The World Thru My Eyes - I speak my mind and man does it like to talk.
Published on March 20, 2009 By CharlesCS In Politics

In an attempt to prove to the American people, and the world, that diplomacy is the way to go, President Obama released a video to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, seeking to create a better relationships between the 2 countrys thru diplomany and to stop the use of threats as a means to acquire a specific goal.

But it would seem that his attempt at a warm, diplomatic solution to the dangerous tug of war with Iran proved useless as the Iranian leader ignored President Obama's "kind and friendly" message and continued his defiant stance that no one will stop him from acquiring the nuclear progress he believes his country has the right to. The fear that a country, who has been linked to helping terrorist groups and countries, could create a nuclear weapon from technology they claim is only for providing energy to their people has the US and many other countries worried and have been attemping to stop them from furthuring their process but Iran has refused to abide by any of the sanction so far.

Many of us believe that a much firmer hand is necessary to prevent Iran from possibly acquiring the enriched uranium necessary for creating a nuclear weapon, but former President Bush chose to go the diplomatic way by working together with other countries to pass sanctions against Iran and demanding them to stop but never intending to use any kind of force to actually stop Iran. All the while Iran continued to be defiant knowing no force would be used against them, especially when Russia continued to defend Iran and refused any kind of force to be used against Iran.

It's my opinion that President Obama's plan of diplomacy has been proven to yield no results what so ever, a point clearly shown by former President Bush's attempts at a more firmer form of diplomacy that have also failed to accomplish any results and something many people said would never work with a country like Iran.

So what will we do next? Should we (Obama) continue to play "movie director" and send more videos to the President of Iran in the hopes that one of them may make him rethink his ways and consider stopping his program? Maybe the Iranian President was upset that he was not given a copy of 25 American Classic Movies ($39 value) like the on Prime Minister Brown got as a gift from President Obama (I hope he gave him a DVD player to play them on as well since American movies don't play on outside DVD players). Perhaps we can send him a home made apply pie (made by Emeril Lagasse), a 6 pack of Mike's Hard Lemonaide and a copy of the most recent issue of MadTV's Magazine as a sign of good faith.

So, does anyone here wanna keep thinking that Obama Almighty still has divine powers to fix the world's ills?

Article link


Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Mar 23, 2009

Hmm, so what you are saying is we are going around wanting to destroy entire nations? I mean hypocrisy would suggest that I am criticizing and name calling someone for something we do, am I correct?

Actually, hypocrisie suggest that you do what you are criticizing. Now, go back to school, learn to read, and read the actual text you just quoted me. 'Cause that's pretty much all I said about your hypocrisie.

But on the other hand, I cannot say that Iran has more experience of throwing down nations and causing civil war and slaughters than the USA. I haven't seen done in term of evilness to other countries anything except defiant stance, postering, and covert support of factions who are politicly aligned with them in a civil war next to their border. And I don't think the USA has lessons to give about the last one.

Now Cikomyr, this here is a prime example of Hypocrisy. Boo President Bush for a surge that was claimed would not work but don't boo Obama for a video that clearly did not work. Now this is Hypocrisy. Hope you learned something

I don't remember booing Bush for the surge. And the effects following the surge did work (but I am of those who believe that it's not the surge in itself that worked, but rather the change of doctrine on the field, which was implimented at the same time)

And even then, the effects of the surge & other measures only started having an affect a few months after it started. You decided Obama's actions toward Iran are a failure because Iran's president, who has all in its political advantage to make sure relations between IRan & US don't thaw, rejected immediatly?

 

on Mar 23, 2009

The first thing you need to do is stopping thinking that everyone here who's opinion is opposite of yours is somehow some blood-thirsty death-dealing, vengeful, hateful, war monger. Most, if not all of us here would rather we just ignored each other, play a nice game of soccer or baseball to decided who wins or sit for months attemping to reach some kind of peaceful solution to all the worlds problems rather than destroying precious lives, bringing chaos to other countries, wasting money on weapons and making things worse with other countries who disagree with forceful methods. But most of us also except that people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do not react to diplomacy the way we would like him to unless we are somehow making ourselves the weaker country. He does not want peace, friendship, harmony. He wants death, destruction, power, control. And we all know what happens when someone wants more power and control and is willing to cause death and destruction to get it.

If I thought that, I wouldn't bother to write anything. That accusation also is smoke...I maintain that he might be the most hateful individual on earth, but that does not mean we are relieved of the responsibility of trying to deflect him from the course he is on. Who advocates appeasement...I wrote no such thing.

War does not need to be the answer, but dropping our support for Isreal just to have a seat at the table, is not the answer.

I doubt you'd find a more ardent supporter of Israel than me. I served in the IDF, Lee. If things went the way Charles and you want, there'd be ashes and dust...radioactive dust.

I stated clearly...a deadline is needed for any negotiation.

on Mar 23, 2009

DrJBHL you don't want to see men and women die, and I applauder that. But ask yourself this. How many will die when Iran has a a nuclear device and is not afraid to use it? Israel is a small country in size, and can easily be transformed into a wasteland. Will that be enough dead to take action? And what would be the response? A nuclear attack on Iran? Is this acceptable?

Nitrocruiser: I served in the IDF. No loss in Israel is tolerable to me. Two of my children live there.

How many wars can we fight at any one time? Isn't a negotiation with a deadline more acceptable?

on Mar 23, 2009

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, CharlesCS, that when I referred to the culture of death I was referring to Ahmadinejad.

on Mar 23, 2009

the voting process can actually produce different leaders

Sure you can vote for whoever you like in Iran as long as the clerics approve the candidate. If I give you two choices from my picks, are you really getting a choice?

on Mar 23, 2009

How many wars can we fight at any one time? Isn't a negotiation with a deadline more acceptable?

That would be great if a diplomatic solution could be reached. Do you believe this is possible from Iran? I'm sure you have heard the rhetoric coming out of Tehran pertaining to what they think of Israel. What if Obams takes their advice to stop unconditional support for Iran? Do you think that will buy peace for your children?

Any diplomacy with Iran will come from the bottom up. Obama over-played his hand and they slapped him in the face for it. Do you think Iran will be more open to negotiations after they have a nuclear device? I think not, nor do I believe the majority of your countrymen do either. If this were the case, why attack the Syrian test reactor? Why wasn't there diplomacy to have it dismantled? Iran will, if not all ready, be a much greater threat to the things you hold dearest. I'm a 24 year veteran and I don't want to see anyone die in a war (including Iranians), but if necessary I'd rather a few thousand die now, than millions later.

on Mar 23, 2009

I stated clearly...a deadline is needed for any negotiation.

That’s the big question, a deadline to what?  The reason why Russia, EU, and others have signed onto sanctions with Iran (and to some extent Iraq) was because of the threat of US Military action against Iran.  Now without that threat, we are going to find very little support. 

We had stepped to the side and EU has had talks with Iran for ten years.  Where had that got them when they ended about two years ago?  After those talks ended, we started to rattle our saber and got some support for sanctions (something the EU would not do).  Now Obama does not want to even pull the saber out.

The one peaceful defense we had, Obama campaigned on shutting down.  The funny thing was Obama offered to Russia to shut down the Missile Defense in exchange for stopping assistance to Iran.  What a joke that was.  Why would Puttin even agree to something that will stop bring massive cash to Russia, in exchange for stopping a system already being shut down?

The carrot and stick approach works.  When you get rid of the stick and the only acceptable carrot is selling out of an ally.  What do you think you will get?

Please tell me (by using Obama's policies) what will happen to Iran if they cross that deadline?

We do not have to use force, but removing that threat, makes us no more powerful then Canada in negotiations.

 

on Mar 23, 2009

That would be great if a diplomatic solution could be reached. Do you believe this is possible from Iran?

I don't know, but to go to war w/o trying seems dreadful. Do I 'believe' Ahmadinejad is a hateful, negative potential monster...yes. That doe not mean there aren't ways "to make him an offer he can't refuse" short of war...and I do not mean appeasement nor bribery.

I'd rather a few thousand die now, than millions later.

Assuming any weapon they may or may not have develop and the production facilities are 'reachable', also...a 'dirty bomb' (not necessarily a nuke) would be equally devestating. I say negotiate up to a given date. Notice the JCS says they aren't close to a weapon yet. At date x the option becomes by default, military. Just realize that since the draft ended we don't have the manpower to go in and claim dirt.

Lee...all I wish to see is Iran turned from the current course. If they refuse, the military option is inevitable. Putin is the wild card...will he forge an alliance with Iran for protection? If so, then where do we stand?

on Mar 24, 2009

Lee...all I wish to see is Iran turned from the current course. If they refuse, the military option is inevitable. Putin is the wild card...will he forge an alliance with Iran for protection? If so, then where do we stand?

Puttin is in the mind set of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Notice I did not say ally.  He, in his own way, is conducting appeasement.  By helping Iran with their US problems, he keeps Iran from funding Russia's Chechnya problems.

Puttin believes that by pitting both enemies against each other, he will be free to do as he pleases in areas that the US and Iran would normally give him grief over.  It is a smart move, but he is playing with fire.  Puttin must know that a nuclear armed Iran could still be a danger to Russia.  He must be sure he (or some one tipped off about it) could stop the Iranians from reaching their ultimate goal.

If Israel needs to strike, I would fully expect the info for the attack would come from a tip out of Russia.  After that Puttin could act outraged and start selling to the Iranians again.  I am just hoping that Obama does not stop the Israelis or Puttin is not being played by the Iranians.

Let’s not forget that by appeasing Iran, he can also convince them not to build pipelines through Iran to the oil fields of Turkmenistan.  One of Russia's main sources of oil that he uses for leverage with the EU as of late.

on Mar 24, 2009

Sure you can vote for whoever you like in Iran as long as the clerics approve the candidate. If I give you two choices from my picks, are you really getting a choice?

Yhea. A minor choice as it is, but still a choice mate. Now, between the war-mongering current president and another candidate that is moderate, both approved by the clergy, I think it is still in our best interest to hope for the moderate to win.

That won't change the complete policy of the Republic of Iran, but it will be a first step in the right direction. What you are advocating is to scuttle all hope for such outcome right away.

on Mar 24, 2009

the military option is inevitable

Dr. in your oppion, who do you think will inevitably use that military option?  At this time I do not believe Obama has the stones to order something like that.

on Mar 24, 2009

Lee1776
the military option is inevitableDr. in your oppion, who do you think will inevitably use that military option?  At this time I do not believe Obama has the stones to order something like that.

Lee, imo Israel cannot do it alone. That's not just my opinion...take a look here.

The problem is getting the USA behind Israel if a strike is needed. The JCS already has stated they don't thinki Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon. Therefore the 'urgency' goes down. Israel, for better or worse, has a different "memory" (if you will) and a different sense of urgency and priorities.

I don't think it's a question of "stones": Obama will do what he feels is merited on the basis of alliances, pressure, the situation, reliability of information available and the mood of US allies and the ME in general.

I think, though (and this is my thought/feeling alone) if push comes to serious shove with highly accurate intelligence he will act...he won't really have much of a choice.

As for Britain: Not much support from there due to the percentage of Arabs/Pakistanis and Moslems in general in their population (and therefore influenes their Gov't...and much of Europe) and Britain's traditionally antisemitic flavor (the first Pogrom in England was 3/16/1189 in York where 500 Jews were murdered preparation for the crusades and in 9/1189 an additional 30 were killed in 'honor' of Richard The Lionhearted's Coronation) going up thru the madate and the recent "Cast Lead" op.

France? LOL. Germany...perhaps, but not counting on them.

My biggest fear is the Russians. Putin (Col. Putin of the KGB) looks to consolidate and expand Russia's power and influence especially in the ME. This is where the USA will be needed for counterbalance.

Oh yes, we should also consider China's aims and goals in the region and it's energy dependency. They've been doing some deals with the Iranians and the Somalis as well.

on Mar 24, 2009

JCS says they aren't close to a weapon yet

You own words about a "dirty bomb" contradict what mention the JCS said. We know Iran has the missile technology, we know they have a quantity of radio active materials. They all ready have the means to do great harm to Israel. Personally, I think they are waiting so they can see the mushroom cloud, as they want their enemies to die quickly. It's too risky to use valuable materials on a place with plenty of shelters.

 

I think it is still in our best interest to hope for the moderate to win.


That won't change the complete policy of the Republic of Iran, but it will be a first step in the right direction. What you are advocating is to scuttle all hope for such outcome right away.

That might ease the rhetoric and help things like the inflation rates in Iran, but even the reformists said they will not give up on the countries nuclear program. Reformists held the presidency in the past, how did that work out for better ties? Besides the clerics in charge want their holy fire. When they have it, good luck trying to get them to do anything.

I'm not advocating giving up hope (gees you sound like Obama), but you can hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills first. You didn't read my post about Syria. The Israelis took out the reactor militarily. Syria could have counter attacked, but didn't. Israel took a risk and prevailed.

I'm all for diplomacy, but in this case it isn't working and maybe we are taking the wrong approach. How about this, instead of US/Europe trying to increase sanctions only to have Russia and China say no, how about we down grade trade relations with anyone that continues to do business with Iran. Give them a few months to think it over before it goes into effect. One parent can't punish a spoiled child while the other give him ice cream. That's exactly what is happening. Russia and China need to decide who they rather have in the trade arena, The west or Iran. Pity to come to this level but nice guys finish last. Apparently the world hates nice guys anyway. I won't happen anyway because too many in the west don't want to hurt anyones feelings.

So things will plod forward with gestures of weakness from the US administration and Europe. Iran will be emboldened, then when it develops its device, the world will line up to kiss it gently on the ass. Quite worth the wait.Oh and Hamas and Hezbolah will be a bit bolder too, because big brother has muscles now. I just hope Obama don't sell out the US like he intends eastern Europe with ABMs. Iran can alway continue to improve missile range.

on Mar 24, 2009

I'm not advocating giving up hope (gees you sound like Obama), but you can hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills first. You didn't read my post about Syria. The Israelis took out the reactor militarily. Syria could have counter attacked, but didn't. Israel took a risk and prevailed.

Syria is one thing, Iran another: Their facilities were above ground, and apparantly didn't have any significant nuclear material. The Israelis did the same in Bagdadh. Iran has subterranean facilities and the range puts op in question as well and there are multiple sites. Iran also holds cards in the Persian Gulf. How would such action affect oil prices? Our economy? Our relations with other Arab states?

BTW, I'm not trying to sound like anyone but myself, Nitro. Having said that, though, I don't think that sounding like a person with superior intellect and an incredible education is a negative.

on Mar 24, 2009

Actually, hypocrisie suggest that you do what you are criticizing. Now, go back to school, learn to read, and read the actual text you just quoted me. 'Cause that's pretty much all I said about your hypocrisie.

Maybe I'm crazy, but isn't that what I just said? I think you are the one who neds to go back to school.

hypocrisie suggest that you do what you are criticizing.

and

I mean hypocrisy would suggest that I am criticizing and name calling someone for something we do, am I correct?

Both sound the same to me. Maybe I'm just crazy.

5 Pages1 2 3 4 5