- This topic has 220 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
Veritas.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 22, 2009 at 10:21 PM #419758June 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM #419035
patb
Participant[quote=GoUSC]O
Of course not. If we just stick our heads in the sand and don’t activity take a roll in the world today all of these problems will go away.
I mean afterall we should all behave like Neville Chamberlain. That really worked out well for Europe.
The naivity of people never ceases to amaze me.
Look I am no surpport of George Bush. He did plenty wrong. But Obama is trying to use the current situation to push through a huge program of increase government spending and doing it at a time when everybody is more worried about paying their bills then focusing on what Washington is doing.
We *CANNOT* run ourselves in tens of trillions of dollars of debt and expect it to work.
[/quote]
So FDR ran enormous Budget deficits when people were worried about
paying their bills to create huge programs.Funny, He’s credited with fixing the great depression.
June 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM #419265Participant[quote=GoUSC]O
Of course not. If we just stick our heads in the sand and don’t activity take a roll in the world today all of these problems will go away.
I mean afterall we should all behave like Neville Chamberlain. That really worked out well for Europe.
The naivity of people never ceases to amaze me.
Look I am no surpport of George Bush. He did plenty wrong. But Obama is trying to use the current situation to push through a huge program of increase government spending and doing it at a time when everybody is more worried about paying their bills then focusing on what Washington is doing.
We *CANNOT* run ourselves in tens of trillions of dollars of debt and expect it to work.
[/quote]
So FDR ran enormous Budget deficits when people were worried about
paying their bills to create huge programs.Funny, He’s credited with fixing the great depression.
June 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM #419533Participant[quote=GoUSC]O
Of course not. If we just stick our heads in the sand and don’t activity take a roll in the world today all of these problems will go away.
I mean afterall we should all behave like Neville Chamberlain. That really worked out well for Europe.
The naivity of people never ceases to amaze me.
Look I am no surpport of George Bush. He did plenty wrong. But Obama is trying to use the current situation to push through a huge program of increase government spending and doing it at a time when everybody is more worried about paying their bills then focusing on what Washington is doing.
We *CANNOT* run ourselves in tens of trillions of dollars of debt and expect it to work.
[/quote]
So FDR ran enormous Budget deficits when people were worried about
paying their bills to create huge programs.Funny, He’s credited with fixing the great depression.
June 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM #419602Participant[quote=GoUSC]O
Of course not. If we just stick our heads in the sand and don’t activity take a roll in the world today all of these problems will go away.
I mean afterall we should all behave like Neville Chamberlain. That really worked out well for Europe.
The naivity of people never ceases to amaze me.
Look I am no surpport of George Bush. He did plenty wrong. But Obama is trying to use the current situation to push through a huge program of increase government spending and doing it at a time when everybody is more worried about paying their bills then focusing on what Washington is doing.
We *CANNOT* run ourselves in tens of trillions of dollars of debt and expect it to work.
[/quote]
So FDR ran enormous Budget deficits when people were worried about
paying their bills to create huge programs.Funny, He’s credited with fixing the great depression.
June 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM #419763Participant[quote=GoUSC]O
Of course not. If we just stick our heads in the sand and don’t activity take a roll in the world today all of these problems will go away.
I mean afterall we should all behave like Neville Chamberlain. That really worked out well for Europe.
The naivity of people never ceases to amaze me.
Look I am no surpport of George Bush. He did plenty wrong. But Obama is trying to use the current situation to push through a huge program of increase government spending and doing it at a time when everybody is more worried about paying their bills then focusing on what Washington is doing.
We *CANNOT* run ourselves in tens of trillions of dollars of debt and expect it to work.
[/quote]
So FDR ran enormous Budget deficits when people were worried about
paying their bills to create huge programs.Funny, He’s credited with fixing the great depression.
June 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM #419045Arraya
Participant[quote=patb][quote=sdgrrl]
If a hawkish Repub had been elected and came out of the cage in January swinging and threatening Iran and calling it the “Axis of Evil” it would have given their leaders so much ammo during their election, helping their cause and we probably wouldn’t be seeing a hopeful new birth of Liberty in the Middle East.[/quote]
Bomb,Bomb Iran….
The Bush guys wanted to invade iran, now the mullahs are falling
[/quote]Lets not blow red, white and blue smoke up our asses on this one. This is plan B. This is a two year, 400 million dollar, CIA destabilization project in the making. One of the main figures in Iran part of an NGO (non-governmental organization) is John Corsi from Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Those protesters whose plight is worthy are also part of a bigger picture as the US is pitting the Mousavi faction against the mullahs probably because of their alliance with the SCO as it tries to move toward a new financial world order. The media called a Mousavi victory before the polls closed and has been drumming up sympathy to garner support of what ever. US company run polls showed a different story and it is far from clear who won. But that is not really the point.
Obviously, we don’t know what that 400 million bought but you can be sure it was not a country fair with freedom fries and funnel cakes with promises of SUVs and McMansions. Historically, CIA intervention rarely coincides with human rights or democracy advancement. Because they don’t care. It’s business.
Though I suppose the other option of military regime change is less favorable. Still, lets not delude ourselves.
Ahmadinejad is certainly not a sympathetic figure. He is an ideologue, provocative, and sometimes behaving imprudently. But to characterize the struggle in Iran as a battle between democratic forces and a “dictator,” is to exhibit total ignorance of Iran’s internal dynamics, or to deliberately distort them. There is no doubt that there is a significant segment of Iranian society, concentrated around major metropolitan areas, and comprising many young people, that passionately yearns for social freedoms. They are understandably angry because their candidate came up short. But it would be a huge mistake to read this domestic disagreement as an “uprising” against the Islamic Republic, or as a call to embark on a foreign policy that would accommodate the West at the expense of Iran’s nuclear program or its vital interests.
Nations display respect to other nations only when they respect their sovereignty. If any nation, for instance, were to dictate the United States’ economic, foreign or social policies, Americans would be indignant. When France, under President Chirac opposed the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, some U.S. Congressmen renamed a favorite fast food from French Fries to “Freedom Fries.” They made it known that the French were unwelcome in the U.S.
The U.S. has a legacy of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, notably when it toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This act, of which most Americans are unaware, is ingrained in every Iranian from childhood. It is the main cause of much of their perpetual anger at the U.S. It took 56 years for an American president to acknowledge this illegal act, when Obama did so earlier this month in Cairo.
It’s a final present from the Bush regime. Maybe they will get one right this time or maybe it will blow up in our face and cause WWIII.
Either we get a pro-west team in Iran or the mullahs crack down and send the lefties into a tizzy and beg for military intervention. Brilliant!
It’s not only a technology revolution for the Iranians, also for us as it would usually take years to figure out what happened by some reporter digging up congressional reports. Isn’t the internet great! You could get to watch the CIA in action.
June 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM #419276Participant[quote=patb][quote=sdgrrl]
If a hawkish Repub had been elected and came out of the cage in January swinging and threatening Iran and calling it the “Axis of Evil” it would have given their leaders so much ammo during their election, helping their cause and we probably wouldn’t be seeing a hopeful new birth of Liberty in the Middle East.[/quote]
Bomb,Bomb Iran….
The Bush guys wanted to invade iran, now the mullahs are falling
[/quote]Lets not blow red, white and blue smoke up our asses on this one. This is plan B. This is a two year, 400 million dollar, CIA destabilization project in the making. One of the main figures in Iran part of an NGO (non-governmental organization) is John Corsi from Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Those protesters whose plight is worthy are also part of a bigger picture as the US is pitting the Mousavi faction against the mullahs probably because of their alliance with the SCO as it tries to move toward a new financial world order. The media called a Mousavi victory before the polls closed and has been drumming up sympathy to garner support of what ever. US company run polls showed a different story and it is far from clear who won. But that is not really the point.
Obviously, we don’t know what that 400 million bought but you can be sure it was not a country fair with freedom fries and funnel cakes with promises of SUVs and McMansions. Historically, CIA intervention rarely coincides with human rights or democracy advancement. Because they don’t care. It’s business.
Though I suppose the other option of military regime change is less favorable. Still, lets not delude ourselves.
Ahmadinejad is certainly not a sympathetic figure. He is an ideologue, provocative, and sometimes behaving imprudently. But to characterize the struggle in Iran as a battle between democratic forces and a “dictator,” is to exhibit total ignorance of Iran’s internal dynamics, or to deliberately distort them. There is no doubt that there is a significant segment of Iranian society, concentrated around major metropolitan areas, and comprising many young people, that passionately yearns for social freedoms. They are understandably angry because their candidate came up short. But it would be a huge mistake to read this domestic disagreement as an “uprising” against the Islamic Republic, or as a call to embark on a foreign policy that would accommodate the West at the expense of Iran’s nuclear program or its vital interests.
Nations display respect to other nations only when they respect their sovereignty. If any nation, for instance, were to dictate the United States’ economic, foreign or social policies, Americans would be indignant. When France, under President Chirac opposed the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, some U.S. Congressmen renamed a favorite fast food from French Fries to “Freedom Fries.” They made it known that the French were unwelcome in the U.S.
The U.S. has a legacy of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, notably when it toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This act, of which most Americans are unaware, is ingrained in every Iranian from childhood. It is the main cause of much of their perpetual anger at the U.S. It took 56 years for an American president to acknowledge this illegal act, when Obama did so earlier this month in Cairo.
It’s a final present from the Bush regime. Maybe they will get one right this time or maybe it will blow up in our face and cause WWIII.
Either we get a pro-west team in Iran or the mullahs crack down and send the lefties into a tizzy and beg for military intervention. Brilliant!
It’s not only a technology revolution for the Iranians, also for us as it would usually take years to figure out what happened by some reporter digging up congressional reports. Isn’t the internet great! You could get to watch the CIA in action.
June 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM #419543Participant[quote=patb][quote=sdgrrl]
If a hawkish Repub had been elected and came out of the cage in January swinging and threatening Iran and calling it the “Axis of Evil” it would have given their leaders so much ammo during their election, helping their cause and we probably wouldn’t be seeing a hopeful new birth of Liberty in the Middle East.[/quote]
Bomb,Bomb Iran….
The Bush guys wanted to invade iran, now the mullahs are falling
[/quote]Lets not blow red, white and blue smoke up our asses on this one. This is plan B. This is a two year, 400 million dollar, CIA destabilization project in the making. One of the main figures in Iran part of an NGO (non-governmental organization) is John Corsi from Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Those protesters whose plight is worthy are also part of a bigger picture as the US is pitting the Mousavi faction against the mullahs probably because of their alliance with the SCO as it tries to move toward a new financial world order. The media called a Mousavi victory before the polls closed and has been drumming up sympathy to garner support of what ever. US company run polls showed a different story and it is far from clear who won. But that is not really the point.
Obviously, we don’t know what that 400 million bought but you can be sure it was not a country fair with freedom fries and funnel cakes with promises of SUVs and McMansions. Historically, CIA intervention rarely coincides with human rights or democracy advancement. Because they don’t care. It’s business.
Though I suppose the other option of military regime change is less favorable. Still, lets not delude ourselves.
Ahmadinejad is certainly not a sympathetic figure. He is an ideologue, provocative, and sometimes behaving imprudently. But to characterize the struggle in Iran as a battle between democratic forces and a “dictator,” is to exhibit total ignorance of Iran’s internal dynamics, or to deliberately distort them. There is no doubt that there is a significant segment of Iranian society, concentrated around major metropolitan areas, and comprising many young people, that passionately yearns for social freedoms. They are understandably angry because their candidate came up short. But it would be a huge mistake to read this domestic disagreement as an “uprising” against the Islamic Republic, or as a call to embark on a foreign policy that would accommodate the West at the expense of Iran’s nuclear program or its vital interests.
Nations display respect to other nations only when they respect their sovereignty. If any nation, for instance, were to dictate the United States’ economic, foreign or social policies, Americans would be indignant. When France, under President Chirac opposed the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, some U.S. Congressmen renamed a favorite fast food from French Fries to “Freedom Fries.” They made it known that the French were unwelcome in the U.S.
The U.S. has a legacy of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, notably when it toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This act, of which most Americans are unaware, is ingrained in every Iranian from childhood. It is the main cause of much of their perpetual anger at the U.S. It took 56 years for an American president to acknowledge this illegal act, when Obama did so earlier this month in Cairo.
It’s a final present from the Bush regime. Maybe they will get one right this time or maybe it will blow up in our face and cause WWIII.
Either we get a pro-west team in Iran or the mullahs crack down and send the lefties into a tizzy and beg for military intervention. Brilliant!
It’s not only a technology revolution for the Iranians, also for us as it would usually take years to figure out what happened by some reporter digging up congressional reports. Isn’t the internet great! You could get to watch the CIA in action.
June 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM #419612Participant[quote=patb][quote=sdgrrl]
If a hawkish Repub had been elected and came out of the cage in January swinging and threatening Iran and calling it the “Axis of Evil” it would have given their leaders so much ammo during their election, helping their cause and we probably wouldn’t be seeing a hopeful new birth of Liberty in the Middle East.[/quote]
Bomb,Bomb Iran….
The Bush guys wanted to invade iran, now the mullahs are falling
[/quote]Lets not blow red, white and blue smoke up our asses on this one. This is plan B. This is a two year, 400 million dollar, CIA destabilization project in the making. One of the main figures in Iran part of an NGO (non-governmental organization) is John Corsi from Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Those protesters whose plight is worthy are also part of a bigger picture as the US is pitting the Mousavi faction against the mullahs probably because of their alliance with the SCO as it tries to move toward a new financial world order. The media called a Mousavi victory before the polls closed and has been drumming up sympathy to garner support of what ever. US company run polls showed a different story and it is far from clear who won. But that is not really the point.
Obviously, we don’t know what that 400 million bought but you can be sure it was not a country fair with freedom fries and funnel cakes with promises of SUVs and McMansions. Historically, CIA intervention rarely coincides with human rights or democracy advancement. Because they don’t care. It’s business.
Though I suppose the other option of military regime change is less favorable. Still, lets not delude ourselves.
Ahmadinejad is certainly not a sympathetic figure. He is an ideologue, provocative, and sometimes behaving imprudently. But to characterize the struggle in Iran as a battle between democratic forces and a “dictator,” is to exhibit total ignorance of Iran’s internal dynamics, or to deliberately distort them. There is no doubt that there is a significant segment of Iranian society, concentrated around major metropolitan areas, and comprising many young people, that passionately yearns for social freedoms. They are understandably angry because their candidate came up short. But it would be a huge mistake to read this domestic disagreement as an “uprising” against the Islamic Republic, or as a call to embark on a foreign policy that would accommodate the West at the expense of Iran’s nuclear program or its vital interests.
Nations display respect to other nations only when they respect their sovereignty. If any nation, for instance, were to dictate the United States’ economic, foreign or social policies, Americans would be indignant. When France, under President Chirac opposed the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, some U.S. Congressmen renamed a favorite fast food from French Fries to “Freedom Fries.” They made it known that the French were unwelcome in the U.S.
The U.S. has a legacy of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, notably when it toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This act, of which most Americans are unaware, is ingrained in every Iranian from childhood. It is the main cause of much of their perpetual anger at the U.S. It took 56 years for an American president to acknowledge this illegal act, when Obama did so earlier this month in Cairo.
It’s a final present from the Bush regime. Maybe they will get one right this time or maybe it will blow up in our face and cause WWIII.
Either we get a pro-west team in Iran or the mullahs crack down and send the lefties into a tizzy and beg for military intervention. Brilliant!
It’s not only a technology revolution for the Iranians, also for us as it would usually take years to figure out what happened by some reporter digging up congressional reports. Isn’t the internet great! You could get to watch the CIA in action.
June 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM #419773Participant[quote=patb][quote=sdgrrl]
If a hawkish Repub had been elected and came out of the cage in January swinging and threatening Iran and calling it the “Axis of Evil” it would have given their leaders so much ammo during their election, helping their cause and we probably wouldn’t be seeing a hopeful new birth of Liberty in the Middle East.[/quote]
Bomb,Bomb Iran….
The Bush guys wanted to invade iran, now the mullahs are falling
[/quote]Lets not blow red, white and blue smoke up our asses on this one. This is plan B. This is a two year, 400 million dollar, CIA destabilization project in the making. One of the main figures in Iran part of an NGO (non-governmental organization) is John Corsi from Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Those protesters whose plight is worthy are also part of a bigger picture as the US is pitting the Mousavi faction against the mullahs probably because of their alliance with the SCO as it tries to move toward a new financial world order. The media called a Mousavi victory before the polls closed and has been drumming up sympathy to garner support of what ever. US company run polls showed a different story and it is far from clear who won. But that is not really the point.
Obviously, we don’t know what that 400 million bought but you can be sure it was not a country fair with freedom fries and funnel cakes with promises of SUVs and McMansions. Historically, CIA intervention rarely coincides with human rights or democracy advancement. Because they don’t care. It’s business.
Though I suppose the other option of military regime change is less favorable. Still, lets not delude ourselves.
Ahmadinejad is certainly not a sympathetic figure. He is an ideologue, provocative, and sometimes behaving imprudently. But to characterize the struggle in Iran as a battle between democratic forces and a “dictator,” is to exhibit total ignorance of Iran’s internal dynamics, or to deliberately distort them. There is no doubt that there is a significant segment of Iranian society, concentrated around major metropolitan areas, and comprising many young people, that passionately yearns for social freedoms. They are understandably angry because their candidate came up short. But it would be a huge mistake to read this domestic disagreement as an “uprising” against the Islamic Republic, or as a call to embark on a foreign policy that would accommodate the West at the expense of Iran’s nuclear program or its vital interests.
Nations display respect to other nations only when they respect their sovereignty. If any nation, for instance, were to dictate the United States’ economic, foreign or social policies, Americans would be indignant. When France, under President Chirac opposed the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, some U.S. Congressmen renamed a favorite fast food from French Fries to “Freedom Fries.” They made it known that the French were unwelcome in the U.S.
The U.S. has a legacy of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, notably when it toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This act, of which most Americans are unaware, is ingrained in every Iranian from childhood. It is the main cause of much of their perpetual anger at the U.S. It took 56 years for an American president to acknowledge this illegal act, when Obama did so earlier this month in Cairo.
It’s a final present from the Bush regime. Maybe they will get one right this time or maybe it will blow up in our face and cause WWIII.
Either we get a pro-west team in Iran or the mullahs crack down and send the lefties into a tizzy and beg for military intervention. Brilliant!
It’s not only a technology revolution for the Iranians, also for us as it would usually take years to figure out what happened by some reporter digging up congressional reports. Isn’t the internet great! You could get to watch the CIA in action.
June 22, 2009 at 11:15 PM #419060Zeitgeist
Participant“How to Stop Being a People Pleaser
Do you habitually give in to other people because you just can’t stand the thought of upsetting them? Do you put your needs to one side because you get a buzz from someone else’s happiness, only to find that he or she is not a bit grateful? If so, you are a classic ‘people pleaser,’ and you are, in all probability, not getting what you want out of life. It’s time to shift the focus from others to yourself, and stop being a martyr.”June 22, 2009 at 11:15 PM #419291Participant“How to Stop Being a People Pleaser
Do you habitually give in to other people because you just can’t stand the thought of upsetting them? Do you put your needs to one side because you get a buzz from someone else’s happiness, only to find that he or she is not a bit grateful? If so, you are a classic ‘people pleaser,’ and you are, in all probability, not getting what you want out of life. It’s time to shift the focus from others to yourself, and stop being a martyr.”June 22, 2009 at 11:15 PM #419559Participant“How to Stop Being a People Pleaser
Do you habitually give in to other people because you just can’t stand the thought of upsetting them? Do you put your needs to one side because you get a buzz from someone else’s happiness, only to find that he or she is not a bit grateful? If so, you are a classic ‘people pleaser,’ and you are, in all probability, not getting what you want out of life. It’s time to shift the focus from others to yourself, and stop being a martyr.”June 22, 2009 at 11:15 PM #419627Participant“How to Stop Being a People Pleaser
Do you habitually give in to other people because you just can’t stand the thought of upsetting them? Do you put your needs to one side because you get a buzz from someone else’s happiness, only to find that he or she is not a bit grateful? If so, you are a classic ‘people pleaser,’ and you are, in all probability, not getting what you want out of life. It’s time to shift the focus from others to yourself, and stop being a martyr.” -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.