Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Iran for Obama ...
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, March 06, 2008

Oh, wait, that can't be true since all of the remaining presidential candidates are for "change". In fact, each and every one of them claim to be the only one who can actually bring it about.

But still, Iran can hope, right?
Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday his country hopes the next U.S. president will be a leader who can bring change.

Iran is not concerned about "people or parties" in the U.S. presidential election, Manouchehr Mottaki said at a news conference in Geneva.

But "whoever speaks of changes definitely would be more welcome," he said.
Ummm ... not that Iran plans on changing at all. But a more pliant American president would be a welcome change for them.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Is this for real ?
Other documents shown by Heinonen included:

. Information on the construction of what appeared to be a nuclear test site, with a 1,300 foot shaft connected to a monitoring station six miles away, which the Iranians claimed was used to test conventional explosives.

“I am not an engineer,” U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory L. Schulte, told the IAEA board on Wednesday, referring specifically to the test shaft. “But I suspect that technicians don’t need to shelter themselves 10 kilometers away to test conventional weapons . . . or automotive air bags.”
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I believe that McCain would be more likely to make a sea change in policy towards Iran, perhaps a kind of ’detente’ that normalizes the relationship. Clinton and Obama would feel that they have to appear strong, and would face intense opposition if they changed the approach to Iran. McCain’s hawkish background would grant him some trust. Only McCain can go to Tehran.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
In what way does ’detente’ with Iran make sense?

This isn’t the early 70s Cold War, with an enemy who can nuke us.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Your boy George Bush handed Iraq to Iran, a fact that you simply cannot come to terms with.
Top General Worried About Iran in Iraq
March 04, 2008 04:14 PM ET | Permanent Link


Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the former No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, this morning told Pentagon reporters that while Iraq must have a relationship with Iran, "the issue I have" is making sure that that relationship is "helpful." To that end, he said, "we have to keep the pressure on."

He said that there is "clear evidence" that Iran is training Iranian operatives in Iraq. He said that there is "no clear evidence" that Iran is providing support to the Sunni terrorist group Al Qaeda in Iraq. He added that the impact of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s decision to declare a cease-fire has been "overplayed a little bit" in its effect on the recent downturn in violence in Iraq.
As far as I recall, Iran was not training operatives in Iraq prior to Bush’s decision to invade. McCain plans to continue sacrificing US blood and treasure defending the Tehran friendly government in Baghdad.

But then wingnuts have always loved Iran. Back in the 80’s, wingnuts were selling arms to the Iranians.

Any statement by the Iranians suggesting they want a Dem in the WhiteHouse is simply being made to bring about the opposite result. And their friends in the US, i.e., the wingnuts, are happy to play along.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
But then wingnuts have always loved Iran. Back in the 80’s, wingnuts were selling arms to the Iranians.


I though that the wingnuts were supporting Saddam back then?

Oh, actually they provided TOWs to Iran and info to Iraq, helping Iran and Iraq fight to a draw . . . smart plan. Unless, of course, you wanted either Saddam’s Soviet client state or fundamentalist Iraq to win.



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Any statement by the Iranians suggesting they want a Dem in the WhiteHouse is simply being made to bring about the opposite result. And their friends in the US, i.e., the wingnuts, are happy to play along.
Yeah, it isn’t like they benifited from Carter, right?

Sure. Of course. Thoughts of Obama and Clinton no doubt scare them sensless . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"As far as I recall, Iran was not training operatives in Iraq prior to Bush’s decision to invade."

Gee only an idiot would follow this line of reasoning. Umm since Saddam was actively working against the US why would Iran feel the need to interfere with them.

The above quotation is akin to saying

"As far as I recall, Italy was not training operatives around Normandy prior to the Allies decision to invade."
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
I though that the wingnuts were supporting Saddam back then?
They were. But then Saddam hadn’t taken US diplomats hostage either.

No, the wingnuts I’m talking about are the ones who sold the Iranians arms after they had taken our diplomats hostage.
Yeah, it isn’t like they benifited from Carter, right?

Sure. Of course. Thoughts of Obama and Clinton no doubt scare them sensless . . .
Actually, if you had a clue about internal Iranian politics, you would understand that Bush and McCain are the best things that ever could have happened to the fundamentalists in power. Ridiculously belligerent statements like "Ba ba ba ba bomb Iran" play into the hands of the mullahs. It fuels them and gives them legitimacy. Moderate Iranians who might actually aid our cause there get marginalized in the face of this kind of rhetoric.
Gee only an idiot would follow this line of reasoning. Umm since Saddam was actively working against the US why would Iran feel the need to interfere with them.
This makes no sense, on several levels. First, there is no antecedent to the plural pronoun "them," so the assertion is facially nonsensical. Who is "them" Saddam? Saddam was a person. A singular "him."

Second, it misses the point. Iran is now exercising power in and over Iraq. Repeat. Iran is now exercising power in and over Iraq.

Third, even assuming that Saddam was an enemy of the US, he was also an enemy of Iran. Now he is gone, thanks to the US. And what does the US get out of it? A strengthened Iran.

Here is another task for the wingnuts out there: Explain how our invasion of Iraq hurt Iran.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
If "Ba ba ba ba bomb Iran" can’t be overlooked, Iran is not serious about co-operation anyway.

If your reasoning was correct. Not only would we be justified in never trying to ever have talks with the likes of Iran or Venezuala for what they’ve said about America and the President, but we should be waging war.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"Second, it misses the point. Iran is now exercising power in and over Iraq. Repeat. Iran is now exercising power in and over Iraq. "

And we are exercising much more power over Iraq which we werent before. But you are too blind to see it.

"Third, even assuming that Saddam was an enemy of the US, he was also an enemy of Iran. Now he is gone, thanks to the US. And what does the US get out of it? A strengthened Iran. "

One less enemy and one we were expending military might to contain anyway.


"Here is another task for the wingnuts out there: Explain how our invasion of Iraq hurt Iran. "

Iraq is the geographical and military center of the middleast. It holds the resources and the main rivers run through it. We now have them boxed in on several borders. Before we would have had to go through Iraq to get to Iran on the ground (or via Turkey, or I believe Syria).

There are several more things to take into account but A. I dont feel like arguing with an idiot and B. you wouldnt listen anyway so why bother.


Tell you what, when McCain gets elected and the situation continues to improve just do yourself a favor and be a quiet idiot instead of removing all doubt when you open your mouth.







 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
They were. But then Saddam hadn’t taken US diplomats hostage either.
What you are missing is that we were playing both sides against each other . . .

A good move.
No, the wingnuts I’m talking about are the ones who sold the Iranians arms after they had taken our diplomats hostage.
. . . and after they released them.

But aiding the Iranians by providing TOWs made sense. It balanced out Saddam’s advantage of Soviet tanks (the Iranian tanks were in sad shape do to lack of logistical support) at a critical point in the Iran-Iraq War.
Second, it misses the point. Iran is now exercising power in and over Iraq. Repeat. Iran is now exercising power in and over Iraq.
Well, that’s your claim, but Iraq hasn’t played out.

It was your guy who sold out the Shah and allowed Iran to fall to Islamic radicals. That fact is without doubt.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don

Remember the man you are arguing with endorses the failed policies of madeline albright and bill Clinton (Hello North Korean nukes) and Jimmy Carter (maybe (the desert disaster) it is the best we can do).

Now he wants the airbag Obama or the power hungry get power at any cost Hillary to be elected so when Iran does something stupid we can hold hands and sing Kumbaya like we did under Billy Bob Clinton for 8 years. That is unless you can count the missiles Bill Clinton lobbed into Iraq to destory their nuclear, biologicial and chemical capabilities (hey Bill Clinton said it) on the day he was supposed to be impeached.


 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
And we are exercising much more power over Iraq which we werent before. But you are too blind to see it.
Sure we are. And we have installed an islamic fundamentalist Shia government to take the place of Saddam. One tied to Iran.

It’s as if we liberated Germany from the fascists, and handed it over to the communists.

Why are you defending the Shia thugs who run the Iraqi government. From the WaPo on Tuesday:
Two former high-ranking Shiite government officials charged with kidnapping and killing scores of Sunnis were ordered released Monday after prosecutors dropped the case. The abrupt move renewed concerns about the willingness of Iraq’s leaders to act against sectarianism and cast doubts on U.S. efforts to build an independent judiciary.

The collapse of the trial stunned American and Iraqi officials who had spent more than a year assembling the case, which they said included a wide array of evidence.

"This shows that the judicial system in Iraq is horribly broken," said a U.S. legal adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly. "And it sends a terrible signal: If you are Shia, then no worries; you can do whatever you want and nothing is going to happen to you."

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s decision to allow the case to proceed to trial was considered a significant step toward proving his Shiite-led government could hold Shiite officials accountable for sectarian crimes. The case was heard at the multimillion-dollar Rule of Law Complex, protected and supervised by the United States, which has said that the development of an impartial justice system is essential to Iraq’s long-term stability.
It’s simply amazing to watch wingnuts defend the Shia thugs who run the government in Baghdad.
Iraq is the geographical and military center of the middleast. It holds the resources and the main rivers run through it. We now have them boxed in on several borders. Before we would have had to go through Iraq to get to Iran on the ground (or via Turkey, or I believe Syria).
Genreally speaking, when you box someone in, that means they can’t get out.

By contrast, Iran has been able to expand its reach.

Why do you wingnuts love Iran so much? Seriously, I really want to know.
Now he wants the airbag Obama or the power hungry get power at any cost Hillary to be elected so when Iran does something stupid we can hold hands and sing Kumbaya like we did under Billy Bob Clinton for 8 years. That is unless you can count the missiles Bill Clinton lobbed into Iraq to destory their nuclear, biologicial and chemical capabilities (hey Bill Clinton said it) on the day he was supposed to be impeached.
Iran has expanded its power under Bush. It now controls Iran and Iraq.

Good try, retired military. Just another wingnut apologist for Iran.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Sure Iran controls Iraq. I see 130000 Iranian troops in the country. As for the bad politicians can you say our country doesnt have corrupt politicians? Corrupt judges? Corrupt lawyers? Just look at Bill and Hillary for all 3. Or how about Obama and his ties to the guy on trial right now. Guess they are so perfect. Lets see under Bush we have had 1? person indicted. Under Clinton it was 70+? and other 100+ who left the country to avoid having to testify? O am not defending corrupt anyone. I say if they are corrupt than get rid of them.

Yep the dems are SO HONEST arent they?

I dont support Iran. Honestly I wish we could drop a few bombs on them to destory their nuclear facilites. I am sure you want to leave Iraq so that Iran can come in and seize control (which they dont have despite your blathering to the contrary).

Lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya and talk to Iran since they are SO willing to listen to us. Your own argument makes Barrack and Hillary the wrong person to get elected. If Iran is partially in control (as you say - which doesnt make it true - they will be completely in charge if we pull out).

"Genreally speaking, when you box someone in, that means they can’t get out.

By contrast, Iran has been able to expand its reach. "

Look at a map of the middle east numnuts. And while you are at it point out those Iranian tanks in Bagdad.

As I said you are an idiot who doesnt know the truth when it smacks you in the face.

Doesnt matter anyway. Hillary and Barrack dont stand a chance in the general election. My mother was right. When you argue with idiots you simply get exasperated and they refuse to see the forest for the trees.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Sure Iran controls Iraq. I see 130000 Iranian troops in the country. As for the bad politicians can you say our country doesnt have corrupt politicians? Corrupt judges? Corrupt lawyers? Just look at Bill and Hillary for all 3. Or how about Obama and his ties to the guy on trial right now. Guess they are so perfect. Lets see under Bush we have had 1? person indicted. Under Clinton it was 70+? and other 100+ who left the country to avoid having to testify? O am not defending corrupt anyone. I say if they are corrupt than get rid of them.
The right wing rant comes out.

"The Shia thugs are no worse than the Democrats. Therefore, nothing is wrong in Iraq."

Classic.
I dont support Iran. Honestly I wish we could drop a few bombs on them to destory their nuclear facilites. I am sure you want to leave Iraq so that Iran can come in and seize control (which they dont have despite your blathering to the contrary).
Another classic.

"Iran has so infiltrated Iraq that if we leave, Iran will take over. Of course, I supported the very policy that allowed Iran to gain such a position in the first place. Therefore, you should accept my prescription when it comes to solving the Iranian problem in Iraq."

And then we get this classic:
Look at a map of the middle east numnuts. And while you are at it point out those Iranian tanks in Bagdad.
You see, if the Iranians have no tanks in Baghdad, they have no influence there.

Ignorance. Anger. Childishness. And lashing out. Halmarks of the winger.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"Ignorance. Anger. Childishness. And lashing out. Halmarks of the winger."

You describe yourself so perfectly. Especially the ignorance part.

"The right wing rant comes out. "

Umm you didnt say anything there wasnt true now did you. Of course if a rant is true than is it a rant? Deep thought for shallow minded people like you. Since you can do nothing but try to discredit the statement or acknowledge it you try to discredit it. Thanks for proving the liberal mindset.

".... Another classic. "

Well we could talk them to death but I dont think that will work. But of course you are willing to try I am sure. Again you didnt say it wouldnt solve the problem of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Which it umm would. you see I like to solve problems not sit around and smoke a peace pipe with folks who want to slit my throat.

"You see, if the Iranians have no tanks in Baghdad, they have no influence there. "

I didnt say that now did I. Of course Iran has some influence in Iraq. Note some, how much is the debate, and given the lack of bad news news stories from the biased press I think it is waning. Otherwise it would be all over the front page. So we are fighting a somewhat small iranian influence in Iraq vs fighting Saddam and a country full of resources in Iraq. Otherwise it would be all over the front page.

You like trying to put words in my mouth. Of course words to you are everything. I happen to like things more tangible like action. I suppose now you will say the tanks is a Phallic symbol right? Your liberal upbringing and freudian thinking is showing through. We talked with Saddam for 10 years and where did it get us? Nowhere. We went into Iraq and 4 weeks? later Saddam was out of business. And before you say we are still in Iraq remember we are still in Germany and Korea. Of course that is another right wing rant correct?

That is the tools of the left. Lets take what someone says. Twist it and make it mean something else entirely. You refuse to look at anything but your own narrow viewpoint. Just keep on singing Kumbya and give peace a chance. Oh to be so naive.

So what do you propose we do? pull out altogether. Elect Hillary or Barrack and talk about the problem. That is what liberals want to do. Talk about things. Solving them doesnt come into the equation just talking about them.

sorry I am going to bed now. Have to get up and go to work on my mean military base whose only mission is to kill babies and put Iran into power.

Geez what an idiot.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
pssst, McQ —

’pliant’
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://

Oh, actually they provided TOWs to Iran and info to Iraq, helping Iran and Iraq fight to a draw . . . smart plan
No, a very stupid plan, and we’re paying the price today. Also, remember how Iran-Contra essentially stalled the Reagan administration and really hurt it in its final two years. And our support to Iraq made Saddam think we might actually want to have him as the new ally after Iran had revolted, and the game we were playing helped push Iran to use Hezbollah against us (and now Hezbollah is even able to stand its own against Israel).

No, our policies in the eighties were contradictory, reactive, and based on a complete misunderstanding of the region’s culture and balance of power.

Iran is a regional power now, and there’s not much we can do about it. You can claim we can hit them or cause regime change, but it’s not going to happen. Talk is cheap, but the reality is that we’ve helped Iran immensely the past few years. They are arming the militias, are preventing political reconciliation, and there isn’t much we can do about it. They’re playing the game better than us because they know the players and terrain better than we do.

The next President will be forced by reality to accept that, and we’ll see a "detente" with Iran. Hopefully that will set up an ultimate fall of the fundamentalist regime, though it’ll probably take a couple of decades still.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider