• 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!

West 'seeks Iran disintegration'

Triad

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
233
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Western powers are seeking to undermine Iran by spreading "anarchy and vandalism", the foreign ministry says.

A spokesman said foreign media were "mouthpieces" of enemy governments seeking Iran's disintegration.

He spoke as Tehran remained tense but quiet amid heavy security aimed at preventing new protests against the result of Iran's presidential election.

Challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi says the vote was rigged in favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and must be re-run.

Mr Mousavi has told his supporters, who have taken to the streets in their tens of thousands for more than a week, to continue their protests but not to put their lives in danger.
....
'Contacting the enemy'

Speaking at a news conference on Monday, foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi accused Western governments of explicitly backing violent protests aimed at undermining the stability of Iran's Islamic Republic.

"Spreading anarchy and vandalism by Western powers and also Western media... these are not at all accepted," he said.


How can they say they are unbiased when their TV channel is like a war headquarters?
Hassan Qashqavi
Iranian Foreign Ministry

Iran asks BBC reporter to leave
Cconsequences of engagement
Suspicions behind election

He said the West was acting in an "anti-democratic" manner, instead praising Iran's commitment to democracy and stressing once again that the results of the presidential election were unimpeachable.

Iran has strongly criticised the US and UK governments in recent days, and Mr Qashqavi reserved special scorn for the BBC and for the Voice of America network, which he called "government channels".

The BBC and other foreign media have been reporting from Iran under severe restrictions for the past week. The BBC's permanent correspondent in Iran, Jon Leyne, was asked to leave the country on Sunday.

"They [the BBC and the VOA] are the mouthpiece of their government's public diplomacy," Mr Qashqavi said.

"They have two guidelines regarding Iran. One is to intensify ethnical and racial rifts within Iran and secondly to disintegrate the Iranian territories."

"Any contact with these channels, under any pretext or in any form, means contacting the enemy of the Iranian nation.

"How can they say they are unbiased when their TV channel is like a war headquarters and in fact they are blatantly commanding riots. Therefore their claims are absolutely wrong. Their governments have ratified decisions so that they can act in this way."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | West 'seeks Iran disintegration'

Ok Mr. Obama enough with the "non-meddling" BS rhetoric.



The People of the USA stand behind those in opposition to the "Theocratic Dictatorship of Iran." Also the USA needs to put in doubt "the talks" through language..
Ironically he needs to talk like he is to North Korea right now with Iran.
He needs to put aside his self infatuation.
 
Triad, I am a conservative like yourself, in fact we probably have a lot of similar opinions on these issues, including Iran and NK. But Obama is our Commander and Chief, I believe you should have more respect for him. Neither one of us is privy to even 20% of the information that is more than likely laid on the Presidents desk every morning, so let's not just "assume" that Obama is doing nothing and end the insults on him. For all we know he is doing quite a bit behind the scenes. I did not vote for this man, but I also do not believe he is some retard who is like "OK.. well.. umm. they have Nukes now.. but I'm scared and I don't wanna do nothing because I don't know what to do..." I mean let's get serious here man. I know we both support the Iranian people, and would like a more solid stance against NK, but keep in mind our economy is not in the best shape, and we are still fighting quite heavily in Iraq and just sent 23,000 more troops to Afganistan, I don't think any leader, even George W. Would have wanted to possibly have to send more troops to NK or Iran atm.
 
Triad, I am a conservative like yourself, in fact we probably have a lot of similar opinions on these issues, including Iran and NK. But Obama is our Commander and Chief, I believe you should have more respect for him. Neither one of us is privy to even 20% of the information that is more than likely laid on the Presidents desk every morning, so let's not just "assume" that Obama is doing nothing and end the insults on him. For all we know he is doing quite a bit behind the scenes. I did not vote for this man, but I also do not believe he is some retard who is like "OK.. well.. umm. they have Nukes now.. but I'm scared and I don't wanna do nothing because I don't know what to do..." I mean let's get serious here man. I know we both support the Iranian people, and would like a more solid stance against NK, but keep in mind our economy is not in the best shape, and we are still fighting quite heavily in Iraq and just sent 23,000 more troops to Afganistan, I don't think any leader, even George W. Would have wanted to possibly have to send more troops to NK or Iran atm.

If he's doing something "behind the scenes" then he is an even bigger mistake.

Whatever else the Islamic Republic is, it is most assuredly the result of a populist uprising in Iran 30 years ago. At one time, at least, it was the unequivocal will of the people. Whether it remains the will of the people today is the question the protesters will answer (assuming they take to the streets again).

We are not talking about a military junta in a banana republic, we are not talking about a garden variety dictator, we are talking about a theocratic regime that rose to power because that is what the people of Iran, once upon a time, desired.

Thus the only question of substance in this is the direction of the will of the people. Do they desire the Islamic Republic to continue? Do they seek its end? Do they seek to reform the Republic and return it to an earlier phase in its evolution?

These are not questions on which the United States or any nation can compel a specific answer, or which can the United States can influence through covert methods. Whatever productive influence the outside world will have will be public, in declarations made and diplomatic pressures applied, in support of the will of the Iranian people whatever it may be.

The public statements by Dear Leader on Iran have been reactive and reluctant. Instead of taking a stand, articulating core American principles that coincide with the demands of the protesters, using American ideals to find common cause with the protesters, he has attempted to avoid the issue altogether. His latest and strongest statement would have been workmanlike for the occasion--except it was delivered a week late, thus rendering what little strength it otherwise possessed impotent.

This crap logic of withholding judgment because he "might" be doing something "behind the scenes" is crap because if that is what he is doing, then he's doing something wrong. If he is doing that he is meddling, which is the worst possible solution--he'd be more helpful to the Iranians body surfing off Diamond Head than meddling sub rosa in their politics.

If he's not speaking publicly, and proudly, on Iran, he's making a mistake. He's spoken publicly on Iran, now he needs to up the pride factor. It is through America's history that Thomas Jefferson's words reverberate to the world:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Iran's desire is our history; Iran's hope is our heritage. From the outset, that should have been the American message in this. It is not a message to be uttered in whispers behind closed doors. Any other message is the wrong message.

Dear Leader is properly and roundly criticized for his artless response to Iran. When a people voiced their desire for freedom, Dear Leader once again voted "present."
 
....

BBC NEWS | Middle East | West 'seeks Iran disintegration'

Ok Mr. Obama enough with the "non-meddling" BS rhetoric.



The People of the USA stand behind those in opposition to the "Theocratic Dictatorship of Iran." Also the USA needs to put in doubt "the talks" through language..
Ironically he needs to talk like he is to North Korea right now with Iran.
He needs to put aside his self infatuation.

This whole thing is way too big for Obama. This real-life stuff isn't what he bargained for.
 
Triad, I am a conservative like yourself, in fact we probably have a lot of similar opinions on these issues, including Iran and NK. But Obama is our Commander and Chief, I believe you should have more respect for him. Neither one of us is privy to even 20% of the information that is more than likely laid on the Presidents desk every morning, so let's not just "assume" that Obama is doing nothing and end the insults on him. For all we know he is doing quite a bit behind the scenes. I did not vote for this man, but I also do not believe he is some retard who is like "OK.. well.. umm. they have Nukes now.. but I'm scared and I don't wanna do nothing because I don't know what to do..." I mean let's get serious here man. I know we both support the Iranian people, and would like a more solid stance against NK, but keep in mind our economy is not in the best shape, and we are still fighting quite heavily in Iraq and just sent 23,000 more troops to Afganistan, I don't think any leader, even George W. Would have wanted to possibly have to send more troops to NK or Iran atm.

Obama betrayed my nations troops in Iraq..He stood with the We're Losers and demeaned them as they FOUGHT
...I will never respect him and find anyone who does odious.
Obama is hooked to a drug called Fame..Britney Spears in drag.


He's talking tough with North Korea..but I doubt he will stick it out.
He's muted with Iran and that is a disgrace.
 
Last edited:
Obama betrayed my nations troops in Iraq..He stood with the We're Losers and demeaned them as they FOUGHT
...I will never respect him and find anyone who does odious.

Obama demeaned who? And how did Obama demean whoever it is you are referring to?
 
Obama demeaned who? And how did Obama demean whoever it is you are referring to?

Nobody is that stupid.

Stop Trolling.
 
Nobody is that stupid.

Stop Trolling.

I know of no one that Obama has demeaned, so who is it and how? Why can't you answer a simple question without stooping to insults? If he did this, you would think you could back up your claim.
 
The public statements by Dear Leader on Iran have been reactive and reluctant. Instead of taking a stand, articulating core American principles that coincide with the demands of the protesters, using American ideals to find common cause with the protesters, he has attempted to avoid the issue altogether. His latest and strongest statement would have been workmanlike for the occasion--except it was delivered a week late, thus rendering what little strength it otherwise possessed impotent.

...

Dear Leader is properly and roundly criticized for his artless response to Iran. When a people voiced their desire for freedom, Dear Leader once again voted "present."


Yep
 

Celticlord whines about Obama continuously, and as usual, his logic is faulty. Obama has done exactly as he should throughout this crisis, and mostly just a few hyper-partisan's are complaining about what he as done. Keep up using this as just another chance to throw a hissy because you don't like the president though.
 
Nobody is that stupid.

Stop Trolling.

I guess that makes two people that stupid, at least here on this board. So, please, entertain our stupidity and answer the question redress asked. And, if you could be so kind as to link to a credible source (read: "Not Op Ed)"whilst doing so, it would help greatly, as we are so slow on the uptake. Thanks! :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Obama has done exactly as he should throughout this crisis
Dear Leader has only done exactly what he should if you are arguing he should stand to one side and let the world pass by. Were Dear Leader a good leader he would not be pushed along by these events, but would have from the beginning spoken from a bedrock of American principle.

When it takes a man a full week to remember that rights of assembly and free speech are American rights as well, are American virtues as well, and that the natural affinity of America is towards those who desire free speech and free assembly, that man is not doing what any President of the United States should be doing. That man is not leading.
 
The public statements by Dear Leader on Iran have been reactive and reluctant. Instead of taking a stand, articulating core American principles that coincide with the demands of the protesters, using American ideals to find common cause with the protesters, he has attempted to avoid the issue altogether. His latest and strongest statement would have been workmanlike for the occasion--except it was delivered a week late, thus rendering what little strength it otherwise possessed impotent.
...

Dear Leader is properly and roundly criticized for his artless response to Iran. When a people voiced their desire for freedom, Dear Leader once again voted "present."


That was a well explained post by you.
 
Celticlord whines about Obama continuously, and as usual, his logic is faulty. Obama has done exactly as he should throughout this crisis, and mostly just a few hyper-partisan's are complaining about what he as done. Keep up using this as just another chance to throw a hissy because you don't like the president though.

Troll more.
 
Dear Leader has only done exactly what he should if you are arguing he should stand to one side and let the world pass by. Were Dear Leader a good leader he would not be pushed along by these events, but would have from the beginning spoken from a bedrock of American principle.

When it takes a man a full week to remember that rights of assembly and free speech are American rights as well, are American virtues as well, and that the natural affinity of America is towards those who desire free speech and free assembly, that man is not doing what any President of the United States should be doing. That man is not leading.

If Obama had jumped right in and taken a stand, you would have bitched he was jumping the gun. You are in an excellent position in that you can bitch about whatever he does, and you do.

He stated first off that he was troubled by the results. When it became clear the results where fixed, he took a stand against the results, and with the protesters. That was the right way to handle it.

You might have some small amount of credibility in your bitching if you did not spend all your time complaining about every trivial thing you can find.
 
...




That was a well explained post by you.

Going to support your claim yet Triad, or continue to hide and make wild, unfounded accusations?
 
Going to support your claim yet Triad, or continue to hide and make wild, unfounded accusations?

Doubtful. It's much easier just to call the opposing debater a troll than backing up his argument. Isn't faulty logic fun? ;)
 
Dear Leader has only done exactly what he should if you are arguing he should stand to one side and let the world pass by. Were Dear Leader a good leader he would not be pushed along by these events, but would have from the beginning spoken from a bedrock of American principle.

When it takes a man a full week to remember that rights of assembly and free speech are American rights as well, are American virtues as well, and that the natural affinity of America is towards those who desire free speech and free assembly, that man is not doing what any President of the United States should be doing. That man is not leading.



..and now if you look around you start to see subtle attempts to claim the people of Iran rose up because of Obama's speech in Cairo.
"As I said in Cairo,"
Once again ..it about himself and his "speech":roll:
 
If Obama had jumped right in and taken a stand, you would have bitched he was jumping the gun. You are in an excellent position in that you can bitch about whatever he does, and you do.
I have said for several days now that Dear Leader should be speaking emphatically about the rights to free speech, free assembly, and free elections. Of a certainty Dear Leader's stand for free speech and free assembly should have preceded Khamenei's Friday address. There were no principles articulated in Dear Leader's statement that attended upon Khamenei's speech. Dear Leader's statement, said a week earlier, would have been vastly more influential, without lending any credence to charges of "meddling" (which charges came anyway even with Dear Leader's feckless responses to events).

If Dear Leader had said such things in a timely fashion I would be commending him for his Presidential response. When I find agreement with his handling of things, I am not shy about saying so, as you know quite well.
 
..and now if you look around you start to see subtle attempts to claim the people of Iran rose up because of Obama's speech in Cairo.
"As I said in Cairo,"
Once again ..it about himself and his "speech":roll:

That is a huge flaw in your logic. YOU are making it about himself and his speech. You are so stuck on opposing the Obama administration that you don't step back for a second and realize that not every person on the left is exactly as you describe them. So you say that several people on the left have started to make "subtle attempts..." and make it seem as if because of idolatry of Obama from a select group of the democratic party (read: "The far left") that all democrats and liberals must feel that way. I do agree with many of the things Obama has and is trying to accomplish. There ARE also policies of his, both economical and social that I am against. It's people like you that make the split in this country so bad. Most people aren't extreme, yet policy and public perception of policy is only shown on the two extremes. People are so intertwined by the drama caused by the two opposing factions that nobody even really cares about what news is anymore, but instead what is entertaining, taboo, or scandalous.
 
Stop right there. If you cannot even bother to refer to the president without resorting to insults, you don't want a discussion. I could care less what you are saying when you can't bother to take the time to be decent. You just want to push your hyper-partisan rhetoric, which is fine, but don't expect any real conversation.
 
I have said for several days now that Dear Leader should be speaking emphatically about the rights to free speech, free assembly, and free elections. Of a certainty Dear Leader's stand for free speech and free assembly should have preceded Khamenei's Friday address. There were no principles articulated in Dear Leader's statement that attended upon Khamenei's speech. Dear Leader's statement, said a week earlier, would have been vastly more influential, without lending any credence to charges of "meddling" (which charges came anyway even with Dear Leader's feckless responses to events).

If Dear Leader had said such things in a timely fashion I would be commending him for his Presidential response. When I find agreement with his handling of things, I am not shy about saying so, as you know quite well.


I disagree with you fundamentally, but I do appreciate the way you communicate your beliefs.

I think it was wise not to jump the gun and make any harsh decisions before knowing the whole situation and the consequences involved. I think we've too long filled the role of world police, and it is nice to see that we are not getting to actively involved in this situation.
 
Dear Leader has only done exactly what he should if you are arguing he should stand to one side and let the world pass by. Were Dear Leader a good leader he would not be pushed along by these events, but would have from the beginning spoken from a bedrock of American principle.

So the President should take political action, not on the best interest of the country but based on the emotions of the American people?

If you are for Obama taking a firmer stance in support of Mousavi are you willing to accept his decision when the repercussions and alienation occur when the protests stop, Ahmadinejad is accepted as the President, and Iran condemns the US for trying to influence their internal politics?

When it takes a man a full week to remember that rights of assembly and free speech are American rights as well, are American virtues as well, and that the natural affinity of America is towards those who desire free speech and free assembly, that man is not doing what any President of the United States should be doing. That man is not leading.

Sounds like hyperbole to me. What leads you to the conclusion Obama forgot the rights of assembly and free speech? Has Obama condemned these things in someway?
 
Last edited:
I disagree with you fundamentally, but I do appreciate the way you communicate your beliefs.

I think it was wise not to jump the gun and make any harsh decisions before knowing the whole situation and the consequences involved. I think we've too long filled the role of world police, and it is nice to see that we are not getting to actively involved in this situation.
Thanks for your kind words (and apologies for not remembering to say this on the first pass).

Of a certainty this is not a time for saber-rattling or deploying forces or putting a carrier group just off the coast of Iran in the Persian Gulf.

However, it is also not a question of being the world's "police." This is a question of having a foundation of principle from which to speak to whomever prevails in this contest.

There very likely is a people's uprising taking place within the Islamic Republic, and the very existence of the Islamic Republic is a testament to the unstoppable force of a people sufficiently enraged at their government. If the people rise up against the Islamic Republic, that government will cease to exist literally overnight. It will fall as rapidly as Marcos in the Phillippines in 1986 or Ceaucesceau (sp?) in 1989.

If the Islamic Republic falls, how shall we deal with the government that comes after? Do we extend an open hand, one democracy to another? Do we extend a threatening fist, treating them like any other junta in the third world? On what principle can we stand, if while the Iranian people fought and died for their freedom we feigned disinterest and said, in so many words, "Not our problem"?

Similarly, how do we face down the thuggishness of Ahamenijad and the mendacity of Khamenei, should they prevail? If we say nothing now, what prevents them, in their triumph, from dismissing any statements we make afterward as empty and idle?

As I have said for many days now, this is not a time to back any one Iranian candidate; this is not a time to say who did and did not win the election. This is and has been for several days a time to say loudly and often that elections matter, that rights matter, that freedoms matter. Dear Leader has said these things but once, and only upon compulsion by events. That is not leadership, and that is not building a bedrock of principle to deal with whatever government prevails in Iran.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is that stupid.

Stop Trolling.

Moderator's Warning:
Triad, knock of the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom