Iran implicated again- what to do?

[Lynn7]

Article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070427185225.eephgeaz&show_article=1)

[Jim H]

In this case, it's a group within Iran, not Iran itself. This is a very large distinction. The group may have some loose, tiertiary ties to the Iranian government, but they're not proven. Sadr himself doesn't appear to have any Iranian support. The Iranian government certainly isn't trying to crush his group, but as near as I can tell, they aren't doing anything to support him either.

Thus far, the connections with Iran I've heard consist entirely of "this weapon had to have been come from Iran" and "this guy has some very indirect unfinanced connections with the Iranian government".

They need more than that if they want to attack them, which certainly seems to be a future plan.

[Thrizzle]

We'll just have to grit out teeth and bare it until the Bush administration leaves. We can't have them f*cking up ANOTHER war. Yikes.

[Cyclonus]

Call me cynical, but I think Lynn is in complete support of some sort of military action against Iran. And reinstating the draft, perhaps.

Regarding the subject at hand, I don't claim to be privy to everything that goes on between Iraq and Iran, but I don't see a lot of hard evidence, either. At the very least, the smart thing would be to know more before doing anything. But then again, "smart" isn't the first word that comes to mind when I think of contemporary foreign policy. :rolleyes:

[Vong]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
But then again, "smart" isn't the first word that comes to mind when I think of contemporary foreign policy. :rolleyes:

BA-ZING!

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
Call me cynical, but I think Lynn is in complete support of some sort of military action against Iran. And reinstating the draft, perhaps.

Regarding the subject at hand, I don't claim to be privy to everything that goes on between Iraq and Iran, but I don't see a lot of hard evidence, either. At the very least, the smart thing would be to know more before doing anything. But then again, "smart" isn't the first word that comes to mind when I think of contemporary foreign policy. :rolleyes:

You are wrong about me. Given the way this country has no heart for war and the world has no heart for war with the terrorists, I think our only option is to try to guard the borders of Iran and Iraq to minimize people getting stuff in. But, there is a grave danger to our world lurking and no one has the heart to do anything about it- but soon it will be too late. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a man who hates israel and hates the US and of course the entire west and freedom.

No people in the world brave enough to stand against this growing evil- well, I think Israel will stand. Israel will be the one who will strike them and then we will see what happens. They are not going to sit around and wait to be knocked off and they are the one brave country left. But will we stand with them? Not unless a Repub is in power I think. I hope I am wrong about that but I don't think I am.

[jeo4]

Oh, please, fucking spare me the "Americans can't handle war" bullshit, Lynn. It's the biggest bunch of Bush-supporting, Republican slanted propaganda garbage I've ever heard. America can handle war just fine. It would prefer to handle it with a competent staff and a leader with an IQ higher than 60 in office, though.

Republicans had four years of complete control of the house, the senate, and the White House. and they STILL couldn't get it right. Bush claimed in campaign speeches that he needed to "finish the job in Iraq" (HIS words, not mine), and now he balked on that. He even went as far as to threaten a veto of anything presented to him with a handover plan and exit strategy. He claimed that he wanted to work with Congress, but HE is the dumb shit that is being obstinate and unrealistic.

America shouldn't have to police this nation from itself, its people should be doing this. End of fucking story. So stop deluding yourself and others about "America's lack of a heart for war". It's just more bandwagoning for Bush on your part. And nobody buys it because it's a lie.

[Badbird]

You can't even call this a war. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't go to war against a tactic. Technically we are not, nor ever were at war with Iraq. War has become a far too vague word for whatever it is we are doing.

People can stomach war just fine, so long as there is clear justification.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No people in the world brave enough to stand against this growing evil- well, I think Israel will stand. Israel will be the one who will strike them and then we will see what happens. They are not going to sit around and wait to be knocked off and they are the one brave country left. But will we stand with them? Not unless a Repub is in power I think. I hope I am wrong about that but I don't think I am.

If you were to listen to yourself you would laugh. Growing evil? I laugh at this because this is exactly what Bush and company want you to believe. They got you where they want you. You will believe that terrorists are going to come and bomb your house because your just that important. Believe it or not, we have hit them hard, and they are still recovering.

How do you know Bin Laden or his aides are not sitting in a secret jail somewhere? You don't, and probably never will.

I think you have been listening to a lot of Rudy lately. I loved he said that if Dems were in power we would be hit again. We were hit during the time a Repub was in office. A Repub who knew about Bin Laden, but did nothing. I feel so excited and fearless with a Repub in office.

[Jim H]

hates the US and of course the entire west and freedom.

This is getting a touch off--topic, but can you possibly explain why you think Iran hates "freedom"? That never did make any sense to me.

[QUENTIN]

Lynn likes to paint things in black and white to make them more palatable. See, if you pretend the reason much of the Middle East hates America is because they hate "freedom", it's much easier to classify them as the cartoon villians she depicts them as. Similarly, if you just completely ignore the fact that the history of U.S. foreign policy is more or less the history of 200+ years of terrorism, massacres, illegally funding and supporting military coups, and fighting democracy around the globe so that we can install dictators who will be more friendly to U.S. business interests, you can classify America as "innocent" the way she thinks of us as an angelic, blameless lot who were attacked because we love our freedom.

See, Iran doesn't hate us because the CIA staged an illegal covert overthrow of a democratically elected populist Prime Minister and installed a pro-western puppet Monarch in order to preserve our cheap oil supply at their country's expense, leading a democratic country into a backlash revolution that resulted in a dangerous theocracy. That couldn't be it. Nor could they hate us because we backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war which saw 100,000 Iranians die at the hands of chemical weapons manufactured and supplied by the U.S. for use against civilians by Saddam Hussein (what happened to him again?). That wouldn't make any sense because that would mean Iran's problem with the U.S. is the U.S.'s own fault, that we are the bad guys and are now facing the repercussions of sticking our noses in the affairs of other sovereign countries, overthrowing their leaders, killing their people, and messing with their infrastructure for our advantage. But that's not how we operate because... we're the good guys and they're the bad guys and it's just that simple. Oh, and understanding the real history of the United States and reading up on all this information which can be found in U.S. government documents and hundreds of history books...that doesn't make you well-informed, it makes you anti-American.

A quick way to understanding everything you need to know about foreign relations, diplomacy, and the state of the world can be found here:

U.S., Jesus, Republicans = good
Middle Eastern countries, Allah, Democrats = evil

Hope that helps.

[Lynn7]

Have you any idea of how the women over in Iran live?

Do the people have freedom of religion?

Anyway, I am not deluidng myself about the growing evil in the world. I feel bad for those of you who are blaming all this on President Bush and I know time will unfortunately vindicate my position; but I do feel bad for those of you who will be shocked to see that appeasement never works. Evil is evil and that is the end of it. Let's try to reason with a mass murderer and get him to be nice. Whatever. :rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Quentin- so we are blaming America once again. Other ocuntries have good reason to hate us for some of our past actions therefore we are worthy to recieve their hatred and their plots directed against our people. Well guess what? The terrorist are not striking our leaders who did the things you mention- they strike our inncocents. Is that OK with you?
And I think our country (despite its flaws) is the most generous country in the world. We have done so much good in the world and yet we are hated. That is the way of the world. and the funniest thing is that the US is actually made up of the world's countries so how do you like that? No other country like us.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Have you any idea of how the women over in Iran live?

Do the people have freedom of religion?

Anyway, I am not deluidng myself about the growing evil in the world. I feel bad for those of you who are blaming all this on President Bush and I know time will unfortunately vindicate my position; but I do feel bad for those of you who will be shocked to see that appeasement never works. Evil is evil and that is the end of it. Let's try to reason with a mass murderer and get him to be nice. Whatever. :rolleyes:

You have no concept of history Lynn. You ARE deluding yourself by continually thinking the U.S. isn't to blame for the problems in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We went over to those countries and fucked with them big time (we overthrew a democratically elected prime minister who was popular with the people and turning his country into a wealthy, democratic, first world nation in Iran; we backed Saddam Hussein, gave him millions of dollars and tons of chemical weapons and advised him to invade Kuwait, then went to war with him when he took our advice in Iraq; and we backed out of an agreement we had with Afghanistan to supply them with aid and help them build up infrastructure in exchange for fighting the Russians for us, when the Cold War ended in Afghanistan). These people aren't evil, they aren't cartoons, they're reacting to what's been done to them and we're now facing the repercussions of 100 years of terrible, imperialistic (you'd call it "evil" if it was any other country in the world) foreign policy.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Quentin- so we are blaming America once again. Other ocuntries have good reason to hate us for some of our past actions therefore we are worthy to recieve their hatred and their plots directed against our people. Well guess what? The terrorist are not striking our leaders who did the things you mention- they strike our inncocents. Is that OK with you?
And I think our country (despite its flaws) is the most generous country in the world. We have done so much good in the world and yet we are hated. That is the way of the world. and the funniest thing is that the US is actually made up of the world's countries so how do you like that? No other country like us.

The fact that America is to blame doesn't make me an "America-blamer", it just so happens that America (and Britain) are the ones who fucked up Iran. We wouldn't be dealing with these problems now if we hadn't illegally and covertly overthrown their popular prime minister. Actions have consequences, unfortunately, and Iran hating the U.S. is the consequence of us ruining their country and helping Saddam Hussein gas 100,000 of their people. Those things happened, you can't deny it, so pretending America isn't to blame for them is just burying your head in jingoistic sand.

It's not okay with me that American civilians die, neither here in planned plane crashes nor in Iraq in unarmored vehicles. But it's not okay with me that Iranian civilians, Iraqi civilians, or Afghani civilians die either. I don't think one's country of origin should dictate what their life is worth and I don't think Jesus did either. And it's impossible for any of the many countries terrorized by U.S. foreign policy to attack those responsible, because most of them are dead or rich and well-guarded. America has certainly done a lot of good and I'm proud about the things we've done right (even if they were never altruistic, sometimes they had positive results) but it's ignorant and indefensible to ignore all the bad we've done too, and there is atleast just as much bad. Dismissing all of the U.S.'s faults (which you paint as "in the past", but they're in recent history and continue today) and painting us as the good guys when we are not doesn't make someone a patriot, it makes them an idiot.

[Jim H]

Have you any idea of how the women over in Iran live?

Do the people have freedom of religion?

Not having freedoms isn't the same as hating them.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Have you any idea of how the women over in Iran live?

Do the people have freedom of religion?

Anyway, I am not deluidng myself about the growing evil in the world. I feel bad for those of you who are blaming all this on President Bush and I know time will unfortunately vindicate my position; but I do feel bad for those of you who will be shocked to see that appeasement never works. Evil is evil and that is the end of it. Let's try to reason with a mass murderer and get him to be nice. Whatever. :rolleyes:


The growing "evil" in the world has been a group effort, perpetrated by every country in the world usually for purely selfish reasons.

NO ONE HERE wants simple appeasement. But you're talking like our military has all the time, money, and energy in the world to hop around the globe and take out any leader who we dislike. Do you have ANY idea what a direct war with Iran would require and result in? If we have another war, and go farther into debt with China, they could bankrupt us like the former USSR. Then we'd REALLY have no defense against terrorism at home. Sound fun to you?

This administration's complete mismanagement has FORCED us to play nice and diplomatic with Iran. So if you're unhappy with this policy, go scold the president. its the lovely corner he has painted us in.

The hard, plain simple truth is that what people blame the administration for NOW is for the incompetent mismanagement of the Iraq AND Afghanistan war. Forget about that old argument of emboldening terrorism by starting these war, they've done it by not having a solid plan of rebuilding the country since day one! They've waffled from that start and its cost more lives than it should've. Not to mention they allowed the Taliban to pretty much retake Afghanistan. You remember those guys? They're the ones who considered Osama bin Laden a guest and wouldn't hand him over after 9/11. They also probably know where he's at and knew about the attempt on Dick Cheney's life when he had visited the country.

Feeling any safer?

And now they're so desperate they want to create a new "War Czar" position. Aside from the fact that such a position is completely useless and obviously some pathetic attempt to look like they've got some strategy, but now guess what? Every high level military personnel they've tried to tap for the position has turned them DOWN FLAT. Some have even been quoted as saying "These guys don't have a clue what they're doing!"


Originally posted by Lynn7
Let's try to reason with a mass murderer and get him to be nice. Whatever. :rolleyes:

Oh, see Quentin, she IS aware of our previous foreign policy!

[Lynn7]

Quentin, I don't disagree that at times our country has gotten embroiled in a lot of behind the scenes manipulations that it should not have been involved with but these things come about because there is a lot of stuff that goes on in the world and people strategize together to try to make things work in a certain way.Even now Russia and Iran and North Korea and China and France are emroiled in all kinds of behind the scenes crap. So it is not fair to blame the US for doing what everyone else does. It is the way of the world. But overall, we have not taken over countries to increase our domination. We give gazillions of dollars in aid and come to the rescue of many countries who are in need of finanical or military assistance.

And do you really think these terrorists are acting because of historical reasons? They are anarchists, ignorant of history themselves. They are taught that the Jews are pigs and Americans are evil from earliest days. And now they are teaching their young to blow themselves up or to behead people. They are not morally equivalent to us. And when i say this , I am directing this at the terrorists, not all the Muslims.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
The growing "evil" in the world has been a group effort, perpetrated by every country in the world usually for purely selfish reasons.

NO ONE HERE wants simple appeasement. But you're talking like our military has all the time, money, and energy in the world to hop around the globe and take out any leader who we dislike. Do you have ANY idea what a direct war with Iran would require and result in? If we have another war, and go farther into debt with China, they could bankrupt us like the former USSR. Then we'd REALLY have no defense against terrorism at home. Sound fun to you?

This administration's complete mismanagement has FORCED us to play nice and diplomatic with Iran. So if you're unhappy with this policy, go scold the president. its the lovely corner he has painted us in.

The hard, plain simple truth is that what people blame the administration for NOW is for the incompetent mismanagement of the Iraq AND Afghanistan war. Forget about that old argument of emboldening terrorism by starting these war, they've done it by not having a solid plan of rebuilding the country since day one! They've waffled from that start and its cost more lives than it should've. Not to mention they allowed the Taliban to pretty much retake Afghanistan. You remember those guys? They're the ones who considered Osama bin Laden a guest and wouldn't hand him over after 9/11. They also probably know where he's at and knew about the attempt on Dick Cheney's life when he had visited the country.

Feeling any safer?

And now they're so desperate they want to create a new "War Czar" position. Aside from the fact that such a position is completely useless and obviously some pathetic attempt to look like they've got some strategy, but now guess what? Every high level military personnel they've tried to tap for the position has turned them DOWN FLAT. Some have even been quoted as saying "These guys don't have a clue what they're doing!"




Oh, see Quentin, she IS aware of our previous foreign policy!


Well, if you are saying you don't want appeasement what does it mean to pull out of Iraq? Aren't we appeasing the people who are blowing up our soldiers and the innocent civilians?And by pulling out we negate all those soldiers deaths. What would we have gained by pulling out? At least we are there and we have a station in the heart of where the nuclear terror threat is growing (in iran).

China could bankrupt us?And what would happen to China? Do you know how much money they make from us? Seen any Made in China products lately? We give them lots of money. Their people live like paupers.

The mismanagement of the war is due to the media constantly focusing on the negatives of our country and they never support anything we are doing- the fact that our soldiers are giving their lives for the cause counts for nothing with them except that anything any soldier has done negative is magnified and broadcast around the world and causes us to change tactics and weakens us. The administration tries to minimze causalties of innocent people and so has not been as aggressive in cleaing out bad areas cause they want to not kill innocents. Mabye they should have just bombed the crap out of Sadyr city the first time and killed everyone off? It would have sent a strong message and would've killed a lot of bad people. The media and the public would not have liked that at all. So there we are.

The truth is that we could have steamrolled that country and won that war in a few months time but we have been trying to do right- and what do we get for it but abuse?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
This is getting a touch off--topic, but can you possibly explain why you think Iran hates "freedom"? That never did make any sense to me.

Iran cracks down on 'Western' hairdos


Tehran barbers' association head says police issued directive forbidding its members from giving men offbeat hairstyles; report says Telecommunications Ministry to start filtering ‘immoral’ video, audio messages sent via mobile phones

News agencies Published: 04.29.07, 20:51 / Israel News




Tehran's barbers are to stop offering Iranian men unconventional Western hairstyles amid a nationwide crackdown on dressing deemed to be un-Islamic, the Etemad newspaper reported.



The paper quoted the head of the Tehran barbers' association as saying police had issued a directive forbidding its members from giving men offbeat hairstyles that are all the rage in more affluent parts of the capital.


"Currently some salons use Western grooming methods to create styles that are in line with the European and American ones," said the association's head, Mohammad Eftekhari-Fard.


"The union has repeatedly announced the restrictions against unconventional grooming when issuing permits to each of the barber shops. Hence barbers, knowing these rules, should not pursue the wrong methods," he warned.


"The union will withdraw its support from those barbers who cut hairstyles that are out of line with the norms of the system," he said.


Eftekhari-Fard did not specify which hairstyles were being targeted, but conservatives in Iran have long been upset by the heavy use of styling gel, shoulder-length hair and the spiky "big hair" styles sported by some of Tehran's young males.


'To prevent immoral actions and social problems'

The directive also banned the use of "facial cosmetics, plucking of eyebrows and applying special make-up in male salons," he said.



Over the past week Iranian authorities have handed out thousands of warnings to women found to have infringed Islamic dress rules.



State television reported on Saturday that Iran's Telecommunications Ministry will start filtering "immoral" video and audio messages sent via mobile phones.


The Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, a body set up after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, has instructed the ministry to buy the equipment needed to prevent any misuse of Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), it said.



MMS allows users to send multimedia messages that include images, video and audio.



"In order to prevent possible misuse of MMS, immoral actions and social problems, the Telecommunications Ministry will filter immoral MMS," the television said.



It did not give details of the techniques it would use to filter such messages, when it would start or how it would define "immoral" messages.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We give gazillions of dollars in aid and come to the rescue of many countries who are in need of finanical or military assistance.

Wow Lynn! Really?!? Gazillions of dollars?!? Gee, you think with that kind of money developing countries all over the world would be swooning over the United States and its generosity. Too bad that's not the case.

The US may give the largest amount in development aid in the world, but it gives the smallest amount than any other country compared to its GDP. The US's "War on Terror" has diverted most of its aid to developing countries that need it to countries like Afghanistan, and the money is mostly being directed to encouraging business and entrepeneurs within the country. The diversion of aid has left developing countries all over the world suffering. Countries like Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan have witnessed sharp decline in aid from both the United States and the World Bank/IMF.

As for the "military assistance", that usually comes unwanted or without the consent of the country. But of course, if the United States thinks it's helping the nation's well-being, it won't stop them from coming in anyway.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well, if you are saying you don't want appeasement what does it mean to pull out of Iraq?


The price you pay for doing a lousy job?


Originally posted by Lynn7
China could bankrupt us?And what would happen to China? Do you know how much money they make from us? Seen any Made in China products lately? We give them lots of money. Their people live like paupers.

And their economy is steadily growing year by year. They're making energy contracts with, OH MY, Iran (as well as a number of other rogue nations. For cheap I might add) , so they can achieve greater modernization of its cities, they make almost all our goods and they own most of our debts. Ask American businessmen what's the hot language to learn right now and they'll tell you: Chinese. They're ahead of us in cutting shipping costs of foreign goods. Its clearly feasible that
China could one day surpass the US as a world power (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/chinecon.htm) . Sure they need us now, but eventually, like all things, they'll take enough to build themselves up and not rely so desperately on our business.

Once upon a time we had a Great Depression and lived like paupers as well. Now look where we are.

Nations rise and they fall. Sooner or later we move from the top of the wheel to the bottom. History tells us this.

Originally posted by Lynn7
The mismanagement of the war is due to the media constantly focusing on the negatives of our country and they never support anything we are doing- the fact that our soldiers are giving their lives for the cause counts for nothing with them except that anything any soldier has done negative is magnified and broadcast around the world and causes us to change tactics and weakens us. The administration tries to minimze causalties of innocent people and so has not been as aggressive in cleaing out bad areas cause they want to not kill innocents. Mabye they should have just bombed the crap out of Sadyr city the first time and killed everyone off? It would have sent a strong message and would've killed a lot of bad people. The media and the public would not have liked that at all. So there we are.

And any evidence you site saying the media did all the mismanagement, I can site evidence to the contrary. Like the number of embedded journalists and producers given positions in Public Broadcasting who are loyal friends of the administration.

The military has even come out and cited the ineptitude of the administration's military planning. Some military officers and lifelong Republicans, so desperate to alert the country of this and save their own, turned down future careers to retire early and testify as to how lives and time were squandered by bad planning from the higher ups!

Originally posted by Lynn7
The truth is that we could have steamrolled that country and won that war in a few months time but we have been trying to do right- and what do we get for it but abuse?


And yet with Republican controlled executive and legislative branches of the government, they never did. Hmmmmmmm

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But overall, we have not taken over countries to increase our domination.

Let's see...

Argentina. Bolivia. Brazil. Chile. Columbia. The Dominican Republic. El Salvador. Greece. Guatemala. Haiti. Indonesia. Iran. Mexico. Morocco. Nicaragua. Paraguay. Peru. The Philippines. Portugal. Saudi Arabia. South Korea. South Vietnam. Spain. Tunisia. Turkey. Uruguay. Venezuela.

I'm sure you'll interpret this as me saying that the US is to blame for all that is wrong in the world, but it's not true. I know that the US isn't the only country which has an imperialistic foreign policy -- Russia, England, India, Pakistan, China and Cuba have also meddled in the affairs of other countries. I just believe in placing blame where it belongs.

They are anarchists, ignorant of history themselves.

They are not anarchists. Noam Chomsky is an anarchist. Crispin Sartwell is an anarchist. Emma Goldman was an anarchist. Peter Kropotkin was an anarchist. Anarchism is a political ideology which advocates a society without hierarchy and domination. Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a certain political end. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, not an anarchist.

I'd advise you not to throw around words if you have no idea what they mean.

[Jim H]

Iran cracks down on 'Western' hairdos

I had read that article before.

But as I said earlier, not having freedoms isn't the same as hating them. It's like saying the Amish hate modern technology.

Let's see...

Argentina. Bolivia. Brazil. Chile. Columbia. The Dominican Republic. El Salvador. Greece. Guatemala. Haiti. Indonesia. Iran. Mexico. Morocco. Nicaragua. Paraguay. Peru. The Philippines. Portugal. Saudi Arabia. South Korea. South Vietnam. Spain. Tunisia. Turkey. Uruguay. Venezuela.

If you're gonna go back as far as some of those go, you might as well put Hawaii and Guam and Puerto Rico on there too.

But yeah, we messed with a lot of governments during the Cold War. I'm curious how many people in those countries are aware of it. I would guess many people in Iran are, as Operation Ajax wasn't that long ago, really. People in the Middle East are known for holding long grudges, and 50 years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. In the case of Iran, we don't even have the usual Cold War excuses, which I think in some cases can be described as legitimate. It is interesting to note that Madeline Albright on behalf of the US apologized for the coup. It's the only case I'm aware of where the US has done that.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Jim H


But yeah, we messed with a lot of governments during the Cold War. I'm curious how many people in those countries are aware of it.


Trust me on this: ALL of them.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070427185225.eephgeaz&show_article=1)

The last two-term republican president gave billions of dollars to anti-occupational forces in Afghanistan when a neighbouring country (the U.S.S.R.) decided to invade. These same forces killed about 15,000 of the Soviet Union's soldiers. He kept on supplying the anti-soviet forces with guns and rocket launchers from the begining of his first term right to the end of the second, insisting on being a major nuissance for the Soviet troops.

The current two-term republican president has spent nearly half a trillion of the American people's money to support foreign forces of 160,000 (over 3000 of whom have died) in a country that isn't even his, along with god know how many weapons plus the recent decision to add an extra 20,000 foreign soldiers in that country.

Since you won't stop beating on Iran for daring to (supposedly) one nation's attempt to conquer the other, why don't you denounce the policies I just wrote about? It isn't because those two men I happen to name are of the same political and religious background as yourself that you're so quiet it?

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by jeo4
Oh, please, fucking spare me the "Americans can't handle war" bullshit, Lynn. It's the biggest bunch of Bush-supporting, Republican slanted propaganda garbage I've ever heard. America can handle war just fine. It would prefer to handle it with a competent staff and a leader with an IQ higher than 60 in office, though.

Republicans had four years of complete control of the house, the senate, and the White House. and they STILL couldn't get it right. Bush claimed in campaign speeches that he needed to "finish the job in Iraq" (HIS words, not mine), and now he balked on that. He even went as far as to threaten a veto of anything presented to him with a handover plan and exit strategy. He claimed that he wanted to work with Congress, but HE is the dumb shit that is being obstinate and unrealistic.

America shouldn't have to police this nation from itself, its people should be doing this. End of fucking story. So stop deluding yourself and others about "America's lack of a heart for war". It's just more bandwagoning for Bush on your part. And nobody buys it because it's a lie.

Anger management? :) :confused:

[Vong]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Anger management? :) :confused:

Therapy? ;)

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Anger management? :) :confused:


Trying to make those who disagree with you out into crazy people is an ineffective and silly way to argue.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
The fact that America is to blame doesn't make me an "America-blamer", it just so happens that America (and Britain) are the ones who fucked up Iran. We wouldn't be dealing with these problems now if we hadn't illegally and covertly overthrown their popular prime minister. Actions have consequences, unfortunately, and Iran hating the U.S. is the consequence of us ruining their country and helping Saddam Hussein gas 100,000 of their people. Those things happened, you can't deny it, so pretending America isn't to blame for them is just burying your head in jingoistic sand.



Poor wonderful Iranians that hate the most evil country in the world! (With some collateral goods done in non-altruistic manner, as you mentioned.) They must be surprised that a person who wrote this can write this in the country so evil (and, occasionally, good). :confused:

If anything life taught me it's never discuss any serious crap with twenty years olds. I bet you know why. Except sex, of course. :D

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Trying to make those who disagree with you out into crazy people is an ineffective and silly way to argue.

Relax, man. Anger and delirium are different.

Lecturing someone who may agree with you is ineffective way to agrue. (Plagiarism, I know.:D)

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Vong
Therapy? ;)

For both of us. You buy meals, I contact the call-girls. :D

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by MacReady
The last two-term republican president gave billions of dollars to anti-occupational forces in Afghanistan when a neighbouring country (the U.S.S.R.) decided to invade. These same forces killed about 15,000 of the Soviet Union's soldiers. He kept on supplying the anti-soviet forces with guns and rocket launchers from the begining of his first term right to the end of the second, insisting on being a major nuissance for the Soviet troops.

The current two-term republican president has spent nearly half a trillion of the American people's money to support foreign forces of 160,000 (over 3000 of whom have died) in a country that isn't even his, along with god know how many weapons plus the recent decision to add an extra 20,000 foreign soldiers in that country.

Since you won't stop beating on Iran for daring to (supposedly) one nation's attempt to conquer the other, why don't you denounce the policies I just wrote about? It isn't because those two men I happen to name are of the same political and religious background as yourself that you're so quiet it?

Why it's suddenly so similar to you? Forget about stats, just the historical events?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Poor wonderful Iranians hating the most evil country in the world (with some collateral goods done in non-altruistic manner) who might be surprised that the person who wrote this is still free as a bird in the country so evil (and, occasionally, good). :confused:


It's rather silly to dismiss someone's arguments based in part on their age, when your much higher age apparently hasn't given you the ability to write a comprehensible paragraph.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Jim H
It's rather silly to dismiss someone's arguments based in part on their age, when your much higher age apparently hasn't given you the ability to write a comprehensible paragraph.

Age? Have I ever mentioned I started to learn damn English at the age of 28?

Anyway, tell me which sarcastic remark was so difficult to translate to the Normal English?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Anger management? :) :confused:

Yep. Seeing Lynns America bashing at the expense of her own political partys agenda pisses me off so much, I'd say I probably need therapy.

;)

(Where's The Heart Collector when I need him?)

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Age? Have I ever mentioned I started to learn damn English at the age of 28?

Anyway, tell me which sarcastic remark was so difficult to translate to the Normal English?

Didn't realize English was a second language for you. My apologies then.

"Poor wonderful Iranians hating the most evil country in the world (with some collateral goods done in non-altruistic manner) who might be surprised that the person who wrote this is still free as a bird in the country so evil (and, occasionally, good)"

This is what I have trouble understanding. The first parantheses you are referring to the USA, correct? I don't quite understand why you said this "collateral" good is non-altruistic. Well, I guess it makes sense, but it seems redundant. You can't do something by accident altruistically, as far as I know.

It's also unclear who "the person who wrote this" is. Is "the person" you, or QUENTIN?

Also, why would Iran be surprised? And why do you refer to the USA as "and, occasionally, good"?

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Why it's suddenly so similar to you? Forget about stats, just the historical events?

Basically Lynn is denouncing Iran for trying to intervene, despite the fact that the U.S. not only did the exact same thing decades ago, but is now doing an infinetely more blatant way now.

Seriously, Washinton mercilessly crushes Tehran when it comes to shipping out tanks and bombs and jets to the foreign nation of Iraq.

[Lynn7]

Everytime a conservative comes on the board everyone gangs up and tries to chase them away by picking on them. It's so frustrating.

Anyway, I beleive in our country. I do know that we have been involved in behind the scenes maneuvering throughout our history but who hasn't? Why beat on our country when everyone has a history of this? And many of the countries have been guilty of human abuse- we are always trying to improve ourselves. I dont' like the way I see so many in our country beating on our country. We are a great and awesome country.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Everytime a conservative comes on the board everyone gangs up and tries to chase them away by picking on them. It's so frustrating.




No, no, we don't "pick" on you because you're conservative. We "pick" because you over-simplify an issue to the point where its a bedtime story for 5 year olds.

JohntheHenchman and Beenthere, once they move away from one-sentence, sarcastic remarks, actually discuss issues in the breadth and complexity that they actually exist in. I can't speak for everyone, but I respect that.





Originally posted by Lynn7
Anyway, I beleive in our country. I do know that we have been involved in behind the scenes maneuvering throughout our history but who hasn't? Why beat on our country when everyone has a history of this?


Because its our country, We don't take kindly to outsiders doing it.

Originally posted by Lynn7
And many of the countries have been guilty of human abuse- we are always trying to improve ourselves. I dont' like the way I see so many in our country beating on our country. We are a great and awesome country.


Our country improves itself because the people you're complaining about, who "beat" this country, make it known that our mistakes are not accepted and by acknowledging this, we improve.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Everytime a conservative comes on the board everyone gangs up and tries to chase them away by picking on them. It's so frustrating.

Lynn, I think you should at least brush up on your history. You seem to jump to amazing conclusions and presumptions on Iraq and Iran without ever considering why they are what they are. You don't consider the fact that the US has affected these countries countless times as the world's unoffical "nation watch-dog".

Don't blame our attacks on you on your political standing. It's what your saying that's the problem...

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by electriclite
No, no, we don't "pick" on you because you're conservative. We "pick" because you over-simplify an issue to the point where its a bedtime story for 5 year olds.

JohntheHenchman and Beenthere, once they move away from one-sentence, sarcastic remarks, actually discuss issues in the breadth and complexity that they actually exist in. I can't speak for everyone, but I respect that.


For the record, I will defend Lynn because without Lynn this place would a total bore. Sure, JohntheHenchman and Beenthere are conservatives, but we need someone on these boards who will agree with Bush and his other conservative cronies no matter what simply because it guarantees an argument every time.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Jim H
Didn't realize English was a second language for you. My apologies then.

"Poor wonderful Iranians hating the most evil country in the world (with some collateral goods done in non-altruistic manner) who might be surprised that the person who wrote this is still free as a bird in the country so evil (and, occasionally, good)"

This is what I have trouble understanding. The first parantheses you are referring to the USA, correct? I don't quite understand why you said this "collateral" good is non-altruistic. Well, I guess it makes sense, but it seems redundant. You can't do something by accident altruistically, as far as I know.

It's also unclear who "the person who wrote this" is. Is "the person" you, or QUENTIN?

Also, why would Iran be surprised? And why do you refer to the USA as "and, occasionally, good"?

Just a bitter comment on what Quentin wrote, too direct probably. I don't buy "blame America" game. Especially when it comes to the hatred of the nice folks from the Middle East and Central Asia. Especially when the game sounds suspiciously similar to the Soviet textbooks.

He also mentioned some good deeds done by America while screwing the world ("America has certainly done a lot of good and I'm proud about the things we've done right /even if they were never altruistic, sometimes they had positive results/ but it's ignorant and indefensible to ignore all the bad we've done too" - Q.)
Good, there's still a chance to recover. And practically the whole life ahead.

Thank you.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
For the record, I will defend Lynn because without Lynn this place would a total bore. Sure, JohntheHenchman and Beenthere are conservatives, but we need someone on these boards who will agree with Bush and his other conservative cronies no matter what simply because it guarantees an argument every time.

Brando, next time please ask Beenthere if he's conservative or not.

[Thrizzle]

Labels dont mean anything anymore. Republican now means social conservatism and big government, conservative now means religious/social conservative. If i had to choose i would say Beenthere is a neoconservative, because as he stated earlier, he's "anti-left".

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Brando, next time please ask Beenthere if he's conservative or not.

You certainly talk like one. Besides, if you are then it's not necessarily an insult.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, I think you should at least brush up on your history. You seem to jump to amazing conclusions and presumptions on Iraq and Iran without ever considering why they are what they are. You don't consider the fact that the US has affected these countries countless times as the world's unoffical "nation watch-dog".

Don't blame our attacks on you on your political standing. It's what your saying that's the problem...

I wasn't talking about me- I can take it and actually most times people don't gang up on me - I don't mind arguments about positions. It's just that there have been a few people who have conservative opinions who have been here for a few weeks and then everyone tears apart the person's words and picks on the person in a personal way and it seems like a broad attack and the person ends up leaving. It' s frustrating to me cause I don't think it's nice to pick on people.

Beenthere- I should have said that a person who has some opinions that tend to the conservative side. I dont know if you are conservative and it seems from your response that you are not so I apologize.

Brando- I feel the same way. I would not want to be on a board with all conservatives cause there would be no debate- just agreement. It's not that I dont like to go and be with conservatives- I love Rush's show for that reason but it is nice to hear different viewpoints. As I have said before, I used to be liberal and my views have changed. I like to reflect on issues and test my thinking on them. During our debates here on the board, I have seen minor (lol!) hypocrisies in my thinking from time to time and then I have to go and fine tune my thinking and see why that is. It's good for me to do that. (Actually when I reread your post I guess you were kind of slamming me since you said I will agree with Bush no matter what so that kind of shows you think that I don't think for myself).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Labels dont mean anything anymore. Republican now means social conservatism and big government, conservative now means religious/social conservative. If i had to choose i would say Beenthere is a neoconservative, because as he stated earlier, he's "anti-left".

What is a neo-conservative? I never can figure out that term. does it mean someone who is religious in his or her outlook or someone who is not? I have heard that the term sometimes is applied to Jewish conservatives but is that true? And if it is, is the term derogatory? Sometimes the term has the flavor of neo-nazi to it in the way it sounds so I think it may be meant as a type of subliminal insult.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What is a neo-conservative? I never can figure out that term. does it mean someone who is religious in his or her outlook or someone who is not? I have heard that the term sometimes is applied to Jewish conservatives but is that true? And if it is, is the term derogatory? Sometimes the term has the flavor of neo-nazi to it in the way it sounds so I think it may be meant as a type of subliminal insult.

Neo-conservatism is a political ideology based on a central government with strong patriotic ideals. By the 1980s and the rise of the Christian movement in the US, neo-conservatism has been synonymous with the moral values and ideals of Christianity.

Neo-conservatives have influenced US foreign policy since the 1970s, creating shadows on the wall and false senses of insecurity (see the Cold-War). Most recently, the Iraq War was fabricated by the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration with such figures as Paul Wolfowitz.

The term isn't derogatory by nature. However, the name has certain stigmas attached to it depending on who you talk to. Since neo-conservatism pushes for a central government, strong moral society, patriotism and "leader of the free world"-ideals, the ideology is clearly venomous to left-wingers.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What is a neo-conservative? I never can figure out that term. does it mean someone who is religious in his or her outlook or someone who is not? I have heard that the term sometimes is applied to Jewish conservatives but is that true? And if it is, is the term derogatory? Sometimes the term has the flavor of neo-nazi to it in the way it sounds so I think it may be meant as a type of subliminal insult.

The term "neo-conservative" is not derogatory, it is meant to describe a new (neo) group of conservatives who were once liberals. Of course some lingering liberal ideals remain.

It also tends to describe certain ideals and foreign policies as well.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
What is a neo-conservative? I never can figure out that term. does it mean someone who is religious in his or her outlook or someone who is not? I have heard that the term sometimes is applied to Jewish conservatives but is that true? And if it is, is the term derogatory? Sometimes the term has the flavor of neo-nazi to it in the way it sounds so I think it may be meant as a type of subliminal insult.

Its not derogatory, it just means new conservative. It originally was used to describe liberals that believed in aggressive foreign policy and military action; at the time to combat communism but more recently muslim culture. Neocons led the charge to invade Iraq. Some prominent neocons are Jewish, so right wingers like to say that necon means "jewish" but thats not at all true and to me its just plain bigotry.

[Lynn7]

But the term religious right has adequately defined who we are and have been for many years. Why all of a sudden this term Neo-con? Again, it sounds a lot like neo-nazi to me and it makes me wonder if that is the way it started- to give that scary sound to us Conservatives- like the way liberals have started to call pro-life people "anti-choice".

[Thrizzle]

Neo-con is used for people that arent religious and are likely socially progressive but support aggressive military action. A lot of philosophies and political theories are called "neo"; it just means new. Nothing sinister.