More democrat unwisdom!
Is that a hallo or the presidential seal? :)

What would you do if Huckabee wins?

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

More democrat unwisdom!
Is that a hallo or the presidential seal? :)

What would you do if Huckabee wins?

Let's see, here's a pic of the presidential seal:

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

[...]
No involvement in 9/11...ok, how about the Iran Hostage Crisis of '79? [...]
the middle east has been waging war on western culture for multiple decades

There's that 'dyslexia' thing again... ;)

Indeed, I'm sure BrainSmashr meant 1953 when referring to an earlier US/Iranian conflict.

btw, if 1979 is to be used as a demonstration of Iranian hostility to the US, just how many of those hostages were killed during the crisis?

Interesting to see you justify the violence of our enemies because we use our economic strength as a tool. Kind of like slapping your Mom in the face because she took your allowance, right?

---

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

---

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

See my upcoming thread on terrorism.

btw. posts of GW Bush with Crown of thorns is offensive to Christians.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

See my upcoming thread on terrorism.

btw. posts of GW Bush with Crown of thorns is offensive to Christians.

That picture is clearly saying that just as Christ was wrongly persecuted for his ideas and the things he had done, so the President is being wrongly persecuted. Personally, I don't think Bush is anywhere near being Christ-like, even though they have both been falsely accused for they their acts.

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

See my upcoming thread on terrorism.

btw. posts of GW Bush with Crown of thorns is offensive to Christians.

That picture is clearly saying that just as Christ was wrongly persecuted for his ideas and the things he had done, so the President is being wrongly persecuted. Personally, I don't think Bush is anywhere near being Christ-like, even though they have both been falsely accused for they their acts.

I think it's offensive to christians

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Wait until you see my friend's caricature of Mohammed. It is much milder.

And much more chock full of hilarity. :-;

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

we use our economic strength as a tool.

A tool of AGGRESSION... ;)

(I've never disputed the 'method', it's the 'motive' that I have a problem with.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

Umm, did I say Iranian hostilities were justfied? I don't think I did but if so I apologize. You're earlier post though did seem to suggest that if the US were to engage with Iran now as "Make no mistake about it, the middle east has been waging war on western culture for multiple decades and it's time folks like you woke up to that fact.". By referring solely to the Hostage Crisis it wasn't clear that you were aware that there had been US/Iranian hostilities preceeding 1979 ...

As for the wikipedia neutrality marker, if you take a look at the contents of the link you posted you'll see the vast majority of the discussion is around matters that are no longer in the main article, indeed the final comment is "They seem to have been resolved. The article as it is now seems NPOV to me.". Of course if you have evidence that repudiates the main claim (as admitted by the U.S. Secretary of State "The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.") that the CIA assisted the 1953 coup in Iran, please post it.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

Umm, did I say Iranian hostilities were justfied? I don't think I did but if so I apologize. You're earlier post though did seem to suggest that if the US were to engage with Iran now as "Make no mistake about it, the middle east has been waging war on western culture for multiple decades and it's time folks like you woke up to that fact.". By referring solely to the Hostage Crisis it wasn't clear that you were aware that there had been US/Iranian hostilities preceeding 1979 ...

You weren't justifying their actions? Funny, when someone tells you what they think you meant to say, then cites an openly questioned source, they are very rarely in agreement with you...

As for the wikipedia neutrality marker, if you take a look at the contents of the link you posted you'll see the vast majority of the discussion is around matters that are no longer in the main article, indeed the final comment is "They seem to have been resolved. The article as it is now seems NPOV to me.". Of course if you have evidence that repudiates the main claim (as admitted by the U.S. Secretary of State "The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.") that the CIA assisted the 1953 coup in Iran, please post it.

That's funny, because I still see comments like CIA involvement in the very first sentence.

Pssst, BTW, in America, you don't have to agree with the decisions of our elected officials, and everyone has the freedom to express their political opinions, even the Secretary of State.

---

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

Umm, did I say Iranian hostilities were justfied? I don't think I did but if so I apologize. You're earlier post though did seem to suggest that if the US were to engage with Iran now as "Make no mistake about it, the middle east has been waging war on western culture for multiple decades and it's time folks like you woke up to that fact.". By referring solely to the Hostage Crisis it wasn't clear that you were aware that there had been US/Iranian hostilities preceeding 1979 ...

You weren't justifying their actions? Funny, when someone tells you what they think you meant to say, then cites an openly questioned source, they are very rarely in agreement with you...

Not being in agreement with your assessment of Iranian hostility today doesn't automatically mean I find the Hostage Crisis justifiable.

As for the wikipedia neutrality marker, if you take a look at the contents of the link you posted you'll see the vast majority of the discussion is around matters that are no longer in the main article, indeed the final comment is "They seem to have been resolved. The article as it is now seems NPOV to me.". Of course if you have evidence that repudiates the main claim (as admitted by the U.S. Secretary of State "The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.") that the CIA assisted the 1953 coup in Iran, please post it.

That's funny, because I still see comments like CIA involvement in the very first sentence.

Pssst, BTW, in America, you don't have to agree with the decisions of our elected officials, and everyone has the freedom to express their political opinions, even the Secretary of State.

You will see comments about CIA involvement because there clearly was CIA involvement, at least according to a CIA document uncovered by The NY Times (the article is reference in the main wikipedia entry. Again, if you have evidence that repudiates this, please post it.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

Umm, did I say Iranian hostilities were justfied? I don't think I did but if so I apologize. You're earlier post though did seem to suggest that if the US were to engage with Iran now as "Make no mistake about it, the middle east has been waging war on western culture for multiple decades and it's time folks like you woke up to that fact.". By referring solely to the Hostage Crisis it wasn't clear that you were aware that there had been US/Iranian hostilities preceeding 1979 ...

You weren't justifying their actions? Funny, when someone tells you what they think you meant to say, then cites an openly questioned source, they are very rarely in agreement with you...

Not being in agreement with your assessment of Iranian hostility today doesn't automatically mean I find the Hostage Crisis justifiable.

Actually there's only two sides. You either agree with terrorism or you do not...and trying to blame the US for Iranian actions certainly doesn't suggest you find theire action deplorable and worthy of keeping nuclear technology out of their hands.

As for the wikipedia neutrality marker, if you take a look at the contents of the link you posted you'll see the vast majority of the discussion is around matters that are no longer in the main article, indeed the final comment is "They seem to have been resolved. The article as it is now seems NPOV to me.". Of course if you have evidence that repudiates the main claim (as admitted by the U.S. Secretary of State "The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.") that the CIA assisted the 1953 coup in Iran, please post it.

That's funny, because I still see comments like CIA involvement in the very first sentence.

Pssst, BTW, in America, you don't have to agree with the decisions of our elected officials, and everyone has the freedom to express their political opinions, even the Secretary of State.

You will see comments about CIA involvement because there clearly was CIA involvement, at least according to a CIA document uncovered by The NY Times (the article is reference in the main wikipedia entry. Again, if you have evidence that repudiates this, please post it.

The NY Times, huh...another openly biased source. Congratulations, at least you're consistent.

And I quote:
The Times has now decided to publish the main body of the text after removing names and certain identifying descriptions...

The introductory summary and the main body of the document are inconsistent on a few dates and facts...

BTW, I'm not disputing all the information provided, merely it's objectivity and your use of it as justification. Giving Peter money doesn't give Paul the right to hijack my airplane.

---

we use our economic strength as a tool.

A tool of AGGRESSION... ;)

(I've never disputed the 'method', it's the 'motive' that I have a problem with.)

Sorry Jeffrey, you've got it wrong. It's out and out a tool for blatant theft of other people's businesses and resources.

Giving Peter money doesn't give Paul the right to hijack my airplane.

Unless the money given to Peter was pillaged from Paul! In which case, you should thank your lucky stars that paul is a religious man, otherwise, he would have simply killed Peter and reclaimed his money... ;)

(The thing about bullies is that they only pick on those who can't don't or won't fight back.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

Umm, did I say Iranian hostilities were justfied? I don't think I did but if so I apologize. You're earlier post though did seem to suggest that if the US were to engage with Iran now as "Make no mistake about it, the middle east has been waging war on western culture for multiple decades and it's time folks like you woke up to that fact.". By referring solely to the Hostage Crisis it wasn't clear that you were aware that there had been US/Iranian hostilities preceeding 1979 ...

You weren't justifying their actions? Funny, when someone tells you what they think you meant to say, then cites an openly questioned source, they are very rarely in agreement with you...

Not being in agreement with your assessment of Iranian hostility today doesn't automatically mean I find the Hostage Crisis justifiable.

Actually there's only two sides. You either agree with terrorism or you do not...and trying to blame the US for Iranian actions certainly doesn't suggest you find theire action deplorable and worthy of keeping nuclear technology out of their hands.

Terrorism? I thought we were talking about prior hostilities between the US and Iran, you mentioned 1979 as a demonstration that such hostilities had existed for decades while I provided an ealier date demonstrating it wasn't necessarily one-sided. I certianly didn't say (or mean to suggest) that blame rested with the US, fwiw 1953 seems to be, if anything, UK inspired. But on the "you either agree with the terrorists or you do not" certainly leaves room to disagree with current US policy against terrorism even if one doesn't agree with the aims of terrorists, "You're either with the terrorists or with the US" is a false dichotomy.

As for the wikipedia neutrality marker, if you take a look at the contents of the link you posted you'll see the vast majority of the discussion is around matters that are no longer in the main article, indeed the final comment is "They seem to have been resolved. The article as it is now seems NPOV to me.". Of course if you have evidence that repudiates the main claim (as admitted by the U.S. Secretary of State "The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.") that the CIA assisted the 1953 coup in Iran, please post it.

That's funny, because I still see comments like CIA involvement in the very first sentence.

Pssst, BTW, in America, you don't have to agree with the decisions of our elected officials, and everyone has the freedom to express their political opinions, even the Secretary of State.

You will see comments about CIA involvement because there clearly was CIA involvement, at least according to a CIA document uncovered by The NY Times (the article is reference in the main wikipedia entry. Again, if you have evidence that repudiates this, please post it.

The NY Times, huh...another openly biased source. Congratulations, at least you're consistent.

And I quote:
The Times has now decided to publish the main body of the text after removing names and certain identifying descriptions...

The introductory summary and the main body of the document are inconsistent on a few dates and facts...

BTW, I'm not disputing all the information provided, merely it's objectivity and your use of it as justification. Giving Peter money doesn't give Paul the right to hijack my airplane.

Again with the reference to "justification", I haven't said nor will I say something along the lines "CIA intervention in Iranian poltics in 1953 justified Iranian revolutionairies taking and subsequently releasing US hostages in 1979/80 and/or justifies Iranian policies for acquiring the technology to build nuclear weapons" because I don't believe this to be true.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

BTW, nice to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed" posted above your "justification" of Iranian hostilities.

Umm, did I say Iranian hostilities were justfied? I don't think I did but if so I apologize. You're earlier post though did seem to suggest that if the US were to engage with Iran now as "Make no mistake about it, the middle east has been waging war on western culture for multiple decades and it's time folks like you woke up to that fact.". By referring solely to the Hostage Crisis it wasn't clear that you were aware that there had been US/Iranian hostilities preceeding 1979 ...

You weren't justifying their actions? Funny, when someone tells you what they think you meant to say, then cites an openly questioned source, they are very rarely in agreement with you...

Not being in agreement with your assessment of Iranian hostility today doesn't automatically mean I find the Hostage Crisis justifiable.

Actually there's only two sides. You either agree with terrorism or you do not...and trying to blame the US for Iranian actions certainly doesn't suggest you find theire action deplorable and worthy of keeping nuclear technology out of their hands.

Terrorism? I thought we were talking about prior hostilities between the US and Iran, you mentioned 1979 as a demonstration that such hostilities had existed for decades while I provided an ealier date demonstrating it wasn't necessarily one-sided. I certianly didn't say (or mean to suggest) that blame rested with the US, fwiw 1953 seems to be, if anything, UK inspired. But on the "you either agree with the terrorists or you do not" certainly leaves room to disagree with current US policy against terrorism even if one doesn't agree with the aims of terrorists, "You're either with the terrorists or with the US" is a false dichotomy.

Well maybe you should reread the topic again. We were talking about ripened pieces of fruit floating in cesspools. Like the "innocent" Iranians floating in a cesspool of terrorists. Their involvement in 9/11 was questioned and I said maybe not 9/11 but how about the The Hostage Crisis of '79.

BTW, using money to influence governments is considerably different than using the lives of hostages to influence government. The situation IS one-sided regardless of your liberal agenda to make it "our fault".

As for the wikipedia neutrality marker, if you take a look at the contents of the link you posted you'll see the vast majority of the discussion is around matters that are no longer in the main article, indeed the final comment is "They seem to have been resolved. The article as it is now seems NPOV to me.". Of course if you have evidence that repudiates the main claim (as admitted by the U.S. Secretary of State "The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.") that the CIA assisted the 1953 coup in Iran, please post it.

That's funny, because I still see comments like CIA involvement in the very first sentence.

Pssst, BTW, in America, you don't have to agree with the decisions of our elected officials, and everyone has the freedom to express their political opinions, even the Secretary of State.

You will see comments about CIA involvement because there clearly was CIA involvement, at least according to a CIA document uncovered by The NY Times (the article is reference in the main wikipedia entry. Again, if you have evidence that repudiates this, please post it.

The NY Times, huh...another openly biased source. Congratulations, at least you're consistent.

And I quote:
The Times has now decided to publish the main body of the text after removing names and certain identifying descriptions...

The introductory summary and the main body of the document are inconsistent on a few dates and facts...

BTW, I'm not disputing all the information provided, merely it's objectivity and your use of it as justification. Giving Peter money doesn't give Paul the right to hijack my airplane.

Again with the reference to "justification", I haven't said nor will I say something along the lines "CIA intervention in Iranian poltics in 1953 justified Iranian revolutionairies taking and subsequently releasing US hostages in 1979/80 and/or justifies Iranian policies for acquiring the technology to build nuclear weapons" because I don't believe this to be true.

Of course not, you just implied it was our fault and cited a biased source as evidence... It's how folks like you tip the scales without actually taking a stance.

---

Quite a while ago I said that the US has entered a "War on Terror" and all this can lead to is eternal war.

The corporations making gobs of money from this won't allow it to end.
They profit from every aspect of this war, from weapons to kill and destroy to reconstruction and healthcare for the survivors.

The eye of Sauron must cast it's gaze on ever new targets to keep the wheels of industry rolling.
Thus, Iran is now in it's sights.
Who comes next? I don't know, but one thing is certain...it won't be any formidable nations.

I predict a return to Central America in the next few years. I understand there's lots of real bad terrorist down there too.

I think we should all just be friends and get along.

---

I think we should all just be friends and get along.

I could live with that.