Obama Approval Rating Now Below 50%, Currently 48.8%

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
demand? More like comply...just like we ask them to comply with the agree with various economic exchanges, etc. It's called negotiation.

fair enough.

Edit: Weren't we pretty much doing the same with Iran? I'm no expert on Iran so I'm not going to claim I know everything going on but I don't think it takes a foreign policy expert to realize a nuclear armed Iran could cause quite a bit of trouble throughout the world.

Ahhh, you must remember our history with Iran. WE aided and supported the corrupt Shah Pahvil regime that gave rise to the current theocracy run by ayatollah's and mullahs...WE GAVE THEM NUCLEAR CAPABILITY via nuke power plants. Under Slick Willy, we had dialogue even after the 8 year war with Iraq. Under the Shrub...nothing but demonizing rhetoric EVEN AFTER IRANIAN INTEL ASSISTED WITH LOCATING AL QAEDA. So now it's back to square one...with all the saber rattling and rhetorical BS that negotiations entail. What's interesting is whether the Iranian gov't can maintain supplying Palestinian Hamas factions and building a "secret" nuke program in the midst of a failing economy and growing rebellious citizenry?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Demand and comply are from two different sides of the negotiation. Your post makes no sense. That's because you are not taking into account what transpired in previous post exchanges. Go back, follow the chronology and you'll get what I'm saying. Cawacko did.

Thats like saying ASK??!?! ASK?????!?!?! How about ANSWER!

Nonsensicle gibberish.

Don't be too hard on yourself....once you understand how the discussion progressed, your responses will be more coherent.

 

[Minister of Truth]

So the Islamic Revolution took place in spite of a stable government? That would set a historic precedent, wouldn't it? The only known successful revolution that took place under a stable government.

As for ancient history of Persia, you left out that those "various ruling dynasties" were quite often at war with each other.

The government under the Shah was not stable - it's why the U.S. under Ford felt compelled to support him. It is why the Islamic Revolution succeeded. Things in Iran have not exactly been quiet since the revolutyion either. Sure, most of it is loud-mouth sabre rattling to appease the anti-west factions. But it is still far and away not the environment into which one should shrug off the potential access to nuclear capability. And nukes aside, it is never a good idea to meet loud mouth saber rattling with the apparent weakness Obama has been showing. Some may take it into their heads that acting out on some of the saber rattling isn't all that big a threat to their seat of power.

Our Revolution took place under a stable government. But its true, Reza Pahlavi did not have control of his country, which is why he requested that Carter let him come here and live in exile under US protection.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Epicurus
Just not sure how you can say they're particularly historically unstable, especially compared to the rest of the Middle East. The Persian Empire, modern Iran, existed in continuity with various dynastic families for almost three thousand years. From 1501 to the Islamic Revolution in 1979, there was a continuous monarchy, the last being the Shah. Since '79 the Islamic Republic has ruled.

I'm just not sure how you can say basically two governments in the last three thousand years is unstable.

Also it's doubtful whether or not Ahmadinejad really believes all that. In any case, his power as president is pretty much limited to domestic policy and making crazy statements to scare people like you. He has no authority to follow through on any of the sabre-rattling he engages in. Iran has had two Supreme Leaders since the Revolution, and they have both been individuals who railed against America in public and but were considerably more pragmatic in private negotiations. The people who are really in power, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, are not going to do anything to force the international community to unseat them.

So the Islamic Revolution took place in spite of a stable government? That would set a historic precedent, wouldn't it? The only known successful revolution that took place under a stable government.

As for ancient history of Persia, you left out that those "various ruling dynasties" were quite often at war with each other.

The government under the Shah was not stable - it's why the U.S. under Ford felt compelled to support him. It is why the Islamic Revolution succeeded. Things in Iran have not exactly been quiet since the revolutyion either. Sure, most of it is loud-mouth sabre rattling to appease the anti-west factions. But it is still far and away not the environment into which one should shrug off the potential access to nuclear capability. And nukes aside, it is never a good idea to meet loud mouth saber rattling with the apparent weakness Obama has been showing. Some may take it into their heads that acting out on some of the saber rattling isn't all that big a threat to their seat of power.

Obviously, you are not familiar with our recent history with Iran. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

 

[christiefan915]

So the Islamic Revolution took place in spite of a stable government? That would set a historic precedent, wouldn't it? The only known successful revolution that took place under a stable government.

As for ancient history of Persia, you left out that those "various ruling dynasties" were quite often at war with each other.

The government under the Shah was not stable - it's why the U.S. under Ford felt compelled to support him. It is why the Islamic Revolution succeeded. Things in Iran have not exactly been quiet since the revolutyion either. Sure, most of it is loud-mouth sabre rattling to appease the anti-west factions. But it is still far and away not the environment into which one should shrug off the potential access to nuclear capability. And nukes aside, it is never a good idea to meet loud mouth saber rattling with the apparent weakness Obama has been showing. Some may take it into their heads that acting out on some of the saber rattling isn't all that big a threat to their seat of power.

Are you forgetting that it was the US who put the Shah into power, long before Ford was president? Read up on Operation Ajax, when the CIA engineered the overthrow of Mossadeq. The Iranian Revolution 25 years later was the perfect illustration of our chickens coming home to roost, the blowback from our meddling. I don't blame Obama for being real careful with Iran. We don't need another blowhard like bush and his axis of evil speech stirring up more rancor than already exists there against Americans.

 

[Good Luck]

Are you forgetting that it was the US who put the Shah into power, long before Ford was president? Read up on Operation Ajax, when the CIA engineered the overthrow of Mossadeq. The Iranian Revolution 25 years later was the perfect illustration of our chickens coming home to roost, the blowback from our meddling. I don't blame Obama for being real careful with Iran. We don't need another blowhard like bush and his axis of evil speech stirring up more rancor than already exists there against Americans.

No, I have not forgotten. I was simply referring to the specific situation that led to the Islamic Revolution, not the set up that led to the situation.

The POINT is (which you all seem to be avoiding like the plague - why is that?) the political situation in Iran is significantly less stable than any other nuclear power. As such, besides the general principle of non-proliferation, there is an item of greater concern in Iran's pursuit of their own nuclear arsenal. It's not a factor we can simply ignore and hope it goes away. we tried that approach with North Korea. Being weak in the face of aggression is not a proper response. There is a middle ground between the overly aggressive and inflammatory rhetoric of Bush, and the hide-behind-mommy's-skirts weakness of Obama.

 

[Taichiliberal]

No, I have not forgotten. I was simply referring to the specific situation that led to the Islamic Revolution, not the set up that led to the situation.

The POINT is (which you all seem to be avoiding like the plague - why is that?) the political situation in Iran is significantly less stable than any other nuclear power. As such, besides the general principle of non-proliferation, there is an item of greater concern in Iran's pursuit of their own nuclear arsenal. It's not a factor we can simply ignore and hope it goes away. we tried that approach with North Korea. Being weak in the face of aggression is not a proper response. There is a middle ground between the overly aggressive and inflammatory rhetoric of Bush, and the hide-behind-mommy's-skirts weakness of Obama.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Obama Approval Rating Now Below 50%, Currently 48.8%