quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi lol @ google posting 'opposition resisting' and stuff.. main guy who is like a gandhi figure.. honest and well respected through out 'ayotillah' has already made a statement that the election was not rigged and shit but the US media and govt is stil hooked to it.. coz it sounds better for them and their propaganda...

You're sounding like another moronic Ahmadinejad supporter!

So you think it was propaganda? What do you think about how the whistle blower of the real election results was assassinated?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/2...lts-iranian.htm

Mohammad Asgari has said Mousavi won and Ahmadinejad came third, only to die in a suspicious car crash.

Stick that propaganda up your peep hole!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I want his perspective on what a neocon is. Because, that word gets thrown around so much and so generally, it's as if it's being used to describe anyone who ISN'T supportive of liberal dogma.

good luck on getting an honest and thoughtful perspective around here.

there seems to be no discernable difference around here between what the spirit of neo-conservatism is and what it means for people who live under tyranny and the actual application of it's policies. liberals (and young people alike) here and elsewhere confuse the two as well as use the term as pejorative = utter fail. why they do that could be barely describled in 500 page novel, but i'm not gonna get into that.

neo-cons or even neo-conservative policy has had much, much less to do with what is going on in Iran right now compared with the failures in the last 30 years of the theocratic regime. all of this is attributed to internal problems of the government in all of it's affect on it's people. that said, it can't be adequately determined how people outside the country, be it foreign leaders or punditry, can say anything that would have a tangible effect on whats going on inside Iran aside from tacit support of non-violent resistance. this is why i haven't jumped on the Obama-fail boat on how his relative silence on the subject has led to one outcome or another.

Obama's words have meant less and less and less, literally as the days pass of his administration since January. he can't say shit, he ain't gonna say shit - makes no real difference. his middle name carries more weight by itself through this process than any glistening drops of ideological dew spewn forth from his pretty mouth.

just as realism is not the exclusive domain of either conservative or liberal ideologies, the emphatic repudiation of tyranny found in neo-conservative principles shouldn't be exclusive to conservatism or liberalism.

however, what has been demostrated throughout this situation in Iran, and what continues to be proven in the ME in general, is that Islamic fascism (any fascism) has never been nor never will be sufficiently checked without the use of force. as it stands, if you wish to break the bonds of Islamic fascism or extremism you must be adequately prepared to not only induce but also shed rivers of blood. obviously not everyone is up to that task.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo just as realism is not the exclusive domain of either conservative or liberal ideologies, the emphatic repudiation of tyranny found in neo-conservative principles shouldn't be exclusive to conservatism or liberalism.

You're right, and in fact neo-conservativism was largely the domain of Catholic and Jewish liberals until its usurpation by Reagan (though I would argue Reagan stopped short of adopting any pure form of neo-conservativism). The neo-conservative resurgence began as a backlash to Clinton's adoption of sanctions and a "wait and see" policy toward dealing with Iraq. Since then, it has almost exclusively been an ideology of the right. Neo-conservatives have never been that interested in expanding their own ideological base, however; instead, they seem quite satisfied with simply following their agenda without apology or overture.

quote:

however, what has been demostrated throughout this situation in Iran, and what continues to be proven in the ME in general, is that Islamic fascism (any fascism) has never been nor never will be sufficiently checked without the use of force. as it stands, if you wish to break the bonds of Islamic fascism or extremism you must be adequately prepared to not only induce but also shed rivers of blood. obviously not everyone is up to that task.

This is a perfect example of what I talked about in my earlier post.

___________________

quote:

Also Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki held a news conference where he rebuked Britain, France and Germany for raising questions about reports of voting irregularities in hardline Ahmadinejad's re-election — a proclaimed victory which has touched off Iran's most serious internal conflict since the revolution. Mottaki accused France of taking "treacherous and unjust approaches." But he saved his most pointed criticism for Britain, raising a litany of historical grievances and accusing the country of flying intelligence agents into Iran before the election to interfere with the vote. The election, he insisted, was a "very transparent competition." That drew an indignant response from British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who "categorically" denied his country was meddling. "This can only damage Iran's standing in the eyes of the world," Miliband said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621...l_iran_election

Well now, its really good Obama has been choosing his words carefully and hasn't been saying what Republicans wanted him to say. I believe this proves Obama's point.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo however, what has been demostrated throughout this situation in Iran, and what continues to be proven in the ME in general, is that Islamic fascism (any fascism) has never been nor never will be sufficiently checked without the use of force. as it stands, if you wish to break the bonds of Islamic fascism or extremism you must be adequately prepared to not only induce but also shed rivers of blood. obviously not everyone is up to that task.

Islamic fascism is an oxymoron. Islamic socialism should be the term you use.

Your point of view is oddly mirrored by the Islamic fundamentalists in the ME. You believe force is necessary to stop a perceived resistance against US interests. They believe force is necessary to stop a perceived imperialism on their countries. Whats left out by you and them is the death and destruction caused when policy reflects your "warrior" points of view.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov "Smart power" is a term I haven't seen before... I'm guessing you made that up?

The credit goes to Hillary Clinton for coining that during her Senate confirmation hearing. "Smart Power" was her description of her approach to diplomacy... she defines it "as using the full range of tools available to the United States, including diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural tools. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy."

So far, there's been a whole lotta dumb going on in foreign policy decisions by way of this new "smart power".

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss So far, there's been a whole lotta dumb going on in foreign policy decisions by way of this new "smart power".

Nothing dumber than the last 8 years.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The credit goes to Hillary Clinton for coining that during her Senate confirmation hearing. "Smart Power" was her description of her approach to diplomacy... she defines it "as using the full range of tools available to the United States, including diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural tools. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy."

Yeah, I don't know what she's trying to pull there. That sounds like soft (cultural + diplomatic + economic) power combined with hard (military) power for an end result of power in all its forms. I haven't heard it bandied about since the confirmation, so hopefully the term died.

quote:

So far, there's been a whole lotta dumb going on in foreign policy decisions by way of this new "smart power".

Such as? I can only assume you're still critical of Obama's response to Iran. It seemed to be the criticism in favor with Republican lawmakers making the Sunday morning rounds on cable television today. But, and I think the reaction of Khamenei has already borne this out, the vast majority of Iranian policy-makers and scholars believe prudence to be a wise decision in this case. Even George Will chimed in on the silliness of the criticism today:

quote:

The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/21...lish-criticism/

As did Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal, that fine bastion of conservative opinions:

quote:

To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous,” she wrote, adding that “the ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124535660563828707.html

Furthermore, Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, seemed to advocate exactly what Obama is doing:

quote:

HARRY SMITH: Beyond watching…beyond supporting the idea that these disputed votes should be recounted, is there anything the United States can do? LUGAR: No. I think for the moment our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their situation. When popular revolutions occur, they come really from the people. They’re generated by people power within the country. For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy…and to use us, really, to retain their power.

So to criticize Obama's foreign policy toward Iran at this juncture seems, at best, a bit premature.

___________________

Obama is doing exactly what he should be doing.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Lemonad You're sounding like another moronic Ahmadinejad supporter! So you think it was propaganda? What do you think about how the whistle blower of the real election results was assassinated? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/2...lts-iranian.htm Mohammad Asgari has said Mousavi won and Ahmadinejad came third, only to die in a suspicious car crash. Stick that propaganda up your peep hole!

I think Ahmadinejad is one of the most honest politicians I came across in recent times.. one who thinks for his country and not his personal ambitions like goals.. he is smart in his policies.. he played a major role in lobbying against the iraq invasion and the role he played in criticizing american policies were true and hit the mark,, if it was not for Ahmadinejad, the world would stilll think iraq invasion was good. Ahmadinejad is trully a global politician.. who changes the world policies.. he is one of most under-estimated figure.. but his role has changed world views towards america a lot.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Islamic fascism is an oxymoron. Islamic socialism should be the term you use.

is this a joke or something?

quote:

Your point of view is oddly mirrored by the Islamic fundamentalists in the ME. You believe force is necessary to stop a perceived resistance against US interests. They believe force is necessary to stop a perceived imperialism on their countries. Whats left out by you and them is the death and destruction caused when policy reflects your "warrior" points of view.

you didn't pay any attention to what i was saying.

US interests in the ME are irrelevant to what is happening in Iran right now. theyre as irrelavant as France's or Germany's interests in the ME but that doesn't preclude any and all rhetoric condemning the violence used to put down common interests in democracy and fair representaion. democracy and fair representation being hallmarks of neo-conservative principles vs. violence that is inherent in a fascist system

i don't just believe the use of force is necessary to check fascist interests, EVERYWHERE! - history and fascism itself presents no other alternative.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jun-22-2009 at 01:05

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo is this a joke or something?

yeah, what are you on about krypton?

___________________