Much as I disliked the man, it's a bit unfair to say that Khomeini 'seized' power. He came to power after a popular revolution, supported by the majority of Iranians. The fact that he betrayed their trust and imposed the theocracy they still have now does not change the fact that they initially welcomed him.
There was definitely a seizure of power in Iran. A couple of them, actually. A lot of people don't know that the Shah, who was last in the line of kings going back 2500 years to Cyrus the Great, was actually forced out of power twice. The popular narrative seems to be that he was forced on the Iranian people by Americans. Prime Minister Mosaddegh had seized power similar to how Hitler seized power in Germany, both were popularly elected but then went on to take more power than they were granted by their office. Mosaddegh oversaw the wholesale theft of the energy infrastructure in Iran that had been built by foreign companies, and this was part of why foreign powers helped to see the rightful ruler (the Shah) returned to power over Mosaddegh. We only hear about the Shah being unpopular in the West because of his oppressive police state-like policies, but in truth he was mostly unpopular because he wanted things like equality and education for women and peace with other states (Israel).
this made him very unpopular with the ignorant, violent, misogynistic clerics of the country, and so they, along with spiritual leader in exile Khomeini, fanned the flames of discontent which eventually resulted in the popular uprising that sent the Shah packing a second time. There were other factors, including the rise of Communist influence and (significantly) a slumping economy, but the issues that took center stage were the religious ones which is of course why the people were happy to see Khomeini's return from exile. However, he was not given supreme power, and it was in the same year that he did in fact seize it from the interim government, citing authority from God. The extent to which this was a popular movement or not can be argued. He probably was supported by a majority of Iranians. But it's still accurate to say that he seized power. He was not elected. Coups can be popularly supported.
I'm only comparing the way in which they usurped power. Aside from that, they were both nationalists, and a little xenophobic, but that's about where the similarities end.
Agree with you 100% regarding the Shah and Khomeini. It's a shame that people form opinions based on the media reports and not by doing their own research!
Not that it actually caused a problem for me, but for the sake of accuracy, I feel like maybe including Kampuchea as a correct answer as well as Cambodia would be a good move. That was (and, in Khmer at least, still is) the name of the country at the time and Democratic Kampuchea is widely used in English for at least that particular period of its history.
Why doesn't punch work for the drink? It's mentioned as 'punch' in all articles I ever read about it. Heck, I even wrote an article myself about the Jonestown massacre.
Note that I'm not an American and therefore I'm not famillair with all American brands.
Flavor Aid is not a popular or well-known brand. It still exists in the U.S. but people in casual usage (and even people at the time) would call it Kool-Aid, since that's become a generic term for instant drink mix. The piece of "interesting" trivia here is the brand.
Punch may mean different things to different people. I don't think every flavor of instant drink mix would be described as "punch", in fact. Lemonade, for example, and maybe not even the grape flavor.
I'm not sure how reliable this is, but apparently grape was the flavor of Flavor Aid used at Jonestown. Is that "punch"? I'm not sure.
Some people might use punch as a general term for this kind of drink. But it's even more generic than that, since it also includes non-instant drinks maid with mixed fruit juices and a number of alcoholic drinks. So "punch" may be correct, but if so, it's meaninglessly, tautologically so; as if we were to accept "beverage" itself.
I've never in my entire life heard of the Cod Wars, and I got all of the other answers easily. If there are any Brits here, can you please explain this?
Basically, Iceland did not like the UK's EEZ, which gives them fishing, drilling, and other rights. Iceland wanted access to the Cod, and "war" was fought. Iceland won, and got to expand their EEZ.
Note that I'm not an American and therefore I'm not famillair with all American brands.
Flavor Aid is not a popular or well-known brand. It still exists in the U.S. but people in casual usage (and even people at the time) would call it Kool-Aid, since that's become a generic term for instant drink mix. The piece of "interesting" trivia here is the brand.
Punch may mean different things to different people. I don't think every flavor of instant drink mix would be described as "punch", in fact. Lemonade, for example, and maybe not even the grape flavor.
I'm not sure how reliable this is, but apparently grape was the flavor of Flavor Aid used at Jonestown. Is that "punch"? I'm not sure.
Some people might use punch as a general term for this kind of drink. But it's even more generic than that, since it also includes non-instant drinks maid with mixed fruit juices and a number of alcoholic drinks. So "punch" may be correct, but if so, it's meaninglessly, tautologically so; as if we were to accept "beverage" itself.
And besides, it's not that hard to type one more letter...
I think
*face palm*