Comments on: The green inferno: debunking Iranian election fraud skeptics

By: Kathy

Kathy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:49:26 +0000

Is it possible that those who strongly oppose Obama's plan to talk with Iran, first, before using military option, are involved in inciting these demonstrations?

By: Outsider

Outsider — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:31:38 +0000

You cite M K Bhadrakumar’s article in Asia Times who is surely very knowledgeable in the way of politicians and diplomats. But you omit to cite the articles of Pepe Escobar who surely is very knowledgeable in the way of ordinary citizens. Just as a supplement: Divine assessment vs people power " target="_blank">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF19Ak01... **** The meaning of the Tehran spring " target="_blank">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak02...

By: MRW

MRW — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:44:49 +0000

Andrew Sullivan take on Daneille Pletka on June 17: " target="_blank">http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d... Danielle Pletka insists she doesn't want the coup to succeed, she's just making "a sad observation about reality." Now? As the revolt reaches a critical phase? Instead of waiting to see what might happen? Here she pronounces the resistance over:
The uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
She could write that yesterday? Pletka is a hard-right neocon, very close to the Kagans, and a former aide to Jesse Helms. Her support for Ahmadinejad is the same as Daniel Pipes' and the Mossad's. What we're seeing is how much of the neocon agenda really was about freedom. I have long since stopped believing that, having observed them closely for the past few years. They are about warfare against Israel's perceived enemies, and extending US hegemony to eclipse any rival regional or global power. That is the prism through which you have to watch their every statement. But why is the New York Times giving a platform at this moment to people who got the Iraq war so terribly wrong? Are there no consequences for total neoconservative failure?

By: MRW

MRW — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:31:12 +0000

Why should Citizen be embarrassed? It's no different than live-blogging the Leader's speech.

By: MRW

MRW — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:15:58 +0000

Thanks for pointing that out. i didn't realize it.

By: Marion

Marion — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:06:39 +0000

Exactly Citizen, when our foreign policy has been so full of contradictions and double standards for decades, Obama has no choice but to tread very very carefully when we consider that he does not have the courage to start a revolution in his own country that will change the corrupted status quo…..

By: Marion

Marion — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:55:58 +0000

Have I specifically named anyone? Why are you so concerned if I think you are dishonest? It is obvious to those of us who do not necessarily buy into the typical propaganda of the right or left, who is dishonestly spreading propaganda and who is sincerely searching for ALL of the facts on the ground in order to make an objective and fair decision about what is really going on… You can decide for yourself about yourself….

By: Citizen

Citizen — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:49:37 +0000

On second thought, Obama said nothing about the attack on Gaza, and if he is equally smart AT THIS TIME, he will say nothing much about Iran's internal politics. If you think he should capitalize on the moment, did you also think he should have spoken out on Gaza early on this year? Twitter me that.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:45:44 +0000

Marion, thank you for the url reference; it sure does set out the stakes, at least as perceived by those involved (and affected) outside the Western world, as near as I can see. I glean from it that Obama should NOT intervene rhetorically on one side or the other at this juncture–he already made his POV known in Cairo. Let those chips fall without further embellishment for they have, will have resonance around the world. Otherwise, Obamaland will simply replace Shrubland without skipping a real substantive beat.

By: LeaNder22

LeaNder22 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:44:28 +0000

Look Marion, what are the dominant interests of the West at the moment. I would assume they are not progressive or liberal or conservative interests. The majority of people doesn't want a war between Iran and the US. That it my "progressive" interest. Apart from that my "progressive" interest would be that Obama and the Supreme Leader manage to communicate their respective ideas how US and Iran relations can be mended. What both sides need to reestablish diplomatic links. Without any dictates or pressure via time lines or other repressive measures in basic mutual respect. Yes, I can easily admit I wished the Iranian people would elect a more moderate president, since I believe this would have made things more easy. And I also believe Obama has only limited space to move. Look at the time line concerning US-Iranian relations. It doesn't look so dissimilar to the Iraq US time line at all to me. A huge danger scenario, not quite the one the neocons paint but obviously also a long established American tradition only peaks in their not quite disinterested perspective. If you prefer further clashes between Iran and America, be prepared that the next war may bring down the US empire. Just look at the Iraq war costs and then imagine Iran is bigger and stronger. Considering the financial crisis we already have this isn't a rosy scenario. I am assuming it will have a big impact on the whole Western World. Japan too. ... That is surely my second big interest in the whole story. Last but not least. Take a look at the platform of one of the reform candidates. Who do you think owns Iran's oil now. Do you think the poor get more than crumbs from the gains? " target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karroubi#2009_presid...