• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama refuses to 'meddle' in Iran

Triad

Triad

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
233
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
US President Barack Obama is resisting pressure to side with Iran's opposition as mass protests continue over the nation's disputed presidential poll.

In a TV interview Mr Obama said there might not be much difference between the policies of President Ahmadinejad and rival Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Mr Mousavi's supporters have continued street protests despite the threat of government force and earlier bloodshed.

BBC correspondents in Tehran say the mood in the city is tense and angry.

Tough new restrictions have been imposed on foreign media in Iran.

But state TV showed a rally by government supporters in the centre of Tehran. It did not appear as big or as enthusiastic as the yesterday's massive opposition protest.

The government appears divided over how to respond. The opposition enjoys huge and vocal support, but is not well organised.

It is a deadlock shaking the very foundations of the Islamic Republic, and there is no clear picture what is going to happen next.


But despite government attempts to control the flow of information out of the country, Iranians have been using the internet to send images and personal accounts of the protests around the world.

Mr Obama said he believed Iranian voices should be heard, although he added that he did not want to be seen to be "meddling".

/*/ "It is not productive, given the history of US and Iranian relations to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections," he said. /*/

"But when I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed… it is of concern to me and it is of concern to the American people."

***** Speaking later in the television interview, he downplayed the importance to the world of the struggle for power in Iran.

"The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," he said. *****

Earlier on Tuesday, the US state department said it had asked the social networking site Twitter to delay maintenance work so that Iranians could keep using it as a communications tool.
Click to expand...
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Obama refuses to 'meddle' in Iran


/*/-unnecessary..he has got to stop saying the USA is a meddler...
*****-Totally unnecessary. Even though I agree with him that there is not much difference between the two he is telling everyone the :usflag2: USA :2usflag::ind: thinks there's no real difference..iow can you all just get along please..thanks BO


US diplomats are telling the Iranian government about the talks Obama wants to have...and officially downplaying the protestors.
But lets fool ourselves..


Who has the means to actualyl sustain a coup?..the Iranian Military..
What does the military want?..reassurance about Irans integrity as a state. USA/EU/maybe Israel give those assurances and make it clear they will not interfere while also supporting the protesters openly the regime *might* be overthrown or not..or Iran could go into civil war..to overthrow that regime is worth it.

Obama is carefully wording his language to the point that the USA does not represent support to a cause to remove the regime in Iran..that's horrible.

He is basically shuttering the beacon of the USA... and that whether some of you wish to acknowledge it or not has a major impact on people in the middle of Myanmar who have never seen a white person but are fighting their despotic military regime...
USA is like a beacon in this world that's why millions try to get here anyway they can every year.

We should be hoping and publicly saying we hope they remove the despots above them.




USA is sending the wrong message.

jimmy-carter-speed-limit.jpg
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfNATuw1DRs[/ame]


:2wave:
 
Last edited:
The US is a meddler :rofl and especially when it comes to Iran.

Yo do know that the US funded and aided the Shah to gain power in the first place right? You do know that the US ran several Iranian ministries under the Shah right? You do know that the US trained the Shahs secret police (with the help of the Israelis ironically enough), which even today is seen as one of, if not the most, brutal organisations ever to exist? You do know that the US propped up the Shah and his regime for years?

Do you really think that Iranians will forget these acts over night just because the American people have ignored it for decades?

Obama is doing exactly the right thing.. stay the hell away from the situation as any US involvement will only help the sitting government which is something most people dont want.
 
The manner in which he says it.
As of now he is negative not positive about the USA's role in the world and that is harmful.
 
Triad said:
The manner in which he says it.
As of now he is negative not positive about the USA's role in the world and that is harmful.
Click to expand...

I think it was about time that the U.S.A. stopped getting its nose into other countrie's internal affairs.
 
Triad said:
The manner in which he says it.
As of now he is negative not positive about the USA's role in the world and that is harmful.
Click to expand...

The US's role in the world should be that of a friendly trading partner to all nations. As to what other nations do, we need to butt out. That means not taking sides in Iran, nor does it mean saber rattling over Iran's nuclear program.

The same applies to all other nations. It's not our place to tell them what they can and can't do.
 
Triad said:
The manner in which he says it.
As of now he is negative not positive about the USA's role in the world and that is harmful.
Click to expand...

Thats because thus far the US's role in the world has been partly negative, and Obama is trying to set the record straight.

...(waiting for a partisan joke about a teleprompter :doh).
 
Triad said:
The manner in which he says it.
As of now he is negative not positive about the USA's role in the world and that is harmful.
Click to expand...

I don't get why people like to pretend the U.S. never does anything wrong. You do know that's why the world hates us? We meddle in everyone else's business and most of the time we seem to make things worse, but we pretend like we're perfect. It's a joke. Personally, I find it refreshing when people can recognize mistakes, learn from them, and try not to repeat them. I find it even more refreshing when my President can do that.

Furthermore, I think the rest of the world does too.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
The US is a meddler :rofl and especially when it comes to Iran.

Yo do know that the US funded and aided the Shah to gain power in the first place right?
Click to expand...

No we didn't he was in power long before the U.S. got involved in the situation to keep Mossadeq from succeeding in his coup deta.

You do know that the US ran several Iranian ministries under the Shah right? You do know that the US trained the Shahs secret police (with the help of the Israelis ironically enough), which even today is seen as one of, if not the most, brutal organisations ever to exist?
Click to expand...

Ya if you're completely insane and believe SAVAK to be less brutal than say any Communist, Islamist, or Fascist regime in the history of the world, such as, the very same Communist regimes whom with Mossadeq was aligning and emulating.

You do know that the US propped up the Shah and his regime for years?
Click to expand...

You do know that the living standards of Iranians were never higher than under the Shah right?
 
Agent Ferris said:
No we didn't he was in power long before the U.S. got involved in the situation to keep Mossadeq from succeeding in his coup deta.



Ya if you're completely insane and believe SAVAK to be less brutal than say any Communist, Islamist, or Fascist regime in the history of the world, such as, the very same Communist regimes whom with Mossadeq was aligning and emulating.



You do know that the living standards of Iranians were never higher than under the Shah right?
Click to expand...

Alright, back up your claims with a credible source.
 
Agent Ferris said:
No we didn't he was in power long before the U.S. got involved in the situation to keep Mossadeq from succeeding in his coup deta.
Click to expand...

He was not. He was put in power by a British - American coup against his own father. When Mossadeq wanted to nationalize the oil industry, British and especially American interests were in grave danger. The Shah "fled" Iran and with the help of loyal military and the CIA, Mossadeq's government was taken out of the picture. After that places like the Iranian foreign ministry and oil ministry were run by the US government.
Ya if you're completely insane and believe SAVAK to be less brutal than say any Communist, Islamist, or Fascist regime in the history of the world, such as, the very same Communist regimes whom with Mossadeq was aligning and emulating.
Click to expand...

They were brutal as hell and feared by everyone. They made Saddam's regime look like amateurs.

You do know that the living standards of Iranians were never higher than under the Shah right?
Click to expand...

and so what? I aint defending the present regime one bit, but you seem to claim that the life under the Shah was so much better, free and without risk.. it was not.
 
Mira said:
I think it was about time that the U.S.A. stopped getting its nose into other countrie's internal affairs.
Click to expand...

Fine then can we nationalize all foreign investments? Can we lock all foreign assets in U.S. run banks? Can we take all of our loans, grants, and foreign aid with us when we leave? Can we end all immigration into our country? Can we cancel all Visa permits and begin mass deportation of non-U.S. citizens? Can we withdrawal from the UN? Can we impose huge tariffs on foreign goods? Can we renege on all foreign debt? Can we deconstruct all U.S. owned assets on foreign territory as we go?

The U.S. does just fine in a protectionist isolationist stance, however, the global economy will go down in flames. Have fun with the Chinese, perhaps they'll be more benevolent than we.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
He was not. He was put in power by a British - American coup against his own father.
Click to expand...

Try again slick it was a British-Soviet sponsored coup, it was U.S. threat of nuclear war with the Soviets that ended the Soviet occupation of Iran.

When Mossadeq wanted to nationalize the oil industry, British and especially American interests were in grave danger.
Click to expand...

Try again slick, the U.S. had no oil assets in Iran at the time of the nationalization.

The Shah "fled" Iran and with the help of loyal military and the CIA, Mossadeq's government was taken out of the picture. After that places like the Iranian foreign ministry and oil ministry were run by the US government.
Click to expand...

Yes we sponsored the counter-coup against Mossadeq.

They were brutal as hell and feared by everyone. They made Saddam's regime look like amateurs.
Click to expand...

Really where are the mass graves? The Baathists made SAVAK look like quire boys.

However, according to more recent research by a political historian of the era, Ervand Abrahamian, deaths numbered in the dozens rather than the thousands under the SAVAK, far fewer than the several thousand prisoners are estimated to have been killed in the Islamic Republic that followed. While some prisoners during the Shah's era were tortured, prisoners' letters were much more likely to use words such as "boredom" and "monotony," to describe their confinement than "fear," "death," "terror," "horror," and "nightmare" (kabos), the common descriptors found in letters of prisoners of the Islamic Republic. [24]

SAVAK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


and so what? I aint defending the present regime one bit, but you seem to claim that the life under the Shah was so much better, free and without risk.. it was not.
Click to expand...

It wasn't free but Mossadeq wasn't exactly a bastion of liberalism either.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Fine then can we nationalize all foreign investments? Can we lock all foreign assets in U.S. run banks? Can we take all of our loans, grants, and foreign aid with us when we leave? Can we end all immigration into our country? Can we cancel all Visa permits and begin mass deportation of non-U.S. citizens? Can we withdrawal from the UN? Can we impose huge tariffs on foreign goods? Can we renege on all foreign debt? Can we deconstruct all U.S. owned assets on foreign assets as we go?
Click to expand...

No, no, yes, no, no, yes, no, no, yes :mrgreen:
 
Triad said:
The manner in which he says it.
As of now he is negative not positive about the USA's role in the world and that is harmful.
Click to expand...

It's not our concern what goes on in Iranian elections. Let them sort it out. I'm sure you would have been real supportive if the Europeans "meddled" in our election in 2000.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Alright, back up your claims with a credible source.
Click to expand...

Claim 1:

In the midst of World War II in 1941, Nazi Germany began Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union, breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This had a major impact on Iran as the country had declared neutrality in the conflict.[2]

That year British and Soviet forces invaded and occupied Iran, forcing Reza Shah to abdicate. His son, Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi replaced his father on the throne on 16 September 1941. It was hoped that the younger prince would be more open to influence from the pro-Allied West, which later proved to be the case.

Subsequent to his succession as Shah, Iran became a major conduit for British and, later, American aid to the USSR during the war. This massive supply effort became known as the Persian Corridor and marked the first large-scale American and Western involvement in Iran, an involvement that would continue to grow until the successful revolution against the Iranian monarchy in 1979.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Claim 2:


However, according to more recent research by a political historian of the era, Ervand Abrahamian, deaths numbered in the dozens rather than the thousands under the SAVAK, far fewer than the several thousand prisoners are estimated to have been killed in the Islamic Republic that followed. While some prisoners during the Shah's era were tortured, prisoners' letters were much more likely to use words such as "boredom" and "monotony," to describe their confinement than "fear," "death," "terror," "horror," and "nightmare" (kabos), the common descriptors found in letters of prisoners of the Islamic Republic. [24]

SAVAK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Claim 3:

Achievements

The Shah made major changes to curb the power of certain ancient elite factions by expropriating large and medium-sized estates for the benefit of more than four million small farmers. In the White Revolution, he took a number of major modernization measures, including extending suffrage to women, much to the discontent and opposition of the Islamic clergy, the participation of workers in factories through shares and other measures, the improvement of the educational system through new elementary schools and literacy courses set up in remote villages by the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces. The latter step was called "Sepāh e Dānesh", "Army of Knowledge". As part of the White Revolution, the Armed Forces were engaged in infrastructural and other educational projects throughout the country ("Sepāh e Tarvij va Âbādāni") as well as in health education and promotion ("Sepāh e Behdāsht"). Moreover, he instituted exams for Islamic theologians to become established clerics. As a further step, in the seventies the governmental program of a free of charge nourishment for children at school ("Taghzieh e Rāigān") was implemented. Under the Shah's reign, the national Iranian income showed an unprecedented rise.

In the field of diplomacy, Iran realized and maintained friendly relations with Western and East European countries as well as the state of Israel and China and became, especially through the close friendship with the United States of America, more and more a hegemonial power in the Persian Gulf region and the Middle East. The suppression of the communist guerilla movement in the region of Dhofar in Oman with the help of the Iranian army after a formal request by Sultan Qaboos was widely regarded in this context. As to infrastructural and technological progress, the Shah continued and developed further the policies introduced by his father. As part of his programs, projects in several technologies, such as steel, telecommunications, petrochemical facilities, power plants, dams and the automobile industry may be named.

In terms of cultural activities, international cooperations were encouraged and organized, such as the Shiraz Festival of Arts. Many Iranian students were sent to and supported in foreign, especially Western countries and the Indian subcontinent. The Aryamehr University of Technology was established as a major new academic institution.[25] [26] [27]


Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
Agent Ferris said:
Fine then can we nationalize all foreign investments? Can we lock all foreign assets in U.S. run banks? Can we take all of our loans, grants, and foreign aid with us when we leave? Can we end all immigration into our country? Can we cancel all Visa permits and begin mass deportation of non-U.S. citizens? Can we withdrawal from the UN? Can we impose huge tariffs on foreign goods? Can we renege on all foreign debt? Can we deconstruct all U.S. owned assets on foreign territory as we go?

The U.S. does just fine in a protectionist isolationist stance, however, the global economy will go down in flames. Have fun with the Chinese, perhaps they'll be more benevolent than we.
Click to expand...

Trading with a foreign country is one thing and deciding who rules it is another.
 
The best way to insure a favorable result in the Iranian election is to stay out of it.
 
Triad said:
The manner in which he says it.
As of now he is negative not positive about the USA's role in the world and that is harmful.
Click to expand...

Nice spin.:roll:

"But when I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed… it is of concern to me and it is of concern to the American people."
Click to expand...

What would you have President Obama say or do differently? (re: this issue)
 
There are many things that Americans can do to be supportive of the Iranian desire for reform and freedom. Having our government actively take a role in deciding the outcome of their election is NOT one of those things.

The U.S. should limit its involvement to facilitating Iranian communication via available technology (as they have done, so far), calling on the Iranian leadership to use peaceful means to handle protests, and stating clearly that the Iranians deserve an election that is not fraudulent.

Going beyond that point will do harm to this process.
 
Triad said:
Obama is carefully wording his language to the point that the USA does not represent support to a cause to remove the regime in Iran..that's horrible.
Click to expand...

And that is a good thing. If Obama were to publicly support the removal of this regime, Ahmanutjob would just use that as an excuse to bring about full use of his military on the protesters claiming they are nothing but an American coerced militia force trying to overthrow the government.
 
Mira said:
Trading with a foreign country is one thing and deciding who rules it is another.
Click to expand...

Trading with another nation is one thing, nationalizing billions of investment and foreign assets is quite another. Quid pro quo. If you don't want us to try to secure our national economic interests within your countries then perhaps it's time to stop having economic ties with one another. The U.S. doesn't go about nationalizing foreign assets; unfortunately, however, that is the status quo for those countries which we have on occasion "meddled" politically in. This is a kind of a one or another deal, if you don't want us involved politically in your countries then I'm afraid we can't be involved economically either.
 
Agent Ferris said:
This is a kind of a one or another deal, if you don't want us involved politically in your countries then I'm afraid we can't be involved economically either.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is not how trade works.

Trading with a country, does not give the right for any party in the trade to meddle with a country politically. Given your logic, it would be ok for China to meddle with the U.S. government because they trade with us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom