• 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 "Very Concerned" At Ayatollah's Comments

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith, President Obama said he is "very concerned" with the thrust of the statements made today by Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei supporting the country's disputed election results.

“And I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor -- and tone of the statements that have been made -- that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching," the president told Smith. "And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and -- and is not.”


CBS News Exclusive: Obama "Very Concerned" At Ayatollah's Comments

IMO -- this is the right thing to say and the right time to say it. He understands the complicated situation in a Theocracy and walked the right line here. A little bit more, a little bit earlier? Perhaps. But to overshoot on this one would have potentially caused more problems then doing what he's done--playing his cards close to the vest.

I think I got the right BN format this time.
 
all i know is I do not care what he does publicly
he better be pumping in millions in support secretly and supply any intelligence/help required
 
Here's the statement folks -- or are all the far-rights still obsessing on what he didn't say yet (but has)...
 
CBS News Exclusive: Obama "Very Concerned" At Ayatollah's Comments

IMO -- this is the right thing to say and the right time to say it. He understands the complicated situation in a Theocracy and walked the right line here. A little bit more, a little bit earlier? Perhaps. But to overshoot on this one would have potentially caused more problems then doing what he's done--playing his cards close to the vest.

I think I got the right BN format this time.

I don't think it really matters what he says. If we are depending on the UN to do anything, all we will see is the same inaction they have always shown. They might write and angry letter and denounce Iran but tomorrow it will be business as usual.

I'm not impressed by Obama being "very concerned".
 
Exactly what could Obama say that wouldn't make things worse for Mousawi?
 
Exactly what could Obama say that wouldn't make things worse for Mousawi?

What's Ironic is that no matter who wins the election there, both candidates do not feel Israel has the right to exist.

I agree with the protesters, but I feel that nothing will really change even if the other guy gets in office.
 
I don't think it really matters what he says. If we are depending on the UN to do anything, all we will see is the same inaction they have always shown. They might write and angry letter and denounce Iran but tomorrow it will be business as usual.

I'm not impressed by Obama being "very concerned".

This is weird. The entire statement was up on some sites today -- but it's been pulled. Would the WH make CBS edit the piece? Or did CBS ask the other sites to pull the quote until after the piece airs?

Has anyone else seen it -- It was one paragraph response to the Ayatollah's statement, it ends with something like: "the world will be watching."
 
Exactly what could Obama say that wouldn't make things worse for Mousawi?

You are right on target. The professional Obama haters need to wake up and get real. If President Obama says "too" much in support of the 'opposition' the grand leader Mullah will paint the opposition as being the "tool of the West" and use that to diminish any growing support for them.
 
Like the Supreme Leader already has..oh..:2wave:

"change the story to one we can believe in."
 
Last edited:
I would be more concerned if Obama wasn't "very concerned".

Rioting on the streets, murder, an ultimatum issued by a supreme ruler whose very power is in check.....

How could one not be "very concerned"?
 
"very concerned"?


What a very presidential and decicive stance Obama took!



:roll:
 
Found it:



"And I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor -- and tone of the statements that have been made -- that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and -- and is not."
 
Exactly what could Obama say that wouldn't make things worse for Mousawi?
He could stick to a few basic talking points:

  1. All nations have the sovereign right to choose their own governments.
  2. Governments enjoy legitimacy when they are subordinate and deferential to the people.
  3. Elections must be free and fair to give a government credibility.
  4. Governments that have such legitimacy and credibility are best able to represent their nation on the world stage.
There is no need to mention by name Mousawi or Ahamenijad, nor even Khameni, except to extend appropriate courtesies as political leaders within Iran. Talk up the values, take a stand on the values.
 
Mousavi doesn't even matter anymore..neither does Ahmanut. The "election" has been decided and is final.

If it continues it is now between the protesters(or if you will the People of Iran) and the Supreme Leader (thus the state)

Obama's excuses for not saying anything are mostly gone as well.
 
Last edited:
"very concerned"?


What a very presidential and decicive stance Obama took!



:roll:

We have no influence on what these people do. They have little concern with what we have to say. What makes us think that Obama saying anything, would change anything? Do you want him to say something to make us feel better?
 
He could stick to a few basic talking points:

  1. All nations have the sovereign right to choose their own governments.
  2. Governments enjoy legitimacy when they are subordinate and deferential to the people.
  3. Elections must be free and fair to give a government credibility.
  4. Governments that have such legitimacy and credibility are best able to represent their nation on the world stage.
There is no need to mention by name Mousawi or Ahamenijad, nor even Khameni, except to extend appropriate courtesies as political leaders within Iran. Talk up the values, take a stand on the values.

Honest question, would it really matter? Would it change Iran? Would it only feed the fanatics (sic?)?
 
We have no influence on what these people do. They have little concern with what we have to say. What makes us think that Obama saying anything, would change anything? Do you want him to say something to make us feel better?
Ronald Reagan Speech 'Tear Down this Wall'

It is worth noting that the day the Iranians went to the polls was the 22nd anniversary of Ronald Reagan's famous "tear down this wall" speech at the Brandenburg Gate. The speech was Reagan at his rhetorical best, and demonstrates the potency of simple values simply stated.

It disappoints to see Dear Leader refuse time and again to discipline his rhetoric. He does not speak so much as he hides within words. He does not answer questions directly.

He does not need to declare Mousavi the rightful President of Iran, nor does he need to declare Ahamenijad a thug and oppressive dictator, nor Khameni the Machiavelli of mullahs. There is no need to speak about what is wrong.

There is always a call to speak about what is right. What is right is that elections be fair and honest and free of taint. What is right is that government be subordinate to the will of the people. What is right is that people be allowed to peaceably protest without fear of billy clubs or bullets.

This is the moment in which Dear Leader should summon up the words of Thomas Jefferson, and declare such truths to be self-evident. He should say that these truths are not just for America, but for all people everywhere.

He does not need to declare enmity against the Islamic Republic. He should declare the bedrock principles that are the foundation of the American Republic, and let those principles speak for themselves.
 
Honest question, would it really matter? Would it change Iran? Would it only feed the fanatics (sic?)?
Iran does not exist in a vacuum; no nation exists in a vacuum. Iran will engage with the world for the same reason we will engage with Iran: there is no second alternative. The only question is the manner of the engagement: amicable or angry.

America has no right to opine on the internal political processes of a foreign nation. It is not for us to say what government Iran should have.

However, if we stand on our principles, Khameni, as he engages the world, must respond, for our statement of our principles becomes the challenge question that will not go away. He must say whether Iran's elections are free of taint. He must say whether Iran's government is subordinate to the will of the people or whether the will of the people is subordinate to the government. He must say whether he agrees or disagrees with the values of the American Republic. He must say because to ignore is to disengage from the world, and that is not an option for any nation (and especially a nation which has geopolitical ambitions).

If we stand on our principles, Khameni must speak to our principles. In so speaking, he must either speak honestly or falsely; he must either tell the truth or tell a lie. He must lead either with character or connivance.

If we stand on our principles, Mousavi and any who would oppose Khameni must speak to our principles, and for the same reason: there is no other option if Iran is to engage with the world. They also must speak either honestly or falsely; they also must either tell the truth or tell a lie. They also must lead either with character or connivance.

These things they must do, and these things they must do in full view of the Iranian people. The Iranian people have demonstrated their deep desire to have the government of their choice. Our standing on our principles compels the Iranian leaders to stand on theirs. Standing on principle is always the way to facilitate choice.
 
Is our President attempting to "vote present" on the Iran issue?
 
CBS News Exclusive: Obama "Very Concerned" At Ayatollah's Comments

IMO -- this is the right thing to say and the right time to say it. He understands the complicated situation in a Theocracy and walked the right line here. A little bit more, a little bit earlier? Perhaps. But to overshoot on this one would have potentially caused more problems then doing what he's done--playing his cards close to the vest.

I think I got the right BN format this time.

I agree with you here. Based on my own (admittedly limited) knowledge of our realistic options in this matter, I think the best thing to do is to make our views known and then stay out of it. Iran's leaders have projected blame for the their post-election tumult onto the U.S. Any action on our part would only serve their purposes. It is not our right to tell them how to run their own country.
 
I agree with you here. Based on my own (admittedly limited) knowledge of our realistic options in this matter, I think the best thing to do is to make our views known and then stay out of it. Iran's leaders have projected blame for the their post-election tumult onto the U.S. Any action on our part would only serve their purposes. It is not our right to tell them how to run their own country.
but it is our right to criticise civil right abuses
and killing protesters to ensure a stolen election stays 'legit' demands a statement.
I do hope the Iranian protesters plea to have every capitol city in the world basking in Green Light on Sunday does happen
 
but it is our right to criticise civil right abuses
and killing protesters to ensure a stolen election stays 'legit' demands a statement.
I do hope the Iranian protesters plea to have every capitol city in the world basking in Green Light on Sunday does happen

Certainly, which is why I advocated making our position known :)
 
but it is our right to criticise civil right abuses
and killing protesters to ensure a stolen election stays 'legit' demands a statement.
I do hope the Iranian protesters plea to have every capitol city in the world basking in Green Light on Sunday does happen

I'm not saying you're wrong--but there are still a lot of questions on the 'stolen election' theory. 66% - 33%, if true, we're talking about pretty ballsy ballot stuffing here. If there was only a few areas were the voting process was corrupted, then that's still a pretty big margin.

Information is still pretty limited, the accusation has been made without much proof or testimony. Until we know for sure if the election was a sham and exactly how this was accomplished, then we must reserve our final judgement, if you will.
 
Back
Top Bottom