I don't see why the west shouldn't meddle in Iran. They are meddling in Lebanon.

However, the main problem is not a lack of meddling but the western mass media's reluctance to speak up against tyranny. All Obama would have to do is say something to the effect that the current Iranian government obviously doesn't represent the Iranian people without ever openly supporting the opposition.

I am just worried that if the regime's reaction to the protests escalates, all the money the world intended to give to Darfur might be redirected to rebuilding Iran. (Just kidding, nobody gives money to Africans or democracy supporters.)

The really great thing about the protests, even if they would fail to change anything, is that the entire world now know that there are more "death to the dictator" people than "death to Israel" people in Iran.

That totally gave away their bluff.

I agree with this; however, wars are started by governments, but fought by the people. Of course we should meddle in Iran. Only liberals think we should just sit here and let the world do as it will. Ahmedinejahd has a messiah complex, and thinks he's the one to bring the 12th Imam back up out of the well. The only way to do that is to spread worldwide chaos; what's the best way to do that? Start a worldwide, preferably nuclear, conflict.

I was in a heated discussion with my wife's uncle one evening last week. He's a liberal, unionist Democrat who thinks he knows it all because he watches the History Channel. He yelled "Look what we did in Iran in the 50s; that's why they hate us over there!"

I had to patiently inform him that Mossadegh was a Soviet puppet, and that we were simply doing, in our interests, what the Soviets were doing in their own. It was, after all, the Cold War. Okay, the Shah did some bad things, but by and large, he was good for the country. He brought modernization of schools, industry and medical care; outside investment....secularization of government and education (which liberals should just adore).

We can't sit here in isolation and not involve ourselves in the world, simply because every other country is out there, involving themselves, to some extent. Know what his counter-argument was?

"So what?"

That was it. How do you fight that? Typical liberal.

If Iran gets a nuke, even a Hiroshima-sized bomb, it'll be Katie Bar the Door in the region. Every country over there will be scrambling to acquire nuclear weapons, if not to ally themselves with Iran, then to protect themselves from Iran. Although Isreal has never, that I know of, declared themselves to be a nuclear power, they've never said otherwise, either.
If Iran has only one or two bombs, with which they could take out a couple cities, they could be looking at massive, and catastrophic, retaliation. If everyone gets 72 virgins....well, I hope Allah has a big harem.

I have no doubt that, if this were the case, Israel would still be the subject of worldwide reproach, even if they did have two smoking, radioactive craters where once stood cities. They're not allowed to defend themselves.

Israel's "friends" would remind Israel that this is the result of an aggressive strategy.

And the UN would charge Israel for the damage their aggression against Iran has cost "Palestinian" towns affected by the nuclear holocaust.

Mmm, I'm leaning more towards not meddling, but having our nukes, military, etc. on standby. I just, personally, see too much to lose if we meddle in Iran.

Besides, I truly believe that the opposition in Iran is going to see it through, even if it means more bloodshed. I've twittered/talked with a few people I know, one used to live in Iran, and the other is currently there. They both say that people are motivated and committed.

I think the next few days are going to be pivotal. I do agree though, lets not get caught with our pants down.

Agreed.

~Alderic

I would venture to say that only idiots would rather NOT have peace. However, the world is full of such idiots, and, from time-to-time, when it's clear that violence, destruction and bloodshed are on the horizon, it's logical, and even correct, to take a proactive stand in opposition to them.

Not necessarily; I don't believe it comes down to intelligence, so much as humanity.

Mm, it may be logical, but sometimes the logical action isn't the right or ebst action. Personally, I would rather save options that would leave to bloodshed as last resorts. That's just me however.

~Alderic

Btw, it's good to see you again RW.

I'll offer up this, simple history. Thirty years ago, we supported the Shah, a long time friend and ally, when the people rose against him we stood firm, but really did nothing but voice support. The Iranian people remembered this and relations have suffered ever since.

Three decades later we are again at the same crossroad. This time it is slightly different, we are not friends and allies with the Iranian government. But Obama has given the regime legitimacy by "extending a hand", and sometimes silence can be a form of support or at least acceptance (Munich Agreement).

The Iranian government, in any form under the clerics, will never be for us. The people might. IMO they are our best chance for a normal relationship. Shall we be on the wrong side again? I don't suggest we support the reformist candidate. I do suggest we back the people directly in a show of solidarity, that their choices matter, they will be the ones that shape any future leaders openness toward the US. If they are successful we have to respond positively in some way that would benefit the Iranian people as directly as possible.

Ask yourself this. If you passed someone being abused on the street, would you do nothing? Apathy is common in the US, lets hope it isn't the rule.

Call the attacker the "Supreme Leader" of the other guy and refer to the fight as a lively debate.

I can appreciate that position; however, if a smaller amount of bloodshed will stop a clearly approching bloodbath, then the proper steps should be taken.

Stopping Hitler at Munich--which, if Britain and France had opposed him, is exactly what would have happened--would clearly have been a better alternative to WW2.

Peace is ALWAYS preferable to a small, short war; however, a small, short war is equally preferable to a big, drawn-out destructive one. 

Thanks, AJ....it's good to be back; I come and I go. We're moving, though, and I'm not sure when we'll have the Net at the new house. Should be sometime this week, if Comcast comes through. If not, seeya when I seeya.

Agreed; though hopefully that war is indeed short. Unfortunately, history has shown that the so called short wars can end up being long and drawn out; WW2 was claimed to be swift and decisive, same thing with the Civil war, etc. Hopefully mission accomplished truly means mission accomplished. =\

I've been in and out a bit myself as well since I've been wrapping up school here. Good luck with the move, I'll be moving myself come September or so.

~Alderic