Rick Santorum’s Plan For Iran: With Our Help, Bus Drivers Could Topple The Government
Rick Santorum’s Plan For Iran: With Our Help, Bus Drivers Could Topple The Government
This morning on MSNBC, outgoing Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) unveiled his plan to “confront” Iran. Santorum said that the United States should have supported a bus driver strike that occurred a few weeks ago. According to Santorum, “We should have quietly gone in there and given them a whole boat-load of money so they could sustain the strike and continue to cause unrest within Iran to try to topple the government.” Watch it:
Transcript:
IMUS: What do we do, then, when you say confront them — Iran?
SANTORUM: Well, I’ve (inaudible) forward a whole bunch of different thing. For example, there was a bus driver strike a few weeks ago in Iran. We did nothing to support it; we should have. We should have quietly gone in there and given them a whole boat-load of money so they could sustain the strike and continue to cause unrest within Iran to try to topple the government. And we did nothing to support that strike.
And as a result, they crushed the strike and another labor movement, which of course, as you know, like in Poland and other countries, was the key to the overthrow of the government because it’s an organization that is based in democracy to try to topple these types of regimes that we see in Iran and we didn’t do anything. That’s one example.
But there are a host of examples of what we could be doing to be much more engaged and involved in Iran, but the State Department — a lot of folks don’t want us to do it because we don’t want to antagonize Iran. While Iran is killing our people in Iraq right now, I just think it’s foolish.
IMUS: We’re talking with Senator Rick Santorum.
By the way, I was just thinking as you were talking — because I wasn’t listening…
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
82 Responses to “Rick Santorum’s Plan For Iran: With Our Help, Bus Drivers Could Topple The Government”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I can't believe that we failed to return a brilliant mind like this to the Congress.
Oh well, I am sure that little Ricky will get a job writing comedy for Steven Colbert or reporting news for FoxSnooze -- those are two interchangeable career paths for him.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:26 amYes Rick I am so sure that the bus driver's union in Iran would gladly accept money from the satanic US government. I am sure they would think that it would help their cause in the eyes of the people.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:29 amThis is just another example of his hairbrained way of "thinking". It is good that he is gone.
By the way, why is anybody even asking him what he thinks? Shouldn't those questions now be addressed to Bob Casey?
December 11th, 2006 at 10:34 amBy the way, I was just thinking as you were talking — because I wasn’t listening…
Actually, it was Imus who said that and it's hilarious! I am with him. Why listen to anything little Ricky has to say? He is a total moron on a par with GDumbya. Neither of them really has anything intelligent (or intelligible) to say...ever.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:37 amRicky really shouldn't unveil these plans on national television. These kind of gems would kill at The Laugh Factory.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:39 amThis is incredible.
A Senator airs his plan to destabilize a sovereign government and the interviewer says nothing. Imagine a chinese government member airs his intention to destabilize the US.
Rick, thats why people hate US. Not because your ideas of intervention in another country´s internal affairs (thats the usual US standard) arent true, but due to your open cynism and the complete acceptance of the media and US citizens.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:40 am"...We should have quietly gone in there ..."
cause no one would have noticed...
December 11th, 2006 at 10:43 amWith the Guiness brothers' accent, "BRILLIANT!!!"
D'oh! Why didn't I think of that?
December 11th, 2006 at 10:48 amThe recent parting statments by the cadre of republican braindead is astounding. Sanitorium, Rumsfeld, Frist, ...... woww.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:49 amAnd don't come back!
Oh well, I am sure that little Ricky will get a job writing comedy for Steven Colbert
Comment by Tom — December 11, 2006 @ 10:26 am
He could do a great job as long as he believes he is writing serious commentary, not comedy.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:49 amJuan C Sez:
Unfortunately, not at all surprising, considering that the interviewer was Imus, avowed neocon mouthpiece.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:53 amI forget. Why do we want to overthrow Iran? Is it a religious thing?
December 11th, 2006 at 10:53 amBus drivers?
I've got a MUCH better idea.
How about air traffic controllers?
Oh, wait . . .
December 11th, 2006 at 10:54 amGDumbya is really upset that little Ricky spilled the beans about his plan to disrupt Iran. Ricky's revelation was as bad as when the NYT reported on the U.S. listening in on bin Laden's satellite phone conversations.
Loose lips in Washington -- it's a real security problem!
December 11th, 2006 at 10:55 amBus drivers?
I've got a MUCH better idea.
How about air traffic controllers?
Oh, wait . . .
December 11th, 2006 at 10:56 amWhy doesn't the trickster just go drive a bus in Iran?
December 11th, 2006 at 10:56 amThat way he could singlehandedly topple the Iranian government and have his dog help him.
don't they have laws where he lives about "likely to cause harm to self or others"?
2006: the great bus drivers with cash revolution, we will remember it
if the opponent doesn't like us, give them money. It has worked so well in iraq. maybe rick has some kickbacks to protect?
note, he has publicly stated he believes in bribery. where are the feds?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:01 amHmm. So Santorum thinks that a labor strike can overthrow a government. That might explain a lot.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:07 amumm, does rick have one of those tom delay blogs?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:12 amThe U.S. is the reason the world is so unstable ... this is another prime example.
If the U.S. and England didn't exist what a peaceful place the world would be.
Forever sticking their noses in other country's business, threatening to attack or implement sanctions (starve out the country) if you don't see things the way they want you to.
What gives the USA the right to decide for sovereign nations what their lives should be like? ... what type of government they have or religious beliefs.
How about the USA minding their own freakin business?
We will get pummeled eventually - all corrupt empires do ... but unlike some others - we will have deserved it.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:18 amYa, and when the bus mechanics go on strike...then we send them money too...that is how we topple the Iranian regime....using transportaion methods...this guy is a super genuis.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:19 amStop Ricky, you're killing me here.....my sides are splitting....keep talking...
That is so goddamned stupid...
Do you think his wife waves goodbye to him in the morning, cringing and wondering what the hell he's going to say next?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:21 amI think the new website recently launched by Tom Delay' is in need for such brain, Santorum will be indeed hugged and welcomed by Tommy to help him in his cause and his new 'blogger' website,and to bring super ideas like the' bus drivers option' to topple Iranian regime.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:30 amI thought we gave this clown bus fare out of D.C. on 11/7.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:35 am#27....
December 11th, 2006 at 11:37 amI WOULD LIKE, IF I may, to take you on a strange journey...........
DOo DOo DOo DOo,
DOo DoO DOO doo
Raven & dlet -- Great minds. Spooky....
December 11th, 2006 at 11:41 amI thought we gave this clown bus fare out of D.C. on 11/7.
Comment by Bingo!
He gets to keep flapping his yap until Casey is sworn in -- and I hope he does! Priceless...
December 11th, 2006 at 11:42 amSantorum just wants to go home and spend more time with his dog.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:48 amhey, rick, if you need a job, i think you get one as a bus-driver in jerusalem...no really...they have a great health plan and for the most part, most of the bus drivers in jerusalem have their job until they die they like it so much!!!
please let us know, i know a guy that knows a guy that can get you right in!
December 11th, 2006 at 11:48 amHey, they just said they were the party of ideas. They never said good ideas. Never seem to have any either.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:58 amGreat idea, brainiac. Let's give lots of money and maybe even provide intelligence and weapons to groups in Iran. Then, instead of being treated like legitimate labor protests by their government, they can be tracked down and shown to be U.S.-sponsored terrorists. That way we can shake off the last few friendly nations in the world who still cling naively to the notion that we're somehow trying to bring peace to the Middle East.
I never realized Rick Santorum was pro-labor union. I guess if the unions are in another country and can be made into useful stooges for the U.S., they're not so bad.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:02 pmAh, yes, the "republican" solution to everything: "Lets go in quietly with a boatload of money......"
December 11th, 2006 at 12:15 pmAnd, oh, Ricky S., go read some (relatively recent) history of Iran, and find out what group the CIA gave some money to that helped overthrow a democratically elected government and install the Shah Palavi...
Hint: You might find this group of individuals somewhat exciting.......
Guys, I don't get it, don't you really want people in Iran to be free? It could be argued that what Santorum proposed was not effective, but don't you really want people in Iran to throw away the tyrant?
December 11th, 2006 at 12:19 pmBecause it looks like you don't.
Rick Santorum: Let's Topple Iran With a Bus Driver Strike!...
Just another reason why we should all be thankful that Rick is an outgoing Senator......
December 11th, 2006 at 12:25 pmApparently Santorum. feeling inadequate, is attempting to elevate his new position as a bus driver after having been defeated Nov 7th.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:25 pmWhat, no Eye of Mordor?
December 11th, 2006 at 12:42 pmWhy not pay a few Iranian teenagers to let the air out of the tires of the buses?
December 11th, 2006 at 12:42 pm...
Has Hell frozen over?? Did a Republican actuall;y support a Union bus driver strike?!?
December 11th, 2006 at 12:47 pmYea,
Lets interfere in another country's internal affairs and create another
Democracycivil war.Onward Christian Soldiers, blah blah blah blah blah, with the Cross of Jebus, blah blah blah blah blah.....
December 11th, 2006 at 12:57 pm#33 Nikolay
Guys, I don’t get it, don’t you really want people in Iran to be free? It could be argued that what Santorum proposed was not effective, but don’t you really want people in Iran to throw away the tyrant?
Because it looks like you don’t.
If the Iranian people want to overthrow their government, that's their concern. I don't want the U.S. to be trying to overthrow Iran's president. I would like to see the U.S. overthrow its own president. But, I don't want to see another country sending in any kind of assistance towards getting that done. That's our job. We need to take care of it ourselves. Regime change begins at home.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:04 pmGuys, I don’t get it, don’t you really want people in Iran to be free?
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
Iranians deserve to be free. That includes free of foreign intervention in their domestic affairs. As someone mentioned already, it is up to them to take their destiny in their own hands. Iran is a sovereign nation after all.
On the other hand, you either are a very slow learner or you have an incredibly short attention span: Look at how the latest regime change operation -courtesy of the US- is going in Iraq.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:15 pm>Regime change begins at home.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:19 pmSure it does. But what's wrong with supporting dissent (that's already widely present there) in Iran, as long as you're not counterproductive? Everybody does this, didn't France support your own revolution?
If the Iranian people want to be free they can do what our forefathers did. Get in some boats, sail across the ocean, "discover" some country, kill all the natives, and live happily ever after.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pmOn the other hand, you either are a very slow learner or you have an incredibly short attention span: Look at how the latest regime change operation -courtesy of the US- is going in Iraq.Well, so what? Iran is totally different. Most of the Iraq's opposition consisted of Islamic militants -- actually, supported by Iran. In Iran it's all secular.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pmIraq's lesson -- military occupation is not a good way to achieve regime change. Hence it should be done otherwise.
You know, I live in Russia, which is quite bad now, but anyone who would say that we were better off with Communism and that helping us (or Europeans) get rid of the tyranny was a bad idea is just evil.
The current power structure, (courtesy of the Iranian Revolution in the 70's), in Iran is a direct result of the CIA having helped a right wing militaristic, exploitative regime (and a monarchy to boot!) overthrow a democratically elected government.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pmPeople in the middle east have very long memories, and they remember very clearly the repressive regime of the Shah, and his position as a puppet monarch for the U.S. oil companies.
#42 Nikolay
didn't France support your own revolution?
Yes, they did. And we had help from Prussia, too. The British had Hessian mercenaries on their side. And in the Civil War, the British were helping the South. It cuts both ways. We "helped" the Philippines overthrow Spanish rule, and then we spent the next four years slaughtering Filipinos.
Historical precedent doesn't justify us butting in. We wouldn't tolerate another nation giving assistance to dissidents in our country. Why should we think it would be any more acceptable somewhere else?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmOn the other hand, you either are a very slow learner or you have an incredibly short attention span: Look at how the latest regime change operation -courtesy of the US- is going in Iraq.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:42 pmThe lesson is -- military occupation is not a good way to achieve regime change. Hence, other methods should be tried. That said, Iran is totally different from Iraq, they have secular opposition with a long history of struggle. (In fact, 1979 revolution was not so much Islamic, it was just claimed by mullahs).
You know, I live in Russia, which is pretty bad now, but anyone who would claim that we were better off with Communism and that helping us (and other European countries) get free was a bad idea is just plain evil.
There are countless examples all over the world of regime changes from inside that went pretty well, so I don't see what's the problem.
Well, so what? Iran is totally different. Most of the Iraq’s opposition consisted of Islamic militants — actually, supported by Iran. In Iran it’s all secular.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
I guess it is a little difficult for you to learn from your mistakes. It doesn't matter if the opposition is Islamic or secular; what makes you think a secular opposition would like to see the US meddling in their internal affairs anymore than a religious group would?
Iraq’s lesson — military occupation is not a good way to achieve regime change. Hence it should be done otherwise.
Iraq's lesson: Do not interfere in another country's internal affairs. Let's not forget that invading a country with the purpose of regime change is contrary to international law.
You know, I live in Russia, which is quite bad now, but anyone who would say that we were better off with Communism and that helping us (or Europeans) get rid of the tyranny was a bad idea is just evil.
Do you really think the US imposes regime change on other countries out of the goodness of their heart? Really? You are exceedingly naive if you think so.
Plus, the Soviet Union didn't suffer an invasion to help a regime change, and last I checked the US was not openly engaged in helping opposition groups, whether financially or otherwise. It was a transformation that came from within, not imposed from the outside.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:49 pmThere are countless examples all over the world of regime changes from inside that went pretty well, so I don’t see what’s the problem.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
The problem is that changes should come from within. What Santorum is advocating is interference in another country's internal affairs -that is not a change from within anymore, but one buttressed (or even imposed) from outside. That is also contrary to international law.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:53 pmPeople in the middle east have very long memories, and they remember very clearly the repressive regime of the Shah, and his position as a puppet monarch for the U.S. oil companies.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:54 pmPeople have long memories, but they are not crazy. The students day, December 7, is marking the memory of their protests against Nixon in 1953. Nevertheless, this year 4.000 students took it to the streets in Tehran in protest against Ahmadinejad.
They were against American oppression, they are against religious oppression, which is many times worse, now. Do you really believe that Iranian students are so petty as to remember US misdeeds in the face of the system that kills them, suppresses their free speech, humiliates them etc.?
Your complaints against Bush are worth nothing if you won't show solidarity to your fellow students standing up to the really bad tyrant and risking their lives for their freedom.
Do you really believe that Iranian students are so petty as to remember US misdeeds in the face of the system that kills them, suppresses their free speech, humiliates them etc.?
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Do yo really think Iranians are so stupid as to not remember that the US propped up, supported financially, militarily, and politically, a regime that tortured, killed, dissapeared dissenters, that suppressed tfreedom of speech, and that humiliated their elders?
They might not like their current situation, but getting "help" from the US is to go back to the times of the Shah's rule.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:01 pmPlus, the Soviet Union didn’t suffer an invasion to help a regime change, and last I checked the US was not openly engaged in helping opposition groups, whether financially or otherwise. It was a transformation that came from within, not imposed from the outside.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:02 pmCan you read? I said, the lesson is: regime change should not be imposed from outside.
Of course, US was engaged in helping opposition groups all over Europe, didn't you know? One of the biggest contributors was George Soros. Are you one of the "George Soros is the root of all evil" crowd?
What Santorum said is probably stupid, but he didn't call for _open_ engagement in help for opposition.
They might not like their current situation, but getting “help†from the US is to go back to the times of the Shah’s rule.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:09 pmThis is just insane. This is like saying that Jews wouldn't want to be saved from Holocaust by English in protest to the Britain's largely anti-Jewish politics in Palestine in 20ies.
Can you read? I said, the lesson is: regime change should not be imposed from outside.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
It seems you cannot read your own drivel. You said: "military occupation is not a good way to achieve regime change. Hence it should be done otherwise."
"Otherwise". That leaves the door open to change from the outside, short of military action.
Of course, US was engaged in helping opposition groups all over Europe, didn’t you know?
I specifically mentioned the Soviet Union, and said "US was not openly engaged in helping opposition groups", like Santorum is advocating for Iran.
One of the biggest contributors was George Soros. Are you one of the “George Soros is the root of all evil†crowd?
This one makes no sense. I oppose the US meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. I don't care who pitches in.
What Santorum said is probably stupid, but he didn’t call for _open_ engagement in help for opposition.
If advocating it during a televised interview on a national network does not qualify as "openly", I don't what does.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:10 pmThis is just insane.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
Not at all. Gotta love the way people build their own strawman. You are comparing pears and apples. Is the Iranian government actively targetting a minority for extermination? Are Iranians clamoring to be "saved" by the US?
What you are saying is that Iranians will believe the US has now Iran's best interest at heart, and believe help will come with no strings attached. Certainly it won't be about the oil. Now that's insane.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:23 pmThe other side of the point I raised about memory length within the culture of the Middle East, is the appallingly short memory of the average American citizen.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:24 pmI specifically mentioned the Soviet Union, and said “US was not openly engaged in helping opposition groupsâ€, like Santorum is advocating for Iran.
Santorum said: "We should have quietly gone in there". This might sound unrealistic, but it's not a call for openly engaging in helping opposition.
This one makes no sense. I oppose the US meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. I don’t care who pitches in.
So I take it, you'd want me to live under Communism. Great. Thanks.
What's your next great idea? "US should not be engaged in covert intelligence operations?" "US should not take political refugees from other countries, since this also constitutes meddling in other's affairs"? "US should disband all its military units and police"?
If advocating it during a televised interview on a national network does not qualify as “openlyâ€, I don’t what does.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:28 pmNo, it doesn't. It is open advocating of secret operations. Can't imagine such thing?
Not at all. Gotta love the way people build their own strawman. You are comparing pears and apples. Is the Iranian government actively targetting a minority for extermination? Are Iranians clamoring to be “saved†by the US?
What you are saying is that Iranians will believe the US has now Iran’s best interest at heart, and believe help will come with no strings attached. Certainly it won’t be about the oil. Now that’s insane.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pmI'm saying that living in Iran under mullah's rule is many times worse than living under Communism in Soviet times. If you don't understand this, you don't understand anything.
I'm saying that Iranians would gladly accept anyone's help in fighting the tyranny.
I'm saying that sane Iranians would not expect America to repeat mistakes of Shah, just as they wouldn't expect America to bring slavery from 19th century.
So I take it, you’d want me to live under Communism. Great. Thanks.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
Are you usually this disjointed, or are you making a special effort today?
Your list of "options" is a collection of suppositions and strawman arguments, not worth replying to.
No, it doesn’t. It is open advocating of secret operations. Can’t imagine such thing?
This one is too easy. If it is open, it is not a secret. Duh.
I’m saying that sane Iranians would not expect America to repeat mistakes of Shah,
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
It seems it is you who has a hard time with reality. American support for the Shah was no "mistake". It was a very well though-out piece of foreign policy, like the support for Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, and Pinochet in Chile. All done in the name of America's strategic interests.
You may want to mull on that fact before replying.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:43 pmI think Rick had a good idea. I guess the think.org people forgot to think about the fact that Iran government is doing what it can to get the lunatic in power out. They do not care for him and the government is not so stabile. Of course the left and the media (is there a difference?) want to hide that fact in hopes that as long as the current Iranian regime is in power the shites will still be receiving Iranian arms and supplies. And Saudi will do the same for the Sunni. This should enable the sectarian violence to carry on so that hopefully (in the leftist mind) some more American troops can get killed in the crossfire.
Another obvious indicator that the War against the Iraqi regime was over when the president accurately uttered those words "mission accomplished". What we have here is a humanitarian or otherwise Military Operation Other Than War (MOOTW). HELLO! We are not fighting the Iraqi regime. Iraq is now a smaller part of the ongoing war on terrorism. This is a separate war. The left is hoping however that they can define as a loss. But alas we are winning that also much to the chagrin of the left there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:46 pmI largely agree with Nikolay on this one. Much like Geogre Soros used his money to help finance opposition to the Soviets in Eastern Europe, we should help provide assistance to oppposition groups in Iran.
The trouble, of course, is that when we have provided assistance to "opposition groups" historically they have been more likely to be death squads then student groups. However, just because this was our history doesn't mean it is our destiny.
Another trouble is that if it was discovered that we were funneling funds to the anti-fundementalists [sorry, couldn't resist] it would justify a nasty crack-down on our freinds.
And yet another problem is that because of our Presidents refusal to talk to our enemies, or even listen to our allies, we are now even less trusted in the Arab world then before.
Still, despite all these problems I think that Rick actually has a good idea here--which is a surpise, because he is such a terrible person. But I could be very wrong on this.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:40 pmJust because......
Just because Rick Sanatorium.....is a dumb ass moron, nobody cares to give him any respect...well that's what he gets for making his man-on-dog comments about gay people.....hey Rick....really glad you got your butt fired.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:44 pmThis one is too easy. If it is open, it is not a secret. Duh.
Santorum was speaking about actions that didn't happen anyway. If somebody says "we have to infiltrate this organization [or country]", this is not tantamount to blowing cover. What is that you don't understand here?
It seems it is you who has a hard time with reality. American support for the Shah was no “mistakeâ€. It was a very well though-out piece of foreign policy, like the support for Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, and Pinochet in Chile. All done in the name of America’s strategic interests.
A century ago it was a common practice for European countries to engage in colonialism. All in the name of strategic interests. Nowadays nobody does this anymore.
Shah, Marcos and Pinochet are now acknowledged to be mistakes, supporting them is seen as ineffective policies. Say what you want about Iraq, but there's no puppet dictator there now, lesson learned.
Supporting dissidents to help the change from inside worked well in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, USSR etc. This strategy, unlike military intervention, continues to work in many other countries, and I don't see what arguments can you imagine against it. I think that any honest man should do what he can to engage in such efforts.
It should not be done in a stupid way, which is probably the case with Santorum, but it should be done in general.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:45 pmThere did seem to be a degree of pro-American sentiment, or at least sympathy in Iran following 9/11.
however I think that a lot of those amicable feelings have eroded following our Iraq war, and international arrogance.
We should have been much open with the Iranians after 9/11, and did what we could to try to deal with them in the last couple of years. However Bush largely ignored the problem.
Still, the Iranians are also very embarresed by their own leader. so...who knows? I certainly don't.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:48 pmWe should have been much open with the Iranians after 9/11, and did what we could to try to deal with them in the last couple of years. However Bush largely ignored the problem.
This is really a sad story. "Axis of Evil" speech was a major blow to Reformist movement in Iran, Iraq's invasion was so far the best strategic gift to the regime (most of the Iraq's government is Iranian puppets), and that crazy guy really looks like he's going to nuke Israel and, probably, the rest of the world.
And you know, somebody on HotAir said this thing about incredibly courageous Iranian students protesting against Ahmadinejad:
Still, the Iranians are also very embarresed by their own leader. so…who knows? I certainly don’t.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:05 pmThey say that they had 780 protests against Ahmadinejad in November. That's something.
You took the words out of my mouth. Forget about how idiotic the plan is, someone just try and explain this support for unions. This demonstrates that people like Santorum will say anything to sound like they have an international policy.
This is so hypocritical and contradicting of what he stood for and voted for in the Senate that this is just obviously hot air.
I bet these Republicans in office would support a progressive environmental policy too if they thought it could help them start another war.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:49 pm#65 Nikolay
This is really a sad story. “Axis of Evil†speech was a major blow to Reformist movement in Iran, Iraq’s invasion was so far the best strategic gift to the regime (most of the Iraq’s government is Iranian puppets), and that crazy guy really looks like he’s going to nuke Israel and, probably, the rest of the world.
That's just the point. What we do and what we say can affect how internal dissent is viewed and handled in Iran. You can argue whether or not the U.S. should be the world's policeman, now or at any point in our history. But, there was a time when we would have been viewed as good cops, even if it wasn't true. Much of the world still thought we were good cops right through the 50s and 60s, in spite of our frequent attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments and to install or support despots. But, under six years of Bush's foreign policy, this country is a dirty cop and everyone knows it. Nobody should be foolish enough to trust the motives, the planning, or the follow-through of the Bush White House. It may be a long time before the rest of the world trusts us again.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:55 pmIf somebody says “we have to infiltrate this organization [or country]â€, this is not tantamount to blowing cover. What is that you don’t understand here?
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Did I say it was tantamount to blowing cover? Why do you have to put words in my mouth to "win" this argument? This is not the first time you resort to strawman arguments even though everyone can read what I wrote.
You know, Nikolay, I work with recent immigrants from Russia, and from other former Soviet Republics. They're all educated, bright, very articulate, and capable plenty of making cogent, coherent arguments.
Are you sure you are Russian?
I don’t see what arguments can you imagine against it. I think that any honest man should do what he can to engage in such efforts.
I will tell you why not: The US is not the world's police, and if history is any guide, the US will side with, support whichever strongman or puppet government allows better access to natural resources and/or can be used in other ways. It has always been like that, and it is still like that. There is Pakistan, the stalwart "ally" in the war on terror. Or Saudi Arabia. Or... you get the idea. I hope.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:11 pmHmm, Senator Ricky S.
This bizarre thought is shades of the Nixon crime family overthrowing the elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, in an illegal coup in 1973 and replacing him with the vile dictator Pinochet. That overthrow started with a small truckers' strike that was greatly strengthened by CIA funding...
Cheers.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:13 pmI have an even better idea. Lets install a US-minded dictator in Iran. Oh wait, that's not a new idea, we did it in 1953. Why can't we ever find any long-term-solutions with our short-term mindset I often wonder... not.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:17 pmThis is not the first time you resort to strawman arguments even though everyone can read what I wrote.
OK, again: what, in your mind, proves that Santorum was calling for open support of opposition, when he, in his own words, was explicitly calling for covert support? Open call for covert support doesn't equal open support, because call for action doesn't equal action. What is not clear here??? What is not clear???
Covert support means: support, but don't get caught. Because getting caught will damage those you are trying to help. This is precisly what Santorum was calling for, covert support. I'm not sure that this particular plan of Santorum makes sense, but what, in general, does make support for Iranian opposition unacceptable? Do you doubt their cause?
if history is any guide, the US will side with, support whichever strongman or puppet government allows better access to natural resources and/or can be used in other ways.
OK, so, US is an Evil Empire and whatever they did, they did for evil purposes? They fought in WWI and WWII in the name of evil? They supported dissidents in Europe and USSR in the name of evil? They defend South Koreans against Northern Koreans in the name of evil? They rebuilt Japan in the name of evil? Nothing good ever came out of fall of Communism?
I'm talking about particular question -- about support for people protesting against the guy who just hosted a conference for Holocaust-deniers. And you are saying -- no, this should not be attempted, because America never does anything good, let all those students be disappeared by their glorious legitimate leader. And this is not 'putting words in your mouth'. If you are against helping people fighting evil, this means that you support evil.
You know, as much as I hate Bush, neo-cons, anti-Muslim crazies, mega-patriots etc., I'm afraid what you say make me hate you more.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:42 pmGod, does this man ever think before he speaks?
December 11th, 2006 at 7:57 pmIf you are against helping people fighting evil, this means that you support evil.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
No. That is a false dychotomy, and a wrong conclusion.
I am against the US meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, because -and I repeat- if history is any guide the US will prop up whoever allows better access to natural resources, as in the past in Iran, and nowadays in Saudi Arabia, human rights and democracy be damned. It is unlikely that the current (or any future) administration will behave any differently, given that large corporations donate with largesse during electoral campaigns.
I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that.
Your talk about WWI, WWII, evil, etc. is more non sequiturs, strawman, and false dychotomies. See, I never mentioned the word "evil". I wrote "strategic interests". Don't be so simple-minded. Do you get FauxNews in Russia?
I’m afraid what you say make me hate you more.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
Your feelings towards me leave me unfazed. If I were you, I would be more worried about learning how many dictatorial regimes the US has supported and continues to support, such as Perves Musharraf (Bush's favorite dictator), the House of Saud, and others. Although I know you will simply ignore my point and go on another rant about "evil". Yawn.
I post this link for the benefit of others:
Arming repressive regimes in all corners of the globe while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign for democracy and against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States in international forums and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues. Arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses in the process.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:23 pmARMS TRADE RESOURCE CENTER - U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 2005: PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT?
Oops, wrong link above!
Here it is: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html
December 11th, 2006 at 8:30 pmHey! Since we can't do the bus strike, how about. . . .
A Sewer Workers strike!
I still think we can salvage a Honeymooners episode out of all this.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pmRe: Pakistan -- Pakistan has nukes and leverage (although probably not that real) against bin Laden and Taliban. You just can't engage Pakistan, no way. Next stop, with your logic, I guess, would be: "Stalin, FDR's favourite dictator; the right thing to do was to turn USSR and Germany into allies".
large corporations donate with largesse during electoral campaigns.
You're, officially, unhinged left. Probably the first one I've ever met on-line. Do you heart Chavez? Do you miss Pol Pot?
Your argument, is: it was wrong for US to fight in WWII and to support dissidents in Europe and USSR because of "large corporations". You just said that anything that US does in its foreign policy is dictated by corporate interests and should be opposed.
If this is not what you say, then please make it clear: why supporting opposition to this particular Holocaust-denying nut is wrong?
BTW, this idea that US "shouldn't meddle in internal affairs of other countries" is unique. I've never heard of any big country that didn't meddle in internal affairs of other countries. This is like not having a military.
This article you refer to talks about "arming oppressive regimes". I was not talking about arming oppressive regimes, I was talking about supporting peaceful opposition.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:00 pmYou’re, officially, unhinged left.
Comment by Nikolay — December 11, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
You are officially not Russian, and not living in Russia. It is astounding that an American citizen at this point should not know that corporations do make large contributions to political candidates through PACs -you know, the little problem that got DeLay in hot waters.
this idea that US “shouldn’t meddle in internal affairs of other countries†is unique.
It is not unique. It's called respecting other countries' self-determination, sovereignty, and the principle of non-intervention. These are very simple and basic concepts in international law all Russians I know are acquainted with. It's only the wingnuts in the US who are not.
I’ve never heard of any big country that didn’t meddle in internal affairs of other countries.
That doesn't make it right. See my response above.
This is like not having a military.
No. Not at all. How old are you?
This article you refer to talks about “arming oppressive regimesâ€. I was not talking about arming oppressive regimes,
I don't care. I said very clearly: "I post this for the benefit of others".
I am done with you, phony Russian. Arguing with you is a supreme waste of my time.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:23 pmI think you're being a bit Black/White while looking at american foreign policy, Samsa. You're right that we have done some very nasty things in the past, and we have covertly helped a lot of nasty folks. You're also right that we still DO covertly help nasty folks today.
However, we have also done some good things covertly. Such as supporting pro-democracy groups in the old Soviet Bloc. We did this for self-interest to be sure, but the result was a win-win for the most part. Hopefully we could do the same thing for Iran.
If we were handing guns to dissidents in Iran, I'd be against it. If we were trying to create a dissident group in Iran were no dissidents existed in the first place I'd also be against it. but if we go in and help out protesting students and bus-drivers financially, then I think this is a good idea.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:34 pmIt is astounding that an American citizen at this point should not know that corporations do make large contributions to political candidates through PACs -you know, the little problem that got DeLay in hot waters.
I'm not arguing with the fact that corporations make large contributions. But the fact that you bring these corporations into discussion about foreign policy says that you're unhinged.
It is not unique. It’s called respecting other countries’ self-determination, sovereignty, and the principle of non-intervention. These are very simple and basic concepts in international law all Russians I know are acquainted with.
Sure they are. With our enlightened leader in charge, we now have a lot of action against Non-Govermental Organizations, since it's supposed that all they do is plot revolutions, like the "Yellow" one in Ukraine, and support "extremism". Besides this, we also have politicians arguing that the whole concept of "human rights" was invented by the West in order to meddle in other countries' affairs. And a lot of MSMs were closed -- they were owned by the evil meddlesome outsiders.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:45 pmRick WHO??
December 11th, 2006 at 11:50 pmSantorum, a self-proclaimed conservative, supporting a labor strike? Sounds like more far right hypocrisy.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:12 amBesides this, you know full-well that Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah and doesn't care sh*t about non-intervention. You know, Hamas and Hezbollah, those freedom-fighters fighting the interests of corporations that make large contributions to US political candidates through PACs. Why should this principle of non-intervention be applied to the country that itself never cares for it?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:43 am"Not to loose high moral grounds?" Very clever, indeed.