What, Me Mullah? Obama and Iran
In an early election skirmish, McCain and Obama faced off over Iran. But does Barack have all the facts?
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
A skirmish over Iran broke out this week between Barack Obama and John McCain. It is a harbinger of the fall campaign and an early display of Obama’s confusion in the foreign policy area.
On Sunday, Obama told the throng at Pendleton, Oregon: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’”
On Monday, after the McCain people rushed to distribute the video of Obama’s pronouncement, the Illinois Senator quickly revised his statement somewhat:
“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said. “The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They’re the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely.”
Oh, really?
Well, maybe, maybe not. But let’s leave aside the obvious — that Iran and the US have had numerous contacts over the last few years to no avail — and consider some more basic issues around the Iranian Revolution about which Senator Obama, most of whose time has been consumed by running for President since arriving in the Senate, may not be fully aware. These issues have tremendous ramifications regarding the level of Iran’s threat.
To begin with, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a conventional state in the sense of France or even the former Soviet Union. Since the revolution on 1979, it has been a theocracy based on Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of a Shiite world under Allah. Wikipedia tells us of Khomeini’s return from exile that year to take over his country after the revolution:
On the airplane on his way to Iran, Khomeini was asked by reporter Peter Jennings: “What do you feel in returning to Iran?” Khomeini answered “Hich ehsâsi nadâram” (I don’t feel a thing). This statement was considered reflective of his mystical or puritanical belief that Dar al-Islam, rather that the motherland, was what mattered, and also a warning to Iranians who hoped he would be a “mainstream nationalist leader” that they were in for disappointment.
In other words, Iran was not really a country per se, but a stepping stone in the eternal mission of global jihad. As demonstration, Khomeini almost immediately allowed millions to die in his 1980s war with Iraq, one of whose goals was to gain control of the holy cities of Kerbala and Najaf (the resting place of Shia’s Imam Ali) for Allah.
This goal was never truly abandoned as the Islamic Republic of Khomeini evolved into today’s IRI of Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I say evolved, but their belief system has remained essentially intact, with some minor diversions, since 1979.
These extreme tenets of Khomeinist Shia Islam can be argued to be more dangerous to our future and those of the West than Marxism-Leninism, which promoted itself as scientific socialism and therefore was governed to some extent by scientific evaluation. The IRI is governed by their version of faith in Allah. No science or fact can ever contradict the justice of their cause, which is to them God’s will. Their eschatology includes a belief under which global chaos will bring forth the “hidden imam” or Mahdi, the Shia messiah, who will bring peace to Earth, unified, of course, under Allah.
Consider the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who actually believe that. It’s unclear how many do, but Ahmadinejad obviously does, as do many others in their leadership, particularly in the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds Brigade.
To accept Obama’s (wavering) position, you must assume that Ahmadinejad and the others are lying about their deeply held religious beliefs. That’s difficult to do, since they have been so consistent in their statements and their actions for decades now. Time, to them, is on their side. Furthermore, Obama’s contention that because the Iranians are not as technically advanced as the Soviets they are not as dangerous would be almost silly were it not so potentially catastrophic. It is more likely the reverse. Nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics with a divine impetus to spread them is terrifying because it is unrestrained by rationality.
For Obama’s followers, at this moment winning appears to be everything. I think it’s time they reconsider. Their own futures and those of their children are at stake.
Roger L. Simon is an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter, novelist and blogger, and the CEO of Pajamas Media.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
46 Comments
David Thomson:“To accept Obama’s (wavering) position, you must assume that Ahmadinejad and the others are lying about their deeply held religious beliefs.”
Barack “Barry” Obama probably does think that Ahmadinejad is something of a con man. The presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate is a Harvard University educated yuppie who takes religion with a huge grain of salt. He joined Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church primarily to establish his “authentic blackness” and further his political ambitions. Such individuals usually have an overwhelming difficulty in comprehending that millions of their fellow human beings are fanatically committed to reactionary doctrines—even to the point of suicide.
May 20, 2008 - 2:06 am Ed Wallis:What The Obamboozler did on Monday (“Iran is a grave threat.”) was to merely divert the attention away from his Sunday verbal abomination, in which he tried to justify his well-established “talking to Ahmadinejad without preconditions” position.
The essential point of this is well stated in the next-to-last paragraph (“To accept Obama’s (wavering) position….”): delusional blindness, which could well lead to catastrophe for all Americans.
But hey - like The Obamboozler cares about anyone else but him.
May 20, 2008 - 2:26 am cfbleachers:Actually, I am beginning to see the logic in Senator Obama’s willingness to speak with Iran, Hamas, perhaps even with Osama Bin Laden.
On the one hand there are the folks who are fervent believers in a utopian paradise brought about by and through the destruction of our current Western way of life. Our Western way of life is thought of as decadent, materialistic, unholy, and is the cause of all the evil in the world.
This anti-America/Anti-Israel/Anti-West concept is based upon a rather mystical belief system that a worldwide change will augment the revolution and a magical transformation will occur immediately upon their seizing control.
Apathy and sloth will not be tolerated. Each subject will be required to actively engage and participate in the revolution in order to gain paradise. Those who martyr themselves upon the altar of the revolution will be exalted, material gains sacrificed today to garner a higher status spiritually, that is the lesson to be imposed upon the great unwashed.
Thereafter, a sort of divine revelation to the masses….. will encompass the entirety of the planet and a one-world utopian leadership will have arisen to rule over a singular way of thinking, which will be accepted by all followers and dissent will be crushed…. as the Doctrine of Truth is imposed over all who are ruled….in the name of “Fairness”.
Then, of course…there are the radical Islamists. We can discuss them later.
May 20, 2008 - 3:23 am Terry Gain:cfb
Thank you for that. It’s difficult to parody someone as clueless as Obama. You had me for a second.
If, as David Thomson states, Obama thinks Ahmadinejad is a con man, it’s because Obama is projecting.
May 20, 2008 - 4:30 am Jack:What bothers me most about BO is his lack of knowledge of history and geography. If you have to think about how many US states there are, you probably also don’t know a lot about Iran, Islam or the middle east in general.
I am also greatly disturbed about the MSM’s treatment of BO. They seem to give him a pass on every gaff, every mistake, and every deliberate false hood. We may be approaching a time when a majority of US citizens start calling the MSM “Pravda”, after the official national newspaper of the USSR.
May 20, 2008 - 4:39 am Chris:The greatest threat is a resurgent Iran that takes advantage of the situations in SW Asia created and exacerbated up by the short-sighted ‘policies’ of the Bush administration, most notably the insurgency in Iraq and the developing situation in Lebanon, both of which could led to full blown civil wars with one side supported by Iran. Iran strives to have a Shia-dominated foothold stretching from the Gulf to the Medditerranean.
The last eight years of Bush policy has done nothing to lessen this threat. Instead, our government waited for Iran to make the first moves that would justify use of military force, the only tool of national power Republicans think they know how to use. The ineffective cycle of threaten, contain, embargo, posture, isolate accomplished absolutely nothing.
Senator Obama brings a fresh look at Iran policy. Talking to Iran will not provide it ‘legitimacy’ as Sen. McCain suggests. Talking to Iran is the first step in throwing out an extremely arrogant foreign policy that sets preconditions for solving our challeges with our potential enemies. Policies that had us sit back and rely on our status as a military and economic superpower. Policies that enabled perpetual status quo.
May 20, 2008 - 5:07 am Ardeshir Dolat:Obama’s foreign policy regarding Hamas, Hizbullah and Islamic regime of Iran is that of face-to-face negotiations without any preconditions. This card played by Obama may sound his losing card but there is something fishy in that. The way events could unfold in the next five or six months would probably spin in Obama’s favour. For example, Iranians could announce nearer to the election time in November - so as not to give the Bush Administration any chance of reassessing the situation - that they are prepared to discuss some possibilities of halting their nuclear activities for a period of time and that they will consider some other US demands regarding the Iraqi situation. Talks like this will become more prevalent. We will hear suggestions that the Russians will produce the Iranian nuclear fuel inside Iran but under strict controls and certain aspect of the production will be in black boxes and the Iranians will hint that they will be happy with that (already a suggestion by the Russians). Do these suggest that Obama knows (given assurances by the terrorists) how the Islamic regime will behave in a few months time to back up his presidential campaign? Otherwise, why has he made Iran the focal point of his campaign? There is something fishy about Obama.
The GOP and McCain must be prepared for change of tactics by the terrorists and Iranian regime behind Obama’s presidential campaign and leave themselves room to manoeuvre.
May 20, 2008 - 5:28 am Ed Wallis:cfb: BRILLIANT! Hah!!!
Another well articulated view on the clueless attitude towards others of a - ahem - “different” religious belief:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRhNDQ4MGFlYjk0YzUwNDk0MzYyNTE1ZDkwYmNmNDc=
May 20, 2008 - 5:47 am David Thomson:“We may be approaching a time when a majority of US citizens start calling the MSM “Pravda”, after the official national newspaper of the USSR.”
The MSM is already about 80% as deceitful as Pravda. It is simply amazing how the perceptions of the many Americans are distorted by the journalistic “elite.” A good example is the polls showing that few people blame the Democrats and the radical environmentalists for high fuel prices. By all rights, the stereotypical blue collar bubba should be tempted to punch out the closest Democratic Party elected official.
May 20, 2008 - 5:49 am huxley:If, as David Thomson states, Obama thinks Ahmadinejad is a con man, it’s because Obama is projecting.
There are good reasons to question Obama’s Christian faith. Andrew Sullivan quotes Obama’s account of his conversion at
What OBama Saw. Now Sullivan reports that he is moved by Obama’s “pellucid” words; however, I was stunned to note that Obama’s conversion lacked any mention of God, Christ, love, or forgivenesss — the hallmarks of Christianity. Instead Obama converted to a liberation story of the Jews. All the language and allusions Obama used were from the Old Testament.
A month ago Sullivan launched a poll on AOL asking “Is Obama Really Christian? Yes/No”. 59% of Americans said No. Of course, internet polls are tricky, but I never saw this poll mentioned anywhere, so I doubt that it was slammed by some right-wing Christian group.
May 20, 2008 - 5:50 am Ed Wallis:Obama SUNDAY: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
Obama MONDAY: “Iran is a grave threat.”
Well, a sinking credibility IS a kind of “change.” Heh.
RE: Ardeshir Dolat’s comment - indeed Iran may play such manipulations. One can only - err - “hope” that the only ones gullible enough to be fooled by it will be the ideological Left.
May 20, 2008 - 6:07 am David Thomson:There is also a very important distinction between the journalists of Pravda and our own MSM. The Russian news reporters consciously lie. This is, however, rarely the case regarding America’s journalists. No, they simply lie to themselves. In many respects, this might make them even more dangerous than their Russian counterparts! Everybody is essentially on the same page if they are employed by CBS, the New York Times, or any other MSM outlet. Dissent is rarely heard. This pathetic situation results into something similar to mass hysteria.
May 20, 2008 - 6:09 am huxley:Talking to Iran is the first step in throwing out an extremely arrogant foreign policy that sets preconditions for solving our challeges with our potential enemies.
Chris — Do you really suppose that the US is not talking to Iran privately? Are you aware that Europe has been talking to Iran publicly for years now over Iran’s nuclear program to no avail?
May 20, 2008 - 6:10 am John Samford:“Talking to Iran is the first step in throwing out an extremely arrogant foreign policy that sets preconditions for solving our challeges with our potential enemies.”
BS! You don’t solve ‘challenges’ with enemies, you kill them. Not the challenge, the enemy.
Where is your evidence that President Bush’s foreign policy has harmed America? It has harmed members of the State Department, which is not the same as American interests. 51 million + Americans DID NOT vote for some bureaucrat in the State Department.
May 20, 2008 - 6:51 am John:So do you have evidence, or is this something everybody in your neighborhood knows?
huxley has hit the issue squarely when he says: “Do you really suppose that the US is not talking to Iran privately? Are you aware that Europe has been talking to Iran publicly for years now over Iran’s nuclear program to no avail?”
The back channels of communication are always open, even with the most rogue of nations. We(the USA), communicate, for example, with North Korea via China, and I’m equally sure we communicate with Iran through other Mid-east facilitators. To believe otherwise is to be naive.
May 20, 2008 - 7:05 am schnargley:How dare this upstart, self-absorbed, spoiled rich kid in a suit falsely criticize a true statesman!!! How dare he open his mouth! What disrespect!! What an affront!! Doesn’t he know who he is dealing with?
Oh yea I know what all you Repukelicans are saying right now…. “Well, he didn’t actually mention Obama. He just referred to people who negotiate and appease fascists, terrorists, dictators, Marxists, and other totalitarians.”
So, how did Obama and Pelosi, Biden, Kerry know that he was referring to us progressive minded Democrats? Like, duh! We aren’t stupid you know!
May 20, 2008 - 7:15 am politicalreacharound:Do you people really believe Iran is more of a threat than Pakistan? Has Iran in the last 8 yrs always been a greater threat than Iraq? (If so did “Georgie” “Shrub” confuse the two?) Do you guys have wet dreams just thinking about mushroom clouds? Will you ever admit the failures of the neo-cons? (And their failures have not been that they haven’t gone far enough.) Do you think that somehow decisions by the same people executing the same policies will lead to different results? Cuz if you do please stay away from sharp knives and the White House.
May 20, 2008 - 7:19 am John Samford:I’m just a loose nut behind a keyboard. Here is the opinion of the foremost foreign policy expert in America today;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121115528610702289.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Chris, pay attention to this;
“Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy.”
What Mr. Bolton is dancing around is the well established fact that the other 1% of diplomacy is called “WAR”. War is a diplomatic tool. It is what gives your enemy the incentive to negotiate in the first place.
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
- Chairman Mao Zedong (Tse-tung)
“Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”*
*
_Mao Zedong
Without getting deeply into Conflict theory, to end State sponsored terrorism (IE; win the War on Terror) it will be necessary to force regime change on ALL states that support terrorism. At this time the State department has a list;
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm
EVERY state on that list will need regime change. Since making war on all those states would be a waste of resources, diplomacy will need to do most of the heavy lifting.
May 20, 2008 - 7:46 am mongoose:It shouldn’t be that hard.
To the DPRK you send Kim a sales brochure for a nice little mansion on the south coast of Fwance. Next door to ‘baby’ Doc or Roman Polanski maybe. You also send him a DVD of Saddam being hung. Then you tell him to make a choice. That is called Diplomacy.
For the Mad Dog Mullahs, you move US troops from German and Korea to Iraq. That will bump up US forces there to about 300,000 or an Army sized formation. Then you tell the Mad Dog Mullahs that the UN is going to go where ever they want and inspect what ever they want whenever they want ( which Iran already agreed to when they signed the NPT) and that their escorts will be Iranians or Americans. Choose.
Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ while looking for a big rock. When you already have a pocket full of big, deadly rocks, it’s a waste of time saying ‘nice doggie’.
In reference to previous comments, could the temprary truce by Muqtada al-Sadr be part of Iran’s plan to sway the U.S. election in favor of Obama?
May 20, 2008 - 7:46 am MikeD:Well, the young, liberal trolls are out today, impressing us with their ignorance, stupidity, and knee-jerk reaction to anything right of George McGovern. I’m all for national service. Can we send these folks to Tehran to sing kumbaya with the mullahs and to tell them that stoning women and homosexulas to death for perceived moral slights is just not nice? Or maybe in a real war we can get them to march across mine fields with little plastic keys to heaven like the Iranians did with young boys in their war with Iraq. Why not? These fools support the Obamessiah and will believe anything. Oh yes, I forgot. The obligatory: “It’s all George Bush’s fault.” Idiots!
May 20, 2008 - 8:11 am Ardeshir Dolat:mongoose:
<
It may well be. But I think it is too early for Iran to make moves to bolster and boost Obama’s campaign. They would probably wait and make sure McCain and Obama have started their campaign and have had their debate on Iran, with McCain well asserting his stance on Iran to the wider audience. Then Iran may make its move. The point is GOP be aware Mullahs have penetrated the USA much deeper than they think. Money is power in America and Mullahs have billions (Iranian oil) of it. Does anyone here recall Ahmadinejad in New York inviting 50 reporters and journalists and others for dinner? Is any one here a journalist? Can anyone here investigate and follow the footsteps of those who were invited to see what they have been doing/writing since then!? I bet some revelations will surprise.
May 20, 2008 - 8:16 am politicalreacharound:MikeD: your concern over the women, children and gays in Iran is laughable as you most likely want to bomb their entire country back to the stone age.
May 20, 2008 - 8:36 am vb:Chris: FDR fought Germany and Japan, and all the time our real enemy was the USSR. Get real.
May 20, 2008 - 8:46 am Ardeshir Dolat:politicalreacharound: “….”
The Mullahs have already taken Iran back to the stone age: they stone people to death. I suggest you spend some time and read about what is going on in Iran in the hands of the Hezbullah. There are plenty of materials for you to see. visit the you tube.
May 20, 2008 - 8:52 am cfbleachers:There are good reasons to question Obama’s Christian faith. Andrew Sullivan quotes Obama’s account of his conversion at What OBama Saw. Now Sullivan reports that he is moved by Obama’s “pellucid” words; however, I was stunned to note that Obama’s conversion lacked any mention of God, Christ, love, or forgivenesss — the hallmarks of Christianity. Instead Obama converted to a liberation story of the Jews. All the language and allusions Obama used were from the Old Testament.
A month ago Sullivan launched a poll on AOL asking “Is Obama Really Christian? Yes/No”. 59% of Americans said No. Of course, internet polls are tricky, but I never saw this poll mentioned anywhere, so I doubt that it was slammed by some right-wing Christian group.
Stanley Kurtz wrote an article at NRO that is a must read for anyone who wishes to …you know…actually vet a candidate before they swoon over him. Andrew has gone completely over to the tingle, swoon, ecstatic shudders, fainting, crowd with Chris Matthews and some teeny bopper girls…for the rest of us…it might be nice if he would do something…like answer even prepared written questions about those distracting things…like his belief system and his worldview.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRhNDQ4MGFlYjk0YzUwNDk0MzYyNTE1ZDkwYmNmNDc=
Some of the things Stanley left out of his article are the connections to Frank Marshall Davis.
A hard left Communist who mentored and inspired Sen. Obama and held a particularly angry and hostile worldview of America and our way of life, promoting the revolution and telling Obama to keep up the fight and to “remember his people”.
I really don’t see how this is that very different from Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan or Ayers and Dorhn. So, I am having some difficulty understanding the embrace…and simultaneous distancing. Which is real and which is Memorex?
And, of course….Sen. Obama sought to do just that…in remembering “his people”, as has Michelle…if we define “his people” as hard leftists and “not his people” as those angry, slothful, mean, religion clinging hicks from the sticks.
He not only sought out his most radical professors in college, who all seem to hold the Frank Marshall Davis, Ayers & Dorhn syllabus…the very core and essence of hard left/hate America bile…while a student he immersed himself in the tapes of Jeremiah Wright. He took them to school, studied them intently, mirrored the speech patterns and built yet another layer on his hard leftist background.
It is important to remember, why he took those tapes to school and began imitating, emulating, creating a verbal shrine to Wright…his new “mentor” “spiritual advisor”, (augmenting and replacing Frank Marshall Davis and the radical left professors). However, the deadwood media has no interest in asking any serious questions about this, or any other issue related to the belief system and worldview of Sen. Obama. That is an area that if even TOUCHED UPON…will ignite a fireball of bile aimed at the questioner…just ask Gibson and Stephanopolous.
When Sen. Obama returns to Chicago, Father Pfleger becomse an integral part of the unholy Trinity of hard left voices who form Sen. Obama’s inner circle of theo-political worldview shaping.
Father Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan are of one mindset.
Wright’s version of Christianity and Pfleger’s version of Catholicism are simply Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam disguised and hidden by and through a Christian veil. You couldn’t separate them with a scalpel or scapular.
They have NOTHING to do with traditional Christian beliefs…in fact, the DENOUNCE traditional Christian beliefs as does the false prophet Cone who is the intellectually bankrupt leader of all three He is the Abraham of the three hate sects, more alike than different. Radical Politics are the foundational underpinnings…not religion.
Sen. Obama refuses to even RESPOND to any questions about Black Liberation theo-politics…yet, in his books, he defines his entire belief system sea change…by the joining of this particular church.
Odd that. One would think that the momentous transformation would be one in which he would be open, honest and free with his life changing epiphany…and yet…much like Jeremiah Wright himself…Sen. Obama wishes to keep this all on “deep background”.
Wright needed to be hidden from view, only to be resurrected, perhaps…AFTER the election. He foiled that with his narcissitic need for the centerstage and bright lights.
“Frank” was not willingly disclosed fully in his books, but kept on “deep background”.
The most radical professors at college are not named, although surely their influence must have been profound.
Father Pfleger has been kept at bay. Malley is not a “serious” advisor, Tony Rezco was a fleeting and distant relationship, Ayers & Dorhn he “hardly knew” at all, the Che Guevara poster “did not reflect” his politics, the flag lapel pin issue is a “distraction”, the lack of the hand over the heart is a “false issue”, Sam Graham-Felsen the Chomskyite official blogger hasn’t even become an issue at all, nor have his Nation of Islam staffers Jennifer Mason and Cynthia Miller.
His relationships with Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah as well as the late Edward Said have yet to be vetted with any vigor.
Before we can suggest what type of foreign and domestic policies Sen. Obama might put forward, we might want to do something more than scratch the surface behind what sort of voices he has sought HIS ENTIRE LIFETIME.
Sen. Obama’s apologists and mistake cleansers…his “cleanup crew”…will RUN…full speed, from this inquiry. (see, ie comments on this thread) But his belief system is not only fair game…is it the raison d’ etre for his entire being and it would be patently unfair and a disgrace of epic proportions for the national metastasis deadwood media to engage in a conspiratorial coverup of that belief system. That is precisely what they are doing now.
It is up to the blogosphere to vet the candidate that the deadwood media is shrouding in that conspiratorial cover. To insist that answers about his worldview be asked and answers demanded of him as they would any other candidate who did not enjoy their conspiracy of silence.
Stanley Kurtz has had the courage to get on the right track. We must assist that engine and not let it die the slow death of being ignored by the deadwood media.
Sen. Obama may indeed have answers to these questions and it is only fair that we wait to hear what they are. But it is not fair to bury the questions and shroud the answers, and allow the deadwood media to steal this election for the hard left by their distorted coverage and intent to present a changing holograph of a candidate instead of a portrait.
May 20, 2008 - 8:52 am Angry African:What is scary? The fact that McCaine paints the world black and white. The “you are either for us or against us” approach to foreign policy. Fearmongering… All these “facts” about Iran and their approach. Come people. You talk about history - then study it. How long have Iran been going under this regime of theirs? And since when have they started being a threat to the US?
Are they a despicable regime? Yes they are - you won’t get me to defend them. But do remember that they only raised their heads on the global scene in the last few years. Because an opportunity for leadership in the region was presented to them on a platter. By the invasion of Iraq that shifted the balance in their favor.
My concern is that McCain won’t talk to anyone, but will call people gooks and get Shiite and Sunni confused. Knowing nothing is bad. Thinking you know something and then actually knowing nothing is just plain scary. And McCain falls in both camps. I’ll go with the guy who says - I’ll first speak to them to figure them out than rely on fearmongering and bad analysis that got us into this position in the first place.
Oh, and go back and study the Cold War again. See what the US did internally (remember Stalin) and their aim of world domination that they aimed for throughout their history. And then you realize that they were much more of a threat than Iran. Because they had the button and the power to actually try it. Iran doesn’t. Maybe they will get it one day and we should prevent that from happening. But they don’t have that kind of power today. And they don’t have the ideological colonialism that communism had either. the world is too fragmented today for two ideologies to prevail. The world were divided into two back then - today we are broken into hundreds of little pieces. Iraq doesn’t have the means to pull it off because too large a part of the world is against their religious fundamentalism. And I am not talking about just the West. I am talking about the East, Latin America and Africa as well. Most of these parts are non-Muslim dominated (some in Africa though) and won’t tolerate a threat to their own system. But they won’t stand for the threat from the current US foreign policy either.
They don’t see the world as black and white. We even got color TV down in Africa now…
May 20, 2008 - 10:19 am jerry:Chris:
Your repetition of the blame Bush/blame America meme is both tiring and ignorant. Ever since the Revolution of 1979 Iran has clearly stated its objectives for all to see, i.e., the US out of the Middle East, the extinction of Israel and its people, and construction of a world order led by Shia Islam. Iran, like all messianic totalitarian states, has publicly warned us what they are about. It never ceases to amaze me why many in the West, be it 1938 or 2008, refuse to believe what they hear.
I will agree that Obama is unfairly charged with being an appeaser. That is profoundly unfair to Neville Chamberlin. Obama, as shown here http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=289786626246641, has more in common with Lord Halifax and Joseph Kennedy, men who saw Hitler and Mussolini, and like what they saw.
May 20, 2008 - 10:19 am Ciscokid:Wikipedia has all about 12th Imam al-Mahdi. Shi’as believe that al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into “chaos” and civil war emerges between the human race for “no reason”. Ahmadinejad close his speeches by expressing his hope of al-Mahdi’s soon return. Instead of talking, we need to listen and hear exacally what he’s saying in the “context” he means
May 20, 2008 - 10:58 am MikeD:politicalreacharound:
Rest assured I wouldn’t recommend bombing Iran back to the stoneage unless I was sure you were there singing kumbaya and running around with your head up your behind–where it clearly resides today.
May 20, 2008 - 11:01 am politicalreacharound:You sure showed me. Thank you for setting a new standard on the great enlightened blog which is Pajamas Media.
May 20, 2008 - 11:26 am Rubicon:One said the Soviet Union was the enemy, not Nazi Germany. You have got to be kidding! I mean, really! The Soviet Union became an enemy when they tried to impose their way of life on the rest of the world. But, the Nazi’s were an active, real threat, & needed to be confronted.
May 20, 2008 - 11:41 am abu al-fin:Saying one was the threat while the other was not or was not important, is vacuous at best. Both were a threat, just as radical Islamists are today, along with the socialist leftists trying to impose socialism on America so “they & they alone” can determine what is best for us.
I judge Obama not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character. His associations with those who have demonstrated an aggressive, even militant hatred of America, speciously implying all the world’s wrongs are our fault while ignoring, hiding, or excusing, the wrongs of numerous other nations, is disingenuous. Friends & mentors of Obama have even attempted to do America actual physical harm, while enjoying the freedoms & rights provided to them by this nation. If we were as bad as portrayed, those dissenters voices would have been deliberately silenced. Seems to me they have been practicing their hatred for decades, while fool’s like Obama have listened in & ignored or failed to take a serious & fair look at the other side of the coin.
“Where the government and/or elite have power, the rights of the common people always diminish &/or disappear, along with wealth.”
The best approach to Iran is to hurt Iran’s peripheral military/terror assets badly enough to make Ahmedinejad’s government look incompetent, without actually threatening the people of Iran in any way.
May 20, 2008 - 12:12 pm Kourosh:Hello dear
May 20, 2008 - 2:00 pm Ardeshir Dolat:Are the Iranian women being oppressed by the government in Iran? Is Iran dispatching weapons to Lebanon and Iraq? Is the Iranian government promoting terrorism and violating human rights? Are the Persian Gulf countries planning to support US against Iran? Find all the answers and documentaries on http://helloyahoomail.net/en and let me know about your views by commenting on the posts.
Hello Yahoo Mail has been established in order to protest Yahoo mail removal of Iran’s name from its list of countries and it was a good pretend to teach the global opinion more about Iran, Persian culture, civilization and lifestyle.
Wait to hear from you
Best Wishes
Re: kourosh
This is a very good example of what I said in one of my posts about how the Islamic regime uses its enemy’s, culture, principles and beliefs to propagate its own interests. On the site Kourosh has given us the link to go and see how Iranian women are free and do what they want, the first picture of young girls in a classroom is from before the revolution. Other pictures are simply girls and women who defy the Islamic dress codes and often are harassed, arrested, and flogged by the regime’s revolutionary guards, basijis and hezbullahis . But Iranian women will carry on defying the regime, as this is part of their resistance.
May 20, 2008 - 3:08 pm John Samford:“In reference to previous comments, could the temprary truce by Muqtada al-Sadr be part of Iran’s plan to sway the U.S. election in favor of Obama?”
It was somewhat more then a temporary truce. Weapons were surrendered and those with outstanding warrants arrested. About 4,000 out of 6,000 armed fighters were either killed or arrested. Utter and total defeat would be a better way to describe what happened to JAM. The current operation in Mosul is going even better.
Angry African
“The “you are either for us or against us” approach to foreign policy.” isn’t an approach, it is a FACT of 4th generation warfare. It is based on Burke’s ‘For evil to succeed all that is required is for good men to do nothing’.
Analogy;
You are walking past a bank and suddenly you hear an alarm go off. 2 guys come running out of the bank waving pistols and toting bags of loot. They jump into a car waiting at the curb, tear off up the street and turn right at the next intersection. It’s just dawned on you that you have witnessed a bank robbery when a cop car pulls up next to you and the cop shouts “Which way did they go?”
You now have 3 options, right, left, I didn’t see. Two of those 3 choices aid the bank robbers.
That is the power and the foundation of 4th generation warfare (hereafter 4GW). 4GW is the catch all term for guerrilla, insurgent, revolutionary, civil war, terrorism or any of the other terms used.
Remember, not wanting to get involved is pretty much a universal human emotion. 4GW takes adnvantage of that to force unwitting support from the population.
So literally, “You are with us or you are against us.” There are no neutrals in 4GW since the act of neutrality aids the anti-government forces.
The main reason why Iraq is a done deal is that the Iraq citizens have come to realize this basic fact of 4GW and decided to help the government, instead of the guerrillas.
Boycott the MSM.
May 20, 2008 - 3:54 pm MikeD:New standard? No politicalreacharound, you did that earlier with an exhibition of your sub-50 IQ. You are an idiot, a fool, a clown, and an a**hole. Crawl back under your rock. For enlightened individuals such as yourself you might want to consider the Huffington Post or Daily Kos, they parrot your fine logic, they cater to your intellectual level, and periodically someone comes around to sprinkle lime on the leavings.
May 20, 2008 - 7:24 pm Bill N:Ex-president Carter is one of the most skillful and accomplished negotiators alive. That’s what a Nobel prize is supposed to mean. How successful was he in talking to the Iranians during the first Iranian crisis of the mad mullahs’ reign? Remember the hostages? Took Reagan’s election and a threat of effective military action - not talk - to get our people released. Achmeddejihad was one of the hostage takers, say some. What chance does BO have in talking to the very same people who spurned the best negotiator America has? Zero or less than that?
May 20, 2008 - 10:02 pm langs:David Thomson:
“We may be approaching a time when a majority of US citizens start calling the MSM “Pravda”, after the official national newspaper of the USSR.”
We already have that.
We call it FOX NEWS.
If being against torture, illegal wars, kidnapping innocent people, running gulags are Anti-American.
Call me Anti-American. You people sound like the Nazi’s.
What happened to our country.
May 20, 2008 - 10:23 pm Ed Wallis:Answer: “Our country” learned to stand up for freedom and speak out against the mind-numbing bias of the MSM and its useful idiots like you.
May 21, 2008 - 3:29 am politicalreacharound:Conservatives blow their political power in all three branches because they are were competent to lead and now they are claiming they are the anti-establishment revolutionaries. Sorry Ed Wallis the version of “our country” you prefer is over. Might as well start complaining now because with how dense you seem to be it will take a while for conservative losses to to sink in.
May 21, 2008 - 5:46 am Ed Wallis:Poor, poor “ppa”…personal insults and incorrect information too!
It’s the sellout-Republicans and RINOs - most decidedly NOT conservatives - who became complacent and/or corrupt.
And, “ppa”…”our country”, as “langs” and I referred to it, included all of us:
May 21, 2008 - 12:12 pm John Samford:That YOU go out of your way to exclude those who do not agree with your narrow-minded, bigotted diatribes speaks volumes on how little you value and respect Americans. Your words disgust me.
langs:
What illegal war? The one Billy Blue Dress started in the Balkans?
May 23, 2008 - 10:22 am Jay:Iraq is neither a war, nor illegal.
It is a ‘campaign’, which is part of a war and it was authorized by both Congress AND the UN under chapter 7.
Those are facts, and while the word ‘war’ doesn’t appear in either the Congressional resolution to take military action against Iraq or the UN resolution to take other means against, military action and other means are diplo-speak for war.
Despite the Kellog-Brand pact, War is not an illegal activity.
If a country stockpiles uranium hexafloride they are in the process of making a uranium bomb. The Iranians are separating U235 from U238. U235 is a fissile form of uranium. They can make several copies of the Fat Man that was dropped on Hiroshima and they can deliver it by ship or by terrorists. We are trying to figure out a way to stop the illicit importation of fissile materials but it is hard problem. I am sure that Obama will cut the R&D for that project (I am not involved with it).
Jun 10, 2008 - 2:01 pm