The Left’s Double Standard on Boycotting Israel and Iran


Pro-Palestinian demonstration to boycott Israel

The BDS paradox is that even while the left lobbies fervently against sanctions on Iran, a nuclear terror state that tortures and murders its own people while sponsoring international terrorism abroad, is lobbies with equal fervency for sanctions on Israel, a democracy that provides equal rights to all.

Boycotting Iran, the left tells us, will lead to war. Boycotting Israel, will lead to peace.

Boycotting Iran, will disrupt negotiations. But boycotting Israel will somehow enhance negotiations.

The same things that the left claims will wreck all hopes of fixing our relationship with Iran are the things that they want to do to Israel.

The left lobbies for normalizing Iran, a state that hangs gay men and is forcing women out of universities, and pushes to isolate Israel, the only people in the Middle East where gay people aren’t locked up and women can lead the country.

(Or as Judith Butler calls providing civil rights to all, “Pinkwashing”)

The left’s double standard on Israel and Iran has no consistency and no coherency. Instead it reveals the left’s hatred for America’s allies and its love for America’s enemies.

  • Jeffrey

    I think that the biggest problem with the new sanctions bill in Congress is that it sets terms for what would be necessary under a final agreement, which should be a serious concern. It also requires the POTUS to achieve steps that are essentially impossible on a monthly basis, or the new sanctions will be enacted. Furthermore, I believe that the argument of the White House has merit. If diplomacy fails and we increase sanctions, Iran will never just give us whatever we want. Anybody who knows anything about Iran knows that such a “surrender” to the U.S. will never occur. After that, a military strike will eventually be deemed “necessary.” The new sanctions bill is basically a war bill. Sanctions have not slowed Iran’s nuclear program as they’ve gone from 200 to 19,000 centrifuges over the years. There has to be give and take for any deal to work. Both sides in a diplomatic solution have to have the tools to sell their end of any deal as a win at home. Passing a sanctions bill right now will just raise opposition to these talks in Iran, where hardliners in the country disapprove of the current proceedings and are looking for any reason to argue that these talks are in fact detrimental. Our Congress passing a new sanctions bill would be just that. It is important to remember that the hardliners have the ear of the Supreme Leader. We should not give Iran excuses to work with or Khamenei might revoke his decision to allow these talks to continue due to increasing domestic pressure. Most importantly, it’s essential to remember that new sanctions can be passed at ANY time. Given these facts, it would be unconscionable for Congress to pass a new sanctions bill at this time. The approach of Republicans frankly defies logic. I’m a conservative but this shouldn’t be made into a partisan issue.

    And no, Iran is not a perfect country. However, as far as allies go, Saudi Arabia has FAR greater restrictions on their own people. Pakistan is another of our imperfect allies, and they are in possession of quite a few REAL nuclear weapons. This also may come as a shock, but the U.S. has regularly supported terrorists as well when we considered it to be in our best interests, in addition to frequently bombing countries, spreading our military out all around the world, and installing brutal leadership in countries to act as our puppets. Iran has not attacked another country in 300 years without being attacked first. We used to be allies with Iran.

    I would also like to explain why Iranian hardliners despise the United States. In 1953, we overthrew their democratically elected government using our C.I.A., installing an oppressive and corrupt monarch who for the next 26 years used our C.I.A. to round up any opposition to his rule. After living under his control for many years, the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis was essentially blow back stemming from our actions. Later, during the Iran-Iraq War, we supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons which he then used on Iranians. We did not condemn the actions of Saddam Hussein; in fact we provided him with whatever funding, intelligence, or military resource he required. In addition, during this war we shot down an Iranian airliner containing about 300 innocent civilians. We did not apologize. Later, President George W. Bush declared Iran to be a member of a so-called “Axis of Evil,” along with North Korea and Iraq. Obviously, to be labeled in such a way by a country does not serve to improve relations. Essentially, if you don’t like the current structure of Iranian governance, you can blame the United States – we laid the groundwork for Iran becoming a theocratic state ruled by a Supreme Leader. Iran was on the path to democracy prior to our involvement in their country.

    • A Z

      I do not consider Mossadegh to have been democratically elected.

      He stopped counting votes, when he had enough for a quorum. All the votes from the rural areas were not counted. That is fair?

      Saudi Arabia looked at Venezuela’s moves and threatened to nationalize the oil industry in the 1950s. They ended up getting a large share of Aramco and ended up owning it. There was no coup.

      Mossadegh was playing hard ball so hard that he got replaced. He could have done what the Saudis did, but he was not smart enough.

      So go cry more tears.

      • Jeffrey

        I’m not crying any tears my friend. Why can’t we have a respectful debate? I just want this issue resolved peacefully. You seem to be woefully ignorant of history. Who are we to decide when democratically elected leadership in other countries gets replaced, regardless of how you want to twist it? It’s precisely that kind of approach to foreign affairs that undermines our national security. And yes, there was a coup.

        http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/iranian_overthrow.asp

        • A Z

          Venezuela and Saudi Arabia managed it.

          Mossadegh must have been defective.

          I never denied there was a coup. I said that Mossadegh did not hold a fair election.

          Nationalization is a sh_tty move. Mexico was pretty upset recently when Venezuela nationalized the cement companies. What Mexico would have done if they had a large military we do not know, because their military is small. Just because they did not use their military is not to say they would have ruled it out categorically if they had had a large enough military.

          How are going to be when Russia and China nationalize Google? Don’t worry they won’t. they will squeeze them out by other means and not nationalization. But those other means will mean a drop in U.S. GDP and it will have a deleterious effect on you.

          • Jeffrey

            Forgive me, I though that you typed “there was no coup” in reference to Iran. I have a degree in International Relations, so I do understand the concept of rigged elections. My point was that Iran as a country was moving toward a democratic system of government. Our actions halted that movement in their society in favor of a brutal dictator who ruled through absolute control. Iran would likely be a far different country today had we not staged that coup. After all, much of their current structure was influenced by an opposition to the actions of our country. If we can resolve this conflict peacefully, the U.S. will probably greatly benefit economically from Iran through trade. An influx of Western products and ideas in the country made possible by the removal of sanctions could also lead to positive reforms given time.

          • A Z

            A monarchy can be a representative government. People can directly petition the monarch and do or have in the past. There are majlis or councils. The name changes by country. A person could argue that such a system is no less representative than the Congress the U.S. has now or the EU Europe has. There are lots of elections and not so much in the way of representation.

            Like the way John McCain was going to try to ram amnesty down everyone’s throat in 2006/2007. I read in the last day where it was the Democrat Congressmen that killed it. if so than all the protest by people demonstrating against so many people in congress and being ignored shows that the so called American system of representation does not represent the people.

            Personally, I am for amnesty. But they have to build a decent border fence first. But that “ain’t” going to happen. No it is going to be smash mouth top down politics. Representative government and will of the people be damned.

            So you can say that a monarchy is less representative than a Republic but it does not make it true.

          • defcon 4

            Maybe you would be happier living in Soddy Barbaria then, or Qatar, or the UAE, or Jordan. Your paradise awaits.

          • A Z

            He has a fairly new DisQus account. as of an hour or so ago it only had 300 posts. I don;t think itgoes back that far either.

            He said he studied international relations. That is usually a masters degree. He might be campaigning a la Woodrow Wilson’s Minutemen.

          • Jeffrey

            WOW, you got me.

          • defcon 4

            It’s another manufactured alias for an islamofascist propagandist.

          • Jeffrey

            You nailed it bro.

          • A Z

            The orange man makes you happy? He shucks and jives too just like Obama.

            “or have in the past” Did you read that part. I hedged my words.

          • Jeffrey

            We certainly do have a lot of problems with representation in this country. We have two extremely partisan and increasingly irreconcilable parties in Congress who are fueled by a populace who is, in my opinion, brainwashed by their respective biased media sources. Also, our politicians certainly have concerned themselves more with getting elected than improving this country. Oftentimes, they do feel that know better than the people (sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t). As far as amnesty goes, I absolutely agree with you – the border should be secured first. With regards to your assertion that a monarchy can be a representative government, I have to generally disagree, though the examples can certainly vary. If you are referencing the monarch we installed in Iran, that was anything but the case.

          • A Z

            Ask a Muslim, Allah and shaitan are irreconcilable. Sometimes being irreconcilable is a good thing

            Another example is Churchill and H_tler. Maybe they could have split the difference and only exterminated 3 million Jews?

            When you have 2 sides (2 parties) 1 side be wrong, the other side could be wrong or they both could be wrong.

            If they are both wrong, it does not mean they are both wrong to the same degree.

          • Jeffrey

            Are you referencing ourselves and Iran or the two-party system in America?

          • A Z

            It is a general principle.

          • Jeffrey

            Well, when it comes to our two-party system, I don’t think that is necessarily the case. If you look at the history of our parties, the level of partisanship has grown exponentially. This makes it nearly impossible to pass legislation in Congress. More importantly, however, it creates citizens and politicians who are extremely close-minded. I’m of the opinion of Edmund Burke, the founder of conservatism, who believed that every political issue is extremely complex. There are two sides to every story. I think we have an establishment in this country that is extremely flawed (the two-party system). I myself favor a libertarian approach in many instances that would not be popular on either side. Of course, for these very reasons, our Founding Fathers were not in favor of such a system. And the bias of the media is unfortunately a tremendously dangerous influence as to what people consider to be “right.’

            Of course, when it comes to the U.S. and Iran, neither country is perfect. They can have a peaceful nuclear energy program so long as there is complete transparency, among other things. Frankly, WWII is not something that should be regularly applied. We had to fight a justified war with a dangerous enemy. There is a difference when war propaganda creates an unnecessary crisis through dramatization. Dwight Eisenhower often warned us to beware of the military industrial complex. Issues in the world are rarely black and white (or just pure good and pure evil).

          • A Z

            People got caned in congress in the 19th century

          • defcon 4

            WRT Iran and the US: “neither country is perfect.” The argument of false equivalence. One country executes gays, persecutes everyone non-muslim, has enforced blasphemy and heresy laws, has a state religion and sponsors islamic terrorism. Wow, both countries are exactly the same.

          • Jeffrey

            Why don’t we have gay marriage in this country? Why do we have the highest incarceration rates in the world? The U.S. has engaged in behavior all around the world that is detrimental. I LOVE my country and obviously greatly prefer it to Iran. I just want us to live up to our ideals. I’m just trying to get you too see what the U.S. looks like from their perspective, knowing the involvement of the U.S. in their country. We think Iranians are evil and their hardliners think that we are evil. Welcome to the world.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Why do we have the highest incarceration rates in the world? Well, among other reasons, we incarcerate a lot of people that Iran or Saudi Arabia would simply execute. And we punish murders and rapes that Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia would fine, tolerate or even encourage. And we have an overactive bureacracy enforcing strict liability for infractions of needless, numerous and increasingly complex malum prohibitum regulations.
            By no means an exhaustive list, but enough to put a few pins in your silly, self-righteous balloon.

          • Jeffrey

            Actually, we have the highest incarceration rates in the world and half the world’s prison population because we lock up non-violent drug offenders who are no threat to society. All over a drug (marijuana) that is arguably less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. That’s not true freedom. We put more people in jail than just about every other democracy on earth combined.

          • Drakken

            Welcome to your little world of moral equivalence.

          • Omar

            The number of people incarcerated in this country is Less than 1% of the entire population of this country. Meanwhile, in 1960s Cuba, about one in fifteen Cubans was a political prisoner. You are repeating left-wing propaganda again, you lunatic.

          • Sammy

            Anytime you have to compare our country to Cuba, you’re making a bad argument.

            The incarceration rate in the United States of America is the highest in the world. As of 2009, the incarceration rate was 743 per 100,000 of national population (0.743%). In comparison, Rwanda had the second highest, at 595 per 100,000, Canada was 123rd in the world at 117 per 100,000, and China had 122 per 100,000.[3]

            While the United States represents about 5 percent of the world’s population, it houses around 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. Imprisonment of America’s 2.3 million prisoners, costing $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditures.

          • hiernonymous

            “The number of people incarcerated in this country is Less than 1% of the entire population of this country.”

            That does not contradict the claim that “the U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the world.”

            “Meanwhile, in 1960s Cuba, about one in fifteen Cubans was a political prisoner.”

            That does not contradict the claim that “the U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the world.”

            “You are repeating left-wing propaganda again, you lunatic.”

            That does not contradict the claim that “the U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the world.”

            Are you claiming that Jeffrey’s comment is materially incorrect? Are you claiming that it is factually correct but stated in a manner likely to deceive? Are you claiming that it is both factually correct and not misleading, but this fact is pointed out by people with political viewpoints you dislike, so it should not be repeated? It’s not clear what argument you’re actually trying to make, if any.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            You can claim to belive in Burke and still say you are not being dishonest?
            Apparently you believe in Burke except that troublsome bit about good men doing nothing.

          • Omar

            Eisenhower warned about the military taking over the government, not that we shouldn’t lead the world, you dunce.

          • Rob

            Perhaps you should make even the tiniest attempt at researching what he meant before you expose your absolute ignorance. The two aspects you mention go hand in hand.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            One Party Fascist iran.

          • defcon 4

            The one state religion, fascist Iran.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah well, Hayek got that right. Expand and move a government to socialism and you create extremism and distrust. As the individual becomes smaller and the forces of the state larger and as the government increasingly represents a faction (and it has to because one side has to mandate the taking and the other side gets) you will get more extreme positions, less subtle positions and the worst rise to the top. Less government and more association as conservatives prescribe is the answer. Large activist centralized powercentric government is the road to violence and dissolution. Glad you noticed.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Iran went from a benign monarch to fascist, end times ayatollahs who sanction stoning women to death over family honor, hang gays, murder the opposition to the ayatollahs, murder minorities like the Bahai and Jews and Kurds.

            Is your degree written in Farsi?

          • Jeffrey

            You’re right buddy. More insults. Who need a degree when you already know it all like yourself? And again, I haven’t been insulting to anyone on this website. I have just been trying to have a respectful debate.

          • defcon 4

            “respectful”, but not honest.

          • Jeffrey

            Nothing I have said has been dishonest. It is my opinion supported by what I currently know. Why does my having a different opinion bother everyone on this site so much?

          • ahad haamoratsim

            When you accuse Israel of manipulating the US into doing Israel’s fighting, and in particular when you say that Israel encouraged the US to invade Iraq, yes — you are either being dishonest or so willfully ignorant as to be the functional equivalent.

          • Drakken

            Because you know jack sh** about nothing, and have bought into the useful idiot narrative of leftist professors.

          • Jeffrey

            You should really consider whose narrative you’ve bought into buddy. The politicians use people like you who are so naive to the dramatization, and will support wars the government wants to start.

          • Drakken

            Let’s see, I have 2 Master’s, been to 68 different countries, fought in almost half of those, actually lived, and still work in 3rd world countries and see the reality on the ground versus you, who have done nothing, seen nothing, and know next to nothing other than what academics tell you what to think instead of actually having to use critical thinking skills to think for yourself. That is the state of our re-education camp system if your the rule instead of the exception, and unfortunately I see too many of you dumbazzes coming here in the 3rd world thinking these effing savages are just like us and that they are little democrats just fighting to get out.

          • Drakken

            We are trying to educate you, you just refuse to listen to real life experience and the reality on the ground, it is not our fault that you refuse to listen to the cold, hard, harsh brutal, facts of life.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            You have a degree in International Relations? That explains a lot.
            I am guessing it was granted after the 1970′s.

          • Jeffrey

            Stay classy, ahad.

          • Notalibfool

            Stay naive, Little Jeffy. You only believe what you have already been programmed to think. Maybe you should try to understand what so many have been explaining to you over and over.

            Have you ever in your life considered the possibility that you may be wrong about something? Or do you assume that you are always right?

          • Sammy

            The hypocrisy in your second paragraph is astounding. I believe Jeffrey said he used to disagree with diplomacy. That means his views changed, probably when he got his educated I would guess. The kind of degree he has is supposed to make you open-minded, not close-minded. That’s what I see here. You’re exactly the person you accuse Jeffrey of being. Which is not to say that I agree with Jeffrey (or you) on everything bc I definitely do not from what I’ve read. It’s just two different extremes. Personally, I know a couple people with IR degrees and they’re very smart. You shouldn’t assume to know it all.

          • Drakken

            I would venture to guess he got it in the last ten years or so.

          • Drakken

            That is problem right there, a degree in internation leftist relations where everything is our fault and if we had just left them alone all would be great and wonderful in the world and everybody can just get along and sing kumbaya. Gpd save us from leftist do gooders and their good intentions.

          • Jeffrey

            What we have done is HISTORICAL FACT. With all due respect, you are the one who is blind and close-minded.

          • Drakken

            Go some places in the 3rd world off the tourist map and then come back here and tell me how wrong I am. Good God you are bloody naïve or your educated beyond your capability, which is it?

          • Jeffrey

            *You’re not Your

            And I don’t assume every country to be the same. I wouldn’t apply a diplomatic approach to every country. North Korea OBVIOUSLY showed that they couldn’t be trusted, yet we kept giving them chances. You have been influenced to view people in a certain way, just as they have been influenced to view you in the same way.

          • Drakken

            What is truly ironic in a twisted way is, the same idiot that negotiated with NK is the very same person negotiating with Iran, so what do you think that the chance at success will be? Yeah, give peace a chance alright.

          • Jeffrey

            Iran and North Korea are two VERY different countries with two VERY different circumstances.

          • Drakken

            And the same person whose track record is a complete failure is doing the same thing with Iran, and you have confidence in this person, uneffingbelievable.

          • Jeffrey

            I believe that there is a correct to approach these problems. Diplomacy first, shoot second. Not shoot first with no evidence, wonder why the world hates us later. Did you learn anything from Iraq or was that war a tremendous success to you?

          • Drakken

            We have been using diplomatic means for 20 years and it has gotten us nowhere. I frankly don’t give a damn if they hate us as long as they respect and fear us. What I told Bremmer was lets put Saddam’s Generals in charge and leave, they would have kept the effing Iranians out and saved us the trouble, instead, Obummer handed the country over to the bloody shia which incidentally are allies with Iran. If you go to war, wage total war until they are screaming uncle, that is the policy I advocate, not this nation building half azzed nonsense being pushed by idiots.

        • A Z

          Elections being held do not ipso facto make them Democratic. Not in Russia. Not in the U.S. Not in China, maybe you get the drift.

        • Habbgun

          So I’m guessing you don’t like the BDS movement when it comes to Israel? Or does BDS have an important role in your version of foreign relations?

          • Jeffrey

            I am glad to have Israel as an ally, though I certainly don’t always agree with the approaches of Netanyahu. It is my personal belief that he just wants to keep Iran weak through sanctions. He has been claiming that Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future for about 20 years now. I’m not going to pretend to know how to settle the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but I will say that neither side is entirely free of fault historically and both will have to engage in some give and take in order to achieve permanent peace. Also, I was explaining my general view on sanctions and when we should use them as a country. It is my personal opinion that military action or threats of military action cannot solve Israel’s problems (I think it undermines their security), and I believe that Israel jumps the gun far too often in that regard. Again though, I consider Israel to be a great ally. I’m just trying to provide some additional perspective. I want diplomacy to be successful with Iran. I want the Israeli-Palestinian dispute to be peacefully resolved (though that’s definitely a long shot). A lasting peace can be achieved through a better understanding of the other side. A full unfiltered history is required for that, and few people receive it. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my ideas, but I assure you that I just want the best for Israel and ourselves. An agreement with Iran would be to the benefit of our national security in my opinion. Regardless of how it actually turns out, I think we are taking the right approach as a country. Talking first instead of just acting militarily is important, especially given that we have a reputation of being too trigger-happy in the world.

          • Habbgun

            Time to give up the so-called peace process. When I and others see how Islamicists treat christians and how little interest there is then one must understand the Israelis. Israelis don’t jump the gun. They don’t have the land to let the enemy extend their supply lines and then attack. They can’t have a scorched earth policy. The small land mass and population is what convinces the Arab that victory can happen at any moment. When you drop the equivalence then we can listen to what you have to say. When Jews have an army they are safer than non-Jews in the same area in fact safer than almost anywhere in the world. I would not deny self-defense to anyone else. I wonder why the Europe-phlic Left denies it to everyone but themselves.

          • Jeffrey

            Habbgun, I respect what you’re saying, but I can’t agree. It is Israel’s frequent use of force or threat of force that makes surrounding countries despise them so much. And Israel has committed their fair share of atrocities if you’re an independent observer, as well as being hypocritical much the like U.S. so often is. They attacked in Syria. They threaten to attack Iran over their nuclear program. They wanted us to be involved in Iraq. They try to use our military to do their dirty work, and they have a lot of influence in our Congress. The actions make other countries want to build up their own defenses to counter Israel. It’s why they view Israel as the real threat in the region. I’m not denying them self-defense at all. I just think that a different approach to resolving their conflicts would be beneficial. Again, I just want what’s best for Israel. If you listen to what the other side says, you’ll realize that over time it would be the right approach. You just can’t solve these problems with war. That only creates new problems, probably far worse problems. The peace process seems very unlikely to succeed, however. Netanyahu doesn’t appear to be willing to give up anything, and the other side is equally difficult. The primary reason an agreement is so hard, however, is the extremist base the Palestinians have to answer to. In this way, the hands of both sides are tied because there will be outrage if the deal is not a clear win.

          • defcon 4

            Who has fired over ten thousand mortar and rocket rounds (as well as one AT rocket into a school bus) over the last 9 years into Israel without any provocation whatsoever? Who is attacking whom? I’ll bet you’re merely another mendacious SoA. If not a regular one employing a new ‘nym.

          • Habbgun

            Respect what I am saying but saying the Jewish people should give up more land? What does an independent observer see from what Israel got from giving up Sinai? Absolutely nothing. Are you trying to say India is the problem in Kashmir, that the Serbs are hostile to their Moslem neighbors because Moslems have been historically peaceful? What do you recommend for the Copts? The Lebanese Christians, well it is already to late for the Lebanese Christians and what does Israel have to do with no go zones in European countries.

            War does solve problems. What if the Gates of Vienna had fallen. I think history would have been a lot different. You can not solve crime with equivalency. You cannot solve gang violence and intimidation with equivalency and you can’t have peace with nations when one nation is belligerent with equivalency.

            You never did mention whether you think BDS should be denounced. You are in favor of BDS yes or no?

          • Jeffrey

            I never said that war doesn’t solve problems. However, it can also create problems. We just have different perspectives. And no, I don’t support anything that would harm Israel. You can believe in peace through war. It’s a complex issue. It’s hard to say what the right thing to do is.

          • A Z

            Every time you post. Daniel goes Cha-Ching!

            By posting it is like you are fight the Earth Mother’s son. Some Greek guy did so once. :)

          • Habbgun

            I don’t think it is that complex. One people were given autonomy, demanded statehood, still has autonomy but by a self-imposed kleptocracy and the other side which has already experienced genocide gets to be wiped out if makes a wrong step. Israel’s biggest enemies have been the worst towards its own people. The Muslim Brotherhood is the favorite of Leftists everywhere but hated by the actual Egyptians they ruled. The mullahs shot their own people in the streets. Israel does not overreact militarily because its actual reach is so small. They could’ve terrorized gaza and the west bank themselves. They never have.

            US is not perfect but its behavior post WW II to its most deadly foes was exemplary. Even the Phillipines looked for America for protection from Japan despite its prior problems. To honestly say we cause our enemies is to take up the argument of brown shirts everywhere. I’m sorry but it is less desire for land that motivates my position but treatment of Christians and other Moslems by Moslems as well as Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. I am purposely leaving Hitler out of this. An unarmed nation is a statistic.

          • Jeffrey

            Habbgun, next time there is an Iran story, run over to the discussion boards on CNN. There are a lot of anti-Israeli people over there who you can debate with to learn the other side. I support Israel. Iran leadership, however, believes that Israel uses the Holocaust to cover up atrocities they are responsible for. They also don’t believe that the Holocaust should entitle them to land that they believe rightfully belongs to others. I don’t agree with what they say AT ALL, but people need to know both sides regardless. Anyway, thank you for being one of the nicer people to debate on this site.

          • Habbgun

            I have been to the discussion boards at CNN. Total antisemitic cesspool. If there is a terror attack against a Jewish target you can hear oh that is not a tragedy that is payback for historical Jewish crimes, the Talmud is a bloody document and on and on. During the attacks on civilians on buses they were almost celebrating. I was offended until I saw how they couldn’t care less about Iranians being killed by their own government, North Korean atrocities, etc… etc…and now the left is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. . A Leftist will cheer the killing of their own mother if they can make a snarky talking point out of it.

          • Jeffrey

            Well, there are a lot of unreasonable people everywhere unfortunately.

          • Habbgun

            Unfortunately they are everywhere in academia, on Slate, Salon, DailyKos and Organizing for America. The thing is this the way the game works is that it is incremental. If I had said 20 years that if Israel had given the Palestinians autonomy (which they did) we would have suicide bombers, 9/11, Madrid subway bombings, missile attacks etc..etc…I would have been called crazy. They were also saying if Palis did such and such people would take the side of Israel. Well we have had suicide bombers, etc… and we are more polarized. Why because the peace process was a fraud. It was a dismantlement of the Jewish nation and nothing more. The worst are the Jews who said they wanted the peace of the brave but would stand by Israel if it didn’t work. They don’t stand by Israel but they take up whatever rant their Leftist friends invent. The funny part of it is was that the religious Jews predicted the behavior. Actually they guaranteed the behavior. They had seen the same tricks in the Soviet Union, in Europe and in Communist countries in general. Even before Israel. Before Israel it was not a battle for land and recognition but a battle to retain Jewish identity and Jewish life. This is not a Clausewitz politics by other means. It is a war for survival and it breaks my heart that there might be whole classes of people who don’t survive. I’ll take Jewish survival over Copt survival. I’m selfish that way but a clear delineation of truth and the right of the Jewish nation to its land would clear up a lot.I no longer will point to the Holocaust. Why not point to the Ukraine, Cambodia, Cuba, Lebanon and on and on. Why not point out that the worst atrocities are by Leftist entities and they should give up THEIR HOLD ON GOVERNMENT. So that we can have the beginning of a reasonable though not total world peace

          • Drakken

            Just what so called atrocities did Israel commit? Really? I would love to know in your vast experience where that is true? Israel will have peace once they finally eliminate the Islamic threat. Your lucky that I am not in charge, Gaza would be the modern example of what Carthage used to look like.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Israel, when asked, counseled the US AGAINST going into Iraq. But thanks for spreading the usual anti-Israel slanders.

          • Sammy
          • ahad haamoratsim

            Wikileaks showed that the lies of the hysterical Israel-haters and Jew-haters organizations on this topic are exactly that. And that you would quote the holocaust denying Insitute for Historic Review tells us quite a bit about you as well.

          • Veracious_one

            There is an eerie déjà vu about an unmistakable and oft-repeated process in the Arab–Israel conflict. The process started in 1937 and has repeated itself with minor variations many times over the subsequent 74 years. The process is as follows: Arabs go to war with Israel, promising Israel’s destruction and the annihilation of its Jews. Israel wins the war and offers peace. Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers peace. Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Tell islamofascists that every murderous attack on people all over the world brings the inevitable blowback to Islam that much sooner.

            1.5 billion .vs. 6 billion.

            Who will prevail?

          • Jeffrey

            First of all, most Muslims are not extremists. Far from that. Most Muslims have a great deal of respect for Jesus as well. When we run around the world bombing countries though, innocent citizens die. Some of their family members become terrorists to get revenge. We put military bases on the Holy Land of Muslims. That was one of the reasons the C.I.A. listed for 9/11. We have installed brutal dictators all around the world and spread our military all around the world. We create many of the extremists ourselves, my friend.

          • Drakken

            Islam is islam dumbazz, and islam where ever it goes is never peaceful and it never was and never will be, period. Get with the goddamn program son. You cannot remain this ignorant forever without Darwin having his fun.

          • Veracious_one

            Most Muslims have a great deal of respect for Jesus as well.
            yes but Jesus as a Muslim prophet not as a Jew…

          • Omar

            You are a f**k**g Stalinist/Maoist. Both Russia and China also have military bases all over the world. Yet, you don’t criticize those regimes because you support them, particularly their foreign policies.

          • Omar

            The so-called “Palestinians” are an invented people. The so-called “nationality” was created by the KGB during the 1960s in order to undermine Israel’s right to exist. Palestine is a geographical region, not a country or ethnicity. That is undeniable.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          You think you can placate people who want you dead?

          You are a fool.

        • Omar

          Mossadegh was not elected prime minister (although he was elected to parliament), you dunce. He was appointed by the Iranian parliament, and the Shah in power approved and ratified the choice, you dummy.

          • Notalibfool

            That’s the truth even if our libertarian friend can’t handle it.

    • blert

      BHO is absolutely NEVER going to cross swords with Valerie girl’s best buddies.
      Congress in all history has never forced any president into a war he didn’t want.
      As for infuencing the theocratic dictator from below — you’re nuts. It’s the Ayatollah that’s calling all of the shots. He’s the wealthiest thief in that sorry land. ($150,000,000,000 est) No-one pressures him on ANYTHING.

      His ear is not for bending, either.

      Iran’s proximate target is Riyadh. NO WAY will Tehran go after Jerusalem when the money pot is just a leap across the pond. Most all of KSA’s oil pumps from classically Shi’ite lands. The route forward is crystal clear: revolution — freedom for the Shia! The rest of the desert the Sunni can keep. No food, no water and no oil should trim that naughty population in no time. A Persian invasion is not going to be needed.

      Last I looked, the Iranians STILL had their hovercraft. The Shah bought them to terrify the Sunnis. IIRC they provided the flanking that undid Saddam’s assault on Abadan — back in the ’80s. (Battle of the Marshes — the Iranians hovered around the Iraqi flank and almost pocketed an entire corps. The Iraqis had to pull back in haste. It’s THE high point of the Iranian rendition of their martial success.)

      Barry has half our navy in port, and the US Army sitting down — lacking any funds for plain vanilla training. He’s unwound FDR, AGAIN.

      • Jeffrey

        Congress hasn’t had a say in A LOT of our military endeavors. The CONSTITUTION clearly calls for a non-interventionist approach to foreign affairs, yet due to the War Powers Act, we frequently fight wars and engage militarily when it is not justifiable. Also, sanctions are an act of war – you are preventing goods from entering a country and denying them their own cash payments. I know that the Supreme Leader calls the shots in Iran, but I also believe that he is allowing Hassan Rouhani a chance to get the sanctions removed (which was the goal in implementing sanctions). Or he could just be allowing the new president to carry out his vision, having been persuaded to do so given his fairly close relationship with Rouhani. Also, Iran was prepared to talk in the past, yet we were only interested in regime change at the time, which should not be the point of sanctions. The point of sanctions is also not to keep the Iranian economy in shambles – it was to bring them to the table. Naturally, however, if Iranian hardliners become too opposed to engaging with the U.S. (and they hated the recent agreement), Khamenei might revoke his permission due to this pressure. We are already seeing many signs of Iranian hardliners despising the approach of Rouhani. Most Iranians citizens, on the other hand, want to achieve a nuclear deal (and for relations between our two countries to improve). Also, Iran militarily is far from anything resembling impressive. The chemical weapons used on their people by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was absolutely horrendous. It’s partially why Khamenei issue a fatwa banning any weapons of mass destruction in Iran. So I respectfully disagree with your assertions.

        • A Z

          So when the U.S. embargoed scrap iron from being shipped from the U.S. to Japan that was an act of war?

          So Pearl Harbor was our fault?

          If you believe that, you are far, far gone.

          • Jeffrey

            A Z I don’t see the need for insults. I am not questioning your sanity. I believe that when you militarily prevent goods from entering a country, or stop them from receiving cash payments that they rightfully earned, that certainly can be considered an act of war.

            “As is so often the case, U.S.-sponsored sanctions have hurt ordinary people with no influence on policy. The sanctions have resulted in inflation, higher rates of pollution, less-safe civilian aircraft, shortages of some medical supplies, the isolation of Iranian banks, and the reduction of exports.”

            Our WWII sanctions on Japan are what made us a target (though our involvement in WWII was certainly justified). Refusing to exchange goods with a country is one thing, preventing all others from doing so (and withholding their cash) is quite another. All the while, there has never been ANY evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. So from THEIR perspective the sanctions are very much illegal. Read the article I posted please.

          • defcon 4

            What about when you seize and embassy and keep its staff hostage? Does that qualify as an act of war?

          • Jeffrey

            Did you read my post above? In 1953, we installed a brutal monarch in Iran. We unjustifiably involved ourselves in their country. The oppressive and corrupt monarch we installed even used our C.I.A. to round up any voices of dissent to his rule. It did not matter to the U.S. what he did though though because he was a puppet leader. Would you like it if Iran had engaged in similar behavior toward the U.S.? The Iranian Hostage Crisis was blow back stemming from our actions. We made ourselves a target. Their citizenry were responding to the poor condition of their country and those they deemed responsible.

          • Drakken

            The problem is, you give moral equivalency to Iran and us, when there isn’t any. AS for the Shah, he kept the brutal mullahs at bay and was a staunch western ally, in case you didn’t notice, but mullahs of any Islamic stripe are never our friends and never will be, while dictators can always be relied upon to keep the islamist under their thumb, democracy can never ever work in a mid east or far east Islamic country, you have choice, a friendly dictator or a hostile mullah.

          • Notalibfool

            Jeffrey, we did NOT install a brutal monarch in 1953. The Shah was already Iran’s leader. Please do more research into Iran’s recent history before commenting on it.

            “The Iranian Hostage Crisis was blow back stemming from our actions.”

            Nice way to blame the victims, gullible one.

          • Jeffrey
          • Notalibfool

            Nice try. I’ve seen that before. That link did not in any way prove that we installed the Shah. Once again, in case you still don’t understand, he was already Iran’s leader.

          • Omar

            You need to learn some real history. The Shah was already Iran’s leader. The coup was orchastrated by the British intelligence organization the MI6 and the Iranian opposition who did not want a Communist dictatorship being installed in Iran, as the then-prime minister (who, by the way, was not popularly elected to that position, but was in fact appointed by the Iranian parliament and approved by the Shah), Mossadegh, was a Stalinist/Maoist with connections to the Soviet Union and Communist China. It should also be important to note that the Ayatollah and his mullah henchmen supported and welcomed the anti-Mossadegh coup. The Islamist mullahs viewed Mossadegh as a secular infidel. The mullahs hated the Shah, not because he was autocratic, but because he was secular, pro-Western and he supported women’s rights, including the right to not wear a veil if the women choose not to. You are just another Communist propagandist who supports Stalinism and Maoism. Why don’t you condemn all of the Soviet-supported coups, like then one in Grenada in 1979, when the KGB and the Cuban DGI overthrew the elected prime minister of that country, Eric Gairy, and installed the Communist dictator, Maurice Bishop of the so-called New Jewel Movement, which was the Communist party ruling Grenada with an iron fist. Learn from facts instead of repeating Communist propaganda.

          • Notalibfool

            Once again, Omar speaks the truth. Thank you!

          • Jeffrey

            Communist propagandist? I really have heard it all now. I’m a libertarian, which is essentially the exact opposite. At the core of the coup was the nationalization of Iranian oil.

            http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/iranian_overthrow.asp

          • Notalibfool

            Jeff, you lost the little bit of credibility you had left when you attempted to blame the US for Pearl Harbor.

            Let me ask you this: if the US is to blame for all of the world’s problems as you seem to imagine, then what about events that occurred prior to the foundation of this country? Was the US responsible for the Wars of the Roses? In your mind, yes.

          • Jeffrey

            I DID NOT SAY THAT THE U.S. IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THE WORLD’S PROBLEMS. I DID NOT SAY THAT THE U.S. WAS TO BLAME FOR PEARL HARBOR. I explained to you what made us a target of Imperial Japan, in a war we were otherwise trying to stay out of. War was a quite justifiable response to the many horrendous actions of Japan.

          • Notalibfool

            Quit backpedaling, Jeff. You’ve already shown your true colors.

            Now please go back to your little fantasy world.

          • Omar

            The coup in Iran had nothing to do with centralizing oil (if centralization was the key rold, then why wasn’t Nehru overthrown from his position as prime minister of India?). It had everything to do with the fact that Mossadegh wanted total control of the Iranian government (he wanted to turn Iran into a Communist totalitarian country and a client-state of the Soviet Union and Communist China), and the Shah and the Iranian parliament said no. Mossadegh even admitted that he was a dictator. Time magazine had an article on Mossadegh from 1952 in which the would-be dictator was quoted as saying “Call me dictator”. You need to read real history, not Communist propaganda. You and Ron Paul are libertarians who repeat left-wing propaganda to pander to Communists. Fact-check.

          • Notalibfool

            Mossadegh was a wealthy douchebag with ties to Iran’s former royal family, the Qajars. He was no man of the people. A free and democratic Iran was not part of his plan.

          • Veracious_one

            Their citizenry were responding to the poor conditions in their country and those they deemed responsible.

            they never looked into the mirror…

          • A Z

            I am of 2 minds when it comes to sanctions. Make it as airtight as possible or go the exact opposite way and smother them with contacts. Different approaches and both equally valid. 1/2 measures in something like this can be argued to be 1/2 @zz.

            As far as freezing Iran’s assets I would look at the timeline. As defcon4 pointed out they did seize our embassy.

          • Jeffrey

            I’m all for sanctions being airtight. However, once diplomatic efforts are underway, we should not be adding additional sanctions. Otherwise, hardliners in Iran begin to push the argument that engagement is not beneficial at all (as they have) because the U.S. is in fact still adding sanctions. There has to be give and take in diplomacy. Both sides have to be able to sell their end of any agreement as being a win to their respective domestic audiences (which we have seen). It was exactly the same during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when talking averted catastrophe.

          • A Z

            Obama already eased sanction during the endless negotiations.

            Obama had his change in 2009 to support the Green movement. He sat on his hands and did not even say “Present”

          • Jeffrey

            Firstly, I am not a fan of Obama. This is one of the very few things I agree with him on. That said, I think there was sufficient give and take in the recent accord. In exchange for a mere $7 billion dollars in sanctions relief, we were able to acquire daily inspections, dilute all of their uranium enriched to 20 percent, and halt installations (and fueling) to (and for) the Arak nuclear site. In addition, the IAEA is being granted greater access to Iran’s nuclear facilities. We have well over $100 billion dollars in sanctions on Iran, and none of the sanctions with key implications on their economy were lifted.

          • A Z

            Syria missed their deadline on the chemical weapons. They have to June 30th to make it up (4 months and 17 days).

            Obama also said that it was not his red line.

            So Russia and Middle East Leaders do not take him seriously. I do not expect the Iranian inspections to go easier either.

            It will be like the Iraq inspection in the 1990s. So we can call it inspections farce 2.0.

            If we include the Syrian inspections, we can call it inspections farce 3.0.

            If we include the North Korean inspections, we can call it inspections farce 4.0.

            Do you see a pattern?

          • Jeffrey

            Syria has been destroying their chemical weapons A Z and everyone has reported good progress up until now. The timelines that were set were essentially impossible to achieve. Diplomacy is working, stop looking for any sign of deterioration you can to jump on Obama. Just let them keep destroying the weapons, it’s not as easy a process as you seem to believe. And no, I don’t see your point. Iran is a completely different country than North Korea for instance, and we kept engaging with them after they showed they would not cooperate. I’m not a fan of second chances. Rouhani deserves A chance. Also, I can assure you that the inspections of Iran’s facilities will be daily and rigorous.

          • A Z

            You have either drank the Kool aid or you are a plant. You do not understand this website do you. If you did you would not be in this part of it.

            Funny things is we have about 3 or 4 people from Stormfront or similar place that have decided to try to infest. Now we have you.

          • Jeffrey

            I do my own research on this issue. This article showed up in my search results, I read it, I thought it was very poor writing, and I wrote a comment expectly a friendly debate. I probably won’t be back, you can rest assured. You people can be left to your ignorance in peace. I didn’t know that having a different opinion in America was considered an infestation. Do you comment on here just to have people agree with you? That’s very SAD. And again, resorting to insults. I think that you have drink quite a bit of Kool-Aid, but I haven’t insulted you. Just believe whatever the politicians and media tell you A Z. Ignorance is bliss.

          • A Z

            Go ahead bow out.

            Defcon4 and Drakken have gotten on my case 2 or 3 times. I have not changed my position, but I have a thick skin.

            I think you came here thinking you were going to razzle dazzle us with you multi paragraph essays and win us all over.

            Either that or you were paid.

          • defcon 4

            Usually I always agree with you, as a matter of fact, almost always.

          • A Z

            I know. All i was trying to do was point out that we occasionally disagree or have misunderstandings, yet we do not take the umbrage that Jeffrey is taking.

            Either he has a degree in international relations and that is the only tool in his toolbox, he is paid to do what he does, or he is as you or someone else said, an Islamofascist.

          • Jeffrey

            Why do you keep bringing up my degree? For the love of God I am a libertarian who thinks that we should mind our own business as the Constitution instructs. That is all. If I’m campaigning for anyone, it’s Rand Paul.

          • A Z

            Because often times a person education and/or vocation influence the way people view things.

            You seem rather narrow minded about how the world works and how to solve problems.

            Being narrow minded is another way to say bigot.

            Maybe you should study accounting, engineering, actuarial science, military science and other stuff. Broaden your horizons.

            You could have more tools in your toolbox so everything doesn’t look like nail to you.

            You think you can play nice with everyone and it will always work.

            You spend too much time on this one subject. You are not libertarian. You are Muslim.

          • Jeffrey

            You’re a funny guy A Z. Anyone who disagrees with you is a Muslim. And then you call me close-minded. LOL. I guess Ron Paul is a Muslim too. I was raised a Christian and am proud to always pursue peace and love as Christ would. For your information, I used to be a hardcore Republican much like you. I didn’t believe in diplomacy EVER. I used to watch FOX religiously. My education was primarily based on facts and theories, but if you want to just dismiss that, go ahead. It doesn’t bother me. Next time, I won’t be nice, I’ll just call you a plant. That’s the way a lot of people are, sorry I tried to have a respectful debate with you. I was attempting to learn new things about issues I’m interested in by talking to people. Have a good one. I’m done here. :)

          • Notalibfool

            Minding our own business is a nice idea. Too bad it doesn’t work in the real world. Not everyone thinks like we do. Not everyone values life, freedom, etc. like we do. But go ahead and pretend otherwise. If ignorance is bliss you must be a blissful man.

          • Jeffrey

            If history has shown anything, it’s that the opposite is true my friend. I’ll ask you to read my article one more time.

            http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul44.html

          • Drakken

            Leftist drivel, stupidity, naivety, and wishful thinking at its finest.

          • Jeffrey

            It’s libertarian, not leftist.

          • Drakken

            Libertarian where domestic policies are concerned are reasonable, libertarian where foreign policy and military matters are concerned is catastrophic. History time and time again has proved that to be true.

          • Jeffrey

            The opposite is true.

          • Drakken

            It is the military, not the diplomat that dictates policy and the sooner you realize and understand that little fact, the better off your going to be.

          • Notalibfool

            Not surprised that you can’t understand the obvious. Where did you earn your degree? They owe you a refund.

          • Jeffrey

            More insults and no substance. SMH.

          • Notalibfool

            Your the “genius” who just called me an asshole.

            Why don’t you try to grow up, junior. You are in over your head here.

          • Jeffrey

            You called me a special ed student first, or did you forget that??? I have tried very hard to be respectful to people on here. You have been insulting to me in just about every comment.

          • Notalibfool

            Maybe my comments are just blowback caused by your lunacy. :)

          • Jeffrey

            I’m not bowing out. I have responded to everything you’ve said and will continue to do so. BTW, I should be getting paid to do this. Why is it that I can’t have a different opinion than you A Z? I wasn’t trying to razzle dazzle anyone or get on anyone’s nerves. I get the same reaction when I comment on MSNBC or the HUFF Post. They hate me over there too. It’s because I don’t belong to either party and I make up my OWN mind on every issue.

          • A Z

            You are a plant. Your Englis his good, but your style is just lacking.

            You could fail a Turing Test.

          • A Z

            You forget about the truck convoy to Iraq before this agreement was signed.

            Then there were the numerous weapons transfers to Lebanon one of which Israel blew up.

            So there have been multiple problems with the agreement so far, but you only see one.

          • Jeffrey

            This happened just yesterday. You shouldn’t ignore the positive developments. There have been many.

            http://news.yahoo.com/iran-agrees-39-seven-practical-steps-39-iaea-115709187.html

          • A Z

            I don’t trust the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is a joke.

            “ElBaradei who is a lawyer and not a nuclear scientist (his doctorate is in International law) released numerous reports on the Iranian nuclear activities. None of the reports contained any concrete evidence that Iran engaged in nuclear weapons work’

            http://www.examiner.com/article/mohamed-elbaradei-s-failed-legacy-at-iaea-and-the-iranian-nuclear-issue

            http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/09/the-watchdog-that-didn’t-bark/

          • Jeffrey

            You raise a good point. The IAEA has certainly issued language that has confused our politicians in their reports. They can be trusted to inspect facilities however, and investigate claims I believe. Ron Paul points it out in this video. I actually love this video please watch it.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecP9xzRWywA

          • Drakken

            I really want some of the drugs you are on, for if your trust that organization to give you an unbiased report your high, and the fact it came from R Paul makes you even dumber for believing it.

          • Jeffrey

            I’m high on common sense. You should try it sometime.

          • Drakken

            You and the words common sense in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

          • Omar

            Ron Paul is so f**k**g wrong on Islamist Iran, you lunatic.

          • Jeffrey

            Can you please stop responding to my posts? Thank you.

          • Omar

            I will keep responding until you admit that I am right.

          • Jeffrey

            LOL.

          • hiernonymous

            “I will keep responding until you admit that I am right.”

            That would be a more reasonable position if you were more willing and able to demonstrate that you actually were right. An inordinate number of your posts begin with some variation of “mother f**k*r shut up.” While it’s never ideal to find yourself on the receiving end of the wit and wisdom of an undergraduate’s wisdom, this sort of approach is a good indicator that one is dealing with more attitude than intellect. Perhaps if you were to to take a more thoughtful approach – in both senses – the odds would be better of extracting such an admission from another, as it would improve the odds that you’d actually be right.

          • Omar

            Why don’t you stop following me, you loon?

          • hiernonymous

            I will keep posting to you until you admit that I am right.

          • Omar

            Now I’m wondering if you follow other people too, you loon.

          • hiernonymous

            You don’t understand how Disqus works yet? There are some good tutorials.

            I follow anyone who posts on subjects of keen interest to me. I typically follow about 50 or so people at any given time.

          • A Z

            Every so often I think what Obama is doing in Syria will succeed and people who differ with him will end up with egg on their face.

            Alas, this has not happened so far.

            On June 30th we will know.

          • Jeffrey

            Regardless of the missed deadlines, their chemical weapons are still being destroyed. Many have already been destroyed. I don’t know if we should have involved ourselves in Syria. I mean, a portion of the people who are fighting Assad are terrorists/extremists. What would their rule look like? At least Assad has shown that he will cooperate with the International Community on some things. It’s a terrible situation for the Syrian people though, that’s for sure. As far as Iran goes, it will be hard to reach a deal. Only time will tell what is possible. All I know is what I believe the correct approach of the United States of America should be, based on our Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the principles of this nation.

          • Drakken

            Time is not on our side in case you haven’t noticed, but hey, keep on wishing away.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Give rouhani a chance? The ayatollah in flowing robes who dreams of the 12th imam?

            You are either a fool or a fool.

          • Jeffrey

            Well, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Rouhani has never said any such thing. You are the fool my friend. I bet you couldn’t wait to get into Iraq either. A true tool of the politicians you are, buying whatever dramatization they put out.

          • defcon 4

            Mr. Greenfield has reported that the current Ayatollah has stated he has had a face-to-face meeting w/the 12th imam.

          • Jeffrey

            Oh I see, that’s solid evidence.

          • nopeacenow

            Syria doesn’t need chemical weapons. They just starve their people and no one says a word. Everyone is up in arms when hundreds or thousands are killed with chemical weapons. Everyone is silent when starvation is used as a weapon. Smart guy that Assad.

            Why does Rouhani deserve a chance? We are still dealing with the same Ayatollahs. They have not moderated from their previous positions. They still hate America and seek world domination.

          • defcon 4

            And regularly threaten Israel and the Jewish people w/extermination and hang gays en mass, and hang Jewish Israel “spies”, and persecute anyone non-muslim.

          • Jeffrey

            Yes, they do hate America for the reason I have explained many times. I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say world domination. That’s just absurd, but I’ll let it go. Rouhani is a new leader who has made all the right moves, I feel that the Supreme Leader is giving him a chance because he wants to rid Iran of the sanctions himself. Along the way, he gets to make the U.S. and Israel look like a bunch of warmongers (and they have both done exceedingly well in that regard). Also, I do feel that Rouhani is a moderate (that’s just my opinion), but he also has a decent relationship with Khamenei; which, means that he could have convinced him to give talks a chance. Also, it is important to again point out that Iran has been ready to talk about their nuclear program in the past, yet we refused because we wanted to use sanctions to induce a regime change.

          • nopeacenow

            All Islamic regimes seek world domination. You should know that. They seek the return of the caliphate and the defeat of the West. Especially the US and Israel. Big satan and little satan. The supreme leader in Iran makes all the decisions, not the President. Iran had many chances to end the sanctions but wanted to continue developing nuclear weapons and would not allow inspections of their nuclear facilities. US did nothing to support a regime change in Iran. In fact, Obama refused even verbal support to the student rebels.

          • Jeffrey

            Again, there is no evidence to support you assertion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran has little military power so the idea of them seeking world domination is just a bad joke. The Supreme Leader does dislike the West, yet the reasons I provided show why. I think you should differentiate between regular Muslims and extremists as well. And again, I am no fan of the Supreme Leader. The country would obviously be much better off with him gone.

          • nopeacenow

            Yeah, sure. Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. Why withstand sanctions when they could have been ended with inspections. Iran was hiding their development of nuclear weapons and they still are. They are at war with the US, Israel, Christianity and Judaism. They are competing with other Islamists for domination of Muslim countries and the world.

          • Jeffrey

            Whatever you say buddy.

          • Drakken

            Your utter denial of reality is utterly craven in your attempt at your peace at any price insanity.

          • Drakken

            There is no moderate islam you dumbazz, there is only islam, and where ever islam goes, the blood always flows, without exception.

          • Notalibfool

            That is not the reason why they hate America. It is an excuse used to justify their illegal actions against the Western world.

            We DID NOT install the Shah. Look it up. He became the Shah of Iran in 1941, 12 years BEFORE the “evil” CIA brought down the “saintly” Mossadegh.

          • Jeffrey
          • Notalibfool

            Oh yeah, because Time is ALWAYS right…….

          • Jeffrey

            Completely factual. Do facts matter to you people at all?

          • Notalibfool

            Yes, that’s why I disagree with you.

          • Jeffrey

            So what was incorrect in the article?

          • Notalibfool

            Are you so lazy that you can’t read things on your own, little Jeffy? :)

          • Omar

            Time magazine actually had it right in a 1952 article on Iran, in which the magazine quoted Mossadegh as saying “Call me dictator”. Today, however, Time mainly repeats left-wing propaganda.

          • Veracious_one

            Syria has been destroying their chemical weapons

            there’s no proof of that…

          • Jeffrey

            That is not true, look it up. This from just a couple hours ago. We’ll see what happens in the future. Hopefully they continue to destroy them.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26124161

          • nopeacenow

            Iran gave up nothing. That is what their leaders and representatives say. Nothing has changed except they have at least $7 billion dollars more than they had before and can continue their merry way developing nuclear weapons. Obama/Kerry are so naive. Or perhaps its is just an act and they know very well what they are doing. Giving up the Middle East to our enemies.

          • Jeffrey

            What do you expect their leaders to say? They have to try and make the deal look like a WIN for their domestic audience. They have to try and distort the deal, just as we have tried to distort the deal. It’s diplomacy. Did you read what we achieved in the deal? Would you prefer that we didn’t have those things??? I think we can manage to give them $7 billion when we have well over $100 billion in sanctions overall. And they only get their money in steps after complying with steps in the agreement. Iran has been giving us more and more access to their facilities everyday. They are cooperating with the IAEA more and more everyday. They have considered turning Arak into a light water reactor. There is progress everyday, it just barely ever makes the headlines. They have less chance of developing nuclear weapons under the deal, it sets their program back at least six weeks even according to Netanyahu himself, the biggest opponent of the deal. I no fan of Obama, but frankly this is the right path. What would the alternative be? More military action? Frankly, the approach of Republicans in foreign policy scares me right now. You need to stop buying the war propaganda and dramatization. Read the article I posted above. That is actually exactly what is going on.

          • nopeacenow

            They are still developing nuclear weapons. Nothing has changed except they have more money to play with. The Iranians will have their nuclear weapons and what do you suppose will happen next? They are an irrational terrorist regime. Will they attack Israel, US or Saudi Arabia? They don’t care what happens to Iranians.

          • Jeffrey

            Again, Iran has not attacked another country in 300 years without being attacked first. You really think they would launch one nuclear weapon at the U.S., who has 3,500, or Israel, who probably has several hundred at least. A nuke that would be poorly developed without years of missile tests and result in the instant destruction of their country (having done little damage)? I want you to do 2 things before you respond again, only if you want to respond again. First, find me true evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon (there has never been any actually so nevermind). Second, there is two quality reads below. Please check them out with an open mind. Let me know what you think.

            http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

            http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/israeli-minister-agrees-ahmadinejad-never-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Unless you count their proxy attacks via Hamas and Hizbollah on Israel and, in the case of Hizbollah, on Lebanon . Or their murdering scores of Argentine Jews by blowing up the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Ares. Or their attack from the Iranian embassy in London. Need I go on? Are you a deliberate propagandist for the Iranian Republic, or are you simply incredibly naive?

          • Jeffrey

            I don’t condone the actions of Iran AT ALL, just as I don’t condone our own government supporting terrorists when it’s in our best interests. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter as they say. My concern is peacefully resolving the nuclear issue. Neither side thinks that the other is trustworthy. If you want to resolve this conflict militarily, you are entitled to that opinion. I just want to give diplomacy a chance. Is that really so radical? We could talk to the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis when they had countless actual nuclear weapons pointed at us, yet we can’t talk to a country over something we think they MIGHT do?

          • Drakken

            You are incredibly naïve and your try at moral equivalency is utterly despicable and traitorous.

          • Notalibfool

            That he is. Notice how he brought out that childish “we installed the brutal monarch” BS? Haven’t we heard that LIE too often?

          • Drakken

            I am stunned at what passes for so called educated people these days, it is all about I feel therefore I am as their policy positions and has no basis in simple brutal facts. We are in trouble if we listen to anything this guy has to say.

          • Notalibfool

            Hopefully he tries to listen to what you have been saying. But I doubt it.

          • Drakken

            One can hope, but as our educational standards have lowered themselves to the least common denominator, it doesn’t look promising.

          • Notalibfool

            I wholly agree.

          • truebearing

            Jeffy is either still in high school, or should be.

          • Jeffrey

            It’s a wonder there are people as ignorant as you folks in society. It’s actually quite terrifying.

          • Notalibfool

            What gives you any room to label others ignorant, gullible Jeff?

          • Jeffrey

            You should ask yourself that question.

          • Notalibfool

            Lol! You amuse me!

          • Jeffrey

            Good. We’re both entertained.

          • Notalibfool

            Maybe high school special ed…….

          • Jeffrey

            Well, at least I’m not an asshole like you.

          • Notalibfool

            Glad you hate me, America hater. Now go to Iran if you think they are better.

            While you’re there try to learn to do some research.

          • Jeffrey

            I don’t hate you or America. I try to live up to Christian ideals.

          • Notalibfool

            Sure you do, that’s why you called me an asshole. It’s because you are such a good Christian.

          • Jeffrey

            That’s how you’re acting toward me just because I have a different opinion than you. Why don’t you go back and read through these comments and see how much I’ve tried to tolerate from you and everyone else. You were insulting me the whole time and I tried to take it.

          • Notalibfool

            On the contrary I see the root cause of things quite clearly: people with your mentality.

          • Jeffrey

            I would like to apologize, even though you have been insulting to me at every turn. I shouldn’t have sunk to the level of everyone else on here.

          • Drakken

            That is why you have to depend on your betters to protect you from harm, because you actually believe the bad guy won’t hurt you when he is clearly stating his intent to do so.

          • Omar

            And you are a f**k**g idiot, you Communist lowlife.

          • Jeffrey

            Nice. And for the last time, a Libertarian literally could not be more different than a Communist. SMH. I have never seen people so intolerant of different opinions in my life. It’s incredible.

          • Omar

            That’s because those “opinions” of yours are flat out lies fabricated by Communists in order to smear the West.

          • truebearing

            “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter as they say.”

            As who says? The Left. The Left says that and it is a false moral equivalency. Terrorism targets innocent women and children. Is that what you call freedom fighting? You’re a weak-minded, blathering idiot. You just proved it, irrefutably.

            Why don’t you quit while you’re way behind?

          • Drakken

            You say Iran hasn’t attacked anyone in 300 years, I say utter bulls**t! Tell that to my fellow Marines in Beirut, or the US embassy personnel, TWICE! How about tell Col. Higgins USMC or the CIA station chief in Beirut, or how about the Jewsish cultural center in Argentina. Your talking out of your azz because your mouth knows better.

          • Jeffrey

            Hey Drakken, I have a GREAT deal of respect for you and ALL of our troops. THANK YOU for your service. That is why I want our government to stop doing things like meddling in other countries BECAUSE the embassy attack was THE result of OUR previous actions. I want us to stop going to war and engaging in military actions that are unnecessary, actions that lead to our troops losing their lives/ suffering horrendously when they don’t have to, ALL because our government wants to create enemies in order to fuel the military industrial complex/pursue their own interests. I don’t want you fighting when you don’t HAVE to be. I want peace to be pursued whenever possible.

          • Drakken

            Let me explain a very simple uncomfortable truth to you, peace is nothing but an abstract notion so people like you can revel in its delusion. War is constant of the human condition and has been since man walked up right, and will continue to be soon for another thousand years. The idiot politicians who think they can wage restricted warfare in the hopes that they won’t hurt anyone goes against 5,000 years of warfare. You win when they are begging you not to kill anymore, or you give them Carthage. It is that brutally simple. Folks like you who preach peace, always make it bloodier than it has to be.

          • Jeffrey

            Many wars and military action that we have undertaken have been necessary and have created MORE enemies for us. When you read the news tomorrow and find out about a drone strike that killed a terrorist, you will also typically find that some innocent civilians were also collected. A family member of those civilians might go on to become terrorist as a result (just as you would be mad if your mother or brother was killed by an Iranian drone strike in the U.S.). When we install a dictator in another country because we want a puppet government who will provide for our needs, we create enemies. We have done A LOT of that. When we spread our military out all around the world, we create enemies. How would you like it if Iran set up military bases all around our country. War breeds war. We have been running all around the world and involving ourselves in the affairs of other countries/bombing them since containment. This has absolutely been to the detriment of our national security. Just read the report the C.I.A wrote as to why 9/11 happened. Also, PLEASE read the article below outlining the propaganda campaign used for Iraq. I just want the best for our military members like you who bravely defend our freedom.

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-a-war-of-aggression-no-wmds-no-connection-to-al-qaeda/5327548

          • Drakken

            Here let me help you get a few simple concepts through your head since you understand less than nothing where the world is concerned. When we kill these muslim savages in a village and a few get killed it is called warfare, and frankly they are going about the wrong way, the village knows they are harboring one of their own and they are as much of the enemy as the jihadist is, eliminate the whole village, it sends a message to the next village that it is in their best interest not to ally themselves with jihadist. When the enemy fears you, he respects you, it is that bloody simple and all the kumbaya and good will never change that concept. You believe in moral equivalency between us of the west and the muslim of whatever stripe, fatal mistake which one of these days will come back to haunt you and yours. It is about time you travel the world and see it for what it is, instead of the academic exercise in peace studies that is completely useless. Start using critical thinking skills instead what the whacademics are indoctrinating and marinating you in. Instead of reading useless Peace studies, start reading Clausewitz, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Sun Tzu and throw in the Prince by Machiavelli on human nature for a start, then you might get an idea of how the real world works. Might always makes right in the end and the sooner you learn that the better off your going to be in the real world.

          • Omar

            Really? You are using Global Research as your primary source of information? Global Research is full of Communist propaganda. It has supported and defended all atrocities committed by Communists, Islamists and anti-Western forces over the years. Also, it should be important to mention that the United States DID NOT INSTALL THE SHAH IN IRAN! THE SHAH WAS ALREADY IRAN’S LEADER! THE WEST SIMPLY HELPED THE ANTI-COMMUNIST OPPOSITION PREVENT THEIR COUNTRY FROM BEING TAKEN OVER BY THE SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNIST CHINA, YOU STALINIST/MAOIST LOON! What is so hard to understand that?!

          • Jeffrey

            It is not my primary source of information. It was one of many. If you want to ignore our involvement in Iran, go ahead. If you want to ignore the fact that we helped put a brutal dictator in charge and supported him, go ahead. Don’t let facts get in the way of a good argument.

          • Omar

            You are repeating Communist propaganda again. The Shah came to power in 1941, when Allied forces invaded Iran and forced his pro-Axis father to abdicate the throne. This happened about 12 years before the Communist prime minister Mossadegh was overthrown by his own people with some help from Western intelligence.

          • Jeffrey

            I’m talking about our involvement in their country that led to anti-Americanism, not when the Shah came to power. You are saying that I said things that I didn’t say. If you can’t understand the reasons why Iranians decided to attack our embassy, that is very sad indeed.

          • Omar

            You are a f**k**g idiot. Why don’t you understand why many people around the world hate Communism? By the way, the Islamist mullahs hate America and the West because we are infidel nations. I have already pointed out that the mullahs welcomed the anti-Mossadegh coup. Why don’t you blame the totalitarian forcforces for intervening in the Spanish Civil War? Why don’t you blame the Soviet Union and Communist Cuba for intervening in Angola?

          • Jeffrey

            I do understand why people hate Communism and I don’t condone the vile actions often associated with Communist leadership, or their negative involvements internationally. For the love of God …..

          • Omar

            Sure you do. That’s why you supported Mossadegh getting into a power struggle with the Shah and the Iranian parliament who put him in power in the first place. You also supported Mossadegh dissolving the very parliament that appointed him prime minister. He also suspended civil liberties, jailed and tortured anyone who opposed his rule, and planned to turn Iran into a Soviet/Chinese Communist client state. That is undeniable.

          • Jeffrey

            I didn’t support any of those things. You are only telling ONE side of the story, my friend, the side that fits your perspective. WOW. The point was that America’s actions in Iran led to increasing anti-Americanism and eventually the attack on our embassy. That is an indisputable fact. If you want to argue that we would have been worse off for not assisting the coup, that is an opinion. You are completely missing the point.

          • Omar

            My “side” is the truth, period. The mullahs hate us because we are infidel nations. It had nothing to do with the anti-Mossadegh coup. The mullahs welcomed ousting Mossadegh from power. Try to understand that fact.

          • Jeffrey

            You ignore rational perspective in favor of a misguided notion that America can do no wrong. Our approach to international affairs has actually undermined our national security in many ways, whether you want to believe it or not. And just so you know, we installed COMMUNIST governments in other countries as well (see Latin America). We just wanted puppet governments. You have nothing to substantiate your claims other than distortion of my beliefs/repeated propaganda that completely disregards the truth. I want America to adopt better policy moving forward. I want us to live up to our ideals.

          • Jeffrey

            Just to be clear, what would your approach to Iran be?

          • Omar

            Force regime change by almost any means necessary.

          • hiernonymous

            What’s the caveat on your ‘almost?’ What necessary means do you think too appalling to employ?

          • Jeffrey

            Ok, first of all I disagree with the notion that we should be involving ourselves in such a way as to force regime change. However, let’s run with that potentially dangerous premise. The sanctions have not slowed Iran’s nuclear program (they have gone from 200 to 19,000 centrifuges since the sanctions regime was installed). The sanctions have also not forced regime change, in fact, they have made Iran more self-sufficient.

            “There are Iranians who find at least some of the sanctions genuinely beneficial. The fact is that Iran has become a lot more self-sufficient under the sanctions and these people don’t want to see the country lose that edge. The government is developing industrial and research parks to keep its R&D pace going.”

            Furthermore, the sanctions only hurt the ORDINARY CITIZENS.

            “As is so often the case, U.S.-sponsored sanctions have hurt ordinary people with no influence on policy. The sanctions have resulted in inflation, higher rates of pollution, less-safe civilian aircraft, shortages of some medical supplies, the isolation of Iranian banks, and the reduction of exports.”

            So what do we do? A military strike on their facilities? If a military is attacking or threatening to attack a country, that country will naturally respond by bolstering its defenses. If we attack Iran, that would be a GREAT incentive for them to fervently pursue nuclear weapons in order to deter what they would perceive to be highly aggressive nations. Countries with nuclear weapons are respected and not meddled with. In addition, Iran has promised to respond to an attack on their soil (as anyone would). You can imagine with their alliances how that might escalate horrifically, particularly for Israel.

            What is my take? If diplomacy works, and the sanctions are removed. Iran will be open for trade. That means there will be an influx of Western products, but more importantly Western ideas and ideals. Eventually, as their people are less cut off from the world, this could lead to a regime change given time.

          • hiernonymous

            While you’re suggesting that others ‘understand,’ there are a few aspects that you could ‘understand’ a bit better as well.

            First, trying to figure out why the ‘mullahs’ hate America is hardly the only relevant issue. You also have to understand why other Iranians were willing to support the mullahs, and the anti-Mossadegh coup plays a prominent role there. Had it not been for the coup, it’s very possible that it wouldn’t have been the mullahs sweeping the Shah from power.

            Second, the Fedaiyen were angry with Mossadegh because they’d had an operational political alliance with him, but he wasn’t will to roll over for them. Why is this relevant? Because you’re willing to point out the fact that the mullahs ended up being his political enemies, but you are also perfectly willing to cite his political alliance with the Tudeh as ‘proof’ that Mossadegh was a communist. Mossadegh made alliances, he didn’t ‘join’ – but you are perfectly willing to engage in selective attention in this situation to pain Mossadegh as the conversational requirements of the moment require.

          • Omar

            Quit following me around, you Communist. Mossadegh wanted to be a dictator. He was a Communist who was on the payroll of the Soviet Union and Communist China. That is undeniable.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, now I’m a Communist. Apparently, “Communist” means “anyone Omar disagrees with on political issues.” You’re simply raving now.

          • Omar

            The mullahs supported and welcomed the anti-Mossadegh coup in Iran. That is a fact. It was those very same mullahs that ordered the embassy attack. The Islamist mullabs view all of their opponents as infidels. Their embassy attack was made possible by Jimmy Carter forcing the Shah to abdicate his position as head of state of Iran. One little coup should not have provoked such ridiculous outrage. Other countries have done much worse to others. Large parts of Africa were colonized by Europeans in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, yet those African countries don’t have nearly half as much animosity towards the European countries as the mullahs in Iran have towards America and the West. Why don’t you condemn all of the coups instigated by Communists? Quit repeating Communist ropaganda and learn from facts.

          • hiernonymous

            “…Mossadegh was overthrown by his own people with some help from Western intelligence.”

            You know, not even our most rabid spinmeisters have tried being that bald-faced with it. Seriously? The coup turns out to have been a popular revolution with “some help” from us?

          • Omar

            Yes, that was exactly what happened. It was a popular move, and quit following me.

          • hiernonymous

            “Yes, that was exactly what happened.”

            Again, not even the most rabid supporters of the coup would go that far.

            “…and quit following me.”

            If you mean “quit posting to me,” didn’t Jeffrey make that request of you? What was your response?

          • Omar

            No, I meant you. You always post annoying things to try and refute my facts.

          • hiernonymous

            True, you don’t actually refute Jeffrey’s facts. Still, that makes your position weaker, not stronger. Why should I stop posting to you, if you won’t quit posting to Jeffrey?

          • Notalibfool

            The embassy attack was an unjustified act of war committed against my country. No amount of whining or delusional thought can change that.

          • Omar

            You are repeating Communist propaganda again. Why don’t you denounce the Soviet Union and Communist Cuba for meddling in Angola’s affairs?

          • Jeffrey

            I DO.

          • Omar

            Yeah, right. You admire Stalin, Mao and the Castro brothers. Admit that you support Communist totalitarianism.

          • Jeffrey

            You sound like someone who would a endorse Mao policy, telling me to admit that I’m wrong and confess to being something that I am far from. LOL. Have fun living in your alternative reality. I’m done here.

          • Notalibfool

            You’re done here? GOOD! Now we won’t be bombarded with your unicorns-and-rainbows fantasies.

          • Jeffrey

            Please STOP responding to my posts. I have wasted enough time trying to reason with you and everyone else. I don’t want to get drawn into any more pointless debate on this website. This place is literally an alternate reality for uninformed and close-minded partisan ideologues (who have a surprising desire for war), nothing more. Have a good one! It was a sincere pleasure talking to all of you :)

          • Notalibfool

            Then stop posting here. You have said nothing useful or intelligent anyway.

          • Drakken

            Your wishful thinking and abject stupidity is absolutely breathtaking in its complete naivety. Let me make this simple for you since you understand nothing, id Iran gets a nuke or nukes, it is game on.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The ayatollahs play chess.

            Obama plays basketball.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Daily inspections of ALL or only predesignated facilities??

            DEATH to fascist iran!

          • Jeffrey

            They are allowing inspections on new facilities regularly and we have already visited several that we had been denied access to for years. Without diplomacy, you would have NONE of that.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            If that makes you comfortable, let me ask for your help in processing some payments from my late client, a former highly placed official in the Nigerian government. All you have to do is send me your banking information and passwords, . . . .

          • Jeffrey

            Peace makes me comfortable. War makes me sick.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            For someone who wants to avoid war, you seem to be doing a lot to make sure that we are forced into one, and at a disadvantage.

          • truebearing

            If you’re not a fan of Obama and are a conservative, then why do you keep using leftist websites to buttress your ridiculous positions?

          • Veracious_one

            In addition, the IAEA is being granted greater access to Iran’s nuclear facilities

            no they’re not

            http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-talks-transparency-measures-with-iaea/

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Hard Liners? The ones who stone women to death over “family honor”, hang gays, force dress codes on women, slaughter minorities…

            DEATH to fascist iran!

          • Jeffrey

            Most Iranian citizens oppose their leadership. That’s why Rouhani was elected. They were ashamed of the approach of Ahmadinejad and how he made them look to other countries. And again, Saudi Arabia has far greater restrictions on their people, yet I don’t see any outrage toward them. Unfortunately, because Rouhani is already receiving some leniency from the Supreme Leader on engagement with the West, it is unlikely he will be able to bring about true domestic reforms in the near future.

          • A Z

            Most Iranian citizens oppose their leadership.

            Which is why we should have supported the Green Revolution in 2009, but Obama voted present.

          • Jeffrey

            You can certainly argue that. Although not minding our own business is also detrimental. It goes against the Constitution.

          • A Z

            The actor who played in Network or the one, who played Joe Dirt, should make a comedy film about you. They could call it “Troll Hard”.

          • defcon 4

            How do you know this? Why did the islamic revolution happen at all if most people were opposed to it? Why doesn’t Iran’s expatriate population ever criticise the persecution of the unbeliever and gays that is SOP in Iran today?

          • Jeffrey

            I have talked to many Iranians. I have read what many Iranians have said. The average Iranian citizens voted for Rouhani in hopes of change because he promised engagement. Most Iranians are not opposed to the U.S., they just don’t understand the actions of our government sometimes. The hardliners are a different story. I am not saying Iran is a great country by any means. They have many horrendous policies, as do a lot of our allies. We are allies with Saudi Arabia, where women can’t drive. And we used to be allies with Iran not all that long ago.

          • Drakken

            The only diplomacy the muslim understands is when a gun is pointed at their heads, anything else is appeasement and it always leads to war where the muslim is concerned.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            As I recall, the Cuban Missile Crisis ended when JFK sold his position that it was in the USSR’s interest not to remove the missiles rather than have the US attack Cuba, and if necessary, launch a nuclear war. For which JFK was roundly criticized at the time by people with views like yours.

          • truebearing

            Iran isn’t interested in diplomacy, you numbskull. Where did you get the idea that they were? They have used negotiations for ten years to buy time to build nukes. Successful diplomacy requires two, or more, entities that are negotiating in good faith. You can’t negotiate with Iran, or any other Muslim state because they believe it is not only allowed but required to lie to the infidel. The Soviet Union, and now the Russians, don’t live up to negotiated deals either. When did you fall off the turnip truck?

          • Jeffrey

            There is NO evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

            http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/05/where-the-real-iran-threat-lies/

          • truebearing

            Yes, there is real evidence, but nothing someone as delusional and dishonest as you would accept. When you see the mushroom clouds, you’ll desperately rifle through your idiotic ideology to find an explanation that can satisfy your need to be right. I hope it doubles as a cure for radiation sickness.

          • Jeffrey

            All intelligence agencies disagree. And it’s their opinion that I’ll be trusting. It’s funny how we are the only country in history to have ever actually used nuclear weapons. And unlike you, I am completely open to changing my mind if new evidence becomes available. I am not a close-minded person like you. Just out of curiosity, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR APPROACH TO IRAN??? I would love to know.

          • truebearing

            Davidson is a rabid anti-semite, and I suspect you are too, since you cited his drivel. Davidson is a leftist, anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-palestinian. He defends terrorists and accuses those defending themselves from terror as racists, or some other lie.

            I was right. You’re a Paul supporter, antisemitic to the core. Yammering about isolationism, living in a state of utter ideological delusion, and uninterested in the truth.

          • Jeffrey

            I proudly support the vision of a United States of America that minds it’s own business. Maybe one day you’ll realize how foolish your approach to international affairs is. But I doubt it, especially considering how facts seem to be completely irrelevant to everyone on here.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Your thoughts are as clear as your punctuation is accurate. Excuse me, is’ accurate.

          • Veracious_one

            Last spring, Rouhani gave a television interview explaining how he used his position as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator in 2003 to facilitate Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Rouhani boasted that they massively expanded uranium enrichment at Natanz, and constructed the nuclear reactor at Bushehr and the heavy water plant at Arak under the cover of the negotiations.

          • Veracious_one

            Otherwise, hardliners in Iran begin to push the argument that engagement is not beneficial at all (as they have) because the U.S. is in fact still adding sanctions.
            and Iran is still pursuing the use of nuclear weapons…

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Fool, the US was a target of imperial Japan for the same reasons that it targeted China, Philippines, Korea and other Pacific Ocean nations.

          • Jeffrey

            We were a target of Japan because we were militarily imposing sanctions on their country, preventing goods from reaching their shores. Why don’t you read the history my friend.

          • A Z

            Good God, you finally went there!

            What I wouldn’t give to see you parachute into Tiamen Square uttering those words and wearing sandwich boards stating those thoughts.

            You would have the same problems as the fictional New York City Police Department Lieutenant John McClane
            in the film “Die Hard with a Vengeance”

          • Jeffrey

            I simply stated that the sanction we placed on Japan made us a target. Our Constitution calls for a non-interventionist approach to foreign affairs, which at the time we followed quite well as country. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have involved ourselves in WWII, because we CERTAINLY should have. I also never said that I always disagree with sanctions. It’s the wars that came afterwards that were less justifiable, however, with Truman and containment leading to the U.S. constantly policing the world.

          • A Z

            Non-interventionism worked quite well prior to the War against Tripoli.

            I suppose you do not care how many merchant sailors are killed on the high seas or held hostage so long you get your stuff.

            Ever worked on a merchant ship? I have. All this piracy is not good. But I suppose you could talk a great deal.

            We’re you a Marine? Do you know what to the shores of Tripoli mean in the Marin Corps Hymn?

          • Jeffrey

            I know it’s old-fashioned to support the Constitution. All I’m saying is that when you involve yourself in policing the world, you will make new enemies. Heck, terrorists love it when we start wars overseas because they can get more funding, create new reasons to support their cause, get recruits, etc. Obviously, every example is different. We should be fighting piracy absolutely. That’s very cool that you got to work on a merchant ship.

          • A Z

            Now I know you are a plant.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Plant as in decoy, or plant as in vegetable?
            Either one fits.

          • A Z

            His English grammar is fine. When he protests about his positions being misrepresented or lampooned, his protestations somehow do not ring true. It is just off.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            So you vote for vegetable, then?

          • A Z

            Yes.

            Other people who had their toes stepped in rightly or wrongly protested differently. This just not seem real.

            I have gotten into fights with ziggy zoggy (a good guy) and he fought back different as have other people. Jeffrey is a 3 dollar bill.

          • Jeffrey

            Ya know what A Z, I don’t know why you and everyone else on this site are acting like such a bunch of a.s.s.holes. In America, we are allowed to have different opinions. I should be able to express mine. Calling other people names just because they disagree with you is VERY shallow. All I want is to pursue peace through diplomacy on this issue, why is that so offensive to you? I’m happy that I haven’t sunken down to the level of anyone else on this site as far as the insults go. You are truly intolerant of anyone with a difference. It’s disgraceful.

          • A Z

            You want to understand something about military strategy? Read the book courtship Rite. It gives one very crucial piece of military strategy and politics.

            It is not on any of the reading lists. but there you go.

          • Jeffrey

            A fictional book with political lecturing. Fantastic. Except that I hate books that try to shape your thoughts like that.

            “If you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

          • A Z

            I saw John Clutes’ criticism. None of the ideas brought up in the description of Geta or the plot introduction were what you should read.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtship_Rite

            Social Darwinism conflicts with Christian Heritage. Likewise I am not into polyamory nor think it is healthy.
            Nor is cannibalism the point. Look for it it is applicable here.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Do not dignify your ignorant prejudices and idees’ fixes by calling them opinions. Opinions require two commodoties that you seem to lack: accurate information and critical thought. Do not mistake these for mindless regurigation of cockamamie crackpot theories, mythology, misreading of history, willful ignorance and wishful thinking — commodities that you seem to have in abundance.

          • Veracious_one

            All I want is to pursue peace through diplomacy on this issue,
            That tactic has never worked with Muslims…

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Okay, I have killed enough brain cells for one day trying to communicate with that rutabaga. Time to do something more worthwhile.

          • truebearing

            Little Jeffy is a “Paultard,” ie an anacho-capitalist, that lives in an ideological delusion. The utopia he believes in is impossible, and not a utopia. It has never been implememted and never will be. Once he grows up, if that is even possible, he will come to realize what a fool he made of himself, but don’t hold your breath. Many Paultards were young leftists before they started worshipping Ron Paul. These are people who have to have a radical ideology and be “right,” even when nothing they believe makes any sense.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Non-interventionism was a necessity for a fledgling nation. The Monroe doctrine was not exactly non-interventionsim.

            Jeffrey’s mistake is thinking that mother’s milk is a great life-long diet just because it’s great nutrition for an infant.

          • Jeffrey
          • ahad haamoratsim

            What part of our constiton calls for a non-interventionist approach? Article I, which empowers the Congress to declare war? Article II, which empowers the president to conduct our relations with foreign nations? Or some hitherto unknown article?

          • Omar

            There is nothing in the Constitution that says that America has to take a “non-interventionist” foreign policy. Non-intervention was useful when the United States was a new country because we weren’t developed yet during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Today, however, is a different story. America is much more developed and advanced than it was 200 years ago. We have to have a larger role in this world. That is undeniable.

          • Jeffrey

            You have to understand the ideals of our Founding Fathers and how they perceived international entanglements, war, and how we should response to/treat other nations. That is crucial, but I can’t explain all of that here. You’ll have to do your own research, but it’s all there. I was speaking to what powers the POTUS is afforded in the Constitution, powers that have been violated since containment. Our country is supposed to only go to war with a declaration of war approved by Congress. We are supposed to go to war when necessary (i.e. WWII), fight them, win them, and get them over with. Not the endless military action we take now. There are a variety of different approaches to policing the world that you don’t seem to understand. If you ever have time, “The Power Problem” by Christopher Preble addresses your concerns in length. Essentially, we spend a TON of money policing the world, while Europe doesn’t spend anything on their military or otherwise contribute because they can just sit back and let us do all the work. Essentially, there can be a shared responsibility regarding international concerns, we don’t have to have the preeminent role that results in so many problems for our country. And our policies since containment have absolutely been to the detriment of our national security. Do me a favor and read the C.I.A. report as to why terrorist attacked us on 9/11. Also, read this article outlining the propaganda campaign that got us into Iraq. You have to understand the military industrial complex in this country, the need to always have an enemy for profit, and its sway over our politicians through money. There is a lot of war propaganda out there dramatizing threats, including Iran through the media in my opinion.

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-a-war-of-aggression-no-wmds-no-connection-to-al-qaeda/5327548

          • Omar

            Why don’t you stop posting links to Communist propaganda websites like GlobalResearch?

          • Notalibfool

            He’s just showing his true colors.

          • Omar

            Really? Saddam’s Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda? That’s not what I heard: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=24

          • Rob

            Saddam was undeniably against terrorists, though he was a pretty bad guy himself. Your link is a BAD joke if that’s what passes for “evidence” or a justification of invasion.

          • Omar

            Saddam was the only head of state who openly praised the 9/11 athe aftermath of the worst atrocity ever committed against civilians on US soil in American history. Saddam’s regime’s state-run paper ran a headline reading “America Burns!” Contrary to your radical left-wing propaganda, there was significant connections between Saddam Hussein and Islamist terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. Saddam promoted terrorism. That is undeniable, you f**k**g loon.

          • A Z

            So when Japan was eviscerating China, the U.S. was suppose to stand aside because emplacing an embargo would be considered an act of war and we must not do it.

            Try that line of argument in Korea, China and a few other places.

            If you do tell me, I want to have a camera and sell tickets.

            Some of our families are not white don’cha know.

          • Jeffrey

            NO. NO. NO. That is not what I said. I told you why we became a target, nothing more.

          • defcon 4

            There were no blockades of Japan fool, only an embargo. An economic embargo.

          • Jeffrey

            My mistake in wording. Apologies. I’m responding to these questions really fast.

          • Notalibfool

            Oh, so everything is our fault? Why are you such an America hater? Do you live in the US? If so, why don’t you try living elsewhere?

          • Jeffrey

            Well, I thought Americans had the right to constructively criticize the government. You know, freedom. I love America, I just don’t always love what our leadership decides to do.

          • Notalibfool

            No kidding, dim bulb, but you are just another blame America first moron. The truth doesn’t matter to you; all you wish for is to make our country out to be the bad guy.

            You really need to open up that mind of yours.

          • Jeffrey

            The truth is the truth, regardless of who YOU want to be the good guy.

          • Notalibfool

            Please look up truth in the dictionary.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            When Iran took over our emabassy and imprisoned our diplomats, was that an act of war? When they attacked our troops in Iraq? When they have committed acts of violence against the US here and abroad? Oh, I forgot, it’s unfair for the US to fight back, just like it’s unfair for Israel to fight back. Like Israel, the US is supposed to just smile and say “Thank you, another please!”

          • Jeffrey

            I have responded to the question of why Iran attacked our embassy in the first place MANY times. Read my previous posts.

          • Omar

            And your response is wrong, considering the fact that it is nothing but Communist propaganda.

          • Jeffrey

            Where do you get this stuff, seriously? I think you need some fresh air.

          • Drakken

            In case this interrupts your kumbaya and appeasement moment, you clearly do not know what the heck your talking about because it is as clear as day that everything you are advocating has never worked and will not work period! God save us from people like you doo gooders and your good intentions.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            And contrary to Jeffrey’s delusions, it didn’t work during the Cuban missile crisis, either.

          • Jeffrey

            It did. The military advisers of JFK were urging Kennedy to strike Cuba, he decided to talk instead. He was also called weak for doing so by people like you.

          • Drakken

            The Russian would never in a million years thought to put missiles in our backyard if Kennedy didn’t project weakness in the first place.

          • Jeffrey

            And for that root cause I’ll refer you to our history with Castro.

          • Drakken

            Let me guess? You voted for Obummer didn’t you?

          • Jeffrey

            Actually, I voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney in last two elections. I am only libertarian on foreign policy, like Ron Paul, who managed to acquire more support from military members than any other candidate.

          • Drakken

            Ron Paul like you are utterly naïve when it comes to foreign policy and you show your utter ignorance by espousing his non interventionist fortress American policies, it is the military not diplomacy that keeps trade flowing, you might want to read up on the Barbary muslims and what we had to do to open trade in the Med and it hasn’t changed since.

          • Jeffrey

            Do me a favor and read this entire article. It perfectly explains my position.

            http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul44.html

          • Drakken

            Holy effing Christ! If you buy into this complete stupidity it says it all really, I highly suggest you see the world for what it is, instead of what some idiot politician who has no clue on what he is talking about. Ron Paul’s utter stupidity flies in the face of 5,000 years of history, get a goddamn clue son.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            I did you a favor and read the article. It perfectly shows that your position is shallow, ahistoric, impractical, ignorant, unrealistic, and ignores entire provisions of the constitution, and is based on delusions of compassion and intellectual analysis.
            You’re welcome.

          • Jeffrey

            Ron Paul strictly adheres to the CONSTITUTION, something you should try to do as well. You apparently have no idea what powers the President is granted in the Constitution or under what circumstances we are supposed to go to war. The blind cannot see.

          • truebearing

            Typical Pault*rd. Arrogant, self-rigteous, and completely incapable of rational thought. You guys are all alike, and I have debated 20 of you buffoons at a time, and never once saw any of you defend your dogma worth a da*n.

          • Jeffrey

            I have been respectful to everyone on here through all the insults and no one has been respectful toward me. You warmongers are all alike as well.

          • Notalibfool

            So anyone who disagrees with your juvenile fantasies is a warmonger?

            And you think others here are close-minded, lol!

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Have you actually read the document? I tend to doubt it.
            The only way you could adhere to the constitution would be if you glued a copy to yourself.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            And how far would those talks have gotten if they were not coupled with a credible nuclear threat? “You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.” – attributed to Al Capone, a total monster but a relatively honest thug as compared with the leaders of Iran and their US apologists.

          • Jeffrey

            There was a credible nuclear threat on both sides, which is why the missiles were placed in Cuba to begin with – for deterrence (and for reasons relating to the Soviet Union’s alliance with Castro). That’s why there was an arms race, we got stronger and they had to get stronger in response. Neither side wanted the situation to escalate to nuclear war, but being politicians, they simply could not allow the other side to be seen as the clear winner. Both sides had pressures in their country that prevented them from just complying with the enemy. Eventually, the nukes were removed and Kennedy agreed to shut down a missile defense site so that both sides could sell the agreement as being a win in their respective countries. That is how diplomacy works.

            This article briefly explains it if you’re interested in the truth. Please read.

            http://www.salon.com/2012/10/13/cuban_missile_crisis_beliefs_endure_after_50_years/

            Or, if you’re into books and want to read about the letters exchanged, etc., this is a great read.

            Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis

          • truebearing

            If the truth is an insult, then you need to change, not redefine the truth.

            Once again, you comment on what the US did wrong, but ignore what was going on with Imperial Japan. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Jeffrey

            I was not having a discussion on the failings of Imperial Japan. I was explaining why we became a target of theirs. I know of their wrongdoing as well and strongly condemn their actions. WWII was very much a necessary war.

        • Drakken

          You are completely delusional and it is useful idiots on the left like you who are surprised that your wishful thinking didn’t work and never works. It is very apparent that you neither understand the situation nor know how to deal with the arabs and Iranians.

          • Jeffrey

            It has worked. Had we not talked during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it would have meant a nuclear attack as we now know.

          • Drakken

            You have made the fatal error of thinking that muslims can be negotiated with in the same way communists can. Uneffing believable and it is not working you bloody dumbazz. Your bloody thick as a stump. Keep up the wishful thinking. No possible way it can go wrong can it?

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Had we not backed up the talk during the Cuban Missile Crisis with a credible nuclear threat, the USSR would not have withdrawn them missiles. And as I recall, SANE and similar groups strongly criticized JFK for — as they saw it — needlessly taking the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. I’m betting that if you had been alive then, you would have been with the critics.
            Had JFK not seemed weak in earlier encounters with the USSR, Kruschev would never have thought he could get away with placing missiles in Cuba.
            Weakness does not avoid war. Weakness encourages aggression.

          • Drakken

            Well said! Bravo!

          • Jeffrey

            Why do you think he was strategically placing missiles in a country near our shores??? It was because we were a large nuclear threat ourselves that needed to be deterred. Your approach makes countries feel that they have to build up their military might even more

          • Drakken

            Quit being goddamn naïve, we made the Cuban Misslie crisis happen because Kennedy projected weakness, and listen very carefully there little leftist, this appeasement and feckless weakness being show to Iran will end in war, no mater how much you sing kumbaya.

          • Jeffrey

            It certainly will if you have your way.

          • Drakken

            You understand less than nothing son. Less peace studies, and more practical real world studying warfare will help you out.

          • Jeffrey

            My friend, I formulate my opinions based only on facts, not distortions.

          • Drakken

            Your facts are not facts, but feelings based on emotions and leftist propaganda that has no basis in reality. I gave you a reading list, I suggest you get to reading more and talking less until you actually know what your talking about.

          • Jeffrey

            I gave you a reading list as well, though I am quite sure you won’t read any of it. I read opinions from both sides of this issue. Why do you think I’m on this site?

          • Drakken

            Your leftist propaganda flies in the face of reality and real life experience which you clearly lack, go see some of the world and then come back and talk to me about it.

          • truebearing

            You don’t formulate any of your opinions, but your opinions are quite formulaic. You lap up the insane drivel from Ron Paul and anti-semitic websites, like those you’ve cited today, then regurgitate what they say, word for word. You are an intellectual midget, letting others do your thinking for you. Grow up.

          • Jeffrey

            You buy whatever war propaganda and dramatization is put out there. You are the fool. Sheep.

          • Notalibfool

            Lol!

          • Drakken

            War in the end is the arbitrator of all things great and small. History is filled with people like you, they are called mass graves.

          • truebearing

            The Cuban Missile crisis was ended because we threatened war, dim wit, not because we negotiated. Kruschev had already decided to remove the missiles before Kennedy “negotiated.” Everything Kennedy gave up in negotiations was unnecessary.

        • truebearing

          You are beyond naive, and what you believe is irrelevant. Your beliefs are based on an outcome that was shaped by ideological wishful thinking and fervent Ostrichism.

    • Drakken

      Listen very carefully for it would seem you kumbaya singers of the left don’t understand the real world, Iran will continue with their nuke program regardless of the stupidity coming out of the white house. The only thing the mullahs of Iran respect and understand is force, end of story. Those effing ragheads are laughing all the way to the bank at our feckless moron in the white house and here you cheering for a peace that does not exist.

      • Jeffrey

        And you undoubtedly supported the war in Iraq, just as you will support anything that politicians and the media put out there. It’s called war propaganda my friend. The military industrial complex has a tight grip on this country.

        • Drakken

          I support unrestricted warfare, period, nation building is stupidity, you silly do gooder leftards support your own demise and will bend over and take anything the 3rd world gives you in order not to hurt their feelings, I have zero use and sympathy for useless leftards like you, you bring about your own destruction out of a sense of we are all equal, when it is as clear as the nose on your face we aren’t. Military industrial complex indeed, keep up the leftist talking points.

          • Jeffrey

            Actually that was a talking point of Republican Dwight Eisenhower. He was a pretty famous military guy, as you might recall.

          • Drakken

            I do know to what you were referring too. Eisenhower was the perpetual politician, he was never impressive.

        • Omar

          And you undoubtedly supported Saddam’s Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, you lunatic. Fact-check.

          • Jeffrey

            WRONG AGAIN, my good friend.

          • Notalibfool

            I doubt Jeff was even born yet when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

          • Omar

            I wasn’t born yet when that event happened, but I did research to learn the truth about anti-Western dictatorships and the atrocities that they have inflicted on the world’s population.

          • Notalibfool

            Keep searching for the truth; I admire that. Don’t listen to the main stream media.

            The first major world event that I remember is when Khomeini seized power in Iran. Throughout the 1980s I often watched the news with my dad; there was almost daily coverage of the Iran-Iraq War. Despite being only a child I quickly came to understand how sick Iran’s ayatollahs really are.

    • truebearing

      Ah, what we have here is affectionately known as a “Paultard” giving us the full regurgitation of Paulian foreign policy stupidity and strategically redacted history, all in support of the magic, handy-dandy, one-size-fits-all, non-interventionist (ie isolationist) ideological recipe for libertarian utopia.

      First of all, diplomacy has been failing for years, throughout the entire Middle East. Furthermore, negotiating only works when both parties are doing so in good faith. That hardly desribes a country whose leaders lie like Obama and believe that bringing about a world war is the solution to everything.

      Hardliners? Khamenei is THE hardliner. He doesn’t have to sell anything to anyone. Are you laboring under the illusion that Iran’s people have a say in anything?

      Your position, boiled down to its essential absurdity, is that we should re-impose sanctions because iran will get mad at us and continue to build nukes. They will, and have been, anyway. Where have you been? Sanctions are meant to weaken Khamenei’s rule, and if we’d stuck with it, and helped the pro-democracy element in Iran, we might have been able to topple the regime most likely to trigger WWIII. Your “solution” can only expedite it.

      Obama is doing what you prescribe, so why is it that Iran has sent warships to patrol near the US? And why are iranian generals talking of destroying our navy, and country? Your theoretical position doesn’t hold together in reality, or anywhere else.

      Your regurgitation on why the Ayatollahs hate us is like reading a piece of Swiss cheese. you are apparently unaware that the Ayatollahs were our partners in that coup. They used us to get themselves into totalitarian power. Your knowledge of the history of Iran is from corrupt and incomplete sources. The reason is that what you have spewed is tailored to support Ron Paul’s insane views on history and foreign policy — views, I might add, that have never been tested or proven, thank God.

      Your lack of knowledge or insight on Iran’s politics and history is profound. You should be embarrassed, but I doubt you are. Try to remember one thing as you goose step along to your utopian tune: other ideologies don’t care what you or Ron Paul think. They have their own agendas, and in Iran’s case, manifest destiny. Democracy never had a chance in Iran without the Ayatollahs being defeated.

      • Jeffrey

        Ah yes, thank you for proving my point that we had sanctions on Iran just to encourage regime change, which of course is NOT THE POINT OF SANCTIONS. And yes, Khamenei probably wants the sanctions off, which IS the point of sanctions. The U.S. sails ships near Iran ALL the time, yet when Iran responds with their two absolutely pathetic ships crewed by 30 men, everyone goes ballistic. They have the right to sail in international waters. I don’t have the time to respond to every ignorant notion in you post, I’m sure you’ll find that everything has been covered in the comments below.

        • truebearing

          We had sanctions to weaken the regime and starve their nuclear ambitions, idiot. We were supposedly trying to stave off a nuclear Iran. Given that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel, many times, as well as the US, any sane individual would understand preventing Iran from acquiring nukes, even if it does mean regime change, which in this case is a good thing.

          You’re clearly too stupid to understand why Iran having nukes is an international disaster. First, there is their aggression towards israel. Then there is their desire to establish an Iranian caliphate throughout the Middle East. Then there is the nuclear arms race in the Middle East as a reaction to Iran’s acquiring of nukes. All of it sets the table for a nuclear exchange that could easily become WWIII.

          You missed the point completely on the Iranian ships and bellicose Iranian threats. if lifting the sanctions is such a great idea, why are they continuing to provoke conflict? Your moronic theory has already been refuted and you’re too dense to see it.

          The only thing covered in your monotonous repitition of the same stupidity is that you are a poorly informed follower of Ron Paul, or some other branch of libertarian foreign policy delusion. You think with your ideology instead of your brain, but in fairness, evidence suggests that you may have no recourse. Regardless, you are profoundly wrong on every point.

          • Drakken

            There it all is, in a complete nutshell, and he is too ignorant to get it, people like this is what gets us into bloodier messes than can be avoided, Chamberlain thinking and the historical reference is complete appropriate.

          • Jeffrey

            Haha, wow. From the people who believe that we can achieve peace by constantly starting wars.

          • Drakken

            Your cognitive dissonance and lack of critical thinking skills is stunning. When you wage war, make it absolute and make total, when they fear you, they respect you. Always remember my leftist pacifist, it is the Military that is the master over the diplomat, for the diplomat is subservient to the military.

          • Jeffrey

            The politician is the master over the military. When people hate you, they will be more likely to attack you. There is no need for critical thinking there. The greatest threats to our country right now are terrorists, not nations.

          • Drakken

            Well nations harbor, finance and train the jihadists and it doesn’t matter that they hate you, when they are dead, end of story.

          • Jeffrey

            You cut off one head with your approach, and two more take its place. This is what you fail to realize.

      • ahad haamoratsim

        In the immortal words of the ficitional ambassador Mollari “Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package, how efficient of you” [of Jeffrey, that is].
        You summed it up nicely by pointing to his utopianism. I guess that makes him a real nowhere man, living in his nowhere land.

    • Omar

      WE DID NOT INSTALL THE SHAH, YOU F**K**G MORON! HE WAS ALREADY IRAN’S LEADER! WHY DON’T YOU BLAME THE SOVIET UNION, COMMUNIST CHINA AND COMMUNIST CUBA FOR ALL THE COUPS THEY COMMITTED?! By the way, we had apologized for shooting down an Iranian airliner. The pilots refused to identify themselves and their aircraft despite multiple requests by the U.S. Armed Force unit.

      • Jeffrey

        “A military government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king), to effectively rule the country as an absolute monarch according to the constitution. He relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979. In August 2013 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out “under CIA direction” and “as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.”

        “The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran’s elected government included a share of Iran’s oil wealth.”

        “Washington continually supplied arms to the increasingly unpopular Shah and the CIA-trained SAVAK, his repressive secret police force; however by the 1979 revolution, his increasingly independent policies resulted in his effective abandonment by his American allies, hastening his downfall. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to anti-American sentiment in Iran and the Middle East. The 1979 revolution deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western absolute monarchy with the largely anti-Western authoritarian theocracy.”

        “The U.S. paid $61.8 million to the Iranian victims’ families. But America has never admitted responsibility or apologized. And Iran has not forgotten: Iranian state television aired a documentary on the 25th anniversary of the tragedy this summer. An official Iranian government Twitter account noted, “Our civilian plane was shot down by U.S. warship in Persian Gulf, killing all 300. They awarded its captain medal of honor.” (Two top officers on the Vincennes were later awarded medals, though not for the Iran Air incident).”

    • Omar

      Iran was on the path to becoming a Communist totalitarian dictatorship and a client-state of the Soviet Union and Communist China, you Stalinist/Maoist motherf**k*r. Why do you justify the Soviet/Cuban Communist-backed coup in Grenada? Grenada was on the path to democracy until the Communist empire intervened.

    • Omar

      Our “aid” to Saddam was minimal in comparison to the support that Islamist Iran received from your beloved Soviet Union, you piece of s**t motherf**k*r. Also, MOSSADEGH WAS NOT ELECTED PRIME MINISTER OF IRAN, YOU F**K**G IDIOT! HE WAS APPOINTED BY THE IRANIAN PARLIAMENT, AND THE SHAH (who was in power for 38 years-from 1941 to 1979-not 26 years, as you and you f**k**g left-wing friends keep parroting) APPROVED AND RATIFIED THE CHOICE! YOU ARE UPSET BECAUSE THE SHAH, THE IRANIAN PARLIAMENT AND PEOPLE DIDN’T WANT THEIR COUNTRY TO BECOME A COMMUNIST TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP CONTROLLED BY THE SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNIST CHINA! MOSSADEGH GOT INTO A POWER STRUGGLE WITH THE SHAH AND THE PARLIAMENT, DISSOLVED THE VERY PARLIAMENT WHICH APPOINTED HIM PRIME MINISTER, SUSPENDED CIVIL LIBERTIES AND JAILED, TORTURED AND EVEN KILLED POLITICAL OPPONENTS! THE ISLAMIST MULLAHS SUPPORTED AND WELCOMED OUSTING MOSSADEGH FROM POWER, YOU F**K**G LUNATIC! Learn from facts instead of repeating Stalinist/Maoist propaganda, you annoying motherf**k*r.

      • Jeffrey

        Haha, WOW. Believe whatever you want Omar. Scream it at the top of your lungs, and insult anyone who disagrees. It is clear that history is whatever you want it to be anyway. I don’t just ignore things that inconvenience my perspective, unlike you. And for the last time, I was in no way referencing when the SHAH took power in my argument. I was referring to how our meddling in a country eventually led to anti-Americanism that resulted in our embassy being attacked, nothing more. That is a historical FACT that no historian disagrees with. You again completely distort everything I say and the argument I was trying to make. Let’s just agree to disagree on this issue Omar. I’m not going to convince you of anything and you’re not going to convince me of anything. All I was trying to accomplish through my posts was to explain the conditions under which I believe a peace process can work. I was trying to also explain the Iranian perspective, which few people understand, NOT MY OWN OPINION. And I believe diplomacy is worth a shot with Iran. I just want what is in the best interests of the U.S. and Israel, as I’m sure you do. We just have radically different ways of achieving that mutual goal. In any case, you SHOULDN’T get so upset about simple differences in beliefs, it’s kinda sad how intolerant you are of anyone with a different opinion. Have a good one. I’m out.

        • Notalibfool

          Jeff, Iran’s current leadership cannot be reasoned with. They will hate America no matter what.

          In some ways they are just like you.

          • Rob

            Well, since Jeffrey is too nice, I’ll try to give you some perspective. You would do well to remember that the GOVERNMENT CREATED America idealism back when our country was still developing to persuade Americans that they were a special nation in God’s eyes, in order that the public look past the wrongdoings of our leadership on the world stage. The higher the level of patriotism, the more supportive citizens are of going to war. That whole line of thinking was CREATED by the government to increase support for wars they WANTED to start. It still exists today, Americans think that they are the best and can do absolutely no wrong no matter what. Your whole notion that someone cannot be critical of their government without hating America is DANGEROUS and PATHETICALLY stupid. BTW, the last country to be act this way like America was Nazi Germany, just FYI. You have been conditioned to be blind to the wrongdoing of America no matter what from birth. Welcome to America. And I haven’t read anything YET from Jeffrey that even suggests that he “hates” America. On the contrary, it seems that YOU hate America, because you don’t want different voices to be heard.

            Oscar Wilde said “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.”

            Albert Einstein said:

            “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.”

            “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”

        • Omar

          Your “opinion” is wrong, while my “opinion” is right. That’s the difference.

          • Jeffrey

            That’s your opinion.

          • hiernonymous

            Or would be, if you had your facts right. Mossadegh was very much elected. As you’ve had pointed out to you on many occasions, you are either unacquainted with the way in which most parliamentary democracies elect their leaders, or you choose to ignore the inconvenient. Mossadegh stood for election as a member of the Iranian parliament and won. The vast majority of parliamentary systems, including Iran’s at that time, then has the party with the plurality organized a government that accounts for a majority of the members, and submits that government to the head of state for approval. In other words, in a normal parliamentary democracy, the election for prime minister is the election for members of parliament; there is no second, separate election to decde which of the members will hold which responsibilities. To imply that Mossadegh was simply ‘appointed’ is to either purposely misrepresent the facts, which calls into question your integrity, or to offer strong opinions on a matter you don’t fully understand, which calls into question your competence.

            Neither suggests that your assurances that you are more ‘right’ are worth anything.

          • Omar

            You are wrong and stop following me.

          • hiernonymous

            I just explained why I’m not wrong. You responded with “you’re wrong.”

            If this is the level of disputation you think is adequate, and your professors are telling you differently, I now understand why you are so dissatisfied with your undergraduate experience. (Hint: it’s not really a right-left thing, Omar.)

            “…and stop following me.”

            Why should I honor a request from you?

          • Notalibfool

            Omar has forgotten more about this issue than you or little Jeffy will ever know.

            Go ahead and call me names now. :)

          • hiernonymous

            “Omar has forgotten more about this issue than you or little Jeffy will ever know.”

            I’m not sure how you imagine you know that, but let’s grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re correct (though Omar would have to have been a verrry busy little beaver indeed). I’m not interested in what Omar’s forgotten, I’m interested in what he actually knows, and right now that appears perfectly consistent with what one would expect of the eager and opinionated young undergrad he has already told us he is.

            “Go ahead and call me names now.”

            Why would I do that?

      • Rob

        FACT.

  • Jeffrey
    • truebearing

      More anti-semitism from our resident Paultard.

  • Napoleon

    “Iran, a nuclear terror state”. Iran isn’t a nuclear state.
    “…while sponsoring international terrorism abroad”. How can international terrorism not be abroad?
    Greenfield is off the rails.

    • A Z

      “Iran, a nuclear terror state”. Iran isn’t a nuclear state”

      Those statement are not mutually exclusive, when a state is on the cusp of producing enough fissile material for a bomb is secretive and is playing mental head games.

      They might already have built a bomb. They might be waiting to build several more and then test the design. It might be much safer than building one, testing it and be waiting several months to get the others built. It leaves open a window of vulnerability in the latter case.

      “…while sponsoring international terrorism abroad”

      International means abroad. But the grammar is correct colloquially speaking if not formally.

      For some reason your postname came up as blert when it first appeared. Very odd.

    • robert4

      Greenfield is a nuclear terrorist, or he isn’t. Apparently it’s not a distinction he considers important.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The prophet of satan called muhammed is a WMD terrorist.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      napolean dynomite, What do you think those centrifuges in underground factories are making? Cotton candy?

      You are a moron.

      DEATH to fascist iran!

    • truebearing

      Do you have some kind of complex, Napolean? You seem to want to ignore the topic of the article, which is the Left’s demented hypocrisy as regards their positions on Iran and Israel, and focus on critiquing Greefield. I don’t suppose that was an attempt to deflect or hijack the thread.

      Iran is a nuclear state. They have the nuclear material, the centrifuges, and assistance from at least two nuclear powers. They are no longer being opposed or limited by the US and the rest of the flaccid West. Iran’s status as a nuclear state is a fait accompli. How did you manage to miss that?

      As for your nitpicking…it is telling that you consider trivial matters equivalent to being “off the rails.” You seem to have an inflated sense of the importance of your trivial observations.

      • Napoleon

        who is Napolean?

        • truebearing

          Huh?

  • geobill

    Are we now comparing “freezing a nation’s assets” to “not buying DIY soda machines”?

    • ahad haamoratsim

      Are we now comparing trying to end the nuclear weapons program of a rogue state with a long history of supporting and waging terror attacks on other nations, and who has threatened to annihilate a US ally and UN member, to waging economic war aimed at ending the independent existance of a democratic nation that is home to plurality of the world’s Jewish population?

      • Jeffrey
        • Veracious_one

          One of those “specific Iranian viewpoints” was revealed Sunday by Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran’s military chief of staff. “The Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel,” he said in a speech to a defense gathering in Tehran. Firouzabadi further insisted that the world should recognize the dangers imposed by the Zionist regime of Israel, and reiterated the idea that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei considers defending Palestine a religious imperative.

          Earlier this year, Khamenei himself promised to “support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world” even as he flaunted his nation’s reputation for belligerence and anti-Semitism. “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off,” he said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February. “And it definitely will be cut off.”

          Iranian apologists have long insisted that remarks such as the ones made by Khamenei and/or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been misquoted, misunderstood, or mis-translated and that the Iranians have never actually called for Israel’s destruction. American Jewish Committee executive director David Harris puts the lie to that notion. “Iran’s military chief of staff has left no doubt what is the regime’s goal, and why, if further proof is needed, its nuclear program must be stopped…General Firouzabadi’s comments are a timely and sobering reminder of the stakes involved,” said Harris. “They should also put to rest, once and for all, the fanciful views of those remaining political leaders, diplomats, and journalists who contend that Iran is a ‘peaceful’ nation which has simply been ‘misunderstood’ by the global community.”

          No doubt they should, but the capacity for diplomatic self-delusion has a long and tattered track record, ranging from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 declaration that he had achieved “peace in our time” prior to the Nazi’s march through Europe and their extermination of six million Jews, up through the Agreed Framework of 1994, in which former president Bill Clinton and his North Korea negotiator, Jimmy Carter, convinced themselves the Hermit Kingdom had abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

          Thus, when Yukiya Amano has been quoted as as saying that his meeting with Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili heralded a “good atmosphere” for the Baghdad gathering on Wednesday, it must be measured against an INRA report that Jalili referred to Washington as “Hiroshima culprits” who continue to produce and stockpile nuclear weapons, and as such cannot lead the global nonproliferation campaign. Add a withering analysis by Mehdi Mohammadi, domestic political analyst and contributor to the newspaper group Kayhan, detailing why the West is negotiating from a position of weakness, and it seems clear that nothing substantive is likely to come from the latest round of diplomacy save one sobering reality: an apocalyptic regime led by men who believe it is their religious duty to usher in the second coming of the Hidden Imam will not be deterred from its “sacred” mission.

          It is a sacred mission which necessitates acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet for Western appeasers who, via the IAEA, have been negotiating with Iran for nine years, there is always room for another round of talks. It is a tragic irony they are incapable of holding the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, and other members of this despicable regime to account.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            No doubt Jeffy will tell you that Major General Hassan Firouzabadi is a Zionist neocon agent. Or that his remarks were really mistranslated, and that what he really said was “I’d like to sit down with the Israelis and buy them all a nice plate of chumus.”

          • Rob

            Israeli foreign policy, in a nutshell, aims at getting the Americans to pay the price for Tel Aviv’s aggression – against the Palestinians, against the Lebanese, against the Syrians, and most of all against the Iranians. The Israeli strategy has been to keep their own indigenous Arab population and neighboring Arab states in a state of pre-modernity so as to ensure the regional hegemony of the Jewish state. Yet Iran is a modern industrial nation with a long history of preeminence that reaches back to the Roman era, and its peoples are not going to be kept out of the developed world. The Israeli drive to deny Iran nuclear power is as much symbolic as it is military-minded, which is precisely what drives Tehran’s defiance. Iranian society is moving in the direction of liberality and openness: Israeli society, on the other hand, is moving in the opposite direction – toward a frenzy of nationalistic militarism that can only culminate in disaster, for Israel and the world. The key to stopping this rush to unreason is in Washington, where unconditional support for the Israelis – no matter what outrages they perpetrate, against the Palestinians or us – has enabled a real threat to grow until it overshadows whatever hope exists for peace in the Middle East. While Tel Aviv has gotten way out of hand, and the threat of an Israel-gone-rogue is very real, there is still time to rein them in. The stage has been set for jerking their chain by the paradigm shift in American public opinion, away from promiscuous interventionism and toward a more restrained exercise of American power. What’s needed now is American leadership with the will to put the Israelis in their place.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Keep them in a state of pre-modernity? Yes, that would certainly explain why Israel instituted free universal mandatory education (for both sexes), decreased their infant mortality rates, raised their life expectancy and literacy rates, as well as their standard of living, built universities for them, admits them to its own universities, trains them as doctors to serve with Jewish doctors in Israel’s hospitals, including the most elite, and as engineers, lawyers (including a supreme court justice), and every other profession.
            The fact that you can print such ignorant and defamatory drivel tells us all anyone needs to know, and allows us to dismiss the rest of your canned screed as well.

          • Rob

            Fool, I was talking about the other nations, not Israel. Can you read? Israel wants sanctions kept on Iran so that they remain weak. Their daily rhetoric has little to do with nuclear weapons. Netanyahu doesn’t care if the nuclear issue is resolved, he just wants to keep the sanctions on Iran.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            “Fool, I was talking about the other nations, not Israel. Can you read? ” I can read just fine. Do you read what you write? You said “Israeli strategy has been to keep their own indigenous Arab population and neighboring Arab states in a state of pre-modernity” and I showed that you are lying about Israel’s treatment of its own indigenous Arab population. Like I said, ignorant and defamatory drivel on your part.
            That’s at least two transparent lies I’ve caught you in. No need for this fool to waste further time or effort on a liar like you.

          • Rob

            I guess you can’t read. I was talking about their strategy regarding surrounding countries that they don’t want to get too powerful, not people in Israel. You’re hopeless.

          • Rob

            Yes, many Iranian hardliners oppose Iran because they feel that it is an ILLEGITIMATE REGIME and want it gone. They have said so many times. Now, does that mean they are going to attack Israel? That’s quite a different story. Translating Persian to English is highly difficult, so wording IS always an issue that should be considered. Sometimes what they say sounds more extreme than what they mean, because different words have to be substituted. Though it is perfectly clear that they hate Israel and want it gone. Again, no one denies that. But to suggest that they are going to attack them is a completely different story. And sure, I’m there are probably some hardliners in Iran who would like to do so. But who cares about their opinions? It’s all about what their leadership chooses to do.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            ” But to suggest that they are going to attack them is a completely different story.”
            Yes, its not as though Iran has been training, arming and funding Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah and aiding them in attacking Israel, is it?

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    DEATH to fascist iran!

    HANG the ayatollahs!

    LONG LIVE PERSIA!

  • EverettColdwell

    The whole premise of this article is ridicules. Why would the ‘left’ seek to boycott Iran, a nation that is already under harsh UN backed sanctions?

    • nopeacenow

      Iran is an enemy of the US. That makes them a friend of the Left. Any enemy of the US or Israel is and friend of the Left. That is the reason Obama is putting the screws to Israel. He is the Leftist President you all elected by the color of his skin rather than the content of his brain.

      • Omar

        Even though the president is mixed-race (half-black and half-white). In addition, he is not directly related to the historical African diaspora to the Western Hemisphere.

        • nopeacenow

          And…………….

  • Dr. Barbarelli

    Albert Einstein, who was a great humanitarian and peace activist in addition to being one of the greatest scientists of all time. In his landmark letter to the New York Times in 1948, Einstein clearly and candidly explained why the leaders of Israel were not to be trusted and did not deserve money or support from Americans, including American Jews who believe in equality and democracy for all human beings. You can see a scanned image of the Einstein Letter by clicking the hyperlink. The letter was written by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Sidney Hook and more than 20 other prominent Jewish intellectuals, to alert Americans and the larger world to the dangers represented by the emergence of racism, fascism, terrorism and religious fanaticism among the Zionist leadership of the newly-formed state of Israel. The letter accurately predicted some of the terrible results we see today. I have annotated the letter with [bracketed comments] to help readers understand how the “Einstein Letter” relates to the present situation.

    http://www.thehypertexts.com/Albert%20Einstein%201948%20Letter%20New%20York%20Times%20Nakba.htm.

    Read more: Israel Ambassador Ron Dermer Defends John Kerry Over “Boycott” Anger | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/10/bibis-brain-defends-john-kerry-over-israel-boycott-flap/#ixzz2syHnrmiw

    • Jeffrey

      The people on here probably think that they know better than Einstein. They likely won’t read you articles or otherwise consider anything you have to say.

      • truebearing

        You claim to be a conservative, espouse the views of a radical anarcho-capitalist, and provide links to leftist, anti-semitic websites. Why should anyone read your drivel? You can’t defend your own twisted beliefs.

        • Jeffrey

          I am a radical because I believe diplomacy should be given a chance? Whatever you say buddy.

          • nopeacenow

            Sure. Where it has a chance. Iran preaches war not peace. They call for the destruction of the US and Israel. You are better off to believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy than to believe you can make peace with Iran’s current regime.

          • Rob

            Diplomacy is not something that is utilized between best buddies you moron.

          • Omar

            Shut the f**k up, you piece of s**t. Learn from facts instead of repeating Communist/Islamist propaganda, you lowlife.

          • Rob

            Keep living in your fantasy land you P.O.S. Your sources are a bad joke and you distortion/ignorance of history is truly breathtaking. And do yourself a favor and look up the definition of Communism. Even your buddy above has no idea WTF you’re talking about.

          • Omar

            Communism means government control of everything. No private property. It is just like fascism. The only difference between the two is the nationalism-internationalism issue. You support both systems, you f**k**g lowlife. Fact-check.

          • Rob

            That’s a VERY poor definition of Communism. In any case, Communism is a far left-ideology while Fascism is a far-right ideology. Historically, the two sides hated each other. In any case, nothing I said was Communist. You just use the word Communist as a label for anyone who disagrees with your ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. In actuality, the fact that you won’t allow differing opinions means that you want to control everything. You want to distort history to suit your POOR perspective on things. You support suppressing other ideas. Fact-check. You are a FASCIST fool. THAT IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT.

          • Omar

            Shut up, you f**k**g turd. Fascism is a far left-wing ideology, just like Communism. The only difference between the two is the issue of nationalism vs. internationalism, you left-wing revisionist. Check these link to learn more on the similarities between the two: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=519, http://www.sovietstory.com/, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/01/25/revolutionary-holocaust-live-free-or-die/

    • ahad haamoratsim

      The fact that your website can mention Gaza and the Holocaust in the same breath says a lot.

    • truebearing

      Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not someone who was on the ground, fighting for the survival of the nascent state of Israel.

      I’m not an expert in the history of the region, but from what I have read, the Jews who had survived the holocaust were in full-blown survival mode and not about to be eliminated without a fight. The territory they were given by the UN, and additionally purchased from Arabs living in what the Romans called Palestine, was disputed almost immediately by Arabs who were angry over being denied a promised Pan-Arab state, and who then attacked the Israeli settlers. Many of the Arabs opposing Israel were also Nazified Muslims. Were the Israelis settlers supposed to let themselves be killed?

      The situation was far different than the picture you want to portray, and I don’t recall Einstein addressing the realities on the ground. He stayed entirely in the realm of idealism and the theoretical. This is the same earth and the same human race that has fought forever, and will continue to, theories or not. Einstein’s dream of peaceful coexistence is only possible when both sides want peace. The so-called Palestinians have NEVER wanted peaceful coexistence. They have never wanted Israel to exist, period.

      • Rob

        Israeli foreign policy, in a nutshell, aims at getting the Americans to pay the price for Tel Aviv’s aggression – against the Palestinians, against the Lebanese, against the Syrians, and most of all against the Iranians. The Israeli strategy has been to keep their own indigenous Arab population and neighboring Arab states in a state of pre-modernity so as to ensure the regional hegemony of the Jewish state. Yet Iran is a modern industrial nation with a long history of preeminence that reaches back to the Roman era, and its peoples are not going to be kept out of the developed world. The Israeli drive to deny Iran nuclear power is as much symbolic as it is military-minded, which is precisely what drives Tehran’s defiance. Iranian society is moving in the direction of liberality and openness: Israeli society, on the other hand, is moving in the opposite direction – toward a frenzy of nationalistic militarism that can only culminate in disaster, for Israel and the world. The key to stopping this rush to unreason is in Washington, where unconditional support for the Israelis – no matter what outrages they perpetrate, against the Palestinians or us – has enabled a real threat to grow until it overshadows whatever hope exists for peace in the Middle East. While Tel Aviv has gotten way out of hand, and the threat of an Israel-gone-rogue is very real, there is still time to rein them in. The stage has been set for jerking their chain by the paradigm shift in American public opinion, away from promiscuous interventionism and toward a more restrained exercise of American power. What’s needed now is American leadership with the will to put the Israelis in their place.

        • ahad haamoratsim

          “Life expectancy for Israeli Jews is 82.3 years. For Israeli-Arabs it is lower—78.8—but this is still higher than the average American and, according to UN statistics, ten years longer than Arabs living in Arab states. Moreover, it is higher than any individual Arab country except Lebanon. Another primary measure of public health is infant mortality. A report written by Ali Haider, Yaser Awad, and Manar Mahmoud for the Israeli advocacy organization Sikkuy—the Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality—notes “a large gap in the infant mortality between Jews and Arabs: 3.2 vs. 8.0 per thousand live births, respectively.” However, Sikkuy also reports that the figure for Arabs is elevated by conditions in the Bedouin community, and “the main reason for infant mortality among the Negev Bedouin is birth defects and hereditary diseases.” Other data shows that Israeli-Arabs are far less likely than Jews to undergo prenatal testing, and are thus less likely to abort abnormal fetuses, which are at higher risk of infant death. More importantly, whatever explains the disparity between Israeli Jews and Arabs, both are comparatively low numbers. The eight-per-thousand deaths suffered by Israeli-Arab newborns is less than half the global median of around 17 deaths per thousand and not much worse than the US, where the number is between 6 and 7.

          Education is another area in which Jewish Israelis show statistical advantages over their Arab countrymen. But again the differences are not large. Classroom size is perhaps the greatest and least excusable disparity. The average elementary school class has 24.6 students in Jewish areas, 29 in Arab areas. For high schools, the numbers are 27.6 versus 30.5. There are also disparities in educational achievement. The median number of years of schooling completed is 12.7 for Jews versus 11.1 for Arabs.

          Yet this differential pales in comparison to that between Jews and non-Jews in the United States. According to the 2008 Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, the average American Jew has a college degree and some postgraduate study. Other Americans average 12 years of schooling or a bit less. Thus, American Jews have roughly 40 percent more education than non-Jews. In Israel, however, Jews have only 14 percent more education than Arabs, who themselves average more education than the populace of any Arab country.

          A half century ago, moreover, Arabs throughout the Middle East had little education. Gains have been recorded everywhere, but those in Israel are especially impressive. According to a report by Yosef Jabareen for the Israel Democracy Institute, “between 1961 and 2007, the average number of years of schooling [for Israeli Arabs] rose from 1.2 to 11.3, which signifies a more than nine fold increase.”

          It seems, then, that the most remarkable fact about the educational gap between Israeli Jews and Arabs is the astonishing rate at which it has diminished and how narrow it has become as a result.”

          http://www.thetower.org/article/why-the-left-should-stop-carping-and-love-the-jewish-state-again/

          • Rob

            You didn’t write much of anything with relevance to my comment, the strategy of Israel toward other nations in the region (i.e. trying to keep them weak) was the matter at hand. If anything, your comment supports my point.

          • Omar

            Lowlife, who pays you to troll on websites? Is it Islamist Iran or Communist Cuba? Maybes, its both, considering the fact that you are a Communist/Islamist agent at the service of both of those regimes. Fact-check.

          • Rob

            You love FASCISM. Fact-check

          • Omar

            No. You love fascism, you loon. Fact-check.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            Rob, do you think we can’t read? You started your lies by saying that “The Israeli strategy has been to keep their own indigenous Arab population [and neighboring Arab states] in a state of pre-modernity.” (I have added the brackets.) The non-bracketed part is a lie, and an obvious one. There is no reason to waste further time on you.

        • Omar

          Shut the f**k up, you Communist lowlife. Israel has promoted peace and tolerance with its neighbors. All of Israel’s citizens and other residents are treated equally under the law. Arabs living in Israel have more rights and liberties as Israeli citizens than people living in other countries in the Middle East. That is undeniable. There would be peace if the Islamists weren’t consumed with hate towards anyone who is not like them. How about the fact that “Palestine” is an artificial invention? How about the fact thatPalestine is a geographic region and not a nation nor ethnicity. Jews are the indigenous people of the Holy Land. They have lived there continuously for over 3000 years. The Romans conquered the Holy Land region in 66 AD, almost 600 years before the rise of Islam and when the Arabs started moving into the area. Palestine is not even an Arabic name. Palestine is a Latin name meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors who had red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). Because there is no “p” sound in the Arabic language, “Palestine” became “Falastin”, a word which has no real meaning in Arabic. The so-called “Palestinians” are an invented people. The Soviet Union created the so-called “nationality” during the 1960s in order to discredit Israel’s historic right to exist. Contrary to what you claim, Israel wants peace, while your beloved Islamist Iran is a military theocracy. You are simply a Communist/Islamist jihadist monkey-f**k who repeats Communist/Islamist propaganda. Learn from fact, you Communist/Islamist motherf**k*r.

          • ahad haamoratsim

            He may be a Jew-hater, is definitely an Israel-hating liar, and covers for genocidists and jihadists. What makes you think he is communist, though?

    • Name

      Iran is an illegal terrorist state and needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

  • Dr. Barbarelli

    Israeli foreign policy, in a nutshell, aims at getting the Americans to pay the price for Tel Aviv’s aggression – against the Palestinians, against the Lebanese, against the Syrians, and most of all against the Iranians. The Israeli strategy has been to keep their own indigenous Arab population and neighboring Arab states in a state of pre-modernity so as to ensure the regional hegemony of the Jewish state. Yet Iran is a modern industrial nation with a long history of preeminence that reaches back to the Roman era, and its peoples are not going to be kept out of the developed world. The Israeli drive to deny Iran nuclear power is as much symbolic as it is military-minded, which is precisely what drives Tehran’s defiance. Iranian society is moving in the direction of liberality and openness: Israeli society, on the other hand, is moving in the opposite direction – toward a frenzy of nationalistic militarism that can only culminate in disaster, for Israel and the world. The key to stopping this rush to unreason is in Washington, where unconditional support for the Israelis – no matter what outrages they perpetrate, against the Palestinians or us – has enabled a real threat to grow until it overshadows whatever hope exists for peace in the Middle East. While Tel Aviv has gotten way out of hand, and the threat of an Israel-gone-rogue is very real, there is still time to rein them in. The stage has been set for jerking their chain by the paradigm shift in American public opinion, away from promiscuous interventionism and toward a more restrained exercise of American power. What’s needed now is American leadership with the will to put the Israelis in their place