Iran Obama's 'only chance of success'

Great Debates
1

An article of news from the Brisbane Courier Mail and New York Times…
06 / 05 / 2010
IRANIAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said overnight that Iran was the “only chance” for his US counterpart Barack Obama to succeed after the crises Washington has faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/iran-obamas-only-chance-of-success/story-e6freonf-1225853431215

and

UNITED NATIONS — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Tuesday that relations with the United States might never be repaired if new sanctions were imposed against his country, that the United Nations atomic agency had no authority to poke its nose into matters like missiles and that despite his contested re-election last year, Iran had not become a republic of fear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/world/middleeast/05nuke.html?ref=middleeast

So what say you. the President of Iran nothing but a war monger, deserves to be annihilated, by Nukes if necessary? or a man or peace, besieged on all fronts, by warmongers…?

Zanthor

2

Are those the only two choices?

3

nah, of course not,
feel free to interject with alternate observations.
go for it

4

He’s a poopy-pants. He likes to keep his name in the papers by saying “controversial” things about the US. Plus, the more tension there is in his neck of the woods, the higher the price of oil-- it’s his “only chance of success” in the Iranian economy to keep the price of oil high.

5

In 2012 the American people will define Obama’s “success” as they always do, i.e., mainly by the state of the American economy and job market, which will have nothing to do with relations with Iran.

6

so, how much Oil do they sell to the west, more importantly, to Russia, China?
and just who creates the tension?
are they surrounding our borders, waiting to bomb, invade, occupy? Us?

Just curious, do we actually know why we hate them so much?

try this.
25 questions, about Iran,
plz report how you did,
no looking at the answers until you finish the quiz, ok?

http://www.countercurrents.org/rudolph240410.htm

7

Tensions can be created by lots of players. But it’s not in Iran’s interest to reduce those tensions. Quite the opposite.

8

I repeat, do they threaten to invade us, occupy us?
have troops and heavy duty death dealing war machines on our borders?
who is the instigator, who the defender here?

consider.

9

Iran is not a threat to the US, directly. Why don’t you just come out and say what you want to say instead of playing 20 questions?

10

Aside from its nuclear program, Iran’s biggest means of threatening the US and its interests/allies are those it uses as proxies - Iraqi Shiite militias, Hamas, Hezbollah, and allegedly the limited support it has provided the Taliban in recent years.

11

OK, no problem.
Everyday I hear how much of a threat Iran is to us, we need to attack them NOW.
preemptively of course, just in case they might want to attack us, somewhere down the line, a few years from now…

my main concern however was who would we attack 1st, Iran or Pakistan?
I always thought it would be Iran, like right next to US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan.
seemed to be why we invaded the ME to begin with.

but lately I have been revising my opinion.
It might well be Pakistan !st.
like, Pakistan already has Nukes, The US needs to ‘secure’ them, right…?

the US has already poured $US zillions into propping up Pakistan Regimes, it seems to no avail, we attack Pakistan with cruise missiles, daily, seems we are considering commencing US ground troops in Pakistan.
( something they have said they will regard as an act of war,
glad to see they finally have drawn a line in the sand, ?
however faint…

Meanwhile’s, the thread stands as i posted it,
the President of Iran.
a sinister threat or not?

Zan

12

Who are you hearing this from? The odds of an invasion of Iran or Pakistan are negative zero. It’s not possible in any way and it’s not going to happen.

And Ahmadinejad is scum, but he’s not the one running the show in Iran, so he’s not a threat.

13

Iran (which poses no conceivable threat to the U.S.) is, on Islamist principles, hostile to Israel (which poses no conceivable threat to Iran, and vice-versa); the U.S. supports Israel (which offers no conceivable benefit to the U.S.); therefore Iran opposes the U.S. and vice-versa. So it goes. Of course, there’s also all that historical baggage about Operation Ajax and the Hostage Crisis. Bit hard to get past. And the fact that both Iran and the U.S. want to be the hegemonic power in the Persian Gulf region.

14

Which is why America won’t attack Pakistan, ever. Nukes buy you immunity from America.

As for Iran; America is fairly crippled right now after the Iraq debacle, fortunately. An outright invasion isn’t likely for a long time. And Obama isn’t likely to go nuclear. There might be some pointless cruise missile attacks and bombings if the Republicans rant too much about him being a wimpy liberal and he feels the need to prove his manliness.

15

I think you should open another thread about Pakistan if you want to debate that situation. As for attacking Iran, you don’t hear about that from Obama’s administration, and that’s all that counts. Ahemdenijad is not much in control of foreign policy-- that’s up to the mullahs via the Council of Guardians. He’s a loudmouth who needs to keep up anger towards the west in order to distract his fellow countryman from what a shit-hole Iran is becoming.

16

Never did want to debate the Wests probable intent to invade Pakistan before Iran.
I was concentrating on why we continue to demonise Iran, and its President.
Heck, go back as far as why we installed the Shah of Iran in Iran if you want.

i only mentioned Pakistan cos another poster questioned what i was actually most concerned about.
this thread as i posted it was and is about Iran, not Pakistan.

If you want to discuss how the US fires off Predator drones into Pakistan, seems about to invade, then you open another thread by all means…

Zan

17

We don’t demonize Ahmadinejad-- he demonizes himself. Are you trying to tell us he’s the good guy here? He’s a demagogue, plain and simple.

18

How so?
to me he appeared perfecfty calm, rational.

did you even read or watch his speech in full?
probably not. huh?
here is transcript and video, then watch Hillary Clinton’s speech,
say again who is most sane.
give you a clue, its not Clinton.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25376.htm

the American and UK leaders walked out on him.
no tolerance, deaf ears, blind eyes.

Shame that, they might have learned something

and, these are much more revealing.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25386.htm

yes, i know, ICH, but where else in Western media do you find such explicit info?

19

I think most of what he does is purely defensive.
they do not surround us, ready to invade, destroy, we do. to this, to them…
the ME,

or so it seems to me.
convince me otherwise, if you can…, want to.

again I ask, who have they bombed en masse with all kinds of WMD?
invaded, instituted regime changes in other countries?
us or them?

Russia warns US against unilateral Iran sanctions

FM Lavrov says countries facing Security Council sanctions ‘cannot under any circumstances be subjected to one-sided sanctions imposed by any government’

Reuters
Published: 05.13.10, 15:05 / Israel News
( note link to topic posted in Israeli News. ?

excerpt from article.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the United States and other Western nations on Thursday against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Interfax news agency reported.
snip
Countries facing Security Council sanctions “cannot under any circumstances be the subject of one-sided sanctions imposed by one or other government bypassing the Security Council”, Lavrov was quoted as saying by Interfax.
“The position of the United States today does not display understanding of this absolutely clear truth.”
article continues…

So more defiance by the US against the UN? or Security Council?

and…
Ahmadinejad advises US to leave region
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126248&sectionid=351020101
excerpt from article…
Amid concerns about the continuing presence of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranian president advises the White House to withdraw its troops from the region.

Addressing a large crowd in Iran’s southwestern city of Yasuj on Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the era of occupation and plundering other nation’s national resources is over.

“You’d better listen to the Iranian nations’ advice: Abandon your stubbornness; live with other nations based on justice and friendship, like human beings; leave the region; leave Afghanistan; leave Iraq; withdraw to your borders and mind your own business,” the president said.
article continues…

same question…as original post.
Ahmadinejad
Saint or Sinner?

20

Hmmm. Would it benefit the United States if Iran had nuclear weapons? No, it would not. Now do you understand why the United States is opposed to Iran getting nuclear weapons? And all the Arab countries are unalterably opposed to the Iranian bomb too, they don’t want a strong Iran any more than the US does.

As for an immanent attack on Iran, maybe you hadn’t noticed but we’re a bit busy fighting two other wars, so our combat capabilities are stretched a little thin. When our troops come home in triumph from Iraq and Afghanistan, then you can expect the American people to be ready for a war with Iran. Until that happens, I think the chances of America attacking Iran are pretty low.

As for why we demonize Iran, well, before the hostage crisis nobody in America had ever heard of Iran.