PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Ahmadinejad could be out thanks to Obama


Pages : [1] 2

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 07:40 AM
It will be interesting to see how the Iranian election goes today.

Supposedly there is massive turnout and they had to extend voting hours.

Hossein Mousavi's campaign really didn't catch fire until Obama's speech since then he has risen to the point where he looks like the favorite.

Also it appears one part of his resurgence is the youth vote along with the shitty Iranian economy and high unemployment.

Either way I hope the Iranians do the right thing and get that nut job out of office.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2009, 07:43 AM
Sorry, this hasn't that much to do with Obama. I said a coupla years ago he was on his way out because I saw that reported in the true press.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 07:45 AM
Sorry, this hasn't that much to do with Obama. I said a coupla years ago he was on his way out because I saw that reported in the true press.

Ok

Iranians around the world also took part in the vote. In Dubai, home to an estimated 200,000 Iranians, the streets around the polling station at the Iranian consulate were jammed with voters overwhelmingly favoring Mousavi.

"He is our Obama," said Maliki Zadehamid, a 39-year-old exporter.

With the race considered too close to call, a top election official predicted turnout could surpass the nearly 80 percent in the election 12 years ago that brought President Mohammad Khatami to power and began the pro-reform movement. A strong turnout could boost Mousavi. He is counting on under-30s, who account for about a third of Iran's 46.2 million eligible voters.

Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said reports to election officials indicate an "unprecedented turnout will be recorded in the country's election history," according to the official IRNA news agency.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2009, 07:47 AM
Ok

You can check it out using the search here. Folks heard it here first from me. :thumb:
My sources have been impeccable.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 07:52 AM
You can check it out using the search here. Folks heard it here first from me. :thumb:
My sources have been impeccable.

I am not doubting you predicted it a squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. :D

But up until about a week ago it didn't appear Mousavi had a good chance to win.

BigRedChief
06-12-2009, 07:57 AM
You can check it out using the search here. Folks heard it here first from me. :thumb:
My sources have been impeccable.
yeah, yeah Obama's speech had nothing to do with a 30% loss in the polls since the Cairo speech.

Why can't you at least give him props for this? Doesn't mean he's accomplished anything substantial yet. This only works if the new guy(if elected) pulls back on the rhetoric and they give up their pursuit of a neuclear weapon.

I don't understand you Republicans on this issue. The Republican political god, Regan talked to the Ruskies in the middle of a cold war. Nixon talked to the ruskies and China. Diplomacy is a valid option to use. War should be a last resort.

blaise
06-12-2009, 08:01 AM
I agree that Obama probably influenced the election, but I think the thread title is perhaps a bit hyperbolic. I'll give the Iranian people most of the credit for using their minds. I'll say this- he certainly hasn't given the current regime any ammo to demonize the US in order to get votes.
Whatever works, as long as the new guy is better than the one there now.

BigRedChief
06-12-2009, 08:04 AM
I agree that Obama probably influenced the election, but I think the thread title is perhaps a bit hyperbolic. I'll give the Iranian people most of the credit for using their minds. I'll say this- he certainly hasn't given the current regime any ammo to demonize the US in order to get votes.
Whatever works, as long as the new guy is better than the one there now.
Also how do we know the election will be fair? It's not exactly a "democracy" over there and no incubment president has ever lost an election.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 08:04 AM
I agree that Obama probably influenced the election, but I think the thread title is perhaps a bit hyperbolic. I'll give the Iranian people most of the credit for using their minds. I'll say this- he certainly hasn't given the current regime any ammo to demonize the US in order to get votes.
Whatever works, as long as the new guy is better than the one there now.

I would definitely give first and second credit to the Iranian people if they throw that POS out of office. I do think that Obama's speech had a pretty good effect on this though especially to the younger people of Iran.

stevieray
06-12-2009, 08:07 AM
ROFL

patteeu
06-12-2009, 08:17 AM
Ok

You can check it out using the search here. Folks heard it here first from me. :thumb:
My sources have been impeccable.

You missed your chance to point out that Dirk is crediting Obama with boosting the prospects of the challenger in this election on the basis of the flimsiest of anecdotes.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 08:18 AM
ROFL

Are you hoping Ahmadinejad wins?

patteeu
06-12-2009, 08:18 AM
yeah, yeah Obama's speech had nothing to do with a 30% loss in the polls since the Cairo speech.

Why can't you at least give him props for this? Doesn't mean he's accomplished anything substantial yet. This only works if the new guy(if elected) pulls back on the rhetoric and they give up their pursuit of a neuclear weapon.

I don't understand you Republicans on this issue. The Republican political god, Regan talked to the Ruskies in the middle of a cold war. Nixon talked to the ruskies and China. Diplomacy is a valid option to use. War should be a last resort.

The US has been using diplomacy with Iran throughout the Bush administration. It didn't succeed in preventing Iran's march toward nuclear statehood during the Bush administration and it won't succeed now, regardless of who wins this election.

stevieray
06-12-2009, 08:23 AM
Are you hoping Ahmadinejad wins?

of course not, I just think it's funny how much you want to attach his name to the election.

then again, you might be on to something, maybe people here heard a Chavez speech and decided to vote for BO.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 08:24 AM
The US has been using diplomacy with Iran throughout the Bush administration. It didn't succeed in preventing Iran's march toward nuclear statehood during the Bush administration and it won't succeed now, regardless of who wins this election.


Mousavi wants nuclear talks with the US and United Nations Security Council members. That is a clear difference between him and psycho.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 08:28 AM
of course not, I just think it's funny how much you want to attach his name to the election.

then again, you might be on to something, maybe people here heard a Chavez speech and decided to vote for BO.

If somehow Ahmadinejad loses Obama would be the one that put Mousavi over the top.

I would say that their shitty economy and high unemployment are the clear top 2 reasons but the speech by Obama clearly had an effect on Iranians especially the younger crowd.

stevieray
06-12-2009, 08:30 AM
If somehow Ahmadinejad loses Obama would be the one that put Mousavi over the top.

I would say that their shitty economy and high unemployment are the clear top 2 reasons but the speech by Obama clearly had an effect on Iranians especially the younger crowd.and if Ahm79449493 wins, will it be Obama's fault?

Jenson71
06-12-2009, 08:31 AM
and if Ahm79449493 wins, will it be Obama's fault?

No.

stevieray
06-12-2009, 08:32 AM
No.

:nosmilie:

Jenson71
06-12-2009, 08:34 AM
:nosmilie:

You need some basic understanding in contrapositions.

Velvet_Jones
06-12-2009, 08:34 AM
Sorry, this hasn't that much to do with Obama. I said a coupla years ago he was on his way out because I saw that reported in the true press.

Stop that. You are going to spoil Dirks Obamagasm.

stevieray
06-12-2009, 08:35 AM
You need some basic understanding in contrapositions.
:nosmilie:

Jenson71
06-12-2009, 08:37 AM
:nosmilie:

For instance, I could say, "If stevieray is a man, then stevieray is a human." Now turn it around and see if it's true.

Velvet_Jones
06-12-2009, 08:39 AM
Dirk kills me. Everything that is good in the world right now is due to Obama and everything that was bad in the world was due to Bush. Clinton MO must of found its village idiot.

stevieray
06-12-2009, 08:42 AM
For instance, I could say, "If stevieray is a man, then stevieray is a human." Now turn it around and see if it's true.

:nosmilie:

Jenson71
06-12-2009, 08:43 AM
:nosmilie:

You're welcome.

stevieray
06-12-2009, 08:44 AM
You're welcome.
:nosmilie:

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 08:45 AM
and if Ahm79449493 wins, will it be Obama's fault?

I would say no because he was the clear favorite going into it. Plus add the fact that he has threatened to cut off the hands of his critics and has tried other "illegal" things to try to win.

It would not surprise me at all if he wins.

Jenson71
06-12-2009, 08:46 AM
:nosmilie:

Another perspective:

Most Iranians say Obama’s speech last week in Cairo had absolutely zero effect on the elections. In fact, its timing may have raised suspicions that the U.S. was up to something. “The Iranians feel that the U.S. is always plotting,” said Ahmad Bakhshayeshi, a political scientist in Tehran.

But his speech aside, his very presence might have an effect on the outcome of the vote. Lowering tensions between the U.S. and Iran pulls the rugs out from under the feet of Iranian hardliners who need an external enemy to hush moderate voices.

President George W. “Bush and Ahmadinejad were very good contemporaries,” Bakhshayeshi said. “Now that Obama has come, it’s time for Mousavi.”

Among Mousavi supporters, many felt they could speak out in favor of better relations with America now that Obama is in power.

Amir-Hossein Sharifi-Sistani, a 32-year-old account manager at a state-run pharmaceutical firm in Tehran said he’s not able to open letters of credit to buy certain raw materials from Europe and the U.S. because of sanctions.

“Maybe Mousavi can change our situation and bring us out of this dead-end condition,” he said.

Jalal Mohseni, a 52-year-old retired municipal worker, said he read excerpts of Obama’s speech in Iranian newspapers. "As far as I can understand, his speech was a message of peace, brotherhood and reconciliation,” he said.

“It provides a good opportunity and Iran must respond positively.” He said he’ll vote for Mousavi because he is fed up with the government’s rhetoric.

“We want a peaceful message,” he said. “We do not care about Israel. Israel is over there. Why must we bother ourselves?”

Amir Eylaat, 35, a textile engineer said Obama’s attitude toward Muslims was a welcome change from Bush’s approach, which he called “humiliating.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/06/a-relatively-unknown-and-soft-spoken-politician-emerges-from-a-pack-of-powerful-leaders-to-pose-a-strong-challenge-against-a.html

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 08:48 AM
Dirk kills me. Everything that is good in the world right now is due to Obama and everything that was bad in the world was due to Bush. Clinton MO must of found its village idiot.

You're delusional that is your biggest problem. I have complained about several things Obama has done and I have applauded things Bush did as well.

I am not a hater like you.

Radar Chief
06-12-2009, 08:53 AM
Are you hoping Ahmadinejad wins?

I fully expect I'ma-dinner-jacket to lose.
It's been reported for a couple of years that he's fallen out of favor with the Ayatollah partially due to his Sabre rattling.
That's probably what BEP is referring too.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 08:57 AM
I fully expect I'ma-dinner-jacket to lose.
It's been reported for a couple of years that he's fallen out of favor with the Ayatollah partially due to his Sabre rattling.
That's probably what BEP is referring too.

I would be actually surprised if he lost. Psycho's will do anything to stay in power

BucEyedPea
06-12-2009, 09:09 AM
Stop that. You are going to spoil Dirks Obamagasm.

At least his aren't cascading multiples like some others. :harumph:

SBK
06-12-2009, 09:17 AM
I noticed when I woke up this morning there wasn't a cloud in the sky thanks to Obama's speech in Cairo.
Posted via Mobile Device

Radar Chief
06-12-2009, 09:20 AM
I noticed when I woke up this morning there wasn't a cloud in the sky thanks to Obama's speech in Cairo.
Posted via Mobile Device

He, it's raining here. That must be the weather he inherited from Bush. ;)

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 09:21 AM
He, it's raining here. That must be the weather he inherited from Bush. ;)

Definitely. :p

***SPRAYER
06-12-2009, 09:25 AM
Who's running against Mister Potato Head? Aren't Iranian elections rigged?

SBK
06-12-2009, 09:26 AM
He, it's raining here. That must be the weather he inherited from Bush. ;)

LMAO I laughed.
Posted via Mobile Device

Radar Chief
06-12-2009, 09:28 AM
I would be actually surprised if he lost. Psycho's will do anything to stay in power

You're giving him credit for say in a matter I don't believe he has.
The Ayatollah Khamenei runs that country and who ever he determines will pose as "the leader" will "win" the election.

***SPRAYER
06-12-2009, 09:30 AM
So I guess Iran is going to abandon it's nuclear bomb quest and this story is going to have a happy ending.

:drool:

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 09:37 AM
You're giving him credit for say in a matter I don't believe he has.
The Ayatollah Khamenei runs that country and who ever he determines will pose as "the leader" will "win" the election.

I agree that the Ayatollah actually runs the country but I think for the most part the election is fair. Noticed I said for the most part. You never do really know in some of these countries.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 09:39 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/11/iran-president-election-mahmoud-ahmadinejad

Iranians go to the polls today to elect a president after an acrimonious and volatile election campaign that has polarised the country and unleashed mass opposition to the hardline Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the absence of reliable independent opinion polls, experts predicted yesterday that Mir Hossein Mousavi, the moderate "green" candidate, would probably beat the controversial incumbent so long as the result was not rigged.

Saeed Lalyaz, a respected political commentator, said he believed Mousavi now commanded the support of 55-60% across the country and warned of a possible crackdown on the opposition if Ahmadinejad were re-elected.

"I worry about the impact of any announcement that Ahmadinejad wins in the first round," said Lalyaz. "Whoever wins, these people on the streets will not go home easily. If Ahmadinejad is president for a second time I worry about another Tiananmen Square experience."

Ominously, as three weeks of often passionate campaigning drew to a close, the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRG) warned that any attempt at a popular "revolution" would be crushed.

Underlining the unprecedented scale of public interest in the election, it was reported that more than 10m text messages had been sent on Tuesday alone, apparently reflecting intense efforts to get the vote out and avoid the risk of mass abstentions.

The regime is also encouraging mass participation. "The people of Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran) will choose someone who will resist the bullying of those who are arrogant and defend Iran's interest in the world," said a statement from the Basij militia.

The candidate who takes more than 50% becomes president automatically. If none does tomorrow, a second run-off round will be held next Friday. Two other candidates, reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi and Mohsen Rezaei, another conservative, would drop out if that happened.

Ahmadinejad was reportedly losing support to Rezaei, a former IRG commander, and elements of the military were said to be backing Mousavi, who has pledged to increase personal freedoms. A victory for the former prime minister could improve relations with the west, though big policy changes are unlikely.

Velvet_Jones
06-12-2009, 09:43 AM
You're delusional that is your biggest problem. I have complained about several things Obama has done and I have applauded things Bush did as well.

I am not a hater like you.

I call BS. You are an Obamaidiot and you have done nothing make anyone on CP think any different.

Hehehehe - "Obama is going fixing the economy and health care." - dirk digler

Are you a car salesman with a bad memory.

(Pssst - Stevie canceled out your last neg rep)

***SPRAYER
06-12-2009, 09:45 AM
Dirk Digler is another Yongmyong-han Dongji (Brilliant Comrade).

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 09:49 AM
I call BS. You are an Obamaidiot and you have done nothing make anyone on CP think any different.

Hehehehe - "Obama is going fixing the economy and health care." - dirk digler

Are you a car salesman with a bad memory.

(Pssst - Stevie canceled out your last neg rep)

LMAO You think anyone takes you seriously? Everybody knows your a POS that doesn't have any original thought or stand up for anything.

Velvet_Jones
06-12-2009, 10:14 AM
LMAO You think anyone takes you seriously? Everybody knows your a POS that doesn't have any original thought or stand up for anything.

IC - so you are a car salesman with a bad memory. I thought so.

POS - Person of Superiority? Thanks Dirk, glad you noticed.

Frazod
06-12-2009, 10:17 AM
IC - so you are a car salesman with a bad memory. I thought so.

POS - Person of Superiority? Thanks Dirk, glad you noticed.

Slow day at the bait shop, Velvet?

Velvet_Jones
06-12-2009, 10:22 AM
Slow day at the bait shop, Velvet?

Slow day at the "Dag-O-Dicks" factory Fraz?

FishingRod
06-12-2009, 10:23 AM
Hey the way this works is that everything bad that happens during a Presidents term is all his fault. Ask any of the living X presidents. I'm not sure if the reverse is true but it might as well be since it is equally fair. If this jackass gets voted out and Obama gets some sort of credit for it I'm ok with that I just want him gone.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 10:25 AM
IC - so you are a car salesman with a bad memory. I thought so.

POS - Person of Superiority? Thanks Dirk, glad you noticed.

I actually do have a bad memory but Obama is still in the beginning of his presidency. Who knows what will happen 2-3 years from now but I bet the economy will be much better then than it is now. As far as health care who knows we will have to wait and see. I am hopeful something will get done.

POS = Piece of shit which you are. You are nothing but a coward pussy.

Frazod
06-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Slow day at the "Dag-O-Dicks" factory Fraz?

Just because that penis enlarger you ordered from them didn't work, don't get shitty with me.

How's the remedial English thing working out for you? Last time I checked, you were making some progress. With effort and patience, perhaps one day we'll actually get your conversational skills up to a second grade level.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Slow day at the bait shop, Velvet?

LMAO I thought he was a male prostitute

Boyceofsummer
06-12-2009, 01:40 PM
for having an election. Iran has a significant population that is progressive. They seem to coexist with the fundamentalist.

Frankie
06-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Keep in mind Mousavi and Ahmadinejad are both parts of this regime, albeit with different degrees of direction to the right. In fact all eligible candidates are approved by the Council of the ruling religious figures.

That said, here's an interesting video concerning the popularity of Mousavi's wife among the young:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/24/iran.wife/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

wild1
06-12-2009, 02:10 PM
So, has the supposed moderate majority rejected their radical leaders?

Or are they still just a supposed majority?

wild1
06-12-2009, 02:18 PM
Keep in mind Mousavi and Ahmadinejad are both parts of this regime, albeit with different degrees of direction to the right. In fact all eligible candidates are be approved by the Council of the ruling religious figures.

That said, here's an interesting video concerning the popularity of Mousavi's wife among the young:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/24/iran.wife/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

This is a good point. If they were really a threat to the direction of the country they probably wouldn't be allowed on the ticket anyway.

patteeu
06-12-2009, 02:23 PM
Mousavi wants nuclear talks with the US and United Nations Security Council members. That is a clear difference between him and psycho.

It's not a difference that changes anything important though. The Iranian president isn't the one making the decision on nuclear weapons development no matter how much he's willing to talk about it.

patteeu
06-12-2009, 02:24 PM
and if Ahm79449493 wins, will it be Obama's fault?

I don't know, but if Iran gets nuclear weapons it's going to be Obama's fault.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 02:29 PM
It's not a difference that changes anything important though. The Iranian president isn't the one making the decision on nuclear weapons development no matter how much he's willing to talk about it.

LMAO

You know why I am laughing? Because all I heard from the Republicans last year during the election was how bad and evil Ahmadinejad was and how he was going to destroy the world and how no one could control him. All along Obama, Clinton and others said that was BS that the Khamenei was actually in charge.

Now that it appears that Ahmadinejad is on the way out the right is now saying well he wasn't really in charge anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Hilarious

patteeu
06-12-2009, 02:34 PM
LMAO

You know why I am laughing? Because all I heard from the Republicans last year during the election was how bad and evil Ahmadinejad was and how he was going to destroy the world and how no one could control him. All along Obama, Clinton and others said that was BS that the Khamenei was actually in charge.

Now that it appears that Ahmadinejad is on the way out the right is now saying well he wasn't really in charge anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Hilarious

I think you're making that up. At the very least, you're conflating me with people who don't speak for me.

Frankie
06-12-2009, 02:36 PM
LMAO

You know why I am laughing? Because all I heard from the Republicans last year during the election was how bad and evil Ahmadinejad was and how he was going to destroy the world and how no one could control him. All along Obama, Clinton and others said that was BS that the Khamenei was actually in charge.

Now that it appears that Ahmadinejad is HOPEFULLY on the way out the right is now saying well he wasn't really in charge anyway so it doesn't really matter.

HilariousFYP

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 02:37 PM
I think you're making that up. At the very least, you're conflating me with people who don't speak for me.

I wasn't speaking about you I was referring to the majority of the right and all of its candidates except for Ron Paul

patteeu
06-12-2009, 02:46 PM
I wasn't speaking about you I was referring to the majority of the right and all of its candidates except for Ron Paul

You apparently misunderstood what you were hearing, particularly from influential Republicans (as opposed to maybe a Republican yahoo in the street). It was important that Ahmadinejad was taking a belligerent stance against the west and against Israel not because Ahmadinejad was an unencumbered dictator, but because his puppetmasters were willing to let him do it.

You didn't hear me or any of the candidates disagree with BEP's contention that the mullahs were in charge. You just heard us disagree with her hasty and unsupported conclusion that they wouldn't let Ahmadinejad develop a nuke or, alternatively, drive us to war.

Frankie
06-12-2009, 02:48 PM
I wasn't speaking about you I was referring to the majority of the right and all of its candidates except for Ron Paul

Righties and Paranoia are like size 9.5 shoes and my foot. Great fit. This includes even their smarter ones like Pat.
:)

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 02:52 PM
You apparently misunderstood what you were hearing, particularly from influential Republicans (as opposed to maybe a Republican yahoo in the street). It was important that Ahmadinejad was taking a belligerent stance against the west and against Israel not because Ahmadinejad was an unencumbered dictator, but because his puppetmasters were willing to let him do it.

You didn't hear me or any of the candidates disagree with BEP's contention that the mullahs were in charge. You just heard us disagree with her hasty and unsupported conclusion that they wouldn't let Ahmadinejad develop a nuke or, alternatively, drive us to war.

Ok

Sarah Palin Sept 22, 2008

We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

patteeu
06-12-2009, 03:05 PM
Ok

Sarah Palin Sept 22, 2008

She's not saying that he has unilateral control of the Iranian state. You're reading that into the comments yourself.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 03:10 PM
She's not saying that he has unilateral control of the Iranian state. You're reading that into the comments yourself.

The way she says it points to her believing that he is in charge and is a real threat.

Anyway I am hoping this new guy if he wins will be able to moderate Iran like he says he will because Iran does need to change. If they don't they will become even more isolated and if they piss off Israel enough they might become a giant sand pit.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2009, 04:48 PM
The way she says it points to her believing that he is in charge and is a real threat.

Anyway I am hoping this new guy if he wins will be able to moderate Iran like he says he will because Iran does need to change. If they don't they will become even more isolated and if they piss off Israel enough they might become a giant sand pit.

I didn't read every post in here but I take it "she" refers to me. I said more than that about him, back then. I also said he has no power in Iran.( I think now that I'm home from work I'll go find it.) He he did get his ears boxed by the mullahs as well for some of his provocative language. Of course, it was in response to the Bush Doctrine which leads to such aggressive talk.

Still, there's no decent evidence Iran is developing a nuke but there is hard evidence that they have a right under the treaty they signed to develop nuclear power. The NeoCons are exploiting this to make it all worse....so they can continue implementing " A Clean Break."

wild1
06-12-2009, 05:49 PM
TEHRAN (Reuters) - State media declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of Iran's election but challenger Mirhossein Mousavi alleged irregularities and claimed victory for himself.

The state election commission said early on Saturday that Ahmadinejad, a hardline conservative, was ahead with almost 68 percent of the vote after 15 million votes -- or 47 percent of ballot boxes -- had been counted. Mousavi, a moderate, had just over 30 percent.

The official news agency IRNA said: "Dr Ahmadinejad, by winning most votes at the 10th presidential election, has secured his victory."

patteeu
06-12-2009, 05:52 PM
The way she says it points to her believing that he is in charge and is a real threat.

Anyway I am hoping this new guy if he wins will be able to moderate Iran like he says he will because Iran does need to change. If they don't they will become even more isolated and if they piss off Israel enough they might become a giant sand pit.

You really want to believe she means that, but she doesn't say anything like that.

He may be able to get Iran out of the world's doghouse (especially with a guy who plans to talk a lot and reserve his stick for use on domestic businessmen in the WH), but he's not going to turn the country away from nuclear weapons like Bush was able to get Gaddafi to do.

patteeu
06-12-2009, 05:53 PM
I didn't read every post in here but I take it "she" refers to me. I said more than that about him, back then. I also said he has no power in Iran.( I think now that I'm home from work I'll go find it.) He he did get his ears boxed by the mullahs as well for some of his provocative language. Of course, it was in response to the Bush Doctrine which leads to such aggressive talk.

Still, there's no decent evidence Iran is developing a nuke but there is hard evidence that they have a right under the treaty they signed to develop nuclear power. The NeoCons are exploiting this to make it all worse....so they can continue implementing " A Clean Break."

Dirk's "she" = Sarah Palin

Brock
06-12-2009, 06:03 PM
So I guess the Iranians don't really think that much of Obama after all.

SBK
06-12-2009, 06:03 PM
TEHRAN (Reuters) - State media declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of Iran's election but challenger Mirhossein Mousavi alleged irregularities and claimed victory for himself.

The state election commission said early on Saturday that Ahmadinejad, a hardline conservative, was ahead with almost 68 percent of the vote after 15 million votes -- or 47 percent of ballot boxes -- had been counted. Mousavi, a moderate, had just over 30 percent.

The official news agency IRNA said: "Dr Ahmadinejad, by winning most votes at the 10th presidential election, has secured his victory."

Somehow the story will still be that Obama's speech in Cairo did something great today....

Mile High Mania
06-12-2009, 06:06 PM
Maybe the Obama-factor had a negative impact...

orange
06-12-2009, 06:07 PM
So I guess the Iranians don't really think that much of Obama after all.

Somehow the story will still be that Obama's speech in Cairo did something great today....

You guys don't really believe this is the end of it, do you?


TEHRAN (Reuters) - State media declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of Iran's election but challenger Mirhossein Mousavi alleged irregularities and claimed victory for himself.

petegz28
06-12-2009, 06:09 PM
The sun rose in the east today because of Obama.

I hear it will set in the west because of Obama.

SBK
06-12-2009, 06:12 PM
You guys don't really believe this is the end of it, do you?

Of Obama or his disciples claiming credit for something so ridiculous it's hard to do anything but laugh?


Nope.

SBK
06-12-2009, 06:13 PM
The sun rose in the east today because of Obama.

I hear it will set in the west because of Obama.

No. The sun rises because of Obama, darkness was inherited from the previous administration.

petegz28
06-12-2009, 06:14 PM
No. The sun rises because of Obama, darkness was inherited from the previous administration.

LMAO


Rep

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 06:17 PM
I didn't read every post in here but I take it "she" refers to me. I said more than that about him, back then. I also said he has no power in Iran.( I think now that I'm home from work I'll go find it.) He he did get his ears boxed by the mullahs as well for some of his provocative language. Of course, it was in response to the Bush Doctrine which leads to such aggressive talk.

Still, there's no decent evidence Iran is developing a nuke but there is hard evidence that they have a right under the treaty they signed to develop nuclear power. The NeoCons are exploiting this to make it all worse....so they can continue implementing " A Clean Break."

She = Palin not you. Sorry BEP.

It looks like both candidates are claiming to be the winner. I was hoping it wouldn't be close but like I said before it wouldn't surprise my if psycho won

memyselfI
06-12-2009, 07:44 PM
This is the funniest thread header I've read on this board in months. ROFL The OBots really do Bush Lite is the center of the universe.

Donger
06-12-2009, 07:46 PM
So, how did Obama do? Are the returns showing that he ousted Ahmadinejad with his teleprompterness?

wild1
06-12-2009, 08:20 PM
Now, who was it here that was lecturing me about how the people there are really moderate?

It would seem that Ahmadinejad won them over, since he got 70% of the vote.

BigRedChief
06-12-2009, 08:22 PM
Now, who was it here that was lecturing me about how the people there are really moderate?

It would seem that Ahmadinejad won them over, since he got 70% of the vote.
sure he did....:LOL:

Since when does Iran have free and fair elections?

wild1
06-12-2009, 08:23 PM
sure he did....:LOL:

Since when does Iran have free and fair elections?

Predictable, but disappointing nonetheless.

wild1
06-12-2009, 08:32 PM
yeah, yeah Obama's speech had nothing to do with a 30% loss in the polls since the Cairo speech.


Amazing, he was polling 100% before the speech I guess!

TEX
06-12-2009, 08:38 PM
Members of Acorn were spotted in Iran....

patteeu
06-12-2009, 09:09 PM
sure he did....:LOL:

Since when does Iran have free and fair elections?

Didn't Obama fix all that with his speech in Cairo?

mlyonsd
06-12-2009, 09:57 PM
Didn't Obama fix all that with his speech in Cairo?

Note to Iran...you're next on the list for a government takeover. Don't worry, we'll pay whatever it takes.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 10:01 PM
Note to Iran...you're next on the list for a government takeover. Don't worry, we'll pay whatever it takes.

That would be alright wouldn't it? :D

Oh well my thread = FAIL so far. Dammit.

I was really hoping that Ahmadinejad would get what is coming to him which is lose this election which would be the next best thing besides him getting a bullet in his head

mlyonsd
06-12-2009, 10:05 PM
That would be alright wouldn't it? :D

Oh well my thread = FAIL so far. Dammit.

I was really hoping that Ahmadinejad would get what is coming to him which is lose this election which would be the next best thing besides him getting a bullet in his head

FTR I was rooting for you.

Frazod
06-12-2009, 10:08 PM
Bullet to the head still works for me.

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 10:12 PM
FTR I was rooting for you.

We still have hope. Just reading that the people who are reporting he is winning, The Election Commission, is controlled by his people which is going to make it hard to get accurate results

Bullet to the head still works for me.

That always works for me :thumb:

petegz28
06-12-2009, 10:21 PM
Ahmadinejad leads Iran vote, challenger defiant


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSEVA14340720090612?sp=true

And seems the challenger is trying to pull an Al Gore.

I wish he would have won......but

dirk digler
06-12-2009, 10:23 PM
UPDATE: At 4pm EST, both the Mousavi and Ahmadinejad camps are declaring victory. With Iranian state news agency IRNA declaring Ahmadinejad the victor, "this is going to get dirty," says the National Iranian American Council's Trita Parsi. Official results are not expected until Saturday.

Update II: As of 1am Tehran time, a U.S.-based Iranian academic reading Iranian coverage of the returns notes: "In less than one hour, the officials in Iran have counted 35% of the voting places in Iran. The news is that Ahmadinejad has received 68%, Mousavi 28% and others are distant 3rd, and 4th. Amazing speed according to previous election!

"In the last election, the initial patterns did not hold up. It is strange that the officials had said that they would not announce any results until 4 AM, but they made the first announcement at about 1 AM. It is FAR from over though. THIS was according to IRINN (Iranian CNN in Persian). Stay tuned."

Update III: As of 1:48am Tehran time, he adds, "Of 47.3% voting booths (15 million votes):
AN 67%
Rezaie 1.7%
Karoubi .87%
Mousavi 30%
"IRINN is the source and it may change... Mousavi people are gearing up
to contest it as they already have declared victory. This could
change though..."

Update IV: Results as of 2:47 AM Tehran time: "More than 21 million votes counted (61% of all voting booths)
Ahmadinejad 66.28%
Mousavi 31.6%
Rezaie 1.87%
Karoubi .9%

"One of Mousavi's spokespersons, Saeed Shariati, just told BBC Persian that the results announced so far only reflect the present administration's views. These results are either the results of cheating or are psychological warfare mounted by this administration against Mousavi. He said he hopes this is only their way of spoiling the sweet moment of victory for Mousavi and at the end of the day we have a clear victor, who is Mr. Mousavi.

"Ahmadinejad's headquarter has declared victory, even though about 40% of the votes have not been counted, according to his own Interior Ministry.

"This is getting interesting, to say the least."

Another source says that Rafsanjani and Mousavi apparently held a meeting with Khamenei.

Update V: At about 7:30am Tehran time, the U.S.-based Iranian academic writes, "I have been exchanging emails, phone calls, and been in touch with young, old, men, women, ...and been in touch with people from inside each campaign (AN and Mousavi). These numbers have surprised even the supporters of AN. What is more, the journalists are saying in the Interior Ministry there has been no explanations, no interviews, just reading the numbers to journalists. It is mind-boggling at this point.
It is not over by any means; unless reformers want to lay down and play dead."

He later adds, "The loser either way is Khamenie (if there is a widespread belief that this was rigged). However, I cannot believe given the scope of participation that it would be such a blow out (even as the percentage of booths has nothing to do with the percentage of the vote give because the size of these booths are not the same). However, no one I know can believe these numbers. Something does not add up."

Another Washington-based Iran watcher said at about 11pm EST that Iranian-state-officials are claiming vote counts in the Iranian city of Isfahan show Ahmadinejad winning 3-1. Which would seem a bit absurd - or else a total contrary result from what pre-election reporting indicated. He said there seems to be a waiting for two things: what Mousavi says, and what Rafsanjani says.

SBK
06-12-2009, 10:25 PM
Achmanutjob isn't the real problem in Iran, he's just the one we're allowed to see here.

I heard Obama's speech in Cairo converted the Mullah's to Christianity.

Velvet_Jones
06-12-2009, 10:37 PM
I was really hoping that Ahmadinejad would get what is coming to him which is lose this election which would be the next best thing besides him getting a bullet in his head

Lets waterboard him. That is apparently worse than getting a bullet in his head.

wild1
06-12-2009, 11:01 PM
Achmanutjob isn't the real problem in Iran, he's just the one we're allowed to see here.

I heard Obama's speech in Cairo converted the Mullah's to Christianity.

There are always a set of these bearded Napoleon wannabes in places around the world.

They can only do what our Leader allows them to do.

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2009, 01:09 AM
Thanks to Obama?

Really? :spock:

:rolleyes:

Taco John
06-13-2009, 02:27 AM
Congratulations to Obama on this huge victory.

Nightwish
06-13-2009, 02:47 AM
My sources have been impeccable.
ROFLROFLROFL

Are those the same sources (i.e. email from a friend) who told you that Bush won the popular vote in 2000?

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 04:47 AM
ROFLROFLROFL

Are those the same sources (i.e. email from a friend) who told you that Bush won the popular vote in 2000?

That was one out of thousands of posts. And that email was based on Sec of State tabulations including all absentee ballots. So that was qualified and which provides a way to verify if you want to call all 50 of them.

Boy, you're a fair minded type aren't you? One out of thousands of posts. My sources are the ones I've linked here that predicted the economic/financial situation, Iraq debacle etc. Spot on accurate. Ya' know the financial ones that you currently disbelieve who refuted the mainstream predictions and talking heads on tv.( the ones you believe and still do LMAO LMAO LMAO )

Those, including that email, still beats your own link that contradicts what you said about who won. Yet, you used it to back up your false claims. Bush won Florida once everything was counted. You might want to purchase "Hooked on Phonics." We read English here not Gaelic.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 04:48 AM
There are always a set of these bearded Napoleon wannabes in places around the world.
You mean like Bush and his ilk? You know Napoleon wanted to liberate and make over the world too. He even used the term " New World Order."

BigRedChief
06-13-2009, 08:43 AM
All those long lines to vote, there has to be a multi layered beauracy in the process from small towns back to Tehran, They use paper ballots so they have to to be counted by hand but they were still able to get it all done 2 hours after the polls closed and declare their guy won in a landslide? jjjjeeez that stinks to high heaven but a fair election in Iran would never happen anyway,

mlyonsd
06-13-2009, 08:48 AM
All those long lines to vote, there has to be a multi layered beauracy in the process from small towns back to Tehran, They use paper ballots so they have to to be counted by hand but they were still able to get it all done 2 hours after the polls closed and declare their guy won in a landslide? jjjjeeez that stinks to high heaven but a fair election in Iran would never happen anyway,

Or, Iran really is a country full of idiots.

BigRedChief
06-13-2009, 08:52 AM
Or, Iran really is a country full of idiots.
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been declared the big winner in the country's election, but his chief rival and supporters in the Tehran streets are crying foul.
<!--startclickprintexclude--><!-- PURGE: /2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/art.protest.afp.gi.jpg --><!-- KEEP --> Iranians protest against the reelection of Ahmadinejad outside the interior ministry in Tehran.



[/URL]
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif



<!-- /PURGE: /2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/art.protest.afp.gi.jpg -->
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript _extended="true"> var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',2,1);//CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');</SCRIPT><!--endclickprintexclude-->The government said on Saturday that Ahmadinejad won Friday's presidential election with 62.63 percent of the vote and Mir Hossein Moussavi received 33.75 percent of the vote.

Before the vote count ended, Moussavi issued a sharply worded letter urging the counting to stop because of "blatant violations" and lashed out at what he indicated was an unfair process.

Moussavi said the results from "untrustworthy monitors" reflects "the weakening of the pillars that constitute the sacred system" of Iran and "the rule of authoritarianism and tyranny." Independent vote monitors were banned from polling places. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gif [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/index.html#cnnSTCVideo"]Watch why each side is claiming victory » (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/index.html#)
"The results announced for the 10th presidential elections are astonishing. People who stood in long lines and knew well who they voted for were utterly surprised by the magicians working at the television and radio broadcasting," Moussavi said in his statement. Iran, he said, "belongs to the people and not cheaters."

mlyonsd
06-13-2009, 08:58 AM
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been declared the big winner in the country's election, but his chief rival and supporters in the Tehran streets are crying foul.
<!--startclickprintexclude--><!-- PURGE: /2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/art.protest.afp.gi.jpg --><!-- KEEP -->Iranians protest against the reelection of Ahmadinejad outside the interior ministry in Tehran.




http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif



<!-- /PURGE: /2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/art.protest.afp.gi.jpg -->
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript _extended="true"> var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',2,1);//CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');</SCRIPT><!--endclickprintexclude-->The government said on Saturday that Ahmadinejad won Friday's presidential election with 62.63 percent of the vote and Mir Hossein Moussavi received 33.75 percent of the vote.

Before the vote count ended, Moussavi issued a sharply worded letter urging the counting to stop because of "blatant violations" and lashed out at what he indicated was an unfair process.

Moussavi said the results from "untrustworthy monitors" reflects "the weakening of the pillars that constitute the sacred system" of Iran and "the rule of authoritarianism and tyranny." Independent vote monitors were banned from polling places. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch why each side is claiming victory » (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)
"The results announced for the 10th presidential elections are astonishing. People who stood in long lines and knew well who they voted for were utterly surprised by the magicians working at the television and radio broadcasting," Moussavi said in his statement. Iran, he said, "belongs to the people and not cheaters."

Oh don't get me wrong, I understand there probably was some shennaigan going on. Heck, the democrats do it all the time in this country.

I just find it funny the first thing some liberals do when an election doesn't have the desired outcome is cry foul and consider it stolen.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 09:31 AM
Congratulations to Obama on this huge victory.

Did you see people in the streets? Do you think they would do this if Bush was in power saber rattling over the country? It's a beginning. If you thought one speech would uproot the regime there overnight that would be very naive. A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 09:33 AM
Oh don't get me wrong, I understand there probably was some shennaigan going on.

Gee, ya think?

Direckshun
06-13-2009, 09:48 AM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201157011fa76970c-500wi

Fraud.

SBK
06-13-2009, 10:03 AM
Did you see people in the streets? Do you think they would do this if Bush was in power saber rattling over the country? It's a beginning. If you thought one speech would uproot the regime there overnight that would be very naive. A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

You think the Iranians can't think on their own, and look to our President to determine their lives? LMAO

blaise
06-13-2009, 10:06 AM
You think the Iranians can't think on their own, and look to our President to determine their lives? LMAO

Didn't the Iranian people know what they could have had with a new leader? Collectors sets of coins and plates, stories about his dog, and endless photos on the cover of Iranian People magazine?

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2009, 10:11 AM
Um, I think there's a little unrest.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6SaGRnSia7Y&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6SaGRnSia7Y&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

mlyonsd
06-13-2009, 10:12 AM
It might be possible the majority of Iranians don't like the world telling them what they can and can't do or have.

SBK
06-13-2009, 10:14 AM
Didn't the Iranian people know what they could have had with a new leader? Collectors sets of coins and plates, stories about his dog, and endless photos on the cover of Iranian People magazine?

LMAO

And their President could speak in Toronto and influence our upcoming elections.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 10:25 AM
Didn't the Iranian people know what they could have had with a new leader? Collectors sets of coins and plates, stories about his dog, and endless photos on the cover of Iranian People magazine?

Here's what's not being addressed:
Over 70% of Iran's population is under 30. This is where the huge pro-reform movement is. Most of these weren't even born when the 1979 Revolution happened. They want to be more like Americans. They want to trade with us and the west. There is little employment for them. There are more women in universities than men. The hardline clerics are being challenged daily in cafes with how they want to dress pushing their self-expression.

The divisions are seen more in private than in public. We are presented with gross exaggerations about Iranians in America about the Iranian people. The right believes the over-heated rhetoric about these pathetic countries. They are easily manipulated.

Not only that but currently Iran is one of the more democratic regimes in the ME despite it's elections not being perfect. The more authoritarian govts are our allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In the meantime Iran has worked with us to help stabilize Iran and Iraq. Their enemy is the Taliban. They hate them. They support the Shia dominated govt in Iraq.

Ahmadinejad seems to have backing of the ruling theocracy, which holds near-total power and can to put the election results on the slow track. In the meantime, text messaging has been blocked which is the main tool of the pro-reform movement.

Still, it would not be in Iran's interests to give Hamas or Hezbollah nukes, just as it wasn't in Saddam's to give them chem weapons because it would invite an attack that would destroy it's current autocratic leadership which will do anything to stay in power. That's one of their hallmarks—survival. Despite who wins this election the old guys will continue to die out. They are already.

However the entire political spectrum — from fundamentalists to reformers — supports Iran's nuclear program. No matter who wins it's not going to be let go.

The problem is more with our policymakers—including Obama. IMO he's an improvement BUT he still suffers from that progressive interventionist but unrealistic mindset of where he wants Iran to go while the NeoCons in both parties beat war drums. Both are meddlers. One just relies on the bully pulpit and rhetoric.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2009, 10:31 AM
A Twitter gem:

"Maybe #Mousavi supporters ought to check #Ahmadinejad's birth certificate"

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2009, 10:32 AM
http://j.photos.cx/3621522249_8f7b684a4b-db9.jpg

Cannibal
06-13-2009, 10:35 AM
Here's what's not being addressed:
Over 70% of Iran's population is under 30. This is where the huge pro-reform movement is. Most of these weren't even born when the 1979 Revolution happened. They want to be more like Americans. They want to trade with us and the west. There is little employment for them. There are more women in universities than men. The hardline clerics are being challenged daily in cafes with how they want to dress pushing their self-expression.

Agreed and bombing them would be the worst thing we could do. It would nationalize them and then they would hate America as well.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 10:38 AM
Agreed and bombing them would be the worst thing we could do. It would nationalize them and then they would hate America as well.

That's right. They'd rally around their govt just like we did after 9/11. It's a natural reaction...one that is exploited by govts.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 11:03 AM
All those long lines to vote, there has to be a multi layered beauracy in the process from small towns back to Tehran, They use paper ballots so they have to to be counted by hand but they were still able to get it all done 2 hours after the polls closed and declare their guy won in a landslide? jjjjeeez that stinks to high heaven but a fair election in Iran would never happen anyway,

How could there be any fraud if they use paper ballots? I though that stuff only happened with diebold machines and other forms of receipt-less electronic voting.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 11:05 AM
Did you see people in the streets? Do you think they would do this if Bush was in power saber rattling over the country? It's a beginning. If you thought one speech would uproot the regime there overnight that would be very naive. A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

If Bush were still in office, Ahmadinejad would have lost this election because the Iranian people would be afraid that he'd get them into a war that they don't want.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 11:12 AM
In the meantime Iran has worked with us to help stabilize Iran and Iraq. Their enemy is the Taliban. They hate them. They support the Shia dominated govt in Iraq.

Uninformed (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html), wishful (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/22/military.afghanistan) thinking (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2008/04/iraq-080425-voa01.htm).

However the entire political spectrum — from fundamentalists to reformers — supports Iran's nuclear program. No matter who wins it's not going to be let go.

This part is true.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 11:15 AM
Sorry pat but Iran has helped in those areas. It's just been under the radar. That's just another ms news report. Doesn't mean it checks out or that it contradicts.
For all we know it could be propaganda carried on news lines. CIA has done that before. Or like Judith Miller at the NYT's. Or another forgery somewhere like all the other false stories on Iraq. LOL

So it's more your wishful thinking.


How NeoCons sabotaged Iran's help on al-Qaeda (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590)

You did know Iranian leadership despises al-Qaeda right?

KILLER_CLOWN
06-13-2009, 11:18 AM
It is a known fact that Shiite's and Sunni's hate each other more than anything else, Iran is Shiite and AlCiada and Taliban are Sunni and both are groups formed and controlled by the CIA.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 11:19 AM
Sorry pat but Iran has helped in those areas. It's just been under the radar. That's just a news report. Doesn't mean it checks out or that it contradicts.

So it's more your wishful thinking.

Yes, they do some "helping" for public appearances while at the same time working covertly to accomplish their real goal of making things as difficult for us as possible. Your pollyannish view is just another example of believing what you want to believe and discarding all the rest of the evidence.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 11:23 AM
Oh I edited but I'll still trust my impeccable sources who've been far more correct than yours to date on such issues.

Besides, how could be help being done-under-the-radar be for public appearances?

And you are projecting about my pollyanna view when you have a thoroughly statist pov. I believe everything my govt tells me about all our foreign enemies. LOL
Iran is strategically valuable to control as our next nation building enterprise due to it's location and rich oil reserves for our mercantilists in our govt. ( like Cheney your hero)

patteeu
06-13-2009, 11:25 AM
It is a known fact that Shiite's and Sunni's hate each other more than anything else, Iran is Shiite and AlCiada and Taliban are Sunni and both are groups formed and controlled by the CIA.

It might be "known" in truther circles, but in the real world we know that sophisticated countries like Iran don't let ethnic/religious differences get in the way of strategic alliances. The Shiite's in Iran didn't have any trouble working with Sunni nuclear proliferators from Pakistan in the 90's, for example.

As another example, we didn't have much trouble working with Soviet client-state Iraq when we wanted to thwart Iran's march toward Baghdad in the 80's.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-13-2009, 11:27 AM
It might be "known" in truther circles, but in the real world we know that sophisticated countries like Iran don't let ethnic/religious differences get in the way of strategic alliances. The Shiite's in Iran didn't have any trouble working with Sunni nuclear proliferators from Pakistan in the 90's, for example.

As another example, we didn't have much trouble working with Soviet client-state Iraq when we wanted to thwart Iran's march toward Baghdad in the 80's.

The real world if full of truth we should all observe it more than spinning from either side.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 11:28 AM
Oh I edited but I'll still trust my impeccable sources who've been far more correct than yours to date.

Besides, how could be help being done-under-the-radar be for public appearances?

And you are projecting about my pollyanna view when you have a thoroughly statists pov.

Your sources have consistently led you wrong. You just don't realize it.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 11:29 AM
It might be "known" in truther circles, but in the real world we know that sophisticated countries like Iran don't let ethnic/religious differences get in the way of strategic alliances. The Shiite's in Iran didn't have any trouble working with Sunni nuclear proliferators from Pakistan in the 90's, for example.
As another example, we didn't have much trouble working with Soviet client-state Iraq when we wanted to thwart Iran's march toward Baghdad in the 80's.
That's true with most govt's —including ours.
You think we do this stuff out of altruism? I have a bridge to sell ya'. It's because someone in the govt or connected to it wants something in any given area. This is the nature of govt and politics. Especially the politics of Empire that the current US is playing since Bush Sr.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 11:32 AM
Your sources have consistently led you wrong. You just don't realize it.
My sources were RIGHT about Iraq not having WMD.
My sources were RIGHT that Iraq would be a disasterr BEFORE going in.
My sources were RIGHT we'd not ever leave Iraq soon.
My sources were RIGHT about how Obama's FP would be the same, just conducted differently. That he'd not leave Iraq.
My sources were right about the financial crisis and coming recession ( 'er scrap that not coming that we were in) —all while you were denying were even in one.


Nope you listened to the Cheney and company while living in a state of delusion the entire time.

And my sources are RIGHT that the same thing before doing Iraq is being done to Iran. Demonize first. Sanction next. Then invade or strike militarily.
Or just that they're really a threat...nuclear-wise. You and the modern right, not the old right like myself, are prone to believing there are more security threats than really exist.
You are easily swayed and manipulated on it just as the left is easily swayed govt can run an economy because markets are dangerous and something to fear....and also the weather is a threat.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 11:32 AM
Your sources have consistently led you wrong. You just don't realize it.

Be specific....on what?

patteeu
06-13-2009, 11:37 AM
That's true with most govt's —including ours.
You think we do this stuff out of altruism? I have a bridge to sell ya'. It's because someone in the govt or connected to it wants something in any given area. This is the nature of govt and politics. Especially the politics of Empire that the current US is playing since Bush Sr.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not in the market for a bridge right now, but thanks anyway.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 11:39 AM
It's just an expression. I see Nightwish is rubbing off on you. That's what happens when to talk to him too much. LMAO

patteeu
06-13-2009, 11:42 AM
My sources were RIGHT about Iraq not having WMD.
My sources were RIGHT that Iraq would be a disasterr BEFORE going in.
My sources were RIGHT we'd not ever leave Iraq soon.
My sources were RIGHT about how Obama's FP would be the same, just conducted differently. That he'd not leave Iraq.
My sources were right about the financial crisis and coming recession ( 'er scrap that not coming that we were in) —all while you were denying were even in one.

Iraq had failed to destroy all of it's WMD as required, which your sources FAILED to predict.

Iraq maintained the core capability and the desire to reconstitute it's WMD program as soon as it had successfully shed the sanctions regime, which your sources FAILED to predict.

Who didn't know we planned to stay a while in Iraq?

Your sources have been predicting disaster in every military confrontation we've had since the end of the cold war. They FAILED to predict the ease with which Saddam was ousted from Kuwait. They FAILED to predict the ease with which the Taliban were routed from Afghanistan. They FAILED to predict the success of the initial invasion of Iraq.

Your sources have been predicting financial catastrophe for decades now. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 12:01 PM
Iraq had failed to destroy all of it's WMD as required, which your sources FAILED to predict. False

Iraq maintained the core capability and the desire to reconstitute it's WMD program as soon as it had successfully shed the sanctions regime, which your sources FAILED to predict.
Prove it when no one could get in. I read it was just paper work. And that's not what your sources reported. They reported mushroom clouds and inferred imminent danger with ties to 9/11. They exploited the tragedy of 9/11 for what they wanted to do anyway.

Who didn't know we planned to stay a while in Iraq?
There were those on your side saying it would be over with quickly just a few months.

Your sources have been predicting disaster in every military confrontation we've had since the end of the cold war. They FAILED to predict the ease with which Saddam was ousted from Kuwait. They FAILED to predict the ease with which the Taliban were routed from Afghanistan. They FAILED to predict the success of the initial invasion of Iraq.
I didn't use those sources on those topics back then. Certainly not Kuwait. So that's a false statement based on assumption. As far as Iraq goes they never said anything about the initial invasion they look at the overall success based on the goal promised. Easy in and easy out. That didn't happen did it? If that's your standard for Afghanistan, now with a resurging Taliban, then that's pretty bad. It's not mine nor my sources.

In restrospect though on Kuwait my sources were right, even if I never knew they existed back then. Kuwait may have won the peace but created another problem—terror coming home to America due to permanent military installations on Saudi soil. Even one of the chief architects of Iraq invasion, Wolfowitz admitted how it created a huge problem for the US. I always said that military intervention was also unecessary, in retrospect, and was also based on false reports and lies which you choose to believe even back then. Like I said, statist pov...I believe govt war propaganda which makes me a patriot. LOL!

They were right about how Afghanistan is not really working so long term either. They were for breaking up the camps in Afghanistan, the ones I used, because it was to get AQ. That didn't happen did it? Yet you call it success. You simply move the goal posts and label it a success. Very Neo Connish standard. They get egg on their face but just call it something else instead.

Your sources have been predicting financial catastrophe for decades now. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
I didn't rely on them for past incidents. I was talking about during the Bush era.....and the last 16 years. I said before I supported most of the Cold War. However, in retrospect there was more truth in what they said about that. The Soviet Union just could not last. It fell more from within. The way we are now. Enjoy it pat. Empire is your game. But I am not going to have another go around with you on the same issues again that we've already had for three years. It's like a broken record.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 12:10 PM
Oh and pat checking out Justin's site and Lew's I've seen a past article on how the NeoCons rejoiced about Ahmed winning in Iran because they could exploit him for creating fear in America in order to knock down another govt.

I never even knew this. Here's a short blurb from Lew himself.


Before the last Iranian presidential election, Bush and the neocons rattled the sabre to undermine the more pro-peace candidate, and elect their favored bogeyman, Ahmadinejad. That way, it would be so much easier to gin up a cold war and possible hot war against Iran. This time, and for the same reasons, the neocons are openly chanting, Give me an A, give me an h…

Yet you continue to trust those sources.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-13-2009, 12:13 PM
Oh and pat checking out Justin's site and Lew's I've seen a past article on how the NeoCons rejoiced about Ahmed winning in Iran because they could exploit him for creating fear in America in order to knock down another govt.

I never even knew this. Here's a short blurb from Lew himself.




Yet you continue to trust those sources.

The neocons need(ed) a boogeyman to steal rights, money and power from us whereas the neolibs gin up stories like blanket right wing extremists(read in lone nut jobs) and save the planet from phony environmental problems are dangerous while stealing rights, money and power. Same crap different day i suppose and all of us lose in either scenario.

Taco John
06-13-2009, 12:25 PM
Who didn't know we planned to stay a while in Iraq?



Donald Rumsfeld.

Well actually, he knew we planned to stay a while in Iraq. He just lied about it to the American people.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-13-2009, 12:28 PM
Donald Rumsfeld.

Well actually, he knew we planned to stay a while in Iraq. He just lied about it to the American people.

Rummy may be the devil himself, single handedly getting Aspartame passed by the FDA and many other horrible acts.

Direckshun
06-13-2009, 12:31 PM
The more I read about this election, the more it reads like a coup.

Normally, I'd take this as an encouraging sign: a desperate leader relies on tricks and fraud to keep himself in power... In a democratic country, I'd have faith in the upcoming generations being able to right this through the absolute power of popular appeal.

But Iran is only partially democratic. Hell, President isn't even the most powerful position in the country. Instead, the most powerful positions and over half the functioning bureaucracy is determined by unelected officials that have so much power they are essentially walled off from any popular pressure whatsoever.

This is in every way a moral victory for a progressive Iran. But I don't know how those moral victories will ever translate into actual victories. At least in our lifetime.

orange
06-13-2009, 12:34 PM
You guys don't really believe this is the end of it, do you?


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1753/slide_1753_23648_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1753/slide_1753_23624_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1753/slide_1753_23645_large.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html

banyon
06-13-2009, 12:52 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y67YC__XzKE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y67YC__XzKE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Prhx12_jO5Y&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Prhx12_jO5Y&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 01:20 PM
The more I read about this election, the more it reads like a coup.

Normally, I'd take this as an encouraging sign: a desperate leader relies on tricks and fraud to keep himself in power... In a democratic country, I'd have faith in the upcoming generations being able to right this through the absolute power of popular appeal.

But Iran is only partially democratic. Hell, President isn't even the most powerful position in the country. Instead, the most powerful positions and over half the functioning bureaucracy is determined by unelected officials that have so much power they are essentially walled off from any popular pressure whatsoever.

This is in every way a moral victory for a progressive Iran. But I don't know how those moral victories will ever translate into actual victories. At least in our lifetime.

Knock,knock!! Hello McFly! Anybody who thought for a mili-second that Mousavi was going to win is just flat out naive:rolleyes:

The Moulas(however you spell it) run the show(ala The Ayatollah). The Ayatollah calls the shots and The President is just a pawn to relate messages and take the heat for the Moulas(Ayatollah) on the world stage.

No way Mousavi wins.

Direckshun
06-13-2009, 01:33 PM
Knock,knock!! Hello McFly! Anybody who thought for a mili-second that Mousavi was going to win is just flat out naive:rolleyes:

The Moulas(however you spell it) run the show(ala The Ayatollah). The Ayatollah calls the shots and The President is just a pawn to relate messages and take the heat for the Moulas(Ayatollah) on the world stage.

No way Mousavi wins.

Thanks for mocking me and then pretty much saying the exact same thing.

banyon
06-13-2009, 01:40 PM
Thanks for mocking me and then pretty much saying the exact same thing.

Ironic that he chose to sound like Biff Tannen.

dirk digler
06-13-2009, 01:52 PM
My thread = Massive FAIL

so a mod can close it anytime they want so I don't have to see it and think how stupid I was to think this would be a fair election

KC Dan
06-13-2009, 01:56 PM
My thread = Massive FAIL

so a mod can close it anytime they want so I don't have to see it and think how stupid I was.Please do not hide the thread. Dirk must keep looking at it infinitum so he is reminded to not jump the gun and to be realistic on how our savior President is not the end all and be all.

dirk digler
06-13-2009, 01:59 PM
Please do not hide the thread. Dirk must keep looking at it infinitum so he is reminded to not jump the gun and to be realistic on how our savior President is not the end all and be all.

LMAO I was kidding of course.

I am pissed that I thought it would actually be fair and that psycho is still in power.

Calcountry
06-13-2009, 02:06 PM
You need some basic understanding in contrapositions.Jenson reminds me of that red headed priest in the movie Gran Torino.

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:06 PM
My thread = Massive FAIL

so a mod can close it anytime they want so I don't have to see it and think how stupid I was to think this would be a fair election

don't feel bad. It is a good sign that you are starting to see through your "liberal 'we can all get along' ideology" and beginning to embrace the true reality of an evil world. Of course Progressive Liberals don't believe in evil but over due time 'reality' sets in and it is the wise person that embraces it.

Calcountry
06-13-2009, 02:08 PM
For instance, I could say, "If stevieray is a man, then stevieray is a human." Now turn it around and see if it's true.I could say, I saved or created 10 million jobs too.

I could say, that I inherited a mess, then, when it fixes itself take the credit, or, when it gets worse say it would have been even worse but for my saving gracious hand.

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:09 PM
Thanks for mocking me and then pretty much saying the exact same thing.

And I have never been mocked on this board? You libs are sooooooooooooo sensitive!!

My point was that you are 'just' now getting this?

wild1
06-13-2009, 02:09 PM
LMAO I was kidding of course.

I am pissed that I thought it would actually be fair and that psycho is still in power.

ROFL

If only Ahmadinejad were actually unpopular, as you would like to believe.

I suppose fraud is the only way to reconcile this decisive victory with your view that Obama can pick a winner in an election simply by giving a speech a thousand miles away... :LOL:

Calcountry
06-13-2009, 02:12 PM
LMAO You think anyone takes you seriously? Everybody knows your a POS that doesn't have any original thought or stand up for anything.Here's an original thought. Why doesn't Barack Obama go to South Korea and give a speach about the brotherhood of Asians and Americans on the peninsula and how he has a grand vision of a unified Korea some day after appologising for the Korean war in the first place.

Then, when Mr. Ill gets ill and dies, he can take credit for that as well.

Direckshun
06-13-2009, 02:14 PM
My point was that you are 'just' now getting this?

Then the one point you do have is wrong, because I'm not.

Stewie
06-13-2009, 02:25 PM
I guess I need to spend more time in this forum, but that OP is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We ALL knew what the outcome would be. They don't give a shit about Obama and his mealy mouth.

wild1
06-13-2009, 02:42 PM
I guess I need to spend more time in this forum, but that OP is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We ALL knew what the outcome would be. They don't give a shit about Obama and his mealy mouth.

This is important. People who joined the Obama cult really do think that what he said during the campaign is true, that he'll simply have to reach out to these people and talk to them, and due to his own charisma, tension would be relieved. This is a clear example of how his groveling diplomacy does not work.

The Irans and North Koreas of the world have correctly surmised that we have a feckless PR man who is really of no concern at all to them.

Chiefshrink
06-13-2009, 02:50 PM
This is important. People who joined the Obama cult really do think that what he said during the campaign is true, that he'll simply have to reach out to these people and talk to them, and due to his own charisma, tension would be relieved. This is a clear example of how his groveling diplomacy does not work.

The Irans and North Koreas of the world have correctly surmised that we have a feckless PR man who is really of no concern at all to them.

Precisely, if you listen close yesterday to Obama he was already starting to take credit for it before the official results were in. What a narcissist!!!:clap:

irishjayhawk
06-13-2009, 03:09 PM
Jenson reminds me of that red headed priest in the movie Gran Torino.

I never thought about it that way, but damn that's pinpoint accurate.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 03:14 PM
You think the Iranians can't think on their own, and look to our President to determine their lives? LMAO

You are an idiot.

bkkcoh
06-13-2009, 03:18 PM
I am really surprised that Jimmy Carter didn't go over to oversee the elections to make sure they were legitimate.

He must have been busy and unavailable.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 03:20 PM
If Bush were still in office, Ahmadinejad would have lost this election because the Iranian people would be afraid that he'd get them into a war that they don't want.

Wrong you are sir. Every time there was any threat from the previous administration the regime in Iran enjoyed decrease in unpopularity. Iranians are very very very nationalistic.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 03:25 PM
Yes, they do some "helping" for public appearances while at the same time working covertly to accomplish their real goal of making things as difficult for us as possible. Your pollyannish view is just another example of believing what you want to believe and discarding all the rest of the evidence.

So is your Ramboish attitude. You also refuse to look at the evidence and when you do you conveniently chalk it up to "public appearances."

BigRedChief
06-13-2009, 03:29 PM
Agreed and bombing them would be the worst thing we could do. It would nationalize them and then they would hate America as well.yep, we need to keep hands off. Not say a word publically.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 03:35 PM
Memo From Tehran (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14memo.html?_r=2) NYT

One version (from somebody’s brother who supposedly knew someone inside) had it that vote counters simply were ordered to doctor the numbers: “Make that 1,000 for Ahmadinejad a 3,000.”

Others pointed out that the ballots seemed designed to lead opposition voters astray. Voters were obliged to choose a candidate and fill in a code. Though Mr. Moussavi was Candidate No. 4, the code No. 44 signified Mr. Ahmadinejad.

One man who worked in the Ministry of Interior, which carried out the vote count, said the government had been preparing its fraud for weeks, purging anyone of doubtful loyalty and importing pliable staff members from around the country.

“They didn’t rig the vote,” claimed this man, who showed his ministry identification card but pleaded not to be named. “They didn’t even look at the vote. They just wrote the name and put the number in front of it.”

Stewie
06-13-2009, 03:38 PM
I am really surprised that Jimmy Carter didn't go over to oversee the elections to make sure they were legitimate.

He must have been busy and unavailable.

Too busy deflecting the absolute atrocity that are Habitat homes.

JC: "I'm doing good. I'm building houses for the lazy."
"You realize they're falling apart, right?"
"I'm in government. It's all we can do."
"All you can do?"
"Yeah, we've finally realized we aren't very smart."
"Is that acceptable?"
"I was told my colleagues have an average IQ of 90. So, YES, it is."
"But you were President!"
"Yes I was! Really funny, isn't it?"

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 03:42 PM
JC: "I'm doing good. I'm building houses for the lazy."
ROFL:LOL: I never heard it talked about like that before.


"You realize they're falling apart, right?"

Are they really? I don't keep up with this subject. It wouldn't surprise me though. If one doesn't feel they personally earned something like that deep inside they'll act like they don't really own it.

Stewie
06-13-2009, 03:50 PM
Are they really? I don't keep up with this subject.

Yes. It's well documented. Why would it be a surprise? Volunteers with big hearts and little knowledge are building these homes and the results are terrible (it took several years to figure this out). I understand "big hearts" and their willingness to give, but they have no business building someone's home.

banyon
06-13-2009, 03:59 PM
Yes. It's well documented. Why would it be a surprise? Volunteers with big hearts and little knowledge are building these homes and the results are terrible (it took several years to figure this out). I understand "big hearts" and their willingness to give, but they have no business building someone's home.

<object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/0trVsm_OdEX0qitmGaa_xg"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/0trVsm_OdEX0qitmGaa_xg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 03:59 PM
Yes. It's well documented. Why would it be a surprise? Volunteers with big hearts and little knowledge are building these homes and the results are terrible (it took several years to figure this out). I understand "big hearts" and their willingness to give, but they have no business building someone's home.

I just googled it. They're even beind sued. At least here in Florida for mildew, roach infestation and mysterious skin rashes. Oh oooooh!
And yet, the left calls for more mandatory volunteerism.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 04:12 PM
False

Sorry BEP, it's true. He apparently did destroy a large portion of those stockpiles, but we found something like 500 chemical munitions after the invasion and, more importantly, Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations under Gulf War ceasefire agreement to account for the disposal of his known chemical stockpiles.

Prove it when no one could get in. I read it was just paper work. And that's not what your sources reported. They reported mushroom clouds and inferred imminent danger with ties to 9/11. They exploited the tragedy of 9/11 for what they wanted to do anyway.

This is borderline truther material right here. No one reported mushroom clouds and the administration was very forthright about the fact that they weren't waiting for the threat to become imminent. The key findings (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm) of the final report from the Iraq Survey Group would be a good place to start untwisting the lies that antiwar.com has been feeding you.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 04:15 PM
I didn't use those sources on those topics back then. Certainly not Kuwait. So that's a false statement based on assumption. ...

I didn't rely on them for past incidents. I was talking about during the Bush era.....and the last 16 years....

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about your sources. Their credibility is impacted by those things whether you were reading their garbage back then or not. If someone predicts X, year after year after year, they don't suddenly become credible when X actually happens even if one of their readers just started following them.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 04:19 PM
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1753/slide_1753_23648_large.jpg

So what do people think about Obama going over for some talks with the newly re-elected President of Iran at this point? Should he rush over and break some bread with the guy to get off on the right foot diplomatically?

patteeu
06-13-2009, 04:25 PM
Wrong you are sir. Every time there was any threat from the previous administration the regime in Iran enjoyed decrease in unpopularity. Iranians are very very very nationalistic.

It sounds like you're telling me that they're both easily manipulated and foolish enough to welcome war with the US. You don't paint a very flattering picture of your home boys.

So is your Ramboish attitude. You also refuse to look at the evidence and when you do you conveniently chalk it up to "public appearances."

Ramboish? Is it Ramboish to take note of the anti-US activities of the Iranians?

patteeu
06-13-2009, 04:27 PM
yep, we need to keep hands off. Not say a word publically.

Not say a word? Why not? Obama taught me that talk is always worthwhile, particularly with potential enemies.

irishjayhawk
06-13-2009, 04:42 PM
Not say a word? Why not? Obama taught me that talk is always worthwhile, particularly with potential enemies.


I don't think he ever said that we should talk to an enemy who is currently fighting amongst itself.

AustinChief
06-13-2009, 05:12 PM
Wrong you are sir. Every time there was any threat from the previous administration the regime in Iran enjoyed decrease in unpopularity. Iranians are very very very nationalistic.

This is true for most non self loathing countries. (self-loathing countries include most of western europe and sadly the US now)

They'd rather have THEIR despot telling them what to do as opposed to a foreign one. Human nature.

Bowser
06-13-2009, 05:17 PM
Not say a word? Why not? Obama taught me that talk is always worthwhile, particularly with potential enemies.

Shoot first, ask questions later?

Frankie
06-13-2009, 05:35 PM
My sources were RIGHT about Iraq not having WMD.
My sources were RIGHT that Iraq would be a disasterr BEFORE going in.
My sources were RIGHT we'd not ever leave Iraq soon.

I was your source?

Nightwish
06-13-2009, 05:36 PM
That was one out of thousands of posts. And that email was based on Sec of State tabulations including all absentee ballots.
So you say, although you've never produced a shred of evidence. And practically every news outlet in the country, both left and right, have claimed exactly the opposite.

My sources are the ones I've linked here that predicted the economic/financial situation, Iraq debacle etc.
Hell, I predicted the Iraq debacle the moment we started building up troops in Kuwait. So did thousands of others, and I'm talking laypersons whose only information was the mainstream media. It didn't take being in Bush's inner circle or an imbedded journalist to predict the Iraq debacle. And working in the real estate industry, we saw the writing on the wall with the current state of the economy back in '05 and '06. And there were plenty of talking heads who were predicting a recession long before BushCo and Fox News conceded that a recession was happening. Fox News (and a few other right-leaning outlets) spent the first couple years leading up to the recession naysaying the warnings, claiming there was nothing irregular or out of the ordinary going on. Most of the rest of the media was saying the opposite, although many of them were still unwilling to predict that it would get as bad as it has.

Ya' know the financial ones that you currently disbelieve who refuted the mainstream predictions and talking heads on tv.( the ones you believe and still do LMAO LMAO LMAO )
:LOL: Yeah? Which talking heads and mainstream predictions would those be? Please, by all means, tell me which talking heads I've been tuning into these days (considering the only time I've turned on my television over the past three months has been to catch one episode of Supernatural, and my Sirius satellite radio doesn't leave the Boneyard).

Those, including that email, still beats your own link that contradicts what you said about who won.
Refresh my memory - what exactly did I say about who won, and which link did I post that contradicted it?

By the way, regarding your jab at me in your sig - if you're wanting to use a clever insult, you might want to choose something a little more informed, considering that leprechauns (which is the correct spelling, by the way) are generally considered keen, wily and difficult to outsmart. Unless you're content to appear entirely ignorant of Irish lore, or you were attempting flattery, you might want to pick a different creature. :p Just sayin'

Frankie
06-13-2009, 05:38 PM
The more I read about this election, the more it reads like a coup.

Normally, I'd take this as an encouraging sign: a desperate leader relies on tricks and fraud to keep himself in power... In a democratic country, I'd have faith in the upcoming generations being able to right this through the absolute power of popular appeal.

This.

Nightwish
06-13-2009, 05:38 PM
I was your source?
Hehe, you and me both, apparently.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 05:40 PM
Thanks for mocking me and then pretty much saying the exact same thing.

:LOL:

Frankie
06-13-2009, 06:06 PM
ROFL

If only Ahmadinejad were actually unpopular, as you would like to believe.

IS.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 06:10 PM
Memo From Tehran (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14memo.html?_r=2) NYT

One version (from somebody’s brother who supposedly knew someone inside) had it that vote counters simply were ordered to doctor the numbers: “Make that 1,000 for Ahmadinejad a 3,000.”

Others pointed out that the ballots seemed designed to lead opposition voters astray. Voters were obliged to choose a candidate and fill in a code. Though Mr. Moussavi was Candidate No. 4, the code No. 44 signified Mr. Ahmadinejad.

One man who worked in the Ministry of Interior, which carried out the vote count, said the government had been preparing its fraud for weeks, purging anyone of doubtful loyalty and importing pliable staff members from around the country.

“They didn’t rig the vote,” claimed this man, who showed his ministry identification card but pleaded not to be named. “They didn’t even look at the vote. They just wrote the name and put the number in front of it.”
Hence the unbelievable margin of victory.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 06:14 PM
It sounds like you're telling me that they're both easily manipulated and foolish enough to welcome war with the US. You don't paint a very flattering picture of your home boys.

WTF?

American nationalistic feelings = Pride and passion
Iranian nationalistic feelings = foolish and unflattering.

I get it pat. Thanks for setting me straight.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 06:17 PM
Ramboish? Is it Ramboish to take note of the anti-US activities of the Iranians?

Ramboish is to shoot first and ask questions second. Ramboish is to never trust that something other than destruction of the other guy could actually work.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 06:22 PM
US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad

By CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer Carolyn Thompson, Associated Press Writer 54 mins ago

NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario – The U.S. on Saturday refused to accept hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of a landslide re-election victory in Iran and said it was looking into allegations of election fraud.

Any hopes by the Obama administration of gaining a result similar to Lebanon's recent election, won by a Western-backed moderate coalition, appeared to be in jeopardy.

"We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran, but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference with Canada's foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon.

Minutes after Clinton spoke, the White House released a two-sentence statement praising "the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians," but expressing concern about "reports of irregularities."

Despite the challenge from reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi to incumbent hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, many officials and experts thought a Mousavi victory would result in only incremental shifts toward the U.S.

Because real power in Tehran is still wielded by religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, some say an Ahmadinejad re-election may make it easier to build an international consensus against Iran.

Administration officials remained silent out of concern that any comments might influence the results. But they were privately hoping for a victory by the more moderate Mousavi.

President Barack Obama's previous overtures include his recent address in Cairo to the Muslim world as well as, earlier, a televised New Year's address to the Iranian people and a series of diplomatic contacts. Officials say Obama's attempts to reach out have gone largely unanswered.

Neither Clinton nor the White House mentioned Ahmadinejad or his chief rival Mousavi, by name, or acknowledged the incumbent's victory declaration.

Iranian authorities reported that Ahmadinejad was re-elected with 62.6 percent of the vote. He called on the public to respect the vote. But Mousavi, a former prime minister who has become the hero of a youth-driven movement seeking greater liberties and a gentler face for Iran abroad, rejected the results and accused authorities of rigging Friday's vote.

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Saturday that Ahmadinejad's claim of a victory puts the Obama administration in a tough position.

"I think it's going to make it incredibly difficult for the Obama administration to acquiesce on Iran's enrichment of uranium when there is a president in Tehran who continues to deny the Holocaust, and continues to be belligerent toward Israel," Sadjadpour said. "I don't see the probability of Ahmadinejad taking a more moderate or conciliatory approach his second time around. Similar to what President Bush said when he was re-elected in 2004, he said, 'I've earned political capital, and now I am going to use it.'"

As a result, Sadjadpour said the U.S. may have to review its diplomatic approach with Iran. "We have no other choice but to open a sustained dialogue with Tehran," Sadjadpour said.

In brief remarks in Canada, Clinton cited "the enthusiasm and the very vigorous debate and dialogue" in the run-up to the vote. "We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people," she said.

Canada's foreign minister Cannon said his country was "deeply concerned" by reports of irregularities in the election. "We're troubled by reports of intimidation of opposition candidates' offices by security forces," he said. "Canada is calling on Iranian authorities to conduct fair and transparent counting of all ballots."

Disappointment in the results was summed up by the Anti-Defamation League, which noted Ahmadinejad's history of "extremist allegations and attacks" against Jews and Israel as well as the United States

"We are greatly disappointed by the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," the ADL said in a statement. "We had hoped that a different outcome to this election would have sent a message to the international community that Ahmadinejads incendiary behavior is not reflective of the beliefs and views of the Iranian people. Unfortunately, the result for Iran is likely to be another four years of extremism and isolation."

The election focused on what the office of the Iranian president can influence: boosting Iran's sinking economy, pressing for greater media and political freedoms, and being Iran's main envoy to the world.

Iran does not allow international election monitors. During the 2005 election, when Ahmadinejad won the presidency, there were some allegations of vote rigging from losers, but the claims were never investigated.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_iran

Nightwish
06-13-2009, 06:23 PM
For the record, I do believe the election was probably a coup (or whatever the equivalent is called when the winner is the guy who was already in charge). Ahmadinejad is very popular and may have won regardless, but I don't believe he would have pulled a landslide like that in a fair tally.

***SPRAYER
06-13-2009, 06:46 PM
Ramboish is to shoot first and ask questions second. Ramboish is to never trust that something other than destruction of the other guy could actually work.


TA TA TOOTHEY

patteeu
06-13-2009, 07:11 PM
I don't think he ever said that we should talk to an enemy who is currently fighting amongst itself.

He never really says much of anything specific, but I'm glad to see that you recognize that sometimes talk is the wrong thing to do. No such nuance was acknowledged by most Obama supporters during the election.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 07:14 PM
WTF?

American nationalistic feelings = Pride and passion
Iranian nationalistic feelings = foolish and unflattering.

I get it pat. Thanks for setting me straight.

I can see you still need a bit more tutoring. Iranian nationalistic feelings that lead Iranians to rally around a guy they don't really approve of who is heightening the danger that they will get the living daylights bombed out of them = foolish and unflattering.

patteeu
06-13-2009, 07:15 PM
Ramboish is to shoot first and ask questions second. Ramboish is to never trust that something other than destruction of the other guy could actually work.

Yes, but you called *ME* Ramboish and that description doesn't fit me at all.

Frazod
06-13-2009, 07:38 PM
Yes, but you called *ME* Ramboish and that description doesn't fit me at all.

No, you're more of a Murdoch.

SBK
06-13-2009, 07:40 PM
You are an idiot.

Coming from you this is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever told me. Thank you.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 07:44 PM
Sorry BEP, it's true. He apparently did destroy a large portion of those stockpiles, but we found something like 500 chemical munitions after the invasion and, more importantly, Saddam didn't fulfill his obligations under Gulf War ceasefire agreement to account for the disposal of his known chemical stockpiles.



This is borderline truther material right here. No one reported mushroom clouds and the administration was very forthright about the fact that they weren't waiting for the threat to become imminent. The key findings (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm) of the final report from the Iraq Survey Group would be a good place to start untwisting the lies that antiwar.com has been feeding you.

Sigh! You merely changed what I said and refuted that.
Your sources didn't just say SH's core program...they said he had WMD in present time.
Now I am DONE with what was discussed before including your nitpicky parsing that most American people never discerned in your source's message which is exactly what they were aiming for.

Antiwar.com said these things BEFORE we invaded. They turned out to be right. Charles Duelfer – chief of the Iraq Survey Group—Duelfer had already reported to Tenet in 2003 that the Iraqis were cooperating totally and that the CIA had obviously got it completely wrong (and that the UN inspectors had got it right) about WMDs in Iraq. You just want to believe otherwise. There's a reason Justin calls the NC's delusional—because they are. And when found wrong the blame everyone else or change the story.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 08:08 PM
Lew Rockwell- The chickenhawk Dennis Ross, in charge of talking to the Iranians, writes in his new book - a virtual how-to manual for aggression - that talking to the Iranians will make it easier to massacre them. That’s Obamanian diplomacy in a bloodthirsty nutshell. (Thanks to Andrew Ward)

Here's the link to Dennis Ross
http://pulsemedia.org/2009/06/12/talking-to-iran-will-make-it-easier-to-sell-war/


Note that there is no way to read this sentence but to see that the goal is to attack Iran. America trying to diplomatically resolve its differences with Iran is not a goal in itself; it is merely a means to more easily sell war and sanctions.

And, then, of course, we get the special Dennis Ross brand of peacemaking-as-warmongering—Ross’s signature dish: derailing negotiations while making it appear to be the other party’s fault.

This is why I say chickenhawks/NeoCons are essentially lefties. And why our FP remains the same not matter if a D or R is in the WH.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2009, 08:24 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lnc39ulEozk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lnc39ulEozk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

stevieray
06-13-2009, 08:38 PM
large world turning
live while you can

Frankie
06-13-2009, 09:07 PM
Coming from you this is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever told me. Thank you.

Any time. Happy to oblige. Here's another one to make you happy: You are an ignorant, uninformed legend in your own mind.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 09:17 PM
I can see you still need a bit more tutoring. Iranian nationalistic feelings that lead Iranians to rally around a guy they don't really approve of who is heightening the danger that they will get the living daylights bombed out of them = foolish and unflattering.

9/11 made Americans rally around Duhbya. Even though half of them couldn't stand the guy. It seems I guess you are the one who needs tutoring pat. Not by me, just by remembering recent history.

Frankie
06-13-2009, 09:20 PM
Ramboish is to shoot first and ask questions second. Ramboish is to never trust that something other than destruction of the other guy could actually work.

I can see you still need a bit more tutoring. Iranian nationalistic feelings that lead Iranians to rally around a guy they don't really approve of who is heightening the danger that they will get the living daylights bombed out of them = foolish and unflattering.

Yes, but you called *ME* Ramboish and that description doesn't fit me at all.
LMAO

Jenson71
06-13-2009, 09:46 PM
I could say, I saved or created 10 million jobs too.

I could say, that I inherited a mess, then, when it fixes itself take the credit, or, when it gets worse say it would have been even worse but for my saving gracious hand.

You could say that. But those don't fit in our model.

Jenson71
06-13-2009, 09:48 PM
Jenson reminds me of that red headed priest in the movie Gran Torino.

It sounds like AFI needs a new Top 50 Heroes list.

SBK
06-13-2009, 10:24 PM
Any time. Happy to oblige. Here's another one to make you happy: You are an ignorant, uninformed legend in your own mind.

LMAO THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!! LMAO

dirk digler
06-13-2009, 10:31 PM
ROFL

If only Ahmadinejad were actually unpopular, as you would like to believe.

I suppose fraud is the only way to reconcile this decisive victory with your view that Obama can pick a winner in an election simply by giving a speech a thousand miles away... :LOL:

I think it is fairly obvious now this whole thing was rigged and heck they are not even trying to hide it. They have blatantly come out and said they rigged it.

It is my bad that I thought the Iranians would at least attempt some sort of legit election. I was dumb and naive.

trndobrd
06-13-2009, 10:51 PM
I think it is fairly obvious now this whole thing was rigged and heck they are not even trying to hide it. They have blatantly come out and said they rigged it.

It is my bad that I thought the Iranians would at least attempt some sort of legit election. I was dumb and naive.



I don't think you were dumb or naive. I think you were trying, like the rooster who believed he made the sun rise, to give Obama credit for something over which he had no control or an impact.

Can I assume you also believe Obama bears responsibility for what appears to be negative outcome?

wild1
06-13-2009, 11:00 PM
I think it is fairly obvious now this whole thing was rigged and heck they are not even trying to hide it. They have blatantly come out and said they rigged it.

It is my bad that I thought the Iranians would at least attempt some sort of legit election. I was dumb and naive.

Just like "created or saved"...

If he loses, Obama gets the credit. If he wins, it's rigged. Not a terrible position sir.

orange
06-13-2009, 11:02 PM
ROFL

If only Ahmadinejad were actually unpopular, as you would like to believe.

I suppose fraud is the only way to reconcile this decisive victory with your view that Obama can pick a winner in an election simply by giving a speech a thousand miles away... :LOL:

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it appears you believe Ahmadinejad actually won.

Is this so? :hmmm:

wild1
06-13-2009, 11:05 PM
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it appears you believe Ahmadinejad actually won.

Is this so? :hmmm:

I believe he would win a fair election in Iran.

Whether this one was fair or not, no one here has any particular insight on so it's pointless to debate it.

trndobrd
06-13-2009, 11:07 PM
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it appears you believe Ahmadinejad actually won.

Is this so? :hmmm:


Ahmadinejad will be in power for the remainder of the Obama administration.

dirk digler
06-13-2009, 11:43 PM
I don't think you were dumb or naive. I think you were trying, like the rooster who believed he made the sun rise, to give Obama credit for something over which he had no control or an impact.

Can I assume you also believe Obama bears responsibility for what appears to be negative outcome?

Many people thought his speech could help in Iran just like they are saying his speech helped (minimally) the Lebanese in their election earlier this week where they defeated Hezbollah.

I never said his speech is the reason why my whole point all along was his speech could be the tipping point. Iran has 30% unemployment and their economy is in the shitter so those 2 things would be the overwhelmingly reason why Ahmadinejad would lose.

patteeu
06-14-2009, 07:04 AM
Sigh! You merely changed what I said and refuted that.
Your sources didn't just say SH's core program...they said he had WMD in present time.
Now I am DONE with what was discussed before including your nitpicky parsing that most American people never discerned in your source's message which is exactly what they were aiming for.

Antiwar.com said these things BEFORE we invaded. They turned out to be right. Charles Duelfer – chief of the Iraq Survey Group—Duelfer had already reported to Tenet in 2003 that the Iraqis were cooperating totally and that the CIA had obviously got it completely wrong (and that the UN inspectors had got it right) about WMDs in Iraq. You just want to believe otherwise. There's a reason Justin calls the NC's delusional—because they are. And when found wrong the blame everyone else or change the story.

We aren't talking about my sources, we're talking about your sources. I didn't change what you said. In fact, we're talking about my criticisms of your sources, so if anything, you tried to change what I said so you could continue with your fantasy that your sources have been impeccable.

patteeu
06-14-2009, 07:10 AM
Here's the link to Dennis Ross
http://pulsemedia.org/2009/06/12/talking-to-iran-will-make-it-easier-to-sell-war/




This is why I say chickenhawks/NeoCons are essentially lefties. And why our FP remains the same not matter if a D or R is in the WH.

Everything about this post is absurd. Everything.

BTW, what are your "impeccable" sources telling you about Iran's nuclear weapons programs? Do they deny that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon?

patteeu
06-14-2009, 07:18 AM
9/11 made Americans rally around Duhbya. Even though half of them couldn't stand the guy. It seems I guess you are the one who needs tutoring pat. Not by me, just by remembering recent history.

George W. Bush was very popular when people rallied around him in the aftermath of 9/11.


Ramboish is to shoot first and ask questions second. Ramboish is to never trust that something other than destruction of the other guy could actually work.

I can see you still need a bit more tutoring. Iranian nationalistic feelings that lead Iranians to rally around a guy they don't really approve of who is heightening the danger that they will get the living daylights bombed out of them = foolish and unflattering.

Yes, but you called *ME* Ramboish and that description doesn't fit me at all.

LMAO

That doesn't make any sense.

1. The heightened chances of getting the living daylights bombed out of them comes long after many questions have been asked.

2. It has nothing to do with *MY* attitude. I'm just making an observation. If you were more observant, you could have made the same observation despite the fact that you'd rather the Iranian mullahs get nukes than see conflict between the US and Iran.

patteeu
06-14-2009, 07:21 AM
Iran has 30% unemployment and their economy is in the shitter....

Obama is working hard to get the US and Iranian economies on a level playing field.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-14-2009, 08:35 AM
The International bankers are working hard to get the US and Iranian economies on a level playing field, which is the same crap with a different head.

FYP!

Frankie
06-14-2009, 09:19 AM
George W. Bush was very popular when people rallied around him in the aftermath of 9/11.If you mean BEFORE 9/11 you should look beyond your Neo-Con world, pat.

Frankie
06-14-2009, 09:21 AM
Obama is working hard to get the US and Iranian economies on a level playing field.

Yeah. The robust economy he inherited he is ruining in just a couple of months.

banyon
06-14-2009, 09:23 AM
This seems pretty similar to when Bush tried to oust Chavez in Venezuela.

patteeu
06-14-2009, 07:50 PM
If you mean BEFORE 9/11 you should look beyond your Neo-Con world, pat.

No, I mean what I said.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 07:52 PM
We aren't talking about my sources, we're talking about your sources. I didn't change what you said. In fact, we're talking about my criticisms of your sources, so if anything, you tried to change what I said so you could continue with your fantasy that your sources have been impeccable.

Nope you changed what I said which was WMD not about any core program. And now your acting like an argumentative defense lawyer, trying to win on technicality.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 07:53 PM
Everything about this post is absurd. Everything.
Thank god that's just an opinion.

BTW, what are your "impeccable" sources telling you about Iran's nuclear weapons programs? Do they deny that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon?

I already posted about that numerous times. Look it up.

Direckshun
06-14-2009, 08:31 PM
My friend from Iran writes me via Facebook:

Hey,

I don't know how it could not have been rigged. They say they counted 40 million paper ballots within 4 hours of the polls closing. The margin's pretty extreme and left no room for a runoff or questioning. The runner-up was a popular guy with tons of people voting for him. No independent election observers were permitted (as usual). Yeah, I'd say it's hard to have faith in their democratic system.

On the other hand, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if it were (nearly) legit. Truthfully, all the candidates are more similar than different, and hopes of a "reform" are really just dreams. A truly "reform" president would have no power in the current system, nor would they even be allowed to run. All of the current candidates were "approved" by the ruling elite ahead of time.

So, things are messed up there. One day, the regime will push too far and people will revolt. Those will be very bloody days. I hope it does not come to that. But it may be what needs to happen to bring justice and true democracy.

Frankie
06-14-2009, 09:07 PM
No, I mean what I said.

Then if you don't mean "before" you are agreeing with me that Bush being the President received support and popularity from most Americans regardless of political view. Therefore you agree with me that the same thing will happen in favor of the regime there if the country is invaded.

Frankie
06-14-2009, 09:10 PM
http://www.gopetition.com/online/28554/sign.html

Nightwish
06-15-2009, 12:53 AM
No, I mean what I said.
Compared to past Presidents back to Truman, over their first six months in office, only Clinton and Ford had lower approval ratings at that point in their Presidency than George W. Bush. And his Disapproval rating (i.e. the shift from No Opinion to Disapprove) rose pretty sharply between the election and the last polls before 9/11. If you think that made him a popular President prior to 9/11, then you're really stretching the definition of the word "popular."

Taco John
06-15-2009, 02:58 AM
My friend from Iran writes me via Facebook:My friend from Iran writes me via Facebook:

Hey,

I don't know how it could not have been rigged. They say they counted 40 million paper ballots within 4 hours of the polls closing. The margin's pretty extreme and left no room for a runoff or questioning. The runner-up was a popular guy with tons of people voting for him. No independent election observers were permitted (as usual). Yeah, I'd say it's hard to have faith in their democratic system.

On the other hand, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if it were (nearly) legit. Truthfully, all the candidates are more similar than different, and hopes of a "reform" are really just dreams. A truly "reform" president would have no power in the current system, nor would they even be allowed to run. All of the current candidates were "approved" by the ruling elite ahead of time.

So, things are messed up there. One day, the regime will push too far and people will revolt. Those will be very bloody days. I hope it does not come to that. But it may be what needs to happen to bring justice and true democracy.


Hey wow! They have the same type of Democratic system as we have!

Dick Bull
06-15-2009, 03:02 AM
Hey wow! They have the same type of Democratic system as we have!


I know you're pissed that your guy didn't win, but come on. Comparing the political environment in Iran to the US is only done by sad depressed attention whores who are trying to get some attention.

Nightwish
06-15-2009, 03:07 AM
I know you're pissed that your guy didn't win, but come on. Comparing the political environment in Iran to the US is only done by sad depressed attention whores who are trying to get some attention.
Or Donks fans.

BigRedChief
06-15-2009, 06:37 AM
I know you're pissed that your guy didn't win, but come on. Comparing the political environment in Iran to the US is only done by sad depressed attention whores who are trying to get some attention.
It's just more of the same over the top dramatic crap we see daily.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 07:18 AM
Nope you changed what I said which was WMD not about any core program. And now your acting like an argumentative defense lawyer, trying to win on technicality.

I didn't change anything you said. Look it up.

blaise
06-15-2009, 07:19 AM
I know you're pissed that your guy didn't win, but come on. Comparing the political environment in Iran to the US is only done by sad depressed attention whores who are trying to get some attention.

Yours Truly,
People that still complain the Gore/Bush election was rigged

patteeu
06-15-2009, 07:22 AM
Then if you don't mean "before" you are agreeing with me that Bush being the President received support and popularity from most Americans regardless of political view. Therefore you agree with me that the same thing will happen in favor of the regime there if the country is invaded.

He wasn't unpopular before 9/11, but he was even more popular after. There's no comparison between Bush and Ahmadinejad if your description of his unpopularity (absent US saber rattling) is accurate. I always thought Iranians were supposed to be smart, but if I take your word for it, they must be self-destructive fools.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 07:30 AM
I didn't change anything you said. Look it up.

yes you did.

Frankie
06-15-2009, 08:09 AM
Hey wow! They have the same type of Democratic system as we have!

ROFL

Frankie
06-15-2009, 08:12 AM
He wasn't unpopular before 9/11, but he was even more popular after. There's no comparison between Bush and Ahmadinejad if your description of his unpopularity (absent US saber rattling) is accurate.

Even MA was "popular" during the first few months of his presidency. Your argument is like a sieve.

BigRedChief
06-15-2009, 08:20 AM
Even MA was "popular" during the first few months of his presidency. Your argument is like a sieve.
Yeah, Jimmy Carter was a rock star for a whle....ROFL

memyselfI
06-16-2009, 07:30 AM
Yeah, Jimmy Carter was a rock star for a whle....ROFL

People over a certain age (13) do not WANT a rock star for POTUS.

Calcountry
06-16-2009, 11:25 AM
Precisely, if you listen close yesterday to Obama he was already starting to take credit for it before the official results were in. What a narcissist!!!:clap:He's sick.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 03:27 PM
Yours Truly,
People that still complain the Gore/Bush election was rigged
I think the only people who don't believe it was are the hardcore Bushbots.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2009, 03:33 PM
I think the only people who don't believe it was are the hardcore Bushbots.

I don't. And I'm not a Bushbot. Your hidden hard core leftism is shining through with a change in power.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 03:41 PM
I don't. And I'm not a Bushbot. Your hidden hard core leftism is shining through with a change in power.
I should have amended my statement to BushBots and Right-wing Conspiracy Theorists. That would catch you in the net.

"Nightwish has the brain of a Leprachaun."—Famous Psychiatrist
Why, thank for the compliment, although I'm not nearly as clever and wily and leprechauns are believed to be. But I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it as flattery, which suggests to me that you haven't actually given much study to Irish lore (your apparent understanding of the creatures seems more informed by Saturday morning cartoons than by a trip to the library), nor apparently learned how to spell "leprechaun." Too funny!

Amnorix
06-16-2009, 03:49 PM
He wasn't unpopular before 9/11, but he was even more popular after. There's no comparison between Bush and Ahmadinejad if your description of his unpopularity (absent US saber rattling) is accurate. I always thought Iranians were supposed to be smart, but if I take your word for it, they must be self-destructive fools.

Well, maybe he wasn't UNpopular before 9/11, but he was hardly popular. 50% approval early in a Presidency is pretty mediocre.

Amnorix
06-16-2009, 03:52 PM
Well, I guess I take it back. It all depends on whose approval ratings you want to cite. Compared to Clinton, early Bush looks fantastic.

Amnorix
06-16-2009, 03:53 PM
By the way, that last graph reminds me to goggle at Clinton's resiliency. :0

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 04:41 PM
By the way, that last graph reminds me to goggle at Clinton's resiliency. :0
Yep, he's the only one who showed a net gain in popularity, and the only one except Reagan who showed any measurable gain in popularity that lasted more than a few months.

Amnorix
06-17-2009, 06:13 AM
For anyone who cares, the first graph I posted was, errr, CBS I think. Might have been ABC, but I"m pretty sure it was CBS.

The second was WSJ.