Is this the end of Ahmadinejad?

[rjd970]

I wasn't referring to your post. rjd said that Bush's policies created more enemies for the US. I'm just curious to know which "enemies" are new.

post #49 doesn't really answer the question either. Russia is and will always be a thorny foreign policy thicket for the US.

as far as the "world at large", how much of those anti American sentiments were provided by a media all to willing to favor criticism of Bush?

So you are saying Russia is just as much of a problem area now as it was pre-2001? No difference?

You media comment is just silly, and the right is all to willing whine about media persecution and play that card. Bush and his officials gave plenty of material to work with here, and to insinuate the media is the primary culprit to anti-american sentiments is alleviation and deflection of the obvious blunders of the past administration that was a direct cause to most of it.

 

[KB5252]

So you are saying Russia is just as much of a problem area now as it was pre-2001? No difference?

You media comment is just silly, and the right is all to willing whine about media persecution and play that card. Bush and his officials gave plenty of material to work with here, and to insinuate the media is the primary culprit to anti-american sentiments is alleviation and deflection of the obvious blunders of the past administration that was a direct cause to most of it.

This only added to it. There is a deep disdain for anything republican in almost every journalism school in America, this is fact.

 

[MG1968]

the biggest difference between now and 2001 is exploitation of Russia's vast oil reserves. Once Putin and company realized that their future didn't depend on a closer relationship with the US, and that they could flex their muscles in a manner similar to OPEC countries they re-invigorated their regional bully persona.

Russia and Putin would have given Al Gore and John Kerry fits, then again, Gore and Kerry would never have favored Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic states.

 

[rjd970]

This only added to it. There is a deep disdain for anything republican in almost every journalism school in America, this is fact.

The media wasn't the one that disbanded the Iraqi army, immediately creating large swarms of unemployed Iraqi's with military training and a reason to hate the US.

The media didn't give the Russian's the finger, basically, and continue with a missile defense shield system in Eastern Europe.

Abu Ghraib (sic) wasn't the media's fault. Guantanamo wasn't the media's fault.

I also love the "you're with us or against us", "mission accomplished", and "you can run, but you can't hide"....while Osama continues to hide....are all pretty pathetic too.


Did the media make most of this worse? Sure, but all of this would have looked equally bad under any president.

 

[KB5252]

The media wasn't the one that disbanded the Iraqi army, immediately creating large swarms of unemployed Iraqi's with military training and a reason to hate the US.

The media didn't give the Russian's the finger, basically, and continue with a missile defense shield system in Eastern Europe.

Abu Ghraib (sic) wasn't the media's fault. Guantanamo wasn't the media's fault.

I also love the "you're with us or against us", "mission accomplished", and "you can run, but you can't hide"....while Osama continues to hide....are all pretty pathetic too.


Did the media make most of this worse? Sure, but all of this would have looked equally bad under any president.

I'm not sure that is completely true. It may have still looked bad but the media went out of their way to portray all of these incidents in as negative a light as possible, in some cases I'm not so sure some of these scandals would have become long running stories if the president had been Gore or Obama.

 

[CSpindizzy]

The media wasn't the one that disbanded the Iraqi army, immediately creating large swarms of unemployed Iraqi's with military training and a reason to hate the US.

Large swarms? You have a precise number? You make it sound like the entire population was against us. If anything, the people were overwhelmingly supportive. How many people with ink stained fingers did you see? These people came out in droves boldly risking their lives. It's the first time in decades they had a choice to decide on in an election.

 

[volinbham]

Seeing as how you didn't know I equally criticised Bush when he was in office, I could see why you don't remember. Take a trip in time on the posts. It was done.

I'll vouch for that.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I'll vouch for that.

Not sure if either one of us is credible in someone's eyes but thanks for the confirmation...

 

[VolDad]

It must be pretty bad over there. He is trying to deflect their anger away from himself and towards a common enemy (US).

Iran accuses US of meddling after disputed vote - Yahoo! News

 

[rjd970]

I must be pretty bad over there. He is trying to deflect their anger away from himself and towards a common enemy (US).

Iran accuses US of meddling after disputed vote - Yahoo! News

I think Obama is playing this whole thing very shrewdly.

From the article:

An Iranian statement blamed Washington for "intolerable" interference in the showdown over allegations of vote-rigging and fraud. The report, on state-run Press TV, cited no evidence.

There is a reason they cited no evidence...because there is none. Obama has been thunderously silent on the whole situation. "Blame America" has been the Iranian trump card but even the most anti-american crowds over there can see in this instance, it doesn't have a leg to stand on. The citizens can't be fed that garbage this time and these religious wacko's are being highlighted as the corrupt bunch they really are.

I personally think Obama has it right on this one. Stay silent and let's see how this thing plays out before we get involved.

 

[volinbham]

I think he could make a stronger statement about free and fair elections in general without being seen as meddling. As stated earlier - most European leaders made stronger statements than he has.

 

[MG1968]

Ahmadenijad has already accused the US of meddling, so Obama's attempt at clever rhetoric was wasted.

 

[TennTradition]

Ahmadenijad has already accused the US of meddling, so Obama's attempt at clever rhetoric was wasted.

That is not necessarily true - just because he says it means others will agree or listen.

 

[rjd970]

I think he could make a stronger statement about free and fair elections in general without being seen as meddling. As stated earlier - most European leaders made stronger statements than he has.

The more silent he stays the more illegitimate the Iranian ruling party looks making statements about US meddling. I still say he is playing this one just right. This is gaining mementum without his help. If it gets forceably shut down, then he should come out and make statements about free elections and democracy.

 

[MontereyVol]

Maybe I should have titled this thread for Khamenei?

Obama's stance on this issue, up to this point is spot on.

 

[MontereyVol]

I have to admit I am stunned the protesters are still showing up. Something is going to break on this, either the authorities are going to get over zealous or the protesters go home and a new Islamic state is going to emerge.

 

[hatvol96]

Obama's rope a dope on Iran appears to be working. He's given the ruling religious nuts the opportunity to expose themselves as the bloodthirsty barbarians they are and they haven't disappointed. There was never a reason to issue a "strong statement" from the US. The pictures today from Tehran are stronger than any words an Amercian president could have spoken.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

I have to admit I am stunned the protesters are still showing up. Something is going to break on this, either the authorities are going to get over zealous or the protesters go home and a new Islamic state is going to emerge.

I'm not surprised. One only need to think back to 1977-1979. The Shah ruled with an iron fist. He was overthrown by the same methods you are seeing today.

The overthrow of the Shah came as a surprise to almost all observers. The first militant anti-Shah demonstrations of a few hundred started in October 1977, after the death of Khomeini's son Mostafa. A year later strikes were paralyzing the country, and in early December a "total of 6 to 9 million" — more than 10% of the country — marched against the Shah throughout Iran.

On January 16, 1979, he and his wife left Iran at the behest of Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar (a long time opposition leader himself), who sought to calm the situation. Spontaneous attacks by members of the public on statues of the Pahlavis followed, and "within hours, almost every sign of the Pahlavi dynasty" was destroyed.

 

[rockytophigh]

Obama's rope a dope on Iran appears to be working. He's given the ruling religious nuts the opportunity to expose themselves as the bloodthirsty barbarians they are and they haven't disappointed. There was never a reason to issue a "strong statement" from the US. The pictures today from Tehran are stronger than any words an Amercian president could have spoken.

I don't think you can possibly say that Obama or anyone else for that matter envisioned what has happened in Iran this past week. To give him credit for not making a comment and calling it "exposing" Iran's regime is stretching IMO. Giving credit for sitting back and watching can be applied just about to any situation and is a wildly inaccurate science.

Obama didn't comment on the Vietnam War either, therefore letting both sides expose themselves eventually leading to the end of the conflict. Ummmmm....no.

Pardon me if I misinterpreted what you were saying. It's a bit early and I didn't get much sleep last night.:cray:

 

[Axion Jaxion]

Supposedly, Mousavi is just as radical as Ahmadinejad, so it's basically a fight between two extremists. Great.

 

[rjd970]

I don't think you can possibly say that Obama or anyone else for that matter envisioned what has happened in Iran this past week. To give him credit for not making a comment and calling it "exposing" Iran's regime is stretching IMO. Giving credit for sitting back and watching can be applied just about to any situation and is a wildly inaccurate science.

So McCain has come out and publicly stated Obama should start making stronger statement and be more involved. I guess you think this is the wrong move? If the right move is to stay silent and let it play out, then give credit where credit is due.

Obama is making a conscious decision that not saying too much right now is the best course. He has and will make his fair share of mistakes, but this one is right. Just because it involves not doing anything doesn't take away the fact that given the current circumstances it is the right one.

Obama didn't comment on the Vietnam War either, therefore letting both sides expose themselves eventually leading to the end of the conflict. Ummmmm....no.

Weak. In fact, not even sure how one could even draw a comparison here.

 

[rockytophigh]

So McCain has come out and publicly stated Obama should start making stronger statement and be more involved. I guess you think this is the wrong move? If the right move is to stay silent and let it play out, then give credit where credit is due.

Obama is making a conscious decision that not saying too much right now is the best course. He has and will make his fair share of mistakes, but this one is right. Just because it involves not doing anything doesn't take away the fact that given the current circumstances it is the right one.



Weak. In fact, not even sure how one could even draw a comparison here.

Again, I find it tough to swallow that we're giving credit for doing nothing and that Obama is making being silent as part of a concious decision. Maybe he (and his staff) are really saying "let's just set this one completely out and let them destroy one another" but I can't get on that bandwagon.

It was sarcasm. It wasn't meant to be a literal comparison. Sorry, I thought we all came with the meter. Maybe I should highlight when I'm being so far out there there's only one person that could possibly take it word for word. My bad.

 

[rjd970]

Again, I find it tough to swallow that we're giving credit for doing nothing and that Obama is making being silent as part of a concious decision. Maybe he (and his staff) are really saying "let's just set this one completely out and let them destroy one another" but I can't get on that bandwagon.

It was sarcasm. It wasn't meant to be a literal comparison. Sorry, I thought we all came with the meter. Maybe I should highlight when I'm being so far out there there's only one person that could possibly take it word for word. My bad.

If he came out strongly against what the Iranian leadership is doing, effectively playing into their hands and rhetoric like every other modern president has, would you call it a mistake?

Besides, with most of the right calling for stronger rhetoric from him, one has to think that not doing anything is in fact a conscious and calculated decision he is making.

I'm certainly no fan of everything he is doing right now, but this is exhibit A that no matter what Obama does it will be wrong to some. Foreign policy was supposed to be one of his weak points during the election, but I would say he hasn't done that bad up to this point. I just wish he would take a more hardline approach with NK, because I think the previous administration had that one right.

 

[rockytophigh]

If he came out strongly against what the Iranian leadership is doing, effectively playing into their hands and rhetoric like every other modern president has, would you call it a mistake?

Besides, with most of the right calling for stronger rhetoric from him, one has to think that not doing anything is in fact a conscious and calculated decision he is making.

I'm certainly no fan of everything he is doing right now, but this is exhibit A that no matter what Obama does it will be wrong to some. Foreign policy was supposed to be one of his weak points during the election, but I would say he hasn't done that bad up to this point. I just wish he would take a more hardline approach with NK, because I think the previous administration had that one right.

I agree that mixing it up with Iran is a bad idea. Let those frothing dogs eat each other all day every day. I don't agree that not doing anything is a concious decision. I think the speed combined with the shock and twists of the Iranian developments has allowed for him to sit idly and somehow get praise for it.

I completely agree with you on NK. But my point is that if NK goes away and quiets down, you will praise Obama for sitting back and letting them cool off, and say that's a calculated decision. I hope this guy suceeds on all fronts....he's leading the country we all live in. I want him and his administration to be right on in regards to most major issues. I'm just really, really nervous this silence on not only Iran, but NK as well, is being viewed as a point of weakness by many other countries that would love to take us down.

 

[volinbham]

Is this still rope a dope? Is he meddling now?

Maybe he knows what he's doing but he seems a bit late in a response about the U.S. standing with those seeking to exercise self-determination rights.

I think this type statement could have been made from the beginning (as it was by other world leaders) without meddling.

This is the statement of U.S. principle that many (including myself) were hoping for earlier in the situation. This is now the second such incident where BO is last to chime (the other escapes me at the moment). I hope that is a sign of careful consideration and not a sign of underlying values.

President Barack Obama on Saturday challenged Iran's government to halt a "violent and unjust" crackdown on dissenters, using his bluntest language yet to condemn Tehran's postelection response.
Obama has sought a measured reaction to avoid being drawn in as a meddler in Iranian affairs. Yet his comments have grown more pointed as the clashes intensified, and his latest remarks took direct aim at Iranian leaders.

"We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people," Obama said in a written statement. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."

Obama's criticism came one day after both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to condemn the actions by the Iranian government against demonstrators and moves to interfere with Internet and cell phone communications. That was seen in part as a veiled criticism of Obama's response, too.

The president already was on record as saying the United States stood behind those who were seeking justice in a peaceful way. He responded to critics that he hadn't been forceful enough in support of protesters, telling CBS News: "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do."

Obama to Iran's leaders: Stop 'unjust' actions - Yahoo! News