[Captain Kirk]

If we stand with the young and the professionals, they'll remember that when they're in power. Just like the Islamic fundamentalists remembered that we stood (at least for a little while) with the Shah. Look how that turned out.

With all due respect, you are contradicting yourself. The very fact that we picked someone to "stand with" in the first place wss the source of the original problem. Had we let Mossadeq remain in power, for example, Iran might now be a vibrant democracy and friend to the U.S. As with domestic policy, you can't solve the problems created by intervention with more intervention. The best solution is to get out of the way and let the Iranians create the own revolution.

[Big_Monkey]

"The very fact that we picked someone to "stand with" in the first place wss the source of the original problem. "

No, we just picked the wrong horse in a two horse race.

By Ron Paul's reasoning, and by extrapolation I presume your's as well, we wouldn't have intervened in the Berlin Airlift because we shouldn't have "picked a side".

When you are are the world's sole superpower, and the beacon of freedom for fledgling Democracies, when you don't pick a side, you're still picking a side.

[a fool in paradise]

We stood with Stalin against Hitler. One of FDR’s VPs even saw Stalin’s gulags firsthand.

[Blue State Insurgent]

Would America be a “vibrant democracy” today if France had not intervened in our revolt?

We aren't talking about sending in troops, we just want our president to at least make an effort to appear that he takes the side of the oppressed rather then the oppressors in Iran.

What in the hell is wrong with that?