Parastoo Ahmadi sang while wearing a sleeveless dress during a concert livestreamed on her YouTube channel in December 2024. Iran’s laws ban public performances by women and require them to wear headscarves and modest clothing.
Iran’s judiciary launched proceedings against the 29-year-old after the video went viral, gaining millions of views, saying the performance was “in violation of the country’s legal and cultural regulations”.
LOLWUT? Are you seriously going to try to pretend average Germans weren’t better off after WWII than they were after WWI (because treating them the same as after WWI would’ve been the other option)?
I can’t parse this sentence. Did you omit a word?
No, I said it correctly.
From: https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-united-states-of-war/paper (I’m sure you can search it up, if you CBA):
“In geopolitical terms,” writes historian Alfred McCoy, the United States "became history’s most powerful empire because it was the first, after a millennium of incessant struggle, to control ‘both ends of Eurasia,’ " with bases from the British Isles through Southeast Asia to Japan. To guard the empire, the U.S. military had 2.6 million active duty troops; 2,650 ships and 7,195 Navy combat aircraft; 15,000 Air Force fighters, bombers, and transport aircraft; and nuclear weapons ready for launch from the air, the land, and the sea.9 The growing nuclear weapons arsenal of the Soviet Union played some role in the base proliferation: more U.S. bases meant more targets and dispersed forces. The growing fear of a nuclear-armed Soviet Union likewise played an important role in governments agreeing to a U.S. presence. “Viewed from one perspective, this was an act of [U.S.] benevolence,” writes foreign bases expert Amy Holmes. The United States was providing protection. On the other hand, other nations were ceding a significant degree of sovereignty to the United States (while also turning themselves into targets for Soviet missiles).10
In Portugal “the supersensitive question of Portuguese sovereignty was constantly being raised before our negotiators,” reported Col. Lawrence C. Coddington, Air Force Deputy Assistant for Air Bases. “Every point of issue revolved around the question of sovereignty and were [sic] resolved only after lengthy discussions on many proposed drafts.” Coddington acknowledged that “the agreement as written does not meet the ultimate in Air Force desires.” But, he continued, "it must be kept in mind that the Air Force cannot hope to achieve its desired ultimate in operating rights in small foreign countries purely because of that country’s jealousy over its sovereignty."11
The sensitivity of the Portuguese government about its loss of sovereignty was common among countries hosting U.S. bases. The rapid requests for the Yankees to leave after World War II revealed this. Even with growing fears of a clash between East and West, base negotiations were often difficult. Generally, they revolved around the degree to which U.S. forces would enjoy “extraterritoriality”—that is, the extent to which U.S. forces would be free from local laws, free from local prosecution for committing any crimes, and free to conduct military operations without restraint or consultation with the host nation. In other words, negotiations focused on how much effective sovereignty the U.S. military would have on foreign soil and thus how much sovereignty a host country would give up. Even with the United States’ closest allies, such as Great Britain, sovereignty would long remain a “focus of tension,” especially when it came to crimes committed by troops.
There’s supposed to be a verb after that.
Also, I have no idea what the fuck you’re trying to prove with those three paragraphs, since they don’t even mention ordinary Japanese citizens once. Remember, the argument you’re trying to prove is that ordinary Japanese citizens would not have fared worse if the US hadn’t helped Japan rebuild and transition to democracy after WWII.
Shared verb. The topic you took issue with was the Marshall Plan. Are you high?
Oh, so you were trying to address the part about Germany, not Japan. I assumed the latter because I didn’t expect you to go back to item one after starting to respond to item 2.
It also didn’t help that your three paragraphs didn’t have anything to say about ordinary German citizens either.
No I’m addressing the Marshall project, en toto.
So that’s non-responsive to the actual argument I made, then.
🤓
You didn’t respond at all to the challenge that US interference in West Germany was overall positive, via comparison to the post-WWI circumstances, which would likely have been replayed.
I’m glad an attempted genocide of communists, Jews, LGBTQ, Roma and others were averted, while also noting that only a few Nazis were stopped, and the bulk funneled into the USA, UK, Canada, Argentina, and other states. Germany is not in great shape and finds itself kissing the bigger boot for fear of retaliation.
What you seem to be saying is that you don’t really like the outcome, because Nazi affiliation shouldn’t have been ignored in Operation Paperclip. That’s fair enough, and I think there are a lot of people who would agree. But that’s not really what this is about - nobody is objecting to the idea that US intervention could have been better - they (and I include myself) - are objecting to the idea that it was negative. That you reply in this way, which avoids the fundamental question of whether it was overall positive or negative, implies to me either that you realise there’s a problem with your original statement, or that you think any intervention that isn’t perfect is in fact negative.
“Inference is hard. I quit!” 🤓
You certainly seem to have quit the discussion. What a waste of my time.