That was great. I feel like a child again, Sherman.

Epic

\ bookmarked

Awesome.

I feel like someone was trying to edumacate me.

Brain feels all funny and stuff.

There were quite a few glaring inaccuracies, but I think my favorite was George H.W. Bush being elected President right after Jimmy Carter. Wha?

It was still good, though ;)

That should be shown in high school history classes.

SpinStopper: There were quite a few glaring inaccuracies, but I think my favorite was George H.W. Bush being elected President right after Jimmy Carter. Wha?

The clip is referring to his being elected as Vice President to Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Scrophulous Barking Duck: SpinStopper: There were quite a few glaring inaccuracies, but I think my favorite was George H.W. Bush being elected President right after Jimmy Carter. Wha?

The clip is referring to his being elected as Vice President to Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Oh.

See? I really am lost without caffeine in the morning ;)

SpinStopper: There were quite a few glaring inaccuracies, but I think my favorite was George H.W. Bush being elected President right after Jimmy Carter. Wha?

It was still good, though ;)

Hell, he was running the show the entire time between Carter and Clinton anyway.

/and quite a bit of the past 8 years as well

Awesome.

Bonus points for the appropriate use of "primogeniture" as a punch-line.

Coronach: and quite a bit of the past 8 years as well

Seems -- Poppy was a lightweight. Not a complete anti-competent.

That was brilliant.

Maybe one day we'll learn what it means to be non-interventionist and bring our military back to the US. As long as we keep playing world super cop, this stuff will continue to happen.

Would purchase again A++++++++++++

Awesome.

Sherman sounds like his balls have dropped finally. Did you guys ever see the episode where Sherman lost his virginity? The had to build a magic lamp.

sarcastrophe: As long as we keep playing world super cop, this stuff will continue to happen.

Yeah, cuz the Chinese would make way better super cops!!

It was a very good clip, informative, historically accurate and cleverly done.
Unfortunately, they filled it with curse words so it is unusable for anything but rough company.

I hate it when they do that shiat.

Goes back a lot further than 1953. This guy (new window) makes the argument (starting at 10:20) that controlling Iraqi oil was a cause of WWI. Funny show, if you've got an hour.

Good summary, except it could have been better had he reminded folks that the crazy men housed in Afghanistan ie Osama bin Laden received weapons by payment from us.

Also, while the Taliban blew up a good few temples, most were in response to the fact the UN would rather give money to restoring them than feed the starving population. Just thought I'd give the Taliban the one defense it was due (even though it doesn't really sound like a defense once you realize they responded to a sucky situation with a bigger, vorpal tunnel of suck, but hey! It's the best they can do).

Reminds me of this clip from Why We Fight

Link (new window)

If you haven't seen the film, you should.

DarkJohnson: I feel like someone was trying to edumacate me.

Brain feels all funny and stuff.

yeah - because we should all learn our history from youtube clips of old cartoons overdubbed by extremist morans.

Hopefully, with the Obama Presidency, we'll move on from here.

Lawnchair: Goes back a lot further than 1953. This guy (new window) makes the argument (starting at 10:20) that controlling Iraqi oil was a cause of WWI. Funny show, if you've got an hour.

Ya know, if that was at all true then oil would have been coming out of the region before the 1930s, when it was found.

Reality has a way of wrecking long drawn out arguments.

mud_shark: DarkJohnson: I feel like someone was trying to edumacate me.

Brain feels all funny and stuff.

yeah - because we should all learn our history from youtube clips of old cartoons overdubbed by extremist morans.

What kind of idiot equates "historical accuracy" with "extreme moronicism"?

Would you like to present us with your alternate history time line that you learned from your evangelical homeschooling?

wildcardjack: Ya know, if that was at all true then oil would have been coming out of the region before the 1930s, when it was found.

1908, Masjid Sulaiman. Also, the founding of Anglo-Persian Oil Company, now known as BP. The British Navy was mideast oil-fueled by WWI.

mostly BS too...

We didn't put Saddam in power, he killed his way to it.

As to the whole "weapons for release" lol, BS.
Carter had insulted Islam, Iran and had never even BOTHERED to ASK for the return of the hostages. He sent in a military force that showed abject incompetence. In Iran's mind to even give away one hostage would have been an unbearable insult to us.

Iran kept the hostages until there was a "clean slate" to which they could hand them over. That farking simple.

That was a well done clip.

You need to go further back than 1953 to understand why the area is so farked up.

I mean, really, you Americans try your best, but when it comes to messing up the Middle East, you're still amateurs.

Rory Bremner, between Iraq and a Hard Place. (new window)

I would recommend 5:00 - 12:00 minutes, for a look at Britain's herculean efforts in ensuring the area remained a clusterfark for evermore.

prjindigo: mostly BS too...

We didn't put Saddam in power, he killed his way to it.


Iran kept the hostages until there was a "clean slate" to which they could hand them over. That farking simple.

How many moons are in the sky in your alternate universe?

Coronach:
Hell, [HW Bush] was running the show the entire time between Carter and Clinton anyway.

/and quite a bit of the past 8 years as well

actually from what i have seen dubbya, in a flagrant defiance of all common sense, does not seem to have taken any advice from his daddy. i think if he had things would have turned out better.

also while i know about the reagan/CIA/iran connection this is the first time i have heard HW bush as being behind it, though it does make sense and seems rather likely.

this cartoon was cool but would have been better without the bad words so as to be viewable by a wider audience, and with some form of footnotes or fact-checking links.

I think anyone who can follow the story should be able to handle 'dogshiat'.

Ok now that is a bit on the partisan side.

1. Carter lost because it was the economy stupid - double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and interest rates on home loans of 18%. BTW carter devised a rescue plan that had to have everyone involved - see how that turned out; a bunch of dead soldires. Seems like W H Bush had a better plan.

2. I did not know the middle east was a calm peace loving place before US involvement (note sarcasm). remember (not a Goodwin moment) Hitler was popularly elected. Just because someone is elected does not mean they are the right person there.

3. Extremism in Afghanistan went on BEFORE the Russians invaded. Women were NOT equals in that society - were executed for just showing a little ankle. I for one think baking them against the Russians was a good idea. You can't pick the inhabitants of a country you have to work with what you got.

4. The authors suggestion is isolationism. I hardly find that a moral high ground since that is what has allowed two world wars. Interventionism has been able to contain conflicts. You cannot pick the winner every time but to let the despots run wild and not give a damn about the millions burned in the ovens is just plane immoral.

Like a true liberal hindsight is 20/20 but I don't see how they would have done it different AND the consequences. Oh those pesky little consequences. It is easy to sit and point at past mistakes because the consequences of how they would have done it different can only be speculation.

prjindigo: mostly BS too...

We didn't put Saddam in power, he killed his way to it.

The CIA certainly backed the Ba'athist coup that overthrew Qassim in 1963 and put a more pro-American Ba'athist government in power. Saddam distinguished himself at ridding the new Iraq of 'leftists and communists', much to the delight of his CIA contacts in Iraq. While we may not have set Saddam on the throne like we did the Shah, we certainly helped pave the way and encourage his actions in taking power and eventually taking command in Iraq. Like Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, or Somoza in Nicaragua, Saddam may have been an SOB, but he was our SOB.

As to the whole "weapons for release" lol, BS.
Carter had insulted Islam, Iran and had never even BOTHERED to ASK for the return of the hostages. He sent in a military force that showed abject incompetence. In Iran's mind to even give away one hostage would have been an unbearable insult to us.

To say that Carter never asked for the release of the hostages in absurd. Tell that to those in the Carter administration who worked out numerous agreements with Iranian officials, only to have them quashed by Khomeini throughout the course of the crisis.

Iran kept the hostages until there was a "clean slate" to which they could hand them over. That farking simple.

I think it had a lot more to do with the January 20, 1981 release of $8 billion in frozen assets and a pledge of immunity to the Iranians who had participated in taking over the American embassy. That and the tough talk of the incoming administration who were promising to deal harshly with the Iranians, even though they were at the same time making back-room deals through Israel to send weapons to the very same terrorists who had held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

No "clean slate" here -- just a new President who would talk the talk about being tough on terrorists, but who would eventually prove that he had no qualms about negotiating with them. And who would then rely upon his SOB in Iraq to be a thorn in Iran's side -- and sell him conventional and chemical weapons to make sure the job was done right. That farking simple.

sillysillysilly: Hitler was popularly elected

Bzzzzzt! Back to middle school history class for you.

Conspiracy claptrap and stupidity in historical perspective.

It's interesting how it puts forth a conspiracy theory as actual fact.

There was no Taliban during the Reagan era, for one. It'd be like saying we fought the Nazis in WW1.

Really it just butchers history to create a narrative that supports their politics.

Oh...and America never sold WMDs to Iraq. Allowing the export of bacteria to colleges in Iraq is not selling WMD any more than buying gas is supporting Osama bin Laden and his 9/11 attacks.

Mrbogey: There was no Taliban during the Reagan era, for one. It'd be like saying we fought the Nazis in WW1.

LOL

Oh man, I feel bad for what's about to happen to this.

It's a bit edgy, but has the vast majority of facts right. If you don't think so, you had best site references, not just talk radio.

What's interesting is how much we know about this part of the world. Can anyone here talk in the same depth about Sudan, The Congo, Rwanda, Uganda? No?

It's all about the oil, biatches. Never forget, it's all about the oil.

Rain-Monkey: What's interesting is how much we know about this part of the world. Can anyone here talk in the same depth about Sudan, The Congo, Rwanda, Uganda? No?

Sure I can, dude. There's a Wikipedia entry on, like, all of those.

/No, YOU Ganda.

sillysillysilly: Ok now that is a bit on the partisan side.

1. Carter lost because it was the economy stupid - double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and interest rates on home loans of 18%. BTW carter devised a rescue plan that had to have everyone involved - see how that turned out; a bunch of dead soldires. Seems like W H Bush had a better plan.

2. I did not know the middle east was a calm peace loving place before US involvement (note sarcasm). remember (not a Goodwin moment) Hitler was popularly elected. Just because someone is elected does not mean they are the right person there.

3. Extremism in Afghanistan went on BEFORE the Russians invaded. Women were NOT equals in that society - were executed for just showing a little ankle. I for one think baking them against the Russians was a good idea. You can't pick the inhabitants of a country you have to work with what you got.

4. The authors suggestion is isolationism. I hardly find that a moral high ground since that is what has allowed two world wars. Interventionism has been able to contain conflicts. You cannot pick the winner every time but to let the despots run wild and not give a damn about the millions burned in the ovens is just plane immoral.

Like a true liberal hindsight is 20/20 but I don't see how they would have done it different AND the consequences. Oh those pesky little consequences. It is easy to sit and point at past mistakes because the consequences of how they would have done it different can only be speculation.

Wow -- you really don't know much about history, do you? Or at least you don't understand it...

1. Yes, Carter was dealing with an economy hip deep in unemployment and inflation in 1980. But it was the hostage crisis was what sent his chances at re-election down the drain. Had the military mission succeeded in rescuing some or all of the hostages, Carter would've most certainly been re-elected. When the mission failed, it doomed his last chance to recover a victory.

2. Hitler was never popularly elected to anything. He ran for President of the German government, but never polled more than 35% of the vote. He came to power through the election of other Nazis who then held the government in lockdown until their party leader was appointed chancellor. Once in power, he took more power, thus leading to the Nazi era in Germany. But he was never "popularly elected".

3. Afghanistan was certainly no paradise, but go do some reading on Afghanistan in the 20th century. While wracked by ineffective government and tribal infighting, the nation was a member of the world community after World War II and embarked on a process of modernization -- a process often hindered by its peoples' adherence to their strict Islamic faith. Also check out the Marxist revolution and reforms that occurred in Afghanistan before the Russian invasion. In 1978, a new government backed by the Soviets and established by a coup instituted several secular reforms against the traditional Islamic law. It was the religious revolt by the Islamic fundamentalists living in the rural areas of Afghanistan and the new government's inability to deal with it that led to the Soviets taking a more "hands-on" approach with the Afghans.

4. The author of the piece is certainly not suggesting isolationism. It's more closer to how ham-handed meddling in domestic affairs of Middle Eastern nations over the past 50 years has helped lead us to the world we have now. Your assertion that isolationism "allowed two world wars" is nothing short of ridiculous. To think that American isolationism was the cause of both world wars shows you to have an extremely limited knowledge of history and the world outside the borders of our great nation. Also equally ridiculous is your contention that "interventionism has been able to contain conflicts". For example, our intervention in French Vietnam certainly did nothing to contain that conflict, but instead caused it to expand exponentially. And for the record, 'isolationism' was the moral high ground claimed by conservatives in the 1920s-1930s, contrary to the interventionist policies being pushed by that "true liberal" FDR.

While it may be easy to sit and point out past mistakes, there is certainly value in doing that beyond mere speculation, as you contend. In doing so, those who choose to educate themselves and not accept the 5-cent answers offered by political speech-writers can actually begin to gain an understanding of the complex world in which the U.S. exists and operates. And hopefully, we may actually manage to learn something from the past so that we can make better, more informed decisions when confronted by similar situations in the future.

mud_shark: yeah - because we should all learn our history from youtube clips of old cartoons overdubbed by extremist morans.


I_Approve_Of_This_Message:What kind of idiot equates "historical accuracy" with "extreme moronicism"? Would you like to present us with your alternate history time line that you learned from your evangelical homeschooling?

At the end of WWII, the Russian's turned coat against the rest of the free world. Seeing an opportunity to contain the Red menace, the United States installed many "Strong Figures" through out the Middle East. This method of containment, saw many successes throughout South East Asia in the 60's and 70's.

In Iran, we restored the rightful throne for the Shaw of Iran, who ruled over his people with benevolence and understanding.

Equally benevolent and understanding was the revolutionary, Saddam Hussein, a war hero.

In Afghanistan, we funded the freedom loving Taliban revolutionaries to push back the Russian onslaught. (Reagen identified with their plight, as they resembled our own country's founding fathers.)

All was good for many years, until the evil Ayatollah-Ass-a-Hola took our Embassy Hostage. They must have fallen to the Russians.

Seeing an urgent need to contain this new enemy, America sprung into action, providing the more secular Iraq with aid in the form of chemical weapons and long-range missile systems.

Of course, Saddam, being a Muslim and closeted Commie-Bastard, eventually used these weapons against the god-fearing citizens of the beautiful nation of Kuwait, who we liberated for no other reason than the fact that it was the right thing to do.

Eventually, and for no reason at all, all three countries turned coat against us. At the head of an International trilateral of evil, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and The Mullahs of Iran plotted the cowardly attacks of 9/11.

In the end, do not trust Muslims with Oil, as they will high jack embassy and airplanes. As a result, we must go to war with the whole middle east, and never leave, cause achieving peace is for defeatists and America never cuts and runs.

Hmmm, that was omissive at best.

I hate politically motivated "gists" of history like this. They have the same effect on people who don't take the time to read for themselves as The Daily Show and Sean Hannity have on people who don't have a more neutral source of news.

Rain-Monkey: It's a bit edgy, but has the vast majority of facts right. If you don't think so, you had best site references, not just talk radio.

What's interesting is how much we know about this part of the world. Can anyone here talk in the same depth about Sudan, The Congo, Rwanda, Uganda? No?

It's all about the oil, biatches. Never forget, it's all about the oil.

You know those places have oil too, right? If it were all about the oil, we probably would have attacked Sudan instead of Afghanistan. After-all, prior to 9/11 even though Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, most of his operation has been coming out of Sudan.

Again, the funniest part of this thread are the sputtering impotent GOP/Bush/Reagan/Neocon Apologists who simply can not process the fact that their heroes and their twisted ideology has caused needless expense and tragedy.

History proves them wrong EVERY TIME, yet they* still cling to their nonsense.

*Including:

mud_shark
prjindigo
sillysillysilly
Mrbogey
SemperLi e Suckah

USP .45: You won. Get over it libs.

Yet you never learn.

Yesdog: SemperLi e Suckah

What the f*ck are you talking about? I don't take a hard line adherence to anyone's ideologies. Don't lump me in with some strawman group you've made up of people who "cling to nonsense". I acknowledge that shiat hasn't turned out well after some U.S. interventions including in Iran. However that doesn't validate any sort of bullshiat logical contortions you want to make of the situation.

It isn't "it was bad, therefore it's as bad as I want it to be." The video was rooted in reality, but I would hardly say that it was factual or complete. I'm saying that there is a lot more to the story in this part of history than the self-obsessed American America-haters want to acknowledge. It makes broad generalizations like this video a little harder to stomach.

SemperLieSuckah: self-obsessed American America-haters



Good stuff. I enjoy a good laugh. Come on, you made your bed, now sleep in it. You always go on about how Bush never did anything wrong in Iraq and you defend neocon nonsense, yet you attempt to revise history by telling us that you're not one of the GOP-humping nuts?

Yesdog: Again, the funniest part of this thread are the sputtering impotent GOP/Bush/Reagan/Neocon Apologists who simply can not process the fact that their heroes and their twisted ideology has caused needless expense and tragedy.

The odd part is that neo-conservative foreign policy was historically the Democrat's foreign policy. Now both political parties have the same foreign policy ideas. They may have different motives and goals, but the results are the same.

There is no mainstream political party that pushes non-intervention.

Yesdog: SemperLieSuckah: self-obsessed American America-haters



Good stuff. I enjoy a good laugh. Come on, you made your bed, now sleep in it. You always go on about how Bush never did anything wrong in Iraq and you defend neocon nonsense, yet you attempt to revise history by telling us that you're not one of the GOP-humping nuts?

...no, I have since 2004 believed that George Bush severely farked up the Iraq invasion. Saddam Hussein needed to go, but the way Bush did it was extremely incompetent. He ignored Eric Shinseki and actually ran him out of Washington.

I DO come to the administration's defense when people make absurd arguments against them, or when they claim that sensory deprivation is "torture" or that using private body guards is the equivalent of having a "mercenary" army.

And while I was rooting for McCain at first (which was actually a difficult take because I like Obama), I ditched him as soon as he picked up Palin who was probably the least qualified person run for an office in 08 aside from Kevin Barrett or Cindy Sheehan.

So no, I'm not a "GOP-humping nut". I am socially extremely liberal but I lean conservative on foreign and fiscal policy.

Don't confuse that with me being one of the partisan monkeys polarized to opposite sides of the cage, screaming and flinging shiat at each other.

we backed both sides in the iran-iraq war. two enemies of israel fighting? awesome. two enemies of israel fighting to an 8-year stalemate. better.

also just a bit more backround, we overthrew Mosadeq because he was trying to nationalize BPs (British Petroleum's) business in Iran, not just cuz we didn't like him.