newprotest.org: TARGET: IRAN

TARGET: IRAN

April 23, 2008
by: jovial_cynic

image: Iran, 1974 (cc) * Ahmad Kavousian *

It's interesting to me that Hillary Clinton has aligned herself with the Republican game plan, as it relates to Iran. Between McCain's "bomb-bomb-Iran" joke and his relationship to John Hagee, Huckabee's statement about sending the Iranian boatmen to the gates of hell, and now Clinton's threat to totally obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel, I have to wonder if Clinton's foreign policy is any different than that of the Bush Administration.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Later, Clinton told reporters at a polling station in Conshohocken, outside Philadelphia, that Iran must be made aware of the "high price" it would have to pay for any nuclear strike.

If Iran were so "reckless to use them against the United States or an ally in a way that would destablize the world, they would have to take the consequences," she said.


Clinton's cozy relationship with corporate America -- corporations who have a tremendous amount to gain in the event of another war via the military industrial complex -- can't be ignored. Everything America hates about the Bush administration (who's managed to achieve the lowest approval rating on record) is embodied in Clinton's foreign policy on Iran.

We don't need another endless war on the books. And we certainly don't need a president who's going to rattle sabers in order to scare voters into the booths.

COMMENTS for TARGET: IRAN


Ken said:
Dude, unfortunately, inasmuch as we like Obama, as much as he has charisma, he becomes a focal point for "hope," and "change," his surfaces differences are merely that. Surfaces differences. There really isn't a dimes worth of real difference between any of the candidates. I truly believe this. By the time anyone has enough money to run, by the time they are in a political position from which to launch a campaign, they are already beholden to the unsavory powers; the "war-mongers."

It's fun to hope that a guy like Obama is actually going to change anything. It's fun to think that someone who actually has a chance of winning is the guy we want him to be. It's fun, but it really is naive.

The only candidate who would truly change ANYTHING hasn't got a shot in HELL of winning. Simply because he would change things, because he is not beholden to those powers.

American democracy at the executive level isn't real, and it doesn't work.

April 23, 2008


Ken said:
D'oh! I forgot - Our occupation in Iraq will NOT end, no matter who gets elected.
We have a 99 year lease on the land we occupy. We will occupy it at least as long as we occupy any other territory.
ie; the Phillipines? Guam? Germany? If we build a base somewhere, it's there for 100 years. Bottom line. This will not change regardless of president. We will occupy Iraq until at least 2103.

If we are going to invade Iran, everything is in motion and even though he might not say it, Obama will invade as fast as Hillary or McCain.

April 23, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
In fact, I'm less concerned with the US going to war with Iran than I am with the language being used by particular candidates that describe the planned war as a moral imperative of some kind. The "total destruction" kind of language, you know?

Obama isn't anti-war. As he's said regarding the issue, he's anti-stupid war. There is a time and place for war, but bomb-bomb-iran jokes and threats of total obliteration describe the kind lone-star foreign policy that makes me ashamed of this country.

I do disagree with you regarding the money situation with Obama. His money isn't corporate money -- it's nickels and dimes from average folks like you and me. And as such, his responsibility to that money isn't to serve corporate interests, but rather to serve the people. His dealings with money are the only reason I've decided to vote at all; he's addressed the main criticism I've had about these kinds of elections -- that is, to have enough money to play the game, you have to get cozy with corporations. He's done well to distance himself from that kind of influence.

April 23, 2008


Ken said:
Here's to hope!
April 23, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
I'll drink to that! You going to the Coiler show Friday night? I think I'll be there.
April 23, 2008


Mark said:
Saber rattling can be a double edge sword. John Kennedy used it to defeat Nixon in the 1960 election. There was a perceived "missle gap" crisis and congress wanted to spend ungodly amounts of money on the military. Americans were afraid that Russia had a large military advantage on America. Back yard bomb shelters was a booming cottage industry. Eisenhower, who's top priority during his 8 year presidency, was to thaw the cold war between Russia and America. He knew that there was no missle gap because America had been flying U2 spy planes over Russia and was taking pictures of their military capabilities. He pulled Kennedy aside during the campaign and informed him of the facts and asked him to tone down his retoric because it was ramping up the cold war. Kennedys response was to redouble his efforts, Russia responded in like kind and next thing you know, Cuba and Castro became communist and the Berlin Embargo crisis followed as well as the Cuban Missle crisis. On the other hand there was Ronald Regan. Iran, believed that his response to the 1979 hostage crisis would be "less diplomatic" then Carters and hence the hostages were released seconds after he took office. A third example was the anti-war republicans and the Charles Lindburg America Frist movement prior to World War II which handcuffed Rosevelt in being able to build up America defenses. Our total lack of military strength leading up to 1941 was a major factor in Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and Germany deciding to declare war on America the next day. These comments are not meant to take sides, but merely provide a quick history lesson on the good and bad consequences of saber rattleing.
May 01, 2008


Mark said:
Hope and change, give me a break. Those were Bill Clinton's exact word in 1992. (We must have the courage to change.) They are close to being every candidates words. The fact of the matter is this. It takes all 3 branches of government to make changes. We are electing a president, not a king. Democracy's don't change unless their is a real crisis. We have had very few of those. The Depression, World War II, civil rights or the lack there of just about round out the small list. Take health care for example. How can there be a "crisis" when America is consider by many to have the best health care system in the world. If somebody is not covered by a health care plan they have to go to the hospital and wait in the emergency room where they are treated for free. Yes they may have to wait a long time, all night, to see a doctor, but if somebody was having a heart attack I can assure you they would be seen immediately, if anything for fear of hospital liability of neglect and being sued. To me all the people crying about health care are like people who are being given a free dinner every night but dont like that they have to go the resturant and wait for it to be served as opposed to having it delivered to them in front of their t.v. If I had to pick a current crisis, it would be our 10 trillion dollar national debt. If there is 100 million head of household paying jobs and you divide that into 10 trillion it comes out to $100,000.00 That is like you and me taking out a 30 year fixed mortgage at $600.00 a month to pay that off. That would be inaddition to the taxes you already pay and your household expenses. One day China is going to come knocking wanting their money so I hope all of you are living within your means. I wish the goverment would. So next time you hear a candidate run down his list of goodie bag items he thinks he is going to hand out after an election, the frist question you should be asking is how is he or she realistically going to pay for that.
May 01, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Ok - finally getting around to this.

Regarding the saber-rattling bit, I should have clarified. I understand what you're saying about it being a useful tactic at times. My actual issue was stated in the post: we certainly don't need a president who's going to rattle sabers in order to scare voters into the booths. It's one thing when you're applying some psychological warfare with a defined enemy; it's entirely different when you're applying such a tactic on your own citizens. For someone who sees through such tactics, it's insulting. But it's also frightening to see so many people sucked into an us-verses-them mentality. Have you seen Hotel Rwanda? The implications are horrifying.

One of the interesting things about Obama's Hope/Change rhetoric is that he doesn't spend a lot of time defining what it is we should be hoping for, or what it is we should change. If folks are really happy with life, and with the status of the Iraq war, and with the multi-trillion dollar deficit, and with the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the natural tendancy is to reject Obama's speeches and to call it vague and overly idealistic. However, it appears that the majority of the voting population is interested in hoping for something, and changing something, because people seem to be eating the message right up. The more he talks, the more he gains... and I think it's because his message resonates with people who -are- unhappy, for whatever reason. And I really think that the discontentment is more than just the me-me-me mentality of the middle-class. I think it goes deeper than that.

And while you're right that the president isn't a king, it's clear that an administration is capable of tremendous influence. You mentioned the 10-trillion-dollar national debt; note that particular Republican administrations have driven up the debt, while particular Democratic administrations brought it down or kept it level, despite claims that Democrats are the big spenders. The big problem you mentioned certainly does seem to be tied to administration decisions. No king necessary.

May 06, 2008


Mark said:
I am not sure how you tie in Hotel Rwanda with your post. All politicians have been using some form of fear to draw people to their side since Jefferson ran against Adams in 1800, probably the dirtiest election of all time. Fear & hope is still the number one tool used today. Watch how many times you hear the words "He's just wrong for.... or too extreme for...or I want to make blank a world class city," in the upcoming elections, state and local. Trust me, there is absolutely nothing new to that.

You mention that it is insulting to hear that talk from people who know better. I agree. Take his message of hope and change, which I have heard my entire life. You say that it does not resonates with people who are happy with the debt, war and mortgage crisis. If that were true then 99.999999% of the universe would be on his side. Nobody is happy with the debt and mortgage crisis and most are unhappy with the war. Some that we are in it, some about the way we are fighting it, some about the cost, some for the lack of progress. Even people who support the war fall into one of those categories. What is insulting to "people in the know" is that we know what it will take to fix those 3 problems and doubt that Obama does not have the clout or maybe not the guts to do them. (Clinton or McCain as well for the matter. You would have to campaign on them in order to execute them)

Ronald Regan once said that "politicans have fooled people into believing that the solutions to the problems are very complex and difficult to implement. The solutions to the problems are easy, its having the political will and courage to implement them that is missing." That is the case with the debt, mortgage crisis and to some degree the war.

Debt, very simple, Step 1. Stop spending more then we take in. Vote candidates out of office who break this rule. Step 2. Cut spending and use it to pay off the debt. If you know of any other way please let me know. And dont tell me by raising taxes on the rich. Thats a spit in the ocean. Have you ever heard any candidate on either side ever say that? NOPE (huh, it rhythms with HOPE)

Mortgage Crisis: We are talking about less then 2% of all mortgages here and politicans are falling over themselfs to provide fee funds for people who have mortgages of up to $2 million dollars. Why the F should me, a member of the the me me me middle class, who pays my bills, have to cough up cash to help out banks, who have no problem screwing me, and individuals who could secure a $2 million dollar loan? Let the houses default. Its called letting the market forces do what they are intended to do. Housing prices in places like San Francisco, Seattle, LA, NY, CT are insane. 3/4 of a million for a 900 square foot house in San Francisco. If government was not always ready to step in with my me me me middle class money, maybe housing prices in these palces would drop and people could afford to get them. As for the the idiots that purchased adjustable rate mortgages and maxed out their credit and the banks that issued them, TUFF. Dont think that this bail out is intended to help those people. They have no equity in the house to being with, as is the case with most people who are being bailed out. Its about a bank bail out after they reaped all the benefts of their greedy decisions and now I have to give those super wealthy b-tards more money so they can keep their profits margins up. Again, let the market forces take care of it instead of my tax dollars. I HOPE Obamas idea for CHANGE includes something like that, but I doubt it.

I think that there are people who are a little afraid of what Obama would do in Iraq. When he says he will have x number of troops home by this day, well thats just an incredibly stupid thing to say on many levels. It would create a power vaccum that would be filled by the most savage force. It would send an awful message about America's commitment to a cause, something we already suffer from when Bush's daddy invited uprisings against Saddam and then provided no aid and did nothing while they were slaughtered. It would reverse the progress already made. And its incredibly stupid to tell your enemy what your intentions are.

If you want a change in tatics or the Iraqs to start paying for our help with their oil or U.N. involvement, great, but to just spout off that I will bring the troop home by Christmas just shows off his inexperience in foreign policy. Talk about sabre rattling in an inverse way and dangerous way.

You mentioned that democratic administrations have brought the debt down. BS. I agree that both parties spend like drunken sailors who are leaving port in the morning, but to give Bill Clinton credit for cutting the debt is like giving Jefferson Davis credit for ending slavery. (The logic being if the south had not lost the civil war the slaves would not have been set free). Clinton despised the balanced budget and said so when

May 07, 2008


Mark said:
One last thing. Know why people are upset or unhappy with our politicans? Because instead of rewarding candidates who have a plan and are willing to debate and fight for it, they keep voting for undefined the HOPE AND CHANGE.

Let a candidate say that he wants children to go to school 260 days a year (like the rest of the world) instead of 160 and he gets slaughtered at the polls because the teachers unions will throw everything but the kitchen sink at him.

Let a candidate say that Corporations like Walmat that employ thousands of people should give health care to their employees instead of having the government pay for it through the "me me me middle class tax dollars" and we are told that he is a communist and what he really wants is the destruction of the economic fiber of America. (Mind you the 6 WalMart heirs of Sam Walton are 6 of the top 20 richest people in America. They need that money to keep buying golden toilets for their over night home when they are in New York)

As long as HOPE & CHANGE keep winning elections, expect neither.

May 07, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Mark... you're monologuing.

Seriously, though - back-and-forth debate is easier if you go point-by-point, as opposed to dumping your position on everything into a basket and tossing at me. We're going to have too many off-topic side arguments, and the comments are going to show up as giant walls of text. I don't think that's useful for dialogue.

Regarding Hotel Rwanda (which is directly tied to the issue of saber-rattling that's in my post), the issue I'm addressing is the us-verses-them division. People are very easily herded into mobs. Think of the crowd in Shakespeare's Caesar -- they were ushered into a murderous frenzy because they were pushed into an us-verses-them framework. The same thing happens in Hotel Rwanda. So when I hear politicians demonizing particular nations and using destruction-rhetoric (bomb-bomb-iran; total obliteration; send them to the gates of hell), I feel like these particular politicians are trying to work the people into a frenzy, in order to make people willing to let the US government drop bombs on the Iranian people.

I have a problem with that. Trying to influence people with a message of hope and change and playing on people's emotions is one thing; trying to coax them into supporting the wholesale destruction of the Iranian people is quite another.

May 07, 2008


Mark said:
Its funny how people take different things from the same thing. When I watched Hotel Rwanda I was so f-ing angry that the world stood by and let it happen. It kind of effected me the way Shindlers Lists did in the way one human being can treat another. (I get teary just thinking about that movie, but dont tell anybody because people vote republican are really a racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist facist pigs and I dont want to have my card revoked. They already have their doubts about me because of my views on the seperation of church and state and the death penalty and stem cell research)

The us verses them never entered my mind because it was a 1 sided slaughter (genocide)and not a war. I can see how you could look at it that way though. Hitler used the same tatic with the Jews. Preaching to the German people that they were ruining their society and must be driven from the Fatherland. But given how many times Don Cheadle was on the phone asking for help, the way it portrayed the UN standing by doing nothing (as per usual) and the endless slaughter struck me in a different way.

You were right about the monologuing. I will try to keep it shorter. Never blogged before. There was always too much trash to have the shift through and normally you are not dealng with rational people anyway, so why waste the words.

May 09, 2008


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 952558 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (23.20.183.212) will be logged.