Ron Paul is right on this, not only for idealistic reasons, but also for practical ones.
We've got no dog in this fight, because Mir-Hossein Mousavi is, as one reporter described, "no Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel, no Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi bent on destroying an evil regime. He is, and has been, a part of the Iranian regime throughout its 30-year history."
Anyone who thinks that even if Mousavi wins, Iran is going to change for the better, is fooling themselves. As a matter of fact, the US is better off with a complete loon like Ahmadinejad as "the face of Iran" to the world than we are with a well-spoken but cunning Mousavi. So why would we condemn Iran for the protests? Better we let them stew in their own juice and build up anger toward the whole regime on their own, than get involved and take sides. Our US condemnation only serves to unite Iranians against us and to make Mousavi look like "our guy", instead of letting them get angry enough to take on not just the throne, but the power behind it.
Once again, the moral high road is also the pragmatic one.
—Ron Paul is right on this, not only for idealistic reasons, but also for practical ones.
—We’ve got no dog in this fight, because Mir-Hossein Mousavi is, as one reporter described, “no Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel, no Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi bent on destroying an evil regime. He is, and has been, a part of the Iranian regime throughout its 30-year history.”
Anyone who thinks that even if Mousavi wins, Iran is going to change for the better, is fooling themselves.—
Bingo! You’ve won the door prize.