Today in class we had a presentation about how Europe sees the new presidential candidates and what their opinions are on them. Well today I found an article posted by the Washington Post about how Europe fears Obama might undercut process with Iran. They think that is Senator Obama meets unconditionally with Iran leaders, it could ruin ties between Europe and the United States.
“European officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are wary of giving up a demand that has been so enshrined in U.N. resolutions, particularly without any corresponding concessions by Iran. Although European officials are eager to welcome a U.S. president promising renewed diplomacy and multilateralism after years of tensions with the Bush administration, they feel strongly about continuing on the current path.”
So even though Europe would like to see a new president come in and change up some things, they want the current international relations to stay the same. Europe states that it was the ones who tried talking negotiations with Iran’s leaders and they did not work, so why would it be any different if the United States tried it.
Threats of sanctions have been to Iran and still, they don’t listen. So it seems like Europe is glad to have another person in the White House but they just don’t seem to agree with his stand on Iran.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Week 5 pt 1 by Ryan Hanson
As a follow up to the last blog about Biden and his comments about Israel having to deal with a nuclear Iran, I looked up another article that had another side of the story. Apparently to this article published in September apparently these comments were made three years ago. Biden and his press secretary have both denied these comments and they both say Biden supports Israel against Iran.
"This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden's 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel," Biden's press secretary, David Wade, said in a statement.”
This just goes to show how the media still has a huge influence on how the elections can go. Even though this comment was apparently said three year ago, the media still brought it back up to try and dampen the name of Obama.
The fact that the topics that was brought up was and issue with Iran made it all the more serious. Iran is going to be a serious threat in the future if they get their hands on nuclear material and they are a threat to Israel, one of Americas strongest allies in the Middle East.
"This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden's 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel," Biden's press secretary, David Wade, said in a statement.”
This just goes to show how the media still has a huge influence on how the elections can go. Even though this comment was apparently said three year ago, the media still brought it back up to try and dampen the name of Obama.
The fact that the topics that was brought up was and issue with Iran made it all the more serious. Iran is going to be a serious threat in the future if they get their hands on nuclear material and they are a threat to Israel, one of Americas strongest allies in the Middle East.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Week 4, Item 2
Sarah Palin on Iran
By Jared Behrend
"Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise."
This statement from a recent address by Governor Palin outlines her stance on Iran, and potentially sets up a hard-line approach to dealing with a state seeking nuclear weapons. Stating essentially that the U.S. will not allow a nuclear Iran to exist is along the same lines as the arguments used to coax the country into Iraq in 2003. If the UN does not support U.S.-led sanctions on Iran, and broad-based economic sanctions are not organized, will a McCain-Palin administration use military force in order to asssert its "promise" to Israel? In this same speech, Palin discribes the state of women's rights in Iran, clearly an attempt to exploit emotions from western peoples and further establish an "Us vs. Them" dichotomy, extending the assumed intentions of U.S. sanctions and halting of nuclear development to cultural differences and assumed superiority. Is this the sort of conflict we need to be heavily involved in with two other wars to fight?
The full text of the speech is available at:
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/palin-on-ahmadinejad-he-must-be-stopped/86311/
By Jared Behrend
"Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise."
This statement from a recent address by Governor Palin outlines her stance on Iran, and potentially sets up a hard-line approach to dealing with a state seeking nuclear weapons. Stating essentially that the U.S. will not allow a nuclear Iran to exist is along the same lines as the arguments used to coax the country into Iraq in 2003. If the UN does not support U.S.-led sanctions on Iran, and broad-based economic sanctions are not organized, will a McCain-Palin administration use military force in order to asssert its "promise" to Israel? In this same speech, Palin discribes the state of women's rights in Iran, clearly an attempt to exploit emotions from western peoples and further establish an "Us vs. Them" dichotomy, extending the assumed intentions of U.S. sanctions and halting of nuclear development to cultural differences and assumed superiority. Is this the sort of conflict we need to be heavily involved in with two other wars to fight?
The full text of the speech is available at:
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/palin-on-ahmadinejad-he-must-be-stopped/86311/
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Week 4 pt 2 By Ryan Hanson
As of late, vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden has made some interesting statements in the media. He is Obama’s running mate and everyone would think that he would mostly agree with what Obama has to say. But recently he made a comment about Obama’s problems he will face if he wins the election, and he also commented on the Iran and Israel issue.
Apparently Biden was quoted saying “Israel would have to ‘reconcile’ itself with a nuclear Iran” That got huge attention in the media and of course a spokesman for Biden denied that he ever said that. Someone in the Israeli foreign ministry said that wouldn’t sound like a comment Biden would make, so I thought that was a very controversial incident.
On top of all of that Biden also mentioned that Obama could have some tough times right away if he gets into office. The news of this first broke on ABC about a week or two ago. Biden was quoted saying “Barack Obama will be tested by a major international crisis in the first potential six months of his presidency.” That fueled McCain’s argument and he asked if America should elect someone that invites testing from other countries. Could it be Iran that does that testing? Biden seems to be saying things he might end up regretting in the future.
Apparently Biden was quoted saying “Israel would have to ‘reconcile’ itself with a nuclear Iran” That got huge attention in the media and of course a spokesman for Biden denied that he ever said that. Someone in the Israeli foreign ministry said that wouldn’t sound like a comment Biden would make, so I thought that was a very controversial incident.
On top of all of that Biden also mentioned that Obama could have some tough times right away if he gets into office. The news of this first broke on ABC about a week or two ago. Biden was quoted saying “Barack Obama will be tested by a major international crisis in the first potential six months of his presidency.” That fueled McCain’s argument and he asked if America should elect someone that invites testing from other countries. Could it be Iran that does that testing? Biden seems to be saying things he might end up regretting in the future.
Obama week 4 pt 1 by Ryan Hanson
The country of Israel is a very touchy subject because it relates to Iran. Israel obviously has their own issues going on with the Palestinians but if Iran ends up building nuclear devices it becomes a threat to Israel, which is one of the United States only allies in the Middle East. So with Iran as a possible threat to ‘blow Israel off the face of the earth,’ that eventually means the U.S. will have to step in at some point, but how will we intervene?
Senator Obama agrees that Israel is one of our strongest allies and we shouldn’t let anybody jeopardize their safety. He mentioned that President Ahmadinejad wanted to try to have another holocaust. Israel is a fellow democracy and we have learned in class the usually democracies do not fight with each other so it is important to have an ally in that part of the world.
Obama said “President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.” Having a president that even mentions the word holocaust is never a good thing. Obama’s plan is to obviously sanction Iran, but also to try and talk with them, maybe settle this in a peaceful way so no innocent people have to die. Whomever wins the election will have to realize that Iran is possible threat and this situation will be a hot topic in the administration.
Senator Obama agrees that Israel is one of our strongest allies and we shouldn’t let anybody jeopardize their safety. He mentioned that President Ahmadinejad wanted to try to have another holocaust. Israel is a fellow democracy and we have learned in class the usually democracies do not fight with each other so it is important to have an ally in that part of the world.
Obama said “President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.” Having a president that even mentions the word holocaust is never a good thing. Obama’s plan is to obviously sanction Iran, but also to try and talk with them, maybe settle this in a peaceful way so no innocent people have to die. Whomever wins the election will have to realize that Iran is possible threat and this situation will be a hot topic in the administration.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Week 3 pt 2 by Ryan Hanson
Unlike Obama’s running mate, he has kept the option on the table to meet with Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This blog is going to be about how the two candidates feel about this man. Everyone knows that McCain doesn’t even want to talk to the president because he thinks that anyone he threatens to blow Israel off the map shouldn’t be tolerated with. In my opinion I don’t think that is the right thing to do because it could make the hatred between these two countries even worse and therefore make the tension increase.
Obama on the other hand has kept the option on the table to meet with him. Obama says that Iran has been acting irresponsible by supporting militant groups in Iraq.
“"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said."I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior.” Obviously he still thinks their needs to at least be a change in attitude there, but he isn’t going to go all ‘Bush’ on Iran and force a regime change. In my opinion I think that’s the right idea and talking never hurt anyone, plus it make our allies look at us in a different, more respectful view.
Obama on the other hand has kept the option on the table to meet with him. Obama says that Iran has been acting irresponsible by supporting militant groups in Iraq.
“"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said."I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior.” Obviously he still thinks their needs to at least be a change in attitude there, but he isn’t going to go all ‘Bush’ on Iran and force a regime change. In my opinion I think that’s the right idea and talking never hurt anyone, plus it make our allies look at us in a different, more respectful view.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Week 4, Item 1
by Jared Behrend
Sarah Palin and the Media
Sarah Palin has routinely made it a habit to claim the biased "filter" which the media represents. In a recent campaign speech she spoke of her desire to explain herself "without the filter of the media." Palin's repeated claims of the "unfairness" of the media, and its supposed bias hearkens back to President Bush's statements that the history will regard this period of time as successful, no matter what the current approval ratings and general state of dissaray show. If Palin is to become Vice President and have the possibility of being President with an aging McCain, do we as a country want another prominent politician that sees others, including well-educated members of the media, as merely biased, crass, misinformed, unfaithful traitors. Imagine a scenario with Iran that involves scores of members of the media reporting national as well as international thoughts on how best to handle a country like Iran and their nuclear proliferation, and Gov. Palin shunning those thoughts for her own inner circle of ideologues. This is dangerous, and Iran is in a delicate situation right now that requires diplomacy and exploration of many avenues, as is the case with many aspects of national and foreign policy. For Palin to turn her back on the media now reveals a fear of those who present a differing view of what is best for country and each citizen, and it is the necessity of these different views which keeps a democracy running.
here is a video of her recent reaction to the media's "outing" of her wardrobe costs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xoKfee4MpQ
Sarah Palin and the Media
Sarah Palin has routinely made it a habit to claim the biased "filter" which the media represents. In a recent campaign speech she spoke of her desire to explain herself "without the filter of the media." Palin's repeated claims of the "unfairness" of the media, and its supposed bias hearkens back to President Bush's statements that the history will regard this period of time as successful, no matter what the current approval ratings and general state of dissaray show. If Palin is to become Vice President and have the possibility of being President with an aging McCain, do we as a country want another prominent politician that sees others, including well-educated members of the media, as merely biased, crass, misinformed, unfaithful traitors. Imagine a scenario with Iran that involves scores of members of the media reporting national as well as international thoughts on how best to handle a country like Iran and their nuclear proliferation, and Gov. Palin shunning those thoughts for her own inner circle of ideologues. This is dangerous, and Iran is in a delicate situation right now that requires diplomacy and exploration of many avenues, as is the case with many aspects of national and foreign policy. For Palin to turn her back on the media now reveals a fear of those who present a differing view of what is best for country and each citizen, and it is the necessity of these different views which keeps a democracy running.
here is a video of her recent reaction to the media's "outing" of her wardrobe costs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xoKfee4MpQ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
