Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not at all. I just find it amusing that the poster in question so hates Obama, so visceral is repulsed by him for whatever reasons, that they would go to great lengths to depict the President in an unfavorable light,
If you are discussion who I think you are discussing the vitriol was spilling from their keyboard long before he raised his hand and said, I Barak Hussein Obama.
Oh contraire. Returning "fire" is always of benefit. You guys unloaded unmercifully on W and Sarah and Michelle Bachman, and now you pay the price for it.
Wassa matta - brah can dish it out but can't take it?
"You Guys"?? Obviously you have put me in with everyone else Rush has told you to hate and lost the context entirely.
Mubarak is a Dictator and an American Quisling who serves his masters well regardless of what the people of Egypt want. So, do you believe in democracy or not? You and I paid for the tanks, the personnel carriers, the jet planes and the entire apparatus that props Mubarak up. If you want him to stay don't complain about the Government spending tens of Billions it costs
I checked again today, Egypt is still right where we left it.
Being on "the map" and being "there" aren't the same thing.
Iran is still on the map as well, but it has certainly been "lost" as an ally which Obama had a chance at correcting and blew it. Would you say Iran was lost because of how Carters' administration handled it? Indeed, You could make the argument that he did "lose it".
We'll be "losing" a lot more than Egypt shortly and it'll be from our own ignorance.
The simplicity of answers equates with that of the mind. Just keep your maps handy as you'll need them to point to a few more countries shortly.
Being on "the map" and being "there" aren't the same thing.
Iran is still on the map as well, but it has certainly been "lost" as an ally which Obama had a chance at correcting and blew it. Would you say Iran was lost because of how Carters' administration handled it? Indeed, You could make the argument that he did "lose it".
We'll be "losing" a lot more than Egypt shortly and it'll be from our own ignorance.
The simplicity of answers equates with that of the mind. Just keep your maps handy as you'll need them to point to a few more countries shortly.
No. Iran was lost the day the CIA installed the Shah in place of a democratically elected government.
We have a rather unfortunate history of backing the wrong horse (see Noriega, Manual, Hussein, Saddam, Pinochet. Augusto...)
The President is doing the right thing.
Iran is still on the map as well, but it has certainly been "lost" as an ally which Obama had a chance at correcting and blew it.
What by standing up on the West Portico and declaring, "WE TOO ARE IRANIAN!" and then watching the Republican Guard declare the protesters puppets of the Great Satan™? You might run that one by the Shia and Kurds who took that cue from Bush 41, fifty to one hundred thousand dead!
And, do you think for one hot Persian second that the Iranians protesting Ahmadinejad would have turned overnight into American/Israeli loving peaceniks!?! If so, I have some subprime mortgages to sell you.
"Would you say Iran was lost because of how Carters' administration handled it?"
How exactly did Carter fail in handling the Shah? By demanding that end repression, torture and murder of his own citizens, by instituting even the meager democratic reforms? A careful review of the history of the Shah would demonstratively show that both the U.S. and Britain failed, miserably, to convince the Shah that it was in his own best interest to unlight the fuse of unrest brewing in his country as a result of his totalitarian policies??
By giving the dying Shah, shall I repeat for clarity, THE DYING SHAH, a safe haven when NO OTHER country would admit him for treatment lest they jeopardize future relations with the country? But instead Carter allowed the Shah to enter the U.S. and the response from Iran was to take over the American Embassy. Had Carter pursued a more pragmatic approach, as advised by the State Department, establishing relations with the opposition Iran, may have still become an Islamic nation, but not necessarily one opposed to the U.S.
For a nice compilation of the support that Carter provided the Shah up until and after the Iranian Revolution see:
One of the best opportunities to turn Iran from foe to friend occurred in 2001 when Iran approached the Bush administration offering intelligence and logistical support to destroy al Qaida and the Taliban. Only to be slapped in the face by being included in Bush's Axis of Evil Speech.
So between this post and your last in this thread, you side with Chris Matthews and against Republicans. Has hell frozen over or what?
A free and democratic society is always the ideal and ultimate goal, but I see another Iran here, with the very real possibility if we follow obama's bone-headed ideas and his desperate push to get rid of Mubarak like RIGHT NOW, the potential for the radical elements (Muslim brotherhood) to seize power is very real. I would like to know why obama is so adamant about pushing Mubarak out. I believe it's because he eventually staked out a position and if his gamble fails, it will reflect poorly on him...politically.
He has shown the world exactly what a 30 year friend and important ally means to him.
He sure has reset those relationships, but not at all in the way some were expecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Not at all. I just find it amusing that the poster in question so hates Obama, so visceral is repulsed by him for whatever reasons, that they would go to great lengths to depict the President in an unfavorable light, contrary to the views of their own party's position. I'm not painting with a wide brush stroke, in fact quite the opposition, I'm doing a stipple drawing with a single horse hair.
Wait now! Suddenly you think we should all march in lockstep with our "party"? Well, this IS a change, since I thought that is one of the behaviors you despise of both party's members?
By giving the dying Shah, shall I repeat for clarity, THE DYING SHAH, a safe haven when NO OTHER country would admit him for treatment lest they jeopardize future relations with the country?
Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, but the Shah was living in exile in Mexico and chose to enter the US for medical treatment. Couldn't the Shah have just undergone medical treatment in Mexico so the US couldn't have been blamed? (I don't think the Iranians would've taken over the Mexican Embassy in Tehran instead of the US embassy, due to traditional Mexican neutrality in world affairs and a lack of any Mexican involvement in Middle East politics.)
Quote:
But instead Carter allowed the Shah to enter the U.S. and the response from Iran was to take over the American Embassy. Had Carter pursued a more pragmatic approach, as advised by the State Department, establishing relations with the opposition Iran, may have still become an Islamic nation, but not necessarily one opposed to the U.S.
I agree with this.
Quote:
For a nice compilation of the support that Carter provided the Shah up until and after the Iranian Revolution see:
One of the best opportunities to turn Iran from foe to friend occurred in 2001 when Iran approached the Bush administration offering intelligence and logistical support to destroy al Qaida and the Taliban. Only to be slapped in the face by being included in Bush's Axis of Evil Speech.
This is true. It also would have prevented Ahmedijinad from coming to power, as Khatami would have a real achievement under his belt which would have led to the reformists remaining in power. The Axis of Evil Speech doomed the Iranian reformists.
Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, but the Shah was living in exile in Mexico and chose to enter the US for medical treatment. Couldn't the Shah have just undergone medical treatment in Mexico so the US couldn't have been blamed?
The Carter Administration pressured/cajoled/begged/convinced/arranged for Mexico to grant the Shah asylum but his condition required some of that high tech American medicine. Unfortunately, Kissinger, and Brezezinski convinced Cater to allow the Shah to seek treatment in the U.S. Why couldn't he get treatment in Mexicon - lack of health insurance? Just kidding.
Quote:
I don't think the Iranians would've taken over the Mexican Embassy in Tehran instead of the US embassy, due to traditional Mexican neutrality in world affairs and a lack of any Mexican involvement in Middle East politics.
I agree, not much propaganda value in taking over the Mexican Embassy and yelling about El DIABLO GRANDE!!
Quote:
This is true. It also would have prevented Ahmedijinad from coming to power, as Khatami would have a real achievement under his belt which would have led to the reformists remaining in power. The Axis of Evil Speech doomed the Iranian reformists.
Now there's an obscure little bit of history that Beck hasn't figured out how to spin yet.
A free and democratic society is always the ideal and ultimate goal, but I see another Iran here, with the very real possibility if we follow obama's bone-headed ideas and his desperate push to get rid of Mubarak like RIGHT NOW, the potential for the radical elements (Muslim brotherhood) to seize power is very real. I would like to know why obama is so adamant about pushing Mubarak out. I believe it's because he eventually staked out a position and if his gamble fails, it will reflect poorly on him...politically.
You see another Iran, ok in what a crystal ball? Another Iran isn't the worst outcome, as after all, even Ronald Reagan thought Iran safe enough to sell arms and weapons to.
If things turn out poorly for Obama, then so be it, they turn out badly for Obama.
Quote:
He has shown the world exactly what a 30 year friend and important ally means to him.
Mubarak wasn't a friend, he was a paid for spokesperson who will retire to Beverly Hills, probably right next door to Bill Maher. How would you feel if you had to live under Obama for 30 years, see not so cool when you have to wear those shoes.
btw... I think Mubarak actually does own property in Beverly Hills, CA
Quote:
Wait now! Suddenly you think we should all march in lockstep with our "party"? Well, this IS a change, since I thought that is one of the behaviors you despise of both party's members?
I never once said anyone should do anything and I never said I think anyone should do anything. You did, not me.
So when should we expect your thread critical of the Republican Party for supporting President Obama? Should we hold our breath?
You see another Iran, ok in what a crystal ball? Another Iran isn't the worst outcome, as after all, even Ronald Reagan thought Iran safe enough to sell arms and weapons to.
If things turn out poorly for Obama, then so be it, they turn out badly for Obama.
Well, some would disagree very much if another state in the region is taken over by radicals Islamists. I can't think of a worse outcome.
Mubarak wasn't a friend, he was a paid for spokesperson who will retire to Beverly Hills, probably right next door to Bill Maher. How would you feel if you had to live under Obama for 30 years, see not so cool when you have to wear those shoes.
btw... I think Mubarak actually does own property in Beverly Hills, CA
He was an important and vital ally, in terms of Israel, in terms of the war on terror, in terms of keeping the radical elements of his country at bay. That has all changed now as obama tries to push him out in order to save face for himself.
I never once said anyone should do anything and I never said I think anyone should do anything. You did, not me.
Well, it sure seemed like it irked you that I didn't agree with some republicans that agree with obama on the issue, that I was breaking from my party by putting up the video of Tingles criticizing obama for throwing Mubarak under the bus.
So when should we expect your thread critical of the Republican Party for supporting President Obama? Should we hold our breath?
I would say no. and I'll leave that for someone else to put up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I'll leave that for someone else to put up.
