Obama Tells Iran to Stop All Violent and Unjust Actions

After much violence in Iran, Obama issued this forceful statement:

“The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.”

Now that he has taken this powerful, bold stand against the violence, it will finally come to an end.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 01:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 30 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Hary

    Obama, praise be his name.
    Obama, He Who Must be Obeyed.
    Obama, He Who will Bring Back Respect and Honor to America from our Enemies.

    Iran will now bow down before America (The Great Satan) and obey because Obama has spoken.

  • eagle eye

    Since the United States has very little power to direct things its way in Iran, unless we’re ready to go to war and take over that country (which we probably do not have the capability to carry out); and since we have shown time and again how inept we are in that part of the world (Iran 1954; Iran 1979; Iraq 2003-); and since anything we do is likely to have the opposite of the intended effect, then maybe it’s best to wish the Iranian people the best, and stay out of it.

    • valley person

      Yep. A little prudence in foreign policy in that part of the world is overdue, all Jerry’s snarkiness aside.

      Eagle could have added America’s support for Saddam Hussein against the Iranians in the 1980s to his list.

      Its not our job to direct other people’s revolutions. If the Iranian people want to be free of their Mullacracy, its up to them, as it was for the Russians to oust their rulers, and as it was for us to oust the British way back in the day, and as it was for us to fight our own civil war and settle the slavery issue. Standing back (for now) is the right thing to do.

      • eagle eye

        Actually, if I thought we knew what we were doing, and were up to doing it, I would have a different attitude. Like Poland and Germany at the end of the Cold War, Reagan played that beautifully. Like Gulf War I. I think we played the cards right with Iraq/Iran, too, the right choice between bad choices.

        It might be best (for us) if there is regime change in Iran, it wouldn’t make much immediate change — there’d still be an Islamist government — but it might lead to change in the long run.

        Only, there is little we can do to bring this about, and probably a lot we could do to help mess it up. Not that the prospects are good in any case.

        • valley person

          The Soviet system was collapsing and Reagan pretty much stood back and let it happen. As did Bush after him. What this proved was that totalitarian systems should be contained, but we shouldn’t fight wars with them unless we have to. Iran is less than totalitarian, but it is an unsustainable system once the people there stand up to the Mullahs, which they are now doing. In fact, I think this is also showing that Islamic rule in general is not viable in a modern world, and we ought to have less fear of it and work at containing rather than defeating it. It will defeat itself given enough rope.

          I don’t have much question that the milder Mullahs will be better than the zealot Mullahs if this pans out. I also think there is very little we can do to influence the outcome in the short run. If anything, the more we poke our noses in the more we seem to make the crazies hold on tighter.

          I actually think the prospecs in Iran are pretty good, though the change may take months rather than days. And there will be some blood shed before this is over. No need to make it American blood.

          • eagle eye

            Nonsense about Reagan. Very, very few people saw what would happen to the Soviet Union if it was pushed. Reagan (and the Pope and Thatcher and Daniel Moynihan) did. Respectable people just laughed, literally laughed at Reagan when he talked about communism going into the ash heap of history. I was there, I saw and heard it.

            Your story is just revisionism, pure and simple. It’s not surprising that there was a lot of embarrassment when Reagan turned out to be right.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >The Soviet system was collapsing and Reagan pretty much stood back and let it happen.

            Zounds, what revisionism.

            Hmm, let’s see, prior to Reagan we had the soviets invading Afghanistan with Carter starting selective service registration as a prelude to getting us involved in the conflict. The Soviet military was on the move and our military was decimated. We could only get a fraction of our airplanes in the air, and getting three helicopters into Iran proved and impossibility. Desert One ( look it up ) shook the nation to its core. The Soviet Unions military seemed to be moving around with impunity, yet we couldn’t get a sack load of helicopters air worthy enough to make it to Iran.

            Um – Oh wait, and then we had Soviets moving into Central America and Grenada. Further expansionism.

            Oh and gee, what else?

            Well, lets remember way back when Lech Walesa got “Solidarity” going, the Pope giving it his blessing was pretty crucial. We were on the sidelines.

            That is until Reagan gave his famous Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall” speech. The left was scared to death. “Oh my god, better not offend the Soviets”. Same with the evil empire speech. Reagan called the Soviet system what it was, evil and murderous. The importance of that cannot be underestimated.

            To say Reagan simply stood by and let it happen is probably the utmost in history revisionism. His presence was crucial to the USSR’s fall. It simply strains credulity that a nation as expansionist as the USSR was in the administration immediately prior was cowed into submission during the Reagan years, and his posture of defiance rather than submission and his military build up were simply coincidental to the event.

          • valley person

            “Um – Oh wait, and then we had Soviets moving into Central America and Grenada. ”

            They did? Well if you count the Sandanistas and Cuban construction workers as “Soviets,” I guess this could be true.

            “Well, lets remember way back when Lech Walesa got “Solidarity” going, the Pope giving it his blessing was pretty crucial. We were on the sidelines.”

            Yes. We were on the sidelines, and that means the Reagan administration was on the sidelines, because the crackdown on Solidarity happened while Reagan was president, and lasted through his full 2 terms.

            And Reagan did the right thing by staying on the sidelines, as history has shown when in the end the communists collapsed of their own dead weight without us firing a shot.

            “Same with the evil empire speech. Reagan called the Soviet system what it was, evil and murderous. The importance of that cannot be underestimated.”

            American political leaders had been calling the Soviets totalitarian, evil, murderous and so forth since the days of Stalin. Reagan was the last, not the first. Kennedy was ready to blow the damn world up in 1963 over the Cuban missiles, which in retrospect would have been a shame don’t you think?

            Look, you can believe that the Soviet empire crumbled almost overnight due to Ronald Reagan’s mere words. And if you believe that then you can draw the conclusion that harsh words from Obama would cause the Mullahs to go back to their Mosques (ignoring Bush’s use harsh words for 8 years). But I believe that the Soviet empire died because it could not keep up with the innovation of the free west, and that Iran will change for the same reason. Our words matter little one way or the other. Our active containment of expansionist regimes does matter, as does our holding ourselves to high standards.

          • eagle eye

            Of course it wasn’t just words, it was financial and military support for those resisting the Soviet Union, plus the Reagan military buildup.

            But if you think the words didn’t matter, read what Soviet dissidents had to say. Or talk to some of my Russian emigre friends, who lived through it — in Russia. They will set you straight.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Let’s face it, if Reagan had done the exact same things in office, but simply had a D after his name, you would be lauding him Dean. Look, you seem to be a guy thinks Cuba had nothing to do with the Soviets, so its sort of ridiculous to engage someone who is as partisan as you are.

            Then again, this is the same guy who excuses race riots, so long as they are started by Democrats. That tells one the reality level one is dealing with here.

      • Anonymous

        It will be interesting to see if you feel the same way when it happens in your country

  • Voter

    The Rassmussen poll has Obama’s approval index at -2.

    53-46 approval over non-approval, he may be testing the Bush lows with in the year. Hearing that should increase the paranoia that he seems to suffer from.

    • eagle eye

      Let’s hope you’re right. He is on the verge of doing great and irreparable damage to the country, the world. Perhaps if his popularity craters soon enough, people will come to their senses before it’s too late.

  • eagle eye

    Here’s someone who really is telling it straight on Iran. Fantastic!

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184896019&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I love how Obama’s teleprompter can change direction with the winds of the day like its no big deal. Its as if there is absolutely no concept of how inconsistency can be seen as indecisiveness. That perception of indecisiveness can quickly be perceived as weakness.

    Apparently I was wrong about the phase hope and change. I took it to mean something different than changing ones mind the instant things get dicey and hoping they get better.

    Why it seems like just a week ago we were hearing so much about his Muslim-ness, and how it really was great to not meddle, just be hands off with Iran. That was a really good idea. Of course the same didn’t attend to Israel. There we could meddle all we want. Now I guess we can meddle with Iran as well.

    Interesting how this time, Obama’s teleprompter flip flopping has somehow resulted in a policy that at least is consistent, although now laughable. When an oppressive dictatorial regime hears things will be hands off, only an idiot is surprised when the killing begins if protest break out.

    Obama has put much weight on talking things out with thugs and tyrants. One would think the administration would at least get its act together on what it has to say.

    Unless I miss my guess, the teleprompter is having a stern talking to in the woodshed right about now.

    • valley person

      “Of course the same didn’t attend to Israel. There we could meddle all we want. ”

      Hardly. Calling attention to the Israelis continuing to build illegal settlements while we still hand them $4 billion a year not counting new military hardware is not much meddling. We don’t even have an embassy with Iran, and we don’t allow much “free trade” with them. We helped overthrow a previous government of theirs, and we aided Saddam in a war against them. Be happy Obama is not carrying on the Reagan tradition of trading arms to the Mullahs.

      “When an oppressive dictatorial regime hears things will be hands off, only an idiot is surprised when the killing begins if protest break out.”

      Your alternative is what? Empty threats? Tsk tsk? We are outraged? Would any of this make a whit of difference other than making it even harder for the opposition to eventually succeed?

      And your reference to the teleprompter is nothing short of petty. How many unscripted interviews and press conferences has Obama already given in comparison with Bush?

      • eagle eye

        When the Arabs and Iranians quit threatening quite literally to wipe Israel and the Jews off the map, come back with your complaints about the so-called illegal Israeli settlements.

        Better yet, the Arabs could easily have a good peace deal with Israel, if they would only change their minds.

  • Jerry

    Well, if you listen to ANY of the unscripted ones then you have to endure an endless amount of ums and ahs and stops and stutters.
    Endless.

    • valley person

      Gee Jerry…should we dock him points for this habit? Let’s see, if he uses a teleprompter to give a prepared talk, that is bad, even though presidents have done so since Kennedy. If pauses to collect his thoughts and think about what he will say before he says it and says “um,” that is bad as well. And the point of all this is what exactly? To prove that he is not smart enough for the job?

      • eagle eye

        No, he’s not all that smart. (If his SATs or LSATs were all that great, we’d know about it, for sure.)

        Remember all the jokes about how stupid Bush was? Well, Obama comes across as just as much a dolt. He’s not actually all that articulate. Without the prompter, he sounds like a dummy. But the press isn’t constantly ridiculing his obvious lack of wits. It’s the double standard that they always use. Except when some of them are talking about how he is “God”, then there are not standards at all.

        • Jerry

          Thanks Eagle. You are right on!
          And, yes, Valley, if someone can’t talk there is trouble. What has this guy fixed? Nothing. What has he done? Nothing except harm to our economy. Did his auto bail outs work? NO. Are we out of Iraq? Do we really want Gitmo prisoners here? At your house?
          Face it. He is all teleprompter and no cattle.

          • valley person

            “And, yes, Valley, if someone can’t talk there is trouble. What has this guy fixed? Nothing. What has he done? Nothing except harm to our economy.”

            Can’t talk? You have to be joking. This is a guy who has gotten to where he gotten to on his ability to talk. You just don’t like what he has to say.

            What has he fixed in his first 6 months? Well it appears he prevented the entire US economy from sinking into a 2nd Great Depression. He appears to have gotten Pakistan to finally take on the Taliban directly. He saved hundreds of thousands of US auto manufacturing related jobs, at least for a while. The banks he bailed out are now paying back the money they borrowed to stay afloat with interest. And he is on the verge of getting Congress to pass the largest reform of our health care system since Medicare, one of the most popular programs in the country by the way.

            Harmed the economy? Nearly every major economic indicator (except for unemployment) is now pointing up Jerry. Give the guy a little bit of credit.

        • valley person

          He edited the Harvard Law review, graduated Magna cum laude, and taught constitutional law at University of Chicago. He wrote 2 books (all by himself,) and managed to get elected president despite a ridiculous name, less than 1 term in the US Senate, and no Rolodex from his dad. If he was above average intelligence, who knows how far this guy might have gotten?

          Yes, I know the jokes about Bush. He was clearly not as dumb as many liked to believe, but I don’t think Bush is on the same intellectual plane as Obama. Bush was smart enough to get elected and dumb (and stubborn) enough to get us into a very deep hole that will take years and some good luck to climb out of. If Obama manages to lead us out of the hole, he will be a genius.

          • eagle eye

            What were his SAT and LSAT scores? How much affirmative action did he get? You sure he wrote his books on his own?

          • valley person

            I don’t know what his admission scores were. I assume since he is African-American and was the child of a single mom he got some affirmative action consideration in his admissions. But who cares? Once he was in he did the work, got the grades, graduated with honors (which have no provision for AA) and has done reasonably well since then by any measure.

            Am I sure he wrote his books by himself? I’m with Descartes and I’m never sure of anything. But his books have him and only him listed as the author. His first book was published when he was in his early 30s, and he was not exactly a famous person or one anybody would identify as a future Senator or President. Why would we conclude that he paid a ghost writer when he had no money back then.Why wouldn’t that ghost writer step up since then and claim his fame?

            It seems beneath you to dip into conspiracy theory territory Eagle.

            You may disagree with his politics and his policies, but trying to make a case this guy lacks high intelligence is an uphill push. Objectively he appears to be pretty dang smart on a number of levels.

            I don’t know if you ever read his early memoir. Try a chapter or 2 and then tell me this guy is not a bona fide intellectual.

          • eagle eye

            You’re the one who’s getting into conspiracy theory, I never mentioned it. You think everyone in public life who has had a book ghostwritten (or co-written) is part of a conspiracy? Then there are a lot of conspirators, I’ll grant you.

            He wrote his first book after getting massive national attention (as head of the Harvard Law review). He would have had many, many people eager to help forward his career at that point.

            I’ve never read any of his books because I’ve never found the prospect particularly interesting.

            Again, if his SATs and LSATs were especially high, we would know about it by now. Are his SATs high enough to put him at the level of George W. Bush or Al Gore (whose scores became quite public)? I don’t know.

            I don’t care all that much how intelligent he really is, except for the media gushing about how smart he is, which I think is nonsense; and also the abuse that George W. Bush took, from same media, about his supposed lack of intelligence.

            Oh, and I haven’t forgotten how Ronald Reagan got the same treatment.

      • dian

        I don’t have so much a problem with the teleprompter as I do with the fact it isn’t his speech. Somebody put words in his mouth. He’s the same puppet for his prompter and the congress is for him. He’s an evil man.

  • Anonymous

    “I don’t think Bush is on the same intellectual plane as Obama. ”

    W appreciates the compliment.

  • Anonymous

    “Except when some of them are talking about how he is “God”, then there are not standards at all.”

    ===

    Harry, repeated:

    Obama, praise be his name.
    Obama, He Who Must be Obeyed.
    Obama, He Who will Bring Back Respect and Honor to America from our Enemies.

    Iran will now bow down before America (The Great Satan) and obey because Obama has spoken.

  • Jerry

    Yes, Iran has certainly listened to the Obama requests. Nice to see how much has changed since his election. He is truly a great, great man.
    And very smart, too.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)