How Does This Make You Feel?
How Does This Make You Feel?
I’m not an American, and when I see this it makes my blood boil - I get really angry, not just disappointed, or “understanding” or forgiving. I’d like to wipe these vermin off the face of the Earth.
Oh, in case you didn’t know who they were, your President just gave them planeloads of money and gold.
Tags
Who is online
494 visitors
"Freedom of expression"
How does this make me feel?
Like I was watching an NFL game begin...
There's probably more Americans burning American flags than Iranians.
There's probably more Americans burning American flags than Iranians
Yes, and they're even more scummy than the Iranian assholes.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." (Voltaire)
It makes me feel like Ron Paul is right and we need to look at the reasons they hate us.
This article explains why they hate us.
That isn't an unreasonable explanation. Then why does Iran hate Israel?
This explains it better than I can.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_relations
Dean - good link but even knowing there are valid reasons why Iranians hate America it's still difficult to accept without adopting some prejudice. I think by not keeping up relations with the Iranians it also allowed it's leadership to continue to plant and grow the seeds of hate within their people. I'm not sure that it will ever make a difference that sanctions have been lifted or that there may be opportunities for the relationship between the USA and Iran to mend but what I do know is if we continue to refuse to deal with them than the hate will never go away.
I still don't feel good seeing the burning of the American flag.
Dean,
I think they should get over it, since we just gave them $150 billion dollars in the nuclear deal. But they don't. That you can blame on the Ayatollah who stokes the masses with hate. Here he is lecturing about the US during negotiations.
I agree Perrie but we're talking about years and years of being preconditioned to hate America. The Iranian leadership has been very strategic in keeping it's people focused on hating America. It's a form of control.
I don't disagree PJ, but then why the deal? It didn't change our position there. They still hate us. And I don't believe that they have stopped their program. It just went underground both figuratively and literally.
I can't remember the book I read, but the Iranians have been given numerous deals for decades and they have not followed through on their part on a single one of them. Often bragging how they got over after it was found out they had continued to do what they were doing before the deals were made.
What - you mean like Indian treaties?????
I think that the totality of what Americans don't know about Iran and how the average Iranian feels about Americans could neatly fit inside the Grand Canyon.
I don't disagree, Hal. But Americans are uninformed about most of the world. Our news only reports what affects us, rather than giving us a global view... that and our youth don't watch they news. They are not interested.
Hal ,
Thanks for posting that vid . It explains clearly that the "revolution" of 1979 changed Iran drastically . That is the Iran we are dealing with today . The ultra-religious are now in charge which they maintain with violent force .
Yes, Dean, that is what Wikipedia reports based on information provided to it by many contributors, but what do YOU think? I look at the Buonos Ares Israeli Embassy bombing, at wanting Israel to be "wiped off the map" and at this:
Iranian funding of Hamas and Hezbollah Edit
Iran supplies political support and weapons to Hamas , [171] an organization committed to the destruction of Israel by Jihad [172] According to Mahmoud Abbas , President of the Palestinian National Authority , "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran." [173] [174]
Iran has also supplied another enemy of Israel, the militant organization Hezbollah with substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid while persuading Hezbollah to take an action against Israel. [175] [176] [177] [178] Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its four main goals as "Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration" [179] According to reports released in February 2010, Hezbollah received $400 million from Iran. [177]
...and I think America should not be thanked for leading the group of nations in guaranteeing that Iran will build a bomb sooner than you think and be able to carry out its "Death to Israel" wish. Just as the perpetrators of 9/11 didn't give a shit about their fellow Muslims that were in the twin towers, Iran will not give a shit who goes down when they bomb Israel.
I think it's a mess and part of it is our own fault and agree with much of what Perrie said. I think it's true they don't like us or Israel and they use the hate to remain in power.
I find it funny that we are told we have to apologize for our past and yet, those other countries get a pass on their past. Too many apologists here, willing to allow America to be forced to it's knees.
The difference, Gary, is that we are responsible for what our government does. We are not responsible for the others.
"we are responsible for what our government does"
Bob - if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Phoenix for sale - cheap.
Our government does what it damn well pleases and the people ("we") have absolutely no say so.
What rock have you been living under???
I take it you don't vote?
You let other decide for you?
Ah yes - the "individual" vote versus the ELECTORAL vote - when's the last time you read the Constitution Bob? Here's a hint for ya - The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President,
Get that Bob??? The person whom the ELECTORAL votes elect shall be the President.
Next comment???
Get that Bob??? ... ... Next comment???
Ya know, 1st... ?
Your post either demonstrates incredible ignorance of the real-world functioning of the US electoral system... or incredible will to avoid serious conversation.
In either case... have a nice life.
If Bernie Sanders loses the primary election to Hillary Clinton will America elect him as a write in candidate? -
No.
While it is theoretically possible - say that Senator Sanders wins 99.9% of the overall popular vote as a write in candidate - this idea is a pipe dream.
It is practically impossible win election to the Presidency as a write in candidate in the US.
The President is elected in the Electoral College not by the popular vote.
29 States and the District of Columbia legally bind their Electors to vote either for the candidate of the party for which they are designated, or for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their State, while 21 States do not. The constitutionality of these State laws has not been challenged to my knowledge. Most scholars seem to agree that the Electors are ultimately free to vote their conscience and think these State laws are unconstitutional.
There are a very few cases in which Electors have not followed such laws and have instead voted their conscience or abstained, but these cases are not common at all.
But if Senator Sanders doesn't win the nomination of the Democratic Party, since he is not running as an Independent candidate, and has promised not to do so, there will be no Electors either pledged or legally bound to vote for Sanders in the Electoral College.
This means in practice that in any State which binds its Electors, Sanders would have to gain a majority of the popular vote to have even a hope of gaining any Electoral votes.
Take California as an example. Bernie had 30,000 at his Cali rally - Billary/Killary had 800 at her rally. Bernie received 45.7% or 221 electoral and Billary/Killary received 53.4% or 254 electoral - hmmmmmm - doesn't look like the popular/individual votes counted for anything, eh?
Buzz,
Iran is an opponent.
Iran is not the devil.
Iran has real, historical reasons for not trusting the US.
We can speak rationally about Iran...and speak rationally with Iran... or we can continue indefinitely to accuse each other of being the devil.
We can be the adult in the room, or we can practice the same simplistic, propagandist buffoonery that the ayatollahs practice.
Do the Japanese burn American flags (notwithstanding Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? Do the Americans burn Japanese flags? Do the Germans burn British, American, Russian or Canadian flags? Do Canadians, Brits, Russians and Americans burn German flags? Do Israelis burn German flags? Do the Chinese burn Japanese flags?
There is just as good cause for all of them to do so, but it seems that only American and Israeli flags are flammable, I guess.
Apples and oranges, I think, Buzz.
Japan was thoroughly defeated, and MacArthur was a temporary emperor. We've never had an open war against Iran, only spook-stuff. As I've said many times, I think it is a serious error to interpret Middle Eastern bombast within Occidental cultural rules.
times, I think it is a serious error to interpret Middle Eastern bombast within Occidental cultural rules
Man, you make me laugh. I could literally spend days listing truly horrific things Middle Eastern leaders have promised to do to Jews and other non-believers. Hell, they are Vichy like in their admiration for the Nazis. Yet, all these abhorrent statements are waived away as "just bombast" that is inherent to the culture and recognized as empty words. .
But take a single isolated statement where Bush referred to the War on Terror generally as a crusade and Muslims lose the power to control themselves and are justified in murdering innocent civilians. Because such a generic statement about the War on Terror could only mean a literal promise to destroy Islam to Muslims.
Watch Bob try and have it both ways. It's amusing. The only constant is his obsessive need to blame America while excusing terrorism. Logic and consistency have no place in his mission.
Of course, but a wise leader doesn't lie to his people. He is lying to maintain total control of his people. Remember have been several large protests by the Iranian people, who feel that they are being oppressed and they are. They had a vote in 2009 that was a fraud and there was more protests that were violently put down. His position is about absolute power by religion as the puppets we installed there.
Of course, but a wise leader doesn't lie to his people
Perrie!
What planet do you live on? America is still quagmired in The Great Middle Eastern War, started voluntarily by a US President using outright, bald lies. Those are by far the most significant lies in recent world history. We have no idea when their aftershocks will subside.
"Wisdom" is in very short supply among "leaders". Donald seems to reach new levels of scorn for truth, every day, and his fans love him for it. We have the leaders we deserve. They lie to us because that is what we want.
Wisdom? Really? Was it wise to send....how much money was it?.....to Iran? Why? To buy what?
And the Iranian Nuclear Treaty? What an ultimate bullshit piece of paper that is. When they use a weapon, it will be too late to say, oh, I guess I was wrong.
This is the same country that illegally funds terrorists to wipe out the Jews Hitler didn't finish off. And they've been doing it far longer than Trump has been in politics. Why do you not complain about Hillary's role as Secretary of State-a place where something could actually be done, as opposed to the campaign trail? How about President Obama's part in this? But let's derail this into a Don't vote for Trump meme.
Wisdom? Really? Was it wise to send....how much money was it?.....to Iran? Why? To buy what?
We owed them that money. Do you think it would be wise to have a reputation as a deadbeat? "America only pays its debts if the regime is 'compliant'?"
And the Iranian Nuclear Treaty? What an ultimate bullshit piece of paper that is. When they use a weapon, it will be too late to say, oh, I guess I was wrong.
And your proof of this assertion is...? When you start with the conclusion, it's easy to have a winning argument. Look at this from the Iranian side: what assurance do they have that the US will never use nukes against them? Lemme see... there's only one nation in world history that has used nukes against another... who was that, again??
This is the same country that illegally funds terrorists to wipe out the Jews Hitler didn't finish off.
Again... you start with the conclusion. Hezbollah is an enemy of the US. Iran is an "opponent", if not a declared enemy. It is perfectly logical that Iran finance Hezbollah. We don't like it... but we would be fools not to understand that "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". Financing Hezbollah is a fairly inexpensive way for Iran to hassle us, so of course they will do it. Duh!
Do you imagine that the CIA isn't funding Iranian opposition organizations?
And they've been doing it far longer than Trump has been in politics. Why do you not complain about Hillary's role as Secretary of State-a place where something could actually be done, as opposed to the campaign trail? How about President Obama's part in this? But let's derail this into a Don't vote for Trump meme.
Tell me what a SecState could do. Seriously. Could she go over there and sign a treaty? Not legally, she couldn't. And you kinda sorta have to have the Iranians on board, don't you? Which means you have to give them something in exchange for whatever you want from them.
So let's be concrete. Real-world. Not bumper-sticker BS. What can a SecState actually do?
We owed them? For what? Assets frozen when they invaded sovereign territory (the U.S. Embassy) and seized our citizens? For how long? That is called an act of war, BTW.
And now we are going to 'trust' them because they made a deal? That is incredibly stupid, based on past performance (and nothing has changed in Iran).
Iran's leaders have done nothing to move away form becoming little more than a terrorist organization running a country. I know that the anti-Israelis here have no problem with them funding organizations whose sole reason for existence is to wipe another country off the map. I wonder how much of that money we 'owed' them will be funneled to Hamas?
Perrie!
What planet do you live on? America is still quagmired in The Great Middle Eastern War, started voluntarily by a US President using outright, bald lies. Those are by far the most significant lies in recent world history. We have no idea when their aftershocks will subside.
Bob, you obviously didn't read the rest of my posts. Yes Bush lied, but didn't involve himself in Iran. In fact, the ass did Iran a favor by ridding them of Iraq. We owe our entire state of affairs in the M/E to Bush... and a tad on Obama, who thought that ISIS was the JV team and let them get out of control. But Iran? After they ridded themselves from the Shah, and either murdered, threw out, or made people flee if you were not Shia. When you call another country the great satan, I would say that is a bit more than an opponent.
"Wisdom" is in very short supply among "leaders". Donald seems to reach new levels of scorn for truth, every day, and his fans love him for it. We have the leaders we deserve. They lie to us because that is what we want.
I am not talking about Donald here. As for our leaders.. I agree, but that comes from having a 2 party system.
perrie , I will respectfully disagree, it goes back further than the last Bush admin , it goes all the way back to the Truman and Ike admins, and some could argue it goes even further back than that , and I think every admin since has had its gaffes and mistakes along the way making matters worse, some more so than others.
... and a tad on Obama, who thought that ISIS was the JV team and let them get out of control.
What should he have done? Bombed earlier? Later? Heavier? Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to force him back in.
But Iran? After they ridded themselves from the Shah, and either murdered, threw out, or made people flee if you were not Shia.
The murdering began with the Shah, the CIA's viceroy in Iran
When you call another country the great satan, I would say that is a bit more than an opponent.
Perhaps. Kinda like "axis of evil", isn't it? I don't think there's much point in comparing rhetoric.
I make a simple distinction between enemy and opponent: is there a state of war? Granted, the US is rather sloppy about declaring war nowadays.
... and a tad on Obama, who thought that ISIS was the JV team and let them get out of control.
What should he have done? Bombed earlier? Later? Heavier? Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to force him back in.
Bomb? How about nipping it in the bud so you don't have to bomb. The intelligence was all there. Ignoring the problem only made it worse.
But Iran? After they ridded themselves from the Shah, and either murdered, threw out, or made people flee if you were not Shia.
The murdering began with the Shah, the CIA's viceroy in Iran
I am well aware that the Shah murdered his own people. So what are you saying, one good slaughter deserves another? Our bad makes it OK for their bad? And how about all the student protests they put down. How many people died then... over what? Elections?
When you call another country the great satan, I would say that is a bit more than an opponent.
Perhaps. Kinda like "axis of evil", isn't it? I don't think there's much point in comparing rhetoric.
The "axis of evil" was amorphous group of countries, that sounded better than had any real meaning. It wasn't part of our education system. We were not teaching our children to hate in our public schools even then. Iran is and that is the fundamental difference.
Granted, the US is rather sloppy about declaring war nowadays.
Well there I would have to agree.
How about nipping it in the bud...
Yes. Great.... ... Exactly how? Exactly when? You're waving a magic wand, unless you can be a lot more precise. And you'll also have to explain why your intervention would have been successful when all the others have been fiascos.
So what are you saying, one good slaughter deserves another? Our bad makes it OK for their bad?
Of course not. I'm saying we should shut up. People who live in glass houses...
And how about all the student protests they put down.
Kent State?
The "axis of evil" was amorphous group of countries, that sounded better than had any real meaning.
Do you imagine that Iranians take "great satan" any more seriously than Americans take "axis of evil"?
Bob,
I was going to answer you until the Kent State comment. Then I realized it was not worth it.
Why?
Did Kent State not happen? Was it not American soldiers firing on American students?
How do you figure that it's different?
If you are are trying to say that America murders its dissenters less often... then I'll agree. If you try to say America never kills dissenters... then I won't agree.
No bob , kent state was NOT US soldiers firing on students , it was national guardsmen who had not been activated for nationalization that were still under the control of the governor of the state of OHIO, a lot of people forget that the NG answer to more than one activation notice . they fall under the feds in one instance , and the governor of their state in the other. there was NO federal activation at kent state.
Mark,
I try to be precise. I did not say "US Army". I said "American soldiers". National Guardsmen are (supposedly) trained soldiers.
It was a singular event, and it (rightfully) traumatized the whole country. Kent State was not "standard operating procedure"... but it did happen.
Bob understood , but as I also explained , these guardsmen , soldiers , were under the command of the governor , not the US government. that's the nature of being in the guard , you answer to 2 different masters.
I agree, Mark. The US is a federal state.
I do not see how those Guardsmen being under state control changes anything. It was still American soldiers firing on American students.
Again, I know that the event was singular. The girl kneeling, arms outstretched, beside a fallen comrade is one of the most iconic of the 20th century. It was a watershed moment when the American people recognized that the martyred students were right, regardless of the might brought against them.
But however singular it may have been... it still did happen.
Bob, the difference in state or federal activation is if posse comatatus (sp) applies, under that federalized troops cannot enforce civil law but state activated troops can. And that law has been abused and used a wrongly in the past.
Your distinction is important, legally. Federal forces are "insulated" from social conflicts. (In the US, that is. They have been intimately involved in other countries.)
But because the US is a federal state, the danger of military force is ventilated to the 50 states. Even harder to control.
In 1957 President Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne (they are not a National Guard unit) to Little Rock AK. to thwart the governor of AK, bid to have the AK National Guard stop the intergration of Little Rock high school. He also federalized the Guard.
So yes, a standing unit of the U.S. Army did become involved in a civil matter.
very true Kav , and when I was going through posse Com classes while in service , this was specifically used as a teaching point as a violation of posse com.
it does not also mean that posse com has not been changed over the years either , because it has been affected by other more recent legislation, so its ever changing.
Oh come on, Bob. You don't think the leaders previous to the Shah were also killing people? And the Ayatollahs are still doing it today. Gays are being thrown off roofs, anyone daring to voice opposition is being imprisoned and/or killed. This existed well before we were involved.
You don't think the leaders previous to the Shah were also killing people?
No, Gary. I don't "think" this. I "know" it. The blood-letting in Iran began with the Shah's secret police, the Savak. That is to say, the regime installed by the CIA. Before the CIA did its thing, the Iranians didn't have these problems. That's why they hate us.
This is public knowledge, Gary. It takes just a few minutes to actually know what you are taking about, rather than making stuff up.
You should open a history book rather than spouting simplistic talking points. Reza Shah, the strongman who founded the dynasty, killed all sorts of his opponents. But maybe somebody said "crusade" within his hearing, ans since you believe Muslims are infants who can't resist murdering innocents when they hear that magic word, given your incredibly simplistic good vs America evil worldview, maybe you can blame Reza Shah's murders one of the many American presidents who used the word crusade contemporaneously during his reign.
history is not propaganda bob, you can't keep making things up without embarrassing yourself.
Would you like some vinegar and oil on your word salad, Sean?
Do you need more instruction, Bob? There are books I could recommend if you had any interest in getting beyond the tired juvenile propaganda and moral equivalence you regurgitate that most of us outgrew after sophomore year.
I shall always need more instruction, Sean. Everyone always does.
But... somehow... I don't think I'll be using sources that you recommend...
. Yes Bush lied,
No he didn't. Bipartisan investigations by the both the English and American governments are quite clear about that.
Why do you keep saying things that aren't true?
If anyone wants to know more about what is going on in Iran, please reach out to Dennis McCann on Facebook, he lives much closer. The 'Green Revolution' took place there not so long ago, and was brutally repressed by the 'regime' that hides behind 'Allah', many murdered, many more thrown into prison, to be seen again? We don't know because we are so busy listening to them call us the Great Satan, apologizing and paying them off-that money keeps them in power longer, killing their own citizens with no consequence.
Is Dennis alive? I saw an obituary for a Dennis P. McCann on the internet. Could there be two with the same name?
A quick Google search shows an obit for a different Dennis P McCann.
There's nothing new online for the last two years, though... so at the least he has dropped off the radar. Personally, I would not recommend him as a resource , in any case.
Excellent link on Dennis, Bob, I have a few of my own. I would not use him as a reference.
What if Iran had overthrown our government and installed a dictator that ran a reign of terror for decades?
I doubt that we would get over it
Exactly!
I spent a little time in Iran professionally, a decade ago. (Okay, it's a while ago... but hey! I'm retired now... now I travel to vacation places!)
I had two different interpreters. Both were openly scornful of the Khomeini regime. And both were virulently anti-American because of the overthrow of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah and the Savak. Both were much too young to remember Mossadegh... or even to have been adults under the Shah... but they knew all about the Savak, far bloodier than anything the ayatollahs have had since.
Americans may be excused for not knowing this kind of thing. American media almost never do anything that goes against the grain of "American is always the good guy."
Way, way too far over a lot of peoples head Kavika - "Perhaps if the US and UK hadn't stuck our nose in where it didn't belong we wouldn't have the problem that we have today."
Reminds me of 276 treaties that the U.S. made with the Indian tribes/nations - not to mention the 73 that the Brits made with the Indian tribes/nations - that also weren't kept.
Yes he is lying to the people of Iran, and they suppress them through violence. They also export terrorism, those are given.
The question remains, if we hadn't stuck our nose in where it didn't belong (over oil) and overthrew a legit leader, would Iran be what it is today?
We'll probably never have the answer to that, but it is something that we have look at, and understand intervention in countries domestic politics isn't something that will serve us well in the future. Example, Vietnam, Iraq etc...The list is endless.
We'll probably never have the answer to that, but it is something that we have look at, and understand intervention in countries domestic politics isn't something that will serve us well in the future. Example, Vietnam, Iraq etc...The list is endless.
I would agree, that most of the time when we intervene, it has not turned out well for us or the populations we intervened for (with the exception of WWII and Korea, and Kuwait). But as you said, in the case of Iran, we really don't know. Russia was already involved in major land take overs and we had the Cold War going on with Russia. So it there were other reasons beyond oil. But of course, supporting the Shah, who murdered his own people, didn't help our present position. But as you point out, there is no real way of knowing how this all would have played out, without our intervention there.
I would agree, that most of the time when we intervene, it has not turned out well for us or the populations we intervened
"Most of the time"? Could you name one single occasion when our intervention was unequivocally favorable to the local population? Just one single case?
"Most of the time"? Could you name one single occasion when our intervention was unequivocally favorable to the local population? Just one single case?
Yes, WWII, Korea, Kuwait.
Ok...
We entered WWII when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Not before. We were defending ourselves. Helping allies was in our interest.
Korea and Koweit (Gulf War I) were both UN operations. With genuine coalitions.
I agree that these were ultimately to the advantage of the locals. It's interesting to compare their genesis with that of our less brilliant operations.
I agree that these were ultimately to the advantage of the locals. It's interesting to compare their genesis with that of our less brilliant operations.
You're moving goal posts. You asked when our intervention was good and I gave you three solid examples. In fact, I would argue, we entered WWII to late, due to isolation from WWI. Think of the millions that wouldn't have died.
I would argue, we entered WWII to late, due to isolation from WWI.
This is what led to NATO. The US had no treaties in 1939 to take us into war. As such, and being thousands of miles away from the conflict, it would not have been possible to move the country into war until we were attacked.
I agree that the spread of the niqab is an ugly thing. What do you propose to do?
History 101:
Afghanistan in 1967 was ruled by Mohammed Daoud Khan. There was min to none western influence. They were secular and democratic and some even leaned communist.
Iran up to the Shah, was ruled by Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was democratically elected and he was a secularist.
Now you tell me what made the changes in those pics above? Not an easy answer, I assure you.
Now you tell me what made the changes in those pics above? Not an easy answer, I assure you.
I think its due to AIDS ...
AIDS, or aid? AIDs in non issue in the ME. You have it, you die.
You have it, you die.
Why would that fact make it a non-issue ? Are you saying they are not afraid to die there ?
I'm saying that gay people don't come out because they are killed. If you are gay or striaght and you get AIDS you die from it quietly.
But you might find this interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/iran-rise-hiv
We don't seem to be communicating well . My point is that the middle east blames the west for HIV . In some sense that is probably true . BTW your Guardian link does not work ...
Is this it ?
Yes that is the link.
I have never read that the M/E blames us for AIDS, but it wouldn't surprise me. They blame us for everything.
History 101:
Afghanistan in 1967 was ruled by Mohammed Daoud Khan. There was min to none western influence. They were secular and democratic and some even leaned communist.
Actually Afghanistan was ruled by Mohammed Zahir Shah from 1933-1973. Mohammed Daoud Khan was appointed Prime Minister from 1953-1963.
Daoud overthrew Zahir in 1973 and proclaimed himself President of Afghanistan in 1978.
Daoud, while he was Prime Minister was gaining more support from the Soviet Union and gaining more rights for women, peasants and other rights for the people.
He was later supported by The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, a minority socialist party in 1965 helped Daoud to overthrow his cousin Mohammed Zahir Shah. They were successful in 1973 and established the Republic of Afghanistan. Later Daoud became a strong opponent of the party causing uneasy relations with the Soviet Union.
In 1978 The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan were able to overthrow Daoud and were the power force in Afghanistan until 1992.
In 1992 The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan surrendered to mujahideen rebels creating the Nationalist Islamic Movement of Afghanistan.
After this movement the Taliban took over in 1996.
They were removed in 2001.
And you can go on from here. We're wanting reduce to funds for our military, but we are basically providing all the funds for Afghanistan's military including soldier's salaries, training and weapons and all other military cost until 2024 per U.S-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement.
So I would say Afghanistan has been a disaster at every turn throughout history, but when the People's Democrat Party of Afghanistan took over in 1978, there millions of refugees migrating to Iran and Pakistan and I'm sure some returned obviously to overthrow The People's Democrat Party of Afghanistan to turn in into the Nationalist Islamic Movement of Afghanistan. I really don't think they were in too good of shape no matter whose rule they were under.
Iran up to the Shah, was ruled by Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was democratically elected and he was a secularist.
Now you tell me what made the changes in those pics above? Not an easy answer, I assure you.
And you would be correct in my opinion. You can blame the British MI6 and the USA for going along with it since Britain controlled Iran's oil since 1913 and Mosaddegh naturalized it once he was elected Prime Minister. Seemed like he was the best and worst thing that ever happened to Iran in its history. British Petroleum were increasing oil production everywhere else to undermine his naturalization. The country was literally going to hell because of the British basically shutting down Iran's oil sales and he was reluctantly granted dictatorial powers by the Shah (Reza Pahlavi, commonly know as the Shah of Iran). He was fighting a losing battle he had fought all his life and was taken out because of it.
He was never elected by the Iranian people in the first place. He was elected by people appointed by the Shah, although he was the most popular Prime Minister or anyone Iran had ever had to the masses.
British Petroleum basically bought the rights to the oil early in the 1900s and by the time Mosaddegh naturalized it were making more in one year than they had paid for it.
He had promoted a lot of good policies during and before he became Prime Minister.
You're right. There is no easy answer to the difference in the 60s and 70s and the way it is today, but it appears in Iran, it is quite obvious, Britain and the USA should take the blunt of the blame and in Afghanistan, it didn't make much difference how they dressed, they constantly suffered from unstable government leadership throughout their history.
So the disruption of the governments of other counties seems to end up in worse condition than they were before intervention.
Take all of the recent events of the countries we've intervened in and see what shape they are in today.
Daoud overthrew Zahir in 1973 and proclaimed himself President of Afghanistan in 1978.
Sorry, that was suppose to be Daoud overthrew Zahir in 1973 and proclaimed himself president. And in 1978 he was overthrown.
How does this make me feel?
Sad.
In 1978 The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan were able to overthrow Daoud and were the power force in Afghanistan until 1992.
In 1992 The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan surrendered to mujahideen rebels creating the Nationalist Islamic Movement of Afghanistan.
After this movement the Taliban took over in 1996.
Whoa there. Kind of missed a bit of history... the part that counts.
We created the mujahideen. They were the ones fighting Russia, from the Pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan Reagan literally sent our troops in and our weapons and trained the mujahideen, which taught them everything they needed to know, not only for a take over the country, but also about the how to fight America. You know who funded and was a member of the mujahideen? Osama. So thanks to Mr. Reagan, we created our own Frankenstein's Monster.
So I would say Afghanistan has been a disaster at every turn throughout history, but when the People's Democrat Party of Afghanistan took over in 1978, there millions of refugees migrating to Iran and Pakistan and I'm sure some returned obviously to overthrow The People's Democrat Party of Afghanistan to turn in into the Nationalist Islamic Movement of Afghanistan. I really don't think they were in too good of shape no matter whose rule they were under.
Ya know... I almost agreed with you.. but then I fact checked. There was no mass exodus from Afghanistan. There was about 10,000 to 27,000 executions and 14,000 to 20,000. But we were not there because we cared about that. We were there to burn out Russia and it worked.. until our very well trained mujahideen came back on the scene.
Whoa there. Kind of missed a bit of history... the part that counts.
We created the mujahideen. They were the ones fighting Russia, from the Pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan
We created the mujahideen. They were the ones fighting Russia and the Pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan
That would have worked better for me.
Perrie, I don't understand what you are saying there. The way it is written it appears you are saying the mujahideen rebels were part of the Pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which they weren't. Read what you wrote, please. I know they were trained by us and Osama bin Laden was born of it. Anyway.
The Soviet war had a damaging impact on Afghanistan. Estimates of the Afghan deaths vary from 670,000 to 2 million 5–10 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country, and another 2 million were displaced within the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(1978%E2%80%93present)
Yes it was during the war between Russia and the mujahideen when this happened, not when the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan overthrew Daoud.
99 facts and 1 misplaced sentence. Wow, I'm getting better.
Yes, it seems like every time we go in to support or change a government we end up with a situation that was worse than before. Now we have two militaries to support, one we hope will fight for us and one we can pretty much count on fighting some day in the future.
We created the mujahideen. They were the ones fighting Russia, from the Pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan
We created the mujahideen. They were the ones fighting Russia and the Pro-Soviet People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan
LOL, Six.. yes And.
Yes, it seems like every time we go in to support or change a government we end up with a situation that was worse than before.
This seems to be obvious. But there are still lots of people who recommend military force as the solution to just about every problem. A quagmire here, a quagmire there...
So thanks to Mr. Reagan, we created our own Frankenstein's Monster.
That actually started under Carter. But don't let facts get in the way of your revisionist, partisan history.
P.S. They were fighting even before Carter started arming them. We didn't "create" anything.
We hate Iran because they are Muslims and they kept Americans hostage for a year back in 1979. And because they have sharia law.
For decades America made and kept treaties with the Soviet Union even though it was the "evil empire" that had gulags and no freedom and its revered figure Stalin had murdered millions of his own people.
Iran has been on a path to nuclear weapons. The deal with Iran takes them off that path for 10 years. It is a good deal for the west and the P-6 and America, and we should use those 10 years wisely.
We hate Iran because they are Muslims and they kept Americans hostage for a year back in 1979. And because they have sharia law.
We hate Iran because of their leadership, not because they are Muslims. The revolution was brutal. I know many people both Muslim and Jewish who attest to this. They teach hate and export terrorism. That is why we hate them, not because of 1979. About a third of Americans weren't even alive to remember, much less be angry about it.
They... export terrorism.
We brought down a legitimately elected government in their country. We supplied satellite intelligence to Saddam F***ing Hussein during a war that killed hundreds of thousands.
Yes, the ayatollahs are nasty pieces of work. But so are we. It's long past past time to stop pretending we're always the good guys.
I am not pretending that we are the good guys. I am a realist. I know what we have done. I also know what they are doing. What they teach is poison. It will last for generations. I live in NY. When 9/11 happened, we didn't say kill the Muslims. In fact, dumb dumb made a point of not saying that. We didn't teach in our schools to hate. But that is what Iran does and that is the difference.
So there is a difference... and that difference is still being felt today.. on the streets of NY and NJ. Hate is the one thing you can't get rid of and Iran is an exporter of hate.
My goodness!
For once you are not satisfied with "both sides do it"! You're making progress.
Do you truly find Donald Trump’s discourse less hateful than the ayatollahs'? Mr Bush said he was on a crusade. He used that word (and then tried to say he had not... but videotape !) Mr Obama's rhetoric has been more reasoned... and he has been attacked mercilessly for that reason.
Guantanamo? What is our message?
There's always a US Navy nuclear carrier just outside Iranian waters. What is our message?
Mr Bush said he was on a crusade.
T Hanks to Bob I just learned WWII was insulting to Iran and that FDR was some sort of Christian militant. He dared to use the word crusade when discussing the war against the Nazis. Imagine the horror of saying that word!. It's literally like burning kids. Literally.
It's amazing he wasn't impeached and that the French didn't switch sides because of such intolerant langauge. Oh wait, they were already fighting for the Nazis. Maybe that's why they are so sensitive, having been on the wrong side of a crusade in 1944.
My, my, Sean!
Congratulations! Your reading skills are improving constantly.
The use of the word crusade, once, among millions of spoken words, is very scary. It's no different than dropping an A-bomb. What person can possibly hope to act rationally in the face of a word with magical powers spoken one whole time like crusade?
There's always a US Navy nuclear carrier just outside Iranian waters. What is our message?
Message : Oil must be kept flowing in the Straight of Hormuz . The US has , throughout her history protected the seas against piracy etc . That began in the era of Jefferson & Adams during the Barbary Wars . What is there about you that makes you unaware of US history ?
If that is so, then out of curiosity where did this song come from?
"Rule, Britannia, Britannia rules the waves. Britons never never never will be slaves."
Britain has also been concerned with protecting freedom of the seas . Where did I suggest otherwise ?
You didn't. I just wanted to point out that America was not alone in being the policeman of the world.
As of this moment the US is the power most concerned with keeping the oil routes open . Britain's time to protect trade must have been awhile ago when she was the main colonial power . Those days are long gone ...
The CIA coup against Mossadegh was to protect British oil interests from nationalization. The Brits were magnificent in WWII, but the war exhausted them and they never really recovered. They abandoned (literally just walked away) their empire during the 1950s and 1960s.
The CIA coup against Mossadegh was to protect British oil interests from nationalization. The Brits were magnificent in WWII, but the war exhausted them and they never really recovered. They abandoned (literally just walked away) their empire during the 1950s and 1960s.
That's some interesting history but what does that have to do with the US Naval forces being in the Straight of Hormuz ?
Perhaps you see no connection, Petey... But the Iranians certainly do. For them, those American ships are a message: "We have messed with your country in the past, and we're ready to do it again!"
Since the US has had a presence in that region for decades you have offered no explanation of why they are getting aggressive NOW . Your glib "explanation" does not address that .
Have you observed a rise in hostility? I have not.
Rise in hostility ? You don't seem to be paying attention . There are a great many harassing small boat attacks from the Iranian military against US military vessels in the Straight :
Iran Tells US Navy: Go to the Bay of Pigs; The Persian Gulf Is Ours
Nothing new, Petey.
The level is recent . I suggest it is due to the releasing of funds to Iran due to our nuclear proliferation agreement .
The patriotic song ‘Rule, Britannia!, Britannia rule the waves’, is traditionally performed at the 'Last Night of the Proms' which takes place each year at the Royal Albert Hall.
Originally, Great Britain was called ‘Albion’ by the Romans, who invaded Britain in 55BC , but this later became ‘Britannia’. This Latin word referred to England and Wales, but was no longer used for a long time after the Romans left.
The Romans created a goddess of Britannia, wearing a Centurion helmet and toga, with her right breast exposed. In the Victorian period , when the British Empire was rapidly expanding, this was altered to include her brandishing a trident and a shield with the British flag on, a perfect patriotic representation of the nation’s militarism. She was also standing in the water, often with a lion (England’s national animal), representing the nation’s oceanic dominance. The Victorians were also too prudish to leave her breast uncovered, and modestly covered it to protect her dignity!
The ‘Rule, Britannia!’ song that we recognise today started out as a poem co-written by the Scottish pre-Romantic poet and playwright, James Thomson (1700-48), and David Mallet (1703-1765), originally Malloch. He was also a Scottish poet, but was less well-known than Thomson. The English composer, Thomas Augustine Arne (1710-1778), then composed the music, originally for the masque ‘Alfred’, about Alfred the Great . Masques were a popular form of entertainment in 16th and 17th century England, involving verse, and, unsurprisingly, masks! The first performance of this masque was on 1st August, 1740, at Cliveden House , Maidenhead.
Do you truly find Donald Trump’s discourse less hateful than the ayatollahs'
Any sentient person would.
r Bush said he was on a crusade
Let's see the videotape.
Guantanamo? What is our message
Murder involves punishment.
Do you truly find Donald Trump’s discourse less hateful than the ayatollahs'
Any sentient person would.
r Bush said he was on a crusade
Let's see the videotape. Oh. I see. Calling for a secular crusade against terrorism once is the equivalent of repeatedly calling for Israel to be wiped of the map.
Nuance hard for you?
Guantanamo? What is our message
Murder involves punishment.
I am not pretending that we are the good guys. I am a realist. I know what we have done. I also know what they are doing. What they teach is poison. It will last for generations. I live in NY. When 9/11 happened, we didn't say kill the Muslims. In fact, dumb dumb made a point of not saying that. We didn't teach in our schools to hate. But that is what Iran does and that is the difference.
So there is a difference... and that difference is still being felt today.. on the streets of NY and NJ. Hate is the one thing you can't get rid of and Iran is an exporter of hate.
Just for the record, here's what G. W. Bush said about Muslims a mere 5 days after we were attacked on 9/11:
For the "YouTube challenged"; there was a webpage about this on the official White House website. It was taken down after Obama became president, but I found a copy:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 17, 2001
"Islam is Peace" Says President Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
View the President's Remarks
Listen to the President's Remarks
3:12 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.
These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.
(Cont'd HERE )
At about the same time:
Of course, all we have proven is that Mr Bush had no problem saying contradictory things. Which we kinda sorta already knew...
The only planes that flew the day after 9/11 carried Mr Bush's Saudi friends home. He clearly had no problem sustaining contradictions...
For Buzz: This is Mr Bush, on 9/17, saying "This crusade will take a long time."
Bob, your consideration is appreciated.
Most Americans who hate Iran don't know a thing about the country. They have been America's enemy since ....... 1979. They have sharia law.That is what we know.
There are people who hate Muslims in America because they are Muslim , why don't you think that extends overseas?
But I will agree with you that not everyone that hates Iran hates them simply because they are Muslim. They are at this point a traditional bad guy "enemy" of the US.
There are people in American who hate Baptists because they're Baptist. There are people in American who hate Catholics because they are Catholics. There are people in America who hate Blacks because they're Black. There are people in American who hate Native Americans because they're Native Americans. Why don't you think that extends overseas? OMG - gasp - it does.
Related info (From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website):
Holocaust Denial: Iran Holocaust Cartoon ExhibitionIn December 2015, two state-sponsored Iranian cultural organizations, the Owj Media & Art Institute and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Complex, announced a Holocaust cartoon contest, expecting to receive entries from cartoonists in dozens of countries. Over 150 cartoons from this contest made up a May 2016 exhibition at the Islamic Propaganda Organization in Tehran. After the closing of the Tehran exhibition on May 30, 2016, the Islamic Propaganda Organization sponsored exhibitions of selected cartoons in provincial capitals throughout the country.
An earlier contest was held in 2006 with 1,200 submission from over 60 countries. The Palestine Museum in Tehran later opened an exhibition of 200 cartoons from this contest sponsored by then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These contests occur in the context of official Iranian policy and practice of promoting Holocaust denial, as well as what the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has called “genocidal language against Israel” from top Iranian leaders.
These contests are insulting to the victims and memory of the Holocaust.
The Iranian government has prevented Iranians from learning about the Holocaust... (READ IT ALL)