Obama did nothing to support the pro-Democracy demonstrations in Iran, since he wants a dialogue with Ahmaniwhatsisface. As with many liberals, he likely cherishes the belief that talking is equivalent to achieving something constructive. But if the real power behind the face of the probable 1979 Hostage Crisis leader is coma-stricken, what then?
Part of the Administration's policy seems to hinge on treating Iran as a legitimate country which hasn't been secretly at war with America for decades. How can "talks" even begin to work, presuming there's any way they could given that there's no interest in more than just talk, if there's nobody listening on the other side?|||http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...a-iran-twitter
...Perhaps you'd prefer he Send The Marines?|||Hint: the Iran situation is not only about America.
edit: I was inspired to come up with that picture to illustrate my remark, seems a waste not to post it now. :)
The point being... "This Administration's" strategy clearly appears to be more internationally oriented than previous attempts (some may even say, by popular demand). Which explains why talking to Iran, however futile it may prove in the end and regardless of other contingencies, is indeed the logical thing to do. You cannot on the one hand research a consensus and on the other declare that you're not interested in anything but bloody retribution.|||Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...a-iran-twitter
...Perhaps you'd prefer he Send The Marines?
Making sure a social networking site doesn't cave is hardly of the same stripe as full-throated support for Democracy, which was not forthcoming.
And since you asked, no, I don't think invasion is the answer here at all. In fact, my preferred solution should have been acted on during Bush's 2nd term, and is now far less likely to be effective.
Quote:
Hint: the Iran situation is not only about America.
Not sure if that's directed at me? If so, I'm limiting my scope to the Administration's approach to the situation. Regarding the aspect involving an international solution, well, let's just say that I'm not interested in even more egg on the face of America.|||I don't quite understand why this country thinks that they can police the world. Or at least, jmervyn here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignity|||Quote:
The point being... "This Administration's" strategy clearly appears to be more internationally oriented than previous attempts (some may even say, by popular demand). Which explains why talking to Iran, however futile it may prove in the end and regardless of other contingencies, is indeed the logical thing to do.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. So you think Bush was not trying to achieve an international resolution during his two terms... but why do you say that? Seems to me like that was <ALL> he was trying to do; outsource the problem to the Europeans since they're going to be likely targets of nuclear intimidation. Bush wasn't willing to have face-to-face talks because it legitimizes the other side's claims, with nothing to show for it.
Tell me that Obama is achieving something by not coming out swinging on the world stage about the horrors in Iran. And by this I mean, <what> has he achieved?
Quote:
You cannot on the one hand research a consensus and on the other declare that you're not interested in anything but bloody retribution.
Other than leftist claims of the secret motivations of Darth Cheney, I don't know that the previous administration ever talked about retribution. If anything, there were simply more carrots.
Quote:
I don't quite understand why this country thinks that they can police the world. Or at least, jmervyn here.
Because Iran is supposed to be an international problem, despite the insinuation that it is only the U.S. that is endangered by it. Or is the so-called "world community" really just a large pack of crooks and liars looking out for themselves at others' expense?
Personally, I believe that the U.S. is headed towards an isolationist stance, and many conservatives will applaud. Many Americans are sick of the "world police" and "world citizen" mentality, but that's far more prevalent on the left than the right. The problem is that we're likely to withdraw our support from our trusted allies like Israel and our nominal friends like Europe and Japan when doing so. But that would really be a return to the norm, if you think about it...|||The previous administration labeled Iran as a member in good standing of the "Axis of Evil" (in a State of the Union Address in 2002, no less). If that is not inviting retribution down the line when one knows what happened to one other notorious member shortly after, I don't know what does...|||Quote:
The previous administration labeled Iran as a member in good standing of the "Axis of Evil" (in a State of the Union Address in 2002, no less). If that is not inviting retribution down the line when one knows what happened to one other notorious member shortly after, I don't know what does...
After all, the U.S. is known to go to war for no reason whatsoever, gotcha, same old same old. I think I even have the T-shirt. And this was why the U.S. outsourced the Iranian situation to Europe, which has always been closer to the mullahs both commercially and geographically.
So again, <what> has Obama's open hand achieved, other than garnered the mullah's spit? Because it certainly was an appalling display for those on the left who remember when the claim of 'liberal' was something to be proud of, as it implied the Wilsonian belief in using American power for good.|||No reason whatsoever? How is being officially described as one of the ideological hotbeds of terrorism, posing a direct threat to national interests and lives, and actively researching wmd technology suddenly not a valid enough reason to go to war anymore? Oh and being Evil.
Sounds vaguely familiar, it does. And so in the face of all this, and keeping in character with previous declarations of trust as to the power and accomplishments of the UN in general and Europe in particular, the Bush administration decided to entrust the matter entirely to its steadfast allies*. They largely kept it away from public knowledge as well --in fact, opted to emphasize the inefficiency of those foreign institutions any chance they got, no doubt in a clever ploy to lull Iran into a false sense of security.
And now Obama is destroying all that hard work. That bastard!
....yeah. It's a consistent world view, I'll give you that.
*who were all properly grateful for the opportunity thereby granted to prove themselves in the eyes of their big brother America, who has done so much for them, as one can imagine. Scenes of renewed national pride played out in many major cities throughout the continent.|||Quote:
the Wilsonian belief in using American power for good.
Our definitions of "Wilsonian" seem to be quite different here... as I remember, Woodrow Wilson stood for every country's right to self-determination...
...something which your original post seems not to respect very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment