The rockstar of 2008 is making more moves, this time it is foreign policy and Iran.
The two presidential candidates have introduced a measure encouraging divestment from companies that do business with Iran.
And after the flip we can see more..
edit: just to make this clear, nutjob = Brownback.
Yep, Barack has been talking about Sudan, he doesn't want to invest in Sudan. Here is one diary on that topic.
But now Senator Obama wants to do the same with Iran. Why? Here is why:
"All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies.
Ah, yes. The biggest threat ever. Sadly the dear senator missed over 100k troops in Iraq..
Is this a a good move? Politically it is:
a) add more fuel to the "hate Iran" bonfire
b) makes him look like he cares about human rights
c) he can even be a bi-partisan player
For those of us living in the real world, this is very strange. Here is why:
a) human rights in the region..Abu Ghraib, invading Iraq etc
b) In the same region there is this funny little country that doesn't give a crap about human rights, but Obama remains silent.
c)Brownback is a nut, working with him gives him credibility.
Of course it is hypocritical, and you all know why. 800 pound gorilla and all.
Some of you could point out that this is better than the famous Dick Cheney approach but that doesn't say much.
Do i support this idea? Sounds good, but it is still way too hypocritical. If we use these standards, then:
- Doing business with Saudi-Arabia can not be accepted
- Doing business with the 800 pound gorilla in ME can not be supported
- Doing business with non-democratic Arab governments is not acceptable
- Doing business and selling high tech weapons to Pakistan is not ok.
And this list is very long..
Is Senator Obama willing to stop supporting all countries that do not support human rights?