Posted on 06/20/2009 1:12:58 PM PDT by lewisglad
Greg Jarett just annouced that the tweets are detailing some horrible stuff going on (students fighting back with molotov cocktails)
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Is that why they risk their lives to twitter what’s happening?
Yes, zeestephen, this is an excellent case for the Second Amendment! You said, “These pictures and reports from Iran should come in handy the next time Democrats try to take guns away from law abiding American citizens. Protestors with guns in their pockets don’t get thrown in fires.”-—Point well taken, very, very true. I hope Holder, Feinstein and other demos make this connection.
“Finally, put Iran back on the terror list.”
State Sponsors of TerrorismCountries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act.
Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.
Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors.
Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
Country Designation Date
Cuba
March 1, 1982
Iran
January 19, 1984
Sudan
August 12, 1993
Syria
December 29, 1979
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm
MaeistroLC, give it up. humblegunner will just keep ragging you. It is what he does. I don’t think he knows half of what he says most of the time. He just puts every body down. He will take the opposite stanch on two different posts. Just ignore his a** and he will eventually shut up and go away:) Have a nice day.
Post 84, correction: Stanch should have read Stand.
Misspelling.
He just puts every body down.
Everybody. One word.
He will take the opposite stanch
Do you mean "stance"?
Just ignore his a**
Do you mean "ass"?
If you would pay attention to what you write, I'd have nothing to say.
Cheers.
Duh,.... I dunno,.... maybe at least act Presidential". Maybe stand up and exercise those famous, brilliant oratorical skills of his at something like this perhaps?:
One cause of instability is the extremists supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terror. It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world -- while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home. It undermines Lebanese hopes for peace by arming and aiding the terrorist group Hezbollah. It subverts the hopes for peace in other parts of the region by funding terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. It sends arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Shia militants in Iraq. It seeks to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric. And finally, it defies the United Nations and destabilizes the region by refusing to be open and transparent about its nuclear programs and ambitions. Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. So the United States is strengthening our longstanding security commitments with our friends in the Gulf -- and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.
Or maybe something like this?:
"Unfortunately, amid some steps forward in this region we've also seen some setbacks. You cannot build trust when you hold an election where opposition candidates find themselves harassed or in prison. You cannot expect people to believe in the promise of a better future when they are jailed for peacefully petitioning their government. And you cannot stand up a modern and confident nation when you do not allow people to voice their legitimate criticisms.
The United States appreciates that democratic progress requires tough choices. Our own history teaches us that the road to freedom is not always even, and democracy does not come overnight. Yet we also know that for all the difficulties, a society based on liberty is worth the sacrifice. We know that democracy is the only form of government that treats individuals with the dignity and equality that is their right. We know from experience that democracy is the only system of government that yields lasting peace and stability. In a democracy, leaders depend on their people -- and most people do not want war and bloodshed and violence. Most people want lives of peace and opportunity. So it is the declared policy of the United States to support these peoples as they claim their freedom -- as a matter of natural right and national interest.
I recognize that some people -- including some in my own country -- believe it is a mistake to support democratic freedom in the Middle East. They say that the Arab people are not "ready" for democracy. Of course, that is exactly what people said about the Japanese after World War II. Some said that having an Emperor was incompatible with democracy. Some said that the Japanese religion was incompatible with democracy. Some said that advancing freedom in Japan and the Pacific was unwise, because our interests lay in supporting pro-American leaders no matter how they ruled their people.
Fortunately, America rejected this advice, kept our faith in freedom, and stood with the people of Asia. The results are now in. Today the people of Japan have both a working democracy and a hereditary emperor. They have preserved their traditional religious practices while tolerating the faiths of others. They are surrounded by many democracies that reflect the full diversity of the region. Some of these democracies have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some of these democracies have Christian majorities, some have Muslim majorities, some have Hindu or Buddhist majorities. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all derive their authority from the consent of the governed -- and all know the lasting stability that only freedom can bring.
This transformation would not have been possible without America's presence and perseverance over many decades. And just as our commitment to Asia helped people there secure their freedom and prosperity, our commitment to the Middle East will help you achieve yours. And you can know from our record in Asia that our commitment is real, it is strong, and it is lasting".
Hmmmm wonder who said that???? That "dumb Cowboy" President we just "got rid of"? You know the one who was told this week that the Democrats kept score in November, and his ideas lost, so just stay out Obama's way. It'll be pretty easy to stay out of Acting President's Apprentice, (OJT) Barry Hussein Soetero-Obama's way when he doesn't (won't??) do shit!!! The candy-assed punk would rather safely fight talk-show hosts where we live, than fight terrorists and dictators where they live.
Sorry, pal. Standing around doing nothing is not what America and our principles of liberty are all about (I'll bet they had something about that in USMC boot camp your son just attended. Maybe you should ask him. I'll bet he could school you).
By your line of reasoning, I can hear it now: "Well, what would you have Roosevelt do? That's a German problem. It's between Germany and England. Let them sort it out".
Sure, it's just words, but it's still orders of magnitude more than Obama's done in the last week (unless of course, a Bobby Flay BBQ and turning the White House into a skate park count as "being Presidential"). Maybe those words led some young people in Iran to mistakenly believe that this is still a nation that actually stands up for those sorts of ideals, and helps those who seek liberty from tyranny. But hey, they're probably already mostly dead by now anyways, so who cares, right? I mean really, what can our poor beleaguered Dear Leader (peace be upon his name) possibly do?
Duh,.... I dunno,.... maybe at least act Presidential". Maybe stand up and exercise those famous, brilliant oratorical skills of his at something like this perhaps?:
One cause of instability is the extremists supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terror. It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world -- while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home. It undermines Lebanese hopes for peace by arming and aiding the terrorist group Hezbollah. It subverts the hopes for peace in other parts of the region by funding terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. It sends arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Shia militants in Iraq. It seeks to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric. And finally, it defies the United Nations and destabilizes the region by refusing to be open and transparent about its nuclear programs and ambitions. Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. So the United States is strengthening our longstanding security commitments with our friends in the Gulf -- and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.
Or maybe something like this?:
"Unfortunately, amid some steps forward in this region we've also seen some setbacks. You cannot build trust when you hold an election where opposition candidates find themselves harassed or in prison. You cannot expect people to believe in the promise of a better future when they are jailed for peacefully petitioning their government. And you cannot stand up a modern and confident nation when you do not allow people to voice their legitimate criticisms.
The United States appreciates that democratic progress requires tough choices. Our own history teaches us that the road to freedom is not always even, and democracy does not come overnight. Yet we also know that for all the difficulties, a society based on liberty is worth the sacrifice. We know that democracy is the only form of government that treats individuals with the dignity and equality that is their right. We know from experience that democracy is the only system of government that yields lasting peace and stability. In a democracy, leaders depend on their people -- and most people do not want war and bloodshed and violence. Most people want lives of peace and opportunity. So it is the declared policy of the United States to support these peoples as they claim their freedom -- as a matter of natural right and national interest.
I recognize that some people -- including some in my own country -- believe it is a mistake to support democratic freedom in the Middle East. They say that the Arab people are not "ready" for democracy. Of course, that is exactly what people said about the Japanese after World War II. Some said that having an Emperor was incompatible with democracy. Some said that the Japanese religion was incompatible with democracy. Some said that advancing freedom in Japan and the Pacific was unwise, because our interests lay in supporting pro-American leaders no matter how they ruled their people.
Fortunately, America rejected this advice, kept our faith in freedom, and stood with the people of Asia. The results are now in. Today the people of Japan have both a working democracy and a hereditary emperor. They have preserved their traditional religious practices while tolerating the faiths of others. They are surrounded by many democracies that reflect the full diversity of the region. Some of these democracies have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some of these democracies have Christian majorities, some have Muslim majorities, some have Hindu or Buddhist majorities. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all derive their authority from the consent of the governed -- and all know the lasting stability that only freedom can bring.
This transformation would not have been possible without America's presence and perseverance over many decades. And just as our commitment to Asia helped people there secure their freedom and prosperity, our commitment to the Middle East will help you achieve yours. And you can know from our record in Asia that our commitment is real, it is strong, and it is lasting".
Hmmmm wonder who said that???? That "dumb Cowboy" President we just "got rid of"? You know the one who was told this week that the Democrats kept score in November, and his ideas lost, so just stay out Obama's way. It'll be pretty easy to stay out of Acting President's Apprentice, (OJT) Barry Hussein Soetero-Obama's way when he doesn't (won't??) do shit!!! The candy-assed punk would rather safely fight talk-show hosts where we live, than fight terrorists and dictators where they live.
Sorry, pal. Standing around doing nothing is not what America and our principles of liberty are all about (I'll bet they had something about that in USMC boot camp your son just attended. Maybe you should ask him. I'll bet he could school you).
By your line of reasoning, I can hear it now: "Well, what would you have Roosevelt do? That's a German problem. It's between Germany and England. Let them sort it out".
Sure, it's just words, but it's still orders of magnitude more than Obama's done in the last week (unless of course, a Bobby Flay BBQ and turning the White House into a skate park count as "being Presidential"). Maybe those words led some young people in Iran to mistakenly believe that this is still a nation that actually stands up for those sorts of ideals, and helps those who seek liberty from tyranny. But hey, they're probably already mostly dead by now anyways, so who cares, right? I mean really, what can our poor beleaguered Dear Leader (peace be upon his name) possibly do?
You make some fine points.
fwiw, I am doing some rethinking about my country’s role as cops of the world.
Excellent!!
This article is genius and deserves its own thread. EVERYONE should read it. Reagan had the right answers and actively did what it took to help people become free. It’s a question of courage as well as belief that people SHOULD be free.
Rats, I already nominated a different post for Post of the Day. Yours is an admirable runner-up!!!
No one ever becomes a “policeman” because it’s easy. Solzhenitsyn said he’d “rather see America as the world’s policeman than the Soviets as the world’s jailer”. I always try to remember that principle when the “world’s policeman” issue arises. It’s a legitimate concern, but we’ve had to do before, we are doing it now, and we will most assuredly do it again. There’s nowhere else to go. There are three types of people in the world: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Someone has to keep the wolves at bay. We’re the sheepdog.
Thanks. It is a great article. It has it’s own thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2275275/posts?page=1
Not sure if I buy that any more. At least, as currently constituted.
Helping save Europe (twice) and having most of it pretty much spit in our faces today makes me wonder. If we are going to police the world, let’s calculate an ROI beforehand and act to achieve that.
I’ve heard that we seek no conquest of foreign soil. I’m not sure that’s the proper mindset. As I said, I’m thinking about it. I am not afraid to be proven wrong, but I fully expect Iraq to collapse like a cheap suitcase as soon as we pull out.
I was about to tussle with you over that statement, but upon reflection, I've realized that the language is versatile enough, and flexible enough, that GWB could come out with a statement that would accomplish the aim of castigating the current administration for their weak, half-assed support of the protesters, without actually undermining Obama.
I agree. GWB needs to get some wordsmiths on the case, and say something bold.
And the left in the west did everything in its power to discredit, silence, and marginalize Solzhenitsyn for repudiating the communist dream.
I don't know about that.
Libs across the internet are as fired up about this revolt as we are, and for the same reasons. Lots of them are wondering where their "leaders" are in this crisis, and why they aren't speaking up in support of the Iranian people.
If Dick Cheney stood up and made a bold statement in support of the Iranian people, I don't think he'd get a lot of flak from the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.