The "Obama Effect" in the Middle East + Elections in Iran tomorrow

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I have read a few times now that neo-conservatives want Ahmadinejad to stay in power. Neo-cons seem not to want an Iranian president who is open to negotiating with the West. Neo-cons seem not to care that a whole new revolution is brewing in the younger generation that wants greater freedoms, that likes Obama, that wants to assimilate itself with the outside world (and Europe).


WHY are neo-cons supporting the Ahmadinejad regime? Don't they want a more progressive, a more pro-West government to take shape?

Somebody explain! (thanks)

there is one thing you do not understand...the President does not hold the ultimate power...The Supreme Leader does. Nothing happens in Iran without Khameni's say so. Who do you think helped insure that Ahminejad was "re-elected" ?

The Supreme Leader is an un-elected position of supreme power he and the Guardian Council are in charge. it does not ultimately matter what freedoms the people want, because the Supreme Leader is the Ultimate Guardian of the Revolution.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I know... just a tit-for-tat on the Fox News drivel here, amidst the mainstream media biasm.

Same goes for Drudge Report...

Yeah, Drudge has a great list though it's just a list save for the headlines at the top. I wish he would display the top stories from more sources.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
there is one thing you do not understand...the President does not hold the ultimate power...The Supreme Leader does. Nothing happens in Iran without Khameni's say so. Who do you think helped insure that Ahminejad was "re-elected" ?

The Supreme Leader is an un-elected position of supreme power he and the Guardian Council are in charge. it does not ultimately matter what freedoms the people want, because the Supreme Leader is the Ultimate Guardian of the Revolution.

It also didn't matter that once upon a time, the people were sick of westernization and wanted a more Islamic form of government because the Shah was the ultimate power in Iran backed by the deadly SAVAK.

The Iranian people decided otherwise. A more moderate presidency might open the door to the possibility of another revolution. One reason to keep Ahmadinejad if you're a mullah, and also a reason to support Mousavi or anyone else.

Neocons don't get this. In their black and white world Iran is evil and always will be evil. To keep people fearful, you need to give them something to fear. Iran is just one of the links in the chain of fear to keep people from thinking independently. Plenty of them are literalist Christians who want the middle east to blow-up anyway and bring about Armageddon. They can't wait for Israel to get into a world conflict because they're just sure Jesus is waiting to sweep them up after the Whore of Babylon has her day creating nuclear holocaust in the middle east.
 

Cowabanga

Experimental Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Posts
354
Media
7
Likes
10
Points
263
Location
northwest
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Mousavi was declared the winner several times and his power was cut off, as well as the cell phone and internet connection, and now Ahmadinejad is seeking his arrest. It seems that we are now looking at a bonifide illegal takeover of the govt, and civil war could be breaking out. Sounds like a similar thing that had happen in Africa.

The Real News Network - Iranian Filmmaker says Mousavi was told he won

You cant hear it in English, but the translation is recorded

The question is will the people suck it in with a stolen election like we did, or will they be infuriated enough to fight back like Africa with help from the UN?
 
Last edited:

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,511
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
jason_els writes:

Plenty of them {neocons} are literalist Christians who want the middle east to blow-up anyway and bring about Armageddon. They can't wait for Israel to get into a world conflict because they're just sure Jesus is waiting to sweep them up after the Whore of Babylon has her day creating nuclear holocaust in the middle east.

--------------------

Jason, maybe you mean Christian Zionists? They believe in literal New Testament prophesy according to the Book of Revelations.

But neocons were originally formed by liberals a few decades back, almost all of the prominent ones jewish -- liberals who shifted to the Right.

Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, his dad Irving Kristol (and wife Midge), Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, Norman Podhoretz, Douglas Feith.


These instrumental jews take no stock in christian Apocalypes or Armageddons in the Holy Land -- or in the rise of an anti-christ and a Second Coming of Jesus.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Jason, maybe you mean Christian Zionists? They believe in literal New Testament prophesy according to the Book of Revelations.

But neocons were originally formed by liberals a few decades back, almost all of the prominent ones jewish -- liberals who shifted to the Right.

Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, his dad Irving Kristol (and wife Midge), Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, Norman Podhoretz, Douglas Feith.

These instrumental jews take no stock in christian Apocalypes or Armageddons in the Holy Land -- or in the rise of an anti-christ and a Second Coming of Jesus.

Well yes, Christian Zionists. Neoconservatism has expanded far beyond the ranks of its founding members. I don't know of many strict-interpretation Christians who would vote Democratic. Whether the founding members of PNAC were Jewish or not is of little relevance now, their monster has grown beyond their control. The neocon Christians are in bed with the pro-Israel bloc not because they have any respect or affinity for Jews, indeed my experience has been most of them have little desire to associate with or trust them, but because Israel is, in their interpretation of prophecy, instrumental in the Second Coming. So they'll support Israel no matter what Israel does and are even eager for Israel to go to war. Anything that helps that process along is welcome to them.

I immensely distrust the pro-Israel lobby as so many of them place the needs of Israel ahead of that of the United States. The Jonathan Pollard case and the apologists that defended him include many of the leaders of pro-Israeli lobbying groups. One group, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was actually a conduit for the secret information Pollard gave to Israel.

I think it's fine and wonderful to take pride in one's ancestry and ancestral homelands, but if you're purposely trying to harm your own country by stealing its secrets or harming it at the expense of another country, get the fuck out.

I'd love to give Walter and Gwendolyn Myers a first class ticket to Cuba and push them out of the plane over Havana with parachutes made by ACME.
 
Last edited:

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,511
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
I'm suddenly in love with Andrew Sullivan's political blog. He's a gay conservative, but his interests extend far beyond gay politics.


Here's more from his continuing Iran discussion:


Message From Mousavi

Via my contacts at the Farsi-speaking BBC, a telephone plea:

I AM UNDER EXTREME PRESSURE TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE SHAM ELECTION. THEY HAVE CUT ME OFF FROM ANY COMMUNICATION WITH PEOPLE AND AM UNDER SURVEILLANCE. I ASK THE PEOPLE TO STAY IN THE STREETS BUT AVOID VIOLENCE

--------------------

NIAC gets an email that I cannot get out of my head:
WE NEED HELP. WE NEED SUPPORT. Time is not on our side, waiting and making sure means more casualties, more disappointment, more brutality.

The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to A.N government as an official, approved one. They need help by sending true information. All the medias are under arrest or close control. Help them have the information.

They only try to show the fraud to the world. Help them please. You can not imagine the level of brutality we saw these two awful days.
--------------------

The Assault On The Students

A reader confirms reports cited here earlier:

The news on attack on Tehran University's students seems accurate. Here's a Farsi link. The students were reportedly protesting on the streets near their dorm, when some special forces plain-clothes militia attacked them, injuring and arresting some.

The students started their protest at 9:15 shouting slogans such as "we don't want a coup leader" and "down with the dictator" and "Seyyed-Ali (Khamenei's first name) Pinochet, Iran is not Chile".
--------------------



If anyone is interested, read more at:

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

By the way, it is comforting at least to see that a majority of the mainstream media (internationally) is seriously questioning the validity of this election.

The younger generation of Iranians all seem to want similar goals for their country. As one girl interviewed put it: "A better Iran. A better democracy. No religion mixed with the politics. No segregation of men between the women. Openness with other countries."


One last thing: I watched CNN's Christiane Amanpour questioning Ahmadinejad in a news conference this afternoon and Ahmadinejad refused to guarantee Mousavi's safety. He also dismissed growing street protests as "not important".
 

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,511
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
jason_els writes:

I immensely distrust the pro-Israel lobby as so many of them place the needs of Israel ahead of that of the United States.

--------------------


I keep seeing a book titled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephan Walt at the bookstore which is supposed to be highly influencial, a book highly critical of american Israeli policy, which was vehemently attacked by neocons and conservatives (especially those right-wing radio hosts that shill for Israel on a weekly basis: Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity).



This is from wikipedia, which explains the book's premise. A premise you'd appreciate:


Mearsheimer and Walt argue that "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical". They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies. What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the Executive branch," as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They claim that AIPAC in particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."

Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of anti-Semitism," and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain, however, that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses" (see Campus Watch and U.S. Congress Bill H.R. 509). The authors conclude by arguing that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."


--------------------


I'm actually rather amazed how a lot of rational, legitimate criticism of Israel is immediately demonized by conservatives (as if Israel and the U.S. had the same political goals).
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Israel was useful to us until we secured Iraq. Strategically, Israel's importance has waned as our ability to airlift supplies and the speed of our ships has improved. There are also two British bases in Cyprus, another in Oman (a British puppet), and we have Turkey secured. While it's nice to have a westernized society like Israel on "our side," the Palestinian situation gives Islamic countries far too much rope with which to hang the US in negative propaganda. That propaganda has seriously damaged the reputation of the United States and has made Americans the target of Islamic terrorism. Our reluctance, over the years, to support a Palestinian state is becoming more and more untenable as the situation becomes worse.

Certainly Israel doesn't need Hamas or Hezbollah rattling its cage. Nor does Lebanon need to be a piss boy for Syria and Iran. If we're serious about our policies in the area then we need to ensure that Israel has a peaceful existence unmolested by proxy armies, that Lebanon is a free and sovereign nation, and that that Syria and Iran stay on their side of the fence. We need to work for a comprehensive outcome for the region that involves all players, not just Israel and Palestine. And we need to treat each with respect and not play favorites.

I don't see that happening given the strength of the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Under them we will continue to give the Palestinians lip service while supporting Israel to the deteriment of her neighbors.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
One last thing: I watched CNN's Christiane Amanpour questioning Ahmadinejad in a news conference this afternoon and Ahmadinejad refused to guarantee Mousavi's safety. He also dismissed growing street protests as "not important".

And this turd was allowed to do something other than fly in and out of New York to visit the UN by being allowed to address Columbia University students. Shame on Columbia for allowing this dictator a pulpit to vent his bullshit on US soil .

It's nothing Columbia students couldn't have learned from watching TV.
 
Last edited:

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,511
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
Jason, that particular example - Ahmadinejad at Columbia - resulted in some of Ahmadinejad's most scathing press (among other things, that's the address where he claimed that Iran didn't have any homosexuals).

All in all, the result of that Columbia visit was a net gain for us, a real eye-opener to the Bizarro-Land that is known as Ahmadinejad. We didn't censor or ignore him; and he showed himself a fool (just like Sarah Palin does when discussing foreign policy).
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
when was the last time Israel relied on the UK for its survival, Drifter my friend? :wink:

The last time the Israelis tried to help the Brits (against American Wishes) in dealing with that pesky Nasser, the Brits turned out to be even worse of a partner then the French back in 1956. Now THAT is saying something, when you are a worse military partner then the french, LOL. :wink:

We, Europe. My mistake.

I can't see that there is a win scenario for Israel.

And, BTW, there would have been no (modern) Israel without Britain :tongue::tongue::tongue:
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Jason, that particular example - Ahmadinejad at Columbia - resulted in some of Ahmadinejad's most scathing press (among other things, that's the address where he claimed that Iran didn't have any homosexuals).

All in all, the result of that Columbia visit was a net gain for us, a real eye-opener to the Bizarro-Land that is known as Ahmadinejad. We didn't censor or ignore him; and he showed himself a fool (just like Sarah Palin does when discussing foreign policy).

Anything other than travel to and from the airport, the Iranian Mission to the UN, and the UN itself should have resulted in his arrest for kidnapping as he has been identified by former US embassy hostages as one of the kidnappers. His country shows no respect for international law of diplomatic missions, why should we extend to him the same? The fucker should be indicted and tried for that and the gross violation of human rights under his regime.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
We, Europe. My mistake.

I can't see that there is a win scenario for Israel.

And, BTW, there would have been no (modern) Israel without Britain :tongue::tongue::tongue:

and you guys did a bang up job with that situation... :wink:
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I keep seeing a book titled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

I started laughing right at the end of it.

just make sure that in your little wiki article, you read the criticisms and reviews, before you get all excited about the power of the 1.7% of America that Jews represent.

I guess the jewish lobby is somehow more dangerous for US Foreign Policy, then the Saudi Lobby and the Oil Lobby. :rolleyes:

wow...people lobbying the government...it is okay when the Saudis do it, the Oil COmpanies do it, the NRA does it, the Health Industry, the Drug Industry...but when the all powerful tiny cabal of powerful Jews are behind the scenes pulling all the strings...look out...they control everything.

Complete nonsense.

While there is certainly a great deal of power in the Israel Lobby, to say it is the most detrimental to US policy is totally absurd.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Only part of Pakistan is anti-western and that's the north. The south is quite moderate and westernized. They're terrified that the Taliban will cause a reversal of their way of life. Even many in the north reject the Taliban though I can't say they're pro-west.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
What sucks about Iran is that they have a people that are pro-Western by middle Eastern standards, yet are ruled by an anti-Western regime.

Within this whole debate, you have to differentiate the pro and anti thing. Because I am pro one thing, does not mean that I am anti something else. You have to ask yourself why some take it that if you are pro one thing, you are necessarily anti something else. And vice versa.

I have to concede to Flash, that I was about to sing from my local Minaret that Iran had a more representative democracy than Israel (this doesn't mean that I still don't disagree with Israel's version of "democracy"), but sadly the Khamenei has the electoral equivalent of wine into water, or so it might appear.