Hopefully there are enough Iranian reformers to get the 72 signatures. Even if there isn't, however, having this news splashed all over the world, and hopefully Iran, is not good for Ahmadinejad.

I agree with you completely Kim. The reformist thinkers in Iran need to take the reigns away from extremists like Ahmadinejad.

I'm not surprised that the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN were effective.

Referring to a resolution of the UN Security Council unanimously approved on 23 December which imposes sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear programme, the MP said "it is the last straw which has made Iranians loose their patience."

Let the conservative stammering begin....

From Kim's 8/26/06 post, located here:

The UN has placed a deadline of August 31 for Iran to stop enriching uranium. If Iran fails to do so, the UNSC will be forced to do a lot of public blustering while not forcing Iran to pay serious consequences.

We shoudda nuked them when we had the chance! - DAMN - now it looks like we won't get an opportunity to send our sons and daughters into Iran to die!

Don't you guys just hate that?

Um, Lee, no one has suggested that, and certainly no one has suggested that military force is a pleasant option. So much for that.

All we have here (and it's a good thing) is some rebellious lawmakers in Iran's parliament. The president has an internal fight, which he may win or lose. That's all. If Ahmadinejad wins internally, we still have a big problem, one the UN will most likely deal with in their traditional matter: "strong letter to follow."

If he's impeached it would save everybody a whole lot of trouble!

Lee,

Yes, the threat of sanctions likely played an integral role in this turn about.

Perhaps the U.S. Carrier Strike Group sent to the region in Novemeber in addition to Israel's talks about bombing Iran had something to do with it as well.

As we all know people don't fear cruise missles nearly as much as they fear the prospect of having to eat Raman Noodles for a few years.

It would be fair to consider all the forces that may be at play to spur this development rather than just one.

What are the chances that those who've sign the petition are literally signing their own arrest warrant? Rules are funny when the other guys don't play by them.

Watch for stories on the 'trials' of 38 'former' members of the Iranian parliament, and their subsequent 'punishments'.

"What are the chances that those who've sign the petition are literally signing their own arrest warrant?"

If that is the case, and the signers are indeed risking a lot to speak up, then it sounds like the Iranians are not the enemy some conservatives would like us to believe.

If that is the case, and the signers are indeed risking a lot to speak up, then it sounds like the Iranians are not the enemy some conservatives would like us to believe.

So if Ahmadinejad puts the signers to death, you think that's proof positive of Iran (as represented by the lunatic government which would do such a thing) is not a big threat.

OK.

If only people like Lee cared enough about the million + babies the libs help murder every year.

You almost make it sound like you really do care, but we know this is one of the few places libs actually get some attention.

Right, John. It would prove that Ahmadinejad is the threat, not the Iranians.

What I said: "If that is the case, and the signers are indeed risking a lot to speak up, then it sounds like the Iranians are not the enemy some conservatives would like us to believe."

I'm confident thinking adults can tell the difference between the actions of one nutcase like Ahmadinejad, and the actions of the Iranian people, as represented by the signedrs of the petition - especially now that we see a large number of Iranians are willing to publicly stick their necks out to speak up against Ahmadinejad.

We shoudda nuked them when we had the chance

Lee,

We know full well that when anyone mentions the road we are headed with Iran you intentionally twist it to the assumption that is what the writer wants, i.e... "War with Nukes".

In fact you are the only commenter here I have ever read that advocated the use of preemptive nukes.

Just so that everyone knows, Lee here advocated nuking Afghanistan to kill OBL.

Don't you just hate that we didn't do that?

BTW, conservative Americans have said all along that many Iranian people are pro-west and want reform. In fact when your allies the Palestinians were dancing in the streets on 9-11, Iranians were holding candlelight vigils in solidarity with the U.S.

It would prove that Ahmadinejad is the threat, not the Iranians.

Well, duh. But unfortunately, it's generally the government that matters most in international relations and military affairs.

No one goes around saying the Iranian PEOPLE are the enemy. They say "mad mullahs" or some such. The leadership is the problem; they've got the bombs.

Iranians were holding candlelight vigils in solidarity with the U.S.

I remember that. Very, very cool. The Iranian government was NOT happy, as you might guess!

"Just so that everyone knows, Lee here advocated nuking Afghanistan to kill OBL."

Actually I said we should have nuked Osama bin Laden in his Afghanistan cave, not the nation of Afghanistan -- but this is another fine point that seems to be easily lost on the broad-brush conservatives. Israel is currently reportedly considering the use of specific targeted bunker-busing nukes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. I believe we should have used that same targeted capability to take out bin Laden back when we had the chance, back when the world was on our side in the war on terror, and we hadn't screwed over our allies by dragging them into an unjust war.

...but we all know that the Republicans have never been interested in taking out OBL - OBL is the great boogey man that the Republicans used to scare middle-americans like JumpinJoe into re-electing their sorry, corrupt asses.

Heralder wrote:

It would be fair to consider all the forces that may be at play to spur this development rather than just one.

Good point there Heralder; I agree. We can't just selectively endorse certain forces just because we hope or believe that they are better. We gotta try to see what's really influencing events.

Lee wrote:

I'm confident thinking adults can tell the difference between the actions of one nutcase like Ahmadinejad, and the actions of the Iranian people, as represented by the signedrs of the petition - especially now that we see a large number of Iranians are willing to publicly stick their necks out to speak up against Ahmadinejad.

Lee is making a good point as well, namely that we cannot assume that all Iranians support the likes of their current president. And we can't pretend to know the intentions of the entire populace of Iran based upon what some of their leaders go around saying. Does George Bush voice the opinion of all Americans? No. Does Nancy Pelosi voice the opinions of all Americans. Again, no. Kerry? Nope. Cheney? No deals. You get the point.

John wrote:

So if Ahmadinejad puts the signers to death, you think that's proof positive of Iran (as represented by the lunatic government which would do such a thing) is not a big threat.

I think what Lee is trying to point out is the fact that there are elements that disagree with the current leadership in Iraq, and that this is a good sign. That means that the monolithic idea of an all encompassing "Evil Iran" might not be the best way to think about the whole place.

yes, the current leadership of Iran is a threat, but there are also more moderate forces in the country...and they had more control in Iran after the Iran/Iraq war. Things were relatively moderate in Iran during parts of the 90s. More recently, they have once again taken a more radical turn for the worse. But that doesn't mean they everyone inside Iran is some radical American hating terrorist.

I believe we should have used that same targeted capability to take out bin Laden back when we had the chance, back when the world was on our side in the war on terror,

If you think the world would be nice to us about using nukes in that situation, you live in a dream world. Even if we hit the right target--never a 100% guarantee--somebody uninvolved will probably end up dead, which many people. On top of that, we'd have endless anti-nuclear demonstrations worldwide and endless talk about increased cancer rates and such (the charges don't have to be true: see Vieques and depleted uranium "controversies").

And there'd be people on your side saying "we could have done it another way, we alienated the world..." ad nauseum.

Amazing isn't it? Iranians are holding their leader accountable under Sharia law but we in a democracy won't.

Unfriggin believable........

Foolish Americans.......

I think what Lee is trying to point out is the fact that there are elements that disagree with the current leadership in Iraq, and that this is a good sign. That means that the monolithic idea of an all encompassing "Evil Iran" might not be the best way to think about the whole place.

Except no one says that! It's a strawman. When you're talking about international relations saying the Iranians or the Israelis or the Americans usually does not imply the whole population; it's talking governments. Context is key here, and most people don't have a problem figuring out which is which.

Well, isn't this just special, Kim!

Here we have a potentially positive development in Iran w/ the possible impeachment of Ahmadinejad and we have silly Reuters go off and say sometjing like, "Reformist former President Mohammad Khatami suspended Iran's nuclear work for more than two years in an effort to build confidence and avoid confrontation with the West"

Let me see, when was President Khatami president of Iran? Up until August of 2005, as a matter of fact.

But we all know that it was in the January 2002 SOTU message that the great and almighty untutored-in-foreign-affairs Bush declared Iran to be an equal branch in the "Axis of Evil."

You see, W's speechwriter that year, David Frumm from the PNAC/neo-con cabal, among others, tossed the Chimp that banana of a line, "Axis of Evil," and the untutored and unvarnished Prez dutifully "ate" the banana in front of the entire nation, and the world as well, in January 2002.

My, my, my...and all the time Iran had a "reformist" president. Too bad Khatami hadn't sent the Prez a basket of bananas on the eve of his SOTU address. History might have had a different outcome.

On a final note, the rest of the World would undoubtedly be relieved if we here in the US made it a double-impeachment date.

Lee,

Actually I said we should have nuked Osama bin Laden in his Afghanistan cave, not the nation of Afghanistan

Not that this thread is about how to best take out Bin Laden...but to use a targeted low-yield nuke, you need a target.

If we had known what cave he was in, a daisycutter would have done the job.

Regardless, Israel hasn't been overly clandestine about their contingency plans versus Iranian reactors.

They've taken action against Iraq's facilities in the past, and I highly doubt Iranian parliment wants to see their country bombed in the same fashion.

But what will Lee do without his ally Ahmadinejad ?

Actually I said we should have nuked Osama bin Laden in his Afghanistan cave, not the nation of Afghanistan

What the eff is the difference?

Detonating a nuke within the border of Afghanistan is still nuking Afghanistan.

And not to mention the fact those caves OBL is hiding in are next to Pakistan, which BTW has nukes themselves.

OBL is the great boogey man that the Republicans used to scare middle-americans like JumpinJoe into re-electing their sorry, corrupt asses

Wow Lee, how did you figure out the Republicans true intentions of keeping OBL alive to scare little ole me.

Man oh Man, you are way to sharp.

And maybe, just maybe, we can keep the reformers held down in Iran so we can eventually get a new war to line the pockets of the military industrial complex. And the oil companies too.

Your posts today are nothing but a bunch of frigg'in moonbat crap.

The reformers were well on their way to success before Bush started making threats. That gave impetus to the radicals. Thankfully now it seems that the people of Iran are rejecting those nutballs, but we lost three years in the process.

"What the eff is the difference?"

I realize the distinction is lost on you, JumpinJoe, but that isn't my fault, or my problem to fix. It would have been done with the knowledge and consent of the Afghanistan government, JJ, or it wouldn't have happened at all. That's how it works-- we would not have "nuked Afghanistan".

Heralder: "Not that this thread is about how to best take out Bin Laden...but to use a targeted low-yield nuke, you need a target.

If we had known what cave he was in, a daisycutter would have done the job."

In the period following 9/11 we had the support of the world in hunting down bin Laden - I believe up to and including the use of tactical, targeted nukes. I'm not suggesting that was the best or only way, just that it was an opportunity that has since been lost.

I've said it before - we should have done anything and everything to hunt down and eradicate OBL from the face of the earth. I'm not saying the nukes were necessary, but if called for we would have been justified in using that degree of force.

aRepukelican,

Nice update. I guess that shows you what happens when the US elects an f'n moron as President.

Who knew?

..So reformists are calling for the impeachment of an elected leader? They should be derided as MOONBATS!!!

That's how it works-- we would not have "nuked Afghanistan

By far one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this blog.

No matter where your nuke was detonated the fall out would have rained down somewhere there so no matter what, no one was going to give permission for the go ahead especially from a government that didn't exist yet.

Trust me Lee, when someone makes a brilliant point, usually someone will come along to give accolades (not sock puppets either) and in this case you should be feeling pretty lonely with the nuk'em strategy.

Nice buncha monday morning q b'ing by the resident lefties here. Is there ANY thing they don't know or problem they can't solve?

There will be no impeachment, but one day there may very well be an assasination (several attempts have been reported).

However it happens, we don't dare rely on it, and avoid preparing for other eventualities.

By the way, whoever posted that somehow Bush forced the Iranians to be more extreme is a blithering idiot, but you all already figured that out, I know. Shock--it wasn't just Lee!

By the way, whoever posted that somehow Bush forced the Iranians to be more extreme is a blithering idiot, but you all already figured that out, I know. Shock--it wasn't just Lee

A lot of these lefties just jumped on a knee jerk bandwagon. Iran is run by the hard line Guardian Council that is allowed to decide who can or cannot run for election.

Many reformers were barred by the council from running in the last election.

President Bush was absolutely correct in identifying Iran as part of the Axis of Evil.

It would be fair to consider all the forces that may be at play to spur this development rather than just one.
:: by Heralder on January 9, 2007 1:05 PM ::

Certainly true Heralder, however that wouldn't give the best opportunity for Lee to pull an old quote of 5 months ago. Makes you wonder if Lee has these quotes saved in a directory for use.

As far as Ahmadinejihadist goes, why are so many panties in a bunch over a figure head?

It's well known the population of Iran are generally pro-West and have been looking to improve relations.

What's better understood is Ahmadinejihadist and all that preceded him and after 1979 are nothing more than figureheads, puppets and bobbleheads speaking the party line of the mullahs.

Until the mullahs disappear or change their ways nothing will be solved in Iran.

Look at it this way, if simply calling a nation part of an Axis of Evil causes the leader of that nation to fly off the handle and threaten to wipe other countries off the map...then it shows a great deal of instability in the first place.

The whole "Bush caused radicalism by calling someone evil" mantra is pretty ridiculous.

Khatami, reformist?

Iran did a decent job advancing its nuke program through the '90s and right through Khatami's employment as executive. Some reformist.