The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     How do I ...»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageMost Americans Encourage Meeting Hostile Leaders According To New Poll

Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  Can Tran (TFactor) in Politics | 9 comments | 328 views
Next in Politics
Related News
Advertising
Democratic co-frontrunner Senator Barack Obama has constantly been under fire from opponents for agreeing to meet with foreign leaders that are hostile. However, a recent poll is in Obama’s favor.
Democratic co-frontrunner Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has been under fire from Democratic co-frontrunner Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and presumed GOP nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona for his stance on meeting with hostile foreign leaders. As many prepare to acknowledge Obama as the eventual Democratic nominee, his willingness to meet with such hostile leaders can and will be used against him.

But, Clinton is still in the Democratic race. Despite the odds against Clinton, she still refuses to drop out. Her final chance of even securing the Democratic nomination would be in the hands of the superdelegates. The results of the compromise to the Michigan and Florida contests had struck a blow to Clinton’s hopes of getting the nomination.

However, the attack ads from the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) have bee focused on Obama rather than Clinton.

But, a recent Gallup poll has given the suggestion that the majority of Americans believe that the next president should talk with the hostile leaders. However, the poll results are suggestive at best. Remember, this is only suggestive evidence.

Half of those that took the survey are registered Republicans. Out of everyone that has taken the survey, a slight majority said that it was a good idea to use diplomacy first. A smaller majority at sixty percent said the same thing in regards with the leader of Iran.

But the thing it didn’t ask in regards to Iran was: Which leader?! Obama has said he would be willing to meet with such leaders. However, who would Obama meet: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khanemei?

Obama talking about willing to meet such leaders without preconditions had drawn fire.

But, a recent issue could hurt Obama’s position. Ahmadinejad recently said that Israel will soon be “gone.”

Still, this is what the current Gallup poll on the issue suggests. But, the results can fluctuate in the next few days or a next few months. It is already established that Iran will end up becoming a debate topic in the general elections.

If Obama does come out as the eventual Democratic nominee, expect him and McCain to square off on the issue.

Still, remember that Clinton has not dropped out of the race.
article:255572:3::0
1 subscriber
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  Johnny Simpson
    #1
    CanTran, here is the direct link to the Gallup poll I traced through your article.

    You remember the infamous 'red phone' of the Cold War?

    We weren't much on talking terms with Russians for a very long time, but the communications link was there to prevent international crises from becoming full-blown conflagrations.

    That red phone made a lot of sense.

    Iran is a far different story. Their regime is like an Islamic Third Reich. They stone or hang women and homosexuals, persecute women for the clothes they wear, imprison, torture and execute political dissidents, export terrorism through Hezbollah and other Shiite terror groups, are pursuing a nuclear program, and have sworn to both ours and Israel's annihilation.

    What's to talk about?

    I don't know which is more disturbing, Ahmedinejad's belligerent bluster or the fact that so many Americans think he could actually be reasoned with in diplomatic fashion.

    I'm not promoting war with Iran. Far from it.

    But I'm not for peace in our time with them, either.
  • avatar Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  Can Tran (TFactor)
    #2
    I'm still laughing about Ahmedinejad saying "Homosexuality does not exist in Iran."
  • avatar Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  lensman67
    #3
    @ Johnny Simpson
    CanTran, here is the direct link to the Gallup poll I traced through your article.

    You remember the infamous 'red phone' of the Cold War?

    We weren't much on talking terms with Russians for a very long time, but the communications link was there to prevent international crises from becoming full-blown conflagrations.

    That red phone made a lot of sense.

    Iran is a far different story. Their regime is like an Islamic Third Reich. They stone or hang women and homosexuals, persecute women for the clothes they wear, imprison, torture and execute political dissidents, export terrorism through Hezbollah and other Shiite terror groups, are pursuing a nuclear program, and have sworn to both ours and Israel's annihilation.

    What's to talk about?

    I don't know which is more disturbing, Ahmedinejad's belligerent bluster or the fact that so many Americans think he could actually be reasoned with in diplomatic fashion.

    I'm not promoting war with Iran. Far from it.

    But I'm not for peace in our time with them, either.

    We could start by apologizing for overthrowing their democracy back in 1953 and giving them a dictator. We could also apologize for bringing in Israeli intelligence to help that dictator set up his secret police. The current regime came to power as a result of our meddling in the affairs of a sovereign country in order to steal their oil.

    The fear of the American bullies who robbed the Iranian people of their right to govern themselves is what keeps the current regime in power. If we stop acting like thugs and address the Iranian people's legitimate complaints the current government would not be able to keep its power.

    But then neither could our current leaders who depend on fear to push their agenda.
  • Horst Wagner Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  Horst Wagner
    #4
    The things for which the United States should apologise to other nations has never stopped growing; but since WWII it has gotten out of control.
    But that could be said of any nation.
    The problem now is that so many of our citizens refuse to even consider that our government may have become toxic.
  • avatar Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  Johnny Simpson
    #5
    Horst, lensman, my point was how do we deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran considering their repression at home and their sponsorship of terror abroad, not to mention Ahmedinejad's continuous Hilterite rhetoric about destroying Israel.

    That is a legitimate question WRT how do we deal with them diplomatically, yet you both turn it around to what a sh*thole the United States was and is.

    Last I checked, we weren't hanging queers and women from crane wires, or stoning them, or threatening the annihilation of Mexico.

    How about staying on point for a change and answering the goddamn question?
  • avatar Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  Samantha A. Torrence
    #6
    How about staying on point for a change and answering the g***amn question?


    Never happen, that is why it is best not even to engage unless you are doing it for sport or fun.


    and watch your mouth. =)
  • Horst Wagner Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  Horst Wagner
    #7
    @ Johnny Simpson
    Horst, lensman, my point was how do we deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran considering their repression at home and their sponsorship of terror abroad, not to mention Ahmedinejad's continuous Hilterite rhetoric about destroying Israel.

    That is a legitimate question WRT how do we deal with them diplomatically, yet you both turn it around to what a sh*thole the United States was and is.

    Last I checked, we weren't hanging queers and women from crane wires, or stoning them, or threatening the annihilation of Mexico.

    How about staying on point for a change and answering the goddamn question?

    At this point I think an appropriate response would be to suggest you kiss my as*, johnny; but since this is one of those rightwingcrazy forums which permits only rightwingers that type of latitude, I'll instead suggest that lensman and I are on point. It is you who has meandered into the area of thought control.
    I do not perceive any real threats from Islam. The threats are coming from the same quarter which enforced jim crow, isolation for japanese/americans and anti-communist terror.
  • avatar Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  RCB2875
    #8
    @ Johnny Simpson
    Horst, lensman, my point was how do we deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran considering their repression at home and their sponsorship of terror abroad, not to mention Ahmedinejad's continuous Hilterite rhetoric about destroying Israel.

    That is a legitimate question WRT how do we deal with them diplomatically, yet you both turn it around to what a sh*thole the United States was and is.

    Last I checked, we weren't hanging queers and women from crane wires, or stoning them, or threatening the annihilation of Mexico.

    How about staying on point for a change and answering the goddamn question?


    As Samantha said its pointless. Libs,proregressives see all questions for which they have no answer ( which is most any question) as rhetorical. Or it could be they assume they are intellectually elite and anything they say is absolute and beyond questioning. The most used tact is to answer with another question diverting the conversation or give some long winded babble about nothing.
  • avatar Posted Jun 3, 2008 by  Samantha A. Torrence
    #9
    @ Horst Wagner
    At this point I think an appropriate response would be to suggest you kiss my as*, johnny; but since this is one of those rightwingcrazy forums which permits only rightwingers that type of latitude, I'll instead suggest that lensman and I are on point. It is you who has meandered into the area of thought control.
    I do not perceive any real threats from Islam. The threats are coming from the same quarter which enforced jim crow, isolation for japanese/americans and anti-communist terror.


    Now now, you can say Kiss my ass. I encourage it, very therapeutic(sp).

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?