For those who say the US shouldn't meddle

[DarrinS]

in Iran...


Why do the demonstrators have signs written in English? Who are they for?

[clambake]

because they're talking to you.

[clambake]

i'm from n. ireland and i'm quite sure that the US is the only place on earth where english is spoken.

[Wild Cobra]

in Iran...


Why do the demonstrators have signs written in English? Who are they for?
Good point.

Thing is that Iran has a vibrant history of free enterprise before President Carters policies caused political negative regime change in Iraq and Iran. The people of both countries enjoyed far more freedom than today, and it wasn't so long ago for them to forget.

[Winehole23]

in Iran...


Why do the demonstrators have signs written in English? Who are they for?The rest of the world. Farsi isn't widely read/understood.

[boutons_deux]

The lingua franca of the world/business/Internet is now English.

Are you so egocentric that you think they are signs JUST for America?

[DarrinS]

Great Moments in World History





General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!






"It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling ... in Iranian elections,"

[DarrinS]

From the front lines

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124537040666029677.html#mod=rss_opinion_main





President Obama's speech was good; he says that he will support us. He also said that nations must decide the fate of their countries by themselves. I agree with him, but now we don't have any power to change the situation, so we need help and attention.

We ask the president not to accept this coup d'etat.

[urunobili]

dunno but it's better to stay away from WTF they decide to do...

[Winehole23]

*Tough talk* from the POTUS would give the Ayatollahs ammo against the the protesters. It doesn't help the protesters. It just makes us feel better. It's childish and selfish.

Really Darrin, what business is it of ours if Iran is free or not?

[boutons_deux]

St Ronnie was all Hollywood, no substance. His "tear down" schtick was pure Hollywood, had NOTHING to with the financial/industrial collapse of Soviet Union house of cards, destroyed by the collapse in oil prices/demand in the severe early/mid80s world-wide recession and $100Bs of hard $$ wasted in Afghanistan.

[DarrinS]

*Tough talk* from the POTUS would give the Ayatollahs ammo against the the protesters. It doesn't help the protesters. It just makes us feel better. It's childish and selfish.

Really Darrin, what business is it of ours if Iran is free or not?


This seems to be the prevailing liberal philosophy.


I would think that the benefits of a free, democratic Iran would be blatantly obvious to anyone.

[DarrinS]

St Ronnie was all Hollywood, no substance. His "tear down" schtick was pure Hollywood, had NOTHING to with the financial/industrial collapse of Soviet Union house of cards, destroyed by the collapse in oil prices/demand in the severe early/mid80s world-wide recession and $100Bs of hard $$ wasted in Afghanistan.


Your little comments never add to anyhthing on this board. Just saying.

[coyotes_geek]

This seems to be the prevailing liberal philosophy.


I would think that the benefits of a free, democratic Iran would be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And what would the costs be? Got a way to get Iran to become free and democratic that doesn't involve another war?

Don't you think that we've already got enough on our plate without getting involved in another nation-building campaign?

[DarrinS]

*Tough talk* from the POTUS would give the Ayatollahs ammo against the the protesters. It doesn't help the protesters. It just makes us feel better. It's childish and selfish.

Really Darrin, what business is it of ours if Iran is free or not?


Actually, I don't even want him to "talk tough". The dude is a master of words and I just wish he would use his gift to embolden the demonstrators. Let them know we are all watching. He kinda made it sound like we don't care who wins.

[Winehole23]

This seems to be the prevailing liberal philosophy.As expoused by Henry Kissinger, for example.



I would think that the benefits of a free, democratic Iran would be blatantly obvious to anyone.Go ahead, name the benefits.

[clambake]

Good point.

Thing is that Iran has a vibrant history of free enterprise before President Carters policies caused political negative regime change in Iraq and Iran. The people of both countries enjoyed far more freedom than today, and it wasn't so long ago for them to forget.

the shah was a butcher and you're an idiot.

[coyotes_geek]

the shah was a butcher and you're an idiot.

But he was "our" butcher...........

[clambake]

But he was "our" butcher...........

i couldn't have said it better :toast

[Winehole23]

He kinda made it sound like we don't care who wins.It's called diplomacy. The opposition loses legitimacy at home if it appears the US is helping them, particularly given the history of US meddling in Iran. You don't get that?

Also, Mousavi is not what you'd call a Jeffersonian democrat. He's a Khomeini crony, a former hardliner himself, and isn't "anti" the Islamic Republic. On the contrary, he sees himself as an extension of it, as does much of his popular support.

[DarrinS]

Hopenchange for America, but not Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803495.html





Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.

Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.

Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.

Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, the first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs's disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

[Winehole23]

Are you capable of responding in your own words, D? I wonder sometimes.

[DarrinS]

It's called diplomacy. The opposition loses legitimacy at home if it appears the US is helping them, particularly given the history of US meddling in Iran. You don't get that?.

Being anti-American in Iran isn't what it used to be. The hundreds of thousands of Iranian protesters aren't chanting anti-American slogans.

[DarrinS]

Are you capable of responding in your own words, D? I wonder sometimes.

Well, you just regurgitated the same position that John Kerry put forth in his op ed from a couple of days ago. Can you?

[FaithInOne]

Personally, I couldn't care less about either side in Iran. I like that Obama is not playing into this circus.

Better to be fighting each other than us :king

[Winehole23]

Being anti-American in Iran isn't what it used to be. The hundreds of thousands of Iranian protesters aren't chanting anti-American slogans.They aren't chanting pro-american slogans either. This proves nothing.

[DarrinS]

They aren't chanting pro-american slogans either. This proves nothing.


If you don't think the fall of Islamist radicalism is a good thing, I probably can't say anything that would convince you.

[Winehole23]

Well, you just regurgitated the same position that John Kerry put forth in his op ed from a couple of days ago. Can you?I didn't read the Kerry op-ed. I was cribbing from Buchanan and Kissinger, with whom I agree.

What I meant was, it's not always clear to whom you are responding, or what point you're trying to make, when you repost entire articles. Restating the points in your own words demonstrates mastery of the material and helps clarity. Addressing particular posters is also a courtesy and makes your own emphasis more clear.

[jman3000]

If you give the impression that somehow the US is gonna help them out (which we can't/won't) then you run the risk of them doing something stupid and getting wiped out. This has already been said a billion times so here's another reason:

The fact is that Mousavi and the majority of his supporters are still anti-Israel / pro nuclear program / pro theocracy. All the signs asking Obama for help are in the extreme minority, but we see them because the media knows it will blow our mind when we see those images. So ... if we show overt support for a people who are still going to be our enemies after the dust settles... what did we accomplish?

Mousavi does want better relations with the west, but that runs against their anti Israel stance. So you somehow want us to be pro Iran and pro Israel at the same time? The only real solution to Iran is Iran. They have to overthrow their government on their own. I will agree that if they do start a revolution and things get really bad... not just bad so that Mousavi gets the presidency... but so bad that the theocracy runs the risk of being toppled... then we should lend some help. There's another layer behind this situation, which is the unelected leadership.

[Winehole23]

If you don't think the fall of Islamist radicalism is a good thing, I probably can't say anything that would convince you.Bullshit. I never said this. It's another strawman.

Statecraft isn't about upholding a moral order, it's about national interest and power dynamics. My own personal view of what's right or good in Iran has nothing to do with what it is wise, prudent or necessary for the US president to say or do. Supporting the protesters openly may tend to undermine the desired result. At any rate, it is difficult to see how official US support for Mousavi could possibly help him.

[Winehole23]

For example, if we declare support, thus *emboldening* Iranians to rise up, will we be there to help them when the tanks start rolling?

[clambake]

no no, Darrins said their love for americans is genuine.

[jman3000]

Why do conservatives want to be allies with Iran? Why do they hate Israel so much?

All this stuff is a step in the right direction... but it's still on the wrong side of the path.

[Winehole23]

It's because they're Wilsonian idealists. They think it's our job to remake the whole world in our own self-image.

[FaithInOne]

For example, if we declare support, thus *emboldening* Iranians to rise up, will we be there to help them when the tanks start rolling?

Yep. pat buchanan made Hannity sound like a fool yesterday on his radio show.

[DarrinS]

Why do conservatives want to be allies with Iran? Why do they hate Israel so much?

All this stuff is a step in the right direction... but it's still on the wrong side of the path.


Wanting Iran to NOT be the biggest sponsor of terrorism and wanting them to NOT have nuclear capability is not hating on Israel. But that's just my opinion.

[boutons_deux]

"conservatives want to be allies with Iran"

Like for Iraq, conservatives' interest in Iran is completely oily. They'd love to install another American/Anglo puppet like a second Shah.

[Winehole23]

Yep. Bucannen made Hannity sound like a fool yesterday on his radio show.As recently as 1991(sic?) we encouraged Iraq's Shia to rise up, only to leave them in the lurch when they did. Ditto Hungary in 1956. Was this a smart thing to have done?

[Winehole23]

Was it *moral*?

[jman3000]

Yep. pat buchanan made Hannity sound like a fool yesterday on his radio show.

I got out of my car right before he went on. Wish I woulda heard that.

[Winehole23]

Wanting Iran to NOT be the biggest sponsor of terrorism and wanting them to NOT have nuclear capability is not hating on Israel. But that's just my opinion.This is not necessarily consistent with supporting Mousavi.

[DarrinS]

This is not necessarily consistent with supporting Mousavi.


What's happening there right now is about MUCH more than an election result.

European leaders have used much stronger language to condemn the Iranian crackdown. Are we further left than Europe now? If so, first time in my lifetime.

[DarrinS]

As recently as 1991(sic?) we encouraged Iraq's Shia to rise up, only to leave them in the lurch when they did. Ditto Hungary in 1956. Was this a smart thing to have done?


No. That was a big time mistake, IMO.

[DarrinS]

Well, we've got this going on in Iran and now North Korea is aiming missiles at Hawaii. I guess Joe Biden was right.

[jman3000]

Wanting Iran to NOT be the biggest sponsor of terrorism and wanting them to NOT have nuclear capability is not hating on Israel. But that's just my opinion.

Ultimately Mousavi has no say in either of those things.

Is he going to be better for us? Relatively yes. Is he going to bring sweeping changes to Iran? No. Is supporting this movement at this stage worth the risk of wiping out the only segment of Iran who can over throw the theocracy (that being the youth)? Fuck no.

[Winehole23]

No. That was a big time mistake, IMO.The mistake was the encouragement IMO. We couldn't have helped Hungary without risking another European war, and we were unprepared to help Iraq's Shia in 1991, so we shouldn't have encouraged them. Something similar holds for Iran IMO.

[Winehole23]

What's happening there right now is about MUCH more than an election result.

European leaders have used much stronger language to condemn the Iranian crackdown. Are we further left than Europe now? If so, first time in my lifetime.God, you're so trite.

[sabar]

Doesn't enough of the world hate us as it is? I believe this has already been discussed but:

1. The middle east hates the western world for messing in their area (revolutions/business takeover/imperialism/colonialism/occupation/nation-building/giving their territory for a jewish state/etc)
2. You want to mess in their area... again
3. ???
4. Profit?

The way I see it, Iran currently hates the U.K. and that's nice that someone other than "evil America" is the target for a little while. We have more than enough on our plate at the moment. We don't have the manpower to go march into Iraq/Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Egypt/North Korea/Vietnam/Cambodia/China/Russia/Somalia/Insert-craphole-here and free the entire world.

If they want to be free then they can do it themselves like we did. Like France did. Like Mexico did. Like Russia half-did.

Israel can handle the situation over there fine. One of their planes could probably shoot down most of the combined air forces of the middle east alone. That's how big the technology gap is.

Let them kill each other for a while and re-analyze the situation when we aren't fighting two wars and trying to keep Kim Jong-Il from doing anything stupid.

[DarrinS]

The mistake was the encouragement IMO. We couldn't have helped Hungary without risking another European war, and we were unprepared to help Iraq's Shia in 1991, so we shouldn't have encouraged them. Something similar holds for Iran IMO.


The situation in Iran is completely different IMO.

[Oh, Gee!!]

in Iran...


Why do the demonstrators have signs written in English? Who are they for?

probably for us because they want our help, but we can't give them any meaningful help.

[Wild Cobra]

Originally Posted by clambake

the shah was a butcher and you're an idiot. But he was "our" butcher...........
The only people he butchered to my knowledge were those who are now the evil Muslin groups. Severe punishment was the only way to keep them from harming society. President Carter didn't like or understand his tactics, undermined him, and now we have worse problems in the region.

[DarrinS]

House voted 405-1 Friday to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communications.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98TS0H00&show_article=1

I won't post the entire article, but I liked this quote:




"When Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg Gate, he did not say Mr. (Mikhail) Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business," said Pence, R-Ind., of President Reagan's famous exhortation to the Soviet leader to "tear down that wall."

[Winehole23]

The situation in Iran is completely different IMO.Please explain how. Are we any more*ready* now to assist Iran's reformers if they do rise than we were Iraq's Shia in the aftermath of the Gulf War?

Remember, we are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and already face volatile situations in Pakistan and the Korean Peninsula.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do conservatives want to be allies with Iran? Why do they hate Israel so much?

All this stuff is a step in the right direction... but it's still on the wrong side of the path.
What the hell are you talking about? We like the Iranian people. they are awesome. It's their fanatical government that stinks. How does liking the good people of a region mean we hate Israel?

[clambake]

The only people he butchered to my knowledge were those who are now the evil Muslin groups. Severe punishment was the only way to keep them from harming society. President Carter didn't like or understand his tactics, undermined him, and now we have worse problems in the region.

i know you think that. you don't have to explain your position on any subject about anything. you're the worst kind of robot.

put me back on ignore.

[DarrinS]

Ultimately Mousavi has no say in either of those things.

Is he going to be better for us? Relatively yes. Is he going to bring sweeping changes to Iran? No. Is supporting this movement at this stage worth the risk of wiping out the only segment of Iran who can over throw the theocracy (that being the youth)? Fuck no.


Like I said to WH, what's happening there is much more than just whether Mousavi won/lost an election.

[Wild Cobra]

As recently as 1991(sic?) we encouraged Iraq's Shia to rise up, only to leave them in the lurch when they did. Ditto Hungary in 1956. Was this a smart thing to have done?
It was idiotic. A real big blunder by General Schwarzkopf(?) and approved by President Bush (41).

[clambake]

go ahead,darrin. tell us whats really happening there.

[jman3000]

What the hell are you talking about? We like the Iranian people. they are awesome. It's their fanatical government that stinks. How does liking the good people of a region mean we hate Israel?

I was being sarcastic.

Do you not see how it's the theocracy that's the problem and not just the president?

Like I've said. We should only get involved once the theocracy is in the crosshairs of the people, not just the presidentl. I think that we've gotten to used to the president being the chief of everything to be able to comprehend their type of government theocracy.

[Winehole23]

The only people he butchered to my knowledge were those who are now the evil Muslin groups. Severe punishment was the only way to keep them from harming society.Wrong. You just made this up, didn't you?

[Oh, Gee!!]

The only people he butchered to my knowledge were those who are now the evil Muslin groups. Severe punishment was the only way to keep them from harming society.

he never killed a man that didn't need killing--he was the most interesting man in the world.

[jman3000]

Conservatives tend to like simple views on things so here goes:

I liken this to Rush Limbaugh sincerely going out and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because he doesn't want Obama. There may be a marginal difference... but either way it's not gonna be what he wants.

If he wants real change, Limbaugh is gonna want to destroy George Soros because everyone knows that's where the real strings are pulled.

[Winehole23]

Like I said to WH, what's happening there is much more than just whether Mousavi won/lost an election.For Iranians, it's about precisely that. What are you talking about?

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong. You just made this up, didn't you?
If I'm wrong, can you point me to a reliable source? That's how I recall the events of the times. I was already in the workforce when this occurred. I have a few more years than most here.

[Winehole23]

If I'm wrong, can you point me to a reliable source?More reliable than you? :lol

[DarrinS]

For Iranians, it's about precisely that. What are you talking about?


I guess I just read too much.

From http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905459,00.html




The simplistic paradigms of "reformist vs. conservative," "secularists vs. theocrats," "young vs. old" that have colored so much of the Western media's perception of Iranian politics no longer apply. The unrest now taking place in Iran is about far more than a stolen election. It is about the future of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[Winehole23]

Sounds portentous, but that's still completely uninformative. At any rate, the future of Iran's Islamic Republic should be determined by Iranians, not by us.

This answer is still a non-response to what I said.

[Winehole23]

I guess I just read too much.:lol

[Extra Stout]

Ah yes, the old conservative canard about how the Iranian people are the second coming of the Founding Fathers if only we would step up and support them.

Conservative leaders lie. They lie a lot.

Krauthammer is a conniving, lying evil bastard.

Hey, see those green banners the protesters are waving? What do you think that means? You probably have no idea.

The Iranian people don't hate the American people but it doesn't mean they like our government any more than we like theirs.

The Iranian people want reform but that doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that they want to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Most of the Iranians who want to overthrow the Islamic Republic live in Los Angeles and are related to the late Shah.

What the people want is a government that stops the corruption, stops the nepotism, stops the repression, stops abducting people, and stops sucking the life out of a populace that could make itself pretty prosperous if it had halfway decent leadership.

There is absolutely no evidence that a reform-minded Iranian regime would stop its nuclear development, cease its efforts to become the regional power, or suddenly become a friend to Israel.

The neoconservatives are interested in Iran for the same reason they were interested in Iraq: oil and Israel. One of the worst things that could happen for their agenda would be if Iran became a more democratic, more vibrant, more prosperous country. Their agenda is served if Iran is smashed and recolonized.

[DarrinS]

Sounds portentous, but that's still completely uninformative. At any rate, the future of Iran's Islamic Republic should be determined by Iranians, not by us.


No one is saying we should determine their future.


When an important moment presents itself, I'm just disappointed that a US president, especially one as eloquent as Obama, gives such a tepid response.

[DarrinS]

Krauthammer is a conniving, lying evil bastard.


That's a pretty strong statement. Just don't say that about Iran or N.Korea. Kraut really got under your panties, didn't he?



The neoconservatives are interested in Iran for the same reason they were interested in Iraq: oil and Israel. One of the worst things that could happen for their agenda would be if Iran became a more democratic, more vibrant, more prosperous country. Their agenda is served if Iran is smashed and recolonized.


Yeah, that's exactly what they want. :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

More reliable than you? :lol
At the time, The Shah asked us for help. We were allies. President Carter throw him under the buss, and allowed him to be overthrown.

[clambake]

At the time, The Shah asked us for help. We were allies. President Carter throw him under the buss, and allowed him to be overthrown.

:lmao

[Marcus Bryant]

*Tough talk* from the POTUS would give the Ayatollahs ammo against the the protesters. It doesn't help the protesters. It just makes us feel better. It's childish and selfish.

Really Darrin, what business is it of ours if Iran is free or not?

It's "our" business in the sense that 'we' Americans presumably enjoy liberal democratic republicanism and feel the rest of mankind would be best served under some variant of the system, as it is a decent guarantor of human rights. To that end, I have no problem with the part of the world which thinks along those lines expressing support for the protestors and finding ways to shame the Iranian authoritarians.

But is it necessarily a matter for the State? I'd have to agree with you on that.

[Extra Stout]

That's a pretty strong statement. Just don't say that about Iran or N.Korea. Kraut really go under your panties, didn't he?



Yeah, that's exactly what they want. :rolleyes
Yes, it is exactly what they want.

See, you deal in glib responses with which you try to deflect any cognitive dissonance which might challenge your embryonic understanding of your own ideology.

Western business interests want access and control over Middle Eastern oil. They always have. It's why Mossadegh was deposed in the first place -- British Petroleum controlled the revenues from Iranian oil, Mossadegh planned to "unilaterally renegotiate" that arrangement, Winston Churchill appealed to Eisenhower on behalf of BP, and Eisenhower sent in the CIA to foment a "revolution" and install the Shah. Of course the Shah ended up nationalizing BP's holdings anyway, but it was on terms beneficial to the U.S., and the U.K. is our obedient little lapdog so they didn't yap too much about it.

It's why OPEC was formed. Middle Eastern countries which had grown tired of the Western powers controlling all their oil looked at what happened in Iran and feared either the Western powers or the Soviets would overrun them if they didn't team up.

It's why we prop up the Saudis.

It's why we've had Presidents who literally hold hands with the oil sheikhs.

It's why we've spent 60 years tiptoeing around the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

We all know this. It's why we agonize about importing foreign oil, about alternative energy, about gas prices, about money pouring into interests inimical to the U.S. Our economies depend upon cheap energy, countries like Iran have it in spades, and if any of them ever get their act together, they will hold an awful lot of the cards and they will not play them in ways beneficial to U.S. interests, regardless of whether the bearded ayatollahs or the banner-waving students are in charge.

So American business players have a vested interest in making sure they stay dysfunctional.

[DarrinS]

A good article from The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/nichols

excerpt




President Obama's tepid response to the evidence the Iranian election was stolen from the people of that country by current president President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his thuggish allies is disappointing.

...

The president says he entertains "deep concerns about the election" in Iran. Well, who doesn't? Expressing concern is "nice," it's "diplomatic"--in the worst sense--but it is not sufficient to the circumstance, as Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are reportedly arguing within the White House.

...


By every measure, the US president's response has been less than that of other world leaders, especially French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has branded the announced election "result" a fraud and bluntly decried the government's clampdown on dissent "brutal," "totally disproportionate" and "extremely alarming."




It's sad when France is making us look timid.

[DarrinS]

Yes, it is exactly what they want.

See, you deal in glib responses with which you try to deflect any cognitive dissonance which might challenge your embryonic understanding of your own ideology.

Western business interests want access and control over Middle Eastern oil. They always have. It's why Mossadegh was deposed in the first place -- British Petroleum controlled the revenues from Iranian oil, Mossadegh planned to "unilaterally renegotiate" that arrangement, Winston Churchill appealed to Eisenhower on behalf of BP, and Eisenhower sent in the CIA to foment a "revolution" and install the Shah. Of course the Shah ended up nationalizing BP's holdings anyway, but it was on terms beneficial to the U.S., and the U.K. is our obedient little lapdog so they didn't yap too much about it.

It's why OPEC was formed. Middle Eastern countries which had grown tired of the Western powers controlling all their oil looked at what happened in Iran and feared either the Western powers or the Soviets would overrun them if they didn't team up.

It's why we prop up the Saudis.

It's why we've had Presidents who literally hold hands with the oil sheikhs.

It's why we've spent 60 years tiptoeing around the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

We all know this. It's why we agonize about importing foreign oil, about alternative energy, about gas prices, about money pouring into interests inimical to the U.S. Our economies depend upon cheap energy, countries like Iran have it in spades, and if any of them ever get their act together, they will hold an awful lot of the cards and they will not play them in ways beneficial to U.S. interests, regardless of whether the bearded ayatollahs or the banner-waving students are in charge.

So American business players have a vested interest in making sure they stay dysfunctional.



You know that we get most of our oil from Mexico and Canada, right?

[Extra Stout]

Anyone who has a basic understanding of what happened in 1953 and 1979 beyond the mendacious version fed to them by neoconservative pundits undestands full well why any President would keep mum on political protests in Iran.

I don't say this to defend Obama. I say it because it is plainly obvious to the most casual observer, and anyone who says he has a grasp of the situation and claims otherwise, like a Krauthammer, or especially a Michael Ledeen, is simply lying.

[braeden0613]

So after skimming through this thread, does the OP just want Obama to denounce the Iranian government? Or do you want some type of CIA or military response?

[MannyIsGod]

Wanting Iran to NOT be the biggest sponsor of terrorism and wanting them to NOT have nuclear capability is not hating on Israel. But that's just my opinion.

Shows how fucking little you know, moron. You have no clue what the reformists stand for.

[clambake]

So after skimming through this thread, does the OP just want Obama to denounce the Iranian government? Or do you want some type of CIA or military response?

he doesn't know what he wants until he hears it.

[DarrinS]

So after skimming through this thread, does the OP just want Obama to denounce the Iranian government? Or do you want some type of CIA or military response?

No military response, but not a flaccid, limp-wristed response.

[DarrinS]

Shows how fucking little you know, moron. You have no clue what the reformists stand for.

Ok, so you think I'm dumb and don't know what I'm talking about. Thanks for your contribution.

I find it amusing that Obama and Pat Buchanan seem to be aligned on this issue.

[MannyIsGod]

As recently as 1991(sic?) we encouraged Iraq's Shia to rise up, only to leave them in the lurch when they did. Ditto Hungary in 1956. Was this a smart thing to have done?

Yeah, we encouraged them and just watched on the sidelines as they were crushed. It was out right morally shitty. It was encouraging the child on the block to stand up to the bully and then when the bully pulled a knife we just sat back and watched as he used it on the child.

Are Darrin, Krauthammer, and the rest of the moronic neocons advocating the US military step into help the reformists when they get slaughtered by the Iranian government? I seriously fucking doubt it.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, so you think I'm dumb and don't know what I'm talking about. Thanks for your contribution.

I find it amusing that Obama and Pat Buchanan seem to be aligned on this issue.

Oh I know for a fact you have no clue what you're talking about. So does anyone else that reads your posts. I feel no obligation to contribute anything to someone like you who can't be bothered to find out the facts on a situation BEFORE they open their mouth. You just instantly react based on your perceptions of said situation regardless of what is actually going on.

Neocons have learned nothing from Iraq.

[DarrinS]

Are Darrin, Krauthammer, and the rest of the moronic neocons advocating the US military step into help the reformists when they get slaughtered by the Iranian government? I seriously fucking doubt it.


It's not only conservatives (or neocons, i.e. Jew lovers) that are critical of how Obama is handling this. Go read that article from The Nation -- hardly a conservative mag.

[Extra Stout]

You know that we get most of our oil from Mexico and Canada, right?
Oil is a fungible commodity.

It makes absolutely no difference where we get our oil from --- as long as somebody wants Middle Eastern oil and is willing to pay for it, controlling those revenue streams is extraordinarily profitable, and Western businesses would much rather they get those profits than somebody else.

I swear, it would be easier to explain this to a kindergartener.

DarrinS, congratulations, you are the quintessential example of an American conservative in 2009. You have negligible understanding of anything about the world further away than the front of your nose, so much so that you can't even scratch the surface of grasping the depths of your ignorance, yet you are so arrogant as to assume you have it all figured out, complete with pithy catchphrases. In fact, you have to deal in content-free single-sentence responses, because on top of your apoplexy-inducing stupidity, you have the attention span of a gnat.

It's astounding. Calvin Coolidge once quipped, "The ability of the human mind to resist knowledge is astounding," itself a pithy catchphrase, except that in this case it is possibly the truest assemblage of words ever uttered.

I need to stop trying to explain things to these morons or I'm going to have a nervous breakdown and end up like whottt.

[DarrinS]

Oh I know for a fact you have no clue what you're talking about. So does anyone else that reads your posts. I feel no obligation to contribute anything to someone like you who can't be bothered to find out the facts on a situation BEFORE they open their mouth. You just instantly react based on your perceptions of said situation regardless of what is actually going on.

Neocons have learned nothing from Iraq.


So what are the facts? Enlighten us. :wakeup

[DarrinS]

Oil is a fungible commodity.

It makes absolutely no difference where we get our oil from --- as long as somebody wants Middle Eastern oil and is willing to pay for it, controlling those revenue streams is extraordinarily profitable, and Western businesses would much rather they get those profits than somebody else.

I swear, it would be easier to explain this to a kindergartener.

DarrinS, congratulations, you are the quintessential example of an American conservative in 2009. You have negligible understanding of anything about the world further away than the front of your nose, so much so that you can't even scratch the surface of grasping the depths of your ignorance, yet you are so arrogant as to assume you have it all figured out, complete with pithy catchphrases. In fact, you have to deal in content-free single-sentence responses, because on top of your apoplexy-inducing stupidity, you have the attention span of a gnat.

It's astounding. Calvin Coolidge once quipped, "The ability of the human mind to resist knowledge is astounding," itself a pithy catchphrase, except that in this case it is possibly the truest assemblage of words ever uttered.

I need to stop trying to explain things to these morons or I'm going to have a nervous breakdown and end up like whottt.



You're like Manny, only with a thesaurus. Fancy words don't always help an argument. Neither do insults.

[JoeChalupa]

Ok, so you think I'm dumb and don't know what I'm talking about. Thanks for your contribution.

I find it amusing that Obama and Pat Buchanan seem to be aligned on this issue.

I'm with Buchanan on this issue but it the issue is a target for republicans either way. If Obama speaks out then they will say he is being reckless and could cause the deaths of innocent lives...if he doesn't then he is accused of having a limp-wristed response.
Either way the right will go against what Obama does. No matter what.

[Extra Stout]

What this is about with regards to Obama is that it is the job of the opposition to oppose, so obviously any response he makes should be criticized as the wrong one. It's not the job of the Republican Party to make a Democratic President look good (though they might end up doing so unwittingly).

[Extra Stout]

You're like Manny, only with a thesaurus. Fancy words don't always help an argument. Neither do insults.
I think that if Manny and I are agreeing on something, given how rare that is, it probably means we have judged correctly.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone who has a basic understanding of what happened in 1953 and 1979 beyond the mendacious version fed to them by neoconservative pundits undestands full well why any President would keep mum on political protests in Iran.

I don't say this to defend Obama. I say it because it is plainly obvious to the most casual observer, and anyone who says he has a grasp of the situation and claims otherwise, like a Krauthammer, or especially a Michael Ledeen, is simply lying.

And people are foolish if they don't realize how much 1953 is still in the mind of modern day Persians.

[JoeChalupa]

What this is about with regards to Obama is that it is the job of the opposition to oppose, so obviously any response he makes should be criticized as the wrong one. It's not the job of the Republican Party to make a Democratic President look good (though they might end up doing so unwittingly).

That is why I like Joe Scarborough and other conservatives who don't think that it is the job of the opposition to oppose everything a member of the other party proposes.

[MannyIsGod]

So what are the facts? Enlighten us. :wakeup

The facts? Moussaive is not pro Israel as you somehow managed to believe. He's not anti nuclear program as you somehow think. He's not anything you've made him out to be. Those are the facts.

You have no understanding what this is about and who the people are supporting it. Not everyone wants to be America, Darrin.

[Extra Stout]

To spell it out for the uninitiated, the moment an American President opens his mouth in support of the protesters, the mullahs can just say, "Ah, see, they are simply puppets of the Americans, just like in 1953," and the protest movement will lose support.

[Extra Stout]

So what are the facts? Enlighten us. :wakeup
Oh, please. The history behind what has been going on has been spelled out over and over again in this very thread. The facts simply bounce off your thick head because you don't want to hear them.

"I've made up my mind -- don't confuse me with the facts!!!"

[JoeChalupa]

To spell it out for the uninitiated, the moment an American President opens his mouth in support of the protesters, the mullahs can just say, "Ah, see, they are simply puppets of the Americans, just like in 1953," and the protest movement will lose support.

I concur. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

You're like Manny, only with a thesaurus. Fancy words don't always help an argument. Neither do insults.

But your obvious lack of correct information does, right? I mean as long as you keep posting articles you agree with (how you agree with something when you don't understand it is beyond me) then you're obviously winning the argument no matter how many people tell you that you're wrong.


Did you see the Supreme Leader's speech this morning? Did you see him try to paint the reformists as American backed? Do you realize how much more effective that would have been had Obama said the wrong things?

Do you not fucking realize how destructive that could be to the movement in Iran given the history of American meddling?

[MannyIsGod]

To spell it out for the uninitiated, the moment an American President opens his mouth in support of the protesters, the mullahs can just say, "Ah, see, they are simply puppets of the Americans, just like in 1953," and the protest movement will lose support.

They didn't even wait for him to do it. The fucker did it this morning in his speech. He managed to spend enough time talking about America to even talk about Waco and Clinton.

[Extra Stout]

Once upon a time, I believed all the hype about how the Iranians wanted Western-style democracy and would "greet us as liberators."

There were all sorts of blogs, news sites, etc, that supposedly were part of the "underground" Iranian movement to overthrow the Islamic Republic and install a secular democracy based upon the U.S. Constitution.

But it was all made up. Basically, Iranian exiles in Los Angeles who want to reinstall the monarchy so they can return to their lives of privilege over there were pushing that meme.

Once upon a time the popular reply to those who questioned whether Western-style democracy would work in the Middle East was, "Oh, so you think they're not good enough for it?" as if wanting Western-style democracy were akin to wanting food, or shelter, or companionship, when really it's like pointing out that maybe Jim from Tennessee doesn't want to live in Manhattan as opposed to Tennessee.

Make no mistake, the Iranians aren't crazy about their government -- but that's because of how it behaves. Keep in mind that it is structurally a republic already, in a nation that is unequivocally Islamic, so reforms are aimed at getting it to work the way it was theoretically supposed to work, not at doing away with it entirely.

Iranians are obviously a proud people. We see that in the protests. However, that also means that agenda items like having nuclear technology, and becoming a regional power, and being able to stand up to Israel are sources of pride which are widely popular and won't change even if the protesters get their way.

[PixelPusher]

No military response, but not a flaccid, limp-wristed response.

"Bring em on!" is one the very few mistakes George W. Bush has ever recognized and personally owned up to, and yet the lesson inherent in that eludes you.

[DarrinS]

To spell it out for the uninitiated, the moment an American President opens his mouth in support of the protesters, the mullahs can just say, "Ah, see, they are simply puppets of the Americans, just like in 1953," and the protest movement will lose support.


That seems to be the theory. And if you believe that, then Obama is doing exactly the right thing.

[DarrinS]

The House voted 405-1 on a resolution to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on opposition protesters.


Do you know who the 1 vote was?


Ron "coo coo for coacoa puffs" Paul

[PixelPusher]

The House voted 405-1 on a resolution to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on opposition protesters.


Do you know who the 1 vote was?


Ron "coo coo for coacoa puffs" Paul

Unlike members of Congress, Obama doesn't have the luxury of issuing empty proclamations you would find emotionally sastifying.

[Marcus Bryant]

The House voted 405-1 on a resolution to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on opposition protesters.


Do you know who the 1 vote was?


Ron "coo coo for coacoa puffs" Paul

Yeah, it's pretty crazy to attempt to separate the State from the people. I'll keep that in mind the next time you bitch about the Democratic controlled Congress passing some new expansion of the State into your life.

[Marcus Bryant]

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

link (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/iranres.shtml)

[ChumpDumper]

That seems to be the theory. And if you believe that, then Obama is doing exactly the right thing.And why do you, DarrinS, feel the theory is wrong?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Good point.

Thing is that Iran has a vibrant history of free enterprise before President Carters policies caused political negative regime change in Iraq and Iran. The people of both countries enjoyed far more freedom than today, and it wasn't so long ago for them to forget.

WOW it never ceases to amaze me what a fucking retard you are. Read a book, dude.

[Ignignokt]

Extra Stout seems to know it all yet he's also as dim as anyone here. What ES is doing is arguing strawman, not once did Kraut or Darrin ever imply that helping iran would make them more pro israel or anti nuke.

It's disingenous, and false, unlike Cry Havoc i'm neither appalled and i'm also not surprised. Why Obama is being tepid on this Iranian election bothers me, but there may be some wisdom behind that, i don't deny that.

But just like said buttholes love to publicaly support and enforce change in places like Palestine and South Africa, they don't want to do the same in iran.

It's as if everyone nowadays is a complete isolationist, a neocon, or a selective neocon. Murderous thugs in europe cannot be tolerated, see bosnia. Murderous thugs in the brown regions is totally ok though.

And while ES seems to believe he knows it all, he is so shortsighted. It's not that endorsing reformers in Iran allows a new country to rise up and suck up up to us. It's plainly that a new generation of Irani's while still being anti us, anti israel, are increasingly more materialistic. And if we were to conduct more buisiness with a stable and free iraq, no matter how racist and anti semitic. The Neocons understand that pop culture, Capitalism, and new media will bring about change for better and for worse.

Why do you think both muslim extremist and christian evangelist fear hollywood and libertine literature, because they both know that it can influence and change societies.

When you're a president or govt, you think in the long run.

[Ignignokt]

i meant iran.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin said so himself. Read the thread.

[PixelPusher]

The Neocons understand that pop culture, Capitalism, and new media will bring about change for better and for worse.
That's precisely what most neocons do NOT understand, or they wouldn't be constantly beating the war drums. Prior to last week, these guys were still calling for bombing Iran.


When you're a president or govt, you think in the long run.

Agreed. The slow, but insidious lure of liberal democracy and free market capitalism has a vastly superior track record to military adventurism. Let's not fuck it up for a change.

[ChumpDumper]

Right -- if Michael Bay movies and cured pork products are going to take over the world eventually anyway, why piss off the Iranians by overtly meddling now?

[DarrinS]

Darrin said so himself. Read the thread.


Do you just make shit up?

[Extra Stout]

Extra Stout seems to know it all yet he's also as dim as anyone here. What ES is doing is arguing strawman, not once did Kraut or Darrin ever imply that helping iran would make them more pro israel or anti nuke. No, in fact Darrin did state that his interest here involved Iran not being the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and not having nuclear capabilities, while there is nothing that would lead us to believe that Mousavi would change either of those courses.

Would I rather have Mousavi than Ahmadinejad? Yes, but I don't pile a whole bunch of false hopes about who I really would like him to be onto him.


But just like said buttholes love to publicaly support and enforce change in places like Palestine and South Africa, they don't want to do the same in iran.

It's as if everyone nowadays is a complete isolationist, a neocon, or a selective neocon. Murderous thugs in europe cannot be tolerated, see bosnia. Murderous thugs in the brown regions is totally ok though.
Speaking of strawmen.


And while ES seems to believe he knows it all, he is so shortsighted. It's not that endorsing reformers in Iran allows a new country to rise up and suck up up to us. It's plainly that a new generation of Irani's while still being anti us, anti israel, are increasingly more materialistic. And if we were to conduct more buisiness with a stable and free iraq, no matter how racist and anti semitic. The Neocons understand that pop culture, Capitalism, and new media will bring about change for better and for worse.:dizzy
Endorsing the reformers at this juncture undermines them. That is the simple, obvious point. If America prefers Mousavi over Ahmadinejad, then the best thing for the President to do is to conceal that preference.

Your sentences about the impact of modernization are barely intelligible, but I will say that while Western interests would rather do business with Iran than not, they also would rather do business on terms where they control everything than on terms where Iranians wield their own influence. Just because a nation modernizes certainly doesn't mean it is going to become amenable to U.S. interests.


When you're a president or govt, you think in the long run.
Well, yeah.

[DarrinS]

No, in fact Darrin did state that his interest here involved Iran not being the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and not having nuclear capabilities, while there is nothing that would lead us to believe that Mousavi would change either of those courses.


While Mousavi does believe that Iran has the right to nuclear technology, he does appear to be much more moderate than Ahmadinejad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi#Platform




Mousavi has directly addressed activating foreign policy to boost national interest by reducing tensions with other nations. This includes negotiating with U.S. President Barack Obama if "his actions are in keeping with his words".[13] His other notable assertion was calling Ahmadinejad's attitude of the Holocaust ("a myth") wrong. Mousavi condemned the killing of Jews in the Holocaust, a much different stance than Ahmadinejad.[16]

[DarrinS]

Endorsing the reformers at this juncture undermines them. That is the simple, obvious point. If America prefers Mousavi over Ahmadinejad, then the best thing for the President to do is to conceal that preference.



Well, not endorsing them appears to already have undermined them. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, you should at least go waaaay out on a limb and strongly condemn violence against peaceful demonstrations.

[jman3000]

While Mousavi does believe that Iran has the right to nuclear technology, he does appear to be much more moderate than Ahmadinejad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi#Platform

He ultimately has minimal input, it's not his call to make.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, not endorsing them appears to already have undermined them. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, you should at least go waaaay out on a limb and strongly condemn violence against peaceful demonstrations.Really, what would have been different -- besides making you feel like you had personally done something?

[DarrinS]

Really, what would have been different -- besides making you feel like you had personally done something?

That made a lot of sense.

[jman3000]

Well, not endorsing them appears to already have undermined them. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, you should at least go waaaay out on a limb and strongly condemn violence against peaceful demonstrations.

If Obama had supported them and then the Khohmeini made the same statement as he did today, there'd actually be some truth to it. The resistance might actually think that the US was behind it and it would lose support. These people are still overwhelmingly anti West.

As it is... when Khohmeini says that it's all our doing... the resistance knows it's complete bullshit and all that does is give them more reasons to distrust the regime.

I don't see how this is so hard for you to understand.

[ChumpDumper]

That made a lot of sense.Tell me what would be different.

[DarrinS]

If Obama had supported them and then the Khohmeini made the same statement as he did today, there'd actually be some truth to it. The resistance might actually think that the US was behind it and it would lose support. These people are still overwhelmingly anti West.

As it is... when Khohmeini says that it's all our doing... the resistance knows it's complete bullshit and all that does is give them more reasons to distrust the regime.

I don't see how this is so hard for you to understand.


I understand the argument, I just disagree with it.

[MannyIsGod]

Wanting Iran to NOT be the biggest sponsor of terrorism and wanting them to NOT have nuclear capability is not hating on Israel. But that's just my opinion.

[DarrinS]

Tell me what would be different.

Didn't I already say the reformers were kinda screwed regardless of how Obama handled it? WTF dude? Reading is fundamental.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, not endorsing them appears to already have undermined them. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, you should at least go waaaay out on a limb and strongly condemn violence against peaceful demonstrations.


Undermined them? What the fuck? HOW?

[MannyIsGod]

Didn't I already say the reformers were kinda screwed regardless of how Obama handled it? WTF dude? Reading is fundamental.


Then how the fuck did he undermine them? And if its such a non issue why did you start the thread?

You have nothing to back up the bullshit you spew and you think because you can find articles that repeat the same inane bullshit its somehow correct.

[DarrinS]

Wanting Iran to NOT be the biggest sponsor of terrorism and wanting them to NOT have nuclear capability is not hating on Israel. But that's just my opinion.






Most people would want these changes in Iran.


Now, point out where I said that Mousavi would deliver these changes. Good luck.

[MannyIsGod]

I understand the argument, I just disagree with it.

Based on?

[MannyIsGod]

Most people would want these changes in Iran.


Now, point out where I said that Mousavi would deliver these changes. Good luck.

When you start a thread about supporting reformers and then use that as the reasoning behind it what the fuck else are you saying?

[jman3000]

I understand the argument, I just disagree with it.

How can you disagree with the truth?

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't I already say the reformers were kinda screwed regardless of how Obama handled it? WTF dude? Reading is fundamental.So what you are saying is you have no real argument here.

Understood.

[DarrinS]

How can you disagree with the truth?

Opinions aren't truth.

[ChumpDumper]

Opinions aren't truth.Well your opinion is that nothing Obama could say would help the protesters -- so why should he say anything again?

[MannyIsGod]

Opinions aren't truth.

How did you formulate your opinion? What do you base your belief Jman's is incorrect?

[MannyIsGod]

Well your opinion is that nothing Obama could say would help the protesters -- so why should he say anything again?

[DarrinS]

Well your opinion is that nothing Obama could say would help the protesters -- so why should he say anything again?



Why have leader of other countries said anything?


Supposedly, this country stands for something -- at least it used to.

[ChumpDumper]

Why have leader of other countries said anything?They aren't the great Satan. Those countries don't have quite the history of meddling in Iran that the US has and their words can't be used to influence domestic Iranian politics like those from the US..



Supposedly, this country stands for something -- at least it used to.Again -- why should anything be said if -- in your own opinion -- it will do nothing for the protesters and -- in the opinion of many others -- will hurt the protesters.

Be specific about why you demand something be done.

[DarrinS]

They aren't the great Satan. Those countries don't have quite the history of meddling in Iran that the US has and their words can't be used to influence domestic Iranian politics like those from the US..


Again -- why should anything be said if -- in your own opinion -- it will do nothing for the protesters and -- in the opinion of many others -- will hurt the protesters.

Be specific about why you demand something be done.



Obama should do nothing. He's the bestest POTUS ever. He's like God or something.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama should do nothing. He's the bestest POTUS ever. He's like God or something.That's not an answer.

Tell us all why you think Obama's response should be different in relation to its effect on the protesters in Iran.

Be specific.

[MannyIsGod]

It sucks when you say shit you can't back up, doesn't it?

[jman3000]

I'd like to think he's changed his mind and he's just being stubborn. I just can't comprehend a rational person not coming to the conclusion that the Obama is doing the right thing here.

[DarrinS]

I will never forget that the only reason I'm standing here today is because somebody, somewhere stood up for me when it was risky. Stood up when it was hard. Stood up when it wasn't popular. And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world. -- Barack Obama speech, Jan. 8, 2008

[ChumpDumper]

That's not an answer.

Tell us all why you think Obama's response should be different in relation to its effect on the protesters in Iran.

Be specific.

[E20]

Damn, Chump and Manny are assholes. :lol

Good thing I don't fuck with you guys.

[PixelPusher]

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/06/17/soft-geeky-power/

It turns out that while all this was going on, the State Department was—quietly and without fanfare—calling up Twitter, which had effectively become critical infrastructure for the opposition, to delay a maintenance outage scheduled for peek Iranian tweeting-hours. That may not have been why there was a delay, but it does suggest that perhaps the administration is finding subtle ways to support democratic openness without a lot of counterproductive bluster that would conjure bad memories of U.S. interference in other countries’ choice of leaders. They’d probably have more instruments for gentle pressure if we weren’t already totally disengaged from Iran—the trouble with making a big show of utterly shunning bad regimes is that you’ve got nowhere to go when there’s a propitious occasion to give them a nudge in a healthier direction—but for all we know they’re doing other similarly subtle, unobtrusive stuff behind the scenes. It’s almost as if they’re more concerned with what actually contributes to human rights in Iran than with what provides the best fap-fodder for hawks at home. Crazy.

[MannyIsGod]

I'd like to think he's changed his mind and he's just being stubborn. I just can't comprehend a rational person not coming to the conclusion that the Obama is doing the right thing here.

Darrin is not a rational person.

[PEP]

Well your opinion is that nothing Obama could say would help the protesters -- so why should he say anything again?

He shouldnt, each time he tries to clarify his statement he still makes no sense.

[Winehole23]

But your obvious lack of correct information does, right? I mean as long as you keep posting articles you agree with (how you agree with something when you don't understand it is beyond me) then you're obviously winning the argument no matter how many people tell you that you're wrong.What ES said.

Using ignorance as a shield to protect ideological glibness is unfortunately common in this forum, and it sucks. It makes conversation impossible. It comes down to navel gazing and monologue.

In essence, it's another form of rudeness.

[DarrinS]

What ES said.

Using ignorance as a shield to protect ideological glibness is unfortunately common in this forum, and it sucks. It makes conversation impossible. It comes down to navel gazing and monologue.

In essence, it's another form of rudeness.


Don't you think any Iranian cleric trying to persuade the masses that Obama is meddling too much and that he's really pro-Israel is becoming a hard sell these days?


By the way, I always see you as someone who I can agree to disagree with. You can debate an issue without being an asshat. I can't say the same for the person you quoted.

[Winehole23]

(redacted)

[PixelPusher]

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124535660563828707.html)
With Twitter's help, the youth of Iran take on the ayatollahs.

By PEGGY NOONAN

America so often gets Iran wrong. We didn't know when the shah was going to fall, didn't foresee the massive wave that would topple him, didn't know the 1979 revolution would move violently against American citizens, didn't know how to handle the hostage-taking. Last week we didn't know a mass rebellion was coming, and this week we don't know who will emerge the full or partial victor. So modesty and humility seem appropriate stances from which to observe and comment.

That having been said, it's pretty wonderful to see what we're seeing. It is moving, stirring—they are risking their lives over there in a spontaneous, self-generated movement for greater liberty and justice. Good for them. In a selfish and solipsistic way—more on that in a moment—the uprising, as it moves us, reminds us of who we are: lovers of political freedom who are always and irresistibly on the side of the student standing in front of the tank or the demonstrator chanting "Where is my vote?" in the face of the billy club. Good for us. (If you don't understand who the American people are for, put down this newspaper or get up from your computer, walk into the street and grab the first non-insane-looking person you meet. Say, "Did you see the demonstrations in Iran? It's the ayatollahs versus the reformers. Who do you want to win?" You won't just get "the reformers," you'll get the perplexed-puppy look, a tilt of the head and a wondering stare: You have to ask?)

If the rebels on the street win, however winning is defined, they, being more modern and moderate than the ruling government, will likely have a moderating influence on their government. If the rebels on the street lose, however that is defined, this fact remains: Something has been unleashed, and it won't be going away. A thugocracy has been revealed as lacking the support and respect of a considerable portion of its people, and that portion is not solely the most sophisticated and educated but, far more significantly, the young. Half the people in Iran are under 27. When the young rise against the old, the future rises against the past. In that contest, the future always wins. The question is timing: soon or some years from now? (A heartening Twitter feed Thursday, from Andrew Sullivan's site: "Fact is, we've seen variety of protesters grow: young+old, students+professionals, women in chador+westernized students.")

Stifling and corrupt religious autocracy has seen its international standing diminished, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is among other things a Holocaust denier, has in effect been rebuked by half his country, and through free speech, that most painful way to lose your reputation, which has broken out on the streets. He can no longer claim to speak for his people. The rising tide of the young and educated seems uninterested in reflexively hating the West and deriving their meaning from that hatred.

To refuse to see all this as progress, or potential progress, is perverse to the point of wicked. To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous. The ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week. John McCain and others went quite crazy insisting President Obama declare whose side America was on, as if the world doesn't know whose side America is on. "In the cause of freedom, America cannot be neutral," said Rep. Mike Pence. Who says it's neutral?

This was Aggressive Political Solipsism at work: Always exploit events to show you love freedom more than the other guy, always make someone else's delicate drama your excuse for a thumping curtain speech.

Mr. Obama was restrained, balanced and helpful in the crucial first days, keeping the government out of it but having his State Department ask a primary conduit of information, Twitter, to delay planned maintenance and keep reports from the streets coming. Then he made a mistake, telling the New York Times in terms of our national security there is little difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and his foe, Mir Hossein Mousavi, which may or may not in the long run be true but was undercutting of the opposition.

What now? Americans, and the West, should be who they are, friends of freedom. Iranians on the street made sure they got their Twitter reports and videos here. They trust us to spread the word through our technology. A lot of the signs they held were in English. They trust us to be for change and to advance their cause, and they're right to trust us.

Should there at this point, more than a week into the story, be a formal declaration of support from the U.S. government? Certainly it's time for an indignant statement on the abuses, including killings and beatings, perpetrated by the government and against the opposition. It's never wrong to be on the side of civilization. Beyond that, what would be efficacious? It must be asked if a formal statement of support for the rebels would help them. And they'd have a better sense of it than we.

If the American president, for reasons of prudence, does not make a public statement of the government's stand, he could certainly refer, as if it is an obvious fact because it is an obvious fact, to whom the American people are for. And that is the protesters on the street. If he were particularly striking in his comments about how Americans cannot help but love their brothers and sisters who stand for greater freedom and democracy in the world, all the better. The American people, after all, are not their government. Our sentiments are not controlled by the government, and this may be a timely moment to point that out, and remind the young of Iran, who are the future of Iran, that Americans are a future-siding people.

A small point on the technological aspects of the Iranian situation. Some ask if the impact of the new technology is exaggerated. No. Twittering and YouTubing made the story take hold and take off. But did the technology create the rebellion? No, it encouraged what was there. If they Twittered and liveblogged the French Revolution, it still would have been the French Revolution: "this aft 3pm @ the bastille." It all still would have happened, perhaps with marginally greater support. Revolutions are revolutions and rebellions are rebellions; they don't work unless the people are for it. In Iran, Twitter reported and encouraged. But the conviction must be there to be encouraged.

The interesting question is what technology would have done after the Revolution, during the Terror. What would word of the demonic violence, the tumbrels and nonstop guillotines unleashed circa 1790-95 have done to French support for the Revolution, and world support? Would Thomas Jefferson have been able to continue his blithe indifference if reports of France grimly murdering France had been Twittered out each day?

The great question is what modern technology can do not in the short term so much as the long. It is not the friend of entrenched tyranny. Connected to which, it would be nice if the technologies of the future were not given babyish names. Twitter, Google, Facebook, etc., have come to be crucial and historically consequential tools, and yet to refer to them is to talk baby talk. In the future could inventors please keep the weight and dignity of history in mind?

[Winehole23]

Don't you think any Iranian cleric trying to persuade the masses that Obama is meddling too much ... is becoming a hard sell these days?Does Obama's caution make it more or less of a hard sell?

If Obama openly supported Mousavi (and his supporters) it would be less of a hard sell in Iran.




By the way, I always see you as someone who I can agree to disagree with. You can debate an issue without being an asshat. I can't say the same for the person you quoted.Manny isn't very nice sometimes, but that doesn't really go to the content of what he claims. You should pay more attention to that, and less to the asshattery, if you really care about the discussion IMO.

[MannyIsGod]

Don't you think any Iranian cleric trying to persuade the masses that Obama is meddling too much and that he's really pro-Israel is becoming a hard sell these days?


By the way, I always see you as someone who I can agree to disagree with. You can debate an issue without being an asshat. I can't say the same for the person you quoted.


Its never a debate with you. You just spew bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

WOW it never ceases to amaze me what a fucking retard you are. Read a book, dude.
I see you ignore my next post entirely. Are you saying President Carter didn't refused to help keep Iran stable? President Carter could have kept Iran from being overthrown. I blame him for the Iran we have today.

Maybe President Carter wanted the regime change...

[ChumpDumper]

I see you ignore my next post entirely. Are you saying President Carter didn't refused to help keep Iran stable? President Carter could have kept Iran from being overthrown. I blame him for the Iran we have today.

Maybe President Carter wanted the regime change...Exactly how could Carter have kept Iran from being overthrown?

Again, be specific.

[jman3000]

Exactly how could Carter have kept Iran from being overthrown?

Again, be specific.

It was a minor occurrence but Carter did mention Iran as an "axis of evil" like state in regards to human rights... and Khomeini jumped on the fact that Carter said what he said.

They saw his being critical to the Shah as a hint that perhaps they could get away with regime change and the US not interfere due to the human rights issue. Something along those lines.

The fact is you can't just say it's Carter's fault because that would be an ignorant lie. It was a multitude of things like the Shah's capitulation into bringing Khomeini back from exile, the jump in oil prices in the early 70's, the gap in rich/poor etc etc.

[LnGrrrR]

Actually, I don't even want him to "talk tough". The dude is a master of words and I just wish he would use his gift to embolden the demonstrators. Let them know we are all watching. He kinda made it sound like we don't care who wins.

It's nice to hear you admit that soft power can be valuable, and at times, as valuable as hard power.

[LnGrrrR]

Personally, I couldn't care less about either side in Iran. I like that Obama is not playing into this circus.

Better to be fighting each other than us :king

Hear hear. Or is that, here here?

[LnGrrrR]

If you don't think the fall of Islamist radicalism is a good thing, I probably can't say anything that would convince you.

This post is an amazingly good example of a non-sequitur.

[LnGrrrR]

Oil is a fungible commodity.

It makes absolutely no difference where we get our oil from --- as long as somebody wants Middle Eastern oil and is willing to pay for it, controlling those revenue streams is extraordinarily profitable, and Western businesses would much rather they get those profits than somebody else.

I swear, it would be easier to explain this to a kindergartener.

DarrinS, congratulations, you are the quintessential example of an American conservative in 2009. You have negligible understanding of anything about the world further away than the front of your nose, so much so that you can't even scratch the surface of grasping the depths of your ignorance, yet you are so arrogant as to assume you have it all figured out, complete with pithy catchphrases. In fact, you have to deal in content-free single-sentence responses, because on top of your apoplexy-inducing stupidity, you have the attention span of a gnat.

It's astounding. Calvin Coolidge once quipped, "The ability of the human mind to resist knowledge is astounding," itself a pithy catchphrase, except that in this case it is possibly the truest assemblage of words ever uttered.

I need to stop trying to explain things to these morons or I'm going to have a nervous breakdown and end up like whottt.

Did whottt once make sense?

[LnGrrrR]

The House voted 405-1 on a resolution to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on opposition protesters.


Do you know who the 1 vote was?


Ron "coo coo for coacoa puffs" Paul

Honestly, I don't have a problem with a representative voting in favor of that. But it's nice to see Ron Paul is not being hypocritical, and is sticking to his isolationist stance.

[LnGrrrR]

link (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/iranres.shtml)

You know Marcus, I'd like Ron Paul alot more if he didn't think atheists were evil and out to take away his Christmas trees. :)

[LnGrrrR]

I understand the argument, I just disagree with it.

That quote is akin to saying that you understand that 2+2=4, but you disagree with it. :D lol

[sam1617]

You know Marcus, I'd like Ron Paul alot more if he didn't think atheists were evil and out to take away his Christmas trees. :)

If he holds true to his libertarian values though, he would never stop atheists from doing anything as long as it didn't infringe on others rights. Who cares what he thinks, so long as he doesn't make you stop believing what you believe.

[LnGrrrR]

Why have leader of other countries said anything?


Supposedly, this country stands for something -- at least it used to.

From everything I've read, Sarkozy is a jackass. Maybe I haven't read enough, but he seems pompous and far too sure of himself. I'd say it reminds me of Bush, but while Bush was sure of his actions, I'd say he seemed to have a slight bit of humility in him. Not sure if Sarkozy does.

[LnGrrrR]

If he holds true to his libertarian values though, he would never stop atheists from doing anything as long as it didn't infringe on others rights. Who cares what he thinks, so long as he doesn't make you stop believing what you believe.

Oh, I know. I just think he's partially stupid for not liking atheists/thinking they're taking away his Christmas.

[FaithInOne]

This probably would have been the event that gave McCain excuse to invade Iran should he have won.

[sam1617]

This probably would have been the event that gave McCain excuse to invade Iran should he have won.

Or, more likely, it would have given McCain the excuse to show that he was capable of being "diplomatic" and he would have done the same thing as Obama.

[sam1617]

Oh, I know. I just think he's partially stupid for not liking atheists/thinking they're taking away his Christmas.

Well, since he is theoretically Christian in his personal life, it would make sense that he dislikes atheism, and considers it to erode Christianity... I'm not saying that atheism would necessarily do it on purpose, but if enough people "convert" to atheism, then Christianity would no longer exist, thus, Christmas would phase out of existence, or turn into a holiday like Valentine's day, where its just a purely commercial holiday.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, since he is theoretically Christian in his personal life, it would make sense that he dislikes atheism, and considers it to erode Christianity... I'm not saying that atheism would necessarily do it on purpose, but if enough people "convert" to atheism, then Christianity would no longer exist, thus, Christmas would phase out of existence, or turn into a holiday like Valentine's day, where its just a purely commercial holiday.

I understand. I still think it's stupid though. Overall, I don't mind him as a politician. I wished during the election he had turned his focus more towards the war and libertarian views, rather than the gold standard and eliminating the Dept. of Education.

[jman3000]

Well, since he is theoretically Christian in his personal life, it would make sense that he dislikes atheism, and considers it to erode Christianity... I'm not saying that atheism would necessarily do it on purpose, but if enough people "convert" to atheism, then Christianity would no longer exist, thus, Christmas would phase out of existence, or turn into a holiday like Valentine's day, where its just a purely commercial holiday.

That's pretty much already happened. Christmas is almost purely a commercial holiday now.

[sam1617]

I understand. I still think it's stupid though. Overall, I don't mind him as a politician. I wished during the election he had turned his focus more towards the war and libertarian views, rather than the gold standard and eliminating the Dept. of Education.

Yeah, if he decided to not be a crazy libertarian, and be a sane human being, it would have been great. I don't necessarily think his gold standard is ridiculous, and I think eliminating the dept. of education, while potentially good, is politically unfeasible. But a party based off of small government and trustworthy government could be VERY successful in the next decade or so.

And I agree with him that in the end, we should keep a lower profile in world politics. If someone is going to attack us, stop them, but thats it. Don't go into nation building... And I agree with him here. Our government should stay out of Irans business. If individuals want to help the Iranian people, thats fine, but the government shouldn't.

[rasho8]

Im suprised CNBC and CNN arent running around calling the Iranian protestors "Tea baggers" and insulting them with sexual innuendos.

I mean if Obama doesnt care why should the media? They follow his marching orders damn well most of the time.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, if he decided to not be a crazy libertarian, and be a sane human being, it would have been great. I don't necessarily think his gold standard is ridiculous, and I think eliminating the dept. of education, while potentially good, is politically unfeasible. But a party based off of small government and trustworthy government could be VERY successful in the next decade or so.

And I agree with him that in the end, we should keep a lower profile in world politics. If someone is going to attack us, stop them, but thats it. Don't go into nation building... And I agree with him here. Our government should stay out of Irans business. If individuals want to help the Iranian people, thats fine, but the government shouldn't.

That's the main reason I was pissed off at him, besides him hating atheists :). If he had kept some of his ideas low-profile, he would've been much more acceptable IMHO to the average voter. Ah well.

[Spurtacus]

I'm humored that McCain mentioned Neda today. Isn't he the same guy who said "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" and he also said smoking was a way to kill Iranians?



Oh look here it is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gnn5KWkFBk


Fuck you McCain and fuck the right. Obama is doing a great job with the Iran situation. We do not need to be meddling in their conflict. Iranians know that we are with them and support them.