There's no persecution of Gays Plain Ol'. Right now, you have "Additional Rights" and this is fundamentally wrong. Because of your sexuality, you have now claimed that you're entitled to: (1) Redefine the term "Marriage"; and (2) Based on who you choose to crawl in the sack with, "marry" a person outside of the confines of what a marriage is.
This is wrong, and it will be addressed soon. On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:40 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > I do disagree with Plaino though as far as Sir Bernard is concerned, > sounds like a very decent human being to me. > --- > he sounds like a fucking You Norker barking like a dog to me ... and so > does Trump. > Do you really want either of these men representing America? > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 7:55:24 PM UTC-6, pluto of brougham wrote: > >> the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI >> that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or >> Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall >> ever >> be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the >> United States.” >> >> Full marks to Plaino for that interesting essay, surely the above should >> disqualify that woman who refused gay marriage licences from holding >> a govt. post, as well as the judges on the high court bench to put aside >> their religious beliefs in considering different cases, however, I >> recognise that very few of us can be so totally dispassionate, unless we're >> Vulcans of course. >> >> I do disagree with Plaino though as far as Sir Bernard is concerned, >> sounds like a very decent human being to me. >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:01 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> [email protected] >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/politicalforum/topics> >> Google >> Groups >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> >> Topic digest >> View all topics >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/politicalforum/topics> >> >> - [grendelreport] Colonials >> >> <#872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_0> >> - 5 Updates >> - [grendelreport] What If Iran's Guardian Council Managed U.S. >> Elections? >> >> <#872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_1> >> - 6 Updates >> - [grendelreport] Who Is Bernie Sanders? >> >> <#872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_2> >> - 4 Updates >> - [grendelreport] NY SHOOTOUT: Devout Muslim AMBUSHES, FIRES at 8 >> NYPD Cops, Two OFFICERS Injured >> >> <#872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_3> >> - 2 Updates >> - [grendelreport] Cops are asking Ancestry.com and 23andMe for their >> customers' DNA >> >> <#872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_4> >> - 2 Updates >> - [New post] If you’ve never seen Islamic ‘halal’ slaughter, force >> yourself to watch this, then share it with those who haven’t >> >> <#872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_5> >> - 5 Updates >> - [grendelreport] Border Walls >> >> <#872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_group_thread_6> >> - 1 Update >> >> [grendelreport] Colonials >> <http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/t/bf451f2b69b8bc43?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> >> plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 09:49AM -0800 >> >> but we do remember when they persecuted everyone with different religious >> beliefs (or no beliefs at all). >> >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:41:28 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: >> Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 01:21PM -0500 >> >> I will probably regret asking this, but who is it that you are alleging >> are, "They", and when did this allegedly happen? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:49 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] >> plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 10:30AM -0800 >> >> America's True History of Religious ToleranceThe idea that the United >> States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and >> utterly at odds with the historical record. >> >> >> In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came >> to >> America aboard the *Mayflower* in search of religious freedom in 1620. >> The >> Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious >> dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their governor >> John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the >> same, >> coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which >> everyone was free to practice his or her own faith. >> >> The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real >> story >> of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently >> embarrassing >> and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school texts >> either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent >> conversation >> about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this >> comforting tableau. >> >> >> From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has >> often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the >> foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” >> natives >> already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of >> early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between >> various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and >> Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion >> that America is a “Christian nation.” >> >> First, a little overlooked history: the initial encounter between >> Europeans >> in the future United States came with the establishment of a Huguenot >> (French Protestant) colony in 1564 at Fort Caroline (near modern >> Jacksonville, Florida). More than half a century before the *Mayflower* >> set >> sail, French pilgrims had come to America in search of religious freedom. >> >> The Spanish had other ideas. In 1565, they established a forward >> operating >> base at St. Augustine and proceeded to wipe out the Fort Caroline colony. >> The Spanish commander, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, wrote to the Spanish >> King >> Philip II that he had “hanged all those we had found in [Fort Caroline] >> because...they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these >> Provinces.” When hundreds of survivors of a shipwrecked French fleet >> washed >> up on the beaches of Florida, they were put to the sword, beside a river >> the Spanish called Matanzas (“slaughters”). In other words, the first >> encounter between European Christians in America ended in a blood bath. >> >> The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England >> in >> the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious >> dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the >> Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing >> religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no >> dissent, religious or political. >> >> >> The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams >> and >> Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and >> policy. From Puritan Boston’s earliest days, Catholics (“Papists”) were >> anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other >> non-Puritans. >> Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently >> returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs. >> >> Throughout the colonial era, Anglo-American antipathy toward >> Catholics—especially French and Spanish Catholics—was pronounced and >> often >> reflected in the sermons of such famous clerics as Cotton Mather and in >> statutes that discriminated against Catholics in matters of property and >> voting. Anti-Catholic feelings even contributed to the revolutionary mood >> in America after King George III extended an olive branch to French >> Catholics in Canada with the Quebec Act of 1774, which recognized their >> religion. >> >> When George Washington dispatched Benedict Arnold on a mission to court >> French Canadians’ support for the American Revolution in 1775, he >> cautioned >> Arnold not to let their religion get in the way. “Prudence, policy and a >> true Christian Spirit,” Washington advised, “will lead us to look with >> compassion upon their errors, without insulting them.” (After Arnold >> betrayed the American cause, he publicly cited America’s alliance with >> Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so.) >> >> In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws >> regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to >> hold >> public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing >> papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics >> from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics >> had >> full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming >> belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South >> Carolina, had official, state-supported churches. >> >> In 1779, as Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that >> guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those >> of >> no religion—in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously >> wrote, >> “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or >> no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But Jefferson’s >> plan >> did not advance—until after Patrick (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”) >> Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for “teachers >> of >> the Christian religion.” >> >> Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully >> argued essay titled “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious >> Assessments,” the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid >> out >> reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. >> Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison’s argument became a fundamental >> piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the >> secular state that “should be as familiar to students of American history >> as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” as Susan Jacoby >> has written in *Freethinkers*, her excellent history of American >> secularism. >> >> Among Madison’s 15 points was his declaration that “the Religion then of >> every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every...man to >> exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an >> inalienable right.” >> >> Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should >> understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a >> threat to religion. “Who does not see,” he wrote, “that the same >> authority >> which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, >> may >> establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in >> exclusion of all other Sects?” Madison was writing from his memory of >> Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia. >> >> As a Christian, Madison also noted that Christianity had spread in the >> face >> of persecution from worldly powers, not with their help. Christianity, he >> contended, “disavows a dependence on the powers of this world...for it is >> known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without >> the >> support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.” >> >> Recognizing the idea of America as a refuge for the protester or rebel, >> Madison also argued that Henry’s proposal was “a departure from that >> generous policy, which offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed >> of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country.” >> >> After long debate, Patrick Henry’s bill was defeated, with the opposition >> outnumbering supporters 12 to 1. Instead, the Virginia legislature took >> up >> Jefferson’s plan for the separation of church and state. In 1786, the >> Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, modified somewhat from >> Jefferson’s original draft, became law. The act is one of three >> accomplishments Jefferson included on his tombstone, along with writing >> the >> Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (He omitted his >> presidency of the United States.) After the bill was passed, Jefferson >> proudly wrote that the law “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its >> protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the >> Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” >> >> Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he >> went >> to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed >> in >> Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article >> VI >> that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or >> Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall >> ever >> be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the >> United States.” >> >> This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention >> God or a deity (except for a pro forma “year of our Lord” date) and that >> its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would >> infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders’ >> resolve >> that America be a secular republic. The men who fought the Revolution may >> have thanked Providence and attended church regularly—or not. But they >> also >> fought a war against a country in which the head of state was the head of >> the church. Knowing well the history of religious warfare that led to >> America’s settlement, they clearly understood both the dangers of that >> system and of sectarian conflict. >> >> It was the recognition of that divisive past by the founders—notably >> Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison—that secured America as a >> secular >> republic. As president, Washington wrote in 1790: “All possess alike >> liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship. ...For happily the >> Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to >> persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its >> protection should demean themselves as good citizens.” >> >> He was addressing the members of America’s oldest synagogue, the Touro >> Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island (where his letter is read aloud every >> August). In closing, he wrote specifically to the Jews a phrase that >> applies to Muslims as well: “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, >> who >> dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the >> other >> inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and >> figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” >> >> As for Adams and Jefferson, they would disagree vehemently over policy, >> but >> on the question of religious freedom they were united. “In their >> seventies,” Jacoby writes, “with a friendship that had survived serious >> political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with >> satisfaction >> on what they both considered their greatest achievement—their role in >> establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be >> required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views.” >> >> Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: >> “And >> I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one >> has >> done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, >> the less they are mixed together.” >> >> While some of America’s early leaders were models of virtuous tolerance, >> American attitudes were slow to change. The anti-Catholicism of America’s >> Calvinist past found new voice in the 19th century. The belief widely >> held >> and preached by some of the most prominent ministers in America was that >> Catholics would, if permitted, turn America over to the pope. >> Anti-Catholic >> venom was part of the typical American school day, along with Bible >> readings. In Massachusetts, a convent—coincidentally near the site of the >> Bunker Hill Monument—was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic >> mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent >> school. In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic >> sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the >> Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches >> were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed. >> >> At about the same time, Joseph Smith founded a new American religion—and >> soon met with the wrath of the mainstream Protestant majority. In 1832, a >> mob tarred and feathered him, marking the beginning of a long battle >> between Christian America and Smith’s Mormonism. In October 1838, after a >> series of conflicts over land and religious tension, Missouri Governor >> Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be expelled from his state. Three >> days later, rogue militiamen massacred 17 church members, including >> children, at the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill. In 1844, a mob >> murdered >> Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum while they were jailed in Carthage, >> Illinois. No one was ever convicted of the crime. >> >> Even as late as 1960, Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy >> felt >> compelled to make a major speech declaring that his loyalty was to >> America, >> not the pope. (And as recently as the 2008 Republican primary campaign, >> Mormon candidate Mitt Romney felt compelled to address the suspicions >> still >> directed toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Of >> course, America’s anti-Semitism was practiced institutionally as well as >> socially for decades. With the great threat of “godless” Communism >> looming >> in the 1950s, the country’s fear of atheism also reached new heights. >> >> America can still be, as Madison perceived the nation in 1785, “an Asylum >> to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.” But >> recognizing that deep religious discord has been part of America’s social >> DNA is a healthy and necessary step. When we acknowledge that dark past, >> perhaps the nation will return to that “promised...lustre” of which >> Madison >> so grandiloquently wrote. >> >> *Kenneth C. Davis* is the author of *Don’t Know Much About History* and >> *A >> Nation Rising*, among other books. >> >> >> >> Read more: >> >> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/#70lZu2DqhQhfYm66.99 >> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv >> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter >> >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:21:51 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >> Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 01:42PM -0500 >> >> So your little abridged historical story pretty much buttresses what I was >> thinking: In general, we are a tolerant accepting culture founded upon >> Christian principles and tenets, and accepting of all who want to be a >> part >> and parcel of this society. >> >> You should probably read your little abridged historical story, it would >> be >> a good thing. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 10:57AM -0800 >> >> So your little abridged historical story pretty much buttresses what I >> was >> thinking: In general, we are a tolerant accepting culture founded upon >> Christian principles and tenets, and accepting of all who want to be a >> part >> and parcel of this society. >> --- >> history says otherwise ... can't you read, lawyerboy? >> Jefferson and Madison put religious myth believing asshole like you in >> their place. >> take your religious persecution to israel or iran where it will be >> appreciated. >> >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:42:44 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >> Back to top >> <#872959532_CAJrTEUC=WfTrmJyWJcxDgJRfoadydMDNOnTC0JF1U+G7u_ciBA@mail.gmail.com_-1150173010_digest_top> >> [grendelreport] What If Iran's Guardian Council Managed U.S. Elections? >> <http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/t/42cd656023cd9bf2?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> >> Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>: Feb 22 12:21PM -0500 >> >> Most Progressives like Plain Ol" conveniently "Forget" the USSR's >> involvement in the region, and what was the causation of the United States >> involvement. >> >> Not that Plain Ol's post has anything remotely to do with the initial >> post, >> but it's "*Typical*": >> >> >> >> >> https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/age-reagan/essays/iran-and-united-states-cold-war >> >> Both of these circumstances—Iran’s location between the USSR and the >> Persian Gulf, and the presence of major oil reserves—guaranteed the >> country’s importance during the Cold War. In addition, a third factor came >> into play: the emergence, even before the end of World War II, of the >> global military and ideological competition between the United States and >> the Soviet Union. Fear of losing influence in a vital part of the world to >> Soviet-led Communism motivated much of American foreign policy for the >> next >> several decades. American sentiment about competition and democracy was >> spelled out, sometimes in almost Biblical terms, in conceptual documents >> like NSC-68 and in numerous policy papers over the years. >> >> In two key incidents in Iran from the post-war period these precepts were >> plainly evident, and produced consequences for the United States that were >> in some ways utterly unanticipated. At other moments later in the Cold >> War, >> described further below, Washington’s fixation on the Soviet threat left >> it >> unprepared to deal with crises of local origin that were equally >> significant for America’s standing in the region. >> >> The first of these earlier episodes unfolded at the end of the Second >> World >> War when the USSR threatened to abrogate its agreement with Britain and >> Iran to remove its large troop presence from Iran’s northern province of >> Azerbaijan within six months of the cessation of hostilities. Anxious to >> gain an oil concession that would balance Britain’s privileged access in >> the south of the country, as well as to create a buffer zone in a >> vulnerable border region, Joseph Stalin planned to solidify Soviet >> influence in the southern Caucasus region—perhaps even to annex part of >> Azerbaijan province, according to Soviet archival records—but met >> surprising resistance from President Harry Truman, who gave a range of >> support to the young Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Stalin >> ultimately >> decided to withdraw from the country in late 1946. The actions of the >> United States were seen as a sign of genuine respect for the rights of >> sovereign states—highly unusual for a major power—and made a powerful >> impression on the Iranian people. To this day, the Azerbaijan crisis >> accounts for some of the positive views many still have of the United >> States. >> >> Less than a decade later, however, a second major incident dramatically >> changed many Iranians’ opinion of the United States. In 1951, Iran’s >> recently elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, nationalized the >> country’s petroleum industry, long the domain of the British-dominated >> Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The move pitted the two governments >> against each other in a bitter political fight, leaving the United States >> once again to play the intermediary. But while the Truman administration >> had tried to work with both sides, President Dwight Eisenhower and his >> advisers quickly concluded that Mosaddeq represented the problem rather >> than the solution to the crisis. Based strictly on Cold War calculations, >> Eisenhower authorized a preemptive covert operation to oust Mosaddeq >> before >> Moscow might have an opportunity to do so. The coup in August 1953 was >> carried out at US and British instigation but relied on a variety of >> Iranian groups and individuals for its eventual success. >> >> The overthrow achieved the immediate objective of restoring to the throne >> the Shah, who had fled the country during the turmoil, and replacing >> Mosaddeq with a more amenable figure. For the next twenty-five years, >> Mohammad Reza Shah remained in power and made significant contributions to >> the interests of his superpower patron. But even though the coup had had >> the support of significant segments of Iranian society at the time, it >> came >> to be seen by many Iranians as a sea change in American conduct—from >> munificent protector of smaller countries to archetypal great power >> pursuing its own interests regardless of the wishes of local populations. >> This view of the United States gained currency inside Iran over the course >> of the Shah’s reign as he proceeded to exercise more and more arbitrary >> and >> dictatorial power at the expense of his subjects with little visible >> effort >> at restraint from Washington. In fact, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and >> Johnson did press the Shah repeatedly to enact reforms, but that strategy >> effectively ended with the assertion of the Nixon Doctrine in 1969. >> Reflecting the heavy strain on American military resources caused by the >> Vietnam War, the new doctrine relied on regional powers to act as the >> first >> line of defense against potential Soviet expansionism. For the next >> several >> years, the Shah not only gained access to sophisticated American weaponry >> he had long coveted, but also obtained tacit White House permission to >> forgo any serious effort at reform. >> >> By the 1970s, conditions inside Iran that were purely local in origin—with >> no connection to the Cold War—had begun to emerge that the United States >> was ill-equipped to address. Internal resentment against the Shah’s >> political and economic policies was building to a peak (and extending to >> his US sponsors), but the depth of the problem escaped the notice of >> American decision-makers. Led by Ayatollah Khomeini, a fierce public >> critic >> of Iran’s reliance on American backing who had been exiled for years for >> his views, Iran’s growing anti-Shah sentiments burst into open revolution >> in 1978–1979. After Khomeini’s triumphant return to Iran in early 1979 it >> was only a matter of months before the revolution gelled in the form of a >> theocratic state, not surprisingly characterized by significant >> anti-American overtones. >> >> In the context of the Cold War, the revolution appeared to many Americans >> to signify the “loss” of Iran to Soviet influence, a loss that was >> magnified by the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. In fact, >> Moscow was never able to gain a foothold in Iran because of the Islamic >> Republic’s deep suspicion of Russia’s history of aggressive behavior and >> the religious leadership’s antipathy for official Soviet atheism. This did >> not necessarily bode well for Washington, however. Instead, it was a sign >> of the rise of another factor in international politics that would have >> implications beyond the Cold War: Moslem fundamentalism, which not only >> incorporated the concept of national sovereignty (captured in the phrase >> “neither East nor West”) but was animated at its core by the ambition of >> creating a theocratic state and spreading Islam across the region. >> >> Hand in hand with the revolution came another event with momentous >> implications for US-Iran relations: the storming of the US embassy in >> Tehran and the seizure of American hostages in November 1979. Iranian >> accounts indicate that the country’s leadership was initially unaware of >> the student-led plan to assault the embassy (which the students claimed >> was >> a response to years of perceived US antagonism dating back to the 1953 >> coup), but Khomeini was quick to embrace the move for domestic political >> reasons. While it helped to consolidate radical rule over the country, >> however, the takeover also created a political crisis for Iran, landing it >> in long-term diplomatic isolation, and engendering extraordinary enmity >> from Washington. The bitterness of the hostage crisis continues to poison >> official American attitudes toward the Islamic regime. >> >> One other episode from this period was critical in forming the current >> antagonistic relationship between Iran and the United States. From 1980 >> through 1988, Iran and Iraq fought a horrific war initiated by Saddam >> Hussein’s opportunism but fueled by historical animosity, among other >> factors. In retrospect the record is clear that the United States sided >> with Baghdad (as the lesser of two evils), providing political, economic, >> and even military support for Saddam’s war effort, including tacit >> acquiescence to Iraq’s use of chemical weapons and missile attacks on >> Iran’s cities. Toward the end of the conflict, US forces directly engaged >> elements of Iran’s navy and Revolutionary Guards, and in July 1988 a US >> naval ship mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian jetliner, killing all >> 290 on board. Ironically, these encounters helped lead to a cease-fire by >> persuading Iran’s leaders that America would stop at nothing to defeat >> them. >> >> The Iran-Iraq War took place during the Cold War but it had virtually >> nothing to do with the East-West conflict; it was a local dispute sparked >> by indigenous factors. Washington’s actions, however, did grow out of the >> American mindset of that era: a desire to protect the flow of oil from the >> Persian Gulf and a determination to block the Soviets from gaining >> influence in the region. Regardless of each side’s intentions, the war >> produced a number of enduring results. One was that the leaders of Iran’s >> revolution were able to link their cause to the survival of the nation >> itself. Another was the elevation of the status of the Revolutionary >> Guards, eventually rivaling even the power of the clerical leadership. >> (The >> country’s current combative president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, was a member >> during the war.) Still another outcome, of direct relevance to US standing >> in the region, was the cementing of the perception among the country’s >> hardliners of Washington as an irreconcilable enemy of the Islamic >> Republic. >> >> Although the Cold War ostensibly came to an end twenty years ago, the >> United States still confronts circumstances in Iran that emerged during >> that crucial period. Some are unchanged—the critical need for oil, for >> example. Other challenges have been altered or eliminated, but new ones >> take their place. The Communist threat has disappeared, for instance, but >> the menace of international terrorism has strengthened. Meanwhile, certain >> US strategic concepts rooted in the ideological thinking of the Cold War >> have been temporarily revived. George W. Bush’s national security doctrine >> reasserted Washington’s Cold War–era determination not to permit the >> emergence of another rival power (like the Soviets, or in an earlier era, >> the Nazis) to threaten American interests, and echoed Eisenhower’s >> concept, >> employed in Iran in 1953, of preempting a perceived threat. Although >> current US strategy no longer focuses on some of these ambitious concepts, >> their impact can be seen in the history of American involvement in the >> Middle East and continues to be felt across the region. >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:45 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] >> plainolamerican <[email protected]>: Feb 22 09:35AM -0800 >> >> Most Progressives like Plain Ol" conveniently "Forget" the USSR's >> involvement in the region, and what was the causation of the United >> States >> involvement. >> --- >> yeah yeah ... and Britain was also involved ... that doesn't exonerate US >> actions. >> >> Not that Plain Ol's post has anything remotely to do with the initial >> post, >> but it's "*Typical*": >> --- >> it was a good example of US involvement with Iran politics ... but since >> you'll justify anything that the US does to middle east countries it >> doesn't matter what you think ... interventionist warmonger. >> >> >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:21:47 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >> Keith In Tampa <ke >> >> ... > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
