Iran’s Ahmadinejad: Obama is acting like Bush (Merry Christmas, extremist, death)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who installed the Shah of Iran? Overthrew the elected government of Guatemala? Killed Salvador Allende? Operated the former School of the Americas? Illegally traded arms for hostages? Refused to speak out against
apartheid in South Africa?
But at least we know that Rummy can roll a doobie...cute.
The killings and attacks by the Ahmanutjob regime started the day after the election so your statement about Obama "responding once people started being killed" is false. He waited a week before condemning their actions.
The attitude that America has to tell others about how to handle their country, their elections and their government is what has been wrong with America for decades now, a signature neocon movement. The true conservative movement has simply become a symbolic gesture to garner votes.
Obama was (and still is) on the right track concerning Iran. He's not meddling with the elections, he's just voicing his concern over the way people on the streets are being handled, about as far as any country should go by itself into another's affairs.
Remember, McCain too criticised Obama for people being killed in Iran... the same guy who was once found singing on the stage: Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Cool, isn't it?
Proof please. I have a sneaking feeling you have Guantanomo written all over your thought process. A sneak attack on Bush and the GOP is not proof of Democrats having a more positive stance on human rights than the GOP. Enlighten me.
Haiti, 1994. "I don't think our vital national security interests are at stake," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. "In Haiti, there is a military Government we don't like. But there are other governments around the world that aren't democratic that we don't like. Are we supposed to invade those countries, too?" "The immigration problem is not a vital national interest," said Senator Richard G. Lugar, an Indiana Republican. "It's a policy problem created by the Administration itself."
Kosovo, 1999. "I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent," said House Majority Whip, Tom Delay. Senator James Inhofe said, “We should not be in Kosovo, as we should not have been in Bosnia. Our concern is we should be able to defend America in the event something happens where our strategic interests are at stake, such as in Iraq or in North Korea. And this is just depleting and diluting our resources.”
Typically? Historically? Yes, that's what I'm saying.
No, much of the brutal communist movement was backed by liberal democrats. Millions upon millions of people died in those movements. Before that democrats were for Jim Crow...
Haiti, 1994. "I don't think our vital national security interests are at stake," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. "In Haiti, there is a military Government we don't like. But there are other governments around the world that aren't democratic that we don't like. Are we supposed to invade those countries, too?" "The immigration problem is not a vital national interest," said Senator Richard G. Lugar, an Indiana Republican. "It's a policy problem created by the Administration itself."
Kosovo, 1999. "I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent," said House Majority Whip, Tom Delay. Senator James Inhofe said, “We should not be in Kosovo, as we should not have been in Bosnia. Our concern is we should be able to defend America in the event something happens where our strategic interests are at stake, such as in Iraq or in North Korea. And this is just depleting and diluting our resources.”
Must spread the rep around first, but kudos for digging up facts to put the hypocrites in their rightful place.
No, much of the brutal communist movement was backed by liberal democrats. Millions upon millions of people died in those movements. Before that democrats were for Jim Crow...
I see Pakistan as the biggest threat to American security. And it is one of the countries (besides Iran in 1953) where we have supported dictatorship and pushed for democracy to fail. And I'm assuming you'd blame liberals for that too.
Ah, now the argument devolves into "role or obligation"! Certainly the U.S. has a role, but it does not have an obligation. Point to an administration of your choice and I will point out where that "obligation" went unfulfilled when weighted against national interest. And, I would argue, as I suspect every previous administration would, that national interest always trumps, your moral guardian obligation. Further, I would argue, that if national interest can indeed trump this "obligation" such an "obligation", by definition, simply does not exist.
ob⋅li⋅ga⋅tion [ob-li-gey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.
No, much of the brutal communist movement was backed by liberal democrats. Millions upon millions of people died in those movements.
O, RLY? I seem to recall it being the Republicans who argued vehemently against the U.S. getting involved in WWII, that is, until Pearl Harbor got bombed. Until then it was, screw the Jews and homos and gypsies being gassed and starved to death. Yup, real humanitarians those Republicans.
I see Pakistan as the biggest threat to American security. And it is one of the countries (besides Iran in 1953) where we have supported dictatorship and pushed for democracy to fail. And I'm assuming you'd blame liberals for that too.
We are anxious to settle the future of Italy first among the former enemy countries. Italy was the first to break away from the Axis. She helped materially in the final defeat of Germany. She has now joined us in the war against Japan. She is making real progress toward democracy.
A peace treaty with a democratic Italian government will make it possible for us to receive Italy as a member of the United Nations.
Now for years the Iron Curtain was impenetrable. Our people were unable to talk to these individuals behind the Curtain, or travel among them, or share their arts or sports, or invite them to see what life is like in a free democracy, or even get acquainted in any way. What future was there in such a course, except greater misunderstanding and an ever deepening division in the world?
Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic institutions—including this historic body—have served as beacon lights for other nations as well as our sister states.
I think not. No. I think they are wrong. I think it is the common failing of totalitarian regimes that they cannot really understand the nature of our democracy:
—They mistake dissent for disloyalty.
—They mistake restlessness for a rejection of policy.
—They mistake a few committees for a country.
—They misjudge individual speeches for public policy.
They remind us also of that special genius of American democracy, which at one critical turning point after another has led us to spot the new road to the future and given us the wisdom and the courage to take it.
But I want to speak to you today about the strands that connect our actions overseas with our essential character as a nation. I believe we can have a foreign policy that is democratic, that is based on fundamental values, and that uses power and influence, which we have, for humane purposes. We can also have a foreign policy that the American people both support and, for a change, know about and understand.
There is a spirit of solidarity abroad in the world tonight that no physical force can crush. It crosses national boundaries and enters into the hearts of men and women everywhere. In factories, farms, and schools, in cities and towns around the globe, we the people of the Free World stand as one with our Polish brothers and sisters. Their cause is ours, and our prayers and hopes go out to them this Christmas.
Quote:
And there, once again, our sister democracies have proved that even in a time of severe economic strain, free peoples can work together freely and voluntarily to address problems as serious as inflation, unemployment, trade, and economic development in a spirit of cooperation and solidarity.
Quote:
Speaking for all Americans, I want to say how very much at home we feel in your house. Every American would, because this is, as we have been so eloquently told, one of democracy's shrines. Here the rights of free people and the processes of representation have been debated and refined.
Quote:
Poland's struggle to be Poland and to secure the basic rights we often take for granted demonstrates why we dare not take those rights for granted. Gladstone, defending the Reform Bill of 1866, declared, "You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side." It was easier to believe in the march of democracy in Gladstone's day—in that high noon of Victorian optimism.
Quote:
We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention—totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order, because day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not-at-all-fragile flower. From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than 30 years to establish their legitimacy. But none—not one regime—has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.
The rest should be easily recalled. We always stand for democracies or at least we have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
