November 16, 2004
Iran and the Clash of Civilizations
Bill at INDC has an excellent analysis of the threat that is Iran. I agree, Iran declared war on the US 25 years ago. The problem with treating Iran like any other nation-state is that to do so assumes that rational actors are in control. The mad mullahs of Iran are clearly not rational. The people of Iran have tasted the bitter fruits of their Islamist utopianism. Let's only hope the Persian people can take back the reigns of government before the Mullahs take that nation to the brink of nuclera armegeddon.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:51 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The people brought the mullahs by their own hand and can only take them down by their OWN hand ... not some Angola style botched abortion run by over zealous spook's. Its time we kept our noses out of other countries and rebuilt our own: Cripped health care, failing social services, porous borders.
Its time we the people put the "not the people" washington inhabiting creatures in line to tow their end of the line and work FOR THE PEOPLE and not OFF THE PEOPLE!
Posted by: Salamander at November 16, 2004 05:19 PM (F26eZ)
2
Oh please. That's a load of bull. The US declared war on the Iranian people well before any of this when they blatantly supported a murderous and corrupt Shaw.
It's so typical of American bullshit to assume that you're just the innocent little victim. The above comments are right, keep your nose out of other people's business, and your stupidity won't get you into trouble.
Posted by: d at November 17, 2004 02:07 PM (pbI+T)
3
Better a murderous Shah who was forward looking, secular, and a lot less murderous than all the other regimes in the region than the jihadi theocracy that murders by the thousands and exports it's irrational zealotry and support of terrorism around the world.
Posted by: Rusty at November 17, 2004 02:37 PM (JQjhA)
4
"a murderous Shah who was forward looking, secular, and a lot less muderous..."
...wait, are you talking about the Shah or Saddam? Sounds eerily familiar.
You're arguing after the fact. The person the Americans actually fucked over for the Shah (because he was giving them easy access to Iranian oil) was supported by the Iranian people and was in fact not murderous, secular, and very forward looking. You think they took over the American embassy for fun? What lead them down the road to islamic fundamentalism, what started it? Your nose in their business fucking it up. Same for Saddam. Who funded saddam in the 80's to fight Iran, and thus creating their own worst nightmare? The idiot americans. Who funded the mujahadeen and gave directly to osama to fight the russians in afghanistan and again created their worst nightmare. stupid americans.
Again, typical american stupidity.
Posted by: d at November 17, 2004 02:52 PM (pbI+T)
5
Thats was good ... I mean very bad! Somewhere I did here it said the truth hurts.
Posted by: Salamander at November 17, 2004 03:27 PM (D4mP3)
6
Anyone who believes Iran is better off being run by Fanatical religious zealots than by the Shaw is sick.
Little dog syndrone?
Posted by: greyrooster at November 18, 2004 08:13 AM (ZqKhy)
7
Crippled health care my ass. Just democratic retoric.
I don't know about where you live but where I live no one is turned down for medical care. Even if they could afford it but decided to spend their money on beer.
Failing social services my ass. More democratic retoric. Half community I live in is on the dole in one way or another. It is so rampant that teen aged unwed girls are having babies just to get on welfare.
You're not totally wrong. Neither are you totally right. Have a solution for this?
I'm going to tell you about Gilbert and Marilyn who live about a 1 1/2 miles from me.
Gibert and Marilyn are not married. They have 4 children ages 18 to 30. 3 boys, 1 girl. Gilbert is a diesel mechanic and owns his own mobile truck. He claims to make in access of $1000.00 per week. He usually leaves for work about 9:00 AM and returns between 3 and 4 PM. 5 days only. Rainy days he doesn't work at all. I know this because he drives past my farm on his way.
Gilbert's daughter lives in a Getto somewhere in New Orleans.
Gilbert brags that he hasn't filed an income tax form, state or federal in years. He teach's his boys that all cops, judges etc: are crooks.
All 3 of his boys are now in prison. Cost to taxpayer $30,000 ea. per year. They will no doubt spend the majority of their lives in prison. His daughter has 4 kids she lives on welfare. All his chilren were born at Charity hospital and payed for by the tax payers.
Gilbert doesn't pay for his own insurance. Gilbert hurt his leg last year. Since he doesn't have insurance guess who payed. He drinks a case of beer every evening. Double on weekends.
Gilbert has a new boat and motor. 4 cars, a dump truck, 2- 4 wheelers, a back hoe and house boat. All surrounded by beer cans I might add.
I figure this one individual costs the tax payers $200,000 per year, every year. And I'm not even counting the cost of trials and insurance claims his boys cost.
SALAMANDER: I'm not going to worry about social services and health care until the system gets rid of the Gilbert's. We are too loose on who gets into it. This is liberal democratic policy.
Health care and social services should be for those truly in need. Figure a system that will eleminate the frauds and I will get on your bandwagon. Ever been in line at a supermarket and seen a person separate their beer, wine and cigarettes from their rib-eye steaks? I have. They must pay for the cigarettes, beer and wine in cash. The rib-eyes they use their food stamps.
Many successful people may be uncaring and greedy. However, so are the so-called poor.
This social services, health care bandwagon you're on just don't fit without getting rid of the cheats.
The threat from middle east fanatical religious terrorists is real and we must deal with it.
The treat from health care/social services frauds are real and we must deal with it.
The question is which one should be taken care of 1st? Until the liberal democratic welfare types admit to the need to rid the system of welfare/health care/social services fraud. I'll say take care of the terrorists 1st.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 18, 2004 09:16 AM (ZqKhy)
8
Good God greyrooster. Next time please run your stuff through a spellcheck!
Shaw = SHAH.
make in access = make in EXCESS!
d:
If we funded Saddam...then where the fuck they get their goddamned weaponry? Do we make T-54s, and Mirage jets? and AK-47s? HELL NO! Wake your fucking ass up and study your fucking HISTORY! Saddam's arms came from the CCCP and FRANCE! Small wonder why Saddam returned the favor in UNSCAM?
Rusty:
Please excuse my French! These little upstart bastards piss me off!
Posted by: Macker at November 21, 2004 12:28 AM (pwS0P)
9
"You're arguing after the fact. The person the Americans actually fucked over for the Shah (because he was giving them easy access to Iranian oil) was supported by the Iranian people and was in fact not murderous, secular, and very forward looking. You think they took over the American embassy for fun? What lead them down the road to islamic fundamentalism, what started it? Your nose in their business fucking it up. Same for Saddam. Who funded saddam in the 80's to fight Iran, and thus creating their own worst nightmare? The idiot americans. Who funded the mujahadeen and gave directly to osama to fight the russians in afghanistan and again created their worst nightmare. stupid americans. Again, typical american stupidity."
--> American stupidity....Yawwnnn. It's always America's fault -- what an old, tired and trite remark. Your logic -- if you want to call it that -- it so full of tautology that you needn't bother to shoot off your mouth further.
The US served it needs at the time -- simply because we were involved in the Cold War against the Russians. Recall, Einstein, that the US also allied itself with Stalin during WW II...Stalin is arguably the most ruthless man (along with Hitler) to ever rule -- killing millions and curbing the civil rights and liberties of hundreds of millions more. But, when it was prudent, the US and Soviet troops fought on the same side. Guess you'd blame FDR for the rise of Soviet Communism/Iron Curtain, etc...
What served in the US interest in the 70s and 80s doesn't entitle Muslims to do whatever it is they like, nor does it curb the US authority to crush Islam wherever it makes noise. Islam is no better than Nazism or communism -- both of which the US had a major role in containing and eradicating.
Regarding Iran, the Shah and his relations with the US doesn't excuse taking an embassy on behalf of a country (by a bunch of lunatic students) -- tantamount to invading a country. If Jimmy Carter had had one shred of sense, Iran would have been decimated -- for the better of the world.
Meanwhile, I expect that to eventually happen. Iran cannot and should not be trusted. If Iran has the right to develop nukes, the US has a right to eradicate that God-foresaken land. We needn't loose one man -- just give'em a dose of nuclear medicine -- a technology they so badly desire.
Posted by: Melissa Arsana at December 02, 2004 11:29 PM (KfgQE)
10
http://bestpoet.com
Posted by: bestpoet at September 28, 2005 04:31 PM (Yq3yA)
26kb generated in CPU 0.0737, elapsed 0.1802 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1687 seconds, 259 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1687 seconds, 259 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.