Yes, you can!

This is news?

:):):)

"LA/OC is home to one of the wealthiest Iranian communities in the U.S. and we should care who our next president is and what his policies are going to be"

These expat Iranians are mostly people who fled the mullahs of the "Islamic Republic of Iran".

I guessing they care about their family member who never made it out.

Taking out the mullahs and their puppets would be a good thing.

Here's what they want to discuss (from the rest of the email):

1) Tone down the tensions and the rhetoric between our two countries and negotiate directly with Iran without preconditions to resolve the situation.

An actual war will be devastating for both countries, as an Iranian I would hate to see my country of birth get obliterated and I would also feel very embarrassed in front of my family and friends who are still in Iran if I don't do everything that I can to prevent such a catastrophe.

As an American, I would hate to see more of our resources wasted, our young people be put in harm's way, our gas prices increase, our currency get further devalued, our inflation increase, our unemployment increase and our reputation get even more tarnished in view of the rest of the world.

Needless to say getting engaged in yet another war will have an extreme adverse effect on our lives.

2) Iran has had an interest section in Washington for the past 29 years, we should urge Mr. Obama that if he becomes President he should allow for opening of an interest section in Tehran so when our friends and family members want to travel to the U.S. they don't have to first travel to a third country to get a visa.

The best way of lowering of tensions is to communicate and having some sort of a presence in Iran would allow our two countries to have a much better channel of communication. It is very important that more Iranians be allowed to come visit, study and live here to see for themselves that Americans in general are honest, caring, simple and devout so they can go back and promote a friendlier environment. By the same token more Americans should be able to make their way to Iran to see first hand for themselves that all Iranians are not evil.

Please share your views on this interview Obama did on Wednesday with the editor-in-chief of the center-right Jerusalem Post, David Horovitz:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331099249&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Specifically, which views expressed in this interview differ from those of, say McCain, and would make you more or less willing to vote for one presidential candidate over the other? And what do you think explains Horovitz's reaction to the interview, as he explains in the opening paragraphs of the article?

On the Iran topic: as the post states, there are many Iranian/Americans and a lot of them fled the mullahs. Some are Jewish. I've known several, Muslims and Jews, and totally understand their concerns. Also they are anything but evil, the idea that Iranian people are evil is absurd and people shouldn't have to even make that assertion.

Iran is a gorgeous, highly diverse nation. Obviously it has a rich and ancient culture.

The thought of war with Iran really makes me ill.

The thought that the mullahs, apparently in total control of the military and political apparatus of the state, would harm Israel - have harmed Israel - and have reportedly been attacking US interests and people and supporting terror in the M.E. directly or indirectly, also makes me ill.

Watching Iranian parades, reading anti-American and anti-Jewish/anti-Israel propaganda, and learning about the repression of women and free-thinkers in Iran, it's hard not to relate the present government to some of the worst we saw in Europe in the 20th century. Clearly this directly impacts both Syrian and Lebanese politics as well as Palestinian and that directly affects the M.E. as a whole, which affects everybody because of petroleum, trade routes etc. So this is a huge problem.

But, I don't see how we can influence Iranian politics if we don't talk to Iranians. It might already be too late though, if the government is set on developing nuclear weapons.

How serious, also, are their threats? The Israelis (and I think many others) believe they're very serious. People didn't listen to the Germans in the 1930's - or worse - agreed with them - and before long it was too late and Europe was in chains. I watched a film last night, from 1939, about the Nazi spy rings in the US - ideologically driven threats are real and they didn't expire with Hitler.

I also don't see how Iran can evolve unless the people themselves want to change. Hitler had the enthusiastic support of his people and apparently, of German/Americans and people in Austria, Holland, Britain, France, Norway, eastern and southern Europe and the Middle East - thus when he attacked the ground had already been prepared. Don't we see something similar with Hezbollah? Hamas? So is Iranian government rhetoric just the clamor of an aggressively posturing government or is it a real national dream? We should learn more before we act! It may be that support for the government is thin - do we know? Do we have time to find out? I fear the current administration has squandered years.

When we talk about "change" we run into the fact of cultural and religious norms that the people there, in Iran and within Hezbollah, in Syria and within the Palestinian community, might not want to change although many obviously seem to - there are trade unionists and other reformers in Iran and Syria, clearly in Lebanon there is stiff opposition to Iran/Hezbollah; and obviously there are expatriot communities - who seem opposed to the rule of the current government. There are also a lot of people in jail or already punished or dead, who've tried to express a desire for freedom and reform.

I'm really torn about all this. I truly dread the possibility of more warfare, the consequences could indeed be dreadful; the consequences of WMD's could be more dreadful.

Finally, can any weapon change an idea? If the religious belief system is deeply held by a majority of people in Iran, and if government propaganda is believed, ie that the West is evil, Israel is evil, etc etc, then real trouble lies ahead. Maybe it can be contained without overt violence. I hope so.

I think it's possible much of this, including the military parades etc, is defensive posturing, much as a weak animal like a moth will imitate a predatory owl. Iran was attacked by US client state Iraq after all, though this was long after 1979 obviously. Clearly they're afraid of Israel - and vice-versa. Nothing the Iranian government has done the past few years is reassuring, to say the least - can we find a thread of reason and hope?

I guess the question I have is this: can diplomacy and peaceful means suffice until the people of Iran force their leadership to evolve - assuming that is what the people really want?

Obama cancelled a meeting with troops in a hospital in Germany. According to the several reports I've read the cancellation occurred after Obama and his staff were told by the military that cameras would not be allowed during his scheduled meeting with troops in the hospital.

E.g., the LATimes, excerpt:

"U.S. military authorities told advisors to Barack Obama this week that he could not bring press or campaign staff on a visit to wounded troops from Iraq and Afghanistan at a hospital in Germany, a Pentagon spokesman said Friday.

"After advisors learned of the restriction, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee canceled his scheduled visit Friday to the military's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in southern Germany."

By contrast, Andrea Mitchell and some other MSM types, along with Obama staff, are openly stating the military - in collusion with McCain no less - stopped Obama from visiting the wounded troops.

Keep it above the belt, fellas. As reported today in the Times (if you can believe that leftist/communist rag, of course): "Mr. Obama did visit wounded troops in Iraq, without telling the news media, and has done so in the United States." And according to Senator Reed, who was on the trip with Obama, "Senator Hagel, Senator Obama and I visited the combat support hospital in Baghdad to thank those nurses, those doctors, to see patients that were there, to bring a bit of greetings from home and profound thanks. That should be in the ad that Senator McCain is running. I think Senator Obama made a very wise choice [about Germany]. Any suggestion that a visit to a military hospital would be political, he made the wise choice not to go. But when we were in Baghdad, we made a point, at the end of a very exhausting day, to go in and see these magnificent young Americans and those doctors and nurses that give such tremendous care - without a lot of fanfare, just to say 'Thanks.' We went to Jalalabad to see the soldiers of the 173rd. We stopped in Basra to see our soldiers down there. We went into Anbar province to see soldiers there."

So to say that Obama refuses to visit wounded troops is simply dishonest, and you all know it.

It is unsurprising that you feel a need to hit below the belt. Oppose Obama if you want if you, like me, are legitimately concerned with his policy proposals. But when you start assuming that he's driven by some sort of hatred of America, when you feel a need to go above and beyond and actually demonize him, then you're "on very thin ground," as that "traitor" Senator Hagel would say. I could turn around and start accusing McCain of hating the troops, perhaps arguing that he thinks that they're all wusses compared to him, and pointing to his opposition to the new GI bill, for example. That would be wrong. Neither McCain nor Obama hates the troops, and both are patriotic Americans, even if we don't agree with them on particular policy issues.

But if you feel a need to demonize anybody with whom you disagree, then please do so, and conform to everyone's expectation of people with your ideological persuasions. Just makes your opponents' jobs easier, though you probably don't want that now do you?

Matt,

Practice what you preach. What is it, a twenty-something or thirty-something extended adolescence? Read what was stated once again, then add some comprehension to those reading skills of yours, then, if you care to, respond in a coherent manner.

The subject brought up is a specific visit in Germany. Do you have any information concerning that specific visit? At all? Additionally, no one said Obama refused to visit troops. The question that remains open, at this point at least, is whether or not - after he and his campaign were told cameras and press would not be allowed - they cancelled the visit due to the fact that a photo-op and similar press would not be part and parcel of that visit. Perhaps that was the motivation, perhaps it wasn't, but the question, despite your assurances, remains open and remains a perfectly valid question.

So again, do you have any information as pertains to the visit in question, in Germany, wherein the military told Obama and staff that press and cameras would not be allowed - and only thereafter did Obama and staff cancel the visit? Or in general terms, practice what you preach, keep it above the belt and actually respond to what was said rather than the strawman you'd momentarily prop up prior to knocking down with those self-satisfied, facile smirks of yours.

Michael,

Matt can't stay above the belt 'cuz he's not wearing his. Matt had to loosen his belt and drop trou to get his head wedged up his butt. It may sound like contorted anatomy, but based on his posts here, I'd say he's very comfortable like that.

Personally, I'm glad the Army declined to let the wounded soldiers in hospital at the bases in Germany be used as props for Obambi. Apparently, the Obamessiah lost interest in visiting them once his campaign staff and media entourage were excluded.

Nothing prevented him from going in to visit them alone without turning the visit into a media circus. But that's what his request was about, a chance to appear concerned about the troops while the media spotlight was on him.

By way of contrast, John McCain has quietly, on his own and without a lot of hoopla, visited soldiers at Walter Reed and also visited the parents of fallen soldiers.

Had this most junior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee with less than 150 workdays of experience in the Senate -- and most of that spent on the campaign trail -- come with his Senate staff on a Congressional visit, he would have been welcome.

Thank God the officers in charge respected the dignity of their wounded soldiers and told this opportunistic, empty suit they wouldn't let their facilities and their patients be exploited in such a base, crass way.

Yes, Nap, it's a worthy question. Perhaps there's a better explanation, perhaps Obama was simply tired from his trip (but would he have been too tired had cameras and press been allowed?) But bare minimum, it's an open question and a perfectly valid question.

Nap, your comments live up to your name and it's originater (I assume if references Imus)...crude, and even worse, uninteresting.

#12 David

Nap, your comments live up to your name and it's originater (I assume if references Imus)

You got that right. The kerfuffle over what he said was ridiculous, and his getting fired was a disgrace. True, it was in bad taste, so what? Imus has long been an equal-opportunity offender. But far worse was the shrill, hysterical overreaction to his transgressing the rules of PC-speak.

...crude,

Daoud, considering my nom de plume, what did you expect?

Your buddy Matt has posted here at length -- ad nauseum, even -- demonstrating the depths of his misunderstanding.

and even worse, uninteresting.

Chaqun son gout. Different strokes, baby. If you got past the healthy colloquialism, you would have seen the substance of my post.

By uninteresting, you must mean you disagree with me. So, I'm willing to bet you're one of the Obamessiah's disciples who got their panties in a twist over the deliciously funny satire in the New Yorker cover featuring B. Hussein Obambi fist-bumping Michelle ("Angela Davis") Obama.

Jacki O in a previous life was a terrific First Lady. So charming was she with her multi-lingual skills, that she soaked up all the spotlight when Camelot's royal couple went abroad. JFK quipped that he would be known just as the man who accompanied Jackie to Europe. Jackie was a charmer.

I shudder at the prospect of Michelle O as First Lady.