Iranians may be ready to vote Ahmadinejad out of power

I said, it should be on the table. A consideration for sure.

If the regime cracks down in bloody style against the opposition, you are going to stand by and allow that kind of slaughter to go on? What do you suggest then, Obama sit there sheepishly and just say, "bad boy Iran, you very bad boy?"

There has to be a point. A line to cross.

If there is a violent crack down, a u.s. bombardment might be enough to destabalize the gov't and allow the opposition to take control. Imagine, a coordinate violent crack down, and gov't offices and bombed sending the Iranian leadership into hiding. The perfect opportunity for the opposition to grap power instead of being crushed out like China did in Tienanmen Sq.

I think it's a legitimate consideration.

 

I am only saying if there is a violent crackdown, it should be left on the table.

Obama needs to warn Iran against a violent crackdown.

 

The regime is panting in eager anticipation for just such language from the US President. It would be all over their media in an instant. So far, I think Obama is playing this just right. Let the Iranian people show the world, as well as all of Iran, just how corrupt and bankrupt their government is. Sadly, due to our history with Iran, we are the last people to be sticking our noses into this incredible situation. Keep your fingers crossed and hope that the government will fall. It is a longshot, but closer than anyone could have dreamed a few weeks ago. They are arresting officers in the military, from what I understand. Why is that? What reaction will we see down the road because of it? Will the regime finally make enough enemies among the people and the "power apparatus" of Iran to bring about another revolution?


And just because Obama doesn't say it's "on the table," doesn't mean it is not.

 

I'm saying a violent crackdown has zero to do with whether Iran should be bombed. I think you are totally off track. The only rationale for bombing Iran would be if they attacked another country or if it was decided they were too close to developing a nuclear weapon.

You are getting too emotional. The U.S. is in no position to attack Iran. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are too vulnerable and our armed forces are already stretched too thin. It would strengthen the regime, not cause it to fall.

You are pipe-dreaming.

 

Again, I am not saying Obama should even threaten action. But he needs to make it clear that so long as there isn't a violent crackdown, he is not going to say anything, but that a violent crackdown is unacceptable. The Iranians understand that means something. They aren't going to violently crackdown just to antagonize the U.S.

It's definitely on the table, because if it's not, then Obama is not a good leader. A good leader doesn't take anything off the table.

You have to be realistic Deckard. I am all for a more practical and less cowboy approach toward diplomacy. But part of what makes diplomacy effective is the willingness to beat that stick. If you are perceived to never be willing to use the stick, and only play nice, then you will be run over, and Obama will fail as a president.

It was teddy who said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". We had bush who didn't do that. But what we don't need is is Obama just speaking softly and never wielding the stick.

Iran is a serious threat to the region and it's stability. If it cracks down in a bloody fashion, what, I ask, do you propose the U.S. does?

Sanctions and words are useless. N. Korea is a case in point. Sometimes, you must be willing to hit hard. And surgical strikes carefully done not only could destabalize the gov't, but also get rid of the nuke capability.

that's our primary goal afterall - it's getting rid of the nukes right?

 

Airstrikes do not require ground troops.

I don't agree with your military analysis A_3PO - I respect your opinion, and I am not speaking from and emtional standpoint. I am speaking from a practical one. We have an opportunity to protect people from bloodshed, people exercising democractic principles.

This is the right time to act. If the U.S. stands for anything, it must be the defender of freedom. We'd spent enough time support tryanny....when the people of another country rise up, and the gov't of those people crack down vilolent killing perhaps 10's of thousands...we have a moral obligation to act.

 

Let me summarize two things here:

1. We must rid Iran of nukes
2. We must finally use our power for the people of the world, not corrupt gov'ts.


Right now, Obama is playing is cards savvily. But let me ask you something, if Iran cracks down on it's own people in a violent way, how can Obama and the U.S. do business with Iran on other issues.

It can't. If a violent crack down goes on, and this rigged election is allowed to stand, then for Obama to meet with Iranians is a joke. It's a slap in the face to the ideals of America. And how can the Iranians respect the man who will be scared to say nothing while they spill blood just so he can talk to them without offending them???? Please.

I am fine with the way he has handled this through now. It's smart and wise. But if the protests are met with violence, then Obama has to change course radically.

 

Change course? Obviously. Military strikes? Insanity. There are a lot of steps that must happen before military action, otherwise the U.S. would severely undermine itself globally. In addition, do you think Congress should have a say in the matter?

The nukes are a completely separate issue. You can't meld it together with what's going on now and use a crackdown as a pretense for bombing.

 

IMO either all countries should be allowed to have nukes or none.

The process of determining who is "responsible enough" to have them is corrupt and ridden with conflicts of interest.

Iran deserves nuclear power. No one can deny them that. They do not have any nuclear weapons. If they were pursuing it, the argument against it would be poor as Israel has nuclear weapons and has shown a pattern of retaliating with a heavy hand and a trend of increasing the size of the hand.

Whether that is a retaliation is besides the point. I am simply stating that Israel is at least perceived to act improportionately and even irresponsibly at times in response to conflict. So if that is the criteria used to barr Iran from having nukes, then please America rid the entire Middle East of all nukes. Better to not have any than for everyone to have them.

 

Ihope there isn't a huge blood bath over this.

Sweet Lou is farking crazy if he thinks the Us should strike Iran. That would be a disaster. If this movement has legs it will stand on it's own.

 

Any real news? How have the protests gone...

I actually think that the government can not crack down hard, it would weaken their position even more.....as military leaders would flock to the new cause....

I think and Hope the religious leadership is ousted soon, so the people get the freedom they deserve.

DD

 

This is listed as Breaking news on CNN.com

Two people are hurt in a blast that hit a mausoleum of Imam Khomeini in southern Tehran, Iran's state-run Press TV reports.

 

May have been a suicide bomber. It's getting ugly.

 

I would say strikes are a last resort for sure. But definitely, a hardline has to be taken to any nation that violently cracks down on a population that in mass pressed for change in a democratic fashion.

 

Iranians are reporting that this occurred after it was reported. Fascinating.

Some people seem to think that the government has created an excuse to crack down harder. Not sure if I buy that but interesting nonetheless.

 

Strikes are the last resort to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. They aren't even on the table regarding what's happening now.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55F54520090620?sp=true

Witnesses said 2,000 to 3,000 people had gathered, far fewer than the hundreds of thousands involved in earlier rallies.

 

It's turning into carnage.

 

Edit: never mind, I misread your post. no offense.

 

Yeah, seems to have been relatively small and with effective crackdowns by the gov't (watercannons, etc). I wonder what happened between yesterday and today.

Sullivan is reporting that the gov't was spraying a water-like substance from helicopters with a substance that makes it feel like it's scalding according to several separate twitter sources.