Support NeoGAF

[Xabora]

Found this on Penny Arcade: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906u/iran-election-protests

 

[APF]

And it is fine for individuals to show their support for the protesters. Showing of solidarity by groups of civilians is natural. Governments, though, need to tread lightly, given the purely internal nature of this movement. I think another key point is that the movement doesn't NEED external support as well, given the sheer volume of people involved.

The thing is, it's not individuals who can leverage diplomacy or guarantee protection--it's governments.

 

[DemonSwordsman]

The thing is, it's not individuals who can leverage diplomacy or guarantee protection--it's governments.

It is no governments job or right to meddle with Iran's internal problems.

And certianly not the USA which wouldn't mind planting a few bombs in the protests to stir up some hate.

 

[APF]

And certianly not the USA which wouldn't mind planting a few bombs in the protests to stir up some hate.

Why in fuck's name would Obama want to plant bombs?? WTF are you talking about?

 

[Chrono]

It is no governments job or right to meddle with Iran's internal problems.

And certianly not the USA which wouldn't mind planting a few bombs in the protests to stir up some hate.

:lol

With allah's loyal soldiers on the ground, there's more than enough hate to go around. No need for bams to do anything.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Did Khamenei seriously say the UK was the 'most evil' of the Western powers? :lol What a bizarre thing to say.

Any semblance of respect I had for that lunatic has since evaporated.

 

[Chrono]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/19/iran-election-mousavi-ahmadinejad

WTF. He's saying things nobody in Iran is saying. Khamenie is a dictator? Green revolution? WHAT.

This is the sort of thing Khamenie can point to and execute Mousavi and his people. This guy is speaking for Mousavi. Is he just sweetening things for a western audience? Is this a new stage in this battle? Maybe everybody knew this is what the election has been about but just never said it out loud, so this doesn't change anything.

 

[besada]

Did Khamenei seriously say the UK was the 'most evil' of the Western powers? :lol What a bizarre thing to say.

Any semblance of respect I had for that lunatic has since evaporated.

Everyone knows the UK is the REAL Great Satan. I mean, they spawned the U.S., and have the world's longest history of cruel and terrible imperialism, including creating the mess in Palestine.

Bad UK! Naughty UK!

 

[Azih]

Again, your words are against people talking about speaking out in support of a movement, but your arguments are against governments directly intervening. My point is there is a vast difference between the two, a point y'all seem to be agreeing with, when it's pointed to directly. But then you go and say folks are crazy for wanting to say words, or not shy away from leveraging diplomacy when warranted, but those are both points y'all seem to agree with.

I don't even know what you're saying. The world watching prevents, to some degree, the authorities from being overtly brutal just by dint of visibility and transparency. And hell Americans can speak out in favour of the protests all they wish, *Obama* can't.

 

[Azih]

Did Khamenei seriously say the UK was the 'most evil' of the Western powers? :lol What a bizarre thing to say.

I don't think you know Iranian history.

 

[APF]

I don't even know what you're saying. The world watching prevents, to some degree, the authorities from being overtly brutal just by dint of visibility and transparency.

"By dint of visibility" avoids my initial question however. "By dint of visibility" is managed without appeals in English, appeals that are for a US / UK audience. Not to mention, prevention of over-brutality only occurs when there is an expectation of possible diplomatic repercussions. As I said above, this line of argumentation necessarily contradicts itself.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

"By dint of visibility" avoids my initial question however. "By dint of visibility" is managed without appeals in English, appeals that are for a US / UK audience. Not to mention, prevention of over-brutality only occurs when there is an expectation of possible diplomatic repercussions. As I said above, this line of argumentation necessarily contradicts itself.

English is spoken by more people than UK/US population put together

Mideast, Africa, Caribbean, Asia...English is one of the most spoken languages in the world. And It's Spoken widely in Iran too.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

Did Khamenei seriously say the UK was the 'most evil' of the Western powers? :lol What a bizarre thing to say.

For starters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Petroleum

 

[speculawyer]

Did Khamenei seriously say the UK was the 'most evil' of the Western powers? :lol What a bizarre thing to say.

Any semblance of respect I had for that lunatic has since evaporated.

Part of the Iranian version of the Axis of Evil . . . the UK, the USA, and Israel.

 

[Azih]

"By dint of visibility" avoids my initial question however. "By dint of visibility" is managed without appeals in English appeals that are for a US / UK audience.

Er, English is an international world language, the only one really. If the signs were in Persian than nobody would understand them outside of Iranians and it wouldn't be as visible, but since they're in English large portions of everybody in every place on the planet pays attention.

Not to mention, prevention of over-brutality only occurs when there is an expectation of possible diplomatic repercussions.

Repercussions definitely, but only indirectly diplomatic ones are necessary to constrain the authorities for now. First off, when protests are visibly cracked down on the authorities are seen to be doing bad things. No such problem if no one was paying attention. Countries that are strong allies have to tone down their support and countries that are hostile can point to atrocity and repression. Plus the vast amount of information flowing out from Iran isn't blocked from Iran itself so the huge amount of attention focused on Iran from all over the planet (which the signs in English contribute to massively) makes it impossible for the Iranian authorities to downplay how many protesters they are.

Countries like North Korea and Burma don't give a shit about how bad their image is because the authorities want to cut themselves off from the rest of the world. Iran is *not* in the same situation. It needs the assistance of China and Russia, and it derives a lot of it's authority from opposing the 'evil' West. There's a huge Iranian diasporia that are not exiles and in fact travel pretty freely in and out of the country, and are energised by the huge amount of info coming out of Iran and the amount of attention it is recieving by everybody.

The attempts by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to pin this on the 'evil' West is thwarted by the huge amount of exposure to the protest which shows this to be IRANIANS protesting. The huge protests that are happening outside my window almost every night in Toronto are made up almost entirely of IRANIANS, which heavily damages the Ayatollahs appeal yet again to the image of brave Iran opposing the machinations of the evil west.

 

[mclem]

Did Khamenei seriously say the UK was the 'most evil' of the Western powers? :lol What a bizarre thing to say.

Any semblance of respect I had for that lunatic has since evaporated.

Wait, wait...

Does that mean we've actually come *top* at something? Woo! Go us!

 

[Cooter]

So now they are saying end the protests or risk bloodshed. Care to comment on that Mr. President?

 

[Chrono]

http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.co...n-iran-a-charade-or-a-sign-of-change-to-come/

Ahmadinejad - The bastard son of the revolution! :lol

 

[gutter_trash]

Did Khamenei seriously say the UK was the 'most evil' of the Western powers? :lol What a bizarre thing to say.

Any semblance of respect I had for that lunatic has since evaporated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

a little bit of history that created the blow-back of the last 30 years
U.K. involved

 

[scorcho]

So now they are saying end the protests or risk bloodshed. Care to comment on that Mr. President?

You mean Ahmadinejad or Obama? The former has much more to say than the latter. There's nothing, absolutely nothing to be gain by Obama providing vocal solidarity to the protesters at the moment.

 

[Cooter]

You mean Ahmadinejad or Obama? The former has much more to say than the latter. There's nothing, absolutely nothing to be gain by Obama providing vocal solidarity to the protesters at the moment.

And when thousands start getting slaughtered? Should he still remain silent?

 

[gutter_trash]

And when thousands start getting slaughtered? Should he still remain silent?

the more the US gets involved, the more reasoning and support it gives to the Akmedinajad camp.

you ignore posts that point to 1953 interference... every Iranian remembers 1953.

US should stay out no matter how good or bad it gets

 

[Cooter]

the more the US gets involved, the more reasoning and support it gives to the Akmedinajad camp.

you ignore posts that point to 1953 interference... every Iranian remembers 1953.

US should stay out no matter how good or bad it gets

Wait, you are seriously advocating sitting back and doing nothing while this crazy regime slaughters peaceful protesters?

 

[Chrono]

So now they are saying end the protests or risk bloodshed. Care to comment on that Mr. President?

He's the president of the united states and not the fucking human rights czar. Of course he supports the protesters, what the fuck is wrong with you? He has responsibilities however, he can't just say whatever he wants. I'll tell you who doesn't give a fuck - the republicans going after obama for 'not supporting' the uprising. The bloodshed that would have occurred if some cunt like McCain was president is frightening, they'd probably compare the US president supporting those people to a foreign invasion, foreigners supporting a revolt in their country. None of those dumb fucking conservatives give a damn about Iranians or freedom and democracy, everybody knows that. Stop insulting people's intelligence and STFU.

 

[gutter_trash]

Wait, you are seriously advocating sitting back and doing nothing while this crazy regime slaughters peaceful protesters?

Yes a big yes

US involvement would jeopardize any real revolution.

let the young Iranians make their new Green Revolution on their own will and quest for freedom without outside interfearnce.

people will get killed, but support for the Green movement will grow stronger and stronger on its own.

no more 1953s (Iran) or 1973s (Chile), the US and the UK should refrain from meddling in other countries' political affairs and learn from their past mistakes

 

[Cooter]

He's the president of the united states and not the fucking human rights czar. Of course he supports the protesters, what the fuck is wrong with you? He has responsibilities however, he can't just say whatever he wants. I'll tell you who doesn't give a fuck - the republicans going after obama for 'not supporting' the uprising. The bloodshed that would have occurred if some cunt like McCain was president is frightening, they'd probably compare the US president supporting those people to a foreign invasion, foreigners supporting a revolt in their country. None of those dumb fucking conservatives give a damn about Iranians or freedom and democracy, everybody knows that. Stop insulting people's intelligence and STFU.

Eff off. Maybe they will kill a million. I guess it makes no difference to you or many here.

And of course, it comes back to the Republicans. Get a new act.

 

[electricpirate]

Wait, you are seriously advocating sitting back and doing nothing while this crazy regime slaughters peaceful protesters?

So do you want to wave a finger, or do you want to suggest things that the US government could do that would actually help the protesters?

 

[Cooter]

Yes a big yes

US involvement would jeopardize any real revolution.

let the young Iranians make their new Green Revolution on their own will and quest for freedom without outside interfearnce.

people will get killed, but support for the Green movement will grow stronger and stronger on its own.

no more 1953s (Iran) or 1973s (Chile), the US and the UK should refrain from meddling in other countries' political affairs and learn from their past mistakes

Unbelievable. Some how I doubt many here would have the same stance if Israel decided to kill all the Palestinians who decided to peacefully protest.

 

[Chrono]

Eff off. Maybe they will kill a million. I guess it makes no difference to you or many here.

And of course, it comes back to the Republicans. Get a new act.

BECAUSE SOME GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING BAD BAD MULLAHS WILL MAKE THEM STOP.

 

[Cooter]

So do you want to wave a finger, or do you want to suggest things that the US government could do that would actually help the protesters?

For starters, go to Europe, Russia, and China and try and stop it. Iran would have a hard time committing genocide with the entire world threatening to retaliate.

 

[Cooter]

BECAUSE SOME GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING BAD BAD MULLAHS WILL MAKE THEM STOP.

Stealing elections is one things but when they threaten to kill protesters it moves into an entirely different league. Especially when the protesters numbers are in the millions.

 

[scorcho]

And when thousands start getting slaughtered? Should he still remain silent?

Hypotheticals are fun. what if the government instead gives them roses and free treadmills? Should Obama issue a press release?

Cross that bridge when we get to it. We have had very little success in verbally lashing regimes into treating their citizens correctly.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Eff off. Maybe they will kill a million. I guess it makes no difference to you or many here.

And of course, it comes back to the Republicans. Get a new act.

They will not kill a million. Not even close to being close. Iran/Khamenei isn't as batshit insane as you seem to think. This isn't North Korea we're talking about.

Like it or not, America isn't the world police. Obama shouldn't say or do anything.

Unbelievable. Some how I doubt many here would have the same stance if Israel decided to kill all the Palestinians who decided to peacefully protest.

Except that America would actually be able to do something about that. Obama cant do shit all in Iran right now except strenghthen the hardliners by saying something stupid.

 

[gutter_trash]

Unbelievable. Some how I doubt many here would have the same stance if Israel decided to kill all the Palestinians who decided tp peacefully protest.

the US does not get involved in other countries affairs for humanitarian reasons,
they US only gets involved when their interests are in conflict, especially when it comes to ressources like Oil (1953 Iran) or Copper (1973 Chile)

the US does not care about human rights... you are probably still young, but the older you get, the more you will realize that the super-powers only care about their imperial interests

 

[Arde5643]

Stealing elections is one things but when they threaten to kill protesters it moves into an entirely different league. Especially when the protesters numbers are in the millions.

Yes, obviously based on experience, the last time we did a pre-emptive attack, it worked wonderfully in US' favor.

And of course, US is in such a peaceful time with a booming economy where we can just spend trillions and send armed forces to quell unrest in other countries.


@Cooter: repeat after me, "Rambo is not a true life story".

 

[SimpleDesign]

Do you work for Chevron or something Cooter?

There's a lot worse shit going on in the world today than some Iranians protesting which so far hasn't resulted in a massive loss of life.

 

[Cooter]

Hypotheticals are fun. what if the government instead gives them roses and free treadmills? Should Obama issue a press release?

Cross that bridge when we get to it. We have had very little success in verbally lashing regimes into treating their citizens correctly.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

Iran's leader: End protests or risk 'bloodshed'

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's supreme leader sought Friday to end the deepening crisis over disputed elections with one decisive speech — declaring the vote will almost certainly stand and sternly warning opposition leaders to end street protests or be held responsible for any "bloodshed and chaos" to come.

But a first sign of possible resistance came shortly after nightfall in Tehran. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar" — "God is great" — rang from rooftops in what's become a nightly ritual of opposition unity.

The sharp line drawn by Iran's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a gambit that pushes Iran's opposition to a pivotal moment: either back down or risk a crushing response from police and the forces at Khamenei's disposal — the powerful Revolutionary Guard and their volunteer citizen militia, the Basij.

It also presents important tests for opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

He now must examine his willingness to challenge the Islamic leadership he once served as prime minister. There are further questions about his ability to control his own followers, who are waiting for a clear response to Khamenei's edict before a rally planned for Saturday.

Since the June 12 election, Mousavi has become the figurehead for a broad collection of demonstrators — from the most liberal-leaning reformists to religious conservatives — brought together by claims that fraud was behind the landslide re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Some could be prepared to take their protests to the limit. Many others, however, have no interest in an all-out mutiny against the country's Islamic system and know authorities have the tools to strike back without mercy.

Khamenei was blunt about what a wider fight would bring — warning those who "want to ignore the law or break the law" will face the consequences.

"They will be held accountable for all the violence, bloodshed and rioting," he told tens of thousands of people gathered for Friday prayers at Tehran University for a speech that was broadcast around Iran and the world.

Police clashed with protesters in running battles around Tehran immediately after the election and the Basij militia had a reported role in attacks at the university. Gunfire from a Basij compound in Tehran also left at least seven people dead Monday.

Khamenei even offered muted criticism of security forces, saying he objected to "misconducts" such as attacks on students.

But the full force of the police and Revolutionary Guard has remained in check. And this was Khamenei's implicit message since the Guard and the vast volunteer militia force it controls is under direct command of the ruling clerics.

As he concluded his sermon, Khamenei invoked the names of Shiite saints and began weeping.

Among the worshippers sitting on the carpeted floor of the mammoth prayer hall was Ahmadinejad in a tan jacket and one of his three election rivals, former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohsen Rezaei. Crowds spilled into the campus.

Mousavi and candidate Mahdi Karroubi, the only cleric in the race, were not shown on state TV coverage and apparently did not attend.

Iranian authorities have placed strict limits on the ability of foreign media to cover recent events, banning reporting from the street and allowing only phone interviews and information from officials sources such as state TV.

"The Islamic state would not cheat and would not betray the vote of the people," said Khamenei, standing on a raised platform decorated with Quranic verses and flanked by flowers.

He went on to effectively declare Ahmadinejad the winner, calling the election an "absolute victory." He left open a remote chance that the overall outcome could come under question by the Guardian Council, an unelected body of 12 clerics and Islamic law experts close to the supreme leader. The council investigates voter fraud claims.

The council has said it was prepared to conduct a limited recount of ballots at sites where candidates claim irregularities. It not clear, however, if they have initiated any probes.

A spokesman for Mousavi said Friday the opposition leader is not under arrest but is not allowed to speak to journalists or stand at a microphone at rallies. Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf told the AP from Paris it's even becoming difficult to reach people close to Mousavi. He said he has not heard from Mousavi's camp since Khamenei's address.

Mousavi has showed backbone in pressing his claims of election irregularities. But he would be an unlikely rebel against the entire state.

His roots in the Islamic leadership date to the early years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. He served as prime minister in the 1980s when Khamenei was president — a point the supreme leader made in his address.

The anger over the alleged vote-rigging "has coalesced behind Mousavi," said Michael Hanna, a Middle East analyst based in New York.

"But all the main protagonists are figures from within the establishment of the Islamic Republic," he said. "It doubtful whether Mousavi (and his political backers) are really out to overturn the basic structures and underpinnings of the Islamic Republic."

The protest movement, however, has appeared to gain some solid footing after days of street clashes that left parts of Tehran scorched and battered. Four consecutive days of huge marches this week streamed through Tehran with powerful images. Mousavi urged supporters to wear black in mourning for the alleged vote-rigging and those who died in the violence.

"Some people assume that through street riots they can have pressure over the establishment, and try to force the officials to actually listen to them. This is also wrong," Khamenei said. "Giving in to illegal demands and requests under pressure — this is itself the beginning of dictatorship."

He also accused foreign media and Western countries of trying to create a political rift and stir up chaos. Iranian leaders often blame foreign "enemies" for plots against the country, but Khamenei's comments suggest Iran could remain cool to expanding dialogue with the West and the offer of opening talks with Washington.

"Some of our enemies in different parts of the world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definitive victory, as a doubtful victory," he said. "It is your victory. They cannot manipulate it."

Khamenei blamed the United States, Britain and "other enemies" for fomenting unrest. He said Iran would not see a second revolution like those that transformed the countries of the former Soviet Union.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other European Union leaders expressed dismay over the threat of a crackdown. The British Foreign Office told Iran's charge d'affairs in London that Khamenei's comments were "unacceptable and had no basis in fact," a spokesman said on condition of anonymity in line with policy.

Both houses of the U.S. Congress approved a resolution condemning "the ongoing violence" by the Iranian government and its suppression of the Internet and cell phones. It also expressed support for Iranian citizens who embrace freedom.

The Republican-backed resolution was a veiled criticism of President Barack Obama, who has been reluctant to speak too strongly about the disputed election. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the resolution is consistent with Obama's message condemning the violence in Iran.

In an interview taped Friday with CBS, Obama said he is very concerned by the "tenor and tone" of Khamenei's comments. He also said that how Iran's leaders "approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard" will signal "what Iran is and is not."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged Iran's leaders not to "do anything irreversible" that could further endanger the country's stability.

"We support the Iranian people, and today the Iranian people are on the street" calling for "more moderation and more reason," he said at an European Union summit in Brussels.

In Switzerland, Iranian Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi said Iran should hold a new election observed by international monitors, adding that more than 500 people have been arrested since the balloting. Her human rights office in Iran was raided last year, its files confiscated and several members subsequently arrested.

The Friday prayer service, which Khamenei leads only several times a year, also featured some internal fence-mending. He praised the long political career of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was highly critical of Ahmadinejad in the campaign.

Rafsanjani's opposition has raised speculation of possible rifts emerging in the ruling theocracy over the election. Rafsanjani heads a panel of clerics with the power to review the supreme leader's performance and remove him — although that has never been used.

Ahmadinejad has appeared to take the opposition more seriously in recent days, backtracking Thursday on his dismissal of the protesters as "dust" and sore losers.

The crowds in Tehran and elsewhere have been able to organize despite a government clampdown on the Internet and cell phones. The government has blocked certain Web sites, such as BBC Farsi, Facebook, Twitter and several pro-Mousavi sites that are conduits for Iranians to tell the world about protests and violence.

Text messaging has not been working in Iran since last week, and cell phone service in Tehran is frequently down.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Stealing elections is one things but when they threaten to kill protesters it moves into an entirely different league. Especially when the protesters numbers are in the millions.

How, exactly, are we to help? We're already fighting two wars in the region, do we really have the forces to spare to help a revolt happening within a sovereign state? It seems wrong, but in the long run, the Iranian movement toward democracy and openness would be better served by our staying out of it. Their efforts will be bolstered if they say that their movement, and their sacrifices, are coming from internal efforts entirely and are not being helped (or, as they would probably think there, controlled) by Westerners.

If the Iranians want change to come to their country, they have to fight for it themselves.

 

[scorcho]

There's also a difference between issuing a carefully worded statement critiquing an ally and one against a country that we've interfered with in the past, recently labeled as an 'axis of evil' and currently trying to normalize diplomatic ties with.

Pundits and other politicians can and have free reign to offer whatever sympathy and support they can, the President can't. 'Bams has taken the right approach so far.

Cooter: I've seen that, but the rhetoric means little right now.

 

[electricpirate]

"and try to stop it"

How exactly? Militarily? That's going to reduce violence and give the revolution a real shot.

Sanctions? This could possibly have an effect, but the iranian gov. hasn't exactly been held down by sanctions before. Also if we do it before violence, we're turning the protesters into western stooges whether they want or not. That's a situation that is just as dangerous.

And the fact remains, the more we do, the worse off the protesters are. The more we get involved, the more easily the government can marginalize and seperate the protesters from Iranian society.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Unbelievable. Some how I doubt many here would have the same stance if Israel decided to kill all the Palestinians who decided to peacefully protest.

That's hardly the same thing.

 

[gutter_trash]

@Cooter
do you care about Burma, Darfur, sweatshops in Asia, uninsured Americans,

why are Iranian protesters' lives so important to you now despite all the evil happening in the world or locally at home?

 

[Cooter]

How, exactly, are we to help? We're already fighting two wars in the region, do we really have the forces to spare to help a revolt happening within a sovereign state? It seems wrong, but in the long run, the Iranian movement toward democracy and openness would be better served by our staying out of it. Their efforts will be bolstered if they say that their movement, and their sacrifices, are coming from internal efforts entirely and are not being helped (or, as they would probably think there, controlled) by Westerners.

If the Iranians want change to come to their country, they have to fight for it themselves.

Why then are we trying to help the Palestians? We should let them work it out.

 

[APF]

I think these are, again, issues that are convoluted and do not easily boil down to black-and-white stances. Symbolism matters. Being on the right side of history, matters. Appearing terrified to say anything lest you fail to adequately appease the puppetmasters behind a sham democracy, matters. These events are playing out on a global stage, where more are watching than just rural Iranians terrified by decades of anti-Western rhetoric, and left-wing handwringers terrified by six-year-old specters of imminent US invasions breathlessly prophetized by other left-wing handwringers.

Outside of this, when it comes down to it, the idea that Iranians are as a whole anti-US, or anti-Western-powers, is a caricature. There is a dark history there, of course. You would be a fool to deny it. But that history is not the entirety of a people, not the entirety of the way cultures relate to each other--or more importantly, want to relate to each other. I think far too often--especially when it backs-up our own personal goals, fears and perspectives,--we take the words of the loudest and most obnoxious as voicing the true concerns of an entire populace, when the reality is quite the opposite from the conclusions one would draw from doing so.

In any case, words matter. Not just to your potential enemies, but also to your potential allies.

 

[scorcho]

Why then are we trying to help the Palestians? We should let them work it out.

So you'd also support withdrawing our support for Israel?

Your comparison doesn't apply, especially since historically we've sided more with Israel than against.

 

[electricpirate]

Why then are we trying to help the Palestians? We should let them work it out.

You are confusing a conflict where we have the means to enact change with a conflict where we can only make things worse.

 

[SimpleDesign]

smh

 

[Cooter]

@Cooter
do you care about Burma, Darfur, sweatshops in Asia, uninsured Americans,

why are Iranian protesters' lives so important to you now despite all the evil happening in the world or locally at home?

Of course I do. Burma and Darfur aren't trying to get a nuke and threatening to use it. Getting a more western style Govt in Iran benefits everyone. And :lol at comparing the life of Irainis to uninsured Americans. Give it up.

 

[scorcho]

FWIW: Iran has never threatened to nuke anyone. And while a 'western style' government allied with the US would be ideal, you'd be kidding yourself if you think that's what Mousavi represents. He's less crazy than Ahmadinejad, but his history doesn't ooze anything but 'establishment' politics in Iran.

The thing about democracy promotion is that, ultimately, it's dependent on a society that might not value normalized relations with the US. There's little to suggest that the Iranian public will moderate their views on Israel, nor are they likely to decide to curb their nuclear program.

 

[Cooter]

So you'd also support withdrawing our support for Israel?

Your comparison doesn't apply, especially since historically we've sided more with Israel than against.

I would, yes. If the Israelis were in a situation where they needed to defend themselves then we could consider starting it back up.