Originally posted by kmax87I was actually referring to Ahmadinejad in this case, although I can see how it can be taken both ways.
Considering the recent departure of Bush's long time brain Karl Rove, and his genius in politicizing and successfully lobbying the Christian vote, which president were you actually referring to?
Originally posted by abejnood(laughs) if you are equating the Christian conservatives in the United States with the mullahs in Iran , I do want to know what it is your smoking.
I was actually referring to Ahmadinejad in this case, although I can see how it can be taken both ways.
After all, in the last Presidentital election, President Bush won Ohio because of black Christians who are conservative on social issues , though traditionally Democratic voters... they crossed part lines and voted for him rather than that Kerry fella
Originally posted by Rajk999No, the economic forging, itself, does not make the U.S. "evil". The U.S. is not "evil", even now. But its heading that way. The U.S., though founded on excellent principles, is not as responsible with power as it once may have been. President Bush is proof of that.
Captain, economic success comes from two things :
PRODUCTION AND TRADE. You make, you sell. Thats it. Many countries have not figured that out yet. Or they are obsessed with other things they consider to be more important.
The Soviet Union failed because it was unable to do either of those 2 things successfully. The fact that the US was able to forge suc ...[text shortened]... actly are you trying to say?
Or what do you want the 'freethinkers' (whatever that is) to do?
It's not up to Iraq to "accept" or "decline" the money. Iraq is simply a tool in a master plan. Neither was it wrong for Europe, India, Japan, China, South Korea, and others to develop ties with the U.S. However, it IS a fact that these countries are now bound to the U.S. as tightly as mistletoe to trees, though the reverse is not necessarily true. They have no independence, for they cannot go against the U.S. in anything that really matters.
I'm trying to say that American citizens, such as you and me, ought to be wary of power. Too much power can lead to a demise in our morals and ideals, and a terrible shame. For every empire has its day and then its inevitable end.
Originally posted by SMSBear716I'd rather you point out my errors with evidence and support rather than insinuate that I have a drug problem.
(laughs) if you are equating the Christian conservatives in the United States with the mullahs in Iran , I do want to know what it is your smoking.
After all, in the last Presidentital election, President Bush won Ohio because of black Christians who are conservative on social issues , though traditionally Democratic voters... they crossed part lines and voted for him rather than that Kerry fella
Originally posted by abejnoodI'm looking through the history of US-Iranian relations now. My first judgement is that Operation Ajax was wrong. That was an unjustified assault on the country.
I'll remind you that it was the U.S. who originally broke economic ties with Iran and set ever increasing sanctions on Iran for almost 30 years.
EDIT - From then to 1979 America supported the Shah and should not have.
EDIT - Jimmy Carter is my hero.
EDIT - I don't understand why the Shah was not allowed into our country, but it's a complex issue. What should we have done with him? Given him to Iran? Given him to the UN? Let him in and not take him into custody? Just keeping him out seems like an odd decision.
Iran-Contra - nothing wrong with selling weapons. I'm glad Reagan continued Carter's trend of treating Iran as friends. I don't know about the Contra side of the issue though. That's a different issue and I am looking at Iran.
The 1988 shooting down of an Iranian plane should be apologized for and we should give them a new plane or pay for the old one.
If Iran's supporting Hezbollah and/or other terrorists and is responsible for their deeds, as the US has officially declared, then they are the ones who initiated bloodshed, and they're doing it via terrorism - killing innocent civilians. At this point the moral highground switches to the US.
As far as our boycotting Iran, that's our right. Be nicer to us if you don't like it. There's nothing wrong with boycotts.
The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act however is not just a boycott. However in light of the "fact" that Iran sponsors Hezbollah it's justified.
Since George W. Bush came to power, United States has taken several actions against Iran that are considered crimes, Noam Chomsky stated in an interview. Providing Israel with over a hundred jet bombers, openly advertised as capable of bombing Iran and returning, capturing Iranian officials in Iraq, deploying major naval forces in the Persian Gulf, supporting Pakistan-based terrorist groups to attack Iran, supporting Azeri separatists were among threats and crimes carried out by the United States against Iran. Chomsky added: "These are major violation of United Nation’s charter."
Wikipedia
We can sell or give jet bombers to Israel. Nobody's business but ours. Capturing Iranians in Iraq is reasonable while we're responsible for security or invading the country. Likewise for our fleets. I don't know about the Pakistan based terrorists or the Azeri separatists.
From Wiki:
Obstacles to "resumption of relations" between the two countries noted by one student of the issue [16] include, [for the Americans,]
Iran's state sponsorship of international terrorism [17]
This is worthy of a Declaration of War if true.
opposition to the Middle East peace process;
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction
threats and subversive activities against neighbors in the Persian Gulf
None of our business, except in honoring treaties between the US and countries in the Middle East.
violations of human rights at home
Possibly worth war. Depends on how bad they are.
On Iran's side, its original post-revolutionary list of demands included:
That the United States accept the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution
Depends on other factors. I'm neutral without more info.
Not interfere in Iran's internal affairs,
Reasonable unless we want to declare war.
Deal with the Iranian regime on the basis of "respect and equality."
All humans are equal in intrinsic worth, but respect is earned.
As the regime became "more secure domestically" and less isolated internationally other demands were added:
Lifting U.S. economic sanctions
Release of frozen Iranian assets in the United States
I can see how this would interfere with relations.
Removal of the U.S. Navy from the Persian Gulf
In light of recent events, this is completely unreasonable.
During the Clinton administration two more demands were included
An end to one-sided support for Israel
I agree.
A formal apology for Washington's past misdeeds[19]
Sure, but depends on which "misdeeds" we're talking about.
Originally posted by abejnoodYou will find that those who excel at production and trade will be the most wealthy & most powerful. Thats a fact of life that you have to accept.
No, the economic forging, itself, does not make the U.S. "evil". The U.S. is not "evil", even now. But its heading that way. The U.S., though founded on excellent principles, is not as responsible with power as it once may have been. President Bush is proof of that.
It's not up to Iraq to "accept" or "decline" the money. Iraq is simply a tool in a master ...[text shortened]... deals, and a terrible shame. For every empire has its day and then its inevitable end.
How exactly is the US heading in the direction of being evil ? Can you elaborate ?
Countries are dependent on the US by choice. A more accurate term is inter-dependent. And there is nothing wrong with that. These countries can and do go agaisnt the US. Cuba choose not to be dependent on the US.
I am not an American.