Iranian Revolution II
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Wow! This is just amazing what's going on in Iran. I don't remember anything like this since god knows when. A day after the "Supreme Leader" came out and essentially said any further protests would be met with force they are still protesting the election.

http://www.comcast.net/ar....Election/



On one hand I can see why President Obama is taking a measured approach to this situation but on the other hand I'd like to see more vocal support coming from the White House.

This is just an amazing situation going on in Iran and I hope it ends well for those involved. Although with Mir Hossein Mousavi saying that he's willing to make himself out to be a martyr I don't think it will. These protesters are furious like a kicked hornet's nest and they seem to be showing no signs of stopping anytime soon.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (6/20/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+427) 12 years ago
Pretty sad when you can't even get one of the MC.commies to post a comment about one of the most important events to occur in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq. Apparently they are oblivious to world events, don't care; or they are all taking the low road like their leader.

Where's the empathy that's supposed to be so important to the supporters of this administration?

Since most of these protesters are going to be murdered anyway if they do not prevail, the "alliance" next door should be given a green light to push arms and supplies across the border to help the people of Iran throw off the shackles of oppression. I can only hope that Obama is doing this covertly, because if he isn't, he's wasting an opportunity afforded to him by a quirk of events and the blood of many thousands who have sacrificed their lives for this moment.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9962) 12 years ago
>>Pretty sad. . . .

Pretty lame when you can't just speak up for yourself with blaming others for not giving you a crutch ; -)
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
What do YOU suggest the United States do, Jimbo? Besides having the conservatives amongst the population bitch and moan, that is.

Forgive me if I can't quite jump on board of the Bay of Pigs, pt. 2 plan you seem to be supporting.

Something knee-jerk without any sort of contingency plan? That would be the standard course of action under the previous administration.

I know! Let's go kill some people. That's always fun.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
not giving you a crutch

Actually, Hal, a crutch would be a step up from someone relegated to a (mental) wheelchair.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (6/21/2009)]
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1882) 12 years ago
Keep in mind, Jim is probably among those who think we should have already invaded Iran anyway.
Just what the U.S. needs.........a bunch of bitter conservatives looking to jump into every conflict that flares up. Gosh Golly. Aren't we all still Georgians?
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
I have little doubt that Jimbo is fully aware that invading Iran would be BoP II - that way, he can revel in what he sees as an inevitable failure on the part of President Obama.

What a great American patriot we have in Jimbo! Let's run him up a flagpole so that we can all salute him!
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
I think Mr. Peter's nails the issue correctly. Our president ought to be speaking out LOUDLY for liberty. Instead he is "troubled".

http://www.nypost.com/sev...174811.htm

By Ralph Peters

SILENCE is complicity. Our president's refusal to take a forthright moral stand on the side of the Iranian freedom marchers is read in Tehran as a blank check for the current regime.

The fundamentalist junta has begun arresting opposition figures, with regime mouthpieces raising the prospect of the death penalty. Inevitably, there are claims that dissidents have been "hoarding weapons and explosives."

Foreign media reps are under house arrest. Cellphone frequencies are jammed. Students are killed and the killings disavowed.

And our president is "troubled," but doesn't believe we should "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs. (Meddling in Israel's domestic affairs is just fine, though.)

We just turned our backs on freedom.

Again.

Of all our foreign-policy failures in my lifetime, our current shunning of those demanding free elections and expanded civil rights in Iran reminds me most of Hungary in 1956.

For years, we encouraged the Hungarians to rise up against oppression. When they did, we watched from the sidelines as Russian tanks drove over them.

For decades, Washington policymakers from both parties have prodded Iranians to throw off their shackles. Last Friday, millions of Iranians stood up. And we're standing down.

That isn't diplomacy. It's treachery.

Despite absurd claims that Obama's Islam-smooching Cairo speech triggered the calls for freedom in Tehran's streets, these politics are local. But if those partisan claims of the "Cairo Effect" were true, wouldn't our president be obliged to stand beside those he incited?

Too bad for the Iranians, but their outburst of popular anger toward Iran's oppressive government doesn't fit the administration's script -- which is written around negotiations with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

To Obama, his dogmatic commitment to negotiations is infinitely more important than a few million protesters chanting the Farsi equivalent of "We Shall Overcome."

This is madness. There is no chance -- zero, null, nada -- that negotiations with the junta of mullahs will lead to the termination (or even a serious interruption) of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our president's faith in his powers of persuasion is beginning to look pathological. Is his program of negotiations with apocalypse-minded, woman-hating, Jew-killing fanatics so sacrosanct that he can't acknowledge human cries for freedom?

I would only add that a President who willingly demonstrates this kind complicity to a crackdown on others would likely employ the same (maybe less violent) tactics on his own people. Which is why some (not I) people likely fear this President. Unfortunately, fear is all he needs to make his thugocracy function as he desires. Very sad.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (6/22/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Yep. President Obama should call for a full-scale invasion of Iran just like Dubya's Daddy did against China after the Tienanmen Square protests in 1989! Wait ... now you're telling me the U.S. DIDN'T invade China after that? We only suspended selling arms to China and didn't make anymore visits? Whaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Seriously though, let's go kill some people for poor widdle Isweal that can't possibly defend itself against big bad Iwan (even though the Israelis have the strongest military in the region and ... ALREADY HAVE NUKES!).

I love how Richard's article starts off with freedom this and freedom that ... and then shows its true colors at the end. It's all about Israel.

Here's an idea - screw Israel. Wait, that's not very American of me ... allow me to rephrase: Let's have an exercise in FREEDOM. Let's allow Israel to stand on its own like a FREE country. It's a grown-up now. There, that sounds more freedomtastic.

I have another idea - howsbout we sufficiently take care of our own (without playing the silly little game of calling it socialism), before we kill everyone in the world who looks at us sideways. Sound good?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17485) 12 years ago
If the Wingnuts would only pay attention to the Middle East, they would realize that Obama's policies are the root of what is transpiring in Iran today. Under Bush's huffing and puffing, the average citizens of Iran were content to let the Mullahs fight the Great American Satan. The current events all began to transpire after Obama's trip to the Middle East, and offering to negotiate with Iran. If Obama were to start sending troops and supplies over to free the Iranians, all that would happen would be that the current regime would rally the Iranian people to fight against the evil Americans.

Pretty simple stuff, unless you are a dittohead.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Think of it this way, wingnuts:

Let's say you can't stand President Obama and think he's the Worst President Ever (not a stretch for your ilk, I'd imagine).

Now let's say that other countries in the world agree with you and decide - ostensibly for YOUR benefit - to invade the United States to bring about "regime change."

Would you side with the invaders?

As much as I loathe President Obama's predecessor, there's no chance in hell that I would ever side with an invading country in order to have had him ousted from office.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+427) 12 years ago
Perfect.

What a bunch of angry, soulless hatred you leftists can spew.

Of course it would only make sense that the resident atheist is anti-Semitic as well.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 12 years ago
From the article:
"For decades, Washington policymakers from both parties have prodded Iranians to throw off their shackles. Last Friday, millions of Iranians stood up. And we're standing down.

That isn't diplomacy. It's treachery."


This entire article is really disenginious since they aren't protesting to "throw off their shackles". As Obama has rightly pointed out, far before these morons started stamping their feet, the gentleman this whole thing revolves around, Moussavi, would not institute some sweeping regime change in Iran.

The President of Iran is basically a glorified secretary, they run the mundane activities of the state, mostly financial in nature. All of the "oppressive" facets of the Iran regime come down from the "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It doesn't matter WHO the president is, Iran's major policies would not change as long as the Supreme leader is still in place. The President reports to the supreme leader and all of the intelligence and military forces are controlled by the Supreme Leader.

Ignorance is bliss but there has to be a point where you just become ashamed to be this uninformed.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
You are nothing short of a blithering idiot, Jimbo.

It's not "anti-Semitic" for me to say that Israel is the bully on the block in the Middle East. If anyone here thinks little of Israel, it's you.

Israel - has nukes.
Iran - does not.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Jimbo's a tremendous blithering idiot.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Idiots.

For fun, please google the following: "SAVAK", "Shah", "Mossedagh"

And then ponder why US intervention might not be taken kindly to.

Asshats.
Top
Posted by Dillpickle (+35) 12 years ago
I really enjoyed listening to Faux this weekend, just to get the talking points, catch phrases, and commodic relief.

The war drums are pounding hard on faux. It's really interesting to observe.
Thank god we have a new commander and cheif using intellegence over 'gut instinct' at the helm.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
Jimbo is a tremendous, blithering Rick Kuchynka with a pseudonym. I'm convinced he was going to use it as a phishing profile, but doesn't have to balls to let even a fake name say what he is really thinking.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Jim,

I really don't think there's much Obama can do without it looking like the West/UK/USA is meddling in Iranian affairs. I would like him to take a more vocal stance but short of that there's nothing he can really do. Military support/intervention isn't really an option at this point.

Regardless of the outcome of this momentous event in Iran it's the mullahs that hold ultimate authority. You'd need to get them out of the way before any real meaningful change can come about in Iran.

Regardless though it's great to see so many people taking to the streets for their rights & liberties long denied to them for over 30+ years.

As for Israel, I think it's vital to US (World) interests to support Israel in all facets but that's an issue for another thread.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (6/22/2009)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
It looks like Obama is holding a press conference tomorrow at 12:30est on the situation in Iran.

I'm very interested in hearing what he will say.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Kyle - you really are evolving. It's nice to see you moving away from troglodyte level.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Nothing we can do? Nothing we can say does any good?

Kind of a weird angle coming from team JustWords. I thought words had mystical and fantasmical powers, especially when passed through those masterfully teleprompted lips.

Set aside the question of how you negotiate honestly with an illegitimate government...

The message hopenchange seems to be sending is "Slit as many throats as you like. Just don't forget to stop by for burgers and dogs after."

http://www.google.com/hos...rpiUS6cWGg

It's all about the O.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (6/22/2009)]
Top
Posted by Matt Schmitz (+403) 12 years ago
Not stepping into someone elses war is thugocracy? This Peters dude makes less sense than Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly all rolled into one big salted right wing nut roll.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Ricky's playing with the straw again. *YAWN*
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
It is interesting how, as Rick says "team JustWords", equates intervention with dropping bombs and starting WWIII. I haven't heard any conservative suggest that level of intervention. I don't believe such action is necessary or warranted at this point. Especially with a commander-in-chief that dislikes the military. I think there is much that can be accomplished by the President standing up and speaking out for for freedom and liberty. The french president has spoken out in more forceful terms than Obama.

The issue at hand isn't really about which guy wins the election in Iran. They are both problematic. The issue is about continuing the reformation of Islam ( which started in Iraq) and further isolating those radical factions that are insistent on spreading their views through their pirate-like tactics.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (6/23/2009)]
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1339) 12 years ago
"further isolating those radical factions that are insistent on spreading their views through their pirate-like tactics.
"


Yea but how do we convince them to all move to Utah? THAT'S the question!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Especially with a commander-in-chief that dislikes the military.

-----------

The commander-in-chief dislikes the military?

Prove it, wingnut.

Or better yet, explain your spurious logic:

Why would a commander-in-chief who "likes" the military be more likely to start a war?

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (6/23/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
"The issue is about continuing the reformation of Islam ( which started in Iraq) and further isolating those radical factions that are insistent on spreading their views through their pirate-like tactics."

Oh. My. God.

So... what exactly is being reformed here? And who are the agents of this reformation? Can you give us some examples?

The Iranians don't have as much historical reason to distrust the French, Richard - you didn't do any of that homework I assigned did you?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (6/23/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
And once again team "JustWords" is asking to be placed on "search engine welfare".
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
It's too much trouble to ask you to actually know anything Richard, so I was giving you the option to learn something.

And you've elided the questions put to you (again) - please explain your use of the term "Reformation" vis-a-vis Islam, particularly in the context of Iraq.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
And once again team "JustWords" is asking to be placed on "search engine welfare".

-----------

And once again, the "idiot Ricardo" is "making stuff up" and proving that he is "ignorant" and a "wingnut."
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6166) 12 years ago
Yea but how do we convince them to all move to Utah? THAT'S the question

Please don't send them to Utah. We have our own extremists, thank you.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
And once again, the "idiot Ricardo" is "making stuff up" and proving that he is "ignorant" and a "wingnut."

Careful, Bob. You're going to make Richard's persecution complex flare up again. You know he takes it as a personal attack when someone dares to question his research methods, dubious as they might be.

The tanks, they are a-comin!

But I do have to give Richard credit - he at least sticks around to try to debate the issue. He doesn't stir up the hornets nest and then run away for a week.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (6/23/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Has anyone checked on Moussavi's birth certificate yet?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Word is Obama's mom divorced his dad after an Indonesian spring break rendezvous with 'Hoss'

That's why Obama's a Mahmoud guy. Plus, don't forget that generous $5 campaign contribution.

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Glad to see you're taking your pills Rick....
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11810) 12 years ago
Quick history lesson. Find out WHY Iran hates us and has for ages. Think CIA and "Overthrow of democratically elected leader." They would not welcome our interference, considering our history with them. Give them all the support we can but do not send in the military! That would unite everyone, mullahs and rebels, against a common enemy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
To many words Amorette, and not rendered in crayon. They'll never understand what you're trying to say.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
This is a totally pointless excercise. Rick and Richard are d!psh!ts who learned nothing over the last eight years. They think we should be in there and doubtless, with bombs and guns. They are idiots, they want to jump in with bombs and guns and frankly they don't know why, they are just ch!ckensh!t. They'll hand the country over to the next dictator, just as long as they can get rid of the present one. Completely retarded. Don't waste your time. The guy in charge is doing the right thing (it's a freaking miracle after eight years of bombs, guns, and these idiots making the decisions.)
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Way to make your point Buck. Profanity & childish namecalling
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Kyle - you really are evolving

Brian, I like to think of it as "Intelligent Designing"

On another note this is just disgusting.

Iran bans election protest footballers
http://www.guardian.co.uk...rotest-ban

I think the world needs to speak a little louder on this.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (6/23/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
The guy in charge is doing the right thing

You mean before when he said open dialog with Iran was the golden path, or now, when he says Iran doesn't give two craps what we say?

It'd be fun to hear you explain how "Please don't develop those nukes" will work where "Please don't murder your own citizens" falls on deaf ears.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (6/23/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Way to make your point Buck. Profanity & childish namecalling

It works for Jimbo, Kyle.

Rick - your solution would be what, exactly?

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (6/23/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Rick, Team America: PROCREATE YEAH has had eight years of foreign policy failure under its belt - you'll forgive me if I don't think much of any "solutions" you and/or John "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain suggest.

"DO SOMETHING DO SOMETHING DO SOMETHING"

Well, the adults are in charge now and this is what they are doing: they're waiting for the Iranians to decide the outcome of their elections. Why isn't McCain the president? Because he acts first ("We are all Georgians now!!", "I'm suspending my campaign", "Palin and Victory!!!") and thinks later.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1882) 12 years ago
Does anyone remember a previous administration that egged on the opposition of a dictator? (Bush 41)

The current leaders in Iran would like nothing more than for the United States to become "involved"....an easy justification for their violence, and, like Amorette said, a swell way to unite Iranians against any real change.

As for all of the republicons up in arms over the whole thing...I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with making political hay and has everything to do with the welfare of the Iranian people. My ass. OOOOOO! Sorry! I said ass. Sorry Kyle. I know you're sensitive.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
No seriously, you're d!psh!ts. There is no reasoning with you - might as well say it to the trees. I'm going on an idiot boycott, somebody e-mail me when the rapture comes around - if I'm lucky this will be paradise.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
No seriously, you're d!psh!ts

More childish discourse via Buck Showalter.

Anyhow the lid looks to be blown sky-high off the pot:

Opposition Leader Expected to Attend Protest Outside Iran's Parliament
http://www.foxnews.com/st...20,00.html

If he attends this protest rally and gets arrested/injured etc I want to hear more than "I'm disappointed." or anything in a similar vein from Obama. I want him to roundly condemn the actions of the Iranian "Government" for the crackdown.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
"And you've elided the questions put to you (again) - please explain your use of the term "Reformation" vis-a-vis Islam, particularly in the context of Iraq."

I believe that internally in Islam there is a "reformation" beginning that will moderate the system of belief away from the hardline "kill the infidels approach". What we are seeing in Iran is a huge power struggle between the jihadist mullah's and those who would use a more diplomatic approach. I believe this reformation started in Iraq.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
What we are seeing in Iran is a huge power struggle between the jihadist mullah's and those who would use a more diplomatic approach.

Whose side is Obama on?
You DO still believe Obama's a Muslim, right?
Is he on the side of the jihad? I bet you think he is!
---------------

I believe this reformation started in Iraq.

Nice revisionist history, Ricardo! So it WAS a Crusade all along! You're delusional. You DO realize that Iraq was/is the most secular nation in the region besides Turkey.

Oh yeah, but you think Saddam was involved in 9/11 and the Russians moved all of the WMDs. Yup, that's what happened!
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
"Whose side is Obama on?"

Obama is on Obama's side. He will triangulate as necessary for his benefit.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Well, that's progress, I guess....
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
Waste. Of. Time.

These people are nuttier than squirrel sh*t.

Kyle, you're a d!psh!t, not a dipdoodoo, a d!psh!t. I'd beat my kid if they said that.
Top
Posted by elin ahmadpour (+29) 12 years ago
In response to what is happening in Iran, I would like to make a few points. My husband is Iranian and I've been able to learn a lot from him about the country and culture. First of all, what is happening in Iran now goes much deeper than dissatisfaction with the outcome of the election results of June 12th. The people of Iran are sick and tired of living under unbearable conditions within a hardline regime. 70% of the population in Iran is under the age of 30. Many young people who hope for a better future cannot even find a decent job, let alone a fulltime one. Inflation or hyperinflation stands at about 30% at the present time. The Iranian people are suffering and struggling to make a life for themselves. If you think the American economy is bad look at Iran. A lot of Iranians of modest means live on about $400 a month and they do that despite the fact that the price of everything keeps going up on a daily basis. They are a very proud, strong, and passionate people. They are some of the smartest people I've ever met. They don't hate Americans. The people you see on television chanting "down with America" or "death to America" constitute about one percent of the population. All of the Iranians I've met on my numerous travels to Iran have been warm, friendly, and extremely kind. Every Iranian person I've met through my husband has a story to tell. Everyone I've met has been affected in one way or another through the course of events of the last thirty years. Every family has either lost someone during the early days of the Islamic Revolution, during the Iran/Iraq war or just through the course of events of the last thirty years. Many Iranians living in Iran want to get out and live elsewhere. For the vast majority of them, their first preference is to come to the U.S. Actually, of all the places I've been to in the world, Iran is number one because of the kindness, generosity and hospitality of its people. Yes, the country has its problems but every place has its problems/challenges. It's interesting to watch and see how things are unfolding in Iran at the present time. They are taking a stand to say that they've had enough. Maybe change is coming.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Obama is on Obama's side. He will triangulate as necessary for his benefit.

I guess I fail to see your problem, Richard. Isn't being on one's own side (often callous to the desires and needs of others) the libertarian mantra?

Why don't you try holding the President to the same standard to which you hold yourself for a change?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
Or just go to the grocery store, lie down in the candy aisle, and throw a kicking, screaming fit. "I waaaaant it to be 1850 agaaaaaaaain!!!"
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6166) 12 years ago
Thanks for your viewpoint, Elin. I think what's happening in Iran is amazing and I hope that some good comes of it for the people.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+427) 12 years ago
"Way to make your point Buck. Profanity & childish namecalling

It works for Jimbo, Kyle"

Excuse me?

You want to start a dialog about who the abusers are on this site, Brian?

How about you, "Buck"?

Bring it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Careful Buck, he's going to split you from crotch to gullet...
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
"I guess I fail to see your problem, Richard. Isn't being on one's own side (often callous to the desires and needs of others) the libertarian mantra?"

I prefer to think of it as individuals rising to the occasion, using the available resources, meeting the challenges in their lives, and excelling or reaching their full potential. Obama is all about being the end all to every problem and creating as many dependents as possible. It the difference between handing out fish and inspiring people to catch their own fish.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1882) 12 years ago
Buck. If Jim brings his army of Cheyenne and Blackeet women, you are in deep feces.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
Oh, don't mind the Rickenhawk.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Excuse me?

You want to start a dialog about who the abusers are on this site, Brian?

How about you, "Buck"?

Bring it.


I'd love to start a dialog, Jimbo. But I don't want to wait a week for you to reply. Besides, you'll forget everything you've previously posted by the time you bother to show up again.

Does it hurt, Jimbo? I mean, does it cause you physical pain when your memory resets itself every so often? I've always wondered that of you.

"Bring it," says the coward who drops in to stir up a hornets nest and then skips away.

Don't recall what I'm talking about, Jimbo? Here you go: http://www.milescity.com/...1273#91367.

Or this one: http://www.milescity.com/...1273#91407 (which features this gem: "What a bunch of angry, soulless hatred you leftists can spew. Of course it would only make sense that the resident atheist is anti-Semitic as well")

You've already called me a racist because I don't appreciate strangers touching my son, but now I'm "soulless," "hateful," and an "anti-Semite" because I believe Israel can stand on its own. I don't get it.

You poor, little man, Jimbo.

Obama is all about being the end all to every problem and creating as many dependents as possible.

How do you figure, Richard? Are you talking about President Obama, or the caricature of Obama you seem to take as the real person?

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (6/24/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
"Are you talking about President Obama, or the caricature of Obama you seem to take as the real person?"


Is there a difference?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
squirrel turd
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+427) 12 years ago
Gee, Brian.

I'm sorry I don't respond fast enough for you, but I don't have a job where I can get away with sitting on my duff, posting on MC.com all day or night, on the taxpayers dime. Nor do I have the inclination to respond to most of your drivel. What I will point out when I feel like it, is the racism and bigotry that is apparent in many of the bomb you throw and the hatred and condescension present in all of your responses to people you disagree with.

We have all witnessed your ad nauseam Christian bashing. How `bout a little Haiku on your problem with the Jews?

And Buck; how about a little more profanity and name-calling from you? I don't think we see enough of it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Jim: Disagreement with Israel's policy decisions != antisemitism.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Jimbo - you know, you could have saved an awful lot of keystrokes by just saying you're a cowardly hypocrite. See you in a week, buffoon!
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
Would you like me to tell a story about my uh... relations... with a certain Mrs. Brady (not Mike's wife)? It's super-profane and full of name calling, some people like to be called names, it's kinky.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
Buck, Brian, Bridgier, Bob L (hereafter known as the 4B's ): Here are some idea's on how we can help Iran. Please note there is no mention of bombing anyone.


How Should We Help Iran?
by Michael Ledeen
06/19/2009


Suppose that President Obama decides to support the revolution in Iran. You may say it's unlikely, but you'd have said that the revolution itself was pretty darned unlikely, wouldn't you? Events have a terrible logic of their own. Obama didn't want to be called a "meddler," he wanted to maintain some sort of political virginity with regard to Iran, but they called him by the "M" word anyway:

"...the (Iranian) government summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests in Iran, to complain about American interference. The two countries broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. An English-language state-run channel quoted the government as calling Western interference "intolerable."

So maybe he's asking his experts what to do to help bring down the regime. What should they say?



1. The single most important thing is to get accurate information to the Iranian people about what is going on inside Iran. At the moment, they are depending on word of mouth and on Twitter, which is often very accurate and often very misleading. Because everyone knows that Twitter is the "social network" of this revolution, the regime is doing everything it can to shut down reliable tweeters and flood the network with disinformation. It's a great technology, but sometimes it reminds me of my favorite bons mots on IT: "[T]he information revolution happened, and the revolution won."

So they need a reliable source of information. The regime is doing its worst to jam radio and television broadcasts into the country. Surely we can beat them at that game, and while we're at it, we should have an internal revolution of our own: replace the gang of apologists over at VOA Persian with some real Americans who believe in freedom.

Our best current option is Farda, the RFE/RL service operating out of Prague. Its website should be turned into an ongoing report on events in Iran. The (British) Guardian has such a site, which updates itself every minute around the clock. Farda has lots of sources all over the country; it should use them far more effectively than it is at the moment.

Some of us -- notably Senator Tom Coburn -- have been fighting for this sort of thing for years, to no avail. If the administration were serious, it could do a lot in a very short time.

2. We should be able to get some working satellite phones into the country, so that people can call out with up-to-date information, which we could then turn around and broadcast back to the Iranians. Once upon a time there was a CIA that could do such things; I doubt they are up to it today, but there are lots of businesses that can do it. Ditto for laptops, servers, etc.

3. Internet continues to work, despite regime filtering. A lot of Iranians are beating the censors by using a website that was set up to beat the Chinese filters. The website is in Chinese, but for several years the Iranians have been using it. The organizers of that site are perenially short of cash (here again, efforts to convince the American Government to give resources have failed), so they had to restrict the number of "hits" from Iranians. However, given the circumstances, they eased up in recent days and, as of a few hours ago, according to one of the terrific guys who runs this thing, "We started to remove the restriction to Iranian traffic on June 13. On June 16 (yesterday), the number of daily hits from Iran has exceeded 200 million, and the number of daily Iranian users is well above 400,000."

Help those people.

4. Build a strike fund for Iranian workers. And get them food for their kids. Jimmy Hoffa, you listening? Once upon a time there were "free trade unions" in the West who performed miracles for Lech Walesa and "Solidarity." They seem to have disappeared. I guess they spent all their money on the election.

5. Call, courage and clarity from our leaders. Above all, from Obama and Hillary. Constant denunciation of the oppression and slaughter of innocent people in Iran, constant appeals to the "universal values" for which we all stand.

I would not get involved in the little details of the Iranian revolution. I don't think it's a good idea for the president to call up Mousavi, frankly. It's too elitist, it ignores the nature of the revolutionary moment. Support the people. Get them what they need to win: information, tools, signs of active concern.

It's not hard. We've done it before. It works. Ask Mikhail Gorbachev.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
4. Build a strike fund for Iranian workers. And get them food for their kids. Jimmy Hoffa, you listening? Once upon a time there were "free trade unions" in the West who performed miracles for Lech Walesa and "Solidarity." They seem to have disappeared. I guess they spent all their money on the election.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Back the truck up. This calls for spending money. Can't have it. Nosiree, uhuh, no how, no way.

We can only spend money on bombs and bullets. That's it. Any other spending of money is ... SOCIALISM (and the inevitability of the terrorists' victory that it would bring).

Besides, he didn't ask nicely.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
I know it's terribly un-american to say this... but it's not our job to, as Elvis Costello put it "set the world aright"

America has been meddling in other countries affairs for a long time, and it's very rarely worked out well in the long run.

I know ignorance is bliss, but it may (or, it may not, ymmv) be instructive to look at how American intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean (all for the sake of cheap bananas, if you can believe that) has left numerous countries in those regions perennially destabilized, impoverished and incapable of creating lasting civic structures.

Obligatory google searches: "Duvalier", "Samoza", "Jacobo Arbenz", "Monroe Doctrine"
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
You lost me here: Suppose that President Obama decides to support the revolution in Iran. You may say it's unlikely,

You may say it's unlikely, but only because of wingnuttery. You think he's just ignoring this?

It's good that Iran has taken the first steps in gaining liberty and I'm convinced they wouldn't have bothered had they not seen in the US that the little guy can come out on top. The US will act, at least publicly, when the time is right. In the mean time, they'll do their usual covert weapons smuggling, etc.

At the same time, you remember what's happened the last few times we've helped a Mid-Eastern country overthrow the ruling powers? Osama? Saddam? That's what happens when you lead with your face.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (6/25/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
This is my favorite line of the whole article:

I would not get involved in the little details of the Iranian revolution.

Yeah, 'cuz that's where things get messy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
You kids are funny.

How about telling Isreal where they can and can't build settlements. Meddling? Nah, never as long as you're picking on the right team.

It's been a funny progression to watch over the last week or so. Obama's silence, followed by a wishy-washy pseudopragmatism in the name of not enabling Iran to blame us or 'meddling'. BBQ invites were still extended.

Then Iran went ahead and blamed us anyway, like they always do, and didn't even RSVP poor O on the brats n' burgers, so Presto, suddenly tough talk and 'meddling' becomes the name of the game. Although with no explanation of what suddenly made meddling the right answer, other than maybe Obama's feelings were hurt.

It's easy to see he's learning on the job. Hopefully at least he's taking something in from this. Nobody needs 'Death to America' more than Mahmoud and friends (or Kim Jong etc). They'll hate America no matter what we do. It's a story as old as time. Mahmoud needs to blame America, Isreal, Europe, whoever for his country's own dismal failure.

When Iran stops hating us it will either be because they've finally seen through the excuses for their own condition and are setting it right, or because we're no longer the global power we used to be, at which point their hatred for us will direct itself elsewhere.

I know ending the American hegemony is a dream many here aspire to. But the reality is its either us or somebody else. And the world could be much worse off than it is. Who would do it better?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Oh Rick... you're so cute when you're ignorant.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17485) 12 years ago
Damn, Rick....you could at least TRY to post something intelligent once in a while.....even Kyle manages to hit the ball now and then.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
How about telling Isreal where they can and can't build settlements. Meddling? Nah, never as long as you're picking on the right team.

Careful, Rick ... you'll have Jimbo branding you as an anti-Semite, too.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
That's good Gunnar, because usually the times I'm most unsure of my position, it's because you've agreed with me in some form or another.

I know, I know, Mahmoud just wants to be loved, is that so wrong?

Jim: Disagreement with Israel's policy decisions != antisemitism.

Actually this seems eerily similar to an anti-abortion(ism?) argument I've heard lately.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Rick is the master of the false equivalence - we should all bow in awe of his ability to discern all shades of gray as blue.

Are we "meddling" in Israel when we've been invited by both sides of the dispute to help mediate said dispute?

Just as I'm glad that Kyle isn't in charge of our prisons, I'm glad that Rick isn't in charge of the state department.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Just as I'm glad that Kyle isn't in charge of our prisons, I'm glad that Rick isn't in charge of the state department.

You should be so lucky Bridgier.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Just out of curiosity, Kyle ...

In 1994, which movie did you think deserved the Best Picture Oscar?

Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redemption?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
At the moment, I am so lucky... and believe me, very thankful.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Give me Shawshank over Forest ANY day of the week.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
That surprises me very much, Kyle.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Bridgier, I'm pretty sure some notable Iranian dissidents have already asked for more help from us than Hamas ever has.

Meddling is in the eye of the beholder.

Besides, Mahmoud poked another stick in Obama's eye today. For all the talk, he's getting pretty much the same result all his predecessors did.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
That surprises me very much, Kyle.

Why is that? It's a great movie.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Rick, your conflation of Palestine the country, with Hamas the politcal party, pretty much tells me that you really don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about the middle east. Ignorance is not a virtue.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Ignorance IS Rickenhawk's forte
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Who runs the show in Palestine? Fatah? I thought elections had consequences or something.

http://www.washingtonpost...00372.html

Just because it looks good on camera for Obama to negotiate with his own sock puppet doesn't make the sock puppet the head of the Palestinian state.

Negotiating with people who can't deliver what you're asking for isn't much better than rubbing elbows with people who want to kill you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14970) 12 years ago
Rick: Have you ever seen the movie "The Replacements"? Gotta tell ya, your're "wiry"
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Yes... because the peace process in Israel/Palestine began right after the elections of 2008.

But really - do you know anything about the Middle East that you didn't learn from Fox news or the latest Tim LeHaye novel?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
For some it's Tim Lahaye's novels, for others, Jimmy Carter's.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Why is that? It's a great movie.

Agreed. It's one of the very best movies. Dig deeper, though. Think about why I'd ask you that question, Kyle.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
I don't look for hidden euphamisms in my movies Brian.

If it's a good movie, it's a good movie.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Huh

http://online.wsj.com/art...65339.html

Suddenly its meddle first, ask questions later? Seems weird that either way, our actions seem to put us on the side of ruthless anti-American dictators.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3714) 12 years ago
I think that the reason Obama is staying out of this, and it's a good one, is that the endorsement and support of the POTUS is probably not helpful to the rebellious folks. Common fear of invasion by the Bush Administration is what united these folks in the past. Alphabet man and the Supreme leader would LOVE to paint all this unrest as being incited by the United States and not really representative of the Iranian people, and Obama getting involved would only give them ammunition for this argument.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
So you're saying they all loved us before Bush and Iraq?

And how does that make sense in regards to Obama trying to prop up a pro-Chavez lackey in Honduras?

He didn't just stay out of it. He took the other side. Then, just like Mahmoud, Hugo blamed the evil Yankees anyway. All we are is the granddaddy scapegoat for these failed states. Playing on as if we're unaware of that fact only encourages it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3714) 12 years ago
No they didn't love us before Bush and Iraq, but the threat of invasion by Bush kept the dissidents from airing their displeasure. And of course they're trying to blame the US. The alternative is that their people hate their guts. That's pretty much what I said. Obama coming out in support of the dissidents only gives their claim credibility.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
One, I'd say it's pretty non-principled to avoid speaking on behalf of democracy in favor of tiptoeing around the tyrants.

And two, if the protesters were so desperate to avoid Western 'taint', you'd think there'd be a lot fewer English language signs at their rallies.

Who are these for?




Mahmoud's case is closed. Nothing can be gained by licking his boots. The only thing we're gaining by burying principle is yet another generation of Iranians to hate us.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
I love when you pretend to care, it turns me on.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
One, I'd say it's pretty non-principled to avoid speaking on behalf of democracy in favor of tiptoeing around the tyrants.

What stance would you like President Obama to take, Rick? And where would you like the United States' next step to take us?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Regarding the situation in Honduras - the reporting seems a little muddled: I've read reports calling it a coup (which would be bad) and reports saying that the Honduran Constitution allows for the military to step in at the behest of the Supreme Court and arrest the executive when they refuse to uphold or follow one of their decisions (take that Andrew Jackson!), but most of the neighboring countries seem to feel it was an extralegal coup.

The Obama administration HAS been a little more heavy handed regarding Honduras than it has in Iran, but I'm not sure it's descended into OMG HYPOCRISY territory.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
Seriously, Rick cares about a generation of Iranians hating us.

What's Mahmoud anyway? Like 30th worst dictator? Why don't you care about the Africans, Rick? Not unchristian enough?
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Putting any effort into increasing the standard of life for the less fortunate Americans among us = socialism.

Pretending to care about the freedoms of people who you'd rather see nuked than helped (and putting more Americans in harm's way) = patriotism.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Putting any effort into increasing the standard of life for the less fortunate Americans among us = socialism.

Actually Brian, it's not so much the effort as the "Paying" of it that equates to socialism.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Don't forget Kyle, there is no greater self-sacrifice than a check next to a Democrat's name on that ballot.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5096) 12 years ago
Hey Rickenhawk, you claimed to vote for a Democrat in 2008. F-ing Socialist.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Don't forget Kyle, there is no greater self-sacrifice than a check next to a Democrat's name on that ballot.

Sure there is. I could always lead the war-whoop for someone else's blood to be spilled for the way I think things should be.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Well this is sad (if not typical). It seems that people laying their life down for Freedom & Liberty in Iran is no longer the "It" moment for the world press.

Hundreds Protest in Iran, Defy Threats of Further Crackdown
http://www.foxnews.com/st...41,00.html

This has been going on since June 12th and sadly, nobody seems to give a care anymore. I'm more than a little disappointed (but not really surprised) that Obama payed lip-service to the protesters and has since moved on. Again I'm not suggesting that he take military action or anything, I'd just like to see a stronger stance than he has been giving.

I guess photo opps at the G-8 are more deserving of his attention.




[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (7/9/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Do you REALLY want to play this game? I can put on my Rickster hat and mine the mighty google ALL DAY for photos of Bush II cutting brush or reading "My Pet Goat" or playing the guitar while the whole world burned down around him.

Yes, photo-ops with the G-8 take precedence over parachuting into Tehran and killing mullahs with his bare hands, or whatever it is you want him to do.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
You can play any game you want to Bridgier.

or whatever it is you want him to do.

What I want Obama to do is come out with a stronger statement than "This is troubling." Obama's near silence on this issue speaks volumes.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (7/9/2009)]
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1882) 12 years ago
Kyle. The people in power are just aching for the west to get involved with this. A bunch of bluster from Obama, or any leader from a western country would only strengthen the case that we're interfering in their business....again. Not only that, but a bunch of irresponsible saber rattling from the U.S. could easily falsely empower the protesters, sending them into the streets to be slaughtered. But I suppose you think that'd be OK. A revolution in Iran, with the perceived backing of the U.S., will never last.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
A bunch of bluster from Obama

Bluster Bob? Really? Interesting.

What I want Obama to say is something more than "This is troubling." I want him to soundly condemn the crack-down on people protesting for Liberty & Freedom. Hell, even Bush the First was more vocal in his condemnation of China after the Teinamen Square crackdown than Obama has been in his near-silence on Iran.

Again, I am not advocating any military action. That's not what's needed.

What IS needed is a more forceful stance than Obama has currently given.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
Yes! Something IS needed!
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1882) 12 years ago
Here's an article on what happened when Bush 41 goaded Saddam's opposition into an attempted coup. It didn't quite turn out as expected.

http://www.alternet.org/w...pID=626264
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Bob, read my post, my ENTIRE post. I wasn't saying that Obama should call for an armed uprising. Rather I was saying that Obama needs to be more vocal than he has been in supporting those standing up for Freedom & Liberty.

Simply saying "It's troubling." doesn't cut it.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1882) 12 years ago
I've read your ENTIRE post, Kyle. I still think you're wrong, you don't give a crap about any Iranians, and anything Obama does in your eyes will be wrong. The point of your thread is to bash Obama. That's it. If Palin were taking the same action as Obama, you'd be praising her "measured response" or something like that.

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton (7/9/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
What he said.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
you don't give a crap about any Iranians

I "Give a crap" about anybody fighting for Freedom & Liberty Bob, including the people of Iran.

Don't claim you know what I believe.

You don't.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Bob, it's not exactly pie-in-the-sky idealism to hope that your President doesn't say "Whether it's the team that cheated the election, or that other guy... doesn't matter. We'll happily talk with whoever's left standing just as soon as they're done moppin' up the blood in the streets."

Not even sure you can call that pragmatism.

"Don't tell me words don't matter!"
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
You don't give a crap either, Rick.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Apparently neither does the President.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1882) 12 years ago
Great speech, Kyle. You too, Rick. Your love of freedom is inspiring.
What. A. Load. Of. Crap.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
JustWords
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
HopeChange
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
DoucheBags
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
We tried to tell you not to vote for 'em.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
But we ignored you and the wait for the rapture stretches on.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
So you brought the dude who'd work overtime getting us there.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Bring on Bay of Pigs II!
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
Oh, I disagree completely. Armageddon is not downgrading your cable package from gold to silver.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 12 years ago
Rick & Kyle are certain that we've always been at war with Eurasia.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (7/9/2009)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
Rick & Kyle are certain that we've always been at war with Eurasia

Really Bridgier, I said that? Hmm, my memory must be fading.

Show me.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Google the quote, Kyle.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago
I did & got nothing.

Again, show me.

If I said that then I'll cop to it. I just don't recall saying it. My Googling skills must not be up to snuff.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (7/9/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ighty-Four

Bah weep graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong, Kyle.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3747) 12 years ago


Word.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6068) 12 years ago
Rather than Junkions, I'd prefer a picture of a boot stamping on a human face ... forever.

Methinks Rick would too.
Top
Posted by elin ahmadpour (+29) 12 years ago
Here is a link to a youtube video my husband came across that says it all. Andy Madadian who is an Armenian Iranian International pop superstar collaborated with Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora to do a remake of the song "Stand By Me". According to the famous music producer Don Was who was involved in this project, the song is meant as a form of solidarity for the Iranian people. It's not meant to be sold, made as a CD or to be put on the Billboard charts. It is meant to be viewed on youtube and shared by anyone who is in support of the Iranian people. The opening of the song is sung in Farsi by Andy Madadian and Jon Bon Jovi. The rest of the song is sung in English. At the end of the song Andy holds up a card in English that says "Stand by Me" and Jon Bon Jovi holds up one in Farsi that says "We are one." It doesn't get any better than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RASKaZFZtS8

Thanks.

Elin Ahmadpour (Fretland)

PS. I'm tired of reading this thread and seeing all the political bantering that's going back and forth amongst some of you about what Obama should and shouldn't do. I decided to send this link because this is a fantastic gesture that some famous people have done to show what's important in this time of conflict in Iran - that we are all human and that we should stand together as one. This is a great way to show support for the people of Iran. It's really great and uplifting.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
You can't make anyone bleed with a song, it's no good.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17485) 12 years ago
I think Jon Bon Jovi should speak more forcefully in denouncing the mullahs of Iran. What a New Jersey wimp that guy is.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 12 years ago
And where is Bono in all this?
Top