|
I've been watching some of this today, and I love the fact that no matter how much the Iranian gov't tries to supress the flow of information, the people are still getting the word (and the video) out, via Youtube, etc. Thank you Al Gore, for inventing the Internet. If this movement in Iran succeeds, do you think the'll put up a statue of him?
... Thank you Al Gore, for inventing the Internet. If this movement in Iran succeeds, do you think they'll put up a statue of him?
God, like that man needs another ego boost. Isn't his Oscar, Nobel prize and 20-room house enough?
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.
This is sort of true. After 9/11 and with the USA gearing up to bomb Afghanistan, the Iranians saw an opportunity to open a dialogue with the US and delivered a massive wad of intelligence on Taliban and al-Qaeda personnel, military positions and so on to US officials via the United Nations, with the suggestion of further on-the-ground assistance in return for a possible thawing of relations.
British foreign secretary Jack Straw flew to Tehran to further this process, with the net result that at the start of 2002 it was looking like Iran could come in from the cold and start talking about restoring diplomatic ties with the USA. This could have been a tremendous geopolitical success for Bush. Instead he added them onto the Axis of Evil for absolutely no logical reason (Iran being considerably less oppressive and evil than the USA's long-term buddies, Saudi Arabia) and set back Iranian-Western relations by many years.
It cannot be stressed enough that Iran loathes the Taliban and al-Qaeda (who have called for an overthrow of the Iranian government many times) with a passion. When the Taliban took control of Afghanistan they stormed the Iranian consulate in Mazar al Sharif and killed all the Iranian personnel there, which was an extraordinarily stupid move (as the Iranians were then happy to start funding the Northern Alliance and keep them fighting against the Taliban). Even though Iran has a deep-seated taboo about invading other countries, apparently they even talked about some kind of direct military intervention in Afghanistan before deciding against it. If they'd done that several years before 9-11, the history of the last decade could have been very different indeed.
I strongly recommend this documentary series by the BBC (left up on YouTube apparently because they can't release it on DVD due to not getting permission from all of the interviewees). It outlines the relationship between Iran and the West from the 1979 Revolution onwards. There is a lot of stuff in there I'd never heard before, particularly how many times Iran and the USA nearly kissed and made up only for something to happen from one or the other side to sabotage the process. The one where the Saudis blamed a hotel bombing in their country on Iran just to get the USA to suspend peace talks when it was actually al-Qaeda who clearly did it is particularly jaw-dropping and cynical, even by Middle Eastern diplomatic standards.
The well-known fact that the Iranians delayed releasing the embassy hostages for a couple of hours purely so it happened on Reagan's watch and not Jimmy Carter's (a friend their enemy, the Shah) is also given an added dimension when it's Carter himself who's talking about it. Interesting (but long, three hours) programme.
|
I am of the mind that we have spent too much time trying to go at the world alone.
The French sent a fighting force, under General Rochambeau, to fight *alongside us* in the Revolutionary War (and, in almost every war we've been in as a country, have been on our side). What they did *not* do, and wisely, was send an army over to 'free us from the evil Brits.' Democracy was not *imposed* upon us by a foreign power. Our ancestors made that choice (and for those of us descended from more recent arrivals, our ancestors made the choice to come here and live in this democracy, making it still a choice, not something that was forced upon us).
A country must decide to earn it's independence. A people must *want* freedom and democracy. Marching in like the great white hope and attempting to free the little people *from the government that they have chosen for themselves* simply doesn't work.
It's arrogant, dismissive and high-handed, and it turns the very people that we are 'freeing' against us. And what value is a democracy that has been *imposed by force* upon an occupied people?
Democracy is a choice. Until the citizens of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. stand up and say 'We have had enough of you!' to their leaders, no amount of us marching in and bombing their cities and arresting their leaders is going to make them love us, or want to be like us.
Instead of exporting democracy, we should be leading by example. We should become again the country to which so many of Saddam's soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered during the first Gulf War, knowing that they would be treated better as American prisoners of war than they were being treated as Saddam's soldiers. We should become again the nation which sentenced eight Japanese generals to hang until dead for ordering the waterboarding of American GIs. We should become again a nation of just laws and strong moral principals (and not just 'thought' to be such a nation, because we have done such a good job of hiding our misdeeds, but actually walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk).
Only then will the citizens of other nations who languish under dictators and warlords and thugs look to us and say, 'This. This is what we want for ourselves. This is what our country should be like!'
Until we get around to living up to the ideals that we are trying to impose on everyone else, the world is just going to recognize us as the hypocritical 'do as I say, not as I do' parents to be ignored.
Well, I for one am glad we had an American president that had the courage to do what had to be done. If waterboarding a monster that kills innocent people can save the lives of others, it's well worth it. And no, that does not diminish our "moral authority" anymore than releasing a nuke that wiped out Hiroshima. When you are in a war, you are there to win. This politically correct approach to war will only serve to harm us and our allies.
|
|
This politically correct approach to war will only serve to harm us and our allies.
Well, it's a good thing Roosevelt wasn't being 'politically correct' when he had Japanese officers hanged for ordering the waterboarding our soldiers, because, apparently in WW2, it wasn't considered 'politically correct' to be a human being.
Give up what makes us Americans, and the terrorists win. That's what terror is all about, fear. Choose to live in fear, and let them dictate what you feel is 'safe' or 'right,' or choose to fight terror by not *giving in to it* and stick to the standards that made this country great, instead of doing the sort of stuff that we said made Saddam a bad guy.
That and it's just sadism at work. The CIA has said on many occasions that torture plain doesn't work, and the Army SERE training clearly states that torture was used by the V.C. *to elicit false confessions* that they then televised for propoganda purposes. Even the V.C. didn't think it *worked.*
|
A country must decide to earn it's independence. A people must *want* freedom and democracy. Marching in like the great white hope and attempting to free the little people *from the government that they have chosen for themselves* simply doesn't work.
What of those people who have made the choice for freedom and democracy and yet are kept from it by brutal and oppressive regimes? It's those people of whom I spoke when I made my first post. I hate to keep beating a dead horse but we have a democratically elected woman in Burma who was denied the presidency when the incumbent government refused to step down; she was placed under house arrest for over a decade and is now locked up in a high-security prison.
Attempts to protest peacefully in that country since then have been met brutally and with mass killings and imprisonment.
Shouldn't we, like the French before us, rush to the aid of those who actively fight for their own freedom but cannot attain it alone?
This politically correct approach to war will only serve to harm us and our allies.Well, it's a good thing Roosevelt wasn't being 'politically correct' when he had Japanese officers hanged for ordering the waterboarding our soldiers, because, apparently in WW2, it wasn't considered 'politically correct' to be a human being.
Give up what makes us Americans, and the terrorists win. That's what terror is all about, fear. Choose to live in fear, and let them dictate what you feel is 'safe' or 'right,' or choose to fight terror by not *giving in to it* and stick to the standards that made this country great, instead of doing the sort of stuff that we said made Saddam a bad guy.
That and it's just sadism at work. The CIA has said on many occasions that torture plain doesn't work, and the Army SERE training clearly states that torture was used by the V.C. *to elicit false confessions* that they then televised for propoganda purposes. Even the V.C. didn't think it *worked.*
You have to remember Seth that the Japanese were killing people with their waterboarding. Terrorists go through the exact same procedure as our military. Are we torturing our own troops? Well, I guess waterboarding can't be torture then because it did work. Everyone who was in the "know" said that we got more info from those three we waterboarded than all other sources combined. Now, if we could get Obama to release the documents that back up what these men have said the truth will come out.
|
|
Shouldn't we, like the French before us, rush to the aid of those who actively fight for their own freedom but cannot attain it alone?
If we're asked? Say, when the Bosnians who were being 'ethnically cleansed' by the Serbians, all of their menfolk killed and all of their women raped so that they would bear proper Serbian babies, cried out for some sort of intervention? Sure (and, not surprisingly, it was those pesky French who got censured by the UN for defying the 'don't do nuthin' mandate and sold them arms). But when even the people being oppressed are thanking us for staying the heck out of their affairs, it might be premature to march in and 'save them.'
In truly freakish news, Iran has chosen a strange moment to decide to no longer list stoning and amputation of a hand as legal punishments under law. Stonings and amputations. Yikes. Both were popular in Taliban-run Afghanistan (there was a creepy story about a soccer team who went to reclaim their playing field, after years of being forbidden to play under Taliban rule, to find a basket full of severed hands, as their field had been used as a site for carrying out punishments), and are still practiced in Saudi Arabia, which is one of the stricter dictatorships in the area (despite being our 'good friends and strong allies,' and generously providing most of the 9/11 funding and 15 out of the 19 hijackers. With friends like these...).
|
|
Everyone who was in the "know" said that we got more info from those three than all other sources combined.
Random snippets from a 5 minute Google search;
********
"Last December, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine that he didn't believe that intelligence gleaned from abusive interrogation techniques had disrupted any attacks on America."
*********
"[Inspector General John] Helgerson also concluded that waterboarding was riskier than officials claimed and reported that the CIA's Office of Medical Services thought that the risk to the health of some prisoners outweighed any potential intelligence benefit, according to the memos.
The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos."
********
"The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."
"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
JPRA ran the military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which trains pilots and others to resist hostile questioning."
**************
"The JPRA attachment said the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained. "A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," it said.
In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information.""
***********
""There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
In particular, Abu Zubaydah had providing much valuable information before the interrogators started mistreating him, and the torture produced “no breakthroughs,” according to officials."
*******
So, the 'people in the know' that I could find include the FBI Director, the Inspector General of the CIA, the JPRA organization that actually runs the SERE program, and one of the Army psychiatrists who was present.
At the very least, it appears that 'everyone who was in the know' doesn't include some pretty darn significant people, although it does seem to include a lot of people who wouldn't qualify, such as torture cheerleaders without any actual military experience, like O'Reilley and Limbaugh...
At the very least, it appears that 'everyone who was in the know' doesn't include some pretty darn significant people, although it does seem to include a lot of people who wouldn't qualify, such as torture cheerleaders without any actual military experience, like O'Reilley and Limbaugh...
So George Tenant(the CIA Director in charge of it!) and Dick Cheney (the vp) don't count? Their opinions are more important than any of those you mentioned.
|
|
Good grief guys, could we put aside the American narcisim for a moment and remember that people are dying in Iran? Does it really matter who is right about waterboarding? Bering right is not going to help a single person over there. Right now we need to focus on showing our support for freedom loving people, regardless of where they live. Otherwise the words, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right," are absolutely meaningless.
Shouldn't we, like the French before us, rush to the aid of those who actively fight for their own freedom but cannot attain it alone?
In this specific circumstance no, at least not America or Britain. Past history has tainted the associations between those two countries and Iran to the point where any action that could be taken would damage the 'green revolutionary' cause. Other countries with less of a controversial relationship with Iran could maybe be of assistance, but that is dubious.
The problem is that there also isn't a single faction or group that could be targeted by theoretical allies. The government itself is divided over what is happening, there are significant and severe disagreements between the ruling clerics over what is going on and the Republican Guard has seen intercine fighting within its ranks and the arrest of a prominent and popular Republican Guard commander and veteran of the Iran-Iraq War when he blocked attempts by the conservative faction in the government to use the RG to crush the protests. With the government slowly backing down day by day (today the Guardian Council ackowledged significant anomalies in the voting process), it is entirely possible that the situation will be resolved positively in the next few weeks, although possibly not without further violence and bloodshed.
there was a creepy story about a soccer team who went to reclaim their playing field, after years of being forbidden to play under Taliban rule, to find a basket full of severed hands, as their field had been used as a site for carrying out punishments
There was a Channel 4 documentary in 2000 which had an undercover reporter filming the public stoning to death of several women on a football field in Kabul. Their crime? They had gone to the police to report that they had been sexually assaulted. Since the Taliban do not recognise rape as a crime (unless witnessed and reported by a man), they classified it as adultery, which is punishable by death.
we need to focus on showing our support for freedom loving people, regardless of where they live.
Agreed, and the best way of doing this is to link the Twitter feeds and news stories about the crisis to your friends online and get a decent amount of discussion about the situation going on. American news networks were shockingly slow in getting the crisis onto the top of their news agendas and a lot of people over there (and here in the UK and Europe, to be fair) seem to be pretty ignorant about what is going on either generally in Iran or in particular with this situation.
If the 'Green Revolution' comes off and Iran engages more actively with the West as a result, maybe agreeing to full compliance with nuclear inspections in return for help with its domestic electricity supply situation and the cessation of sanctions, it will represent a bigger geopolitical shift in the region than the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq put together and could seriously reduce tensions with Israel as well.
|
None of this matters. The Ayatollah wields the real power in Iran, and he likes Ahmadinejad precisely BECAUSE he is a firebrand. It takes all the attention away from the fact that he wields precious little actual authority.
A Mousavi win wouldn't change anything. If anything, it would only make it harder for the international community to agree on tougher sanctions etc etc.
As for what "we" (the western world) should do, the answer is absolutely nothing. The last thing we need is another excuse for an islamic state to hate us even more. We're already embroiled in two conflicts in that region, and we need to STOP being the world's police. Democracy comes from inside a nation, it can't be forced on them from outside.
In fact, Iran itself would likely still BE a democracy if we hadn't killed that by installing an evil and corrupt shah back into power in the 50's. So in a very real sense, this is a problem that WE have created. Haven't we learned anything?
|
|
None of this matters. The Ayatollah wields the real power in Iran, and he likes Ahmadinejad precisely BECAUSE he is a firebrand. It takes all the attention away from the fact that he wields precious little actual authority.
A Mousavi win wouldn't change anything. If anything, it would only make it harder for the international community to agree on tougher sanctions etc etc.
As for what "we" (the western world) should do, the answer is absolutely nothing. The last thing we need is another excuse for an islamic state to hate us even more. We're already embroiled in two conflicts in that region, and we need to STOP being the world's police. Democracy comes from inside a nation, it can't be forced on them from outside.
In fact, Iran itself would likely still BE a democracy if we hadn't killed that by installing an evil and corrupt shah back into power in the 50's. So in a very real sense, this is a problem that WE have created. Haven't we learned anything?
Good points all around.
Still, I can't help but think that, during the iniitial revolution back in the 70s, the Ayatollah pulled it off because he had strong support from the people. If that support continues to erode, its only a matter of time before even "what the Ayatollah wants" won't mean jack or s%!!.
Regarding Mousavi, don't be too sure that if he were in charge things wouldn't change. He's riding a wave of popular support, and I think he might be smart enough to realize that even he couldn't buck that trend. He could very well be carried along and forced into the role of a reformer.
I'll have to disagree that we in the western world should "do nothing". I say we continue with strong words of support for the people of Iran. We need to let them know, via Youtube, the internet, whatever, that there are people all around the world who support their desire for freedom. And, much like with the American Revolution of so long ago, perhaps one day we can eventually find a way to help the pro-democracy movement with more than words (financial, technological?). Although I agree that the last thing we need to do is commit troops. If anything liek that were done, it would have to be a multinational force under the banner of the U.N.
Good points all around.
Still, I can't help but think that, during the iniitial revolution back in the 70s, the Ayatollah pulled it off because he had strong support from the people. If that support continues to erode, its only a matter of time before even "what the Ayatollah wants" won't mean jack or s@%%.
Regarding Mousavi, don't be too sure that if he were in charge things wouldn't change. He's riding a wave of popular support, and I think he might be smart enough to realize that even he couldn't buck that trend. He could very well be carried along and forced into the role of a reformer.
I'll have to disagree that we in the western world should "do nothing". I say we continue with strong words of support for the people of Iran. We need to let them know, via Youtube, the internet, whatever, that there are people all around the world who support their desire for freedom. And, much like with the American Revolution of so long ago, perhaps one day we can eventually find a way to help...
+1 Also, historical trends suggest that even modest reforms can have unintended consequences (see the collapse of the Soviet system in the Eighties). The most interesting thing about this current wave of protests isn't that they are 'pro-America' or not, it is that a large group of citizens have coordinated and made their displeasure known via the Internet and the rapidly evolving infosphere. The new technology changes everything. Authoritarian governments can't black their country out anymore. Governments just can't process the change as quickly as the individuals do.
The youth of Iran are eager to join the 21st Century, on their own cultural terms. By advocating a nostalgic medieval theocratic state, the mullahs are rapidly obsolescing themselves. Even if they pull out all the stops and crush these protesters now, all they do is push the revolt underground, where it will simmer and grow larger over time. I don't think Iran has either the cultural underpinnings or the robust economy to distract its citizens like the Chinese did post-Tienamen. I am actually amazed it has gone on this long, despite the government attempting to block all Internet connection. The new technology is changing everything about the relationship of citizen vs. state, and I couldn't be happier.
|
|
An American president coming out strongly in favour of Mousavi would basically kill his campaign stone dead - the Iranians are not pro-American, and if America takes sides the elite (currently divided) will unite against the Great Satan. This is happening in Iran because the largely unaccountable elite in Iran are divided as to how to proceed, so the last thing the West needs to do is give them a plausible external threat to unite against. So Obama is argubaly doing the right thing by soft-pedalling.
For those who have not seen it, this week's Economist magazine has an interesting extended article on what might be going on in Iran.
An American president coming out strongly in favour of Mousavi would basically kill his campaign stone dead - the Iranians are not pro-American, and if America takes sides the elite (currently divided) will unite against the Great Satan. This is happening in Iran because the largely unaccountable elite in Iran are divided as to how to proceed, so the last thing the West needs to do is give them a plausible external threat to unite against. So Obama is argubaly doing the right thing by soft-pedalling.
For those who have not seen it, this week's Economist magazine has an interesting extended article on what might be going on in Iran.
I saw an interesting parallel with this tack drawn vis a vis Gorbachev vs. Reagan. Basically, as Gorbachev was implementing perestroika and glasnost Reagan went out of his way to offer to diffuse tensions, at one time even offering to get rid of ALL nuclear weapons! Basically he denied Gorbachev an external enemy, which didn't allow him to focus his citizens away from the problems at home.
I am not a big Obama supporter, but I am glad he is taking a 'speak softly' approach to this one. Jumping in would just focus all sides ire on America. I do hope he will speak out a little more in support of their freedom and cause. There is a fine line between speaking softly and speaking TOO softly.
Dick Cheney (the vp) don't count? Their opinions are more important than any of those you mentioned.
Not true given what Set wrote above, Cheney is documented as ignoring actual realtions between the Saddam and bin Laden, and demanding a harder push to force the information. That clearly marks him as pro-torture, as if it weren't already clear. So he has to say things to show torture in a positive light, his ass is on the line for it.
A number of the people Set quoted weren't anti-torture, they were people on the forntlines of harsh interrogation, and many of them are in trouble for their connections with torture as much as anyone else, like the psychiaterist. It doesn't have a vested interest for them to say those things. Cheney very much so does. And frankly him being the vp doesn't really give him purview and greater knowledge of these things, since he kept it all at as safe a distance as possible. He just gave orders, the people Set quoted actually know something, like empirically from experience and personal witness know something.
Its like saying the Health Minister knows how to treat your illness better than a doctor who is an expert in the field.
|
|
This is happening in Iran because the largely unaccountable elite in Iran are divided as to how to proceed, so the last thing the West needs to do is give them a plausible external threat to unite against.
There are rumors that the Iranian government may attempt to provoke a military confrontation with the United States when the start "training exercises" this week for their military. Our ships in the Persian Gulf have already been warned not to initiate any action that could be seen as provocative. Of course if the Iranians decide to attack first, all bets are off the table. The weird thing is that rumors are that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only ordered the exercises in the last two weeks. Anyone looking for an interesting read should visit Ahmadinejad's blog.
I´m quite happy that the US takes a well-meaning but distanced position for the time being. Any direct military intervention would surely lead to disaster (as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan - I´m definitely not talking about the soldiers, but about the political decisions behind their deployment). An UN force is not as easy as it sounds, as the UN is seen by some to be the long arm of the US. Deploying regional forces might solve this dilemma, but will they act in the interest of democracy?
I guess the best way at the moment is to wait and see, even if many will get killed in the meantime. Mayor political changes seldom occur without bloodshed, sadly. Expressing support for the democratic movement is probably the best one can do at the moment.
(As an aside: Russia supports the current regime in Iran, stating that this is all a purely Iranian matter - effectively denying the universality of human rights again in the light of their own political interests, as they did within their own country numerous times, and stated at several occasions as well.)
Another question remains unanswered: Is the western democracy a suitable model for the middle east region? Keeping religion out of state matters does not even work in Turkey, which has been declared a purely laizistic state by its "father" Ataturk, yet religious influence slowly erodes this there. Would it work at all in the Middle East? I doubt it.
Stefan
|
|
I guess the best way at the moment is to wait and see, even if many will get killed in the meantime. Mayor political changes seldom occur without bloodshed, sadly. Expressing support for the democratic movement is probably the best one can do at the moment.
I agree that it seems the best we can do for now is offer strong verbal support for democracy and freedom. If things get worse, as in an open and protracted civil war, then it might behoove the UN to eventually stage some kind of intervention, simply in the interest of human rights - maybe observers of some kind, or humanitarian aid.
What's also interesting to me, is what the other nations in the region are thinking about all this. I'm sure they might be worried that any destablization in Iran could spread and cause problems in their own countries.
|
|
What's also interesting to me, is what the other nations in the region are thinking about all this. I'm sure they might be worried that any destablization in Iran could spread and cause problems in their own countries.
There's a suggestion that Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani might be getting pulled into the 'moral authority' argument.
Now that Ayatollah Khamenei has become inexorably connected to Ahmadinejad’s power grab, many clerics are coming around to the idea that the current system needs to be changed. Among those who are now believed to be arrayed against Ayatollah Khamenei is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shi’a cleric in neighboring Iraq. Rafsanjani is known to have met with Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani’s representative in Iran, Javad Shahrestani.
It could all be wishful thinking, but I still have a bit of hope that this could end with a less-crazy person in charge of Iran.
To a certain degree, hardliners now find themselves caught in a cycle of doom: they must crack down on protesters if they are to have any chance of retaining power, but doing so only causes more and more clerics to align against them.
|
|
I found the following on National Review's website - an excerpt from a statement President Obama made earlier today. I think it was pretty good. I put it in a spoiler tag to keep it kind of short.
First, I’d like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.
I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.
The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will choose.
The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.
This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.
...I found the following on National Review's website - an excerpt from a statement President Obama made earlier today. I think it was pretty good. I put it in a spoiler tag to keep it kind of short.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, part of this speech was quoted in todays TV news here. Thanks for giving it in full, it is really good, I think, and hits the nail right on the head.
Sadly, the guardian council declared today that the election will not be annulled and declared Ahmadinechad president, as there "have not been any documentations about irregularities during the election" or something similar. Big suprise! If I were to manipulate an election, I would see to it that there would be no traces either. They also implied that anything that happened before the election is none of their business. The re-counting of 10 percent of the votes (still 2,5 millions) were done in one day - I know from experience that counting even a few hundred votes takes hours... Still, it may be that there is nothing amiss after all, but there is a lot of strangeness in this election that leaves the result as highly doubtful. OTOH, the religious leaders are the true power anyway, and the elections are just some decoration for this.
I fear that the protests and the killings will continue, probably with full force used by the regime. This situation could even escalate into a civil war.
Stefan
|
|
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.
Remember: After 9-11, the civilized world stood united with the USA. Until the Bush government decided to go on a rampage. If you're (you here meaning Pres. Bush, Cheney and co.) politically responsible for such abominations as Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo, calling out others for bad behavior loses a lot of moral credibility. If even your european friends start to consider you part of the axis of evil, then maybe it's time to reconsider your course.
It remains to be seen if the USA can regain the moral authority it once had. I really hope so as I (being one of those old europeans the Bush government used to look down so condescendingly) think the world needs it but I can guarantee you that it will not be regained by brute force.
I came across a quote that struck me on that very subject WQ:
"It is one thing to disappoint your enemies, who are expecting it. It is another thing entirely to disappoint your friends."
I am conservative in the political spectrum. I still do not believe that Obama's fiscal policies will do anything for our economy except rack up a huge credit card bill.
That being said, I was never a fan of Bush/Cheney and co. I didn't like the arrogance they dispalyed with the 'Axis of Evil" and "Coalition of the Willing." I am very hopeful that Obama can continue to condemn the crackdowns without involving America in any direct way. We need to reestablish that we are not ronin cowboys of diplomacy. HOWEVER, our allies cannot have it both ways and scream for us to intervene every time someone gets shot in some hellhole somewhere.
The 'lone superpower' paradigm is flawed. It's time to look at the UN in a new light, retooling it from the corrupt debate club it has become into a true multinational security force/international standards enforcer/world judiciary. The rising 21st Century 'Great Powers' (Brazil/China/India/Russia) need to join in and we need to start spreading some of the 'policing' duties around.
There is always going to be a need for countries of good concience to assist those in need. We need for some of the other players to step up and shoulder the responsibilities and burdens of that duty.
The UN is a toothless tiger most of the time. The security council, of which both Russia and China are permanent members, gets vetoed by one of its members many times. (I think the last time was when they wanted to put some punishment on Burma, and China vetoed - to no ones surprise.)
Many countries are lackluster in paying for the UN, the US is among them. While the UN is probably in need of reforming, not paying surely does not help at all.
And don´t even start to think about some kind of supranational government - we try the same in Europe for "only" 27 countries, and it is slow going and comes to a grinding halt every so often due to particular interests - anti-European national leaders are not helping the effort, either. It is a bureaucratic monstrosity, as well. (I don´t fathom the logic to be the head of an European state and being anti-European at the same time, but there are a few examples.)
I see why the US does not longer want to be the "global police", but the respective US governments wanted to play that role for a long time, and this is not a situation changed overnight. These structures are not built in a short time. What´s more, it needs to be discussed if the western standards are the right ones for every nation - I doubt it. The universal human rights are not negotiable, of course, but there quite some other topics like religion that need to be discussed.
Stefan
|
|
There is always going to be a need for countries of good concience to assist those in need. We need for some of the other players to step up and shoulder the responsibilities and burdens of that duty.
Actually, I agree, which has got me a lot of flak here in good old Germany, especially when I said so in times when you could win elections just for denying any collaboration with the U.S.
I'm more on the liberal side of the political spectrum (what is called liberal in Europe; as I heard this would be interpreted as communist in the U.S. ^^). This doesn't make me deny that some of our best friends were Pres. Reagan and Pres. Bush senior.
On the other hand I'm firmly convinced that winning a war is the easy thing to do. It's to win the peace thereafter which is difficult. That's what the american people achieved to do after WW2 in a great fashion. And that's what you'll have to do again in the Middle East if you want to win the war against terrorism.
If this is is the goal of any U.S government regardless of its political stance, I really hope that those lazy europeans will get their asses up and help in every way they can.
The UN is a toothless tiger most of the time. The security council, of which both Russia and China are permanent members, gets vetoed by one of its members many times. (I think the last time was when they wanted to put some punishment on Burma, and China vetoed - to no ones surprise.)
Many countries are lackluster in paying for the UN, the US is among them. While the UN is probably in need of reforming, not paying surely does not help at all.
No you are absolutely right, it doesn't. And I think that it needs some dentures and a facelift.
And don´t even start to think about some kind of supranational government - we try the same in Europe for "only" 27 countries, and it is slow going and comes to a grinding halt every so often due to particular interests - anti-European national leaders are not helping the effort, either. It is a bureaucratic monstrosity, as well. (I don´t fathom the logic to be the head of an European state and being anti-European at the same time, but there are a few examples.)
Actually America pulled it off quite well during it's formation. You have to keep in mind that America is a synthetic nation comprised of several European overseas colonies, a former country, a former kingdom, and a whole lot of open prarie occupied by aboriginal cultures.
Despite this, and despite the fact that we are literally a stew of every ethnic group in the world we still manage to operate as a nicely-functioning country. It was never a sure bet that America would develop into the coast-to-coast federation it has, and we still argue constantly about what 'being American' is.
However, we are masters at borgifying anything we like and glomming it into our culture. We eat schnitzel, tacos and pizza for dinner. We celebrate St. Patrick's Day, Cinco De Mayo and Chinese New Year. We are an example of how humans can put their BS aside and all work together. It ain't always smooth, and we don't always live up to our potential, but we do a better job of accepting outsiders than any other country I can name.
We need to become an example for what the world can evolve into, not a mini-America carbon-copy, but perhaps a place where everyone can live peacefully and 'persue happiness' without fear.
I see why the US does not longer want to be the "global police", but the respective US governments wanted to play that role for a long time, and this is not a situation changed overnight. These structures are not built in a short time. What´s more, it needs to be discussed if the western standards are the right ones for every nation - I doubt it. The universal human rights are not negotiable, of course, but there quite some other topics like religion that need to be discussed. Stefan
The US will always have a world-policing role. We just need to widen the policing field to include the other rising governments. I don't want America to crawl into an isolationist hole, the world is too small for that these days. We need to recognize that the new century brings new paradigms and also, new opportunities. We need to include China in a world-police role, and Russia. India and Brazil stand right behind them, ready to emerge on the world stage.
All of these emerging 'great powers' will need the corridors of trade protected, as nothing these days is ever fully done 'in house'. Chinese goods are shipped to us, we ship grain to the Middle East, the Middle East ships oil to China, etc. etc. The more we integrate the less chance of either a large war or a fruitless Cold War. These are 20th Century ideals, time for them to go.
Integrating also gives other smaller undeveloped nations the opportunity to develop in the umbrella of larger states without worrying about ideological purity or religious intolerance. Those who do not wish to participate can always Amishize themselves. The Amish do very nicely on their farms with their buggys. They however, are a living fossil culture, as will anyone else be who insists on cultural/religious apartheid for their state going into the 21st Century.
The situation has gotten more interesting today, with Iran expelling two British diplomats, accusing them to stirring up the protestors. The UK has responded with two expulsions of their own. It is an honoured tradition in the Middle East for countries to blame internal dissent on external factors in the hopes of uniting the people against the old colonial powers, but it is interesting they're trying to pin the blame on Britain and not the USA this time around.
The security council, of which both Russia and China are permanent members, gets vetoed by one of its members many times. (I think the last time was when they wanted to put some punishment on Burma, and China vetoed - to no ones surprise.)
This is true, but when the UN does agree to act with one voice and no-one vetoes anything, the results can be quite impressive, decisive and surprisingly fast (such as the first Gulf War). Of course, 99% of the time this never happens. Still, the security council did pass a resolution against North Korea last week which should be interesting (and China didn't veto it to send a message to Pyonyang that they are REALLY annoyed with them for upsetting the balance of power in China's back yard).
On the other hand I'm firmly convinced that winning a war is the easy thing to do. It's to win the peace thereafter which is difficult. That's what the american people achieved to do after WW2 in a great fashion. And that's what you'll have to do again in the Middle East if you want to win the war against terrorism.If this is is the goal of any U.S government regardless of its political stance, I really hope that those lazy europeans will get their asses up and help in every way they can.
Winning the peace is the hardest thing. However, the rapidly changing infosphere gives us a rapidly-expanding paradigm shift. Look at what it has done with Iran. Their government cannot choke off the flow of information, because it isn't 'foreign journalists' anymore. You can't deport three dozen people and cut your country off from the wider world anymore. Everyone with a video cell phone is a journalist now. Governments now have to operate with maximum transparancy or face the wrath of their citizens.
America has always aspired to transparancy (although, I will admit we have often fallen short of the mark). As technology improves, we will need to export our methods of dealing with empowered citizens, transparent governance, adjusting to rapid change, high mobility, liberal trade standards and a host of other things.
These methods aren't 'imposing American cultural norms' this is more of showing others how to operate in a world where technology races and citizens become empowered by it. Think of it as one business giving seminars on good management practices to another. Coca Cola and IBM may be very differnet companies, but their management/legal structure I would assume is very similar, at least when it comes to dealing with other companies.
We need to push for more bandwith, more interconnectivity, more standards of collaboration across the globe. Heck, it's already started, we're just stuck in the middle of it and can't see the forest for the trees. The very fact that we are having this discussion with folks chiming in from almost every continent is just an indication of how much our lives have changed since the Internet began its rise.
The more we communicate, the more we see that the 'other' isn't a faceless bogeyman, the more we realize that helping others advance helps ourselves the less likely we are to revisit the horrors of the last century. It's time to reevaluate how we all interact, because, let's face it, it's ALREADY a global village.
...America has always aspired to transparancy (although, I will admit we have often fallen short of the mark)...
Hey, you're doing better than *cough* China by the reckoning of Transparency International's CPI. That's something, right? Oh wait, Hong Kong has you beat.
Corruption Perceptions Index. Love it. America was #50 a few years back and China at #60. My wife thinks the Philippines should be #180.
Hey, you're doing better than *cough* China by the reckoning of Transparency International's CPI. That's something, right? Oh wait, Hong Kong has you beat.
Corruption Perceptions Index. Love it. America was #50 a few years back and China at #60. My wife thinks the Philippines should be #180.
But we beat St. Lucia! YAY!
Seriously, at least we aspire to transparency. The technology that is evolving will make us put our money where our mouth is. Wait until they get those integrated computer/cell phone/video/binocular sunglasses a la Stross' character Manfred Macx online. Governments will not have anywhere to hide. My hope is that they start to shrivel like the slugs they are ...
Ireland is tied for #16! Woo!
|
|
You have to remember Seth that the Japanese were killing people with their waterboarding. Terrorists go through the exact same procedure as our military. Are we torturing our own troops? Well, I guess waterboarding can't be torture then because it did work. Everyone who was in the "know" said that we got more info from those three we waterboarded than all other sources combined. Now, if we could get Obama to release the documents that back up what these men have said the truth will come out.This politically correct approach to war will only serve to harm us and our allies.Well, it's a good thing Roosevelt wasn't being 'politically correct' when he had Japanese officers hanged for ordering the waterboarding our soldiers, because, apparently in WW2, it wasn't considered 'politically correct' to be a human being.
Give up what makes us Americans, and the terrorists win. That's what terror is all about, fear. Choose to live in fear, and let them dictate what you feel is 'safe' or 'right,' or choose to fight terror by not *giving in to it* and stick to the standards that made this country great, instead of doing the sort of stuff that we said made Saddam a bad guy.
That and it's just sadism at work. The CIA has said on many occasions that torture plain doesn't work, and the Army SERE training clearly states that torture was used by the V.C. *to elicit false confessions* that they then televised for propoganda purposes. Even the V.C. didn't think it *worked.*
If the documents have not been released then how do we know, other then hearsay, that it worked?
Ireland is tied for #16! Woo!
Still a ways to the top there, eh?
*polishes his saintly Danish halo* :-D
Ireland is tied for #16! Woo!Still a ways to the top there, eh?
*polishes his saintly Danish halo* :-D
:p
For a country in the middle of political strife and seemingly endless tribunals into our corrupt ass politicians, it seems good enough.
In ways it makes me feel bad for everyone lower than us.
Hey, you're doing better than *cough* China by the reckoning of Transparency International's CPI. That's something, right? Oh wait, Hong Kong has you beat.Corruption Perceptions Index. Love it. America was #50 a few years back and China at #60. My wife thinks the Philippines should be #180.
Germany *only* at 14 - I guess it reflects the situation quite well. A lot is indirect corruption in the political field, by lobbyists "donating" to various causes to further their agenda. Not to mention some international companies bribing potential customers for their contracts, like it was found out Siemens did in a large scale. (As an aside, agricultural lobbyists recently tried to prevent that the subsidies they recieved from the EU were made public, claiming that they feared a debate of envy. To this, I can only say, if they fear this debate, it looks like there is reason to get envious. It was published in the end, as mandated by EU law, and legal proceedings opened against Germany because it took way too long.)
The Philippines are not exactly at the top at 141... But I´m really worried by some of the low placements of several european countries - Italy behind South Africa and on par with the Seychelles at 55 is something I did not quite expect. It is well-known that Italy has problems in that area, but that bad? That it gets worse the further you get to the east and south of Europe is nothing too surprising, but the degree is partially really shockingly bad.
Stefan
|
|
If the documents have not been released then how do we know, other then hearsay, that it worked?You have to remember Seth that the Japanese were killing people with their waterboarding. Terrorists go through the exact same procedure as our military. Are we torturing our own troops? Well, I guess waterboarding can't be torture then because it did work. Everyone who was in the "know" said that we got more info from those three we waterboarded than all other sources combined. Now, if we could get Obama to release the documents that back up what these men have said the truth will come out.This politically correct approach to war will only serve to harm us and our allies.Well, it's a good thing Roosevelt wasn't being 'politically correct' when he had Japanese officers hanged for ordering the waterboarding our soldiers, because, apparently in WW2, it wasn't considered 'politically correct' to be a human being.
Give up what makes us Americans, and the terrorists win. That's what terror is all about, fear. Choose to live in fear, and let them dictate what you feel is 'safe' or 'right,' or choose to fight terror by not *giving in to it* and stick to the standards that made this country great, instead of doing the sort of stuff that we said made Saddam a bad guy.
That and it's just sadism at work. The CIA has said on many occasions that torture plain doesn't work, and the Army SERE training clearly states that torture was used by the V.C. *to elicit false confessions* that they then televised for propoganda purposes. Even the V.C. didn't think it *worked.*
Simple answer is because even opponents of waterboarding, like President Obama have admitted that they exist. They just don't want them released for "national security reasons." It's kind of like the Abu Grab abuse photos. They haven't been released, but we know they exist because no one is denying that they exist.
|
|
I also find it telling that there is all this talk and uproar about a little violence in Iran, and nobody gives a crap about what's going on in Darfur, which has been going on for much longer, and is many times worse.
I'm not saying we should get involved either, I'm just saying it's worth pointing out.
I dislike that with all this Iran buisness, everyone has stopped talking about me. Perhaps I will shoot another missile into the ocean so you will know I mean buisness.
Please, shoot it just far enough that we panic and F your s@%$hole country off the map. Fer.
Everyone knows we don't have that capability.
Please, fool us into believing.
Everyone knows we don't have that capability.
Yet. Japan is freaking out.
As ex-military intelligence, I should like to point out that sometimes intelligence itself can reveal how it was collected which can allow targets to take measure to prevent further collection.
I am not saying it necessarily applies here. Just that it is worth consideration when demanding to know who knew what when.