- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 11,963
- Reaction score
- 3,543
- Location
- Naperville, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Thread dead.
I moved the subject of it to one of the other Iran threads.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/50494-obama-refuses-meddle-iran-7.html#post1058091207
Wasn't even sure I should have made this a seperate post anyway..its not really breaking news just informative news.
Moderators delete this thread..as you can see it was railroaded and turned into a stupid fight.
Why I wish Biden or Clinton was in charge now.
Hell.. the guy who parks their cars would be better.
best
The USA would have publicly and officially backed the ambition of removing the despotic theocratic regime and installing a democracy.
The Nuclear problem would become a photo op for Obama in which the USA would be seen as the beacon of hope in this world.
Nuclear issue is likely no longer an issue..Israel stands down.
Triad said:Mid case..It starts a civil war. The USA has still stood with the protests and we pick a side..
Triad said:Worst case they slaughter the protestors and the USA made public cause with them. We then have to not talk with them.
Obama throw it all away for talks with the despots opressing the people protesting. HOrrible message from the USA.
Its absurd to trade the already failed nuclear talks for this.A photo up vs a possible revolution in Iran.
Triad said:Iran and the USA are not enemies it Irans regime thats the Enemy to both the people of Iran and the USA.
Even if we don't drop a single bandaid of real aid..we should still voice it.
So Iran nuke program started only 8 years ago? I mean how naive do we think you are? Very.hmmm...when did Iran develop its nuclear weapon capabilities...hmmmm under the last administration with the nation building policy that you are advocating. Didn't work so well then did it?
So Iran nuke program started only 8 years ago? I mean how naive do we think you are? Very.
I have been paying close attention. There are over a hundred confirmed dead (possibly more), thousands injured, and hundreds arrested.
Lerxst said:Regardless, the government is already accusing the U.S. of influencing the issue. If they were going to use us as a scapegoat to massacre the people they would have done so by now. Our president speaking out in support of the protesters isn't going to be the catalyst to spark mass murder by the government.
Lerxst said:What I would like to point out is that the police and military are seeing scores of their leadership arrested because they are sympathetic to the protesters. Why is it that some police or military will open fire and kill protesters but others won't? Those that are using violence against the protesters are doing so on order from the government. It is my belief at this point that if the government ordered a move against the protesters it would be met with many instances of commanders and their troops refusing. Same with the police. The government isn't letting these massive protests happen because they want to, they don't have a choice.
Lerxst said:They Iranian regime has said we were trying to craft their downfall since they took power in 1979 Kandahar.
Lerxst said:No that's not what I mean at all and I'm surprised that you would be so dismissive. Nobody knows for sure how many people in Iran are actually using twitter to get messages to the outside world, but estimates appear to be in the thousands. A few random people? If you want to disagree with me that's fine, but you don't need to be deliberately misleading about the situation.
Lerxst said:Well if it's irrelevant why did you say it?As I stated earlier, the regime in Iran is already accusing us of being agitators and supporting this thing. They are already shooting, beating, and arresting people. Obama speaking out in support of this won't change what the regime does. They've already made the accusation loud and clear, what they haven't done is massacred the protesters yet.
Lerxst said:Yes he should, because he's not omnipotent nor is he the one thing that would trigger a massive Iranian crackdown. You are underestimating the situation in Iran and overestimating the impact of open U.S. support for the movement would have.
Lerxst said:Absolutely wrong. He can signal to the world that the U.S. government is a supportive friend to the Iranian people seeking Democracy in their country. He can avoid a future of looking like a President who didn't have an opinion on one of the most potentially game changing events in the modern middle east.
Lerxst said:Wrong again. At best the protesters succeed and they view our nation and our government as having stood behind them in support without having tried to manipulate the outcome. A stark change from our historic stand on foreign policy in Iran. It would show the rest of the middle east that our intentions are sincere and we aren't simply singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and seeking yet another military solution against a middle eastern nation.
Lerxst said:Wrong, wrong, wrong. Either you are being deliberately argumentative with me or you don't really understand the situation in Iran right now.
Lerxst said:The regime will attempt to crack down on the protests whether or not Obama says a word. Obama speaking out in support of the democracy movement isn't "American involvement."
Lerxst said:Iran has already accused us of agitating and inflaming the protests, stated we are behind them, and condemned us for that. So your claim that "American involvement" might trigger a crackdown is a moot point, the accusation of "American involvement" has already been made.
Lerxst said:And there were no meaningful negotiations with Iran before this event. None. The international community was in a constant state of concern because Iran was being deliberately obstinate and refusing to negotiate on anything.
Lerxst said:Show me what exactly we stand to lose at the negotiation table with Iran, please.
Sorry, I almost missed this post. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
I do not see this scenario as possible. Nothing happening now is going ot create a democracy in Iran, so the only way to get it is invasion.
How does this promote the US interest? How do you mean "stood with the protests and pick a side"? If you are talking actively helping the protesters, I think that would be a bad idea, if you mean to suggest solidarity with them just with words, I suspect that is going to happen within the next day or so.
Protesters are already being slaughtered, and we are being in part blamed. Nothing we could have done yet could have changed that to my mind.
In all this, I see no good guys except the protesters. Even if the opposition guy with the name I can't spell gets into office, he will be powerless to effect any real change, just like the one before the current one.
That is true of most any country. The people are rarely the enemy, it's the government. of course, those who are not our enemy usually pay the highest price, but that is the nature of the beast unfortunately.
I do think, once things advance to a certain point, that Obama will speak out against the election. I suspect he is trying not to act too soon, and make a mistake that way. Time will tell I guess.
Thank you again for answering my questions.
With the House 450-1 voting for the Pence resolution.
A likely similar outcome with McCain Resolution in the Senate.
..and lets be honest the undeniable support most American will have for the protestors
Obama is on the wrong side of the bridge and the Supreme Leader is about to blow it.
They represent The People of the United States.
Usually the President does that as well..but not this one.
The People run this nation..not one man.
The Associated Press: Senate condemns Iran crackdownSenate condemns Iran crackdown
By ANNE FLAHERTY – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Both houses of Congress have voted to condemn Iran's crackdown on anti-government demonstrators.
The resolution — approved by the House and then the Senate — condemns "the ongoing violence" by the government and the Iranian government's suppression of the Internet and cell phones. It also expressed support for Iranian citizens who embrace freedom.
'No Comment' Is Not an Option
By Paul Wolfowitz
Friday, June 19, 2009
President Obama's first response to the protests in Iran was silence, followed by a cautious, almost neutral stance designed to avoid "meddling" in Iranian affairs. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's initially neutral response to the crisis following the Philippine election of 1986, and of George H.W. Bush's initially neutral response to the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. Both Reagan and Bush were able to abandon their mistaken neutrality in time to make a difference. It's not too late for Obama to do the same.
Paul Wolfowitz - Obama Needs to Change Stance on Iran
I don't know if anyone has posted this article by Paul Wolfowitz, but I think it's brilliant. I have disliked him ever since the Iraq war started, but I read this on my way home from work and was completely in awe of his insightfulness.
I don't know if anyone has posted this article by Paul Wolfowitz, but I think it's brilliant. I have disliked him ever since the Iraq war started, but I read this on my way home from work and was completely in awe of his insightfulness.
So Iran nuke program started only 8 years ago? I mean how naive do we think you are? Very.
IMO this just goes to show how 'off' Obama is.
...because what we SHOULD be doing is throwing GAS on the FIRE over there and giving the clerics who actually RUN the show a reason to open up the machine guns on the protestors by convincing folks that this is all AMERICA'S doing. Because that would be the SMART thing to do!
Good God!
Oh really...you don't call this a contradiction:
:doh
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?