Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Obama is ready for 'direct diplomacy' with Iran (video)

During his White House presser he called Iran's actions 'unhelpful'. Is that the strongest language he could come up with? I would suggest he use the term 'intolerable'. He, also, said that Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be 'destabilizing'. No kidding, Barack. Keep talking like that and you will have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shaking in his boots. He will surely give up in his desire to destroy Israel and America now. I think it is time for Obama to bring back prepared remarks and a teleprompter when making foreign policy statements.


Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...

Hitler was "unhelpful" also. But I'm sure Obama would have liked to urge "mutual respect" for his regime also in those days. After all, we Americans were responsible for that World War. Why?? Because we didn't engage Hitler in mutual respect and clearly created an atmosphere of mistrust because we didn't say Nazism was "OK". We just, as Americans, weren't "multicultural" enough to appease Hitler - I'm sure. I mean, what really is the difference between Ahmadinejab and Hitler?? They have the same goals of worldwide genocide to Jews and others.

How can anyone justify this approach and view if they would not apply the same approach and view of Hitler & Hitler's Germany??

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

As partisan as I am, even I without hesitation submit htat there were some good Republican Presidents. Eisenhower. Lincoln. And of course Theodore Roosevelt. It was he who said "Speak softly and carry a big stick," Good advice then and today.

I don't remember Bush doing anything about Ahmadinejad or Reagan doing much about Ayatolla Khomeini Grace but talk tough. Those two pansies.

JBW said...

Hey, Grace! I thought you'd be busy practicing your Lamaze breathing in preparation to birth your new nation, but instead I find you here sounding very intelligent saying that President Obama would have appeased Hitler. With such honest and informed insight as this I'm surprised I never took you and your opinions more seriously. OK...

Exactly, T101. For some reason I highly doubt that the leaders of Iran (it's not just Ahmadinejad, of course) are analyzing and going through the syntax that Obama used with a fine toothed-comb while structuring their foreign policy accordingly.

Criticizing Obama on such trivial points seems a bit petty to me. Why would you make some of your first remarks about a potential enemy extraordinarily harsh right from the outset? Where are you going to go from there? Extraordinarily super-harsh? Or maybe just let your nuclear arsenal speak for you next time?

It's called diplomacy, and it's what grown-ups who run countries do.

Carl Wicklander said...

Iran has supposedly been our enemy for 30 years now. But somehow we have managed to avoid war. I don't believe there is reason to fear them now. They are still closely aligned with Iraq and should not want open confrontation with the U.S.

Ahmadinejad is up for election this summer and it will be tough. He is being challenged by Mohammad Khatami, a former president of Iran who has encouraged better ties with the West. Iran's economy has weakened during his tenure and Ahmadinejad's reelection is not a foregone conclusion.

I am no fan of Obama, but considering all that, there is no reason to reject diplomacy right now.