It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wash. Times: Obama Stands With Tyrants

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Washington Times




Dictators and demagogues can rest easy on President Obama's watch. When thousands of Iranians flooded the streets of Tehran protesting a rigged election and were beaten and shot down by pro-regime thugs, the president bided his time before making a series of noncommittal statements. He seemed to hope it would all just go away. However, when a socialist demagogue was ejected unceremoniously from Honduras on Sunday by his own government for trying to establish a presidency for life, Mr. Obama instantly sprang to his defense.


Can't argue with the facts.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by traderjack]




posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Just showing his true colors.

Where are the Obama supporters now? What is their take on this travesty?

-the last angry man-

-well, at least the last angry man in my neighborhood, or at least on my block. . . -



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I think there have been at least two threads on the subject of Obama's discretion on the matter of the Iranian election.

One major reason was if he aligned the U.S. with the protesters too closely that would just cause authorities to crack down on them even harder, calling them puppets of the west. A second reason is because the U.S. would be accused of meddling in Iranian affairs and fomenting a revolution in another country--something both the U.S.A. and the U.K. have already been charged with.

Some people think he should have said less, others think he should have said more.

There are no end to the threads that want to bash Obama's every breath, no matter what he does.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I am hardly a Obama supporter but FFS people it wouldn't hurt to show a little thought before posting . The US has a history of failing to support uprising that it has encouraged just take a look at the Cold War uprising in Hungry and the uprising in Iraq before Gulf War One . Few American hawks who wanted to smoke out the insurgents in Iraq seem to understand the nature of counter insurgency warfare and yet they continued to sprout there moronic opinions . I could go on .



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Do you feel he was right to support the Honduras pres.?



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Why are people up in arms about his non-action in regards to Iran?

He had no place and no right to say anything. That was something started by the Iranian people, that needs to end with them. If you are in a country where your government opresses you and lies to you, than you as a people must rise up and remove them.

It's not up to some foreign country who has a misguided view of democracy to usher it in. It's not democracy then. You can't voluntell anybody into something that like.

As far as Honduras goes, there was a coup, no a protest, these are two very different things. And it's a little closer to home, so obviously there would be more of a reaction.

My god, crap on this guy for doing to much, crap on him for not doing enough, I mean I don't like Obama any more than you folks do, but the man isn't the ruler of the world.

I wish people would understand that's the President of the US, and not the world, he has no business in other countries affairs unless they involve the US directly. Iran's elections and Hondura's coup do not fall within that category.

~Keeper



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
As someone who supported the Iranian uprising and spent many hours working with Iranians during the height of the chaos to get info in and out, I do not get the bashing of Obama on Iran. What the # was he supposed to do? He's the President of the United States. The United States is not Iran, nor do I want the United States involved in any way with Iran. Besides as someone who was actually involved with this and not some idiot watching Fox News, the general feeling from everyone involved was if Obama got involved many more Iranians would have died. If Obama got involved on any level more than what he did the Iranian government would've started off protesters en masse, the entire Muslim world would become sympathetic to the Iranian government (who lost a lot of face with how they handled this) and all the progress Obama has made with that nation would be destroyed.

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize and did everything I could to help the Iranians during their uprising. However, I'm an American and as an American Obama did the right thing.

You can bitch about a lot of valid things with Obama (the economy, growing the fed, continued corruption) but Obama's stance on Iran just isn't one of them. It seems like yet another weak attempt for the ridiculous right wing, who've turned into exactly what they preached against during the Bush Administration.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I don't think we should support ANY dictatorships! Including the cabal forming on the Potomac! What's at issue is this man's blatant leanings towards Marxist, Leninist, communists!

I stand by my OP. It needs to be discussed, perhaps at ad nauseam, if this Republic is to be saved!

In my lifetime, I was born in early 70s, I have watched as corportism, bureaucracy, and fascism has taken hold in this great Nation. Now, to add to these usurpations and insults this 'community organizing' thug has entered the White House and set about turning our Nation into the USSR 2.0!

Perhaps, others should think before they cast dispersions against the intents of free speech. Which is at its core to foster discussion!



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Obama has sided with the former president of Honduras who wanted absolute power. He wants the same so he sided with the would be dictator. This single event should wake the American people up and force him out.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
He's faithfully executing the united states like every other president before him has! Should not matter which side of the fence you're on.
Unless you're brain dead about our nations troubles both short term
and long term.
This planned destruction was initiated long before obama.
Or even before the other decider, bush.
'Smoothest transition in history' should be one clue.
The bailout/giveaways should be another.
Yes, done under bush as well as obama!
You'all are too late, enjoy the ride in the
land of the greed, home of the 'fraid!
Whawhazat??? Oh, nevermind its nothing.

Its all just a game being played on YOU,
made to seem like you are the only one that knows the rules.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The USA has made the world a lot less safer by interfering and meddling in other countries affairs. Look at Iraq.
Obama is not the policeman of the World, the USA like the UK has enough problems of its own.

The Bush vote was flawed did other countries interfere?

We need peace in the Middle East meddling in Iranian affairs would have the opposite effect and stir up a tinder box



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderjack
I don't think we should support ANY dictatorships!


Who said he is? Your basing this on the fact he doesnt "do something" in the situation of Iran to which other members stated it clearly, its not our business. Your blaming him for Honduras when nobody actually knows the situation there, like it or not the Honduran president was unconstitutionally removed from his position speculation aside. There are still millions of Hondurans who support him, and yet you shut them out and take sides? the side of a military coup might I add? What is this suppose to be somehow more democratic?

The american president has little influence over the going on in Iran, and dont give me that NWO CIA garbage, go post that somewhere else, we are discussing reality here. You expect the man to side with the protestors then what? Does the current regime run away in fear? This regime is waiting for any sign of american interference, government wise, to push their propaganda. You know the current president in Iran now wants to "talk"? Because his excuses are not working anymore. Whether we like or not this regime is going to be in for a while, and if we have any hope of cooperation in the case of nuclear development our government should be shown as acting as an observer, a neutral figure of peace. We dont elect our government to police the world, we elect our government officials to govern. While the american people should stand up for freedom of speech besides the Iranian people, our government should stay out.



What's at issue is this man's blatant leanings towards Marxist, Leninist, communists!


Do you know how outdated this "socialist" "stalinist" talk is? It shows me how wedged the core conservative are in the past. If it was up to the bushies and the Palinites we would be back in the 50s, but Im sorry, its the 21st century, for petes sakes move on. I can tell you right now with all the talk of how bad "money distribution is" these conservatives wouldnt last a day in this nation without such a system. Its all talk, no seriousness. Take out every form of socialism, your ending taxes, your ending cashflow through the nation, and in turn you'll be complaing about that pothole in your road that wont be fixed by the city when it'd be common sense to figure out why.

We dont live in the 1960s anymore, we live in the 21st century. Move along.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzylizzy
 


Good point! Thats the first thing I thought when I heard about the
iranian uprising, they learn quick!

They found out it has a long history of success here!
Just wanted to post that tidbit somewhere.
Whats good for the goose......

Btw, the iranians stood up, they didnt bend over further and have tea.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderjack
Washington Times




Dictators and demagogues can rest easy on President Obama's watch. When thousands of Iranians flooded the streets of Tehran protesting a rigged election and were beaten and shot down by pro-regime thugs, the president bided his time before making a series of noncommittal statements. He seemed to hope it would all just go away. However, when a socialist demagogue was ejected unceremoniously from Honduras on Sunday by his own government for trying to establish a presidency for life, Mr. Obama instantly sprang to his defense.


Can't argue with the facts.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by traderjack]


Now we see what "hope" means. This is even better than the "man from Hope, Arkansas"


Yep, smiling laughing faces from me. Idiots in Chief. It never ends, does it?



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


How do you think Honduras president was removed in a coup? The military acted on the authority of its congress and supreme court! Let put things in perspective. The president tries to circumvent his countries constitution with help from a foreign leader. He is told by the other branches of his government it is unconstitutional and goes ahead anyway! The issue everyone seems to forget is Chavez was democratically elected but decided his term was not good enough. So he took over, remember all the attempted "coups" Venezuala had? When another leader in south america needs help to stay in power they call up Chavez? Obama is condemming a country that was being betrayed by it's own leader? That sets quite a precedent! I see too many people throwing coup around like they really know what the term means. The military did not seize power they acted on government authority the only mistake they made was not killing the man. Now the UN and that little group of dictators in South America are going to push what they feel is legal and right on Honduras.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
How do you think Honduras president was removed in a coup? The military acted on the authority of its congress and supreme court!


Because we all know congress and the supreme court have the authority over the people right? We dont just bash our own congress and supreme court 24/7 here? Do you know how much of a percentage the poor make out of the entire population of Honduras? The president is still highly supported among them. Now Im not taking sides here, but for people here to just shut down one part of the country, the will of the people, and then assume the politicians there were acting honestly on behalf of the overall consensus Honduras is niave at best.

It appears that if this is anything to do with a leftwing government where there is an issue, conservatives automatically jump on the bandwagon and take sides with the issue of the opposition they dont completely know the agendas of, but when it is a rightwing government who gives a damn right? This isnt really about the will of the people, this has just as much to do with promoting ones ideological agenda. I recall the protests against the national government of south africa during the 80s, reagan and his conservative minions couldnt give a damn.


Let put things in perspective. The president tries to circumvent his countries constitution with help from a foreign leader. He is told by the other branches of his government it is unconstitutional


Other branches of his government? Thus automatically makes those other brances correct? I notice your trying to justify the actions of other politicians in that nation, not necessarily the will of the people. How can you talk? Do you know the constitution of Honduras? Do you live there? It appears your just jumping to one side on the bases of what other politicians said.


The issue everyone seems to forget is Chavez was democratically elected but decided his term was not good enough. So he took over, remember all the attempted "coups" Venezuala had? When another leader in south america needs help to stay in power they call up Chavez? Obama is condemming a country that was being betrayed by it's own leader?


Just because Chavez sides with the current president of Honduras doesnt mean president Obama is siding with Chavez. But really thanks for the "guilty by association" excuse, it shows me where your taking your sides on the matter.

This isnt about Venezuala and their undemocratic situation, we are talking about the ousting of the current honduran president based on what other politicians in that nation say, so essence we are taking the other politicians for their words, not looking to the people, not looking to both sides of the matter. Cowboy politics I call it, it failed the last 8years and it will be the end of us if we continue. This situation doesnt call for "jumping the gun", it calls for mediation and an assesment of both sides. You cannot just take the words of the other politicians, assume they have no agenda, and decide thats that.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Jesus its sad when people jump on a bandwagon without reading both sides. How is asking the people to state their opinion on whether a new constitution should be written "seizing absolute power"?? Even if they voted for it, the referrendum wouldnt be until he was out of office anyhow. Further, Their current constitution was enacted during the end of the reign of a rightist dictator that was put into power by western support.

Almost every single western european nation, as well as US and canada, all have the right for their leaders to serve multiple times...this hardly gives them "absolute power". On the other hand, nations limited to single terms keep the power balanced more towards the corporations and military, who are often long term or permanent, while leaders limited to single terms can do very little to help the people against this power bloc.

As with Hugo Chavez, who was reinstated by a MAJORITY POPULIST MOVEMENT after a western coup, i imagine the people in Honduras will succeed in reinstalling Zaleya.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


How is it that Stalinism, Leninism, and Communism are outdated? You need to wake up and see what 'wealth redistribution' really is. It is not the haves vs have nots, but those who work hard and achieve being punished by those who haven neither the faculty nor drive to do either.

Communism, as does socialism and liberalism, rewards group think, laziness, and conformism. And as we all know, that's what made the USSR so great! Just look at liberal states, California, taxed into oblivion and overrun with illegal aliens because of what? Their willingness to support them with government remuneration. Massachusetts, liberal elitists in the countryside, while Boston is a cesspool of violence, drugs, and economic despair. Need I got further? I can.

Oh and I am no neo-con. I support gay marriage (well, I just don't care actually), I am pro marijuana, and believe in sound, strong, wildlife conservation. So, spare me the indignant references to Palin and whatever nitwits the MSM tries to use to burn conservative and "right wingers".



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderjack
How is it that Stalinism, Leninism, and Communism are outdated?


Sorry is stalin still alive? Are we still fighting against the soviet Union? For many conservative folk the cold war was a wonderful time for cowboy politics, it just isnt that way anymore.


You need to wake up and see what 'wealth redistribution' really is.


What is it? Money that goes into this nation? Yes what a wonderful nation we would live in without anybodies money being distributed among these United states. I mean who cares? The military and its $500 billion expenditure can source that money on the backs of corporate wars right? Who cares about the roads? Let the rich volunteer to pay for it, Im sure they will. Who cares about paying our teachers, building that bridge, they should source their own money. Wealth distribution is just such an evil thing. You know skip that, I would just love to see somebody like you get elected into office. If it means this nation has to go through another hell hole let it be if you people have to get another reality check.


Communism, as does socialism and liberalism, rewards group think, laziness, and conformism.


And hows that? For the working class american who cant afford health insurance or is cheated by the very company who wont fund his life threatening cancer due to some loop hole, his just lazy? Yes just free the market right, let the speculators for oil roam free to push the prices of fuel beyond what a family income can afford right? You mean the last 8years of disasterous rightwing policies had nothing to do with the rightwing?

As far as I can see it, time and time again rightwing policies have only shown use the cover of tax cuts and behind it skyrocketing debt and corporations to rape the people of their hard earned money, to cheat the system. As for liberalism, I have seen much better, and as for this administration, with all the talk of how "liberalism cannot work" this administration still has much of its 8years to be continue to. All talk by the rightwing, but we have already had 8years of rightwing garbage to pull this nation down.


USSR so great!


The USSR doesnt exist anymore. We live in the 21st century, get your mind out of that era. 21st century issues, 21st century solutions. We had 8years of rightwingers run amuck. I hardly think that ideology has anymore credibility to talk.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Gee whizskers! Here, this explains it nicely:


Oops potty talk warning! Kiddies ski- daddle please, thanks!



[edit on 5-7-2009 by dodadoom]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join