Guess who agrees on what to do in Iran

[sealybobo]

An interesting collection of groups agree on what Obama should do about the political situation in Iran.

Lyndsay Graham and other hard line conservatives feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The far right human rights groups feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The Iranian hard line current rulers hope Obama and the US to intervene and support the moderates who are protesting. This could be just what they need to get the population to unite against the intervening US. The Bush administration was just what they wanted.

Thank goodness Obama understands the current uprising in Iran would be tainted if it was looked on as being sponsored by the US.
The US must be very careful on what they say and what they do. They must do what will help the the Iranian uprising in Iran. The Obama administration cannot follow an idiot like Lyndsay Graham. He does not understand South Carolina. He does not have clue about Iran.

OMG, my really right wing radical buddy called me last week and while bashing Obama, he mentioned that Obama is fucking up with Iran. I was like, "whoa, hold on a second, what did you just say"? And right then and there I knew the GOP was going to try to make an issue out of Iran, just like they did in Georgia/Russia.

And right away it came to me that if we back the uprising, that won't help their cause. It would hurt their cause.

I didn't need to even hear it first on Air America or MSNBC. It was just blatantly obvious that this is a delicate situation.

And my right wing buddy isn't smart enough to think that up on his own. So I knew this was going to be the big issue.

Do Republicans think thru their arguments anymore?

Or do they instead just throw out every argument they can think of and just hope eventually one will stick.

Because lately, their arguments have been lame and easy to dispute.

 

[sealybobo]

What Obama should do is what George Bush didn't do.

Shut the fuck up.

Once again, a revealing demonstration of your grasp of complex issues.

In a recent interview, Fouad Adjami discussed this and other related issues:

1. President Obama has lost the opportunity that the Iranian election presented. The European leaders have snatched the banner of democracy. Like many liberals, President Obama, unlike President Bush, doesn’t believe that democracy can be spread abroad. Rather than Bush’s policies, Obama subscribes to the old fashioned Realpolitik ( Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles), all countries are the same.

2. Why did he choose Mubarak’s Cairo for his speech, rather than the more liberal regimes such as Indonesia? The message is that we will accept the status quo.

3. During the Iranian riots,
“Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.

Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”
Gateway Pundit: Outrage! Obama Cuts Funding to Democracy Protesters In Iran!

4. During the election he hid his middle name, yet after the election he proclaimed it. To many, his name implied that he understands the foreign world, but the opposite has proved to be true. He is the “Have Blackberry, will travel” President, the Google- Iran President.

a. In his speech via al-Arabiya, he showed how little he knows of history, He spoke of 20-30 years ago, during the “golden age of Arab-American relations,” …Pan Am explodes over Lockerbie, the Iranian Revolution, attacks in Beirut, …

b. "That 30 years ago, American diplomats were being held hostage in Iran, Soviet troops were seeking to annex Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia was under siege by Muslim militants, and Syrian troops were preparing to invade Lebanon."
Faith and Freedom Network

Charles Krauthammer - Obama Distorts America's Stance on Muslims - washingtonpost.com

Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama’s pathetic message to Muslims

What should Obama do? Be specific.

 

[amrchaos]

An interesting collection of groups agree on what Obama should do about the political situation in Iran.

Lyndsay Graham and other hard line conservatives feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The far right human rights groups feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The Iranian hard line current rulers hope Obama and the US to intervene and support the moderates who are protesting. This could be just what they need to get the population to unite against the intervening US. The Bush administration was just what they wanted.

Thank goodness Obama understands the current uprising in Iran would be tainted if it was looked on as being sponsored by the US.
The US must be very careful on what they say and what they do. They must do what will help the the Iranian uprising in Iran. The Obama administration cannot follow an idiot like Lyndsay Graham. He does not understand South Carolina. He does not have clue about Iran.

OMG, my really right wing radical buddy called me last week and while bashing Obama, he mentioned that Obama is fucking up with Iran. I was like, "whoa, hold on a second, what did you just say"? And right then and there I knew the GOP was going to try to make an issue out of Iran, just like they did in Georgia/Russia.

And right away it came to me that if we back the uprising, that won't help their cause. It would hurt their cause.

I didn't need to even hear it first on Air America or MSNBC. It was just blatantly obvious that this is a delicate situation.

And my right wing buddy isn't smart enough to think that up on his own. So I knew this was going to be the big issue.

Do Republicans think thru their arguments anymore?

Or do they instead just throw out every argument they can think of and just hope eventually one will stick.

Because lately, their arguments have been lame and easy to dispute.

The Republicans think Liberals believe in Big speeches. Unfortunately, a speech is rarely played at a riot. I know--I have been to many!!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

An interesting collection of groups agree on what Obama should do about the political situation in Iran.

Lyndsay Graham and other hard line conservatives feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The far right human rights groups feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The Iranian hard line current rulers hope Obama and the US to intervene and support the moderates who are protesting. This could be just what they need to get the population to unite against the intervening US. The Bush administration was just what they wanted.

Thank goodness Obama understands the current uprising in Iran would be tainted if it was looked on as being sponsored by the US.
The US must be very careful on what they say and what they do. They must do what will help the the Iranian uprising in Iran. The Obama administration cannot follow an idiot like Lyndsay Graham. He does not understand South Carolina. He does not have clue about Iran.

ROFL... When did Lyndsey Graham become a hard line Conservative? He's a soft belly'd moderate at BEST.

We should start a pool on what King Hussein will haveto do before his sychophant idiot minions figure out that he's pro-hardline Islam...

It's now well beyond absurd that he is still being touted as a 'moderate'...

 

[amrchaos]

An interesting collection of groups agree on what Obama should do about the political situation in Iran.

Lyndsay Graham and other hard line conservatives feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The far right human rights groups feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The Iranian hard line current rulers hope Obama and the US to intervene and support the moderates who are protesting. This could be just what they need to get the population to unite against the intervening US. The Bush administration was just what they wanted.

Thank goodness Obama understands the current uprising in Iran would be tainted if it was looked on as being sponsored by the US.
The US must be very careful on what they say and what they do. They must do what will help the the Iranian uprising in Iran. The Obama administration cannot follow an idiot like Lyndsay Graham. He does not understand South Carolina. He does not have clue about Iran.

OMG, my really right wing radical buddy called me last week and while bashing Obama, he mentioned that Obama is fucking up with Iran. I was like, "whoa, hold on a second, what did you just say"? And right then and there I knew the GOP was going to try to make an issue out of Iran, just like they did in Georgia/Russia.

And right away it came to me that if we back the uprising, that won't help their cause. It would hurt their cause.

I didn't need to even hear it first on Air America or MSNBC. It was just blatantly obvious that this is a delicate situation.

And my right wing buddy isn't smart enough to think that up on his own. So I knew this was going to be the big issue.

Do Republicans think thru their arguments anymore?

Or do they instead just throw out every argument they can think of and just hope eventually one will stick.

Because lately, their arguments have been lame and easy to dispute.

The Republicans think Liberals believe in Big speeches. Unfortunately, a speech is rarely played at a riot. I know--I have been to many!!

Let me add something to this--words are nice, but this is a time for action.

But, what action is necessary? Let me list them. 1) A speech. 2)An invasion. 3) Sanctions. 4)Stand back and watch.

1) Speeches arte made by politicians to give the impression that they are doing something. For instance--Ronald Reagan and Poland. Reagan sent deep support for the demonstrators and nothing more. The Polish did not need "inspiring words" to get a boot off their neck. The pain from said Boot of Authoritarianism was enough to motivate the Polish.

Thus Reagan did little for Poland. Same for the Berlin wall and Germany. And was a johnny come lately(and for a while, a supporter of aparthied!) for South Africa.

Speeches does nothing unless you are the leader of the revolt in front of the revolutionaries throwing your life into the fray. Else, you are an opportunist trying to get your name attached to a piece of history.

2)Invasion. There is nothing better to unite a country behind a dictator than the attempt by an outside force to take away the preferred right to have a familiar boot pressed against your neck. I mean, who wants a foreign boot pressed against your neck??

3)Sanctions could backfire or instigate rebellion. It could backfire in the sense that the people may feel such action will hurt their chances to throw off their yoke(WHAT--no AK's??). It could help as it gives futher reasons to get rid of their leaders(The Americans are sanctioning us because you guys are a bunch of Crazy zealots hell bent on destroying our beloved Iran!!)

4) Do nothing---it worked with the former Soviet Union. That was because no one knew what the hell happened when it occured!! I am pretty sure that If Bush Sr. knew what was going on, he would have seized the moment to give a Big speech and attach his name to the fall of communism. What a missed opportunity!!

Or--he could have created the same problem that he did in Iraq when he encourage their people to rise up!! Quick and brutal crushing of the revolutionary forces(Notice, no one talks about that "encouragement")


#4 is the best option. The revolution in Iran is generated and controlled by the citizens of Iran.. Not American vocal populism without any weapons or supplies to give the revolutionaries.

 

[sealybobo]

An interesting collection of groups agree on what Obama should do about the political situation in Iran.

Lyndsay Graham and other hard line conservatives feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The far right human rights groups feel Obama and the US should intervene and support the moderates who are protesting.

The Iranian hard line current rulers hope Obama and the US to intervene and support the moderates who are protesting. This could be just what they need to get the population to unite against the intervening US. The Bush administration was just what they wanted.

Thank goodness Obama understands the current uprising in Iran would be tainted if it was looked on as being sponsored by the US.
The US must be very careful on what they say and what they do. They must do what will help the the Iranian uprising in Iran. The Obama administration cannot follow an idiot like Lyndsay Graham. He does not understand South Carolina. He does not have clue about Iran.

ROFL... When did Lyndsey Graham become a hard line Conservative? He's a soft belly'd moderate at BEST.

We should start a pool on what King Hussein will haveto do before his sychophant idiot minions figure out that he's pro-hardline Islam...

It's now well beyond absurd that he is still being touted as a 'moderate'...

Steven Colbert interviewed him last night and he seems pretty moderate to me. Watch it tonight 8:30 rerun.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Obama should do is what George Bush didn't do.

Shut the fuck up.

Once again, a revealing demonstration of your grasp of complex issues.

In a recent interview, Fouad Adjami discussed this and other related issues:

1. President Obama has lost the opportunity that the Iranian election presented. The European leaders have snatched the banner of democracy. Like many liberals, President Obama, unlike President Bush, doesn’t believe that democracy can be spread abroad. Rather than Bush’s policies, Obama subscribes to the old fashioned Realpolitik ( Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles), all countries are the same.

2. Why did he choose Mubarak’s Cairo for his speech, rather than the more liberal regimes such as Indonesia? The message is that we will accept the status quo.

3. During the Iranian riots,
“Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.

Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”
Gateway Pundit: Outrage! Obama Cuts Funding to Democracy Protesters In Iran!

4. During the election he hid his middle name, yet after the election he proclaimed it. To many, his name implied that he understands the foreign world, but the opposite has proved to be true. He is the “Have Blackberry, will travel” President, the Google- Iran President.

a. In his speech via al-Arabiya, he showed how little he knows of history, He spoke of 20-30 years ago, during the “golden age of Arab-American relations,” …Pan Am explodes over Lockerbie, the Iranian Revolution, attacks in Beirut, …

b. "That 30 years ago, American diplomats were being held hostage in Iran, Soviet troops were seeking to annex Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia was under siege by Muslim militants, and Syrian troops were preparing to invade Lebanon."
Faith and Freedom Network

Charles Krauthammer - Obama Distorts America's Stance on Muslims - washingtonpost.com

Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama’s pathetic message to Muslims

What should Obama do? Be specific.

Since 1835, when Alexis de Tocqueville referred to American as "exceptional," America's role in the world has included what Robert Kagan, who actually encouraged the Bush Administration to engage in direct talks with Iran, stated as exerting "potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America's exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy."

As you request, a more specific prescription:
a. Imagine, the President of France made the following statement:""The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."

President Obama? Although he has now made more forceful statements, shouldn't the President of the United States made same prior to the leaders of Europe, not after?

No tutorials were necessary for President Reagan, who knew what to say in front of the Berlin Wall, or with reference to freedom in Poland:
"Reagan took a stand on freedom, where Obama sounds desperate for engagement with the forces of oppression." Reagan: "Two Decembers ago, freedom was lost in Afghanistan; this Christmas, it’s at stake in Poland. But the torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it."
Reagan Didn't Remain Silent on Poland on The Patriot Room

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Obama should do is what George Bush didn't do.

Shut the fuck up.

Once again, a revealing demonstration of your grasp of complex issues.

In a recent interview, Fouad Adjami discussed this and other related issues:

1. President Obama has lost the opportunity that the Iranian election presented. The European leaders have snatched the banner of democracy. Like many liberals, President Obama, unlike President Bush, doesn’t believe that democracy can be spread abroad. Rather than Bush’s policies, Obama subscribes to the old fashioned Realpolitik ( Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles), all countries are the same.

2. Why did he choose Mubarak’s Cairo for his speech, rather than the more liberal regimes such as Indonesia? The message is that we will accept the status quo.

3. During the Iranian riots,
“Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.

Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”
Gateway Pundit: Outrage! Obama Cuts Funding to Democracy Protesters In Iran!

4. During the election he hid his middle name, yet after the election he proclaimed it. To many, his name implied that he understands the foreign world, but the opposite has proved to be true. He is the “Have Blackberry, will travel” President, the Google- Iran President.

a. In his speech via al-Arabiya, he showed how little he knows of history, He spoke of 20-30 years ago, during the “golden age of Arab-American relations,” …Pan Am explodes over Lockerbie, the Iranian Revolution, attacks in Beirut, …

b. "That 30 years ago, American diplomats were being held hostage in Iran, Soviet troops were seeking to annex Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia was under siege by Muslim militants, and Syrian troops were preparing to invade Lebanon."
Faith and Freedom Network

Charles Krauthammer - Obama Distorts America's Stance on Muslims - washingtonpost.com

Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama’s pathetic message to Muslims

It's obvious that your grasp is based solely on the likes of Newsmax and Krauthammer.

Relying on the type of smear so prevalent in leftist debate, it seems either you were unable to find any flaws in any of the items in my post, or your attention span ran out.

I try to list items in outline form, to make it easier for you on the left to focus, but even this seems to be beyond your abilities.

Clearly, you are the product of a public school education. Would you suggest that I try to find, shall we say, three or four objections that you might have to each item, so that we can turn the essay-debate into multiple choice?

Go ahead, take another shot at critique. After all, there is always Summer School.

 

[ivana]

We all have our personal stories that are shaping the way we think and act, but in some places there are stories bigger than an individual that make people change in various directions. Sometimes, those changes are not willing. Societies that went through wars, bombardments, conflicts are the ones that produce people that once governed by fear, come to know the importance of peace and the horrors of violence that no man should ever have to experience. Others that were lucky enough not to go through a war, should work harder on understanding the essence of conflicts in the world and try not to enhance those elements that separate people. Every individual should try and understand the differences in others, and look for similarities as they are always present. The Age of Nepotism is a book that talks about the ways people can connect and understand each other since we all share same basic needs and desires. You can also check the site httptheageofnepotism com]The Age of Nepotism[/url]

 

[amrchaos]

Once again, a revealing demonstration of your grasp of complex issues.

In a recent interview, Fouad Adjami discussed this and other related issues:

1. President Obama has lost the opportunity that the Iranian election presented. The European leaders have snatched the banner of democracy. Like many liberals, President Obama, unlike President Bush, doesn’t believe that democracy can be spread abroad. Rather than Bush’s policies, Obama subscribes to the old fashioned Realpolitik ( Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles), all countries are the same.

2. Why did he choose Mubarak’s Cairo for his speech, rather than the more liberal regimes such as Indonesia? The message is that we will accept the status quo.

3. During the Iranian riots,
“Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.

Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”
Gateway Pundit: Outrage! Obama Cuts Funding to Democracy Protesters In Iran!

4. During the election he hid his middle name, yet after the election he proclaimed it. To many, his name implied that he understands the foreign world, but the opposite has proved to be true. He is the “Have Blackberry, will travel” President, the Google- Iran President.

a. In his speech via al-Arabiya, he showed how little he knows of history, He spoke of 20-30 years ago, during the “golden age of Arab-American relations,” …Pan Am explodes over Lockerbie, the Iranian Revolution, attacks in Beirut, …

b. "That 30 years ago, American diplomats were being held hostage in Iran, Soviet troops were seeking to annex Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia was under siege by Muslim militants, and Syrian troops were preparing to invade Lebanon."
Faith and Freedom Network

Charles Krauthammer - Obama Distorts America's Stance on Muslims - washingtonpost.com

Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama’s pathetic message to Muslims

What should Obama do? Be specific.

Since 1835, when Alexis de Tocqueville referred to American as "exceptional," America's role in the world has included what Robert Kagan, who actually encouraged the Bush Administration to engage in direct talks with Iran, stated as exerting "potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America's exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy."

As you request, a more specific prescription:
a. Imagine, the President of France made the following statement:""The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."

President Obama? Although he has now made more forceful statements, shouldn't the President of the United States made same prior to the leaders of Europe, not after?

No tutorials were necessary for President Reagan, who knew what to say in front of the Berlin Wall, or with reference to freedom in Poland:
"Reagan took a stand on freedom, where Obama sounds desperate for engagement with the forces of oppression." Reagan: "Two Decembers ago, freedom was lost in Afghanistan; this Christmas, it’s at stake in Poland. But the torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it."
Reagan Didn't Remain Silent on Poland on The Patriot Room

Reagan was a politician with lots of charisma and a hollywood smile. That is why Reagan excelled at propaganda.

Even to this day, I sit back and marvel at how Republican politicians love to invoke Reagans name. As if some of his social abilities will trinkle down to them from high above.

 

[Harry Dresden]

OMG, my really right wing radical buddy called me last week and while bashing Obama, he mentioned that Obama is fucking up with Iran. I was like, "whoa, hold on a second, what did you just say"? And right then and there I knew the GOP was going to try to make an issue out of Iran, just like they did in Georgia/Russia.

And right away it came to me that if we back the uprising, that won't help their cause. It would hurt their cause.

I didn't need to even hear it first on Air America or MSNBC. It was just blatantly obvious that this is a delicate situation.

And my right wing buddy isn't smart enough to think that up on his own. So I knew this was going to be the big issue.

Do Republicans think thru their arguments anymore?

Or do they instead just throw out every argument they can think of and just hope eventually one will stick.

Because lately, their arguments have been lame and easy to dispute.

Bobo....your "right wing radical buddy" ?....he called my "left wing radical buddy" yesturday......MY buddy told YOUR buddy that HE is the biggest left winger around,and he is gonna come looking for ya at the "Pelosi For President 2012" HQ.....and push ya around a bit and bitch slap your ass awhile....i told him just look for the only person not doing their job on the computer....that will be him.....

 

[Political Junky]

Once again, a revealing demonstration of your grasp of complex issues.

In a recent interview, Fouad Adjami discussed this and other related issues:

1. President Obama has lost the opportunity that the Iranian election presented. The European leaders have snatched the banner of democracy. Like many liberals, President Obama, unlike President Bush, doesn’t believe that democracy can be spread abroad. Rather than Bush’s policies, Obama subscribes to the old fashioned Realpolitik ( Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles), all countries are the same.

2. Why did he choose Mubarak’s Cairo for his speech, rather than the more liberal regimes such as Indonesia? The message is that we will accept the status quo.

3. During the Iranian riots,
“Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.

Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”
Gateway Pundit: Outrage! Obama Cuts Funding to Democracy Protesters In Iran!

4. During the election he hid his middle name, yet after the election he proclaimed it. To many, his name implied that he understands the foreign world, but the opposite has proved to be true. He is the “Have Blackberry, will travel” President, the Google- Iran President.

a. In his speech via al-Arabiya, he showed how little he knows of history, He spoke of 20-30 years ago, during the “golden age of Arab-American relations,” …Pan Am explodes over Lockerbie, the Iranian Revolution, attacks in Beirut, …

b. "That 30 years ago, American diplomats were being held hostage in Iran, Soviet troops were seeking to annex Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia was under siege by Muslim militants, and Syrian troops were preparing to invade Lebanon."
Faith and Freedom Network

Charles Krauthammer - Obama Distorts America's Stance on Muslims - washingtonpost.com

Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama’s pathetic message to Muslims

It's obvious that your grasp is based solely on the likes of Newsmax and Krauthammer.

Relying on the type of smear so prevalent in leftist debate, it seems either you were unable to find any flaws in any of the items in my post, or your attention span ran out.

I try to list items in outline form, to make it easier for you on the left to focus, but even this seems to be beyond your abilities.

Clearly, you are the product of a public school education. Would you suggest that I try to find, shall we say, three or four objections that you might have to each item, so that we can turn the essay-debate into multiple choice?

Go ahead, take another shot at critique. After all, there is always Summer School.

Krauthammer has been all over the map politically, but is now a neo-con nutjob.
He worked for President Carter and for Mondale, and was educated, OMG, in Canada.
He is not religious, believes in evolution, is pro-choice and supports stem cell research. He is, however, a warmonger like a good neo-con.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1) Speeches arte made by politicians to give the impression that they are doing something. For instance--Ronald Reagan and Poland. Reagan sent deep support for the demonstrators and nothing more. The Polish did not need "inspiring words" to get a boot off their neck. The pain from said Boot of Authoritarianism was enough to motivate the Polish.

Thus Reagan did little for Poland. Same for the Berlin wall and Germany. And was a johnny come lately(and for a while, a supporter of aparthied!) for South Africa.

Speeches does nothing unless you are the leader of the revolt in front of the revolutionaries throwing your life into the fray. Else, you are an opportunist trying to get your name attached to a piece of history.

Oftimes the speeches are doing something. Reagan, contrary to your premise, is a case in point.

"That strategy rested on six pillars: support internal disruption in Soviet satellites, especially Poland; dry up sources of hard currency; overload the Soviet economy with a technology-based arms race; slow the flow of Western technology to Moscow; raise the cost of the wars it was fighting; and demoralize the Soviets by generating pressure for change. "
John Fund on the Trail - WSJ.com


The following is by Lech Walesa.
"GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."
"Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right."
Featured Article - WSJ.com

This is what is called, in philosophy, a posteriori.

Would you like to restructure your post?

 

[Political Junky]

Once again, a revealing demonstration of your grasp of complex issues.

In a recent interview, Fouad Adjami discussed this and other related issues:

1. President Obama has lost the opportunity that the Iranian election presented. The European leaders have snatched the banner of democracy. Like many liberals, President Obama, unlike President Bush, doesn’t believe that democracy can be spread abroad. Rather than Bush’s policies, Obama subscribes to the old fashioned Realpolitik ( Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles), all countries are the same.

2. Why did he choose Mubarak’s Cairo for his speech, rather than the more liberal regimes such as Indonesia? The message is that we will accept the status quo.

3. During the Iranian riots,
“Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.

Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”
Gateway Pundit: Outrage! Obama Cuts Funding to Democracy Protesters In Iran!

4. During the election he hid his middle name, yet after the election he proclaimed it. To many, his name implied that he understands the foreign world, but the opposite has proved to be true. He is the “Have Blackberry, will travel” President, the Google- Iran President.

a. In his speech via al-Arabiya, he showed how little he knows of history, He spoke of 20-30 years ago, during the “golden age of Arab-American relations,” …Pan Am explodes over Lockerbie, the Iranian Revolution, attacks in Beirut, …

b. "That 30 years ago, American diplomats were being held hostage in Iran, Soviet troops were seeking to annex Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia was under siege by Muslim militants, and Syrian troops were preparing to invade Lebanon."
Faith and Freedom Network

Charles Krauthammer - Obama Distorts America's Stance on Muslims - washingtonpost.com

Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama’s pathetic message to Muslims

It's obvious that your grasp is based solely on the likes of Newsmax and Krauthammer.

Relying on the type of smear so prevalent in leftist debate, it seems either you were unable to find any flaws in any of the items in my post, or your attention span ran out.

I try to list items in outline form, to make it easier for you on the left to focus, but even this seems to be beyond your abilities.

Clearly, you are the product of a public school education. Would you suggest that I try to find, shall we say, three or four objections that you might have to each item, so that we can turn the essay-debate into multiple choice?

Go ahead, take another shot at critique. After all, there is always Summer School.

Krauthammer has been all over the map politically, but is now a neo-con nutjob.
He worked for President Carter and for Mondale, and was educated, OMG, in Canada.
He is not religious, believes in evolution, is pro-choice and supports stem cell research. He is, however, a warmonger like a good neo-con.

 

[amrchaos]

1) Speeches arte made by politicians to give the impression that they are doing something. For instance--Ronald Reagan and Poland. Reagan sent deep support for the demonstrators and nothing more. The Polish did not need "inspiring words" to get a boot off their neck. The pain from said Boot of Authoritarianism was enough to motivate the Polish.

Thus Reagan did little for Poland. Same for the Berlin wall and Germany. And was a johnny come lately(and for a while, a supporter of aparthied!) for South Africa.

Speeches does nothing unless you are the leader of the revolt in front of the revolutionaries throwing your life into the fray. Else, you are an opportunist trying to get your name attached to a piece of history.

Oftimes the speeches are doing something. Reagan, contrary to your premise, is a case in point.

"That strategy rested on six pillars: support internal disruption in Soviet satellites, especially Poland; dry up sources of hard currency; overload the Soviet economy with a technology-based arms race; slow the flow of Western technology to Moscow; raise the cost of the wars it was fighting; and demoralize the Soviets by generating pressure for change. "
John Fund on the Trail - WSJ.com


The following is by Lech Walesa.
"GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."
"Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right."
Featured Article - WSJ.com

This is what is called, in philosophy, a posteriori.

Would you like to restructure your post?

Did Reagan send munitions to poland? No.

Did Reagan send our military to aid poland Revolutionaries? No.

So what did Reagan do? Send moral support to people to busy overthrowing their government to hear him.

No--I recognize the difference between Propaganda and necessity. I stand firmly behind my previous posts.

By the way--the propaganda was not aimed at the Polish revolutionaries--it was aimed at American citizens!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's obvious that your grasp is based solely on the likes of Newsmax and Krauthammer.

Relying on the type of smear so prevalent in leftist debate, it seems either you were unable to find any flaws in any of the items in my post, or your attention span ran out.

I try to list items in outline form, to make it easier for you on the left to focus, but even this seems to be beyond your abilities.

Clearly, you are the product of a public school education. Would you suggest that I try to find, shall we say, three or four objections that you might have to each item, so that we can turn the essay-debate into multiple choice?

Go ahead, take another shot at critique. After all, there is always Summer School.

Krauthammer has been all over the map politically, but is now a neo-con nutjob.
He worked for President Carter and for Mondale, and was educated, OMG, in Canada.
He is not religious, believes in evolution, is pro-choice and supports stem cell research. He is, however, a warmonger like a good neo-con.

I'll bet you enjoy reliving the best three years of your life- the second grade.

I've given you several opportunities, and I'm running out of patience.

Now pay attention: my post began as a summary, as I recalled it, of a discussion by Fouad Adjami, "a MacArthur Fellowship winning, Lebanese-born American university professor and writer on Middle Eastern issues."

Notice, his name is not spelled "Krauthammer."

I buttressed his positions with other pertinent quotes, from several sources.

You implied that my understanding of the subject was limited to "Krauthammer."

I am correcting your misapprehension, and giving you the unheard of opportunity of a third chance to find fault with the post.

Consider this a buffet of ideas: President Obama's mishandling of a chance to exhibit America's moral leadership, President Obama's poor choice of venue for his speech to the Moslem world, Presidnent Obama's failure to try to spread democracy abroad, and the President's poor understanding of the history vis-s-vis America and the Arab world over the 20 to 30 year period that the President specified in his speech.

You may choose any or all, but obfuscation or inability to deal with the specific questions under discussion will cost you points.

To make you feel more at ease, consider this a take-home-test- but it will not be marked on a curve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1) Speeches arte made by politicians to give the impression that they are doing something. For instance--Ronald Reagan and Poland. Reagan sent deep support for the demonstrators and nothing more. The Polish did not need "inspiring words" to get a boot off their neck. The pain from said Boot of Authoritarianism was enough to motivate the Polish.

Thus Reagan did little for Poland. Same for the Berlin wall and Germany. And was a johnny come lately(and for a while, a supporter of aparthied!) for South Africa.

Speeches does nothing unless you are the leader of the revolt in front of the revolutionaries throwing your life into the fray. Else, you are an opportunist trying to get your name attached to a piece of history.

Oftimes the speeches are doing something. Reagan, contrary to your premise, is a case in point.

"That strategy rested on six pillars: support internal disruption in Soviet satellites, especially Poland; dry up sources of hard currency; overload the Soviet economy with a technology-based arms race; slow the flow of Western technology to Moscow; raise the cost of the wars it was fighting; and demoralize the Soviets by generating pressure for change. "
John Fund on the Trail - WSJ.com


The following is by Lech Walesa.
"GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."
"Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right."
Featured Article - WSJ.com

This is what is called, in philosophy, a posteriori.

Would you like to restructure your post?

Did Reagan send munitions to poland? No.

Did Reagan send our military to aid poland Revolutionaries? No.

So what did Reagan do? Send moral support to people to busy overthrowing their government to hear him.

No--I recognize the difference between Propaganda and necessity. I stand firmly behind my previous posts.

By the way--the propaganda was not aimed at the Polish revolutionaries--it was aimed at American citizens!!

Although I have had so little experiece in the area, I can understand how difficult it must be to admit how abjectly wrong you have been.

But try- as it will serve you well to practice same, and come in handy many times.

You have an adolescent's understanding of the term 'support' in the context of what happended at the end of the Cold War.

No doubt when you hear the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," you have the mental image of a large, sharp pen.

 

[amrchaos]

Oftimes the speeches are doing something. Reagan, contrary to your premise, is a case in point.

"That strategy rested on six pillars: support internal disruption in Soviet satellites, especially Poland; dry up sources of hard currency; overload the Soviet economy with a technology-based arms race; slow the flow of Western technology to Moscow; raise the cost of the wars it was fighting; and demoralize the Soviets by generating pressure for change. "
John Fund on the Trail - WSJ.com


The following is by Lech Walesa.
"GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."
"Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right."
Featured Article - WSJ.com

This is what is called, in philosophy, a posteriori.

Would you like to restructure your post?

Did Reagan send munitions to poland? No.

Did Reagan send our military to aid poland Revolutionaries? No.

So what did Reagan do? Send moral support to people to busy overthrowing their government to hear him.

No--I recognize the difference between Propaganda and necessity. I stand firmly behind my previous posts.

By the way--the propaganda was not aimed at the Polish revolutionaries--it was aimed at American citizens!!

Although I have had so little experiece in the area, I can understand how difficult it must be to admit how abjectly wrong you have been.

But try- as it will serve you well to practice same, and come in handy many times.

You have an adolescent's understanding of the term 'support' in the context of what happended at the end of the Cold War.

No doubt when you hear the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," you have the mental image of a large, sharp pen.

Maybe you should look at it this way.

If Reagan did not send his "support" would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations. The answer is yes.

So what did Reagan actually do? Also, why did he do it? I still stand by my posts....


But explain to us, how does the words of a nation that previous talked about attacking your nation and constantly argues for curbing any nuclear technological development (even those that are clearly allowed under international treaty) beneficial to your revolt?

Moral support from an enemy--that is what you are arguing for.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did Reagan send munitions to poland? No.

Did Reagan send our military to aid poland Revolutionaries? No.

So what did Reagan do? Send moral support to people to busy overthrowing their government to hear him.

No--I recognize the difference between Propaganda and necessity. I stand firmly behind my previous posts.

By the way--the propaganda was not aimed at the Polish revolutionaries--it was aimed at American citizens!!

Although I have had so little experiece in the area, I can understand how difficult it must be to admit how abjectly wrong you have been.

But try- as it will serve you well to practice same, and come in handy many times.

You have an adolescent's understanding of the term 'support' in the context of what happended at the end of the Cold War.

No doubt when you hear the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," you have the mental image of a large, sharp pen.

Maybe you should look at it this way.

If Reagan did not send his "support" would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations. The answer is yes.

So what did Reagan actually do? Also, why did he do it? I still stand by my posts....


But explain to us, how does the words of a nation that previous talked about attacking your nation and constantly argues for curbing any nuclear technological development (even those that are clearly allowed under international treaty) beneficial to your revolt?

Moral support from an enemy--that is what you are arguing for.

Weak, very weak.

I almost feel sorry for you.

But to enter the arena of knowledge and intelligence unarmed, as you have, you get what you deserve.

First, are you able to find Poland on a map? OK, good start.

Now the hard part: learn who Lech Walesa is. Try to evaluate the statements of a former President of Poland, Nobel Prize Winner, and prime mover in the labor and human rights movements, in relation to the importance of President Ronald Reagan.

Weigh his statements against yours.

Get it?

Now, with respect to " would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations..." why rely on the hypothetical. First, the six-pillar plan that involved support for "Solidarity" worked, nicht wahr? Second, there are reams of material that agree with the impact that Reagan and Thatcher and John Paul II had, without sending "munitions."

Further, if one were to dabble in hypotheticals, why did the Evil Empire succumb to Reagan, but not Carter?

And, in the area of neurosis or some juvenile attempt to behave as though you have some hypothetical support, your use of "explain to us..."

The "us" would be your imaginary coterie?

And the use of the "us" is reserved for 1) royalty, 2) editors of newspapers, or 3) those with a tapeworm.

Now back to your homework.

 

[Political Junky]

Did Reagan send munitions to poland? No.

Did Reagan send our military to aid poland Revolutionaries? No.

So what did Reagan do? Send moral support to people to busy overthrowing their government to hear him.

No--I recognize the difference between Propaganda and necessity. I stand firmly behind my previous posts.

By the way--the propaganda was not aimed at the Polish revolutionaries--it was aimed at American citizens!!

Although I have had so little experiece in the area, I can understand how difficult it must be to admit how abjectly wrong you have been.

But try- as it will serve you well to practice same, and come in handy many times.

You have an adolescent's understanding of the term 'support' in the context of what happended at the end of the Cold War.

No doubt when you hear the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," you have the mental image of a large, sharp pen.

Maybe you should look at it this way.

If Reagan did not send his "support" would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations. The answer is yes.

So what did Reagan actually do? Also, why did he do it? I still stand by my posts....


But explain to us, how does the words of a nation that previous talked about attacking your nation and constantly argues for curbing any nuclear technological development (even those that are clearly allowed under international treaty) beneficial to your revolt?

Moral support from an enemy--that is what you are arguing for.

You're right, and Political Chick is a certifiable nutcase. Apparently she loves to read her own verbose posts.