Elections in Iran

Remove all ads!

I guess. If he's willing to shoot down his own people in the streets, like dogs, I hate to think what he would do to anyone from the West if he could get away with it.

That comment is an insult to all the courageous people who went unarmed into the streets to ask for their voices to be heard by their own government. As a result many of them have been shot, had their bones broken, and have been arrested (which makes them political prisoners). Many of those same people may dislike the "West" as much as the SL. This has nothing to do with the West and everything to do with Iran.


As for China, McDonalds and Home Depot appear to have accomplished what every president since WWII has been unable to. What a business man's dream China has become. The market potential is astronomical.

 

Hold on a second there, cowboy!-- I'm not out to insult the protesters. But lets look at the U.S. for a minute. In the 60s they opened fire on some peace protesters a few times. Now, wrong though it was, if at that time a foreign diplomat had come out strongly and started agitating for people to march in the streets, I can guarantee he'd be sent home. In fact, if a foreign diplomat under any circumstances were to encourage American citizens to engage in "civil disobedience", I'm pretty sure he'd be sent packing.

The US doesn't brook any foreign interference in its domestic affairs. Why it expects others to cheerfully accept their interference is beyond me.

In the instance of arresting and then sending home diplomats of foreign countries, the Iranian government isn't doing anything any other country wouldn't do. If they detain them for longer than it takes to arrange their departure from the country, though, then they are in violation of international conventions and treaties and that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

LKD - Again, I don't believe the West has anything to do with what's going on over there, especially the US. In fact, the SL has been trying to blame the West to deflect the issue. Many of his own people are pissed off at him for rigging (or they believe) the election. The idea of blaming the West is quite popular with many of the despots in the ME. Oh, and how can I forget, let's "blame Israel" while we are at it.

 

Well, according to reports, not only has the Iranian Guardian Council certified the results of the election, they are now saying that Ahmadinejad's vote total has been revised upward. In other words: screw you, democracy.

Now I think I've lost just about all hope for a positive outcome in Iran.

 

LKD, the other thing to remember is that just because the Supreme Leader accused the embassy employees of agitating doesn't mean they actually did. Especially in Iran, they could have just been enjoying a local cup of coffee and been arrested for being foreigners.

As for comparing Iran to other Middle Eastern countries, the difference is simple: the other countries don't have large portions of their people protesting in the streets, nor do the police/armies of said nations shoot their citizens for just being outside.

 

The actual accusation leveled against them was, um, gathering information. No, not spying:

They trump up charges and that's what they come up with?

 

No one ever said that they were smart.

 

Maybe there are no protests exactly because the police/army/paramilitaries would shoot? Also, I'm not quite sure how large the percentage of protesters is. Few reliable figures were given, and possibly barring the first few days the numbers mentioned are usually under 10,000. In a city of 8 million people, that is not that impressive.

If anything, the last elections in Iran put the country at about the average ME level in terms of democracy (as in, not having any). Even then, it has much better track record than most other countries in the region.

 

I am also afraid that this "revolution" lacks popular support. The segment of Iran's population that is "westernized" most likely fully support it but I fear that they are not very many. The uneducated, deeply religious, conservative mostly rural people seems to be pretty happy with the current way of things and they are in a majority. What we are basically seeing I think is an uprising of the "liberal elite" against the conservative establishment.

 

Do you think the despots in Saudi Arabia would hesitate for one second to shoot protesters if they thought it were necessary? And do you think that if they did the US government would criticize one of their most valuable allies in the region if they did? The Saudi's are no more democratic or admirable than the Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, etc. The West just turns a blind eye because they happen to not be casting us as the enemy.

I am not saying for one second that there are not people in Iran who want things to change and become more democratic. I'm not saying I don't respect them. I'm not even saying that we shouldn't do what we can here in the West to support them. But what I am saying is that the government in power is not going to like that support for an element of their society that is challenging their authority. Neither would the US, if the Iranians were supporting protesters in the US.

As has been stated by others more eloquently than I ever could, any Western actions other than external commentary are likely to backfire, pulling the Iranian population together against the "Great Western Satan." God knows that's how Ahmenijad has gotten a lot of his support -- spitting in the West's eye and showing that he's not a lapdog makes some of his citizens jump for joy.

 

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't the level of democracy that determines a good government, it's the concern for the people (ok, light the pyres now). Iran is "democratic" but the democracy is false is the government cracks down on any dissent with brutal force (even when we're not talking about protests in the street). I haven't heard anything like that about the other nations in the area. Iraq and Iran were/are the two ones I KNOW are bad.

 

I don't think it's correct to even use the label "democracy" when talking about Iran. About the best I can say is that it is a theocracy that allows some democratic elements (which is not the same as calling it a democracy).

 

The US has actually been pushing some of its "allies" in the middle east to become more democratic. It works better with some (Kuwait) than others (Egypt). So while we are fair for criticizing the west for dealing with dictatorships don't ignore the fact that we sometimes do get those dictatorships to open up (S. Korea is a dictatorship that became a democracy).

Iran is different because not only does it like to complain, accuse, and gripe about the west but part of its claim against the west is the (accurate) anger for western support of the Shah (a monarchical dictator). But that Iran would undo the democratic aspects of the revolution that got rid of the Shah shows how hypocritical some leaders within that revolution have become.

I think it is better for the "West" to call for democracy somewhere rather than nowhere-so even if we don't do it for China or N. Korea (unfortunate in my opinion) that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it all.

About the "West" causing the trouble in Iran. It seems to me the people on the street look like Iranians and are Iranians. Chandos it right to say an attempt to deflect attention away from problems Iran's government has that have upset its people.

And it doesn't appear the "West" at this time caused it, the people there appear to be honestly upset and the most "interference" the west has done is let them communicate with each other and the world at large-and it is inaccurate to call that instigating an uprising.