Is this the end of Ahmadinejad?

#101
#101
rjd970 said:
I don't think it would have changed to protests either, but my contention from the beginning is that coming out strong right away plays right into the Iranian government's charge that the US is meddling. It is inviting credibility for anybody that really wants to believe that nonsense. Not doing so shows the Mullah's and what not what idiots they really are.

I think this is a red herring argument. They are blaming the US for meddling regardless of what he says.

While the protests are peacful, and no physical force is being used, why say anything? It is none of our business. Obama came out stronger today, but not changing what he has said all along, in a show of support. Even Iran knows that Obama is staying neutral enough to where this business of US interference is mute. I mean he specifically ordered US ships in the gulf to back away.

It's a statement of what we stand for. Congress did it, France did it, Great Britain did it but somehow if Obama says anything it's meddling? There's a huge difference between taking action or even calling for action and making a statement of principle on free and fair elections and the right to protest. Until today, BO has been too light in this regard. Does it matter in the end? Probably not but I still believe the criticism of his limited response until now is valid and has forced his hand.

I think his change in posture is not pressure induced, but rather a consequence of what has changed on the ground in Tehran. His tone isn't driving the protest, the protests are driving his tone, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Well he says he hasn't changed posture one bit so that's out the window.

The bottomline is that using the tone he did today when he spoke last week wouldn't have driven the protests anymore but would have more clearly signaled his own views on the matter. As a young, unproven leader his words say as much about him as they do anything else.
 
#102
#102
How can anyone not be moved by what is going on over there? This girl Neda, that was awful!

On the other hand, isn't there some logic to not wanting to be seen as supporting a particular candidate for fear that the opposition will use that to suggest that the candidate is another instrumentality of us, after our pretty bad history with them?

Sure, there are segments of the Iranian population that would like to see a move to a pro-Western attitude, but from all reports I've seen the majority still view the U.S., at least our government, quite skeptically.
 
#103
#103
lawgator1 said:
How can anyone not be moved by what is going on over there? This girl Neda, that was awful!

On the other hand, isn't there some logic to not wanting to be seen as supporting a particular candidate for fear that the opposition will use that to suggest that the candidate is another instrumentality of us, after our pretty bad history with them?

Sure, there are segments of the Iranian population that would like to see a move to a pro-Western attitude, but from all reports I've seen the majority still view the U.S., at least our government, quite skeptically.
Click to expand...

The government they are skeptical of, the people and the freedoms we enjoy are a different story. The president does not have to support one candidate or the other, all he needed to do was come out more forcefully in advocating for their right to self determination.
 
#104
#104
lawgator1 said:
How can anyone not be moved by what is going on over there? This girl Neda, that was awful!

On the other hand, isn't there some logic to not wanting to be seen as supporting a particular candidate for fear that the opposition will use that to suggest that the candidate is another instrumentality of us, after our pretty bad history with them?

Sure, there are segments of the Iranian population that would like to see a move to a pro-Western attitude, but from all reports I've seen the majority still view the U.S., at least our government, quite skeptically.
Click to expand...

What I've been criticizing is not the lack of picking a candidate. It's the lack of making any statement for fear it would be offensive and set back direct negotiations. What he finally said today I agree with. Until now though, it appears he's put his goal of making nice nice ahead of making any statement of US views on people's rights to free elections and protests. It is possible to negotiate directly while still making clear what your core values are. Until today, he did a poor job of expressing what his core values in such situations are.
 
#105
#105
volinbham said:
What I've been criticizing is not the lack of picking a candidate. It's the lack of making any statement for fear it would be offensive and set back direct negotiations. What he finally said today I agree with. Until now though, it appears he's put his goal of making nice nice ahead of making any statement of US views on people's rights to free elections and protests. It is possible to negotiate directly while still making clear what your core values are. Until today, he did a poor job of expressing what his core values in such situations are.
Click to expand...


I can see your point of view. On the other hand, surely if he'd made those comments a week ago Ahmadinejad would have said he was meddling in favor of his opponent, trying to encourage the protestors.

Tough call.
 
#106
#106
volinbham said:
What I've been criticizing is not the lack of picking a candidate. It's the lack of making any statement for fear it would be offensive and set back direct negotiations. What he finally said today I agree with. Until now though, it appears he's put his goal of making nice nice ahead of making any statement of US views on people's rights to free elections and protests. It is possible to negotiate directly while still making clear what your core values are. Until today, he did a poor job of expressing what his core values in such situations are.
Click to expand...

+1
 
#107
#107
I think this is a red herring argument. They are blaming the US for meddling regardless of what he says.
Click to expand...

But the fact that he toned it down at the beginning gives such statements as little credibility as possible. Some would be more apt to buy that if in fact he came out the same way other leaders did.

Congress did it, France did it, Great Britain did it but somehow if Obama says anything it's meddling?
Click to expand...

Yes, to them. Becasue unlike France or Great Britain we are the biggest zionists and satan, and have a history, especially now, of meddling in the affairs of the ME. You're crazy if you don't think what the US, especially the president, says carries more weight.

The bottomline is that using the tone he did today when he spoke last week wouldn't have driven the protests anymore but would have more clearly signaled his own views on the matter. As a young, unproven leader his words say as much about him as they do anything else.
Click to expand...

What you are not acknowledging is the message hasn't changed one bit, just how vocal he is about it. And again, I don't think he tone is driving anything. Why would he want to come out like France, Great Britain, etc...did right from the beginning and give the Iranians a reason to believe the big bad zionists are once again meddling in the affairs of the ME?
 
#108
#108
volinbham said:
What I've been criticizing is not the lack of picking a candidate. It's the lack of making any statement for fear it would be offensive and set back direct negotiations. What he finally said today I agree with. Until now though, it appears he's put his goal of making nice nice ahead of making any statement of US views on people's rights to free elections and protests. It is possible to negotiate directly while still making clear what your core values are. Until today, he did a poor job of expressing what his core values in such situations are.
Click to expand...

When was this said? Or is it just your opinion of why he hasn't been vocal until now?
 
#109
#109
Diplomatic negotiations have always been difficult with Iran since the Shah was removed, and this difficulty is a direct result of a combination of his treatment of the Iranian people and his relationship with the US and west in general. Iranian leadership are very shrewd negotiators. They are highly intelligent and know the game well. I believe Obama had been trying to mend some fences in regards to our relationship with them, trying to leverage a deal that would put an end to their nuclear weapons program.

The problem here is that the US and western countries have dangled the carrot of freedom by revolution in front of them for decades and implied our help when that time came (covertly of course). I do not care for Obama but I believe when these uprisings started he was caught between a rock and a hard place. Should he hedge his bets with the Mullahs or does he side with the revolutionaries. I believe he might have done the right thing by letting things play out, but he missed the boat by not being forceful enough in his condemnation of the violence, the Europeans beat him to the punch and if there is revolution they will remember that fact.

If there is revolution Iran, (and the west) will almost certainly need to contain any interference by the fundamentalist Muslims, it is in both our best interest as well as their due to the fact that they are more westernized in culture. Whatever happens in the next few months will be interesting to say the least.
 
#110
#110
rjd970 said:
When was this said? Or is it just your opinion of why he hasn't been vocal until now?
Click to expand...

It is my opinion. As further evidence, the administration's failure to cancel the 4th of July invitations to Iranian diplomats shows his stubbornness (to use Pete Hoestkra's term) with regard to his engagement policy. I believe he's made direct talks with Iranians a hallmark of his ME FP and he wasn't prepared for these election results. Rather than adapt, he wanted to avoid any statements that would be offensive in those talks which he plans to go ahead with. Events got ahead of him and he now has to catch up to the rest of the world and Congress.

I believe the rationale that making the type of statement he did yesterday would somehow give cover to or a "foil" for the Iranian government is exaggerated and cover for his reluctance to do anything that would impact his "talks".

To your earlier post, I believe his words have changed along with tone. In the nuanced world of diplomacy these changes are significant. He had no choice.
 
#111
#111
volinbham said:
It is my opinion. As further evidence, the administration's failure to cancel the 4th of July invitations to Iranian diplomats shows his stubbornness (to use Pete Hoestkra's term) with regard to his engagement policy. I believe he's made direct talks with Iranians a hallmark of his ME FP and he wasn't prepared for these election results. Rather than adapt, he wanted to avoid any statements that would be offensive in those talks which he plans to go ahead with. Events got ahead of him and he now has to catch up to the rest of the world and Congress.

I believe the rationale that making the type of statement he did yesterday would somehow give cover to or a "foil" for the Iranian government is exaggerated and cover for his reluctance to do anything that would impact his "talks".

To your earlier post, I believe his words have changed along with tone. In the nuanced world of diplomacy these changes are significant. He had no choice.
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:

Obama = no (picture below)

Petroleum+Jelly.gif
 
#112
#112
In the words of someone else:

I have yet to hear what possible good it would do for the President of the United States to encourage the protesters, except to give the Iranian regime a better excuse for killing more of them.
 
#113
#113
lawgator1 said:
In the words of someone else:

I have yet to hear what possible good it would do for the President of the United States to encourage the protesters, except to give the Iranian regime a better excuse for killing more of them.
Click to expand...

Do you not think it equally wrong that we covertly encouraged protests and revolution for decades in Iran only to remain pretty quiet when they start to revolt?
 
#114
#114
KB5252 said:
Do you not think it equally wrong that we covertly encouraged protests and revolution for decades in Iran only to remain pretty quiet when they start to revolt?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what we have done to "covertly" encourage it. Do you?

At any rate, what can we do to protect them? Send in the 82nd?
 
#115
#115
KB5252 said:
Do you not think it equally wrong that we covertly encouraged protests and revolution for decades in Iran only to remain pretty quiet when they start to revolt?
Click to expand...

Bad when a republican is in office.

Awesome when a democrat is in office.

It is utterly sickening to see people base every thing on party lines.
 
#120
#120
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what we have done to "covertly" encourage it. Do you?

At any rate, what can we do to protect them? Send in the 82nd?
Click to expand...

There have most certainly been covert operations to encourage uprisings over the last few decades. The Iranian governments accusations of US meddling is not baseless by any stretch of the imagination.
 
#121
#121
lawgator1 said:
You have a link to what we've done to covertly encourage protests in Iran? I'd like to read that very much.
Click to expand...

You want links to amazon to see what books to read about covert operations in Iran?

Are you that lazy?

There is over 70 years worth of stuff to look at.
 
#122
#122
KB5252 said:
There have most certainly been covert operations to encourage uprisings over the last few decades. The Iranian governments accusations of US meddling is not baseless by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

The previous bastard president, Carter, killed/wiped out an entire delta force unit.

Carter and his pencil neck suit wearers thought they knew better than our boys on the ground!

Grrrrrrrr, I hate Carter!
 
#123
#123
if obama goes through with his nuclear talks with ahmadinejad doesn't that legitimize ahmadinejad's administration?
 
#124
#124
lawgator1 said:
I am asking, what can we do to protect the protestors?
Click to expand...

We can't. They will either protest and revolt until they win out, or they will revolt until they are crushed and decide it is hopeless. The comments coming from many European countries did not serve to ramp up their activities, this is their revolution. It did show that European countries were on the side of the people. Obama was a little late and and was reluctant to commit. These are the types of things that people in Iran will take note of.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top