Is this the end of Ahmadinejad?

#151
#151
KB5252 said:
Exactly, I knew this, you knew this. Why didn't Obama come out and condemn the killings and beatings as the Europeans did? Now he gave his critics yet another reason to believe he is "soft" in regards to foreign policy. He tried to keep from offending the people he thought he would be negotiating with and now they have spit in his face.
Click to expand...

The problem with your reasoning is that harsh criticism from Obama would have had ZERO positive effect in any respect, and likely would have emboldened the security forces more, and even earlier.

Face it, as fodder for criticizing Obama, this issue is just not very potent.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#152
#152
lawgator1 said:
The problem with your reasoning is that harsh criticism from Obama would have had ZERO positive effect in any respect, and likely would have emboldened the security forces more, and even earlier.

Face it, as fodder for criticizing Obama, this issue is just not very potent.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I believe you are dismissing the importance of the leader of the free worlds response to issues like this.
 
#153
#153
I agree with lawgator here. IMO, much of the criticism of Obama on this issue is a stretch. There are plenty other issues where criticism of Obama is much more worthy.
 
#154
#154
rjd970 said:
I agree with lawgator here. IMO, much of the criticism of Obama on this issue is a stretch. There are plenty other issues where criticism of Obama is much more worthy.
Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of things it realy isn't that big of a deal IMO. What I take issue with is those that think Obama handled this in just the right way. He didn't drop the ball, but he didn't really look like the leader of the free world either. Where I believe the criticism is warranted is the belief (held by many and seemingly backed up by details being leaked to the press) that Obama held back because of his upcoming meetings with Iranian leaders. If there is any validity to this belief, then it is cause for criticism.
 
#155
#155
KB5252 said:
In the grand scheme of things it realy isn't that big of a deal IMO. What I take issue with is those that think Obama handled this in just the right way. He didn't drop the ball, but he didn't really look like the leader of the free world either. Where I believe the criticism is warranted is the belief (held by many and seemingly backed up by details being leaked to the press) that Obama held back because of his upcoming meetings with Iranian leaders. If there is any validity to this belief, then it is cause for criticism.
Click to expand...

The irony here is the Obama is every bit as ideologically stubborn as Bush. He had/has a plan for direct negotiations. Making strong statements didn't fit tact he wanted to take with the negotiations so he deferred until it was clear he couldn't maintain that position.

If you look at his early comments, he basically equated Ahmad. and Mousave. He indicated things were fine because the "Supreme Leader" was looking into election issues. He was extremely careful not to offend any of the leadership of Iran using the claim that any statement in praise of the rights of the opposition would be seen as meddling. Notice he didn't have to take sides but simply indicate moral support for the idea of self-determination -- something that other leaders had no problem doing. This is where my beef is.

Is it a big deal? Probably not. Is it a window into his foreign policy ideology. Most definitely. I believe he and his team are scrambling to retool the Iran policy because events got ahead of them.
 
#157
#157
That and the Saudi's declared they would look the other way if Israel wanted to fly military aircraft over their airspace.
 
#158
#158
MontereyVol said:
That and the Saudi's declared they would look the other way if Israel wanted to fly military aircraft over their airspace.
Click to expand...

I must have missed this, when did this happen?

Will Israel have a show of force first, and telegraph their intentions, or do they just go for the jugular? Do you think with these developments action is inevitable?
 
#159
#159
KB5252 said:
I must have missed this, when did this happen?

Will Israel have a show of force first, and telegraph their intentions, or do they just go for the jugular? Do you think with these developments action is inevitable?
Click to expand...

A week or so ago? Saudi Arabia will not go public with it but don't be surprised to hear about Israeli jets mysteriously appearing over Iran.

After that I can only guess for your second part. Why do a show of force when it has done nothing for the US? The Isreali's will most definitely let some people know but they won't be going to the Washington Post about an attack. They will probably hold off on telling Obama until it is happening. Whatever they do it will be right to the jugular they will not mess around with this.

If I was Iran I would be ignoring what I can see and looking elsewhere.
 
#160
#160
MontereyVol said:
A week or so ago? Saudi Arabia will not go public with it but don't be surprised to hear about Israeli jets mysteriously appearing over Iran.

After that I can only guess for your second part. Why do a show of force when it has done nothing for the US? The Isreali's will most definitely let some people know but they won't be going to the Washington Post about an attack. They will probably hold off on telling Obama until it is happening. Whatever they do it will be right to the jugular they will not mess around with this.

If I was Iran I would be ignoring what I can see and looking elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but isn't Israel very limited on the avenues of attack, meaning they really only have a couple of corridors to choose from, Saudi Arabia over Iraq into Iran and the Persian Gulf?

Or perhaps you mean something different altogether?
 
#161
#161
KB5252 said:
Perhaps but isn't Israel very limited on the avenues of attack, meaning they really only have a couple of corridors to choose from, Saudi Arabia over Iraq into Iran and the Persian Gulf?

Or perhaps you mean something different altogether?
Click to expand...

We have told them they will not be allowed Iraq airspace. Saudi is a very nice option for them, the northern side of the country is all desert and would be a huge corridor and keeps the US out of the fray.

The whole world is looking for an air attack and Iran is armed to the teeth to defend against it. I would look at other options the Israeli's might use.
 
#162
#162
MontereyVol said:
We have told them they will not be allowed Iraq airspace. Saudi is a very nice option for them, the northern side of the country is all desert and would be a huge corridor and keeps the US out of the fray.

The whole world is looking for an air attack and Iran is armed to the teeth to defend against it. I would look at other options the Israeli's might use.
Click to expand...

Long range guided missiles? What other options are there?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top