|
|
#32
08-04-2007, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tancredo is a Pacifist Compared.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Felix - Although I am ambivalent on the ethics of your position, it warms my heart to know that there are still people willing to do whatever seems necessary to survival. Carry on good sir. [/ QUOTE ] It's not a position of doing whatever necessary, because if it was determined that holding back was 'necessary' he and people like him wouldn't. His is a position of anger and revenge. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] America has always been overwhelmingly violent and brutal when angered. "Payback" is our middle name. Unfortunately, so is "blowback." The mess that is Iran today, and thus part of the havoc that is Iraq today, is directly attributable to our hubristic arrogance, so perfectly captured in the attitude of your post. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. Its directly attributable to ridiculous rules of engagement and our lack of will to win. [/ QUOTE ] Do you mean the idea of having rules of engagement is ridiculous or the specifics in ours are ridiculous? [/ QUOTE ] the specifics 
|
|
#33
08-04-2007, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tancredo is a Pacifist Compared.....
[ QUOTE ]
This is particularily niave. Go back a little earlier... 1953... the installation of the Shah... Kermit Roosevelt... yes his name was Kermit... [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I should go back to 250 BCE and look at the Parthian empire...yes? Such is your logic. Carter undermined the Shah's govt instead of helping our ally. All previous presidential administrations supported the Shah. Carter did the opposite and the Shah's govt fell and we got these nutbags.... Carter gets full credit for the spread of Shia sponsored terrorism... Carter does not take responsibility though. He is like a man that walks up to a neighbor's house, opens the gate releasing a pitbull that starts biting the neighborhood children. Bush whacks the pitbull with a stick and Carter says, "This is Bush's fault!" It was within Carter's power to have kept the gate locked. But he did not like this neighbor and he took the opposite action... I don't need to go back to 250 BCE, I just need to look at the Carter administration.... And for Sunni terrorism, it was Harry Truman which allowed Saudi Arabia to steal from American oil companies via nationalization in Saudi Arabia... This oil has sponsored Sunni terrorism. Thanks Harry. Democrats presidents create messes that take YEARS to fix....
|
|
#34
08-05-2007, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tancredo is a Pacifist Compared.....
[ QUOTE ]
"Jimmy Carter is responsible for modern day Iran." This is particularily niave. Go back a little earlier... 1953... the installation of the Shah... Kermit Roosevelt... yes his name was Kermit... [/ QUOTE ] Although critics of US foreign policy like to point to the 1953 coup as the beginning of troubles in Iran, closer examination shows the two have little in common. Khomeini's rise had nothing to do with the 1953 coup and everything to do with the rise of political Islam, which was going to occur no matter what happened in 1953.
|
|
#35
08-06-2007, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tancredo is a Pacifist Compared.....
Lack of will to win what? We "won" in Iran in the 1950s and the trouble we've had with them since has been directly attributable to that "win." I recommend reading "All the Shah's Men."
As for Iraq, we would have been in much better shape today had the Bush administration not ignored every recommendation and warning it had from both inside the government and non-governmental organizations about the perils of allowing looting, deBaathification, disbanding the army, occupation, believing Chalabi's lies, etc. A Secretary of Defense whose attitude was not "stuff happens" would have helped too.
|
|
#37
08-06-2007, 02:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tancredo is a Pacifist Compared.....
Iran's leaders don't care about 250 BCE. They do care about, and know well, the history of U.S. undermining of their democracy in the 1950s.
Republican Presidents create messes that rarely are capable of being fixed.
|
|
#38
08-06-2007, 02:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tancredo is a Pacifist Compared.....
Really if you want to get specific you have to blame Kermit Roosevelt.
|
|
#39
08-06-2007, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tancredo is a Pacifist Compared.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is particularily niave. Go back a little earlier... 1953... the installation of the Shah... Kermit Roosevelt... yes his name was Kermit... [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I should go back to 250 BCE and look at the Parthian empire...yes? Such is your logic. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, clearly we looking back 30 years is reasonable and helpful. While looking back 50 years is as relevant as looking back 2250 years. Brilliant.
|
|
#40
08-06-2007, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tancredo is a Pacifist Compared.....
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Dwight Eisenhower is much more responsible for modern day Iran than Jimmy Carter. [/ QUOTE ] The fundamentalist Shia movement wanted power. Specifically to overthrow ANY government and implement a theocracy. Their movement grew in power and the Shah angered them by implementing Western reforms and supressing these Islamo-fascist by whatever means necessary. Preceding US presidents supported the Shah helping him maintaining power. Carter withdrew support and even undermined the Shah's regime leading to the collapse of his dictatorship. Your argument that Iran was a happy land of democracy and flowers until a CIA coup led by a circus strongman overthrew them is silly. The govt was on the brink of collapse otherwise the 3rd rate CIA coup would have failed more miserably than the Bay of Pigs. The current Iranian govt crushes Iranian reformers with torture and prison. Carters actions traded one dictatoship for a WORSE dictatorship....that sponsors world wide terrorism. The world would be a much better place if Iran was still controlled by the Shah.... And after Eisenhower we had Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford. All of these presidents had a brain and support the Shah. Carter, of couse, has no brain and he [censored] things up.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
