Iran’s Supremely Insane Ruler: Don’t Force Me to Kill You!
Tags: Government.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
The ultimatum:
TEHRAN (Reuters) – Backers of beaten presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi will decide on Saturday whether to defy a stern warning by Iran’s top authority and stage mass protests over a disputed election.
(Editors’ note: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.)
Iran’s top legislative body holds an extraordinary session on Saturday morning to which it has invited Mousavi and the two other candidates who lost against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the June 12 election, which Mousavi wants annulled.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demanded an end to the rallies on Friday, issuing a strong warning to leaders of the street protests that they will be responsible for any bloodshed.
I’m sorry, people of Iran, but the world’s oldest democracy will do nothing to help you. In fact, much to our shame, once you are either cowed or beaten into submission by your corrupt and inhuman overlords, our government will likely go out of its way to “engage” your murderers and oppressors. It is to be hoped that by 2012 we will elect a government worthy of the name “American government”, and then maybe a new settlement can be made in Iran.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
56 Responses to “Iran’s Supremely Insane Ruler: Don’t Force Me to Kill You!”
Caucus of Corruption
Two brilliant perspectives:
Obama has no idea what to do about Iran, and he knows it. Our President has always resembled Chance the gardener in Being There. It is easy to imagine that he is acutely aware that a few short years ago he was a State Senator in Illinois and that he is utterly unqualified to deal with matters as weighty as what is now transpiring in Iran. On this theory, his silence manifests an appropriate modesty. The problem with this hypothesis is that Obama has never exhibited modesty in any other context and, frankly, seems immune to the sentiment.
“Obama can’t be in favor of democracy because Bush was for it. Are we getting to the heart of the matter here? Back in the days when I was a Democrat, supporting freedom fighters would have been a no-brainer. Now, though, pretty much every Democrat except Joe Lieberman is a “realist.” God only knows what a “realist” is, except that it involves believing fantastic claims, like that Barack Obama can talk the mullahs out of exporting terrorism and developing nuclear weapons. President Obama has tried on every occasion to distance himself publicly from President Bush’s policies (even when he has, nevertheless, quietly adopted them). Here, too, it is easy to imagine that Obama doesn’t want to sound like his predecessor, publicly endorsing democracy–even for Muslims! Obama’s supporters all know that he is much more sophisticated than President Bush. So how can he do anything as obvious–as Texan–some would say, as American–as taking the side of young women who are being brutalized by thugs? If Bush was in favor of democracy, Obama must incline a sympathetic ear toward Ayatollah Khamenei.”
amazona: Cluster is much in line with my thinking. We can, and should, make a public declaration that an uprising in the pursuit of a fair vote and of democracy will always have the support of the United States.
I thought “we” had. Does anyone have a video of such a public declaration? But as far as the sequelae goes, “We could, and should, finance them to some degree.” I don’t think so. Every indication is that that would be counterproductive — at least so far. And as far as the further sequelae goes, “And while we should not advocate violence or an uprising, we can and should be ready to provide military assistance, at the very least in the forms of weapons and supplies, should an uprising occur.” I think “should an uprising occur” is the operative phrase there. If such happens in earnest it could be a golden opportunity. But I think it goes without saying that it has to happen from the ground up, not forced by us. Some might call that “spineless”. I think the more reasoned argument is to call it smart.
Every indication is that that would be counterproductive – rico
You know, both you and orlando need to put a little meat behind this “opinion”. WHY would it be counterproductive? And WHAT are the indications?
Wouldn’t reaching out to Mousavi be worthy of consideration? Shouldn’t we let him know that since he obviously has the support of many Iranians, and that the election results are certainly questionable, that he has our moral and financial support to peacefully push for openess and transparency in the last election?
And now we have Iranians protesting in American streets. Where in the hell is the idiot that currently occupies the white house??
Because of course the Iranians are far too stupid to successfully revolt themselves. Without Lady Liberty’s blessing, they are doomed to failure; with it, they cannot help but succeed.
“The days of rootin’ tootin’ cowboy diplomacy are over.”
Evidently.
We are now in the days of limp-wristed hand-wringing appeasement apology for existing “diplomacy” which is more intent on never being criticized and thereby being paralyzed than on doing what is best.
I suggest the strong possibility that future historians will look a this time as yet another wasted opportunity, caused by spineless indecision. I offer two other examples of this kind of dithering and the terrible outcomes which followed.
George Herbert Walker Bush dithered at the end of Desert Storm, and backed off, allowing Kurds to be massacred (don’t I remember something about WMD being used??) and Sadaam Hussein to remain in power.
William Jefferson Clinton dithered when offered Osama Bin Laden, worried that he might not have “legal authority” to take him into custody, thinking like a lawyer instead of a leader and being too timid to act.
And now we run the risk that this incredible opportunity to aid in the development of a free and democratic society in the Middle East, with just a modicum of support from us, will be wasted.
I’m making a note of this thread, because I will want to return to it to quote some of the Lemming posts when and if Barry does find a “consensus” that allows him to support this bid for freedom in Iran, because I am sure that the Lemmings will rush to his defense should he actually DO something for a change that does not involve increasing his power or moving THIS country AWAY from freedom and democracy.