AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

@dyslexia,

While i think you have painted the picture accurately, i'm not so sure that the theocracy is on the way out. They have heavily armed militias to back them up, which is something which did not describe the Shah. We also don't know how the military feels about this. When the Shah went down, it began with a mutiny among air force cadets. All the Shah had to back him up was SAVAK, which absolutely everyone in Iran feared and hated. The situation now is not the same, and i don't even think it is analogous. It may take a generation or two for Mullahs Are Us, Inc., to fall of their own weight.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

revel wrote:

I think free ducks is aware of the Obama's approval poll number slipping, after all it has been discussed for days on these threads. But what does that have to do with polls which show more Americans think Obama is handling this situation in Iran right?

Exactly. His approval ratings were brought by okie as a response to farmerman's opinion that Obama is handling the situation well. But approval ratings really aren't relevant to that point.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

What do you wish to do,? This election isnt about US. Ahmedinejad voiced a positive view toward the election of Obama as one that Iran could possibly work with. We should be trying to build and mend relationships with Iran , as such, Obamas handling of the situation is as correct as it could be.

There are two different points under discussion.

1) What should Obama do now.
2) How successful, thus far, has his extended hand policy worked with Iran

As for #1, I've already indicated what I would like to see Obama do:

Quote:

Meanwhile President Obama finally stepped up the rhetoric, however he chose to do it in written statement:

Quote:
We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

Much better than prior statements but it would have been much better still if he had used his considerable oratory skills and made these comments in a speech that could have been downloaded and sent throughout Iran via cell phone.

To our government, everything that happens around the world should be about the US

The government shouldn’t exist outside the context of the interests of the United States.

This leaves open a vast spectrum of options for responses to everything that happens around the world. In most cases, the response will be to take no action and in very rare instances the response will be to use our military might, but our government should not ever take the position” It’s none of our business, or We don’t have a right to get involved. Just how involved we get will depend on the extent to which our interests are affected. Whether or not it is in our interests to support democracy and freedom throughout the world should be a subject of public debate. I believe it is, and I suspect that most Americans agree---even if the majority of them voted for Barrack Obama.

As far as #2, I don't think there is any question that his extended hand policy has not been successful thus far. It may be too soon to tell, but I don't believe so.

What kind of relationship do you suggest we build with dictators who stage sham elections and then beat, torture, imprison and kill their citizens who object?

Should we signal to the Iranian regime that despite their brutal tyranny, we want to work with them because they are, at least, guilty of attempting extortion through the development of nuclear weapons, and they have us over a barrel?

Even if dismiss the fact that we are turning our backs on the Iranian people, what reason is there to believe that "engaging," or even bribing the Iranians will prevent them from developing nuclear weapons?

This tactic was tried with North Korea by at least two Administrations , and after billions in "aid" and years of fruitless talks, they still have their nuclear weapons, and are developing more, they have kicked out UN inspectors, they are developing ever more effective ballistic missiles, they are testing their nukes and missiles in deliberate defiance and provocation, they are still exporting weapons and their rhetoric is as bellicose as it has ever been.

What possible reason is there to believe that continued "engagement" will be of any value?

Iran is no different.

The Iranian regime is hell bent on developing nuclear weapons, and no amount of bribery or empty threats is going to stop them. If there was any doubt about the nature of the regime, the recent election and their response to their citizens' protest should have eliminated it entirely.

Obama has taken some grief about pointing out that there is not a lot of difference between Mousavi and Ahmendinejad, but he was correct, and yet the regime still felt the need to rig the election so that Ahmendinejad would win.

As far as the regime's interests go, it makes all the sense in the world for them to pursue nuclear weapons. What could Obama possibly promise them to make not having nukes more advantageous than having them? Unless it is to voice serious threats, talking to them is a waste of time.

This doesn't necessarily mean that we should only present them with the stick, especially so if we have no intention of ever using it, but if all we present them with are carrots they will take them, give us nothing, and then demand more --- just like the North Koreans

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

To our government, everything that happens around the world should be about the US

The government shouldn’t exist outside the context of the interests of the United States.

But the argument goes that it is to the interest of the US not to appear to support one candidate as that will handicap the candidate internally.

Basically, if we like a candidate we should shut up about it, because we are a political liability for them in Iran that allows their opposition to portray them as an American tool and deflect from internal criticism through populist xenophobia.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

But the argument goes that it is to the interest of the US not to appear to support one candidate as that will handicap the candidate internally.

Basically, if we like a candidate we should shut up about it, because we are a political liability for them in Iran that allows their opposition to portray them as an American tool and deflect from internal criticism through populist xenophobia.

That is a reasonable argument, and inaction because it is in our interests not to act is something quite different then not acting because it's none of our business.

I am not highly critical of Obama's response to the events in Iran. I appreciate the argument that the regime will try to use anything we say as proof that we are pulling the strings of the protestors, but the fact is that it has been making these charges since the very beginning of the crisis, and would have if we had nothing to say at all.

I am not suggesting that Obama call for the Iranian people to revolt, or for the regime to go into exile. As I wrote, his recent written statement is close enough to the mark, but as a written statement and not part of a public speech it is too watered down and far less likely to be taken as enocuraging to those in Iran who want some show of support.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

I'm not sure entropic chaos is the only possible outcome, but I take your point as being likely, however that would work out. Maybe not likely. Fairly possible.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I've some iranian friends, well, persian, and so what, eh? I'm just an associate. But I get the emotion from the expatriate communities.

0 Replies

My opinion is we should voice what is decent and proper.

Some of the opinions here sound a bit teenager like, such as girls in high school, Mary should not defend Diane because if Rebecca finds out she will be mad at me, because Diane likes the same boy as Rebecca does. So Mary should just let some other girl pick on somebody else because Mary does not want to appear biased, so and so might hold it against her later, on and on.

What happened to the idea that elections should be fair? If the dictators in Iran don't like it, I say "tough."

Does that mean we send troops to Iran? No. But we can certainly voice our moral support.

No matter how nice Obama tries to be, and no matter how much of a pushover he is, people will still dislike the United States, we should have gotten over that a long time ago. Our only option is to try to do the right thing, and stand for principles. If it offends Mr. Ahmadinejahd because we think elections should be fair, I say we haven't offended anybody that wouldn't be offended already.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

That is a reasonable argument, and inaction because it is in our interests not to act is something quite different then not acting because it's none of our business.

That's the argument I subscribe to. I think it is to US interests to say "it's none of our business" and "we don't want to meddle" publicly because the Iranian conservatives are the ones who benefit from us entering their political debate. That is just standard diplomatic speak for any foreign elections (even though we often have our favorites) and anything else would actually be a fairly aggressive position to take.

Quote:

I am not highly critical of Obama's response to the events in Iran. I appreciate the argument that the regime will try to use anything we say as proof that we are pulling the strings of the protestors, but the fact is that it has been making these charges since the very beginning of the crisis, and would have if we had nothing to say at all.

Well it's interesting that they've singled out the UK for that criticism, and have been rather mute about the US. That might actually be because of the open hand policy handicapping their rhetoric.

Quote:

I am not suggesting that Obama call for the Iranian people to revolt, or for the regime to go into exile. As I wrote, his recent written statement is close enough to the mark, but as a written statement and not part of a public speech it is too watered down and far less likely to be taken as enocuraging to those in Iran who want some show of support.

I'm a bit worried for them to be honest. I don't really think the regime is on the verge of collapse. I think this may well be a turning point but I think they have enough firepower to last this round, and I'd hate for us to encourage them toward a vain slaughter like we have with other countries (e.g. the Kurds in Iraq).

And what causes me even more pause is that I'm not convinced that Mousavi is that much more attractive a candidate for us (and them) to be worth their blood at these odds.

I really like Obama's Iran reaction. I understand the criticism, the protests are thrilling to me, and spark so much hope for their future. I understand those who want to capitalize on this political break more than he appears to, but I really think he's doing the exact things we need to do to most further our interests. Wolfowitz argued it the best (to me) when he said "I understand the concern about meddling in a way that seems to label the opposition as American tools, but the opposition made it very clear they want support from the world."

He's right and they really are appealing for global support but I'm not personally convinced that global support can help them very much in the short term. I think it might even give them the pretext to try him for treason (there have already been such comments that I am concerned about) on the extreme end of things.

I like that Obama made noise about not wanting to meddle, which preempts that argument from Iran's conservatives and takes a lot of edge off of it. And he's made subtle and nuanced statements that show Mousavi where we stand that don't exacerbate his situation.

A passionate speech would be a big gamble, and the possibilities it could open tantalize me, but I still think it's a risky gamble and that a "wait and see" approach is the right one here.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

That's the argument I subscribe to. I think it is to US interests to say "it's none of our business" and "we don't want to meddle" publicly because the Iranian conservatives are the ones who benefit from us entering their political debate. That is just standard diplomatic speak for any foreign elections (even though we often have our favorites) and anything else would actually be a fairly aggressive position to take.

I'm not ready to believe that Obama actually thinks it is "none of our business," but there are certainly members of this forum who do.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

A passionate speech would be a big gamble, and the possibilities it could open tantalize me, but I still think it's a risky gamble and that a "wait and see" approach is the right one here.

A few passionate statements that stand up for decency, for fair elections, what is the gamble with that? There is no gamble for making a stand for correct principles. For good men to remain silent in the presence of evil is essentially consenting to it. I don't think that is what a decent president would do. I think Obama has really shown what he is, a spineless man that seems to have no principles, or if he does, we don't really know what they are.

1 Reply

@okie,

Weve already had 8 years of a failed approach to ealing with Iran. The Bush Admin was , if anything, a manly one. It just had its brains in its ass and never engaged well with anyone. OUR toxic relationship with Iran does harken back to the final days of the Khatami presidency when Iran did propose a moderate nuclear policy , one that we could deal with by being a puveyor of non weapons grade nuke material for industrial and commercial use. Khatami was ostracized because of his rebuffs by US and his moderate reproachment to Israel. We sowed and reaped much of what we have in Iran today. SO to attempt to suggest "HOW" a manly president should eal with Iran , is a statement that is totally bankrupt.

Everyone seems to dwell on the presidency of Ravsanjhani and then Ahmedinejad, as if they were back to back.

1 Reply

The protesters now have their martyr and patron saint, a young woman named
Neda Soltan who was killed during the demonstrations. Her image has started
to appear everywhere. The reaction of the Iranian government has been to
forbid public mourning for her and even to order her parents to take down
mourning posters at their home.

1 Reply

The situation in Iran is likely to get a lot uglier before it ever improves. I disagree that this is the birth of a revolution, though. If a revolution does take place, i suspect it will be quickly and brutally put down. I would love to be proved wrong, but i don't think i am.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The situation, or movement, or whatever doesn't yet know what it is or
where it is going as far as I can see. I'm sure there are many among the
protesters who long for a genuine democracy, while others simply want
this particular vote to be retaken. I'd be willing to bet that still others are
out there just to raise hell.

Here's something that I find interesting. The chief of Terheran's police,
Azizallah Rajabzadeh, said that his police weren't involved in any fatalities
because they aren't authorized to use weapons against the people. On the
other hand, the Basiji seem to be glorying in their bloody role, praised by
the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard.

2 Replies

@George,

It is precisely because of the role of the Basiji, as reported by Persians via twitter (and had at third hand from media sources) that i say this situation is not analogous to the 1979 uprising. It is precisely because of them, and similar militias in the countryside that i don't think anyone will pull off a revolution.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmer, based upon many of your posts, I think you are more motivated by your hatred of Bush, Reagan, or any conservative approach, than facts. You also still sing the praises of Carter, who we know was a failed presidency. Carter to this day is clueless.

You can try to maneuver, equivocate, and find ways to blame old policies, blame the United States for everything bad in the world, but the fact remains the people of Iran have what they have because of them, not us. Alot of dictators and tyrants run around and make it their standard procedure to blame all their ills on the United States, the CIA, and other free countries, which is 95% nonsense. But even given the possibility and liklihood of mistakes in the past does not prevent us now from simply standing up and saying, we would like to see fair elections. At some point, good men will need to stand up to the tyrants of the world, which by the way will always be around, with or without the United States to blame them on.

Your statement about a "manly" president is revealing. I don't think you have the guts to stand up and say your man, Obama, might just be bankrupt in regard to his squeeshy foreign policy stances. I do not think we are proposing sending the military into Iran, far from it, all we are suggesting is that Obama have the guts to stand up and say, you need to have fair elections, we stand behind the people that want fair elections, we sympathize with that idea, we believe in that as a foundation of a decent country, and do that in a rather forceful way. Beyond that, we very well might give aid and comfort to those that are working for that, such as radio broadcasts, means to communicate, etc. If you see someon being beat up on the street, are you going to stand there and do nothing, and wait until you see who wins? At least you could provide some moral support.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

It is precisely because of the role of the Basiji, as reported by Persians via twitter (and had at third hand from media sources) that i say this situation is not analogous to the 1979 uprising. It is precisely because of them, and similar militias in the countryside that i don't think anyone will pull off a revolution.

I agree that it is not analogous to '79. But there is a revolution of some sort
going on there. It won't overthrow the government and probably will not
even cause a nullification of the election. People have had a taste of open
defiance; things bubbling under the surface have boiled up. The theocracy
has pulled off its mask and shown itself as brutal and impious. This is going
to change things. In what way? How much? To what long term effect? Beats
the hell outta me.

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

On the
other hand, the Basiji seem to be glorying in their bloody role, praised by
the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard.

Precisely why we do not want or need groups like ACORN, Americorp, or Obama's imagined National Security Force running around as the little minions of the president.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

George wrote:
On the
other hand, the Basiji seem to be glorying in their bloody role, praised by
the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard.

Precisely why we do not want or need groups like ACORN, Americorp, or Obama's imagined National Security Force running around as the little minions of the president.

Geez; do you have even the slightest clue what Americorp does? If you did, I doubt you would worry about them 'running around as minions of the prez.'

To compare these groups to the Basiji is really low, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know