I'll bet what actually happened is that all the Chinese jumped at the same time.... that would definitely do it.
Well, there may be 1.4 billion Chinese but there's 300 million obese Americans on this side of the planet. If we all jump at the same time those commie bastards won't stand a chance;)
The famous "insularity" of the average American is what lets your governments get away with all the stupid international interference that pisses everyone else off.
We would be just as happy to go back to our non-interventionist roots but it seems that the rest of the world falls to shit when we do this and eventually comes begging for our intervention.
You are a citizen of that great power, and you're on this forum suggesting Iran is an irresponsible child
Iran is an irresponsible child. They won their revolution and what did they do with it? They started funding terrorism networks. That's not being a responsible member of the international community.
why do you think they invaded your embassy??!
So if my country has a grievance (legitimate or otherwise) with another country we can invade their embassy and hold the staff therein hostage for over a year? The fact that the Iranians allowed this to happen is further proof that they weren't interested in being a responsible member of the international community. Attacking a foreign embassy runs counter to hundreds of years of customary international law.
I'm just trying to get people to go find out stuff about their own country
I understand my countries involvement in that episode. I'm just sick of hearing us blamed for everything that's gone wrong in Iran while the British and Russians (who interfered as much or more than we did in Iranian affairs) are never even mentioned. Within Iran the United States is used as a whipping boy to distract the populace from the crimes/ineptitude of their own leaders.
Eventually people will realize that they won their revolution 30 years ago and the problems they are currently facing are not of our making.
The Soviet Union (along with the British) were the ones that originally put Mr. Pahlavi on the throne. If you are going to quote Iranian history during this period you might as well start where it began and realize that you can't pin every last drop of blame on the United States.
No matter how you look at it, overthrowing a democratically elected Government and installing dictator is a grave offense and unfortunately has now come back to bite everyone in the ass.
A lot of moves we made during the Cold War have come back to bite everyone in the ass. Minor powers get trampled on when Great Powers clash. It's unfortunate but it's a fact of life. In the context of the Cold War, the Iranians set themselves up for it when they started moving towards socialism.
You do realize that everyone from Canada to Panama to Venezuela lives in America right? North or South, but America nonetheless
Thanks for the geography lesson. I wouldn't have known that if you hadn't pointed it out to me.
or that it exclusively refers to people of the United States.
I've never claimed that it "exclusively" refers to us. I've only claimed that it's the accepted adjective to describe those who hold US nationality.
I agree that USAian is a horrible term, but you need to find something more specific than 'American' to win this argument.
I don't really care about "winning" this argument because I really don't give a shit what you think. I will continue to call myself an "American" for as long as I want. I will waste no more time on people that feel the need to use some lameass term like "USAian"
A shot across the bows - don't interfere with our little war.
Why the hell would China even want to interfere in the Kosovo conflict? Next you'll claim that we really meant to bomb the Russian embassy but missed and hit the Chinese one instead.
What did you gain from sending spy planes into the airspace of one of your largest trading partners?
1) There wasn't a better way to "encode" this than to hold a camcorder up to the TV?
2) Why couldn't it have been good porn?
3) Hope the NFL doesn't sue him for showing more than five seconds of the super bowl;)
I wouldn't want Tom Cruise to come beating down my door (assuming he could reach that high) because I partook in uncovering his--hold on, I think I hear something...
Don't worry it's probably just a process server. Tom Cruise wouldn't have the balls to actually beat somebody up and would probably get his ass kicked if he tried;)
After a few more puffs, we'll get to hear a lengthy dissertation on how citizens of the planet Zork conspired with Bush to beam people off the aircraft flown into the WTC so they could go about doing their probe thing.
So that's how L. Ron came up with his writings.....;)
Anyway, did you have a point in all of this, other than to troll?
There is no prospect of a new Persian empire.
I guess sarcasm without <sarcasm> tags is too much for you to detect?
The Persians were responding to Greek aggression in the form of the Ionian revolt
Interesting combination of words.
And they hardly had their "asses handed to them" - most of the Greek city-states were reduced to rubble
And they rebuilt and went on to lay the foundation of western civilization. Then the Persians got conquered by someone in his 20s. What did I miss in my original post?
The Persians lost the war in Salamis.
Well, western nations do usually win wars at sea and/or in the air.....
I find it interesting that the rants here are about not stopping violent video games, while on the Superbowl Ad thread [slashdot.org] Slashdot users bemoan the fact that ads that are sexually suggestive are censored, while the violent commercials are not
I would posit that the difference between the two is that you have a choice over which video games your kids play. You don't have a choice over which commercials play during the Super Bowl and the Super Bowl is typically regarded as something that the whole family can watch.
Yeah, and they got their asses handed to them by a motley collection of Greek city states and were later conquered by someone in his 20s. You'll forgive me if I'm not quaking in my boots at the prospect of a new Persian empire.
That is not why american manufacturing has died: It's because the large companies retain patents and copyrights that make it illegal for the americans they fire to compete with them with the skills they learnt while employed.
And pray tell, how do you compete with a Chinese laborer working in sweatshop conditions whose employer can throw all the toxic chemicals created by production into the nearest river when your laborer needs to be paid a decent wage and you get to eat the full cost of disposal of those chemicals?
You missed the whole point of his post and while the offtopic mod might have been appropriate I'd still like to smack the mod that handed it out.
The "other side" is supposed to be a "terrorist organisation," not a nice democratic country.
Democratic countries have the right to defend themselves from terrorist organizations. When Hamas starts to follow the laws of war then I'll get teary eyed about Israel not doing the same.
Hamas is almost as bad as Israel. Happy?
Almost huh? Maybe if Hamas was as interested in governing as they are in destroying Israel the people in Gaza would have a better lot in life?
To go out of her way to say that she would obliterate Iran concerns me.
That's what mutually assured destruction is. And it's the only way to respond to a saber-rattling (wannabe) nuclear armed power that threatens you or your allies with destruction.
It sounds like you're the one with an agenda here.
That doesn't make it an accepted adjective for the American people. Just admit that you are doing it to be a PITA and move on.
utterly ignorant of the extent to which their idealogical forefathers shaped the world
I'm well aware of the extent to which my ancestors have shaped the world. On balance I think we've done more good than harm. Personally I would have preferred if we could have just remained non-interventionists but geopolitics (WW2) and technology (the ICBM) worked against that.
I see you've at least managed to find Wikipedia
Who said anything about Wikipedia?
I'm not sure how British and USSR influence is relevant
It's relevant because that coup that everybody likes to blame on the United States was actually instigated by the British. It's relevant because the leader that everybody blames on the United States was actually installed by the Soviet Union and Great Britain. I don't like seeing people quote half of history while ignoring or being ignorant of the other half.
that the Iranian people have fairly good historical evidence of the dangers of interfering great powers
Maybe if Mosaddeq hadn't been inclined to nationalize assets that the British invested money into the British wouldn't have been interested in interfering with his Government? That's quite the neat trick a lot of countries have played -- use western capital and technological know-how to exploit a resource and once all of the plant and equipment is in place steal it from the people that you convinced to invest in it in the first place.
There's two sides to every story and for all of your moral superiority you are only telling one of them.
Not respecting international law - check.
Killing civilians - check.
Stealing land - check.
Killing UN observers - check.
Bombing UN buildings - check.
Using people as human shields - check.
Well, at least four out of your six complaints are also attributable to the other side of the conflict. Why are you reserving your criticism for Israel?
You can't be speaking of Iran, because Iran hasn't made any threats to "wipe neighbors off the map". Its president, however, has expressed the wish that the "régime occupying Jerusalem vanish from the pages of time." That's the direct translation agreed on by non-partisan sources.
Wiping neighbours off the map? BS propaganda.
Yes, anything that doesn't agree with your world view is "BS propaganda". In fact it was so convincing as "propaganda" that all 15 members of the security council felt the need to condemn his remarks. Wow, that Jewish propaganda has really pulled the wool over everyone's eyes but yours, hasn't it?
Yes, this may have been lip service to Israel as Hillary Clinton was running for President at the time, but she is now Secretary of State
Why don't you try quoting her in context instead of selectively quoting her to further your own agenda? She didn't come out and randomly say that she'd attack Iran. She was asked what she would do in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. This isn't exactly new US policy either -- our policy has always been that we will respond to a nuclear attack on ourselves or our allies with overwhelming force.
and those are dangerous words that she never backed off of.
As previously noted those "dangerous words" have been US policy for decades. There's nothing new here.
One op-ed by an Israeli historian doesn't reflect what the Israeli government thinks, but their total silence on the matter is somewhat disturbing.
Let me answer your concerns using your own words....
when a CIA backed mission overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a dictator
Actually it originated with the British who invited the CIA to take part in it. If your going to quote history you might as well learn something about it.
But hose freedom fighters which Rambo and James Bond assured me were good people who only wanted to preserve their freedom of religion from the evil communists suddenly became terrorist once it was the U.S. who invaded Afghanistan.
The individual freedom fighters that we supplied during the Soviet invasion didn't have much to do with the later movement (the Taliban) that came to govern Afghanistan. In any case you are leaving out the reason why we invaded Afghanistan, namely the fact that the existing regime in that country opted to give refuge to a terrorist network that declared war on our country and murdered thousands of American citizens.
You can see where I would start to suspect that the people bandying about words like "terrorist" and "freedom" are just using emotionally charged ideals to get people on their side, not accurately describing the world.
Sure, if you are looking at it in a vacuum. The freedom fighters who fought the Soviets weren't flying airplanes into our buildings, were they?
Do you know why there was such animosity by the revolutionary Iranians towards all things USAsian?
First off, we're called Americans. The "USA'ian" thing was cute when people first started doing it but now it's just annoying. And yes, we are that arrogant to claim the whole name of a continent for ourselves.
Do you know who Mossadeq was and what happened to him? What about the Shah of Iran, do you know what he did to his people? Do you know how the USA was involved?
No, I'm just an ignorant American. Why would I know anything about any of those things? Did you know that it was the British and Russians (err, Soviets) who put Reza Pahlavi on the throne to begin with? Ironic how the Iranians cozy up to the nation that once invaded them. Perhaps it has to do more with the geopolitical balance of power and less to do with any lingering sentiment over outside interference in their own affairs?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if the investigating police showed up in Enterprise Uniforms.
I hope they weren't wearing red uniforms ;)
I'll bet what actually happened is that all the Chinese jumped at the same time.... that would definitely do it.
Well, there may be 1.4 billion Chinese but there's 300 million obese Americans on this side of the planet. If we all jump at the same time those commie bastards won't stand a chance ;)
The famous "insularity" of the average American is what lets your governments get away with all the stupid international interference that pisses everyone else off.
We would be just as happy to go back to our non-interventionist roots but it seems that the rest of the world falls to shit when we do this and eventually comes begging for our intervention.
You are a citizen of that great power, and you're on this forum suggesting Iran is an irresponsible child
Iran is an irresponsible child. They won their revolution and what did they do with it? They started funding terrorism networks. That's not being a responsible member of the international community.
why do you think they invaded your embassy??!
So if my country has a grievance (legitimate or otherwise) with another country we can invade their embassy and hold the staff therein hostage for over a year? The fact that the Iranians allowed this to happen is further proof that they weren't interested in being a responsible member of the international community. Attacking a foreign embassy runs counter to hundreds of years of customary international law.
I'm just trying to get people to go find out stuff about their own country
I understand my countries involvement in that episode. I'm just sick of hearing us blamed for everything that's gone wrong in Iran while the British and Russians (who interfered as much or more than we did in Iranian affairs) are never even mentioned. Within Iran the United States is used as a whipping boy to distract the populace from the crimes/ineptitude of their own leaders.
Eventually people will realize that they won their revolution 30 years ago and the problems they are currently facing are not of our making.
And where does the Soviet Union come into play?
The Soviet Union (along with the British) were the ones that originally put Mr. Pahlavi on the throne. If you are going to quote Iranian history during this period you might as well start where it began and realize that you can't pin every last drop of blame on the United States.
No matter how you look at it, overthrowing a democratically elected Government and installing dictator is a grave offense and unfortunately has now come back to bite everyone in the ass.
A lot of moves we made during the Cold War have come back to bite everyone in the ass. Minor powers get trampled on when Great Powers clash. It's unfortunate but it's a fact of life. In the context of the Cold War, the Iranians set themselves up for it when they started moving towards socialism.
You do realize that everyone from Canada to Panama to Venezuela lives in America right? North or South, but America nonetheless
Thanks for the geography lesson. I wouldn't have known that if you hadn't pointed it out to me.
or that it exclusively refers to people of the United States.
I've never claimed that it "exclusively" refers to us. I've only claimed that it's the accepted adjective to describe those who hold US nationality.
I agree that USAian is a horrible term, but you need to find something more specific than 'American' to win this argument.
I don't really care about "winning" this argument because I really don't give a shit what you think. I will continue to call myself an "American" for as long as I want. I will waste no more time on people that feel the need to use some lameass term like "USAian"
A shot across the bows - don't interfere with our little war.
Why the hell would China even want to interfere in the Kosovo conflict? Next you'll claim that we really meant to bomb the Russian embassy but missed and hit the Chinese one instead.
What did you gain from sending spy planes into the airspace of one of your largest trading partners?
WTF are you talking about?
And somewhere in that mess, someone was enjoying some porno only to have their fantasy broken by the defensive line of the Cardinals.
Yeah, where's my $10, you bastards? That KY doesn't pay for itself you know.... ;)
Three thoughts:
1) There wasn't a better way to "encode" this than to hold a camcorder up to the TV? ;)
2) Why couldn't it have been good porn?
3) Hope the NFL doesn't sue him for showing more than five seconds of the super bowl
I wouldn't want Tom Cruise to come beating down my door (assuming he could reach that high) because I partook in uncovering his--hold on, I think I hear something...
Don't worry it's probably just a process server. Tom Cruise wouldn't have the balls to actually beat somebody up and would probably get his ass kicked if he tried ;)
After a few more puffs, we'll get to hear a lengthy dissertation on how citizens of the planet Zork conspired with Bush to beam people off the aircraft flown into the WTC so they could go about doing their probe thing.
So that's how L. Ron came up with his writings..... ;)
Anyway, did you have a point in all of this, other than to troll?
There is no prospect of a new Persian empire.
I guess sarcasm without <sarcasm> tags is too much for you to detect?
The Persians were responding to Greek aggression in the form of the Ionian revolt
Interesting combination of words.
And they hardly had their "asses handed to them" - most of the Greek city-states were reduced to rubble
And they rebuilt and went on to lay the foundation of western civilization. Then the Persians got conquered by someone in his 20s. What did I miss in my original post?
The Persians lost the war in Salamis.
Well, western nations do usually win wars at sea and/or in the air.....
I find it interesting that the rants here are about not stopping violent video games, while on the Superbowl Ad thread [slashdot.org] Slashdot users bemoan the fact that ads that are sexually suggestive are censored, while the violent commercials are not
I would posit that the difference between the two is that you have a choice over which video games your kids play. You don't have a choice over which commercials play during the Super Bowl and the Super Bowl is typically regarded as something that the whole family can watch.
Does that mean we can crush Jack Thompson in a hydraulic press? Please, pretty please?
Yeah, and they got their asses handed to them by a motley collection of Greek city states and were later conquered by someone in his 20s. You'll forgive me if I'm not quaking in my boots at the prospect of a new Persian empire.
That is not why american manufacturing has died: It's because the large companies retain patents and copyrights that make it illegal for the americans they fire to compete with them with the skills they learnt while employed.
And pray tell, how do you compete with a Chinese laborer working in sweatshop conditions whose employer can throw all the toxic chemicals created by production into the nearest river when your laborer needs to be paid a decent wage and you get to eat the full cost of disposal of those chemicals?
You missed the whole point of his post and while the offtopic mod might have been appropriate I'd still like to smack the mod that handed it out.
The "other side" is supposed to be a "terrorist organisation," not a nice democratic country.
Democratic countries have the right to defend themselves from terrorist organizations. When Hamas starts to follow the laws of war then I'll get teary eyed about Israel not doing the same.
Hamas is almost as bad as Israel. Happy?
Almost huh? Maybe if Hamas was as interested in governing as they are in destroying Israel the people in Gaza would have a better lot in life?
To go out of her way to say that she would obliterate Iran concerns me.
That's what mutually assured destruction is. And it's the only way to respond to a saber-rattling (wannabe) nuclear armed power that threatens you or your allies with destruction.
It sounds like you're the one with an agenda here.
Go fuck yourself.
USAsian is more precise than American.
That doesn't make it an accepted adjective for the American people. Just admit that you are doing it to be a PITA and move on.
utterly ignorant of the extent to which their idealogical forefathers shaped the world
I'm well aware of the extent to which my ancestors have shaped the world. On balance I think we've done more good than harm. Personally I would have preferred if we could have just remained non-interventionists but geopolitics (WW2) and technology (the ICBM) worked against that.
I see you've at least managed to find Wikipedia
Who said anything about Wikipedia?
I'm not sure how British and USSR influence is relevant
It's relevant because that coup that everybody likes to blame on the United States was actually instigated by the British. It's relevant because the leader that everybody blames on the United States was actually installed by the Soviet Union and Great Britain. I don't like seeing people quote half of history while ignoring or being ignorant of the other half.
that the Iranian people have fairly good historical evidence of the dangers of interfering great powers
Maybe if Mosaddeq hadn't been inclined to nationalize assets that the British invested money into the British wouldn't have been interested in interfering with his Government? That's quite the neat trick a lot of countries have played -- use western capital and technological know-how to exploit a resource and once all of the plant and equipment is in place steal it from the people that you convinced to invest in it in the first place.
There's two sides to every story and for all of your moral superiority you are only telling one of them.
And pray tell, exactly what would we have to gain by bombing the embassy of one of our largest trading partners?
Not respecting international law - check.
Killing civilians - check.
Stealing land - check.
Killing UN observers - check.
Bombing UN buildings - check.
Using people as human shields - check.
Well, at least four out of your six complaints are also attributable to the other side of the conflict. Why are you reserving your criticism for Israel?
You can't be speaking of Iran, because Iran hasn't made any threats to "wipe neighbors off the map". Its president, however, has expressed the wish that the "régime occupying Jerusalem vanish from the pages of time." That's the direct translation agreed on by non-partisan sources.
Wiping neighbours off the map? BS propaganda.
Yes, anything that doesn't agree with your world view is "BS propaganda". In fact it was so convincing as "propaganda" that all 15 members of the security council felt the need to condemn his remarks. Wow, that Jewish propaganda has really pulled the wool over everyone's eyes but yours, hasn't it?
Yes, this may have been lip service to Israel as Hillary Clinton was running for President at the time, but she is now Secretary of State
Why don't you try quoting her in context instead of selectively quoting her to further your own agenda? She didn't come out and randomly say that she'd attack Iran. She was asked what she would do in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. This isn't exactly new US policy either -- our policy has always been that we will respond to a nuclear attack on ourselves or our allies with overwhelming force.
and those are dangerous words that she never backed off of.
As previously noted those "dangerous words" have been US policy for decades. There's nothing new here.
One op-ed by an Israeli historian doesn't reflect what the Israeli government thinks, but their total silence on the matter is somewhat disturbing.
Let me answer your concerns using your own words....
when a CIA backed mission overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a dictator
Actually it originated with the British who invited the CIA to take part in it. If your going to quote history you might as well learn something about it.
And to that lets also add that Osama bin Laden was on CIA payroll
Citation?
But hose freedom fighters which Rambo and James Bond assured me were good people who only wanted to preserve their freedom of religion from the evil communists suddenly became terrorist once it was the U.S. who invaded Afghanistan.
The individual freedom fighters that we supplied during the Soviet invasion didn't have much to do with the later movement (the Taliban) that came to govern Afghanistan. In any case you are leaving out the reason why we invaded Afghanistan, namely the fact that the existing regime in that country opted to give refuge to a terrorist network that declared war on our country and murdered thousands of American citizens.
You can see where I would start to suspect that the people bandying about words like "terrorist" and "freedom" are just using emotionally charged ideals to get people on their side, not accurately describing the world.
Sure, if you are looking at it in a vacuum. The freedom fighters who fought the Soviets weren't flying airplanes into our buildings, were they?
Do you know why there was such animosity by the revolutionary Iranians towards all things USAsian?
First off, we're called Americans. The "USA'ian" thing was cute when people first started doing it but now it's just annoying. And yes, we are that arrogant to claim the whole name of a continent for ourselves.
Do you know who Mossadeq was and what happened to him? What about the Shah of Iran, do you know what he did to his people? Do you know how the USA was involved?
No, I'm just an ignorant American. Why would I know anything about any of those things? Did you know that it was the British and Russians (err, Soviets) who put Reza Pahlavi on the throne to begin with? Ironic how the Iranians cozy up to the nation that once invaded them. Perhaps it has to do more with the geopolitical balance of power and less to do with any lingering sentiment over outside interference in their own affairs?