 One reason to vote for Bush
Kerry is better, except on the issue of regime
change for Iran
Keyvan
October 29, 2004
iranian.com
I am so sick of this pro-Kerry nonsense from Iranians. All you're
doing is listening to the facts that you want to hear, to give you an excuse
to vote for Kerry. Your "facts" are full of half truths, and
sometimes no truths.
To guide you into
the fact that Bush is good for Iran and Kerry will be the worst thing to ever
hit it, let me make this claim. The goal of an Iranian-American voting for
Bush is purely for regime change, nothing else.
Yes Kerry is better
for countless
reasons, but as Iranian-Americans our number one issue must be regime change
for Iran. We must vote for who will help end the Islamic regime
and against who
will help it.
So I'm not going to address issues brought
up against Bush
in reasons other than Iran, because that's unnecessary. I agree with you
on them anyway.
Yes Bush has embraced a hard-line policy towards the mullahs.
This frightened them and is forcing them to crush the reformists.
But you must realize, the reformists have always been ineffective,
and to increase the external tension rather than let the internal
tension stand still, is the catalyst Iran needed for a different
form of governmental instability.
And in the following year's state
of the union address, Bush reiterated himself. He proclaimed a
clear distinction between the mullahs and the pro-democracy youth.
Criticize
it if you like, but it is clear that Bush is intent on driving
the mullahs out of power.
I AM SO SICK AND TIRED of the same tactical plan hailed by so
many Iranians. That being, a slow moving, gradual push for reform.
This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in my life. People
are dieing out there. Get off your spoiled Americanized ass and
tell those suffering that you want a gradual change.
Who is to
say that Iran will ever change "gradually?"
In recent
months the laws have been tightening and the efforts of reformists
have been repealed. Women are asked to pull up their chadors more
often. The guards are getting stricter. It's a sign that hard-line
laws are perfectly capable of getting worse.
Suppose Iran never
reforms, will you continue these same dreams of "slow, gradual" change
in 50 or 70 years from now, when we lose all sense of our cultural
identity, when minorities are crushed, when were all old and dead?
 Kerry is intent on taking the route of Europe, to pamper the
Islamic republic as much as possible for a few nuclear safety guidelines.
It's a selfish plan, which will end up helping only Americans and
Israel to be safe from nuclear weapons. Europe helps the Islamic
republic for oil deals, giving them a pass on human rights. Now,
Kerry's top Iranian campaign supporters want the same deal with
America.
Now, I know, I know, Bush doesn't care about Iranian human rights
either. But that doesn't mean that his agenda won't end up nevertheless
helping the Iranian people.
If you still think Bush would go to war with Iran, you need your
head checked. All of America's resources are exhausted. There is
no manpower left to go into Iran. After the Iraq disaster, no self-respecting
country would even think about helping America with an Iran war.
And even if they did even try to squeeze out another war, think
of it this way. Iran is no Iraq, and it is no Afghanistan.
Iraq
was under sanctions for 13 years. The Iranian military is the
largest in the middle-east, self-sufficient in many fields, and
capable
of killing thousands of American troops, while dragging the war
on for a year or so. No war will ever come to Iran. It's just
propaganda to think so.
I am
not defending that jerk Reagan, but think of it this way: he stopped
Khomeini's vision of a pan-Islamic middle-east, and accommodated
Iranian's who left Iran after the revolution. He clearly
had an anti-regime line against the Islamic republic, even though
he had terrible way of expressing it. IM NOT DEFENDING REAGAN,
no letters! Not to mention, the view of the Islamic
republic by the American parties must be examined under a post
cold war lens.
The Clinton administration wanted a slow paced reform
effort for Iran, back when everyone thought that was possible.
Remember the good old days when we thought Khatami was the next
Gorbachav, and that the reformist party was the answer to everyone's
prayers. That's what we all believed and Clinton did to, so it
was fine to be soft on the regime back then. Well, welcome to reality.
Reform won't happen. Bush will support the forces inside Iran
ready to mobilize for change. So his policy will be Eisenhower-esque,
but not nearly as bad. Think of it this way, Iran WANTS change.
Mossadeqh was great for Iran, and they put in a puppet. Now we
have the reverse, an unliked dictatorship when we want democracy.
The Iranian people are too smart to let another dictator get into
power, no one will vote for a Karzai or Chalabi.
Today the parties are polarized by the divided policy. Republicans
want regime change and Democrats want to help the mullahs.
All Kerry is going to do is turn Iran into another Saudi Arabia.
An American backed dictatorship with a pass on human rights.
 Don't write me letters about abortion, or Ashcroft, or healthcare,
or that internet propaganda about the possibility of
a draft, or this or that, OK I AGREE WITH YOU. I don't
care. I care about Iran. I'm an Iranian first and an American second.
Kerry will end all hopes for regime change. Bush wants regime
change, a WARLESS regime change. This is why we must vote for
him. This
is why the Student Movement Coordination Comittee for Democracy
in Iran and every other Iranian exile pro-democracy group endorses
Bush. Support Bush because he is the last hope for Iran.
*
*
|
One reason to vote for Bush
