Ahmadinejad wins re-election

My own predictions, the revolt will fail, Obama will negotiate a deal with Iran.
In a year or so, we will find out we have been had and we will have another North Korean game going on.

I agree, except for the "have been had" part. Obama knows full well Iran will get nukes. He just either doesn't care or else can't do anything. So he will put a happy smiley face on it and pretend it's for "peaceful purposes".
 
There was a funny guy on the news, interviewed in a pro Ahmadinejad rally. He said "We don't want to be free... like animals".

Yeah, they prefer to be slaves to their leaders like mindless drones. :rolleyes:
 
I agree, except for the "have been had" part. Obama knows full well Iran will get nukes. He just either doesn't care or else can't do anything. So he will put a happy smiley face on it and pretend it's for "peaceful purposes".

And I think Iran getting Nukes would be a political disaster for Obama.
 
There was a funny guy on the news, interviewed in a pro Ahmadinejad rally. He said "We don't want to be free... like animals".

Yeah, they prefer to be slaves to their leaders like mindless drones. :rolleyes:


BTW I tuned in the Rachael Maddow show on MSNBC, and she devoted almost the whole show to attacking anybody who dares to think that Obama should be more supportive of Democracy in Iran. It was as disgusting a performance as anything I have seen on Fox News.
Obama could take a big political hit from this..his first.
 
Obama doesn't care about freedom in the Muslim world. That is obvious. Of course, no other president -- except Bush Jr. -- did, either, and look where that got him: the entire "freedom loving" mob of independent thinkers thinks he (Bush, of course, not Obama) worse than Hitler.

So Obama learned the lesson -- it's back to the usual situation, essentially. Freedom in the middle east is optional. Gulags are no objection to improved relations with the USA. Raising the price of oil unfairly, or something SERIOUS like that, however...
 
And I think Iran getting Nukes would be a political disaster for Obama.

Obama is, apparently, learning that there are things smooth talking can't solve.

I think his main problem is that, being a superb speechmaker without ever having been in a powerful position for long, he naturally values the power of words and gestures over deeds and interests.

His policy is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's: it's to speak grandly and carry a small stick.
 
It does seem like another missed opportunity for Obama to make a stand, he could have put into practice his sweet talk he made in Egypt. He missed another opportunity to make a stand earlier this year when he didn't clearly say the Armenian tragedy was a genocide.

Kind of like what people reproach Bush for not having sprung into action at the elementary school on 9/11.

ETA: but Obama does seem to be pretty hard at work on domestic issues though.
 
Last edited:
Hugo Chavez has apparently come out in favor of Ahmadinejad and is blaming the demonstrations on "Outside Interference" ie, a code word for the US.
Fun to see who the CHavez Worshipper here spin this.
 
It does seem like another missed opportunity for Obama to make a stand, he could have put into practice his sweet talk he made in Egypt. He missed another opportunity to make a stand earlier this year when he didn't clearly say the Armenian tragedy was a genocide.

Kind of like what people reproach Bush for not having sprung into action at the elementary school on 9/11.

ETA: but Obama does seem to be pretty hard at work on domestic issues though.

Sadly, I have to agree. I have been an Obama supporter, but this may be my first real breach with him.
 
You have to understand him though, he's in a tough place, he wants so much to distance himself from the previous administration by not wanting to look preachy, and after two wars I can understand why he wants to tone it down, but it has the perverse effect to make him look weaker on the principles.

But he has those principles, I have no doubt, the problem is how to put them into practice without looking like the "Big Bad Bully America".
 
Last edited:
Hugo Chavez has apparently come out in favor of Ahmadinejad and is blaming the demonstrations on "Outside Interference" ie, a code word for the US.


It's a known tactic of dictators, to accuse the opposition of fomenting conspiracies against the government.

During the TV debates, Ahmadinejad blatantly accused his opponents of plotting against him.

I wonder whatever happened to these allegations, now that he "won" by so much?

ETA: not to mention the accusations against Western media of conspiring to make Iran look bad. Conspiracy thinking seems to be in his nature.
 
Last edited:
It's a known tactic of dictators, to accuse the opposition of fomenting conspiracies against the government.

During the TV debates, Ahmadinejad blatantly accused his opponents of plotting against him.

I wonder whatever happened to these allegations, now that he "won" by so much?


Chavez is the one making the accusation of 'Outside Meddling"in Iran, although I am sure Ahmidijan will not be far behind.
Guess there must be some kind of Nutso Dictators Mutual aid deal going on....
 
Last edited:
Obama doesn't care about freedom in the Muslim world. That is obvious. Of course, no other president -- except Bush Jr. -- did, either, and look where that got him:

What rubbish.
Bush jr supported Musharraf, Mubarak and the Saudis. Hardly the grandest examples of democracy. And what was his reaction to the democratically elected government of Hamas?

Oh, I think I understand you.
Freedom is the American way or it isn't freedom. See my sig.
 
Apart from the candidates: I believe that we should focus on condemnation of the way that the regime apparently chooses to deal with dissidents, and the discontent in the streets.
 
Another poll mentioned in a CSMonitor article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p06s01-wome.html

Secret Iranian government polls reported by Newsweek earlier this month estimated that Mousavi would win 16 to 18 million votes, and Ahmadinejad just 6 to 8 million. Those polls found that even the Revolutionary Guard and Iran's "vast intelligence apparatus seem to have come around to this position: a large majority of them also plan to vote for Mousavi," Newsweek reported.

Earlier polls appeared to indicate a stronger showing for Ahmadinejad, who – though under fire for poor economic performance, a surge of inflation, and unemployment – had made 60 visits to Iran's provinces handing out cash and development projects.

Not VERY secret Iranian government polls, it has to be said!
 
I think the best evidence comes from the actual election. This survey was done three weeks before, when there was general apathy amongst Mousavi's natural supporters. That was dispelled by the TV debate in which A'jad made a complete arse of himself. The evidence for that is in the turnout.
I admit it seems bizarre, but the poll did give me pause. If the article is to be believed, it was conducted as well as possible, and it predicted a victory very much like the actual one. It predicted uniform victory by a wide margin, including among Azeris and young people.

That seems bizarre to me, but evidence is evidence, and you can't just ignore it entirely. Meanwhile, if saying a bunch of stupid stuff were a real problem, Ahmedinejad (sp?) wouldn't make it onto a ballot. The guy is a total nut case.
 
You have to understand him though, he's in a tough place, he wants so much to distance himself from the previous administration by not wanting to look preachy, and after two wars I can understand why he wants to tone it down, but it has the perverse effect to make him look weaker on the principles.

But he has those principles, I have no doubt, the problem is how to put them into practice without looking like the "Big Bad Bully America".

There's also another problem which we need to understand. If you know the history of Iran, then it's easy to see why Obama is doing what he's doing.

If Obama comes out too strongly, at least in public, in support of the opposition, then the Iranian regime will start to paint the opposition as a cat's paw of the West. And believe me, those folks in the opposition - even though we call them moderate - will do an about-face if they think that there is undue outside influence (especially from the West) in their affairs. The memories of the Shah and our failed involvement then are still fresh in the minds of most Iranians. They don't want the West meddling with their government, they want to do it themselves.

So Obama must walk a fine line, and I think he's doing a pretty decent job so far. On the one hand, he must raise legitimate questions about the "election" process in Iran (I like how Biden did it), but at the same time he must ultimately leave it up to the Iranian people to sort it out for themselves. At least, that's in public.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to know that there is likely a number of things going on behind the scenes to assist the Iranian opposition movement.

If I had my druthers, I would like to see Obama take a stronger line publicly, but I understand why he hasn't thus far. Of course, that doesn't prevent anyone else, like some of his most vocal critics, from doing so. And I think they would be spending their energies better by criticizing the Iranian dictatorship and figuring out how to help Iranians get the word out than trying to score political points against Obama.

But that's just me.
 
Hugo Chavez has apparently come out in favor of Ahmadinejad and is blaming the demonstrations on "Outside Interference" ie, a code word for the US.
Fun to see who the CHavez Worshipper here spin this.

Can we please cease with the 'Ayatollah apologists' and 'Chavez defenders' and 'People who compare Bush to Hitler' accusations flying around left and right? Please?
 

Back
Top Bottom