- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I searched for any info that the picture was photoshopped and found none. I did find many hundreds of instances of the picture reproduced, none of which indicated it was fake. If you have proof the picture is fake, please link it.
Iran is flying 1,000 Chinese tanks to land tomorrow. No reason given.:shock:
Sorry, it's real. You make a big deal out of Obama giving the Saudi king a little bow, at least he didn't kiss him on the mouth.
Back on topic, Reagan's request to "tear down this wall" required no bravery, and did not cause the wall to come down....everyone wanted the wall down. On the other hand, Obama's Cairo speech probably had a lot to do with motivating a million Iranians to march in confrontation of their Ayatollah. Obama has already played his ace card in Iran, while you were complaining about something different.
I searched for any info that the picture was photoshopped and found none. I did find many hundreds of instances of the picture reproduced, none of which indicated it was fake. If you have proof the picture is fake, please link it.
1) It's obviously shopped. Sorry.
2) I made a big deal out of Obama bowing?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...e-bows-another-leader-wtf.html#post1057979681
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Who would bother photo shopping Canda's flag into that ship? :mrgreen:Who would bother photo shopping a girl with clothes on?:mrgreen:
There's No False Choice on IranThere's No False Choice on Iran : The consequence of a weak president.
Rejecting "false choices" is a favorite rhetorical device of President Obama. His speeches are littered with examples. A half-dozen times, he's repudiated "the false choice between our security and our ideals." He's dismissed "the false choice between sound science and moral values." He's not only disposed of "the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars," he's laid to rest the clash between those who'd "conserve our resources" and those who'd "profit from these natural resources."
But confronted by a popular revolt in Iran, Obama has succumbed to a false choice. Either support the democratic forces in Iran aligned against the rigged presidential election or preserve his chance to negotiate with the Ahmadinejad regime for a nuclear arms deal--one or the other. The president thinks he's stuck with a dilemma. He's not. The two options aren't mutually exclusive. The choice is indeed false.
To escape his predicament, Obama has sought neutrality between a discredited regime and democratic protesters. This actually helps the regime, since President Ahmadinejad and the mullahs don't need Obama's support. The protesters do. In effect, Obama has tilted in favor of the regime. The result is personal shame (for Obama) and policy shame (for the United States).
1) It's obviously shopped. Sorry.
2) I made a big deal out of Obama bowing?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...e-bows-another-leader-wtf.html#post1057979681
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Most Iranian Americans agree with the way President Obama handled this.
No matter what President Obama does he will get criticized. If he gets too strong the Mullah Hullahs will tie the protestors to him
Link to back this claim up please.
From the National Iranian American Council:
niacINsight
I can't cut/paste the text from the blog, but see June 19 & 20th posts, in which NIAC states that they SUPPORT Obama's actions so far in not taking sides, and that taking sides would harm more than it would help.
Per the NIAC, Dear Leader needs to pump up the volume.The only plausible way to end the violence is for new elections to be held with independent monitors ensuring its fairness. Such elections would be consistent with the Iranian constitution.
We support President Obama’s decision not to take sides in the disputed election, particularly in the absence of any candidate calling upon him to do so. At the same time, the White House needs to speak vociferously against the bloodshed taking place before our eyes.
Per the NIAC, Dear Leader needs to pump up the volume.
Agreed he should not explicitly back Mousavi.ON THE VIOLENCE. He specifically needs to avoid taking sides on the election.
Agreed he should not explicitly back Mousavi.
However, do note that even the NIAC calls for new elections--and Dear Leader has not yet said that.
Dear Leader is ratcheting up the rhetoric, but he is behind the curve on this and he needs to get out in front. You can't lead from the rear.
I think the question in this instance, however, given that we're the Great Satan, is SHOULD Obama be leading?
Or, should he be allowing others to lead, while he offers supportive rhetoric. I'd say the latter.
Further, while Obama's comments haven't been strongly worded, the resolutions of the Senate/House HAVE BEEN. So, there is a balance there.
Given we are the Great Satan AND have a track record of meddling not working, including IN IRAN, he needs to stand up for human rights and non-violence and that's it.
What about the human rights of the Iranian people?
We can't openly help one side or the other or fear retaliation later if the opposing side wins control.
The only way we could openly support the protesters is if we were going to make sure they succeeded in gaining power. Doing so though will give ammunition to the Ayatollah's to call for a global rise up against the invading US that is trying to instill another Pro-western government like the Shah was.
Unless we are willing to go all in we need to stay all out, minus a stern vocal humanitarian stance and aid, if aid is permitted by the current ruling party.
What about the human rights of the Iranian people?
YouTube - CNN: Video Of "Neda" Before She Was Killed In Iranian Protest
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?