Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

Thread: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    I cannot imagine a Democrat publicly opposing voter fraud and election tampering.

    And it's totally inconceivable that a politician from Chicago could even say those words.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If the Iranian regime believes that we are trying to overthrow it, it makes it difficult to negotiate with them. Why would you negotiate with someone who was trying to craft your downfall?
    The quality of "negotiations" with Terrorist Nation Iran:

    USA: "Don't export terrorism."
    IRAN: "**** off."

    USA: "Don't build nukes."
    IRAN: "**** off."

    So....what does anyone have to lose by pushing Iran.

    What I haven't seen on this thread are the words

    "Tianamen Square".

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Wrong....Neo-con is a very specific term that refers to an imperialistic nation-building philosophy that was embraced by many people in the past administration.
    Except, according to the Left, EVERYONE who isn't one of them is a "NEOCON".

    Because the word means everything, it means nothing,

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Triad, Lerxst: if Obama did as you want, and everything goes as best it can from that, what do you see as the best resolution likely? How would that outcome effect the US?
    Well, if The Messiah actually said things would be better if Ahmadaboudajihad lost the election, and he lost, we'd be well off.

    If Ahmadaboudajihad doesn't leave office (and he won't), not a damn thing will be different.

    Since there's no possiblity of loss here, there's no reason not to openly support the better side.

  5. #45
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The quality of "negotiations" with Terrorist Nation Iran:

    USA: "Don't export terrorism."
    IRAN: "**** off."

    USA: "Don't build nukes."
    IRAN: "**** off."
    Well what do you expect? 30 years of hostility don't just disappear overnight. At least it's a step in the right direction. For the past 30 years, the negotiations have tended to go more like this:

    USA: "**** off."
    IRAN: "**** off."

    USA: "**** off."
    IRAN: "**** off."

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    So....what does anyone have to lose by pushing Iran.
    Well for starters, we lose the ability to influence moderate elements in the Iranian government who may want better relations with the West, but don't necessarily want to bring down the entire regime.

    Furthermore, your question is rooted in the false assumption that Obama is somehow "pushing Iran" by siding with the protesters. There is every indication that that could be counterproductive...or at the very least, unpredictable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    What I haven't seen on this thread are the words

    "Tianamen Square".
    While it's possible, so far the Iranian police have been much more restrained than I thought they would be. I'm pleasantly surprised. Of course, that could change in an hour. But whatever the outcome, I think a Tienanmen Square massacre is unlikely.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    WASHINGTON -- Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

    And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.

    Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.

    Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamanei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."
    ...
    All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs' disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

    Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

    That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

    And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.
    RealClearPolitics - Obama Clueless on Iran

    Shame

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Triad, Lerxst: if Obama did as you want, and everything goes as best it can from that, what do you see as the best resolution likely? How would that outcome effect the US?
    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.

    Mid case..It starts a civil war. The USA has still stood with the protests and we pick a side..

    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.



    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.


    //





    You all know Obama...
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVS3WNt7yRU]YouTube - Welcome Back Kotter[/ame]
    (one of my all time favs as a kid)
    Hillary is taking notes..when she resigns to run again watch out:P)
    I dislike her alot but much much better a President she would make.
    Last edited by Triad; 06-19-09 at 05:12 AM.

  8. #48
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Except, according to the Left, EVERYONE who isn't one of them is a "NEOCON".

    Because the word means everything, it means nothing,
    I don't think that's true. It may be true with some people...but I think that most people who use the term apply it appropriately. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield....DEFINITELY Neo-cons. Classic to the definition...but there are a lot of Republicans that I would not apply the label to.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #49
    Advisor Midwest Lib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    513

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad View Post
    I have already said many times in multiple threads.

    That you admit you don't even know what I have said but could mange to make a statement of what I would say.

    Says it all.


    State your opinion if you wish on the subject at hand. Keep your admitted ignorant opinion of my opinions to your self.



    I don't go randomly around the forum looking for posts by you or others and make one line lil smart ass comments about them for no apparent reason other then to make the comment or start an argument.
    So why do you guys?..IMO its becoming more and more obvious why....can't argue the point so you try to belittle the poster.
    Its become more and more common since the PF crowd arrived as well.
    I haven't been on this forum for a long time, and would personally love to know your stance without having to search through an archive of posts. This response seems like a dodge to me. What do YOU suggest be done, and what effect do you believe it would have?

  10. #50
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Umm I don't know if YOU'VE been paying attention, but the police and Guardsmen have actually been remarkably restrained giving the repressive nature of the regime and the scale of the protests. Sure, there have been some incidents, but for the most part the protesters have been allowed to do their thing with minimal violence from the police.
    I have been paying close attention. There are over a hundred confirmed dead (possibly more), thousands injured, and hundreds arrested. 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.

    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.

    If the Iranian regime believes that we are trying to overthrow it, it makes it difficult to negotiate with them. Why would you negotiate with someone who was trying to craft your downfall?
    They Iranian regime has said we were trying to craft their downfall since they took power in 1979 Kandahar.


    You mean a few random people who happen to use Twitter.
    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.


    Whether it's actually involvement is irrelevant. The establishment is looking for a pretext to clobber the protesters. This would provide them with one.
    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.


    No he shouldn't. Barack Obama is not omnipotent.
    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.

    He can't make the protests succeed just by saying he is on their side.
    I don't think anyone here ever said he could.

    All he can do is piss people off.
    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.
    At best, the protesters succeed and nothing Obama says matters either way.
    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.
    At worst, the regime cracks down on the protests due to American involvement and negotiations on other issues go into the deep freeze once again.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Either you are being deliberately argumentative with me or you don't really understand the situation in Iran right now. 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." 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.

    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. Show me what exactly we stand to lose at the negotiation table with Iran, please.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •