Iran's "supreme leader" is losing it

[DiveCon]

Or maybe it's our aggressive policies toward them.

nope, its the fact we arent muslim and have sharia law
and unless we convert, that wont change

I'm guessing that they object more to our meddling in their affairs than what religion we adhere to.

yeah, cause no other countries meddle in others affairs
that is about as lame a fucking excuse as anyone ever puts forth

 

[DiveCon]

That's nice, and it's also politically correct. By doing a simple resolution, which is not a statement of foreign policy, the message gets sent loud and clear that the American people support the Iranian people but without declaring any intent to muddle in their election process.

It's what they could do, as the power for foreign affairs lies within the executive branch which has done zilch.

What are they supposed to "do"?? Get real. It's none of our fucking business how they conduct their elections, nor how they turn out.

wow, on this point i agree
nothing he really can do, partially because nothing he would say would be believable

 

[Annie]

That's nice, and it's also politically correct. By doing a simple resolution, which is not a statement of foreign policy, the message gets sent loud and clear that the American people support the Iranian people but without declaring any intent to muddle in their election process.

It's what they could do, as the power for foreign affairs lies within the executive branch which has done zilch.

What are they supposed to "do"?? Get real. It's none of our fucking business how they conduct their elections, nor how they turn out.

Ya know MM, I just can't be bothered wasting any more time on responding to you. You've not a clue to what is in the best interest of the country, unlike many on the left, who do disagree with the right, but use logic. A parameter that is absent from your quiver.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

nope, its the fact we arent muslim and have sharia law
and unless we convert, that wont change

I'm guessing that they object more to our meddling in their affairs than what religion we adhere to.

yeah, cause no other countries meddle in others affairs
that is about as lame a fucking excuse as anyone ever puts forth

No one on the level of the United States. I have no doubt that the Ayatollah and others may continue condemning the U.S. no matter what we do. However, without any legitimate bread and butter issues they wouldn't be able to rally any serious support.

 

[MaggieMae]

but we do need to encourage the revolution and will we stand by and watch them slaughtered people in the streets....

The United States needs to stay the hell out of the political process of ANY country in the region. Period. In the case of Israel and Palestine, both political factions have asked for the United States to "broker" peace talks. We have absolutely no right to barge in and tell anyone how to conduct their political affairs unless specifically requested to observe or arbitrate.

How would WE like it?

 

[MaggieMae]

There shouldn't really be a question of whose side the US is on:

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask? - WSJ.com

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask?
With Twitter's help, the youth of Iran take on the ayatollahs.
By PEGGY NOONAN

America so often gets Iran wrong. We didn't know when the shah was going to fall, didn't foresee the massive wave that would topple him, didn't know the 1979 revolution would move violently against American citizens, didn't know how to handle the hostage-taking. Last week we didn't know a mass rebellion was coming, and this week we don't know who will emerge the full or partial victor. So modesty and humility seem appropriate stances from which to observe and comment.

That having been said, it's pretty wonderful to see what we're seeing. It is moving, stirring—they are risking their lives over there in a spontaneous, self-generated movement for greater liberty and justice. Good for them. In a selfish and solipsistic way—more on that in a moment—the uprising, as it moves us, reminds us of who we are: lovers of political freedom who are always and irresistibly on the side of the student standing in front of the tank or the demonstrator chanting "Where is my vote?" in the face of the billy club. Good for us. (If you don't understand who the American people are for, put down this newspaper or get up from your computer, walk into the street and grab the first non-insane-looking person you meet. Say, "Did you see the demonstrations in Iran? It's the ayatollahs versus the reformers. Who do you want to win?" You won't just get "the reformers," you'll get the perplexed-puppy look, a tilt of the head and a wondering stare: You have to ask?)....

I don't much care for Noonan for several years, but in this case she says it well.

So there ya go. The Iranians will take care of this themselves. Why should the executive office develop a new "foreign policy" toward Iran just because the reformers didn't win?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

A couple of things......the VP said in a speech a few days ago that he thought the election was a sham. In other words, he insinuated that it was rigged. Now, is Obama going to sit back and let the VP do his talking? Personally, I don't think we should say a damn thing. Their people obviously are pissed and are letting the world know their feelings. If I was the Khomeni (or however you spell it) I would be worried about a real revolution. A lot of their men were college educated in the United States during the time the Shah was in charge, so they know all about a democratic society. My college roommate was a Persian. I can't see this oppressive government lasting very much longer.

From your lips to Allah's ears!

 

[Sunni Man]

That's nice, and it's also politically correct. By doing a simple resolution, which is not a statement of foreign policy, the message gets sent loud and clear that the American people support the Iranian people but without declaring any intent to muddle in their election process.

It's what they could do, as the power for foreign affairs lies within the executive branch which has done zilch.

What are they supposed to "do"?? Get real. It's none of our fucking business how they conduct their elections, nor how they turn out.

Iran is a soverign nation with it's own unique culture and history.

They do not need the U.S. getting into their affairs.

Yes, there are "thousands" protesting the election.

But there are "millions" who are happy with the election of Ahmadinejad.

 

[MaggieMae]

A couple of things......the VP said in a speech a few days ago that he thought the election was a sham. In other words, he insinuated that it was rigged. Now, is Obama going to sit back and let the VP do his talking? Personally, I don't think we should say a damn thing. Their people obviously are pissed and are letting the world know their feelings. If I was the Khomeni (or however you spell it) I would be worried about a real revolution. A lot of their men were college educated in the United States during the time the Shah was in charge, so they know all about a democratic society. My college roommate was a Persian. I can't see this oppressive government lasting very much longer.

Anyone can SAY the election was a sham, but to formulate policy suggesting that because the United States doesn't like the way the election was conducted and therefore Iran better shape up would be downright stupid.

 

[Soaring]

The question is not that the reformers didn't win, it's that the reformers got beat illegally. I don't think there is any question about that, but it is none of our business. The United States needs to shut the fuck up and back off. And, that includes our MSM.

 

[Annie]

There shouldn't really be a question of whose side the US is on:

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask? - WSJ.com

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask?
With Twitter's help, the youth of Iran take on the ayatollahs.
By PEGGY NOONAN

America so often gets Iran wrong. We didn't know when the shah was going to fall, didn't foresee the massive wave that would topple him, didn't know the 1979 revolution would move violently against American citizens, didn't know how to handle the hostage-taking. Last week we didn't know a mass rebellion was coming, and this week we don't know who will emerge the full or partial victor. So modesty and humility seem appropriate stances from which to observe and comment.

That having been said, it's pretty wonderful to see what we're seeing. It is moving, stirring—they are risking their lives over there in a spontaneous, self-generated movement for greater liberty and justice. Good for them. In a selfish and solipsistic way—more on that in a moment—the uprising, as it moves us, reminds us of who we are: lovers of political freedom who are always and irresistibly on the side of the student standing in front of the tank or the demonstrator chanting "Where is my vote?" in the face of the billy club. Good for us. (If you don't understand who the American people are for, put down this newspaper or get up from your computer, walk into the street and grab the first non-insane-looking person you meet. Say, "Did you see the demonstrations in Iran? It's the ayatollahs versus the reformers. Who do you want to win?" You won't just get "the reformers," you'll get the perplexed-puppy look, a tilt of the head and a wondering stare: You have to ask?)....

I don't much care for Noonan for several years, but in this case she says it well.

So there ya go. The Iranians will take care of this themselves. Why should the executive office develop a new "foreign policy" toward Iran just because the reformers didn't win?

​

 

[MaggieMae]

There shouldn't really be a question of whose side the US is on:

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask? - WSJ.com



I don't much care for Noonan for several years, but in this case she says it well.

So there ya go. The Iranians will take care of this themselves. Why should the executive office develop a new "foreign policy" toward Iran just because the reformers didn't win?

​

That's about what it feels like trying to communicate with you.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

A couple of things......the VP said in a speech a few days ago that he thought the election was a sham. In other words, he insinuated that it was rigged. Now, is Obama going to sit back and let the VP do his talking? Personally, I don't think we should say a damn thing. Their people obviously are pissed and are letting the world know their feelings. If I was the Khomeni (or however you spell it) I would be worried about a real revolution. A lot of their men were college educated in the United States during the time the Shah was in charge, so they know all about a democratic society. My college roommate was a Persian. I can't see this oppressive government lasting very much longer.

Anyone can SAY the election was a sham, but to formulate policy suggesting that because the United States doesn't like the way the election was conducted and therefore Iran better shape up would be downright stupid.

I think there are two issues. One, we really have no business telling people how to run their own affairs. As noted, we resent it when it comes at us, as it has quite often.

But there is something different here. This is the difference between the neighbor having a punk garage band playing past 7:30 and a drunken boyfriend beating up the girl next door.

As to what we can do, well not a lot. We should do as much as we can without making the situation worse though.

So the administration should definitely make sure that the Iranian citizens know we are not on the side of the bad guys for once.

 

[MaggieMae]

A couple of things......the VP said in a speech a few days ago that he thought the election was a sham. In other words, he insinuated that it was rigged. Now, is Obama going to sit back and let the VP do his talking? Personally, I don't think we should say a damn thing. Their people obviously are pissed and are letting the world know their feelings. If I was the Khomeni (or however you spell it) I would be worried about a real revolution. A lot of their men were college educated in the United States during the time the Shah was in charge, so they know all about a democratic society. My college roommate was a Persian. I can't see this oppressive government lasting very much longer.

Anyone can SAY the election was a sham, but to formulate policy suggesting that because the United States doesn't like the way the election was conducted and therefore Iran better shape up would be downright stupid.

I think there are two issues. One, we really have no business telling people how to run their own affairs. As noted, we resent it when it comes at us, as it has quite often.

But there is something different here. This is the difference between the neighbor having a punk garage band playing past 7:30 and a drunken boyfriend beating up the girl next door.

As to what we can do, well not a lot. We should do as much as we can without making the situation worse though.

So the administration should definitely make sure that the Iranian citizens know we are not on the side of the bad guys for once.

How could they NOT know that? Achmedinijad has been reviled all along by the United States.

 

[Annie]

Anyone can SAY the election was a sham, but to formulate policy suggesting that because the United States doesn't like the way the election was conducted and therefore Iran better shape up would be downright stupid.

I think there are two issues. One, we really have no business telling people how to run their own affairs. As noted, we resent it when it comes at us, as it has quite often.

But there is something different here. This is the difference between the neighbor having a punk garage band playing past 7:30 and a drunken boyfriend beating up the girl next door.

As to what we can do, well not a lot. We should do as much as we can without making the situation worse though.

So the administration should definitely make sure that the Iranian citizens know we are not on the side of the bad guys for once.

How could they NOT know that? Achmedinijad has been reviled all along by the United States.

Your point being regarding the crisis?

 

[MaggieMae]

I think there are two issues. One, we really have no business telling people how to run their own affairs. As noted, we resent it when it comes at us, as it has quite often.

But there is something different here. This is the difference between the neighbor having a punk garage band playing past 7:30 and a drunken boyfriend beating up the girl next door.

As to what we can do, well not a lot. We should do as much as we can without making the situation worse though.

So the administration should definitely make sure that the Iranian citizens know we are not on the side of the bad guys for once.

How could they NOT know that? Achmedinijad has been reviled all along by the United States.

Your point being regarding the crisis?

These are toughies.

 

[Annie]

How could they NOT know that? Achmedinijad has been reviled all along by the United States.

Your point being regarding the crisis?

These are toughies.

Please decode 'toughies'.

 

[Lycurgus]

Maybe not bones, Chris could be correct that BO not saying something has really undercut the Iranain Mullahs, they can't just knee-jerk blame america and it's having some effect on the riots and protests there.

I have to agree that not making blood public statements right now may actually work in our favor. However, I am not convinced that Obama can act if really called on to do so. He has already given them too much breathing room and the same with N. Korea.

 

[DiveCon]

Maybe not bones, Chris could be correct that BO not saying something has really undercut the Iranain Mullahs, they can't just knee-jerk blame america and it's having some effect on the riots and protests there.

I have to agree that not making blood public statements right now may actually work in our favor. However, I am not convinced that Obama can act if really called on to do so. He has already given them too much breathing room and the same with N. Korea.

since he had already said he would meet with the nutjob without preconditions, what can he really say now that would be taken as serious?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Maybe not bones, Chris could be correct that BO not saying something has really undercut the Iranain Mullahs, they can't just knee-jerk blame america and it's having some effect on the riots and protests there.

I have to agree that not making blood public statements right now may actually work in our favor. However, I am not convinced that Obama can act if really called on to do so. He has already given them too much breathing room and the same with N. Korea.

since he had already said he would meet with the nutjob without preconditions, what can he really say now that would be taken as serious?

The leadership in Iran has given no indication they are willing to make any changes in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons or in their support for terrorism, so there seems to be little to lose no matter what Obama says, and I would be happier to see an American president speak up for democracy and human rights rather than to keep his silence to curry favor tyrants.