lupowell wrote:
Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday,
saying he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme
Leader. When Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he
replaced it with one of Neville Chamberlain.




Those who actually know something about Iran are praising Obama's restraint.

U.S. involvement and commentary on Iran is not taken graciously by
Iranians of any stripe. We have a long and not very favorable history
with that country, knowledge of which certainly has escaped you.

In 1953, for example, Iranians were fighting for a democracy under their
then prime minister. We helped defeat that because the prime minister
and government nationalized the British oil interests in their country.
As a result, the Shah became an absolute ruler/dictator. We supported
the Shah. In the late 1970s, we were still supporting the Shah against
the wishes of most of the Iranian people. And we supported Iraq in its
war against Iran.

So, please explain how it would help the Iranian dissidents or the
interests of the United States to once again get too deeply involved in
the affairs of Iran. If we did, the mullahs who control the country
would once again point to the U.S. as agents of the devil. Oh... the
ayatollah, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? He is indeed the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Stick to what you know, Lu. BTW, just what is that?






--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

John Herring, rec.boat's resident racist, ranking turd, and close friend
of all the right-wing scumbags who pollute the newsgroup.