Iran says shooting down of plane is unforgiveable.

[L.K.Eder]

no one could have known that the middle east could be so complicated. luckily trump alone can fix it.

You can thank W and O for breaking it and trump aint gonna fix it.

I think it was broken long before that....

When Iranian revolutionaries entered the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and seized 52 Americans, President Jimmy Carter dismissed reminders of America's long intervention in Iran as "ancient history." Carter's point was not merely that previous U.S. policy could not excuse the hostage taking. His adjective also implied that there was nothing of value to be learned from that history. In his view, dredging up old matters was more than unhelpful; it was also dangerous, presumably because it could only serve the interests of America's adversaries. Thus, to raise historical issues was at least unpatriotic and maybe worse.[1]

As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts.[2] The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention


https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

Carter had sided with the radical ayatollah to overthrow the shah. Of course the shah was no good either but after carter gave his blessing to the ayatollah, the shah left iran. Revolutionaries took the hostages and then the ayatollah laughed at carter and said....."america can't do a damn thing". The ME was already always in some sort of turmoil but W and O got it blazing.

always with the W and O. lol. what a load. the guy who got it blazing was not W and O. it was W. or was O the decider to invade I?

 

[L.K.Eder]

and guess who got it blazing again? T

 

[BlindBoo]

no one could have known that the middle east could be so complicated. luckily trump alone can fix it.

You can thank W and O for breaking it and trump aint gonna fix it.

I think it was broken long before that....

When Iranian revolutionaries entered the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and seized 52 Americans, President Jimmy Carter dismissed reminders of America's long intervention in Iran as "ancient history." Carter's point was not merely that previous U.S. policy could not excuse the hostage taking. His adjective also implied that there was nothing of value to be learned from that history. In his view, dredging up old matters was more than unhelpful; it was also dangerous, presumably because it could only serve the interests of America's adversaries. Thus, to raise historical issues was at least unpatriotic and maybe worse.[1]

As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts.[2] The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention


https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

Carter had sided with the radical ayatollah to overthrow the shah. Of course the shah was no good either but after carter gave his blessing to the ayatollah, the shah left iran. Revolutionaries took the hostages and then the ayatollah laughed at carter and said....."america can't do a damn thing". The ME was already always in some sort of turmoil but W and O got it blazing.

That's unreal. Without military intervention, Carter was powerless to stop the overthrow of the Shah. The first time the Students overran and took over the Embassy the Ayatollah sent in the Iranian military to take it back for us. It was only after Carter allowed the Shah into the US later that year for medical treatment that the Ayatollah sanctioned another take over and hostage taking. But looking at the ME from that point in time is still like turning on a movie halfway through.....

 

[Dick Foster]

So far, libs are siding with terrorists and are supportive of the murderers who are shooting and killing protestors. They'll only get worse. It's amazing watching this unfold.

But the terrorists are not even siding with themselves is the funny thing.

Iran says they are to blame and it is unforgiveable, and presumably going to execute those involved.

Meanwhile, in Left wing looneyville they blame Trump.

Dem Rep Blames Trump for Iranian Plane Crash

The sad fact of the matter is, the Left would dance on their own mother's grave if it meant helping them achieve political power.

Thats true and appalling. If trump wins in November, violence will ensue from the left. All they have is govt worship. They're unhinged at this point. It's hard to sell a nihilistic theme.

I hope they run amok in the streets so they can be shot down and we'll be rid if the assholes finally.

 

[bendog]

no one could have known that the middle east could be so complicated. luckily trump alone can fix it.

You can thank W and O for breaking it and trump aint gonna fix it.

I think it was broken long before that....

When Iranian revolutionaries entered the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and seized 52 Americans, President Jimmy Carter dismissed reminders of America's long intervention in Iran as "ancient history." Carter's point was not merely that previous U.S. policy could not excuse the hostage taking. His adjective also implied that there was nothing of value to be learned from that history. In his view, dredging up old matters was more than unhelpful; it was also dangerous, presumably because it could only serve the interests of America's adversaries. Thus, to raise historical issues was at least unpatriotic and maybe worse.[1]

As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts.[2] The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention


https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

Carter had sided with the radical ayatollah to overthrow the shah. Of course the shah was no good either but after carter gave his blessing to the ayatollah, the shah left iran. Revolutionaries took the hostages and then the ayatollah laughed at carter and said....."america can't do a damn thing". The ME was already always in some sort of turmoil but W and O got it blazing.

That's unreal. Without military intervention, Carter was powerless to stop the overthrow of the Shah. The first time the Students overran and took over the Embassy the Ayatollah sent in the Iranian military to take it back for us. It was only after Carter allowed the Shah into the US later that year for medical treatment that the Ayatollah sanctioned another take over and hostage taking. But looking at the ME from that point in time is still like turning on a movie halfway through.....

Carter miscalculated the Iranians fear of another coup, and the necessity that the US step away from any political involvement in Iran. We are still paying the price. And no matter how ineffective Obama's coalition was, it did send a clear message that Iran understood that if it agreed to act in intl affairs as a maj of nations wanted, good econ things would happen, and we weren't going to bomb them.

Trump's finding it difficult to "do a deal" with them after threatening to bomb them. Instead, they bombed our bases.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

and guess who got it blazing again? T

No, W and O. Trumps trying to put the blaze out.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

no one could have known that the middle east could be so complicated. luckily trump alone can fix it.

You can thank W and O for breaking it and trump aint gonna fix it.

I think it was broken long before that....

When Iranian revolutionaries entered the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and seized 52 Americans, President Jimmy Carter dismissed reminders of America's long intervention in Iran as "ancient history." Carter's point was not merely that previous U.S. policy could not excuse the hostage taking. His adjective also implied that there was nothing of value to be learned from that history. In his view, dredging up old matters was more than unhelpful; it was also dangerous, presumably because it could only serve the interests of America's adversaries. Thus, to raise historical issues was at least unpatriotic and maybe worse.[1]

As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts.[2] The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention


https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

Carter had sided with the radical ayatollah to overthrow the shah. Of course the shah was no good either but after carter gave his blessing to the ayatollah, the shah left iran. Revolutionaries took the hostages and then the ayatollah laughed at carter and said....."america can't do a damn thing". The ME was already always in some sort of turmoil but W and O got it blazing.

always with the W and O. lol. what a load. the guy who got it blazing was not W and O. it was W. or was O the decider to invade I?

Thats right because those 2 ran up 16 trillion in debt and led us into never ending wars. They are both to blame for the mess we're in. I can't help it because you're not man enough to admit it. You're just a one stop lib hack.

 

[bendog]

and guess who got it blazing again? T

No, W and O. Trumps trying to put the blaze out.

With kerosene

 

[LordBrownTrout]

no one could have known that the middle east could be so complicated. luckily trump alone can fix it.

You can thank W and O for breaking it and trump aint gonna fix it.

I think it was broken long before that....

When Iranian revolutionaries entered the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and seized 52 Americans, President Jimmy Carter dismissed reminders of America's long intervention in Iran as "ancient history." Carter's point was not merely that previous U.S. policy could not excuse the hostage taking. His adjective also implied that there was nothing of value to be learned from that history. In his view, dredging up old matters was more than unhelpful; it was also dangerous, presumably because it could only serve the interests of America's adversaries. Thus, to raise historical issues was at least unpatriotic and maybe worse.[1]

As the United States finds itself in the aftermath of another crisis in the Middle East, it is worth the risk of opprobrium to ask why there should be hostility toward America in that region. Some insight can be gained by surveying official U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Acknowledged herein is a fundamental, yet deplorably overlooked, distinction between understanding and excusing. The purpose of this survey is not to pardon acts of violence against innocent people but to understand the reasons that drive people to violent political acts.[2] The stubborn and often self-serving notion that the historical record is irrelevant because political violence is inexcusable ensures that Americans will be caught in crises in the Middle East and elsewhere for many years to come.

After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention


https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa159.pdf

Carter had sided with the radical ayatollah to overthrow the shah. Of course the shah was no good either but after carter gave his blessing to the ayatollah, the shah left iran. Revolutionaries took the hostages and then the ayatollah laughed at carter and said....."america can't do a damn thing". The ME was already always in some sort of turmoil but W and O got it blazing.

That's unreal. Without military intervention, Carter was powerless to stop the overthrow of the Shah. The first time the Students overran and took over the Embassy the Ayatollah sent in the Iranian military to take it back for us. It was only after Carter allowed the Shah into the US later that year for medical treatment that the Ayatollah sanctioned another take over and hostage taking. But looking at the ME from that point in time is still like turning on a movie halfway through.....

Of course Carter was powerless, he just backed the ayatollahs. Later, the ayatollahs turned on Carter after he gave them his blessing. Carter did try but failed to get the hostages back. Iran knew the gig was up when Reagan got elected. They were released a few minutes after he was sworn in.