Jump to content

iran and obama


luke warm

was his response  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. was his response

    • made too quickly
      1
    • made too slowly
      1
    • made at just the right time
      8


Recommended Posts

"I need you to let this guy off with a warning."

 

"A WARNING?! What kind of warning?"

 

"A stern warning."

 

-Crash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it's specifically an "anyone who cares whether it's a yes or a no is an idiot."

maybe you're right, although there are a lot of people writing and talking about it - of course they could just ask you if they should do so rather than risk having you think of them as idiots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it's specifically an "anyone who cares whether it's a yes or a no is an idiot."

maybe you're right, although there are a lot of people writing and talking about it - of course they could just ask you if they should do so rather than risk having you think of them as idiots

I don't recall saying that anyone who writes or talks about Obama's response to Iran is an idiot, please show me where I said that? Then please show me any other person who asked whether Obama's response to Iran or his response to the fly is a more important issue. If you do I will reitterate that he or she is an idiot, which is what I actually said.

 

Now I know why you almost always try to direct the conversation to your points and the questions you are asking, because if you try to respond to other peoples' points or questions you have difficulty following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true... mccain probably would have said something sooner - God forbid that should have happened

Lol, did you actually follow the discussion? McCain wanted Obama to say s.th. completely different than what Obama said today.

lol yes i know that

I believe it's specifically an "anyone who cares whether it's a yes or a no is an idiot."

maybe you're right, although there are a lot of people writing and talking about it - of course they could just ask you if they should do so rather than risk having you think of them as idiots

I don't recall saying that anyone who writes or talks about Obama's response to Iran is an idiot, please show me where I said that? Then please show me any other person who asked whether Obama's response to Iran or his response to the fly is a more important issue. If you do I will reitterate that he or she is an idiot, which is what I actually said.

 

Now I know why you almost always try to direct the conversation to your points and the questions you are asking, because if you try to respond to other peoples' points or questions you have difficulty following.

pay attention josh... when i say a lot of people are writing and talking about "it" i'm referring specifically to your post - people are writing and talking about whether or not obama (blessed be his name) should have spoken earlier on the issue.. you said (i think, i'm having difficulty following) that anyone who cares about that is an idiot... a lot of people do care, but maybe they're all idiots.. as for the fly thingy, i simply asked whether or not that story was more important.. anybody who thinks it is is an idiot (no offense)

"I need you to let this guy off with a warning."

 

"A WARNING?!  What kind of warning?"

 

"A stern warning."

 

-Crash

the sterner the better - sort of like the u.n. passing a non-binding resolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when i say a lot of people are writing and talking about "it" i'm referring specifically to your post - people are writing and talking about whether or not obama (blessed be his name) should have spoken earlier on the issue.. you said (i think, i'm having difficulty following) that anyone who cares about that is an idiot...

You are indeed having difficulty following, because I did not say that. I'm not going to keep going back and quoting so either go back and reread carefully what was said and who is being called an idiot, or else continue to be confused, perhaps without even realizing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone remember the international "concerns" voiced during the Watt's riots or after the DNC convention in Chicago in '68?

 

Didn't think so.

 

Only because Iran is a focus of interest (read oil) is it a point of contention. Israel is more likely in need of "control" regarding future developments but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

 

Iran is one of the few oil-producing Middle East democracies. The US has a Supreme Court that can overrule the Executive and Legislative branches. So they (Iran) officially mix religion and politics. (The US does in a less official but very effective way.)

 

It was a choice and despotism continues throughout the world so wtp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran is one of the few oil-producing Middle East democracies. The US has a Supreme Court that can overrule the Executive and Legislative branches. So they (Iran) officially mix religion and politics. (The US does in a less official but very effective way.)

And, as so many Americans remind me, the US isn't a democracy, either.

 

Remember when Kim Jong-Il and Breshnev were elected? Doesn't mean their countries were democracies.

 

Technically, Iran is a theocracy. Any democractic or pseudo-democratic processes being implemented or attempted in that country are secondary to the absolute power of the theocracy.

 

FWIW, I think the most interesting story here isn't the election fraud, or the protests thereof, but the potential drop in popularity of the theocratic rule of the Ayatollah. My limited understanding of the situation is that the theocracy itself was extremely popular before the election.

 

Granted, absolute power rulers are often only popular due to their power to limit free expression (i.e. hide the truth), but suddenly, internal political disgreements in Iran are being heard in more than just a whisper.

 

V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My limited understanding of the situation is that the theocracy itself was extremely popular before the election.

Khatami was democratically elected, too. There has always been substantial popular support for both wings of the Iranian revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I think the most interesting story here isn't the election fraud, or the protests thereof, but the potential drop in popularity of the theocratic rule of the Ayatollah.

For me, it's the incredible positive energy that the events and responses have produced so far and the moderating effects they are already having on the way Iran is governed and their ripple effects beyond Iran. Repressiveness is still thriving, but its agents and their authority are losing their grip in Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...