3 ms·
So would you say that the US State Department should have supported the efforts of the Iranian government in quelling dissent amongst the election protesters?
by DannoHung 17y ago
So would you say that the US State Department should have supported the efforts of the Iranian government in quelling dissent amongst the election protesters? Perhaps that they should have requested that Twitter block access from Iranian IP addresses and take down posts?
Look man, there's a difference between fomenting a violent revolution by providing weapons and terrorist training and trying to encourage a grass roots movement for regime change in the face of fishy election results.
I don't intrinsically believe that everyone should stay out of everyone else's domestic politics. I believe that as long as support is nonviolent, there's not a problem with expressing it.
- onreact-com 17y ago"So would you say that the US State Department should have supported the efforts of the Iranian government in quelling dissent amongst the election protesters?" No. What I'm saying is: The US State Department should keep out of Iran, especially after supporting the last bloody dictatorship (of the infamous Shah) the current rulers have abolished. The thugs who tortured the Iranian people still live in the US and wait for the US invasion to come back. Compared to back then Iran is now a really democratic country. Back then there were no elections at all, he ruled like a king. Thus any interference of the US government in Iran is very suspicious and far from genuine interest in democracy etc. Also as I stated above this movement wasn't very "grassroots". It was the old clerics against the young militarists. I'd love to believe there was genuine support for the people of Iran but to believe this is more than naive, not after the invasion threats to Iran in recent years and the whole history of anti-Iranian policy in the US. Don't forget that Iran has even more oil than Iraq.