Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

What a f......g joke. You mentioned Islam and democracy in the same breath. I believe you know f all about Islam.

Iran was a secular democracy in the 1950's.

That is not ancient history.

The US and British decided they didn't like how the Iranians were dealing with their oil and installed a dictator.

This eventually led to religious fanatics taking over. Democracy eventually became theocracy because of US and British meddling.

To not know it usually means you're an American.

Wrong on all counts. The dictator was installed to try ending tribal feudalism. That goes for most Islamic majority nations. Also, all these seas of crude oil that the Middle East floats on was developed by the West as the Arabs had no idea of what to do with it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What a f......g joke. You mentioned Islam and democracy in the same breath. I believe you know f all about Islam.

Iran was a secular democracy in the 1950's.

That is not ancient history.

The US and British decided they didn't like how the Iranians were dealing with their oil and installed a dictator.

This eventually led to religious fanatics taking over. Democracy eventually became theocracy because of US and British meddling.

To not know it usually means you're an American.

Wrong on all counts. The dictator was installed to try ending tribal feudalism. That goes for most Islamic majority nations. Also, all these seas of crude oil that the Middle East floats on was developed by the West as the Arabs had no idea of what to do with it.

You're confusing the Ottoman empire with Islam. Up until the CIA backed Shah's coup de etat Iran's economic development mirrored central Europe and Scandinavia. And was on the same level of development. Both economically and civically. It transitioned to democracy in the same way Sweden did. A little at a time. In an orderly fashion. At the same time in history.

The Sunni Islamic Middle-East is the way it is, to a large extent because it was under Ottoman rule. And the last 200 years of Ottoman rule was incredibly dysfunctional. While Iran, mostly had their house in order. So you can't compare Iran with any other Middle-Eastern country. They had very different starting points. Also... Iran was never colonised by anybody. It's always been independent. A large problem in ex-colonial countries is that anything western is associated with evil. Iran doesn't have that problem.

But Mossadegh was a socialist. Which was so trendy at the time he was in power. So his rule would probably have been an economic disaster for Iran. But I think that the Iranians would have figured it out and booted him... democratically. They really didn't need the help of CIA, MI6 or the Shah, to fix their economy. Sweden didn't. Sweden also went the socialist route at that time.

 

[untermensche]

What a f......g joke. You mentioned Islam and democracy in the same breath. I believe you know f all about Islam.

Iran was a secular democracy in the 1950's.

That is not ancient history.

The US and British decided they didn't like how the Iranians were dealing with their oil and installed a dictator.

This eventually led to religious fanatics taking over. Democracy eventually became theocracy because of US and British meddling.

To not know it usually means you're an American.

Wrong on all counts. The dictator was installed to try ending tribal feudalism. That goes for most Islamic majority nations. Also, all these seas of crude oil that the Middle East floats on was developed by the West as the Arabs had no idea of what to do with it.

You are in outer space.

Total delusion.

Who told you this absolute nonsense? Give me one legitimate reference.

 

[Derec]

You're confusing the Ottoman empire with Islam. Up until the CIA backed Shah's coup de etat Iran's economic development mirrored central Europe and Scandinavia. And was on the same level of development. Both economically and civically. It transitioned to democracy in the same way Sweden did. A little at a time. In an orderly fashion. At the same time in history.

Sweden had PMs rule by decree in the 50s?

The Sunni Islamic Middle-East is the way it is, to a large extent because it was under Ottoman rule. And the last 200 years of Ottoman rule was incredibly dysfunctional.

What about Afghanistan? Big Islamic basketcase, never under the Ottomans. Also, Afghanistan's biggest export, even more than opium, is mass migrants.

While Iran, mostly had their house in order. So you can't compare Iran with any other Middle-Eastern country. They had very different starting points. Also... Iran was never colonised by anybody. It's always been independent. A large problem in ex-colonial countries is that anything western is associated with evil. Iran doesn't have that problem.

And yet they are a major Islamic theocracy right now and have been for the last 40 years.

But Mossadegh was a socialist. Which was so trendy at the time he was in power. So his rule would probably have been an economic disaster for Iran. But I think that the Iranians would have figured it out and booted him... democratically. They really didn't need the help of CIA, MI6 or the Shah, to fix their economy. Sweden didn't. Sweden also went the socialist route at that time.

The "democratic Massadegh" is a myth that will not die. Right before he was deposed, he instituted a rule by decree and suspended elections when it looked like he was going to lose. The situation is not dissimilar to what happened in Chile with Allende.
And there is a little matter of stealing from British and US companies. You can't invite foreign investors in and then change your mind and say "we takes your money, we fucks you up".

 

[Derec]

To get back to the topic of mass migration into Europe, it is continuing on all fronts.
Three female migrants found murdered near Greece-Turkey border
Crossing the river Evros seems to be popular. More than 20k migrants crossed it this year alone. And since these women and girls were most likely murdered by their fellow migrants, some of them are murderers. But sure, let them all in, because it's "humanitarian", right?

 

[untermensche]

Some think the root causes of all this migration are not relevant.

The US terrorist attack of Iraq is the root cause of all this migration we see today.

That is the reason we are seeing it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Luckily we don't let those muslim throat cutters into the US.

Show

Christian Zealot Beheads Girlfriend Because She Refused To Repent

 

[untermensche]

It is immoral for the US to create all these refugees and not take them in.

But of course it was a massive crime against humanity to attack Iraq in the first place.

To expect the US to behave morally is like expecting Trump to have shame for his stupidity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sweden had PMs rule by decree in the 50s?

He was granted those powers by a democratic process. Because of the Brittish blockade. Sweden had a rule by decree during WW2. The Swedish prime minister didn't abuse it, and neither did Mossadegh. We'll never know if that was his ultimate goal, since he was deposed.

What about Afghanistan? Big Islamic basketcase, never under the Ottomans. Also, Afghanistan's biggest export, even more than opium, is mass migrants.

Afghanistan's Taleban breed of Islam comes from India. The Sepoys rebellion in 1857 was led by Muslims. The British colonial government was extremely brutal. Any of the rebels and their families expected to be executed. So they fled to Afghanistan. This event was the birth of modern militant Islam. It all flows from this one rebellion. From India it spreads to Egypt, and from Egypt the ideas spread.

While Iran, mostly had their house in order. So you can't compare Iran with any other Middle-Eastern country. They had very different starting points. Also... Iran was never colonised by anybody. It's always been independent. A large problem in ex-colonial countries is that anything western is associated with evil. Iran doesn't have that problem.

And yet they are a major Islamic theocracy right now and have been for the last 40 years.

I think we can safely blame the CIA for that. We tend to think in dichotomies. The Shah was widely seen as a tool of the West. Which he was. Because of the Shah the opposite of the Shah became the symbol of freedom. Islam was seen as the opposite of dictatorship (ie western decadence). That's not how it turned out. But that was the goal of the Iranian revolution.

But Mossadegh was a socialist. Which was so trendy at the time he was in power. So his rule would probably have been an economic disaster for Iran. But I think that the Iranians would have figured it out and booted him... democratically. They really didn't need the help of CIA, MI6 or the Shah, to fix their economy. Sweden didn't. Sweden also went the socialist route at that time.

The "democratic Massadegh" is a myth that will not die. Right before he was deposed, he instituted a rule by decree and suspended elections when it looked like he was going to lose. The situation is not dissimilar to what happened in Chile with Allende.
And there is a little matter of stealing from British and US companies. You can't invite foreign investors in and then change your mind and say "we takes your money, we fucks you up".

I'm not saying Mossadegh was an angel. But he was democratically elected. And I'm not so sure he would have clung to power.

And he didn't see it as stealing. Iran had entered into a bad deal. He did what Trump is doing now.

 

[Derec]

It is immoral for the US to create all these refugees and not take them in.

Refugees from Syria were created by Iran and Russia. How many have they taken in? US has done precious little except setting red lines and backing down from them.
Afghans, Pakistanis, Nafris etc. are mostly economic migrants, not refugees.
Afghans for example started flooding into Europe in 2015, after Merkel threw open the migration floodgates, not in 2002, when US attacked Taliban for harboring 9/11 terrorists, nor in the 90s, during the Afghan civil war.

But of course it was a massive crime against humanity to attack Iraq in the first place.

Why are you so obsessed with that particular war?

 

[untermensche]

No refugees were created by Russia or Iran.

There was no refugee problem before the US launched a massive terrorist attack of Iraq. That is the start of the refugee problem.

The war the US brought to the region spilled over into Syria.

The US is the ultimate cause of all these refugees.

 

[Derec]

He was granted those powers by a democratic process. Because of the Brittish blockade. Sweden had a rule by decree during WW2. The Swedish prime minister didn't abuse it, and neither did Mossadegh. We'll never know if that was his ultimate goal, since he was deposed.

WWII is a unique situation, because you know, it was WWII. Hardly comparable.
And don't you think stealing foreign company assets qualifies as abuse of power?

Afghanistan's Taleban breed of Islam comes from India. The Sepoys rebellion in 1857 was led by Muslims. The British colonial government was extremely brutal. Any of the rebels and their families expected to be executed. So they fled to Afghanistan. This event was the birth of modern militant Islam. It all flows from this one rebellion. From India it spreads to Egypt, and from Egypt the ideas spread.

I did not know that, and I'll take your word for it. But more important than history is the present. Presently, Afghanistan is an Islamist shithole. And by taking in large numbers of unvetted Afghans Europe is importing that dysfunction. I do not think it's a coincidence that so many stabbing attacks all over Europe in recent years have been committed by Afghans. Nor do I think that Afghans being overrepresented in sexual assaults is a coincidence either. Now, I am not saying all Afghans are bad, but the West needs to be more selective as to who we let immigrate and it should be easier to deport people who are violent and/or extremist, hopefully before they graduate to murder.

I think we can safely blame the CIA for that. We tend to think in dichotomies. The Shah was widely seen as a tool of the West. Which he was. Because of the Shah the opposite of the Shah became the symbol of freedom. Islam was seen as the opposite of dictatorship (ie western decadence). That's not how it turned out. But that was the goal of the Iranian revolution.

I think the lesson should be that it is dangerous to ally yourself with Islam. It should be a fair warning to European and American Left.

I'm not saying Mossadegh was an angel. But he was democratically elected.

And I hate to bring up Hitler, but so was even he, initially. Yes, NSDAP did not win outright majority, but that's how elections in Germany work. Very few chancellors had their party win absolute majority even after WWII - the German system is set up to favor coalition governments.
Less Goodwiny, so was Chavez. Or Hamas.
Getting democratically elected is no guarantee of being a democrat.

And I'm not so sure he would have clung to power.

Well, as we saw, he did not.

And he didn't see it as stealing. Iran had entered into a bad deal. He did what Trump is doing now.

I do not think the leftists like Unter who love to glorify Mossadegh are going to appreciate the comparison.
That said, not even Trump is proposing that US should confiscate, for example, the Saudi-owned Port Arthur Refinery and give it to a US company (or just let the state run it).

 

[Derec]

No refugees were created by Russia or Iran.

They are participating in the very bloody Syria civil war, that resulted in a large number of refugees. Where have you been the last 7 years? You are still mentally stuck in the naughts.

There was no refugee problem before the US launched a massive terrorist attack of Iraq. That is the start of the refugee problem.

There were relatively few Iraqi refugees, compared with Syria. The war to depose Saddam went quick. And the migrants from Iraq coming now are largely economic migrants trying to capitalize on the Syrian refugee crisis. Just like Afghans, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nafris etc.

The war the US brought to the region spilled over into Syria.

Nothing spilled over. The cause of the Syrian war was Assad's bloody repression of the Arab Spring protests. Those originated in North Africa (Tunisia, Egypt), not Iraq. ISIS was the thing that spilled over, but that was years later, after US largely left Iraq in 2011 and after the Syrian civil war was in full swing.

The US is the ultimate cause of all these refugees.

If you are seeking the ultimate cause and want to go as far back as 2003, why stop there? Why not go back further?

 

[untermensche]

Do you know how many refugees the US created with it's terrorist attack of Iraq?

And yes wars spill across borders.

Especially when you hand ISIS trained military, weapons and cash.

 

[DrZoidberg]

WWII is a unique situation, because you know, it was WWII. Hardly comparable.
And don't you think stealing foreign company assets qualifies as abuse of power?

Well, read up on the Reuter concession if you're truly interested. In 1872 the Shah Naser al-Din handed over, basically anything of value, over to Baron Julius de Reuter for a pittance. It was a bad deal. He wasn't an awful shah. But he had a long reign and did a lot of dumb shit. The Reuter concession is famous for being such a predatory contract. Because of the Reuter concession Iran got almost nothing for the later oil deals. Because the agreement was entered by an autocratic ruler, (ie not a valid representative of the Iranian people) and Iran was then democratic, Mossadegh saw no reason Iran had to honour it. If a proper lawyer and business people would have been involved to negotiate the Iranian side, the Reuter concession would not have been signed.

So I don't think it was stealing. If ARAMCO and AIOC would have been willing to renegotiate, that would have been something else. But they didn't. They stuck to their guns and had their toys taken away.

Socialists don't see private property as sacred. That's a fundamental difference between conservatives and socialists. So conservatives use loaded words like stealing, and socialists don't understand why that word is used.

It's not stealing.

I did not know that, and I'll take your word for it. But more important than history is the present. Presently, Afghanistan is an Islamist shithole. And by taking in large numbers of unvetted Afghans Europe is importing that dysfunction. I do not think it's a coincidence that so many stabbing attacks all over Europe in recent years have been committed by Afghans. Nor do I think that Afghans being overrepresented in sexual assaults is a coincidence either. Now, I am not saying all Afghans are bad, but the West needs to be more selective as to who we let immigrate and it should be easier to deport people who are violent and/or extremist, hopefully before they graduate to murder.

Sure, but the Taleban getting power in Afghanistan is the result of the Soviet invasion. Again.. people think in dichotomies. If one side are atheists, the other side will be super religious.

Meh... Afghanis are slightly higher in sexual assault crime. It's not enough to be worried about. Anybody occupying the lower rung of societies social ladder will be slightly higher when it comes to all violent crime. That's how social class works. If it hadn't been Afghanis, it'll be some other group. I haven't seen any numbers making me worry. And however you look at it, it's rare. Nearly all of them are fine.

There's also the question of hope. If people don't have hope they turn increasingly to religion. Afghanistan has been so troubled with war the last century, that it's no mystery that Afghanis are religious to the degree they are. When people have hope, they stop with this shit. That's why a strong welfare system, socialised medicine, and state sponsored higher education kills religion.

I think we can safely blame the CIA for that. We tend to think in dichotomies. The Shah was widely seen as a tool of the West. Which he was. Because of the Shah the opposite of the Shah became the symbol of freedom. Islam was seen as the opposite of dictatorship (ie western decadence). That's not how it turned out. But that was the goal of the Iranian revolution.

I think the lesson should be that it is dangerous to ally yourself with Islam. It should be a fair warning to European and American Left.

Isn't the lesson that it's dangerous to ally yourself with dictators? That's the lesson I think we should learn. In the cold war USA confused capitalism with freedom. So the west came to symbolise greed and oppression in many parts of the world. I think that was a mistake.

I'm not saying Mossadegh was an angel. But he was democratically elected.

And I hate to bring up Hitler, but so was even he, initially. Yes, NSDAP did not win outright majority, but that's how elections in Germany work. Very few chancellors had their party win absolute majority even after WWII - the German system is set up to favor coalition governments.
Less Goodwiny, so was Chavez. Or Hamas.
Getting democratically elected is no guarantee of being a democrat.

Granted. But if we remove him by force we lose the ability to say how it would have turned out. India had a couple of primeministers who were similar to Mossadegh. Was a disaster for the country. But it turned out well in the end. It's been similar in Brazil. My only point is that Mossadegh was removed too soon, and for the wrong reasons.

And he didn't see it as stealing. Iran had entered into a bad deal. He did what Trump is doing now.

I do not think the leftists like Unter who love to glorify Mossadegh are going to appreciate the comparison.
That said, not even Trump is proposing that US should confiscate, for example, the Saudi-owned Port Arthur Refinery and give it to a US company (or just let the state run it).

Hmm... Trump's trade war with China has already cost the world (and USA) a hell of a lot more than just a seized refinery. You can't just count assets. You need to look at the overall loss in revenue for all sectors affected. Trump is doing things way worse than confiscating refineries.

 

[angelo]

Some think the root causes of all this migration are not relevant.

The US terrorist attack of Iraq is the root cause of all this migration we see today.

That is the reason we are seeing it.

If that is the case, then what triggered the mass migration of Afghans, Turks, and other Middle Eastern countries that were untouched by the invasion of Iraq?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[angelo]

Some think the root causes of all this migration are not relevant.

The US terrorist attack of Iraq is the root cause of all this migration we see today.

That is the reason we are seeing it.

If that is the case, then what triggered the mass migration of Afghans, Turks, and other Middle Eastern countries that were untouched by the invasion of Iraq?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

"Hmm... Trump's trade war with China has already cost the world (and USA) a hell of a lot more than just a seized refinery. You can't just count assets. You need to look at the overall loss in revenue for all sectors affected. Trump is doing things way worse than confiscating refineries."

Blaming Trump for the downturn of the yen and Chinese economy is a bit rich. The Chinese government has recently pumped 100 billion USD into it's economy. The trade war has nothing to do with it, but it certainly won't help. The Chinese economy has been overheating because of over production for at least 2 years now.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[untermensche]

Some think the root causes of all this migration are not relevant.

The US terrorist attack of Iraq is the root cause of all this migration we see today.

That is the reason we are seeing it.

If that is the case, then what triggered the mass migration of Afghans, Turks, and other Middle Eastern countries that were untouched by the invasion of Iraq?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Give me a break.

The US invaded Afghanistan too and is still there 17 years later.

The Turks have been persecuting the Kurds for a long time.

Nothing in the region was untouched by the massive US terrorist attack.

Especially since the attack directly led to a strengthened ISIS.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Chanting lie, lie, lie doesn't make it so.

I'm not even going to say your position is a lie because that implies you know it's false and you're so blinded by your faith that you don't even realize you're wrong.

If Saddam was complying without our army being over there why did we send it over there repeatedly to get him to comply?

We didn't.

The UN sent Armies after Hussein invaded Kuwait.

The US launched an unprovoked terrorist attack in 2003.

It had nothing to with any evidence of WMD.

It was something Rumsfeld and Cheney desperately tried to get Clinton to do. They finally got their weak sucker in GW. The idiot who wanted to be a "war president".

Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq from day one, for over a decade before 911.

To say the attack of Iraq had anything to do with 911 or terrorism or WMD is a lie. It's only connection to terrorism was it was a massive act of terrorism.

They told lie after lie to drive the nation to an unneeded terrorist attack, some call it a war, and decade long terrorist occupation.

You're so blinded by your faith that you utterly missed what I said: We had to send our army over there repeatedly to get compliance.

And I'm not going to fault Bush for the intelligence failure--Saddam believed he had WMD. Our invasion is akin to a cop shooting someone who points a realistic fake weapon at him.

(Now, whether invasion was the right answer is a separate issue. I would have preferred military action below the level of invasion. Say, one night send out those F-117s and remove those 26 "palaces" that he wouldn't allow to be inspected.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The image of India as a poor nation is no longer true. It's an image from the 1960'ies. India is a high tech nation now. There's large parts of India now indistinguishable from any modern industrialised nation. Only about 15% of Indians now count as extremely poor. That's a meteoric rise in wealth. And they're not slowing down.

Indistinguishable??

One of my yardsticks for whether a nation is modern is the water. Can I drink the tap water? If not, it's not yet a modern nation even if it has some trappings of a modern nation.