patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

Even though there are no WMD. Why?

Hmmm... Because there's oil there???

Nah, then we would never have left Kuwait or Iraq. If it was oil we were after we could have attacked Venezuela a long time ago.

thomaswong.1986 says

where under the Shah there was lots of freedom.

BWAhAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

SAVAK tortured and executed people for demanding democracy - without a trial. He banned all political groups, and ruled with an iron fist.

Lots of freedom under Pinochet, too, right? I mean, you could say anything on a college campus in Santiago and get away with it!

thunderlips11 says

thomaswong.1986 says

where under the Shah there was lots of freedom.

BWAhAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

Lots of freedom under Pinochet, too, right? I mean, you could say anything on a college campus in Santiago and get away with it!

The Shah of Iran abused human rights, true. The Ayatollah made him look like a saint.

Strategist says

The Shah of Iran abused human rights, true. The Ayatollah made him look like a saint.

He did more than abuse human rights. He assassinated people,

He banned *ALL* political parties. He was an absolute monarch that used a police state to kill and torture his enemies. His SAVAK burned people in ovens, hung people upside down. Kidnapped students and beat them to death.

Islamic Iran is a very flawed theocratic-democracy - but you do get a choice between a Billy Graham and a Pat Robertson, and there is something of a difference.

With the Shah, you got no choice, there were no elections and all parties were banned. The Shah's absolutist tendencies backed by secret police caused the overthrow of his regime - you couldn't reform it, only destroy it. In the Chaos, the Ayatollahs prevailed.

BTW, many members of SAVAK joined the Revolutionary Guard's intelligence services. Some of the more creative secret killings by the Ayatollahs were taught to them by those who first practiced on the enemies of the Shah.

http://www.newsweek.com/watching-torture-94887

Check this out....freedom in Iran.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/six-arrested-for-being-happy-in-iran/

Yup. Pretty bad. Punished for dancing on a rooftop.

Check this out... freedom in Saudi Arabia.

7 Years in Prison and 600 lashes for running a website that "violates Islamic values and propagates liberal thought". Participants on his site questioned some of the extreme views of the official Wahabi religion. Saudi Arabia has also forcibly divorced him from his wife at the request of her family. He will also face charges of apostasy, for which the punishment is beheading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi

Saudi Arabia executes a 'Witch' for practising "Sorcery"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/saudi-arabia-woman-sorcery-executed_n_1142942.html

A man convicted of being a "Sorcerer", publicly beheaded in a Car Park by the Saudi Religious Police
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055636/Sudanese-man-beheaded-Saudi-Arabia-car-park-sorcerer.html

More
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/saudi-arabia-man-witchcraft-sorcery-executed_n_1609927.html

Good news though - Saudi Arabia just allowed women to ride bikes in designated areas, but only if a male relative is present.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-ban-women-cycling-bike-motorbike-452664

Still can't drive cars. Saudi Arabia issues a warning to potential female protesters who intend to drive in violation of the Wahabi law and the dictates of the Religious Police.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/24/world/meast/saudi-arabia-women-drivers/index.html

Iranian women are professional race car drivers.
http://www.bodazey.com/Laleh_Seddigh.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laleh_Seddigh

When are the US sanctions against Saudi Arabia for human rights violations going to start?

Let's stop pretending our sanctions on Iran have anything to do with human rights, when we have gone to war on Saudi Arabia's behalf, worked with them exporting Wahabi Revolutionaries, and have done absolutely nothing to stop the barbarity in Saudi Arabia.

If we have sanctions on Iran, we should be bombing Riyadh.

Strategist says

The Shah of Iran abused human rights, true. The Ayatollah made him look like a saint.

Bullshit. The shah of Iran was a nasty slug, worse than Hussein. Under the Islamic republic at least some form of law is being followed. Harsh law, but harsh law for everyone. Not harsh law for anyone who disagreed with the shah and massive unpunished corruption for shah supporters.. Ever wonder why so many iranians supported the Ayatollah over the sha's regime?

thunderlips11 says

If we have sanctions on Iran, we should be bombing Riyadh.

Please don't confuse all the people that believe 9/11 was Iraq.

Strategist says

Who the FUCK do the Saudis think they are? All politicians in all countries need to do this. What will they do then?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/netherlands-geert-wilders-has-incurred-the-wrath-of-saudi-arabia/

Yeah, but people like Wilders (who needs body guards pretty much 24/7) are being attacked incessantly mostly by what's called today's "left" and "progressives", and mainstream politicians who are fearing to lose their seats, using the universally effective racism card. Political correctness is the biggest scourge of the 21st century.

This is all on Track, and is exactly what the CNN and FOX news War pundits were saying would happen back when we bombing the shit out of Iraq. That in ten years or so, or after we left, the region would descend back into chaos.

mell says

Strategist says

Who the FUCK do the Saudis think they are? All politicians in all countries need to do this. What will they do then?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/netherlands-geert-wilders-has-incurred-the-wrath-of-saudi-arabia/

Yeah, but people like Wilders (who needs body guards pretty much 24/7) are being attacked incessantly mostly by what's called today's "left" and "progressives", and mainstream politicians who are fearing to lose their seats, using the universally effective racism card. Political correctness is the biggest scourge of the 21st century.

Political correctness is the greatest weapon the fanatics have to use against us. It could also lead to our demise one day.

Too late. The slaughter has begun.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27858692

thunderlips11 says

But we funded them or otherwise empowered them.

You mean we bought gas from them... all the crying the Libs do over

the killings, they do little to get off the oil from the middle east.

We have a choice.. pump our own oil from our region or pay the shieks.

We all know the Libs would rather keep paying the Shieks of Opec then

get this nation to be self dependent.

So who pays/funds who ?

Strategist says

The Shah of Iran abused human rights, true. The Ayatollah made him look like a saint.

Very true.. and often overlooked... at least a women would walk down Tehran sq in a mini-skirt during the Shah years.. but today.. she would get killed over it.

so much for western progress in the Iran...

thunderlips11 says

AFGHANISTAN

The anti-Soviet fighters were largely Pashtu Sunni Fundamentalists. Saudi Arabia and the US gave money and weapons (including Stingers) to Pakistan's Security Service, who distributed it to their ethnic and religious kin.

Later, they became the Taliban. We gave them foreign aid for years after the Soviets left and the Cold War ended.

Do you know of anyone else any other group that existed from end of WW2 to 1980s invasion. The reason the Soviets invaded Afganistan is to assist their puppet govt which couldnt stop the anti govt forces..

so no we didnt create these people.. they were already fighting the Pro Soviet puppet govt in Kabul long long before we provided assistance.

So why did the Soviets invade Afganistan anyway... there is your answer.

thomaswong.1986 says

at least a women would walk down Tehran sq in a mini-skirt during the Shah years.. but today.. she would get killed over it.

You do know that women in Iraq are way worse off since Saddam was overthrown, right?

bob2356 says

Bullshit. The shah of Iran was a nasty slug, worse than Hussein. Under the Islamic republic at least some form of law is being followed. Harsh law, but harsh law for everyone. Not harsh law for anyone who disagreed with the shah and massive unpunished corruption for shah supporters.. Ever wonder why so many iranians supported the Ayatollah over the sha's regime?

Harsh ? ... The shah had to deal with Marxist Terrorists attacking it cities during the 60s and 70s. They were backed by the Soviets like so many
global Marxists during that time.... national liberation. This same organization killed scores of people including Americans.

Frankly like so many Marxist Terrorist organizations ... they all deserve to be shot and be done with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leftist_guerrilla_groups_of_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran

The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran was founded in September 5, 1965 by six former members of the Liberation or Freedom Movement of Iran, students at Tehran University, including Mohammad Hanifnejad, Saied Mohsen and Ali-Asghar Badizadegan. The MEK opposed the rule of Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, considering him corrupt and oppressive, and considered the Liberation Movement too moderate and ineffective.[25] They were committed to the Ali Shariati's approach to Shiism.[26] However although the MEK are often regarded as devotees of Ali Shariati, in fact their pronouncements preceded Shariati's, and they continued to echo each other throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s.[27]

In its first five years, the group primarily engaged in ideological work.[28] Their thinking aligned with what was a common tendency in Iran at the time – a kind of radical, political Islam based on a Marxist reading of history and politics. The group's main source of inspiration was the Islamic text Nahj al-Balagha (a collection of analyses and aphorisms attributed to Imam Ali). Despite some describing a Marxist influence, the group never used the terms "socialist" or "communist" to describe themselves,[29] and always called themselves Muslims – arguing along with Ali Shariati, that a true Muslim – especially a true Shia Muslim, that is to say a devoted follower of the Imams Ali and Hossein – must also by definition, be a revolutionary.[27] However, they generously adopted elements of Marxism in order to update and modernize their interpretation of radical Islam

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

thomaswong.1986 says

at least a women would walk down Tehran sq in a mini-skirt during the Shah years.. but today.. she would get killed over it.

You do know that women in Iraq are way worse off since Saddam was overthrown, right?

The whole region as they say... is not women friendly. The close it came

to freedom was under the Shah.. I knew of some Iranians back in the day

often spoke about going out and meeting girls at local discos.. Yep..

Western style Disco night clubs in Iran back in the 70s..

yep.. try to find that out there these days.

thunderlips11 says

7 Years in Prison and 600 lashes for running a website that "violates Islamic values and propagates liberal thought". Participants on his site questioned some of the extreme views of the official Wahabi religion. Saudi Arabia has also forcibly divorced him from his wife at the request of her family. He will also face charges of apostasy, for which the punishment is beheading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi

So what... what are you complaining about...deal with it when

you buy your next gallon of Opec Oil...

Whip came from Petro dollars from gas consumers like you...

do you keep paying for this ? or become self sufficient in oil ?

thunderlips11 says

Let's stop pretending our sanctions on Iran have anything to do with human rights, when we have gone to war on Saudi Arabia's behalf, worked with them exporting Wahabi Revolutionaries, and have done absolutely nothing to stop the barbarity in Saudi Arabia.

If we have sanctions on Iran, we should be bombing Riyadh.

Go to war over oil.. you sure dont hear lots of Liberals calling for that ....

thunderlips11 says

He banned *ALL* political parties. He was an absolute monarch that used a police state to kill and torture his enemies. His SAVAK burned people in ovens, hung people upside down. Kidnapped students and beat them to death.

too bad but they were Soviet backed Communist operating out of Iraq... sounds like what should happen to Marxist Terrorists... they allied them self with the PLO and committed countless acts of terrorism be it Western or other Arab nations (Jordon in 1970).

Strategist says

Political correctness is the greatest weapon the fanatics have to use against us. It could also lead to our demise one day.

Yes, but I think we are likely drawing different conclusions. Moral is not a priori or axiomatic. We should protect our turf and strongly assert our values that we deem useful for our prosperity, but we should not assume moral superiority and "spread" our values like a contagious disease. Sometimes cultures simply don't mix (this is always a temporal phenomenon that comes and goes). There's enough work to do and money to spend at home.

thunderlips11 says

LIBYA

Ghaddafi gave up terror, paid out to victims, and started, in fear for his own regime, to crack down on Sunni Radicals who threatened it. We decided instead to support the Sunni Radicals hoping we could use them to install a Western-friendly regime, and now they are fighting that new regime in Libya.

Since the 60s as a Soviet puppet state he has continued to fund Terrorist groups... eventually the Irish IRA or German and and Italian terrorist groups they all gave up.

Ghaddafi however NEVER gave up backing terrorist groups like Hamas or what was left of the PLO.

Finally he panicked and gave up his Nuclear program in 2003 thinking he was next.. so what made him think that if he gave up on backing terrorist groups...

why are you being a apologist for these Terror Backed States ?

thunderlips11 says

SYRIA

There was no sectarian violence for decades in Syria, until Saudi Arabia funded Sunni Radicals there to overthrow the Alawite house of Assad,

Third link in Soviet Backed Client states in the Region... eventually they too will all fall... it hardly needed any external help.

China is doing the right thing in the middle east and Africa. They align themselves with however is in power and do not care about what is going on inside the country. We care about oil-instead of spending so much blood and treasure to prop up one dictator over the other-best be neutral, let them work out who is the alpha beast and work with them.

Iran would be very glad to sell us oil, but we refuse. The world is too large and complex for our broke ass nation to control. Back in the day, when we tried to control-it was brutal and honest. Now it is endless blood and money and the beneficiaries are companies like Halliburton.

lostand confused says

China is doing the right thing in the middle east and Africa.

doing pay offs and supporting corruption... not the "right thing" anywhere.

thomaswong.1986 says

lostand confused says

China is doing the right thing in the middle east and Africa.

doing pay offs and supporting corruption... not the "right thing" anywhere.

yeah it is right only when you prop up your side , give them arms, weapons, and ensure they have absolute control of the country and resources and you get your cut . Oh and we can throw in a few American soldiers blood to protect that' side too and some taxpayer money.

lostand confused says

yeah it is right only when you prop up your side , give them arms, weapons, and ensure they have absolute control of the country and resources and you get your cut . Oh and we can throw in a few American soldiers blood to protect that' side too and some taxpayer money.

No point again trying to blame the USA for the worlds problems...

Your talking about the corrupt govt of China...

thomaswong.1986 says

lostand confused says

yeah it is right only when you prop up your side , give them arms, weapons, and ensure they have absolute control of the country and resources and you get your cut . Oh and we can throw in a few American soldiers blood to protect that' side too and some taxpayer money.

No point again trying to blame the USA for the worlds problems...

Your talking about the corrupt govt of China...

No it is you mixing up things in your usual stupid manner. Where in the world am I blaming the US for the world's problems. I am saying we need not be blamed nor be responsible for the world's problem. the shias and sunnis have been fighting before America was founded-we ain't gonna stop it. The Chinese are now the second biggest economy and have a voracious appetite for energy. They don't go around the world propping up dictatorships/spreading democracy or taking sides. They work with whoever is in power and deal. I don't see what is wrong with that-oh maybe Halliburton won't get its billions.

America needs to butt out of quarrels in strange nations and do what is good for us. Our rules, freedoms are for us and what is good in another country is good in another country. Back then we had a big enemy-the communists-the world now is not bipolar-but multi faceted. need to adapt. But corrupt thugs and bloodthirsty right wing nuts just want war, war, war.

lostand confused says

The Chinese are now the second biggest economy and have a voracious appetite for energy. They don't go around the world propping up dictatorships/spreading democracy or taking sides. They work with whoever is in power and deal. I don't see what is wrong with that-oh maybe Halliburton won't get its billions.

Are you speaking in the absolute.. there are no regulations on their side.... they can do what ever they want. Your being naive to believe they are not creating corruption in Africa by creating a pro-Chinese groups. Yes who is in power today vs next week... where there is money there is power...

lostand confused says

But corrupt thugs and bloodthirsty right wing nuts just want war, war, war.

There you go again...

mell says

Strategist says

Political correctness is the greatest weapon the fanatics have to use against us. It could also lead to our demise one day.

Yes, but I think we are likely drawing different conclusions. Moral is not a priori or axiomatic. We should protect our turf and strongly assert our values that we deem useful for our prosperity, but we should not assume moral superiority and "spread" our values like a contagious disease. Sometimes cultures simply don't mix (this is always a temporal phenomenon that comes and goes). There's enough work to do and money to spend at home.

Our moral values is the reason why they attack us. It is not compatible with theirs, and the most extreme of them are willing to die to punish us. They have done this throughout history and throughout different countries. These two value systems are just not compatible, and unable to coexist peacefully for now.

Strategist says

Our moral values is the reason why they attack us.

Our moral values dictate that we have to invade everyone else. That seems very conflicting with all the others.

thomaswong.1986 says

Are you speaking in the absolute.. there are no regulations on their side.... they can do what ever they want. Your being naive to believe they are not creating corruption in Africa by creating a pro-Chinese groups. Yes who is in power today vs next week... where there is money there is power...

thomaswong.1986 says

There you go again...

There is no fixing stupid.

thomaswong.1986 says

lostand confused says

But corrupt thugs and bloodthirsty right wing nuts just want war, war, war.

This is the passionate outburst that worries me. No one wants war, no one. There is a difference of opinion on how to prevent future wars. Yours is a very naive belief that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. I would hold this logic responsible for not stopping Hitler in time resulting in the most destructive war to date. We don't need an even more destructive war of nuclear weapons.

Strategist says

This is the passionate outburst that worries me. No one wants war, no one. There is a difference of opinion on how to prevent future wars. Yours is a very naive belief that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. I would hold this logic responsible for not stopping Hitler in time resulting in the most destructive war to date. We don't need an even more destructive war of nuclear weapons.

Yeah typical -if somebody calls you out on your bloodthirsty ways -it worries you. You are the one calling for war against the rapists in african nations , the muslims now. yet you sit in your couch, unwilling to go to war and just feeling all good while young Americans get blown up. What worries me is bloodthirsty folks on both sides of the spectrum who want to war to fix social issues or other issues. They don't care one bit about the troops and think of them as disposable fixtures-as long as their pet objectives are met.

of course everything in the world is equvivalent to hitler-notwithstanding the fact that hitler was not a muslim. Europe was pretty similar tot he Arabs for a long time and they came out of it. The arabs will come out of it when they have had enough. As long as they are not threatening us-none of our concern. When the attacked us, Bush let the perprators go and instead attacked a country not related to the 9/11 attacks.

But hey history, local conditions/culture does not matter-lets just go to war then claim no one wants war-while calling for war. Oh the shock -someone is calling me out on my bloodthirsty ways-how un-American.

Strategist says

No one wants war, no one.

that right.. a war is big and bloody !

its better to kill a few bad people or wipe out a small group which would create destabilization.. and later escalate to large scale war.

Your better off killing the Hitlers/Pol Pot and their few followers in early years vs 100 Million dead...

lostand confused says

They don't care one bit about the troops and think of them as disposable fixtures-as long as their pet objectives are met.

yo ! we have professions soldiers who sign up ... they were not drafted or conscripts.. they train for such tasks of their free will...

frankly the best US commanders we have seen have been life savers....again your being naive..

thomaswong.1986 says

yo ! we have professions soldiers who sign up ... they were not drafted or conscripts.. they train for such tasks of their free will...

frankly the best US commanders we have seen have been life savers....again your being naive..

They sign up to defend this great nation. not be drawn into endless wars that have no possible valid reason.Yup they sign up -so it is ok for them to be killed and blown up for stupid reasons-compassion is never been your strong point But hey logic, reasoning , common sense has never been your strong point either.

thomaswong.1986 says

Strategist says

No one wants war, no one.

that right.. a war is big and bloody !

its better to kill a few bad people or wipe out a small group which would create destabilization.. and later escalate to large scale war.

Your better off killing the Hitlers/Pol Pot and their few followers in early years vs 100 Million dead...

And Bashar Assad, Iranian regime, N. Korean Kim, Kaddafi.

Strategist says

And Bashar Assad, Iranian regime, N. Korean Kim, Kaddafi.

How many of our soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to get rid of them. Then how many more soldiers are you willing to be killed/maimed to get rid of the ruthless Taliban/al-queda types that come to take their place. Are you willing to go there-send you children and friends there?? or do you work for Halliburton salivating at the big bonuses you will get if we are at war with multiple countries???

lostand confused says

When the attacked us, Bush let the perprators go and instead attacked a country not related to the 9/11 attacks.

A separate issue... no one stated they were connected except a few uninformed here on Patnet.

The liberals have been pushing the issue of Iraq WMD long before Bush came to office. You can go back as far as mid 90s and Gores and Dems comments. Or are you a hypocrite and cant recall recent history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE