I am not an American, but you will note that he only lead the US for eight years, that his party suffered mightily for his hawkish foreign policy, and ultimately left office peacefully and in accordance with constitutional requirements.
The Supreme Leader of Iran has only one effective check; the Guardian Council, and any potential enemies there have been effectively neutralized. The Supreme Leader essentially controls every aspect of iran's political and military infrastructure and succession is through a council of ayatollahs, specifically designed to be insulated and superior to any other institution in Iran.
As bad as Bush is, to compare him to Khameini is bizarre. To compare the political system which Bush was part of to iran's system is even worse .
And what is it exactly the Surface can do? Who the fuck cares if it can run x86 apps. Most of the current ones are built to work with the old GUi. As to RT, it's about four years behind on the ecosystem front.
I don't care whether surface lives or dies. Why the fuck do you? Is there something wrong with you. I don't believe you're a shill, Redmond wouldn't want dimwitted fucktards bragging up their stuff. What, you own lots of MS stock? You're girlfriend left you for some hipster doofus with an iPad? Or did you catch your dad jerking off to pron on a Nexus 7?
Mitaybe Surface will be an enormous success. I have no idea, and neither do you. I do know they're overpriced and compared to most notebooks of the same price underpowered. Gambling that tablets are going to replace standard computing may pay off, but MS is the new guy in town and its record on new tech over the last decade has been tragically woeful.
The safer bet right now is that Surface will fail.
Specific claims like the Noahaic flood can and have been proven false, unless you want to advocate omphalism, in which case you pretty deny the veracity of all knowledge.
It's pointless to imagine what Mossadegh's government would have accomplished if it had lived out its natural span. It could very well be that it would have suffered the same fate as the Shah's, or maybe Iran would be a flourishing nation today. I suppose that's the sad part of the death of anything before its time; it gets judged more by the hopes of the day and regrets of later years than by what it had actually accomplished.
And let us always remember the duplicity of the Ayatollahs in all of this. They worked against Mossadegh's government in 1952-1953 and then hypocritically made the coup part of the anti-American anti-Shah rallying cry in 1979.
And that's what is going to happen. And maybe after a few months of web stats crashing, they'll figure out it's not terribly wise to bite the hand that feeds you.
I don't recall the Shah's vision being everyone abandoning the cities. His goals were laudable. His methods were evil. He is the perfect example of how a leader's path can be paved with good intentions and still end up leading straight to Hell.
And what exactly did Khomeini and his heirs accomplish? A broken Iran that frittered away its oil wealth on religious and ideological navel-gazing, that allowed its infrastructure to crumble as much of its learned and professional class fled the country so they're children wouldn't have to live under the dictates of men who believed they received authority and advice directly from God. A nation that even now, as it spends vast amounts trying to indemnify itself against invasion, and likely mass insurrection, by pouring its riches into nuclear and military programs even as industry still falters. A regime whose secret police are only different from Savak in the names they call their masters by.
I never said any such thing. Restoring the Shah was a horrific error that stunted Iran's attempt to become a democratic state. I'm not defending the US's activities; it's mindless support of the Shah, what I'm saying is that the Shah was a tyrant who believed the end justified the means. It's just that the end; a modern secykar Iranian state with a substantial, well-educated and productive middle class was a good goal, but that Khomeini's goal was far worse.
To my mind the Shah and Khomeini were pretty much equally vile repugnant men. But the Shah's vision, no matter how toxic it was rendered by his methods, itself was a good one. Khomeini's vison of a theocratic state backed by a core Revolutionary Guard, the Basij militia groups and a secret police force no different than the Shah's Savek in its methods, is a repugnant one. So if we have two equally evil men, one who aspires, no matter how vainly for a better nation, and one who aspires for a nation dominated by unquestionable religious and political dictates, I'll go with the Shah.
But the coup that reinstalled the Shah as the political head of state was a catastrophe, and one that undermined the Shah's own vision for his nation. So no, I do not approve of the coup.
The Iranians supported Khomeini because they thought he would just fade into the background, which is basically what he promised. When he arrived in Iran, he used his influence to squash any notion of a democratic and modern state and used the same kinds of goons the Shah had used to continue, and in fact deepen the oppression.
One can say a helluva lot of bad things against the Shah, but at least the man had a progressive vision. Khomeini, on the other hand, was a power hungry religious fanatic determined to turn back the clock. I doubt there are many Iranians of the Revolution generation who probably feel inviting Khomeini back to Iran was a very good idea.
My wife has an FB account and all they do is post bizarre stuff on her wall and make her feel uncomfortable. I cannot imagine why anyone would want anything to do with FB.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not an American, but you will note that he only lead the US for eight years, that his party suffered mightily for his hawkish foreign policy, and ultimately left office peacefully and in accordance with constitutional requirements.
The Supreme Leader of Iran has only one effective check; the Guardian Council, and any potential enemies there have been effectively neutralized. The Supreme Leader essentially controls every aspect of iran's political and military infrastructure and succession is through a council of ayatollahs, specifically designed to be insulated and superior to any other institution in Iran.
As bad as Bush is, to compare him to Khameini is bizarre. To compare the political system which Bush was part of to iran's system is even worse .
Much like a televangelist or politician then.
It's effect on marine life is probably the least of the Genesis flood's many problems.
They can't even buy a kidney with a Surface tablet.
The global flood was falsified in the 18th century. Such an event never occurred and is physically impossible.
And I suppose you're referring to Russ ballard's debunked catastrophic Black Sea flooding nonsense.
And what is it exactly the Surface can do? Who the fuck cares if it can run x86 apps. Most of the current ones are built to work with the old GUi. As to RT, it's about four years behind on the ecosystem front.
I don't care whether surface lives or dies. Why the fuck do you? Is there something wrong with you. I don't believe you're a shill, Redmond wouldn't want dimwitted fucktards bragging up their stuff. What, you own lots of MS stock? You're girlfriend left you for some hipster doofus with an iPad? Or did you catch your dad jerking off to pron on a Nexus 7?
In short, it has no market and Microsofy is basically admitting that pretty much everyone has beat them to the punch.
Mitaybe Surface will be an enormous success. I have no idea, and neither do you. I do know they're overpriced and compared to most notebooks of the same price underpowered. Gambling that tablets are going to replace standard computing may pay off, but MS is the new guy in town and its record on new tech over the last decade has been tragically woeful.
The safer bet right now is that Surface will fail.
Specific claims like the Noahaic flood can and have been proven false, unless you want to advocate omphalism, in which case you pretty deny the veracity of all knowledge.
This is rather like slitting your wrists and saying "I was going to die anyways, now it's just going to happen faster."
The Xbox is wildly popular because MS bought its market position. It will probably be years more before it starts making Redmond money.
iPads and many Android tablets can connect to Bluetooth keyboards. Explain to me how Surface is a "new way".
Where exactly is the innovation here?
Thus making them considerably more useful for running legacy apps.
It's not merely cold and remote, it's pretty much classic sociopathy.
Fuck man, you should see what it does to his sandwiches. I heard it out his wife into early menopause... and he doesn't even have a wife!
It's pointless to imagine what Mossadegh's government would have accomplished if it had lived out its natural span. It could very well be that it would have suffered the same fate as the Shah's, or maybe Iran would be a flourishing nation today. I suppose that's the sad part of the death of anything before its time; it gets judged more by the hopes of the day and regrets of later years than by what it had actually accomplished.
And let us always remember the duplicity of the Ayatollahs in all of this. They worked against Mossadegh's government in 1952-1953 and then hypocritically made the coup part of the anti-American anti-Shah rallying cry in 1979.
I store all my most important files in /tmp, you insensitive clod!
And that's what is going to happen. And maybe after a few months of web stats crashing, they'll figure out it's not terribly wise to bite the hand that feeds you.
I don't recall the Shah's vision being everyone abandoning the cities. His goals were laudable. His methods were evil. He is the perfect example of how a leader's path can be paved with good intentions and still end up leading straight to Hell.
And what exactly did Khomeini and his heirs accomplish? A broken Iran that frittered away its oil wealth on religious and ideological navel-gazing, that allowed its infrastructure to crumble as much of its learned and professional class fled the country so they're children wouldn't have to live under the dictates of men who believed they received authority and advice directly from God. A nation that even now, as it spends vast amounts trying to indemnify itself against invasion, and likely mass insurrection, by pouring its riches into nuclear and military programs even as industry still falters. A regime whose secret police are only different from Savak in the names they call their masters by.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm comparing the Shah to Khomeini. I'm not comparing the Shah to Mosaddegh..
I never said any such thing. Restoring the Shah was a horrific error that stunted Iran's attempt to become a democratic state. I'm not defending the US's activities; it's mindless support of the Shah, what I'm saying is that the Shah was a tyrant who believed the end justified the means. It's just that the end; a modern secykar Iranian state with a substantial, well-educated and productive middle class was a good goal, but that Khomeini's goal was far worse.
To my mind the Shah and Khomeini were pretty much equally vile repugnant men. But the Shah's vision, no matter how toxic it was rendered by his methods, itself was a good one. Khomeini's vison of a theocratic state backed by a core Revolutionary Guard, the Basij militia groups and a secret police force no different than the Shah's Savek in its methods, is a repugnant one. So if we have two equally evil men, one who aspires, no matter how vainly for a better nation, and one who aspires for a nation dominated by unquestionable religious and political dictates, I'll go with the Shah.
But the coup that reinstalled the Shah as the political head of state was a catastrophe, and one that undermined the Shah's own vision for his nation. So no, I do not approve of the coup.
The Iranians supported Khomeini because they thought he would just fade into the background, which is basically what he promised. When he arrived in Iran, he used his influence to squash any notion of a democratic and modern state and used the same kinds of goons the Shah had used to continue, and in fact deepen the oppression.
One can say a helluva lot of bad things against the Shah, but at least the man had a progressive vision. Khomeini, on the other hand, was a power hungry religious fanatic determined to turn back the clock. I doubt there are many Iranians of the Revolution generation who probably feel inviting Khomeini back to Iran was a very good idea.
And you know this how? No researcher I know is claiming it has been removed.
Sitting mixed with dispersants at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico is no "removed".
My wife has an FB account and all they do is post bizarre stuff on her wall and make her feel uncomfortable. I cannot imagine why anyone would want anything to do with FB.