Things heating up again in Iran
- Thread starter Babak
- Start date
There are a lot of people who believe the actor named Ronald Reagan was a great president. Many of these people also believe George C. Scott was actually General George S. Patton, Jr.
I am always amused how republicans credit Reagan with the end of the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe and the change in their political structure....and at the same time don't credit Clinton with the unparalleled economic expansion and budget surpluses that happened during his tenure.
Demos do the reverse with their idols.
Just spin and twisting facts to meet a conclusion.
As much as I hate Muslims, I think our military has done enough invading & liberating for a while. I may be solidly right of center, but those reports of U.S. soldiers getting killed every day in Iraq are very discomforting.
It's a price worth paying... once we have found and destroyed the Weapons of Mass Destructions, once we have killed all the Evil Iraqis who opposed our liberation of Iraq, and once we have put in good leaders to rule Iraq who support the US ideals of Democracy, Capitalism and Free Trade, then we can leave...
Candle, the irony here is that I know you hold the exact opposite opinion, and are just spoofing the gung ho right wingers. You do it so convincingly that most people probably think you're serious....and even the hard-core conservatives you're imitating wouldn't think it's "a price worth paying" if was their own sons & brothers dying out there. The U.S. should encourage the toppling of the ayatollah evil-doers, but without sending in massive troop coloumns to get picked off by enemy guerillas.
"To distract a restive young population, state television has announced an extensive schedule of Iranian soap operas and European football matches. Free outdoor concerts, with free food, are also being organised in the capital to coincide with the July 9 anniversary. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,987831,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,987831,00.html
The difference is Reagan's policies, and more important, his vision, were responsible for the Soviet Union's demise. Clinton, on the other hand, was just a lucky beneficiary of timing, plus having a Republican House of Representatives that restrained his worst socialist impulses.
That is your spin only. Your opinion, not fact. I hear similar arguments from the democrats that Reagan was just the benefactor of a final economic collapse of a battle with the soviets that was started after WWII. The 40+ year old cold war ended, but Reagan was simply the man in power during the surrender.....and unrighteously took the credit.
I have spoken with many Russians who lived in Russia during that time frame, they don't share your opinions either. They have an entirely different spin on the situation.
However, folks believe whatever they like, mox nix, and quite irrelevant to the truth what dogmatically partisan folks believe anyway.
History in 500 years will likely have a more accurate view of what really happened.