Iran blames U.S. for meddling

[ksdb]

Obama made it a point not to look like he's meddling in Iran's affairs, but evidently that's not enough ... and damn it all to hell ... meddling must be the worst thing a person can do. They're really, really mad and look who they're mad at.



Iran TV Accuses U.S. of 'Intolerable' Meddling as Protesters Hit the Streets Again

Iran Warns Internet Posters, State TV Blames Foreign Media for Unrest

- - -

ALso todaty Iranian TV accused the United States of "intolerable meddling in its internal affairs, The Associated Press reported.

Iranian state television, blamed the foreign media for the unrest in the country, even as two senior opposition leaders were arrested here today.

The statement echoes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim over the weekend that the foreign media is engaged in psychological warfare against the Iranian people. Wednesday the government barred foreign media from attending and reporting on demos organized by supporters of Mousavi.

link to full story (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7858575&page=1)

[geauxtohell]

Is this honestly surprising to anyone? This is the nation that has referred to us as "The Great Satan".

[SFC(R)L]

they're

N U T S

[gb2004]

America sucks......haven't you heard? Everything is our fault.:whistle:

And of course, by extension it must be Booooooosh's fault.

[ksdb]

America sucks......haven't you heard? Everything is our fault.:whistle:

And of course, by extension it must be Booooooosh's fault.

It has to be since Obama is to scared to do anything.

[ModerateVoice]

Imagine that! Well, isn't that a "fine how do you do" after Obama just gave them the blessing to build nukes.

[freethinkeratl]

How long till our POTUS appologizes ?


Iran has meddled with Palestine & Iraq and they are mad at us for covering the events. Iran has funded and trained palastinian terrorists and they complain!! Iran has equiped iraqi terrorists and they complain !!

[gb2004]

Imagine that! Well, isn't that a "fine how do you do" after Obama just gave them the blessing to build nukes.

Indeed. What's wrong with those people? Don't they know the Great One wants to be their friend?

[harumph]

I guess Obama was spot-on with the meddling line. Should he send them some money, or something? Is there any way they can use it to shut their people up? They keep communicating with the outside world and it's getting on my nerves.

[ka2008]

Lets see now....... O said he didn't want to meddle...now Iran accuses of meddling....Hmmm...somewhere in here I can see O coming up with a TV Czar..or a Reporter/Journalist Czar...JUST so that other countries can never accuse us of meddling....Now that would ultimately be to O's advantage to be the Czar over all communications coming in or going out...Hmm...

[ModerateVoice]

Lets see now....... O said he didn't want to meddle...now Iran accuses of meddling....Hmmm...somewhere in here I can see O coming up with a TV Czar..or a Reporter/Journalist Czar...JUST so that other countries can never accuse us of meddling....Now that would ultimately be to O's advantage to be the Czar over all communications coming in or going out...Hmm...

Shhh...don't give Obama any ideas. I get a sense that the media Czar is right around the corner..

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Now you see why I thought a public statement by Obama was a bad idea.

And so far, he's resisting the domestic pressure to say something.

[LibertyinAtl]

Now you see why I thought a public statement by Obama was a bad idea.

And so far, he's resisting the domestic pressure to say something.
They are blaming us anyway...He should stand up for what he stands for. Free elections,
free markets,freedom of speech...unless of course he has any trouble with any of those things...

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

They are blaming us anyway...He should stand up for what he stands for. Free elections,
free markets,freedom of speech...unless of course he has any trouble with any of those things...

Yeah, you should definitely give the hardliners a statement that they can spin to mean the opposition is being funded or organized by America.

[LibertyinAtl]

Yeah, you should definitely give the hardliners a statement that they can spin to mean the opposition is being funded or organized by America.
They will do it anyway...That's the whole point...You might as well stand on at least what you believe in...

[freethinkeratl]

Tommy is right. All we should be doing is allow the messages comming out to grow wings. If Iran is ready the people will effect the change. If it turns into a civil war rather than a series of protests than we can decide if its a right time to help. Until then you can only hope that the casualties are kept to a minimum.

[LibertyinAtl]

Tommy is right. All we should be doing is allow the messages comming out to grow wings. If Iran is ready the people will effect the change. If it turns into a civil war rather than a series of protests than we can decide if its a right time to help. Until then you can only hope that the casualties are kept to a minimum.
Theocratic thugs will quell the uprising and then quell the population...
That is how it works...

[DarkStarrRingo]

Obama made it a point not to look like he's meddling in Iran's affairs, but evidently that's not enough ... and damn it all to hell ... meddling must be the worst thing a person can do. They're really, really mad and look who they're mad at.

But... but.... I thought there was to be nothing but love in the air of the Middle East following his BRILLIANT speech in Cairo ....

[B' en Natuf]

Just more of that "smarter foriegn policy" Obviously Obama meant to telegraph to his buddy what excuse might work for him.

[tnt]

Let me get this straight - Iran is blaming our country and our president for something we and he did not do.

And posters here in Hannity land take that as an opportunity to slam President Obama.

Who's side are you guys on?

[DarkStarrRingo]

Who's side are you guys on?

I wondered the same thing during eight years of Bush when Iranians and Liberals slammed Bush on a daily basis.

[LibertyinAtl]

Let me get this straight - Iran is blaming our country and our president for something we and he did not do.

And posters here in Hannity land take that as an opportunity to slam President Obama.

Who's side are you guys on?
We are just saying that by taking a weak stance on the situation that O has accomplished nothing...

[B' en Natuf]

Yeah, you should definitely give the hardliners a statement that they can spin to mean the opposition is being funded or organized by America.Laughable liberals think lunatic leaders need us to say someting to spin it that way... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

yur funnie

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

We are just saying that by taking a weak stance on the situation that O has accomplished nothing...

What exactly do you think a statement supporting the opposition will accomplish?

[LibertyinAtl]

What exactly do you think a statement supporting the opposition will accomplish?
He should of made a general statement about free elections and free speech. That's all...That is the real
travesty of the situation anyway...

[PSBandit]

Awww BHO is being so verbally abused by Iran. I am gonna cry. :))

BHO tried to be friendly and they still hate him.

PHOTO: BHO Foreign Policy.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/museum/flash/hindenburg.jpg

Oh the humanity.... :whistle:

[harumph]

As long as Obama can hang his hat on the outcome, this is going as expected.
However, if it takes a nasty turn and Ahmadinnerjacket is found to be guilty of malfeasance, a different tack may need to be implemented. As it stands, it's best to come in after the fact and take credit for all things positive regarding the outcome.

I mean, the last thing Obama wants to do is throw out all his dinner plans with the guy. I bet he has his pizza guy from St. Louis poised and ready for the little flight over to Tehran. That would suck if he had to cancel that bad boy.

[B' en Natuf]

Let me get this straight - Iran is blaming our country and our president for something we and he did not do.

And posters here in Hannity land take that as an opportunity to slam President Obama.

Who's side are you guys on?Let me get ths straight, you actually don't realize that it makes absolutely no difference what Iran said we said... or did? Now is our chance to maximize damage to an enemy regime... we should be taking it. What had Obama done?

1. Declared Iran "soveriegn" (as if anybody is denying that), lending the imprometuer of his word to the "powers that be"... otherwise nown as "soveriegns"
2. For all practicle purposes told the protesters that they were on their own, which basically is telling them to stop meddling with his plans.
3. Affirmed his intention to meet with a discreditted leader... therby lending him credibility
4. Affirmed that the "supreme leader" is in control, which basically just told the protesters to surrender to the rightful authority.
5. Lauded the gaurdian council for saying they would "look into it"... when everybody knows its there "looking into it" that is the source of the problem.

Saying nothing would NOT have been good... but it would have been better than what he did say. Fauxbama is a fool and our FP is in shambles. Everything this idiot has attampted has so far been a complete failure. But hey...

Apu Kabar!!!

[Guvnah]

Theocratic thugs will quell the uprising and then quell the population...
That is how it works...

I think this has grown bigger than the government can handle without outright massacre. Maybe it will come to that... But I think the people have a stronger foothold than the government anticipates.

I would not be surprised to see this result in a toppling of the Iranian government.

Where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

[Dregun]

Actually you could look at it in a different way...*clears throat*..ahem

Iranians (the people) now realize that the United States is not a "enemy" or "satan" because our President has made changes to our foriegn policy. The United States wants peace with Iran, the citizens have come to the conclusion that the United States (as a whole) isn't so bad after all. The Iranians do not want the nut case who spews hate to be their President anymore and are outraged that the election seems to be fixed. A leader was elected because he promised to stand up to the evil opressor (USA) the Iranian people feared the United States and that is why he was elected. Now they want "Change" and they are now showing in masse that they are serious about it.

I say Victory for Iran (no matter the outcome) because it shows that the people want change and that ruling by hate is no longer welcomed.

Thats just my spin on it :razz:

[tnt]

We are just saying that by taking a weak stance on the situation that O has accomplished nothing...


1) If that's you point - that's fine.

2) What should he do? You do realize the guy that won the election won't be much differnt than the nut job Acmadenijade...whatever....right?

I think it would be a huge mistake to use political clout to back that horse - if he gains power, we could well be in the ackward position of having supported some one who hates us as much as the alst guy.

[Miss America]

The Obama administration, while insisting it is not meddling in Iran, yesterday confirmed it had asked Twitter to remain open to help anti-government protesters.

The company had planned a temporary shutdown to overhaul its service in the middle of the night on Monday but the US state department put in a request to postpone this.

Many protesters have being using Twitter to spread information about rallies and to share news.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/17/obama-iran-twitter

This is probably what they mean..

[LibertyinAtl]

I think this has grown bigger than the government can handle without outright massacre. Maybe it will come to that... But I think the people have a stronger foothold than the government anticipates.

I would not be surprised to see this result in a toppling of the Iranian government.

Where it goes from there is anyone's guess.
Well I hope your right...
I would hate to see a bunch of innocent Iranians killed for speaking out against the theocratic government. Like wise I would hate to see the US do nothing if the later actually happens...

[tnt]

Let me get ths straight, you actually don't realize that it makes absolutely no difference what Iran said we said... or did? Now is our chance to maximize damage to an enemy regime... we should be taking it. What had Obama done?

1. Declared Iran "soveriegn" (as if anybody is denying that), lending the imprometuer of his word to the "powers that be"... otherwise nown as "soveriegns"
2. For all practicle purposes told the protesters that they were on their own, which basically is telling them to stop meddling with his plans.
3. Affirmed his intention to meet with a discreditted leader... therby lending him credibility
4. Affirmed that the "supreme leader" is in control, which basically just told the protesters to surrender to the rightful authority.
5. Lauded the gaurdian council for saying they would "look into it"... when everybody knows its there "looking into it" that is the source of the problem.

Saying nothing would NOT have been good... but it would have been better than what he did say. Fauxbama is a fool and our FP is in shambles. Everything this idiot has attampted has so far been a complete failure. But hey...

Apu Kabar!!!


Either an idiot who hates america and cheated on the election wins or an idiot who hates america and won the election fair and square assumes power.

How does it benifit us to back either horse?

[LibertyinAtl]

1) If that's you point - that's fine.

2) What should he do? You do realize the guy that won the election won't be much differnt than the nut job Acmadenijade...whatever....right?

I think it would be a huge mistake to use political clout to back that horse - if he gains power, we could well be in the ackward position of having supported some one who hates us as much as the alst guy.
No we should back no one...We should however show how all Americans feel about free elections and free speech...

[B' en Natuf]

Actually you could look at it in a different way...*clears throat*..ahem

Iranians (the people) now realize that the United States is not a "enemy" or "satan" because our President has made changes to our foriegn policy. The United States wants peace with Iran, the citizens have come to the conclusion that the United States (as a whole) isn't so bad after all. The Iranians do not want the nut case who spews hate to be their President anymore and are outraged that the election seems to be fixed. A leader was elected because he promised to stand up to the evil opressor (USA) the Iranian people feared the United States and that is why he was elected. Now they want "Change" and they are now showing in masse that they are serious about it.

I say Victory for Iran (no matter the outcome) because it shows that the people want change and that ruling by hate is no longer welcomed.

Thats just my spin on it :razz:Given Obama's so far supportive statements to the regime find it absolutley fanciful that anyone would lay the good thing thats happening in Iran at Obama's feet (which is why the Obamatons will). It is much more a result of having a DEMOCRACY right next door they can look too than anything Obama has done or "is". You guys actually seem to think some kind of magical micacle power accompanies this idiot. Now I'm not saying Bush had anything to do with it either, but reforming the ME by instituting a democracy at its heart was HIS idea. It is FREEDOM which is driving the protesters, that and nothing more.

[tnt]

No we should back no one...We should however show how all Americans feel about free elections and free speech...

How?

[LibertyinAtl]

How?
O has hundreds of speech writers...He should have had a better speech prepared expounding upon that all Americans support free elections and that by pulling press quells free speech.

[B' en Natuf]

Either an idiot who hates america and cheated on the election wins or an idiot who hates america and won the election fair and square assumes power.

How does it benifit us to back either horse?Who said to back any horse? Back FREEDOM!!!!

Obama should simly state the the US stands behind free and fair elections and that we will not be talking to anyone in Iran until a legitimate government is bought forward. Bu doing this he will...

1. Be able to back away from his stupid promise to talk without precndition and restore to us a BIG bargaining chip.
2. Help to weaken at least and destabilize at most an enemy regime.
3. Let Iran be kept busy with Iran for a while... instead of meddling in our business.

If he couples this with quiet and covert actions to strengthen reformists....

[harumph]

Actually you could look at it in a different way...*clears throat*..ahem

Iranians (the people) now realize that the United States is not a "enemy" or "satan" because our President has made changes to our foriegn policy. The United States wants peace with Iran, the citizens have come to the conclusion that the United States (as a whole) isn't so bad after all. The Iranians do not want the nut case who spews hate to be their President anymore and are outraged that the election seems to be fixed. A leader was elected because he promised to stand up to the evil opressor (USA) the Iranian people feared the United States and that is why he was elected. Now they want "Change" and they are now showing in masse that they are serious about it.

I say Victory for Iran (no matter the outcome) because it shows that the people want change and that ruling by hate is no longer welcomed.

Thats just my spin on it :razz:

I think it's profoundly naïve to believe that the Iranians are now looking at us differently because a fellow Muslim from the west befriended them. Most Persians do NOT hate the US. They may envy us, but they are not stupid. I'm tired of hearing everyone blame Bush (I'm not saying you have) for Iran's hatred of the west. As you can see, their leaders STILL spew hate against the west. This thing has been brewing long before Obama came along with his little kissy moo-moo tour.

That's my spin. :razz:

[B' en Natuf]

1) If that's you point - that's fine.

2) What should he do? You do realize the guy that won the election won't be much differnt than the nut job Acmadenijade...whatever....right?

I think it would be a huge mistake to use political clout to back that horse - if he gains power, we could well be in the ackward position of having supported some one who hates us as much as the alst guy.I'm not saying we should, but if our actions on behalf of the freedom loving people in Iran propel him to power he will never the less "owe" us something... and know it.

[Buschb]

Actually you could look at it in a different way...*clears throat*..ahem

Iranians (the people) now realize that the United States is not a "enemy" or "satan" because our President has made changes to our foriegn policy. The United States wants peace with Iran, the citizens have come to the conclusion that the United States (as a whole) isn't so bad after all. The Iranians do not want the nut case who spews hate to be their President anymore and are outraged that the election seems to be fixed. A leader was elected because he promised to stand up to the evil opressor (USA) the Iranian people feared the United States and that is why he was elected. Now they want "Change" and they are now showing in masse that they are serious about it.

I say Victory for Iran (no matter the outcome) because it shows that the people want change and that ruling by hate is no longer welcomed.

Thats just my spin on it :razz:

amen....

Here is a great article...and there is also a great video on the page

The Kid at the State Department Who Figured Out the Iranians Should Be Allowed to Keep Tweeting

Cohen was only 24 when he was hired into the Policy Planning Staff back in 2006. He'd received an undergraduate degree from Stanford and a master's degree from Oxford, where he'd been on a Rhodes Scholarship. Oh, and he'd also talked his way into a visa for Iran (according to a December 2007 New Yorker profile), where he met young people his own age who threw underground house parties and made alcohol in bathtubs.

"Iranian young people are one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East," Cohen told the New Yorker. "They just don't know who to gravitate around, so young people gravitate around each other."

http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/twitter/profile_the_kid_at_the_state_department_who_figure d_out_the_iranians_should_be_allowed_to_keep_tweet ing_119136.asp

[tnt]

I'm not saying we should, but if our actions on behalf of the freedom loving people in Iran propel him to power he will never the less "owe" us something... and know it.

Much like SH "owed" us for supporting him in his war against Iran?

I see a statement supporting free elections. Anything more specific is a mistake IMO.

[Miss America]

lot's of activity on twitter...I don't know if you can see this if you're not a member, but, it is very interesting:

http://twitter.com/persianq

[LibertyinAtl]

Much like SH "owed" us for supporting him in his war against Iran?

I see a statement supporting free elections. Anything more specific is a mistake IMO.
Add free press and I'm with you

[VCaddy05]

u think obama will apologize for meddling too much by not meddling.

[ksdb]

My guess is that Obama, who said only months ago he was going to talk tough to Iran, wants Iran to meltdown into total anarchy. Maybe he'll have our military swoop in later to try to take control.

[Miss America]

"RT @BarackObama President Obama, please wear a green tie this week in support of the Iranian people #weargreen #iranelection11:59 PM Jun 15th from web"

found this on an Iranian twitter post.

[Buschb]

lot's of activity on twitter...I don't know if you can see this if you're not a member, but, it is very interesting:

http://twitter.com/persianq

Thank you...I am following 4 right now...up on a grid..
http://tweetgrid.com/grid?l=13&q1=%23iranelection&q2=+iran09+&q3=persiankiwi&q4=StopAhmadi+&q5=&q6=&q7=&q8=&q9=&q10=


If you do have a Twitter account...change your location and time zone to Tehran

[LibertyinAtl]

My guess is that Obama, who said only months ago he was going to talk tough to Iran, wants Iran to meltdown into total anarchy. Maybe he'll have our military swoop in later to try to take control.
LOL:))
Obama and any new military action....
That is a riot...

[B' en Natuf]

Much like SH "owed" us for supporting him in his war against Iran?

I see a statement supporting free elections. Anything more specific is a mistake IMO.Nothing more than the statement I mentioned...

"The US stands behind free and fair elections and will not treat with any authority in Iran until a egitimate government is bought forward... whichever form it may take"

Anyrhing else should be covert, quiet, untraceable, and designed only to subvert the regime of the MULLAH's. Niether of these clowns matter. The President could also say that as the leader of the US when he does meet with his Iranian counterpart it should be the REAL counterpart, not some ventriloquist dummy.

Also we supported BOTH Iraq and Iran and they both knew it.

[bloods vs crips]

Well I hope your right...
I would hate to see a bunch of innocent Iranians killed for speaking out against the theocratic government. Like wise I would hate to see the US do nothing if the later actually happens...

you're assuming the replacement is a better choice for our interests

[Conan]

Obama doesn't have the balls to wear a green tie.

[ksdb]

LOL:))
Obama and any new military action....
That is a riot...
It's going to happen somewhere, sometime ...count on it.

[LibertyinAtl]

you're assuming the replacement is a better choice for our interests
I just said I hoped he was right...
I think the theocratic government stays in control no matter what...

[ChaosControl]

Iran sucks.

[bloods vs crips]

Obama doesn't have the balls to wear a green tie.

that would be a terrible decision

[B' en Natuf]

you're assuming the replacement is a better choice for our interestsActually we're assuming that any destablization of the regime is in our interest... and it is!!! It doesn't matter who wins this, it only matters that it continue.

[B' en Natuf]

that would be a terrible decisionIt would be a great idea. Especially if he wore it while saying that even if nutjob does prevail in the "election dispute" he "thinks" they could still make progress!!! Something for everybody.. keep the turmoil on boil.

[bloods vs crips]

Actually we're assuming that any destablization of the regime is in our interest... and it is!!! It doesn't matter who wins this, it only matters that it continue.

all Presidential candidates have to be supported by Khamenei. If Mousavi was to win, it in no way indicates "destabilization."

[bloods vs crips]

It would be a great idea. Especially if he wore it while saying that even if nutjob does prevail in the "election dispute" he "thinks" they could still make progress!!! Something for everybody.. keep the turmoil on boil.

that's just ridiculous.

[B' en Natuf]

that's just ridiculous.Destablizing the Iranin regime is rediculous? We should be doing any and every thing we can (diniably) to insure this situation continues as long as possible... and then some.

[tnt]

It would be a great idea. Especially if he wore it while saying that even if nutjob does prevail in the "election dispute" he "thinks" they could still make progress!!! Something for everybody.. keep the turmoil on boil.

Yeah....I'm not sure he should wear the tie, but I think you have the right idea.

No matter who wins this election, the Supreme King of the Moutain is still in charge over there. And all the candidates running were approved by him.

So largely, one nut job is interchangable with the next.

But what is important is that the people of Iran are in some how empowered.

Now, you know, THAT TOO might end up being net bad for us...the people of Iran might decide to vote in a presidnet who hates us even more! But that's the why the cookie crumbles.

It's like us destroying a secular tyrant and empowering the people of Iraq, only to see them vote in a Muslim based govt, with a state religion...

[Miss America]

Thank you...I am following 4 right now...up on a grid..
http://tweetgrid.com/grid?l=13&q1=%23iranelection&q2=+iran09+&q3=persiankiwi&q4=StopAhmadi+&q5=&q6=&q7=&q8=&q9=&q10=


If you do have a Twitter account...change your location and time zone to Tehran

Looks like some of these folks are getting pretty angry at the way their Government is trying to shut down their ability to communicate...

[harumph]

It would be a great idea. Especially if he wore it while saying that even if nutjob does prevail in the "election dispute" he "thinks" they could still make progress!!! Something for everybody.. keep the turmoil on boil.

The risk is, because Obama is neck deep in domestic excrement, he may try to wag the dog with this conflict, while ramrodding his healthcare disaster through right under our noses.

[B' en Natuf]

all Presidential candidates have to be supported by Khamenei. If Mousavi was to win, it in no way indicates "destabilization."If your incapable of thinking beyond the headlines maybe.

Destablizing the regime destablizes Khamenei.

Nutjob was his candidate and the other nutjob was his sacrificial lamb. The lamb bit and now Khamenei is in a Kajambee. Either way he loses face and that weakens him... that would be why I said it ultimately doesn't matter who wins... what matters is keeping the turmoil going as long as possible. That is the worst thing for him.

[Buschb]

Ahmadinejad is having civil servants bused in and and making them attend his rally's...( though he's in Russia)...

They also just got busted trying to clone/brush the crowd to make them look huge..

Ahmadinejad sucks at Photoshop
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/17/ahmadinijad-sucks-at.html

[harumph]

Ahmadinejad is having civil servants bused in and and making them attend his rally's...( though he's in Russia)...

They also just got busted trying to clone/brush the crowd to make them look huge..

Ahmadinejad sucks at Photoshop
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/17/ahmadinijad-sucks-at.html

Is there any way we can apologize for that?

[zantax]

Called it yesterday, that they would blame us anyway, when people said Obama was keeping quiet so they couldn't blame it on us.

[Miss America]

Ahmadinejad is having civil servants bused in and and making them attend his rally's...( though he's in Russia)...

They also just got busted trying to clone/brush the crowd to make them look huge..

Ahmadinejad sucks at Photoshop
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/17/ahmadinijad-sucks-at.html


Something that most governments seem to have in common.

[B' en Natuf]

Yeah....I'm not sure he should wear the tie, but I think you have the right idea.

No matter who wins this election, the Supreme King of the Moutain is still in charge over there. And all the candidates running were approved by him.

So largely, one nut job is interchangable with the next.

But what is important is that the people of Iran are in some how empowered.

Now, you know, THAT TOO might end up being net bad for us...the people of Iran might decide to vote in a presidnet who hates us even more! But that's the why the cookie crumbles.

It's like us destroying a secular tyrant and empowering the people of Iraq, only to see them vote in a Muslim based govt, with a state religion...Way back in 2003 intel experts predicted that free elections in the ME would lead at some time or other to verilantly anti American and more theocratic regimes. They determined that if the trappongs of democracy were in place the pendulum would swing back and that eventually the greatest moderating infuence man has ever known (Democracy) would eventually lead to a more moderate ME. I agree. Its the way of things.

[bloods vs crips]

If your incapable of thinking beyond the headlines maybe.

Destablizing the regime destablizes Khamenei.

Nutjob was his candidate and the other nutjob was his sacrificial lamb. The lamb bit and now Khamenei is in a Kajambee. Either way he loses face and that weakens him... that would be why I said it ultimately doesn't matter who wins... what matters is keeping the turmoil going as long as possible. That is the worst thing for him.

beyond the headlines lol. There is no "regime" because ALL candidates are the "regime." Nothing in Iran happens without approval of Khamenei. While there may be a large portion of the populus that is anti-Ahm, being anti-Khamenei is something entirely different. Most of those people are still living in the 5th Century in terms of religion and social tradition. That isn't going to change no matter who the figurehead President is.

[ksdb]

beyond the headlines lol. There is no "regime" because ALL candidates are the "regime." Nothing in Iran happens without approval of Khamenei. While there may be a large portion of the populus that is anti-Ahm, being anti-Khamenei is something entirely different. Most of those people are still living in the 5th Century in terms of religion and social tradition. That isn't going to change no matter who the figurehead President is.

This may be true, but why all the protests and violence by the citizenry if it's not going to matter??

[harumph]

Why the signs of No British Embassy and BBC? I saw a few of those last nite in the crowd.
What are they saying about this in Britain?

[bloods vs crips]

This may be true, but why all the protests and violence by the citizenry if it's not going to matter??

going to matter for whom? From a US prespective, it doesn't matter whether Mousavi or Ahmadinejad are President. For an Iranian, a President more focused on domestic infrastructure could help with their terrible unemployment rate.

It's naive to assume it changes the one thing that will always keep them third world, their culture.

[B' en Natuf]

beyond the headlines lol. There is no "regime" because ALL candidates are the "regime." Nothing in Iran happens without approval of Khamenei. While there may be a large portion of the populus that is anti-Ahm, being anti-Khamenei is something entirely different. Most of those people are still living in the 5th Century in terms of religion and social tradition. That isn't going to change no matter who the figurehead President is.Did you miss the several times I said it didn't matter? Or are you just intentionally obtuse? Who cares which puppet mouths the words. The inportant thing is keeping the regime in a state of turmoil. Maybe it recovers, in fact it likely does. But the memory willlinger and as a result so wil the yearning for FREEDOM. The current situation destabalizes the regime, keeping it going longer destabalizes it further.

[B' en Natuf]

This may be true, but why all the protests and violence by the citizenry if it's not going to matter??Libs simly can't think passed the headlines. Which nitjob puppet wins is inconsequential... the fact that what is happenning is happening at all, and keeping it going as long as possible is of great consequence.

[WildRose]

Obama made it a point not to look like he's meddling in Iran's affairs, but evidently that's not enough ... and damn it all to hell ... meddling must be the worst thing a person can do. They're really, really mad and look who they're mad at.No worries, Obamba will aplogize soon... again.

[sur_esperance]

Did you miss the several times I said it didn't matter? Or are you just intentionally obtuse? Who cares which puppet mouths the words. The inportant thing is keeping the regime in a state of turmoil. Maybe it recovers, in fact it likely does. But the memory willlinger and as a result so wil the yearning for FREEDOM. The current situation destabalizes the regime, keeping it going longer destabalizes it further.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what is good about keeping the Iranian regime in turmoil.

[ksdb]

going to matter for whom? From a US prespective, it doesn't matter whether Mousavi or Ahmadinejad are President. For an Iranian, a President more focused on domestic infrastructure could help with their terrible unemployment rate.
You said the regime would be the same regardless, because nothing happens without Khamenei's approval. How does one candidate focus more on domestic infrastructure if what you said was true?? You're not making much sense.

It's naive to assume it changes the one thing that will always keep them third world, their culture.
Maybe not. These protests might be a sign of cultural change. If they're twittering, the times may be a-changing.

[Gengar]

Mutual respect and understanding! A new era, as promised!

[B' en Natuf]

Perhaps you could elaborate on what is good about keeping the Iranian regime in turmoil.Are libs really this thick? The longer the situation continues the more inefectual and weak Khemenei appears. The more inefectual and weak he appears the more inefectual and weak he will become. In a perfect world this Iranian intefadah would continue until Khamenie was unable to govern effectively at all and the Iranian regime would be overthrown. That would be good.

In the event that they do manage to tamp things down, the memory of the summer of FREEDOM will linger and will feed the yearning for it. The weaker Khamenie is percieved to have been coming out of this... the weaker he will start next time. Whats going on now will eventually lead to Khamenie being overthrown... eventually, but sooner now than before. And, every day this continues makes it sooner still.

[RedStatePaPa]

lol... the world according to libs. :rolleyes:

Under Obama, Iran is mean for calling us meddlers.

Under Bush, America is mean for meddling.

[WreckedParty]

Its a propaganda ploy deployed to redirect the attention away from Mahmoud

[bloods vs crips]

You said the regime would be the same regardless, because nothing happens without Khamenei's approval. How does one candidate focus more on domestic infrastructure if what you said was true?? You're not making much sense.

It actually makes a lot of sense. I said, depending on which prespective you view it from, the election matters. For US policy, it's completely irrelevant. For Iranian economic struggles, it could matter. The President practically has no authority with the exception of some domestic issues. Mousavi has idea that "could" help some Iranians. Whether or not Khamenei lets this happen is a guess, but there is a chance. Again, however, it makes no difference from a US prespective.

Maybe not. These protests might be a sign of cultural change. If they're twittering, the times may be a-changing. All these protests show are that westernized youth don't really understand how their country works, and they don't understand how restrictive religion is.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

He should of made a general statement about free elections and free speech. That's all...That is the real
travesty of the situation anyway...

The real travesty of the situation is that Obama won't say stuff to please domestic political factions that you won't believe anyway?:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure it's the innocents being killed, arrested and disappeared by the Pasdaran and Basij.

[sur_esperance]

Are libs really this thick? Thelonger the situation continues the more inefectual and weak Khemenei appears. The more inefectual and weak he appears the more inefectual and weak he will become. In a perfect world this Iranian intefadah would continue until Khamenie was unable to govern effectively at all and the Iranian regime would be overthrown. That wuld be good.

In the event that they do manage to tamp things down, the memory of the summer of FREEDOM will linger and will feed the yearning for it. The weaker Khamenie is percieved to have been cming out of this... the weaker he will start next time. Whats going on now will eventually lead to Khamenie being overthrown... eventually, but sooner now than before. And, every day this continues makes it sooner still.

Perhaps, and yet instability in a regime such as the one in Iran could force it to lash out in an effort to distract the world from its internal dissonance. There is a reason why Israel is rushing to lock down its borders in an effort to prevent an attack by Hizbu'llah of Hamas for just such a purpose. In a perfect world your idea would be wonderful, however I for one do not trust the Iranian government to keep their hands to themselves as much as you appear to.

[B' en Natuf]

lol... the world according to libs. :rolleyes:

Under Obama, Iran is mean for calling us meddlers.

Under Bush, America is mean for meddling.I'm sure to the libs if Obama could brng peace love and understanding to Iran by ending the intefadah and embracing Khamenie they would consider it a big "coup". Thats because they seem to think that way. Looking for headlines about the power of "peace".

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Way back in 2003 intel experts predicted that free elections in the ME would lead at some time or other to verilantly anti American and more theocratic regimes. They determined that if the trappongs of democracy were in place the pendulum would swing back and that eventually the greatest moderating infuence man has ever known (Democracy) would eventually lead to a more moderate ME. I agree. Its the way of things.

Let me guess, the "intel experts" were one of the Kagan brothers, Michael Ledeen, or one of the Podhoretz's.

[B' en Natuf]

The real travesty of the situation is that Obama won't say stuff to please domestic political factions that you won't believe anyway?:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure it's the innocents being killed, arrested and disappeared by the Pasdaran and Basij.The tree of liberty is nourished by the blood of patriots and planted amongst the crypts of heros.

Every dead patriot is another nail in Khamenie's coffin.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

The treee odliberty is nourished by the blood of patriots and planted amongst the crypts of heros.

Every dead patriot is another nail in Khamenie's coffin.

I agree, but I still haven't heard a valid reason Obama should back the opposition publicly, and especially why he should back Mousavi.

[B' en Natuf]

Let me guess, the "intel experts" were one of the Kagan brothers, Michael Ledeen, or one of the Podhoretz's.Came out a couple years ago and was a CIA estimate. Guess again.

[B' en Natuf]

I agree, but I still haven't heard a valid reason Obama should back the opposition publicly, and especially why he should back Mousavi.Do you guys bother to read the threads?

Back neither and by doing so back both.

Send out contradictory and cross statements.

Let the turmoil continue.

[ksdb]

I agree, but I still haven't heard a valid reason Obama should back the opposition publicly, and especially why he should back Mousavi.
Which one of these guys offers the best opportunity for hope and change in Iran's future?? Since Obama said he was determined to talk with Iran, would this not be a good time to pick the person who offers the best opportunity for negotiations??

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Came out a couple years ago and was a CIA estimate. Guess again.

I would love to see this estimate, because it's been said for years (and is true) that the two organizations most opposed to the Bush Doctrine were the State Department and the CIA.

[B' en Natuf]

Perhaps, and yet instability in a regime such as the one in Iran could force it to lash out in an effort to distract the world from its internal dissonance. There is a reason why Israel is rushing to lock down its borders in an effort to prevent an attack by Hizbu'llah of Hamas for just such a purpose. In a perfect world your idea would be wonderful, however I for one do not trust the Iranian government to keep their hands to themselves as much as you appear to.You cannot be serious? Dude they want none of Isreal and less of us. To get to Israel they have to go through Iraq... and that means us. It is likely they may push Hezbollah into doing something in Lebanaon... but that will prove to be a huge mistake. Bebe ain't Olmert.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Which one of these guys offers the best opportunity for hope and change in Iran's future?? Since Obama said he was determined to talk with Iran, would this not be a good time to pick the person who offers the best opportunity for negotiations??

Absolutely. Publicly backing Mousavi guarantees that he loses this fight.

[dizzy3a]

Is this honestly surprising to anyone? This is the nation that has referred to us as "The Great Satan".

:wall::wall::wall:

*shakes head walking away*

[dizzy3a]

Absolutely. Publicly backing Mousavi guarantees that he loses this fight.

Or here we go with another clinton mistake, as he did the same to the Iraqi Shia in 1993. Muslims are fairly direct people. If you don't support Mousavi NOW, it may be seen by American muslim sympathizers as rejection. Tough position, strategically speaking.

[B' en Natuf]

I would love to see this estimate, because it's been said for years (and is true) that the two organizations most opposed to the Bush Doctrine were the State Department and the CIA.It was interesting and on point. I picked it up on the internet once and posted it in a thread I believe in AAW.

They warned that "free" elections would at some point lead to a more militant and more anti American hard line Islamist regime. They went on to say we'd have to live through it as the pendulum would inevitably swing back and in the end a more moderate regime would be the outcome. It was secificaly about Iraq and was a discussion of how we might be able to avoid the worst of it by mking sure the haed liners had an outlet in the current regime... ala Moqtada al Sadr. I have no proof, but the way he's ebbed in and out to mostlty our benefit makes me think he's our "useful idiot"... knowingly or not.

[ksdb]

Absolutely. Publicly backing Mousavi guarantees that he loses this fight.

Isn't he already losing it??

[B' en Natuf]

Isn't he already losing it??
probobly so, but we should be making sure he "keeps losing it" for as long as possible.

[ksdb]

probobly so, but we should be making sure he "keeps losing it" for as long as possible.

I think that's why Obama refuses to 'meddle,' even though this is not consistent with his previously state policy on Iran.

["Doc"]

Let me get this straight - Iran is blaming our country and our president for something we and he did not do.

And posters here in Hannity land take that as an opportunity to slam President Obama.

Who's side are you guys on?


Interesting..I've been saying that about Obama and the democratic run congress for months whether it be concerning GITMO or the release of the "torture" photos or the constant apologies etc.....

[B' en Natuf]

I think that's why Obama refuses to 'meddle,' even though this is not consistent with his previously state policy on Iran.are you guys in denial?

Obama has said that he supports what the supreme leader is doing

Obama has said he supports Iranian "soveriegnity"... who's the soveriegn?

Obama has said he'd meet with nutjob anyway

Obama is supporting the powers that be allready.

[ksdb]

are you guys in denial?
Who are you referring to?? I posted a story this week where Obama specifically said he's not going to do anything that looks like he's meddling. This fits right in with your suggestion of letting this stretch out.

Obama has said that he supports what the supreme leader is doing

Obama has said he supports Iranian "soveriegnity"... who's the soveriegn?

Obama has said he'd meet with nutjob anyway

Obama is supporting the powers that be allready.

[E7ALR]

The tree of liberty is nourished by the blood of patriots and planted amongst the crypts of heros.

Every dead patriot is another nail in Khamenie's coffin.President Obama is the US President. The situation in Iran had been brewing for at least 48 hours on the world stage, not just the Iranian domestic stage. As President of the United States, he was going to have to make a statement at some point, no matter what. As a new and untried President, his choice of words and how he presented them, are an indicator of his metal on foreign policy. The Iranian Government was always going to twist any statement he made, other than an endorsement of Ahmadinejad's victory, as interference by the Great Satan. All his weak, hair-splitting attempt at a "present" vote, on the foreign affairs stage, did was provide the Iranians with the very verbage to throw back in his face.

[E7ALR]

Absolutely. Publicly backing Mousavi guarantees that he loses this fight.Mousavi lost the fight before the voters even went to the polls.

[B' en Natuf]

Who are you referring to?? I posted a story this week where Obama specifically said he's not going to do anything that looks like he's meddling. This fits right in with your suggestion of letting this stretch out.Remaining absolutely nuetral is a tacit support of the status quo. But Obama hasn't even done that. He has given "soft" support to the present regime. I don't have a problem with that... but he should also be giving a measure to the opposition and hard support to the ideals of freedom in general.

Keep the Iranian Intefadah going.... as long as possible.

[PheonixOps]

It has to be since Obama is to scared to do anything.

LOL, he's not "scared"............ we could blow that regime off of the map with a few sorties and trident missiles, etc. I think that the President initially has taken the intelligent and diplomatic approach to this situation, instead of the "arrogant ******* cowboy approach".
Now when the idiots accuse "America of meddling in the elections", they lose even more credibility amongst their people and the world community..............

[E7ALR]

LOL, he's not "scared"............ we could blow that regime off of the map with a few sorties and trident missiles, etc. I think that the President initially has taken the intelligent and diplomatic approach to this situation, instead of the "arrogant ******* cowboy approach".
Now when the idiots accuse "America of meddling in the elections", they lose even more credibility amongst their people and the world community..............The only problem with your conjecture is that the Supreme Leader and his loyal clerics don't care about their credibility with the general Iranian Public or the rest of the world. They are totalitarian theocratic dictators, in control of the all the guns in Iran.

[PheonixOps]

How long till our POTUS appologizes ?

"Apologize" for what?

[darknessesedge]

"Apologize" for what?

for jimmy carter..
he is over there "helping" :))

[PheonixOps]

Yeah, you should definitely give the hardliners a statement that they can spin to mean the opposition is being funded or organized by America.

LOL, right on the money brother!!!!!

[PheonixOps]

Let me get this straight - Iran is blaming our country and our president for something we and he did not do.

And posters here in Hannity land take that as an opportunity to slam President Obama

LOL, go figure...................

[PheonixOps]

We are just saying that by taking a weak stance on the situation that O has accomplished nothing...

What did the previously "strong" stance by B accomplish????

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

or here we go with another clinton mistake, as he did the same to the iraqi shia in 1993. Muslims are fairly direct people. If you don't support mousavi now, it may be seen by american muslim sympathizers as rejection. Tough position, strategically speaking.

1993?

[PheonixOps]

The only problem with your conjecture is that the Supreme Leader and his loyal clerics don't care about their credibility with the general Iranian Public or the rest of the world. They are totalitarian theocratic dictators, in control of the all the guns in Iran.

I understand that, but I hope that the oligarchy will be defeated by the people who want a new Iran...................... That said, isn't the opponent of Ahmedinijad(sp), one of the pioneers and/or advocates for Iran's nuclear program?

[PheonixOps]

for jimmy carter..
he is over there "helping" :))

LOL, no need to apologize for President Carter, I'm sure his heart is in the right place............
Is he actually over there?

[BrittleBullet]

Remaining absolutely nuetral is a tacit support of the status quo. But Obama hasn't even done that. He has given "soft" support to the present regime. I don't have a problem with that... but he should also be giving a measure to the opposition and hard support to the ideals of freedom in general.

Keep the Iranian Intefadah going.... as long as possible.

Loud support from the administration would kill that.
While the youth of Iran might appreciate aspects of American culture, the world universally despises meddling in their affairs.
The way to keep the momentum of Iranian civil arrest going is for the the administration to stay as quiet as possible.
What the regime says about foreign involvement in the current situation we shouldn't care about. They'll say countries are meddling in their affairs regardless. The civil unrest however will lose legitimacy amongst the populace though if they're viewed as "US approved" actions.

[agent_86]

America is meddling... we're all still breathing...

You filthy meddlers.