Int'l Issues Ahmadinejad could rule forever thanks to Obama [Archive]

patteeu

06-16-2009, 10:18 PM

By the way, aren't you advocating the exact opposite, which would still involve intervening in one part of the Middle East and not intervening in the other?

I mean, seriously.

Uh, yeah. I propose that we INTERVENE in the country ruled by a rogue dictatorship that sponsors terrorism, threatens it's regional neighbors, is unfriendly to the US, and is actively supporting the Taliban and anti-government elements in Iraq and NOT INTERVENE in a country that is a close ally. I don't think that's such a strange concept.

How much comfort can an Iranian protester take when Obama talks about waiting to see how this all shakes out and about how he doesn't want to come across as interfering with Iran's internal political process? I mean, after Obama's great, historic speech in Cairo, can't he follow up with some inspiring commentary by specifically applying some of those lofty words to the present situation in Iran? Has the cat got his teleprompter? :shrug:

patteeu

06-16-2009, 10:19 PM

Yeah, the irony of this thread is hilarious pat... I'm suprised you bothered.

I'm sorry. I must have missed the irony. Whatchu talking about?

patteeu

06-16-2009, 10:21 PM

Has pat lost his burst??????

SAY IT AINT SO PAT

SAY IT AINT SO

I've definitely lost my burst, if I ever even had a burst. :)

WoodDraw

06-16-2009, 10:45 PM

Uh, yeah. I propose that we INTERVENE in the country ruled by a rogue dictatorship that sponsors terrorism, threatens it's regional neighbors, is unfriendly to the US, and is actively supporting the Taliban and anti-government elements in Iraq and NOT INTERVENE in a country that is a close ally. I don't think that's such a strange concept.

How much comfort can an Iranian protester take when Obama talks about waiting to see how this all shakes out and about how he doesn't want to come across as interfering with Iran's internal political process? I mean, after Obama's great, historic speech in Cairo, can't he follow up with some inspiring commentary by specifically applying some of those lofty words to the present situation in Iran? Has the cat got his teleprompter? :shrug:

Intervene how? What could we do now for Iran that would improve the situation over what they're doing on their own?

Or do you favor the John McCain approach that says "if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail. But this regime has tight control." Steadfast in what? Tweeting?

How can you think that inserting American rhetoric into Iran right now can have any positive effect? Based solely on our past history as spooning partners, or some newfound insight?

petegz28

06-16-2009, 10:48 PM

The fact is Bush called out Ahmenutjob and the Left along with some others slammed him for it. Now those very same people are pissed cause he more than likely stole an election and Obama's speech turned gospel did nothing to change the fact that Ahmenutjob is a bad, bad man.

WoodDraw

06-16-2009, 10:49 PM

petegz28

06-16-2009, 11:01 PM

The left slammed him for it? When?

Well we could just start with the whole Axis of Evil comment. Then all the "Bush won't talk to Iran" rhetoric.

SBK

06-16-2009, 11:44 PM

Iran proved they cannot be trusted to the very people who want us to talk with them, negotiate with them--and they STILL want us to do that.

HILARIOUS.

WoodDraw

06-17-2009, 12:00 AM

Well we could just start with the whole Axis of Evil comment. Then all the "Bush won't talk to Iran" rhetoric.

Bush gave his "Axis of Evil" speech in January of 2002. Ahmadinejad became President of Iran in 2005.

BucEyedPea

06-17-2009, 04:28 AM

Some Obama supporters around here apparently think it's fine if their man tries to interfere with Israeli politics but agree with him that it would be wrong to be more supportive of the freedom movement in Iran. Go figure.

Thats an easy one. Israel wouldn't exist without money and arms from the US.
Where there's money to be given from our govt strings are usually attached. Same old story. Israel should be set free from us too. Then she'll in her own interests more.

But the fact is we've been intervening in Iran fomenting and agitating, using car bombs, hiring MEK ( a terrorist group), kidnappings since we went into Iraq.

BucEyedPea

06-17-2009, 04:29 AM

Bush gave his "Axis of Evil" speech in January of 2002. Ahmadinejad became President of Iran in 2005.

That doesn't mean anything since the man has no power. The mullahs hold it.

BigRedChief

06-17-2009, 06:46 AM

huh? Get involved in Iranian politics? We will see a more USA friendly regime if we do that, how?

wild1

06-17-2009, 07:06 AM

petegz28

06-17-2009, 07:39 AM

Bush gave his "Axis of Evil" speech in January of 2002. Ahmadinejad became President of Iran in 2005.

Pretty good fortune telling then heh? Maybe it is not just about the "Nutjob" but the people propping him up?

patteeu

06-17-2009, 07:46 AM

Intervene how? What could we do now for Iran that would improve the situation over what they're doing on their own?

Or do you favor the John McCain approach that says "if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail. But this regime has tight control." Steadfast in what? Tweeting?

How can you think that inserting American rhetoric into Iran right now can have any positive effect? Based solely on our past history as spooning partners, or some newfound insight?

Hopefully we're already doing something in the way of covert assistance to dissendent groups in Iran, but publicly, the least Obama could be doing is clearly expressing American moral support for the freedom movement in Iran.

How does remaining silent, for all practical purposes, have any positive effect?

J Diddy

06-17-2009, 07:49 AM

Hopefully we're already doing something in the way of covert assistance to dissendent groups in Iran, but publicly, the least Obama could be doing is clearly expressing American moral support for the freedom movement in Iran.

How does remaining silent have any positive effect?

How does anything he does have any effect?

President or no, we know who's running iran.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 07:55 AM

How does anything he does have any effect?

President or no, we know who's running iran.

Then why not be more clear that we share the same values with those in Iran who are demonstrating for fair elections?

Answer: because Obama would rather let the Iranian demonstrators stand alone than upset the rulers in Iran.

J Diddy

06-17-2009, 07:59 AM

Then why not be more clear that we share the same values with those in Iran who are demonstrating for fair elections?

Answer: because Obama would rather let the Iranian demonstrators stand alone than upset the rulers in Iran.

and if he supported moussavea (sp) you'd be complaining that he's antagonizing the iranian govt in a matter that doesn't matter.

dirk digler

06-17-2009, 08:03 AM

Then why not be more clear that we share the same values with those in Iran who are demonstrating for fair elections?

Answer: because Obama would rather let the Iranian demonstrators stand alone than upset the rulers in Iran.

Bill O'Reilly discussed this last night and said the US and Iran have a quiet agreement in place that Iran not interfere with Iraq or Afghanistan and that is one of the main reasons why violence is down.

So the Obama administration has to be careful because if they tick off Iran that could just start up more violence in both countries.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 08:15 AM

and if he supported moussavea (sp) you'd be complaining that he's antagonizing the iranian govt in a matter that doesn't matter.

Yeah, because I've been such a consistent supporter of Ahmadinejad. :rolleyes:

patteeu

06-17-2009, 08:16 AM

Bill O'Reilly discussed this last night and said the US and Iran have a quiet agreement in place that Iran not interfere with Iraq or Afghanistan and that is one of the main reasons why violence is down.

So the Obama administration has to be careful because if they tick off Iran that could just start up more violence in both countries.

Ah, appeasement. Thanks. See thread title.

dirk digler

06-17-2009, 08:18 AM

Ah, appeasement. Thanks. See thread title.

I don't know if it is appeasement this agreement took place 2 years ago or a little less according to O'Reilly and whatever military expert they had on.

BigRedChief

06-17-2009, 08:19 AM

Ah, appeasement. Thanks. See thread title.
So Bill Oreilly's opinion/insight now is passed off as fact?

patteeu

06-17-2009, 08:32 AM

I don't know if it is appeasement this agreement took place 2 years ago or a little less according to O'Reilly and whatever military expert they had on.

It's not the agreement that is appeasement.

dirk digler

06-17-2009, 08:32 AM

So Bill Oreilly's opinion/insight now is passed off as fact?

The point is that the Bush administration made this agreement with Iran 2 years ago or a little less and that is one of the main reasons why violence dropped like a rock in Iraq. They have a similar agreement in regards to Afghanistan.

So O'Reilly's point is Obama has to be careful because if they start meddling then Iran can pull that agreement and violence will explode in Iraq and that means more US causalities.

That is a fine line to walk when you are put between a rock and a hard place

patteeu

06-17-2009, 08:33 AM

So Bill Oreilly's opinion/insight now is passed off as fact?

You should ask dirk that question.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 08:49 AM

BigRedChief

06-17-2009, 09:21 AM

I don't know if it is appeasement this agreement took place 2 years ago or a little less according to O'Reilly and whatever military expert they had on.
I'm sure there are behind the scenes and wink/wink deals in international diplomacy but who can say whats true and whats not true? If you really know and you reveal it to Bill Oreilly or anyone else for that matter is a treasonous act.

Direckshun

06-17-2009, 12:50 PM

I take it that the billions and billions of aid and weaponry we provide Israel every year extremely discomforts pat because of how much intervening that's responsible for.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 01:57 PM

:spock:

Is this thread and specifically this post TIC and bait?

I don't really think that Ahmadinejad will be ruling forever if that's what you're asking. The thread is a parody of dirk digler's "Ahmadinejad could be out thanks to Obama (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=208946)" thread but I think it points out a serious upside down aspect to Obama policy which in some respects amounts to accommodating an enemy regime and bullying a friendly one.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 02:06 PM

I take it that the billions and billions of aid and weaponry we provide Israel every year extremely discomforts pat because of how much intervening that's responsible for.

:spock: I don't see how it's possible that I could have been that unclear. Let me try to simplify:

Close ally: Undermine the government = bad

Rogue regime that sponsors terrorism, undermines our war efforts, and considers us the Great Satan: Undermine the government = good

patteeu

06-17-2009, 02:07 PM

The point is that the Bush administration made this agreement with Iran 2 years ago or a little less and that is one of the main reasons why violence dropped like a rock in Iraq. They have a similar agreement in regards to Afghanistan.

So O'Reilly's point is Obama has to be careful because if they start meddling then Iran can pull that agreement and violence will explode in Iraq and that means more US causalities.

That is a fine line to walk when you are put between a rock and a hard place

If such an agreement exists, the Iranians haven't been living up to it.

fan4ever

06-17-2009, 02:16 PM

This whole ugly situation could have been avoided if we'd only had Jimmy Carter over there making sure the election was legit. Damn.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 04:27 PM

I don't really think that Ahmadinejad will be ruling forever if that's what you're asking. The thread is a parody of dirk digler's "Ahmadinejad could be out thanks to Obama (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=208946)" thread but I think it points out a serious upside down aspect to Obama policy which in some respects amounts to accommodating an enemy regime and bullying a friendly one.

My underlying assertion was that you - of all people - should understand the nuance of the situation.

On the one hand, you have a government claiming victory. This is the government you thought you'd have to deal with, the one you don't necessarily like, and the one that for all intents and purposes is planning on ruling the country (as of now). And if you overtly cater to the revolting group, you risk losing diplomatic status with Ahmeddinnerjob. Indeed, even the State Dept advising Twitter to stay up is apparently too much for them.

On the other, you have a band of people with their candidate (who, incidentally, isn't that much different policy wise as Ahmedajimad) who are revolting against an obvious fraudulent election. This resonates with the American dream to the core. And if you overtly cater to Ahmeddinnerjob and the people succeed, you have the same tough predicament in the other situation where you've alienated the people in charge.

Therefore, the prudent move - unless it really starts to escalate - is to sit back. To say, you guys need to figure it out but the unrest seems to indicate things in itself. Which, of course, is what he's done. I'd personally love for him to tell them to screw themselves and help the revolutionaries but I respect why he hasn't (and can't).

dirk digler

06-17-2009, 04:53 PM

If such an agreement exists, the Iranians haven't been living up to it.

I don't know it seems awfully coincidental that violence dropped like a rock in Iraq at about the same the agreement was put in place.

I just remembered who's OReilly's guest was last night and it was Michael Scheurer. He also confirmed such an agreement.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 05:18 PM

Pat - Case in point: I like @BarakObama & I think he h/done the RIGHT thing, that's like how #Mousavi is telling #GR88 what 2do; with Silence! #IranEleciton

Per known Iran twitterer

patteeu

06-17-2009, 05:20 PM

My underlying assertion was that you - of all people - should understand the nuance of the situation.

On the one hand, you have a government claiming victory. This is the government you thought you'd have to deal with, the one you don't necessarily like, and the one that for all intents and purposes is planning on ruling the country (as of now). And if you overtly cater to the revolting group, you risk losing diplomatic status with Ahmeddinnerjob. Indeed, even the State Dept advising Twitter to stay up is apparently too much for them.

On the other, you have a band of people with their candidate (who, incidentally, isn't that much different policy wise as Ahmedajimad) who are revolting against an obvious fraudulent election. This resonates with the American dream to the core. And if you overtly cater to Ahmeddinnerjob and the people succeed, you have the same tough predicament in the other situation where you've alienated the people in charge.

Therefore, the prudent move - unless it really starts to escalate - is to sit back. To say, you guys need to figure it out but the unrest seems to indicate things in itself. Which, of course, is what he's done. I'd personally love for him to tell them to screw themselves and help the revolutionaries but I respect why he hasn't (and can't).

So now, beyond just being willing to allow the Iranians to meet with us face to face, we're desperate for them to let us talk to them?

The criticism of candidate Obama's seeming willingness to go beyond the Bush administration's willingness to talk by offering face to face talks at the POTUS level (first with no preconditions and later with "preparations") was that it was too much of a reward for a regime that didn't deserve that kind of prestigious treatment. That was bad enough. Now, you're talking about future talks as though they are A REWARD FOR US AS LONG AS WE BEHAVE in a way that won't get the Iranian regime mad at us. We're racing down the slippery slope of desperate appeasement.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 05:22 PM

Pat - Case in point:
Per known Iran twitterer

Ahmadinejad thinks Obama is doing the right thing too. Isn't that what your previous post about preserving the ability to talk to him after these protests are put down implied?

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 05:29 PM

So now, beyond just being willing to allow the Iranians to meet with us face to face, we're desperate for them to let us talk to them?

I'm not sure if this answers it but I'm of the opinion that pre-conditions are (political) bullshit.

The criticism of candidate Obama's seeming willingness to go beyond the Bush administration's willingness to talk by offering face to face talks at the POTUS level (first with no preconditions and later with "preparations") was that it was too much of a reward for a regime that didn't deserve that kind of prestigious treatment. That was bad enough. Now, you're talking about future talks as though they are A REWARD FOR US AS LONG AS WE BEHAVE in a way that won't get the Iranian regime mad at us. We're racing down the slippery slope of desperate appeasement.

First, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the whole preconditions nonsense.

Second, I think talks generally work better when both sides are appeased. Or, at the least, not insisting that one just tried to screw the other over.

Third, it sounds like - by extension of your argument (my reading between the lines) - you could be hoping that Ahmadinejad does regain power in which case the "talking" aspect of Obama's plan would be hindered thereby giving credence to Bush's tactics. Am I way out in left on that one?

Ahmadinejad thinks Obama is doing the right thing too. Isn't that what your previous post about preserving the ability to talk to him after these protests are put down implied?

Actually, no. Ahmadinejad and his ilk are complaining that the US is meddling just by telling Twitter to remain active. It could already be too late.

I wasn't advocating a side on the issue necessarily. I'm just expressing the nuance of the situation. Apparently, I was wrong; you aren't one of the few people who would understand it.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 05:30 PM

I don't know it seems awfully coincidental that violence dropped like a rock in Iraq at about the same the agreement was put in place.

I just remembered who's OReilly's guest was last night and it was Michael Scheurer. He also confirmed such an agreement.

It seems coincidental that the violence dropped when the surge took effect and when the Sunni tribesmen started switching sides too. The Iranians have been walking a line for the past several years trying to do as much as they can to undermine us without going so far as to provoke a serious retaliation. They may have made an agreement and they may have even reduced their activities in some respects, but they haven't stopped trying to undermine us in Iraq or Afghanistan. Here are a couple of examples from well after the supposed agreement.

U.S. details Quds Force's 'lethal support' to Taliban (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/25/quds.force/index.html)

Iran undermines Iraq's Awakening movement (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/02/iran_undermines_iraq.php)

patteeu

06-17-2009, 06:12 PM

I'm not sure if this answers it but I'm of the opinion that pre-conditions are (political) bullshit.

I think lack of pre-conditions is political bullshit. :shrug:

First, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the whole preconditions nonsense.

OK

Second, I think talks generally work better when both sides are appeased. Or, at the least, not insisting that one just tried to screw the other over.

What are the Iranians doing to set up that scenario?

Third, it sounds like - by extension of your argument (my reading between the lines) - you could be hoping that Ahmadinejad does regain power in which case the "talking" aspect of Obama's plan would be hindered thereby giving credence to Bush's tactics. Am I way out in left on that one?

Nope, I want Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah's who manage him to fall to the popular revolt that the US has been trying to foster for at least the last 8 1/2 years.

Actually, no. Ahmadinejad and his ilk are complaining that the US is meddling just by telling Twitter to remain active. It could already be too late.

I wasn't advocating a side on the issue necessarily. I'm just expressing the nuance of the situation. Apparently, I was wrong; you aren't one of the few people who would understand it.

Your post mentioned "silence". Ahmadinejad is happy about Obama's silence too.

J Diddy

06-17-2009, 06:17 PM

I think lack of pre-conditions is political bullshit. :shrug:

OK

What are the Iranians doing to set up that scenario?

Nope, I want Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah's who manage him to fall to the popular revolt that the US has been trying to foster for at least the last 8 1/2 years.

Your post mentioned "silence". Ahmadinejad is happy about Obama's silence too.

I agree with Obamas assertation that there is no big difference in their policies. So speaking as to our hopes, either way, is pointless and will most likely in either scenario leave us as looking like world bullies.

As far as your theory on "preconditioned meetings" that is ridiculous. How can someone negotiate in good faith when the precondition to negotiating is getting some of your demands met. Sounds like your idea of negotiating is akin to hostage negotiation, with us being the kidnappers.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 06:23 PM

What are the Iranians doing to set up that scenario?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Nope, I want Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah's who manage him to fall to the popular revolt that the US has been trying to foster for at least the last 8 1/2 years.

Fair enough. Though I think the reasons we agree on that point are vastly different. (Yours seems to be validation of Bush whereas mine is the abolition of a dangerous theocracy.)

Your post mentioned "silence". Ahmadinejad is happy about Obama's silence too.

Yes, the quote I had mentioned silence. They are protesting peacefully and relatively silently.

I'm not sure as to your assertion that Ahmadinejad is happy about Obama's silence. Link?

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 06:36 PM

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Fair enough. Though I think the reasons we agree on that point are vastly different. (Yours seems to be validation of Bush whereas mine is the abolition of a dangerous theocracy.)

Yes, the quote I had mentioned silence. They are protesting peacefully and relatively silently.

I'm not sure as to your assertion that Ahmadinejad is happy about Obama's silence. Link?

Do you consider the Obama administration asking Twitter to stay online so that the Iranian opposition could post information in direct defiance of their government to be meddling?

I don't see how that is any different than another country encouraging piracy and US copyright infringement.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 06:39 PM

Do you consider the Obama administration asking Twitter to stay online so that the Iranian opposition could post information in direct defiance of their government to be meddling?

I don't see how that is any different than another country encouraging piracy and US copyright infringement.

I draw a clear distinction here that you might not agree with. That is, this was a peaceful protest rather than a riot/revolution. Because of that, it was one side inflicting all the damage and one side taking all the damage. Asking the only communication they had to friends/family either in Iran or outside Iran not to shut down for planned maintenance doesn't - in my book - count as meddling.

You can ignore that distinction if you want.

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 06:53 PM

I draw a clear distinction here that you might not agree with. That is, this was a peaceful protest rather than a riot/revolution. Because of that, it was one side inflicting all the damage and one side taking all the damage. Asking the only communication they had to friends/family either in Iran or outside Iran not to shut down for planned maintenance doesn't - in my book - count as meddling.

You can ignore that distinction if you want.

Meddle: To intrude into other people's affairs or business; interfere

I'm not asking if it was a noble cause. I'm asking if it was meddling. The Obama administration took an active role in helping Iranian dissidents usurp directives of the Iranian government.

Notice that the definition does not draw a distinction. Iraq inflicted all of the damage against a peaceful Kuwait. Would you assert that we didn't meddle in their affairs in GWI?

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 07:03 PM

Meddle: To intrude into other people's affairs or business; interfere

I'm not asking if it was a noble cause. I'm asking if it was meddling. The Obama administration took an active role in helping Iranian dissidents usurp directives of the Iranian government.

By that definition, it was meddling. Of course, I see more grey than you want to.

Notice that the definition does not draw a distinction. Iraq inflicted all of the damage against a peaceful Kuwait. Would you assert that we didn't meddle in their affairs in GWI?

I don't think stepping in to stop borderline genocide or genocide itself is meddling. And even if it is, I'll defend it every time because I'd expect it be done for me if the time came.

orange

06-17-2009, 07:08 PM

Some Obama supporters around here apparently think it's fine if their man tries to interfere with Israeli politics but agree with him that it would be wrong to be more supportive of the freedom movement in Iran. Go figure.

The original claim above is poppycock. I haven't seen a single instance of a liberal who doesn't want Ahmadinejad ousted.

The point is Obama getting more publicly involved would be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, not wrong.

The Iranians do not want and would not welcome foreign interference in their internal affairs.

[edit] The hard-liners are already trying to play the "America is Satan" card. There is no use giving them ammo.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of "intolerable" meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter postelection dispute. Opposition supporters marched in huge numbers through Tehran's streets for a third straight day to protest the outcome of the balloting.

The Iranian government summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests in Iran, to complain about American interference, state-run Press TV reported.

The English-language channel said the government called Western interference "intolerable."

A State Department spokesman said the U.S. was withholding judgment about the election and not interfering in Iranian internal affairs.

President Barack Obama has reacted cautiously to opposition allegations that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the election, saying he shared the world's "deep concerns" but it was "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/mousavi-calls-for-new-ral_n_216626.html

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:17 PM

By that definition, it was meddling. Of course, I see more grey than you want to.

I don't think stepping in to stop borderline genocide or genocide itself is meddling. And even if it is, I'll defend it every time because I'd expect it be done for me if the time came.

So you admit that it was meddling. How do you reconcile that with Obama's statement that the US should not meddle in Iranian affairs?

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:19 PM

The original claim above is poppycock. I haven't seen a single instance of a liberal who doesn't want Ahmadinejad ousted.

If wanting something and supporting something were one in the same, you would have a point.

Support: To provide aid or assistance

Want: to feel a need or a desire for; wish for

Alas, it doesn't, and you don't.

Uncle_Ted

06-17-2009, 07:24 PM

Some Obama supporters around here apparently think it's fine if their man tries to interfere with Israeli politics but agree with him that it would be wrong to be more supportive of the freedom movement in Iran. Go figure.

How the hell do you make it through the day without stepping in front of a bus or pouring Clorox on your cornflakes?

:shake:

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 07:24 PM

So you admit that it was meddling. How do you reconcile that with Obama's statement that the US should not meddle in Iranian affairs?

Simple: we might have different definitions of meddling. And where to draw the line.

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:28 PM

Simple: we might have different definitions of meddling. And where to draw the line.

You have a different dictionary than I do? Care to post your definition?

Obama didn't say that we shouldn't meddle beyond a certain line. He said that we shouldn't meddle. Then he took an active role in encouraging an American company to assist Iranian dissidents in breaking the law. If that's not meddling, I don't know what is.

That said, I don't disagree with what he did. I just take issue with his propensity to say one thing and then do the exact opposite.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 07:32 PM

You have a different dictionary than I do? Care to post your definition?

Obama didn't say that we shouldn't meddle beyond a certain line. He said that we shouldn't meddle. Then he took an active role in encouraging an American company to assist Iranian dissidents in breaking the law. If that's not meddling, I don't know what is.

That said, I don't disagree with what he did. I just take issue with his propensity to say one thing and then do the exact opposite.

Accessing twitter wasn't against the law until after the coup. That kind of information would be part of the grey area I'm talking about.

As for meddling, in general, do you think the US should meddle with other countries business?

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:35 PM

Accessing twitter wasn't against the law until after the coup. That kind of information would be part of the grey area I'm talking about.

As for meddling, in general, do you think the US should meddle with other countries business?

It was against the law, and it was clearly against the Iranian government's wishes. Otherwise, keeping Twitter up wouldn't have been so important.

I think that there is a time and a place to meddle. Barack Imadenojobs is the one who said that we shouldn't meddle in this instance, not me.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 07:37 PM

It was against the law, and it was clearly against the Iranian government's wishes. Otherwise, keeping Twitter up wouldn't have been so important.

Again, the timing of the illegal activity is crucial. It wasn't illegal until AFTER the protesting began.

I think that there is a time and a place to meddle. Barack Imadenojobs is the one who said that we shouldn't meddle in this instance, not me.

So saying who should have nukes and who shouldn't would qualify as meddling?

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:41 PM

Again, the timing of the illegal activity is crucial. It wasn't illegal until AFTER the protesting began.

So saying who should have nukes and who shouldn't would qualify as meddling?

1. Meddling isn't limited to things that are illegal. If I know that my friend's wife is cheating on him and I send him a picture of her with another guy, that's meddling. It's perfectly legal, but it's still meddling.

2. WTF does that have to do with anything? I have already said that there is a time and a place for meddling. Imadenojobs is the one who said that we shouldn't meddle here, not me. In case you're unclear, I am not posting this from the Oval Office. We are two different people.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 07:46 PM

1. Meddling isn't limited to things that are illegal. If I know that my friend's wife is cheating on him and I send him a picture of her with another guy, that's meddling. It's perfectly legal, but it's still meddling.

I think there's another angle that hasn't been discussed. Twitter would have stayed up regardless. So, moot point.

2. WTF does that have to do with anything? I have already said that there is a time and a place for meddling. Imadenojobs is the one who said that we shouldn't meddle here, not me. In case you're unclear, I am not posting this from the Oval Office. We are two different people.

Sorry, it was meant as general tangent. I'm curious as to your response.

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:47 PM

I take it that the billions and billions of aid and weaponry we provide Israel every year extremely discomforts pat because of how much intervening that's responsible for.

How is giving an ally aid at their request intervening? That has nothing to do with this situation.

Intervene: to come between; intercede; mediate

That an antonym of aid, as in the opposite of. You literally could not be more incorrect in your analogy if you tried.

orange

06-17-2009, 07:48 PM

1. Meddling isn't limited to things that are illegal. If I know that my friend's wife is cheating on him and I send him a picture of her with another guy, that's meddling. It's perfectly legal, but it's still meddling.

2. WTF does that have to do with anything? I have already said that there is a time and a place for meddling. Imadenojobs is the one who said that we shouldn't meddle here, not me. In case you're unclear, I am not posting this from the Oval Office. We are two different people.

Who cares what Ahmadinejad says? Obama and the administration will do what they think they can get away with without getting their fingerprints on it.

patteeu and some others on the right are calling for overt support of the opposition. Obama isn't going to do that, and for good, sound, PRACTICAL reasons.

I would note that there are some on the right who get it, too. Buchanan and Kristol come to mind.

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:50 PM

I think there's another angle that hasn't been discussed. Twitter would have stayed up regardless. So, moot point.

Iran should have never had a bunch of assholes running the country, either. I guess the whole thing is a moot point. What the hell does that even mean?

Sorry, it was meant as general tangent. I'm curious as to your response.

I think that the US is obligated to act in our own best interests. If it is in our best interests to say who should and shouldn't have nukes, then we should do so. If it is not, then we should not.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 07:52 PM

Iran should have never had a bunch of assholes running the country, either. I guess the whole thing is a moot point. What the hell does that even mean?

It means it hardly constitutes meddling.

What you want me to do is admit that Obama is practicing hypocrisy. I'm not going to do that because it's more grey than you want to let on. There's more nuance here than you want to admit.

I think that the US is obligated to act in our own best interests. If it is in our best interests to say who should and shouldn't have nukes, then we should do so. If it is not, then we should not.

So which is it, in your opinion?

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:52 PM

Who cares what Ahmadinejad says? Obama and the administration will do what they think they can get away with without getting their fingerprints on it.

Ahmadinejad isn't the one who said it. Barack Imadenojob is...and oh, crap. He got some fingerprints on it:

"1 - 10 of 17,500,000 for obama twitter maintenance"

orange

06-17-2009, 07:57 PM

Ahmadinejad isn't the one who said it. Barack Imadenojob is...and oh, crap. He got some fingerprints on it:

"1 - 10 of 17,500,000 for obama twitter maintenance"

Sorry to disappoint you but none of the Iran opposition is upset that Twitter is still available. I guess Obama got away with it.

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 07:59 PM

It means it hardly constitutes meddling.

What you want me to do is admit that Obama is practicing hypocrisy. I'm not going to do that because it's more grey than you want to let on. There's more nuance here than you want to admit.

There is no nuance. He actively encouraged an American company to assist Iranian dissidents. You can see all of the "grey" areas you want. Hell, you can even see "gray" areas if you want to since that is an actual word. That doesn't make it so. It just makes you colorblind

So which is it, in your opinion?
I think that we have stepped way too deep into this mess for way too long. I think that we failed to be strong when we had the chance during the years that we had the bomb and nobody else did.

Instead, we got all wobbly in the knees, and the horses are out of the barn. It doesn't really matter what we do because there are already thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of people with bad intentions. The best we can hope for is to dissuade those who have them from using them and those who don't have them not to pursue them.

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 08:02 PM

Sorry to disappoint you but none of the Iran opposition is upset that Twitter is still available. I guess Obama got away with it.

Are you dense? I'm not saying that he was interfering with the dissidents. I'm saying that he was interfering with the Iranian government, something he said that we shouldn't do.

Obviously the opposition isn't upset. He intervened on their behalf. I'm not saying that he was wrong to do so. I'm saying that he went against his own words before they were done echoing.

In other words, if Obama says that it would be wrong for him to anally rape you, cover your ass quickly.

orange

06-17-2009, 08:09 PM

Are you dense?

Are you a dickhead in real life or do you just play one on the Internet? Perhaps you're under the EXTREMELY mistaken view that all the intelligence in the world is invested in you alone.

As I said, Obama will do what he can get away with. The Iranian's protest about Twitter has been noted and flushed.

He doesn't want to be depicted as pushing for the downfall of the "Islamic Republic" because that would help the hard-liners siphon off strength from the opposition.

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 08:10 PM

Are you a dickhead in real life or do you just play one on the Internet? Perhaps you're under the EXTREMELY mistaken view that all the intelligence in the world is invested in you alone.

As I said, Obama will do what he can get away with. The Iranian's protest about Twitter has been noted and flushed.

He doesn't want to be depicted as pushing for the downfall of the "Islamic Republic" because that would help the hard-liners siphon off strength from the opposition.

So did he meddle in Iranian affairs after he said that we shouldn't or didn't he?

SHTSPRAYER

06-17-2009, 08:11 PM

On a side note have libtards regained all the civil liberties that they "lost" (but never seemed to be able to define) during the Bush Administration?

People in Iran got it easy, we just lived throught 8 years of tyranny under Bush.

:drool:

orange

06-17-2009, 08:19 PM

So did he meddle in Iranian affairs after he said that we shouldn't or didn't he?

I'm not sure about the time order, but YES he did meddle. And I approve.

SHTSPRAYER

06-17-2009, 08:21 PM

I'm not sure about the time order, but YES he did meddle. And I approve.

I would say you giving B.O. a rimjob and a reach around qualifies as much, much more than just a simple approval.

Saul Good

06-17-2009, 08:40 PM

I'm not sure about the time order, but YES he did meddle. And I approve.

Fair enough. Regardless of the order, do you think that it is hypocritical of Obama to either say that we shouldn't meddle and then meddle or meddle and then say that we shouldn't?

orange

06-17-2009, 08:41 PM

It's not hypocritical. It's tactics.

J Diddy

06-17-2009, 08:44 PM

I would say you giving B.O. a rimjob and a reach around qualifies as much, much more than just a simple approval.

Your imagination sure does involve alot of homoerotic metaphors.

irishjayhawk

06-17-2009, 08:53 PM

There is no nuance. He actively encouraged an American company to assist Iranian dissidents. You can see all of the "grey" areas you want. Hell, you can even see "gray" areas if you want to since that is an actual word. That doesn't make it so. It just makes you colorblind

I consider a government who performs a coup to be dissidents too. Again, a shade of gray.

I think that we have stepped way too deep into this mess for way too long. I think that we failed to be strong when we had the chance during the years that we had the bomb and nobody else did.

Instead, we got all wobbly in the knees, and the horses are out of the barn. It doesn't really matter what we do because there are already thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of people with bad intentions. The best we can hope for is to dissuade those who have them from using them and those who don't have them not to pursue them.

Fair take.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 11:48 PM

The original claim above is poppycock. I haven't seen a single instance of a liberal who doesn't want Ahmadinejad ousted.

The point is Obama getting more publicly involved would be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, not wrong.

The Iranians do not want and would not welcome foreign interference in their internal affairs.

[edit] The hard-liners are already trying to play the "America is Satan" card. There is no use giving them ammo.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of "intolerable" meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter postelection dispute. Opposition supporters marched in huge numbers through Tehran's streets for a third straight day to protest the outcome of the balloting.

The Iranian government summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests in Iran, to complain about American interference, state-run Press TV reported.

The English-language channel said the government called Western interference "intolerable."

A State Department spokesman said the U.S. was withholding judgment about the election and not interfering in Iranian internal affairs.

President Barack Obama has reacted cautiously to opposition allegations that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the election, saying he shared the world's "deep concerns" but it was "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/mousavi-calls-for-new-ral_n_216626.html

I don't see how it would be counterproductive. Ahmadinejad is going to survive these protests either way. He's not any more likely to survive them if the US denounces the elections forcefully and repeatedly or if we try to rally international support to condemn them, for example. OTOH, if it causes them too much trouble in the international community, the ayatollahs might just decide to find flaws in the original vote count and throw Ahmadinejad overboard.

Of course, it might be counterproductive if you're looking to curry favor with Ahmadinejad so that after the protests die down, he won't refuse to meet with your emissaries who come with hat in hand for an audience.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 11:53 PM

Who cares what Ahmadinejad says? Obama and the administration will do what they think they can get away with without getting their fingerprints on it.

patteeu and some others on the right are calling for overt support of the opposition. Obama isn't going to do that, and for good, sound, PRACTICAL reasons.

I would note that there are some on the right who get it, too. Buchanan and Kristol come to mind.

I'd like to think that Obama's administration is working on the down-low to undermine the Iranians and meddle in their affairs while publicly pretending to refuse to do so, but I just don't have enough faith in him to be confident.

patteeu

06-17-2009, 11:56 PM

So saying who should have nukes and who shouldn't would qualify as meddling?

Saying who should and shouldn't have nukes is a function of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to which both the US and Iran are obligated. Even if we didn't have a treaty to enforce, we'd be fools to ignore our own interests for some childish notion of equality or fairness.

dirk digler

06-18-2009, 07:27 AM

Interesting read on how the Bush administration screwed the reform movement because they didn't understand the situation.

http://washingtonindependent.com/47672/obamas-sideline-strategy-may-signal-shift-in-us-democracy-policy

It turned out money couldn’t buy a revolution.

After the 2005 election of hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Bush administration sought about $75 million from Congress with which it hoped to recruit or support alternative voices in Iran to push the Islamic Republic in a more democratic direction. While dissidents in Iran were significantly weaker than during the 1999 student protests — a squelched moment of apparent liberalism that The Economist wrote could be a “second revolution” — there were still prominent voices for reform, like Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi and journalist Akbar Ganji. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who ultimately got around $66 million from Congress, said the money would go to “a new effort to support the aspirations of the Iranian people.”

But then something unexpected happened. Ganji visited Washington and told his interlocutors in and out of the administration that accepting the money would be politically toxic, and would give the regime a pretext to persecute its opponents. “Iranians are viewed as discredited when they receive money from foreign governments,” Ganji wrote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502216.html) in an October 2007 Washington Post column. “The Bush administration may be striving to help Iranian democrats, but any Iranian who seeks American dollars will not be recognized as a democrat by his or her fellow citizens.” So strong were Ganji’s sentiments that he urged Congress instead to pass a bill actually banning U.S. financial support to Iranian dissidents. Most of the money ended up unspent.

Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, has praised (http://washingtonindependent.com/47203/trita-parsi-on-obamas-iran-comments) Obama’s rhetoric as “completely on point.” But many leading Republicans have hammered Obama for not pledging support for the opposition. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama’s 2008 presidential rival, told CNN on Wednesday (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/17/mccain-again-pans-presidents-iran-response/), “I do not believe that the president is taking a leadership that is incumbent upon an American president, which we have throughout modern history, and that is to advocate for human rights and freedom — and free elections are one of those fundamentals.”

Larry Diamond, a Stanford University political scientist and longtime democracy-promotion expert who directs the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution, agreed that Obama’s rhetorical support was insufficient. “The initial statements were far too tentative and timid,” Diamond said. “They were really disappointing. They almost seemed on the verge of legitimizing what was pretty obvious from the beginning: a brazen theft of an election.”

Still, Diamond recognized that the effort from the Bush administration at funding Iranian dissidents “backfired,” and left U.S. democracy efforts in Iran with few tools. “We couldn’t spend most of the $70 million at all effectively, and in our efforts to support Iranian democrats directly, we actually did them harm by stigmatizing them and enabling the regime to label them American proxies,” he said. “There’s a growing recognition that these direct efforts to provide assistance are very difficult to execute, and they run a serious risk of backfiring.”