"Neda". Watched it. Not cool.

[portlandatheist]

And LBJ was a champion of civil rights!

You know there's nothing wrong with giving credit when credit is due. Even Bill Clinton has nothing but praise for Bush's Africa programs and has said so publicly and even an organization like treehugger can give Bush kudos for an environmentally thoughtful house. Small beans in light of his other policies perhaps but I applaud him on his commitment to the fight against AIDS. He really did raise the bar and it made a big difference to many people in this regard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/washington/05aids.html

The global AIDS program is a rare exception. So far, roughly 1.4 million AIDS patients have received lifesaving medicine paid for with American dollars, up from 50,000 before the initiative. Even Mr. Bush’s most ardent foes, among them Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his 2004 Democratic challenger, find it difficult to argue with the numbers.

“It’s a good thing that he wanted to spend the money,” said Mr. Kerry, an early proponent of legislation similar to the plan Mr. Bush adopted. “I think it represents a tremendous accomplishment for the country.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Presumably it would have caused a cough reflex, which was not present?

Good catch.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

well, the shrub did give $50bn aid to Africa.

With anti-condom consequences built into the abstinence only education programs required despite the fact those programs proved failures in every study that evaluated them.

The requirement set Uganda's successful condoms preventing HIV programs back resulting in unnecessary HIV cases and wasting US taxpayer dollars.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would have to see more details on how and where, but, with his insistance that it not be spent on things like giving condoms to hookers, I have to wonder whether it was for anything of use.
....

Much of the money flowed back into the drug company profits for anti-retroviral drug programs. There was benefit for those who got free drugs. But the requirement the drugs purchased had to come from US companies meant many fewer people could be helped. More tax money directed to cronies, with some benefit to those infected in Africa.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're only about 3 decades off the mark, sport. That we had people like you in charge in 1979, serving in Jimma Cahtah's Romper Room administration, is why we have a problem now. Put that in your bong and take a toke.

You are sorely in need of some history education. The view you express here is grossly oversimplified and wrong as well.

Wiki seems to be fairly well referenced in this case: Background and causes of the Iranian Revolution

 

[NWO Sentryman]

You are sorely in need of some history education. The view you express here is grossly oversimplified and wrong as well.

Wiki seems to be fairly well referenced in this case: Background and causes of the Iranian Revolution

erm no. If Carter ever had any backbone before the afghan war, he'd have given the shah the authority to open fire. They could have crushed the nascent rebellion.

I agree that there are long term causes, but carter was a catalyst.

 

[leftysergeant]

erm no. If Carter ever had any backbone before the afghan war, he'd have given the shah the authority to open fire. They could have crushed the nascent rebellion.

If the Shah needed Carter's permission to do anything, he should not have been the Shah in the first place, and bloody good riddance to him.

And I do recall seeing a lot the action on TV, and it involved soldiers firing into crowds, enthusiasticly, at first, then, eventually less so, to the point where a lot of soldiers decided the best place to aim was squarely into Squad Leader's back.

I agree that there are long term causes, but carter was a catalyst.

Errmmm..No, that would have been Eisenhower.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

erm no. If Carter ever had any backbone before the afghan war, he'd have given the shah the authority to open fire. They could have crushed the nascent rebellion.

I agree that there are long term causes, but carter was a catalyst.

Do you think anyone here is going to take your word for these proclamations?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Do you think anyone here is going to take your word for these proclamations?

Em, it is written fact that Carter was naive to the extreme (bending to USSR's whims etc). He believed CIA reports (which are RARELY accurate) about the Shah being stable.

He also refused to let SAVAK suppress the rebellion. With no revolution there would have been no iran-iraq war with millions dead.

 

[Pardalis]

He also refused to let SAVAK suppress the rebellion. With no revolution there would have been no iran-iraq war with millions dead.

I think Saddam Hussein had alot to do about that.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I think Saddam Hussein had alot to do about that.

Saddam took advantage of a seemingly weakened Iran sicne the shah's overthrow. Had the shah been in power, everyone would have united behind him.

 

[leftysergeant]

He also refused to let SAVAK suppress the rebellion. With no revolution there would have been no iran-iraq war with millions dead.

Again, you are asserting that Carter had authority to give orders to the Shah, in which case it is good that the Shah is dead and gone, because he was just a foreing puppet oppressing his people for the benefit of foreign oil companies. Unfortunately, when such a monster is overthreown, if he has been able to kill off those intellectuals of the opposition that he can find, the revolution tends to turn nasty.

(You realize, of course, that we have no business telling another country how to manage social unrest that WE caused, right?)

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Again, you are asserting that Carter had authority to give orders to the Shah, in which case it is good that the Shah is dead and gone, because he was just a foreing puppet oppressing his people for the benefit of foreign oil companies. Unfortunately, when such a monster is overthreown, if he has been able to kill off those intellectuals of the opposition that he can find, the revolution tends to turn nasty.

(You realize, of course, that we have no business telling another country how to manage social unrest that WE caused, right?)

You break it, you buy it.

The Shah survived on the whims of the US president.

Pinochet performed a purge shortly after he entered office, then there was Operation Condor, with unpleasant links to Gladio. But somehow, just somehow, he managed to leave office peacefully.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

NWO, you may believe your knowledge of history is extensive and infallible. However, it isn't, and you are not. What amazes me is how often you repeat your statements as if everyone can't help but agree. That is not consistent with reality. People are not in agreement, nor as far as I can tell are they taking your word for what you post.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

NWO, you may believe your knowledge of history is extensive and infallible. However, it isn't, and you are not. What amazes me is how often you repeat your statements as if everyone can't help but agree. That is not consistent with reality. People are not in agreement, nor as far as I can tell are they taking your word for what you post.

No, i am not infallible. Where have i ever said that.

 

[leftysergeant]

You break it, you buy it.

Bull flops. That is just an excuse for neo-colonialism. We screwed ity up and had no way to fix it, and the Iranians wanted their country back. It was totally their right to do so. It is now their job to put it back together the way they, rather than we, want it.

The Shah survived on the whims of the US president.

And this is supposed to be good for the world? If he was our puppet, he had no right to exist.

Pinochet performed a purge shortly after he entered office, then there was Operation Condor, with unpleasant links to Gladio. But somehow, just somehow, he managed to leave office peacefully.

And the new government tried to throw him in prison because of his crimes. Sounds like he was a real blessing to his people, doesn't it? He deserved to hang, right beside that maggot Friedman.

How is their social security program doing these days? Did you know that Grover Noprgquist was trying to sell us on the idea of copying theirs? Tells you how good an idea it could have been to begin with.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Bull flops. That is just an excuse for neo-colonialism. We screwed ity up and had no way to fix it, and the Iranians wanted their country back. It was totally their right to do so. It is now their job to put it back together the way they, rather than we, want it.



And this is supposed to be good for the world? If he was our puppet, he had no right to exist.



And the new government tried to throw him in prison because of his crimes. Sounds like he was a real blessing to his people, doesn't it? He deserved to hang, right beside that maggot Friedman.

How is their social security program doing these days? Did you know that Grover Noprgquist was trying to sell us on the idea of copying theirs? Tells you how good an idea it could have been to begin with.

As for the puppet saying he had no right to exist, what was the alternative? a more unstable middle East?

So, waht was the west to do? let a USSR sympathetic leader take over? The geopolitical ramifications were immense. The USSR would have had access to the Indian ocean as well as the policy of containment being around. What alternatives were there? appeasing the russians? whinging to the UN?

The shah's biggest mistake was upsetting the aytollahs by giving women education. Had the clergy supported the shah, he would have still been in power.

Friedman denounced pinochet many times in his lifetime and also denounced the vietnam and iraq wars. I will tell you who really deserved to hang. Che Guevara as well as the Demons Mao Tse Tung and Kim Il Sung. Pinochet was a minnow compared to those monsters. But he was still a scumbag nonetheless. If you want monster to denoucne, denounce Suharto. He invaded and annexed two countries (East Timor twice IIRC and Borneo) as well as having a higher body count (700k to 1 million). I have no sympathy for that sort of Monster.

What alternative was there to pinochet? risking another cuban missile crisis and having another round of nuclear russian roulette?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, i am not infallible. Where have i ever said that.

"You may believe", is what I said.

The point is you seem to think just telling us what you believe is enough to convince people and people are not impressed by your knowledge. Try supporting your beliefs with some credible links.



-

 

[NWO Sentryman]

"You may believe", is what I said.

The point is you seem to think just telling us what you believe is enough to convince people and people are not impressed by your knowledge. Try supporting your beliefs with some credible links.



-

for my che and mao comments:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/03/che-and-what-he-stood-for/

my claims about the shah upsetting the ayatollahs:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/ayatollah_khomeini.php

Friedman denouncing Pinochet:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/132663.html

As for mossadegh:

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2007/12/truth-behind-cia-coup-against-mossadegh.html

 

[leftysergeant]

As for the puppet saying he had no right to exist, what was the alternative? a more unstable middle East?

We should have left Mossadeg in power. After that, it was an act of aggression to do anything further.

What alternative was there to pinochet? risking another cuban missile crisis and having another round of nuclear russian roulette?

There was the alternative of leaving them the hell alone so that they would not feel a need to have nukes. No country has ever threatened to use nukes on us where we had not committed some act of aggression.