<p><a href=“http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-10T140135Z_01_L10266591_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ELECTIONS-IRAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22[/url]”>http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-10T140135Z_01_L10266591_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ELECTIONS-IRAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22</a></p>
<p>When our enemy is happy that the democrats won, we should know who to vote for next time.</p>
<p>yeah, but we are also unhappy that Ortega won in a DEMOCRATIC - free - election.</p>
<p>Democracy works in a mysterious ways.</p>
<p>W still has 2 years to push the Red Button. The axis of evil have been very active the past 6 years and Bush has made no response except for empty words. Push the Button, George.</p>
<p>So if we agree that Iran is our enemy, and Iran is happy that the democrats won, shouldnt that mean that our enemy feels it will have an “easier time” be under “less pressure” because the democrats won? </p>
<p>I think its pretty telling about the international perception of the dems on nation security and foreing affiars.</p>
<p>“So if we agree that Iran is our enemy.”</p>
<p>Never did anything to me. And I lived there. Worked for the U.S. government, too. </p>
<p>Worldwide, just about everyone is happy that the Dems won (though what they did to deserve it is beyond me.) Guess that makes most of the rest of the world the enemy. (Ain’t that the truth. ;))</p>
<p>No, Mini, the rest of the world is not our enemy BECAUSE the democrats won</p>
<p>Iran is our enemy for many reasons. Lets thank god Iran never did anything to you, but unfortunately it did do something to those hostages in the late 70’s. Lets thank god Iran never did anything to you, but unfortunately Iran did do something to 200 Marines stationed in Lebanon. Lets thank god Iran never did anything to you, but unfortunately Iran did do something to American soldiers staitioned in Iraq right now. Lets thank god Iran never did anything to you yet, but if they have there way they will do something to you, and they will do something to me also.</p>
<p>Its very telling when our enemy, by any logical consideration, is happy that the opposition party won the elections. Looks like Iran expects something from the democrats that even we do not.</p>
<p>I know A LOT more about the hostage situation than you do, thank you. (I worked for the Iran-America Society.) But I doubt you have any interest in knowing, so I won’t bother. </p>
<p>No, Iran is NOT my enemy. But just about everyone is happy that the Dems won - I’ve been getting e-mails from around the world.</p>
<p>“Its very telling when our enemy, by any logical consideration, is happy that the opposition party won the elections.”</p>
<p>It is very telling when our FRIENDS, by any logical consideration, are happy that the opposition party won the elections.</p>
<p>I think its amazing that you do not consider Iran an enemy. Its just mind boggling. </p>
<p>Tell me what is your definition of an enemy, and what would you consider Iran, a friend?</p>
<p>Why bother? You’re not listening.</p>
<p>Good point. Dont bother. Intellectually dishonest people dont bother with anything when they knew they look ridiculous.</p>
<p>Here is one looking at you.</p>
<p>Golani, you are over your head. Go find some hawkish kids to talk with; maybe they will be more responsive to your scare tactics.</p>
<p>Ah. Yet another example of the failure of the American education system. Golani isn’t even aware that the logic of his assumption was exploded almost 2,500 years ago by people much smarter than Golani and I. It’s the old, “The friend of my enemy is my enemy” ploy.</p>
<p>Let’s take a modern example from my Southern childhood (OK, maybe it’s not THAT modern). It goes something like this </p>
<p>“Since African Americans are enemies of the white man, and since African Americans vote for the Democratic Pary, the Democratic Party is the devil, and un-American to boot!”</p>
<p>Of course, none of the whites I knew used a term like “African American.” I’d say it was about 90% n-word and 10% “colored” for those who liked to be polite and not be “prejudiced.”</p>
<p>The subject of Iran/US relations goes back a ways, and is more complex than just good vs. EEEEeeeeeevvviiiiiiilllllll. But let’s just say that, were I in Iran, I would be working really, really hard to develop a nuclear weapon. It’s the only way I would feel my country could continue to exist, given the Bush administration’s stance.</p>
<p>AM: Why do you feel the need to try to bully anyone who disagrees with you off this forum? I have a hard time understanding your attitude, since I was under the impression we are all free to make idiots of ourselves on this board, if we so choose. (And btw, golani often makes complete sense to me, as I’m sure he does to others.)</p>
<p>AM: Why do you feel the need to try to bully anyone who disagrees with you off this forum? I have a hard time understanding your attitude, since I was under the impression we are all free to make idiots of ourselves on this board, if we so choose. (And btw, golani often makes complete sense to me, as I’m sure he does to others.) I find the “tolerant liberals” on here much more likely to resort to these tactics than I do the conservative contributors. Frankly, it’s really tiresome.</p>
<p>
This statement is way over the top. If Iran would expend its resources on improving the state of its country and people rather than on the development of nuclear weapons and the support of terrorist organizations, and if it didn’t vow to destroy nations (Israel), the Bush administration (or any reasonable administration from any country) would only have a positive stance towards them. The current administration in Iran is hardly the benign administration some are implying it is.</p>
<p>There was a time when Iran was not developing nuclear weapons, was not supporting outside organizations, wasn’t vowing to destroy Israel, and was working to improve the state of the country.</p>
<p>The result? The U.S. strongly encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade (complete with Donald Rumseld handshake), and to use chemical weapons against them.</p>
<p>The current administration in the U.S. is hardly the benign administration some are implying it is.</p>
<p>Mini:
So is it your theory that the Bush administration is at fault for the current Iranian leadership’s vow to destroy Israel, their support of terrorist groups, and their development of nuclear weapons? I guess this would mean that Iran was pursuing none of this during the Clinton administration and that it has little to do with the personality of the current Iranian leadership.</p>
<p>I suggested no such thing. I think it goes back to Jimmy Carter, his support of the torture school at Fort Benning, his toasting of the Shah for his commitment human rights record, and the continuing and consistent efforts of subsequent administrations to undermine and overthrow the democratic will (which would NOT be mine) of the Iranian people, including encouraging the use of chemical weapons (by Ronald Reagan) against them.</p>
<p>I think the current Iranian President is a fool. I also think he was elected because of very legitimate threats on both of his borders of 200,000 hostile troops. I do think the Iranian people, based on the experience of what has happened on their borders, have a legitimate fear based upon “the personality of the current U.S. leadership”. I DON’T think that is inevitable; I do think that is subject to change, as has changed in the past. I think, based on the fact that there have been no fewer than six sets of democratic elections in Iran since 1981 with a wide range of results, even while they have been under siege, and based on my personal experience as representative (however lowly) of the U.S. government in Iran, that the Iranian people have a lot more in common with the American people than the governments of either country would like to entertain.</p>
<p>Mini- could you correct me if I am incorrect on my limited understanding of Iranian - US relations.
The British screw the Iranians in regard to oil revenue- the Iranians elect a leader who nationalizes the oil industry and kicks the British out- the Brits try to get the US to intervene Truman tells them to pound salt- Eisenhower is lead to believe the Iranians and Soviet Union will develop a political relationship so he oks a CIA led coup to install the Shah- the Shah proceeded to slaughter political dissidents- the Shah was driven from power but quickly put back in place with US military support- finally the Shah is removed and replaced by religious leaders- Jimmy Carter allows the Shah to come to the US for medical treatment- the Iranians fear the US will once again place the Shah in power to slaughter more of his opponents- Iranian students protest at the US embassy and take hostages- we later trade weapons with the Iranians for cash to send to anti communist fighters in central america- the US sends weapons to Iraq in its war with Iran- we later call the leader of Iraq the most evil man on earth and a danger to the world. We take him down so democracy can prevail. Gee I wonder why the Iranians are confused by US policy in 2003 democracy is good but in 1953 not so good. Hussien is trouble and evil in 2003 but during his war with Iran he’s worthy of our weapons and support. Is my basic knowledge of events fairly correct?</p>