FEOS wrote:
rammunition wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Interesting that ramm assumes no right winger would've come to power in his fantasyland.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
When did i say no right winger would have come into power???
right here
rammunition wrote:
Also no doubt a left winger would have got in
That precludes a right winger from coming into power, since they couldn't be a right winger and a left winger simultaneously.
rammunition wrote:
Can you read???
Can you? (see how only a single question mark is sufficient to denote the interrogatory nature?)
rammunition wrote:
Are you blind???
Clearly not. Are you?
I said there would have been a more higher chance a left winger would have come into power.
rammunition wrote:
Who's doing the punching??? well the US/UK threw the first punches when they decided to ruin the DEMOCRACY IN IRAN for oil. Whats happened since is a result of it. All those things you mentioned are a result of hatred produced because of what the US/UK did.
And what would've happened had Iran held their Islamic revolution and simply had a revolution? Changed governments and that been it? Not held our people captive for 444 days? Not supported terrorists the way they did and do? Not taken active steps to isolate themselves regionally and globally?
Those steps were choices made by the Iranian government, not driven by anyone else.
what? you seem confused, i stated that if the UK/US hadn't ruined democracy in Iran a left winger ,in the 50 years gone, would have gone into power. I didn't say a right winger wouldn't have. Left wingers are more interested in peace as you know. You are forgetting Iran was a democracy. *sigh*
Those things are done by a government/ayatollah, had there been voting, who would have stood NO CHANCE of getting into power. As i've said before injustice breeds extremism.
Pug wrote:
I love the "greatest thread ever in this forum", specifically because there are so many people attempting to debate ramm on the topic and it is all ignored.
Yet the greatest thread keeps resurfacing...with the same results...ignored by ramm.
Same happens here a few posts up...
rubbish, all i got was people avoiding the statistics and denying the mass genocide. If you want a debate on the killings by the US since WW2 open up a new thread and i'll be happy to engage.
not my source link, though its in my bookmarks somewhere, though how is it a fail? You seem to hate facts and are avoiding it
JohnG@lt wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
hehe. Some times I'm curious as to why this guy thinks the US is sooo evil. Did an American tourist beat his ass or bang his girlfriend? Then I remember I really could care less.
The same reason some people hate rich people. Jealousy mixed with a sense of hopelessness at all it would take to catch up.
i hate terrorists, be it al qaeda or the U.S. They are no different