OBAMA

Some asshole in Iranian.com

Has removed my comment. I don't see any reason for such a coward act. I did not say anything out of norm. GO to hell whoever you are and stay there.

More on Carter's disastrous

More on Carter's disastrous policy of appeasing the Ayatollahs:

Of all the criticisms Jimmy Carter shouldn't be making, the allegation about President Bush's foreign policy shortcomings tops the list. He should not need to be reminded that it was his botching of the Iranian hostage situation that helped get us where we are today.

While few would disagree about the president's failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and his inability to bring key European allies into the mix, only a brief glance at history will tell us where this whole mess began.

But then Carter has been in denial about his role almost since the last vote was cast for his successor Ronald Reagan in 1980, leaving him to search for vindication by sticking his nose into every international crisis from Haiti to the Middle East in an ultimately successful campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The former Navy officer turned politician turned peanut farmer turned politician can claim credit for winning a detente between Egypt and Israel that was no small achievement. He also is a nice man whose bitterness over what he felt was an unfair rejection by the voters finally spewed out in his ranking of Bush as the biggest Oval Office lunk head in history when it comes to overseas affairs and his slandering of British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a toady, breaking the rule about former presidents not speaking ill about the current holder of the job.

When Carter left office his ratings were as low or lower than Bush's, dipping into the 20s for job approval on a series of domestic and foreign policy blunders that left U.S. prestige abroad in a shambles and turned Iran into a theocratic state that fosters and finances terrorism and still does. His misguided stances included canceling U.S. participation in the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a silly protest that accomplished nothing and hurt only the American athletes who had trained for years.

But the capper, of course, came when he withdrew U.S. support for the ailing shah of Iran, a Western educated, pro-American monarch who had kept radical Muslims in line and provided stability throughout the area. This sometimes required what Carter saw as repressive measures by the shah's dreaded secret police. So, what does this born again Georgian do? He helps unleash one of the most regressive radicals in modern history, the Ayatollah Khomeini, on Iran and the world. The secret police were amateurs compared to the oppressiveness this creature brought with him from exile in Paris.

The cleric, whose religious ideology was right out of the 11th century, then warned his benefactor not to permit the dispossessed shah to get medical treatment in the United States. That was too much even for Carter who ignored the edict. The ayatollah then gave his young militants the go-ahead to storm the American embassy, holding 52 hostages and making the U.S. a laughingstock for more than 444 days while Carter dithered, afraid of the consequences of military action.

He finally OK'd an improbable plan for rescue but quickly abandoned it when a helicopter crashed killing nine of the team. The nation's wimp image, along with his, was certified.

Meanwhile, the new Persian dictators turn their attention to promoting anti-Americanism throughout the globe and establishing a rogue state about to reach critical mass with its nuclear development. At the same time they have tried, not unsuccessfully, to feed the insurgency in Iraq with financing and roadside bombs.

That Carter seemed to retreat a bit in normal political fashion after his remarks caused the White House to bite back, calling him "irrelevant,'' which under the circumstance seems mild albeit correct. He said he was speaking in a context that was misunderstood. Right. Actually, he has been openly critical of Bush in the past without eliciting a response from the White House.

Taken together, the mistakes in Middle East policy would fill volumes. But Carter, who cultivates an image of fairness and integrity, should understand better than anyone that our current problems have been a long time in the making, dating back to his own bad judgment. It probably is time for him to restrict himself to pounding nails in houses for the poor.

//www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...

Obama will be a disaster

Obama will be a disaster like Carter but this time the whole world has to pay for it...Electing Obama is tantamount to getting closer to a World War IV. You preserve peace through strength not weakness.
Obama's adivsor, Brzienski, is the original architect of bringing about the mullahs in power to begin with. It would a huge mistake to listen to this man again after what he has done to Iran.

Iran: Carter's Habitat For
by Anonymousp (not verified) on Wed Feb 13, 2008 03:55 PM CST

Iran: Carter's Habitat For Inhumanity
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
More on this series

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.

Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.

This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.

According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Kho-meini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."

The mullahs hated the shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society. Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.

Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow. And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.

On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."

Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.

When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."

Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.

Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.

According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

The shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the shah permanent asylum. Carter's response was: "F*** the shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."

In October 1979, the shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.

If the shah remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.

Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.

Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.

It was Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon. And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.

The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.

And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."

Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.

The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."

Quite simply, we concur.
//www.investors.com/editorial/editorialconten...

great observation Irandokht

What many are missing is that:

what is more important with electing Obama is the message that Americans are sending to the US establishment and to the poeple of the world that they too (The Americans) do not approve of their current leaders and what they represent as American ....and they too want a drastic change

Electing Obama, TODAY represents that change.

As for when he becomes president : his actions will show HIM ....but will not change what Americans wanted in him 

and that message is important 

very nice article

I am glad I got the chance to read it.

Showing to the whole world that the American people have risen above the racism, proving that they are so fed up with the current regime that they will elect the exact opposite of Cheney and ignoring the hateful messages of the neo-cons, Limbaughs, Hannities and Culters is a miracle that this country needs to give to the world

thank you

IRANdokht

Obama

Obama is the equivalent of an American Ahmadinejad. The two jokers look alike and talk alike promising change and hope for a better life. In times of economic downturn such rhetoric as is spewed by Obama and as was spewed by Ahmadinejad get the votes, which is a great misfortune. As the saying goes a drowning man will trying to cling to anything that comes along in the hope of staying alive.
Hoshang Salamati
Karmand POGC
Now in British Colombia
Canada

Obama

Obama is the equivalent of an American Ahmadinejad. The two jokers look alike and talk alike promising change and hope for a better life. In times of economic downturn such rhetoric as is spewed by Obama and as was spewed by Ahmadinejad get the votes, which is a great misfortune. As the saying goes a drowning man will trying to cling to anything that comes along in the hope of staying alive.
Hoshang Salamati
Karmand POGC
Now in British Colombia
Canada

Anonymous2008

As a black man I hope that you are wrong. Obama is not running as a black man, he is running as a democratic candidate. He will bring respect back to America. If America is not ready for change then the terrorist WILL win and that would be Bush Cheney crowd.

To Hell with Obama, Clinton and McCain also akhounds komunist

To Hell with Obama, Clinton and McCain also akhounds komunist arab israel .

Baba beh Khoda ina va in chiza kaseh vaseh ash-e emshabe khaleh nemisheh.In chiza beh ma cheh !!!! Iran va azadish az hameh mohemtareh .

Tell me what Obama stands for..............

Hier you may find a answer:
Shay, United States
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:33:54
Story link: Bush: Obama will invade Pakistan***
Oh, what a load of rubbish! Obama has not said he would invade Pakistan OR embrace Iran's leadership. He just said that he'd talk with them - a stance I think shows great maturity. I hope that for those in the world watching this, an attack from Bush reads like an endorsement!
That is the opinion of our Bshy Bushy.
It seems the man has good cards. Hillary, who has only personal motivations as reason to have candidated and wanting to be president has had to dismiss her eletion manager just because of personal reasons. She wanted to pay back to her husband what he had done to her 1998. lewinsky had shoued his skirt with ejaculates of Mister president of the united states of america in the court as a proof of the "job". hillary wanted the same from her manager. it has not functioned. The nnext Manager stands allready on the door. Greeting
*** Naughty boy this Obama!

Hope and change are

Hope and change are meaningless words that Carter used to be elected in the wake of the Watergate scandal.  He too, like Obama, lacked the experience and was naïve enough to think that good intentions are all that’s needed to affect a change.  He liked what he heard in the message of the Iranian revolution and supported it.  Likewise, Obama will make the world unsafe by his naïve overtures and oversimplification of issues.  

From his own Website: 

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

This is nothing but political expediency and pandering to get a free ride on a popular issue.  America does not need this kind of vacillation at a critical time like this.  Whether you believe in the original intent of the war or not, if he pulls teh troops out and has to go back in (which undoubtedly he will) it will be against an emboldened enemy which will have the victory of American withdrawal behind it. 

“The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.”

Iraq is a divided nation along fanatic religious ideologies, how is this empty threat of leaving going to fix that?  As if pressure is not being put on.  But what’s pressure going to do if the people are not willing to live together and want to kill each other?  Leaving will almost certainly fragment the country and make it a hot bed for Al-Qada activities.

“Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.”

 This is reminiscent of Carter’s failed human right’s policies.  He was told off by the Soviets and so tried to put the Shah under pressure for more openness, ignorantly meddling in world affairs, and not thinking about the consequences.   How will this policy “keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq”?  These are noble goals but meaningless words.   

Obama

I can see it clearly. Anther Republican president (most definitly McCain). It would be a cold day in hell when this country elects a black as their president. All because of a bunch of gullible idealists who lack any historical prespective and fall for false promisses and empty slogans. The Iranians should know better with what happened to them and their country. They all thought getting rid of the Shah would solve all the problems. Well it seems there is no shortage of idiots in this world.

Re: Mort

Thanks! Is that Morteza? ;)

I have read this guy's and other's plans! What usually worries me is that those cheering crowds haven't read them. They hate the Bush clan so much (what they call the neo-cons) that they are prepared even to change the colour of the candidate in order to express their hate.

Obama's plans are not good, if you ask me. They are the usual socialist crap, not anything extraordinary. They are the usual stuff. But it also worries me that he has something to say about everything. But he does not offer solutions, mostly rhetoric.

Okay, you say that politicians are not supposed to give out the plans. That's not exactly so. They are indeed okay to speak generalities in public, because masses are not good at understanding details. But somepoliticians actually offer concrete plans, at least about a few things, and plans that are good. Obama's plans are vague, full of rhetoric, and socialist-leaning, and none of them are anything genuine or anything revolutionary or extraordinary!!!! One thing that I appreciate though about him has been that he has always said that he has not received money from lobbyists. But... can he be sure? Are we sure?

I am just a cautious type of guy and these emotionally loaded backings usually turn to disappoitment. Remember the Iranian revolution? They were indeed saying they were going to share the oil money with people. Hahaha! Okay, Obama is indeed a decent man, but his plans are nothing but mediocre or simply bad. When I said that he's not saying anything concrete I meant that none of his policies or plans are anything great. He does indeed have them. But his only strong point is his oration. He is really talented. He gets your blood boiling when he speaks. He is also very intelligent. But I'd rather have somebody who has some executive experience, with some plans, some workable plans :)

That's what I think, but we've got time left, so things may look different in the next months.

To Mr. Madadi

Sir,

Politicians should not be expected to provide concrete plans during campaigns because it would make them a target.  Communicating one’s vision is good enough before someone is elected for an office.  In a democratic framework, politicians have no choice but to talk about strategy before elections and play tactics after their elections unless something like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happens.

It will be boring to talk about the details of charted political, social or economic plans in rallies.  Iranians are entitled to waste three or four hours of their time on boring Friday prayers, but time is a valuable commodity in US and politicians must be mindful of their audience time to attract a crowd, and ultimately put across their message.  Generally, action plans are available to public in literatures.

Please check the following link if interested in knowing about Obama’s stance on various issues:

//www.barackobama.com/issues/

Regards,

Ben’s big fan

Osama is a liar voodoo politician who has fooled the desperates

Dont be fooled by his speeches! he says:"our time has come!" whose time is that? it is about black's dream, not a betterment of the country! his parents didnt suffer in this country! with him we will move from bad to worse! how much does he know about economy, government,..? he is fooling people by giving them false hope! he cannot deliver anything! if he is that good, why doesnt he go to africa to improve the lives of his countrymen? God help us! Like iranian revolution, things would get much worse!

A video from Obama's team (not his opponents)

Look at this video folks! I have been watching videos, reading stuff... and I have failed to hear one thing clear and concrete. I have only heard this guy, Obama, talk BS (excuse my French), rhetoric, godly stuff, saying that he will fix everything, that nothing is okay, that these guys are bad, this and that, and how to fix them? Well, he says nothing. He reminds me of Carter to some extent! But he is a better orator than Carter. These aren't leaders. These are dreams, people's shortcomings that once in a while turn into BS politicians! But these politicians are waste of time. Who are they to talk god to people? Tell us your concrete plans man! Watching his videos I almost fall sleep. HE SAYS NOTHING! NOTHING at all!

Watch the vide: (Obama's plans for 2008) //www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5h95s0OuEg 

Interesting video!

Although he was joking... it was inappropriate. But nevertheless I am not for Obama. People who say a lot, nothing concrete, and have fanatic followings, followings who want change, but don't know exactly where, these people scare the hell out me. I have seen these folks come and go and they often bring catastrophe. I would rather vote for people who come up with simple and clear programs. The rest is God's work. We don't need little gods to tell us everything and nothing.

McCain is probably the kind of person who will be relatively quiet, hopefully create a smaller government, cut deficits and improve the economy, and not retreat troops from Iraq quickly so that Iraqis don't start killing each other more than they are already doing. The US has the moral obligation to protect the Iraqis. They have already created a big mess there. I am okay with some retreat little by little as conditions permit but sudden rush out of Iraq may be catastrophic. And on the economy I think Republicans can do better. And I am also a bit scared of change while I don't know what that change is. I'd rather have the dinasour, McCain, or even Clinton, who would do pretty much nothing, keep quiet, rather than have a potential catastrophe.

About Iran, I don't think anybody is going to attack Iran. But Obama's soft approach may embolden the Iranian regime rather than doing much of a good.

McCain sang to it

No RESPONSIBLE politician would not sing about bombing a nation even jokingly.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

So not only he said it, he even sang to it. His overall debates and policies are not far from that frame of thought either.

First step to killing others is to dehumanize a group/nationeven if it takes singing and joking about it. Which is not much different than the songs that Hamas sings about how to bomb Israelis and vice versa or IR's death to America songs , they all feed hate...

Has McCain said bomb Iran?

I actually think that being tough with the Iranian regime is good. Bombing, no, that's wrong. Has he said "bomb Iran" ?

reality : 3 choices not more

These are Obamas positions :

//www.barackobama.com/issues/ 

It is all about the choices that we have left and candidates RELATIVE to each other. I voted for Ron Paul but he is practically out . We are left with three choices:

McCain:  Bush policies, Neocons and more : "Bomb Bomb Iran"

Hillary: Very Dishonest - special interest to the max.  

Obama: His electtion by itself will reflect and sends the message to all politicians in US and to all the people in the world that Americans want change :  //weneedobama.blogspot.com/2008/02/lessig-why-im-4barack.html

None: shout they all are same and continue to sit on the sideline and do nothing. 

Tell me what Obama stands for please!

Would somebody make some short messages for me to understand what he will do concretely?! Please!
I just want to know what are his plans, policies etc! No rhetoric please, just concrete policies. What he will do with terrorism, with economy, with social issues etc etc. I am waiting. Thank you! :)

US Needs Obama

I think US will be perceived and will become a new model of tolerance for the whole world when Obama is elected as president.  It is time for a political visionary that can tap into the energy of Americans and lift the country to a higher level of standards that America needs in a 21th century economic paradigm.

I absolutely love to see Obama in the White House.

About Obama

Here we have a black man that looked upon my people as nothing more as wood to be burned when he spoke about "All options on the table" during the debates. You want idealism? Perfection? Humanity? You had 3 perfect choices that would have lifted the US into a golden age: Dr. Ron Paul, Dennis Kusinich and Mike Gravel. People worldwide, I myself included, would have taken a bullet for such world leaders. Not this filth, be it black, white, woman or man, he is a puppet and Iranians voting for him will get a slap in the face when AIPAC meets on his door wanting to be paid for their support.

Stop portraying his candidacy as something romantic, new and modern. Its a huge joke, a black man calling for nuclear attacks on third world countries when his family just one century ago were picking cotton to serve the families that through lineage today earn huge amounts of money through war, poverty and injustice, the same white christian fanatic families he is trying to please with his filth rethoric of war and destruction.

To Hell with Obama, Clinton and McCain.

And PS: Stop shaming King Jr, a prophet, a man of love and peace, with this Lobbyist filth of a puppet. Have SOME dignity by not broadcasting his Obamas acting to the rest of the world.