The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on June 20, 2009, 08:36:19 AM
-
Today is the day. The mullahs ordered the protesters off the streets but the protesters have defied them.
Will the police and army obey orders?
Which side gives way first?
Will notions of freedom carry beyond the mullah-rigged non-election of the mullah-approved candidates?
The success of the Iranian people is the war the US and Israel will not have to fight.
Post the stories here as they come in.
-
Twitter is a great place to find current info. Go here:
http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23iranelection
This is supposedly Mousavi's FB page with info but I can't verify:
http://www.facebook.com/mousavi?sid=42171be302b9829ba69f3ee6e3f70521&ref=search
-
From one minute ago:
RT @iranbaan Trying 2 translate: Appears plain clothes police in Vanak Square are mostly 15-16 year olds #iranelection
-
Great video from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090620_og_tehran_shooting.shtml
On a side note - I am having to watch CNN since Fox doesn't have much. It's funny to listen to the CNN talking heads talk about Iran "state run media."
-
Great video from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090620_og_tehran_shooting.shtml
I don't know if "great" is the first adjective I'd choose but it is compelling.
It's also heartbreaking.
People should not fear what should only be constituted for their common defense.
-
I don't know if "great" is the first adjective I'd choose but it is compelling.
It's also heartbreaking.
People should not fear what should only be constituted for their common defense.
You are correct - "great" probably is not the proper word. Heartbreaking it is.
Do you ever see the possibility of this happening in our country?
-
You are correct - "great" probably is not the proper word. Heartbreaking it is.
Do you ever see the possibility of this happening in our country?
Apart from the 60's?
I hope not.
People like Obama can win elections in a country whose top show is literally titled "American Idol" but when really policy is t be decided by people who actually have to work here his type get stymied fairly quickly. Not that we should ever lower our vigilance but the neforcement mechanisms real tyrants rely on just won't work on real Americans. If the Iranian Republican Guard is balking at orders to kill their family and neighbors you can rest assured the Colorado Army National Guard would walk away from such orders.
-
FNC just had a clip of a demonstration from Tehran, which had a lot of people running past a fairly decent-sized fire in the middle of an intersedtion.
-
Bomb exploded in Tehran.
Police/militia using axs and daggers
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527762,00.html
-
This sort of thing does not usually end well for the opponents of the government. Any government. And most dictators don't mind killing a few dozen people to make a point.
-
Do they get 72 virgins if they're killed by their own Army?
-
If we had a real mannn in office we would be arming the revolution.
But O the pansy won't do anything to upset his islamist masters.
-
The biggest problem with Obama is that he's never run anything, no management expierience at all. He's never had to make a real decision that was his and his alone. He's out of his element, and is totally afraid of failure and to look bad.
-
If I could H5 Mr Mannn and the IHD, I would. You guys are dead on.
With the impending moves by our own government, let's try to see that it doesn't happen here . . .
-
:fuelfire: :fuelfire: This is exactly like if the Gore supporters where to have started fires and then blamed bush for stealing the ellection.
-
:fuelfire: :fuelfire: This is exactly like if the Gore supporters where to have started fires and then blamed bush for stealing the ellection.
Nah. Cause everyone knew Gore lost. loser rats threw no mass 500,000 man demonstrations.
Freepers outnumbered the democrats on the streets. There was even a protest outside Gore's Veep mansion where Freepers chanted, "Get out of Cheney's house!"
I hope you're being sarcastic.
-
A side note: - DUmmies and other mindless Zobambies reaction shows logical disconnect.
So many of them are thanking Obama for planting the seeds of the Iranian revolution, without considering the consequences. If Obama is responsible, there are two options;
A ) Obama must support the revolution, which means getting involved in a war that has nothing to do with the United States.
B ) If Obama does nothing, or only makes pretty speeches, he is responsible for sending the youth of Iran to die.
Both options result in the US losing support from Muslim nations. Both options result in needless death. Yet Neither option is opposed by the DUmbasses at large, even though if President Bush were still in office, the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be audible through my Internet connection.
-
:fuelfire: :fuelfire: This is exactly like if the Gore supporters where to have started fires and then blamed bush for stealing the ellection.
Not even close because we don`t have a barbaric dictatorial rule (yet) where an election so onesided towards those who oppress the citizens wins by a huge margin.
Not sure your political ilk but to compare any US election with those in truly oppressive regimes is just not accurate.
-
I could MAYBE sympathize with Mr Obama when things were in their infancy protest-wise but now that Iran is in full-fledged rebellion he seems determined to take his place in history next Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter.
FFS the man went out for ice cream while a country we could be at war with is falling down...doesn't he at least want ot see it fall in a harmless direction?
-
Not even close because we don`t have a barbaric dictatorial rule (yet) where an election so onesided towards those who oppress the citizens wins by a huge margin.
Not sure your political ilk but to compare any US election with those in truly oppressive regimes is just not accurate.
This is all hypothetically speaking of course. I just feel that if Americans were to be doing the same thing here in America.. burning houses, and garbage cans :fuelfire: for 4 days straight, they might meet some resistance. The Police in America will kill you if you pull out a butter knife! Come on.
-
This is all hypothetically speaking of course. I just feel that if Americans were to be doing the same thing here in America.. burning houses, and garbage cans :fuelfire: for 4 days straight, they might meet some resistance. The Police in America will kill you if you pull out a butter knife! Come on.
Again there is NO comparison. The Gore thing was just silly. No one cared that Gore lost.
Well stupid moonbat liberals who never has sex might care, but normal educated people Know Al the loser never won in the first place.
BUT there is two other major differences.
1) Americans are armed.
2) Our military won't fire on US citizens.
In Iran, police have NO fear of shooting into a crowd of 500,000 people.
In America 500,000 ARMED men will dwarf the national guard and police forces that could be mustered against them.
-
:fuelfire: :fuelfire: This is exactly like if the Gore supporters where to have started fires and then blamed bush for stealing the ellection.
were is the Bush secret army again?
-
Love Me is from the DU faggot forum. He just said he has music videos that can brief us on genocide on another thread.
Hey! Gay boy! Gore Lost and there is no comparison with Iran.
-
Maybe if Gore was able to win his own state...
-
Love Me is from the DU faggot forum. He just said he has music videos that can brief us on genocide on another thread.
Hey! Gay boy! Gore Lost and there is no comparison with Iran.
Can someone ban this guy
-
Can someone ban this guy
What a wanker ::)
-
Can someone ban this guy
Don't worry...you're getting there DUmmie.
-
Love Me is from the DU faggot forum. He just said he has music videos that can brief us on genocide on another thread.
Hey! Gay boy! Gore Lost and there is no comparison with Iran.
What is his DU name? LoveMe isn't in the members list over there!
-
Amazing that despite the Net crackdown the videos that are still getting out there onto YouTube, Twitter, etc. Been watching FNC with Dad this morning and commenting on it.
-
:fuelfire: :fuelfire: This is exactly like if the Gore supporters where to have started fires and then blamed bush for stealing the ellection.
I think one reason it didn't happen is because despite the disagreements, we have a truly wonderful country. The President of Iran is a sociopath. I don't know if Mousavi will be much better, but I'm converted to ABA. It's time that Iran lost its theocracy. I'm rooting for this one.
-
I think one reason it didn't happen is because despite the disagreements, we have a truly wonderful country. The President of Iran is a sociopath. I don't know if Mousavi will be much better, but I'm converted to ABA. It's time that Iran lost its theocracy. I'm rooting for this one.
Ya don't like dinner jackets? :tongue:
-
Struggle among Iran's clerics bursts into the open
TEHRAN, Iran – A backstage struggle among Iran's ruling clerics burst into the open Sunday when the government said it had arrested the daughter and other relatives of an ayatollah who is one of the country's most powerful men.
Tehran's streets fell mostly quiet for the first time since a bitterly disputed June 12 presidential election, but cries of "God is great!" echoed again from rooftops after dark, a sign of seething anger at a government crackdown that peaked with at least 10 protesters' deaths Saturday.
The killings drove the official death toll to at least 17 after a week of massive street demonstrations by protesters who say hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole his re-election win. But searing images posted online — including gruesome video purporting to show the fatal shooting of a teenage girl — hinted the true toll may be higher.
Police and the feared Basij militia swarmed the streets of Tehran to prevent more protests and the government intensified a crackdown on independent media — expelling a BBC correspondent, suspending the Dubai-based network Al-Arabiya and detaining at least two local journalists for U.S. magazines.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election
-
Actually, I think that 0bama is doing the right thing, for the moment. This isn't OUR fight. They need to get this sorted out on their own. However, we, as a country, need to support the Iranian Freedom fighters.
-
It's not going to be a "Revolution" unless the demonstrators start shooting, and some armed part of the Iranian force structure starts supporting them. Until that happens it's just a bunch of pissed-off rock-throwers whose rage will peter out or be crushed when the evil little HMFIC gets tired of waiting for them to wear themselves out.
-
It's not going to be a "Revolution" unless the demonstrators start shooting, and some armed part of the Iranian force structure starts supporting them. Until that happens it's just a bunch of pissed-off rock-throwers whose rage will peter out or be crushed when the evil little HMFIC gets tired of waiting for them to wear themselves out.
I have a question. It was brought up elsewhere that if we get involved, then it will look like we pushed for this type of government and will be used to justify getting rid of the reformers later. OTOH, I think it's pretty obvious it's not about what we want. Do you think it would be good if we got involved?
-
I have a question. It was brought up elsewhere that if we get involved, then it will look like we pushed for this type of government and will be used to justify getting rid of the reformers later. OTOH, I think it's pretty obvious it's not about what we want. Do you think it would be good if we got involved?
In the past, or so it's been reported. That political resistance movements were squashed by the Iranian people, not the government, due to mere suspected tendrils of American influence.
While we should certainly offer supportive prayers and words of encouragement. I'm quite hesitant, to believe we should do any more, just yet. At least as the election protests stand now. I believe the Obama administration feels the same way.
What does give me pause though, is that we're seeing so much of the protests feed... directed at us. Seeing so many Iranian street protest signs in English, really leads me to believe that they might be more open to Western help than in the past.
-
I have a question. It was brought up elsewhere that if we get involved, then it will look like we pushed for this type of government and will be used to justify getting rid of the reformers later. OTOH, I think it's pretty obvious it's not about what we want. Do you think it would be good if we got involved?
Remember the words of that great American icon of the Democrats, liberals, and primitives, John Kennedy, about how it is our responsibility to ".....bear any burden, pay any price....." so that the oppressed of the world could enjoy the blessings and fruits of freedom and liberty.
For some reason, when George Bush tried doing exactly that, the Democrats, liberals, and primitives most conveniently forgot the words of their icon.
If America's going to spend money like a bunch of drunken sailors, I think investing in overthrowing tyrannies beats investing in "free medical care for all."
-
I have a question. It was brought up elsewhere that if we get involved, then it will look like we pushed for this type of government and will be used to justify getting rid of the reformers later. OTOH, I think it's pretty obvious it's not about what we want. Do you think it would be good if we got involved?
Depends on what you mean by "get involved".
We did wonders in Serbia without doing anything more than feeding the oppositon printing presses, PDA's etc. It's been mentioned Obama should at least have the stones to open alternate satellite channels to the oppostion to aid their commo.
If we want more directly indirect action we have people that can feed weapons and training to the opposition....they're called US Army Special Forces and overthrowing governments through use of indigenous forces is what they do. And they've already been operating in Iran for sometime counter-punching Iranian commandoes that were aiding Mookie.
On a different note:
Protesters send police into running retreat-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml
It is an over-awing thing to watch a battle waver then sudenly turn. That breakpoint moment when both parties feel the rout is inevitable. The one side fless the other side pursues.
-
In the past, or so it's been reported. That political resistance movements were squashed by the Iranian people, not the government, due to mere suspected tendrils of American influence.
While we should certainly offer supportive prayers and words of encouragement. I'm quite hesitant, to believe we should do any more, just yet. At least as the election protests stand now. I believe the Obama administration feels the same way.
What does give me pause though, is that we're seeing so much of the protests feed... directed at us. Seeing so many Iranian street protest signs in English, really leads me to believe that they might be more open to Western help than in the past.
I believe that inaction is the best strategy right now. I don't think we want to seem to be taking sides Anti-Americanism is still high enough in that country that our support for the opposition could backfire. but I don't think it's any well thought out plan by the White House. I think the Incompetent One just doesn't have a clue what to do. In this instance it may be the correct course of action. Even a blind squirrel .......
-
And changeing the "face" of Iraq woulden't have a ripple effect in the Mooslime world................ :evillaugh:
-
I have a question. It was brought up elsewhere that if we get involved, then it will look like we pushed for this type of government and will be used to justify getting rid of the reformers later. OTOH, I think it's pretty obvious it's not about what we want. Do you think it would be good if we got involved?
I like MSB's "It depends" answer, because like most of the real world, this is in living color, not black-and-white. Defenders of Big Zero and his thundering silence point to the importance of being seen as not involved, but his detractors rightly point out that the radicals are going to claim we are behind it anyway so going hands-off doesn't really help that problem a damned bit. If we ARE going to play in it, we need to do so indirectly with, for instance, the Kurds. The Kurds and other Iranian dissidents are on their own program, of course, and any decision to assist is a decision to set forces in motion over which we will have no control once they start moving.
-
Our beloved CinC was paving the way for the rigged elections with--as per his usual MO--unqualified overtures to the regime:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/24/us-contacted-irans-ayatollah-before-election/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature
There has now been a fan-to-fecal matter intersection with hundreds reported wounded and dead:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/24/iran.election/index.html
Our towering pillar of moral rectitude says in response the US may well call off its invitations for Iranian diplomats to join us overseas for a 4th of July cook-out:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/24/officials-president-obama-reconsidering-july-4-invitations-to-iran/
...maybe.
:banghead: :bawl: :thatsright: :hammer: :argh:
-
Robert Kaplan
Shhhh: The Iranian uprising was made possible by the Iraq war
As in the former Soviet Union, change in Iran can come only from the inside; only an insider, be it a Mousavi or a Mikhail Gorbachev, has the necessary bona fides to allow daylight into the system, exposing its flaws. Only a staunch supporter of the Islamic Republic such as Mousavi would have been trusted to campaign at all, even as he is now leading a democratic movement that has already undermined the Brezhnevite clerical regime. It is unfinished business of the Cold War that we have been witnessing the past few days. The Iranian struggle for democracy is now as central to our foreign policy as that for democracy in Eastern Europe in the 1980s.
It is crucial that we reflect on an original goal of regime change in Iraq. Anyone who supported the war must have known that toppling Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab — whether it resulted in stable democracy, benign dictatorship or sheer chaos — would strengthen the Shiite hand in the region. This was not seen as necessarily bad. The Sept. 11 terrorists had emanated from the rebellious sub-states of the sclerotic Sunni dictatorships of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, whose arrogance and aversion to reform had to be allayed by readjusting the regional balance of power in favor of Shiite Iran. It was hoped that Iran would undergo its own upheaval were Iraq to change. Had the occupation of Iraq been carried out in a more competent manner, this scenario might have unfolded faster and more transparently. Nevertheless, it is happening. And not only is Iran in the throes of democratic upheaval, but Egypt and Saudi Arabia have both been quietly reforming apace. link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303114.html)
Hat Tip to hotair.com (http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=43832)
-
Dear Leader should have come out with a strongly worded speech upholding the right of the Iranian people to have their freedom similar to what Reagan did when Lech Walesa lead the revolt in Poland. He's waited too long to have an impact now even if he did. He's played right into the hands of those in the world who recognize that Dem presidents are wimps. Not surprised.
.
-
Dear Leader should have come out with a strongly worded speech upholding the right of the Iranian people to have their freedom similar to what Reagan did when Lech Walesa lead the revolt in Poland. He's waited too long to have an impact now even if he did. He's played right into the hands of those in the world who recognize that Dem presidents are wimps. Not surprised.
.
In coming off like a ***** he is, then abruptly changing course and trying to look like the guy who's carrying the big stick, agreed.
Lord Zero has demonstrated unequivocally that he is utterly incapable of determining suitable foreign policy.
As it stands right now, Lord Z looks like the proverbial deer-in-the-headlights. Completely clueless, to the point that he wants to withdraw invitations for Independence Day celebrations for Iranians?
OMG. Pathetic. :loser:
-
Dear Leader should have come out with a strongly worded speech upholding the right of the Iranian people to have their freedom similar to what Reagan did when Lech Walesa lead the revolt in Poland. He's waited too long to have an impact now even if he did. He's played right into the hands of those in the world who recognize that Dem presidents are wimps. Not surprised.
.
I am left to wonder as to his motive:
A) he's simply indecisive, preferring to hedge rather than take a stance in case his decision later be seen as the wrong one
B) he sees the US as the source of many of the world's ills and as such "owed" to the regime a chance to forgive the US
C) he's a narcissist and those damned protesters are ruining his place in history as the man that reconciled with a former enemy
-
I am left to wonder as to his motive:
A) he's simply indecisive, preferring to hedge rather than take a stance in case his decision later be seen as the wrong one
B) he sees the US as the source of many of the world's ills and as such "owed" to the regime a chance to forgive the US
C) he's a narcissist and those damned protesters are ruining his place in history as the man that reconciled with a former enemy
How about D) All of the above
-
Completely clueless, to the point that he wants to withdraw invitations for Independence Day celebrations for Iranians?
OMG. Pathetic. :loser:
It's worse than that. Obama rescinded invitations that the Iranians had already declined.
Yes, everything is great. Just great.
-
As has been noted Obama's Show-Me-Your-Weinie-and-I'll-Show-You-How-Nice-I-am declined invitations have been rescinded.
However, it appears the mullah-approved parliament has given a definitive snub to the mullah-approve winner of the mullah-rigged election:
More than 180 Iranian MPs appear to have snubbed an invitation to celebrate President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election win, local press reports say.
All 290 MPs were invited to the victory party on Wednesday night, but only 105 turned up, the reports say.
A BBC correspondent says the move is a sign of the deep split at the top of Iran after disputed presidential polls.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8118139.stm
Puppets of a dictatorial regime have more spine for defiance than the leader of the free world.
Who knew?
-
Puppets of a dictatorial regime have more spine for defiance than the leader of the free world.
Who knew?
We all did. When was the last DimRat president that showed any spine?
-
Mousavi isn't giving up:
Defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi today said the new government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "illegitimate," in a statement posted on his website.
"It is our historical responsibility to continue our protests and not to abandon our efforts to preserve the nation's rights," he said, two days after Iran's top legislative body confirmed Ahmadinejad's election victory.
Mousavi, who has repeatedly said the June 12 vote was rigged, said he would join a planned association of leading figures which would follow up people's rights and "ignored votes" in the election.
Its demands would include "halting security and military confrontation with the election, returning the country to a natural political atmosphere, reforming the election law to prevent vote rigging, securing freedom of holding rallies and freedom of press," the statement said.
Mousavi also called on the authorities to release detained "children of the revolution," in reference to scores of leading reformists arrested since the disputed poll, and said he could not compromise regarding people's rights.
He called for a lifting of a ban on some moderate newspapers and websites.
The authorities reject opposition charges of vote rigging.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mousavi-declares-iran-government-illegitimate-1727247.html
Huevos grande.
-
6 Mousavi supporters reportedly hanged (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246296541275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
As the Iranian authorities warned the opposition on Tuesday that they would tolerate no further protests over the disputed June 12 presidential elections, a report emerged of the hangings of six supporters of defeated candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.
Speaking after Iran's top legislative body upheld the election victory of incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sources in Iran told this reporter in a telephone interview that the hangings took place in the holy city of Mashhad on Monday. There was no independent confirmation of the report.
On Monday, witnesses said thousands of policemen and Basij militiamen carrying batons were deployed in Teheran's main squares to prevent any recurrence of the opposition protests. Drivers who so much as shouted "Allahu Akbar" or beeped their horns had their windows smashed by the Basiji and riot police.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246296541275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
-
I am left to wonder as to his motive:
A) he's simply indecisive, preferring to hedge rather than take a stance in case his decision later be seen as the wrong one
B) he sees the US as the source of many of the world's ills and as such "owed" to the regime a chance to forgive the US
C) he's a narcissist and those damned protesters are ruining his place in history as the man that reconciled with a former enemy
or D) he realizes that Iran is a sovereign nation, and that it's better to stay out of the internal political upheaval of a sovereign nation.
-
or D) he realizes that Iran is a sovereign nation, and that it's better to stay out of the internal political upheaval of a sovereign nation, despite the growing and credible threat to Israel and the rest of the Middle East, thereby displaying his own incredible lack of foreign policy and strategic thinking.
Fixed.
You're welcome, John. :whatever:
-
or D) he realizes that Iran is a sovereign nation, and that it's better to stay out of the internal political upheaval of a sovereign nation.
I guess Honduras isn't a sovereign nation, because he has sure spoken out against the legal removal of the president there.
-
I guess Honduras isn't a sovereign nation, because he has sure spoken out against the legal removal of the president there.
then he is wrong in that regard
-
Fixed.
You're welcome, John. :whatever:
let israel take care of any "credible threats" to itself.
-
let israel take care of any "credible threats" to itself.
I'm sure they will, comrade. Whether they have Lord Ø's blessing or not.
-
Agreed. I believe Israel is quite capable. It will be good for them to stay their course in spite of little Barry's objections.
-
let israel take care of any "credible threats" to itself.
When we're talking nukes, it's a whole new ball game. And yes, D6 is correct. They can and will take care of themselves, especially in light of the fact that Lord Zero has thrown Israel under the bus.
-
or D) he realizes that Iran is a sovereign nation, and that it's better to stay out of the internal political upheaval of a sovereign nation.
Horse shit
He had plenty to say about Israeli settlements in the West Bank and he is giving material support to Zelaya.
-
I don't see why it's hard to see the reason behind the differences on the stances between Iran and Honduras...
Anything said in the negative against Iran real or perceived could have national security and foreign policy impacts in the negative.
Anything said about Honduras? Seriously, like "The Rock" Dwayne Johnson used to say on WWE Raw "It doesn't matter..." WTH Honduras thinks.....
Iran can impact our mission(s) in the ME.
Honduras...well, not so much.... :)
-
Horse shit
He had plenty to say about Israeli settlements in the West Bank and he is giving material support to Zelaya.
then, as i said, he was wrong in doing that.
-
I don't see why it's hard to see the reason behind the differences on the stances between Iran and Honduras...
Anything said in the negative against Iran real or perceived could have national security and foreign policy impacts in the negative.
Anything said about Honduras? Seriously, like "The Rock" Dwayne Johnson used to say on WWE Raw "It doesn't matter..." WTH Honduras thinks.....
Iran can impact our mission(s) in the ME.
Honduras...well, not so much.... :)
Um yeah. How many times have liberals decried President Bush's foreign policy, because they claimed he did only what was best for this country, and not for the people in other countries?
Besides if it's a matter of whether Honduras has any effect on the US, then he could have stayed neutral and not backed the unconstitutional moves made by Zelaya to stay stay in power.
-
then, as i said, he was wrong in doing that.
About Honduras, you did but I also pointed out his morally equivocating lopsided approach to Israel.
In fact, I defy anyone to name a principled stance Obama has made on anything he's done in the last 7 months if not his entire misbegotten political career.
To review:
Rev Wright
Bill Ayers
Saul Alinsky
Gitmo
Wiretaps
State Secrets
Detention of terror suspects
Iraq
Iran
Honduras
Gov't spending
taxes only on $250k +
DADT
Transparency
De-politicizing the DOJ
What has Obama ever done to make you think he has a single principled bone in his body?
-
About Honduras, you did but I also pointed out his morally equivocating lopsided approach to Israel.
In fact, I defy anyone to name a principled stance Obama has made on anything he's done in the last 7 months if not his entire misbegotten political career.
To review:
Rev Wright
Bill Ayers
Saul Alinsky
Gitmo
Wiretaps
State Secrets
Detention of terror suspects
Iraq
Iran
Honduras
Gov't spending
taxes only on $250k +
DADT
Transparency
De-politicizing the DOJ
What has Obama ever done to make you think he has a single principled bone in his body?
staying out of the upheaval in iran.
-
staying out of the upheaval in iran.
So the man has been two-faced and duplicitous about EVERY facet of his career but on this one thing you think he finally found a modicum of sincerity.
Someone can lie and deceive you 98% of the time but so long as 2% of the time its answer you want to hear you'll buy into that 2%.
Of course nevermind the fact that this "upheaval" is the last best opportunity to keep a bunch of genocidal zealots with still wet American blood on their hands from obtaining nuclear weapons short of war. Whats really important is that we leave them alone because--gosh darn--it they do the same because Not-Bush is in office.
-
So the man has been two-faced and duplicitous about EVERY facet of his career but on this one thing you think he finally found a modicum of sincerity.
Someone can lie and deceive you 98% of the time but so long as 2% of the time its answer you want to hear you'll buy into that 2%.
Of course nevermind the fact that this "upheaval" is the last best opportunity to keep a bunch of genocidal zealots with still wet American blood on their hands from obtaining nuclear weapons short of war. Whats really important is that we leave them alone because--gosh darn--it they do the same because Not-Bush is in office.
no, that's not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying that not interfering in another nation's political process is a good thing. I know, we should just get people we like in power there, after all, there is a history of success with that idea in Iran.
-
no, that's not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying that not interfering in another nation's political process is a good thing. I know, we should just get people we like in power there, after all, there is a history of success with that idea in Iran.
And I suppose that anti-Semitism has nothing to do with 0Bama's hands off approach?
-
no, that's not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying that not interfering in another nation's political process is a good thing. I know, we should just get people we like in power there, after all, there is a history of success with that idea in Iran.
horse shit II
For starters I have zero sense of guilt over Operation: Ajax. Anyone that says we should have allowed a Soviet puppet regime to have access the Persian Gulf is manifestly certifiable. Operation: Ajax was the prevention of WW3.
Nor do I accept the notion that the Iranian puppet of the politburo was "democratically elected" because even if the votes were legit they would have been the last legit votes ever allowed...because Iran would be a Soviet. It never ceases to amaze me how people who claim to speak in the voice of personal liberty always make excuses for systems that are bult upon one man-one vote-one time.
Nor do I feel sorry about the Shah because for all his evils he would have been politically pliable. Yes, a bastard. Yes, our bastard. But our bastards dance on our strings and genuine reform could have been affected. All Carter did was retard those reforms a generation or two with an emphasis on "retard".
Nor is the notion that leaving Iran alone today the cure because these shitbags are genocidal zealots with still-wet American blood on their hands seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.
-
horse shit II
For starters I have zero sense of guilt over Operation: Ajax. Anyone that says we should have allowed a Soviet puppet regime to have access the Persian Gulf is manifestly certifiable. Operation: Ajax was the prevention of WW3.
Nor do I accept the notion that the Iranian puppet of the politburo was "democratically elected" because even if the votes were legit they would have been the last legit votes ever allowed...because Iran would be a Soviet. It never ceases to amaze me how people who claim to speak in the voice of personal liberty always make excuses for systems that are bult upon one man-one vote-one time.
Nor do I feel sorry about the Shah because for all his evils he would have been politically pliable. Yes, a bastard. Yes, our bastard. But our bastards dance on our strings and genuine reform could have been affected. All Carter did was retard those reforms a generation or two with an emphasis on "retard".
Nor is the notion that leaving Iran alone today the cure because these shitbags are genocidal zealots with still-wet American blood on their hands seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.
lol. of course you don't accept it. Anyone that was elected that didn't agree with the US clearly should be removed from power and replaced with someone that likes us, no matter what the people of that country actually want.
-
lol. of course you don't accept it. Anyone that was elected that didn't agree with the US clearly should be removed from power and replaced with someone that likes us, no matter what the people of that country actually want.
I never doubted that you'd approve of a Soviet client state in Iran.
-
I never doubted that you'd approve of a Soviet client state in Iran.
how exactly was it a soviet client state?
And i never doubted that you coudn't care less about the sovereignty of other nations, or the will of their people when electing their own leaders.
-
how exactly was it a soviet client state?
You calling Winston Churchill a liar?
And i never doubted that you coudn't care less about the sovereignty of other nations, or the will of their people when electing their own leaders.
Let's see...
...the very nature of this thread is: the genocidal zealots will American blood on their hands from Iraq who are seeking nuclear weapons have blatantly stolen an election leading to a popular uprising wherein the people are demanding their rights.
You do not support that uprising...
...but you accuse me of not endorsing the will of the people.
Nevermind your moral equivocations spoken in tones of breathless moralizing the dissonant self-contradiction alone is amazing to behold.
-
You calling Winston Churchill a liar?
Let's see...
...the very nature of this thread is: the genocidal zealots will American blood on their hands from Iraq who are seeking nuclear weapons have blatantly stolen an election leading to a popular uprising wherein the people are demanding their rights.
You do not support that uprising...
...but you accuse me of not endorsing the will of the people.
Nevermind your moral equivocations spoken in tones of breathless moralizing the dissonant self-contradiction alone is amazing to behold.
absolutely. He wanted the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company back in Iran.
And no, I support no uprising, and I support no action their government takes, since it's simply not up to me or any American to decide what happens in Iran. Of course, its contradiction because you don't agree with it. What a shocking statement from you.
-
absolutely. He wanted the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company back in Iran.
Ah...well, if it involves oil certainly any allegations of communist taint are obviously false. All Winny had to do was call up Ike, drop the C-word and Ike fell over himself rushing to topple Mr Sweet-Guy on the UK's behalf. Eisenhower was such a tool...lol
And no, I support no uprising, and I support no action their government takes, since it's simply not up to me or any American to decide what happens in Iran. Of course, its contradiction because you don't agree with it. What a shocking statement from you.
This may come as a shock to you but American is better than the mullahocracy in every quality but vast quantities.
And though you choose pretend otherwise failure to support an internally driven regime change serves as the first, best course to drag the US into a war.
Do you really think Israel (a sovereign nation that poses no threat to Iran) will simply sit back and allow those jack-holes to acquire nukes? Do you really think Iran won't retaliate against us if Israel hits them not matter how many buses Obama throws them jews under? Do you want a nuclear Iran to have leverage over every nation that depends on Persian Gulf resources? Do you think the US economy would not suffer if Iran turned-off the spiget to Europe and Asia? Or if the Arab states ended-up in a protracted naval conflict with Iran? Russia recently conducted deep-blue exercises with the Iranian navy, wouldn't that add an interesting spice into the mix?
-
I think I understand Mr. Matrix's stance on the issue of Iran and how the U.S./Israel should handle Iran.
1. Grab a shovel.
2. Dig a hole about 1' x 1' x 1'.
3. Insert head into same hole.
4. Fill up the rest of the hole.
-
Ah...well, if it involves oil certainly any allegations of communist taint are obviously false. All Winny had to do was call up Ike, drop the C-word and Ike fell over himself rushing to topple Mr Sweet-Guy on the UK's behalf. Eisenhower was such a tool...lol
This may come as a shock to you but American is better than the mullahocracy in every quality but vast quantities.
And though you choose pretend otherwise failure to support an internally driven regime change serves as the first, best course to drag the US into a war.
Do you really think Israel (a sovereign nation that poses no threat to Iran) will simply sit back and allow those jack-holes to acquire nukes? Do you really think Iran won't retaliate against us if Israel hits them not matter how many buses Obama throws them jews under? Do you want a nuclear Iran to have leverage over every nation that depends on Persian Gulf resources? Do you think the US economy would not suffer if Iran turned-off the spiget to Europe and Asia? Or if the Arab states ended-up in a protracted naval conflict with Iran? Russia recently conducted deep-blue exercises with the Iranian navy, wouldn't that add an interesting spice into the mix?
right, i'm sure if you had a foreign state controlled oil company selling all oil extracted from this country, you would be incredibly happy. Its also interesting that the British Foreign Office and Truman's Secretary of state admitted that there was no danger of a communist takeover.
Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger†was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue — i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mossadeq was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen
from here (http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/1953-coup-Iran-CIA.html)
Yea, right, regime change did a great job making the "Islamic Republic" of Iran possible. They were so happy with the guy we put in power that they let him take a vacation from his own country. Permanently. They appreciated us so much that they took Americans as hostages. You can see that they really love us now since we treated them so well. Do you really think that interfering in the same manner again is going to be any different? I guess its true, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Who's talking about Israel here? They, as a sovereign nation, can defend themselves by using whatever means they wish to use. How's Iran going to retaliate exactly? They can't strike them militarily. Are they going to give more weapons to hezbolla? That'll just give israel an excuse to crush them. Why do we have to babysit Israel? Shouldn't they be allowed to take care of their own business, as any sovereign nation should? If Iran turns off the spigot, all they are going to do is kill their own economy even faster. Are you sure you're not confusing that with their recent naval exercise with India?
-
Oh Johnny.
Are you really painting US presidents as the patsy of British national oil-profiteering interests?
Of course why would a president have to be ashamed for protecting merchant intersts in foreign lands?
Even still, Carter made it pretty plain he was throwing the Shah under the bus and look how he was repaid. We also kept a hands-off approach to Afghanistan after helping them eject your peace-loving Russians. In fact from Kuwait to Bosnia to Africa we've spent blood and treasure with a bent towards leaving them alon when we were done.
Oddly, one of the 9/11 hijackers in his suicide video cited the Serbian genocide against muslims as his motive for attacking the US.
It's like you just can't win some days.
As long as you're on your little history cycle why not talk about all the times NON-intervention has proven so effective. We can even bring up the British again.
Why don't you bitch about something useful...like the puppet-regime we installed in Japan c. 1945. I mean, we even went so far as to dictate the modification of the shinto religion.
Right?
-
JohnMatrix:
Who's talking about Israel here? They, as a sovereign nation, can defend themselves by using whatever means they wish to use. How's Iran going to retaliate exactly? They can't strike them militarily. Are they going to give more weapons to hezbolla? That'll just give israel an excuse to crush them. Why do we have to babysit Israel? Shouldn't they be allowed to take care of their own business, as any sovereign nation should?
Wow. Right out of the Biden playbook:
BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself—it's a sovereign nation—what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?
BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed. What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?
BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.
Georgie Porgie, Puddin' and Pie (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8002421)
Been watchin' Any Batshit Communist network lately, John?
-
Who's talking about Israel here? They, as a sovereign nation, can defend themselves by using whatever means they wish to use. How's Iran going to retaliate exactly? They can't strike them militarily.
The Straits of Hormuz can be easily closed by truck-launched anti-ship missiles. If you thought hunting SCUD's in the desert was fun wait until you're looking for things as small as an Exocet.
Imagine Obama sending countless sorties out to comb southern Iran looking for launchers as the world economy strangles and the thugs in Tehran have nothing left to lose. Who do you think would give up first?
Are they going to give more weapons to hezbolla? That'll just give israel an excuse to crush them.
Yeah, because world opinion is so even-handed in regards to Israel.
Why do we have to babysit Israel? Shouldn't they be allowed to take care of their own business, as any sovereign nation should?
And yet for as much as L'il B tries to throw them Jews under the bus--and Honduras as well--it never seems enough to these yahoos; they keep calling him another Bush.
Maybe because when they see him chucking people under the bush they know they can push harder to get what they want...which is exactly our point that appeasement only encourages those who already possess malicious intent.
Your entire line of argumentation bears this out as you're saying Israel is free to deal with Iran any way it sees fit...but why does Israel even have to deal with Iran in the first place? What offense has Israel offered to Iran? So the notion that leaving Iran alone = peace is absurd on its face.
But then your sort always whines about why do we have to be friends with Israel. How about...because it is in our interests to do so and just because some deranged zealot threatens us is NOT a reason to abandon a friend. All that proves is you were never much of a friend to begin with and that you can be pushed around. It's odd that you sit safely cocooned within a society wherein your betters have come together for the common purpose of creating a community free of the threats of force and fraud. Beyond this we live in a world where the ultimate expression of foreign policy is quickly being decided by a ballistic flight trajectory. As surely as we have murderers and thieves in our neighborhoods so too do we have them running nation states.
It ain't 1801 anymore (although even then American presidents were known to wage war in the name of merchant interests).
-
The Straits of Hormuz can be easily closed by truck-launched anti-ship missiles. If you thought hunting SCUD's in the desert was fun wait until you're looking for things as small as an Exocet.
Imagine Obama sending countless sorties out to comb southern Iran looking for launchers as the world economy strangles and the thugs in Tehran have nothing left to lose. Who do you think would give up first?
Yeah, because world opinion is so even-handed in regards to Israel.
And yet for as much as L'il B tries to throw them Jews under the bus--and Honduras as well--it never seems enough to these yahoos; they keep calling him another Bush.
Maybe because when they see him chucking people under the bush they know they can push harder to get what they want...which is exactly our point that appeasement only encourages those who already possess malicious intent.
Your entire line of argumentation bears this out as you're saying Israel is free to deal with Iran any way it sees fit...but why does Israel even have to deal with Iran in the first place? What offense has Israel offered to Iran? So the notion that leaving Iran alone = peace is absurd on its face.
But then your sort always whines about why do we have to be friends with Israel. How about...because it is in our interests to do so and just because some deranged zealot threatens us is NOT a reason to abandon a friend. All that proves is you were never much of a friend to begin with and that you can be pushed around. It's odd that you sit safely cocooned within a society wherein your betters have come together for the common purpose of creating a community free of the threats of force and fraud. Beyond this we live in a world where the ultimate expression of foreign policy is quickly being decided by a ballistic flight trajectory. As surely as we have murderers and thieves in our neighborhoods so too do we have them running nation states.
It ain't 1801 anymore (although even then American presidents were known to wage war in the name of merchant interests).
except the thugs in Iran actually do have something to lose, its called their "economy." Also, Iran would give up first, unless they want war with all their neighbors that depend on oil exports as well.
Who cares about world opinion?
Who cares that they call him another Bush? that is completely irrelevant. Why does Israel have to deal with Iran? Simple, because they are being threatened. War in that case is fine, as long as the threat is genuine. Who said that leaving Iran alone=peace?
Israel isn't a friend. It would be better to call them a welfare recipient. Our "friendship" has done nothing but made them completely dependent on us. They, like any other country, need to live without the help of others. That being said, they can take care of themselves with regards to Iran. They would even have the support of arab countries around them, since they too don't want a nuclear Iran.
-
except the thugs in Iran actually do have something to lose, its called their "economy." Also, Iran would give up first, unless they want war with all their neighbors that depend on oil exports as well.
Who is going to invade them when all they have to do is drive up a truck, launch a missile and retreat? Do you really think the Arabs could cobble together an expeditionary force? If they did how long would it take vs. the world's economy going tits up (HINT: it took the US 14 months to build-up for Iraq vs the 3 to 5 days of oil on the market on any given day)?
Who cares about world opinion?
Assuming you had a position of responsibility: you would as soon as goods stopped flowing to the US because global manufacturing tanks, prices skyrocket and what few US goods are shipped abroad have no buyers because these markets have nothing. Remember: it'll take months to shut Iran down vs their ability to wreak global economic chaos in a matter of days. Imagine if they had nukes.
Kinda makes you wish we could do SOMETHING before then.
Who cares that they call him another Bush? that is completely irrelevant.
Your president.
Why does Israel have to deal with Iran? Simple, because they are being threatened. War in that case is fine, as long as the threat is genuine.
Swing and a miss.
I said Iran threatening Israel counters your argument that non-involvement
Who said that leaving Iran alone=peace?
You're the one who keeps claiming that if we leave Iran alone all will be well with the US.
Israel isn't a friend. It would be better to call them a welfare recipient. Our "friendship" has done nothing but made them completely dependent on us. They, like any other country, need to live without the help of others. That being said, they can take care of themselves with regards to Iran. They would even have the support of arab countries around them, since they too don't want a nuclear Iran.
Yeah and NATO and our allies in WW2 and the rest.
****ing Brits should've learned to live with the Germans, it's their fault for getting tied-up with Poland.
Ditto Reagan. ****ing moron taking on the USSR, what was he thinking?
I see life like this: if we **** with them they're gonna **** with us.
If we don't **** with them they're still gonna **** with us.
And willingness is a poor cure for rape.
-
Who is going to invade them when all they have to do is drive up a truck, launch a missile and retreat? Do you really think the Arabs could cobble together an expeditionary force? If they did how long would it take vs. the world's economy going tits up (HINT: it took the US 14 months to build-up for Iraq vs the 3 to 5 days of oil on the market on any given day)?
Assuming you had a position of responsibility: you would as soon as goods stopped flowing to the US because global manufacturing tanks, prices skyrocket and what few US goods are shipped abroad have no buyers because these markets have nothing. Remember: it'll take months to shut Iran down vs their ability to wreak global economic chaos in a matter of days. Imagine if they had nukes.
Kinda makes you wish we could do SOMETHING before then.
Your president.
Swing and a miss.
I said Iran threatening Israel counters your argument that non-involvement
You're the one who keeps claiming that if we leave Iran alone all will be well with the US.
Yeah and NATO and our allies in WW2 and the rest.
******* Brits should've learned to live with the Germans, it's their fault for getting tied-up with Poland.
Ditto Reagan. ******* moron taking on the USSR, what was he thinking?
I see life like this: if we **** with them they're gonna **** with us.
If we don't **** with them they're still gonna **** with us.
And willingness is a poor cure for rape.
Yes, the arabs could "cobble together" an expeditionary force. Also, again, you fail to realize that they would kill their own economy by firing at any ships there.
Again, wreaking "global economic chaos" will be particularly bad for them, since they depend on exporting oil. They would have a real revolution on their hands if they tried that.
And the president caring about what others think of him is irrelevant.
"swing and a miss"
Iran threatening israel counters nothing. Israel (again) can take care of itself. You think we should support some people in the streets in order to get them to stop threatening israel? Do you really think anything would actually change if the other guy actually gets in power?
No, i said we should stay out of their internal political business.
yea, **** the brits who we helped militarily after the germans declared war on us, and after the japanese attacked us Apples =/= oranges
yep, ditto reagan who outspent the soviets. apples=/= oranges
That's a sad way to see life.