• 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

I searched for any info that the picture was photoshopped and found none. I did find many hundreds of instances of the picture reproduced, none of which indicated it was fake. If you have proof the picture is fake, please link it.

If it's not photoshopped then let's see the video which the picture was snipped from.
 
Iran is flying 1,000 Chinese tanks to land tomorrow. No reason given.:shock:

Really and what type Chinese Tank are they I would love to know that can you please show me your proof so I can show all my boss's at work these magical Chinese Tanks.

So which one's are they,

Type 80/80-II they have about 1500 of these but most of them have been with drawn from front line units

Type 85 which they has been sold oversea to Pakistani (300) the Chinese have around 600 in service with another 200 to be add to the PLA over the next 3 years.

Type 85-III that were going to be going to Pakistani but they rejected them but this order is only for 250

Type 88 which is the latest of the Chinese Tanks and they have only between all models A-C only 400-500 in service while both Pakistani and Bangladesh each have around 300.

So please tell me which version that Iran is going to be getting since Iran signed a Tank deal with Russia two years ago to have all of their T-64 and T-72 upgrade over the next five years.
 
Sorry, it's real. You make a big deal out of Obama giving the Saudi king a little bow, at least he didn't kiss him on the mouth.
Back on topic, Reagan's request to "tear down this wall" required no bravery, and did not cause the wall to come down....everyone wanted the wall down. On the other hand, Obama's Cairo speech probably had a lot to do with motivating a million Iranians to march in confrontation of their Ayatollah. Obama has already played his ace card in Iran, while you were complaining about something different.

George_W_Bush_Prince_Abdullah_kiss_hold_hands.jpg

1) It's obviously shopped. Sorry.

2) I made a big deal out of Obama bowing?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...e-bows-another-leader-wtf.html#post1057979681

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I searched for any info that the picture was photoshopped and found none. I did find many hundreds of instances of the picture reproduced, none of which indicated it was fake. If you have proof the picture is fake, please link it.

Photoshooped.jpg
 
Who would bother photo shopping a girl with clothes on?:mrgreen:
Who would bother photo shopping Canda's flag into that ship? :mrgreen:
 
There's No False Choice on Iran : The consequence of a weak president.

Rejecting "false choices" is a favorite rhetorical device of President Obama. His speeches are littered with examples. A half-dozen times, he's repudiated "the false choice between our security and our ideals." He's dismissed "the false choice between sound science and moral values." He's not only disposed of "the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars," he's laid to rest the clash between those who'd "conserve our resources" and those who'd "profit from these natural resources."

But confronted by a popular revolt in Iran, Obama has succumbed to a false choice. Either support the democratic forces in Iran aligned against the rigged presidential election or preserve his chance to negotiate with the Ahmadinejad regime for a nuclear arms deal--one or the other. The president thinks he's stuck with a dilemma. He's not. The two options aren't mutually exclusive. The choice is indeed false.

To escape his predicament, Obama has sought neutrality between a discredited regime and democratic protesters. This actually helps the regime, since President Ahmadinejad and the mullahs don't need Obama's support. The protesters do. In effect, Obama has tilted in favor of the regime. The result is personal shame (for Obama) and policy shame (for the United States).
There's No False Choice on Iran
 
Those who would have our nation take sides with the protesters are not thinking. If we back them, Iran will see them as a western driven and backed force. This will cause far more deaths. But, hey, let's act like Bush, close our eyes, and go all knee jerk on this..... God forbid someone think this through. War is stupid and we need to stop "making" it. There are ways to get to these people, but, right now, our President is doing the right thing. OH! And, the President has made a statement.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama urges Iran to stop violence against its own people - Blogs from CNN.com
 
It's not as though Iran hasn't meddled in our affairs and the affairs of others,and we have thousands of soldiers with missing limbs from explosive devices furnished by Iran to show for it. Maybe IED's should start moving across the Iran/Iraq border in the direction opposite to how they customarily have been moving,along with guns and real "HOPE".
 
dammed if he does dammed if he doesn't

Most Iranian Americans agree with the way President Obama handled this.
No matter what President Obama does he will get criticized. If he gets too strong the Mullah Hullahs will tie the protestors to him
 
Re: dammed if he does dammed if he doesn't

Most Iranian Americans agree with the way President Obama handled this.
No matter what President Obama does he will get criticized. If he gets too strong the Mullah Hullahs will tie the protestors to him




Link to back this claim up please.
 
From the National Iranian American Council:

niacINsight

I can't cut/paste the text from the blog, but see June 19 & 20th posts, in which NIAC states that they SUPPORT Obama's actions so far in not taking sides, and that taking sides would harm more than it would help.
 
From the National Iranian American Council:

niacINsight

I can't cut/paste the text from the blog, but see June 19 & 20th posts, in which NIAC states that they SUPPORT Obama's actions so far in not taking sides, and that taking sides would harm more than it would help.

The NIAC statement:
The only plausible way to end the violence is for new elections to be held with independent monitors ensuring its fairness. Such elections would be consistent with the Iranian constitution.

We support President Obama’s decision not to take sides in the disputed election, particularly in the absence of any candidate calling upon him to do so. At the same time, the White House needs to speak vociferously against the bloodshed taking place before our eyes.
Per the NIAC, Dear Leader needs to pump up the volume.
 
He can decry violence all he wants. But any actual "meddling", given our astoundingly bad record in that regard, would be a big mistake.
 
ON THE VIOLENCE. He specifically needs to avoid taking sides on the election.
Agreed he should not explicitly back Mousavi.

However, do note that even the NIAC calls for new elections--and Dear Leader has not yet said that.

Dear Leader is ratcheting up the rhetoric, but he is behind the curve on this and he needs to get out in front. You can't lead from the rear.
 
Agreed he should not explicitly back Mousavi.

However, do note that even the NIAC calls for new elections--and Dear Leader has not yet said that.

Dear Leader is ratcheting up the rhetoric, but he is behind the curve on this and he needs to get out in front. You can't lead from the rear.

I think the question in this instance, however, given that we're the Great Satan, is SHOULD Obama be leading?

Or, should he be allowing others to lead, while he offers supportive rhetoric. I'd say the latter.

Further, while Obama's comments haven't been strongly worded, the resolutions of the Senate/House HAVE BEEN. So, there is a balance there.
 
I think the question in this instance, however, given that we're the Great Satan, is SHOULD Obama be leading?

Or, should he be allowing others to lead, while he offers supportive rhetoric. I'd say the latter.

Further, while Obama's comments haven't been strongly worded, the resolutions of the Senate/House HAVE BEEN. So, there is a balance there.

Given we are the Great Satan AND have a track record of meddling not working, including IN IRAN, he needs to stand up for human rights and non-violence and that's it.
 
Given we are the Great Satan AND have a track record of meddling not working, including IN IRAN, he needs to stand up for human rights and non-violence and that's it.




What about the human rights of the Iranian people?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1wroSx2Q8&feature=related[/ame]
 
Last edited:
What about the human rights of the Iranian people?

We can't openly help one side or the other or fear retaliation later if the opposing side wins control.

The only way we could openly support the protesters is if we were going to make sure they succeeded in gaining power. Doing so though will give ammunition to the Ayatollah's to call for a global rise up against the invading US that is trying to instill another Pro-western government like the Shah was.

Unless we are willing to go all in we need to stay all out. Though we should have a stern vocal humanitarian stance, praise the people's ability for public opinion and protest, and provide aid to those harmed, if aid is permitted by the current ruling party.
 
Last edited:
We can't openly help one side or the other or fear retaliation later if the opposing side wins control.

And we have a long track record of picking the losing side. Or picking the winning side and having them turn bad. A good example of our prowess in this regard is Iran. At least Obama knows his history.

The only way we could openly support the protesters is if we were going to make sure they succeeded in gaining power. Doing so though will give ammunition to the Ayatollah's to call for a global rise up against the invading US that is trying to instill another Pro-western government like the Shah was.

That would the worst idea since invading Iraq. It would stand no chance of working.

Unless we are willing to go all in we need to stay all out, minus a stern vocal humanitarian stance and aid, if aid is permitted by the current ruling party.

Indeed.
 


Were you under the mistaken impression that we were discussing someone else's human rights? To clarify, Stekim and I both have an Iranian friend who posts in this forum. I know that Stekim has been staying abreast of this issue, and I was the first one to post the Neda video in this forum.

I think you've prejudged Stekim (inaccurately).
 
Back
Top Bottom