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.
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...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."
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-19-2009 at 12:30 PM.
What the 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 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.
Like I said to WH, what's happening there is much more than just whether Mousavi won/lost an election.
It was idiotic. A real big blunder by General Schwarzkopf(?) and approved by President Bush (41).
go ahead,darrin. tell us whats really happening there.
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.
Wrong. You just made this up, didn't you?
he never killed a man that didn't need killing--he was the most interesting man in the world.
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.
For Iranians, it's about precisely that. What are you talking about?
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.
More reliable than you?
I guess I just read too much.
From http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...905459,00.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.
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.
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 bas .
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.
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.
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?
Yeah, that's exactly what they want.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.
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.More reliable than you?
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.
Yes, it is exactly what they want.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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
