COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

Obama lays down harder line on Iran violence

207 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

207 Comments
Login to comment

"Only I'm the president of the United States."

Well, I'll be!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More "sabre-rattling" from Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Soon the far right usual suspects will be on here claiming that President Obama is a war monger. Or better yet that he is pandering to his critics....LOL

I can not wait to see what they think of his timed response to the happenings in Iran......

If the man wears a blue suit the usual suspects will claim that the suit is really green. They seem never to see what it is front of them . They only see what they are told.....LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama played this issue perfectly as far as diplomacy is concerned. Allowing the protests to be seen as legitimate people power with no interference from the US and then, in a timely manner, condemning the violence towards the protestors.

Much be hard to watch for all those who want so desperately for Obama to fail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Much be hard to watch for all those who want so desperately for Obama to fail.

Should read: Must be...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama played this issue perfectly as far as diplomacy is concerned. Allowing the protests to be seen as legitimate people power with no interference from the US and then, in a timely manner, condemning the violence towards the protestors.

I don't like Obama, thus far, 6 months plus into his presidency, he is a failure on a lot of different levels. However in this case, I have to agree. He has played this perfectly so far. Without overtly supporting the protesters, condemning violence towards them. Very well done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama summons all his moral courage and at the same time he sums up modern "liberalism":

"We've got to believe that justice will prevail."

Ab so lute ly pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JoeBigs: I can not wait to see what they think of his timed response to the happenings in Iran......

The only thing that matters regarding Iran is whether or not they acquire nuclear weapons. Debating the nuances of the timing of a statement by Obama just ain't that important.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He made clear that one recent overture to Iran—the authorization for U.S. embassies to invite Iranian officials to July 4 Independence Day parties—was likely to disappear without changes.

Ouch, not being invited to the parties. That's gotta hurt. You show them, Obama!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He made clear that one recent overture to Iran—the authorization for U.S. embassies to invite Iranian officials to July 4 Independence Day parties—was likely to disappear without changes

He should invite Mousavi to the White House for icecream - that would send a strong message.

he acknowledged he still is an occasional smoker despite trying to quit.

Thank you for the endorsement President Obama - Altria's finest sure are good, aren't they!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As predicted, now that Obama is being sterner with Iran the people who yesterday complained he was timid are now criticizing Obama for other things. The Republican viewpoint is so weak and thin it's see through.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter, them grapes been tasting pretty sour since last November...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama, who has been accused by some Republicans of being too timid in his response to events in Iran.

Why should America be concerned, it is another countries business leave them to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my opinion he should have taken this stance when the Iranian regime cracked down on the protestors through killings and violence days ago. I fault him for that and make no bones about what I thought of his 'Leadership' on this on the other thread up to this point. Though, I'm glad he finally came around to it.

I support him 1000% now that he has firmly come out with his stance on this.

The timing debate is now water under the bridge for me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of all the human rights abuses taking place around the world, why should this be at the top of Obama's list of priorities?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Lays down a harder line"

Whatta laugh.

Yeah, I bet the regime in Teheran and the Basij thugs tremble at the thought of what America's president - whose spiritual guide's hatred for America rivals that of the 'president' of Iran - is going to do.

I recall reading in one of Obama's two unwarranted autobiographies that he would stand with the Muslims if things got ugly.

Who would have guessed he was talking about the dictator, genocidal fantasist and Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad and the mullahs behind him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that Obama has taken the high road in his comments, timed them just right and put Iran on notice that we and the world are watching what's going on in Iran.

There's no sense in shaking your fingers and making threats that we don't intend to do. We make threats and we have to follow through.

This is a Iran issue. We can only watch and observe. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans jump on Obama when they yhink he is too timid, and some of them bag him when he acts more forecefully.

You just can't please some people... :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: he would stand with the Muslims ....

Hardly a surprise. The Socialist-Islamist Alliance, proven on a daily basis right here on JT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter_Skelter said:

The only thing that matters regarding Iran is whether or not they acquire nuclear weapons.

Wow, the mother of all myopic responses. One of the reasons we are in the mess with Iranian advances in nuclear material, and NK advances with nuclear material and delivery systems is because some people could not focus on more than one thing at a time. We cannot halt everything to fix what another administration broke one thing at a time. The past administration broke too many things and they all need attention; some immediate and some we can spend more time on.

Sorry, to have to school the ignorant but whether Iran acquires nuclear weapons may even turn out to be the most important thing; but it is not "the only thing".

Whether Iranian demonstrators were influenced by Obama has yet to be determined. The loud mouth beoooootches on these threads are so jealous that this uprising took place on Obama's watch they can't stand it. They are so determined that Obama does not get credit that they have been totally insensitive toward the impact that it could have on the protesters. Although death was a very real possibility, if a statement would have been made early on, they had other interests to protect.

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is now in a position to outflank Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Rafsanjani has used these past few days to form a coalition in The Assembly of Experts, a body that constitutionally has the power to remove Ayatollah Khamenei. He, as well as, Mousavi belong to a group called the Pragmatic Conservatives also known as The Broad Principalists Coalition (ائتلاف فراگیر اصولگرایان). They want to improve ties to America and Israel. They also want greater freedoms for the Iranian people including relaxing laws on women. They want to reduce the sphere of influence of the Revolutionary Guard, which is always patrolling the streets enforcing religious law.

Rafsanjani has been in the holy city of Qom, working to assemble a religious and political coalition to topple the supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani has succeeded in knocking the supreme leader off his pedestal by revealing Ayatollah Khamenei to be a political partisan rather than an above-the-fray spiritual leader.

Among those who are now believed to be arrayed against Ayatollah Khamenei is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shi’a cleric in neighboring Iraq. Rafsanjani is known to have met with Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani’s representative in Iran, Javad Shahrestani.

It looks like the time during the protest has been spent well. They might not have had that much time if there had been a video of Obama early on. Sure, the Iranian leadership claimed America was involved but there was no credible evidence. Without a statement by Obama that could have been used for propaganda purposes people did not buy into America's involvement. Those who cannot understand such nuances will never believe that timing is everything. They were bitching before and now they are crowing. Let them crow. We hired an intellectual to use a nuanced approach. I believe his approach saved Iranian demonstrator's lives. There is clear evidence that his delay until most of the demonstrations in the street ended, because the Revolutionary Guard moved in with deadly force, was the proper approach. Rafsanjani is now able to claim that it was not an American plot and that Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei were crushing the will of the people. Because of this Rafsanjani has received wide support and has formed the coalition neccessary to either completely defeat Ali Khamenei (less likely) or receive major concessions; the aforementioned goals of the Pragmatic Conservatives would be a great movement in the right direction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Rafsanjani has received wide support and has formed the coalition neccessary to either completely defeat Ali Khamenei" (last paragraph)

Neccessary should have been necessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's more evidence Republicans have totally lost the plot (as if any more was neeed) -

"It was bound to happen. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused Barack Obama on Tuesday of allowing violence in Iran to get out of hand by not speaking out against the country's leadership earlier.

The California Republican, appearing on MSNBC's The Ed Show, said that the president "ratcheted up the language a little bit" during his press conference on Tuesday. But, he added, "If [Obama] would have been talking even a little bit tougher a few days ago we might not have seen the violence and bloodshed of this repressive regime in Tehran in the last two days."

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/video-gop-congressman-say_n_219858.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

American "Liberals" should renounce the label and like Hillary did ask to be called "progressives." They care nothing for liberty and it's been decades since they did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3 at 12:14 PM JST - 24th June, that is hilarious. They never quite tell us how speaking out earlier would end or reduce the violence earlier. Analysts overwhelmingly acknowledge the damage that could have been done.

So let's look at what could have happened. The Iranian authorities would have listened to Obama's call for less violence. That is a possibility but what is the probability? The protesters would have given up their effort because of Obama's words early on? Would we have even wanted that? It is a possibility but these probabilities are so remote they are likely incalculable.

There was a high probability that more deaths would have occurred if Obama had made a statement of support earlier. There is a high probability that Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani would not have been able to form such a wide coalition due to the support of the Iranian people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter, American and other "Liberals" care when so-called conservatives like yourself think it's OK to invade other countries to spread your way of life and values.

That's effectively why the GOP is now out of business.

You mentioned - "They care nothing for liberty and it's been decades since they did."

and again you are wrong. There's ways of doing things and brute force has been proven not to work. So, while the GOP squabbles about President Obama being too timid, the president is - correctly - taking a measured approach.

And let's be honest - Conservatives don't and never did care about Iraqis or Iranians and it's farcical to watch people like yourself pretending you do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran’s leaders will face consequences if they continue “the threats, the beatings and imprisonments” against protesters.

But, but, but .... what about the shootings?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

unless the US is heading for the Muslim rule that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I think the Prez's position thus so far has been correct. Still, I think today's move is not what I had hoped for, there is really no major reason to back Akmadinnerjad's rival just because he is his rival and I think most don't really know his position on things such as the nukes, threats to Israel, etc.

However, I am surprised to see many of Akmadinnerjad's past JT supporters, the ones who demanded he be allowed to speak in NYC over that of General Pertrus, side with his position on Israel, who called anyone here who thought he to be a nut racist/bigot.. are now cheering for his removal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The route our President is very wise. He has played this diplomatic plot like a true veteran. Too bad the other administration did not act like the present one is doing.

Funny watching the far right go nutz trying to make something out of nothing.

The far right truly looks like want-ta-be politicians next to our President....LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HuffPo readers outraged - outraged I say! - because in an interview with one of their hacks McCain wouldn't say which side of the struggle he thought Obama was on:

"Between Ahmadinejad and the reformers, do you think there's any doubt what side President Obama is on?" McCain (R-Ariz.) was asked by the Huffington Post. "What would be the advantage...?"

"I know what side I'm on," McCain cut in. "I'm on the side of the people. I'm not on Ahmadinejad's side or Mousavi. I'm on the side of the Iranian people and I'm on the right side of history. And I'm not going to walk on the other side of the street while people are being killed and beaten in the streets of Iran."

"McCain said Obama's reaction wasn't equal to the situation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/mccain-wont-say-obama-is_n_219774.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is safe to say Obama's latest round of speechifying is the rhetorical equivalent of those " Free Tibet " stickers that progressives slap on over the faded versions of earlier ones decorating the bumpers of their Volvos .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my opinion, Obama is playing his cards perfectly here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I'm waiting for is an end to the mudslinging on the Republican side and instead for the GOP to put up some constructive suggestions about what they think President Obama should do.

Sen. McCain joins the ever-growing list of GOP members who, as teleprompter's 12.58pm quote clearly illustrated, has no idea, thoughts or suggestions for the president.

teleprompter and apparently every conservative posting on this thread clearly have no idea either.

Here's a challenge that I doubt the conservatives on this board will be able to accept -

If you do not agree with the president's response to the present crisis in Iran, please present at least 1 credible idea for your president that may resolve the issue.

Ground rules:

No mudslinging Just 1 constructive suggestion.

Let's have it. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I brought the cheese, the republicans brought the whine.

Obama's doing what he needs to do. He plays his cards slowly and allows the Iranians to play theirs.

We aren't going to do anything unilaterally, so there's no use in swinging little fists. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sen. McCain - "I know what side I'm on. I'm on the side of the people. I'm not on Ahmadinejad's side or Mousavi. I'm on the side of the Iranian people and I'm on the right side of history. And I'm not going to walk on the other side of the street while people are being killed and beaten in the streets of Iran."

A lovely bunch of words and not much else from the guy who said, "Today, we are all Georgians."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a suggestion - why doesn't Sen. McCain get on a plane and take a trip to Tehran to present his party's list of potential solutions to the Iran crisis?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter - I calmly asked for conservatives on JT to provide constructive suggestions.

You came back with mudslinging and insults.

Do you have any constructive suggestions for the president?

If so, let's hear them.

Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No mudslinging Just 1 constructive suggestion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Constructuve suggestion would be to stay out of Iran's business. They may be a bit crazy, but still doesn't give US the right to tell them how to run their country. US did that in Iraq and Afghanistan and look where that got us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wash. Times is reporting an exclusive today:

"Prior to this month’s disputed presidential election in Iran, the Obama administration sent a letter to the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself. Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed the letter toward the end of a lengthy sermon last week, in which he accused the United States of fomenting protests in his country in the aftermath of the disputed June 12 presidential election..."

The outcome of the elections has caught Amadinejad, the regime and Obama off guard.

Hey - where is Hillary?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/24/us-contacted-irans-ayatollah-before-election/?feat=home_cube_position1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter - No mudslinging. Just 1 constructive suggestion.

Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter, do you have any suggestions for the president?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi What is the point of "suggestions for the President"? You think he reads JT to get his policy ideas?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that partisanship is dominating policy discusion. If hardliners really think that the USA need to take a very tough stance. Then why you dont support a military draft, burrow more money from China and tell Obama that you are going to fully back him even if these is a democrat administration in threaten Iran and Elvis with war if they dont give up the nuclear programs for economic help? Because I dont see other way of be credible in tough talk, whitout enough soldiers and money for fight 3 wars at the same time. Anything else is just hot air, like the old retoric speechs from Fidel Castro.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gooddonkey,

Iran acquires nuclear weapons may even turn out to be the most important thing

Well, it appears after all that pontification, you seem to agree with me. Any other concerns you might have about Iran pale in comparison to this.

We hired an intellectual to use a nuanced approach.

A nuanced approach to an Islamic fundamentalist regime which holds holocaust-denial conferences, imposes Sharia law, exports terrorism, and seeks nuclear weapons. Too funny!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wakarimasen, I made this suggestion in response to the near daily barrage of criticism conservatives are heaping on President Obama.

While conservatives are ripping into Obama, they are not to my knowledge putting forward any constructive suggestions.

I'm asking to see whether the conservatives have any constructive ideas to offer, and so far, they have not put up a single one.

What we are seeing from conservatives is simply an ongoing tirade of anger, and not much else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think you mean "adheres to sharia law". Who have they "imposed" it on? US has no idea what to do so it should shut up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure, I have suggestions. But a little context is necessary, or else my efforts are wasted.

You see, I can talk - as a conservative/libertarian - about what I think Obama should do, or I can invoke Reagan, or I can compare Obama's fecklessness to that of Carter, but such comparisons get dismissed by Obama's fawning foreign admirers here as irrelevant or as "sour grapes".

So how about you tell me some of the recent diplomatic quandries and challenges your country has faced and the names of those involved, and I will start from there with an attempt to draw comparisons or offer parallels.

Waiting...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Got it Sushi. Neocons are better at tearing down than building (see Iraq) and at critscising than suggesting (Rush Limbaugh, for example or Ri"dick"ulous Cheney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter - "So how about you tell me some of the recent diplomatic quandries and challenges your country has faced and the names of those involved.."

Why? The Moderator would rightly delete it as being not relevant to this discussion about President Obama and Iran.

Let's hear your suggestions for the American president as a conservative/libertarian.

Others have offered suggestions.

How about you?

Moderator: Readers, please stop sniping at each other. Focus your comments on the story, not at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Barack Obama on Tuesday condemned the violence against protesters...

I wonder what Obama has to say about the 5000 jailed Iranian dissidents who were murdered while Mousavi was president. Why is the western media pushing to have such a murderer as president of Iran?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh and here are some good images of the election protests:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-keiser/where-was-the-twittered-o_b_218398.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi, your point is precisely wht Husein should mind his own business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabi, You have a point!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder what Obama has to say about the 5000 jailed Iranian dissidents who were murdered while Mousavi was president.

Reality check, neither of these gentlemen is an 'angel' of human rights:

According to the group Human Rights Watch, "Since President Ahmadinejad came to power, treatment of detainees has worsened in Evin Prison as well as in detention centers operated clandestinely by the Judiciary, the Ministry of Information, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." Again according to Human Rights Watch, "Respect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement." Human Rights Watch described the source of human rights violations in contemporary Iran as coming from the Judiciary, accountable to Ali Khamenei, and from members directly appointed by Ahmadinejad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The daily froth-fest going well I see.

Congratulations to Molenir, however for a rational and honest post.

If only the demented partisan hacks could take note, and follow suit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From any angle you look at this I think Obama loses.

When politicians and statesmen fail to defend principles and what is right it undermines them elsewhere.

From here on after should Obama go after any domestic group (let's say, "polluters" who may oppose his idiotic cap n trade policies) or even minor players in lesser foreign affairs (Israeli settlers, one example) the criticism is going to be 'Look, this American president is harder on [ ....... ] than he was on the fanatical, misogynist, murderous theocrats running Iran.'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You need to understand you are dealing with Persians here. -By doing nothing you are doing the best thing. If it gets bad the citizens themselves will correct it = they are fighters.

What I don't like: It seems the U.S. Is gearing toward war, when Iran is a stabilizing force in the region. I don't want to see the corrupt world bankers come into another country and ruin it. -but it seems they are getting very brazen in their conquests lately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake: Do you have any constructive suggestions for the president?

Perhaps you should show us some of your previous posts over the last 8 years where you put aside endless criticism of Bush and offered some constructive suggestions. I don't think it's really fair to hold others to a much higher standard than you hold yourself, is it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey: Iran is a stabilizing force in the region.

You're joking, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A "harder line"? That's funny. What did he do, yell at them WITHOUT using the teleprompter? I knew he was weak when he did nothing for the American citizens, who happened to be reporters, were abducted and jailed in both Iran and N. Korea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think you mean "adheres to sharia law". Who have they "imposed" it on? US has no idea what to do so it should shut up.

unless they have free and open elections i think it's fair to say they impose sharia law.

telling people to shut up for criticizing oppression is not very cool. is it?.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You see, I can talk - as a conservative/libertarian - about what I think Obama should do, or I can invoke Reagan, or I can compare Obama's fecklessness to that of Carter, but such comparisons get dismissed by Obama's fawning foreign admirers here as irrelevant or as "sour grapes".

Don't know about foreigners, but the Americans here dismiss them as coming from a source, having gone through multiple names, with no credibility or intellectual integrity whatsoever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think Obama can loose by taking the road that espouses non-violence here. The Iranian clerics are going to blame the great satan for anyhting just so it doesn't stick to them. The US has no real chance of influencing events in Iran so don't even try. The actions of the Iranian government are going to undermine the clerics to some extent. They would have had the support of any candidate of the four they allowed to run. By stacking the deck they have lost the good will of the people. That's going to be a continuing problem now.

As far as trying to score points against Obama over something that he has no control over - that's just bad politics. It's such a transparent screed that the voters are just going to dismiss the republicans as a bunch of trolls. It's the wrong thing to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh and here are some good images of the election protests:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-keiser/where-was-the-twittered-ob218398.html

As I really like Max Keiser, I checked out your link. It was very interesting as is everything Keiser writes or says for that matter. However, I think you linked the wrong article as it is about the US elections.

If it was your intent to compare the two elections, you should note the demostrations in Iran are taking place after the election results were announced. The article you linked refers to pre-election demonstrations. In addition, you should also take note that Iran's leaders have acknowledged that there were irregularities in the election. The demonstrators in Iran seem to have been suggesting that from the beginning. That seems to me to be an important point.

For me, none of the people in the election are particularly, outstandingly appealing. However, the desire for being able to democratically elect leaders you want to elect is a reasonable thing to desire. Be it Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mir-Hossein Mousavi both were approved by the Supreme Leader and the Council of Experts and they see eye to eye on pretty much everything having to do with foreign affairs (not that they have the power as president to do anything regarding such affairs), so I am not sure why people are clinging to one side or the other. For me, I just hope the Iranian people help the Council of Experts understand that it is time for the people themselves to decide who can run in elections and who is elected. That seems to be the major point in all of this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It saddens me to see that so many lack the stones to either admit they were wrong about Obama yesterday or even thank him for hardening his stance. Either one takes more courage than just doing anything to tear the man down. The amount of cowardice in this thread is astounding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A couple of questions come to mind. 1.) Seeing that we already have our plate full with Iraq & Afghanistan, exactly what more can we do to add teeth to any threats of consequenses Iran will suffer if the violence continues? 2.) What makes Iran different from the other parts of the globe like The Sudan, North Korea, and other countries where government sanctioned violence prevails, and have a lot longer than what is going on in iran now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It saddens me to see that so many lack the stones to either admit they were wrong about Obama yesterday or even thank him for hardening his stance.

how about you first thank the republicans who pressured him into doing the right thing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how about you first thank the republicans who pressured him into doing the right thing?

You actually believe it was the weakened, discredited Republicans who caused Obama do harden his response? You don't think that the escalation of the violence against the demonstrators by the Iranian regime had anything to do with it?

I guess we can thank Republicans for the fact that the sun rose this morning too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjethow: "about you first thank the republicans who pressured him into doing the right thing?"

It says in the article-- "Obama, ... scoffed at suggestions he was toughening his rhetoric in response to the criticism."

Besides, I do not agree with talking tough about this at all. Obama even warned Iran of "consequences", which is ridiculous and empty. He is free to criticize, but thats is about all I can agree with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

toguro's question: "Seeing that we already have our plate full with Iraq and Afghanistan, exactly what more can we do to add teeth to any threats of consequenses Iran will suffer if the violence continues?"

Iran's economy is suffering under the mismanagement of the current regime. Its populace is young and yearning for better ties to the West. It is not so much a stick ("teeth") that the United States now wields, but carrots: By dropping the bellicose rhetoric and threats of the past, our willingness to enter into a new relationship with the Iranian people is something that has captured the imagination of many millions of them.

This reflects a division within the U.S. as well: Those who believe that "hard power" is the only way to go, and those who see "soft power" has being able to provide superior benefits at a fraction of the costs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BeaverCleaver at 09:25 PM JST - 24th June

It saddens me to see that so many lack the stones to either admit they were wrong about Obama yesterday or even thank him for hardening his stance. Either one takes more courage than just doing anything to tear the man down. The amount of cowardice in this thread is astounding.

I had the stones very early on this thread.

sailwind at 11:11 AM JST - 24th June

In my opinion he should have taken this stance when the Iranian regime cracked down on the protestors through killings and violence days ago. I fault him for that and make no bones about what I thought of his 'Leadership' on this on the other thread up to this point. Though, I'm glad he finally came around to it.

I support him 1000% now that he has firmly come out with his stance on this.

The timing debate is now water under the bridge for me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Iranian election and the aftermath is basically not a US concern. When Obama condemns the Iranian government's handling of the protesters and opines that the election results were most likely not legitimate, he leaves no doubt that the US is "meddling" in Iranian affairs--if there was any doubt before.

Again, I do not think that there is a government on this earth that will fail to put down (or attempt to put down) an unlawful assembly. In the US, Shay's "Rebellion", the Pullman Strike, Cox's Army, the Chicago Democratic Convention, and (yes, sorry) Kent State were met with government force and, in most cases, deaths. US Presidential inaugurations have seen the parade route and the White House protected with seriously armed military. Does anyone have any doubt that, push come to shove, the military would not have use its weapons?

Obama said that he will have to see how this plays out. He should have let it go at that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It says in the article-- "Obama, ... scoffed at suggestions he was toughening his rhetoric in response to the criticism."

you expect him to admit it? you believe everything the guy says?

yabits,

yes i think obama was put under pressure. most americans wanted a different response than the one he was giving. the republicans raised the issue, called him on it and he came around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: Once again, you answer the bell with a well thought out post. I may not agree with everything that you say, but I don't always disagree either. I guess what I was trying to say, is that maybe it would be better for the protester's cause, at least in their part of thr world, to not have an American face on their cause, or for it to look like they are puppets of the US, and that all of this is caused by US meddling or however the government propagandists try to spin this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Iranian election and the aftermath is basically not a US concern.

Because of the history of U.S. meddling in Iranian affairs, the U.S. has to make extra efforts to appear not to meddle further. Caring about the demonstrators means owning up to this tainted legacy and not giving the regime any excuse to tie the U.S. in to the actions on the streets.

We Americans have to accept that the face that most of the world sees comes not from ordinary American tourists, but from the corporate-military aspect of U.S. society. People living in other countries have every right to their cynicism about American motives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, it's a bit late for the protesters to try and put an Iranian face on this violence. Press TV is reporting "Evidence has been found .... that reveals the role of foreign elements in planning post-election unrest." Looks like our old friends the Mossad, CIA and MI5 are meddling again to reinstate a new Shah-en-Shah, with Obama's, Brown's and Netanyahoo's approval and complicity. No doubt they'll reinstitute the Savac to keep things in order, just like before. All happening on live TV!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

toguro: I agree with you on that. Definitely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like our old friends the Mossad, CIA and MI5 are meddling again to reinstate a new Shah-en-Shah...

This is not only rather ignorant, but an affront to the thousands of Iranians who would not take down the current regime merely to replace it with another one dictated to them from the outside, a la 1953.

In reality, this may turn out more like the Philippines of the 1980s and 90s: A U.S. client-dictator was overthrown by "people power" and a new government came in which eventually represented the will of the people in evicting the U.S. from the military bases it maintained. Strategically, the U.S. lost a lot more from that than the U.S. did when the Shah was toppled -- and yet Reagan did no more for Marcos than Carter did for the Shah.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not about Democrats v Republicans. Even McCain or any Republican president were to handle the issue, it makes little change in Iran. Speaking cynicism on American motives or any other foreign countries does not bring anything on the table.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind- "I had the stones very early on this thread."

You were the sole reason I did not use the word "non-existant".

I have to admit that I did not see something in all this. As others are saying, it was probably a very good idea for Obama to keep silent at first because his words would have done more harm than good. The Iranian people do not need our psychological support. They need to support themselves. Down the road they may need our material support. I just hope we will stay on the side of light instead of once again going to the dark side, otherwise known as bubbling crude, oil that is...Texas tea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Even McCain or any Republican president were to handle the issue, it makes little change in Iran"

McCain has publicaly critisized Obama's stance - after joking recently about bombing Iran. We'll never know, but I'm betting he'd have given the regime in Tehran the means to lash out further at the US by bungling the response.

Even the moderate Republican here on JT are applauding Obama's cool-headed diplomacy on this issue, leaving only the extreme right who have to critisize and bray incoherently about whatever Obama does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's something I've been dying to post for almost a decade:

"Well done, Mr. President."

(Man that felt good. It's been a while since that statement has been warranted to that degree.)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's like a big international chess game. At least it provides something interesting to watch.

In other news this article is becoming grossly personal.

But I digress...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Watching the BBC election coverage, it was blatantly obvious that they were inciting violence and unrest. Unfortunately the so-called "educated" protesters have no idea they are being manipulated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

budda4brains: So it seems teleprompter and Helter Skelter are the some person.

Actually, teleprompter is a better poster than me, but appreciate the compliment. And predictably, none of the libs have responded to teleprompter's post with anything other than sniping. It's difficult to argue against facts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran should take out Israel. Since US is bankrupt and China backs Iran and Iran has much oil Obama Zionists can keep waving their fists. Obama should focus on Taleban. Stay focused and do not be an ADHD.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is a coward. No matter what anyone says, the Iranian mullahs will call any opposition puppets of the US and the UK. They have been chanting "death to America" for 30 years for goodness sake! They blame the US for everything - regardless. The sad thing is that France was the first country to come out forcefully for the demonstrators - France of all countries!! These are sad times for America. Obama just wants to keep his options open for after the mullahs crush the pro-democracy demonstrators. That's just pathetic and an abdication of America's role as leader of the free world. Now it's back to back to business as usual - groveling and apologizing and moral equivalencies. Iran stones women to death and America pays women less than men - see, we are all bad aren't we! And for what? The mullahs will give him nothing and he will have missed the opportunity to support the democratic forces in Iran. Shame!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wired magazine says people are starting to boycott Nokia and Seimens.

"According to the Journal, a system installed in Iran by Nokia Siemens Networks — a Finland-based joint venture between Nokia and Seimens — provides Iranian authorities with the ability to conduct deep-packet inspection of online communications to monitor the contents and track the source of e-mail, VoIP calls, and posts to social networking sites such as Twitter, MySpace and Facebook. The newspaper also said authorities had the ability to alter content as it intercepted the traffic from a state-owned internet choke point."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

EU puts us to shame.

PRAGUE, June 22 (Reuters) - The Czech European Union presidency asked the bloc's members on Monday to consider summoning the heads of Iran's missions in Europe to express "deep revulsion" over post-election violence there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The mullahs will give him nothing and he will have missed the opportunity to support the democratic forces in Iran.

I don't think that the US has missed many opportunities to support the democratic forces in Iran. I doubt that it is missing this one. And, if it served our interests to do so, we would support non-democratic forces as we do in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

It is true that strong words offer vocal support. However, strong words from the American president may be exactly what the democratic forces do not need. The protesters have no intrinsic love for the US and the government may be able to use strong US support to dampen the protest.

The US is not the leader of the free world. The prior President was not and there is no reason why the current President should be. Even if he were, a good leader knows when it is time for someone else--say, France--to get out in front on an issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sezwho, you are again projecting your own feelings -

The protesters have no intrinsic love for the US

and wishes onto complete strangers -

and the government may be able to use strong US support to dampen the protest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The inexperienced President is several days late and several dollars short.

Now we are hearing reports of a giant massacre inside Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't vote "present" on this one...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its amazing that the right wing crowd that was calling for bombing of Iran along with their idiot president are now soft and fuzzy tree hugging human rights advocates for the same people. I thought that during the bush days the conservatives were nutty due to his leadership being insane, now I see that this is a ground up phenomenon.

Again, for the WMD in Iraq fantasy crowd, the US or its President has zero credibility in Iran. We just destroyed their country once before and put the Shah in place after killing the democratically elected President. No one in Iraq cares what mccain thinks, if they even know of him at all.

Not a peek from the republicans about the 2 million displaced in Iraq or the one million killed however. Very selective tree hugging bleeding heart ACORN like activism going on here. Which is so typical.

When will the republicans grow up?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its amazing that the right wing crowd that was calling for bombing of Iran along with their idiot president are now soft and fuzzy tree hugging human rights advocates for the same people.

where do you get your info from? i seriously think you ought to reconsider your sources.

the UN, IAEA and nearly every country on earth thinks iran is using it's energy program to secretly develop weapons. the possibility of taking out those facilities was not taken off the table. how you turn that into wanting to bomb the iranian people is very bizarre indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the mullahs in Iran are massacring young iranians and all zurcronium can do is throw insults at George Bush. Pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium:

Again, for the WMD in Iraq fantasy crowd, the US or its President has zero credibility in Iran. We just destroyed their country once before and put the Shah in place after killing the democratically elected President.

Canada destroyed Iran? Mossadegh was deposed by the US and UK as part of the wider Cold War stategy.

Question for "progressives": If Iran was ready for democracy in the 50's why is it people like you want to deny them (and their fellow Shias across the border) their freedom in this day and age?

Very selective tree hugging bleeding heart ACORN like activism going on here.

ACORN are on the Left.Any informed American knows that. They are "community organizers". They delivered hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of fraudulent votes to Democrat candidates last November.

You're all over the place, zurcronium.

Try and focus your thought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as i'm thinking this over i don't believe i've heard obama say he's taking the military option off the table either. did i miss it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This issue is above Obama's pay grade ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter,

sezwho, you are again projecting your own feelings - and wishes onto complete strangers -

As Pee-wee Herman might say, "I know you are, but what am I?" More maturely, would you care to develop your claim? Or do you wish only once again to make it and run.

I haven't read of any significant pro-US-government Iranian movement in Iran? Have you? There are a substantial number of people in Iran who question the wisdom of Ahmadinejad's stance and who believe that it is not good for Iran. That does not translate to the love for the US.

In fact, in the past, the Iranian government has been able to use US interference as a rallying point to support a government rather less to US liking than more. That is one of the reasons for Ahmadinejad's rise to power in the first place. Are you suggesting that it could not happen again?

Iranians are not complete strangers to me although I do not know many. However, more knowledgeable persons than I have suggested the danger of open US support for the Iranian protesters, especially when attended with claims that the government is defrauding the people. So I am rather less projecting my feelings and wishes than I am coopting a position that seems quite reasonable to me.

Have you anything sensible to add or do you wish merely to project your feelings and wishes onto me? Me, of course, being a person who seems to be a complete stranger to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This issue is above Obama's pay grade ...

And the assessment of Obama's ability to handle the issue is certainly above yours.

I have seen many criticisms of Obama on this issue and I have offered my own, although I suspect they are quite different from yours. However, what is it that you think Obama should do and how would that help?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: When Obama condemns the Iranian government's handling of the protesters and opines that the election results were most likely not legitimate, he leaves no doubt that the US is "meddling" in Iranian affairs--if there was any doubt before.

Commenting is hardly meddling. Surely he's allowed to form an opinion and express it. Every world leader is doing that.

Again, I do not think that there is a government on this earth that will fail to put down (or attempt to put down) an unlawful assembly...(snip) and (yes, sorry) Kent State were met with government force and, in most cases, deaths.

And that was met with outrage, something you're obviously trying to deny the Iranians. Perhaps we should rewrite the history books on Kent State to say that the US government was just doing what any government would do, and leave it at that.

US Presidential inaugurations have seen the parade route and the White House protected with seriously armed military. Does anyone have any doubt that, push come to shove, the military would not have use its weapons?

Well that will certainly end the outrage over an young Iranian girl getting shot by a sniper and dying on the streets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Commenting is hardly meddling.

No, I have to disagree. When the President of the US weighs in with a comment that the elections were illegitimate, that is meddling. You're right that he has a right to form and express an opinion. You're wrong that it is not meddling. When you express that opinion, you are not meddling unless you're getting substantially more press coverage than I guess. Not so the President of the US.

And that was met with outrage, something you're obviously trying to deny the Iranians.

Out of all the examples I mentioned, you seize only upon the Kent State example. Yes, it was met with outrage. However it was not met with massive demonstrations of people who failed to disperse when told to. I'm not trying to deny the Iranian people their sense of outrage. I'm saying that the Iranian government, like any other government, will do what it thinks it needs to do when confronted with demonstrations. If you want to rewrite US history, please do. I think Howard Zinn already did, however.

Well that will certainly end the outrage over an young Iranian girl getting shot by a sniper and dying on the streets.

No, it will not. Nor will pointless sarcasm refute that the military at the inaugurals of Nixon and Bush were fully geared up to use the weaponry at their disposal. I am not aware of anyone who has no feeling for a life that was snuffed out as the young Iranian girl's was. And she will be made the poster child for the "evil that the mullahs do". However, posters do not bring us truths unless and until they do. If they did, what are we to make of all the Che posters?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When the President of the US weighs in with a comment that the elections were illegitimate, that is meddling.

And when Iranian-trained militia assassinate Lebanese politicians what do you call it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Britain has replaced the US as the mullahs' bogey man

(AP) - Britain has replaced America as Iran's "Great Satan."

That's the upshot of the announcement Wednesday that the Islamic Republic of Iran is considering downgrading its diplomatic ties to Britain, the country's former colonial ruler.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9915I801&show_article=1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

is it possible seeing free elections in iraq and afghanistan has inspired the iranians to demand the same?

this was the hope wasn't it? that planting the seeds of democracy in the muslim world would produce fruit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And when Iranian-trained militia assassinate Lebanese politicians what do you call it?

Hmmm.... You seem to be changing the subject. How are Iranian-trained militia in Lebanon relevant to Obama's comments about the Iranian vote and the protesters?

To answer your question, I think it would be quite fair to call that meddling. However, I don't think it is so terribly different from what other countries do. And I don't think that's at issue here.

What is at issue here is what Obama has said in regard to Iran's internal elections and to Iran's handling of its internal protests: whether Obama was right about his take on the situation and what effect his speech will have if he is right or even if he is wrong. Perhaps you agree with my opinion, since you do not refute it.

My position is that I do not know whether Obama has assessed the situation accurately or not although I do not see how he can have enough information to do so. I think that Obama has been right to let other countries take the lead in this matter if they wish to do so. I also think he was wrong to (apparently) allow himself to be forced into making a stronger statement.

If he is right in the illegitimacy regarding the election, I think that will strongly support the protesters--embolden them if you will--for the future. However, I think it will make the mullahs nervous and I think you will see the government make concessions to the people and to the West. I do not think this will change the basic nature of Iran or its basic position on the nuclear issue. If he is wrong, I think the government will make concessions to the people but will also move to shore up support against the US.

I do not think Obama is essentially right about the Iranian the protests. I think the Iranians (government and protesters alike) could have handled this much better. And I'm not really sure who is to blame for the deaths. Certainly, the government has to own the deaths it inflicted. However, if organizers continued to press the demonstration after being asked to disperse--and particularly if they calculated the risk that deaths might occur--they also must own them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet, do you really think they were free and fair elections in Iraq and Afganistan? At least Iran's was, and it is evidence seeds are sown. 36% didn't vote for the winning party. That is a large proportion(consider Aso's 12% approval rating). Next time 46%, then 56%. These things take time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet, do you really think they were free and fair elections in Iraq and Afganistan?

can you supply evidence they were not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i did a little poking around about the elections in iraq.

the UN monitors had this to say.

"During the election the largest problem the monitors witnessed were displaced Iraqis not being able to vote. One voting center was told to open two stations for the displaced immediately before the balloting. Those two eventually ran out of ballots. More importantly, over 100 displaced were not allowed to vote because they did not have their documents in order. As reported before, similar incidents were reported across the country.

Otherwise the monitors said the elections went well. Security was tight around the voting centers. Most of the voting materials were used appropriately with only minor problems. They did receive complaints about political parties attempting to manipulate voters, but none of those stories could be checked. The greatest issue was the disenfranchisement of internal refugees. It seems as if the Election Commission did not do a good enough job informing the displaced about how and where they were to register. They could either vote in their home provinces, or in their current residencies, but either way they had to sign up with the Commission. This did not get through and an unknown amount of refugees were not allowed to participate in the provincial election as a result."

here's the link:

http://thegroundtruth.blogspot.com/2009/02/election-monitoring-report-from-ninewa.html

it really is sickening to me to see people try to minimize what has happened here because they hate bush so much. it's perverse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

F L I P

Obama, who has been accused by some Republicans of being too timid in his response to events in Iran, declared himself “appalled and outraged” by the deaths and intimidation in Tehran’s streets—and scoffed at suggestions he was toughening his rhetoric in response to the criticism.

F L O P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is so missing in some peoples lives to spend the best part of their days midlessly ranting about President Obama on a japanese website?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Advisers realize the new tone poses a risk that the U.S. president will become a scapegoat for Iran’s leaders—just what Obama has sought to avoid. Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive strategy, said the disturbing images of the past few days warranted the tougher stance."

Even his handlers admit to the flip flop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is so missing in some peoples lives to spend the best part of their days midlessly ranting about President Obama on a japanese website?

how long does this post last before the mods ax it? don't question the premise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seriously if i was home i could argue this stuff with my friends over a beer. since i'm way out in the wilderness here i don't have many options.

i suppose i could discuss it with my neighbor, if i only knew how to get past konichiwa.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

is it possible seeing free elections in iraq and afghanistan has inspired the iranians to demand the same?

Ludicrous! Iranians have had elections in their country for many, many decades. It was because this election became so obviously corrupt to them, in contrast to the elections they had been used to, that people protested.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to even run in iran don't you need the grand poohbah's permission?

anyway they don't elect the grand poohbah and he's the real leader.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

from wikipedia:

on the power of the grand exalted mystic ruler

"The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts - the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, half of the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[9]"

do you still think it's "ludicrous!" yabiits?

and the liberals think george bush stole the election!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to even run in iran don't you need the grand poohbah's permission?

People who want to run in an election in the U.S. have to register, which is the same thing as getting permission. There is no automatic right to have your name on a ballot.

Nevertheless, Iranian have had elections for many decades -- long before they became an Islamic republic.

Yes, the notion that Iranians were somehow inspired by Iraq and Afghanistan is ludicrous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts - the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network...

Yes, and people in the U.S. do not elect the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, or the F.C.C. Chairman.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, and people in the U.S. do not elect the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, or the F.C.C. Chairman.

so you choose to ignore all these obvious signs of a dictatorship? you still want to insist iran has had free elections for decades?

is this what it means to be a liberal? sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet: "so you choose to ignore all these obvious signs of a dictatorship? you still want to insist iran has had free elections for decades?"

It's interesting that you choose to quote what yabits says about the US as proof of dictatorship. It in turn means you either believe the US is and has been a dictatorship for decades, or that by virtue of the US not being a dictatorship and Iran choosing it's military the same way, etc., neither are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

no i just quoted his last comment to keep the continuity going.

is this the best come back you have?

read the wikipedia clip and tell me iran has had free elections for decades. don't play silly games.

i'm having trouble responding to this with out being insulting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too late for Obama. Like the rookie he is he got played by the turbaned totalitarians.

Though Amadinejad liked Obama's style so much he even adopted the sappy "Yes We Can" for the purposes of the campaign he ran for Potemkin elections held by the Ruling Council in Iran it seems he now regards him as just another George Bush.

The semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad:

"Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things ... our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former U.S. President George W.) Bush used to say,"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet: "read the wikipedia clip and tell me iran has had free elections for decades. don't play silly games."

Actually, what you did was quote yabits' comment about how the US also does not choose it's military based on votes, and chose to use it as 'proof' that Iran is a dictatorship.

Anyway, what's you should consider somewhat insulting is the fact that Wikipedia is your primary source of 'facts'. It's a useful page for checking things once in a while, but hardly a place to enroll for an education. Evidently you're doing a good deal of learning on here, though.

teleprompter: So if Obama is 'just another bush', you're saying now that you love the man? Or that you've hated bush all along? In other words, do you have a point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you still want to insist iran has had free elections for decades?

Yes. They had a constitution since 1906 with a bi-cameral parliament with representatives freely elected by the Iranian people. (Women in Iran were given the right to vote in 1963.)

This is why it is so obviously ludicrous to state that Iran was somehow inspired by Iraq or Afghanistan. There are plenty of Iranians in Japan. I suggest you find one and put your premise to him/her and watch the expression on their face.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: Methinks inkjet has disappeared just as quick as he came. Anyway, good job putting him in his place. I didn't know women got the vote 46 years ago -- thought it came a little later.

Anyway, Obama is doing a fine job, and acting accordingly. The usual few disgruntled posters can shake their fists all they like; they end up looking as silly as the Republicans in government who do so (even against the other Republicans -- no wonder the party is so splintered!).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where is the UN? The thugs running Iran are shooting their own people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Methinks inkjet has disappeared just as quick as he came. Anyway, good job putting him in his place. I didn't know women got the vote 46 years ago -- thought it came a little later.

no i'm still here. i'm just trying to decide if you guys are for real. you have to be putting me on right?

ok i'll bite. first of all it should be pretty obvious i'm talking about the current regime. they have been in power since 1979. isn't that obvious? not obvious enough i guess.

since the revolution there have been two supreme leaders of iran, neither was elected. since the revolution iranians have not been able to vote for their supreme leader.

the rest of the story is self evident.

you'll have to forgive the weak reference from wikipedia. why not give us a better source. here's your chance to shine and really put me "in my place"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet: "ok i'll bite. first of all it should be pretty obvious i'm talking about the current regime. they have been in power since 1979. isn't that obvious? not obvious enough i guess."

What's obvious is that yabits busted you. He made a point, you said he was wrong, he backed it up, and now you are backtracking and saying you are referring to a specific period in time when you were just making blanket accusations of yabits being wrong. ZING!

"you'll have to forgive the weak reference from wikipedia. why not give us a better source. here's your chance to shine and really put me "in my place"

Sorry... ummm... you want me to give you a better source to prove you are right about something you're mistaken on? Is that kind of like giving proof that WMDs don't exist in a place where there aren't any? Wouldn't be the first your ilk has asked for it. Besides, yabits more than clearly proved you wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, now it's flip-flopped it's berating the UN.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: I'm not trying to deny the Iranian people their sense of outrage.

Of course you are. Every point you bring up leads to an outrage "dead end," a stalemate of sorts. It's pure propaganda. An unarmed lady gets shot and killed by a sniper and the only thing you can say is that by commenting on it the US president is meddling, or that any government would do the same, etc. You're here to stifle any talk of outrage, and obviously you feel none of it yourself.

Talking about the Lebanon assassinations, you take one step forward:

To answer your question, I think it would be quite fair to call that meddling.

Then one step back:

However, I don't think it is so terribly different from what other countries do.

Regarding the killing....one step forward:

Certainly, the government has to own the deaths it inflicted.

Then one step back again:

However, if organizers continued to press the demonstration after being asked to disperse--and particularly if they calculated the risk that deaths might occur--they also must own them.

Well I guess Nadia should share the blame along with the government. A lady lies dead and you're here to make sure that equal blame is placed on her. Another stalemate for Sez.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet writes: " i'm just trying to decide if you guys are for real. you have to be putting me on right? ... first of all it should be pretty obvious i'm talking about the current regime."

I am certainly not putting anyone on. The Iranians did not need to look to Iraq or Aghanistan to understand what a fair election is. All they need to do is to look at their own recent history and traditions.

While they may not directly elect the person referred to as the Supreme Leader, they do elect a president and congress. Within the confines of Islamic Republic, it is not only possible but very evident that elections have been fair and free for the most part, up until this recent one.

I think you need to stop judging countries as though the standard was pure democracy. Iran certainly comes nowhere near it, but neither does the U.S. The people don't actually elect the president here, since one of the candidates could end up with a many hundreds of thousands of votes less than his opponent and still be declared the winner.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While they may not directly elect the person referred to as the Supreme Leader, they do elect a president and congress. Within the confines of Islamic Republic, it is not only possible but very evident that elections have been fair and free for the most part, up until this recent one.

well we certainly have a very different opinion about free elections then.

they don't 'directly' choose the grand exalted mystic poohbah? how do they choose him then? i'm curious do you think fidel's and saddam's farces were free and fair elections as well?

of course they have 'free' elections in iran. you just can't vote on the grand exalted mystic poohbah. considering he essentially hand picks the rest of the candidates you still consider that fair and free? please don't compare that to the US balloting system. having regulations is not the same as the government hand picking the candidates. it's an insult to the people dying in the streets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A lady lies dead and you're here to make sure that equal blame is placed on her.

SuperLib, is this really the best you can do? twist and distort? If you will reread what I said you will find that I placed no blame upon the (cue violins) lady who lies dead. What I said was that the organizers of the demonstration also bear responsibility. I keep hoping that at some point you will deal with what I said rather than what you want me to have said.

Every point you bring up leads to an outrage "dead end," a stalemate of sorts.

There is at least a modicum of truth in that although one has to clear away a lot of rubbish to get to it. In the first place, this is a glittering generality. I don't think I'm good enough to do this with every point I make, even if I wanted to. Secondly, there is no "outrage 'dead end'" except for those who feel stymied in their inability to create outrage. People who have genuine outrage will not come unhinged by my remarks.

You are perfectly welcome to your outrage. If you feel that my comments stifle it, there may be something wrong with its quality. Personally, I find calls for outrage--especially when mounted by many citizens of the US with respect to Iran--to be childish and tiresome. They play to emotion and not to reason.

You accuse me of having no sense of outrage of my own. (I think it is very shabby of you to try to argue some kind of defect in the man rather than to deal with the points the man is making but this is not new.) If we are going to indulge in playing The Great Karnak in divining people's feelings and emotions, then I would have to say that I reserve my "stalemating" tactics for those who--in my personal divinations--are parading a sense of outrage in an attempt to sharpen the knives they already have out for Iran. I do not, however, ascribe personal motives to them. I try to deal with what I see to be the weak points and inconsistencies in the frameworks that support their rose-bedecked floats.

In the instant case, you say (and in so saying reveal your own biases) that I am taking a step "forward" when I say that the government must own its responsibility in the deaths of Neda and others. I hardly see that as a step, let alone a step in a "forward" direction. Where do you position me in your mental map that this is moving "forward"?

However, when you say that I am taking a step "backward" by saying that organizers must also bear responsibility if they calculated that something like this might happen, that is truly puzzling. To my way of thinking this is an obvious statement but it is also one that has been completely overlooked by most posters here. You don't try to explain why this statement is not true.

You simply whinge that I would bring it up at all and complain about some fictitious outrage stalemate while completely ignoring the context--which was an attempt to bring some sort of relevancy to an irrelevant question and to explain why I though Obama was wrong in his assessment of blame for the protests. Now if you think this is not a valid reason for thinking Obama to be wrong or if you have a more powerful reason of your own for thinking that Obama is right, that is what I would be interested in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I said was that the organizers of the demonstration also bear responsibility.

so you are suggesting if you stand up to oppression you become an abettor of sorts? you are enabling them to crush you.

gee this is really twisted liberal thinking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that partisanship "still" dominates the policy discusion.

1 - Do people think that the organizer of protest agaisnt the American invasion of Cambodia bear some responsability for the "Kent State massacre"? Or the organizers of the protest for the Independence of India in the "Amritsar Massacre"?

2 - I dont support foreigner intervention on an internal problem without UN approbal. In special from the USA in Iran with the past support to the Sha.

3 - The UN exist for keep the peace betwen nations, not for make interventions on every internal protest. If there is mass killing and lots of refuges cross the borders, then we can start to talk about an international problem and discuse if an intervention is needed.

4 - If the iranians protests stop now, they can end like the protests of Myanmar or the protest of Tiananmen. Is civilian protests or go underground and take the arms or live with the gob controling their computers. But is up to the iranians. If they want freedom, they have to do it with their own hands and be ready to risk their lives for that freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For set the record clear. I think that Iran was more or less free until the current gob started the full censorship and repression of iranians. The world is not black and white, good and evil. I think that Obama and some politicians in Iran understand that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so you are suggesting if you stand up to oppression you become an abettor of sorts?

Is this a question or a statement? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume it is a sincere question, but given the rhetoric of the rest of your post that's awfully difficult to do.

I don't think I'm suggesting anything. I think I'm saying that people who undertake to move others to action bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. And I'm saying that they bear more responsibility if they can calculate or could have calculated that those actions will result in dire consequences.

I said nothing at all about oppression. That is you characterizing the conflict. And another characterization on your part is to say that people bearing responsibility for their actions is a liberal concept. In fact, it is a great shibboleth of the Republican party.

It is simply not the case that people are sometimes responsible for their elective behavior and sometimes not. There is no "oppressive government" exclusion. If you encourage your family to play tag with a tiger, do not put all the blame on the tiger if your son or daughter is carried off and eaten.

We could talk, if you would like, about relative blame. But I don't think there is any honest way to speak about the deaths at the protest and pile all the blame on the Iranian government--especially if you are willing to characterize it as oppressive or evil or the adjective du jour.

This is another reason that I think Obama is wrong. I think he is assigning all the blame to the Iranian government. That is very convenient when you support the protesters over the government, but it is not honest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this may be getting off topic but i think it's important to have a clear understanding of people's rights and responsibilities.

let me propose a scenario for argument's sake. it has no direct bearing here. i just want establish a principal.

your country is being invaded by an aggressor and this oppressive invader is indiscriminately slaughtering your fellow citizens. your leader asks you to defend yourself and your brothers. in this defense you are killed.

is your leader responsible for your death because he asked you to defend yourself and your brothers? reading your definition i'd say you would hold him responsible. i would not. i would hold the invaders solely responsible.

i'm trying to say not all things or actions are equal. protesting is the proper response to oppression. killing is not the proper response to protesting.

if the 'organizers' of this rally believed their fundamental rights were being denied by the government isn't it reasonable they take proper, appropriate action against that? if they were promoting violence then i would agree with you. but they were not. you expect them to do nothing? simply obey the dictates of the government they are protesting? that only serves the oppressors. nothing will change if they just go along.

if the iranians were give the freedom to really choose their leaders in open, fair and monitored elections there would be no need or justification to protest.

it's true we don't know all the facts. but that is because the government has kept the world and their people locked out of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's try to look at Iran and argue from the specific to the general rather than establishing a hastily-conceived "principle". Then, in response to your questions and observations:

if the 'organizers' of this rally believed their fundamental rights were being denied by the government isn't it reasonable they take proper, appropriate action against that?

Yes, it is reasonable. It also begs the question of what proper and appropriate action is.

if they were promoting violence then i would agree with you. but they were not.

I think this is a great oversimplification. To convene a hundred thousand or so people and accuse the government of disenfranchising them and then not expect violence is foolish.

you expect them to do nothing? simply obey the dictates of the government they are protesting?

No, I do not expect them to do nothing. But would it be too much to expect them to follow the law? They may not like it, but neither democracy nor any other form of government allows unlimited protest.

that only serves the oppressors. nothing will change if they just go along.

I don't think we've established that the mullahs are oppressors. And it certainly is not true that nothing will change if the protesters just go along. Change characterizes all systems. The question is how things will change. I think the protesters made their point quite early. And making a point is not doing nothing.

if the iranians were give the freedom to really choose their leaders in open, fair and monitored elections there would be no need or justification to protest.

This is patently false and the counter-example would be the US, where bloody demonstrations have occurred and will probably continue to occur from time to time, where 8 years ago, in order to reach an early conclusion, the Supreme Court was utilized to determine that the electoral count was fair and where troops were called out in force and protesters were forcibly moved to the back and out of sight.

I don't think you have hit upon any grand principle. I think you are talking about degrees and not absolutes. And I think it is your insistence on seeing absolutes that prevents us from reaching anything resembling an agreement. And I think it has been intransigence on both sides--Iran and the US--that has prevented the exploration of a more fruitful relationship. And it distresses me to see Obama move in that direction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

look the bottom line is iranians don't have genuine elections. they have no way to change their laws. the media is controlled by the ayatollah. the candidates are hand picked by the ayatollah. how would you suggest the people get their voices heard? the ayatollah doesn't even stand for election. dictator for life. get it?

i grant you i misspoke when i said if there was democracy there would be no need to protest. i really should have said when you have democracy the people have more options than simply protesting. if a democratically elected government tries to shut the people down they can be voted out of office. what can the iranians do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The UN exist for keep the peace betwen nations, not for make interventions on every internal protest."

This case is different. If the UN won't speak out against a regime that is shooting its own citizens - unarmed protesters - how on earth can the Useless Nations be trusted to monitor in good faith a regime that talks openly of genocide while simultaneously pursuing nukes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This case is different. If the UN won't speak out against a regime that is shooting its own citizens - unarmed protesters - how on earth can the Useless Nations be trusted to monitor in good faith a regime that talks openly of genocide while simultaneously pursuing nukes.

With all due respect to you and your opinion.

1 - Iran's uranium enrichment program is without any doubt something that must to be discused in the UN.

2 - Deal with internal strugle is not for what the UN was made for.

3 - The UN dont react based on rethoric for get votes. Ie. "bomb iran" from McCain.

4 - UN is useless only when one of the members of the UNSC say "if you do that, I am going to use my veto power". (USA, UK, France, China and Russia).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: I said nothing at all about oppression.

Of course not. Your goal here is to remove that topic from the table entirely.

Anyway, I think I get what you're saying. An oppressive, hardline regime announced elections results that people called into question. The people started protesting and the government started killing them. Your function in all of this is to make sure we understand that any government would do that and the protesters bear some responsibility for their own deaths. On top of that, you want to make sure that criticism of Iran is balanced out with your own personal criticism of the United States, plus you want to make sure people understand that any comments Obama makes is meddling.

Are you finished or is there anything else we need to add?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only reason the arrogant and ego-inflated President Obama is "taking a stronger line on Iran" is because he was pipped at the post by John McCain. I wonder are more Americans now realising the big mistake they made in choosing Obama over McCain . . .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

You don't get it at all. We can talk further when you stop telling me what my goals are and start telling me what your goals are. Until then, I am trying to have intelligent dialogue with a person who says pink is mauve and north east is south by south west.

My function in this appears to me to be to say what I believe to be true and to call into question those who define oppression as being equal to "what Iran does". We can talk about oppression as soon as you or anyone else is willing to forward an intelligent working definition of it.

Your language is quite over the top. It is true that people started protesting. It is not true that in the same sense of "starting to do" that the government started killing them. Some of them were killed, yes. But if that amounts to oppression, many countries are guilty, including one so apparently near and dear to yourself that you cannot brook much criticism of it.

I don't think the question is whether or not I am finished. I think the question is whether or not you are finished pot-shotting and ready to talk about the topic. As far as I can see, you are simply whingeing at me because I dare to criticize the US and Obama and because I'm not on the anti-Iran bandwagon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So was Iran oppressing their people by killing the protesters?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sezwho2,

you said the question was begging to be asked. ok what do you think the appropriate response would be if people felt the election was stolen?

i'll post this again from wikipedia so you can keep it in mind while framing your answer. by the way i'm still waiting for smithinjapan or yabits to put me "in my place" by offering some link to refute this article.

"The (*unelected) Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts - the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, half of the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[9]"

*added for the benefit of those who might try to find a way to ignore the obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

look the bottom line is iranians don't have genuine elections. they have no way to change their laws. the media is controlled by the ayatollah. the candidates are hand picked by the ayatollah. how would you suggest the people get their voices heard? the ayatollah doesn't even stand for election. dictator for life. get it?

I certainly get your opinion. I also disagree with it.

The ayatollah, the Supreme Leader, is not a dictator for life. He serves at the pleasure of the Assembly of Experts. Even if he were dictator for life, his life span can always be adjusted.

I think you are assuming that the Supreme Leader has no concern for the people when he vets the candidates. I very much doubt that this is true. However, I am quite sure that his concerns are different than yours seem to be.

Whether or not Iranians have genuine elections is one of the points in dispute so I do not think it can be the bottom line in this matter. It may be your bottom line but then your entire argument becomes something of a tautology. In the best case you are assuming the result.

The elections do not lack genuineness just because the Supreme Leader selects the candidates. It seems to me that the Iranians had some good choices in this election. Compare the past elections in the US and ask yourself if we consistently get good candidates with our methods.

It seems to me that one of the candidates, Moussavi, drew considerable support from the Iranian people. Some say he won and others say he did not. Do you know which is true? I don't. The Iranians said they investigated and that there were discrepancies but that the vote was representative. The Russians seem to agree.

Now in the words of Ronald Reagan, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" But then what would we say? Do we really have any choice in our response? Does Obama?

I think that the Supreme Leader has every interest in maintaining an internally stable Iran. So, I am willing to entertain the possibility that he has received a message from a substantial portion of the population and that it will be a message that he and the Assembly of Experts cannot ignore. You seem to entertain the notion that he is intent on oppressing the people and I just don't find that very likely.

So, no, it is not the bottom line that Iran does not have genuine elections.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The elections do not lack genuineness just because the Supreme Leader selects the candidates.

this is a trip down memory lane. it brings me back to the good days when liberals would bend over backwards trying to defend the soviet union.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is a trip down memory lane. it brings me back to the good days when liberals would bend over backwards trying to defend the soviet union.

One thing that hasn't changed is how conservatives will resort to complete lies like the one above in their attacks on liberals. In that, the U.S. and Iranian hardliners are like peas in a pod.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i wonder if they day will come when liberals will deny defending the ayatollah too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So was Iran oppressing their people by killing the protesters?

Not necessarily. My answer would actually be no, particularly as the protests continued. An oppressive regime tends to eliminate protest, rather than just killing the chicken in the hopes of scaring the monkey.

In the first place, I would--of course--take issue with your language. Iran did not kill the protesters. It did not kill most of them, a majority of them, or even a substantial number of them. A few protesters were killed.

I don't think it is even really clear how these deaths came about. If they were killed by a faction within the government, for example, did the government truly kill them? True, it didn't protect them. But did it kill them? Who gave the order? Was an order even given?

Finally, is it oppression? Is it oppression when other governments do it? Or is it only oppression when governments we don't like--don't like because, they're, well, oppresive--do it?

I know you dislike my comparisons with the United States. But I'll say this anyway. I don't think Kent State was oppression, particularly as it did not happen on a national level. I think that moving anti-Bush protesters to the back where they cannot be seen is at the very least "suppression".

So, really, SuperLib, what is this label "oppression" that you want to hang on Iran?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet,

I think that in Iran it would be appropriate to protest, appropriate to disperse when asked to disperse, appropriate to demand a recount, appropriate to keep the issue alive with further protests from time and, most of all, I think it would be appropriate to work within the system and not try to secure foreign support.

Again, the Supreme Leader is unelected, but he is subject to peer review by the Assembly of Experts. He cannot just do as he pleases and it is interesting to note that the Assembly of Experts are not unanimous in their support of what the government has done lately.

So he appoints people, so what? That is what heads of state do. His appointments do not necessarily spring from a mystic voice within his head. He has an Assembly of Experts for a reason. When men write Constitutions, they tend to put in checks and balances. The Assembly of Experts is a check on the Supreme Leader.

I think the danger of that system is, like the danger of any political system, cronyism. Assemble Experts who are yes-men and you could have a problem. Do you have any evidence that his Assembly is made entirely of yes-men? I think the evidence suggests otherwise. The Supreme Leader gave ground and I don't think Supreme Leaders are wont to do this unless strongly persuaded that their initial reactions fell short of what was necessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it is similar to the soviet system. the party puts up it's guy and they rule till they die. there have been just two grand exalted mystic poohbahs in 30 years since the revolution. my guess is the grand exalted mystic poohbah puts his supporters into positions of power. consolidates his strength.

there may be a split developing in the ranks. this is of course good. but simply hoping they eat themselves is not the greatest system for letting people have a say in their government is it?

your suggestions for appropriate ways for the people to speak out were all at he pleasure of the regime. in your book they can only protest when given permission. you think that's effective?

again i suggest the citizens in iran may just expect more now from their own elections when they see their neighbors in iraq are having free elections. wouldn't that be a bummer for the bush bashers?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sezwho

His appointments do not necessarily spring from a mystic voice within his head

Amadinejad is not the Supreme Leader but it was with the Supreme Leader's blessing that A'jad and his entire cabinet signed a loyalty pact with an imaginary being - "the 12th Imam" - and had it delivered to the well that this hidden imam is believed to be, uh, hiding in these last 12 centuries.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200510190818.asp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i wonder if they day will come when liberals will deny defending the ayatollah too?

Another lie. There are no liberals who are "defending" the ayatollah. Just as there were no liberals defending the Soviet system.

The millions upon millions of Iranians who overthrew the Shah's regime and greeted Khomeini on his return from exile bear a great deal of resemblance to the Iranians on the streets today. However, the one key difference is that the Iranians today are not fighting to overturn the Islamic Republic. But they do want it to be administered differently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

again i suggest the citizens in iran may just expect more now from their own elections when they see their neighbors in iraq are having free elections.

You should tell this to an Iranian. They need a good laugh these days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet: "again I suggest the citizens in Iran may just expect more now from their own elections when they see their neighbors in Iraq are having free elections"

yabits: You should tell this to an Iranian. They need a good laugh these days"

Or, the Iranians need a good cry these days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

just to be clear. i'm not suggesting iranians have bush in their thoughts. and granted if they did they are probably mostly negative thoughts. what i'm suggesting is they may have their neighbors, their iraqi brothers, and their election in their thoughts. why is that so hard to imagine?

try this exercise. imagine it was a democrat who promoted free elections in iraq. visualize it. ok do you have that image in your head? now is it any easier?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

again i suggest the citizens in iran may just expect more now from their own elections when they see their neighbors in iraq are having free elections

yabits:

You should tell this to an Iranian. They need a good laugh these days.

While Iranian clerics have lost a lot of their prestige and influence recently the most influential Shia in Iraq,Ayatollah al-Sistani, has seen his grow, especially back in his native Iran, and basically for the reasons which yabit lamely tried to refute - Iraq had free elections and al-Sistani did not try to intervene, nor has he ever tried to do what the mullahs in Iran did - demand that his brand of Islam be made the state religion.

Consider the following 2007 quote from al-Sistani:

“I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shiite or a Kurd or a Christian...”

Elsewhere I do recall reading he has said that Islam can exist within a democracy without theological conflict. Tall order, but I hope we get to see the experiment. Iran seems like as good a place as any.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

try this exercise. imagine it was a democrat who promoted free elections in iraq. visualize it. ok do you have that image in your head?

From the outside world, Iran especially, the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan could only be held under heavy U.S. military protection and supervision. If a Democrat was attempting to self-promote free elections under those conditions, and it is likely that they would not, the opponents of the Democrats would point out what should be obvious to all.

The one thing that conditions in Iran should drive home to everyone is the importance of the separation of church and state when trying to maintain a democratic system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq had free elections and al-Sistani did not try to intervene...

Is this the same teleprompter that accused Obama of being taken in by a "turban-head?"

This only proves that not all turban-headed mullahs are alike. Especially, as pointed out, since Sistani is an Iranian. With respect to the truth, Sistani actually criticized the Iraqi elections for not being "democratic enough." By that he meant that the structure gave too much power away to the Sunni and Kurd minorities. A "real" democracy, in Sistani's terms, would have accorded the majority Shiites clear dominance in Iraqi affairs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From the outside world, Iran especially, the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan could only be held under heavy U.S. military protection and supervision.

well of course. there were a lot of people who just don't like the idea of people choosing their own government. that is pretty obvious. but we saw, given a little back up, the citizens of these countries embraced the chance.

If a Democrat was attempting to self-promote free elections under those conditions, and it is likely that they would not, the opponents of the Democrats would point out what should be obvious to all.

don't sell all democrats short. i'm sure there are some who would be proud to promote democracy under those conditions. and if some were critical of their efforts they might sound an awful lot like you.

The one thing that conditions in Iran should drive home to everyone is the importance of the separation of church and state when trying to maintain a democratic system.

if they had fair and open elections they might solve that problem. why not get behind that concept? the first step is admitting there are no fair and open elections now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the citizens of these countries embraced the chance.

LOL!! So why did the Sunnis of Iraq largely boycott the elections? Why does the U.S. oppose the creation of an independent Kurdish state, when a majority of Kurds are for it?

why not get behind that concept?

The recent Iranian election was not about the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. I am for "the concept" that if the vast majority of Iranians want an Islamic Republic, they get to have it. It would be stupid to misread the reason why Iranians are protesting today. Your claim is that there can be no "free and fair" elections under an Islamic Republic. The Iranians are in the streets claming that there can be, and ought to be, since previous elections prior to this one were free and fair according to their standards.

If you want to understand why the Islamic Republic was preferable to the vast majority of Iranians when the people rose up and overthrew the Shah back in 1979, you'll have to go back in history to see how the Shah was put in place, back in 1953. The U.S. at that time did NOT support the results of the free elections that Iran held, so we helped to overthrow that government and install a dictatorial monarchy.

The great irony is that when the Iranian people violently rose up in 1979 to overthrow that dictator, many conservatives in the U.S. were begging that the U.S. president "support" the Shah by having him slaughter thousands of Iranians in the streets. After that history, who can blame the Iranians for being cynical about U.S. motives?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The recent Iranian election was not about the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

What I meant to say here is that the disturbances following the recent Iranian election were not about the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eight handles ago it was shrieking for as Sistani's head.

LOL! I'm hip. It was also castigating Jimmy Carter for not allowing the Shah's people to really wipe out the same kinds of folks demonstrating in the streets of Tehran (and other Iranian cities) today.

I think it was formed by the unholy union between an eel and a chameleon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL!! So why did the Sunnis of Iraq largely boycott the elections?

boy you laugh a lot. nervous?

like i said some people prefer not having elections. when a minority brutally dominates the majority it may take them a while to accept democratic elections.

but they are coming around.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7863529.stm

it seems the liberals are the ones having the hardest time accepting success in iraq.

but don't give up obama still just might screw it up. there is hope.

just keep laughing it helps.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I meant to say here is that the disturbances following the recent Iranian election were not about the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

fair enough. but tell me how do you put the ilsamists out of power if they choose the candidates? it's a total political monopoly controlled by one man.

as long as the current system exists the way it does there can be no change in the regime's position of a religious run state. the people have no option. they can not vote on it.

the protest were about the people speaking out, finding a voice. that is why the grand exalted mystic poohbah is so nervous. the differences betwen the candidates is not so drastic. but he can't allow the people to tell him what to do. that would be the first step in his downfall.

some here argue the people need permission from the government before they can speak out against it. sorry but that is pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet,

It seems to me that you are saying that you support the protests in Iran even when they lead to violence and death. I don't. I support the right of assembly. However, that right (as is the right to freedom of speech) is not an absolute right and at some point where some see protest, others may see threat. Again, that happens with any government.

If you are looking for the greatest system for allowing people's voices heard, that probably has not yet been devised. You are keen for change. I think that, generally speaking, Americans are keen for change and other cultures place somewhat greater value on continuity. I should think it would be obvious that a country which supported a theocratic revolution would place greater value on continuity.

As far as I am concerned this one term reveals your bias and indicates to me that your prejudice against the Iranian system is not likely to change but to continue:

the grand exalted mystic poohbah

Another such poohbah would be the Dalai Lama. But he's useful to us because he's a thumb in China's eye. It seems to me that you are not willing to entertain any possibility that there may be value in the Iranian system of government. If that is the case, I'm not sure what value there is in discussing this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amadinejad is not the Supreme Leader but it was with the Supreme Leader's blessing that A'jad and his entire cabinet signed a loyalty pact with an imaginary being - "the 12th Imam" - and had it delivered to the well that this hidden imam is believed to be, uh, hiding in these last 12 centuries.

So what? Find me an American leader who does not espouse a belief in God. Obama added the "so help me God" phrase to the oath of office. How many Presidents are trinitarians? What is your point? That Iranian Muslims in general have a different belief system than we do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seems the liberals are the ones having the hardest time accepting success in iraq

We have a far higher standard for what constitutes "success" than conservatives. Obviously...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems to me that you are saying that you support the protests in Iran even when they lead to violence and death. I don't. I support the right of assembly

it's ironic that both the us and iran were founded off violent revolution. are you suggesting we should have used sanctioned government assemblies instead? revolution's come from the people. if a government chooses to deny the people a voice then they should not expect them to lie down quietly. that's why they spend so much time fortifying there positions. it takes a lot of effort to keep people down.

personally i don't promote violence. i'm not sure who was promoting violence in iraq. do you?

generally speaking, Americans are keen for change and other cultures place somewhat greater value on continuity.

easy for you and the ayatollah to say isn't it? i accused you of bending over backwards for the ayatollah. i see you'll do back flips as well. why not let the people speak for themselves? what puts you in a position to know what they want? like castro and so many revolutions in the past, once the dictator is thrown out by the people another one takes his place.

Another such poohbah would be the Dalai Lama. It seems to me that you are not willing to entertain any possibility that there may be value in the Iranian system of government.

why bring him in to it? to prove i'm being hypocritical? i never mentioned the dalai lama. why not stick to the issue?

it's not up to me to decide what government is right for iran. i say that should be left up to the iranian people. you seem to be supporting the totalitarian government who control all avenues of power. i would suggest you stop deciding what you think is best for the iranians and start supporting their right to decide for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it seems the liberals are the ones having the hardest time accepting success in iraq.

Is a "pyrrhic victory" that americans dont want to repeat and other countries dont want to imitate. It weakened the USA military power and political influence to the current "appesement" policy. I ca'nt see it like a success in the larger picture, only like a "moral victory" because is it was selled like making America and the world a saffer place by stop the development of WMDs for terrorists. The democracy part was aded as a collateral benefit, but the country was rifted by sectarian terrorism as an extra cost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet: "it's ironic that both the us and iran were founded off violent revolution."

It's really only 'ironic' when you consider one system vastly superior over another. People with a better education are generally more open-minded.

"personally i don't promote violence. i'm not sure who was promoting violence in iraq. do you?"

Your former president, for one. Or in your world does war = non-violence?

"why bring him in to it? to prove i'm being hypocritical? i never mentioned the dalai lama. why not stick to the issue?"

Awww... busted again for hypocrisy and suddenly it's an off-topic comparison, but try to mention 'the liberals having a hard time accepting success in Iraq' and it's suddenly a valid comparison. The issue SezWho was addressing was figureheads and your biased reference to the 'mystic poohbah', as well as indirectly to religion in general.

"it's not up to me to decide what government is right for iran."

Exactly, so what are you fussing on about?

"i say that should be left up to the iranian people."

And they just chose, in a democratic election. You may not like the result, but it's no less an election for that reason. Supporting that fact is not at all akin to 'supporing the totalitarian government', my friend, and the sooner you stop seeing things in such black and white terms the better life you'll lead.

"it seems the liberals are the ones having the hardest time accepting success in iraq.but don't give up obama still just might screw it up. there is hope."

Newsflash: don't try fobbing off the failures of Iraq on Obama. That was a doomed adventure to begin with, and as everyone predicted things are falling apart, and once the US withdraws ONCE AGAIN we'll see an example of the US overthrowing one dictator to install another (possibly worse than Saddam). Just because there's a new president does not at all make the debacle his fault -- although your ilk is quite keen on blaming your former president's follies on the new guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: So, really, SuperLib, what is this label "oppression" that you want to hang on Iran?

What would be the point of answering that? Any examples I could give would be met with examples from unrelated 3rd parties in an effort to remove Iran from the table entirely. Mentioning the killing of protesters will no doubt get another lecture about Kent State. Talking about denying the right to protest will probably bring about a conversation about Bush protesters or Chicago. Disputed election results in Iran? Well, there's always Florida. Thugs on motorcycles beating random protesters? Gee, have you seen the protection the US President gets when he's out in public? Anything I could mention about Iran will turn into a discussion about any country other than Iran.

And which definition would you like to use? It's all so confusing, isn't it? I mean what really is oppression? Sure, an unarmed girl was shot by a sniper, but we really need to sit down and figure out what each of us means by "oppression" before we can really make any kind of decision. Let's go ahead and table the issue of sniping until we can all agree on the language we're going to use.

At the end of the day your entire function in this debate is to protect Iran. You can say that you want to counter some of the over-the-top reactions but in reality you're trying to counter and any all reactions by either changing the topic or bogging down the discussion into a debate about definitions. You like Iran because they serve as a counterweight to the US and you're going to do anything and everything to protect their ability to do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said, superlib.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The democracy part was aded as a collateral benefit, but the country was rifted by sectarian terrorism as an extra cost.

you are right. where we disagree is over the motive for the war. for the sake of this discussion we should just agree to disagree about that. we won't resolve it here. it would be off topic and would send this thread into a very different complicated, emotional direction.

we can agree on this i think. the coalition invaded iraq for stated security reasons (rightly or wrongly). after the fall of saddam the coalition could have simply left the country to fend for itself. or as was done so many times in the past they could have installed a strong man who would do their bidding. instead they chose the path of setting up free elections.

i believe we must put aside the question of invasion for this discussion because we will never agree on it. but more importantly the issue of the elections is a post invasion issue. once the invasion had already happened (with broad based bipartisan backing) the issue of invading or not became mute. what was done was done. the question then became, what is the best way to leave the country?

i believe giving the iraqis the support they needed to have elections and to form a government which represents the will of the people was the right thing to do. obama obviously agrees his troops are still there. right?

but back to this discussion. which ever way you feel about the elections in iraq. i haven't heard a convincing argument that says those elections couldn't have a positive effect in iran. explain why having open elections next door wouldn't have a positive effect on iranians?

please don't say because bush is a hypocrite. i heard that. try to focus on how the iranians might view open elections next door in the context of their own lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but back to this discussion. which ever way you feel about the elections in iraq. i haven't heard a convincing argument that says those elections couldn't have a positive effect in iran. explain why having open elections next door wouldn't have a positive effect on iranians?

I think that we already discussed these before in the other thread. http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/republicans-call-obama-timid-on-iran#comments

mareo2 at 07:55 PM JST - 25th June

Let's try to focus in to the disagreement. Our difference in opinion is that you think that Bush made good things with Iran and allowed the coming of moderates. I think that Bush only gived more power to the hardliners and is Obama the one that made iranians go and vote for change the president. If you can elaborate just "how" the Irak elections influenced the Iran electiosn that can really help me to understad you, because I just dont see any influence and I dont readed any one talking of these idea aside of you. If you can provide links to any political expert with credible backgrounds that mention these, that can be very helpful to me.

I waithed your answer for more or less of 42 hours. I am sure that you are a busy with your own life, but if you got time for post in these thread maybe you just got so hoked here that you forgot to check the other thread. Dont worrie, I dont feel offended, I dont think that you just avoid to answer because you dont know what to answer. You have the chance to answer to my request of eleaborate or back your opinion in these thread now. Thanks for rememberme that I asked you first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "What would be the point of answering that? Any examples I could give would be met with examples from unrelated 3rd parties in an effort to remove Iran from the table entirely. Mentioning the killing of protesters will no doubt get another lecture about Kent State. Talking about denying the right to protest will probably bring about a conversation about Bush protesters or Chicago. Disputed election results in Iran? Well, there's always Florida. Thugs on motorcycles beating random protesters? Gee, have you seen the protection the US President gets when he's out in public? Anything I could mention about Iran will turn into a discussion about any country other than Iran."

All I see deferring the topic in your post is SuperLib. Doing so as a kind of 'preemptive strike' on another person's argument is a pretty standard junior highschool debate tactic. Besides, there have been plenty of discussions/threads where you 'switched the subject', and in fact avoided answering SezWho's query by -- you guessed it -- going 'offtopic' and making character judgements (albeit you SLIGHTLY touched on the issue in your second paragraph). I haven't seen you on here criticizing inkjet, for example, for constantly talking about Iraq (and he even says, "But back to the discussion").

Finally, reverting to the 'with us or against us' logic as a conclusion to an argument shows just how poor that argument really is, and devoid of valid reasoning. Defending Obama not taking a 'firmer' stance in the beginning (ie. meddling in foreign elections, or attacking Iran), and questioning people's opinions of what constitutes a democratic election does NOT mean that someone 'likes Iran'. That's the same kind of foolish logic that (here comes a comparison! Hit the deck!!) if you criticize Japan you defend its enemies; or if you criticize Israel's military action you therefore support Palestinian extremists. It's downright foolish.

Come on, bud. It's never as clear cut as all that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And they just chose, in a democratic election. You may not like the result

i guess i'm the only one?

i'll wait to respond to the other points if sezwho2 wants to to come back on them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet: "i guess i'm the only one?"

Not at all. In fact, I don't think I've seen a single post on any related thread where someone said they're happy with the results. What I said was that you cannot say something is NOT an election simply because you don't like the outcome.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I said was that you cannot say something is NOT an election simply because you don't like the outcome

i didn't say it wasn't an election. i said it wasn't a fair election. first of all in the tradition of other totalitarian government elections, the (unelected) leaders pick the candidates, then the people decide: choose one from column a or one from column b.

then on top of that the people felt they chose column b but the government insists they chose column a. how can the people know for sure? the government checked it themselves. no outside monitoring of any kind. not even the candidates themselves were allowed to see the ballots.

that was an election, a farce election.

if you don't fine see it that way fine. feel pleased with yourself. i'm through trying to convince you. throw up your hands in victory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

inkjet: "that was an election, a farce election."

And yet if the opposition won you would probably claim it as being fair and what not. You simply cannot accept the result, and as such consider it a farce. That's just called 'bias'.

"i'm through trying to convince you."

Since I know I'm being more open-minded about this I don't really care; what you should be trying to do is convince YOURSELF to open your mind a little and recognize the FACT that simply because the party that no one really wanted to win (aside from the party itself and those with vested interests) won doesn't mean it was not a real election. It's not a 'fair' election if only the people you want to win win, that's the opposite of fair. In fact, it's exactly what you accuse the election of being; a farce.

Astounding that you can't see the hypocrisy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan:

And yet if the opposition won you would probably claim it as being fair and what not.

You put words in people's mouths.

I think inkjet, like most of us, took notice of things in Iran when he saw reports of widespread dissatisfaction and demonstrations against the regime. And when you look at the pics out of Iran you see all ages and groups. The regime has brought in hired goons from Lebanon. They are shooting their own people.

Sorry, but no one voted for that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: "Sorry, but no one voted for that."

I don't want that, you don't want that -- we have that in common. In fact, dare I say not many people in the world beyond those vested interests I mentioned above want it. Clearly some do, though, or do you honestly think EVERY SINGLE vote was rigged?

"You put words in people's mouths."

Please... look at inkjet's selective cut and pastes and then we can talk about putting words in people's mouths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And yet if the opposition won you would probably claim it as being fair and what not

please don't guess what i would say. it makes you look even thicker.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is proving himself to be quite a useless president. Still, Palin will sort it all out in 4 years` time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

realist - Give him time - how about another 3 and a half years?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

first of all in the tradition of other totalitarian government elections, the (unelected) leaders pick the candidates, then the people decide: choose one from column a or one from column b.

This is not true, regarding Iran. The leaders do NOT pick the candidates. Any Iranian citizen is eligible to run for election, as long as they are between the age of 25 and 85, have no record of "moral corruption," believe in the Islamic Revolution, and can read and write. Believing in the Islamic Revolution is not procedurally different from a U.S. candidate swearing to uphold the Constitution that sprung from the American Revolution.

(Have you ever seen the restrictions/requirements placed on a U.S. citizen who wishes to be placed on the ballot to run for Congress?)

In the recent Iranian election, there were at least four major candidates for president, including Ahmadinejad and Mousavi -- and not one from column A or column B. As for the Majlis, the Iranian congress, in the Tehran district alone, it is not uncommon for nearly 200 candidates to compete for the 37 seats for that district.

There are definitely opposing factions -- as the Democrats and Republicans are opposing factions in the U.S. -- and Iran's elections have maintained a 50% or better turnover rate, which is far higher than most developed countries. The chances of an incumbent U.S. Congressman or woman keeping their seat is FAR higher than in Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith I really have no idea what you're trying to say. Sometimes reading your posts is like watching a dog chase his tail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, half of the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that DECIDES both what bills may become law and who may RUN for president or parliament.[9]"

This is not true, regarding Iran. The leaders do NOT pick the candidates.

wikipedia is not the be all and end all but it's a start. can you show me something that would back up your position?

i remember a while back reading a popular candidate was not allowed to run for office on ideological grounds. he wasn't a pure enough islamist (is that the right term?) if candidates can be denied for this reason how can there ever be change?

of course the system is open for new blood to enter, as long as you are pure enough. and of course there have struggles within any 'party' or system. that is not the same as having an open system.

in the old soviet days people would emerge from the local ranks. they had local elections. but only communists could run. within the party there would be power struggles and policy debates. but the system was rigged to promote one ideology. it was not open. i see basically the same situation in iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits,

i reread your post without my kids pulling on my arm.

ok. the us constitution was ratified by the elected representatives of the people. was the guardian council elected by the people? was parliament who set up the islamic 'constitution' elected? or were they appointed?

ps. 'choosing from column a and column b' in america is sort of an idiom. it comes from chinese restaurants where the menus are set up that way. it means you have choices but they are pre-determined choices. i didn't mean literally two choices.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i went to the easy source again. wikipedia.

"Due to the non-elected elements brought into the constitution, and the ability of those elements to override all elected offices, the Iranian constitution does not ultimately allow for any real democratic participation beyond what is deemed appropriate by the non-elected bodies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

can you show me something that would back up your position?

The book, Parliamentary Politics in Revolutionary Iran by Bahman Baktiari, is one of the primary sources for my claims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i googled the book. here's a blurb promoting the book.

"It needs to be stressed, of course, that the Council of Guardians, a body of 12 Islamic jurors, has the right to exclude candidates from parliamentary elections on any grounds and has used this power quite widely. So one cannot speak of democracy at work, but there is nonetheless more political pluralism in evidence in Iran today than in many other Middle East countries."

faint praise indeed.

now you will continue to insist that real democratic reform, with real open elections, next door could have no influence on the iranians? it's just laughable, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

there is nonetheless more political pluralism in evidence in Iran today than in many other Middle East countries.

Looking back to the period between WWI and 1953, Iran enjoyed even greater political freedom and diversity. They didn't get that from the countries in the neighborhood.

There is no "real democratic reform" next door. The Kurds would prefer to opt out of Iraq in favor of an independent Kurdistan if they would be allowed to. In Afghanistan, things are even less democratic.

The Iranians want to evolve their system in an Iranian way. The best thing the U.S. can do is to stand clear and always extend an open hand of friendship. President Obama has executed this to near perfection.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you are useless. we're done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "smith I really have no idea what you're trying to say. Sometimes reading your posts is like watching a dog chase his tail."

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. Sorry if it's a bit hard for you to understand; denial is sometimes like a brick wall -- tough to get the message through. I'll say it again briefly, though: you were talking about going off topic when you're addressed and you went off topic, attacking SezWho's character rather than attempting to address his question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

from the LA times

"The Iranian president rebuked his American counterpart Saturday as the two countries fell back into a familiar pattern of back-and-forth barbs that may imperil the Obama administration's plans to open a direct dialogue with Tehran over its nuclear program."

it's funny how some here are so far gone with supporting this regime that they are stating positions which could almost be seen as condemning their hero, obama.

why can't obam let the iranians decide their own fate for crying out loud? doesn't he realize the iranians want to settle this the iranian way. my goodness what will he say when the purges start?

better get your spines ready for some extreme gymanstics guys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is meant to lead the free world? Eh

Not that Iran will listen in any case, as the supreme leader has already confirm that Iran will chase its nuclear ambitions.

Yup, its gotta be a tough job to be the US prez right now, on one hand he doesnt want to massacre his army in a war with a very modern Iran, on the other he doesnt want to appear weak and incompentant like his predacessor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama hasn't really changed much from Bush, especially in the areas he said that he would change, such as main street, of which he has left California to its own devices, and millions of lower income Californians will take it up the rear.

The interesting thing is that the two things that he would do differently had the most media attention; being timid on Iran, of which he took a tougher stance (Bush would never be timid), and carbon tax (except that now it will be used to conveniently tax the world when the US is hurting, under the guise of something like the IMF or UN or something.

He's becoming kind of like Bush, except the masses are supporting him. I think in Japan he would be called O-Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No point comparing Obama to Bush the brainless chimp. If I were Obama I'd just keep offering the hand of friendship and not get caught up in the war of words. Iran is pretty insignificant anyway, and there are far more pressing issues to deal with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran is the world's second largest oil AND natural gas resource, is a country of special geostrategic significance due to its central location in Eurasia, is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 7000 BC, and is one of the only combined religious and democratic political institutions, AND one of the oldest religions in the world.

The US is just looking for any excuse to go in there that won't catch the attention of ignorant sociopaths like you. Afghanistan, then Iraq, pull out troops from Iraq today, sounds like Obama is orchestrating another heist.

He better not, because he will be the biggest betrayal mankind has ever seen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

combined religious and democratic political institutions

another apologist for the totalitarian regime. do you do free lance propaganda? what is your motivation? how many virgins did they promise?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saddam Hussein led the totalitarian regime that invaded Iran, only to be defended by the US that sided with the Totalitarian regime against Iran. The the US flipped sides later and took out Saddam Hussein. And now it is calling for a Regime change in Iran. They are looking for any excuse to do this.

And Injet, like Kissenger, is the apologist for going to war. Spineless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites