Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Does Barry Hussein have a new problem to deal with?Follow

#127 Jun 02 2008 at 12:23 PM Rating: Decent
Totem wrote:
Moreover, the vast majority of people aren't in any way related or even remotely connected to the movers and shakers in the world, present or past. It's pure hubris to think otherwise.




Actually, something like 50% of Mongolians are descendants of Genghis Khan, as one example. That man got around.

And to answer your initial question, Totem: no. No, he doesn't.
#128 Jun 02 2008 at 12:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Washington Post wrote:

But on a recent two-week trip to Iran, I found the shift in sentiment palpable. This year, restaurants were booked solid for Valentine's Day months in advance. Heart-shaped chocolates and flower arrangements sold briskly enough to annoy the authorities, who reportedly began confiscating them on the street. [...] I discovered people lining up at a grill joint called Chili's, bearing the same jalapeño logo as the U.S. chain. (The Iranian government shuns international trademark laws).
[...]
The most interesting aspect of the revival of such warm feelings today is that the United States has done so little to earn them. Instead, Iranians' renewed pro-American sentiments reflect the depth of their alienation from their own rulers. As a family friend put it: "It's a matter of being drawn to the opposite of what you can't stand."

I lived in Iran until last summer and experienced all the reasons why Ahmadinejad has replaced the United States as Iranians' top object of vexation. Under his leadership, inflation has spiked at least 20 percent, according to nongovernment analysts -- thanks to Ahmadinejad's expansionary fiscal policies, which inject vast amounts of cash into the economy. My old babysitter, for example, says she can no longer afford to feed her family red meat once a week.
[...]
I watched Ahmadinejad on television as he addressed Iranians from the holy city of Qom. He blamed everyone -- the hostile West, a domestic "cigarette mafia" -- for the economic downturn, just as he had previously claimed that a "housing mafia" was driving up real estate prices. Many Iranians who initially believed this kind of conspiracy talk now admit that the president's policies and obstinacy are actually at fault.
[...]



Um... So in other words, they like the US because our leader(s) have correctly identified Achmadinnerjacket as the key problem and opposed him since day one of his administration?

So. Bush was right all along? Hmmm... ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Jun 02 2008 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Um... So in other words, they like the US because our leader(s) have correctly identified Achmadinnerjacket as the key problem and opposed him since day one of his administration?


They've recognized anyone who controls large amounts of oil who isn't beholden to the US as the "key problem". Chavez, Saddam, etc. etc.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#130 Jun 02 2008 at 12:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... So in other words, they like the US because our leader(s) have correctly identified Achmadinnerjacket as the key problem and opposed him since day one of his administration?
Well, no. They like the US despite our current leader which has done all in his power to alienate them. Which is why they hope Obama will win -- they wanna like us but Bush & Co is making it hard for them. You seem to have forgotten to quote this:
Quote:
Starting in about 2005, Iranians' historic esteem for the United States gave way to a deep ambivalence that is only now ending. President Bush's post-9/11 wars of liberation on both of Iran's borders -- in Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east -- rattled ordinary Iranians, and Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program -- a major source of national pride -- added to their resentment.


Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 3:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Jun 02 2008 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, no. They like the US despite our current leader which has done all in his power to alienate them. Which is why they hope Obama will win -- they wanna like us but Bush & Co is making it hard for them. You seem to have forgotten to quote this:
Quote:
Starting in about 2005, Iranians' historic esteem for the United States gave way to a deep ambivalence that is only now ending. President Bush's post-9/11 wars of liberation on both of Iran's borders -- in Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east -- rattled ordinary Iranians, and Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program -- a major source of national pride -- added to their resentment.



I interpreted that to mean that in 2005, they were concerned that Bush would perhaps continue right on into Iran after invading Iraq and Afghanistan, a fear that was capitalized upon by their own leaders. After the people realized that this wasn't going to happen and that the leaders they'd elected out of that fear weren't serving their interests, they came back around. Sure. That's my take on it, but it makes sense and matches the facts listed in the article.


Care to explain how sitting down and chatting one on one with the very leader they've come to distrust and despise works in this situation? Ultimately, that's what I got out of this article. That they have come to realize that their own nutty leader is the real problem, not the US. And it's largely been the foreign policy approach of the Bush administration that's allowed them to see that. They've given him just enough rope to hang himself with and maintained a continual "this guys a nutjob" stance all along. Obama would legitimize the very leader that the Iranians don't trust or like anymore.


Like I said. In other words, the Bush administration's approach has worked. Obama's would undermine that and put us back another 10 years on this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Jun 02 2008 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Also, given the historic American support and help in seating the Shah of Iran, who was a controversial person in his own right, both autocratic and not unfamiliar with torture, I feel nervous about US involvement in their internal affairs. I remember what happened to the Shah, the multi-factioned opposition that lead to the rise of the fundamentalist Ayatollah and the explicit anti-American sentiment that was in part due to the CIA involvement to unseat Mossadegh and IIRC , b/c he began to nationalize the oil industry.

Oh history, you repeat yourself. And unlike the US, most of the world has a longer historic memory.

PS. People shouldn't underestimate the power of Persian identity, especially in regard to separating themselves from the rest of the middle east and align themselves with the US. Persian and Iranian identity has always sat uncomfortable next and separate from pan-Arab identity (and most Persians/Iranians I've met say that Iranians are not Arab). Part of a point that these sentiments predate this current situation and cannot be necessarily attributed to the current political situation.




Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 5:28pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#133 Jun 02 2008 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I interpreted that to mean that in 2005, they were concerned that Bush would perhaps continue right on into Iran after invading Iraq and Afghanistan, a fear that was capitalized upon by their own leaders. After the people realized that this wasn't going to happen and that the leaders they'd elected out of that fear weren't serving their interests, they came back around.
Well, according to a couple new sources, they might be disappointed. Take the media sources for whatever you want...
USA Today wrote:
The White House on Tuesday denied a published report in Israel that said President Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term in January.

A story in the Jerusalem Post quoted a "senior official" there as saying that Bush plans to attack Iran in the coming months. The story says the unidentified official claimed that a "senior member" of Bush's traveling entourage made the statement about attacking Iran in a closed meeting. Bush was in Israel last week.

The article also says the unnamed Bush official said that Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney "were of the opinion that military action were called for."

"An article in today's Jerusalem Post about the president's position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources — quoting unnamed sources — is not worth the paper it's written on," White House press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement.
Asia Times Online wrote:
The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
Anything? Maybe/probably not. We'll know in a few months, eh?

Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 4:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Jun 02 2008 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. That's my take on it, but it makes sense and matches the facts listed in the article.
[...]
They've given him just enough rope to hang himself with and maintained a continual "this guys a nutjob" stance all along. Obama would legitimize the very leader that the Iranians don't trust or like anymore.
If the Iranian people were concerned that Obama's diplomacy would legitimize someone they don't care for, it stands to reason that they wouldn't view him as their best chance at bridging the gap between nations. It's not as though the people of Iran aren't following the US election or are unaware of Obama's dipolmacy policies.

More likely, they see Obama as someone who can, along with internal pressure from the people/government of Iran, get Ahmadinejad to take the carrot. Or, if not Ahmadinejad, then whoever replaces him.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#135 Jun 02 2008 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
No way, no how, not gonna happen, never, nerve, never will we attack Iran before Bush leaves office in January. Nope. Unpossible-- unless Iran does something incredibly foolish like attack Israel or Iraq.

Bank on it.

Those "sources" quoted in the Jerusalem Post are talking out their a$$. It isn't in the cards under any other circumstances.

Totem
#136 Jun 02 2008 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll hold you to that when it happens! Smiley: wink2
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Jun 02 2008 at 1:28 PM Rating: Decent
Mohammad Khatami was only the first step Iran took toward democracy, a path which Iran abandoned due to Bush Jr. and Co.

Trying to raise Iran as a positive point for Bush is so far removed from reality that this is exactly the right forum for it.

Please, continue.
#138 Jun 02 2008 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. That's my take on it, but it makes sense and matches the facts listed in the article.
[...]
They've given him just enough rope to hang himself with and maintained a continual "this guys a nutjob" stance all along. Obama would legitimize the very leader that the Iranians don't trust or like anymore.
If the Iranian people were concerned that Obama's diplomacy would legitimize someone they don't care for, it stands to reason that they wouldn't view him as their best chance at bridging the gap between nations. It's not as though the people of Iran aren't following the US election or are unaware of Obama's dipolmacy policies.


You're correct. That seems to be contradictory, doesn't it? On the one hand, you've got an article that's primarily about how the Iranian people like us because they dislike their current leadership and we oppose that leadership (the "It's a matter of being drawn to the opposite of what you can't stand" quote).

On the other hand, there's a single speculative statement at the end that says that Iranians "seem" to support Obama because they believe he'll patch things up with Iran.

So which is it? Do they want us to "patch things up" with their leadership? Or do they want us to oppose their leaders and support them perhaps in obtaining better leadership? We can speculate on the nuances of the article author's word choice, but I have a feeling that if you polled Iranians with the question "Do you want the US president to have direct talks with Ahmadinejad", most would say "hell no!".

Um... Maybe Iranians really don't support Obama that much? Or they, like many American's, also think Obama holds different positions then he actually does?

Quote:
More likely, they see Obama as someone who can, along with internal pressure from the people/government of Iran, get Ahmadinejad to take the carrot. Or, if not Ahmadinejad, then whoever replaces him.


I seriously doubt it. I think that more likely, the article writer took a bit of license with his "seem to support Obama" statement. The entire substance of the article was about how the US's stance against Ahmadinejad is the main reason why Iranians like us, but then ends with a statement that they like Obama? Either that is a false statement, or there's a lot of people in Iran who don't know what Obama has said he'd do. I doubt seriously that any of them think that Obama can sit down with the man and magically "patch things up".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Jun 02 2008 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
*Shrug* You don't know and I don't either. I don't care enough about it to play guessing games and "what would the imaginary poll say?" with you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Jun 02 2008 at 11:23 PM Rating: Default
Sigh I feel like Lewis Black. I am agreeing with people I normally wouldnt like Totem and Gbaji.

Its like when Black said "Now Bush has come out supporting Global warming.... as a result I am not sure anymore?" (mostly correct quote =P)

It again doesnt matter I am from the state that has voted McCain numerous times into office, but if HRC doesnt win the ticket I am not supporting Obama period. It is all but over of course.

Current polls have her winning in a landslide and him close but I know not of what I speak.

Also rumors have come out about a Michelle Obama "Whitey Video". I think if HRC had it she would have used it by now. If McCain has it and its true he wont even need Crist to win.

I am not sure if it exists and would tell him to grapple on the Crist VP NOW!!! to win but again if he has this vid and it exists he could grapple on Jeb and win.

I feel bad that the Dems have passed on the most powerful cannidate they had and Obama chose to run now instead of wait until it was "his time". But with McCain I trust our nations future more then Obama.

If I was laying odds on the best result for our nation.

HRC= 8-3 I pay eight for your 3 if we are not better off with her as president 4-8 years from now.

Obama 5-1, I pay five to your one if we are better off in 4-8 years.

McCain 4-1, I pay four to your one if we are not better off in 4-8 years ( his odds are higher based on his age and my distrust of a much more expericened Crist vs Obama, if McCain lives the 1-2 terms I am 3-1)

Sorry I dont bet much but she is a huge favorite on my book. The other two are not and you should get some feel for my confidence in them by that.

If the October tape exists good lord.....

edit-- if hrc had it she would have used it, so
I am like 1 in 99 this tape exists. I probably wasnt that clear on that.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2008 4:04am by flishtaco
#141 Jun 03 2008 at 6:23 AM Rating: Default
***
1,450 posts
I think the most important thing is:

Who cares about his uncle, great-uncle, fathers friends, mom's lovers, or his sisters.

Anything that they did is irrelevant, it is what he is going to do? I think the appropriate response to someone running for office bragging about what their ancestors did is: So?
#142 Jun 03 2008 at 6:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Moonkissed wrote:
I think the most important thing is:

Who cares about his uncle, great-uncle, fathers friends, mom's lovers, or his sisters.

Anything that they did is irrelevant, it is what he is going to do? I think the appropriate response to someone running for office bragging about what their ancestors did is: So?


haha, he wasn't bragging...he was pointing out that in the time that his great uncle served, there was no support for post traumatic stress disorder for returning soldiers.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#143 Jun 03 2008 at 6:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well... that's like bragging, Nexa.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#144 Jun 03 2008 at 6:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Samira wrote:
Well... that's like bragging, Nexa.


"So why are you walking for cancer today?"

"well, my mom died of cancer"

"Yeah, ok, enough with the bragging...who cares?"

____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#145 Jun 03 2008 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Liberal bastion National Review Online thinks that the rumor of a Michelle Obama/Whitey video is a load.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147 Jun 03 2008 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Supposedly, we were going to see this morning.

I'm about ready to get my lunch and no breaking news stories yet. Keep hopin' though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Jun 03 2008 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
midgetboy wrote:
I also find it amusing that Hillary has gotten more votes than Obama in the primary but for some odd reason we don't hear Obama supporters talking about counting every vote.
Sure, if you count Michigan and discount all the caucuses without official counts.

Doesn't matter anyway. Primaries are determined by delegates just as the general is determined by electoral votes. Did you complain in 2000 that Gore was robbed? Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Jun 03 2008 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
midgetboy wrote:
And presidents are determined by the electoral college but we still hear about how W "stole" the election time and again from Democrats.
Sure. Not from me though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 359 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (359)