http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/06/20/iranian-police-beat-protesters-and-fired-tear-gas-on-saturday/ Exposing the Andrea Mitchell bias and Media bias in America! - This site is NOT politically correct! Terrorists are actually called terrorists! Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:49:01 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/06/20/iranian-police-beat-protesters-and-fired-tear-gas-on-saturday/comment-page-1/#comment-4977 mfellion Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:00:03 +0000 http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/?p=5933#comment-4977 Why the big deal over Iran from the right and left? This election was lost by a fraction that would not be a friend of the US or any western democracy. Their supreme leader told the people to stop riots in Tehran. When they didn't he set the security police on them and a few have gotten killed. The same thing happens here,remember Watts? No government will allow people to riot, period! As to the Iranian election only 37% polled said they would support the reformists. Most of the people support the candidate who won. As evidence no photos of massive demonstrations are coming in from anyplace other than Tehran. Most of the rioters are from North Tehran the "liberal part" of the city, perhaps Irans Oakland or San Francisco but much more conservative. The rest of the population from Irans' "bible" belt supports the clerics choice of a winner. Did fraud occur, mayber, why should we care. We need to find a way to live with Iran and short of an invasion it had better be a peaceful way. Calling the leader of this country names, tsk tsk tsking and proclaiming phony embarcoes will not work to bring on reform. Since this is a major oil producing country their government has all the cash in the world to keep in power. No worth while result has come from our past approach to reform the government. Maybe that is what Russia, Europe and China were trying to tell the US. If Iran wants atomich power it will get it as Israel, India and Pakistan have all demonstrated. Even South Africa is rumored to have a small nuclear deterent and the world has not ended. Since oil is running out Iran's stated reason of nucs for power even makes sense. Reagon and Nixon tried a different way with Russia and China despite a lot of flak from the right wing and they were relatively successful. Their policy of engagement and compromise from strength worked to end the USSR and opened up both countries to profound and ongoing changes. Why don't we try a dirrerent approach since the past approaches have not worked with Iran? Why the big deal over Iran from the right and left? This election was lost by a fraction that would not be a friend of the US or any western democracy. Their supreme leader told the people to stop riots in Tehran. When they didn’t he set the security police on them and a few have gotten killed. The same thing happens here,remember Watts? No government will allow people to riot, period! As to the Iranian election only 37% polled said they would support the reformists. Most of the people support the candidate who won. As evidence no photos of massive demonstrations are coming in from anyplace other than Tehran. Most of the rioters are from North Tehran the “liberal part” of the city, perhaps Irans Oakland or San Francisco but much more conservative. The rest of the population from Irans’ “bible” belt supports the clerics choice of a winner. Did fraud occur, mayber, why should we care. We need to find a way to live with Iran and short of an invasion it had better be a peaceful way. Calling the leader of this country names, tsk tsk tsking and proclaiming phony embarcoes will not work to bring on reform. Since this is a major oil producing country their government has all the cash in the world to keep in power. No worth while result has come from our past approach to reform the government. Maybe that is what Russia, Europe and China were trying to tell the US. If Iran wants atomich power it will get it as Israel, India and Pakistan have all demonstrated. Even South Africa is rumored to have a small nuclear deterent and the world has not ended. Since oil is running out Iran’s stated reason of nucs for power even makes sense. Reagon and Nixon tried a different way with Russia and China despite a lot of flak from the right wing and they were relatively successful. Their policy of engagement and compromise from strength worked to end the USSR and opened up both countries to profound and ongoing changes. Why don’t we try a dirrerent approach since the past approaches have not worked with Iran?

]]>