BARACK OBAMA EITHER NAIVE ON IRAN OR JUST PLAIN DUMB
The Iranian, "election," is history. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the incumbent was ,"reelected," with what has been reported as a landslide victory of about 70% with he an three other candidates running for President. His closest competition was a more moderate candidate whose loss has caused massive and violent protests in the streets by supporters.
The world is acting surprised and calling for investigations. But one world leader who has been out spoken about calling for close negotiations and a working relationship with the Iranian government and as he has stated, "changing," the mood between The United States and Iran is reacting as if this rigged election was a total surprise and even considered at any time to be a fair election by the Iranian Theocray.
At a time when a United States President should be stating support for demonstrations that are clearly protesting not only the theocratic rule of Iran but the oppressive regime that has been evident under Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama is stating that he wants to make it," very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be."
Does he not understand that the results of this election were a foregone conclusion even before the election was scheduled to happen ? Does he not understand that the election was never anything more than a show which was designed to lie to the world that Iran believed in the free process of the voice of the people? Does he not understand that the Mullahs ALWAYS have the final say in what happens in Iran and Ahmadinejad is the choice of the Mullahs regardless of an election ?
Obama is either extremely naive of just plain dumb if he actually thinks that a free election was ever going to take place in Iran. I truly think that his belief was a combination of both naivety and ignorance. On the Iranian election day he boasted that the ,"robust debate," that was taking place in Iran was a result of words he had spoken during his much touted speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt about one week before the election.
Since the speech and even before Obama has thought that his ,"let's be buddies," approach to Iran would actually make a difference with a regime who has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism, the strongest and most vocal proponent for the destruction of Israel and the greatest source and threat of total war in the Middle East.
Iran has sought and continues to seek nuclear weapons claiming that their ,"research," is for peaceful energy usage only. A claim that Obama has obviously bought into since he has stated publicly that Iran has a ,"right," to nuclear power. A right by the way that he has fought against for our own country. It seems that he is the ONLY world leader who believes that Iran is striving for nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons.
For Obama to actually think that any Iranian election would be fair and impartial is a lesson in just how truly naive he is and how dangerous that can and will be for the security of The United States. He clearly either does not understand the reality of the regime in Iran or actually arrogantly believes that his eloquent words of appeasement will change the course of a regime that has acted as a rogue state for more than 30 years.
At a time when a United States President should be expressing support for pro-democracy elements in Iran he is acting as if an election whose conclusion was decided by the Mullahs long before the first vote was cast caught him by surprise and that the will of the Iranian people was something that this regime actually cared about. Naive or dumb or both you make the call.
Ken Taylor
The world is acting surprised and calling for investigations. But one world leader who has been out spoken about calling for close negotiations and a working relationship with the Iranian government and as he has stated, "changing," the mood between The United States and Iran is reacting as if this rigged election was a total surprise and even considered at any time to be a fair election by the Iranian Theocray.
At a time when a United States President should be stating support for demonstrations that are clearly protesting not only the theocratic rule of Iran but the oppressive regime that has been evident under Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama is stating that he wants to make it," very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be."
Does he not understand that the results of this election were a foregone conclusion even before the election was scheduled to happen ? Does he not understand that the election was never anything more than a show which was designed to lie to the world that Iran believed in the free process of the voice of the people? Does he not understand that the Mullahs ALWAYS have the final say in what happens in Iran and Ahmadinejad is the choice of the Mullahs regardless of an election ?
Obama is either extremely naive of just plain dumb if he actually thinks that a free election was ever going to take place in Iran. I truly think that his belief was a combination of both naivety and ignorance. On the Iranian election day he boasted that the ,"robust debate," that was taking place in Iran was a result of words he had spoken during his much touted speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt about one week before the election.
Since the speech and even before Obama has thought that his ,"let's be buddies," approach to Iran would actually make a difference with a regime who has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism, the strongest and most vocal proponent for the destruction of Israel and the greatest source and threat of total war in the Middle East.
Iran has sought and continues to seek nuclear weapons claiming that their ,"research," is for peaceful energy usage only. A claim that Obama has obviously bought into since he has stated publicly that Iran has a ,"right," to nuclear power. A right by the way that he has fought against for our own country. It seems that he is the ONLY world leader who believes that Iran is striving for nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons.
For Obama to actually think that any Iranian election would be fair and impartial is a lesson in just how truly naive he is and how dangerous that can and will be for the security of The United States. He clearly either does not understand the reality of the regime in Iran or actually arrogantly believes that his eloquent words of appeasement will change the course of a regime that has acted as a rogue state for more than 30 years.
At a time when a United States President should be expressing support for pro-democracy elements in Iran he is acting as if an election whose conclusion was decided by the Mullahs long before the first vote was cast caught him by surprise and that the will of the Iranian people was something that this regime actually cared about. Naive or dumb or both you make the call.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 7:46 AM
12 Comments:
Ken, the pro-democracy movement in Iran is gaining steam. That is why there is an investigation of the election results that is taking place.
Why do you want Obama to but into Iranian affairs and disrupt the change that is happening? The Iranian people are a proud people. I doubt they want to feel like they are being led or influenced by an American president. If Obama took a hard stand, he would just give aid and power to Ahmedinejad who would say, "SEE, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO TELL US WHAT IS BEST FOR IRAN."
I'm quite certain the U.S. has many back channel communications to various leaders in Iran. It would be absolutely foolish for Obama to publicly take a hard stand that the election was a total sham. He is doing it right - he is working through back channels.
And by the way, the mullahs are locked in a growing power struggle with the Iranian military. In many ways it is a situation that resembles what happened in Pakistan. Starting in about the 1950s the military took over the political arena in Pakistan and now the ISI and military run things. I'm sure the mullahs don't want to see that and wouldn't mind seeing Ahmedinejad out because he has become a talking head for the Iranian military.
There is a very interesting dynamic that is shaping up in the power struggle for Iran. The mullahs vs. the military. If you think that they are one and the same, you don't understand what is happening.
Rob, I fully understand the dynamics that are taking place in Iran. I understand theconflict between the Mullahs and some in the military, but the fact is that hard liners are still very much in control and the results of this election were a foregone conclusion well before the first vote was cast.
I never once suggested moving in to Iran but as the leader of the free world, pro-democracy groups in Iran need to hear more from that leader than wait and see. Obama is placing himself in a position that is best for him no matter which way this ends up.
If the hard liners prevail he can say he stayed out of it. If pro-democracy succeeds he will take credit for it because of his ,"new approach," and his Cairo speech.
Taking a stand even if not getting involved in never the wrong thing to do. Those in Iran fighting for their freedom deserve more than the naive approach that Obama is taking.
Even Anglica Mercle of Germany took a straight forward approach calling the election afraud and demanding investigations.
Statingthat we back the pro-democracy movement will not make relations with a regime that wants to hate the US no matter what any worse. But it would encourage those who are fighting against that regime and it is also the morally right thing to do.
It is also ridiculous that Obama states that Iran has a right to nuclear power when everyone except Obama understands that the ONLY reason they want it is to weaponize it. Yet he stands aaginst nuclear power for the US. That is not only wrong but extremey two faced.
I don't understand what you want. Obama said he is monitoring the situation. Various members of his administration have expressed concerns about the election (Biden, Clinton, etc.). You want him to give a speech that the elections in Iran were a fraud? I don's see much point in doing that and I don't see how that furthers American interests in any way.
Obama isn't against nuclear power in the U.S. I don't know where you came up with that. There is still the problem of what to do with the waste and the NIMBY issues. There aren't too many places in the country that want a nuclear power plant in their region. That isn't a federal problem, that is mostly a state/local problem.
Are you suggesting that Iran does not have a right to nuclear power? What authority does the U.S. have over a sovereign nation to argue your point?
I don't doubt there is interest in enriching uranium, but Iran is years away from weaponizing anything nuclear - years away. About a year ago Bush was saber rattling on Iran and you were agreeing with him. I said then and still say today, we are not going to attack Iran because of their role in OPEC and what it would do to world oil prices. Iran has energy deals with Russia, China, and India - they are not going to stand by and allow their supplies of crude to be cut off because some in the U.S. don't like Iran.
All the saber rattling and labeling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" did nothing to further American interests. Like it or not, we need to try to find a diplomatic solution and work through back channels to build bridges to Iranian interests.
Frankly, I don't understand what your fear is, you should read about James Baker's views and discussion about how the Cold War was won. Diplomacy and discussion with the former USSR - an enemy far more dangerous than Iran - was critical to reform in Moscow.
Obama must speak out now in support of the protestors in Iran. Monitoring the situation isn't enough. I surf the web every day, so I'm monitoring the situation too. The President needs to do more. This is not primarily a fight between Mousavi and the Mullhas, it's a fight for democracy and against dictatorship. Now that the pro-democracy movement is gaining steam the ayatollahs are vulnerable. We need to take advantage of the situation by giving the pro-democracy movement all the moral suport we can, and covert support also. Of course Obama isn't obligated by the Constitution to do this, but he has a moral obligation to do so. It's ironic that Obama chose to meddle in Israel's internal affairs by speaking out against settlement expansion, but he refuses to meddle in Iran's internal affairs.
Rob, as long as Iran has an illegitimate government which is developing nuclear weapons, they do NOT have a right to nuclear power.
OK, so you want Iran to have a "legitimate" government that is developing nuclear weapons? Mousavi is not calling for the Supreme Leader or the mullahs who run the government to change. Mousavi hates the U.S. and wants to develop nuclear weapons.
What is the difference for American interests who the President of Iran is between Mousavi and Ahmedinejad?
Keeping in mind that the Iranians (including Mousavi) do not want U.S. intervention, tell me specifically what you want Obama/the U.S. to do in Iran.
The example you use with respect to Israel is completely different. There are significant U.S. interests to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue. That is at the heart of much of the Arab/Islamic hatred of the U.S., including much of what drives al Qaeda.
There is also a significant US interest in seeing democracy prevail in Iran. I consider Ahmedinajad and Mousavi both to be illegitimate leaders. As I said in my note, the people are not really fighting for Mousavi. Remember, the mullahs approved both as candidates. The government of Iran should fundamentally change to a democracy. The people have to be free to choose the candidates. This is what Iranians are demonstrating for now. They want the dictatorship to end. Obama needs to speak out forecfully now for true democratic change in Iran. I don't understand why you are against Obama taking a firm stand. What's the downside? I believe a truly democratic Iranian government would be pro-Western and I would feel comfortable if such a government pursued nuclear energy.
As I've said previously, Al Qaeda's hatred of the US goes far deeper than our support of Israel. They hate us because we stand for freedom and human rights.
The U.S. will have to deal with whoever is in charge. There isn't a candidate who is pro-American or anti-nuclear. Why pick sides and do anything that will only serve the purposes of the ruling elites who will just claim that the U.S. is interfering (which would actually be the case).
What do you actually want Obama to do - give a speech? Is there anything more you want?
Al Qaeda does not hate us because of our freedom. That is just silly Bush-speak, but it is absolutely ridiculous. You need to study some more.
Yes I want Obama to give a speech, a very forceful speech against the mullhas. Speeches, are very powerful instruments as Obama and his Liberal supporters have told us. After all, didn't his Cairo speech transform our relationship with the Arab world? In parallel with the speech, I want him to use the back door channels you claim he has with the movers and shakers in Iran. Finally I want him to step up our covert activity in Iran. Since Ahmedinajad and Mousavi are the same, what difference does it make if we pick a side? What exactly are we risking if we pick the "wrong" side? Could our relations with Iran be any worse? Actually, I don't want us to side with Mousavi, I want us to side against the Mullhas and against dictatorship. Using your logic Rob, we should never stand for anything and risk picking the wrong side.
Finally, Al Qaeda hates us precisely because of our Western values. Do you seriously think they will become our friends if we betray Israel?
Dennis, based on your response, you have no understanding whatsoever of what is happening in Iran or the history and distrust Iranians have of the U.S.
All your suggestions would do is give power to Ahmedinejad and the mullahs. They would just say, "See, these protests are just more American interventions into our country." It would turn public sentiment toward the ruling folks.
There isn't a single pro-American group that has any standing in Iran. Iranians largely dislike the U.S. Bush labeled them the access of evil for the last 8 years. Reagan funded and supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein in Iraq's bloody 8 year war against Iran. Going back to the 1953, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran because he was threatening to withhold oil. That is how the Shah of Iran was installed and his brutal and dictatorial reign of terror created the conditions which eventually led to the taking of American hostages and the 1979 Islamic revolution.
I mean really, you think a speech by Obama will make any difference in creating a pro-American, western style democracy in Iran?
You seem to believe the U.S. should intervene everywhere and that somehow people around the world will just magically do what we want. American interventionism has done poorly in Iran, Iraq, the elections in Lebanon, Palestinian elections, Pakistan - pretty much you name it and things don't work out.
I don't even understand your last comment. I suspect you think that Al Qaeda is aligned with Iran. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Mullahs are already accusing us of meddling so I don't see how we could do any further harm by really meddling. They already have all the power. The idea is to try to take power from them and give it to the people. I'm well aware of the history of Iran. Most of the Iranian population is under 30 so the events you reference have little meaning for them compared with the prospect of freedom. I don't know how I can make it any clearer, The Iranian demonstrators want freedom. They are logically looking to us to assist tham in that quest. Our intervention in Iraq, which will be a success unless Obama blows it, has launched democracy right next to Iran.
You seem to feel that we should never intervene in a conflict since we might risk picking the wrong side. I assume that you feel we should never intervene anywhere in the world. I never said we should intervene everywhere. We should pick our spots, and Iran right now is a very good spot to pick. We may not succeed by intervening, but we'll surely fail if we do nothing.
Finally, my comment reagrding Al Qaeda was in response to the last two sentences in your 6/22 e-mail. I never said that Al Qaeda was aligned with Iran. You first mentioned Al Qaeda (your 6/21 e-mail), I didn't.
My partner аnd I ѕtumbled oveг hеre сomіng from a different ωebsіte and thought I might сhеck things out.
I like what I see so noω i'm following you. Look forward to going over your web page again.
Also visit my web page: www.lgtensunits.com
Ϻу ρaгtner and I stumbled over heгe comіng frоm
а dіfferent wеbsite аnd thought I mіght chеck thingѕ out.
I liκe what Ӏ sеe sο now i'm following you. Look forward to going over your web page again.
My site - www.lgtensunits.com
Also see my web site - using a tens unit
Post a Comment
<< Home