Ahmadinejad "wins" Iran presidential election

It'a a really interesting question if Obama will indeed isolate the fraudsters and murderers Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, or if he will go back to his attempt at including Iran back to the international community.

IMO the present crisis has shown that the West should not legitmise the criminal regime of Tehran.

I think isolation would be a mistake. We don't need another North Korea or Cuba. Isolation hasn't worked in the past.
True, they are likely fraudsters as evidence seems to point out, but I think the system will eventually implode itself once the Iranian people realize how pointless it is to vote in such an authoritarian regime, and they will eventually get rid of it, well hopefully.

BTW: Any news about the situation in Iran? It seems like MJ's death has taken over the western media lately...
 
This is a bit old now, but I've only just seen it - creep George Galloway on Iranian TV:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I couldn't watch this without cringing.
Hmm. He strikes me as quite reasonable and personable except for the $1B needed to run for the US presidency. I don't know where he got that idea.

And as Gallaway pointed out himself, the mere fact that his international talk show exists on Iranian TV shows that the country isn't nearly as repressed as many would have you believe.
 
It'a a really interesting question if Obama will indeed isolate the fraudsters and murderers Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, or if he will go back to his attempt at including Iran back to the international community.

IMO the present crisis has shown that the West should not legitmise the criminal regime of Tehran.

That's a really tricky one. This whole mess might well derail any attempts to meaningfully engage with Iran, but I don't think we should actively seek that eventuality.
 
All this talk of iran being 'isolated' from the international community is very amero-eurocentric. Iran is good buddies not just with Russia and China, but with whole host of '3rd world' countries including the majority of latin american countries. Why should iran care if US/europe try to 'isolate' them, Iran is better off having nothing to do with that gang of treacherous, lying, hedonist, warmongering, theives (imho).

Galloway, galloway... he says all the right things, and with style, but i am not sure i like him maybe because he seems to like himself a bit too much.
 
So USA/Europe is "gang of treacherous, lying, hedonist, warmongering thieves", according to you...
 
Obama (Jimmy Carter 2.0) is proving to be weak and ineffective when it comes to dealing with Iran.

To bit it simply: Obama is a sissy who ain't got the balls to be real man and deal with Iran.
 
So USA/Europe is "gang of treacherous, lying, hedonist, warmongering thieves", according to you...

The ruling establisments are yes. Not the ordinary, everyday people such as myself.

@plarq
Not that it is your business but, my wife is only in UK becuase i am here. None of her friends and family are here.
 
Obama (Jimmy Carter 2.0) is proving to be weak and ineffective when it comes to dealing with Iran.

To bit it simply: Obama is a sissy who ain't got the balls to be real man and deal with Iran.

There's an important difference between 1979 and 2009 - this time the Iranians aren't taking any Americans hostage.
 
Or 1980... Seriously I don't think that anything on the hard-man side short of a war would influence Iran; we've either got to attack them or be nice to them and try to negotiate, but not what Bush did which just made them hate him
 
The ruling establisments are yes. Not the ordinary, everyday people such as myself.

@plarq
Not that it is your business but, my wife is only in UK becuase i am here. None of her friends and family are here.

I know the ruling elites are to blame, but I really really want to emigrate to the evil west.
 
Obama (Jimmy Carter 2.0) is proving to be weak and ineffective when it comes to dealing with Iran.

To bit it simply: Obama is a sissy who ain't got the balls to be real man and deal with Iran.

No. He's doing more or less the same thing. The quickest way to get the Iranian people riled up at an outside threat instead of fighting each other is for an American president act like he has the right to dictate the outcomes of their elections.
 
Obama (Jimmy Carter 2.0) is proving to be weak and ineffective when it comes to dealing with Iran.

To bit it simply: Obama is a sissy who ain't got the balls to be real man and deal with Iran.

So, when are you enlisting to fight this patriotic war? You know, the American military only has so many men to throw around.
 
To bit it simply: Obama is a sissy who ain't got the balls to be real man and deal with Iran.

George W. Bush was a sissy in dealing with Iraq and terrorists.

Real men carpet bomb.
 
Galloway, galloway... he says all the right things, and with style, but i am not sure i like him maybe because he seems to like himself a bit too much.

He does seem rather smug, and he appears to never allow the caller to respond to his own rhetoric, at least from the 3 videos I watched.

But I have to admit the show is effective in showing that Iraq isn't afraid of criticism and has quite reasonable answers to all the various questions about what they do and how they do it. You may not personally like the answers, but they are obviously trying to be transparent about the way they operate.

Can you imagine Israel doing the same thing? Or even Fox News? Do you think they could answer world criticism about their own country's acts without losing it and turning into Bill O'Reillys?

There's an important difference between 1979 and 2009 - this time the Iranians aren't taking any Americans hostage.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that our puppet dicator is no longer oppressing the people of Iran for our own economic benefit. But I agree the situation is completely different this time. You can't very well compare the acts of Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama.

And I can't imagine Obama resurrecting Saddam Hussein to engage in another indirect US war against Iran as Reagan did and Carter's CIA apparently initiated.

What is really ironic is remember all the people who said "thank heaven GWB is in the White House instead of Gore" after 9/11? Can you imagine if GWB was still in office and this event occurred in Iran? He would likely be providing unlimited arms to anybody who claimed to be a Mousavi supporter. And if he wasn't, he would cetainly be trying to openly provoke civil war with the promise of providing aid as his father did after the first Gulf War. Thousands of Shiites died believing that false promise.

It's all about blowback...
 
I just want to point out that Iran certainly cannot count with Latin America in the medium term to escape international isolation. True, pariahs like Hugo Chávez and his serf Evo Morales will support Tehran as long as they perceive that to be an anti-american thing to do, but things are about to change in Brazil and Argentina. The public opinions in both countries have turned strongly against the obvious corruption and brutality of the Islamic Republic; anyone doubting it should read any newspaper of the region. Lula and Kirchner might be sympathetic to Ahmadinejad and his gang; but fact is they both have their days counted. Argentina is on electoral process and the Peronistas are about to lose. The center-right coalition will most likely win the presidency in the next election. In Brazil, the social-democrats are very likely to end the 8 years of terror of the Worker's Party in 2010, and they are traditionally more aligned with the US and Europe and opposed to dictatorships such as Iran. Wait and see.
 
George W. Bush was a sissy in dealing with Iraq and terrorists.

Real men carpet bomb.

Carpet Bomb? You sissy. Real men nuke.
 
you both got it wrong.

Real men wear pink. :rolleyes:
 
Top Bottom