As I mentioned in a previous post, our rightist friends have tried to use our blog, which proudly proclaims its support for a free and democratic Iran, to somehow show that Obama is in league with the Islamic Republic, which is increasingly neither free nor democratic. I guess any Iranian will do. Now another blog has joined the fray. Look, let me explain this once more. If an anti-Ahmadinejad Iranian blog supports Obama, it does not mean that Ahmadinejad supports Obama.
But what do they make of the large number of Iranian Republicans, i.e., supporters of the GOP? Here is a good article about Iranian-Americans and the Republican Party in the 2004 elections.
But now, many good Iranian-American Republicans have become disenchanted with their old party. Not because they've suddenly become Islamic fundamentalists, but because they do not want their country getting the Iraq treatment, according to another article.
In the meantime, I'd love to know what these people make of Amir Omar, a Republican Party candidate in Texas who is half Iranian and half (gasp!) Palestinian...
4 comments:
He's half Iranian (Persian) and half Arab. There's no distinction between a Palestinian and an Arab. It's an artificial distinction. Perception is reality, and Persians unfortunately are linked with the loudest lunatic in their nation. It unfortunately plays into the stereotype of Obama as soft on terrorists and not fully behind America.
This is unfortunate, since every Iranian I've ever met has been smart, warm, and incredibly quick to laugh. I feel awful for the Iranian people, and the thought that if some lunatic like Ahmedinajad attacks America, the "solution" will be to slaughter millions of innocent Iranians.
This is the Obama position, however, and all those who say if Iran attacked us, we'd kill millions in retaliation so they'd never do it.
An Obama presidency makes war with Iran more likely, not less. (I won't assume how you feel about Amir Taheri, although it would probably be a safe bet you do not like him on this point.) Your group disagrees. Fair enough. It's not because you're Iranians, it's because you're liberal supporters -- as I can see from your links to Huffington Post and Media Matters, etc.
I hope someday all Iranians, not just those in the US, can debate policy and be right or wrong. Again, it's too bad that because Obama has been a little shady about his past that this stereotype is played into. I do not and will never believe Iranian is synonymous with terrorist.
Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting post. Yes, and I'm glad you could pass through the shouting and see us as human beings.
Step outside American and you'll see that Americans, too, are linked with the loudest lunatic. We have to stop listening to the lunatics and start talking with each other.
Ahmadinejad's not going to attack America any time soon. What's actually on the agenda is America doing something stoopid in Iran...
It was actually Hillary who said that America would obliterate Iran if Iran attacked Israel. I am not a huge fan of Obama, but he had more sense than to say something like that.
Taheri is a huge charlatan. As for this column, Obama has made it clear that "all options are on the table" in dealing with Iran, including the military. Anyway, this pretty much contradicts what you said Obama said. Maybe I'll comment on Taheri, though he's pretty much a waste of time--one of the Shah's boot-lickers who's found a new set of boots to lick.
We're liberals... Actually, we include lots of disillusioned Republicans. Iranian Americans used to lean Republican, but that's going by the board.
Love your closing paragraph. We may disagree, but I for one would be proud to call you "friend."
Well, I'm glad that despite the fact that I recently changed my user name from the more normal "Franklin Pierce" to Ookla -- and I forgot the picture would show up! -- that my points came across.
You are added to the long line of Iranians I spoke of: kind, patient.
Interesting about Taheri, and I will add some skepticism. I work in the media, and once I pointed out to him via email he had an error in a piece -- one so obvious to make a point, that it already made me doubt him -- and didn't hear back.
Granted email is email, but, it still made me overall suspicious of him. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, they say (ignoring that if it's a digital clock, it might never be right, just dead!)
I think Obama, like JFK, might give that same youthful impression that tempts tyrants. I don't take much solace in Ahmedinajad not attacking America "any time soon," but I take your point.
The problem is, as we agree, the screamers, or the perception, and the temptations created by the impression that someone can be rolled or their weakness. It's not exclusive to party, it's just a general truth.
Hillary said about the retaliation, but I think it's a general feeling among people that look at others -- and this is common to the human condition -- that other people wouldn't do what they wouldn't do, and act rationally. Scary.
Your friend,
Dean
Keep on posting, Dean.
Post a Comment