Insurrection: Day 2 – from Michael Totten
VDH – “There is some value to the present irony. Erstwhile U.S. allies can begin to fathom the wages of their much-desired “post-American world.” It appears that it wasn’t George W. Bush’s Manicheanism that “played into the hands” of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who now has a fresh lease on power, despite the U.S. charm offensive of the last six months.”
If only Minnesotans cared as much about democracy.
Is it just me or does it sound a lot like “Allahu akbar?”
All this nonsense about the Iranian election and how pure it was or was not is just a diversion. Fact is nobody can run in those elections unless they are hand picked by the ruling mullah dictator, who actually runs everything and does not bother to stand for election himself. I find it embarrassing that our Foreign Minister Cannon made some expression that Canada is disturbed by reports of electoral irregularities. If our government had any balls they would say that elections in Iran are nothing but a sham in the first place. The Soviet Union used to have lots of elections. Was it a democracy?
I agree with Daniel Pipes. It is better that Ach-I’m-A-Douchebag is elected rather than the so-called “reformer”. It maintains clarity.
@randall g (3:35 AM):
It tells us something about how much of a fit democracy is for Iran.
Let me put it this way: Canada could be described as a system where the appointed Governor-General, in right of the sovereign Queen, selects a Prime Minister after receiving advice from the electorate in the form of a general election.
I know the above sounds ludicrous, but that’s because Canada is a de facto democracy as well as one in form. Had us Canadians had a similar political temperament as the Iranians, though, the above would describe how our electoral system would really work.
I’ll make the same point in a simpler way. Had Iranians been democratic to the bone, the mullahs would “graciously” accede to the vote-winner. They’d be treated as fops (or as enemies of democracy) if they didn’t
For years the left decried kissing up to dictators. Obama now seems to be in full pucker up mode. How much would anyone like to bet that he does it without criticism from the usual suspects.
history just can’t be denied. those who actually think there was an election are fools. randall is right the mullahs run iran and have since they kicked the shaw out. war is the only thing that will change who runs iran.
“I agree with Daniel Pipes. It is better that Ach-I’m-A-Douchebag is elected rather than the so-called “reformer”. It maintains clarity.”
I agree. It allows us to maintain the “Iran is evil” demonization and dehumanization of the country, so that when we do get around bombing them to a pulp, we can say they deserved it because they are inherently evil and Ahmednijad symbolizes that evil so perfectly.
What it fails to do, however, is acknowledge the fact that even the official version – the rigged one- makes it clear that 37% of Iranians don’t agree with Ahmednijad. That number is probably higher. A significant chunk of them are probably secular and irreligious – the kind who want a secular capitalist democracy. But screw ’em. Its their fault that they were born in the wrong place. After all, we can choose where we are born.
But hey, Iran is evil, ergo all Iranians are evil, so lets blow ’em all sky high. Lets ignore the fact that change imposed from the inside has ALWAYS proven to be more resilient than change imposed from the outside. Think of all the British colonies. And think of how many of them have remained democracies through thick and thin. All those ‘strong’ democracies have one common trait – strong domestic traditions of democracy. The protests taking place in Iran are a good thing. There will always be counter protests. The country IS divided. Pointing to counter-protests to prove your point is just plain daft.
Iraq’s ‘externally imposed’ democratic regime will probably collapse in a decade or so. There are no genuine homegrown democratic statesmen. What do I mean by democratic statesmen? Well, take India for example. The defining moment in Indian democracy came when Indira Gandhi, daughter of the first PM, and the leader of a political party that had won every election in independent India, showed up at parliament and took her place as leader of the opposition. She could have gone the way of any number of African and Asian dictators. But she did not. In Iraq’s case, it remains to be seen whether their first strong leader will accede power as gracefully when he does lose an election. My bet is he won’t. My evidence is just about every British-ruled African colony.
Iran has been through one revolution. It is only a matter of time before a second one comes around. The demographics don’t support it right now insofar as it is pretty much an urban-rural divide, but sooner or later, there will be a revolution (or counter-revolution). The revolution against the Shah simmered for years before exploding. If the Ayatollah doesn’t ease up on his subjects, he’s courting his own downfall.
This election isn’t about democracy or real elections. It is basically giving an idea of how much more willing the Iranian urban youth are willing to put their lives on the line for change. These riots aren’t huge yet, and they may turn into a Tiananmen in terms of long-term change, but the fact that they are there indicates that there is some degree of popular dissatisfaction.
Daniel Ryan – I don’t think that there is any such thing as ‘democratic to the bone’. The choice by a population of their political system is dependent upon the size of their population which in turn is dependent on their economy, i.e., how large a population can that economy support.
If it is in the multimillions, the economy is industrial, and therefore, the political system must be democratic. That means that it has three classes, the largest is the middle class, which must have governing power.
A two-class political system (tribal) has both classes hereditary, and political power is in the smallest class, the elite. This system fits a no-growth, no-change economy and population.
Well, as usual, I don’t agree with uh huh. I think that Iraq’s ‘externally imposed democratic regime’ is not ‘externally imposed’ but was chosen by the Iraqi people. And it will last. The reason it will last is because of the above axioms – the size of the population and the nature of the economy.
Getting rid of one societal structure often requires violence – and this may be triggered from outside. Or internally. There was no way that the Iraqi people, on their own, could release themselves from a dictatorship. They have the US and its allies to thank for such a release.
As for Africa, the problem in many areas is that they are in a mode of demographic, political and economic imbalance.
They are not industrial in economy but are in population. Politically and economically they remain tribal using in many cases, local or subsistence agriculture. But, their population is rising, and they haven’t made the transition to a ‘harmonized societal infrastructure’, where all systems operate in the same mode (eg industrial), because foreign aid, etc, enables the old upper tribal class to maintain power.
In Iran, what Ahmadinejad is ignoring is the anger of the youth, and the power of the internet and electronic communication systems, which move information and his power to control it, and them, out of his control.
k: you mean “just bomb” the conservatives that disagree with you?
You’re obviously a Moby. We all know that deep in your sinister hearts, that’s what all libtards want to do.
Hitchens is correct. It was an “event” not an election.
“If it is in the multimillions, the economy is industrial, and therefore, the political system must be democratic.”
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were democracies? Who knew?
Matt @ 3:13 am, that is exactly what they are shouting.
Shameless plug here. Check out the last few entries on my blog. (Click on my name.)
You have to see the irony of so called democrats in N.America who proclaim whatever judgement on countries like Iran. They have never had to put it on the line and fight for their right to vote. Never had to confront that knock on the door after midnight!
The biggest threat to Iran’s rulers is the slow deterioration of their cash cow the oil industry. They have not been investing capital into old fields and their production is declining. It is estimated that +$100 billion is required plus technology they don’t have to recover production. Fuel is subsidized in Iran and as reality closes in the standard of living will continue to deteriorate which will led to revolution.
What do all dictators do when threatened from within? If they can they will externalize the threat by striking out at foreign enemies.
oilman.
They may try to externalize, but as you point out their capabilities for doing so are dropping.
I wouldn’t hand them the excuse either. Apparently a memo went out within the US Military to be extra careful to not get caught in a pointless exchange with the Iranians, for that very reason.
I wouldnt get my hopes up. The regime there has a pretty tight hold on things. It is clear that police are oretty well funded. Pretty snazzy riot gear and uniforms. No shortage of funds for “security”. That doesnt even include the paramilitaries.
They have no issues running the kinds of prisons the shah ran, read Prisoner of Tehran, for a relatively anti septic version of things.
This the start, but who knows how long it will last, months, years, decades.
ET
“I think that Iraq’s ‘externally imposed democratic regime’ is not ‘externally imposed’ but was chosen by the Iraqi people”
The democratic government structure was imposed on the Iraqi people. They have validated it by voting within it. That does not mean that the structure is sustainable, nor does it mean that the Iraqi people will maintain their faith in it.
The problem in Iraq is that it has emerged from an era of no real political discourse. Political parties have emerged out of nothingness and are invariably based on regional/tribal/sectarian lines. They are not competitors for just political power; they are competitors in every sense of the word. Right now, there is an uneasy peace because of the continued American attention. As long as the Americans are there, the Iraqi minorities etc are not too concerned about being taken advantage of.
When American attention wanes, all hell will break lose. The simple reason for this is the absence of any earlier political discourse between Iraqi political parties and statesmen which could have yielded an idea of what Iraq is aspiring to. This is a debate that takes place in all homegrown democratic movements. In Iraq, allegiances are so heavily drawn on sectarian etc lines, as a result of which there is mutual hostility between the groups. There is no clear idea of what Iraq is meant to be.
Now in Iran, with the urban protesters, you have at least one very clear idea of where the country wants to go. Ahmednijad and gang have their own idea, which is based on the revolution. The revolution itself did not appear out of nowhere. It came from Khomeneis infamous tapes which spread through Iran and influenced the political discourse back then. Thirty years later, it is clear that a new discourse is coming. It might get crushed – we have seen all of this happen in China – but it could succeed. My entire point is to urge caution towards Iran instead of lumping everyone in the “Iran is Evil” Cauldron. After all, Islamic Iran may be a major terrorist state, but a pro-western (proper) democratic Iran could be a game-changer in relations with Arab states.
“If it is in the multimillions, the economy is industrial, and therefore, the political system must be democratic. That means that it has three classes, the largest is the middle class, which must have governing power.”
This statement needs to be backed by some kind of empirical evidence. In Saudi Arabia and China, we have the two most obvious counterpoints, though I am sure Cuba will fit in somewhere too. It is a rehashing of an old theory – that the middle class will always demand governing power and is therefore a driver of democracy – but there is precious little evidence of this. Certainly China is not yielding power to its middle class, though it is making it easier for the middle class to live comfortable lives.
Furthermore, does Iraq qualify as industrialised? Under the Hussein regime, the infrastructure was built using western expertise. There was also rampant patronage, and while I am not versed on the statistics of Iraq, I would be willing to wager quite a lot that Iraq’s middle class predominantly belongs to one of the tribes/groups that Saddam favored, and therefore is unlikely to want to share its priviliged position to competing groups that would, understandably, be a bit hostile towards them.
“Getting rid of one societal structure often requires violence – and this may be triggered from outside. Or internally. There was no way that the Iraqi people, on their own, could release themselves from a dictatorship. They have the US and its allies to thank for such a release.”
Agreed. BUT the internal fractures and lack of prior political discourse mean that the idea is unsustainable because there is no common vision and goal. Besides, how many externally driven revolutions can you think of, that have survived? Not many is my guess, though I suspect the answer is none at all. Compare this with the Chinas and Cubas and Vietnams of this world.
“they haven’t made the transition to a ‘harmonized societal infrastructure’, where all systems operate in the same mode (eg industrial), because foreign aid, etc, enables the old upper tribal class to maintain power.”
Thank you sir/madam. That is precisely what will happen in Iraq, though you could replace foreign aid with fuel revenue. That harmonized societal infrastructure can only come through long and sustained political discourse before any group has any actual power. If that discourse had taken place prior to the removal of the Saddam Hussein government, the relatively higher degree of interdependence would have resulted in greater bargaining power for the disadvantaged groups and a more universal and inclusive idea of post-Saddam Iraq. As it happens, there isn’t one, save for the usual “democratic” “secular” bits. The power-sharing agreement that is in place simply results in the groups attempting to consolidate their grip on power for the sake of survival. It distracts from their ability to come up with an idea of the future of the country, because in Saddam’s absence, there is no common enemy. THey are all simply each others enemies. They haven’t fought together to create a new Iraq. Some have fought more, and some have fought less, and the sense of trust that a common goal – namely evicting the dictator in this case – is absent.
The idea of independent India was made through a long and bitter struggle against the British. That common struggle provided the basis of unity in a country that now has 16 official languages. That pre-independence common vision of India has allowed modern India to survive as a united entity despite numerous predictions of balkanization.
Iraq, I am afraid, lacks this common vision. They are moving in a general ‘forward’ direction, but the moment they have to start making choices about direction, they are going to, barring a miracle, descend into chaos.
Louise Oooh love shameless women. I read the other day that since O has been elected support in Iran for the US fell from 44% to 39%. Guess they know superficial in any country.
“In Iran, what Ahmadinejad is ignoring is the anger of the youth…”
Most of Iran is “the youth.” The median age is 25. Ahmadinejad’s most fanatical supporters as well as his opponents are young. He’s a demented street thug: his relationship with the mullahs bears an uncanny resemblance to that between Hitler and the old German aristocracy-dominated conservative parties (epitomized by Hindenburg and Papen), who tolerated him and ultimately joined him in coalition because he fought the communists and they thought they could control or get rid of him if things really got out of hand.
Has anyone noticed how much time PM Harper is getting on American media? Apparently the Canadian response to the Iranian elections has been stronger than others, including the Americans. Good for the Prime Minister, he seems to have a better grasp (and better timing) on the international scene than Obama.
joe – the soviet union was not a democracy, but a tribal (two class system). Rather than moving into a democracy (three class) it tried to retain the two class structure via communism – and that’s why it went to war and also, why it collapsed.
Germany was also two-class, and after WWI, rather than moving into a three class system, it tried to retain the two-class via fascism – and also went to war to retain it – and couldn’t survive.
As I’ve said before, the transformation from one societal structure to another is not a gradual evolution. It’s violent; you are switching structures, not changing your clothes.
oilman – nice post. And that’s why Iran wants Israel to attack it.
uh huh – your assertions remain – well, your assertions. I don’t agree with you about democracy in Iraq, I agree only that political discourse has been repressed in Iraq – but that’s the case in every two-class structure. They don’t have the luxury of years of analysis and debate that was the case in the West, in the period from about 1200 to 1700. What they do have, however, is an industrial economy that requires a middle class, and that reality will require democracy.
I certainly am not in the group that declares ‘Iran is evil’. I’m of the opinion that it’s on a one-way track to democracy, and, as the saying goes, ‘the train has left the station’. Ahmandinejad and the elite may try to stop it, but, they won’t succeed.
My view that a population in the multimillions, that has an industrial economy, can only operate in democracy, stands. Based on empirical evidence. Why? Because only the middle class has the capacity to adapt, start businesses, take risks. It is indeed an old, and therefore, well-analyzed and tested theory. You can see it in Aristotle. But not Plato, who was an elitist.
Saudi Arabia is kept tribal by oil money. When that goes, its two-class tribalism will collapse. And, as I’ve said before, this dysfunctional two-class tribalism is the root cause of Islamic fascism. The key thing that Bush did, was to push this fascism back to where it belonged. Internally to the tribal rules, rather than being diverted to the West.
China is rapidly moving to democracy. The communist government is becoming more and more alienated from the people, who ignore the government – and expand into a capitalist economy. The economy in China is capitalist not communist. The old political system will decay. They even set up private property rights, something that, heh, Canada doesn’t have.
The world is a global network (see Castells, The Rise of the Network Society) and you can’t analyze what is going on as if nations were isolate units. The reaction to Iraq’s sabre rattling against the external world (including its invasion of Kuwait, its treatment of Kurds, etc) was for the external world to invade it. This enabled it to change its political structure to better match its economy. Of course it is industrial. Are you seriously suggesting that its economy is done without machines?
And the common vision and goal doesn’t have to exist in a fully articulated fashion BEFORE this structure emerges. They emerge together. The discursive analysis and outline of the democratic state was actually articulated, in the West, AFTER its emergence. It took place in the 16th, 17th and 18th c.,but the structural transformation began centuries before then. So- I strongly disagree with your view of Iraq.
I disagree that a utopian discourse, in the sense of a reality that doesn’t exist, has to first take place before the actuality emerges. I posit that it’s the opposite. The discourse, which is the analysis of ‘what this structure is’, takes place AFTER the actual structure forms.
Your view suggests that structures are dependent for their actualization on MIND. A Mind has to first think of them. This is a Platonic view. I’m against that; I’m Aristotelian. The two, mind and matter co-exist. And human articulation of ‘Mind’ comes after the material reality exists. Sure, humans can move into fictional dreams, but that doesn’t mean that the material world will cooperate.
As the surrounding environment changes, eg, as the population increases, as the economy moves into an industrial mode, then, the material structure of the society changes. From tribal to democratic. The articulation of this transformation always comes after, as human reason analyzes what is going on.
Uh uh,
Who exactly are you arguing with? Could you give a quote from some political leader on the right or left, or anywhere, who holds elective office or govt office or official standing in any mainstream political party? Or did your imaginary friend “Strawman” say something to you that got you into such a tizzy?
-Just wondering. The conservative opinion of Iran is that the population is quietly pro-American, who, other then keeping them from supplying Iraqi terrorists with sophisticated shaped-charge roadside bombs and popping off nukes, should be encouraged to assert their desire for freedom.
from merriam-webster’com:
Manicheanism
One entry found.
Variant(s):
or Man·i·che·an Listen to the pronunciation of Manichean \ˌma-nə-ˈkē-ən\ or Man·i·chee Listen to the pronunciation of Manichee \ˈma-nə-ˌkē\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Late Latin manichaeus, from Late Greek manichaios, from Manichaios Manes diedab a.d. 276 Persian founder of the sect
Date: 1556
1 : a believer in a syncretistic religious dualism originating in Persia in the third century a.d. and teaching the release of the spirit from matter through asceticism 2 : a believer in religious or philosophical dualism
— Manichaean or Manichean adjective
— Man·i·chae·an·ism Listen to the pronunciation of Manichaeanism or Man·i·che·an·ism \ˌma-nə-ˈkē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun”
so, how is this description applicable to dubya’s middle east strategy, or lack thereof?
manna – “That Bush is so dumb that he doesn’t understand nuance and ambiguity and thinks everyone is either all good or all bad. It’s a Manichaean world view (I know a big weird word, I’m smart)!”
I wish they’d never gotten ahold of that. It always grates.
Watching that video is like witnessing a moment in the birth of freedom, or something. It makes me quite emotional. One, or a few, of those many voices will be arrested and held, maybe jailed, for statements or actions they’ll make during the days to come, but because of the nascent power of truth and unity, as displayed on that night, those people won’t be as alone as they go through their travails at the hands of the minions of the corrupt government.
I was fortunate to meet many Persian expats when I lived in Vancouver. They were, to a man and woman, highly civilized, thoughtful, gracious, and strong. My heart goes out to the Persian people, including those in Canada with loved ones and friends in Iran.
uh huh said: “I agree. It allows us to maintain the “Iran is evil” demonization and dehumanization of the country, so that when we do get around bombing them to a pulp, we can say they deserved it because they are inherently evil and Ahmednijad symbolizes that evil so perfectly.”
“bombing them to a pulp”? You just don’t get modern warfare, do you? google up JDAMS for a brief introduction to how things have been done since the 1970’s.
uh huh also said: “The democratic government structure was imposed on the Iraqi people. They have validated it by voting within it. That does not mean that the structure is sustainable, nor does it mean that the Iraqi people will maintain their faith in it.”
The Iraqi people do not have a democratic government structure. They have a dictatorship loosely based on Sharia law. Which is what they had under the Shah too, only now different guys are running it.
If you believe that I’madinnerjacket was just elected in an actual, real election by people who were really no-kidding free to choose their representatives, I have a bridge in New York City I’d like to sell you. Also a rather nice gold brick.
ET ~ I don’t think that there is any such thing as ‘democratic to the bone’
Couldn’t a case be made for democracy being an element of culture, learned, starting in the cradle, just as other memes or assumptions about what is good or bad?
glasnot – democracy or any other political system is ‘learned in the cradle’ only if it is the functioning system of that particular society.
It’s isn’t a cultural idea, held strictly in the mind. Democracy is not an idea but a structure of authority; it defines how people make decisions in their group. Democracy says that the way to make decisions is by having the people debate, discuss and decide on various decisions.
The way it works depends on the size of the population, but democracy functions in a large population and the people who are the majority are the middle class.
As such, democracy is only ‘the chosen way’ if it’s functional in that society. In certain economic systems, democracy is NOT a good system.
If your population is no-growth and your economy is no-growth, and is agricultural, then, the best political system may be one that privileges those who continue that stability of no-change. This means that your political system, ie. who controls the future, must be stable. That means that political authority is hereditary. You get an upper class who control the capital (cattle, seeds, land, religion)..and the peasants who are submissive followers. This is tribal. It works very well for that type of economy.
But, if you for whatever reason, move into an increasing population, which requires rapid adaptive capacities, and requires an industrial type of economy, then, you have to politically empower those people who are most adaptive. The middle class.
The type of political structure is networked with the type of economic mode..which is networked with the population size..which is networked with the ecology of the environment (you can’t grow wheat in the arctic). All are entwined. And none of it is ‘cultural’ or ideological.
ET ~ …democracy or any other political system is ‘learned in the cradle’ only if it is the functioning system of that particular society.
Exactly. Hence a person inculcated in this manner might be deemed ‘democratic to the bone.’
glasnost – I still have trouble with the ‘to the bone’ theme because it overlooks the fact that the human individual has the capacity to think about what he has learned in the cradle. And quite possibly, to accept it based on reason or reject it, also based on reason.
Looks like a nice week for revolution celebrations.
Freedom always has a price, we’ll see how many are willing.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
ET makes a profound point here. “Democracy” is a method, a technique. It is not the point of government, just a mechanism.
The point of modern Western government is the consent of the governed, and the benefit -to- the governed. Policy and law is meant to embody the will of the people and work toward their common good. How we discover that will is democracy.
How we know we screwed up is when policy does not benefit all, but only a few. The Obama administration is a great example of a major screw-up by voters.
Democracy itself may not be the best way, as ET points out. Certain African countries are exemplars of the democratic process gone awry, and the very idea of government being mocked. Zimbabwe doesn’t actually have a government except for the purposes of interacting with Western governments to get freebies for Robert Mugabe. What they have instead of government is roving bands of well armed thieves who take what they want and shoot anyone they don’t like the look of.
So democracy per-se may not be the best way to govern in Iran, but ascertaining the will of the people and working to their -functional- and -personal- benefit is certainly what a government of that country should be doing. And of course isn’t at this time, what with I’madinnerjacket lusting after nukes and all.
The short and long term interests of Iranians are not going to be well served by getting into a nuclear war with Israel, of this we can be sure.
phantom – my point about the ‘best structure’ of governance is that this structure is directly related to the size of the population, which is itself directly related to the economic mode, which is itself, directly related to its environmental resources.
So, in a population of multimillions, operating in an industrial economic mode, then, democracy is the ONLY option. That’s because only the industrial economy can support that size population, and industrialism only operates with a middle class. And democracy empowers the middle class. Rather a basic format.
The African countries aren’t examples of the democratic process ‘gone awry’. They are examples of situations where the economy is still non-industrial yet the population has expanded beyond the carrying capacity of a sustenance agriculture. And the political mode has remained tribal. So, you have all three basic systems: the economy, the political and the population..out of ‘sync’ with each other.
Mugabe moved the economy back to a non-industrial mode by alloting small land bases to individuals of his tribe. That ended an industrial agriculturalism and moved it back to local sustenance agriculture. Then, he rules by tribal authority. No middle class. That’s why it’s a mess.
As for Iran, democracy is the ONLY way to govern in Iran, because the population is too large for a tribal political system. And the economy is industrial. It requires a middle class, and once you have a middle class – they have to have the political power. That was learned way back in the 13th c with the Magna Carta, and certainly, Samuel Adams 1768 circular of ‘no taxation without representation’ put power squarely in the hands of the people.
As for nuclear attacks, Ahmandinejad isn’t seeking such an attack; he’d be really insane to either want to carry out or receive such a thing. But what he does want, is for Israel to attack Iran. That way, he can not only divert attention from any ‘rabble cries for democracy’ but he can move against the Arab States. He’s ambitious.
Iran still under influence of AMerican culture back in Shah time there
like USA Demcrat uses CIA and only identify people information and identidy peopel and cut them and made them to protest
and Republican put or open war agaisnt them by using any opposition with gun and tank and
jails bullys
now the same system if some is disagree with other opsition should used one or both above method to get rid of them since nobody give other room for other to eat and had bread ansd not balance counties and allow otehr to talk
even if today oppostion in Iran take power they will kill and destroy other opposition too no mercy to each other right and freedom and freedom of speech or care and only anger
to direct it against each other inside country not benefit Iranian in Iran or outside Iran
all is shamfull scene left from past influnce need to change as USA decide to change Iran need to change too
Iran agreed to open investigation in election result it said on June 14, 2009.
How Iran can get credit and trust back to them from inside Iran is big challenge to new government is big homework for next 4 years he must focus inside Iran problems and less attention to Israel or other countries problems as second priority for future. Holycost is new business for Isreal why Iran made new business talk for them play with words in politic is easy but operation and control big population is challenge today in Iran. Any body came only took position and power and money around themselves not for sake of all people happiness inside Iran today there is way to do it.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/011616.html#comments
Iran and Shia who were smartest among Muslim need to get more respected in world of Islam and world in Middle east and link with nonMuslim world in new direction ahead
How do you expect if some one not agree with your opinion to do violence protest or friendly one
Iran opposition are several groups and should not confused them by each others.
one group are personal problems between Ahamdinagad and Mosavi view to run politic internally problems among Sheikhs and molas who are not like operation in economic growth and how to deal with political foreign policy has same view with each others but both are Muslim restricted but major management differences
second are group who like Shah and not wear scarf and drink alcohol and freedom of dress code and drugs and etc and like more scientific and more modern look to education and economic by follow what USA rules them
third are terrorist activism such as Mojadeen Khalg who are say they are Muslim and lived in Iraq border mostly or European country like to kill all government and change them to them
fourth are group of young who from 62 million we have 42 above 18 while there is 20 million from teenagers and youth are frustrated of economic growth in Iran mostly are university student who were 30 years ago of revolution are not born or so small child not remember if they come to street and they can identify can loose their life and go to jail are not teach them properly for them they have look for CHANGE in Iran look for leader and care about their vote and who to choose their president but emotionally attached to this matter still can bring danger to them and loose security of country if they join with other group with no knowledge of history in past in Iran
Phantom: “The Obama administration is a great example of a major screw-up by voters.”
Well said. Voters do that on occasion in the USA and it seems most of the time in Canada. (a la Critien). What is important in a Democracy is that it have a Constitution with power. That power must come from the populace and it’s institutions. That is why the most important Constitutional provision is that the people have the power to be armed. Yelling slogans in the streets gets one nowhere as is being demonstrated at present.
Rant off!
The fact that Obama is sitting on the sidelines with regard to what is happening in Iran is clear evidence of his incompetence in foreign affairs.
He needn’t and shouldn’t select sides, but he ought to support the process of democracy, and say, publicly, that the USA supports a legitimate democratic process. This opens the door to the ‘idea of change’ in Iran.
There is no way that legitimacy can be empirically proven in Iranian elections because the options for massive fraud are so large.
You have no secrecy in balloting. You have, in some cases, an illiterate voter (77% literacy) whose ballot is filled in by someone else. And, you have a corrupt authoritarian government with an entrenched interest in maintaining power.
But Obama’s silence and his ‘cultural relativism’ on this isn’t helping the movement for reform in Iran.
frnstalbert: “Apparently the Canadian response to the Iranian elections has been stronger than others, including the Americans.”
Here’s a strong response to the lack of American response.
“The Obama administration’s response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent election victory is cowardly, lily-livered and wrong. The White House’s refusal to officially question the result or even condemn the brutal suppression of opposition protestors, is undermining America’s standing as a global power, and is little more than a face-saving, cynical exercise in appeasement that will all end in tears.”
Ouch.
I dunno ET, from the looks of the guy he seems pretty insane to me. That’s the real problem isn’t it? You can’t tell.
Normally nobody would care if Ahmandinejad continues wrecking his country and spewing bile about the Jews from now until the Last Trump. Just like nobody cares about Kim Jong Il and Mugabe. Another million dead, ho-hum, I wonder what else is on TV?
Except he’s got bombs a-building just like Kimmy, and one really can’t afford to find out for sure if its all a show for the rubes or if he’s really nuts enough to pull the trigger.
WRT democracy, to this point the middle class has been shut out of power in Iran and as you say, this doesn’t work. But it didn’t work under the Shah either
I’m just thinking that traditional British/American style democracy may not be the best model for Iran just now given their recent history and the level of corruption present in their society. Western democracy isn’t working well in Mexico or Russia either, due to cultural acceptance of corruption. I can’t think of a better way to apply the will of the governed, but you never know, there might be one. (Kind of sophomoric I know, but one always hopes for a better idea.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, Ontario and Quebec have become pretty accepting of corrupt politics too and if we aren’t careful we’ll be stuck like Iran is. That would suck, because while I don’t really care about Iran, I live in Ontario.
Maybe a government that isn’t big enough to hide corruption in? That’s be good.
Do you suppose manna meant Machiavellian but is too stupid to know?
Kathryn, do you suppose Obama sees his great chance to be the big shot diplomat going up in smoke and he’s disappointed that it isn’t he who can bring peace and harmony to the world?
Barack Hussein Chamberlain…
Everything is “urgent” now. The charade is being exposed.
people keep talking about an election. there was no election……….. f–king idiots.