NON American press...IRAN

[Guest]

Interesting read from someone other than the American press...

"What is Obama's draw for these Iranian hard-liners?

Iranian officials seem to prefer Obama simply because he has promised to talk to Iran without preconditions. The more important issue, however, is their belief that with Obama the military option would be off the table. That would limit his maneuvering to negotiation, which is desirable from the perspective of the Iranian regime, for it might allow Iran's leaders to stall for time while they have a chance to advance their nuclear program. It would also leave them free to actively oppose Israel, continue efforts to export revolution, support Hezbollah and Hamas, intervene in regional matters, and, ultimately, govern the Iranian people with an iron fist."

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_27343.shtml

[Guest]

Just the fact that supposedly all of Europe wants Obama to win makes me want to vote for McCain. I've lived in Europe. They only like the USA when we can help them. I don't know what they think we can do for them, if we are weak.

[Guest]

The drumbeat of the McCain campaign about "talking with the enemy without preconditions" has been pretty broadly rejected as a foreign relations strategy by most of the experienced U.S. diplomats and foreign relations experts. The McCain campaign mantra makes it sound good to the uninformed public. But unfortunately, that approach has consistently proven unproductive, even dangerous, to the U.S. over the years. And often, even the odd American administration that follows that tactic often has to quietly reverse itself in prder to make any progress in foreign relations.

Maybe the best current example is George Bush, who not ony refused to meet or negotiate with North Korea, but called North Korea President Kim Jong Il a "pymgy" and that he "loathed the man". With that approach, North Korea continued with its nuclear program and even launch an interballistic missle that could reach the west coast of the U.S. The U.S. was unable to get other countries to join us in pressuring North Korea using economic and political pressure.

Senior State Department officials as well as many foreign heads of state pressured Bush to reverse his policy and permit negotiations to commence with North Korea. This happened quietly--secretly in fact--in late 2006 when U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill initiated multi-party negotiations with North Korea. Significant progress was made and North Korea agreed to stop its nuclear program only a month or so ago. In fact, North Korea has now been officially taken off the U.S. State Department's list of countries that are state sponsors of terrorism.

If you want to back a little further, it was secret negotiations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. that resulted in the end of the Cold War.

Campaign rhetoric is designed to agitate the electorate, but very often is not the way the most progress in foreign relations is accomplished. Unfortunately, that's true of the McCain campaign claims today.

By the way, Bucco, Barack Obama has never taken the military option off the table. In fact, if you recall, he has said that he would order military action inside Pakistan if the Pakistanis couldn't or wouldn't take the necessary action against al Quaeda or the Taliban hiding along the Pakiistan-Afghanistan border. What he hasn't taken off the table--unlike John McCain--is the parallel strategy of negotiating to achieve our objectives. Where do you get this stuff that Obama won't use the military option? Maybe it offends backers of former fighter pilot McCain that Obama won't pull the trigger first without having any prior discusasions to accomplish our objectives without the use of military action.

[Guest]

Almost unanimously, both U.S. and other foreign relations professionals have quietly rejected and are openly critical of the Bush administration's refusal to permit Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's request to lay a wreath in memory of the people killed on 9/11 at the site of the World Trade Center.

Diplomatic professionals viewed Ahmadinejad's request as an open offer to begin a relationship with the U.S. Bush's open rejection of the offer is viewed as not only rejecting the Iranian offer, but an attempt to openly embarrass the Iranian president. Most experts, including almost all of our career diplomats view the decision as a tremendous opportunity missed.

Did you ever consider that Iran actually does desire an opening of negotiations with the U.S. and knows that no such action can or will be taken if John McCain is elected? Don't forget that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not necessariy the "face"of Iran. It is a very young and well-educated country whose residents would very much prefer a peaceful relationship with the U.S. as opposed to the non-relationship fomented by the Bush-Cheney neocons? Do you recall any other Iranian making statements about Israel other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Don't get me wrong. There are still deep-seated feelings in Iran over the U.S. arranging for the overthrow of popular and nationalistic Mohammad Mosaddeq, replacing him with our choice the brutal dictator, the Shah of Iran. That decision pretty much the same issue as has effected all U.S.-Middle East relations since--oil. Mossaddeq wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, and we wanted the American-freindly companies running the Iranian oil industry to reamin in power. So we arranged to have Mossaddeq removed and replaced with the Shah, who was freindly to the U.S., but a brutal and hated dictator of the Iranian people.

No, any improvement in the relationship between the U.S. and Iran is likely to take some time. But it almost certainly can't begin without a continuing dialog.

[Guest]

The drumbeat of the McCain campaign about "talking with the enemy without preconditions" has been pretty broadly rejected as a foreign relations strategy by most of the experienced U.S. diplomats and foreign relations experts. The McCain campaign mantra makes it sound good to the uninformed public. But unfortunately, that approach has consistently proven unproductive, even dangerous, to the U.S. over the years. And often, even the odd American administration that follows that tactic often has to quietly reverse itself in prder to make any progress in foreign relations.

Maybe the best current example is George Bush, who not ony refused to meet or negotiate with North Korea, but called North Korea President Kim Jong Il a "pymgy" and that he "loathed the man". With that approach, North Korea continued with its nuclear program and even launch an interballistic missle that could reach the west coast of the U.S. The U.S. was unable to get other countries to join us in pressuring North Korea using economic and political pressure.

Senior State Department officials as well as many foreign heads of state pressured Bush to reverse his policy and permit negotiations to commence with North Korea. This happened quietly--secretly in fact--in late 2006 when U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill initiated multi-party negotiations with North Korea. Significant progress was made and North Korea agreed to stop its nuclear program only a month or so ago. In fact, North Korea has now been officially taken off the U.S. State Department's list of countries that are state sponsors of terrorism.

If you want to back a little further, it was secret negotiations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. that resulted in the end of the Cold War.

Campaign rhetoric is designed to agitate the electorate, but very often is not the way the most progress in foreign relations is accomplished. Unfortunately, that's true of the McCain campaign claims today.

By the way, Bucco, Barack Obama has never taken the military option off the table. In fact, if you recall, he has said that he would order military action inside Pakistan if the Pakistanis couldn't or wouldn't take the necessary action against al Quaeda or the Taliban hiding along the Pakiistan-Afghanistan border. What he hasn't taken off the table--unlike John McCain--is the parallel strategy of negotiating to achieve our objectives. Where do you get this stuff that Obama won't use the military option? Maybe it offends backers of former fighter pilot McCain that Obama won't pull the trigger first without having any prior discusasions to accomplish our objectives without the use of military action.


I know that you are committed to defend Sen Obama under any and all circumstances..that is fine, but he changed his mind on military because it was causing a bit of slippage in the polls. That is a fact.

In addition, his stance on military at the Iowa caucas is totally at odds with what he says today...thus what does he really mean ??/

By the way....the article was presented here simply because it came FROM IRAN..perhaps they dont know what you do !!!

[Guest]

Kahuana.....JUST want to post one thing here. You seem like an articulate and intelligent guy. You support Sen Obama with fervor. I support niether candidate but totally FEAR Sen Obama (maybe fear is not strong enough) on every issue confronting this country.

No reason for us to continually just swap this stuff. I admit that Sen McCain is not my candidate and thus will not spend time tryin to sanctify him....I also know that Sen Obama has continually changed according to the audience in addition to all the things I fear about him, thus we have no idea of what he will or wont do in any area.

Also, we have both been around long enough to know that campaign promises mean zilch as the new President will need to react as well as enact thus I put not much stock in either one. You support change for change sake...I do not although I am all for change !

I promise to get out of here as I seem to be annoying you and others and I sincerely will tell you that I PRAY THAT I AM TOTALLY WRONG...I am pretty sure I am right on, but I PRAY THAT I AM WRONG !!!

Take care and good luck

[Guest]

Goodbye.

[Guest]

Yes, I want change.

I initially had great respect for John McCain. But when he completely submitted to his campaign handlers, doing whatever they told him to do, he lost me.

I agree with Obama's inexperience. I don't agree that his character is flawed as the result of his long ago relationships with the Ayers, Auliinskys and Wrights of the world.

I agree that what candidates say to get elected often proves to be something only a bit short of common lies. I keep hoping for something different, but I won't commit hari kiri if the pattern continues.

To me, a vote for Barack Obama is not a riskless choce. But to me he says more things that I agree with than McCain does.

If Obama's elected as all the polls indicate, all that's left to know is how much of the campaign rhetotic will actually be acted on. I think our position as the world's most overextended debtor nation will severely limit any plans by either candidate that are not deficit neutral. So if I'm right, I wouldn't expect either candidate to be able to accomplish much until our national ignorance of the facts of fiscal responsibilty are recognized. The sad part is that the rest of the world will be those applying the much-needed disipline and teaching us the lesson that we should have learned ourselves.

Bucco, you and I really aren't that far apart, other than on issues of emphasis. Keep posting.

[Guest]

KAHUNA....I AGREE....most of us are right on the same track....perhaps sometime going in different direction....

Keep posting....both of you!!

[Guest]

Yes, I want change.

I initially had great respect for John McCain. But when he completely submitted to his campaign handlers, doing whatever they told him to do, he lost me.

I agree with Obama's inexperience. I don't agree that his character is flawed as the result of his long ago relationships with the Ayers, Auliinskys and Wrights of the world.

I agree that what candidates say to get elected often proves to be something only a bit short of common lies. I keep hoping for something different, but I won't commit hari kiri if the pattern continues.

To me, a vote for Barack Obama is not a riskless choce. But to me he says more things that I agree with than MCain does.

If Obama's elected as all the polls indicate, all that's left to know is how much of the campaign rhetotic will actually be acted on. I think our position as the world's most overextended debtor nation will severely limit any plans by either candidate that are not deficit neutral. So if I'm right, I wouldn't expect either candidate to be able to accomplish much until our national ignorance of the facts of fiscal responsibilty are recognized. The sad part is that the rest of the world will be those applying the much-needed disipline.

Bucco, you and I really aren't that far apart, other than on issues of emphasis. Keep posting.

Good posts Kahuna and Bucco, keep it up. We need good political posts based on sound information, not the stump trash we here on television. Keep the nonsense out of this thread.

[Guest]

KAHUNA....I AGREE....most of us are right on the same track....perhaps sometime going in different direction....

Keep posting....both of you!!

I agree--please keep posting. I have read all of the political threads and have taken away something from each and every one of them. I have researched on the computer facts/fiction--trying to make a decision about the election. I did vote yesterday---felt I had to "get it over with." I have never felt that way about an election before. I feel "uneasy" about my vote--would have felt exactly the same way had I voted for the "other one" but I know that voting is such a privilege and one that I have never taken for granted. I guess time will tell whether either of the candidates if elected will or can live up to all their "promises."