Message from Shiraz - "..most every young Iranian supports George Bush"

iranian.com ^ | November 2, 2004 | Slater Bakhtavar

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Few can forget President Bush's State of the Union speech in 2002 where he bluntly labeled the Iranian government alongside Iraq and North Korea as the world's leading advocates of terrorism. Not surprisingly immediately following the controversial speech Mideast experts, journalists, and politicians spewed forth an anchorage of viewpoints regarding its effects on the battle for the soul of Iran.

Predominately all leftist liberals contented support for democratic movements within the country aided the hard-line Islamists establishment while American conservatives strongly dissented arguing the exact opposite. Contrary to various propaganda polls inside of Iran drastically sided with the latter.

In polls stationed by reformists within the country, 75 percent of Iranians favor relations with the United States, 58 percent favor a separation of Mosque and State, 74 percent favor a referendum supporting a change of regime, and perhaps most importantly 52 percent of Iranians feel that Bush administration policy on Iran is 'somewhat correct'.

In 2003, President Bush once again renewed his support for the Iranian people. This time with a deeper sense of urgency and depth. "The government of Iran represses its people. Iranian citizens are risking intimidation and death to speak out for liberty, human rights, and democracy. Iranians have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom."

In a message separating the good natured people of Iran with the government, the President won the hearts and minds of many Iranians demonstrating for human rights, democracy, and freedom against a ruthless dictatorship.

According to several publications several months before departing, a group of 127 Iranian reformist MPs launched a blistering attack on their powerful hard-line rivals, warning supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that the political deadlock was threatening the very survival of the Islamic republic.

The letter stated that "Perhaps there has been no period in the recent history of Iran that was as sensitive as this one," warned the strongly-worded letter, citing "political and social gaps coupled with a clear US plan to change the geopolitical map of the region."

Furthermore, "If this is a glass of poison, it should be drunk before our country's independence and territorial integrity are put in danger," the letter said in its call for "fundamental changes in methods, attitudes and figures".

It also highlighted the Iranian people's desire for fundamental changes within the regime including calls for democracy and human rights. "Most people are dissatisfied and disappointed. Most of the intellectuals are either silent or leaving (and) foreign forces have surrounded the country from all sides."

According to the Iran Press Service, "perhaps one of the most striking sections of the letter spoke of the possibility of either internal revolution or foreign invasion if massive reforms aren't implemented. The unprecedented direct and uncompromising tone of the warnings to Mr. Khamenei reminded the last days of the deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979, when many nationalist personalities, forecasting the dangers ahead, would advise him to return to democratic rules, but he would not accept."

The President's support for freedom fighters inside of Iran has fueled virus debate at home. While Pentagon officials have been pressing hard for public and private actions that they believe could lead to the toppling of the government through a popular uprising, State Department officials are advocating supporting the lamed reformers surrounding President Khatami inside of Iran. But then again when has the State Department ever been correct regarding International Politics. They were predicting horrible consequences following our War on the Baathist party in Iraq, consequences which never came to be.

While no one believes that the current status quo can survive inside of Iran there is a lively discussion regarding the possibility of either an internal revolution or possibility of hard-liners relinquishing their power. Whichever the outcome of the mounting debate on US policy towards Iran President Bush' unrelenting support for the demonstrators in Iran has had an immensely positive effect.

The majority of Iranians inside Iran stand strongly behind President Bush while those ungrateful and those organizations with questionable ties with the Iranian government stand with the oppressors of the Iranian populace and John Kerry.

One young Iranian female in Shiraz eagerly told me to inform President Bush that "those who had visited Iran and spoken to the Iranian populace had consistently quoted our desire to support George W. Bush's efforts and show our solidarity with his unrelentess efforts for a free, democratic, Iran. We're quite aware, mainly due to the Internet and Satellite television that John Kerry and his supporters are apologists of the Iranian government and working to cut deals with the Iranian dictatorship.

Speaking for Iran's youth population, she addressed Mr. Kerry: "We refuse to be your paid-off pawns and we refuse to allow you to allow our slaughter for your selfish intentions in Iraq and Afghanistan.: We know the truth and the truth is that you, Mr. Kerry, are a great oppressor to our people and an enemy to a free Iran. Please let everyone know that most every young Iranian supports George Bush."

Indeed the devoutly pro-Bush young populace in Iran do, but how about the ungrateful pro-Kerry Iranian young populace in United States?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

***... "Iraq was one of the few countries where Bush actually won and the Middle East voted 37 percent for Bush compared to a world average of 9.1 percent," a spokesman for the website said. ...***John Kerry storms to victory in virtual vote

There is a bigger picture here that needs to be seen.

Bush and his administration see it.

Bush and the coalition have done great things in the Middle East.

All one has to do is look at a map to see how his strategy is working.

Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Kuwait, Turkey, Libya, Jordan, Qatar, etc ….

The PLO, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are getting a little outnumbered.

Changing some of the chess pieces in this age-old battle could bring people to the table and peace to the region.

[Spok]

Big Media is hiding the positive fallout from the invasion of Iraq which has occurred in Syria and Iran. Big Media has again sided against freedom to serve its domestic political agenda, as it did during the war in Vietnam. Popular American support would inspire the rebellion in Iran, but since it might be attributed to a Republican President, the press will bury its successes and ignore atrocities committed against the Iranian people.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You are so right.

[Ex-Dem]

Sorry to say this, but GlobalVote2004 shouldn't be taken at face value. You can choose what country you're from. I know some FReepers, me included, put themselves down as being from Iraq but in favor of Bush.

[alloysteel]

The continuing ferment in Iran is one of the reasons we have not invaded that country. We are in an excellent position to impose our will, with air bases on both sides of Tehran, and the capability to fly over at any time. So Iran is under our guns, but we are forebearing on any direct action. The ayatollahs do not have a lot of latitude in their actions, and the people under them are aware of the situation.

The situation may resolve in Iran by the simple expedient of the ayatollahs stepping down from their positions as arbiters of the entire society, or there may be an internal revolt. Either way, the US is there to lend a hand and provide direction.

What good is hegemony if you can't apply it? If we leave, for any reason, China shall surely sweep in to fill the vacuum.

[TigersEye]

No atrocity is too horrible to ignore to further the leftists agenda. None. It doesn't matter who it's committed against either, even our own country.

[TigersEye]

You speak of imposing our will and hegemony as if the people of Iran had no desire for liberty of their own.

[freedom44]

Wow the mid-east is the most pro-Bush by far.

Africa 192 (12.1%) 1146 (71%) 259 (16.9%) 1559
Asia 1324 (14.8%) 6778 (75.9%) 819 (9.3%) 8921
Australia 681 (8.5%) 5725 (76.2%) 1103 (15.3%) 7509
Canada 780 (9.1%) 6377 (74.2%) 1430 (16.7%) 8587
Central & South America 565 (9.8%) 4599 (79.5%) 622 (10.7%) 5786
Europe 6378 (7.9%) 62466(77.8%) 11506 (14.3%) 80350
Middle East 296 (37%) 365 (45.6%) 139 (17.4%) 800

[Cincinatus' Wife]

****Ex-Dem ****

Hard to give up those old ways?

He he he he..

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Great points.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bumps!

[Ex-Dem]

Hard to give up those old ways?

*gasp* You wouldn't be suggesting that we Dems/former Dems might know a thing or two about voter fraud would you? LOL, well you'd probably be right :-)...

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I couldn't resist.

LOL

[Moosilauke]

Not all Iraqis! Saddam is gonna be one happy guy after the last corpses finish their voting for JFK tonight. I see a cushy UN job in his future.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

[Reza2004]

Do what you like and say what you mean, because those who mind dont matter, and those who matter, dont mind.
Dr. S

[Reza2004]

I tend to support our will to impose. I think Persians appreciate it. In fact most hope for it. They just wish we meant it and did something about it for them. In our absence, our wish for Iranian freedom will happen. But how much faster can it happen, if we help and also capture the gratitude of Iranian people.

[nuconvert]

The regime's mullahs will NEVER 'step down'.

[nuconvert]

Hmmm.......I'm not quite sure I agree. I think most Persians would rather they could do it themselves, than have the U.S. do it for them. Yes, it could happen faster with our help, and at a point soon, there won't be a choice, because we can't allow the regime to have nukes.
But I think if you took a poll, most Iranians would like to demolish this regime themselves.

[Reza2004]

I concur with your poll. But the point is bigger than who should go first, if u know what I mean.