I told her to carry a message: Not all Americans are hateful ignorant fools who want to bomb her country.
...more glad that I went for Barack Obama in 2008.
in particular its right-wing hard liners and religious extremists. Not all the Iranian people who'd get rid of them in a heartbeat if they could.
Personally, I don't see any difference at all between the kind of religious extremists in America and those in Iran who believe they have the right to murder many, many millions of people for their god.
Because of their hostility and aggression toward "others" and their tendency to always look for and find trouble, strong social and religious conservatives are potentially very dangerous and capable of great evil. W is a social and religious conservative, and because we elected him president nearly a half million people died from war-related causes in Iraq. That's only the deaths from a totally unjustified war.
Unfortunately, conservative extremists have way too much power right now in both countries for safety. Most of the GOP candidates are social conservatives, some extreme. We must keep them from getting yet more power or else.
...for someone allegedly so very clever and sharp, to use the phrase "Iranian government" instead of "Iranians"?
You know, I daresay that at least some of the Iranian people with whom you and I sympathize with may well come to learn what Hillary said, and not reach the inference you find quite obvious.
By the way, for what it is worth, I am someone who remains believing that Hillary is our best shot at keeping the Republicans out of the Presidency.
Obviously, in both public AND private, our secretaries of states should ALWAYS be very specific when discussing 196 countries and many more regions -- "the government of Ecuador is asking..." Not "the Ecuadorans," which could be interpreted as an insult by...well, anyone who wanted to.
Sure, that's obvious, but how is it any better? How soon before she's referring to an "Axis of Evil"?
Is it too much to ask that the prospective leader of the free world show some restraint and diplomacy, rather than the same old reflexive hate-mongering we've been getting from the Right for decades? With the Iranian nuclear deal just signed, are we supposed to cheer Hillary's undermining of the deal arranged by Obama & Kerry?
Similarly, it may have played well to many in the crowd, but I didn't think Hillary's citing "the Republicans" as her prime enemies was productive, for other Democrats in the coming election or for her own prospects of attracting moderates in the coming election.
"the government"? But Iranians? That's just disgusting.
Irans sympathetic response to the American tragedy has been exceptional for a country under US economic siege for two decades. Only hours after the Sept. 11 attack, President Muhammad Khatami condemned it, as did Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Other officials have sent sympathetic messages, including one from the mayor of Tehran to the mayor of New York the first public official contact between Iran and the US since the 1979 Iranian revolution. [ ]
More important, 60,000 spectators observed a minute of silence during a soccer match in Irans Azadi Stadium, and hundreds of young Iranians held a candle-lit vigil in Tehran.
Or just not mention Iran.
What was most telling, I thought, from Hillary's extensive enemies list from the debate, other than that she seemed really comfortable rattling off a quick list of enemies, was who she didn't mention... Wall Street.
The debate comment was nearly as disturbing as Jim Webb's reference to the Vietnamese guy in the trunk of his car!
The people of Iran, on the other hand, are people like any other people in any other country.
Progressives should oppose the Supreme Leader of Iran as much as one would oppose any unelected religious fundamentalist who is the head of a government.
when I was newly adult and flexing my political muscles. My brother stopped me and said, "Love the people, hate the government. Do this with all people." It was a good lesson in remembering the humanity around this world. I practice this mostly with Southern States...I need to be reminded that even though some of their leaders pass some weird shit, the people are not them. They are individuals. They deserve to be treated as such.
And even more salient when the leaders are not even elected by the people.
But even when the leaders are elected by the people - they certainly don't reflect on all the people (such as in the Southern US).
some of the comments on this site against the south as a whole and letting those states sink into the abyss. On behalf of them, I extend my apologies and say we are all in this together and together we can create great things!
And, of course, the Pacific Northwest before that even.
I do wish those people could see a bunch of my neighbors at home. They can be really wonderful -- as long as they don't realize they're talking with a liberal. No, seriously, we've been "out" almost since we arrived and the conservative friends we've made can accept that just fine. Within reason. I would never repay their acceptance by trying to seduce their children away from the righteous path.
It really is a matter of principle and morality for many. Some friends are paying a fortune they really, really cannot afford (age-retired small farmers) for her health insurance through a private broker. I don't know how they're doing it. They won't purchase subsidized coverage through an exchange because it's against their principles. I felt obliged to tell her how much I pay, just so she'd know since they swallow Fox whole, but apologetically and only after assuring her that I really did respect their position.
And the others who can't forgive? Courteous nods and social smiles in passing. If none, I know that person's sure I'm one of Satan's demons. (No, I'm actually not joking, much.)
As for their general reputation outside the South, some don't deserve it but contribute to it anyway, and some are even worse. The whole region seems to be trapped in a kind of circular reasoning it's not aware of and has absolutely no interest in breaking out of. As for the Bible Belt influence, you know the old saying about religion bringing out both the good and bad in people. There's plenty of both on full view.
Who pander to the fundamentalist idiots in order to retain power.
in many ways, hardly surprising in a centralized theocratic republic -- even one so conservative. Iran is proof, in fact, that "progressive" does not mean liberal.
Let's not pretend they've done absolutely nothing. They did attack our embassy and take hostages for over a year. They do finance hezbollah, hamas and islamic jihad who have attacked Americans (241 marines in Lebanon come immediately to mind). I have no beef with the Iranian people but to pretend they're actually in charge of anything is dishonest. The mullahs are in charge and any religious freaks, no matter the religion, are indeed my enemy.
with Iran being peaceful little kittens spreading nothing but sunshine and unicorns but your deflection from my truthful post is noted.
with Israel no matter what they do.
has done absolutely nothing untoward in their entire history. That I proved your assertion was ignorant bullshit now has you whining about Israel. Are you sure you want to continue down this road?
felt you had to whine about Israel in the process? Hardly a convincing argument. Have any of our elected officials signed onto that odious bds cause yet? Has American opinion turned against Israel? Meanwhile, nobody trusts the mullahs in Iran except for the far left who nobody trusts with foreign policy - here is exhibit A as to why that is.
since it was created. You seem to be defending the MIC.
that we should let those in the middle east fight their own fucking battles. Not worth one American life. We used to need Saudi Arabia for oil but that isn't true any longer. Cut them loose and let the royals fight their own battles. Let the Sunni and Shia do the same. I'm hardly shilling for the MIC.
Respectfully, I do not believe that you are aware of the sheer magnitude
of the US crimes against the people of Iran.
From 1953 to 1979 nearly every Iranian family experienced torture at
the hands of the US & Israeli trained & equipped SAVAK.
If some other country did that to us, we would turn it into a parking lot
at the very first opportunity.
The Iranians have actually been amazingly forgiving toward us . .
Veterans For Peace
And for the same reasons I don't hate today's Germans even though 80 people in my family died in the camps while many more have been damaged in their souls, it's time for the Iranians to look forward. Or not. It's their choice.
to send any troops to Iran so I have no idea why you're making that ridiculous charge other than you don't like me pointing out that Iran is not the liberal paradise some here would choose to believe. Let's ask the gays they hang from cranes what they think.
to use civil rights issues as emotional fuel for the war machine. The same propaganda (though often true, and mixed in with some big lies) comes out whenever the empire wants to raze yet another country to the ground.
Establishment types wouldn't trust "far left" assessments (like Chomsky's) of the ME because they're incapable of escaping the empire's narratives. They belong to an anti-intellectual movement based on Infotainment (the lie machine) and high consumption (the reason to be content with the lies). In their minds, Iran did threaten to wipe Israel off the map, etc. etc.
What a bunch of unmitigated bullshit. So we should forget those inconvenient FACTS about civil rights issues because they make you feel icky for trying to pretend that Iran is some peaceful paradise? When those same "intellectuals" go after middle eastern civil rights with the same zest they do for our own country (which is hardly ever), they may get some attention. Their hypocrisy is the reason they have no credibility. And Iran is still threatening to wipe Israel off the map - bullshit from those who whine about a misstranslation notwithstanding.
I don't see you fulminating about abuses in India (caste system, just banned homosexuality) or Saudi Arabia or UAE or any number of convenient allies.
What is unmitigated bullshit is foreign policy that flouts international law because we have to assume Western moral superiority based on a history where even discussing Columbus is fraught with politically-enforced ignorance.
Talk about hypocrisy and bias. No one can compete.
"And Iran is still threatening to wipe Israel off the map"
take up for India or Saudi Arabia or the UAE and any other country that has civil rights records that would make a thinking person vomit all day? The answer to that is a resounding NO. Would I, as a woman, a friend to the gay community and a Jew, rather live in Western country than any one of those you mentioned? You bet your sweet ass I would.
full of strife is a hell of its own kind, especially if you're a minority or a woman. These countries where we are toppling governments will suffer immensely for generations.
What's more, if I were a heterosexual woman I would prefer to live in Iran than Saudi Arabia.
The humanist adage about the greatest good for the greatest number of people must count for something. If that value is excluded, or pitted against the value of diversity, then something is wrong with the general perspective (obviously, it works both ways).
in Iran in 1953 or in Iraq in 2003. You'll never see me defend our military adventures but I also don't ignore all the good that this country and its citizens do. We're often the first country to give aid when disaster strikes, Americans are incredibly generous people. There isn't a country on the planet that has zero history that can't be questioned and condemned (well, maybe Canada but I'm sure someone will be along to tell me I'm wrong about that and I probably am). But pretending like the US is the scourge of the universe is so incredibly counter productive, I just can't engage.
especially since most US aid deals have stipulations that earmark large chunks for military spending. Of course, the Europeans are connected to a vast continent (really continentS) and don't want waves of refugees pouring over their borders.
US aid usually embodies this thought:
"We like this crop of leaders. Here is a coupon you can spend with our military contractors so you can remain leaders."
As for pretending the US establishment is a "scourge": Most of the global South is starting to destabilize to such an extent that there is no end in sight to the refugee crises we're seeing now. This has happened while the US was the self-appointed "world policeman", what is called the "uni-polar world order". This is happening on our watch and it has a lot to do with our preference for arming religious extremists.
So, yes, the US establishment is a scourge. It has even turned our colleges into a debt-generating scam on a scale that makes educators in other countries drop their jaws in shock.
Its also worth mentioning that Hillary Clinton has consistently preferred intervention and escalation in the ME. She also is pro-intervention in Central America. Maybe you think that is a path to peace and prosperity, but I don't.
I can't engage with someone who blames all the world's ills on the US. It's not honest and I have no desire to waste my time.
it has to accept commensurate responsibility AND blame for all of its power projection.
Establishment apologists lack all sense of proportion. That is dishonesty.
It really ought to count the NATO countries foreign bases, too, as NATO countries usually cooperate with US military goals.
US foreign aid is only 0.19% of GNI, less than 1% of the federal budget: http://borgenproject.org/foreign-aid/
This page says the public perception is way out of line from the reality.
That was in no way a "deflection." Not only did the CIA - unarguably the most destructive agency in our government - oblige the British by deposing Mossedegh, they installed the murderous dictator, Shah Reza Pahlavi, to brutalize the populace into submission with the SAVAK, so that what was to become BP could steal oil that rightfully belonged to the Iranian people.
These events are not unrelated actions in a vacuum; the ascent of Khomeini and the attack on the embassy were a direct result of that despicable intervention and the decades of savagery that followed it. If the Allen Dulles and his bright, shiny new CIA had kept their blood-soaked snout out of it, it is likely none of this would have happened, and we would have had a steadfast ally in Iran, incidentally, the only Caucasian nation in a predominantly Arab region.
Iran still having a legitimate beef with what we did with the Shah is acceptable. But Israel should forget all about the holocaust and the reason they even have a country because people are tired of feeling guilty about it. That about cover the hypocrisy?
...when did Israel become part of this conversation? Now THAT'S deflection!
The response was not about Iran still having a legitimate beef, it was about the continuum that resulted in the current adversarial relationship between Iran and the U.S.
Given the opportunity, they would support a terrorist attack (including nuclear) for religious regions. The leadership is full of malevolent religious nut jobs.
takes a mean and evil creature to overlook mean and evil creatures.
Not so sure about their theocratic government though.
Iran poses no threat to us. There is no credible proof that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, and even if it had one it still would not pose a threat to us. Like another commenter here, that was probably the creepiest moment of the night for me.
How about if she sends daughter Chelsea in with the first wave of marines?
Good catch to call her out on this.
And she also needs to take ownership of her role in Honduras and Libya, both of which
are now SERIOUSLY messed up substantially due to US interventions.
Veterans For Peace
If we actually support Iran the people will bring their government around. Let's try some of that instead of troops, weapons, and threats! Our supposed ally Saudi Arabia, their people hate us. They were the ones behind 9/11!
I don't think that precludes their nation from doing wrong. Most of them live here anyway. And we not allowed back there for a long period of time for the sin of having lived here.
They are a theocratic and genocidal regime.
people. I am an ally to the Iranian people who are oppressed by their government. Are you?
... going to come down off your high horse?
I asked a straightforward question, and of course I condemn any persecution or execution of human beings based on sexual orientation or consensual acts between adults. I am no ally of the theocrats who ultimately rule Iran.
Whether or not what's happening in Iran is accurately termed "genocide" is a question I have not seen raised before. I assumed you were referring to threats against Israel.
Iran is the Islamic Middle Eastern country with a history of democracy ... which we sabotaged in 1953 when we helped engineer a coup to ovetrthrow their democratically elected government, installing the repressive rule of the Shah.
The Islamic Revolution a quarter century later was an unintended consequence of our own actions, and yet Iran today still has a larger measure of democracy than the autocracy in Saudi Arabia ruled by the royal asses we kiss for oil and military bases. The Saudis impose a fundamentalist version of Islam on their people (especially women) and fund Wahabbi madrasahs throughout the Islamic world.
Iran has a very large population of young people who value personal liberty & democracy and are enthralled with Western culture & fashion. Time is on our side, unless we commit another atrocity against the Iranian people they will not forget or forgive.
Democratic leaders who are strong and smart would better serve the interests of our country and of the world if they stop using Iran as a bogeyman for justifying the excesses and disastrous policies that only serve the interests of the military industrial complex and of politicians who manipulate the American people through fear.
came into power. They may remember that the Shah fell from grace and the revolution in th 70s. The Middle East has had some outside influence for want of many things for the West. I had a history teacher who had us look at waterways and their importance through history. Why having Israel and a friendlies in governments in Egypt and Iran was pretty important economically. It gave me a wider perspective than just oil or religion as the only components to our interests.
But rest assured, the Iranian people and many throughout the world (especially the Middle East) know how the Shah came to power.
A secular socialist democracy is my guess, but oil companies find it easier to use our military to install dictators for them.
Nationalizing oil was the first step.
Conjecture, certainly, but not without some basis.
There were some pretty harsh restrictions being imposed by the government prior to the coup and a return to Islamic values was an appeal that was growing throughout the region.
I was responding to the poster who said that they thought it was likely Iran would have had a secular socialist democracy had it not been for the coup.
I think that it is equally likely that they would have had an Islamic republic similar to what they have today.
The Islamic revolution was already brewing before there was a coup and there was general dissatisfaction with the government at that time coming from several different quarters, independent of US/UK intervention.
And there was also a general Islamic awakening/revival that was growing throughout the region.
It's their 'government' that's shit. It's similar to a situation where right-wing religious nutcases took over the US government and wouldn't allow the majority to assert itself in elections.
integrated economically or otherwise, without having some puppet government installed.
The population likes western things and ideas, but they also know the western establishment is biased against them. The western heavies prefer to use Sunnis, who are more numerous than Shias and also have a theological bent that's conducive to imperialism.
We need to steal their oil, right? Or maybe just control it to better control the global market supply?
Follow the money. Guess who's contributing to $ec Clinton'$ campaign.
My enemy is unregulated greed which is on a path to killing life on earth, as we know it.
For a second there I thought I was watching the Republican debates again (I watched that circus...I'm the one!). The good news is that only lasted a few seconds and the rest of the debate was insightful.
us to, or just cause the military industrial complex wants us to, or just cause the oil industry wants us to, or just cause the republicans want us to, or just cause some folks, who like to blame their problems on others, want to. It was 120F in Iraq this past summer, let us please please invade Antarctica!!! Farmland for the Future!!!
Who oppose Iran's form of government but were pissed off at Hillary's comment. We are trying to get more reforms, not demonize them
Right wingers cannot exist without an enemy.
You never know what common ground you can find if you treat others with respect, even, if not especially, if they don't.
Ask yourself this, "Would Obama's better second term Secretary of State have listed "the Iranians" as the people he is proudest of calling him an enemy?" Not only did she fail to single out ONE group, but many conflict with other claims of her team. (ie "Republicans" when she claims that she can work better with Republicans than Bernie.) How do you win over any Republicans disenchanted with whomever is their choice if you are on the record as proudest that "Republicans" don't like you?
This was 5 years after she voted to allow them to go to war with Iraq. Hillary can not be trusted on this issue, and is completely unfit for the Presidency.
Not surprised people are still pushing it though.
Assuming you are referring to Kyl-Lieberman, it had as much legal significance as the Senate voting to congratulate the National Spelling Bee champion.
You're just apologizing for warmongering.
Containing no force of law. As I said, similar to the Senate congratulating the National Spelling Bee Award winner. No reason to spread lies.