With such certainty of unsubstantiated rumor, how can you be impartial?
"he had a decision to make."
damn, you really are shill for dubya. dubya made the WRONG decision.
dubay didn't make the decision to go into Iraq, PNAC/AEI/neo- s/oilcos did before dubya was elected, maybe even before dubya was a candidate.
Iraq is ed, the US security has been reduced, and the M/E destabillized, and it's all 100% the responsbility of the neo- puppet dubya.
President Bush's stance in the middle east is one of the few things I like about that him. I was in the Army during Desert Storm, and with my clearance and where I was, I'll bet I knew more of whats going on there than anyone else here. Our presence is a good thing. I agree it could be doing much better, but again, hindsight is 20/20.
Are you even worth debating if all you can do is namecalling like a first grader?
What grade are you in anyway?
I will give that honor to president Carter. Things were under much better control before he started interfering. His "Human Rights" interferance in Iran started the revolution that made Iran what it is today. The Shaw of Iran simply knew how to deal with terrorists. No mercy. Now this world has Islamic radicals in too many places to deal with. Iran would have been a good ally to keep back then.
"I will give that honor to president Carter."
bull reaching, to diminish the responsibility for the Iraq fiasco by dubya.
"His "Human Rights" interferance in Iran started the revolution that made Iran what it is today."
No. The Eisenhower CIA installing a non-democratic western-oilco-friendly regime in Iran back in the 50s lit the fire under the pressure cooker that exploded into the Iranian/Khomeni revolution against the corrupt Shah.
And your bull about Carter and human rights/democracy in Iran is EXACTLY the bull dubya used, after WMD/9-11/al-Quaida justifications etc were proven to be bull , to justify going into Iraq, which got us a much worse fiasco in Iraq than the revolution in Iran.
The Eisenhower overthrew the government in Iran for the oil, and dubya overthrew Saddam for oil. Neither had anything to with with US security. It was strictly, exclusively, imperialistically grabbing for the oil.
Last edited by boutons_; 06-03-2007 at 08:54 AM.
President Bush is responsible for Iraq now in many ways because we did go in. However, he is not the blame for radical Islam. These people have been practicing religious war for almost a millennia now.
Wow. I hear all the time from the left that the CIA does such things, now they didn't here? Not only did Iran's government change in 1979, but Saddam Hussein came into power in 1979 too. Maybe president Carter ordered such regime change? Both these countries were modern wonders in the Arab world before 1979. World class universities, hospitals, etc. Both have gone downhill on Carter's watch, catering to only a handful of the elite. Both countries have been trouble spots since.
I don't know if that is true or not. My whole point is that the region was stable until both the Iranian revolution, and Saddan overthrowing the Iraqi government. These two countries then wet to war with each other!
A agree it is similar, but far from "Exactly." One main difference is that Saddam targeted hundreds of thousand of innocent people. The Shaw of Iran was also brutal. He was brutal to the radical elements, not to the innocent. President Carter's complaint was how the Shaw treated these criminals! Like all good liberals, be nice to the criminals, but kill all the unborn babies you want!
You know, others say the England did this for BP's interests. I don't clearly recall what is true and what isn't. If Eisenhower did such a thing, I don't care. The results were good until the Iranian revolution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote