The Cat wrote:How the Neocons wanted Ahmadinejad to win...
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/6/11/0116/19921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“I’m sometimes asked who I would vote for if I were enfranchised in this election, and I think that, with due hesitance, I would vote for Ahmadinejad,” Pipes said. The reason Daniel Pipes is not concerned about the prospect of another term for Ahmadinejad is the same reason you shouldn't be overly concerned. Even serving as the president of Iran, Ahmadinejad has no power over the military and he cannot set foreign policy. He is not authorized to make decisions related to nuclear energy. Those types of decisions are made by the Supreme Leader and the unelected Council of Guardians.
It's not a good sign when a country has a raving nut for a president, but Ahmadinejad's crazy talk and provocative language mean almost nothing. Pipes and his allies knew this all along but that didn't prevent them from using Ahmadinejad as a poster-boy for the Clash of Civilizations.
But he is indeed that by his own desire and intentions.
The Cat wrote:
It's easier to avoid efforts at peace if you've convinced yourself that every conceivable approach is doomed to fail and that all Iranians are equally implacable and dangerous. If Iran=Nazi Germany, it doesn't matter whether it changes a minister here or there. Better to keep a scary face on the thing so it is easier to mobilize the public against them. That is precisely why it is important that Ahmadinejad lose. Without him making things easy for the warmongers, we might actually make some progress.[ And progress is not what Pipes and his pals are interested in.
It's not just Daniel Pipes, but a whole bunch of Neocons such as: Danielle Pletka, Martin Peretz, Ilan Berman and Michael Rubin.
See also:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/1 ... 14698.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... nejad.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, I'm sure you realize that the day the US makes peace with the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of Iran, this will be the final legitimizer of the Iranian revolution thereby thwarting the Iranians who wish for regime change to something far less "Islamic". If the west establishes full ties, this tells the Iranian people that their government and system is completely legitimate and accepted by everyone, thereby making the Iranians complacent enough with these Mullahs. This is the part you nor the author sees.
The Cat wrote:
Now, the warning voice of Zbigniew Brezinski (former US national security adviser) about such policy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-ga ... 26247.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Zbigniew Brezinski : These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the United States.
Excuse me, but when has it been FOR the United States? It's always been against the US, who's kidding who?
The Cat wrote:
The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves.
After less than a decade Iraq is conclusive? Ridiculous. What happens if that country turns the corner as it seems to be doing and becomes a democratic and economically viable country? what will people say than? where does this arbitrary time table come from where we say that success muct come in X amount of years? Who invents that? See what these people do? Their terrible and they have done nothing but take a tough situation and willfully make it worse with their words and propaganda. these are NOT Americans, regardless of whether they think they are or not.
The Cat wrote:
Eventually, if neocon policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well.
Well, as of right now, their presence has only expanded, although I'd like to see us one day leave altogether and let the Middle East turn into Africa after the oil is either gone or people don't need so much of it anymore.
Nathan Gardels: Don't the deaths of so many innocent civilians in Qana in the south of Lebanon -- like the massacre in Haditha, Iraq, by American troops -- send a message to Arabs and Iranians that the "new Middle East" coming from the U.S. and Israel will amount to occupation, carnage and bloodshed?
What actions sparked this? Was it inevitable and unavoidable? Yes. It became that way.
The Cat wrote:
Even Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian dissident who won the Nobel Peace Prize, told me recently that Iranians would rather suffer the mullahs for now than the horrors they see in Iraq.
Who causes those horrors? History will tell us.
The Cat wrote:
Brzezinski: This is precisely why neocon policies are recklessly dangerous both to America and Israel. (...) The new element today is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the Iraq problem and Iran from each other. Neither the United States nor Israel has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution in the Middle East. There may be people who deceive themselves into believing that. The solution can only come in the Israel-Palestinian issue if there is serious international involvement that supports the moderates from both sides, however numerous or few they are, but also creates the situation in which it becomes of greater interest to the warring parties to accommodate than to resist, both because of the incentives and the capacity of the external intervention to impose costs. (...)
Does this author know about "hudna"? I'm guessing not.
The Cat wrote:
The notion that the U.S. was going to get a pliant, democratic, stable, pro-American, Israel-loving Iraq is a myth which is rapidly eroding. That is why the U.S. needs to start talking with the Iraqis about the day of our disengagement. We shouldn't leave precipitously. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Zalmay) Khalilzad told me that four months would be precipitous. I agree. But we should agree that the U.S. will disengage at some period beyond that. (...)
No sh!t Sherlock. Didn't even Bush himself say the US will leave when the situation on the ground dictates that? And the situation has drastically improve. But if we would have listed to assholes like this joker, and Obama, we would have pulled out with our tail in between our legs, Iraq would be in turmoil and assholes such as this commentator would only say "it was inevitable anyway" and cheesily go back and blame Bush. Well, apparently it WASN'T inevitable and Bush was right to stick to his guns.
The Cat wrote:
Sometimes in international politics, the better part of wisdom is to defer dangers rather than try to eliminate them altogether instantly.
30 years later in Iran?
The Cat wrote:
To do that produces intense counter-reactions that are destructive. We have time to deal with Iran, provided the process is launched, dealing with the nuclear energy problem, which can then be extended to involve also security talks about the region.
LOL
The Cat wrote:
In the final analysis, Iran is a serious country; it's not Iraq. It's going to be there. It's going to be a player.
Iraq's not going to be there? what is the matter with this person?
The Cat wrote:
And in the longer historical term, it has all of the preconditions for a constructive internal evolution if you measure it by rates of literacy, access to higher education and the role of women in society.
The mullahs are part of the past in Iran, not its future. But change in Iran will come through engagement, not through confrontation. If we pursue these policies, we can perhaps avert the worst. But if we do not, I fear that the region will explode. In the long run, Israel would be in great jeopardy.
So how do we "engage" Iran to give up it's Nuclear weapons desires? I just gotta love people like this who are honestly this naive.
The Cat wrote:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... ead=149232" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The revolution in Eastern Europe, the Solidarity movement in Poland, or the other movements in the Czech Republic and Hungary, and so forth, were for democracy. And there are aspects to what is happening in Iran which are similar for democracy. But the movements in Eastern Europe were also intensely nationalistic. That is to say, they were opposing foreign domination, foreign imperialism, direct control from another capital, namely from Moscow. That element is not there in Iran.
We're dealing with a country which is very nationalistic. Parts of that country may not be as hostile to us as the ayatollahs have been over the last 30 years. But they're not struggling against a foreign domination. And that makes the movement somewhat weaker. It isn't quite as united as in Eastern Europe. And thus, in Iran, we have two different forces at work. You have those who are for more democracy, but who are also nationalistic. And there are those who are supporting the regime, who in many respects are like our neocons -- very similar to our neocons. They're Manichean. They look at the world as divided into good and evil, and many of them see America as the personification of evil. So, that makes it much more complicated, and makes our role much more sensitive (...)
I think Obama has redefined America's relationship with Islam. And thereby, he has weakened the capacity of the ayatollahs to present us as a satanic force. But we should have no illusions that Iranian nationalism is going to be easy to deal with. And even if Mousavi wins, for example, we'll still have a complicated problem in the nuclear area. But hopefully, the nature of the dialogue, the atmosphere will change for the better. (...)
Well, obviously none of that happened, naive fool.
The Cat wrote:
Eastern Europe became intensely pro-Western, pro- American, and so forth. I think we should have no illusions about this. The Iranians have a long historical memory. They look at the West, and particularly at America and Britain, with somewhat critical eyes. They have grievances against us, and they feel that we have done things to them which they weren't entitled to have happened.
So, I think the accommodation will not be easy. But once we no longer have a Manichean, black-and-white, good-and-evil type of a regime confronting us in a hostile fashion, it will be easier to deal with the specific problems that we confront. One of the paradoxes here domestically is that many of the people who call for the most energetic involvement by Obama in the process, they simply would prefer to have an American-Iranian showdown.
Progress Obama has made with this tact? Zero.
The Cat wrote:
Whereas, in fact, if there is a change of regime in Iran, there's a greater chance of accommodation.
LOL, gee, ya think? No kidding? LOL
The Cat wrote:
And I think that is to be fervently wished for. But that requires patience, intelligent manipulation, moral support, but no political interference.
What do you think intelligent manipulation is? My God, how do these people get respected enough to write such stupid opinions? and like I always say, opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.