Comments on: Soft Intervention in Iran http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/06/19/soft-intervention-in-iran/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=soft-intervention-in-iran @TAC Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:36:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jon H http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/06/19/soft-intervention-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-7354 Jon H Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:59:57 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1924#comment-7354 Brooks wrote: "The Iranian elections have stirred a whirlwind that will lead, someday, to the regime’s collapse. " I bet it wasn't the election, per se, but the series of debates before the election, which signaled to the populace that this election was different. Brooks wrote: “The Iranian elections have stirred a whirlwind that will lead, someday, to the regime’s collapse. ”

I bet it wasn’t the election, per se, but the series of debates before the election, which signaled to the populace that this election was different.

]]> By: Reflections on Iran « Splintered Sunrise http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/06/19/soft-intervention-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-7336 Reflections on Iran « Splintered Sunrise Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:26:28 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1924#comment-7336 [...] “Belarus Democracy Act” is the sort of thing the US Congress should be spending its time on, drum-banging from the commentariat, and intense lobbying from Iranian exile groups with links to the State [...] [...] “Belarus Democracy Act” is the sort of thing the US Congress should be spending its time on, drum-banging from the commentariat, and intense lobbying from Iranian exile groups with links to the State [...]

]]> By: Barney Rebble http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/06/19/soft-intervention-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-7331 Barney Rebble Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:45:06 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1924#comment-7331 I used to like Hannity (much more than I do now). And it's painful to see him get things so wrong. (He likes to use the words "mean spirited", then personifies them). First, of course, the Hannities are wrong, Obama caved and should have kept his mouth shut on Iran for another month (you don't engage the terrorist in a political diatribe while he's holding a gun to the head of a hostage). Another thing that Hannity has been wrong about, over the last 3 or 4 years, is that "Clinton should have arrested or assassinated Osama Bin Ladin". The country was precisely at this point (as it is now), sick to death of foreign intervention, and there was a huge public outcry (distracted somewhat by Clinton's sexual adventures), calling for *no* foreign intervention, and *no* arresting of foreignors. The public was vociferous about *no* assassinations, and *no* invasions. We (the US public) were screaming at the administration, "If they are a dictator, or a terrorist, just leave them alone. We are too big to hurt." (Part of what enabled Bush to go attack Iraq and other places, was the realization that we had swung too far pacifist, and it was emboldening people like Saddam and Bin Ladin, not directly related, but two of the dozen heads of the monster awakening in the mideast). So along comes Lewis McCrary, straight from the AntiWar.com website, collecting "facts" for his point of view. I shall bow my head, and speak out the corner of my mouth, and for the moment, "I think I agree with him". I used to like Hannity (much more than I do now). And it’s painful to see him get things so wrong. (He likes to use the words “mean spirited”, then personifies them).

First, of course, the Hannities are wrong, Obama caved and should have kept his mouth shut on Iran for another month (you don’t engage the terrorist in a political diatribe while he’s holding a gun to the head of a hostage).

Another thing that Hannity has been wrong about, over the last 3 or 4 years, is that “Clinton should have arrested or assassinated Osama Bin Ladin”. The country was precisely at this point (as it is now), sick to death of foreign intervention, and there was a huge public outcry (distracted somewhat by Clinton’s sexual adventures), calling for *no* foreign intervention, and *no* arresting of foreignors. The public was vociferous about *no* assassinations, and *no* invasions. We (the US public) were screaming at the administration, “If they are a dictator, or a terrorist, just leave them alone. We are too big to hurt.”

(Part of what enabled Bush to go attack Iraq and other places, was the realization that we had swung too far pacifist, and it was emboldening people like Saddam and Bin Ladin, not directly related, but two of the dozen heads of the monster awakening in the mideast).

So along comes Lewis McCrary, straight from the AntiWar.com website, collecting “facts” for his point of view. I shall bow my head, and speak out the corner of my mouth, and for the moment, “I think I agree with him”.

]]>