See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On June 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am, iamsaved said:

   I’m not sure Michael LeDeen is totally accurate about Mousavi when he says “…He is not a revolutionary leader, he is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him…”.

   He’s cut from the same cloth as Ahmadinijad.

   I read these tidbits from Jack Kinsella and have no reason to doubt their accuracy.

   The fact is, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two candidates, so don’t get too caught up in feeling sorry for Mousavi.
   Mousavi, like Ahmadinejad, was a hero of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. He was fully involved in the Embassy takeover and hostage crisis.
   Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1988 Mousavi fully supported the death fatwa proclaimed against Salman Rusdie for writing “The Satanic Verses”.
   When he introduced his cabinet in 1985, he boasted that his interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, was a religious conservative who’d built his reputation while building Hezbollah in Lebanon.
   Mousavi opposed ending the eight-year Iran/Iraq War, despite the fact that by 1988, Iran was sending unarmed ten year olds out in the first wave of attacks to use up Iraqi ammunition before sending out what remained of its military-age forces.
   The carnage of that war is the reason that 70% of Iran’s population is under 35 and 60% is under 28.
   And Mousavi is just as opposed to suspending Iran’s nuclear program as is Ahmadinejad. So don’t buy into the hype that Mousavi is some kind of reformer or that the Iranian Supreme Council cares if the election was fair or not.
   If anything, the Ayatollah and Supreme Council are considering how Ahmadinejad’s re-election and the public demonstrations are strengthening Israel’s position.

2. #2
   On June 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am, Mister P said:

   This is reminding me of Hungary in 1956. The US quiety sat by and watched the tanks mow the people down. Tianamen Square was also similar.

   Obama seems more interested in “stability” than change. Translation is that he would rather deal with the tyrants.

   I hope this time the people finally win.

3. #3
   On June 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am, nativeaz08 said:

   BO would rather deal with tyrants because he is one (well, in the closet tyrant but becoming more transparent daily).

4. #4
   On June 16th, 2009 at 10:59 am, California Red said:

   On one hand, I could respect Obama sitting on the sidelines. After all, is it up to the US to get involved in every international event? Aren’t there some things we should just stay out of and mind our own business? Does Obama have the answer to every problem? Typically, I think he does beleive he can solve every problem. That is why I beleive his lack of statement or action is not due to restraint, but rather a lack of effective plan or any idea about what to do.

5. #5
   On June 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

   Look closely people, Iranian citizens are unarmed and being attacked by their own government. Protect our 2nd amendment rights!

6. #6
   On June 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am, sonofdy said:

   If Iran didn’t have such a control of a major oil supply lines that we depend on and wasn’t developing nukes, I would say let them burn.

7. #7
   On June 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

   Dennis Ross was reassigned away as Iran envoy, probably because the Iranians didn’t want a hawkish supplicant. Or maybe because Ross is Jewish.

   The Won folded for them like a cheap suit.

   Expect nothing for the Obammunist.

8. #8
   On June 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am, happyscrapper said:

   Isn’t there some way to get help in there? Or arms to the people? I wish we could help them. But it looks like they have to do this on their own. The only problem is, what will they do if they overthrow the regime? If it is anything like when Castro overthrew Batista, it will be going from bad to worse. They don’t have a clue about democracy or running a free country. It will just be another dictatorship. Those people desperately want FREEDOM, as every human being wants, needs, and is entitled to. I don’t think that will happen.
   Another thing…Obama’s statement mentioned that he is “troubled” by the violence, but we are staying out of it. The response from Iran is “U.S., none of your business. Death to America.” So, those are the folks Obama wants to sit down and “talk with”. Other countries have made statements about this event and Iran did not respond that way. Only to us. Obama’s reaching out to them and they are cutting his arms off. Will he learn from this? No.

9. #9
   On June 16th, 2009 at 11:07 am, Dimsdale said:

   Is it me, or did the militiamen wielding batons look remarkably like the pro Obambi New Black Panther Poll “Watchers?”

10. #10
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am, happyscrapper said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am, Rogue Cheddar said:
    Look closely people, Iranian citizens are unarmed and being attacked by their own government. Protect our 2nd amendment rights!

    DITTO!

11. #11
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am, nbarry said:

    Obama’s befuddlement over events in Iran reminds me of how Jimmy Carter felt the loss of control over events when Sadat went to Jerusalem to sue for peace.

12. #12
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    IIRC, Mousavi was appointed to the leadership council of Hezb’Allah, the Iranian Arab Foreign Legion in 1982, by Khomeini.

    Hezb’Allah blew up the Marine barracks, the US embassy in Beirut, kidnapped Americans in Lebanon, killing some, bombed the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, and bombed the USAF barracks at Khobar Towers. Not to mention the war a couple of years back against Israel.

    Iran, via proxy, has been at war with the US and its allies for thirty years, and Mousavi is apparently part of it.

    If he was approved by the mullahs to run, he isn’t a reformer, and he is an aggressive Islamist.

13. #13
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am, Marshall Russ said:

    This will not end well for the Iranian people no matter what happens. The regime will still be virulently anti-American and anti-Israel. Obambi doesn’t care because it fits his agenda either way.
    Good articles at Americanthinker this morning. Especially at the link.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obamas_real_agenda_israels_dim.html

14. #14
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am, Misscheryl said:

    one word

    Armenians…

    …they didn’t have guns either.

    this administration won’t blatantly take our guns. We just won’t be able to buy any ammo.

15. #15
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am, happyscrapper said:

    this administration won’t blatantly take our guns. We just won’t be able to buy any ammo.

    Is there any way to make our own ammo? Just curious. I know nothing about guns.

16. #16
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:17 am, sonofdy said:

    Yes, you can make your own ammo.

    You still have to buy brass and other supplies.

17. #17
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am, Misscheryl said:

    People “make” their own ammo every day, but they have the supplies to do it. That can change. Actually, it is really difficult right now to buy ammo.

18. #18
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am, happyscrapper said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:17 am, sonofdy said:
    Yes, you can make your own ammo.

    You still have to buy brass and other supplies.

    So, will Obama also make those items hard to get? This whole thing is so surreal. I can’t believe I am even asking such questions.

19. #19
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am, happyscrapper said:

    My brother told me there is a gun shop by him that has lots of ammo. I guess you can find it if you “hunt” for it…pardon the pun. Regarding Iran’s people, I don’t hold much hope for them. They will lose a lot of their patriots in this battle and they will lose the battle, one way or the other. There is really no hope for freedom in that wretched place.

20. #20
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am, granite said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am, happyscrapper said:

    Regarding Iran’s people, I don’t hold much hope for them. They will lose a lot of their patriots in this battle and they will lose the battle, one way or the other. There is really no hope for freedom in that wretched place.

    The Atlas Shrugs article linked to below:

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/irans-election-wolf-vs-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.html

    mentions a comment about a John Bolton interview:

    Jonathan Galt saw this interview on Fox News this morning, and his points on understanding the significance of the Iranian election are very important… “particularly interesting that John Bolton made a distinction between the extremist and the moderate… take a listen and note the distinction starts around minute marker 1:30 in which he says the extremist builds nuclear weapons and announces his intentions to destroy Israel… while the moderate builds nuclear weapons and is smart enough to keep his mouth shut about his intentions to destroy Israel.”

    HS, I don’t think there is a dime’s worth of difference between the two Iranian “candidates”.

    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am, sonofdy said:

    If Iran didn’t have such a control of a major oil supply lines that we depend on and wasn’t developing nukes, I would say let them burn.

    Agreed.
    For our self-preservation,…agreed.

    There is really no hope for freedom in that wretched place.

    Not as long as it is an Islamic “Republic”, and is a majority moslem nation, anyway.

    I wonder how many of these protesters in Iran would let me walk around in public wearing a Cross and carrying a Bible, without attacking me….

    To paraphrase what Henry Kissinger said about Iran and Iraq during their war…it’s a pity both sides cannot lose.

21. #21
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:47 am, Flyoverman said:

    Selected vote recount?

    Oh ya, that will resolve things.

    /sarc

22. #22
    On June 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am, Jet Jaguar said:

    I guess all of those protesters must be Christian conservative right wing extremists.

23. #23
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm, T-Bone said:

    How does the Taliban get all it’s ammo? There are plenty of people around the world who will supply it. And the guns to go with it. Money talks.

24. #24
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm, vinny said:

    Where is BHO? He is probably making crude remarks about tea-bagging with his cronies.

25. #25
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm, vinny said:

    I agree in that there is no significant difference between these candidates, and that is why the mullahs let them both run in the election. However, the people protesting in the street seem to think there is a fundamental difference between them. It would be something if these protesters actually get a chance to hold their elected leaders accountable and obtain real government representation. That might be revolutionary.

26. #26
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm, right_on said:

    What if…

    That photo illustrates Persians using the universal hand gesture for peace. What if it is actually a coded message to the mullahs?

    Hint: Drop one finger… No, lgm, the other one.

27. #27
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, Yashmak said:

    On one hand, I could respect Obama sitting on the sidelines. After all, is it up to the US to get involved in every international event?

    – CaliforniaRed

    Moreover, as has been noted, if Moussavi is simply adopting the mantle of a reformer as an opportunistic move to gain office, it would be foolish of Obama to come out and make too strong a statement in favor of his supporters.

    If he does, a year or two from now, we might just be criticizing him for his support of Iran’s next hardliner.

28. #28
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    Where is Barack Obama?

    As far as I know Michelle, you are not an expert on Iran. I’m guessing former Bush negotiator with Iran, Ambassador Nicholas Burns, might have a little more expertise:

    “President Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to see a very aggressive series of statements by the United States that would try to put the U.S. in the center of this,” Burns said. “And I think President Obama is avoiding that quite rightly.”

    “This is not a dispute for the U.S. to be the center of,” Burns said at another point. “It’s up to Iranians to decide who Iran’s future leaders will be. He said he respects Iran’s sovereignty. I think it was important to do that.”

    Burns said that Obama was right to refrain from throwing the U.S.’s weight around while giving props to reformers. He praised Obama for being “low-key” while saying he’s concerned about the plight of reformers and inspired by them, which Burns called a “balancing act.”

29. #29
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm, b-cat said:

    I’m guessing former Bush negotiator with Iran, Ambassador Nicholas Burns, might have a little more expertise:

    Negotiated for what? How did it go?

30. #30
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:25 pm, Living in the PSRK said:

    My son called me chortling about the Iranian election. His take:

    Bush made sure that the former Evil leader in Iraq was tried fairly in a court of his peers and that his sentence was carried out by the government of Iraq. i.e., a vicious dictator was toppled. People in Iraq – even the bad ones – have freedom. History, after all is said and done – will be kind to W, just probably not until the Obamabots are all dead and the Universities purged of people that should be in prison (Ayers/Churchhill/Doern).

    That said, this toppling of Saddam and freeing of the Iraqi people emboldened the Iranians (who are, over all, the second best educated country in the Middle East). Almost 90% of the eligible voters went to the polls. And we are to believe that: (a) Amanutjob won by a landslide, (b) the three top contenders ALL LOST by 80% margin in their HOMETOWNS, (c) the results of a HAND COUNTED BALLOT were available only a couple HOURS after the polls closed (in the USSA, even with computers, it took days to complete the counts!) and (d) that many people all went to the polls just to ensure Amanutjob would remain in power?

    Oh, and the foriegn journalists needed to be arrested ahead of time, cell phone towers disabled and internet service disrupted in order to “secure the peace”?

    N-a-a-a-a-a-w, even Joe Biden isn’t that stupid. But I am ABSOLUTELY SURE ACORN and Obamessiah are very busy taking notes on how they can effect this scenario here in the USSA.

    “If we could only do something about those pesky gun-n-God-clingers,” muses Obamessiah outloud….

31. #31
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:26 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    Perhaps it is because Obama has no idea what a truly fair election would look like?

    Seriously, I think THE PRESIDENT of the worlds largest democracy has an obligation to speak out and state that it is incumbent on the Iranian leadership to ensure that the results of the voting are accurate and valid.

    To my knowledge he has not even said that.

32. #32
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm, nbarry said:

    The difference between the two sides in the election dispute is something called political patronage, or “follow the money.” Anyone who thinks that a theocracy is incorruptible is a fool, especially when the ruling clique has been in power too long.

33. #33
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, Living in the PSRK said:

    I know Wikipedia is not comprehensive, but I don’t see a post for him involving Iran.

    Before entering the Foreign Service, Mr. Burns worked as Program Officer at A.T. International, a non-profit organization specializing in economic assistance for Third World Countries.

    Burns began his Foreign Service career in Africa and the Middle East. He was an intern at the U.S. Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, Vice Consul and Staff Assistant to the Ambassador in Cairo, Egypt, from 1983 to 1985, and then Political Officer at the American Consulate General in Jerusalem from 1985 to 1987. In this position, he coordinated U.S. economic assistance to the Palestinian population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    Under President George H. W. Bush, he was Director for Soviet (and then Russian) Affairs. During this time, he attended all U.S. – Soviet summits and numerous other international meetings and specialized on economic assistance issues, U.S. ties with Russia and Ukraine, and relations with the Baltic countries. He was a member of the Department’s Transition Team in 1988, and served as Staff Officer in the Department’s Operations Center and Secretariat in 1987-1988.

    Burns served for five years (1990-1995) on the National Security Council staff at the White House. He was Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton and Senior Director for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Affairs. He had lead responsibility in the White House for advising the President on all aspects of U.S. relations with the fifteen countries of the former Soviet Union.

    From 1995 to 1997, Burns was Spokesman of the Department of State and Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs for Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Secretary Madeleine Albright. In this position, he gave daily press conferences on U.S. foreign policy issues, accompanied both Secretaries of State on all their foreign trips and coordinated all of the Department’s public outreach programs.

    From 1997 to 2001, Burns was U.S. Ambassador to Greece. During his tenure as Ambassador, the U.S. expanded its military and law enforcement cooperation with Greece, strengthened their partnership in the Balkans, increased trade and investment and people-to-people programs.

    Prior to his final assignment, Burns was the United States Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As Ambassador to NATO, he headed the combined State-Defense Department U.S. Mission to NATO at a time when the Alliance committed to new missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war against terrorism, and accepted seven new members.

    On January 18, 2008, Burns announced his retirement from the Foreign Service effective March 2008. The reason cited was to go back to family concerns and to pursue other opportunities outside of government.[2][3] A White House press statement stated that Burns would continue to serve in an advisory capacity as the United States Special Envoy in finalizing the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act.

    At the Harvard Kennedy School, Burns is teaching courses in diplomacy, American foreign policy, and international politics. He is a strong advocate for diplomacy, and has argued that the United States “should make a very strong effort to get to the negotiating table with Iran.” [4]

    Can you cite a reference for something he did of significance relating to Iran, please? Other than the above highlighted “let’s talk to Iran” and “let’s give a bunch of money to the baby-killers in Gaza” and hope for the best.

34. #34
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    The Obama policy of extending an open hand to Iran is working and should not be abandoned because of the grim events in Tehran.

    For the Iranian theocracy has just administered a body blow to its legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people and the world.

    Before Saturday, the regime could credibly posture as defender of the nation, defiant in the face of the threats from Israel, faithful to the cause of the Palestinians, standing firm for Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful nuclear power.

    Today, the regime, including the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is under a cloud of suspicion that they are but another gang of corrupt politicians who brazenly stole a presidential election to keep themselves and their clerical cronies in power…

    There are other reasons Obama should not heed the war hawks howling for confrontation now.

    When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way. That is a rule of politics Lyndon Johnson once put into the most pungent of terms. U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran’s affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans…

    The dilemma for America is that the theocracy defines itself and grounds its claim to leadership through its unyielding resistance to the Great Satan—the United States—and to Israel.

    Nevertheless, Obama, with his outstretched hand, his message to Iran on its national day, his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran, his assurances that we recognize Iran’s right to nuclear power, succeeded. He stripped the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad of their clinching argument—that America is out to destroy Iran and they are indispensable to Iran’s defense.

    I’ll let you guess who said that.

35. #35
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:35 pm, bradley said:

    I’m not worried. The Dear Leader will have a nice cup of organic tea with the little dwarf, and everything will be fine.

36. #36
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pm, Living in the PSRK said:

    Sarah Palin?

37. #37
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:38 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    So, Obama doesn’t want to meddle eh? Then he should STFU about Israel!

38. #38
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Somehow I doubt that Ronald Reagan would’ve kept his mouth shut about Iran! But then, he was a Statesman!

39. #39
    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    Somehow I doubt that Ronald Reagan would’ve kept his mouth shut about Iran! But then, he was a Statesman!

    You never know considering the statement I posted above was from Reagan’s White House Communications Director.

40. #40
    On June 16th, 2009 at 1:04 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    You never know considering the statement I posted above was from Reagan’s White House Communications Director.

    He didn’t stop Reagan from calling out Gorbachev to tear down that wall.

41. #41
    On June 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pm, rocketman said:

    ***
    The candidates in the Iranian election were picked by the Mullahs. There isn’t a dimes worth of difference between them. Which was better during WW2–the really bad SS troops, or the more “moderate” regular German Army? Their victims couldn’t tell the difference. This is mostly an internal Iranian power struggle going on.
    ***
    As far as the universal peace “hand gesture”–in many countries this is the first half of a “middle finger” type of obscene gesture.
    ***
    As far as what is going to happen next–on the international scene–sameo–sameo.
    ***
    As far as the regime change / freedom protesters that can be identified on the videos or by informants–the bullet, lash, stone, noose, club, and / or prison. The red Chinese Tieneman Square actions are the model–Deja Vu all over again. President Obama (PBUH) has given the Mullahs the “all clear” signs in his appeasement speeches.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

42. #42
    On June 16th, 2009 at 1:25 pm, moonshot said:

    Covert support of the dissidents is the way to go, and I assume this is already happening. However any public promise of support for the opposition would be disastrous.
    I find the sudden concern for the Iranians by the same people who approved of bombing them not long ago really ironic. Remember the hilarious John McCain Bomb Iran song?

43. #43
    On June 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    When Pat Buchanan is on the road he is depriving his village of its idiot.

44. #44
    On June 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, hadsil said:

    What’s this talk that Middle East Muslims don’t want Democracy?

45. #45
    On June 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Lee said he and Obama agreed that “under no circumstance are we going to allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons.” The communist government already has tested two underground nuclear devices and is believed by U.S. intelligence to possess enough material to make several nuclear bombs.

    So he’s going to prevent North Korea from possessing bombs even though they already have them (calling lgm for a logic explanation), but Iran – who doesn’t have them yet – he will do nothing about?

46. #46
    On June 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

    Where is Barack Obama?

    I know, right? If ANYONE can influence an Iranian election, it’s the president of the Great Satan himself.

47. #47
    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

    When the government fears the people, there is liberty!”

48. #48
    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Instead of wondering why Obama isn’t dealing with this situation immediately – why don’t you “Tea Party, Liberty Loving” people go to Iran?

49. #49
    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Instead of wondering why Obama isn’t dealing with this situation immediately – why don’t you “Tea Party, Liberty Loving” people go to Iran?

    I have been up for that since November 4, 1979.

    Works for me. When can we start?

50. #50
    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pm, moonshot said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Instead of wondering why Obama isn’t dealing with this situation immediately – why don’t you “Tea Party, Liberty Loving” people go to Iran?

    I don’t think that would be a good idea. Why would the Iranian people welcome the side that was totally okay with bombing them several months ago?

51. #51
    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Hey Flyoverman

    Stop talking and get over there.

52. #52
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm, right4life said:

    Why would the Iranian people welcome the side that was totally okay with bombing them several months ago?

    maybe because those that are protesting would be happy to get rid of the islamic dictatorship.

53. #53
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, Ilovemycountry said:
    Instead of wondering why Obama isn’t dealing with this situation immediately – why don’t you “Tea Party, Liberty Loving” people go to Iran?

    why? when we’re too busy here trying to stop people like you from turning this country into a socialist dictatorship.

54. #54
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:05 pm, right4life said:

    I know, right? If ANYONE can influence an Iranian election, it’s the president of the Great Satan himself.

    he could say the equivalent of ‘TEAR DOWN THIS WALL’

    but he won’t…nor will he do anything to destabilize a muslim dictatorship, or any other dictatorship.

55. #55
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pm, right4life said:

    maybe obama could say he no longer wants to meet with a dictator who has blood on his hands…

    but he won’t…he’ll still welcome ahmadinajad with open arms…

56. #56
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:14 pm, right4life said:

    how about something like this:

    “Our sympathies are with the people, not the government.”

    or

    The people of Poland IRAN are giving us an imperishable example of courage and devotion to the values of freedom in the face of relentless opposition. Left to themselves, the Polish IRANIAN people would enjoy a new birth of freedom

    that was REAGAN

57. #57
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, right4life said:

    here’s OBAMA..

    My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.

    oh yeah he’s a bulwark of freedom

58. #58
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, moonshot said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm, right4life said:
    maybe because those that are protesting would be happy to get rid of the islamic dictatorship.

    Anyone in their right mind hopes they manage to get rid if the islamic dictatorship. Glad to see that everyone now(suddenly) see’s them as more than just some collateral damage.

59. #59
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, moonshot said:

    oh please, do you even know any iranians?? I have known some of them, and as I stated in another thread, they were very decent people, especially compared to the palestinians I have known…

    anyway, wanting to get rid of the bloody dictatorship of iran and stop their nuclear program doesn’t mean we want to kill ever iranian…please….

60. #60
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, moonshot said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm, right4life said:
    oh please, do you even know any iranians?? I have known some of them, and as I stated in another thread, they were very decent people, especially compared to the palestinians I have known…

    anyway, wanting to get rid of the bloody dictatorship of iran and stop their nuclear program doesn’t mean we want to kill ever iranian…please….

    Bombing countries tend to like kill innocent people and stuff. They mattered just as much before the uprising etc.
    People just need to stop the silliness and realize everyone wants these people to have the freedom they deserve.

61. #61
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:41 pm, right4life said:

    Bombing countries tend to like kill innocent people and stuff. They mattered just as much before the uprising etc.

    so we shouldn’t have bombed japan or nazi germany right?

    People just need to stop the silliness and realize everyone wants these people to have the freedom they deserve.

    doesn’t sound like obama does…you libs didn’t want us to get rid of saddam, did you now??

    and remember in Nam all the libs who didn’t want us to defeat the North vietnamese???

    so no, liberals don’t want freedom for everyone…they’re perfectly happy with dictatorships…as long as they are anti-US dictatorships..

62. #62
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:48 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm, Ilovemycountry said:
    Hey Flyoverman

    Stop talking and get over there.

    If Jimmah had let us go in 1979, we would not be discussing it now and we would have saved the lives of all the people that Iran directly and through it proxies have killed for the last thrity years.

    You do not talk to a snake. You crush its head.

63. #63
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:49 pm, thetoysurgeon said:

    Obama has no interest in protecting the Iranian masses who are speaking out..On the other hand, He might want to be interested in the American masses because it could be coming to the USA!

64. #64
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, max said:

    I’ve been thinking… especially looking at some of these young peace-sign-proffering Iranians.
    It’s possible that many of these young people are just as ignorant and misinformed as ours. never read a paper, watch th enews, etc. They probably no nothing about Mossaui, only they hate Ahmanidiot as much as our idiots hate Bush…

65. #65
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:52 pm, thetoysurgeon said:

    Iranian who are struggling for freedom might be the example for the Iraqis. Winning freedom isn’t given out like candy nor is it won for you by another country’s army.

66. #66
    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:53 pm, moonshot said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:41 pm, right4life said:

    you’re too far gone and lunatic fringe to debate. I’m sure you really do believe what you’re saying…I’ll pass and wish you a good day though.

67. #67
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 3:53 pm, moonshot said:

    looks like the truth hurts…calling names is all you left-wing wackos can do…

    because you sure can’t debate the issues…

68. #68
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, huggybear said:

    calling names is all you left-wing wackos can do…

    Quoted For Hilarity.

69. #69
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    calling names is all you left-wing wackos can do

    oh the irony

70. #70
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm, TheOtherSide said

    uh I didn’t until I was called..

    you’re too far gone and lunatic fringe to debate

    get a clue

71. #71
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:20 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm, TheOtherSide said

    why don’t you go ahead and answer what your ‘friend’ could not??

    tell me how you libs are for freedom for all!! right…

72. #72
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:21 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, huggybear said

    lot of trolls on this thread..

73. #73
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:42 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    uh I didn’t until I was called

    Way to take the moral high ground.

    get a clue

    I guess the same “eye for an eye” rationale doesn’t apply to me.

    why don’t you go ahead and answer what your ‘friend’ could not??

    tell me how you libs are for freedom for all!! right…

    I think both sides of the political divide here in the U.S. are in agreement over their detestion of the current Islamic Republic regime and are hopeful for a positive outcome for the opposition. Where we differ is on what role the U.S. should play in it. Please read my posts #28 & #34 for my take on it. It think your opinion “liberals don’t want freedom for everyone…they’re perfectly happy with dictatorships” is a little short-sighted, as I believe we are all on the same page with wanting freedom for everyone, our differences lie in how to get there.

    p.s. Would it be to much to ask to condense your posts into 1 rather than4 or 5 in a row.

74. #74
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:42 pm, TheOtherSide said

    whats good for the goose is good for the gander, don’t ya think??

    as far as the ‘high ground’ you libs support of every dictatorship around has disqualified you from any moral judgments…along with your support of killing unborn babies….

    I think both sides of the political divide here in the U.S. are in agreement over their detestion of the current Islamic Republic regime and are hopeful for a positive outcome for the opposition.

    but historically you have not shown any support of getting rid of dictators…especially socialist dictators…remember how duranty went to Stalin’s russia and said he’d ‘seen the future, and it works’ while stalin was killing millions??

    when you libs talk about ‘freedom’ its nothing more than ‘words just words’

75. #75
    On June 16th, 2009 at 4:59 pm, right4life said:

    and obama apparently has no qualms about legitimizing ahmadinajad…meeting with him without preconditions…

    even now he hasn’t said he won’t meet with him, or work with him..

    iran has been at war with us for 30 years..how many *more* americans have to die before liberals figure this out?

    Nevertheless, Obama, with his outstretched hand, his message to Iran on its national day, his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran, his assurances that we recognize Iran’s right to nuclear power, succeeded. He stripped the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad of their clinching argument—that America is out to destroy Iran and they are indispensable to Iran’s defense.

    this is naive and laughable…oh yeah we shouldn’t upset the nice dictators..please…

    confronting dictators works…as Reagan showed with the soviet bloc..appeasing them as obama has…and carter did, does not.

76. #76
    On June 16th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, huggybear said:

    confronting dictators works…as Reagan showed with the soviet bloc

    Reagan Envoy Rumsfeld Bravely Confronts Brutal Dicator Saddam Hussein With One-Handed Death Grip: Shocking Photos Inside!

77. #77
    On June 16th, 2009 at 5:12 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    Nevertheless, Obama, with his outstretched hand, his message to Iran on its national day, his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran, his assurances that we recognize Iran’s right to nuclear power, succeeded. He stripped the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad of their clinching argument—that America is out to destroy Iran and they are indispensable to Iran’s defense.

    this is naive and laughable

    Tell that to conservative pundit and former REAGAN White House Communications Director, Pat Buchanan.

    Looks like moonshot was right about you.

78. #78
    On June 16th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, right4life said:

    Tell that to conservative pundit and former REAGAN White House Communications Director, Pat Buchanan.

    Looks like moonshot was right about you.

    oh you mean the guy who thought it was churchill’s fault Hitler started WWII??

    you libs are good for a laugh….too bad your policies create such misery, suffering and death for so many…

79. #79
    On June 16th, 2009 at 5:45 pm, right4life said:

    Reagan Envoy Rumsfeld Bravely Confronts Brutal Dicator Saddam Hussein With One-Handed Death Grip: Shocking Photos Inside!

    ROOSEVELT turns over Eastern Europe to STALIN!!! hundreds of millions ENSLAVED….

    oh and he also turned over some german POWS to the russians, so they would be tortured and murderd too..

80. #80
    On June 16th, 2009 at 5:48 pm, right4life said:

    oh and huggyboob…ever hear of the enemy of our enemy is our friend?? we used saddam to fight the mad mullahs in iran…

    and it worked pretty well for some years…

    but that strategic thinking is beyond the talking point wacko left!

    you libs cannot move beyond talking points…but if you could actually think for yourselves, you wouldn’t be liberals!!

81. #81
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:05 pm, huggybear said:

    ever hear of the enemy of our enemy is our friend??

    I see, so it’s not about “defending freedom for everyone” or absolute moral truths. Sometimes it’s okay to be BFFs with a murderous tyrant if it suits your strategic interests. Thanks for clarifying!

82. #82
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:07 pm, right4life said:

    I see, so it’s not about “defending freedom for everyone” or absolute moral truths. Sometimes it’s okay to be BFFs with a murderous tyrant if it suits your strategic interests. Thanks for clarifying!

    so do you think Roosevelt was mistaken in allying the US with STALIN??? hmmmm???

    just curious…

83. #83
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    you libs cannot move beyond talking points…but if you could actually think for yourselves, you wouldn’t be liberals

    lmao…that is the pot calling the kettle black.

84. #84
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, TheOtherSide said

    right, bringing up pat buchanan is really an argument

    so Neville, show me historically where appeasement has worked and brought freedom…go ahead and use buchanan’s argument, since you know them so well…

85. #85
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:13 pm, right4life said:

    huggy:

    whassa matter, can’t answer that question?? its a simple yes or no…

86. #86
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, right4life said:

    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, TheOtherSide said

    still doing your ah ‘research’ there neville?

    or are you just waiting for a fax from the DNC???

87. #87
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:26 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    so Neville, show me historically where appeasement has worked

    Why? Where have I argued for appeasement? Or are you just parroting what the right-wing punditry?

88. #88
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:33 pm, huggybear said:

    so do you think Roosevelt was mistaken in allying the US with STALIN???

    Good grief, do you actually have time for to sift through the annals of American history to try and prove… something? I certainly don’t. I’m just here to point and laugh.

    I’m not the one claiming it’s my duty to defend “freedom for everyone*” (*except for some people, sometimes). Those were your words, not mine. Besides, I’m a liberal, remember? “Words just words” and stuff? Why do you even care what I think since, as you have so shrewdly observed, we’re not capable of thinking for ourselves? Well, the rumors are true — Everything I say is actually the intellectual property of George Soros. Why not just go straight to the horse’s mouth?

    But seriously, folks… if this is a war of attrition, you win — I surrender (It’s in my blood, I’m part French. I also have a life).

89. #89
    On June 16th, 2009 at 6:55 pm, right4life said:

    Why? Where have I argued for appeasement? Or are you just parroting what the right-wing punditry?

    #28 and #34…what else do you call it??? hmmmmm??

90. #90
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:00 pm, right4life said:

    Good grief, do you actually have time for to sift through the annals of American history to try and prove… something? I certainly don’t. I’m just here to point and laugh.

    I don’t have to ‘sift’…I’ve already read it…perhaps you should try history 101…you’re good for a few laughs…thats about it…

    I’m not the one claiming it’s my duty to defend “freedom for everyone*” (*except for some people, sometimes). Those were your words, not mine

    where’d I say that?? are there any libs who don’t lie??

    but continue with your lies…its all ya got…

91. #91
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:03 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    #28 and #34…what else do you call it??? hmmmmm??

    lol…maybe you should research what appeasement is…’cause those examples you cite our not it.

    appeasement: to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

    Now tell me, what concessions/buy offs our we making in #28 & #34 and what principles are we sacrificing?

    And how come I was only given 11 minutes to respond but it took you 29? lmao @ right4life…if ignorance is bliss, you must be in heaven my friend.

92. #92
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:05 pm, right4life said:

    lmao @ right4life…if ignorance is bliss, you must be in heaven my friend.

    ’cause those examples you cite our not it.

    oh its ARE there einstein!!

    lmao at liberal losers like you!!!

    your ‘response’ was BS, as is everything else you post

93. #93
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:06 pm, right4life said:

    Now tell me, what concessions/buy offs our we making in #28 & #34 and what principles are we sacrificing?

    you’re so used to bending over for the democRATs you wouldn’t know appeasement if it bit ya!!

94. #94
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm, right4life said:

    appeasement: to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

    you’re right, you libs have NO principles…

95. #95
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    Come on now right4life…couldn’t you put those into one post? lol

    And what brilliant retorts I might add. lmao

96. #96
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:11 pm, right4life said:

    Come on now right4life…couldn’t you put those into one post? lol

    I knew it would bother you lol…

    and your ‘retort’ is??? lmao!!

97. #97
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:14 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    Now tell me, what concessions/buy offs our we making in #28 & #34 and what principles are we sacrificing?

    Still waiting for an intelligent answer on this one?

98. #98
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:17 pm, right4life said:

    when you agree to meet with a dictator with no preconditions…nothing…you appease that dictator…and you grant him legitimacy. and ahmadinajad just asked for more!! its too funny!!

    I would say the principle of not supporting a ruthless dictator whose country has been at war with us for 30 years…but libs ALWAYS support anti-american dictators…

    thats appeasement…now why don’t you try to intelligently answer where that has worked in history there neville!!

99. #99
    On June 16th, 2009 at 7:18 pm, right4life said:

    and now in the face of this latest outrage, we express nothing..no outrage, no condemnation, no standing with the people of iran against tyranny…

    thats appesement…next obama will be bowing to the Ayatollah!!

100. #100
     On June 16th, 2009 at 7:20 pm, right4life said:

     My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.

     appeasement