Reply With Quote
If you don't think the fall of Islamist radicalism is a good thing, I probably can't say anything that would convince you.
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.
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-19-2009 at 12:26 PM.
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.
Bull . 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.
For example, if we declare support, thus *emboldening* Iranians to rise up, will we be there to help them when the tanks start rolling?
no no, Darrins said their love for americans is genuine.
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.
It's because they're Wilsonian idealists. They think it's our job to remake the whole world in our own self-image.
Yep. pat buchanan made Hannity sound like a fool yesterday on his radio show.
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.
"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.
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?
Was it *moral*?
I got out of my car right before he went on. Wish I woulda heard that.
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.
No. That was a big time mistake, IMO.
Well, we've got this going on in Iran and now North Korea is aiming missiles at Hawaii. I guess Joe Biden was right.
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)? no.
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.
God, you're so trite.
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.
The situation in Iran is completely different IMO.
probably for us because they want our help, but we can't give them any meaningful help.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions