Freedom in Iran, a realization of Bush's plan for the Middle East

[American Horse]

Their question is “Where is my vote? This is what the signs they are holding say in both Farsi and English.

This election has afforded them a world stage to look across the border to the West, towards free Iraq, a people only a border away, a conveniently symbolic direction, and ask: “Why not us too?” It can’t be lost on Iranians that their own country's government did everything it could to discourage or cut short the new political freedom the Iraqi’s are now enjoying. That is a big part of the reason that their signs are also written in English. It's an appeal to the country which has clearly worked for democracy in their region. They are speaking directly to America, as brothers and sisters in in their hope for democracy.

The desperation of the Mullas and Ahmadinejad is revealed by the fact that some of the "Militia" are Arab speakers, unable to speak Farsi (per WSJ article 19-June-09 "The Fear is Gone"), all the while in Iraq a judge recently found illegal a law that deprived an Iraqi citizen of his legal rights. That is what the rule of law is supposed to do.

But it could easily be said that what’s happening in Iran right now is a direct result of the freedom in Iraq. We can pretty conclusively say that it would not be happening now, except for that. The change of Iran into a true democracy would also help us in a moral victory in Afghanistan over the Taliban, and everywhere over the Al Qaeda; who knows, even Pakistan would eventually be favorably influenced.

All at once we’d have a tier of democracies, hopefully, soon stable across the region. The whole region from Turkey to India might be consolidated as democracies. What a remarkable legacy that would be for an American President, starting with President Bush, and fostered to completion by President Obama.

Map of the region from Turkey to India – Connecting the dots….

 

[Agnapostate]

I cannot see a sound moral objection to the forcible removal of dictatorships and installment of democratic governments; the military force that would be required to accomplish it would be a less severe authoritarian imposition than the policies of the dictatorship had it remained in place would have been.

However, there is a critical divergence between the theoretical model of a clean regime change and the actual manifestation of it, not least of which being the fact that the motives of those who favor regime changes are not the purest in nature. Regarding your mention of "democracy" in Iraq, there was most certainly support of the dictator Saddam Hussein when it served the interests of the ruling administration here. John F. Kennedy, perhaps the most radically interventionist president in American history, certainly supported the Baathist revolt in Iraq when military head of state Abd al-Karim Qasim became too "uppity" for his administration's interests.

The same was true shortly prior, when his government continued the anti-Castro campaign in Cuba initiated by his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, through the approval and involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion and related attempts to assassinate Castro himself, all portions of "Operation Mongoose," or the "Cuban Project." Certain elements of that plan could accurately be called manifestations of state terrorism, no matter how much a nationalistic military veteran like our admin is unwilling to admit it. To his credit, Kennedy did oppose the proposed Operation Northwoods, which would have involved a violent and destructive false-flag operation that entailed the murder of American civilians so as to blame the incident on the Castro government and thus justify an invasion. But the actions of the government at that time are all the more appalling because this campaign did not involve opposition to the full-fledged dictator Fidel Castro, but to a far younger Fidel Castro, who was only a recently declared Marxist-Leninist and had overseen the establishment of more equitable economic policies that involved the provision of greater well-being than his predecessor, the dictator Fulgencio Batista, had ever been able or willing to bring about. Such a campaign was hardly supported by anti-authoritarian sentiment.

The same is true for the CIA-backed removal of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz and Chilean president Salvador Allende, only to have the latter replaced by the brutal military dictator Augusto Pinochet, not to mention the support of the Contras, Somoza, Batista, Trujillo, Noriega, etc. These dictatorial regimes were supported by proponents of the same interventionist ideology that George W. Bush was later to put into action yet again. And it's thus only necessary to mention the most obvious manifestation of American government supported regime change that Iranians would well remember: Operation Ajax, which entailed the removal of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the parliamentary democracy and empowerment of the monarch Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, who subsequently ruled over Iran with an iron fist, terrorizing the citizenry with his brutal SAVAK police until the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the return of Ayataollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It's due to that factor that it's only appropriate for the American head of state and government representatives to refrain from excessively meddlesome actions, lest the "hard-liners" seize on this as justification for their continued rule, which they can then claim is warranted by a need for a powerful defense to resist American intervention...the same mentality empowers the neoconservatives of this country.

 

[American Horse]

I cannot see a sound moral objection to the forcible removal of dictatorships and installment of democratic governments; the military force that would be required to accomplish it would be a less severe authoritarian imposition than the policies of the dictatorship had it remained in place would have been.....
<Snip>

It's a cruel world; Eisenhower, Kennedy, Etal. believed that sincerely; the Iraqis, Iranians, and hopefully the Afghanistanis, and even the Pakistanis are all aware of that fact in its current permutation, and they will begin to appreciate what we've tried to do because there is no one else who will even begin to try. If the last two rebuff our noble efforts (Yes we are capable of trying to do the right thing), they will have a long wait for a better world, at least those of their people who are the most enlightened.

The last two, I believe because of their trible nature lending itself to lawlessness, will have the most change to endure and will resist it most, so change in the middle will be slow. They will be a tough nut to crack, and the turnover of our people does not help us get the job done.

 

[Missourian]

Their question is “Where is my vote? This is what the signs they are holding say in both Farsi and English.

This election has afforded them a world stage to look across the border to the West, towards free Iraq, a people only a border away, a conveniently symbolic direction, and ask: “Why not us too?” It can’t be lost on Iranians that their own country's government did everything it could to discourage or cut short the new political freedom the Iraqi’s are now enjoying. That is a big part of the reason that their signs are also written in English. It's an appeal to the country which has clearly worked for democracy in their region. They are speaking directly to America, as brothers and sisters in in their hope for democracy.

The desperation of the Mullas and Ahmadinejad is revealed by the fact that some of the "Militia" are Arab speakers, unable to speak Farsi (per WSJ article 19-June-09 "The Fear is Gone"), all the while in Iraq a judge recently found illegal a law that deprived an Iraqi citizen of his legal rights. That is what the rule of law is supposed to do.

But it could easily be said that what’s happening in Iran right now is a direct result of the freedom in Iraq. We can pretty conclusively say that it would not be happening now, except for that. The change of Iran into a true democracy would also help us in a moral victory in Afghanistan over the Taliban, and everywhere over the Al Qaeda; who knows, even Pakistan would eventually be favorably influenced.

All at once we’d have a tier of democracies, hopefully, soon stable across the region. The whole region from Turkey to India might be consolidated as democracies. What a remarkable legacy that would be for an American President, starting with President Bush, and fostered to completion by President Obama.

Map of the region from Turkey to India – Connecting the dots….

I totally agree with this excellent post, with the exception of seven words.

President Obama's "We won't meddle" doctrine will not cement his name into the history books as a defender of Iranian freedom.

 

[Sunni Man]

Just more naked American Imperialism

Bomb the unwashed brown people into democracys because we know whats best for them.

 

[lcrackel]

I am deeply sorry for the all of the Iranian posters and citizens in the United States that are asking this question, but the truth of the matter is that you never had a vote. Once the hardliners took control of the political arena, the election process was only a piece of fiction to be used to deceive as many as possible. You are living in a fantasy land big time if you think the hardliners will ever give that up and as long as any country maintains a combined of both civil and religious power that is inter-twined - it will remain that way.

 

[L.K.Eder]

stupid propaganda.

i'd like to vomit now

 

[lcrackel]

stupid propaganda.

i'd like to vomit now

What are you calling propaganda? - your post is vague and incoherent

 

[Agnapostate]

It's a cruel world; Eisenhower, Kennedy, Etal. believed that sincerely; the Iraqis, Iranians, and hopefully the Afghanistanis, and even the Pakistanis are all aware of that fact in its current permutation, and they will begin to appreciate what we've tried to do because there is no one else who will even begin to try. If the last two rebuff our noble efforts (Yes we are capable of trying to do the right thing), they will have a long wait for a better world, at least those of their people who are the most enlightened.

The last two, I believe because of their trible nature lending itself to lawlessness, will have the most change to endure and will resist it most, so change in the middle will be slow. They will be a tough nut to crack, and the turnover of our people does not help us get the job done.

The immorality of the world manifests itself through more elements than merely the cruel and "rough" nature that you believe necessitates decisive military force to secure genuine accomplishments. It also manifests itself through the motivations of those who would support the interventionist program that you do not because of some desire to do good or spread democratic or libertarian mores, but because of genuine imperial ambitions. Support for the imperialism of whatever radically interventionist government happens to be in place here often stems from an interest in financial profit or the accomplishment of less dubious ideological goals than the spread of democracy. There was little "authoritarian" element in Mossadeq's parliamentary democracy to oppose; it was objection to his oil nationalization schemes that formed a basis for opposition to him, because attempts to secure national profit for a national citizenry angered foreign profiteers. Anti-democratic imperialism thus served as their "solution."

 

[L.K.Eder]

stupid propaganda.

i'd like to vomit now

What are you calling propaganda? - your post is vague and incoherent

i am calling the original post of this thread stupid propaganda.

i can understand your accusation of vagueness, but what was incoherent about my post?

 

[lcrackel]

I understand that many people incorrectly believe that President Obama should defend the people of Iran. obviously I am not in agreement with that for several reasons. The United States have already stuck their nose into Afghanistan and Iraq and simply can't afford to waste valuable resources on parts of the world that have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning of time. In addition, the more he says right now, the worse it will be and will also give the barbarian in charge a reason to kill more - right now is the time to be quiet, wait and see what happens and collect information. Now I would approve of allowing Israel bombing and obliterating their nuclear capabilities though

 

[lcrackel]

stupid propaganda.

i'd like to vomit now

What are you calling propaganda? - your post is vague and incoherent

i am calling the original post of this thread stupid propaganda.

i can understand your accusation of vagueness, but what was incoherent about my post?

I'm sorry, but it seemed like you were attacking american democracy and I didn't see where your post had a reference point or too since there were already a few. I would call the post stupid or propaganda, but I would call it unrealistic. Many americans believe that we the USA should police the world wherever there is a problem and I was around when I witnessed the barbaric way that the same type of youths that brought that type of government into power, siezed american citizens and tortured them. I definately believe the USA should mind their own business and stay out of it. We have no formal relations with the country and we should leave it that way

 

[lcrackel]

I have to add that I also find it interesting that more then a year ago or so when the same man that is accused of stealing the election was in the process of stating that the Holocost never happened and that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood - never objected and never protested such barbaric and primative statements and now want some one to do something. These are the same people that gave this government a legitimate form to operate for the last 30 years - so if a man admits he would murder an entire country of people, why are you so suprised at him stealing an election? - GET REAL

 

[Agnapostate]

The United States have already stuck their nose into Afghanistan and Iraq and simply can't afford to waste valuable resources on parts of the world that have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning of time.

While the first part of your post was generally sound, it doesn't seem inaccurate to note that the current political situation in Iran is partially due to previous U.S. intervention in the country, not the population's own "perpetually disorderly conduct."

Now I would approve of allowing Israel bombing and obliterating their nuclear capabilities though

Israel is a small country, and it would only require decent mid-range missile capabilities for Iran to strike back against whatever hostile action the ruling administration chose to take, even without them having developed nuclear weapons of their own at this point. The facts that Iran's physical infrastructure reduces the possibility of a quick and clean Osirak-style "obliteration," that the Israeli government is opposed by Shi'a allies of Iran in southern Lebanon (Hezbollah) and a broadly restless Palestinian population that could be provoked to greater militant violence if they perceived a time of weakness or reduced military capabilities on that government's part (because of a confrontation with Iran), and that Iran's development of a nuclear energy program is permissible under the terms of the NPT and any military action is opposed by the current U.S. administration means that such action would be widely condemned and receive effectively no support all weigh in as factors against such an action.

 

[Agnapostate]

...that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood...

I never heard of him saying anything of the sort. Even his "Holocaust denial" is somewhat exaggerated; I think his main focus is on whether the historical event is seized upon by elements in the Israeli government to warrant their current policies, and his belief that it is is the basis behind his desire to challenge the historical veracity of the genocide.

 

[Sunni Man]

I have to add that I also find it interesting that more then a year ago or so when the same man that is accused of stealing the election was in the process of stating that the Holocost never happened and that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood - never objected and never protested such barbaric and primative statements and now want some one to do something. These are the same people that gave this government a legitimate form to operate for the last 30 years - so if a man admits he would murder an entire country of people, why are you so suprised at him stealing an election? - GET REAL

True, Ahmadinejad doesn't believe in the holocaust.

But he never advocated killing everyone in Israel.

 

[elvis]

I have to add that I also find it interesting that more then a year ago or so when the same man that is accused of stealing the election was in the process of stating that the Holocost never happened and that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood - never objected and never protested such barbaric and primative statements and now want some one to do something. These are the same people that gave this government a legitimate form to operate for the last 30 years - so if a man admits he would murder an entire country of people, why are you so suprised at him stealing an election? - GET REAL

True, Ahmadinejad doesn't believe in the holocaust.

But he never advocated killing everyone in Israel.

But you do , don't you Adolf? come on, admit it. You won't be happy until ALL the Jews in Israel are exterminated. don't be shy, Adolf.

 

[Sunni Man]

I have nothing against the Jewish people or the religion of Judiasm.

I admire them and their wonderful religion.

But I am totally opposed to Israel and the Zionist gangsters who rule that terrorist state.

 

[elvis]

I have nothing against the Jewish people or the religion of Judiasm.

I admire them and their wonderful religion.

But I am totally opposed to Israel and the Zionist gangsters who rule that terrorist state.

come on, chickenshit, tell us how the Holocaust never happened, you Jew-hating bastard.

 

[Sunni Man]

I have nothing against the Jewish people or the religion of Judiasm.

I admire them and their wonderful religion.

But I am totally opposed to Israel and the Zionist gangsters who rule that terrorist state.

come on, chickenshit, tell us how the Holocaust never happened, you Jew-hating bastard.

Once again, I have nothing against the Jewish people.

But no, I don't believe in the official zionist holocaust story and the mythical 6 million missing jews.