• 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'

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?
Standing tall for the unalienable rights of men is not influencing. We need say nothing more than who we are as Americans, what our heritage is as a nation, and what principles we hold dear. Nothing in what need be said favors one side or the other, save that Khamenei's side blanches at the thought of free and unfettered elections.

Standing tall for who we are is always in our best interests. It presents a principled face to the world, without being preachy. We need not say that all the world should follow our model, merely that we are witness to the virtues of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

As for the condemnations....those came anyway. Khamenei will use that club as long as he can to retain power, without regard for truth. As he will say such things regardless of what we do, even if we do nothing at all, why should that stand against our speaking out?

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?
It took him a full week to say what any American President should be eager to say. Perhaps he did not forget it; perhaps someone forgot to load it into his teleprompter. What is certain is that it took him a week too long to say what should be said daily.
 
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.

What exactly does the President repeating this add to the situation in Iran? How many times should he repeat it? Should there be a press conference once a week solely on the topic of freedom and elections?

The US stance on freedom, democracy, and elections, is clear and I think is a waste of time of Obama to verbally repeat.

I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. We just need to see how far the Iran people are will to take their uprising. They traded in the Shah monarch for a Theocratic monarch. Are they willing to rebel again for a true democracy?
 
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 insult the President because his ineffectual presence in the Oval Office insults this country. He is a disgrace, a callow contemptible creature, and I treat him with the contempt that is his just due.
 
Standing tall for the unalienable rights of men is not influencing. We need say nothing more than who we are as Americans, what our heritage is as a nation, and what principles we hold dear. Nothing in what need be said favors one side or the other, save that Khamenei's side blanches at the thought of free and unfettered elections.

Standing tall for who we are is always in our best interests. It presents a principled face to the world, without being preachy. We need not say that all the world should follow our model, merely that we are witness to the virtues of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

As for the condemnations....those came anyway. Khamenei will use that club as long as he can to retain power, without regard for truth. As he will say such things regardless of what we do, even if we do nothing at all, why should that stand against our speaking out?

I guess I just don't see the purpose of Obama stating our countries Mission Statement repeatedly. It's not about America. It's about Iran and what the Iran people want form their government. It's great that America is this great place and believes in all these things. How does stating that help the Iran protesters?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Triad, knock of the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.

Utter BS.

They troll I respond I get told to be nice.

WTF are you on?

Redress trolled and so blatantly that they had to act stupid.
Nobody is that Stupid.

I reported the troll posts..now I reported the mods post.
 
Last edited:
What exactly does the President repeating this add to the situation in Iran? How many times should he repeat it? Should there be a press conference once a week solely on the topic of freedom and elections?

The US stance on freedom, democracy, and elections, is clear and I think is a waste of time of Obama to verbally repeat.

I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. We just need to see how far the Iran people are will to take their uprising. They traded in the Shah monarch for a Theocratic monarch. Are they willing to rebel again for a true democracy?
If all Dear Leader has in his arsenal of communications is his teleprompter than he is indeed ill-fitted for the Oval Office.

There are many mechanisms for stating the official position of the United States: In addition to his own mellifluous voice, he has at his disposal a Press Secretary, a Secretary of State, special envoys, and an Ambassador to the United Nations, all of whom as part of their regular functions have frequent contact with the media, and all of whom could expect to field questions regarding Iran. The message is framed in the Oval Office, then reiterated throughout the Executive Branch.

Reiterating the bedrock principles of this country accomplishes several things:

  1. In championing the rights of men and the rule of law, we let the protesters know their cause will be well received; the hard challenges are theirs, but if they prevail, their struggle will not be unrecognized by the world.
  2. In championing the rights of men and the rule of law, we challenge Khamenei and Ahamenijad to defend what they have done as in keeping with the law--when it is patently obvious to one and all that it is not. Can Khamenei stay his current course when the pretense that all he has done is in keeping with Shar'iah, when it is ever clearer that such is a lie? Will the Assembly of Experts continue to remain passive while Khamenei violates not just the human rights of the Iranian people, but fundamental tenets of Islamic law, of which he is charged to be the supreme guardian? This especially needs to come to the fore--that Khamenei, Supreme Leader and Grand Ayatollah, presumed to be the greatest authority on Islamic Law in the Islamic Republic, is committing flagrant violations of Islamic Law.
  3. In championing the rights of men and the rule of law, we challenge all the Islamic nations--all the members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)--to measure up to their own Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
It is not for us to lecture the world on Islamic Law, or in the rights of men under Islamic Law. Indeed, if we said nothing but that we would seem offensively arrogant, presuming to know that Law better than the mullahs.

However, we do not need to lecture anyone on Islamic Law. We have our own law, and in that law there are the same threads of respect for the rights of men, for the principles of free speech and free assembly that are found in the Cairo Declaration. We need only say to Iran: Regardless of our differences, in these things at least we agree with the Cairo Declaration; in these things at least we agree with you.

Iran is a signatory to the Cairo Declaration. In standing firm on our own principles, we celebrate and raise up the Cairo Declaration. If Iran will join in that celebration, the outcome of their internal conflict will have, within their law, a just and equitable solution.
 
....

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.

As a staunch Conservative, I will NEVER support ANY use of American troops in any form of intervention ever again. The American people do not have the will, the capacity or willingness to sacrifice to achieve any form of victory and have shown a complete unwillingness to support the efforts when our men and women who are placed at risk and making the ultimate sacrifice.

After the efforts of the Government run media, Liberals and Democrats to impugn the previous administration for fighting two wars they voted FOR, I will never support any American troops ever being placed in harms way for this nation again; at least until we all grow up and drop the veil of ignorance that appears to shroud the thinking of most of our population.
 
This whole thing is way too big for Obama. This real-life stuff isn't what he bargained for.

The Messiah isn't wondering why the Iranians are in the streets.

The Messiah wondering why they're not kowtowing to him.
 
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.

Were you this outraged during the 8 years of demagoguery, insults and outright false accusations used by Liberals against Bush and Cheney?

What is fascinating about Liberals, and I am not suggesting you are one, is that when Bush was President he was fair game to insults, false claims about stealing elections, failing in Iraq, failing in Afghanistan, failure in New Orleans and the farcical claims that 9-11 was an inside job used to make a false case to invade Iraq.

Now suddenly when their guy is in charge, we are told that it is NOT fair to criticize the man. Why is that? This blatant hypocrisy of a double standard is OBVIOUS to anyone who is not wallowing in self imposed denial.

ANY politician is fair game and those who wish to defend them should do so with FACTS and the record. So far in my opinion, Obama has failed to honor many of his campaign promises to the constituents he pandered to as a candidate, has failed to end many of the very Bush policies he claimed were wrong as a candidate, and has now spent the nation into a deficit hole many generations will be paying for and still wants to spend even more without a single CREDIBLE debate about how to pay for it all.

During the Bush Presidency, all we heard from Liberals was how Bush was so wrong for NOT raising taxes instead of giving tax breaks and how irresponsible it was to run up a deficit. Now we see the same Liberals justifying a $1.8 trillion deficit with trillions more to come without a single debate about how it is to be paid for and an obvious effort to NOT have a discussion about raising taxes for purely political purposes.

So please spare us such disingenuous and selective whining about those who now RIGHTFULLY criticize Obama and his politics.
 
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.

Excellently said.
 
Utter BS.

They troll I respond I get told to be nice.

WTF are you on?

Redress trolled and so blatantly that they had to act stupid.
Nobody is that Stupid.

I reported the troll posts..now I reported the mods post.

Bad idea to argue with a MOD in the forum; hurry back Triad!

I hate when fellow Conservatives allow trollers to get the best of them and then engage in behavior that gets infracted.

We must learn how to turn it against those who troll and bait. :cool:
 
The US stance on freedom, democracy, and elections, is clear and I think is a waste of time of Obama to verbally repeat.

No. It's not clear at all. The party that elected The Messiah has a LONG history of fraudulent elections and attempted fraud. As recently as 2000 the Democrats tried to steal the Whitehouse by attempting to distort the vote in Floriduh!. Al Franken, Democrat, has apparently successfully forged enough votes to steal a Minnesota Senate seat. Where's The Messiah's home district? Oh, yeah. Chicago. What's Chicago famous for? Election fraud. Illinois is going to be the only state in the union with TWO governors in jail at the same time for crimes committed in office. How's the thing with Senator Burris going, hmmmm?

No. It's not clear at all where your Messiah stands on the American ideal of open and honest elections, the rights of the people to assemble and peaceably protest, or any other traditional American ideal.

So, yes, your Messiah must state publicly, lucidly, and firmly, what his positions are on those topics because the evidence doesn't favor his supporting them.
 
Back
Top Bottom