Iran--Don't Let Us Get Sucked In

[yellowwood]

I have been hearing the same commentators who loved our Iraq invasion now saying that Obama should take a stronger stance on Iran. That worries me.

Sure, we sympathize with the Iranians who would like a different government. But what do we really want for the country? Do we want to see the chaos, loss of life, destruction, and destabilization that we see in Iraq?

Do we really want the United States to get involved militarily? If so, how would we pay for it? And who among us are willing to lose family members in a conflict?

George Bush made inflammatory comments: axis of evil, for instance. Where did it get us?

President Obama has taken just the right position so far.

[vadawg]

1. question is if the iranian powers do a tianaman square on their people

do we just sit back and do business as usual or do we get more involved, it would be interesting to see just exactly how far the powers would have to go before DU would advocate intervention.

[nebenaube]

5. They already are...

I just saw film where you can hear them switch over to full auto... these appear to be isolated incidences but there are already many dead. too bad the Republicans actions over history have made it impossible to help these people.

[Billy Burnett]

7. Any links to any info on this?

Just did a quick news search and found nothing.

Thanks

:hi:

[JI7]

6. it's more likely that our involvement would make a bad situation even worse

first we need to think and ask what us getting involved would do. at this point i see it doing nothing positive and only making things worse.

[malaise]

10. Bigger question

Do you think the US government would sit by and allow let's say health care protesters to control the streets of DC for over a week?

How did the British deal with the protests earlier this year - oh yes they had their police infiltrate and kill a protester.

Should the rest of the world have got involved when the protesters at the GOP convention were attacked - why Amy Goodman et al were attacked and jailed?

What about the 2000 elections? Should the rest of the world have got involved?
Should Americans have taken to the streets? How do you think Bushco would have dealt with them

I'm beyond amused at the corporate media's coverage of events in Iran when the same media ignored the anti-war protests in the US during the Bush administraton.

I'm sitting this one out - watching and evaluating for myself. I'm pretty sure that these protests could not have been sustained without outside money from either Mosad, CIA, Saudi Arabia or all three of them.

[vadawg]

11. i think this will eclipse anything you mentioned if the mullahs decide to teach a lesson

to the protestors and the rest of the country, dictatorships at times like these either fall or come out swinging. As for getting involved i merely posted the question should the US get involved more to support the protests if they are indeed a real movement for freedom and not CIA induced, or should we sit back even if the Iranian hardliners go in and massacre them.

[yellowwood]

12. This Is My Point

"As for getting involved i merely posted the question should the US get involved more to support the protests if they are indeed a real movement for freedom and not CIA induced, or should 'we' sit back even if the Iranian hardliners go in and massacre them."

This is how we get hopelessly involved. Americans are basically compassionate. They don't want to watch anyone be "massacred." Of course not. So what's our alternative? Should we punish the people in the country to save them?

And who are the "we" we talk about? Are we talking about military action involving our husbands, siblings, children? No. It's always somebody else's.

We've had eight years of a hardline Administration. We have nothing positive to show for it.

Give Obama a chance to use a more humanitarian approach.

[AntiFascist]

15. Don't people realize....

when we attack a nation in order to overturn the government, then massive numbers of innocent civlians would die as a result? This has not been stressed enough where it happened in the case of Iraq. They would hate us for our aggression.

[Windy]

2. The actions of the protesters will prevent a war. NO ONE could possibly condone bombing

those brave people. At least that's what I hope.

[vadawg]

3. What im saying is what if the iranian government decides they have had enough and make an example of

the protestors, it wouldnt be the first time that a government uses its military to quell a rebellion or revolution. Where would your trip wire be for intervention.

[Windy]

4. I think then the world will come together for a response that involves sanctions, etc

and not military action, like the response to China after Tienanmen Square.

[goclark]

8. What happened to the United Nations?

I thought they were the voice for Justice in the world.

[vadawg]

9. rofl, you got to be kidding right, some things the UN does good

but icant see the UN doing anything substantial especially when we wee how well they have done before in other parts of the world.

[anonymous171]

13. No intervention. This is an Iranian problem. If they have enough local support, they will triumph.

If they don't, they will be brutally subdued. Either way it's not the US government's problem.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. We "intervened" in Vietnam, Iraq, Congo, and a slough of other countries.

There are many countries in existence today that are not democracies, use force to quell the people's aspirations, (Burma, China, Ukraine, Thailand, to name just a few). Should we "intervene" to set them right.

Iran is a popular bogeyman at this particular time.

Not to mention that "intervention" on our part would give more, not less, power to the Iranian bosses and thugs.