Blah, blah, blah:
CAIRO — Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned foreign governments on Monday that Iranians would react as a “united fist” to meddling in domestic affairs, while officials in the elite Revolutionary Guards warned Iranians they would be treated as enemies of the state if they did not line up behind the leadership.
I have an idea. How about Ayatollah Khamenei S’sTFU and holds real elections instead of acting like a delusional tyrant? How would that be?
.
Hojatoleslam Mohammad Ali Ayazi
Not much has changed in the US-Iran relations since the Clinton years.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I am so tired of Iran’s whining.
repressing their own people isn’t that what the Shah of Iran did 30 years ago. It would be nice to see the price of a barrel of oil Tank long enough for Iranian Gov’t to suffer from a lack of revenue.
The oil companies would never allow that to happen, unless they could spin it in a way that they could get it on the cheap, & raise the price to the consumers under the guise of “instability”.
The ones who set the oil prices are those who stand to profit the most from it, not Iran or any other single country.
All it really takes is the Sunni Saudis to flood the market with Oil. And the will of the Saudis to commit economic warfare.
Ah yes, how convenient that the United States wishes to spread freedom and democracy to Iran. What a moral people that so unselfishly wish to share their freedom with oppressed people all over the world.
Maybe Israel can help us deliver democracy to the people of Iran, no?
Funny how some are so concerned with the lack in democracy only in countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Iran and remain silent about other transgressions against democracy.
For instance . . .
Will the United States spend the same effort vilifying the Honduran coup as it has the Iranian regime? Seems like you freedom fighters have an awfully warped sense of what words like democracy and dictator mean and are very selective about your crusade to impose your understanding of freedom and democracy on the world. Makes one question whether your motives really are to spread freedom and democracy. . .
Or are the howls of protest against Iran nothing more than the typical hypocritical American belligerence disguised as a moral cause . . . democracy and blah blah blah (or bomb bomb bomb Iran).
Thank you
The democracy-loving Obama government hasn’t even declared the Honduran coup a coup, because that would oblige it to cut off aid, I guess.
Typical. For the first time in recorded history the US government is not on the side of a right-wing military coup to remove a leftist elected official in Latin America. Does that administration get any credit for breaking with precedent? Nooooo.
And Iran, a country that has been spouting anti-American rhetoric for decades while blowing up our embassies, attacking marines, kidnapping professors and holding them for ransom, and sponsoring all kinds of violence…their loony-tune fanatical government gets a complete pass and gets to make threats against both America and its own citizens.
Nice standards you have.
If the Obama administration truly broke with precedent, it would formally declare the ouster of the Honduran president to be a coup. But it hasn’t:
U.S. Condemns Coup in Honduras but Makes No Firm Demands
Actions speak louder than words. You’re just falling for the Obama administration’s P.R., which is much better than Bush’s.
did you see the guy leave America and try to land in Honduras yesterday?
What kind of ‘demands’ do you want?
Why can’t the Obama administration call the coup a coup?
Use your head. Calling it a coup triggers the consequences that we are going to use as leverage.
It’s curious how Obama’s supposed to keep quiet about the theocrat loonies who run Iraq but jump feet first on the first days of an illegal overthrow of the president of a poor Central American country. You want him maybe to send gunboats? Is this our chance to show what big men we still are? Ah, if only Obama would wake up and invade Grenada or something and defend our freedom where it wouldn’t hurt.
Guess there’s enough hypocrisy and double standards to go around, including on the left.
He isn’t keeping quiet. From Russia today.
I don’t want Obama to send gunboats. I simply want him to follow US law and officially declare the coup a coup. That would be the most “passive” course, rather than doing what he is doing, which is formally denying that a coup has actually taken place.
Where did he “formally deny a coup has taken place”? And what difference would it make if he did jump the gun and call it a coup? So what? The coupsters are going to go all shaky and slink off because the US “officially” pronounced it a coup? I mean we’re so respected around the world and all I’m sure a mere word is all it would take. But alas, the treacherous Obama wants to work with the OAS on the problem when he could get in there and start the nation building. Damn him.
Remind me — who is it that thinks Obama is magic man again?
If you read the quotes I gave above, you’d know that officially declaring it a coup would necessitated the cutting off of (military) aid and the imposition of sanctions. (I admit I don’t know what those sanctions would involve.)
Officially calling it a coup would simply be to call a spade a spade: thus, it is the default, automatic response. In not officially calling it a coup, the Obama administration is sending the coup plotters a message: that it does not really mind if they remain in power.
The Honduran coup plotters are quite isolated internationally. As far as I can tell, the only country that is continuing with business as usual with the Honduran government is the US. (Again, the US is paying lip service to democracy, but applying no real pressure.) Given that the US is the only country that is maintaining normal relations with Honduras (you’re welcome to prove me wrong), it certainly is in the position to exert a great deal of influence.
I’m surprised that you allow yourself to be so easily deceived by this theater, which is played over and over again in different contexts: the Democrats want single payer, but the Republicans are blocking it; the US wants Israel to stop building settlements, but Israel won’t listen. These are all charades.
Read this quote. Notice the difference? That’s exactly what Obama and Clinton are not saying.
I’ve never claimed that there’s no difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton, or, more generally, Democrats and Republicans when it comes to foreign policy (a.k.a. “running the empire” 😉 )
There is no question that the Democrats are better at foreign policy than the Republicans are. Both parties however place having the rest of the world fall into line with US wishes above democracy for its own sake. And this is exactly what one would expect: the leaders of all great powers act to further the interests of their own country, as opposed to fighting for idealistic causes, ignoring (perceived) national self-interest.
Largely because I’m not in a position of power, I’m more concerned about democracy as an end in itself than members of the Obama administration are. That does not mean that I do not respect and often admire that administration for conducting foreign policy in a very sophisticated way (something Republicans have forgotten how to do).
What I have trouble understanding about you and other progressives is that you take Obama at his word when he talks about democracy, even though it would be reckless and “irresponsible” for any leader of a great power to mean what he says in such cases.
Here’s the problem.
American business interests would prefer an elected government in Honduras that is very friendly to their interests. But, if they can’t have that, they’ll take a right-wing junta that is friendly to their interests. The Congress reflects those business interests. And that is why American foreign policy in Latin America has been uneven and (under Republican administrations) outright hostile to leftist elected officials.
We say this very clearly with the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela.
Obama is taking a different approach, even though Congress, the media, and business interests are pleased about this coup. But you want him to simply act like a petulant fool and throw away all his chips before the hand is even dealt. He’s being very upfront about the fact that US business interests have no love for the Honduran president, and he’s supporting his right to be reinstated despite that.
If he wasn’t serious, that plane would not have left American soil and attempted to land in Honduras. Think about it.
Sorry: I replied to this post in the root of the thread.
The US can’t even recall its ambassador. All EU countries have.
US seeks deal between Honduran coup leaders and deposed president
I’m not familiar with this Web site, but this account makes sense to me, since it clears up the “puzzle” of why the Obama administration is not making serious efforts to undo the coup, contenting itself with paying lip service to democracy.
it’s drivel. Left-wing drivel.
The US isn’t going to play all its cards at the outset. If you want to know what is going on, read Al Giordano. He’ll give substantive left-wing analysis that isn’t based in fantasy or warped by battered wife syndrome.
Your tip-off should have been when they said the Iranian election theft was unsubstantiated. Pure battered wife syndrome, where the US must be wrong and those they criticize must be defended.
Total, total bullshit.
Al’s reporting on Honduras has indeed been better than the mainstream reporting, but his one weakness, evident in all his writing (not just this subject), is that he suffers from the same malady that you do: Obamahopeyitis. There is some deep-seated need for some lefties to impose their hopes and desires on Obama (whether they be the tough guy lefties you and Al fancy yourselves to be or the wimpy academic lefties you fancy yourself a counterpoint to). You always assume the best in Obama and you intentionally misinterpret facts to reflect what you hope Obama will stand for. It’s intentionally dishonest and done for Obama’s political benefit rather than getting to the truth of the matter. I don’t know why you guys are such Obama partisans–maybe because you were both pretty early to recognize Obama’s political gifts and that he would be successful and jumped on the bandwagon early???
In fact, many ‘progressives’ and others on the Left, even ones that recognize Obama is not really a progressive or all that liberal, have this same weird tick where they can’t accept Obama’s imperfections and feel this need to superimpose their desires and hope onto Obama.
Even your nemesis at Open Left and other ‘wimpy liberals’ do this. They criticize Obama but pretend that Obama really meant to take the progressive position and simply claim everyone is misunderstanding Obama (see Juan Cole for another example as it relates to these foreign policy issues). Evidently the left is so scared of criticizing Obama that we all have to go through this weird pretend game where the Dear Leader’s motives must always be assumed to be pristine and where we assume there is some sort of misunderstanding. I guess the idea is showering Obama with praise and showing him they will support him politically by running interference for him and intentionally misinterpreting his actions in an effort to win his support and move him to the left or to the policy direction you claim you want. And Obama is smart enough to string the left along and give them enough hope to keep them quiet. Then they left takes the rhetorical bone Obama throws them and assumes that means Obama supports them. It’s like the left and Obama have made a sort of political agreement to mutually agree to misinterpret Obama’s positions in an effort to keep hope alive that maybe he is some secret liberal if we just . . . wait .. . long .. . . enough.
Well, this sucker is done pretending. Sometimes actions speak louder than words and Obama is a big pretend dude. He’s really not all that into change and it’s better if you admit reality rather than trying to stick that square peg into a round hole. He’s not a progressive–he’s a status quo dude that is really good at politics and hoodwinking progressives into thinking he on their side but continually has to make ‘strategic’ decisions against their interests. How many times can you tell yourself, “well, don’t you see Obama’s strategy? He’s ruling against us in this case so he can set up the environment to eventually maybe rule in our favor in the future.”
The answer is clear. As with health care, being beholden to the financial sector, or continuing Bush’s foreign policies, Obama wants there to be misunderstanding and it’s to his advantage that most of the left intentionally misunderstands Obama’s positions.
So go ahead and fool yourself into thinking Obama can’t call a coup a coup because he’s got some trick to play. You may be able to fool yourself ad naseum that Obama is really a progressive but must act against these beliefs in some sort of secret and clever strategy but Al’s fidelity to the Latin American cause will cause his brain to short-circuit sooner rather than later. He seems like he’s quick to anger anyway and this may send him off the deep end. I doubt he will be able to go through the mental gymnastics of assuming Obama is on his side when he cares so deeply at getting to the truth of the matter in Honduras.
The Obama infatuation will run it’s course and we will see a conservative leaning status quo President that simply has packaged himself in a hip and change-y exterior. Different people will learn to accept reality at different times though.
I don’t know why you are having trouble understanding this strategy.
First, President Manuel Zelaya came to America and met with OAS representatives. From here he was allowed to get on a plane destined for Honduras, sending the clear message that the US government wanted him to be allowed to return. The plane was turned away. Next, he was invited to come back to America to meet with Sec. of State Clinton for several days of consultations. This sends another message. Obama announced today in Russia:
As Obama notes, this is a big change in American foreign policy in Latin America. A huge change.
Other nations can call a coup a coup and recall their ambassadors, but they don’t have the kind of clout we have, nor do they have permanent military bases in Honduras. We give them a lot of money and we have leverage. If we immediately cut off aid, we’re putting the cart before the horse. As Al argues, we will have to cut aid, but first we must use the threat of doing so to see if a peaceful negotiated process can be agreed to that allows for a return to constitutionality in Honduras. Only when that fails will we have to bring the hammer down.
Any other strategy would be knee-jerk and thoughtless.
Once in a while you should do a few mental exercises to keep things limber about the neck.
For example, imagine if you will that Barack Obama had run on a platform of bringing us Canada-style single-payer health care?
Now, think about this in two contexts.
First, how would that have played out in the primaries? Would Obama have won the endorsements of more than half his Democratic colleagues in the Senate? Would the superdelegates have lined up behind him? Would the press have treated him as a reasonable choice, or given him the Kucinich treatment?
Second, presuming he was nonetheless elected as President, would the Senate be any more willing to pass single-payer than they are now? Even though he would have some mandate for single-payer having run on that platform, is there any realistic hope that all 60 Democratic senators would vote for it? How about 35 of them? Fifteen?
Maybe fifteen.
And that gets to the point of running a conservative nation with an even more conservative Congress on a progressive platform. His health care bill is as aggressive as it is possible to be and hope to pass in this country right now.
His energy policy is probably too progressive to pass.
Obama is practical. If he weren’t, we’d be debating the myriad ways in which Hillary Clinton is disappointing us.
That would be a good thought experiment. Instead of keeping it hypothetical, hows about the Democrats actually test these political theories and hit the stump and make the argument for full-on socialized medicine like Canada? Let’s see if it really is impossible to give Americans what they want even though the politicians aren’t making the argument.
As I’ve told you I’m a practical guy too and I understand I’m to the left of the vast majority of people. I’m not politically retarded. I understand and can support compromise.
My point is simple–I think the way to move the country to the left is to fight for liberal ideas and be willing to lose a couple of battles. I’m not delusional and think all my ideas will be accepted. But I see the power in trying and think we will acheive more success if liberals actually fought for liberal ideas instead of running away like cowards.
The Democrats and the “left” have been completely co-opted by special interests and have not only moved to the right the last 30 years but have forgotten the art of politics and ceded the battlefield to conservatives. It has been devastating to liberals. We are set back generations. And now we’re stuck with these conservative-leaning mealy-mouthed political retards that cave-in on the most fundamental liberal principles. I can’t think of a single fight the left can be proud of.
Health care is a perfect example. It’s broken. The American people are ready for big change.
And yet the Democrats are stuck being deliberately obtuse; pretending that their hands are tied and the country is too conservative and just not ready for change. It’s a lie. It’s self-serving. And not only do the Democrats, including Obama, not really stand for what they claim to stand for, they are so compromised that they don’t even have the constitutional backbone to fight for what they believe in anyway.
I’m done with the excuses. The Democrats just don’t have the same policy goals most liberals do. They don’t want socialized medicine. They want to fool liberals into thinking that’s what they want while they maintain their power by doing what their true masters want.
Seems to me it’s you that think Obama is magic. Like if he finally got off his ass and said the C word, all would be fixed, the conspirators would slink away in shame, justice would shine like a beacon of democracy for all the world to see. Or did you want him to send in the gunboats, making Honduras our own special Grenada?
I’m among the idiots who are still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt — precisely because I never thought he was perfect or the messiah. Because I was fully prepared for all the disappointments and compromised to come. Because I know history is real and unforgiving and always collects its debts. Because I remember that he inherited a country that was, by every possible measure, swirling down the toilet — and since he isn’t magic man, I wasn’t expecting him to snap his fingers and make it all better, as you apparently were. For all the compromising and backtracking, I can’t think of anyone who would do it better, right here, right now, than Obama.
I think the odds are that neither he nor anyone else can hold back the tide, but as we wait and see I’ll keep preferring creeping ahead to careening backward into the land of honest-to-got fascism like we were doing. Beggars can’t be choosers. I suggest you reserve your wrathful energies for actually doing something about the fuckheads infesting the legislative branch, which is where the real betrayal is happening every day.
Acting?
But you want him to simply act like a petulant fool and throw away all his chips before the hand is even dealt.
Honduras is not Israel: it has no powerful lobby in the US. So the US has a free hand to impose its will upon that country (which is not the case with Israel).
Furthermore, as I understand the situation, other than Zelaya becoming too “populist” for their taste, the main concern of the coup leaders was that Zelaya was moving Honduras too far away from the US orbit. Therefore, if the US told the coup leaders, in no uncertain terms, “That’s it. You’re done”, they would have no leg to stand on. Honduras is not Spain: a non-elected right-wing regime can’t exist there without US support. (Spain is a lot bigger than Honduras, and the economy was less globalized in Franco’s day.)
As for the plane leaving American soil: the coup leaders said they would not allow it to land, and they kept their word. So I don’t see any reason to view the plane’s being allowed to “leave American soil” as anything other than an empty gesture.