Mousavi is not the nicest man in the world, and neither is Rafsanjani (sp?), the dude trying to oust the Supreme Leader.
Good point. I just blanket vote for the moderate candidate.
|
It appears to me that we've reached a very serious problem in the world today where the people cannot overthrow tyrannical governments like they once could. What was once possible with the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and many more is simply not possible since the advent of the machine gun and the tank. If a repressive regime doesn't want to give up its power, there is little an even overwhelming populace can do to bring about change, even country such as Burma where election results weren't fixed. If you're in power and don't want to give it up, you throw the opposition in jail, or you just rig the election to go your way in the first place.
What can the Tibetans do against totalitarian China? For that matter what could the Chinese do in Tienanmen Square? What can the Burmese do against the ruling junta when their democratically elected leader is arrested and peacefully protesting monks are murdered and thrown in jail? What can Iranians who want change in their country do with a sham election and protesters shot at?
President Bush said in his second inaugural address in 2005 "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people, you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side."
Yet what do we do? Obama claims to be "deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television," yet he looks the other way while protesters are being killed in Iran because "it's not productive given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling." Yay America, way to stand by our promises.
At what point does a situation get dire enough that we're allowed to meddle? When is it ok to step in and help people that want to, but cannot help themselves? For instance, had we uncovered evidence that Jews were being slaughtered in concentration camps during the Holocaust before Pearl Harbor was attacked, would we have been justified in going to war against Germany? Or should we have just let those atrocities continue because of a need to respect Germany's sovereignty? Should we really just not care just because it's far enough away that we can't see it and it can't touch us, or do we have a responsibility to our fellow brothers and sisters of the Human Race that simply happen to have been born on another side of an imaginary line in the dirt?
<stepping down from soapbox>
Actually the protests we see going on are an affirmation of modern computer connectivity. Iran booted all the foreign journalists out, but it makes no difference: The protesters just use their cell phones to upload video to YouTube and Twitter minute-by-minute updates. It's like an anti-Big Brother movement. The people are not allowing the government to enforce a media blackout. Even ten years ago this would have been impossible. The mullahs cannot do anything under the cover of a media blackout, their sheild from world scrutiny is gone.
A book I'm reading now, Great Powers, that was written directly after the last election mentioned Iran's looming issue with the fact that their country is just beginning to process a massive youth generation. These are people brought up in the 21st Century, who decry the cultural apartheid that the mullahs wish to impose in the name of religious purity. Now they have the tools to cross-communicate and coordinate over long distances.
The next few years should be interesting for Iran. I think they will be fine without our overstressed military jumping into yet another boondoggle. All that would do is unite every faction against us.
I understand your point but what is the solution? We simply can not open up another front with Iran, much less China. We are still cleaning up our last mess.
|
|
Sorry, I appreciate your response and don't mean to seem as if I'm advocating all-out war against Iran or anything - while there is a time for war, I don't think this is it; the recent struggle in Iran was simply the catalyst for a long-time building rant.
That said, I believe that the only thing evil needs to win is for good people to do nothing. And I don't pretend to have all the answers - so maybe we can come up with a solution together. What other options are there besides brute military force?
Just hearing the word "sanctions" is starting to really annoy me - they've proven to be about as effective as using sugar as ant repellent. I mean, just look at Cuba. What sanctions tend to do is hurt the common populace that we're trying to help because the rulers still pocket everything they can get their hands on, leaving less for the masses. The opulance of Pyinmana in Burma is a great example of that. That wedding cost 10 times what was spent to clean up the mess from the hurricane that ravaged the country.
So seriously, what are our options? Ask really nicely? Ignore it and hope it goes away? Threaten to apply even more sanctions?
I understand your point but what is the solution? We simply can not open up another front with Iran, much less China. We are still cleaning up our last mess.
Can I add other places where far more people are dying that Iran. Israel and Palestine. Pick your African country?
America can swoop in and make everything right. So a few people die. You can't make an towelette without killing a few locals, eh?
So seriously, what are our options? Ask really nicely? Ignore it and hope it goes away? Threaten to apply even more sanctions?
I'm curious: what should one do in one's everyday life when bad things are happening around, that one just can't change?
I ask that entirely seriously.
...That said, I believe that the only thing evil needs to win is for good people to do nothing. And I don't pretend to have all the answers - so maybe we can come up with a solution together. What other options are there besides brute military force? ...
I think the issue here is the definition of 'evil'. Is Iran evil because they are a theocracy? That is unfortunate, but hardly 'evil.' Are they evil for trying to get nuclear capabilities? The book I referenced in an earlier post had an interesting take on that that really stuck with me:
Imagine three men sit next to each other on a bench. You approach, draw a gun and shoot the man on the left. Then you shoot the man on the right. If the man in the middle attempts to draw a gun, is he being overly hostile and aggressive or just thinking self-preservation?
Two of Iran's neighbors are Iraq and Afghanistan. In the last seven years we have invaded both countries, whatever you think of the reasonings, we changed the governments there and are now in a state of quasi-occupation re: The Balkans or Germany/Japan post WWII. I'm sure that makes your average Iranian nervous. They have had years of hearing from their leaders how we want to invade and destroy them, and then we occupy their two closest neighbors. If Iran invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, think how WE would feel!
One thing I DIDN'T know was that when the War on Terror was shiny and new, Iran stepped up and offered to assist us with al-Qaeda and Saddam. After all, both of them were their antagonists. Thanks to our inability to look past the Iranian hostage crisis of thirty years ago we scorned their help, thus making them even more paranoid.
So what can we do to combat 'evil?' We apply economic pressure, we work to keep the protestors avenues of communication open, we work with the world community to keep them from committing a massacre. The last time we did a black ops intervention for regime change in Iran was 1953 and we are living with the unintended results of that short-sighted descision to this day. Let Iran work on its own problems. Their huge youth generation is beginning to rebel against the mullahs, we should encourage this, but not with bullets.
Military options are not playing to America's strengths, despite having a top-notch military. Too much policing the globe/regime changes and that military will disappear. I see signs of it with almost everyone I knew in the military either leaving or trying to leave. Continual stress is making the military a bad option, and back-to-back deployments destroy lives and families. It's real easy to think we can waltz in and effect a 'regime change', but no one in Iran would thank us. Nor would China, who buys most of their oil.
The problem is when you always have a hammer in your hands you tend to treat every problem like a nail.
That was an excellent post, Patrick.
That was an excellent post, Patrick.
[Elvis voice]Uh thank you, thank you very much [/Elvis Voice]
Well, I as just reading that the Ayatollah declared no election fraud and that Ahmadinnerjacket one by 11 million votes. Of course, I've also read that some precincts were reporting more vote ballots than registered voters.
I think the mullahs are having the same headache the Soviets had when they allowed 'some' freedoms. The problem with having 'some' freedoms is that people get a taste for 'more' freedoms.
Add to that the simply amazing ability of recent technology to allow one person to do the job an entire news network would do a decade ago, and the rules on autocracies are being rewritten. The infosphere is too diffuse and neccessary to a modern country's development to effect an old-style media blackout.
The mullahs wanted their sham election to show the world they were 'democratic'. Their problem is their citizens took them seriously. They expected an honest democratic process, and when the results were shamelessly rigged they were insulted and angered.
Now Iran is stuck in the embarrassing situation of having a large internal rebellious movement armed with a million cellphones with video capability. Any move to quash the protestors will be on Youtube in 2.5 seconds flat.
Sorry, I appreciate your response and don't mean to seem as if I'm advocating all-out war against Iran or anything - while there is a time for war, I don't think this is it; the recent struggle in Iran was simply the catalyst for a long-time building rant.
I hear you. And just as Kruelaid pointed out, there is injustice throughout the world. So much so, that personally, I would not even know where to start? What about hunger and poverty which I am sure we could get a far broader consensus on. How do we combat that?
I do not have any answers either. If I did, I would probably be working for the feds instead of the state.
I do not have any answers either. If I did, I would probably be working for the feds instead of the state.
I thought you were a "ward of the state." :PPPP
I thought you were a "ward of the state." :PPPP
When I get out of this padded cell…!
I thought you were a "ward of the state." :PPPPWhen I get out of this padded cell…!
First you need to get out of that jacket with the really long arms that you are wearing.
First you need to get out of that jacket with the really long arms that you are wearing.
What jacket? ;)
Rrrrrrryap!
Iran's supreme leader defends election
The supreme leader said the Obama administration has passed along mixed messages about relations between the United States and Iran, saying the president lauded the street protests but also extends an olive branch to the government.
"Which one should we believe?" he asked.
And your supporters chant death to America. Should we believe you are the least bit interested in peace?
I can not begin to image the mental hoops Khamenei must jump through to rationalize this tripe.
|
Well, I as just reading that the Ayatollah declared no election fraud and that Ahmadinnerjacket one by 11 million votes. Of course, I've also read that some precincts were reporting more vote ballots than registered voters.
The 'official' counts came out in a couple of hours. The president of the vote-counting authority said that the boxes hadn't even all been delivered yet, and that *none* of the boxes had yet been unsealed (and that it generally takes them three days working night and day to count them all anyway!).
The fourth place candidate was assigned such a low percentage of the vote, that he claims to have more people *registered with his campaign* than he received votes in the 'official count.'
It's possible that this is all sour grapes from losers, but the administration only fanned the flames of doubt by shutting down the internet, communications, etc. and hustling the votes off to be hidden from the people whose job it was to count them. Even if Amad won re-election, or would have in a run-off against Mousavi, he's not only discredited himself, but also the Supreme Leader, with his shenanigans.
If *I* were the Supreme Leader, I'd be a little bit pissed off at the guy for bungling this so badly, and managing to damage my credibility with his panicky over-reaction. Then again, who knows, maybe it was the Supreme Leader who panicked and over-reacted, demanding a landslide win to 'establish a mandate against change' and 'legitimize' the status quo.
It's a mess, and the absolute best thing our government can do is stay the hell out of it. We go ballistic when foreign countries meddle in our politics, whether it's rich Australians with their own news networks, or rich Asians funneling cash under the table to their favorite party. (Freak fact, Reverend Moon, who has declared himself the Messiah and the Second Coming, once held an event in the Capital building, which over fifty congresscritters attended, in which he crowned himself Emperor of the World. He's donated so much money that the various Senators and Representatives felt obliged to humor the guy. Yikes.) Iranians are no less proud than Americans, and will go equally ballistic if we start meddling in their affairs, since they still blame us for our role in the Shah's brutal regime. The hardliners will point and say, 'See! Mousavi is supported by our enemies who sing 'bomb, bomb, Iran!'' the same way that hardliners in this country said that, 'Terrorists will be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected!'
Yeah, I wonder how things may have played out if it had been close. "Sorry. Good game, but your guy lost. Maybe next time." Probably would have been less of an uproar, but then what happens when 'next time' rolls around?
'Terrorists will be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected!'
Yeah, why hasn't the country imploded yet?
I guess it is difficult to build a strong support base if you say something like, "Yeah, the other candidate is an o.k. guy, I just disagree with some of his points."
|
|
...That said, I believe that the only thing evil needs to win is for good people to do nothing. And I don't pretend to have all the answers - so maybe we can come up with a solution together. What other options are there besides brute military force? ...I think the issue here is the definition of 'evil'. Is Iran evil because they are a theocracy? That is unfortunate, but hardly 'evil.' Are they evil for trying to get nuclear capabilities?
Iran is not evil as it's an abstract group of people that is inherentrly amoral. However, there are evil Iranians, and evil Iranian leaders. Is it evil to desire genocide? It's not that they're a theocracy, it's that they're a radical Islamic theocracy that rejects unalienable human rights. They have clearly stated goals of doing evil things - i.e. mass genocide.
The book I referenced in an earlier post had an interesting take on that that really stuck with me:
Great Powers wrote:
Imagine three men sit next to each other on a bench. You approach, draw a gun and shoot the man on the left. Then you shoot the man on the right. If the man in the middle attempts to draw a gun, is he being overly hostile and aggressive or just thinking self-preservation?
It's more like 3 buddies are sitting on a bench, and two of them come and start shooting at you before sitting down. You go back to the bench and find that the guy in the middle is telling them to shoot you and training them how to shoot. When he then draws a gun on you, it's not exactly self preservation, is it?
Two of Iran's neighbors are Iraq and Afghanistan. In the last seven years we have invaded both countries, whatever you think of the reasonings, we changed the governments there and are now in a state of quasi-occupation re: The Balkans or Germany/Japan post WWII. I'm sure that makes your average Iranian nervous. They have had years of hearing from their leaders how we want to invade and destroy them, and then we occupy their two closest neighbors. If Iran invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, think how WE would feel!
Again, you can't look at the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in a vacuum. The US was not the instigator in Afghanistan, they were responding to attacks on US soil. And regardless of the whole WoMD issue, Iraq repeatedly broke the rules set up by the UN after Iraq invaded Kuwait. And while Iran's leaders may have been telling them the US wants to invade and destroy them, it's not true, and just proves more the atmosphere of deceit and fear mongering that the regime uses to maintain its power.
One thing I DIDN'T know was that when the War on Terror was shiny and new, Iran stepped up and offered to assist us with al-Qaeda and Saddam. After all, both of them were their antagonists. Thanks to our inability to look past the Iranian hostage crisis of thirty years ago we scorned their help, thus making them even more paranoid.
While they may have been making overtures of peace on their right hand, they've been training and equipping jihadists continually with their left.
So what can we do to combat 'evil?' We apply economic pressure
See my rant about sanctions above. They don't work.
we work to keep the protesters avenues of communication open
Yes, that's actually a really good thing we can be doing in the short term, but what will we do when those protesters are being murdered and arrested?
we work with the world community to keep them from committing a massacre.
How exactly do you propose doing this? How has the world community ever in the past worked together to prevent a massacre? Did they prevent Tienanmen Square? Did they prevent thousands of protesters killed in Burma? I'm open for suggestions here but history isn't with us on this one and we need something more specific than "work with the international community."
The last time we did a black ops intervention for regime change in Iran was 1953 and we are living with the unintended results of that short-sighted decision to this day. Let Iran work on its own problems. Their huge youth generation is beginning to rebel against the mullahs, we should encourage this, but not with bullets.
Again, as I said before I'm not specifically calling for a heavy-fisted military operation here. If there's another alternative, I'm all for it - I just haven't heard one yet.
Khamenei also blamed “media belonging to Zionists, evil media” for sowing unrest in Iran.
I am glad to see the supreme leader is so progressive as to use a tried and true internet strategy. When someone disagrees with you, accuse them of being a nazi…or, in this case, a Zionist.
Of course, the *really* creative will use both labels together.
|
|
I am glad to see the supreme leader is so progressive as to use a tried and true internet strategy. When someone disagrees with you, accuse them of being a nazi…or, in this case, a Zionist.
It's like their own version of Godwin's Law. Once they start ranting about zionist plots, it's safe to say they're in full-on spittle-flying-from-the-lips crazy-mode, just like when our politicians start throwing around words like fascist and socialist.
Since I don't live in Iran, I can roll my eyes and walk away. The locals don't have that luxury.
It appears to me that we've reached a very serious problem in the world today where the people cannot overthrow tyrannical governments like they once could. What was once possible with the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and many more is simply not possible since the advent of the machine gun and the tank. If a repressive regime doesn't want to give up its power, there is little an even overwhelming populace can do to bring about change, even country such as Burma where election results weren't fixed. If you're in power and don't want to give it up, you throw the opposition in jail, or you just rig the election to go your way in the first place.
What can the Tibetans do against totalitarian China? For that matter what could the Chinese do in Tienanmen Square? What can the Burmese do against the ruling junta when their democratically elected leader is arrested and peacefully protesting monks are murdered and thrown in jail? What can Iranians who want change in their country do with a sham election and protesters shot at?
President Bush said in his second inaugural address in 2005 "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people, you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side."
Yet what do we do? Obama claims to be "deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television," yet he looks the other way while protesters are being killed in Iran because "it's not productive given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling." Yay America, way to stand by our promises.
At what point does a situation get dire enough that we're allowed to...
Absolutely...time for the TRUE beleivers in liberty and freedom to make themselves heard... Our PRECIDENT...yeah I misspelled it on purpose is far too concerned with his social agenda to aid countries looking for liberty...he'd rather take choices away from amerocans than offer hope to the rest of the world... I'm deeply troubled by the president and the medias overlooking of key issues in the world...For 3 days we've been seeing clips of fly swatting as much as protest from Iran... IS ANYONE ELSE AS TIRED OF THE DOG AND PONY SHOW WE HAVER NOW AS I AM
Once they start ranting about zionist plots, it's safe to say they're in full-on spittle-flying-from-the-lips crazy-mode, just like when our politicians start throwing around words like fascist and socialist.
Which kind of goes back to…
I guess it is difficult to build a strong support base if you say something like, "Yeah, the other candidate is an o.k. guy, I just disagree with some of his points."
Khamenei: "Some of my best friends are Jewish. We just have some heated debates on religion and real estate some times."
|
President Bush said in his second inaugural address in 2005 "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people, you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side."
Yet what do we do? Obama claims to be "deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television," yet he looks the other way while protesters are being killed in Iran because "it's not productive given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling." Yay America, way to stand by our promises.
I just read an interesting quote from an iranian film director (Mohsen Makhmalbaf) who said something on the line of "Thanks to the new president of the USA our leaders cannot threaten us with the american menace or with a military intervention from the outside. Finally they cannot intimidate us with such threats."
I think this poses an interesting light on how the "promises" of former president Bush were received not only by the leaders but also by the citizens of the "evil" nations. Actually if President Obama breaks with this policy, I think this can be a good thing.
I just read an interesting quote from an iranian film director (Mohsen Makhmalbaf) who said something on the line of "Thanks to the new president of the USA our leaders cannot threaten us with the american menace or with a military intervention from the outside. Finally they cannot intimidate us with such threats."
Amazingly, the dark lord who heads Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad, Meir Dagan, would prefer it if Ahmadinejad’s victory stayed intact. He told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: "The reality in Iran is not going to change because of the elections. The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate [Mirhossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element."
Iran's supreme leader warns protesters
Iran's supreme leader is warning the thousands of people who have been protesting last week's presidential vote to maintain self-restraint or face a stiff reaction from authorities.
Because we will not tolerate this sort of thing.
|
|
I just read an interesting quote from an iranian film director (Mohsen Makhmalbaf) who said something on the line of "Thanks to the new president of the USA our leaders cannot threaten us with the american menace or with a military intervention from the outside. Finally they cannot intimidate us with such threats."I think this poses an interesting light on how the "promises" of former president Bush were received not only by the leaders but also by the citizens of the "evil" nations. Actually if President Obama breaks with this policy, I think this can be a good thing.
Obama's a career politician. Just last week, when exit polls were pointing at a win for Moussavi, he had no problem intervening with politics in the middle east, to the point where he was taking credit for Moussavi's win due to his amazing Cairo speech.
He's not so much breaking with policy as just riding the waves of popularity, where ever they may take him.
|
|
Maybe he is; I wasn't trying to make an "Obama is better than Bush" argument. I also don't advocate that he should shut his mouth and be silent about when human rights are violated.
I just commented on what the rest of the world has learned about the promises of the Bush Government and that it might be a really bad idea if Obama chose to go the same route.
|
|
Iran's supreme leader warns protesters
Iran's supreme leader is warning the thousands of people who have been protesting last week's presidential vote to maintain self-restraint or face a stiff reaction from authorities.
Because we will not tolerate this sort of thing.
As someone who remembers Tiananmen Square (I was 12) I can see this leading only one direction. Between the threats to protesters and the threats toward the media, it seems like things are headed in the same direction.
|
|
Maybe he is; I wasn't trying to make an "Obama is better than Bush" argument. I also don't advocate that he should shut his mouth and be silent about when human rights are violated.
I just commented on what the rest of the world has learned about the promises of the Bush Government and that it might be a really bad idea if Obama chose to go the same route.
True - whether or not he's actually better or worse than Bush, Obama's perception in the world is certainly better than his predecessor. Of course that's mostly because he goes around apologizing for the world's problems and blaming them all on the US, saying how everything is our fault. I could see how people in other countries would like that better than a president who stands up to bad behavior and calls them out on it.
While plenty of people didn't like the direction Bush took, they're quick to forget the route Carter went, and all signs point to Obama being much more a repeat of the earlier administration. Remember, Carter was the guy responsible when the current mess in Iran came to power.
Of course that's mostly because he goes around apologizing for the world's problems and blaming them all on the US, saying how everything is our fault.
hmm, when has he blamed the world's problems on the US (do you have a source)? Or are you being facetious?
I think the issue here is the definition of 'evil'. Is Iran evil because they are a theocracy? That is unfortunate, but hardly 'evil.' Are they evil for trying to get nuclear capabilities?Iran is not evil as it's an abstract group of people that is inherentrly amoral. However, there are evil Iranians, and evil Iranian leaders. Is it evil to desire genocide? It's not that they're a theocracy, it's that they're a radical Islamic theocracy that rejects unalienable human rights. They have clearly stated goals of doing evil things - i.e. mass genocide.
OK, they talk a lot of rhetoric about Israel and us, the 'Great Satan', but despite the rhetoric the average Iranian has a favorable opinion of America, something that would sour real quick if we invaded.
It's more like 3 buddies are sitting on a bench, and two of them come and start shooting at you before sitting down. You go back to the bench and find that the guy in the middle is telling them to shoot you and training them how to shoot. When he then draws a gun on you, it's not exactly self preservation, is it?
First off, calling Iran, the Taliban/al-Qaeda, and Iraq 'buddies' is entirely ignorant of the geopolitical reality of the region. Iraq (or at least its Baathist sunni minority headed by Saddam) HATED Iran, so badly that they fought them in a conventional war for eight years, with hundreds of thousands of casualties. Iran is a non-Arab Shia nation. Al-Qeada is a radiacal Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organization which is just as happy blowing up Shia mosques as it is the World Trade Center (and in fact does much more often). While you can make a case at the Taliban 'Shooting first', Iraq didn't attack us, they merely refused to allow UN inspectors in the country. Considering they had no WMDs in place, this was a particularly bone-headed move by Saddam. That was marketed to the masses as a preemptive strike to stave off Saddam giving terrorists WMDs. So, yeah, two regime changes effected by us (which I actually approve of), but no, it doesn't make Iran feel warm fuzzies towards us, or Bush's 'Axis of Evil' bluster.
If we had only taken the olive branch Iran offered up post-9/11 we could have co-opted them as strategic partners in the region. That way we could have shaped their role in Iraq a lot more constructively. the way it fell out, they got their increased power in the region on our dime, with no promises or improving relations at all. And before you say 'that's working with rogue states' we were more than happy to work with Pakistan, which isn't the most stable nation and exports terrorists as well. Also, there's always our 'friends', the House of Saud ....
Again, you can't look at the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in a vacuum. The US was not the instigator in Afghanistan, they were responding to attacks on US soil.
Afghanistan was needed, and I will admit that the world is a better place without Saddam and his sons ruling Iraq. Over the long term if things go well the Middle East will be a better place with an Iraq with some democritization. However, that once again doesn't make the Iranians feel any more comfortable about our presence in their neighbors.
And regardless of the whole WoMD issue, Iraq repeatedly broke the rules set up by the UN after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
As they had many times since Desert Storm. I know, I spent some time in Riyadh guarding our pals the Saudis from Iraq. The Clinton administration bombed the crap out of them for the same business in 1999 (Operation Desert Fox) which I had the questionable luck to be over there for. In 2002, they did it again, but when the UN decided not to back another entry into Iraq, instead of backing off and recalibrating our diplomacy we said, 'Aw screw it! We're the only superpower! We don't need you chumps!'
So now look at where we are: Comitted to occupying (or at least protecting them with our military assets) both nations for decades (which we now HAVE to do unless we want them to slide into anarchy) and facing a crumbling military structure unable to retain troops because of the constant overseas rotations. No one who wants to pick up the slack. Add Iran to the mix and it's time for the draft to be set up again, and we can have riots in the streets as every 18-year-old burns their draft cards in protest.
And while Iran's leaders may have been telling them the US wants to invade and destroy them, it's not true, and just proves more the atmosphere of deceit and fear mongering that the regime uses to maintain its power.
Absolutely their propaganda isn't true, and their populace is wising up to it thanks to technology and the Internet. But if we invade them we validate everything the radical mullahs tell their people about us. What they tell their people might not be true but perception is reality. You seem to buy the Bush-era 'Axis of Evil' propaganda against them. Could it be that what we have been told vis-a-vis Iran is not true? Perhaps a more calm response might lead to a 'rotting from within' as we saw in the Soviet system? I think these protests are an excellent indicator that there are cracks in the facade.
While they may have been making overtures of peace on their right hand, they've been training and equipping jihadists continually with their left.
As have elements of the Wahabbi fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia. Should we invade them too? The House of Saud bribes their radical Sunni terrorists with our oil money to leave them alone in their massive palaces. They take this money and train and equip their cells. Which country was the birthplace of most of the 9-11 terrorists?
See my rant about sanctions above. They don't work.
I disagree. They don't work QUICKLY. By isolating ourselves from any political dialog with Iran we just prop up the radicals who point to us and yell "Great Satan!"
Yes, that's actually a really good thing we can be doing in the short term, but what will we do when those protesters are being murdered and arrested?
Voice our dismay and work through the UN. We can't help everyone. What about the many people being slaughtered in the Sudan? The many minor wars in Africa? Or are they not important enough? Or is it that they don't have something we desire or they don't call us names?
How exactly do you propose doing this? How has the world community ever in the past worked together to prevent a massacre? Did they prevent Tienanmen Square? Did they prevent thousands of protesters killed in Burma? I'm open for suggestions here but history isn't with us on this one and we need something more specific than "work with the international community."
The problem is, how do you put out every fire? One positive sign is that the interconnectivity of the age is not letting the government crackdown on the protesters for fear of looking bad internationally. Imagine if Tienamen Square occured in 2009 rather than 1989. I don't think it would be the same with real-time Twitter and cell phone video streaming out to the world.
Again, as I said before I'm not specifically calling for a heavy-fisted military operation here. If there's another alternative, I'm all for it - I just haven't heard one yet.
The alternative is, let them solve it themselves. If they murder a bunch of their own people, it will be broadcast worldwide and I predict that, more than a division of US Marines, will bring about a change in government. The Iranian people aren't knuckling down to pressure, and the mullahs haven't been able to crack down yet, despite the fact that some protestors were killed. The protests are still going on. Even if no real change comes of this wave of protests, it is a good bet that the next decade will see Iran's government starting to crumble.
Would we have been happy if Britian had invaded us during the Civil War? No, more than likely we would have put our differences aside and ganged up on old Blighty, 'cause the worse thing you can do is get involved in a family squabble that's not yours.
|
|
Well, I as just reading that the Ayatollah declared no election fraud and that Ahmadinnerjacket one by 11 million votes. Of course, I've also read that some precincts were reporting more vote ballots than registered voters.I didn't realize Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta were in Iran...
Is Acorn doing the census there?
Is this going to be a sizzle followed by smoke putting out the fire or a BOOM!?
Heh. Protests in Iran.
Heh. Protests in Iran.
I vote sizzle on the current protests, but sometimes the fire burns hotter underground before it bursts up. This is a first crumble, kinda like Poland in the early Eighties ..... Remember Lech Walesa and Solidarity? Less than 30 years later and the whole Soviet Iron Curtain landscape is gone, relegated to the 'dustbin of history'. Although Russia might still be autocratic, it is nothing like the old Communist days.
They're shutting down the connectivity of the protestors, but Iran is not gettting a lot of good world PR from this, and the youth of the country are upset with the events. (and they are the biggest age group in Iran). The real question in my mind is how the path of protest/reform will follow these next few years.
|
|
OK, they talk a lot of rhetoric about Israel and us, the 'Great Satan', but despite the rhetoric the average Iranian has a favorable opinion of America, something that would sour real quick if we invaded.
As I said, I don't believe Iran is evil, or even the majority of Iranians. Many of the leadership have said and done very evil things, however. And however many times I counter it, you still insist that I'm calling for military invasion. I haven't once said that! What I'm looking for is something else: a third way. Something more forceful than the current impotent diplomacy we use and yet not brute force either. Maybe such a thing doesn't exist, and then we're all screwed, but my whole point is there comes a time when we can't just sit back and watch; we have to do something.
First off, calling Iran, the Taliban/al-Qaeda, and Iraq 'buddies' is entirely ignorant of the geopolitical reality of the region. Iraq (or at least its Baathist sunni minority headed by Saddam) HATED Iran, so badly that they fought them in a conventional war for eight years, with hundreds of thousands of casualties. Iran is a non-Arab Shia nation. Al-Qeada is a radiacal Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organization which is just as happy blowing up Shia mosques as it is the World Trade Center (and in fact does much more often). While you can make a case at the Taliban 'Shooting first', Iraq didn't attack us, they merely refused to allow UN inspectors in the country. Considering they had no WMDs in place, this was a particularly bone-headed move by Saddam. That was marketed to the masses as a preemptive strike to stave off Saddam giving terrorists WMDs. So, yeah, two regime changes effected by us (which I actually approve of), but no, it doesn't make Iran feel warm fuzzies towards us, or Bush's 'Axis of Evil' bluster.
Regardless of the history of the region, the reality now is that Iran is supplying much of the insurgency in Iraq now. And Iraq did shoot first at Kuwait, plus they attacked US forces repeatedly during the lull between the two gulf wars. And while we didn't actually find any WMDs, we gave them all sorts of time to hide it, or most likely ship it off to another country, say Syria for example for safekeeping. It's obvious they expected us to come in and get out like we did in the first Gulf War, so they got rid of all the evidence, and buried jet fighters in the sand to wait it out.
If we had only taken the olive branch Iran offered up post-9/11 we could have co-opted them as strategic partners in the region. That way we could have shaped their role in Iraq a lot more constructively. the way it fell out, they got their increased power in the region on our dime, with no promises or improving relations at all. And before you say 'that's working with rogue states' we were more than happy to work with Pakistan, which isn't the most stable nation and exports terrorists as well. Also, there's always our 'friends', the House of Saud ....
I really have nothing to argue with you against this about. It very well could have been the correct course of action to take, unfortunately now we'll never know.
Afghanistan was needed, and I will admit that the world is a better place without Saddam and his sons ruling Iraq. Over the long term if things go well the Middle East will be a better place with an Iraq with some democritization. However, that once again doesn't make the Iranians feel any more comfortable about our presence in their neighbors.
It seems we agree on this one as far as I can tell.
As they had many times since Desert Storm. I know, I spent some time in Riyadh guarding our pals the Saudis from Iraq. The Clinton administration bombed the crap out of them for the same business in 1999 (Operation Desert Fox) which I had the questionable luck to be over there for. In 2002, they did it again, but when the UN decided not to back another entry into Iraq, instead of backing off and recalibrating our diplomacy we said, 'Aw screw it! We're the only superpower! We don't need you chumps!'
I appreciate your personal perspective on this one - I'm always glad to hear from people who have actually spent time in the region and have their opinions shaped by personal experience.
As far as going without the UN, though, there were some pretty corrupt but solid reasons for them not wanting to cause waves in Iraq, so I'm glad Bush called them on it went in anyways.
So now look at where we are: Comitted to occupying (or at least protecting them with our military assets) both nations for decades (which we now HAVE to do unless we want them to slide into anarchy) and facing a crumbling military structure unable to retain troops because of the constant overseas rotations. No one who wants to pick up the slack. Add Iran to the mix and it's time for the draft to be set up again, and we can have riots in the streets as every 18-year-old burns their draft cards in protest.
You're right, we have a big mess to deal with, and it'll take time to clean it up. I don't believe it was wrong, and that it's all going to be worth it in the end. And I'll repeat, I'm not saying we should just open up another front on Iran right now.
Absolutely their propaganda isn't true, and their populace is wising up to it thanks to technology and the Internet. But if we invade them we validate everything the radical mullahs tell their people about us. What they tell their people might not be true but perception is reality.
Quit putting words into my mouth! Enough with the talk of invasion!
You seem to buy the Bush-era 'Axis of Evil' propaganda against them. Could it be that what we have been told vis-a-vis Iran is not true? Perhaps a more calm response might lead to a 'rotting from within' as we saw in the Soviet system? I think these protests are an excellent indicator that there are cracks in the facade.
I'm not basing my opinions off of any such propaganda, I'm talking about things I've heard or read directly from their mouths. Thanks for thinking so highly of me though. Accusations really help dialogue.
As have elements of the Wahabbi fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia. Should we invade them too? The House of Saud bribes their radical Sunni terrorists with our oil money to leave them alone in their massive palaces. They take this money and train and equip their cells. Which country was the birthplace of most of the 9-11 terrorists?
That's a red herring. No, we shouldn't ignore evil wherever we see it, but to point to every place that we haven't done anything about just because we decide to try and do some good somewhere else isn't productive.
I disagree. They don't work QUICKLY. By isolating ourselves from any political dialog with Iran we just prop up the radicals who point to us and yell "Great Satan!"
You're entitled to disagree, unfortunately history tells us otherwise. If what you say is true, why haven't the Cubans caputulated and given up communism after so many decades of embargos and sanctions?
Count Buggula wrote:
Yes, that's actually a really good thing we can be doing in the short term, but what will we do when those protesters are being murdered and arrested?
Voice our dismay and work through the UN. We can't help everyone. What about the many people being slaughtered in the Sudan? The many minor wars in Africa? Or are they not important enough? Or is it that they don't have something we desire or they don't call us names?
Again with the red herrings. Yes we should try and do what we can everywhere, and already do much more than we're given credit for. Who gives more aid and support to Africa than the US?
The problem is, how do you put out every fire? One positive sign is that the interconnectivity of the age is not letting the government crackdown on the protesters for fear of looking bad internationally. Imagine if Tienamen Square occured in 2009 rather than 1989. I don't think it would be the same with real-time Twitter and cell phone video streaming out to the world.
Count Buggula wrote:
Again, as I said before I'm not specifically calling for a heavy-fisted military operation here. If there's another alternative, I'm all for it - I just haven't heard one yet.
The alternative is, let them solve it themselves. If they murder a bunch of their own people, it will be broadcast worldwide and I predict that, more than a division of US Marines, will bring about a change in government. The Iranian people aren't knuckling down to pressure, and the mullahs haven't been able to crack down yet, despite the fact that some protesters were killed. The protests are still going on. Even if no real change comes of this wave of protests, it is a good bet that the next decade will see Iran's government starting to crumble.
I hope what you say is true, but the abundance of technology didn't keep Burmese soldiers from slaughtering protesting monks last year, and we have yet to see a change in regime over there.
CB, I think we are arguing to cross-points here. You say you aren't calling for an invasion, but what exactly are you proposing doing? The best we can do as a country at the moment is condemn the violence, which we have. If sanctions don't work, what's next?
I won't bother going through all of your post, I understand your frustration, and I agree that Iran has an unsavory government. So do a lot of countries. We can't effect a regime change on everyone who does bad things. I think that the Iranian people can effect their own change, even if it isn't tomorrow. The Soviet Union did, and no one thought that was possible. True democritization is a process that occurs over decades not days. Russia and China are still working through their changes, even though they are more stable than in the past.
Even in our own history, our system of government didn't just flow from the quills of the Founding Fathers, it was hammered out in iron and blood over the course of two centuries. To this day we still debate the issues confronting us, as we two are in this new technological forum.
I am of the mind that we have spent too much time trying to go at the world alone. Yes, of course we can, but it brings on stresses like a burned-out military. The UN might be corrupt, but we need to work with what we can. Obviously, going solo hasn't worked out real well. I would posit that a lot of the Iranian bluster towards us has been precisely because they know we have our military overstretched and we are not in a good position to do anything to them.
Well, I as just reading that the Ayatollah declared no election fraud and that Ahmadinnerjacket one by 11 million votes. Of course, I've also read that some precincts were reporting more vote ballots than registered voters.I didn't realize Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta were in Iran...
ROFL! That was the funniest thing I read all week.
As someone who remembers Tiananmen Square (I was 12) I can see this leading only one direction. Between the threats to protesters and the threats toward the media, it seems like things are headed in the same direction.As an aside, these days it's almost impossible for Chinese youth to get any kind of mass movement together because in all campuses students are encouraged to join the communist party and there are tonnes of them, and many are foaming at the mouth indoctrinated - I used to have to deal with them in class. It's a page out of the national socialist movement and an effective way to keep the lid on the cooker.