…Especially this one.
Current events, politics and life in general from the perspective of a conservative woman in New York
…Especially this one.
If any of you have been following the news coming out of Iran via the mainstream media, you would think that the Iranians have become sick and tired of having their country run by Islamo nutter terrorists, and that they yearn for a U.S. style democracy. (America is a republic, not a democracy, but anyway…)
I’m sure by now that you’ve also noticed how the media has been portraying Mousavi as the moderate, democracy loving white knight in shining armor.
So I hate to burst any bubbles here, but nothing could be further from the truth. There’s actually very little difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.
In fact, Mousavi has been fingered as the butcher of Beirut.
Indeed, Mousavi, Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, almost certainly had a hand in the planning of the Iranian-backed truck-bombing attacks on the U.S. embassy in April 1983 and the Marine barracks in October of that same year. Mousavi, as my Lebanese contact reminded me, dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah, the man largely held responsible for both attacks. (Mughniyah was assassinated in Damascus last year.) The Lebanese said Mughniyah had told him over and over that he, Mughniyah, got along well with Mousavi and trusted him completely.
It was Mousavi who appointed Iran’s ambassador to Damascus, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, the Iranian caught red-handed planning the Marine-barracks bombing. Mohtashemi-pur also coordinated the hostage-taking in Lebanon. As a reward, Mousavi gave him the Interior Ministry, where Mohtashemi-pur went on to crack down on what was left of democracy in Iran.
And it is not as if Mousavi kept his support for Iran’s secret war on the U.S. a secret. In a 1981 interview, he had this to say about the taking of American diplomats in Tehran in 1979: “It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution. It was after that we discovered our true Islamic identity.”
Also, according to Newmax, Mousavi was one of the founders of Hezbollah.
So to sum up, these riots in Tehran are nothing more than Iranians angry that one religious fanatic leader was chosen over the other.
I especially like what reader Joe wrote at Vilmar’s blog.
Look, don’t be fooled by all this hand-wringing over the rioting and public outcry about abuse of the democratic electoral process in a theocracy – and a fucking muslim one at that. You only need to go back 30 years to see that the uprising/revolution then resulted in the government they have now. A change in power will simply be a switch from the devil you know to the one you don’t.
So, as far as I’m concerned, fuck ‘em. We should stay out of it until the Iranian people throw off the shackles of muslim theocracy. Needless to say, I ain’t holdin’ my breath.
Officials from the Obama Administration say that they are working on a letter from Obama to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which will reassure the Iranian leader that his regime won’t be toppled.
Diplomats said Obama’s letter would be a symbolic gesture to mark a change in tone from the hostile one adopted by the Bush administration, which portrayed Iran as part of an “axis of evil”.
It would be intended to allay the suspicions of Iran’s leaders and pave the way for Obama to engage them directly, a break with past policy.
State department officials have composed at least three drafts of the letter, which gives assurances that Washington does not want to overthrow the Islamic regime, but merely seeks a change in its behaviour. The letter would be addressed to the Iranian people and sent directly to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or released as an open letter.
I don’t know what his Husseinliness is thinking with such a letter. Does he think those monsters running Iran will be softened up by his groveling when they routinely abuse their own citizens?
Also, why Obama would publicize the fact that he has no intentions of attacking Iran, even if it is the truth? My guess is that Obama, as a Muslim wants Iran to know that he won’t try and stand in the way, like big bad George W. Bush.
This is according to Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Susan Rice (which by the way, is a cabinet position).
Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.
“The dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council. And its continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase,” she told reporters during a brief question-and-answer session.
Yeah right, lady! Keep telling yourself that.
Now pardon my French, but I just had to post this. According to his website, our new President is still willing to talk to Iran without any preconditions.
The Obama foreign policy agenda that appeared on the White House website said: “Barack Obama supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions,” the policy outline said. The Bush administration made direct talks between the US and Iran conditional on Iranian suspension of its uranium enrichment programme. This step breaks that conditionality, as part of a fundamental shift in diplomatic approach. The Obama agenda said the new administration will “talk to our foes and friends” and not set preconditions.
However, talks with Iran will be “tough and direct”, and will put on the table the same deal that the international community has been trying to get Tehran to accept for the past four years: extensive economic and diplomatic help if uranium enrichment is suspended, further economic pressure and diplomatic isolation if it does not. Iran has resisted this carrot-and-stick approach so far, despite four sets of UN sanctions, but western diplomats hope that direct engagement by Washington will help break the impasse.
“In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation,” the White House said. “Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.”
Never mind that talking has not deterred Ahmadinejad, Obama is more concerned with the socialist welfare states of Europe not thinking of America as a big bad cowboy.
Tonight was the night that Iranian terrorist leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was feted by a group of leftist anti-American, pro-fakestinian “religious” groups. You can see the photos here. There’s also a tab at the top of the page.
Have fun looking at the pictures. And when you’re done go to Pamela’s blog for more.
Hat tip: C.F.
Hezbollah is no longer just in Lebanon and Israel. They’re also in Iraq, training terrorists and planning terror attacks against U.S. forces.
Now here’s my friend C.F.’s excellent commentary on this situation
A few lessons to learn from the above:
1: This is going to sound like propaganda for Muslim Nazi Amalekites, but we need to face it and deal accordingly: the ragtag militia Hezbollah is a superior military force–in training, skill, and most of all toughness–to the regular forces of both the United States and Israel. With its fighters trained in killing Jews since nearly infancy and having grown up having had a lot less under much worse circumstances (I guarantee you the average Lebanese Muslim Nazi terrorist gets a lot less to eat in his mess hall than IDF troops, has nonexistent medical care either for regular illnesses or injuries sustained in training or combat, and faces a far more brutal, unforgiving training regimen in the desert), Hezbollah simply outclasses the politically-correct, brainwashed, feminized excuse that passes for the front-line military of the the IDF and the United States alike. Hezbollah suffered no losses in its spectacular daylight raid in January 2007 in Karbala; its infamous nighttime kidnapping operation in northern Israel two years ago claimed the lives of eight Jewish soldiers in exchange for the loss of one Hezbollah murderer. In the subsequent disastrous “counteroffensive” that Olmert launched, more Israeli soldiers died than frontline Hezbollah guerrilas.
Obviously Western/Israeli militaries still have a numerical and heavy-weaponry edge over Hezbollah, rendering their man-for-man foot-soldier advantage somewhat moot, but that fact is made moot by America and Israel’s refusal to harm Islamic “civilians”. If the IAF was not willing to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure even as hundreds of missiles were falling on the northern half of Israel each day, don’t count on the USAF ever getting the moxie to properly punish those murdering our own soldiers–certainly not under Barack Osama, who outright sympathizes with the Iraqi Nazis, or “Hanoi John” McCain, the piece of garbage who called our soldiers “torturers” during Abu Ghraib and stood with his friend Hanoi John Fairy when he was calling Vietnam vets baby-killers during his nauseating Sodomite rallies with Jane Fonda in the early ’70s.
Why is Hezbollah man-for-man a better, tougher force than the Israelis or Americans? There are many factors, such as the deplorable program that rolled back military readiness in Israel that was started under the Labor pig Ehud Barak, but primarily it is spiritual and psychological. Hezbollah terrorists know what they are fighting for, are 100% convinced of the righteousness of their Nazi cause, and are always willing to die not only for fellow soldiers, but for their mission itself. For example, a Hezbollah fighter “foolishly” runs right in front of a Merkava tank so that he can get his shoulder-fired missile off at point-blank range; he is killed by flank fire in the process, but not before taking out the lives of four Israeli soldiers. Those kinds of “suicidal” combat moves not only turn out to be enormously successful, but drive an enormous psychological knife through the heart of the enemy. Such “craziness” completely unglues the vast majority of sanitized, modern Western infantrymen and tank crews.
Secularized, brainwashed (“Muslims are our friends, they are not terrorists, we need to respect them and their holy book”), materialistic, morally/spiritually empty conscripts are no match for a military that is filled with fanatical zeal and conviction. Most Israeli soldiers have no clue why they are protecting their country; most are totally secular, and some are far from sure that they are even the “good guys”. That wishy-washiness out on the battlefield will always spell doom.
2: “Christian” Arabs are every bit as committed to our extermination as their Islamic brothers and sisters. It does not matter how persecuted they are by their Muslim countrymen in their own lands; when push comes to shove they are always Arabs. Lebanese Maronites sustained a brutal civil war and genocide at the hands of Lebanese Muslims and its surrogates in the PLO; still, to this day, they are fanatically pro-Hezbollah and want to see Israel wiped off the map. Lisa is correct when she states that we must not hold back against any anti-Semites, regardless of what religion they claim. 99% of “Christian” Arabs are pure Amalek and are Muslims in everything but name. If anyone doubts me, and thinks they have to be pro-Hezbollah because of fear for their lives, why do most Christian Arabs in America (a small minority like Joseph Farah notwithstanding) continue to preach against Jews and defend Islam–where they have no reason to be in fear and have total freedom of speech?
Here’s what two Iranian-American women have to say to Barack Obama about negotiating with Iran.
Senator, since 1979 the Mullahs of Iran have killed upwards of one million Iranians, not to mention the nearly one million sacrificed to the 8-year-long Iran/Iraq war. And what the Iranian people have withstood in terms of outrageous human rights violations is shocking; public hangings, stoning, flogging, cutting off limbs, tongues and plucking out eyeballs are an everyday occurrence across Iran. All are meant to strike fear of the ruling Mullahs into people’s hearts.
Since you began talking about unconditionally dialoguing with the Islamic regime of Iran, you too have struck absolute fear in the hearts of the Iranian people, both inside and outside Iran. The few Iranian-Americans who support you are well-intentioned individuals who have been swept up in the excitement and fervor of your campaign. But we can wholeheartedly assure you that your comments have landslide opposition within the much greater Iranian heart both inside and outside Iran.
Iranians believe that the only country who has the moral authority and is able to support them is the United States of America, a country whose foundation as a melting pot mirrors the true character of the once great Persian Empire. But the fact is, as John Bolton so aptly puts it: “Negotiation is a tactic, not policy.” Your policy of direct and unconditional negotiation will give the Mullahs of Iran the legitimacy that they need for more oppression. The real losers will be the already weary people of Iran, whose dreams of freedom and democracy will be dashed for a long time to come. If you empower that regime, the mullahs will continue to harm a country that is already totally economically devastated, as well as socially and politically oppressed.
And rest assured that they will have no qualms about exporting the kind of rule they have established inside Iran to the rest of the world; that is an undeniable fact that they themselves have openly admitted. One can see the proof in Syria and Lebanon.
Senator, Europeans, through Jack Straw of the U.K., Dominique de Villepin of France and Joschka Fischer of Germany, tried negotiations for five years with the so-called moderate reformist, Mullah President Khatami. That effort ended in disaster, with the European Union admitting its failure. President Reagan tried also. He sent a cake and a Qur’an to Khomeini, but Khomeini fed the cake to dogs and willfully ignored president Reagan’s proposal of friendship. President Clinton worked diligently on negotiations for eight years. Two secretaries of State, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright, both failed — during the regime of the same Mullah President, Khatami. In fact, it was Warren Christopher who called the regime of Iran evil after over three years of unsuccessful negotiations. Mrs. Albright even publicly apologized to the Mullahs of Iran for America’s sins. She eliminated trade sanctions on three items as a goodwill gesture and offered incentives on Iranian frozen assets, but at every point the Mullahs ungraciously found excuses not to hail the repeated gestures of good will, and refused to take one step forward.
The most important fact to remember is that while the negotiations were going on between the Clinton Administration and the Mullahs of Iran, they were continuing the development of their hidden nuclear program. Do you really think you can trust these people?
We appreciate the fact that you believe this administration has not done a good job in negotiations, but they have tried. They tried directly and indirectly, behind closed doors and in public. If the Mullahs of Iran wanted to negotiate, there was the April 2006 package approved by the European Allies and Russia and offered by the U.S. with good will and many incentives. Yet typically and inexplicably, Iran remained recalcitrant and rejected it.
Now here is a proposal for you:
America led the world in supporting the Eastern European Solidarity Movement, by which ultimately the Eastern bloc was able to free itself from communist domination and dictatorships. The international community weakened the South African regime by supporting and empowering Mr. Mandela against South Africa’s racial apartheid regime, which was eventually forced to step aside peacefully and allow change for the better to begin.
The Iranian government is, by all definitions and international laws and United Nation’s resolutions, a gender apartheid regime. What would happen if you declare Iran a Gender Apartheid country and not the representative of the oppressed women of Iran? Support the millions of laid-off and destitute Iranian workers, students, and teachers, as well as the estimated 23,000 innocent political prisoners who are being tortured in prisons for speaking out against these tyrants. Support the average Iranian and not the Islamic regime. Put America’s power behind what is right — and watch the people of Iran usher out the Mullahs and democratically elect a government that truly represents the people of Iran.
In closing, Senator, even if you manage to dialogue with the ruling clergy in Iran, they will never keep their word. They are masters of deception, manipulation, rhetoric and spin. They are incapable of even honoring their own signatures, and refuse to abide by the terms and conditions of treaties that they themselves have agreed upon time and time again, as we have witnessed in their reactions to U.N. resolutions.
We were born and raised in Iran, and we do know Iran’s Mullahs.
Manda Zand-Ervin & Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi
Watch Obama tell a group of Obamatons that diplomacy was what ended the Cold War, and how Iran posed a “tiny” threat compared to the Soviet Union. But what Obama chooses to ignore is that while “talking” to the USSR, Reagan made sure America was armed to the teeth. And as I posted recently, Obama wants to decimate our military.
And check out McCain’s wimpy response.
“Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess,” McCain said at the restaurant industry’s annual meeting.
And of course what does a Democrat do when he makes a gaffe
Blame it on the war in Iraq!
Responding to McCain, Obama told a town hall rally later Monday in Billings, Mont., “Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat.” But the Soviet Union posed an added threat, he said. “The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have a single one.”
Obama said the threat from Iran had grown as a result of the U.S. war in Iraq. “Iran is the biggest single beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged,” he said. “And John McCain wants to double down that failed policy.” If McCain is elected, Obama said, “We’ll keep talking tough in Washington, while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk.”
McCain should have brought up the fact that Reagan pushed for aggressive military spending while “talking to the USSR. And I remember how the moonbats referred to his arms build up as “Star Wars.”
Here’s even more proof that Mike Huckabee is totally naive when it comes to our foreign policy:
Huckabee did give a long speech on foreign policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in September. It combined a superficial rendering of conventional foreign-policy wisdom — which of course included many unfair criticisms of President Bush — with Huckabee’s inimitable folksy delivery. The former governor’s bottom line was that we should be nicer to other countries.
On Iran, Huckabee is at his most troubling. He accuses the administration of “proceeding down only one track with Iran: armed confrontation.” This is false, and the kind of rhetoric you’d expect from DailyKos bloggers, not a Republican presidential candidate. Huckabee thinks it has been a lack of diplomatic engagement that has soured our relations with Iran: “We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost 30 years, my whole adult life and a lot of good it’s done. Putting this in human terms, all of us know that when we stop talking to a parent or a sibling or a friend, it’s impossible to accomplish anything, impossible to resolve differences and move the relationship forward. The same is true for countries.”
This is the kernel of Huckabee’s foreign policy. He wants to anthropomorphize international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register the other day, “You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”
This is deeply naïve. Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and — as a last resort — violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S. president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.
Other than the general impulse to be nicer, Huckabee’s views are the uneven grab bag to be expected from someone who hasn’t thought much about foreign policy.
Frankly, the Republicans deserve to lose if Huckabee is nominated as their 2008 presidential candidate. All the GOP seems to be doing lately is carping and caterwauling about how the party must abandon its principles in favor of “electable” candidates. They did this in the California governor election by abandoning Tom McClintock, a true conservative, in favor of RINO Arnold Schwarznegger. And now, it looks like they’re going to abandon the excellent Duncan Hunter in favor of Mike Huckabee. If I had a penny for every time I hear conservatives saying “Well Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo have no chance of winning,” I’d be filthy rich by now.