The Hungarians were deep in Soviet territory and we were not quite in a position to push thorugh and help them. Be that as it may, a lot more verbal and covert support might have helped fracture the Sovs control of the area and led to other uprisings. Would have been a bloody mess and we would have to mix it up at some point, but this is all speculation.
We could probably jump right into this one with little fear of triggering a world conflict, given Iran's pariah status, but why? Give great encouragement and covert support to the protestors and, who knows, they might pull it off. But it needs to be seen as homegrown, the Afghans rising against Russia, or the whole thing will crash. |
|
Andrew Sullivan has been very good on Iran over the past week. But he has suggested that some "bad Neocons" want Ahmadinejad to win. Who would that be? I would like to know so I can deounce them too Andrew. A completely unsubstantiated slur.
So far, the only public figure calling for that is George Galloway and last time I checked he is not a neocon.
And Andrew argues that the US has to stay out of this, so as not to delegitimize the opposition as American stooges. This seems more like Gunga Andrew carrying Obama's water. While I agree President Obama has to be very careful in what he says, saying nothing is a message too. You can promote democracy, reform, and non violence in a more forceful way than Obama has done. The Europeans and Canada are speaking out. The US should speak out too.
This is not about backing winners and losers. This is about right and wrong. It is called, being on the right side of history.
|
|
"we shouldn't meddle in Iran's affairs".......
But our POTUS meddling in Israel's business????
NO PROBLEM!!
(it's called hypocrisy, people).... |
|
"I would like to know so I can deounce them too Andrew. A completely unsubstantiated slur."
“I’m sometimes asked who I would vote for if I were enfranchised in this election, and I think that, with due hesitance, I would vote for Ahmadinejad,” Pipes said. The reason, Pipes went on, is that he would “prefer to have an enemy who’s forthright and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements.” (Video of the event is available by following the link to the Heritage website; Pipes’s comments come at about the 1:29:00 mark.)
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=256
The link Lobe refers to is below.
http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev060309a.cfm
I bet there are more neocons than just Pipes who wanted to see things turn out this way. They want a war for Israel's behalf so badly and to hell with whatever negative effect is has on America.
Just think, if Mousavi had won the neocons would have to start the demonization campaign with the idiotic claims about "Hitler", etc., all over from scratch. |
|
* Hungary was occupied by a large foreign power. Iran is not.
* Hungarians were trying to overthrow the government. Iranians are protesting the results of an ostensibly democratic election.
* U.S. intervention in Hungary would have meant military confrontation with a superpower. U.S. intervention in Iran is handing ammunition to the people we oppose.
* Hungarians hoped for and expected American intervention. Many Iranian protestors are warning America not to intervene. |
|
|
Carol, stand up, and slowly back away from the keyboard. |
|
|
There's Sissy-Roe stating the case for Isolationist-Morally Neutral Paleo-Pauliteism succinctly: ZZZzzzzzz... Yep, that's them. |
|
Please look at what happened in the student uprising in 2003. Our response ended the support for the students. It gave the rulers support to squash the uprising. Please educate yourself on Iran and the Iranian people before you make statements arguing for our response.
This is not about us. This is not about us. This is not about us.
Can you understand that clearly enough. |
|
|
The Bamma. And the Mullahs are getting it loud and clear. They're snickering and--to the degree they can be--grateful. |
|
Come on...
This is your dialogue on the most important political event of the year? You really think the POTUS is helping the mullahs and the rulers of Iran. Getting Twitter to reschedule its downtime, that was a plot to help the mullahs? Speaking out against violence, that too was in support of the mullahs?
I have respect for opposing viewpoints but I would think we as a people could come together on something this historic and work together without taking partisan shots. |
|
|
Is what should be compared here. Eisenhower's coup in Iran devastated a legitimate democratically elected government, causing the mess that has been at the core of the Iranian government ever since. Obama is smart not to "meddle" in the election now, and certainly not to listen to the same warmongers who got Iraq SO wrong, essentially handing over the reins of the Iraqi government to the Iran as a result of their oil-mongering buffoonery. |
|
Finger wagging duly noted and I'd like to engage in a more time consuming rational 'dialogue' with you. You are definitely many cuts above the usual lefty trolls klogging & kluttering at TH Blog. Their Gammies basements are adrift in fast food wrappers and multi-googled laptops.
However, I've got to run to do some *VIGFM and won't be back for many hours. I'll revisit perhaps tonight. Be assured, however, that the inference your crediting me with, below, is way off.
And, if you think my message too brief..Moral Clarity and voiced support for freedom doesn't have to be(cough...!)nuanced and windy. Trust me.
*Vast Inexpressible GOOD For Mankind* |
|
|
If I confused your stance I apologize and would like to hear you opinion. I've had a dialogue before with you before and it went well. Will await your reply. |
|
The dissent in Iran IS about us, and it IS also about any other nation affected by Iran's export of terror. It is also about any nation which could be affected by Iran's exportation of nuclear material (be that in smuggled shipments or by warhead-tipped missile).
Saying that "it's only their business" shows an isolationist tendency which is ignorant of history and dangerous. Obama appears to have adopted this mindset and is voting "present" on the matter of Iran's future as a democracy that would (hopefully)like to be less bellicose with its neighbors. |
|
other than the fact we don't have the resources to send troops or anything else, thanks to Bush and his malfeasance in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would you have Obama do?
Has it crossed your feeble minds that Obama's Cairo speech did inspire these people without overt interference in their election? The vote in Lebanon too?
|
|
Please understand that I am not arguing for isolationism. I am advocating anyone who cares about freedom to get involved in any way you can. Just look around the web and you can find ways to help.
I am arguing that our leaders have to be cautious and not give the rulers ammunition against the cause. This happened in 2003 under Bush (and please note this is relevant and not just another liberal bashing Bush).
Finally I disagree with your statement that this is about us b/c the people have their own demands and they (the demands or manifesto) don't mention the US once. They are worried about the rule of their country and we should support them but realize that this is their movement and not ours. |
|
Yes, it is their movement, and I agree we (the US) should help, because I think but am not sure anymore that the US still cares about freedom.
The US has made all kinds of inexcuseable errors in the past when it came to promising a lot of support for various movements against an existing dictatorship/regime/whatever. Sometimes we just backed out and left people to hang out in the wind. Sometimes we backed people because they fought our enemies, and then the ones we backed turned on us (the Taliban). Sending the CIA ops in to foment a little uprising or assassinate leaders is not a good idea, but neither is doing nothing at all.
With Iran, Obama has said little to encourage the protestors in a bid to appear not to "meddle" (though he hasn't the same qualms about states like Israel), and it netted him an accusation of "meddling" from Iran, and disappointment from those here who think we might do better with someone other than A-jad as Iran's President.
I have heard that Iran is restricting bandwidth in an attempt to suppress communication via the internet. Could we help in this regard?
If this can be compared to a difficult labor, I don't advocate a C-section or even the use of forceps to aid delivery. A cool rag on the forehead and some massage and encouragement would be good though.
|
|
"Come on...
This is your dialogue on the most important political event of the year?"
Correction, nihilist: NeoConScum doesn't engage in dialogue. One has to be able to think and write coherently in order to enter into a true dialogue. |
|
"Correction, nihilist: NeoConScum doesn't engage in dialogue. One has to be able to think and write coherently in order to enter into a true dialogue."
Me- Quite correct.
The problem is that he doesn't learn. Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. Yet he and his ilk (safely hiding behind their computers because they won't serve in the military) and they want to get us involved in another one.
The thing is that many Iranians remember well that they elected Mossediqi (sp) in 1953, and Eisenhower went along with the CIA and British Petroleum in toppling him and putting the Shah back in power.
Mousavi has credibility because he WAS one of the revolutionaries in 1979. He loses that the minute it appears we are interfering in their election. |
|
Moral Cowardice Is The Message From
The Bamma. And the Mullahs are getting it loud and clear. They're snickering and--to the degree they can be--grateful.
Me-So you're signing up for the Army tomorrow, since you are so anxious to fight a war. better yet, join the Israeli Defense Forces...
|
|
In terms of policy, the difference between Mousavi and Ahmadihijad is the difference between J and K.
Mousavi is the guy who, as Prime Minister, initated Iran's nuclear program by buying technology from Pakistan. He was one of the 1970's radicals who overthrew the Shah.
Everyone on the Iranian Ballot has to be vetted by the Clergy.
So a Mousavi administration will still hate Israel, still try to get the bomb, will still fund Hezbollah and Hamas and the other nutters.
We are looking at internal squabbles. The Iran-Iraq war Veterans (Mahmoud) against the guys who toppled the Shah (Mousavi). It is also a struggle between the uneducated poor (Mahmoud's supporters) and the bourgouis middle class (Mousavi's supporters)
There is also a conflict amongst the clergy itself, many of whom think Khamenei doesn't have the creditials to be Supreme Religious Leader. Particularly, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, who was once seen as the successor to Ruhollah Khomeini, was demoted and now is the lead dissident cleric. But he is still as fanatical a muslim as any of the rest of them.
Now, if Montazeri and Mousavi prevail in this struggle, they have to do it on their own. if they are seen as our guys, the Iranians will turn on them.
|
|
|
with what branch...wha....I cain't heeeerrr youuuuuu, *MCL..! |
|
|
|