Obama Challenged-Russia & Iran

[Nik]

You don't know what i was talking about, or this subject.

It's clear you don't know me at all.

As I said, learn before posting non sequitors.

The people of Iran want change and it was robbed, AS I SAID WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THE ELECTION, and BO is blowing it off because he made a big deal about speaking to Imadingyslob without preconditions.

His typical gutless approach to situations shows he's waiting for poll data to decide how to procede.

When even the pedantic French are outraged at iran, that should be your first clue BO handled the situation incorrectly, ala America's favorite boob, Jimmih.

It has NOTHING to do with what 'we' want.

Actually it seems to be exactly about what 'we' want, which is why you are bitching and whining that Obamas not doing what YOU want in regards to Iran. How about doing what THEY want? When Iranian dissident leaders ask for our support, then he can give it to them. Until then? He shouldn't be making grand proclamations on the issue.

The US has been delegitimized in the region, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, but also in part because of the harsh US and Iranian rhetoric. Ahmadinejad got part of his power and influence from railing against western influences. There are currently ads on Iranian television saying that the protests are the result of American influence and those revolting are just western stooges. We really, really, don't need to support that thesis by declaring our support.

By the way, Obama IS doing things to support the Iranian protestors. Hes just not being a loud blowhard about it.

It's interesting that you think the US has been delegitimized in the region when it can well be argued that the reformist movement in Iran can be directly linked to Iraq's newfound freedoms.

Can it? Care to make the argument for me?

As much as we can argue about whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing to do or not, the fact is that what is taking place in Iran currently is much of what GW envisioned.

No, its what GW hoped for. He never made any real steps to put that into reality though. Instead he demonized Iran and Iranians.

Supporting reformists in the ME is truly our only long term hope to subdue the radical Islamic agenda.

Except that supporting them delegitimizes them. Why? Because we aren't exactly a popular force in the region. See my posts before about how Iranian tv is already blaming this on western powers. Do we really need to add evidence that this is a US backed revolution?

As much as I personally believe the radical fringe is in control of Islam and is responsible for the direction that leads these countries, there still is hope that this course can be changed. To me, this is making Bush look like a genius, and Obama's wait and see attitude very dangerous.

Except that Obama is covertly supporting the protestors. Hes just not doing it overtly, so the protestors remain legitimate. You, and others, don't seem to realize the amount of distaste for America and American meddling. Imagine if Iran tried to intervene in the 2000 election. Would you have still worried about Bush v. Gore, or would it have become a "unite against the Iranians" type of thing? The answer is pretty obvious.

It takes balls to be President, and decisions made by those who are elected to lead us do say a great deal about us. Sometimes, decsions are made that are unpopular but turn out to be correct. In Obama's case, his decision to sit on the sidelines is not only unpopular, but it is looking to be obviously the wrong decision.

Stating that its wrong over and over as the neocons are doing doesn't actually make it wrong. It'd be nice if, for once, someone would provide some evidence as to why what he is doing is wrong, and what exactly he should be doing.

 

[auditor0007]

Actually it seems to be exactly about what 'we' want, which is why you are bitching and whining that Obamas not doing what YOU want in regards to Iran. How about doing what THEY want? When Iranian dissident leaders ask for our support, then he can give it to them. Until then? He shouldn't be making grand proclamations on the issue.

The US has been delegitimized in the region, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, but also in part because of the harsh US and Iranian rhetoric. Ahmadinejad got part of his power and influence from railing against western influences. There are currently ads on Iranian television saying that the protests are the result of American influence and those revolting are just western stooges. We really, really, don't need to support that thesis by declaring our support.

By the way, Obama IS doing things to support the Iranian protestors. Hes just not being a loud blowhard about it.

It's interesting that you think the US has been delegitimized in the region when it can well be argued that the reformist movement in Iran can be directly linked to Iraq's newfound freedoms.

Can it? Care to make the argument for me?



No, its what GW hoped for. He never made any real steps to put that into reality though. Instead he demonized Iran and Iranians.



Except that supporting them delegitimizes them. Why? Because we aren't exactly a popular force in the region. See my posts before about how Iranian tv is already blaming this on western powers. Do we really need to add evidence that this is a US backed revolution?

As much as I personally believe the radical fringe is in control of Islam and is responsible for the direction that leads these countries, there still is hope that this course can be changed. To me, this is making Bush look like a genius, and Obama's wait and see attitude very dangerous.

Except that Obama is covertly supporting the protestors. Hes just not doing it overtly, so the protestors remain legitimate. You, and others, don't seem to realize the amount of distaste for America and American meddling. Imagine if Iran tried to intervene in the 2000 election. Would you have still worried about Bush v. Gore, or would it have become a "unite against the Iranians" type of thing? The answer is pretty obvious.

It takes balls to be President, and decisions made by those who are elected to lead us do say a great deal about us. Sometimes, decsions are made that are unpopular but turn out to be correct. In Obama's case, his decision to sit on the sidelines is not only unpopular, but it is looking to be obviously the wrong decision.

Stating that its wrong over and over as the neocons are doing doesn't actually make it wrong. It'd be nice if, for once, someone would provide some evidence as to why what he is doing is wrong, and what exactly he should be doing.

GH Bush covertly supported the Iraqi dissidents during and after Desert Storm. We all know what happened to those poor asswipes. It would be nice if Obama had the balls to actually take a position, one way or the other, when it comes to foreign policy and international affaires.

If he wants no involvement, then so be it. Make that statement, and get us out of the ME completely, and let the chips fall where they may. But quit standing on the sidelines waiting to see which bandwagon to jump on.

 

[JimJones]

Its not about us, its about them.

If you are going to quote me, do not shoot non sequitors.

Its not a non-sequitor. Honestly, its not Obamas place to voice support. This isn't about us, or what we do or want. Its about what THEY want.

It is about what they want and they want a fair election. We on the other hand have always stood for free and fair elections, which Obama has yet to stand up for. It is our place to back freedom and the rest of the world has their eyes on us for leadership. GET REAL!

 

[Nik]

It's interesting that you think the US has been delegitimized in the region when it can well be argued that the reformist movement in Iran can be directly linked to Iraq's newfound freedoms.

Can it? Care to make the argument for me?



No, its what GW hoped for. He never made any real steps to put that into reality though. Instead he demonized Iran and Iranians.



Except that supporting them delegitimizes them. Why? Because we aren't exactly a popular force in the region. See my posts before about how Iranian tv is already blaming this on western powers. Do we really need to add evidence that this is a US backed revolution?



Except that Obama is covertly supporting the protestors. Hes just not doing it overtly, so the protestors remain legitimate. You, and others, don't seem to realize the amount of distaste for America and American meddling. Imagine if Iran tried to intervene in the 2000 election. Would you have still worried about Bush v. Gore, or would it have become a "unite against the Iranians" type of thing? The answer is pretty obvious.

It takes balls to be President, and decisions made by those who are elected to lead us do say a great deal about us. Sometimes, decsions are made that are unpopular but turn out to be correct. In Obama's case, his decision to sit on the sidelines is not only unpopular, but it is looking to be obviously the wrong decision.

Stating that its wrong over and over as the neocons are doing doesn't actually make it wrong. It'd be nice if, for once, someone would provide some evidence as to why what he is doing is wrong, and what exactly he should be doing.

GH Bush covertly supported the Iraqi dissidents during and after Desert Storm. We all know what happened to those poor asswipes. It would be nice if Obama had the balls to actually take a position, one way or the other, when it comes to foreign policy and international affaires.

If he wants no involvement, then so be it. Make that statement, and get us out of the ME completely, and let the chips fall where they may. But quit standing on the sidelines waiting to see which bandwagon to jump on.

He doesn't want no involvement. He wants to help them as much as possible without actually doing anything overt to help. Blowhard statements do exactly nothing. Doing things like asking twitter to reschedule maintenance are huge. GH Bush promised those dissidents the US would protect them, and then we didn't. Obama is, wisely, not making promises.

 

[Nik]

If you are going to quote me, do not shoot non sequitors.

Its not a non-sequitor. Honestly, its not Obamas place to voice support. This isn't about us, or what we do or want. Its about what THEY want.

It is about what they want and they want a fair election. We on the other hand have always stood for free and fair elections, which Obama has yet to stand up for. It is our place to back freedom and the rest of the world has their eyes on us for leadership. GET REAL!

No, its not our place. If we had legitimacy, it would be our place. Instead, since we don't have legtimacy, its not.

 

[Navy1960]

"It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," he said, adding that Washington wants to pursue a "tough, direct" dialogue with Tehran" Barack Obama

as opposed to other Govts reponses;

Deputy Foreign Minister Reinhard Silberberg told the ambassador Monday the German government considers the violent response and the attempt to prevent peaceful demonstrations "unacceptable."

I fail to understand what Barack Obama is supporting here, this reminds of the same response Jimmy Carter gave when he let Iran hold Americans hostage for so long.

I'm determined that the United States will remain the strongest of all nations, but our power will never be used to initiate a threat to the security of any nation or to the rights of any human being. We seek to be and to remain secure--a nation at peace in a stable world. But to be secure we must face the world as it is. Jimmy Carter State of the Union 1980

It is worth mentioning though that Barack Obama could be watering down his response in hopes of establishing normal relationships with Iran. However, this sort of falls short as well considersing Ahmadinejad took a little quick trip to Russia the day after the elections.

 

[Nik]

"It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," he said, adding that Washington wants to pursue a "tough, direct" dialogue with Tehran" Barack Obama

as opposed to other Govts reponses;

Deputy Foreign Minister Reinhard Silberberg told the ambassador Monday the German government considers the violent response and the attempt to prevent peaceful demonstrations "unacceptable."

I fail to understand what Barack Obama is supporting here, this reminds of the same response Jimmy Carter gave when he let Iran hold Americans hostage for so long.

I'm determined that the United States will remain the strongest of all nations, but our power will never be used to initiate a threat to the security of any nation or to the rights of any human being. We seek to be and to remain secure--a nation at peace in a stable world. But to be secure we must face the world as it is. Jimmy Carter State of the Union 1980

It is worth mentioning though that Barack Obama could be watering down his response in hopes of establishing normal relationships with Iran. However, this sort of falls short as well considersing Ahmadinejad took a little quick trip to Russia the day after the elections.

Germany didn't just invade the country next to Iran. They have a little bit more legitimacy in Iranians eyes than we do.

What exactly do you expect Obamas words to do? Can you point to any realistic positive impact they might have, other than making Americans feel better?

 

[Annie]

Back to topic and the point of the OP:

Dollar drops on reserve currency doubts

Dollar drops on reserve currency doubts

Jun 17 07:30 AM US/Eastern

The dollar fell against the euro and yen on Wednesday after major emerging economies cast doubt on its long-term future as the world's main reserve currency, dealers said.
In late morning trading in London, the European single currency climbed to 1.3867 dollars from 1.3838 dollars in New York late on Tuesday.

Against the Japanese currency, the dollar slipped to 96.30 yen from 96.42 yen on Tuesday.

Leaders of the so-called BRIC nations -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- had on Monday called for a "more diversified" currency system....

China sells US bonds to 'show concern'

hina sells US bonds to 'show concern'

Jun 17 04:20 AM US/Eastern

A decision by China to reduce its US Treasury holdings suggests concern about the US attitude towards its economic woes, Chinese economists were quoted as saying in state media Wednesday.
The remarks, coming after US data showed a modest decline in Chinese investments in US government bonds, were in contrast to an earlier statement in Beijing which had said the recent sell-off was a routine transaction.

"China is implying to the US, more or less, that it should adopt a more pragmatic and responsible attitude to maintain the stability of the dollar," He Maochun, a political scientist at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times.

According to US Treasury data issued Monday, Beijing owned 763.5 billion dollars in US securities in April, down from 767.9 billion dollars in March.

It was the first month since June 2008 that Beijing failed to purchase more US T-bills.

Zhang Bin, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said China's move showed a more cautious attitude.

"It is unclear whether the reduction will continue because the amount is so small. But the cut signals caution of governments or institutions toward US Treasury bonds," Zhang told Xinhua news agency.

China's foreign ministry said Tuesday that its purchases of US Treasuries remained based on "security, liquidity and value preservation"....