President George Bush Kicking A$$

[Cynthia]

King Abdullah is now our enemy? When did that happen?

But really sirs, you have to remember that the people you're dealing with here consider the United States to be worse than any terrorist so they don't care if we prop up some butcher.

Abdullah is the leader of a government that routinely spends billions building fundamentalist mosques all over the place. There were a lot of 9-11 bombers from Saudi Arabia I don;t think I will consider Abdullah my friend anymore than I though of the Shah as my buddy.

Ah, but the Shah was more of a buddy than what we have seen since.

 I was married to an Iranian during the revolution of the 70's, and from first hand knowledge, it was abundantly clear that Iran was growing and changing for the better under the Shah....especially for women. I know that is hard to believe, but it was. Time has spoken on this one. Where is the "growth", the inspirations, the patents from within the nation of the mid east?? No where to be found. No growth since....almost 30 years later.

 Sometimes growth comes in hidden packets, and the underlying progress that was in process in Iran in those days was may not hae been so evident here in the West, but there was a hell of a lot more progess than we were aware of.....But, then again a "revolution" is a seductive thing. Anytime a society/culture dies hard, we tend to think that that is a good thing. Not necessarily.  Unfortunately, not in the case of the Iranian culture. The Shah was not perfect. He was not the worst, however, either. The worst for the "world" came soon afterward. Saddam was one of those "worst" elements of power.....BUT, BUT we should have taken care to enter that arena to battle the scars. Dang...>Bush was not smart enough to see that.


anyway....
There was so much progress being made in Iran  back then.....
I would gladly meet the Shah of Iran, today if I could. Sure, he was a killer and ruthless leaders as dictators go, but the "alternative" was much worse.



ah, of course, this is the essential element of the political roads less traveled thereby.
Nothing is what it seems in this world .....until we find ourselves seated at the doorstep of some 50 years. Doorsteps where History books are written, where studies prove wrong from right, good from bad, ill from well. ....etc.

The Shah of Iran was a better leader in the long run, but he didnt' get to stay in the race long enough for us to see that.

My ex husband was a smart young man. . an officer in the Iranian Navy...His father, an admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Ok, sure he had his own "tailor" not to mention maids and servants, but that was a much better life than now.....dead father.....no chance for making a life for oneself.....

Women suffered the worst, as I came to learn. sad.....

Damn. Women had it hard enough with the Shah.....but bloody hell after his demise.


I am quick to jump on the whip of the right on this one.

[hnumpah]

My criteria required the country in question to be a government harboring terrorists, or the "despot" in question, advocating/supporting terrorist-like actions...

Hardly, sport. I repeat, from your earlier post:

Could be worse......could be statements claiming plans to meet with dictator despots and heads of terrorist sponsoring countries, with absolutely no preconditions what-so-ever, and then arrogantly claim it's analogus to Reagan and Gorbachev...

Didn't see any requirements, other than the dictators in question be despots, or vice-versa.

Perhaps if you learned to say what you mean to begin with, rather than try to revise and make it up as you go along.

[Cynthia]

The death rattle of the Lame Duck is heard in the land.

Sucking up to Israel with his final quacks.

Suuuuure. Al Qaeda = Hitler. Suuuuure.

Why hasn't this loser caught Bin Laden?

Your tone shows pissiness, anger etc XO....From where in that depth of your own rattle does such disdain form? Just curious.

I have my own anger at Bush, so don't get me wrong....that bastard has ruined a lot on our soil and off...I am just curious as to why you have your own pissed off attitude towards the Bush factor. If you could quickly pick ONE thing and reply....don't think.....what would be your top # 1 reason for such anger, disdain. ..or whatever you have there for his idiocy.
Personally, I think he is a stupid leader. That seems to be a simple reasoning, but we need intelligence running this great land that is our homeland.....I might not agree with all that is liberal, but I sure as hell think that Bush ruined a hell of a lot more that we could have utilized in terms of resources and finances.

Cynthia

[sirs]

My criteria required the country in question to be a government harboring terrorists, or the "despot" in question, advocating/supporting terrorist-like actions...

Hardly, sport. I repeat, from your earlier post:

Could be worse......could be statements claiming plans to meet with dictator despots and heads of terrorist sponsoring countries, with absolutely no preconditions what-so-ever, and then arrogantly claim it's analogus to Reagan and Gorbachev ...

Didn't see any requirements, other than the dictators in question be despots, or vice-versa.

So nice of you to quote me properly, and as you can see the inferrence was quite clear.  Why you decided to pull the tangential disconnect is yours alone to consider.  And with your apparent knee jerk reaction to start throwing out the insult bombs when being criticized, speaks more to your standard of posting, than your lack of grasping my posting

[hnumpah]

And with your apparent knee jerk reaction to start throwing out the insult bombs when being criticized, speaks more to your standard of posting, than your lack of grasping my posting

More whining. Consider this - when you poke the bear, it is hardly up to you to decide what his response may be.

Now, are you going to say what you mean in the future, or are you going to continually try to revise it as you go along?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sirs prefers to enter with his own ball, set up the net or bases or whatever, and enlist everyone in a rousing game of Sirsball, which must be played according to the Official Sirsball Rules.

Sirsball is a sport akin to Calvinball, except it was created by Sirs for the Official Sirs Isometric Ego Exercises, as opposed to Ben Waterston, who invented Calvinball for yuks...

[sirs]

And with your apparent knee jerk reaction to start throwing out the insult bombs when being criticized, speaks more to your standard of posting, than your lack of grasping my posting

More whining.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing.  Go figure

Consider this - when you poke the bear, it is hardly up to you to decide what his response may be.

LOL....love the rationalization effort on throwing out insult bombs, when you were never insulted to begin with.  Merely criticized.  But, when anyone "pokes the bear"......well, that's what we can expect apparently

Now, are you going to say what you mean in the future, or are you going to continually try to revise it as you go along?

Going to always mean what I say.  Not my fault if you're unable to grasp the plain meaning and inferrence provided. 

[_JS]

Sirs,

Are you honestly suggesting that the Shah was not a dictator? Can you explain that one?

[sirs]

I'm saying he wasn't running, nor was his government sponsoring a terrorist nation.  Much like Saudi Arabia.  Both nations riddled with problems, and an oppressive ruling body, but do draw a line at not sponsoring/supporting terrorist organizations & activities, like messiers Iran, syria, and Iraq during Saddam were doing.

[Plane]

I'm saying he wasn't running, nor was his government sponsoring a terrorist nation.  Much like Saudi Arabia.  Both nations riddled with problems, and an oppressive ruling body, but do draw a line at not sponsoring/supporting terrorist organizations & activities, like messiers Iran, syria, and Iraq during Saddam were doing.

That is an intresting point , letting the Aiatolas take over Iran is something like letting the Al Queda take over Arabia.

Perhaps equivelent except that we know ahead of time that Al Queda is very unfreindly to us and very repressive where it reigns , we didn't know this about Kumeni when he showed up.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is an intresting point , letting the Aiatolas take over Iran is something like letting the Al Queda take over Arabia.


================================
"Letting" the Ayatollahs take over...what an interesting turn of phrase. It is as though you think that the US is the world's monitor and anything that happens, can happen only wit the permission of the US. A majority of Iranians actually wanted the Ayatollah to take over: as a religious figure, he was perceived as being incorruptible, which he likely was compared to the Shah and his flunkies.


Imagine an Iranian saying that they "let" Juniorbush take over the US.


Progress has been made in Iran since the Shah, but perhaps less on a per capita scale, since there are about three times more Iranians now than there were in 1977.

[Plane]

That is an intresting point , letting the Aiatolas take over Iran is something like letting the Al Queda take over Arabia.


================================
"Letting" the Ayatollahs take over...what an interesting turn of phrase. It is as though you think that the US is the world's monitor and anything that happens, can happen only wit the permission of the US. A majority of Iranians actually wanted the Ayatollah to take over: as a religious figure, he was perceived as being incorruptible, which he likely was compared to the Shah and his flunkies.


Imagine an Iranian saying that they "let" Juniorbush take over the US.


Progress has been made in Iran since the Shah, but perhaps less on a per capita scale, since there are about three times more Iranians now than there were in 1977.

A majority? How do you know?

On a percapata scale is exactly what counts most.

Jimmy Carter didn't do anything to aid the Shah , perhaps he couldn't have done enough , but he actually did nothing.

[Cynthia]

I'm saying he wasn't running, nor was his government sponsoring a terrorist nation.  Much like Saudi Arabia.  Both nations riddled with problems, and an oppressive ruling body, but do draw a line at not sponsoring/supporting terrorist organizations & activities, like messiers Iran, syria, and Iraq during Saddam were doing.

Good point, sirs. That is true.

[_JS]

I'm saying he wasn't running, nor was his government sponsoring a terrorist nation.  Much like Saudi Arabia.  Both nations riddled with problems, and an oppressive ruling body, but do draw a line at not sponsoring/supporting terrorist organizations & activities, like messiers Iran, syria, and Iraq during Saddam were doing.

No, that isn't what you said.

I quote:

to end with, the Shah wasn't a dictator

Now, please explain how the Shah of Iran was not a dictator. Mind you, the definition of a dictator has nothing to do with sponsoring terrorists.

[sirs]

I think I already clarified my statement.  Oppressive ruler perhaps.  Dictator, I think not