Scorpion89
Banned
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,629
- Reaction score
- 527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So you are suggesting that the cold war is like a popular uprising over an election? That the political situation is the same as now? The cultures are the same? None of those things are alike, so it is silly to expect that the same solution will work(and his words where not what caused the end of the cold war).
Rederss, Kandahar, the troll Jovial One ,and the rest.
Bidens a stupid lil NEOCON child right?
Clinton is a stupid lil NEOCON child right?
Everyone win the administration and everyone mentioned in that article including Experts on Iran are all trash and lil NEOCON childrend right?
oh nm..first requirmtent to make you matter is READING the article provided..none of you did..
I have already said many times in multiple threads.
That you admit you don't even know what I have said but could mange to make a statement of what I would say.
Says it all.
State your opinion if you wish on the subject at hand. Keep your admitted ignorant opinion of my opinions to your self.
I don't go randomly around the forum looking for posts by you or others and make one line lil smart ass comments about them for no apparent reason other then to make the comment or start an argument.
So why do you guys?..IMO its becoming more and more obvious why....can't argue the point so you try to belittle the poster.
Its become more and more common since the PF crowd arrived as well.
Triad what the hell are you talking about since when did any of the folks you just listed be consider Republicans or even better NEO=Cons you need to step back and take a very deep breath.
Its become more and more common since the PF crowd arrived as well.
You know what Triad I came over here from PF and I take offesive tot his statement actually I demand that you make a public apology on this one. You want to have a war with me I'm from PF and have a far Right Leaning on allot of items then you do but since you have decide to blantley call all of us out well then you have got my attention.
And it will all be bull****. There would be no harm in Obama voicing some solidarity with the opposition movement right now.
Lerxst said:In fact I think it would go a long way towards the way we are viewed by the Muslim community to have our leader express support for their desire for democracy.
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but that's already happening.Except the protesters would suddenly be a tool of the Great Satan, which gives Khamenei a pretext to crush them.
How could it possibly be any more difficult than it already was? There was no negotiation on anything to begin with.And if the protests do anything less than completely bring down the entire government, it will be much more difficult to negotiate with the regime on anything.
Because the information coming from inside Iran is asking the world, including America, to support their movement.And what makes you think that the Iranian protesters welcome American involvement?
All you have done in months is complain that anything and everything that Obama has done is wrong. What do you want Obama to do, and what effect do you think it will have?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/48098-obama-b-detainee-abuse-photos.htmlPOLITICO 44: Whiteboard Archives
This may be one in a million post but when the dip pulls his head out of his ass...even if for only a brief spate of fresh air . I can agree with him.
Other then serving as the Far Lefts porn the release of such things while at war only aids the enemy.
DO I like Obama HHHhhhheeeeellllLLLlllLLl NO!..will I bash/criticize/laugh at him yes... but with reasons I'll usually link to some news story on whatever issue it may be.
Just defending myself for posting news in breaking news that is negative of the One. :roll:
Done.:violin:
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but that's already happening.
Lerxst said:How could it possibly be any more difficult than it already was? There was no negotiation on anything to begin with.
Lerxst said:Because the information coming from inside Iran is asking the world, including America, to support their movement.
Lerxst said:Further, Obama saying he supports their struggle for democracy isn't "involvement."
Lerxst said:It's a statement. And one he should make.
Except i didnt point that out.
mikhail said:.. you cant just say because 2 events happened at the same time they are linked....
... the liberation of Iraq made Iran think twice and slow down.
NEOCON is supposed to be a negative term used by the left to defame people they do not agree with. Its rather childish but as you can see only selectively applied to the point of being meaningless.
If the Iranian regime believes that we are trying to overthrow it, it makes it difficult to negotiate with them. Why would you negotiate with someone who was trying to craft your downfall?
Wrong....Neo-con is a very specific term that refers to an imperialistic nation-building philosophy that was embraced by many people in the past administration.
Triad, Lerxst: if Obama did as you want, and everything goes as best it can from that, what do you see as the best resolution likely? How would that outcome effect the US?
The quality of "negotiations" with Terrorist Nation Iran:
USA: "Don't export terrorism."
IRAN: "**** off."
USA: "Don't build nukes."
IRAN: "**** off."
Scarecrow Akhbar said:So....what does anyone have to lose by pushing Iran.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:What I haven't seen on this thread are the words
"Tianamen Square".
...WASHINGTON -- Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.
And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.
Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.
Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamanei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."
RealClearPolitics - Obama Clueless on IranAll hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs' disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.
Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.
That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.
And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.
Triad, Lerxst: if Obama did as you want, and everything goes as best it can from that, what do you see as the best resolution likely? How would that outcome effect the US?
Except, according to the Left, EVERYONE who isn't one of them is a "NEOCON".
Because the word means everything, it means nothing,
I have already said many times in multiple threads.
That you admit you don't even know what I have said but could mange to make a statement of what I would say.
Says it all.
State your opinion if you wish on the subject at hand. Keep your admitted ignorant opinion of my opinions to your self.
I don't go randomly around the forum looking for posts by you or others and make one line lil smart ass comments about them for no apparent reason other then to make the comment or start an argument.
So why do you guys?..IMO its becoming more and more obvious why....can't argue the point so you try to belittle the poster.
Its become more and more common since the PF crowd arrived as well.
I have been paying close attention. There are over a hundred confirmed dead (possibly more), thousands injured, and hundreds arrested. Regardless, the government is already accusing the U.S. of influencing the issue. If they were going to use us as a scapegoat to massacre the people they would have done so by now. Our president speaking out in support of the protesters isn't going to be the catalyst to spark mass murder by the government.Umm I don't know if YOU'VE been paying attention, but the police and Guardsmen have actually been remarkably restrained giving the repressive nature of the regime and the scale of the protests. Sure, there have been some incidents, but for the most part the protesters have been allowed to do their thing with minimal violence from the police.
They Iranian regime has said we were trying to craft their downfall since they took power in 1979 Kandahar.If the Iranian regime believes that we are trying to overthrow it, it makes it difficult to negotiate with them. Why would you negotiate with someone who was trying to craft your downfall?
No that's not what I mean at all and I'm surprised that you would be so dismissive. Nobody knows for sure how many people in Iran are actually using twitter to get messages to the outside world, but estimates appear to be in the thousands. A few random people? If you want to disagree with me that's fine, but you don't need to be deliberately misleading about the situation.You mean a few random people who happen to use Twitter.
Well if it's irrelevant why did you say it?Whether it's actually involvement is irrelevant. The establishment is looking for a pretext to clobber the protesters. This would provide them with one.
Yes he should, because he's not omnipotent nor is he the one thing that would trigger a massive Iranian crackdown. You are underestimating the situation in Iran and overestimating the impact of open U.S. support for the movement would have.No he shouldn't. Barack Obama is not omnipotent.
I don't think anyone here ever said he could.He can't make the protests succeed just by saying he is on their side.
Absolutely wrong. He can signal to the world that the U.S. government is a supportive friend to the Iranian people seeking Democracy in their country. He can avoid a future of looking like a President who didn't have an opinion on one of the most potentially game changing events in the modern middle east.All he can do is piss people off.
Wrong again. At best the protesters succeed and they view our nation and our government as having stood behind them in support without having tried to manipulate the outcome. A stark change from our historic stand on foreign policy in Iran. It would show the rest of the middle east that our intentions are sincere and we aren't simply singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and seeking yet another military solution against a middle eastern nation.At best, the protesters succeed and nothing Obama says matters either way.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Either you are being deliberately argumentative with me or you don't really understand the situation in Iran right now. The regime will attempt to crack down on the protests whether or not Obama says a word. Obama speaking out in support of the democracy movement isn't "American involvement." Iran has already accused us of agitating and inflaming the protests, stated we are behind them, and condemned us for that. So your claim that "American involvement" might trigger a crackdown is a moot point, the accusation of "American involvement" has already been made.At worst, the regime cracks down on the protests due to American involvement and negotiations on other issues go into the deep freeze once again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?