The Redhunter

Things take time. Infrastructure. Planning. Identifying friends.

We've already seen what the world will do when we try to bring justice or sanity or whatever to the Middle East. Very little to nothing.
They generally (They being Russia and China) will demand peace and blame Israel. Although the cold war may be officially over, Russia still wars with us through proxy by it's support of any that cause us aggravation.

Then we have to pay for this because nobody else will. If the time comes and it's necessary, I'm willing to pay higher taxes to do whatever it takes to have a successful regime change in Iran.

It may also take a draft. Our military is stretched too thin now. Just banging a fist on a table isn't going to make the Iranian rulers go away.

Your previous post was about cutting military spending. Now is the time to speak softly, but continue upgrading our military. Speaking softly and carrying a big stick sends a more effective message than a loud angry speech.

And the people of Iran that long for American style freedom have contact through Twitter. They're getting messages out and we're getting them in. They already know people like you and I want them to succeed. I want as many of them as possible to live to see that day.

When the time is right and we are ready, absolutely we must act in the interest of our Nation and our only true ally, Israel. It's going to take time to get to that point.

You made real good points Tom. I hope the Obama Administration is working hard to make the day when our Nation can make the difference come soon.

That's a thoughtful comment, Truth, thanks for stopping by.

You are right that just banging a table accomplishes nothing. I've written at some length what Bush43 ought to have been doing instead of relying on the EU3 (Britain, France, and Germany) to negotiate with Iran. In summary, we should have been pursuing 1) a long-term strategy of bringing liberty to the Iranian people through a sophisticated human rights campaign and 2) a policy of regime change modeled on how we helped Solidarity in Poland.

As a labor union guy I'll sure you'll appreciate that last one.

Very much appreciated. With all the technology at our disposal, internet, twitter, satellites. Giving the oppressed of the Middle East a look at the freedom we enjoy can be done cheaply and safely.

That would be a far better way to get the majority of the Arab World to fight oppression and support us than threats and invasions.

Greetings,

After perusing through a listing of conservative organizations, I stumbled across your website. There are some things that I would like to correct. First and foremost, there is this line: "Yesterday I outlined many reasons why Why President Obama Should Stand for Freedom in Iran and other places around the world." This baffles me entirely. Never before has a US President ever stood for the liberty or freedom of another nation.

Our government supported allies who engaged in the Final Solution against the Jews in Yugoslavia, and against international trade embargos, we gave oil to Spain, so they could get rid of the bodies. Our government led a coup against democratically elected presidents in Chile, Venezuela, Haiti, Guatemala, and Mexico. Ironically, our government also led a coup against the democratic Iranian government. Who did it? Kermit Roosevelt led the Shah's seizure of power. That's right -- on the front of your page, you quote Roosevelt, and then you complain about how the present government has done nothing for Iran. This isn't quite true: the dictatorship that exists presently in Iran is the product of Roosevelt's grandson. If you support your government when they created a dictatorship in Iran, and then attack it when they don't stop it, you're obviously contradicting yourself. Either that, or the basic history of Iran escapes you, though you still feel the need to talk about something you're ignorant of. There are many other baffling statements...

"President Obama has said he refuses to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs, but this is a poor excuse for passivity."

Obama has given his support of the people, much more so than Ronald Reagan gave his support of the Russian people. In a statement, he said, "The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days." [*1] What do you want him to do, besides talk about it? Do you want him to invade Iran, and establish a Democracy? I know you were just briefed on the history of Iran, but I'll repeat it for you: the last time the United States invaded Iran, we abolished the rule of the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh, and established a religious monarchy. If Obama hasn't done enough in speaking out against it, then please, tell me what you expect him to do. He's already taken the same actions as Republican leaders opposing the Soviet Union -- Ronald Reagan didn't invade, did he?

*1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/23/obama.news.conference/index.html, Obama toughens his talk on Iran, WASHINGTON (CNN), updated 6:47 p.m. EDT, Tue June 23, 2009.

Furthermore, I'm shocked that you think the Soviets were concerned about their image from illegal imprisonments. The Soviet Union has untold, millions of mass graves, of the common, the poor, and the working-class. Staged trials, only a state press, and a people who are completely alienated from their social order. The fall of the Soviet Union had virtually nothing to do with the West. After all, it was the West -- the German, Wilhelm state -- that paid millions of deustchmarks to Lenin to overthrow the Russian tzar. Once again, just like Iran: when your government gets involved, the only thing they've done is establish a new dictatorship. But when that dictatorship goes run amok, slaughtering its people without so much as a second thought, now you become the big moralists!

Let's take a look at what brought down the Soviet Union: in Poland, it was the trade union federation Solidarity. By use of the General Strike, the unions were able to topple the government, which led to the Polish Round Table Talks. The General Strike, which overthrew British rule in India and French rule in Syria, was also the tool that overthrew the Soviet Union? If you want to help the Iranians, do what has worked in the past! Don't moralize about your leaders, your gods of state, and about what they can do for you -- advocate unions, advocate anti-Capitalist actions, advocate strikes and boycotts, and all sorts of sabotage used by the working-class.

If the Iranian people want to have a Democracy, then the will for it must come from within them. But if we want to make then successful, then we need to help them unionize and resist the power of the government.

From a red to a non-red,

Sincerely,

Andy Carloff,

Hi Andy

I'm not sure why you considered it necessary to send me your comment by email, but apparently a response by me is demanded. Either that or my post got under your skin. Odd, because I'm not a ranter and try and keep my posts respectful.

Please also read my comments policy, the link to which is at upper right. If you come back you can have the last word.

"Never before has a US President ever stood for the liberty or freedom of another nation."

Heavens. World War II? We gave Germany, Italy, and Japan a democratic form of government afterwards. Ditto for Iraq and Afghanistan today. I suppose you can quibble over the meaning of "stood for" but my point was that we do or should want everyone to live in liberty.

Your next paragraph tells it all. You really don't like America. You're part of the "Blame America First" crowd that Jeane Kirkpatrick talked about back in 1984.

Sorry, but it's not entirely clear that the U.S. played as big a role in 1953 Iran as you say. Yes I know, this is an article of faith on your part, but there it is.

More to it, the 1953 coup is irrelevant, and quite frankly you bore me by bringing it up.

Enough of 1953. Not that it was necessary, Madeline Albright apologized to Iran for this in 2000. What did this gain us? Nothing. Did the Iranians say "oh thank you, we forgive you." Of course not. They took it as an admission of weakness and realized that they could rachet up the rhetoric and we'd wallow in guilt forever.

Enough is enough and it's time to move on. It's been over 50 years since this occurred and people need to get over it. Get a life and get over it.

I looked up the "Great Satan" charge and from what I can tell it was first used in a speech by Khomeini in in a speech in 1979, and referred to a variety of U.S. actions that they don't like. But even if it did specifically refer to 1953 so what.

Understand that the Mullahs hate us not because of 1953 or any specific U.S. or U.K. action but because we are infidels standing in the way of their goal of regional hegemony. They want to create a regional Imamate based on their Shite vision of Islam. This whole thing goes back almost 1400 years.

They use 1953 because they know it plays to Western liberals, always ready to feel guilty over some Western transgression, real or imagined. They also know they can use it to whip up their own people. And it works like a champ.

Let's cut to the core here - whatever happened in 1953 is being used as a tool to paralyze the U.S. into inaction. It is used by American liberals, and it is used by Iranian demagogues, both for the same purpose.

It makes absolutely no sense to use an event in 1953 as justification for inaction today.

Just the opposite, in fact. If we made a mistake then by putting a dictator in power, should we then not be the ones to correct the mistake by actively supporting liberty there today?

It's like China and other Pacific rim nations using Japanese crimes in WWII to argue that Japan should not spend more on it's military and take a more active role in the region.

How long must all this go on? How long must the U.S. pay for 1953, Japan for WWII? Another 50 years? 100? 1000?

What is it with this perpetual guilt that has such a hold over some people? It's kind of a medieval concept, kind of like the family guilt whereby if one person in a family committed a crime future generations where held liable.

We see this phenomenon here at home too, whereby racial grievance groups use the sins of the past to gain government benefits all out of proportion to the situation today. Whitey was guilty in the past, and so he must be held to account today.

So I have had it with 1953 being used as an all-purpose reason to paralyze the U.S. into inaction and this has to end.

"Furthermore, I'm shocked that you think the Soviets were concerned about their image from illegal imprisonments."

Be shocked all you want, it's true. Hitler tried to cover up the murder of the Jews, telling everyone that they were simply being relocated to the east. Stalin tried to cover up the murder of millions by faking census numbers (Conquest, The Great Terror, and yes, Brezhnev and his cohorts didn't like their crimes exposed either. The Helsinki accords backfired on them badly (Sharansky, The Case for Democracy). The truth is that the days of Genghis Khan and the like glorifying in their killings are long gone. As Amnesty International and other such groups will tell you, the surest way to shame dictators is to bring their crimes to the light of day.

"Let's take a look at what brought down the Soviet Union: in Poland, it was the trade union federation Solidarity. By use of the General Strike, the unions were able to topple the government, which led to the Polish Round Table Talks."

Correct, but you're leaving out some crucial parts, 1) President Reagan spoke loudly about the situation, and 2) he initiated a massive clandestine program which aided Solidarity and helped undermine the communist government. I blogged about all this in some detail here (see comments section also for link to Carl Bernstein article).

"advocate unions, advocate anti-Capitalist actions, advocate strikes and boycotts, and all sorts of sabotage used by the working-class."

Ah, you're a communist. That explains everything!

" First and foremost, there is this line: "Yesterday I outlined many reasons why Why President Obama Should Stand for Freedom in Iran and other places around the world." This baffles me entirely. Never before has a US President ever stood for the liberty or freedom of another nation. "

You have more patience than I do Tom. I would have just said "CUCKOO...CUCKOO."

Obama doesn't want regime change in Iran. He doesn't believe in the value of freedom. To him, that's an alien language.

He'd rather take his worthless chances with the mullahs than actually solve the problem of Iran.

I find it odd that the military in Honduras just kidnapped the democratically elected far-left president and the military is busting heads under martial law right now; but not a peep from the right; as far I have read- which is fairly limited-

It is not America bashing to look at real history: Operation Ajax is clearly a part of Mossaddeq coup history- we supported bad people in the 80s in central america- I think it is better to acknowledge and not repeat the mistakes of the past; instead of pretending they did not occur*

"Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

jason, I'm disappointed in you.

Your second point first; I'm not against ignoring history. I'm against wallowing in guilt and using our misdeads as a tactic to paralyze us into inaction.

As for Honduras, you mischaracterize what happened. The editors of National Review sum it up best::

At first blush, the news from Honduras sounds like a sad return to Latin America’s past: A democratically elected president has been exiled by the military. But make no mistake: The Honduran soldiers who escorted Pres. Manuel Zelaya from his home on Sunday were acting to protect their country’s democracy, not to trample it. Moreover, they had the full support of the Honduran Supreme Court, which had rejected Zelaya’s bid to hold a referendum on “constitutional reform.”

The proposed referendum, illegal without an act of Congress, aimed to launch a “constituent assembly” that would draft an entirely new constitution. Zelaya’s ultimate goal was to extend or abolish presidential term limits, mimicking the example of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez and other Latin American populists. Hondurans rightly feared that such a maneuver would set their country on the path to Chávez-style authoritarianism. When the Supreme Court rebuffed him, Zelaya defied its ruling and sought to proceed with the referendum anyway. Along with a large group of followers, he ransacked a military post and seized millions of referendum ballots.

The Supreme Court says that it ordered the armed forces to detain Zelaya, who was then shipped off to Costa Rica. The Honduran Congress, which had refused to endorse Zelaya’s referendum, quickly named a successor. While it is always unnerving to see gun-toting officers arrest a president, the move against Zelaya was not a conventional “military coup.” It was an affirmation of democracy and the rule of law, both of which the president had flouted. If anything, it was a counter-coup, the real coup having been attempted by Zelaya.

Officials across Latin America have condemned his exile, as has the Obama administration. Chávez is apoplectic. No surprise there: Under Zelaya, Honduras became a member of the Venezuelan-led “Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas,” a trade bloc established to counter U.S. influence in the region. Immediately after being flown to Costa Rica, Zelaya headed to Managua, where he was warmly received by a leftist coterie that included Chávez and Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega.

Thus far, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed serious concerns about Zelaya’s exile but neglected the events that preceded it. (“Meddling” in Honduras is apparently more acceptable than meddling in Iran.) Yesterday she declared that the political turmoil in Honduras had “evolved into a coup.” But we must remember that the military acted to preserve democratic institutions rather than to squash them. “It’s important that we stand for the rule of law,” Clinton said. But the armed forces were standing for the rule of law when they arrested Zelaya, who had shown brazen disregard for the Honduran constitution. Not only did the president defy a Supreme Court ruling, he also fired the top Honduran military official, Gen. Romeo Vásquez, for refusing to help carry out his referendum. This was a blatant attempt to hijack Honduran politics.

By contrast, the Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, and military have all worked to safeguard the constitution. The Congress issued a decree charging Zelaya with endangering both the rule of law and the broader “governability” of Honduras, and it voted (per the constitution) to replace with him congressional leader Roberto Micheletti. The new Honduran president says that presidential and parliamentary elections will go ahead as planned in November.

Despite its fidelity to constitutional procedures, Honduras has come under intense fire from abroad and may be forced to reinstall Zelaya as president. That would be a deplorable outcome. Zelaya’s exile was not about trashing the constitutional order; it was about defending that order. Why should Honduras be compelled to restore a president who showed utter contempt for the democratic process, and whose removal was backed by the judiciary and confirmed by the legislature?

Unfortunately, the reality is that if Honduras does not return Zelaya to the presidency the rest of Latin America may treat it like a pariah. In the event that Zelaya’s return is unavoidable, which it may be, he should be forced to publicly state his commitment to the current Honduran constitution and disavow his illegal referendum. As the negotiations proceed, President Obama and Secretary Clinton should tone down their criticism of Zelaya’s ouster. Honduran officials have maintained the integrity of their democratic institutions while resisting a naked assault on them. They should not be condemned.

So what you have in Honduras is a Castro/Chavez wannabe try to circumvent the constitution and the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court, and military stepped in to restore democracy.

Greetings,

Thank you so much for you highly-valued response. Of course I demand a response from you, as I feel quite privileged to discuss with those who love their nation so much.

"Sorry, but it's not entirely clear that the U.S. played as big a role in 1953 Iran as you say. Yes I know, this is an article of faith on your part, but there it is."

Actually, it is what is generall referred to as "common knowledge." The wikipedia articles on Iran and Mohammed Mosaddeq thoroughly cover this. More importantly, they provide research and evidence into the situation. Far from "an act of faith," it's been accepted by the historical community as simply just a fact. Quoting Wikipedia and the resources they used...

"Mosaddeq was removed from power in a 19 August 1953 coup supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and led by General Fazlollah Zahedi. [4] The American operation came to be known as Operation Ajax in America, [5] after its CIA cryptonym, and as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup in Iran, after its date on the Iranian calendar. [6] Mosaddeq was imprisoned for three years and subsequently put under house arrest until his death."

4. a b James Risen (2000-04-16). "Secrets of History: The C.I.A. in Iran". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html. Retrieved on 2006-11-03.
5. Dan De Luce (2003-09-20). "The Spectre of Operation Ajax". Guardian Unlimited. http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1022065,00.html. Retrieved on 2006-11-03.
6. Mark J. Gasiorowski; Malcolm Byrne (2004-06-22). "Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran". National Security Archive. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm. Retrieved on 2006-11-03.

I would also like to add the Iranian journalist, John Perkins, who has covered underground and insurgent movements in the country. ["Confessions of an Economic Hitman," John Perkins.] There's another comment of yours here...

"You really don't like America. You're part of the "Blame America First" crowd that Jeane Kirkpatrick talked about back in 1984."

I never blamed the American people -- I blamed the American government. When you say "America," you must mean specifically the politicians down in Washington. Yes, I blame them, and I think it's dishonest to refer to them exclusively as America -- Americans themselves must not be worthy of the counting as "America."

"More to it, the 1953 coup is irrelevant, and quite frankly you bore me by bringing it up.

"Enough of 1953. Not that it was necessary, Madeline Albright apologized to Iran for this in 2000. What did this gain us? Nothing. Did the Iranians say "oh thank you, we forgive you." Of course not. They took it as an admission of weakness and realized that they could rachet up the rhetoric and we'd wallow in guilt forever."

Wait, you're saying that the US and British governments WERE NOT involved in a coup against the Iranian Democracy, but THEN THEY APOLOGIZE FOR IT? Could you please explain this discrepancy? And furthermore, how does it bore you? You see interested enough in it to quote a page-long newspaper about the present Iranian Revolution, but you have no curiosity where the religious monarchy came from?

What are your real feelings about the Iranian people? Because it would seem to me, that if you want to help them overthrow their tyrants, you need to know where they came from. If those tyrants came from US forces trying to "establish democracy," then maybe doing that again won't work!!!

"Enough is enough and it's time to move on. It's been over 50 years since this occurred and people need to get over it. Get a life and get over it."

Hey, so I guess we can take god out of the pledge of allegiance and stop talking about Jesus all together. "Jesus Christ died for your sins, and you need to repe - ", and your response, "You know what? That was like, a really long time ago, okay? Let it go. Stop bringing it up!" I assume, Red Hunter, that you probably won't be talking about religion or faith in god anymore, because it happened a long time ago. "Marriage is a Christian idea -- " me: "You know, Jesus died so long ago. Stop bugging me with it!!!"

"Understand that the Mullahs hate us not because of 1953 or any specific U.S. or U.K. action but because we are infidels standing in the way of their goal of regional hegemony. They want to create a regional Imamate based on their Shite vision of Islam. This whole thing goes back almost 1400 years."

Yes, and going back that amount of time, you find that Christians and Western nations have pillaged, robbed, and raped the area for centuries. So what should my conclusion be now? That it's just two groups of people killing each other over who has the better imaginary friend? And hey hey hey -- you're going back 1400 years in history, but I can't even go back 50 years? Please! YOU ARE BORING ME!

"They use 1953 because they know it plays to Western liberals, always ready to feel guilty over some Western transgression, real or imagined. They also know they can use it to whip up their own people. And it works like a champ.

"Let's cut to the core here - whatever happened in 1953 is being used as a tool to paralyze the U.S. into inaction. It is used by American liberals, and it is used by Iranian demagogues, both for the same purpose."

So, without US involvement in the Middle East, their own people would have already overthrown their own dictatorships, and would have created Democracy on their own? Then get the US the hell outta there! If all we do is convince them that we are trying to genocide them, then maybe we need to think of another tactic! I am, in fact, completely in favor of establishing a democratic order in Iran. The reason why I bring up the coup by the US is to demonstrate something you must've missed: the US, by becoming involved militarily in the Middle East, has only established tyranny and dictatorship.

"It makes absolutely no sense to use an event in 1953 as justification for inaction today.

"What is it with this perpetual guilt that has such a hold over some people? It's kind of a medieval concept, kind of like the family guilt whereby if one person in a family committed a crime future generations where held liable."

You're bringing up events from 1400 years to justify ignorant action today. Yes, ignorant action. If you don't look at what your actions have done in the past, and you commit them again in the future, you will fall to the same failures! Please explain to me how you don't care about how the US government created dictatorship, and how you think the same exact tactic, is going to create Democracy?

"As Amnesty International and other such groups will tell you, the surest way to shame dictators is to bring their crimes to the light of day."

Shameful dictators, like shameful presidents, have not stopped them in their conquest over people. And if it is all that needs to be done, why advocate more out of the US? All the president has done is argued that what is happening in Iran is barbaric. What more do you want him to do? Because so far, he's done more than you.

"Ah, you're a communist. That explains everything!"

Ah yes, I can see your respect coming out now.

"Heavens. World War II? We gave Germany, Italy, and Japan a democratic form of government afterwards. Ditto for Iraq and Afghanistan today. I suppose you can quibble over the meaning of 'stood for' but my point was that we do or should want everyone to live in liberty."

Actually, world war 2 was caused by the economic sanctions levied against the Germans after World War 1. The most influential economist of the 20th century predicted this: John Maynard Keynes in his book, "The Economic Price of Peace." Without the grinding poverty created by Liberalism in Germany, they wouldn't have had conditions that created dictatorship. After all, the biggest opposition to Hitler's Party was the Bolshevik-controlled Communist Party -- people picked very unhealthy extremes, because every else failed. And World War 1 is another great example: the US commits a war crime, by loading civilian passengers onto the military carrier the Lusitania, and then after the Germans sink it, we accuse them of war crimes! Once again, read the wikipedia article, and it'll inform you that the ship was running weapons, and had unaware civilian shields on it (against international law, according to the Geneva Convention). The whole justification was that Austria was being unfair to their colony Serbia, whereas just the year before, France had done far worse to the people of its Algerian colony. Our government creates dictatorship through world war 1, creates the conditions for world war 2, and then somehow comes out with all the credit? And we get credit for toppling Sadam Hussein, when we participated in gassing his people, and gave him weapons? (see the George Washington University websites FOIA project) We get credit for liberating Afghanistan, when Ronald Reagan gave millions of dollars and illegal chemical weapons to terrorists in the Taliban?

Okay, let's make a deal: don't create dictatorships, and I won't expect you to overthrow them. What about Batista in Cuba, or the dictators supported in Haiti? Even there, the US government created a dictatorship, and then left it alone!

If only the US wouldn't get involved, then they wouldn't have to spend trillions on a military to correct their pathetic mistakes. And when I say America, I say it as you do: not the American people, because how would they ever come into mind? When I say America, I just mean whoever is in charge!

Peace,
Andy Carloff,

"Of course I demand a response from you..."

Given that you don't allow comments on your own website, that's an amazingly hypocritical statement.

Let me refer you to my comments policy, the relevant section for you is:

"...the comments section is just that; an area for you to comment on my post. I will probably respond to most disagreements but don't have time for long-winded never-ending debates. I also like to give commenters the last word. If you want to entertain yourself with the notion that if I don't answer all of your questions it's because you've stumped me, or if I don't respond to all of your points it's an admission that I'm wrong, just go away right now. Like all of you I've got a million other things to do in life and probably spend too much time at this as it is."

So thank you for your comment, Andy, we've each made our points, and it's time to move on.

Greetings,

"Given that you don't allow comments on your own website, that's an amazingly hypocritical statement."

Yeah, and in the same sentence, I said I felt privileged. I was being sarcastic.

Not allowing comments on my site? Please, I've been writing a bit longer than before the existence of blogs. And unlike a blog, I don't just post news articles and respond to them with two-bit, meaningless slogans. I wrote essays, not blogs.

Everyone can have a chance to criticize my pieces, since they're COPYLEFT, meaning completely free for redistribution. A number of pieces have appeared on other sites, where I'd end up debating there, and then reposting the debate at my site. That's actually happened a number of times. So, if you're dying to respond to something in the public arena, by all means, repost it and criticize it.

Andy Carloff,

According to The Economist (which I consider less partisan than the National Review), NR is wrong in the following manner, as quoted from the Economist:

"The army said he was arrested for defying the Supreme Court, though no explanation has been given for why he was not brought before a Honduran judge. The legislature then voted almost unanimously to install Mr Micheletti, a Liberal rival of Mr Zelaya, as his successor. Congress has no constitutional power to remove the president. Mr Micheletti produced a curiously worded resignation letter which Mr Zelaya denies having written or signed."

This quote from the Economist directly contradicts the interpretation of the NR: "By contrast, the Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, and military have all worked to safeguard the constitution."

Regardless of the technicality of whether the Honduran constitution actually allows the congress to remove the president, I am not so sure I would quickly chose as side in this internal problem, as the NR seems to have done.

jason - Good points as always. I can't find that article in the Economist, but I take your word for it. In my opinion they just do a better job of hiding their bias than National Review, but that's quibbling.

I'll concede that the situation in Honduras is complicated and I have neither the time nor inclination to read their constitution nor sort the whole thing out. None of them involved in this are boy scouts. And everyone has probably done something shady. I think that's fair.

But even though it may be true that their Congress had no right to remove Zelaya, Zelaya had no right to call for the referendum to change the constitution. It seems pretty clear to me that he was illegally trying to extend his stay in power. So it's inaccurate to term it a "military coup" and leave it at that. Zelaya sounds like a Hugo Chavez wannabe and Honduras is better off without him.

More to it, though, even if conservatives were being complete hypocrites by not denouncing what happened in Honduras, that's not an excuse for not doing something about Iran. While hypocrisy is a sin and thus to be avoided, two wrongs don't make a right.

The interesting thing in the article is that Zelaya is not very popular, but the democratic process should be followed, regardless of popularity.

Coming back to Iran, the regime has decided to go extreme in their crackdown and show just how out of touch they are. The thing we have to watch is that Hossien Mousavi wasn't a potential huge change. He supported the islamic revolution from early and has always maintained that he is opposed to suspending the country’s nuclear-enrichment program. Yes, I abhor the treatment of the demonstrators and so on, but I don't see the 'opposition' in Iran as offering a change in the course of the regime. Most Iranians I know who live in the US (and do not support the regime) still support their nations nuclear goals, which I find a little odd. If Israel does attack, an unfortunate outcome could be that the country rallies to Ahnemjenabad (however it is spelled) and the short lived opposition movement is buried in an outcry against an incursion, strengthening the position of Ahnejenabad. The risk would then be that the strike is not complete, and the counter strike (via Hezbollah in Lebanon) is nuclear. Ugly options for an ugly situation.

Although, Hezbollah recently lost ground in the Lebanese elections and ceded their losses gracefully. Tehran should take note.