[quote]orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
After considering the views of lots of people on all sides who are decidedly much more qualified than myself to analyze this fiasco, as well as reading this whole thread, I am still stuck with the tentative conclusion that I don’t know what I think about this.
I know what to think. I think it rocks. I admire the balls of the Iranian people that even getting beaten and shot, they have not given up the fight. The ayatollah is not a supreme leader, he is just a supreme dick head. Ahmadinejad is a dick too, and I hope the crowd gets these fuckers out in a lynch mob and hangs them. No I don’t think it will happen, and I thin the actual body count is higher than 17, but who really knows.
My sincerest wishes and prayers go out the the Iranian protesters. May they succeed in getting their country back.
It’s a long shot, but just imagine if they succeed?!
I meant I don’t know what I think our role, if any, should be.
It’s anything but a given that even if the protesters get their way, that that will spell a significant improvement in Iran’s international relations. It’s not even a given that Ahmadinejad actually lost this election. What if it turns out he actually won regardless of the precise numbers? That the majority of the people there actually voted for him?
I would find it interesting to say the least if people who usually decry our undue influence in the affairs of other sovereign nations suddenly find it a moral imperative that we support the overthrow of a duly elected foreign politician because he’s “a dick” (not you, but generally speaking)
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like nothing more than to see every nation be free, but contrary to popular belief about guys like me, I don’t see it as our responsibility to enforce democracy upon people who don’t want it as long as they leave the rest of the world alone.
As soon as somebody says “yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone” we’re right back where we started and this whole protest thing is irrelevant.
If Mousavi got more votes it makes no difference. Ahmadinejad continues as the ayatollah’s guy. Truth is we’ll never know who got more votes so we’re left with the sensational assumption that the election was stolen because we can’t conceive of any scenario wherein people might approve of that government for themselves. Arrogant self absorbed Americans huh?
If the election WAS stolen, is it our problem to do anything about it any further than the long standing leadership threatens us or our allies? Maybe, maybe not.
If it WASN’T stolen the question is essentially the same except we find ourselves at odds with more of the Iranian population than some may wish to accept.
Bottom line is without the aid of foreign forces these protesters don’t have a prayer unless Iran’s military turns and sides with them. If force (from us) is deemed appropriate then why wasn’t it appropriate in Iraq? Or any other country where a certain % of the population wants change? If it isn’t appropriate then all we can do is cheerlead for either the utter instability of Iran and it’s nuclear program if the ayatollah is overthrown and or it’s essential continuation if Mousavi were to become the honcho.
On a very significant level I agree with Lixy. (Did I really just say that?) Every single one of these protesters in these crowds we’ve seen on TV still represent a small % of the overall Iranian population. If 10 million people stormed DC it would be a huge problem and a colossal news story making for some incredible video footage, but still only 3% of the population settling nothing.
There are no possible immediate outcomes very favorable to The United States and that’s I’m most concerned about. Yes, arrogant self absorbed American that I am.
EDIT: I reserve the right to revise any or all of the content of this post as, like I say, I’m far from settled on most of this topic.
Trib,
Somewhere W. is smiling. Surrounding iran with democracies (even in their early stages) was the right move.
JeffR
Could you please point out the “democracies” Iran is surrounded by, how Iran is less democratic than any of them and why “democracy” is necessarily a good thing, in Iran or anywhere else.
Hey, bota.
See new york times, February, 2009.
You might have heard of that paper.
It’s the closest we have to an austrian newspaper.
Thankfully, it’s about to go out of business.
JeffR
So you are saying that Iran already was the most democratic nation in the region, that being able to vote for a puppet regime set up by Washington is neither “democratic” nor “inspiring” and that the chances in these countries are pretty good that religious hardliners are elected, like in Algeria, Turkey, Palestine.
Well, I thought so.
Any additional thoughts on how America was never intended to be a democracy with an elected dictator but a republic with a weak executive and how the democratic element grew like a cancer to destroy the republic from within?
Bonus points on why that model is better suited to the Middle east and Iran in particular.
[/quote]
bota,
You bore me.
Please show me some proof that ANY Iraqi was forced, coerced, or even prompted to vote for “Washington’s choice.”
In order for that to be true, the February 2009 election would have had to have been Bush’s and obama’s choice.
Not likely.
How about the HUNDREDS of others voted in during, say, February, 2009?
Does your little mind really believe that Washington bought/coerced all of those people?
In your nat-like mind, do you seriously believe that the elections in iran were MORE democratic that Iraq’s elections?
Nope, you’ve always been on the wrong side of history.
It’s rather amusing watching you flail against an Iraqi democracy.
Within the last 48 hours, IRAQ CLAIMED TOTAL VICTORY. The U.S. has given over security to all the major cities.
Even newsweek led off with “The Iraq War One.”
In summary, Jeff R >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bota.