Ahmadinejad smacks down Obama

[ScreamingEagle]

Really? Do you have any evidence that Obamas words would have had that effect on the Iranian people?

Do you think such words of encouragement to the revolucionaries would have been just ignored? I think such words by a world leader would have been welcomed by those seeking freedom....they have a long battle ahead....and any support would be welcomed...

They wouldn't be ignored. Such words would have been used against the protestors. The government would have immediatelly claimed they were riots formented by the United States and cracked down, heavily.

I hope that you know enough about whats going on to realize that the regime was looking for a reason to crack down brutally on protestors, yes? And that us throwing our full support behind them would have given them that reason?

And the only hope for us with regard to the nuclear issue is to side with the revolutionaries...or do you think the Big O is going to make headway with Ahmedinejad? Heh....that would be "meddling"...

Negotiating with the leader of a country isn't meddling. Commenting on their internal elections is.

And this isn't about us, its about them. If Obama interferes with their elections/internal processes in such a way to make it appear that he is just doing it cause we don't like Ahmadinejad, you really think that'll help the protestors?

Let me put it to you another way. I assume you supported Bush in 2000. Would you have reacted favorably, or unfavorably, if Iran had started making pronouncments that Bush won?

Of course it's about them....and freedom....

Obama wouldn't be "interfereing" with the Iranian people by speaking of his support for freedom and democracy.....this isn't just about an election anymore...

...the Khamenei regime just pulled a Tianamen.......but I guess Obama thinks supporting the fundamental values of freedom is "meddling"...so far he's condemned the killings but has not shown any real support for freedom for the people of Iran...

...and now the tyrant of Iran demands an apology from him for "meddling"....obviously Obama has not eased any tensions between them and us...I guess it's time for your boy to issue another apology...

 

[Nik]

Do you think such words of encouragement to the revolucionaries would have been just ignored? I think such words by a world leader would have been welcomed by those seeking freedom....they have a long battle ahead....and any support would be welcomed...

They wouldn't be ignored. Such words would have been used against the protestors. The government would have immediatelly claimed they were riots formented by the United States and cracked down, heavily.

I hope that you know enough about whats going on to realize that the regime was looking for a reason to crack down brutally on protestors, yes? And that us throwing our full support behind them would have given them that reason?

And the only hope for us with regard to the nuclear issue is to side with the revolutionaries...or do you think the Big O is going to make headway with Ahmedinejad? Heh....that would be "meddling"...

Negotiating with the leader of a country isn't meddling. Commenting on their internal elections is.

And this isn't about us, its about them. If Obama interferes with their elections/internal processes in such a way to make it appear that he is just doing it cause we don't like Ahmadinejad, you really think that'll help the protestors?

Let me put it to you another way. I assume you supported Bush in 2000. Would you have reacted favorably, or unfavorably, if Iran had started making pronouncments that Bush won?

Of course it's about them....and freedom....

Obama wouldn't be "interfereing" with the Iranian people by speaking of his support for freedom and democracy.....this isn't just about an election anymore...

He has spoken numerous times of his support for freedom and democracy.

...the Khamenei regime just pulled a Tianamen.......but I guess Obama thinks supporting the fundamental values of freedom is "meddling"...so far he's condemned the killings but has not shown any real support for freedom for the people of Iran...

Please define "real support". Please explain, in detail, what that support would like like and exactly what it would do.

And no, they did not just pull a Tianneman. After Tianneman the protests stopped. Iranian protests have just begun.

And don't give me some bullshit about how Obama thinks supporting freedom is meddling. Obama thinks supporting one side of an election is meddling, which it is. Leave the lofty rhetoric behind and say something substantive for once.

...and now the tyrant of Iran demands an apology from him for "meddling"....obviously Obama has not eased any tensions between them and us...I guess it's time for your boy to issue another apology...

As I pointed out, Ahmadinejad, obviously, isn't going to like Obama. That doesn't matter. What matters is how the Iranian people react to Ahmadinejads condemnations of Obama.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

They wouldn't be ignored. Such words would have been used against the protestors. The government would have immediatelly claimed they were riots formented by the United States and cracked down, heavily.

I hope that you know enough about whats going on to realize that the regime was looking for a reason to crack down brutally on protestors, yes? And that us throwing our full support behind them would have given them that reason?



Negotiating with the leader of a country isn't meddling. Commenting on their internal elections is.

And this isn't about us, its about them. If Obama interferes with their elections/internal processes in such a way to make it appear that he is just doing it cause we don't like Ahmadinejad, you really think that'll help the protestors?

Let me put it to you another way. I assume you supported Bush in 2000. Would you have reacted favorably, or unfavorably, if Iran had started making pronouncments that Bush won?

Of course it's about them....and freedom....

Obama wouldn't be "interfereing" with the Iranian people by speaking of his support for freedom and democracy.....this isn't just about an election anymore...

He has spoken numerous times of his support for freedom and democracy.

...the Khamenei regime just pulled a Tianamen.......but I guess Obama thinks supporting the fundamental values of freedom is "meddling"...so far he's condemned the killings but has not shown any real support for freedom for the people of Iran...

Please define "real support". Please explain, in detail, what that support would like like and exactly what it would do.

And no, they did not just pull a Tianneman. After Tianneman the protests stopped. Iranian protests have just begun.

And don't give me some bullshit about how Obama thinks supporting freedom is meddling. Obama thinks supporting one side of an election is meddling, which it is. Leave the lofty rhetoric behind and say something substantive for once.

...and now the tyrant of Iran demands an apology from him for "meddling"....obviously Obama has not eased any tensions between them and us...I guess it's time for your boy to issue another apology...

As I pointed out, Ahmadinejad, obviously, isn't going to like Obama. That doesn't matter. What matters is how the Iranian people react to Ahmadinejads condemnations of Obama.

You may be right....the true Tianneman crackdown may still be forthcoming...

What makes you think the people of Iran are going to listen to Ahmadinejad over Obama...that is... if Obama ever gave a forceful speech to the world supporting freedom for all in Iran...gee...aren't they shedding blood over there for the cause of freedom?

 

[Nik]

Of course it's about them....and freedom....

Obama wouldn't be "interfereing" with the Iranian people by speaking of his support for freedom and democracy.....this isn't just about an election anymore...

He has spoken numerous times of his support for freedom and democracy.



Please define "real support". Please explain, in detail, what that support would like like and exactly what it would do.

And no, they did not just pull a Tianneman. After Tianneman the protests stopped. Iranian protests have just begun.

And don't give me some bullshit about how Obama thinks supporting freedom is meddling. Obama thinks supporting one side of an election is meddling, which it is. Leave the lofty rhetoric behind and say something substantive for once.

...and now the tyrant of Iran demands an apology from him for "meddling"....obviously Obama has not eased any tensions between them and us...I guess it's time for your boy to issue another apology...

As I pointed out, Ahmadinejad, obviously, isn't going to like Obama. That doesn't matter. What matters is how the Iranian people react to Ahmadinejads condemnations of Obama.

You may be right....the true Tianneman crackdown may still be forthcoming...

Tianneman square isn't just a reference to the deaths, but its also a reference to the after effects.

What makes you think the people of Iran are going to listen to Ahmadinejad over Obama...that is... if Obama ever gave a forceful speech to the world supporting freedom for all in Iran...gee...aren't they shedding blood over there for the cause of freedom?

Gee...are people going to follow their own leader, or the leader of a foreign country who previously overthrew their government and installed a dictator.

Hmmm....

If we make it a case of Obama v. Ahmadinejad, Ahamdinejad wins. Obama is popular, but the United States is hated, and for good reason there. If it remains a case of Ahmadinejad v. the Iranian people, well then Ahmadinejad has a chance of losing.

You do realize that there are many many people in Iran who have mixed feelings about this matter, yes? And that by involving ourselves into the debate, we may make them side with Ahmadinejad?

 

[Yurt]

If your going to claim they run one-sided polls, your going to have to provide evidence of that. Giving me far right organizations who think the media is too liberal isn't really saying much of anything.

i think enough evidence, circumstantial, was given, you of course being you will act as if no evidence was given

You think its evidence because a far-right organization thinks the media is too left-wing? You fail along with SE.

you really are a moron....

i was referring to his evidence that abc gives a one sided infomercial for a lib president, hence the possibility of a one sided poll to represent their views....that is what he was talking about, do try and keep up

 

[Nik]

i think enough evidence, circumstantial, was given, you of course being you will act as if no evidence was given

You think its evidence because a far-right organization thinks the media is too left-wing? You fail along with SE.

you really are a moron....

i was referring to his evidence that abc gives a one sided infomercial for a lib president, hence the possibility of a one sided poll to represent their views....that is what he was talking about, do try and keep up

His "evidence" was from a far-right organization affiliated with newsbusters.

Try again?

 

[Nik]

i think enough evidence, circumstantial, was given, you of course being you will act as if no evidence was given

You think its evidence because a far-right organization thinks the media is too left-wing? You fail along with SE.

you really are a moron....

i was referring to his evidence that abc gives a one sided infomercial for a lib president, hence the possibility of a one sided poll to represent their views....that is what he was talking about, do try and keep up

By the way...you do know that it was done in connection with WaPo who just fired a blogger for not being neocon enough, yes?

Do you suspect the Washington Post of fabricating poll results as well?

 

[Yurt]

Do you wonder why Ahmadinejad is trying to compare Obama to Bush? You do, I hope, know that Ahamdeinejad is trying to elicit a specific response from the Iranian people and that comparing Obama to Bush he is explicitly trying to link Obama to someone the Iranian people dislike, yes?

he gave concrete examples....then again, i've already shown you don't know what evidence is....and he is actually right in his statements about obama. one thing american politicians suck at is telling it like it is.

Who gave concrete examples? Of what?

And no. He isn't right about Obama. If it were Bush he would be in there with bullshit rhetoric that he couldn't back up, and then there would have been a massive crackdown immediatelly. It is much, much better to play it cool here and the just condemn the violence as opposed to taking a position on the election itself.

he is right, go read his comments again, as i hope you have and are not simply spouting off without having done so and see the evidence instead of expecting others to do your work for you....

 

[Nik]

he gave concrete examples....then again, i've already shown you don't know what evidence is....and he is actually right in his statements about obama. one thing american politicians suck at is telling it like it is.

Who gave concrete examples? Of what?

And no. He isn't right about Obama. If it were Bush he would be in there with bullshit rhetoric that he couldn't back up, and then there would have been a massive crackdown immediatelly. It is much, much better to play it cool here and the just condemn the violence as opposed to taking a position on the election itself.

he is right, go read his comments again, as i hope you have and are not simply spouting off without having done so and see the evidence instead of expecting others to do your work for you....

You need to learn to speak more clearly. Whose comments are you talking about? And again, who gave concrete examples? Of What?

 

[Octoldit]

Ahmadinejad Tells Obama Not to Interfere in Iran, Seeks Public Apology

Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on President Obama on Thursday not to interfere in Iranian affairs after the U.S. president said he was "appalled and outraged" by post-election violence, a news agency reported.

"Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things ... our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former U.S. President George W.) Bush used to say," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"Do you want to speak (with Iran) with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about," said Ahmadinejad. "I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it."


Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

It's all about these wicked dual-citizen Zionist who are really NWO communist trying to instigate another war.

Hopefully the president will exercise some leadership and not let the zionist continue to control him.

Something Bush failed to do.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Gee...are people going to follow their own leader, or the leader of a foreign country who previously overthrew their government and installed a dictator.

Hmmm....

If we make it a case of Obama v. Ahmadinejad, Ahamdinejad wins. Obama is popular, but the United States is hated, and for good reason there. If it remains a case of Ahmadinejad v. the Iranian people, well then Ahmadinejad has a chance of losing.

You do realize that there are many many people in Iran who have mixed feelings about this matter, yes? And that by involving ourselves into the debate, we may make them side with Ahmadinejad?

Hatred for the US lies mainly with Ahmadinejad's age group (yes, they have good reasons like the Iraq-Iran war)....but it is the young people who are protesting...they want their voices to be heard and have more freedom....not necessarily to overthrow the Ayatollah.

For the leader of the free world to voice his opinion about freedom and to support the growing cause of freedom in Iran would do nothing to hurt our relations with Iran and everything to do with our own goals.

I believe the president should be frank and honest about our beliefs in freedom. Too bad if the current leaders of Iran don't like it....they don't like a lot of things...but the next generation in Iran is going to have to be dealt with.....don't dismiss that factor so blithely. I don't think the old leaders can successfully frame the debate between Ahmanedinejad and the US anymore.

 

[editec]

Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is simply driving another nail in the coffin of the absurd system of Mullahs and supreme leaders.

The Iranian protest movement will become an underground Iranian revolutionary movement.

It may take years because I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad will fill the prisons with Iranian liberals, but the more he represses his own people, the more people he'll inevitably alienate.

Expect to see that movement helped out with the help of a lot of expatriot Iranians.

Naturally the Iranian Mullahtocracy will get mideval on the Iranians, and it will probably devolve into something looking more like a civil war than a revolution.

The sides will basically break down between the intellectual urban classes and the more religious rural people who are also mostly manning the Iranian Revolutionary guard.

Remember you read it here first.

 

[Yurt]

Who gave concrete examples? Of what?

And no. He isn't right about Obama. If it were Bush he would be in there with bullshit rhetoric that he couldn't back up, and then there would have been a massive crackdown immediatelly. It is much, much better to play it cool here and the just condemn the violence as opposed to taking a position on the election itself.

he is right, go read his comments again, as i hope you have and are not simply spouting off without having done so and see the evidence instead of expecting others to do your work for you....

You need to learn to speak more clearly. Whose comments are you talking about? And again, who gave concrete examples? Of What?

you need to learn to read and follow conversations more astutely. we were directly talking about the issue, you're confused, but thats ok, its you....

 

[MaggieMae]

Obviously Obama's "appeasement approach" is not working....one teeny criticism and he's instantly on their shit list...

And what you don't *get* is that the United States would be on Achmed's shit list no matter who the president is. Who cares? His JOB is shit kicker; he makes no policy decisions for Iran.

 

[MaggieMae]

Obviously Obama's "appeasement approach" is not working....one teeny criticism and he's instantly on their shit list...

Are you really this dense?

The point wasn't to sooth Ahmadinejads feelings. The point was to avoid it resonating with the Iranian people when Ahmadinejad went off on his anti-American rants.

And look how far it got him....and gee, don't you think the Iranians know better.....?

Obama's point was to take a neutral stance....he doesn't want to take responsibility for anything...

....the real point is either Obama sides with democracy or he doesn't....he sure has been taking a back seat approach to it...in more ways than one....instead of acting like the leader of the free world....perhaps we should now give that position to the prez of France?

Um, he didn't intend to go any further. What is it you wanted him to DO? Put on a crown and announce I AM THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!!! ??? Hooya, that woulda gone over real good with right wing cult who thinks Obama is already acting like a Messiah.

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama dragged his feet on condemning the violence....he didn't say anything until the polls showed that Americans didn't like his silence...

....the Big O was a day late and a dollar short...

Bullshit bullshit bullSHIT!!! READ, GODDAMMIT!!

The election was held on Friday, June 12th. On Saturday, it looked as though Mousavi might win, but by Sunday Achmedinejad had been "declared" the winner. On Monday, the first of the demonstrators took to the streets, and by Tuesday, there were masses of protestors. On Tuesday, June 16th, Obama who had wanted to remain neutral made the first of several comments throughout the week. So please, avoid playing the fool unless you know what you're talking about.

"I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days."

Mr Obama said that supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had been expected to claim victory in the polls after a late surge during his campaign, felt "betrayed" by the official results that gave the former prime minister just 33.75 per cent.

"And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

"And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected."

 

[MaggieMae]

This thread seems to be all over the place, but Obama has a huge target on his chest and everything he says is going to be criticized by you right wing neo-cons. My biggest irritation is you righties trying to shoot down our president. Bush was a fucking goon and did nothing for our country in any real way except to allow shit-stains like Carl Rove run the White House. Have some respect. The Democrats at least let Bush dig himself into a hole before they jumped all over him.
There is nothing Obama can say that will apease the right...all of you neo-cons should head right over to Iran and fix the problem yourselves because you always have the answers. Well, you have the answers until its nut cutting time and you cower like little bitches. Let this thing play out. The end result I think will suprise even the most conservative Obama haters.

I like your style, Kent. Refreshing for a change, since your words simmer just below the surface for many of us.

 

[Nik]

Gee...are people going to follow their own leader, or the leader of a foreign country who previously overthrew their government and installed a dictator.

Hmmm....

If we make it a case of Obama v. Ahmadinejad, Ahamdinejad wins. Obama is popular, but the United States is hated, and for good reason there. If it remains a case of Ahmadinejad v. the Iranian people, well then Ahmadinejad has a chance of losing.

You do realize that there are many many people in Iran who have mixed feelings about this matter, yes? And that by involving ourselves into the debate, we may make them side with Ahmadinejad?

Hatred for the US lies mainly with Ahmadinejad's age group (yes, they have good reasons like the Iraq-Iran war)....but it is the young people who are protesting...they want their voices to be heard and have more freedom....not necessarily to overthrow the Ayatollah.

Incorrect. In a poll in early June only 30% of so of Iranians had a favorable view of the United States. Thats more than just the old people.

For the leader of the free world to voice his opinion about freedom and to support the growing cause of freedom in Iran would do nothing to hurt our relations with Iran and everything to do with our own goals.

I'm not talking about Iran-US relations being hurt. I'm talking about the protestors succeeding or not.

I believe the president should be frank and honest about our beliefs in freedom. Too bad if the current leaders of Iran don't like it....they don't like a lot of things...but the next generation in Iran is going to have to be dealt with.....don't dismiss that factor so blithely. I don't think the old leaders can successfully frame the debate between Ahmanedinejad and the US anymore.

Again...its NOT about what the current leaders like or dislikes, its about the populace.

 

[Nik]

he is right, go read his comments again, as i hope you have and are not simply spouting off without having done so and see the evidence instead of expecting others to do your work for you....

You need to learn to speak more clearly. Whose comments are you talking about? And again, who gave concrete examples? Of What?

you need to learn to read and follow conversations more astutely. we were directly talking about the issue, you're confused, but thats ok, its you....

I can do so fine. However I can't pierce the fog of incomprehensible nonsense that is your chosen form of communication. If you want to try to make it more clear, go for it. But using "he" when we are talking about multiple males with no indication as to which male you are talking about is your fault, not mine.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Obviously Obama's "appeasement approach" is not working....one teeny criticism and he's instantly on their shit list...

And what you don't *get* is that the United States would be on Achmed's shit list no matter who the president is. Who cares? His JOB is shit kicker; he makes no policy decisions for Iran.

His JOB is shit kicker?....well then he's falling short...since he seems to prefer apologizing a whole lot more...

Um, he didn't intend to go any further. What is it you wanted him to DO? Put on a crown and announce I AM THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!!! ??? Hooya, that woulda gone over real good with right wing cult who thinks Obama is already acting like a Messiah.

I know he didn't intend to go any further....he's so worried about "meddling"....thus he let the prez of France speak for the free world....you know...speak up for the principles of freedom like a real leader....but I know you guys think he's got some dazzling fancy plans and negotiations in mind re Iran....haha...tell that to Ahmendijad who now wants him to make yet another apology for his comment against killing people...because that comment was acting like Bush....hahaha

Bullshit bullshit bullSHIT!!! READ, GODDAMMIT!!

The election was held on Friday, June 12th. On Saturday, it looked as though Mousavi might win, but by Sunday Achmedinejad had been "declared" the winner. On Monday, the first of the demonstrators took to the streets, and by Tuesday, there were masses of protestors. On Tuesday, June 16th, Obama who had wanted to remain neutral made the first of several comments throughout the week. So please, avoid playing the fool unless you know what you're talking about.

"I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days."

Mr Obama said that supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had been expected to claim victory in the polls after a late surge during his campaign, felt "betrayed" by the official results that gave the former prime minister just 33.75 per cent.

"And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

"And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected."

Yeah....those are the inspiring words of a real leader of the free world....NOT

Obama missed a real chance to promote the principles of freedom....for which America has always stood....but he's been running around apologizing for America so much since he got in office that I don't think he even believes that much in America....but then leftists are not exactly pro-freedom...