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.
But America is so hated by Iran and the lovely Mr. Ahmadinejad. And how do we forget his declaration that Israel must be destroyed? And how, exactly, Israel would be "eliminated by one storm." He said if America did anything in Iran.... ~ Now, I know this demonstration is supposedly a celebration, but I think it's just a show of what is to come. As they race full-speed ahead to get nuclear weapons they make it clear that if there is any trouble, the Jews will be the first to suffer. And how do we forget that Hitler was only slightly more direct when he announced seven months before invading Poland that if there was another war the result would be the annihilation of the Jews in Europe. Maybe I'm mixing up the demonstrations with the disdain for America, but overall I think their threat is HUGE.
They have to talk tough. They would certainly not position themselves to appear weak. They do it because of the continous talk of the US 'unwilling to remove military options against Iran". They want us...no, they NEED us to know that if we attack them there'll be 'dire consequences' and all that. Honestly, I don't think we could occupy Iran while also occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. But if we're talking straight up and down armies vs. armies, they got nothing. No real delivery systems to attack domestic US interests (minus their own oil which they struggle to refine). However, they could most certainly deal severe regional damage
Scared? Only in the context Bush will try to use their annual Holiday they have had for the past 28 years as a justification to now attack them, yeah that is a scary proposal.
Very unfortunate we took their regional counterbalance out and allowed Iran to get this new position of strength in the Middle East, I am with you on that one.
People who think that their interests include stoning women for wearing slacks and waiting for the 12th Mahdi to appear so that half the world can be incinerated are nuts.
People who forget that Iran's oil wealth is largely the result of Western exploration and technology are suffering from selective amnesia.
People who blame America for their own backwardness and acquiescence to the whims of madmen are intellectually immature.
I wouldn't imagine "stoning women for wearing slacks" and "waiting for the 12th Mahdi to appear so that half the world can be incinerated" were what the revolutionaries used as their main selling points.
I'd imagine their appeal had more to do with promises to nationalize oil, drive out the "American imperialists," overthrow a 25-year oppressive dictatorship, and reclaim national autonomy... when you're starving you'll support the people who promise to feed you. It was the communists in the USSR and China, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela... the Iranians got a bad deal in the end and Iran's current government is indefensible and inhumane, but to assert that we played no role in its formation is ignorant.
And I would say that dictatorships, US supported or not, with their accompanying stranglehold on the press and destruction of human rights, free speech, prosperity, and education are perfectly suited to reduce people to "backwardness," whether you believe so or not.
And I would say that dictatorships, US supported or not, with their accompanying stranglehold on the press and destruction of human rights, free speech, prosperity, and education are perfectly suited to reduce people to "backwardness," whether you believe so or not.
That word says it all. It doesn't matter which "wing" they're accused of leaning towards, they're the same all over.
I wouldn't imagine "stoning women for wearing slacks" and "waiting for the 12th Mahdi to appear so that half the world can be incinerated" were what the revolutionaries used as their main selling points.
Then you are more ignorant of the situation in Iran and throughout the Islamic world than I thought. Watch what happens in Pakistan....
I'd imagine their appeal had more to do with promises to nationalize oil, drive out the "American imperialists," overthrow a 25-year oppressive dictatorship, and reclaim national autonomy... when you're starving you'll support the people who promise to feed you. It was the communists in the USSR and China, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela... the Iranians got a bad deal in the end and Iran's current government is indefensible and inhumane, but to assert that we played no role in its formation is ignorant.
No one was starving in Iran or Venezuela. ALL those folks "got a bad deal". It is most assuredly ignorant to assert that we played no role in Iran's current mess -- which is why I didn't do so.
And I would say that dictatorships, US supported or not, with their accompanying stranglehold on the press and destruction of human rights, free speech, prosperity, and education are perfectly suited to reduce people to "backwardness," whether you believe so or not.
Indeed, there is nothing more inimical to human progress than totalitarianism. That's why I oppose the efforts of the Left in America and everywhere else in the world. And so should you.
"Then you are more ignorant of the situation in Iran and throughout the Islamic world than I thought. Watch what happens in Pakistan...."
Am I? Muqtada Al Sadr in Iraq shares a pretty similar version of Islam with the mullahs in Iran, but I would guess many of the people who supported the Mahdi Army after the invasion did so to further their own interests, because they wanted protection from Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgents. Similarly, the Iranian Revolutionaries won the support of secular, anti-shah lefties and liberals by emphasizing their anti-imperialism and downplaying their desire for theocracy.
Quote:
No one was starving in Iran or Venezuela. ALL those folks "got a bad deal". It is most assuredly ignorant to assert that we played no role in Iran's current mess -- which is why I didn't do so.
If they weren't, they were close... I was trying to be metaphorical. You may not believe we played "no" role but you seem determined to absolve US foreign policy of any significant responsibility. And I'm not sure that most of the people in Venezuela necessarily feel that they got a "bad deal," considering that they keep reelecting that deal. The aristocratic-style government that came before was probably worse.
Quote:
Indeed, there is nothing more inimical to human progress than totalitarianism. That's why I oppose the efforts of the Left in America and everywhere else in the world. And so should you.
Totalitarianism comes in right-wing (fas cism) and left-wing (communism) forms. Neither side has a stranglehold or a monopoly. And I think that many of the governments that you are insinuating should be considered "totalitarian" are not so, maybe "authoritarian," which is also bad. The Shah was pretty totalitarian though, as was Saddam, who we supported when it suited our interests.
Last edited by fishmonger; 11-05-2007 at 10:32 AM..
Am I? Muqtada Al Sadr in Iraq shares a pretty similar version of Islam with the mullahs in Iran, but I would guess many of the people who supported the Mahdi Army after the invasion did so to further their own interests, because they wanted protection from Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgents. Similarly, the Iranian Revolutionaries won the support of secular, anti-shah lefties and liberals by emphasizing their anti-imperialism and downplaying their desire for theocracy.
If they weren't, they were close... I was trying to be metaphorical. You may not believe we played "no" role but you seem determined to absolve US foreign policy of any significant responsibility. And I'm not sure that most of the people in Venezuela necessarily feel that they got a "bad deal," considering that they keep reelecting that deal. The aristocratic-style government that came before was probably worse.
Totalitarianism comes in right-wing (fas cism) and left-wing (communism) forms. Neither side has a stranglehold or a monopoly. And I think that many of the governments that you are insinuating should be considered "totalitarian" are not so, maybe "authoritarian," which is also bad. The Shah was pretty totalitarian though, as was Saddam, who we supported when it suited our interests.
1. Islamic fundamentalism is a significant force in every Muslim country in the world. Ignore it at your peril.
2. No one is trying to "absolve" anyone of anything except you, with your implied support for fascist dictators who hoodwink their people into slavery through hatred of the US.
3. The Shah and Saddam are dead. Your metaphorical role models are still alive and threatening all of us.
I read once that the student revolutionaries were either going to take over the Soviet embassy OR the US embassy, and ultimately, the US won by a "vote" of a slim margin.
Am I making this up, or can a historian better schooled on the issue enlighten?
Agree 100%. Iran may very well discover that the 12th Mahdi arrives via a squadron of F-16I Sufas.
I'm wondering how many people in Iran are reading this right now . ;>)
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.
