Napoleon, Custer offer battlefield tactics… to be joined by Rumsfeld…
Breaking News
Comcast Close To Buying NBC
Conservative “Advice” On Iran
June 20th, 2009
124 Comments
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Topics
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
except that unlike Custer, we won.
Free elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Free elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan.”
And it cost US thousands of American troop’s lives, 10’s of thousands more American troops injuries, 100’s of thousands of Iraqi lives, and countless more injured.
It also cost US a running bill of over $600 billion dollars and is estimated to cost another two to three (and possibly even five?) TRILLION dollars before we’re out.
It’s part of what also contributed to the destruction of our economy.
While most of the destruction of the economy was from Republican fictional economic theories, mis-spending $1/2 TRILLION dollars that was borrowed from totalitarian China in an unnecessary war that was in part responsible for jacking oil and gas prices through the roof, certainly didn’t help.
But, hey, when the usual Republican suspects can spend other people’s lives and other people’s money, Republicans call that “mission accomplished”.
I don’t think Pres Obama should do anything, but sit around looking helpless, while a third great chapter in the history of US – middle eastern relations, waiting to be written, slips through his fingers …
Oh, wait!
“Frank DiSalle”: “sit around looking helpless”
Three words: “My Pet Goat.”
“Bring it on”
Mossadegh, cons. Supporting the Shah. They don’t forget.
The President has been dead-on in his handling of Iran. Take away their boogeyman by not meddling.
“Turn em all into glass!”
“news Reference”
Two words : “broken link”
Take away their boogeyman by not meddling.
I must admit, it is a clever way to spin inaction.
“I don’t want to interfere, because it will upset the people who will be overthrown, if I interfere.”
Good thing the French didn’t think like that in the 1770’s.
What would you have us do, Frank? Invade?
Would our election have been better if, say, India had intervened?
Other people’s elections are really none of our business (anymore).
“When your enemy blunders, do not interfere!”
That’s what the government in Iran is doing right now.
Any kind of aid or attack on our side will be used by the Iranian theocrats as proof of America interference in Iranian affairs, and will be a political discredit to the opposition, thus negating the effort on our part in the first place.
Any questions, Frank.
http://google.com/search?q=George+Bush+My+Pet+Goat.
I’m not sure right winger “Amused Observer” realizes that Republican Bush’s encouragement of the terrorists with the words “Bring it on”, got a LOT of American troops needlessly killed.
http://google.com/search?q=Bush+Bring+it+on
Republican Bush’s encouragement of a lethal enemy was profoundly stupid.
Or were you mixing up Republican Bush’s Cheerleader days with the Kirsten Dunst movie, “Bring it on”?
The conservative mind never ceases to amaze me. These people are impervious to history or morality.
Why don’t you ask any of the millions of Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed and whose relatives have been killed whether the invasion was a good idea, because now they get to vote for the new boss, same as the old boss? Ask how much better their lives are with no water or electricity and suicide bombers in the marketplace. Funny how it is supposed to be courageous on OUR part to “free the downtrodden” by killing a whole bunch of them who won’t get to vote in those “free” elections, and destroying everything they had that worked.
I will never understand the cruelty and hatred of those who consider killing people in the name of “freedom” that they didn’t ask for a wonderful thing. These depraved people live in a different moral universe from mine, and if they call me a coward or anti-freedom, I will consider it a compliment if it is coming from that source.
If we followed Frank’s advice, we’d still be in Viet Nam.
Republican Eisenhower’s destruction of Iranian democracy and his replacement of a democratically elected Iranian leader with a dictator in Iran so that he could help the Brits grab Iranian oil is something that Iranians remember even while it’s gone down the memory hole here in the US.
Republican Eisenhower’s anti-democratic oil grab and support of a brutal dictator created the crucible that erupted into the Theocratic republic we’re burdened with today.
Right wing militant fanatics like “Frank DiSalle” would interfere in a way that would give the ruling Iranian Theocrats an excuse to butcher the protesters.
Either right wingers are too stupid to understand that, don’t care, or see a massacre in Iran as politically useful.
Cons want to nuke Iran in order to save Iranians
That’s right, Duros, we’d be strolling down the streets of Saigon , not Ho Chi Minh City, in the free Republic of Viet Nam.
And did anyone see where I suggested we invade? No.
Did I suggest that doing nothing was a bad idea?
Yes I did.
Is there nothing the de facto Leader of the Free World – one who it is claimed is super intelligent, and a dynamite speaker, to boot, can do, short of ordering military action?
I say there is, and I say there are many things. Further, there are things Pres Obama could be saying right now, and different things he could be saying as things progress, and different things he could say over the next few days.
As for “taking away their boogeyman”, the “Supreme Leader” has already accused the US of interfering in the affairs of Iran , even though they have not – so that train has left the station.
And, I repeat, I didn’t call for an attack.
Any questions, Dark Avenger ?
Deliberately, yet pointlessly insulting “News Reference” would have you believe that I am a right wing militant fanatic because I think that Pres Obama should indicate that we should encourage the demonstrators to seek a peaceful means of achieving their goal of freedom and independence for the proud Iranian people, descendants of the great Persians [as one example of what he might say].
The hyperbolically caterwauling “News Observer” would have you believe that the Shah was never deposed, there was no Hostage Crisis, and that Iran’s government does not seek nuclear weapons to control the region, as if this whole affaire was in response to events that took place five decades ago.
Considering how many times I have heard Mossadeq mentioned here in the last few days, while his name has not been raised much in Iran, I would suggest that actions primarily sponsored by the now toothless lion , Britain, don’t loom very large in the minds of the demonstrators who seem to be avid admirers of the USA.
Perhaps the problem might be that liberals can’t conceive of any other country’s people admiring us, nor can they conceive of a mindset where people are willing to die for freedom.
“US of interfering in the affairs of Iran , even though they have not – so that train has left the station.”
Except if we REALLY interfered, like not to distant history has taught us, we will LEGITIMIZE the theocrats point. Now they are saying it and it holds no weight.
I also don’t see where you have mentioned what Obama should say, Frank. The real issue is not conservatives actually caring about Iran because with Bush as president they were just another “terrorist State” they should bomb into oblivion(the answer du jour of conservatives) but this is making hey in Republican circles to score fabricated political points. If it wasn’t Iran it would be Thailand or god know what other country. At least own up to the fact this is another damned if you do, damned if you don’t in your book.
As for “taking away their boogeyman”, the “Supreme Leader” has already accused the US of interfering in the affairs of Iran , even though they have not – so that train has left the station.
SWTF, let’s give some flesh and bones to his accusations, and take the focus off the protesters and on us interfering with Iranian internal politics for the Nth time in how many years already
Also, notice that the demonstrators or their candidate aren’t asking for American help, but that doesn’t enter into your calculations either, I noticed.
Considering how many times I have heard Mossadeq mentioned here in the last few days, while his name has not been raised much in Iran, I would suggest that actions primarily sponsored by the now toothless lion , Britain, don’t loom very large in the minds of the demonstrators who seem to be avid admirers of the USA.
That’s a stupid statement, the current regime that has ruled since the Shah’s overthrow who would know about and invoke the
overthrow of the Prime Minister, especially if they though it would save their own skins.
What Faulkner said about the South, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” applied to the ME in spades, to use an old-fashioned phrase.
And, I repeat, I didn’t call for an attack.
That’s why I used the word or.
Any questions, Dark Avenger ?
Nah, it’s clear you’re just in the flag-waving mode that overrides serious thinking about an issue, nothing new here.
I say there is, and I say there are many things. Further, there are things Pres Obama could be saying right now, and different things he could be saying as things progress, and different things he could say over the next few days.
First of all, Frank, you don’t know what we will be saying as things progress and what he will say over the next few days. Unsurprisingly you condemn him in advance.
As for what he should be saying right now: I looked long and hard in your lengthy diatribes for any concrete suggestions from you about what he could be saying better, and finally found what may be one…
I think that Pres Obama should indicate that we should encourage the demonstrators to seek a peaceful means of achieving their goal of freedom and independence for the proud Iranian people.
Which of course is not much different from what Obama actually did say, with the exception that Obama directed his gentle ‘keep it peaceful’ preaching toward the government rather than the protestors; from the CNN report: he said the government in Tehran should handle the matter “in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.
In other words, Frank, you got nothin’ apart from a touch of the old Obama Derangement Syndrome. Henry Kissinger is odious in many respects, but looks like Einstein and Gandhi rolled into one compared to the kneejerk neocon warmongers that perverted our foreign affairs in the Bush admin. Here’s what he had to say:
KISSINGER: Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and — but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it’s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision. Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don’t see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the — by Ahmadinejad — if I can ever learn his name properly — against Mousavi.
Of course Khamenei is saying the west is behind it all. It’s one thing for him to say that and another thing for the US president to be all over cnn and al jazeera saying it himself. The Iranian people aren’t stupid. They can tell the difference.
We’ll see what happens going forward, but as for me I put more faith in Obama and Kissinger than I do in Frank and the morons like Krauthammer who have been wrong about just about everything over the past decade.
the demonstrators who seem to be avid admirers of the USA.
Cite? Did you see something I missed?
Who’d thunk that the lefties here would start sounding like that classic isolationist Pat Buchanan!
It is telling that the democrats don’t believe freedom is worth spilling any blood over. Unfortunately these are the people running this country now.
Lets see, what was it that Sam Adams said? Something about
If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen
I imagine there are plenty of iraqis that would agree
And I remain continuous amazed that in spite of The Won killing 28 civilians in Afghanistan, and gas going above $3 gallon, not a word from the media or lefties.
Curious……
It is telling that the democrats don’t believe freedom is worth spilling any blood over.
I will fight to the last drop for my own freedom, and you can join me if you wish.
How many successes do we have fighting for “freedom” in other countries? History shows that anyone claiming to fight for someone else’s freedom is lying; they are invariably doing it for the money. When did we successfully fight for someone else’s “freedom” when it dd not include economic benefits to the US?
Let me rephrase that. When did we successfully fight for someone else’s freedom, with no strings attached?
Bueller?
When did we successfully fight for someone else’s freedom, with no strings attached?
Exactly. It’s always about the money. Batista was our guy in Cuba because he let the American companies run the economy. Mossadegh had to go because he wanted the oil money back for Iranians. Chang in China, Diem in Vietnam, Rhee in S. Korea. No end of the dicks we supported in the cause of (snort) ‘freedom.’
I’d still like to know what the cons would like the President to do about a domestic dispute in a foreign country. Also what effect they believe it would have. Should be good.
The fact of the matter is, even if we want to actively support the Iranian protests, the ultra-cons that are pushing for an invasion have a terrible track record for that. It would probably be best at this point to do the exact opposite of what they think is a good idea.
OK, which Obama hating , flag waving winger said this ?
Give up?
Vaclev Havel. And he oughta know.
If you’re afraid we’ll end up in another war, just say, “We’re afraid we’ll end up in anothere war.”
“We’re afraid we’ll end up in anothere war.”
A valid point. We’re already failing at funding 2 wars with a crippled economy, and now the ultra-cons are pushing for a 3rd? That’s a bad idea to say the least.
That’s nice, but a former leader of a country that never interfered with the internal politics of a country can say a lot more than the leader of a country which has the track record we do against Iran.
Here’s what Samuel Quincy Adams had to say about the subject:
Say Dark Avenger,
Are you under the impression that Iran never interferes with the internal politics of another nation?
Are you under the impression that Iran never interferes with the internal politics of another nation?
Are you under the impression that we should emulate Iran’s foreign policy?
The “usual ‘Republican’ suspect” is sure quick to start a war and spill other people’s blood.
It’s amazing how many right wing chickenhawk cowards rule the Republican Party, always ready to start a war but rarely (and often never) willing to fight in one.
If the “usual ‘Republican’ suspect” hasn’t seen combat in service of America, clearly someone needs to get him signed up and get him off to the front lines immediately.
Since there are two wars going and he/she feels like starting a third, it’s the least he/she can do.
Unfortunately, to most Republicans, “freedom” is something for others to fight for on their behalf, Republicans are usually too busy avoiding service to America: Cheney, Romney, Rove, McConnell, Lott, Cornyn, Ensign, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Boehner, Blunt, Giuliani, amongst other Republican cowards, all avoided or evaded service.
Avoiding and evading service is a Republican Party tradition for their leadership.
Yes, our invasion of Iraq helped in Iran being able to meddle in their affairs than before, but I don’t think you want to go there, AO.
BTW, hat has that got to do with the subject at hand, our history and Obamas’ mindfulness about that history when he makes a statement about Iran?
Here’s what someone said about Obama’s approach:
But you know better about that then he does, for sure…….
Are you under the impression that Iran never interferes with the internal politics of another nation?
Or that we don’t either, but thanks for pointing out that Iran sets your standard for the conduct of international policy.
Why don’t you list all our successes at installing democracy in other countries by killing a lot of people?
Repack,
You’re starting to pick up the habit of over reaction and setting up strawmen. You get mad at what some people (me) write and go off on a wild riff in another direction.
More than a decade in the armed services News, forward deployed during Operation Enduring Freedom and operation Iraqi Freedom, did I earn a right to an opinion yet in your eyes?
And I remain perplexed by the lefties completely ignoring a couple of world wars as well as the freedom that was wrought for south korea.
In philosophy there is a concept known as “enlightened self interest”. In essence it says that you can do good for others, and have that work out well for you too. Freedom for people in the middle east will help stop the cycle of violence that has been going on there for centuries.
OBTW, How do you explain The Won now directly addressing the iranian regime? Did you get the memo yet on the current meme to spread?
Shorter AO:
“Look! Over there!”
did I earn a right to an opinion yet in your eyes?
As Pat Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
And I remain perplexed by the lefties completely ignoring a couple of world wars as well as the freedom that was wrought for south korea.
I remain confused that someone with your credentials can’t tell the difference between fighting a country outright and interfering with the internal politics of a country where we have a bad scorecard with that country from the past 55 years of history.
In philosophy there is a concept known as “enlightened self interest”. In essence it says that you can do good for others, and have that work out well for you too. Freedom for people in the middle east will help stop the cycle of violence that has been going on there for centuries.
Yes, and enlightened self-interest is for America to stay out of it, which you don’t seem to want to address.
Suspect,
Although I would not suggest that the United States never took a justified military action, any time “freedom” for someone else was cited as the primary mission (cf: Vietnam, Cuba, Canal Zone, Philippines, Iraq, Kuwait), it was a lie. In every one of those cases the objectives were economic and a friendly dictator was just as acceptable as democracy.
Perhaps you forgot that WW II was going on for a couple of years in Europe and Asia before we entered in response to an attack on US soil and simultaneous declarations of war by Germany, Italy and Japan. We had our opportunity to enter on the side of freedom, but waited until we were attacked. Hitler’s influential American admirers included Henry Ford, Prescott Bush and Charles Lindberg, and we turned away Jewish refugees from Germany seeking “freedom.”.
WW I was going on for a couple of years before we entered, and if the objective of our participation in that war was to obtain freedom for someone, then who assigned that objective and how do you know it? I thought it was in response to the torpedoing of the Lusitania.
Your examples don’t support your claim.
Actually they do.
How many more jews would be alive today if we had stepped in on the right side of WWII?
And I guarantee you (and in fact the history books will confirm) that the Nazi’s considered our invasion of occupied france as “meddling in their internal affairs”.
How many more jews would be alive today if we had stepped in on the right side of WWII?
The only reason we stepped in was because of Pearl Harbor and Hitlers’ stupidity in declaring war on America first.
We didn’t step in to save the Jews, and in fact we avoided bombing the rail lines to the concentration camps as they weren’t considered strategic targets like the factories were.
And I guarantee you (and in fact the history books will confirm) that the Nazi’s considered our invasion of occupied france as “meddling in their internal affairs”.
Actually, we had declared war on the Nazi regime, which isn’t what you want to have happen with Iran, is it?
Am I missing something? Obama has made a statement on Iran, a strong, reasonable, and balanced one:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/20/744969/-President-Obama-to-Irans-government:-Stop-the-Violence
No cowboy “diplomacy,” simply a starting point from which to ratchet up the pressure on the mullahs.
precisely. so why do we keep repeating the same mistakes? We ignored cambodia too, are you proud of that?
Cowards in the US actively prevent us from acting on these international thugs, in this case, even supporting free elections.
The liberals have us all cowering in the corning afraid to offend big,bad Mullahs.
Oh please. For every situation like Cambodia there were at least five Chiles and Nicaraguas. The reason people don’t take cons seriously on their “World Police” fantasies is that there are far too many instances where conservative presidents were perfectly happy to back up these dictators and thugs (like, ahem, Saddam Hussein through the 1970’s and 1980’s).
Arguably, Cambodia got worse because we bombed it.
Please stop telling us what friends of the third world you guys are. It’s a fucking lie.
And were over 3 million people killed in Chile or Nicaragua?
shorter usualsuspect: don’t try to tell me life is not like a Rambo movie. It is! It is!!!!
We’ll never know the exact numbers. It was pretty awful, and it was directly backed up by the US.
Again, for cons to claim any sort of moral high ground on trying to prevent genocide when in fact they’re usually the ones actively supporting it (just ask Kissinger, or Don Rumsfeld when he was grinning like a moron and shaking Saddam’s hand) is just a fucking lie. Sorry guys, you lose on this one.
I can’t think of any recent American president whose hands are clean of innocent blood spilled in third-world nations, but please — Republicans love nothing more than to cozy up to third-world dictators when it suits their needs.
Iran is going to nuke up, This will touch off an arms race in the mid east. It’s a good thing Obama has a made a strong statement from which he can ratchet pressure on to the Mullahs from. They are counting on it.
Ah, more stupidity from AO. Yes Iran wants a nuke. Even a moderate regime would, since it’s the only guarantee against a pre-emptive US invasion out there. Pretty much any country that doesn’t have a nuke wants one, except for those (like Korea and Japan) that have nukes by proxy due to US interests.
Middle East arms race? That’s not a new thing. Been going on for decades. Further east, Pakistan and India both have them already. I don’t think this is necessarily a good thing, but it just goes to show you that it’s impossible to keep countries from acquiring technology that’s as old as the television set. And no, not HD television sets — the old clunky ones.
If Obama had said nothing, you’d criticize him for being weak. He makes an excellent, well-balanced statement indirectly in support of the revolutionaries, and now you say he’s playing into the mullah’s hands.
Aren’t old people supposed to gain some wisdom along the way?
The enemy of good is perfect Jaim.
No where near 3 million people died in Chile or Nicaragua. But they did in cambodia.
No amount of rhetorical twisting can change that. I agree that the people in power are sons of bitches, but they are OUR sons of bitches, and that at least gives us some pull. Oh yea, we don’t have crystal balls either, so inevitably some of the folks we backed are going to turn out to be a hell of a lot more evil than we thought.
That of course is not an excuse for ignoring the sort of thing going on in Iran right now.
So you’re claiming that a prolonged American occupation of South Vietnam would have prevented the deaths of 3 million people in Cambodia?
Among other things, that claim is kind of fucking stupid.
To put it another way, it isn’t a viewpoint shared by Cambodians or the Vietnamese.
I agree that no party can claim clean hands when it comes to third-world interventions, but I’d be happy to bet that after WWII, it was Republican presidents who got us into more morally dubious situations (if not outright slaughters of innocents) in Africa, Asia, and South America than Democratic ones.
But the larger and more important point is that with the huge exception of WWII, America usually does intervention and occupation very, very badly. This is why the whole neocon wet-dream of a Democratic Iraq magically transforming the Middle East was and remains and incredibly asinine pipe-dream. (Not to derail, but IMO there are specific reasons why WWII was a “good occupation” that was destined to work in the long run.)
“That of course is not an excuse for ignoring the sort of thing going on in Iran right now.”
Obama just spoke to the people of Iran. Learn to read.
Jaim,
Can you think of any reason it might not be in our self interest to have a lot more nukes floating around in the mid east? Do you think that the islamic governments in the region having taken a measured examination of Obama during his tour there have any fear of him doing anything in the mideast to thwart thier ambitions.
It will be interesting to see how this N. Korea ship situation plays out. Will Obama grow a pair? He can be ruthless in Chicago, maybe he has it in him.
How many more jews would be alive today if we had stepped in on the right side of WWII?
A byproduct not mentioned in the declaration of war, which gave the reasons for our entry. We didn’t enter that war to free Jews that we didn’t know were being held. We entered WW II against Germany because Germany declared war on us. Get that? They declared war on us, and we responded in kind.
Until then we denied asylum to Jews fleeing Germany, and a lot of them went back to be gassed. Some freedom fight.
Where do you get this stuff?
I’ll do it slowly for you Repack, one more time (you should really consider wearing a helmet when you “invent” your next olympic sport by the way)
We DID NOT enter WWII to save the Jews, and we should have. Many Jews state “Never Again”, to help us remember what happened when good men turn their backs. While the liberals were trumpeting their “victory” in letting the communists take over South East Asia, the Khmer Rouge was setting up camps (hmmm, a familiar theme) to slaughter people wholesale…and we did nothing about it.
This was the “victory” the Left in america came away from after Vietnam.
Nice work…..
“Frank DiSalle”: “sit around looking helpless”
Three words: “My Pet Goat.”
LOL!
‘“I don’t want to interfere, because it will upset the people who will be overthrown, if I interfere.”’
Typically, you’re utterly misquoting Obama, who correctly stated that any US proclamations on the election outcome would merely give the ruling Mullahs all the impetus they could ask for to accuse the US of interfering.
That didn’t stop McCain from offering his salient condemnation, which after less than 24 hours, gave Iran’s Governing Council the excuse to charge the US with intervening in their election process, which is exactly what they wanted.
Another brilliant diplomatic ploy by McCain, whose previous concern for the Iranian people is well documented.
‘Good thing the French didn’t think like that in the 1770’s.’
The French? You mean the guys the Right has been lavishing with praise since 9/11?
Please.
We DID NOT enter WWII to save the Jews,
Duh. At least I taught you something.
and we should have.
Based on what information? Even the average German had no idea of what was happening to them.
you should really consider wearing a helmet when you “invent” your next olympic sport by the way
That would be one more than you have. You know my real name and my claim to fame. Why don’t you tell me yours?
‘That’s right, Duros, we’d be strolling down the streets of Saigon, not Ho Chi Minh City, in the free Republic of Viet Nam.’
OMG; say hi to Elvis when he gets here while you’re at it.
This was the “victory” the Left in america came away from after Vietnam.
Who are YOU looking at? All you know about that time is what your grandma told you, and she wasn’t there either. “Victory” would have required killing 90% of the population.
‘As for “taking away their boogeyman”, the “Supreme Leader” has already accused the US of interfering in the affairs of Iran , even though they have not – so that train has left the station.’
Only AFTER McCain pronounced the elections a fraud, with all his first hand knowledge apparently.
You just refuse to see reality, don’t you?
‘Perhaps the problem might be that liberals can’t conceive of any other country’s people admiring us, nor can they conceive of a mindset where people are willing to die for freedom.’
Perhaps Conservatives might be forgetting that the US has unequivocally dragged its reputation through the mud as a result of invading, occupying and destroying a ME country that just happens to border Iran, and has been exposed for doing so on a pack of lies.
Apparently this is something that you feel no one in the region is aware of, as you STILL believe that the US is seen as ‘liberators.’
Giving the Mullahs an excuse to blame the US for the violent aftermath of the election is exactly what they want; and people like you and McCain are committed to handing it to them on a platter.
You claim there is much that President Obama can do without providing the Mullahs with ammunition to use against the protesters and the US; what the Hell would that be?
‘I imagine there are plenty of iraqis that would agree’
ONLY Conservatives who have supported the gigantic clusterfuck that is Iraq could claim that Iraqis are grateful for the destruction of their country and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens and family members.
You must be insane.
unusual, just give up. It was the war you all wanted. You had your “fun” with it, but it failed. Don’t blame us for your mistakes.
So much for the party of “personal responsibility”.
‘And I guarantee you (and in fact the history books will confirm) that the Nazi’s considered our invasion of occupied france as “meddling in their internal affairs”.’
WTF are you talking about? The invasion of France by the allies occurred AFTER the US had entered the war; Operation Overlord was an allied military operation.
Just making shit up doesn’t constitute a valid argument.
‘The liberals have us all cowering in the corning afraid to offend big,bad Mullahs.’
How fucking stupid are you Cons? GIVING THE MULLAHS WHAT THEY WANT ISN’T HELPING THE DEMONSTRATORS OR THE U.S. POSITION ON THIS ISSUE.
Why is that difficult for you to understand?
“Victory” would have required killing 90% of the population.
Repack, the E-4 draftee and military strategist….LOL
No, what it would have required is fighting as a war. You bomb the supply lines, you bomb the generation plants, you frigging mine the damn harbor where supplies are being off-loaded each day.
Do any of you actually remember the boat people? You guys know that whole “workers paradise” thing is a load of crap….right?
And jesus Repack, acting as an apologist for the german population in WWII? Yea, NOBODY had any idea what was going on with those 6 million people loitering around in cattle cars…nope, old Fritzy just whistling away and looking at his feet as he wanders by Buchenwald…
Like I said, helmet…always wear a helmet.
‘And were over 3 million people killed in Chile or Nicaragua?’
Argentina, the Philippines, Panama, El Salvador and Iran; so many success stories of US governments implanting puppet regimes, then reaping the benefits for decades, before the civilian populations rose up and overthrew the yoke of US Imperialism.
I suppose you want us to believe NO ONE died as a result of the brutal dictatorships supported by the US?
Repack,
What is your opinion of the Tet Offensive, the “victory” that chased us out of the war?
No funkenstein (you are the reincarnation of paul whats-his-name the serial poster aren’t you?), lots of people died in lots of dictatorships.
My point is that MORE people die when we ignore them, than when we engage them.
All those places you describe added up don’t equal the carnage of Cambodia…and that is exactly my point.
But I would also refer you to a classic scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian
What did the Romans ever do for us….?
Stan: Oh yes… sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I’ll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done…
Matthias: And the roads…
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads… the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads…
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation…
Other Masked Voices: Medicine… Education… Health…
Reg: Yes… all right, fair enough…
Activist Near Front: And the wine…
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That’s something we’d really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
…You bomb the supply lines, you bomb the generation plants, you frigging mine the damn harbor where supplies are being off-loaded each day.
Golly, I wonder why nobody thought of that. Sure stopped the NVA dead in its tracks, didn’t it?
Shorter usualsuspect: we shoulda blown more shit up. Blowing shit up always works. That and popping more wogs.
Could the conservatives in the thread please try to maintain a coherent position for at least a few comments?
Could one of you please plainly state what the fuck it is were supposed to do?
Is our goal to get Moussavi elected? Really? He isn’t exactly a friend of the West, as I understand it. So that makes a whole lot of sense. Let’s apply pressure to get a recount or a new election so we can start demonizing Mousavi a month later over nukes. Don’t you think the US would look just a little stupid pushing for this guy’s election and then trying to pressure him to give up Iran’s nuclear ambitions? How does that even make any sense?
Is our goal, on the other hand, to see the Iranain regime toppled by street protesters? That worked out soooo well in 1979. And now they’ve got nuclear technology! Encouraging instability in a middle eastern country that may be close to building nukes that’s just awesome.
Obviously, the best case scenario is for the current regime to fail in the face of popular unrest and a pro-democratic, secular government put in its place. I can only gather that conservatives think America can help this along by choosing sides now. Well, geniuses, which fucking side?
Moussavi? See above. Some other, as yet to emerge, leader? Great guys, bust out the crystal balls and tell us who. And how is this as yet unnamed person/org supposed to take power when the protesters hit the streets for Moussavi in the first place?
So if any conservative wants to actually state a concrete course of action go for it. But when Frank suggests that this is a “third great chapter in the history of US – middle eastern relations” maybe this time around we should let the Iranians write their own history this time. Ya think?
fafaroo: I don’t believe in answering my own questions. That I can do in my own mind without writing the question and answer in the same space.
Would you really like the Iranians to “write their own history”? Which Iranians? Pres. Ahmadinejad? The Mullahs?
If they choose to write Iran’s history, who will stop them? As of right now ( a few hours ago ) there are Twitter reports that some caustic liquid is being dropped on demonstrators , and there are tanks in the streets. Guess who’s writing history now ?
While yesterday, Pres Obama said, “If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.” Not bad , eh?
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.){ hardly a flag waving Obama hating winger } issued a statement yesterday saying that “the international community should condemn the use of harsh tactics against Iranians who are attempting to peacefully express their political beliefs. The outcome of the elections in Iran must reflect the will of the Iranian people.”
As Winston Churchill once said {Sometimes we need] “More jaw, jaw and less war, war.”
Pres Obama stepped up to the plate a few hours ago… Sometimes the office makes the man …
“My point is that MORE people die when we ignore them, than when we engage them.”
Like when Reagan sent Rumsfeld to Baghdad to shake Saddam’s hand and tell him what a good little anti-Communist he was?
Not only do Republican administrations tend to ignore genocides, they actually tend to back up the various dictators/thugs that are causing the killing! I’ll throw you an easy one to start AO. Ever heard of a guy named Pinochet?
Would you really like the Iranians to “write their own history”? Which Iranians? Pres. Ahmadinejad? The Mullahs?
Well, gee, Frank, it is their history for crying out loud.
Which Iranians is precisely what’s being fought over right now but the only ones who should be involved in that struggle are the Iranians.
If we don’t like the results of this struggle because Ahmadinejad remains president, are we supposed to invade and install Moussavi by force? Is that what you’re talking about?
Because so far you’ve once again failed to state your preferred course of action and thrown up a bunch of contradictory crap.
The Iranians are writing thier own history. They are building nukes. The Persions have been quite clear about what they intend to do with it. The Arab states fear Iran and secretly wish somebody would do something but no one will.
The funny thing is you never hear anyone condemn Iran for its threats. The UN is almost silent about it. The worst they will do is mumble about meaningless sanctions which do nothing ti Iran except run out the clock which is exactly what they want.
The last chance for this to turn out anywhere near ok is fading with the chances of the “revolution” over Iran’s election slipping away. Reagan is still revered in Eastern Europe for the stand he took against the Soviets. Obama is writing his own legacy as we speak. Chances are he will take a place in history standing much closer to Chamberlain than Churchill.
AO, that’s risible that you bring up Chamberlain and Churchill, because it was the conservatives of the time who wanted to appease Hitler, or even saw in him an alternative to Communism, and it was the liberal side who wanted Hitler stopped.
As for Iranian nukes, when are you going to worry about the Israelis using theirs or their constant saber-rattling that they want to use military force to take out the nuke plants that Iran has?
Massive FAIL, AO.
LOL Avenger,
You must have studied history with Jaim. While a Liberal as a young man, Churchill abandoned the Liberals and rejoined the Conservatives. Chamberlain was thrown out by the Conservatives in favor of Churchill.
All of which misses the point that appeasement is a form of weakness no matter who does it or what thier affiliation. Your second point is as far off base as your first. I’m not worried about Israel using her nukes because Israel is a sane stable country filled with very smart people.
Your charactorization of Israeli comments as saber rattling in a respose to Iranian claims to wipe Israel off the map as they actively pursue a bomb and the missle capacity to deliver it is, to put it charitably, a bit myopic. It does fit in well with the Chamberlain appeasement cowardice meme touched on earlier though. You’d fit right in.
“Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler.”
Republicans were working with Hitler and were annoyed that the US went to war with Germany. Republicans actions were, as right winger “Amused Observer” describes, “appeasement cowardice”.
Despite Republican obstructionism the Democratic Party prevailed.
The Democratic Party won World War II.
You know what lefties, I promise not to point out that a few decades ago democrats tried to prevent the equal rights amendment from passing, and were a bunch of racist pigs,if you will stop telling me that a “conservative” grandfather of a president did something I wouldn’t agree with 6 decades ago.
And you guys claim that WE are always trying to deflect the argument.
Puh-lease.
I’m curious how you cons would feel if the People’s Republic of China were unhappy with the outcome of our election and so started having a conversation about what ‘they should do’ about it. I have a feeling that the first Americans to lose their shit over it would be conservatives, known in any country for their hardcore nationalism.
Congratulations!
Parthenon wins the Kewpie doll.
The first leftist to equate the current election in IRAN, with elections in the U.S…..and as a bonus, use the PRC as an arbiter of justice!
Yea, you guys definitely are living in a “reality-based” universe.
Prima facia ridiculous.
Prima facia ridiculous.
How so? What makes it okay for us and not for others? If we sway somebody’s election results, how does that not make them a de facto colony?
Parthenon has a pretty good point, as a hypothetical, and usualsuspect swings and misses.
Obama said the right thing. This situation is still unfolding. Just as with the economy, we wait to see if he is the a) anti-Christ (according the Republicans) or b) a pretty good president with a nose of international relations, according to the majority of reality-based Americans.
You know what, “usual ‘Republican’ suspect”?
I’m an independent with a conservative streak, but I’d rather be lumped in with “lefties” by duplicitous right wing slugs like yourself who perpetually rewrite history.
The modern Republicon Party is riddled with fraudsters like you, “usualsuspect” who can’t accept facts, refute reality, and rewrite history.
So tell you what, you go ahead and explain how the Democratic Party lost most all of it’s racist voters to the Republican Party over the last 40 years and I’ll point out that the current Republican Party is riddled by racist Republican leaders that keep getting reelected by current Republican voters.
Please, I beseech you, keep bringing up the fact that racist voters have been soaked up by the Republican Party like a sponge for the last 40 years as a deliberate and calculated strategy of Republicans.
The last chance for this to turn out anywhere near ok is fading with the chances of the “revolution” over Iran’s election slipping away. Reagan is still revered in Eastern Europe for the stand he took against the Soviets. Obama is writing his own legacy as we speak. Chances are he will take a place in history standing much closer to Chamberlain than Churchill.
Oh look, another completely meaningless bag of wind from a conservative which wails about how were missing our opportunity to act but fails to actually suggest a course of action.
Chances are he will take a place in history standing much closer to Chamberlain than Churchill.
Or is this a veiled call for preemptive invasion of Iran?
Right wing media sycophant Bob Schieffer of CBS’s “Face the Nation” had Republican John McCain on again to provide Republican McCain his regular, exclusive* opportunity to mouth right wing nonsense, this time about Iran.
Republican McCain must have forwarded “fafaroo” the Republican talking points before going on the TeeVee or else “fafaroo” knows the future because “fafaroo” predicted perfectly what Republican McCain’s appearance was going to consist of: Republican McCain’s “Face the Nation” appearance was “another completely meaningless bag of wind from a conservative which wails about how were missing our opportunity to act but fails to actually suggest a course of action.”
* no other guests, Republican McCain had the whole show to spout his right wing nonsense.
LOL,
Parthenon get’s exactly right.
“…so started having a conversation about what ‘they should do’ about it. I have a feeling that the first Americans to lose their shit over it would be conservatives, known in any country for their hardcore nationalism.”
And the last Americans to show concern would be progressive leftists. They would talk about negotiation, or can’t we all just get along. There would be special shows on tv showcasing Chinese culture and pointing out how civilized they are. Then there would be a rash of articles highlighting various things America had done to the Chinese, going on about railroad labor etc. etc. etc.
Fafaroo,
It’s not really veiled. Should have happened several years ago.
Frank, you’re too stupid to understand that swinging your dick is not smart diplomacy. Fortunately, we have an adult as president now. Just shut up and learn how real Americans govern.
Well put, Mike ! I suppose that bit of erudition puts paid to this discussion.
Militaristic right wing eliminationists would have strengthened right wing Iranian theocrats in Iran just like the right wing neo-con-artists strengthened Iran by removing it’s adversary Iraq as a counterbalancing power.
Right wingers are too stupid to understand or to dishonest to admit that the ideal in Iran is to move away from the right wing extremists in Iran which means that the ideal is to liberalize Iran.
The fact is that the only reason there are protests in Iran is because the Iranian people have become much more liberal over the last 30 years.
Viva liberalism!-)
Sure Newsy,
How many Iranian protesters will have to be gunned down before it is ok to explain that the US supports free elections?
Oh, and I imagine you had this same laissez faire attitude toward S. Africa during apartheid as well, right?
“Fortunately, we have an adult as president now. Just shut up and learn how real Americans govern.”
“Mi hasa, su casa, Tony.”
The irony in all this is if the cons had their wet dream of an Iranian invaision, half of these protesters they’re celebrating today would’ve been either dead or part of an Iranian insurgency.
The fact is that the only reason there are protests in Iran is because the Iranian people have become much more liberal over the last 30 years.
Actually, the reason there are protests is that Iraq is currently a free country. The Iranians now see that the overthrow of autocrats is possible in their part of the world.
Why do you suppose so many signs in Iran today are in english? Here’s a theory: They would like American support for a democracy.
We don’t need to invade the country outright, even something as simple as saying we stand for the principle of a free election. Hey, maybe we can get Jimmy Carter to go into Iraq and inspect the election results! You guys were big on that in South America.
I know that Newsy would have preferred having Iraq continue to fight against Iran in an endless war, killing hundreds of thousands thereby weakening both countries, while Newsy sips a G & T from upon his high horse of righteousness that he hasn’t “interfered” with anything.
Oh, and any cognitive dissonance over the fact that in the same post you suggest that current iranian regime is strengthened by Iraqi freedom, yet at the same time, so is “liberal” Iranian protest?
No, I suppose that requires the “cognitive” part…..
“usualsuspect” you are making an extremely ignorant and deadly mistake or you are disgustingly indifferent to the lives you are pretending to be concerned about.
Do you really not recognize that any support that the American government expressed on behalf of the opposition would have been used by the ruling government as an excuse to brutally crush the opposition?
That’s not to say that the Iranian government wasn’t going to brutally crush the opposition anyways and blame ‘furriners’ while doing it, but why give the Iranian government an easy excuse to blame it on specific words or actions of ours?
Are you really that callous to the lives you are pretending to care for?
The President’s measured and careful responses have been in both the best interests of the opposition in Iran as well in the best interests of the US.
Let me get this straight:
The Iranian government is going to brutally crush this opposition REGARDLESS of what The Won says?
So we better not say anything?
Perhaps we and the Iranian people would be better served by a US President with some stones, who stepped up, a la Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech, and spoke up for human rights?
I think you have demonstrated quite nicely who is “ignorant” in this particular argument.
Good lord, the “usual Republican suspect” is particularly ignorant.
The Iranian people weren’t trying to “overthrow … autocrats”, they genuinely believed they had limited democracy and many genuinely believe that the election was stolen.
Iranians aren’t trying to overthrow the Supreme Leader (the Iranian autocrat who is actually in charge), whom they generally support, they were trying to elect a different President, who has limited power beneath the Supreme Leader.
Right wingers (like Republican McCain) are too stupid to even know who is actually in charge in Iran and haven’t spent the five minutes needed to learn how Iran’s weird (extremely) limited democracy works.
American interference will only strengthen the hand of the current President and also give the Supreme Leader the claim that any crackdown was done because of foreigners.
If we don’t give the Iranians that excuse (to blame US because we started mouthing off) it weakens both the President AND the Supreme Leader especially in the case of a crackdown.
because it was the conservatives of the time who wanted to appease Hitler
While a Liberal as a young man, Churchill abandoned the Liberals and rejoined the Conservatives. Chamberlain was thrown out by the Conservatives in favor of Churchill.
and he wasn’t a major force in Tory politics until the Germans invaded Poland:
“usual Republican suspect”: “Iraq continue to fight against Iran in an endless war, killing hundreds of thousands thereby weakening both countries,”
That was the Republican position, or did you miss Republican Rumsfeld shaking dictator Saddam Hussein’s hand in support of that war?
Under Republican President Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld openly negotiated with terrorist Dictatorr Saddam Hussein.
Republican President Reagan’s support of a brutal dictator at war with Iran is one of the reasons any support we offer an Iranian Presidential candidate automatically means that candidate’s life is at risk.
sorry newsy, but you change positions every post.
At 1:30 you said: Militaristic right wing eliminationists would have strengthened right wing Iranian theocrats in Iran just like the right wing neo-con-artists strengthened Iran by removing it’s adversary Iraq as a counterbalancing power.
and at 2:53 you said: That was the Republican position, or did you miss Republican Rumsfeld shaking dictator Saddam Hussein’s hand in support of that war?
So which is it? Did we strengthen Iran by removing Hussein, or by supporting him?
See, that is the problem with liberal arguments, they are never completely thought through. You guys make decisions based on “feelings” not on logic or rationality. You can’t keep track of your own arguments cause your “feelings” change every five minutes.
Dark Avenger,
“While a Liberal as a young man, Churchill abandoned the Liberals and rejoined the Conservatives. Chamberlain was thrown out by the Conservatives in favor of Churchill.”
You left a little bit off, possibly for effect.
“All of which misses the point that appeasement is a form of weakness no matter who does it or what thier affiliation.”
When doing a lengthy cut and paste googled after the fact to bail yourself out, you really ought to give a cite. If you were a pro it’s called plagiarism. This ain’t the bigs but that’s not your prose.
Oh, and I imagine you had this same laissez faire attitude toward S. Africa during apartheid as well, right?
Actually, that’s a wonderful example of building international consensus for regime change through a combination non-military economic means and a rising domestic political revolution.
Obviously no such consensus exists on Iran, which is no more systematically oppressing a subset of its population than our ally Saudi Arabia is.
Your right as usual Parth. If you include North Korea, China, Syria,and a few other autocracies, there IS no consensus on Iran. And of course Saudi Arabia doesn’t pretend to be a democracy, but is a monarchy (see “House of Saud”)
However, if you include only representative democracies and other freely elected governments, turns out everyone pretty much is in agreement. In fact if the US showed even a modicum of leadership, rather than the bury your head in the sand foreign policy that our Chief Executive Yellow-Belly is showing, we might actually LEAD the consensus statement.
That is what we republicans call leadership.
But back to South Africa….you were then in favor of not mentioning anything about apartheid, so as not to interfere with the internal workings of that country?
Leftist radical Gary Sick says Mr. Obama is handling the situation correctly. Leftist radical Henry Kissinger says Mr. Obama is handling the situation correctly. It’s only stalwart, right-thinking Americans like Peedro who think we should step in and marginalize the protesters in the eyes of their fellow Iranian citizens.
That is what we republicans call leadership.
mw…mwuhu….mwhuhuhuhu….mwAAAhahhAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!
And of course Saudi Arabia doesn’t pretend to be a democracy, but is a monarchy (see “House of Saud”).
You brought up apartheid-era South Africa in the context of oppression and whether it was right to intervene. In other words, you’re mixing your hypotheticals here – do you want to talk about stolen elections or oppression of a subset of the population? Was your chief complaint about South Africa that their elections were unfair?
However, if you include only representative democracies and other freely elected governments, turns out everyone pretty much is in agreement.
That stealing elections is wrong? Unsurprising. However I think if you tallied the numbers regarding intervention (either hard or soft), I think you’d find they come up more in the President’s favor than your own. And even if, say, the Chancellor of Germany were to comment on the situation, that carries different weight than words spoken by the president of the United States, because Germans don’t have that negative quasi-colonial history with Iran that the United States has earned (and which you seem so studiously intent on ignoring).
So if your assertion is that there is consensus for a regime change in Iran, or intervention in Iran’s electoral politics, I’d like to see a cite, please.
In fact if the US showed even a modicum of leadership, rather than the bury your head in the sand foreign policy that our Chief Executive Yellow-Belly is showing, we might actually LEAD the consensus statement. That is what we republicans call leadership.
1) What is it you think the president should do?
2) What do you believe will occur if he were to follow your recommendation?
3) Can you think of any reason why even soft intervention might have the opposite effect you desire? Any reason at all? You seem like a thoughtful enough chap.
But back to South Africa….you were then in favor of not mentioning anything about apartheid, so as not to interfere with the internal workings of that country?
Negative. The strategy of consensus economic pressure, diplomatic isolation and a domestic political insurgency worked beautifully. They have their problems, to be sure, but if our own country has taught us anything it’s that you don’t erase the effects of institutional discrimination by simply eliminating the ‘institutional’ part.
However: Do you see a little hyperbole in comparing Iran to South Africa? Just a little? You’re not one of those nutters that calls the president ‘Adolf’ Achmedinejad, are you?
And frankly South Africa’s situation was night-and-day from modern day Iran. Not a good comparison at all.
“All of which misses the point that appeasement is a form of weakness no matter who does it or what thier affiliation.”
You’d have to explain to me how Obama’s latest statements about the situation in Iran is appeasement in any way, shape or form.
When doing a lengthy cut and paste googled after the fact to bail yourself out, you really ought to give a cite. If you were a pro it’s called plagiarism. This ain’t the bigs but that’s not your prose.
Yeah, well I felt that anyone with half a brain and extensive experience of the internet toobs would’ve realized where my excerpts came from, what with the numbered references exactly as in the style used in the Wikipedia, but then I forgot you were commenting on this thread.
Plus, I didn’t indicate in any way that I wrote it, Sherlock, but then as you pointed out and are now demonstrating, “this isn’t the bigs”.
Anyway, it’s a well-documented fact that it was the Conservative fear of Communism that led them favor the Nazis, while it was the other way around with the Liberals of the time, whose opinion was a minority opinion at the time Chamberlain made his famous statement.
Your charactorization of Israeli comments as saber rattling in a respose to Iranian claims to wipe Israel off the map as they actively pursue a bomb and the missle capacity to deliver it is, to put it charitably, a bit myopic. It does fit in well with the Chamberlain appeasement cowardice meme touched on earlier though. You’d fit right in.
It’s not really veiled. Should have happened several years ago.
That’s one for the Coalition of the Utterly Insane.
I hope that conservatives are not going to try to start touting their feeble record on South Africa. Dick Cheney and Ronald Reagan are famous for their indifference to the Apartheid regime. It is almost like you guys don’t even know who you are…
Apparently “usual Republican suspect” isn’t paying attention to the difference between what Republicans SAY and what Republicans DO and how what Republicans SAY has nothing to do with what Republicans DO.
Nor does the right wing “usualsuspect” have any sense of history or of how history changes over time.
Republican President Reagan armed the Iraqi dictatorship AND the Iranian dictatorship.
Republican President Reagan was giving the Iranian dictatorship military weapons secretly even while he was also giving the Iraqi dictatorship weapons secretly.
Republican President Reagan was arming both sides.
It’s one of the reasons the Iranians are so quick to blame the Americans for anything they can. But that also goes back to Republican Eisenhower’s toppling of the democratically elected Iranian leader back in the 50’s.
Republican Eisenhower destroyed the democratically elected Iranian leader and replaced him with a dictator, the Shah, whose brutality led to the Islamic revolution.
Unlike the “usual ‘Republican’ suspect(s)”, Iranians remember their history even while Republicans have Orwellianly rewritten history.
That is what we republicans call leadership.
But back to South Africa….you were then in favor of not mentioning anything about apartheid, so as not to interfere with the internal workings of that country?
Yeah, let’s talk about South Africa. US, you wanna remind us all of Reagan’s awesome republican leadership on apartheid and South Africa?
It is telling that the democrats don’t believe freedom is worth spilling any blood over.
Somebody else’s.
I can see you haven’t changed a bit, Pedro.
When did we successfully fight for someone else’s “freedom” when it did not include economic benefits to the US?
Grenada?
‘My point is that MORE people die when we ignore them, than when we engage them.’
Really? Try shouting that to the crowds in Baghdad and see how much agreement it garners.
I’m not the reincarnation of anybody; this is my one and only handle; try and make a point without revealing your amazing lack of tact.
‘Actually, the reason there are protests is that Iraq is currently a free country. The Iranians now see that the overthrow of autocrats is possible in their part of the world.’
It’s consistently amazing how Conservatives herald ‘freedom’ in Iraq, but never mention the dictator they’ve been ‘freed’ from was installed and supported by the US for decades.
First you implant and foster the tyrant, then you destroy him and his country and call it ‘freedom.’
How dare those ungrateful Iraqis decry the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their own people when they should be bowing down and thanking the altruistic Bush cabal for ‘freeing’ them.
BTW, only another series of bombs went off today in Iraq; more freedom on the march.
‘Perhaps we and the Iranian people would be better served by a US President with some stones, who stepped up, a la Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech, and spoke up for human rights?’
The very fact that Cons continue to believe in the fantasy of Reagan single handedly bringing the Soviet Union to its knees is yet another sign of their inability to match facts with history.
‘Reagan smash!’
Reagan couldn’t even unzip his own fly by himself; challenging Gorbachev to tear down this wall was about as successful at doing so as Reaganomics; in other words, not successful at all.
But keep the wet dream alive; and don’t forget to re-animate his corpse for Palin’s running mate in 2012.
So which is it? Did we strengthen Iran by removing Hussein, or by supporting him?
It was both, at different times, and you know it.
The very fact that Cons continue to believe in the fantasy of Reagan single handedly bringing the Soviet Union to its knees is yet another sign of their inability to match facts with history.
Then ya think maybe someday we’ll stop hearing about how Clinton single-handedly gave us a surplus and that his only transgression was lying about a blowjob because it was they could come up with after spending $60mm on this otherwise perfect President?
Neither do I.
‘Then ya think maybe someday we’ll stop hearing about how Clinton single-handedly gave us a surplus and that his only transgression was lying about a blowjob because it was they could come up with after spending $60mm on this otherwise perfect President?’
The only problem with your logic is that Clinton did provide the US with a budget surplus, and did get a blowjob that sent your party into a spastic paroxysm; but go ahead and keep trying to lie your way into credibility.
It’s worked out so well for Bush, Cheney et al, you might as well give a go yourself.