Story Comments
Posted by: Bkumm 1 year, 8 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would engage them by talking to them and treating them like a sovereign nation. When we dictate to them what they may or may not do to defend themselves while we develop new and more advanced weapons it makes us look hypocritical.
I truly do not understand your "egg" comment.
Reply-
Neutral
earthlingerer1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think he was trying to get at the fact that ANY talk the US had to give to Iran to stop pursuing enrichment, whether for energy or weapons would leave "egg on the face" of washington, from a standpoint of sheer hypocrisy and double standard-bearing.
If I were Iran, with nukes on either side of me, and the "world police" kicking in my neighbors' doors, shooting everyone in the face, and then stealing all their valuables, you can bet I'd be looking to create some "back up".
It's funny how the current administration refuses to talk to Iran, after all the trouble that could have been avoided. It's almost like talking to Iran would spoil some plan long in the works.
If they do get nukes, it's a pretty good insurance plan against somebody trying to "shock and awe" away their oil. Iran has had excellent "poker face" for THOUSANDS of years.
Reply-
Neutral
m-simon1 year, 8 months ago
-
OnionHeadComment removed: Retracted by user15 Replies
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
M. Simon
>>How will they be able to keep hanging 16 yr old gays if the USA deposes their government?
And the more we threaten them, the more they turn to the fanatic hard-liners. Before W's famous "axis of evil" comments, they were actually electing moderates & heading away from the fanatic fringes. After W's bellicosity towards them, the people turned to who they thought could best protect them from us.
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Brilliant, 'papa'!
It's all OUR fault! WE make the Iranians fanatical! WE turn them into nuke-building terrorists! WE got Ahmadinejad elected! WE did all these things!
If that is all true, then why aren't WE influential enough to REMOVE the ayatollahs from power?
I think your analysis of Ahmadinejad's election is a bit out of the mainstream of even LIBERAL thought on the subject. According to Robin Wright, writer for the LA Times, Ahmadinejad came to power NOT because he was a fanatic, but because he was seen as a REFORMER who ran a 'clean' government as mayor of Tehran, cracking down on corrupt officials. According to her, the people are sick of the ayatollahs, who are corrupt as well as fanatical, and the people chose Ahmadinejad as a jab in the eye of the ayatollahs: he's the first NON-AYATOLLAH to hold the office in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
svensun
It's said that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently, you haven't learned much history from that region.
1st, we, the US, overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED prime minister in Iran because he was going to nationalize his oil. Imagine that, wanting control of his own resources.
2nd, the rise of Khomeni was the result of this overthrow, the increasing brutality of the Shah, & our support of the Shah.
3rd, Iran WAS becoming more moderate. The reports during the early part of this century was that the ayatollahs were losing their power. Iran was even helping us in Afghanistan w/intel. It also requested direct communication & negotiation w/the US. Up to the point where Bush started calling it part of the axis of evil & threatening it.
Even if W can't remember more than a few minutes or hours of history doesn't mean the rest of the world can't.
So, yes. What's going on in Iran right now is a direct result of our interference.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> ...we, the US, overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED prime minister in Iran because he was going to nationalize his oil. Imagine that, wanting control of his own resources.
Of course! It were the American soldiers who did it (NOT the Iranians) and the Iranians were SO DUMB that it took them 35 years to replace the American(!) Shah with the "more moderate" Khomeini.
Any more revelations?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was a CIA plot to overthrow the government. So what if it was the Iranians - a small fringe - that took power. Just like Pinochet in Chile, Noriega in Peru, & dozens of other dictators we, the US, put into power around the world.
And it took 35 years. So what? How long did it take to throw off control of the Soviet Union? And how long before we threw off the British crown?
I never said Khomeni was "more moderate." But if you don't realize by now that brutal oppression drives the oppressed to radicalism, then you should really consider changing your name.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> It was a CIA plot to overthrow the government. So what if it was the Iranians - a small fringe - that took power.
Well, if it was the Iranians that took power it means that is was the Iranians that took power... not the Americans.
> And it took 35 years. So what? How long did it take to throw off control of the Soviet Union?
I do not recall the Russians blaming Germany for the Communism... despite the fact that it were Germans who secretly smuggled Lenin into Russia back in 1917. Do you?
> And how long before we threw off the British crown?
Did "we" (the US) blame Mexico, France, China, Russia or any other country for it?
> I never said Khomeni was "more moderate."
You did not? If so who did you refer to as "more moderate"?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Well, if it was the Iranians that took power it means that is was the Iranians that took power... not the Americans.
Aided, supported, armed & funded by the CIA. Last I looked, that was a US government organization.
>>Did "we" (the US) blame Mexico, France, China, Russia or any other country for it?
No. But Native Americans sure have / had a problem w/Britain, France, Spain & any other colonizing countries. Unfortunately for them, they never had the military might to throw off their oppressors.
>>You did not? If so who did you refer to as "more moderate"?
Go back and re-read what I said. I said BEFORE W's speeches, they were moving in a more moderate direction. The election of the hard-liner Ahmadinejad was AFTER W's speeches.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> Aided, supported, armed & funded by the CIA. Last I looked, that was a US government organization.
As I've said it were the Iranians that took power from other Iranians. 55 years later their grandchildren and their supporters still continue to blame Americans for their own inability to replace the leaders they did not like with leaders they like better. During the last 25 years the Iranians have the leadership they like, from Khomeini to Ahmadinejad but somehow they still blame others even for that.
> Native Americans sure have / had a problem w/Britain, France, Spain & any other colonizing countries. Unfortunately for them, they never had the military might to throw off their oppressors.
I can assure you that almost every other groups of people on this planet (with very few exceptions) has similar problems. Very few (almost always Muslims) chose to seek solutions to their problems by mass murder of innocent people. Others somehow learned to live in peace.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A small fringe group overthrew a democratically elected government with the support & weapons of the US. When no other group in the country had weapons or intel equal to what we supplied, how could they retake their gov't?
And no, they're not blaming the US for their leaders. But Khomeni TOOK power from another who TOOK power prior to that. The general population was beginning to moderate with the leadership actually looking to direct talks w/the US until W threatened them. THEY selected a person who could match the rhetoric of the threats coming from DC.
And the few exceptions? Does that include N Ireland that took direct involvement of the Clinton admin to alleviate? Or Russian in Chechnia? Or maybe the Congo? or Serbia? Or the oppression by China? Darfur? How about India & Pakistan? And what about hate crimes in this country against Black, Hispanics, Muslims or Muslim-looking, gays, etc?
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> A small fringe group overthrew a democratically elected government with the support & weapons of the US. When no other group in the country had weapons or intel equal to what we supplied, how could they retake their gov't?
Pretty simple. You see, if the group that overthrew a democratically elected government was "small and fringe" than the large and mainstream remainder of the Iranian population would certainly find a way to get weapons or intel equal to what we supplied (from the Soviets, for example) and retake their gov't in a very short time.
Reply -
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> And the few exceptions? Does that include N Ireland that took direct involvement of the Clinton admin to alleviate? Or Russian in Chechnia? Or maybe the Congo? or Serbia? Or the oppression by China? Darfur? How about India & Pakistan? And what about hate crimes in this country against Black, Hispanics, Muslims or Muslim-looking, gays, etc?
No, it does not. At least, I do not recall all those you've listed running around killing innocent people all over the world trying to solve their problems.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>At least, I do not recall all those you've listed running around killing innocent people all over the world trying to solve their problems
So killing innocents at their homes or in their neighbors' homes is OK with you.
And if you believe that Iran is "running around killing innocent people all over the world" then you are beyond hope.
Most of your posts concerning the Middle East show a flagrant bigotry towards Arabs, Persians, Palestinians, and basically anyone not Israel or the US or its allies. Your blind hatred of us of ME origin is frightening, to say the least.
Since you can't think beyond your own bigotry, I'm done w/you.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>> So according to you, the only bloody group is the Arab & Persian Muslim population.
>>No, it's according TO YOU. I've NEVER said nor implied anything like that.
OK. Here's where you show your true nature. Your words were:
"Very few (almost always Muslims) chose to seek solutions to their problems by mass murder of innocent people. Others somehow learned to live in peace."
That statement implies that Muslims are almost the only group in world that, and I quote YOUR WORDS, "seek solutions to their problems by mass murder of innocent people."
Now try to deny that you said it. Read through the thread - they're your own words, not mine.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> I said BEFORE W's speeches, they were moving in a more moderate direction. The election of the hard-liner Ahmadinejad was AFTER W's speeches.
Yes, you did say that. You did not say, however, WHO those "they" were and you've refused to answer my question about it. I'm afraid that you simply DON'T KNOW who those "more moderate" were.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
His name is Mohammad Khatami and this is his interview with Christiane Amanpour 10 years ago:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/07/iran/interview...
>> we have declared our opposition to the Middle East peace process because we believe it will not succeed.
>> The Israeli intransigence in the course of the current peace process, and its failure to honor its own undertakings has enraged even U.S. allies in the region. In my view, peace can come to the Middle East when all Palestinians, Jews and Muslims alike, can determine the future of the land.
In other words, in his interview ADDRESSED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE this "moderate" Iranian President declared Iranian opposition to the peace process in the Middle East and called for destruction of Israel.
It seems that moderation is... well, relative and compared to Ahmadinejad or Hitler Khatami was "moderate" indeed.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Ahmadinejad came to power NOT because he was a fanatic, but because he was seen as a REFORMER
Are you nuts? Ahmadinejad was one of those who stormed the US embassy. I have a friend whose father was on the Shah's general staff, & I have it on the best authority that this man is NOT a "reformer" but a hard-liner. He was elected because he basically promised to protect Iran from the US & W's reckless actions.
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right. So much for the Iranians moderating their government.
But, if you read & remember history, they reverted to the more hard-line Ahmadinejad AFTER Bush starting threatening them. And AFTER the Bush administration refused their request to open communications.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> ...they reverted to the more hard-line Ahmadinejad AFTER Bush starting threatening them. And AFTER the Bush administration refused their request to open communications.
Yes... and my neighbor died after eating some Greek salad. As a matter of fact, every person who ate Greek salad even once eventually died. It is possible to use this amazing fact as a proof of deadly harmfulness of the Greek salad in exactly the same way as you're using Bush's actions to explain the actions of the Iranians.
Would you agree that the name of the next American President will be decided by declarations of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or even Vladimir Putin? If not you'll have to agree that the same principle applies to the Iranians who elected THEIR President.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are definitely not living up to your name.
FYI, the MODERATE candidate was leading in the polls prior to W's threats. After he started w/his BS, the people started supporting the more hard-line, radical candidate. The reason, they said, was BECAUSE OF W's THREATS!
And, since you seem to have forgotten recent history, the only reason W stayed relatively high in the polls during the '04 campaign was because every time his popularity started slipping, either the threat level would be raised of some mysterious threat, or OBL would miraculously be aired.
So, yes, the name of the president was at least partially influenced by OBL & Al Queda.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> FYI, the MODERATE candidate was leading in the polls prior to W's threats.
I've already shown you how "moderate" Khatami was. Just like his predecessor and successor he rejected the Middle East peace process and called for destruction of Israel.
> ...the only reason W stayed relatively high in the polls during the '04 campaign was because every time his popularity started slipping, either the threat level would be raised of some mysterious threat, or OBL would miraculously be aired.
If you believe that this was the ONLY reason for Bush' success and that his opponents DID NOT use any similar tactics you must be pretty naive. On the other hand, no one (including the American and, yes, Iranian voters) lives in a vacuum on this planet. Thinking people tend to adjust their votes to the actions they expect from those they vote for. This does not mean, however, that the results of the elections were FULLY determined by some declarations of a foreign leader.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, you need to argue with Robin Wright, not with me. She is a journalist who has covered the ME for many years for LA Times, etc, and has a new book out on Iran.
SHE said that Ahmadinejad's election was seen by the Iranian people as a slap at the clerics - Khatami is a CLERIC. The Iranians, according to HER, view the clerics as corrupt and insensitive to the needs of the people.
I am NO expert on Iran-argue with Robin Wright, or refute her with facts, citations, etc. The fact that Ahmadinejad might have been one of the US Embassy occupiers does NOT prove your point.
Regarding Ahmadinejad's 'promises' vis a vis the US, are you suggesting that Khatami did NOT promise to protect Iran from the US? Don't you think anti-Americanism is a staple of EVERY Iranian politician approved by the ruling council of clerics to run for office?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>I wish that Iran would treat Iraq like a sovereign nation instead of shipping arms there and infiltrating it with Revolutionary Guards. Talk about hypocrites.
Iran's Shi'ia gov't is supporting Iraq's Shi'ia gov't & Shi'ia militias.
The hypocrisy comes from the US supporting other Arab nations' Sunni gov'ts against radical Shi'ia & the Iraqi Shi'ia gov't against the radical Sunnis who, btw, are fighting to rid Iraq of the US AND Al Quaeda involvements in their country.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And what is the US doing? Making the world safe for a greater American Empire?
You can't have it both ways. If there were a powerful army in Mexico led by a nation that had called us part of the "Axis of Evil" don't you think we would be doing what we could to destabilize them?
We can keep saying we're the "good guys", but until our government starts acting like it, it's going to be awfully hard to sell that to the rest of the world.
Hence, the centrifuges...
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sure I can refute it. North America doesn't compare to the Middle East so the comparison is invalid. We actually are experiencing incursions by the Mexican military escorting drug shipments so I was being accurate in my description. The point is that we are having plenty of problems with our neighbor to the South and we aren't sending infiltrators there to arm religious militias.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your point is invalid. You are conflating the difference between an regular army and a militia. If the Mexican Military is escorting drug shipments across the US-Mexican border I would like more information on that, please.
If true, it is an outrage of epic proportions.
However, the comparison is valid in its hypothetical situation.
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Department of Homeland Security documents and maps showing that Mexican military has crossed into the United States 216 times in the past nine years. In the documents U.S. officials claimed the incursions are being made to help foreign drug and human smugglers into the United States.
Many incidents have seen Mexican troops fire on U.S. border agents. "
http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2008/0603...
http://forums.ugo.com/archive/index.php/t-28839...
So, Bkumm, are you outraged yet?
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If true it's outrageous, but I'm a little leery of your sources. Alex Jones believes that the members of the Branch Davidians were victims of the US government and peaceful people. He also believes that the US government (and Israel) were complicit in bringing down the WTC. So, I have some questions as to the reliability of your sources.
Also, if members of the Mexican military are invading the US to assist drug dealers that is an act of war. I can not imagine, with this Administration, that that would be allowed.
More information is needed.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's true. There are many examples of such incursions and you can find them yourself with a brief Google search. Don't take my word for it. President Bush is being that accomodating with the Mexican Government. The point is that we aren't reacting without restraint with respect to Mexico and Iran should do the same.
Reply -
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bkumm, your point about Alex Jones is well-made, but HE is not the source of the stories; the source is Sara Carter, a reporter for a local newspaper in Ontario, CA, and the other source is a KFOX TV news crew that actually SAW the border incursion.
I don't think these incidents can be dismissed by simply dismissing the credibility of the sources.
What's more troubling is that these stories have NOT been more widely reported on by the MSM. You would think stories of border incursions by armed men into the US would merit front page coverage, but apparently not.
Reply -
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm, check out this video from MSNBC last October:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4vMv9AaEAU
TJ Bonner, head of a group that represents BORDER PATROL AGENTS, CONFIRMS the figure of 216 incursions and says it is sounds LOW. He confirms that just last year, TWO Border Patrol agents were SHOT by Mexican military invaders across the border.
Are you outraged yet?
Reply -
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm, you also expressed surprise that THIS Administration would tolerate such incursions across our borders. I do not understand why you would be surprised.
Don't forget that this was the Administration that said we need illegal aliens because they 'do the jobs Americans won't do' such as dry-walling, driving trucks and working for LA County (yes, the County has been caught MANY illegal aliens), oh and lest I forget, working as consultants for the CA Republican Party. This is also the Administration that said building a wall was useless, because people would just dig under it or climb over it.
Tell that to the 500 Knights of Malta, who, with the help of WALLS, thick, high stone walls, held off some 40,000 invading Ottoman Turks in 1565.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a story on the corruption conviction of Mexico's "Drug Czar"
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/01/ameri...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course Iran has influence. It's part of the region. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, & the rest of the Middle East countries have influence in the Middle East.
That's like getting upset because Canada, the US & Mexico all have influence in the Americas.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Iran is undermining the Iraqi government by arming militias. They just want to make the world safe for a greater Persia!
Is that why Maliki has visited Iran a couple of times? And is that why many of the Shi'ia militia found their way into the Iraqi security forces?
And if you believe Arabs would tolerate a Persian occupation any more than they would tolerate a US occupation, you don't know much about the region.
Why do you think the Sunnis are now taking US money & weapons to drive out the Al Quaeda elements that followed us into Iraq after we invaded?
Why do you think Sunni & Shi'ia both are targeting US troops?
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What the hell does that have to do w/this?
Hezbollah WAS a fringe group until it was thrust into prominence & popularity by holding off an Israeli invasion.
Thanks to Syrian, Israeli, Iranian & US involvement in Lebanon, it's an unstable country on the brink of self-destruction because no one will allow the Lebanese people to sort out their problems themselves.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
pc251 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some additional info
Russia starts nuclear deliveries to Iran
http://news.propeller.com/story/2007/12/17/-rus...
Exiles: Iran Resumed Nuke Program In '04/Powell Says
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2007/12/12/...
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/4489/152/
Mike McConnell: I Would Change Iran Nuke Report
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/02/08/...
Reply
-
loading ...
Eagle_Eye
Neophile
PapaWolf
jovial
Beau7890
wasntme
Goppy
normallysilent
tanglang
pc25
mesodude
ProudBlueTexan
dunkirk
baddad59
bluetexasvalley
ningyo
DropkickaLib
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.