17 Jun 09
2 edits
Obama is probably getting the U.S.'s stance on this just about right.
US President Barack Obama is resisting pressure to side with Iran's opposition as mass protests continue over the nation's disputed presidential poll. In a TV interview Mr Obama said there might not be much difference between the policies of President Ahmadinejad and rival Mir Hossein Mousavi. (BBC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/8104362.stm
It has been interesting to see how, throughout this thread, posters concerned about events in Tehran seem to imply that, because we all dislike candidate A, and candidate B's supporters have taken to the streets, this means that candidate B must be right and must also be better than candidate A. Who is Mir Hossein Mousavi anyway? It seems to me he is a 100% creature of the Iranian establishment. Would he have been allowed to stand by the Guardian Council if he were all that different from President Ahmadinejad?
17 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have no idea if Mousavi would be any better than Ahmadinejad (though it's not easy to envision how he could be much worse). I also have no trouble believing that the Iranian people might have voted for Ahmadinejad. Besides, even if there was some rigging, his margin was so great that maybe he'd have won anyway. I also don't think that the outside World needs to interfere unless it's plainly obvious that one candidate is oppressing and/or killing his own people (e.g., Milosovic in Yugoslavia).
Obama is probably getting the U.S.'s stance on this just about right.
[quote]US President Barack Obama is resisting pressure to side with Iran's opposition as mass protests continue over the nation's disputed presidential poll. In a TV interview Mr Obama said there might not be much difference between the policies of President Ahmadinejad and rival Mir Hossei d to stand by the Guardian Council if he were all that different from President Ahmadinejad?
Still, this board is for analysis and, based on what I've read, it seems likely, based on the numbers and events, that there was a significant amount of rigging going on in this election. Again, not that it's my business, but as an academic matter.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76So you approve of Obama's handling of this so far? Do you think previous adminsistrations might have handled it differently? [I am talking about the current dispute and uncertainty and grim news coming out of Tehran, as opposed to Iran policy in its entirety].
I also don't think that the outside World needs to interfere unless it's plainly obvious that one candidate is oppressing and/or killing his own people
18 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes, I approve of the way Obama has handled it so far.
So you approve of Obama's handling of this so far? Do you think previous adminsistrations might have handled it differently? [I am talking about the current dispute and uncertainty and grim news coming out of Tehran, as opposed to Iran policy in its entirety].
Would previous administrations have acted differently? Maybe in terms of rhetoric a little. Maybe there would have been a statement like "we're concerned about the allegations of fraud and we call on the Iranian government to look into these allegations, etc. etc." But, I don't think any government would do anything substantive to interfere with the Iranian succession.
Edit: I know, I know. the CIA has worked behind the scenes to influence foreign elections in the past. I mean at this point in the game. Other than imposing sanctions over the election, which would be ridiculous, I don't really see what the US government could do about it.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76So you were unimpressed with the U.S.'s relationship with,and reliance on, Ahmed Chalabi before the attack on Iraq and subsequent to that?
Yes, I approve of the way Obama has handled it so far.
Would previous administrations have acted differently? Maybe in terms of rhetoric a little. Maybe there would have been a statement like "we're concerned about the allegations of fraud and we call on the Iranian government to look into these allegations, etc. etc." But, I don't think any government would do anything substantive to interfere with the Iranian succession.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFI'm probably just being thick, but I'm not sure I understand what Chalabi has to do with the Iranian elections and the US response to them.
So you were unimpressed with the U.S.'s relationship with,and reliance on, Ahmed Chalabi before the attack on Iraq and subsequent to that?
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Topic: Iran vs. U.S.
I'm probably just being thick, but I'm not sure I understand what Chalabi has to do with the Iranian elections and the US response to them.
Sub-topic: Obama's handling of the current "crisis" + not siding with Mousavi
Sub-stream level 1: That handling compared to (hypothetical) handling of previous administrations.
Sub-stream level 2: The U.S.'s support for "opposition" figure Chalabi in Iraq
for the purposes of analysis and conjecture only
😉
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFAh; I gotcha.
Topic: Iran vs. U.S.
Sub-topic: Obama's handling of the current "crisis" + not siding with Mousavi
Sub-stream level 1: That handling compared to (hypothetical) handling of previous administrations.
Sub-stream level 2: The U.S.'s support for "opposition" figure Chalabi in Iraq
for the purposes of analysis and conjecture only
😉
I'm not sure Iraq and Iran are a great comparison. Iraq was basically an occupied territory that the US was in the process of trying to build up to function on its own. Whether we should have gone in in the first place (and I'm pretty sure I can guess your position on that one 😉), what went on in Iraq at the time was our business.
Who runs Iran, which is its own sovereign country; not one whose dictator we just deposed by force, is not really our business.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyIf democracy is all about an election every so many years then yes there are some democracies and they are not necessarily very nice places to live. However, true democracy in my opinion is far more about what happens after the election.
Are there really any democracies out there or is it just all smoke and mirrors?
In Zambia, we often get to choose between one terrible choice and a slightly less terrible choice. Once elected 'into power' he then claims to 'have the mandate' to do whatever he likes. In South Africa however, there is far more democracy taking place between elections and the president himself has very little actual power.
In the US, the president is elected 'into office' and nearly every decision the white house takes seems to have input from a fairly large group of people and the desires of the electorate seem to be considered at every turn.
Control of the media is another very important factor to consider. Where the state controls the media, the public tends to think what the state wants it to think - or at least is swayed towards that direction. This can be good or bad depending on what message the government is sending, but I suppose it is not exactly democratic in nature.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76The U.S.'s siding with (and relying) on Chalabi started before the invasion. He played a key role in assembling the false claims to justify war.
Ah; I gotcha.
I'm not sure Iraq and Iran are a great comparison. Iraq was basically an occupied territory that the US was in the process of trying to build up to function on its own. Whether we should have gone in in the first place (and I'm pretty sure I can guess your position on that one 😉), what went on in Iraq at the time was our business.
Who runs ...[text shortened]... overeign country; not one whose dictator we just deposed by force, is not really our business.