Obama you are with us or with them!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Interesting action today.

The Iranian government held it's annual anti-America rally outside the former US embassy (which by the way was sovereign US soil attacked by Ahmedinejad and his buddies at the time). The rally shouted "death to America".

Meanwhile the Ayatollahs have rejected the notion of negotiating anything with respect to nukes.

How's that extended hand doing, hanging out there in the wind, Obama?

And then, when the anti-ayatollah protesters showed up and started chanting "Obama, you are either with us or with them" - that was truly awesome. Why?

Because in an ironic one line phrase, those protesters have borrowed a phrase from GW Bush to illustrate how correct Bush has been about these guys all along.

Sweet irony.

So, BHO...are you with the democratic uprising, or with the Ayatollahs.

Strange corenr he's painted himself into, isn't it. He wants to show the left at home and the euroninnies that he's "negotiating" - ie using diplomacy. But

1. It's not working.

2. There is an uprising of true democracy brewing in the country, and if he wants to "negotiate" or "extend a hand" to the Mullahs, he'd better not piss them off.

For the king of double speak, I can't wait to see the verbal gymnastics he's got for this one.

Edited November 5, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[eyeball]

Its just too bad things got so badly off course between the US and Iran way back in the 50's. The resulting dysfunction in their relationship just goes on and on and on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Its just too bad things got so badly off course between the US and Iran way back in the 50's. The resulting dysfunction in their relationship just goes on and on and on.

Of course...the history always pivots on the 1950's....just look at Elvis. Come to think of it, I wonder why US and Japan don't have the same "dysfunction" given what happened "way back" in 1941 or 1945.

[Moonlight Graham]

Of course...the history always pivots on the 1950's....just look at Elvis. Come to think of it, I wonder why US and Japan don't have the same "dysfunction" given what happened "way back" in 1941 or 1945.

Given that, the only solution i see with Iran is to wait until they attack us, then we bomb the living heck out of them. Whooped (and radioactive), we then spend-spend-spend to help rebuild their country with our system of governance. It worked with Germany and Japan, it will work with Iran too.

[bush_cheney2004]

Given that, the only solution i see with Iran is to wait until they attack us, then we bomb the living heck out of them. Whooped (and radioactive), we then spend-spend-spend to help rebuild their country with our system of governance. It worked with Germany and Japan, it will work with Iran too.

That's right...worked with Italy too. Must be something magic about 1953 and 1979.

[Moonlight Graham]

That's right...worked with Italy too. Must be something magic about 1953 and 1979.

Well i'm sure you know there's a big difference in the case of Post-WWII Japan, Germany, and Italy. Those were decimated countries from the war. The U.S. didn't want a repeat of WWI Versailles settlement and rise of more irrational regimes like Nazi Germany taking rise from economic desperation. So they decided to help rebuild Japan/Germany/Italy. Those countries weren't in much of a position to complain since the violent whooping they just received was from aggressions they had started.

Iran in 1953, on the other hand, was a coup orchestrated by foreign powers for the purpose of securing resources that wasn't theirs. Completely different situations.

[Sir Bandelot]

The OP seems to think that Obama has gone out of his way to make concessions and deals with Iran. I don't think that Obama is negotiating with Iran in good faith. Obama is a shrewd manipulator who shows us his public face, while following a completely different agenda behind the scenes. Iran asked the US to stop interfering by giving support and aid to the protesters after the election. Iran believes the protests were backed the the US. Recent comments by Clinton and others in the media confirm this.

- US provided covert support to Iranian protester after the election.

- US accused Iran of concealing a nuclear facility for the purpose of making weapons. These allegations appear to be false, but no one is talking about it.

- As another example of hypocrisy deception in its foreign policy, US criticism of the Afghanistan election and the post-election investigation was subdued.

Since the US has not stopped applying its influence on Iranian internal affairs, the Iranians are now saying they will not accept the deal to let Russia make their nuclear fuel. They believe their facility is not in violation of the IAEA regulations and that they have the right to process their own uranium.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

- US provided covert support to Iranian protester after the election.

- US accused Iran of concealing a nuclear facility for the purpose of making weapons. These allegations appear to be false, but no one is talking about it.

- As another example of hypocrisy in its foreign policy, US criticism of the Afghanistan election and the post-election investigation was subdued.

All your interpretation of what may or may not have happened....so what?

Since the US has not stopped applying its influence on Iranian internal affairs, the Iranians are now saying they will not accept the deal to let Russia make their nuclear fuel. They believe their facility is not in violation of the IAEA regulations and that they have the right to process their own uranium.

...and the US believes the invasion of Iraq was legal too.

[Sir Bandelot]

Read the first sentence of my post. That's so what.

[bush_cheney2004]

Read the first sentence of my post. That's so what.

Double so what? What is your point vis-a-vis Obama? The big tip off was the curious use (and mis-use) of "hypocrisy" in American (or any other nation's) foreign policy.

[Sir Bandelot]

Double so what? What is your point vis-a-vis Obama? The big tip off was the curious use (and mis-use) of "hypocrisy" in American (or any other nation's) foreign policy.

Ok, I changed that word.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, I changed that word.

Better, but still not very compelling, as the Obama administration has been forthcoming in word and (lack of) action pending Afghanistan's election outcome. Maybe you don't get that news in Canada?

[Moonlight Graham]

So, BHO...are you with the democratic uprising, or with the Ayatollahs.

Strange corenr he's painted himself into, isn't it. He wants to show the left at home and the euroninnies that he's "negotiating" - ie using diplomacy. But

1. It's not working.

2. There is an uprising of true democracy brewing in the country, and if he wants to "negotiate" or "extend a hand" to the Mullahs, he'd better not piss them off.

A politician saying "you're either with us or you're against us" is a really stupid thing to say. It's antagonizing. That's not being a good diplomat, it's just a good way to piss people off. In global politics, nations can often choose to be for a given issue, against an issue, or stay neutral. Bush was saying you can't be neutral. If you're neutral, then that means you're against us. Stupid.

There's also a big problem if Obama "takes a side" in the Iran democratic protests. If he publicly sides with the protesters what good would it do VS how much it would make the Ayatollahs and the Iranian gov't PO'd and tarnish relations, & ruin future chances at diplomatic dealings. The US has mucked with the internal affairs of Iran enough, best to leave the protesting up to the protesters on that one.

Anyways, if the diplomatic approach eventually doesn't work regarding nukes that's fine. What will matters is that Obama is trying. A national leader should try to exhaust every workable diplomatic/non-violent possibility before they start killing people and blowing stuff up. Hopefully Obama does this.

Obama needs to keep trying the diplomatic approach, but he also needs to stay tough on Iran. There's a balance between being tough & being diplomatic. JFK and Reagan seemed to get it right. Carter and Bush Jr. got it wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

A politician saying "you're either with us or you're against us" is a really stupid thing to say. It's antagonizing. That's not being a good diplomat, it's just a good way to piss people off. In global politics, nations can often choose to be for a given issue, against an issue, or stay neutral. Bush was saying you can't be neutral. If you're neutral, then that means you're against us. Stupid.

No, President Bush stated his emphatic point quite differently and in the context of prosecuting terrorism and safe havens world wide:

....Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

(Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/sep_2001/bush_congress_address_21901.htm

[Guest TrueMetis]

Which is Ironic considering America was allowing and still is allowing the Eco-terrorist Paul Watson to dock at American ports.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which is Ironic considering America was allowing and still is allowing the Eco-terrorist Paul Watson to dock at American ports.

Who the hell is Paul Watson? What is "eco-terrorism"? Are there no ports in Canada?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Who the hell is Paul Watson? What is "eco-terrorism"? Are there no ports in Canada?

He's an asshole who thinks he can talk to whales so he attacks japanese whaling boats. It's terrorism in the name of the enviroment. There are ports but then our PM didn't say any country that habours terrorists will be considered hostile, and then harbour terrorists. Everytime watson comes here he gets into legal trouble, last time the Canadian Government took one of his boats, they still have it and put it up for auction. He's not likely to come here anytime soon.

Edited November 8, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Moonlight Graham]

...We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

(Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

What happened to Saudi Arabia? Why weren't they pursued? They were even only 1 of 3 countries in the world that recognized the Taliban as the legit gov't of Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

[Sir Bandelot]

What happened to Saudi Arabia? Why weren't they pursued?

Yeah thats right. And don't forget about Libya, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

However, foreign policy is not so much concerned with human rights, as it is about payola. In other words what have you got for trade with us, what resources, how much oil, dirt cheap labour force (China, Pakistan, India...) and how many troops have you got for our wars. If you understand that those things are what really matters, it all starts to make sense.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah thats right. And don't forget about Libya, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

....then don't forget about Canada as well.

However, foreign policy is not so much concerned with human rights, as it is about payola. In other words what have you got for trade with us, what resources, how much oil, dirt cheap labour force (China, Pakistan, India...) and how many troops have you got for our wars. If you understand that those things are what really matters, it all starts to make sense.

I think Canada has oil too.

Edited November 9, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[BC_chick]

And then, when the anti-ayatollah protesters showed up and started chanting "Obama, you are either with us or with them" - that was truly awesome. Why?

Because in an ironic one line phrase, those protesters have borrowed a phrase from GW Bush to illustrate how correct Bush has been about these guys all along.

Sweet irony.

Both are religious conservatives, both see the world as black or white. I don't see the irony at all.

In fact, I've often said that if our religious conservatives been born 'there' instead of 'here'... they'd probably turn out to be suicide-bombers too.

[KeyStone]

"The Iranian government held it's annual anti-America rally outside the former US embassy (which by the way was sovereign US soil attacked by Ahmedinejad and his buddies at the time). The rally shouted "death to America"."

Yeah, anti-US rallies have been known to happen in nations where the US creates a coup against a democratically elected leader, and replaces him with a cruel dictator. Don't let history get in the way of your hatred for Arabs though.

"Meanwhile the Ayatollahs have rejected the notion of negotiating anything with respect to nukes."

Iran has full right to develop nuclear energy. In fact, the NPT says that the US has to help them. Nuclear weapons is a different story, and there is no clear evidence to suggest that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

"How's that extended hand doing, hanging out there in the wind, Obama?"

He hasn't actually done anything. No real policies have been changed. The US is still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sanctions are still up against Cuba. They still prop up the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia. So, if you are looking for all the evil Arabs to suddenly start a love-affair with the US, because you don't have an idiot in the White House calling them the axis of evil, then you're out of luck.

"1. It's not working."

Remind me how much progress Bush made in 8 years. Now, how long had Obama been in office?

It amazes me that you think Obama would have solved the world's problem in one year.

"2. There is an uprising of true democracy brewing in the country, and if he wants to "negotiate" or "extend a hand" to the Mullahs, he'd better not piss them off."

What do you suggest, Einstein? Should the US go in there with guns blazing and liberate the people, just like they liberated (from their lives) the Iraqis?

[Halfempty]

First off, hello all, i'm new here and t'is my first post.

Personally, I don't think Obama is as concerned with the situation in Iran as many are speculating. I'm sure that sounds like a fairly bold statement, but when it comes right down to it Iran will still be enriching uranium and financing it's enrichment sites whether the current regime holds controll or not. I believe that's why he's taking such a neutral stance on this particular issue, because no matter what happens America still loses it's main objective in this case.

I'm sure Obama would love to see Ahmadinejad out of power so that the U.S. can try to re-start relations with Iran, but I guess that's not enough reason for him to actually take a bigger stance then he already has.

[bush_cheney2004]

First off, hello all, i'm new here and t'is my first post.

Personally, I don't think Obama is as concerned with the situation in Iran as many are speculating. I'm sure that sounds like a fairly bold statement....

Welcome aboard....but President Obama has to be concerned for an entirely different reason.....ISRAEL.

[Moonlight Graham]

First off, hello all, i'm new here and t'is my first post.

Welcome!