Iranian Election Fall Out

[patinga]

Let's send Jimmah Cartah to Iran. He will get everything sorted out.

Well our former President and almost got his ass blown up over there. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Oh and our current President Barack Neville Chamberlin Obama won't do anything about Iran but send them harshly worded statements telling them how bad they are.

[r3Lic]

Demsey, the quotations around legitimate were there for a purpose . I agree with you that the elections are not indeed legitimate, but in fact a blatant abuse of the power structure to keep Iran as a radical Islamic 2nd world country. However, why does America care so much? Why should we care? Is it because Iran has oil? If that were the case I'd say that we've already quenched our thirst in the sands of Iraq. Is it because they have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon? If that is the case i would ask for the proof you've obtained, because I, along with a lot of the American public do not wish to engage in a record setting 3rd war over the illusion of weapons of mass destruction; i think we've all learned our lesson about those pesky wmds!

I agree with you that what is happening in Iran is nothing like what happened during the 2000 election here in the States, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to present the fact that we would not be too thrilled if the EU started to sniff around the US's business and tried to make sense of it all for us. That's not their job, the rest of the world respected the United States of America's sovereignty as a nation able to make its own decisions, and i feel we owe the same to the rest of the world.

The election debacle is the business of Iran, and Iran alone. The only reason we're hearing about it is because we live in a time with instant reporting, global news networks, the internet, ect. We as a free society must allow other countries to decide who their leaders are. The election was tainted, i agree, but what do you want the US or anyone else to do about it? Storm the country with columns of tanks all the way to Tehran and demand a recount? Maybe its time the Iranian's take a page out of the French, Nazi, and Bolshevik revolutions which happened due to grass root uprisings which eventually caught enough fire to become successful for each individual group. (Disclaimer: i do not endorse any said groups personally, just merely giving context)

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here but why do people want America to be the world's police department? Lets fix health care, get out of the recession, create jobs and stop outsourcing the ones we have, bring our troops home from a pointless war in Iraq and send them to a meaningful war in Afghanistan, and lay the hell low for awhile. Life isn't one big d*ck measuring contest, so lets stop trying to prove to the rest of the world that ours is the biggest and stick to our own business.

The Obama attacks are really unfounded as well, the man's been in office a whole 6 months and people are already ready to write him off as a failure because somehow they ingrained it into their brains that he was the 2nd coming of Christ and would fix all of America's problems in two weeks by waving his magic wand. In those 6 months hes already greatly improved the face of America to the Islamic world, a hell of a lot more than Bush did in 8 years. Obama inherited an economy at its lowest point since the great depression, and two wars. The man has enough to worry about in his own country, let Iran handle its own thing.

BTW, what a good image it would send to the Islamic world if we could finally keep out of their business for once. I don't know if you agree or not, but improving relations with the nations of Islam will improve national security a hell of a lot better than invading their countries. Shocking concept to some i know.

[fakemaster]

The election was totally legit. I read it on Twitter.

[ChipSlap]

Leaving things alone is not the same as isolationism. The point is: If your opponent (Ahmadinejad and Khamenei) is in the process of shooting himself in the foot, it's best not to do anything that would interrupt him.

[Demsey]

I, along with a lot of the American public do not wish to engage in a record setting 3rd war over the illusion of weapons of mass destruction; i think we've all learned our lesson about those pesky wmds!

WMD and the Al-Qaeda/Iraq link were 'red herrings'. Would be legal precedent and political justification not for a 'blood for oil' agenda, nor 'nation building', but rather 'legacy building' for George Bush. Meh, Congress was as fooled as the President over those issues, or the planes never would have been launched, an international 'coalition' notwithstanding. Unfortunately, when it came out in the wash, the ultimate responsibility was laid where it justifiably should have been; on W.'s lap. Oh well. Point being; a democratic more westernized, ergo; to our standard; stabilized Middle East would serve the NATO purdy well, was the plan, more a grand experiment. Bush really did want to carve his legacy in the old and wallowing Soviet Union, something his father admired Reagan for, and what Georgie thought would finally engraciate himself to the old man. That's where Dr. Rice came in. Her appointment to Secretary was not aside her doctorate in Soviet Studies. God I love that woman.Yet, sigh, jets sticking out of NYC skyscrapers kinda derailed that train. And the rest, as they say, is history. I really don't think bringing past administrations into this discussion is apropos. It is, afterall, history.

The mechanics of Iran's elections are certainly to and unto their own, unfortunately their administrations' designs are not confined to their own international borders, like of say, hmmm, Liechtenstein of which, therefore, I have no interest or opinion, nor do they (Iranian Mullah rule, that by mere function mocks the Qur'an) observe International Law as prescribed by the United Nations. The power base is rogue. It is not Islamic by definition. That's pretty much where their 'exclusive sovereignty' and due respect is surrendered. No Muslim I am aquainted with would see a support of Mousavi as 'anti-Islamic'. Then again I am only aquainted with Muslims, who, although devout, are more secular, that is; have access to unadulterated information. There is an agenda there to literally 'wipe out, off the face of this God's Earth' of firstly; the Jesuit then any and all , 'infidel'. My avatar is a Jewish woman to whom, by proxy, I am dear to. Give grace to her sworn would be murderers as a point of political etiquette? You surely must be joking.

What I would prefer of the US State Department and the US President to do is; take a stand, officially, to any design they deem acceptable, on the side that is risking life and limb to take strides to ensure basic human rights. What Americans do. The concept of the "World Police" is a creed of all our military arms, what I was schooled as a kid; "To protect and defend those not able to protect and defend themselves", it may seem to infer national defense, perhaps extend to 'ally' by treatie, but is implied beyond political and cultural borders as a philosophy. Because the concept may leave patriots of other sovereignties (and perhaps my own) at a loss and frustrated at an apparant imperialism is pretty much aside the point and does not enter into my interpretation of the concept. The American Revolution (or what I like to refer; a British Revolution on Native American soil) was subsidized to this extent by the French. The French concept of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of [sic] Religious Freedom" is a Huguenot concept, and the basis of our Constitution. The Americans formed an alliance with France in 1778 that evened the military and naval strengths, later bringing Spain and the Dutch Republic into the conflict by their own alliance with France. 'Americans' (free British) could not have gone it alone. Neither can 'Iranians'. To suppose they could/can is naive. It would be as to say, in the sftermath of the first Gulf War, the Sunni could just wrap up Saddam themselves with political and philosophical argument via the White House.. They were left hanging out to dry and paid in blood. Ignoring parameters of human rights that we take too much for granted and are willing to turn a blind eye, retire to, in the face of others' suffering is not 'American'. It's reprehensible, to me, to adopt a philosophy; "Hey, I can't be concerned with all this Iran election crap, I'm at risk of losing my job and home. My SUV can't roll on chump change. Kids need to go to Power Cheer. Super Bowl is seven months away. I need that Samsung 52 inch by then. The economy is in the dumper. PresBO? You go!" WTF? Where do you draw the line? Tsunami victims? AIDS epidemics? Not our biz? Christ kill me. A free Iran is no more important than a free United States? Oh. Dear.

The bigger picture you are failing to consider is; one dirty bomb exploded on a container ship floating down the Ohio River in the name of a miscreant 'Allah' and all the liberal agenda is naught. It's over here. Done. America like Rwanda. This economy is so anemic, a 9/11 episode would be the hammer blow and death toll. The time is rife and the radical element knows it. I cannot believe it hasn't happened already. The only theory I can conjur is that Al Qaeda is monetarily subsidized and supported by the House of Saud. They took such a hit by Citicorp that Osama has been warned off. Last March would have been prime. The window dressings of socialized healthcare, the loss of desparity of the social classes, Barack Obama's long reaching love to Islam and all that other political candy is not worth a tinker's damn when the whole house goes up in flames. Catering to legitimate Islam in order to engraciate ourselves to the point of impunity from illegitimate Islam is nuts. The defence of Balkan Muslims in the Yugoslav War by the US and NATO forces bought zero collateral with the radical element. That event predicated and was exclusive to 9/11. No grace to Islam will ebb the radical call to conversion or death to the infidel. 'Jihad' is bigger than Barack Obama. No matter what purdy words his speech writers throw up on the telepromtper and how sincerely he can deliver them.

Keep out of their business? You'll never see it coming. Given enough rope? Ahmadinejad and Khamenei will hang. All those who are to stand in their way. Repressed 'citizens' cannot go it alone. If they could? What a wonderful world it would be. It is not.

[r3Lic]

Honestly i have no idea where to begin. I'll begin with a quote from you yourself, "The concept of the "World Police" is a creed of all our military arms, what I was schooled as a kid; "To protect and defend those not able to protect and defend themselves", it may seem to infer national defense, perhaps extend to 'ally' by treaty, but is implied beyond political and cultural borders as a philosophy".

Really? You honestly think that it is the duty of every American solider to go and protect "those that cannot protect themselves?" Sounds to me like your volunteering a lot of good American troops to do some idealistic bullsh*t that they do not want to do. Have you spoken to a lot of vets who are chomping at the bit to go help the next sad case of international injustice? My whole family is career military, and i know for a fact that their loyalty is to their country and its citizens, everyone else is on their own. A soldiers duty is to HIS/HER country, no one elses. What you were taught in school is what YOU were taught in school, and therefore must apply to everyone else right? Every must share your idealistic viewpoint of the American Military's mission throughout the world. Oh, and by your definition, shouldn't we be doing something about the situation in Darfur other than just taking a stance? Shouldn't we have been doing something when all those poor Chinese citizens were starving to death; they still are by the way, someone call the Marines, we need to get food to them stat! Please, these are grand idealistic goals being boasted about by someone who wont have to put the work in to actually accomplish it, or be held responsible when it blows up in their face.

I also love how you generalize and say that every American thinks and I quote, "Hey, I can't be concerned with all this Iran election crap, I'm at risk of losing my job and home. My SUV can't roll on chump change. Kids need to go to Power Cheer. Super Bowl is seven months away. I need that Samsung 52 inch by then". First of all, i worked 2 jobs, putting in 60+ hours a week to PUT MYSELF through college. I live in a crappy studio apartment, i don't own a damn 52 inch TV and my truck is 13 years old, and oh by the way, i graduated with honors with two degrees in 4 years, but i guess that's only because my daddy paid for all my stuff so i could just focus on studying right? Don't even for one second try and generalize the American public as some fat cat lazy bums, when in fact it is quite the opposite. Those concerns over losing a job; if you don't believe that one shouldn't be concerned about losing their job you must be unstable, we're talking about peoples lives and the lives of their children here for Christ sake.

America already gives out billions upon billions of dollars annually in foreign aid, much of that money goes to prop up the economies of several countries, so i don't think we're slouching any in helping out at all. Oh, and that "bigger picture" I'm missing out on, I'm actually not. If you'd stop and think about it, the top reason the radical Muslim population hates the west, especially America, is because we've intruded on what they think is holy Muslim ground. Because we are involved in the affair of Islamic countries, that's why that doomsday dirty bomb scenario will happen, not because we finally keep our nose out of someone elses business. But i guess this 22 year old college grad is too young to know anything about the world at all, its not like I'm getting my masters in global politics or anything.

[ChipSlap]

Agreed r3lic. When I enlisted, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not "To protect and defend those not able to protect and defend themselves."

That sounds more like the Lone Ranger...or maybe Batman.

[jibuti]

yea Puggy we should have left your countrymen alone in the 40s too

You are probably right....Only Italy would be poor now, otherwise I see no difference.....Same sh*tty reasons after all. Back then it was called imperialism, now it is globalization....

[chronoluvvv]

You are probably right....Only Italy would be poor now, otherwise I see no difference.....Same sh*tty reasons after all. Back then it was called imperialism, now it is globalization....

Imperialism was a one-way street where resources were robbed and re-sold for a profit

Globalization works both ways though

p.s.

what Demsey says makes sense to me

[Demsey]

we're talking about peoples lives and the lives of their children here for Christ sake.

As am I, but not exclusively to our shores and citizenry, and it's a, the. 'debate' r3, not an "I am right you are wrong" argument. My view points here may or may not be my own exclusively. Some of it fabricated but built on fact or common rehtoric held as truths by some, perhaps me, merely to counter your points. It's an exercise. You seem to be getting upset and levelling focus on me personally. The POV of a formal academic debate is often assigned, not born from one's own philosophy. Objectivity is the snipe. Originally, this post was born from a news story and the spin of said same by a news channel to which I agreed (and it wasn't Fox either ) in a general sense; the proposal of the news story was that these sets of circumstances surrounding the recent Iranian election, laid wide open, an opportunity for western influence aligned with the progressive ends of the Kargozaran Sazandeghi party (Executives of Reconstruction Party of Iran) that backs Mousavi to bring stabilization and real democracy to a country at odds with themselves, and an international threat of a propagandized genocide to a US Ally; Israel. I am aligned personally with that proposal, but harrrumphed it when considering the immediate political/global environment and the current administration's nationalist agenda; "...a golden opportunity that will be most likely given a pass by the U.S. State Department" I said, and took a stance. The progress of the thread was then open. The outcome of which is not an ultimate sway or surrender to anothers' contrary point-of-view but a weighing of the points of discussion approached from opposing sides. It's worth is only in the exercise itself (Sudoku and Crosswords are boring), a mental Chess game that inasmuch is more about getting into your own head than turning the others' POV around. I really do not care about your personal background and achievements, to suggest your family's military back ground or core of study here is not moot and does not bolster your opinion as more 'weighty' than would your well said and objetive slant I know you are capable of.

I'll just respond to a few more points and demure to you or anyone else who may want to add. Debates are time restricted to any one participant. I've more than had my share to present my, "a" or "b" if you prefer, side of this issue.

The oath of the soldier is similar to that of the Commander-in-Chief (president) in that they both do swear (or affirm) to defend the Constitution, the President's Oath; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Leaves a wide grace for the President, not to second guess the tenets of the document, but how best to defend it's principles. The tacts of Presidents to that end, since the beginning, including but not in the least;".... volunteering a lot of good American troops to do some idealistic bullsh*t that they do not want to do.....", have been scrutinized ad nauseum. I have to suggest here the defense of the Constitution's principles not 'idealistic bullsh"t' or no soldier went to war because they wanted to, but rather because they were complelled to philosophically and ergo enlisted or were conscripted and bound by that oath, and law, they did not take lightly, rose to the occaision ,and did their duty. I do happen to know many soldiers who are indeed eager to fulfill their duty to the points which you describe. Some, who may agree more with your philosophy are more reticent. That only goes to prove; above duty, soldiers are free thinking human beings. God bless. Yet, and however, impeachment of US Presidents resulting from derelict duty unto their oath is non-existant. The grace is that wide. For Presidents.

The soldiers' oath however is less ambiguous and is in three parts, the reference of loyalty to the Constitution as a document is referred to in the second paragraph; ".........that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.......". Anterior to that is the paragraph that pledges the defense of the principles of the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The term 'enemies' applies to any and all that would hold the Constitution in contempt by not respecting it's political philosophies. Lastly, the third paragraph, which prescribes the soldiers' duty; "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." The soldiers' duty is to obey orders from the Commander in Chief as prescibed by his immediate superiors not to the 'country' and it's 'citizens' per se, only to them by proxy of the freedoms the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees . The 'country' may indeed be under successful coup by 'citizens', whether intellectually or paramilitarily, by parties that hold power, even duly elected, that will misinterpret or disregard wholly or in part the articles of the Constitution. Those too are the soldiers' sworn enemy. However they cannot act arbitrarily or alone. They must await an order.

My reference to a 'creed' of protection of the meek, is well aside the afore mentioned oaths , and definition thereof, of either the President, or the soldier I will agree, but to my opinion and from close experience; the way I was raised in those ranks as a brat "that is what they will do". How I was expected to behave. It is indeed an antiquated concept I would not prescribe to you if you do not want part of it. I would not expect it of you although I expect it of myself. All of this, from me, but I am indeed 50 something. Which makes good sense of this:

That sounds more like the Lone Ranger...or maybe Batman.

Good.

That sounds more like the Lone Ranger...or maybe Superman.

Better.

The Never Ending Battle for Truth, Justice, and the American Way! Tra La!

Fran Striker and Jerry Seigel (respectively) did not develope the jingoistic propaganda personna gratuitus of the Lone Ranger and Superman models from thin air, American ideals through the defense of the Constitution and it's foreign ally through two world wars and Korea, hightened to public awareness in the 40's, 50's and 60's did. It sold comics because it personified commercially; MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton and a score of American, and British (my lineage until immigration) soldiers whom went abroad and paid the ultimate scarifice to dispell tyrrany there to keep it from metastasizing here. For "them" surely, but for our ownselves ultimately. The concept may be antiquated in terms of the modern rehtoric but the fruits of it, the; "protection of the meek" is still noble. To some. In favor of both domestic and foreign entities; allies or would be allies.

Oh, and by your definition, shouldn't we be doing something about the situation in Darfur other than just taking a stance? Shouldn't we have been doing something when all those poor Chinese citizens were starving to death; they still are by the way, someone call the Marines, we need to get food to them stat!

Yes. Do I have to be redundant?

MmmmmmmmmK, outside 'debate' I would like to interject a few things:

Please, these are grand idealistic goals being boasted about by someone who wont have to put the work in to actually accomplish it, or be held responsible when it blows up in their face.

You're certainly not talking about me, are you? Because if you are, you are out of line.

Don't even for one second try and generalize the American public as some fat cat lazy bums

Why yes, statistically speaking, yes, we most certainly are. Ask any Australian, they are appalled.

this 22 year old college grad is too young to know anything about the world at all, its not like I'm getting my masters in global politics or anything.

lol

A [sic] US soldiers duty is to HIS/HER country, no one elses.

You may want to adpot a new foreign policy with regard to 'alliance', the above sentiment would not get you a city council appointment. Globally. Oh r3.

[fakemaster]

You seem to be getting upset and levelling focus on me personally. The POV of a formal academic debate is often assigned, not born from one's own philosophy.

Dems you know it's beyond most people's capacity to have an unbaed logical discussion. If you don't agree with them you're just wrong. The forums are littered with such discussions.

And I thought the soldiers oath was to follow orders. Hey see that guy? Shoot him.

[kbh]

Here's a note written by John Kerry which should be required reading for all you interventionist:

The grass-roots protests that have engulfed Iran since its presidential election last week have grabbed America's attention and captured headlines -- unfortunately, so has the clamor from neoconservatives urging President Obama to denounce the voting as a sham and insert ourselves directly in Iran's unrest.

No less a figure than Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, has denounced President Obama's response as "tepid." He has also claimed that "if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail."

Mr. McCain's rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran's peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.

There's just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran's hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for "interventionist" statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.

We can't escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran's election must be about Iran -- not America. And if the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one.

To understand this, we need only listen to the demonstrators. Their signs, slogans and Twitter postings say nothing about getting help from Washington -- instead they are adapting the language of their own revolution. When Iranians shout "Allahu Akbar" from rooftops, they are repackaging the signature gesture of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Mir Hussein Moussavi, the leading reformist presidential candidate, has advocated a more conciliatory approach to America. But his political legitimacy comes from his revolutionary credentials for helping overthrow an American-backed shah -- a history that today helps protect protesters against accusations of being an American "fifth column."

Iran's internal change is happening on two levels: on the streets, but also within the clerical establishment. Ultimately, no matter who wins the election, our fundamental security challenge will be the same -- preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That will take patient effort, and premature engagement in Iran's domestic politics may well make negotiations more difficult.

What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a "dialogue among civilizations" and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel.

Meanwhile, Iran's influence in the Middle East expanded and it made considerable progress on its nuclear program.

The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet.

Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world. In offering negotiation and conciliation, he has put the region's extremists on the defensive.

We have seen the results of this new vision already. His outreach may have helped to make a difference in the election last week in Lebanon, where a pro-Western coalition surprised many by winning a resounding victory.

We're seeing signs that it's having an impact in Iran as well. Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hard-liners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship.

[ChipSlap]

There's just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran's hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for "interventionist" statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.

We can't escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran's election must be about Iran -- not America.

+1 This is the most important point. I don't really disagree so much with most of what Demsey has said, just with its application. It may make us feel better to intervene or speak loudly about the situation in Iran, but our feelings are not important. What is important is the effect our actions would have in the real world. The surest way to undercut the protests in Iran would be for the West to overtly support them too much.

[Demsey]

Good contribution kb. The esteemed Senator from Mass. in my thread? It's an honor I tell you! Even if it is through third party He really is a good debater (absentia), what I do remember of him in the '04 run. Given time to think he really can support a facet. Unfortuantely, 'off the cuff' his foot in mouth disease derailed him. Pity. Go prepared, or stay on the porch. Or, at least, be charming.

[Demsey]

'Neda', four dead in Ohio.