DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 15, 2008, 02:53:03 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4861337 (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4861337)
-
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?
-
Wow...the appeasement argument again... (that was sarcasm)
So he runs to Israel, possibly a nation where his approval is higher than here in the states, and makes one of the time-honored fallacy arguments of the day.
And this is impressive...why? You could do an Internet search and find the "appeasement argument" + Hitler repeated ad infinitum. People have used that and dropped Neville Chamberlain's name to make excuses for bad policy since 1938. The fact that W pulled in a Senator doesn't make it anything new or special.
The fact that he had to go to a practicing apartheid country to rally nationalism is what really amazes me. It is noteworthy who eats this up with a spoon.
-
And ironically, it always amazes me how to a large chunk of our left leaning brethren, Bush gets absolutely zip credit for anything. Nada, zip, squat. To those folks, Bush is one big negative zit, needing to be squeezed
-
Some of us believe his negatives outweigh his positives.
Get used to it.
-
Not what I'm referring to, H. I happen to see alot of negatives as well. I'm referring to those who can't see even a shred of positive. Not 1 example, despite countless possibilities. Just a boil to life's existance, taking up oxygen that could have gone to much greater good
-
And ironically, it always amazes me how to a large chunk of our left leaning brethren, Bush gets absolutely zip credit for anything. Nada, zip, squat. To those folks, Bush is one big negative zit, needing to be squeezed.
Not what I'm referring to, H. I happen to see alot of negatives as well. I'm referring to those who can't see even a shred of positive. Not 1 example, despite countless possibilities. Just a boil to life's existance, taking up oxygen that could have gone to much greater good.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juniorbush seems to have been a good father to his daughters. That is easiest when one is the heir to a major fortune, but still, he hasn't shot any of his hirelings point-blank in the chest, as John DuPont did a while back. He has a nicer disposition than Leona Helmsley, and better hair than Donald Trump.
Of course, by his being governor of Texas and president for eight years, it means that some 7-11 in Odessa Texas has lacked a really good manager. That was really his calling, I think, and where he was headed had he not been born with the surname Bush.
So see, we can be positive about him too.
-
Not what I'm referring to, H.
Sure it is.
Kinda the way some folks remember Bubba for getting his pecker puffed but forget what he did with the national debt. Hell, even I couldn't stand the sumbitch, but I liked where he left this country financially much better than where his successor is leaving it.
I'm thinking of a soldier who fought for his country in one war, then managed to become leader of that country, whose rhetoric inspired millions, who dragged his country out of a depression - then led them into the madness of another war. Guess who he is, and which of those he's most remembered for.
-
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/obama17.gif)
-
Not what I'm referring to, H.
I'm thinking of a soldier who fought for his country in one war, then managed to become leader of that country, whose rhetoric inspired millions, who dragged his country out of a depression - then led them into the madness of another war. Guess who he is, and which of those he's most remembered for.
That is an oft repeated tale , Julius Ceaser? Napolion? Abe Lincon? George Washington? Adolph Hitler? Charles DeGaulle? John Kennedy?
-
Not what I'm referring to, H.
Sure it is.
Ahhh, now H can read minds. Can't be what I said, it has to be what H deems I meant to say. Were you employed by that Miss Chloey character, H? The one who supposedly could read minds and devine the future.......for whatever amount the call was charged of course
Kinda the way some folks remember Bubba for getting his pecker puffed but forget what he did with the national debt.
Oh you mean, what the GOP led congress did with the national debt, bringing Bubba long kicking & screaming
Hell, even I couldn't stand the sumbitch, but I liked where he left this country financially much better than where his successor is leaving it.
To each his own. I'm thankful that the country is safer under this President than the previous one, and that there were tax cuts for everyone that payed taxes that helped spur an economy, that 911 was piledriving into a recession, that only now is sputtering some
-
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/15/news/Bush-Mideast-Text.php
Text of Bush speech
-
Of course, the Germans had a reason for invading Poland. The people of Danzig were illegally subjugated to Polish Government suppression. Moreover, the Polish corridor was being misused by the Polish Government for their own economic gains and causing serious border and customs control problems for Germany. Last, but not least, German intelligence indicated that her citizens in East Prussia were being harmed and mistreated when in Polish territory by the Polish police and not being protected when attacked and harassed by Polish citizens - this includes ethnic Germans living in cities along the Polish corridor (i.e. within the country of Poland).
So, if this is the best intelligence Hitler had to go on - why was he wrong to invade Poland?
I'll add the fact that the Jewish people of Poland lined the streets and cheered the Nazi invasion as that is how bad Polish antisemitism was at that time.
-
sirs: "Bush gets absolutely zip credit for anything"
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/Politics/l_b28b71c47980b913b4943e06e1e28c6e.jpg)
-
To each his own.
And that's the point, which you seem to have missed. Where you're "thankful that the country is safer under this President than the previous one, and that there were tax cuts for everyone that payed taxes that helped spur an economy, that 911 was piledriving into a recession, that only now is sputtering some...", I see things very differently, as, I'm sure, quite a few others do. What, pray tell, should we give the silly bastid credit for? I don't see where he has made us any safer: instead, I see where his policies have exposed us to the threat of more terrorism, wasting American lives, money and credibility in the process. I see his tax cuts with the increases in military spending for his lovely little war driving the recession, and the economy is not only now sputtering some. It's been beyond sputtering some for a while now. So what should we give him credit for? The pluses you enumerated are simply negatives to many, and those in addition to the negatives you yourself keep claiming you feel about the putz.
-
To each his own.
And that's the point, which you seem to have missed.
Actually, that's the point you wilfully ignored, by trying to lay claim to something I never said, then kept at it
Where you're "thankful that the country is safer under this President than the previous one, and that there were tax cuts for everyone that payed taxes that helped spur an economy, that 911 was piledriving into a recession, that only now is sputtering some...", I see things very differently, as, I'm sure, quite a few others do.
Well, with all due respect H, no d'uh. That again was NEVER my point. My point was specific to those who despite arguably many things this President can be given postive cudos for, he gets ZIP from them.
What, pray tell, should we give the silly bastid credit for?
Tax cuts for EVERYONE that payed taxes. The more taxes you payed, the more relief you got. Taking on an enemy on their front door vs ours. Nominating, then sticking to, some outstanding judicial appointments. Giving credibility to what the U.S. says and means once again. You don't have to believe any of that, which tends to reinforce my point all the more, thank you very much, that Bush is basically a walking waste of space. Not that "some of his negatives outweigh his positives", but that he has zip, nada, zilch, positives
Grasped the point yet?, or you going to insist on making it up some more and being able to read minds?
-
Try, try, try again...
And, inevitably, the same old waste of effort.
Giving credibility to what the U.S. says and means once again.
That one, in and of itself, is a laffer.
'We don't torture...'
I suppose we could give him positive points for - well, crap, I was going to say just breathing, but now that I think of it....
-
And again, thank you for reinforcing my original point
::)
-
Why, or why is it necessary in any way to find something positive about Juniorbush?
I think he was right about the immigration bill he failed to get through Congress. It was a lot better than the mess we still have now.
But, as I pointed out, his leadership abilities did not succeed in actually getting it through Congress.
I think that during his term the Bush family and the Cheney families have prospered more by far than even the wealthiest other families. If we regard his goal as personal and family enrichment, he seems to have done quite well.
Most average people seem to have less than before we were blessed by his presence.
-
Why, or why is it necessary in any way to find something positive about Juniorbush?
Because it takes two to tango .
George Bush 43 was makeing an honest attempt at being " a uniter not a devider" but unity was useless to the other side so villlifacation was much more the order of the day , I don't think this has been entirely bad since I think it pushed the president further to the right than he might have been naturally .
Rather than get a good program going with the objectionable president the Democrats seem to have organised everything around returning to power , I hope that next time we need unity we can find some.
-
I see his tax cuts with the increases in military spending for his lovely little war driving the recession
Please explain the causal relationship between tax cuts and increased government spending to a recession.
-
Because it takes two to tango .
George Bush 43 was makeing an honest attempt at being " a uniter not a devider"
There are two Geroge Bushes, Olebush and Juniorbush. Neiter was a king, and neither one of them rates a number.
No, he was not. He was trying to stuff every bit of an imperialist wartmongering, all power to the fatcats agenda down the Congress's throat when he had a majority. He is the most divisive sumbitch this country has ever had the misfortune to have.
No one wants to tango with an asshole. He doesn't know how to tango, anyway.
-
Because it takes two to tango .
George Bush 43 was makeing an honest attempt at being " a uniter not a devider"
There are two Geroge Bushes, Olebush and Juniorbush. Neiter was a king, and neither one of them rates a number.
No, he was not. He was trying to stuff every bit of an imperialist wartmongering, all power to the fatcats agenda down the Congress's throat when he had a majority. He is the most divisive sumbitch this country has ever had the misfortune to have.
No one wants to tango with an asshole. He doesn't know how to tango, anyway.
I can't remember an example of this sort of stuffing , what are you refering to?
Although George Bush 43 was quite moderate and eager to compromise with Democrats , the shrill of his critics has been strident from the first day.
-
Although George Bush 43 was quite moderate and eager to compromise with Democrats , the shrill of his critics has been strident from the first day.
That is total bullshit and entirely untrue.
Juniorbush was and has been a stubborn, incompetent oaf since the very first day, when his idiotic supporters spent the last week of the Clinton administration demanding that Al Gore leave "Dick Cheney's House"
He was never moderate, he was never compromising. The only thing he ever had in common with some Democrats was to run up the deficit.
-
That is total bullshit and entirely untrue.
You're right.
They didn't wait until he took office; it started right after the election.
-
Although George Bush 43 was quite moderate and eager to compromise with Democrats , the shrill of his critics has been strident from the first day.
That is total bullshit and entirely untrue.
Juniorbush was and has been a stubborn, incompetent oaf since the very first day, when his idiotic supporters spent the last week of the Clinton administration demanding that Al Gore leave "Dick Cheney's House"
He was never moderate, he was never compromising. The only thing he ever had in common with some Democrats was to run up the deficit.
Is that the best example you have?
That isn't even George Bush himself.
As Governor of Texas George Bush deserved his reputation as a cooperative sort , willing to sit in discussion with the Democrats any time they wanted. As President he has been frustrated trying to find any Democrats willing to compromise .
Not that I am complaining mind you , the potential for compromise didn't really appeal to me , I hope that President McCain also finds no Democrats willing to meet in the middle , McCain also is not as far to the right as I really wish he were , a very irascible left might help correct this problem.
-
>>I hope that next time we need unity we can find some.<<
God I hope not. I'm hoping the terrorists actually make it to the White House when Obama is at home. Then we'll see what Americans have to say about the democrat Congress and it's policies that helped them get there.
-
God I hope not. I'm hoping the terrorists actually make it to the White House when Obama is at home. Then we'll see what Americans have to say about the democrat Congress and it's policies that helped them get there.
=============================
So you want to see the president murdered by terrorists.
What sort of asshole patriot are you?
The terrorists struck on Condi and Juniorbush's watch, anyway.
-
God I hope not. I'm hoping the terrorists actually make it to the White House when Obama is at home. Then we'll see what Americans have to say about the democrat Congress and it's policies that helped them get there.
=============================
So you want to see the president murdered by terrorists.
What sort of asshole patriot are you?
The terrorists struck on Condi and Juniorbush's watch, anyway.
He is just expecting liberal chickens to come home to roost.
-
He is just expecting liberal chickens to come home to roost.
------------------------------------------------------------
Expecting would be one thing, desiring it to happen is something else altogether.
-
Didn't you bemoan the near miss of VP Cheney?
>>So you want to see the president murdered by terrorists.<<
Not particularly, but if it happens I'll enjoy watching the liberals try and talk their way out of that one. It'll be Bush's fault of course but watching them try and explain away eight years of peace at home and not passing a homeland security bill with be comical. There will be other benefits of course, but that all depends on who's vice president.
-
eight years of peace at home
My math may be incorrect, but it has been roughly 2,443 days since September 11th. That makes it roughly 6.7 years. In fact, "eight years of peace at home" is not mathematically possible under Bush.
More to the point, who cares? Why is it better to bring war to the Iraqi people? The fact that a candidate for President uses the line, "better to fight them there than here" has to be one of the most arrogant statements ever uttered by a candidate for higher office.
-
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
-
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
No. I'm going to have to say that's still far more arrogant.
Think about it this way. What if the leader of Saudi Arabia told his people that, "hey, I've been a good king. At least the nutters have been attacking the Americans and not you." What if he went on to say that, "logic dictates that we should do everything within our power to keep the Islamic militants in America and out of Saudi Arabia."
Would you like that statement? It is saying the exact same thing only from another nation's view.
-
Any spelling corrections?
::)
-
A) there are no statements being made by Saudi Arabia, so that's moot
B) Russia had thousands of nukes aimed at us. There was an absolutely compelling reason to meet and talk with them, AND it included preconditions. To claim that's the same as the highlighting a terrorist nation who could only throw suicide bombers our way, and have zip preconditions for meeting with them in the 1st place, is the height of not just arrogance, but a severe lack of foreign policy perspective, and JUDGEMENT (wow, there's that problem raising its ugly head again). All it would do would be enabling folks like Iran to basically give us the finger, and turning the U.S. into the laughing stock it was under Carter.
Perhaps the people of the U.S. needs a reminder of how bad it was in the late 70's under perhaps the worst president this country ever had. Couple that with an out of control spending Demcorat congress, for good measure. It'd be like a country-wide version of the current state of California
-
I don't see how that was relevant to anything in this discussion.
Or as you put it, since I was only trying to explain...your point is moot.
-
Yea.......that's it
::)
The point being on the arrogance scale as it relates to foreign policy, our current Democrat front runner takes home the Gold
-
Yea.......that's it
::)
The point being on the arrogance scale as it relates to foreign policy, our current Democrat front runner takes home the Gold
Honestly Sirs, I brought up Saudi Arabia (or it could have been any country) as an example and you don't even bother to discuss it.
What is the point in even having a discussion with you? Are we not allowed to use examples now?
-
Sure, use all the speculative comments and examples you want. I'll focus on acutal comments made and historical perspective, if that's ok with you
-
Sure, use all the speculative comments and examples you want. I'll focus on acutal comments made and historical perspective, if that's ok with you
::)
Who pissed in your Cheerios?
-
I see....stating how one person's egregiously arrogant foreign policy comments are far worse than what you claim is "pissing on cheerios"??
Whatever ::)
-
I see....stating how one person's egregiously arrogant foreign policy comments are far worse than what you claim is "pissing on cheerios"??
Whatever ::)
No, it is your comment "Sure, use all the speculative comments and examples you want. I'll focus on acutal comments made and historical perspective, if that's ok with you." That brought about my comment.
I was not being "speculative." I was merely demonstrating the level of arrogance by demonstrating the same line of thought if it had come from another nation looking at us as their battleground as opposed to us looking at another nation (Iraq) as our battleground as if we have the right to just pick and choose anywhere we like, arbitrarily.
Your statement in response was very high and mighty.
I could give a shit less about Obama's statement or McCain's. If you're honest, both have said some really stupid things. Hell, Bush promised we would never engage in Nation Building back in 2000. But that didn't last very long.
And while you "wish" for a return to the late 70's, don't forget it took a lot of previous years of financial f***-ups to send the national economy into that spiral. Plus it took an additional decision to use Milton Friedman's monetarism (that would be one of your beloved economists) to really send us into the outhouse. So yeah, Carter deserves what he gets, but he inherited a true steaming pile from Ford and Nixon.
McCain or Obama, it won't matter which, will inherit a real steaming pile from George W Bush too. We have very expensive wars to pay for as we go deeper into debt. Meanwhile interest rates are still far too low and the effects of inflation can be easily seen on food, energy, and other prices. Throw in the always high medical inflation and you've got a nice volatile recipe before we've even elected the next Republicrat to office. We've removed the subsidy on diesel fuel so everything costs more to ship (have you seen diesel costs lately?). So yeah, we'll be thanking your beloved president for the next decade I'm sure.
No matter what the next president is a one-termer. He either can run away from the tough economic decisions (that's my bet on both of them) which means inflation gets worse while interest rates remain artificially low and the US Dollar is artificially raised in value. The dollar becomes worth more on paper than in reality which brings in people like your buddy Soros to really clean us out like a nice gastritis. Or they make the tough economic decisions and the dollar false apart to level at its actual value, the interest rates are raised to lower inflation, and subsidies are provided for diesel again. None of which makes the people very happy.
There, hope your Cheerios taste good now.
-
And ironically, I was merely demonstrating the level of arrogance of messer Obama, by bringing up actual comments and historical perspective. You want to claim supreme arrogant comments as a supposed impediment "ever uttered by a candidate for higher office", I give you the current democrat front runner.
And my cherrios tasted just fine with milk alone
-
Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.
Here is your historical quote taken from the State of the Union address in January 2007. He's actually said it before that time in interviews.
The problem is not only the arrogance, as I pointed out. Also, it falsely links terrorism, such as 9/11, with the Iraq War, which as you've stated many times is not why we invaded Iraq anyway. Moreover, it creates a false causality. It implies that if we ever left Iraq, we would be followed by Iraqi terrorists.
In reality most of the fighting in Iraq is done by insurgents who are fighting over the power vacuum left behind for the very reason that there was a war! We caused the very fighting taking place now. Whether that is worth the invasion is a completely different debate, but it is false to claim that terrorists are the bulk of the fighting in Iraq, that isn't even close to reality.
-
>>It implies that if we ever left Iraq, we would be followed by Iraqi terrorists.
The left likes to put forth the false premise that we're creating more terrorists than we're killing. Since they can't possibly know the actual numbers, they're once again creating a alternate reality. What we do know about terrorists in Iraq is that they are coming, for the most part, from outside Iraq. These people are coming there to kill Americans. What happens if the Americans leave? Why you guessed it. So yes, if we leave Iraq, they are more than likely to come to us. To think otherwise is just more leftist politcal delusion.
-
Obama's stance of holding talks "without preconditions'' with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "shows weak judgment, and frankly, naivete,'' Kyl, the No. 2 Republican leader in the Senate, said on "Fox News Sunday.'' .......Kyl on Fox asked, "What would Senator Obama be talking to Ahmadinejad about, this man who calls Israel a stinking corpse, who said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth?''
full article here (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aCEaAdxTxIw4&refer=home)
-
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h35/MrSmorch/Leftist%20dingbats%20and%20RATs/RATsandjihadroadmapintersect.jpg)
-
...meet with dictator despots...
We not only met with them, we helped create them.
...and heads of terrorist sponsoring countries...
How about directly with terrorists - or has everyone forgotten that many of the leaders of Isreal, at one time or another, were considered terrorists when they were fighting the British, before they proclaimed their independence?
-
So H, will now show us when our President formally met with these various dictators & terrorists. She stage is yours, H. We all wait with baited breath
-
If the choice is offered to have peace or a fight , then it might be better to choose peace even over a fight in which we have a lot of advantages.
But if there has to be a fight , and the options do not include not fighting , then chooseing the battlefeild is an advantage .
Iraq is a better place to fight Al Quieda than Detroit , or New York or even Manilla or anywhere elese Al Queda might have chosen.
Getting rid of Saddam was just another good thing to do , he might not have been an Al Queda supporter , but he was a supporter of terrorism in big way.
Al Queda has been been getting exausted in Iraq , the Iraqui resistors are getting exausted too , if it were not for the active participation of Iran the fight might have been over a year ago.
So is Iraq a good battleground for fighting Iran?
-
To begin with, the Shah of Iran, whom we not only put into power, we also trained his secret police.
Several south and central American despots come to mind.
-
Al Queda has been been getting exausted in Iraq , the Iraqui resistors are getting exausted too , if it were not for the active participation of Iran the fight might have been over a year ago.
So is Iraq a good battleground for fighting Iran?
===============================================
Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iran. Al Qaeda is a militant fundamentalist Wahabbi Sunni organization, and considers Shiites to be as despicable as Juniorbush.
Iran is NOT OUR ENEMY. It is not necessary to fight Iran.
Do you seriously think that Iran poses any threat of invading the US?
As for Israel, it can defend itself.
-
To begin with, the Shah of Iran, whom we not only put into power, we also trained his secret police. Several south and central American despots come to mind.
To end with, the Shah wasn't a dictator, nor was Iran the Terrorist sponsoring nation it is now. And what "despots" who were dictators and/or running terrorist sponsoring countries did our President formally meet with??
-
To end with, the Shah wasn't a dictator, nor was Iran the Terrorist sponsoring nation it is now. And what "despots" who were dictators and/or running terrorist sponsoring countries did our President formally meet with??
========================
The Shah was an unelected, unwanted dictatorial monarch who the CIA and the Brits conspired to put on the throne when they deposed the elected and secular prime minister Mossadegh.
Juniorbush does not "formally" (my what a convenient word) meet with dictators, but he has sent envoys to Uzbekistan and Egypt and sucks up mightily to the government of Israel, that tortures Palestinians, kills Palestinian civilians, bulldozes their houses and holds them without charges or trial for long periods of time, as well as detaining thousands of them each day at border checkpoints for the crime of wanting to work to feed their families.
Besides, Juniorbush was not elected nor desired by a majority of the people of this country.
He is not my president and has never been and when he is gone we will all be better off.
-
To end with, the Shah wasn't a dictator, nor was Iran the Terrorist sponsoring nation it is now.
Well, I would have pointed out the President Bush could hardly have met with the Shah of Iran while he was president unless he had a time machine. The Shah died in 1980, well before Bush was even in public office of any sort.
-
Besides, Juniorbush was not elected nor desired by a majority of the people of this country.
In 2004, Bush received more votes than any other candidate in both popular vote and electoral college vote.
-
So Xo has no examples either. Gotcha
-
In 2004, Bush received more votes than any other candidate in both popular vote and electoral college vote.
In 2000, Gore won, and if Gore had become president in 2000, that would have been the well-deserved ENMD pof the Juniorbush.
-
In 2000, Gore won,
Not really. He got more popular votes, but those are not what is used to elect presidents in this country.
-
Dangit....that damn Constitution getting in the way again
-
Well, I would have pointed out the President Bush could hardly have met with the Shah of Iran while he was president unless he had a time machine. The Shah died in 1980, well before Bush was even in public office of any sort.
And I would have pointed it out that this discussion does not seem to be restricted to Bush as president.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6228.15
In fact, it appeared to be speculating about Obama meeting with 'terrorists', but then any speculation about Saudi Arabia that came along later was deemed invalid, so I'm not sure if we are still speculating or not. Though the Shah was not speculation; he was a despot, put in place and supported - as long as he was useful, anyway - by our government. As have been others. Ask Noriega what happens when you piss off them what brung ya.
-
A) It wasn't "speculating" on what Obama might do, it was specific to his advocating what he'd formally do as President of the United States...meeting with leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations & organizations, with zip preconditions
B) Apparently we have no examples of any of our prior presidents meeting with leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations, only the terms of Shah of Iran tossed out to see if it'd stick. It didn't, nor did the tossing out of nameless despots stick either
-
And I would have pointed it out that this discussion does not seem to be restricted to Bush as president.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6228.15
Actually, the post you linked to was a post about Bush's tax cuts, nothing about terrorism. I think you intended to link to this post:
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6228.msg61925#msg61925 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6228.msg61925#msg61925)
-
I fail to see how just talking with any other national leader without preconditions could be harmful in any way.
McCain came here yesterday to suck up mightily to the ancient Cuban dinosaurs of the CANF. Like the Cuban embargo actually meant something, like the alternate currency of Cuba was not the US dollar.
Old stupid dumbass Republicans.
Same stale crap in the same old sacks.
-
I fail to see how just talking with any other national leader without preconditions could be harmful in any way.
It's beyond arrogant and poor judgement. It allows a pathetic little terrorist country to stand across from the greatest, most powerful nation, and for all the world to see, give us the diplomatic finger. It can't get much more harmful to U.S. foreign policy and credibility, than that
-
...we have no examples of any of our prior presidents meeting with leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations...
Which is not what you said earlier...
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
-
To begin with, the Shah of Iran, whom we not only put into power, we also trained his secret police. Several south and central American despots come to mind.
To end with, the Shah wasn't a dictator, nor was Iran the Terrorist sponsoring nation it is now. And what "despots" who were dictators and/or running terrorist sponsoring countries did our President formally meet with??
LOLOLOLOL
The Shah wasn't a dictator??? Really? Care to explain that?
As for your question, President Bush has visited China, Saudi Arabia numerous times, and Israel numerous times.
-
...we have no examples of any of our prior presidents meeting with leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations...
Which is not what you said earlier...
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
And ironically we have yet to be presented any examples of our President formally meeing with these terrorists & dictators....merely the term being tossed out, like that's all that was needed. Sorry, it isn't
As for your question, President Bush has visited China, Saudi Arabia numerous times, and Israel numerous times.
Yes, and.....? None of the above three are Terrorist sponsored nations. yea, they have terrorist organizations running around, but none of them are sanctioned or supported by the ruling governments. and FYI, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia either. We need to up and leave that place, yesterday
-
Yes, and.....? None of the above three are Terrorist sponsored nations. yea, they have terrorist organizations running around, but none of them are sanctioned or supported by the ruling governments. and FYI, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia either. We need to up and leave that place, yesterday
Hm.
That depends how one defines terrorism.
China forces her citizens to have abortions. You most certainly do not have political freedom in China. And try being a devout Tibetan monk without the government harassing you or even taking members of your family out back for a bullet to the back of their heads.
Israel has targeted Palestinian children with .50 cal sniper rifles. If you aren't familiar with a .50 round, it doesn't put a nice clean wound through you - it removes limbs or when it impacts a skull it is like Gallagher's hammer to the watermelon. I'm not sure how you define terrorism, but murdering children is right up there in my book and I'm not going to even touch the matter of tossing people off their land based on race or religion plus the myriad of other apartheid policies that nation practices.
Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses, as well as their financial support to terrorist organizations AND Sunni insurgents in Iraq is all well-known and documented. Yet, we have a famous picture of W and the Saudi King holding hands, in fact Bush is holding hand on the diminutive side of the Saudi royal to show his status as a subordinate. That is a sign of the utmost respect from the President of the "most powerful country on Earth."
The truth is simple Sirs. Your President has no greater moral authority than Obama or McCain or anyone else as far as dictators and terrorists are concerned. Hell, your boy Ronnie met with Jonas Savimbi (look it up, I dare you) a Maoist, murdering, terrorist, diamond slaver from Angola. They met at the White House!
Bush meets with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and China because of money and power. If Iran, North Korea, or Syria had money or power they could be legitimate states and W, Clinton, Ronnie, and whatever asshole is next would hold their hands and lick their asses like everyone else. Yet, those countries have nothing (well Iran has a little potential), so they get safely made into the "enemies of freedom" while China forces abortions and sterilizations and has their Tiannanmen Square Massacres, Israel murders to keep apartheid alive, and Saudi Arabia does whatever the hell they want as the last vestige of really high quality petroleum.
-
Yes, and.....? None of the above three are Terrorist sponsored nations. yea, they have terrorist organizations running around, but none of them are sanctioned or supported by the ruling governments. and FYI, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia either. We need to up and leave that place, yesterday
Hm.
That depends how one defines terrorism.
No one is denying that China's communist policies prompt some pretty severe stress to the populace, however i'm referring to regimes that advocate, when not directly supporting terrorist activities. One can broadly define terrorism to include what some college teachers do to their students. I think it's a common understanding however that the terrorism I'm referring to, is the same type we've all been referring to, that of militant Islam & its off shoots, along with any other entity that targets civlilians to either mame or kill, when not simply being terrorizied. This also refers to ironfisted dictators & dictator want-to-bes.
So, as it's been pointed out in Senator Leiberman's piece, no one with a rational mind would envision Reagan meeting with Chavez or Achmedimanutjob. And for Obama to be making some asanine similarity between what he's pledging as being analgous to U.S. & Russia meeting, is the height of arrogance and poor judgement, and something McCain nor Bush would ever do either
But I think I understand your ploy. Obama's latest foreign policy comments are so outrageous, so full of lousy judgement from someone who wants to be our president, the idea is to make everyone seem as egregiously arrogant as Obama, then it apparently won't look so bad.
I'm sure that MSM will try to pull that off, and come Nov will see how well it worked
-
I fail to see how just talking with any other national leader without preconditions could be harmful in any way.
It's beyond arrogant and poor judgement. It allows a pathetic little terrorist country to stand across from the greatest, most powerful nation, and for all the world to see, give us the diplomatic finger. It can't get much more harmful to U.S. foreign policy and credibility, than that
------------------------------------
You are totally unconvincing.
It's bad and really bad, because it is not only bad, it is the worst.
But it would be no disadvantage at all. It would make us look like we were trying to abandon the arrogant and ignorant strut of dippy little Juniorbush for actual diplomacy. Agreeing to talk is just that: agreeing to talk. It puits np one at a disadvantage. I am all for it.
Sane countries talk. Insane ones make war.
We have had enough of useless wars.
-
A terrorist buys his seat at the discussion table with victims .
What would the talking be about?
-
A terrorist buys his seat at the discussion table with victims .
What would the talking be about?
======================================================
What the Hell are you talking about?
----------------------------------------------------
The US has used terrorism in Afghanistan and many other places through the years and has certainly facilitated it by providing Israelis with bulldozers, weapons and other devices. This does not mean that the US is "a terrorist country" No one uses terrorism for fun. It is a method for getting others to comply with your demands- sometimes the only way. Observe how very soon after the 9-11 attacks the US withdrew all its troops from Saudi Arabia. Observe how Hezbollah, by using stealth, got the Israelis out of Lebanon.
Any country using terrorism has objectives. There are things that the US has that Syria, Lebanon, Iran and other countries want that would not make them a greater threat to the US, just as there are things that the US wants that they have. Talking makes sense, as it will reveal what common grounds exist. It is not necessary to give or accept anything in such talks. It is surely a better source of information than we get from much of our espionage, which is bloody awful.
The US knew very little about Iraq before invading, and Condi Rice was as dumb as a post when she suggested Palestine elections.
Stubborness, bluster, ignorance and imperialism have brought us nothing useful in the past disgraceful years of the boneheaded Juniorbush administration.
-
Yes, and.....? None of the above three are Terrorist sponsored nations. yea, they have terrorist organizations running around, but none of them are sanctioned or supported by the ruling governments. and FYI, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia either. We need to up and leave that place, yesterday
Hm.
That depends how one defines terrorism.
No one is denying that China's communist policies prompt some pretty severe stress to the populace, however i'm referring to regimes that advocate, when not directly supporting terrorist activities. One can broadly define terrorism to include what some college teachers do to their students. I think it's a common understanding however that the terrorism I'm referring to, is the same type we've all been referring to, that of militant Islam & its off shoots, along with any other entity that targets civlilians to either mame or kill, when not simply being terrorizied. This also refers to ironfisted dictators & dictator want-to-bes.
So, as it's been pointed out in Senator Leiberman's piece, no one with a rational mind would envision Reagan meeting with Chavez or Achmedimanutjob. And for Obama to be making some asanine similarity between what he's pledging as being analgous to U.S. & Russia meeting, is the height of arrogance and poor judgement, and something McCain nor Bush would ever do either
But I think I understand your ploy. Obama's latest foreign policy comments are so outrageous, so full of lousy judgement from someone who wants to be our president, the idea is to make everyone seem as egregiously arrogant as Obama, then it apparently won't look so bad.
I'm sure that MSM will try to pull that off, and come Nov will see how well it worked
Yes, I'm part of a grand conspiracy... ::)
Back to the point.
any other entity that targets civlilians to either mame or kill
Targeting children with sniper rifles? Forcing a pregnant woman to have invasive surgery and killing her child?
Defending the indefensible again Sirs. Once again we see where you stand. As long as the Republican meets with terrorists, everything is wonderful. But have a Democrat do it and Sirs actually shows some outrage.
Just like the Fascists in Europe. Have real Fascists get elected and have real Fascist violence occur and Sirs doesn't have a comment. Hell, his right wing buddies come to their defense like the fire brigades of old. Yet, you throw around "Islamofascism," an absolutely meaningless term as if it is going out of style.
Pure hypocrite.
Truth be told, I could give a damn less what Obama or McCain says. I'm seriously considering not voting at all, especially if Tennessee doesn't have a worthwhile third party candidate. I don't think electoralism is worth the effort when it produces more of the same drivel. What I find interesting is watching folks like you defend the indefensible all because your "team" needs to attack the other "team." You have the convictions of a used car salesman.
-
And ironically we have yet to be presented any examples of our President formally meeing with these terrorists & dictators....merely the term being tossed out, like that's all that was needed. Sorry, it isn't
Only for an unread buffoon like yourself.
The Shah of Iran, with every president from FDR to Carter.
http://www.parstimes.com/history/shah_us/
-
Nor was the Shah a dictator sponsoring/supporting a terrorist run country
Next
Oh, nice insulting BTW. Lemme see...........nope, no personal insults from this end. By all means, continue with the gutteresponses
-
(http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/oil4.jpg) (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/bush%20abdullah%20twn.jpg)
hmmm
-
The Shah preferred to use terror in the form of torture on his own people. He had a very well-trained group of torturers known as SAVAK.
I don't really see a lot of difference. Torture is torture. Torture is terror.
-
In those pictures King Abdullah is holding the left hand of Ahmanutjob and Bush. I thought touching someone's left hand was anathema to Arabs?
-
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. In fact, they revel in it.
-
In those pictures King Abdullah is holding the left hand of Ahmanutjob and Bush. I thought touching someone's left hand was anathema to Arabs?
Not really , not in this circumstance.
When I was in the middle east I was warned that this was common to see men walking hand in hand down the street , and sure enough I did see it happen , to them it is just friendship.
Of course if seniority is involved the most senior will be on the right.
-
Thanks plane, I wasn't aware of that. I was told never to use the left hand for a hand shake as it is considered "unclean".
-
Thanks plane, I wasn't aware of that. I was told never to use the left hand for a hand shake as it is considered "unclean".
If you shake hands use the right , if you are going walking and offer the left , you might be claiming senior status.
Don't offer food with the left , under any circumstance nor pick up you own food with the left.
Don't pat a child on the head and offer the child a compliment , this is the behavior of their fairy tale whiches, any compliment of a child should be immediately followed by a "god bless " elese you risk frightening the kid.
Get to know the person before you take any libertys , forgiveness of ignorance is an individual thing .
-
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.
-
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.
Isn't the Al Queda anti royalist in Saudi Arabia?
-
Two others, holding hands in the way Afghan men often do when discussing intimate issues, joked about how little they were being paid and began quizzing Padron about his salary.
Asked afterwards if he thought all 10 would turn up for the scheduled three days of training, Padron didn't try to sugarcoat the situation. "No," he said without hesitation, a wry smile spreading across his face. "Probably not."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080515/lf_nm/afghan_police_dc
-
>>Abdullah is the leader of a government that routinely spends billions building fundamentalist mosques all over the place.<<
So you're finally admitting that these mosques are dangerous and should be monitored?
-
...no personal insults from this end.
Nah, just the passing accusation that I simply threw stuff up to see what would stick.
The Shah was a despot, thus meeting the criteria of your post, viz, US Presidents meeting with despots. Wriggle and squirm all you will, that, punky, is a fact.
-
...no personal insults from this end.
Nah, just the passing accusation that I simply threw stuff up to see what would stick.
And even if that were the case, nothing remotely resembleling a personal insult or attack. Or is your disposition so fragile, simple criticism requires such egregious insults in response. From the likes of Tee, I'd understand. Didn't think your skin was so thin. Live and learn I guess
The Shah was a despot, thus meeting the criteria of your post, viz, US Presidents meeting with despots. Wriggle and squirm all you will, that, punky, is a fact.
My criteria required the country in question to be a government harboring terrorists, or the "despot" in question, advocating/supporting terrorist-like actions. Your attempt to try and play "gotcha" with me is amusing in the least, but still in no way mandating personal insults in return. Unless of course, as I've referenced, one's ego is so fragile, that knee-jerk personal attacks are necessary in response
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
Sirs,
Are you honestly suggesting that the Shah was not a dictator? Can you explain that one?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think I already clarified my statement. Oppressive ruler perhaps. Dictator, I think not
-
I think I already clarified my statement. Oppressive ruler perhaps. Dictator, I think not
Explain.
Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.
-
I think I already clarified my statement. Oppressive ruler perhaps. Dictator, I think not
Explain.
Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.
I disagree with Sirs a little , the Shah was a king , he sponsored a secret police that was a law of its own subject to no other , so I don't think it unfair to say he was a dictator.
On the other hand he was not an enemy of the US.
The jokers that replaced him are dictatorial and are enemys of the US , where is the improvement?
-
Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.
The Shah was a hereditary monarch.
-
Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.
The Shah was a hereditary monarch.
Thank you Ami. I also would add that in my book a Dictator largely comes to rule via military force or coersion
-
The Shah was a hereditary monarch.
Ah, yes, the second ruler in his line, after his father overthrew the previous ruler. His father, by the way, was later forced to abdicate in his sons favor by the US and Britain. Just so we're clear how he came to rule the country.
None of which makes him less of a despot.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" h
-
Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.
The Shah was a hereditary monarch.
Thank you Ami. I also would add that in my book a Dictator largely comes to rule via military force or coersion
Oh, I can handle that one Sirs.
The Shah of Iran came to power through not one but two military coups!
First was the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941. And while your buddy Ami tried to bypass the dictator rule with a nice little family monarchy, the reality was that it was the USSR and the UK that got Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi to replace daddy dearest after Soviet and British troops entered Tehran and Papa Pehlavi was told to flee or else! (He fled to South Africa).
The Second Coup was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 through a CIA operation called AJAX. It was a military coup and replaced the democratically elected government of Iran with a dictatorship (or whatever it is you intend on calling it).
So we've met your military and coercion criteria twice!
Now, care to try again. Or were you wrong?
-
Ah, yes, the second ruler in his line, after his father overthrew the previous ruler. His father, by the way, was later forced to abdicate in his sons favor by the US and Britain. Just so we're clear how he came to rule the country.
And his father overthrew a guy that had done the same to his predecessor.
If you go back in time, that's a fairly consistent theme for gaining the throne in Iran.
-
So we've met your military and coercion criteria twice! Now, care to try again. Or were you wrong?
I'm wrong that he wasn't a dicator in the normal sense of what I consider a dictator to be, though I'm not wrong in that he wasn't ruling over a terrorist sponsoring nation, nor was he advocating terrorist activities
-
Ah, yes, the second ruler in his line, after his father overthrew the previous ruler. His father, by the way, was later forced to abdicate in his sons favor by the US and Britain. Just so we're clear how he came to rule the country.
And his father overthrew a guy that had done the same to his predecessor.
If you go back in time, that's a fairly consistent theme for gaining the throne in Iran.
And that makes him less of a dictator....how exactly?
I know where this is leading. Semantics.
Everyone here with any semblance of historical knowledge about the Shah of Iran during the 1960's and 70's knows that the man was a ruthless dictator. The SAVAK were a terrorist organization as well. They just happened to prefer terrorizing their own people.
Yet, we're supposed to play this little game so Sirs doesn't have to admit that he was absolutely and completely wrong. Anyone with a remote smattering of common sense can see that.
What interests me more is that this is how so many people are today. We have become a people unwilling to admit that we make mistakes. I don't recall with whom the argument was with, but I stumbled upon a theology that operated around the notion that no Christian could do anything awful. This is a modern twist on Pelagianism, a heresy from long ago. Obviously Christians can do wrong and more importantly we do make horrible mistakes or even purposefully do wrong. That is sinning. To refute that is to remove the purpose of Golgotha, to essentially remove the purpose of the Messiah completely.
I find the entire neurosis amazing and incredibly fascinating to observe.
-
And that makes him less of a dictator....how exactly?
I know where this is leading. Semantics.
Of course. When people through around terms in an effort to dehumanize other people ("Bush is Hitler") the argument will eventually move over to semantics. What do you expect?
-
[The Second Coup was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 through a CIA operation called AJAX. It was a military coup and replaced the democratically elected government of Iran with a dictatorship (or whatever it is you intend on calling it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
That is an interesting story , but wasn't it a British show untill the last months when Americans got involved ?
-
Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.
The Shah was a hereditary monarch.
Right again.
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
It doesn't matter whether or not the Shah was a dictator or a King with grand power....he was not nor will he ever be known as bad as what we see in the world today.
Debate semantics all you want....the Shah had a chance to make his country a game player...and that isn't such a bad thing when you consider the alternative? A game slayer the likes of which we have certainly seen since the time of such a dictatorship-the Shah.
Sure the Savak was the "KGB" of Persia in her day....but to compare the Savak to today's definition of terrorists doesn't fit.
The Savak was no less invasive than the CIA or our FBI.....for example Jim Morrison of the Doors was monitored by the latter...my god, Come on....
Hell, I was monitored by the SAVAK when I was married to Amir.
Bloody terrorists? Maybe in terms of a swift death to some in the day...but nothing like a swift death to women and children in northern Iraq. And why? Because they simply existed, and believed in life??!!
....The Kurds in the neighborhood of Saddam. Now THAT'S a dictator.
Pooch has a first hand knowledge of Iranian culture. I have more of afamilial relation to the culture and the revolution in the day.
but, I do know that there was more hope for people while the Shah was in power..unless one thinks that Marx was a positive influence for his own generation of folk. We see how far Lenin and Marxism has taken the world.
The Shah does not deserve to be put in the same box as they.
Yet, we brush aside those REALLY BAD ASS dictators in our history except for Hitler. What happened to Iran was a damn shame in the late 70's. A damn shame. . . no one knows how good it was before the fall of the Shah except for those who were free to be.
Lost time. Lost time.
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
Indeed , one of the places that was worse was Chechnia , which has been worse in a big way and still is.
Perhaps the Soviets would not have been as bad if they took over Iran as they were in Chechnia , but it is unlikely that they would have been better than the Shah.
The Shah tried to build a Social security system , modernise the society , increase the share of oil profit that stayed in Iraq and several other things that no American would accept as excuse for the political abuse , but what tok over from him was one of the worse alternatives.
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.
-
It aint brain surgery:
Shah = Unelected, did not support or export international terrorism
Mullahs = Unelected, support terror, want to point nukes at us, and kill our soldiers
Any Questions?
-
>>Any Questions?<<
Yes. Was the a Shah a dictator?
Let's spend a few dozen more posts on that ... :D
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.
Wait one , didn't she mention her connection with some Iranians?
Some Iranians did like the Shah , this is a quiet group right now , but how do we know how many they amount to?
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.
Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.
My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.
Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the آية الله----(Ayatollah.)
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.
Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.
My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.
Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the آية الله----(Ayatollah.)
Ayatollah is a church office isn't it?
How does a person become one?
I suppose that the Ayatollahs do not see much need for seaparation between church and state, but what was the cause of animosity between the Shah and the Mosque?
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.
Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.
My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.
Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the آية الله----(Ayatollah.)
Ayatollah is a church office isn't it?
How does a person become one?
I suppose that the Ayatollahs do not see much need for seaparation between church and state, but what was the cause of animosity between the Shah and the Mosque?
Khomeini was called "THE AYATOLLAH"....among Persians in my "circle" some 30 years ago. Here's a picture window of the outcome of the animosity.
Even while attempting to put in place the institutions of the new order, the revolutionaries turned their attention to bringing to trial and punishing members of the former regime whom they considered responsible for carrying out political repression, plundering the country's wealth, implementing damaging economic policies, and allowing foreign exploitation of Iran. A revolutionary court set to work almost immediately in the school building in Tehran where Ayatollah Khomeini had set up his headquarters. Revolutionary courts were established in provincial centers shortly thereafter. The Tehran court passed death sentences on four of the shah's (Mohammad Reza Shah) generals on February 16, 1979; all four were executed by firing squad on the roof of the building housing Ayatollah Khomeini's headquarters. More executions, of military and police officers, SAVAK agents, cabinet ministers, Majlis deputies, and officials of the shah's regime, followed on an almost daily basis
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_revolution/revolution_and_iran_after1979_1.php
-
Ayatollah is a church office isn't it?
How does a person become one?
Actually, the "Ayatollah" is a title reserved for a unique position in the Iranian government. Normally, in the Iranian government, there is a President (head of the secular government) and a council of Mullahs (head of the religious government). When a Mullah is elected President, he assumes the title of Ayatollah, and is therefore head of both portions of the government.
Ayatollah is also a title used for high clerics in Shi'a, but is used this way in a different context.
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.
Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.
My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.
Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the آية الله----(Ayatollah.)
Did you tell these folks that the original revolution was led by the Iranian middle class of merchants? By 1979 the Shah was very hated in Iran. There were mass demonstrations and shopkeepers and small businessmen were amongst those who loathed the man.
I'm not saying Khoemeni was great. That's a strawman and you may sacrifice it all you like. But the Shah was hated, and was a tyrant as well as a murderer. There is little doubt of that, and the people who'd like to have him back are the very few who profited from his wealth.
-
A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.
Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.
Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.
My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.
Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the آية الله----(Ayatollah.)
Did you tell these folks that the original revolution was led by the Iranian middle class of merchants? By 1979 the Shah was very hated in Iran. There were mass demonstrations and shopkeepers and small businessmen were amongst those who loathed the man.
I'm not saying Khoemeni was great. That's a strawman and you may sacrifice it all you like. But the Shah was hated, and was a tyrant as well as a murderer. There is little doubt of that, and the people who'd like to have him back are the very few who profited from his wealth.
Well, Js one man who is "hated" isn't equal to another man who is feared, especially if there aint much a person can do to control either outcome. It's not like there was a democratic vote on the issue.
Indeed, JS< Khomeini was much worse. Remember the story; It Could Be Worse" ? Well, those of whom you speak had no real clue of how bad it was going to get. (The frog in the hot water analogy.)
Follow my tune to the ends of the earth.....I know you want to. You hate, afterall, right?
ahhh, GOT Ya.
Iranians did not have the freedom to chose whom to "hate more" or less like we do in this country.
Only those who were able to understand the reality of the situation --those who were living outside the Perian culture---on American soil at the time, knew that things were actually going to be better under the regime that was so "hated:".
Women were at least able to speak up, find a voice back then, JS..... albeit one baby step at a time..but it was progess at it's slowest and best . . of that I know for a fact.
Sometimes all of this makes me wonder just how much we really understand in terms of the depth of "help" the US has given in the direction of the Iraqis with this "war". I would love to ask Iraqi-American citizens how they truly believe their country is faring. .
FOr some reason Americans have one of two extreme trains of thought;
a) Oh,those poor bastards in the "other" world---they have not seen the "light" if they can not or will not grasp democracy as it has been served to them on a gold patter !
b) Well, of course every nation, every culture, has every right to do what they feel is best for themselves. Why interfere?.....let a country be.
Ok, well, they got what they DIDN'T SEE COMING....just like Hiter, imo.
The interests of the Iranian free thinking (on the verge of understanding democracy and what it felt like to be free in so many ways) instead traveled...no dive bombed back centuries in exchange for that poor bad ass apple(the Shah) that folks hated and rallied against.
-
I'm not saying Khoemeni was great. That's a strawman and you may sacrifice it all you like. But the Shah was hated, and was a tyrant as well as a murderer. There is little doubt of that, and the people who'd like to have him back are the very few who profited from his wealth.
You may not be saying that Koumani was great , but Khoemeni is what we got as an alternative to the Shah, I think examineing the alternatives is fair , not strawman building.
When I was in Navy Training there were Iranian trainees all over the place , the Shah really did want literacy and practical education to flourish that isn't a few people.
-
When I was in Navy Training there were Iranian trainees all over the place , the Shah really did want literacy and practical education to flourish that isn't a few people.
===============================================
Iran was a Third-World country, way below Turkey both culturally and educationally. The Shah and Kissinger both shared the concept that Iran would be the regional dominant power in the Middle East, and if not a best buddy of Israel, at least neutral towards Israel. In return for US arms (which were not gifts, but purchased at retail prices), the Shah was recognized as the regional strongman and bets ally of the US in the region.
Although the Shah was trusted by the Americans, regular Iranians were not. Very often often, those Iranian pilots could not go up without an American or an Israeli with them in the cockpit. Savak was taught torture techniques by the CIA, and many of the spy techniques used to keep the Shah in power were American devices, operated by Iranians trained by Americans.
The basis of Iranian-American cooperation was something like what LBJ meant when he said "If you have them by the balls, there hearts and minds will follow". The CIA had the Shah by the balls, and he followed quite well.
The Shah had cancer of the colon. He was too regal for an Iranian doctor to examine his rectum, but the CIA knew about this way before the Shah did, and knew he would die of it, because they detected it too late. They built a special bathroom for the sole purpose of obtaining urine and fecal samples, once the Shah showed several symptoms of this disease.
I wonder if the CIA has a special award for specimen collecting, and if so, I would like to see the logo on it.
The major difference between the Shah, other than religion, was that the Shah was chosen to lead Iran by the CIA and MI-6, and the Ayatollah was chosen by fellow Iranians. Neither was chosen democratically. There was probably no moment in which the Shah could have been electred in a fair election, but I think that Kholmeini might have been electable at some point. Not that it matters, because neither of these guys would ever have allowed a free and fair election. This has never been much of an Iranian tradition.
-
When I was in Navy Training there were Iranian trainees all over the place , the Shah really did want literacy and practical education to flourish that isn't a few people.
===============================================
Iran was a Third-World country, way below Turkey both culturally and educationally. The Shah and Kissinger both shared the concept that Iran would be the regional dominant power in the Middle East, and if not a best buddy of Israel, at least neutral towards Israel. In return for US arms (which were not gifts, but purchased at retail prices), the Shah was recognized as the regional strongman and bets ally of the US in the region.
Although the Shah was trusted by the Americans, regular Iranians were not. Very often often, those Iranian pilots could not go up without an American or an Israeli with them in the cockpit. Savak was taught torture techniques by the CIA, and many of the spy techniques used to keep the Shah in power were American devices, operated by Iranians trained by Americans.
The basis of Iranian-American cooperation was something like what LBJ meant when he said "If you have them by the balls, there hearts and minds will follow". The CIA had the Shah by the balls, and he followed quite well.
The Shah had cancer of the colon. He was too regal for an Iranian doctor to examine his rectum, but the CIA knew about this way before the Shah did, and knew he would die of it, because they detected it too late. They built a special bathroom for the sole purpose of obtaining urine and fecal samples, once the Shah showed several symptoms of this disease.
I wonder if the CIA has a special award for specimen collecting, and if so, I would like to see the logo on it.
The major difference between the Shah, other than religion, was that the Shah was chosen to lead Iran by the CIA and MI-6, and the Ayatollah was chosen by fellow Iranians. Neither was chosen democratically. There was probably no moment in which the Shah could have been electred in a fair election, but I think that Kholmeini might have been electable at some point. Not that it matters, because neither of these guys would ever have allowed a free and fair election. This has never been much of an Iranian tradition.
Torture ....
Before Bush?
-
The CIA taught torture techniques for a long time, then in the 1970's there were the Church Committee hearings, and they were ordered to stop, and law were passed, which Juniorbush and Cheney have proclaimed unnecessary and deterrents to fighting terrorism.
All this may have occurred before you were stationed on this planet.
I do not believe that the Shah was paying to have pilots trained in order to provide literacy. Flying planes may require literacy, but there are far cheaper ways to provide it.
I doubt that the US had many people capable of teaching literacy in Farsi, seeing as how it is written with an entirely different alphabet in a language few Americans understand.
-
Iran was a Third-World country, way below Turkey both culturally and educationally.
I am not clear on your meaning here, XO. How can one culture be "below" another? I can understand Third-World struggling to compete with the West, etc. But....
The culture of Persia is vast, rich and very old (old in a good way;). Culturally speaking, How can you say that any nation or culture of people is " above, on or below" a "level" of some sort?
Heck, The American culture can't hold a candle to Persian in terms of years in. I would consider American culture to be younger, not as rich in some ways as Turkish Culture or Iranian culture.
Persians came to the United States, (many landing in Michigan) in the late 60's early 70's for the purpose of aquiring an education.
Do you have any facts or proof to back up your statement?
-
I am not clear on your meaning here, XO. How can one culture be "below" another? I can understand Third-World struggling to compete with the West, etc. But....
The culture of Persia is vast, rich and very old (old in a good way;). Culturally speaking, How can you say that any nation or culture of people is " above, on or below" a "level" of some sort?
==========================================================
I meant that the literacy level of Iran was quite a bit below that of Turkey, and that a smaller percentage of the population had access to that great Persian culture of yore. I imagine that superstition among the country people was higher, and far fewer people had access to medicine, the media and education.An Iranian friend of mine told me that it was not that until after the Shah that the peasants on his family's land could actually leave. They were serfs, and were bought and sold with the land.
I agree that Persia has a rich culture, but during the time of the Shah, it was mostly for the elite.
-
I am not clear on your meaning here, XO. How can one culture be "below" another? I can understand Third-World struggling to compete with the West, etc. But....
The culture of Persia is vast, rich and very old (old in a good way;). Culturally speaking, How can you say that any nation or culture of people is " above, on or below" a "level" of some sort?
==========================================================
I meant that the literacy level of Iran was quite a bit below that of Turkey, and that a smaller percentage of the population had access to that great Persian culture of yore. I imagine that superstition among the country people was higher, and far fewer people had access to medicine, the media and education.An Iranian friend of mine told me that it was not that until after the Shah that the peasants on his family's land could actually leave. They were serfs, and were bought and sold with the land.
I agree that Persia has a rich culture, but during the time of the Shah, it was mostly for the elite.
Sure, the Shah was a bad apple. I am not denying that, but I find it rather arrogant, not to mention obscene when anyone in a leadership position takes the life of another based on a party favor, or political membership.
My ex husband is a doctor in this country. He was privileged, sure enough. But his father was no less human, yet he was killed for being "elite". Shame on calling one worse than another.. . when lives were taken so brutally without a trial for criminal actions. I find anyone's support of the Ayatollah to be naive and ignorant. Killing is killing....elite or poorer class.
So, you are in favor of doing THIS just because one is a member of "the elite"?
Even while attempting to put in place the institutions of the new order, the revolutionaries turned their attention to bringing to trial and punishing members of the former regime whom they considered responsible for carrying out political repression, plundering the country's wealth, implementing damaging economic policies, and allowing foreign exploitation of Iran. A revolutionary court set to work almost immediately in the school building in Tehran where Ayatollah Khomeini had set up his headquarters. Revolutionary courts were established in provincial centers shortly thereafter. The Tehran court passed death sentences on four of the shah's (Mohammad Reza Shah) generals on February 16, 1979; all four were executed by firing squad on the roof of the building housing Ayatollah Khomeini's headquarters. More executions, of military and police officers, SAVAK agents, cabinet ministers, Majlis deputies, and officials of the shah's regime, followed on an almost daily basis
-
I surely do not support the Ayatollah or the Iranian revolutionary government. Not being Iranian and all, however, this is rather a moot point, since I have no influence over who runs Iran.
The Shah was a definite bad apple, but he was an apple placed on the throne by the CIA, who overthrew an elected and secular government to put him there. That was a big mistake. Then Kissinger used his influence with the Shah to support Israel and its annexation of Palestinian territory against the will of the people of Iran. A lesser mistake.
By the time the Shah was dying and the Ayatollah was poised to take his place, the CIA was overtaken by events and could do very little. They could encourage a war between Iraq and Iran and supply weapons in the right numbers to keep it going. Only Allah knows how much fuel that wasted.
When the Iran elected the guy before Ahmedinejahd, the US could have started overtures to normalize relations, but Juniorbush being dominated by Zionist Neocons and being stubborn and stupid to boot, nothing happened, and Ahmedinejahd was elected.
Our State Dept under Rice is really a bunch of fools. They did nothing to normalize relations with Iran, and they called for Palestinian elections and got Hamas elected.
-
Well, Js one man who is "hated" isn't equal to another man who is feared, especially if there aint much a person can do to control either outcome. It's not like there was a democratic vote on the issue.
Indeed, JS< Khomeini was much worse. Remember the story; It Could Be Worse" ? Well, those of whom you speak had no real clue of how bad it was going to get. (The frog in the hot water analogy.)
Follow my tune to the ends of the earth.....I know you want to. You hate, afterall, right?
ahhh, GOT Ya.
Iranians did not have the freedom to chose whom to "hate more" or less like we do in this country.
Only those who were able to understand the reality of the situation --those who were living outside the Perian culture---on American soil at the time, knew that things were actually going to be better under the regime that was so "hated:".
Women were at least able to speak up, find a voice back then, JS..... albeit one baby step at a time..but it was progess at it's slowest and best . . of that I know for a fact.
Sometimes all of this makes me wonder just how much we really understand in terms of the depth of "help" the US has given in the direction of the Iraqis with this "war". I would love to ask Iraqi-American citizens how they truly believe their country is faring. .
FOr some reason Americans have one of two extreme trains of thought;
a) Oh,those poor bastards in the "other" world---they have not seen the "light" if they can not or will not grasp democracy as it has been served to them on a gold patter !
b) Well, of course every nation, every culture, has every right to do what they feel is best for themselves. Why interfere?.....let a country be.
Ok, well, they got what they DIDN'T SEE COMING....just like Hiter, imo.
The interests of the Iranian free thinking (on the verge of understanding democracy and what it felt like to be free in so many ways) instead traveled...no dive bombed back centuries in exchange for that poor bad ass apple(the Shah) that folks hated and rallied against.
Cynthia,
I don't wish to be arrogant and I have great respect for you and whomever amongst your family, friends, or other loved ones you may have lost in the 1979 revolution.
I think what a lot of Americans don't understand is that it wasn't a certainty to the outside world that Khomeini would take the position he did as leader of the country. It was thought for a while that he'd take residence at Qum and act as a Shi'a religious leader and leave the politics to others. Of course that is not what happened.
The Iranian Revolution was odd as it came as a strong Conservative revolution in the midst of what were mostly leftist-Marxist revolutions around the world. In general, conservative revolutions are somewhat rare.
-
Cynthia,
I don't wish to be arrogant and I have great respect for you and whomever amongst your family, friends, or other loved ones you may have lost in the 1979 revolution.
JS, thank you for your sensitivity in this matter. There were friends and members of my ex husband's family who were killed -outright. We had so many friends who naively and patriotically went "back home" after securing an education here in New Mexico in Electrical Engineering, who were ripe for a fight against Iraq....they are now dead.
It wasn't easy for us to hear of such news. Sure, I was married to this man. I was a young woman in college at the time, and for those who are curious, I did not marry this man to secure any sort of citizenship for his future. After graduating with an Electrical Engineering degree he pursued a degree in Bio-medical engineering. But young love is just that...young not always equipped to survive the long term. sadly.....We just went our seperate ways. Those were beautiful years for me, and yet hellish for him, I could tell. Amir was in turmoil for so many reasons. He was in fear of his nation's downfall...and ready to face a new life here in the states. He was also only 23. I was 19.
He had no connection with his own mother, who had given birth to him at age 13!! She was divorced from Amir's father in the mid 50's(when Amir was 2) and yet she found a way to exit the country and live and work in Paris, France. And.... she did it the hard way. She traveled up and over the Turkish mountains by car...a hard trek, indeed, back and forth from Tehran to Paris for years, all the while she learned a special trade in Paris. She learned how to sew and make exquisite clothing and " facial make-up" from the French--- then she would return to Tehran...sell her products to the Emperial family in Iran and on and on....She reminded me of Jackie Kennedy Onassis in a way. SHe was powerful, young and damn strong...not to mention wealthy in her own right. She had a home in Beirut until the city was halfway destroyed...Beirut . Eventually she married a Frenchman and settled in France, then had two more children. Amir was not allowed to see her throughout his youth. When he came to America, he swiftly made contact. AFter we were married, we visited her in Europe. It was quite something to see Amir's love for his lost long mother after 20 years.
Ok, so that's a bit of the family history.....married while so young...19-24.
I think what a lot of Americans don't understand is that it wasn't a certainty to the outside world that Khomeini would take the position he did as leader of the country.
But, Iranians knew exactly what was coming down the pike. They knew that nothing else mattered...nothing else "counted back then. Americans didn't know squat, JS.
They still don't. TO be honest.
It was thought for a while that he'd take residence at Qum and act as a Shi'a religious leader and leave the politics to others. Of course that is not what happened.
It was never thought that he would do anything but take over...the majority of Iran was like XO stated...poor and culturally starved. He was supposed to "rescue" them from a toxic regime. Ignorance was bliss and there was no othe reference point to bank on in terms of what was reality. That's not to judge the Iranian people, but they were in the dark with regard to what was about to really happen. What was not evident was the underground successes --those movers and shakers that were on the edge of living in a new and competent world. Women, men and children were happier, however underground in a state of disarray...Oh my, happiness wasn't allowed, at least not in the way of the western copy cats. The way I see it, reminds me of the teenager who is willing to take risks, explore,. want for more, expose self for the sake freedom. Ahh....such a ripe and fresh attitude. The down side?- Those parents are watching and about to pounce, reprimand and restrict the teen from having any of that=========fun. Naive young person. . . overtaken by the power that is freedom of expression. Damn...coulda woulda shoulda.....kept the joy underground. Iranians were on the edge, and walking a "Fine line".
The Iranian Revolution was odd as it came as a strong Conservative revolution in the midst of what were mostly leftist-Marxist revolutions around the world. In general, conservative revolutions are somewhat rare.
Well, the revolution was in favor of fairness across the board, and religion was a the heart of it all. Poor vs Wealthy....Which is the bottom line of many a revolution. This one was no exception.
Education vs Powerlessness is what was at the forefront. The sacrifice of those "westernized" people in Iran meant everyone would now live under one dictator/a religious dictator...but one who was supposed to "cure" the ills of the people under the Shah. Afterall, Iranians (Persians) lived that way for years before...no problemo.
Change is scary. Change is challenged.
But, the antithesis is not always the best route to take.
The people of Iran were just beginning to shine on, become "polished/recognized" as thriving "individuals". Ah, but when the Ayatollah landed on his old Persian homeground, with a promise of a "new beginning"--singing that song; "give me that old time religion, oops I mean killing" nothing else ruled the day....Unfortunately, those Persians who hoped for a life with any sort of advancement as individuals, were suddenly thrust into a no safe zone compromised and spirtually ruined for life. There was no chance for expression, no chance of much...especially for women. There was safety in numbers.....risk free numbers, follow the almighty power based male dominated master. oh but of course they were suddenly safe from the tyrant that was The Shah. . . My Allah, at what cost?
We still see the struggles of the culture, the nation and it's inability to "play well with others"
-
I surely do not support the Ayatollah or the Iranian revolutionary government. Not being Iranian and all, however, this is rather a moot point, since I have no influence over who runs Iran.
The Shah was a definite bad apple, but he was an apple placed on the throne by the CIA, who overthrew an elected and secular government to put him there. That was a big mistake. Then Kissinger used his influence with the Shah to support Israel and its annexation of Palestinian territory against the will of the people of Iran. A lesser mistake.
By the time the Shah was dying and the Ayatollah was poised to take his place, the CIA was overtaken by events and could do very little. They could encourage a war between Iraq and Iran and supply weapons in the right numbers to keep it going. Only Allah knows how much fuel that wasted.
When the Iran elected the guy before Ahmedinejahd, the US could have started overtures to normalize relations, but Juniorbush being dominated by Zionist Neocons and being stubborn and stupid to boot, nothing happened, and Ahmedinejahd was elected.
Our State Dept under Rice is really a bunch of fools. They did nothing to normalize relations with Iran, and they called for Palestinian elections and got Hamas elected.
You seem to hold such disdain for the CIA. HMMMM?
-
You seem to hold such disdain for the CIA. HMMMM?
=======================================
The CIA is a criminal bunch of imperialists when they succeed, and a blundering array of nincompoops when they don't.
Installing the Shah was said to be a "success".
The intel leading up to the Iraq War was a dismal failure.
They were unable to call the toppling of the USSR or the end of East Germany, and their clever advice to hold elections in Plaestine was less than a crowning success.
Guess which one earned the director a Medal of Freedom.
We'd be better off by disbanding the CIA, blowing it up, leveling Foggy Bottom with bulldozers and convertiong it into an upscale Mall, all pretty and striped for lotsa fee parking.
-
You seem to hold such disdain for the CIA. HMMMM?
=======================================
The CIA is a criminal bunch of imperialists when they succeed, and a blundering array of nincompoops when they don't.
Installing the Shah was said to be a "success".
The intel leading up to the Iraq War was a dismal failure.
They were unable to call the toppling of the USSR or the end of East Germany, and their clever advice to hold elections in Plaestine was less than a crowning success.
Guess which one earned the director a Medal of Freedom.
We'd be better off by disbanding the CIA, blowing it up, leveling Foggy Bottom with bulldozers and convertiong it into an upscale Mall, all pretty and striped for lotsa fee parking.
There was very little intelligence gathering by tyhe government before WWII , MI6 taught our flecgeling spys how to conduct business.
Can we really do without them the way we used to?
-
Can we really do without them the way we used to?
======================================
This is like asking whether we could still swim as well without a couple of our traditional anvils strapped around our necks.
Bad intel is worse than none at all.
We need intelligence, but what the CIA gave us was less than useful.
-
Can we really do without them the way we used to?
======================================
This is like asking whether we could still swim as well without a couple of our traditional anvils strapped around our necks.
Bad intel is worse than none at all.
We need intelligence, but what the CIA gave us was less than useful.
Ok, so the CIA gave us bad intell with regard to teh Iraq war. Unless of course the intell was close, and somewhat accurate, but the powers that BE decided to twist the information to their advantage and call a war.
If the CIA WAS respsonsible for putting the Shah in power, as you state here, I still don't see how that was a bad thing, as the alternative did very little to secure communication or relations between Iran and the United States.
My point. Where's your proof that the CIA is THAT incompetent, worthless and should be turned into a parking lot............Xavier, aren't you just pissed at the power that the CIA holds and the decisions that it makes in the long run --such as calling a war, etc. (a war that was not so well planned, horribly executed and down right wasteful and immoral)?
-
Well, Js one man who is "hated" isn't equal to another man who is feared, especially if there aint much a person can do to control either outcome. It's not like there was a democratic vote on the issue.
Indeed, JS< Khomeini was much worse. Remember the story; It Could Be Worse" ? Well, those of whom you speak had no real clue of how bad it was going to get. (The frog in the hot water analogy.)
Follow my tune to the ends of the earth.....I know you want to. You hate, afterall, right?
ahhh, GOT Ya.
Iranians did not have the freedom to chose whom to "hate more" or less like we do in this country.
Only those who were able to understand the reality of the situation --those who were living outside the Perian culture---on American soil at the time, knew that things were actually going to be better under the regime that was so "hated:".
Women were at least able to speak up, find a voice back then, JS..... albeit one baby step at a time..but it was progess at it's slowest and best . . of that I know for a fact.
Sometimes all of this makes me wonder just how much we really understand in terms of the depth of "help" the US has given in the direction of the Iraqis with this "war". I would love to ask Iraqi-American citizens how they truly believe their country is faring. .
FOr some reason Americans have one of two extreme trains of thought;
a) Oh,those poor bastards in the "other" world---they have not seen the "light" if they can not or will not grasp democracy as it has been served to them on a gold patter !
b) Well, of course every nation, every culture, has every right to do what they feel is best for themselves. Why interfere?.....let a country be.
Ok, well, they got what they DIDN'T SEE COMING....just like Hiter, imo.
The interests of the Iranian free thinking (on the verge of understanding democracy and what it felt like to be free in so many ways) instead traveled...no dive bombed back centuries in exchange for that poor bad ass apple(the Shah) that folks hated and rallied against.
Cynthia,
I don't wish to be arrogant and I have great respect for you and whomever amongst your family, friends, or other loved ones you may have lost in the 1979 revolution.
I think what a lot of Americans don't understand is that it wasn't a certainty to the outside world that Khomeini would take the position he did as leader of the country. It was thought for a while that he'd take residence at Qum and act as a Shi'a religious leader and leave the politics to others. Of course that is not what happened.
The Iranian Revolution was odd as it came as a strong Conservative revolution in the midst of what were mostly leftist-Marxist revolutions around the world. In general, conservative revolutions are somewhat rare.
JS,
I might also add that your reference to being arrogant means very little in terms of my personal stance on this issue.
The Iranian people living in Iran should actually be the subject of your "apology" (of arrogance)..... as they were promised a better and more complete life by the Ayatollah, just as the Germans were promised a better life by Adolf Hitler.... The Persian people were promised a new regime with a "back to relgious basics" hope on the horizon----a regime that would solve all the problems and enhance the wishes and the will of the people, sans the Shah.
SO, your reference to being arrogant in terms of "my comment" is not necessary. It's the Iranian people who deserve the truth... unfortunately the majority of the people did not see the hell that was at their doorstep. They did not even know the hell that was in front of the doorstep. Reference points are key here. They had no real reference point,so they were not really even caught by surprise.
Any hope to grow as individuals was halted, yet they had no idea there was such a hope of such a world of expression or individualism, JS. Let's be real here.
1979-2008 30 years later?
Let's compare the regime in the past 30 years to what could have been if the Shah and the United States had been able to move forward. Ok, not possible, I realize. But, the hint of freedom of expression, the freedom to better oneself as a human being was at least on the horizon. Politics is such an ugly snake. The Shah was seen as such a bad snake. But, what was the alternative? 30 years of no growth. Who knows what could have been. That's where I disagree with XO. Why the hell does he think that the CIA is that bad? What replaced the CIA involvement? Years of stagnation with no chance of moving forward educationally or culturally. . . that's what. Women can't hold any sort of power. who knows what the world in Iran could have been in today's time? Let a culture change, I say. Let a society grow---with or without the help of the west.
There is no sign of any growth now, is there? No, not really. We are battling the powers in Iran over oil, land, power struggles, and our very existence. Geezzus!! I have to say that I hate to hear that the American government is that bad to compare to what is happening now. I agree that the Bush admn. was stupid, but I do not agree that America is a bad apple government, overall.
Arrogance? Nah. Look at the History as well as the steps that were taken --backwards-- the very mindset of Iran that was on the horizon to making a global connection was destroyed. We can't compare the past to the present...because the past was ripped away.
Ok, now we need to communicate with Iran., Where are we now?
I see such a reference to your arrogance to be a misguided point, with all due respect. The arrogance lies in the Ayatollah's rape of the minds of the free thinkers in each and every Persian. We can't assess because we can'ts document what could have been.
My god, the Shah---the CIA ----whatever organizations that were in operation back then would have made a hell of a lot more progress for the west-east connection than what we have now.
-
The CIA not only did not have adequate intel abo0ut Iraq, it also failed to predict the collapse of East Germany, the fall of the USSR, the collapse of Ceauceascu, and still thinks that the Cuban embargo is going th cause the overthrow of Fidel, even though that it hasn';t done that in 49 years.
They were also the geniuses that did the intel that called for elections in Palestine.
Wherever people hate my country in the world, it is because of the CIA.
They suck. They deserve to be abolished.
Tomorrow, or sooner.
-
The CIA not only did not have adequate intel abo0ut Iraq, it also failed to predict the collapse of East Germany, the fall of the USSR, the collapse of Ceauceascu, and still thinks that the Cuban embargo is going th cause the overthrow of Fidel, even though that it hasn';t done that in 49 years.
They were also the geniuses that did the intel that called for elections in Palestine.
Wherever people hate my country in the world, it is because of the CIA.
They suck. They deserve to be abolished.
Tomorrow, or sooner.
Come on, there has to be something good about the CIA. Afterall, the organization belongs to WE THE PEOPLE OF THE US of A!
Look at it this way. What would we be without the CIA?
I still feel that the nation of Iran was a coulda woulda 'state'. Who knows what could have transpired if capitalism was allowed to bloom in the mid east.
There has to be a happy medium between freedom and restraint.
-
The CIA not only did not have adequate intel abo0ut Iraq, it also failed to predict the collapse of East Germany, the fall of the USSR, the collapse of Ceauceascu, and still thinks that the Cuban embargo is going th cause the overthrow of Fidel, even though that it hasn';t done that in 49 years.
They were also the geniuses that did the intel that called for elections in Palestine.
Wherever people hate my country in the world, it is because of the CIA.
They suck. They deserve to be abolished.
Tomorrow, or sooner.
Come on, there has to be something good about the CIA. Afterall, the organization belongs to WE THE PEOPLE OF THE US of A!
Look at it this way. What would we be without the CIA?
I still feel that the nation of Iran was a coulda woulda 'state'. Who knows what could have transpired if capitalism was allowed to bloom in the mid east.
There has to be a happy medium between freedom and restraint.
They have a good site.... https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/public-affairs/index.html
check the kids page...
https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/index.html
Or the world factbook....https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
-
Thanks, Plane. I'll look at them all.
Cynthia
-
Come on, there has to be something good about the CIA. Afterall, the organization belongs to WE THE PEOPLE OF THE US of A!
Look at it this way. What would we be without the CIA?
-------------------------------------------------------
Lots better off, actually. That is my point.
----------------------------------------------------------
I still feel that the nation of Iran was a coulda woulda 'state'. Who knows what could have transpired if capitalism was allowed to bloom in the mid east.
What Iran needs is more democracy and a whole lot less religion.
The CIA was not and is not in the business of providing either. If they had just let Mossadegh continue to be the elected leader of Iran, and Arbenz the elected leader of Guatemala, and kept their nasty little hands off a dozen other places we would all be better off.
The CIA is incompetent at what it is supposed to do, namely provide reliable intelligence, and counterproductive at dirty tricks, assassinations, manipulations and other somesuch crap that disbanding it and replacing it with what is really needed would be a boon to us all.
There has to be a happy medium between freedom and restraint.
The CIA isn't it, and could not be that even if it tried, not that it has or would try.
-
What Iran needs is more democracy and a whole lot less religion.
This statement brings an "aha" moment to my mind. Iran is EVERYTHING religion". How many people in this data based slice of pie (debate gate members) are "religious? If this were a board of Persians, Iraqis or Saudis, I would venture to bet that the number of "religious" souls would out number those who are on the fence, atheists, or in a state of "duh"?!
We have to realize as Americans that we must be able to meet the cultures of many middle eastern" nations abroad half way" in terms of religion first and politics second. We can not expect a makeover of sorts--- based on what our country expects or desires. . . (thus your point of the failure of the CIA, I suppose?)
Religion, being the bottom-line criteria or baseline of many of the nations in the middle east demands that we look at the problems we face in a more non-political way.
Why aren't we meeting them at their religious platform? (Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc) , most nations will not be able to secure a democratic government as we in the US of A demand it. So, why aren't we stepping up our intel to meet the "other side" with more of a realistic knowledge and sharing of what is logical and workable? aka ...a more religous base?
To design CIA, ORG... ETC, an org which sneaks in, circling the camp with no real desire to make diplomacy work..why then do we assign such baffoons( the CIA)?
Iran is never going to change. Persia is there for an eternity.... as a fingerprint of culture... as is Egypt and many cultures which are cemented in the depths of this globe. You bring up such an interesting comment/point...albeit a side bar point.
Our little cushy-culture in America has no real conscious idea of how to get along with such nations. The CIA is all wrong for that job, if that's the case.
I has occured to me that we have it all backwards. Our approach is not feasible. When will our arrogance get a clue?
Religion is solid. Religious based cultures/gov.'s are even more solid.
Send in the Monks.
-
Of course, Iran would be more modern if it did have less emphasis on religion and more on democracy.
This seems to be the major difference between the more democratic nations of the Middle East (Turkey, Lebanon) and the rest. It would appear that the UAE and Qatar have also managed to become more free societies. This would appear to be because Emiris and Qataris are swimming in so much money that they have become free from class differences as well as any sort of unappealing labor.
There is little or no way that the CIA could possibly make Iran less religious. As in Turkey, this must come from within the local community. Lebanon is less religious simply because there are four religions there, none in the majority: Sunni, Shia, Drise and Christian.
-
Of course, Iran would be more modern if it did have less emphasis on religion and more on democracy. There is little or no way that the CIA could possibly make Iran less religious.
Nor should they, It's not our business......until it becomes a security threat to the U.S. & its citizens both here & abroad
-
Nor should they, It's not our business......until it becomes a security threat to the U.S. & its citizens both here & abroad
==========================================
No matter whether is becomes a security threat to the US or not, it is impossible, and therefore should never be attempted.
Imagine what Iranian intelligence might do to abolish Baha'i and/or Jehovah's Witnesses in the US. This would be totally insane, and for the same reasons.
-
Nor should they, It's not our business......until it becomes a security threat to the U.S. & its citizens both here & abroad
==========================================
No matter whether is becomes a security threat to the US or not, it is impossible, and therefore should never be attempted.
Wrong. When there is a threat to the U.S., we "attempt" what needs to be attempted, with war being the last resort
-
Sirs, I think XO's point is that it isn' t possible, and to try would not give good results.
Think about a patient who still uses a crutch or a cane to walk, because his leg still hurts. You're given the job of walking him without the cane, to gain strength in his affected leg.
He doesn't react well at all to this, because the problem of leg pain has not been addressed.
In fact he uses the crutch even more. If before he could hobble to the bedside table without it, now he sure doesn't. Because his leg hurts more, and because no one will believe him. He guards his leg, won't let anyone near enough to touch it, is suspicious of any who come into his room (are they going to take his crutch?) etc.
I probably wandered pretty far afield in making up this story, but really, if someone tried to make our country less religious, wouldn't praying people just pray harder? Wouldn't we just hold services in our homes, and be even more observant to the rituals of our faiths?
My apologies to all who don't like the analogy of religion and crutch. I don't think of it that way myself. I just couldn't think of another way to express my point.
-
Religion...Crutch...
Works for me.
-
Sirs, I think XO's point is that it isn' t possible, and to try would not give good results.
No, the point is, that no one is advocating taking religion away from Iran, or making Iran into a Democracy regardless of what Iranians want. The point is, we are to intervene, starting from least resitive to the last resort of war, IF America or Americans are being threatened. Pure and simple
Religion...Crutch...Works for me.
Opinion duely noted......and discarded, for me
-
Of course, Iran would be more modern if it did have less emphasis on religion and more on democracy.
This seems to be the major difference between the more democratic nations of the Middle East (Turkey, Lebanon) and the rest. It would appear that the UAE and Qatar have also managed to become more free societies. This would appear to be because Emiris and Qataris are swimming in so much money that they have become free from class differences as well as any sort of unappealing labor.
There is little or no way that the CIA could possibly make Iran less religious. As in Turkey, this must come from within the local community. Lebanon is less religious simply because there are four religions there, none in the majority: Sunni, Shia, Drise and Christian.
There is little or no way that the CIA could possibly make Iran less religious.
Nor should they, Xavier.
Why can't a nation live with a balance of both.....assign a difference between church and state as do we. We are no less religous in this country, and yet we are capable of multi tasking, are we not?
It would appear that the UAE and Qatar have also managed to become more free societies. This would appear to be because Emiris and Qataris are swimming in so much money that they have become free from class differences as well as any sort of unappealing labor.
Money makes for a "nothing else matters" mentality......
-
Religion...Crutch...
Works for me.
Depends on how you perceive the word.
Is a crutch like a pacifier to a six year old or is a crutch more like a tool. In the religion analogy ( which wasn't a bad analogy) i choose to view it as the latter.
-
ditto
-
Sirs, I think XO's point is that it isn' t possible, and to try would not give good results.
No, the point is, that no one is advocating taking religion away from Iran, or making Iran into a Democracy regardless of what Iranians want. The point is, we are to intervene, starting from least resitive to the last resort of war, IF America or Americans are being threatened. Pure and simple
Religion...Crutch...Works for me.
Opinion duely noted......and discarded, for me
Explain to what degree we should intervene from least resistive to the last resort. Threatened can take on many meanings in terms of "fighting back" or intervening. We ARE TO INTERVENE. How?
Sanctions, intel, spying, etc?
-
I'm not saying Khoemeni was great. That's a strawman and you may sacrifice it all you like. But the Shah was hated, and was a tyrant as well as a murderer. There is little doubt of that, and the people who'd like to have him back are the very few who profited from his wealth.
You may not be saying that Koumani was great , but Khoemeni is what we got as an alternative to the Shah, I think examineing the alternatives is fair , not strawman building.
When I was in Navy Training there were Iranian trainees all over the place , the Shah really did want literacy and practical education to flourish that isn't a few people.
The Shah had good intentions, this is true..... but quite frankly, I have to admit that there are two faces to many an Iranian's story. This link outlines the "intentions of the Shah" The White Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution
Here are two very different interviews by two very different women; Barbara Walters and a young Iranian Feminist.
#1
IN a television interview with Barbara Walters in 1977, two years before he was overthrown in a popular revolution, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi talked bluntly -- about women and his wife.
The interview went like this:
Walters: I'm quoting Your Majesty. ''In a man's life, women count only if they are beautiful, graceful and know how to stay feminine. You may be equal in the eyes of the law, but not in ability. You have never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach or even a great cook. You are schemers. You are evil. All of you.'' Your Majesty, you said all these things?
Shah: Not with the same words, no.
Walters: Well, the thought, ''You've never produced a Michelangelo, a Bach, or even a great. . . .''
Shah: This I have said.
Walters: So you don't feel that women are in that sense equal, if they have the same intelligence or ability.
Shah: Not so far. Maybe you will become in the future. We can always have some exceptions.
Walters: Here and there? Do you feel your wife is one of these rare exceptions?
Shah: It depends in what sense.
Walters: Well, do you feel your wife can govern as well as a man?
Shah: I prefer not to answer.
At the time, the shah was married to Farah Diba Pahlavi. A commoner 19 years his junior, she was also beautiful, graceful and knew how to stay feminine. She was chosen to replace Soraya Esfandiari Bakhtiari, whom the shah divorced because they failed to have children. He divorced his first wife, Princess Fawzia, the sister of King Farouk of Egypt, after she produced only a daughter.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506EFDB153AF931A35756C0A9629C8B63
#2
As across the world, the "woman question' unsettles the neat paradigms of human rights discourses",[6] a renewed commitment to women's inalienable human rights requires a vigilance and a constantly critical perspective beyond regime changes and shades of ideologies. As Oriana Fallaci discovered during her interviews with the so-called liberal and woman-friendly Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran in 1973, the thinly disguised misogyny of the Iranian monarch spoke openly of a persistent patriarchy that links the Islamic Republic to the authoritarian monarchy it succeeded. In his interview with Fallaci, the Shah showed complete and utter disgust towards women, with unabashed and frightening phrases:
Oriana Fallaci: Majesty ? you're a Muslim. Your religion allows you to take another wife without repudiating the Empress Farah Diba.
Mohammad Reza Shah: yes, of course. According to my religion, I could, so long as the Queen gave her consent. And to be honest, one must admit there are cases when?for instance, when a wife is sick, or doesn't want to fulfil her wifely duties, thereby causing her husband unhappiness ? after all! You'd have to be hypocritical or na?ve to think a husband would tolerate such a thing. In your society, when a circumstance of that kind arises, doesn't a man take a mistress, or more than one? Well, in our society, a man can take another wife. So long as the first wife consents and the court approves?.
Oriana Fallaci: I am beginning to suspect that women have counted for nothing in your life ?
Mohammad Reza Shah: Here I am really afraid you've made a correct observation? women are important in a man's life only if they're beautiful and charming and keep their femininity and?this business of feminism, for instance. What do these feminists want? What do you want? You say equality. Oh! I don't want to seem rude, but?you're equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability.
Oriana Fallaci: No, Majesty?
Mohammad Reza Shah: No. You've never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You've never even produced a great chef. And if you talk to me about opportunity, all I can say is 'are you joking? Have you ever lacked the opportunity to give history a great chef? You've produced nothing great, nothing! ?You're schemers, you are evil. All of you.[7]
Yes?women (all of them categorically evil in His Majesty's eyes) have not produced a Michelangelo or a Bach, for these are all male musicians who rose to prominence in European social conditions no less patriarchal and misogynistic than the worst in the so-called "Third world". But women have against all odds and defying debilitating yokes that monarchs, sultans, vazirs, feudal war lords, very modern presidents, monks, priests, rabbis, mullahs, pundits alike have imposed on them, produced, just on the Iranian corner of their world, Forough Farrokhzad, Parvin E'tesami, Shahrnoush Parsipour, Simin Daneshvar, Shirin Neshat, Samira Makhmalbaf, Golnosh Khaleghi, Pari Zangeneh, and scores of many many other distinguished mothers, artists, scientists, physicians, university professors, athletes, journalists and yes a Great Chef as well, her name is Najmieh Batmanglij and she has gracefully globalised Iranian cuisine around the world.
Towards the end of His Imperial outburst against women, Mohammad Reza Shah asks Oriana Fallaci rhetorically, "Tell me, how many women capable of governing have you met in the course of your interviews?". Fallaci responds with such examples as Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi. Mehrangiz Kar, I would add to that list today, as well as Shirin Ebadi, Shahla Sherkat, Shahla Lahiji, Fatemeh Haqiqatjoo, Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani, Roya Tolou'i, Parvin Ardalan, Nayereh Tohidi, Valentine Moghaddam, countless other leaders of women NGOs, millions of my sisters among Iranian student activists -- to whose honourable cause I now submit this eyewitness to history.
http://www.iranian.com/Bashi/2006/March/Montazeri/index.html
-
http://impact.users.netlink.co.uk/namir/martyrs.htm
I tried, but could not locate the name of my ex father in law on this list or any other, lest I subscribe to the archives. :(sadly, he held one of the highest ranking postitions in the Iranian Navy back then.....
Being married to Amir, albeit we were two young college students living in the middle of the Vietnam "affair" as well and oblivious to anything else around us but our own "heated love" and getting through college!! As it turns out because Amir's father was a high ranking officer, we were indeed being "watched by the SAVAK" back then. It was a bit of overkill on their part we would maintain, because there was no real need to do so, as we were not a threat. Amir was able to secure his status in the states with a student Visa and had a green card etc...eh was on his way to going to Med School when we divorced. . . . I've never really wanted to go back and read up on this revolution but today I have spent a great deal of time doing just that. I am more than intrigued. I am enjoying learning more about it. The pain of it all was too great for many of us back then, as our friends were dying in Tehran. Those "friends" could have stayed in America and yet chose to go back home. :(
I maintain that the killings and the rapes and the horrors have been much worse in the land of Persia since the fall of the Shah. He was quoted as blaming his Prime Minister Amir-Abbas Hoveida
I don't like to quote from Wiki, but here's an interesting note;
Legacy
In 1969, the Shah sent one of 73 Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to NASA for the historic first lunar landing.[28] The message still rests on the lunar surface today. He stated in part, "...we pray the Almighty God to guide mankind towards ever increasing success in the establishment of culture, knowledge and human civilization." The Apollo 11 crew visited the Shah during a world tour.
Shortly after his overthrow, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi wrote an autobiographical memoir R?ponse ? l'histoire (Answer to History). It was translated from the original French into English, Persian (Pasokh be Tarikh), and other languages. However, by the time of its publication, the Shah had already died. The book is his personal account of his reign and accomplishments, as well as his perspective on issues related to the Iranian Revolution and Western foreign policy toward Iran. His love for his country vividly come through in his final memoirs, and it is clear that at the end of his life, he realized some of the mistakes he made. The Shah places some of the blame for the wrongdoings of SAVAK and the failures of various democratic and social reforms (particularly through the White Revolution) upon Amir Abbas Hoveyda and his administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
-
Explain to what degree we should intervene from least resistive to the last resort. Threatened can take on many meanings in terms of "fighting back" or intervening. We ARE TO INTERVENE. How? Sanctions, intel, spying, etc?
I'm not privvy to standard escalation protocols, Miss Cynthia, perhaps Pooch or MajorStrictland would. That said, from this civilian's standpoint, you've already touched on some, though I'd consider intel as one of the most basic, starting with simple electronic & sattelite surveillance. But if their are Americans (such as in embassy's) or America itself is under a direct threat, and that threat can be connected to ....... let's say Iran, than sanctions are indeed in order, hopefully with the compliment of UN & US diplomatic efforts, in order to help Iran see the error of their ways (the threat they are facilitating). If the threat is not reduced, then harsher sanctions are in order, and here's where military saber rattling can also be considered. Parking a pair of Carrier Battle Groups in the gulf, with large scale military "drills", in nearby airspace. If the threat continues or escalates, you then can start calling in military assets and park them off the border. As I said, war is a LAST resort, but becomes necessary if the enemy is not backing down or adhering to the will of the International community
And let me add, as I've referenced from the time Bush went into Iraq, even though Bush did get UN unanimity that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441, and that serious consequences would ensue if found that to be the case, when it comes to our own national defense, we're not obliged to seek UN approval to defend ourselves. I am impressed Bush even went so far as to get that. It wasn't necessary in my book, given the intel we had at the time
-
ditto
Was that before or after you discarded it, or are you changing horses in midstream again?
-
Apples & Oranges, H. I discarded your apple, I dittoed Bt's orange. Please try to keep up.
-
Explain to what degree we should intervene from least resistive to the last resort. Threatened can take on many meanings in terms of "fighting back" or intervening. We ARE TO INTERVENE. How? Sanctions, intel, spying, etc?
I'm not privvy to standard escalation protocols, Miss Cynthia, perhaps Pooch or MajorStrictland would. That said, from this civilian's standpoint, you've already touched on some, though I'd consider intel as one of the most basic, starting with simple electronic & sattelite surveillance. But if their are Americans (such as in embassy's) or America itself is under a direct threat, and that threat can be connected to ....... let's say Iran, than sanctions are indeed in order, hopefully with the compliment of UN & US diplomatic efforts, in order to help Iran see the error of their ways (the threat they are facilitating). If the threat is not reduced, then harsher sanctions are in order, and here's where military saber rattling can also be considered. Parking a pair of Carrier Battle Groups in the gulf, with large scale military "drills", in nearby airspace. If the threat continues or escalates, you then can start calling in military assets and park them off the border. As I said, war is a LAST resort, but becomes necessary if the enemy is not backing down or adhering to the will of the International community
And let me add, as I've referenced from the time Bush went into Iraq, even though Bush did get UN unanimity that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441, and that serious consequences would ensue if found that to be the case, when it comes to our own national defense, we're not obliged to seek UN approval to defend ourselves. I am impressed Bush even went so far as to get that. It wasn't necessary in my book, given the intel we had at the time
For the first time I am actually concerned that we (the US OF A) are biting off too much and we can never chew it all.
Who else lives on this planet? Come on. This is not all about America. We are powerful, but we are also not in charge of the world. We can't possibly be, Sirs. When you speak of Iran not being in compliance with something, and as a result they must suffer serious consequences...WHO'S GUNNA DO THAT?/ US?
HOW?
oK, We are not "obliged to seek UN approval to defend ourselves, but when did Iran or Iraq ever attack our soil?
After reading more in depth on the history of the two nations (Iraq and Iran), they have enough problems between themselves for US to be doing ANYTHING! We have yet to be threatened. Now, granted, we have to be aware of such a threat, but we attacked Iraq! They didn't attack us! My god. I am concerned that we have taken on the power monster role and yet we are whimps in garments.
Sirs, WE MUST have global support in order to do anything in terms of a fight against such nations. You don't think that if we attack Iran that Iraq and Syria and other nations in the region with NOT fight us back? I wonder.
We must be more careful how we negotiate our board pieces. . if indeed this is a game to secure freedom.
The culture of such nations is old.....rrrrrreally old and they are not about to discuss whether religion is on or off the table. They are also not equiped to discuss if America is to be feared on that same table. Hell, if we went to war with IRan, we would be surrounded in the camp by so many other nations who hate our guts right now.
If I were you, I wouldn't be flexing any American muscle so quickly and so arrogantly.
It's time for brain not brawn. The America you speak of is old history, imo. Sure we are still strong, but we must not forget that we had support in both WW1 and WW2 globally. The UN is weak. That has been evident during this Iraqi "war". We can't possibly "run" the planet, Sirs. This isn't our father's generation, nor do we want it to be. (or our grandfather's, depending on your age).
My concern is that we are jumping into a bully mindset. It's one thing to defend oneself. It's clearly another to react instead of proact.
If I hear you correctly, I hear that you have no bones about flexing our military might against Iran.
Big mistake. Big...HUGe.
Russia is just around the corner, and we don't have such a great relationship with them as we did some 15 years ago.
Who the heck knows how the Nuke age will turn out. The IRON age didn't do that well thousands of years ago.. .
Perhaps prayer is in order. It helped the IRish when the Iron age Celtics decided to bury any king not capable of growing corn.
-
The US should do as it did for WWI and WWII?
Enter late?
After the rest of the Allience had joined up already?
-
The US should do as it did for WWI and WWII?
Enter late?
After the rest of the Allience had joined up already?
Plane,
It's a different world since the times of WW1,2
Enter what later?support our troops. We are a lone wolf and the dogs are going to trample us all.
We have rushed in without thinking this time around. No one is saying we shoudl be late to the ball.
But the ball this time around was nothing more than a ballet lesson gone bad.....a premature action with no real thought put into it.....poor planning. There is never going to be another world war like we had in the romantic mid 20th century.
My god...this is a battle ground in in alleyways, around old bashed up structures called homes...streets that protect total neighborhoods with no real soldier warfare in sight.
This is a gang war on the edge of the world with dangerous tactics. Dangerous tactics sans other nations to support our efforts. This is hell without the glory. Not like any other war. Unless BT can point out that we are securing freedom and democracy in this nation of Iraq. Time will tell? We've had more years in that WW2 thus far. hmmm, dont' think it's your typcial war.
This is never going to be a World War 2 scenario.
I wish it were.
I wish we could call this a full supportive war with troops and Americans and Europeans and and and all the rest rallying to kill the bastards who decided to stick their sick hatred in our direction. But it is not a matter of joining late...it's a matter of playing smart.
Bush wasn't smart.
Period
-
When you speak of Iran not being in compliance with something, and as a result they must suffer serious consequences...WHO'S GUNNA DO THAT?/ US?
HOW?
Depends......if it's not affecting U.S. security, then its the UN's ball
oK, We are not "obliged to seek UN approval to defend ourselves, but when did Iran or Iraq ever attack our soil?
And tell me where are we attacking Iran? You asked me for a hypothetical scenario.
Sirs, WE MUST have global support in order to do anything in terms of a fight against such nations.
If its in reference to national security, and can be determined to be a direct threat, then must have?, no. Would like to have?, absolutely.
If I hear you correctly, I hear that you have no bones about flexing our military might against Iran.
No, then you're not hearing me correctly. The "flexing" would be in response to something Iran did or was supposed to do, but didn't. It's not just big bully America picking on a bunch of little nations. And did you miss the gradual excalation brought about by further Iranian, or whatever other terrorist sponsoring country was doing. And did you miss that war was absolutely a LAST resort?
-
The US should do as it did for WWI and WWII?
Enter late?
After the rest of the Allience had joined up already?
This is never going to be a World War 2 scenario.
Why not?
Next time we are going to be as smart as Lindburg.
-
Apples & Oranges, H. I discarded your apple, I dittoed Bt's orange. Please try to keep up.
"Please try to keep up"
Face it, sirs, you are on some sort of weird ego trip.
That's it, isn;t it...they just didn't make you hall monitor enough in Junior High, did they?
-
Face it Xo, your typical snarking insults are getting more lame the closer to the election we get
-
So that's it. They wouldn't make you hall monitor and let you wear the Hall Monitor Official Sash, would they?
In the event that you are unaware, your constant crap about "please pay attention" is not only snarky, it is unoriginal and lame.
It's not like your words are precious gems we are required to treasure.
-
Getting even lamer. Perhaps they have a medication for that. Some sort of over the counter stimulant is in order.
But seriously, you apparently need to keep up as well. H unloads a flawed minor insult at me, I reply with its correction, and my own condescending remark. You jump in with your typical snark, while giving the instigator a pass. Sounds a tad prejudgemental and biased, I'd say. then again, my words are "no prescious gems", so why you apparently read them, and worse, respond to them, is beyond me
-
No, then you're not hearing me correctly. The "flexing" would be in response to something Iran did or was supposed to do, but didn't.
LOok at our track record, Sirs. flexing would be in response to what exactly? Where's the threat to our country? What would cause us to invade "flex" Iran?
I hope you aren't going to tell me that they "might have a few dangerous weapons of mass destruction". That's not a reason to go to war against another nation without the support of many other nations.
It's not just big bully America picking on a bunch of little nations. And did you miss the gradual excalation brought about by further Iranian, or whatever other terrorist sponsoring country was doing. And did you miss that war was absolutely a LAST resort?
NO, I did not miss your step by step, inch by inch escalation(on the steps to war) scenario into Iran, Iraq or any other nation in the middle east. Frankly, I find your tone to be bit of a bully right there, Sirs. Don't try to intimidate me with your condescending remarks.
Ok, then , this is what you said;
".....let's say Iran, than sanctions are indeed in order, hopefully with the compliment of UN & US diplomatic efforts, in order to help Iran see the error of their ways (the threat they are facilitating).
Hmmm, Sirs, "error of their ways" ? in the same sentence as "hopefully with the compliment of UN efforts"??
What an arrogant statement; error of the their ways'. Good thing you aren't on the planning committee, Sirs. Wait, perhaps you were.....this talk of hopefully, and tsk tsk bad boy attitudes sounds very Bushlike to me!
"If the threat is not reduced, then harsher sanctions are in order, and here's where military saber rattling can also be considered.
Step by step, inch by inch .......
"Parking a pair of Carrier Battle Groups in the gulf, with large scale military "drills", in nearby airspace. If the threat continues or escalates, you then can start calling in military assets and park them off the border.
Parking our assests off the border??? Are you nuts?? How is that going to look like a non-threatening action, oh and I might add, JUST PRIOR to your LAST RESORT oF WAR??
Step by step, inch by inch.......
"As I said, war is a LAST resort, but becomes necessary if the enemy is not backing down or adhering to the will of the International community"
aH OK, I see, NOW it's your LAST resort segment of the plan. . .HMMM, OK, WELL, IT seems to me that your last resort started taking baby steps way up in the parking lot and airspace in your post.
I don't recall Bush taking any step by step, well planned, strategic cautionary actiosn, before rolling down the road into Bahgdad. Heaven forbid that we would take on (fight) any nation as a last resort or a sort of pretend last resort, as did Bush. He would be the type to speak of "hopefully this and hopefully that" just because we are we. We are powerful. We hit the sand so damn fast that no one had a chance to sit back and think things through imo....AND, I might add, Iraq never sent one lone camel to park in our lot....not one bomb, not one terrorist, not one palm tree replanted in Florida..nada. Yet we headed into that country like Hummer road rage cowboys. Even American cowboys are smarter than that.
And let me add, as I've referenced from the time Bush went into Iraq, even though Bush did get UN unanimity that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441, and that serious consequences would ensue if found that to be the case, when it comes to our own national defense, we're not obliged to seek UN approval to defend ourselves. I am impressed Bush even went so far as to get that. It wasn't necessary in my book, given the intel we had at the time
IT WASN'T NECESSARY?? Now that's arrogance, Sirs. That's flat out American bully arrogance. Come on!
NO compliance with 1441 is the reason we are losing lives like flies on zapper lights every single day??
-
Miss Cynthia, with all due respect, you almost appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. You're implying positions that you've wrongly deduced from the original speculative question you posed. I'm not advocating parking CBG's outside of Iran based on their diplomat giving the finger. the parking of CBG's would occur AFTER there had already been escalation of a direct threat posed by Iran, that hadne't been heeded yet. Troops across the border would be from an escalation of intervention. Hopefully it never gets to those points, but I'm not going to rule them out as an option
And as far as your apparent position that we need the permission of the UN to defend ourselves from a intel determined threat....well, I'm just glad you're not the President's NSA
-
Miss Cynthia, with all due respect, you almost appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. You're implying positions that you've wrongly deduced from the original speculative question you posed. I'm not advocating parking CBG's outside of Iran based on their diplomat giving the finger. the parking of CBG's would occur AFTER there had already been escalation of a direct threat posed by Iran, that hadne't been heeded yet. Troops across the border would be from an escalation of intervention. Hopefully it never gets to those points, but I'm not going to rule them out as an option
And as far as your apparent position that we need the permission of the UN to defend ourselves from a intel determined threat....well, I'm just glad you're not the President's NSA
We sure needed better intel than we got from the previous NSA. Your argument does not have room for discussion. Seems to me that you want to give warning tickets with a pack of six on your hip.
When will America see that we can't just rush into a war like we did in Iraq without some responsibility to scrutinize the intel that is on the table?
Where's the excuse for poor intelligence. . . seems that Bush's NSA was thinking along the lines of you, Sirs...and see where that has gotten us!
-
Miss Cynthia, with all due respect, you almost appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. You're implying positions that you've wrongly deduced from the original speculative question you posed. I'm not advocating parking CBG's outside of Iran based on their diplomat giving the finger. the parking of CBG's would occur AFTER there had already been escalation of a direct threat posed by Iran, that hadne't been heeded yet. Troops across the border would be from an escalation of intervention. Hopefully it never gets to those points, but I'm not going to rule them out as an option
And as far as your apparent position that we need the permission of the UN to defend ourselves from a intel determined threat....well, I'm just glad you're not the President's NSA
We sure needed better intel than we got from the previous NSA. Your argument does not have room for discussion. Seems to me that you want to give warning tickets with a pack of six on your hip.
Apparently you missed my initial response to your speculative question, indicating my goal of using electronic intel gathering and diplomacy 1st and formost. HARDLY showcasing a Smith & Wesson on our hip, to begin with. And given our previous intel, Bush acted precisely how he should have
When will America see that we can't just rush into a war like we did in Iraq....
OY ::)
-
Cynthia, I love the "inch by inch, step by step" line. I can't remember what that's from right now. "Slowly I turned..."
Anyway, here's an interesting article that shows how we didn't cautiously go into this war. Oh OK, we very cautiously marketed it, took lots of time planning how to 'roll out' the new 'product' that would be the Iraq war. But diplomacy? Nonexistant, or nearly so. We decided it was what we wanted and we just had to figure out how to make it palatable to our citizens, the hell with the rest of the world. I can't get over this. This was totally unnecessary and the blood of 4000+ soldiers is on Bush and his cronies' hands.
[........]
As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote in his recently released book, "What Happened," the Iraq Group "had been set up in the summer of 2002 to coordinate the marketing of the war to the public."
"The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," McClellan wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, 2002, Card did not mention the group, but he hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.
Two days later, WHIG's product placement was on display. It began with a front-page story in the Times describing Iraq's clandestine purchase of aluminum tubes that, the story said, could be used to produce weapons-grade uranium. The story said that information came from "senior administration officials."
The story also spoke of "hardliners" in the Bush administration being "alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war." They "argue that Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud," the Times story said.
That same morning, the message was carried on three network news shows. Cheney appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and, referring to the Times story, said that intelligence showed that Hussein "has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon." The Iraqi leader was "trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs," Cheney said.
That same day, on CNN's "Late Edition," Rice said, "There will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
On CBS's "Face the Nation," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked about the Times story and whether Hussein had nuclear weapons. "Is there a smoking gun here?" host Bob Schieffer asked. " 'Smoking gun' is an interesting phrase," Rumsfeld said, and then he went to the same message his colleagues had given.
"The problem with that is the way one gains absolute certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon is if he uses it . . . and that's a little late." Bush picked up the slogan a month later in his nationally televised speech on the threat from Iraq.
McClellan wrote that WHIG was not used to "deliberately mislead the public" but that the "more fundamental problem was the way [Bush's] advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people.
"As the campaign accelerated," he added, "caveats and qualifications were downplayed or dropped altogether. Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded."
WHIG's records would shed much light on whether, as Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the intelligence panel, put it: "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent."
[.........]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801819.html?hpid=sec-politics
-
YEs, I agree, Lanya...Thanks for the article.
Slowly I turn, step by step, inch by inch
It's from an I Love Lucy episode.
"Martha"!
;)
-
And given our previous intel, Bush acted precisely how he should have....
OY back!
By the way, read Lanya's article. IT might shed some light on the whole thing for you, Sirs.
-
Opinion duely noted
-
Opinion duely noted
Takes notes this time, will ya?
-
Who else lives on this planet? Come on. This is not all about America. We are powerful, but we are also not in charge of the world. We can't possibly be, Sirs. When you speak of Iran not being in compliance with something, and as a result they must suffer serious consequences...WHO'S GUNNA DO THAT?/ US?
HOW?
If not us then who?
Who and what is prepared to be the worlds policeman?
-
Opinion duely noted
Takes notes this time, will ya?
???
-
Who and what is prepared to be the worlds policeman?
Does the world need a policeman?
If so, why?
-
Who and what is prepared to be the worlds policeman?
Does the world need a policeman?
If so, why?
There will be a toughest and a strongest , it won't be us forever .
Next it will perhaps be a country or agency better than us , but it that more likely, than an agency or country worse than the Third Reich?
The toughest and strongest will not be indiffrent , apathy doesn't become the strongest.
-
Opinion duely noted
Takes notes this time, will ya?
???
Read up on what really happed under Pres. Bush when applying his almighty expertise on the world in order to save us all from terrorism, Sirs...
Stop resting on your own idealistic hopes, but in reality only your own denial---- which seems so typical as it is completely a right wing swing spin. Reality is going to hit you hard someday, Sirs....you just don't have the fundamental idea of what has happened here.
I used to support the idea of fighting terrorism, via Bahgdad...but come on.....enough is enough. There is damage in our country, as I see it. People are screaming bloody murder.....support the war, send the troops home!
Supporting the war on terror is one thing. Supporting BUsh just because you are a conservative is stupid.
-
What precisely is wrong with the statement that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?
-
What precisely is wrong with the statement that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?
I wondered when you would show up BT.
The Smoking gun in all of this (Osama) is still hiding in the mountains somewhere out there, BT.
Mushroom cloud?
The loss of integrity and honor in the face of the crowd.....we as Americans had an obligation to do the right thing. Bush wasn't the right one to do the right thing, BT..no matter how much you and others want to believe otherwise....and coming from a Rep. family..I do not say that without reservations and some sadness.
-
I wondered when you would show up BT.
The Smoking gun in all of this (Osama) is still hiding in the mountains somewhere out there, BT.
Mushroom cloud?
The loss of integrity and honor in the face of the crowd.....we as Americans had an obligation to do the right thing. Bush wasn't the right one to do the right thing, BT..no matter how much you and others want to believe otherwise....and coming from a Rep. family..I do not say that without reservations and some sadness.
You evaded the question. Would you like a second try?
-
I wondered when you would show up BT.
The Smoking gun in all of this (Osama) is still hiding in the mountains somewhere out there, BT.
Mushroom cloud?
The loss of integrity and honor in the face of the crowd.....we as Americans had an obligation to do the right thing. Bush wasn't the right one to do the right thing, BT..no matter how much you and others want to believe otherwise....and coming from a Rep. family..I do not say that without reservations and some sadness.
You evaded the question. Would you like a second try?
Nah, that's ok....I could have predicted your patronizing tone, Bt.
It's not worth it to me to have you flex your power muscle once again....as you did in the NCLB threads.
-
What power muscle?
-
What power muscle?
LOL well, not THAT PM.
yikes....sorry, but I am in the middle of a few compassionate points that I wish to make with regard to my feelings about the Bush war. Your mushroom cloud interference doesn't flex for me. Sorry.
I can't reply to you in this way, BT. This has not been your thread war.
-
We decided it was what we wanted and we just had to figure out how to make it palatable to our citizens, the hell with the rest of the world. I can't get over this. This was totally unnecessary and the blood of 4000+ soldiers is on Bush and his cronies' hands.
Sweetie, you speak for millions of folks in this country......Vietnam war revisited? only if you count the anit war sentiment that has so logically taken over the nation .....voiced the spirit of what is wrong vs what is right.
I have to tell you this, Lanygirl...If I had lived during the era of WW2, I would have rallied so hard and fast for that war! This Bush battle is not right. Perhaps the idea of freedom and democracy is good as idealism, but the way in which it was calculated has never added up nor will it equal equality for Iraqi in the end. Terrorism was side barred.
I have a feeling the troops are coming home to roost. Oooo what an illogical world in which we live. Logic dictated that we tackle the enemy after 9-11.
He's still at large.
-
I can't reply to you in this way, BT. This has not been your thread war.
That's fine. Anyone else up to the task?
-
Read up on what really happed under Pres. Bush when applying his almighty expertise on the world in order to save us all from terrorism, Sirs...
I have, and despite the DNC spin, remains largely based in reality
A) No one promised/pledged "saving us all from terrorism" Such an impossible pledge doesn't do you any justice proporting it as if there were one
B) Saddam had 12+years...YEARS to come into compliance with UN resolitions, that last one being 1441. Did I mention YEARS?
C) 911
D) Intel concluded it was a "slam dunk" as to the WMD dispostion of Saddam. Intel also concluded Saddam had ties, both directly and indirectly with Islamic Terrorists
E) With what Bush was privvy to, intel wise, and echoed by nearly every other nation's leader and their own intel services, not to mention the prior administration, Bush acted precisly as he should have as CnC, following the events of 911
Did the intel get it wrong on the WMD?, obviously they did. Hindsight is 20-20 Cynthia, but since there is NO EVIDENCE of Bush manipulating or cherry picking the intel to see only what he wanted to see, Bush acted accordingly, in his Constitutional mandate to protect this country. Investigation after investigation after investigation has made that determination regarding Bush and the intel, an no manner of pulling up liberal op-eds or disgruntled fomer employees is going to change that FACT
Supporting the war on terror is one thing. Supporting BUsh just because you are a conservative is stupid.
*whew*....good thing that's not why I'm supportive of him. I'm supportive of him because HE DID THE RIGHT THING, WITH WHAT HE AND A VAST MAJORITY OF OTHERS BELIEVED THEY KNEW
-
;D
-
Read up on what really happed under Pres. Bush when applying his almighty expertise on the world in order to save us all from terrorism, Sirs...
I have, and despite the DNC spin, remains largely based in reality
A) No one promised/pledged "saving us all from terrorism" Such an impossible pledge doesn't do you any justice proporting it as if there were one
B) Saddam had 12+years...YEARS to come into compliance with UN resolitions, that last one being 1441. Did I mention YEARS?
C) 911
D) Intel concluded it was a "slam dunk" as to the WMD dispostion of Saddam. Intel also concluded Saddam had ties, both directly and indirectly with Islamic Terrorists
E) With what Bush was privvy to, intel wise, and echoed by nearly every other nation's leader and their own intel services, not to mention the prior administration, Bush acted precisly as he should have as CnC, following the events of 911
Did the intel get it wrong on the WMD?, obviously they did. Hindsight is 20-20 Cynthia, but since there is NO EVIDENCE of Bush manipulating or cherry picking the intel to see only what he wanted to see, Bush acted accordingly, in his Constitutional mandate to protect this country. Investigation after investigation after investigation has made that determination regarding Bush and the intel, an no manner of pulling up liberal op-eds or disgruntled fomer employees is going to change that FACT
Supporting the war on terror is one thing. Supporting BUsh just because you are a conservative is stupid.
*whew*....good thing that's not why I'm supportive of him. I'm supportive of him because HE DID THE RIGHT THING, WITH WHAT HE AND A VAST MAJORITY OF OTHERS BELIEVED THEY KNEW
Read the article again and get back to me, Sirs.
-
*whew*....good thing that's not why I'm supportive of him. I'm supportive of him because HE DID THE RIGHT THING, WITH WHAT HE AND A VAST MAJORITY OF OTHERS BELIEVED THEY KNEW
You're a gas..... Whew!!??
I am just glad that I am not in your camp right now, Sirs. You are so wrong.
Here's a WHEW for ya. Your own words.
Did the intel get it wrong on the WMD?, obviously they did.
-
Read the article again and get back to me, Sirs.
I did.....still doesn't trump reality or the A-E facts of the matter, already presented to you. Should I now echo your post?...Not agreeing with the war on terror is one thing. Ignoring facts just because you hate Bush, is stupid
*whew*....good thing that's not why I'm supportive of him. I'm supportive of him because HE DID THE RIGHT THING, WITH WHAT HE AND A VAST MAJORITY OF OTHERS BELIEVED THEY KNEW
You're a gas..... Whew!!?? I am just glad that I am not in your camp right now, Sirs. You are so wrong.
Your egregiously flawed and biased opinion, is duely noted
Here's a WHEW for ya. Your own words.
Did the intel get it wrong on the WMD?, obviously they did.
Yea....................and??? Bush didn't get it wrong. His decisons were based on what he was told by the intel....hell what the wrold was being told, by pretty much every other intelligence gathering apparatus, such as the UN and NIE. A President, makes such decisions not by picking out of some bowl, it's based on what he's being told by all the other aspects of the intelligence & fact gathering community, be it the CIA, FBI, NIE, etc. Yes, THEY were wrong.
-
Read the article again and get back to me, Sirs.
I did.....still doesn't trump reality or the A-E facts of the matter, already presented to you. Should I now echo your post?...Not agreeing with the war on terror is one thing. Ignoring facts just because you hate Bush, is stupid
*whew*....good thing that's not why I'm supportive of him. I'm supportive of him because HE DID THE RIGHT THING, WITH WHAT HE AND A VAST MAJORITY OF OTHERS BELIEVED THEY KNEW
You're a gas..... Whew!!?? I am just glad that I am not in your camp right now, Sirs. You are so wrong.
Your egregiously flawed and biased opinion, is duely noted
Here's a WHEW for ya. Your own words.
Did the intel get it wrong on the WMD?, obviously they did.
Yea....................and??? Bush didn't get it wrong. His decisons were based on what he was told by the intel....hell what the wrold was being told, by pretty much every other intelligence gathering apparatus, such as the UN and NIE. A President, makes such decisions not by picking out of some bowl, it's based on what he's being told by all the other aspects of the intelligence & fact gathering community, be it the CIA, FBI, NIE, etc. Yes, THEY were wrong.
Bush got it wrong....bottom line and you even said it in our own thread, Sirs.
Stop spinning.
-
'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17
Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."
Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.
But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.
And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.
For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html
-
'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html
If only rabid Bush bashers were to ever inject just a few cc's of objectivity. Thanks for the article, Bt Good read
-
Lanya's article was a better read, fellas.
You will find yourself to be very wrong on this issue....very wrong.
Bush is not the Reagan of our past.
You both know it.
This war was ill advised and not worth the call.
-
Lanya's article was a better read, fellas.
You will find yourself to be very wrong on this issue....very wrong.
Bush is not the Reagan of our past.
You both know it.
This war was ill advised and not worth the call.
You speak with such certainty.
Who said Bush was Reagan II?
-
You don't speak with any hope, BT...Reagan was our last good Rep. PRez.
Bush has ruined the entire party imo.
His war was a mistake.
It's fairly obvious, dear.
-
Poor Fred Hiatt. His salary depends on his not understanding the facts about all this, so I cut him some slack.
Plane:"If not us then who?
Who and what is prepared to be the worlds policeman?'"
Who has money for gas for the squad car? Who has bread? How's our national grain storage, is it full? Who has tires? Who has material to make tires?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/08oil.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1212927508-Iqow4Mtu5vtV
We may be the land of plenty, but it isn't unending plenty. There is plenty to do right here at home, plenty to invent, restore, etc. Maybe next century we can be the World's Policeman again.
-
After the election, we will have a rash of Juniorbushies following Scott McClellen publishing tell-all books elaborating how, who and when Juniorbush and Cheney cherry picked the intelligence and mongered an unnecessary war.
If the Europeans and the rest of gthe world had actually BELIEVED gthe crap Powell and others were spewing, they would have sent troops and donated money, as in the first Gulf War. But they didn't. They gave lip service to this crap, but they did not follow it with actions, other than the "New Europe" countries, which were bribed.
Face it slurs, Juniorbush knowingly mongered a war deceitfully. He should be thrown in jail along with Cheney, Rummy and the rest of his lying crew.
You were deceived and too damn stupid to realize it. You have been had. Be a man and admit it.
-
Poor Fred Hiatt. His salary depends on his not understanding the facts about all this, so I cut him some slack.
How very generous of you. Did you know the Washington Post pays the authorof your article also?
They must run a brothel there.
-
After the election, we will have a rash of Juniorbushies following Scott McClellen publishing tell-all books elaborating how, who and when Juniorbush and Cheney cherry picked the intelligence and mongered an unnecessary war. If the Europeans and the rest of gthe world had actually BELIEVED gthe crap Powell and others were spewing, they would have sent troops and donated money, as in the first Gulf War. But they didn't. They gave lip service to this crap, but they did not follow it with actions, other than the "New Europe" countries, which were bribed.
And we thank you for your purely speculative & unsubstantiated opinion on this Xo. Didn't manage to refute any of the FACTS to the contrary presented, but your Bush bashing efforts are appreciated
-
You have not proved diddly, either.
The war was a mistake, and mongered improperly, and now a lot of people much better than Juniorbush and Cheney are dead and ruined for life.
-
You have not proved diddly, either.
Actually I did. Points A-E were all FACTS, though I admit that E is more of a conclusion based on A-D
The war was a mistake, and mongered improperly, and now a lot of people much better than Juniorbush and Cheney are dead and ruined for life.
And that is the difference between the facts I layed out, and your OPINION of what a mistake it supposedly was. And here's a news flash, there were "a lot of people much better than you or I, who were killed & ruined for life" during WWII
-
Poor Fred Hiatt. His salary depends on his not understanding the facts about all this, so I cut him some slack.
Plane:"If not us then who?
Who and what is prepared to be the worlds policeman?'"
Who has money for gas for the squad car? Who has bread? How's our national grain storage, is it full? Who has tires? Who has material to make tires?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/08oil.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1212927508-Iqow4Mtu5vtV
We may be the land of plenty, but it isn't unending plenty. There is plenty to do right here at home, plenty to invent, restore, etc. Maybe next century we can be the World's Policeman again.
Companies that make hard goods using raw materials derived from oil, like tires, toiletries, plastic packaging and computer screens, are watching their costs skyrocket, and they find themselves forced into unpleasant choices: Should they raise prices, shift to less costly procedures, cut workers, or all three?
One lemon is now 75 cents!
One bag of lemons at Cosco is now 8 bucks!
It may be too make lemonaide out of this fiasco.
-
One lemon is now 75 cents!
One bag of lemons at Cosco is now 8 bucks!
It may be too make lemonaide out of this fiasco.
And this is related to the war, how?
-
You have not proved diddly, either.
Actually I did. Points A-E were all FACTS, though I admit that E is more of a conclusion based on A-D
The war was a mistake, and mongered improperly, and now a lot of people much better than Juniorbush and Cheney are dead and ruined for life.
And that is the difference between the facts I layed out, and your OPINION of what a mistake it supposedly was. And here's a news flash, there were "a lot of people much better than you or I, who were killed & ruined for life" during WWII
Omygod, you are comparing this war to WW2??
Sirs, get real.
There is no comparison...and frankly, AFTER the war in the European/Asia theaters came to an ALTo..., returning vets were offered a hell of a lot more here at home....... The GI bill for one.
-
One lemon is now 75 cents!
One bag of lemons at Cosco is now 8 bucks!
It may be too make lemonaide out of this fiasco.
And this is related to the war, how?
The article came from Lanya's post. I am just quoting from it and making a comment.
Geezz talk about 'policing'
-
The war was a mistake, and mongered improperly, and now a lot of people much better than Juniorbush and Cheney are dead and ruined for life.
And that is the difference between the facts I layed out, and your OPINION of what a mistake it supposedly was. And here's a news flash, there were "a lot of people much better than you or I, who were killed & ruined for life" during WWII
Omygod, you are comparing this war to WW2??
Not quite. I'm comparing war to war. I'm comparing casualties to casuaties. I'm referencing deaths of american soldiers and innocent civilians to deaths of american soldiers and innocent civilian.
There is no comparison.
Of course not. Because if there was, even remotely, it'd really screw over the notion of how big a moron & incompotent Bush is supposed to be, and how terrible this war is supposed to be
Sirs, get real.
Cynthia, get objective
-
Sirs,
Prove to me that this war in Iraq is succeeding, in your own words, please.
-
Been there, done that.
- Islamic Terrorist attacks down everywhere
- Support of Homicide bombers down
- Support of AlQeada by the Suuni populace down
- no attacks on U.S. soil since 911 (which is truely a shocker to me)
- MOST importantly (since it was never remotely possible to hunt down and kill every terrorist), the Muslim community is looking less and less supportive of militant Islam and its actions, even when aimed at the evil great satan, the U.S. THAT's where the war will be won. NOT by sheer military force, but by changing the hearts and minds of the Muslim comminity, as it relates to those who have hijacked their religion, mutated it, and in the name of Allah, kill anyone who's not converted or subjgated by Islam
Doesnt' equate to some raging success, far from it, so don't try pulling up all the negatives that have occured, and the attacks that still occur, and the deaths that still occur. Point being that the surge is working, and the over all effect the war on Terror and in Iraq has had, is starting to pay huge dividends for the rest of the world
-
Doesn't prove a thing. Now google facts and numbers, please.
-
Prove a negative, huh? You don't want to believe it, fine. No skin off my nose, especially since you obviously have no intention of being objective or recognizing current reality. By all means, continue with the Blinded Bush bashing
-
Prove a negative, huh? You don't want to believe it, fine. No skin off my nose, especially since you obviously have no intention of being objective or recognizing current reality. By all means, continue with the Blinded Bush bashing
I didn't think you could do it.
Prove that this war is working...give us numbers, data and facts, please.
Or you could bring BT in to help.
-
I am just quoting from it and making a comment.
Geezz talk about 'policing'
I see neither policing nor muscle flexing in that request. Both charges you have made recently, without substantiating them, i might add.
If you don't have an answer just say so.
-
I am just quoting from it and making a comment.
Geezz talk about 'policing'
I see neither policing nor muscle flexing in that request. Both charges you have made recently, without substantiating them, i might add.
If you don't have an answer just say so.
Read the post before you come in with a flippant response- BT.
Tell Bush to "Just say NO!"
::)
-
If you showed a link between high oil prices and the war in Iraq i didn't see it. Might as well blame China and India for the lemons. The increased demands have a lot to do with spot oil pricing. So does speculation.
BTW a flippant post from me would look like something like this:
"Might as well just post teehee as your answer."
That might also qualify as patronizing. Doubt it is muscle flexing or policing.
-
There is no comparison...and frankly, AFTER the war in the European/Asia theaters came to an ALTo..., returning vets were offered a hell of a lot more here at home....... The GI bill for one.
Last time I checked, the GI Bill and various other benefits for returning soldiers was still in force.
-
"And this is related to the war, how?"
Instead of replying on the article, and to the point that I made about the article that Lanya posted, you flexed this remark. hmmm, not policing...ok well ..not quite, but flippant and task manager....yes.
Just read the post, reply, and be done with it.....no need to monitor, BT. If the post I made had had nothing to do with the war, so be it. You tend to reply with a sort of flexing hall monitor attitude.
Continue on with the discussion, please. 8)
-
There is no comparison...and frankly, AFTER the war in the European/Asia theaters came to an ALTo..., returning vets were offered a hell of a lot more here at home....... The GI bill for one.
Last time I checked, the GI Bill and various other benefits for returning soldiers was still in force.
Not according to some who are running for office in my state. I just saw a political bite charging the opposite.
-
If you showed a link between high oil prices and the war in Iraq i didn't see it. Might as well blame China and India for the lemons. The increased demands have a lot to do with spot oil pricing. So does speculation.
BTW a flippant post from me would look like something like this:
"Might as well just post teehee as your answer."
That might also qualify as patronizing. Doubt it is muscle flexing or policing.
Teehhee
-
Not according to some who are running for office in my state. I just saw a political bite charging the opposite.
I'll need more than a "political bite" to change my mind. I've seen the budget figures showing money being spent on those benefits. I've talked to soldiers who are receiving those benefits.
Politicians lie. Always have, always will.
-
Not according to some who are running for office in my state. I just saw a political bite charging the opposite.
I'll need more than a "political bite" to change my mind. I've seen the budget figures showing money being spent on those benefits. I've talked to soldiers who are receiving those benefits.
Politicians lie. Always have, always will.
http://www.tomudall.com/index.php?src=hhdisp
It apparently could be better, Ami.
-
http://georgemiller.house.gov/gibill.html
apparently THe GI BILL could use some serious Udall OverHauls.
"On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind."
-
Just read the post, reply, and be done with it.
And I'm the taskmaster?
-
It apparently could be better, Ami.
OK, so this politician thinks the benefits could be better. He's welcome to his opinion.
Still haven't shown how the benefits are any less than they were at the end of WWII. Matter of fact, they're better now than they were then.
-
Last time I checked, the GI Bill and various other benefits for returning soldiers was still in force.\
=========================
Yes and not really.\
Returning soldiers CAN get money to go to college, but they cannot get all the money they need to cover room, board and tuition to most colleges. They can live at home with the 'rents and attend community college. But the GI's after WWII could go to Harvard and the GI Bill covered everything.
-
Prove a negative, huh? You don't want to believe it, fine. No skin off my nose, especially since you obviously have no intention of being objective or recognizing current reality. By all means, continue with the Blinded Bush bashing
I didn't think you could do it.
Prove that this war is working...give us numbers, data and facts, please.
Or you could bring BT in to help.
A whole lot depends on a realistic definition of "success" Iraq is on a good trend right now , the violent elements have suffered violence and the government has grown stronger. I am very hopefull we can leave there and leave a functioning democracy there.
But only part of that is in our controll, we can make the formation of democracy possible but it is the people who live there who must make it operate elese we have a puppet and not a democracy . Even a peacefull and prosperous puppet is a failure in our stated goals . A poor and strifefull democracy is more like a success to me.
"I want to say a word to our troops and civilians in Iraq. You've performed with incredible skill under demanding circumstances. The turnaround you have made possible in Iraq is a brilliant achievement in American history. And while this war is difficult, it is not endless. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success. The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States. The day will come when Iraq is a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East. And when that day arrives, you'll come home with pride in your success, and the gratitude of your whole nation."
President George W. Bush
April 10, 2008
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/58861.htm
In The Past 12 Months, Iraq Has Undergone A Political Transformation That Is Virtually Without Precedent. Iraqis have completed three successful nationwide elections, voted for a transitional government, drafted the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, approved that constitution, and elected a new government under their new constitution. Each successive election has seen less violence, bigger turnout, and broader participation than the one before.
The Process Of Forming A New National Government Will Take Time And Patience. When the final election results come in, Iraqi leaders will begin working to form a new government. In the weeks ahead, Americans will likely see political turmoil in Iraq - as different factions and leaders compete for position and jockey for power. Yet out of this debate will emerge a free government that represents the will of the Iraqi people.
Iraqis Have Shown They Can Come Together For The Sake Of National Unity. After the January 2005 elections, Shia and Kurdish leaders who did well at the polls reached out to Sunni Arabs who failed to participate. Now Iraqis must reach out once again across political, religious, and sectarian lines and form a government of national unity. In the December 2005 elections, Sunnis turned out in large numbers. Sunnis who abandoned violence to join the political process must learn to use their influence to benefit their community and the country at large. Shia and Kurds need to understand that successful free societies protect minority rights. The success of Iraqi democracy will come when political divisions are driven not by sectarian rivalries but by ideas, convictions, and a common vision for the future.
http://www.meforum.org/article/1921
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an intergovernmental organization representing the majority of Muslim states, provides a useful pool to study. Only 48 of the 57 states that comprise the OIC and which account for 1.1 billion out of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, however, provide the data necessary to calculate the status of democracy; the other nine simply do not collect sufficient data.[4] These span several regions, including 18 states in the Middle East and North Africa; 15 in sub-Saharan Africa; 11 in Asia beyond the Middle East; 2 in southeastern Europe; and 2 in South America. They have an average per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of $5,746; an average, official unemployment rate of 15.44 percent (for countries with unemployment data); and a military expenditure as percentage of GDP of 4.93 percent (see Table 1).
The Status of Democracy Index (SDI) measures each country's progress toward democratic governance through multiple variables. First, it measures governance through four variables: how heads of state and members of the legislature are selected; political party development; suffrage; and the maturity of civil liberties. Second, it incorporates the annual Freedom House survey to quantify media freedom.[5] Third, it uses U.S. State Department reports to measure religious liberty.[6] The fourth variable incorporates ratings of human rights from the State Department and prominent nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.[7] Fifth, it uses the United Nations Development Program's index to provide a measurement of human development.[8] And lastly, the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom quantifies economic freedom.[9]
The Status of Democracy Index rates each of these nine variables on a three-point scale: 0 (nonexistent), 1 (emerging), or 2 (fully present). Some of the variables, such as media freedom, religious liberty, and respect for human rights, are easy to quantify, whereas measuring human development is more subjective. Economic freedom can be scored on the level of governmental interference in the economy: 0 (strong), 1 (moderate), and 2 (low). It is then possible to convert the totals to a percentage for ease of digestion.[10]
..................
As the Status of Democracy Index shows, democracy in the Middle East and North Africa is the exception rather than the rule. Lebanon and Turkey, each with a 61 percent score, rank the highest. Only Algeria (52.7 percent) and Egypt (50 percent) score in the upper two quadrants. In descending order, the rest of the Middle East and North African countries are: Jordan (47.2 percent), Tunisia (47.2 percent), Yemen (47.2 percent), Kuwait (44.4 percent), Morocco (44.4 percent), Syria (36 percent), Qatar (33.3 percent), Bahrain (30.5 percent), Libya (27.7 percent), Oman (27.7 percent), Sudan (27.7 percent), United Arab Emirates (27.7 percent), Iran (25 percent), and Saudi Arabia (13.8 percent).
Correlation analysis indicates:
The greater percentage of Muslims a country had relative to its overall population, the lower its SDI score tended to be.[11]
The higher a country's GDP per capita, the lower its SDI score.[12]
The greater percentage of a country's GDP that is devoted to military expenditures, the lower its SDI score.[13]
Because GDP and military expenditure percentages are positively correlated with each other,[14] a linear regression examined which of the two was a stronger predictor of SDI. The regression suggests that military expenditure percentage is most strongly related to the country's SDI after considering its GDP, not the reverse. The greater a country's military expenditure percentage, the lower its SDI.
The greater the percentage of Muslims within a country, the higher the percentage of the GDP that is devoted to its military expenditures.[15]
....................
".......at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, have urged caution when promoting democracy in Iran. They argue that such U.S. pressure generates paranoia in the leadership, provides an excuse for political and cultural repression, and encourages the subversion of the indigenous reform movement.."
..........................
Democratization is a generational initiative that must consider internal and external dynamics. There is, obviously, no magic formula. There are many Muslim communities, each with its own unique approaches?some entirely rejectionist, unfortunately?to nation-building and democracy. What Muslim leaders and peoples who wish to improve the democratic character of their societies can do for themselves is determine how best to improve their democratic practices and institutions and make them more attractive to those people and groups who are less inclined to support democratic transformation. What non-Muslim leaders and peoples can do is encourage and support Muslims as they speak out for equality, good governance, pluralism, and tolerance...."
-
OK, so this politician thinks the benefits could be better. He's welcome to his opinion.
No, he's welcome to run for office and promise something better than we used to have once upon a time.
OPINION?
Not that's funny, Ami.
You stated that politicians lie. You never produced this new Bill. That leads me to believe that you had never heard of said Bill until it was posted. You can argue, but you apparently have little to stand on this time around.
Still haven't shown how the benefits are any less than they were at the end of WWII. Matter of fact, they're better now than they were then.
If you read the Bill, there is plenty "less" than should be..... why don't YOU prove to me that this Bill is asking for too much.
-
Last time I checked, the GI Bill and various other benefits for returning soldiers was still in force.\
=========================
Yes and not really.\
Returnung soldiers CAN get money to go to college, but they cannot get all the money they need to cover room, board and tuition to most colleges. They can live at home with the 'rents and attend community college. But the GI's after WWII could go to Harvard and the GI Bill covered everything.
Please share more, XO. Ami isn't going to concede on this one anytime soon.
-
Just read the post, reply, and be done with it.
And I'm the taskmaster?
You are the maker and shaker of this board!...that makes you a Master, but not an agent who has the right to be condescending and stir the pot in order to "flex" your leadership muscle, Bill.
Come on....You are very much a task monitor.....Why can't you just discuss issues with the rest of us "newbies" lesser than thou folks instead of trying to stir up protocal whenever Sirs runs out of gas?
Bring BT to the debate----don't make a person feel as though they are less than capable as a method of intimidation.
You are just as human, intelligent and capable as any of us. You seem to be afraid to show your vulnerable side.
My opinion.
No, you are a good gent. I admire you BT. I do, why? Because I have down right LOVED posting, learning et al in this saloon for as long as I have vacationed here. But, I am not going to let you flip me over when I am not done.
I'm callin' it when I see it'.
I have always been honest ----unafraid to admit that I am wrong.
I have yet*** to see any of you men do the same.
Flexing somethin' that's for certain.
-
Last time I checked, the GI Bill and various other benefits for returning soldiers was still in force.\
=========================
Yes and not really.\
Returnung soldiers CAN get money to go to college, but they cannot get all the money they need to cover room, board and tuition to most colleges. They can live at home with the 'rents and attend community college. But the GI's after WWII could go to Harvard and the GI Bill covered everything.
One significant difference between the 1944 G.I. Bill and the 1952 Act was that tuition was no longer paid directly to the chosen institution of higher education. Instead, veterans received a fixed monthly sum of $110 from which they had to pay for their tuition, fees, books, and living expenses. The decision to abort direct tuition payments to schools came after a 1950 House select committee uncovered incidents of overcharging of tuition rates by some institutions under the original G.I. Bill in an attempt to defraud the government.
Current recipients of the Montgomery GI Bill get 1100 a month for up to 36 months as a return on their 1200 investment. They can buy up to 5400 in benefits for 600 any time during active enlistment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servicemen's_Readjustment_Act_(USA)
-
If you read the Bill, there is plenty "less" than should be..... why don't YOU prove to me that this Bill is asking for too much.
The bill itself claims that it seeks to IMPROVE the current benefits. Therefore, the benefits must already exist (you can't improve something that doesn't exist). You're the one that made a claim that WWII veterans returned to benefits, therefore implying that current veterans are returning to none. When I pointed out that that the benefits still exist, you claimed they did not ("Not according to some who are running for office in my state. I just saw a political bite charging the opposite.").
Like I said, the benefits exist, contrary to your intimation. You can make the claim that they should or could be improved, but that's only an opinion. I think they're pretty good already. That's my opinion. I don't have to "prove" an opinion. It's up to the person claiming that a change is needed to provide proof that the change is, indeed, necessary.
The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".
-
The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".
I do believe that's the Obama platform
-
If you read the Bill, there is plenty "less" than should be..... why don't YOU prove to me that this Bill is asking for too much.
The bill itself claims that it seeks to IMPROVE the current benefits. Therefore, the benefits must already exist (you can't improve something that doesn't exist). You're the one that made a claim that WWII veterans returned to benefits, therefore implying that current veterans are returning to none. When I pointed out that that the benefits still exist, you claimed they did not ("Not according to some who are running for office in my state. I just saw a political bite charging the opposite.").
Like I said, the benefits exist, contrary to your intimation. You can make the claim that they should or could be improved, but that's only an opinion. I think they're pretty good already. That's my opinion. I don't have to "prove" an opinion. It's up to the person claiming that a change is needed to provide proof that the change is, indeed, necessary.
The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".
Like I said, (having not spelled it all out in detail -as that was not the purpose of my post at that moment in time to sirs)was that currenly, the SAME GI Bill still does NOT exist (in terms of what is offered to the vets today compared to the vets of WW2.)
I would venture to say, prior to googling this topic, that the Vets of today do not receive the same benefits in many ways
-
The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".
I do believe that's the Obama platform
No, more like change for God's Sake!
Americans are fighting a war that isn't popular, Americans need better health care, the NCLB need a major overhaul.....How is this administration NOT over due for a MAJOR CHANGE, Sirs?
-
The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".
I do believe that's the Obama platform
No, more like change for God's Sake!
Americans are fighting a war that isn't popular, Americans need better health care, the NCLB need a major overhaul.....How is this administration NOT over due for a MAJOR CHANGE, Sirs?
Change whether we hava an idea what we are doing or not?
-
I would venture to say, prior to googling this topic, that the Vets of today do not receive the same benefits in many ways
According to BT's post, the tuition reimbursement is over 10 times what was reimbursed after WWII.
Perhaps you'd like to show what benefits are less today than vets received after WWII?
-
I would venture to say, prior to googling this topic, that the Vets of today do not receive the same benefits in many ways
According to BT's post, the tuition reimbursement is over 10 times what was reimbursed after WWII.
Perhaps you'd like to show what benefits are less today than vets received after WWII?
Udall has already done that.....read his webpage.
Here's one for the case of NM vets in terms of healthcare.
http://www.tomudall.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=89
-
http://www.tomudall.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=499
Here's another....
WASHINGTON - U.S. Representative Tom Udall, D-N.M., has joined with other House Republicans and Democrats to introduce the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, legislation to offer 1.7 million troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan educational benefits on par with those provided to veterans of the World War II era.[/b]
-
http://georgemiller.house.gov/gibill.html
The Bill
-
Udall has already done that.....read his webpage.
Again, a politician making an unsubstantiated claim is worth pretty much nothing in my book.
Since you've already read his website, perhaps you'd like to provide the facts and figures?
-
Udall has already done that.....read his webpage.
Again, a politician making an unsubstantiated claim is worth pretty much nothing in my book.
Since you've already read his website, perhaps you'd like to provide the facts and figures?
The Bill is on the table. I read it. Did you?
-
The Bill is on the table. I read it. Did you?
The bill claims to make a number of improvements to the benefits paid to soldiers. Fine and dandy.
I saw nothing in there that supported a claim (the claim was made, but it was unsupported, ie, no evidence was presented to substantiate it) that the benefits veteran get now are less than those given to WWII vets.
I am asking you to provide said evidence for your claim. You made it, you post the evidence. Again, it's not my job to find your evidence for you. You are supporting a change in policy, you should show why it's needed.
-
The Bill is on the table. I read it. Did you?
The bill claims to make a number of improvements to the benefits paid to soldiers. Fine and dandy.
I saw nothing in there that supported a claim (the claim was made, but it was unsupported, ie, no evidence was presented to substantiate it) that the benefits veteran get now are less than those given to WWII vets.
I am asking you to provide said evidence for your claim. You made it, you post the evidence. Again, it's not my job to find your evidence for you. You are supporting a change in policy, you should show why it's needed.
Ami,
This is almost laughable. YOUR original challenge to me was to show the Bill was or was not in existence. It needs improvements apparently. I am not privy to the facts that were MORE THAN LIKELY brought up once upon a time-----thus the NEED FOR CHANGE!!!
Why don't you look up the numbers (directly from the gov. not Wiki....) and prove otherwise. Prove to me and all the Veterans that things ARE EXACTLY THE WAY THEY USED TO BE FOR ALL VETS post 9-11 in all areas of compensation.
My point is that the vets of today do not receive the same benefits as the vets of WW2.
Why don't you email Mr. Miller for your need for numbers. He will be happy to provide them for you, I am sure.
George.Miller@mail.house.gov
-
Making health care accessible and affordable for our Veterans
Currently, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting for more than six months for veterans? health care, and that problem will only get worse with the growing numbers of returning soldiers. Regrettably, the President?s budget provides only $106 million more than last year (excluding new fees), and provides $18 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at current levels over the next five year. Because of this cut, the number of medical personnel, mostly nurses, serving our veterans would drop by 3,000, and there would be a severe cut in long-term care for our veterans. Democrats would provide an additional $3.2 billion to meet the demand for current services and medical inflation this year, and will work to ensure that the VA is adequately funded over the next 10 years to ease the waiting periods
http://georgemiller.house.gov/gibill.html#1
-
YOUR original challenge to me was to show the Bill was or was not in existence.
My original challenge to you was to show that veterans do not receive the same benefits as those returning from WWII. I'm sure a bill or ten are presented in every session of congress to change veteran's benefits, I would not have doubted that at all.
My point is that the vets of today do not receive the same benefits as the vets of WW2.
And I would like to see the evidence for this claim. This was my original "challenge".
Just for the record, a claim made by a politician or political pundit without backup statistics does not constitute evidence.
-
Currently, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting for more than six months for veterans? health care,
What treatments are they waiting for? BT posted not that long ago about his experiences with VA. I have other friends that also deal with the VA on a regular basis. The only people I have heard that need to wait are those waiting for optional treatments or treatments for non life threatening conditions. Which has always been the case with health care - there is even a term for it, triage.
Regrettably, the President?s budget provides only $106 million more than last year (excluding new fees), and provides $18 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at current levels over the next five year.
Nice to know what Bush proposed. Of course, that doesn't tell us what was actually allocated by the House, does it? Perhaps you can supply those figures, since they are the ones that actually matter in this debate.
-
Ami,
Well, I can only counter by saying that BT and his clip from Wiki do not win a debate in terms of the bigger picture in this new discussion" that you have demanded here.
There is clearly a difference in what was offered the WW2 and what is offered to vet today...(if you've read the Bill that in question....21st Cent.) I would take the word of a congressman over a word from BT, ;)
My gosh, Tom Udall didn't make this Bill to fit the needs of a few of HIS FRIENDS, Ami. He didn't google Wiki to find out stats for such a Bill. He and those who are calling for such a change are professional politicians! I am going to trust their judgement and "numbers" before Bt's -------with all due respect, BT.
Ok so you demand #'s. I want numbers from you from a dot gov site which proves otherwise.
-
YOUR original challenge to me was to show the Bill was or was not in existence.
My original challenge to you was to show that veterans do not receive the same benefits as those returning from WWII. I'm sure a bill or ten are presented in every session of congress to change veteran's benefits, I would not have doubted that at all.
My point is that the vets of today do not receive the same benefits as the vets of WW2.
And I would like to see the evidence for this claim. This was my original "challenge".
Just for the record, a claim made by a politician or political pundit without backup statistics does not constitute evidence.
I'm sure a bill or ten are presented in every session of congress to change veteran's benefits, I would not have doubted that at all.
Well, then you should be SURE that the congressmen know more than you or BT put together...now don't they?
Come on, Ami.
I presented the email of Sr. Miller. IF you want to prove the numbers are wrong.....go for it.
It never was my point for your counterpoint to begin with.
I know you are a fact findin' sorta guy....but I have yet, once again, seen you find facts to prove YOUR STANCE.
-
Currently, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting for more than six months for veterans? health care,
What treatments are they waiting for? BT posted not that long ago about his experiences with VA. I have other friends that also deal with the VA on a regular basis. The only people I have heard that need to wait are those waiting for optional treatments or treatments for non life threatening conditions. Which has always been the case with health care - there is even a term for it, triage.
Regrettably, the President?s budget provides only $106 million more than last year (excluding new fees), and provides $18 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at current levels over the next five year.
Nice to know what Bush proposed. Of course, that doesn't tell us what was actually allocated by the House, does it? Perhaps you can supply those figures, since they are the ones that actually matter in this debate.
"Perhaps you can supply those figures, since they are the ones that actually matter in this debate."
If you feel so strongly that figures are so crucial to the DEBATE YOU HAVE suddenly called for here, then YOU show me the numbers, please.
This was never my issue....#'s that is. #'s was introduced by none other than YOU, dear Ami.
AND, I might add.....the original statement made by Sirs was subjective, as are most of our comments. You have a way of stretching the issue to prove your "point" calling on numbers. Hmmm, I will have to take notice next time Sirs makes a subjective statement. WHERE ARE THE NUMEROS?? ;)
-
This is what i know.
I had a neighbor who was a viet nam vet. He was a purple heart recipient. A straight through bullet wound to the shoulder. No disability. The last time he had been to the VA was in the early 70's.
He knew i was being treated at the VA and wanted to know what hassles he could expect if he went in to have some pains checked out. He thought he had a muscle pull.
I told him to go to desk one and make sure he was still in the system. He was. They directed him to the emergency room. He was put to the front of the line because he had a purple heart. He was triaged and admitted the same day for tests. Turns out he had lung and bone cancer, possibly from exposure to agent orange. He was being treated within hours of his arrival. Once his diagnosis was confirmed he was on 100% disability within 30 days. VFW paved the paperwork way on that. They have an office at the VA campus.
He was in the hospital for three days while they were doing the battery of tests and removing fluid from his lungs.
When he came home the first thing he did was thank me for convincing him to go. The second thing he did was remark on how professional the staff at the VA was and how genuinely concerned they were for his welfare. He was extremely impressed with how organized they were. He had his doctors card with work and home phone numbers. He had a hotline to the nursing staff. This is a guy who had little use for govt and was vocal about it. He said it's about time they got something right. Then he thanked me again.
He passed away last October and he as well as I were convinced that the VA made his journey as comfortable as possible.
One of the side issues to this debate is why the VA changed the WWII formula in the first place. Seems colleges and universities were price gouging because of the influx of GI Bill recipients. Same pattern happened in GA when the Hope Scholarships came out. Seems the real investigative work needs to be aimed at these institutions instead of denigrating the hard working staff of the VA, whilst trying to enhance ones own political career.
-
If you feel so strongly that figures are so crucial to the DEBATE YOU HAVE suddenly called for here, then YOU show me the numbers, please.
This was never my issue....#'s that is. #'s was introduced by none other than YOU, dear Ami.
and strangely it was you demanding "#'s", in the manifestation I guess, of some conclusive report(s) to back up how much better the war has gotten, how many less lives have been lost in comparison to when the war started. OBJECTIVE Articles referencing such aren't enough, you claimed you needed concrete proof that the war in Iraq has gotten better.
Which leads to another amazing irony...when the war was not going so well, it was 24/7 headline news. Now that things have taken such a postive turn, you can't buy an article reporting such news. Now it takes a back seat to what's negative now, gasoline prices
-
If you feel so strongly that figures are so crucial to the DEBATE YOU HAVE suddenly called for here, then YOU show me the numbers, please.
This was never my issue....#'s that is. #'s was introduced by none other than YOU, dear Ami.
and strangely it was you demanding "#'s", in the manifestation I guess, of some conclusive report(s) to back up how much better the war has gotten, how many less lives have been lost in comparison to when the war started. OBJECTIVE Articles referencing such aren't enough, you claimed you needed concrete proof that the war in Iraq has gotten better.
Which leads to another amazing irony...when the war was not going so well, it was 24/7 headline news. Now that things have taken such a postive turn, you can't buy an article reporting such news. Now it takes a back seat to what's negative now, gasoline prices
LOL. I never demanded any numbers, Sirs.
I was commenting on your comment about how WW2 vets had is so good.
-
I joined the Navy in 78 , I missed the "old GI bill " by one year .
What I got was still good benefits , but much less than my comrades who joined in 77 .
My educational benifit ,for example, was a savings plan that would tripple my money if spent on education , the old bill did not require any investment.
-
LOL. I never demanded any numbers, Sirs. I was commenting on your comment about how WW2 vets had is so good.
Sirs, Prove to me that this war in Iraq is succeeding, in your own words, please.
by sirs
- Islamic Terrorist attacks down everywhere
- Support of Homicide bombers down
- Support of AlQeada by the Suuni populace down
- no attacks on U.S. soil since 911 (which is truely a shocker to me)
- MOST importantly (since it was never remotely possible to hunt down and kill every terrorist), the Muslim community is looking less and less supportive of militant Islam and its actions, even when aimed at the evil great satan, the U.S. THAT's where the war will be won. NOT by sheer military force, but by changing the hearts and minds of the Muslim comminity, as it relates to those who have hijacked their religion, mutated it, and in the name of Allah, kill anyone who's not converted or subjgated by Islam
Doesn't prove a thing. Now google facts and numbers, please. Prove that this war is working...give us numbers, data and facts, please. Or you could bring BT in to help.
-
My son who is currently serving is fully vested for 45k in educational benefits. In the meantime the Navy has reimbursed his expenses as he works to completion of his double major undergraduate degree.
-
Sirs!
I was responding to Ami's need for facts and numbers, read back. Ami is the # king. I was playing his own game.
He demands #'s even when a congressman asks for a better life for our vets.
I* was never the gal to ask for the original numeros.
I could email Mr. Miller..if that's what youall want. LOL
teehee.
BT, go for it...Your life, your friend's lives, your family''s experience are all American, indeed.
But, you will also have to ask the government officials why there is such a Bill called the 21st Century on the deck.
-
My son who is currently serving is fully vested for 45k in educational benefits. In the meantime the Navy has reimbursed his expenses as he works to completion of his double major undergraduate degree.
Hey, my students are getting the best education and have been for years....the system was really never broken if you account for personal real life experiences as you have provided in this thread.
My point?...we all have subjective experiences that cry out to make a point, BT. But, as you have also made points in the past with regard to NCLB act...and only a "few" numbers speak loudly... those are still not valid, as they are individual "experiences", per say.. . per point to be made.
Look at the overall picture....the GI Bill is lacking according to the numbers expalined in the link I provided, according to the congressman from my state, as is probably the case in other states, no doubt.
YOur point? You have a real life experience....but it
doesn't count for anything in this argument, BT.
I appreciate your personal story, but according to this board.....one must be quick to google numbers that appear to win point.
This is not the discussion board to discuss such points in order to enlighten or win. . quite frankly.
There are too many real life stories involved to win any point.
You have proven another point with your son's story. My point being that subjective examples do not count on the 3DHS board...not really...only quick fix google facts seem to count, and even those are questioned. Everyone knows that there's more to any story. So, I take a challenge,like the one from Ami, with a grain of salt, in that members on this board can not possibly win on such points, even if they are straight from the source. i.e. the Gov.
Sirs mentioned that the vets from WW2 suffered more or less in comparison to the Iraqi vets.
I responded with the fact that the vets of WW2 had the GI Bill, at least in their corner. . compared to today's vets.
I was challenged and asked for numbers and numbers and numbers again.
Ok....I never asked for such numbers when I replied to Sirs in the original post.
After Ami's request for such proof, I presented a congressman's request for support of a Bill that is already on the docket; the 21st Century Bill.
End of my point.
If Ami and others want to learn more, they can google the bill statement to find out more.
I find this to be a silly request as the original post to Sirs had nothing to do with numbers.
Heck, I can email Mr. Miller and find out more, but it's not worth it as I don't see anyone else here seeking such facts to the contrary through a government source, that is....(not Wiki)
-
Cynthia
You blamed Bush for your board of education's failures.
NCLB did not demand teaching to the test.
Your admin staff encouraged it to save their jobs.
That was what the NCLB thread was about.
-
Cynthia
You blamed Bush for your board of education's failures.
NCLB did not demand teaching to the test.
Your admin staff encouraged it to save their jobs.
That was what the NCLB thread was about.
Bush's NCLB act demanded change FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE, BT. Someone's point earlier today?!
The change is no different from the war on terrorism.
Send in the troops and fight the "enemy".
Our administration is being pressured to make such changes, as are the generals and military personnel in the fight against terrorism.
Buck FREAKIN STOPS AT THE DESK OF THE PRESIDENT, BT.
The thread of the NCLB was an ebb and flow based on many subjective expressions within this group of individuals.
BUT NO one really "won" that argument because that debate was flawed.
To truly "win" any debate in this organization, 3DHS will take a more indepth analysis and discussion that I have yet to witness. That's ok, because this is not that sort of "give and take" sort of place. I have noted that point before. This is a place for egos to win on point against another person.....at any cost..BUT, there is really no room for a final consensus because the posts are "sound bites".
OF course there is more to any story, and you have shown that here with your own son's experience.
Why not understand the individual's point of view based on such an experience? Heck, I would.
But, this group relies on global and universal points to end a debate.
Not valid. Not factual. >but pure 3DHS style.
So, we take all of these "exchanges" with such a grain of salt.
I would LOVE to see more research in any point made on the board...but there isn't the patience for such a tit for tat here.
I know exactly HOW THE NCLB is flawed. I see it.
YOU know exactly how the gov. is treating your son. YOU SEE IT firsthand.
But, there is SOOOOOOO MUCH more gray area to view, and we can't explore that here.
So, in the end, no one really wins a point here on the gate, unless you are a seasoned and respected leader as yourself.
Ok, that's unfair, but I wonder if there is a sort of "air" of authority about you and others here after so many years. I admire you, I do, I think you are smart, as is Ami, I do.....but there can be a bit of "good ole boys" attitude that is keeping this group from truly discussing issues with more than
PROVE IT WITH #'S ...bottom line.
But also BT said it, so it must be true, sort of attitude.
I think Pres. Bush is responsible for calling our NCLB act into place. He is the man whom we elected to run this country.
It is flawed BIG TIME, BILL. mY GOD....YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THAT.
Numbers can lie, just like Ami referenced politicians can lie.
Hmm interesting, indeed.
-
You seem to have some deep seated issues with me.
I think it best if i just respond to other posters.
-
I know you are a fact findin' sorta guy....but I have yet, once again, seen you find facts to prove YOUR STANCE.
I'm not the one proposing a change. I have no need to "find facts" to propose "no change".
And BT's post provided hard numbers. Something you have yet to provide on this subject.
-
Well, I can only counter by saying that BT and his clip from Wiki do not win a debate in terms of the bigger picture in this new discussion" that you have demanded here.
I'm talking about BT's post from a year or so ago about his experiences with the VA and his own health care treatment.
-
There is clearly a difference in what was offered the WW2 and what is offered to vet today...
Yes. The benefits provided today are BETTER than those provided in 1945.
I would take the word of a congressman over a word from BT, ;)
I wouldn't. I wouldn't trust a Congress critter further than I could throw him.
-
If you feel so strongly that figures are so crucial to the DEBATE YOU HAVE suddenly called for here, then YOU show me the numbers, please.
Again, I'm not the one claiming a change is needed.
Since you think numbers and evidence don't matter, fine. Debate is over.
And the result seems to be a change is not needed, since the person proposing the change cannot explain empirically why a change is needed.
-
Sirs mentioned that the vets from WW2 suffered more or less in comparison to the Iraqi vets.
I responded with the fact that the vets of WW2 had the GI Bill, at least in their corner. . compared to today's vets.
I was challenged and asked for numbers and numbers and numbers again.
When you mentioned that WWII had the GI Bill, I said that it still exists.
Then you countered that it did not exist, because a politician said it did not.
I said that it's still in the budget, and the government is still spending money on it.
You said that they're not spending enough.
That's when I asked for numbers - to prove that they're not "spending enough." Anybody can say they're not "spending enough" - the numbers will show if it's really "enough" or sour grapes.
After all, since the government isn't paying for 100% of my housing, food, gasoline, and health care, I can claim that they're not "spending enough" on me. But is my claim reasonable?
-
Bush's NCLB act demanded change FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE, BT. Someone's point earlier today?!
The NCLB Act demanded change to improve the reading, math, and science skills of our students. It was not change for the sake of "change", it was change to improve our school system. I can show you the statistics that show a drop in skills of high school graduates over the last 40 years or so to bolster my argument that a change was needed.
-
The fact that change was needed does not actually prove that the changes made under NCLB would result in improvements. Change can also make things worse.
The problem seems to be that NCLB has caused school administrations to teach to the test. Since the tests given are mostly multiple choice questions, and multiple choice questions are an imprecise way of measuring knowledge, this could result in a better ability to take ABC tests and a lesser understanding of the material.
-
The fact that change was needed does not actually prove that the changes made under NCLB would result in improvements. Change can also make things worse.
I wonder if McCain is paying attention. I forsee a new campaign commercial coming along
-
The problem seems to be that NCLB has caused school administrations to teach to the test.
Do water operators "shock" the system (like pool cleaners do) prior to doing mandatory testing under the clean water act?
-
The fact that change was needed does not actually prove that the changes made under NCLB would result in improvements. Change can also make things worse.
I wonder if McCain is paying attention. I forsee a new campaign commercial coming along
=============================================================
As in "Let's continue the wrong kind of change that Juniorbush has wrought"?
-
Naaa, more like "Change, for the sake of change, can make what's wrong in this country, far worse"