Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad View Post
    Thread dead.
    I moved the subject of it to one of the other Iran threads.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058091207

    Wasn't even sure I should have made this a seperate post anyway..its not really breaking news just informative news.

    Moderators delete this thread..as you can see it was railroaded and turned into a stupid fight.

    So, let me get this straight, TRIAD -- you don't appreciate your thread being 'railroaded and turned into a stupid fight'--however in the OP you set the tone of the thread with this comment:

    Why I wish Biden or Clinton was in charge now.

    Hell.. the guy who parks their cars would be better.
    Hell... why didn't you just come out and say: "blacks should just stick to parking our cars."?

    Lame, dude, really lame...

  2. #52
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,326
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad View Post
    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.
    Sorry, I almost missed this post. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

    I do not see this scenario as possible. Nothing happening now is going ot create a democracy in Iran, so the only way to get it is invasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad
    Mid case..It starts a civil war. The USA has still stood with the protests and we pick a side..
    How does this promote the US interest? How do you mean "stood with the protests and pick a side"? If you are talking actively helping the protesters, I think that would be a bad idea, if you mean to suggest solidarity with them just with words, I suspect that is going to happen within the next day or so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad
    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.
    Protesters are already being slaughtered, and we are being in part blamed. Nothing we could have done yet could have changed that to my mind.

    In all this, I see no good guys except the protesters. Even if the opposition guy with the name I can't spell gets into office, he will be powerless to effect any real change, just like the one before the current one.



    Quote Originally Posted by Triad
    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.
    That is true of most any country. The people are rarely the enemy, it's the government. of course, those who are not our enemy usually pay the highest price, but that is the nature of the beast unfortunately.

    I do think, once things advance to a certain point, that Obama will speak out against the election. I suspect he is trying not to act too soon, and make a mistake that way. Time will tell I guess.

    Thank you again for answering my questions.

  3. #53
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    hmmm...when did Iran develop its nuclear weapon capabilities...hmmmm under the last administration with the nation building policy that you are advocating. Didn't work so well then did it?
    So Iran nuke program started only 8 years ago? I mean how naive do we think you are? Very.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #54
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,460

    Re: Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    So Iran nuke program started only 8 years ago? I mean how naive do we think you are? Very.
    Iran's nuclear program started during the Shah years. It actually took off in the 70's with full U.S. support. And then in 1979 the game changed.
    *insert profound statement here*

  5. #55
    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 Lerxst View Post
    I have been paying close attention. There are over a hundred confirmed dead (possibly more), thousands injured, and hundreds arrested.
    I mean the government hasn't ordered its goons to open-fire on protesters yet and massacre them. It still could, but so far it has not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    Of course it is. The Iranian government recognizes how restrained Obama has been and they know that charges of an American conspiracy won't fly yet. That could change if Obama injects himself into the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    Of course. But this has nothing to do with anything Obama does or does not say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    They Iranian regime has said we were trying to craft their downfall since they took power in 1979 Kandahar.
    And for the most part, they've been right. Unless the protesters create a total revolution, we're still going to have to negotiate with some elements of the current government. And if we want to adopt a less hostile relationship and actually work with them, we're going to have to bring something to the table as well. And the most basic desire that any government wants is to not be overthrown. If we won't even stop trying to overthrow them, then why WOULD they want to work with us on anything else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    And you are implying here that all of those thousands of Iranians using Twitter are hungering for American involvement (and that those protesters who use Twitter are representative of the entire reform movement in Iran). Who is being deliberately misleading?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    Every time Obama injects himself into the situation, their charge will become more credible in the eyes of government officials who are on the fence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    I don't even know what you mean by "underestimating the situation in Iran." As for overestimating the impact of open US support...I see a large possible downside and no possible upside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    We have lots of issues on which we need to work with Iran. Obama does not have the luxury of basing his entire foreign policy toward Iran on a chaotic protest movement that could easily peter out in a few more days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    Most Iranians already view us as standing behind them in support. They aren't stupid.

    I notice that you didn't suggest any tangible benefit to the United States of Obama publicly backing the protesters. Whereas I suggested several tangible costs of doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Either you are being deliberately argumentative with me or you don't really understand the situation in Iran right now.
    Neither do you. Neither do the Iranians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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."
    Whether or not YOU think it is American involvement is irrelevant. You aren't the one wielding guns and batons on the streets of Tehran.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    But it is not yet a credible accusation in the eyes of the people with guns and batons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    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.
    Until January 20, 2009, the United States was also being deliberately obstinate and refusing to negotiate on anything. Hostile extremism breeds hostile extremism. It's only been five months. What exactly did you expect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst
    Show me what exactly we stand to lose at the negotiation table with Iran, please.
    We stand to lose co-opting the moderate elements of the Iranian regime to push for a more pro-Western foreign policy.

    We stand to lose the support of reformists who resent American involvement in their affairs.

    We stand to lose the ability to drive a wedge between Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

    We stand to lose the ability to push Iran in a less confrontational direction, that doesn't make obnoxious threats toward Israel.

    We stand to lose the ability to reestablish our oil trade with Iran.

    We stand to lose the ability to push Iran toward merely being able to develop nuclear weapons, rather than actually doing so. (It's too late to get them to stop their nuclear program entirely.)

    We stand to lose the ability to negotiate Iranian assistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    We stand to lose the ability to negotiate the Iranian role in Iraq.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 06-19-09 at 06:22 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #56
    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
    Sorry, I almost missed this post. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

    I do not see this scenario as possible. Nothing happening now is going ot create a democracy in Iran, so the only way to get it is invasion.



    How does this promote the US interest? How do you mean "stood with the protests and pick a side"? If you are talking actively helping the protesters, I think that would be a bad idea, if you mean to suggest solidarity with them just with words, I suspect that is going to happen within the next day or so.



    Protesters are already being slaughtered, and we are being in part blamed. Nothing we could have done yet could have changed that to my mind.

    In all this, I see no good guys except the protesters. Even if the opposition guy with the name I can't spell gets into office, he will be powerless to effect any real change, just like the one before the current one.





    That is true of most any country. The people are rarely the enemy, it's the government. of course, those who are not our enemy usually pay the highest price, but that is the nature of the beast unfortunately.

    I do think, once things advance to a certain point, that Obama will speak out against the election. I suspect he is trying not to act too soon, and make a mistake that way. Time will tell I guess.

    Thank you again for answering my questions.

    Maybe........ but he's within 2 days IMO of even if he does come out and say "we support them".. people will just take it as an overt political move to aggrandize himself.



    With the House 450-1 voting for the Pence resolution.
    A likely similar outcome with McCain Resolution in the Senate.
    ..and lets be honest the undeniable support most American will have for the protestors
    Obama is on the wrong side of the bridge and the Supreme Leader is about to blow it.

  7. #57
    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 Triad View Post
    With the House 450-1 voting for the Pence resolution.
    A likely similar outcome with McCain Resolution in the Senate.
    ..and lets be honest the undeniable support most American will have for the protestors
    Obama is on the wrong side of the bridge and the Supreme Leader is about to blow it.
    The House and Senate are not the heads of state, nor do they represent the United States to the rest of the world. Congressmen have the luxury of being able to do pretty much whatever the hell they want about foreign affairs without worrying about the consequences. The President does not have that luxury.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #58
    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

    They represent The People of the United States.

    Usually the President does that as well..but not this one.

    The People run this nation..not one man.

  9. #59
    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 Triad View Post
    They represent The People of the United States.

    Usually the President does that as well..but not this one.

    The People run this nation..not one man.
    "The People" do not conduct foreign policy negotiations with other nations. Thank ****ing god.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #60
    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

    Ooop sorry Redress

    Senate voted on it already-
    Senate condemns Iran crackdown

    By ANNE FLAHERTY 1 hour ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) Both houses of Congress have voted to condemn Iran's crackdown on anti-government demonstrators.

    The resolution approved by the House and then the Senate condemns "the ongoing violence" by the government and the Iranian government's suppression of the Internet and cell phones. It also expressed support for Iranian citizens who embrace freedom.
    The Associated Press: Senate condemns Iran crackdown

    I didn't see any specific number on the Senate vote but I'm sure its floating around in one of the thousands of articles on this move by Congress now.
    Last edited by Triad; 06-19-09 at 06:37 PM.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •