Even the most ardent Islamists will have a hard time keeping a straight face when talking about the wide acceptance of their ideology among Iranians, it is just too patently obvious not to be the case. The times when IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic, could make a theoretically plausible claim to legitimacy is long gone. So the obvious question is why the sane world lead by the U.S. is trying every which way it can to appease and cut a deal with a fundamentalist Islamist regime lacking international and more importantly internal legitimacy.
The Islamist regime’s most recent violent suppression operation which included its rooftop sharpshooters randomly picking off peaceful demonstrators, cracking heads, breaking bones, torturing and raping men, women and children who were detained, some to death is no secret. So is the fact that at the height of those barbarities some of which at great cost to life and limb were captured on film and broadcasted worldwide, the American President sent his second unsolicited lets be friends letter to IRR’s Supreme Leader/Rapist.
The Obama administration came to power partly, if not mostly, due to utter disgust to the point of hatred for the previous administration’s tendency to overlook human rights violation at the altar of greater good in its “freedom” infusion projects. Isn’t President Obama following the same trail from another direction?
What else would it be to cozy up to Islamist rapists oppressing Iranians for three decades, overlooking the International Criminal Court’s indictment of Sudan’s Islamist Prez for crimes against humanity, cutting off meager funding to handful of unbloated human rights organizations that are really doing good, and…?
After the murderous Islamists’ attack on 9/11, America said never again, but less than a decade later the old ways of dealing with the tyrants and giving the finger to their victims is creeping back in and that only spells disaster. Taking a second bite at the same rotten apple is not going to taste any better.
|Recently by Fred||Comments||Date|
ادا اطوار اسلامی
|Dec 05, 2012|
|Dec 05, 2012|
|Iranians are legitimate target|
|Dec 04, 2012|
|نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز||Dec 04|
|Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day||Lawyer says death sentence suspended||Dec 03|
|Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day||Iterview with mother||Dec 02|
|احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱||Dec 02|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day||46 days on hunger strike||Dec 01|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti||In Barcelona||Nov 30|
|گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی||Nov 30|
|Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day||Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years||Nov 30|
|محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین||Nov 29|
|Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day||Kurdish Activist on Death Row||Nov 28|
So, anyway Ayhab...by ex programmer craig on Fri Oct 23, 2009 05:06 PM PDT
For one thing, my ideology is pretty much the polar opposite of fascism so the whole hitler thing probably works better for your close personal freind, Ostaad, than it works for me. For another thing, I'm... what... 6 inches taller than hitler or something like that? I don't know but he was a little guy. I'm not a little guy. And lastly, I'm much better looking than Hitler. Again, I would guess that your close personal friend Ostaad is more like Hitler than I am in that regard too.
Not that I'm comparing your close personal friend Ostaad to Hitler. You know what they say about comparing people to Hitler during discussions. And I don't want them to say that about me.
Jeezby ex programmer craig on Fri Oct 23, 2009 04:57 PM PDT
Ayhab, you know what they say about conversations when your opponent starts comparing you to Hitler, right? lol.
1/5 of 2 rialiby capt_ayhab on Fri Oct 23, 2009 04:22 PM PDT
Mr. Craig states[I guess I lied! Did you think only Iranians could do that or something?]
I suppose soon or later one has to show his true colors. which are none other than red black and white.
Look it up Craig:
Ostaadby che khabar e on Fri Oct 23, 2009 04:12 PM PDT
holy moly! I was like... where did all THAT come from... whew!
I have no problem with republican/democrat/independent/libertarian... whatever. I personally believe that we NEED both a conservative camp and a liberal camp (and everyone inbetween...:-). No one is 100% anything. As I said, I have conservative values on some issues and I can appreciate that my liberal values would want to be challenged and kept in line. It's those rabid believers that I fear more than anything (or anyone) else.
Thank YOU for your comments. I've agreed with and disagreed with some of your stances but I would like to offer my appreciation on your calm response. I always love a good debate... :-)
ps. I'd like to add one leeeeettle comment. I'd rather none of us use terms like "ignorant Iranian" or "sorry excuse for American". It does no one any good and only enforces animosity between individuals. Alas... iranian.com seems to feed on that very animosity.
Have yourself a great weekend as well!!!!
che khabar e, with due respect...by Ostaad on Fri Oct 23, 2009 01:39 PM PDT
I have been reading your responses to this character and Arzu while grinding my teeth asking myself, why is he wasting his precious time responding to these people? But since you attempted to clarify my point, which will certainly fall on deaf ears and under-developed brains, I thought to say the following.
I admire your tact and patience, but on the other hand I think you are trying to talk to the wrong people. Since you mentioned you are a Dem, I'd like you to know that I am an "independent" voter, but it seems I have NEVER voted for a republican even if he/she were running to be a dog-catcher. So as two American voters we are in different camps, but I don't think we have any problems discussing our political views.
Regarding the GOP today, the sad reality is those good-old Republicans whose main political ideas where small government, small taxes and balanced budgets, have been replaced with a small group of ignorant zealots who have produced bigger governments, tax cuts for the rich and huuuuge deficits - starting and losing two personally profitable, for GW and Halliburton, wars of choice is a whole different story. I call the ever shrinking GOP zealots, "American Talebans" since their extremism and bigotry rivals only the Taleban.
Can you imagine in your wildest dreams that any descent smart Republican would come up with as ridiculously stupid statement about Obama eating ice cream as that GOP Taleban Arzu?! I sure don't think so.
My friend, far be it for me to give you advice, but may I suggest that you ignore these sorry excuses for an American and move on?
Have a great weekend.
maybe I missed somethingby che khabar e on Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:42 PM PDT
But Craig... what are you disagreeing with. I don't think this sounds pro-IRI at all. Taken at face value... it's exactly right. I don't think that Obama is "working" with the IRI at all but it's for damn sure that whatever he is doing is for the US interests. What else would you expect from him? (let me emphasize right here that I am not supporting in any way, shape or form anything about the IRI).
this has got to be the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard!by che khabar e on Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:32 PM PDT
"Lastly, the day Neda was killed by the rapist regime in Iran, while the whole world was glued to youtube and mourning, later that same day, Obama was video taped licking ice cream with his girls on K Street in Washington DC..."
But perhaps he took his que from GWB who was reading a book UPSIDE DOWN when he got the news about 9/11.
Please remember that the world does NOT revolve around Iran. You're not going to convince me Obama did anything wrong by having ice cream WITH HIS CHILDREN. Forget THAT.
I think Obama has expressed his outrage very clearly.
Bottom line. You're not the least bit interested in discussing... you don't hear a word I say. You're far more interested in expressing irrational outrage over anything or anyone Democrat or Obama related.
well Houshaby che khabar e on Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:26 PM PDT
thanks for "trying" to be polite. You just barely made it. First of all, I was asking PC and Fred the question as it pertained directly to his comment. But I have no problem with your answering it either.
Bebeen... you really need to calm down! :-0 You're getting your panties WAY too twisted. You're obviously republican. That's cool. that's your prerogative... your choice. But please don't call me ignorant because I chose differently. I am just as adamant about my reasons for being a democrat as you are being republican. Please learn to disagree or debate without being rude and arrogant.
Ostaad: You don't seem toby vildemose on Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:44 AM PDT
Ostaad: You don't seem to see the irony. This grand bargain makes the US an accomplice of IRI. Think about how they arrived at this nuclear deal? Yes, the nuclear deal averts a war but at what expense? As I said earlier, short of US cooperation with the Islamic Republic in supressing the democratic struggle inside Iran, the IRI would not have given up its uranium enrichment.
Essentially, the US has agreed to help the IRI not to ever be overthrown or become democratic, and you don't see anything wrong with that picture? The democratic struggle of Iranian will be proactively hampered by the US and IRI. The Iranian people have to fight two fronts/enemies at the same time. How could this be in the interest of Iranian people?
Do you really care about Iran or the IRI's long-term survival? I wonder sometimes how the two could not be mutually exclusive...
Ostaadby ex programmer craig on Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:29 AM PDT
I guess I lied! Did you think only Iranians could do that or something?
I know it's probably not necessary for me to point out that you openly support the IRI here, on a mostly American website. But I like to do it anyway. That doesn't mean I want to engage in a dialogue with you. I'm not real big on dialogue.
ex prog.... could you do me a favor and...by Ostaad on Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:11 AM PDT
STFU, as you said you'd do before?
Now, do yourself a favor and get help at a VA near you, homie.
BTW, you had promised not to "talk" to me a while ago. What's makes you think I'm interested in your nonsense?!
Ostaadby ex programmer craig on Fri Oct 23, 2009 09:17 AM PDT
I assure you that if working with IRI were not beneficial for the US interests Obama would have not done it.
Could you do me a favor and at least PRETEND not to be a cheerleader for the Islamci Republic? Thanks!
vildemose, the "grand bargain" works both ways...by Ostaad on Fri Oct 23, 2009 08:18 AM PDT
I assure you that if working with IRI were not beneficial for the US interests Obama would have not done it. What would be his administration's motivation to do so?
You may call Obama's policy vis-a-vis Iran whatever you want, but the fact is his policies are working towards avoiding another war of choice pushed by the neo-cons and the Israeli establishment.
I am sorry to read that you and others who think like you are prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water. The Iranian "people" that you purport to like so much will be in a much better position to continue "their" democratic struggle while "their" country does not lay in ruins and "they" are alive.
Think about it.
CIA chief in secret Israelby vildemose on Fri Oct 23, 2009 07:40 AM PDT
(AFP) – May 14, 2009
JERUSALEM (AFP) — CIA chief Leon Panetta has held secret talks in Israel with top officials who assured him the Jewish state would not launch a surprise strike on Iran, a report said.
According to the public radio report, Panetta arrived in Israel two weeks ago for a round
Iran, Israel Hold Secret Nuclear Talks In Cairo: Haaretz
Operation Obamaby vildemose on Fri Oct 23, 2009 07:37 AM PDT
Short of security and survival guarantees of the IRI for the long haul, the IRI will not have accepted to meet with the Israelis with participation of head of the CIA in that meeting. or send its uranium to Russia.
Therefore, it follows:
What Obama has done, if he has given the IRI the grand bargain the IRI has covetted for so long, he has essentially deprived Iranian in the same manner the CIA did in 1953, both actions prodced or will produce the same result: undermining the democratic struggle of the Iranian people. I call this Obama's coup against the Iranian people.
Che bakharby Nousha Arzu on Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:15 AM PDT
One more thing, you write: "what exactly do you disagree with as far as his foreign policy." Let me answer, please. I like absolutely NOTHING he's done in the foreign policy department.
Let me just offer the cases of Iran and Hondurous. Did you know that it took this weakling, this thin-skinned president 10 DAYS to condemn the bloodshed in Iran, while it took him all of 3 HOURS to condemn the removal of Hugo Chavez's leftist buddy in Hondorous.
10 DAYS! 3 HOURS!
The president of Hondurous was removed because he was trying to manipulate the Hondurous constitution so that he could be like his hero, Hugo Chavez, and remain president for life, like Saddam. The Hondurous constitution says that no one can be president for more than one term. This guy, Zelaya, was interfering with the upcoming elections, which as per the Hondurous consittution, excluded the current president, Zelaya.
So, the Hondurous Supreme Court ordered the removal of the president -- this was NOT a military coup, it was a legal court order by the Hondurous Supreme Court! And how does Obama administration deal with this matter -- by immediately condeming Zelaya's removal and cutting off aid to Hondurous until they reinstate their deposed president!
This is nuts!
Why does Obama have this blatant affinity for leftist thugs, like Chavez and Chavez wanna-bes like Zelaya? Chavez is a thug, in bed with Ahmadinejad up to his eyeballs -- why would Obama want Chavez's leftist buddy, Zelaya, back in power in Hondurous? Does this make any sense, in light of the fact that Zelaya was LEGALLY ordered to be removed by the Hondurous Supreme Court???
And what did this amateur-hour president really gain by sucking up to the Russians and removing the missile defense program from Poland and Czech. and unilaterally promising to reduce US nuclear weapons? Did the Russians promise to reduce in kind? Hardly. Will the Russians help America in its fight against the IRI? Hardly.
This moron of a president is actually shaping up to be even worse than Jimmy jackass Carter! And that's saying a ton!
Lastly, the day Neda was killed by the rapist regime in Iran, while the whole world was glued to youtube and mourning, later that same day, Obama was video taped licking ice cream with his girls on K Street in Washington DC. What a message to the rapists in Iran? This guy is clueless. He could've had ice cream delivered to the White House from the North Pole, did he have to go out and be filmed sucking down ice cream so care-free and cheerful, on a day when seemingly the WHOLE WORLD was astounded by the Neda murder???
LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH
Che Khabarby Nousha Arzu on Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:16 AM PDT
I'm trying to be polite, but you sound like one of the most ignorant Iranians, actually there are a ton of them in the diaspora -- it seems that those people who saw Khomeini on the moon moved to the west and are now seeing Obama's face on the moon.
Jesus, are you kidding me? Firstly, you write, "More and more though I'm seeing that republicans are moving TOO far right."
And how about the democratic party -- it was a centrist party under Clinton, but under Obama it's taken a massive sharp turn to the left -- just look at the people that surround this president (the White House communications director says one of her favorite "philosophers" is Mao, a man who killed 60 million people, another, Van Jones, was a admitted communist -- not to mention his socialist designs for health care).
I mean, when you have a party that's being spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Al Franken, ACORN, Moveon.org, MSNBC, DailyKos, Michael Moore (the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh with one-tenth the effectiveness), you can't with a straight face complain that the the republican party is going too far to the right! And if you do, then be fair and throw in a line about the leftist makeover of your party.
Seriously, you really don't see the democratic party being controlled by a bunch of FAR-LEFT LOONS??? Are you that diluted with partisan propaganda? I mean, I'm not saying the republican's are not being manipulated by the right, but for you to object to the right leanings of the republicans while not addressing the take over of the democratic party by the FAR LEFT is blatantly biased and unfair.
LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH
...by ex programmer craig on Thu Oct 22, 2009 06:47 PM PDT
Fred, good comment from you re: Obama and the general state of affairs globally. I agree with your assessment on both for the most part, though I suspect I'm a lot more US-centric than you are. I have to admit you seem to have a much more balanced take on things than I expected from reading other comments and posts you've made.
Seriously, the way you say it, both votes for Bush were a "coin toss" as well.
Not for me! Something about Al Gore just rubbed me the wrong way, even when he was VP. And kerry was so effing annoying I wanted to slap him every time I saw his mug on TV during the campaign. Another example of a "coin toss" Presidential election for me was Clinton/Dole 1996. And Iactually voted for Clinton 1992.
I try to vote the man, not the party.
I used to try to do that. But I felt the democrats in Congress threw me over the side in the late 1980s. Only reason I voted for Clinton in 92 was a protest against Bush Sr.
More and more though I'm seeing that republicans are moving TOO far right.
Same thing happened with me for democrats back there in the 1980s. I came to the conclusion that democrats think the US Constitution is toilet paper. And that's a fault I can't forgive, being a Libertarian. I agree with you about Republicans now, but they will come back towards the middle for the next election. They'll have to, if they want to win.
Just curious... what exactly do you disagree with as far as his foreign policy.
Mostly Iran and Afghanistan.
And, I don't like the way he seems willing to barter over things that are (supposedly) of critical importance to us. Or on things that are (supposedly) principled stands the US has taken. What does it tell other countries if we say we won't compromise our values one day, and the next day we compromise our values? We have no values? And what does it tell other countries when we say we will stand by our allies one day, and the next day we sell our allies out in order to make new friends? We can't be trusted?
I guess I don't get the whole "realpolitik" thing. Good thing I'm not President because there'd be a lot of changes around this place and we could probably all kiss our asses goodbye soon after. Anyway, as Fred said he's still finding his way. I just wish he'd find his way a little more decisively.
Fredby benross on Thu Oct 22, 2009 04:51 PM PDT
I don't think Obama approach is inherently detrimental to the cause of human rights in Iran. First, it takes away a major tool of propaganda from IRI about the intention of U.S about the regime. This might not look so much to the eyes of green movement and Iranians who fight for their freedom. The propaganda won't stop. But it does loose its potency to its own social base, no matter how hard the regime keep pushing it. It does not benefit so much the secular movement but it does affect the power base of its opponents which will become more open to it. We have not yet created a political voice for this secular fight but even if we did, we could far better penetrate all social spectrum if the tension was reduced. I understand why some people are disappointed and our neglect WILL produce a disappointing result but I'm not convinced our neglect will prevail therefore I'm not pessimistic about current situation.
It may be disappointing particularly for those who can't see how Reza Pahlavi can reach-out to all social spectrum for the message of secular democracy. It is also very disappointing for some others, exactly because they see it!
weeeeeeell,by che khabar e on Thu Oct 22, 2009 02:09 PM PDT
I voted for Bush the first time because the alternative was Al Gore. I voted for Bush the second time because the alternative was John Kerry. I didn't vote (for President) in the last election because I didn't have a preference and I didn't want to cast a "coin toss" vote.
I might would reply that you should have abstained from voting the first AND second time as well. :-0
Seriously, the way you say it, both votes for Bush were a "coin toss" as well.
I for one understand that no one is completely "one or the other". I too am a liberal but I DO have some conservative values. I try to vote the man, not the party. More and more though I'm seeing that republicans are moving TOO far right.
I personally think Obama is doing just fine. I like many of the issues he is addressing and HOW he's addressing them. Not all of course but then again, is that even possible? I think, as an American, it's not only your right but your responsibility to be concerned about how he's dealing with foreign policy AND social issues. And certainly your right to agree or disagree.
While I might disagree with your assessment of his presidency so far, I think you make your case based on information, not just emotion, like many others.
Just curious... what exactly do you disagree with as far as his foreign policy. I don't think I actually understand your position. Fred... same question to you. Thanks gentlemen!
Craigby Fred on Thu Oct 22, 2009 01:41 PM PDT
It was always understood that President Obama’s primary focus will be domestic, sort of reverse of the previous administration. But as you’ve mentioned it is not going to stay that way for long and for good reason.
U.S. being the leader of the free world-I know some Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies including the ones with a touch of morning sickness who live here and prosper in the provided freedom do not agree-but with that leadership as President Obama has said on may occasions so does come responsibilities.
There is a wild energy/mineral grab by emerging China all over the world including Middle East, Africa and Central/South America. The Russians are retooling to get some of their empire back and the Islamist Rapists are reaping the benefit from all these. This is no time for U.S. isolationism and it certainly is no time to get back into bed with all the cutthroats in the name of national security, it has been done with bad results.
Obama has to find a balance between containing the emerging China and retooling Russia at the same time not to cozy up to the cutthroats of this world headed by the nuke seeking Islamist Rapist Republic. His best and most potent asset is his worldwide popularity in conjunction with known American goodwill. It seems he is seesawing and has not honed his foreign policy yet, in the meantime he is going for damage control.
I’ve always respected the American Constitution for it provides for the people should they so desire, without being raped or murdered, to throw the bums out of any elected office including the president or just vote them out. President Obama has three years or so to show his stuff and assure his reelection which he has already said he is going for the second term, till now it has been a mixed bag of good and bad, as far as IRR is concerned he is not doing that good, lets hope I am wrong.
CKEby ex programmer craig on Thu Oct 22, 2009 01:27 PM PDT
You seem to think I liked Bush? And worse, Cheney? At least Bush was sincere. I can't think of anything good to say about Cheney. I voted for Bush the first time because the alternative was Al Gore. I voted for Bush the second time because the alternative was John Kerry. I didn't vote (for President) in the last election because I didn't have a preference and I didn't want to cast a "coin toss" vote.
Anyway, I've said before (on this website and others) that I thought Obama was doing a pretty good job on foreign policy. I no longer believe that to be true. I've also said before that my main concerns in regards to Obama were on domestic issues. I still have those concerns, but now in addition to that I have a concern that he is trying to use the power of the Presidency to silence the opposition. Declaring war on a news network? Seriously, CKE... this man says he is willing to go to any length to establish a rappor with Syria and the Islamic Republic but he can't even tolerate Americans who don't agree with him on social issues? And by the way, I'm about as liberal on soical issues as it's possible to be in the US, and if Obama doesn't have me on board (and he certainly doesn't) on his social agenda, then who DOES he have? Promising people free government handouts only gets you the people who are ignorant enough to think that stuff is actually free, which is what... 30% of the population? OK, well maybe I give Americans too much credit... 40% of the population? And then add the soicialists in which is... 2% of the population? Yeah, I know that's an exagerration to say there are that many socialists in the US, but I'm in a generous mood.
I don't want Obama to fail. I want him to succeed. He's my President too. But I am not a happy camper with the direction he seems to be going.
And PS-As a programmer, I'd can see the value of arrogance/confidence. Some of the best programmers I've ever known has such a superior attitude that most people could hardly stand to be in the same room with them. But what works for a programmer doesn't necessarily work for an executive. Or a President.
of courseby IRANdokht on Thu Oct 22, 2009 01:24 PM PDT
As the American lady also mentioned, you're free to express your opinion and I am also free to feel nauseated by reading it (not that I can help it). I guess I'll be good to go soon, just share your wisdom a couple of more times before I change my mind and start ignoring them again, just a few more pounds to go ;-)
sorry guysby che khabar e on Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:51 PM PDT
I for one am fully aware that as Americans with the right to vote, etc. etc., you do have the right to speak your opinion. Shades of "whether you agree with someone's ideas or ideaology, they have the right to voice their opinion and you must respect them for that". Where did I hear that before?? :-)
hmm... must be "selective" rights....LOLOL
Fred. I agree with a lot but I do want to stress one point. Most Americans voted for Obama because of the instability of the US' economy. Human rights is an issue of course, a major issue, but the fucked up mess Bush left us is the primary reason for change.
"Cozy" is a little excessive, don't you think? I still wonder what it is people expect Obama to do. So much criticism, so little viable alternatives.
XPC. I won't hesitate for a minute to say that I'm glad Obama is "arrogant". Or rather, that which you call "arrogant", I call "confident" and "aggressive". Yep... I'm thrilled to death we have a REAL president instead of a puppet whose strings were pulled by Cheney. (actually I was typing out the worst things I could call someone but I realized that was unproductive. You have the right to support whomever you wish... it would be an insult to YOUR rights to be vulgar. But make no mistake about how I feel about Cheney. :-)
So...by ex programmer craig on Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:43 PM PDT
You changed your mind about not reading my comments? Already? I'm flattered! And as far as the whole vomitting thing, I'm glad I could help! Keep up the good work. I'm sure you'll reach your target weight in no time.
good to knowby IRANdokht on Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:26 PM PDT
It's great to know that we have contributors like ExPC and Fred on iranian.com who are far more courageous and knowledgeable than President Obama!
(excuse me I think I just threw up a little)
Fredby ex programmer craig on Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:19 PM PDT
...by engaging the regime in Iran, he has forced them to come to the table and give up some of their uncompromising positions
Fred, as you can see from Ostaad's comment whihc is a rehash of a leftist talking point, Obama will find that there's a reason why the US wasn't on good terms with the countries that Obama wants to suddenly be on good terms with. Obama seems to be arrogant enough to think that the only reason the US hasn't had good relationships with some countries in the past is that previous Presidents weren't trying hard enough, or that they lacked his charm, or they were just engaged in pointless posturing, and etc. I'm not sure why, but it doesn't seem to have ever occurred to him that the hostility is genuine and the grievances are real.
Which is a bit bizarre, considering Obama himself declared war on FOX news and tried to shut down Town Hall meetings. And considering the left can't even engage in a civil discussion with the right, here in America. What on earth gave him (and the left) the idea that engaging in dialogue with a hostile foreign power was going to be easy, when americans can't even engage in a rational dialogue with eachother right here at home?
Oh well. He'll "get it" eventually. I just hope that happens sooner rather than later. We really don't need another Jimmy Carter. I'm not sure we have a Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings to fix everything, this time.
Tell me Fred...by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:05 PM PDT
What exactly has the Bush Administration done to move democracy forward in Iran? All I hear from activists INSIDE Iran- you know, the ones who are actually doing something - is that Bush and his policies did alot of damage to their activism.
Perhaps next time you should underline the fact that you care not what Iranians inside think.
Fred, you seem to have lost the...by Ostaad on Thu Oct 22, 2009 07:08 AM PDT
sourakh-e doaa, as usual. Governments do not deal with each other in terms of legitimacy! Again, governments deal with each other in terms of their INTERESTS.
For the time being, the government of Iran is what it is and others deal with it because they have to. I know, I know, you're going to jump up and down and scream "but America" said this and that. Actually America did not say that, the goat herder from Texas, GW, and his grand vazeer Dick-ol-dolleh Cheney made those remarks. Then they went ahead and "funded" the Jundollah!
Obama has not cozied up to anyone. He's simply carrying out his policy of engaging "the enemy". by engaging the regime in Iran, he has forced them to come to the table and give up some of their uncompromising positions. That's all good!
Regarding your marsieh khaani for the "meager funding", I am not sure why YOU are despairing so much, AIPAC is there for you. But the people who truely care about the human/civil rights of the Iranian people have never looked to the US government "funding". So don't worry about that, Fred, you keep serving your tea-and-crumpets.
Closing one door leaves many other doors to open.