Kaskad - well, if you want to be funny, read my post again and find something that doesnīt make sense or isnīt thruth, ok? because I can imagine that similar thing youīd say in 2003 if I told you that Iraq doesnīt have WMD (if they did and they were going to use it to attack usa, why wouldnīt they use it for their defence?). I can almost hear you. and now the same scenario is here and suddenly everyone thinks that they know best based on the same misleading information channells AGAIN. If I was supposed to make a picture about MY country based on what EuroParlament and other organizations say, and if I didnīt live here to see what actually happens here, I would think that we lynch hungarians all the time and in a break we check our tanks before an invasion to Hungary.
almighty_gir - everyone knows that thereīs only one country in the "world leaders" team, but why do you think that they should make the decision again? havenīt they been wrong about iraq? a little mistake that INCIDENTALLY brought them oil (it was an honest mistake, really, actually bush came here and he was trying to stay cool, but I swear you could almost see the tears in his eyes saying "why, why didnīt anybody tell me that this can bring us some profit? nobodyīs gonna me believe that I was doing it to help the people NOW!!")... why do you think that the same "world leaders" should be deciding again after all the things theyīve done? or is everything forgotten already? I think you were right in one of your points - if the people were really unhappy, they will revolt. thereīs nothing you (or me) can do about it. unless youīd go there, check it what it really is like in there and then you can help it from inside.
At the end just one thing: I heard that Ahmadinejad has a lot of fans/voters in villages, and he isnīt that popular in the cities. Now hereīs a crazy idea... what if thereīs a lot more villagers that do like Ahmadinejad and theyīre happy about it, and thereīs just couple hundreds of people from the city that donīt like him? Do you think that TV would go around villages showing you people that are doing their everyday things like working, playing with kids maybe... or do you think that couple of protesting people would be a bit better for the showtime? Hard decision there alright... and now another thing. The principles of democracy is that minority of people (by that I mean people who voted for the candidate that didnīt win the elections) has to "adapt", take the loss and wait for another elections. I just want to say that after every elections anywhere in the world, thereīs minority of people not satisfied with the elections, but that doesnīt mean that the result of the elections should change, does it? because if you changed it based on protest of a few, the democracy of the elections would be ruined, right?