Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader Yes, and this is why I believe a complete and absolute embargo on Iran is the way to go.
If Iran's mullah whores and their Ayetoiletbowl cause the economy to collapse ... maybe then the Iranian people will rise up and dipose the Ayetoilet bowl, Aminajackoff, and the mullah whores.
This is ulitmately what all the anti-Iran factions seek. No Aminajackoff, No Mullahs, No Ayetoiletbowl, NO PROBLEM!  |
That seems reasonable to me.
Chomsky claims such an economic embargo would undermine "efforts of courageous Iranian reformers," as if communism was their problem. Now every "liberal" who has in the past defended Chomsky screams for "Change" due to the burning Bush economy.
To fight communism without firing a shot, in theory you want the Commie to be exposed to the good life of free enterprise and materialism, and the "liberals" think they can pawn that off everywhere. A bad economy is not the root of terrorism, as terrorism is not economic but politically (culturally) motivated. When people can vote, they vote for a good economy and "Change" to get it, when people cannot vote they support freedom fighters, when people will not vote they support "liberal" freedom fighters (mini-tyrants of terror). The "liberals" would have us believe a good economy will improve the disposition of the Iranians, when their leader's dispositions are not steeped in an economic philosophy contrary to the free enterprise marketing of Persian carpets.
If the "liberals" believed in God they would point to the economy and claim God was not on the burning Bush's side.
Bribery will get you a good economy and the leader who brought it to you:
"A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran -- and the escalating warlike tension in the region -- would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system,..."
Chomsky: There Will Be a Cold War Between Iran and the U.S. | AlterNet
Bill Richardson sees, "an excellent chance of persuading Iran to forego nuclear weapons and to adopt more responsible policies," but let's point out the difference between the "liberal" and the liberal Obama supporter Richardson, the "liberal" would have us give up both the military option and the economic option, to just get rid of the nuke threat, but Richardson seems to want more (although vague).
"As we seek to deal with Iran, we need to recognize that country’s national pride and its own perceptions of threats to its security. We also must understand that the following are Iran’s main policy goals:...They want integration into the global economy, including membership in the World Trade Organization and an end to trade and financial embargoes;..."
(Bill Richardson's Speech on Engaging Iran, Published June 27, 2007)
Bill Richardson's Speech on Engaging Iran - Council on Foreign Relations
Once you give up the economic tool, and the military option, which both can effect the will of the people for revolutionary change (if they know why they hurt), what option is left to change a bad regime?
Every kid knows not to stick their hand in the fire of the Burning Bush, you are either going to profit or get burned, and in the process hopefully not jump from the frying pan into the fire, but somewhere in the process brain damage seems to have convinced the "liberals" that talk alone will keep all the babies safe. The only other explanation for "liberal" behavior, other than brain damage, is treason.