• commentary
  • TUESDAY JUNE 23 2009 6:00 AM

You Can’t Really Be This Stupid

Most of the time I get the Republican mindset. More often than not, it is just team vs. team. Their astounding hypocrisy knows no bounds. When in control, they say one thing, but when not in control, they immediately flock to the position they formerly criticized. It’s actually quite amusing. As far as big business goes, they’ll bend over anyway they can and have quite a few Americans convinced screwing themselves over is the way to go. Their economic policies have destroyed our country and I find it hard to believe they still stand behind their ideas, but they serve their corporate masters, so I get it. Yet once again, they have come with an attack that is so shockingly stupid it is beyond my comprehension. Their attacks on Obama over his decision to not strongly criticize the Iranian government are astoundingly stupid. You’ve got to wonder if they actually believe taking such a ridiculously stupid stance is real, or if they will just say the opposite of whatever Obama believes.

"The reaction of the Iranian people shows their discontent with this regime," McCain said during an interview on Fox News' "Fox & Friends."

"It's really a sham that they've pulled off and I hope that we will act," he said. "I think they should be condemned, and it's obvious that this was a rigged election and depriving the people of their democratic rights. We are for human rights all over the world."



Well, first of all, we are not for human rights all over the world. That’s the dumbest argument ever made. We just aren't. We never have been and we never will be. We’re about money and that’s all we are “for” all over the world. To believe otherwise is to deny history and reality.

But let me back up for a moment and just focus on Iran. If there is one country in the world that we owe the favor of staying out of their business to, it is Iran; America has already ruined Iran. The reason Iran is a theocracy is because of the United States of America. It’s called fucking yourself in the ass. It is one our greatest failures. We did more than “meddle” in Iran; in 1953 we helped to overthrow its democratically elected government, installed the brutal Shah and sent Iran on the path to dictatorship. It eventually led to the Islamic Revolution. That’s called “Blowback.” In the 1980’s we supported our friend Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, which cost hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. We even shot down an Iranian passenger jet in the ‘80s. Can you imagine if Iran had shot down one of ours?

Now, after years of belligerently stupid foreign policy, Obama has taken a different tact. It’s actually smart, which I’m sure confuses the Iranian leaders. They had become accustomed to the ignorant and simplistic responses of George Bush. Obama has chosen to take the “soft diplomacy” route and it’s already paying off. During his Cairo speech, he addressed Iran.

There is a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.



It’s hard to call someone the “Great Satan” when Satan is admitting mistakes. I know that’s difficult for the idiots in the GOP to understand, but that’s how it works. By not responding in kind, Obama has shown the belligerence of Iranian leaders to Iranians. They have been on the path to democracy for a long time. It’s a very slow one and should be. Iranians were already upset that their president’s language has caused economic isolation. It is causing massive unemployment and now that the US president is not responding like a mirror belligerent idiot, the focus is on one man as the problem: Ahmadinejad,

But the Republicans want us to keep swinging the big, dumb stick – because it's worked out so well over the past 8 years.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said a slow or muted U.S. response risks undermining the aspirations of Iranian voters to change or question their government.

"If America stands for democracy and all of these demonstrations are going on in Tehran and other cities over there, and people don't think that we really care, then obviously they're going to question, 'do we really believe in our principles?'" Grassley said.



No, actually, they question if we believe in our principles because we support brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan. They’re not idiots who believe in words over action. Those are your minions you are thinking of.

"The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like."



First, I don’t think in the closet gay guys should be talking about leading anything, not that being gay has anything to do with Senator Graham. Second, I cannot believe anyone would be so dumb as to not understand that if we take a side, then the Iranian government can call the protesters “tools” of the United States. Seriously, how can you be that stupid? I honestly can’t understand it.

Also, the idea that Obama making a harsh statement would have an uplifting affect on the Iranian protesters is shockingly arrogant. Get over yourselves. How is this supposed to work?


    Protestor: Today I take to the streets for my vote! I am willing to die for this cause. Justice must be served!

    Obama: The Iranian leaders are super bad. I’ve got your back with words but not action!

    Protestor: Oh, man, I was only kind of into this stuff, but now I’m really, really into it! I will now overthrow my government because some dude living in another country said he likes me.



That pretty much seems to be what people like McCain and Graham actually think is going to happen. One “atta boy” from the president and the game is changed. America likes you! Now you can have an awesome revolution! It’s so moronic I can barely wrap my head around it.

In reality, the statement McCain and company want would do serious harm to those Iranians taking on their government. Once they are labeled as associated with the United States, they will be murdered. As of now, the security forces are actually showing restraint. But Republicans seem to think having a segment of the Iranian population aligned with “The Great Satan” is wise. Amazing. And I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. I’m believing them to be sincere. If they are not and this is just another political game and they are criticizing Obama because they want to take the opposing view due to party politics – then they are more disgusting than I could ever imagine because lives are on the line. That is inexcusable.

The sad thing is the protesters aren’t even asking for western type democracy. Most Iranians want a religious government of some sort. What they are in the streets fighting for is the small bit of self rule they were allowed. As one man in the street said, “They’ve taken away the sham of electing someone.” Republicans, and many other Americans, are putting their own spin on it. At best, they want to believe a democracy will emerge from this mess, but that’s not part of the equation yet. This is just a small step in that direction and it’s going very well. (At worst, do they even care about democracy? It's not like Republican's were actually that keen on counting votes or even allowing all eligible Americans to cast them in recent elections.)

The Iranian government will never be the same. Ever. For us, that’s a pretty good deal. So, let’s stay out of this one. We have two reasons for doing so. First, our involvement would backfire on those people we want to succeed. Second, we owe them. We own the Iranian people for every horrible thing we have done. We owe them for subjecting them to 26 years of a brutal dictator followed by 30 years of an oppressive religious government. We did that and it’s time to take the moral high ground.

If we don’t – you can pretty much guarantee the opposite of what we want
will occur.

FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday and Friday for more from FearTheReaper You may also enjoy his blog, Stop All Monsters.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JUN 24, 2009 07:25 PM

SargeWorld is such a simple, beautiful place.

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUN 24, 2009 08:30 PM

gfvella said:
I'd be more worried about something leaking from inside Russia via the mafia or from inside Pakistan. The DPRK is using its nukes as a bargaining chip. Selling one to Jihadists - even if they had one that would fit in something smaller than a shipping container - would lead to them getting nuked. That would be counter to regime survival, which is their most critical goal.



Here isa good article from the BBC on the risk of Pakistani nukes getting into the wrong hands.

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUN 24, 2009 08:39 PM

midnightblue69 said:
When North Korea launched their first ICBM Obama and Hillary were all over the news, touring asia proclaiming how we were not going to stand for it...Now 3 missile launches and 2 atomic blasts later, there is a Korean ship full of weapons headed for Myanmar we are not going to interfere with it????

Can Obama jackass put 2+2 together and realize that this is a bankrupt country with nuclear weapons that hates the US wanting to sell weapons? How long before they sell a bomb to a Jihad group to park on the Hudson river? What then? After all the crying, finger pointing, national days of mourning and Toby Keith songs what do you do?



The SMH is carrying a wire story which just goes to illustrate why the DPRK has to be handled with tact.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 24, 2009 10:02 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
I'm wondering what group of people would suddenly have a change of heart if the USA took sides. Surely not the protestors, they dispise the current Iranian Regime because of what it's done, not because of what we've done. Surely not their opposition because they're already convinced that their right.
I don't think anyone whose currently taken sides in the mater won't have their mind changed if we take a side.


it's more about who wouldn't have a change of heart later on, once the dust settles. if we interfere, even if protesters get their way, they'll have lost legitimacy in the eyes of everyone else in the region (not to mention in the eyes of their opponents in Iran). it's pretty simple math: if you and me are fighting, and someone helps me beat you up, are you and your friends going to believe that i'm capable of standing on my own? especially if the person who helps me is the biggest bully around?

SergeantPsycho said:
And exactly what does having the legitimacy give us that we lack by not having the legitmacy? More over where does one get this legitmacy, and who gets to decide what's legitimate?


the rest of the region--and the world--gets to decide what's legitimate. if the rest of the world thinks we're acting like a bunch of douchebags, then they're going to treat us like a bunch of douchebags even if we're finally coming down on the right side of things. and because they're going to treat us like a bunch of douchebags, we have a significantly reduced ability to succeed.

SergeantPsycho said:
How would those protesting in favor of real Democracy have any chance of success, given that their opposition has both the means and the willingness to use deadly force (all the more willingness when convinced that we'll remain neutral, as stated above)?


because there's a limit on how brutal and obvious they can be without turning even their supporters against them.

SergeantPsycho said:
What are you basing that on? Our regime change in Iraq worked, as it did an Afghanistan. Both had democratic elections, and both saw the ousting of brutal regimes. If the Iranian regime is ousted, it's probable that we'll have an easier time in Iraq and Afghanistan. More over, we learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan that would be valuable in Iran. That 's if we go so far as to have a straight military intervention of course, but there are some increments between that and what we're doing now.


in order to achieve even the ludicrously qualified levels of "success" we currently enjoy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd end up having to fight the people we'd be trying to liberate. even as bad as many Iraqis had it, many of the people we were there to liberate fought us during the insurgency. Iranians--even the protesters--have far, far greater amounts of freedom, and face far, far lower levels of brutality than Iraqis under Saddam could even dream of. they'd unite to fight us tooth and nail, and we'd end up driving the majority of them to support the current regime.

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUN 24, 2009 10:03 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
I'm wondering what group of people would suddenly have a change of heart if the USA took sides. Surely not the protestors, they dispise the current Iranian Regime because of what it's done, not because of what we've done. Surely not their opposition because they're already convinced that their right.
I don't think anyone whose currently taken sides in the mater won't have their mind changed if we take a side.



Just because they don't like the current Supreme Leader and President doesn't mean they are pro-American. Every Iranian I have every met - regardless of their views of the Islamic Republic - was very ambivalent about the US. They have a serious love-hate view. Obama's being very clever to prevent the regime trying to distract fence sitters by pointing at the US as being responsible.

SergeantPsycho said:
And exactly what does having the legitimacy give us that we lack by not having the legitmacy? More over where does one get this legitmacy, and who gets to decide what's legitimate?



The US is not seen as an honest broker by anyone in the Middle East for many reasons. In Iran it is not seen as a harbinger of democracy and freedom because the CIA overthrew the last truly democratic government Iran had and replace it with the Shah. The Shah's tyrannical rule lasted as long as it did thanks to ongoing American support, which in turn led directly to the Islamic Revolution. I know some Iranian students who blame the US for the current state of their country because of 1953. I suspect they are not alone.

silversoul7 is quiet correct and the only way to overcome this lack of legitimacy is for the US to act with more regard for local sensitivities and actually work to put democratic governments in place in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Both of these states are nasty tyrannies who only survive thanks to US support, just like the Shah did. Hard for the US to be seen as a legitimate supporter of freedom and democracy in the Middle East when its best friends are as bad as those seen as US enemies.

SergeantPsycho said:
And the Shah had less willingness to use deadly force than the current Regime.



Say what? I'd like to see some evidence of that Sarge. The Shah killed an estimated 2781 during the Islamic Revolution and a lot more in the previous decades. So far the Ayatollahs haven't even begun to kill that many and show no sign that they want to; otherwise their first move would have been to unleash the security forces. This isn't to say that they are better than the Shah, but the Shah was by no means better than them in the bloody tyrant stakes.

SergeantPsycho said:
What are you basing that on? Our regime change in Iraq worked, as it did an Afghanistan. Both had democratic elections, and both saw the ousting of brutal regimes. If the Iranian regime is ousted, it's probable that we'll have an easier time in Iraq and Afghanistan. More over, we learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan that would be valuable in Iran. That 's if we go so far as to have a straight military intervention of course, but there are some increments between that and what we're doing now.



You now have a tottering, pro-Iranian government in Iraq that will remain democratic only as long as there are US troops in country.

You have a tottering, desperate government in Afghanistan that exists as long as we can be bothered to take casualties to support it.

So you are two down and counting at this point.

If the US openly intervened in Iran it would unite the vast majority of the population behind the regime. Whatever Iran is, it is not a barely functional collection of tribal and religious animosities like Iraq or Afghanistan. It has been a nation for millennia and it's citizens have a patriotism the equal of the US. Calm, rational, internationally supported diplomatic moves will deliver whatever results can be gained. I will also point out this has been the US policy since Bush and co realised their macho approach was counter-productive and pointless. This despite Darth Cheney's megalomaniac belief in military intervention.

As for military intervention it would make the casualty toll in Iraq look like a Saturday night out in the Castro. Sure the US would win the conventional invasion, but that is the easy part. The US would never be able to put in place another government as anyone who cooperated with the invading forces would be totally unacceptable to majority of Iranians as traitors. Iran is also as inhospitable - terrain-wide - as Afghanistan, making it perfect for guerrilla warfare.

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUN 24, 2009 10:11 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:
SargeWorld is such a simple, beautiful place.



Thankfully that world view appear to no longer be running the Whitehouse.

beuys

beuys

Christmas Island
February 2009

JUN 24, 2009 10:12 PM

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

gfvella said:

SergeantPsycho said:
I'm wondering what group of people would suddenly have a change of heart if the USA took sides. Surely not the protestors, they dispise the current Iranian Regime because of what it's done, not because of what we've done. Surely not their opposition because they're already convinced that their right.
I don't think anyone whose currently taken sides in the mater won't have their mind changed if we take a side.



Just because they don't like the current Supreme Leader and President doesn't mean they are pro-American. Every Iranian I have every met - regardless of their views of the Islamic Republic - was very ambivalent about the US. They have a serious love-hate view. Obama's being very clever to prevent the regime trying to distract fence sitters by pointing at the US as being responsible.

SergeantPsycho said:
And exactly what does having the legitimacy give us that we lack by not having the legitmacy? More over where does one get this legitmacy, and who gets to decide what's legitimate?



The US is not seen as an honest broker by anyone in the Middle East for many reasons. In Iran it is not seen as a harbinger of democracy and freedom because the CIA overthrew the last truly democratic government Iran had and replace it with the Shah. The Shah's tyrannical rule lasted as long as it did thanks to ongoing American support, which in turn led directly to the Islamic Revolution. I know some Iranian students who blame the US for the current state of their country because of 1953. I suspect they are not alone.

silversoul7 is quiet correct and the only way to overcome this lack of legitimacy is for the US to act with more regard for local sensitivities and actually work to put democratic governments in place in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Both of these states are nasty tyrannies who only survive thanks to US support, just like the Shah did. Hard for the US to be seen as a legitimate supporter of freedom and democracy in the Middle East when its best friends are as bad as those seen as US enemies.

SergeantPsycho said:
And the Shah had less willingness to use deadly force than the current Regime.



Say what? I'd like to see some evidence of that Sarge. The Shah killed an estimated 2781 during the Islamic Revolution and a lot more in the previous decades. So far the Ayatollahs haven't even begun to kill that many and show no sign that they want to; otherwise their first move would have been to unleash the security forces. This isn't to say that they are better than the Shah, but the Shah was by no means better than them in the bloody tyrant stakes.

SergeantPsycho said:
What are you basing that on? Our regime change in Iraq worked, as it did an Afghanistan. Both had democratic elections, and both saw the ousting of brutal regimes. If the Iranian regime is ousted, it's probable that we'll have an easier time in Iraq and Afghanistan. More over, we learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan that would be valuable in Iran. That 's if we go so far as to have a straight military intervention of course, but there are some increments between that and what we're doing now.



You now have a tottering, pro-Iranian government in Iraq that will remain democratic only as long as there are US troops in country.

You have a tottering, desperate government in Afghanistan that exists as long as we can be bothered to take casualties to support it.

So you are two down and counting at this point.

If the US openly intervened in Iran it would unite the vast majority of the population behind the regime. Whatever Iran is, it is not a barely functional collection of tribal and religious animosities like Iraq or Afghanistan. It has been a nation for millennia and it's citizens have a patriotism the equal of the US. Calm, rational, internationally supported diplomatic moves will deliver whatever results can be gained. I will also point out this has been the US policy since Bush and co realised their macho approach was counter-productive and pointless. This despite Darth Cheney's megalomaniac belief in military intervention.

As for military intervention it would make the casualty toll in Iraq look like a Saturday night out in the Castro. Sure the US would win the conventional invasion, but that is the easy part. The US would never be able to put in place another government as anyone who cooperated with the invading forces would be totally unacceptable to majority of Iranians as traitors. Iran is also as inhospitable - terrain-wide - as Afghanistan, making it perfect for guerrilla warfare.



Thank you for responding to the Sarge's post point-by-point. You've saved the rest of us the hassle.

Stiles

Stiles

Oakland, CA
November 2002

JUN 24, 2009 10:58 PM

midnightblue69 said:
Dude that is the most backward ass logic I have ever heard.
The media you worship has rotted your brain. Think for yourself, you can do it, just try...really.

Your arguement against what I said is that the program will not not really work so why worry about it. If that is the case why are you not outraged that that Obapa is spending 4 BILLION on a failed program that will be of little consequence?

Where exactly is your upside to this again?

If the government wanted to give 4 bil accross the board for people to buy new cars it wouldn't be so bad. If their motive was simply to help the people and auto industry, why not just give the money in simple tax credits to anyone buying a new car? Because thats not what they are after.

Either I am right or the program is a massive waste of 4 billion dollars. Maybe you live in some sheltered wealthy libosphere or maybe you just have a lot of growing up to do but our government spending 4 billion of my tax money to crush cars poor people can afford is an outrage.



You can't have it both ways. You got it wrong and now you are shifting the goalposts.

Where, exactly, am I defending this program? It's poorly written, a sop to the domestic auto industry to get inefficient new vehicles off the lot at taxpayer expense.

None of that makes your interpretation any less wrong.

gfvella

gfvella

Australia
November 2004

JUN 25, 2009 07:49 PM

There is a great article in the Guardian by Ian Williams (a pommie journalist living in NY for the last 20 years) giving it to both sides on Iran

Voland

Voland

Trenton, NJ
June 2009

JUN 30, 2009 01:42 PM

Kundalini said:
Wow. I avoid your columns mostly (for my own reasons) but I agree with pretty much everything you've posted. We've allowed people like McCain to be our voices on the national stage for far too long. It's no wonder that the rest of the civilized world thinks that we are ignorant, media-hungry morons. Obama almost makes too much sense to be our president based on where we've allowed ourselves to be led for the last 8 years or so.



I agree sure obama is doing some.. Iffy stuff but I have faith that this is the best possible way to go.

Oh did you hear the mcain was just bush on an alt account?

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUL 02, 2009 02:50 PM

edit: nm, this deserves its own thread.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next