AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Hypocrisy is an ugly trait

And yet it's one of your finer qualities, Finn.

1 Reply

@JTT,

How do you know, JTT?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

When you read the proceeding question and his answer, to my mind Obama was differentiating himself and his role from that of senators and other government officials.

Quote:

"The Iranian people can speak for themselves," Obama said in the James S. Brady Briefing Room. "That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing."

When asked if his tougher talk was influenced by critics like McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Obama smiled and said, "What do you think?

"I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues," Obama said, adding that they share a desire to see free speech respected. "But only I'm the president of the United States.

"Members of Congress, they've got their constitutional duties, and I'm sure they'll carry them out in a way they think is appropriate," Obama said. "I'm the president of the United States, and I'll carry out my responsibilities the way I think is appropriate."

Obama appeared to grow testy when reporters questioned whether he had been tough enough, saying he was not "hinting" when he condemned violence perpetrated by the Iranian government and pointing to one of the more graphic images to emerge from the torn country.

"I think when a woman gets shot on the street when she tries to get out of her car, that's a problem," Obama said.

source

He was trying to answer that he carries out his duties the way he thinks as appropriate as the President of the US and was not influenced by MCCain and Graham. Apparently he had already condemned the Iranian government for shooting a woman for getting out of a car and was starting to get testy when reporters tasked him for not being tough enough so he pointed out he has been speaking out against the Iranian government when thinks it is appropriate and he brought up that incident as an example.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

You seem not to realize the importance of keeping a measured diplomatic balance right during this crises has nothing to do with Iran and how it is perceived in the world as legitimate or not. But rather that everything we say is used the Iranian government as a propaganda tool against the opposition party in Iran towards the people in Iran. If they (the people) start seeing the opposition as being allies with the US, then the people will start to turn the Iranian government instead or at least not be as committed to getting their pick elected as leaders. (can't explain it too well)

In the end I don't believe any changes are going to be made, however, if we stay out of it, then the opposition and its supporters will continue to be seen as underdogs and perhaps at some later date the mullahs and religious leaders will not have a popularity in the country and then perhaps change will come. Even if the president stood on the pulpit everyday spouting rhetoric against Iran, it will not make any difference in what happens in right now and might be counter effective in any future changes.

1 Reply

@genoves,

Do you not bother to read the articles you post? The reason cited for Obama's slip in poll numbers among independents is because of his social programs agenda not anything connected to Iran and his handling of it.

Most independents are libertarians and they have always been big on small government. Why they are surprised he is a liberal democrat with a liberal democrat agenda is a mystery to me considering he didn't bother to hide the fact during the campaign and in fact it was used against him. Nevertheless, his slipping poll number among independents are more to do with his spending agendas rather than the Iranian issue.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You think such a speech would hurt the cause of the protestors; and I don't. I see we disagree.

Bingo.

Quote:

Again, I have not declared that the speech Taranto calls for will do a lot of good for the Iranians, but have given one example of how it might be of benefit. Disabusing the people I've described of these beliefs will not provide direct or immediate help to the Iranians, but it would help eliminate a barrier to supporting oppressed people around the world --- including the Iranians.

How so? I get what you're saying but I think some steps are missing because I can't get from "disabusing .. people ... of these beliefs" to "eliminate a barrier to supporting oppressed people around the world". It's true that I don't find the evil argument particularly useful, so perhaps that's where the disconnect lies. I don't think it's necessary to believe in evil in order to support oppressed people around the world. It's enough to believe in justice.

Quote:

What I do not respect is the argument that we have no right or business getting involved because we have our own sins to confess.

(I hasten to add that I am not asserting you have or are making this argument)

(Good, because I'm not.) I think the argument has more or less been that we have no power to intervene on behalf of the Iranians as well as no effective means of intervening.

I can respect the desire to see the US act as an enforcer of justice and human rights around the world, I just think that ship has sailed. We're on our way out.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

But if we go on a tangent away from the current events to a list of past sins on Iran, we tar the current protesters with that opinion. Many of those protesters don't agree with our take of historical events and lumping this event with those means that they now have to defend their country against us on one hand and protest its current behavior on the other. At the same time, the Iranian administration can use our litany of issues as a distraction from their current problems. I think Obama is right on the money in saying that the people of Iran should determine who rules them and they should be able to peacefully protest without fearing violence from their own government. That's all he needs to say. Bringing up something like Iranian funding for Hezbollah would be a complete distraction. It's been really effective so far. The Iranian government has not really found a handle to inject the US into their local issues.

2 Replies

What if they gave a victory party and nobody came?

Well, not "nobody" exactly, but according to the BBC, more than 180 Iranian
members of parliament were no-shows at Ahmadinejad's celebration of his
election win. According to the report, all 290 MPs were invited, but only
105 attended.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I agree with you--both that the current policy is effective, and the stirring up the past opens a can of worms we don't want opened. Bringing up the sins of the Islamic Republic invites charges against U.S. support for Israel, and guilt by association for the Palestinian miseries. It brings up Israel as the architect of SAVAK. It brings up U.S. support of the Shah, despite SAVAK. It brings up the complicity of Eisenhower's administration and Central Intelligence in the overthrow of Mosedegh.

I agree with you completely that this is an effective policy, and that we should not dredge up the past. In particular i agree that the Islamic Republic is just waiting for an opportunity to brand the protesters stooges of the evil West.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

invites charges against U.S. support for Israel, and guilt by association for the Palestinian miseries. It brings up Israel as the architect of SAVAK. It brings up U.S. support of the Shah, despite SAVAK. It brings up the complicity of Eisenhower's administration and Central Intelligence in the overthrow of Mosedegh.

Yeah, who would ever want an honest appraisal of historical events?

0 Replies

@revel,

Quote:

You seem not to realize the importance of keeping a measured diplomatic balance right during this crises has nothing to do with Iran and how it is perceived in the world as legitimate or not. But rather that everything we say is used the Iranian government as a propaganda tool against the opposition party in Iran towards the people in Iran. If they (the people) start seeing the opposition as being allies with the US, then the people will start to turn the Iranian government instead or at least not be as committed to getting their pick elected as leaders. (can't explain it too well)

I seem not to agree with you and those who do agree with you.

I think your concerns are overblown.

The regime has been charging that the protestors were tools of the US and the UK, since the demonstrations began, and if President Obama kept his lips sealed on the topic, they still would. Obama's measured responses have already been labeled as meddling by Ahmadinijan

Quote:

In the end I don't believe any changes are going to be made, however, if we stay out of it, then the opposition and its supporters will continue to be seen as underdogs and perhaps at some later date the mullahs and religious leaders will not have a popularity in the country and then perhaps change will come.

It isn't popular Iranian support for the regime that is crushing the opposition.

I doubt the Iranians risking their lives in the streets of Tehran are going to understand or appreciate how our staying out of the way will preserve their underdog status and perhaps allow their movement to perhaps effect change at some later date. Of course they will all be imprisoned or dead, but at least they won't be seen as American stooges.

The regime is certainly willing and probably capable of putting an end to the nascent rebellion. Once done the violence will move from public streets to midnight raids and prison cells. Without being confronted by the cell phone photographs and videos of ordinary Iranian citizens being killed or beaten, the need to confront the regime will pass and the Administration can resume their extended hand folly.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

How so? I get what you're saying but I think some steps are missing because I can't get from "disabusing .. people ... of these beliefs" to "eliminate a barrier to supporting oppressed people around the world". It's true that I don't find the evil argument particularly useful, so perhaps that's where the disconnect lies. I don't think it's necessary to believe in evil in order to support oppressed people around the world. It's enough to believe in justice.

People with these beliefs, base their resistance to American intervention (at any level) upon them.

Why do you have a problem with calling either the regime or their actions "evil?"

Use of the term doesn't necessarily imply a supernatural force or being.

If you don't "believe" in evil how do you describe what has been going on in the streets of Tehran?

Quote:

I can respect the desire to see the US act as an enforcer of justice and human rights around the world, I just think that ship has sailed. We're on our way out.

I see we disagree again.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Again, I am not advocating such a speech be made. That was Taranto's position. I simply don't believe it will be of any appreciable benefit as respects the goals of the protestors. I don't see that it constitutes support, and if there is no promise of benefit then what very little risk it may contain is not worth taking.

Quote:

But if we go on a tangent away from the current events to a list of past sins on Iran, we tar the current protesters with that opinion.

No we don't. We don't speak for them and anyone who believes we do is already opposed to them.

Quote:

Many of those protesters don't agree with our take of historical events and lumping this event with those means that they now have to defend their country against us on one hand and protest its current behavior on the other.

I don't know how you know this or why any such disagreement will require their defending the regime.

Quote:

It's been really effective so far.

Why do you say this. How has it been effective?

Quote:

The Iranian government has not really found a handle to inject the US into their local issues.

Quote:

They already have

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn wrote:

Engineer wrote:
Many of those protesters don't agree with our take of historical events and lumping this event with those means that they now have to defend their country against us on one hand and protest its current behavior on the other.

I don't know how you know this or why any such disagreement will require their defending the regime.

You're either being dense or wilfully disingenuous. Engineer wrote "country," not "regime," and those two words are neither synonymous nor cognate. The protesters very likely know about the overthrow of Mossadegh through the connivance of MI6 and Central Intelligence, they very likely know that the Americans and the English brought in Israeli Mossad to set up SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, and they very likely take justifiable offense at the continuing American support of the Shah, right up to the very end. A protester could very likely portray his country as the victim of international manipulation based on greed for petroleum, and the victim of the puppet (the Shah) of international interests, without justifying the actions of the current regime, and while, in fact, loudly deploring the regime. Engineer's point is not only a valid one, it's a good one.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Taranto's suggestion was a speech addressing the practices of the regime, not an anti-Iranian rant.

I have no doubt that most Iranians are well aware of America's involvement in their not very distant history. I'm even sure that much of what they have been taught is true.

While an accounting of the excesses of the regime might result in a nationalistic reaction by some Iranians there is no reason to believe that it will perforce be the reaction of the Iranian opposition, or that they would be forced to react publicly to it to preserve an image of loyalty to their country.

With protestors in the streets of Tehran shouting slogans like

Quote:

"Death to the Dictator!"

Quote:

"Death to Khamenei!"

Quote:

"Seiyed Ali Pinochet, Iran won't become Chile!"

it doesn't seem likely that speech outlining the excesses of the regime, even if given by a US president, is going to create a crisis of loyalties for the protesters.

0 Replies

AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know