November 14, 2017

"Iranians living outdoors in bitterly cold temperatures after an earthquake are making desperate pleas for help."

"About 540 people were killed and close to 8,000 injured when the quake hit near the Iran-Iraq border on Sunday."

168 comments:

lacemaker said...

Will the Wealthy neighbors help them or will mostly Christians come to their Aide like the Tsunami response of Indonesia

Curious George said...

Hey don't call us. We're the great satin after all. Better call Allah.

richlb said...

Ha. Great Satin.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

Death to America!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big Mike said...

As Allah wills.

roadgeek said...

But they're almost a nuclear power. There is that.

Earnest Prole said...

Your dopey commenters think there's nothing more hilarious than the suffering of people not like us.

tcrosse said...

Charity begins at home.

Nick said...

That border area is mostly Kurdish. So, you know, I doubt any governments will care.

Big Mike said...

@Ernie the Prole, I volunteer you to bring relief supplies, but you have to wear American flag patches prominently displayed on both shoulders and on your chest. They picked the fight with us, not us with them, and it's physically dangerous for Americans to go there. If you think otherwise, then don't tell us, go and distribute the relief supplies yourself.

Sebastian said...

With all the money the Iranians are saving on the nuclear weapons program they aren't building, they should be able to send effective help pronto.

Feranindianide said...

That border area is mostly Kurdish.

Funny, it doesn't look Kurdish.

Darrell said...

Fatwa on Earnest Prole.

Earnest Prole said...

Hey Big Mike, you may not have heard but the Kurds are our friends and empathy is free.

Curious George said...

"Earnest Prole said...
Your dopey commenters think there's nothing more hilarious than the suffering of people not like us."

There's lots of things more hilarious. For instance, Hillary being dragged like a side of beef into that van on 9/11. Much funnier.

Feranindianide said...

The Great Satin peaked in 1931.

Feranindianide said...

"bitterly cold temperatures"

High about 67F, low about 38F.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

We're the great satin after all

We are smooth, silky, shiny, lustrous and luxurious!!!

Although, that is just on the face....we have a dull back.

Robert Cook said...

"They picked the fight with us, not us with them...."

This isn't true. You don't know your history, do you?

Darrell said...

Fatwa on Cookie.

Earnest Prole said...

When did ordinary Iranians become a proxy for the Mullah dictators who rule their lives?

Dopey and tribal.

Kevin said...

With all the cash Obama sent them, they can certainly take care of the needs of their own people.

Unless, of course, they've blown the cash on weapons and don't really give a crap about their people.

I guess we'll find out.

Unknown said...

Anyone else note how Earnest and Cookie are crying tears over Iranians-- tears they did not shed when hurricanes hit the "Republican RacistKKK south! Good riddance!"

Once again, proof that the left loves our sworn enemies more than Americans.

--Vance

Rusty said...

Kevin said...
"With all the cash Obama sent them, they can certainly take care of the needs of their own people.

Unless, of course, they've blown the cash on weapons and don't really give a crap about their people.

I guess we'll find out."

judging by their behavior during their "Green Revolution" they don't and neither do the democrats.

Kevin said...

judging by their behavior during their "Green Revolution" they don't and neither do the democrats.

That told Iran everything they needed to know about Obama.

Nonapod said...

When horrible events happen to regular people in horribly corrupt areas of the world, it's only a matter of time before the USA gets blamed for being insufficiently helpful. But obviously it's extremely dangerous for US based (and probably most Western) relief workers to venture into Iran. The Iranian government would absolutely love some US citizen hostages for bargaining chips. The mullahs couldn't care less about their own suffering citizens, especially Kurds. So I have nothing but admiration and respect for Western aid workers who would actually go to Iran. I don't know if they're crazy or brave or some combination of both.

Big Mike said...

@Cookie, I certainly do know my history. It’s people like you who live in an alternate reality.

@Earnest Troll, so go there. I’ll contribute a hundred dollars towards relief supplies if you’ll match the funds and go in person to distribute them attired as I stipulated above.

Robert Cook said...

@Big Mike: by your own words, you show that you don't know your history.

rhhardin said...

Camping.

Earnest Prole said...

I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, Vance, but Left is not one of them.

Roy Jacobsen said...

"...empathy is free."

Uncoupled from action, empathy is also worthless. What *realistic* action do you suggest, given the current Iranian regime's policies towards the US?

Earnest Prole said...

Empathy for ordinary people is free, Big Mike, and crosses borders easily. Your lack of it, for people suffering under a brutal religious dictatorship, is what’s called a “tell.”

Chris N said...

‘Empathy is free’

Earnest Prole said...

What *realistic* action do you suggest?

For the vast majority of human suffering, there is no realistic action we can take, but that does not relieve us of the obligation to be human.

Earnest Prole said...

Decent people feel bad when they see a dog hit by a car, but Althouse commenters have difficulty feeling bad for thousands of Kurds who are victims of an earthquake.

Quaestor said...

Earnest Prole wrote: ...empathy is free.

Correction. Empathy is cheap.

Hey Skipper said...

Prole:

It is easily obvious enough the commenters feel badly about the Kurds (about whom they haven't said a negative word); rather, it is the Iranian government they seem to hate.

Can't imagine why.

Kevin said...

Decent people feel bad when they see a dog hit by a car, but Althouse commenters have difficulty feeling bad for thousands of Kurds who are victims of an earthquake.

Please. You can feel bad for someone without feeling the responsibility to help them out of their situation.

To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Gahrie said...

Decent people feel bad when they see a dog hit by a car, but Althouse commenters have difficulty feeling bad for thousands of Kurds who are victims of an earthquake.

We push old ladies in front of buses and steal candy from babies too.

Revel in your superiority.

J. Farmer said...

@Hey Skipper:

rather, it is the Iranian government they seem to hate.

And yet natural disasters don't just fall on "government[s]." They hurt ordinary people. And affording someone empathy based solely on their tribal affiliation is a repellent thing. The US should offer humanitarian assistance, same as it did during the 2003 earthquake that struck the Kerman province.

Big Mike said...

@Earnest Troll, you have every right to your own feelings; have no right to dictate how I or anyone else should feel about anything, not now and not ever.

In my personal opinion you should not bitch about any problem unless you make an effort to address its solution. Others may disagree, but this is my line in the sand.

Gahrie said...

I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, Vance, but Left is not one of them.

You and Chuckles need to get together.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

Please. You can feel bad for someone without feeling the responsibility to help them out of their situation.

To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.


All very true but consider the following situation: a man sees a young child drowning. He has great empathy for his plight and feels badly over the prospect of the child's family losing him but chooses he'd rather not get into the water and save the child. Now how would you judge that person? After all, he "can feel bad for someone without feeling the responsibility to help them out of their situation."

Big Mike said...

Same goes to you, Farmer. Be part of the solution or shut your yap.

Gahrie said...

And yet natural disasters don't just fall on "government[s]." They hurt ordinary people. And affording someone empathy based solely on their tribal affiliation is a repellent thing. The US should offer humanitarian assistance, same as it did during the 2003 earthquake that struck the Kerman province.

Wouldn't that be a form of interventionism?

Jupiter said...

Earnest Prole said...
"Hey Big Mike, you may not have heard but the Kurds are our friends and empathy is free."

It's not generally known, I guess, but the Armenian Genocide, while planned and directed by the Turkish Government, was mostly carried out by Kurds. The Kurds were delighted to kill their Christian neighbors and steal their possessions. Of course, that's just some history. They're pretty friendly lately. Things haven't been going so well for them.

Big Mike said...

@Farmer, I would judge that person harshly, but then again, I’d be in the water trying to get to the child. We used to call it part of being a man. If the person on shore can’t swim he or she can at least try to extend something the kid can grab onto.

Jupiter said...

Although the genocide does seem to have worked out fairly well. The parts of Eastern Anatolia that used to be occupied by Christian Armenians are now pretty much entirely Kurdish. "Lebensraum", I think they call it. The Turks are very worried by their own demographic collapse and the high Kurdish birth rate. As well they should be. Demographics is destiny.

Gahrie said...

How much aid did Iran send to Puerto Rico after the hurricane?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Why can't neighboring nations help? Saudi Arabia has resources.

Jupiter said...

J. Farmer said...
"Now how would you judge that person? After all, he "can feel bad for someone without feeling the responsibility to help them out of their situation."

You're kidding, right? Or did you rid the World of suffering this morning, while I was drinking coffee, and now you're just sitting around chatting with a few friends? If you think there is a moral obligation to to save people in peril, you shouldn't be tapping away on a piece of plastic.

Gahrie said...

Or are only Americans required to show empathy and provide aid?

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

Same goes to you, Farmer. Be part of the solution or shut your yap.

Well, I've donated to two relief agencies and encouraged friends and family to do the same. I also advocate (in my own small way) for US intervention. If you wish to donate to relief efforts as well, you can do so here, here, here, and here.

@Gahrie:

Wouldn't that be a form of interventionism?

No.


Gahrie said...

Wouldn't that be a form of interventionism?

No.


Why not?

Roy Jacobsen said...

"For the vast majority of human suffering, there is no realistic action we can take, but that does not relieve us of the obligation to be human."

Oh, questions, questions...

Such as: From where does this "obligation to be human" originate? What, or who, imposes that obligation on us?

And: What's the use of empathy if all it does is help one feel superior to those who don't display the appropriate levels of empathy?

And finally: What puts you in the position to decide, based on some comments on a blog, that the commenters are not sufficiently empathetic?

Gahrie said...

I also advocate (in my own small way) for US intervention

1) You spend 90% of your time on this blog arguing against U.S intervention is other countries.

2) You just told me that providing aid wouldn't be intervention!

tcrosse said...

Have some Empathy. It's the least you can do. Literally, it's the very least you can do.

J. Farmer said...

@Jupiter:

If you think there is a moral obligation to to save people in peril, you shouldn't be tapping away on a piece of plastic.

I did not say that. I asked a very specific question. Do you have an answer? If a person witnesses a child drowning, do you believe that person should intervene to help them? Why or why not?

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Why not?

Same difference between the Marshall Plan and the bombing of Germany.

I also advocate (in my own small way) for US intervention

1) You spend 90% of your time on this blog arguing against U.S intervention is other countries.

2) You just told me that providing aid wouldn't be intervention!


As I thought was plainly obvious, what I argue against is military intervention. I am ambivalent about certain foreign assistance programs but generally am not bothered by them. I am opposed to invading foreign countries, bombing them, forcibly changing their governments, and then trying to nation build them.

Gahrie said...

So...intervention I like....must be done!

Intervention I don't like....must not be done!

Sounds logically consistent.......

Gahrie said...

I think saving people from an evil government who murders, oppresses and rapes them is at least as important as saving them from natural disasters that their evil government is unable or unwilling to save them from.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Sounds logically consistent.......

It's perfectly consistent. Unless you think supporting consensual sex and opposing rape is logically inconsistent.

Gahrie said...

How much aid did Iran send to Puerto Rico?

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DanTheMan said...

>>The US should offer humanitarian assistance

Even after all the billions Obama gave them in cash?

So, if Bill Gates were injured in a car crash, would you donate to his GoFundMe page?

Gahrie said...

I did not say that. I asked a very specific question. Do you have an answer? If a person witnesses a child drowning, do you believe that person should intervene to help them?

I don't know...did that child watch one of my children drown, and not only help them but celebrate their death?

traditionalguy said...

I would Love to go help Iranians but when they discover that I have a Bible with me, then they will exert so much effort trying to slaughter me in their weakened state that the effort will probably kill them.

Best we live and let live. The Mullahs have that 140 billion in cash that Obama gave them. They can spend 1% of that on helping the Iranians.

DanTheMan said...

"Death to America!"
"Death to America!"
"Death to America!"
"Hey, America, we need some charity."
"OK, got it."
"Death to America!"
"Death to America!"
"Death to America!"

Clearly the problem here is that Americans lack empathy.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

How much aid did Iran send to Puerto Rico?

Zero. And it's completely irrelevant to the argument. "Iran" is a nation, and it is a state. You can distinguish one from the other. It's quite possible to have one set of ideas and feelings about the state of Iran and quite another about the nation of Iran.

@DanTheMan:

So, if Bill Gates were injured in a car crash, would you donate to his GoFundMe page?

No, I wouldn't. But again, I don't see the relevance. After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquak, the US military under Operation Tomodachi provided a significant relief effort to Japan. I thought that was a good policy to pursue. That Japan is one of the largest economies in the world does not change that judgment.

Achilles said...

Earnest Prole said...
Your dopey commenters think there's nothing more hilarious than the suffering of people not like us.

We would love to help. We have done it before in Pakistan for example. We are the most generous and decent country in the world by a long ways.

It is the leadership of Iran and their supporters on the left that stop us. Peopl who pretend they care but really do not.

Gahrie said...

Zero. And it's completely irrelevant to the argument

Why? don't the Iranians have an obligation to show empathy and provide aid to those in need in other countries?

Or is it just Americans who have this obligation, even tough they already provide more governmental aid and private charity to the rest of the world than the rest of the world combined?

Patrick Henry was right! said...

So, should America have provided aid to the Germans or Japanese during WW II to show empathy?????????

They have declared themselves to be mortal enemies of us, not the other way around.

DanTheMan said...

>> provided a significant relief effort to Japan
Of course. And Japan would do the same for us. That's the difference.

If it was 1944, we would not assist the Japanese, either the "nation" or the "state".

The Iranians hate us, and have been funding the killing of Americans throughout the middle east for decades. One of the consequences of that is we decline to give you aid.


Achilles said...

Earnest Prole said...
Empathy for ordinary people is free, Big Mike, and crosses borders easily. Your lack of it, for people suffering under a brutal religious dictatorship, is what’s called a “tell.

When you pretend to care but don't actually do anything about it is also a tell.

Obama shipped Iran pallets of cash. There should be plenty of resources available to help these people.

Gahrie said...

So, should America have provided aid to the Germans or Japanese during WW II to show empathy?????????

Of course we should have...after there all there is a difference between the German nation and the German state.....

Gahrie said...

Obama shipped Iran pallets of cash. There should be plenty of resources available to help these people.

But Iran is under no obligation to help their own people...only the United States is obligated to help their people.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

No, I wouldn't. But again, I don't see the relevance. After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquak, the US military under Operation Tomodachi provided a significant relief effort to Japan. I thought that was a good policy to pursue. That Japan is one of the largest economies in the world does not change that judgment.

After VJ day yes.

Before VJ day not so much.

Pretending to not see a difference is ridiculous.

Hey Skipper said...

[J Farmer:] And affording someone empathy based solely on their tribal affiliation is a repellent thing. The US should offer humanitarian assistance, same as it did during the 2003 earthquake that struck the Kerman province.

Those occupy entirely different moral universes.

The Iranian regime has brutalized and murdered far more people than died in this earthquake, on top of trashing what should otherwise be a vibrant economy that would easily have enough resources to deal with this.

I empathize with the Iranians. And this means what with regard to the Iranian government?

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Why? don't the Iranians have an obligation to show empathy and provide aid to those in need in other countries?

Or is it just Americans who have this obligation, even tough they already provide more governmental aid and private charity to the rest of the world than the rest of the world combined?


Where did I say anything about an "obligation?" The US, and no individual American, has an "obligation" to provide assistance or give to charity. I am talking about what I think the US and individuals should do, not what they must do.

@Patrick Henry was right!

So, should America have provided aid to the Germans or Japanese during WW II to show empathy?????????

America is not at war with Iran even if relations are strained and we do not have full diplomatic relations. If you believe we are, then when did this war begin? As I said before, the US military provided assistance to Iran in 2003 following the Bam earthquake.

Gahrie said...

America is not at war with Iran even if relations are strained and we do not have full diplomatic relations

Even if, as it is, Iran is at war with us.

DanTheMan said...

Assume, Farmer, that you are correct and we should give the Iranians aid. How do we distribute it to the people without giving it to the government (nation v state)?

Do we drop it from orbit, or what? Do you really think the "state" would allow aid to the "nation" from the US?

And if the "state" would prevent such aid to the "nation", then your empathy is useless, other than self-serving reinforcement of your moral superiority to others.

Achilles said...

But Obama knew Iran would use the pallets of cash to fund terrorism, war, and nuclear development. So do all of the leftists.

They know the nature of the islamist regime in Tehran. They know their goals. It isn't like you can ignore what they actually say and do.

Gahrie said...

If you believe we are, then when did this war begin?

November 4, 1979.

Jupiter said...

J. Farmer said...
@Jupiter:

"I asked a very specific question. Do you have an answer? If a person witnesses a child drowning, do you believe that person should intervene to help them? Why or why not?"

J, I have an answer, but first I have a question for you. If someone is posing pointless hypotheticals on the internet, and you have a keyboard, are you morally obliged to play along with his trolling?

Gahrie said...

If you believe we are, then when did this war begin?

An argument can be made for a different date of 610 A.D.

Michael K said...

This isn't true. You don't know your history, do you?

Cookie is an expert on the Marxist version of History.

Earnest Prole said...

Only a dope would conflate the Iranian dictatorship with ordinary Iranians, much less Iranian Kurds.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

America is not at war with Iran even if relations are strained and we do not have full diplomatic relations. If you believe we are, then when did this war begin? As I said before, the US military provided assistance to Iran in 2003 following the Bam earthquake.

My friend still has the copper slug of an EFP made in Iran that lodged itself in the engine block of his striker next to his head after it went through the back of the seat he was sitting on. There are others that are just, you know, dead.

One of our missions was to take out Al Quaeda supported networks in Iraq. The other was fighting Iranians and back elements.

Iran is very much at war with us. They are the primary supporters of terrorism in the ME now.

It will be interesting to see what the leftists say when Saudi Arabia forces the Palestinians to accept peace and Trump succeeds where all of the Neocons failed. The only domino left will be Iran.

Mac McConnell said...

Earthquake in Iran! Is there anything President Trump can't do?
Qatar might help them, the Saudis and Israel won't, the're at war with Iran.

Michael K said...

Prole, how would you go about helping them, given that Iran has a tendency to grab Americans when they can.

Gahrie said...

Only a dope would conflate the Iranian dictatorship with ordinary Iranians, much less Iranian Kurds.

So how are you going to get the aid there without dealing with the Iranian government?

If you could, wouldn't the Iranian government see it as a hostile act?

Achilles said...

Earnest Prole said...
Only a dope would conflate the Iranian dictatorship with ordinary Iranians, much less Iranian Kurds.

You are so full of shit. The Iranians tried to get out from under the dictatorship with the Green Revolution. Obama looked the other way while they were crushed and proceeded to ship money and supplies to the Mullahs knowing they would use it to further injustice and war.

The leftists are enemies of freedom at every turn.

Gahrie said...

I am talking about what I think the US and individuals should do, not what they must do.

Why? You say we don't have any obligation to do so, moral or otherwise...so why should we? Because we're better than everyone else? As a form of redemption for all the evil we do? Income redistribution? To try and convince people and states to like us?

And why shouldn't Iran and/or the Iranian people (or anybody else in the world) have helped out Puerto Rico?


J. Farmer said...

@DanTheMan:

Do we drop it from orbit, or what? Do you really think the "state" would allow aid to the "nation" from the US?

We do exactly what we did in 2003 when we provided assistance to the Kerman province in Iran following an earthquake. And that was after Bush listed Iran as being part of an "Axis of Evil."

@Jupiter:

If someone is posing pointless hypotheticals on the internet, and you have a keyboard, are you morally obliged to play along with his trolling?

If you care to quote where I ever said anyone was "obliged," please go ahead. Otherwise, you're free to attack strawmen to your heart's content.

@Achilles:

Iran is very much at war with us. They are the primary supporters of terrorism in the ME now.

Iran is not at war with US, and neither the US government nor the international community consider that to be the case. As Iran being "the primary supporters of terrorism in the ME now," how do you know that? How do you eight their level of support for "terrorism" over the support that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE provide to various factions in places like Syria?

Earnest Prole said...

You’ve mistaken me for someone who disagrees with you, Achilles. Obama quite obviously sold out democracy in Iran.

David said...

If you would like to help the victims of this earthquake, you should consider Mercy Corps, which is based in Portland, Oregon. That organization was in Iran after the 2003 earthquake which killed about 30,000 people and has continued a presence in Iran since then. While there is nothing up on their web site yet about this quake, likely there will be soon. Mercy Corps is a well run and ethical organization which goes into some of the most difficult parts of the world with humanitarian relief. Worth a look for those who want to make some kind of contribution.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Have you ever given to a charitable cause, before? If so, why?

One of the organizations my company raises money for is the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I do not believe anybody is obligated to give anything, but if someone said, "Why should I give to them? America is a wealthy country. The government should help the veterans," I would not find that statement particularly persuasive.

Howard said...

Blogger Achilles said... " Earnest Prole said...
Only a dope would conflate the Iranian dictatorship with ordinary Iranians, much less Iranian Kurds. " You are so full of shit. The Iranians tried to get out from under the dictatorship with the Green Revolution. Obama looked the other way while they were crushed and proceeded to ship money and supplies to the Mullahs knowing they would use it to further injustice and war. The leftists are enemies of freedom at every turn.


OK, lets stipulate this is true. However, by not offering help or sympathy to the earthquake ravaged people in Iran, it is just a continuation of the Obama policy of shitting on the people most oppressed by the Mullahs in dirty nightshirts.

Instead, if the US were to offer help, it would most likely be turned down. This would be a win for the US with our friends and it would drive a wedge further between the Mullahs and the Iranian people.

Gahrie said...

Have you ever given to a charitable cause, before?

yes.

If so, why?

Because I wanted to.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

The Iranians tried to get out from under the dictatorship with the Green Revolution. Obama looked the other way while they were crushed and proceeded to ship money and supplies to the Mullahs knowing they would use it to further injustice and war.

This is patently incorrect. If anything, the Green Movement, particularly as centered around Mousavi, did not want and did not seek American support. Conservative factions were already accusing the Green Movement of being a foreign-backed and controlled movement, and overt support from the US would have only solidified that and provided conservative elements in Iran with a propaganda victory. Trita Parsi's book A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy with Iran covers this ground very thoroughly.

Howard said...

Earnest Prole: Apparently if you are not racist, homophobic, misogynistic, chest thumping war monger, supporter of tax cuts for Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, petty vengeful bootstrap hardass born on third base and claiming you bvuilt the field with your own bare hands, then you are a lefty commie pinko Un-American cuck.

Gahrie said...

Iran is not at war with US, and neither the US government nor the international community consider that to be the case.

The fact that Iran considers itself to be at war with the US simply doesn't matter.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Because I wanted to.

There you have it. I have told you what I have done and what I encourage others to do. Nothing more, nothing less. Now if you're saying people should not give charitably to Iranians and Iraqis affected by a natural disaster because of the nature of the regimes in which they live, then I disagree with you and have explained why.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

The fact that Iran considers itself to be at war with the US simply doesn't matter.

Except Iran does not consider itself to be at war with the US. The Iranians certainly see us as competitors and attempt to limit our influence in the region, but that is not the same thing as being at war.

Achilles said...

Iran is not at war with US, and neither the US government nor the international community consider that to be the case. As Iran being "the primary supporters of terrorism in the ME now," how do you know that? How do you eight their level of support for "terrorism" over the support that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE provide to various factions in places like Syria?

How do I know about their support for terrorism? First hand experience.

Syria is a satellite or Tehran. The mullahs fall Syria falls eventually straight up. Tehran runs the Shiite forces.

Turkey has fallen but they are new to the game. They are a run of the mill dictatorship for now with firmly internal divisions. Now that Europe has chosen generational and societal oblivion who knows what will happen, but without intervention I would not doubt Turkey displacing Germany as the power center in Europe in a generation.

Saudi Arabia is going through a change. Hard to say how it will turn out but it is clear they are taking out hard line islamist elements. Without a Democrat president coming soon to betray freedom it looks like Salman will have a chance to carry out his reformation. They are going to put the screws to Abbas to accept peace with Israel. UAE is being brought to heel as well.

Gahrie said...

Why shouldn't we be shipping food, drugs and medical supplies to Venezuela? Aren't Venezuelans deserving? How about Haiti?

Achilles said...

Howard said...
Earnest Prole: Apparently if you are not racist, homophobic, misogynistic, chest thumping war monger, supporter of tax cuts for Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, petty vengeful bootstrap hardass born on third base and claiming you bvuilt the field with your own bare hands, then you are a lefty commie pinko Un-American cuck.

Apparently if you are not an idiot who pulls straw-men out of their ass then you are a "racist, homophobic, misogynistic, chest thumping war monger, supporter of tax cuts for Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, petty vengeful bootstrap hardass born on third base and claiming you bvuilt the field with your own bare hands..."

You are a parody and completely unserious.

Gahrie said...

Except Iran does not consider itself to be at war with the US.

All of the hostage taking, terrorism, and IEDs are signs of friendship...right? We should ignore the fact that they call us the Great Satan and chant for our destruction out of love right? It's not like they are a theocratic nation whose religion explicitly calls for the destruction of our civilization and way of life...


Poor North Korea, Russia, China, Iran and Cuba..so misunderstood by us evil oppressive war like Americans....they just want to be friends and live in peace and harmony, but that damn United States......

Gahrie said...

Now if you're saying people should not give charitably to Iranians and Iraqis affected by a natural disaster because of the nature of the regimes

I choose not to because they are ingrates who never respond in kind and always have their hands out for more.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

This is patently incorrect.

Lots of people have written books about how people really really don't want US help to become free from oppressive regimes. I saw people on the news saying Iraqi's and Afghani's wanted us out all of the time.

It is bullshit. All of it.

Sure there were some who wanted us out. But most, especially the women and girls, wanted us there and suffered most when we left. You are all about doing meaningless crap for people. But some things are more important than others. I saw actual oppression and the most valuable thing we have is our freedom.

The question would then be who deserves freedom I suppose. It seems that Iraqi's aren't willing to fight for it and neither are Afghanis. I get that. But it is also becoming clear that a majority of Americans wouldn't fight for their own freedom as well and may not actually value it. In the end this is going to be a problem.

Howard said...

Blogger Achilles said...You are a parody and completely unserious.
I'm just holding up a mirror, sorry you don't like what you see. You guys seek the endorphin rush of having your silly myoptic rants applauded and whine like toddlers deprived of candy and a timely diaper change when your conservative blog safe space is invaded by a couple contrary opinions.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Poor North Korea, Russia, China, Iran and Cuba..so misunderstood by us evil oppressive war like Americans....they just want to be friends and live in peace and harmony, but that damn United States......

You seem to have a burning desire to argue with some clichéd anti-American caricature. If so, you should probably go find such a person and have that argument with them. If you'd like to quote anything I said that is remotely close to that line of argument.

All of the hostage taking, terrorism, and IEDs are signs of friendship...right?

No. There is a large berth between "friendship" and war. The US does not believe we are at war with Iran, Iran does not believe they are at war with the US, and the international community does not believe Iran is at war with the US.

Gahrie said...

The US does not believe we are at war with Iran, Iran does not believe they are at war with the US, and the international community does not believe Iran is at war with the US.

And all of the Americans they have killed tortured and imprisoned over the last forty years don't count.

And the fact that we are unbelievers who have not submitted to Allah doesn't matter.

CWJ said...

I've read through the entire thread and then backtracked to the top. There were exactly six comments prior to Earnest Prole's initial comment, and from the time stamps it's likely EP saw no more than 5 of them. None of them justified EP's comment. I conclude that EP was just itching to stir the pot, and sadly much of the commentariat took the bait.

Gahrie said...

You seem to have a burning desire to argue with some clichéd anti-American caricature. If so, you should probably go find such a person and have that argument with them.

Yeah because you have never defended the actions of those nations and excused their belligerence as the proper response to American interventionism.

William said...

Tough sh*t, Iran. You'd never help us. Why should we help you? Eye for an eye, etc.

Gahrie said...

Would the theocratic government of Iran consider the United States to be part of:

A) dar al-islam
B) dar al-suhl
C) dar Al-harb

Big Mike said...

@Farmer, two of the four charities you linked to appear to be the same. The Red Cross does not operate in Muslim countries, though they do have some sort of relationship with the Red Crescent, their Muslim counterpart. Is there a way to assure that they will share any money collected will be properly earmarked for Iranian Kurdish relief and forwarded to the Red Crescent?

I’ve only ever heard of the Red Cross; the remaining two charities to which you link are new to me. Do you have information regarding the percent they spend on administrative overhead and their respective track records?

Jim at said...

Charity begins at home.

Quoted for truth.

Earnest Prole said...

There were exactly six comments prior to Earnest Prole's initial comment, and from the time stamps it's likely EP saw no more than 5 of them. None of them justified EP's comment.

There were indeed five comments when I posted, all treating the victims of the earthquake as political and religious punchlines instead of as human beings. I call that a tell.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Yeah because you have never defended the actions of those nations and excused their belligerence as the proper response to American interventionism.

Defended? Excused? Proper? No, I have not, because that is not the language I use. What I have done is explain what I think the predictable consequences of American foreign policy decisions will be. Those consequences can then be weighed against empirical reality. Consider the following hypothetical: China and Mexico form a military alliance, integrate their armed forces, begin holding regular military exercises, and Chinese troops are stationed in Mexico. This would be a highly provocative action, and America would react to it. Pointing that out does not require Sinophobia and has nothing to do with what you think the propriety of anyone's actions is.

And the fact that we are unbelievers who have not submitted to Allah doesn't matter.

In fact, it does not. The regime is highly pragmatic in its orientation and is not driven to a significant degree by ideology. One of Iran's closest partners in the region is Russia, which is a majority Orthodox country with a history of behavior in Chechnya and Central Asia that a lot of Muslim's do not look kindly on. Has China "submitted to Allah?" Does not seem to matter much to Tehran, which has significant economic and strategic partnership with the Chinese.

Achilles said...

Howard said...
Blogger Achilles said...You are a parody and completely unserious.
I'm just holding up a mirror, sorry you don't like what you see. You guys seek the endorphin rush of having your silly myoptic rants applauded and whine like toddlers deprived of candy and a timely diaper change when your conservative blog safe space is invaded by a couple contrary opinions.

You obviously can't read or comprehend the messages posted on the thread. The most simple explanation is you must be an idiot.

Big Mike said...

@Earnest Troll, Farmer thoughtfully provided links to three charities. To which did you donate and how much did you give?

Big Mike said...

Notice that I'm no longer challenging you to go to Iran yourself, much less conspicuously identified as American. Just put your money where your mouth is.

Gahrie said...

Perhaps the reason that Iran is willing to cooperate with Russia and China has something to do with the fact that all three consider themselves enemies of the US, and the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Nah....

AJ Lynch said...

I'd think they could spare some of that billions in cash they got from Obama and buy them some space heaters?

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Perhaps the reason that Iran is willing to cooperate with Russia and China has something to do with the fact that all three consider themselves enemies of the US, and the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

That is precisely my point. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not a strategy driven by ideology but by pragmatism. Hence, as I said, the Iranian leadership is primarily compelled by pragmatism, not by ideology. But to your larger point, how do Russia and China consider themselves our "enemies." How does the word "enemies" even make sense in that context. We have full diplomatic relations with both countries, nationals from all three travel and do a huge amount of business with one another, and there are no armed hostilities between the three countries. Again, competitors and enemies are very different things. China and Russia are clearly the former but by what criteria do you consider them our enemies?

Big Mike said...

all three consider themselves enemies of the US

@Gahrie, I'd use the word "adversaries" instead, with the stipulation that our adversarial relationship with Iran is the one most likely to degenerate into outright war -- or kinetic military action, to quote a recent bust of a president.

Pinandpuller said...

Traditionalguy

Best we live and let live. The Mullahs have that 140 billion in cash that Obama gave them. They can spend 1% of that on helping the Iranians.

11/14/17, 11:52 AM

They can burn the pallets the 140 billion came on for firewood.

Gahrie said...

@J.Farmer:

All bullshit aside...all pedantry aside...do you really believe that Iran, China, Russia and North Korea don't seek the humiliation, ruin and destruction of the United States? Do you really not understand that their unwillingness to attack and oppress their neighbors entirely depends on the willingness of the United States to oppose them? Do you really think the world would be a better place if we retreated as you want us to and allowed them to dominate the world's stage?

Robert Cook said...

"So...intervention I like....must be done!

"Intervention I don't like....must not be done!

"Sounds logically consistent......."


When you specify what this means, it is:

Providing aid to people who are victims of a natural disaster: good
Killing people we don't know and who have never harmed us: bad.

J. Farmer said...

Pinandpuller:

They can burn the pallets the 140 billion came on for firewood.

You're confusing two separate things. There was no "140 billion" in cash or on pallets. That amount was the total of money already owed to Iran as oil funds that was being frozen in foreign bank accounts. This was not US money and in the event that the multilateral sanctions regime which had frozen those funds had broken down, the money would have went back to Iran anyway.

The cash payment made to Iran was $400 million and that was related to claims arbitrated through the US-Iran Claims Tribunal, which was created in 1981 as part of the Algiers Accords.

traditionalguy said...

We could send them St Bernards with a cask of Brandy. But being Muslims screws that up.

Earnest Prole said...

Just put your money where your mouth is.

I take it reading comprehension isn't Pint-Size Mike's strength. Nowhere above do I call for charitable donations by Americans, because I know that under dictators charity rarely makes it to those in need. I said the victims of the earthquake should be treated as human beings and not the butt of jokes.

Gahrie said...

I mean I guess you're right in a way. In 1937 Germany wasn't anyone's enemy, just a competitor. When Germany annexed the Sudetenland and the Allies rolled over with their paws in the air...there was no war. Only when the Allies foolish attempted to save Poland was there war. I guess World War II is the Allies fault, not Germany's.

So if we just roll over when Iran destabilizes the Middle east and imposes their ideology on the Middle east there will be no war. If we just allow North Korea to bully and eventually annex South Korea, there will be no war. If we allow China to bully japan and steal territory from the Philippines and Vietnam there will be no war. If we allow Russia to finish off Crimea, and re-occupy Georgia, the Ukraine and the Baltics there will be no war.

Consider the following hypothetical: China and Mexico form a military alliance, integrate their armed forces, begin holding regular military exercises, and Chinese troops are stationed in Mexico.

I guess I'm just not sophisticated or cosmopolitan enough to consider China and her motivations to be the same as the US and our motivations. Silly me for thinking the US are the good guys and Communist China as the bad guys.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

...do you really believe that Iran, China, Russia and North Korea don't seek the humiliation, ruin and destruction of the United States?

Yes, I really believe that. And I think have history and empirical fact solidly on my ground. For one thing, China relies a great deal on trade with the US. Our "ruin and destruction" would be a foolish pursuit for China that would be self-harming. I also do not believe that "Iran, China, Russia and North Korea" have a common foreign policy. They are vastly different countries with different interests, concerns, and historical circumstances. How would the US react if another country sought to check or contain our power? Not well. And when we seek to check or contain another power, we should expect pushback. That does not mean those countries want to destroy us.

Do you really not understand that their unwillingness to attack and oppress their neighbors entirely depends on the willingness of the United States to oppose them?

I don't understand that, because it is not true. Russia and China are nuclear powers. Did George W Bush do anything to counter Russia in the Russo-Georgian War? No, because there was next to nothing he could do. South Korea has more than enough resources to deter an invasion from the North.

Do you really think the world would be a better place if we retreated as you want us to and allowed them to dominate the world's stage?

Again, that depends on what you mean by "retreated." If you mean that the US did not needlessly invade other countries, destroy their governments, occupy them, and/or try to build new governments, then yes, I think that would be better. Also, I do not believe that US regime change policy and loose resorting to militariam is stoping Russia and China from "dominat[ing] the world stage," which I don't believe they even have the ability to do.

Gahrie said...

I said the victims of the earthquake should be treated as human beings and not the butt of jokes.

Because no human ever has ever been the butt of a joke.

Why do vending machines at NASA only carry Sprite?

What does NASA stand for?

Robert Cook said...

"...is it just Americans who have this obligation, even tough they already provide more governmental aid and private charity to the rest of the world than the rest of the world combined?"

This isn't entirely accurate. In 2015, the US spent the most total dollars in foreign aid, but certainly far less than "more...than the rest of the world combined." But, counted as a percentage of Gross National Income...we don't look so generous.

Gahrie said...

I do not believe

But you do believe in unicorns and fairy princesses right?

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

I guess World War II is the Allies fault, not Germany's.

Oh, wow, a WWII analogy. You know, I've never heard an interventionist use that clichéd argument. Care to name anything that Iran, Russia, or China has done that is remotely comparable to invading and annexing another country's territory?

I guess I'm just not sophisticated or cosmopolitan enough to consider China and her motivations to be the same as the US and our motivations.

You're right. You're not. Interesting you didn't mention the Saudi war on Yemen. So, by what standard do you consider Russian intervention in Ukraine bad but Saudi intervention in Yemen good?

buwaya said...

"China and Russia are clearly the former but by what criteria do you consider them our enemies?"

The first problem with both is that they challenge the security or sovereignty of a bunch of smaller countries, mostly their neighbors, all of which seek a powerful guarantor, which has generally been the US.

Poland for instance. They fear Russia. maybe for good reasons, maybe not, but from way over here I'm guessing they have reasonable cause.

Similarly, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, have excellent reasons to worry about the intentions and growing abilities of China.

In other words, the same old same old of imperial borders and client states, not that different from the Byzantine-Sassanian rivalry.

Gahrie said...

So Comrade Marvin:

How many countries sent aid to Puerto Rico after the last hurricane? How much did they send?

buwaya said...

" China has done that is remotely comparable to invading and annexing another country's territory?'

The South China Sea. Or, as I heard it, from Bataan to Ilocos Norte, the West Philippine Sea.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

p.s. Do support everything the federal government does on domestic policy? After all, we're the "good guys." Or do you support some things and oppose others? If federal domestic policy is prone to all kinds of vanities, excesses, and corruption, why do you seem to find it so unthinkable that American foreign policy can suffer the same innate difficulties?

Gahrie said...

Iran,

Hezbollah, Hamas and forty years of promoting and supporting terrorism around the world.

Russia,

Chechnya, Crimea and increasing threats to the Baltics.

China

Tibet, Mongolia, the Spratleys and the artificial islands they are creating.

Gahrie said...

Do support everything the federal government does on domestic policy? After all, we're the "good guys."

Nope...but then I consider that government is a necessary evil...just like our need to protect the world from the evil intentions of our enemies is a necessary evil.

Or do you support some things and oppose others?

Yep..and I'm obviously the first person in the world to do so.

If federal domestic policy is prone to all kinds of vanities, excesses, and corruption, why do you seem to find it so unthinkable that American foreign policy can suffer the same innate difficulties?

I don't. Where we differ is I think the US has the best of intentions and our enemies have the worst. You seem to assume that the US has the worst and our enemies the best.

I think we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys. I think it's sad you don't.

Gahrie said...

So, by what standard do you consider Russian intervention in Ukraine bad but Saudi intervention in Yemen good?

As far as I know, Saudi Arabia has no intentions of adding Yemen to their empire.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Good guys or bad guys? Why? After all, they support terrorism and violence against their competitors and fund and arm groups in other countries to fight for their interests.

As far as I know, Saudi Arabia has no intentions of adding Yemen to their empire.

And neither does Russia. Both are doing the exact same thing. Invading countries in support of overthrown leaders that they believed were aligned with their interests.

Robert Cook said...

"The Iranians hate us, and have been funding the killing of Americans throughout the middle east for decades."

How so? And, if so, why are we friend with, instead of enemies of, Saudi Arabia, a principle funder of the 9/11 attacks?

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Where we differ is I think the US has the best of intentions and our enemies have the worst.

Welfar advocates have the "best of intentions." They want to help poor people. Suppose you have good, logical reasons for opposing such policies and actually believe that (despite good intentions) such policies would actually be harmful? If someone replied to your argument by saying you were obviously motivated by hatred of the poor, how convincing would you find that argument? If not very, then you should reconsider the argument you're trying to make. As any conservative should know, you don't judge a policy on its intentions but on its results. If Western Europe decided that our laws were insufficiently liberal and democratic and decided to pursue aggression against the US to change those laws, how well do you think that would be received, given the "best of intentions" that the Europeans had?

Gahrie said...

Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Good guys or bad guys

I have long advocated switching our Arab alliance from Saudi Arabia to Jordan. That said Saudi Arabia is better than Iran, and our support for Saudi Arabia is to provide a counter to Iran.

Turkey used to be a good guy. Then Islam took over again.

And neither does Russia

Your position is that Russia has no territorial ambitions? Putin isn't trying to regain the Soviet empire?

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

You seem to assume that the US has the worst and our enemies the best.

No. I don't. I don't even bother with such judgments because they are largely beside the point. If China attacked South Korea, with the exception of self-defense, I would not care what the intentions were. I would oppose it. If South Korea attacked China, with the exception of self-defense, I would oppose it regardless of intentions. If someone tried to enter the country illegally, even with the best of intentions, I would oppose it.

Gahrie said...

If Western Europe decided that our laws were insufficiently liberal and democratic and decided to pursue aggression against the US to change those laws,

You think they haven't?

Gahrie said...

No. I don't. I don't even bother with such judgments because they are largely beside the point.

And that is your biggest mistake.

If push an old lady to the ground so that a bus won't hit her is a much different thing than if I push an old lady to the ground because I'm an asshole that enjoys hurting people.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

I have long advocated switching our Arab alliance from Saudi Arabia to Jordan. That said Saudi Arabia is better than Iran, and our support for Saudi Arabia is to provide a counter to Iran.

Switching? Both are clients, and neither are really allies. By what metric is Saudi Arabia "better than Iran." Saudi Arabia has supported radical salafi jihadist groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Western Iraq, and Syria. Saudi Arabia has been carrying out warfare against its neighbor for two years now. They are also helping Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the war with Yemen. By what standard is Saudi Arabia's support for radical jihadists "better than" Iran's support for Hezbollah and Iran?

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

You think they haven't?

Care to give an example? And even if they did, why should we oppose it given that the Europeans have the "best of intentions?"

And that is your biggest mistake.

If push an old lady to the ground so that a bus won't hit her is a much different thing than if I push an old lady to the ground because I'm an asshole that enjoys hurting people.


And if I thought your house was poorly constructed and dangerous for you and your family, decided to do some work on it without your permission to fix it, and then it accidentally burnt down, you'd be fine with that since I had "good intentions," right?

Is their a country that interferes in the affairs of other countries that doesn't claim to have the "best of intentions?" Not many people claim they are interfering for purely predatory purposes.

Seeing Red said...

Who needs Western Europe to do that when their proxies here say in certain policy areas we need to be more like them?

buwaya said...

Interesting if true -

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2017/11/13/saudi-arabia-told-abbas-to-accept-us-peace-plan

"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was told by Saudi Arabia to accept a new US peace plan or resign, according to Israeli media.

Abbas made an unexpected visit to the Saudi capital Riyadh last week to meet with King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman when the instruction was made, Israel's Channel 10 news reported on Sunday.

The meeting came shortly after the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri in Saudi Arabia with speculation mounting that Riyadh is keeping the leader "prisoner".

US President Donald Trump's team have been reportedly putting together a new peace plan based on a two state solution, the New York Times reported."

Howard said...

Also Sprach Achilles...You obviously can't read or comprehend the messages posted on the thread. The most simple explanation is you must be an idiot.
Alrighty then

Howard said...

Blogger Robert Cook said..."The Iranians hate us, and have been funding the killing of Americans throughout the middle east for decades." How so? And, if so, why are we friend with, instead of enemies of, Saudi Arabia, a principle funder of the 9/11 attacks?

It's not an either/or situation, it's simple geology. The west gets most of it's oil from Saudi because their whole peninsula is one big gentle anticline while Iran is a chopped up complex of faulted synclines and anticlines. IOW, it takes more straws to suck out Persia's Texas Tea.

You are correct, we totally fragged ourselves in Iran because of the US Cold Warrior irrational fear of liberal democracy. By helping the Shaw and his brother the Shan of Iran steal their country blind and torture all opposition, they hate us. Classic Blowback that none of the so-called conservatives on this blog will ever consider because it is counter to their Disneyland history of the USA. We then repeated the mistake in Iraq because of an irrational fear of doing nothing shocking and awe inspiring against a nation-state in the wake of 911 because our real enemy, the Saudis have a get out of Daisy-Cutter Free card.

However, even though the US brought all of this on ourselves, we mostly brought this on the middle east by sponsoring multiple civil and tribal wars resulting in millions of dead sandbox dwellers at a cost of about ten thousand US military deaths. Once again, we are winning the body count with new and improved "kill-ratios".

The middle east is special because the region worships unforgotten grudges. Look what we did to Vietnam and they are evolving into allies and trading partners. It's never going to happen within the greater Muslim region.

In any event, we should always do things that make us appear magnanimous and forgiving to the ordinary people of the region, regardless of the corrupt, violent leadership. What did John Milius say in Apocalypse Now!: "We cut 'em in half with a machine gun and give 'em a Band-Aid." It's the least we can do. How ironic that the fount of civilization and the Holy land is the current location of Hell on Earth.

What can it hurt to throw these people a bone once in a while?

gg6 said...

J farmer says: "I asked a very specific question. Do you have an answer? If a person witnesses a child drowning, do you believe that person should intervene to help them? Why or why not?"
The reasons you seek are way too many and OBVIOUS, "@I'M NOT the ethicist, theologian, philosopher iwanna be FARMER"...
#1 Reason being a person's own precious Life and the precious welfare of their family/dependents/loved ones which make the TEMPORARY, HYPOCRITICAL, and FAUX 'needs' of the Iran that unabashedly wants to destroy him look as morally bankrupt as they are. Your moral self-comfort and self-righteousness fit right in with that garbage - so why not just get your phony arse on a plane and go 'help' yourself - you can write brilliant posts from there and be a hero in your own mind!

CWJ said...

Earnest Prole wrote -

"There were indeed five comments when I posted, all treating the victims of the earthquake as political and religious punchlines instead of as human beings. I call that a tell."

Sorry to reply so late, but this is bullshit. Absolute bullshit.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

In fact, it does not. The regime is highly pragmatic in its orientation and is not driven to a significant degree by ideology. One of Iran's closest partners in the region is Russia, which is a majority Orthodox country with a history of behavior in Chechnya and Central Asia that a lot of Muslim's do not look kindly on. Has China "submitted to Allah?" Does not seem to matter much to Tehran, which has significant economic and strategic partnership with the Chinese.


Pretty sure the Chechens are Sunni and not Shiite.

Might have something to do with the Iranian view of Russia.
Enemy of my enemy stuff there.

J. Farmer said...

@gg6:

"@I'M NOT the ethicist, theologian, philosopher iwanna be FARMER"...

Never claimed nor had any desire to be any of those things.

Reason being a person's own precious Life and the precious welfare of their family/dependents/loved ones which make the TEMPORARY, HYPOCRITICAL, and FAUX 'needs' of the Iran that unabashedly wants to destroy him look as morally bankrupt as they are.

Nobody is talking about the "needs" of "Iran." I am talking about the needs of some people who have been affected by a natural disaster. The nature of the regime is no basis on which to judge these people's humanity. Plus, this would not be abhorrent. The US has provided relief assistance to Iran after such disasters in the past, including in 2003 under the George W. Bush administration. We are also not talking about handing the regime money. We are talking about services on the ground. Again, there is precedence for this.

@Patrick Henry was right!"

Pretty sure the Chechens are Sunni and not Shiite.

Might have something to do with the Iranian view of Russia.
Enemy of my enemy stuff there.


Again, that would not suggest a highly ideological regime but a highly pragmatic one. Also, the difference between Sunni and Shia are not was profound as you suggest. Iran maintains good relationships with several Sunni-majority countries, including Turkey and Qatar. Also, Iran's realpolitik with Russia was heavily criticized by many Muslims, Sunni and Shia, including by Hezbollah leadership. Lastly, in no sense does Iran act as if the Chechens were their "enemies." Iran maintain normal relations with the countries of the Caucasus, including Shia Azerbaijan and Sunni Armenia.

BUMBLE BEE said...

"DEATH TO AMERICA" TELLS ME ALL I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS MATTER.

Biotrekker said...

Allah will provide.