More Liberal Honesty

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Right, so please explain to me again why you think regular citizens are mourning one of the military strongmen keeping it that way and enforcing it with violence?

Do you think the Iranian people enjoy being basically held captive and threatened daily?

I'm just trying to get you to walk it through, man...

They're not being held captive and threatened daily. I think your understanding of Iranian society is something akin to North Korea. Yes, the government has taken an authoritarian turn since the late 2000s, but it is not an oppressive dictatorship. To give you a sense of scale, the Freedom House report rates Iran 17/100 but gives Venezuela 26/100. North Korea gets 1/100. Iran's a horrible place but it's closer to Venezuela than North Korea. If you're familiar with its recent history (namely the revolution), you'll know that many Iranians love their country, distrust or fear the West, and would gladly choose to remain if given the choice to move to the US. (They may, however, eagerly move to other Shia countries such as Iraq or Bahrain because c'mon, where are you going to go? Afghanistan? Iran, at least, is a developed nation.)

But what's your point? I think this exchange started because you didn't believe that hundreds of thousands of people turned out to mourn this dude because they chose to. There's no evidence to suggest that and quite a bit to the contrary.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Yes I am.

Sending your post to me back at you...

“What kind of reply is that? That doesn't explain your reasoning at all and does nothing to inform me of your point of view. Clearly I do pay attention to what's going on, but reasonable people can disagree. I'm curious to know if there's an angle I'm not seeing. If you don't want to reply, then don't, but please try and be adult about it.”

Happy foruming. 😄
 
Last edited:

littlelady

God bless the USA
They're not being held captive and threatened daily. I think your understanding of Iranian society is something akin to North Korea. Yes, the government has taken an authoritarian turn since the late 2000s, but it is not an oppressive dictatorship. To give you a sense of scale, the Freedom House report rates Iran 17/100 but gives Venezuela 26/100. North Korea gets 1/100. Iran's a horrible place but it's closer to Venezuela than North Korea. If you're familiar with its recent history (namely the revolution), you'll know that many Iranians love their country, distrust or fear the West, and would gladly choose to remain if given the choice to move to the US. (They may, however, eagerly move to other Shia countries such as Iraq or Bahrain because c'mon, where are you going to go? Afghanistan? Iran, at least, is a developed nation.)

But what's your point? I think this exchange started because you didn't believe that hundreds of thousands of people turned out to mourn this dude because they chose to. There's no evidence to suggest that and quite a bit to the contrary.

What is your opinion of Iran authorities going door to door, and threatening repercussions if people don’t go out to mourn the death of the terrorist General? Or, did you miss that tid bit? Just wondering. Also, what is the deal about a stampede during the mourning process that people were killed? Trying to find more info on that.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
The amount of people against him are not "pockets of dissent". They're pretty much the mainstream.



A. There weren't "hundreds of thousands" gathered to mourn. There weren't tens of thousands. There were thousands.
B. There's little to no evidence they were gathered to "mourn". It was a VERY carefully scripted ceremony (the words of the BBC, not mine).



Really? I'm shocked that killing a general will have greater repercussions than killing a private, or a LT. Your insight is very well heeded, because I'm not sure anyone would have known that.



The Iranian government has already been "retaliating". This is nothing new. This is something very old. In 1953, they nationalized their oil fields, which started this whole mess, so the CIA and MI6 (inappropriately) led a coup, which was step 2 of the mess. The rest is history, but Iran drew first blood almost 70 years ago (I'm negating the hundreds of years before that of holy war waged by Muslims against, well, everybody). Iran vowing "death to America" is not exactly a new thing. Killing this general did exactly zero to foster hate against America in the Iranian government.

They never ended their nuclear program. There's no way to "restart" something that never ended.

The Iraqi government did not end all US presence in the region. The Iraqi government doesn't have the authority to do that. The most they could do is end the agreement with the US for presence in Iraq, not "the region"; and, they didn't do that. They voted to begin to think about the possibility of a plan that might maybe sorta one day work to end US presence in Iraq. That's a wholly different thing.



A nuclear Iran has been an inevitability since the Obama administration. The completely unenforceable agreement between Mr. Obama (not the United States, just Obama himself, because Obama never took it to the Senate so it never was an enforceable agreement) and Iran actually allowed for the Iranian government to build nuclear bombs, just not today. They winked back and said, "suuuuuure we won't".

So, was a drastic change in policy "worth it"? The question is certainly not that simplistic. We know what this general was doing with the Qud Force - was NOT doing anything to stop them "worth it"? Hundreds of American soldiers' husbands, wives, sons, and daughters may think it was worth retaliating for their loved ones' deaths the way this general's daughter wants retaliation for her daddy's death. The fact is, more people are going to die - but more people were going to die anyway, thanks to this general. Only God knows if the end number is going to be higher now, or would have been higher with him alive and killing us.

"Worth it" implies that there's a potential any war-related death is "worth it". In my opinion, no war-related death is worth it. They probably shouldn't have started it. We probably shouldn't have helped oust Mossadeq. Ayatollah Khomeini probably shouldn't have kidnapped our diplomatic people and held them for well over a year, and we shouldn't have had Jimmah Carter as a feckless CIC who did essentially zero about it. We definitely shouldn't have "accidentally" shot down a passenger plane over the Gulf. They definitely shouldn't be funding and arming Hezbollah. We shouldn't have given them weapons thinking they were going to fight Hezbollah.

All of this because they wanted to nationalize oil fields funded and agreed to with the UK. Was their oil money "worth it"? Probably not. Doing the wrong thing rarely is, and it leads to other people having to do the wrong thing either in retaliation or in self-preservation/self-defense. The only thing "worth it" at this point is for all sides to lay down their arms and leave each other alone.

That ain't happening - on either side.


"A. There weren't "hundreds of thousands" gathered to mourn. There weren't tens of thousands. There were thousands."

https://thehill.com/policy/internat...6884-hundreds-of-thousands-gather-in-iran-for



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/06/iran-tension-soleimani-explainer/2822590001/

https://www.ft.com/content/9d43fb2e-2fb6-11ea-a329-0bcf87a328f2

https://apnews.com/0f0a91eb720021df5e7d1cea1c4b79a3

"B. There's little to no evidence they were gathered to "mourn". It was a VERY carefully scripted ceremony (the words of the BBC, not mine)."

I only found one article on the BBC that had the phrase "carefully scripted ceremony" and it was referring to the actual ceremony that would be conducted as well as the planned series of events in honor of Soleimani. Here's a link and the relevant excerpt.



"Elaborate plans for his funeral have been expanded, a mix of carefully scripted ceremony with outpourings of grief filling the streets. It begins in Baghdad where he died, and where so much of his legacy lives.

From there his remains travel to Iran's holy city of Mashhad, to his hometown Kerman, and then to Tehran where the supreme leader will preside over final prayers - a rare honour, to send another signal. Ayatollah Khamenei has promoted his loyal officer to lieutenant general."

Incase you think there's room for interpretation here, the grammar of the sentence gives it away: "a mix of carefully scripted ceremony with outpourings of grief filling the streets". What was mixed with the outpourings of grief filling the streets? A carefully scripted ceremony. But whatever. This is a stupid topic. How does acknowledging that other people that we disagree with liked this dude weaken any of your arguments?

"Really? I'm shocked that killing a general will have greater repercussions than killing a private, or a LT. Your insight is very well heeded, because I'm not sure anyone would have known that."

My words were: "Killing him will have greater repercussions than other lesser-known figures." I didn't compare him to a private or a lieutenant. He was as popular and influential as the president or Ayatollah. By lesser-known figure, I clearly meant someone...well...lesser-known. The point was made to emphasize the fact that his death would have consequences in a way that taking out another member of the Iranian leadership would not. It would demand a response from Iran and is, arguably an, unneeded escalation of tensions between us. But that's for misinterpreting me and taking a condescending tone. That's always helpful. I'm just trying to have a conversation here, buddy.

I'm not going into the rest. You address things that aren't relevant to this particular discussion and make arguments that I don't feel like getting into right now.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Sending your post to me back at you...

“What kind of reply is that? That doesn't explain your reasoning at all and does nothing to inform me of your point of view. Clearly I do pay attention to what's going on, but reasonable people can disagree. I'm curious to know if there's an angle I'm not seeing. If you don't want to reply, then don't, but please try and be adult about it.”

Happy foruming. 😄

You didn't ask for my reasoning. You made a claim, backed up by the air-tight rational of "you obviously". I also made a claim. I find that it saves time to meet each argument with a commensurate level of sophistication and rhetoric.

But I have to be honest here. Honest with you, but more importantly, honest with myself. In this respect, I have to admit I failed. I did not respond to your argument with equal force. I'm sorry, I apologize. Below is my revised reply to your most brilliant of observations.

Revised reply: Obviously I am a patriot.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
"A. There weren't "hundreds of thousands" gathered to mourn. There weren't tens of thousands. There were thousands."

https://thehill.com/policy/internat...6884-hundreds-of-thousands-gather-in-iran-for



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/06/iran-tension-soleimani-explainer/2822590001/

https://www.ft.com/content/9d43fb2e-2fb6-11ea-a329-0bcf87a328f2

https://apnews.com/0f0a91eb720021df5e7d1cea1c4b79a3

"B. There's little to no evidence they were gathered to "mourn". It was a VERY carefully scripted ceremony (the words of the BBC, not mine)."

I only found one article on the BBC that had the phrase "carefully scripted ceremony" and it was referring to the actual ceremony that would be conducted as well as the planned series of events in honor of Soleimani. Here's a link and the relevant excerpt.



"Elaborate plans for his funeral have been expanded, a mix of carefully scripted ceremony with outpourings of grief filling the streets. It begins in Baghdad where he died, and where so much of his legacy lives.

From there his remains travel to Iran's holy city of Mashhad, to his hometown Kerman, and then to Tehran where the supreme leader will preside over final prayers - a rare honour, to send another signal. Ayatollah Khamenei has promoted his loyal officer to lieutenant general."

Incase you think there's room for interpretation here, the grammar of the sentence gives it away: "a mix of carefully scripted ceremony with outpourings of grief filling the streets". What was mixed with the outpourings of grief filling the streets? A carefully scripted ceremony. But whatever. This is a stupid topic. How does acknowledging that other people that we disagree with liked this dude weaken any of your arguments?

"Really? I'm shocked that killing a general will have greater repercussions than killing a private, or a LT. Your insight is very well heeded, because I'm not sure anyone would have known that."

My words were: "Killing him will have greater repercussions than other lesser-known figures." I didn't compare him to a private or a lieutenant. He was as popular and influential as the president or Ayatollah. By lesser-known figure, I clearly meant someone...well...lesser-known. The point was made to emphasize the fact that his death would have consequences in a way that taking out another member of the Iranian leadership would not. It would demand a response from Iran and is, arguably an, unneeded escalation of tensions between us. But that's for misinterpreting me and taking a condescending tone. That's always helpful. I'm just trying to have a conversation here, buddy.

I'm not going into the rest. You address things that aren't relevant to this particular discussion and make arguments that I don't feel like getting into right now.


That is because you have no points. Didn’t you ask for point of arguments? And, you ignored my recent post. :bawl: Just kidding. Keep on postin’ on. :roflmao:
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
You didn't ask for my reasoning. You made a claim, backed up by the air-tight rational of "you obviously". I also made a claim. I find that it saves time to meet each argument with a commensurate level of sophistication and rhetoric.

But I have to be honest here. Honest with you, but more importantly, honest with myself. In this respect, I have to admit I failed. I did not respond to your argument with equal force. I'm sorry, I apologize. Below is my revised reply to your most brilliant of observations.

Revised reply: Obviously I am a patriot.

Oh. Ok. :roflmao:You lost this debate. I wish you better luck on the next one. 😄
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
That is because you have no points. Didn’t you ask for point of arguments? And, you ignored my recent post. :bawl: Just kidding. Keep on postin’ on. :roflmao:


Yes I do. My points are 1) the Democratic leadership has denounced this man a terrorist and 2) mainstream media is not praising this guy, they're simply pointing out that, as far as they know, he is an extremely popular figure in Iran, which, as I've already pointed out, is relevant to the situation. That's all. Everything else is up for debate. Focus on the issues and not the faux outrage. "Those people hate America, we over here love America." It's all so juvenile. It is harmful to the health of our democracy to have an electorate so entrenched in vitriolic, partisan rhetoric.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Not really sure how you mean this. If you're being genuine, then you "obviously" missed the point of my reply...and my revised reply. :)

I didn’t miss a thing. And, I am, always, genuine; as in honest. That is what gets me in trouble on this forum. Just to let you know this is my one, and only social media outlet, ever, and I am 65. I don’t do FB, Twitter, or any of that. This forum is all I need to let me know what’s up. :) Most of the people who post here are military, or contractors. I choose to go by what they have to say. Are you military? My apologies if you are. And, don’t lie, please. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
I didn’t miss a thing. And, I am, always, genuine; as in honest. That is what gets me in trouble on this forum. Just to let you know this is my one, and only social media outlet, ever, and I am 65. I don’t do FB, Twitter, or any of that. This forum is all I need to let me know what’s up. :) Most of the people who post here are military, or contractors. I choose to go by what they have to say. Are you military? My apologies if you are. And, don’t lie, please. Thanks.

No, I'm not military.

I'm not sure I follow. You told me that I am obviously not a patriot. (I'm curious to know why you think that, btw. That's a bolder statement than I would ever make.) But what I really don't understand is why you would apologize to me if I were in the military. Would my arguments somehow be more valid?
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
No, I'm not military.

I'm not sure I follow. You told me that I am obviously not a patriot. (I'm curious to know why you think that, btw. That's a bolder statement than I would ever make.) But what I really don't understand is why you would apologize to me if I were in the military. Would my arguments somehow be more valid?

You are a good Dem/socialist sheep. If not you would get what is going on. You must be a youngin, because the march to socialism/communism has been going on since before JFK was assassinated. I am not bold. I just read posts. This is why I think you are clueless. I never apologized to,you. I asked if you are military. I am married to a a Marine, and have a military family tree. We shall see how valid your arguments are in the gobbledygook of it all. Be grateful to all military patriots that gave their lives to keep America free, so you could spout your stupid crap. Happy foruming.
 
Last edited:

PsyOps

Pixelated
You don’t know that, all you know is the 2-3 seconds fox chose to spin you up with. That’s why I asked you for the source material, for context. For all you know every one of them did also say he was a monster and terrorist.

So, you deny that Soleimani is a terrorist and isn't responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member


The same article you quoted below was the ones that said "thousands" and not "hundreds of thousands".

I guess when you threaten to kill people if they don't go to the funeral, hundreds of thousands must show up, at least according to some of the news sources.

"B. There's little to no evidence they were gathered to "mourn". It was a VERY carefully scripted ceremony (the words of the BBC, not mine)."

I only found one article on the BBC that had the phrase "carefully scripted ceremony" and it was referring to the actual ceremony that would be conducted as well as the planned series of events in honor of Soleimani. Here's a link and the relevant excerpt.

I'm glad we can agree that it is carefully scripted.
How does acknowledging that other people that we disagree with liked this dude weaken any of your arguments?

The point wasn't to deny anyone liked him. I'm sure he was great to his gardener and gave a little extra to his upstairs maid at the holidays.

The point was that the rank and file Iranian hated him.

By lesser-known figure, I clearly meant someone...well...lesser-known.

Like, metaphorically, a private or LT?

The point was made to emphasize the fact that his death would have consequences in a way that taking out another member of the Iranian leadership would not.

I think that was the point.

It would demand a response from Iran and is, arguably an, unneeded escalation of tensions between us.

And, see, I think that in the most recent of times, we have not been the ones increasing the tension. I think we're trying to put an end to it, finally.

Think of when your kid is acting up and you ignore it. Then ignore the next thing. Then ignore the next thing. The kid is constantly escalating the things being done, because you're ignoring the previous smaller things......then you blow up and take action.

I'm not going into the rest. You address things that aren't relevant to this particular discussion and make arguments that I don't feel like getting into right now.
They're only relevant if you want to go deeper than headlines. If you don't, they aren't relevant. I mean, do you really think the 1953 actions of MI6 and the CIA are not a part of this? Do you really think that the 444 days of American hostages in 1979, 1980, and 1981 are not part of this? Do you really think the Sailors humiliated in 2016 are not part of this? Do you really think 2M Iranians dead from famine starting during WWI when Iran was Persia, due in part to Russia and the UK fighting in Iran over oil, are not part of this? Do you really think that the UK essentially installing Reza Pahlavi as Shah, followed by the UK controlling the bulk of Iranian oil (and therefore oil money) is not a part of this?

If you really think this goes back no further than a few weeks or a few years, you really don't have a grasp on the situation.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
They're not being held captive and threatened daily. I think your understanding of Iranian society is something akin to North Korea. Yes, the government has taken an authoritarian turn since the late 2000s, but it is not an oppressive dictatorship. To give you a sense of scale, the Freedom House report rates Iran 17/100 but gives Venezuela 26/100. North Korea gets 1/100. Iran's a horrible place but it's closer to Venezuela than North Korea. If you're familiar with its recent history (namely the revolution), you'll know that many Iranians love their country, distrust or fear the West, and would gladly choose to remain if given the choice to move to the US. (They may, however, eagerly move to other Shia countries such as Iraq or Bahrain because c'mon, where are you going to go? Afghanistan? Iran, at least, is a developed nation.)

I think you're conflating "country" and "government". As in, they love their country, but they'd really love it if their government were back to something closer to what it was in the 1970's.

Sort of like a good conservative - we love our country, but fear/hate our government that has greatly outgrown it's constitutionally-authorized role in our lives, and we feel there's a growing feeling that it will take something drastic to fix the government. We do that all while loving our country and would not move.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
So, you deny that Soleimani is a terrorist and isn't responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans.
Where did I saw that?
I said that you don’t know if those correspondents called him a terrorist or not because you watched a highly edited and spun up video on fox. If you simply watch the cubs video you posted in its entirety you would know you are sucking on spin and it is leading you to an incorrect conclusion

you really used to be a lot smarter.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Yes, the government has taken an authoritarian turn since the late 2000s, but it is not an oppressive dictatorship.

OMG :roflmao:

Now I know you're a troll and I'm done discussing with you. Read up, get some history, understand that Iran's problems didn't begin in the "late 2000s". :lol:

I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when the Shah was overthrown and the Ayatollah took over. Before that they were just a corrupt monarchy and the citizens were largely doing okay; afterward, they became an authoritarian theocracy and life for Iranians changed dramatically. That's why the ones who could got the hell out of there.

In fact, I have about a dozen friends from high school who came over to the US from Iran in the late 70s because their parents were smart enough to see the writing on the wall and fled for their lives. They are SUPER strong Americans and highly patriotic (toward the US, not Iran).

I always wade in with high hopes of having a true discussion of ideas and opinions, and you people always turn out to not know what the frick you're talking about and just start spewing absurdities off the top of your head.
 

Spitfire

Active Member
OMG :roflmao:

Now I know you're a troll and I'm done discussing with you. Read up, get some history, understand that Iran's problems didn't begin in the "late 2000s". :lol:

Greetings:

The person you quoted didn’t say problems began in the “late 2000s”. He said the government took an authoritarian turn since the. And he’s not wrong.

There were two “reformers” in the late 90s (Khatami and Maijles (sp?). Then in the early 2000s conservatives/authoritarians started regaining control of key government institutions, eventually leading to Ahmadinezhad (sp?) in 2004 or 2005.

This isn’t inconsistent with the assertions made in the post to which you responded.
 
Top