Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
The world is dealing with the United States empire - the bully at the party who would spill the Risk board when he started losing the game.
And , speaking of Iran, one only needs to look at a map to know why the United States now has large military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention constant US Navy presence in the Persian Gulf protecting Saudi Arabian oil tankers.
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
Wow. You live in a loopy world, with far, far, left-wing drivel reverberating throughout your cranium. Democracy Now? As a news source? Really? Why not Telesur? or Granma? or Pravda? It MUST be true, .... because they LOOK like newscaster's, don't they? Official sounding, serious tones. Seated in chairs, staring into the camera's. Gosh, the one guy even looks like Walter Cronkite's son, ..or something. It's not even worth commenting on what was actually said, ...it's just too stupid.
If those SAME protesters were arrested on the streets of Tehran they would all be in a dark basement tonight, hearing the sounds of rubber truncheons hitting on human flesh down the the hallway. You would never know. You wouldn't hear their screams. Neither would, what's it called again, ...(?), ...oh, Democracy Now. Right.
THIS woman, standing proudly in the midst of the melee in Iran, with her hijab on a stick, has quickly become the symbol of the Iranian uprising.
Mozart
Let's hope and pray that SHE is not in a jail cell tonight...
Quote:
Pictures of a young woman, her head uncovered, waving a flag to a crowd in the street would be a slice of New Year fun in most places. But for a woman to do so in Iran is tantamount to a revolutionary act.
The anonymous woman’s defiance of the rigid dress codes of the Islamic Republic has gone viral on the internet. That fact in itself is astonishing given how repressive the Islamist regime has been for four decades.
In a snapshot that sums up the culture clash between the young and the deeply conservative religious elders who run the country, social media has been fuelling protests against the ruling clerics – and giving the world a window on the discontent spilling on to the streets.
Iran always surprises you when you least expect it.
Freedom. Democracy. A whole generation growing-up wanting what the rest of the world already has. My God, has it already been nearly 40 years since those photo's of a French airline captain helping a doddering Ayatollah Khomenei down those airline steps? How the hell did that happen? I can remember just a few years earlier sitting next to some Persian friends of mine in an Arizona class room. Smart. Bright. The new future of Iran. Most of them went back to live under the dark dictatorship of the new ruling mullahs. Cut-off from the world and living without hope or prospect. Forty years.
The young of Iran demand freedom, let's hope they succeed.
Mozart
Yeah, well they had Freedom and Democracy until 1952, which is when the US/UK staged a military coup overthrowing a democratically elected government, remember, just before the CIA started training the new regime's Secret Police under the puppet dictator. There followed nearly 30 years of repression until the revolution, which is when your selective memory clicks in, right?
Cheers Hughmac
I remember it was the British who put the CIA up to selecting a dictatorship to rule Iran.........
Indeed - Brits didn't want to lose their Persian oil company, which was about to get nationalised and, let's face it, the Brits have always had a knack of getting the Americans to do something whilst letting them think that they had thought of it themselves - bit like: in my house, I'm the boss; my wife said I could be. Since the mid 20th Century, Israel has taken over from the Brits in that aspect
Iran always surprises you when you least expect it.
Freedom. Democracy. A whole generation growing-up wanting what the rest of the world already has. My God, has it already been nearly 40 years since those photo's of a French airline captain helping a doddering Ayatollah Khomenei down those airline steps? How the hell did that happen? I can remember just a few years earlier sitting next to some Persian friends of mine in an Arizona class room. Smart. Bright. The new future of Iran. Most of them went back to live under the dark dictatorship of the new ruling mullahs. Cut-off from the world and living without hope or prospect. Forty years.
The young of Iran demand freedom, let's hope they succeed.
Mozart
Yeah, well they had Freedom and Democracy until 1952, which is when the US/UK staged a military coup overthrowing a democratically elected government, remember, just before the CIA started training the new regime's Secret Police under the puppet dictator. There followed nearly 30 years of repression until the revolution, which is when your selective memory clicks in, right?
Cheers Hughmac
Some thoughts here...
My 'selective memory' recalled reading this article a few years back:
Quote:
In 1953, Mossadegh was prime minister of Iran; like many heads of state, the Shah had the legal, constitutional authority to remove his prime minister, which he did, at the behest of his ally the United States. Mossadegh, though, refused to be removed, and he arrested the officers who tried to deliver the Shah’s notice of dismissal. The Shah was forced to flee the country. At that point, it looked at if the U.S.’s anti-Mossadegh efforts had failed: The Shah was gone, and Mossadegh remained in power. After the Shah fled, says Takeyh, “the initiative passed to the Iranians.” The man who the Americans, the British, and the Shah had agreed should replace Mossadegh was General Fazlollah Zahedi; Zahedi was a powerful man, and well-liked by much of the political establishment, the religious establishment, and the army. With the Shah gone, and the Americans more or less resigned to failure, Zahedi took over the anti-Mossadegh campaign himself, spreading word throughout the country that the Shah — who remained popular — had fired Mossadegh and appointed Zahedi in his place. Says Takeyh: “Pro-shah protesters took to the streets.
It is true that the CIA paid a number of toughs from the bazaar and athletic centers to agitate against the government, but the CIA-financed mobs rarely exceeded a few hundred people in a country now rocked by demonstrators numbering in the thousands . . . in the end, the CIA-organized demonstrations were overtaken by a spontaneous cascade of pro-shah protesters.” Mossadegh ordered the army to restore order; the army took Zahedi’s side, and Mossadegh fled, soon “[turning] himself in to General Zahedi’s headquarters, where he was treated with courtesy and respect. Before the advent of the Islamic Republic, Persian politics were still marked by civility and decorum.” The CIA was happy to take credit, exaggerating its involvement in what was, at the time, considered a big success — but a private CIA cable credited Mossadegh’s collapse to the fact that “the flight of the Shah . . . galvanized the people into an irate pro-Shah force.” (A large portion of those galvanized people, it should be noted, were hard-core Islamists, who feared that Mossadegh’s slide to the left would include Communist atheism.) So: Mossadegh was no democrat, and the CIA was not responsible for his ouster; the CIA did not install the Shah in his place, and it did not become involved because of oil. In fact, after Mossadegh was gone, Iran’s oil infrastructure remained nationalized, and eventually the British agreed to a 50-50 profit split.
There’s no question, though, that the U.S. was one of the Shah’s major backers. And according to many luminaries — Ron Paul, Ben Affleck, my cousin — the Shah was a real bastard. Ben Affleck’s movie Argo opens with a monologue that says the “Shah was known for opulence and excess . . . [he] has his lunches flown in by Concorde from Paris. . . . The people starved. . . . The Shah kept power though his ruthless internal police: the SAVAK.” It was an “era of torture and fear.” With a brutal, American-puppet dictator in power, who can blame the Iranians for turning to the ayatollahs? Well, it’s possible that Argo overstated its case. According to historian Ervand Abrahamian, “Whereas less than 100 political prisoners had been executed between 1971 and 1979, more than 7,900 were executed between 1981 and 1985. . . . Prison life was drastically worse under the Islamic Republic than under the Pahlavis. One who survived both writes that four months under [the ayatollahs’ warden] took the toll of four years under SAVAK. In the prison literature of the Pahlavi era, the recurring words have been ‘boredom’ and ‘monotony.’ In that of the Islamic Republic, they are ‘fear,’ ‘death,’ ‘terror,’ ‘horror,’ and most frequent of all ‘nightmare.’” ..
Just some thoughts.....
Mozart
And here are more thoughts -I notice that that your selective memory has been replaced by the selective facts of your quote's author, who by the way, put his foot in it so much that National Review had to do a post edit the original article because of its factual inaccuracies. Your hero claimed that Mossadegh was magnanimously sentenced to 3 years' house arrest, where as in reality he was sentenced to 3 years' solitary confinement and life house arrest. National Review quickly changed the author's ridiculous claim and added a editorial footnote saying that the article had been "amended since its initial posting."
And of course your hero heavily bases his argument on Ray Takeyh, who claims that Mossadegh's downfall was owing to his "eroding popularity," whereas Ambassador Henry F. Grady, in a telegram to the State Department in July 1951 said, "Mossadegh has the backing of between 95% and 98% backing of the people in this country.
Your quote author accuses M of trying to hang onto power, because he called elections and then cancelled them, but the fact is that M had only been in power for half the time that a US president retains office between elections. In other words, M. called early elections half way through his term of office but then cancelled them and did not, as suggested, seek to extend his term of office past the normal election cycle. This is the basis of the ridiculous tyrant anti-democratic claims
The fact of the matter is that the UK and US did seek to carry out a coup, backing an Iranian general and furthermore, the Shah was a weak-willed idiot at the behest of Washington and London.
Hey, who can accuse Salman Rushdie of being an Ayatollah sympathiser? Yet in an interview in the British Guardian newspaper on 16/09/2012 he stated. "The West was involved in toppling the Mossadegh government. That ultimately led to the Iranian Revolution."
What about the former US Ambassador to Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria and Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, who worked in the US Tehran Consulate in 1972 - your buddy George Bush Jr called the "American Lawrence of Arabia. He stated on Radio Free Europe in June 12th, 2013: "We tried regime change in Iran, as you know with Prime Minister Mossadegh. That did not turn out well and I think that the seeds for the 1979 revolution were planted in 1953."
So, my friend, let's drop the crap that the US and UK did not screw up Iran in 1953 just to keep their hands on the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The pure fact is that 1979 was the direct result of the 1953 greedy meddling - you reap what you sow.
...And, by the way, the woman standing on that street corner, waving her hijab....is now in jail. Pray for her.
Mozart
Uh, Saudi Arabia??? Your buddies??? The guys who flew aeroplanes into your skyscrapers??? the bedlinen bandits that spawned Bin Laden and are the home to the most virulent form of Islam on earth??? And you whinge about women's rights in Iran???
Why do Leftists think Noam Chomsky is smart? Is it his communist sounding name? I guarantee I would wipe the floor with that kooky old man in a debate.
Why do Leftists think Noam Chomsky is smart? Is it his communist sounding name? I guarantee I would wipe the floor with that kooky old man in a debate.
Iran always surprises you when you least expect it.
Freedom. Democracy. A whole generation growing-up wanting what the rest of the world already has. My God, has it already been nearly 40 years since those photo's of a French airline captain helping a doddering Ayatollah Khomenei down those airline steps? How the hell did that happen? I can remember just a few years earlier sitting next to some Persian friends of mine in an Arizona class room. Smart. Bright. The new future of Iran. Most of them went back to live under the dark dictatorship of the new ruling mullahs. Cut-off from the world and living without hope or prospect. Forty years.
The young of Iran demand freedom, let's hope they succeed.
Mozart
Yeah, well they had Freedom and Democracy until 1952, which is when the US/UK staged a military coup overthrowing a democratically elected government, remember, just before the CIA started training the new regime's Secret Police under the puppet dictator. There followed nearly 30 years of repression until the revolution, which is when your selective memory clicks in, right?
Cheers Hughmac
Some thoughts here...
My 'selective memory' recalled reading this article a few years back:
Quote:
In 1953, Mossadegh was prime minister of Iran; like many heads of state, the Shah had the legal, constitutional authority to remove his prime minister, which he did, at the behest of his ally the United States. Mossadegh, though, refused to be removed, and he arrested the officers who tried to deliver the Shah’s notice of dismissal. The Shah was forced to flee the country. At that point, it looked at if the U.S.’s anti-Mossadegh efforts had failed: The Shah was gone, and Mossadegh remained in power. After the Shah fled, says Takeyh, “the initiative passed to the Iranians.” The man who the Americans, the British, and the Shah had agreed should replace Mossadegh was General Fazlollah Zahedi; Zahedi was a powerful man, and well-liked by much of the political establishment, the religious establishment, and the army. With the Shah gone, and the Americans more or less resigned to failure, Zahedi took over the anti-Mossadegh campaign himself, spreading word throughout the country that the Shah — who remained popular — had fired Mossadegh and appointed Zahedi in his place. Says Takeyh: “Pro-shah protesters took to the streets.
It is true that the CIA paid a number of toughs from the bazaar and athletic centers to agitate against the government, but the CIA-financed mobs rarely exceeded a few hundred people in a country now rocked by demonstrators numbering in the thousands . . . in the end, the CIA-organized demonstrations were overtaken by a spontaneous cascade of pro-shah protesters.” Mossadegh ordered the army to restore order; the army took Zahedi’s side, and Mossadegh fled, soon “[turning] himself in to General Zahedi’s headquarters, where he was treated with courtesy and respect. Before the advent of the Islamic Republic, Persian politics were still marked by civility and decorum.” The CIA was happy to take credit, exaggerating its involvement in what was, at the time, considered a big success — but a private CIA cable credited Mossadegh’s collapse to the fact that “the flight of the Shah . . . galvanized the people into an irate pro-Shah force.” (A large portion of those galvanized people, it should be noted, were hard-core Islamists, who feared that Mossadegh’s slide to the left would include Communist atheism.) So: Mossadegh was no democrat, and the CIA was not responsible for his ouster; the CIA did not install the Shah in his place, and it did not become involved because of oil. In fact, after Mossadegh was gone, Iran’s oil infrastructure remained nationalized, and eventually the British agreed to a 50-50 profit split.
There’s no question, though, that the U.S. was one of the Shah’s major backers. And according to many luminaries — Ron Paul, Ben Affleck, my cousin — the Shah was a real bastard. Ben Affleck’s movie Argo opens with a monologue that says the “Shah was known for opulence and excess . . . [he] has his lunches flown in by Concorde from Paris. . . . The people starved. . . . The Shah kept power though his ruthless internal police: the SAVAK.” It was an “era of torture and fear.” With a brutal, American-puppet dictator in power, who can blame the Iranians for turning to the ayatollahs? Well, it’s possible that Argo overstated its case. According to historian Ervand Abrahamian, “Whereas less than 100 political prisoners had been executed between 1971 and 1979, more than 7,900 were executed between 1981 and 1985. . . . Prison life was drastically worse under the Islamic Republic than under the Pahlavis. One who survived both writes that four months under [the ayatollahs’ warden] took the toll of four years under SAVAK. In the prison literature of the Pahlavi era, the recurring words have been ‘boredom’ and ‘monotony.’ In that of the Islamic Republic, they are ‘fear,’ ‘death,’ ‘terror,’ ‘horror,’ and most frequent of all ‘nightmare.’” ..
Just some thoughts.....
Mozart
And here are more thoughts -I notice that that your selective memory has been replaced by the selective facts of your quote's author, who by the way, put his foot in it so much that National Review had to do a post edit the original article because of its factual inaccuracies. Your hero claimed that Mossadegh was magnanimously sentenced to 3 years' house arrest, where as in reality he was sentenced to 3 years' solitary confinement and life house arrest. National Review quickly changed the author's ridiculous claim and added a editorial footnote saying that the article had been "amended since its initial posting."
And of course your hero heavily bases his argument on Ray Takeyh, who claims that Mossadegh's downfall was owing to his "eroding popularity," whereas Ambassador Henry F. Grady, in a telegram to the State Department in July 1951 said, "Mossadegh has the backing of between 95% and 98% backing of the people in this country.
Your quote author accuses M of trying to hang onto power, because he called elections and then cancelled them, but the fact is that M had only been in power for half the time that a US president retains office between elections. In other words, M. called early elections half way through his term of office but then cancelled them and did not, as suggested, seek to extend his term of office past the normal election cycle. This is the basis of the ridiculous tyrant anti-democratic claims
The fact of the matter is that the UK and US did seek to carry out a coup, backing an Iranian general and furthermore, the Shah was a weak-willed idiot at the behest of Washington and London.
Hey, who can accuse Salman Rushdie of being an Ayatollah sympathiser? Yet in an interview in the British Guardian newspaper on 16/09/2012 he stated. "The West was involved in toppling the Mossadegh government. That ultimately led to the Iranian Revolution."
What about the former US Ambassador to Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria and Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, who worked in the US Tehran Consulate in 1972 - your buddy George Bush Jr called the "American Lawrence of Arabia. He stated on Radio Free Europe in June 12th, 2013: "We tried regime change in Iran, as you know with Prime Minister Mossadegh. That did not turn out well and I think that the seeds for the 1979 revolution were planted in 1953."
So, my friend, let's drop the crap that the US and UK did not screw up Iran in 1953 just to keep their hands on the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The pure fact is that 1979 was the direct result of the 1953 greedy meddling - you reap what you sow.
Cheers Hughmac
Uh-oh, now you're in trouble. A gin and tonic nestled next to the keyboard and thoughts of my old Persian friends from back in college.
First, I threw you a curve ball, but you swatted at it like a fastball. Pay attention...! You missed the point entirely. There are two points here:
(1) The point of the National Revue article by Josh Gelernter was that the United States role in the actual overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh was a minor one! A couple of CIA guys standing around street corners handing-out US dollars to some Iranian thugs. That's it. That's all there was, on THAT day, August 19th, 1953. That's a helluva coup plan they had there. Handing out cash on street corners. Right. Sure. That'll topple any government. ( ) Kinda like out of a Marx Brothers movie. Again...
..."It is true that the CIA paid a number of toughs from the bazaar and athletic centers to agitate against the government, but the CIA-financed mobs rarely exceeded a few hundred people in a country now rocked by demonstrators numbering in the thousands . . . in the end, the CIA-organized demonstrations were overtaken by a spontaneous cascade of pro-shah protesters.” Mossadegh ordered the army to restore order; the army took Zahedi’s side, and Mossadegh fled, soon “[turning] himself in to General Zahedi’s headquarters, where he was treated with courtesy and respect. Before the advent of the Islamic Republic, Persian politics were still marked by civility and decorum.” The CIA was happy to take credit, exaggerating its involvement in what was, at the time, considered a big success — but a private CIA cable credited Mossadegh’s collapse to the fact that “the flight of the Shah . . . galvanized the people into an irate pro-Shah force.”
Your point that, "whereas Ambassador Henry F. Grady, in a telegram to the State Department in July 1951 said, "Mossadegh has the backing of between 95% and 98% backing of the people in this country" is noteworthy because it was submitted in 1951, not 1953. Besides which, how the hell would HE know? Did he speak Farsi? An American with the last name of 'Grady?' Did he commission a polling firm, Gallup perhaps? That simply sounds preposterous.
The point here is that it was General Zahedi and the military/army which actually initiated the coup, as well as Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, a leading cleric of the day. These two are the figures behind the 1953 coup d'etat. As noted in the article from Foreign Affairs....
...."On the make-or-break day of Aug. 19, “Kashani was critical,” said Milani. “On that day Kashani’s forces were out in full force to defeat Mossadegh.” ...
So, the REAL coup involved two leading Iranian political figures, Zahedi and Kashani, with a couple of screwball CIA agents in the background, waving dollar bills and holding-up traffic on street corners. (They, the CIA, took all of the credit for the coup nonetheless, patted themselves on the a$$.)
This is the point of the article.
(2) Second, and most importantly, it was not only Zahedi and Kashani involved in the actual overthrow, but it was a very large percentage of Muslim clerics throughout Iran who were agitating for the return of the Shah. Why...? Again, the point made in the National Revue article AND the Foreign Affairs article:
From Foreign Affairs: ..."Kashani’s eventual split from Mossadegh is widely known. Religious leaders in the country feared the growing power of the communist Tudeh Party, and believed that Mossadegh was too weak to save the country from the socialist threat." ...
From National Revue: ...."but a private CIA cable credited Mossadegh’s collapse to the fact that “the flight of the Shah . . . galvanized the people into an irate pro-Shah force.” (A large portion of those galvanized people, it should be noted, were hard-core Islamists, who feared that Mossadegh’s slide to the left would include Communist atheism.)" ...
Two points: (1) The CIA's role was minor on August 19th, 1953, and (2) religious leaders throughout Iran fully supported the coup because of "atheism and left-wing (Communist)" support given to M.
Wow. You live in a loopy world, with far, far, left-wing drivel reverberating throughout your cranium. Democracy Now? As a news source? Really? Why not Telesur? or Granma? or Pravda? It MUST be true, .... because they LOOK like newscaster's, don't they? Official sounding, serious tones. Seated in chairs, staring into the camera's. Gosh, the one guy even looks like Walter Cronkite's son, ..or something. It's not even worth commenting on what was actually said, ...it's just too stupid.
If those SAME protesters were arrested on the streets of Tehran they would all be in a dark basement tonight, hearing the sounds of rubber truncheons hitting on human flesh down the the hallway. You would never know. You wouldn't hear their screams. Neither would, what's it called again, ...(?), ...oh, Democracy Now. Right.
Mozart
Attack the story if you wish to seem like a reasonable person. Would you pay attention if this story was from another source ? There are several.
Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'
President Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger and other Iran-contra defendants undermines the principle that no man is above the law. It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office -- deliberately abusing the public trust without consequence.
Weinberger, who faced four felony charges, deserved to be tried by a jury of citizens. Although it is the President's prerogative to grant pardons, it is every American's right that the criminal justice system be administered fairly, regardless of a person's rank and connections.
The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up.
Weinberger's early and deliberate decision to conceal and withhold extensive contemporaneous notes of the Iran-contra matter radically altered the official investigations and possibly forestalled timely impeachment proceedings against President Reagan and other officials. Weinberger's notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest-ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public. Because the notes were withheld from investigators for years, many of the leads were impossible to follow, key witnesses had purportedly forgotten what was said and done, and statutes of limitation had expired.
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
Your point that, "whereas Ambassador Henry F. Grady, in a telegram to the State Department in July 1951 said, "Mossadegh has the backing of between 95% and 98% backing of the people in this country" is noteworthy because it was submitted in 1951, not 1953. Besides which, how the hell would HE know? Did he speak Farsi? An American with the last name of 'Grady?' Did he commission a polling firm, Gallup perhaps? That simply sounds preposterous.
Well, yes he does speak Farsi:
After Persian language training, he was assigned to the American Consulate in Khorramshahr, Iran, in 1972.
Furthermore, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called Crocker "one of our very best foreign service officers". President George W. Bush called him America's Lawrence of Arabia and noted that General David Petraeus had said that "it was a great honor for me to be his military wingman".
So that seems to have back fired on your G&T, didn't it
Your point that, "whereas Ambassador Henry F. Grady, in a telegram to the State Department in July 1951 said, "Mossadegh has the backing of between 95% and 98% backing of the people in this country" is noteworthy because it was submitted in 1951, not 1953. Besides which, how the hell would HE know? Did he speak Farsi? An American with the last name of 'Grady?' Did he commission a polling firm, Gallup perhaps? That simply sounds preposterous.
Well, yes he does speak Farsi:
After Persian language training, he was assigned to the American Consulate in Khorramshahr, Iran, in 1972.
Furthermore, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called Crocker "one of our very best foreign service officers". President George W. Bush called him America's Lawrence of Arabia and noted that General David Petraeus had said that "it was a great honor for me to be his military wingman".
So that seems to have back fired on your G&T, didn't it
Will be back in the rest a little later.
Cheers Hughmac
Oops, wrong guy - all you Americans look the same to us... - H
H4T wrote: [Global] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Your point that, "whereas Ambassador Henry F. Grady, in a telegram to the State Department in July 1951 said, "Mossadegh has the backing of between 95% and 98% backing of the people in this country" is noteworthy because it was submitted in 1951, not 1953. Besides which, how the hell would HE know? Did he speak Farsi? An American with the last name of 'Grady?' Did he commission a polling firm, Gallup perhaps? That simply sounds preposterous.
Well, yes he does speak Farsi:
After Persian language training, he was assigned to the American Consulate in Khorramshahr, Iran, in 1972.
Furthermore, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called Crocker "one of our very best foreign service officers". President George W. Bush called him America's Lawrence of Arabia and noted that General David Petraeus had said that "it was a great honor for me to be his military wingman".
So that seems to have back fired on your G&T, didn't it
Will be back in the rest a little later.
Cheers Hughmac
Oops, wrong guy - all you Americans look the same to us... - H
Americans spot British by their crooked teeth and occasional bathing.............
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now