Time to Condemn Iran

Bugs · December 29, 2009

Krauthammer gets it. This is one of his best bits, where he decries the American president's passivity, after Ahmedinijad had spit in his eye, and Iran lurches towards a bomb.

Surely, under the circumstances, supporting the people of Iran in their stuggles is the best path to a regime change? Who can be against that?

Yet Obama says little with any force in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohF2NayTNAA

Comments?

ToadBrother · December 29, 2009

Krauthammer gets it. This is one of his best bits, where he decries the American president's passivity, after Ahmedinijad had spit in his eye, and Iran lurches towards a bomb.

Surely, under the circumstances, supporting the people of Iran in their stuggles is the best path to a regime change? Who can be against that?

Yet Obama says little with any force in it.

Comments?

I think simplistic solutions can lead to far greater problems. In part, the Ayatollahs and the military wing which now seems to be controlling them claim that foreign forces are the ones responsible for the protests. Since we don't really have a firm handle on whether this is some sort of embryonic revolution or simply a relatively small number of Iranians, it might do more harm than good to more openly support reformists. Indeed, it might actually serve to further marginalize them.

naomiglover · December 29, 2009

Krauthammer gets it. This is one of his best bits, where he decries the American president's passivity, after Ahmedinijad had spit in his eye, and Iran lurches towards a bomb.

Surely, under the circumstances, supporting the people of Iran in their stuggles is the best path to a regime change? Who can be against that?

Yet Obama says little with any force in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohF2NayTNAA

Comments?

I didn't watch Krauthammer.

How do you suggest we help the people of Iran in their struggle against their government?

Oleg Bach · December 29, 2009

It is not your buisness if the guy down the road kicks his dog..it's none of your buisness if the guy across town beats his wife. It is none of your buisness if the woman across the street cheats on her husband and eats bong bongs all day long while he slaves away. It is not Israels buisness what the social and political situation is in Iran...it is not their buisness to suck the rest of the world into a conflict that they seem to think they will benefit buy. To assist in stirring up trouble in the young and firey population of Iran with our media is sinful and abusive - let Iran be as peaceful as possible - We let Bush and Cheney walk free - so why should the hoods that run Iran not be granted the grace we give our own crimminals? Simply put...stop stirring up the hornets nest because Israel wants Iran gone - let them send ground troops to rescue the aggitated students hitting the streets in protest! But they will not because..One Israel is worth 1000 people - They are to precious a people and to lose a single citizen is unbearable to these secualarist gangster Jews - so they want to use our troops as cannon fodder...Yes in time Israel will expect more Christian sacrafice...to assist in their agenda - when was the last time Israel did us a favour?

bush_cheney2004 · December 29, 2009

It is not your buisness if the guy down the road kicks his dog..it's none of your buisness if the guy across town beats his wife....

...that's what Serbia said too! :lol:

GostHacked · December 29, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29358834

WASHINGTON , June 29 (Reuters) - U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday.

Not much of a surprise that this is all happening in Iran.

bush_cheney2004 · December 29, 2009

Not much of a surprise that this is all happening in Iran.

None at all....David Frum penned it nicely with "Axis of Evil".

bush_cheney2004 · December 29, 2009

...Yemen would be a nice warm-up. "Yes We Can!"

wyly · December 29, 2009

...Yemen would be a nice warm-up. "Yes We Can!"

as would Texas...

GostHacked · December 30, 2009

as would Texas...

I'd think twice about it. Don't mess with Texas! I think I'd feeL t home there.

Oleg Bach · December 30, 2009

...that's what Serbia said too!

She said that? She promised she would not tell and I promised that I would never hit her on the nose with that roll of newspaper ever again.

bush_cheney2004 · December 30, 2009

I'd think twice about it. Don't mess with Texas! I think I'd feeL t home there.

Indeed...as this web site is hosted in Texas.

Oleg Bach · December 30, 2009

Indeed...as this web site is hosted in Texas.

MLW.... this site is hosted in Texas? I knew it! I could tell by the high end red neckism and the day the called me a rube..they actually meant dude.

Oleg Bach · December 30, 2009

Is Obama shrinking phyiscally? He appears to be loosing body mass..once that is done I guess his tiny little scull will atrophy..then all that will be left is his silver tongue. No one looks healthy these days other that the charming President Bear of Russia..I guess trying to keep up airs in a corrupt society is taxing on some leaders. The Russian guy is nice and plump and young because when it comes to corruption he does not spend a lot of energy lieing.

KeyStone · December 31, 2009

Krauthammer gets it. This is one of his best bits, where he decries the American president's passivity, after Ahmedinijad had spit in his eye, and Iran lurches towards a bomb.

Surely, under the circumstances, supporting the people of Iran in their stuggles is the best path to a regime change? Who can be against that?

Yet Obama says little with any force in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohF2NayTNAA

Comments?

Given prior US interference in Iran (Mossadegh), it's quite difficult to have any credibility when it comes to promoting democracy, given that they did the exact opposite in the fifties. The US will probably prefer to do things covertly.

The US can force the current regime to take bigger risks in winning the election by demanding certain reforms be met, or else sanctions will be put in place or lifted, as the case may be.

There is a huge generational divide in Iran, and it is only a matter of time before real democracy prevails. There is no real justification for starting a war, (civil or otherwise), to expedite a process that will come about naturally in the next 10-15 years.

bush_cheney2004 · December 31, 2009

Given prior US interference in Iran (Mossadegh), it's quite difficult to have any credibility when it comes to promoting democracy, given that they did the exact opposite in the fifties. The US will probably prefer to do things covertly.

True...so let's dispense with such naive talk. Aristide never stood a chance either (ousted by Canada, France, & USA)

The US can force the current regime to take bigger risks in winning the election by demanding certain reforms be met, or else sanctions will be put in place or lifted, as the case may be.

Sanctions won't do anything meaningful...see Iraq.

There is a huge generational divide in Iran, and it is only a matter of time before real democracy prevails. There is no real justification for starting a war, (civil or otherwise), to expedite a process that will come about naturally in the next 10-15 years.

Justification is not required....if only because the USA and allies have learned they can do as they please and nobody can stop them. The rest is just geo-political theatre.

Topaz · December 31, 2009

Don't you think that Israel will take the bull by the horn and deal with Iran on its own? When and if they do, the Middle-East will be one big fire ball, which will probably include some nukes, which will create masses of death and destruction than Japan in WW2. Start building those bomb shelters, folks.

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

There is a huge generational divide in Iran, and it is only a matter of time before real democracy prevails. There is no real justification for starting a war, (civil or otherwise), to expedite a process that will come about naturally in the next 10-15 years.

I'm not sure how legitimate that view is now. The situation in Iran has changed radically since the elections. This is no longer a country run by theocrats of varying abilities and stripes (Khamenei has long been considered something of a lightweight by the other Ayatollahs), but it very much appears now that the military, in particular the Revolutionary Guard, have effectively taken over the country. The balance of power that was the secular and religious mixture of the Iranian regime has decidedly been altered, and military regimes, while inherently unstable, are also much more willing to use force, and in particular public displays of force. To overthrow the regime now is going to require a good deal of bloodshed.

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

Don't you think that Israel will take the bull by the horn and deal with Iran on its own? When and if they do, the Middle-East will be one big fire ball, which will probably include some nukes, which will create masses of death and destruction than Japan in WW2. Start building those bomb shelters, folks.

If Israel blasts the Iranian nuclear program to dust, I doubt very much there will be any fireballs. Pakistan certainly isn't going to attack Israel, it's nuclear weapons exist for one purpose alone, to be pointed at India, and to do so would essentially be a declaration of war on the US, which Pakistan most certainly cannot afford.. Iran, to be sure will be angry and indignant and would most certainly step up aiding and funding terrorist groups attacking Israel (but then again, they're doing that already).

Edited December 31, 2009 by ToadBrother

Verbal · December 31, 2009

Hmmm. Wasn't Krauthammer one of the loudest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq? As much as I have seen from Krauthammer, his interests are less with the US than they have been with Israel. Krauthammer is another one of those AIPAC moles who keeps pushing for the US to attack the enemies of Israel. Krauthammer is only interested in Israel's security. He could care less about that of the US.

Verbal · December 31, 2009

bush_cheney2004 : "Sanctions won't do anything meaningful...see Iraq."

Is your 'nom-de-plume' tongue in cheek? It's hard to interpret your posts otherwise. No offense intended.

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

Sanctions won't do anything meaningful...see Iraq.

And just where were those pesky WMDs...

JB Globe · December 31, 2009

Comments?

Obama's conduct on the Iran uprisings has been fantastic.

It's a great relief to have a president that fully understands the dynamics WITHIN Iran and realizes that given the history of the US interfering Iran, that the best thing they can do for the Iranian people is to stay out of the way for the most part.

The hands of the US are tied because of history (see: CIA coup) and the most we can do is give moral support to those brave Iranians who are risking their lives against a corrupt and unjust regime that is on it's last legs.

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

Obama's conduct on the Iran uprisings has been fantastic.

It's a great relief to have a president that fully understands the dynamics WITHIN Iran and realizes that given the history of the US interfering Iran, that the best thing they can do for the Iranian people is to stay out of the way for the most part.

The hands of the US are tied because of history (see: CIA coup) and the most we can do is give moral support to those brave Iranians who are risking their lives against a corrupt and unjust regime that is on it's last legs.

Until some consensus on what to do with Iran can be found, there's nothing else to be done. This isn't just a problem for the US and its allies. In real terms, this is a problem that is going to require the co-operation of Russia and China, and in this case Russia in particular. Until Russia is ready to do something concrete, everyone has to stay in a holding pattern.