So Oklahoma State Univ was involved in the takeover? Shocking! Anyways, it is true that Iran is more democratic than ANY other ME state not named Israel. Consider this: the incumbent didn't even make it to the run-off elections, and two new candidates made it instead. Then, the all-powerful, wealthy elite Rafsanjani lost DECISIVELY to a popularist from a blue-collar background, who is more representative of the masses. The popularist defeats the millionaire elitist. Call it what you want, but this wouldn't be possible given our current political system that pretty much automatically disqualifies anyone who isn't a prominant member of the elite class. Regardless, this newly elected guy looks to be the one in the hostage-taking videos I have seen run on the news all day long. Still, realistically speaking: what the hell can Bush do about it? Not much, so let's drop any silly talk about "bombing Iran", because believe me, we couldn't even if we wanted to. Iran has LOTS of social/economic problems, but it is improving on the path of economic development and IS much, much more stable than most regimes in the region are. So let's not exaggerate the "instability" or Iran, because that's just simply not true (give me a good example of that "instability"; dare I say their regime has more support than Bush has in the USA right now?) BTW, just to throw a couple of names of former "reformed terrorists": Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin Oh, and just in case you didn't hear, Putin doesn't think much of our "democratic" system either, as well as other democracies around the world. So basically, to each his own. Yes, I have a problem with their democratic system, and I am sure others have a problem with ours. However, in the current climate, don't expect to ever hear anything positive being said about Iran due to the tremendous level of animosity that exist on both sides, even if they elected a Protestant it wouldn't matter much (we have political disagreements with them, so that overrides any other consideration on the part of our government)
Wrong. We could bomb them back to the stone age in a matter of a couple of weeks. The problem is that it couldn't be done without ethical avoidance of civilians, which those terrorist sickos in Iran would take full advantage of a la Iraq and hide their weaponry in Mosques, then cry to the French and other "sensitive" countries about how savage the US is by bombing mosques. That's the handicap we operate under over there in the ME. The muslim extremists done care if they murder mother teresa and 30 blind orphans, but heaven forbid if the US kills an innocent civilian.
Has the WH suggested it's not going to recognize the election...or that they're about to invade? I haven't heard. I don't expect them to fully endorse the man's past ... all things considered. Should they? This is kind of a big thing. The ol' hostage taking was rather big news back in its day. Of course that was before the days of Real World, Britney Spears, Big Brother 27, and Pick-a-side political bickering that passes for discourse these days. Lots of problems with the US electoral system. But they're not the ones who've just elected a freaking hostage-taker!!!! But then Bush did cocaine! Kids! What can you do? Part of growing up, I suppose. Getting stoned, partying hard, putting guns to the heads of american civilians. Come on...we all did that at one time, didn't we? I think this is kind of important news. Rather glad it's getting headlines. Let's not trivialize it. Doesn't mean we invade....but let's at least point it out. And leave the partisan bickering for other discussions. Happy 4th of July weekend all!
Well, for starters, Iran has a real army for one thing, and is not (nor ever was) Iraq (military speaking). They have chemical and bio weapons aplenty at their disposal, and the latest Russian missile technology, and have a huge leverage agains the USA on two fronts: their ability to mercilessly bombard Israel (and thus drag the whole region into a conflict once Israel retaliates), and, most importantly, they can bomb every single oil field in the Gulf area if they are attacked (they have threatened as much). Oh, and a legion of trained suicide-bombers in case of an invasion. Oh, and its a rather large country (about three times the size of Iraq) that is inhabited by nearly 70 million people. Oh, and more thing, they have the ability to sink every single Americna warship/carrier stationed in the Persian Gulf. So, my friend, it isn't as easy as you think.
As much as you'd like to think that your Muslim brothers could do this, they wouldn't stand a chance. Sorry.
I don't think he's saying they would win, just that they could cause trouble and make it more trouble than its worth. Same reason we can't invade North Korea... NK would clearly lose, but they would cause all hell to break loose in the process. I think current estimates are they could hit and injure 500,000 South Koreans in the first half hour if they got into a conventional type war.
I don't know if you are small-minded, or just completely ignorant. Who the hell said anything about my "Muslim brothers"??! Why did you say "as much as you'd like to think"? What, do you mean I am inflating Iranian capabilities to glorify my Muslim brethren?!! Or is it that I would "like" my "Muslim brothers" to do it?! That was an idiotic statement that just shows your bias and ignorance. Calm down, cowboy, not everything I say is about my "Muslim brothers", I am not that narrow-minded. Apparently, and sadly, you are. Grow up!
Hmm, interesting... On Nightline, they mentioned that they have asked three different biometric experts to match the picture of the current Iranian leader, and that other picture of what is thought to be him during the hostage crisis, and all three apparently failed to make a match. I don't know if that's conclusive or not, because it still looks very much like a young him.
I tend to agree. Besides, there is an enormous amount of silence from Iranian authorities. I would think that they would have continually denied this if it weren't true, and would use it as another example of the "Great Satan"'s hypocrisy in promoting democratic elections while opposing democracy in Iran, or something along those lines. I still think it's him, but that would be some coincidence though.
Even if it is him I don't know how much of a difference it would make considering that US Iranian relations can't get much lower, other than war, than they are right now.
Oh come on, we all know that they all look alike and they are all terrorists. Bomb'em, bomb'em back to the stoneage. We deserve retribution for 1979.
Oh drop it Texxx, you are the grand Pooh-Bah of Chickenhawks. Hearing you talk "tough" about bombing and civilian casualties rings about as true as Mother Teresa(as you so poorly used her)punching an orphan in the face for being poor. Funny that a soft-handed, ineffectual weakling who starts threads about being scared of possum at his apartment complex talks like he's got the thousand yard stare from a tour in 'Nam and has personally executed gooks "cuz he knewed they were dirty yeller VC".
what happens when democracies vote for things we don't like? We recategorize them as fascist Nazis and bomb them back into the stone age.
The problem is that it couldn't be done without ethical avoidance of civilians. That's the handicap we operate under over there in the ME. that's your problem you coward. what you call a handicap, others refer to as civilization. we are better than the terrorists, right?
As a matter of fact the Bush administration has come out proclaiming the Iraqi elections as farces, and not to be taken in anyway as democratic. There are also reports(I'll wait until they can be verified before commenting one way or the other about them) that we have covert operations inside Iranian borders currently. That is ludicrous since they have praised much smaller steps towards democracies in the authoritarian regimes of our 'allies'. I am in no way a supporter of Iran or any hostage taking person who participated in the '78 mess. In fact after 9/11 I felt a strange rage toward Ronald Reagan in part because he illegally sold weapons to terrorists, after making a big deal about not dealing and discussing with terrorists. I don't think there is anything to debate about it being horrible and seriously impeding diplomacy for Iranians to elect a man who participated in the hostage taking. But I don't believe it is partisan discussing to point out that our allies in the region are less democratic than Iran is. I think it is part of the problem we face in the war on terrorism which is certainly important. Oppressed people with limited education living in poverty, generally don't like super-powers that enable their oppressors while talking out the other side of their mouths about freedom, equality and justice for all. The sooner we alter our support for all regimes in the region, the easier it will be to win the war against terrorism. I'm sorry if I didn't make that more clear, and you mistook anything I said for partisan bickering.
