"I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since."
Supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, while not exactly "meddling in internal Iranian affairs," certainly didn't make us any friends in Iran.
tomshipley
· 5 months ago
"First of all, before I get rebuffed by the right side of my readers, let me clearly explain that I am not supportive of the President’s lack of action on the Iranian elections. However, what exactly is Barack Obama supposed to do?"
You sound like John Bolton. Criticize Obama for not doing enough then essentially saying he really can't do anything and he's smart not to. Which is it?
It's like reading a ** review of a film which contain nothing but positive criticism.
I'll turn around and pose to you the question you asked: What was he supposed to do?
Was he supposed pick a side? Encourage the protesters to fight? Drape an American flag around himself and scream America loves freedom?
ThurmanHart
· 5 months ago
Meddling in Iranian internal affairs is what has turned entire generations of Iranians against the US. It's called "self-determination" because it doesn't come from outside forces.
Or, if you prefer: "When your enemy is trying to hang himself, all you need to do is keep giving him rope."
roro80
· 5 months ago
This was exactly what I was saying just last night. Can you imagine the sh*tstorm if some other nation had tried to even comment -- let alone actually do anything -- after the 2000 elections? The very people who are now saying "this is also an American issue!" would have totally messed their pants.
D. E.Rodriguez
· 5 months ago
"I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since."
More recently after the Gulf War, there were serious possibilities of rebellions against Saddam Hussein, by Shiites, Kurds and dissident military units. In fact, encouraged by the United States to rise against Hussein, uprisings actually erupted in certain Siite and Kurdish regions and were ruthlessly repressed.
After encouraging such rebellions, guess what, the United States did absolutely nothing, under the first Bush.
The rest is history...
Don Quijote
· 5 months ago
I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since.
Having Norman Schwarzkopf Sr train the Savak and stealing 40% of the Iranian Oil not enough for you?
casualobserver
· 5 months ago
@@Meddling in Iranian internal affairs is what has turned entire generations of Iranians against the US@@
Why do lefties type out revisionist history without even a feeble attempt at support?
I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since.
DLS
· 5 months ago
"When we have tough issues to address, like Bush v. Gore, we do so democratically."
Actually, the Dems in trying to steal what they lost, lowered standards for the future. But right prevailed.
Rudi
· 5 months ago
This liberal agrees 100%. I bet Bush 41 and Scowcroft would have followed a similar tact.
adesnik
· 5 months ago
I welcome every dictator to comment on the outcome and legitimacy of American elections. We've got nothing to hide. When we have tough issues to address, like Bush v. Gore, we do so democratically.
It's only the dictators who have to fear when outsiders comment on their (rigged) elections.
DLS
· 5 months ago
"I bet Bush 41 and Scowcroft would have followed a similar tact."
This non-liberal has said so on multiple threads on this site. Remember Iraq and the Kurds and Shiites?
TamahomeJenkins
· 5 months ago
Why is it so hard for people to understand that in the game of politics there is no good or evil, just winners and losers, and that every shrewd politician since the dawn of man has waited out the internal affairs of foreign countries before choosing a side?
All Comments
Supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, while not exactly "meddling in internal Iranian affairs," certainly didn't make us any friends in Iran.
You sound like John Bolton. Criticize Obama for not doing enough then essentially saying he really can't do anything and he's smart not to. Which is it?
It's like reading a ** review of a film which contain nothing but positive criticism.
I'll turn around and pose to you the question you asked: What was he supposed to do?
Was he supposed pick a side? Encourage the protesters to fight? Drape an American flag around himself and scream America loves freedom?
Or, if you prefer: "When your enemy is trying to hang himself, all you need to do is keep giving him rope."
More recently after the Gulf War, there were serious possibilities of rebellions against Saddam Hussein, by Shiites, Kurds and dissident military units. In fact, encouraged by the United States to rise against Hussein, uprisings actually erupted in certain Siite and Kurdish regions and were ruthlessly repressed.
After encouraging such rebellions, guess what, the United States did absolutely nothing, under the first Bush.
The rest is history...
The miseducation of the West
By Joe L. Kincheloe, Shirley R. Steinberg - After the coup: America's Shah
Having Norman Schwarzkopf Sr train the Savak and stealing 40% of the Iranian Oil not enough for you?
Why do lefties type out revisionist history without even a feeble attempt at support?
I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since.
Actually, the Dems in trying to steal what they lost, lowered standards for the future. But right prevailed.
It's only the dictators who have to fear when outsiders comment on their (rigged) elections.
This non-liberal has said so on multiple threads on this site. Remember Iraq and the Kurds and Shiites?