Operation Moderate Support.

[StageLeft]

Maybe he'll end up shamed and booted. The safe money just isn't on it, though.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Yet, you are trying to say that threats and angry rhetoric are the same as measured language and an appeal for a new start and compromise?

Am I? No, not even insuating it. I've always said the previous administration's belligerent approach was stupid. Really what I am saying is that you should get your mouth off Obama for just a moment so that you can properly credit him where it's due and not where it isn't.

NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario ? The U.S. on Saturday refused to accept hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of a landslide re-election victory in Iran and said it was looking into allegations of election fraud.

Who cares? I didn't realize Iran's court cared what the US' official stance was on its elections. I'm sure the world will be even more impotent (if it's possible) with this election fraud issue than it is with North Korea.

The fact is the elections are a joke and Ahmed is going to run another term and that's that. Dissenters will be shut down.

Not always.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's interesting how the US refuses to accept Iran's election yet we don't apply the same to the recent EU elections.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's interesting how the US refuses to accept Iran's election yet we don't apply the same to the recent EU elections.

I'm at a loss as to your point?

 

[techs]

Wow. The best possible result in Iran.
If Mousavi had just won the election we would have only seen creeping improvement.
However, by Ahmacrazyguy stealing the election and the Mullahs supporting him, all pretense of a democracy in Iran is gone. The people are outraged!
This will surely hurt the Mullahs in the long run, and the true goal of a secular, democratic Iran is in reach.

Damn, you couldn't have asked for a better outcome that has happened.

And, of course, I credit Obama. If Bush had still been President the Ahmacrazyguy faction would have mobilized the people against the threatened attack by the US.

Go 'BAM!

 

[soccerballtux]

??? What's going on? I'm confused, is the new title sarcasm?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It looks like the 69% Achmadeinjad figure is based on very early returns, most likely from outlying rural districts where the incumbent is stronger. I do not think the city vote is in yet so its the last 81% of the vote that will tell the tale. And the polls, have only just closed.

We shall see, but I think its too early to tell. And already both sides are both crying victory and fraud.

lol like the vote is valid or fair how niaeve. I guess So was Saddam Hussien getting re-elected too was a valid election.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: techs
Wow. The best possible result in Iran.
If Mousavi had just won the election we would have only seen creeping improvement.
However, by Ahmacrazyguy stealing the election and the Mullahs supporting him, all pretense of a democracy in Iran is gone. The people are outraged!
This will surely hurt the Mullahs in the long run, and the true goal of a secular, democratic Iran is in reach.

Damn, you couldn't have asked for a better outcome that has happened.

And, of course, I credit Obama. If Bush had still been President the Ahmacrazyguy faction would have mobilized the people against the threatened attack by the US.

Go 'BAM!

Truly, you are too much. I don't know how you can take yourself seriously. Most of us certainly don't. Is that vanilla yogurt on your chin and in your hair?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: techs
Second phase of Operation Moderate Support happens in only 2 days. The Iranian election.
Interestingly, despite Americans belief that it is only a choice between which candidate wants to kill Americans faster, turns out its the ECONOMY that is the big issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06...l?scp=2&sq=iran&st=cse
as in so many other elections, another issue is seen as more important: the economy. Iran?s crippling inflation rate, unemployment, and the question of how its oil revenue is being spent are at the top of the agenda for most voters, analysts say.

I wonder how much Obama's Operation Moderate Support has helped the anti-Ahmacrazyguy party.
While the US probably couldn't decide the election this year, unlike in 2005 when Iranian moderates followed the US policy of boycotting the election, ensuring Ahmacrazyguy the leadership, the fact that the issue is no longer DEATH TO AMERICA and that moderates will vote gives us a chance to rid the world of Ahmacrazyguy

Uh...what? So the same regime got "re-elected" in Iran, and techs proclaims it a victory for Obama and that "Operation Moderate Support" is 2 for 2?

So, the same thing happens that's always been happening, and all of a sudden it is a resounding success for Obama? Shouldn't the "victory" be attributed to Bush since Ahmadinejad was elected during Bush's tenure? I mean, nothing new has happened...the same thing that happened under Bush has happened here under Obama...Ahmadinejad "won" the election.

That is some crazy lefty logic going on there...even I cannot decipher the madness behind this "logic".

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs
Second phase of Operation Moderate Support happens in only 2 days. The Iranian election.
Interestingly, despite Americans belief that it is only a choice between which candidate wants to kill Americans faster, turns out its the ECONOMY that is the big issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06...l?scp=2&sq=iran&st=cse
as in so many other elections, another issue is seen as more important: the economy. Iran?s crippling inflation rate, unemployment, and the question of how its oil revenue is being spent are at the top of the agenda for most voters, analysts say.

I wonder how much Obama's Operation Moderate Support has helped the anti-Ahmacrazyguy party.
While the US probably couldn't decide the election this year, unlike in 2005 when Iranian moderates followed the US policy of boycotting the election, ensuring Ahmacrazyguy the leadership, the fact that the issue is no longer DEATH TO AMERICA and that moderates will vote gives us a chance to rid the world of Ahmacrazyguy

Uh...what? So the same regime got "re-elected" in Iran, and techs proclaims it a victory for Obama and that "Operation Moderate Support" is 2 for 2?

So, the same thing happens that's always been happening, and all of a sudden it is a resounding success for Obama? Shouldn't the "victory" be attributed to Bush since Ahmadinejad was elected during Bush's tenure? I mean, nothing new has happened...the same thing that happened under Bush has happened here under Obama...Ahmadinejad "won" the election.

That is some crazy lefty logic going on there...even I cannot decipher the madness behind this "logic".

There are mass demonstrations in the streets. The Iranian public no longer trusts its government or the mullahs.
This is good. This is how democratic revolutions occur.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs
Second phase of Operation Moderate Support happens in only 2 days. The Iranian election.
Interestingly, despite Americans belief that it is only a choice between which candidate wants to kill Americans faster, turns out its the ECONOMY that is the big issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06...l?scp=2&sq=iran&st=cse
as in so many other elections, another issue is seen as more important: the economy. Iran?s crippling inflation rate, unemployment, and the question of how its oil revenue is being spent are at the top of the agenda for most voters, analysts say.

I wonder how much Obama's Operation Moderate Support has helped the anti-Ahmacrazyguy party.
While the US probably couldn't decide the election this year, unlike in 2005 when Iranian moderates followed the US policy of boycotting the election, ensuring Ahmacrazyguy the leadership, the fact that the issue is no longer DEATH TO AMERICA and that moderates will vote gives us a chance to rid the world of Ahmacrazyguy

Uh...what? So the same regime got "re-elected" in Iran, and techs proclaims it a victory for Obama and that "Operation Moderate Support" is 2 for 2?

So, the same thing happens that's always been happening, and all of a sudden it is a resounding success for Obama? Shouldn't the "victory" be attributed to Bush since Ahmadinejad was elected during Bush's tenure? I mean, nothing new has happened...the same thing that happened under Bush has happened here under Obama...Ahmadinejad "won" the election.

That is some crazy lefty logic going on there...even I cannot decipher the madness behind this "logic".

There are mass demonstrations in the streets. The Iranian public no longer trusts its government or the mullahs.
This is good. This is how democratic revolutions occur.

And Obama does...nothing, and says we shouldn't "meddle" with their affairs.

So let's see here...unarmed civilians VS trained and heavily armed military. This won't be a revolution...it will be a slaughter.

It COULD have been a democratic revolution if the leader of the free world gave them his support (since he claims to love and support democracy everywhere), but instead, he chooses to do...nothing.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs
Second phase of Operation Moderate Support happens in only 2 days. The Iranian election.
Interestingly, despite Americans belief that it is only a choice between which candidate wants to kill Americans faster, turns out its the ECONOMY that is the big issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06...l?scp=2&sq=iran&st=cse
as in so many other elections, another issue is seen as more important: the economy. Iran?s crippling inflation rate, unemployment, and the question of how its oil revenue is being spent are at the top of the agenda for most voters, analysts say.

I wonder how much Obama's Operation Moderate Support has helped the anti-Ahmacrazyguy party.
While the US probably couldn't decide the election this year, unlike in 2005 when Iranian moderates followed the US policy of boycotting the election, ensuring Ahmacrazyguy the leadership, the fact that the issue is no longer DEATH TO AMERICA and that moderates will vote gives us a chance to rid the world of Ahmacrazyguy

Uh...what? So the same regime got "re-elected" in Iran, and techs proclaims it a victory for Obama and that "Operation Moderate Support" is 2 for 2?

So, the same thing happens that's always been happening, and all of a sudden it is a resounding success for Obama? Shouldn't the "victory" be attributed to Bush since Ahmadinejad was elected during Bush's tenure? I mean, nothing new has happened...the same thing that happened under Bush has happened here under Obama...Ahmadinejad "won" the election.

That is some crazy lefty logic going on there...even I cannot decipher the madness behind this "logic".

There are mass demonstrations in the streets. The Iranian public no longer trusts its government or the mullahs.
This is good. This is how democratic revolutions occur.

And Obama does...nothing, and says we shouldn't "meddle" with their affairs.

So let's see here...unarmed civilians VS trained and heavily armed military. This won't be a revolution...it will be a slaughter.

It COULD have been a democratic revolution if the leader of the free world gave them his support (since he claims to love and support democracy everywhere), but instead, he chooses to do...nothing.

Yeah, good thing the Russians never listened to you. Nor the Americans, nor the .....well, you get the point.
Yeah, btw, try reading a book from time to time.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Painman

But still. Let's say the election #s are false. Where do we (the US) go from here? We challenge the legitimacy of the election, and we are challenging the legitimacy of the Iranian Govt ---> 1953 all over again. At least, as far as political hay-making is concerned. Not Good.

After all, Obama DID admit to the Islamic world that we DID help to install the Shah... not that I'm complaining about this belated revelation.

Very, very thin ice here. Not much wiggle room.

No, it's not '1953 all over again'. Two differences for a start:

- In 1953, we *overthrew* democracy and installed a dictator and provided him with a 'secret police force' to rule brutally; here, we're telling the truth about an election.

That's *protecting* democracy, the opposite.

- In 1953, we used a covert operation (the CIA's first, led by Theodore Roosevelt's grandson Kermit) to cause a coup; now, we're not using covet ops, but telling the truth.

It's great that we told the truth about 1953, and we should have apologized as well; it was the most immoral sort of our being the enemy of democracy directly for 'cheap oil'.

Would YOU trust a nation that did that to you and has neve apologized, a nation who talked democracy but took it away from you? How would you react to an apology?

That's the way to repair relations with the Iranian people - and show things changed.

People think of the hostage taking at our embassy as a hostile act, but wouldn't you love being able to do something to strike back against the powerful nation who had put you under tyranny for the last 25 years (and was about to get Saddam to invade you for a war that would see your children gassed and a million casualties)?

You wouldnt put up with it, and there's no reason Iranian should. You would want the apology. Imagine establishing relations with Al Queda while they haven't apologized.

And what we did to Iran was a lot worse than the harm on 9/11.One day of terror versus 25 years, a violent act versus putting the entire nation under a dictator.

Would you want any less than an apology?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: techs

There are mass demonstrations in the streets. The Iranian public no longer trusts its government or the mullahs.
This is good. This is how democratic revolutions occur.

Don't even waste your breath.

Ali Khamenei & President Ahmadinejad are dead men walking.

Obama's response 'that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected" is even-handed and appropriate. No need for US 'Cowboy' bravado and interdiction of Iranian politics.

The 'Green' Revolution in Iran may not rise to the standards of the Orange Revolution but it is not necessary in Iran's overall self-determination. It would be foolish to think Khamenei will annul the vote and call for a new election.

But that is clearly the desire of the Iranian people.

 

[Thump553]

The best analysis of have seen of Obama's response was from Pat Buchanan, believe it or not. Buchanan said Obama has done everything just about spot on perfectly. He compared the situation to when the old Polish government crushed the Solidarity union (Lech Waleska) at the behest of their USSR masters. Reagan did not but politely bemoan those actions and bided his time. Solidarity came back stronger than ever and eventually caused the downfall of Poland's communist system, permanently.

Anything remotely perceived as US interference in Iranian internal affairs is a lose-lose scenario for both the USA and Iranian moderates. The US has too long a history of meddling there.

Contrast Obama's actions with McCain's saber rattling yesterday and thank your lucky stars the election came out as it did.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Thump553
The best analysis of have seen of Obama's response was from Pat Buchanan, believe it or not. Buchanan said Obama has done everything just about spot on perfectly. He compared the situation to when the old Polish government crushed the Solidarity union (Lech Waleska) at the behest of their USSR masters. Reagan did not but politely bemoan those actions and bided his time. Solidarity came back stronger than ever and eventually caused the downfall of Poland's communist system, permanently.

Anything remotely perceived as US interference in Iranian internal affairs is a lose-lose scenario for both the USA and Iranian moderates. The US has too long a history of meddling there.

Contrast Obama's actions with McCain's saber rattling yesterday and thank your lucky stars the election came out as it did.

Highlighted because people who watch Fox News need to hear the truth.
At least once in their lives.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Thump553
The best analysis of have seen of Obama's response was from Pat Buchanan, believe it or not. Buchanan said Obama has done everything just about spot on perfectly. He compared the situation to when the old Polish government crushed the Solidarity union (Lech Waleska) at the behest of their USSR masters. Reagan did not but politely bemoan those actions and bided his time. Solidarity came back stronger than ever and eventually caused the downfall of Poland's communist system, permanently.

Anything remotely perceived as US interference in Iranian internal affairs is a lose-lose scenario for both the USA and Iranian moderates. The US has too long a history of meddling there.

Contrast Obama's actions with McCain's saber rattling yesterday and thank your lucky stars the election came out as it did.

Highlighted because people who watch Fox News need to hear the truth.
At least once in their lives.

Interesting take. We'll see how this goes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: techs
Wow. The best possible result in Iran.
If Mousavi had just won the election we would have only seen creeping improvement.
However, by Ahmacrazyguy stealing the election and the Mullahs supporting him, all pretense of a democracy in Iran is gone. The people are outraged!
This will surely hurt the Mullahs in the long run, and the true goal of a secular, democratic Iran is in reach.

Damn, you couldn't have asked for a better outcome that has happened.

And, of course, I credit Obama. If Bush had still been President the Ahmacrazyguy faction would have mobilized the people against the threatened attack by the US.

Go 'BAM!

You just can not get over the fact that Bush is no longer president.

It is almost as if you adore him.

Get over it; the only one that counts now is Obama

 

[yllus]

Gallup Poll of 8 Arab Countries

Polls in both Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories returned a drop in approval ratings.

Interestingly though, there was not a corresponding rise in disapproval ratings. Rather, the percentage of people answering "don't know" increased significantly, perhaps indicating that many people are uncertain of Obama's intentions in the Middle East.

Read the results here.

Actual polling of Lebanon reveals a 3% drop in approval of the leadership of the United States. Since that's pretty close to the margin of error, let's say approval remained steady - at 25%.

I think that the pre-election visits to Lebanon by Secretary Clinton and Vice-President Biden, who spoke soft but meaningful words to encourage the people to vote themselves away from the disaster that is Hezbollah, helped cement the choice a few voters made. It should however also be stated that pro-West sentiment was significantly boosted by former U.S. President Bush, who authorized a large amount of financial aid to be provided to Lebanon.

Mostly though, that's complete bull. Lebanon voted in this election to be about the Lebanese, not about Palestine, Israel, Iran, Iraq, the U.S. or anyone else. They're sick and tired of being a convenient pawn and battleground for others' interests.

 

[CanOWorms]

2 for 2. UPDATE: MODERATES REFUSE TO BE INTIMIDATED! IF THE AMERICANS COULD BEAT THE BRITISH...?

We need to beat the British again. Down with the BNP-fueled government.