OT - Iran presidential elections - fraud?

ansonlee · Post by **ansonlee** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:43 pm

Obama can't win with you people. Either he's critized for doing too much or doing too little.

Here's what I think should be done. Let Israel clandestinly provide arms to the Iranian rebels to fight the gov. Hell Iran supports and arms terrorists in Israel so turn about is fair game.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:47 pm

JackB1 wrote:Another thing is that how can we criticise another counties elections after the debacles that have gone on here during the recent past? We haven't exactly been an example of a fair and just electoral system.

I would drop that thread immediately... it won't go anywhere productive.

The idea behind the tentative response seems to be intended to avoid a situation where the Iranian regime could paint the U.S. as puppeteers of the uprising, which would have given them license to put it down (violently) even sooner. Even George Will makes the point that the reform elements know we're behind them.

Hungary 1956 comes up a lot in comparison, with Eisenhower making strong rhetorical support for uprising but not being able to do f***-all about it when things were said and done. I don't know how accurate the comparison really is.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:51 pm

ansonlee wrote:Obama can't win with you people. Either he's critized for doing too much or doing too little.

.

Welcome to the White House. Thats how its always been and always will be...Ask Gdub or Slick Willy.

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:05 pm

JackB1 wrote:I for you, think it's time we stop trying to decide what's best for other countries.

That seems to be a common theme in these threads

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:10 pm

XXXIV wrote:
JackB1 wrote: Another thing is that how can we criticise another counties elections after the debacles that have gone on here during the recent past? We haven't exactly been an example of a fair and just electoral system.
There ya go again...f*** it...I ll respond your never ever ending partisan bullshit

A bunch of sore losers whining like c*** about punch ballots they are too f***in stupid to punch correctly does not equate to this s*** in Iran in any f***in way except a partisan way.

Can't you respond without a personal attack? I'm sorry you don't like MY OPINION, but this is a perfect example of why Jared doesn't allow these threads.

I just gave ONE example of why our election system isn't exactly a shining example. There are plenty more. Also, I never said it was the same or to be compared with Iran's. I was just explaining why we should stay out of it. Even our heavily flawed system is miles ahead of the B.S. that is currently going on in Iran.

The main point here is what should be our voice or involvement here, if any and what is your opinion of our presiden't stance?

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:14 pm

Slumberland wrote:
The idea behind the tentative response seems to be intended to avoid a situation where the Iranian regime could paint the U.S. as puppeteers of the uprising, which would have given them license to put it down (violently) even sooner.

Agree 100%. I like having a President who thinks before he reacts. Whether he's right or wrong, he seems to be carefully considering things before responding.

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:14 pm

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:19 pm

GameSeven wrote:
JackB1 wrote:I for you, think it's time we stop trying to decide what's best for other countries.
That seems to be a common theme in these threads

Sorry, typo.....was supposed to read "I, for one........"

Post by **Jared** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:19 pm

I thought I'd be able to let the thread go a few hours with a reasonable moderation policy that is slightly more liberal than before. That was stupid of me....I can't even make it to halftime of the USA game before getting PMs about forum stupidity.

Thread locked. XXXIV, I've given you too much leeway in letting you blow up against people for not agreeing with you in the past. I thought short bans would work, but the same crap keeps happening. So you're banned indefinitely, and I'll decide when to rescind it.

And to add to this, Jack, you're just as much of the problem here. You clearly didn't need to talk about US electoral history in the thread...it was a clear thread derail and I understand why it set XXXIV off.