If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Neocons are already fretting that Ahmedinejad may lose in Iranian elections this week, letting a perfectly good war go to waste   (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 63
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1603 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2009 at 6:49 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-06-10 11:20:23 PM  
Yeah, without Iran, where are they gonna get their booga booga from?
 
2009-06-10 11:30:36 PM  
They should start sending him campaign contributions. I bet they'd find some way to say there is nothing wrong with it.
 
2009-06-10 11:38:09 PM  
swing PITA, swing
 
2009-06-10 11:38:31 PM  
GAT_00: They should start sending him campaign contributions. I bet they'd find some way to say there is nothing wrong with it.

You could funnel the contributions through a right-wing Central American terrorists.
 
2009-06-10 11:45:01 PM  
I have an Iranian (expatriate) coworker who is positively ebullient over this. He kept asserting that they are finally getting rid of their Bush. I understand his joy.
 
2009-06-11 12:02:07 AM  
yogaFLAME: I have an Iranian (expatriate) coworker who is positively ebullient over this. He kept asserting that they are finally getting rid of their Bush. I understand his joy.

The bad news is that they'll still be keeping their Supreme Leader Cheney.
 
2009-06-11 01:08:01 AM  
Yeah, they are trading in their Bush for their very own Obama. The 12th Imam
 
2009-06-11 02:30:00 AM  
panfried: Yeah, they are trading in their Bush for their very own Obama. The 12th Imam

This leftie lol'd.
 
2009-06-11 06:51:52 AM  
Just so people understand, the headline writer and the article are not exaggerating. You have neocons literally declaring that if they were able to vote in Iranian elections, they would vote for Ahmadinejad so that the world would be able to see the evil of Iran instead of having it hidden behind pretty words.

I cannot begin to express how vile these people are.
 
2009-06-11 07:01:11 AM  
make me some tea: Yeah, without Iran, where are they gonna get their booga booga from?

Fox News will claim that Obama has made us more unsafe due to all the recent shootings (abortion doctor and Holocaust museum).

Oh, and don't forget: 'Obama is bringing A TERRORIST onto THIS soil to try him in court!'
 
2009-06-11 07:02:47 AM  
Oh darn. Cause you know? If there's any group that's demonstrated that they are absolute masters of battle, its the neocons.

In a match up with a wet paper bag, I'd have to give the advantage to the bag. Not sure what exactly will cause it, but they'll figure out how to drown in the bag AND burn their house down in the process.

It makes my head hurt.
 
2009-06-11 07:03:23 AM  
Friday/Saturday will be interesting indeed. As I understand, the general Iranian public would like to see a more "westernized" country. However, just reading up on the campaign so far it's been intense to say the least- and the reform party has it's own "Nader factor" to consider... I have a feeling Ahmadinejad is going to take it, but I could be wrong.
 
2009-06-11 07:11:20 AM  
Why exactly are ex-liberals so happy about this?
 
2009-06-11 07:22:34 AM  
Ron Mexico's Revenge: Why exactly are ex-liberals so happy about this?

About what? War with Iran? Or with a shift to moderation in Iran?
 
2009-06-11 08:17:02 AM  
Daniel Pipes, on the far right edge of neocondom

I wonder what the Pope's stance on neocondoms is.
 
2009-06-11 08:27:52 AM  
All politics is war continued by other means.
 
2009-06-11 08:32:58 AM  
Not just the neocons, but AIPAC and the hardliner Israelis too:

Link (new window)

You really know who the bad people are in this world when they boo-hoo at the prospects of peace. Pretty farking insane.
 
2009-06-11 08:41:50 AM  
As the real power is with the IMAMs, I'm not sure how this plays. "Westernized" is probably not in play with Iran - a more moderate president probably won't be able to enact much reform in a predominantly Shia (conservative Islam) country, but merely put on a less idiotic public face. Would the West be able to follow up such a change with a greater ability to negotiate with Iran?

A moderate president in Iran might be better for Obama's credibility than changing the lives of Iranians. The possibility of such change may give the IMAMs more to consider. If this happens, there will be a party atmosphere on US Cable Network news and will truly draw a line in the sand between Obama's message and Osama's message. I would guess that the violence in both Pakistan and Iraq will increase - oddly. A war of ideology.
 
2009-06-11 08:48:36 AM  
Where can i get one of those "ayatollah assahollah"?
 
2009-06-11 09:01:27 AM  
I've been wondering for a while, what state of conflagration we'd all be in by now had Ahmedinejad been left to his own devices, and Bush had not invaded Iraq.

And believe me, this is no back-hander to Bush.
 
2009-06-11 09:12:00 AM  
I was listening to an Iranian woman being interviewed on BBC yesterday and it was interesting to here her say that Ami-job has really inspired the rest of the world to hate/distrust Iran with his stupid holocaust denials.
 
2009-06-11 09:13:51 AM  
wolvernova: Not just the neocons, but AIPAC and the hardliner Israelis too:

Link (new window)

You really know who the bad people are in this world when they boo-hoo at the prospects of peace. Pretty farking insane.


Can I ask what your article has to do with your ridiculous post?
 
2009-06-11 09:33:02 AM  
Shryke: wolvernova: Not just the neocons, but AIPAC and the hardliner Israelis too:

Link (new window)

You really know who the bad people are in this world when they boo-hoo at the prospects of peace. Pretty farking insane.

Can I ask what your article has to do with your ridiculous post?


Is there not an adult nearby to read it to you? AIPAC pushed for this bill on the eve of Iran's elections. Gee, what a coincidence. Could they possibly NOT want a reformist president? Could they possibly WANT Ahmadinejad in their march for war?
 
2009-06-11 09:34:38 AM  
Worrying about whether Ahmadinejad is going to be re-elected in Iran reminds me of worrying whether Alexey Kosygin was going to be re-elected as Premier of the Soviet Union.
 
2009-06-11 09:37:28 AM  
Gee, what a coincidence. Could they possibly NOT want a reformist president? Could they possibly WANT Ahmadinejad in their march for war?

Ahhhhh, that's the angle. You're suggesting that the joos only got behind this bill because of the timing, yes? You'll be fine with it once the elections have passed?
 
2009-06-11 09:47:39 AM  
Shryke: Gee, what a coincidence. Could they possibly NOT want a reformist president? Could they possibly WANT Ahmadinejad in their march for war?

Ahhhhh, that's the angle. You're suggesting that the joos only got behind this bill because of the timing, yes? You'll be fine with it once the elections have passed?


Three days before the election. Yeah, a coincidence. I have no problems with sanctions, but my point was that there are hawkish parties out there that do not want a reformist or moderate Iranian president. They want war, and I'm just pointing it out.
 
2009-06-11 09:50:01 AM  
Neocoms are already fretting that Ahmedinejad may lose in Iranian elections this week, letting a perfectly good war go to waste

FTFY, Muhamedjihad is the libs ally, not the rights.
 
2009-06-11 09:51:20 AM  
wolvernova: They want war, and I'm just pointing it out.

Sorry mate. Much easier/direct ways for those bloody thirsty jews to start a war. Silly accusation on your part.
 
2009-06-11 09:58:25 AM  
Shryke: wolvernova: They want war, and I'm just pointing it out.

Sorry mate. Much easier/direct ways for those bloody thirsty jews to start a war. Silly accusation on your part.


I'm not saying any one religion is doing it, so stop the jew-bash b.s. It's the easiest way for you to not be taken seriously.

Those sanctions they were proposing would have a net zero effect on Iran, or they would have been established years ago. It's only meant as a shot across the bow, a big "fark you" to Iran. Three days before the election, what a coincidence.
 
2009-06-11 10:11:39 AM  
Triaxis: Neocoms are already fretting that Ahmedinejad may lose in Iranian elections this week, letting a perfectly good war go to waste

FTFY, Muhamedjihad is the libs ally, not the rights.


0/10. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2009-06-11 10:15:45 AM  
Is this article a joke? Exactly what American "neocons" is the author referring to, and in what universe do said "neocons" have the power to "bomb Iran" or declare war with Iran? The writer must be oblivious to the US political balance of power.

This piece is asinine.
 
2009-06-11 10:18:18 AM  
p-e-t-e: Is this article a joke? Exactly what American "neocons" is the author referring to, and in what universe do said "neocons" have the power to "bomb Iran" or declare war with Iran? The writer must be oblivious to the US political balance of power.

This piece is asinine.


People like Cheney. Or John Bolton, who just wrote another psychotic rant about how Israel should bomb Iran and Iran should (and will) take it sitting down. Which is absurd. And I won't link to it because it's garbage.
 
2009-06-11 10:30:35 AM  
wolvernova: p-e-t-e: Is this article a joke? Exactly what American "neocons" is the author referring to, and in what universe do said "neocons" have the power to "bomb Iran" or declare war with Iran? The writer must be oblivious to the US political balance of power.

This piece is asinine.

People like Cheney. Or John Bolton, who just wrote another psychotic rant about how Israel should bomb Iran and Iran should (and will) take it sitting down. Which is absurd. And I won't link to it because it's garbage.


That really doesn't answer my question, unless you're saying that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have the power to declare war on or order a strike against Iran. In the past Israel has usually yielded to the US before taking action. Given that the Republicans have no power in either the executive or legislative branch it seems unlikely that any action taken by Israel will be done without support of the Democrats, rather than "neocon" support.

As far as I'm concerned, using the "Neocon" label in an article pretty much disqualifies it from being taken seriously - it's the equivalent of someone writing a piece labeling Democrats "socialists" throughout and expecting it to make any valid point worth arguing.
 
2009-06-11 10:45:04 AM  
p-e-t-e: wolvernova: p-e-t-e: Is this article a joke? Exactly what American "neocons" is the author referring to, and in what universe do said "neocons" have the power to "bomb Iran" or declare war with Iran? The writer must be oblivious to the US political balance of power.

This piece is asinine.

People like Cheney. Or John Bolton, who just wrote another psychotic rant about how Israel should bomb Iran and Iran should (and will) take it sitting down. Which is absurd. And I won't link to it because it's garbage.

That really doesn't answer my question, unless you're saying that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have the power to declare war on or order a strike against Iran. In the past Israel has usually yielded to the US before taking action. Given that the Republicans have no power in either the executive or legislative branch it seems unlikely that any action taken by Israel will be done without support of the Democrats, rather than "neocon" support.

As far as I'm concerned, using the "Neocon" label in an article pretty much disqualifies it from being taken seriously - it's the equivalent of someone writing a piece labeling Democrats "socialists" throughout and expecting it to make any valid point worth arguing.


Neocon isn't supposed to be an insult. It is the name they gave themselves. It's not an insult to call the Chicago Bears the Chicago Bears.
 
2009-06-11 11:10:57 AM  
Yeah subtard - it's the President of Iran that sets policy, not the Supreme Leader. Next time get the facts (new window) before making yourself look like an idiot in front of us all.
 
2009-06-11 11:14:06 AM  
No, you can't have a war with Iran.

Not yours.
 
2009-06-11 11:23:10 AM  
p-e-t-e: That really doesn't answer my question, unless you're saying that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have the power to declare war on or order a strike against Iran.

Of course they don't have the authority, but they are constantly trying to build public support for it. And if you don't know what a neocon is, you probably shouldn't be browsing fark's Politics tab. Anybody asking "who are the neocons?" has either just emerged from a ten year coma or they're trolling.

p-e-t-e: As far as I'm concerned, using the "Neocon" label in an article pretty much disqualifies it from being taken seriously - it's the equivalent of someone writing a piece labeling Democrats "socialists" throughout and expecting it to make any valid point worth arguing.

No, you are completely ignorant. Neoconservatism has been around for a while, but recently came to power with the last administration. They want war.
 
2009-06-11 11:34:23 AM  
HeartBurnKid: HeartBurnKid:
0/10. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Triax


Thankfully, I have no need of your points. They're worth about as much as our dollar is going to be when CEObama is done devaluing it.
 
2009-06-11 11:46:35 AM  
wolvernova: p-e-t-e: That really doesn't answer my question, unless you're saying that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have the power to declare war on or order a strike against Iran.

Of course they don't have the authority, but they are constantly trying to build public support for it. And if you don't know what a neocon is, you probably shouldn't be browsing fark's Politics tab. Anybody asking "who are the neocons?" has either just emerged from a ten year coma or they're trolling.

p-e-t-e: As far as I'm concerned, using the "Neocon" label in an article pretty much disqualifies it from being taken seriously - it's the equivalent of someone writing a piece labeling Democrats "socialists" throughout and expecting it to make any valid point worth arguing.

No, you are completely ignorant. Neoconservatism has been around for a while, but recently came to power with the last administration. They want war.


Thank you for the enlightening and civil reply. It has been a while since I was belittled, so I appreciate you stepping up to the plate.

In response please provide a quote or link where the last administration proudly labeled themselves as "neo-conservatives" as opposed to my assertion that it's a moniker created by the Left. It's a simple question, so why the degrading response?

Also, the last administration is no longer in power, so it is irrelevant what they want and are powerless to act upon it (and also happens to be the premise of my original post). If you believe otherwise then I'm not the one "completely ignorant."
 
2009-06-11 11:52:03 AM  
p-e-t-e:

my assertion that it's a moniker created by the Left.

Cute.
 
2009-06-11 12:21:21 PM  
p-e-t-e: Thank you for the enlightening and civil reply. It has been a while since I was belittled, so I appreciate you stepping up to the plate.

In response please provide a quote or link where the last administration proudly labeled themselves as "neo-conservatives" as opposed to my assertion that it's a moniker created by the Left. It's a simple question, so why the degrading response?


Because a five second google search would have taught you that you're wrong. Instead, you keep badgering on about how it's a liberal conspiracy theory and something just made up out of the cabals of the libs.

Knock yourself out: Neoconservatism (new window)

As far as I know, the Bush administration wouldn't label itself as neoconservative because the obvious goal of neocons is for American imperialism, which is absolutely NOT what the American populace wants, and it would undermine their facade of a benevolent foreign policy. But it is painfully obvious that they adopted the neoconservative foreign policy after 9/11. Unabashed neocons by that point had established groups like PNAC and AEI, neocon thinktanks that were the prime "intellectual" powerhouse in DC foreign policy in the last eight years. Their members ranged from Cheney and Bush to practically everyone on the NSC.

Bush doctine (new window)

So yes I'll use a condescending tone with anybody that a) claims this ideology doesn't exist (or doesn't know what the fark it is), b) claims it wasn't a significant part of the Bush administration, c) is too lazy to do the quick research to realize how dead wrong they are, or d) all of the above.
 
2009-06-11 12:27:33 PM  
wolvernova: As far as I know, the Bush administration wouldn't label itself as neoconservative because the obvious goal of neocons is for American imperialism, which is absolutely NOT what the American populace wants, and it would undermine their facade of a benevolent foreign policy.

The only people who believe that facade are Americans (and not even all of them). Everybody else, especially those in the Middle East who've been on the receiving end of American benevolence have long ago lost such illusions.
 
2009-06-11 12:31:29 PM  
Bad_Seed: wolvernova: As far as I know, the Bush administration wouldn't label itself as neoconservative because the obvious goal of neocons is for American imperialism, which is absolutely NOT what the American populace wants, and it would undermine their facade of a benevolent foreign policy.

The only people who believe that facade are Americans (and not even all of them). Everybody else, especially those in the Middle East who've been on the receiving end of American benevolence have long ago lost such illusions.


Right. It's just one of those things where they embrace neoconservative ideas, have acknowledged neocons crafting their policy, but don't have the word "neocon" tattooed across their heads. Anybody with at least a slightly acute sense of politics knows what they are. Announcing that you have imperial ambitions doesn't promote your cause. I find it hard to believe that p-e-t-e would require confessional evidence of something he wasn't even aware of a few hours ago, but every day brings new astonishment at fark.
 
2009-06-11 12:34:19 PM  
img146.imageshack.us
 
2009-06-11 12:49:53 PM  
I was told by various sources, including credible FARKers, Fox News and the ex-Vice President of the United States, that Obama's policies were making America less safe.

Now I don't know what to believe.
 
2009-06-11 12:52:07 PM  
Suckers.
 
2009-06-11 12:56:22 PM  
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. these people always find a way to stay in power. I hope he loses, but I am guessing he's going to get a 'mystery' surge of support from 'somewhere out of the blue'.
 
2009-06-11 12:56:31 PM  
wolvernova 2009-06-11 08:32:58 AM
You really know who the bad people are in this world when they boo-hoo at the prospects of peace. Pretty farking insane.


We call them Fox News viewers.
 
2009-06-11 12:59:58 PM  
p-e-t-e: Suckers.

Like I said, I found it hard to believe, but it's fark and anything is possible. 9/10.
 
2009-06-11 01:00:27 PM  
Creative Woody: wolvernova 2009-06-11 08:32:58 AM
You really know who the bad people are in this world when they boo-hoo at the prospects of peace. Pretty farking insane.


We call them Fox News viewers.


Some people that watch FOX News are sad because they are gay and they can't express it. See, they have those gay feelings bottled up inside, but since being gay is evil they have to be gay by themselves. Then, they start watching gay porn behind their wife's back and they get very angry and want to kill anything that sets them off; like Iran or people who like high taxes. That's no way to be gay!

These people just need to have some butt sex and get it over with.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report