Obama has no backbone

Despite President Barack Obama’s persistent claims that the United States is not meddling in the post-election furore in Iran, the administration is moving forward with plans to subsidize Iranian dissident groups to the tune of $20 million in the form of USAID grants.

The program is not new, and the solicitation for the grant applications actually came under the Bush Administration. But with the deadline for submissions just four days away, the administration has a convenient excuse to subsidize opposition and dissident groups under the guise of promoting “the rule of law” in Iran.

Check out this bit of twisted logic.

The White House and the State Department both defended the program, insisting it did not run counter to the administration’s pretense of neutrality. The administration declined to provide details of exactly which opposition figures it had been funding, however, citing “security concerns.”

I take back the one and only nice thing I have said about Obama.

Okay, I'll bite: What was that one thing?

OK. Yep, we all want to know what was it?
I don't believe I've ever said anything nice about Obama.

To your question,.....the Pres is going to say what he thinks people will like to hear. Just tickle their ears and they'll love ya. We need to give those folks in Iran some guns. But it takes a man with a back bone to do it.

Yeah, the way we gave guns to the White Army during the Russian Civil War, or the way we gave the Hungarians guns in 1955, Or were you thinking of the guns we gave to the Czechs in 1968. Oh, maybe you're thinking of the way we talked the Iraqi's into overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 1991. By the way, how'd that work out for them? Or are you thinking of how we fed guns to the Somoza's or any number of other tin-horn dictators?

Yeah, we have a long history of fomenting revolution, but the execution has been lacking. Have you paid any attention at all to our current military situation? The likelihood of our being able to do anything beyond cheer them on from the sidelines is slim to none. Of course we could drop several nukes on Iran. That would really help the people out, wouldn't it?

Oh, and then there is this whole pesky self-determination business. (Damn that ideology!) The Iranians in the streets tell us over and over again they don't want us to interfere (those whacky Iranians, they see our giving them guns as meddling. Go figure.) in this. It is something they must do for themselves.

Name one successful revolution instigated and promoted by a foreign power. Of course there was the whole Mossadegh thing, but can you really call it successful from where we sit today? Oh, and what about Pinochet in Chile, I hear you say. Yes another enduring revolution held together by spit and blood. I'm hoping that Iraq might, just might be the first ever. That's how long the odds are even if we do give material aid to the Iranians.

No matter how hard it is for us to believe this is not happening so the US can jump in, beat its chest a few times and then move on comfortable in the knowledge that once again we struck a blow for democracy while thousands die for our sanctimony. This has much more to do with Iran and its people than whether or not Obama has the back-bone for it.

Yeah, balls trump brains in whose world?

Excellent example fitting the thread on honest debating http://www.librarything.com/topic/67629

I read the above and I conclude that Obama is being very clever. He says nice things, so the Iranian can't come up with some nonsense about him being aggressive and use it to excuse their crackdown - and at the same time he is covertly, unofficially undermining them. I think that is the way to go. But, of course, I bring my own 'priors' to the debate.

Name one successful revolution instigated and promoted by a foreign power.

The American Revolution wasn't instigated by France, but was supported by France (wasn't it? Or am I thinking of something else?).

After the colonies asked them to get involved and after the battle of Saratoga gave them hope it wouldn't be wasted. Have we received an embassy from Iran asking us to join? Where is the army in the field we can get behind? No, the French joined after the outcome had been pretty much decided.

I'm sure we would be more than happy to jump in under those conditions.

Have we received an embassy from Iran asking us to join?

Oh, I wasn't speaking to the Iran case. I was just mulling over your specific question.

French help was not imposed from outside, it was solicited from inside. Instigated and promoted by a foreign power were the conditions of the question.

Actually, I expect Obama to get much tougher on the Iranians after this all works out. but I don't think he will ever stand on the sidelines urging the Iranians into the machine guns as we have done at other times in our history.

BTW, when I say getting tougher, I mean through diplomatic means. Our self-righteous indignation over Iran harboring a fifty year grudge over our role in destroying the only true democracy they ever had is not best served by standing on the sidelines yelling, That is totally irrational.

Americans may not know who Mossadegh was, but I can guarantee every one born in the last fifty years in Iran does.