Skip to main content

View Diary: Gay Iranian to face Deporation.. then EXECUTION (220 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What's Missing Here? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    When Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University he admitted that Iran did not have gays. What he deftly left out is the reason which was that they killed them.

    The human rights violations in Iran are astounding and rarely reported.

    Yet Obama has repeatedly stated that he would sit down with ahmadinejad, the head of that country, without pre-conditon - not even a condition that Jimmy Carter had which was human rights violations.

    Maybe Obama should rethink this a little.

    •  Actually, what Ahmadinejad said (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, JeffW

      was that Iran doesn't have gays like the USA does.

      This could mean either "Unlike the USA, Iran doesn't have gays" or "Iran doesn't have gays in the same quanitity or with the same degree of visibility that the USA does."

      I suspect he meant the latter.

      This makes Iran's treatment of gays and lesbians no less appalling, of course.

      •  The look on his face showed me (0+ / 0-)

        that he meant that Iran didn't have this "phenenomon". It was a smirk, like "I don't know what you are talking about".

        Where's the outrage? Not just now, where has it been all of these years?

        •  Umm, what phenomenon? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skrekk, JeffW

          Ahmadinejad comes from a culture in which men sometimes have sex with other men, and are punished mercilessly for it, but in which there's no such thing as sexual orientation/identity.  Except in the major cities, and then because of outside influence.

          This is pretty much how half of America still thinks; it's also the position of the Catholic Church, which despite some lame attempts at psychobabble still believes that one can pray away teh gay.  (That's why priestly pederasts are punished with a couple of months of "spiritual retreat" . . . before being sent to their next parish assignment.

          Same thing with Ted Haggard.

          As for outrage, oh yes I'm outraged, but what exactly do you think I should do about it?  I've already sent e-mail to the British Government expressing my horror that they'd deny asylum to Iranian gays and lesbians

          Sorry, I'm not going to advocate nuking Tehran to save all of the gays and lesbians living there.

          •  "phenomenon" refers to the translated word (0+ / 0-)

            of Ahmadinejad.

            I'm not suggesting nuking Iran, but how about protests? It seems everyone is willing to take Britain to task and that would be a good short term action; but long term action requires world-wide attention towards Iran on this issue.

            •  I don't have anything against protests, (0+ / 0-)

              but it's a nonstarter here in the USA because there are no Iranian interests to protest to or in front of.  And if there were, I'm not sure the protests would accomplish anything.

              Now if, on the other hand, we actually had diplomatic relationships with Iran, we could always make an improvement in their treatment of gays and lesbians a precondition for, say, more favorable economic terms.  I have this sneaking suspicion they would be more amenable to the suggestion if it weren't made in public.  State attempts to shame them in public would probably only harden their position and worsen the situation for Iranian gays and lesbians.

      •  Sure, because cutting diplomatic relations... (8+ / 0-)

        has worked so well up until now.

        Quick quiz:
        *How much has our diplomatic silence with Cuba done to foster free speech there and prevent human rights abuses?
        *How much did the 30+ years of silence with China do to foster a free and open society there, compared to the vast (though insufficient) improvements which have occurred since we normalized relations?

        Refusing to meet with foreign leaders is only a punishment if you believe that cutting off Iran from contact with the US is like blocking out the sun.  They will always have a market for their oil.  Whether that market is one which has any concern for their shameful human rights record is the question.

        I resent your implication that willingness to meet with a foreign leader is a tacit endorsement of their policies.  The idea that you could change someone's mind by saying "Fuck you Iran, I'm not gonna talk to you any more" strikes me as incorrect.

        "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu

        by Mickey Thunder on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:25:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  umm, are you responding to me? (0+ / 0-)

          because actually, I agree with you totally.

        •  Not that simplistic (0+ / 0-)

          I resent your implication that willingness to meet with a foreign leader is a tacit endorsement of their policies.

          If you meet with a foreign leader without any preconditions then, yes, it is tacit endorsement of the policies of that leader.

          Do you think every foreign policy meeting is a couple of guys sitting down and having a brewsky?

          It is not as simplistic as you portray it. There are always preconditions for meetings, outlines to be followed, and discussion points.

          Setting down basic human rights stipulations should be the very least prior to a meeting with Ahmadinejad. So it was okay for Carter to have human rights preconditions before meeting with the former Shah of Iran, but it's to okay to do it with Ahmadinejad?

          •  "without any preconditions vs tacit endorsement" (0+ / 0-)

            is a Republican and Clinton talking point.  I would hope people here would be smarter than that.  Of course in any meeting there will be an agenda, but only diminutive minds like Bush's require preconditions.

            •  The guy's a right-wing troll (0+ / 0-)

              Pretending to be a Clintonite. Review his recent comments and see for yourself. When he doesn't trash Obama, he trashes his supporters, and promotes dishonest RW frames and talking points. Ignore or HR him as you see fit.

              "No matter what people say, what people think, if you do what you think is right, you're serving your country." - Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

              by kovie on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:13:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  We talked to obstinate Vietnamese communists (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skrekk

            for years on end.

    •  Human rights precondition to talk=bullshit (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, corvo, boofdah, skrekk, condorcet

      We talked with the Soviets all the time and look how they treated their people.

      We'd never have strategic arms limitation treaties if not for our willingness to conduct diplomacy with assholes.  That's just life.  Don't be so naive.

      Setting such ridiculous preconditions is effectively the same thing as asserting that you will not talk.

      We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan

      by CA Libertarian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:47:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site