March 24, 2009

"Barack Obama extended the olive branch to Iran's leaders last Friday in a videotaped message praising a 'great civilization'..."

"... for 'accomplishments' that 'have earned the respect of the United States and the world.' The death of Iranian blogger Omid-Reza Mirsayafi in Tehran's Evin prison two days earlier was, presumably, not among the accomplishments the president had in mind."

211 comments:

1 – 200 of 211   Newer›   Newest»
American Liberal Elite said...

Probably not.

T Mack said...

Ann, you voted for this schmuck Obama.
Good news, you are better at picking husbands then presidents, since you can't be worse.
Bad news, considering how bad you are at picking presidents, the odds say your husband picking skills will produce a disaster too.

Good luck anyway, you'll need it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What accomplishments are those?

Joaquin said...

Within 30 minutes of the Obama message, the Iranian press secretary basically said: Yeah, we hear ya, but no thanks. The White House hasn't commented.
This was following the letter that Obama sent to Russia asking to make a deal with Iran/Poland over missile defense. That letter also got 'shot-down' and again there was no comment from the White House.
That foreign policy thing isn't working out so good.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Iran played a key role in bringing chess to the world. We can be pretty grateful to them for that.

Did Obama stress how much he's looking forward to working with the Shah these next four years?

fcai said...

Smart diplomacy.

T Mack - are you Maxine in drag?

Freeman Hunt said...

Accomplishments like getting the President of the United States to tape and distribute a message praising a hostile, oppressive country?

Alex said...

Why do you warmongers prefer bombs instead of diplomacy? Obama is not going to try to blow up the world when he wakes up every day like Dubya did.

New York said...

For the transnational progressives, it's the height of arrogance to think that "our" way is "right" or "better" than those of anyone else.

Rather than impose our notion of "human rights" on anyone, the transnational progressive seeks to forge a transnational community whose members maintain a mutually informative dialogue of the topic of human rights.

There's room for anyone in the transnational community (esp. forms of radical Islam as they are transnational in orientation).

The only exception to the rule of maximal tolerance is a broad one: the people who oppose this notion of progress and believe the West is different and should retain (or at this point resurrect) its moral and cultural legacy. They must be opposed, denigrated, ejected etc.

bearbee said...

Walking softly.....but is something missing?

Alex said...

Freeman Hunt - stop it with the hateful warmongering neocon rhetoric.

Alex said...

If anything we should stop being diplomatic to Israel and start belligerency to them to make up for 60 years of coddling them.

fcai said...

Hey, how about those whacky Iranians, eh? Hanging gay guys in public? Yeah, they are a great civilization, eh? Let's send 'em a tape for being so swell. The liberals will love us for being kind to them. After all, only Republicans are homophobes...

Lem said...

Why do I have the feeling that olive branch is a Chinese olive?

Cedarford said...

... for 'accomplishments' that 'have earned the respect of the United States and the world.' The death of Iranian blogger Omid-Reza Mirsayafi in Tehran's Evin prison two days earlier was, presumably, not among the accomplishments the president had in mind."

Presumably other great civilizations we respect like the Chinese, Nipponese, British, Indian, and past ones like the Roman also showed less than admirable attributes from time to time.
Or our own.

The Chinese have whacked a few dissidents in the last 20 years and the US response is to stock our ChinaMarts further, flock as tourists to China, and trade our jobs for China IOUs.
And American Civ just foisted poison financial paper on the world through our lying capitalist Elites.

Obama's foreign affairs people spoke over the Mullahs to the Iranian People..lauding the contribution of Persians, Azeris and others in secular matters and culture. It is a good message to the mostly pro-American Iranian population that we recognize their great past and their present-day needs and accomplishments.

It is another good international reapproachement America needs to try.

Far better, IMO, than listening to Likudnik, Neocon, and Christian Zionist hysterics (wanting an Israeli-centric American foreign policy) telling us America's next great major war must happen soon with the "surgical bombing" of Iran. Far better we try using some strategic communications that America is not the enemy of the Iranian people and our goal is an Iran at peace with its neighbors.

And for that to happen we want Iran to return to being a stabilizing force in the Region, to refrain from exporting and supporting violent radical groups. And build as many nuke plants as they want (Nixon thought they needed about 30) so long as they operate them by international law and by IAEA oversight as well. And their enrichment program.

Alex said...

I agree with Cedarford, we must turn a total blind eye to any Iranian human rights violations "for the greater good".

Alex said...

Also how dare we demand IAEA inspections on Iranian nuke plants? That's a violation of their sovereignty!

fcai said...

Yes, and because they will kill all the Jews. Good to look on the bright side, right?

traditionalguy said...

Play all the divide and conquer cards you want. Good tactic Pres. Obama. But in the end you still have to conquer them or be conquered by them. So do not screw up the Defense Dept budget this time around Dems. Smiling is not a weapon system. Nuclear devices will be a weapon system the next time we have to deal with the Persian Empire, unless those pesky Jews do the necessary disarmament of Iran for us.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Why do you warmongers prefer bombs instead of diplomacy?

Why do you liberals think that psychotic regimes run by Islamic radicals are interested in discussing anything of use?

So far Obambi's overtures have been rebuffed. Maybe he should try a bit more grovelling eh?

veni vidi vici said...

The counterspin, as linked at Instapundit yesterday, is that this was brilliant direct-to-the-people diplomatic messaging that will redound to the "moderates'" benefit against the current hardline government in the upcoming election.

I'm willing to give that idea a hearing as a plausible motivation. However, if the upcoming Iranian election does not show signs of a major swing in the moderates' direction, then the administration needs to recognize that continuing such activities will not produce the desired results, and try something else that might work.

TMink said...

Alex wrote: "Why do you warmongers prefer bombs instead of diplomacy?"

Are you aware that nobody had written anything about bombs or war before your post? Check it. Please.

projection: Psychology. a. the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way

Trey

TMink said...

Oh and Alex, good luck trying to pick on Freeman.

I am praying for you.

You will need it. 8)

Trey

veni vidi vici said...

"our goal is an Iran at peace with its neighbors."

Well, in that case let's allow them to proceed directly to a nuclear arsenal. After all, when they extend their nuclear umbrella over the neighboring Arab world, there will be peace, right?

Alex said...

I'm so glad the American people rejected the neocon warmongering idiots. The real adults are in charge now. Watch real diplomacy in action, as Barack's masterful moves take place...

Alex said...

Well, in that case let's allow them to proceed directly to a nuclear arsenal. After all, when they extend their nuclear umbrella over the neighboring Arab world, there will be peace, right?

Stop it with the neocon warmongering bullshit.

Lem said...

Obama brushed aside the idea of sending the Mulas MC Hammers greatest hits... He’s sending Vanilla Ice’s instead.

Ben (The Tiger) said...

Well, he can try.

And then, when Iran tells us to get bent, our next president will have a firmer position to answer from. (Or this one. He might be a quicker learner...)

Alex said...

Oh Barack Obama is so gonna roll back your evil regime of :

(a) torture
(b) warmongering
(c) illegal wiretaps of citizens
(d) illegal detention
(e) suppression of political speech of "enemies"
(f) "no fly" lists

If anything I hope Barack makes up a list of right wing loonies to lock up!

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

I am glad Pamela Anderson is on your site again.

She has nice tits.

Big, round, supple, hard, erect.

She is hot. Yummy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Looks like Michael has a new sock puppet.

fcai said...

Hoos - you may be on to something.

Maguro said...

Sure, send them video love letters if you want, but Iran's national interests and ours are completely irreconcilable right now. Bottom line is that the Iranian government wants to spread Islamic revolution throughout the mideast and we don't want that to happen.

Trying to blow sunshine up their asses with a bunch of multicultural boilerplate about the greatness of Persian culture won't change a thing.

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

Pamela Anderson's tits look like they could actually float.

They are bountiful.

Like a bountiful feast.

BJM said...

C4, yeah wanting and a couple of dollars will get you a cup of coffee.

The fact that the regime allowed the message to circulate says exactly how effective such an approach isn't. They use it as a cudgel.

Mr. Sanjari isn't fooled either:

"Mr. President, you marked your first day in the White House by ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. But in our country, many Guantanamos exist, only our Guantanamos are home to students, women's rights activists, labor organizers, political activists, and journalists. We, as former student activists who spent time in Iranian prisons under inhumane conditions, call on you and all those who defend human rights, freedom and equality to express solidarity to the people of Iran as they wage their struggle for freedom."


Persians have forgotten more about negotiating than the west may ever learn, which is especially true of the naif in the WH. I rather doubt he's negotiated much beyond a Chicago style quid pro quo or entre to a lobbyist's luxury skybox.

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

Pamela Anderson was amazing in Baywatch.

A tour de force. I don't understand why she didn't win any awards.

It was hot when she stretched out and did jumping jacks before she began her job as a lifeguard.

Leland said...

I think Alex is being a parody.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoos - you may be on to something.

I chalk it up to living in a predominately rurual state. You smell enough horseshit and after awhile deciphering it becomes second nature.

I'd be fine negotiating with the Iranians if our President was Leonidas.

But it looks like we're stuck with Chamberlain.

ElcubanitoKC said...

As Czeslaw Bielecki said during the conference he offered here in KC at the begining of this month, most of our western mentalities cannot understand the evil of these despots and regimes. He was speaking of Russia in an answer about his thoughts on the Obama position on the Missile Shield in Eastern Europe, but the same applies here.

Alex finally came out! (he thinks we'll fall for the false humor) No more Moby act for him. L'chaim!

Lem said...

Wait until Congress finds out the olives where grown with bailout money... they going to have to send Hillary to ask the Iranians to return them.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Leland, Alex has always been a parody. He just wants you to think he continues to be a parody right now...

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

Not only is Pamela Anderson beautiful on the outside she is beautiful on the inside.

You can't find that very often.

She has a kind heart and a big tit.

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

Underneath Pamela's big tit is a huge heart.

thank you.

Yachira said...

Alex, you're not well. What are you doing here?

Nurse, meds!!

Alex said...

Hehe.

peter hoh said...

Titus wrote: Underneath Pamela's big tit is a huge heart.

Yeah, but what about the third arm?

Fen said...

Smart Diplomacy: conceding everything for the promise of future negotiations.

Joe said...

Titus, your mother was right; you've gone blind.

Fen said...

Moonbat: Why do you warmongers prefer bombs instead of diplomacy?

Because diplomacy has resulted in more death and devastation than war.

Obama is not going to try to blow up the world when he wakes up every day like Dubya did

You meant Islamic Jihad, right? Its radical Islam trying to blow up the world. Or are you even allowed to use those words?

Fen said...

Moonbat: Watch real diplomacy in action

HA! Like dissing the UK and France? Thanks for the funny!

garage mahal said...

So now we're back to caring what France and Britain think of us? Man what changed? Oh I know!

Peter V. Bella said...

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Taking a modern civilization back to the Tenth Century
Demanding the Destruction of Israel
Spreading and fomenting hatred
Religious Dictatorship
Human rights violations on a massive scale
Freedom of press and expression non-existent
Populace living in fear of the government and mullahs

Yeah, I can see how Obama would consider those accomplishments.

MayBee said...

I remember when our sending generous aid to the Bam earthquake survivors was going to open up a whole new relationship with Iran.

Sending a video over a heavily censored internet is a lot more meaningful than sending planes and food and workers, though. I can see why Obama gets so much praise for it.

Cedarford said...

Maguro said...
Sure, send them video love letters if you want, but Iran's national interests and ours are completely irreconcilable right now. Bottom line is that the Iranian government wants to spread Islamic revolution throughout the mideast and we don't want that to happen.


Nixon and Kissinger believed that America and Iran's national interests meshed up quite well. What doesn't mesh up is Iran's PRESENT regime and the West. But the underlying geostrategic commonalities are still there.

1. America wants Iran to find and export as much oil and gas as it can. Iran wants that, too.
2. In the Great Game, Britain then the US blocked the Russians from penetrating into the Indian Ocean through Iran - which was to block Russia from becoming an influence with ready logistics into the ME and Asia. Iran wants their ancient rival Russia bottled up too.
3. Iran has fought from time immemorial against Afghan raiders and barbarians. America still wants them "on our side". Especially if Afghanistan will be a decades-long involvement to prevent a new Al Qaeda from taking root there. Iran offers the shortest logistics path.
4. Iran wants to stop the Pakistani Balauchis from creating trouble. We want that, too. We will want more if Pakistan falls to radical Sunnis, as will the Ianians, as radical Sunnis target and kill Haziri and other Shiite groups..
5. America wants Iran to have good relations going forward with neighbors Turkey and Iraq. Iran is strongly signalling it wants that, too.
6. A 2nd Great Game has emerged with the huge Caspian and Central Asian oil reserves. Particularly in Azerbaijan. The Iranians, 30% ethnic Azeris, to not want the Russians back in to former Soviet Azerbaijan and offer a path for Azerbaijani and Khazak oil and gas that does not go through Russia. America wants it to go through Turkey, but would ultimately prefer Caspian and Central Asian oil to be under control of a consortium of nations less strong than Russia if other routes are blocked in the 2nd Great Game - and that includes Iran.
7. Besides oil, Iran offers many other things to trade, and is keen to have American goods available once again to it's industries and
well-educated population.
8. Iran's weaker, less-populated Gulf neighbors strongly want an "arrangement" between the US and Iran - greater prosperity for Iran, in return for Iran not agitating their Shia populations or through ability of Iran to stop Gulf shipping for several months.
9. The EU wants matters resolved so they have access to a stable Gulf energy supply rather than just rely on Russia. Emerging superpowers India and China also want a stable, peaceful Iran. The Iranians know this, and so do the Americans.

Once you get past an Israeli-Centric US Foreign policy and start to look at US interests past "Our Special Friend", as AIPAC calls them...you see that the US has far more considerations. Well past Iran spending 45 million on Hamas and 280 million on Hezbollah over the years. Or the US allowing some 38 billion of it's government and private (tax deductable) aid to Israel being used for Israeli colonists, and arming them.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So now we're back to caring what France and Britain think of us? Man what changed?

garage, we still really don't care what they think of us. We are just shocked, shocked that Obambi would be even more callous toward them than that idiot Bush was.

Probably all the more disappointing with your girl in charge of State too. ;-)

Lem said...

Obama extended an olive branch in the short term... Long term he will extend Hawaiian Pineapples.

Peter V. Bella said...

I don't remember Bush being particularly callous towards the Brits. As to France, who cares. France cares not about the rest of the world or its own neighbors. France only cares about France and its superior attitude and inferior governance. Maybe with Sarkozy that will or has changed. Time will tell as it took years to bring France to the low state it is in.

Maguro said...

What doesn't mesh up is Iran's PRESENT regime and the West. But the underlying geostrategic commonalities are still there.

I know - that's why I phrased it the way I did. If Iran had a reasonable government we'd probably get along rather well, but they don't.

These guys are not kidding when they say Death to America. I don't know how many times they have to say it before we take them at their word.

Joseph Hovsep said...

I can't decide if you and your commenters are being willfully dishonest in your interpretation of that statement. Praise as a great civilization does not mean praise for leadership of a country today. Even the most basic review of history will reveal Persia as one of a handful of "great civilizations" that have influenced and changed the course of history. Acknowledging this fact should be uncontroversial and seen as a simple, diplomatic gracious compliment that is meaningful to the complimented even if its not very strongly felt by the speaker. And people seem to forget that Iran is not the same as the Ayatolah or Ahmedinijad any more than American civilization is wholly represented by Barack Obama or George Bush (in fact, Iran/Persia as a people/culture/civilization is much more independent of their current undemocratic leadership than the US is of its leaders).

BJM said...

WTF?

"Recently, in a LtGen [John] Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March [congressional] hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill," Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail.

"OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Obama had to video the message because Google has not mapped all the caves yet.

Synova said...

Joseph... There is a lot to admire of the accomplishments of those great and ancient civilizations...

... and it's all pre-Islam.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I can't decide if you and your commenters are being willfully dishonest in your interpretation of that statement. Even the most basic review of history will reveal Persia as one of a handful of "great civilizations" that have influenced and changed the course of history.

Well that's an interesting spin on things. It's like saying, yes it's a real oppressive shit hole right now but you shoulda seen them a couple millenia ago!

ajf said...

Can we please stop referring to the vermin currently occupying Iran as Persians. They are arabs, kurds and assorted other muslims and they have virtually exterminated all the real Persians. There are fewer than 50K Persians left in Iran, with maybe another 300K in the diaspora (mostly in India.) Our only crime in our long history as a civilization has been the failure to recognize islam for the evil that it was when it first metastasized to our homeland. Well, that and burning Athens... But, those bastards had it coming and we rebuilt it...

Freeman Hunt said...

Even the most basic review of history will reveal Persia as one of a handful of "great civilizations" that have influenced and changed the course of history.

But is present Iran really a continuation of that Persian civilization? Seems like Islamism has been put in its place. And what great things have come out of that? What great culture? What great technology? What great advances in human ethics? Seems like its great strength is in spreading, but not in producing.

Freeman Hunt said...

Heh. Four comments on the same thing at the same time.

Revenant said...

I have always cared what the Brits and French thought of us. Who wouldn't rather be liked than disliked?

But there's a difference between caring what other people think, and living your life to please other people. Caring what other countries think doesn't obligate us to do what they want. Listening to someone's opinion doesn't obligate you to agree with that opinion.

garage mahal said...

garage, we still really don't care what they think of us. We are just shocked, shocked that Obambi would be even more callous toward them than that idiot Bush was.

So no buying French wine to smash it, and no renaming french fries Freedom Fries? Progress!

Joseph Hovsep said...

Because of the very short history of Western civilization in the Americas and the fact that it was basically on the road to radical democracy from the very start, Americans don't quite understand the way people in other countries identify with their more ancient histories. You can mock people in Iran for identifying with the ancient accomplishments associated with their ancestors but that is much more in sync with the way people really throughout the world think than the althousian world view of "you are all the best represented by the worst of the clips of your president we see on TV." And recognizing that is a sign that Obama is smart, not naive.

I think its a little hysterical that another commenter already identified as "counterspin" that this is "direct-to-the-people diplomatic messaging that will redound to the 'moderates'' benefit against the current hardline government in the upcoming election" and not a single other commenter here has given that obvious insight any credence. Makes me realize that this space is really for reinforcing and venting for neocons that are never going to accept Obama as a legitimate, smart, and well-intentioned leader of this country.

Shanna said...

So now we're back to caring what France and Britain think of us? Man what changed? Oh I know!

It’s not about caring what they think of us. It’s about treating them properly and not looking like a bunch of idiots.

So no buying French wine to smash it, and no renaming french fries Freedom Fries? Progress!

Don’t you think there is a difference between individual citizen making bad jokes and the White House being completely incompetent at basic protocol?

Richard Fagin said...

"Why do you warmongers prefer bombs instead of diplomacy"

Because. They. Fucking. WORK. Even when you don't actually use them.

Why do you think the Iranians took over the American embassy on Nov. 4, 1979. Because as they themselves admitted, if they tried the same thing on the Soviet embassy, as they had originaly thought, on Nov. 5, 1979, Tehran would have ceased to exist.

You little snivelling pissants should try some old fashioned warmongering. It keeps the throat cutters in their place - under rocks.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Richard Fagin has an excellent point. Just think how much better off America would be today if it operated like the Soviet Union!

Richard Fagin said...

"legitimate, smart, and well-intentioned leader of this country."

Legitimacy is not questioned by anyone other than the real fruit cakes. Even those of us who don't agree with one thing he stands for recognize Obama won the election.

He don't look so dang smart this week, do he, huh?

And I, and many others will never believe the intentions of a man are good who listened to twenty years of Sundays of "God damn America!", and palled around with an unrepentant, sociapathic bomber. Well intentioned people don't associate with those kinds. Ever.

Freeman Hunt said...

smart, and well-intentioned leader of this country.

Heh. It would be nice if he would demonstrate that first. Or is this an episode of Punk'd, and Ashton Kutcher will appear on YouTube soon with Obama to say, "America, you've been punk'd! All this screwing everything up has been a joke. We didn't really blow all that money or make ourselves look weak in the world. Ha ha. It's competence time now!"

Richard Fagin said...

....and for Mr. Hovsep, I seem to recall a former President of the United States saying, "I have just signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. The bombing starts in five minutes."

Funny, the Soviets half believed it, not to mention that "Star Wars" scared the living crap out of them. and whatdya know, eight years later they were toast.

ElcubanitoKC said...

ajf, your first hand experience and opinion conflicts directly with the left's narrative. It will be definitely and effectively ignored by them. They will call it "too personal" to be "objective", and dismiss it on the spot. It happens to me all the time...

Joseph Hovsep said...

"Funny, the Soviets half believed it, not to mention that "Star Wars" scared the living crap out of them. and whatdya know, eight years later they were toast."

Your understanding of world history is impressive I must admit. The collapse of the Soviet Union had everything to do with empty rhetoric (there is no star wars) and little to do with the failure of the model on which the Soviet Union was built. Interesting thesis...

Maguro said...

Obama as a legitimate, smart, and well-intentioned leader of this country.

We should beware of the well-intentioned most of all. Better Danton than Robespierre, non?

Joseph Hovsep said...

Obama looks smarter this week than George Bush looked at any point in his waste of a hyperprivileged life.

Cedarford said...

Maguro -

My point was that this line of yours is false because of the many common national interests Iran and America share:

but Iran's national interests and ours are completely irreconcilable right now.

The national interests are larely the same as when Nixon-Kissinger were doing Realpolitik. Add the 2nd Great Game, and Afghanistan/Pakistan being far bigger problems than 40 years ago.

We diverge on only a few critical matters, that obsess the American and Iranian regimes, but not the Peoples of both countries.

1. Israel - with its colonization activities and repression of other peoples.
2. Iran's present smallscale export of radical Islam.
3. Iran's national drive for nuclear power.
4. Human rights violations internal to Iran, and those the US has done abroad..
5. US efforts to destabilize the Mullahs rule.
6. Iranian machinations in Iraq.

There are far bigger fish to fry, in a geopolitic and economic sense, than those 6 matters - and America and Iran are largely on the same side on those other, more important issues. Our national interests align, more than they do not, even with the rejectionist current Iranian revolutionary regime. (Something the Iranian people are becoming growingly more vocal in telling the Mullahs they want more, not less, cooperation with the West)

I think we have the same perspective, Maguro on the complex national interests involving Iran and America (if not the same view on some). Lots of commonality that even the Mullahs and the Neocons cannot hype up into some great evil that must be addressed only by violence...A change in government is what it takes. Much like Japan and us. Hopefully without a war and mega-carnage. Worth avoiding a war over, though. More and more, Iranians want more than what the Mullahs offer.

Average Iranian on hearing Death to America?? "Yawn. 30 years of that BS chant. It's like a Soviet in the 60s hearing 'Glory to the Hero Workers of the Party!' As if we want Iran blown to bits in a war the Mosque crazies start."

Average American on hearing Neocons soothing, plaintive calls of..."Just one more little war, please, a sweet little cakewalk war to help our Special Friend..surgical bombing.."

"What, are you fucking crazy?? You go fight it! Or join the Israeli army and do it there."

__________
BJM said WTF?

OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

Administrations make language of past Administrations on certain issues 'inoperative'. 15 years after Reagan no one was repeating his cant about "the beloved Holy Mujahadeen Freedom Fighters" of Afghanistan.
Or, "Unshackle the Freedom-seeking noble people of Wall Street from all evil government regulation"...starting, err, unfortunately -all too recently to have saved us from that Reaganomics-initiated catastrophe.

The GWOT was a stupid name. We were not at war with a tactic, and our "concern" about not radical Islamist terror groups globally was obviously to all - non-existent.
The "Long War" is another bad Bush II label. How long? Who are we at war with? An endless war?

Scrape them into the bin of bad names along with "Freedom Fries, Freedom Onion Soup".

madawaskan said...

Joesph

Your understanding of world history is impressive I must admit. The collapse of the Soviet Union had everything to do with empty rhetoric (there is no star wars) and little to do with the failure of the model on which the Soviet Union was built. Interesting thesis...

Riiiiight-

As if the arms race did nothing to speed up the demise.

Cedarford said...

ajf - ajf said...
Can we please stop referring to the vermin currently occupying Iran as Persians. They are arabs, kurds and assorted other muslims and they have virtually exterminated all the real Persians.


Garbage.
Read the CIA Factbook sometime. Iran is 60% Persian, 30% Azeri, 10% 'other".

Joseph Hovsep said...

As much as people here clearly don't want to identify with Obama, it seems to me that you should all the more clearly understand the mild mental retardation required to get to the point where you can assume that the average citizen of Iran supports or agrees with its leaders. But I think its time I stopped assuming average intelligence to Althouse commenters

Palladian said...

"But I think its time I stopped assuming average intelligence to Althouse commenters", he writes, in a comment on the Althouse blog.

Can someone drag Joseph's fainting couch in here? He's a sensitive boy and the brash exchange of ideas in here will soon get the best of his delicate nervous system. He wouldn't come here at all, but his mother makes him come in from time to time to try to make a man of him.

Synova said...

Americans don't quite understand the way people in other countries identify with their more ancient histories.

Which Americans are those?

I learned to write messages in the runic alphabet when I was a kid, dove into Norse mythology, and know a fair bit about vikings, trade influence, and folk and ancient artwork. I expect that most Americans have a great deal of "old world" cultural pride, even if they have to borrow it from Ireland. Add to that a very strong American mythos of pioneer and immigrant, which is profoundly important to a great many people who don't spend all of their time being too cool for patriotism, and I don't know who you're talking about not understanding this... unless it's the cosmopolitan liberals.

Which seems likely.

Joseph Hovsep said...

"As if the arms race did nothing to speed up the demise."

I would agree that this expense played some minor accelerating factor, but do you really think that this caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? Really? That might work in the Rush Limbaugh Fancy School of Bullshit, but c'mon. Let's think for a second about economics, social, military policy, etc. rather than long disproven partisan talking points. Or maybe I should reconsider how much commenters here think a communist dictatorship is a sustainable form of government in the absence of mean talk and weapons purchases from other countries.

Lem said...

You know.. we have had our own “great civilizations” right here on our back yard. The Mayans and the Incas.. I don’t see Obama videotaping anything to them.

Does president Obama hate Mayan culture?

garage mahal said...

I always like T.W.A.T

The War Against Terror

AJ Lynch said...

The thing to to measure and monitor I believe will be questions like..

Is Obama learning on the job? Is he a quick study? Is he getting better at this stuff of being POTUS? We should have a reasonable sense of the answers to these questions by mid-summer or so.

Synova said...

...it seems to me that you should all the more clearly understand the mild mental retardation required to get to the point where you can assume that the average citizen of Iran supports or agrees with its leaders.

And at what point is our president not dealing with the leaders of Iran?

The whole article was about the oppression of the Iranian people illustrated by the death of a blogger and the treatment of dissidents in that country.

Did you read it?

paul a'barge said...

Blah blah blah .... can we just bomb Iran back to the Stone Age already and get it over with?

What are we waiting for? Some kind of sign?

AJ Lynch said...

The CIA uses Facebook - then how can they claim to be Top Secret?

Joseph Hovsep said...

"Americans have a great deal of "old world" cultural pride, even if they have to borrow it from Ireland. "

This is actually a great point, Synova. Way more Americans identify as Irish than is demographically possible as a matter of historical fact. But that identification with the past is still important to them, even if it is kinda BS from an actual ancestry point of view. Its part of human/cultural makeup to want to identify with one's past. My comment was not meant to bash Americans. In fact, I think Americans are smarter about disassociating ethnic identity from political identity. My point is that it is very, very, very common outside the US for those ideas to blur and for people to identify personally with ancient history in a way that Americans (including me) think is BS. And telling the people of Iran that they are part of a great civilization is smart diplomatic talk, not praise for a dictatorship. And if you genuinely think that Obama is praising contemporary Iranian political society in making that comment, then I am at a loss. But as I said, I don't think people are here to engage in honest debate. They are here to make knee jerk snide remarks about "cosmopolitan liberals."

Synova said...

"As if the arms race did nothing to speed up the demise."

I would agree that this expense played some minor accelerating factor, but do you really think that this caused the downfall of the Soviet Union?

I think this is called a straw man since I don't think that the arms race was being presented as the sole cause of the downfall of the USSR.

You seem to be doing this quite a bit... argue against claims no one made, those "talking points", and then tell us to leave off the talking points even though no one was arguing for them.

Palladian said...

"Americans don't quite understand the way people in other countries identify with their more ancient histories."

The idea that this or that group of people have an "ancient history" is nonsense. We all have an "ancient history". Americans were not spontaneously generated on the east coast of the country in the 17th century. I understand that it gives lefties a warm fuzzy to imagine the noble and ancient cultures of The Other as being much more noble and ancient than their own, but it's a fiction. History beyond our own experience is at best a fiction partially based on facts. You can take your post-colonial patronization of the noble and ancient culture of Persia and shove it. Khomeinist Islamism wrecked any remaining vestige of Persian civilization.

Maguro said...

They are here to make knee jerk snide remarks about "cosmopolitan liberals."

Whereas you're here to call people who disagree with you "mildly retarded". Much classier, eh?

Joseph Hovsep said...

Synova, go read Richard Fagin's comment. That's exactly what he was said... We should warmonger because that's what worked with the Soviet Union. I'm sure there are a thousand things that contributed in one way or another to the collapse but this is the things that Richard Fagin points to as a lesson for how Obama should treat the people of Iran.

Palladian said...

I would have been happier if Obama had finished his praise of the great civilization of Persia with:

...too bad you and your Khomeinist forebears trashed it!

Palladian said...

"I always like T.W.A.T"

We know. Too bad she didn't win the election.

Joseph Hovsep said...

I don't really think people here are really mildly retarded (other than Palladian).

madawaskan said...

Ahmadinejad talks evil, and erratically, and he has the meansto follow through, and make good on his threats or is rapidly aquiring that ability.

You cannot ignore madmen.

Just because the Persian populace is incapable of checking him does not mean that the rest of the world should follow that model of impotence.

Ann Applebaum had the theory that Khamenei would be a more moderate empowerd check on him and that has not come to pass-

Why Khamenei Won't Budge.

The Star Wars initiative was brought about to prevent exactly this sort of situation but Liberals fought it every step of the way.

First you argued that only rich stable countries could or would acquire nukes-that has been wrong.

Then you argued that we could control nuclear proliferation and that again turned out to be wrong.

Finally you argued that no irrational actor could come to power in the above states and that has again been proven wrong.

Now here.we. are.

Ironic.

Shanna said...

Way more Americans identify as Irish than is demographically possible as a matter of historical fact.

What does that even mean? We’re all mutts here in the US, so there are probably a lot of people who are a bit Irish, and thus identify as such. What else are we supposed to say?

I myself know that I am a bit Irish, a bit Scottish and a bit Native American (plus a few other things that I’m less certain of) and if you ask if I’m Irish, I’m going to say yes, even if I’m not 100%. Big deal.

The idea that this or that group of people have an "ancient history" is nonsense. We all have an "ancient history".

Word. All families are old, some just keep better records. (I stole that)

Synova said...

My point is that it is very, very, very common outside the US for those ideas to blur and for people to identify personally with ancient history in a way that Americans (including me) think is BS.

Well, see, I don't think it's BS at all.

I really don't. A whole lot of Americans do *not* think that identifying with their ancient History is anything like BS.

And a verbal call back to ancient, pre-Isamic glory is a useful thing and diplomatically smart, if Obama wasn't trying to make nice with a truly oppressive government through flattery.

madawaskan said...

In international diplomacy you should be treated as if you mean what you say.

Seven Machos said...

If anyone on the left ever bothered to read Khomeni, you would be amazed at how much the theocracy of Iran is similar to the totalitarian Soviet government. Of course, you'll never do that. After all, Keith Olberman's on tonight.

We would do very well to cause the downfall of the current Iranian regime in exactly the same way we caused the downfall of the Soviet one. And we did cause it. Make no mistake about that.

Joseph Hovsep said...

shanna, it just means that people want to identify with an ethnic past that they really have nothing in common with genetically or culturally. and that is what happens in iran for example, where people identify with an ancient culture of which they are the primary current political representation even though they are not in any pure sense its successor. Its not a judgment good or bad really. I'm just saying its a fact of human nature that is useful in diplomacy even if most Americans reject it on a conscious, political level.

Joseph Hovsep said...

"And a verbal call back to ancient, pre-Isamic glory is a useful thing and diplomatically smart, if Obama wasn't trying to make nice with a truly oppressive government through flattery."

I agree. Except for the part where you seem to think Obama is trying to flatter an oppressive government, which he is not trying to do.

Seven Machos said...

Well, Joseph, all your experience with diplomacy...

Synova said...

Synova, go read Richard Fagin's comment.

Did that. I also noted what he was responding to.

That's exactly what he was said... We should warmonger because that's what worked with the Soviet Union.

Firstly, "warmonger" was brought up by the entity named Alex whom I'm nearly certain is a troll in the old fashioned newsnet news sense of the word... being outrageous for sport.

Secondly... if I'm given a choice of either "warmongering" or "diplomacy" (and not the "war by other means" definition of diplomacy, but instead the "we will talk and they will like us sort") then I, too, chose bombs.

They work, if imperfectly, without diplomacy. Diplomacy without bombs works not at all. ("Bombs" being a metaphor for force and not a literal requirement.)

I'm sure there are a thousand things that contributed in one way or another to the collapse but this is the things that Richard Fagin points to as a lesson for how Obama should treat the people of Iran.

Since Obama seems bent on some bizarre notion that Iran is playing by social rules that Obama understands, he'd be well served to listen to Mr. Fagin, who apparently knows better.

madawaskan said...

Joseph-

I would agree that this expense played some minor accelerating factor.

Oh! I missed this beauty a Liberal who believes this was a minor inconvenience...

And again you were talking about consistency?

Let me put it to you dans autre modes-

Think of Brezhnev as a sort of modern day Slavic Marie Antoinette-

Let them eat missiles!

Shanna said...

shanna, it just means that people want to identify with an ethnic past that they really have nothing in common with genetically or culturally.

I just don’t think that’s true in the case of Americans id’ing as, say, Irish. It’s possible they are wrong and that their family record keeping is poor, but your sentence really didn’t provide any proof of that. There are still plenty of cultural repercussion of the Irish/Scottish (for example) ancestry that have played out in American culture.

Seven Machos said...

Americans who try to hold some ethnic past three and four generations later are ridiculous.

Shanna said...

Americans who try to hold some ethnic past three and four generations later are ridiculous.

Why are they ridiculous? It's just about knowing where you came from. It doesn't mean you are rejecting your American heritage, you are just including all facets of your heritage into your personal identity.

Bruce Hayden said...

Pamela Anderson's tits look like they could actually float.

Actually, they probably can't. Manswers had an section on this recently, and it turns out that natural breasts float, and fake ones do not. This is apparently due to their specific gravity. Real breast tissue is lighter than water, and the fake stuff is heavier.

Seven Machos said...

They're ridiculous precisely because those things aren't part of their identity. Why not go around taking pride in your caveman heritage? Or perhaps your heritage as a single-celled organism.

You're an American. All that stuff is gone. You look foolish.

Revenant said...

They are here to make knee jerk snide remarks about "cosmopolitan liberals."

Oh, indeed. We're positively obsessed with the term around here.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I always like T.W.A.T

The War Against Terror


YES!! and then we should all Tweet about TWAT.

Peter V. Bella said...

If anyone on the left ever bothered to read Khomeni...

You hit the nail on the head. If most of these people actually read period, they may develop the ability to think critically. Unfortunately, they get most of their info off the net and Wiki; sad isn't it.

rhhardin said...

Are olives the only fruit in the peace arsenal? That may be the problem.

Extend a tomato and see what happens.

Maguro said...

Average Iranian on hearing Death to America?? "Yawn. 30 years of that BS chant. It's like a Soviet in the 60s hearing 'Glory to the Hero Workers of the Party!' As if we want Iran blown to bits in a war the Mosque crazies start."

The man in the street probably doesn't believe that nonsense, but the mullahs and the revolutionary guards surely do.

Likewise, we had a good idea that the "average Russian" might have harbored an occasional dissenting thought but that didn't really change our policy towards the Soviets. History tells us that the average citizen in a totalitarian state will do what the government tells him to do.

I'm not saying we need a war with Iran, but let's be realistic about their intentions. They've been pretty upfront about their plans to take us down a peg or two and become the regional power-broker in the mideast.

I'm just saying that the Iranian government cannot be charmed into acting against its perceived interests by hopeychangey video messages.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Wow! I agree with Seven Machos! I think that fetishizing an ethnic heritage that has no real personal cultural relevance to you is no better or worse than more mundane forms of racism. Appreciating history and how things came to be the way they are is good. Thinking that your love of Guinness is a reflection of your Irish grandfather is, in my opinion, just retarded.

And that was my original point. In general people love to associate with some mythical past that has very little cultural or genetic influence on their lives today. But that Americans are relatively unique in the fact that they tend to reject this fetish and think that people are who they are, who they decide to be, who they work at being, not who their long distant ancestors may or may not have been. I recognize that I am being undiplomatic in my description of this. Obama was being diplomatic, a politician speaking in a language his audience (the people who live in Iran today) appreciates.

garage mahal said...

Tweeting on Twitter about TWAT. I like it. Althouse for the love of Christ if you won't tag me at least put a tag on TWAT.

madawaskan said...

Ya, well Seven was just trying to let you have your save face moment...

Seven Machos said...

I have partied with many Iranians, not in Iran. They hate the government.

Also, Iranian women are probably the hottest national group of women on the planet.

Bruce Hayden said...

I'm not saying we need a war with Iran, but let's be realistic about their intentions. They've been pretty upfront about their plans to take us down a peg or two and become the regional power-broker in the mideast.

I'm just saying that the Iranian government cannot be charmed into acting against its perceived interests by hopeychangey video messages.


I think that we are in a somewhat tight position here. The rulers of Iran don't like us, for any number of reasons, including what we did in Iraq. The people in Iraq, overall, and esp. the younger, post-Shah generations, do tend to like us, esp. when we stand up to their rulers. BUT, they are also strongly nationalistic, which is one reason it would likely have been counter-productive to ever attack the country (after we got our hostages back in 1980).

So, on the one level, Obama showing respect for their heritage was good. On the other though, it made him seem weak, which is arguably why they grabbed everyone from our embassy back 30 years ago (and then gave them back after Reagan was elected president).

And, I think that a lot of Iranians like us standing up to their rulers, since they really cannot do it themselves. And that is part of why this approach may not work as well as the neo-liberals would like it to.

Revenant said...

So, on the one level, Obama showing respect for their heritage was good.

It would have been, if he had followed it up with words denouncing the enormous harm the mullahs have done to that heritage.

A government and a nation are not the same thing. Iran has a fascinating history with numerous contributions to mankind, especially in mathematics and astronomy. The current regime is another story; it has done nothing but make Iran, and the world in general, a worse place to live in. That should be pointed out at every opportunity.

Palladian said...

"Also, Iranian women are probably the hottest national group of women on the planet."

Iranian men are pretty hot as well. It's a shame about the neckwear made fashionable by the Khomeinist regime.

Darcy said...

garage, that was funny!

Quayle said...

My view is that we've seen Obama's opening move, and there are probably a couple of moves that we haven't seen, and we've seen some of Iran's counters.

So let's wait and see how it starts to unfold, because right now it is too early to tell - the pawns are barely off the second line.

My guess is that Obama knows that he can mobilize huge amounts of world opinion on four continents. (I’m not up on how Asia looks at Obama.) He appears to be taking an approach that seeks to develop as much ground level sway as possible on a fifth continent.

I say: give him time to establish the board. It is too early to call the game.

veni vidi vici said...

Palladian, that dude saying "goodbye" with the wal-mart rope around his neck is a pretty heartbreaking image.

Quayle said...

I’m not up on how [east] Asia looks at Obama.

PatCA said...

It was just a "distraction."

Hoosier Daddy said...

It would have been, if he had followed it up with words denouncing the enormous harm the mullahs have done to that heritage.

But that would have made him sound too much like Bush and we simply cannot have that.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Iranian men are pretty hot as well. It's a shame about the neckwear made fashionable by the Khomeinist regime.

Everytime I see on of those stupid bumper stickers that says COEXIST with the crescent, ying yang, cross and star of David on it I'd like to show the libtard those pictures and mention that only one of those religions has an issue with coexisting.

Jeremy said...

I think this criticism is a little bit over the top.

He also said: "You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right, but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."

As for trying to open the door to diplomacy, didn't our previous President do the same thing with North Korea, Libya, and Pakistan?
(All of which harbor terrorists and two have nuclear weapons.)

And does everybody forget Nixon going to China, and Reagan's dealings with Russia?

Right now the last thing we need is another military situation to drain resources.

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

I agree with Palladian, hugs, Iranian guys are very very hot.

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

So are Saudi, Lebanese, Jordanians and most all other Middle Eastern men.

Oh and some Egyptians, Pakis, some Iraqis, Turks-very hot.


It's fairly common that they will do a guy. Just look at them in the cab in the rearview mirror for a couple of seconds and they are ready to go.

That's hot.

Seven Machos said...

As for trying to open the door to diplomacy, didn't our previous President do the same thing with North Korea, Libya, and Pakistan?
(All of which harbor terrorists and two have nuclear weapons.)


Your post reeks of a lack of knowledge, but I will focus on this paragraph.

Every American president since Truman has had to deal with the festering blister that is North Korea. Bush was much less willing to put up with their shenanigans, to his everlasting credit. He insisted only on six-way talks. Nothing will ever happen with North Korea until the regime falls apart, which it eventually will.

Libya came crying to us precisely because we invaded Iraq. Enough said.

Bush certainly did not open any diplomatic doors to Pakistan, an "ally" for years. If anything, the relationship deteriorated under Bush (again to his credit) because of the Bush administration's brilliant and very successful overtures to India and because he insisted that the government get its shit together with regard to its many radical Islamist factions.

Good luck figuring out world politics, Jeremy. You are going to need it.

knox said...

I've said this more than once, which renders the statement pretty meaningless, I guess! But: "Best Thread Ever."

David said...

Re: Alex

Let's not worry about Alex. Odds 10-1 he's not a real liberal, he just plays one on this blog. Evidence: brand new profile with no info, complete lack or originality, parrot qualities of his "progressive" blather. High degree of probability he's just toying, either to put some excitement into his wretched life or to provoke a response he can use to besmirch the blog and its commenters. Alex is a fake. Ignore him.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I say: give him time to establish the board. It is too early to call the game.

Fair enough Quayle but like in football spreads, I reserve the right to be skeptical and based upon how he's already treated the Brits, demonstrated a readiness to sell out the Poles and Czechs for Russian help with Iran, I feel confident in my assessment that Obama is a bit out of his league.

Outside of his Euro worshippers, the usual suspects have pretty much displayed a fair amount of disdain for the anti-Bush. Chavez was bragging about bringing his 'heavy artillery' to any talks with The One, the Chinese are floating the ideas of a new world currency in addition to floating thier warships 25 feet away from ours. The Russians basically laughed at him and said no deal with Iran while flying bombers over our ships and the NORKs are up to thier usual bag of tricks.

Sorry but I don't see a whole lot to get any tingly feelings up my leg. Then again, maybe you're right and he'll surprise me like Mrs. Hoosier does when she says 'Take me you beast! Take me now!'

jayne_cobb said...

Don't forget how he started a trade war with Mexico.

veni vidi vici said...

"Right now the last thing we need is another military situation to drain resources."

But isn't it a Democrat pillar of faith that WW2 was what got us out of the Great Depression? Maybe another war is exactly what we need, then?

"Overcharge" button notwithstanding, of course.

Synova said...

And that was my original point. In general people love to associate with some mythical past that has very little cultural or genetic influence on their lives today.

This statement is just plain silly. Just because you and seven machos don't see the value of myth or identity doesn't mean there is no value. Myth and identity inform values and behavior.

But that Americans are relatively unique in the fact that they tend to reject this fetish and think that people are who they are, who they decide to be, who they work at being, not who their long distant ancestors may or may not have been.

I don't know these people. The people I know embrace the "fetish" and research their family Histories and genetic lines, have huge family reunions to meet people so far removed as to hardly be genetically related at all, travel to the "old country" once in their life or take value from the fact that some other relative made the pilgrimage.

I recognize that I am being undiplomatic in my description of this. Obama was being diplomatic, a politician speaking in a language his audience (the people who live in Iran today) appreciates.

So you are enlightened and other people, like those in Iran, are not, but Obama is being "diplomatic" in pretending that their fetishizing their past greatness has value?

In other words... you don't think he means it. You think he's being condescending.

I suppose that's rather in character, after all.

veni vidi vici said...

The idea of being executed just because you like to "go zoom-za-zoom-zoom in the boom-boom", as it were, is barbaric.

As a totally hot but straight half-Paki guy living in West Hollywood, I'm gobsmacked by the devotion of The Barry's support in my queerer than folk burg.

Then again, many with whom I speak aren't really up on the nature of our adversaries. If they realized how much worse than the garden-variety "repube" many of these regimes are, it would be interesting to see whether they remained in support of an accommodationist agenda, or called for far harsher sanctions and action.

JAL said...

So. Anyone watching the President of the United States? On TV. Again.

Q: How many times has he been on TV in the last week?

A: Too many.

jr565 said...

One thing I will say for the Iranians. They rightly point out the disconnect between Obama's change rhetoric and reality. So at least we'll give them that.

But what did Obama expect to be the result and how did he expect that somehow he wouldn't be the loser in this type of negotiation.

The Iranians don't have to change. We do. If we just accept their nuclear weapons program and asist the Iranians in demonizing the Jews then there can be some tangible results. So why doens't Obama get on board the change mobile so we can have good relations with the Iranians?

Seven Machos said...

What Obama doesn't understand is that you cannot talk your way through a geopolitical power struggle. Ever.

Bill Clinton gamely tried to resolve the Israel and Palestine situation using actual stuff. Obama only has words. Good luck.

Lyle said...

Perhaps Obama is speaking through the Iranian government to the Iranian people?

Seven Machos said...

So Obama is seeking the violent overthrow of this totalitarian regime? Great. I'm sure he'll back it with military force.

ricpic said...

Totally Off Topic: I was on the road when you announced your engagement to Meade, so I'm just finding out about it now. So happy for both of you. The very best wishes for your future together. Rick (my real name).

jr565 said...

Why would Obama have to speak to the Iranian people at all? This new liberal realism being bandied about and the poopooing of democracy and the actual suggestion that these countries should have strongmen running them so as to keep the peace, would make reforming of Iran to be very low on the priority list. So screw talking to the Iranian people. We've got realists in town now, and those realists could give two shits about some blogger who died in Iran, let alone Iranian belligerence towards israel let alone its intent to produce a nuclear program come hell or high water.

Michael Hasenstab said...

Obama has done more than just extend an olive branch to Iran.

He has allowed their lobbyists access to his administration and the oval office.

This is very frightening.

Lyle said...

jr,

Why speak to the Iranian people? Because like the blogger who died in an Iranian prison, half to more than half of Iran disagree with the Mullahs. The only people who can fundamentally change Iran are the Iranian people. At some point they're going to need to step up and stand up to the Mullahs. The best the United States can hope for is a velvet revolution of sorts that leads to a peaceful transition in power in Iran.

There is simply nothing we can do to stop them from getting the bomb. It's going to happen. What we should try to do is get the Iranian people in charge of Iran and not the Mullahs. So speeches and words will have to given to help encourage this.

Revenant said...

There is simply nothing we can do to stop them from getting the bomb. It's going to happen.

Correction: there is nothing we WILL do to stop them from getting the bomb. We certainly have the capacity to stop them from getting it.

Seven Machos said...

There is simply nothing we can do to stop them from getting the bomb. It's going to happen.

Really. You mean if we were to invade Iran right now and do what we did with Japan, or Iraq, or South Korea, or Germany, then Iran would still get the bomb.

Really? You believe that? You are kind of dumb then.

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

I am having orange juice right now.

I love orange juice, pulp free. I hate pulp. It is like you are drinking pubes.

Orange juice quenches your thirst.

fcai said...

I think they should be allowed to get nuclear weapons. We gave them to the Japanese, and that worked well.

garage mahal said...

We certainly have the capacity to stop them from getting it.

Hopefully not bomb nuclear research labs inside Iran we think are there using the same intelligence that saw mobile weapon labs inside Iraq and was convinced Saddam was building a nuclear bomb to drop on us.

Bob W. said...

Maybe we can just let bygones be bygones with Iran after all, the war on terror is over. . . except for some or most of the bombing, shooting, killing, IED'ing, and related havoc, and the somewhat constant threat of a terrorist attack in the United States, possibly employing some type of weapon of mass effect. . .

I feel better already.

The United States is conducting overseas contingency operations; the United States has always conducted overseas contingency operations. . .

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

I'm a dinner jacket is not a cute Iranian. He is an ugly Iranian.

He dresses like shit too.

I bet he smells too.

TitusLuvsLifeEveryLifeEvenaMosquito said...

What ever happened to Mao Tusk Tongue?

I went out last weekend and I thought I saw him at a club.

Steven said...

The death of Iranian blogger Omid-Reza Mirsayafi in Tehran's Evin prison two days earlier was, presumably, not among the accomplishments the president had in mind.

I don't know. After all, maybe he's planning to use rendition to send Rush Limbaugh to Iran.

Big Mike said...

FWIW I'm with Revenant. There's nothing that this administration will do to stop the Mad Mullahs of Iran from getting the bomb. After they get it, I sure hope Barack Obama sees to it that at least one person in the line of succession is out of Washington, DC, at all times (and Obama has to be careful that that person is a natural born citizen, to boot).

Or perhaps the 25th Amendment can itself be amended to add governors? That would add 50 more names to the list. Question would be how to decide the order of states. Maybe by when they were admitted? (Who is the governor of Delaware?) Or by size? (Oh Gawd. That would put Patterson right after Secretary of Homeland Security.) Either way Sarah would have to wait a bit.

Or maybe Iran would prefer to blow up New York City instead?

Next question is this. If he survives a nuclear device going off, what is Barack Obama's countermove? Up until not he's gotten everything by talking. Does he have any idea what to do when the talking doesn't work?

veni vidi vici said...

The Iranian president may be wearing "stink-free underwear", but that's a question I personally don't need an answer to.

He looks like a garrulous monkey of a man wearing a suit but self-consciously deleting the tie so he can appear "hipper than".

In other words, their politicians are as big a set of toolbags as ours, down to the small stuff.

I'm not actually that hot, but because I made a big deal about it upthread, you all likely knew that already. The other parent is German, so I ended up looking like a tall Italian. Given idiots' propensity to leap headlong to conclusions based on others' backgrounds, I'm rather happy I look Italian and can sidestep the conversational "dogpoop on the sidewalk" when it comes to my ethnic heritage.

veni vidi vici said...

So on the radio here, we had a 1/2 hour of Oprompta's conference before the talkhosts got sick of listening. They went on with the show after the 5.30 news, and near 6 they pulled up the feed and he was still babbling on!

Overexposure, thy name is Barack.

veni vidi vici said...

It's the prefatory throat-clearers he's always deploying that wear on the listener's attention-span.

I'm guessing at some point, someone told him (or he decided) that such "Let me be perfectly clear"-isms and the like make him sound "intelligent", so he's grown heavily dependent on them, like many in academia (not least legal academia, in my experience).

He displays little or no economy of language, which is not an encouraging sign of efficiency of thought.

But whatever, let's see where the Geithner 2.0 plan leads and then we can thrown him out in '12 if he skrooz da pooch.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

I am officially calling it bush league to harp on this citizenship stuff. It's always been a little on the tinfoil hat side. It's not going to be litigated and, therefore, it has kind of a cargo cult feel.

Let's focus on this awfulness of Obama's presidency. There's plenty so far, two months in.

Steven said...

Big Mike —

Texas is more populous than New York, whether you use current estimates or the 2000 Census figures.

Mike said...

If we just bomb Iran enough, they'll love us forever and never say anything mean about us again.

That's how it works, right?

Seven Machos said...

Mike -- Yes. They won't love us, but they'll stop being a giant pain in the ass. See, e.g., Japan and Germany. The key is to leave your military there for 50 years and design a functioning constitutional democracy. Some people can't do it on their own. We're here to help.

Peter V. Bella said...

Correction: there is nothing we WILL do to stop them from getting the bomb.

But Israel will. With out any permission from us or the UN. If Iran does in fact develop a nuclear weapon facility israel will bomb it. Unlike us, they care not what France or any other country thinks of them and they don't need no stinky cheese.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

Hopefully not bomb nuclear research labs inside Iran we think are there using the same intelligence that saw mobile weapon labs inside Iraq and was convinced Saddam was building a nuclear bomb to drop on us.

Garage, come on, Obama is President now, not that idiot Bush. All the intelligence that will be gathered from here on out will be impeccable. Make no mistake, Obama won't make a move until he is absolutely certain that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Which will be a mushroom cloud rising over Tel Aviv or NYC.

That move of course will probably be his bowels.

Fen said...

Moonbat: Watch real diplomacy in action

HA! Like dissing the UK and France? Thanks for the funny!

garage mahal: So now we're back to caring what France and Britain think of us? Man what changed? Oh I know!

C'mon garage, don't play dumb. Its not about whether we care, its that Obama's "diplomacy" with the UK and France were gimme puts, and he blew both of them. Now Moonbat comes along to boast that Obama will sink a 30 footer.

Steven said...

Mike —

How well did it work when we bombed the hell out of the hostile, suicidally fanatical Japanese?

Oh, yeah — pretty damn well.

fcai said...

So well in fact that my uncle, the Marine, did not have to visit Japan. He killed a mess of them on one island after another, all over the Pacific, but was spared having to invade Japan proper.

Forty years later I visited Japan and had a good time. Got bombed, in fact. Japanese beer, big bottles, lightweight gaijin. Good times...

Big Mike said...

@Seven, actually I was thinking of Ah-nuld. I'm not casting any aspersions on the citizenship of the Great Barack. I thought California was the 2nd most populous state, but after checking the census I see that it's first, by quite a margin. My bad.

@Regular-old-Mike, I don't give a good Gawd-damn if they love us or not. Just so long as they respect us, or at least fear us. Or maybe it's enough if they just leave us the f*ck alone. I have a kid who works for the US Government and I'd be thoroughly pissed off if he went up in an Iranian nuclear fireball. If I thought Obama's diplomatic initiatives had a snowball's chance of working I'd be front and center saying "go, Big Fella." But they don't and I'll save my breath.

Revenant said...

If we just bomb Iran enough, they'll love us forever and never say anything mean about us again.

Others have pointed out examples of hostile nations that became friendly after we bombed the bejesus out of them.

I'd put it another way. There are a number of possible future Irans we could pick from. For example:

(A): A nuclear-armed Iran run by the mullahs
(B): A nuclear-free Iran run by the mullahs.
(C): An Iran which has been reduced to rubble, with lots of Iranians probably killed in the process, in which the population hates our guts. But which has no nuclear weapons.
(D): A friendly Iran run by a secular government, with or without nukes.

Etc, etc. Option "A" is completely unacceptable. I can live with "B" or, failing that, "C". Best of all would be "D", but so far nobody has proposed any plan to get there. Unless "let's cross our fingers and hope it happens on its own" counts as a plan, which in my opinion it doesn't.

look said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fen said...

/translation

Welcome Your New Overlords!

Seven Machos said...

It sure makes a lot more sense than trying to cheerfully reason Iran out of its nuclear and regional ambitions.

What's the Sudetenland up to these days, anyway?

Lyle said...

reverend and seven,

no, we do not have the capacity to stop Iran from getting the bomb. there are limits to our power. we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan. we're not finished in either of those places, and until we are we can't "invade" Iran.

even if we could, we wouldn't invade Iran.

... anyway, we need to help the Iranian people overcome the Mullahs. if they try hard enough, they can do it.

Steven said...

Anyway, the point of Japan is not that we should bomb people. It's merely proof that that a claim that "bombing causes hatred" is incorrect. Resentment and hatred are consequences of leaving a war unfinished.

Bad blood caused by war usually is the result of a heavy beating that falls short of a crushing. The French were not crushed in the Franco-Prussian War. The Germans were not crushed in WWI. The Arabs have lost a bunch of wars to Israel, but have never been conquered. And so on. In every case, the defeated harbored a grudge against the victor.

The problem is wounded pride. If you merely hurt a country, without having knocked it flat on its back, where they can have any pride that they did not fall even though you won? Now you've merely stored up hatred. It doesn't really matter how nicely you treat them afterward; they will remember the humiliation of their defeat and continue to resent you.

Knock the other side down completely, make it clear you have the knife at their naked throat, make them agree to do whatever you want to avoid death? You kill their pride, not merely wound it. Then, you treat the country magnanimously, and you wind up with a nation you can have friendly relations with.

Germany? Totally crushed by the Allies, and they knew it. Japan? Totally crushed by the Allies, and knew it. Pride dead, they relate to us mostly on the basis of how we treated them after their surrender.

(Biggest problem with the Cold War? The Russians were not crushed, but merely defeated. Indeed, the nuclear arsenal meant they couldn't be crushed. Their pride was wounded; they are humiliated. And now they're going to be a pain in the ass.)

Seven Machos said...

Lyle -- Yeah, dude. Right. The U.S. army is stationed en masse right next to Iran on both sides, and our navy controls the primary body of water that gives it sea access. How could we possibly hope to invade? How could it possibly work?

It's not possible. The logistics are just too much.

The mind reels at your basic lack of knowledge about anything at all.

Steven said...

(Oh, and that's what Israel just fucked up in Gaza. The only solution that could have given them any peace is a total conquest, crushing Hamas. Instead, they stopped short. All that blood spilled for nothing. Sure, you have to partially blame all those third parties who called for a ceasefire, but, when it comes down to it, it's Israel that stopped short.)

veni vidi vici said...

"no, we do not have the capacity to stop Iran from getting the bomb. there are limits to our power. we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan."

Interesting that the eediot Boosh got us to a place where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e., we are currently surrounding Iran.

Eli Blake said...

Obama is exploiting a weakness that he knows the Iranian leadership has.

That weakness is that they have alienated their young people. The majority of Persians today were born after the revolution and have no memory of the Shah or even in many cases of Ayatollah Khomeini except in some dusty old history books. The rhetoric of revolution is as stale to them as it was to Russians by the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. The young generation of Iranians for the most part see no reason for hating the U.S. and don't like living under the strictures of an Islamic society. In fact the only way conservatives like Ahmadinejad keep getting elected is that the ayatollahs who control the real power have to throw all the reformers off the ballot.

The ayatollahs are getting older. So is the revolution generation, those who remember the shah and hate the U.S. for it (and with cause, you can say what you want about human rights in Iran today and you'd be right but the shah was a really evil kind of guy.) The rising generation is becoming more numerous and they are aware of what is going on in the world.

Obama chose his words carefully. In referring to a 'great civilizaton' he is reaching beyond the present government. He's not talking to Iran, but to Persia, a great civilization with a history of tolerance (don't take my word for it either, read the Old Testament.) Iran may be here today, and someday it will go. Persia, which the rising generation represents, will remain. And there is no reason for Persia to hate the U.S.

The leadership may huff and puff

Seven Machos said...

Eli -- You don't know what you are talking about. The Shah was the most enlightened despot in the region. Faint praise, but far better than the medieval tyranny they suffer under now.

walter neff said...

Eli is there any enemy to America and the civilized world that you won't coddle and suck up to in vain hope that they won't be the murdering fanatics that they have show themselves to be over and over again?

Seven Machos said...

(don't take my word for it either, read the Old Testament.)

P.S. Right. Esther. Haman was Hitler before Hitler.

Fen said...

we need to help the Iranian people overcome the Mullahs. if they try hard enough, they can do it.

Right. Thats been our policy for the last 2 decades. Hasn't worked so well. And now we're telegraphing weakness.

My prediction - the hardliners will stay in power, and execute a few dozen moderates just to spite Obama.

Synova said...

Going as it has, I think that Iranians will see the end of the oppression and will modernize.

I have confidence.

Our role is to do our best to contain the Iranian government and dissuade them from making any very large and irrevocable mistakes as we wait for that to happen.

I have less confidence.

We should wonder how changing our approach will lead to a continuation of what is happening, socially, in that country. How does either praising a great civilization (Bush apparently sent New Year's greetings as well, but since he was most emphatically NOT NOT NOT speaking to the Iranian government, it was clearly a message to the people) or the lofty scolding about responsibility do that?

You have that right, but it comes with real responsibilities,..

I have teenagers... I've given this speech.

Synova said...

I was also going to say something about how portraying our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as negatives in our military preparedness for any eventuality in Iran was... illogical.

Others beat me to it.

So long as Obama doesn't decide that we don't need troops there and brings them all home, or decides that Iraq has no need for the sorts of US military presence left in Germany or Japan so that there will never be accompanied tours to the base in Anwar and dependent wives trying to decide if it's best to live off-base or on... someday... we'll be in a good place to respond to Iran, if necessary, for the next 50 or more years.

I married an Air Force brat, you know, because compared to the boys who'd never been outside our home-town... he had a clue.

Synova said...

There is some incredibly beautiful mountains in Afghanistan, come to think of it.

The "war" (TWAT, love it!) will be won when Iraq is an accompanied tour, and Afghanistan a tourist destination.

And when Iran starts exporting surgeons again, as it used to do.

Revenant said...

no, we do not have the capacity to stop Iran from getting the bomb. there are limits to our power. we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan. we're not finished in either of those places, and until we are we can't "invade" Iran.

Lyle,

It is a simple fact that we can prevent any non-nuclear power from doing anything we want. An extreme example is that we could simply bombard Iran with nukes and kill everyone in the country. That'd pretty well put an end to anything they're up to, wouldn't you say?

But even short of that there is plenty we can do. Our air force and navy are current not much used in either Afghanistan or Iraq. We have the capacity to, for example, destroy Iran's entire industrial base, particularly the oil production their economy relies on, using conventional weaponry alone.

We also *could* invade, if we wanted to do so. It would require recruiting additional troops first, and/or withdrawing from Afghanistan or Iraq.

Chip Ahoy said...

You partisan pricks are so saturated in hate you're impossible to read. You put on your damnable broken records and play away. You never ever ever tire of playing the same worn out wearisome tune. Go to hell, all of you. I'm going to go piss off and read something interesting.

That would be not you ass holes.

Smadraji said...

Nice Posting
Gay

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 211   Newer› Newest»