-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Protests in Iran
- Thread starter OUSOONER
- Start date
zoomie08 can rest easy. He has been relieved of his title of "most ignorant statement ever" after only 37 hours. Face-Palm.
This is the same country that has been supplying everything from small arms, to IED's, to surface to air missiles along with the manpower to employ and expertise of how to use those weapons TO KILL OUR US AND OUR BROTHERS IN ARMS for the better part of a decade!!! You don't think that their OVERT support of the terrorists that have been destabalizing Iraq has anything to do with the "poor diplomatic relations"? How about their stated desire to kill every living Jew? How about their constant threats to Israel, and their persuit of nuclear weapons? It's kind of hard to have positive diplomatic relations with a government of that mind set.
I am not saying that we need to throw ourselves in the middle of of this thing right now, but the "Blame America First" bullshit has got to be called out for what it is. Iran and their support of terror for the past 30 years is the reason that we have "poor diplomatic relations" with them.
Here is a picture from the Iranian Hostage Crisis. You know, when they took over our Embassy and kept all of our DIPLOMATS hostage. Maybe you can tell me who the guy is with the circle around him. He has been in the news lately. If you REALLY still think that the United States is to blame here, research November 4th, 1979. You will find some interesting reading.
It's not "blaming America first" to recognize that our pre-revolution policies in Iran were pretty fucked up. The USG with the aid of the CIA took down their democratically elected PM Mossadegh because he was a socialist. So much for our democratic ideals. I would argue that if we hadn't inserted ourselves in their internal affairs, the revolution probably would never have happened. Now, I understand that this happened in the midst of a Cold War mindset, and maybe it was justified under the circumstances, but we can't just brush it aside like it didn't happen. Whatever their evils have been since, the Iranian people are completely justified in their hatred of us. Your cavalier attitude toward this is indicative of either ignorance or stupidity - your choice.
Brett
Not to mention our support of Iraq during their war with Iran. Iraq was clearly the aggressor and that war cost a lot of Iranian lives. Even if we forget that I'll bet older Iranians don't.
Brett,
"nursesoon" is an ignorant simpleton who has no idea of the history you are talking about and can not comprehend the depth of any of the discussions on this thread or this board in general. She told me by PM that the reason she cut my post and pasted it to her "liberal playground" was because she was clueless of how to defend herself and needed to throw some chum in the water in the hope that someone would post something that she could drag over here.
I agree 100% that it is not "blaming America first" to suggest that our pre-revolution stance in Iran might have had something to do with the current situation there . That's not what "nursesoon" did. She decided to blame America first with no clue of the history, and then run to a lib web site and pray that someone would bail her out.
As to if those politics were "fucked up" or not? Like you said, it was a Cold War mind set. Hind sight and all that. Hell if I know. It didn't work out to well in the long run, that's for sure.
Or an intentional omission. Is your failure to come up with an obvious 3rd option ignorance or stupidity?
We had good diplomatic relations with the Shah's government. Obviously, we were propping his government up. The "revolution" put an end to that, and we have had virtually no relations with them since. Could we have done something different over the past 30 years? Maybe? Probably? Who the hell knows. The Iranian people seem to be a lot more "pro-west" now than they the history books say they were in the late 70's.
That doesn't look like an FA-18 to me.:icon_tong
Trigger dowwwwwn....snap.. looked good! :icon_smil
Dude, I have been posting on political boards for ages, our propping up the shah is always brought up in why Iran hates us threads. What else would be behind a comment of meddling not working out. I don't know the particulars or dates tho and wasn't about to dig up links to argue it with you, just like I don't for all the historical stuff people bring up during Israel/Palestine debates.
Your post entertained me, my board is almost all liberal and I don't like echo chambers so I try to bring the far right view-point there for us to see and argue, telling you about was a courtesy and an excuse to post links and hopefully get some conservatives to come over and defend the comment. I'm sorry I offended you by my c&p, most people with strong viewpoints don't care if their arguments are presented elsewhere.
Here is a picture from the Iranian Hostage Crisis. You know, when they took over our Embassy and kept all of our DIPLOMATS hostage. Maybe you can tell me who the guy is with the circle around him. He has been in the news lately. If you REALLY still think that the United States is to blame here, research November 4th, 1979. You will find some interesting reading.
It has been discounted that the person in the photo is Ahmadinejad, including by the CIA.
Great link Flash. Did you bother to read it? Some of the highlights:
Well, if that is not certain, then nothing is.
There there is this:
So a couple of guys that CNN says works for the CIA are about as noncommittal as possible. All the while two eye witnesses who were being held by the guy for 444 days positively ID him, and that story is backed up by others who were held captive.
All that article says is that nobody agrees about the photo and nobody really knows if he was there or not.
Sorry to bust your bubble but why did the issue it die such a quick death then? President Bush, who expressed serious concern when the accusations first came out, and his administration would have had a field day if it was proven to be him, as they rightfully should have. But two eyewitnesses 25 years removed can't counter the latest in facial recognition technology. Even hostages who claimed it was him later expressed doubts.
There is plenty to criticize Ahmadinejad about without getting wrapped up whether he was in photo with US hostages. If it was him we would have made an issue about it, but we didn't because it wasn't. Simple as that.
No bubble to bust really.
I don't know if it was him, you don't know if it was him, the CIA does not know if it was him, and the hostages don't know it was him. That sum it up pretty good?
You are right though, Ahamabinawhatever is a fuck stick of the first order regardless of his role in the hostage taking.
I don't know if it was him, you don't know if it was him, the CIA does not know if it was him, and the hostages don't know it was him. That sum it up pretty good?
You are right though, Ahamabinawhatever is a fuck stick of the first order regardless of his role in the hostage taking.
Actually, the article (and this one) say pretty definitively that the photo is not of Ahmadinejad, and the only evidence of his involvement comes from only two eyewitnesses who claim he was not just a peon but a supervisor. Even Daugherty, one of the only two to claim seeing him there, is "not positive" that's him in the photo.
If you want to accuse Ahmadinejad of being a terrorist, at least be honest enough to not use a photo well established to be false. "Yea, it's a lie, but the point remains" doesn't cut it.