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.
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama of behaving like his White House predecessor and called on him to apologize for what he called U.S. interference following Iran's elections."
This is more proof that Obama's initial muted response was perfect. This nut was hoping for a response so he would have grounds to state the above. Now, he looks even more like a boob with Obama only responding once people started being killed.
I'm very curious to see how the Obama-bashers will spin this. They spent days bashing him for his lack of a response but now that said response has been proven effective, what will they say? I shall wait.
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.
Last edited by Bostonian123; 06-25-2009 at 09:08 AM..
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 weeks before condemning their actions.
Really? They weren't publicized with certainty until a few days later. Media transmissions had been blocked. A President should not jump into others business until he surely has a cause/reason that has been validated.
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama of behaving like his White House predecessor and called on him to apologize for what he called U.S. interference following Iran's elections."
This is more proof that Obama's initial muted response was perfect. This nut was hoping for a response so he would have grounds to state the above. Now, he looks even more like a boob with Obama only responding once people started being killed.
I'm very curious to see how the Obama-bashers will spin this. They spent days bashing him for his lack of a response but now that said response has been proven effective, what will they say? I shall wait.
Tank, you are very naive. The United States of America is the world's shining example of election's that are free of meddling and reprisal from government no matter the outcome. The United States has an obligation to speak out against government oppression, especially as it pertains to killing innoncent citizens protesting tainted election results. This transcends Obama. This transcends every President before and after Obama. Just because it was predicted that Ahmedinejad would captalize on comments from Obama, does NOT mean Obama shouldn't make any comments. The United States has not meddled in Iranian affairs. Period. The United States has shown support for human rights and free elections. Obama just happens to be a figurehead during this time in history. When will you folks understand that the basic principle of human rights is what the United States stands for? We have an obligation to do this. This is about standing up against evil and oppression, not about Obama or Ahmedinejad.
"The United States of America is the world's shining example of election's that are free of meddling and reprisal from government no matter the outcome."
I guess you missed the Civil War, the Compromise of 1877, Watergate and the 2000 election. I doubt that the rest of the world has. Additionally the rest of the world isn't as ignorant as U.S. citizens regarding the U.S.'s role in the overt crushing of democratic movements across the world. In some places memories are not quite as myopic.
Now I say this not to "blame" America, just to point out that one has to be careful when making such assertions because not everyone in the world or even in the U.S. has mentally Photoshoped away Americans warts and blemishes.
"The United States of America is the world's shining example of election's that are free of meddling and reprisal from government no matter the outcome."
I guess you missed the Civil War, the Compromise of 1877, Watergate and the 2000 election. I doubt that the rest of the world has. Additionally the rest of the world isn't as ignorant as U.S. citizens regarding the U.S.'s role in the overt crushing of democratic movements across the world. In some places memories are quite as myopic.
Now I say this not to "blame" America, just to point out that one has to be careful when making such assertions because not everyone in the world or even in the U.S. has mentally Photoshoped away Americans warts and blemishes.
Sorry, while I think that the
So, you're going on record to say that the United States is not the shining example of free elections? I ask you: how many people were killed by our government for protesting the results? I await your answer.
The United States has an obligation to speak out against government oppression, especially as it pertains to killing innoncent citizens protesting tainted election results.
Conservatives around here are very quick to point out the limits of Federal power enunciated in the Constitution, so would you be kind enough to point out this Obligation? It seems to me that the President's ONLY obligation is to preserve and protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. If that means ignoring the internal policies of another country if it advances the long term security interests of the U.S. I would think that this obligation far outweighs any imaginary ones.
And, while you are at it, would you mind explaining why this obligation is so selectively applied? For example, I haven't heard anyone asking, much less demanding some overt statement on the part of the President regarding human rights in Saudi Arabia or perhaps Turkmenistan?
Conservatives around here are very quick to point out the limits of Federal power enunciated in the Constitution, so would you be kind enough to point out this Obligation? It seems to me that the President's ONLY obligation is to preserve and protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. If that means ignoring the internal policies of another country if it advances the long term security interests of the U.S. I would think that this obligation far outweighs any imaginary ones.
And, while you are at it, would you mind explaining why this obligation is so selectively applied? For example, I haven't heard anyone asking, much less demanding some overt statement on the part of the President regarding human rights in Saudi Arabia or perhaps Turkmenistan?
Thank you Justice Thomas.
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.
