Iran Fights - Obama Slights

[Maple]

Iran's fight is not our fight.

Exactly. Until THEY determine their own leadership, there's no one to talk to anyway. What kind of intervention would the US do? It's looking more and more like the IRG is trying to usurp the power of the mullas, so it would be stupid to jump into that fray now.

You sneak them in a few guns and ammunition.,Hopefully a portion of Iran's military will side with the people and if they do that this could turn out to be a civil war. With Iran very near having a nuke and our President tooooooooooooo busy on a golf course to even address the near successful attack from a terrorist on a flight over Detroit, took him 3 whole days to say anything, anything could happen here.

Israel is going to have to take out those Nuke plants, they can't rely on Obama for support, he is an extremely weak President, very incompetent and in reality could care less about the safety and security of the world let alone American citizens.

In fact, he looked pretty pissed off that he was taken away from his golf game to say anything concerning the attempted terrorist attack. He treats his job of POTUS as a regular job when it's not. He doesn't seem to be aware that he is on call 24/7 and it's pretty damn clear he resents that fact.

 

[Sinatra]

America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.

At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.

Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.

As much as I agree with the uprising in Iran, there's nothing that we MUST do. We're not the police of the world.

At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.

Or, we go in there, and inspire thousands of new jihadists.

Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...

I'm fairly certain that attacking Iran will provoke quite a bit more than staying out of it will.

Why must we be the world's police? Why is it our responsibility?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Iran's best chance lies with its people. When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen. The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice. Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.

My friend, while I believe that President Obama has missed an opportunity to support a change in regime in Iran, he correctly stated the situation as :

"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised,…” Heed his insight.

Recall the grave errors and miscalculations of the left when anticipating the demise of the Shah...

This from Mother Jone's Magazine, 1979:
"I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shi’ite scholar’s way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government.”


March 31, 1979 issue of The Nation that “there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished [Iranian] Constitution will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system.”…

"Michel Foucault in the fall of 1978. “By ‘Islamic government,’ nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control.” Foucault was horribly remiss in his uncritical assessment of Islamism. From his conversations in Iran, and in Paris with exiles such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Foucault was not, unlike other Western intellectuals, deluded into believing that the shah’s overthrow would result in a secular government familiar to Westerners."

The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009

Let's not make the same mistakes that the left made in the '70's. President Obama is correct.

 

[EriktheRed]

Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...

Tell us how how the world is mocking him.

 

[Sinatra]

Iran's best chance lies with its people. When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen. The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice. Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.

My friend, while I believe that President Obama has missed an opportunity to support a change in regime in Iran, he correctly stated the situation as :

"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised,…” Heed his insight.

Recall the grave errors and miscalculations of the left when anticipating the demise of the Shah...

This from Mother Jone's Magazine, 1979:
"I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shi’ite scholar’s way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government.”


March 31, 1979 issue of The Nation that “there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished [Iranian] Constitution will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system.”…

"Michel Foucault in the fall of 1978. “By ‘Islamic government,’ nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control.” Foucault was horribly remiss in his uncritical assessment of Islamism. From his conversations in Iran, and in Paris with exiles such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Foucault was not, unlike other Western intellectuals, deluded into believing that the shah’s overthrow would result in a secular government familiar to Westerners."

The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009

Let's not make the same mistakes that the left made in the '70's. President Obama is correct.

There is truth to what you say - but in this situation, the Iranian youth have been "westernized" whereas the youth of 1979 were anti-west religious zealots.

It is this teeming youth in Iran who hold the power of their future as by sheer numbers they represent the greatest segment of the population. Mousavi would be but a vehicle of this youth movement. If he fails to represent them, he would be cast aside - and he likely knows that. It is their support only that keeps him alive today.

And make no mistake, the Saudis do not wish to see the Iranian youth rise up successfully, for much the same could take place in their own nation.

Obama's near silence on the issue shows a lack of understanding in the remarkable opportunity for dramatic change in Iran. He lacks both the intellect and the heart to fully assimilate the conditions of that nation - and its potential near-term future...

 

[saveliberty]

Iran's best chance lies with its people. When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen. The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice. Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.

My friend, while I believe that President Obama has missed an opportunity to support a change in regime in Iran, he correctly stated the situation as :

"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised,…” Heed his insight.

Recall the grave errors and miscalculations of the left when anticipating the demise of the Shah...

This from Mother Jone's Magazine, 1979:
"I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shi’ite scholar’s way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government.”


March 31, 1979 issue of The Nation that “there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished [Iranian] Constitution will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system.”…

"Michel Foucault in the fall of 1978. “By ‘Islamic government,’ nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control.” Foucault was horribly remiss in his uncritical assessment of Islamism. From his conversations in Iran, and in Paris with exiles such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Foucault was not, unlike other Western intellectuals, deluded into believing that the shah’s overthrow would result in a secular government familiar to Westerners."

The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009

Let's not make the same mistakes that the left made in the '70's. President Obama is correct.

There is truth to what you say - but in this situation, the Iranian youth have been "westernized" whereas the youth of 1979 were anti-west religious zealots.

It is this teeming youth in Iran who hold the power of their future as by sheer numbers they represent the greatest segment of the population. Mousavi would be but a vehicle of this youth movement. If he fails to represent them, he would be cast aside - and he likely knows that. It is their support only that keeps him alive today.

And make no mistake, the Saudis do not wish to see the Iranian youth rise up successfully, for much the same could take place in their own nation.

Obama's near silence on the issue shows a lack of understanding in the remarkable opportunity for dramatic change in Iran. He lacks both the intellect and the heart to fully assimilate the conditions of that nation - and its potential near-term future...

I included the bold part for a reason.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My friend, while I believe that President Obama has missed an opportunity to support a change in regime in Iran, he correctly stated the situation as :

"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised,…” Heed his insight.

Recall the grave errors and miscalculations of the left when anticipating the demise of the Shah...

This from Mother Jone's Magazine, 1979:
"I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shi’ite scholar’s way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government.”


March 31, 1979 issue of The Nation that “there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished [Iranian] Constitution will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system.”…

"Michel Foucault in the fall of 1978. “By ‘Islamic government,’ nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control.” Foucault was horribly remiss in his uncritical assessment of Islamism. From his conversations in Iran, and in Paris with exiles such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Foucault was not, unlike other Western intellectuals, deluded into believing that the shah’s overthrow would result in a secular government familiar to Westerners."

The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009

Let's not make the same mistakes that the left made in the '70's. President Obama is correct.

There is truth to what you say - but in this situation, the Iranian youth have been "westernized" whereas the youth of 1979 were anti-west religious zealots.

It is this teeming youth in Iran who hold the power of their future as by sheer numbers they represent the greatest segment of the population. Mousavi would be but a vehicle of this youth movement. If he fails to represent them, he would be cast aside - and he likely knows that. It is their support only that keeps him alive today.

And make no mistake, the Saudis do not wish to see the Iranian youth rise up successfully, for much the same could take place in their own nation.

Obama's near silence on the issue shows a lack of understanding in the remarkable opportunity for dramatic change in Iran. He lacks both the intellect and the heart to fully assimilate the conditions of that nation - and its potential near-term future...

I included the bold part for a reason.

You are such an idealist, hoping for the best of outcomes...sadly your heart will be broken if you believe that such will occur.

On the one hand, this generation of Iran is probably the most pro-American in the region, they are not steeped in Western traditions.

Again, from Flynn:
"This is Iran, after all, and even the opposition candidate despises Israel, aggressively pushes for a nuclear Iran, and has heretofore shown little interest during his long political career in transitioning from government by ayatollahs and mullahs to government by the people."

And, I hope that you don't believe that modern-day Persia will not be Islamic.

 

[saveliberty]

I would expect a gradual change. Less of a theocracy with a more moderate agenda. Do I think it can be a Jordan? No.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, they are not pro-American, they are pro-Iran, and pro-modern life. They are neutral to the US in spite of the teaching of people like Mad Hatter. We would easily change that by sticking our nose into this situation.

Political Chic, people of your persuasion backed Bush's idiocy in Iraq. How has that turned out? And why was not Bin Laden taken out before the new year of 2002? That man murdered 3000 American on American soil, and Bush had the audacity to state only six months later that "Bin Laden is not a concern of mine!". And this is the man you supported. And we are to take you advice on anything in the future?

I think not!

 

[Old Rocks]

I would expect a gradual change. Less of a theocracy with a more moderate agenda. Do I think it can be a Jordan? No.

Really hard to see what will come of this situation. But I think the worst possible thing we could do is to stick our nose in to the extent that they feel that they must unite against a common threat.

 

[Toronado3800]

America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.

At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.

Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...

I think we can all agree Iran sucks. For lack of a more eloquent term.

What assurances would you like to give them? That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st? That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's? Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?

As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either. Just a limit to our military power.

I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea. Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power. So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds. Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east. Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.

What do you think Obama should do?

 

[saveliberty]

If you must strike, do so where the enemy is clearest and of the most immediate threat. Leave Iran alone. The nuclear threat is being used to unite factions within Iran against the US. Let the internal unrest work for you.

 

[The T]

If you must strike, do so where the enemy is clearest and of the most immediate threat. Leave Iran alone. The nuclear threat is being used to unite factions within Iran against the US. Let the internal unrest work for you.

Yep. And a mere statement from the POTUS siding with LIBERTY of those with grievences against the weird beards [Mullahs], could bolster even foster a stronger fight. But what is Bam-bam doing? Anyone? Bueller? Frye?

 

[Toronado3800]

Does that mean we should do something like use cruise missiles on their pipelines, air bases, and command centers? In their mind it will be the equivalent of a suicide bomber attack on one of our airplanes.

 

[The T]

America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.

At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.

Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...

Yep. Obama seems to be siding with the Dictators of the world rather than fosters the call to LIBERTY. His PC ways prohibit him from doing what is right, and just for the sole cause of Human Liberty.

 

[Sinatra]

If you must strike, do so where the enemy is clearest and of the most immediate threat. Leave Iran alone. The nuclear threat is being used to unite factions within Iran against the US. Let the internal unrest work for you.

Yep. And a mere statement from the POTUS siding with LIBERTY of those with grievences against the weird beards [Mullahs], could bolster even foster a stronger fight. But what is Bam-bam doing? Anyone? Bueller? Frye?

___



There you go. Obama has said nary a word against the Mullahs. And so, the spirit of the youth-led revolution falters, uncertain as to the position of the once-shining example of the free world. The Iranian youth are westernized via the Internet and an affinity for western popular culture.

Obama appears entirely uncertain as to what note to strike regarding this opportunity for Iranian regime change. A leader who fears his own shadow casts a very slight one upon the world, and Obama's diminishes with each example of his inexperience, ignorance, arrogance, and inablity to grasp the import of the position he now holds...

 

[Sunni Man]

What happens in Iran is none of our business.

The protesters are just a bunch of malcontents and criminals.

The Iranian government has every right to lock these people up for rioting.

 

[The T]

What happens in Iran is none of our business.

The protesters are just a bunch of malcontents and criminals.

The Iranian government has every right to lock these people up for rioting.

King George III...Is that you?

 

[Sunni Man]

If protesters in America were doing the same things the protesters in Iran are doing.

The riot police would be call out and the protesters would be arrested.

And most Americans would support our governments actions.