The voters in Iran want freedom and they are crying for a democracy.

[jeffrockit]

The voters in Iran want freedom and they are crying for a democracy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very powerful!

Damn you Obama...this is your chance to change the face of the middle east. Bush did it with Iraq. Obama,...you could do it with Iran...without firing a shot. The Persian people are hungry for freedom.

With free democracies in the middle east...terrorism will wither on the vine.

Mind your own business America....

Then that includes everywhere, Africa and all of the other countries we send aid and $ to.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why, exactly?

Because hte rest of the world are sick of you guys constantly poking your nose in where it's not wanted. Let countries sort out their own problems...If they ask for help, sure. But don't butt in:
1) Because America was based on freedom and therefore it looks hypocritical if you take sides
2) It just ain't none of your damn business...

is that why you got rid of the obama picture in your sig?

I have never had an Obama sig...

 

[Dr Grump]

Then that includes everywhere, Africa and all of the other countries we send aid and $ to.

Sending aid and interfering in the internal politics of another country are two different things. If you can't see the difference, you must be a neocon whackjob....

 

[Dr Grump]

If who exactly asks for help?

It looks hypocritical to take sides of revolutionaries fighting against an extremely oppressive regime, because america was based on freedom? That makes no sense at all.

So Rwanda was just A OK, eh?

No, Rwanda was not OK. Did you help out there? As I said above, helping out people where genocide is taking place, and not liking an oppressive regime are two different things. If you are so concerned about repressive regimes when does the invasion of China begin? Burma? N Korea? Your friends Saudi Arabia?

Also, with regard to 'revolutionaries' I say this: with Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, Central America and other parts of the world where the Great Game is played, the US tend to replace one repressive regime with another. ie Batista in Cuba (American puppet and dictator) replaced by another dictator; the Shah (western puppet and dictator) replaced by repressive regime; South Vietnam (American puppet and corrupt regime) replaced by repressive communist regime; Contras (extreme right wing guerillas backed by the US) trying to overthrow left-wing Sandinistas....I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. Let them sort it out themselves.....

Mind your own freaking business....

 

[slackjawed]

In my opinion I don't think the US shouldZ"invade" Iran, yet anyway. It may be the best option later on, but right now I don't think so.
I also think that the Iranian people have more 'balls' than us Americans. i present as evidence the on-going demonstrations going on there now. These people demonstrating for the 'loser' are risking their lives to do so right now. If history is any indication, the people demonstrating for the 'winner' are risking their lives later. (if the 'loser' gains power)
Here in the US, we had a lot of people claiming that we had a stolen election, but few hit the streets to protest. There was no threat from the govt here, anyone can protest anytime they want-yet there were no widespread protests, just years of whining and bitching.
I don't know what has actually happened in Iran, or if any other govt. is behind any of it. I do know that there are a lot of the Iranian people in the streets risking everything. Whatever happens, I respect and admire the fact that despite the threats they face, these people are still in the street.

 

[Gunny]

The voters in Iran want freedom and they are crying for a democracy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very powerful!

Damn you Obama...this is your chance to change the face of the middle east. Bush did it with Iraq. Obama,...you could do it with Iran...without firing a shot. The Persian people are hungry for freedom.

With free democracies in the middle east...terrorism will wither on the vine.

You would be incorrect. The voters in Iran neither need nor want our help. They may want their freedom, but they STILL hate us and distrust us.

Your kind of blind appeal to emotion gets people killed.

 

[sealybobo]

In my opinion I don't think the US shouldZ"invade" Iran, yet anyway. It may be the best option later on, but right now I don't think so.
I also think that the Iranian people have more 'balls' than us Americans. i present as evidence the on-going demonstrations going on there now. These people demonstrating for the 'loser' are risking their lives to do so right now. If history is any indication, the people demonstrating for the 'winner' are risking their lives later. (if the 'loser' gains power)
Here in the US, we had a lot of people claiming that we had a stolen election, but few hit the streets to protest. There was no threat from the govt here, anyone can protest anytime they want-yet there were no widespread protests, just years of whining and bitching.
I don't know what has actually happened in Iran, or if any other govt. is behind any of it. I do know that there are a lot of the Iranian people in the streets risking everything. Whatever happens, I respect and admire the fact that despite the threats they face, these people are still in the street.

I agree. 2/3rds of Iran are young people and they want to be friendly with America. I have Iranian friends. Trust me, they are no different than us.

And yes, we didn't protest when Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. I was so ashamed of the lefties for that.

And I am amazed at the Iranian people. Bravo.

But as for invading Iran? Out of the question. We need to stay out of it. Anyone who suggests Obama invade is only trying to sabotage him. It is none of our business. And our involvement will only help increase Amadenijad's popularity because they will rally behind him thru nationalism.

If anything, N. Korea needs an ass whoopin.

 

[Shogun]

The voters in Iran want freedom and they are crying for a democracy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very powerful!

Damn you Obama...this is your chance to change the face of the middle east. Bush did it with Iraq. Obama,...you could do it with Iran...without firing a shot. The Persian people are hungry for freedom.

With free democracies in the middle east...terrorism will wither on the vine.

Mind your own business America....

Why, exactly?

because you would DEMAND Iran mind their own business in a highly contested American election.

 

[editec]

Obama interfering or getting us involved in these protests in Iran would be a bad thing.

You really think the US is not orchestrating this in the first place? Maybe its Israel acting on its own?

No, actually I do not.

There is no evidence that this election was "stolen" which makes it all the more clear that this "uprising" was pre-planned in advance prior to the election.

Let's recap, shall we?

The ECONOMY of Iran is in a shambles thanks much to the current regime.
The people are not thrilled by that.

The Fundamentalist morons in that country are running things and the people of Iran are NOT amused that these nitwits are screwing up what was once a very modern nation.

Given the above, the fact that the outcome of the election gave the current regime a two-to-one victory is highly unlikely.

And given that hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens are willing to risk getting killed on the streets to express their horror, should lead you to at least SUSPECT that their ire is legit.

Now I happened to know a lot of Iranians before the Mullahs took over and those people are not the unsophisticated people I suspect you imagine tham to be. Put away your belief that Iran is anything remotely like a place overrun with camel jockies. They had indoor plumbing and heating when your European forefathers and mine were still living in the iron age and scrambling to find enough to eat, dude.

They are no more thrilled with their idiotic fundamentalist government than I was when Bush II and his Xristian fundies were running things.

 

[rhodescholar]

Why, exactly?

Because hte rest of the world are sick of you guys constantly poking your nose in where it's not wanted. Let countries sort out their own problems...If they ask for help, sure. But don't butt in:
1) Because America was based on freedom and therefore it looks hypocritical if you take sides
2) It just ain't none of your damn business...

Oh of course, its never the US' business, until the world (EU/UN, Asia, etc.) start calling for US military and/or financial help (WW1, WW2, African humanitarian missions, etc.).

 

[rhodescholar]

There is no proof that the election was stolen. That's the problem. Any news coming out is based on CONJECTURE--& some eroneous prior polling data. That's it.

For those of you wanting to invade Iran. I would sure hate to find out after the invasion that the election was correct. What did you forget about Iraq already?

The good news for you Bush haters--due to Bush we have Iran surrounded by democracies--Iran sits right between Iraq & Afganistan.

There is absolutely nothing we can do.

I don't care how fast you can count, but being able to count 40 million votes in 8 hours, to me, seems a little too quick.

To those willing to think, the election was an obvious fraud - to the lackeys of iran, america haters, etc., it had to be a free and fair election.

 

[Nik]

If who exactly asks for help?

It looks hypocritical to take sides of revolutionaries fighting against an extremely oppressive regime, because america was based on freedom? That makes no sense at all.

So Rwanda was just A OK, eh?

No, Rwanda was not OK. Did you help out there?

Nope. And as Clinton has said, that was his biggest failing when he was president.

As I said above, helping out people where genocide is taking place, and not liking an oppressive regime are two different things. If you are so concerned about repressive regimes when does the invasion of China begin? Burma? N Korea? Your friends Saudi Arabia?

Surely you can comprehend the difference between trying to help a population that is in armed revolt against an oppressive regime, and invading all countries in the world that have repressive regimes?

Also, with regard to 'revolutionaries' I say this: with Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, Central America and other parts of the world where the Great Game is played, the US tend to replace one repressive regime with another. ie Batista in Cuba (American puppet and dictator) replaced by another dictator; the Shah (western puppet and dictator) replaced by repressive regime; South Vietnam (American puppet and corrupt regime) replaced by repressive communist regime; Contras (extreme right wing guerillas backed by the US) trying to overthrow left-wing Sandinistas....I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. Let them sort it out themselves.....

Mind your own freaking business....

You seem to have quoted American regimes that were replaced by other regimes, which is frankly besides the point. What the actual comparison should be is between oppressive regimes that control a country, and the American backed regimes AFTER the oppressive regimes, not before. Or are you actually blaming America because the regimes that came after US backed regimes were brutal?

Aside from that, I haven't said we should invade Iran. But this idea that we should just "mind our own business" and not get involved at all is asinine. Do you think Obama shouldn't have intervened with twitter? We should all have just minded our own business?

 

[Nik]

Mind your own business America....

Why, exactly?

because you would DEMAND Iran mind their own business in a highly contested American election.

If we were suffering under a brutal regime that was murdering protestors, and another country wanted to get involved and help the people, I would demand that other countries not get involved?

Really?

Why exactly do you think this?

 

[L.K.Eder]

In my opinion I don't think the US shouldZ"invade" Iran, yet anyway. It may be the best option later on, but right now I don't think so.
I also think that the Iranian people have more 'balls' than us Americans. i present as evidence the on-going demonstrations going on there now. These people demonstrating for the 'loser' are risking their lives to do so right now. If history is any indication, the people demonstrating for the 'winner' are risking their lives later. (if the 'loser' gains power)
Here in the US, we had a lot of people claiming that we had a stolen election, but few hit the streets to protest. There was no threat from the govt here, anyone can protest anytime they want-yet there were no widespread protests, just years of whining and bitching.
I don't know what has actually happened in Iran, or if any other govt. is behind any of it. I do know that there are a lot of the Iranian people in the streets risking everything. Whatever happens, I respect and admire the fact that despite the threats they face, these people are still in the street.

I agree. 2/3rds of Iran are young people and they want to be friendly with America. I have Iranian friends. Trust me, they are no different than us.

And yes, we didn't protest when Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. I was so ashamed of the lefties for that.

And I am amazed at the Iranian people. Bravo.

But as for invading Iran? Out of the question. We need to stay out of it. Anyone who suggests Obama invade is only trying to sabotage him. It is none of our business. And our involvement will only help increase Amadenijad's popularity because they will rally behind him thru nationalism.

If anything, N. Korea needs an ass whoopin.

I tried to inject this in the thread where the focus was on how many iranians according to this poll (PDF) don't like the USA to blame Obama's policies. In the same poll this question was asked, too:

Q10c: I will now read a list of different kinds of people. Please tell me your opinion of each group of people. Is your opinion very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

When asked about Americans, 17.8 percent answered "very favorable", 30.5 answered "somewhat favorable". "somewhat unfavorable" 7.1 percent, "very unfavorable" 13.1 percent.

The question about the USA was worded thusly:

Q9b: I will read a list of countries. Please tell me your opinion of each country. Is your opinion very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?

The answer to this was cherry picked and presented as evidence that Obamas fails.

All the while Iranians seem to like US Americans, i have no idea why.

 

[sealybobo]

All the while Iranians seem to like US Americans, i have no idea why.

They have relatives that live here and they like our western ways. Music, sports, hollywood, culture, sex, drugs, rock and roll.

The Supreme Ruler of Iran can not stop this.

Just like I don't agree with Bush on very much, Iranians don't agree with Amadenijad's in Iran.

 

[L.K.Eder]

They have relatives that live here and they like our western ways. Music, sports, hollywood, culture, sex, drugs, rock and roll.

The Supreme Ruler of Iran can not stop this.

Just like I don't agree with Bush on very much, Iranians don't agree with Amadenijad's in Iran.

You should see the spectacle of the iranian girls and women boarding the plane in tehran with their modest clothes changing to western style.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Iranians don't want your help [right now]. Let people fucking be for a change. They can sort this out themselves. I hate to say this, but what Obama is doing right now is basically the best possible option right now.

Just WAIT.

 

[rhodescholar]

And one can be pretty secure in knowing that once things settle down one way or another, some douchebags on the left will no doubt try to drag the US, or major US officials, into court for allowing unarmed civilians to be murdered and not coming in to defend them.

 

[Dr Grump]

Surely you can comprehend the difference between trying to help a population that is in armed revolt against an oppressive regime, and invading all countries in the world that have repressive regimes?

There is a difference, and either way, it's none of your business. Is there an armed revolt in Iran at the moment?

You seem to have quoted American regimes that were replaced by other regimes, which is frankly besides the point. What the actual comparison should be is between oppressive regimes that control a country, and the American backed regimes AFTER the oppressive regimes, not before. Or are you actually blaming America because the regimes that came after US backed regimes were brutal?

What do you mean it is beside the point? And you say that I'm asinine? That is exactly the point. Can you name one American-backed regime AFTER an oppressive regime that exists today?

Aside from that, I haven't said we should invade Iran. But this idea that we should just "mind our own business" and not get involved at all is asinine. Do you think Obama shouldn't have intervened with twitter? We should all have just minded our own business?

Why is it asinine? Why should you get involved? I have found most Americans have a hissy fit if it is even remotely suggested that any outside country has an influence on their internal mechanisms. What makes you think any other country doesn't feel the same way?

 

[del]

Surely you can comprehend the difference between trying to help a population that is in armed revolt against an oppressive regime, and invading all countries in the world that have repressive regimes?

There is a difference, and either way, it's none of your business. Is there an armed revolt in Iran at the moment?

You seem to have quoted American regimes that were replaced by other regimes, which is frankly besides the point. What the actual comparison should be is between oppressive regimes that control a country, and the American backed regimes AFTER the oppressive regimes, not before. Or are you actually blaming America because the regimes that came after US backed regimes were brutal?

What do you mean it is beside the point? And you say that I'm asinine? That is exactly the point. Can you name one American-backed regime AFTER an oppressive regime that exists today?

Aside from that, I haven't said we should invade Iran. But this idea that we should just "mind our own business" and not get involved at all is asinine. Do you think Obama shouldn't have intervened with twitter? We should all have just minded our own business?

Why is it asinine? Why should you get involved? I have found most Americans have a hissy fit if it is even remotely suggested that any outside country has an influence on their internal mechanisms. What makes you think any other country doesn't feel the same way?

nik's not particularly gifted.