This mini documentary has recorded it well. The glory of the supreme leader who micromanages everything, makes sure he always looks busy and his main quality is he is the last to fall asleep at meetings. He is the one who knows the right solution to everything, if he can only make his subordinates come up with it. And he has a human side, he loves children, so he does not let them freeze to death. Thank you great leader.

Hyperbolized like a true traitor, I'm speaking like a true patriot who's forefathers founded this great nation and who wants to prosecute 1/5 (70 million/350 million) of the country because they attempted a violent murderous coup, an overthrow of the American government by force, violence, and threats of violence, and around 60% of them think it was great and intend to try it again this week, not because they voted for a traitor, but because most still back him after the failed coup and intend to try again.

I would love to round you all up, put you on trial with exactly the same criteria members of ISIS/Daesh faced as members of a terrorist organization, and give you all the same treatment you all cheered on when it was done to brown skinned people. (Just one reason I shouldn't be appointed supreme leader) They/you are members of a violent, anti America terrorist organization and movement. Do you think Daesh members should be set free if you cannot prove they directly killed someone but can prove they are active Daesh members, including those who say clearly they support the anti American violence and terrorism and are just waiting for an opportunity to plan more attacks? A slap on the wrist is inappropriate. Letting it slide is not just inappropriate, it's incredibly dangerous and unpatriotic...indeed that would be giving comfort to enemies of the state, a crime itself.

Anyone that crossed police lines actively attacked America and democracy. That precludes them from being patriotic (unless you mean patriotic to Iran or some other foreign adversary), and it makes them enemy combatants. Those usually get the death penalty. When they are American citizens it's called treason. Does this describe you?

No, no, don't equivocate.

Sure, there's some hypocrisy on all sides, but no other network comes even close to Fox News.

They pull this "if Obama did it, it's horrible; if Trump did it, it's great" shit all the time. Blatantly.

I watch plenty of "mainstream" media, and I haven't seen anyone, who previously supported starting a dialogue with our adversaries, blast Trump for it. They do blast Trump, who has no clue about the nuances of the politics and history of that region, for going into it unprepared. They blast him for singing praises to Kim (brushing aside the all the murder, concentration camps, torture) while causing rifts with our actual allies.

But hey, Fox's bullshit works. You'd think it would stop working in this age when we have... you know.. video evidence of stuff... but no... still works.

The problem is not with the media but with the gullible/ignorant/stupid population that consumes it. The same mouth-breathers that had their pitchforks out, when Hannity told them Obama is willing to talk to dictators, are now praising dear supreme leader Trump, because now Hannity is telling them that talking to dictators is a good thing. Completely predictable but still astonishing.

I understand that you (Bob) and Donald agree that what Obama did was wrong. And so it was doubly wrong of "Liberals" to have supported him so blindly. That is a legitimate though biased point of view which I would be foolish to argue against for it is your belief.

In that case please enligten us about what are you two aiming to achieve by throwing excrement in the general direction of a fan?

What is the plan? What can the US propose that Iran IS going to ratify? Will Iran (and North Korea and China and, come to think of it, any country) have any interest to make a new deal with the USofA, if they either brag and throw insults or sulk and walk away?

Complying (for the most part) voluntarily was a resonable step in the right direction for both Iran and the US, how does trashing this agreement help? I mean how does it help anyone except Donald in the short term by pleasing fanboys?

Donald usually avoids stating aims (or makes multiple confusing proclamations) and then claims any outcome as a victory. What is a victory in your scenario - regime overthrow? change of Iranian public attitudes towards "America"? a more friendly "supreme leader"? a different ruling moslem faction? or maybe fluctuating oil prices? restructuring of oil field ownership?

Obama limited this to nuclear weapons, seems like a good idea in retrospect, frankly.

Wait till the Supreme Leader hears about this! I'm telling you man, you wouldn't have these problems if you used Clones.

To understand Iran you have to understand that it is a theocracy, and everything its leaders do is driven by their radical interpretation of the Qurans end time scenario. The supreme leader believes he is appointed by allah to usher in their version of the Messiah, a figure they call the "Mahdi". They believe that when the Mahdi comes he will conquer the world and institute worldwide shariah law. Iran will never negotiate; it is preparing for armeggedon.

http://videosift.com/video/Why-Iran-hates-us

The Iranian leadership and the overwhelming majority of all Iranians would be offended and upset at being called a democracy, even the moderates. They are proud of being an Islamic theocracy and the Iranian constitution since the revolution and overthrow of the Shaw has been that way.

The supreme leader doesn't go around with a heavy hand visibly running everything because he's smart enough to play the more subtle role he does. Picking and choosing who gets to lead this or that is the game. If you remember back a couple of years to the last Iranian elections you saw several of the would be candidates arrested or jailed. You saw their followers arrested, jailed and intimidated. The elections were still held though none the less. Iranian politics are way more complicated than all that, but it's a start.

My statement isn't inaccurate. They are a democracy. They have a democratically elected leader. You not liking it does not make it not a democracy. By your logic I might as well say the USA is not a democracy since they are a representative democracy. Of course the USA like Iran is just a variant of democracy. There are 20 something variants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_democracy#Forms

Your use of the word dictator did not have the context to it you now ascribe.

If the Supreme Leader holds a higher position of power, why isn't he visibly controlling the nation? (genuine question)

The president doesn't always have the highest position though. Many republics have both a president and prime minister. The prime minister will run the nation. Or like in Australia where Queen Elizabeth the 2nd holds the highest position, but she is a figurehead only, the parliament runs the nation.

Don't correct my inaccuracy with another one. Iran is NOT a democracy, it is an Islamic theocracy. My referencing Ahmadinejad as a 'dictator' was only used in the same sense that folks use when referring to Bush, Cheney or Obama as 'dictators'. None of them came to power through a coup or by birth right, and each stepped down in normal course.

Calling Iran a democracy though is just wrong, and is about as accurate as referring to America as a dictatorship, In Iran the presidential candidates must ALL be approved by the Islamic council or nobody gets to even try to vote for them. The highest position of power in the country is not the President, but the Supreme Leader who is appointed by a small group of Islamic 'experts'. There is no room in the Iranian system for the election of an non-Muslim, or even a Sunni muslim, to even attempt to hold the position of President let alone Supreme Leader.

I am the hipster elite Heeple Sheeple titan supreme leader with cheese! And I approve this message in a nonchalant disaffected sort of way while listening to my "Classic" NOW THAT'S MUSIC tracks on my U-pod wearing my fattest Stussy gear.

BTW... Female Greek Soldiers were called EsTrogans.........

Put a bullet in his eye, ask the world for forgiveness.

If you capture a man like this, with the thousands of faithful zealots he has who would gladly die for his causes, what would be their reaction while he was held in custody, awaiting a trial that would never, ever supplicate their anger? A trial that would only serve to confirm all their conspiracies and suspicions about the motivations of the western world?

How many hostages would they think they'd need to trade for his release? How many suicide bombers would need to detonate themselves in crowded public markets to make us free the supreme leader?

The Executive Board who sits ABOVE the President of the United States disagrees with Obama's policies, as a result he cannot execute them as he would like. Think Iran and the supreme leader. The USA also has such a structure but it is far more hidden and based on corporate dominance rather than religious zealotry. As long as profits remain the core motive in health insurance, there will be no improvement.

the dramatic presentation usually works ON a mob... which by default are not people who actively seeking information.

results and a steady hand cut through the BS better than phone calls to "the Grand 'Ol Party"... and most importantly, if the job gets done right... who cares how much these idiots bitch about "socialized" this-n-that.

In the words of the Supreme Leader George HW Bush:

"you can lead a bunch of fat lazy idiots to .. where ever they'll fit.. but you can't... fool me twice.... or they'll be shaming me and 9/11 will win your soul"


side note: LOL @ Bill Clinton going to personally fetch the grateful, newly freed reporters from Korea... and graciously sharing the plane ride back... now THAT's how you "ex-president" it up.

GQ,
the US not only supplied iraq with weapons and intell,but they covertly sold weapons and arms to iran also.the dual-use chemicals under the guise of agriculture has never been proven to be nefarious,but i dont think its a leap to assume it bode for the interests of america to have that region in turmoil.
it's kind of been america's modum operandi in the middle east since just after WW2.

ledpup is correct..and without the "bapbaw" may have made you actually inclined to check his links.
bad ledpup..baaaad..
taken in this context it may re easier for people in america to understand why iran is so conflicted concerning america,there is a long history of interference from the west,america was not the only country..im looking at YOU england.
lets also remember that achmedhinjad(sp?) is just a figurehead with little power.the supreme leader and the mullah councils reign supreme.
ironically it was america's bogus war in iraq that actually strengthened the states posture and weakened a very democratic progressive movement in iran.
that..to me..is the true tragedy.

From what I understand, sifters gave up their rights to siftquisitions and handed over all power to our glorious supreme leader. I don't know why people thought that was a good idea, but I rarely understand people at all.

If we do have them, they shouldn't be in an anonymous poll.