We Wouldn't Be In This Mess With Iran If

[irosie91]

We wouldn’t be in this mess if Trump left the Nuclear Accord alone

What mess?

The escalation of tension with Iran

Listen to what the children say DEATH TO AMERICA----
long ago----very long ago----I read the islamo Nazi propaganda that had been promulgated in the USA----in the 1930s----it LITTERED my provincial north east town---------little seedy pamphlets-------which DENIED vehemently -----malice from your hero ADOLF

They have said that for 40 years
Nothing ever came of it

Hurt your feelings?

"NOTHING" came of it???. a whole pile of dead bodies is "nothing"??

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I have a question for you, son.

Say, you were a contractor and agreed to do a kitchen remodel. You agreed with a client on a 50 thousand price tag, whereupon you purchased the goods, got the permits and finished the work . upon handing them the bill, howver, they just laughed and said " it's mine now, and I owe you nothing!"

Would you want your government to step in to assure the contract was upheld or defend their reneging on an agreement much to your own detriment?

That's not how I heard it. Britain basically colonized them in order to get that oil. Not like the first time Britain went into an infidel country and took what they wanted. How the fuck do you take home an oil well? A road? A storage facility? C'mon.

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

First:
infidel
noun
in·fi·del | \ ˈin-fə-dᵊl , -fə-ˌdel\
Definition of infidel
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
b: one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood

“The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the 'in fidel' from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson.”
― Saul K. Padover, Jefferson


Now, Mr. Webster, if we have that cleared up, Second:
Maybe I can benefit from both sides of the story, but so can you.

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million), but the contractual agreement entitled Iran to just £7 million (17.5% of profits) from Iranian oil.[14]Britain was receiving more from AIOC than Iran.[19] In addition, conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote:

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils ....

Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting—while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing—not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[20]

Nationalisation[edit]
Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalisation, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister.[21] This led to the Abadan Crisis, in which, under British pressure, foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil, and the Abadan refinery was closed. The AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased the output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company - Wikipedia

In respect to the dynamic vis a vis Britain and Iran, it was (and is) Iran considering the British oil developers the infidels, not the other way around. Those representing the anglo-Iranian company were not representing Christianity, so your assertion that it was the British considering the Iranians as infidels is ludicrous.

As to your other cut and paste, yes, it is the financial arrangements to which the Iranians agreed that was the bone of contention, but this by no means proves they had been colonized as you stated. It simply means they had second thoughts about the contract they had signed. We have foreign owned businesses operating in the United States today, but that by no means indicates colonialization, nor doe it give us the right to seize their assets should we have reservations about the legal contracts we have signed allowing them to do business here.

YOUR assertion that only Muslims call Christians "infidels" is dead wrong. The definition not only includes "not Christian" but I provided you a quote proving "infidel" was being used against Thomas Jefferson in 1790 or so by an admitted American. So just give it up; you lost.

As for the rest of it, you did not read what I offered you, did you? The Brits did not overtake and rule Iran per se, no. It wasn't like what they did in India, although that too started with business contracts, didn't it? That was why in my post I said "basically colonized" as in had an inordinate foreign influence on Iran's leadership and resources.
You just going to keep spouting the same shit over and over, I'm going to find someone better informed to talk to.
It's all pretty much petty details anyway. The fact is, Iran has a bug up their ass about the US and I'm not sure it matters a whole lot at this point if it is our fault or Iran's or God's, it is not a good attitude. I'll pull a Pogo and argue with you ALL DAY LONG about the usage of 'infidel' though, because I know how to use words and you don't get to call me stupid for using them correctly.

I did not say that only Muslims call Christians Infidels. You merely lack the intelligence necessary to understand what I DID say, which is that in this instance, the term could not apply to Iran because the oil developers were not motivated by religion .

If you wish to pull a Pogo by continuing to argue about matters of which you are manifestly ignorant while being utterly obtuse about points that are being made, be my guest.

 

[Pogo]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

They'd have never occupied our embassy had we not overthrown their president in 1953 and installed the dictator Shah to do our interests.

I have a question for you, son.

Say, you were a contractor and agreed to do a kitchen remodel. You agreed with a client on a 50 thousand price tag, whereupon you purchased the goods, got the permits and finished the work . upon handing them the bill, howver, they just laughed and said " it's mine now, and I owe you nothing!"

Would you want your government to step in to assure the contract was upheld or defend their reneging on an agreement much to your own detriment?

That's not how I heard it. Britain basically colonized them in order to get that oil. Not like the first time Britain went into an infidel country and took what they wanted. How the fuck do you take home an oil well? A road? A storage facility? C'mon.

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

First:
infidel
noun
in·fi·del | \ ˈin-fə-dᵊl , -fə-ˌdel\
Definition of infidel
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
b: one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood

“The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the 'in fidel' from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson.”
― Saul K. Padover, Jefferson


Now, Mr. Webster, if we have that cleared up, Second:
Maybe I can benefit from both sides of the story, but so can you.

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million), but the contractual agreement entitled Iran to just £7 million (17.5% of profits) from Iranian oil.[14]Britain was receiving more from AIOC than Iran.[19] In addition, conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote:

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils ....

Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting—while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing—not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[20]

Nationalisation[edit]
Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalisation, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister.[21] This led to the Abadan Crisis, in which, under British pressure, foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil, and the Abadan refinery was closed. The AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased the output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company - Wikipedia

That's about the point where UK came to Truman hat in hand begging for our military to intervene on behalf of Big Oil, and Truman told them to go pound sand. Couple of years later though there was a new POTUS with his own John Bolton, the Dulles Brothers, dickheads who knew nothing about the world outside Europe, who believed in the whole Might-Makes-Right-Good-Profits song and dance, who had come up as corporate-worshiping lawyers and who jumped at the chance to shill for Big Oil, just as they would jump at the same chance for United Fruit a year later in Guatemala (65 years ago this week). The depth of how they fucked up both countries and gurgled up issues that remain with us to this day ensure their place in US infamy. Oh and then the same next year they jumped at the chance to barge into a place called "Vietnam".

And there we are, full circle, those who ignore their own history, cue fat lady, roll credits, fade to black, drive home safely and don't forget, when you keep doing the same thing over and over you gotta expect different results.

 

[Pogo]

That's not how I heard it. Britain basically colonized them in order to get that oil. Not like the first time Britain went into an infidel country and took what they wanted. How the fuck do you take home an oil well? A road? A storage facility? C'mon.

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

First:
infidel
noun
in·fi·del | \ ˈin-fə-dᵊl , -fə-ˌdel\
Definition of infidel
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
b: one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood

“The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the 'in fidel' from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson.”
― Saul K. Padover, Jefferson


Now, Mr. Webster, if we have that cleared up, Second:
Maybe I can benefit from both sides of the story, but so can you.

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million), but the contractual agreement entitled Iran to just £7 million (17.5% of profits) from Iranian oil.[14]Britain was receiving more from AIOC than Iran.[19] In addition, conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote:

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils ....

Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting—while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing—not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[20]

Nationalisation[edit]
Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalisation, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister.[21] This led to the Abadan Crisis, in which, under British pressure, foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil, and the Abadan refinery was closed. The AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased the output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company - Wikipedia

In respect to the dynamic vis a vis Britain and Iran, it was (and is) Iran considering the British oil developers the infidels, not the other way around. Those representing the anglo-Iranian company were not representing Christianity, so your assertion that it was the British considering the Iranians as infidels is ludicrous.

As to your other cut and paste, yes, it is the financial arrangements to which the Iranians agreed that was the bone of contention, but this by no means proves they had been colonized as you stated. It simply means they had second thoughts about the contract they had signed. We have foreign owned businesses operating in the United States today, but that by no means indicates colonialization, nor doe it give us the right to seize their assets should we have reservations about the legal contracts we have signed allowing them to do business here.

YOUR assertion that only Muslims call Christians "infidels" is dead wrong. The definition not only includes "not Christian" but I provided you a quote proving "infidel" was being used against Thomas Jefferson in 1790 or so by an admitted American. So just give it up; you lost.

As for the rest of it, you did not read what I offered you, did you? The Brits did not overtake and rule Iran per se, no. It wasn't like what they did in India, although that too started with business contracts, didn't it? That was why in my post I said "basically colonized" as in had an inordinate foreign influence on Iran's leadership and resources.
You just going to keep spouting the same shit over and over, I'm going to find someone better informed to talk to.
It's all pretty much petty details anyway. The fact is, Iran has a bug up their ass about the US and I'm not sure it matters a whole lot at this point if it is our fault or Iran's or God's, it is not a good attitude. I'll pull a Pogo and argue with you ALL DAY LONG about the usage of 'infidel' though, because I know how to use words and you don't get to call me stupid for using them correctly.

I did not day that only Muslims call Christians Infidels. You merely lack the intelligence necessary to understand what I DID say, which is that in this instance, the term could not apply to Iran because the oil developers were not motivated by religion .

If you wish to pull a Pogo by continuing to argue about matters of which you are manifestly ignorant while being utterly obtuse about points that are being made, be my guest.

Gee Wally, I'm not sure I've ever been "pulled" before. Does it hurt?

Is it like pulled pork? Feel free to eat me.

 

[OldLady]

That's not how I heard it. Britain basically colonized them in order to get that oil. Not like the first time Britain went into an infidel country and took what they wanted. How the fuck do you take home an oil well? A road? A storage facility? C'mon.

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

First:
infidel
noun
in·fi·del | \ ˈin-fə-dᵊl , -fə-ˌdel\
Definition of infidel
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
b: one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood

“The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the 'in fidel' from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson.”
― Saul K. Padover, Jefferson


Now, Mr. Webster, if we have that cleared up, Second:
Maybe I can benefit from both sides of the story, but so can you.

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million), but the contractual agreement entitled Iran to just £7 million (17.5% of profits) from Iranian oil.[14]Britain was receiving more from AIOC than Iran.[19] In addition, conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote:

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils ....

Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting—while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing—not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[20]

Nationalisation[edit]
Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalisation, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister.[21] This led to the Abadan Crisis, in which, under British pressure, foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil, and the Abadan refinery was closed. The AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased the output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company - Wikipedia

In respect to the dynamic vis a vis Britain and Iran, it was (and is) Iran considering the British oil developers the infidels, not the other way around. Those representing the anglo-Iranian company were not representing Christianity, so your assertion that it was the British considering the Iranians as infidels is ludicrous.

As to your other cut and paste, yes, it is the financial arrangements to which the Iranians agreed that was the bone of contention, but this by no means proves they had been colonized as you stated. It simply means they had second thoughts about the contract they had signed. We have foreign owned businesses operating in the United States today, but that by no means indicates colonialization, nor doe it give us the right to seize their assets should we have reservations about the legal contracts we have signed allowing them to do business here.

YOUR assertion that only Muslims call Christians "infidels" is dead wrong. The definition not only includes "not Christian" but I provided you a quote proving "infidel" was being used against Thomas Jefferson in 1790 or so by an admitted American. So just give it up; you lost.

As for the rest of it, you did not read what I offered you, did you? The Brits did not overtake and rule Iran per se, no. It wasn't like what they did in India, although that too started with business contracts, didn't it? That was why in my post I said "basically colonized" as in had an inordinate foreign influence on Iran's leadership and resources.
You just going to keep spouting the same shit over and over, I'm going to find someone better informed to talk to.
It's all pretty much petty details anyway. The fact is, Iran has a bug up their ass about the US and I'm not sure it matters a whole lot at this point if it is our fault or Iran's or God's, it is not a good attitude. I'll pull a Pogo and argue with you ALL DAY LONG about the usage of 'infidel' though, because I know how to use words and you don't get to call me stupid for using them correctly.

I did not day that only Muslims call Christians Infidels. You merely lack the intelligence necessary to understand what I DID say, which is that in this instance, the term could not apply to Iran because the oil developers were not motivated by religion .

If you wish to pull a Pogo by continuing to argue about matters of which you are manifestly ignorant while being utterly obtuse about points that are being made, be my guest.

Your exact words:
You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

I rest my case.

 

[candycorn]

Something that happened 43 years ago is the cause of what we have today?

yes

The OP (and now you) are pretty much indicating that you don’t have a clue about the topic.

wrong------I lived thru it

And apparently learned nothing

wrong again

Actually quite correct. As we are seeing with the Trump “strategy” of….well….I’ll let you explain Trump’s strategy. You can do that…can’t you…boy?

I’m guessing you’re just as bewildered as he is at this point.

 

[Pogo]

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

First:
infidel
noun
in·fi·del | \ ˈin-fə-dᵊl , -fə-ˌdel\
Definition of infidel
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
b: one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood

“The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the 'in fidel' from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson.”
― Saul K. Padover, Jefferson


Now, Mr. Webster, if we have that cleared up, Second:
Maybe I can benefit from both sides of the story, but so can you.

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million), but the contractual agreement entitled Iran to just £7 million (17.5% of profits) from Iranian oil.[14]Britain was receiving more from AIOC than Iran.[19] In addition, conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote:

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils ....

Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting—while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing—not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[20]

Nationalisation[edit]
Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalisation, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister.[21] This led to the Abadan Crisis, in which, under British pressure, foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil, and the Abadan refinery was closed. The AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased the output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company - Wikipedia

In respect to the dynamic vis a vis Britain and Iran, it was (and is) Iran considering the British oil developers the infidels, not the other way around. Those representing the anglo-Iranian company were not representing Christianity, so your assertion that it was the British considering the Iranians as infidels is ludicrous.

As to your other cut and paste, yes, it is the financial arrangements to which the Iranians agreed that was the bone of contention, but this by no means proves they had been colonized as you stated. It simply means they had second thoughts about the contract they had signed. We have foreign owned businesses operating in the United States today, but that by no means indicates colonialization, nor doe it give us the right to seize their assets should we have reservations about the legal contracts we have signed allowing them to do business here.

YOUR assertion that only Muslims call Christians "infidels" is dead wrong. The definition not only includes "not Christian" but I provided you a quote proving "infidel" was being used against Thomas Jefferson in 1790 or so by an admitted American. So just give it up; you lost.

As for the rest of it, you did not read what I offered you, did you? The Brits did not overtake and rule Iran per se, no. It wasn't like what they did in India, although that too started with business contracts, didn't it? That was why in my post I said "basically colonized" as in had an inordinate foreign influence on Iran's leadership and resources.
You just going to keep spouting the same shit over and over, I'm going to find someone better informed to talk to.
It's all pretty much petty details anyway. The fact is, Iran has a bug up their ass about the US and I'm not sure it matters a whole lot at this point if it is our fault or Iran's or God's, it is not a good attitude. I'll pull a Pogo and argue with you ALL DAY LONG about the usage of 'infidel' though, because I know how to use words and you don't get to call me stupid for using them correctly.

I did not day that only Muslims call Christians Infidels. You merely lack the intelligence necessary to understand what I DID say, which is that in this instance, the term could not apply to Iran because the oil developers were not motivated by religion .

If you wish to pull a Pogo by continuing to argue about matters of which you are manifestly ignorant while being utterly obtuse about points that are being made, be my guest.

Your exact words:
You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

I rest my case.

Pogo pulls up his etymology car to settle this.

infidel (n.)
mid-15c., "adherent of a religion opposed to Christianity," from Middle French infidèle, from Latin infidelis "unfaithful, not to be trusted," in Late Latin "unbelieving" (in Medieval Latin also as a noun, "unbeliever"), from in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + fidelis "faithful" (from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust, confide, persuade").

Originally "a non-Christian" (especially a Saracen); later "one who does not believe in religion, disbeliever in religion generally" (1520s). Also used to translate Arabic qafir (see kaffir), which is from a root meaning "to disbelieve, to deny," strictly referring to all non-Muslims but virtually synonymous with "Christian;" hence, from a Muslim or Jewish point of view, "a Christian" (1530s). As an adjective from mid-15c., "of a religion opposed to Christianity;" 1520s as "rejecting the Christian religion while accepting no other." -- OED​

Hell, you can see in the root fidel (faith) that it's Latin.


I note this latter treatment is akin to contemporary Christians referring to each other as "a believer" -- just that, "a believer", as if those outside Christianism don't believe anything. It belies a certain egocentristic arrogance.

 

[Pogo]

Trump is now claiming that the incident never happened...that he didn't "call back" this raid

Jesus

Toldja
He made it up to look like a hero, not realizing how these things really work and that he was digging himself a nice hole.

Exactly what he did with "would" means "wouldn't". All the while never admitting he fucked up in the first place.

Just like he mocked Serge Kovaleski's muscular disorder and then when it didn't sell, claimed he didn't. Just like he tried to say the Access Hollywood voice wasn't his, even after there was video of it.

He sees he's in a hole, then climbs out and denies there ever was a hole, because he can't take an iota of responsibility for his own failures. It's exactly how he's rolled for 73 years, yet Rumpbots would have us believe "this time it's different".

 

[Mindful]

Trump is now claiming that the incident never happened...that he didn't "call back" this raid

Jesus

Toldja
He made it up to look like a hero, not realizing how these things really work and that he was digging himself a nice hole.

Exactly what he did with "would" means "wouldn't". All the while never admitting he fucked up in the first place.

Just like he mocked Serge Kovaleski's muscular disorder and then when it didn't sell, claimed he didn't. Just like he tried to say the Access Hollywood voice wasn't his, even after there was video of it.

He sees he's in a hole, then climbs out and denies there ever was a hole, because he can't take an iota of responsibility for his own failures. It's exactly how he's rolled for 73 years, yet Rumpbots would have us believe "this time it's different".

I loved the way he mocked the London mayor.

 

[OldLady]

Britain did not colonize them. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term.

You are also ignorant of the meaning of the term infidel, which is a term applied to us by Muslims, not applied to a Muslim country by us.

The development of Iranian oil was all based upon contracts with the Iranian government. The Iranians reneged on these contracts when they nationalized this industry that others paid to develop for them.

Instead of operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance like you do, have you ever considered developing at least a rudimentary base of knowledge so you can discuss issues intelligently rather than just tossing out nonsense like "I heard it"?

First:
infidel
noun
in·fi·del | \ ˈin-fə-dᵊl , -fə-ˌdel\
Definition of infidel
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
b: one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood

“The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the 'in fidel' from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson.”
― Saul K. Padover, Jefferson


Now, Mr. Webster, if we have that cleared up, Second:
Maybe I can benefit from both sides of the story, but so can you.

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million), but the contractual agreement entitled Iran to just £7 million (17.5% of profits) from Iranian oil.[14]Britain was receiving more from AIOC than Iran.[19] In addition, conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote:

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils ....

Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting—while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing—not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[20]

Nationalisation[edit]
Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalisation, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister.[21] This led to the Abadan Crisis, in which, under British pressure, foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil, and the Abadan refinery was closed. The AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased the output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company - Wikipedia

In respect to the dynamic vis a vis Britain and Iran, it was (and is) Iran considering the British oil developers the infidels, not the other way around. Those representing the anglo-Iranian company were not representing Christianity, so your assertion that it was the British considering the Iranians as infidels is ludicrous.

As to your other cut and paste, yes, it is the financial arrangements to which the Iranians agreed that was the bone of contention, but this by no means proves they had been colonized as you stated. It simply means they had second thoughts about the contract they had signed. We have foreign owned businesses operating in the United States today, but that by no means indicates colonialization, nor doe it give us the right to seize their assets should we have reservations about the legal contracts we have signed allowing them to do business here.

YOUR assertion that only Muslims call Christians "infidels" is dead wrong. The definition not only includes "not Christian" but I provided you a quote proving "infidel" was being used against Thomas Jefferson in 1790 or so by an admitted American. So just give it up; you lost.

As for the rest of it, you did not read what I offered you, did you? The Brits did not overtake and rule Iran per se, no. It wasn't like what they did in India, although that too started with business contracts, didn't it? That was why in my post I said "basically colonized" as in had an inordinate foreign influence on Iran's leadership and resources.
You just going to keep spouting the same shit over and over, I'm going to find someone better informed to talk to.
It's all pretty much petty details anyway. The fact is, Iran has a bug up their ass about the US and I'm not sure it matters a whole lot at this point if it is our fault or Iran's or God's, it is not a good attitude. I'll pull a Pogo and argue with you ALL DAY LONG about the usage of 'infidel' though, because I know how to use words and you don't get to call me stupid for using them correctly.

I did not day that only Muslims call Christians Infidels. You merely lack the intelligence necessary to understand what I DID say, which is that in this instance, the term could not apply to Iran because the oil developers were not motivated by religion .

If you wish to pull a Pogo by continuing to argue about matters of which you are manifestly ignorant while being utterly obtuse about points that are being made, be my guest.

Gee Wally, I'm not sure I've ever been "pulled" before. Does it hurt?

Is it like pulled pork? Feel free to eat me.

You'll like it.

 

[Paulie]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Pretty convenient you have sidestepped the bullshit by the CURRENT president, though, huh?
Can't bring yourself to talk about what he's up to at the moment, can you?

The guy decided against bombing a sovereign nation because the loss of life wouldn't have fit the crime. Normally the left would be ecstatic about the fact that a president chose not to bomb brown people but they can't even muster up the little bit of appreciation that it would take because god forbid we agreed with anything trump did. I was extremely appreciative that Obama was able to go 8 years without starting a war with Iran. The thought of another major conflict over there makes me sick. Not one more of our men or women should have to die for that stupid shit going on over there. Why cant you be appreciative too?

 

[Pogo]

First:
infidel
noun
in·fi·del | \ ˈin-fə-dᵊl , -fə-ˌdel\
Definition of infidel
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
b: one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood

“The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the 'in fidel' from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson.”
― Saul K. Padover, Jefferson


Now, Mr. Webster, if we have that cleared up, Second:
Maybe I can benefit from both sides of the story, but so can you.

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million), but the contractual agreement entitled Iran to just £7 million (17.5% of profits) from Iranian oil.[14]Britain was receiving more from AIOC than Iran.[19] In addition, conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote:

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils ....

Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting—while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing—not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[20]

Nationalisation[edit]
Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalisation, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister.[21] This led to the Abadan Crisis, in which, under British pressure, foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil, and the Abadan refinery was closed. The AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased the output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company - Wikipedia

In respect to the dynamic vis a vis Britain and Iran, it was (and is) Iran considering the British oil developers the infidels, not the other way around. Those representing the anglo-Iranian company were not representing Christianity, so your assertion that it was the British considering the Iranians as infidels is ludicrous.

As to your other cut and paste, yes, it is the financial arrangements to which the Iranians agreed that was the bone of contention, but this by no means proves they had been colonized as you stated. It simply means they had second thoughts about the contract they had signed. We have foreign owned businesses operating in the United States today, but that by no means indicates colonialization, nor doe it give us the right to seize their assets should we have reservations about the legal contracts we have signed allowing them to do business here.

YOUR assertion that only Muslims call Christians "infidels" is dead wrong. The definition not only includes "not Christian" but I provided you a quote proving "infidel" was being used against Thomas Jefferson in 1790 or so by an admitted American. So just give it up; you lost.

As for the rest of it, you did not read what I offered you, did you? The Brits did not overtake and rule Iran per se, no. It wasn't like what they did in India, although that too started with business contracts, didn't it? That was why in my post I said "basically colonized" as in had an inordinate foreign influence on Iran's leadership and resources.
You just going to keep spouting the same shit over and over, I'm going to find someone better informed to talk to.
It's all pretty much petty details anyway. The fact is, Iran has a bug up their ass about the US and I'm not sure it matters a whole lot at this point if it is our fault or Iran's or God's, it is not a good attitude. I'll pull a Pogo and argue with you ALL DAY LONG about the usage of 'infidel' though, because I know how to use words and you don't get to call me stupid for using them correctly.

I did not day that only Muslims call Christians Infidels. You merely lack the intelligence necessary to understand what I DID say, which is that in this instance, the term could not apply to Iran because the oil developers were not motivated by religion .

If you wish to pull a Pogo by continuing to argue about matters of which you are manifestly ignorant while being utterly obtuse about points that are being made, be my guest.

Gee Wally, I'm not sure I've ever been "pulled" before. Does it hurt?

Is it like pulled pork? Feel free to eat me.

View attachment 265975
You'll like it.

I don't do pork though Haven't ingested anything that has a mother since the 1970s.

No wait, there was that one time in a Hutterite colony where there was nothing to eat but beef. Sat in my gut like a bowling ball.

 

[Pogo]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Pretty convenient you have sidestepped the bullshit by the CURRENT president, though, huh?
Can't bring yourself to talk about what he's up to at the moment, can you?

The guy decided against bombing a sovereign nation because the loss of life wouldn't have fit the crime. Normally the left would be ecstatic about the fact that a president chose not to bomb brown people but they can't even muster up the little bit of appreciation that it would take because god forbid we agreed with anything trump did. I was extremely appreciative that Obama was able to go 8 years without starting a war with Iran. The thought of another major conflict over there makes me sick. Not one more of our men or women should have to die for that stupid shit going on over there. Why cant you be appreciative too?

Do you walk down the street thanking strangers for not punching you in the face?

Think about it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You authoritarian Regressives can cite lots of examples of the Iranians being called infidels by anybody even remotely associated with this issue, can you?

I will be waiting for your citations with baited breath.

 

[OldLady]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Pretty convenient you have sidestepped the bullshit by the CURRENT president, though, huh?
Can't bring yourself to talk about what he's up to at the moment, can you?

The guy decided against bombing a sovereign nation because the loss of life wouldn't have fit the crime. Normally the left would be ecstatic about the fact that a president chose not to bomb brown people but they can't even muster up the little bit of appreciation that it would take because god forbid we agreed with anything trump did. I was extremely appreciative that Obama was able to go 8 years without starting a war with Iran. The thought of another major conflict over there makes me sick. Not one more of our men or women should have to die for that stupid shit going on over there. Why cant you be appreciative too?

I AM glad we have not gone any farther with this, Paulie! I don't think you will find me ever saying that I'm disappointed in that. What infuriated me, and the ONLY thing that infuriated me, is Trump's fairy tale about how it happened. I very sincerely believe he made that whole "hero intervenes at last minute to save humanity" story up. He wanted to look the hero and didn't realize it was such a poorly written story that everyone was going to see through it in minutes. Even ME, Paulie, and I'm pretty gullible.

So no, I'm very happy that we are not at war with a new country this morning and I hope it stays that way and that Trump is able to actually pull us out of Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP.

 

[Paulie]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Pretty convenient you have sidestepped the bullshit by the CURRENT president, though, huh?
Can't bring yourself to talk about what he's up to at the moment, can you?

The guy decided against bombing a sovereign nation because the loss of life wouldn't have fit the crime. Normally the left would be ecstatic about the fact that a president chose not to bomb brown people but they can't even muster up the little bit of appreciation that it would take because god forbid we agreed with anything trump did. I was extremely appreciative that Obama was able to go 8 years without starting a war with Iran. The thought of another major conflict over there makes me sick. Not one more of our men or women should have to die for that stupid shit going on over there. Why cant you be appreciative too?

Do you walk down the street thanking strangers for not punching you in the face?

Think about it.

Fucking stupid. Come when you got something that makes any fucking sense

 

[Paulie]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Pretty convenient you have sidestepped the bullshit by the CURRENT president, though, huh?
Can't bring yourself to talk about what he's up to at the moment, can you?

The guy decided against bombing a sovereign nation because the loss of life wouldn't have fit the crime. Normally the left would be ecstatic about the fact that a president chose not to bomb brown people but they can't even muster up the little bit of appreciation that it would take because god forbid we agreed with anything trump did. I was extremely appreciative that Obama was able to go 8 years without starting a war with Iran. The thought of another major conflict over there makes me sick. Not one more of our men or women should have to die for that stupid shit going on over there. Why cant you be appreciative too?

I AM glad we have not gone any farther with this, Paulie! I don't think you will find me ever saying that I'm disappointed in that. What infuriated me, and the ONLY thing that infuriated me, is Trump's fairy tale about how it happened. I very sincerely believe he made that whole "hero intervenes at last minute to save humanity" story up. He wanted to look the hero and didn't realize it was such a poorly written story that everyone was going to see through it in minutes. Even ME, Paulie, and I'm pretty gullible.

So no, I'm very happy that we are not at war with a new country this morning and I hope it stays that way and that Trump is able to actually pull us out of Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP.

I wish he would shut up and stop talking shit on social media but what I do appreciate is that he informs the nation of what went on in the sit room. Who cares that it was last minute? Who cares even if it's grandstanding? I don't care who gets credit for not bombing people. I'm just glad we didn't bomb them.

 

[OldLady]

In respect to the dynamic vis a vis Britain and Iran, it was (and is) Iran considering the British oil developers the infidels, not the other way around. Those representing the anglo-Iranian company were not representing Christianity, so your assertion that it was the British considering the Iranians as infidels is ludicrous.

As to your other cut and paste, yes, it is the financial arrangements to which the Iranians agreed that was the bone of contention, but this by no means proves they had been colonized as you stated. It simply means they had second thoughts about the contract they had signed. We have foreign owned businesses operating in the United States today, but that by no means indicates colonialization, nor doe it give us the right to seize their assets should we have reservations about the legal contracts we have signed allowing them to do business here.

YOUR assertion that only Muslims call Christians "infidels" is dead wrong. The definition not only includes "not Christian" but I provided you a quote proving "infidel" was being used against Thomas Jefferson in 1790 or so by an admitted American. So just give it up; you lost.

As for the rest of it, you did not read what I offered you, did you? The Brits did not overtake and rule Iran per se, no. It wasn't like what they did in India, although that too started with business contracts, didn't it? That was why in my post I said "basically colonized" as in had an inordinate foreign influence on Iran's leadership and resources.
You just going to keep spouting the same shit over and over, I'm going to find someone better informed to talk to.
It's all pretty much petty details anyway. The fact is, Iran has a bug up their ass about the US and I'm not sure it matters a whole lot at this point if it is our fault or Iran's or God's, it is not a good attitude. I'll pull a Pogo and argue with you ALL DAY LONG about the usage of 'infidel' though, because I know how to use words and you don't get to call me stupid for using them correctly.

I did not day that only Muslims call Christians Infidels. You merely lack the intelligence necessary to understand what I DID say, which is that in this instance, the term could not apply to Iran because the oil developers were not motivated by religion .

If you wish to pull a Pogo by continuing to argue about matters of which you are manifestly ignorant while being utterly obtuse about points that are being made, be my guest.

Gee Wally, I'm not sure I've ever been "pulled" before. Does it hurt?

Is it like pulled pork? Feel free to eat me.

View attachment 265975
You'll like it.

I don't do pork though Haven't ingested anything that has a mother since the 1970s.

No wait, there was that one time in a Hutterite colony where there was nothing to eat but beef. Sat in my gut like a bowling ball.

You never pulled taffy, Pogo? Geez you're making me feel ancient. Anyway, taffy has no mother.

 

[Pogo]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Pretty convenient you have sidestepped the bullshit by the CURRENT president, though, huh?
Can't bring yourself to talk about what he's up to at the moment, can you?

The guy decided against bombing a sovereign nation because the loss of life wouldn't have fit the crime. Normally the left would be ecstatic about the fact that a president chose not to bomb brown people but they can't even muster up the little bit of appreciation that it would take because god forbid we agreed with anything trump did. I was extremely appreciative that Obama was able to go 8 years without starting a war with Iran. The thought of another major conflict over there makes me sick. Not one more of our men or women should have to die for that stupid shit going on over there. Why cant you be appreciative too?

Do you walk down the street thanking strangers for not punching you in the face?

Think about it.

Fucking stupid. Come when you got something that makes any fucking sense

You need clues for this? OK.

Your entire premise above assumes it's a given that we're supposed to attack Iran over a fucking drone. IT ISN'T.

The surprise in Rump's self-serving dance move was not that he pulled back. It was that there was an operation to pull back FROM.

Get it now?

IOW why was he ever teetering in the first place?

 

[Paulie]

First off, if Jimmy The Peanut had never been president, Iran wouldn't have had the balls to attack and occupy our Embassy.

You can believe what you will, but that is fact. The coward Ford wasn't much better, but anybody with a pulse would have been better than that walking cadaver

Second, and more recently, we've got THE worst president in human history that completely abrogated his responsibilities as POTUS during Iran's Green revolution.

This piece of garbage goes around the MidEast talking shit about an 'Arab Spring' giving the people in that area false hope and then -- Like the cowardly dimocrap he is (and they all are) runs away when the time to act is upon him.

obama was, and still is, a craven coward. You just don't trust a craven coward. Especially a dimocrap craven coward. But.... That's just about all of them.

You ought to read this. It is not the last word on the subject, but it is somewhere to start for those few who are interested.

Why Obama Let Iran's Green Revolution Fail
The president wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.

One of the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?

Me: What hypotheticals? dimocraps aren't even aware of the Green Revolution. It's down the memory hole. A failing by a dimocrap scum president that shall not be talked about. These scum don't talk about anything not presented to them by the media.



It's well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."



But Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's support.



Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."

more at the link

This is why you just don't give power to dimocrap scum, people. They screw up everything they touch. Look what The Rapist did by not allowing our people to take out Usama bin Floatin'

Pretty convenient you have sidestepped the bullshit by the CURRENT president, though, huh?
Can't bring yourself to talk about what he's up to at the moment, can you?

The guy decided against bombing a sovereign nation because the loss of life wouldn't have fit the crime. Normally the left would be ecstatic about the fact that a president chose not to bomb brown people but they can't even muster up the little bit of appreciation that it would take because god forbid we agreed with anything trump did. I was extremely appreciative that Obama was able to go 8 years without starting a war with Iran. The thought of another major conflict over there makes me sick. Not one more of our men or women should have to die for that stupid shit going on over there. Why cant you be appreciative too?

Do you walk down the street thanking strangers for not punching you in the face?

Think about it.

Fucking stupid. Come when you got something that makes any fucking sense

You need clues for this? OK.

Your entire premise above assumes it's a given that we're supposed to attack Iran over a fucking drone. IT ISN'T.

The surprise in Rump's self-serving dance move was not that he pulled back. It was that there was an operation to pull back FROM.

Get it now?

No. I don't get how anyone could find fault in a president not bombing someone. You people are insane.