Army moving into Tehran to stop protests - How Will Obama Respond?

@Rollo1 (16679)
Boston, Massachusetts
June 16, 2009 11:54am CST
Over 42 million Iranians voted in Friday's election, yet in less than three hours the government announced that the votes were counted and Ahmadinejad had won a resounding victory and re-election. Prior to the election, the government blocked access to many internet locations. As of this morning, even more sites are blocked to access from outside Iran. However, they overlooked Twitter and news and information on the protests and the government's response has been flowing constantly. The latest update that I saw on Twitter indicates that the army has been called to Tehran to quell the uprising. If the army enters Tehran and puts a bloody and violent end to the protests, how do you think the US government should respond? How do you think Obama will respond?
3 people like this
6 responses
@whywiki (6066)
• Canada
16 Jun 09
Elections like this make me happy to be Canadian where our elections for the most part are democratic. The whole Iranian election seemed a little off to me. I hope the government lets the people protest freely but I doubt that will happen. I don't really think it is the Americans problem though. They are stretched way to thinly in other problem areas so I hope the Iranianss solve this crisis on their own. If Obama gets involved I am sure he will do the right thing no matter what that is.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
16 Jun 09
Obama has spent a lot of time with Ahmadinejad. He's invested a lot in their friendship, so I wonder if he will be willing to condemn any action.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jun 09
"Obama has spent a lot of time with Ahmadinejad. He's invested a lot in their friendship, so I wonder if he will be willing to condemn any action." HUH?? I'm pretty sure they've never even met. What friendship? Annie
@lisan23 (442)
• United States
16 Jun 09
I don't think we should do anything because it's simply not our place. The UN should be the one's to decide what's best to do in this situation. I hate to say it, but if we continue sticking our noses into other country's problems right now we will sink entirely. We don't have the money, manpower, or resources to do anything for Iran right now. Not only that, but Iran isn't exactly fond of the US and I think if we were to interfere it would only make them hate us more. (As well as feed into the stereotype that we are the world police, which we aren't and we shouldn't even try to be.) I say he should issue a statement and start bugging the UN to do something about it.
2 people like this
@rsa101 (37969)
• Philippines
17 Jun 09
Well this i sa very delicate matter right now. Iran and US relations has been very shaky in the past several decades and right now involving themselves in such problem would just put more strain in their relationship. I think Obama should move to watch the issue coming but never intervene since this is an internal problem that that country has to resolve themselves.
@rsa101 (37969)
• Philippines
17 Jun 09
I guess there is only one thing I see there "Oil". I think Iran produces this and that is the only resource that makes their economy alive.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
17 Jun 09
The relationship between the US and Iran broke down after the 1979 revolution that deposed the progressive Shah who was in favor of reforms and turned back the clock to a time with fewer civil rights, especially for women. In all honesty, I don't know why we would want to be on especially good terms with a nation that forced women out of jobs and made them second-class citizens.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
16 Jun 09
If the army goes in and effects a "bloody peace" I predict that Obama will give a speech lauding Iran as a "democratic society" that has just made a historically significant step in the promotion of its citizens' civil rights. He will then continue to "reach out" to Ahmadinejad without precondition and verbally acquiesce to his bloody reign in an effort to reboot America's image as a bunch of wimps in a world of despots who are willing to blow us up "without precondition."
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
16 Jun 09
The lukewarm statement from the administration so far make this scenario a very likely prospect.
2 people like this
• United States
16 Jun 09
Obama would probably keep involved in this matter, my question is whose side would he be on?
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
16 Jun 09
That's a good question. If you are interested in the truth about the situation, it's the hottest trend on Twitter.
1 person likes this
@o0jopak0o (6394)
• Philippines
17 Jun 09
i think the us will just talk about it but will not do anything about it. Obama wants to mend the broken friendship of iran and the us. And basically interferring and ahmadinejad still is the president, that friendship will be broken forever. But ofcourse if he is overthrown, the us will support the iran people. either way, its a another problem for the us
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
17 Jun 09
Again, I am not particularly worried when a repressive government doesn't like the US. I would expect them to truly despise our freedom, just as I would truly despise their lack of it.