View Full Version : Iranian official blames deadly bombing on 'U.S. actions'
Strike For The South
10-18-2009, 19:51
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/18/iran.suicide.attack/index.html
This is rich, the same people you rely on for your power also blow themselves up.
What's even funnier is that most of these people will beilive this guy. We really need to come up with something other than oil because I'm sick and tired of pouring men and money into this barbarism
Why not just stage another CIA coup?
...against a democratically elected government. It wouldn't be the first time, heh.
Let them handle themselves, it'll be fine.
Kralizec
10-19-2009, 01:00
...against a democratically elected government.
:smash:
And to think people are whining that western democracies are shams...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-19-2009, 01:08
...against a democratically elected government.
...
:sweatdrop:
...against a democratically elected government. It wouldn't be the first time, heh. :hide:
I just like the idea that we were blamed for the attack. I don't think that's our style. I always thought we were more... theatrical. Not that petty suicide stuff :dizzy2:
...
:sweatdrop:
Hey, I didn't say I agree with it. And perhaps the election was (partially) forged, but I don't think it would have been impossible for the hardliners to win. We've discussed this though.
Samurai Waki
10-19-2009, 02:35
This isn't in America's Style, we don't do suicide bombers. We like big and spectacular explosion on high value targets, not a few soldiers checkin' out the borders.
AlexanderSextus
10-19-2009, 02:50
This isn't in America's Style, we don't do suicide bombers. We like big and spectacular explosion on high value targets, not a few soldiers checkin' out the borders.
right? I mean, I thought we liked to drop a dozen bombs that cost billions of dollars each on a target that could've been easily taken out by a sniper...
Samurai Waki
10-19-2009, 02:54
right? I mean, I thought we liked to drop a dozen bombs that cost billions of dollars each on a target that could've been easily taken out by a sniper...
Right. How many sniper kills on Taliban Soldiers do you here of happening in Pakistan by American Troops? How about Drone Attacks using Costly Hellfire Missiles?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-19-2009, 03:07
right? I mean, I thought we liked to drop a dozen bombs that cost billions of dollars each on a target that could've been easily taken out by a sniper...
Well, it's better to be sure.
Aemilius Paulus
10-19-2009, 03:26
Well, it's better to be sure.
Not only that, but snipers can die, drones obviously cannot. Snipers can also be stopped, as they will have to infiltrate hostile territory, but drones cannot be stopped - or detected by the primitive Taliban for that matter - not only is it more effective, but it is also a psychological blow (as well as a morale booster for US). lastly, snipers cannot reach someone inside a house and not by a window, or someone at the wrong angle (at the top of the roof as the recent Taliban leader casualty was). Drones simply annihilate everything.
Not only that, but snipers can die, drones obviously cannot. Snipers can also be stopped, as they will have to infiltrate hostile territory, but drones cannot be stopped - or detected by the primitive Taliban for that matter - not only is it more effective, but it is also a psychological blow (as well as a morale booster for US). lastly, snipers cannot reach someone inside a house and not by a window, or someone at the wrong angle (at the top of the roof as the recent Taliban leader casualty was). Drones simply annihilate everything.
However, a sniper's bullet can discriminate enemy from civilian. A drone has a larger problem doing this.
tibilicus
10-19-2009, 09:25
I'm hoping that when Israel eventually bomb those nuclear sites that Adinnerjacket might be conducting a visit on that particular day, oh and the grand mullah or whatever his name is. I dislike him to..
HoreTore
10-19-2009, 11:21
However, a sniper's bullet can discriminate enemy from civilian. A drone has a larger problem doing this.
Since when did anyone care about afghans? I mean.....they're almost black for crying out loud! And they talk funny.
EDIT: Seamus wants me to edit this post to show that it is satire... but honestly, I'm more serious about it than that, it's not just a joke so a simple clown smiley won't suffice... So I wrote this instead.
Furunculus
10-19-2009, 11:40
oops no, it was the little satans fault:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6372556/Iran-vows-revenge-after-claiming-bomb-attack-was-carried-out-by-Britain.html
Samurai Waki
10-19-2009, 12:00
oops no, it was the little satans fault:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6372556/Iran-vows-revenge-after-claiming-bomb-attack-was-carried-out-by-Britain.html
Perhaps it was a three way orgy of blood, since Pakistan is now being accused (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8313625.stm).
I wonder if they'll ever figure out, that it was actually the Swiss, the League of Five Jewish Bankers, and The Legion of Doom.
:laugh4:
"The enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran are unable to tolerate the unity in the country."
Is he talking about the unity he enforced by shooting all the protesters? :inquisitive:
KukriKhan
10-19-2009, 16:40
If I were Director of the CIA, I'd send them a Thank-You Note, for their vote of confidence that an outfit that cannot shut up bin Laden in 8 years could pull off such an outrageous action in Iran.
Maybe Congress will give The Company that extra budget money now.
AlexanderSextus
10-19-2009, 19:38
Since when did anyone care about afghans? I mean.....they're almost black for crying out loud! And they talk funny.
:no: :furious3: :furious3: :veryangry2:~:pissed:
Next time use a clown smiley.
HoreTore
10-19-2009, 20:50
:no: :furious3: :furious3: :veryangry2:~:pissed:
Next time use a clown smiley.
Why?
Honestly, it is the western attitude towards the afghan population. We just don't care as much about them as we care about ourselves. Possibly because they're almost black and talk funny.
Would we have fought the same way in a defensive war in our own country, among our own countrymen, as we are currently doing in Afghanistan? I think not. And there's only one answer as to why; we just don't care about them as much as we care about ourselves. Because they're worth less in our eyes.
Why?
Honestly, it is the western attitude towards the afghan population. We just don't care as much about them as we care about ourselves. Possibly because they're almost black and talk funny.
Would we have fought the same way in a defensive war in our own country, among our own countrymen, as we are currently doing in Afghanistan? I think not. And there's only one answer as to why; we just don't care about them as much as we care about ourselves. Because they're worth less in our eyes.
That's a human attitude towards other humans. You're quick to blame the West for something that pretty much everyone is guilty of. People love themselves, that's a given. Next on the list are their families as an extension of themselves. Then come their countrymen because of common language, culture and looks. Then it's those who share their religion or lack of it. Then comes everyone else. It's not a western thing, it's a human thing.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-19-2009, 21:40
Why?
Honestly, it is the western attitude towards the afghan population. We just don't care as much about them as we care about ourselves.
Almost certainly true.
Possibly because they're almost black and talk funny.
No, at least not to any measurable extent. Yank soldiers may an us/them outlook on the Afghanis, but I very seriously doubt that skin tone or differing language is the reason.
Vladimir
10-19-2009, 21:55
I doubt Hore, if I may use his first name, has seen many Afghans if he thinks they're nearly black.
ICantSpellDawg
10-20-2009, 02:12
Afghans are just like us. The speak a predominantly Indo-Aryan languages, have white features and are monotheists. The difference is that they are hillbillies and we want to make them stop playing the banjo and beating their women. Some US soldiers probably have more in common with them than you think.
I don't see Afghans as all that different, just more removed from functional, progressive society. We are here to forcibly escort them to the party. It's ironic that we are there to force them to be in control of their destinies
Centurion1
10-20-2009, 02:27
We are here to forcibly escort them to the party.
love that
Horetore
1- afghans are not nearly black......
2.- i sincerely doubt that race is the factor
3- if anything i think it is because of self-interest as someone said above people obviously care more about their own families and countries than other peoples.
4- just because we dont care as much doesnt mean we care.
ICantSpellDawg
10-20-2009, 02:38
3- if anything i think it is because of self-interest as someone said above people obviously care more about their own families and countries than other peoples.
.
I care more about Americans than Norwegians. I care more about Afghans than Norwegians. Got nothin but love for the uzbeks, turkmen, balochs etc. too.
Papewaio
10-20-2009, 02:45
So we are in effect truant officers in Afghanistan...:2thumbsup:
Centurion1
10-20-2009, 03:20
^ yes, yes we are. to make sure they dont skip class and smoke weed (or opium in this case) in the back of the school.
Adn also smuggle weapons and blow themselves up.
^ yes, yes we are. to make sure they dont skip class and smoke weed (or opium in this case) in the back of the school.
Ah high school... I remember the school policeman we nicknamed sarge... good times :smoking:
Seriously though, anyone care to guess where Iranian agents will detonate a retaliatory car bomb?
Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Then we will know who Iran REALLY suspects of pulling this off. Heck, I'll wager that if no car bomb explodes in Iran’s neighbourhood (not counting Iraq, car bombs always explode there) in the next few days or weeks, it was an inside job, and they will use it as a pretext to make some local Baluchis disappear.
HoreTore
10-20-2009, 07:58
I doubt Hore, if I may use his first name, has seen many Afghans if he thinks they're nearly black.
They're certainly on the brown end of the colour scale, also known as the "nobody cares"-end.
Quoted for truth. Race and Language aren't involved at specifically. It's just that natural us/them that arises between radically different peoples. Especially when those peoples are at war.
Fine, substitute it with "general üntermenschen" then.
1- afghans are not nearly black......
2.- i sincerely doubt that race is the factor
3- if anything i think it is because of self-interest as someone said above people obviously care more about their own families and countries than other peoples.
4- just because we dont care as much doesnt mean we care.
So.... You honestly believe that the US would've waged their war the same way if it was done on US soil, among US citizens?
Until the US starts waging war is if it was among their own citizens, they won't ever win the war in Afghanistan. Period. And that's actually something the new high commander has figured out... Oh well, it was only 8 years too late...
Banquo's Ghost
10-20-2009, 08:01
Afghans are just like us. The speak a predominantly Indo-Aryan languages, have white features and are monotheists. The difference is that they are hillbillies and we want to make them stop playing the banjo and beating their women. Some US soldiers probably have more in common with them than you think.
I don't see Afghans as all that different, just more removed from functional, progressive society. We are here to forcibly escort them to the party. It's ironic that we are there to force them to be in control of their destinies
And ironically, they are resisting the dragging as forcibly as the Americans resisted attempts by the British to include them in a "functional, progressive society". They appear to view imperialism with the same jaundiced view as the colonials - only they have had to fight off several more empires.
Yes, indeed - more in common than you think.
The difference is that they are hillbillies and we want to make them stop playing the banjo and beating their women.
Who's pickin' the banjer 'ere?
ICantSpellDawg
10-20-2009, 14:44
And ironically, they are resisting the dragging as forcibly as the Americans resisted attempts by the British to include them in a "functional, progressive society". They appear to view imperialism with the same jaundiced view as the colonials - only they have had to fight off several more empires.
Yes, indeed - more in common than you think.
We've got plenty in common, yes.
You believe that the American Revolution is on a parallel with the Afghan conflict? I don't remember American Colonials bombing Harrods in London and then shooting one another for wearing make-up.
You can equate any conflict with any other conflict. There tends to be one larger power fighting a smaller power, all things being unequal.
HoreTore
10-20-2009, 14:53
I don't remember American Colonials bombing Harrods in London
No, but I can certainly remember some colonials horribly torturing and killing unsuspecting and innocent British soldiers.
Also, the tactics are similar, being a guerilla war. Washington fought a battle of attrition to wear down the english willingness to hold the colonies and avoid larger battles, the Taliban are doing the same thing...
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 17:19
No, but I can certainly remember some colonials horribly torturing and killing unsuspecting and innocent British soldiers.
Also, the tactics are similar, being a guerilla war. Washington fought a battle of attrition to wear down the english willingness to hold the colonies and avoid larger battles, the Taliban are doing the same thing...
:laugh4:
AlexanderSextus
10-21-2009, 10:52
to make sure they dont skip class and smoke weed
I remember reading a story one of our soldiers wrote that said you could smell ganja before you could even see the town you were going to because they grew so much weed there.
There is a reason we have weed here called "afghani kush"
Centurion1
10-22-2009, 00:42
So.... You honestly believe that the US would've waged their war the same way if it was done on US soil, among US citizens?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::thumbsdown:
no would be totally different war and the two cannot be equated. Find a different example.
as to what you said earlier i wouldnt say no one cares about brown people. im sure the billion odd Indians care about themselves. and the two billion or so Asians care about themselves.
HoreTore
10-22-2009, 09:18
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::thumbsdown:
no would be totally different war and the two cannot be equated. Find a different example.
as to what you said earlier i wouldnt say no one cares about brown people. im sure the billion odd Indians care about themselves. and the two billion or so Asians care about themselves.
Fail.
Try again.
Vladimir
10-22-2009, 13:29
Fail.
Try again.
Do you mean like this post:
No, but I can certainly remember some colonials horribly torturing and killing unsuspecting and innocent British soldiers.
Also, the tactics are similar, being a guerilla war. Washington fought a battle of attrition to wear down the english willingness to hold the colonies and avoid larger battles, the Taliban are doing the same thing...
You sound like an American. I can imagine George W. [Bush] running around screaming like a camel gunner while militia burn a girls school and he chops the fingers off someone for smoking. :smoking:
HoreTore
10-22-2009, 14:43
You sound like an American. I can imagine George W. [Bush] running around screaming like a camel gunner while militia burn a girls school and he chops the fingers off someone for smoking. :smoking:
So, let's see...
1. Washington favoured big engagements with the British.
2. The Taliban favour big engagements with the enemy.
3. The Taliban is a standing national army, not a Guerilla army.
4. Washington won the revolution because he had killed every single british soldier, not because the british were unwilling to spend any more resources on fighting the revolution.
5. The Taliban's strategy is to beat NATO in a conventional war, they are trying to beat us, not make us withdraw our troops.
Yeah, that sounds about right.... :dizzy2:
Vladimir
10-22-2009, 14:50
This thread isn't about a history lesson on the American Revolution. Read up on the Continental Army when you have a chance. Also, look up all the conventional battles (i.e. madness) they fought against the British.
Seriously though, anyone care to guess where Iranian agents will detonate a retaliatory car bomb?
Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Then we will know who Iran REALLY suspects of pulling this off.
Brigadier killed in Pakistan ambush (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/10/200910223215447830.html).
Not a car bomb, but hey.
Guess who. Taliban? Or Iran?
Though perhaps in this case it actually was the Taliban (http://www.chowrangi.com/brigadier-moin-haider-the-strategist-of-waziristan-operation-assasinated-in-islamabad.html).
Edit:
Heck, I'll wager that if no car bomb explodes in Iran’s neighbourhood (not counting Iraq, car bombs always explode there) in the next few days or weeks, it was an inside job, and they will use it as a pretext to make some local Baluchis disappear.
Iran arrests three over bomb blast (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/2009102014401172457.html).
Vladimir
10-22-2009, 14:57
Brigadier killed in Pakistan ambush (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/10/200910223215447830.html).
Not a car bomb, but hey.
Guess who. Taliban? Or Iran?
Though perhaps in this case it actually was the Taliban (http://www.chowrangi.com/brigadier-moin-haider-the-strategist-of-waziristan-operation-assasinated-in-islamabad.html).
Edit:
Iran arrests three over bomb blast (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/2009102014401172457.html).
Wow. Thanks.
Centurion1
10-23-2009, 03:39
So, let's see...
1. Washington favoured big engagements with the British.
2. The Taliban favour big engagements with the enemy.
3. The Taliban is a standing national army, not a Guerilla army.
4. Washington won the revolution because he had killed every single british soldier, not because the british were unwilling to spend any more resources on fighting the revolution.
5. The Taliban's strategy is to beat NATO in a conventional war, they are trying to beat us, not make us withdraw our troops.
Yeah, that sounds about right....
Fail.
Try Again.
well hmm lets look at some of the differences shall we????
1. the americans didnt behead anyone they managed to capture.
2. The americans did not torture their own people before the war
3. the american civil war was fought 200 odd years before the afghani conflict
4. The taliban were the governemnet before the invasion. American was not its own nation.
5. American wanted economic freedom (and liberty), the taliban want a return to 14th century islam......complete with beheadings and stonings.
6. Americans did not hate the British...... we were british for the most part. The taliban HATE America
:dizzy2:
HoreTore
10-23-2009, 07:20
well hmm lets look at some of the differences shall we????
1. the americans didnt behead anyone they managed to capture.
2. The americans did not torture their own people before the war
3. the american civil war was fought 200 odd years before the afghani conflict
4. The taliban were the governemnet before the invasion. American was not its own nation.
5. American wanted economic freedom (and liberty), the taliban want a return to 14th century islam......complete with beheadings and stonings.
6. Americans did not hate the British...... we were british for the most part. The taliban HATE America
:dizzy2:
The Don better start posting again, I'm starting to lose my respect for Americans.
Vladimir
10-23-2009, 13:07
The Don better start posting again, I'm starting to lose my respect for Americans.
Did you have any to begin with? :inquisitive:
Furunculus
10-23-2009, 13:46
The Don better start posting again, I'm starting to lose my respect for Americans.
and does it matter to anyone if you don't?
The Don better start posting again, I'm starting to lose my respect for Americans.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: You're funny
Dâriûsh - Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff in there.
Some tidbits from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8314240.stm) on several Iranian news agencies commenting on the terrorist acts. It would have been better to have the whole articles but eh. It's nothing new really. Just babble imo :juggle2:
Centurion1
10-25-2009, 01:26
Why dont you explain to me why the revolutionary war and the invasion of Afghanistan are the same exact thing? Are there anyyyyyy differences? Please use your superior european intellect to educate my feeble american mind on things i dont know anything about.
HoreTore
10-25-2009, 18:45
Why dont you explain to me why the revolutionary war and the invasion of Afghanistan are the same exact thing? Are there anyyyyyy differences? Please use your superior european intellect to educate my feeble american mind on things i dont know anything about.
I have never in my life said that the two wars are the same, nor has anyone else. Banqou stated that there are similarities, and I certainly agree.
How you are not able to grasp that difference is beyond me, but it's certainly not something you can blame on your nationality, sorry.
Did you have any to begin with? :inquisitive:
Of course I have. Unlike some people, I am not a fan of grouping people, I see no sense in judging people based on nationality or whatever.
and does it matter to anyone if you don't?
No, why should it?
Centurion1
10-25-2009, 20:37
I have never in my life said that the two wars are the same, nor has anyone else. Banqou stated that there are similarities, and I certainly agree.
How you are not able to grasp that difference is beyond me, but it's certainly not something you can blame on your nationality, sorry.
yeah sure there are similarities but they are an essentially different war. There are similarities between all wars. If there is any war you could really compare this too it would be Vietnam.
And yes i could easily blame something of this sort on my nationality. Of course the average person wants to believe the best of his or her country and is probably going to be unwilling to compare their war for independence with the war in afghanistan.
HoreTore
10-25-2009, 20:46
yeah sure there are similarities but they are an essentially different war. There are similarities between all wars. If there is any war you could really compare this too it would be Vietnam.
So... With that statement made, why did you go mental over Banqou's(and my) claim that there are similarities between the american independence war and the war in afghanistan?
And yes i could easily blame something of this sort on my nationality. Of course the average person wants to believe the best of his or her country and is probably going to be unwilling to compare their war for independence with the war in afghanistan.
There's no excuse for being blinded by nationalism.
But hey, if you didn't want your independence war compared to other wars, how 'bout.... Not waging war to gain independence, and gain it through diplomacy instead? :idea2::laugh4:
Centurion1
10-25-2009, 23:22
But hey, if you didn't want your independence war compared to other wars, how 'bout.... Not waging war to gain independence, and gain it through diplomacy instead?
how about we attempted that? How about even while at war we attempted that? how about we used war as a last resort? How about the British were not going to negotiate with colonists?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-25-2009, 23:37
But hey, if you didn't want your independence war compared to other wars, how 'bout.... Not waging war to gain independence, and gain it through diplomacy instead? :idea2::laugh4:
It wasn't practical to do so at the time. It was tried, and it failed.
Is it me or was this thread a joke from the beginning? :dizzy2:
Vladimir
10-26-2009, 13:23
One ludicrous claim devolves into another. It's the way of things. :yes:
Azathoth
10-31-2009, 04:24
This article is somewhat relevant and you should read it.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1971/4/1971_4_6.shtml
Vladimir
11-02-2009, 18:40
Britain, on the eve of that war, was the greatest empire since Rome. Never before had she known such wealth and power; never had the future seemed so bright, the prospects so glowing.
Shackled by debt, suffering war exhaustion from yet another war against France.
I have a real problem with the facts this guy presents. There was no Great Britain during the American Revolution, but he doesn't use the word "great" so I'll let him slide on that one. He's no doubt confusing this "Britain" with one of a much later age. The rest of the article may be good but it starts off poorly.
HoreTore
11-03-2009, 00:26
how about we attempted that? How about even while at war we attempted that? how about we used war as a last resort? How about the British were not going to negotiate with colonists?
You think the swedish king was fond of negotiating with the peasantry?
It took us 89 years of negotiation to gain our independence. Did you try negotiating for 89 years? No, you grew tired after a couple of years and decided to follow Washington's small penis-complex.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-03-2009, 00:33
You think the swedish king was fond of negotiating with the peasantry?
It took us 89 years of negotiation to gain our independence. Did you try negotiating for 89 years? No, you grew tired after a couple of years and decided to follow Washington's small penis-complex.
I don't think that many people are interested in 89 years of oppression with the off-chance that they'll achieve some sort freedom in the end, with luck.
HoreTore
11-03-2009, 00:38
I don't think that many people are interested in 89 years of oppression with the off-chance that they'll achieve some sort freedom in the end, with luck.
Well some people actually like peace and stuff...
And it's not like the british empire were Nazi's, Stalinists or anything like that. A bit tax-heavy, sure, but so was the swedes... Quit yer whinin'.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-03-2009, 00:44
Well some people actually like peace and stuff...
But at what cost?
Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
And finally...
Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace - and you can have it in the next second - surrender.
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Everybody wants peace, but there are some things worth fighting for, some things that people do not want to wait for. No, Britain was no Nazi Germany, but another century of oppression was not what people wanted and not what people should have received. There had to be something done, and there was. The quotes above are there because they summarize my opinion - life is a beautiful thing, and so is peace, but there are some things in life that you need to be willing to fight for.
HoreTore
11-03-2009, 00:55
But at what cost?
A couple of bucks in tax vs. the deaths of thousands? I think I'd take the tax.
Centurion1
11-03-2009, 00:57
taxes were not the only thing the british did to us.
Quartering
Proclamation Line
To name a few......
HoreTore
11-03-2009, 01:11
taxes were not the only thing the british did to us.
Quartering
Proclamation Line
To name a few......
Oh the horror!
The americans were denied their right to subjugate and oppress another people(at least not at the speed they wanted...)?? Oh the injustice! And they were also required to do what basically everyone else in the world had to? My god!
[/sarcasm]
No, I still do not believe any of that constitutes "oppression". Sorry.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-03-2009, 01:37
A couple of bucks in tax vs. the deaths of thousands? I think I'd take the tax.
It was about a lot more than that. Indeed, even the taxation issue in itself is about more than that - it was about freedom and getting a say in a supposedly democratic system.
HoreTore
11-03-2009, 01:53
It was about a lot more than that. Indeed, even the taxation issue in itself is about more than that - it was about freedom and getting a say in a supposedly democratic system.
Nothing that a few years of diplomacy wouldn't have solved.
I hear a lot of talk about supposed oppression here, but I still haven't seen a single example of anything like it at all.
Time to face the facts, I guess; the brits were actually decent.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-03-2009, 02:12
Nothing that a few years of diplomacy wouldn't have solved.
I hear a lot of talk about supposed oppression here, but I still haven't seen a single example of anything like it at all.
Time to face the facts, I guess; the brits were actually decent.
Don't say there was no oppression. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_american_revolution#Origins) There have been worse in other parts of the world, but that doesn't change anything. Diplomacy had already been tried. There is a cost-benefit ratio involved, and in the amount of time it takes to negotiate with a stubborn opponent more harm can be done than in a relatively quick revolution.
Samurai Waki
11-03-2009, 02:32
It's awfully easy to ridicule history, but Norway is not America; the Swedes were not the British, and British were not as tyrannical as it has been made out to be. Many colonists didn't fight the British, and really didn't care either way. It wasn't just taxation that the revolutionaries were angry about, it was a factor sure, but self determination was more important at the time, Washington especially disliked the fact that the Colonists were playing in England's pissing matches with the French and the Spanish, and they were quite fed up with it, enough so that they were willing to sacrifice their lives so that they didn't have to have follow a man they didn't choose to lead them, needlessly sending them to butchery against men that they had no quarrel with. The Continental Armies were all volunteer, and it remained so until the very end of the war. You didn't have to fight if you didn't want to, they fought because that's what they thought was best, and it turned out rather well for them in the end. :shrug:
HoreTore
11-03-2009, 10:09
Don't say there was no oppression. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_american_revolution#Origins) There have been worse in other parts of the world, but that doesn't change anything. Diplomacy had already been tried. There is a cost-benefit ratio involved, and in the amount of time it takes to negotiate with a stubborn opponent more harm can be done than in a relatively quick revolution.
I most certainly will continue to say that there was no oppression, until someone beings proof of some actual oppression. Because I sure as hell ain't seen nothin' yet.
You think the swedish king was fond of negotiating with the peasantry?
It took us 89 years of negotiation to gain our independence. Did you try negotiating for 89 years? No, you grew tired after a couple of years and decided to follow Washington's small penis-complex.
Oh my. 89 years of being used as a doormat? Wow, you guys used to be vikings, right?
In any case No, thanks. The American way is better, give me Liberty or give me Death.
Furunculus
11-03-2009, 15:32
interesting article about how israel destroyed the al-kibar reactor, and how it was meant as a warning for iran:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658663,00.html
Strike For The South
11-03-2009, 18:47
Oh my. 89 years of being used as a doormat? Wow, you guys used to be vikings, right?
In any case No, thanks. The American way is better, give me Liberty or give me Death.
Americas victory was more of a case of French help than anything else.
The fathers were patriots no doubt, but to say there was widespread oppersion and Americans some how rose up because we're awesome really isn't true.
I mean, yall aint Texans.
...The fathers were patriots no doubt, but to say there was widespread oppersion and Americans some how rose up because we're awesome really isn't true...
Americans wanted some respect from the British Crown. Specifically, some representation in the parliament where our voice would be heard. Instead of respect, we got more taxes. That's tyranny.
And yes, the French did help us alot, but without the Washington's determination and a few key victories (without French help) the US independence would not have materialized.
Strike For The South
11-03-2009, 19:07
Americans wanted some respect from the British Crown. Specifically, some representation in the parliament where our voice would be heard. Instead of respect, we got more taxes. That's tyranny.
And yes, the French did help us alot, but without the Washington's determination and a few key victories (without French help) the US independence would not have materialized.
And without French and Spanish shot and powder we wouldnt've been able to fight.
Really it's a case of the new boss is the same as the old. The more radical revos were pushed out by the more old school ones.
Jefferson and Washington were really the only two whom live up to there reps.
Azathoth
11-03-2009, 19:49
Jefferson and Washington were really the only two whom live up to there reps.
Hamilton?
Centurion1
11-10-2009, 05:12
Thank god for hamilton, i would never want ugh jeffersons dream government. Too anti fed even for a hardened conservative as myself.
The federalists were major catalysts in why this nation is what it is. (some of the good and the bad.)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.