US apologises for war in Afghanistan

Any one can run in American elections. That's not true in Iran. One has to pass muster by a committee of clerics before one's name goes on the ballot.

 

Or insulting Islam... or sending girls to school.... or not making women wear a beekeeper suit...

If we weren't bombing them, I'm sure they'd find some other reason to hate us.

You call it reckless. I call it practical. If we could conduct this completely without any of our own lives involved, we would. Who wouldn't?

The way things are going, we probably will have that capability eventually. I can imagine recruiters in the future looking for Call of Duty players. We'll be flying drones while Haji burns in a tent or cave.

Admittedly, we've wasted billions on that pathetic country.

Fair enough, you're consistent. I'll give you that.

 

Ours are rigged through money. Theirs are rigged through force and electoral fraud.

They both suck, but one is much worse than the other.

 

The capacity to run and the odds of being elected without party backing in the US tells a different story.

 

That too...

 

Which is why America has so many candidates sharing a brain......and as only one can win, the intelligence of the winner is a percentage of the total intelligence of all candidates...which would make winner, by my calculations, less intelligent than my 12 year old grandaughter.

At least the candidates in Iranian elections have to have some principles..maybe they are not the kind of principles the West likes.but principles nonetheless.......and I am not sure American candidates can spell the word principles......far less understand the concept.

 

Im considering unsubscribing from the group and coming back as a homosexual muslim so I can get a break.

 

Industrial/financial interests are at the heart of US imperialism just as it was with British imperialism.

 

Hey, if you're homosexual in Iran, you even get a free sex change or death...

 

If America operated by Iran's principles, you guys would be (*)(*)(*)(*)ting bricks.... or speaking Farsi....

 

Not denying that at all......but you would really think that at some stage in the 21st century, countries would be doing less killing for big business profits and helping for fair trade..but they mostly still are not...and the animosity the West, not just the US, is facing, is because we don't do compassion, common decency and any consideration for the people caught up between Governments with an agenda and no morals.

Britain managed to get the Commonwealth out of British Imperialism......what has American Imperialism brought the American Government bar trenchloads of debts and universal hatred...even among people like me who was brought up to perceive America as the good guys.

 

Iran have not invaded another nation in three centuries.

And America..???

 

Good thing nobody has any interest in conquering Afghanistan. We are Americans. Germany, Japan, South Korea, and now Afgahnistan and Iraq. The goal has always been to get in, get out and let the people govern themselves. Afghanistan may be ungovernable as an entire nation. Nothing wrong with weak, figurehead national governments, with locals running the show, EXCEPT in Afghanistan you have some areas that would eagerly welcome and support Al Qaeda and their attempts to strike the US.

 

Do you hand on heart care about the gay rights issue, in Iran specifically, or globally?

How about in your own nation, where homosexuals are often attacked, for being homosexuals, and still face discrimination?

I mean, not until you can say that there is no homophobia, gay bashing, and anti gay agenda, in your own society, can you really start being critical of how gays are treated in another country, can you?

And remember, whatever freedoms gays now have in Western Europe and America, they have been gradual, and relatively recent.

It was not so long ago that to be gay, was a criminal offence, at least here in Britain, with up to life in prison, if it could be shown that actual sex had taken place.

We then went through a phase of believing it to be like a psychological disorder - yes, this civlised society treated being gay as a mental illness, with some often terrible outcomes.

And that is just Britain.

Something to think about maybe..

 

If they had the world's largest military, that would definitely not be the case.

 

It is moot.

Lots of other nations who do not have the largest military in the World, have been invasive (like Iraq on Iran, for instance, the US backed that one), but Iran have not.

The US elites are so arrogant and in need of an always enemy, that conflict is second nature to the US.

I feel sorry for all Americans who are not one of the elites, or their affiliates.

 

Just because I make a joke doesn't mean that I pretend to care.

You're right though.

I really don't give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about what happens in Iran to gays or anyone else there.

I'll comment on world events here, but that's more just a matter of entertainment than actual care.

Ultimately, I only care about people here and a few people in other countries that I've gotten to know well.

Beyond that, you're correct that it doesn't really matter. It's just humorous at times to view people's inconsistencies.

People of all political stripes tend to be very selective in their outrage.

 

I would argue conflict is second nature to humans, not just us.

The only difference is that Iran focuses its strife on its own people. Over here, we project it outward most of the time.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, but personally, it does make life easier here than over there.

I'd much rather live under an interventionist government with a lot of internal freedom than an isolationist one with very few internal freedoms.

 

Probably less than the potential costs of doing nothing.

 

I don't know about that... If we did nothing with Israel, they'd probably "finish" things, if you know what I mean.

 

And you think that speaking the corruption of English the Americans, through Microsoft's spellchecker, has made the norm would be better? Really?

Kinda like the idea of learning a new language, myself, rather than promulgating American inability to spell..and often to understand...simple English over the world.

So brand me a punctuation, grammar, spelling policeman if you like...it is a lot milder than many names I have been called on here.

During the Cold War, when Western Governments, particularly yours, were ranting...and it was ranting..."Better Dead than Red" I used to think....F*ck you......I am more than capable of deciding for myself if I'd rather be dead than red after I have tried the red. I can commit suicide with a lot less damage to Scotland and its people than if Governments decided for me..and bombed the sh1t out of everybody, because they had an agenda which took no notice of the deaths that agenda would cause among civilians, who were expendable as they still are today, and collateral damage to the great cause of getting rid of something which just might stop the West making money by spreading capitalism world wide.

And it is not a lot different with being taken over by Islamists....I'll try to live with it.....and If I don't like it, I'll kill myself...but what I won't do is kill all those who can hack it just because I can't.

 

The Scots and Limeys should kill themselves. The world would be a better place.

 

From Bin Ladens 1998 Fatwa

1998, we had about 15,000 troops in "all the lands of Islam". 9/11 brought him 100s of 1000s of more troops for a decade. Amusing to see all the Al qaeda supporters now that claim this is what he actually wanted all along.

 

I have heard the old 'conflict is human nature' arguement before, and it does not do it for me.

And here is why.

It assumes us all to be starting from the position that we are aggressive and warrior like, but I don't think that is actually true, otherwise you would never see a successful society form, since all disputes would be settled with a violent outcome.

Most disputes in my city, between people, are not settled with a violent outcome.

Now, you may argue that this is due to using a violent outcome being illegal, but the reason I believe that most people do not settle any dispute with violence, is that while aggression may be 'natural' to the homo sapien, as it is the chimp, our relative, we are sentient beings, able to feel and understand that using violence is not acceptable, to sort out our personal disputes, and it is really not helpful either.

The only people in civilised society that really routinely settle disputes with acts of great violence, are gangsters and the unstable.

It doesn't really matter if you think life is different or better in Iran to the US, that is part of the problem, the US believing that anything not precisely like them is something to be changed or hated or feared.

Iran is Iran and the US is the US.

Iran is not telling Americans how to live and be, why not stop telling Iranians and others, how to live and be?

Try that for the next ten years, see how much money you save on phoney wars, money which you could do something positive with, like use it to rebuild the infrastructure of parts of the US that needed it, roads etc, or maybe use it to invest in a series of job creation programmes, there are a hundred things.

Oh, and after that ten years, you can look back and see how it has made a difference to acts of terrorism.

 

Good luck with that. Killing yourself doesn't do much good, but I guess I would kill myself if I was stuck living under Islamists too.

Since I'm not, I'd rather kill than be killed, if it actually comes down to that.