<p>
Thomas Jefferson said something about a little rebellion now and then was a good thing. I am not sure this is what he had in mind.</p>
<p>you don’t say…</p>
<p>Now, what scares me is that there is already an idea of going to war with Iran, its in the wind, and if the President of Iran is who people claim he is, well, what better reason will we have…</p>
<p>Well, if there are 135,000 hostile troops on one border, 50,000 on the other, and the commander of these troops makes hostile noises for two years running, if you were an Iranian, who would YOU vote for?</p>
<p>Yeah, what an (&*%&$ mess</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate to be cold about it. But, as long as we’ve got 185,000 US troops positioned on Iran’s borders and daily U2 flights recon flights, they can vote for whomever they like. It’s not like the people of Iran get to vote for anyone who holds real power. I’m not sure it really matters who runs the sham government when the Ayatollahs call the shots. Reform in Iran isn’t going to be based on any election outcome. It’s not exactly a democracy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, well about 35 years after he died, Jefferon got his little rebellion and it ended up shedding more American blood than all the rest of the wars combined.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We have no need for war with Iran, now. Their ability to enable terrorism has been greatly curtailed. We can fly hourly recon missions to keep tabs on their nuke program and the training camps Bin Laden built in Iran. If Bin Laden pops up or if we reach the end of the rope on their nuke program, it’s pretty easy to hit either one with a cruise missile.</p>
<p>Iran has been the nexus for virtually all of the terrorism in the middle east. I think putting ourselves in position to keep a tight watch over Iran is a good thing.</p>
<p>“I hate to be cold about it. But, as long as we’ve got 185,000 US troops positioned on Iran’s borders and daily U2 flights recon flights, they can vote for whomever they like. It’s not like the people of Iran get to vote for anyone who holds real power. I’m not sure it really matters who runs the sham government when the Ayatollahs call the shots. Reform in Iran isn’t going to be based on any election outcome. It’s not exactly a democracy.”</p>
<p>Funny, that’s what they say about us and the godless capitalists. 
The reality is that the difference between the candidates in Iran’s elections have been far, far greater than in ours. Whether they could get “anything done” (or whether, when it comes to multinational interests, American Presidents can really get “anything done”) is a much subtler issue. (Guess that’s why we are both “republics”.)</p>
<p>Well, it’s good that the Iranians have figured out US politics. They would be correct that, when it comes to foreign policy, it really doesn’t matter which party is in power in the U.S. </p>
<p>It would probably be good if more Americans understood that. It would cut down on the partisan harping.</p>
<p>The problem with Islam is that it has never undergone its parallel to the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. The problem of American theocratic would-be ayahtollahs like James Dobson is that they wish the same conditions applied here.</p>
<p>Islam can involve. But the amount of intellectual capital they have is miniscule at the moment. Their typical leaders make Benedict XVI look like a flaming liberal.</p>
<p>I thought Iraq was the center for terrorism in the middle east…</p>
<p>James Dobson is an American theocratic would-be ayahtollah ? Is anyone who isnt a screaming liberal come off as ayahtollah to you ?</p>
<p>No. Just Dobson. ;)</p>
<p>Numero uno,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>=))… That’s hilarious…</p>
<p>Number two,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the Middle East is the center of terrorism for the Middle East. That entire region is … troubling… Not to say all Middle East countries are terrorist nations, but terrorism knows no geopolitical boundaries.</p>
<p>An interesting read on the state of Iran: <a href=“http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/050627roco03?page=1[/url]”>http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/050627roco03?page=1</a>
In it, Christpher Hitchens, former editor of The Nation tours Iran and interviews the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini:
</p>
<p>The entire article shows a lot of antipathy toward the current regime by the Iranian population and a significant pro-American feeling. This view is consistent with the feelings found by Nicholas Kristoff as he tured Iran awhile back. </p>
<p>One comes away from reading such stories with a feeling that Iran is a very complex place, holding significant promise if it is handled correctly.</p>
<p>It may be recalled that Khomenini’s one time friend and would be succesor, Ayatollaha Montezari, has for years taken a similar line on the clergy and government.
My mother is Iranian and I have a lot of family in Iran. My family is actually quite worried about the election of the new government. It is a scarry time. The election, I beleive, was about the economy, which is a disaster.</p>
<p>No, Gary Bauer is another would be-ayahtollah. Anne Coulter would love the idea.</p>
<p>Edvest, you’re welcome to come visit and see what real screaming liberals are like. Where I live, I’m regarded as a conservative.</p>
<p>As disenchanted as many Iranians are with the current theocrats, “handling them properly” is not what some might think. If anything, I think Iranians are more strongly nationalistic than the Iraqis. I live among the largest concentration of Iranians outside of Iran; I’d be surprised if support for U.S. intervention in Iran cracked the 20 percent mark. And a lot of these folks are from families that escaped when the Shah was overthrown in the first place.</p>
<p>I worked in Iran (for a quasi-U.S. government agency) during the days of the Shah. The older folks there remember where their torturers were trained.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hence the potential merit in giving the younger folks a new memory: a memory of who drove a torturing brutal despot from power in Iraq and is helping to establish a majority Shiia government in his place.</p>