Actually I was going to write up a reply, but I went back and read my replies to your posts and decided I didn't have to. I still agree with what I wrote then:
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. This happened in your lifetime, since you’ve been an adult, so either you were not paying attention at the time or you are just wacked. China is not a democracy now, and it wasn’t then, and did not in any way become more democratic as a result of Tiananmen Square. China is more open and free economically, and that is important, but that’s only half the story and that’s what lead to the thirst for democracy in the first place. It’s still a communist dictatorship and is no more represenative now then it was pre Tiananmen.
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.
and...
Astounding.
“But didn’t the repression at Tiananmen Square actually produce change in China?”
Uh no. The Chinese got a crackdown and more repression. Tiananamen Square happened because the government and economy were changing, and people thought that a representative government was the next natural step. Those protestors were jailed or killed and that pretty much ended the open democracy movement in China. If you’re brutal enough, repression works. It did in China.
What happens in Iran depends on how hard ball the Iranian mullahs want to play.
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?
