Civil political discourse is no longer possible, so civil people are avoid the topic altogether. It is even worse where I live in Germany - a significant portion of the local news is about American politics, and it is very slanted to one side. Being the token American, I get asked my opinion on the order of 10x per week, and when I try to change the subject to something that is more relevant (or at least more civil), I am immediately labeled as a far-right person. So now I just avoid most people instead. It's just easier.
Well, compared to most Europeans, even if you’re a Democrat you’re fairly far right in their (our? Since i’ve been here a long time) eyes.
Well, compared to most Europeans, even if you’re a Democrat you’re fairly far right in their (our? Since i’ve been here a long time) eyes.
I'm not a Trump fan either, but even Europeans have to admit by now that he has raised some good issues, which his successors will have to face. For just one: you failed to keep out that "refugee" rabble, so now you have to get used to people being beheaded in the streets of France and Britain.
And if you arseholes hadn't destabilised the middle east, we wouldn't have to.
Yes of course. First we bought trillions of dollars worth of their petroleum, and then we put our buildings in the way of their hijackers. That must be the "white privilege" we have to make up for.
You can thank American CIA for installing ultra-religious leaders in Iran - before that, Iran was actually very progressive for the middle east. This is where a lot of resentment comes from, and a lot of what the US has done with foreign policy has backfired. And I say this as an US citizen. We've been fucking the world far longer than 9/11, and what goes around comes around.
I'll be the first to admit that the "establishment" in Washington, which includes Republicans AND Democrats have stupidly thought they could manage the world and have at times misused the CIA in that process, BUT NOT IN THE CASE YOU ASSERTED
You must have confused separate things.
Yes, the CIA intervened to overthrow a Marxist prime minister in Iran in the 1950s (Not the Shah who was in place from 1941 to 1979) and in an ordinary world this might be a bad thing (depending on your view of expansionist communi
>, the CIA intervened to overthrow a Marxist prime minister in Iran in the 1950s
This meddling in the affairs of Iran directly led to the Shah coming into power. You can sugar-coat it any way you like, but had the CIA not intervened in Iran, we would very likely not be seeing them as an existential threat today.
The Shah isn't the ultra-religious leader; he was deposed in a coup by the subsequent (and current) ultra-religious leaders of Iran. When you say "before that, Iran was actually very progressive for the middle east", you're describing the period of the Shah's rule. The CIA did not overthrow the Shah, nor support the ultra-religious leaders (the Ayatollahs) who replaced him (they were blindsided by the coup that got rid of the Shah). You can argue that propping up the Shah and his corruption indirectly led t
Not to mention creating (along with the British and French) most of the countries in the region in the first place, drawing borders mostly to satisfy great power goals and organizations like Standard Oil and the Anglo-Persian Oil company.
Then there was the whole proxy war stuff in Afghanistan. Encouraging foreign religious zealots to travel to a country and wage guerrilla holy war against an occupying superpower... what could possibly go wrong?
Well, first of all, Iraq, where ISIS was later established, had nothing to do with the buildings and the hijackers, so you are either stupid, or a liar. Second, I thought bin Laden was supposed to be a hero and an anti-Soviet freedom fighter.
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Civil political discourse is no longer possible, so civil people are avoid the topic altogether.
It is even worse where I live in Germany - a significant portion of the local news is about American politics, and it is very slanted to one side. Being the token American, I get asked my opinion on the order of 10x per week, and when I try to change the subject to something that is more relevant (or at least more civil), I am immediately labeled as a far-right person. So now I just avoid most people instead. It's just easier.
Well, compared to most Europeans, even if you’re a Democrat you’re fairly far right in their (our? Since i’ve been here a long time) eyes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, compared to most Europeans, even if you’re a Democrat you’re fairly far right in their (our? Since i’ve been here a long time) eyes.
I'm not a Trump fan either, but even Europeans have to admit by now that he has raised some good issues, which his successors will have to face. For just one: you failed to keep out that "refugee" rabble, so now you have to get used to people being beheaded in the streets of France and Britain.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you arseholes hadn't destabilised the middle east, we wouldn't have to.
Re:Not just at work (Score:2)
And if you arseholes hadn't destabilised the middle east, we wouldn't have to.
Yes of course. First we bought trillions of dollars worth of their petroleum, and then we put our buildings in the way of their hijackers. That must be the "white privilege" we have to make up for.
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
What??? (Score:2)
I'll be the first to admit that the "establishment" in Washington, which includes Republicans AND Democrats have stupidly thought they could manage the world and have at times misused the CIA in that process, BUT NOT IN THE CASE YOU ASSERTED
You must have confused separate things.
Yes, the CIA intervened to overthrow a Marxist prime minister in Iran in the 1950s (Not the Shah who was in place from 1941 to 1979) and in an ordinary world this might be a bad thing (depending on your view of expansionist communi
Re: (Score:2)
This meddling in the affairs of Iran directly led to the Shah coming into power. You can sugar-coat it any way you like, but had the CIA not intervened in Iran, we would very likely not be seeing them as an existential threat today.
Re: (Score:2)
The Shah isn't the ultra-religious leader; he was deposed in a coup by the subsequent (and current) ultra-religious leaders of Iran. When you say "before that, Iran was actually very progressive for the middle east", you're describing the period of the Shah's rule. The CIA did not overthrow the Shah, nor support the ultra-religious leaders (the Ayatollahs) who replaced him (they were blindsided by the coup that got rid of the Shah). You can argue that propping up the Shah and his corruption indirectly led t
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention creating (along with the British and French) most of the countries in the region in the first place, drawing borders mostly to satisfy great power goals and organizations like Standard Oil and the Anglo-Persian Oil company.
Then there was the whole proxy war stuff in Afghanistan. Encouraging foreign religious zealots to travel to a country and wage guerrilla holy war against an occupying superpower... what could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, first of all, Iraq, where ISIS was later established, had nothing to do with the buildings and the hijackers, so you are either stupid, or a liar.
Second, I thought bin Laden was supposed to be a hero and an anti-Soviet freedom fighter.