Comments on: Obama's Charm Offensive To Iran

The New Republic: Bush Fundamentally Misunderstood The Iranian Regime -- Will Obama Make The Same Mistake?

[hdc77494]

yeah, charm works really well while they're cutting your head off and cutting out your heart.
West coast pacifists are endangering the country with their worn out lame ideas

[steveusmc]

citizenusa-2009
In case you didn't know and apparently you don't, assassination of a head of state is against international law. If a president of the USA ordered the Iranian president to be killed, then he himself could be brought to trial under those laws. That is why we did not kill Saddam. We captured him and turned him over to his own people. Noriega in Panama was another ?removal? not a killing of a head of state. Bush/Cheney did not DECLARE WAR. That is a power only the congress has and has not used since WWII. However, the vast majority of the Democratic Congress passed a resolution authorizing and encouraging the invasion of Iraq.

[sjc_1]

"strategerie"

The word may be stradgedy. It is a strategic tragedy, or the kind of backwards non-thinking that Bush and company did for WAY too long.

[Strukovv]

That's right. Bush misunderestimated the Iranian strategerie. Only Bush was stupid enough to misinterpret "Death to America" chants. He also did not understand the 1983 Beirut murders of US Marines and French paratroopers was his fault even though that was 17 years before he was elected. The Khobar Towers was one big Bush screwup even though Clinton was the President. Lord only knows Bush did not understand the Iranian roll in setting up Hezbollah in 1982. Go ahead and pet the snake all you want, it won't change anything once he strikes.

[hologram5]

Put them both in a ring with the gloves on, winner takes all. I am sick of the chess games. Let the leaders duke it out and whomever is standing at the end wins.

[sjc_1]

I think part of Iraq was taking out a tyrant, that did not work out so well. Going into the 6th year and $1 trillion later, it is still a quagmire. Iran would be much worse. Even if you put out a contract on the top guys (this was outlawed long ago) you would still have to deal with 1 billion Muslims around the world taking all this personally.

[promaclaura]

Instead of holding the entire country responsible for the rantings of their "leader", one must (instead of declaring WAR as the bone head Bush/Cheney Administration did), you simply take out the tyrant. That's it. Then move on. Common sense folks.
Posted by citizenusa-2009 at 6:22 AM : Apr 3, 2009


The word that stood out to me in your post was "simply". I doen't fit, as there doesn't seem to be anything simple about "taking out a tyrant".

[citizenusa-2009]

Instead of holding the entire country responsible for the rantings of their "leader", one must (instead of declaring WAR as the bone head Bush/Cheney Administration did), you simply take out the tyrant. That's it. Then move on. Common sense folks.

[omnibus66]

"Did you release Iran's frozen assets? Did you lift the sanctions against us? Did you give up slandering and broadcasting negative propaganda against our nation? Did you give up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime?

Well, not yet, but why should we? The Iranians have not changed their rhetoric either, have they?

But, unlike Bush, at least Obama has signaled that he is willing to discuss some give and take that could lead to some of those things.

However, the biggest thing in the way of any real progress is Israel. They will do anything to scuttle any softening of the US - Iranian chasm dug by GW Bush, including starting a war.

It is doubtful that Obama will end up changing anything, but at least he is willing to try.

[promaclaura]

Bush made it clear in any speech involving Iran that he was "not" against the "people" of Iran, he was against what their leaders were doing. So Bush was just honest in his rhetoric and wasn't going to play footsie with them. Now President Obama addresses the "people" and the "leadership" and Iran calls his bluff, signaling that his address to them is "fake". This is what anyone could have predicted and Obama was going to have to address Iran in some fashion, but he is using a slight of hand approach that is indirect/dishonest. The Iranian leadership and the Obama Administration "know" that the U.S. finds Iran's behavior unacceptable and nothing will happen unless Iran's "people" get tired of their leadership. This brings me back to my first statement, Bush openly addressed the Iranian "people" as well and they still didn't budge in ousting their leaders. The old "we are with you" line just doesn't seem to push the Iranian people over the edge, look at their squawking/nut-job leaders they still have in power. We have a new leader in place and Iran is still digging in their heels, this places full blame for lack of diplomacy/relations in Iran's hands, we can jump through hoops but it doesn't change where the problem stems from and it's not the U.S.