DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on September 26, 2008, 11:35:59 PM
-
Ok, well, Obama spells that out as a strategic defensive strike.
But, I return to the one thing I know first hand==IRan.
Who really gives a ratzzz ass if we are regarded by the countries of the world with less respect. Of course, we are going to be hated. I have to admit, that is one thing I have held as reality for the duration. I can't stand it when people (and I have made such statements) of America resort to the bottom dwelling statement-
We are bad because others think we are bad..and yet, other countries would LOVE TO SEE US fall.
Damn that frog in the hot water. I am not going to allow the water boil my truth in the end.
We have to have a thick skin as a nation. We are a wonderful country. We are also hated. Fact.
I know that fact. I lived with an IRanian. I know that fact.
Be careful. We are going to be hated.
We can't let that be a point to win a war or debate. Obama isn't my man. That's a given, now.
-
Iranians hate what the US did to Iran back in the 1950's. This is pretty well justified. Iranians by and large do not hate Americans, they just dislike our government. Amedinejahd is a prick, and Americans don't get it that he is talking to other Iranians and he likes to frighten the Israelis, because they are so damned easy to frighten and because they are so bloody fond of being martyrs. Iranians like being martyrs as well.
It used to be funny to watch Amedinejahd let lose with his totally idle threats and then watch the Israelis blow it totally out of proportion, but now it's just annoying and tedious.
Getting the troops out of Iraq will make US much more effective at using our power in the rest of the world. As it is now, everyone knows that we don't have the goods to back up our policies.
Iranians are not even close to being the people we need to be worried about not liking us. Those would be Western Europeans, Africans, Latin Americans and Asians, as well as many people in the Middle East.
McCain's stance on oil was weak, weak, weak. He's got nothing. If he's elected, nothing will be done. Gasoline could go to $10 a gallon and we'll still be hooked on it.
-
>>McCain's stance on oil was weak, weak, weak. He's got nothing. If he's elected, nothing will be done. Gasoline could go to $10 a gallon and we'll still be hooked on it.<<
McCain's stance is the same as Barry's.
It's obvious we need to stop depending on foreign oil. Nuclear power is the single best option for America. The left, for whatever reason, is against everything that can realistically help Americans get affordable energy. No Nuclear, no coal, no drilling, no, no, no. It's a winning issue for McCain and for America.
-
McCain's stance is the same as Barry's.
No it isn't. McCain wants to rely on Big Oil.
Obama wants to transition away from oil.
-
Strange how this supposed less respected country of ours, has facilitated far more pro-american, pro-conservative, pro-antiterrorist election wins, in quite a few democratically run countries, during this administration, that had been running far more socialist, prior.
Strange indeed
-
McCain is all for Nuclear Energy.
Considering the transition to electric cars we are going to need it.
-
Strange how this supposed less respected country of ours, has facilitated far more pro-american, pro-conservative, pro-antiterrorist election wins, in quite a few democratically run countries, during this administration, that had been running far more socialist, prior.
Strange indeed
============================================================
Strange that you have convinced yourself of this, because is just isn't true.
No elected governments are pro-terrorist, anywhere nor have they been in 60 years.
Pro-conservative"? Who would that be? Not Europe, Not Latin America, not by any definition of the word conservative in any significant place.
As usual, you do not know what the poo you are talking about.
-
McCain is all for Nuclear Energy.
Considering the transition to electric cars we are going to need it.
How is that new plug in Chevy Volt working out for you?
Before they build more nuclear plants, they need to send someone over to France and learn how to do it.
We have too many Montgomery Burnses and Homer Simpsons here on this side of the ocean.
-
France, with a more pro-american newly elected leader
Germany, with a more pro-american newly elected leader
Great Britain, remaining a staunch U.S. Allie, with its new Prime Minister
And what Xo is deliberately attempting to ignore is that in the reference to Anti-terrorist, is in the amount of Anti-terrorist legislative endeavors, such as wiretapping, that many democratically run countries have adopted, similar to that of the U.S. post 911, All the while the left berrates them here.
Weak try, Xo
-
How is that new plug in Chevy Volt working out for you?
Don't have one. I'm looking at putting a 50cc 4 stroke engine on a Schwinn. End cost about 200 bucks. Top speed about 40. 150 mpg.
If the French build them better, let them bid on the projects.
-
France, with a more pro-american newly elected leader-- a leftist governent
Germany, with a more pro-american newly elected leader -another leftist government
Great Britain, remaining a staunch U.S. Allie, with its new Prime Minister _ a Labour Party president.
Each and every one is far, far to the left of any US party or leader.
What is weak is your knowledge of the world.
-
What is weak, is your grasp of the candidates that won over those who were MUCH farther leftist/socialst, and Anti-American
-
>>McCain's stance on oil was weak, weak, weak. He's got nothing. If he's elected, nothing will be done. Gasoline could go to $10 a gallon and we'll still be hooked on it.<<
McCain's stance is the same as Barry's.
It's obvious we need to stop depending on foreign oil. Nuclear power is the single best option for America. The left, for whatever reason, is against everything that can realistically help Americans get affordable energy. No Nuclear, no coal, no drilling, no, no, no. It's a winning issue for McCain and for America.
This is where we agree, Richpo.
My father worked for 35 years...almost his entire adult career on the ground floor level floor of atomic energy here in NM. I have heard more than once at the dinner table how we have missed the boat when it comes to the use of such an energy resource.
And of course, bias not excluded, he is probably right. My father is a brilliant man.
That's why I tend to lean a bit more towards the conservative right, politically. He has reminded me many times that we are not going to survive as a nation with a socialist candidate such as Obama.._______.and at age 85, I do believe he knows a thing or two.
As his daughter, and as a public school teacher-- not to mention a free thinker in her own right....I question a lot! I do. But, I have to admit that my dad has been accurate in his thinking more often than not.
SO, when Ami thinks that HE has "changed my mind"...., I have to admit, I admire his view points..... but, actually it has been my daddy who rings the bottom line truth when it comes to politics, in the end.
But, heck.....one has to enter a good debate for what it's worth. I have to say this...that there is no "one particular party", no one individual who is 100 % spot on in any venue or arena of worthy discussion.
But, when it comes to certain questionable points, there are some areas that we must visit VIA the book. ...The history book. Look deeply into the basic point of debate not through the heart (as I tend to do) but based more so on history and its proven track record. There you will find the truth.
We need McCain now, albeit a weak conservative to some like Christians.
Obama isn't seasoned enough, and he thinks in the dream world. We can't afford to put our furture into that idealistic rhelm of thought at this time. Perhaps a Obama I-Carter II would be a nice refreshing leader in the future, but he has too many strikes against him in the negative for me to vote for him, AT THIS TIME. The NCLB act will change no matter who is elected. The children will cry out in the end. That's not a huge issue for me anymore. The states are sloppy. The private sector is strong. Truth. Fact. I still believe that we as a nation should provide as a basic infrastructure----a good public education. We aren't doing that. WE must find a ground in which we can all suceed. We are not doing that. Healthcare is out of proportion, but a government run health care system will have dangerous consequences in terms of selection of quality doctors.
I do believe that Iran does have potential to capture our attention in a massive and threatening way, XO. Just because they have not attacked our soil, does not mean they will not in the future. COme on...they would be the first in line to applaud any terrorists who would even invent a notion to show force in our direction. You have not read enough about the down right hate element from very revolutionary deeply rooted anti American side of the subject. I disagree with you so very much on this one.
America is, of course, a very well developed country. She is not the essence of evil as the mid east would have you think. I watched Obama's face tonight. He was weak. He even appeared hesitant and afraid. HE is not capable of standing strong in the face of the hippie gone psycho!
That rhetoric about Pakistan etc..is show and not one ounce of it means much, in the end. He has become a pretty boy and one to admire. But, I am not happy with his track record or his knowledge base when it comes to the dirty dozen of countries that are too willing to kill our guts.
-
but a government run health care system will have dangerous consequences in terms of selection of quality doctors.
???
The doctors that will treat you are the same bunch of guys. Who signs their checks is immaterial. Your HMO selects your doctors. If the US government were in charge, you'd have a whole much more to choose from.
Obama did not seem even remotely scared to me. McCain's voice trembled at the beginning. But stage fright is totally unrelated to actual courage in any case.
Iran has no way to even mildly bother the US with anything other than words. Like every damn country in the Middle East, Israel included, these guys like to rattle sabers and sound ever so brave. But with the notable exception of the Turks, they are all wimps and back down if you just stomp your feet and give them a mean Samurai look.
-
Iran's pain (http://books.google.com/books?id=NboVl-CeYs0C&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=iranian+revolution+murders&source=web&ots=J3ZSvu2TSq&sig=P_Y_EVx7K6TmWYGuDmVc5nNcamU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1)
XO, here is just an exerpt from a book written by a man with the same last name as my ex husband, ironically.
You are naive when it comes to the Iran.
Read every word you can here.....you will see what I am talking about.
-
I know rather a lot about Iran. A colleague of mine is Iranian, and says the same dumb crap as Amedinejahd, more or less. He is a prick, but a wimpy prick. Utterly obsessed about how modern and advanced and cool and neat Iran is and how Persians invented everything and used to rule the world. All is quite obviously a cover for an inferiority complex of amazing proportions.
Maybe they beat up on women, but I have long ago ceased to take them seriously. Iranians bore me, but they do not frighten me, even in the least.
I am also willing to allow the South Ossetians and Abkhazians to solve all their own political problems, and the Georgians as well.
-
I can't think of one person I've ever met in my whole life who was from another country and came here who has told me that people in other countries just love the hell out of America and think we are the bee's knees. Not one.
In fact, I've to several in my lifetime who have been from all over the globe from the '80's til now who have told me if I ever go overseas, tell everyone who asks that you are Canadian.
I know several people who go overseas a couple of times a year on business and on vacations and they say they are met with, at the very least, antipathy and in one case, one person I know of was beaten by a cab driver in one of those Scandinavian countries when the cabbie realized they were Americans. This was just before the 2004 election or just after.
I think that we are seen in some ways as a rogue nation who has too much power and everyone is more than willing to let us sink like a stone just to teach us some manners. Or at the very least, it will give us less resources to conduct unprovoked invasions like Russia and Iraq have done in the past.
Well, less resources after China decides to cut us off.
-
My guess is other countries view americans about as favorably as we view them.
This isn't a class president election, so who cares.
-
Jealousy breeds contempt. It is really just another predictable life lesson. America is a huge country with better conditions than any other country in the world. As the world got smaller and more people got the opportunity to come visit the US on vaca or immigrate other countries got jealous. Drop a camera anywhere even in the most remote jungles and you will find western clothing or some American relics... buy a coke anywhere. Countries that do not accept our ideologies are threatened and thus the propaganda begins.
I wonder how much our applications for permanent residency have fallen with all this "hate America" crap?
-
I read the link that Cindy posted and generally found it factual and informative. It's also a good summary of 20th Century Iranian history. I have a number of Iranian associates and I'm interested in their culture and history. The Iranians I know, however, are all refugees from the Islamic Revolution and therefore have a very strong pro-Shah, anti-Islamic-Revolution bias. I would say in general that if you meet any Iranian living in the West, that is generally going to be his or her position, almost as a matter of definition.
Two specific comments about points raised in the book:
1. The comment that the Mossadegh government was overthrown by a combination of internal and external forces is very misleading. The impetus for the overthrow was directly related to Mossadegh's nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. That internal Iranian groups were utilized is standard operating procedure in any foreign-led coup - - as for example, in the CIA's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected Allende government or Guatemala's democratically elected Arbenz government, or in the CIA's failed efforts to overthrow the revolutionary Cuban and democratically elected Venezuelan governments. It is almost like saying that the Nazi occupation of France was enthusiastically supported by a combination of inside and outside political forces. In every country, you will always find some domestic groups who will cooperate with foreign intervention and/or occupation, either for selfish or ideological reasons, but this does nothing to legitimize the foreign intervention or occupation, in fact all that it does is to delegitimize the collaborators.
2. I was very actively involved in Amnesty International during the last five or six years of the Shah's regime, and followed Iranian events fairly closely during all that time. I don't recall any of the improvements in prison conditions or in the use of torture in Iran that the book mentions during any of that time and in fact my impression of those years is that the flow of new Iranian cases remained fairly constant throughout. I'm not saying none of that happened, only that if there was any movement in that direction, it sure didn't make any waves and wasn't detectable on casual examination.
And finally, a little off-topic, if anyone is interested in reading a young middle-class girl's autobiographic account of growing up in a non-religious family under the Islamic Revolution in the form of a graphic (cartoon) non-fiction work, I highly recommend an absolutely brilliant book, Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, drawn and written by the author, now published in expanded form as The Complete Persepolis. It starts in elementary school and proceeds through the years of the Iran-Iraq war and getting out of Iran to pursue an education in Europe. It was almost impossible to put down.
-
1. The comment that the Mossadegh government was overthrown by a combination of internal and external forces is very misleading. The impetus for the overthrow was directly related to Mossadegh's nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. That internal Iranian groups were utilized is standard operating procedure in any foreign-led coup - - as for example, in the CIA's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected Allende government or Guatemala's democratically elected Arbenz government, or in the CIA's failed efforts to overthrow the revolutionary Cuban and democratically elected Venezuelan governments. It is almost like saying that the Nazi occupation of France was enthusiastically supported by a combination of inside and outside political forces. In every country, you will always find some domestic groups who will cooperate with foreign intervention and/or occupation, either for selfish or ideological reasons, but this does nothing to legitimize the foreign intervention or occupation, in fact all that it does is to delegitimize the collaborators.
France had a lot of collaborators, but under the threat level that they had this is expected.
Doesn't the internal division of a country make it vulnerable to coup?
One of your examples was Cuba , where several US supported coup attempts have died aborning. Is Cuba better off with most of its dissidents being expatriots sending money home to their grandparents ? If all of those people had to stay in Cuba there might have been a successfull coup by now.
-
<<America is a huge country with better conditions than any other country in the world. >>
Sorry, but that is just not true. But it is typical of the limited and parochial world-view that many Americans have.
<<I wonder how much our applications for permanent residency have fallen with all this "hate America" crap?>>
Somewhere I read that France, and possibly other countries, attracts more permanant residence applications than the U.S.A. I stand to be corrected, but in my personal view, as great as it would be to live permanently in either Manhattan or South Florida, living permanently in Paris or the South of France would be even better.
<<In fact, I've to several in my lifetime who have been from all over the globe from the '80's til now who have told me if I ever go overseas, tell everyone who asks that you are Canadian.>>
That's certainly been our experience, in fact, as we are almost always mistaken at first for Americans, we've seen numerous instances where cold, even downright rude treatment instantly turned into smiles and apologies when the person or persons involved realized we were Canadians. This kind of anti-Americanism, to be fair, goes back many decades and I can't really say that I've noticed any increase in it over the years. On our last trip to France, a few years ago, we even encountered someone who went out of his way, completely unasked, to be helpful, and explained that he just wanted Americans to know that lots of French people really liked them. But that was a first, and definitely an exception. In this case, we didn't have the heart to tell him that he had just helped out three Canadians.
<<I think that we are seen in some ways as a rogue nation who has too much power and everyone is more than willing to let us sink like a stone just to teach us some manners. >>
It is definitely going to affect your balance-of-payment problems. You'd have to be blind not to see that. Ill will translates into (a) reluctance to buy the brand and development of interest in competing brands and (b) a more difficult road for foreign leaders who want to exercise pro-American policies against increasing domestic opposition. I think it's extremely foolish and short-sighted to adopt a "who cares?" attitude in reaction to rapidly-declining goodwill abroad. It will INEVITABLY bite you in the ass.
-
<<France had a lot of collaborators, but under the threat level that they had this is expected.>>
The collaborators mostly came from pre-war anti-semitic and pro-fascist movements like Action Francaise and the right-wing bourgeoisie. Very few of the collaborators saw a threat in Germany, they saw it as their salvation.
<<Doesn't the internal division of a country make it vulnerable to coup?>>
Of course. So? What country doesn't have its internal divisions?
<<One of your examples was Cuba , where several US supported coup attempts have died aborning. Is Cuba better off with most of its dissidents being expatriots sending money home to their grandparents ? >>
It's better off without those gusanos around.
<<If all of those people had to stay in Cuba there might have been a successfull coup by now.>>
You have really overestimated their importance. Most of them are economic refugees, not fleeing poverty but seeking wealth. These are absolutely the worst kind of human beings imaginable, greed-driven and selfish parasites in search of an environment which will provide the biggest rewards for their parasitism, and they found it. They would rather hunt for Rolexes in the U.S.A. than for a bullet in the brain in Cuba.
-
Before they build more nuclear plants, they need to send someone over to France and learn how to do it.
Areva has offices in the US already. I have a friend that works for them.
We have too many Montgomery Burnses and Homer Simpsons here on this side of the ocean.
Actually, France has had as many nuclear incidents as the US, possibly more.
-
You have really overestimated their importance. Most of them are economic refugees, not fleeing poverty but seeking wealth. These are absolutely the worst kind of human beings imaginable, greed-driven and selfish parasites in search of an environment which will provide the biggest rewards for their parasitism, and they found it. They would rather hunt for Rolexes in the U.S.A. than for a bullet in the brain in Cuba.
.
Once again Bravo . These brigands are characterized by the Mariel lift in which Castro hoisted his criminals on US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift)
-
>>I can't think of one person I've ever met in my whole life who was from another country and came here who has told me that people in other countries just love the hell out of America and think we are the bee's knees. Not one.<<
I've met hundreds who appreciate America and think the world of it's people. The week in Ireland my wife and I spent was full of wonderful parties and intellectual discussion with people who love America and support her. Every Canadian I've ever worked for or with has nothing but positive things to say about America. If you spend time at the beach you're bound to meet people from other countries and invariable we get along famously. Now that isn't to say people always agree with American foreign policy but they never describe us as evil like some of our own citizens do. That always amazes people from other countries how certain deluded Americans can hate their own country so much. I just tell them it's one of the great things about America. You can tell the most vile lies about your country and we all just kind of shrug it off and consider the source.
I know we're respected around the world. Especially by Eastern European countries who know what it's like to live under Communist/Socialist regimes. They marvel at Americans who actually think socialism is a good thing. "Weren't they paying attention?" They ask. I guess not. They're to busy watching American Idol and hating people who work harder than them.
-
And let's add here that it wasn't about the gross misrepresentation effort of foreigners singing the praises that the U.S. is all "bees knees", compared to everyone else being some gulag, or that Some Government is more left than the U.S. (I think nearly every government is more left that the U.S.). Or that there aren't alot of Anti-american folk out there, that rail against the U.S., 24/7. We have some prime examples of that right here in the saloon
The issue has always been that despite these declarations that the U.S. is not respected by the rest of the world, that claim is consistently refuted, by these various foreign countries who, since 911 and this administration, have largely been electing American Friendly leaders & governments, who didn't run on an Anti American platform, and instead ran on a more hard line Anti-terrorist platform, with legislative efforts taken that tend to mirror what this country has done post 911. Spain being the notable exception, of course
HARDLY a disrespecting "by the world". In fact, one could argue quite the contrary
-
Jealousy breeds contempt. It is really just another predictable life lesson. America is a huge country with better conditions than any other country in the world. As the world got smaller and more people got the opportunity to come visit the US on vaca or immigrate other countries got jealous. Drop a camera anywhere even in the most remote jungles and you will find western clothing or some American relics... buy a coke anywhere. Countries that do not accept our ideologies are threatened and thus the propaganda begins.
I wonder how much our applications for permanent residency have fallen with all this "hate America" crap?
Spot on, Cro!
-
<<I've met hundreds who appreciate America and think the world of it's people. The week in Ireland my wife and I spent was full of wonderful parties and intellectual discussion with people who love America and support her. Every Canadian I've ever worked for or with has nothing but positive things to say about America. If you spend time at the beach you're bound to meet people from other countries and invariable we get along famously. Now that isn't to say people always agree with American foreign policy but they never describe us as evil like some of our own citizens do. >>
I don't think loss of respect for America translates into people-to-people hostility, although as surrogate Americans, we've encountered that a few times as well. Most people are polite and in particular would never insult other guests at a private party. The people you meet in social situations are not likely to be the same ones that take part in mass demonstrations shouting "Marg Bar Amerika." Next time you're meeting foreigners, just ask them whether they've been in any anti-American demonstrations. Then look up the dates of the last three such demonstrations in that city or country and how big the crowds were.
<<That always amazes people from other countries how certain deluded Americans can hate their own country so much. I just tell them it's one of the great things about America. You can tell the most vile lies about your country and we all just kind of shrug it off and consider the source.>>
The criticism is largely valid and well-deserved. You are obviously encountering a non-random sampling of foreigners who are totally unrepresentative of the country you happen to be visiting at the time.
<<I know we're respected around the world. Especially by Eastern European countries who know what it's like to live under Communist/Socialist regimes. They marvel at Americans who actually think socialism is a good thing. "Weren't they paying attention?" They ask. I guess not. They're to busy watching American Idol and hating people who work harder than them.>>
It's hard to speak in generalizations, as there are plenty of Eastern Europeans who hate America as much as anyone else does, but it's probably safe to say that Eastern Europeans are America's biggest fans. 70 years ago, it was probably safe to say that a lot of them were Hitler's biggest fans, which is what led to their domination by the Soviets in the first place. Their political opinions never particularly impressed me, but if you want an earful, next time you discuss politics with one of them, ask them what they really think about the Jews and why the U.S. supports Israel. Act real dumb when you ask the question and don't appear shocked by anything they say or you'll never hear the end of their answer.
-
I read the link that Cindy posted and generally found it factual and informative. It's also a good summary of 20th Century Iranian history. I have a number of Iranian associates and I'm interested in their culture and history. The Iranians I know, however, are all refugees from the Islamic Revolution and therefore have a very strong pro-Shah, anti-Islamic-Revolution bias. I would say in general that if you meet any Iranian living in the West, that is generally going to be his or her position, almost as a matter of definition.
Two specific comments about points raised in the book:
1. The comment that the Mossadegh government was overthrown by a combination of internal and external forces is very misleading. The impetus for the overthrow was directly related to Mossadegh's nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. That internal Iranian groups were utilized is standard operating procedure in any foreign-led coup - - as for example, in the CIA's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected Allende government or Guatemala's democratically elected Arbenz government, or in the CIA's failed efforts to overthrow the revolutionary Cuban and democratically elected Venezuelan governments. It is almost like saying that the Nazi occupation of France was enthusiastically supported by a combination of inside and outside political forces. In every country, you will always find some domestic groups who will cooperate with foreign intervention and/or occupation, either for selfish or ideological reasons, but this does nothing to legitimize the foreign intervention or occupation, in fact all that it does is to delegitimize the collaborators.
2. I was very actively involved in Amnesty International during the last five or six years of the Shah's regime, and followed Iranian events fairly closely during all that time. I don't recall any of the improvements in prison conditions or in the use of torture in Iran that the book mentions during any of that time and in fact my impression of those years is that the flow of new Iranian cases remained fairly constant throughout. I'm not saying none of that happened, only that if there was any movement in that direction, it sure didn't make any waves and wasn't detectable on casual examination.
And finally, a little off-topic, if anyone is interested in reading a young middle-class girl's autobiographic account of growing up in a non-religious family under the Islamic Revolution in the form of a graphic (cartoon) non-fiction work, I highly recommend an absolutely brilliant book, Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, drawn and written by the author, now published in expanded form as The Complete Persepolis. It starts in elementary school and proceeds through the years of the Iran-Iraq war and getting out of Iran to pursue an education in Europe. It was almost impossible to put down.
Good feedback, Mtee.
There were, however, hundreds of individuals murdered just because they were military personel; under the Shah's regime. So, improving on any society just because there is a sudden revolution....doesn't always dictate such improvements on any level or stage....
-
Thanks, Cindy. I'm not a fan of either the Shah's regime or the Islamic Republic. They're both pretty bad, but the Republic is still a mixed bag with good and bad elements. There may have been some innocent military men murdered by the Republic, but the military tortured and killed thousands under the Shah. I find it hard to believe that there were many innocents among them. Both regimes can be characterized as heavy users of torture and murder to advance their policies.
-
Thanks, Cindy. I'm not a fan of either the Shah's regime or the Islamic Republic. They're both pretty bad, but the Republic is still a mixed bag with good and bad elements. There may have been some innocent military men murdered by the Republic, but the military tortured and killed thousands under the Shah. I find it hard to believe that there were many innocents among them. Both regimes can be characterized as heavy users of torture and murder to advance their policies.
But, you know, Micky....women had it a hell of a lot better under the Shah..and that was only the beginning.
If you read the few pages online in Manoutcheri's book, you will see that women were on their way to holding more than a step behind the husband.
Sally Field once portrayed the woman Moodie sp? who was left to fend for herself in Iran while her Americanized Iranian husband turned his coat and used force against her on his own turf.
That happened to me in so many words.....albeit without the child. The movie; Not Without My Daughter. The story tells a lot about the average Iranian on soil or in US country......point?
even if and Iranian "appears" to love and work in America.....be aware that that isn't always a given as a conclusive definition of the Loyal Persian in the American way.
The depth of loyalty to the culture that is Persia....is something the Iranian will always hold tight to the vest.
We, as WEsterners can view the middle east with rose colored glasses, but we will never understand the culture that holds disdain for its own women.
More later.
Cindy
-
My wife and I saw
Not Without My Daughter
, and we both thought it was an excellent picture. The Shah was trying to modernize Iran and improving the status of women was an obvious part of modernization, but I can see where it would receive a lot of opposition from the public. This is one place where religion takes a prominent role in suppressing women's rights, much the same as the RCC and the fundamentalist Protestant churches in our culture spearhead the attack on women's reproductive rights over here.
I tend to see the attack on women's rights in Iran as a religious rather than a cultural movement. I eat lunch fairly regularly at the Darband, a Persian restaurant near my home with a giant video screen, which is always showing Persian music videos, made in L.A., mostly, featuring modern Persian dance and song. The girls in the videos are as liberated as North American women, sexy, long-haired, bare midriffs, etc. Of course the Ayatollahs have no power in L.A. and so the Persian people of North America are free to adopt whatever cultural models, Persian included, that attract them. It's pretty obvious to me that the Persian people, while anxious to preserve some traditional elements of Persian culture, music for example, they can blend in Western styles to modify the music and they certainly seem to have adopted the North American model of relationships between the sexes.
Of course your point would be that Moodie was just as liberal and westernized as the Persians watching the music vids at the Darband, but that deep down inside, he was still an old-fashioned Iranian.
I guess in hindsight, which is always 20/20, it probably IS better to stick to your own kind in matrimony.
-
My wife and I saw Not Without My Daughter
, and we both thought it was an excellent picture. The Shah was trying to modernize Iran and improving the status of women was an obvious part of modernization, but I can see where it would receive a lot of opposition from the public. This is one place where religion takes a prominent role in suppressing women's rights, much the same as the RCC and the fundamentalist Protestant churches in our culture spearhead the attack on women's reproductive rights over here.
I tend to see the attack on women's rights in Iran as a religious rather than a cultural movement. I eat lunch fairly regularly at the Darband, a Persian restaurant near my home with a giant video screen, which is always showing Persian music videos, made in L.A., mostly, featuring modern Persian dance and song. The girls in the videos are as liberated as North American women, sexy, long-haired, bare midriffs, etc. Of course the Ayatollahs have no power in L.A. and so the Persian people of North America are free to adopt whatever cultural models, Persian included, that attract them. It's pretty obvious to me that the Persian people, while anxious to preserve some traditional elements of Persian culture, music for example, they can blend in Western styles to modify the music and they certainly seem to have adopted the North American model of relationships between the sexes.
Of course your point would be that Moodie was just as liberal and westernized as the Persians watching the music vids at the Darband, but that deep down inside, he was still an old-fashioned Iranian.
I guess in hindsight, which is always 20/20, it probably IS better to stick to your own kind in matrimony.
I can see where it would receive a lot of opposition from the public. This is one place where religion takes a prominent role in suppressing women's rights, much the same as the RCC and the fundamentalist Protestant churches in our culture spearhead the attack on women's reproductive rights over here.
Michael.. with all due respect...NO it's not the same.
I tend to see the attack on women's rights in Iran as a religious rather than a cultural movement.
I see no difference here. The attack on women's rights in Iran are wrong -----bottom line. During the mid 70's there was hope for the very essence of the Iranian's woman's rights....under the Shah. Those possibilites are dead.
I eat lunch fairly regularly at the Darband, a Persian restaurant near my home with a giant video screen, which is always showing Persian music videos, made in L.A., mostly, featuring modern Persian dance and song. The girls in the videos are as liberated as North American women, sexy, long-haired, bare midriffs, etc. Of course the Ayatollahs have no power in L.A. and so the Persian people of North America are free to adopt whatever cultural models, Persian included, that attract them. It's pretty obvious to me that the Persian people, while anxious to preserve some traditional elements of Persian culture, music for example, they can blend in Western styles to modify the music and they certainly seem to have adopted the North American model of relationships between the sexes.
Adopting the N.American model of a relationship between the sexes is not the same as viewing a video in a dining establishment, Mtee.
You can bet the farm that those women who dance even in the slightly nude, are dead if they were to dance in Tehran. Men are men. Iranians(Persians) will never be real men when it comes to respecting life, respecting women.
The absolute mixed messages/ and honor to culture/religion that lies deep within the Iranian is like a ghost. The average person does NOT believe in ghosts, but that film portrayed the depth of fear a woman experiences when the man she loves turns on her...LET alone on her child.
That was real.
Iran is real.
Bones and Blood are real.....I still say , be careful.
-
The Persians in LA are not typical of those in Iran. They are typical of pro-Shah, upper middle class businesspeople who were very pro-Western, even more so than the parents of Marjani Satrapi, who did the graphic novels and the film Persepolis, who, after all, did not emigrate to the US.
There is a common trait of intolerance and blind nationalism in both the pro-Shah and the current regime, and it has its roots in Shia Islam, a religion with several features that can only be described as whacko (self-flagellation being the most obvious, a worship iof martyrdom a close second).
-
>>I don't think loss of respect for America translates into people-to-people hostility, although as surrogate Americans, we've encountered that a few times as well. Most people are polite and in particular would never insult other guests at a private party.<<
I’ve run across religious bigotry at a person to person level here in the US. Yet I’ve never run across any anti-American hostility in other countries. Granted, I haven’t been everywhere but I’ve been around. As for parties, I didn’t mean to imply private parties, but then it’s been my experience that such gathers breed familiarity and many times thing s are said out of school, as they say. Yet never an anti-American sound. That’s not to say I haven’t had foreign policy discussions with a few Irish, Mexican, the odd French, and many Canadians. As for the Canadians I think whatever hostility you’re getting has more to do with you than Canada.
>>Next time you're meeting foreigners, just ask them whether they've been in any anti-American demonstrations. Then look up the dates of the last three such demonstrations in that city or country and how big the crowds were.<<
I’ll be sure to do that. I think I can safely say that the people I’ve become friends with or have worked with have never been to an anti-American demonstration. Never. I can’t say that about people I’ve met in pubs, or restaurants, but based on the reception we receive I‘d be surprised if they ever did. Especially in Ireland. People who do those sorts of things aren’t generally out having a good time. They’re usually locked in their homes posting lies about America on the web.
>>The criticism is largely valid and well-deserved.<<
Bullshit. Europe is free because of America. Millions have food and water because of America. Millions more are healthy because of America. The world owes a dept of gratitude to America for the lives and the treasure it’s given soother could be free.
-
Bullshit. Europe is free because of America. Millions have food and water because of America. Millions more are healthy because of America. The world owes a dept of gratitude to America for the lives and the treasure it’s given soother could be free.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not only are we the elect of God, but we are the salvation of Mankind.
And when we salute the flag, we give God credit for, well, being under Him.
Palestinians, of course, do not see Americans for saving them. Must be that when their homes are bulldozed, it is with bulldozers from Caterpillar or Peoria given free for the purpose to the Zionists.
-
>>Palestinians, of course, do not see Americans for saving them.<<
They should. We send enough money to them.
>>Must be that when their homes are bulldozed, it is with bulldozers from Caterpillar or Peoria given free for the purpose to the Zionists.<<
Bulldozing the homes of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers is a justified response to the cowardly murder of women and children. It could be worse actually. Israel could show the same disregard for human life that "Palestinians" do.
(http://www.intergate.com/~canu/history/h4aug/04bombus.jpg)
-
Bulldozing the homes of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers is a justified response to the cowardly murder of women and children. It could be worse actually. Israel could show the same disregard for human life that "Palestinians" do.
No, it is not justifiable.
Suppose a nephew was out of work and came to stay at your house. They he want ape and bombed a bus, or more likely TRIED to bomb something.
Bright and early next morning, here comes the Ziuonist Army with a bulldozed and knocks down the only home your family has lived in for the past 100 years or so. I bet that would piss you off a hair.
Especially since the same government that forced you out of your home forbids you to rebuild another, anywhere. Even on land you own.
Did the US govt bulldoze Timothy McVeigh's home? Did it knock down the Michigan Mititia's clubhouse?
Please. This is goonish behavior. I deeply resent having to subsidize the bulldozers and crew and fuel to do such nasty things.
-
>>No, it is not justifiable.<<
Yes, it is.
>>Suppose a nephew was out of work and came to stay at your house. They he want ape and bombed a bus, or more likely TRIED to bomb something.
AAwww .... I'm going to cry. You're going to great lengths to create a scenario of the likable, misunderstood little terrorist who has no idea his son, daughter, nephew, niece, friend is a coldblooded monster.
Riiight.
The truth is these people harbor terrorists. They are accessories after the fact. They give them safe haven. They're lucky they aren't just blown up with the terrorist they harbor. They are given warning after warning and then they are warned again so they get out of the house. Then of course the tunnels are found and the sweet little terrorist are dumbfounded that their sweet little nephew has taken them in.
Riiight.
-
So you would be cool with bulldozing any house where McVeigh slept? I am pretty sure you's go for that as well.
Observe that not the US nor any modern country would allow this sort of goonish behavior. It would be clearly unconstitutional to do this in the US or any European nation that has a constitution. You can't punish people for knowing other people, ony for being active accomplices.
Arabs are very hospitable people and they offer their homes to anyone who they consider a friend. Just like Bandar Bush gets free room and board at Crawford.
-
>>So you would be cool with bulldozing any house where McVeigh slept? I am pretty sure you's go for that as well.<<
Why would that be neccessary? He was caught, convicted, and put to death. Nobody hid him, or for that matter nobody hid thousands of him.
Silly premise, silly question.
-
It is not necessary to bulldoze the home of a dead terrorist, either, because they are also as dead as McVeigh.
If you bombed a bus, would it be in any way sane to bulldoze her house?
-
Bulldozing the homes of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers is a justified response to the cowardly murder of women and children. It could be worse actually. Israel could show the same disregard for human life that "Palestinians" do.
No, it is not justifiable.
Suppose a nephew was out of work and came to stay at your house. They he want ape and bombed a bus, or more likely TRIED to bomb something.
Bright and early next morning, here comes the Ziuonist Army with a bulldozed and knocks down the only home your family has lived in for the past 100 years or so. I bet that would piss you off a hair.
Especially since the same government that forced you out of your home forbids you to rebuild another, anywhere. Even on land you own.
Did the US govt bulldoze Timothy McVeigh's home? Did it knock down the Michigan Mititia's clubhouse?
Please. This is goonish behavior. I deeply resent having to subsidize the bulldozers and crew and fuel to do such nasty things.
Is the bombing of the bus tolerable or justified?
-
<<Is the bombing of the bus tolerable or justified?>>
It better be. We must have bombed a whole lot of buses in Germany and Japan.
I'm convinced that if there is going to be a peaceful solution in the Middle East, the first thing that has to go is this hypocritical and short-sighted condemnation of the other guy as "evil" and the general assumption that our side is "good" or at least not as evil as the other guy.
People are people, Arabs are no more intrinsically evil than Americans, Muslims no more intrinsically evil than Jews. If the Arabs are blowing up buses, realize that this is not done casually, for laughs - - there is a lot of rage and bitterness that went into the making of that action. Try to understand the sources. Not the history of "the Arabs" or "the Palestinians" or "the Jews," but the personal histories of the guys who bombed the bus. What THEY went through in their lifetimes before they became suicide bombers or guerrilla fighters.
All too often, the only insights into their minds are provided to us by people with an axe to grind, mostly Israelis or Zionists, "experts," to be sure, with all the doctorates and credentials necessary, but they are whores. Try to see from the Palestinians themselves what THEIR side of it is, and then decide for yourself who has the more credible explanation. But the Zionists have monopolized the narrative, down to the provision of explanations from "ex" guerrilla fighters, "ex" jihadis, etc. How many people in the U.S. have even heard the other side explained by its own people is probably less than 5%.
-
I'm convinced that if there is going to be a peaceful solution in the Middle East, the first thing that has to go is this hypocritical and short-sighted condemnation of the other guy as "evil" and the general assumption that our side is "good" or at least not as evil as the other guy.
People are people, Arabs are no more intrinsically evil than Americans, Muslims no more intrinsically evil than Jews. If the Arabs are blowing up buses, realize that this is not done casually, for laughs - - there is a lot of rage and bitterness that went into the making of that action. Try to understand the sources. Not the history of "the Arabs" or "the Palestinians" or "the Jews," but the personal histories of the guys who bombed the bus. What THEY went through in their lifetimes before they became suicide bombers or guerrilla fighters.
Fine then , but I don't want to hear any more complaining about houses being bulldozed , that action, done in rage or not , gives the occupants a chance to get out alive , bombing the bus fails to do that. If the Palestinians are legitimate to bomb the bus than the Isrelis are legitimate to get drastic too.
You are going to have to get over the notion that one side is "right " and "rightious" and the other is not , neither side needs violence at all , except that the other side needs it.
By the Way I seriously doubt that any bus bomber ever took the life story of his victims into account before killing them , why does his life story matter more than theirs?
-
There is no way the government in the USA could bulldoze a house in vengeance. Why are the Israelis so special? This is simply a travesty of justice, and should be denounced oin the strongest terms. If the PLO, Hamas, or Hezbollah blow up buses or bulldoze homes, that is equally as wrong, and THAT should also be denounced in the same way.
-
There is no way the government in the USA could bulldoze a house in vengeance. Why are the Israelis so special? This is simply a travesty of justice, and should be denounced oin the strongest terms. If the PLO, Hamas, or Hezbollah blow up buses or bulldoze homes, that is equally as wrong, and THAT should also be denounced in the same way.
It may be out of fashion in our generation , but General Sherman made a business of it.
-
It may be out of fashion in our generation , but General Sherman made a business of it.
That was during a war, either with the Rebels or the Indians.
There is no state of war between Palestine and Israel.
-
It may be out of fashion in our generation , but General Sherman made a business of it.
That was during a war, either with the Rebels or the Indians.
There is no state of war between Palestine and Israel.
I wish they thought so.
-
I wish they thought so.
The problem is that the US government backs Israel as though there WAS a state of war, and arms the Israelis and says dumbassed crap like "Israel is our closeset ally", when clearly this is not so.
Israel is a beggar nation. It depends on the US for its bellicose strutting. The US gets nothing in return. US politicians get Jewish votes, and that's about it.
-
I wish they thought so.
The problem is that the US government backs Israel as though there WAS a state of war, and arms the Israelis and says dumbassed crap like "Israel is our closeset ally", when clearly this is not so.
Israel is a beggar nation. It depends on the US for its bellicose strutting. The US gets nothing in return. US politicians get Jewish votes, and that's about it.
If they did not need so much military support they would not need anything from us at all.
-
<< . . . I don't want to hear any more complaining about houses being bulldozed , that action, done in rage or not , gives the occupants a chance to get out alive , bombing the bus fails to do that. If the Palestinians are legitimate to bomb the bus than the Isrelis are legitimate to get drastic too.>>
You're comparing apples to oranges. The Israeli equivalent to the bus bombing is not bulldozing houses, but firing a missile into an elementary school or a crowded marketplace or apartment building.
<<You are going to have to get over the notion that one side is "right " and "rightious" and the other is not , neither side needs violence at all , except that the other side needs it.>>
The reality, and my argument itself, are that BOTH sides resort to lethal violence against the other, so that a first step in resolving the problem is to stop demonizing one side or the other as unfit negotiating partners or as people who only understand the language of violence and killing.
<<By the Way I seriously doubt that any bus bomber ever took the life story of his victims into account before killing them , why does his life story matter more than theirs?>>
It's all about motivation, and motivation is all about root causes. You already know why the Israelis bulldoze homes and fire missiles into crowded marketplaces and you know their life stories enough to understand how they contributed to the current political and tactical positions that they hold. His life story doesn't "matter" any more than theirs or anyone else's, but if you don't understand it, you won't really understand fully his motivation, and thus you will not fully understand one of the root causes of the conflict.
What do you have against hearing the life story of the bus bomber in his own words or in the words of his surviving loved ones? Is there something you are afraid you will be told, something that you no longer will be able to avoid?
-
Israel is a beggar nation. It depends on the US for its bellicose strutting. The US gets nothing in return. US politicians get Jewish votes, and that's about it.
If they did not need so much military support they would not need anything from us at all.
===============================================================
That is a total crock. Israel would be a Third World nation like Jordan or Syria if not for tons of US aid and forgiven loans, tax breaks for American Jews who donate to Israeli charities in the billions, and bazillions of Jewish money that flows out of the US into Israel.
The US has consistently sent more foreign aid to Israel (population under six million) than to any other nation on the planet, narly ALL of which are poorer than Israel.
When a rocket from Hexzbollah hits one of those few villages on the border, the next day there are Amerian reporters, interviewing the victims, (sometimes there are no casualties) interviewing their US relatives, giving all the names of all the Witnessess as well as the victims. A major in-depth report.
When a home is bulldozed, the name of the family is not mentioned or barely mentioned, the relatives are not interviewed, the segment takes about two minutes.
-
<< . . . I don't want to hear any more complaining about houses being bulldozed , that action, done in rage or not , gives the occupants a chance to get out alive , bombing the bus fails to do that. If the Palestinians are legitimate to bomb the bus than the Isrelis are legitimate to get drastic too.>>
You're comparing apples to oranges. The Israeli equivalent to the bus bombing is not bulldozing houses, but firing a missile into an elementary school or a crowded marketplace or apartment building.
<<You are going to have to get over the notion that one side is "right " and "rightious" and the other is not , neither side needs violence at all , except that the other side needs it.>>
The reality, and my argument itself, are that BOTH sides resort to lethal violence against the other, so that a first step in resolving the problem is to stop demonizing one side or the other as unfit negotiating partners or as people who only understand the language of violence and killing.
<<By the Way I seriously doubt that any bus bomber ever took the life story of his victims into account before killing them , why does his life story matter more than theirs?>>
It's all about motivation, and motivation is all about root causes. You already know why the Israelis bulldoze homes and fire missiles into crowded marketplaces and you know their life stories enough to understand how they contributed to the current political and tactical positions that they hold. His life story doesn't "matter" any more than theirs or anyone else's, but if you don't understand it, you won't really understand fully his motivation, and thus you will not fully understand one of the root causes of the conflict.
What do you have against hearing the life story of the bus bomber in his own words or in the words of his surviving loved ones? Is there something you are afraid you will be told, something that you no longer will be able to avoid?
That is almost right , I am afaraid that bus bombing as a tactic will seem effective if it is the way to get the story told, it will seem wise and worth doing , instead of foolish and innefective.
Perhaps they should just tell their pitifull story without coveringthemselves with someone elese's blood first , it kinda spoils the pity.
-
<<That is almost right , I am afaraid that bus bombing as a tactic will seem effective if it is the way to get the story told, it will seem wise and worth doing , instead of foolish and innefective.
<<Perhaps they should just tell their pitifull story without coveringthemselves with someone elese's blood first , it kinda spoils the pity.>>
The issue is not pity but demonization. They are demonized for resorting to violence but the Israelis are not. IHMO, the Israelis' stories are told and retold ad infinitum and we understand all too well their motivation, even when they unleash lethal force on civilians. Thus they are never demonized in the American MSM.
The Arab bus bomber's story is much less well known. Not only is he badly misunderstood, but he is demonized as the Israelis never are.
On that theory that understanding is the first step on the road to a peaceful resolution, it is essential that America (or anyone else interested in the idea) understands the bus bombers' stories as well as the Israelis' stories. No resolution is going to come from a situation where both parties are morally culpable but only one is demonized. Basically you have a conflict in which one side doesn't even know who its opponent is.