Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Flowery Thoughts From Iran

It gets really interesting about six minutes in...



    War IS NOT the answer in Iran. How many Iranians will you kill? How far back will you set those brave protesters that risked it all to vote and pressure the conservative establishment in Tehran. How many Americans will die needlessly because of it.

    Bombing and raining murder on the Iranian people is not the answer to protect Americans, Israelis, Arabs, or the rising voices of Iran's youth - clamoring for greater freedom and openness.

    I'm horrified by your callous disregard for those that will be murdered because of an American or Israeli strike on Iran. Iran has no desire for a nuclear strike on Israel or the U.S. or to transfer nuclear material to militant groups. The regime's main concern is self-preservation. Iran views Israel and the Saudis as regional threats and is seeking a deterrent capability. It's the same rational thinking that inspired Israel to seek a nuclear weapons program.

    Would you be willing to force Israel to sign the NPT and allow the Dimona facility to be regularly inspected in return for full disclosure of the Iranian program? Fair is fair...

    Your "End of Times" label makes me sick to my stomach. You're just scaring yourself. Take a break for a day and approach it with a clear head. Be skeptical of the claims coming from those that have sought endless war for decades.

    Just to be clear, Iran has a Jewish member of parliament to represent the 20000 Jewish Iranians. It's people and leaders have no desire for genocide.

    Muslims are people too. Civilian casualties are innocent sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers. Let the Iranian people live in peace and stop threatening them.

  2. Just so we're clear, the Saudis wanted to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone as early as 1974 and most Arab regimes have supported the initiative for a long time. There was some momentum actually, but we Americans ultimately shot it down to allow Israel to continue to operate a program. This escalated the desire of other regional actors to grab nukes as a deterrent. It is a completely rational response. You want us to have nukes as a deterrent, correct?

  3. Wow. What a rant.

    Too many ridiculous questions, I'm going to treat them as rhetorical.

    I never said anything about killing Iranians.

    I never said anything about waging war.

    I want the exact opposite.

    This is the exact problem we are seeing with the left. A little opposition and we are denounced as racist genocide lovers who resemble Hamas and promote the destruction of America.

    As far as the End of Times theology goes, I'd keep taking your political science courses. Your bound to stumble upon it sometime at that liberal library at may want to look under the truth section...blow off some dust.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. What's your plan for Iran? You drum up the threat they pose, you keep warning that they can't be negotiated with and can't be reasoned with. You post remark after remark of neocons that fervently believe we should attack Iran. You criticize Obama for engaging the regime.

    What is your plan? I'd love to hear it. And no, of course I don't think you are a genocide lover, but the quick impulse for a military option is worrying to me. The Iranian leadership doesn't subscribe to the End of Times theology. It wants to stay in power for as long as HUMANLY possible. Very few groups in the Middle East are fatalists.

    I liked the Kenyon crack though. I'm actually thinking of applying to Walsh so I can make up for the four years I just wasted being indoctrinated, as I was obviously in a stupor unable to think for myself. Can I use you as a reference?

  6. Josh,

    I just don't even know where to start.

    I'd like to blame ignorance, but you are so far beyond that at this point.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since it is clear that you have no clue about the Iranian regime: Here's a little Iranian lesson:

    In an October 14, 2006 speech to the Union of Islamic Engineers, Ahmadinejad claimed a divine connection to Allah and suggested that he had been chosen for a unique mission: to launch the second and final round of the Islamic Revolution (you know, the one your idol..Jimmy Carter...missed the first time around), to make Iran a nuclear power, and to rush in the reign of the 12th Imam. During his time at the University of Science and technology at Narmak, he was involved in a Islamic society know as the Hojatieh, whose leaders taught the 12th Imam was coming soon and whose members believed they were required to take spiritual actions to hasten his coming. He has, throughout his entire political career, been campaigning for, governing for, and making way for the Mahdi.

    Your lack of knowledge on this issue is troubling. Especially with your supposed "expertise" in this region of the world.

    I almost laughed out loud at a few of your statements. It is comical that you state that Iranian leaders do not wish genocide, but they desperately deny it don't they? Which is worse?

    Ahmadinejad and his regime have been the main reason for insurgency in Iraq and the funding of Hamas and Hezbollah who repeatedly attack the "little Satan" (not my words) and have time after time after time made anti-semitic statements that border insanity.

    What would I do? If I were Barack Obama, I would wait until an important election, one which Ahmadinejad wins unfairly and the people of a nation protest for thier freedom, and I'd stand up for them and give those people the tools to overthrow a government that WITHOUT A DOUBT is an accelerator of the End of Times Theology and believes in ushering in the Mahdi.

    Oh, wait, that already happened didn't it? I almost forgot because the Obama Administration was tight-lipped and allowed for a radical, Islamic theocracy to reign supreme.

  7. Having the U.S. send guns to Iranian counterrevolutionaries would not have worked to bring down the regime. It would have massively set back the cause of the protesters and only reinforced the Islamic establishment's propaganda that the West was meddling in Iranian affairs for it's own selfish reasons.

    There wasn't enough support for a violent overthrow, you could not have equipped those that were willing to fight quickly enough or well enough to actually pose a military threat to the regime, and the opposition candidates would have melted away and disowned any violent uprising. In short, you would have had the Bay of Pigs Take II.

    So, since we're not living in the past, what do we do now? Ahmadinejad is in charge, the protesters are fuming but quiet, and the capabilities of Iran's nuclear program are hotly debated.

    What would President Ryan M. Kumpf do?

    Ahmadinejad is not the main reason for the insurgency in Iraq, nor the main reason Hamas and Hezbollah are capable popular political-militant organizations. Ahmadinejad is a textbook autocrat. He wants power. He loves power. He'll do whatever it takes to stay in power. Saddam was the same way. He made exactly the same statements that Ahmadinejad did when he felt he needed to curry favor with the Islamists, but first and foremost - power was his religion.

    I think it's best to do whatever it takes to empower the courageous protesters we saw a couple of months ago. They're more than capable of building the movement from the ground up and don't need American or Israeli airpower to "decapitate" the regime. It won't be the protesters coming to power, it will be a more fervent Islamist who really does run with the End Times/Al-Qaeda crowd.

    Let the movement build. Let their anger fester. They do have political power and the pressure they put on Ahmadinejad is the only reason he's sitting down with Obama to talk about nukes. This is a victory for them.

  8. By the way, the Walsh indoctrination comment made absolutely no sense. Indoctrinated in what? Education? At least my comment was somewhat feasible in terms of a "liberal" college.

  9. Just a note of clarification: I was referring to your comment about my indoctrination at Kenyon. I don't think either state has a tendency to indoctrinate. Kenyon's poli-sci department is notoriously conservative.


"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs." - Theodore Roosevelt