Video: Large Crowd of Protesters Chants ‘Death to This Regime’

World • Views: 2,667

This video gives you an idea of the size of today’s crowds protesting the Iranian regime:

Youtube Video

A commenter at YouTube translates the chants:

People are chanting: “the coup government is the murderer of Neda”, “Khamenei is a murderer, his leadership in annulled”, “rape, crime, death to this regime”, “rape in prison, was that in the Quran also?!”, “It’s a day of mourning, The Green nation of Iran is mourning today”…

Jump to bottom

226 comments
1 Randall Gross  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:25:08pm

Wow. That's a lot of angry Persians

2 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:26:55pm

Now there's some righteously-directed Muslim anger.

3 Killgore Trout  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:28:34pm

I found another one today of people chanting against Hezbollah and Gaza.

4 Randall Gross  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:29:03pm

This appears to be pretty large, that crowd keeps streaming by for awhile.

5 UncleMonkey  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:30:52pm

It's terrible that people are being killed in these protests, but it's wonderful to see the Iranian people standing up to Iran's theocratic government thugs. Ahmadinejad can murder as many innocent people as he wants, but it won't work. The people aren't afraid of him.

6 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:31:59pm

re: #4 Thanos

This appears to be pretty large, that crowd keeps streaming by for awhile.

From twitter:

RT @Moharram88: #iranelection #iran #Ashura Live Translation ePersian Radio - More ppl on streets than anytime before the elections. (ra

...

7 Randall Gross  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:32:15pm

Theocrats picking who's in charge usually ends up this way.

8 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:33:08pm

Don't know if anyone can read Farsi, but here's a link to one of several 'official' Iranian TV stations.
If you want to see the others just replace the #2 with a 1,2 or 4 in the browser

i don't "see" anything about the protests (photos) on any of them

[Link: www.tv2.ir...]

9 wiffersnapper  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:33:39pm

Hope their voices are heard.

10 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:35:17pm

re: #8 sattv4u2

Don't know if anyone can read Farsi, but here's a link to one of several 'official' Iranian TV stations.
If you want to see the others just replace the #2 with a 1,2 or 4 in the browser

i don't "see" anything about the protests (photos) on any of them

[Link: www.tv2.ir...]

Heres a whole list of them, btw (Iranian TV channels,,, some 'official", some not)

[Link: www.lyngsat.com...]

11 prairiefire  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:35:18pm

What a fast news day! My heart goes out to those people as I sit in my safe, warm, home in my comfy clothes.

12 Barrett Brown  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:35:18pm

There's another video making the rounds now of protesters pulling a Basiji theocrat out of a van and beating him down, apparently in the process of rescuing several activists who had just been arrested. If it's true that they're also in the process of seizing state broadcasting facilities, as has been reported today, this could be the big one.

13 Escaped Hillbilly  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:35:22pm

I remember crowds like this chanting against the Shah. The pendulum swings.

14 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:36:14pm

In the city of Qom:

Ashura Updates

Source: Tehran Bureau

Source: Mohammad Sadeghi, Mousavi Facebook administrator, quoting sources in Qom:

Beginning this morning, a group ranging from 50 to 250 people -- the number fluctuated throughout the day -- surrounded the end of two streets, chanting slogans. The streets were cordoned off because one of them led to the office and home of the late Ayatollah Montazeri, and the other to the office and home of Ayatollah Sanei.

Guests and locals were attending ceremonies at these two homes.

Meanwhile, Basijis surrounded Ayatollah Sanei's office and started chanting, "Death to Sanei," "Sanei is an unbeliever," "Sanei is a source of emulation for the British," and "BBC, Sanei, congratulations on your union." One slogan they kept repeating was, "This army that has turned up is for the sake of [out of love for] the Leader," apparently referring to themselves.

Around 3 p.m., the group, which apparently consisted of Basiji and other plainclothes agents, had poured into the street and surrounded Ayatollah Sanei's office, fired tear gas into the mourning ceremony to disperse the gathering.

Again, after Maghreb (evening) prayers, which marked the start of Sham-e Ghariban [a religious dinner ceremony], a group headed to the Assn of Teachers and Researchers of Qom Seminary (mostly reformist) in the Safavieh district. Basijis and other plainclothes agents followed them there surrounding the place and lockinf them in. At some point, they let some out, and arrested others. From 7:45 until 9:30 p.m. there were clashes there.

At 10 p.m. the Basijis left the office and the police closed off the streets around Safavieh and also those leading to Sanei's office to ward off further attacks.

More than 50 people were reportedly arrested in Qom today.

15 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:37:46pm

re: #12 Barrett Brown

There's another video making the rounds now of protesters pulling a Basiji theocrat out of a van and beating him down, apparently in the process of rescuing several activists who had just been arrested. If it's true that they're also in the process of seizing state broadcasting facilities, as has been reported today, this could be the big one.

This video was shown on an earlier thread here.
What's amazing to me, to see what's happening right now, is that the crowds don't appear to be nearly as fearful or cowed as they were previously. That's different from before.

16 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:37:49pm

re: #12 Barrett Brown

There's another video making the rounds now of protesters pulling a Basiji theocrat out of a van and beating him down, apparently in the process of rescuing several activists who had just been arrested. If it's true that they're also in the process of seizing state broadcasting facilities, as has been reported today, this could be the big one.

Yes -- I posted that video earlier in this thread:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

17 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:38:54pm

English version of one of the "official Iranian TV channels'

NO mention of the protests, but they do have an article on "Israelis soldiers martyred six Palestinians"

[Link: english.irib.ir...]

18 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:40:22pm

re: #5 UncleMonkey

It's terrible that people are being killed in these protests, but it's wonderful to see the Iranian people standing up to Iran's theocratic government thugs. Ahmadinejad can murder as many innocent people as he wants, but it won't work. The people aren't afraid of him.

Well, they're standing up to Ahmadinejad. The theocratic government thugs represent a third faction in all this whose position isn't yet clear, although they seem to be leaning against Shorty pretty heavily of late.

Whatever happens in Iran, the chances of it becoming a pro-Western democracy allied with the US are about zero right now. Many of the students protesting would tell you they are strongly anti-American and anti-Western.

I view these protests in a positive light, but only because they're causing a fucktard like Ahmadinejad grief. In terms of normalizing relations and having Iran join the civilized world, this is only a very small step in what will be a long, long process. At best. It is also possible that this will end very, very badly.

19 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:42:16pm

re: #17 sattv4u2

English version of one of the "official Iranian TV channels'

NO mention of the protests, but they do have an article on "Israelis soldiers martyred six Palestinians"

[Link: english.irib.ir...]

Currently this is only a "line item" at CNN website, and Drudge only has one link to a short AP story. It seems amazing that there is so much material available with in a 24 hour period (as we have seen posted here) yet the MSM is keeping basically hands off at this point.

20 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:43:39pm

re: #13 Escaped Hillbilly

I remember crowds like this chanting against the Shah. The pendulum swings.

There are a lot of parallels. Both uprisings built slowly over a period of several years. Ashura was central to both. Students were central to both.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, frankly. Revolutions have a mixed record when it comes to being better than the government they replace. It would be hard to be worse in this instance, but it remains to be seen how it will play out, or whether it will be a result to the world's liking.

21 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:43:42pm

Bravery is alive and well in our world.

23 AK-47%  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:43:48pm

re: #18 SixDegrees

I can only agree with your assessment, any US meddling in this matter would be counter-productive at this point.

24 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:45:24pm

re: #22 Ojoe

gosh

25 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:45:55pm

re: #23 ralphieboy

I can only agree with your assessment, any US meddling in this matter would be counter-productive at this point.

Thankfully, the US has already meddled in this, as in President Obama's statement today...

“We strongly condemn the violent and unjust suppression of civilians in Iran seeking to exercise their universal rights,” White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said in a statement.

“Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States,” Hammer said.

“Governing through fear and violence is never just, and as President (Barack) Obama said in Oslo — it is telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation,” Hammer said in a reference to Obama’s speech this month accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

What do you call this?

26 Ojoe  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:46:04pm

re: #24 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

My wife and I have two teenage boys. They are always hungry.

27 Barrett Brown  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:46:32pm

re: #16 Charles

Ah, didn't see that. What's heartening is that the number of videos that are coming out today would seem to indicate that the public reaction is as widespread and forceful as would be necessary to spark an all-out revolution. I'm curious as to the extent to which the Iranian citizenry is armed; I imagine hunting rifles are reasonably common, but does anyone have any idea what the gun laws and gun culture is like in urban and rural areas, respectively?

28 irving  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:46:56pm

As always, it hinges on which way the military jumps. But this has been going on for a good long while without the big guns coming out.

Huh. It looks like (knocking on wood furiously) we've done an all right job on keeping Iran nukeless if this turns into the endgame. We've dawdled them to a crawl on their nuclear program; as a rule we've been unhappy about that diplomatic strategy becuase we've presumed Iran had all the time it needed. As it turns out, they may not have limitless time...

29 Randall Gross  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:47:07pm

Ribs are almost done, another hour...
Image: Winter-Smoking.jpg

30 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:47:27pm

Trouble in the Islamic Paradise?

31 Randall Gross  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:48:23pm

re: #12 Barrett Brown

There's another video making the rounds now of protesters pulling a Basiji theocrat out of a van and beating him down, apparently in the process of rescuing several activists who had just been arrested. If it's true that they're also in the process of seizing state broadcasting facilities, as has been reported today, this could be the big one.

I do hope you are right, but I'm suspecting this will get beat down and suppressed like the last one.

32 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:49:46pm

re: #27 Barrett Brown

Ah, didn't see that. What's heartening is that the number of videos that are coming out today would seem to indicate that the public reaction is as widespread and forceful as would be necessary to spark an all-out revolution. I'm curious as to the extent to which the Iranian citizenry is armed; I imagine hunting rifles are reasonably common, but does anyone have any idea what the gun laws and gun culture is like in urban and rural areas, respectively?

Not so... according to this...

The Small Arms Survey suggests that Iran's per capita gun ownership rate is 0.053 (that is, about one gun for every twenty people).

[Link: volokh.com...]

33 Killgore Trout  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:50:30pm

re: #27 Barrett Brown

I doubt there's much beyond a few pistols or hunting rifles. Certainly not enough guns for a serious citizens uprising. I'm pretty sure we're going to have to wait until the military steps up and backs the protesters.

34 Irving  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:51:39pm

Possibly, but a previous commenter said there were multiple protests before the Shah went down. If this one gets destroyed, there will almost certainly be another one. Iran's in an odd position when it comes to protesters; an awful lot of people in power now were protesters themselves thirty or so years ago. That has to give at least some of them something to chew on.

35 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:51:40pm

re: #25 Walter L. Newton

What do you call this?

Your question wasn't directed at me, but I'm also opposed to any actions by our government that could be construed as "meddling," so I'll toss in my view: I don't see this statement as meddling in any way. It is condemnation of Iranian government actions, certainly a well-deserved rebuke to ham-fisted efforts at suppression, but not really in the realm I would consider meddling. Meddling would be providing outright support, clandestine or overt, to the protesters in an attempt to destabilize or ovethrow the Iranian government. And we don't seem to be doing that, although I strongly suspect we've lent a bit more than a sympathetic ear to internal complaints.

But outright support or intervention is a dangerous game, and runs the risk of crystallizing anti-American forces in support of the Iranian government that otherwise seems to be crumbling quite nicely without our help.

36 Killgore Trout  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:52:12pm

re: #29 Thanos

Nice. I had an offset smoker for a while. I really liked it but it didn't hold heat or maintain temps like I wanted. Especially on windy days.

37 Randall Gross  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:53:46pm

re: #36 Killgore Trout

Nice. I had an offset smoker for a while. I really liked it but it didn't hold heat or maintain temps like I wanted. Especially on windy days.

This one works great, wind or not, but it takes practice on how much to stoke it. I keep it generally between 225 and 275 for four to six hours depending on the meat.

38 UncleMonkey  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:54:09pm

re: #18 SixDegrees

Well, they're standing up to Ahmadinejad. The theocratic government thugs represent a third faction in all this whose position isn't yet clear, although they seem to be leaning against Shorty pretty heavily of late.

Whatever happens in Iran, the chances of it becoming a pro-Western democracy allied with the US are about zero right now. Many of the students protesting would tell you they are strongly anti-American and anti-Western.

I view these protests in a positive light, but only because they're causing a fucktard like Ahmadinejad grief. In terms of normalizing relations and having Iran join the civilized world, this is only a very small step in what will be a long, long process. At best. It is also possible that this will end very, very badly.

Yeah, that's certainly fair. I don't disagree. And I certainly wasn't under any delusions that Iran is about to become a pro-western democracy. But I do have to admire people that put their lives on the line to stand up to tyrants. And as you said, I do believe this is a small step-- even if it's a very small step-- towards Iran joining the civilized world. I could very well be naive in that hope.

But right now, like you, I'm viewing these protests in a positive light and my sympathies go out to these people.

39 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:54:53pm

re: #35 SixDegrees

Your question wasn't directed at me, but I'm also opposed to any actions by our government that could be construed as "meddling," so I'll toss in my view: I don't see this statement as meddling in any way. It is condemnation of Iranian government actions, certainly a well-deserved rebuke to ham-fisted efforts at suppression, but not really in the realm I would consider meddling. Meddling would be providing outright support, clandestine or overt, to the protesters in an attempt to destabilize or ovethrow the Iranian government. And we don't seem to be doing that, although I strongly suspect we've lent a bit more than a sympathetic ear to internal complaints.

But outright support or intervention is a dangerous game, and runs the risk of crystallizing anti-American forces in support of the Iranian government that otherwise seems to be crumbling quite nicely without our help.

I guess it all stems on what meddling is? It is certainly support for what the citizens are doing and condemnation of what the government is doing. How much that is worth in regards to meddling, remains to be seen I guess.

40 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:55:17pm

re: #32 Walter L. Newton

Not so... according to this...

The Small Arms Survey suggests that Iran's per capita gun ownership rate is 0.053 (that is, about one gun for every twenty people).

[Link: volokh.com...]

I would suspect that the number owning guns is similar to what it was during the Shah's reign.

A key development would be the police and/or the military switching sides in support of the protesters. I have no idea what the chances of that are, and again, the theocracy's stance on this will be critical.

41 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:56:48pm

re: #35 SixDegrees

Your question wasn't directed at me, but I'm also opposed to any actions by our government that could be construed as "meddling," so I'll toss in my view: I don't see this statement as meddling in any way. It is condemnation of Iranian government actions, certainly a well-deserved rebuke to ham-fisted efforts at suppression, but not really in the realm I would consider meddling. Meddling would be providing outright support, clandestine or overt, to the protesters in an attempt to destabilize or ovethrow the Iranian government. And we don't seem to be doing that, although I strongly suspect we've lent a bit more than a sympathetic ear to internal complaints.

But outright support or intervention is a dangerous game, and runs the risk of crystallizing anti-American forces in support of the Iranian government that otherwise seems to be crumbling quite nicely without our help.

Also, you do not know if we are offering any overt support, neither do I. It's not impossible, but if it were truthfully covert, I would hope most of us wouldn't know about it.

42 Randall Gross  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:58:02pm

re: #40 SixDegrees

I would suspect that the number owning guns is similar to what it was during the Shah's reign.

A key development would be the police and/or the military switching sides in support of the protesters. I have no idea what the chances of that are, and again, the theocracy's stance on this will be critical.

Back to Barret's point earlier: if the largest percentage of those guns are in in rural areas it's also not going to do much good since those areas lean more Basiji than Mousavi.

43 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:58:13pm

re: #39 Walter L. Newton

I guess it all stems on what meddling is? It is certainly support for what the citizens are doing and condemnation of what the government is doing. How much that is worth in regards to meddling, remains to be seen I guess.

I guess from my perspective, meddling would consist of a promise to send in troops in support of the protesters, or clandestine provision of arms and ammunition, or other actions aimed at toppling the status quo. Statements condemning the overreaching violence being deployed against the protesters don't quite qualify, in my view.

44 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:59:09pm

re: #43 SixDegrees

I guess from my perspective, meddling would consist of a promise to send in troops in support of the protesters, or clandestine provision of arms and ammunition, or other actions aimed at toppling the status quo. Statements condemning the overreaching violence being deployed against the protesters don't quite qualify, in my view.

Fair enough.

45 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 2:59:47pm

re: #41 Walter L. Newton

Also, you do not know if we are offering any overt support, neither do I. It's not impossible, but if it were truthfully covert, I would hope most of us wouldn't know about it.

Yes, there's that. I would be somewhat surprised to learn, in fact, that we hadn't been providing a bit more than simple encouragement. But as long as there's no actual proof of that...well, it sucks to be Ahmadinejad.

46 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:03:54pm

re: #31 Thanos

I do hope you are right, but I'm suspecting this will get beat down and suppressed like the last one.

I expect that is certain. The bravery of the repressed Iranian people is amazing and encouraging. But the Mullah regime has all the guns and they have not yet used them in mass. The dictators will not go down without a fight.

The Basij number about 100,000 with another 300,000 reservists. They have not yet been ordered to use deadly force against the protesters, nor have the pro-regime protesters been allowed to clash with the protesters.

There will be a great deal of blood in the streets before the Mullah's are finished.

This would be an excellent time for the US to help the cause of liberty by terminating the Mullah regime.

47 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:05:16pm

re: #46 Bagua


[snip]
This would be an excellent time for the US to help the cause of liberty by terminating the Mullah regime.

How?

48 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:06:38pm

Perhaps we should find some moderate Iranians and sell anti-tank missiles to them, no?

49 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:09:52pm

re: #48 Olsonist

Perhaps we should find some moderate Iranians and sell anti-tank missiles to them, no?

The flow of arms going out of Iran is well documented

Something as substantial going IN? How?

50 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:09:53pm

re: #47 Walter L. Newton

How?

With this and with this.

51 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:11:54pm

re: #49 sattv4u2

With this.

52 Escaped Hillbilly  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:12:55pm

re: #22 Ojoe

May the people overthrow the mullahs also in memory of this teenaged boy whom they murdered by whipping, because they caught him eating during the day during ramadan.
I have never been able to forget this.
I don't think God has either.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds. Like the Kmerh Rouge eating lavish meals while starving their people on a diet of rice. Many of the men in the middle east ignore the fasting rules openly. This boy was probably from a poor family, or tribe or village disloyal to the power structure. This is what our founders meant by cruel and inhumane treatment. Thank God our revolution was founded upon those principles and not the Religious zeal which is the primary motivator in Iraq.

53 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:13:25pm

re: #46 Bagua

I expect that is certain. The bravery of the repressed Iranian people is amazing and encouraging. But the Mullah regime has all the guns and they have not yet used them in mass. The dictators will not go down without a fight.

The Basij number about 100,000 with another 300,000 reservists. They have not yet been ordered to use deadly force against the protesters, nor have the pro-regime protesters been allowed to clash with the protesters.

There will be a great deal of blood in the streets before the Mullah's are finished.

This would be an excellent time for the US to help the cause of liberty by terminating the Mullah regime.

Actually, the current protests are between the students (and ordinary citizens, presumably) and the Iranian Administration headed by Ahmadinejad. The mullahs representing the theocracy are yet a third faction, and so far are not directly involved in this conflict. The students likewise seem to have no direct quarrel with the religious rulers apart from fairly minor complaints.

The protests may spill over into a complete anti-establishment purge, but right now it seems as thought the mullahs are going to sit this one out, and quite likely emerge with the support of the citizenry.

54 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:14:09pm

re: #50 Bagua

With this and with this.

Ollie, Is that an anti-tank missle in your pocket or are you just happy to see me !?!?

55 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:14:41pm

re: #50 Bagua

With this and with this.

You're actually suggest military intervention? Ok, just wondering.

56 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:15:49pm

re: #53 SixDegrees

Actually, the current protests are between the students (and ordinary citizens, presumably) and the Iranian Administration headed by Ahmadinejad. The mullahs representing the theocracy are yet a third faction, and so far are not directly involved in this conflict.

I beleive someone upthread (or in a previous one) translated that the protesters were shouting both Anti Admin AND Anti mullah slogans

57 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:16:49pm

re: #13 Escaped Hillbilly

I remember crowds like this chanting against the Shah. The pendulum swings.

I hope these protestors learn the lesson the 1979 ones didn't: It's one thing to burn the shithouse down, and another to install plumbing.

58 Escaped Hillbilly  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:17:41pm

re: #57 The Sanity Inspector

I love that line. Can I steal quote it?

59 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:18:01pm

re: #46 Bagua

I expect that is certain. The bravery of the repressed Iranian people is amazing and encouraging. But the Mullah regime has all the guns and they have not yet used them in mass. The dictators will not go down without a fight.

The Basij number about 100,000 with another 300,000 reservists. They have not yet been ordered to use deadly force against the protesters, nor have the pro-regime protesters been allowed to clash with the protesters.

There will be a great deal of blood in the streets before the Mullah's are finished.

This would be an excellent time for the US to help the cause of liberty by terminating the Mullah regime.

Enough of them have to decide that they want freedom.

60 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:18:34pm

re: #58 Escaped Hillbilly

I love that line. Can I steal quote it?

Why not? I did! (It's by P. J. O'Rourke, in the context of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua.)

61 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:19:40pm

re: #56 sattv4u2

Actually, the current protests are between the students (and ordinary citizens, presumably) and the Iranian Administration headed by Ahmadinejad. The mullahs representing the theocracy are yet a third faction, and so far are not directly involved in this conflict.

I beleive someone upthread (or in a previous one) translated that the protesters were shouting both Anti Admin AND Anti mullah slogans

Possible. But it's important to view these factions correctly. The Administration and the theocrats are two different groups, with separate goals and separate support. It isn't as simple as the populace versus the government, and if Ahmadinejad winds up being deposed, the collapse of the theocracy does not necessarily follow.

62 Cathypop  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:20:28pm

Change will eventually come but with alot of people losing their life. My heart goes out to the Iranians fighting for freedom. It must and needs to happen.

63 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:24:59pm

re: #59 The Sanity Inspector

Enough of them have to decide that they want freedom.

The citizens have no power to decide anything, their decisions are made for them by the ruling Mullahs.

64 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:25:50pm

re: #61 SixDegrees

Possible. But it's important to view these factions correctly. The Administration and the theocrats are two different groups, with separate goals and separate support. It isn't as simple as the populace versus the government, and if Ahmadinejad winds up being deposed, the collapse of the theocracy does not necessarily follow.

Absolutely correct. the theocrats will just replace. However, if the theocrats are overthrown the admin will be also

65 brucee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:26:12pm

re: #18 SixDegrees


Whatever happens in Iran, the chances of it becoming a pro-Western democracy allied with the US are about zero right now. Many of the students protesting would tell you they are strongly anti-American and anti-Western.

I'm really sorry that you subscribe to that Ron Paulian bullshit. Yes, we Iranians are were mad at what CIA and the British did. But that is long gone, six decades in the past and doesn't compare to what we did to ourselves through inaction and ignorance after the revolution. If the 1953 coup succeeded and the 1979 revolution went wrong it was because our parents and grandparents stayed home and didn't complain. Today's Iran, especially the youth are by no means anti-American or anti-West; people who travelled to Iran would know that.

Even Israeli-Palestinian affairs are considered none of our business; heard the cries of "No Palestine, No Lebanon, my life for Iran" in recent protests? This is by no means a new thing either, it has been growing there for decades but the west couldn't here it because there weren't people screaming in streets. The one thing that is new is whispers have finally turned into shouts.

If Mullahs go away, having normal relations with US and the rest of the west would happen naturally.

Nevertheless, direct intervention can still hurt opposition but only because it'll give mullahs more power to call opposition western-funded and not because it will bring people close to regime.

Not giving the regime, especially Ahmadinejad legitimacy alongside verbal support of values (not specific people or groups) like democracy, freedom and human rights would be the best help western world can provide. e.g. today's White House condemnation.

66 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:26:21pm

re: #61 SixDegrees

Possible. But it's important to view these factions correctly. The Administration and the theocrats are two different groups, with separate goals and separate support. It isn't as simple as the populace versus the government, and if Ahmadinejad winds up being deposed, the collapse of the theocracy does not necessarily follow.

Only to a point, the Mullahs hold the real power, Ahmadinejad is a puppet.

67 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:28:12pm

re: #29 Thanos

Ribs are almost done, another hour...
[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

Speaking of cool cooking stuff, I am thinking of trying this.

68 allegro  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:28:58pm

re: #65 brucee

Thanks for your viewpoint! What do you see happening with this protest?

69 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:29:59pm

re: #63 Bagua

The citizens have no power to decide anything, their decisions are made for them by the ruling Mullahs.

If by that you mean their votes don't count, you're right.

70 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:30:20pm

re: #55 Walter L. Newton

You're actually suggest military intervention? Ok, just wondering.

Mind you I realise that what I am suggesting is mere fantasy with the current administration. Even Bush was afraid to strike the Iranians, Obama will do no more than talk it seems.

71 solomonpanting  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:31:08pm
72 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:31:36pm

re: #70 Bagua

Mind you I realise that what I am suggesting is mere fantasy with the current administration. Even Bush was afraid to strike the Iranians, Obama will do no more than talk it seems.

But the Israelis may take advantage if there is a full scale civil war.

73 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:32:54pm

re: #63 Bagua

The citizens are deciding to go out in the streets and protest in spite of the danger. When enough of them decide to go out there will be change. It won't come easily and evidently it won't come with the ballot. Even in autocracies there is a consent of the governed: acquiescence.

re: #70 Bagua

Clearly, neoconservativism just won't die.

74 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:33:45pm

re: #72 jayzee

But the Israelis may take advantage if there is a full scale civil war.

Why on earth would Israel step in during an inter-Persian civil war?. They (like us) would sit back and await the 'winner", knowing that even if it is the Mullahs they would be the weaker for it!

75 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:34:15pm

re: #65 brucee

I'm really sorry that you subscribe to that Ron Paulian bullshit. Yes, we Iranians are were mad at what CIA and the British did. But that is long gone, six decades in the past and doesn't compare to what we did to ourselves through inaction and ignorance after the revolution. If the 1953 coup succeeded and the 1979 revolution went wrong it was because our parents and grandparents stayed home and didn't complain. Today's Iran, especially the youth are by no means anti-American or anti-West; people who travelled to Iran would know that.

Even Israeli-Palestinian affairs are considered none of our business; heard the cries of "No Palestine, No Lebanon, my life for Iran" in recent protests? This is by no means a new thing either, it has been growing there for decades but the west couldn't here it because there weren't people screaming in streets. The one thing that is new is whispers have finally turned into shouts.

If Mullahs go away, having normal relations with US and the rest of the west would happen naturally.

Nevertheless, direct intervention can still hurt opposition but only because it'll give mullahs more power to call opposition western-funded and not because it will bring people close to regime.

Not giving the regime, especially Ahmadinejad legitimacy alongside verbal support of values (not specific people or groups) like democracy, freedom and human rights would be the best help western world can provide. e.g. today's White House condemnation.

The Iranians may want to be a part of the west, but the leader of the opposition Moussavi is hardly pro western. He started Hizballah and the nuclear program. That is a concern to me. Also, I do not discount the fact that the Iranians might have rallied around him as a figure head but if he gets power would that be so great?

76 sagehen  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:34:42pm

re: #14 reine.de.tout

In the city of Qom:

Meanwhile, Basijis surrounded Ayatollah Sanei's office and started chanting, "Death to Sanei," "Sanei is an unbeliever," "Sanei is a source of emulation for the British," and "BBC, Sanei, congratulations on your union." One slogan they kept repeating was, "This army that has turned up is for the sake of [out of love for] the Leader," apparently referring to themselves.

Around 3 p.m., the group, which apparently consisted of Basiji and other plainclothes agents, had poured into the street and surrounded Ayatollah Sanei's office, fired tear gas into the mourning ceremony to disperse the gathering.
.


Sanei is Montazeri's successor, the top dog liberal cleric and the one we hope rises in power. He believes in equal rights for women, he believes nuclear weapons are un-Islamic, he's repeatedly written on his blog that suicide bombings are forbidden, he's published a clerical opinion that the June elections were invalid due to fraud.

Here's an al-Jazeera documentary about him:

77 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:35:00pm

re: #65 brucee

[snip]
Today's Iran, especially the youth are by no means anti-American or anti-West; people who travelled to Iran would know that.
[snip]

I mentioned on a previous thread that my girlfriend has people on the inside in Iran, and your information is the same info as we are hearing.

But of course, that's being ignored.

78 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:35:15pm

re: #65 brucee

As I said earlier, I strongly support today's statement by the White House.

See my other comments regarding the perception of meddling, however, which I view as a real danger.

79 Killgore Trout  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:35:22pm

re: #67 jayzee

Speaking of cool cooking stuff, I am thinking of trying this.

I have been a little curious about Sous Vide and some of the other "micro cooking" techniques. It is pretty interesting but I think it's going to be a fad. There's already backlash against all of the foam/gelitanized liquids that was popular in fancy restaurants a few years ago. If you decide to give it a try let me know how it goes but I don't think I'm curious enough to give it a try myself.

80 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:36:26pm

re: #74 sattv4u2

Why on earth would Israel step in during an inter-Persian civil war?. They (like us) would sit back and await the 'winner", knowing that even if it is the Mullahs they would be the weaker for it!

Yes. Public backing from Israel would be the kiss of death for whatever faction receives it.

81 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:36:29pm

re: #65 brucee

Oh, and while you're at it: do a search for my history of comments on Ron Paul. It's very hard to take you seriously when you start off by demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.

82 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:36:31pm

re: #74 sattv4u2

Why on earth would Israel step in during an inter-Persian civil war?. They (like us) would sit back and await the 'winner", knowing that even if it is the Mullahs they would be the weaker for it!

Because they have a nuclear program and uncertainty is never a good thing when dealing with nuclear technology. They are more concerned with Israeli security and a civil war would weaken the Iranians to the point that an attack would have an even greater chance of success.

83 Escaped Hillbilly  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:36:43pm

re: #70 Bagua
My gut reaction is similar. But my brain says, Slow down. Pres. Bush wasn't afraid of Iran. He rightly saw that military intervention at that time wasn't going to be effective. You have to have the support of the people. You have to be sure the people you are trying to help will actually be helped by your intervention. There has to be supply routes, support systems, local staging areas. Could we fight Iran? Yes, but not then, probably not now, not that way. Oh, lets not forget, we're already in 2 current wars and still working our way out of at least 3 others (Bosnia, Korea, Vietnam...yeah, still.) You don't jup in with both boots every time somebody thumbs their nose and goes "nya-nya." A. will get his turn.

84 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:37:57pm

re: #82 jayzee

Because they have a nuclear program and uncertainty is never a good thing when dealing with nuclear technology. They are more concerned with Israeli security and a civil war would weaken the Iranians to the point that an attack would have an even greater chance of success.

See #80

85 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:38:49pm

re: #73 Olsonist

The citizens are deciding to go out in the streets and protest in spite of the danger. When enough of them decide to go out there will be change. It won't come easily and evidently it won't come with the ballot. Even in autocracies there is a consent of the governed: acquiescence.

re: #70 Bagua

Clearly, neoconservativism just won't die.

You are dreaming. When enough citizens decide to go out into the streets the only change will be the Basij will be ordered to open fire and there will be a great deal more blood in the streets. The Mullah regime will not give up without a fight and we know how they "value" human life.

As far as "neoconservatism" whatever, it is clearly dead with the current administration so you needn't fear my small voice.

86 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:39:00pm

re: #79 Killgore Trout

I have been a little curious about Sous Vide and some of the other "micro cooking" techniques. It is pretty interesting but I think it's going to be a fad. There's already backlash against all of the foam/gelitanized liquids that was popular in fancy restaurants a few years ago. If you decide to give it a try let me know how it goes but I don't think I'm curious enough to give it a try myself.

I read the article in the Times and everyone swore it made for the tastiest _ they had ever eaten. I'll probably pick up next month and will let you know how it goes. If my experiments fail, I may sell you one cheap.

87 prairiefire  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:40:04pm

re: #67 jayzee

Speaking of cool cooking stuff, I am thinking of trying this.

Is that like a convection oven, which also cooks with "moist" heat?

88 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:40:04pm

Michael Bolton has stated that he feels the appropriate response to the protest is a full U.S. led invasion of Iran. In other news, the sun rose in the East.

89 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:40:38pm

re: #84 sattv4u2

See #80

Undoubtedly, but I think the Israelis are more concerned with nukes than seeing a revolt which may or may not work out in a good way.

90 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:40:40pm

OT: I don't know if anyone here follows the new Doctor Who series, but I just saw Part 1 of this year's Christmas special, and...holy shit. A gigantic, major plot twist just got underway, and I am anxiously awaiting next week's continuation.

This special also marks the departure of David Tennant in the title role, and of both the head writer and producer. And they are leaving with a gigantic bang, from the looks of things so far.

91 Mocking Jay  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:41:18pm

re: #88 drcordell

Michael Bolton has stated that he feels the appropriate response to the protest is a full U.S. led invasion of Iran. In other news, the sun rose in the East.

Michael Bolton?

92 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:41:57pm

re: #89 jayzee

Undoubtedly, but I think the Israelis are more concerned with nukes than seeing a revolt which may or may not work out in a good way.

Israel will or will not strike at Irans nuke facility regardless of the protests and how they come out when Israel decides to or not to strike

93 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:41:59pm

re: #91 JasonA

Michael Bolton?

Not that Michael Bolton. Michael Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the U.N.

94 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:42:04pm

re: #87 prairiefire

No, it's more like a water bath/crock pot in which you place vacuum sealed foods for slow cooking. That's how I understand it.

95 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:42:38pm

re: #93 drcordell

Not that Michael Bolton. Michael Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the U.N.

JOHN Bolton, perhaps!?!?

96 Summer Seale  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:42:50pm

re: #93 drcordell

Not that Michael Bolton. Michael Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the U.N.

John Bolton.

97 CapeCoddah  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:42:52pm

re: #93 drcordell

Not that Michael Bolton. Michael Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the U.N.

98 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:42:57pm

re: #88 drcordell

You've been watching Office Space too many times.

99 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:43:06pm

re: #93 drcordell

Not that Michael Bolton. Michael Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the U.N.

You mean the Michael Bolton who's name is actually John Bolton?

100 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:43:09pm

re: #70 Bagua

Mind you I realise that what I am suggesting is mere fantasy with the current administration. Even Bush was afraid to strike the Iranians, Obama will do no more than talk it seems.

And even then he won't say much. Granted, there would be an element of political risk to providing even moral support. If we did that, the mullahs would not give us even the pretense of talking and would push their nuclear program forward even harder. Still, i feel the protesters should be support. i second Bagua's call for airstrikes. My preferred tactic would be to target Basiji vehicles and rally point with drone strikes or cruise missiles.

101 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:43:21pm

re: #93 drcordell

Not that Michael Bolton. Michael Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the U.N.


John R. Bolton

102 CapeCoddah  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:43:29pm

John Bolton

103 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:43:56pm

re: #99 The Sanity Inspector

You mean the Michael Bolton who's name is actually John Bolton?

Michael, to his closest detractors!
//

104 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:44:42pm

re: #94 jayzee

No, it's more like a water bath/crock pot in which you place vacuum sealed foods for slow cooking. That's how I understand it.

Yeah, it's similar to a crock pot except with a much more precise temperature control. You set the temp. of the water to exactly the temperature you want your food cooked. So, you want a rare steak, you set the sous vide water bath to 135 degrees. Then you cook the steak until the entire piece of steak has cooked through to 135 degrees. Cut it out of the bag, and then throw a quick sear on it using a blowtorch or searing hot cast iron pan. That way your entire steak is cooked perfectly rare, as opposed to a on a grill where there are layers of medium and well-done surrounding the rare center.

105 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:45:40pm

re: #92 sattv4u2

Israel will or will not strike at Irans nuke facility regardless of the protests and how they come out when Israel decides to or not to strike

All true, but in light of the consultations with Kadima, something seems to be afoot. It would be foolish not to capitalize on any event if you are planning to do something. All I am saying is that this could provide such a catalyst.

106 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:46:17pm

Wow. I'm clearly not at my sharpest. On a bus heading back to NYC from Washington DC after a long weekend...

107 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:47:09pm

re: #106 drcordell

Wow. I'm clearly not at my sharpest. On a bus heading back to NYC from Washington DC after a long weekend...

Most weekends in DC are 'long ones"!

108 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:47:33pm

re: #106 drcordell

Wow. I'm clearly not at my sharpest. On a bus heading back to NYC from Washington DC after a long weekend...

But your sous vide description was inspired.

109 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:47:58pm

re: #106 drcordell

Wow. I'm clearly not at my sharpest. On a bus heading back to NYC from Washington DC after a long weekend...

What sort of device are you using? I ask as a matter of professional interest.

110 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:47:58pm

re: #98 Olsonist

You've been watching Office Space too many times.

Hahahhaha. That no-talent ASSCLOWN!

111 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:48:55pm

re: #109 Dark_Falcon

What sort of device are you using? I ask as a matter of professional interest.

I'm on a bolt bus... pretty amazing actually. You get 2 power outlets in every row, and free wi-fi. I'm on my laptop with full AC support right now.

112 brucee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:48:55pm

re: #68 allegro

Thanks for your viewpoint! What do you see happening with this protest?

You're welcome. About these protests I'm hoping for regime change, and the least violent transition possible, but it's hard to predict. When Khomeini's flight landed in Tehran 3 decades ago, the best estimates where regime would fall in about two years... but it only took ten days.

If things go well Mullahs will fall, and if not a military dictatorship will emerge in place of the theocratic oligarchy. However, that won't last long unless it magically overhauls the economy quickly to calm down the angry and huge below poverty line population who are not that politically sensitive. This fairly lengthy article digs deeper into Revolutionary Guards and what it stands for.

113 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:49:28pm

re: #83 Escaped Hillbilly

My gut reaction is similar. But my brain says, Slow down. Pres. Bush wasn't afraid of Iran. He rightly saw that military intervention at that time wasn't going to be effective. You have to have the support of the people. You have to be sure the people you are trying to help will actually be helped by your intervention. There has to be supply routes, support systems, local staging areas. Could we fight Iran? Yes, but not then, probably not now, not that way. Oh, lets not forget, we're already in 2 current wars and still working our way out of at least 3 others (Bosnia, Korea, Vietnam...yeah, still.) You don't jup in with both boots every time somebody thumbs their nose and goes "nya-nya." A. will get his turn.

We are dreaming if we talk in terms of US intervention with this President, but who know? Obama ramped up the fight in Afghanistan and did not flee Iraq. He may decide to do something about the Mullahs.

As to "supply routes" and such, I wouldn't advocate an invasion. Just airpower at this point. American Air and Naval forces are not at all in scarce supply.

I advocate elimination of the Iranian nuclear threat as the prime objective. It would be sensible to add the Mullah regime to that list through targeted strikes.

An actual invasion to liberate the Iranian people would be an entirely different objective, for that we would indeed need to go in on the ground. I don't see that happening.

114 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:49:45pm

re: #103 sattv4u2

Michael, to his closest detractors!
//

"My friends call me Keith, you can call me John."

115 Escaped Hillbilly  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:49:56pm

Oops "Jana Utthan Pratisthan (JUP) is a national organization which campaigns for the human rights of the Dalit community..." Sometimes spell check won't save you. jup=jump

116 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:50:14pm

re: #105 jayzee

All true, but in light of the consultations with Kadima, something seems to be afoot. It would be foolish not to capitalize on any event if you are planning to do something. All I am saying is that this could provide such a catalyst.

Not unusual when anything significant happens in the region. If Israel were to launch a military strike every time they have a meeting like this ,,, well ,,, i'll leave it at that

117 captdiggs  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:52:21pm

re: #18 SixDegrees

Whatever happens in Iran, the chances of it becoming a pro-Western democracy allied with the US are about zero right now. Many of the students protesting would tell you they are strongly anti-American and anti-Western.

.

I strongly disagree. Many statements coming out from these students are to the effect that they want the support of the US and/or are questioning why more has not been forthcoming.
My sister-in-law is a PhD professor of middle eastern history and culture. Her specialty is ancient Persian dialects.
She was in Iran ( the family is always nervous about that...an American woman in Iran ) just 18 months ago and she says that the educated in Iran are quite pro American, though they spoke only in whispers ( until now). They have had enough of the theocracy. They have had enough of isolation from the west and they want no part of the mullah's vendetta against the US and even Israel.

118 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:52:27pm

re: #108 jayzee

But your sous vide description was inspired.

I would love to get a sous vide setup for my kitchen. I haven't heard much about the sous-vide supreme before though. I just know that previously the only way to do legitimate sous-vide was to buy an immersion circulator that costs around $1,100.

119 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:53:06pm

Either fortunately or unfortunately, this is much more than just civil unrest. The protesters might be the most important political faction in today's world. It is significant because the Iranian regime is in the business of mass murder, either through its export of arms, creation of strife, supporting genocide, and planning genocide with it's nuclear program.

The regime has protected this program with a strategy that, most unfortunately, works very well. The only hope, it seems, is the downfall of the regime, and the installation of a government more inclined towards liberty and innovation.

The world is on the brink of a flowering of scientific discoveries in the areas of eliminating disease, famine, and new ways of using energy. The only thing standing in the way of this is Iran's nuclear ambitions, which are not confined to only one small country.

Whatever you may feel is the engine of historical success, luck, fate, The Force, Divine intervention--I certainly wish for that to be with this movement.

120 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:53:24pm

re: #98 Olsonist

You've been watching Office Space too many times.

But aren't you glad you think of that Michael Bolton before you think of that other Michael Bloton?

121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:53:56pm

re: #120 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

But aren't you glad you think of that Michael Bolton before you think of that other Michael Bolton?

sheesh

122 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:54:01pm

e.re: #113 Bagua

To be clear, an American intervention in Iran with this or any President would be pointless. Stupid actually. Unlike say Bosnia where there was a side to take, both sides would unite against the US as an invader. It would be costly to them and it would be costly to us. Perhaps you've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels or watching 24 too much but things haven't worked out so well in Iraq and Iran wouldn't be any easier.

123 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:54:08pm

OT ,,,

i'm no Jets fan, but

GO JETS!!

(sorry hoosier!!)

124 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:54:14pm

re: #117 captdiggs

I strongly disagree. Many statements coming out from these students are to the effect that they want the support of the US and/or are questioning why more has not been forthcoming.
My sister-in-law is a PhD professor of middle eastern history and culture. Her specialty is ancient Persian dialects.
She was in Iran ( the family is always nervous about that...an American woman in Iran ) just 18 months ago and she says that the educated in Iran are quite pro American, though they spoke only in whispers ( until now). They have had enough of the theocracy. They have had enough of isolation from the west and they want no part of the mullah's vendetta against the US and even Israel.

The Iranian people are definitely itching to end the isolation of their country and restore their relationship with the West. That being said, if we were to invade, they most certainly would not "greet us as liberators." If there is going to be a regime change, it has to be organic and not brought about at bayonet point from an outside invading force.

125 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:54:46pm

re: #111 drcordell

I'm on a bolt bus... pretty amazing actually. You get 2 power outlets in every row, and free wi-fi. I'm on my laptop with full AC support right now.

Very cool. Thanks.

126 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:55:34pm

re: #116 sattv4u2

Not unusual when anything significant happens in the region. If Israel were to launch a military strike every time they have a meeting like this ,,, well ,,, i'll leave it at that

Not entirely true. There is often talk of coalition governments, but rarely high level party leader negotiations (accept after elections). Also, there is no real political need to talk with Kadima. The coalition is strong. In fact, Kadima is becoming increasingly marginalized and at least (now) 7 MKs from Kadima are jumping ship and joining Likud. Again, I don't know what will happen, but a few things are coming to a head.

127 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:56:37pm

re: #125 Dark_Falcon

Very cool. Thanks.

The power outlets are wonderful, but the internet can be sort of hit-or-miss. LGF is actually loading surprisingly well, but the bandwidth isn't exactly the greatest. Loading ESPN can be slooooooooooooooowwwwww.

128 Mocking Jay  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:56:40pm

re: #124 drcordell

Thanks for mentioning Bolt Bus. Never heard of them, but it seems like a better way to get to Philly than the train.

129 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:56:46pm

re: #118 drcordell

I would love to get a sous vide setup for my kitchen. I haven't heard much about the sous-vide supreme before though. I just know that previously the only way to do legitimate sous-vide was to buy an immersion circulator that costs around $1,100.

This is the first and only "home" edition on the market I understand. The previous way required rigging the crock pot to maintain steady heat.

130 RadicalModerate  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:56:48pm

re: #90 SixDegrees

OT: I don't know if anyone here follows the new Doctor Who series, but I just saw Part 1 of this year's Christmas special, and...holy shit. A gigantic, major plot twist just got underway, and I am anxiously awaiting next week's continuation.

This special also marks the departure of David Tennant in the title role, and of both the head writer and producer. And they are leaving with a gigantic bang, from the looks of things so far.

Trying as hard as I can to respond without too many spoilers here:
Overall, really liked the episode, however the over-the-top Obama press-conference bit sounded like some teabagger's delusional fantasy, but the post-"Immortality Gate" activation bit was very funny, and technically amazing. Over 32 combined elements in the "press corps" shot alone.

And a blond-haired blue-eyed Master's declaration at the end of the episode? Yikes.

131 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:57:01pm

re: #119 Bob Levin

And once again I'm reminded how fortunate we are, to live in a nation where politics is more than just a prelude to civil war.

132 allegro  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:57:11pm

re: #112 brucee

This fairly lengthy article digs deeper into Revolutionary Guards and what it stands for.

Very interesting reading. Highly recommended. Thanks so much for the link. Much to think about.

133 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:58:01pm

re: #126 jayzee

PIMF I hate when I confuse accept for except.

134 Escaped Hillbilly  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:58:11pm

re: #113 Bagua

As to "supply routes" and such, I wouldn't advocate an invasion. Just airpower at this point. American Air and Naval forces are not at all in scarce supply.

I advocate elimination of the Iranian nuclear threat as the prime objective. It would be sensible to add the Mullah regime to that list through targeted strikes.

Airpower without ground support. How? Sounds good but won't work. Aircraft only stay airborne for a limited time. They have to be serviced, manned, fueled. So where do we do that, Iraq? Kuwait and S.A. have both already nixed it. They're not real happy about helping us to the degree they already have. What happens when they defy our "no fly zones" (Iraq) or when our pilots get shot down or crash (Bosnia)? Oh, and those surgical airstrikes are never as surgical as you might like, nor is it necessarily easy to identify where the targets are hiding. The Air Force has never won a war by itself for a reason. Lastly, local populace would NOT support our blasting away at their Mosques and schools, where the Mullahs are most often found, nor at their government buildings where they sometimes work. Look, either you're fighting a war or your not. We're not. And Pres. O. is not stupid enough to go in there right now.
Oh, and I'm generally pretty hawkish, case you were wondering.

135 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:58:22pm

re: #123 sattv4u2

Colt's have decided to give it away. Ain't no "Go Jets" about it.

BTW, isn't "Go Jets" an illegal expression where you're from?

136 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:58:48pm

re: #124 drcordell

The Iranian people are definitely itching to end the isolation of their country and restore their relationship with the West. That being said, if we were to invade, they most certainly would not "greet us as liberators." If there is going to be a regime change, it has to be organic and not brought about at bayonet point from an outside invading force.

No one is suggesting we send ground troops. Decapitation and immobalizing strike would work far better. Take out the lorries (I think Iran uses the British term) that the Revolutionary Guard would use move its troops it place. Target government C3 nodes. That sort of thing.

137 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:59:10pm

re: #135 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Colt's have decided to give it away. Ain't no "Go Jets" about it.

BTW, isn't "Go Jets" an illegal expression where you're from?

Where i'm FROM, YES

Where I AM, not so much

So I'm fine on a technicality!

138 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:59:47pm

re: #128 JasonA

Thanks for mentioning Bolt Bus. Never heard of them, but it seems like a better way to get to Philly than the train.

Check out both Bolt Bus, or another company called Megabus. They both use that algorithmic pricing model similar to discount airlines. Basically if you book far enough in advance you can get your trip for $1, and the most expensive seat is only like $20. They both have the power outlets and free wifi.

To save $$$ they don't leave from an actual bus station, you have to board on some street corner or parking lot usually. But once you get past the inevitable boarding clusterfuck it's pretty great. They definitely go to Philly from NYC, as well as DC/Baltimore and Boston.

139 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:00:04pm

re: #135 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Colt's have decided to give it away. Ain't no "Go Jets" about it.

BTW, isn't "Go Jets" an illegal expression where you're from?

Concur. When the Colts pulled Peyton Manning, they sent a clear signal that force preservation is more important than winning this game.

140 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:00:39pm

re: #138 drcordell

Way cool.

141 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:01:51pm

re: #139 Dark_Falcon

Effin' 72 Dolphins'll still light cigars, I guess.

142 captdiggs  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:01:55pm

re: #124 drcordell

The Iranian people are definitely itching to end the isolation of their country and restore their relationship with the West. That being said, if we were to invade, they most certainly would not "greet us as liberators." If there is going to be a regime change, it has to be organic and not brought about at bayonet point from an outside invading force.

The US will never "invade" Iran...no way...not in this lifetime.

143 Mocking Jay  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:02:10pm

re: #138 drcordell

Yeah, I checked out their site. They go right to 30th street station which is perfect for who I was looking to visit.

144 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:02:57pm

re: #141 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Effin' 72 Dolphins'll still light cigars, I guess.

They can't

no flames are allowed where everyone is wearing an oxygen mask!! (those ole geezers!!))

///

145 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:03:11pm

re: #129 jayzee

This is the first and only "home" edition on the market I understand. The previous way required rigging the crock pot to maintain steady heat.

Yeah those didn't really seem like they would be able to maintain a constant enough temperature to really gain the benefits of true sous-vide cooking. According to the Keller cookbook I have "Under Pressure" he believes that when cooking something delicate like salmon a distinguished palette can tell the difference in texture from fillets cooked just one degree different.

It sounds lame, but what I'm most interested in cooking above all else is the perfect poached egg. An egg poached in-shell to precisely 140 degrees is perhaps the perfect food.

146 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:03:23pm

re: #122 Olsonist

e.

To be clear, an American intervention in Iran with this or any President would be pointless. Stupid actually. Unlike say Bosnia where there was a side to take, both sides would unite against the US as an invader. It would be costly to them and it would be costly to us. Perhaps you've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels or watching 24 too much but things haven't worked out so well in Iraq and Iran wouldn't be any easier.

That is your opinion, I have mine. You may wish to ridicule mine by making association with TV and novels but I will not do the same to you.

I made it clear I did not advocate an invasion, do not debate the StrawBagua.

I advocate Air attacks to end the Nuclear program and perhaps decapitate the regime. No more at this point.

And If you followed the Iranian situation closely as I have, you would know there are a great many people gasping for freedom who would welcome any intervention to liberate them. I've seen a great many Iranians post of Israeli news sites and radio shows begging that Israel return the historical debt and free the Iranian people. This is of course, fantasy. But there are many Iranians who do in fact want freedom.

147 nogendavid  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:04:49pm

From my reading, the Iranian population is generally not anti-semitic or anti-Israel. The regime promotes these views as part of its attempt to assume leadership of the Islamic world. It has to to come up with some claim to leadership, because the Arabs are not naturally sympathetic to the Persians, and the branch of Islam promoted by the regime is regarded as something approach heresy among most Arab Muslims.

I don't think the people are likely to be anti-American either. As Edward Lutwack wrote some time ago, you have to figure that a generation subjected to an endless barrage of anti-US propaganda by an authoritarian regime has to be among the most pro-American in the world.

The only good outcome for Israel - and the West generally - is the installation of a more moderate regime. A "weakened" continuation of the current lunatic regime could very well be every more reckless - pursue foreign adventures as a means of diverting attention from internal weakness, and worse still, if the regime thinks it might lose power anyway, maybe they think it's time to bring on the Apocalypse and the emergence of the hidden imam?

148 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:06:16pm

This notion that there is some difference between invasion and attack is pointless pedantry.

149 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:07:38pm

Don't forget that if anyone's talking about military intervention in Iran, it's very important to know exactly where you have to hit. And the West doesn't know that right now.

150 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:09:11pm

re: #148 Olsonist

This notion that there is some difference between invasion and attack is pointless pedantry.

I do not agree. We could quite plausibly sell an air campaign as aid to those who need help liberating themselves from tyranny. We need to be clear that we do not want to control Iran, but we will aid its people in removing the despotic mullahs.

151 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:09:22pm

re: #149 Bob Levin

Don't forget that if anyone's talking about military intervention in Iran, it's very important to know exactly where you have to hit. And the West doesn't know that right now.

Also, even if we know where to hit, can conventional weapons get the job done? Nobody is even sure if our biggest "bunker buster" bombs can fully penetrate some of their buried and reinforced sites.

152 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:11:26pm

re: #150 Dark_Falcon

Hmmm. We tried long air campaigns with Iraq. Twice. We tried a long air campaign in Afghanistan. Damn those precision guided bombs going right down smokestacks looked kewl.

But in the end what we got was a lot of collateral damage and no change.

153 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:11:30pm

re: #148 Olsonist

This notion that there is some difference between invasion and attack is pointless pedantry.

Pedantry? How so? There have been a great many air attacks that were not accompanied by ground invasions. There is a huge difference between the two.

154 recusancy  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:12:58pm

re: #150 Dark_Falcon

I do not agree. We could quite plausibly sell an air campaign as aid to those who need help liberating themselves from tyranny. We need to be clear that we do not want to control Iran, but we will aid its people in removing the despotic mullahs.

How did that work out in Iraq? You can't get rid of a regime and allow a power vacuum to ensue. And you can't put in a pro American puppet. We've done that there before.

We must allow them to handle it themselves unless we're specifically asked for help or something major changes.

155 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:13:24pm

re: #151 drcordell

Also, even if we know where to hit, can conventional weapons get the job done? Nobody is even sure if our biggest "bunker buster" bombs can fully penetrate some of their buried and reinforced sites.

That's why I don't plan to hit those. They need to bring their enforcers into the open to move them into Tehran. While they are on the move, our airpower can kill them in job lots. Inflict heavy enough losses and the remainder will give up in despair.

156 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:13:37pm

re: #151 drcordell

That's the downside of all of this. The Iranians know their best defense is their strategy, not tech that comes from Russia. I'm not sure they can defend this.

They regime didn't forsee that even if they can make successful nuclear strikes, their general population isn't really up for the nuclear retaliation that would certainly come their way.

The protesters can't be intimidated because they are fighting for their lives.

157 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:13:55pm

re: #149 Bob Levin

Don't forget that if anyone's talking about military intervention in Iran, it's very important to know exactly where you have to hit. And the West doesn't know that right now.

There is no way to make an absolute declarative sentence that we either don't know OR know. We (regular citizens) have no idea what intel the US, Israel, or anyone has re; Iran

158 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:14:19pm

re: #154 recusancy

How did that work out in Iraq? You can't get rid of a regime and allow a power vacuum to ensue. And you can't put in a pro American puppet. We've done that there before.

We must allow them to handle it themselves unless we're specifically asked for help or something major changes.

Couldn't have said it better myself. We've been fantasizing about winning wars with air-power alone since Vietnam, but it just doesn't work that way.

159 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:14:36pm

re: #154 recusancy

How did that work out in Iraq? You can't get rid of a regime and allow a power vacuum to ensue. And you can't put in a pro American puppet. We've done that there before.

We must allow them to handle it themselves unless we're specifically asked for help or something major changes.

Actually, a power vacuum in Iran would be acceptable. It would remove the nuclear threat.

160 drcordell  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:16:22pm

re: #159 Dark_Falcon

Actually, a power vacuum in Iran would be acceptable. It would remove the nuclear threat.

And the entire swath of land from Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran would be nothing but a giant failed-state clusterfuck? Not even considering what's going down in Pakistan right now? That sounds like an absolute recipe for disaster to me.

161 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:16:33pm

re: #154 recusancy

How did that work out in Iraq? You can't get rid of a regime and allow a power vacuum to ensue. And you can't put in a pro American puppet. We've done that there before.

We must allow them to handle it themselves unless we're specifically asked for help or something major changes.

But that ignores the threat that Iran does pose to the entire region. Check out Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Israel for just a few of their examples of their destabilizing influence. Iran will have to be dealt with not just left alone to its own devices. Whether that be via covert, overt (or both) actions remains to be seen.

162 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:16:56pm

re: #153 Bagua

Pedantry? How so?

pedant - a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules.

There have been a great many air attacks that were not accompanied by ground invasions. There is a huge difference between the two.

Yes, like the bombing of Tripoli. Strictly for domestic consumption

163 prairiefire  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:17:35pm

re: #159 Dark_Falcon

How? How not to guarantee a mullah even more crazy and blood thirsty wouldn't take advantage of it?

164 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:17:48pm

re: #157 sattv4u2

Okay, I'll make it less definitive. I only say that for the following reason--if the West knew precisely which places to strike, they would have done so by now. The US beat Iraq twice very quickly, Israel took out two nuclear facilities in the last thirty years, Great Britain easily took back the Falklands.

This problem must not be so simple.

165 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:18:28pm

re: #162 Olsonist

Yes, like the bombing of Tripoli. Strictly for domestic consumption

Like the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor?

166 recusancy  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:19:15pm

re: #159 Dark_Falcon

Actually, a power vacuum in Iran would be acceptable. It would remove the nuclear threat.

You're putting far too much respect in Iran's nuclear program and it's intentions. A stable nation is always safer then a rogue war leader-run one.

167 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:20:13pm

re: #154 recusancy

How did that work out in Iraq? You can't get rid of a regime and allow a power vacuum to ensue. And you can't put in a pro American puppet. We've done that there before.

We must allow them to handle it themselves unless we're specifically asked for help or something major changes.

That depends on one's perspective. If the objective was eliminating Saddam's regime and its ability to make war on its neighbors it worked out quite well. In fact, post invasion we discovered that the no-fly and other air enforcement and the sanctions were even more effective than believed.

If any US action resulted in the end of the Iranian nuclear program and the hanging of the Mullah dictators, that would be success indeed.

But I agree that intervention in the civil war aspect is highly problematic and fraught with difficulties. What I advocate is different, though no doubt it could lead to the end of the Mullah dictatorship.

168 prairiefire  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:21:22pm

re: #90 SixDegrees

Yes, that episode was quite good. I'm still getting used to Catherine Tate, however. I keep thinking it is going to turn into a comedy skit.

169 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:22:22pm

re: #164 Bob Levin

Okay, I'll make it less definitive. I only say that for the following reason--if the West knew precisely which places to strike, they would have done so by now. The US beat Iraq twice very quickly, Israel took out two nuclear facilities in the last thirty years, Great Britain easily took back the Falklands.

This problem must not be so simple.

Says it all

The US had to go BACK and beat Iraq
Israel had to go BACK to take out another facility

IF we knew where they are now (and I beleive we do) we may not want to take it out nowe as to maximize WHAT we take out when we do

170 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:22:37pm

re: #162 Olsonist

Yes, I know the definition mate, I asked you how it was pedantry to see a difference between an air campaign and a ground invasion.

Israel and the US have done a great deal of the former without the latter. The examples are many.

171 Jeff In Ohio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:22:40pm

re: #99 The Sanity Inspector

You mean the Michael Bolton who's name is actually John Bolton?

Maybe, does he have a mullet?

172 sagehen  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:22:52pm

re: #150 Dark_Falcon

I do not agree. We could quite plausibly sell an air campaign as aid to those who need help liberating themselves from tyranny. We need to be clear that we do not want to control Iran, but we will aid its people in removing the despotic mullahs.

oh, please.

Think of the left wing that opposed Bush, or the right wing that opposes Obama. Would either of them welcome assistance from any foreign military to help them overthrow any American president, even one they hate and want to remove? Would they cheer wildly at air strikes on the White House, or the president's own house in Chicago or Crawford, or Focus on the Family headquarters or MoveOn.org?

Not likely.

173 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:23:36pm

re: #166 recusancy

You're putting far too much respect in Iran's nuclear program and it's intentions. A stable nation is always safer then a rogue war leader-run one.

Nukes are always something to respect. Ending Iran's nuclear program would be worth causing some instability, IMO.

174 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:23:55pm

re: #165 jayzee

Wow. Like that really solved anything. We only had to invade them. Twice.

175 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:24:14pm

I keep coming back to hte idea that the Iranian regime would like nothing better than for us to intervene. It'd be the only thing that'd get their people to stop revolting.

176 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:24:43pm

re: #169 sattv4u2

Says it all

The US had to go BACK and beat Iraq
Israel had to go BACK to take out another facility

IF we knew where they are now (and I beleive we do) we may not want to take it out nowe as to maximize WHAT we take out when we do

Israel didn't go back, it went to Syria.

177 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:25:26pm

re: #173 Dark_Falcon

Nukes are always something to respect. Ending Iran's nuclear program would be worth causing some instability, IMO.

Quite concur.

Any collateral damage to the Mullah dictatorship and any assistance to the cause of Iranian freedom would be welcome side effects, but are not necessary to justify action to remove the nuclear threat.

178 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:25:37pm

re: #172 sagehen

oh, please.

Think of the left wing that opposed Bush, or the right wing that opposes Obama. Would either of them welcome assistance from any foreign military to help them overthrow any American president, even one they hate and want to remove? Would they cheer wildly at air strikes on the White House, or the president's own house in Chicago or Crawford, or Focus on the Family headquarters or MoveOn.org?

Not likely.

America is not Iran. Obama is not a tyrant, nor was Bush. Nor did a critical mass of people see either man as such. Analogy FAIL.

179 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:25:39pm

re: #166 recusancy

You're putting far too much respect in Iran's nuclear program and it's intentions. A stable nation is always safer then a rogue war leader-run one.

They're nuclear program is for the production of electricity, that's the only intention I've heard them state.

180 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:27:04pm

re: #174 Olsonist

Wow. Like that really solved anything. We only had to invade them. Twice.

Are you actually saying that Israel's taking of the Iraqi nuclear reactor did nothing? No offense, but that's crazy. The fact that the US went in twice for two different reasons is not relevant. What is relevant is that we did not have to face a nuclear armed Iraq when we did. Israel never tried for regime change in Iraq, they tried to take out their nuclear program, which apparently they did quite well.

181 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:27:21pm

re: #170 Bagua

I made it clear I did not advocate an invasion, do not debate the StrawBagua.

To you there may be some difference between an attack and an invasion. To them, there would be no difference. So your difference is at best pedantic.

182 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:28:37pm

re: #169 sattv4u2

The US defeated the Iraqi defenses quickly, not the mind behind the defenses. That was done the second time--but militarily, the US defeated the Iraqi army easily. Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor--one and done. Then they took out Syria's, one and done--and in the process showed that Russian tech isn't the most reliable.

I'm not sure I understand your point about waiting. If we know what the job takes, then do the job.

183 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:29:42pm

Also (maybe I missed it skimming to catch up), why's it our responsibility anyways?

In no way is Iran's nuclear program a risk to the US, and several of the nations that COULD be threatened are more than capable of dealing with it.

184 Capitalist Tool  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:31:00pm

re: #179 Walter L. Newton

They're nuclear program is for the production of electricity, that's the only intention I've heard them state.

Yeah, that flys.

185 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:31:08pm

re: #181 Olsonist

Stop baiting Bagua. Using words like pedantic is often seem as insulting.

186 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:32:03pm

re: #181 Olsonist

I made it clear I did not advocate an invasion, do not debate the StrawBagua.

To you there may be some difference between an attack and an invasion. To them, there would be no difference. So your difference is at best pedantic.

You presume to speak for the Iranian people and their perceptions, I am speaking of the American perspective. An Air attack is massively different from a ground invasion. If you see no difference between the two then it is pointless to discuss further.

The US could spend a decade flying over Iran at will and never send in a single tank.

187 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:32:15pm

re: #172 sagehen

oh, please.

Think of the left wing that opposed Bush, or the right wing that opposes Obama. Would either of them welcome assistance from any foreign military to help them overthrow any American president, even one they hate and want to remove? Would they cheer wildly at air strikes on the White House, or the president's own house in Chicago or Crawford, or Focus on the Family headquarters or MoveOn.org?

Not likely.

You don;t think a Confederate soldier or someone living in the south during our civil war wouldn;'t have accepted a forieng power entering Chesepeake Bay and sailing up to Wasshington and laying seige on the White House with President Lincoln in it?

Likely

188 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:32:27pm

re: #180 jayzee

The Israeli bombing was June 7, 1981 during the Iran Iraq war when the US was tacitly backing Saddam.

189 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:33:30pm

re: #187 sattv4u2

Holy bad analogy, Batman!


Its hard to think about how your hypothetical and whats going on in Iran are remotely similar.

190 RadicalModerate  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:35:12pm

Is it just me, or is the level of silence about the current uprising from the right-wing blogosphere absolutely deafening?

Only comments I've seen were from the idiot horde at FR, most of those being racist anti-Obama comments, including one who claims that the "Neda" footage was faked.

191 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:35:50pm

re: #188 Olsonist

The Israeli bombing was June 7, 1981 during the Iran Iraq war when the US was tacitly backing Saddam.

And? I thought your point was that air assaults don't work except for "domestic" consumption. If your point was that Israel successfully laid waste the Iraqi nuclear program, via an air assault, in June, 1981, then I misunderstood.

192 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:36:12pm

re: #189 windsagio

Holy bad analogy, Batman!


Its hard to think about how your hypothetical and whats going on in Iran are remotely similar.

Read what I responded too

Would either of them welcome assistance from any foreign military to help them overthrow any American president,

193 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:36:30pm

re: #185 Dark_Falcon

Stop baiting Bagua. Using words like pedantic is often seem as insulting.

Thank you. We could do with more civil discussion on this forum and fewer personal attacks. We are all entitled to our opinions.

194 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:36:49pm

re: #190 RadicalModerate

Is it just me, or is the level of silence about the current uprising from the right-wing blogosphere absolutely deafening?

Only comments I've seen were from the idiot horde at FR, most of those being racist anti-Obama comments, including one who claims that the "Neda" footage was faked.

The silence in the media is deafening.

195 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:37:42pm

re: #183 windsagio

Also (maybe I missed it skimming to catch up), why's it our responsibility anyways?

In no way is Iran's nuclear program a risk to the US, and several of the nations that COULD be threatened are more than capable of dealing with it.

It depends on the nature of their program. They've been successful at building it by using deception. They are protecting it using deception. What if the missiles are a deception and they're really building many suitcase bombs to be placed in major cities around the world. That would be the best strategy and offer some defense against retaliation.

Their program most certainly does pose a risk to the US.

196 Capitalist Tool  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:38:36pm

re: #194 jayzee

The silence in the media is deafening.


Media outlets' first concern is their bottom line.

197 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:38:56pm

re: #183 windsagio

Also (maybe I missed it skimming to catch up), why's it our responsibility anyways?

In no way is Iran's nuclear program a risk to the US, and several of the nations that COULD be threatened are more than capable of dealing with it.

Several?

I'll give you Israel

Who else??

198 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:40:16pm

re: #194 jayzee

The silence in the media is deafening.

Here's a good article on that very topic.

199 sagehen  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:41:16pm

re: #187 sattv4u2

You don;t think a Confederate soldier or someone living in the south during our civil war wouldn;'t have accepted a forieng power entering Chesepeake Bay and sailing up to Wasshington and laying seige on the White House with President Lincoln in it?

Likely

You mean the president of a country they didn't consider themselves part of any longer, in territory they didn't consider theirs and didn't want anyway?

200 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:41:55pm

re: #192 sattv4u2

I did read it; you're comparing a popular revolt to a succession. Iranians are highly nationalistic, and they don't appreciate ANY foreign incursions. In your Civil War comparison, the South considered the North a seperate nation, and they were almost counting on their purported allies to intervene. That was their whole strategy.

re: #195 Bob Levin

I haven't seen that as their whole agenda. Iran isn't Al Qaeda, and they don't want to make war with us, they want to counterbalance Israel and extend their influence/status in the region.

re: #197 sattv4u2

Turkey and India (altho' they're not too likely to mess with India). I was mainly thinking Turkey and Israel, tho'

201 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:42:56pm

re: #200 windsagio


I haven't seen that as their whole agenda. Iran isn't Al Qaeda, and they don't want to make war with us, they want to counterbalance Israel and extend their influence/status in the region.

All of the middle east is afraid of Israel's nuclear capability, thats what I mean by 'counterbalance'

202 RadicalModerate  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:44:10pm

re: #194 jayzee

The silence in the media is deafening.

Yeah. I've noticed that too- the major media today seems to be in overdrive regarding Mr. "underpants-on-fire" and today's plot twist right out of "Airplane!"

203 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:44:50pm

re: #200 windsagio

How does India take out an Iranian facility without violating the airspace of nations that are LESS freindly to India than Iran is?

I also doubt that Turkey has the capability (intel as well as hardware) to do it

204 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:45:02pm

re: #201 windsagio

All of the middle east is afraid of Israel's nuclear capability, thats what I mean by 'counterbalance'

Those damn Israelis threatening their neighbors with annihilation, and the suicide bombings, and the denial of their existence. Oh wait!

205 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:48:18pm

re: #201 windsagio

All of the middle east is afraid of Israel's nuclear capability, thats what I mean by 'counterbalance'

That is one interpretation. Many of us believe the Iranians are not interested in "counterbalance" they are interested in the destruction of Israel and the Western World. At the very least they want the protection of a nuclear umbrella as cover for there proxy war against Israel, the US, Lebanon, Iraq and soon the gulf states.

The majority of reports out of the middle east suggest the Arab countries are frightened to death of the Iranian nuclear program and consider it a major threat to their survival.

But if you see the Iranian nuclear effort as benign, that is your opinion.

206 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:48:45pm

re: #202 RadicalModerate

Yeah. I've noticed that too- the major media today seems to be in overdrive regarding Mr. "underpants-on-fire" and today's plot twist right out of "Airplane!"

Mr pants on fire is a legitimate and important news item. Also, more black and white. I think part of the problem with Iran is the complexity. The people seem to be rebelling, but their opposition leader isn't a great guy. Ahmadinejad is bad but if he goes do the mullah's stay? And what about the nukes? How do you sell that in the news? It's a soap opera, but not a 5 min news story.

207 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:51:03pm

re: #203 sattv4u2

Turkey's military is scary, don't underestimate them. We can make India Pakistan if you want, I had a brain hiccup >>

re: #204 jayzee

Heh, I didn't say that at all. Also, try an empathy exercise. If you're an average citizen of an middle eastern state, consider how you'd think of an enemy state with nuclear weapons that you can't deal with?

Their POV isn't ours at all, amazingly!

re: #205 Bagua

'benign' is a bit strawmanny. I dunno man. We've gotten here before. People in the US (especially on the right) have a really skewed view of what Iran is really about, and are still butthurt over the Hostage crisis (30 years ago now!). Look at the state rationally, and in alot of ways its population is the most forward-thinking in the whole of the Middle East. (And don't say 'but Israel!', you know what I mean :P)

208 sattv4u2  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:53:03pm

re: #207 windsagio

We can make India Pakistan if you want

I'm sure there are many Pakistani's that would like that

Indians, not so much!

209 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:53:47pm

#185 Dark_Falcon

If you look back at post #148 you will see that I disagreed with his narrow distinction. He then asked me why I thought it was pedantry.

Nor was this a strawman argument since I was explicitly disagreeing with the difference rather than mischaracterizing his statements. Got it?

I think it's easier if the disagreements are clear so I made my position clear in #122

210 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:55:03pm

re: #208 sattv4u2

damn its getting interesting but I have to get ready to go out.

Upding for the clever play there :)

211 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:57:00pm

re: #207 windsagio

I agree the issue is complex and fraught with unknowns. For my part, I don't see the subject from the point of view of the partisan divide in the US. I consider what is best for the Western world, including Israel and formulate my opinions accordingly.

As to the Iranian population, I agree they are very different from what people image, especially the younger generation. What they want and what the theocrats ruling them want are very different. I see a population yearning for freedom and modernity that is at odds with the primitives oppressing them.

212 solomonpanting  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:57:06pm

re: #207 windsagio

Also, try an empathy exercise. If you're an average citizen of an middle eastern state, consider how you'd think of an enemy state with nuclear weapons that you can't deal with?

An enemy state? Because of all the Israeli attempts at invading its neighbors? Why aren't Canada or Mexico afraid of its neighbor possesing nukes?
"If you're an average citizen of an middle eastern state" you've probably been fed a steady diet of lies, distortions and propaganda for your entire life.

213 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 4:57:40pm

re: #207 windsagio

Turkey's military is scary, don't underestimate them. We can make India Pakistan if you want, I had a brain hiccup >>

re: #204 jayzee

Heh, I didn't say that at all. Also, try an empathy exercise. If you're an average citizen of an middle eastern state, consider how you'd think of an enemy state with nuclear weapons that you can't deal with?

Their POV isn't ours at all, amazingly!

re: #205 Bagua

'benign' is a bit strawmanny. I dunno man. We've gotten here before. People in the US (especially on the right) have a really skewed view of what Iran is really about, and are still butthurt over the Hostage crisis (30 years ago now!). Look at the state rationally, and in alot of ways its population is the most forward-thinking in the whole of the Middle East. (And don't say 'but Israel!', you know what I mean :P)

Empathy? This perception is reality nonsense has to stop. Really. How much empathy to you have for the brilliant minds that saw a communist conspiracy in President Obama's Christmas ornaments? How much do they deserve. No, there is right and wrong, and the fact that Israel has defensive weapons surrounded by angry irrational nations that consistently use their weapons offensively does no bother me at all. It does not bother me that the US has nukes, but I would be freaked the fuck out if AQ got them. Empathy? Puhlease.

214 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:02:14pm

re: #212 solomonpanting
re: #213 jayzee


I should know better than to post ANY comment that could even be construed to be negative to Israel at all.


I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying thats what they think. I'd bet a vast majority of people in the islamic world would describe Israel as an 'enemy state', if not as something worse. Given what they think, its understandable (if not correct) that they want to do something to 'stop them'.

re: #211 Bagua

The important point I wanna get across is that I feel the US is deeply myopic about Iran. Adding the partisan bit, probably didn't help anything and I apologize :p It just weakens my point

215 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:02:41pm

re: #213 jayzee

Agreed. We need to deal with reality, not appearances. The Mullah regimes quest for nuclear weapons is a grave threat that must be removed if we are to have safety. That they treat their own citizens with such contempt for basic human rights and are responsible for proxy wars against the US, UK and Israel speaks for itself. They are the enemy, and an oppressive and vicious one at that.

216 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:03:34pm

re: #213 jayzee

I'm with you on that. That wasn't a plea for empathy at all. If you have empathy you can't be racist, or anti-Semitic, or even allow stereotypes to sit comfortable in your mind; you'll actually read history for greater understanding.

It was a plea to believe all of the anti-Israeli propaganda that is continually produced by the nations that surround Israel.

217 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:04:34pm

re: #213 jayzee

How much empathy to you have for the brilliant minds that saw a communist conspiracy in President Obama's Christmas ornaments?

Quite a bit of empathy. These wackos are in my family. I know them. I walk among them. I disagree with them, yes, but they are still us.

218 Bagua  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:05:53pm

re: #214 windsagio

The important point I wanna get across is that I feel the US is deeply myopic about Iran. Adding the partisan bit, probably didn't help anything and I apologize :p It just weakens my point

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with the "deeply myopic about Iran" part. And I strongly believe we must move beyond the partisan divide to find common ground on a great many issues. Unfortunately, that seems as much a fantasy as any real action on Iran.

219 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:14:36pm

re: #217 Olsonist

Quite a bit of empathy. These wackos are in my family. I know them. I walk among them. I disagree with them, yes, but they are still us.

Empathy is the blurring the lines between self and others, feeling what they're feeling. So no, no empathy, anymore than I have empathy for serial murderers, schizophrenics etc. I know what they feel, they tell me, but I DO NOT need to feel it too. Now sympathy is another thing. I feel bad for these people. Feel bad they have been fed lies, believe lies, perpetuate lies, but empathy not so much.

220 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:22:17pm

re: #219 jayzee

Wait, you're quibbling about the specific definition of the word 'empathy'?

Lets try this. It is important that we try to understand why they think the way they do, and deal with the reality of their beliefs. Stereotyping and projection don't do us or them any good, and just increases problems on the international stage.

Or locally. If we can understand why people get worked up about things like those Christmas ornaments, we're slightly more likely to be able to work with (or in this case, more likely around) them.

221 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:22:44pm

re: #219 jayzee

Excellent definition. World freaking class definition. And no, you don't have to worry about me having empathy for serial murderers although they do seem to be the subject of too many Hollywood movies, an entire genre in fact.

Not a huge disagreement here. I just can't let them be they. Who I really hate are the Rushes and Gingriches who make their coin and career out of dividing.

222 windsagio  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:24:13pm

re: #221 Olsonist

last one, then I'm gone for an hour or so.

To flip it around, understanding why a serial killer does what they do can be a big step in helping to stop or catch them. Its not 'feel-good crap', its a useful tool in human relations.

223 Olsonist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:25:44pm

re: #222 windsagio

Yep, there is that. Speaking of which, I have places to go, people to kill.

224 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:25:49pm

re: #220 windsagio

Wait, you're quibbling about the specific definition of the word 'empathy'?

Lets try this. It is important that we try to understand why they think the way they do, and deal with the reality of their beliefs. Stereotyping and projection don't do us or them any good, and just increases problems on the international stage.

Or locally. If we can understand why people get worked up about things like those Christmas ornaments, we're slightly more likely to be able to work with (or in this case, more likely around) them.

No, I can sympathize with someone believing the lies they've been fed (that has happened to almost all of us), but it doesn't make the lie more true or less dangerous.

225 jayzee  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:27:33pm

re: #223 Olsonist

Yep, there is that. Speaking of which, I have places to go, people to kill.

Enjoy, don't forget the bleach.

226 abolitionist  Sun, Dec 27, 2009 5:52:57pm

re: #179 Walter L. Newton

They're nuclear program is for the production of electricity, that's the only intention I've heard them state.

From Dec 2001, via Iran Press Service, RAFSANJANI SAYS ...


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh