QUE ANOTHER OBAMA LIE UP = "IRAN BREAKOUT TIME IS 12 MONTHS"..

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Thank You Lusty- that should tell you something- the Iranians who fled from the shah probably had ties with the Shah's regime- the Shah of Iran was a brutal dictator and his family was very corrupt- hence that is what was the catalyst of the Iranian revolution. So the people who fled are basically people who supported the Shah's brutal regime and they vote Republican- why I am not surprised- now you know why the GOP is fucked up!!!

The religious thugs who have enslaved and brutally suppressed the Iranian people for the past 36 years make the defenders of the Peacock Throne look like petty amateurs. Before I promote regime change I would at least ask myself whether the replacement is likely to be better or worse. If Jimmy Carter had stood by the Shah instead of pulling the rug out from under him, we wouldn't be dealing today with mad apocalyptic fanatics in Tehran hell-bent on acquiring nukes and fueling a WMD arms race in the most unstable part of the planet. You can thank the peanut-farming pinhead Jimmy Carter for that, not me! His actions are a case study in why the Dimotards are so fucked up! (For a more recent example - see "leading from behind" in Libya.)

.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The religious thugs who have enslaved and brutally suppressed the Iranian people for the past 36 years make the defenders of the Peacock Throne look like petty amateurs. Before I promote regime change I would at least ask myself whether the replacement is likely to be better or worse. If Jimmy Carter had stood by the Shah instead of pulling the rug out from under him, we wouldn't be dealing today with mad apocalyptic fanatics hell-bent on acquiring nukes and fuelling an arms race in the most unstable part of the planet. You can thank the peanut-farming pinhead Jimmy Carter for that, not me! His actions are a case study in why the Dimotards are so fucked up! (For a more recent example - see "leading from behind" in Libya.)

.

You are a fool- so you support rogue and corrupt leaders only if they are allies of the U.S is that how it works? If memory serves me correct Carter did support the Shah. Your logic just proves how biased you are- I bet you thought Saddam was the greatest thing since apple pie when he went to war with Iran? Remember the U.S still supported Saddam even after he gassed his own people.
People like you Lusty are what's wrong with this country- you are afraid to stand up for what's right or wrong- you are part of the problem. You openly have stated that the Carter administration should have supported the Shah- please go back and re-read history- perhaps it has fogged your mind and memory, but the Shah was a corrupt dictator - he used the country's money for personal use and their was no democracy- anyone who spoke against the Shah's regime was put in prison, tortured, and/or killed and you think we should have supported him- really dude?

[lustylad]

Ok WE, I'll make this as simple as possible for you - You are asked to choose between two regimes. Both are (equally) brutal, undemocratic, engage in torture and throw opponents in prison. One is a US ally while the other hates our guts. Which one do you choose?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok WE, I'll make this as simple as possible for you - You are asked to choose between two regimes. Both are (equally) brutal, undemocratic, engage in torture and throw opponents in prison. One is a US ally while the other hates our guts. Which one do you choose?

Why would we want to be the ally of a regime like that?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The religious thugs who have enslaved and brutally suppressed the Iranian people for the past 36 years make the defenders of the Peacock Throne look like petty amateurs. Before I promote regime change I would at least ask myself whether the replacement is likely to be better or worse. If Jimmy Carter had stood by the Shah instead of pulling the rug out from under him, we wouldn't be dealing today with mad apocalyptic fanatics in Tehran hell-bent on acquiring nukes and fueling a WMD arms race in the most unstable part of the planet. You can thank the peanut-farming pinhead Jimmy Carter for that, not me! His actions are a case study in why the Dimotards are so fucked up! (For a more recent example - see "leading from behind" in Libya.)

.

+1

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You are a fool- so you support rogue and corrupt leaders only if they are allies of the U.S is that how it works? If memory serves me correct Carter did support the Shah. Your logic just proves how biased you are- I bet you thought Saddam was the greatest thing since apple pie when he went to war with Iran? Remember the U.S still supported Saddam even after he gassed his own people.
People like you Lusty are what's wrong with this country- you are afraid to stand up for what's right or wrong- you are part of the problem. You openly have stated that the Carter administration should have supported the Shah- please go back and re-read history- perhaps it has fogged your mind and memory, but the Shah was a corrupt dictator - he used the country's money for personal use and their was no democracy- anyone who spoke against the Shah's regime was put in prison, tortured, and/or killed and you think we should have supported him- really dude?

One could easily substitute the word "shah" with "Ayatollah", WE, and make a case that there has been absolutely no improvement in regards to human rights. So your notion that what's there now is somehow an improvement over the shah is unadulterated BS, WE.

And you're wrong WE, Carter did not stand by the shah. Carter, et al, perpetrated a two-faced policy of openly chastising and condemning the shah in public statements while privately admonishing the shah to use every tool he had to hold onto the throne.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok WE, I'll make this as simple as possible for you - You are asked to choose between two regimes. Both are (equally) brutal, undemocratic, engage in torture and throw opponents in prison. One is a US ally while the other hates our guts. Which one do you choose?

+1

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok WE, ...Which one do you choose?

I doubt he complained about the Shah either. I suspect he believes it is

.. better to just let others have their way with him than to create friction.

(Unless, of course, he's tapping away on a keyboard. Then you have hell to pay.)

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok WE, I'll make this as simple as possible for you - You are asked to choose between two regimes. Both are (equally) brutal, undemocratic, engage in torture and throw opponents in prison. One is a US ally while the other hates our guts. Which one do you choose?

Don't try to weasel your way out of this one because that was not the case. Iran under the Shah people were oppressed the regime exploited the people and the Shah's family was corrupt- stealing millions of the economy's money for personal gain- why do you think they started the revolution? Ayatollah Khoemeni was not a corrupt leader- he simply made Iran into a Theocracy- so if you weren't a devout muslim you would be upset because you had to adhere by strict islamic customs and rules.
Do you know why they hate us? Because we allowed the Shah to commit his atrocities. If I were paying someone to beat you up, harass, torture, imprison and steal from you- I don't think you would think to highly of me as well. Iran and Iraq have legitimate reason(s) to hate and not trust us= this is not even debatable. In Iraq's situation- you talk about being double crossed- imagine you were running for some big political position and I was financially supporting you and even making appearance(s) helping and promoting your campaign, but at the same time I was secretly sending millions to your opponent and his campaign - how would that make you feel? Saddam was double crossed by the U.S- Iraq was fighting a war with Iran and was getting military support from the U.S who in turn was sending weapons to a mutual enemy(Iran)- how fucking low can you get?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Don't try to weasel your way out of this one because that was not the case. Iran under the Shah people were oppressed the regime exploited the people and the Shah's family was corrupt- stealing millions of the economy's money for personal gain- why do you think they started the revolution? Ayatollah Khoemeni was not a corrupt leader- he simply made Iran into a Theocracy- so if you weren't a devout muslim you would be upset because you had to adhere by strict islamic customs and rules.
Do you know why they hate us? Because we allowed the Shah to commit his atrocities. If I were paying someone to beat you up, harass, torture, imprison and steal from you- I don't think you would think to highly of me as well. Iran and Iraq have legitimate reason(s) to hate and not trust us= this is not even debatable. In Iraq's situation- you talk about being double crossed- imagine you were running for some big political position and I was financially supporting you and even making appearance(s) helping and promoting your campaign, but at the same time I was secretly sending millions to your opponent and his campaign - how would that make you feel? Saddam was double crossed by the U.S- Iraq was fighting a war with Iran and was getting military support from the U.S who in turn was sending weapons to a mutual enemy(Iran)- how fucking low can you get?

This is not false. If we were treated similarly, would we just sit there and take it? I don't think so. Yet, we expect them to eat shit and ask for seconds. It's this superiority that rubs people the wrong way.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Don't try to weasel your way out of this one because that was not the case. Iran under the Shah people were oppressed the regime exploited the people and the Shah's family was corrupt- stealing millions of the economy's money for personal gain- why do you think they started the revolution? Ayatollah Khoemeni was not a corrupt leader- he simply made Iran into a Theocracy- so if you weren't a devout muslim you would be upset because you had to adhere by strict islamic customs and rules.
Do you know why they hate us? Because we allowed the Shah to commit his atrocities. If I were paying someone to beat you up, harass, torture, imprison and steal from you- I don't think you would think too highly of me as well. Iran and Iraq have legitimate reason(s) to hate and not trust us= this is not even debatable. In Iraq's situation- you talk about being double crossed- imagine you were running for some big political position and I was financially supporting you and even making appearance(s) helping and promoting your campaign, but at the same time I was secretly sending millions to your opponent and his campaign - how would that make you feel? Saddam was double crossed by the U.S- Iraq was fighting a war with Iran and was getting military support from the U.S who in turn was sending weapons to a mutual enemy(Iran)- how fucking low can you get?

You're calling me a "weasel" when you're the one who won't answer a very simple question? We've heard your rant before. Go ahead and blame the US for all the problems in the Middle East (and the world) if it makes you feel better. At the end of the day, you still have to choose. Two regimes are equally nasty and indistinguishable in every way - except one likes you and the other hates you. Which do you choose, WE?

.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're calling me a "weasel" when you're the one who won't answer a very simple question? We've heard your rant before. Go ahead and blame the US for all the problems in the Middle East (and the world) if it makes you feel better. At the end of the day, you still have to choose. Two regimes are equally nasty and indistinguishable in every way - except one likes you and the other hates you. Which do you choose, WE?

.

If you want me to answer the question- we choose neither- if a country has a brutal dictator- we don't support that country until they treat their citizens with respect. Can you please produce legit evidence showing Ayatollah to a brutal dictator- do you realize in a theocracy you don't even have dictators.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

If you want me to answer the question- we choose neither- if a country has a brutal dictator- we don't support that country until they treat their citizens with respect. Can you please produce legit evidence showing Ayatollah to a brutal dictator- do you realize in a theocracy you don't even have dictators.

The U.S. chose the brutal dictatorship of a Western-friendly shah over a Soviet dominated (Tudeh Party of Iran) Iran, WE. Grow up.

[IIFFOFRDB]

weewee knows what "Tudeh Party of Iran" is. He's a member of it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Can you please produce legit evidence showing Ayatollah to be a brutal dictator - do you realize in a theocracy you don't even have dictators.

Are you serious? I mean - ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Here's a whole website dedicated to cataloging Iran's abysmal human rights record and its near-daily public executions. Spend a few minutes perusing it.

http://iranhr.net/

Do you own a TV set? Did you turn it on during June 2009 (following Iran's rigged Presidential election) to watch the Basiji - the Ayatollah's shadowy vigilante force - kill dozens (and beat and injure thousands) of opposition supporters in broad daylight in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities? Where were you when all this was being televised?

You would have us believe the Shah's regime was the incarnation of evil while life under the Ayatollah is a pleasant walk in the park. Wikipedia suggests exactly the opposite is true:

"The Islamic revolution is thought to have a significantly worse human rights record than the Pahlavi Dynasty it overthrew. According to political historian Ervand Abrahamian, “whereas less than 100 political prisoners had been executed between 1971 and 1979, more than 7900 were executed between 1981 and 1985. ... the prison system was centralized and drastically expanded ... Prison life was drastically worse under the Islamic Republic than under the Pahlavis. One who survived both writes that four months under [warden] Ladjevardi took the toll of four years under SAVAK."

All evidence points to the conclusion that under the mullahs TORTURE has been elevated to new, unprecedented levels. According to the above author, Iran has even reached the Big Leagues and practices systematic torture comparable to what was commonplace under modern Communism and the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages:

"In a study of torture in Iran published in 1999, Iranian-born political historian Ervand Abrahamian included Iran along with 'Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and early modern Europe' of the Inquisition and witch hunts, as societies that 'can be considered to be in a league of their own" in the systematic use of torture.' "

Here's a special bonus question for you, WE - guess who is the BIGGEST STATE CHILD-KILLER on the planet today?

"Iran 'leads the world in executing juvenile offenders – persons under 18 at the time of the crime' according to Human Rights Watch. International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran states that of the 32 executions of juvenile offenders that have taken place in the world since January 2005, 26 occurred in Iran."

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


Still want to defend the Ayatollah's human rights record, WE? I didn't think so.

.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Are you serious? I mean - ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Here's a whole website dedicated to cataloging Iran's abysmal human rights record and its near-daily public executions. Spend a few minutes perusing it.

http://iranhr.net/

Do you own a TV set? Did you turn it on during June 2009 (following Iran's rigged Presidential election) to watch the Basiji - the Ayatollah's shadowy vigilante force - kill dozens (and beat and injure thousands) of opposition supporters in broad daylight in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities? Where were you when all this was being televised?

You would have us believe the Shah's regime was the incarnation of evil while life under the Ayatollah is a pleasant walk in the park. Wikipedia suggests exactly the opposite is true:

"The Islamic revolution is thought to have a significantly worse human rights record than the Pahlavi Dynasty it overthrew. According to political historian Ervand Abrahamian, “whereas less than 100 political prisoners had been executed between 1971 and 1979, more than 7900 were executed between 1981 and 1985. ... the prison system was centralized and drastically expanded ... Prison life was drastically worse under the Islamic Republic than under the Pahlavis. One who survived both writes that four months under [warden] Ladjevardi took the toll of four years under SAVAK."

All evidence points to the conclusion that under the mullahs TORTURE has been elevated to new, unprecedented levels. According to the above author, Iran has even reached the Big Leagues and practices systematic torture comparable to what was commonplace under modern Communism and the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages:

"In a study of torture in Iran published in 1999, Iranian-born political historian Ervand Abrahamian included Iran along with 'Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and early modern Europe' of the Inquisition and witch hunts, as societies that 'can be considered to be in a league of their own" in the systematic use of torture.' "

Here's a special bonus question for you, WE - guess who is the BIGGEST STATE CHILD-KILLER on the planet today?

"Iran 'leads the world in executing juvenile offenders – persons under 18 at the time of the crime' according to Human Rights Watch. International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran states that of the 32 executions of juvenile offenders that have taken place in the world since January 2005, 26 occurred in Iran."

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


Still want to defend the Ayatollah's human rights record, WE? I didn't think so.

.

Do you realize Iran is a Theocracy and that they follow Sharia Law? If Sharia Law states to stone a woman if she commits adultery than it is what it is- how are you going to criticize them if they follow their own laws?
When Iran stars executing "INNOCENT" people than complain- all I saw from your site was people getting executed for drug charges- if the law of Iran says not to use or engage in illegal substances thamif Iranians choose to do otherwise they know the risk. Heck Blacks in this country get executed with shots in the back for simply running away from the police- your link is totally bias.
I am a God-fearing Christian and I have never seen so much hypocrisy coming from people like you who are supposed to be conservative religious people- at times I am embarrassed to call any of you my Christian brethren.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Are you serious? I mean - ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Here's a whole website dedicated to cataloging Iran's abysmal human rights record and its near-daily public executions. Spend a few minutes perusing it.

http://iranhr.net/

Do you own a TV set? Did you turn it on during June 2009 (following Iran's rigged Presidential election) to watch the Basiji - the Ayatollah's shadowy vigilante force - kill dozens (and beat and injure thousands) of opposition supporters in broad daylight in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities? Where were you when all this was being televised?

You would have us believe the Shah's regime was the incarnation of evil while life under the Ayatollah is a pleasant walk in the park. Wikipedia suggests exactly the opposite is true:

"The Islamic revolution is thought to have a significantly worse human rights record than the Pahlavi Dynasty it overthrew. According to political historian Ervand Abrahamian, “whereas less than 100 political prisoners had been executed between 1971 and 1979, more than 7900 were executed between 1981 and 1985. ... the prison system was centralized and drastically expanded ... Prison life was drastically worse under the Islamic Republic than under the Pahlavis. One who survived both writes that four months under [warden] Ladjevardi took the toll of four years under SAVAK."

All evidence points to the conclusion that under the mullahs TORTURE has been elevated to new, unprecedented levels. According to the above author, Iran has even reached the Big Leagues and practices systematic torture comparable to what was commonplace under modern Communism and the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages:

"In a study of torture in Iran published in 1999, Iranian-born political historian Ervand Abrahamian included Iran along with 'Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and early modern Europe' of the Inquisition and witch hunts, as societies that 'can be considered to be in a league of their own" in the systematic use of torture.' "

Here's a special bonus question for you, WE - guess who is the BIGGEST STATE CHILD-KILLER on the planet today?

"Iran 'leads the world in executing juvenile offenders – persons under 18 at the time of the crime' according to Human Rights Watch. International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran states that of the 32 executions of juvenile offenders that have taken place in the world since January 2005, 26 occurred in Iran."

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


Still want to defend the Ayatollah's human rights record, WE? I didn't think so.

.

You're making his point for him. Why would we want to be an ally of a country like that.