All Hell still breaking out

[brownlou]

washingtonpost.com

Mousavi seeks to overturn Iran election result | U.S. | Reuters

All Hell still breaking out in Iran. I guess alot of Iranians really think the election was rigged because they aren't letting go.
This makes me think back to the 2000 election and how complacent Americans were about it. Then again, I have always thought that Gore supporters were pussies.

 

[user_name_guest]

washingtonpost.com

Mousavi seeks to overturn Iran election result | U.S. | Reuters

All Hell still breaking out in Iran. I guess alot of Iranians really think the election was rigged because they aren't letting go.
This makes me think back to the 2000 election and how complacent Americans were about it. Then again, I have always thought that Gore supporters were pussies.

If Obama ran against the Iranian President in Iran, he would lose too because it's rigged.

 

[Annie]

best coverage on Iran:

Michael J. Totten: Insurrection: Day 2

go to 'home' to see previous coverage. Go to archives to see much more that led up to what's what.

 

[PoliticalChic]

best coverage on Iran:

Michael J. Totten: Insurrection: Day 2

go to 'home' to see previous coverage. Go to archives to see much more that led up to what's what.

Excellent.

And this, from Stratfor.com:

Judging both from history and from pictures and anecdotes of protesters on the streets of Tehran, Iran’s security apparatus appears more than capable of breaking up these demonstrations should they continue through the next day. SMS messaging and Facebook have been shut down intermittently in Iran to prevent the protests from gaining momentum.

[Mousavi] is appealing both publicly and privately to clerics and other powerful members of the establishment, including Expediency Council chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Majlis speaker Ali Larijani, to back up his claims of voter fraud. Unless Mousavi gets support from someone in the ruling elite, his protest is likely to fizzle out.

Khamenei, Interior Minister Sadiq Mahsouli and Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Seyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi have all proclaimed that the elections were conducted freely and fairly, making clear that any move to dispute the results would represent a direct challenge to the state. The resounding silence from powerful figures like Rafsanjani and Larijani is a strong indication that the election results and claims of fraud are not compelling enough to cause a split within the ruling elite.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

All Hell still breaking out in Iran. I guess alot of Iranians really think the election was rigged because they aren't letting go.
This makes me think back to the 2000 election and how complacent Americans were about it. Then again, I have always thought that Gore supporters were pussies.

Well... that is the difference in a populace that percieves their system to be legitimate vs. a populace who does not percieve their system to illegitimate as well as an election that lacked any independent election monitors. Pretty much what the Ayatollah and Mullahs want is what the Ayatollah and Mullahs get.

And, of course, I always thought Bush supports were dudes who violently sodomized their sphincters with very large dildos every night... So I guess all of America is happy that Bush supporters were not on the other end of the controversy and violently sodomizing the sphincters of Gore supporters with their very large dildos.

 

[DavidS]

Iran has a wonderfully rich and beautiful history and culture. The fundamentalist Islamic route has robbed Iran of those treasures because of the US's meddling in their affairs back in the 1950s. Thus, we created the mess that occurred in 1979 - 1981 - with a bitter anti-American state. We then angered Iran even more by arming Iraq with WMDs to use against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. So we instigated the mess even further. Relations somewhat thawed, though not much, during the 1990s under Clinton, but they again re-froze after 9/11 and when Bush called them an "axis of evil."

Finally, we have an intelligent president who is not single minded and wants to engage Iran, diplomatically and the people of Iran are tired of being isolated by the international community and having dealings with only highly socialist and communist regimes who suppress their people such as Venezulea and North Korea.

I criticized Obama's speech in Egypt at first... now I understand the reasons behind it. It was a brilliant political move that not only handed Hezbollah a defeat in Lebanon, but has millions of young Iranians who desperately want to have normal relations with America. His speech has affected the politics of middle eastern countries - so much so that they want to have better relations with us.

Ahmadinejad MUST GO!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Iran has a wonderfully rich and beautiful history and culture. The fundamentalist Islamic route has robbed Iran of those treasures because of the US's meddling in their affairs back in the 1950s. Thus, we created the mess that occurred in 1979 - 1981 - with a bitter anti-American state. We then angered Iran even more by arming Iraq with WMDs to use against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. So we instigated the mess even further. Relations somewhat thawed, though not much, during the 1990s under Clinton, but they again re-froze after 9/11 and when Bush called them an "axis of evil."

Finally, we have an intelligent president who is not single minded and wants to engage Iran, diplomatically and the people of Iran are tired of being isolated by the international community and having dealings with only highly socialist and communist regimes who suppress their people such as Venezulea and North Korea.

I criticized Obama's speech in Egypt at first... now I understand the reasons behind it. It was a brilliant political move that not only handed Hezbollah a defeat in Lebanon, but has millions of young Iranians who desperately want to have normal relations with America. His speech has affected the politics of middle eastern countries - so much so that they want to have better relations with us.

Ahmadinejad MUST GO!

Finally we have a President who openly subscribes to the Liberal axiom that the Muslim world respects weakness.

And, to help you brush up on your history:
"The first stirrings of this unholy alliance between leftists and jihadists were visible after the Iranian revolution of 1979. Again displaying a remarkable myopia about their new heroes’ crimes—the mullahs in Iran killed more people just in the span of two weeks in 1979 (about 20,000) than the hated Shah had in 38 years—Western radicals like French philosopher Michel Foucault indulged both their noble-savage idealization of the non-Western “other” and their usual adolescent worship of “revolution.”
Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton, City Journal 5 June 2009

 

[Harry Dresden]

Well... that is the difference in a populace that percieves their system to be legitimate vs. a populace who does not percieve their system to illegitimate as well as an election that lacked any independent election monitors. Pretty much what the Ayatollah and Mullahs want is what the Ayatollah and Mullahs get.

And, of course, I always thought Bush supports were dudes who violently sodomized their sphincters with very large dildos every night... So I guess all of America is happy that Bush supporters were not on the other end of the controversy and violently sodomizing the sphincters of Gore supporters with their very large dildos.

so....were you pitching or catching?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Well... that is the difference in a populace that percieves their system to be legitimate vs. a populace who does not percieve their system to illegitimate as well as an election that lacked any independent election monitors. Pretty much what the Ayatollah and Mullahs want is what the Ayatollah and Mullahs get.

And, of course, I always thought Bush supports were dudes who violently sodomized their sphincters with very large dildos every night... So I guess all of America is happy that Bush supporters were not on the other end of the controversy and violently sodomizing the sphincters of Gore supporters with their very large dildos.

so....were you pitching or catching?

Well, in 2000 I was 14, therefore I couldn't vote, and was too preoccupied with getting a blowjob.

However, in the subsequent elections I have voted for Badnarik and Barr... so I am pretty much metaphorically screwing myself... but on principle.

 

[alan1]

Well... that is the difference in a populace that percieves their system to be legitimate vs. a populace who does not percieve their system to illegitimate as well as an election that lacked any independent election monitors. Pretty much what the Ayatollah and Mullahs want is what the Ayatollah and Mullahs get.

And, of course, I always thought Bush supports were dudes who violently sodomized their sphincters with very large dildos every night... So I guess all of America is happy that Bush supporters were not on the other end of the controversy and violently sodomizing the sphincters of Gore supporters with their very large dildos.

so....were you pitching or catching?

Well, in 2000 I was 14, therefore I couldn't vote, and was too preoccupied with getting a blowjob.

However, in the subsequent elections I have voted for Badnarik and Barr... so I am pretty much metaphorically screwing myself... but on principle.

Did you like the taste of your first blowjob?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

so....were you pitching or catching?

Well, in 2000 I was 14, therefore I couldn't vote, and was too preoccupied with getting a blowjob.

However, in the subsequent elections I have voted for Badnarik and Barr... so I am pretty much metaphorically screwing myself... but on principle.

Did you like the taste of your first blowjob?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

OMgZ lOlZ!!one!1!!1 You must feel so witty.

However, in the american english vernacular there is quite a difference between "getting a blowjob" and "giving a blowjob."

 

[xotoxi]

"All Hell still breaking out "

My bad...I assumed this was a discussion about acne.

Carry on.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you think this is hell, you havent seen anything yet.

 

[DavidS]

Iran has a wonderfully rich and beautiful history and culture. The fundamentalist Islamic route has robbed Iran of those treasures because of the US's meddling in their affairs back in the 1950s. Thus, we created the mess that occurred in 1979 - 1981 - with a bitter anti-American state. We then angered Iran even more by arming Iraq with WMDs to use against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. So we instigated the mess even further. Relations somewhat thawed, though not much, during the 1990s under Clinton, but they again re-froze after 9/11 and when Bush called them an "axis of evil."

Finally, we have an intelligent president who is not single minded and wants to engage Iran, diplomatically and the people of Iran are tired of being isolated by the international community and having dealings with only highly socialist and communist regimes who suppress their people such as Venezulea and North Korea.

I criticized Obama's speech in Egypt at first... now I understand the reasons behind it. It was a brilliant political move that not only handed Hezbollah a defeat in Lebanon, but has millions of young Iranians who desperately want to have normal relations with America. His speech has affected the politics of middle eastern countries - so much so that they want to have better relations with us.

Ahmadinejad MUST GO!

Finally we have a President who openly subscribes to the Liberal axiom that the Muslim world respects weakness.

And, to help you brush up on your history:
"The first stirrings of this unholy alliance between leftists and jihadists were visible after the Iranian revolution of 1979. Again displaying a remarkable myopia about their new heroes’ crimes—the mullahs in Iran killed more people just in the span of two weeks in 1979 (about 20,000) than the hated Shah had in 38 years—Western radicals like French philosopher Michel Foucault indulged both their noble-savage idealization of the non-Western “other” and their usual adolescent worship of “revolution.”
Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton, City Journal 5 June 2009

Weakness? You call diplomacy weakness? You call reaching out weakness? Look what happened under George W. Bush - Iran became more right wing than it had ever been, as did Gaza, as did Lebanon and as did several other countries to counter our off-puttedness and tough cowboy rhetoric from W.

Do you call what Kennedy did, establishing communications with the Soviet Union after the Cuban Missile Crisis, weak? I'm not nor is Obama saying we'll make them allies and favorite trading partners like Bush did - but at least sit down and talk to those who want to talk to us. The Mullahs don't - they are like Bush and the hard line conservatives. This other guy, the Reformist, is like Obama. He wants freedom for the people of Iran, not some dictatorship. He wants open relations witht the US, where we at least talk to each other.

What happens, PC, when two people don't talk to each other? No one says anything and you're only left with assumptions of what the other person means. And you know what happens when you assume...

There is nothing wrong with talking so long as when you're done talking and the other side doesn't want to listen, you're ready to respond with action. If Obama doesn't exhuast every single diplomatic channel possible with Iran and we wind up, or Israel winds up attacking Iran - the people, the youth movement in Iran, the millions of people there hoping and praying for a better life, will all forget about everything and will turn against us and will setback relations decades if not longer. We have to try to talk, but never take the military option off of the table.

 

[Avatar4321]

Iran has a wonderfully rich and beautiful history and culture. The fundamentalist Islamic route has robbed Iran of those treasures because of the US's meddling in their affairs back in the 1950s. Thus, we created the mess that occurred in 1979 - 1981 - with a bitter anti-American state. We then angered Iran even more by arming Iraq with WMDs to use against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. So we instigated the mess even further. Relations somewhat thawed, though not much, during the 1990s under Clinton, but they again re-froze after 9/11 and when Bush called them an "axis of evil."

Finally, we have an intelligent president who is not single minded and wants to engage Iran, diplomatically and the people of Iran are tired of being isolated by the international community and having dealings with only highly socialist and communist regimes who suppress their people such as Venezulea and North Korea.

I criticized Obama's speech in Egypt at first... now I understand the reasons behind it. It was a brilliant political move that not only handed Hezbollah a defeat in Lebanon, but has millions of young Iranians who desperately want to have normal relations with America. His speech has affected the politics of middle eastern countries - so much so that they want to have better relations with us.

Ahmadinejad MUST GO!

Finally we have a President who openly subscribes to the Liberal axiom that the Muslim world respects weakness.

And, to help you brush up on your history:
"The first stirrings of this unholy alliance between leftists and jihadists were visible after the Iranian revolution of 1979. Again displaying a remarkable myopia about their new heroes’ crimes—the mullahs in Iran killed more people just in the span of two weeks in 1979 (about 20,000) than the hated Shah had in 38 years—Western radicals like French philosopher Michel Foucault indulged both their noble-savage idealization of the non-Western “other” and their usual adolescent worship of “revolution.”
Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton, City Journal 5 June 2009

Weakness? You call diplomacy weakness? You call reaching out weakness? Look what happened under George W. Bush - Iran became more right wing than it had ever been, as did Gaza, as did Lebanon and as did several other countries to counter our off-puttedness and tough cowboy rhetoric from W.

Do you call what Kennedy did, establishing communications with the Soviet Union after the Cuban Missile Crisis, weak? I'm not nor is Obama saying we'll make them allies and favorite trading partners like Bush did - but at least sit down and talk to those who want to talk to us. The Mullahs don't - they are like Bush and the hard line conservatives. This other guy, the Reformist, is like Obama. He wants freedom for the people of Iran, not some dictatorship. He wants open relations witht the US, where we at least talk to each other.

What happens, PC, when two people don't talk to each other? No one says anything and you're only left with assumptions of what the other person means. And you know what happens when you assume...

There is nothing wrong with talking so long as when you're done talking and the other side doesn't want to listen, you're ready to respond with action. If Obama doesn't exhuast every single diplomatic channel possible with Iran and we wind up, or Israel winds up attacking Iran - the people, the youth movement in Iran, the millions of people there hoping and praying for a better life, will all forget about everything and will turn against us and will setback relations decades if not longer. We have to try to talk, but never take the military option off of the table.

Since when did Obama want freedom? The man is one of the greatest power grabs in the history of the United States.

You honestly think Iran is facing revolution because of Obama spoke in Egypt?

 

[Annie]

Kennedy never really established discussion/diplomacy with USSR. Nor did Johnson, if they had, perhaps Vietnam wouldn't have been so painful a chapter. Truth is, there is a limit to what diplomacy can accomplish and Iran isn't close to the point of being amiable to such. North Korea? LOL!

 

[DavidS]

Finally we have a President who openly subscribes to the Liberal axiom that the Muslim world respects weakness.

And, to help you brush up on your history:
"The first stirrings of this unholy alliance between leftists and jihadists were visible after the Iranian revolution of 1979. Again displaying a remarkable myopia about their new heroes’ crimes—the mullahs in Iran killed more people just in the span of two weeks in 1979 (about 20,000) than the hated Shah had in 38 years—Western radicals like French philosopher Michel Foucault indulged both their noble-savage idealization of the non-Western “other” and their usual adolescent worship of “revolution.”
Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton, City Journal 5 June 2009

Weakness? You call diplomacy weakness? You call reaching out weakness? Look what happened under George W. Bush - Iran became more right wing than it had ever been, as did Gaza, as did Lebanon and as did several other countries to counter our off-puttedness and tough cowboy rhetoric from W.

Do you call what Kennedy did, establishing communications with the Soviet Union after the Cuban Missile Crisis, weak? I'm not nor is Obama saying we'll make them allies and favorite trading partners like Bush did - but at least sit down and talk to those who want to talk to us. The Mullahs don't - they are like Bush and the hard line conservatives. This other guy, the Reformist, is like Obama. He wants freedom for the people of Iran, not some dictatorship. He wants open relations witht the US, where we at least talk to each other.

What happens, PC, when two people don't talk to each other? No one says anything and you're only left with assumptions of what the other person means. And you know what happens when you assume...

There is nothing wrong with talking so long as when you're done talking and the other side doesn't want to listen, you're ready to respond with action. If Obama doesn't exhuast every single diplomatic channel possible with Iran and we wind up, or Israel winds up attacking Iran - the people, the youth movement in Iran, the millions of people there hoping and praying for a better life, will all forget about everything and will turn against us and will setback relations decades if not longer. We have to try to talk, but never take the military option off of the table.

Since when did Obama want freedom? The man is one of the greatest power grabs in the history of the United States.

You honestly think Iran is facing revolution because of Obama spoke in Egypt?

Since when did an election margin of over 9 million people become a power grab? Sure you could make a case for ACORN if the margin was less than 500,000 - but 9 million? Oh right, the Muslim single member terrorist cell aka Barrack Mohammad Hussein Obama who was born in Kenya and forged his birth certificate so he could run for Senate... oh wait, you don't need to be an American born citizen to run for Senate... nevermind.

 

[rhodescholar]

Weakness? You call diplomacy weakness? You call reaching out weakness? Look what happened under George W. Bush - Iran became more right wing than it had ever been, as did Gaza, as did Lebanon and as did several other countries to counter our off-puttedness and tough cowboy rhetoric from W.

Do you call what Kennedy did, establishing communications with the Soviet Union after the Cuban Missile Crisis, weak? I'm not nor is Obama saying we'll make them allies and favorite trading partners like Bush did - but at least sit down and talk to those who want to talk to us. The Mullahs don't - they are like Bush and the hard line conservatives. This other guy, the Reformist, is like Obama. He wants freedom for the people of Iran, not some dictatorship. He wants open relations witht the US, where we at least talk to each other.

What happens, PC, when two people don't talk to each other? No one says anything and you're only left with assumptions of what the other person means. And you know what happens when you assume...

There is nothing wrong with talking so long as when you're done talking and the other side doesn't want to listen, you're ready to respond with action. If Obama doesn't exhuast every single diplomatic channel possible with Iran and we wind up, or Israel winds up attacking Iran - the people, the youth movement in Iran, the millions of people there hoping and praying for a better life, will all forget about everything and will turn against us and will setback relations decades if not longer. We have to try to talk, but never take the military option off of the table.

I must respectfully disagree David, as the world has spent 7 years talking with the mullahs, and their only interest is to pull a north korea, ie., develop nukes to ensure their continued hold on power protected from external forces. After all, look at what they are doing right now to internal forces agitating for democracy, they are easily willing to murder their own citizens, this translates into how easily they can start killing other nations' when threatened.

The only way IMO is to overthrow this god-awful dictatorship of thugs and murderers via an outside military intervention, and the wind to do so is closing fast - maybe a few more months. I may be wrong as it stands now, they could already have an atomic bomb. Perhaps this is why Bush didn't attack before - or allow israel to attack them - he had intelligence that iran was already a nuclear weapons power, and could not disclose this publicly.

There really isn't anything to discuss with them once you get right down to it, the regime is rejectionist of any peace process, and will not stop using and applying terrorism as a means to further its political goals. Only the complete and total military destruction of iran criminal government will allow the promise of peace to be fostered in the middle east.