Do you really think that a US led effort to foment revolution in Iran would have positive results? I agree that there is nothing good about the Iranian government and I have a hard time envisioning a revolution or other upheaval that would not have positive benefits both for the Iranian and international communities. I think we can agree, however, that a failed attempt at serious intervention would have severe negative consequences, particularly given the history of US intervention into Iran.
Unless you disagree with some of the above, the question of whether US intervention is a good thing or not depends on whether or not one thinks the US would achieve success. Our current President is unable to achieve any noticable progress on healthcare, which is shaping up to be the defining issue of his first term, or Guantanamo Bay, which he has been working on since day one. I have little faith in Obama's ability to successfully intervene in internal Iranian affairs given his apparent impotence domestically. I'm curious to know where you disagree. Do you think that an Obama-led attempt at direct intervention would be successful or do you think that the consequences of failure are less important than other positive effect that would be gained from intervention?
You implied the Iranians were asking for our help in feeing them from tyranny or whatever.
I said that they just wanted a fair election, and referenced our own difficulties from 2000 to demonstrate that they don't want military assistance just because they election was obviously rigged.
Your response was to say we haven't gone in there and done anything.
Your response makes no sense because I wasn't saying we had gone in there, I was saying they don't want us to.