Why Is Iran "Unstable"?

[nmm]

They are who they are.

[TJones]

You can go ahead and wear blinders about Iran all you want there nmm, I just can't seem to recall the last time America took 50 Iranian civilians hostage, and held them for over a year. I am at least happy that you believe the Holocaust occurred, my origins are not Jewish either, My forefathers are a bunch of "limeys", so I can be impartial as to the facts of what happened in WWII. Maybe you will have a broader outlook as to what Jihadists are really all about once you get out of college and get some real world experiences. Make no mistake, Iran's new president, a wannabe martyr, will bark like a big dog against the U.S. but when the world community throws the gauntlet down on him, his bite won't even leave teethmarks.

BTW, I don't know if anyone has ever apologied to you for giving attitude that was unfounded after the 9/11 attacks. I am sure I am guilty of doing such things to others either knowingly or unknowingly also, if it is ok with you, I would like to apologize to you for making such accusations with no proof. I would hope you would never even dream of doing such a heinous act as to blow yourself up in a crowd. You seem to have a pretty good head on your shoulders, judging by your posts. I try not to judge books by their covers, that was an absolute crazy few months after the attacks occurred. Racial profiling is disgusting, but it is really all we have to go on, because it is the same groups of people that always seem to try and pull off these Hijackings and suicide bombings. You just happen to be a victim of circumstance.

[Highway6]

Israel taking other peoples land................

the next thing you will tell us is that hogs are kosher

Dude..

I've heard that "Hogs are Kosher" line and your "How old are you" line about 20 times from you in the last few weeks.

Stop.

Learn some new words.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Dude..

I've heard that "Hogs are Kosher" line and your "How old are you" line about 20 times from you in the last few weeks.

Stop.

Learn some new words.

Make me

[Highway6]

Make me

"Make me" ?

And you're asking people their age ?

Most arguments I find myself leaning towards your side, so I don't want you thinking I'm just a hater opposed to your views. I'm just saying, let's change the zingers up a wee bit shall we....

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

"Make me" ?

And you're asking people their age ?

Most arguments I find myself leaning towards your side, so I don't want you thinking I'm just a hater opposed to your views. I'm just saying, let's change the zingers up a wee bit shall we....

I will sleep better tonight with this new found knowlege.......

[nmm]

You can go ahead and wear blinders about Iran all you want there nmm, I just can't seem to recall the last time America took 50 Iranian civilians hostage, and held them for over a year. I am at least happy that you believe the Holocaust occurred, my origins are not Jewish either, My forefathers are a bunch of "limeys", so I can be impartial as to the facts of what happened in WWII. Maybe you will have a broader outlook as to what Jihadists are really all about once you get out of college and get some real world experiences. Make no mistake, Iran's new president, a wannabe martyr, will bark like a big dog against the U.S. but when the world community throws the gauntlet down on him, his bite won't even leave teethmarks.

BTW, I don't know if anyone has ever apologied to you for giving attitude that was unfounded after the 9/11 attacks. I am sure I am guilty of doing such things to others either knowingly or unknowingly also, if it is ok with you, I would like to apologize to you for making such accusations with no proof. I would hope you would never even dream of doing such a heinous act as to blow yourself up in a crowd. You seem to have a pretty good head on your shoulders, judging by your posts. I try not to judge books by their covers, that was an absolute crazy few months after the attacks occurred. Racial profiling is disgusting, but it is really all we have to go on, because it is the same groups of people that always seem to try and pull off these Hijackings and suicide bombings. You just happen to be a victim of circumstance.

America has done some bad things too.

Dont forget propping up dictatorships in the Middle East.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Dude, no need to apologize. I believe racial profiling is human nature. Plus i didnt get it as bad as some Sikhs and Hindus - who were mistaken as Muslims and shot /beat up to death.

Anyways, you may not seem to recall when America took 50 Irani hostages (me neither), but im sure you remember how America supported financially/militarily Reza Shah Pahlavi, a DICTATOR (where is the democracy now?) in Iran - which resulted in anger against America; which is the reason why a group of students marched into the US Consulate in Iran and took hostage 50 Americans and ransomed them in return for the right to decide who would/wouldnt govern them.

Im not saying its right, im just looking at the reason they did what they did.

What im saying is, dont look at world events statically. There is a cause and effect for everything, nothing happens 'just because'.

Now, i understand national interest. And i understand national security. If you feel that your national interests in the Middle East are in danger (oil), or if you feel that Iran is a threat, then say exactly that. And invade for that reason. But dont lie to me and tell me Iraq has WMDs, or Saddam and Osama were old buddies in high school, or Iran is "unstable".

I dont appreciate being lied to. And i dont appreciate my ignorance of World politics being taken advantage of by my government so the nation can have access to cheaper energy resources. Just lay it out flat and let me know whats going on.

Iran alone is no problem, its the boss thats presents the problem in conjunction with Iran.

[tcole]

NMM:

A couple of points:

Israel, the UK, and America secretly colloborated against Egypt after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. After declaring war on Egypt, the three of them were exposed and faced international condemnation.

Your facts are in error. The UK, Isreal, and FRANCE (not the US) collaborated against Egypt to re-take the canal. It was actually the US and Ike who led the international condemnation which eventually led to the canal's relinquishment to Nasser, who it is known poorly managed the canal and actually derived LESS state revenue from it than Egypt recieved when it was managed by the joint British/French Suez Canal Company.

Also not necessarily in error, but not completely explained in the following post:

but im sure you remember how America supported financially/militarily Reza Shah Pahlavi, a DICTATOR (where is the democracy now?) in Iran - which resulted in anger against America; which is the reason why a group of students marched into the US Consulate in Iran and took hostage 50 Americans and ransomed them in return for the right to decide who would/wouldnt govern them.

is that the hostage situation developed AFTER the Shah had abdicated and fled Iran. Khomeini encouraged the "students" to rally in front of the US embassy after seeing the results of some similar demonstrations in Islamabad. Most historians today question the notion that the actual decision to "take" the embassy and therefore retain US citizens as "hostages" was spontaneous.

Lastly:

But dont lie to me and tell me Iraq has WMDs, or Saddam and Osama were old buddies in high school, or Iran is "unstable".

I dont appreciate being lied to. And i dont appreciate my ignorance of World politics being taken advantage of by my government so the nation can have access to cheaper energy resources. Just lay it out flat and let me know whats going on.

Out of curiosity, do you think that any other reasons for invasion were presented by this administration/Tony Blair's government by chance?

And, just because you may believe yourself to be "ignorant" of world politics does not necessarily construe that you have been "lied" to. It may just be that that your perception of dishonesty is the result of you actually being ignorant and that the solution lies with you rectifying such.

[nmm]

1. Was it France? Hmmm.... gotta check up on that but i feel your right.

2. The Hostage Crisis was the DIRECT and i repeat DIRECT effect of supporting the Dictator of Iran, the Shah. There is no other reason. It wasnt a split second decision either.

From Wikipedia, Iran Hostage Crisis

Background

For several decades the United States had been the primary backer of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah. In 1953, emerging democracy led to the election of reformist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh; under Operation Ajax, the CIA helped the Shah and conservative elements in Iran remove Mossadegh in what was widely seen as a coup d'

[tcole]

we were lied to on this specific incident.

Was the claim of the existence of WMDs, to which ALL intelligence services in EVERY country believed and was evident at one time based on their usage, a "lie" or an "error"? For analogy, you initially claimed that the US was involved with the UK and Isreal to secretly conspire against Nasser to retake the canal, yet I nor anyone would have accused you of "lying"; instead, I pointed out that you were in "error".

Furthermore, I'll ask again:

do you think that any other reasons for invasion were presented by this administration/Tony Blair's government by chance?

Lastly:

From Wikipedia, Iran Hostage Crisis

I think you are too smart to resort to Wikipedia as a trustworthy final resource. The details you have highlighted are not precisely acurate and fail to fill in a number of historical gaps.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I stopped responding to this thread because it keeps getting off topic. The creator if it should change the title to all things bad with the USA in the middle east because America is no good........

[TJones]

1. Was it France? Hmmm.... gotta check up on that but i feel your right.

2. The Hostage Crisis was the DIRECT and i repeat DIRECT effect of supporting the Dictator of Iran, the Shah. There is no other reason. It wasnt a split second decision either.

From Wikipedia, Iran Hostage Crisis

Honestly i dont blame them for removing Americans out of their country.

Its likeness is like that of Muslims post 9/11. Muslims delicate flower all day about stereotyping by Americans and the government in various affairs after 9/11 (especially airport security) ~ but i say "No ____." Its human nature to stereotype, and maybe it saves your ass at the end of the day.

If i knew Muslims or the Chinese or the Russians were paying high level governmet agents to spy on Americans, or keep an unpopular president in power, i too would ask for the exile of all Russian/Chinese diplomats from my nation.

Moreover, this is a blow in the face of those gullible types who believe America is only out to spread peace and democracy in the world. Thats just "triumphalist" history. Its BS fed to you to keep your conscience content. Any nation (not just America) is out for its own self interest. In the case of Iran, it was oil.

2. Perhaps in a general scenario, but i think, at this time, we were lied to on this specific incident.

For my sake, i wasnt really ignorant of Iraq nor am i ignorant of Iran. Rather i believe its the average American who is ignorant of these places.

----------------------------------------

On another point. What do you all think of isolationism? I think its naive to think we can isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, especially since our oil prices are affected by what happens in the ME, and most of our goods come from China, and our clothes are made in Bangladeshi sweat shops.

Do you think you could write such things as you have written on here, going against the Gov., calling the administration liars and whatnot if you were in Iran ? If you did such things while living in Iran, we would all be asking "hey, what happen to nmm, I haven't seen him on here for awhile. He wrote that one piece about the Ayahtollah being a liar, and it is just like he vanished." Now go ahead and tell me how I am wrong.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Do you think you could write such things as you have written on here, going against the Gov., calling the administration liars and whatnot if you were in Iran ? If you did such things while living in Iran, we would all be asking "hey, what happen to nmm, I haven't seen him on here for awhile. He wrote that one piece about the Ayahtollah being a liar, and it is just like he vanished." Now go ahead and tell me how I am wrong.

but he says Iran is a democracy.........

[nmm]

Was the claim of the existence of WMDs, to which ALL intelligence services in EVERY country believed and was evident at one time based on their usage, a "lie" or an "error"? For analogy, you initially claimed that the US was involved with the UK and Isreal to secretly conspire against Nasser to retake the canal, yet I nor anyone would have accused you of "lying"; instead, I pointed out that you were in "error".

Furthermore, I'll ask again:

Lastly:

I think you are too smart to resort to Wikipedia as a trustworthy final resource. The details you have highlighted are not precisely acurate and fail to fill in a number of historical gaps.

Real fast, this topic has been beaten to death -

1. Initally, most countries went to war in Iraq because they believed American/British intelligence. Now, how many of them pulled out?

2. Lying as in constantly claiming there were WMDs in Iraq, and then flat out denying any such thing was said. Moreover, if an 'error' was made, it was a grievious and destructive error - was it not? To make such a careless error. . . ?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269...tml?source=mypi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3161719.stm

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18803...5001620,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/26/...ain570236.shtml

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_da...h_lied_abou.htm

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...EWS04/605170309

2. Yes, i faintly remember the administration constantly repeating that Saddam was a dictator that killed his own people.

Yes Saddam was evil. No America didnt give a rats ass until it served their purpose.

I wont believe this operation was done to save the lives of the Iraqi people until we invade N Korea, then Saudi Arabia, then Sudan, then Zimbabwe, and the list goes on.

Not to mention, if you really want to put an end to islamic extremism, you need to strike Saudi Arabia. For all of you who dont know, every administration from Indonesia to Morrocco favor secular governments (except Iran), and its the people who want Islamic Goverments, complete with stoning for adulterers, amputation for thieves (like Lay and Skilling), and the whole shabang.

Morrocco banned Ramadhan fasting a few decades ago, Pakistan banned international madrassah students (islamic schools) a few years ago, and Turkey banned the veil.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand went off on the deep end and dont allow women to vote nor drive.

But somehow we found a way to link Saddam with Osama not even glancing at KSA. wonderful. And we say we are out to spread democracy.

--------------

BTW - what do you call it when, in a democracy, the people vote for a Islamic Shariah based theocracy?

3. For our purposes, i think Wikipedia serves us well. I am not using wikipedia as my primary source, im using retired Persian (Irani) and Pakistani military personell. And then im using close acquaintances who lived through the ordeal. I only use wikipedia to bring around my point.

Unless i was turning in a World History paper to my professor, wikipedia serves well enough.

Do you think you could write such things as you have written on here, going against the Gov., calling the administration liars and whatnot if you were in Iran ? If you did such things while living in Iran, we would all be asking "hey, what happen to nmm, I haven't seen him on here for awhile. He wrote that one piece about the Ayahtollah being a liar, and it is just like he vanished." Now go ahead and tell me how I am wrong.

Quite honestly, yes you can. INFACT, its done quite regularly. As 'extreme' as the goverment is to you guys, its just not that totalitarian on a day to day basis.

There is still nude art, caricatures defaming the goverment, editorial pieces condemning goverment laws and edicts, etc.

For example, Pakistan's military goverment under dictator Musharaaf, is constantly condemned in this daily newspaper.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/05/18/ed.htm

The fact of the matter is, the dictators the West has experienced is unlike the dictators the Near East has gone through. Yes there were some bad, but there were also some very good dictators. And in a culture where the word "dictator" holds negative connotations, along with the term "Religious based goverment" or 'Theocratic government' your going to have to shed your cultural restraints and walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

As for Musharraf, hes making sweeping strides cleaning up the urban cities, improving education, opening Pakistan as a major Asian power by consolidating ties with China, Russia, Japan and the Central Asian nations, as well as leading one of the top economies in the world.

http://www.adb.org/Documents/News/2004/nr2004041.asp

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2006/04/30/business1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Pa...conomic_history

Obviously, its hard for people who have never stepped foot outside of the USA, to seperate the reality from the fiction. I think some Americans live in a kind of one dimensional bubble when it comes to stereotyping the rest of the world.

I stopped responding to this thread because it keeps getting off topic. The creator if it should change the title to all things bad with the USA in the middle east because America is no good........

I merely tried to bring a point of view in front of you that you otherwise wouldnt have known. The point was why is Iran unstable. The replies were not to my satisfaction.

So i set up analogies and arguments to help others understand a different point of view.

Iran, as far as i am concerned, is not 'unstable'. It may have problems but so does every nationl. We have huge issues as of now regarding immigration, trade deficit, shaky economy, and government intrusion. Is America 'unstable'? Is it about to topple over? No.

[tcole]

2. Lying as in constantly claiming there were WMDs in Iraq, and then flat out denying any such thing was said. Moreover, if an 'error' was made, it was a grievious and destructive error - was it not? To make such a careless error. . . ?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269...tml?source=mypi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3161719.stm

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18803...5001620,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/26/...ain570236.shtml

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_da...h_lied_abou.htm

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...EWS04/605170309

The last citation is simply a "letter to the editor" and probably not your best source. As to "spinning" ones words today, I will agree with you that it displays some dishonesty. But the underlying issue is whether the administration believed originally in their assertion, to which I think most did. Today, the original assertion has born out to be incorrect, not a "lie".

Furthermore, you seem to acknowledge that other reasons were given for initiating war plans for Iraq. Personally, I think that the admin/coalition had a better argument in the fact that iraq/Sadam Hussein were in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement which held for the resumption of hostilities. In fact, to some degree, Clinton and GHWB were at fault for not pressing the issue the first time a coalition aircraft was fired upon in the "no-fly" zones. Which begs a question since you mention Lay and Skilling. If those two are found guilty, and it is later demonstrated that the Enron prosecution erroneously pressed the 'misleading Wall Street" charge, should the entire case be thrown out. In other words, do we let the convicted murderous, rapist thief out of prison because we discover that the illegal weapons possession charge turned out to be incorrect based on erroneous police work?

Yes there were some bad, but there were also some very good dictators. And in a culture where the word "dictator" holds negative connotations, along with the term "Religious based goverment" or 'Theocratic government' your going to have to shed your cultural restraints and walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

As for Musharraf, hes making sweeping strides cleaning up the urban cities, improving education, opening Pakistan as a major Asian power by consolidating ties with China, Russia, Japan and the Central Asian nations, as well as leading one of the top economies in the world.

It is interesting that you seem to point to Musharraf as perhaps a "benevolent" dictator, given that many of the initiatives that he is pushing in Pakistan are very similar to some backed and put through by the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s in Iran.

As to your ultimate question as to whether or not Iran as a nation is unsatble or not, I would tend to side with you that it is reasonbly stable although friends at Stratfor have told me that Iran is experiencing its own domestic terrorism today in that there exist large concentrations of minorities (Arab, Baluchistani, and Kurdish) who are not too happy with the Persian Shia majority. Is Ahmadinejad unstable? A good chunk of his public comments and actions would lead a reasoble person to suspect so. Maybe in the end he really is not, but the world has some experience with similar rhetoric from some of history's most dangerous characters, and that experience is going to trigger the red flags that you see in places like Paris, Berlin, London, DC, and even Moscow. As an example, I quote:

"Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems." - Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Letter to GWB, dated May 9, 2006

Now, if liberal Democracy has been such a failure, why has the world adopted such increasingly since its first adoption in the 18th century? And of those others who have claimed the same thing, among them Karl Marx, Vladamir Lennin, Joseph Stalin, Otto Von Bismarck, Adolph Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hideki Tojo, Juan Peron, Pol Pot, etc.; how many have either been correct, and/or offered something else that was ven remotely comparable in terms of wealth creation, overall freedom, and rights security. As Churchill said, liberal democracy is absolutely the worst form of governance...except for all the others tried. When most in the world see statements similar to those quoted above, they get jittery; because the institutional memory of such other observations have in the past led to a great deal of problems for the world at large over the last three hundred years.

[nmainguy]

Two points:

First, always double-check then triple-check then quadruple-check when you source wikipedia.

Second, nothing comes out of the mouth of the President of Iran without the consent of the Ayahtollah.

So beat up on the puppet all you want but when you do, you are only letting the puppet-master off the hook.

...and yes, institutional memory ultimatly bites us on our collective ass.

[nmm]

You know, i promised to shut up but im tempted to go on.

So i promise THIS will be my last post, and you can have your post and we can leave it at that.

-------

1.

The last citation is simply a "letter to the editor" and probably not your best source. As to "spinning" ones words today, I will agree with you that it displays some dishonesty. But the underlying issue is whether the administration believed originally in their assertion, to which I think most did. Today, the original assertion has born out to be incorrect, not a "lie".

Furthermore, you seem to acknowledge that other reasons were given for initiating war plans for Iraq. Personally, I think that the admin/coalition had a better argument in the fact that iraq/Sadam Hussein were in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement which held for the resumption of hostilities. In fact, to some degree, Clinton and GHWB were at fault for not pressing the issue the first time a coalition aircraft was fired upon in the "no-fly" zones. Which begs a question since you mention Lay and Skilling. If those two are found guilty, and it is later demonstrated that the Enron prosecution erroneously pressed the 'misleading Wall Street" charge, should the entire case be thrown out. In other words, do we let the convicted murderous, rapist thief out of prison because we discover that the illegal weapons possession charge turned out to be incorrect based on erroneous police work?

Whatever the final assertion the government gives you, id be very suspicious of it. If the government told you that Waco was a mistake, would you swallow it? Or if the government told you that "such and such" an event never occured, would you eat it up? [i dont want to dispute Waco but i just brought it up for the sake of argument]

There was a saying someone made, very true that i still believe to this day. It was something like "The West established governments where the people run the show. The East has always been of monarchies, dictators, and ruling families. However, the East knows to be very critical of their governments and to know when the government is lying to their faces simply because living under totalitarian regimes produces such an effect on their society. On the other hand, after gaining their liberties in the West, they fell complacent and stopped being critical of their governments." I thought it was a true description of what is happening today.

Secondly, i dont remember the government flaunting the decision to invade Iraq for the "1991 Cease Fire Agreement" when they were declaring war. I only remember two things:

1. Al Qaeda is linked with Saddam.

2. WMDs

3. Saddam is a bad guy.

I would say Number 3 is true, number 2 is nonexistent [and if somehow WMDs did emerge NOW (after how many years of occupation?) - id be very suspicious of it ] and number one is a funny joke.

Nevermore, i feel it was a lie that Iraq had WMDs - solely because there were a list of occurances that lead me to believe it was a lie.

1. No WMDs (the biggie)

2. Forged Niger Documents - Joe Wilson - Valerie Plame - Bush taking revenge on US government personell for disagreeing with his administrations decision by outing his CIA wife.

3. Un Weapon Inspector - Scott Ritter -an American as far as i believe - claimed it was an outright lie

http://afr.com/articles/2003/07/15/1058034977966.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,351165,00.html

4. US goverment stopped looking for WMDs

5. Bringing a group of idiots [Ahmed Chalabi & Co] to assert and boost their claim that Iraq has WMDs - common, the Bush Administration may not be the best one we've had, but they arent that dumb. I personally think it was staged to satisfy the ignorant.

6. Common Sense and my personal gut feeling - if this guy is capable of lying on certain issues that puts members of his own government at risk (Plame) - im sure hell lie to start a war

It is interesting that you seem to point to Musharraf as perhaps a "benevolent" dictator, given that many of the initiatives that he is pushing in Pakistan are very similar to some backed and put through by the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s in Iran.

The only difference between the Shah and Musharaff is that Musharraf is liked by his people, whereas the Persians didnt want the Shah in power (and realized the force keeping him there was the US - to serve United States self-interests). Talk about democracy.

"Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems." - Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Letter to GWB, dated May 9, 2006

Now, if liberal Democracy has been such a failure, why has the world adopted such increasingly since its first adoption in the 18th century? And of those others who have claimed the same thing, among them Karl Marx, Vladamir Lennin, Joseph Stalin, Otto Von Bismarck, Adolph Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hideki Tojo, Juan Peron, Pol Pot, etc.; how many have either been correct, and/or offered something else that was ven remotely comparable in terms of wealth creation, overall freedom, and rights security. As Churchill said, liberal democracy is absolutely the worst form of governance...except for all the others tried. When most in the world see statements similar to those quoted above, they get jittery; because the institutional memory of such other observations have in the past led to a great deal of problems for the world at large over the last three hundred years.

Dont worry too much about his critcisms of the West/US. My opinion is that he is trying to produce a rallying effect. Perhaps, as you mentioned their country is segmented with differing opinions on the same issue. Hes probably trying to produce a "were all in this together" mentality in his people.

Anyways, the statement made is so damn broad, its hard to really see why? liberal/democratic societies have failed. Dont worry about it, he knows America has the bigger guns.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Is this the making of a bad novel?

[tcole]

There was a saying someone made, very true that i still believe to this day. It was something like "The West established governments where the people run the show. The East has always been of monarchies, dictators, and ruling families. However, the East knows to be very critical of their governments and to know when the government is lying to their faces simply because living under totalitarian regimes produces such an effect on their society. On the other hand, after gaining their liberties in the West, they fell complacent and stopped being critical of their governments." I thought it was a true description of what is happening today.

I call BS on that quote. Not questioning the veracity that someone actually stated such, but BS on the observation. "after gaining their liberties in the West, they fell complacent and stopped being critical of their governments." Right, "criticism" to a large degree is precisely HOW western liberal democracy came into being. Furthermore, if the first part of the stement is true, to what benefit or positive attribute are you praising a society that may harbor criticism (and certainly manifested "underground") or knowledge of deception yet still accepts totalitarian rule?

Secondly, i dont remember the government flaunting the decision to invade Iraq for the "1991 Cease Fire Agreement" when they were declaring war. I only remember two things:

1. Al Qaeda is linked with Saddam.

2. WMDs

3. Saddam is a bad guy.

Your memory is somewhat understandable given the fact that the administration indeed overhyped the WMD argument over the others, but the cease fire argument was provided. Furthermore, you are in error in remembering the "argument that "Al Queda was linked to Saddam". The presentation in arguing for invasion was that Saddam WAS linked to international terrorism. The harboring of Abu Nidal alone introduced Saddam to that jeopardy. Besides, to quote Victor Davis Hanson:

"First of all, whatever one thinks about Iraq, the old question of whether Iraq and al Qaeda enjoyed a beneficial relationship is moot

[nmainguy]

tcole:

It would be easier if you would cite those you quote so we don't have to back-track through 50 posts to try to identify who you're replting to.

It's an easy option to use-even for a youngster like you.

[tcole]

tcole:

It would be easier if you would cite those you quote so we don't have to back-track through 50 posts to try to identify who you're replting to.

It's an easy option to use-even for a youngster like you.

You mean like this? I will make note to attempt to do so in the future. Further, is there a way to do such by selective quotations? I admit that I have not figured that process out as of yet.

As to my youth, you would be correct in your assumption that I am younger than you, but not by the degree that your post implies....

[nmainguy]

You mean like this? I will make note to attempt to do so in the future. Further, is there a way to do such by selective quotations? I admit that I have not figured that process out as of yet.

As to my youth, you would be correct in your assumption that I am younger than you, but not by the degree that your post implies....

Yes, like that.

Click on the guote + tab as many times as you like then click reply ', to reply to whom ever it is you are attempting to make a point.

As far as my crack about your youth, at some point in your life you may develope a sense of humor. It's a great tool for staying young in the face of adversity.

As far as your lack of knowledge of the on again/off again Cheney-Bush stooge Ahmed Chalabi, I suggest you research his and his brother's role in the lies and deceptions of the very inept and incompetant Cheney/Bush team before you venture forth with anymore FOXNews/Snow Job missinformation.

See? There's some good old tounge-in-cheek humor...you gotta laugh once you get over being lied to.

[tcole]

As far as your lack of knowledge of the on again/off again Cheney-Bush stooge Ahmed Chalabi, I suggest you research his and his brother's role in the lies and deceptions of the very inept and incompetant Cheney/Bush team before you venture forth with anymore FOXNews/Snow Job missinformation.

My source on Chalabi is Robert Baer. May I sugest that you research Tony Lake's which-hunt against Chalabi in retaliation for making Lake look the fool in the mid-nineties. Perhaps you should be wary before you "venture forth with any NYTimes/DailyKos misinformation".

Are you laughing now? I am.

Oh, and thanks for the posting tips; greatly appreciated.

[TJones]

You mean like this? I will make note to attempt to do so in the future. Further, is there a way to do such by selective quotations? I admit that I have not figured that process out as of yet.

As to my youth, you would be correct in your assumption that I am younger than you, but not by the degree that your post implies....

Shoot, there aren't many here who aren't youn..............nevermind, I won't be mean to my buddy today. I am too happy about my new baby who's about to be here any day now.

[west20th]

Shoot, there aren't many here who aren't youn..............nevermind, I won't be mean to my buddy today. I am too happy about my new baby who's about to be here any day now.

Congratulations. Bill if it's a boy, Hillary if it's a girl?

[TJones]

Congratulations. Bill if it's a boy, Hillary if it's a girl?

It is very funny that you mention that. My emoticons aren't working for some reason, or all you would see is the laughing one all across this post ! The Doc is pretty sure it's a girl, and her name will either be Reagan<-----yes, very serious, or Saylor, middle name will be Wright, so it could be Reagan Wright, isn't that a beautiful name !