• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush screws up calling reformist Iran "Axis of Evil"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< I will be happy to continue the discussion of deviant behavior onboard US/UK submarines in the morning, but right now this old Chief needs his beauty sleep. >>



And now you know why the Village People featured a sailor, rather than a soldier from the Army (home of the real men, and thank God for that)
 
As anybody been listening to Chris Matthews lately? He has spent the past two weeks bashing the President's speech like there's no tomorrow. I can't even watch him anymore.
 


<< And now you know why the Village People featured a sailor, rather than a soldier from the Army (home of the real men, and thank God for that) >>


Be nice!
 


<< Tripleshot goes through waves. His medication gets low and he posts his typical bullcrap and makes a complete fool of himself. >>

you know something Michael, I might not agree with him but I don't think he makes a fool out of himself. It would be rather boring if all we had were toe the line Republicans posting here. He also earned his right to rant over in the Jungles of Viet Nam while you were digging out of the snow in Canada and lord knows what I was doing (I'm sure the FBI could probably tell me)
 


<<

<< Fine. "Expand my understanding" of the differences between the so-called "reformers" in the government, and the "hardliners." Explain to me what the big difference is. Give me the reasons why Iran would miraculously turn itself into a peaceful, democratic state if the so-called reformers had their way, and provide specific examples of the policy differences worth noting between the two. >>



What, no takers? Come on, defend your beloved "reformist" Iranian government officials, and why they're so worthy of our support, versus a policy supporting the true and growing democratic movement from the people themselves, who are ready to throw off the yoke of the theocracy.... come on, give it your best shot. >>


The name escapes me, but there was a highly public figure, a moderate, who was a high ranking official in Iran... And he did an interview with CNN, where he explained his views, unfortunately others outrank him and were not so moderate... Had a law degree of some sort I believe...

My impression is that the vast majority of Iranians would prefer a progressively westernized goverment with fairly elected officials in power.

Those people, as are the people of any suppressed country whose goal is democracy, deserve our support... But as far as what actions to take when hardline Islamic fundamentalists are in power... I don't know...
 
I'm not fond of using this site as a source (too biased), but here's an interesting article:

The Iranian March Hoax

Here's some quotes from the NY Times article (somewhat biased, but usually a good news source):

"While the size of the Tehran crowd was impossible to estimate authoritatively, the wide avenues and highways leading to Freedom Square in Tehran were jammed with hundreds of thousands of people. Iranian television suggested that millions turned out across the country, showing pictures of jammed streets in every city. Marchers said they were more galvanized than in years past because they felt maligned by President Bush.

The turnout also reflected the daily exhortations to attend that accompanied every news bulletin since Mr. Bush's speech. Employees at various government ministries said they had been told to go.

The calls to attend did not move everyone. In affluent north Tehran, where one occasionally hears support for the idea that Mr. Bush should carry through with his threat to bomb, cars laden with skis headed out of town toward the slopes."

Michael
 
why dont we just stop sending f16's to israel and just (openly) give them nuclear weapons

LOL! 🙂
 


<< Bush choose his words carefully and they were right on the button. Screw all you whiny pukes, your type of appeasment is going to get a lot more Americans killed(good thing most of you neglect to vote)We need to continue to speak from a position of strength to remind those renegade nations that if they support terrorism they are going to pay dearly for it. We are just giving them fair notice. >>


Agreed... I believe there are inherent charisteristics/properties/obligations to being the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. And for what its worth I don't think that they are immediately obvious to anybody who hasn't spent much time thinking about it, including myself...

This is an incomplete list of what I'm talking about...
1. There are strong and far-ranging implications to everything we do and don't do. Other countries chose their foreign policy decisions carefully, trying to predict what the US's reaction would be. If we get attacked, we fight back to defend our rights, freedoms, etc, usually with near omnipotence...
2. Luckily for the world, we're a democracy... If we weren't, everyone would be in trouble. So we promote democracy throughout the world, and fight to seat it at the head of goverments whom we're involved in creating.
3. We need to decide how big a role we want/need to play in world affairs. We can do nothing, or we can do something, or we can stay and finish the job in other countries. We need to decide this policy ourselves, not because we have the right to, but becuase no one can tell us otherwise. Knowing this, the national interests still are first and foremost in our determining our international course of actions... We as a country weld the global power only a god should have, and our agenda is purely of self-preservation. Nothing wrong with that - but there is some sense of unfairness from the prespective of other countries. They don't have to do the right thing, they just have to get in our favor for them to have the advantage over other countries. Isn't that the story behind the US's involvement with Isreal and Palestine?

 


<< why dont we just stop sending f16's to israel and just (openly) give them nuclear weapons

LOL! 🙂 >>


Israel already has the capability and the resources to build a nuclear device.

But anyways, there are very few countries on this planet that don't have a few of our fighters.
 
i haven't read this entire thread....but a lot of you people seem to be under the misconception that:

America = Good and any country that is against American ideals = Evil

Obviously this isn't true. America continiously seems to prove itself to be a puppet in the hands of Israel.
and Bush continues to prove to us, he isn't capable of being a president.

Anyway...i think the comment was meaningless, and unnecessary... Iran hasn't had a perfect track record with
the U.S. But this sort of comment was unexpected by a country who has been trying to reform, despite the effort of
those radical freaks (ayatollahs and american haters) who continue to remove western influence from Iran.

I still think the greatest weapon the terrorists have against us is our own president, BUsh. The guy would make a
better farmer or something.
 


<< i haven't read this entire thread....but a lot of you people seem to be under the misconception that:

America = Good and any country that is against American ideals = Evil

Obviously this isn't true. America continiously seems to prove itself to be a puppet in the hands of Israel.
and Bush continues to prove to us, he isn't capable of being a president.

Anyway...i think the comment was meaningless, and unnecessary... Iran hasn't had a perfect track record with
the U.S. But this sort of comment was unexpected by a country who has been trying to reform, despite the effort of
those radical freaks (ayatollahs and american haters) who continue to remove western influence from Iran.

I still think the greatest weapon the terrorists have against us is our own president, BUsh. The guy would make a
better farmer or something. >>


Oh yeah........Gore would have been a much better choice............especially since he agrees with what Bush has done in the war effort and with the statement concerning Iraq, Iran and North Korea...........😉

Maybe you should consider being a rock farmer.............😉
 
Bush is a screw-up, so its no wonder he's screwed up his foreign policy. He's lucky that he gets the pity of the American public during this time of "unusual" war (but hey, who wouldn't support a president in this time of cohesion, heck if Jesse Ventura is the President, I would still support him because of the circumstances. But that doesn't mean I'll vote for him come elction time🙂).
 


<< My impression is that the vast majority of Iranians would prefer a progressively westernized goverment with fairly elected
officials in power. Those people, as are the people of any suppressed country whose goal is democracy, deserve our support >>



so true. u.s. already has listed iran among nations who support terrorism. our embargo against them wont be lifted anytime soon.
we continue to constrain them economically by throwing our weight around in their geopolitical interests (i.e. oil pipeline construction
and natural resource development in disputed areas). better still, with our renewed interest in afghanistan, we have even undercut
their diplomatic influence in their backyard, where they are the dominant military, political, and economic power.

the analogy to the soviet union is assinine. iran is nowhere near the ideological, military or economic powerhouse of the former soviet
giant. in comparison, they're tiny in every conceivable respect; forced to lend their meager support to relatively small third world guerrila
armies (hezbollah, hamas, etc.), while soviet russia controlled and funded, loosely speaking, whole foreign state economies (cuba, satellite
states). iran is also a shiite state, the only one in the world, and any allegiances with larger sunni states like iraq, sudan, or saudi arabia
would only happen if they were forced to by sheer political expedience - something we can thank our presidential chimp for pushing them
towards.

bush is a dumbass who should have listened to his republican pointy-heads and not included iran in his war mongering. according to
someone's mention above, possibly in some article, he could've stopped at iraq and north korea - but no. just stoooopid.
 


<< bush is a dumbass who should have listened to his republican pointy-heads and not included iran in his war mongering. according to >>


So the point of your entire ignorant post is, besides calling the Pres. names, to say we should be doing nothing in regards to Iran? Even though the goverment has verifiable ties to known terrorists. Your plan would be to what? Wait and see and hope that some group they are supporting doesn't kill some more people or blow something else up. I'm sorry the time for this kind of inaction has passed. Thankfully the chimp is a lot smarter than you.
 
When members of the Iranian clergy openly say that they want to nuke Israel, what the heck are we supposed to do? Cover our mouths and say nothing? The minute they develop a nuclear weapon, it will most likely be in the hands of hizbollah.
 


<< Even though the goverment has verifiable ties to known terrorists. Your plan would be to what? >>


do i deny this claim of yours ? do i cast doubt on it in any shape, way or form ? heck, its an open secret they
funnel monies to hezbollah, a not so small fact i mentioned in my first paragraph, if you would've bothered
to read it. do i mention anything about appeasement ? do mention anything about loosening our economic
embargo or our continuing efforts to isolate them diplimatically, all of which were in effect before that
chimp's dumb speech ? if so, let me know where.

logic dictates if so much was in effect and the iranian people were still gallant enough to show their support
for our suffering, and to elect a reformist president and wholeheartedly support his overt reformist ideas, and,
and, and . . . etc, why, oh why, would bushie then turn around and sow international public dissension ?

would our policies of seeing an end to the iranian supreme council been killed off if he had not castigated a
whole country ! ! ! i mean you did listen and/or read the speech - that chimp did say i r a n , without any
differentiation or subtly, right ?!?!? correct my errors, puuuleeze.

 


<< and to elect a reformist president and wholeheartedly support his overt reformist ideas, and, >>


That is nothing but show, everyone of those so called reformists was hand picked and approved by an ayatollah. I, unlike you, recognize a puppet goverment and bullsh!t when I see it.
 


<<

<< Even though the goverment has verifiable ties to known terrorists. Your plan would be to what? >>


do i deny this claim of yours ? do i cast doubt on it in any shape, way or form ? heck, its an open secret they
funnel monies to hezbollah, a not so small fact i mentioned in my first paragraph, if you would've bothered
to read it. do i mention anything about appeasement ? do mention anything about loosening our economic
embargo or our continuing efforts to isolate them diplimatically, all of which were in effect before that
chimp's dumb speech ? if so, let me know where.

logic dictates if so much was in effect and the iranian people were still gallant enough to show their support
for our suffering, and to elect a reformist president and wholeheartedly support his overt reformist ideas, and,
and, and . . . etc, why, oh why, would bushie then turn around and sow international public dissension ?

would our policies of seeing an end to the iranian supreme council been killed off if he had not castigated a
whole country ! ! ! i mean you did listen and/or read the speech - that chimp did say i r a n , without any
differentiation or subtly, right ?!?!? correct my errors, puuuleeze. >>


Ummm...no. He said "the unelected few who oppress the people." And as I said before, the whole election process in Iran is a ruse because the ayatollahs hand-pick the candidates.
 


<< When members of the Iranian clergy openly say that they want to nuke Israel, what the heck are we supposed to do? Cover
our mouths and say nothing? The minute they develop a nuclear weapon, it will most likely be in the hands of hizbollah >>


the point is both we (our diplomatic corps, foreign policy statements, numerous instances of frustrating iranian islamic
expansion) and they (as in the iranian people who elected khatami and now so hate their own religious heirarchy) were
working towards the same goal ! !

at least before bush's speech. now, because bush lumped "iran" with the likes of north korea and iraq he's setback the
reform movement and made our effort even more difficult. if you asked the average iranian if they thought by electing
khatami were they helping our interests, they would have ofcourse said no. but the reality is khatami represents precisly
what we had so longed hoped for. he has given voice to the legions of people who had grown frustrated and angry with
a system they wanted so badly to change. wouldn't you be pissed if some foreign hegemony started bad-mouthing your
country despite the apparent good will between the common people ?
 


<<

<< When members of the Iranian clergy openly say that they want to nuke Israel, what the heck are we supposed to do? Cover
our mouths and say nothing? The minute they develop a nuclear weapon, it will most likely be in the hands of hizbollah >>


the point is both we (our diplomatic corps, foreign policy statements, numerous instances of frustrating iranian islamic
expansion) and they (as in the iranian people who elected khatami and now so hate their own religious heirarchy) were
working towards the same goal ! !

at least before bush's speech. now, because bush lumped "iran" with the likes of north korea and iraq he's setback the
reform movement and made our effort even more difficult. if you asked the average iranian if they thought by electing
khatami were they helping our interests, they would have ofcourse said no. but the reality is khatami represents precisly
what we had so longed hoped for. he has given voice to the legions of people who had grown frustrated and angry with
a system they wanted so badly to change. wouldn't you be pissed if some foreign hegemony started bad-mouthing your
country despite the apparent good will between the common people ? >>


Khatami was first hand-picked by the hard-line clerics, you moron.
 


<< the whole election process in Iran is a ruse because the ayatollahs hand-pick the candidates >>


this doesn't prove a ruse ! khatami was given pre-approval by the supreme council (ayatollahs) because he had impeccable
scholarly credentials and superb standing among his peers. technically, he is in training no different than ayatollah ali khamenei.
but how does this explain why he was elected ? obviously the only reason is the widely known fact that he advocated policies
that were geared to enfranchise the people, to open society, provide greater respect for the rule of law, and a whole host of
other goodies that we here identify as western. etc.
 


<< << Tripleshot goes through waves. His medication gets low and he posts his typical bullcrap and makes a complete fool of himself. >>

you know something Michael, I might not agree with him but I don't think he makes a fool out of himself. >>



Red,

Michael is completely right. Tripleshot does it again, and again. Jumps in to these arguments with his anti-Bush stick up his ass, makes completely ridiculous and patently absurd statements, gets his head handed to him every single time, and then vanishes. He's a blithering idiot.

These kids have an excuse for forgetting history because they didn't live it, and most of them got stuck in the public education system. Tripleshot has no such excuse.

Russ, NCNE

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top