Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Do you agree or disagree with how President Obama is handling the situation in Iran?

By Howard B. Owens
Andrew Erbell

Before you form an opinion about this question you might want to read today's NRO. It will explain his actions of late, and likely make you pretty angry.

Jun 24, 2009, 8:47am Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Since when did the President's actual actions equal talking points? So, despite the long-standing US Policy dictating otherwise, negotiating with terrorists is okay by you? You're fine with releasing enemy combatants in exchange for hostages? You'd make a fine CEO of a cargo ship line that travels off the coast of Somalia.

Jun 24, 2009, 9:23am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Andrew Erbell on June 24, 2009 - 9:23am
Since when did the President's actual actions equal talking points.

The talking point is in the link I sent you. I take it you agree that Obama is Hitler reincarnated.
Your reference, not your opinion, is what concerned me. If you want people to read fair and unbiased, then find a reference that is. NRO is hardly the site that offers that.
Your have a right to your opinion as would anyone, but to try to sway another by using that as a reference is a stretch.

Jun 24, 2009, 9:45am Permalink
Andrew Erbell

I'll simplify it for you Bea.

"Even as the mullahs are terrorizing the Iranian people, the Obama administration is negotiating with an Iranian-backed terrorist organization and abandoning the American proscription against exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages kidnapped by terrorists. Worse still, Obama has already released a terrorist responsible for the brutal murders of five American soldiers in exchange for the remains of two deceased British hostages."

Is this acceptable to you or not? Where is the "talking point" in that paragraph, exactly?

Jun 24, 2009, 9:55am Permalink
Karen Miconi

I think Obama truely cares about the people, not himself and his crownies. Andy, your just a hardheaded Republican, who likes to bash Obama. The way Bush was handling things was only leading to a 3rd world war. He could care less about us. He was the Anti- Christ, not Obama. He's making an honest effort to fix the economy, and pushing for world peace. I say thank God we have someone like him, thats not sitting on his *ss at the ranch, hunting with his buddies.

Jun 24, 2009, 10:42am Permalink
Andrew Erbell

1. I'm a staunch Evangelical Conservative, not a Republican.

2. Being that this site is by and large about local issues, I don't recall posting much at all regarding my thoughts about our current President and as I was never a huge fan of the previous President either, I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion I'm an Obama Bashing GWB Fan.

3. You may want to re-think your analogy about GWB being the anti-Christ. Who exactly was he deceiving as a smooth talking, loved by all, magnanimous World Leader during his eight years as President?

Jun 24, 2009, 11:05am Permalink
Karen Miconi

GWB ruined our economy in the U.S, and sat on his hands as our soldiers dropped like flys on his orders. He could have done a better job if he would have stopped listening to the warmongers, and stood up for what was right. In his 8 years he didnt make friends, he made enemies. Now we expect Obama to fix everything, and he is, slowely, and carefully. I respect your belief in God, as I share that with you, and hope we can unite the world in peace.
Yes Peter, did you see my article on North Korea? They have to be stopped, and I am terrified they will shoot a missle off at us on the 4th of July. This guy{ Kim Jong Ill} is a hardcore warmonger. Im interested in all your opinions on this topic, as Im just a girl in the world, and dont know much about polotics and such.

Jun 24, 2009, 11:29am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Wow that is the most ignorant post I have read all year.

Bush won in Iraq. He switched the General in charge to Patreaus. Nevermind that Bush ,et his original goal in Iraq in under 90 days. There were two wars in Iraq during his Presidency. If we are to believe that Saddam and Al Quesadilla weren't allied, then we can't have fought just one war. You can't fight one war against 2 unallied enemies. The first war in Iraq was against Saddam and his regime. The second started when Al Quesadilla invaded the territory occupied by the US and attacked us. That was the Battle of Iraq in the War on Terrorism.

Bush's strategy in Iraq is the same one Obama wants to use in Afghanistan.

Bush's tax cuts led us to the most profitable time in U.S. History.

Liberal policies led us to the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac disaster. Bush warned that reform must be accomplished as late as 6 months before they collapsed.

Because of Freddie Mack and Fanie Mae, banks had a huge amount of loans they knew were junk. So doing what banks do, they found a way to make money on junk loans. They bundled and sold them. Some people like AIG took the risk that most of those bundled loans would payout. When that didn't happen they took a huge hit.

Bush made a mistake when he started bailouts. But what has Obama done differently that makes him better? Bush bailed out AIG. Obama sent them more money. Following that example Obama bailed out Chrysler and GM. They still both fell into bankruptcy.

Now that is change I can believe in.

Jun 24, 2009, 11:31am Permalink
bud prevost

Bottom line....the federal government is sinking under the weight of it's own programs. I don't blame just Presidents Bush and Obama, Bill Clinton also to fault, as well as Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Dodd, Schumer and all the spend happy powermongers in DC! The idea that we HAVE to do anything in Iran is absurd.
The feds should bring every last troop home, from Iraq,Germany, Afghanastan, Korea, EVERY SINGLE ONE! We post them along our borders.Then we stop the influx of people entering our country illegally, and we stop buying CRAP made in China! We also cut the federal government down to what it should do. Provide a militia to protect the citizens, AND THATS IT! Let each state govern how they see fit. We need to change the status quo. Italy looks nothing like it did 300 years ago, because they change as time goes on. We in the USA had better embrace the idea of change on a large scale, or we are screwed!
KISS= keep it simple stupid.
Let's not believe we need to be the world's police, judge and jury anymore, and take care of ourselves!

Jun 24, 2009, 11:45am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Come on, Bea! Andrew is right. It makes no sense to go at this halway. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan; we need to pick up Libya, Iran and Syria for a five-card flush. Nearly all the oil and natural gas would end up in our back pocket, we could nail unemployment by funnelling the jobless into the army and we're well on our way to living up to our nickname: yankee imperialist.

I'm getting sick of this no-action Obama presidency. CNN is as boring as C-SPAN! We're overdue for another Mideast fireworks display. We need to drop some of those smart bombs and a couple bunker-busters to get the show on the road. Why not Tehran? Our arms industry has to stay in the black: Raytheon, Lockheed, Alliant, Honeywell, Nothrup Grumman, General Dynamics and United Technologies- not to overlook Halliburton and Cardinal Health.

These Arab campaigns are great for American morale. The best part? No dead bodies splashed across the TV. (Not that they wouldn't look awesome in HD.) ...Just pretend it doesn't happen. Great for the conscience- if anybody considers Arabs worth a second thought. I mean, they did blow up the biggest building in NYC. ...Not to mention what I'm payin' at the pump these days.

Jun 24, 2009, 11:45am Permalink
Mark Potwora

Maybe some of those Bush Terrorist Policys are what are giving the protesters in Iran the courage to stand up to there government,,We had troops on both side of Iran..Iraq and Afghanistan.. Isn't it Obama that wants to invite the Irani government over for hotdogs on the 4th of July ..Talk about crazy..We can't even call it a war on Terrorism anymore..This is no time to be soft with these people..

Jun 24, 2009, 12:27pm Permalink
George Richardson

Peter said: "If Obama truly cared about the people, he would have started bombing them already."

Pete, I'm assuming you mean the people of the United States, right? The Iranians will not greet us as liberators any more than the Iraqis did. Iraq just declared a National Holiday to celebrate our withdrawal. We should make it a National Holiday here too. Plant a garden and raise some chickens, if the city will let you.

Jun 24, 2009, 12:41pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Are there other people the President should put first?

I'm not looking for a full on invasion, bomb the site we know are used for weapons creation and then bomb the government buildings.

Got a garden

Jun 24, 2009, 12:43pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

I'm genuinely curious Howard. Does that include their development and intention to use a nuclear device?

Karen, inre your thoughts that Pres. Obama is trying to fix the Economy, Warren Buffet sees it differently. In an interview on CNBC today he said our Economy is in "shambles" and "there are no signs of recovery yet." I'm inclined to think if anyone knows how things truly are at the moment in this regard, he would. With the credit card and commercial real estate bubbles yet to burst, not only are we not out of the woods yet, we haven't even made it half-way in.

Jun 24, 2009, 1:25pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

Andrew, who is Warren Buffet? Jimmy Buffets Brother? LOL Did you check out the North Korea thing? There the ones we should get ready to nuke. I thought it was very informative, and of great concern to me anyway. I guess not to many of you care. Maybe Im overreacting, but I dont think so. Again I'm no expert on politics.

Jun 24, 2009, 1:52pm Permalink
George Richardson

Erkell says:
1. I'm a staunch Evangelical Conservative, not a Republican.

STOP

O.k. right there you have lost over 50% of your readership. Shoot, I'm a left wing atheist liberal, not a Democrat (I just vote that way) who thinks that I live a hell of a lot more like Jesus did than most Christians do, so to you my friend I say: "Go To Heaven!"
Y'all can go to heaven. See if I care.

Jun 24, 2009, 1:44pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

@Peter, there would have been no WWII without Wilson's intervention in the European War a couple of decades earlier.

War, what is it good for?

It leads to higher taxes, bigger deficits, bloated government, dislocation of families, our young men and young women killing their young men, and un-American laws such at the Anti-Sedition Act and the Patriot Act.

When has U.S. intervention ever led to anything good?

I'm no isolationist nor peacenik, but I see no angle that benefits the U.S. in interfering in the internal affairs or foreign conflicts of other nations. Bring the troops home and defend our own borders (saving some $600 billion per year).

Our intervention just leads to more resentment, entrenches enemy governments and circularly reinforces the need for more intervention. At some point, we've just got to stop, before we bankrupt our nation and destroy our own freedom.

Jun 24, 2009, 2:10pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Just got home from a lovely day and I'm not about to spoil it.
I did check the poll and surprisingly, even after trying to force feed ultra right wing and war mongering to us, those who stand with the way we, the United States, are handling this are in the majority.
Talking points only go so far and then common sense kicks in.
Have a grand remainder of the day. I'm off to do a few errands and then heading to the Dwyer for the game.

Jun 24, 2009, 2:15pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Kim Jong II is just goofy and wants to be taken seriously by the world community. N. Korea won't do much of anything without at least tacit approval of Communist China. Mahmoud Amadinejad on the other ascribes to an end of the world scenario as is written in the Koran and has every intention of being the agent to bring forth the 12th Imam.

If you honestly don't know who Warren Buffett is, "google" is a wonderful thing.

Jun 24, 2009, 2:30pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

War mongering? Please show me in any of the posts I made today where I did any war mongering. I simply would like the current President to follow the same policy as every President before him and not start trading captured known terrorists for hostages. He is setting an incredibly bad precedent that will turn ugly in a hurry.

Jun 24, 2009, 2:38pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

War increases the rate at which new technologies are developed. War is the only way to ensure freedom.

War is good on many aspects of human civilization.
War lead to the creation of the US the single most benevolent nation on the planet.

War changed Iraq from a dictatorship to a free democratic society.

War has led to the development of the nuclear bomb which lead to clean nuclear energy.

War lead to the development of Radar and Sonar. Devices that have saved countless lives.

Battlefield Medicine was the first "ER"

War led to the space race and NASA and all the technology that was developed by that organizations research.

War saved the world from the great depression.

Hippies helped the slaughter of millions of Cambodians.

Jun 24, 2009, 3:06pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

@peter War increases the rate at which new technologies are developed. War is the only way to ensure freedom.

And many technologies are developed without war. We would still have radio, television and computers without war. This point alone doesn't justify war.

@peter War is good on many aspects of human civilization.

Really, like death, feminine and torture?

@peter War lead to the creation of the US the single most benevolent nation on the planet.

One or two beneficial wars in recent history is not enough to justify U.S. intervention in the affairs of other nations. The argument isn't that all war is unnecessary, but that it should be rare, and the more civilized we become, rarer still.

@peter War changed Iraq from a dictatorship to a free democratic society.

That's arguably untrue and even so does not necessarily justify U.S. intervention.

@peter War has led to the development of the nuclear bomb which lead to clean nuclear energy.

Arguably not true. Nuclear exploration was underway before the start of WWII and likely would have proceeded anyway. And the bomb certainly hasn't been a positive for society and whether nuclear energy is clean or not is debatable.

@peter War lead to the development of Radar and Sonar. Devices that have saved countless lives.

Radar existed before the start of WWII. I don't know much about sonar.

@peter Battlefield Medicine was the first "ER"

You don't think ER would have developed anyway. All of those young men killed and maimed seems like a pretty high price to pay for something that was inevitable.

@peter War led to the space race and NASA and all the technology that was developed by that organizations research.

An arguable point that NASA wouldn't have happened anyway. We've always been explorers and adventurers. Reaching into space seems inevitable.

@peter War saved the world from the great depression.

Absolutely a false statement. The depression didn't end until AFTER the troops returned home, though you could argue that changes to society caused by war brought about a new economic vitality, it's also true that if Hoover/FDR hadn't interfered with the national course of economic cycles, the depression would have been over by 1931.

@peter Hippies helped the slaughter of millions of Cambodians.

Just a ludicrous statement. We shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place. It was a war without purpose that served no purpose and did nobody any good and led to no beneficial result, nor could it possibly have been beneficial.

Jun 24, 2009, 3:19pm Permalink
daniel cherry

Yes Vietnam didn't accomplish anything.I don't believe this war will ever end.Or accomplish an objective.Some so called hippies helped end Vietnam and brought our boys home.Peter are you only playing this devils advocate thing?Or is this the way you think?Were you brain washed?

Jun 24, 2009, 3:33pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Vietnam had the potential to stop a genocide, we walked away.

The only useless war we fought was WW1, the Treaty of Versailles was a travesty and led to Hitler having the chance to rise to power.

Emotion based response on war don't hold up against facts.

I'm not going to argue your counterpoint Howard because frankly I don't care. My point was War is good for somethings.

Dan,
Who brain washed you into thinking you deserve HUD?
I was not brain washed. I held these views on war long before I decided to join the Navy.

Jun 24, 2009, 4:08pm Permalink
John Roach

Peter,
Viet Nam had nothing to do with genocide. What genocide do you think it could have stopped?

Why do think you deserve unemployment money?

Jun 24, 2009, 4:46pm Permalink
bud prevost

Isolationism in WWII is apples compared to today's world of oranges. With satellites, radar, instant worldwide communication, we don't need to be anywhere but on North American soil. Bring out troops home, secure and protect our borders, keep a mindful watch on world affairs, and let the world take care of itself!

Jun 24, 2009, 5:02pm Permalink
bud prevost

Sounds good to me...and aircraft carriers would be essential on our coasts. And that statement was definitely tongue in cheek. I'd like that money to stay in my pocket. 600 billion divided by 350 million citizens= $1715 PER PERSON! I have 4 people in my family, I could sure use that $6800 more efficiently than President Jomama.
And I don't want to bomb anyone. Fighting is stupid when it comes right down to it.

Jun 24, 2009, 5:14pm Permalink
John Roach

Peter, buy a map. Cambodia is not Viet Nam and Pol Pot started his terror in Cambodia in 1975, after we had already left South East Asia and Viet Nam.

I do appreciate the way you justify you getting government money while condemning anyone else who does.

Jun 24, 2009, 5:30pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Peter, my position is rational, fact based and completely non-emotion. I'm the worst kind of non-interventionist to argue with because I used to be a hawk, as hawkish as you care to meet, and then I came to my senses. After supporting the invasion in Iraq, I see more clearly how our interventionism has caused more problems than it's solved, both at home and aboard. I'm done with war, unless we're actually attacked by a nation-state army.

Jun 24, 2009, 5:48pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Unless things have changed, isn't unemployment insurance paid by the employer? What gun was held to the head of the recipient to make the employer pay that?
The point is, if you are a recipient of unemployment insurance, you are one of millions who is taking advantage of the public dole. Some achiever is paying your way.

Jun 24, 2009, 6:07pm Permalink
bud prevost

Amen Howard. Unless provoked, don't interfere. I never started a fight in my life, but I damn sure finished a couple. That's because I'm an American. If you were in the service, Peter, you know our place is to protect and not antagonize.

Jun 24, 2009, 6:35pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Taking advantage of what is offered is intelligent. Relying on it is not.
Taking the money while saying the program shouldn't exist is not conflict of interest so long as after the program is abolished you don't complain about.

Sorry but I believe the programs should not exist getting my share of it though is only fair.

Howard the only reason I am not arguing is because its useless to argue the merits of war because people minds cannot be changed on it. Its too much a part of their core like their beliefs on killing a fetus (I'm not going to use the nice clean word for the act)

Jun 24, 2009, 7:55pm Permalink
John Roach

The North Vietnaese are not Pol Pot, and in fact they drove him out later.

We invaded Cambodia and then left, that's the only part you got right.

Our invasion of Cambodia was about 5 years before Pol Pot. We left Viet Nam and unless we went back into Viet Nam and then invaded Cambodia a 2nd time, we could not stop Pol Pot. Is that what you think we should have done?

Jun 24, 2009, 8:07pm Permalink
John Roach

Peter,
Your opinion on our staying or leaving Viet Nam is not the point. You said, wrongly, we could have stopped Pol Pot, and that is the point.

However, glad to see you admitted to hypocrisy in your justification for taking government money while condemning the practice in others

Jun 24, 2009, 9:06pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

@Peter "Taking the money while saying the program shouldn't exist is not conflict of interest so long as after the program is abolished you don't complain about."

Looks like you need to re-read your copy of Atlas Shrugged, or pick up your copy of For the New Intellectual. If I recall correctly A is A and you, sir, would be laughed out of any room full of self-respecting Objectivists.

Jun 24, 2009, 11:10pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Peter has previously said he's not a libertarian and not an objectivist, despite his previous avowal of Ayn Rand.

Any political philosophy is improved when leavened with a little pragmatism.

Jun 24, 2009, 11:14pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

I just thought that Peter should be reminded that he is not John Galt. That 'point of a gun' quote is directly out of Atlas Shrugged.

Mr. Roach is correct, Peter's brand of hypocrisy would have made his heroes puke all over their shoes. As a matter of fact, from what I've seen so far 'pragmatism' isn't a major ingredient in Mr. O'Brien's philosophical stew.

Jun 24, 2009, 11:23pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Yes, Mark; I'm sure the Iranians are waiting with baited breath to be "rescued" by the Bush policies that left Iraq's infrastructure in ruins- erratic electric power, questionable drinking water, interfactional warfare- they are so much better off.

Jun 24, 2009, 11:52pm Permalink
daniel cherry

Peter.I don't like any of your opinions.I wonder if you ever had to shoot anyone?Did ya ever get shot at?Did you ever think how much the war cost?My son wants to be in it.Hes 10 now, so the war will still be on right?He can go save the Iranians who hate us.And come back if he's alive messed up forever.Like what i have seen Vietnam did to people.May be that's why you're like this on here right?I don't think the military teaches the young men to be nice do they?They teach them to kill humans right?That's the object kill or be killed right?

Jun 25, 2009, 1:15am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Chris Charvella on June 24, 2009 - 11:23pm
I just thought that Peter should be reminded that he is not John Galt. That 'point of a gun' quote is directly out of Atlas Shrugged.

Mr. Roach is correct, Peter's brand of hypocrisy would have made his heroes puke all over their shoes. As a matter of fact, from what I've seen so far 'pragmatism' isn't a major ingredient in Mr. O'Brien's philosophical stew.

Chris, you have to go back a week or so ago when Peter admitted that he isn't the same in 'real' life as he is online. That is when I threw up my hands and decided it wasn't worth having a real debate with someone who is just using an online persona.
I will debate anyone, anywhere if they are sincere. I will respect an opposing opinion if it is sincere.
Spouting political rhetoric or bits and pieces from various books, for shock value, is not debate.

I'm still waiting for this gem to come out as an original thought:
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Oh wait! Didn't John Galt say that?

Jun 25, 2009, 1:54am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

It's nice to see what you truly think of our vets Dan.

I'm not using a persona Bea I am expressing one side of my personality, the political.

Jun 25, 2009, 9:07am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by C. M. Barons on June 24, 2009 - 11:52pm
Yes, Mark; I'm sure the Iranians are waiting with baited breath to be "rescued" by the Bush policies that left Iraq's infrastructure in ruins- erratic electric power, questionable drinking water, interfactional warfare- they are so much better off.

Well said.

Jun 25, 2009, 9:13am Permalink

Authentically Local