That's a pretty obvious one there.  I'd bet he hasn't been outside of the US.

My first visit outside the US to a third world country was an eye opener for sure

Yeah I heard California sucks..

---

That's a pretty obvious one there.  I'd bet he hasn't been outside of the US.

My first visit outside the US to a third world country was an eye opener for sure

It really makes you appreciate what we have here.

---

Right.  Carter's administration decided to play both sides for a time because they had already assessed that it was more likely than not that Khomeini would end up in a powerful position.  They were trying to salvage a bad situation.  Their naivete and ineptitude could be noted, but, regardless, the Shah's power was going to reduce and the Ayatollah's power was going to increase.

Nonsense, keeping the Shah was immaterial. Had the US simply supported the Iranian military then military would've replaced the Shah in a bloodless coup, Khomeini would've been arrested and most likely executed, and a local strongman in the Hussein model installed. Instead Carter Fubar'd the situation because his of his naivety and horrifically bad foreign policy positions and we ended up with the worst possible outcome.

In December of 1978, between 2 and 9 million Iranians participated in street protests.  These were probably the largest protests in history.  They demanded that the Ayatollah return to Iran and the Shah leave.  So any new Iranian government was going to let the Ayatollah return.
Once the Ayatollah returned, his plane was so surrounded by supporters that he had to leave the airport in a helicopter.  I don't think the military was ever going to go against that type of popular sentiment.  Certainly many wanted to.  But they never had the chance.  Too many on the other side.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Nonsense, keeping the Shah was immaterial. Had the US simply supported the Iranian military then military would've replaced the Shah in a bloodless coup, Khomeini would've been arrested and most likely executed, and a local strongman in the Hussein model installed. Instead Carter Fubar'd the situation because his of his naivety and horrifically bad foreign policy positions and we ended up with the worst possible outcome.

In December of 1978, between 2 and 9 million Iranians participated in street protests.  These were probably the largest protests in history.  They demanded that the Ayatollah return to Iran and the Shah leave.  So any new Iranian government was going to let the Ayatollah return.
Once the Ayatollah returned, his plane was so surrounded by supporters that he had to leave the airport in a helicopter.  I don't think the military was ever going to go against that type of popular sentiment.  Certainly many wanted to.  But they never had the chance.  Too many on the other side.

You don't seem to understand the nature of military junta.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In December of 1978, between 2 and 9 million Iranians participated in street protests.  These were probably the largest protests in history.  They demanded that the Ayatollah return to Iran and the Shah leave.  So any new Iranian government was going to let the Ayatollah return.
Once the Ayatollah returned, his plane was so surrounded by supporters that he had to leave the airport in a helicopter.  I don't think the military was ever going to go against that type of popular sentiment.  Certainly many wanted to.  But they never had the chance.  Too many on the other side.

You don't seem to understand the nature of military junta.

A junta doesn't need to be popular, correct, but at the very least they need ambivalence from their population. 
The Iranian public was not ambivalent at that time.

Egypt's recent history is instructive in my opinion.  Everyone agreed that Mubarak had to go, just like everyone agreed that Pahlavi had to go.  Yet there was a need to give the religious fundamentalists a taste of power and a chance to participate, or else they would have remained violent. So Morsi was given a chance to openly contest for power just as Khomeini was.  But Morsi wasn't as shrewd as Khomeini.  He was quickly deposed, while Khomeini held on.  
One difference is secular folks in Egypt never deluded themselves to think that they could let Morsi be a figurehead.  They tried to prevent him from gaining power by forcing him to run in an election, and after he won, they refused to cooperate with him.  Secularists in Iran thought they could use and mold the Ayatollah, which is why they didn't fear him initially. Once they realized Khomeini was playing all or nothing it was too late for them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Right.  Carter's administration decided to play both sides for a time because they had already assessed that it was more likely than not that Khomeini would end up in a powerful position.  They were trying to salvage a bad situation.  Their naivete and ineptitude could be noted, but, regardless, the Shah's power was going to reduce and the Ayatollah's power was going to increase.

Nonsense, keeping the Shah was immaterial. Had the US simply supported the Iranian military then military would've replaced the Shah in a bloodless coup, Khomeini would've been arrested and most likely executed, and a local strongman in the Hussein model installed. Instead Carter Fubar'd the situation because his of his naivety and horrifically bad foreign policy positions and we ended up with the worst possible outcome.

I'd argue that Carter's mistake was being too idealistic. He urged the Shah to be reform and show restraint against opposition. To be fair, this wasn't exclusive to Carter. The West had been basically forcing Iran to modernize since WWII, but Carter's administration was definitely hamstringing the Shah, which is what kept him from being the local strongman. Playing both sides of the fence was a HUGE political blunder that was brought about by democratic foreign policy. The conservative policy at the time was to encourage growth while allowing him to maintain military strength.

---

Nonsense, keeping the Shah was immaterial. Had the US simply supported the Iranian military then military would've replaced the Shah in a bloodless coup, Khomeini would've been arrested and most likely executed, and a local strongman in the Hussein model installed. Instead Carter Fubar'd the situation because his of his naivety and horrifically bad foreign policy positions and we ended up with the worst possible outcome.

I'd argue that Carter's mistake was being too idealistic. He urged the Shah to be reform and show restraint against opposition. To be fair, this wasn't exclusive to Carter. The West had been basically forcing Iran to modernize since WWII, but Carter's administration was definitely hamstringing the Shah, which is what kept him from being the local strongman. Playing both sides of the fence was a HUGE political blunder that was brought about by democratic foreign policy. The conservative policy at the time was to encourage growth while allowing him to maintain military strength.

The US and UK have certainly tried to use soft power to encourage modernization in the middle east.  And that modernization, when it happens, hasn't always worked out as we had hoped.
However we have by no means required modernization.
If the Shah wanted to be a hard [BLEEP] like the Saudis were, we wouldn't have stopped him, as long as he continued to sell oil in pounds or dollars.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yeah... you don't know what you're talking about. Carter focused heavily on human rights early in his administration and put pressure on the Shah to deal with his citizens fairly. While the Shah didn't necessarily follow that advice, he was happy to make public concessions, which is largely what emboldened the revolutionaries (as evidenced by Carter's speech). Both Kennedy AND Carter had a similar foreign policy in that regard, and the result was the same. The conservatives didn't push that narrative and the Shah had better control of his people, despite being cruel to anyone that opposed him, which admittedly sucks. Sometimes an area needs a strong man. Carter also believed that Khomeini would be an ally if he could return to Iran and prevent civil war. Whoops. Oh, and it turns out he was a strong man that tortured citizens who opposed him. Great progress was made.

Even still, Carter continued the arms sales to Iran (gotta keep the MIC happy, am i rite?). He played both sides of the fence and goofed at every turn... well, that is except for making arms dealers richer.

---

Yeah... you don't know what you're talking about. Carter focused heavily on human rights early in his administration and put pressure on the Shah to deal with his citizens fairly. While the Shah didn't necessarily follow that advice, he was happy to make public concessions, which is largely what emboldened the revolutionaries (as evidenced by Carter's speech). Both Kennedy AND Carter had a similar foreign policy in that regard, and the result was the same. The conservatives didn't push that narrative and the Shah had better control of his people, despite being cruel to anyone that opposed him, which admittedly sucks. Sometimes an area needs a strong man. Carter also believed that Khomeini would be an ally if he could return to Iran and prevent civil war. Whoops. Oh, and it turns out he was a strong man that tortured citizens who opposed him. Great progress was made.

Even still, Carter continued the arms sales to Iran (gotta keep the MIC happy, am i rite?). He played both sides of the fence and goofed at every turn... well, that is except for making arms dealers richer.

What speech are you talking about?
And why didn't the Shah just ignore what Carter had to say, the same way the Saudis did?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

18 year old Republican teen ran over and killed by 41 year old Democrat.


https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/...lRVDlPsUsw

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

What's going on here.... Oh Merkle looks to be having the vaccine shakes...

https://twitter.com/PatriotGirl0/status/...WABnOJI2GA

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

What's going on here.... Oh Merkle looks to be having the vaccine shakes...

https://twitter.com/PatriotGirl0/status/...WABnOJI2GA

It looked to be windy, maybe she was overcome with grief or just old and dying. I doubt any of the world leaders actually got a vaccine.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

What's going on here.... Oh Merkle looks to be having the vaccine shakes...

https://twitter.com/PatriotGirl0/status/...WABnOJI2GA

Most definitely not the "vaccine shakes" considering it happened 6 months before the coronavirus was a thing. One would think Zelensky standing next to her would have been the first clue that the video was taken over 3 years ago. 

Germany's Angela Merkel shakes uncontrollably at ceremony, says she's OK (nbcnews.com)

---

What's going on here.... Oh Merkle looks to be having the vaccine shakes...

https://twitter.com/PatriotGirl0/status/...WABnOJI2GA

Most definitely not the "vaccine shakes" considering it happened 6 months before the coronavirus was a thing. One would think Zelensky standing next to her would have been the first clue that the video was taken over 3 years ago. 

Germany's Angela Merkel shakes uncontrollably at ceremony, says she's OK (nbcnews.com)

I thought she has been sick for a while but they were keeping it quiet.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

It's Soylent Green and Logan's Run all molded into one.

I still want to know the names the media and Government are protecting post Epstein/Maxwell.

The idea that deep state or a shadow hand are running things is not crazy at all to believe anymore.

Eisenhower warned of this on his way out of office. Kennedy warned of this before he was assassinated by that "lone" gunman. Operation Northwoods further cements his speech.

You look at the lies, cover up's, false flags, money missing, war's, banks, etc.

Yeah. The table has been tilted now for centuries. We're really heading back to ancient times and societal structure if you think about it.

"You will own nothing and be happy." The world economic forum is pimping out the Agenda 2030 plan and it's coming quickly.

When I was a kid and I came across documentaries like the Esoteric Agenda and Zeitgeist. I didn't realize it then. But, it was giving me a cheat sheet and early look into what was to come just 15 years later.

Agenda 2030 was funny to hear people talk about on various platforms when I was ahead of the masses. There was Agenda 21 before 2030. It was a precursor way back in the 1980's and 1990's.

They want this plan to go through so badly. They just keep adjusting and moving it out when they must. Basically. We'll be serfs again with wealthy and loyal subjects owning us. That's what it sounds like to me. That's why getting the population down is there major ploy and concern.

Ted Turner talked about this openly in the 80s. As does Gates today and a few other wealthy billionaires. Billderburgh Group has always been around, etc.

"In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least it is true that man has no control, even over his own will. Man takes up the sword in order to shield the small wound in his heart sustained in a far-off time beyond remembrance. Man wields the sword so that he may die smiling in some far-off time beyond perception."

Kentaro Miura



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

This story is crazy…

FBI raids home of Catholic pro-life speaker, author with guns drawn as his terrified kids watch

What was his crime? One might ask…



“BUCKS COUNTY – A well-known pro-life author, sidewalk counselor, and father of seven was the latest victim of a Department of Justice-sponsored SWAT raid and arrest — for supposed “FACE Act” violations — at his rural home as his children looked on “screaming.”



A SWAT team of 25 to 30 FBI agents swarmed their property with 15 vehicles at 7 am this morning.



The charge comes from an incident that had already been thrown out of the District Court in Philadelphia but was somehow picked up by Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice.



On several occasions when Mark went to sidewalk counsel last year, he took his eldest son, who was only 12 at the time, she explained. For “weeks and weeks,” a “pro-abortion protester” would speak to the boy saying “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things,” such as “you’re dad’s a [BLEEP],” and other statements that were too vulgar for her to convey.



Repeatedly, Mark would tell this pro-abortion man that he did not have permission to speak to his son and please refrain from doing so. And “he kept doing it and kind of came into [the son’s] personal space” obscenely ridiculing his father. At this point, “Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back. He didn’t have any injuries or anything, but he tried to sue Mark,” and the case was thrown out of court in the early summer.”


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fbi-ra...ids-watch/

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Not much longer now and it will be time to stop being "respectful and compliant."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

We are way past due on that.

---

There’s still hope if we can find people like her…


https://twitter.com/wallstreetsilv/statu...AWeXt6gL9g

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

There’s still hope if we can find people like her…


https://twitter.com/wallstreetsilv/statu...AWeXt6gL9g

WOW! I think I'm in love.....

Moral of this story: never piss off a passionate Italian woman. They will take you down to Chinatown.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption