Obama To Iran: “Stop All Violent And Unjust Actions”
After days of being criticized by the right for saying silent on Iran President Obama issued a statement Saturday.
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
How soon before this is determined not to be enough?
Oh…it won’t take too long for them to determine that. Obviously, Bliss hasn’t seen this yet.
June 20th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
How soon before this is determined not to be enough?
Immediately if not sooner, I’m sure. There are plenty of people out there who are more interested in being an Obama-basher than a patriotic American. (I know, I sound like Eric).
Obama did the right thing by taking a “wait and see” attitude to see what the reaction of the Iranian government would be before he expressed his disapproval of it in advance.
June 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I haven’t been on for awhile….did Bliss disappear or did she change her name again?
Also, don’t see Mr. Frosty anywhere either. Or Um Cara for that matter. What’s up?
libpatriot Reply:
June 20th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Danielle, Bad Mr. Frosty’s posts haven’t been seen on this site in weeks. Blissfulconservative and Um Cara continue to log on and share their respective insights for our edification, however.
Danielle Reply:
June 20th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Oh…I liked Mr. Frosty!
michael Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I hope he comes back.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
Me too.
June 20th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
After days of being criticized by the right for saying silent on Iran
I think he has handled this one about right. Having us step in and mediate an election is over the line. But having us condemn State violence in response to what seem like peaceful protest is a whole other thing.
flap Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 12:40 am
I’m not sure yet. I think if the possible revolution continues, Obama should probably make stronger statements. I suspect he will.
I’m wondering what TDro thinks about this. Since you’re a pacifist, should these Iranian students allow themselves to be killed when this election was clearly rigged? Should they not fight back for freedom? Isn’t violence almost morally DEMANDED in that case?
TDro319 Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Flap:
Quite frankly, Iran is not part of the U.S. so therefore their election/protests are none of our business. Back in 2000 we had questions about whether our election was rigged. People were angry, some protested, but nobody was killed.
Hell, Bush lied us into an unnecessary war, trashed the economy, and left the GM bankruptcy to Obama to handle.
We are indeed a very lax nation. If we were anything like Iran, we would have fought to preserve our freedom and Bush would have been impeached years ago.
Personally, I don’t like violence and believe it solves nothing. This Bush/Cheney “kill first, ask questions later” approach did nothing but embolden the enemy and made us one of the most hated nations on earth.
I say diplomacy and negotiations are the first option. If we are not successful and war must be discussed, it must be as a very last result. And I don’t believe any other country (Including Iran) does not want another war. Many Americans, including me, are tired of the needless killing.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 am
“Iran is not part of the U.S. so therefore their election/protests are none of our business”
I agree to an extent…I was asking about what the Iranians should do about their government.
“Back in 2000 we had questions about whether our election was rigged.”
Seems like if it were truly rigged the riggers would have caused a landslide ala Iran and Ahmadinejad. There were irregularities, as with EVERY election. It is virtually impossible to truly reflect 100% how the people voted. Just not statistically likely.
“Hell, Bush lied us into an unnecessary war, trashed the economy, and left the GM bankruptcy to Obama to handle.”
Again, where was the lying? Misjudging WMDs is lying? You may correctly question whether a country having a potentially large and deadly stockpile of WMDs is *worth* a war, but I don’t see how that is a lie.
“Bush would have been impeached years ago.”
Based on you disagreeing with war? Even if you take the Ron Paul approach of isolationism, the undeclared war by the President had precedent back to the Korean War. Take it up with Truman.
“I don’t like violence and believe it solves nothing.”
That’s where you’re dead wrong, TDro. I don’t like violence and USUALLY it probably solves nothing. But human nature is evil. Evil often be confronted and, unfortunately, physically stopped. Diplomacy doesn’t always work, even if you are correct that it *usually* or even *almost always* does.
“This Bush/Cheney kill first, ask questions later”
Some people question Lincoln’s decision to NOT allow the Southern states to secede. In a way, he took that same approach. But it had positive effects, like abolishing slavery and keeping the Union together. I don’t think war is a good thing, and Iraq War in some regards was questionable. But people aren’t being gassed in Iraq. Like it or not, in the long run it will probably be better for the average Iraqi citizen. Worth our blood and treasure? I don’t know.
“I say diplomacy and negotiations are the first option. If we are not successful and war must be discussed, it must be as a very last result.”
Very last result is a matter of interpretation. Was Pearl Harbor justification for entering WWII? I know there were at least one or two Congressmen who voted AGAINST going to war. When people are being violent or imminently violent against you, can you necessarily negotiate out of it? Is that always possible?
“Tired of the needless killing…”
Every single human death lost in war is needless. EVERY single one. If you ever find a way to avoid war, let me know. There isn’t one. Some are “better” than others, perhaps, but war has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue until the end of time. It is inevitable.
You kind of circumvented my question. I wonder what the Iranians are supposed to do since the election was rigged. Allow it? Aren’t you against an oppressive theocracy imposed on ANY human being? I respect MLK’s nonviolent ways but I understand the anger expressed by people like Malcolm X, etc., and the Black Panthers. If you are being oppressed, killed, persecuted, etc., maybe it’s time for a revolution. We had one. And it was violent.
TDro319 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
1. Let Iranians handle their own government.
2. The problem we had with the 2000 election is that many people sat back and accepted the supreme court’s decision. They didn’t agree with it, they just accepted it.
3. ” Again, where was the lying?” He flat out said that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. That’s why he had to recant his statement.
4. “Like it or not, in the long run it will probably be better for the average Iraqi citizen.”
Yeah, right. Like you really care about the Iraqi citizens. If you cared about them, you wouldn’t have agreed with this UNNECESSARY war.
TDro319 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Sorry – my continuation…
5. Like I said before, war should be the last option after diplomacy has failed to work. In the case of WWII, we were attacked by Japan. We had no choice. On 9/11 we were attacked by Saudis and went after Iraq (I wonder why. BTW that’s a rhetorical question).
6. At this time, we (us liberals) are tired of war and killing. I’m not saying war is avoidable, but the Iraq war certainly was.
7. “I wonder what the Iranians are supposed to do since the election was rigged. Allow it?” I don’t know the exact details of this election so I don’t think it would be wise for me to opine at this time. I AM agaist oppressive theocracy, but we are already fighting two wars and our military is stretched thin.
“maybe it’s time for a revolution. We had one. And it was violent.”
Now this is where we differ. I don’t want another violent revolution. And in this day and age, I believe most people feel that peaceful resolutions are possible (except maybe for the war hungry conservatives). However, if you feel one is necessary to further your cause, go for it. Scott Roeder did. It apparently worked because I hear violence is up against abortion providers. God save them from nuts like him.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
1. So you refuse to have an opinion on other governments?
2. I don’t agree with Roe v. Wade. It’s insanity. Law is law, and that was the interpretation. Abortion is legal. Bush won the election.
3. Show me the quote where Bush said Iraq had something to do with 9/11 OTHER than Iraq assisting in terrorism and harboring terrorists. In that regard, they most certainly did.
4. Why is it relevant whether I personally, emotionally CARE about the Iraqi citizens? If I say I do, you don’t believe me anyway and accuse me of being an extremist. Isn’t it factual that their day-to-day life will be improved in the long run? I’m not saying it was *worth* a war, but their day-to-day life will not be better without Saddam?
5. We had no choice? Of course we had a choice during WWII. We could have negotiated. Seriously. Do you know how many Americans died during WWII that perhaps did not need to? It is possible that Russia would have defeated the Nazis and Japan would have eventually been defeated without our help. In addition, Japan attacked us and we entered BOTH theaters of the war. I think you’re inconsistent on your pacifism stance, TDro.
6. See, I don’t think you’re a strict pacifist. Which is cool, but I think a true pacifist would probably say all war is avoidable OR at least a war cannot be fought because it’s immoral. “The Iraq war certainly was” avoidable, but so was WWII. The repercussions of avoiding EITHER war are different but it’s highly subject to interpretation.
7. I don’t know the exact details either but it was rigged. I don’t want violence, but have you seen the picture of that poor female Iraqi student (Neda) who was killed the other day? It’s pretty graphic, but it illustrates the insanity of crazy regimes like that. Over here when stuff like that happens (if it happens) we have investigations that run for years. Over there, apparently it’s business as usual. Khameni is “god” over there. I find it interesting that some of the apparently really lib students are shouting “death to Khameni” which could be a death sentence for them. It would be a huge feather in Obama’s cap if Iran has a new government and we can create a relationship with them.
I don’t want any violent revolutions. I don’t own a gun. I don’t like violence. As much as you like to bait me into saying Roeder was a hero, etc., I truly don’t believe that. AT ALL. I abhor violence…INCLUDING that against the unborn. Roeder is a nut, and so are late-term abortion providers.
TDro319 Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
1. That’s correct. It’s thier country. We have enough problems of our own.
2. You don’t agree with Roe v. Wade and I didn’t like Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, causing the deaths of 4000+ American soldiers, for profit.
3. Actually it was the Dickster.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts
4. It just bothers me that you conservative become all “concerned for the civilians” when it serves your purpose. Where was your concern for the people when we invaded Iraq?
5. The difference is, Japan attacked us during WWII. And I think FDR made the right choice. Now the Iraq war was totally UNNECESSARY.
6. I believe I am a true pacifist but I certainly know that some wars are unavoidable. But I don’t think our young people should be sent to die because a few old men decided it was. By the way, if you want to talk about chickenhawks, check out John “I want war” Bolton. He refused to serve in Viet Nam because, and I quote; “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy.” Yet he has no qualms about sending our own young off to die. What a coward!
7. Have you seen the devastation done by hurrican Katrina. Did you see the picture of the dead old woman floating face down in the aftermath? Now I agree the woman who was killed in the street of Tehran was horrible, but that is another country. We found out a long time ago what happens when we interfere. As for a new Iran government being a feather in Obama’s cap? The conservatives would never give him credit. They’d spin it to look like Cheney was the hero.
And why are abortion providers your target? Shouldn’t your anger be focused on the expectant mothers who seek out their services? Did the gun salesman get blamed for the Tiller death?
flap Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
1. Wow, I am surprised that you don’t have any compassion for your fellow human beings other than those who are in this country!
2. I mentioned Supreme Court cases and you diverted the issue. My point is that Bush won the election…the Supreme Court said so. Abortion is legal…the Supreme Court said so.
3. TDro: “He flat out said that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.”
RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
CHENEY: We don’t know.
4. Where was your concern for the German citizens or the Japanese citizens when we laid waste to their respective countries? Did any of them deserve that? In your next response you said FDR made the right choice, thereby condemning hundreds of thousands of civilians to DEATH. Do you believe that their lives were just “collateral damage”?
5. Japan attacked us, and you THINK FDR made the right choice. I can see a lib who is to the left of you questioning your pacifist bona fides. Why didn’t we use diplomacy? Didn’t we end up killing more Americans by entering the war than by NOT entering the war?
6. Would you serve in a war that is unavoidable? What is “unavoidable”? Aren’t old men ALWAYS deciding whether a war must be fought? What’s the alternative, to have young people decide? There’s a very large gray area.
7. That is in another country? Aren’t you a lib? Don’t you have compassion for those OUTSIDE of your own country? You’re so busy worried about every single soldier’s death in this war that you ignore things like abortion, human rights violations in other countries, etc.
No one is my “target,” TDro. Abortion shouldn’t be legal in all instances: that’s the problem. That’s like questioning who is to blame for slavery…slaveholders, slave sellers, slave abusers, etc. IT SHOULDN’T BE LEGAL. What were the laws like pre-1973? I’m not for going on witch hunts to seek out people who have had abortions, I’m for preserving unborn HUMAN LIFE. Someday people’s consciousnesses will be raised.
But, about Tiller…he was a physician. He had the training. He knew damn well what human life was and while early term abortions can be reasonably debated, it’s very difficult from a scientific, reality-based viewpoint to say that a late-term abortion is not (brutally) termininating a human life, oftentimes with no reason. A young mother doesn’t always understand the consequences or what is actually being done. But, hey, Tiller had a cushy life, probably a mansion, lots of cash in the bank, all from personally killing nascent human life! All with a medical license and under the guise of ob/gyn services! What a deal! What a wonderful, heroic guy!
To be honest, I don’t know what *true* pacifism entails. I didn’t know you could support a war and be a pacifist, even if it was an “unavoidable” war as you call it like WWII. I did a little Googling and Ron Paul believes that we helped create WWII by involving ourselves in WWI. I respect Ron Paul and he may have a point. I will say that war has cost us a lot of lives and money…but I just don’t think that war in general is unavoidable. I find that hard to swallow. After WWII we could have probably avoided all war, but what would be the result? Would our world be very different?
libpatriot Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 2:01 am
Wire Reports, June 18, 2009:
“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton defended U.S. efforts to ensure that the Twitter social-networking service remained available for use by Iranian protestors.
“Clinton said Twitter had been essential in allowing Iranian protestors, especially the young, to remain in touch in the aftermath of the disputed election.
“State Department officials earlier this week urged Twitter to delay scheduled maintenance to avoid interrupting service in Iran.
“Clinton said she considered it important to keep ‘that line of communication open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there (were) not many other sources of information…It is a fundamental right for people to be able to communicate.’”
While this move by the Administration might have JUST skirted the line into internal interference with Iran , I think it was a good move all the same.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
While this move by the Administration might have JUST skirted the line into internal interference with Iran , I think it was a good move all the same.
I, however, thinks it’s funny that Clinton and Obama have to rely on private enterprise to ensure we have information as it pertains to Iran.
libpatriot Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 4:15 am
I’m glad they’re not so ideologically rigid in their thinking that they refuse to grasp an opportunity to get information NOW, EVEN IF it won’t involve a government project.
I think they grasped that they could encourage the protestors to keep it up by keeping their ability to organize going through Twitter, and didn’t want to miss a chance to do that either. Using our satellites and scanners for information wouldn’t have accomplished that additional benefit of moral support for the protestors.
And since Iran and the U.S. haven’t had normal relations in close to three decades, how else where they going to find out what was going on once the censorship began? We have no embassy building there with the diplomats and the networks of contacts.
I think it’s funny that this a perfect example of private enterprise needing to be told what to do and when by the government, and you didn’t see that. The Twitter people were going to go ahead with their maintenance (and consequent service disconnections) otherwise.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 6:29 am
it scares me that the lesson you get out of this is that govt. should be able to tell corporations what to do and when to do it.
It was great that the administration reached out and ASKED for them to delay maintenance, and Twitter obliged.
The lesson we SHOULD learn is that govt. and corp. can work together for a better world.
TDro319 Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“it scares me that the lesson you get out of this is that govt. should be able to tell corporations what to do and when to do it. ”
As opposed to the corporations telling the government what to do, which is happening in the U.S.?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 am
I’d rather the govt worked for the people than the people work for the govt yes. (including corporations which are made up of…you guessed it, people)
TDro319 Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Guido:
We’d all like the government working on behalf of the people. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here in the U.S. It’s the corporations running the show. And if they’re allowed to go unchecked, we may end up a country of slave laborers.
June 21st, 2009 at 2:06 am
…way to go Barry!
So, what do we do when the strong statements don’t work – like with North Korea.?
Oh, I know, let’s just wait for the harsh action of the UN that worked so well in the past. (Wait a minute, isn’t that what’s going on now in North Korea?)
OK, OK, Barry, since you slashed missile defense, let’s just give up Hawaii.
Wait, here’s the plan. Let’s let Barry go to Iran and Korea and give the leaders IPods.
OldLefty Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 9:38 am
Hey, Helipilot,
Do you miss the days where Bush strengthened al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad….they LOVED him.
The wackos seem to be falling apart now that Bush is gone.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 9:48 am
“OK, OK…let’s just give up Hawaii.”
Do us a favor: move to Texas and secede from the union. I’ll send you ten bucks to help with rent on the trailer.
Bernie-in-Michigan Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Whether Bush’s policy’s strengthened or weakened al Qaetda is certainly subject to interruption. What can be said with some certainty is that The Mid-East today is the sum total of American policy dating to 12 September 2001. Bush said when the US re-entered Iraq that free and fair elections there might embolden the people of other Arab countries to also seek free and fair elections. Today’s events in Iran and those of a few weeks ago in Lebanon may have have grown from the seeds Bush planted in 2003.
average james Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Bernie,
Agreed that strengthening our enemies is an unquantifiable equation. “In my opinion”, we did.
Also agreed that the entire region has been changed since 9-11.
You may have a point on the seeds planted in 03. Time will tell, maybe sooner rather than later.
Not too bad, for a righty. He he
OldLefty Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Bernie-in-Michigan,
What can be said with some certainty is that The Mid-East today is the sum total of western policy starting in 1924 when the British supported Abd al Aziz and his Wahhabi armies against the Sharifs.
Then accelerated in 1953 with the overthrow of Mossegegh, then the constant support of radical Islam over secular nationalism by the US.
The result of the invasion of Iraq and the threatening of the Iranian people, and inserting troops on both borders, and war profiteering in Iraq, and the message that we only act against you if you are a weak unarmed nation, was the free and fair election of Ahmadinejad.
June 21st, 2009 at 9:19 am
” After days of being criticized by the right for staying silent on Iran, President Obama issued a statement Saturday.”
The right didn’t have near the influence as did all the Iranian protesters at the Whitehouse and on the news.
All of a sudden Obama was like the skunk at the garden party, so for polotical reasons, he finally issued a statement.
OldLefty Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 10:22 am
He SHOULD stay out of it:
#1) The Iranian HAVE hated us because we overthrew their democracy in the past, and set a dictator.
#2) If the right wing clergy and Ahmadinejad in Iran can claim that the US is backing Mousavi over their guy, he may in REAL trouble.
#3) Those who are calling for more action, are the same people who have caused much of the trouble we see today.
Bernie-in-Michigan Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Lefty,
Your showing our age a bit here. 70% of Iranians are under 30 years of age born since 1978. They don’t remember the hostage crisis any more than they can relate to some over thrown dictator decades ago.
Check out #iranrevolution or #IranRevolution or #iranelection on Twitter you won’t find much American hate coming from the tech savvy Iranians there. In you do check it out please change your cumputer’s time to Tehran’s time to help cover the Iranians.
In fact a couple threads I was reading earlier in the week saw some Iranians actually asking the US to invade them.
Personally I think Obama has handled the crisis just about right. I’d say completely right if he had made yesterdays statement earlier in the week.
TDro319 Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
We’re already juggling two unnecessary wars and you want to start a third?
OldLefty Reply:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Bernie-in-Michigan,
I think that you are sadly mistaken and naive if yo think the young Iranians don’t remember their history.
In my younger days., in the mid seventies, people from that part of the world spoke of British colonialism and Mossadegh like it had just happened.
Mousavi and Rafsanjani were instrumental in organizing the revolution in 1979.
The “American hate has been burning out, over the years, mainly because we stayed out of their affairs, which is why those familiar with the country thought it was so tragic that Bush alienated and provoked them to vote for their OWN right wing, bellicose, religious wacko to counterbalance Bush.
Now that reason is restored, they can pursue more freedom again, like Lebanon.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
I suspect that you are correct Lefty.
The Iranians are not necessarily like us in the forgetting department.
I also hope for the Iranians to pursue more freedom, on their own terms.
June 21st, 2009 at 10:01 am
[...] were in full force on the Sunday talk shows and, as predicted, they wasted no time bashing the president. In spite of Obama’s condemnation of Iranian [...]
June 21st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Well,
So, “Martin Luther King once said – ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’”
The difference between Barry and the Reverend King is that Reverend King put his words into action and he wasn’t afraid of what it would personally cost him.
Barry has shown that he’s good with words and bad with action, especially when it’s his terrorist friends.
So what happens when the twisted Iranian leader gives us the diplomatic finger? I’ll tell you one thing – there won’t be a Navy Commander and Seal team to make the on-scene decisions that Barry wouldn’t make – His inaction hampered their every decision yet they still had the cajones to put their careers on the line, make an action decision and make him look like a hero. If they waited on Barry, the Maserk captain would still be floating around captive.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
I dunno Helipilot,
There’s a whole lot of assumptions in that there post.
“his terrorist friends” seems particularly inflammatory.
Pessimism and negativity over optimism and hope ?
Not for me.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Now that reason is restored, they can pursue more freedom again, like Lebanon
I disagree that it is this “new reason”. I really think that it has been the overthrow of Saddam and the free and fair elections of Iraq that have given rise to this feeling of freedom. We are seeing it in Lebanon, we see it with Syria pulling back. The general feeling that freedom is within grasp to the Iranian people is a direct result of a free Iraq.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Pino,
You could be right, it is hard to quantify such an opinion. Likely it is a combination of events, who knows ?
Either way I believe we should stay out of it and respect another nation’s sovereignty. I think this approach has a much greater potential for better relations, regardless of the election/uprising’s outcome.
OldLefty Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Pino,
I disagree.
They had elections in Iran before and after the Shah.
I think Iraq only set them back. I always felt that it was Bush who pushed them to vote for their own Bush in 2005.
Back in 2002,(before Iraq), Tom Friedman said on pbs that they have been moving in this direction for some time now.:
“What do you find among the people in power, their attitude toward the U.S. and their attitude about Bush calling them part of the axis of evil?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:. But for the decent people, they’re enormously frustrated. Look at it from Iran’s point of view. They helped the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
They encouraged the Northern Alliance to come with the United States. For that they got axis of evil in their face. They say wait a minute there are no Iranians in al-Qaida. We supported you in Afghanistan. Meanwhile Pakistan has a nuclear bomb. Al-Qaida is full of Pakistanis and Saudis and they get visits to the White House. So there’s a lot of frustration there too.
They’ve had enough democracy to know they want more of it. They’ve had enough theocracy crammed down their throats to know they want less of it.”
Remember, In a CNN interview with Christiane Amanpour
AMANPOUR: Yes, they have empathy and, if you recall, after 9/11 most of the world was on America’s side, sympathetic and in solidarity. People even held candlelight vigils in Tehran, Iran. However, since then many people around the world have become very alienated from the United States because of what they perceive as a resort to force only. Of course, after the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the impression that the United States condones torture had a highly negative effect on people’s perception of the United States.
I always felt that it was Bush who pushed them to vote for their own Bush in 2005.
craig7120 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Lefty~
For years Ive been telling my conservatives friends that the people of Iran(gen. population) are the most educated people in the middle east. Ive had the pleasure of talking with some Iranians, and the 1st thing they say ‘we do not hate americans’ which I fond odd and disarming at the same time. The rhetoric that both govts have displayed over the years, it’s not surprising that suspicision and mistrust has prevailed.
Now the question for you since you’re my google on certain topics. lol
What is the difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad?
What is your ‘opinion’ on the outcome?
IMO nothing will really change until the ‘religious right’ in Iran falls.
OldLefty Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Absolutely.
Although, I don’t know any Iranians who have family there, but my husband does and he says that they say, ‘don’t get your hopes up yet because what we see is only in the big city.’.
They say 15 miles out of Tehran, people support the clergy…..like NY city and Oklahoma: liberal v conservative.
OldLefty Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Sorry craig,
Meant to add, my grass is not going to cut itself.
craig7120 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Ty for the reply, stay hydrated, its hot outside.
How hot? saw a dog chasing a cat and they were both walking. J. Carson, tonight show 1976.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
“They say 15 miles out of Tehran, people support the clergy”
Yeah, I fear it’s just Tehran and that this will be quashed, lots of students killed, and it’ll be business as usual.
craig7120 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Lefty, Hitchens has a good article on Iran in Slate today. good read.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Either way I believe we should stay out of it and respect another nation’s sovereignty.
I agree. Totally agree. Further, I think that the way this is playing out may be good for freedom over there.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I always felt that it was Bush who pushed them to vote for their own Bush in 2005.
I’m sure you do. However, I think that it is America’s willingness to remove Saddam and create a peaceful democratic Iraq that has really began to pressure other free thinking citizens in the region to react.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I agree with Lefty on this, it’s my opinion. That being said, I don’t know how one can put actual quantifiable facts behind this opinion or that opinion, on an issue such as this. Without polling data, such as what we have here, how can you know ? We can’t even agree on polling data here, Rassmussen vs. Gallup for example.
The free speech man on the street stuff is likely the closest to reality as far as a feel for the population’s overall temper.
OldLefty Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
We don’t know what we have in Iraq. Most who could, got out of Iraq, others have been ethnically cleansed and displaced, over 1.4 million refugees, many widowed and orphaned, and the US government providing safety to “certain” candidates.
Again you would have to explain how the Iranians were always moving democracy and moving to a more pro Westeren stance BEFORE Iraq, then voted for Ahmadinejad, when Bush threatened them, THEN took on their government when Obama came in.
A Mousavi external spokesman, renowned filmmaker and reformer Mohsen Makhmalbaf said in an interview from Paris:
‘ Makhmalbaf speaks of this week’s protests as another revolution — and Mousavi as Iran’s Obama.
As you may know, former President Mohammad Khatami, who is supporting Mousavi at the moment, was in favor of dialogue between the civilizations, but Ahmadinejad talks about the war of the civilizations. Is there not any difference between the two?
We [Iranians] are a bit unfortunate. When we had our Obama [meaning President Khatami], that was the time of President Bush in the United States. Now that [the United States] has Obama, we have our Bush here [in Iran]. In order to resolve the problems between the two countries, we should have two Obamas on the two sides.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Very interesting Lefty,
I think that makes sense.
Geewizz, timing is everything huh.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Oh yes. Because we all know he has allll the answers.
You are crazy if you are comparing Bush to the leadership in Iran.
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Right-wing hard#ss to right-wing hard#ss, simpatico !
average james Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I mean Ahmadinajad(right-wing hard#ss) to Bush43(right-wing hard#ss)= simpatico.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
At this time, we (us liberals) are tired of war and killing. I’m not saying war is avoidable, but the Iraq war certainly was.
Hey, we are ALL tired of war and killing. And it’s heartening to know that you see war as unavoidable. And while I won’t say that GOING into Iraq was a mistake, not getting out sooner was. I really think that we screwed the pooch on the “after” part.
flap Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“Not getting out sooner was”
Yep, I think so too. Nation-building…generally bad.
craig7120 Reply:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
yeah I guess war and killing can get exhausting. we need a war and killing exercise program. not for the soldiers(athletes?) but for those that root root for the home team.
TDro319 Reply:
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“And while I won’t say that GOING into Iraq was a mistake”
No, invading Iraq was NOT a mistake. Actually, it was very much planned by the Bush administration before he took office. Which is why it was very important he become POTUS in 2000.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm