Comments on: Iran, Jimmy Carter, and Obama: The Perils Of Non-Involvement

By: mattw1

mattw1 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:10:08 +0000

You miss the main point: we need to talk to Iran about nukes. How can we even think about that if we directly denounce the people we say we want to engage. Ultimately, condemnation is meaningless. We will have to negotiate with whoever comes out on top. That *our* interest. Our *only* interest.

But it's worth noting that as of today (7/17) it seems like Obama is playing it just right. The reform movement has gained strength with Rafsajani's speech. The Iranians seem to be doing just fine without our help.

The Iranian people are shouting "Death to Russia" instead of "Death to America".

A short review of what has happened:

* We have retained whatever ability we had to negotiate
* The Iranian reform movement is alive, and appears to be gaining traction
* Ahmenijad looks really bad internationally, and is hated in Iran
* At worst, America looks fine internationally, and is not being addressed in Iran

How could this be viewed as a bad result?

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:24:50 +0000

Refraining from imperialism is, in my opinion, a tic Obama likes to parade to make himself more palatable to his constituency. Obama seeks to rule others, there is no mistaking that. For the underlying Obama agenda in foreign affairs I see thus: Obama admires himself above all others. Obama therefore admires those most like himself. Those most like himself are thugocrats with no morality.

Imperialism is one of many memes lefties wave around. Time they made up some new ones for the post 19th Century world.

I do recall Fred Thompson's campaign talk about supporting the Iranians who dissent from their government's policies and that real freedom for their people would have to be accomplished by the Iranians themselves. Yes, tragic if we let this moment lapse. Much more, and more severe, pain will have to be endured for the sake of the reticence of the posturing posturer-poseur.