Clipmarks | ouyangwulong's 'iran' clips

I support Obama on Issues, not because of the Cult of Personality

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:08:45 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: I don't worship Barak Obama. I don't think he's a savior, or even an angel. Although the novelty of him being a "black" president is entertaining, I don't really care about that either. (Honestly, it seems a little strange that we are so self-congratulatory over 'voting for a black man,' as if that should be really impressive somehow.)

Why do I support Barak Obama? Because of all the people running for President, I believe he has the best ideas on what direction our country needs to take. I would like to see much of his platform made into reality, and because of that, I will vote for him.

I don't want to waste all our time arguing of personal slights and vauge rumors. Let's get to the issues. Here is why I support Barak Obama:

Clip Source: www.barackobama.com

Renewing American Diplomacy

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

Clip Source: www.barackobama.com

Restore Our Alliances

Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need: An Obama administration will expand humanitarian activities that build friends and allies at the regional and local level (such as during the response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia), and win hearts and minds in the process.

Tags: obama, president, issues, serious, philosophy, experience, patriotism, iraq

Hillary's Own Sexism

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:44:09 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: Although there is a lot of talk about sexism, and how it is to blame for Hillary's defeat, I think people are barking up the wrong tree.

Obama never campaigned against Hillary on the basis that as a woman she would be "unelectable" because conservative "swing voters" would never elect a woman. On the other hand, she did make that case against Obama on account of his race.

In fact, nobody ever questioned Hillary's ability to lead the country, as a woman or otherwise. The should have: her foreign policy is scary and ignorant.

But the most sexist person in the race was Hillary herself. Her campaign, with the pant-suits and tough guy attitude (especially on Iran) seemed to reflect her own belief that if a woman was going to win, she had to convince people that she was "one of the guys."

I think almost anyone who would vote for Obama would also vote for a woman - if it was the right woman. What I'm not willing to do is vote for any woman simply for the sake of making history.

Clip Source: www.iht.com

Racism is deeper, but sexism may be wider in America today.

In polls, more Americans say they would be willing to vote for a black candidate for president than for a female candidate, and sexist put-downs are heard more publicly than racial ones.

We aren't always aware of our own biases.

Some of Clinton's supporters are sure that she was defeated by misogyny, while those who voted against her invariably are dismissive:The reason I didn't vote for her isn't that she's a woman. It's that she's a dynastic opportunist who voted for the Iraq war and...

Tags: hilary, misogony, pant suits, obama, sexism, america, election

McCain: A Critical Weakness on Foreign Policy

Thu, 22 May 2008 11:18:54 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: McCain's critical weakness on foreign policy is that he knows next to nothing about it.

Although I have a lot of respect of McCain, I think he falls into the typical trap of myopic patriotism. Many people love their own country so much that they are blind to the reality of the world outside their borders.

The outside world is a place where America is a pretty good nation, but has certainly seen better days. The outside world is a place where our enemies occasionally have legitimate points, and certainly have lives and families much like our own.

In the reality beyond our borders, the US isn't guaranteed to win every fight, especially when we go in on shaky ground.

In the reality beyond our borders everyone has to talk, whether they like it or not, because in the end, nations, like people, are created equal.

McCain knows everything about the US Military, but knows nothing about our enemies. With a perspective like that, how can we expect to win?

Clip Source: www.iht.com

The question of how to engage controversial foreign foes has emerged as perhaps the central dispute between McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, his likely Democratic opponent..

McCain accused Obama on Tuesday of shifting his position on normalization of relations with Cuba, saying he voiced support for it previously but was now offering caveats. In doing so, McCain homed in anew on Obama's stated willingness to conduct a dialogue with controversial foreign leaders.

"Now Senator Obama has shifted positions and says he only favors easing the embargo, not lifting," McCain said. "He also wants to sit down unconditionally for a presidential meeting with Raúl Castro. These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba's dictators — there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms, they can simply wait for a unilateral change in U.S. policy."

Tags: mccain, war, diplomacy, iran, cuba, dialog, appeasement

Bush: Out of Touch, and Out of his Mind

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:18:36 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: At a certain point I fail to understand what our President thinks he is doing. It would seem he is newly possessed with an urgent desire to invade Iran, regardless of the circumstances.

Apparently, he doesn't understand the game he's playing. He's confirming America's stereotype as a global villain in they eyes of the rest of the world.

Bush led the push to attack and isolate Iran because of their nuclear weapons program. When that allegation was firmly contradicted by our own intelligence community, he didn't miss a beat.

He's going on as if the NIE never even came out, still talking about nuclear weapons as if nothing had changed.

Now Iran agrees to answer questions and open up to the IAEA, as well as fulfilling other obligations to the UN. As they do, Bush keeps cheer leading for war.

Doesn't he realize that he's impeaching what little credibility America has internationally?

Clip Source: www.iht.com

Iran poses threat to global security, Bush says

ABU DHABI: President George W. Bush urged wary Gulf allies Sunday to rally against Iran "before it is too late," even as the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that the country had agreed to answer outstanding questions about its nuclear programs within four weeks.

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," Bush said. "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."

The announcement about Iran's pledge of cooperation on its nuclear program, however, could undercut efforts to build international support against Iran.

Iran agreed to carry out its pledges, made last year, to resolve suspicions about its nuclear programs, though Iran's state news agency said that it expected the UN Security Council to drop its sanctions in return

Tags: bush, iran, diplomacy, manipulation, propaganda, lies, idiocy, stupid, anti-americanism

A Plan to End the Crisis With Iran

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:10:34 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: Just so nobody can say I only criticize Bush, I offer here a plan to immediately end the crisis with Iran.

Ahmadinejad is an aggressive, anti-Western president who is isolating Iran, much to the chagrin of the Iranians. The economy is weak, and it is getting harder for people to make a living, which is causing unrest.

On the other hand, his predecessor Khatami was a progressive, who wanted relations with the west, and had a good record on the economy.

I suggest that we use these factors in to our advantage in the following plan: (see comments bellow.)

Clip Source: www.answers.com

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
محمود احمدی‌نژاد--

Domestic policy

At one point in 2006, vegetables prices tripled and housing prices doubled within a matter of months, leading to calls by Iranians for Ahmadinejad to focus on the economy rather than disputes with the West

It is claimed that Iran's increasing economic and diplomatic isolation, have pushed conservatives inside Iran to distance themselves from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Clip Source: www.answers.com

Mohammad Khatami

Khatami has a B.A. in Western philosophy from Isfahan University

At the macroeconomic level, the real GDP rose from 2.4 percent in 1997 to 5.9 percent in 2000. Unemployment was reduced from 16.2 percent of the labor force to less than 14 percent

n 2003, Iran approached the United States with proposals to negotiate all outstanding issues including the nuclear issue, two-state settlement for Israel-Palestine etc. The US reaction was to censure the Swiss ambassador who brought the proposal

Tags: iran, ahmadinejad, khatami, peace, bush, terrorism, war, diplomacy, hope, america

Conflict in Iran: Symbiosis between Bush and Ahmadinejad

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:46:03 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: I've stitched together three very interesting articles over the last week, which become much more interesting when you read them in sequence. Look carefully at what is happening.

If there is anything that lays bare the role of the Bush Administration's jingoistic belligerence in the Middle East, it is the recent conflict in the Strait of Hormuz.

With the international pressure off Ahmadinejad, he starts taking heat in Iran for the shortcomings of his leadership. Without fear, his belligerent and isolationist politics lose their appeal. In order to defend his world view, and preserve the source of his power, he needs America as an enemy...

So some Iranian boats play around with one of our convoys, Bush comes out with some insane saber-rattling press conference, and, Ahmadinejad is back in business, courtesy of the Bush administration.

If you desire war, you need an enemy.

If you need an enemy, you desire war.

Bush needs Ahmadinejad.
Just like Ahmadinejad needs Bush.

Clip Source: www.iht.com

Ahmadinejad loses favor with Khamenei, Iran's top leader

In the past, when Ahmadinejad was attacked by political opponents, the criticisms were usually silenced by Khamenei,

But that public support has been conspicuously absent in recent months.

"Now that Iran is not under the threat of a military attack, all contradictions within the establishment are surfacing,"

"The biggest mistake that Americans have constantly made toward Iran was adopting radical approaches, which provided the ground for radicals in the country to take control."

Clip Source: www.iht.com

In a confrontation in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, five armed Iranian boats approached three U.S. Navy warships in international waters, taking aggressive actions

Clip Source: www.iht.com

"We viewed it as a provocative act," Bush told reporters

"Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat, and Iran will continue to be a threat

"And so I'm looking forward to, you know, making it clear that the United States of America sees clearly the threats

Tags: iran, bush, ahmadinejad, conflict, nuclear, diplomacy, symbiosis, politics, terrorism, propaganda

How to Win the War on Terror

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:11:52 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: This is the perfect evidence of what many people, myself included, have been saying all along.

A muscular foreign policy approach only empowers extremists and terrorists. It gives them justification; it gives people reason to believe them.

Why has democracy failed to take hold in Iraq? Why do the extreemists still control the country? Could it be directly linked to the US military presence that empowers the extremists? After all, in a time of war it is the most radical elements that are able to shout down the voices of reason.

This also shows why an invasion of Iran, or military action against the country would be idiocy, and possibly suicide. When faced with an outside enemy, the Iranians are no different from Americans: they will unite to defend their country. If we attack Iran, the Iranians will unite against us, and we will only empower the most brutal element of society.

As long as we fight against them, they will fight against us. When we stop fighting, progress begin

Clip Source: www.iht.com

A rift is emerging between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

There are numerous possible reasons for Ahmadinejad's loss of support, but analysts here all point to one overriding factor: the U.S. National Intelligence Report last month, which said that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure. The report sharply decreased the threat of a military strike against Iran

"Now that Iran is not under the threat of a military attack, all contradictions within the establishment are surfacing," said Saeed Leylaz, an economic and political analyst. "The biggest mistake that Americans have constantly made toward Iran was adopting radical approaches, which provided the ground for radicals in the country to take control."

Tags: war on terror, terrorists, iran, nuclear weapons, ayatollah, ahmadinejad, bush, peace

Notes on Pilaf

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:53:03 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong

Clip Source: www.answers.com

pilaf

Pilaf, (Armenian փիլավ, Azeri plov, Bosnian pilav, Serbian pilav, Turkish pilav Romanian pilaf, Persian polow, Afghanistan palow, Greek πιλάφι, India/Pakistan pulav/ pulao, Uzbek and Russian plov, Kazakh palaw, Tajik полов) also spelled pilau, perloo, perlau, plaw, pilaw, and pilaff is a Middle Eastern and Central Asian dish in which a grain, such as rice or cracked wheat, is generally first browned in oil, and then cooked in a seasoned broth. Depending on the local cuisine it may also contain a variety of meat and vegetables.

The Persian rice recipes probably go back to the expansion of rice cultivation within the Persian Empire under Darius the Great. There is historical evidence that the cultivation of rice was introduced systematically into Mesopotamia and South Western Iran on a large scale in the 5th century BC, making rice available to the people of Central Asia and the Middle East on a scale unthought of previously.

Notes on Naan

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:00:58 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong

Clip Source: www.answers.com

naan

Naan (Urdu/Persian: نان, Hindi: नान, IPA: ['næn] or [nan]) is a round flatbread made of wheat flour. Naan is a staple accompaniment to hot meals in Central and South Asia, including Afghanistan, Iran, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the surrounding region. In Turkic languages (such as Uzbek and Uyghur) the bread is known as nan. In Burmese, naan is known as nan bya. It bears a resemblance to pita bread, but is softer in texture. The first recorded history of Naan can be found in the notes of Amir Khusrau (1300 AD) as naan-e-tunuk (Persian: نان تنک) (light bread) and naan-e-tanuri (Persian: نان تنوری) (cooked in a tandoor oven) at the imperial court in Delhi. Naan was in Mughal times a popular breakfast food, accompanied by qeema or kabab, of the royals.

Description

A Uyghur naan baker, Kashgar.

Naan resembles pita bread and, like pita bread, is usually leavened with yeast; unleavened dough (similar to that used for roti) is also used.

Persian Cuisine

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:52:51 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong

Clip Source: www.answers.com

Iranian cuisine

The cuisine of Iran is diverse, with each province featuring dishes, as well as culinary traditions and styles, distinct to their regions. It includes a wide variety of foods ranging from chelow kabab (barg, koobideh, joojeh, shishleek, soltani, chenjeh), khoresht (stew that is served with white Basmati or Persian rice: ghormeh sabzi, gheimeh, and others), aash (a thick soup), kookoo (meat and/or vegetable pies), polow (white rice alone or with addition of meat and/or vegetables and herbs, including loobia polow, albaloo polow, zereshk polow, and others), and a diverse variety of salads, pastries, and drinks specific to different parts of Iran. The list of Persian recipes, appetizers and desserts is extensive.

Iranian cuisine, apart from its antiquity in the region, has also been a very influential and standard set of fare throughout neighboring countries.

An Iranian Philosopher: dissent and thinking

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:49:34 GMT

clipped by: abailart
clipper's remarks: 'verbal violence': so thick in discourse it is taken for granted, made invisible.

Clip Source: chronicle.com

Ramin Jahanbegloo, the Iranian philosopher who won notice in recent years for his courageous conferences that built bridges to the liberal West, who invited such major Western apostles of free speech as Jürgen Habermas to Tehran.

"Doing philosophy in a country like Iran,"

"as in many other countries, is a work of dissidence ... but philosophy for me since Socrates is a work of dissidence. It's not just because of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It teaches you, and you teach others, how to think otherwise. To question and to criticize."

one must "search for the humanity behind the inhuman," that a philosopher's most important task is to fight violence, intolerance, and inhumanity.

"You know, being on the side of violence is wrong: verbal violence, moral violence, military violence."

a Sorbonne-educated thinker, who has published more than 20 books and sees himself as a votary of Isaiah Berlin's liberalism as well as Gandhi's and the Dalai Lama's nonviolent activism.

Tags: ramin jahanbegloo, philosophy

Edwards has a point: Hillary is Wrong

Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:47:16 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: Edwards raises a very good point, something Democrats have an amazing capacity to over look.

In 2000 the Democrats ran Al Gore, and he wasn't able to generate enough enthusiasm to secure the white house. In 2004 they ran John Kerry as the "Bush-beater" candidate, and he didn't generate enough enthusiasm to even make people bother noticing the blatant fraud in the election. Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and Stevenson were no better. The democrats have run an outstanding array of losers since the mid point of the 20th century.

As long as Hilary Clinton remains an establishment candidate with no clear ideological positions and delicately structured plans that only go half way, she won't be winning anything.

Also, seriously, if the election came down to Hillary (Bomb Iran) v. Guliani (BOMB IRAN) then we would be looking at a contest where the Daisy Girl add would be considered positive PR!

Clip Source: www.iht.com

Seldom do presidential hopefuls suggest the time for a revolution is dawning, but Edwards is exhibiting a fresh ferocity in his second run at the White House. With 59 days until Iowa opens the nominating contest, Edwards is intensifying his criticism of Democrats, Republicans and a government he calls corrupt.

The charm and optimism that characterized his campaign in 2004 are now fused with an urgent tone of anger and aggression as he seeks to present himself as a leading alternative to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. These days, he does not leave a room before telling his audience why he believes she should not — and cannot — be elected president.

"If she remains a candidate of the status quo and part of a broken system, I think it would be extremely difficult to win," Edwards said in an interview.

Tags: clinton, edwards, presidential, election

Neo-Cons on Iran: From Ignorant to downright Insane

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:32:33 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: This is a worthy article in general - one of the better ones you'll see fro Krugman (although it is still annoyingly conversational, at least he isn't Maureen Dowd!) He makes a good point: that fear is what our leaders embrace, not courage. I'm sick and tired of Americans who are scared. I for one am not scared of terrorists, and anyone who lives their life in fear is an idiot. (Probably a manipulated idiot.)

But the real gem is when Krugman calls it like it is on Iran. Podhorertz and others like him have departed so far from reality that they are basically making things ups as they go along. I expect next that Commentary will be linking Iran to Voldemort, Darth Vader, and the Dark Lord Sauron.

They are so blatantly disconnected from reality, and yet, people listen to them! That's the part I don't understand. Even a student in a High School Social Studies class should be able to tell you the difference between Iran and Al Qaeda.

Clip Source: www.iht.com

Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the "main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11." The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world "shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes." Indeed, "Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia."

Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?

For one thing, there isn't actually any such thing as Islamofascism - it's not an ideology; it's a figment of the neocon imagination.

And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with Sept. 11 - in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous.

Tags: paul krugman, norman podhoretz, iran, stupid

Talking Sense: An Alternative to Sanctions and Bombing

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:16:32 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: These days it seems most people can only think in terms of either sanctions or bombing. If we cannot bomb them, then use sanctions; if we sanctions don't work, we must bomb!

This is a horrific false dichotomy. Bombing and Sanctions are both barbaric and uncivilized. They hurt average people, and in the history of civilization, neither has proven particularly effective.

A true diplomat thinks of ways to resolve problems through helping people, not hurting them. Diplomacy appeals to humanity, rather than brute appeals to force, be they military or economic. Bernard Kouchner is the first real diplomat I've seen in a long time. Hats off to you!

This should also remind us that our plan to sanction/bomb Iran is totally futile and simply leading us down the garden path to our own destruction. Has America learned nothing from the way Bush manipulated us with Iraq? Why are people falling for the same trick again with Iran?

Clip Source: www.iht.com

French official proposes microcredit fund for Myanmar

SINGAPORE: The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, proposed on Monday a fund to give Myanmar incentives to embrace democracy. He also urged China and Southeast Asia to put more pressure on Myanmar's ruling junta.

"We have to offer incentives. Sanctions and incentives," Kouchner said in Singapore, one stop of an Asian tour.

"I have come to Southeast Asia to tell Burma's neighbors that no progress can be made in Burma without their intervention and assistance," Kouchner wrote.

In Singapore, Kouchner also met with Ibrahim Gambari, the UN special envoy. Gambari visited Myanmar a month ago and is due to return in early November, following trips to China and Japan.

Tags: bernard kouchner, peace, myanmar, burma, sanctions

Clueless On Cuba

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:27:17 GMT

clipped by: ouyangwulong
clipper's remarks: US foreign policy has long hinged on the rather shaky presumption that we are always right, and that those who disagree with us must be universally reviled. With such a perspective, Bush is no doubt very confused as to how someone like Fidel Castro could have maintained power, overlooking the fact that a lot of Cubans actually LIKE their communist government.

Delusional egotism is no basis for foreign policy. Americans have an increasing reputation (since the beginning of the cold war) for being willfully out of touch with reality and utterly oblivious to inconvenient truths. Bush simply continues to prove that stereotype correct.

The real danger lies in that we might soon apply the same naive optimism to a very dangerous war that we WILL lose in Iran.

Sad to say, America is such a great nation, the only people who can destroy it are the Americans themselves. Unless we wise up and start taking the rest of the world seriously, we are doomed.

Clip Source: www.iht.com

American policy, he said, had been centered around the idea that the Communist government would fall once Castro left power, and that Castro, 81, would be forced out of power only by death. Instead, Peters said, Raúl Castro's rise caught the administration off guard.

Bush has remained largely silent, Peters said, while Raúl Castro consolidated his control over Cuban institutions by establishing his own relationships with world leaders, and opening unprecedented dialogue with the Cuban people about their visions for their own country. Meanwhile, all the doomsday scenarios predicted for Cuba once Fidel Castro left power — a violent uprising by dissidents and a huge exodus of Cuban refugees — never materialized.

"The administration realized they had missed the boat," Peters said. "Succession has already happened. They can no longer have a policy that keeps them waiting for Castro to die when the rest of the world has moved on."

Tags: castro, bush, cuba, democracy, naive, foreign policy