Iran Tell Obama to F** Off

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
While I agree with the basic premise of staying out of everyone’s shit, I worry about leaving Afghanistan in the state it’s in.

We did this once after the Soviets withdrew, and not helping them rebuild was a crime.

It was a crime because we helped those people defeat the Soviets. They did our fighting for us and when the Soviets left, their warring factions turned the nation into a shithole. It was this atmosphere which brought the Taliban in from Pakistan to restore order.

If we would have supported the Afghans after the Soviet war, there would have been no need for the Taliban, and hense no home there for Al-Qaeda.[/quote]

They were already fighting the soviets. We helped them in succeeding. Job done.

It is 100% pure speculation whether or not some imaginary amount of money and help in nation building would have resulted in less islamic extremism or training in Afganistan.

82

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
While I agree with the basic premise of staying out of everyone’s shit, I worry about leaving Afghanistan in the state it’s in.

We did this once after the Soviets withdrew, and not helping them rebuild was a crime.

It was a crime because we helped those people defeat the Soviets. They did our fighting for us and when the Soviets left, their warring factions turned the nation into a shithole. It was this atmosphere which brought the Taliban in from Pakistan to restore order.

If we would have supported the Afghans after the Soviet war, there would have been no need for the Taliban, and hense no home there for Al-Qaeda.

They were already fighting the soviets. We helped them in succeeding. Job done.

It is 100% pure speculation whether or not some imaginary amount of money and help in nation building would have resulted in less islamic extremism or training in Afganistan.
[/quote]

Well, some “imaginary amount of money and help” somehow managed to rebuild both Germany and Japan.

And we were fighting against them.

83

[quote]Sifu wrote:
That New York Times article is disingenuous crap. Look at this excerpt from “the roots”.

“In 1951, Iran’s Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators backing the law elected its leading advocate, Dr. Mossadegh, as prime minister.”

There is no mention of Prime Minister Razmara or how the nationalization debate was settled by Mossadegh supporters assassinating Razmara and threatening to kill anyone else who opposed them.

Then they add this bit.

" Britain responded with threats and sanctions.

Dr. Mossadegh, a European-educated lawyer then in his early 70’s, prone to tears and outbursts, refused to back down."

Not only is there is no mention of the killings and threats by Mossadegh’s supporters but they try to portray him as just a sensitive, kindly old man.

What is going on here is this. The New York Times is deliberately trying to portray the US and UK as the bad guys.

So they have deliberately left out the history which shows that Mossadegh and the Ayatollahs were gangsters who got their way by killing their opponents and threatening to kill anyone else who opposed them.

This is garbage journalism on the part of the New York Times. Because it completely ignores what happened to Prime Minister Razmara. If one follows the NYT accounting of events one would think that Razmara didn’t even exist, that Mossadegh and the Ayatollah Kashani were “good guys” who the mean, awful, US went gangster on.

[/quote]

Uh huh. I think we can both agree that the New York Times is a crap newspaper.

It was actually the CIA document I wanted people to read, not the Times’ commentary on it. I assumed that people would be able to find the link on that page, labeled “CIA DOCUMENT.” Perhaps I assumed too much.

So, try, try again.

Intro page:

Summary:

I. Preliminary Steps:

II. Drafting the Plan

III. Consolidating the Operational Plan

IV. Decisions Are Made: Activity Begins

V. Mounting Pressure Against the Shah

VI. The First Try

VII. Apparent Failure

VIII. The Shah is Victorious

IX. Report to London

X. What was Learned from the Operation

84

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules. [/quote]

With that statement you find common ground with every terrorist, guerrilla fighter, and tinpot dictator in the world.

85

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules.

With that statement you find common ground with every terrorist, guerrilla fighter, and tinpot dictator in the world.

[/quote]

Well done Varq. Good to see old men like you can still think on their feet.

86

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
While I agree with the basic premise of staying out of everyone’s shit, I worry about leaving Afghanistan in the state it’s in.

We did this once after the Soviets withdrew, and not helping them rebuild was a crime.

It was a crime because we helped those people defeat the Soviets. They did our fighting for us and when the Soviets left, their warring factions turned the nation into a shithole. It was this atmosphere which brought the Taliban in from Pakistan to restore order.

If we would have supported the Afghans after the Soviet war, there would have been no need for the Taliban, and hense no home there for Al-Qaeda.

They were already fighting the soviets. We helped them in succeeding. Job done.

It is 100% pure speculation whether or not some imaginary amount of money and help in nation building would have resulted in less islamic extremism or training in Afganistan.

Well, some “imaginary amount of money and help” somehow managed to rebuild both Germany and Japan.

And we were fighting against them.

[/quote]

Not even remotely the same. Again, if we destroy it, we should rebuild it. Don’t you think it a bit of stretch to compare civilized Germany and Japan to Afganistan? I do.

87

[quote]dhickey wrote:

Not even remotely the same. Again, if we destroy it, we should rebuild it. Don’t you think it a bit of stretch to compare civilized Germany and Japan to Afganistan? I do.[/quote]

So you don’t think we hit any buildings invading Afghanistan? Nothing? I bet we hit and destroyed a shit load of stuff.

Trying to help them rebuild is the best way to make a friend of that nation, and to see that this doesn’t happen again (at least from them).

We could have done this after they repelled the Soviets and we likely wouldn’t be in this spot. If we were to commit the same mistake of getting involved and then abandoning the country to the shambles its in, then we deserve what we get.

And it’s not like we’d have to restore them to the point where they’ve got wireless internet all over. Getting them a better standard of life would do wonders, and in Afghanistan that means clean running water, electricity, etc.

88

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
So you don’t think we hit any buildings invading Afghanistan? Nothing? I bet we hit and destroyed a shit load of stuff.
[/quote]
I don’t know how many times I need to say this. I think if we reck it, we should replace it.

We spend a shit load of money around the globe. This idea is overly simplistic and naive. Especially with islamic fundementalism.

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. So Afganistan “might” have been a freind if we would have spent some arbitrary amount of money. They we would have been fighting somewhere else. What’s the differense. Should we just build the entire mid east?

So international welfare. Yeah, that sounds cheap. If they really need running water, they can get it. Who gave it to us? If you want to send your money to Afganistan, go ahead. It is not the gov’ts job to spend my money on running water in the fucking desert.

89

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Sifu wrote:

. . .

Sifu, did the USSR invade Iran in 1941?[/quote]

In WW2 the Iranians were sided with the Nazis who invaded the USSR. So the allies invaded Iran in order to secure a supply route into the southern USSR.

[quote]
Did the USSR and Britian put the Shah in power?[/quote]

90

You guys make it sound like nothing else was going on in the world at the time. We just decided to do this to Iran for no reason.
Like the rest of the world was in peace and harmony.

You forget that China just turned Communist.

There was a war in Korea.

The Soviets dominated half of Europe,

There was the Hungarian Revolution.

The French got kicked out of Indochina by Communists

The Suez Canal was nationalized by Soviet allies

The Cuban Revolution was going on.

What you are saying is we should have minded our own business and let the Soviets have the world?

All of you should be glad that did not happen.

91

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Sifu wrote:

. . .

Sifu, did the USSR invade Iran in 1941?

In WW2 the Iranians were sided with the Nazis who invaded the USSR. So the allies invaded Iran in order to secure a supply route into the southern USSR.

Did the USSR and Britian put the Shah in power?

[/quote]

Sifu, Varq, anyone, yes or no.

92

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules.

With that statement you find common ground with every terrorist, guerrilla fighter, and tinpot dictator in the world.

[/quote]

War is not a game. It does not matter how you played. Winning is all that matters. If you are not prepared to win you should go home, stay out of the way of those who are and not whine like a little bitch afterwards.

93

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:

What else funny is it was the top story on the CNN website this morning, as soon as the reaction to the video broke, you can’t even finds the story on the website anywhere…You just gotta love good old fashion yellow journalism.

Keep in mind that FauxNews is more guilty of this than any other network in the United States.[/quote]

The article came fro the Associated Press…And no they are not, CNN has been really bad about that lately…That’s why I look at both among other sources…However CNN is quietly reporting it Saturday…Let’s not embarrass our favorite idiot.

94

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:

What else funny is it was the top story on the CNN website this morning, as soon as the reaction to the video broke, you can’t even finds the story on the website anywhere…You just gotta love good old fashion yellow journalism.

Keep in mind that FauxNews is more guilty of this than any other network in the United States.

you’re kidding right?

No, I’m not. They do everything short of make up news and paste it on their front page. They are a disgrace to the entire journalistic industry.[/quote]

Ok, then find us an article that is categorically false. Don’t just say, put your money where your mouth is.

Simple task, go the the fox news site, get an article, that’s not an opinion piece and prove that their facts are wrong.

95

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
That New York Times article is disingenuous crap. Look at this excerpt from “the roots”.

“In 1951, Iran’s Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators backing the law elected its leading advocate, Dr. Mossadegh, as prime minister.”

There is no mention of Prime Minister Razmara or how the nationalization debate was settled by Mossadegh supporters assassinating Razmara and threatening to kill anyone else who opposed them.

Then they add this bit.

" Britain responded with threats and sanctions.

Dr. Mossadegh, a European-educated lawyer then in his early 70’s, prone to tears and outbursts, refused to back down."

Not only is there is no mention of the killings and threats by Mossadegh’s supporters but they try to portray him as just a sensitive, kindly old man.

What is going on here is this. The New York Times is deliberately trying to portray the US and UK as the bad guys.

So they have deliberately left out the history which shows that Mossadegh and the Ayatollahs were gangsters who got their way by killing their opponents and threatening to kill anyone else who opposed them.

This is garbage journalism on the part of the New York Times. Because it completely ignores what happened to Prime Minister Razmara. If one follows the NYT accounting of events one would think that Razmara didn’t even exist, that Mossadegh and the Ayatollah Kashani were “good guys” who the mean, awful, US went gangster on.

Uh huh. I think we can both agree that the New York Times is a crap newspaper.

It was actually the CIA document I wanted people to read, not the Times’ commentary on it. I assumed that people would be able to find the link on that page, labeled “CIA DOCUMENT.” Perhaps I assumed too much.

So, try, try again.

Intro page:

Summary:

I. Preliminary Steps:

II. Drafting the Plan

III. Consolidating the Operational Plan

IV. Decisions Are Made: Activity Begins

V. Mounting Pressure Against the Shah

VI. The First Try

VII. Apparent Failure

VIII. The Shah is Victorious

IX. Report to London

X. What was Learned from the Operation
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-main.10.pdf[/quote]

Benard Goldstein in his book “Bias” describes his experience with the liberal bias as not one of changing or manipulating facts. The media will back page, or simply omit facts ore stories they find unfavorable to their point of view…He worked with Dan Rather for 20 something years…As we all know, he at the end of his career, actually did falsify a report and caught a shit storm for it.

96

Oh how unfair: It was “fake, but accurate.”

More than good enough for a great newsman and Managing Editor like Rather.

(Btw, I lost track of what was happening with his lawsuit against CBS over all the damages he suffered due to their not taking care of him as they should have?)

97

[quote]pat wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:

What else funny is it was the top story on the CNN website this morning, as soon as the reaction to the video broke, you can’t even finds the story on the website anywhere…You just gotta love good old fashion yellow journalism.

Keep in mind that FauxNews is more guilty of this than any other network in the United States.

you’re kidding right?

No, I’m not. They do everything short of make up news and paste it on their front page. They are a disgrace to the entire journalistic industry.

Ok, then find us an article that is categorically false. Don’t just say, put your money where your mouth is.

Simple task, go the the fox news site, get an article, that’s not an opinion piece and prove that their facts are wrong.[/quote]

I remember where, for months, they kept saying that they found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that we were aiming for, and were pointing towards some empty metal shells as proof. But they swore up and down that they were the ones. Blaring headlines, the whole bit.

Later on, of course, President Dickfuck even said that there weren’t any, so that article disappeared.

They are a sham.

98

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:

What else funny is it was the top story on the CNN website this morning, as soon as the reaction to the video broke, you can’t even finds the story on the website anywhere…You just gotta love good old fashion yellow journalism.

Keep in mind that FauxNews is more guilty of this than any other network in the United States.

you’re kidding right?

No, I’m not. They do everything short of make up news and paste it on their front page. They are a disgrace to the entire journalistic industry.

Ok, then find us an article that is categorically false. Don’t just say, put your money where your mouth is.

Simple task, go the the fox news site, get an article, that’s not an opinion piece and prove that their facts are wrong.

I remember where, for months, they kept saying that they found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that we were aiming for, and were pointing towards some empty metal shells as proof. But they swore up and down that they were the ones. Blaring headlines, the whole bit.

Later on, of course, President Dickfuck even said that there weren’t any, so that article disappeared.

They are a sham.[/quote]

Really, I never saw articles that said that. They said that such weapons were found, even though they are not the ones we said were there. But there was some stuff there. I little bit of yellow cake and some biological agents of some sort, I forget…

I’d like you to find an article that is clearly false and post it and let us take a look for ourselves. If they are as bad as you say, you should pretty much be able to go there almost any day and find something false.

99

[quote]pat wrote:

Benard Goldstein in his book “Bias” describes his experience with the liberal bias as not one of changing or manipulating facts. The media will back page, or simply omit facts ore stories they find unfavorable to their point of view…He worked with Dan Rather for 20 something years…As we all know, he at the end of his career, actually did falsify a report and caught a shit storm for it. [/quote]

Goldberg

100

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You guys make it sound like nothing else was going on in the world at the time. We just decided to do this to Iran for no reason.
Like the rest of the world was in peace and harmony.

You forget that China just turned Communist.

There was a war in Korea.

The Soviets dominated half of Europe,

There was the Hungarian Revolution.

The French got kicked out of Indochina by Communists

The Suez Canal was nationalized by Soviet allies

The Cuban Revolution was going on.

What you are saying is we should have minded our own business and let the Soviets have the world?

All of you should be glad that did not happen.
[/quote]

Why would the America-haters on this forum be glad of that?

I don’t believe I’ve ever once seen any of them attribute any bad thing of any kind that ever happened, anytime in the world, to the Soviets or to any dictatorship, or to any nation in the world but the United States. Never, ever.

This is just one example: To what shall we blame problems suffered by the Afghani people?

Islamic extremists? Could they be to blame? Oh, heaven forfend. Try finding one post where they assign any blame this way.

And when they look back into the history of the last few decades or century, might they blame the Soviets?

No, of course not! Indeed, the evil was in any way assisting the Afghanis in driving the Soviets out!

These Johnny-One-Notes can only ever find one explanation, always the same explanation, and hundreds and hundreds of posts of the same explanation and in many of their cases, never even any other topic of posting at all, for everything that ever went less than perfectly in the world and everything that was bad or is even claimed to be bad.