Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Politics

Poll | 06/23/2009 11:00 pm

Should the U.S. be more involved in the election aftermath in Iran?

Read more about: Barack Obama, Elections, Iran, Politics

60 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

James the Game

Not yet. As Obama said at Tuesday’s newser, let’s see how it plays out. He’s decried the violence, and said the Iranian govt’s brutality and reaction has been outside of internationally accepted norms. But we don’t need to be blamed or drawn into what could become a civil war.

But if Iran’s rulers keep bloodying up people, maybe, eventually, we should partake in an international coalition that might assist the insurgency. Who wouldn’t like to see that murderer, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, bounced out of power?

By James the Game on 06/24/2009 12:42 am
S G
International coalition and diplomacy absolutly James:)
By S G on 06/24/2009 8:39 am
DeBúrca obj
I think it would be better to let the EU and the UN put the pressure on. Our history with Iran prevents us from being able to do anything constructive. Countries in the EU still have embassies over there and do not have our baggage.
By DeBúrca obj on 06/25/2009 8:51 am
L. C.

James Gemmell

I agree with you 100%. There should be an international coalition.  This international coalition must consist of all Freedom Loving Nations speakiing in one united voice!

By L. C. on 06/25/2009 9:00 am
James the Game
Right, L.C. We saw what Bush’s bull-in-the-china-shop brought: hatred for America throughout the world
By James the Game on 06/25/2009 9:50 am
canuck canuck
I think the very least Obama can do is uninvite the officials from Iran he ordered invites be sent to for our July 4 celebrations in embassies around the world. They obviously know nothing about freedon …. Does not matter who ends up in power = the other guy is the one who started the nuclear program in Iran when he was Prime Minister a few years ago so one is just as bad as the other….
By canuck canuck on 06/24/2009 1:08 am
Mary Quite-Contrary

Spot on CC.  The July Fourth invitations should be rescinded…in view of the fact that Iran does not support any sort of Independance or Freedom in their population.  Period.  No photo ops for either side. 

I have to wonder how the dismantling of some of our Intel operations figures into this?  Didn’t Obama proudly proclaim (whilst answering a tough question…finally!!!  thanks to Major Garrett of Fox and (surprisingly) Chuck Todd (NBC—miffed that ABC gets the Obama HealthCareLovefest?) there would be no suspicion of CIA involvement???  I found that statement an odd interjection.

By Mary Quite-Contrary on 06/24/2009 8:57 am
f p
The ambassadors from Iran have been uninvited.
By f p on 06/25/2009 6:29 am
Andrea Brandon

I agree with canuck canuck. I don’t want Iranians who support the current legislative regime on our soil.

While I don’t believe we should send an Army to Iran, I definitely feel that BO should step away from his damned teleprompter and issue a heart felt statement about our support for the protesters. This is what these people need - to know that others are watching and are supporting their efforts.

I’d love to see the Prince’s son, who’s not allowed back on Iranian soil, run the country.

By Andrea Brandon on 06/24/2009 2:08 am
phyllis Doyle Pepe
Andrea, did you watch the news conference yesterday? Our President answered questions from the press in depth––no teleprompter. And speaking of teleprompters––what is it with this fixation? When people give speeches, they usually have notes or teleprompters. Our President also expressed heartfelt feelings re: the protesters. He is doing exactly what needs to be done. 
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 06/24/2009 9:04 am
Andrea Brandon

Phyllis,

I had not heard the speech. I have just now acquired a transcript. The words don’t impart any feeling one way or another to me. Just statements. But like I said, I did not listen to his speech so I have no way of knowing whether it was heart-felt.

By Andrea Brandon on 06/24/2009 1:49 pm
canuck canuck
He also did not like the question the reporters rom Fox and a couple of other places asked him and showed that he has a temper. As well the last question he recieved was pre-selected by his office so no surprise there.
By canuck canuck on 06/24/2009 1:49 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
If one was watching this and listening to it and could put oneself in the President’s shoes it was commendable that he handled it as well as he did. Temper? I was screaming at some of these reporters who were asking the same questions that he had already answered––in his initial remarks and to others. I think of all the shit he has to put up with day after day and then stand up there and have to answer inane questions––not all, of course. Let’s think about what a president has to deal with, both foreign and domestic, then ask yourself how you’d react when some jerk asks a smart ass question. I don’t think I could laugh and take it in stride as well as Obama.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 06/24/2009 5:37 pm
C jay
Ditto, Phyllis - but those who have no eyes, will not see; no ears, will not hear … etc.
By C jay on 06/24/2009 11:08 pm
DeBúrca obj
phyllis… when you are a dying party that just had 8 years of power wasted on a destructive imbecile, what more can you do but go after petty things like teleprompters?
By DeBúrca obj on 06/25/2009 8:53 am
1234next ›last »