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.