The US didn't invade with its own troops, but instead had its client, Saddam Hussein, do the invading. With US support and arms, Hussein killed about a million people.
We supported Saddam, the Soviets supported Iran. What's your point? The fact remains US troops did not invade.
At least with King and Shah you are using roughly equivalent terms-the difference between "Imam" and the other leadership roles in Islam is more akin to the difference between "city councilman" and "Holy Roman Emporer".
When you look at how grossly misused the term is in that light, it's not such a trivial point.
Webster:
imam
One entry found for imam.
Main Entry: imam
Pronunciation: i-'mäm, E-', -'mam
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Arabic imAm
1 : the prayer leader of a mosque2 : a Muslim leader of the line of Ali held by Shiites to be the divinely appointed, sinless, infallible successors of Muhammad
3 : any of various rulers that claim descent from Muhammad and exercise spiritual and temporal leadership over a Muslim region
Now go sit in a corner and think about what an ass you made out of yourself.
Just find me one country that's been hit by Al Qaeda that doesn't have a connection to the war in Iraq, or a military support role for Israel, or intelligence/military links to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan.
I'll reverse that for you and ask you to find one developed country that has absolutely no connections to any of that.
No, it's more like the difference between "Apostle" and "altar boy." It's that big. So yeah, people are going to raise their eyebrows when you get it that far off.
See above.
International isolation makes it harder to govern by force alone. There's no international pipeline to get money and weapons to destroy your opponents in those countries. They have to deal with opposition more seriously because of it.
Can you be that naive? If it is not us, it will be somebody else. If you have money, everyone is willing to supply you with weapons and training. And that is simply business. If for your friends to succeed, they need the country to be completely cordoned from the outside world, they are complete losers in the first place. No revolution in the world has ever operated under such ideal conditions. To demand them is insane. To try to impose them by terrorism is equally insane.
There isn't any map redrawing by Iran either.
They are a major destabilizing factor in the region as well as offer singificant support to insurgents that kill Americans in Iraq. Right now they do not redraw maps by their military, but they will if we back out. We should not shoot ourselves in the knee-cap just to prove you wrong.
Iran is not a fully democratic country. It does not promote individual rights. But it has elections...real ones. A range of candidates run with a range of views, and the ones who get the votes actually get the offices.
Iran is governed by a theocratic council. The president is largely a figurehead that functions at their pleasure. The elections are limited to candidates that are not already against the regime, because if they were, they would be dragged out of their beds in the dead of night and disappear without trace. The common Iranian has no power and no rights and exists miserably by practicing a lot of STFU and SIUB. Therefore Iran is a dictatorship, albeit a theatrical one. So, in terms of elections, they are essentially similar to the Soviets.
But, it is very cute when leftists and islamic sympathizers try to pull the wool over our eyes about their favorite dictatorships - about as cute as neo-cons trying to convince us how enlightened and westernized the Saudis are.
Frankly, the entire region is one big toilet, and your argument boils down to us letting them crap in peace, so they do not fling their feces at us, only at one another. There are two problems with this strategy - 1) there is something in the toilet that we desperately need; 2) when the feces start flying, so do any guarantees.