Our fearless leader is learning quickly that his appeasement approach to hardline Iranian rulers is meaningless, ineffective and, frankly, an embarrassment. Instead of getting solidly behind Iranian citizens who are literally risking life and limb to protest this sham of an election, he offers tepid support but insists he will not "meddle' in Iran's internal affairs. No strong words denouncing the violent repression, no warnings to the clowns who rule Iran.

Do we need to invade Iran, no, at least not yet. But to not give America's full support to these people is a disgrace. It was a very Jimmy Carterish response by a man who everyday shows he is way in over his head.

Our fearless leader is learning quickly that his appeasement approach to hardline Iranian rulers is meaningless, ineffective and, frankly, an embarrassment.

define "appeasement approach"

Obama's taking care to make sure that we are not seen as influencing the outcome. I'd like to see him come out slightly more forcefully about the reports of fraud, but his approach is a sensible one when considering long-term goals. A welcome change from our country's history of only thinking about what benefits us in the next couple of years.

To offer full support (openly) would only strengthen the Mullah's hand in providing them the opportunity to paint the opposition as American puppets. He's playing it just about right. If you understood anything at all beyond chest-thumping and blustering you would see this.

"Mr. Ahmadinejad, tear down this clergy!"

screwjack2008:

To offer full support (openly) would only strengthen the Mullah's hand in providing them the opportunity to paint the opposition as American puppets. He's playing it just about right. If you understood anything at all beyond chest-thumping and blustering you would see this.

It doesn't matter, if Obama was taking a hard line he'd complain that he was fanning the flames and causing instability.

Hogie,

The New Iranian Revolution is not going to happen overnight on a word from Obama. Makes you wonder just who is it that believes Obama has "magical powers," anyway? Understand something: change in Iran will come only from the Iranians--or preferably put, the Persians, themselves. You don't want to get too "Cold War" with them. Any overt displays of support will work against us at this point. I know you are thinking Reagan/Polish Solidarity; it's not quite like that. There's an ideological battle going on, for sure, but also a demographic one.

Hogie, I love these charges of "appeasement" since Obama has yet to bomb his way through the Muslim world, what, a full five and half months into his presidency? Because he made a speech intended to defuse certain unnecessary tensions, while acknowledging some necessary and built-in ones, with the Arab and Muslim world, you write as if he ceded Florida to Al Queda.

Your whole point of view is overwrought. It also suggests that we haven't tried the strident bellicose way yet, or have and that it has worked. Well, we just got done with eight years of Bush's hot rhetoric, and it didn't work one iota. It's not that his criticisms of the Arab and Muslim world weren't valid; it's that they worked against our own goals.

We want the governments running Iran and all the other wretched tyrannies in the Middle East to dissolve and their people to live in freedom and modernity, right? Well, the worst thing to do is keep harping on them and making them feel threatened or talked down to. The only thing these people have is fear and pride. Going all Bush-like on them, although emotionally satisfying for us to call a spade a spade, pushes them towards their tyrannical leaders, not against them. Such rhetoric is fuel for the tyrannies themselves.

The moment they believe we are interfering, the reformers and revolutionaries in Iran will be seen as our puppets, and the only alternative is to stick with the mullahs.

I agree with Early Bird.

Except for this sour note: We want the governments running Iran and all the other wretched tyrannies in the Middle East to dissolve and their people to live in freedom and modernity, right?

Why, exactly, do you want that to happen so badly? How do you benefit? At what cost are you willing to make that happen? What about Africa? Are there any limits to how many billions of people can be crammed onto the earth, all living in "freedom and modernity"?

A bit more thought on this premise would appear to be needed.

"Why, exactly, do you want that to happen so badly? How do you benefit? At what cost are you willing to make that happen? What about Africa? Are there any limits to how many billions of people can be crammed onto the earth, all living in "freedom and modernity"?

Wow. Just when I think I have reached the depths of your solipsism, you go and stun me again, Bsharp.

My concern that others do not live under cruel tyranny has to do with my belief that freedom is a fundamental need of the human animal, and a basic necessity to live in dignity. And as a human being I feel connected to, and somewhat responsible to others who do not enjoy the freedom that I too-often take for granted.

The impulse that makes people try to spread freedom to unfree corners of the globe is the same impulse that makes people get involed in stopping the horrors of Darfur, or ensure that innocent people aren't put in jail. Its related to a sense of humanity and a desire for justice. Some people refer to this impulse as "empathy."

What people do with that freedom, be it live simply on organic co-ops or build enormous modern cities, is their business, and something they can choose if they are free to do so. In any case, it is not my right to write off millions of human beings under tyranny because their freedom is untidy.

Are you quite sure everyone in the world wants you "American" (?) freedom?

DaGal:

Are you quite sure everyone in the world wants you "American" (?) freedom?

What is "American" freedom and how does it differ from "freedom?" I wonder if Da Gals in Iran, for example, feel "free."

Freedom is not an absolute. Other people and other countries might have a different view of it. They might value other things than those you/we include in the word "freedom".

When it comes to Iranian women, some of them say they are more "free" than the Western women.Some want the Western type of freedom. It's all about the perspective.

No. I'm very sure that much of the world does not want "American" freedom. Nor is "American freedom" the only type there is.

It's not the end of the world if people don't have the same gun rights and bicameral legistlature. I'm getting at something much more basic: things like the right not to be executed because you are gay, or have had an adulterous affair. The right for women to be protected from being beaten to death by their husbands. The right to vote and have some say in your own government. Rights not to be dragged out of your home, tortured and jailed forever for no good reason. Property rights. Rights to free expression and so forth. A sense of some kind of control over your own life.

I can't imagine any person would not want these things for himself.

Hell, I'm gettin' the strong suspicion that "DaGal" is Bsharp writing under a nom de wimp.