atamant comments

Let the MidEast process play out as the people there wish it to. They are brave enough to rise up and fight for change, then they should be allowed to choose their path.

As long as their path doesn't mean hating the West or the secular/non-Islamic world, I could not care less. However, as I pointed out, leaving Lebanon, Gaza and Iran to decide their paths led them to where they are now regardless of the history before that. After all, are not the dictators now being threatened in these countries also people the West have befriended or look the other way about? Should not we expect the same possibility of anger aimed at the West that we are seeing in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon if what you say is true?

They are waiting to take power. Of that I have no doubt. The question is whether they will or not.

Who does Libya have, or Egypt? Nobody like that at all. Certainly nobody as fundamentalist as that.

Egypt has the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the biggest political block in the country right now. Influential Egyptian Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi has issued a fatwa that any Libyan soldier who can shoot dead embattled leader Muammar Gaddafi should do so 'to rid Libya of him.' While it may be possible for Libya to escape the lure of extremists, it would be naive to suggest extremists are not interested in gaining power in Libya just as they are interested in gaining power in Egypt.

These fears are based on anti-Islam propaganda.

No, they are based on anti-Western sentiments extremist groups have and the fear that they will come to power as they have in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon.

Some want us to fear these people becoming free, because they want the west to continue to have access to their cheap resources (among other things).

No. We just don't want another country of an extremist anti-Western mentality. BTW, for decades now, none of these countries' resources have been cheap, particularly oil. Libya in particular became a very rich country after Gadhafi took over.

tkoind2,

I think it is a reach to connect the current wave of revolutions to the ones you sited. And Lebanon and Gaza are both unique.

Every country is unique. However, you did neglect to notice that Lebanon, Gaza and Iran were all quite secular and they are not now.

It is far too soon to see what will happen.

I agree. However, people voicing their fears is a perfectly legitimate reaction to this ever changing situation. Things that have happened up to now such as the fall of the Soviet Union once did not seem likely or possible.

Egypt's military is unlikely to give way to an Islamist movement.

I agree. However, you must admit the Muslim Brotherhood is chomping at the bit to get into power at some stage. They have not been coy about this.

It is really too soon to jump to conclusions.

Again, I agree. However, there is really nothing wrong with an open discussion about the situation either.

How on earth do you leap from that reality to Sharia. Your fears are founded on pure and utter speculation and nothing more.

It is also possible his fears could also be based on Lebanon, Gaza and Iran.

So, it seems to be your opinion that RT and Aljazeera are just lackeys of the Western media bringing up things because the 'MSM' does? You are mistaken, Aljazeera in particular has brought up the fears surrounding the Muslim Brotherhood, admittedly RT less so. However, it has not usually or always to say they are not significant. Maybe you just haven't been watching that much. Anyway, the lack of coverage must have been disappointing for you as you would want them to talk more about the Western intelligence construct that is the Muslim Brotherhood, that you also think are wonderful.

They are the biggest political block in Egypt. Of course they are significant. How significant remains to be seen and decided by the Egyptian people. I hope they decide to reject them. You do too, right?

The controlled MSM and you choose to focus on the Muslim Brotherhood

As I pointed out to you before, Aljazeera and RT have also focused their comments on the Muslim Brotherhood. As they should, they are the biggest political block in the country. No other block has stepped up to the plate yet. Why shouldn't they focus on them? They are a scary group with a scary agenda. You said you thought they were a Western intelligence construct. So, you find them scary, right? Course, you also said they were wonderful, too. Maybe you should decide how you feel before berating the press for reporting about them? Howz about that?

However, "passengers" probably would be more readily apparent.

citizen12,

'Fare' also means paying passenger in addition to money paid.

Personally, I'd like it if the US did something that would make them scared, very scared.

The real question will soon become, what form of government will these countries choose. And second, will they favor the west or not?

Those are the real questions. They are also potential real fears.

Mexico is spinning down the porcelain throne. I can't imagine anyone wanting to visit there anymore.

Kwaabish,

That'd get no complaints from me either.

He hasn't been pounded since Reagan ordered his palace bombed back in the 80's. That's cause he plays nicer with the US now.

goodDonkey,

Yup. The pirates made a big mistake. I hope the Americans are successful in both rescuing the victims and capturing these pirates. It might make the next lot think twice.

If the Palestinians really wanted peace, they could have started to have it when Israel left Gaza. They could still have it now. However, Hamas never has wanted it. Israel has made peace with enemies. Now it time for the Palestinians to give it a try.

I'm not surprised they would bring up religion.

I'm not too surprised you would either.

Iran backed down. As they should have. Actually, it was smart for Iran in many ways. It would have been a PR boon for Israel.

PS: The 'civilians' on one of those flotilla boats were clearly not unarmed. The unarmed civilians on the other boats were and are just fine.

Good morning,

Your examples continue to fail. The examples you give speak to individual police brutality or incompetence and not to a sanctioned government policy as we see in Iran. The squashing of protest and free speech in Iran is clearly government sanctioned. This is not true of the US.

BTW, your student example just proves my case. The campus police/rent-a-cops were suspended and the university president apologized for the incident. I don't remember Iran's government apologizing for killing protesters.

Again, you are comparing one case in the US with what has been going on Iran and you are mistaken. Your point is off the mark. Compared to Iran, the US is indeed in a position to lecture Iran about the freedom to protest. In Iran, people are not even allowed to celebrate the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia even though the Iranian government supposedly thinks those revolutions were wonderful.

elbudamexicano,

I agree with your accessment.

Disruption can take many forms. You are free to see McGovern's actions however you wish. However, as I wrote, I welcome McGovern acting in a similar fashion in Iran in front of someone like Ahmadinejad. I highly doubt he would get off very easily. Anyway, was McGovern arrested when he questioned Rumsfeld? No. Was he allowed to ask his questions? Yes. There you have it. Freedom of speech.

Yeah, like I said, in the "free-speech zones", which are basically large cages out of view of the general public. Ah, America, land of the free!

So, all those protests outside the whitehouse and on the streets of the US are figments of imagination? Are you seriously trying to say there are more public protests in Iran against government policy than in the US? Are you seriously trying to say Iranian protesters are not much more severely dealt with than they are on average in the US? If you are, you seriously don't have a clue about either country.

Ray McGovern is not just some guy. He frequently shows up to disrupt speaking engagements of those with whom he disagrees. While I do not agree with the man being brutalized, there is a time and place to protest. I wonder how McGovern's actions would be received were he to perform them in front of Ahmadinejad? You have failed in your attempt to compare Iran and the US.

If you choose to believe the MSM media translation or atamant's placard, fine go ahead.

Just google for photos for yourself. No need to just blindly follow what I write. Not that I expect anyone to.

And what do you think the crowds shout in Israel? "Love love me do"?

I guarantee there are more free public rallies and protests in Israel than in Iran. I also know there is free debate in Israel on such issues as Iran. I also know there are far less mobs shouting for death to Iran in Israel than there are in Iran shouting death to the US and Israel. Anyway, you seem to approve of mobs in Iran shouting 'Death to Israel'. That you have made perfectly clear.

AdamB,

Some will continue the claim that it is all one big mistranslation. However, it was not. Ahmadinejad did in fact describe his desire that Israel be destroyed. In fact, the man spoke at the 32nd anniversary of the Iranian revolution and in front of the stage the sign said 'Down with Israel' in English and 'Death to Israel' in Farsi. In addition when Ahmadinejad said they were in the middle of an revolution the crowd shouted 'Death to the US' and 'Death to Israel'.

So, we both know the claims of misunderstandings and mistranslations are completely incorrect.

Iran has never threatened to destroy Israel

They have certainly suggested it would be a good idea. This sentiment is also reflected in government allowed murals and paintings seen all over Iran saying 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to the US'. As we all know, speech or protests that the Iranian government disagree with are met by violence. These placards and such are welcomed by the government because the Iranian governemt shares them.

Exactly! And it serves the "national interest of the US" (i.e., US corporations) to slam Iran.

So? What is your point? Iran's human rights record is horrible and there is an obvious, or 'duh' to you, lack of freedom of speech and protest. People in the US have far more freedom to speak and protest. When you suggested otherwise, you were incorrect. This is certainly not only about US corporations. Iran gets slammed because of their bad policies toward the international community and because of their bad human rights record. Both of these slams are well deserved.

Well duh! Thanks for stating the obvious. And you are right that the US does not care about lack of freedom in other nations if it suits American corporations.

It is apparent that it is not that obvious, or 'duh' to you, to you as you seem to be doing exactly what you say the US is doing. You seem to be ignoring or even claiming that the lack of freedom of speech and protest does not exist in Iran just because you agree with their foreign policies. Also, I never suggested that the US does not care about freedom in other nations. What I suggested was that to the US government the internal policies of foreign countries take a backseat to that country's foreign policies. Clearly this is also true for you as well with regard to Iran.

However, as has been mentioned above by others, your attempt to compare freedom in the US and Iran is clearly completely incorrect. Consider yourself corrected again.

but Americans are not all that free to protest.

Yes, they are. Americans protest about various things quite freely. In Iran, it is not allowed.

Actually it is, but I realize you do not want to consider it.

No, it is not. The US did not support the Egyptian regime because of its freedom. They supported it because of its attitude toward the US and its policies. The US foreign policy is to guard its interests. You talked about the freedome to speak in the US and incorrectly attempted to compare it to Iran's horrible record of a lack of freedome of speech. Iran's past history also has nothing to do with my previous point. The fact remains, people in the US are far freer to speak their minds and protest than people in Iran are.

I don't hear him slam countries like Saudi Arabia for their lack of freedom to protest.

While they should, they don't because it does not serve the national interest of the US to do so. However, to think that the US is unique in this attitude toward other countries is to be naive.

The USA doesn't care about free speech unless it's being repressed in countries which don't follow the American line.

I am referring to internal politics. Americans are free to protest and speak their minds. The same is plainly not true in Iran. The US's support of Egypt is not related to the issue I brought up.