Is Barrack too soft ,should US invade Iran ?
By ronnyb
@ronnyb (6113)
Jamaica
June 24, 2009 12:28pm CST
Many of his opponent including his former presidential nominate John McCain is saying that Barack is being too soft on the Iran. Barack in his defense is saying that these are the internal affairs of a country and he cant intervene in a sovereign country like that .Now this is in keeping with hi mandate to change the united states foreign policy from a militaristic act firs ad never ask question policy to one of dialogue and negotiation
Now the fact is that Iranian crisis is looming to crisis proportion and the longer it continues unabated the greater the bloodshed .However does that mean that the united states should intervene or wait on the united nations to do so if they eventually decide to do so ? Also where does it sate anywhere that Barack should do something ,isn’t this the same reason that American rating internationally has fallen to unprecedented lows ?Why is that now people are bashing Barack when he is sticking to his is pre election rhetoric of a change in foreign policy ? Finally are there the differences between this and the Iraq that warrants a different approach and could it turn into another Iraq if left unchecked
5 people like this
19 responses
@ANTIQUELADY (36440)
• United States
24 Jun 09
HI RONNYB, No, i think he's being very smart to keep the u.s.a. out of it. Every other president particularly the last one would have jumped in. He didn't have any sense anyway in my opinion. People from foreign countries have been fighting w/each other for as long as they have existed & they want stop no matter who intervenes. theU.S.A. has stuck their noses into too many places as it is. They should be helping alot of people right here that desparately need help. LET some of those people who love to fight w/each other work out their own problems. They all resent the u.s.a. as it is. Our young people are over there getting killed for them & they still resent us being there. IT'S RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!
@ronnyb (6113)
• Jamaica
24 Jun 09
I COULDNT AGREE WITH MORE . I think Barrack should stick to his policy of dalogue before intervention and in that case allow Un to decide whether intervention is bes .Furthermore Us needs ttime to recuperate becasue its army is stretched too thin now anyway.thank you for your answer.
3 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
24 Jun 09
Should the U.S. invade Iran? No, we are not the world's police force and it's not our business to interfere with the internal problems of another country. Yes, there is a crisis in that country right now but it's their crisis and it's up to the Iranian people to work it out one way or another. The U.S. is already being blamed for what is happening over there and I think Obama is doing the wise thing by keeping his comments limited regarding the situation.
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
24 Jun 09
I have never agreed with anything that Obama does however this is one time when I agree. It is not our business at this point Iran has not done anything against the USA. Perhaps further down the road we may have to intervene. It is a problem for the Iranians to solve. INVADE IRAN!!!! what craziness is that...no-one has even suggested such an action. That is all we need is to finance another war! We are almost broke as it is with all the overspending Obama is doing without adding any further madness.
2 people like this
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
24 Jun 09
My memory is very good thank you. I am a Democrat and wanted Hillary Clinton to be nominated but before I would vote for Obama I would vote for anyone else even a Republican. Obama is an out and out glib, smarmy, two faced, fast talking, hypocritical nutcase who will ruin this country and then all his Muslim friends and relatives can take over.!
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
24 Jun 09
"We are almost broke as it is with all the overspending Obama is doing without adding any further madness". You may want to consider the fact that Bush's War has been costing billions and billions over 6 years that he was President. There was a surplus in the treasury when Bush took office and he almost bankrupt the country and thousands of our military have been killed or severely wounded by the "Warmongers" of his administration. Some people have a very short memory and don't seem to remember the past 8 years.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
24 Jun 09
I think President Obama is handling this situation in Iran just right. It's not our place to tell Iran what to do and we sure as heck aren't in any position to invade! The truth is, the tougher the U.S. President is on the current Iranian regime the worse it will be for the very Iranian people we're defending. Anything our government does or says will be used as propaganda against us.
Annie
2 people like this
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
24 Jun 09
Americans spent the last 6 or 7 years fighting over the legitimacy and acceptability of a preemptive war started by us, and politicians are pushing for another one? That's pretty darn stupid if you ask me.
We are not the police of the world. Unless they strike us, or we know definitely that they will, we should not stick our nose into matters. Then again, I'm probably looking at this in a biased light, as I support non-interventionism and I want my friends and family in the armed forces returned safely back home.
1 person likes this
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
24 Jun 09
It would be a stupid act if the U.S. decided to invade Iran! That kind of stupidity got in the mess we're in today. I believe Obama is taking the right course and several people who have been interviewed about the situation on PBS stations agree. The United Nations would never vote to an invasion unless Iran actually started something by attacking another nation. We are already deeply involved in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and our armed forces are already stretched to the limit. Those hard liners are the ones who got us into trouble before and the American Public shouldn't pay any attention to them!
@ronnyb (6113)
• Jamaica
24 Jun 09
I agree with you that the milaristic approach is unwise from both a financial perpective and international perception.America is stretched too thin and is spending too much for its intervention in other places so the best approach is a wait and see but engaing in dialogue as well
2 people like this
@Videogeezer (654)
•
25 Jun 09
If the United States choose to invade Iran it would only result in more innocent people losing their life's and a even bigger deficit. I think that this is not something to be considering at all, it would be a very foolish move to make. We can only offer our support and try to help the people, but I am not sure what effect we can have inside of Iran, especially with the media lock down. Being the worlds police will only result in more bloodshed.
@Vancollins (105)
• United States
25 Jun 09
I think at some point the US has to stop invading everyone at the drop of a hat. I believe that this could turn into another Iraq if we approach it the same way. Let the UN do it's job.
@embhc8 (48)
• United States
25 Jun 09
Invade NOOO!!! I think that any time a country is in the beginning stages of a revolution there is a tendacy to want to help them but how to do it is the tough part. Let's take a look at history: During the American Revolution the Americans were desperate for assistance from the British, so the French King Louis XVI sent massive amounts of aid to the Americans to assist them while his own people were staving which led to the French Revolution. Do I think that we should just stand by and let their governement slaughter their own people NO but look at history and ask yourself what can we do to help without oversteping our limits?
@maygodblessu44 (7336)
• India
27 Jul 09
Hello my friend ronnyb Ji,
I believe a natural process is being going on. To explain I would say that "gold when heated up to required temperature only shine and glitters", so Barac ji too is passing same stage. Everyone should be given chance, more the darkness, one faces, bright sun-shine would welcome in near future. So i think, Barcak Ji is doing good job. He has lot of patience. I believe he will not sail in rough weather. May god bless You and have a great time.
@aerous (13434)
• Philippines
26 Jun 09
What they want to do of the President Obama? They should step away on Iran, unrest. That is Iran, problem on how they resolve the on going protest. The problem with Iranian government they don't do any soft approach to settle differences but using harsh method that worsen the situations.
What is the reason why pres. Obama, invade Iran? There is no reason for them to invade Iran. The problem in that country is an internal affairs in that country. There is an International community that monitor the problem and has the authority to impose legal actions on human rights violations of that government...
@aerous (13434)
• Philippines
27 Jul 09
I don't understand about your opinion here my friend. Why are you said that Obama, is to soft dealing with Iran.
Don't say that Obama, order his military to make war with Iran. The problems in Iran, is not for the US. That problem is the internal problem of this government or this country. They should not interfere the internal problems of one country unless they are not stupidly challenge the United State for War or send Iran troops in the United State...
The problem in the United State is that they want war not peace...Your thinking is about war not peace. Obama, is right for his actions for not interfering the internal problems of Iran.
Obama, appeal to the government of Iran, to respect human rights that's it. Not to the extend that saying "if you do not respect human right, we will send missiles against you". Don't do that my friend. Because it will create another Iraq, where people is not attain peace and almost everyday that there is violence and killing of more innocent civilians...
@tundeemma (894)
• South Africa
25 Jun 09
i don't believe Obama is quite or soft on the issues of Iran, the difference between the democrats and the republicans is the flexibility of their decisions when it comes to political and foreign matters, he should not bee too hasty on issues of Iran, rather he should take his time before deciding the next option
@jordyway97 (15)
• Australia
25 Jun 09
HI RONNYB,
I don't think that Barrack Obama is being to soft because if he sent troops into Iran that would just be making more war, I ran would probablly send innocent citizens as troops untill their whole population was whipe out.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
24 Jun 09
I think he is doing well to stay out of it. However, I also think his inability to get himself to offer moral support for the Iranian protestors is sad. Would it kill the guy to come out with an actual opinion on it?
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
25 Jun 09
Noo!! No more invading countries!!
Our past intervention in countries such as Iran and Iraq is part of the reason why these countries arn't as democratic as they could be, we ruined it for them.
People are being slaughtered, this is a crime. But for us to invade, murdering many thousands more would be far worse.
The reason the US is falling in internations ratings is because it's clear to everyone that the US (and UK etc) only intervene when it benefits ourselves.
Worse things are happening in Africa yet we do little to help there.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
25 Jun 09
It is RARE you will hear me agrea with a position of the current administration (it's pretty much the same as the last one anyways), but I am in agreament with how he is handling this. I said in a thread I started that this was a PEOPLE'S movement and we should avoid any opertunity for it to be taineted by having the apearence of being an outside incited movement. I think it would be detrimental to the momentum over there right now. It would MONUMENTALY STUPID to try military action,the people of Iran would not welcome it at all and we are already stretched enough militarily. I suspect we do have cia operations in Iran right now and they are probably in contact and maybe even working with such groups in Iran already. there is much going on we don't and won't know about. But over all, I think Obama is taking the apropriate stance in this and should be carefull to not over step things.
@lelin1123 (15595)
• Puerto Rico
25 Jun 09
NO WAY should we invade! How many more of our men and woman should die for another country. We should never had attacked Iraq let alone Iran now. I think we need to mind our own business. This is part of the reason the economy is in the toilet. I want our soldiers home from Iraq and NO MORE WARS!
@ra1787 (501)
• Italy
24 Jun 09
Obama is acting in a very smart way, after all what is happening in iran is none of u.s. business, it is an iranian question, he has condemned the violences, and that is all he had to do.
A military intervention would be pure nonsense, the u.s will not win a war with iran, as they didn't win those with iraq and afghanistan (they haven't even lost them, but anyway it is very likely going to be like afghanistan and the ussr twenty years ago).
Diplomacy can solve problems, and particularly in this case an invasion would not be seen as a liberation but as an occupation.
Anyway why do we worry of human rights only in the country that are not so friendly to us?
