I am an iranian american living in Washington DC. Bush might be a little dumber than Kerry. But he is the solution and answer to all the iranian people's problems. Kerry will not destroy the fascist regime of Iran. Bush is the only one who will do this, and so he is called a modern day dictator. But my friend, what history has taught us, even in the days of the persian empire, is that the world needs a super power that plays like a world police. This is the United States, and my goal to the people of my blood, is to help president Bush get rid of a government who has put my people in a grave for the last 25 years. I hope the best for you, and May your future be blessed. A. J.- Washington DC
- By: Arman Janloo on September 17, 2004

Well, Bush's statements about the "Axis of Evil" and the militaristic attitude towards Iran in general has often been seen as an attack upon the Iranian people, who don't think they necessarily are in an evil country. OF COURSE Bush seperated the people from the government, but if hard-line conservatives can sell anything to the people, its that the United States is threatening their country, and while they may dislike their government, they don't necessarily want a war (bombings, invasion, inevitable death and destruction, and especially the inevitable puppet government which would result). Therefore, Bush's statements are more likely to drive people to the hard-line conservatives than away from them. Bush is surely not respected enough in Iran to ferment a revolution anyways, and he certainly doesn't have the manpower or logistical power to invade Iran... so even those who weren't angered by his comments surely noted that his tough statements are just words.
- By: Alex on September 16, 2004

Bush is one of the worst leaders ever. His policies in middle-east are solely based around Israel and he brands any country and individuals who does not hold dialogue with Israel as his AXIS of EVIL or a Terrorist. His ignorance is just intolerable. It will be hard to believe that Kerry will act any differently, but Bush has had 4 years and in these 4 years he has made the world a less safer place than it was previously.
- By: tubular_bells on September 9, 2004

I agree with this blogger. Bush cannot even sell his ideas to the poor in America. How can he sell America to the poor around the world? He cannot. They don't trust him and never will. He is seen as the ultimate defender of the status quo of American power and privilege. The more he tries to sell, the more he and we will be suspected and rejected. Since we cannot resurrect JFK, the next best thing for the image of America is to elect John Kerry.
- By: Ron on September 8, 2004

Not until you get some power will I read your opinions as if they mean anything. Cheers.
- By: RLAmes on September 8, 2004

Jim you are wrong - as an Iranian, I can tell you that most of the Iranian people support George Bush because he is the first US President that has separated the people of Iran from its unpopular regime. If you take a poll today inside Iran, I promise you the overwhelming majority support George Bush. I am Iranian, and I support George Bush, because he supports the Iranian people and not the regime. Unlike Kerry who has proposed to open relations with the "most active state sponsor of terrorism." US Dept. of State.
- By: Sean Samizadeh on September 8, 2004

"decreasing the quality of life of its own citizens" ??? Compared to the US, not many people are trying to get into Canada, Mexico, France, Iran, China and so on. We can't have it that bad I guess. Crediting or blaming a president for the number of jobs, money supply, number of students taking hard science in college, degree of investment or value of securities in the stock market, money spent on R&D, the state of the tax code or most anything else is silly, as they have limited influence. "eah, we didn't like Saddam, but you never came until there was something at stake... oil power, regional military influence, etc." The entire world economy runs on oil, and we're running out of it. What did you think was going to happen? "American-backed puppet government" Yeah, right. You'd prefer we would have picked the Sadr Army and Baath officials and all the hard-line religious people to make the decisions for the populace as a whole? Yes, we should have picked people just like those running Iran, right? You're equating the actions of the Crusaders hundreds of years ago to the actions of such obviously religiously fanatic people like Reagan, Carter, Ford, Clinton and Bush having nukes and then compare that against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Council of Guardians having them? And yes, they may need nukes to protect them against invasion by us. Not. Hint; the time to go in is when they don't have them, and we haven't. Besides, if it was really all about oil, we'd invade Canada, Venezuela, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Who'd stop us? Iraq you mention. If we left boom suddenly, what do you think would happen there? Then the world would REALLY hate us. And if we were really so messed up as so many say, we wouldn't be worried about civilians at all, we'd just carpet bomb any neighborhood that had attacks coming from it, destroy it totally. And when there were suicide bombings and such, we'd do the opposite of encouraging more by giving the family money; we'd discourage more by killing the entire family. That's what Saddam would have done something like, and it's probably what Khamenei would do something like. It's something like what the Russians would do (or in the case of Chechnya, almost did last week). Be that all as it may, I sure hope the young people in Iran rise up and take control of their own destiny. It's their country; the governed should have their choice of who and how they are governed, not have it shoved down their throats by ruthless old men who want to keep their power and influence. BTW, I don't think that we will go into Iran if they don't do something internally, and I don't know if it's a good idea to do it, either. Like I said, I hope the population rises up, and I think it will. But.....
- By: Robert Stuckey on September 8, 2004

So then you are in agreement with Kerry's Plan to provide a "great bargin" to Iran in terms of nuclear fuel, a reopening of diplomatic relations,and an exploration "areas of mutual interest"? How does this differ from the support of dictators that the US is normally so criticized for?
- By: Jane on September 6, 2004

Every time Bush threatens Iran all it does is make Iranian nationalism stronger. This in turn leads to greater support to strong anti-US hardliners and marginalizes reformers in the country. Kerry on the other hand will most likely take up the Clinton approach where he still takes a hard stand against Iran, but no where near the militaristic tone of Bush. This is very obvious to anyone who follows Iran. No self respecting Iranian should support Bush in this election.
- By: Jim on September 4, 2004

"against Khamenei just as much as I am against Bush ..." Yeah, well, it shows. Before casting such aspersions on a leader and a country you obviously don't understand at all, why don't you enlighten us with the ways Bush has been good for hardliners and the ways Kerry and the French will be better. Set out a clear, rational, coherent argument, and maybe I won't think you are so clueless on this point.
- By: William Ehart on September 3, 2004