# Obama Is Clueless on Iran



## Sinatra (Jun 19, 2009)

Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".

Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.

And Israel watches with increasing unease, knowing if they to act, they will do so alone, with likely condemnation from this US government...
RealClearPolitics - Obama Clueless on Iran


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 20, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> 
> Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.
> 
> ...



Riiiight...


----------



## Terry (Jun 20, 2009)

What do you expect from a Kenya raised kid who went to a MADRASSA as a kid, has aligned himself with Marxist and as President bowed to the Saudi King.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 20, 2009)

Terry said:


> What do you expect from a Kenya raised kid who went to a MADRASSA as a kid, has aligned himself with Marxist and as President bowed to the Saudi King.


Terry, not all Islamic schools are maddrassa's and he wasnt raised in Kenya, but in Hawaii and Indonesia
he might be a marxist, but that would be counter to being an Islamist


----------



## Terry (Jun 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> > What do you expect from a Kenya raised kid who went to a MADRASSA as a kid, has aligned himself with Marxist and as President bowed to the Saudi King.
> ...


 It was reported by Obama himself that he attended a Madrassa when he was a boy.


----------



## Terry (Jun 20, 2009)

In his autobiography, _Dreams of My Father_, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies.


----------



## Big_D (Jun 20, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> 
> Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.
> 
> ...



I disagree.  As of right now, everyone with the least bit of common sense on this planet is looking at Ahmadinejad and thinking it is corrupt leaders like him that is responsible for the Middle East being the way it is.  The planet wants him to step down or recount the votes.  If the US intervenes it will take the attention away from Ahmadinejad.


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 20, 2009)

Terry said:


> In his autobiography, _Dreams of My Father_, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies.


 
And I'm sure there are countless people who got a ruler across the knuckles by a nun when making faces during Bible study.


----------



## ReillyT (Jun 20, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> 
> Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.
> 
> ...



Is he groveling arrogantly or arrogantly groveling?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> 
> Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.
> 
> ...


 
You people are the arrogant ones. The Iranians DON'T WANT YOU TO DO ANYTHING. THE LAST THING THE OPPOSITION WANTS IS "ENDORSEMENTS" FROM THE US GOVERNMENT. This is known EVERYWHERE. 

You guys do realize that the only people that want the US to start "endorsing" or "bombing" or openly supporting the opposition - and I mean the ONLY people- are the Regime, the US Conservatives, and the Israeli Right-Wing. The other thing that ties these people together are their total disregard for the lives of Iranians. I mean, how can people not notice the complete CYNICISM of John McCain or the ideologue warriors at FOX, talking about "America's leadership to bring democracy" and "show support for the Iranian people's fight for democracy." THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO FUCKING BOMB THEM ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO. How does that fucking work? We are now to believe that these people give a flying shitaroo about the rights of the same Iranians they would've fire-bombed 6 months ago? What a change of heart! That takes real cynicism or real idiocy. I'm sorry, but as someone who knows America's history in the Middle East and Latin America, it is almost COMICAL to hear these people on Fox and on the Republican party talking about America's supposed "role" or "leadership" in defending democratic values around the world. 

The only thing for you to do is to condemn the government's crackdown of protesters, and that's exactly what has happened- Obama just said they were "violent and unjust". What else do you guys want? Military action? Clandestine assassination? Weapons deals? What is it that you great [and sudden] "defenders" of democracy want to do? You guys seriously have to sit down and think about the shit you do for a second.  You might have to re-instate the draft and send 2 million US troops to Iran, and we all know how that ends up...


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> ...


Really? Take a look at what's been written since the release of the paper:

What are you doing?

Imagine if he bothered to speak.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> 
> Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.
> 
> ...


Wasn't it Biden who said there would be a "crisis" that would test Obama? How prophetic that turned out to be. And it's not NK... It's this. And he is failing this test miserably.


----------



## oreo (Jun 20, 2009)

While I disagree with Obama on his economic policies--on this issue I agree with him.  *We should not be meddling in the affairs of Iran's election.*

Right now--there is no proof what-so-ever that the election was a fraud.  We have a pile of conjecture based on theories--but that's it.  Apparently Tehran overwhelmingly voted for the opposition but those in the rural areas overwhelming voted for Ahmanjenadad.

But what's the point of Iranian elections anyway?  I think the government of Iran is a joke. Here they can elect a President--but then the "Supreme Leader" who is appointed by God only knows who--has total control over the military & police.

_So--basically--Iranians--are protesting in order to change one bad guy for another bad guy--who really has no power anyway. _ *If they want to overthrow the entire regime--& get rid of the Supreme Leader & the radical Mullahs who are the ones that are "really" in control--then they need to do it by themselves.*


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> Really? Take a look at what's been written since the release of the paper:
> 
> Twitter: What are you doing?
> 
> Imagine if he bothered to speak.


 
Well, thanks for ignoring my every point again, Annie.

Anyway, uh, what is this? It just sends me to the log-in page. Can you copy paste whatever it is you want me to see?

[And of course, please think for a second about the source you're using]


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

oreo said:


> While I disagree with Obama on his economic policies--on this issue I agree with him. *We should not be meddling in the affairs of Iran's election.*
> 
> Right now--there is no proof what-so-ever that the election was a fraud. We have a pile of conjecture based on theories--but that's it. Apparently Tehran overwhelmingly voted for the opposition but those in the rural areas overwhelming voted for Ahmanjenadad.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah. That kinds sums it up.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

oreo said:


> While I disagree with Obama on his economic policies--on this issue I agree with him.  *We should not be meddling in the affairs of Iran's election.*


Obama's already been accused of meddling, by both the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad. So, what's the difference?

But see, no one's advocating that he meddle. People are advocating that he make a statement supporting American values, including the right to gather and protest and to free and fair elections.





> Right now--there is no proof what-so-ever that the election was a fraud.  We have a pile of conjecture based on theories--but that's it.


And then you offer still more conjecture based on a theory:





> Apparently Tehran overwhelmingly voted for the opposition but those in the rural areas overwhelming voted for Ahmanjenadad.


And there is no proof of your conjecture either. Now, if you think they could have counted 30 MILLION hand-written ballots in *two hours*, over the entire country? Then you must think they're damned efficient. We cannot count our electronic and mechanical ballots that fast with computers.





> But what's the point of Iranian elections anyway?  I think the government of Iran is a joke. Here they can elect a President--but then the "Supreme Leader" who is appointed by God only knows who--has total control over the military & police.
> 
> _So--basically--Iranians--are protesting in order to change one bad guy for another bad guy--who really has no power anyway. _ *If they want to overthrow the entire regime--& get rid of the Supreme Leader & the radical Mullahs who are the ones that are "really" in control--then they need to do it by themselves.*


This is exactly what is happening. The protesters are shouting "death to the Ayatollah" and shit. There was a suicide bomb in the temple of the Ayatollah. On TV, some Iranians in America are asking why doesn't Obama step up to the plate. On twitter, facebook and YouTube, Iranians asking the same thing. They are calling out to The Obama. He just a few minutes ago finally issued a decent statement even though only through twitter, condemning the violence against the protesters. Is that meddling?

Obama is on the absolute WRONG side of history here.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > While I disagree with Obama on his economic policies--on this issue I agree with him. *We should not be meddling in the affairs of Iran's election.*
> ...


 
1) The difference is that he hasn't meddled. That's a pretty big difference.

2) He already did! 



> And there is no proof of your conjecture either. Now, if you think they could have counted 30 MILLION hand-written ballots in *two hours*, over the entire country? Then you must think they're damned efficient. We cannot count our electronic and mechanical ballots that fast with computers.


 
Yeah, that's one of those things that make it look like there was fraud. There might have been. It looks like. I personally think there was. But as you both said, it's all "conjecture." And even if there was fraud, well, let THEM do something about it- which they are.



> But what's the point of Iranian elections anyway? I think the government of Iran is a joke. Here they can elect a President--but then the "Supreme Leader" who is appointed by God only knows who--has total control over the military & police.
> 
> _So--basically--Iranians--are protesting in order to change one bad guy for another bad guy--who really has no power anyway. _*If they want to overthrow the entire regime--& get rid of the Supreme Leader & the radical Mullahs who are the ones that are "really" in control--then they need to do it by themselves.*


 
This is exactly what is happening. The protesters are shouting "death to the Ayatollah" and shit. There was a suicide bomb in the temple of the Ayatollah. On TV, some Iranians in America are asking why doesn't Obama step up to the plate. On twitter, facebook and YouTube, Iranians asking the same thing. They are calling out to The Obama. He just a few minutes ago issued a statement through twitter, condemning the violence against the protesters. Is that meddling?

Obama is on the absolute WRONG side of history here.[/quote]

What are you saying? You just said that you wanted him to do was say he stood by American values and condemn the violence and blah blah blah, and that's exactly what he did. What ELSE do you want?? That's what I'm having a problem understanding.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...


He is not only LATE to the party, a statement over Twitter by one of his staffers who pretends to be him is hardly earth shattering. His earlier statements? Weak.

His statements have been weak. The Iranian people who are protesting are calling out to him, for hope, and he's partying in the WH.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if you think they could have counted 30 MILLION hand-written ballots in *two hours*, over the entire country? Then you must think they're damned efficient. We cannot count our electronic and mechanical ballots that fast with computers.
> ...


Announcing a overwhelming landslide victory for the incumbent a mere two hours after the polls closed isn't "conjecture" it actually happened.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



especially with a turnout of 85% voting, most against said incumbent.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...


It matters not to me who they were for. It's this little matter of the physical impossibility of hand-counting 30 MILLION plus, hand written votes BY HAND in just two hours. Or even twelve.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Take a look at what's been written since the release of the paper:
> ...



I've tried to fix the link, works for me.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...


Works fine here too.

One might have to be a logged-in twitter user to not get re-directed however. I am one of those. Dunno.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> He is not only LATE to the party, a statement over Twitter by one of his staffers who pretends to be him is hardly earth shattering. His earlier statements? Weak.
> 
> His statements have been weak. The Iranian people who are protesting are calling out to him, for hope, and he's partying in the WH.


 
*Sigh* Ok, MM. What would YOU have said, if you were president?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...


 

And you know this how?? 

I know that the announcement actually happened 2 hours after voting closed. What is conjecture is that one side won or lost. We don't fucking know. Stop pretending that you do.

As for the link: I don't have a twitter. It'll take a while before I jump in to that one. So, can you copy paste some of these things, and tell me exactly how it matters? It's pretty clear that if you're one of the few in Iran with access to the Internet and english-language skills you're probably firmly in the Moussavi camp. That much we can know.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



That's bs, unless of course every university student is in Mousavi camp? You may be onto something there, given the demographics in Iran.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > He is not only LATE to the party, a statement over Twitter by one of his staffers who pretends to be him is hardly earth shattering. His earlier statements? Weak.
> ...


Pretty much what he JUST NOW finally said, in an actual official written statement just released.

But...

It's about four days late. His handlers finally saw the light and dragged him out of the party for a second.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> I know that the announcement actually happened 2 hours after voting closed


Chew on this:

Early this morning, our time, the Ayatollah announced there would be a re-count of 10% of the votes, chosen at random.

Why can they count 30 MILLION votes in just 2 hours or even 12, and STILL are re-counting 300,000? My Goodness, shouldn't be taking so long to count just 10% of them again, right? It's already been about nine hours.

THIS after the Ayatollah said the other day there would be a FULL re-count, which never happened.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Here you go:

Commentary: Iran's hardliners are the real losers - CNN.com



> Commentary: Iran's hardliners are the real losers
> 
> Story Highlights
> Fawaz Gerges: Iran's ruling mullahs forfeited their public support in the election
> ...



As for twitter, if you can't read the live feed, go to:

Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising

But the comments are 'picked', so you'll not be likely seeing much regarding Obama from Huffington site.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...


 
Let me reiterate: You know most of the 85% voted for Moussavi... HOW? Where can I get access to the previledged information? 

Look, I PERSONALLY think there was election fraud. There is wierd shit about the results. The speed of the vote count is one of the most suspicious parts. The huge landslide win resulting in week long protests doesn't make any sense. But the fact is that YOU don't fucking know who won! and I don't fucking know! and MM doesn't fucking know! And really, none of us have the slightest fucking clue what's going on or who won! And THAT is why world leaders can't come out immediately after an election and declare it fraudulent... because they don't fucking know! And that is why we have to wait and see what the fuck happens. 

Basically, what should happen is exactly what this guy from the OP is trying to rip apart. A re-vote, with independent observers [and yeah, hopefully international observers] and panels from all candidates, etc. etc. There IS no other thing to do short of armed insurrection.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



I meant, but agree wasn't clear, that the vast increase in voters were among the young, most likely to go for the change. 

However, your language most definitely makes me want to be rational, like you. Sorry I was so disrespectful.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> *Sigh* Ok, MM. What would YOU have said, if you were president?


I would have come out, shortly after the announcement of the victory, on worldwide TV and said: (In the Obama Style)

"I umm.... call into uhh-question.... Umm, the ability of any nation...... Ahh.. to count 30 million..... Ahh-votes, by hand. Ahhh-without machines or computers... in just two hours. Or even twelve. Ummm-my concern... is the physical impossibility of that...... Ahh.. unless they had about a half million...... Umm-people doing the counting.... Ahh-and started counting.....  Umm... right when the polls opened. Not even our friends the Japanese..... Umm-are that efficient."


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

From one on the left, credit is being given to Biden for the Obama statement release today:

Steve Clemons: Biden-Obama Axis Shifts Biden's Way on Iran



> Posted: June 20, 2009 02:57 PM
> Biden-Obama Axis Shifts Biden's Way on Iran
> 
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree with the statement, though I think he could have read it instead of just releasing it.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> I meant, but agree wasn't clear, that the vast increase in voters were among the young, most likely to go for the change.
> 
> However, your language most definitely makes me want to be rational, like you. Sorry I was so disrespectful.


 
Yes, you would think so, but we don't know. I've read elsewhere that the young [non-university] demographic was actually strongly pro-Ahmedinjad. Are they? I have no clue. 

And c'mon Annie, man up.  That's just the way I talk!



Midnight Marauder said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > *Sigh* Ok, MM. What would YOU have said, if you were president?
> ...


 
Well, I'll admit that was actually pretty funny.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> > Statement from the President on Iran
> >
> > The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
> >
> ...


And, could have been 3-4 days earlier with it.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 20, 2009)

Ok, so yeah, he COULD'VE said so 3-4 days ago, but it was YESTERDAY that the Ayatollah made his "there will be blood" speech. Today has been the most violent day. Now is when it's heating up. Most of the week we didn't KNOW what was going to happen, maybe the Ayatollah would've reconsidered- it was yesterday we know we won't, and the people are still coming out. These things have to be taken carefully, people.

But hey, at least we're all on a somewhat similar page now. At least the same chapter.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Ok, so yeah, he COULD'VE said so 3-4 days ago, but it was YESTERDAY that the Ayatollah made his "there will be blood" speech. Today has been the most violent day. Now is when it's heating up. Most of the week we didn't KNOW what was going to happen, maybe the Ayatollah would've reconsidered- it was yesterday we know we won't, and the people are still coming out. These things have to be taken carefully, people.
> 
> But hey, at least we're all on a somewhat similar page now. At least the same chapter.


It should have come earlier. It could have been a "tear down this wall" moment for our country and for Obama. Now? It's a belated whimper.

But yeah, a tiny bit better late than never.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

> it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.


If only he would take his own words to heart....


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 20, 2009)

When you are sitting on the sidelines, it is easy to say Obama should be doing more.  He doesn't want to give the supreme leader more reason to crack down on the protesters.  If he encourages the revolt, then this is seen as a US orchstrated movement.  If he doesn't encourage them, he is called spineless my the republicans.  They can make many accusations, since their words mean very little.

Obama is measuring evey word he is saying.  Pretty much a catch 22 position he is in.  One in which he cannot win, as I see it.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> When you are sitting on the sidelines, it is easy to say Obama should be doing more.  He doesn't want to give the supreme leader more reason to crack down on the protesters.  If he encourages the revolt, then this is seen as a US orchstrated movement.  If he doesn't encourage them, he is called spineless my the republicans.  They can make many accusations, since their words mean very little.
> 
> Obama is measuring evey word he is saying.  Pretty much a catch 22 position he is in.  One in which he cannot win, as I see it.



Throwing down the statement, "with no preconditions" put him in the Catch 22 position.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > When you are sitting on the sidelines, it is easy to say Obama should be doing more.  He doesn't want to give the supreme leader more reason to crack down on the protesters.  If he encourages the revolt, then this is seen as a US orchstrated movement.  If he doesn't encourage them, he is called spineless my the republicans.  They can make many accusations, since their words mean very little.
> ...


exactly, and that is why many of us said it was a stupid thing to say back when he said it


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> When you are sitting on the sidelines, it is easy to say Obama should be doing more.  He doesn't want to give the supreme leader more reason to crack down on the protesters.  If he encourages the revolt, then this is seen as a US orchstrated movement.  If he doesn't encourage them, he is called spineless my the republicans.  They can make many accusations, since their words mean very little.
> 
> Obama is measuring evey word he is saying.  Pretty much a catch 22 position he is in.  One in which he cannot win, as I see it.


Complete baloney. The Ayatollah had already claimed the US had meddled, and has claimed we are the cause of this. And clearly, he's going to "crack down" on the protesters, needs no reason other than they are protesting. That's what a totalitarian state does.

Obama missed the point totally, until his handlers and some at least half experienced people like Biden woke him up. NOTHING Obama has said or done in any way could be construed to favor either side in this dispute. But the Ayatollah will say so anyway.

He's being criticized here at home, obviously fairly, for not trumpeting the cause of freedom early on. For making such a horribly weak statement early on. Even both houses of Congress beat him in making a strong statement, which also favored neither side. He's come across as really weak in all of this, partying in the WH while all this was going on.

There's no defending it.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jun 20, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> ...



thank you for this post.  very interesting was the reaction to it, too.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> thank you for this post.  very interesting was the reaction to it, too.


Especially Obama's response today, huh?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jun 20, 2009)

Obama read Epsilon Delta's post and posted his response on this thread, huh?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Obama read Epsilon Delta's post and posted his response on this thread, huh?


No, he did not. Read the thread. He did the exact opposite.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jun 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Obama read Epsilon Delta's post and posted his response on this thread, huh?
> ...



This is clearly an example of ill communication. I read the thread. Maybe you need to be unamerican to get it.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


You do not get it, either that or you have very poor reading comprehension. Did you read Obama's statement? How does it jive with what Epsilon's post calls for?

It doesn't.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jun 20, 2009)

maybe i really don't get it. and my reading comprehension might be poor, it is after all 5 am on a sunday morning for me. so could you please direct me to obama's statement that does not jive with epsilon delta's post.

i cannot imagine anything obama can say to have any impact on epsilon deltas post and the reaction of posters in this thread to it. deflecting and ignoring is what i am seeing.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 21, 2009)

Yeah, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what you guys are saying. 

Just to clarify: I said that what Obama did today, concemn the violence against the protesters was the right thing to do, and that there's nothing else to do really, and furthermore that I don't blame him for waiting till the Ayatollah spoke and the protests actually got real violent. *shrugs*


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 21, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> It matters not to me who they were for. It's this little matter of the physical impossibility of hand-counting 30 MILLION plus, hand written votes BY HAND in just two hours. Or even twelve.



I can see them counting them in 12 hours not two though..


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 21, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > It matters not to me who they were for. It's this little matter of the physical impossibility of hand-counting 30 MILLION plus, hand written votes BY HAND in just two hours. Or even twelve.
> ...


well, that assumes they are more competent at counting than palm beach county FL


----------



## editec (Jun 21, 2009)

Twitterers worldwide are saying all that needs be said.

The people of Iran who are out there protesting KNOW that the people who love freedom worldwide are behind them.

US *government *interference would be counter-prodductive for the protestors.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 21, 2009)

editec said:


> Twitterers worldwide are saying all that needs be said.
> 
> The people of Iran who are out there protesting KNOW that the people who love freedom worldwide are behind them.
> 
> US *government *interference would be counter-prodductive for the protestors.


as government interference usually is on just about any matter


----------



## mrafmomo (Jun 21, 2009)

agreed. where is the support? we in america need to show more support...


----------



## mrafmomo (Jun 21, 2009)

and mousavi will not do


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2009)

The criticism of Obama's response comes from what is seen as a political opportunity by the GOP.  McCain and whoever the spokespersons are for the party are trying to make inroads to counter the Democratic advantage in Washington.  I can't blame them.  The Dems have done the same thing when they are out of power.

But rationally, Obama's response has pretty much gone as far as he should go.  Perhaps he shoudl rethink his word selection to some degree.  We don't want to give the Iranian hard liners more reasons to bust heads.  The Iranian leaders are going to blame the US.  That taken for granted.  The one thing that those in the streets risking their loves do not want is for a statement to come from Obama that appears the US has interest in their cause and is somehow manipulating the movement.  It is a very sticky wicket.

Unfortunately, I think it will turn out like other movements in totalitarian states.  It will eventually disappear.  Let's hope some positive changes will come from the voices of the defiant.  I am afraid there will be much more bloodshed and death.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 22, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> ...



'Scuse me, but wasn't it you guys who were defending the "no pre-conditions" shit not so long ago? How's that workin' out for ya?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

mrafmomo said:


> agreed. where is the support? we in america need to show more support...



Yea, for Amadenijad.  Our support of his opponent is exactly what he and the Supreme Leader want.  

I'm not going to say anymore.  I want the GOP to hang themselves trying to make this an issue.

They were wrong about Nam.  They even tried to compare Iraq to Nam and suggested that the reason we lost Nam was because liberals like Kerry quit too early.   

They were wrong about Kosovo.  Clinton didn't spend a lot of time or money or American lives.  

They started the first Iraq war, imo, and didn't finish the job.  

They got hit on 9-11 and lost the Afganistan war, on purpose so they could use Blackwater/Haloburton to bankrupt the country.  

They totally fucked up by starting Iraq again, but that's how they spread our troops thin so they could privatize the war and get their oil buddies in.  Their PNAC plans are sinister and they lied to the American people.

They created and then tried to make an issue of the Georgia/Russia incident for political purposes.

Now they are hoping Obama fucks up on Iran by sticking his nose into it.

And they want another 9-11 because it will benefit them politically.  Even the CIA agrees.  

So GOP, SHUT THE FUCK UP!


----------



## jillian (Jun 22, 2009)

mrafmomo said:


> agreed. where is the support? we in america need to show more support...



more support? no... we don't need to. at least not openly. it will only give the imam's an excuse to say it's about the U.S. and Israel and not about their own internal problems.

haven't you people learned anything from the disaster your meddling caused in Iraq?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 22, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> ...


Henry Kissinger thinks President Obama is handling Iran exactly right .. so does Lugar.
It's simple minded conservatives who want to bomb, bomb, bomb .. bomb, bomb Iran.


----------



## editec (Jun 22, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...


 
Yup.

It's that conservative Walter Mitty syndrome we see so much here in places like these.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

jillian said:


> mrafmomo said:
> 
> 
> > agreed. where is the support? we in america need to show more support...
> ...



They want Obama to make a mistake.

They want Iran to be the enemy.  Just look at how hard Bush tried diplomacy.

And no matter what Obama does, they'll say he fucked up.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > mrafmomo said:
> ...


doesnt matter what we want, Obama is making enough mistakes all his own
if you got your head out of his ass for a change you MIGHT see it

now, because of his first mistake in stating no preconditions, anything he said now that was contradictory to that would be meaningless
that said, he has already made the mistake before this event ever happened, and since that was already in place, he couldnt really do anything more than he is doing right now


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




Yada Yada Yada...


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


another head up obama's ass chimes in


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



yada yada  yada


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


you're so far up Obama's ass you likely can kiss his tonsils


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2009)

so say the Bush sheep...


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> so say the Bush sheep...


LOL
wrong again, numbnuts


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 22, 2009)

jillian said:


> mrafmomo said:
> 
> 
> > agreed. where is the support? we in america need to show more support...
> ...



Ummm.... Why is it "you people" and "your meddling", Jillian? Would you care to take a walk down memory lane with me, cuz as I recall it was "us people" and "our meddling" if you insist on calling it meddling.


----------



## jillian (Jun 22, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > mrafmomo said:
> ...



not mine... i thought they had no business going into iraq then. so i don't have or take any responsibility for bush's war of choice.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 22, 2009)

jillian said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




Ahhh yes.... I get it now. You feel can disengage yourself from it because you personally did not agree and can absolve yourself from responsibility on that basis. I suppose I could attempt such a argument/position with regard to Obama's foolishness, but somehow I suspect that you would have a problem with that and insist that "we the people" have spoken and support his actions/policies and, therefore, we are all in this together. Am I warm?


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2009)

Think Progress » Kissinger: Obama is handling the situation in Iran well.

Kissinger seems to feel Obama is handing the crisis well.  Or is that a typo?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 


JimH52 said:


> Think Progress » Kissinger: Obama is handling the situation in Iran well.
> 
> Kissinger seems to feel Obama is handing the crisis well. Or is that a typo?


 which is basically the same thing i said


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2009)

> doesnt matter what we want, Obama is making enough mistakes all his own
> if you got your head out of his ass for a change you MIGHT see it



Okay, can you point out where Henry said this?  I am afraid I couldn't find it.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jun 22, 2009)

Much as I dislike the 0ne, he is trying to thread a very difficult needle here.  We need to make clear that our interest here is that of common humanity.    To be perceived as tools of the US is very bad for the opposition there.  It is a claim that the mullahs are making anyway.

I personally resent it when other countries lecture us on how to run our affairs.  I assume the average Iranian feels the same way.    So 0bama has a clue.   I don't know if he knows what to do with it though.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> > doesnt matter what we want, Obama is making enough mistakes all his own
> > if you got your head out of his ass for a change you MIGHT see it
> 
> 
> ...


of course you would focus on the nonrelevant part


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2009)

..and I am also out of breath...Good Night


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 22, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Ahhh yes.... I get it now. You feel can disengage yourself from it because you personally did not agree and can absolve yourself from responsibility on that basis. I suppose I could attempt such a argument/position with regard to Obama's foolishness, but somehow I suspect that you would have a problem with that and insist that "we the people" have spoken and support his actions/policies and, therefore, we are all in this together. Am I warm?



To your last question? No, not even close..


----------



## jillian (Jun 22, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Ahhh yes.... I get it now. You feel can disengage yourself from it because you personally did not agree and can absolve yourself from responsibility on that basis. I suppose I could attempt such a argument/position with regard to Obama's foolishness, but somehow I suspect that you would have a problem with that and insist that "we the people" have spoken and support his actions/policies and, therefore, we are all in this together. Am I warm?



why would i expect you to take responsiblity for something you abhor? and why should i take responsibility for something I thought was ignorant and based on a lie?


----------



## editec (Jun 23, 2009)

> "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
> 
> 
> As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
> ...


 
_President Barack Obama_​ 
Of course it doesn't have the diplomatic zing that this highly nuanced McCain statement on Iran has:

*Bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb Iran*​ 
But hey, what can I say?​ 
Those of you who voted for John McCain will just have to accept that instad of having a cowboy in the oval office, the USA is currently being run by the grownups.​ 
Maybe in 2012, you dunderheaded nitwits will get to put another freakin' moron in office like we've had for the last 8 years, and he'll get our nation involved in a _*THIRD land war in Asia.*_​


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 23, 2009)

jillian said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh yes.... I get it now. You feel can disengage yourself from it because you personally did not agree and can absolve yourself from responsibility on that basis. I suppose I could attempt such a argument/position with regard to Obama's foolishness, but somehow I suspect that you would have a problem with that and insist that "we the people" have spoken and support his actions/policies and, therefore, we are all in this together. Am I warm?
> ...



Ohhhh great! Then you're not a hypocrite. Now then, answer me this. Were you, or were you not, in that previous post, referring to Republicans/Conservatives/Righties when you said



jillian said:


> haven't you people learned anything from the disaster your meddling caused in Iraq?



which led to



ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Ummm.... Why is it "you people" and "your meddling", Jillian? Would you care to take a walk down memory lane with me, cuz as I recall it was "us people" and "our meddling" if you insist on calling it meddling.



followed by your selective disengagement from resonsibility?


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 23, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh yes.... I get it now. You feel can disengage yourself from it because you personally did not agree and can absolve yourself from responsibility on that basis. I suppose I could attempt such a argument/position with regard to Obama's foolishness, but somehow I suspect that you would have a problem with that and insist that "we the people" have spoken and support his actions/policies and, therefore, we are all in this together. Am I warm?
> ...




Do you see more than one question? If so, please point it/them out.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2009)

editec said:


> > "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
> >
> >
> > As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
> ...


come on ed, you are smarter than that
you know full well that that was a joke response to a specific question


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 23, 2009)

I think we have addressed the title of this thread and proven it false.  obama does know what he is doing in Iran.  Even the Saintly Kenry K. said so.  So, on to the next issue...


----------



## Annie (Jun 23, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I think we have addressed the title of this thread and proven it false.  obama does know what he is doing in Iran.  Even the Saintly Kenry K. said so.  So, on to the next issue...



So why did he condemn the mullahs today?


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 23, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> 
> Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.
> 
> ...



So you disagree with Henry K?  Have you been reading posts or did you just step off the frigin boat?  Try a different method of attack please.  This is getting old and obsolete.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> ...


uh, jim, did you happen to notice that was the first post in this thread?


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 23, 2009)

been a long day...


----------



## Annie (Jun 23, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> been a long day...



Uh huh, so were the past 8 years.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 23, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> ...


For referring to the Supreme Leader? That's the man's title and he has been referred to as that by numerous Republicans as well. McCain called him Supreme Leader on the same day, Richard Lugar called him Supreme Leader four times in one hearing, and Wm. Kristol called him Supreme Leader in an article.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 23, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> I think we have addressed the title of this thread and proven it false.  obama does know what he is doing in Iran.  Even the Saintly Kenry K. said so.  So, on to the next issue...



On Iran, Obama tiptoes
between outrage, diplomacy
Analysis: Fear of being used by Tehran is reflected in president's hands-off, hands-on policy. Full story
Analysis: Obama's firmer fine line on Iran - Iran- msnbc.com

Yes.... That really has the appearance of knowing what he is doing.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 23, 2009)

"pitch perfect"

Clerics join Iran's anti-government protests - CNN.com

the situation is being handled well


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 23, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> "pitch perfect"
> 
> Clerics join Iran's anti-government protests - CNN.com
> 
> the situation is being handled well




I'm *sure* you can point out the relevance to
"obama does know what he is doing in Iran. Even the Saintly Kenry K. said so."


----------



## oreo (Jun 23, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> ...



It's not about Ahmandinejad either.  He has no power--he is just a puppet for the Iranian Supreme Leader--who was appointed by whomever?  I really don't know why they even have elections in Iran--the Supreme Leader is not elected by the people--yet he has total control over the military & the President.

Obama wants to meet with these guys?  The 25 page letter that Bush received from Ahmenjenadad was full of religious ramblings--& nothing to do with nuclear weapons or power.   I imagine Obama will meet the same fate.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...


uh, moron, thats the title of the actual leader of Iran
*Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei* 

Ayatullah Ali Khamenei: Iran's Supreme Leader - TIME


----------



## Annie (Jun 23, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> been a long day...



Indeed, if you are an Obamabot. He pulled the rug out from the 'he's hitting the right note.'


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Congratulations, you got something right.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 24, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


yeah, i got that whole post right, didnt i?


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 24, 2009)

As far as I am concerned, this thread title has been disproven.  Obama is not perfect, but he sure surely is not a screaming fanatic who will make stupid statements or cook up facts to justify taking military actions.  On to the next deceptive argument.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jun 24, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> As far as I am concerned, this thread title has been disproven.  Obama is not perfect, but he sure surely is not a screaming fanatic who will make stupid statements or cook up facts to justify taking military actions.  On to the next deceptive argument.




Only in your mind has "clueless" been disproven, which could be because your mind is closed to evidence presented to the contrary.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> 
> Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.
> 
> ...



What do you suggest Sinatra?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You are so anti American and full of shit you should join the Bolsheviks.  

I just love how you righties are all over Obama for everything.  You guys blame him for everything and accuse him of being wrong on EVERYTHING and you have been consistently wrong.  But you hope eventually something will stick.  Hell, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.  

This is the same thing you did to Bill Clinton.  And I know you think we too did it to GW, but we, or at least I, only complained when I truly disapproved of what he was doing.  And I complain when the Dems screw us too. 

You are pathetic.  You and the moron who started this thread.  Notice he isn't involved in the debate?  He just posted his nonsense, that he heard on Rush, and boy did it sucker you in.  

Now tell us what you would do with Iran.  I bet you would suck Dick Morris' cock if he asked you to.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 24, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Our president grovels at the feet of Iran's "Supreme Leader".
> 
> Obama's arrogance has emboldened the Iranian religious extremists who do no fear anything from this boy king of ours.
> 
> ...



Notice Sinatra posted this bullshit and then hasn't commented yet?  How many pages?  7?  

Is this what they mean by trolling?  He just posted some bullshit and then moved on.  Proves he doesn't really believe what he's saying.  

What a **** Sinatra is.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


again with the homosexual attacks
you must have issues with that


----------

