KWhite
P. 4
Obama's position on Iran is, "Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."(Chicago Sun Times) He believes that Iran is a threat to us and if there is a threat then he is saying that he isn’t afraid to take it out by force. He is also saying here that all though war with Iran might not be his first choice it is still in his arsenal to use if need be. He feels that Iran is a threat and that the nuclear program that they are building is a threat. "Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive."(New York Times) Obama's Position on Iran makes people unsure if they want to vote for him. "Security experts in August, he played out a harrowing crisis situation involving Iran and concluded afterward that “much though I’m attracted to the freshness of Obama’s life story, I would come out on the experience side of it” — that is, on Clinton’s side. This is Obama’s problem in a nutshell. Democratic voters seem to be torn between the hope of reshaping a frightening world and the fear of being terribly vulnerable to that world. Perhaps Obama’s inability so far to make a dent in Clinton’s 20-point (or more) lead in the polls proves that many believe he’s on the wrong side of that balance." (New York Times) He feels that Iran is a threat and that they shouldn't be rewarded with benefits but that it is time to take action. "In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops. Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns. But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations. Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees." (Sun times) Obama wants to make it clear that he is not going to take these actions just for the sake of starting a war but he wants a significant change in the way the country is conducting it self. “We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.” In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions. The suggestion, which emerged as a flash point in the campaign, has prompted Mrs. Clinton to question whether such an approach would amount to little more than a propaganda victory for the United States’ adversaries and to question the experience of Mr. Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois. Other Democrats, in turn, have criticized Mrs. Clinton for an approach to Iran they call too hawkish, including a vote for a nonbinding resolution describing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran as a terrorist organization. Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran also differs significantly from the Bush administration’s approach.
Many Americans support the idea of going to war with Iran, "According to a new Zogby, poll 52% of Americans support going to was with Iran. However, we must ask ourselves is this an accurate representation of the populace of the United States, or is this poll possibly skewed to promote the idea of a new war." (Zogby News) But some people still think that war is too drastic of a position to take. They say that Iran is peaceful and that there is no reason for war to happen between the United States and Iran, "The point I’m trying to make, though, is that the hostility between Iran and the U.S. since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interests in common with Iran’s people. And I am not the only one to notice that." (Thomas L. Friedman) But then there are still the views of most of American citizens. "You appear to overlook the fact that Iran, as a non-Arab nation, holds little sway over its Arab neighbors. Sure, they accept money from Iran and share a common religion — at least superficially, as your column makes clear — but would they actually be willing to follow Iran as a leader state? While continuing to alienate Iran is a bad strategy for the U.S., given how much they spend trying to influence their neighbors, only by winning the Saudis to our side can we hope the rest of the Arab world will come along." (Ed Ruthazer, Montreal)
P. 4
Obama's position on Iran is, "Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."(Chicago Sun Times) He believes that Iran is a threat to us and if there is a threat then he is saying that he isn’t afraid to take it out by force. He is also saying here that all though war with Iran might not be his first choice it is still in his arsenal to use if need be. He feels that Iran is a threat and that the nuclear program that they are building is a threat. "Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive."(New York Times) Obama's Position on Iran makes people unsure if they want to vote for him. "Security experts in August, he played out a harrowing crisis situation involving Iran and concluded afterward that “much though I’m attracted to the freshness of Obama’s life story, I would come out on the experience side of it” — that is, on Clinton’s side. This is Obama’s problem in a nutshell. Democratic voters seem to be torn between the hope of reshaping a frightening world and the fear of being terribly vulnerable to that world. Perhaps Obama’s inability so far to make a dent in Clinton’s 20-point (or more) lead in the polls proves that many believe he’s on the wrong side of that balance." (New York Times) He feels that Iran is a threat and that they shouldn't be rewarded with benefits but that it is time to take action. "In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops. Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns. But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations. Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees." (Sun times) Obama wants to make it clear that he is not going to take these actions just for the sake of starting a war but he wants a significant change in the way the country is conducting it self. “We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.” In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions. The suggestion, which emerged as a flash point in the campaign, has prompted Mrs. Clinton to question whether such an approach would amount to little more than a propaganda victory for the United States’ adversaries and to question the experience of Mr. Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois. Other Democrats, in turn, have criticized Mrs. Clinton for an approach to Iran they call too hawkish, including a vote for a nonbinding resolution describing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran as a terrorist organization. Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran also differs significantly from the Bush administration’s approach.
Many Americans support the idea of going to war with Iran, "According to a new Zogby, poll 52% of Americans support going to was with Iran. However, we must ask ourselves is this an accurate representation of the populace of the United States, or is this poll possibly skewed to promote the idea of a new war." (Zogby News) But some people still think that war is too drastic of a position to take. They say that Iran is peaceful and that there is no reason for war to happen between the United States and Iran, "The point I’m trying to make, though, is that the hostility between Iran and the U.S. since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interests in common with Iran’s people. And I am not the only one to notice that." (Thomas L. Friedman) But then there are still the views of most of American citizens. "You appear to overlook the fact that Iran, as a non-Arab nation, holds little sway over its Arab neighbors. Sure, they accept money from Iran and share a common religion — at least superficially, as your column makes clear — but would they actually be willing to follow Iran as a leader state? While continuing to alienate Iran is a bad strategy for the U.S., given how much they spend trying to influence their neighbors, only by winning the Saudis to our side can we hope the rest of the Arab world will come along." (Ed Ruthazer, Montreal)
Works Cited:
No comments:
Post a Comment