Obama or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who do ya got?

[Foster]

Iran's Supreme Leader is saying Obama is full of shit with his talk of change do you agree or do you see change on the horizon? (http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=540113&categoryId=22)

[epo]

I'm with Abudda Dein. He's got that crazy Kevin Sullivan under his spell and he's reigning terror over the Florida territory like nobody's business.

[SP1!]

I dont agree with talking to these fucks because its obvious they are fucking the most insane backwards country out there, they make the religious right look downright reasonable.

Basically what the ayatollah wants is for everyone to stop being so sinful in the world for him to be happy, fuck him, I hope obama gets the point these guys are not open to negotiations they just want the world to submit to their demands.

[Tallman388]

I'll take Obama in the 21st minute. He'll hit that ayatollah with a folding chair while the ref argues with his manager, Classy Freddy Blassy.

[Recyclerz]

I dont agree with talking to these fucks because its obvious they are fucking the most insane backwards country out there, they make the religious right look downright reasonable.

Basically what the ayatollah wants is for everyone to stop being so sinful in the world for him to be happy, fuck him, I hope obama gets the point these guys are not open to negotiations they just want the world to submit to their demands.

I don't understand this point of view. Did unilaterally embargoing Castro dislodge him from power? And that was while the USA was at the apex of its power.

Iran is controlled by a stinking group of ideologues who are currently firmly in control but who, in the short & long term, cannot offer a decent life to the people of their country. However, their population is young and fairly well-educated and can be wooed slowly to our side. Bush's foreign policy decisions have given the theocrats in Tehran and Qum a stronger hand to play by removing their strongest obstacle to regional dominance (Iraq) and giving them the excuse to go full tilt to get nuclear weapons.

Keeping Iran from getting the Bomb is Obama's first priority. His best play is to engage and challenge them directly with diplomatic openings up front while backstage cutting deals with Russia and China to prevent those countries from assisting Iran in advancing their weapons programs. A lowish oil price also puts additional internal pressure on the punks so getting alternative energy programs going for real in the US also helps.

[SP1!]

I don't understand this point of view. Did unilaterally embargoing Castro dislodge him from power? And that was while the USA was at the apex of its power.


No the US wasnt at the apex of its power, at that time we were still developing a lot of our policies in the modern world. You can say our popularity was at a high but our status is why castro and the russians thought they could rattle our cages with their bullshit.

And Im pretty sure its just our nation who has the embargo of everything against Iran, plenty of other nations still buy their oil. But personally I would not have open relations with most nations that subject women to that kind of mental torture or a nation who kidnaps someone off the street for something a relative does in another country because they feel he disgraced (http://www.observer.com/2009/daily-transom/armin-amiri%E2%80%99s-dad-questioned-iranian-authorities-his-son%E2%80%99s-role-wrestler)their country.

[vjr97]

im pretty sure obama always carries a gun

[TheMojoPin]

No the US wasnt at the apex of its power, at that time we were still developing a lot of our policies in the modern world. You can say our popularity was at a high but our status is why castro and the russians thought they could rattle our cages with their bullshit.

The US was at its apex of its power in the 1950's and 1960's in terms of being able to shape foreign affairs. That's when they were toppling and installing governments left and right and next to nobody was saying anything in protest and nobody could do anything to stop them. I have absolutely no idea what you could be thinking of otherwise if you think the peak came later. You also talk about "Castro and the Russians" as if they were lined up from day one, but they weren't. Though Castro had figures around him like Che and Raoul Castro that most certainly considered themselves Marxists, Socialists or communists, he himself was not initially looking to be completely at odds with the US or reliant on the USSR. He definitely wanted Cuba's industries and resources nationalized away from American control, but Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union was one after necessity after the the US cut off Cuba after, ironically, they declared him to be a communist and a Soviet puppet before he actually was one. The US effectively pushed Castro into the arms of the Soviets. Check the timeline of the Cuban revolution, it's pretty interesting stuff.

[SP1!]

The US was at its apex of its power in the 1950's and 1960's in terms of being able to shape foreign affairs. That's when they were toppling and installing governments left and right and next to nobody was saying anything in protest and nobody could do anything to stop them. I have absolutely no idea what you could be thinking of otherwise if you think the peak came later. You also talk about "Castro and the Russians" as if they were lined up from day one, but they weren't. Though Castro had figures around him like Che and Raoul Castro that most certainly considered themselves Marxists, Socialists or communists, he himself was not initially looking to be completely at odds with the US or reliant on the USSR. He definitely wanted Cuba's industries and resources nationalized away from American control, but Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union was one after necessity after the the US cut off Cuba after, ironically, they declared him to be a communist and a Soviet puppet before he actually was one. The US effectively pushed Castro into the arms of the Soviets. Check the timeline of the Cuban revolution, it's pretty interesting stuff.

I hope you arent naive enough to think it was just the US that had a hand in changing the leadership of those nations, plenty of nations had a hand in those changes in power because it benefited their nation as well. And yes he didnt want to align with anyone, he thought he could have existed on his own, if it wasnt for soviet support then cuba would have died a lot earlier, without russia trying to shove a finger in the US's ass cuba has no resources to fight the embargo.

We shaped governments to our liking with the blessing or help of plenty of nations, they kept their hands clean and now we look like the bad guy. I have a book that details a lot of the collusion, some of it is speculation some is based in fact, I will have to find it later but now its time to drink.

[TheMojoPin]

I never said the US didn't have the support of other local or (typically) NATO nations their nation-building exercises in the 50's and 60's, but they were most certainly far and way the driving force and "in charge" when they were involved given the nature of the post-WW2 world. My point was taking issue with your assertion that the US hadn't "reached its apex" in terms of its control and influence in foreign affairs when it clearly had. Cuba was the tipping point in a run of numerous nation-building operations throughout Central and South America that the US steamrolled right over. Cuba changed all of that. Since then, the US was not able to operate with the relative ease and impunity that it had before the Cuba revolution.

[A.J.]

Iran's Supreme Leader is saying Obama is full of shit with his talk of change do you agree or do you see change on the horizon? (http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=540113&categoryId=22)

Seeing as Obama has made only one foreign visit in his 50+ days as President (Canada), I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he will reach out to Iran in the near future.

As I have said before I hope his first major trip abroad is a round-the-world visit to Tehran, Pyongyang and Havana: each ending with the promise that full diplomatic relations will be restored and new U.S. embassies will be built in each city.

[scottinnj]

...Tehran, Pyongyang and Havana: each ending with the promise that full diplomatic relations will be restored and new U.S. embassies will be built in each city.
Job creation you can believe in. Embassies for all! But seriously, I hope the rest of the world is paying attention to this. President Obama is doing the opposite of what Bush did, and let's wait to see what the Iranians want to do.

The Iranians complained about Bush's heavy-handedness in his diplomatic gestures to them, and I'm betting they will find something to whine about with Obama's efforts as well.

Which will prove to the world that Iran's government does not want to negotiate, and maybe, just maybe, we will get support in real sanctions against Iran that will be harsh enough to get them to give up on the nuclear bomb thing.

[SP1!]

I never said the US didn't have the support of other local or (typically) NATO nations their nation-building exercises in the 50's and 60's, but they were most certainly far and way the driving force and "in charge" when they were involved given the nature of the post-WW2 world. My point was taking issue with your assertion that the US hadn't "reached its apex" in terms of its control and influence in foreign affairs when it clearly had. Cuba was the tipping point in a run of numerous nation-building operations throughout Central and South America that the US steamrolled right over. Cuba changed all of that. Since then, the US was not able to operate with the relative ease and impunity that it had before the Cuba revolution.
Well my assertion was that the US didnt do anything without the rest of their nations support until later which laid the groundwork for bad blood and is one of the main reasons for the rest of europe hating us. So to say we acted alone in nation toppling is absurd, without all the help or other nations ignoring what we were doing none of that would have happened, but in the end we were set up to be the bad guy since we were the face put forward during that time.

If kennedy would have supported the bay of pigs cuba would be full of tourists and casinos right now instead of a shell of a country where we put terrorism captives.

[TheMojoPin]

Well my assertion was that the US didnt do anything without the rest of their nations support until later which laid the groundwork for bad blood and is one of the main reasons for the rest of europe hating us. So to say we acted alone in nation toppling is absurd, without all the help or other nations ignoring what we were doing none of that would have happened, but in the end we were set up to be the bad guy since we were the face put forward during that time.

I think you're drastically underestimating the US' capabilities, influence and presitge in the post-WW2 50's. Nobody is saying that other allies weren't often "in on it," but none of them were in any kind of position to stop the US if they had wanted to. It was essentially the US' show, especially in the Western Hemisphere. I cannot imagine who you're thinking had say over the US in that part of the world. Until Cuba, the US was handpicking agendas and governments left and right in Central and South America. I'm also curious as to when you think the US reached its height of international power if it wasn't in the 50's and early 60's.

If kennedy would have supported the bay of pigs cuba would be full of tourists and casinos right now instead of a shell of a country where we put terrorism captives.

If Kennedy had directly involved US military forces with the capabilities needed there's a good chance none of us would be here right now. The Bay of Pigs had to succeed under the banner of the auspicies of the Cuban exiles (even though everyone knew the US was behind it). Overt US involvement arguably would have been the worst possible decision. The true turning point was Eisenhower deciding to listen to Nixon after the VP met with Castro and declared him to be a communist and leaning towards the Soviets when he wasn't yet at that point.

[JerseySean]

Im pulling for Obama here...in a fight, he's just a pussy

[JohnGacysCrawlSpace]

My money is on the Iron Sheik for the belt.

[SonOfSmeagol]

All the front-office yapping and posturing is all good. Olive branches are all good. It probably does nothing but buy time for Iran…But – and let me express this in objective terms – these towelhead lunatics absolutely cannot, never, EVER be allowed to make ANY sort of a nuclear bomb.

I can only hope that in the back room the message from this administration to the towelheads is clear – either you stop it or we will. And I can only hope they have the balls to follow through.

[epo]

All the front-office yapping and posturing is all good. Olive branches are all good. It probably does nothing but buy time for Iran…But – and let me express this in objective terms – these towelhead lunatics absolutely cannot, never, EVER be allowed to make ANY sort of a nuclear bomb.

I can only hope that in the back room the message from this administration to the towelheads is clear – either you stop it or we will. And I can only hope they have the balls to follow through.

Thanks for being the cliche.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Fuck Iran. How do you say that in Farsi?

[El Mudo]

We just have to be careful, because even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmara and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!

http://images0.cafepress.com/product/141120600v3_350x350_Front.jpg

[Tallman388]

The answer to this question really lies in historical precedent:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9psdw86uAUg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9psdw86uAUg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>