As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
President Obama's response to the election in Iran
Lachoneus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So... I want to know what you all think.
Personally, I think it was weak to say that we shouldn't "meddle." Now, I am not looking for him to answer with "we are giong to send troops to support you." In fact, that would probably be the worst thing we could do right now, especially considering what is going on with North Korea and a possible July 4th attack (which blows my mind btw).
However, I DO believe that it would not have been imprudent to condemn the stolen election. Its not like Obama's speach writers couldnt say it in a nice way. He is more eloquant in disagreeing than most. Although I'm not a fan of his, he does have that ability.
I am all for the unification he spoke about in Cairo. I am not for all the apologizing he has done. I wouldn't mind a "yeah, it sucks and we are sorry for our part". But he takes the blame for the whole WORLD's economic crisis. Other countries can't take some of the blame for what has happened?
I'm just frustrated by the fact that he seems to not be proud of the US. When he is here, on our soil, he says he is. Abroad? It doesn't feel that way. In fact, he seems ashamed of our country. We have made mistakes here and there. But our track record for good outweighs our track record for bad by much more.
I mean, when France has more balls to say something condemning of Iran's hostile "election" than our own President, doesn't that make you sad/frustrated/a little disappointed?
Personally, I think it was weak to say that we shouldn't "meddle." Now, I am not looking for him to answer with "we are giong to send troops to support you." In fact, that would probably be the worst thing we could do right now, especially considering what is going on with North Korea and a possible July 4th attack (which blows my mind btw).
However, I DO believe that it would not have been imprudent to condemn the stolen election. Its not like Obama's speach writers couldnt say it in a nice way. He is more eloquant in disagreeing than most. Although I'm not a fan of his, he does have that ability.
I am all for the unification he spoke about in Cairo. I am not for all the apologizing he has done. I wouldn't mind a "yeah, it sucks and we are sorry for our part". But he takes the blame for the whole WORLD's economic crisis. Other countries can't take some of the blame for what has happened?
I'm just frustrated by the fact that he seems to not be proud of the US. When he is here, on our soil, he says he is. Abroad? It doesn't feel that way. In fact, he seems ashamed of our country. We have made mistakes here and there. But our track record for good outweighs our track record for bad by much more.
I mean, when France has more balls to say something condemning of Iran's hostile "election" than our own President, doesn't that make you sad/frustrated/a little disappointed?
"No women. No kids."
Lachoneus on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I also expect this thread to be locked pretty quickly because it's too much like the other ones. Might want to move your post over there.
And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say Obama seems "ashamed" of our country abroad.
Furthermore, we can't be certain about how this is going to turn out, and although staying neutral doesn't build us any bridges, it doesn't have the same possibility to disastrously burn them, either.
Now, the reason this is a problem is that if America, especially its President, is seen as publically backing the reform movement in Iran then the movement is absolutely over. Distancing ourselves, painful as it is, is the only way to give the protestors and the young generation in Iran a chance. We've made it known that, for better or worse, this is something the Iranians have to do themselves.
So what does that benefit us? Very little, but it benefits the reform movement in Iran a lot. Khameini and Ahmadinejad really need to reach to throw Western powers behind the reformers because, to put it plainly, there isn't any. No western power is helping the reform movement, kneecapping the ability of the regime to call the reformers into doubt. Without that very potent ability, its possible that (as happened during the '79 Revolution) that the military and police will split, further helping out the movement.
However, tomorrow will see real blood shed in what appears to be the climax of this saga. If Khameini and Ahmadinejad butcher hundreds of thousands of people tomorrow, there's no way the West can stand idly by.
Currently painting: Slowly [flickr]
Of course, the worst and most stupid thing Khameini can do is to start massive killing of people since that means there's no way he'll be able to hang on to the Islamic Republic at all.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
I don't know what world you live in but our UN doesn't go around and stop the governments of any country from oppressing the shit out of their population. The UN generally doesn't get that kind of involved in a country if it has a still functioning government.
Well yeah. And even then not the fake loser parts of the US like big cities and liberal gay neighborhoods.
And there is a difference about implying Obama actually said "America sucks" and you speaking in hyperbole to make a terrible point.
If we don't walk around with our giant dicks waving around for the whole world to see they'll think we're weak!
look, im not saying that everything in the world has to do with the US. ill say it again: i dont think we SHOULD intervene. But i dont think voicing our opinion would be intervening. Also, why wouldn't the election of Ahmadinejad possibly be of any interest to the US? I guess because Iran funds terrorists throughout the world; and is building their nulcear arsenal (which they don't seem to have any qualms about using).
I DO, however, see the point of others who have replied in the forum. I want the reformists to win and if that means backing away for the time being, so be it. And just because we are hated somewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't say something or do something.
I would just like to think that saying something about how wrong what is going over there is, would not ruin the opposition.
i didnt say we shouldn't admit our mistakes. im all for being humble. i feel like he does it too much thats all.
agreed.
Again you make it about us. We should condemn the election because it makes us feel morally superior and the hell with the actual consequences?
It shouldn't, but the threat of American interventionism has been such a potent tool for the Islamic Republic for so long that it's almost like an ingrained signal. If we're anything but neutral (Biden excluded, seemingly, because fools are allowed to say even the harshest truths) then Khameini can use that as a pretense to get the military and police forces even more solidly behind them. If Obama were to say "We're all hoping and praying for the reformers" then that could mean Khameini could say "See? American influence. They want these reformers to succeed, just like the Shah. Do we really want the Shah again?" or some such nonsense.
Neutrality's our best way to help these people. If the bloodbath happens today in Tehran like it seems it will, however, America and other western nations (I'd prefer a UN task force) will need to intervene to stop massive loss of life.
Our president saying something like that would be us officially supporting the protectors. This would allow the current regime to basically say "this is a US backed grab for power", which would in turn make it more difficult for protesters to get more of their statesmen to join the movement. Americans aren't hated over there, but our government isn't trusted. Any statement would be seen as us interfering. And that could ruin the movement.
This thing has to come from within. We can watch, but officially we can not offer our support, even morally, to the protesters. At least that's the way I understand it.
Yeah, because we love preventing and stopping massive genocide. I mean just look at Darfur, and man our quick response to the Holocaust was amazing.
having it explained like that is nice. thanks dude. i understand much better.
holy crap though... if that does happen.... wow.
My mother kept bringing this up the last time I discussed politics with her. From that I can assume it's just a standard fox news talking point and not much else.
Thread Over.
Boom, yummy!
A lot of the objections to Obama's approach have less to do with this factor and more to do with abstract ideology or projecting America's values. Which is about the stupidest way to go about promoting those values in practice. Nobody likes to be preached at.
There is more to international diplomacy than just "balls"
There's waving your dick around!
Anyway, yes, publicly taking sides in a country where we have a history of supporting oppressive regimes and generally fucking over the populace is not a good way to get a desired outcome.
Also we can do much more than our government ever could by setting up proxies for Iranians to use to get their news out.
I think its great that the Iranian people, given a taste of democracy are protesting demanding their votes be counted. If I had one wish for my country, it would be that our own people would fight as hard to maintain our democracy where it ever to be similarly threatened.
So business as usual for the GOP?
I mean, this is the man who wanted to burn down southeast Asia.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Are you fucking joking? The west barely knew what was going on in germany during ww2 wrt the jews, and there sure as hell wasn't a lot they could do until the actual invasion. What would you have wanted them to do, bomb the concentration camps?
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some