RE: Iran 2010

RE: Iran 2010 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Jeffff -> RE: Iran 2010 (1/1/2010 7:57:54 AM)
Thats weak dude. How many Iranian girls did you meet? Is it possible they were happy under the Shah because they were upper class? You met them in college right? You would deny the human and civil rights violations under the Shah? I am not defending the Islamist revolution. I am not defending extremists of any stripe. All I am saying is, if you back a tyrant, don't be surprised if the populace hates you? Just imagine what will happen if the Kingdom of Saud ever gets out from under that thumb? Jeff

thompsonx -> RE: Iran 2010 (1/1/2010 8:00:46 AM)
quote: Were our national interests better served by the Shah, or by the Ayatollah. And how about freedom, who were the Iranians more free under. By "our national interests" You mean the interests of U.S. comercial enterprises not the U.S. government or the people of the U.S. right? quote: Back then the Soviet Empire was ruled by thugs who would deliberately kill entire nations of people through starvation or any other means that gave them their jollies, Kinda like we did to the native americans and the Vietnamese, just to name a couple. quote: and the Mid East was of strategic importance because of the Suez Canal, the various sea ports there, and the oil. We were at war, and I'm glad that our leaders at the time did what was necessary to win it, I am thankful every day. War???really????the last time the U.S. was legally at war was 1945. T.

Sanity -> RE: Iran 2010 (1/1/2010 8:12:32 AM)
It didn't all happen in a vacuum Jeff. The Shah wasn't as bad as your liberal friends need you to believe, and the guys who threw him out aren't popular with anyone thats of a sound mind. We had our reasons for backing the shah of Iran, some of which should be fairly obvious to you by this point. As to your point about the Kingdom of Saud, it should be our hope that as few nations as possible fall to Islamic extremists. Our best hope is that Saudi Arabia moderates over time and gradually democratizes itself, and that would have been the ideal scenario for pre-revolutionary Iran, as well. quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Thats weak dude. How many Iranian girls did you meet? Is it possible they were happy under the Shah because they were upper class? You met them in college right? You would deny the human and civil rights violations under the Shah? I am not defending the Islamist revolution. I am not defending extremists of any stripe. All I am saying is, if you back a tyrant, don't be surprised if the populace hates you? Just imagine what will happen if the Kingdom of Saud ever gets out from under that thumb? Jeff

Musicmystery -> RE: Iran 2010 (1/1/2010 8:37:56 AM)
quote: War???really????the last time the U.S. was legally at war was 1945. T. Ok, that's a little silly. Technically correct, but Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan--sure as shit closely resemble war enough to casually call them that. They still take soldiers, equipment and money.

thompsonx -> RE: Iran 2010 (1/1/2010 8:45:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: War???really????the last time the U.S. was legally at war was 1945. T. Ok, that's a little silly. Technically correct, but Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan--sure as shit closely resemble war enough to casually call them that. They still take soldiers, equipment and money. How bout we call it by its real name...international thugery. There is an interesting little book called "war is a racket". It is a small book, about half of it is pictures. What is even more interesting is who wrote it. It was written by General Smedley Butler, USMC,MOH, who at the time of his death was the most highly decorated man in the history of the U.S. military. T.

Musicmystery -> RE: Iran 2010 (1/1/2010 8:49:51 AM)
No argument there. After all, the U.S. is the world's largest arms dealer.

TheHeretic -> RE: Iran 2010 (1/1/2010 9:44:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff I would argue that the execesses of the Shah, backed by us, lead to the Iranian revolution. Had we stepped on him in reguards to human rights it is possible things would be a bit better now..... Possible? Not a bit of doubt that we set ourselves up to be the devil any mass movement needs, Jeff, but the roots of the revolution go a lot deeper. Religious fanaticism was in the driver's seat. The desire for more freedom drove a portion of the revolutionaries, but their faction lost to the theocrats. More civil rights wasn't going to stop people demanding their freedom to become dictatorial assholes.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125