1
   

Something You Won't See

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 04:41 pm
Sofia wrote:
The benevolent, compassionate dick..


uughh ... bad visual ;-)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 04:57 pm
Sofia wrote:
We can almost always trace everything back to blame who we please. History seems to go back a long time. All have been crappy at one time or another.

Iran fired the most recent shot.


For someone coming into this thread solely to demand its posters to admit they were wrong in what they said here, thats an odd response to being shown wrong in what you said here.

You said the Iranians "made themselves our enemies". Considering they targeted the Americans only during a revolution to depose the dictator the Americans had put in there (ousting an elected president for purely material reasons and triggering a wave of political persecution), dlowan is right: the Americans had made themselves their enemies.

(And the US-sponsored coup hadn't been all that far back into history, either, just the twenty-odd years - or the length of that one dictator's reign. A shorter time, thus, than has passed now since the hostage-taking of 1979 - and it it had involved a whole lot more victims than that hostage-taking did, too.)

It's kinda odd ("odd" being a nice way to put it) to proudly beat one's collective self on the chest for magnanimously "putting aside" all that "those who made themselves our enemies" did to us - and then go all, well, you know, history, everyone's been crappy some time or other, thats just how it goes, when it comes to what your collective self did to them.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 06:57 pm
nimh wrote:
the US-sponsored coup hadn't been all that far back into history, either, just the twenty-odd years - or the length of that one dictator's reign. A shorter time, thus, than has passed now since the hostage-taking of 1979

Egh ... I can't count. It's 26 years (between 1953 and 1979) and 24 years (between 1979 and now), respectively.

OK, so as to put this in perspective ... imagine. Imagine, it's 1953, and when President Eisenhower takes one step too far in defending South-Korea, the Soviet government decides it's enough - the "madman" needs to be stopped. So the Soviets stage a coup d'etat in the USA, in the course of which Henry Wallace becomes the new American president and Eisenhower is arrested. A wave of state violence ensues as Wallace's secret police arrests both Republicans and moderate Democrats, and a cruel dictatorship lasts throughout the 60s and 70s.

Finally, in 1979, a popular revolt erupts - though it's true that just as it is evoking new hope in the hearts of metropolitan Americans, the role of ultra-evangelical "revolutionary students" becomes apparent, too. In the midst of it all, a mob attacks the Soviet embassy where the Wallace dictatorship had been cooked up, a huge, walled compound in downtown Manhattan, when they hear the Russians are once again planning a coup. The forces behind the "students" take advantage of the situation and take a number of Russians hostage there - it all ends bloody. Soon after, the revolution is definitively kidnapped by Supreme Reverend Pat Robertson.

Now it's 2003. After President George Bush Sr had pioneered some first political reforms, the people elected John Mc Cain in his place - a radical democratic reformer, who however still had to contend with Pat Robertson's successor, who as Supreme Reverend still was his superior and retained control over the police, secret services and militias. McCain is cautiously opening up some channels of communication even with the Russians, who however dub his regime part of the "Axis of Evil", only to eventually turn around and send two dozens of helpers after an earthquake rocks California.

Now who's being magnanimous - who deserves what credit for "putting aside" the past? How to use black and white schemes here?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 10:17 pm
The dicking around about my choice of words, and the desperate false accusation about 'my demand' are pathetic attempts to avoid the subject.

But, popular here, I'm sure.

I'm sure it was mighty magnanimous of Iran to ask for help... Shocked

All this talking doesn't change the fact that Bush sent a lot of supplies and assistance.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 10:22 pm
What is "a lot"?

Does anyone know what assistance will be offered?

A token set of rescue teams was a given and was what I referenced when I said I'd not be surprised.

Helping pay the billions that the reconstruction will cost is something I do not see in the cards and something that would surprise me.

If it's just a few rescue teams then this is a non-issue to me.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2003 10:28 pm
I assumed they would send help - Just not sure how much. It is, as has already been pointed out, something this nation (and a number of others) always does. It is pretty much automatic and would have reflected very badly on Bush if he had interfered with it. I takes as many potshots at the ******* as I can, but, no need for overkill, as many legitemate issues as there already are.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 07:35 am
Sofia wrote:
The dicking around about my choice of words, and the desperate false accusation about 'my demand' are pathetic attempts to avoid the subject.


"Desperate false accusations", no less. <sigh>

Lookit - you come in here all gleeful and demonstrative about how those people here will surely not be gracious enough to just admit that Bush sent some men in there to help.

Fine. So - you will have noticed - a spate of posts followed in which posters said, yeh sure, hell, he surprised us positively, absolutely.

Now compare your own posts.

Dlowan merely pointed out that you were wrong, in your turn, to posit the 'facts' of the matter as being that the Iranians "made themselves our enemies" - pointing out briefly that, you know, when they "did" so, they were overthrowing a cruel dictator you put in there, which cost many of them their lives. Now who made whom whose enemies?

Your response has basically come down to: ah, irrelevant, thats all just history, all of us done some crap so no matter - and when you point it out to me you're just desperately dicking around on details to avoid the point, you all just keep talking ...

Rrrright.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 07:43 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Does anyone know what assistance will be offered?


Thusfar I've seen mention of 200 doctors, 18 field hospitals (apparently all of the hospitals in the area collapsed so there are none at the moment) and 75 tons of medical supplies.

What else may come after things are sorted out is anyone's guess..
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 10:36 am
I read that 150,000 pounds (or some other measurement, I forget...) of food were airlifted into Iran.

I also read some airforce guy saying that he was overwhelmed with the warm reception the US military personnel received from their Iranian counterparts.

Thus far it's been the type of assistance I expected.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 10:37 am
This all sounds wonderful and I am happy to be proven wrong.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 10:40 am
Whatever we've done -- I'm sure we could have done more. But that does not detract from the fact that we did contribute...and I don't really care what motivated the powers that be.

I care that we Americans were able to put aside whatever animosity exists between the Iranians and us -- and that we were able to offer some help.

The comment from the Air Force guy about the warm reception reinforces my feelings that people truly respect this kind of thing.

The kind of "respect" obtained by being the biggest, baddest muttha can't even come close.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 10:41 am
I would have been disappointed if we hadn't come up with significant help. I expected it, but big sigh or relief anyway.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 10:58 am
It still seems to me that many of you are disappointed that the US has responded.You seem to be saying..."Yea,Bush did the right thing,but..."
Now,I know some of you on here are vehement Bush haters,but why cant you admit that what he is doing is the right thing?
You cant stand the fact that the US has mobilized to help,or you cant stand the fact that Bush did it and now you cant condemn him for something else.
Just admit that Bush did the right thing,after all this country has responded to natural disasters all over the world.
So,which one of you Bush haters will say...Bush did the right thing and I am proud of his actions",and leave it at that?
I don't think any of you can or will.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 11:29 am
Frank, Acquiunk, the bunny and I already did mysterman....you'll have to find another place to pick a fight...... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 12:35 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Frank, Acquiunk, the bunny and I already did mysterman....you'll have to find another place to pick a fight...... :wink:


No way, Bear. He ain't getting away with that last post of his.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2003 12:43 pm
mysteryman wrote:
It still seems to me that many of you are disappointed that the US has responded.You seem to be saying..."Yea,Bush did the right thing,but..."


There are not that many of us here in this thread. Why didn't you direct this comment at whomever you suppose to be doing this.

And in any case, what is wrong with saying that Bush did the right thing, but....?


Quote:
Now,I know some of you on here are vehement Bush haters,but why cant you admit that what he is doing is the right thing?


Well I happen to think Bush is one of the stupidest people ever to hold public office above the level of High School class vice-president.

But I have acknowledged (why "admit) that he did the right thing -- and came back to defend and restate that acknowledgement.


Quote:
You cant stand the fact that the US has mobilized to help,or you cant stand the fact that Bush did it and now you cant condemn him for something else.


No problem for me. I can condemn him for being a goddam moron. That is something that is always available.


Quote:
Just admit that Bush did the right thing,after all this country has responded to natural disasters all over the world.
So,which one of you Bush haters will say...Bush did the right thing and I am proud of his actions",and leave it at that?
I don't think any of you can or will.


How about letting others put their thoughts into their own words -- and you just worry about the wording you want to use in your posts. Wouldn't that make more sense?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2003 02:17 pm
nimh wrote:
Sofia wrote:
The dicking around about my choice of words, and the desperate false accusation about 'my demand' are pathetic attempts to avoid the subject.


"Desperate false accusations", no less. <sigh>

Lookit - you come in here all gleeful and demonstrative about how those people here will surely not be gracious enough to just admit that Bush sent some men in there to help.
If you are going to characterize my feelings during a post, you should either do so correctly, or expect to be corrected. I was not gleeful in the least. I was frustrated and mildly peeved. I did not say they wouldn't admit they were wrong, I said I wanted to see if they would, and had not been surprized at anything in the thread.
Fine. So - you will have noticed - a spate of posts followed in which posters said, yeh sure, hell, he surprised us positively, absolutely.

Now compare your own posts.

Dlowan merely pointed out that you were wrong, in your turn, to posit the 'facts' of the matter as being that the Iranians "made themselves our enemies" - pointing out briefly that, you know, when they "did" so, they were overthrowing a cruel dictator you put in there, which cost many of them their lives. Now who made whom whose enemies?
This was not a history lesson. We did things to make us unpopular with Iran; and they did things to make themselves unpopular with us. Since they are the ones in need, we are the ones, who must overlook their behavior in deciding to help them. As I said, I saw dlowan's, and your, attempt to get off the subject of US assistance and on to this stupid tangent, just another way to dodge something positive done by Bush.
Your response has basically come down to: ah, irrelevant, thats all just history, all of us done some crap so no matter - and when you point it out to me you're just desperately dicking around on details to avoid the point, you all just keep talking ...
It was off point. If we were asking for help from Iran, their opinion of us would be on point.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2004 08:18 pm
There's been loads of newspaper articles on this, of course, but I really liked this one:

Quote:
Small US hospital makes big impact on Iran

There was nothing grand about the opening of an American field hospital in devastated Bam yesterday, except the symbolism. The hospital was small, arrived late and according to many observers was surplus to requirements. But if little pebbles make big ripples, US-Iranian relations are headed for a thaw.
Often blinking back tears, the 81-strong American team got to work with vigorous goodwill, openly appalled by the agonies inflicted by an earthquake inside a regime that George Bush has branded "evil". And the people of Bam reciprocated, welcoming the henchmen of the "Great Satan" with mild curiosity, quiet good manners and generous thanks.

"What these people are going through, it's unimaginable; so many have lost their entire families, we just had no idea," said Dr Tim Crowley, a general physician from Boston, standing scrubbed and ready for action outside the hospital's five modest marquees. "And, you know, they're just getting on with it. I had no idea the people here were going to be so friendly, receptive, welcoming. It's really incredible."

Dr Crowley had time to talk because patients were in short supply. The hospital opened at 1pm and five hours later its 14 doctors and surgeons - some of whom gave emergency help to the survivors of the September 11 terrorist attacks - had seen just a dozen patients. But in another sense he was already overwhelmed.

One of his first patients was nine-year-old Fatima, who arrived, having already been treated for a broken arm, complaining of headaches. Dr Crowley diagnosed a brain haemorrhage and packed her off to the airport to find a neurosurgeon in Tehran.

"That little girl, if she hadn't made it here, she'd have died in a few hours," he said, wiping back tears with a gloved hand. "But if she finds the right treatment, she'll live. That would make it all worthwhile."

Another patient limped in with a pinned right leg, having also been previously treated in one of the 13 foreign field hospitals that began opening in Bam on Monday, 36 hours after the earthquake. Security - non-existent in any other field hospital - was tight. Majid Vafiee, 29, had first to limp through a cordon of Iran's elite presidential guard, then to be vetted by Deputy-Sheriff Bob Boomhower, the mission's security chief.

"OK, we're the only team with security officers, but we're pretty relaxed, and we're going to get more relaxed the longer we're here," said Mr Boomhower, a thick-set police officer from Massachusetts with a greying walrus moustache. "There was a bit of fear from everyone on the way because it's been a long time since [Americans] were here. But because the government invited us, we weren't really worried about our safety."

Shortly afterwards, Mr Vafiee limped out. "I'm very grateful to the Americans and all the foreign people for coming to help us; they are very kind people," he said, blinking before the cameras of a dozen international journalists in the pale evening light. "But, to be honest, it doesn't make any difference which hospital I go to because they can't help me." It turned out he needed a major operation to reset his leg, which the Americans could not provide.

Though mobilised within hours of the emergency, the US team took five days to arrive - three days more than a group of South African trauma psychologists. The first hold-up was logistical, when the team's unusually large size called for a C-17 military transport plane to fly it the first leg of the journey to Frankfurt. The second was political, after the Iranian government got cold feet about allowing a US military plane into Iran.

Dr Crowley was sympathetic. "Five minutes ago it was raining steel down on the Iraqi people and now, gee, we're bringing humanitarian aid. I think that worried the government a bit."

By the time the team was cleared to proceed, its search and rescue component was considered superfluous by the government, and was dropped off in Kuwait. Only a handful of survivors have been pulled from Bam's suffocating rubble this week, and none by international rescue teams.

The team landed in Kerman on Tuesday, where the emergency relief team was forced to remain inside the plane for six hours before visas were issued. After further logistical troubles, the team arrived in Bam on Wednesday, only to find that no site had been allocated for their clinic.

At last, the American "can-do" spirit triumphed.

"We just said, 'Okay, we're setting up,' and this Iranian general said he had no problem with that, so we didn't wait a second," Dr Crowley said. "We don't want to be political showboats; we came here to treat people."

Twenty metres away, Dr Georgyi Roshchin, the head of a 100-bed Ukrainian field hospital that has been operating since Monday and which treated nearly 200 patients yesterday, took a five-minute break.

"The American hospital is a political question," Dr Roshchin said. "They have a very small hospital. We have a very big hospital."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2004 08:18 pm
Thanks Sofia for a polite reply. Mine was definitely a bit too shrill, I'd been uneasy with it. Grateful you took it in your stride.

Sofia wrote:
As I said, I saw dlowan's, and your, attempt to get off the subject of US assistance and on to this stupid tangent, just another way to dodge something positive done by Bush.


There was no reason to see it as such, since by the time I came in here, three of the four posters who had originally said in this thread that they didnt expect Bush to go help out, had already come back to correct themselves and say, yeh, i was pleasantly surprised, he did the right thing.

So there was no dodging the issue - pretty much everyone whom you came in to say "there are none so blind .." about - the thread participants thus far - had already come back to acknowledge what needed to be acknowledged. They still dont think Bush is a really nice guy or a hero, but they "admitted" that he did what any civilised nation should do, and that it had been a pleasant surprise. Dlowan had also already done that.

(I never said - or even thought - that Bush wouldnt offer any help, myself, so I had nothing of interest to say about the topic - non-issue for me <shrugs>. I was just tempted into this thread exactly by dlowan's other point and your response.)

So basically, that part was already dealt with - or how many more posters had you expected to come in?

I think it looks especially bad in comparison with all that, to first beat one's chest about how magnanimous it was of America to "put aside [everything] and send assistance to those who made themselves our enemies", and then to respond to any reminder of what America did to them with some bland, guilt-erasing, "all have been crappy at one time or another". Basically, you came in here expecting liberals to apply some blatant double standards - and then demonstrated the biggest double standard of the thread, yourself. What we did is just history, **** happens, we've all done something - now what they did, that was really magnanimous of us to put aside. <shrugs>
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2004 08:49 pm
Have I told you lately that I love your posts, nimh? :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 06:02:22