PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Stealing the Iranian Election


Pages : 1 [2]

petegz28
06-15-2009, 01:19 PM
No, they're from when the pro-Ahmadinejad militia opened fire on peaceful demonstrators.

But I think you knew that.

Still trying to rationalize away your earlier claims that mad Ahmad is the legitimate choice of a majority of Iranians?

I never once said it was a legitimate deal. I said it is none of our business. Not our country, not our problem. And if you go look in the other "Iran Revolution" thread you will see where I said this whole deal is starting to ring of a Tianamen Square\Stalin type scenario.

petegz28
06-15-2009, 01:20 PM
No, they're from when the pro-Ahmadinejad militia opened fire on peaceful demonstrators.

But I think you knew that.

Still trying to rationalize away your earlier stance that mad Ahmad is the legitimate choice of a majority of Iranians?

On a separate note, where were your pictures of Iraq when Sadaam was cutting out the tongues of people who spoke ill of him? Or when he sons tortured and mutilated people for their own entertainment?

orange
06-15-2009, 01:23 PM
On a separate note, where were your pictures of Iraq when Sadaam was cutting out the tongues of people who spoke ill of him? Or when he sons tortured and mutilated people for their own entertainment?

Is THAT why we invaded Iraq? I thought it was the "immediate threat" from his WMD programs.

I guess I should know better than believe a Republican administration. :doh!:

orange
06-15-2009, 01:31 PM
On a separate note, where were your pictures of Iraq when Sadaam was cutting out the tongues of people who spoke ill of him? Or when he sons tortured and mutilated people for their own entertainment?

Back to this separate note - I would have posted pictures if the technology were available then. I was all for finishing the job during Desert Storm. Leaving Saddam was a serious strategic blunder. Taking him out then wouldn't have been nearly as messy. Everyone expected it, including Iraqis; he was already isolated in Baghdad; it was a war he started; there was no militia with guerilla training; and most importantly, we had Arab allies (Syria, Kuwait and Egypt) to handle the occupation.

Bush II's war was launched hastily and under false pretenses. He did not have any of the moral authority and international support that his daddy did. It was stupid - that's the bottom line.

dirk digler
06-15-2009, 01:36 PM
Are these pics from L.A. after the Lakers victory?

Ok I admit I chuckled...just a little though

petegz28
06-15-2009, 01:39 PM
Back to this separate note - I would have posted pictures if the technology were available then. I was all for finishing the job during Desert Storm. Leaving Saddam was a serious strategic blunder. Taking him out then wouldn't have been nearly as messy. Everyone expected it, including Iraqis; he was already isolated in Baghdad; it was a war he started; there was no militia with guerilla training; and most importantly, we had Arab allies (Syria, Kuwait and Egypt) to handle the occupation.

Bush II's war was launched hastily and under false pretenses. He did not have any of the moral authority and international support that his daddy did. It was stupid - that's the bottom line.

17 UN Resolutions were not false pretenses. Did he conduct the war as he should have? No. I will leave it at that.

petegz28
06-15-2009, 01:40 PM
Is THAT why we invaded Iraq? I thought it was the "immediate threat" from his WMD programs.

I guess I should know better than believe a Republican administration. :doh!:

Well that is what you get for thinking. I guess the whole 17 UN Resolutions escaped your radar as well?

orange
06-15-2009, 01:43 PM
No, that was being handled by the U.N. Inspectors - the ones we insisted be returned to Iraq and WERE returned to Iraq - before Bush decided that really wasn't what he meant.

Did the fact that the U.N. - the same U.N. whose resolutions you're touting - did NOT vote to authorize the invasion escape your radar?

petegz28
06-15-2009, 01:44 PM
No, that was being handled by the U.N. Inspectors - the ones we insisted be returned to Iraq and WERE returned to Iraq - before Bush decided that really wasn't what he meant.

Did the fact that the U.N. - the same U.N. whose resolutions you're touting - did NOT vote to authorize the invasion escape your radar?

Right, the UN. LMAO And yes they did authorize invasion. They signed on the the 17th Resolution and backed off at the last minute when their meal ticket was going to get fucked up.


Ever heard of the Oil for Food program? :)


And regardless Mr. Orange, we ridded the Iraqi's of an evil person that was causing harm to millions.

Isn't that why you are so posting all this crap from Iran now?

wild1
06-15-2009, 01:46 PM
Like you have shown any ounce of objectivity. You still think the Iran election wasn't rigged

Never said that. I said I think he would win a fair election in Iran, I didn't say this one had been fair.

orange
06-15-2009, 01:46 PM
I guess the whole 17 UN Resolutions escaped your radar as well?

Right, the UN. LMAO



This speaks for itself.

petegz28
06-15-2009, 01:47 PM
This speaks for itself.

Yes it does, so your argument that they allegedly never signed on for invasion is irrelevant now, isn't it?


Face it Orange, you are trying to play a double standard.

BigRedChief
06-15-2009, 02:14 PM
Are these pics from L.A. after the Lakers victory?
They are certaintly ticked off to have an election stolen from them.
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-090615-iran-protests-1p.grid-4x2.jpg

petegz28
06-15-2009, 02:16 PM
They are certaintly ticked off to have an election stolen from them.
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-090615-iran-protests-1p.grid-4x2.jpg

They should be. I would be. But it's their problem, not ours.

Frankie
06-15-2009, 02:17 PM
Who is the Iranian Al Gore?

Ahmadinejad. The guy apparently trying to steal the election. Who else?

WTF?!!

OK,…. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REASONABLY INTELLIGENT PAT I USED TO LOCK HORNS WITH?!

Let’s see here:

Ahmadinejad
-An ideologue surrounded by ideologues from extreme right.
-Benefactor of two extremely dubious elections.
-Propped up by radical religious faction.
-Believes in the superstitious angle of religion.
(Established wells in the city of Qom where messages and questions to the vanished Imam mahdi could be tossed in by gullibles.)
-Mere figurehead and mouthpiece for the real power controling the country (hard line Mullahs.)
-“Don’t give a shit about international image” attitude.
-“Us against the world” attitude.
-“You are either with us or against us” attitude.
-Popularity mainly among the less educated / less analytical voters.
-Popularity mainly in rural areas where folks have less access to or interest in education.
-Supported by folks who see him as guy to have tea with. (Actually expressed to a friend of mine visiting Iran recently.)
-Beady eyed with a shit-faced smirk.
-Subject of vast internet comparisons to primates.
-Policies totaled the economy.
-Policies benefitted close friends and family members.
-Wanted dominance in the Middle East.

GW Bush
-An ideologue surrounded by ideologues from extreme right.
-Benefactor of two extremely dubious elections.
-Propped up by radical religious faction.
-Believes in the superstitious angle of religion.
(Lord told him to spread democracy in the Middle East!)
-Mere figurehead and mouthpiece for the real power controling the country (Cheney and the rest of the NeoCons.)
-“Don’t give a shit about international image” attitude.
-“Us against the world” attitude.
-“You are either with us or against us” attitude.
-Popularity mainly among the less educated / less analytical voters.
-Popularity mainly in rural areas where folks have less access to or interest in education.
-Supported by folks who see him as guy to have tea with. (Actually expressed to a friend of mine visiting Iran recently.)
-Beady eyed with a shit-faced smirk.
-Subject of vast internet comparisons to primates.
-Policies totaled the economy.
-Policies benefitted close friends and family members.
-Wanted dominance in the Middle East.

Yeah you're right. Ahmadinejad is Iran's Al Gore. (shake)

Donger
06-15-2009, 04:02 PM
Looks like a good ole hippy-bash.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 04:16 PM
Back to this separate note - I would have posted pictures if the technology were available then. I was all for finishing the job during Desert Storm. Leaving Saddam was a serious strategic blunder. Taking him out then wouldn't have been nearly as messy. Everyone expected it, including Iraqis; he was already isolated in Baghdad; it was a war he started; there was no militia with guerilla training; and most importantly, we had Arab allies (Syria, Kuwait and Egypt) to handle the occupation.
No it would have led to what happened in Iraq today. Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr Nat'l Security advisor at the time to made the decision to do PGW and advised Bush to do so, said he intentionally stopped at not removing SH because the place would have to be occupied, it would be long and very costly as well as very bloody. Brent had a site up back in 2003/04 and also an editorial in major press, to not attack SH. He turned out to be correct. He was another one of my sources before doing Iraq this time.

He also said that the real reason for PGWI was show what New World Order would be like and that it could work. That meaning int'l cooperation for military action against certain nation states.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 04:18 PM
We can't do diddly squat about Iran militarily without unleashing a chitstorm against us all over the world. And why would we do that in the first place? Let the Iranians themselfs throw the mullahs out.

It's the poor countries that can't defend themselves that are being targeted by our political leaders today. But ya', know we've been in Iran covertly doing things one of which is working with the reform movement to shake things up.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 04:20 PM
Funny. Our understanding of history today is so depleted.

Reagan didn't just talk about doing things. He did things. He gave a historic speech where he challenged Gorbachev sure, but it was part of a campaign over the entire decade of opposition. He'd spent his whole presidency beating back communism, opposing them at every turn. He kept developing SDI and wouldn't bend even though Grobachev offered more and more cuts in missiles, for example.

Brezhnev said in a book that if you ask Russians 99% of them will say that the US won the cold war because Reagan wouldn't give in on weapons and on SDI. The Russians knew they had to take us seriously because Reagan would back up his words.

Iran knows they don't have to take us seriously because there's no will behind the words that had you so sure the dictatorship would just graciously step aside.

Reagan didn't just fill the air with empty rhetoric. He recognized the threat that it represented and he made it the mission of his administration to opposed it, fight it, defeat it.

His editorializing about the dangers of communism happened 20 or 30 years before he took office. Reagan was a man of action and not one of talk.
The difference is that WAS a threat—they could do something to us significantly. These guys can't. It's more war propaganda.

And Reagan also talked to his enemies too. He was a master of sabre rattling communication.

orange
06-15-2009, 04:25 PM
No it would have led to what happened in Iraq today. Brent Scowcroft, Bush Sr Nat'l Security advisor at the time to made the decision to do PGW and advised Bush to do so, said he intentionally stopped at not removing SH because the place would have to be occupied, it would be long and very costly as well as very bloody. Brent had a site up back in 2003/04 and also an editorial in major press, to not attack SH. He turned out to be correct. He was another one of my sources before doing Iraq this time.

He also said that the real reason for PGWI was show what New World Order would be like and that it could work. That meaning int'l cooperation for military action against certain nation states.



LOWELL BERGMAN: Wasn't there an uprising in the north? Wasn't there an uprising in the south?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Of course.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Didn't we see their military killing people?

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Yes.

LOWELL BERGMAN: And we didn't intervene.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Of course not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Not from the air.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Of course not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: We didn't cut off their gasoline supplies.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Because- OK, because- first of all, one of our objectives was not to have Iraq split up into constituent parts. It's our- it's- it's a fundamental interest of the United States to keep a balance in that area, in Iraq and- in Iraq.

LOWELL BERGMAN: So part of the reason not- to not go after his army at that point was to make sure there was a unified country, whether or not it was ruled by Saddam.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: Well, partly. But suppose we- suppose we went in and intervened, and the Kurds declare independence, and the Shiites declare independence. Then do we go to war against them to keep a unified Iraq?

LOWELL BERGMAN: But why would we care, at that point? Our interest, I thought, was-

BRENT SCOWCROFT: We'd care a lot!

LOWELL BERGMAN: I thought we had two interests. One was to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait. But the other really was to get Saddam out of power.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No. No, it wasn't.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Well, either covertly or overtly.

BRENT SCOWCROFT: No. No, it wasn't. That was never- you can't find that anywhere as an objective, either in the U.N. mandate for what we did or in our declarations, that our goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/script.html

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 04:28 PM
I don't know what your point is Orange but that doesn't contradict what he also wrote on his site. That's just additional material....and it's not contradictory.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 04:36 PM
I am not going to name any names but go back and read through both threads and there is a few posters that claim it wasn't rigged.

I think you're probably confusing criticism of the people who "know" it was rigged with the notion that those people are saying that they know it wasn't rigged.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 04:39 PM
I never made any claim that Obama's speech would instantly change anything all I said was it could be the tipping point to help Mousavi win. 30% unemployment and a shitty economy even though they have one of the largest oil reserves in the world are the top 2 reasons.

You know what I find interesting though is take for example Reagan. There is alot of people on here and on the right that love and adore Reagan. But alot of people credit his Berlin Wall speech as the main reason why the Berlin Wall came down. You mean a speech can actually have that big of an effect on how governments do things especially one that we were in war with?

I know alot of you don't like Obama but you have to realize that he inspires alot of people just like Reagan inspired alot of people with his words and that what both men say do have an effect on people and government.

I don't think there are really very many people who credit that Reagan speech with bringing down the Berlin Wall. His speech is symbolic of his overall approach of measured confrontation that was a *part* of the reason for the Soviets' demise (along with contributions from Margaret Thatcher and the Pope, among others).

orange
06-15-2009, 04:42 PM
I don't know what your point is Orange but that doesn't contradict what he also wrote on his site. That's just additional material....and it's not contradictory.

My point is that this:

because- first of all, one of our objectives was not to have Iraq split up into constituent parts. It's our- it's- it's a fundamental interest of the United States to keep a balance in that area, in Iraq and- in Iraq

was his main concern - keeping Iraq united as a counterpoint to Iran (which he intended to say but said Iraq twice). We would have only been forced to occupy only to maintain that artificial unity. For someone who constantly cants "leave the Middle East to the Middle Easterners," you sure seem willing to play along with Scowcroft/Bush I's Great Game.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 04:47 PM
The most substantial thing Reagan did to help the USSR fall was support the resistance in Afghanistan - and that came with a heavy price.

It was cheap. If you're talking about the rise of radical islam in the form of the Taliban and al Qaeda, in retrospect there were choices we made that allowed them to develop into the threat they've become, but those choices were all made after Reagan had left office (e.g. turning our attention completely away from Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, failing to nip the al Qaeda threat in the bud despite recognizing it throughout the 90s, etc.).

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 04:49 PM
My point is that was his main concern - keeping Iraq united as a counterpoint to Iran (which he intended to say but said Iraq twice). We would have only been forced to occupy only to maintain that artificial unity. For someone who constantly cants "leave the Middle East to the Middle Easterners," you sure seem willing to play along with Scowcroft/Bush I's Great Game.

I'm sure it was. Kissinger and other global chessboard players have used the concept of balance of power for years. But what I said was on his site they did want to show that a New World Order ( Int'l cooperation in military matters) could work. He wasn't willing to upset the balance of power. Why do you think Bush Sr used the words New World Order back then? That was coined by Scowcroft. Not originally mind you, as it's been used in history before like Napoleon.

And if you think I support Scowcroft in general. I don't. Don't make assumptions just because I use his data on this. I already disagreed about going into Iraq this time on gut instincts. I don't support PGWI either. He's an international meddler. I just happen to agree with what he said about invading Iraq more that it backed up my intincts. Scowcroft, as well as Jim Baker are not NeoCons. They're considered to be in the foreign policy realist school. I'm not in that either except for some exceptions. I believe in military non-intervention more.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 04:49 PM
Is THAT why we invaded Iraq? I thought it was the "immediate threat" from his WMD programs.

I guess I should know better than believe a Republican administration. :doh!:

The Republican administration covered a wide range of reasons for invading Iraq, but that wasn't one of them. The judges say they will accept "gathering threat" though.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 04:51 PM
Right, the UN. LMAO And yes they did authorize invasion. They signed on the the 17th Resolution and backed off at the last minute when their meal ticket was going to get ****ed up.


Ever heard of the Oil for Food program? :)


And regardless Mr. Orange, we ridded the Iraqi's of an evil person that was causing harm to millions.

Isn't that why you are so posting all this crap from Iran now?

Yep. Saddam Hussein will never use or facilitate the use of WMD of any kind against the US, our allies, or any of our interests, guaranteed.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 04:55 PM
WTF?!!

OK,…. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REASONABLY INTELLIGENT PAT I USED TO LOCK HORNS WITH?!

Let’s see here:

Ahmadinejad

*list of irrelevant attributes deleted*

GW Bush

*list of irrelevant and mostly false attributes deleted*

Yeah you're right. Ahmadinejad is Iran's Al Gore. (shake)

The only attribute that matters for the purpose of my comparison is

Al Gore
-tried to steal an election

Ahmadinejad
- trying to steal an election

:shrug:

orange
06-15-2009, 04:56 PM
And if you think I support Scowcroft in general. I don't. Don't make assumptions just because I use his data on this. I already disagreed about going into Iraq this time on gut instincts. I don't support PGWI either. He's an international meddler. I just happen to agree with what he said about invading Iraq more that it backed up my intincts. Scowcroft, as well as Jim Baker are not NeoCons. They're considered to be in the foreign policy realist school. I'm not in that either except for some exceptions. I believe in military non-intervention more.


Okay. On Scowcroft, I disagree with his assessment on removing Saddam, not just on his website, but in his book. These were written after the fact and are self-serving apologias. I believe it is clear from other sources - such as that PBS interview - that Saddam was left in power because they didn't want the possible replacements - divided Iraq or a legitimate democratic government (which would have almost certainly resembled Iran's theocratic hybrid). And they also didn't want improved relations between Iraq and Iran. More meddling, this time by omission.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 05:06 PM
Okay. On Scowcroft, I disagree with his assessment on removing Saddam, not just on his website, but in his book. These were written after the fact and are self-serving apologias. I believe it is clear from other sources - such as that PBS interview - that Saddam was left in power because they didn't want the possible replacements - divided Iraq or a legitimate democratic government (which would have almost certainly resembled Iran's theocratic hybrid). And they also didn't want improved relations between Iraq and Iran. More meddling, this time by omission.

I just said, paraphrased, that doesn't contradict him per se or his belief in a New World Order ( defined as above) earlier for advising Bush Sr on PGWI. He was for removing SH in his WSJ editorial later but also felt it was a diversion from the War on Terror. Regardless, he's also turned out right that invading Iraq removing ta buffer between Iran and Israel or the rest of the ME. It did destabilize things and created a new problem. Iran.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 05:08 PM
The Republican administration covered a wide range of reasons for invading Iraq, but that wasn't one of them. The judges say they will accept "gathering threat" though.

There you go again. They used imprecise language but created the impression they wanted. You're arguing form over substance.

Amnorix
06-15-2009, 05:21 PM
The only attribute that matters for the purpose of my comparison is

Al Gore
-tried to steal an election

Ahmadinejad
- trying to steal an election

:shrug:

You're kidding. Wow, you're out on a limb with this one. Waaaaay out.

Mojo Jojo
06-15-2009, 05:31 PM
There you go again. They used imprecise language but created the impression they wanted. You're arguing form over substance.

It is the same formula that BHO used to get elected and is continuing to use in office. Look good, sound good, don't give many specifics and the masses will follow. Wow you stepped into that one.

Frankie
06-15-2009, 05:33 PM
Sadaam Hussein torutred, mutlilated and oppressed people and the Left wanted nothing to do with Iraq.

Now we are supposed to invade Iran over a rigged election????

Pete, sometimes I have to hold myself back from a true belief that you are incapable of reading posts by others. Seems you just close your eyes and say what you want to say anyway no matter what the others' arguments are?

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 05:39 PM
It is the same formula that BHO used to get elected and is continuing to use in office. Look good, sound good, don't give many specifics and the masses will follow. Wow you stepped into that one.

Stepped into what? I don't disagree what you say here about Barack. I did not vote for Obama either and have been critical of his economics. You see things in a black and white world. Not everyone fits the D/R mold. I am a conservative that does not support pre-emptive war unless there's an imminent threat which I feel we're capable of detecting with another nation state.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 05:59 PM
Just a part 'cause it's long.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/06/14/irans-election-none-of-americas-business/

And we should not forget that, in spite of public assurances from the U.S. president that the administration wants peace, is prepared to negotiate, and that it’s time for "a new beginning," the Americans continue their covert action operations directed at Tehran – as recent bombings and other disturbances in the eastern non-Persian provinces have shown. Is the U.S. involved in the current street fighting in Tehran and other major cities? I wouldn’t be at all surprised to have this suspicion confirmed in coming days. After all, in 2007 Congress appropriated $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime, and who’s to say this program isn’t bearing fruit?

U.S. military leaders are vehemently opposed to launching yet another war in the Middle East, and their stubborn resistance to the idea – floated by Bush’s neocon camarilla in the latter days of the Decider’s reign – scotched the War Party’s attempts to make sure Obama inherited a Middle East aflame. Yet their efforts will have reached beyond the previous administration’s grave – and succeeded in dragging Obama down with them into hell – if events in Iran provoke an ill-considered response from the U.S.

Whenever there are election "irregularities" anywhere outside the U.S., American government officials have a bad habit of getting up on their high horses and lecturing the rest of the world on how best to conduct their own internal affairs. Never mind that the U.S. itself has only two officially recognized political parties, both of which are subsidized with tax dollars, and that any potential rivals must jump through a number of hoops to even get on the ballot. We’re a legend in our own minds – the world’s greatest "democracy" – and anyone who questions this dubious claim is immediately charged with "anti-Americanism."

Yet even if that were not the case – even if our democratic procedures were flawless – that still wouldn’t give the U.S. government any standing to pass judgment, because how Iran conducts its presidential elections is not a legitimate concern of the U.S. government. The idea that the occupant of the Oval Office must pass moral judgment on all events, including other countries’ elections, is a byproduct of America’s imperial pretensions and delusions of "world leadership."

The Israel lobby, which has been pushing for a U.S. confrontation with Iran, is revving up its engines even now to push harder for increased sanctions and other provocative moves by the U.S. Obama, I fear, will prove unable to resist all that pressure, though I’d love to be proven wrong.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 06:01 PM
Okay. On Scowcroft, I disagree with his assessment on removing Saddam, not just on his website, but in his book. These were written after the fact and are self-serving apologias. I believe it is clear from other sources - such as that PBS interview - that Saddam was left in power because they didn't want the possible replacements - divided Iraq or a legitimate democratic government (which would have almost certainly resembled Iran's theocratic hybrid). And they also didn't want improved relations between Iraq and Iran. More meddling, this time by omission.

Oh bw, I might add, I'm not a big fan of democratic govt either.
That's for small countries or locales, where the people make the laws—not reps restrained by a Constitution and what the majority wants goes.

Frankie
06-15-2009, 06:14 PM
Well that is what you get for thinking. I guess the whole 17 UN Resolutions escaped your radar as well?
:LOL:
I love the Right. The UN is evil and corrupt and unreliable when they pass something against us. But when need be their resolutions are the bible.

Frankie
06-15-2009, 06:17 PM
The only attribute that matters for the purpose of my comparison is

Al Gore
-tried to steal an election

Ahmadinejad
- trying to steal an election

:shrug:

OK now I KNOW you are high on something.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 06:19 PM
:LOL:
I love the Right. The UN is evil and corrupt and unreliable when they pass something against us. But when need be their resolutions are the bible.

Quoted for truth.

mlyonsd
06-15-2009, 06:21 PM
:LOL:
I love the Right. The UN is evil and corrupt and unreliable when they pass something against us. But when need be their resolutions are the bible.

I can't believe the point escaped you.

We followed the UN decision not to take Saddam out in '91. We then watched the UN labor with that decision by voting for resolution after resolution while giving Saddam hundres of millions of dollars to build palaces while killing his own people.

Saddam dead=many more thousands of Americans kept from being eventually killed.

Frankie
06-15-2009, 06:29 PM
I can't believe the point escaped you.

We followed the UN decision not to take Saddam out in '91. We then watched the UN labor with that decision by voting for resolution after resolution while giving Saddam hundres of millions of dollars to build palaces while killing his own people.

Saddam dead=many more thousands of Americans kept from being eventually killed.

I call paranoid BS.

kcfanXIII
06-15-2009, 06:31 PM
You should care about America's role in this, because America is truly why this is happening. Look at those videos. Look at the clothes those people are wearing. A culture bomb is going off in their country with the megaton force of Hiroshima. This is what a free-trader's foriegn policy is all about. The more we open our borders and culture to people in free and honest trade, the more westernized they become. Plato's cave takes care of the rest.

This is the sort of revolution that we should have worked to inspire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse... and everybody in the village says, "how wonderful. the boy got a horse" And the Zen master says, "we'll see." Two years later The boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, "how terrible." And the Zen master says, "We'll see." Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight... except the boy can't cause his legs all messed up. and everybody in the village says, "How wonderful."

kcfanXIII
06-15-2009, 06:32 PM
the Zen master says, "We'll see."

stevieray
06-15-2009, 06:47 PM
:LOL:
I love the Right. The UN is evil and corrupt and unreliable when they pass something against us. But when need be their resolutions are the bible.

protocol

your emotions are off the chart.

Adept Havelock
06-15-2009, 06:49 PM
:LOL:
I love the Right. The UN is evil and corrupt and unreliable when they pass something against us. But when need be their resolutions are the bible.

Good point. It's amusing.

NCarlsCorner2
06-15-2009, 07:32 PM
You're kidding. Wow, you're out on a limb with this one. Waaaaay out.

Al Franken did steal an election.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 07:44 PM
There you go again. They used imprecise language but created the impression they wanted. You're arguing form over substance.

You've got it backward. They used precise language, but a portion of their audience ignored the precision in favor of what they wanted to hear.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 09:21 PM
Shat up! I'm tired of hearing from you on this.

alanm
06-15-2009, 10:39 PM
I have no problems with them revolting. But for the Left to cry about alleged election fraud is nothing new. Whenever "their guy" loses it is always fraud and cheating.And usually when their guy wins it involves fraud and cheating. :spock:

alanm
06-15-2009, 10:46 PM
If Frankie and Co. are right, and Ahmenutjob rigged the election, doesn't Obama continuing on with him legitimize it all?Now there's a sticky wicket.

alanm
06-15-2009, 11:06 PM
Never heard this one before but is another source:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/72999

Obama faced with security problem at outset of transition process

Wayne Madsen Report November 6, 2008

WMR has learned from informed U.S. intelligence sources that prospective Barack Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has an active FBI counter-intelligence file maintained on him. Emanuel's rise to the Chief of Staff position may pose a significant security problem for President-elect Obama if the FBI insists on conducting the full background security investigation normally required for senior White House officials.

Questions about Emanuel's links to the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, were allegedly so great that President Bill Clinton was forced to dismiss Emanuel from the White House staff in 1998. One of the FBI agents who discovered Emanuel's dealings with Israeli intelligence was, according to our sources, the late FBI counter-terrorism Assistant Director John O'Neill. O'Neill retired after being set up in a smear operation involving a temporarily stolen brief case in 2001. O'Neill and another FBI agent who still works for the bureau and shall remain nameless at this point to protect him and his career discovered that Emanuel was heavily involved in the decision to place intern Monica Lewinsky close to President Clinton. O'Neill accepted the top security position for Kroll Associates at the World Trade Center. O'Neill was killed in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. WMR has also reported that O'Neill was a close friend of slain retired Houston CIA station chief Roland V. "Tony" Carnaby, who was similarly investigating Israeli intelligence operations in the Houston area when Houston police shot and killed him last April.

Emanuel reportedly had knowledge of Israeli intelligence penetration of White House communications systems and Lewinsky, in sworn testimony before the Office of Independent Counsel, stated: "He [Clinton] suspected that a foreign embassy [it is now known that embassy was that of Israel] was tapping his telephones, and he proposed cover stories." Lewinsky continued, "If ever questioned, she should say that the two of them were just friends. If anyone ever asked about their phone sex, she should say that they knew their calls were being monitored all along, and the phone sex was just a put on."

WMR has learned from U.S. intelligence sources that Emanuel was discovered to be part of a political intelligence and blackmail operation directed against Clinton by Israel's Likud Party and Binyamin Netanyahu to sink Clinton's proposed Middle East peace deal. We have also learned that the FBI investigation of Emanuel is part of a file code-named the "Mega file." "Mega" is a reference to a top-level Mossad agent in the Reagan administration who was said to have run a number of Israeli agents, including U.S. Navy spy Jonathan Pollard."Interesting. But perhaps a piece to fill in a puzzle.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 12:12 AM
Simply not true.
Well, part of what not quite accurate. It was actually more than 8,000, and the 3/4 might a bit off, but it was still a considerable majority. But the fact that it was a Texas-based company with ties to the GOP and the Bush family, and that there were thousands of wrongly scrubbed names, and that the considerable majority of those were Democrats is not in dispute.

Ultra Peanut
06-16-2009, 06:09 AM
http://twitter.com/Change_for_Iran

# state TV is now requesting people (armed forces) to go to valiasr st and protest against the outlaws & criminals! (people) #iranelection
37 minutes ago from web

# thanks to someone (probably gov) we're are now also spies of israel! and to be shoot on sight
about 1 hour ago from web

# Kasra is dead & I don't know where is masood, lost him in the crowd yesterday
about 1 hour ago from web

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/16/iran-uprising

12.30pm:
There are reports that a seven-point manifesto is being circulated calling for the supreme leader Khamenei to be replaced.

12.25pm:
A new video shows what is claimed to be a policeman firing repeatedly at protesters from the window of a building. At one point the protesters appear to throw a petrol bomb at the building.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aSgGXMuqJlE&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/aSgGXMuqJlE&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>

12.15pm:
Foreign journalists have been banned from leaving their offices to cover protests.

The Culture Ministry said journalists could continue to work from their offices but that it was cancelling press accreditation for all foreign media.

"No journalist has permission to report or film or take pictures in the city," a Culture Ministry official told Reuters.

One of those journalist, Channel 4's Lindsey Hilsum, says yesterday was a day in journalism that she will never forget (http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/2009/06/16/a-day-in-iran-i-will-never-forget/).

12.05pm:
There are reports that protesters are gathering at Valisar Square despite warnings about the presence of armed police.

Robert Tait writes: The following chilling message on Twitter may explain why Mousavi has decided to call off today's demo in central Tehran: "They are evacuating all buildings around Valiasr Sq & filling it with Basij (militia volunteers), please be careful!," it reads.

A member of Mousavi's election headquarters is quoted in Facebook as saying the government and police are trying to set a "death-trap" at the protest.

Amnorix
06-16-2009, 06:13 AM
And usually when their guy wins it involves fraud and cheating. :spock:

Presumably you understand the definition of "irony"?

BucEyedPea
06-16-2009, 06:15 AM
Interesting. But perhaps a piece to fill in a puzzle.

If that's true. What I see that could have happened is that Rahm denounced his Israeli citizenship as a means to an end. To connect up to US govt and spy or be an agent inside. They've spied on us before. There was another case of it being investigated by the FBI,under Bush's tenure but it never made the msn's. I don't know how that case wound up. But there was monkey business there regarding it's outcome.

Amnorix
06-16-2009, 06:17 AM
I can't believe the point escaped you.

We followed the UN decision not to take Saddam out in '91. We then watched the UN labor with that decision by voting for resolution after resolution while giving Saddam hundres of millions of dollars to build palaces while killing his own people.

Saddam dead=many more thousands of Americans kept from being eventually killed.

Frankie's point, not invalid, is that many on the right seem to hate and despise the UN and everything it stands for, right up until they can cite a resolution that is in their favor, in which case it is waved as if it is a legally binding obligation.

Amnorix
06-16-2009, 06:18 AM
Al Franken did steal an election.

:eek:

patteeu
06-16-2009, 06:44 AM
Well, part of what not quite accurate. It was actually more than 8,000, and the 3/4 might a bit off, but it was still a considerable majority. But the fact that it was a Texas-based company with ties to the GOP and the Bush family, and that there were thousands of wrongly scrubbed names, and that the considerable majority of those were Democrats is not in dispute.

First they were "illegally" scrubbed. Now they are merely "wrongly scrubbed". In your next post they'll be "questionably" scrubbed. And eventually, you'll declare victory and vindication when you prove that they were merely "scrubbed". I'm on to you, dude. The highest gear in your transmission is the backpedal gear.

BigRedChief
06-16-2009, 06:44 AM
The only attribute that matters for the purpose of my comparison is

Al Gore
-tried to steal an election

Ahmadinejad
- trying to steal an election

:shrug:
ROFL Al Gore and the U.S.A are the same as a muslim dictorship? Remind me again who got the most votes in the 2000 election? So you are saying that Al Gore and the Democrats forged millions of ballots and or rigged the election on a massive scale to get more votes for Gore?

BigRedChief
06-16-2009, 06:46 AM
Al Franken did steal an election.
Yur an idiot. ROFL

patteeu
06-16-2009, 06:55 AM
[from twitter]

# thanks to someone (probably gov) we're are now also spies of israel! and to be shoot on sight
about 1 hour ago from web



I haven't seen anyone (except BEP in a tangential way) mention this, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was some truth to this. I'd be somewhat surprised if the current protests aren't at least partially the result of covert activities of either the US or Israel or both. Surely we've been providing support to oppositionists over the past several years in order to make events like the current protests more possible. If we haven't been, we should have been. My guess is that both the current administration and the previous one have been doing this, but we may never really know.

We did this in Iraq for years and years before the 2003 invasion. That's not to say that such support means we will eventually invade Iran, it's just an example of how we try to operate short of invasion.

patteeu
06-16-2009, 07:00 AM
ROFL Al Gore and the U.S.A are the same as a muslim dictorship? Remind me again who got the most votes in the 2000 election? So you are saying that Al Gore and the Democrats forged millions of ballots and or rigged the election on a massive scale to get more votes for Gore?

When someone says that The Curry House (an imaginary fast food chain) is the Indian version of McDonalds, it doesn't mean that The Curry House serves Big Macs and Quarter Pounders w/ Cheese, it just means that there are some relevant similarities (e.g. they are both ubiquitous fast food chains).

Gore and the democrats tried to rig enough of the election recount to steal the election, yes, that's what I'm saying.

Amnorix
06-16-2009, 07:06 AM
When someone says that The Curry House (an imaginary fast food chain) is the Indian version of McDonalds, it doesn't mean that The Curry House serves Big Macs and Quarter Pounders w/ Cheese, it just means that there are some relevant similarities (e.g. they are both ubiquitous fast food chains).

Gore and the democrats tried to rig enough of the election recount to steal the election, yes.

Wow.

I honestly don't argue that Bush stole the election. With sufficient review, I'm glad to see that it does appear that the right result was reached in 2000, even though the only reason Bush won was due to Nader's now-forgotten-by-most presence in the race.

I try to accept and realize that when there are millions of votes cast, there will be issues and ambiguous areas and sometimes difficult determinations. It's not always as cut and dried as it seems.

And when the election is close, as in Florida in 2000 or Minnesota in 2008, there needs to be a close review of the matter.

Nor do I think the guy running against Franken is trying to steal anything. I think he's exercising his rights, though I think the that candidate or the Republicans in general should face some blowback in the next election in Minnesota for dragging on what seems at this point to be a more than foregone conclusion just for the larger national picture of denying the Democrats another seat in the Senate for a while.

patteeu
06-16-2009, 07:18 AM
Wow.

I honestly don't argue that Bush stole the election. With sufficient review, I'm glad to see that it does appear that the right result was reached in 2000, even though the only reason Bush won was due to Nader's now-forgotten-by-most presence in the race.

I try to accept and realize that when there are millions of votes cast, there will be issues and ambiguous areas and sometimes difficult determinations. It's not always as cut and dried as it seems.

And when the election is close, as in Florida in 2000 or Minnesota in 2008, there needs to be a close review of the matter.

Nor do I think the guy running against Franken is trying to steal anything. I think he's exercising his rights, though I think the that candidate or the Republicans in general should face some blowback in the next election in Minnesota for dragging on what seems at this point to be a more than foregone conclusion just for the larger national picture of denying the Democrats another seat in the Senate for a while.

If everyone was like you and could let go of Florida (or never grab ahold of it in the first place), I doubt that I'd have anything to say about it either.

If you think Republicans should face some blowback for Minnesota, maybe you can understand a little blowback for democrats for their (not your) incessant nonsense regarding Florida both in terms of dragging it on throughout the transition period setting the Bush administration back relative to other administrations and for the ongoing blather throughout the Bush presidency about his supposed illegitimacy.

Amnorix
06-16-2009, 07:30 AM
If everyone was like you and could let go of Florida (or never grab ahold of it in the first place), I doubt that I'd have anything to say about it either.

:shrug: Elections cause bitterness. I tend to be a forgive-and-forget kind of fellow. :D

If you think Republicans should face some blowback for Minnesota, maybe you can understand a little blowback for democrats for their (not your) incessant nonsense regarding Florida both in terms of dragging it on throughout the transition period setting the Bush administration back relative to other administrations and for the ongoing blather throughout the Bush presidency about his supposed illegitimacy.

The ongoing blather, so far as I know (I don't pay much attention to pundits) is more an internet BB thing than anything the true Democrats in power perpetrated.

And while Bush's transition team was no doubt somewhat set back, we are now something like 6 months INTO the actual Senate term that Franken should be serving. The other guy (can't seem to pull his name to midn, and too lazy to look it up) has lost at EVERY step of the way, including the critical first series of reviews by a bipartisan panel. Losses that were, by teh way, unanimous. In toher words, the Republican on the panel found against him too.

It's beyond obvious that he is DONE, and he is actually preventing Minnesotans from being represented in the Senate NOW for reasons that have nothing to do with his likelihood of success nor with the best interests of Minnesotans. Instead, he's just doing what the national party wants and ignoring the will of the Minnesotan electorate.

To me, that is several steps beyond what happened with Bush/Gore which, you may recall, was WON by Gore at the Florida Supreme Court level. Franken's opponent has lost every step of the way and is clearly just dancing to the tune of the national Republicans eager to delay Franken from giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority.

patteeu
06-16-2009, 07:40 AM
FWIW, the internet, where Bush was endlessly called illegitimate, is where I'm describing Ahmadinejad as the Iranian Al Gore.

Norm Coleman is the Minnesota Republican Senator who will eventually be found to have lost to Al Franken. That's a tough legacy to carry forward.

Frankie
06-16-2009, 08:53 AM
Here's an intetresting cartoon from a Persian site:

Frankie
06-16-2009, 11:30 AM
A Persian satirist's view in the midst of Iranian post-election chaos:

http://www.roozonline.com/persian/tanssatire/tans-satire-article/article/2009/june/16//-ee9ba4d41d.html

They stole our vote and they're now showing off with it.
By Ebrahim Nabavi
e.nabavi(at)roozonline.com
Translated by Nick Pendar

A miracle is a good thing, and it just so happens that miracles take place in the Iranian political life three times a week, 56 weeks a year, and 37 days a month. The most recent election, which led to Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory with people’s majority vote to Mir Houssei Mousavi, was one of these miracles. Let’s consider some of its properties.

1. One month before the election the results of the election were exactly predicted by the president’s friend. Hamid Rasaa’i [head of the Department of Culture and Islamic Guidance of Qom Province] a month ago said that in the next month’s election Ahmadinejad would take 24 million votes and Mousavi 12 million. The Interior Minister underwent a lot trouble to realize this miracle.

2. Since two weeks before the election thirty million people from all cities took to the streets in support of one candidate, but twelve million of them voted for him on the election day.

3. One day before the election, the “24 million vote” president took military control of all cities, and SMS communication was cut off.

4. Five hours before the election ended, the counts for votes that had not been cast yet was known and posted on pro-government Web sites. Two hours before the election ended the candidates were placed under surveillance.

5. Three hours before the elections ended, the president who had won with a 12 million vote margin arrested the supporters of the losing candidate so they really understand how badly they were losing.

6. The election finished two hours before it ended, and because the Islamic Republic had great interest in people’s further participation, it stopped the election as people were waiting in line to vote so it didn’t have to take too much pride in people’s presence.

7. An hour before the election ended, the counts of the votes for each candidate was known, and the Interior Ministry was careful not to change the candidates’ relative vote distribution so people would not mistakenly think that the votes were not rigged.

8. The number of the supporters of the “24 million vote” president at his victory celebration on Vali-e Asr Square was hardly half a million, but the number of Mousavi’s supporters, who had 12 million votes, was three million at his rally.

9. The supreme and hasty Leader of the Revolution [Khamenei] congratulated the president’s victory before the election results were validated. Then a day later, the Guardian Council announced that it would take ten days to validate the results.

10. The number of Mr. Karroubi’s votes was smaller than the number of his staff.

11. One of the biggest miracles in this election was that, according to Interior Ministry’s statistics, the population of Iran is 102% of itself.

12. The government decided to utilize 300,000 military personnel to count the votes, but since these personnel know how to beat people up much better than they know how to count, the Interior Minister announced the results, then used those same 300,000 people to prove the correctness of the counts with their batons and tear gas.

The moral of the story: Those who lie, also cheat.

Practical conclusion: There are three ways to count people’s votes: with computers, with hands, with sticks.

Political conclusion: People are good as long as you don’t count them.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 02:27 PM
First they were "illegally" scrubbed. Now they are merely "wrongly scrubbed". In your next post they'll be "questionably" scrubbed. And eventually, you'll declare victory and vindication when you prove that they were merely "scrubbed". I'm on to you, dude. The highest gear in your transmission is the backpedal gear.
Not backpedaling, just wording the same thing in a different way. They weren't legally scrubbed (i.e. the company followed improper and incomplete vetting procedures, and thousands of the scrubbed names did not match the criteria for scrubbing). Illegal means not legal. I'm not backing off of that statement. And if you think it was all an innocent error, despite the company's ties to the Bush family and the GOP, then you're an even bigger fool than I took you for (and trust me, there's nobody on these boards I take for a bigger fool than you already).

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 02:30 PM
Gore and the democrats tried to rig enough of the election recount to steal the election, yes, that's what I'm saying.
Exactly what did they try to rig? And please be precise.

JohnnyV13
06-17-2009, 05:14 AM
Yeah, but that's changing due to all the printing of dollars. Even China is buying loads of gold as it doesn't trust where the US dollar is headed. That's happening here right now. There's talk that some govts don't want the dollar as a reserve currency anymore. We may just have a dollar crisis ourselves. When countries reach crises, people hoard gold too. They did just before HongKong went back to the Chineseout of fear.

You're right about that. I think a lot of people aren't recognizing the significance of the Chinese wanting to remove the dollar as a reserve currency.

Ultra Peanut
06-17-2009, 05:19 AM
http://j.photos.cx/12713990-568.jpg

morphius
06-17-2009, 05:49 AM
Exactly what did they try to rig? And please be precise.
Trying to limit the recount to only areas that would help them would be part of it.

DenverChief
06-17-2009, 06:04 AM
Trying to limit the recount to only areas that would help them would be part of it.

Why would that be a "rig"? I mean if you felt you were cheated in certain areas ( for example only got 10% of the vote in an area you knew you should get 70% versus a recount in an area where you thought 10% but got 5%) then why wouldn't you ask for that? I'm confused on how that would be a "rig"?