analysis of the details. It also follows one of the fundamental rules of corporate litigation, which is to 'follow the money'. One thing that occurred to me while watching was the following observation, which is tangentially connected to the war on Iraq and/or US imperialism. It is one of those well known secrets that the British, with help from the CIA, murdered Prime Minister Mossadegh (the real first democratically elected leader in a predominately muslim country) in Iran and installed the Shah, who was well disposed (i.e. puppet) to the Americans and that they did this because Mossadegh wanted to increase Iran's share of its own oil revenues (follow the money!). The Shah only lasted about 20 years before the people in Iran revolted. The Mullah's regime has lasted over 25 years. What I wondered was how oppressive must the Shah's rule have been (or how badly was the economic situation) for the Iranians to have forcibly removed him from power. Does the fact that the Iranian people have not revolted against the current regime (save for the student uprising that occurred a few years ago) mean that it is slightly better than the Shah's regime - or that they are more effective in oppressing dissent?
As a litigator, I love these sorts of documentaries which seek to find the truth by a thorough forensic analysis of the details. It also follows one of the fundamental rules of corporate litigation, which is to 'follow the money'. One thing that occurred to me while watching was the following observation, which is tangentially connected to the war on Iraq and/or US imperialism. It is one of those well known secrets that the British, with help from the CIA, murdered Prime Minister Mossadegh (the real first democratically elected leader in a predominately muslim country) in Iran and installed the Shah, who was well disposed (i.e. puppet) to the Americans and that they did this because Mossadegh wanted to increase Iran's share of its own oil revenues (follow the money!). The Shah only lasted about 20 years before the people in Iran revolted. The Mullah's regime has lasted over 25 years. What I wondered was how oppressive must the Shah's rule have been (or how badly was the economic situation) for the Iranians to have forcibly removed him from power. Does the fact that the Iranian people have not revolted against the current regime (save for the student uprising that occurred a few years ago) mean that it is slightly better than the Shah's regime - or that they are more effective in oppressing dissent?
posted by Akash at 10:42 AM
2 Comments:
Thanks Bob, i have downloaded the film, and have watched half so far. I did peruse the website for a bit, which was insructive in itself.
There are a few sites like internationalclearinghouse out there, although i do feel slightly uneasy about them. I can't explain very well why, probably just my feeling that, while they serve their purpose, their worldview is either pointlessly idealistic, or simply spend far too much time adding flesh to stuff we already know.
Did anyone out there see The Fog of War, the Osacr winning documentary about Robert Macnamara?? I thought this was genuinely revealing about the psychology of war, and yes, Macnamara makes compelling viewing.
As for the Shah and the Mullahs, who knows, such is the absence of information out of Iran. The younger generation certainly don't seem happy with their lot, but how change is managed from within or wothout remains a mystery. The Saudi Arabian experience suggests that domestic modernization can be painfully slow, so draw your own conculsions.
Far better than listening to Chomsky-ites wailing about state sponsored terrorism, has anyone seen the 3 part documentary The Power of Nightmares ? Originally shown on the BBC a year ago, it has now been recut as a film, so seek it out.
It essentially argues that the ideologies of neo-conservatism and islamo-fascim are both motivated by and a reaction to the spread of liberal values during the 60s, 70s and 80s. And that both exagerate perceived threats as cover for prosecuting their own worldview.
Anyway, it doesn't obey Bobby's follow the money maxim, and exists is theoretical space, but it does ask questions of the viewer.
Off to get the sunday papers now.
I always enjoy learning about my own family through far distant cousins!..eg, Dad's BDAY in IL from Sonu and now Pooja's film via a blog site!
-Ash
Post a Comment
<< Home