Quote :

"TreeTwista10 : maybe if faggot ass jimmy carter didnt allow the iranian shah to be overthrown in 79 we wouldnt be in this shit...bush is just trying to clean up carter's mess"

Quote :

"drunknloaded : hmmmmm...thats the first thing that made me stop and go hmmmmmmmmm"

yeah. because TreeTwista is a profound motherfucker. everything he says makes me stop and go hmmm.

that shit's deep.







[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 3:02 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2006 3:01:11 AM

idk man what if jimmy carter HAD stopped that stuff

[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 3:18 AM. Reason : .]

7/26/2006 3:18:37 AM

omg. are you serious?

well, i guess he coulda fired up that draft once again and got the people who werent part of the 50,000+ soldiers recently killed in Vietnam (just ended 4 years previously!) to go form yet another indefinitely deployed occupying force. but this time instead of the jungle it would out in the desert and mountains of Iran, to enforce the regime of the widely hated Shah.

The Shah of Iran was despised precisely because he was seen as corrupted by his western influences, that he profitted like mad from plundering Iranian natural resources, and squandered the nations economy on fancy weapons and gold plated palaces for his homies. While the rest of Iran was left in abject poverty and 99% illiteracy, and crushing unemployment.

not everyone enthusiastically supported the Islamacists, but they WERE sure that the corrupt US-backed Shah had to go.

And the Islamacists had a plan: they were already well established in teh communities, providing social services such as food, clothes and shelter to the poor, free education to the children, etc., etc.

There wasnt a goddamned thing the US could have done to stop the Iranian Revolution. In 1979 our military was spent. we didnt have any fight left in us. For the gods' sakes, man, The Village People were at the tops of the charts. Even disco was dying.







[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 3:48 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2006 3:31:39 AM

i dont think bush woulda let something like vietnam go to his head- remember, this is a president known for doing what was needed no matter what the other countries said

7/26/2006 3:34:21 AM

ok.

now youre trolling me, too.

i get it.

nicely done.

7/26/2006 3:43:52 AM

Quote :

"The Shah of Iran was despised precisely because he was seen as corrupted by his western influences"

despised by radical muslims

the Shah of Iran was an ally of the US and the free world

but Carter allowed the muslim extremist Ayatollah to take power and completely escalate the rise of radical islam in entire middle east region

but somebody like joe_schmoe doesnt like to hear things like that because they go against his lame blanket statement about me smoking myself retarded

when he's the dumbass who makes this thread with the intention of making himself feel good by rallying some of his fellow "blame bush for everything" people

but please, stereotype people so you can feel good about ignoring the facts they put forth

for christ sake you are trying to make a political point by mentioning the village people at 3:30 in the morning?

7/26/2006 9:27:00 AM

^

(1) you have absolutely ZERO insight into contemporary middle eastern history.

the Shah was a friend to US and multinational oil corporations as they increased his personal profits. Radical Islamacists hated the Shah of course, but so did the average Iranian on the street. He squandered the country's resources for purely personal gain, built his family grand palaces and spent millions on advanced US weapon systems and US-built nuclear reactors. (Trivia Question: why did the country with one of the world's largest oil reserves need nuclear power?)

The Shah kept the population illiterate and in horrible poverty. Tehran was, during his reign, the largest city in the world *without a sewage system*. The education system was practically non-existent, 99% of the people were illiterate, and unemployment was out of control.

The only reason the vast majority of mainstream Iranians even GAVE THE ISLAMACISTS A CHANCE, was because the entire country of Iran was almost completely united in their hatred of the Shah.

(2) i dont blame bush for everything. you're the one making blanket statements here. you gotta admit, Bush does manage to do a good job of fucking things up, though.

(3) the village people were a direct indication of the impending death of disco.

(4) it was only 12:30 am on the west coast.




[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2006 11:17:39 AM

my main point is that bush didnt inherit some lovely situation and fuck it up

he inherited a completely fucked up situation and carter's self righteousness didnt help our country for shit

7/26/2006 11:19:28 AM

oh, okay.

It's Clinton's Carter's fault.

jesus christ, dude.

listen to yourself.

7/26/2006 11:21:09 AM

no, you are right. its clearly bush's fault as is everything

you know what...i ran out of gas the other month because the fuel gauge was fucked up...it was bush's fault

i also had to stop at a red light today on the way to work...bush's fault

if you want to play that retarded game

7/26/2006 11:26:24 AM

no dumbass. its not bush's fault. its was Harry Fucking Truman's fault.

it was he who directed the CIA to put the Shah back in power in 1953, by deposing the democratically elected government at that time.

there i blamed a democrat. now put that in your pipe and smoke it, you goddammed hippy.




[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2006 11:34:23 AM

yeah lots of hippies are pro war like me

hey look, your name is joe schmoe, i guess that automatically means you are an average joe moron...since thats what your name is

7/26/2006 11:35:18 AM

oops. it wasnt Truman. It was Eisenhower.



and goddammit, im arguing with a fucking retard. what the hell does that make me?




[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2006 11:43:46 AM

so because Carter was a democrat he ceases to be the ignorant southerner that Bush is? you cant have your double standards both ways...well i guess you can since they are double standards

7/26/2006 11:45:34 AM

Quote :

"Fry : Bear if you can't sum up what you're trying to say any better than that, I'm not wasting my time reading it all."

And now we get to it. You can't read any well thought-out points, so you want me to sum it up in the most simple of terms. Summing it up in the most simple of terms would be to say that "Bush is bad for this coutnry and the world." Then you reply with "SEE?!?!? You liberals have nothing other than to say "Bush is bad!"

And this is why you think Bush is good. You don't care for a thoughtful analysis of anything. You want it in a 4 second sound bite. You want a leader brave enough to sit in front of a sign that says "Corporate Responsibility" to sign an act, but probably have no idea what's in the thing he's signing. It has a simple label, so you assume that Bush is taking the necessary steps to see that something like the Enron thing never happens again, even though his administration's policy is to put rules in place that constantly protect the Ken Lay's of this world.

You support a "Patriot Act" without considering what's in it because it has a catchy name.

You confuse being concerned for the rights of someone who's done nothing wrong other than have an Arab friend with demanding that actual terrorsists be given cookies and milk and read a bedtime story, because you have to look at it in the simplest terms.

You see "employment is up" and criticize liberals for saying the economy is bad. But the economy is bad, because "employment is up" includes a guy working 3 jobs just to make ends meet.

You call us defeatists for wanting an exit strategy in a country in civil war.

You pick the easiest and most polarized explanation for everything without taking a look at the world around you. I mean, did someone say that John fucking Kerry was the most liberal man in the Congress? You have to be kidding me. You think that anyone left of W is an extremist because that's what your sound bites have told you to think.

And you know what? You don't even know I said all of this because it isn't summed up in 3 words or less. There should be a further requirement than 18 years old and breathing to get to vote.

7/26/2006 11:53:32 AM

Quote :

"there i blamed a democrat. now put that in your pipe and smoke it, you goddammed hippy."

aaaaaaaaaahahhahahhahhah lol, FTW

7/26/2006 11:59:55 AM

Bush is bad for the world cause I'm a pacifist that sees trees but doesn't see the forest

7/26/2006 12:01:02 PM

Quote :

"Operation Ajax (1953) (officially TP-AJAX) was a covert operation by Great Britain and the United States to remove the democratic[1] cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power, to support the Pahlavi dynasty and consolidate the power of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The idea of overthrowing Mossadegh was conceived by the British. They originally asked President Truman for assistance, but he refused. When Eisenhower became president in 1953, the British proposed the idea once again, and this time, the Americans agreed to help. Rationale for the intervention included Mossadegh’s socialist political views and his nationalization, without compensation, of the oil industry which was previously operated by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which later changed its name to The British Petroleum Company) under contracts disputed by the nationalists as unfair. A particular point of contention was the refusal of the Anglo-Iranian Oil company to allow an audit of the accounts to determine whether the Iranian government received the royalties it was due. Intransigence on the part of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company led the nationalist government to escalate its demands, requiring an equal share in the oil revenues. The final crisis was precipitated when the oil company ceased operations in Iran rather than accepting the Iranian government's demands. The newly state-owned oil companies saw a dramatic drop in productivity and, consequently, exports; this resulted in the Abadan Crisis, a situation that was further aggravated by its export markets being closed. Even so royalties to the Iranian government were significantly higher than before nationalization. Without its own distribution network it was denied access to markets by an international blockade intended to coerce Mossadegh into reprivatization. In addition, the appropriation of the companies resulted in Western allegations that Mossadegh was a Communist and suspicions that Iran was in danger of falling under the influences of the neighboring Soviet Union. But Mossadegh refused to back down under international pressure. For the U.S., an important factor to consider was Iran’s border with the Soviet Union. A pro-American Iran under the Shah would give the U.S. a double strategic advantage in the ensuing Cold War, as a NATO alliance was already in effect with the government of Turkey, also bordering the USSR. In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force in case the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of the chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly “Top Secret” documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate. Operation Ajax was the first time the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in a plot to overthrow a democratically-elected government. The success of this operation, and its relatively low cost, encouraged the CIA to successfully carry out a similar operation in Guatemala a year later. Widespread dissatisfaction with the oppressive regime of the reinstalled Shah led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the occupation of the U.S. embassy. The role that the U.S. embassy had played in the 1953 coup led the revolutionary guards to suspect that it might be used to play a similar role in suppressing the revolution. The leader of Operation Ajax was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA agent, and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. While formal leadership was vested in Kermit Roosevelt, the project was designed and executed by Donald Wilber, a career contract CIA agent and acclaimed author of books on Iran, Afghanistan and Ceylon. As a condition of restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the U.S. was able to dictate that the AIOC’s oil monopoly should lapse. Five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and French Compagnie Française des Pétroles were given licences to operate in the country alongside AIOC. "

7/26/2006 1:48:04 PM

Quote :

" TreeTwista10 : pro war like me "

youre a goddammed dickshit. just like your chickenhawk idols in this administration, and the crowd of gop cheerleaders who avoided military service at all costs, but have a hardon to send other people to die to fight their class wars.

you fucking pussy. shut the fuck up until you get a set of balls to go put your ass on the line for all this bullshit you talk.

fucking "pro-war" 20 year old college republican dopeheads. christ already.

im done with you.

7/26/2006 2:08:09 PM

man fuck blaming bush...blame the people that voted him into office

7/26/2006 2:15:42 PM

to all of this

[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2006 2:17:26 PM

for real. thats what drives me nuts. that 50% (give or take) actually voted for him. a second time.

i love my country, but i hate the fuckers who live in it.

7/26/2006 2:17:36 PM

such loving compassionate liberals


oh wait, I don't fit the category to get any compassion from liberals

7/26/2006 2:18:42 PM

yes, having a certain ideology means you shouldnt be expected to be critical.

you can tolerate something and still be critical of it, buster.

Quote :

"“I would say GW is our worst president since Herbert Hoover. He is moving to bankrupt the federal government on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, and he has brought America’s reputation in the world to its lowest point in the entire history of the United States.” "

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

7/26/2006 2:21:20 PM

critical and bashing people for having a different opinion is apples and oranges

Quote :

"blah blah blah blah"

rabble rabble I take poli sci and I watch the news therefore I know it all rabble rabble rabble

7/26/2006 2:26:59 PM

The Shah wasn't liked by his own people and was a cruel dictator.

The same story was repeated in Latin America by American sponsered Dictators (Sup Noriega, Castro etc).

The US actually rarely preferred real democratic process in any nation it intervened in. She only wanted strong, centralized, anti-communist governments that happened to be pro American business. There's actually a foreign policy outline insisting that supporting dictators was necessary to counter communism.

So once again, Treetwistah shows he knows absolutely nothing about history.

7/26/2006 2:39:48 PM

Quote :

"American sponsered Dictators (Sup Noriega, Castro etc)."

castro is american sponsored?

7/26/2006 2:47:59 PM

^^nobody said the Shah was liked by his own people...but he was liked, and more importantly he liked, the United States...but thanks for trying

Quote :

"fucking "pro-war" 20 year old college republican dopeheads"

i'm 26, i've been graduated and i dont smoke anymore...good try though

7/26/2006 3:05:09 PM

7/26/2006 3:08:42 PM

Quote :

"^^nobody said the Shah was liked by his own people...but he was liked, and more importantly he liked, the United States...but thanks for trying"

Who we like and who likes us is irrelevent. Had we supported actual democracy in Iran, then extremists probably would not have come to power.

7/26/2006 3:12:11 PM

its quite relevant

from the standpoint of US international security would you rather have:

1. A leader who likes the US
2. A leader who hates the US

7/26/2006 3:13:21 PM

Iraq's former leadership sure did like the US when we installed, armed, and funded him.

7/26/2006 3:30:35 PM

Uhhh, from the standpoint of international security we would much rather have a democratic Iran.

You know, like President Bush stresses nearly every single day.

Like the one we toppled to place in power the Shah.

7/26/2006 3:32:11 PM

^^and when he liked us we didnt have to worry about iraq, thanks for agreeing with me

^doesnt matter...Shah > Ayatollah

see: Hezbollah

7/26/2006 3:32:53 PM

Quote :

"Castro is american sponsored?"

Castro was supported with US weapons, cash, and military ntelligence in the Cuban Revolution where his army overthrew the legal government of Cuba.

he was our boy for about a year, until it became apparent that he was actually a socialist.

then it was all like, "Doh! We're going to kill you!".... which we never were actually able to accomplish.

7/26/2006 3:35:40 PM

from the standpoint of US international security would you rather have:

1. A leader who likes the US but will eventually decide that liking the US isn't important
2. A leader who hates the US but probably won't invade surrounding countries

7/26/2006 3:36:30 PM

a leader who likes the US

7/26/2006 3:37:33 PM

Quote :

"castro is american sponsored?"

He got this one partially wrong. The longtime dictator he overthrew, Batista, was US-supported and was the same kind of leader that the Shah and Pinochet were. The US "did not mind" when Batista was overthrown, but I think they did not realize Castro's Communist leanings, otherwise it's doubtful his coup attempt would've ever gotten off the ground.

[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2006 4:37:10 PM

fun fact: ed sullivan interviewed castro on tv shortly after the coup...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8911982280923778919

7/26/2006 6:12:56 PM