Sorry People...We've Meddled Enough

#1
CSpindizzy

CSpindizzy

Five Star Recruit
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
11,352
Likes
542
#1
Obama: Iran supreme leader worried about election

So he thinks the Ayatollah is genuine in his belief for investigating the election? Does Obama truly believe an honest investigation will happen?

And he's concerned about the image of meddling? What is his demand of talks between Israel and Palestinians? Afghanistan? etc. Sorry mass movement of freedom. We're more concerned about our image (just on this issue) over you dying for your freedoms and rights from tyranny. I'm worried about you but your leaders are only doing this because of the past history of US imposing their will on the region and a lack of understanding of your culture by Americans...
 
#3
#3
He's right that he's already meddling in other world crises? Odd that he is not concerned about 'meddling' in the areas he's 'demanding' action be made. Or he's right in thinking the Ayatollah is concerned enough to give a full, honest, and thorough investigation of the election? Sorry but he's not right. He's naive.
 
#5
#5
CSpindizzy said:
He's right that he's already meddling in other world crises? Odd that he is not concerned about 'meddling' in the areas he's 'demanding' action be made. Or he's right in thinking the Ayatollah is concerned enough to give a full, honest, and thorough investigation of the election? Sorry but he's not right. He's naive.
Click to expand...


He's right that we have no input into their election issues.
 
#7
#7
But we have input in other nations' elections? Again, hypocrisy on his part. He times a speech to the Muslim world right before Lebanese elections and then credits himself for Hizbollah losing. He meddles in other elections and makes demands on nations like Israel to compromise their security. My point is that he cannot credibly say his response is out of concern of an image of meddling when he has already meddled deeply with other nations. The hypocrisy is extended when he blasted Bush for imposing the will of the US on other nations but he does the same thing. If an image of meddling was a concern this should have been since day one and not suddenly with Iran.

The irony here is that before the election, he and his supporters were all about his speech making a positive difference in this election. Up to election day, his spindoctors were lining up to say that a win by Mousavi was all in part of Obama's wonderful speech changing hearts and minds. Clearly this is an admission of meddling into the election affairs of Iran. When the outcome in Lebanon was favorable, there was no concern for admitting meddling. When the outcome is not favorable we stand back - in the meantime, those seeking freedom and change - yes change, Obama's mantra - are being rounded up and killed. Obama seems to want to blame America for causing thugs like these in charge when we have the ability to reverse this course. He wants to enable thugs in power rather than allow for the people to determine their own fate. He enables dictators like those in Honduras, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. and does nothing to inspire freedom, free elections, free press, women's rights, etc. Make a simple statement that backs the mullahs up against the wall. Remind them that just as they slipped agents into Iraq to 'interfere' in elections and freedom there, the same can be done in Iran. Remind the mullahs that they are surrounded by freely elected governments and that this movement is catching on in Iran. The days of the elder mullahs are coming to a close and change is coming - ironic the same concept Obama drove during the election is something that is taking place in Iran but he'd rather side with the opposite one.
 
#8
#8
Vols378 said:
have to agree with lawgator
Click to expand...

That may be LG's opinion but that is not Obama's point. Meddling is not the principle being argued. Obama already meddles and this is clearly not what Obama is refusing to act on.
 
#9
#9
CSpindizzy said:
That may be LG's opinion but that is not Obama's point. Meddling is not the principle being argued. Obama already meddles and this is clearly not what Obama is refusing to act on.
Click to expand...


If Obama "takes up" for the opposition candidate, I can think of at least two problems it could cause.

First, it may actually cause a backlash against Mousavi as some sort of ally of the U.S. Might a certain part of Iran be okay with that? Sure, but not that part that have the guns.

Second, if the official results stand, and if he has supported the other guy's claim that the result has been tampered with, how is he supposed to have any influence over the regime when he has questioned its legitimacy?
 
#10
#10
The leaders of other countries have expressed louder concerns about the outcome of the election (Sarkozy in particular). Are they meddling?
 
#11
#11
isn't it a bit hypocritical of Obama to say that he's concerned about the quashing of dissent in Iran, yet doesn't seem to mind the quashing of dissent in the US?
 
#13
#13
Who said Obama would have to take up with Mousavi first of all? Obama likes to take things directly to the people and bypass leaders altogether. Mousavi is token in this whole movement regardless. He is still conservative AND would continue many of the same programs regardless. It takes approval of the Ayatollah to even get on the ballot.

What is feared is a mass movement of larger proportions. If a large enough group is encouraged to peacefully march in the streets, strike, etc. the mullahs have no choice but to offer concessions or tone down any response. Obama, as leader of the free world, and his globally inspiring speeches would be needed to rally a large enough group to take to the streets. Again, he was quite confident in his speeches to create this mass election change to begin with. Why all of a sudden back down? Is he that shallow in his abilities that when a roadblock springs up he cowers behind excuses?

He has the ability to motivate such a large demonstration to put the mullahs in a position to concede some rights and privileges. This is not about an election or Mousavi. It is about eroding a tyrannical regime a little at a time by taking ground when it is available. Obama has the chance to capitalize on a weak moment in an otherwise brickwalled regime. When your opponent shows weakness do you take advantage of it? Or do you back down and even risk giving ground yourself?

Opportunities do not come often in the Middle East. Obama's actions or lack of not only waste an opportunity in Iran but project weakness and indecisiveness that embolden other regimes in the world. All it would take is his words - you know...what he's known for? Even a teleprompter would be provided. It is the exact same thing he was trying before the election. Are you not confident enough in your man's skills to do this?
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
If Obama "takes up" for the opposition candidate, I can think of at least two problems it could cause.

First, it may actually cause a backlash against Mousavi as some sort of ally of the U.S. Might a certain part of Iran be okay with that? Sure, but not that part that have the guns.

Second, if the official results stand, and if he has supported the other guy's claim that the result has been tampered with, how is he supposed to have any influence over the regime when he has questioned its legitimacy?
Click to expand...

Then the question becomes, would you risk either of these to possibilities in order to create discord in the country and possibly help the younger generation (which is much more open to western thinking and will run the country one day) shed the grip the Ayatollah and his inner circle have on the country.
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
Is he right to tell Israel to stop all settlement expansions?

Is that meddling?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Allowing a country to grow and provide homes for their residents is in no way shape or form a reasonable thing for any country to do.
 
#16
#16
I'm not sure what Obama saying anything other than that he supports a clean election would do here. Its not like the administration took sides in the week leading up to the election, when the media first really started reporting that Ahmadinejad might actually lose. Certainly, no matter what influence you guys might think he does or does not have there, it could be a collossal blunder to back the wrong horse in this.
 
#17
#17
You keep missing the point here. I tried to explain this is beyond the election or a candidate here. Obama does not have to back ANY candidate here. Ahmadinejad will win this election no matter what. But that is not what matters in this situation. There is something greater than him here. Clearly you just don't get that and would much rather support a weaker foreign policy and allow Iran to continue to grow as a threat and irritation to the US.
 
#18
#18
CSpindizzy said:
You keep missing the point here. I tried to explain this is beyond the election or a candidate here. Obama does not have to back ANY candidate here. Ahmadinejad will win this election no matter what. But that is not what matters in this situation. There is something greater than him here. Clearly you just don't get that and would much rather support a weaker foreign policy and allow Iran to continue to grow as a threat and irritation to the US.
Click to expand...

Do you think Iran wasn't growing as a threat, or an irritation to the US, under a "stronger" foreign policy?
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what Obama saying anything other than that he supports a clean election would do here. Its not like the administration took sides in the week leading up to the election, when the media first really started reporting that Ahmadinejad might actually lose. Certainly, no matter what influence you guys might think he does or does not have there, it could be a collossal blunder to back the wrong horse in this.
Click to expand...

I wasn't advocating Obama backing either candidate. I was merely adding an element to your scenario. I can see your point on backing the wrong man. I would however point out that you might gain more from backing the opposition in the long run, you could win over the younger generation in the country, and they one day will run Iran. In the short term you might piss off those in power but let's face it they are never going to be good friends to us anyway.
 
#20
#20
rjd970 said:
Do you think Iran wasn't growing as a threat, or an irritation to the US, under a "stronger" foreign policy?
Click to expand...

So IYO what is the answer, do we increase the pressure, or do we try a "softer" approach.
 
#22
#22
rjd970 said:
Do you think Iran wasn't growing as a threat, or an irritation to the US, under a "stronger" foreign policy?
Click to expand...

I know you want so bad to get me to defend Bush. But this is where I think he failed on Iran as well. He did nothing on dealing with Iran either. With Iran, we did not have a "strong" foreign policy. Bush's whole focus was put democracies on both sides and hope something changes. He did little with stopping the weapons program and forcing Russia, China, and North Korea to back off. Clearly the Iraq war weakened him on one strategy but strengthened him on another.

So your question has no basis since the previous Iran policy was in no way strong. Add to the fact the circumstances between then and now are much different. So comparing the two is a little difficult. I would hope that the neo-cons in the previous WH would have taken a much different tactic in responding to the situation. As I said before, this regime has shown a moment of weakness that rarely occurs. The door is closing rapidly and odds are the effect will be backwards from where we'd like to go. Freedom movements inside Iran will be less likely to push for change if the beacon of freedom in the world does nothing to inspire them - even if with words.
 
#23
#23
CSpindizzy said:
You keep missing the point here. I tried to explain this is beyond the election or a candidate here. Obama does not have to back ANY candidate here. Ahmadinejad will win this election no matter what. But that is not what matters in this situation. There is something greater than him here. Clearly you just don't get that and would much rather support a weaker foreign policy and allow Iran to continue to grow as a threat and irritation to the US.
Click to expand...


I think your post provides an excellent illustration of what I perceive to be the difference between the Bush (read "Cheney") approach to the world versus Obama's. If you constantly view things in such stark contrast like this, and thereby fool yourself into thinking you are acting on principle, you end up in situations where you do far greater damage to your status in the world than if you recognized that its all situational and that outright interference in one country might be worthwhile whereas even the slightest meddling in the one next door could be disastrous.

Foreign policy is so nuanced and complex, I just think its a huge mistake to say that we should take a position because failure to meddle provides an adversary a chance to grow. Same thing with all this nonsense about "legitimizing" a foreign leader by shaking his hand. There's just so many levels of complexity to it and its way wrong to think you can determine policy based on the schoolyard level geopolitics of dealing with bullies.
 
#24
#24
KB5252 said:
So IYO what is the answer, do we increase the pressure, or do we try a "softer" approach.
Click to expand...

I think we find a middle ground. We stay strong, but don't make them feel threatened either.

Obama and Bush are too far in both directions. I suspect Obama will be just as ineffective as Bush was in this regard.

Besides, Israel may take care of all this before we have to act anyway.
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
I think your post provides an excellent illustration of what I perceive to be the difference between the Bush (read "Cheney") approach to the world versus Obama's. If you constantly view things in such stark contrast like this, and thereby fool yourself into thinking you are acting on principle, you end up in situations where you do far greater damage to your status in the world than if you recognized that its all situational and that outright interference in one country might be worthwhile whereas even the slightest meddling in the one next door could be disastrous.

Foreign policy is so nuanced and complex, I just think its a huge mistake to say that we should take a position because failure to meddle provides an adversary a chance to grow. Same thing with all this nonsense about "legitimizing" a foreign leader by shaking his hand. There's just so many levels of complexity to it and its way wrong to think you can determine policy based on the schoolyard level geopolitics of dealing with bullies.
Click to expand...

Yes, your Neville Chamberlain approach is so much better. I don't think there is a stark contrast. If anything each situation brings different possibilities. You act as if MY approach is the only one that could potentially do damage. Foreign policy is a risk game. Sometimes things work and sometimes things don't. It does not mean you cower in a corner for fear of risk of negative things happening.

You are ignoring the fact that Obama has already chosen to meddle. This is ignored or condoned by you. Why do you ignore his current meddling in some affairs but fear acting in Iran? If anything, Obama is being inconsistent in his words and actions. Obama admits a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. He admits they violate human rights. He is handed a situation in which potential change can be made and he fails to act. But yet in Israel, he demands that Israel give up land and security or face consequences. He gets forceful with them into their affairs and you do not have an issue with that.

The issue with Iran is that according to him and his followers prior to the election, his speeches were to provoke a favorable reaction in the elections. His speech was designed to meddle in the hearts and minds of Iranians. The underlying hope was to have a similar effect as he claims happened in Lebanon. So pre-election Obama himself expected some effect from his speech. But suddenly post-election, this strategy is denied and forgotten. Not to mention to do the same thing now is suddenly meddling. Odd how something done pre-election was designed strategy by Obama and a good thing and post-election we dare not do this for fear of our image.

Obama treks all over the globe telling the world he will work for global change. He speaks in Berlin all about changes. He goes all over the Middle East to inspire change. He's all about meddling but now?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top