Iranians Shrug Off Obama - America Soon To Follow?

[Bfgrn]

Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...

 

[Sinatra]

It has everything to do with the Huntington Post. The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies. they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement. So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference. dumb fuck.

Hey Sinatra...you post an op-ed piece, then provide a link to "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote" from the NY Time > World > Middle East section...

You don't identify the name of the author and a search using your title and numerous sentences from your article yield ZERO results...

Please provide a valid link...

That OP-ED piece was mine....

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...

My friend Jim says otherwise...

American Thinker: JFK, neo-con.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey Sinatra...you post an op-ed piece, then provide a link to "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote" from the NY Time > World > Middle East section...

You don't identify the name of the author and a search using your title and numerous sentences from your article yield ZERO results...

Please provide a valid link...

That OP-ED piece was mine....

WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...

Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...

 

[Sinatra]

Hey Sinatra...you post an op-ed piece, then provide a link to "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote" from the NY Time > World > Middle East section...

You don't identify the name of the author and a search using your title and numerous sentences from your article yield ZERO results...

Please provide a valid link...

That OP-ED piece was mine....

WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...

Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...

I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...

The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...

 

[Bfgrn]

Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...

My friend Jim says otherwise...

American Thinker: JFK, neo-con.

You need new friends...Jim is a pea brain...

REAL neocons like Richard Perle heard ONLY the soaring rhetoric that supported THEIR radical hawkish views in JFK's Inaugural Address...but totally ignored Jack Kennedy's qualifiers and they missed his REAL message...

Neocons heard:
"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

What they FAILED to hear is:

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet.

But let us begin. (Emphasis added)



Tell your pea brain friends that neocons NEVER talk like that...

 

[elvis]

Yeah, sinatra, anybody that doesn't bow down to Obama and kennedy is a pea brain.

 

[auditor0007]

no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck. We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.

Actually a number of right-wingers were rooting for Ahmadinejad, sadly enough.

How the fuck would you know you know, dumb ass??? Tell me how do you know??? Bet you can't put any names out there, and your just spewing you far right wingnut opinion.

I don't think there are many who support Ahmadimiwhit.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...

My friend Jim says otherwise...

American Thinker: JFK, neo-con.

You need new friends...Jim is a pea brain...

REAL neocons like Richard Perle heard ONLY the soaring rhetoric that supported THEIR radical hawkish views in JFK's Inaugural Address...but totally ignored Jack Kennedy's qualifiers and they missed his REAL message...

Neocons heard:
"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

What they FAILED to hear is:

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet.

But let us begin. (Emphasis added)



Tell your pea brain friends that neocons NEVER talk like that...

Sorry, but the JFK Neocon link has been discussed by many other sources, and is a quite credible premise.

Within this column, you see reference to the LA Times column declaring JFK the first ever NEOCON president.

Glen's Blog: JFK, The Father Of the NeoConservative Movement

And yet another interesting discussion of JFK's Neoconism...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1967059/posts

 

[Bfgrn]

That OP-ED piece was mine....

WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...

Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...

I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...

The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...

Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran

You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!

 

[elvis]

WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...

Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...

I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...

The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...

Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran

You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!

Are you always this stupid or is today a special occasion?

 

[Sinatra]

WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...

Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...

I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...

The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...

Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran

You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!

Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.

Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...

 

[Agnapostate]

Actually, Kennedy's actions went beyond traditional neoconservatism in that his campaign towards Cuba could legitimately be described as state terrorism. That's generally the basis behind the more radical and interventionist elements of the neoconservative agenda, but it's actually surprising how many are unfamiliar with that legacy.

 

[Sinatra]

As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.

The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.

What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.

The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.

What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.

Obama failed - BIG TIME.

So its your position that the Iranian election was free and fair?

No - a few appear to be missing the point.

There were those in the media, and in this very forum, announcing some silly "Obama effect" - or "Cairo Effect"...in essence, declaring that Obama made a speech that would alter the Middle East. It was clear these figures believed that the Iran election outcome would be different than they actually were.

The fact the Obama administration timed his speech right before the elections, show they too were "believing their own press" as it were - a sign of both arrogance and naivete that are clear and present dangers to our own security.

This president and this White House are floundering - both domestically and abroad.

Either they grow up fast and realize the world is a far more complicated place that cannot be altered by further telepromtings, or we are in for some potentially serious hurt.

The Obama administration's gamble that the Iranian elections were going to be different - instead mirroring the lofty teleprompted rhetoric of his Cairo speech, was a failure.

The Iran elections are directly linked to the Obama adminstration's current inability to accept that words are not action - that action is difficult, while words are easy.

Obama failed.

It is my sincere hope he does not continue to do so - but I am not optimistic in that regard.

 

[DiveCon]

I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...

The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...

Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran

You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!

Are you always this stupid or is today a special occasion?

so far, i'd say always

 

[Gunny]

I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.

It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration. They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.

So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes. The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.

And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.

The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty. The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script. The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.

And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.

The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.

Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp

Oy. Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.

Another mindless leftbot troll who can't address the topic with anything more than a deflection.

 

[Sinatra]

Actually, Kennedy's actions went beyond traditional neoconservatism in that his campaign towards Cuba could legitimately be described as state terrorism. That's generally the basis behind the more radical and interventionist elements of the neoconservative agenda, but it's actually surprising how many are unfamiliar with that legacy.

I am repeatedly surprised as well - so many in here throw out "neoconservative" without any real understanding of the historical context of that term.

But alas, perhaps some are being educated this very moment!

 

[DiveCon]

I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...

The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...

Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran

You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!

Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.

Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...

of course, if you hadn't provided a link to anything, they would have just dismissed it off hand

 

[Sinatra]

Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran

You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!

Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.

Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...

of course, if you hadn't provided a link to anything, they would have just dismissed it off hand

True enough - and the fact I started off my comments by referencing this forum, and yet they assumed it was a NY Times column, well....that kind of stupid is too easy to mock, and so, I shall let it pass...

 

[DiveCon]

Actually, Kennedy's actions went beyond traditional neoconservatism in that his campaign towards Cuba could legitimately be described as state terrorism. That's generally the basis behind the more radical and interventionist elements of the neoconservative agenda, but it's actually surprising how many are unfamiliar with that legacy.

wow, well stated
i dont agree that it went to terrorism, but otherwise, i agree