Just so we haven't forgotten, over 100,000 have been helped (killed) in Iraq since we decided to "lend a hand" spreading our peace-loving system of democracy in 2003.

Saddam helped (killed) 600,000 of his own people, so what's your point?

the resolution is probably because USA cannot intervene but they have to be seen to be on the "right side" , USA will have an agenda and its never for the benefit of people its normally benefit of money to the rich people in USA , this is what happens in capitalist societies that don't have a government controlling welth distraction.

As for Iran the people are largely religious and that's more of a problem than weather ore not there government is democratic or not. If people are religouse it shows that thay are incapable of making rational desisoins so how are they going to be able to make a desisoin thats ratoinal when it comes to leadership ?

We're just as bad as he is.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Saddam helped (killed) 600,000 of his own people, so what's your point?

I didn't realize that condemning the government for using violence against peaceful protestors was the same thing as a vote to "kill Iranians" or invade, or anything else that could be construed as jingoistic.

Here's the full text of the resolution (which was also passed in the Senate by unanimous voice vote):

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

We're just as bad as he is.

Maybe as a joke, but you're dog-paddling in Noam Chomsky/Ollie Stone/Keebler Kucinich waters with that one.

Ron Paul is a wonderful, peace-loving man but our enemies ain't. And so we have a military and always will.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Saddam helped (killed) 600,000 of his own people, so what's your point?

Is it just me, or does the title seem a bit trollish?

>> ^eric3579:
Is it just me, or does the title seem a bit trollish?


imstellar28 has been practicing his emotional lash out skills; however, this better than video of Nada (sp?) being killed in Iran and him calling all Americans cowards through a twisted multi-step connection.

Imstellar, I understand that you are trying to make a point, but trying making it a little softer. You end up turn away people who would most likely be partial if not mostly allies with your overly aggressive attitude. A softer touch encourages discussion where the hard touch causes people to immediately draw lines in the sand and kills most possibilities of discussion.

Understand this.. most in Congress do not read the resolutions they are voting on. They simply vote the most politically expedient way. Whatever maintains the 'status-quo', whatever keeps the 'lobby' content, whatever ensures donations keep coming in.

That is why the economy tanked, that is why these meaningless endless wars persist, why our healthcare and socsec system is dying, and why the citizen continues to end up taking the brunt of it. Loss of jobs, higher taxes, burdened with ever more stupid tax laws and legislation, etc.

Welcome to our Demopublican Plutocractic Kleptocracy.

Its veiled in good intentions, for sure. It sounds good, but when you think of the American government "Expressing support" "condemning" and "affirming", what do you think of? I think of "shock and awe" and "operation kill the populace."

If the Iranian people ask for our help, send in seal team six, but until then its up to them to fight the good fight - on their terms.

You say to soften my approach. How can I soften my approach when its come to this, we are already past the point of soft words, are we not?

You're right that recently, I'm angry after seeing an Iranian girl look into my eyes and gurgle blood out of her nose and mouth until she faded away; murdered, at the hands of everything I protest against. What exactly should my reaction be?

*nochannel *worldaffairs *politics *news

This video has been removed from all channels (Worldaffairs, Wildwestshow, Politics, News) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by burdturgler. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (News, Politics, Worldaffairs) - requested by burdturgler.

The USA can't win. We stay out of it, then we don't care about the Iranian people and don't care about dying protesters. We come to the rescue and yes, innocent people will get killed while we fight for their freedom. So we are war mongers and bullies. We cast a vote saying that we voice our support for the Iranian people and that means we want to kill Iranians.

The title and the whole interpretation is ridiculous.

>> ^imstellar28:
If the Iranian people ask for our help

How, exactly, would you expect this to happen?
How would "the Iranian people" ask for "our help"?

I'm not suggesting it's time to send Fiddy over to fix their shit, but there's no "Iranian people" with a single unified voice to "ask for help".
There's a totalitarian regime that controls the political machine, a large population of angry dissenters, a bunch who believe Ahmadinejad's got the right idea in standing up to the West, a significant number who just want everything to settle down so they can get on with their lives, and everything in between.

There will never be a mandate from their populace requesting our intervention.

It is up to us to decide if and when we think it's in our best interest to intervene (in terms of benefit to the global community, the populace of Iran, and U.S. interests; the effect of international relations and perception; regional stability, etc) and if we do decide we think it's in our best interest to intervene, then how, and to what extent, and to what end? Sanctions, diplomatic measures, military force? Is the goal policy reversal? Deposition of the current regime? Institution of monitored democratic process? Installation of pro-west government?

This isn't as simple as "DO IRANIANS WANT TO BE BOMBED? Y/N?"

>> ^imstellar28:
You say to soften my approach. How can I soften my approach when its come to this, we are already past the point of soft words, are we not?
You're right that recently, I'm angry after seeing an Iranian girl look into my eyes and gurgle blood out of her nose and mouth until she faded away; murdered, at the hands of everything I protest against. What exactly should my reaction be?

Not to yell at people who wholeheartedly agree with you when you say:

If the Iranian people ask for our help, send in seal team six, but until then its up to them to fight the good fight - on their terms.

However, when you say this:

Its veiled in good intentions, for sure. It sounds good, but when you think of the American government "Expressing support" "condemning" and "affirming", what do you think of? I think of "shock and awe" and "operation kill the populace."

Most of us just see a deep distrust that's beyond the most cynical views most of us have of our own government.

Seriously, the whole legislation is less than half a page, and says essentially the same thing you are, only in a more formal (and less visceral) way.

If there's anyone you should be mad at, it's the whole right-wing machine calling for more overt meddling in the situation.

For more on that, here's the original bill the Republicans introduced, which reads as a litany of criminal acts perpetrated by the Iranian government. Thank goodness Democrats changed it!

Look at what Bush and Cheney have done to our ability to do anything in the world. How shameful. A cherry on the sundae of hypocrisy, ready to serve.

What I dont get is...Can we use our satellites? Can we offer a free communications network? Bullshit we can't. We can set up communications anywhere on the planet.

Or we could, if we hadn't over stepped our bounds in Iraq... now we can barely help ourselves. Thanks crooked asshole politicians.

TRANSPARENCY NOW. ALL BANK RECORDS, ALL MOVEMENTS, EVEN BOWEL MOVEMENTS, RECORDED AND NOTARIZED. TAMPER PROOF SEALS. AUDITS.

Being a politician should be the MOST difficult job in the world and the LEAST paying, so that those.. how do you call them... oh .. GOOD people.. with STRENGTH and DECENCY... will take the jobs that crooks eyeball because of money and power.

I want a new way to be screwed. One i can't see coming from miles away. Surprise me.

Moving this video to imstellar28's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Downvote for the craptacular title.

First I'm gonna say that I voted down primarily because this isn't a video; it's a billboard with a soundtrack.

What offends me the most about this resolution isn't that it was passed but that it was even considered.

It's not like this resolution does anything; it's a statement of support which, I submit, is not support at all. (Compare with "Support our troops").

How much time went into this from the initial drafting to the final vote? I don't know but I can tell you it was too much. Doesn't Congress have anything better to spend their time on? Something that might have an effect on the country or the world?