So what? They only need a small excuse to hate us and to blame us for their problems. And they always find these excuses even if they need to go back 50 (or 500) years. What else is new. That does not mean that we have to take their "resentment" into account given that they are going to be resentful no matter what we do and given that they don't give a damn about our resentments either.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
to conservatives -is Bush the worst ever?
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Quote from dddooo:
So what? They only need a small excuse to hate us and to blame us for their problems.
The question at hand is why we are stuck with a virulently anti-US theocracy in Iran. While you may not personally care much what Iranians think about us, you have to admit that the opinions of the Iranian public is an important factor in the type of government they end up with. You don't have to accept the legitimacy of their complaint to see how it influences the future course of events.
With that said, I have to wonder at your arrogance in calling the illicit overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government a "small excuse to hate us." I doubt if many Americans would be particularly tolerant of that sort of foreign interference in our own institutions.
Martin
Quote from Sparohok:
AAA, do you know, or have you ever talked with, any actual Iranians?
I do, and I have. You are deeply underestimating the depth of Iranian resentment over our interference, yes even way back in the early 50s. Americans may have forgotten Mossadegh, but Iranians have not.
In your world where enough secret police and military force can maintain an unpopular monarch forever, what do you imagine would have happened when the Shah died in 1980?
Martin
Yes, actually I do know several Iranians and they all feel as I do. They despise Carter and totally blame him for turning their country over to the goons that control it now.
Why is it that liberals are alway so outraged if a leftist government is overthrown, but they never seem to care if leftists seize power and undermine democracy. Compare the level of moral indignation on the left to Allende's overthrow in Chile to their implicit approval of Castro or Chavez. If the choice is between Jeffersonian perfection and Hitler, I'll take Jefferson. In the real world though, we don't get that choice. We typically have to choose between an authoritarian government that allows some freedom and democratic participation and socialist/marxist/islamist ones that allow none.
As for what would have happened when the Shah died, can we stipulate that almost any conceivable outcome would have been preferable to what we ended up with? A succession to his son, a military government, a secular democratically elected government, there were numerous viable options that did not involve greasing the skids for a bunch of crazed ayotollahs.
You're wasting your vast, superior talents writing in this forum.
Perhaps you've "been there, done that." Being a great partisan thinker who lives in the Beltway, one can only imagine.
In any case, you're style and thoughts only improve with time.
Perhaps you've "been there, done that." Being a great partisan thinker who lives in the Beltway, one can only imagine.
In any case, you're style and thoughts only improve with time.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Yes, actually I do know several Iranians and they all feel as I do. They despise Carter and totally blame him for turning their country over to the goons that control it now.
Why is it that liberals are alway so outraged if a leftist government is overthrown, but they never seem to care if leftists seize power and undermine democracy. Compare the level of moral indignation on the left to Allende's overthrow in Chile to their implicit approval of Castro or Chavez. If the choice is between Jeffersonian perfection and Hitler, I'll take Jefferson. In the real world though, we don't get that choice. We typically have to choose between an authoritarian government that allows some freedom and democratic participation and socialist/marxist/islamist ones that allow none.
As for what would have happened when the Shah died, can we stipulate that almost any conceivable outcome would have been preferable to what we ended up with? A succession to his son, a military government, a secular democratically elected government, there were numerous viable options that did not involve greasing the skids for a bunch of crazed ayotollahs.
Quote from dddooo:
No, that was conservatives like you voting twice for a complete moron (and you were repeatedly told that he was a moron), supporting his disastrous policies (and you were repeatedly told that his policies were disastrous), covering his lies (and you were repeatedly told that he lied).
You were told in 1999 that Bush was not smart enough to run a McDonalds let alone the free world. You did not listen. You were told that his policies were a disaster, that the war in Iraq was a quagmire, that he was incompetent, that his appointees were cronies, not professionals...But you did not listen. For 6 years despite huge amount of evidence you were in a state of complete denial.
You were the ones who chose to believe that Gore and Kerry would have been worse, you were the ones who chose to believe that Gore claimed to have invented the internet, that Kerry was a coward in Vietnam while Bush was a hero in Texas despite all the evidence to the contrary.
No Jem, as convenient as it may be to blame someone else for your own actions you have no one else to blame, not the neocon plot, not the liberals, not the UN, not the martians, you have only yourself to blame.
PS of course I am not talking about you personally but about all Bush supporters and voters.
Spot on . It's amazing how people (those who voted for Bush and bought into the whole war on terrorism thing ) in the US are slow to get it and admit their mistakes .
Quote from Sparohok:
The question at hand is why we are stuck with a virulently anti-US theocracy in Iran.
Because that's part of their mentality to blame the US, Israel, the Western World, the Crusaders... If we did not exist they would have to invent us as their lives, their societies suck and they need someone to blame.
you may not personally care much what Iranians think about us,
Because no matter what we can reasonably do they will still hate us. Newsflash, just because someone hates you does not mean it's your fault and you need to change.
you have to admit that the opinions of the Iranian public is an important factor in the type of government they end up with.
The opinion of the muslim world about us hardly ever changes, their excuses do change but their hatred does not. Some people like you keep buying their excuses, others say enough is enough, we don't care what their next excuse to hate us will be, we will do what we believe is the right thing to do.
With that said, I have to wonder at your arrogance in calling the illicit overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government a "small excuse to hate us."
We know how well they do on their own. Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadenejad.... Anyway, it's been almost half a century, the jews took less than that to forgive the germans, we don't hate them for the hostage crisis, yet they are still resentful. What does it tell you about them?
Islam is at a cross roads at this point in history....
It will either come into the 21st century as a peaceful religion or collapse of it's own demented failures.....
Bush has merely focused the entire world's eyes on the situation of Islamic fanatics that started with the Iranian embassy situation in 1979....
What sort of "religion" approves of the killing of children????
How sick and demented is that???
As some one said, it will take a mass murder of a city for the Democrats to understand that fact....the writer, I forgot who, called them the DumDum party....locked in 1966....
Tom Friedman is now aware that the last thing the Middle East needs is for the US to leave the area.....
Most intelligent people in the area (all 15 of them) now realize that the region would collapse into chaos and massive bloodshed not seen since WWII.....
SteveD
It will either come into the 21st century as a peaceful religion or collapse of it's own demented failures.....
Bush has merely focused the entire world's eyes on the situation of Islamic fanatics that started with the Iranian embassy situation in 1979....
What sort of "religion" approves of the killing of children????
How sick and demented is that???
As some one said, it will take a mass murder of a city for the Democrats to understand that fact....the writer, I forgot who, called them the DumDum party....locked in 1966....
Tom Friedman is now aware that the last thing the Middle East needs is for the US to leave the area.....
Most intelligent people in the area (all 15 of them) now realize that the region would collapse into chaos and massive bloodshed not seen since WWII.....
SteveD
___________________________________________________Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Yes, actually I do know several Iranians and they all feel as I do. They despise Carter and totally blame him for turning their country over to the goons that control it now.
Why is it that liberals are alway so outraged if a leftist government is overthrown, but they never seem to care if leftists seize power and undermine democracy. Compare the level of moral indignation on the left to Allende's overthrow in Chile to their implicit approval of Castro or Chavez. If the choice is between Jeffersonian perfection and Hitler, I'll take Jefferson. In the real world though, we don't get that choice. We typically have to choose between an authoritarian government that allows some freedom and democratic participation and socialist/marxist/islamist ones that allow none.
As for what would have happened when the Shah died, can we stipulate that almost any conceivable outcome would have been preferable to what we ended up with? A succession to his son, a military government, a secular democratically elected government, there were numerous viable options that did not involve greasing the skids for a bunch of crazed ayotollahs.
AAA - You are right on. I spent several days with some Iranians shortly before the Shah fell, who were trying to move their money out of Iran in anticipation of just what happened later. Their hatred for Carter at the time was well advised. Carter is without a doubt the worst president in the last 100 years or longer for giving us this situation plus his 24% interest rates.
For me Bushs' biggest blunder so far has been on immigration.
However, over the last several weeks I have visited with several friends who are employers of Mexican immigrant workers who are normally very seasonal and they say that there just aren't any workers comming across and the labor market in that area is tighter than they can ever remember. There seems to be a concensus that the immigrants are afraid to come across due to the hype, the military, and the raids.
The economy is very strong and Bushs' tax cuts have brought in more revenue than ever before so I'm not disappointed in that area.
The Iraq situation is far far from over and way way too early to judge. Until all issues with Iran and Syria are settled Iraq will remain a focal point for all of us.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
As for what would have happened when the Shah died, can we stipulate that almost any conceivable outcome would have been preferable to what we ended up with? A succession to his son, a military government, a secular democratically elected government, there were numerous viable options that did not involve greasing the skids for a bunch of crazed ayotollahs.
My point is that the Iranian revolution was not something that an American president can just stop in its tracks. You think Khomeini would have just evaporated into thin air when Reagan took the oath of office? At worst, Carter failed to delay it for a year or two.
Martin