Mother do you think they'll like this song.

[Nebe]

Change "evil" for "oil sucker" and your getting somewhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I'm just being the devils advocate.
To assume the good ol USA has a clean nose is really foolish. When you look at things objectively without any sort of "my team VS their team" bias, the picture is very clear that we have screwed up more times than we got it right and our priorities are more about protecting the almighty dollar vs protecting human rights, democracy, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'm just being the devils advocate.
To assume the good ol USA has a clean nose is really foolish. When you look at things objectively without any sort of "my team VS their team" bias, the picture is very clear that we have screwed up more times than we got it right and our priorities are more about protecting the almighty dollar vs protecting human rights, democracy, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The US military should be about protecting Americans or American interests as well as steadfast allies. It should not be about protecting concepts such as human rights or democracy. In any case, what human rights are is in dispute. Even democracy is a label used to justify dictatorships. And further, if we, as Americans, cannot agree what our so-called human rights are, how could they be protected.

[JohnR]

I would argue that one of the roles the USA has played that last 70 years was keeping the wars cold and little, not big and hot (or glowing). Yes, a country that politically changes course every 4 to 8 years is prone to upgefucht from time to time, especially when the domestic politik makes decisions in a vacuum or to gain political favor. So is the Bush debacle in the middle east worse than the the Johnson debacle in Indochina? At least Bush tried to win and establish some level of stability. Johnson tried to do the bare minimum to not loose and to get re-elected.

But what America has been marginal to barely good at for 70 years is prevent minor wars from going global. Keeping the lines of trade open, and generally doing a fair to good job on the global stage. I fear those days are coming to an end as the next decade will be much like that of 100 years ago except as a country we no longer have the ability to act in concert as we are too divided and chasing idols and special snowflakes while passing around the peace pipe. Though this time there will be nukes. And our kids will be of military age when this next round of global instability starts clearing her throat.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

When you look at things objectively without any sort of "my team VS their team" bias, the picture is very clear that we have screwed up more times than we got it right and our priorities are more about protecting the almighty dollar vs protecting human rights, democracy, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So to further your argument a little, riddle me this, Batman. If the US had not played its miserable role since 1945 - what would happened in the world? It is very easy to play devil's advocate and quite fun some times, but roll out some alternate history and tell me what would have happened if "our team" had not flown the Berlin Airlift or stick 2 Army Corps within a couple hundred miles of the InterGerman Border? Sacrificed thousands of young Americans in the early and mid-50s to stop the NKs before they got to the Tsushima Strait? The West -v- East in the 60s-late 80s? What would have happened if the US led from behind? I've been to the other side of the Iron Curtain before it fell. We would not be allowed to have this conversation.

What do you honestly feel the world would look like today if we pulled back 60, 50, or even just 30 years ago? Approach this as not some wine and cheese philosophical discussion but put on your Red Team hat and game this out for me, please.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'm just being the devils advocate.
To assume the good ol USA has a clean nose is really foolish. no one said or assumed this so I'm not sure who you're talking at here


When you look at things objectively without any sort of "my team VS their team" bias is this how you look at things?, the picture is very clear that we have screwed up more times than we got it right and our priorities are more about protecting the almighty dollar vs protecting human rights, democracy, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

begging you to provide your historically objective very clear and accurate evidence for the last part

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion.

taken from a NY times article -

But experts say that the American death toll in Iraq that could be linked back to Iran is more accurately put in the hundreds, not the thousands. Add in those maimed, as Mr. Netanhayu did, and the statement inches closer to the truth.


So...... Who's the boogyman?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The boogyman is the one who killed the one million Iraqis. Most were killed by other than US military. During the war between Iraq and Iran the death toll has been estimated between a half million to one and a half million, none of which were killed by Americans. Saddam Hussein had over 100,000 Iraqis killed before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Iranians and Iraqis and "radical" Muslims have been killing thousands, including hundreds of Americans before and after the US invasion of Iraq. There are apparently several boogymen, and the US is not the most murderous and frightening one.

Isolated statistics (out of context as Spence might say) reveal very little, but can be used to make false points.

[Nebe]

Those were the times when we got it right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Have you ever heard the phrase " WW2 was the good war"?
That was the last war where it was abundantly clear that there was true "good vs evil" fighting happening.
All wars since then in my opinion are nowhere as morally pure in the fact that we had to do it to for the sake of us making the right choice for the right reasons without having to lie about it to hide hidden agendas.

Here's a good read.
http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html

"If the history of war and conflict teaches us anything, it is the danger of arrogance and hubris – that is, the danger of going to war because a nation's leaders are convinced of their own righteousness, or have persuaded themselves and the public that a foreign country should be attacked because its government or society is not merely alien, hostile or threatening, but "evil."

This is perhaps the most harmful legacy of America 's national mythology about World War II -- the notion that worthwhile or justifiable wars are fought against countries headed by supposedly "evil" regimes. And it is this very outlook that moved President George W. Bush to refer to his "war on terrorism" as a "crusade," and, in a major speech, to proclaim a US foreign policy dedicated to "ending tyranny in the world." / 39

A nation should go to war only after prudent consideration, after carefully weighing the possible consequences, and only for the most compelling of reasons, after all other alternatives have been exhausted, and as a last resort. This is especially true given the awesome destructive power of modern weaponry, and because – as World War II , the "Good War," so tragically attests -- wars rarely turn out the way anyone expects."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

sooo..revisionist history website?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ary_operations

timeline of the use of American military

you'll see this a lot "American troops participated in operations to protect " whether the US sent troops to protect or foreign interests sought protection...don't see "protect oil or money" anywhere

supposedly "evil" regimes.....that's pretty funny

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Here's a good read.
http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html

You do have to wonder how the author could use more words to describe American troops shooting wounded Germans than to describe say, I don't know...the systematic murder of 6 million Jews.

It's a good thing the Russian's defeated Hitler just in time for Uncle Sam's boys to show up and make a few patriotic movies.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

You do have to wonder how the author could use more words to describe American troops shooting wounded Germans than to describe say, I don't know...the systematic murder of 6 million Jews.

It's a good thing the Russian's defeated Hitler just in time for Uncle Sam's boys to show up and make a few patriotic movies.

Stalin couldn't win in the East if the Allies had not opened the second front in the west. Yes, Normandy and the allied invasion of France was the supporting attack, but the Russians could not defeat Germany on their own and it would be years before they could do their own bomb.

[Nebe]

I don't expect you to see the world as open eyed as I do.

I am an artist after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I don't expect you to see the world as open eyed as I do.

I am an artist after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

some of the self-proclaimed "most tolerant, well educated and open eyed" folks that I know have a remarkably narrow view of things and even narrower historical perspective

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I don't expect you to see the world as open eyed as I do.

I am an artist after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True, but as an uber liberal I don't expect you to see the world as open minded. You are an artist (and a seriously cool one - I mean it) after all.

Open minded could allow you to see both sides of the coin, and what may or may not happen as a consequence after a series of actions or lack of actions.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Open minded could allow you to see both sides of the coin, and what may or may not happen as a consequence after a series of actions or lack of actions.

....after viewing the timeline of military actions can one still claim we get it wrong more than right?? particularly in the "context' of us VS Iran when it comes to moral imperative, I love Eben but this attempt to degrade the US and it's actions (even in a "devil's advocate" sense)over time to bring it to the level of what are very clearly "evil regimes" for the purpose of making some politically motivated point is pretty offensive....but it does seem to chic these days

[Nebe]

I'm sorry but do you guys realize who holds the biggest blame for helping Iran's current leader come to power?
THE UNITED STATES!

as I said.... I have screwed up this world in so many ways.

I'm simply trying to defend my argument here and I am not anti US or feel ashamed of our country. I'm just pointing out the facts. That doesn't mean I stand behind them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'm sorry but do you guys realize who holds the biggest blame for helping Iran's current leader come to power?
THE UNITED STATES!


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"A cousin of mine has finished his freshman year in college; like most freshmen, he now knows absolutely everything. He took it upon himself, this week, to announce (to my brother, who is a very patient man) that Iran’s Islamist dictators were “a predictable consequence of American imperialism,” which manifested itself through “the CIA’s international pro-fascist crimes.”

That’s nonsense, of course, but it’s widely believed nonsense — and not just among college kids who’ve read the first chapter of a Noam Chomsky book. "

"Iran did not fall to the mullahs because of “the hated Shah,” as Ron Paul has said — it fell because the United States refused to defend progress from Islamism, in the same way we refused to protect our successes in Iraq from the rise of ISIS. The Shah’s government could have been saved, but we refused to save it.

So why do so many people believe the imperialist-calamity version of modern Persian history? Because the world is filled with freshmen and sophomoric adults."


timely article....sorry, not from a New Zealand or revisionist history website

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421595/print


related http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...-iranians.html

read through the comments at the end ...many from Iranians...

seems Americans either blame America for doing too much or not doing enough...

...Iranias seem to blame themselves......... "Zarrin, I do not disagree with you that my generation was fooled and the completely misread Khomeini and the mullahs. We blew it. I am especially, mad at myself because I come from a family with mullahs among its members. I should have known that they care about only two things: What is between their legs and what is in their pockets. What worries me now is the current generation may be fooled by another dictator who looks good when out of power and of course completely changes his/her tune when in power. "

great exchange from the comments....

Mark •
I lived for a year in that country while it was ruled by that foreign imposed dictator. I can tell you this: no self-respecting American would ever tolerate such. Heck, we had a revolution back in the 1770s to get rid of ours. So did the Iranians, two hundred years later.


Sassan •
All one can do is laugh at this rhetoric trying to equate everything to America.

Your comparison of the 1979 bloodthirsty, Islamic totalitarian reaction in Iran, to the American Revolution of 1776 is laughable. America's revolution was inspired by freedom and democracy, whereas the Iranian reactionary event of 1978-1979 was motivated by pushing back all the positive social and economic gains made during the Pahlavi period. It can be argued that the current Islamic system in Iran is a foreign imposed dictatorship advancing a state ideology (Islam) founded in Arabia. It is undisputed that the "akhunds" (mullahs) have made every attemt at destroying Iran's native glorious pre-Islamic culture and history.

You living in Iran for one year, hardly makes you an expert. It is obvious that you are an apologist for the Islamic dictatorship. How unfortunate that people like you have such disregard for peoples intelligence. Most people know that the Shah was a true patriot and loved Iran deeply. After thirty-three years of ineffective and harmful rule by the akhunds, Iranians have had it. We want a true revolution that is inspired by freedom, democracy, and a secular society.



Seb Masri •

Ah yes, but you're forgetting that Mark doesn't believe Iranians deserve democracy or freedom. He also doesn't see them as intelligent enough to understand what freedom is. Mark is an apologist, who clearly has issues with his own government in America, and therefore sees Iran as a beacon of human rights, liberalism and freedom - actually, that's wrong - Mark also once said that Iranians don't want liberalism, as if liberalism is something they don't understand.

[Nebe]

Lol. I will leave that typo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Scott. You said. "It wasn't because we did this. It was because we did this".
Sorry try again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Scott. You said. "It wasn't because we did this. It was because we did this".
Sorry try again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said we didn't do anything nor what we did or didn't do...you always have to weigh the potential absent our involvement, you just like to put all of the blame(or the biggest) on America which is pretty silly....

"I'm sorry but do you guys realize who holds the biggest blame for helping Iran's current leader come to power?
THE UNITED STATES!"

"So...... Who's the boogyman?"

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

I never said we didn't do anything nor what we did or didn't do...you always have to weigh the potential absent our involvement, you just like to put all of the blame(or the biggest) on America which is pretty silly....

"I'm sorry but do you guys realize who holds the biggest blame for helping Iran's current leader come to power?
THE UNITED STATES!"

"So...... Who's the boogyman?"

Haha - very true, the biggest installer of the Shah was the USA and the biggest installer of the Mullahs was, you'll never guess, the USA.

But contrary to the historical understanding of all good Prolesters (if Orwell had Hipsters?) only Imperialcorpratists America is the evil and every other peace loving people in the world (Russia/China) are being repressed by the USA from bringing the enlightenment.

What really pisses me off is how much this alternate reality has solidified its roots. It is very easy to machinize political non-conformity conforming alternate realities under the protections and sacrifice provided by the US government, the Constitution, and the American service-member. This gives these thought activists the breathing room necessary to create the ultimate self-licking-ice-cream-cone: the hate America Unicorn Fart Double Rainbow crowd.