Iran: Over Thirty Years of Bipartisan Appeasement

Even Ronald Reagan allowed the murder of 241 Marines by Hezbollah – the Iranian proxy – to go unpunished. A young Osama bin Laden looked at that kind of inaction and thought, “America is the weak horse,” and planned accordingly. Al Qaeda would never have attacked us on 9/11 if they didn’t think they’d get away with it. And they have gotten away with it. Al Qaeda is not defeated, as Obama lies to us. Jihad is alive and well. The two greatest state sponsors of jihad terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are still in business, as if 9/11 never happened. And Islam is resurgent in the Middle East as the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining power with our help.

All this, while the truth about Islam is still not allowed to be openly discussed in mainstream American culture. And today, Iran continues its threats against America with “2013 will be ‘fall of American empire.”

Below is an illustration I did a few years ago, one that I’ve had reason to post far too many times in the last few years. The last six US presidents ALL ran from Iran. I hope I don’t have to add the next US president to my illustration.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    It is indeed the case that both parties are guilty of appeasement/malfeasance, simply because Islamic jihad didn't start a few yrs ago. As such, the following explains its "opening shot" – http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Articl

    Nevertheless, it is more than self evident, under Barack HUSSEIN Obama, it has grown exponentially worse, due to his appeasement – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/10/a-hellfire-un
    … as Jerusalem (to our horror, as well as national shame) hitched along for the ride!

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • EarlyBird

      Because Obama made a make-nice speech in Cairo during his first year, didn't help Mubarak annihilate the hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries in Tahrir Square, and hasn't nuked Tehran yet, makes him an "appeaser."

      That idiocy gets thrown around to such a degree that peole don't even consider what they are saying.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "That idiocy gets thrown around to such a degree that peole don't even consider what they are saying."

        You're the expert on propagating idiocy, not discerning it.

      • Notalibfool

        You really make no sense whatsoever…..

      • defcon 4

        "Hundreds of thousands"? Really? Or are you having more islamic delusions? Have you been seeing Djinns lately? How about sorcerers or witches? It's nothing that a strong, fresh, steaming mug of camel urine can't fix so drink up!

        • EarlyBird

          More intelligence from the serious patriots at Front Page Magazine. "Camel urine!"

          "We're not reactionary, xenophobic, ignorant, right wing moonbats! We have moral clarity!"

          • defcon 4

            Your last sentence describes practically every islamic state on earth DB.

          • EarlyBird

            "Your last sentence describes practically every islamic state on earth DB."

            See how you are just the flip side of the same, ignorant coin?

          • defcon 4

            One thing is not like the other — except in your islamic delusions.

          • Notalibfool

            And just how intelligent are you? Your previous posts display your think-inside-the-box mentality (the great Mossadegh fable) and your penchant for relying on childish insults when people disagree with you.

            You could earn more respect if you took your own advice and got some education.

          • EarlyBird

            Again, nothing. We're StILL waiting for the "truth" about the CIA's overthrow of Mossadegh.

  • Kingslayer

    If Christopher Colombus had reached India the world was brighter and in peace now.

  • silvergonzales

    A Jew hate website known as ' dont- tread- on- me' is run by Chris Duane who invites Jew haters to post on his website.

    Here is an example of this coward blaming Israel for the world's problems:
    http://dont-tread-on.me/?p=29044 – read before he scrubs it out the way he scrubbed his site of a lot of Jew hate.

  • Guest

    No, Adina, under Obama it did not get exponentially worse; it just followed the natural progression. Actually, all things considered, Obama inherited the already hopeless situation, which could have been handled by prior presidents at a far smaller risk and costs.

    Lets not forget that Carter had lost Iran, a loyal friend of the US, and allowed it to become an anti-American monster it has become; Reagan chose to run and not challenge Iran, tough rhetoric being the only action on his part; Clinton preferred to fight Serbs over Iran, as if Serbs presented any danger to America or American interests; Bush 1, preferred to go to war to defend the interests of the Saudis and Kuwaitis, and let Iran militarize and build one nuclear facility after another, in deep mountains; his son, Bush 2, ignored Israel's concerns over Iran and chose to go to war with Iraq, rather than challenge the growing power of Iran.
    By now, Iran may already have a bomb or two, and certainly could inflict real damage.

    The cost of stopping Iran now is exponentially higher ow than it was even one presidency ago.
    Don't let Reagan and the Bushes off the hook so easily.

    • EarlyBird

      "Lets not forget that Carter had lost Iran, a loyal friend of the US, and allowed it to become an anti-American monster it has become"

      No. America "lost Iran" the moment we overthrew a legitimately elected leader, Mossadegh, and replaced him with the Shah, a brutal, horrible man who the US preferred and directly kept in power for 30 years to torture, imprison dissidents, and steal from the national coffers. It was just a matter of time when we would "lose" that nation, which was made up of millions of people who rightfully hated us for our actions.

      By the time Carter came around, the only thing he could have done to "keep" Iran, was to bring enormous violence to bear on those millions of revolutionaries. He no more "lost Iran," than Obama "lost Egypt" because he didn't help Mubarak crush the revolution for the world to see.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "America "lost Iran" the moment we overthrew a legitimately elected leader, Mossadegh, and replaced him with the Shah, a brutal, horrible man who the US preferred and directly kept in power for 30 years to torture, imprison dissidents, and steal from the national coffers."

        Libels R Us. Get your early bird special on libels here…they're so cheap we're practically giving them away.

        Arabs oppressed by the West since WWI. More libels by the hour…get your early bird libels here…

        • EarlyBird

          "Libels R Us. Get your early bird special on libels here…they're so cheap we're practically giving them away."

          And once again, you bring ZERO objective facts to the discussion, because you are an intellectual coward. How sad.

      • Notalibfool

        Another lib believing the fairytale that the US forced Iran to accept the Shah as it's leader. Please try to research Iran's history. The Shah was already the legitimate ruler of Iran prior to "hero" Mossadegh's tenure as prime minister. I'm not surprised though that the American left worships Mossadegh. Just like most of the liberals I personally know he was a rich, privileged elitist with no respect for the common people.

        And by the way, Mossadegh was NEVER elected prime minister. He was appointed.

        • EarlyBird

          "fairy tale," "American left," "liberals." Please.

          Stop with the name calling and get educated. Operation Ajax was undertaken by the CIA at the urging of Britain, who by the end of WWII had lost control of its oil holdings in Iran and wanted it back. They convinced the US to stage a coup against Mossadegh with "fairytales" of him falling into the arms of the Soviets, even though Mossadegh was a loud critic of socialism.

          You simply can not understand the world you live in today, or help your own country avoid the making the same mistakes, by looking at the world with a child's point of view. Grow up. Patriotism does not require an infantalized worldview.

          • Notalibfool

            Unlike you, EarlyBird, I DID educate myself on the topic. Why do you lefties always accuse those who disagree with you of being uneducated?

            If you actually took my advice and did some research, you would learn that there is far more to the story that what you realize.

          • EarlyBird

            Well then, lay it on me. What was the reason we overthrew a popularly elected government of a sovreign nation, had the leader imprisoned for life, dismantled his government, install a Shah and ensure he ruled brutally for 30 years?

            Surely there was a good reason. Fill us in.

          • Notalibfool

            Well, if you are so wise and educated, go read up on the topic. Why on Earth would you rely on an "idiot" like me for information?

          • EarlyBird

            "Well, if you are so wise and educated, go read up on the topic. Why on Earth would you rely on an "idiot" like me for information?"

            Hah! Called your bluff and you respond with "…huminah huminah huminah…." So funny.

      • defcon 4

        "The Shah, a brutal, horrible man" who was lightyears more tolerant than the islamofascists who run the "republic" or Iran now. Women wore miniskirts in Tehran under the Shah. Jews weren't murdered for being Israeli "spies" after trials held in secret w/no appeals process and no public scrutiny. It's obvious ErlyTurd, you ARE a lying muslime, but I'm being redundant.

        • EarlyBird

          "The Shah, a brutal, horrible man" who was lightyears more tolerant than the islamofascists who run the "republic" or Iran now."

          I agree with you! The Islamofascists are in power today BECAUSE we overthrew Iran's legitimately elected and popular leader, Mossadegh, and helped the Shah oppress Iranians for 30 years. It is a reaction to that oppression which helped radicalize the population and reach for a "solution" which was the Islamic Revolution, which totally rejects the West as decadent.

          Have you been lobotomized?

          • Notalibfool

            Wrong again, EarlyBird. But what is the point in arguing with your leftist dogma.

          • EarlyBird

            You so far have contributed nothing to the discussion but accusations of Leftism. Eeek! You apparently have the real scoop on the US's coup in 1953 Iran. Please fill us in. Don't be coy.

            Listen, I don't think it was simply out of evil that the US did it. But it was done out of immense hubris and disregard for another people, and mostly out of totally un-founded paranoia about the Soviets. That the US oil industry and economy in general enjoyed enormous benefits from the Shah also was an incentive.

    • EarlyBird

      Imagine if the US, say, during the early 1800s when we were dwarfed by the superpowers of Europe, France came in and overnight threw Andrew Jackson out of power, dismantled his cabinet, destroyed the Consitution and completely remade our government and military to do France's bidding in North America. They installed a puppet government designed to serve French interests, and anyone who got out of line was guillotined, tortured and or imprisoned by that government. And a huge tax on every bit of American commerce went to French companies who were behind this coup.

      Would Americans today hate the French because they eat well, or perhaps for the cataclysm which they visited upon Americans? That's what we did to Iran in 1953 and kept up the torment until '79.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Imagine if the US, say, during the early 1800s when we were dwarfed by the superpowers of Europe, France came in and overnight threw Andrew Jackson out of power, dismantled his cabinet, destroyed the Consitution and completely remade our government and military to do France's bidding in North America. They installed a puppet government designed to serve French interests…"

        Because the Ottoman Islamic Empire was morally equal to our constitutional democratic republic.

        "…and anyone who got out of line was guillotined, tortured and or imprisoned by that government. And a huge tax on every bit of American commerce went to French companies who were behind this coup."

        Barker: "More early bird libels. Get your free worthless libels here. Libels by the hour, fresh from the creative bird brain. Get your libels here. Early bird specials daily."

        • EarlyBird

          You infant!

          First, Mossadegh had nothing to do with the "Ottoman Islamic Empire," you nit wit. Anyone interested in Objective Facts would surely get that one right.

          Secondly, the comparison to draw in my analogy is between the popular legitimacy and support of each of these systems being overthrown by an outside country. Country A isn't allowed to come in and destroy and perfectly legitmate and popular government of Country B, just because Country A doesn't agree with Country B's system of government (Democracy 101).

          But in fact, our actions had nothing to do with liberating Iran or trying to help it become more democratic.

          What a pathetic, infantile worldview you have. It's why you can only imagine millions of Iranians hate us because of our freedom. Duuuh.

          • defcon 4

            Why don't you cry to the Iranian Bahais? Or Iranian Jews? See what they think of your islamic republic. If the Iranian people are so freedom loving then why haven't they overthrown their islamic "republic"? They overthrew the Shah right? Why not the Ayatollah?

          • EarlyBird

            Who said they were "freedom loving," as in Jeffersonian (as if that is the only legitimate philosophy of government)? I stated that they had enjoyed genuine popular self government, one which was not an enemy of, or hostile to, the United States, under Mossadegh. But because we couldn't control them, we had to destroy their government and laws, traumatize and outrage an entire people in the name of God and country.

            And Americans who are constantly set on "defcon 4" (what a great name for you), simply explain away Iran's blood-red hatred of the US as if they are an alien species "religion!" "because we are free!"), rather than attempting to understand it.

            Iran was once one of the most cosmopolitan, Western-friendly nations in the Middle Easts. Their embrace of radical Islam is a direct result of their terrible experience with modern self government.

          • Notalibfool

            Whoa! In your response to one of my posts you said that I was name calling! But here you are doing the very same thing! So it's ok for you to use such childish language but when others speak truthfully they are the bad guys?

      • Notalibfool

        Lol! Like I said above try researching Iran's history. You are simply repeating the same nonsense fed to us by the Left foe the last 30+ years.

        • EarlyBird

          And I notice you are incapable of countering the reality of that history one iota. You simply charge the truth teller with being on the "Left." Oooh! That ends the discussion.

          You idiots make this way too easy. Talk about willfully ignorant.

          • Notalibfool

            Name calling again. Typical liberal. Your immaturity is hilarious.

          • EarlyBird

            Still waiting for some counter facts that will set me straight. You keep implying you have the real story. Come on.

          • Notalibfool

            Lol!

          • EarlyBird

            Ya got nuttin! Hah!

            You have proven – in public – to be nothing but an ignorant blowhard. You've never been arguing about the US' involvement with Iran, just finding a "liberal!" and trying to fight a pathetic culture war. You'd argue over the time of day with "liberal." You give conservatives a bad name.

      • Mary Sue

        apples and oranges.

        • EarlyBird

          The similiarities are that both the US and Iranian government (at the time) were popular and legitimate and decided upon by the people of those nations. It's called self governance.

          But what if the US decided it didn't like your Canadian form of parliamentary government, and felt the American way was morally superior. Does that mean we get to come in and overthrow your prime minister, imprison him, destroy the parliament and Canadian laws and install our an American backed tyrant to take away democracy from Canada?

          That's exactly what we did in Iran.

          And if we did do that, should we expect love from Canada, or hatred? And would that hatred be because Canadians were simply madmen who hated us for our freedom?

          Hmm?

      • defcon 4

        Imagine a world without Islam.

        • EarlyBird

          Imagine a world without willful ignorance.

          • Notalibfool

            "Willful ignorance." Another clever catchphrase.

  • Loyal Achates

    Yes, let's attack Iran – all we need is another war in the Middle East.

    • http://fawstin.blogspot.com/ Bosch_Fawstin

      *Counter*-attack, for 30-plus years of attacks against *US*

      • Ar'nun

        Be careful when feeding trolls. Facts will make them angry

      • EarlyBird

        Fawstin, what specifically are you suggesting that the US do in regard to Iran? Fire some missiles, full scale invasion and occupation, what?

        It would be helpful to this discussion and put more meat on the bones of your criticism, to hear exactly what you have in mind.

        • EarlyBird

          I notice some idiots have given me a "-" sign on my post, simply because I ask a basic question about Fawstin's ideas about how to deal with Iran. Dear Lord.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I notice some idiots have given me a "-" sign on my post, simply because I ask a basic question about Fawstin's ideas about how to deal with Iran. Dear Lord."

            Because you alone are so reasonable, sincere, rational and intelligent among the whole bunch. The bird brain knows all but somehow can't get through to the others.

          • defcon 4

            Because muslimes, like any fascists, aren't used to having to convince an audience of stinking kufrs through logic, they normally use force to make their argument.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "It would be helpful to this discussion and put more meat on the bones of your criticism, to hear exactly what you have in mind."

          A firm deadline with proof we mean it. The first military attack would probably be at the sites but we don't tell our enemies and that includes you.

          • EarlyBird

            A firm deadline To Do What? Specifically.

            That's the question, idiot. Pay attention.

          • Notalibfool

            There he goes again with his name calling…….. :)

          • EarlyBird

            Still waiting for the full history of the CIA's 1953 coup against Iran. Crickets so far.

            You've not lost the argument, you don't even have an argument. Now shoo, bug.

          • Notalibfool

            Hahahaha!

          • EarlyBird

            Nervous laughter.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        *Counter*-attack, for 30-plus years of attacks against *US*

        Finally counter their highly destructive aggression before their capabilities expand exponentially.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Yes, let's attack Iran – all we need is another war in the Middle East."

      We're already at war with Iran. Don't be so naive.

    • Mary Sue

      Um, Iran isn't IN the "Middle East".

      • EarlyBird

        "Um, Iran isn't IN the "Middle East"."

        Um…yes it is. The "Middle East" is a geopolitical term, not a geographic one.

        Geographically Iran is Central Asia. Geographically, Egypt is in Africa. Geopolitically, both are in the Middle East.

    • MC1215

      It is all part of the same war, Radical Islam._They are not in just one country but dozens and dozens._Much of the fighting in he Middle East is from client States of Iran

      • EarlyBird

        "It is all part of the same war, Radical Islam._They are not in just one country but dozens and dozens._Much of the fighting in he Middle East is from client States of Iran."

        You're exactly right and we must understand that Iran is our enemy.

        And though they are sentient beings with goals, history, culture and ambitions of their own – which only they are responsible for – a huge reason we are their Number 1 Enemy is because the cataclysm we visited upon their nation for 30 years, and the general hegemony we keep over them and their neighbors.

        Patriotism doesn't require ignorance. In fact, ignorance is the enemy of patriotism.

        • defcon 4

          "…a huge reason we are their Number1 Enemry is because the cataclysm we visited upon their nation for 30 years". Really? Then why do your muslo-fascist buddies in Iranistan rant and rave about Israel? Radical Islam isn't the problem, islam is.

          • EarlyBird

            Because radical Islamists are obsessed with Jews. That's why. Your point? So far you've just listed how bad Iran is under radical Islam and I and everyone agrees.

            What you fail to even consider is why they became radicalized to begin with, specially against the US and the West.

  • EarlyBird

    Reagan, being a conservative rather than a reactionary, had the wisdom to get out of Lebanon rather than be drawn into the very assymetrical war Iran wanted us to get into. Fawstin is sorry that we simply didn't do Iraq/Afghanistan, only in Lebanon and Iran, in the '80s.

    (Too bad, however, that Reagan didn't fire a few missiles into Tehran and maybe put together the same kind of crushing sanctions Obama has, which of course gets no mention here.)

    "A young Osama bin Laden looked at that kind of inaction and thought, “America is the weak horse,” and planned accordingly."

    Perhaps. But that doesn't answer the reason why he was so outraged to begin with. He saw a US which dominated every Middle East and Muslim government in the world, sponsoring a dozen or more dictators, and had troops parked in the Saudi "holy land" and many other parts of the Arab world, and hated us for it.

    And Fawstin's answer is to simply wage more war, this time against Iran. It's as if we're incapable of drawing lessons.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Reagan, being a conservative rather than a reactionary, had the wisdom to get out of Lebanon rather than be drawn into the very assymetrical war Iran wanted us to get into. Fawstin is sorry that we simply didn't do Iraq/Afghanistan, only in Lebanon and Iran, in the '80s."

      The result was appeasement. Whether it was justified at the time is another question but the salient point here is that Iran and other Islamic regimes have been appeased and their heads have grown large with irrational ideas that allah is restraining us from effectively fighting them. Appeasement today has different effects and justifications than it did during the cold war. And we've learned a lot more about how serious these lunatics are about ruling the world with sharia whereas before it was assumed to be a local or regional fight at best.

      Not talking to the bird…

      • EarlyBird

        You refuse to clearly define what you prefer to so-called "appeasement." Air strikes? Sanctions? Blockades? Nuclear strike? Condemnation at the UN? Invasion and occupation?

        We were all outraged when our marines were killed, and wanted blood. But Reagan and his cabinet had to respond like adults living in the real world, and look at options and likely outcomes – almost all which immediately grow out of our control. They decided that as much as they wished to hit back, the risks and unintended consequences were not worth it. See how that works?

        The only thing any war planners knows to expect is that war plans fall apart with the very first contact with the enemy, and so much immediately becomes out of our control.

    • defcon 4

      Would that be before or after over 200 US Marines were blown up by your more psychopathic muslime brethren?

  • EarlyBird

    "Would that be before or after over 200 US Marines were blown up by your more psychopathic muslime brethren?"

    What, lil' buddy, took place "before or after" the attack on our Marines in Beirut? Hm? Try to follow along, okay? Here's what the discussion is about:

    A.) Fawstin criticizes Reagan for not having gone after Iran, after Iran's sponsored attack on our marines in Beirut. B.) He further states that a lack of violent response emboldened Osama Bin Laden, decades later, to wage war on us.

    Get it? Read this a few more times, perhaps diagram it out. If you feel you understand, come on back and try to see if you can add anything to the discussion.

    • defcon 4

      Adding anything to your "discussion" is a zero sum game.

      • Notalibfool

        Agreed!

        EarlyBird is starting to sound like a broken record.

        • EarlyBird

          Still waiting for your insight! I'm sure it's brilliant since you're not a lib fool.

          I notice that nobody on this thread has counter-argued. Because you all know that you're wrong and have nothing to counter with but charges of anti-Americanism and eeek! "liberalism."

          You just know that Good Americans are never supposed to admit that our nation has made mistakes, or try to understand the rage by so many against us around the world. In your little world, America is always a white hatted cowboy, and by golly, if people don't appreciate being bombed in the name of Jeffersonian democracy, then they are just anti-American.

      • EarlyBird

        Dipcom, you literally are unable to follow the discussion. Nobody understands you.

        • defcon 4

          Your discussions mostly consist of islamofascist talking points — otherwise known as propaganda.