Saturday, June 20, 2009
Is the President handling the Iranian crisis correctly?
I personally think he is doing an excellant job in staying neutral and letting the Iranians work out their own election problems. The time may come where he needs to be more vocal but at this point we don't want to appear as if we are trying to be the world's puppet master. I'd be interested to hear what you all think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I agree with you. He is in a very delicate situation at this time. I really feel for the Iranians but all we can do is pray for them. M.
Actually, I think he is handling the situation all wrong. He should make a bold statement in support of the protesters. The protests aren't merely about a rigged election, it is about getting out from under the thug boots of the Mullahs. Obama's belief in the spoken word may gain him the presidency and ardent followers here in the States, but theocratic oppressors will have none of his sweet talk. One cannot talk the Mullahs into fair elections or talk them out of nuclear arms. Full-throated support in response to the cries for freedom is required. If such is meddling, then let's meddle!
I am somewhat surprised that mom and Kim feel he is doing the right thing by not doing anything. Where is America as a leader of the free world is when a obviously suppressed nation and people try to stand up and we just cower and do nothing. All the great presidents stood up to tyranny when faced with it. JFK stood up to Cuba and Fidel during the missile crisis, Reagan stood up to the USSR and told him to "tear down this wall", Washington stood against the English and Lincoln stood against the south to unite the nation.
According to Mom's and Kim's logic Lincoln should have just let the south work it out by themselves and form their own country...or just "pray" for the south and hope for the best. Faith without works is dead so we are taught in the LDS faith.
And I do not feel it is as "delicate" as mom says. I think we have just grown weak. America is loosing its spine. We need to stand up and support these efforts.
Here is a struggling nation trying to become free of the bands of tyranny and oppression and we are to just say gosh...sucks to be you, hope everything turns out okay!?
Another example...WWII european theatre...maybe we should have just sat back and prayed that Hitler would ease off and everyone would sing Kumbay-Ya! We just celebrated the 65th anniversary of D-Day on the beaches of Normandy when we, the brave America of the past, went to fight for those across the sea who rejected the thought of being down trodden and denied their inalienable rights as humans. I increasingly believe that "That" America no longer exists today.
No, Kim and Mom, I totally disagree with you in every aspect here. I believe it is showing Barack Obama to be a coward and a spineless leader that again is demonstrating that America is no longer the strong country and leader of freedom that we once were.
Strong comments from Brian!
I agree with Mom and Kim.
After all, conservative thought is more layered than what one often thinks. Classical conservative stances are much more isolationist and libertarian than the conservatism that we see today. The current and relatively recent conservative movement has evolved into a much more evangelical one regarding the spread of democracy.
Contrary to what Brian has said, the United States of America has only in this last century (the 1900's) sought to impose itself and influence other nations.
All of the situations cited by Brian were physical in some way. Consider the positioning of battle ships (Cuba), missile bases and foreign bases build-up (Russia), direct response after being attacked WWI and WWII (Germany), the Civil War, the War of Independence.
Given the list of precedents cited, may I ask what physical response you might like President Obama to employ? In what way would you like him to up the ante? What sabers would you like to see rattled?
I think it is entirely wise of him to act precisely as he is acting. No words he could say would change an iota of what is happening in Iran. The mullahs, depraved as they are, would not be influenced in the slightest and could be more tempted to react even more violently and repressively if they feel threatened by their old-reliable propaganda tool The Great Satan.
Do we think for one moment that the Iranians in the street are waiting for the United States to give its blessing? No, their courage is entirely independent of us and in my opinion all the more laudatory because fiercely so.
The situation is indeed more delicate than many suppose. The ramifications of this momentous event warrant measured words, unless of course we intend to back them up. And the USA is in no position with two wars on two fronts to back up any knee-jerk comments. The Berlin wall came down not because of what Reagan said on that specific day, but rather because of the careful strategies of previous years including his own! That is exactly what Obama is doing: negotiating away a Nuclear Iran requires thought...and maybe someday force; but not yet.
I would like to add just a few points.
First, Ahmadinejad is a terrorist in his own right. He participated in the hostage situation that brought the Carter Administration to an end.
Second, Iran is exporting terrorism in the form of arms and money.
Third, Iran is the designer of new hyper-powerful IEDs that are killing US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So who is meddling in whose affairs here? Iran is the consummate meddler and bully. Placating words only encourage a bully.
I agree 100% with you Alan but on the other hand do we want to have an other war on our hands? We want to help the protesters fight the regime of oppression but how? M
This is Dad now. I am very concerned about the whole situation. We must realize that this really is much more than an Iranian situation. The whole of the middle east is involved. Iran has declared openly that it intends to "wipe Israel off the map". If the Iranian leadership (not the Iranian People)should attempt to perform as they have advertised, then literally "all Hell would break loose"! I am not an Obama fan, I do believe he is, at this time and place, walking a tight rope. It is too early to come down hard on the Mullahs, but we must be prepared. I do not believe a "third war" would break us as much as the home grown fiscal problems that we face in Washington. Our military can handle the foreign threats better than we can handle the liberal forces in Washington. "Nuf said"
Since the original post and my reply Mr. Obama has come out a little stronger in support of the protesters with the following...That the government of Iran “stop all violent and unjust actions” against anti-government protesters.
This is a step in the right direction and I applaud the change from "neutral" to a more supportive stance with the people of Iran.
Now to clarify some view points that Doug insinuated that I have of the situation.
Doug wrote, "may I ask what physical response you might like President Obama to employ? In what way would you like him to up the ante? What sabers would you like to see rattled?"
I never mentioned anything about a physical response nor did I mention anything about sabor rattling in THIS situation. I simply said he should not be neutral. That America should stand with anyone who seeks greater freedom. His comments today have moved in that direction as I just previously posted.
As for his comment "Contrary to what Brian has said, the United States of America has only in this last century (the 1900's) sought to impose itself and influence other nations."
Simple Facts...
June 18, 1812 - War of 1812 US delcares war on United Kingdom while the British was blockading neutral ships during its hostilities with France.
US came in defense of France.
May 13, 1846 - Mexican/American War
President Polk said that it was necessary to deploy forces in Mexico to meet a threatened invasion.
Check out the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars and you will find literally hundreds of times pre 1900's that America has stood up and shown itself to be a leader in the world. So to say "the United States of America has only in this last century (the 1900's) sought to impose itself and influence other nations." is just bogus.
As far as I can see in each instance America was provoked or sent in troops to protect American interests or innocent citizens...not to "impose itself".
In my original post I said that I thought President Obama was doing an excellant job is staying neutral on the issue of the Iranian elections. Since then, the issues have changed from election differences to human rights issues. As I noted, there may come a time when the President will need to be more vocal. As the issues have shifted....so has the President's tones and words. I still maintain that in this crisis, the President is handling things correctly. The U.S. needs to learn how to do more than just thump their chests and rattle their sabers. Let's try diplomacy for once.
How come everyone keeps mentioning rattling sabres! No one has mentioned anything suggesting military action....just support of the people and their ability to protest.
I do believe however that after we let the current Iranian government squash the protests and after our continued diplomacy fails and Iran becomes a nuclear nation, we will be faced with a grown tiger and not a cute cuddly kitten anymore.
I guess I shouldn't bring up Neville Chamberlain. Woops! I guess I just did.
History has amply demonstrated that negotiation with dictators is pointless. Nevertheless, Brian and I are not denying that the situation is delicate, and we are not talking about war or any other military action. We are saying that one is never wrong to stand up for freedom and one is never wrong to be vocal about it.
The problem is that when the President speaks, no matter who the President happens to be, the rest of the world only sees and hears the saber and nothing else.
If everyone believes that negociating with Iran and letting the Iranians solve their own problems is the way to go, then I propose that Obama open tell the world (who all love him so much) that every government needs to boycott the Iranian government somehow. I have no idea how but if the world loves Obama so much, HE should stand up and take a GLOBAL leadership role. Obama is loved more OUTSIDE the USA than he is INSIDE the USA. He needs to use his office and GLOBAL popularity by getting the GLOBAL Community involved. Then, if force is needed, HE will have the support to command a GLOBAL force. But, his worst mistake would be to be a fence sitter.
I want to add that if force is needed, I would not consider entering Iran a "Third" war. We are already in the region surrounding Iran by being in Iraq, Pakistan, Isreal, Saudi Arabia, etc. Calling it a "third" war is like saying in WW II when we entered Belgium on our way to Berlin that Belgium is a "Third" War. It isn't. The Middle East is one big front. Our military CAN fight it. All Obama needs to say is that we will enter, remove the leaders and allow those leaders rightfully elected to take rule and we will leave. Don't stay, just come in, help the people get the elected leaders in and get out. The people will be happy, and maybe we can actually have a friend over there.
I wish it were all that easy. The average person has no clue just how thin our military is right now. Most soldiers have just completed their third and fouth tours to war zones. They are even recalling retirees!. Most soldiers are so tired and worn they can hardly function. Post Tramatic Stress Syndrom is very visible in my students in the classroom. Don't be so quick to say we can take on the whole middle eastern front.
I disagree with nothing in Alan's second comment except to say that threatening a bully when the bully knows full well you will do nothing does not work either and encourages the bully to act out even further in order to prove your supposed cowardice. Essentially, there is a time to posture and a time to demur. Little to nothing would be accomplished by posturing here. No one seriously thinks that the United States wants the current regime to hold or that the United States is not interested in a more open and partnering Iran. Everyone knows what we stand for when it comes to western style democracy. He would have only been stating the obvious and to what avail? This was the time to demur and monitor, to be wise.
To both Brian and Alan, I am glad to know that you are not advocating military action. But lacking that, if your only beef is that Obama didn't say the obvious soon enough for your taste, then I guess the conversation is over given he has now spoken strongly.
My confusion concerned, given Brian's examples of war and hefty physical responses, the type of response you would have liked to see. If all you wanted was some terse verbiage, well you got it. I guess I was thrown off by the words cower, coward, and the list of wars and confrontations. It made me think that perhaps you thought such a response was in order. But after all this conversation, all you expected him to 'do' was 'say' something stronger, but I hardly think that waiting to say something stronger constitutes weakness let alone being accused of cowering, being a coward and being a spineless America. That's why I began my first comment by remarking on Brian's strong words.
I disagree with Deric's comment regarding a common Middle Eastern front. In WWII Europe, the enemy was Nazi Germany across the continent (Italy was no true match for anyone but Ethiopia).
One enemy. In Deric's scenario, we would have three wars against three distinct enemies in different types of theaters. Three different types of enemies in three different geographical and demographical theaters and three different wars.
Post a Comment