6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky

Do people ever stop to wonder just why those hostages were taken in 1979?



For the same reason hostages are always taken. To give the hostage takers leverage. The day they took those hostages, the Redskins lost to the Steelers 35 - 7. Tough day in Washington. Now back to BeemnSeven to tell us all about Mr. Mossadeq and that awful C.I.A.

What the **** happened to my flag...

For the same reason hostages are always taken. To give the hostage takers leverage. The day they took those hostages, the Redskins lost to the Steelers 35 - 7. Tough day in Washington. Now back to BeemnSeven to tell us all about Mr. Mossadeq and that awful C.I.A.

What the **** happened to my flag...

Talking about flags. My parents live on the water and the home across the river is on a long point of land that sticks out into the river. The guy put up this 50' pole (not sure how long it is) and has this hugh American flag flying which is lit up at night. Its one of those things you have to see but on a night with a slight wind its just amazing looking.

...But the bolded statement above is one of the main examples of why many people need to brush up on their history of World War I. It really is the forgotten war, and much of what we see in the world today is a direct result of it.

Slingin Sammy 33 -- Nazism didn't begin to take hold until the 1920's. The Russian Revolution of 1917, which enabled the communists to take control was a response to WWI. Lenin was able to take over because he knew the Russians wanted to get out of it. The Russians, Germans, French, British and Austro-Hungarians had fought to a stalemate, with all sides seeing thousands of deserters who had had enough.

Only with Woodrow Wilson's dreadful decision to get the U.S. involved did the war continue on -- that lead to the annihilation of the German people thanks to the Treaty of Versailles, which gave rise to the Fuhrer. As Winston Churchill said years later:

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t to-day be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."

So, as Americans we sometimes need to understand that we are a government of men. That men make mistakes. That there are unintended consequences. And yes, sometimes, it's better to step away, and let things take their natural course. We can't always be the hero.

On a side note, how is it that while we're so busy waving the flag, we can't stop for a minute and put ourselves into the shoes of other people across the world? I use this example all the time, and no one, especially the flag-wavers, ever has an answer for it -- if we're so great, so high and mighty, what were we doing in 1953 when we overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah? Did we not think that this action might have unintended consequences? Do people ever stop to wonder just why those hostages were taken in 1979?

People, please for the love of God - put down the flag, read a history book and think for YOURSELVES.
Please for the love of God - if you don't want to wave the flag, just don't. No one needs a lecture about the U.S. being perfect, no one ever said we were. No one needs to be accused of not being able to think for themselves either.

Don't warp historical fact to support your weak argument/viewpoint of the U.S. The U.S. didn't force Germany to break the Sussex pledge while the German Chancellor warned this would bring the U.S. into the war. As far as Churchill damning the U.S. on involvement in the war...it was British Intel who forwarded the Zimmerman info to the U.S. for the specific reason of bring us to their aid. This was a declared war, approved by Congress, so there were a lot more folks than just Wilson who thought the war was a good idea.

Also, don't accuse others of being ignorant of history. I clearly understand Nazism didn't take hold until after WWI. I was refering to a historical timeline in which we saved Europe from German takeover in WWI, again in WWII (while also defeating Japan), and defeating the Soviet Union (spread of Communism) in the Cold War. By winning these wars we saved tens of millions of lives that would've been lost had we stayed out of these conflicts. How many people were murdered by the Nazis before they were defeated? Ask the Koreans, Chinese and Philippine people how things would've been under Japanese rule. How many people were murdered by Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, and other countries that were taken over by Communist regimes?

To your Iran point, maybe if Carter had supported the Shah when he needed it, we wouldn't have had the hostage crisis either. Maybe radical Islam wouldn't have taken hold and we wouldn't have a potentially nuclear Iran headed by an anti-semitic, anti-U.S. regime. Your arguments supporting your isolationist views are not very good.

No one ever said the U.S. was perfect, however when you net everything out at the end of the day...again CRedskins is right.

No one ever said the U.S. was perfect, however when you net everything out at the end of the day...again CRedskins is right.

A first in his lifetime. Ba-da-ping!

Sorry for the hijack. Please continue with intelligent discussion now.

To be frank the problem with you folks is that you're intellectually lazy. You want to claim thing merely because you think it and without doing the scholarly work necessary to take home the trophy. I don't mean to be a prick or an America hater, I just want to be fair and honest. I can't refute your claims as far as being the "greatest [..] in the last 1000 years" because that would require doing a Ph. D thesis, you know, using scholarly methods and doing it big. I'm also surprised that you guys know all you need to know about other countries to do a fair assessment, I sure as shit don't. Does this all make sense?

If that doesn't make sense then I'm going to roll the dice and go with "in the context of 1000 years America makes the top 5 but not #1 in societal contribution and host of other matters."

p.s. The British were responsible for spreading the English common law around the glob and the French gave the world the Napoleonic Code. Perhaps that's not as positive as spreading democracy?

p.p.s. I don't believe America is a special predestined god's best country. Overall America is a great country for most, a good country for some, and a shitty country for others.

To be frank the problem with you folks is that you're intellectually lazy. You want to claim thing merely because you think it and without doing the scholarly work necessary to take home the trophy. I don't mean to a prick or an America hater, I just want to be fair and honest. I can't refute your claims as far as being the "greatest [..] in the last 1000 years" because that would require doing a Ph. D thesis, you know, using scholarly methods and doing it big. I'm also surprised that you guys know all you need to know about other countries to do a fair assessment, I sure as *** don't. Does this all make sense?

If that doesn't make sense then I'm going to roll the dice and go with "in the context of 1000 years America makes the top 5 but not #1 in societal contribution and host of other matters."

p.s. The British were responsible for spreading the English common law around the glob and the French gave the world the Napoleonic Code. Perhaps that's not as positive as spreading democracy?

p.p.s. I don't believe America is a special predestined god's best country. Overall America is a great country for most, a good country for some, and a shitty for others.
1] in terms of knowing every country etc, I think it is reasonable to look at the extent the world has changed and make certain statements such as romania, austria, laos, zimbabwe, ecuador, canada, greenland, or about 150 -200 other of the nations that have come and (in some cases gone) over the last 1000 years have not had a global impact. So we can narrow the last and look at the "big" players.

2] I already had given a nod to Britain, I would not include France, but it certainly could be a good debate, you could possibly through Japan and or China in to it, but I think their negatives both are pretty high. Heck you might throw the Ottoman Empire in there. So if you say top 5, and I say top 3 we are oh so close.

3] We found common ground!! I agree America is a not special predestined god's best country.

4] then again, I think anyone who thinks America is shitty has not explored some of the shittier places in the world. (if you are defining shitty for others as less than 5% then i could agree(without doing a graduate thesis) with that too, but of course even the most idyllic countries have some people living in shitty conditions. Oh and please don't misread what I am saying: If I could choose any country in the world to live I think currently, Japan and maybe Norway (except it is too cold) would be above the United States, but I am very thankful for my life as it is now.

I found this take from POTUs while oversees on American exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptionalism) very interesting and I like his answer:

Q: [C]ould I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of 'American exceptionalism' that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?

A: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.

The problem with criticizing this idea of American-exceptionalism - our putative inflated sense of self-importance - is that it is in no way unique to America. Go to any country and people say the same thing: thank GOD we are from here, and not somewhere else. I've been to Thailand, where people sleep with their kids on the streets and yet still declare honestly, it could be worse, at least we are part of God's chosen race; I've been to Korea where everything is dirty and smelly and the weather sucks and people say, sucks to be you, being from that crazy America country; and don't get me started on the stuck up French, in whose country I've also spent some time. Pretty much anywhere you go, with the exception perhaps, perhaps, being the poorest of the poor, people are going to have an exaggerated sense of self-importance. This is human nature.

So when American liberals decry this tendency as somehow being unique to American conservatives, I have to wonder if they've ever been outside of the country.

I like his answer because the god card wasn't played to support American existentialism. Exceptionalism is a human nature and it's a defensive mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_defenses). I am reminded by something Dr. James Cone said regarding religion which I find profound and relevant to the belief in the exceptionalism of ones nation (you can easily replace religion with exceptionalisim and god with country):

[R]eligion has been that one place where you have an imagination that no one can control. And so, as long as you know that you are a human being and nobody can take that away from you, then God is that reality in your life that enables you to know that.

-James Cone

I found this take from POTUs while oversees on American exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptionalism) very interesting and I like his answer:

no offense Saden, but that is the same basic take as what I and a lot of others were saying, and yet if it comes from Obama, you are good to go with it, but on this board we heard alot of negativity when we made the same statements.