TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama on Thursday of behaving like his predecessor toward Iran.
"The United States has gone out of its way not to interfere with the election process in Iran, and I'm really not concerned about Mr. Ahmadinejad apologizing to me," Obama said in a joint White House appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel after they conferred privately.
"I would suggest Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people, and he might want to consider looking at the families of those beaten, shot or detained. That's where Mr. Ahmadinejad and others need to answer their questions," he said.
For what it's worth that's probably the correct response, given that we're not really in a position to do much else about it.
Interesting take on the situation: click
He should publicly encourage the people of Iran to overthrow the council and ahmadinejad. He should set up radio and tv transmitters on Irans border that can transmit completely across thier country and keep feeding those people with western news, music and support. Westernization is the next best thing to a quick spreading cancer.
I'm not sure why we keep playing nice with the idiots running that country.
That is the LAST thing we should do.
The people of that country hate us because we have been screwing them over and meddling in their internal affairs for the last 70 years or more.
If we take any sort of active role, we play into Ahmedinejad's hands and allow him to distract the people from their political disputes by rallying them all around the flag to unite against the common enemy---us.
The Iranian government is doing a perfectly good job of screwing the situation up for themselves with their brutal tactics against the protesters. They dont need our help, and neither does the opposition. We need to stay the hell out of it and let them figure it out. Any public statements on our part should be limited to calling for a peaceful and democratic solution to the problem.
That is the LAST thing we should do.
The people of that country hate us because we have been screwing them over and meddling in their internal affairs for the last 70 years or more.
I'm not sure why we keep playing nice with the idiots running that country.
Yeah...Lets play sandlot.....hoo rah
Clear'em out, tap into that black gold and move in like the Beverly Iraq'i Hills Clampetts.....Where's my banjo....squeal....
Probably drink tea made from hemp?
Interesting. My point to place strong transmitters on the iranian borders keeping the iranian people informed equated to an atomic bomb blast?
Wipe the sleep out of your eyes and drink some coffee before posting next time.
Ah thats right you're one of those liberal types. Probably drink tea made from hemp?
Think I'll play Black Sabbath's Sweet Leaf and remember back in the day!
This thread's title is:
"Will Obama Apologize?"
I'll apologize ......I am so sorry that B.O. is our president !!![]()
While I brew some Sumatra Java from the muslim country of Indonesia, allow me to meddle into your meddling alternative towards Iran, and prove once and for all the neo-con religious right knee jerk reaction is dead wrong.
Coming from the support network that brilliantly meddled us into Iraq, now your buddies want the President to once again meddle in Iran and possibly join them in their fight. Why not? It's not as if history has shown us any cautionary examples, or has it. In 1953 after Irans leader told he taking the oil away from the foriegn corperations to profit off of it, the CIA deposed of him and helped install the unelected Shah of Iran hiding in exile. When the Shah left the country again in the revolution 1979 the US once again helped this human rights abuser escape again. Under fears the US would once again reinstall the Shah to Iran, that fueled support to the Iyatollah Khomeini forces and demanded no more US meddling. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Suddam Hussien's armies gained power and once again the US sold Arms to Iraq which helped extinguished hundreds of thousands of Iranians during the Iraq/Iran war. Not finished yet Tie...Soon after we gave tons of weapons to Afghan rebels to repel the Soviets, which in turn surplus end up in the hands of our buddy Osama Ben Ladin and his posse. So in other words Tie, why not install another player like Mousavi as president of Iran who also pledges alligence to the Iyatollah, what else can possibly go wrong ?
You know, a good lesson was learned a hundred years ago when Roosevelt and Taft decided not to intervene overseas under pressure from the religious right once again in a civil war clash with an entity called the Mashruteh, similiar to the green revolutionairies we see today. And that country Roosevelt decided not to intervene was IRAN.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ghazvinian/iran-and-america-the-spir_b_218683.html
Cough......Cough.......Cough.....
TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama on Thursday of behaving like his predecessor toward Iran and said there was not much point in talking to Washington unless the U.S. president apologized.
Is Barack Obama’s Realism Better than George W. Bush’s Idealism?
by Ivan Eland, June 27, 2009
Barack Obama’s reaction to the mass protests and violence in Iran shows he is following through on his pledge to be more like George H.W. Bush rather than his son, George W. Bush. Obama has admired the father’s realism and has criticized the idealistic neoconservatism of the son. But is realism a better foreign policy for the United States?
The answer is a resounding "yes!" Obama has been reluctant to be goaded into meddling in the delicate situation in Iran by the likes of Republicans John McCain and Charles Grassley. They want him to harshly criticize the Iranian government, thus allowing it to portray the protesters as lackeys of an imperialist superpower. In contrast, realist Republicans — such as Henry Kissinger, Richard Lugar, Pat Buchanan, and George Will — have jumped to defend Obama’s cautious handling of the situation. George Will correctly pointed out that the Iranian protesters already know how the U.S. government feels about their government, even in the absence of inflammatory pronouncements from Washington.
Obama has also demonstrated an orientation toward realism by stating publicly that transforming Iraq and Afghanistan into pro-Western democracies should no longer be the U.S. goal. George W. Bush was clearly committed to achieving this neoconservative nirvana.
Obama, however, is not a pure realist.........
As the late Paul Harvey would say, "and now for the rest of the story!"
It appears you just wasted a couple hundred words since I never advocated military intervention. In any case you took the correct approach. Your president does not have the doo dads to do the right thing better to make excuses for him.