Crossroads in Middle East as Obama Stays Silent
by Frank DeMartiniI am on vacation in South East Asia visiting friends and touring some areas that I am quite familiar with and some not so much. I have not had much access to news or the internet until the last two days. However, from what I have heard recently, there are definitely a few things that need to be addressed.
A few days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a speech in we he agreed for the first time to the possibility of a two state solution. To many countries in the world, this is considered a major breakthrough in the Palestinian conflict. For the first time in recent memory, Israel is ready to consider giving the Palestinians a homeland. The entire western world applauded the concessions. Of course, the Palestinians did not: they condemned them.
Why? Part of Netanyahu’s concessions consisted of two demands upon the Palestinians. Unfortunately, for the rest of the world, the Palestinian leaders refuse to accept them. For one, Palestine must accept that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. And two, the Arab World and particularly the Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist.
First, we will discuss the Jerusalem situation as this is the most complicated. Jerusalem is the natural homeland to all three of the major western religions. Christians, Moslems and Jews all consider it sacred. It has always been the natural center of Israel and the home of the original Jewish Temple built by David.
When Israel was created in 1948, all of Jerusalem was not within its borders. The city was completely taken by Israel in one of its many wars about forty years ago. The Moslem world has always felt that it should not remain part of Israel because of this and because it is the city in which one of the most sacred and important Mosques stands. Since the conflict in which Israel took Jerusalem, this has always been one of the major stumbling blocks in any peace accord.
In my opinion Israel will never concede any of Jerusalem and it should not. As this is the home of Judaism, Israel must retain it within its borders. The Palestinians must concede on this issue. Jerusalem was never part of Palestine as Palestine would be a newly created state. This was not a stumbling block to peace with Egypt and it should not be a stumbling block to a resolution to the Palestinian situation.
As for the second issue, I simply cannot understand why the Palestinians would not recognize Israel’s right to exist. After all this time and after the majority of the entire world has accepted Israel, why would the Palestinians not concede on this point? The reason is very simple and gets to the heart of the whole conflict. The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world care more about the existence of a Jewish homeland than they care about the existence of a Palestinian homeland.
A quick review of the history of the region shows that every time the Palestinians were offered a homeland, they have always turned it down. This has been done at least four times since the creation of Israel. The Palestinians always say no because they do not really want a homeland, they want Israel to cease to exist, plain and simple. Until the Palestinians change their position on this, there will never be peace in the region.
President Obama should immediately put as much pressure on the Palestinians as he has put on Israel to change its position. He cannot continue to favor Palestine in this debate over Israel. He must change his viewpoint and take a firm stand. Netanyahu has made a major concession. Now, Obama must force the Palestinian leaders to do the same. If he does not, he is proving that he is not a true friend of Israel, which is still the only true democracy in the region.
Or, might that be changing?
Since the obviously fixed Iranian election last week, the people of Iran have been protesting by the thousands. In fact, the protests which started peacefully last week have now turned violent since the Supreme Commander of Iran has decided that they should be quashed in the same manner as the Chinese quashed the protests in Tiananmen Square. In fact, the bloodshed of the last few days actually is beginning to look exactly like the Chinese bloodshed 20 years ago.
It all started when the current President was declared the victor in the nationwide election in less than two days after the election took place. Considering that all of the ballots in Iran are handwritten, I simply do not understand how the current government of Iran would actually believe that the world would accept these results as being anything other than fixed. How is it possible to count 39 million ballots in a 48 hour period?
The opposition leader immediately declared the election a sham and told his supporters to take to the streets. And, they have! By the thousands! The protests which started in Tehran have spread to all sections of the country and most importantly, include women which in the Arab world is a major surprise.
At first the current regime allowed the protests. But, as they have become larger with each passing day, the dictators realized that their regime was in danger of collapsing. On Friday, the Supreme Leader, the current Ayatollah stated that any continued protests would be done at the peril of the demonstrators. Since this statement, the government has completely eliminated the press from the country and the bloodshed began. The only source of information from Iran is now coming from internet networking sites and Twitter of all places. Imagine Twitter is a proponent of a populist revolution.
And, what has our Supreme Leader Mr. Obama done while this was going on? a Absolutely nothing except to comment that the “The World is Watching You,” to the Iranian leaders. Of course, this plays well with dictators. Hitler listened very carefully when Mr. Chamberlain sold off a Czechoslovakia in 1938 and came back to the UK and said, “Peace in our time.”
President Obama must immediately put the same level of pressure on the Iranian government that he has put on the Israeli government. The Iranian election that was obviously a sham should be thrown out and a new election under the watch of the United Nations should be had.
Yet, President Obama does nothing except say our watchful eye is upon you. As of this writing, he has not, even so much as condemned the election results. The Iranians protest and lose their lives and President Obama just watches. In fact, a poll was recently released which shows only single digits of Americans approve of the President’s handling of this situation. Even approval among Democrats is in the single digits.
I guess Mr. Obama is just living up to his campaign promise of being a pragmatist in this situation. I just wish he would finally do something before something happens that he will woefully regret. Remember, Iran either has or is very close to having nuclear weapons. I’m quite sure the current dictator and the Supreme Leader will have no problem using them if necessary either against Israel or his own people to quell the uprising!
© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be given freely upon request.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
87 Comments
IMO obama is NOT a mature man who knows how to lead. He is more interested in inviting his friends over to skateboard down the halls of the White House than he is in what is going on in the middle east. He doesn't know how to handle serious problems so he stays away from them. It's kind of like an ostrich putting his head in the sand, he can't see you and you aren't "supposed" to see him.
“The World is Watching You,” Kinda like when your mother told you "God is watching you" Obama has an Allah complex.
Eeesh, the stories I could tell you about how my mother scared me witless with stories about what God was going to do to me. I'm still scarred to this day.
Well ok, not scarred so much as in awe of how I just fell for them. 
so who has the monopoly on middle east qualifications?
Are you the arbitor?
How do know who meets with your approval?
Which party was in power for 444 days while Americans were held hostage? And, how many days, or better yet how many hours was the new Republican President in power before they were released?
Wow I had no idea I was so offensive to you.
I should probably feel bad or something.
But I'm glad you are getting it all out.
Good, feel better now?
History doesn't really support that. Democrat leaders tend to be great cease fire guys, which typically are used by groups like Hamas to restock their missiles and rebuild the batteries located in hospitals. For sure, state department liberal bureaucrats are best at whistle blowing photographs to enflame Islamic passions. Certainly the current administration has done nothing to distinguish it relative to middle east policy.
To borrow on old phrase, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity. They do this on purpose, though: Without their 24/7/365 grievance theater, they have nothing, and are nothing. Then there's the niggling little problem of the fact that the Palestinians don't want a two state solution, they want a one state solution: All Palestine and no Israel. Failure to recognize their intractability on this is epic folly (I wonder if epic and folly have ever been put side-by-side before?).
I favor the all Israel/no Palestine single state solution, myself… and so does God. LOL!
"This is no different than the American conservative crackdowns of the 50's and 60's."
And on what planet did these crackdowns occur? You are an embarassment to your parents Auntie. And if your Mommy knew how you were playing with her computer -it'll be no DS for a month.
A democracy on the Iranian eastern border, a democracy on the Iranian western border, both brought into being by a Republican American president. Yet the Democratic American president gazes at his navel and goes out for ice cream while Iranian dissident die. Yep, American prestige in the world is just soaring right about now.
You Auntie, don't know Shiite from Shinola.
BTW, the First Temple in Jerusalem was not built by King David but rather his son King Solomon.
Good lord girl learn the meaning of the word "crackdown" And learn about the truth of McCarthy and the House Comittee on Un-American affairs. i've forgotten more on this subject than you'll ever know if your source for research is Wikipedia.
You are an obnoxious little twit.
Why aren't you baking pie?
First:
The main opposition leader also wants Iran to have Nukes. The mullahs run the show over there so even if the election results were different not much would change. Understand that. You seem to think the difference in the two main men running is pro democracy versus slavery. The difference is not much actually.
Second:
I'm not sure why you think it matters in Iran what Obama says. Would you think for some odd reason he was opposed to the protestors? I don't think anyone in America is opposed to the protestors. No one with an ounce of humanitarian will [or a brain] is.
Read the rest in the link below. Good analysis that calls for restraint and a long view of the issues.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/200...
Third:
I was just on vacation and only got the main news but not partisan hackery [thank God]. But I come back and amazingly the right wing has turned this Iran issue into a Obama bash. Unbelievable.
But it is expected. Partisans do that. You'll blame the weather on him soon.
I see you answered one part of my question, incorrectly and you failed to answer the first part of my question. I am not Katie Couric or Brian Williams, I don't follow your propaganda.
You mean the President who sold arms to Iran? Reagan should have been put on trial for that.
Auntie, we appreciate your ability to pull straw-man arguments out of your nether regions. Care to try again, or did you use up your daily allotment of neurons (better living through chemicals, that's our Auntie!)?
Not only is President Skateboard not mature, but I question his knowledge base. I have never in my life seen a President of the United States of America have such a non-existent historical point of view. It is not so much that he cannot remember the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day, but it goes to a historical perspective as to who we are as Americans. I know all about his influences in growing up on into his adulthood. But even some Lefties has a clue as to who America is as a people.
As Americans, we can argue until the sun goes down about what should be "given" to the Iranian protesters, but as Americans we all support the defeat of a tyrannical government no matter where it is on the map! I may not agree with the Iranians view of the world, but I sure as heck support their rights to have an honest open election not dictated by the Supreme Leader, and the mullahs. I sense disconnect here with our Dear Leader.
Once you go beyond historical groundings of any sort to our history, you can look at how President Golf looks our American uniqueness. We are not suppose to want to be like the UN. We can be diplomatic, but we are also suppose to be on the side of the Israelis because THEY ARE OUR ALLY! Excuse me, but when in the name of Hallelujah did the Palestinians ever ally with America? That would be a never. They represent Hamas, and Hezbollah. You know, the scum of the Earth that stones women, murders their own children, and terrorize the entire Middle East!
It does not take a rocket scientist, or a doctorate in history to know the policies President Ice Cream is pushing, both domestic and international, they are doomed to fail. The scary part is will America survive? We are jetting past socialism, and are about to enter total fascism. Where we are headed may make France look like a capitalistic driven country. The other problem is we are going to take down the world along with us as we spiral into the pit of doom. I wonder if Israel will ever trust us again?
There isn't a thing we can do to "help" the Iranian protestors that wouldn't hurt them AND us.
IF the protestors force a recount, it's still going to come down to one anti-American guy and another anti-American guy who's slightly less hardcore about it. You know how that goes: We say "Oh yeah, Mousavi – that's our guy!" and then six months from now he's on tape going "death to Israel!" or whatever. We tried this in Iraq – it didn't work.
What EXACTLY does anyone want this or ANY American President to do in this situation?
And Obama is *still* inviting Iranian diplomats to 4th of July celebrations.
After all this.
I could say something, but really, what can I add?
If there is one thing 'antifascist' is not qualified to speak on, it's conservatives.
Barry and the boys will be getting tips from the Iranians over hot dogs and frozen custard on how to deal with all the Tea Bag protests that will be going on that day
'We' (Conservatives) attacked Iraq? That's odd, I thought it was our military, sent with the full blessing of our Congress, after over a decade of Democrat hawking that exact war. But silly me, I'm just using facts, not blind and irrational ideological hatred.
Ah, nothing funnier than a 'blinded by your ideology' line from a pie-baker who doesn't even know who authorized our troops to go to war in Iraq, or that McCarthy was right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
Where's my pie?
The truly sad thing is so many Americans believe the lie coming from the White House – that if we endorse democracy in Iran, the Iranian government will say we're backing the riots and that will somehow delegitimize them. As if they aren't already blaming us … as if how an oppressive government legitimizes the will of their people even matters …
That's some mighty powerful Kool-Ade Obama's serving.
The point is not whether one guy or the other is "better" for us; the point is that America is supposed to support the rights of people everywhere to freely and democratically elect their government, and that is not happening in Iran. This movement has gone way past being about Mousavi; he's just the vehicle the protesters are using. It's about the fact that they live in a theocratic dictatorship and democracy has been exposed as a sham with this "election." People are dying because they're angry about this and our president can't even say that he supports their right to protest an illegal election without being tear-gassed or shot to death. That's why people are so angry at Obama – he's essentially voting "present" instead of clearly standing up for true democracy.
You liberals crack me up – you harp on the most idiotic positions even after they've been thoroughly put to bed.
The Reagan administration sold arms to a moderate group in Iran specifically to try to free American hostages and encourage pro-democratic revolt & reform in Iran and Nicaragua. This is the 'diplomacy' your type always talk about – backing sympathetic interests in an attempt to bring about reform. Even liberal-hellhole Wikipedia acknowledges the motives behind this 'scandal':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra
Funny how you Reagan-haters can't muster up the sack to condemn Clinton for empowering all those African dictators with cash & materiel subsidies. We have to go aaaaaaaaaaallll the way back to Iran/Contra to find something to condemn. Hilarious!
I tend to agree – the one thing Pres. Obama said that I agree with was that the election may not result in any real difference in Iran's outlook, especially toward America.
Having said that, I also tend to think that America *is* a symbol of freedom and the rights of the individual to the world, and as such, we should encourage democratic reform in Iran, even if it's only with our voices.
In other words, I think that in this case the President should take the high road and state his support of the people's right to choose their own leaders without fear of violent reprisal. He should condemn the Iranian government's violence against its own people in no uncertain terms. I know that if I had a dollar for every time Reagan's legacy was invoked on this site, I probably wouldn't need to work for a living, but I can't help but look at the effect his no-holds-barred condemnations of the Soviet Union's oppressiveness and think that we need to take a similar tack.
It's up to Iran how to respond; it's on their heads if they choose to continue to embrace anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, but I think there is at least as much chance of them hating America because we remained silent while tyrants beat them into submission. In either case, I don't think we can be held responsible for their actions. Instead, I think we need to do what we know to be right: condemn tyrants and support freedom and human rights, unequivocally. Trying to figure out how the Iranians may or may not respond is a game of realpolitik that I think is completely inappropriate at this pivotal moment.
I tend to agree – the one thing Pres. Obama said that I agree with was that the election may not result in any real difference in Iran's outlook, especially toward America.
Having said that, I also tend to think that America *is* a symbol of freedom and the rights of the individual to the world, and as such, we should encourage democratic reform in Iran, even if it's only with our voices.
In other words, I think that in this case the President should take the high road and state his support of the people's right to choose their own leaders without fear of violent reprisal. He should condemn the Iranian government's violence against its own people in no uncertain terms. I know that if I had a dollar for every time Reagan's legacy was invoked on this site, I probably wouldn't need to work for a living, but I can't help but look at the effect his no-holds-barred condemnations of the Soviet Union's oppressiveness and think that we need to take a similar tack.
It's up to Iran how to respond; it's on their heads if they choose to continue to embrace anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, but I think there is at least as much chance of them hating America because we remained silent while tyrants beat them into submission. In either case, I don't think we can be held responsible for their actions. Instead, I think we need to do what we know to be right: condemn tyrants and support freedom and human rights, unequivocally. Trying to figure out how the Iranians may or may not respond is a game of realpolitik that I think is completely inappropriate at this pivotal moment.
The continuing harsh criticism of this president by conservatives and libertarians is rooted to some degree in the incredible lack of slack afforded his predecessor by liberals. The current president is a relatively inexperienced one term senator. Much of the media built him up during the campaign as superman, and he did absolutely nothing to try and tamp that down (ginned up addresses in Germany, receiving the nomination atop Mt. Olympus etc.). Fair or not, he has set himself in a position where the answer to your question is "one heck of a lot."
[...] President Barack Obama’s administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US emb…. [...]
George Bush could have solved the Iraq Debacle by getting the Congress to pass a tax cut.
I mean tax cuts is the eternal solution to all problems.
Brings to mind this parody, in which Obama continues to send a muddled message on Iran by sending a Blackberry message riddled with emoticons: http://www.optoons.blogspot.com/ (June 19 entry)
It's more than just possible to voice a firm stand with a people that are being beaten, arrested and killed for the crime of calling for honest elections. It is and has been the duty of our nation to foster governments BY the people and FOR the people for our entire history. Well, until recently anyway…
There is a difference in standing with the people and supporting another hate-mongerer. There is not a dime's difference between Ahimenijahd and Mousavi. But that's not the point. The Iranian people know they have been lied to by their government. In voicing their dissent, they have been harshly oppressed. What exactly should we do?
Your grandparents could tell you if you could ask them.
Hey Canuck step!!!!
Sorry,
I think you are all missing the point. BO isn't jumping in there to support freedom, because the young freedom fighters are mucking up his plan to throw Israel under the bus to get get Iran to back down on the nuclear program. He seems very frustratrated that his open handed gesture may have been made to a very corupt goverment, leaving his plan to shift in the breeze. I dont think he is ready to cast a new plan, until he knows which whay the wind is blowing in Tehran. For a "true" politician, picking the winning side is everything; especially if you can't tell the truth to save your life. BO's inaction in the last two weeks is VERY illuminating.
The one constant I have seen with our new president has been his complete willingness to throw ANYBODY under the bus. Jews, gays, UAW, AIG, Israel, all supporters of his before the election. If he treats his supporters like this, can you even imagine what he plans for the republicans, Fox news or any one who dares to question his judgement?
First of all you said 50's and 60's, Kent State occured in May 1970. (Remember what I said about getting your research from Wikipedia) There were no "masacres". It was a ONE time event. SINGULAR NOT PLURAL! And it was not a massacre, four (use your fingers now 1, 2, 3, 4) four students were tragically shot when student rioters, who were told beforehand that the National Guard would break up the riots, charged the Guardsmen, and a few Guardsmen fired. That is much different than say, Democrat Bull Connor unleashing his riot police and attack dogs on peaceful protestors in Alabama. That would be a crackdown. Imprisoned by the govt.? Again, where, when? C'mon now let's see how long it takes for you to dash over to Wiki, or to just make some stuff up.
I am not kidding here, you are truly an embarassment to your parents and the school system responsible for educating you. Do you actually speak these idiocies of yours aloud? And if so to whom?
Go take care of your kids..you are a sorry mother spending so much time on the net when you have young kids.
Many others here,and at other site, have said the same thing you are saying. I have said it myself. But you are wasting your time.
The problem is that too many uninformed people are willing to apologize for the "Imbecile" in the White House.
You can repeat what you have said until you are blue in the face and Obama fan's won't get it. They just simply refuse to accept that Barry might be wrong.
The guy could piss on the Queen of England and Liberals would call it a deft foreign policy move!
They just don't get it and probably never will……….
1 point to Holly for a nice attempt at an impossible task………
For one things whole loads of satellite phones could be gotten into the country for the dissident to be able to communicate with one another and the outside world and circumvent the govt. attempts at communications blackouts. Is that EXACT enough for you?
Don't feel too bad..I felt the same way when President Bush lied to us about WMD in Iraq…Now that was some Kool Ade
Wow. Your cleverness knows no bounds. I am sooooooo impressed. ** snore **
And you know this because?
Could it be because some of us know the hatred that Islam teaches toward the Jewish people?
Indeed.
And the reason he is not is because he doesn't believe in freedom. Look what he's doing to our country!
LOL! Because there was no evil in the world prior to 1981? And President Reagan somehow created it when he took office? My God, how ignorant are you?
Bravo. This is one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever read.
Four people were shot at Kent State. How many Iranians have been shot in the last week?
i don't believe your a lefty because not even lefties are this stupid. this has to be a right wing stunt, right?
Are people like this actually adults? How can anyone reach adulthood and hold down a job of any sort and function in society when this is how they think?
The mind boggles.
2soccergirls – WELL SAID!!
I doubt this one is an adult. Anti-G writes like a teenager — maybe a newbie college student.
But the sad truth is that there are a lot of sick people out there who need to do things like this to make themselves feel good. You see these people if you ever get involved with the criminal justice system — stalkers, people who expose themselves, people who torture animals. Internet trolls are simply a more "cowardly" form of this, too afraid to act out except when they are secure in their anonymity.
"This is one of the most ridiculous sentences I have ever read." — that is so true! The level of stupidity demonstrated by Anti-G is downright staggering.
re anti-gop; administrator you're a little too special. it was a stupid statement not worthy of the drama that comes with deletion. get a life!
Obama still thinks that he's a junior senator who doesn't have to take any responsibility by simply voting "present" all the time. Those who voted against him in the last election knew what he was. Those who voted for him are starting to learn. Sadly, so is the rest of the world.
Nero at least played the fiddle while Rome burned. Obama's so lazy he'd just eat popcorn and watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grOa6c_II0I
Tax cuts sure are the answer to skyrocketing tax rates, however.
You miss the point, MovieBob,
Mousavi is a POS, all right, but he is the closest thing to a pro-democratic candidate that the mullahs allowed in the election. The obvious fraudulent election "returns" has acted as a spark for long-pent frustrations and anger at the 30-year reign of terror. Revolutions have a trajectory all their own.
America's self-interest, as well as the world's, lies in giving the insurrection the moral support which is all that they have thus far been asking for.–Why else are the signs written in English rather than Farsi?
The One appears to be locked into his pre-election fantasy scenario of winning over Ahmadinejad by virtue of his self-deprecating charm.
"I mean tax cuts is the eternal solution to all problems."
Must be. Your guy, Obama the Worshipful One, promised 95% of Americans would get one.
Great video! Especially enjoyed the line about Obama "seeking chilled desserts for his fancy delight." Obama is a notorious ice cream sandwich freak. No wonder he doesn't support our warmer neighbors to the south LOL
The TRUTH is- Obama simply cannot bring himself to publicly
criticize another illegitimate president (Ahmadinejad) who got
elected the exact same way he did- through massive voter fraud,
deceit, and voter intimidation.
Obama does not care ONE WIT for the Iranian protesters, nor does he hear their
desperate cries for freedom. He is very relieved the ignorant, apathetic American
sheeple are not out in the streets protesting his fraudulent election like the
Iranians are for Ahmadinejad's stolen election.
Perhaps that time will come?
Till then, while he plots to take over and destroy yet another
American industry (Medicine), Obama will keep a "watchful eye"
on Ahmadinejad, and maintain a "careful stance" on ALL
fraudulent elections…
Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but the USA has spent billions of dollars trying to promote peace in this region. It's like the hole in the ozone, global warming, and Al Gore creating the internet, it just isn't happening. Perhaps we should let them duke it out and let a permanent solution be found.
Just so we're clear: you're okay that an entire country full of people had their right to vote denied them? You're further okay that of all the nations in the world making statements about this, ours is the very weakest statement? Dude, even Germany and France, yes, France of all nations had bigger spines about this than our President could muster.
I don't expect that any regime that comes to power tomorrow will necessarily be any better or worse than what was there, but once the people have taken power for themselves, they may do so again. Where the people have power, there is hope for freedom. They don't have to fall in line with what we want, but at least they have taken the right to decide their destinies for themselves.
It's a fantasy to think Iran's clerics might cave to international pressure. They don't care what Obama spouts either except as it helps to advance their power and influence in the region. The real unknown here is how far Obama is willing to go in legitimizing the positions of the enemies of western civilization.
What is incredible is that all the protest signs are in English. Obviously they're for an American audience and an obvious plea for help and moral support from our Dear Leader. Of course The One will stay above the fray and act concerned when we know he really doesn't give a hoot. I miss the unambiguous love of freedom and democracy of the Bush years. Hell, even Clinton would have spoken strongly in favor of the protestors.
Frankly it disgusts me to hear Americans try to defend any stance that doesn't voice strong support for the people of Iran who are fighting for their right to have the freedom to choose. Your rights and privileges may mean so little to you that you think nothing of casually denying someone in another country the same things that you take for granted as your birthright, but these are people who will bleed and possibly die for something you are just casually dismissing. The outcome here is not the issue. I think everyone knows that Mousavi is no prince; it's the principle of the thing. Where would any of you be tomorrow if your own votes were so summarily dismissed in an election? Would you be casually sitting in your house rationalizing your voice away like are the Iranians', or would you be in the streets risking life and limb to take back your rights?
Well it HAS been kind of cold lately!
Hey, lighten up. As hard as it is for me to agree with Bam, I would sit this one out. This may seem harsh, but the internal struggles of Iran are not on the top of my list of priorities. They have their problems, let THEM sort them out.
Now, on to partisan, have you watched Pelosi lately???????
Still living in yesteday, huh???
Wake up, YOU have the ball now. Deal with it.
Amen. I am happy to sit this one out.
Gee thanks for the lecture.
Yes, I am all in a dither about the wackos in Iran and their issues.
If I am hitting the streets, it is going to be for something that matters, not Iran.
You *are* a sheep aren't you.
baaaa raaaam ewwwwe
"When Israel was created in 1948, all of Jerusalem was not within its borders. The city was completely taken by Israel in one of its many wars about forty years ago. "
Who started those wars?
Do you really think the same neo-libs that stood firmly against Iraqi Liberation will do anything to support Iran's "liberation"?
That assumes that whatever way the Middle East goes is irrelevant to our national security. But this is an obvious fallacy. Assume they all get nukes. Which is better: A Middle East that has nukes and thinks we're The Great Satan, or a Middle East that has nukes but sees that we supported their efforts to throw off tyranny?
I'd call it a no-brainer, but since liberals have no brains and they still don't get the right answer, apparently there is some thought involved after all
In any case, once you see that it's better for us to not have places where terrorist organizations can freely attack us, and when you see that Iran as it is now is a huge terrorist sponsor, you'll understand that supporting any effort to change Iran can only *benefit* the U.S. And it's not like we have to invade Iran. It's enough for Obama to stand with the protesters, just as Reagan stood with the Solidarity movement in Poland. Notice that Poland is now an ally of the US *against* Russia? That is what could happen if we had a free Iran.
indeed.. the Democrat president must be channelling Marie Antoinette… let them eat cake.
You left out the part about countering Soviet backed Communist Insurgency, thus helping to end the Cold War, tear down the Berlin Wall, and make the world the safest and most peaceful it had been for a century, until Bill Clinton mucked it all up in the Middle East.
"But it is expected. Partisans do that. You'll blame the weather on him soon."
Sorry, but democrats already did that when they blamed Hurricanes on President Bush.
All he has to say is : "Tear down that wall."
Answer the first part of my question, strawman.
It should be a helluva day — the Norks have kindly offered to supply the fireworks.
From the start you missed the obvious point, the mullahs want nukes therefore whoever was in that election wanted nukes, that is a non-negotiable item for the real Iranian leadership.
By the end you still had not mentioned an obvious fact, this has gone beyond the presidential election. The protesters are holding up signs demanding democracy, not just an honest election. They want freedom.
What I want from the President is a simple statement, an eloquent one like so many he has uttered before:
"We will recognize and support the democratically elected government of Iran."
Let the commentators take from that what they will.
12 hours after he posted and still no one has mentioned he posted about Iraq when the subject is Iran?
I thought watching "special" people do stupid things then letting them leave their mess there so you have something to snicker about was no longer acceptable. Come on, point it out and give him a chance to clean up after himself. You know the poor guy does not really understand at least half of what he posts, show some sympathy!
Iran is the state sponsor of worldwide terrorism. You are "sitting this one out" as "the US was not in a war with China during the Korean and Vietnam wars."
You have a stake in this game, like it or not.
FYI, my yutes are thoroughly educated, (homeschooled for 16 years!), and ready to go off to college. Where in a few years, they will become future Conservative leaders in the U.S., and kick you ass around like they currently do their soccer balls. They are top drawer soccer players to serve you fair notice, and you should be afraid, very afraid of not just me, or my kids, but the millions of other Moms and their kids who want their country back from the likes of you!
"the young freedom fighters are mucking up his plan to throw Israel under the bus to get get Iran to back down on the nuclear program."
I'm afraid you've got it backwards. The protestors are mucking up his plans to use the mullahs to help shove Israel in front of the subway train.
The neverending cavalcade of liberal comedy – in one breath they're saying Bush lied about the WMD, in the next they're saying we sold them to Iraq. Comedy gold!
"America's self-interest, as well as the world's, lies in giving the insurrection the moral support which is all that they have thus far been asking for."
Our self-interest lies in protecting our citizens from being blown to smithereens, not interceding in Iran and then HOPING the Iranians "get right."
If the Iranian protestors mean business and can free THEMSELVES without American blood or treasure, then they and we will both be better for it. Have we learned NOTHING from trying to "help" the Iraqis?
Why do you keep going on like Iraq was some colossal failure? We have made a positive difference there. Even Number 44 would have to work really hard to screw that up, and it is noted he is not one to do any heavy lifting if he can at all avoid it.
Our self-interest lies in protecting our citizens from being blown to smithereens…
Then why do we not have an interest in what happens to the leadership of the state sponsor of worldwide terrorism?
If we intercede and things get disrupted, it can go two ways. We get a government more friendly to America, at least one more open to real negotiations, or it will tip so far into darkness they will lose the pretense of being a civil nation and it will obviously be in the best interest of the world to "fix" the problem. Either way, we win. Letting the "status quo" remain in place is our worst option.
"Then why do we not have an interest in what happens to the leadership of the state sponsor of worldwide terrorism?"
I didn't say we didn't have an interest, that'd be absurd. Of course we do. And I posit that neither standing up and shaking a righteous fist at the Ayatollahs NOR sending direct military support to the protestors are IN that interest.
We have basically two options, neither of them ideal: Obama can give some big hammy Pullman-in-ID4 speech and send in our boys to help… in which case this becomes "Iran versus America and her puppets," turning the entire Muslim World AGAINST the protestors, allowing the regime to crush them and declare a victory against The Great Satan. OR we wait-and-see, maaaaybe slip them some supplies through back channels, and at least then there's the POSSIBILITY that the good guys win.
"Our self-interest lies in protecting our citizens from being blown to smithereens"
If you really believed that rather than just using the words for a convenient bludeon, you'd wake up to the fact that the LEAST productive way to accomplish that in the present circumstances is by attempting to keep open your options to have "dialog" with a maniac who repeatedly speaks of his intent to set the stage for the return of the Twelth Imam, who will return in blood and fire to accomplish Muslim control over the world, in hopes of getting him to see the reason in slowing down his nuclear program.
I dunno, MovieBob, but just about any OTHER option seems a little more grounded in reality.
You must be logged in to post a comment.