I’ve noticed that one of the big differences between liberals and conservatives (or dems and pubs if you prefer) is that liberals seem to lack historical prespective. In the case of Tiananmen Square, though, that is fairly recent history.
Whereas conservatives lack the ability to realize that not all people want to live in a democracy and are comfortable with mere economic freedom? Not every nation wants the US to invade it and depose their leader.
It's been 21 years since Tiananmen Square. A lot's happened since then, particularly in access to the outside world. Perhaps the size of the nation is it's biggest stumbling block to further growth, which is admittedly slow, but still occurring:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tianamen+square&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#sclient=psy&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&source=hp&q=cultural+change+in+china+since+tianamen+square&fp=cb921b9e247079c3Direct elections are encouraged at the grass-root level, which has now become an important feature of village politics in China. At some places, non-CCP members have trounced the party members in these local elections. Similarly, protests by farmers and workers against local authorities have become common in today’s China. In most of time, such protests erupt due to mismanagement, corruption or atrocities by local officials. Today, thousands of organizations are functional throughout China working in different fields ranging from environmental issues to care of old age persons.
I’m not arguing that we should ship weapons or supplies to the rioters in Iran, but I do think it’s not asking too much for the President, who thinks he is the moral restorer of America’s place in the world, to take a moral position in support of our values.
Basically the situation is very similar, except I hope the White House is more supportive of the democracy movement in Iran this time than they were last time. Although I supported the move to openness in Egypt, I could at least understand the counter argument; Mubarak kept the peace for 30 years with Israel and was a good ally of the US. He was a "team player" so we potentially have something to lose if Egypt's foreign policy moves to reflect the preferences of it's people. However with Iran, we have nothing to lose. I doubt any government could be worse toward us than the one that is in power now. There is no advantage toward supporting the status quo and a huge potential upside if Iran becomes more open.
The difference is, ultimately, Mubarak was not willing to do what it takes to put down that kind of rebellion, machine gunning the crowd and toss the survivors in prison. Other states have been willing to do what it takes to stay in power. China for one, and less commonly known, Syria, which slaughtered an entire city of 100,000 people that was in rebellion. When you are willing to kill 100,000 of your own people to stay in power, you're serious.
The question is, how serious are the Iranians?
I believe Obama's serious about Iran. Whether the change will occur now, or later, is up to the people of Iran.
