Go Condi!!

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Frackal
Can some of you people EVER be anything but ultra cynical ?

Really disgusting, you people need to get out more or something and perhaps you'd be less hateful... and besides who wants to follow the thinking of someone who is as hateful as some of you are anyway.

Please, it's the loving Christian fundies that are killing the Iraqis. Hate is refreshing compared to love that kills.

Actually, their loving Muslim fellows are killing more of them.

The lies of George W. Bush are responsible for every casualty in Iraq.

We are responsible for George Bush, those who voted for him and those who didn't do more to stop him. George Bush is a manifestation of an aspect of us all. He is the ape that kills. He is us. He is the arrogance of certainty.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BBond
The lies of George W. Bush are responsible for every casualty in Iraq.

--Howard Dean

 

[Starbuck1975]

How does she explain Iraq?

Possibly because President Bush, as the elected leader of our nation, has never gone on record or made a statement calling for the annihilation of all Iraqis.

How does the lying hypocrite explain THAT? How do you Kindasleazy worshipers explain that?

Quite simply...a reasonable or rational person would not call her a hypocrite.

Somehow, I doubt Condi would say anything if Iran was talking about destroying Pakistan or Syria.

That is an unreasonable and unlikely scenario, and therefore not a valid argument.

I give them ZERO credit for this. They created the situation that made it necessary fo Iran to develop their nuclear arsenal.

Iran was pursuing nuclear capabilities long before we invaded Iraq, as a counter to Israel and also in response to India and Pakistan both becoming nuclear powers.

They made it necessary for Iran to elect a strongly anti-U.S./Israel president (Axis of EEEEVIIILLLL)

Iran has never been a voice of reason or moderation when it comes to American or Israeli relations...Khomeni, who Iran continues to worship, was hardly a voice for bringing Iran into the civilized world.

they created the conditions that have de-stabilized the region

The de-stabilized nature of the region is what prompted our involvement to begin with.

they have our troops tied up in a failed, unnecessary war and unable to respond to Iran actually doing something. The Bush admin has put America in a weakened position.

Iraq has become ground zero for the war on terror, as Al Quaida is focusing most of its efforts on preventing Iraq from stabilizing and becoming an anchor for democracy in the Middle East. While the justifications for going into Iraq are questionable, make no mistake that victory there has the potential to strengthen America's position.

Look at the Jordanian response to the bombings last week...the people of the Middle East are starting to turn against the extremists.

We are responsible for George Bush, those who voted for him and those who didn't do more to stop him. George Bush is a manifestation of an aspect of us all. He is the ape that kills. He is us. He is the arrogance of certainty.

You forgot that he bathes in the blood of babies and likes to torture kittens. :roll:

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Iran has never been a voice of reason or moderation when it comes to American or Israeli relations...Khomeni, who Iran continues to worship, was hardly a voice for bringing Iran into the civilized world.

I've been doing alot of reading about the involvement of the U.S. with Iran and Iraq in the past
And i gotta say it sure looks like weapons sales and control over oil has been a major player
Remember The Shah?

When Iranians took U.S. officials hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Americans were mystified and angry, not being able to comprehend how Iranians could be so hateful toward U.S. officials, especially since the U.S. government had been so supportive of the shah of Iran for some 25 years. What the American people failed to realize is that the deep anger and hatred that the Iranian people had in 1979 against the U.S. government was rooted in a horrible, anti-democratic act that the U.S. government committed in 1953. That was the year the CIA secretly and surreptitiously ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, a man named Mohammad Mossadegh, from power, followed by the U.S. government?s ardent support of the shah of Iran?s dictatorship for the next 25 years.

Link

Selling weapons to Iran, then to Iraq, then back to Iran, etc. etc.
I'm beginning to see why these people are so pissed
There's ton's of info out there through the freedom of info act
We should all learn a thing or two

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
And i gotta say it sure looks like weapons sales and control over oil has been a major player
Remember The Shah?

Yes ... I remember it was Jimmy Carter and company who allowed the Shah of Iran to come in to power...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
And i gotta say it sure looks like weapons sales and control over oil has been a major player
Remember The Shah?

Yes ... I remember it was Jimmy Carter and company who allowed the Shah of Iran to come in to power...

Oh really, please tell us about it. :roll:

 

[Starbuck1975]

Selling weapons to Iran, then to Iraq, then back to Iran, etc. etc. I'm beginning to see why these people are so pissed There's ton's of info out there through the freedom of info act We should all learn a thing or two

You are right...Cold War politics surrounding an oil rich region, destabilized by the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, made for some bizarre, contradictory and otherwise failed foreign policy engagements in the Middle East.

The people of the Middle East certainly have justifications for many of their grievances...how those grievances have manifested themselves are unacceptable in the civilized world.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Oh really, please tell us about it. :roll:

It's actually old news, but Here is a decent synopsis of the Shah controversy and Carter's changing stories over the years.

Read up.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Oh really, please tell us about it. :roll:

It's actually old news, but Here is a decent synopsis of the Shah controversy and Carter's changing stories over the years.

Read up.

I browsed through it. It had nothing to do with the Shah coming to power.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Yes ... I remember it was Jimmy Carter and company who allowed the Shah of Iran to come in to power...

See that's a big part of the problem too
All you can focus on is Republicans Vs Democrats
Instead of learning why these problems exist, your first thought is defending your politcal viewpoint

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I browsed through it. It had nothing to do with the Shah coming to power.

Then you haven't read it. Try looking at the "Shah's Influential Friends" link.

The premise is that Carter allowed the Shah to the US to get specialized medical treatment, which allowed him to recover and make his way back to Iran to become a monster.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I browsed through it. It had nothing to do with the Shah coming to power.

Then you haven't read it. Try looking at the "Shah's Influential Friends" link.

The premise is that Carter allowed the Shah to the US to get specialized medical treatment, which allowed him to recover and make his way back to Iran to become a monster.

You're really reaching there. Carter allowed him to get treatment in the US, ok, that sucks, but Carter wasn't our president in the 50s, 60s and most of the 70s. And the Shah came to the United States in 1979, guess what else happened that year?

He was in the United States for treatment, then left. But never returned to Iran.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Strk
You're really reaching there. Carter allowed him to get treatment in the US, ok, that sucks, but Carter wasn't our president in the 50s, 60s and most of the 70s.

That's true. I'm merely saying that Carter allowed the Shah access to the best health care here in the US which, without, he might likely have died. (The graveness of his condition at the time is also in dispute.)

Perhaps the phrase "Carter didn't help things any" is more appropriate?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Strk
You're really reaching there. Carter allowed him to get treatment in the US, ok, that sucks, but Carter wasn't our president in the 50s, 60s and most of the 70s.

That's true. I'm merely saying that Carter allowed the Shah access to the best health care here in the US which, without, he might likely have died. (The graveness of his condition at the time is also in dispute.)

Perhaps the phrase "Carter didn't help things any" is more appropriate?

I'd say it pretty much screwed over his presidency. I mean, imagine if the United States handed over the Shah? I bet we'd never have had that whole hostage crisis if that happened.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Strk
You're really reaching there. Carter allowed him to get treatment in the US, ok, that sucks, but Carter wasn't our president in the 50s, 60s and most of the 70s.

That's true. I'm merely saying that Carter allowed the Shah access to the best health care here in the US which, without, he might likely have died. (The graveness of his condition at the time is also in dispute.)

Perhaps the phrase "Carter didn't help things any" is more appropriate?

It might be accurate, it sure as hell wouldn't be the falsehood "it was Jimmy Carter and company who allowed the Shah of Iran to come in to power" is!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Strk
I'd say it pretty much screwed over his presidency. I mean, imagine if the United States handed over the Shah? I bet we'd never have had that whole hostage crisis if that happened.

That is the stack of dominos I was trying to link together.

Apparently the phrase "Carter allowed the Shah to rise to power" was not appropriate. I should have said "Carter aided the Shah which led to crisis in Iran" or something along those lines.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Strk
I'd say it pretty much screwed over his presidency. I mean, imagine if the United States handed over the Shah? I bet we'd never have had that whole hostage crisis if that happened.

That is the stack of dominos I was trying to link together.

Apparently the phrase "Carter allowed the Shah to rise to power" was not appropriate. I should have said "Carter aided the Shah which led to crisis in Iran" or something along those lines.

Yeah, the being there for a few decades makes the "rise" part a little hard to grasp

 

[Aimster]

Iran was what Israel is today in the 1960s and 1970s.
Iran was more of an ally of the U.S during the 1970s than Israel was at the time.

The Shah regime collapsed because he spent countless amounts of dollars on U.S military equipment (35% of revenue). He forgot all about the poor. The poor = religious fanatics. They got bused in and destroyed the country

It wasn't the Shah's fault really. Russia was what Germany was during WWII. Russia wanted to takeover every country in that region. This is exactly why when Iran collapsed, Russia went for Afghanistan. Russia supplied Iraq with whatever they wanted to take out Iran.

 

[Bumrush99]

Proletariat is becoming more moderate than most of the whackos in here
Who would have thought!

I agree with your comments about Condi's reaction, just remember that strongly worded statements by high level members of the adminstration usually have double meanings. This may be a small step to increase diplomatic hostilities between the two countries, thus moving us a few steps closer towards another conflict in the region. (which btw is not something I'm neccessarily against)

 

[replicator]

Not at all impressed by Condi.

Pretty much every politician from a modern nation has condemned the Iranian president for what he said. There is nothing remarkable in her statement because it doesn't take a lot to state the obvious, especially when she is in Israel!

Now, if Condi stepped up and admitted to the lies of the administration to go to war, then maybe i'd have a bit more respect for her.

 

[MicroChrome]

Yeah she did a good thing. I wonder who told her to do it. I doubt it was bush.... Or do you think she thought this up on her own? I think it was noble and right too. As the right is bound to do some things right every now and then. How could you possibly screw up 100% of the time?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: MicroChrome
Yeah she did a good thing. I wonder who told her to do it. I doubt it was bush.... Or do you think she thought this up on her own? I think it was noble and right too. As the right is bound to do some things right every now and then. How could you possibly screw up 100% of the time?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[sunzt]

Well to keep things in perspective, Iran doesn't see Israel as a real nation .....

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: sunzt
Well to keep things in perspective, Iran doesn't see Israel as a real nation .....

How is that 'keeping things in perspective'?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Selling weapons to Iran, then to Iraq, then back to Iran, etc. etc. I'm beginning to see why these people are so pissed There's ton's of info out there through the freedom of info act We should all learn a thing or two

You are right...Cold War politics surrounding an oil rich region, destabilized by the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, made for some bizarre, contradictory and otherwise failed foreign policy engagements in the Middle East.

The people of the Middle East certainly have justifications for many of their grievances...how those grievances have manifested themselves are unacceptable in the civilized world.

**********************************************************************
Starbuck: your comments are well thought out, to the point, and excessivly objective.
Are you sure your in the right forum