WAR: Congress Appropriates $3 Million to Promote Democracy in Iran

The Congress of the United States earmarked $3 million to promote democracy and human rights in Iran. This is the first time in 25 years that the U.S. government has set aside any money for spending in Iran, although the government already spends $15 million a year on broadcasting radio and television programs in Farsi into the country. The U.S. State Department is currently partnering with groups to develop plans for spending the funds.



This is great news, I've always thought that the best way to deal with Iran is to support the internal pro-democracy groups within to overthrow the totalitarian theocracy. I just hope it works.

Fire the Missiles!!! j/k

only 3 million, what are they? broke?

It's probably just a little weekend slush money for an Iranian "Chalabi" type character, or perhaps another mysterious/made-up "curveball" type fellow to blame everything on when it all goes belly-up again

Isn't that nice to see where our struggling tax payer money is going for, to pay some shady groups to find a way to come out with proof as why we should got invade Iran.

Yes we need to finance another Chalabi in Iran.

I rather the govt spend $3 million to promote democracy than billions to bring it and instigate it by force in a foreign land. $3 mil is chump change compared to what we have spent so far in Iraq and we can't even put a price tag on the lives we have lost. I for one am glad to see the govt looking at alternative options to spread democracy than going to war.

That is the problem Worldwatcher the money will be used by shady groups in anti-Iranian government propaganda and still nothing will happen.

If the purpose of this money is to get the Ayatollahs out of their power sits in the government US is underestimating the religious pull that they have on the people and the Islam religion.

Actually $3 mil is lunch money for my buddies to make-up an anti-arab-mullah-in-iran bug. We'll put it in the surfboard wax so on that all mullah beach party this summer they all just get sick and want their mommie.

Three million does seem like a paltry number, but it's the first time they're trying this. I imagine if it seems to be working, a lot more money will be on the way.

Why dont they refer to what this is by its proper name: subversion

Main Entry: sub·ver·sion
Pronunciation: s&b-'v&r-zh&n
Function: noun
: a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working from within; also : the crime of committing acts in furtherance of such an attempt

So yeah they dont like the Iranian government, thats the US's perogative but to openly declare that they are spending money on subverting a sovereign nations government is an act of war.

Does that mean Iran is well within its rights of subverting the US government? Afterall it seems the only excuse you need is that a) you dont like the government and b) they commit human rights abuses. The United States would fill both those criteria for a multitude of countries.

Let the subversion begin!

Because they're following the liberal/World Media line that if it supports your ideological goals, it's called "The Truth"?

You think Saudi, Iranian and Jordanian officials don't spend money on getting Al Zejeerah and other Arab-biased media outlets presented to and prioritized in America and Europe?

Originally posted by subz
Why dont they refer to what this is by its proper name: subversion

Main Entry: sub·ver·sion
Pronunciation: s&b-'v&r-zh&n
Function: noun
: a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working from within; also : the crime of committing acts in furtherance of such an attempt

So yeah they dont like the Iranian government, thats the US's perogative but to openly declare that they are spending money on subverting a sovereign nations government is an act of war.

Does that mean Iran is well within its rights of subverting the US government? Afterall it seems the only excuse you need is that a) you dont like the government and b) they commit human rights abuses. The United States would fill both those criteria for a multitude of countries.

Let the subversion begin!

Iran is saying they may pursue legal action against the US for funding opposition groups.

Tehran to take legal action against U.S. for funding Iran opposition?

Good, im glad they're taking legal action. What the US government is trying to do is literally an act of war. An act of war without declaring war is illegal.

Funny how America hasnt declared war since Vietnam despite starting a few wars since then.

More subversive interference

Leave them alone.

So if there is a demonstration is the US going to come to the insurgents assistance?

Remember the Alamo? No, well how about:
Prague spring

American agitation

Nikita Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union, became increasingly concerned about these developments and on 4th November 1956 he sent the Red Army into Hungary. Soviet tanks immediately captured Hungary's airfields, highway junctions and bridges. Fighting took place all over the country but the Hungarian forces were quickly defeated.

Many other place as well. Somebody thinks that Iranians are going to believe that America will come to their rescue?

Based on history that wait will be fruitless.
.

.

I agree with you in part JoeDoaks. The American government should leave the elected government of Iran alone. But the Iranian people dont have to be rescued from anything. They do have Shariah Law but who are we to criticise?

We have our laws based in part from Hammurabi, Ten Commandments and from Old England. We have laws that are rooted in religon.
Hammurabi's Code

The fact that suicide is illegal comes not from common sense, logic, or any objective source. Its because Catholicism sees suicide as a mortal sin, no other reason.

The laws surrounding marriage are rooted in our religon as well. Why is it that you can only marry one person? Cold, objective reasoning or is it Christianity again? Christianity defines marriage as the coming together of a man and a woman. Which brings me to another law that we have rooted in our religon, that gays cannot mary. What logical reason says that the law should prevent them from marrying? None, its Christianity that says being gay is a sin and our laws reflect it.

Who are we to decry that the Iranian government is oppressive because they dare allow Islam to interfere with the law. Totally and completely hypocritical on our part. Its just that we've had these laws for centuries and see them as just the way it is, nothing wrong with it. But they are based in Christianity and you cant escape that fact.

[edit on 13/4/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
We have our laws based in part from Hammurabi, Ten Commandments and from Old England. We have laws that are rooted in religon.

O.K., so? We have more laws based on nature (human and other). But this 'hi-jacks' the thread. The thread is about American subversion.

Propaganda is as old as mankind.

Some cave-dude yelled louder than another,
Egypt used rumor,
Babylon used rumor,
Cortes used rumor (mysticism) to spook the Aztecs and
etc.

This time America has been outed for violating yet another agreement (Algiers's Accord). While this was not referred to in the ATS post this is the 'broken law' that America will pooh-poo away. The ATS post is biased. What America has been caught doing is great news to who?

IF democracy is such a great idea for the middle-east then where is the push in Saudi Arabia and Jordan? Why just Iran? Control is the answer and the reason.

This is not a Bushco agenda, this is an American agenda. At sometime early on in the American experiment a sickness crept in. This sickness infects the world in every place American 'interests' are involved. Exactly what it is I don't know, but its result is destruction.

America was in Iran once before (Shah) and got kicked out.

BBC
Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran on 1 February after 14-years exile in France.
He threw out Dr Bahktiar's government on 11 February and, after a referendum, declared an Islamic Republic on 1 April.

America has bombarded Cuba since in the early 60's with propaganda- so when is the next Cuban election?

*edit to add:

Zmag . org
In the early 1950s, oil was used as a political weapon for the first time -- _by_ the United States and Britain and _against_ Iran. Iran had nationalized its British-owned oil company which had refused to share its astronomical profits with the host government. In response, Washington and London organized a boycott of Iranian oil which brought Iran's economy to the brink of collapse. The CIA then instigated a coup, entrenching the Shah in power and effectively un-nationalizing the oil company, with U.S. firms getting 40 percent of the formerly 100 percent British-owned company. This was, in the view of the _New York Times_, an "object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid" when an oil-rich Third World nation "goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."

In 1956 the oil weapon was used again, this time by the United States against Britain and France. After the latter two nations along with Israel invaded Egypt, Washington made clear that U.S. oil would not be sent to Western Europe until Britain and France agreed to a rapid withdrawal schedule. The U.S. was not adverse to overthrowing Nasser -- "Had they done it quickly, we would have accepted it," Eisenhower said later -- but the clumsy Anglo-French military operation threatened U.S. interests in the region.

.

.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by JoeDoaks]