Saxby Chambliss is an idiot. Or a dangerous demagogue.

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok... what can all you brilliant people tell me about 1953 off the top of your head.

I am sure the people of Iran know about what happened in 1953, but I am also sure that they don't care. Anything that happens before you are born might as well be ancient history because it has the same impact on your lives.

60 years ago we were war with Japan and Germany and totally devastated those countries, today they are among our strongest allies.

To the people of Iran what happened in 1953 is history and irrelevant to what is happening today. The only people talking about 1953 are the mullahs who are trying to find an outside enemy so they can use that enemy to keep their hold on power. It is a tactic of tyrants every where.

Boy, you are clueless. First off, your example of Japan and Germany is totally irrelevenet, since Japan and Germany declared war on us. Iran didn't. We didn't like who they were electing, so he got him of him and installed the Shah. Big difference, and you should understand that.

Secondly, Iranians have a lot of pride in their country as well, and don't take kindly to another country butting in. If China or the USSR threw out Truman for someone else back in the 50's here in the US, you bet we would remember that now, ans still hold a grudge.

 

[ProfJohn]

60,000 Americans died in Vietnam a little bit over 30 years ago and yet today we have normalized relations with the country... how did that happen?

Do you really think the average person in Iran goes around thinking "damn America for her interference in our country 56 years ago!!!"

I am sure the Iranian people know about the events of 1953, but I am also sure that the majority of them could care less about them. Events that happen before you were born are essentially ancient history. I am sure the people of Iran are more concerned with the actions of government today than with the actions of our government 56 years ago long before most of them were born.

 

[Craig234]

Note how PJ just dodges my post, Harvey's post, any post that exposes his garbage - he has no honesty to admit the points - and just repeats whatever mud he thinks stuck.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Note how PJ just dodges my post, Harvey's post, any post that exposes his garbage - he has no honesty to admit the points - and just repeats whatever mud he thinks stuck.

You and Harvey's history lessons are meaningless.

Remember that 2 out of every 3 Iranians is under the age of 30 and remember that to them 1953 might as well be 1853.

What happened then is something they read about in history books. What is happening now is something all together different.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW during World War Two 400,000+ Americans died fighting the Germans and Japanese.

But today they are both allies of ours. How did that happened?? Are our children not taught about WW 2? Did we forget about all those men??

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Note how PJ just dodges my post, Harvey's post, any post that exposes his garbage - he has no honesty to admit the points - and just repeats whatever mud he thinks stuck.

You and Harvey's history lessons are meaningless.

Remember that 2 out of every 3 Iranians is under the age of 30 and remember that to them 1953 might as well be 1853.

What happened then is something they read about in history books. What is happening now is something all together different.

When PJ throws a bunch of mud to see what will stick, and I reply how most points re wrong and one has a point to it, his rpely is to just repeat the one point.

When I point out how he dodges the point he's shown wrong on, his response is that the other points don't matter - that he brough up - only the one left is relevant.

And he changes it to be 'my' history lesson Iran, neglecting to recall that *he asked for a history lesson on Iran* only to say it's not relevant.

What a weasel.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW during World War Two 400,000+ Americans died fighting the Germans and Japanese.

But today they are both allies of ours. How did that happened?? Are our children not taught about WW 2? Did we forget about all those men??

Uh, they both recanted for their actions. If they didn't, we'd have a big problem with them. Remember little things like the Emperor giving up divine status after thousands of years.

It's not about the fact that Iranians are surprisingly forgiving, it's the right and wrong. PJ wants to not take responsibiolity and hold our nation to a high standard.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW during World War Two 400,000+ Americans died fighting the Germans and Japanese.
But today they are both allies of ours. How did that happened?? Are our children not taught about WW 2? Did we forget about all those men??

Can you say "Cold War"? Can you say "Soviet Union"? Sure, you can!

The American public was immediately distracted after the Second World War by the Red Menace. Remember that? American wrath against the Germans and Japanese was subverted by the need for allies against the Soviets and Red Chinese, and (West) Germany and Japan were very useful allies on the front line against that enemy; conveniently, the Germans and Japanese happened also to need the support of the United States against the Soviets and/or Chinese. Had Germany and Japan remained hostile after the war, I guarantee that they would still be hated by a majority of Americans.

The external enemies the mullahs currently tout to their populace are Israel and the two "Great Satans" (US and UK) that support the Israelis; the other great enemy of the Iranians was Iraq, also supported at the time by the United States...

Is any of this registering?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You and Harvey's history lessons are meaningless.

Remember that 2 out of every 3 Iranians is under the age of 30 and remember that to them 1953 might as well be 1853.

What happened then is something they read about in history books. What is happening now is something all together different.

I respond to your post with a quote from PrinceofWands:

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Oh really? Go ask a Native American if they have any knowledge of, or feelings about, the treatment of their ancestors by the American government (and that was much more than 50 years ago).

Go ask a young Jew if they know anything about WWII, or harbor any ill-will towards Neo-Nazis.

Fifty-six years is not very long.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

And calling the Shah brutal is idiotic.

Spoken by the professor of ignorance.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW during World War Two 400,000+ Americans died fighting the Germans and Japanese.

But today they are both allies of ours. How did that happened?? Are our children not taught about WW 2? Did we forget about all those men??

You do know the Russians defeated the Germans, don't you? We got in on the ass end of the the European War, and paid a fraction of the price the Russians did. They lost 23 million, you jingoistic fuck. I bet you honestly believe that America won the war, don't you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

1953 keeps coming up as if it's all that matters. TheAlq Shah was in power until 1979 so a great many living today were either alive then or have parents who were. As Harvey says SAVAK was a brutal organization and many people simply vanished and were never seen again, or had some tragic "accident". They were the typical brutish thugs typically employed by dictators throughout history.

Our overthrough of their democracy isn't just about a given date but the beginning of an era of repression followed by another which would never have happened if we hadn't acted as we did. Perhaps if you had asked a slave if he thought much of the date his grandfather was captured he would have answered "no" but he would be living with the consequences anyway.

In short 1953 marks the beginning of over fifty years of abuse the Iranians have endured either by their leaders which we put in place as well as our vilification of them culminating in the foolishness of the prior last administration.

The real question is how long will it take Iran to get over generations of abuse and get back to what it had before we took it from them.

 

[dawp]

So is Chambliss an idiot or demagogue?

both

 

[Moonbeam]

Iranians can't remember 1953. Hell, they can't even remember what happened to Ali in the dechades after The Prophet and why they are Shia instead of Suni. Those backward countries don't remember anything.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, for what its worth, Iranian state run media are accusing the UK, France, and Germany with meddling in internal Iranian affairs. Now MIA on that list is the USA. Obama must be doing something right even though the rest of listed countries have had no real effect on the demonstrators.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW during World War Two 400,000+ Americans died fighting the Germans and Japanese.

But today they are both allies of ours. How did that happened?? Are our children not taught about WW 2? Did we forget about all those men??

Are you really that stupid? As I and others pointed out, it's *way* different for a country that declares war on another and loses, and for a country that is minding it's own business and has another country "butt in" to overthrow their government.

How can you not comprehend that? Willful ignorance of facts?

Get over it. You're wrong, you don't get it. Admit it and move on.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW during World War Two 400,000+ Americans died fighting the Germans and Japanese.

But today they are both allies of ours. How did that happened?? Are our children not taught about WW 2? Did we forget about all those men??

Are you really that stupid? As I and others pointed out, it's *way* different for a country that declares war on another and loses, and for a country that is minding it's own business and has another country "butt in" to overthrow their government.

How can you not comprehend that? Willful ignorance of facts?

Get over it. You're wrong, you don't get it. Admit it and move on.

Not ever going to happen.

What recession?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Man, everytime NonProfJohn opens his mouth, it's like pure comedic gold coming out of his mouth.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Man, everytime NonProfJohn opens his mouth, it's like pure comedic gold coming out of his mouth.

PJ was/is a car salesman, he's programmed to be a liar.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

And calling the Shah brutal is idiotic.

Spoken by the professor of ignorance.

Selective quoting is ignorant.
Perhaps you should have used the whole quote so people can see the context that I used.

And calling the Shah brutal is idiotic. He may have been repressive, but compare what he did to the people who took over for him and there is no comparison. Case in point, the US complained about the number of political prisoners held by the Shah, the mullahs took over and just killed all those prisoners.

Perhaps a little history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...the_Iranian_Revolution

The number who lost their lives will probably never be known with certainty. Amnesty International documented 2,946 executions in the 12 months following Bani-Sadr's impeachment. A list compiled the following year by the Mojahedin-e Khalq cited 7,746 persons who had lost their lives through executions, in street battles, or under torture in the short period from June 1981 to September 1983

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
1953 keeps coming up as if it's all that matters. TheAlq Shah was in power until 1979 so a great many living today were either alive then or have parents who were. As Harvey says SAVAK was a brutal organization and many people simply vanished and were never seen again, or had some tragic "accident". They were the typical brutish thugs typically employed by dictators throughout history.

Our overthrough of their democracy isn't just about a given date but the beginning of an era of repression followed by another which would never have happened if we hadn't acted as we did. Perhaps if you had asked a slave if he thought much of the date his grandfather was captured he would have answered "no" but he would be living with the consequences anyway.

In short 1953 marks the beginning of over fifty years of abuse the Iranians have endured either by their leaders which we put in place as well as our vilification of them culminating in the foolishness of the prior last administration.

The real question is how long will it take Iran to get over generations of abuse and get back to what it had before we took it from them.

Any idea how many Iranians were killed during the Shah's reign??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

However, according to more recent research by a political historian of the era, Ervand Abrahamian, deaths numbered in the dozens rather than the thousands under the SAVAK, far fewer than the several thousand prisoners are estimated to have been killed in the Islamic Republic that followed. While some prisoners during the Shah's era were tortured, prisoners' letters were much more likely to use words such as "boredom" and "monotony," to describe their confinement than "fear," "death," "terror," "horror," and "nightmare" (kabos), the common descriptors found in letters of prisoners of the Islamic Republic.

I am not saying that the Shah was a good man, I am pointing out that his replacement was worse.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Similarly Shah was much worse than the regime he replaced.

The point of this thread is not to compare who is/was worse ruler of Iran. It's to highlight the stupidity of Chambliss and you keep digging yourself deeper in your partisan & stupid hole.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe the other thing to point out is that Iran is now going through a a period of internal strife, and the real question, at least from the US perspective, is how to turn a Lemon
into Lemonade? And since no one can really predict, at this point in time, where Iranian events are going, there is also that medical Hippocratic oath thing, saying the first thing needed is to do no harm.

The US cannot change the past, but at least, its often better to stay neutral rather than take ill advised actions almost sure to backfire.

 

[Harvey]

Blowhard partisan hacks like Chambliss and sellout political whores like McCain can spout all they want about how Obama should take a strong official stance in support of Iranian voters and against the theocratic regime, but even serious Republicans with real international experience like Henry Kissinger and Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee approve of Obama's actions.

KISSINGER: Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and ? but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it?s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision.

Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don?t see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the ? by Ahmadinejad ? if I can ever learn his name properly ? against Mousavi.

Watch it:

Kissinger isn?t the only prominent conservative to push back against McCain and the neocons. On Tuesday, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that ?for us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy?and to use us, really, to retain their power.? Other Republican senators, including Sens. Mel Martinez (R-FL), Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Thune (R-SD), agree that Obama is handling the situation well.

What would you have Obama do? If the preferred eventual outcome is that the Iranian people can throw out Ahmadinejad and the theocratic regime, your choice is that he should throw a public hissy fit denoucing the current regime, thereby giving the mullahs a visible external false target, now and for years to come, or that he maintains an "official" position of support for the Iranian people without endorsing any political group.

The question for partisan blowhards like PJ is, do you want to keep spewing your bullshit talking points du jour against Obama, or do you want him, in his official capacity as President of the United States, to speak and act in ways that offer a far better chance of accomplishing YOUR stated objectives?

 

[ProfJohn]

Harvey... nice diversion. I don't believe we have really talked about the current crisis in this thread.

Perhaps you should cut and paste that in one of the threads about what is going on in Iran today.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Harvey... nice diversion. I don't believe we have really talked about the current crisis in this thread.

Then I don't believe you read my last post in which I directly addressed the significance of Chambliss' bullshit... and YOURS.

Perhaps you should cut and paste that in one of the threads about what is going on in Iran today.

Perhaps, you should cut and paste Henry Kissinger's own words on the subject on your wall in BIG TYPE. Or perhaps, you could scroll back to my first reply to your first bullshit post in THIS thread.

Or if you're too mouse challenged for that, let us know, and perhaps I'll cut and paste my previous post, including quotes from you, to a new reply to refresh your memory so you'll have it handy before you attempt YOUR next lame ass diversion. :laugh: