Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>
>
>
> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect Country.
Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like Soviet
Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference between
teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues. Politics are
influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect the
decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to show
both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today are
going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city America
hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
builds up.
The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other than
that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries that
were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
Ben
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>
>
>
> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect Country.
Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like Soviet
Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference between
teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues. Politics are
influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect the
decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to show
both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today are
going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city America
hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
builds up.
The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other than
that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries that
were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
Ben
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>
>
>
> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect Country.
Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like Soviet
Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference between
teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues. Politics are
influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect the
decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to show
both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today are
going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city America
hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
builds up.
The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other than
that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries that
were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
Ben
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>
>
>
> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect Country.
Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like Soviet
Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference between
teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues. Politics are
influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect the
decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to show
both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today are
going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city America
hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
builds up.
The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other than
that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries that
were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
Ben
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>
>
>
> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect Country.
Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like Soviet
Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference between
teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues. Politics are
influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect the
decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to show
both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today are
going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city America
hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
builds up.
The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other than
that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries that
were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
Ben
> (and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
> having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your
point?
>
>
>
> > You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
> > history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America,
and
> > made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
> >
>
> Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
> public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
> outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade
routes
> to the east).
>
>
So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect Country.
Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like Soviet
Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference between
teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues. Politics are
influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect the
decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to show
both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today are
going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city America
hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
builds up.
The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other than
that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries that
were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the --------- are
just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
Just remember, we have until the --------- gets their hands on a nuclear
weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
Ben
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <gYVtb.33146$pE3.5099@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> >
>> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
>> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
>> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
>> > > is history.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>book
>> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>>
>> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
>> Iran.
>
>First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
>a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>the government is wrong.
What would you call organizing a coup then?
>It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
>Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
>of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
>the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
>gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them to
help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
>getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
>and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
>politics being what they were at the time.
>
>The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
>there.
And SAVAK really improved life there.
> He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
>enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
>assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
>ignores the risks of doing so.
Yeah, democracy is always a risk. Totalitarian regimes are so much easy to
control -- deal with a dictator, one person. No wonder the US supported them
in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Cuba, South Vietnam,
etc., and continues to support them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
>
>There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
>> See the book:
>> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
>> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
>(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
>having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?
>
>
>> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
>> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
>> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>>
>
>Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
>public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
>outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
>to the east).
>
>
>> Even so, these countries were never
>> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
>> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
>anti
>> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
>necessarily
>> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
>> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
>> they
>> > are now.
>> >
>> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
>> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
>> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
>> went
>> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
>as
>> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
>> right
>> > thing to fight Communism.
>> >
>>
>> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
>> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
>> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
>than
>> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
>> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
>blacks
>> and other non-whites.
>>
>
>The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
>war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
>wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
>Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
>Shah.
>
>Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
>dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
>Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
>and be right.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> >
>> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
>> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
>> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
>> > > is history.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>book
>> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>>
>> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
>> Iran.
>
>First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
>a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>the government is wrong.
What would you call organizing a coup then?
>It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
>Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
>of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
>the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
>gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them to
help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
>getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
>and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
>politics being what they were at the time.
>
>The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
>there.
And SAVAK really improved life there.
> He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
>enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
>assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
>ignores the risks of doing so.
Yeah, democracy is always a risk. Totalitarian regimes are so much easy to
control -- deal with a dictator, one person. No wonder the US supported them
in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Cuba, South Vietnam,
etc., and continues to support them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
>
>There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
>> See the book:
>> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
>> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
>(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
>having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?
>
>
>> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
>> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
>> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>>
>
>Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
>public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
>outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
>to the east).
>
>
>> Even so, these countries were never
>> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
>> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
>anti
>> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
>necessarily
>> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
>> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
>> they
>> > are now.
>> >
>> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
>> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
>> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
>> went
>> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
>as
>> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
>> right
>> > thing to fight Communism.
>> >
>>
>> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
>> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
>> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
>than
>> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
>> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
>blacks
>> and other non-whites.
>>
>
>The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
>war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
>wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
>Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
>Shah.
>
>Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
>dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
>Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
>and be right.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <gYVtb.33146$pE3.5099@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> >
>> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
>> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
>> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
>> > > is history.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>book
>> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>>
>> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
>> Iran.
>
>First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
>a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>the government is wrong.
What would you call organizing a coup then?
>It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
>Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
>of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
>the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
>gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them to
help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
>getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
>and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
>politics being what they were at the time.
>
>The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
>there.
And SAVAK really improved life there.
> He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
>enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
>assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
>ignores the risks of doing so.
Yeah, democracy is always a risk. Totalitarian regimes are so much easy to
control -- deal with a dictator, one person. No wonder the US supported them
in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Cuba, South Vietnam,
etc., and continues to support them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
>
>There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
>> See the book:
>> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
>> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
>(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
>having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?
>
>
>> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
>> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
>> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>>
>
>Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
>public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
>outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
>to the east).
>
>
>> Even so, these countries were never
>> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
>> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
>anti
>> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
>necessarily
>> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
>> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
>> they
>> > are now.
>> >
>> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
>> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
>> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
>> went
>> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
>as
>> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
>> right
>> > thing to fight Communism.
>> >
>>
>> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
>> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
>> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
>than
>> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
>> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
>blacks
>> and other non-whites.
>>
>
>The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
>war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
>wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
>Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
>Shah.
>
>Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
>dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
>Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
>and be right.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> >
>> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
>> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
>> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
>> > > is history.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>book
>> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>>
>> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
>> Iran.
>
>First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
>a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>the government is wrong.
What would you call organizing a coup then?
>It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
>Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
>of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
>the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
>gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them to
help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
>getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
>and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
>politics being what they were at the time.
>
>The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
>there.
And SAVAK really improved life there.
> He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
>enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
>assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
>ignores the risks of doing so.
Yeah, democracy is always a risk. Totalitarian regimes are so much easy to
control -- deal with a dictator, one person. No wonder the US supported them
in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Cuba, South Vietnam,
etc., and continues to support them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
>
>There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
>> See the book:
>> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
>> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
>(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
>having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?
>
>
>> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
>> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
>> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>>
>
>Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
>public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
>outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
>to the east).
>
>
>> Even so, these countries were never
>> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
>> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
>anti
>> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
>necessarily
>> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
>> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
>> they
>> > are now.
>> >
>> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
>> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
>> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
>> went
>> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
>as
>> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
>> right
>> > thing to fight Communism.
>> >
>>
>> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
>> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
>> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
>than
>> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
>> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
>blacks
>> and other non-whites.
>>
>
>The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
>war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
>wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
>Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
>Shah.
>
>Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
>dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
>Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
>and be right.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <gYVtb.33146$pE3.5099@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> >
>> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
>> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
>> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
>> > > is history.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>book
>> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>>
>> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
>> Iran.
>
>First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
>a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>the government is wrong.
What would you call organizing a coup then?
>It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
>Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
>of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
>the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
>gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them to
help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
>getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
>and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
>politics being what they were at the time.
>
>The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
>there.
And SAVAK really improved life there.
> He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
>enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
>assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
>ignores the risks of doing so.
Yeah, democracy is always a risk. Totalitarian regimes are so much easy to
control -- deal with a dictator, one person. No wonder the US supported them
in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Cuba, South Vietnam,
etc., and continues to support them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
>
>There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
>> See the book:
>> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
>> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
>(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
>having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?
>
>
>> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
>> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
>> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>>
>
>Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
>public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
>outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
>to the east).
>
>
>> Even so, these countries were never
>> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
>> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
>anti
>> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
>necessarily
>> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
>> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
>> they
>> > are now.
>> >
>> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
>> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
>> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
>> went
>> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
>as
>> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
>> right
>> > thing to fight Communism.
>> >
>>
>> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
>> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
>> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
>than
>> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
>> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
>blacks
>> and other non-whites.
>>
>
>The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
>war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
>wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
>Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
>Shah.
>
>Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
>dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
>Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
>and be right.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> >
>> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when they
>> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the US,
>> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory, this
>> > > is history.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>book
>> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>>
>> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy in
>> Iran.
>
>First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century as
>a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>the government is wrong.
What would you call organizing a coup then?
>It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and a
>Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the onset
>of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor with
>the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because it
>gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the US).
So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them to
help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>He wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry but made the mistake of
>getting in bed with the Communists. This sealed his overthrow by the Shah
>and the Iranian military with the support of the British and US, Cold War
>politics being what they were at the time.
>
>The Shah did A LOT to bring Iran into the 20th century and improve life
>there.
And SAVAK really improved life there.
> He was, however, a dictator and practiced brutality against his
>enemies. One can focus on this and not be wrong in judging him. But to
>assume that supporting Mossadeq would have been the right thing to do
>ignores the risks of doing so.
Yeah, democracy is always a risk. Totalitarian regimes are so much easy to
control -- deal with a dictator, one person. No wonder the US supported them
in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Cuba, South Vietnam,
etc., and continues to support them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.
>
>There weren't perfect choices to be had.
>
>> See the book:
>> "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror"
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...068997504//ref
>> =sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-0020534-2936176?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
>>
>> This was talked about in National Public Radio.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure the left and those who dislike the US for whatever reason
>(and thus can't judge dispassionately), love this line about the US itself
>having created the --------- threat it is now fighting. What's your point?
>
>
>> You won't find this kind of history in public school for sure. The only
>> history that most American know about are Columbus discovered America, and
>> made friends with the Indians during Thanksgiving.
>>
>
>Oh, yes. Of course we should teach history with an anti-American spin in
>public schools. Maybe you're behind the times, Columbus has been on the
>outs for years (treacherous lech that he was trying to find new trade routes
>to the east).
>
>
>> Even so, these countries were never
>> > really aligned east/west during the cold war. The defeat of Communism
>> > didn't defeat despotism in these countries. They were anti west and
>anti
>> > communist and they played the dispute to their advantage; not
>necessarily
>> > to the advantage of their people, but to the advantage of themselves as
>> > dictators and tyrants. US policy didn't make these countries into what
>> they
>> > are now.
>> >
>> > You trivialize all of this by saying the US overthrew governments that
>> > didn't agree with US policy as if it's governed by sheer arragance. You
>> > trivialize the threat communist expansion really was. The things that
>> went
>> > bad were really bad, but to sit there and sanctimoniously blame the US
>as
>> > arrogant when IT was the country taking the risks and trying to do the
>> right
>> > thing to fight Communism.
>> >
>>
>> The US did not trust the Arab's democracy. We were afraid they would turn
>> Communist as you have mentioned. Therefore, we suppored Mohammad Reza Shah
>> who was a dictator set up by the US. It was easier to trust one person
>than
>> to trust the people in whole country. I suspect in the 50's part of the
>> reasoning was prejudice against Arabs. We treated them like we treat
>blacks
>> and other non-whites.
>>
>
>The US didn't set up the Shah. He was there before the start of the cold
>war. His beginnings as Shah were due to WWII politics when his father
>wouldn't support the allies against the *****, so the British and the
>Soviets got rid of him (sent him into exile) and allowed his son to become
>Shah.
>
>Where do you get your history lessons from? Perhaps they teach that the
>dirty rotten US, Britain and the USSR overthrew a legitimately and
>Democratically elected government in Germany. I suppose you could say that
>and be right.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Benjamin Lee wrote:
> ...The US does have
> this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
> the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was not
> communism. It is really totalitarianism.
A form of gov't can be judged by how well it prevents (or tends to
prevent) those who would be despots from taking control, and how
resistant it is from evolving into totalitarianism. In that sense, yes,
communisim is/was the problem. It sure didn't take Stalin and Lenin
very long to "evolve" far from the "ideal".
So far our constitutional republic form of gov't has met the criteria
the best of any other form (I did not say it was perfect, just the best
so far).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Benjamin Lee wrote:
> ...The US does have
> this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
> the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was not
> communism. It is really totalitarianism.
A form of gov't can be judged by how well it prevents (or tends to
prevent) those who would be despots from taking control, and how
resistant it is from evolving into totalitarianism. In that sense, yes,
communisim is/was the problem. It sure didn't take Stalin and Lenin
very long to "evolve" far from the "ideal".
So far our constitutional republic form of gov't has met the criteria
the best of any other form (I did not say it was perfect, just the best
so far).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Benjamin Lee wrote:
> ...The US does have
> this phobia against communist. Communism itself is not the problem. It is
> the rulers who use communism as a front to gain power. Soviet Union was not
> communism. It is really totalitarianism.
A form of gov't can be judged by how well it prevents (or tends to
prevent) those who would be despots from taking control, and how
resistant it is from evolving into totalitarianism. In that sense, yes,
communisim is/was the problem. It sure didn't take Stalin and Lenin
very long to "evolve" far from the "ideal".
So far our constitutional republic form of gov't has met the criteria
the best of any other form (I did not say it was perfect, just the best
so far).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <su8ub.5087$Rk5.2701@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpar8i$k2h$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gYVtb.33146$pE3.5099@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> >> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> >> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> >> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when
>they
>> >> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the
>US,
>> >> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> >> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory,
>this
>> >> > > is history.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> >> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>> >book
>> >> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>> >>
>> >> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy
>in
>> >> Iran.
>> >
>> >First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century
>as
>> >a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
>>
>>
>> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>>
>> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>> >the government is wrong.
>>
>>
>> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>>
>> >It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>> >Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and
>a
>> >Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the
>onset
>> >of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor
>with
>> >the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because
>it
>> >gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the
>US).
>>
>>
>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
>to
>> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>
>
>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>
>
At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpar8i$k2h$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gYVtb.33146$pE3.5099@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> >> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> >> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> >> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but when
>they
>> >> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the
>US,
>> >> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their freely
>> >> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory,
>this
>> >> > > is history.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic
>> >> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what history
>> >book
>> >> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>> >>
>> >> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of Democracy
>in
>> >> Iran.
>> >
>> >First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the century
>as
>> >a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
>>
>>
>> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>>
>> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>> >the government is wrong.
>>
>>
>> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>>
>> >It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>> >Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist and
>a
>> >Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the
>onset
>> >of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor
>with
>> >the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets) because
>it
>> >gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the
>US).
>>
>>
>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
>to
>> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>
>
>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>
>
At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
