Stephen Kinzer Talks About Iran »
Posted By Alexia 1 year, 10 months ago in Arts & EntertainmentStephen Kinzer, former correspondent for the New York Times and author of the new book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq," talks about Iran at The Milken Institute in Los Angeles, then chats with Netscape News.
Read Full Story at »
Submitted By:
Alexia
Documentary filmmaker, interactive mediaist, with a background in theatre and writing. Avid non-fiction reader.
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 14
-
-
0%
mr-thoughtful1 year, 10 months ago
If the public knew its US history in the mideast, we'd never have given President Bush the blank check we did on Iraq. We messed with the government in Iraq the same way we messed with Iran, and it has always been about oil.
What this video shows are our blind spots--first communism and now terrorism.
Reply-
0%
Lurch1 year, 10 months ago
If you are honest with yourself and understand the facts, you cannot blame the Arabs for fighting back against America and Israel.
We`ve been deposing democratic governments and democracy movements around the world for decades, including Iran in the 50`s and Venezuela only six years ago.
I just heard on NPR that the Israeli population in the `legal` and illegal settlements has risen 5% in just the last year alone. This from the same government that says the Palestinians are dangerous and they need to put a fence around the Pals to protect `innocent` Israelis. What a load of crock. The Pal-Israeli conflict continues to be nothing more than about stealing land and breaking promises. Even Bush`s roadmap, which no Republican has the guts to enforce, says most settlements must go.
Now, if we invade the Palestinian territory and kick the Israelis back to the 1967 borders (which they have agreed to anyway), anti-American terrorism will disappear.
Reply
-
-
0%
PINTO1 year, 10 months ago
Great info, its a subject that rarely talked about in depth.
How about instead of the History Channel showing about 20 different documentaries and specials on WWII and Hitler, it talk about things like this?
Reply -
100%
joeblowe1 year, 10 months ago
This guy seems to make a number of conclusions, which may (or may not) be based on fact. I thought this was going to be a book based on personal knowledge and observations, but it turns out to be based on research of "historical documents." Which may be OK, but when you do that, how do you know A) The documents are authentic and accurate and B) you have located ALL the relevant documents. It's also hard to know, for sure, that you have correctly interpreted the contents of all the documents you HAVE found, considering you MAY NOT be fully aware of the context in which those documents belong. It is very interesting though...
Reply-
100%
joeblowe1 year, 10 months ago
Oh yeah, one other thing I noticed: Apparently the Press - at least as far as R. Hurst - is Evil. I think we all pretty much knew that already, but this guy really lays it out in black and white (and read all over...?)
Reply -
0%
Candida1 year, 10 months ago
joeblowe,
You pose some valid questions, but they apply to all works of history. Probably no single work is completely unbiased, and that's why it's a good idea to rely on several different works when one forms an opinion. Scientists and, I guess, historians don't expect you to accept anything on blind faith. If something looks fishy, you can do your own research and contradict them. That's how bias is slowly filtered out.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.