Iran Fights - Obama Slights

[Sinatra]

So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?

The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.

Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!

If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.

On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.

Damn....I am so hot now.

To think that a woman this smart exists!!!!

 

[L.K.Eder]

sinatra will use anything to slam obama, so he can get a job in the future palin administration.

shitty spam-shill.

 

[mudwhistle]

sinatra will use anything to slam obama, so he can get a job in the future palin administration.

shitty spam-shill.

I think Obama is showing that he has some tightening up to do.

So consider it a bit of gloating and allow him that if you have that capacity.

 

[Toronado3800]

If that is true...Good Lord!!!!

This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...

So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?

The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.

Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!

If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.

On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.

I will translate this as "Political Chic things you're stupid for either having a different opinion or comparing the two potential monetary expenditures" and remove the random personal attack.

 

[jeffrockit]

Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...

Are you on crystal meth? The world loves Obama. He is perceived to represent what America is always saying it is - for freedom etc etc - not what that totalitarian puppet who previously occupied the WH was all about..

..as for Iran - keep you nose out. Last time the US interfered Ollie North ended up in a Senate hearing.....

That is true because when polled, it showed that 58 percent of Europeans want the United States to be weakened. They want a weaker America and that is what the Obama administration represents to them. That is a popularity we should not want or be happy about.

 

[jeffrockit]

Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...

YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.

Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.

The libs don't get that. They continue with that lie because they are ok with the govt. taking control of 17% of our economy.

 

[noose4]

YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.

Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.

The libs don't get that. They continue with that lie because they are ok with the govt. taking control of 17% of our economy.

Yeah screw Americans lets go help the Iranians with our financial resources

Study: Uninsured Don't Get Needed Health Care; Delayed Diagnoses, Premature Deaths Result - The Body

The lack of health insurance in America leads to delayed diagnoses, life-threatening complications and, ultimately, 18,000 premature deaths each year, according to a report released Tuesday by the Institute of Medicine. In the first comprehensive study of the medical consequences of going without insurance, researchers commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found that "being uninsured for even a year appears to diminish a person's general health."

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?

The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.

Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!

If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.

On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.

I will translate this as "Political Chic things you're stupid for either having a different opinion or comparing the two potential monetary expenditures" and remove the random personal attack.

1. By what ordination have you become the official 'translator'? Other than, of course, a feeble attempt at self aggrandizement.

2. What makes you think that Deanie is so...to use your coarse term, 'stupid,' that he was unable to divine my meaning?

3. You would appear more intelligent if you were to restrict your posts to words that you are able to define. The word 'random,' as in "random personal attack," is defined as "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."
Since you yourself have identified the " purpose, or objective" of my 'attack,' the reference makes you appear somewhat the dolt. Or is that a 'random personal attack'?

4. My ability to articulate has rarely required 'translation,' and when it does, I don't think, based on the erudition of your post, it is your services that will be called upon.

5. Now, let's consider your real purpose in interposing youself. You have been aboard long enough to calculate that I don't "things you're stupid for either having a different opinion..." [thinks...not things]. Since the 'different opinion' is not the operative explanation, you must be stating that a) you have a different opinion than I do, and/or b) your defense of deanie is a transparent attempt to innoculate yourself from my 'random personal attacks.'

Don't be obtuse, or fearful...step up to the plate. Bring it on.

6. And, further, your inane and uninformed "comparing the two potential monetary expenditures" speaks volumes. And, is what engendered my original post.
The ignorance that one exposes by comparing the costs of Radio Farda, versus the healthcare boondoggle reveals the emptiness of both your position and your mind.

How much does it cost to support sending messges of democracy?

Since you have no clue, as, I am sure, is true of many of your firmly held positions, I will help inform you: ObamaCare is on the order of one million times more expensive.

A millon times.

Not an 'order of magnitude'... a million times!

"and the U.S. administration's request for $75 million for democracy promotion in Iran."
Iran: U.S. Senator Discusses Democracy-Promotion Efforts - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2009

Based on this new knowledge, would you like to retract any suggestion that there is a comparison beween spending, in more common parlance, a penny and ten thousand dollars?

I challenge you to to continue that defense.


So, let's review"
1. Your ability to 'translate' is sorely in question.

2. The necessity of translation is less than obvious.

3. If the topic required translation, one would probably address the need with one who understood the problem. That leaves you out.

4. In suggesting that you have some knowledge re: "comparing the two potential monetary expenditures" you have opened yourself to a charge of prevarication.

I hope that you have learned something.


That was fun. Now, don't be a stranger.

 

[MaggieMae]

America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.

At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.

Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...

I think we can all agree Iran sucks. For lack of a more eloquent term.

What assurances would you like to give them? That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st? That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's? Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?

As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either. Just a limit to our military power.

I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea. Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power. So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds. Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east. Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.

What do you think Obama should do?

Did you see this from October?

"The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.


The move is apparently intended to please Iran’s rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a “velvet revolution” during the June presidential elections in Iran."
Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran

Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?


"President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009

Only Washington neocons thought those programs were "successful." They were far from it.


BBC NEWS | Middle East | US cuts funding to Iran opposition

20 October 2009 11:06 UK

US cuts funding to Iran opposition

By Bahman Kalbasi
BBC News, Washington

In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster
regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White
House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.

While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it
has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.

The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in
an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian
NGOs.

While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative.

Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have
maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran:

"The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the
human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any
interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's
government of being American spies because a few groups in America
used these funds."

The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds
remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights
groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to
accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US
government.

Human rights abuses

Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded
by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.

It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
U Senator Joe Lieberman

He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people
who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in
Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The
end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."

Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much
needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian
government's human rights abuses have sharply increased.

The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the
US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston
Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these
circumstances.

Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the
State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when
these brave investigations are needed most.''

'National security threat'

Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human
Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why
the fund should be cut.

In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was
advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that
they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights
defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent
means.

Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in
Iran.

Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation
Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai -
a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.

The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian
regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to
regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a
severe crackdown on Iranian civil society.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't know if Iranians are all that dangerous. For one, if they are as crappy at science as our own conservatives are, then we don't have a heckafalot to be worried about.

The Iranian people just want religion OUT of government. Can you blame them? Next thing you know, political parties made up of the religious will be starting wars and invading countries they don’t like. Can you imagine how frightening such a country
would be?

As long as they are invading the bad guys (Iraq, Afghanistan), im down.

So what would we invade Iran with? The Boy Scouts? Our military is just now starting to catch up from the losses in Iraq, both in lives, permanent disabilities, and equipment.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.

Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...

YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.

And then we could look forward to even greater expansion of VA benefits. Oh dear, a government health care program needing billions more in funding because of yet another war of choice.

 

[MaggieMae]

If that is true...Good Lord!!!!

This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...

So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?

The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.

Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!

If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.

On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.

It must really piss you off that RDean speaks with simplicity what millions of us also believe. Otherwise, you wouldn't inject an articulate non-sequitur, which amounts to nothing more than opinionated mumbo-jumbo.

 

[MaggieMae]

The world loves Obama.

Not quite. Regardless, what tangible benefit has his supposed popularity garnered the U.S.?

Better cooperation from our allies, for one. If we ever did need to go to war again, at least we could rely on serious coalitition forces to help out, rather than rag-tag armies from Moldavia, etc.

The war on terror is also GLOBAL, and the time has come when all nations need to find common ground, merge their intelligence gathering into a single database and fully cooperate as allies in this. That's not possible if the US continues to arrogantly proclaim that it knows best, so just get out of the way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think we can all agree Iran sucks. For lack of a more eloquent term.

What assurances would you like to give them? That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st? That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's? Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?

As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either. Just a limit to our military power.

I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea. Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power. So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds. Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east. Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.

What do you think Obama should do?

Did you see this from October?

"The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.


The move is apparently intended to please Iran’s rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a “velvet revolution” during the June presidential elections in Iran."
Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran

Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?


"President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009

Only Washington neocons thought those programs were "successful." They were far from it.


BBC NEWS | Middle East | US cuts funding to Iran opposition

20 October 2009 11:06 UK

US cuts funding to Iran opposition

By Bahman Kalbasi
BBC News, Washington

In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster
regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White
House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.

While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it
has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.

The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in
an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian
NGOs.

While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative.

Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have
maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran:

"The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the
human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any
interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's
government of being American spies because a few groups in America
used these funds."

The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds
remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights
groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to
accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US
government.

Human rights abuses

Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded
by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.

It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
U Senator Joe Lieberman

He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people
who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in
Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The
end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."

Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much
needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian
government's human rights abuses have sharply increased.

The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the
US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston
Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these
circumstances.

Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the
State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when
these brave investigations are needed most.''

'National security threat'

Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human
Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why
the fund should be cut.

In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was
advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that
they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights
defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent
means.

Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in
Iran.

Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation
Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai -
a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.

The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian
regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to
regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a
severe crackdown on Iranian civil society.

Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!

1. Are you suggesting that Washington funds programs based on how successful them are? If so, please explain public education.

2. Programs such as Radio Liberty were considered encouraging by Solidarity in their fight for freedom against the 'Evil Empire.'

3. If you read my previous post, you would note that the amount in question is a mere pittance. Clearly, ending the program was political, not financial.

4. "While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US..." Doesn't this put the bias of the BBC in perspective? Stick in 'neoconservative' and you lefties think the case is made, kind of like the nonsense speeches from beauty contestants.

5. "...reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative."
and
"the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran"

So, if the government of Iran was moved to react so strongly against the broadcasts, doesn't this cast the prior quote somewhat of a lie? Put on your thinking cap.

6. Since there can, obviously, be no costs to America, in broadcasting 'the whole world is watching' kind of broadcasts, your post seems more along the lines of left-wing talking points than legitimite objections.

You should get out more.

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...

Are you on crystal meth? The world loves Obama. He is perceived to represent what America is always saying it is - for freedom etc etc - not what that totalitarian puppet who previously occupied the WH was all about..

..as for Iran - keep you nose out. Last time the US interfered Ollie North ended up in a Senate hearing.....

That is true because when polled, it showed that 58 percent of Europeans want the United States to be weakened. They want a weaker America and that is what the Obama administration represents to them. That is a popularity we should not want or be happy about.

Don't you mean that's Neal Boortz's OPINION????

Euros want weaker America, and thus support Obama « Crush Liberalism

I find it intriguing that his comments include a link to the Gallop poll (which says nothing about a weaker America), but not to this alleged Pew poll, which I frankly can't find anywhere.

 

[MaggieMae]

YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.

Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.

The libs don't get that. They continue with that lie because they are ok with the govt. taking control of 17% of our economy.

Great. Let's leave the whole thing in File 13 (again). I hope you and yours enjoy your rising private health insurance premiums, on average 10% a year.

 

[MaggieMae]

Did you see this from October?

"The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.


The move is apparently intended to please Iran’s rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a “velvet revolution” during the June presidential elections in Iran."
Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran

Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?


"President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009

Only Washington neocons thought those programs were "successful." They were far from it.


BBC NEWS | Middle East | US cuts funding to Iran opposition

20 October 2009 11:06 UK

US cuts funding to Iran opposition

By Bahman Kalbasi
BBC News, Washington

In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster
regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White
House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.

While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it
has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.

The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in
an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian
NGOs.

While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative.

Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have
maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran:

"The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the
human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any
interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's
government of being American spies because a few groups in America
used these funds."

The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds
remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights
groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to
accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US
government.

Human rights abuses

Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded
by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.

It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
U Senator Joe Lieberman

He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people
who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in
Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The
end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."

Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much
needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian
government's human rights abuses have sharply increased.

The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the
US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston
Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these
circumstances.

Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the
State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when
these brave investigations are needed most.''

'National security threat'

Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human
Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why
the fund should be cut.

In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was
advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that
they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights
defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent
means.

Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in
Iran.

Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation
Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai -
a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.

The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian
regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to
regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a
severe crackdown on Iranian civil society.

Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!

1. Are you suggesting that Washington funds programs based on how successful them are? If so, please explain public education.

2. Programs such as Radio Liberty were considered encouraging by Solidarity in their fight for freedom against the 'Evil Empire.'

3. If you read my previous post, you would note that the amount in question is a mere pittance. Clearly, ending the program was political, not financial.

4. "While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US..." Doesn't this put the bias of the BBC in perspective? Stick in 'neoconservative' and you lefties think the case is made, kind of like the nonsense speeches from beauty contestants.

5. "...reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative."
and
"the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran"

So, if the government of Iran was moved to react so strongly against the broadcasts, doesn't this cast the prior quote somewhat of a lie? Put on your thinking cap.

6. Since there can, obviously, be no costs to America, in broadcasting 'the whole world is watching' kind of broadcasts, your post seems more along the lines of left-wing talking points than legitimite objections.

You should get out more.

Nice try. Simply because you were proven WRONG, you attempt to go off on separate tangents incorporating government funding in general and the validity of neoconism. And oh yes, I do "get out" more by not keeping my nose stuck in obviously biased "information sources" and quoting as gospel such as far right pages as NewsMax.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Only Washington neocons thought those programs were "successful." They were far from it.


BBC NEWS | Middle East | US cuts funding to Iran opposition

20 October 2009 11:06 UK

US cuts funding to Iran opposition

By Bahman Kalbasi
BBC News, Washington

In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster
regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White
House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.

While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it
has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.

The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in
an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian
NGOs.

While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative.

Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have
maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran:

"The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the
human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any
interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's
government of being American spies because a few groups in America
used these funds."

The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds
remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights
groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to
accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US
government.

Human rights abuses

Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded
by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.

It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
U Senator Joe Lieberman

He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people
who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in
Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The
end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."

Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much
needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian
government's human rights abuses have sharply increased.

The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the
US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston
Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these
circumstances.

Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the
State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when
these brave investigations are needed most.''

'National security threat'

Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human
Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why
the fund should be cut.

In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was
advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that
they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights
defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent
means.

Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in
Iran.

Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation
Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai -
a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.

The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian
regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to
regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a
severe crackdown on Iranian civil society.

Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!

1. Are you suggesting that Washington funds programs based on how successful them are? If so, please explain public education.

2. Programs such as Radio Liberty were considered encouraging by Solidarity in their fight for freedom against the 'Evil Empire.'

3. If you read my previous post, you would note that the amount in question is a mere pittance. Clearly, ending the program was political, not financial.

4. "While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US..." Doesn't this put the bias of the BBC in perspective? Stick in 'neoconservative' and you lefties think the case is made, kind of like the nonsense speeches from beauty contestants.

5. "...reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative."
and
"the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran"

So, if the government of Iran was moved to react so strongly against the broadcasts, doesn't this cast the prior quote somewhat of a lie? Put on your thinking cap.

6. Since there can, obviously, be no costs to America, in broadcasting 'the whole world is watching' kind of broadcasts, your post seems more along the lines of left-wing talking points than legitimite objections.

You should get out more.

Nice try. Simply because you were proven WRONG, you attempt to go off on separate tangents incorporating government funding in general and the validity of neoconism. And oh yes, I do "get out" more by not keeping my nose stuck in obviously biased "information sources" and quoting as gospel such as far right pages as NewsMax.

1. Well, it must have been more than a 'try,' judging from your response.

It seems that I hurt your feelings with the 'get out more' comment, and I admit it may have been a bit flip...so I apologize.

But, if you care to discuss the topic in a more substantive manner, answer
the following...

2. Exactly where was I proven wrong?
a) US should support for the protesters in Iran, as President Reagan did in Poland?
b) That the cost of this support would be minimal?
c) We have not discoursed on " validity of neoconism"...and, in fact your were the one who injected same. But I'm game.
d) That BBC is left wing?

 

[MaggieMae]

PC -- I'm not in the mood to get into an ideological battle of words today. I'm up and I want to stay that way. If you would like to debate the pros/cons of neoconservatism/conservatism/socialism/liberalism in a new thread, I'll be better equipped (less tired) to discuss next week and you should start a new thread.

Happy New Year!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC -- I'm not in the mood to get into an ideological battle of words today. I'm up and I want to stay that way. If you would like to debate the pros/cons of neoconservatism/conservatism/socialism/liberalism in a new thread, I'll be better equipped (less tired) to discuss next week and you should start a new thread.

Happy New Year!!

The same.

Take care.