Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOn Monday I wrote about Iran's Green Wave, in support of reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi. Today I am writing about the Red Tide. That's the red-armband-wearing, virtual fascist movement in support of reelecting President Ahmadinejad.
Picture the scene: hours before a rally held at a huge, special indoor prayer auditorium in downtown Tehran, tens of thousands of Ahmadinejad supporters began gathering for a pre-election rally. It's hot, sweaty, and dusty, and a ear-splitting sound system is playing martial music as thug-like young men chant slogans. As the crowd gathers, various speakers whip up a frenzy of anger, xenophobia, and religious ecstasy. Appeals are made about the need to honor the suffering of various, long-dead holy men of Islam, and speakers denounce the president's opponents.
Dark conspiracies are hinted at. "The buses and subways have been shut down! They don't want you here! It's the work of Hashemi Rafsanjani!" Rafsanjani, a former president and wheeler-dealer, is supporting Mousavi, and Rafsanjani's son runs the Tehran metro system. In fact, no shutdown has happened. It's a lie, but the crowd roars: "Death to Hashemi!" You can see the hatred in their eyes.
In the VIP section is a mullah, 42, from Lahejan, who gives his name as Gilani, refusing to indentify himself further. White-turbaned and slender, with the required beard, he is serene and supremely confident in his gray robes and white shirt. He views the crowd proudly. Why do you support Ahmadinejad? I ask. He doesn't hesitate:
He is anti-superpower. He is against Zionism. His thinking is divine thinking. He is going to continue the way of the martyrs. He wants to establish a government for the entire world, a government to be established under the rule of the Hidden Imam.
As he says this, he looks smug and adopts the attitude of a man who knows the truth. He has access to the inner secrets, he implies, looking at me as if I can never understand. In the crowd many agree. A rough-looking man, probably a member of the Basij militia, defends Ahmadinejad's absurd Holocaust-mongering. It's hard to hear what people are saying, the din is so loud.
Soon, the chants are: "Death to Israel!" and of course, "Death to America!" They get louder and louder. The crowd is getting angrier, and more excited. The martial music grows in volume. Suddenly, the crowd rushes the stage, as the time for Ahmadinajad's speech draws near. At the doors, thousands of people left outside and pushing through the doors, trampling guards and old people, climbing through windows, scrambling up air conditional scaffolding to drop through ceiling-level windows.
It's a near riot. Crushed in a sea of people, floating a wave of angry people, I push my way through the crowd to a window exit as hundreds of people push in.
In the end -- though I've left the frenetic rally -- Ahmadinajed is a no-show. Despite perhaps 50,000 ecstatic followers, a lumpenproletariat crowd of roughnecks and fanatics, he cancels his appearance, without any explanation. As the rally breaks up, thousands of Ahmadinejad backers flood Tehran. In vans and pick up trucks and aboard motorcycles, they swarm the city, blocking traffic, chanting, shouting, carrying banners. The demonstration, city-wide, goes on past midnight, and the city -- whose normal traffic is gridlocked -- comes to a complete standstill.
What does it all mean? To me, there's no question that Iran is at a crucial turning point.
The contrast between the Ahmadinjad rally and the Mousavi rally that I attended on Saturday in Karaj could not be more complete. The level of enthusiasm at the Mousavi rally was very, very high. But there were no angry chants. Instead of "Death to America!" the green-clad Mousavi supporters chant: "Death to potatoes!" ridiculing Ahmadinejad's practice of giving out sacks of potatoes to his poor supporters. The women at the Mousavi rally are sheathed in scarves, but their stylish hair is visible underneath, they wear attractive makeup and pink lipstick, and below their short outer garments are visible jeans and, in many cases, high heels. At the Ahmadinejad rally, the women -- in the thousands -- are segregated from the men, and they are dressed head to toe in all-covering black.
Ahmadinejad's base is one that worships him, worships authority, and believes in dark plots against Iran. It is profoundly religious and ultra-nationalist, and it's the ultra-nationalism that worries me most of all. Combined with religious fanaticism, and they are fanatics, backed by the paramilitary Basij and the Revolutionary Guard. Many of their commanders are graduates and devotees of the same religious school in Qom as Ahmadinejad, led by reactionary Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi.
If Ahmadinejad loses, as seems likely, in Friday's vote, where will this force go? What will happen to the whipped-up, ultra-nationalists and religious right? Will they submit meekly -- or will they revolt? It's a scary thought.
Mousavi supporters are confident about the outcome. Even the clergy is turning against Ahmadinejad, and there are rumors that the Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is having second thoughts about the president, too. One well-connected mullah, Sheikh Ahmed Karimi, who is working in the Mousavi camp, told me that the vast majority of Iran's approximately thirty or so grand ayatollahs supports Mousavi. One of them, Grand Ayatollah Yousef Saneei, who's been banned by the regime for his political activities, still manages to send out coded SMS text messages to countless followers urging them not to vote for Ahmadinejad because he is a "liar." There are even more radical forces in the Mousavi camp, including some who challenge the authority of Khamenei himself.
In the provinces, especially in Azerbaijan (the Turkish north) and in Khuzestan (the Arab southwest), and in other minority, non-Persian regions of Iran, the vote is overwhelming for Mousavi, travelers from those areas tell me.
It's true, of course, that the president has a limited, if important role, in Iran, and the power rests chiefly in the hands of the Leader. Many observers have said that, whoever wins, the Leader, the Supreme National Security Council, and the other insiders are intent on exploring a dialogue with the United States. But sometimes, once powerful forces of fanaticism are riled up and unleashed, it's hard to call them back. It's entirely possible that even the Leader is concerned about the power that Ahmadinejad is trying to amass, in alliance with the paramilitary forces.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
oops.
Where does this leave anti, JOM and the Pontis of our blogosphere? They claim us "lefties" support Ahdidhiminthejohn. I just don't see it in this article.
Darnnit Robert, you and your anti-American scribing!!
"Ahmadinejad's base is one that worships him, worships authority, and believes in dark plots against Iran. It is profoundly religious and ultra-nationalist, and it's the ultra-nationalism that worries me most of all. "
Switch Ahmin to Bush, and Iran to America, and you have a description of the aforementioned bloggers.
Gee, do you think the presence of hunderds of thousands of heavily armed US troops feeds into nationalism in Iran? Nah. That would be "blaming America". Like Blaming America for The Shah, marxist lies about us. Right, Larry?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2009 @ 06:52am
Sounds like an anti-abortion rally in Kansas. Thanks for the rundown, Mr. Dreyfuss.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/09/2009 @ 07:30am
Boy, I tell you there are two or three hard-core fanatical groups that will be disappointed if Ahmadinejad loses the election....
ONE of them is in Iran.....heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 07:32am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/09/2009 @ 08:05am
Easy prediction...Mousavi wins and with hours, The Weekly Standard has a "He's no different" article...
within 24 hours, Rush and Sean and Glenn and Ingraham Crackers and "Fox News analyst _______" are telling us "It really means little change in Iran and Mousavi will either by hamstrung by the ayatollahs or will pursue Ahmadinejad's aggression!"
In a religion, the Devil doesn't ever just "go away"...he "changes his face".
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 08:25am
Is Mousavi a dynamic speaker?
Could be the AC!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2009 @ 09:24am
Perhaps Mr. Dreyfuss should spend more time in Israel and the Occupied Territories and report on the many wing-nuts there. Matter of fact, he needn't go anywhere cause so many of them are right here at home.
Posted by lingum at 06/09/2009 @ 09:25am
Posted by lingum at 06/09/2009 @ 09:25am
Idaho
Kansas
Anywhere Grover Norquist finds himself.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2009 @ 10:21am
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 06/09/2009 @ 06:46am
In your interaction with people, how are bridging the English-Farsi gap? So much can get lost in translation.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/09/2009 @ 10:37am
Posted by lingum at 06/09/2009 @ 09:25am
Right...cause no one cares about what is going on in Iran, and we don't have enough news about Israel.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/09/2009 @ 11:25am
We will just have to wait and see the result of the election, along with the reaction from the various factions involved in policy making.
Posted by pjcasey at 06/09/2009 @ 12:37pm
<In the VIP section is a mullah, 42, from Lahejan, who gives his name as Gilani, refusing to indentify himself further. White-turbaned and slender, with the required beard, he is serene and supremely confident in his gray robes and white shirt. He views the crowd proudly. Why do you support Ahmadinejad? I ask. He doesn't hesitate:
He is anti-superpower. He is against Zionism. His thinking is divine thinking. He is going to continue the way of the martyrs. He wants to establish a government for the entire world, a government to be established under the rule of the Hidden Imam.>
I couldn't have done a better job myself. Oh yeah, I have been stating this for years.
And ultimately, the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs will still be running the show with the exact goals that were stated above. Freedom and respect for other nations are not part of their plan.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:30pm
Yup, religious fanatics can't be trusted can they?
Posted by BlackFrancis at 06/09/2009 @ 1:45pm
Sounds like an excellent educational trip for Dreyfuss and when Israel decides its divine future is irreconcilable with another AhmaDineinYourJean presidency......this trip just might be worth it!
Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
How could the idiots who voted for Bush/Cheney in 2004 or Netanyahu/Lieberman in Israel can be surprised or indignant if Ahmadinejad wins a second term? Fanaticism begets fanaticism. Give Ahmadinejad credit for not killing or invading anyone; contrary to the war criminals Bush/Cheney and the criminal racists Netanyahu/ Lieberman. Considering all the crimes committed by Bush and company and their Israeli counterparts; I won't be surprised if the devil overtakes God in his heavenly Kingdom. Those Americans who pontificate to others on morality better take hard look in a nearby mirror.
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 1:54pm
"And ultimately, the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs will still be running the show with the exact goals that were stated above. Freedom and respect for other nations are not part of their plan."--------Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:30pm
Predictable as always....
"within 24 hours, Rush and Sean and Glenn and Ingraham Crackers and "Fox News analyst _______" are telling us "It really means little change in Iran and Mousavi will either by hamstrung by the ayatollahs or will pursue Ahmadinejad's aggression!"
In a religion, the Devil doesn't ever just "go away"...he "changes his face".-----Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 08:25am |
But see, what's interesting about that....it undercuts their PREVIOUS investment in Ahmadinejad as the "focus of evil", i.e. his pronouncements on the Holocaust, etc.
Why is it "Ahmadinejad wants to nuke Israel...look how he denies the Holocaust!!!!"...
but if he's voted out of office, suddenly "Who cares who the President of Iran is...the ayatollahs run the show!"
Neat, huh?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 2:00pm
Give Ahmadinejad credit for not killing or invading anyone; contrary to the war criminals Bush/Cheney and the criminal racists Netanyahu/ Lieberman. Considering all the crimes committed by Bush and company and their Israeli counterparts; I won't be surprised if the devil overtakes God in his heavenly Kingdom. Those Americans who pontificate to others on morality better take hard look in a nearby mirror.
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 1:54pm
Instead, they just finance and arm Hezbollah and Hamas to do their dirty work.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:11pm
So if Mousavi has trade union/labor, student, educated women, as well as business & professional support, where does that leave Ahmadinejad? With the Iranian equivalent of our 'bubs along with the hard-core ruling elite.
A diversified economy, away from the reliance on oil alone, can help free Iran from the ravages of the global economy. Nuclear power would be used for peaceful purposes. People might realize a little more than a bag of potatoes & doses of wrathful patriotism.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/09/2009 @ 2:11pm
But see, what's interesting about that....it undercuts their PREVIOUS investment in Ahmadinejad as the "focus of evil", i.e. his pronouncements on the Holocaust, etc.
Why is it "Ahmadinejad wants to nuke Israel...look how he denies the Holocaust!!!!"...
but if he's voted out of office, suddenly "Who cares who the President of Iran is...the ayatollahs run the show!"
Neat, huh?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 2:00pm
I'm beginning to wonder if you have the capacity for more complex reasoning or is high school debate your limit?
One can acknowledge "I'm a Nutjob" as evil with evil intents and also recognize the greater evil in the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs. I'm not aware of any conservatives who don't make that connection.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:13pm
Hey mask.
Yesterday on Hayes thread you taunted my anti-GW comments and my question on dealing with our Cooling cycle.
How about this forecast on Accuweather?
<One of the reasons for this could be colder-than-normal weather across the northern tier of the country that has suppressed the number of thunderstorms and has significantly reduced the number of tornadoes this year. The number of reported tornadoes so far this year is 685, just over half of the average annual amount, which is 1,297.
According to Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi, areas from the northern Plains into the Northeast will have a "year without a summer." The jet stream, which is suppressed abnormally south this spring, is also suppressing the number of thunderstorms that can form. The ones that do form in areas of the Ohio Valley and West are forming in places with very cold temperatures, which can lead to more electrified thunderstorms than normal this year.>
http://tinyurl.com/mtbmdr
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:23pm
And speaking of Nuke Threats....
<Pyongyang raised tensions a notch by reviving its rhetoric in a commentary in the state-run Minju Joson newspaper today.
"Our nuclear deterrent will be a strong defensive means...as well as a merciless offensive means to deal a just retaliatory strike to those who touch the country's dignity and sovereignty even a bit," said the commentary, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.
It appeared to be the first time that North Korea referred to its nuclear arsenal as "offensive" in nature. Pyongyang has long claimed that its nuclear weapons program is a deterrent and only for self-defense against what it calls US attempts to invade it.
The tough talk came as South Korea and the US lead an effort at the UN Security Council to have the North punished for its nuclear test with tough sanctions.>
http://tinyurl.com/lw884p
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:13pm
But if Ahmadinejad is powerless ("And ultimately, the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs will still be running the show..")....then who cares what he says?
if he can implement a plan of destruction for Israel....then your "ultimately" isn't true. HE is running the show.
Which is it?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 2:27pm
But if Ahmadinejad is powerless ("And ultimately, the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs will still be running the show..")....then who cares what he says?
if he can implement a plan of destruction for Israel....then your "ultimately" isn't true. HE is running the show.
Which is it?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 2:27pm
First of all, neither he nor any president to follow is completely powerless. Secondly, their words have power. Power to inspire jihadists in other countries for instance. Third, as noted by Dreyfuss, some of the Ayatollahs and Mullahs use people like "nutjob" as a front. That still makes him dangerous.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:57pm
what the hell does global warming have to do with iran you obfuscating troll? When will you clowns get it through your thick skulls that climate and weather are two completely different things? Bastardi is a self aggrandizing lightweight who has found a niche for himself with his (In) accuweather. He is generally laughed at in meterological circles. Now can we PLEASE get back to Iran? I know the article doesn't fit your "leftists love ahmadinejad" dogma, but perhaps there are some Iranian children you can clusterbomb. That ought to work better than viagra for you old man.
Posted by entropy at 06/09/2009 @ 2:58pm
Now north Korea as well? Anything but the topic at hand eh? Wow, until you posted that i thought the dear leader was a grand fellow with naught but benevolent intentions. Thanks for clearing that one up jackass.
Posted by entropy at 06/09/2009 @ 3:01pm
First of all, neither he nor any president to follow is completely powerless.---Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:57pm
"And ultimately, the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs will still be running the show...."--------Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 1:30pm
So the ayatollahs run the show...but the Prez isn't completely powerless?
I see.....of course.....totally makes sense.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 3:11pm
Just to reiterate-
"In a religion, the Devil doesn't ever just "go away"...he "changes his face".-----Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 08:25am
And the believers jump through hoops to keep the "faith" alive.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 3:13pm
Could it be so simple? Could peace actually be achievable simply by giving all of our religious nutjobs small arms (assuming they had to pawn their weapons cache for tithes) and all of their religious nutjobs free passage on an armada of ships to texas, then a free train ride to some fuckhole no one cares about... say Kansas. Build our goddamn border fence there, get all the people with an IQ over 80 out in a lincoln town car, and let them have their stupid fucking armegeddon. Everyone wins!
Posted by entropy at 06/09/2009 @ 3:20pm
Broadcast that shit live on pay per view and the recession would be over.
Posted by entropy at 06/09/2009 @ 3:21pm
So the ayatollahs run the show...but the Prez isn't completely powerless?
I see.....of course.....totally makes sense.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 3:11pm
Of course it does; but it does require thinking.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 3:22pm
How's that move to El Salvy coming cluster? Better pack quick before Obama's jackbooted minions rappel from their black helicopter, kick down your door, poop on your bible and wealth of nations, force you to take a blood oath to marx and chomsky, upper decker your toilets and piss on your cat! I heard dengue fever season is almost upon us again! Can't wait to see you at punta roca.
Posted by entropy at 06/09/2009 @ 3:31pm
In all seriousness, do any of you right wingers think assbags like the ayatollahs would be in power if we hadn't overthrown mossadeq and reinstalled a murderous tyrant? If savak hadn't been dissappearing and torturing with cia collusion, do you really think the islamic revolution would have succeeded? All because us and british multinationals didn't like sharing Iran's carboniferous era bounty with IRAN.
Posted by entropy at 06/09/2009 @ 3:38pm
Instead, they just finance and arm Hezbollah and Hamas to do their dirty work.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:11pm
Do they really?
How about your bloody history of supporting dictators and criminal throughout the world? Even Christian Nuns did not escape your wrath in South America. Your Evangelical cohorts have always stood with the thugs of the world and funneled money and support to them while these thugs were murdering and raping their people. It happened in every Southern and Central American country. Your spiritual champion and master thug, Pat Robertson, has shamelessly issued an edict to assassinate Hugo Chavez, a call that you most likely do agree with.
Your twisted criminal vision of advocating cleansing the Palestinians out of their homes to accommodate your Biblical fantasies is well known. You have condoned murders and Apartheid in Palestine just to soothe your engrained perverted criminal tendency that is shrouded in a dark religious dogma.
What makes a hateful monk like you so different from Bin Laden or Ahmadinejad? What is your moral ground for pontificating rights and wrongs to the rest of us?
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 4:03pm
One thing I see developing (with regard to the left, some of it leaks out above), is that if Ahmadinejad does win the left will blame America or more to the point, prior American policy for that having happened.
It will be said that if it weren't for all various things the left cites as wrongs committed by America in the recent past, as well as for all the various wrongs Israel is accused of, that more moderate forces would have won in Iraq.
It will be proclaimed that we made them angry, they are simply responding to the treats we pose against them, etc.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 4:09pm
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 4:03pm
Careful, your Yashmag is on too tight.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 4:25pm
yup sj, the truth does have an uncomfortable habit of "leaking out" from time to time. Perhaps you could absorb some through osmosis.
Posted by entropy at 06/09/2009 @ 4:28pm
Cripthink is the voice of sanity amidst all this apoplectic extremism in this country and Israel.When all is said and done we need to look hard in the mirror and get off our moral highground; I don't recall Iran attacking any country except in true self defence for over 350 years, whereas the US and Israel seem to make their Straussian ideals of permanent war and occupation justified by claiming victimisation and demonizing and invading non-threatening countries. And both the US and Israel practice barbaric torture, cover up constant war crimes and don't cooperate when international courts like the UN or Spain want to investigate. Iran has the moral highground. The Iranian elections will not change that, even if Ahmadinejad loses.
Posted by mystic at 06/09/2009 @ 4:29pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 4:09pm
sjchermack,
Spewing words like "Left" and "lefties" won't mask your ignorance.
You must be a die hard Zionist or an idiot not to notice the link between the murdering a million Iraqis and the emergence of the like of Ahmadinejad. After the eight bloody years of Bush's war crimes; we are damn lucky that there is only one Ahmadinejad.
As for your darling Zionist state Israel; its racist and criminal history needs no introduction. Hamas is just a minor inconvenience on the road. Fascist states don't normally exist for too long; just look at what happened to the racist South Africa.
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And you would claim that American policy has not influenced any of this? We have invaded and occupy two (muslim) nations that border Iran and you see no reason why that could influence public opinion in Iran? Or how it could encourage their development of Nuclear weapons? We have captured and indefinately imprisoned people in GTMO, commited atrocious acts at Abu Grahib, etc. No we should not think our actions have any influence...
A hypothetical for you to think about: If China had invaded and toppled the governments of both Canada and Mexico do you think it would influence politics in America?
Posted by Extraneous at 06/09/2009 @ 4:52pm
And you would claim that American policy has not influenced any of this? We have invaded and occupy two (muslim) nations that border Iran and you see no reason why that could influence public opinion in Iran? Or how it could encourage their development of Nuclear weapons? We have captured and indefinately imprisoned people in GTMO, commited atrocious acts at Abu Grahib, etc. No we should not think our actions have any influence...
Posted by Extraneous at 06/09/2009 @ 4:52pm
But they began all of this before any of those things occurred.
Iran began exporting terrorism right after the Clerics took over Iran and that was 30 years ago.
As to nuclear
<Shah approved plans to construct, with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by the year 2000.[35] In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."[36]
Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. and European companies scrambled to do business in Iran.[37] Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981.
The joint stock company Eurodif operating a uranium enrichment plant in France was formed in 1973 by France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 5:01pm
Have any of those on the right bothered to read an accurate history of Iran? International relations is a chess game, not checkers. You screw a country up, you must deal with the consequences.
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/09/2009 @ 5:15pm
The joint stock company Eurodif operating a uranium enrichment plant in France was formed in 1973 by France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 5:01pm
Anti-Social-Black Robe,
How about the illicit Israeli Nuclear Program? Do you have a story on 200 Israeli nuclear warheads that you want to share with us?
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 5:16pm
But they began all of this before any of those things occurred.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 5:01pm
Did you read my post? Let me clarify a simply as I can. OUR ACTIONS ARE INFLUENCING THEIR POLITICS.
As far as exporting terrorism that is another discussion. As far as their nuclear power program, I do not disagree, but your post does emphasize how ingrained our influence has been. However our actions do encourage their development of nuclear weapons to be used as a deterrent from the hostile forces on several of their borders.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/09/2009 @ 5:26pm
Hey CripThink,
A few typos crept into your post, you should check submittals better in the future:
You said "......murdering a million Iraqis.............."
Who did that? The quantity of people who have died in the war in Iraq during the War on Terror has been up for constant debate.
They were not murdered.....the war was necessary to stop Saddam before he went back to making WMD again, providing it to terrorists, and then the terrorists using the WMD to kill millions of us.
You talked about "Bush war crimes" ..... as you know there were none.
You talk about Israel having a racist and criminal history......the history is that racism and criminality have been put upon Israel as the Palestinians and Arab world and terror organizations have sought to deny Israel it's right to exist.
As you should know, that region is the ancestral homeland to the Jewish people and they have an unbroken tie to the area that goes back further than any others laying claim to the area. Israel has never demanded control over the whole region....the original "Israel proper" is only a small piece of land ......it is criminal and wrong for others to declare the Jewish people have no right to be there when some of that land belongs to them.....the criminality by those who demand total control of the area and then declare Israel has stolen land... the criminality by those who are unwilling to compromise (Palestinians and Arabs)........
By the way, in case your wondering.....and this IS significant..... God gave Israel to the Jewish people...........end of argument, Crip Think.
P.S. Quick Quiz..Who is one of the greatest Presidents in U.S. history?
Answer: Harry S. Truman, he recognized Israel immediately, the day of it's birth, despite State Dept. advice otherwise.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 5:49pm
Whether the top Spiritual Guardian Ali Khamenei. Whether sticks with or turns against Ahmadinjad, he is determined that Iran acquires a nuclear arsenal. The current election will only decide what kind of facade Iran shows the world.
The point is, regardless of who prevails the fanatic and and fascist Ahmadinejad tide will remain a feature of Iranian politics. Politicians like Ahmadinejad will flush in and out of power and with nuclear weapons in their armories they will sooner or later feel compelled to use them. The odds are it will be sooner.
Which is why even a Mousavi victory this time will just be eyewash.
Nuclear weapons, within the reach of the people Dreyfuss describes, mean a world historical catastrophe.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/09/2009 @ 5:51pm
After Mossadegh -Under the Shah___
"The notorious Iranian secret police, SAVAK, created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel, spread its tentacles all over the world to punish Iranian dissidents. According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, SAVAK was instructed in torture techniques by the Agency. Amnesty International summed up the situation in 1976 by noting that Iran had the "highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record on human rights than Iran."
"Where force might fail, the CIA turned to its most trusted weapon-money. To insure support for the Shah, or at least the absence of dissent, the Agency began making payments to Iranian religious leaders, always a capricious bunch. The payments to the ayatollahs and mullahs began in 1953 and continued regularly until 1977 when President Carter abruptly halted them. One "informed intelligence source" estimated that the amount paid reached as high as $400 million a year; others thought that figure too high, which it certainly seems to be. The cut -off funds to the holy men, it is believed, was one of the elements which precipitated the beginning of the end for the King of Kings."
From-- Killing Hope by William Blum
Posted by Sorelish at 06/09/2009 @ 5:55pm
The current election will only decide what kind of facade Iran shows the world. Critical is, the country's paramount leader wants Iran to have a nuclear arsenal. Whether Ali Khamenei sticks with or turns against Ahmadinjad is secondary.
In short, regardless of who prevails the fanatic and fascist Ahmadinejad tide will remain a feature of Iranian politics. Politicians like Ahmadinejad will flush in and out of power and with nuclear weapons in their armories they will sooner or later feel compelled to use them. The odds are it will be sooner.
Which is why even a Mousavi victory this time will just be eyewash.
Nuclear weapons, within the reach of the people Dreyfuss describes, mean a world historical catastrophe.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/09/2009 @ 6:03pm
They were not murdered.....the war was necessary to stop Saddam before he went back to making WMD again, providing it to terrorists, and then the terrorists using the WMD to kill millions of us.Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 5:49pm
When did Saddam ever attempt to attack the US?
And don't forget: Saddam was our ally at that time. The US applauded his invasion of Iran.
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/09/2009 @ 6:04pm
By the way, in case your wondering.....and this IS significant..... God gave Israel to the Jewish people...........end of argument, Crip Think.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 5:49pm
So SJ when you say God, are you referring to the League of Nations or the U.N.? and when you say Jewish People are you referring to those who can actually trace their family lineage back to Abraham, Issac or Jacob or just people who practice the religion? Just wondering...
Posted by Extraneous at 06/09/2009 @ 6:09pm
Extraneous,
I am not referring to the League of Nations or the U.N......if you think they are God then you have big time problems I can't help you with.
It is blatantly obvious who God is.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 6:42pm
mtspence05,
I have no idea why you asked when Saddam attacked the U.S.
Saddam had not attacked the U.S., yet.
I told you Saddam was going to go back to making WMD, they would have gotten into the hands of terrorists, and millions of us would have been killed.
So it is OK, despite leftist logic, to stop that ahead of time.
We went through that prior to World War II. Churchill warned of the Nazi threat, but the world went for "Peace in Our Time" instead........then the war came anyway and the human suffering was worse then if Germany had been stopped pre-emptively, perhaps in 1937.
So we were wrong not to take action back then.
Knowing we were wrong back then, George W. Bush and Tony Blair did not repeat the mistake.
You don't even have your timelines or facts straight, you are just typing stuff in quick and fast without analyzing it first.
You say "Saddam was our ally at that time"...
at what time? The time I was talking about was around 2003, not way back in the 1980's. Saddam most assuredly was not our ally then.
You just were pasting in a standard knee-jerk leftist response that did not even fit the argument at hand.
Sloppy. Try again.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 6:49pm
By the way, in case your wondering.....and this IS significant..... God gave Israel to the Jewish people...........end of argument, Crip Think.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 5:49pm
Even if you believe that myth, the Bible also tells us that the Jewish people broke the Covenant with God and he took Israel back.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 7:00pm
I have no idea why you asked when Saddam attacked the U.S.
Saddam had not attacked the U.S., yet.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 6:49pm
That you have no idea has been well established.
Given that we have not mastered the science of pre-cognition, there is no law that recongizes pre-crime.
There is no evidence that Saddam was going to go back to making WMD. None. And therefore there is basis to the argument that these non existent WMD would have gotten into the hands of terrorists.
Saddam didn't trust terrorists.
If that is right wing logic, it does explain why the right wing has become irrelevant and still mired in the dark ages.
Every time we want to pick a fight with some boogie man, the right wing obsessively and reflexively has to dig up Hitler.
George W. Bush and Tony Blair took us into the greatest strategic blunder in a century.
Yes, "Saddam was our ally at that time"when he perpetrated his greatest crimes against humanity. The 80's.
When are you going to stop soiling yourself in public sjchermak? It's getting embarrassing.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 7:09pm
You talked about "Bush war crimes" ..... as you know there were none. Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 5:49pm
sjchermak,
I thought that you were lurking in the background, laboring hard to come up with the same traditional Zionist's lines of lies.
The fabrications of the Bush/Cheney and the Neocons about Saddam's WMD are well documented and not worth debunking. Respected intelligence analysts reported that Saddam had abandoned his WMD program right after the First Gulf War around 1992-93. However, that was not good enough for the Neocons cabals and apparently was not good enough for Israel. Maybe Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and the rest of the Neocons can tell you of the real motive for invading Iraq; namely it was good for Israel.
Bush/Cheney attacked a country that did not pose any danger to the US; they did it without the explicit consent of the UN or Security Council. Bush was responsible for destroying Iraq's infrastructure and thus pushing Iraq to near Stone Age. The Lancet, British Medical Journal, puts the number of Iraqis who died violently as a result of the invasion at 650,000. that is from 2003 to 2007. The additional causes of death can be attributed to the destroyed water purification stations, lack of sanitation and the collapsed of the medical facilities, all destroyed by the US massive bombardment of Iraq. 4 million Iraqis were displaced and became refugees around the world as a result of the US invasion. One million Iraqi women were widowed and 4 million Iraqi children became orphans. In a just world, killers like Bush, Cheney and the Neocons should be facing Nuremberg style tribunals as war criminals for their unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 7:10pm
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/09/2009 @ 6:04pm
Although Saddam attempted to invade Iran, he actually never penetrated very far and was on the defense for the rest of the war.
<The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution (mostly known as the Islamic Revolution). Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years Iran was on the offensive.[15] Despite calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003
Although the Iran–Iraq War from 1980–1988 was a war for dominance of the Persian Gulf region, the roots of the war go back many centuries. There has been rivalry between kingdoms of Assyria (the Fertile Crescent valley, modern Syria) and the rugged highlands to the East (Persia or modern Iran) since the beginning of recorded history in Sumer.
Of strategic importance was the question of sovereignty over the resource-rich province of Khuzestan. Before the Ottoman empire 1299–1922, Iraq was part of Persia. The rising power of the Ottomans put an end to this when Suleyman I annexed Arabian Iraq. The Turkish Sultan and general, Murad IV recaptured Baghdad from the Safavids of Persia in 1638 via the Treaty of Zuhab (Peace of Qasr-e-Shirin). The border disputes between Persia and the Ottomans never ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 7:10pm
It is blatantly obvious who God is.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 6:42pm
Like the voices in your head sjchermak, he too does not exist.
Therefore, how can it be blatantly obvious who he is?
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 7:11pm
Although Saddam attempted to invade Iran, he actually never penetrated very far and was on the defense for the rest of the war.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 7:10pm
What point were you trying to make by cutting and pasting this passage from wikipedia?
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 7:15pm
You talk about Israel having a racist and criminal history.... As you should know, that region is the ancestral homeland to the Jewish people Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 5:49pm
sjchermack,
Just a passing historic note; all 23 Arab countries came up with an Arab initiative to normalize all economic and political ties with Israel, if Israel pulls back to its 1967 borders. Ariel Sharon responded to the Arab initiative by unleashing his forces to totally ravage the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure in the West Bank and re-impose total Israeli control over the entire West Bank. When Herzl was talking grandly in 1895 in the privacy of his diary about "our own country," Jews were hardly one-twentieth of the population of Palestine. When Britain's Balfour Declaration promising a Jewish state in Palestine was issued in November 1917, there still were only an estimated 55,000 Jews among another 670,000 Muslim and Christian Palestinians. Massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians took place between 1917 and 1948 by three Zionist terror groups; the Haganah, the Stern Gang and the Irgun. Palestinian villages were ransacked and thousands of Palestinians were murdered in cold blood to terrify Palestinians to flee their homes. 750,000 to 800,000 Palestinians were not permitted by Israel to return to their homes after its creation in 1948. There was contentious disagreement between Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders pertaining to the fate of Palestinians prior to 1948. Ben-Gurion believed that keeping a small minority of Palestinians in Israel will burnish Israeli claim of being an inclusive democracy; other Jewish leaders disagreed; they wanted all Palestinians out. No one is threatening Israel today, except the weight of its own criminal history.
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 7:21pm
The fabrications of the Bush/Cheney and the Neocons about Saddam's WMD are well documented and not worth debunking
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 7:10pm
That's an understatement.
sjchermak hasn't even read the Duelfer Report, but is relying on the interpretation of the report from neocon hacks like Frank Gaffney, who are weaving their version of the report out of whole cloth.
Sjchermak has taken references to "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities" and extrapolated this to mean that Saddam was plotting to pump out WMD and hand them to Al Qaeda.
A close examination of Duelfer's invention reveals that "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities" consisted of nothing more than the detritus of Saddam's dismantled pre-1991 WMD programs. The Deulfer Report categorizes "WMD related program activity" to include Saddam's redeployment of scientists and technicians away from WMD related research to non-weapons related research in their areas of expertise. Saddam's dismantling of WMD programs and redeployment of scientists and technicians was itself a WMD related program activity.
As long as highly trained Iraqi personnel continued to work in their chosen fields of physics, chemistry and biology they were (in the estimation of the Duelfer Report) engaged in WMD related program activity.
The other argument posed by sjchermak, that Saddam was going to hand these on existent WMD to Al Qaeda, was debunked by the September 2007, SSCI report which concluded that not only did Saddam have no connection with Al Qaeda, but that he regarded AQ as his enemy.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 7:23pm
Just a passing historic note; all 23 Arab countries came up with an Arab initiative to normalize all economic and political ties with Israel, if Israel pulls back to its 1967 borders.
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 7:21pm
Indeed CripThink, I have raised this argument a number of times. What's more, Hamas have said they would respect the agreement.
Hear that? Hamas would recognize Israel. Israel have predictably, rejected it.
Ariel Sharon's responded to the Arab initiative, is much like Israel's response was to the PLO ion 1982, when the PLO first gave support to the idea of a 2 state solution.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 7:31pm
The current election will only decide what kind of facade Iran shows the world.
Critical is, the country's paramount leader wants Iran to have a nuclear arsenal.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/09/2009 @ 6:03pm
Spoken like a true right wing extremist.
Why let facts and evidence get in th way of a good dose of hyperbole and Islamophobic bil, right Hugo_Pirovano?
There is no nuclear arsenal and no program to make a nuclear arsenal. Iran are signatories to the NPT and both the IAEA and 16 US Intelligence agencies have concluded there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
So no, politicians like Ahmadinejad will not flush in and out of power and with nuclear weapons in their armories, because Iran has no nuclear weapons and has no nuclear weapons program.
>> Nuclear weapons, within the reach of the people Dreyfuss describes, mean a world historical catastrophe.
Translation: Catastrophe meaning that Israel ceases to be the dominant power int eh region and has to forgo the option of being able to attack anyone in the region without regard for the consequences.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 7:38pm
By the way, in case your wondering.....and this IS significant..... God gave Israel to the Jewish people...........end of argument, Crip Think. P.S. Quick Quiz..Who is one of the greatest Presidents in U.S. history? Answer: Harry S. Truman, he recognized Israel immediately... Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 5:49pm
sjchermack,
I always felt that you are an ignorant light weight Zionist and certainly not in a position to give people historic quizzes.
God can't endorse the ethnic cleansing of a group of his children in favor of other group; maybe your God does, but then you have to explain why your God is so cruel. 20% of the Palestinians who were expelled from their homes by the European Ashkenazi Jews were Christians. Maybe Harry Truman is the God you are alluding to, and you could be right on this. But to be truthful to history, the whole story has to be told:
It was reported by Gore Vidal that in 1948 Harry S. Truman's presidential campaign was in desperate need for cash. Then, an American Zionist boarded his whistle-stop campaign train. The Zionist handed Truman two million dollars in cash in a suitcase and the recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast afterward.
Now, it is my turn to quiz you: Can you name the book where Gore Vidal told the above story?
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 7:48pm
You're wasting your time using logic and historical facts on the likes of sjchermack. As we have seen over the Iraq debate, his understanding of history is based entirely on his died of right wing jingoism anddistorted interpretations of religion.
God took back Israel when the Jewish people (most of whom are just converts to the religion anyway) broke the Covenant with him.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 8:06pm
You're wasting your time using logic and historical facts on the likes of sjchermack. Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 8:06pm
Shingo,
Maybe you are correct on this, but someone has to uncover the blanket of deception that is often used by sjchermack and his cabals to mask the truth. Go tell a first grader that God is now in the business of real estate and is issuing Grand Deeds; the first grader will laugh at you. sjchermak must be a certified idiot to believe his own BS.
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 8:20pm
sjchermak must be a certified idiot to believe his own BS.
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 8:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That pretty much sums it up.
I completely agree with you of course. Perhaps there will be some genuinely inquiring minds on this forum who are interested in historical facts, but sjchermak and his fellow travelers are impervious to truth or facts.
Posted by Shingo at 06/09/2009 @ 8:27pm
Saddam most assuredly was not our ally then.----Posted by sjchermak at 06/09/2009 @ 6:49pm
So why was Rumsfeld shaking hands with him? Just a "drinking buddy" or "neighbor over the fence" kind of thing?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2009 @ 8:58pm
Is this article supposed to be serious?
Who do you think is going to count the votes?
Never fear, Ahmadinejad is a shoe-in.
Posted by bleedingheart at 06/09/2009 @ 9:16pm
Instead, they just finance and arm Hezbollah and Hamas to do their dirty work.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Funny how leftist continually ignore the islamic terrorist supporters like Iran and Syria and celebrate them as if they were idealistic realms to be admired. Even the Obamanation that makes desolation seeks to appease and please them with his empty headed rhetoric.
They must have cheered secretly for Iran shipping arms, military agents and other aide to those killing Americans in Iraq. Dispicable traitors to the nation one and all!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 12:02am
Funny how leftist continually ignore the islamic terrorist supporters like Iran and Syria and celebrate them as if they were idealistic realms to be admired.
Posted by BigPasture at 06/10/2009 @ 12:02am
Even funnier how Zionist apologists bleat about terrorists while supporting a state that was founded on terrorism by terrorists and who elected 2 terrorist leaders to the office of Prime Minister.
Israel stands as proof that terrorism works.
>> They must have cheered secretly for Iran shipping arms, military agents and other aide to those killing Americans in Iraq.
Funny how with all these so called weapons shipments from Iran to Iraq, none are ever found and no such military agents ever uncovered, or when they are arrested, as immediately released.
Meanwhile, the US and Israel support terrorist groups like the MEK (who HAVE killed Americans) and Al Qaeda types, who want to kill, Americans, as they set off bombs in Tehran.
The US are even supporting Jihadist groups like Jundullah, who used to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's old gang.
Despicable indeed.
Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 01:19am
CripThink at 0 7:48pm said:
>> It was reported by Gore Vidal that in 1948 Harry S. Truman's presidential campaign was in desperate need for cash. Then, an American Zionist boarded his whistle-stop campaign train. The Zionist handed Truman two million dollars in cash in a suitcase and the recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast afterward. <<
Do you realize how idiotic that?
Israel was recognized by the US on May 14, the day of its independence. (So did the Soviet Union 3 days later.)
The 1948 presidential campaign did not begin until after the Democratic convention in mid July. And there was no whistle stop train campaign did not start until October.
Moreover, the critical US support was not the recognition of the Israeli state, but the UN partition vote where a majority of the member states voted to divide the British Mandate into two separate Jewish and Arab states. That was where US support was critical, and there too, to suggest money was involved is ridiculous.
Ten years ago Michael Benson, wrote, Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel. It gives the definitive view of those events, and of Truman's motivation. It was not money. It was not even really politics. And he was not particularly fond of Jews. It was above all Harry's appreciation of the Bible. He supported Israel on humanitarian grounds and because of his religious feelings. That was also what had motivated Balfour and Loyd George.
What Gore Vidal now puts into the mouth of JFK is rubbish. Even had such a conversation happened, who would have been JFKs source? His Jew hating father. It is the classic tale of Jews bribing their way to power, which anti-Semites like Joseph Kennedy rumor mongered, and which vermin like you relish.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/10/2009 @ 01:49am
Well, as far as the Iranians go, as the Heritage Foundation asks...
"What Would Reagan Do?".
Oh, wait....that would be-
sell arms to them....never mind.
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2009 @ 07:54am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/10/2009 @ 01:49am
Hugo_Pirovano,
Truman was the incumbent president in 1948 and all polls were favoring the Republican candidate Thomas Dewey to win the race. Truman went against the urging of his advisors not to recognize Israel, primarily due to the large amount of contributions he received from Zionist donors. Truman himself admitted in a private cabinet meeting that he is doing it for money and votes. And here is a relevant quote from a senior member of the State Department during the Truman era:
"The group of New York Jews called upon Mr. Truman. [Alan Taylor, op. cit. p.93] Emmanuel Cellar was the head of this committee. Rabbi Steven Wise and several others were in it. They called upon Mr. Truman and said, "We have just been talking with Mr. Thomas Dewey. He is willing to come out and declare for a Jewish state, and we are going to turn our money and urge the Jews to vote for him unless you beat him to it." Then Emmanuel Cellar pounded upon Mr. Truman's desk and said, "And if you don't come out for a Jewish state we'll run you out of town." This, I'm sure, is the threat that Mr. Truman refers to in his book, saying, "The extreme Zionists threatened me." They were Emmanuel Cellar, Rabbi Steven Wise, etc. These are not the extreme Zionists, these are just the run of the mill Zionists. What Mr. Truman did was to cave in to these threats that they would support Mr. Dewey. In that way he got the Jewish money and the Jewish vote."
Truman is no different from our current spineless politicians who place Israel's interest ahead of the American interest due to the large amount of money they receive from their Zionist handlers.
Posted by CripThink at 06/10/2009 @ 09:25am
How about the illicit Israeli Nuclear Program? Do you have a story on 200 Israeli nuclear warheads that you want to share with us?
Posted by CripThink at 06/09/2009 @ 5:16pm
Israel does not have an "illicit" nuclear program as they along with India and Pakistan, are not signatories to the NPT.
And again, a nation that occupies 5 tenths of 1 percent of the middle east and is surrounded by nations that want ot destroy it is hardly the bully.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 12:13pm
which vermin like me relish. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/10/2009 @ 01:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2009 @ 12:34pm
CripThink at 09:25am wrote:
>> The group of New York Jews called upon Mr. Truman. [Alan Taylor, op. cit. p.93] ... "We have just been talking with Mr. Thomas Dewey. He is willing to come out and declare for a Jewish state, and we are going to turn our money and urge the Jews to vote for him unless you beat him to it."… Cellars pounded upon Mr. Truman's desk and said, "And if you don't come out for a Jewish state we'll run you out of town." <<
A phony quote with a phony reference from a phony link, and you doctored it even further, omitting its 1946 date.
In 1946 Truman had won WWII. He was the most powerful man in the world, and the presidential elections were 2 years in the future.
That a Jewish NY congressman, (NY voted Republican in '48) in a time Jews were yet restricted from many gulf courses, could and would threaten to run the President of the US out of town, is ridiculous and pure Elders of Zion stuff.
Incidentally, it was as unclear in ‘46 who would be the Republican 1948 candidate as it is today with respect to 2012. Dewey was just one name in a field that included Taft, Vandenberg, Stassen, McArthur et al. Nor could the eventual nominee's attitude to Israel be guessed. Palestine had not yet even arisen as an issue. The partition plan was almost 2 years in the future. That Truman would run in 48 was not even sure. He told Ike he would stand aside if he wanted the Democratic nomination.
And finally, that link claims this information is a CIA document. The CIA did not yet exist in 1946. And even when it came into existence it was expressly barred, by law, from scrutinizing domestic politics.
You are a real piece of work, Crip. The "Think" in your handle is a presumption. A melon can out-think you.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/10/2009 @ 3:20pm
Israel does not have an "illicit" nuclear program as they along with India and Pakistan, are not signatories to the NPT.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/10/2009 @ 12:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So I take it you would be OK with Iran developing nuclear wepoans, so long as they withdrew from the NPT?
Of course Israel's nuclear program is "illicit". Isrlel kidnapped Mordachai Vanunnu and improsoned him for 18 years for revelaving Israel's nukes to the world.
Oh and please, let's stop pretending that Israel does not have nukes. Even Olmert admitted it during an interview, whic led to a cry fro mmany qurters demanding he resign:
He told Germany's Sat.1 channel:
"Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"
"And again, a nation that occupies 5 tenths of 1 percent of the middle east and is surrounded by nations that want ot destroy it is hardly the bully."
Except that this is a lie. 22 of those nations have singed a peace offer to recognize and noremalize relations with Israel, which Israel has rejected.
So yes, Israel is a bully and a thug, because it would ratehr steal land and hold on to stolen land than make peace.
Posted by Shingo at 06/10/2009 @ 5:29pm
The United States and Israel perpetually threaten to launch airstrikes against Iran because of a nuclear research program that they, and only they, characterize as a nuclear weapons program, despite the findings of the IAEA to the contrary, and yet, Dreyfuss characterizes the hostility of Ahmanijedad supporters to them as an illustration of their tendency to believe in "dark plots". Rather odd, really, when all they need to do is read the newspaper to learn about the very real plots that Israel and the US are currently engaging in against Iran, including, in the case of the US, providing financial support for a terrorist group that carries out attacks inside Iran.
Sounds to me like his supporters have a understand what is really happening. Being lower middle class, they have a tendency to express themselves in ways that Dreyfuss finds troubling, a blunt spoken harsh, sometimes bigoted speech, although it is worth noting that Zionism should be repudiated as his supporters maintain, there should be one secular state in Palestine as opposed a Zionist one, and, again, perhaps, this may be what really concerns Dreyfuss. If they expressed themselves in the cool language of the educated, would Dreyfuss be more reassured? I wonder, because his real concerns seem to be more substantive than political, and express an internalizied anxiety about the open participation of what he describes as "lumpenproletarians" in social life.
Furthermore, he may be missing the point of Mousavi's assertion of "Death to Bread!". It may have been entirely humorous, but it sounds like the contempt for social assistance programs expressed by the upper classes in Venezuela. But, silly mee, The Nation hates Chavez, too, and romanticizes his upper class students opposition.
Posted by RichardEstes at 06/11/2009 @ 12:44pm
Did a little research, and found this in the Independent today:
(note, link rejected)
"Attack of the Clerics Threaten Admanijedad Election Hopes"
". . . . Mr Rafsanjani fired off a letter to the supreme leader in which he warned that "tens of millions" of Iranians had witnessed the President's statements during the heated TV showdown. He urged Ayatollah Khamenei to take action, hinting that if he did not, furious supporters of the rival candidates might take the law into their own hands. "I am expecting you to resolve this position in order to extinguish the fire, whose smoke can be seen in the atmosphere, and to foil dangerous plots to take action... there is no doubt that some people, parties and factions will not tolerate this situation"."
Now, I am really confused. After reading this article by Dreyfuss, I thought that the fascist peril resided among the Ahmanijedad supporters. Yet, here, the so-called reformists are the ones described as willing to "take the law into their own hands" if they don't get their way. Rafsanjani, the adopted patron saint of "reform" as defined by the US, Europe and Israel, looks like the one trying to incite violence. Increasingly, this article is beginning to look like a relative of the notorious one that the Nation ran a couple of years ago about the upper class student opponents of Chavez that were supposedly motivated by Hannah Arendt instead of their animus towards the lower classes.
Posted by RichardEstes at 06/11/2009 @ 2:39pm