Iranian Elections Are NONE OF AMERICA'S BUSINESS

[Orwellian_Ghost]

So US media and "outraged citizens of America" express "anger" over an election in Iran that they claim was stolen all the while ignoring the history of US meddling in Iranian affairs and providing no context to complicated Iranian political realities.

But they don't even feign outrage over lack of elections in Saudi Arabia?

Gimme a fuckin' break.

[rockymountaindem]

1. I think it's natural for people to sympathize with those who are fighting for recognition of their

rights. When the Saudis do the same, they'll get the same support.

[roamer65]

6. Not from the majority of American lemmings...umm "people".

Our media will paint any uprising against the Saudi royal family as Islamic extremists and a threat to American oil interests.

The lemmings will follow right along.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Vinnell Corporation would not allow any demonstrations against their Saudi bosses

Everyone knows that.

Don

[Telly Savalas]

44. Actually we lemmings are awaiting for you enlightened ones to guide us.

Please help us little people!

[Raskolnik]

104. Your contempt for the American people is charming. n/t

[EFerrari]

26. Um, the Saudis funneled $$$ to Mousavi. I'm sure they appreciate

the patronage.

[rockymountaindem]

29. My attitude has nothing to do with him

It's just nice to see people getting in the face of reactionaries when they openly trample on the electoral process. And yes, I wish people had protested more in the US in 2000. I was 13 at the time. Also, Ahmedinajad is a problem for the whole region so I'm not surprised the Saudis would want to trip him up.

To reiterate: I'm just siding with the people who are fighting for a better future. People around here love to criticize Americans for being glued to the couch, and then some of them piss on others who are actually DOING something by saying it's all because of foreign influence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, it seems.

[stray cat]

2. Can we be offended if they murder, beat and lock up protestors?

or should we cheer or pretend we don't see it.?

[EFerrari]

21. How's that separate but equal death penalty doing in your town?

[armyowalgreens]

77. sorry wrong spot.

[Raskolnik]

102. I'm not sure what that has to do with Iranian elections.

Could you explain?

[Ex Lurker]

115. Bottom line, some on DU are uncomfortable with any criticism of regimes

that are hostile to America. Whatever their reasons, and I won't try to discern their motives. I don't think they're a majority, but they're here, and they're noisy.

[gratuitous]

3. Well, in terms of passing judgment on them, I agree

As far as knowing what the people of Iran actually think and who we may have to treat with in the months and years to come, we have a vital national and strategic interest, and so in that sense, it is our business.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

7. That sounds familiar

Do you mean like their stuff is really ours? No need for word games just say it.

[gratuitous]

19. Uhm, I thought I did

See, when I said, "knowing what the people of Iran actually think and who we may have to treat with in the months and years to come," I meant that it would be useful to the conduct of our foreign policy to know that they people of Iran actually think - as expressed by their preferences at the ballot box - and who we may have to treat with - that is, who their leaders are.

I'm not sure it could be much plainer. But if you're looking to pick a fight, there's no shortage of pugnacious folks around. :eyes:

[bananas]

4. Is too. nt

[Deja Q]

5. Just like how America's elections are nobody else's business too.

Sorry to be PC, I'm sure I could name a couple countries that would manipulate whatever it takes to get who they want in our country.

Wake me when we become a one world government...

[Speck Tater]

8. To Americans "The News" is just another TV show. It's all about "excitement", plot, and ratings.

Lack of elections in S.A. is a non-event. There's nothing to show on TV, nothing to get excited about. No marching in the streets. No potential for death and violence like there is in hockey, NASCAR, or riots in the streets.

[CreekDog]

9. Did you lecture us on Tibet?

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

10. Yeah but I know a guy

He said it was okay. :shrug:

[malaise]

11. Ditto

I pass on the excitement

[GoesTo11]

13. Of course it's our business. The current regime sucks for us.

If they had a sane government, it would make a huge difference in the prospects for peace in the world. Iran has been exporting their revolution and backing terrorists and proxy armies in starting conflicts for decades now. And they want nuclear weapons just so they can cause more war in the world. If Iran came into the 21st century, it would be great for everyone (except a few mullahs).

[marmar]

15. "And they want nuclear weapons just so they can cause more war in the world"

Like the taste of Koolaid, do you?

[GoesTo11]

27. Well they don't want them for peace.

I think it would be very bad if Iran joined the nuclear club. Every new country that joins makes it more precarious, and yes, I think that a fundamentalist government that has a history of provocative acts is more worrisome than, oh, France or something. I'm not saying the US should get involved here, but if Iran comes out of this with a less aggressive government, Obama will have really lucked out.

[marmar]

31. Only one country has ever used a nuclear weapon.....

..... and in the last decade or so, which country has started a pre-emptive war against a country that posed no threat to it based on lies?

BTW, this country has more nukes than anybody.

[madville]

43. Probably one of the few instances where using a small nuke made sense

The invasion of mainland Japan would have caused hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of casualties on both sides. My granddad was a Marine involved in the battle of Okinawa and would have gone on to Japan if the nukes hadn't ended the war. I could probably say I am here today because nuclear weapons were used on Japan but I'm not selfish like that, it was really the best option at the time and ended things swiftly.

Iraq was wrong and shouldn't have happened. Iran having nukes in that region is a recipe for disaster though, Iraq has nothing to do with that fact.

[14thColony]

71. It's like deja vu all over again

seems like I only just posted this elsewhere, but here goes again:

By the time the war ended in August 1945 Japan had already tried to surrender to the Western Allies possibly as many as three times, starting as far back as January 1945. While this was merely rumor/speculation for quite some time, the recent declassifcation of all the PURPLE and MAGIC intercepts of Japanese military and diplomatic comms confirms what people like John Dulles and other senior Truman Administration figures had said back in the 1950s and 1960s: Japan had already tried to surrender, in increasingly desperate ways, for months prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Every offer was ignored.

Needless to say this had to be covered up, since not only does it eliminate the need for the two a-bombings, but it begins to raise nasty questions about why the Battle of Okinawa and the firebombings of Japanese cities had to happen.

[olegramps]

74. The demand of the U.S. was for unconditional surrender. That was the condition rejected by Japan.

[14thColony]

84. Sorta, sorta not

The one condition the Japanese set in at least their last offer of surrender before the atomic bombings (if not the previous two) was that the office of the emperor be retained in post-war Japan. If I recall correctly they weren't even hard-over on THAT emperor being retained in the office.

As you say, we apparently ignored the request on the grounds that it was NOT an offer of unconditional surrender.

But when the Japanese finally tendered a totally unconditional offer of surrender after Nagasaki, the one thing we went out of our way to grant was the continuation of the officer of the emperor, and WITH the current emperor remaining in power.

So clearly we were willing to accept the continuation of the imperial seat since we gave it to them unilaterally. Which begs the question as to why, if we were willing to do it anyway, did we not accept the same exact end-state months earlier? Lots of Marines, US and Japanese soliders, and Okinawan civilians might otherwise have lived to see the end of the war.

It's clear from reading the PURPLE intercepts especially that the Japanese were getting desperate to end the war, and were extemely confused as to why the US was not even responding to their offers of surrender. Is it not beyond the realm of possibility that, if we really wanted to end the war at the earliest opportunity that our interests would permit, we could have simply communicated to them that they needed to make a public offer of unconditional surrender, but (wink, wink) we'd then let them keep the emperorship as a sign of our benevolence?

******************

Sorry to whomever that this is off the current topic. I shall desist at this point. But I do think it's important to the current discussion in that things are presented by governments in specific ways for specific purposes, and facts are important only in that they support the government's position. I don't know what's going on in Iran right now, but I don't expect any government, to include my own, to give me the unvarnished truth, even if they know it.

[provis99]

101. the purpose of dropping the bomb was to scare the Russians

its really as simple as that. The US already knew the Japanese were going to surrender, but we held off accepting their surrender until we could drop the atomic bomb, so as to impress the Russians with our power and resolve. Dropping the atomic bomb was a blatant disregard for human life, solely to make a political point for our presumed next enemies, the Soviet Union.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

113. You're assuming it was necessary to invade the Japanese mainland.

I'm not certain that is so. Considering that Japan had no ability to project naval or air power outside their mainland, why would we even bother to invade?

[timeforpeace]

45. Non sequitur #1

[marmar]

47. Thank you for your deep analysis.....

:eyes:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

32. How many countries

has Iran invaded in the last 100 years?

How about the US?

Now who is the belligerent party here?

Who has the history of provocative acts?

Astonishing display of hubris and historical amnesia here.

[GoesTo11]

37. Do you guys actually prefer the Islamic Republic to the American Republic?

I know I don't. Maybe I do drink too much kool-aid after all.

[Hugabear]

96. "you guys" - you sure you're on the right website?

n/t

[GoesTo11]

98. Just an expression.

Could have said "you guys and gals" or "you gals and guys". Could have said "y'all" but that would definitely mean I thought I was on redstate.

[timeforpeace]

46. Non sequitur #2

[EFerrari]

17. Dick Cheney, sit down before you shoot another friend by accident.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

20. Ah I see

and as always the concern for democracy from America.

The hypocrisy and self-interest is blinding.

You might want to take tabs on who's got the nukes and who has proven themselves belligerent enough to use them before you going go around talking about who is sane.

[GoesTo11]

35. Reading too much into it, I think.

I wasn't talking about democracy. Self-interest, definitely. Hypocrisy? Don't think so. Just saying we have an interest. I don't think we have to act on it, but we can watch and hope. And no, Ahmadinejad has not struck me as all that sane. But I really hope that DUers would be glad if Iran ends up not having nukes, so long as that comes about through internal change and not through external attack.

[bertman]

64. Change the word "Iran" to "America" in your post and it would still make a good swap.

We Americans thrive on accusing other nations of being aggressive and bullying their neighbors, but don't dare remind us that we are fully complicit in many of the same kinds of attacks.

[14thColony]

85. Nuclear weapons are the strangest weapons ever made

...in that they are intended never to be used. The moment they are used is the moment they have utterly failed. This is the essence of MAD Doctrine, and I fail to see why the Iranians will not follow the same principle that kept the USSR and the USA from obliterating each other, and still keeps Pakistan and India from nuking themselves into the Indian Ocean. The Iranian leadership is not crazy, no matter how much it makes us feel good to say they are.

When you and your enemy both have nukes, suddenly everyone gets real polite.

[GoesTo11]

89. We've been lucky so far

We were lucky that the USA and USSR never used them. We're lucky Pakistan and India haven't used them. It's been a good run of 64 years, but that's an eyeblink in history. Every country that has them creates more risk. Some countries create more risk than others. Iran has an unstable dictatorship led by religious zealots. That's the formula for relatively high risk. France and England, not so much. The fact that USA is also a risk doesn't justify more diffusion.

[14thColony]

97. Perhaps you are right

and perhaps it is just a run of incredibly good luck for 6+ decades. But I tend to think that human decision-making processes change radically, becoming less prone to provocation, when nukes enter the equation. If for no other reason than simple self-interest/self-preservation. There have been some mighty close calls, but in the end cooler more sober heads prevail and back everyone on both sides away from the button. There is a school of international relations devoted to MAD and MAD decision-making, and their conclusions are in this same direction - that it's a little luck, but a lot of self-preservation.

I submit that the Guardians and the Supreme Leader are pretty comfy with the status quo. They have their Mercedes limousines to take them to work, their summer homes on the Caspian shore, the ski chalets up in the Alborz Mountains, the office with the great city view, etc. They lob one nuke and they get to watch everything they've built vaporize about one-millionth of a second before they do. And they're rational enough to see that there would be no gain for their nation-wide martyrdom.

Remember that when Ahmadinejad was waxing poetic about the End of Days and the Second Coming last year, it was the Supreme Leader and the Guardians who told him to STFU -- that God does not respond to man's timetables and that He will do His will in His own time when He's good and damned ready, and the president would be better served attending to the domestic concerns of Iran. I do think they're religious zealots, I just think they're kinda hoping God plans on ending the world down the road sometime, like a long time.

[lxlxlxl]

14. Disagree.

Staged, inorganic, protests never get as big as what we saw today.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

22. I think you are on to something there

[Hannah Bell]

69. sure they do.

not "staged," but wouldn't have happened without the involvement of outside forces. leadership trained & funded by usaid, ned, soros, ndiia, etc.

dozens & dozens of cases going back to the revolutions of the 1700s.

riots arise spontaneously. large-scale attempts to overthrow governments are rarely spontaneous, nor are they typically organized by amateurs.

[lxlxlxl]

91. o.k. all mass protests post 1950 are phony

including our own antiwar protests, rnc protests of the past decade?

the skepticism and awareness of history is great. i have no problem with that, but there seems to be a growing chorus of 'everything is phony' from both the right and the left, and I doubt it will do anyone any good.

[Hannah Bell]

107. straw man, got anything else?

large protests typically don't happen without money, leadership & organizers.

those things rarely, if ever, come together purely from the indigenous grassroots.

[EFerrari]

16. Why do you hate democracy and CK?

[madeline_con]

18. Thank you, concern police. I'll decide what to be outraged about for myself, just the same.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

25. Not really

It's manufactured for you.

[madeline_con]

30. Blow it out your butt. At least, the part of your concern and wisdom reserved for me.

[IrishBuckeye]

34. We aren't all robots oh great one, we can decide for ourselves what to rage against.

Do you really think you're above it all and can see what's going on while everyone else is being fooled by the overlords? Get over yourself. Plently of us have read Chomsky, Zinn, Michael Moore, and others who warn of manufactured rage. We can choose what to pay attention to without a warning from you.

[Hannah Bell]

76. that's it exactly. pavlov's dogs.

i'm sick of this movie.

[Raskolnik]

100. Just because you don't want to care about something doesn't mean others aren't allowed to.

Its possible (but I think unlikely) that there is a seismic shift occuring in Iran's internal political landscape right now. Don't you think that is worthy of attention?

[anonymous171]

23. Yes, we should completely cut ourselves off from the outside world. nt

[NYC Democrat]

92. That view is sadly all to common here.

[Raskolnik]

103. No, just when you're interested in a non-approved event. n/t

[IrishBuckeye]

24. So the media shouldn't report the protests going in Iran?

Why not?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

28. Not what I'm saying

C'mon you know that.

The US has zero standing in the world, particularly in that part of the world to say anything to anyone.

The US has simply been killing people in those parts for decades. How is it that anyone thinks they should have any input period.

I say when the US can prove itself a peaceable nation and a peaceable people for, what 50 years, then they can speak out. But how about a little humility for a few decades first eh?

[Kurska]

38. It's like you exist in some kind of forcefield made up entirely of shame

I am a human watching humans being murdered by men with guns. Why in the name of all things holy shouldn't I be worried about the fact that college kids are being murdered in their dorms by crazed religious miltia?

You say I shouldn't care because I'm American, I say I care because I'm god damn human.

[Codeine]

49. Dude.

"It's like you exist in some kind of forcefield made up entirely of shame"

I fuckin love you! :yourock:

[Kaleko]

65. Right on.

:thumbsup:

[Hannah Bell]

73. humans are murdered every day by men with guns. only selected murders are

repeatedly presented to us as spectacle for our very important "caring".

meanwhile, your own government, which presumably you have more influence over than iran's, is busy murdering people without benefit of your important caring.

[Kurska]

83. "My massacres are more important then your massacres"

Whenever people protesting for freedom are killed it is a tragedy. People are dying and you're cursing us for caring, do you have any idea how sick you sound?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

90. It's the double standard

So where's all the outrage about the Iraqi people getting slaughtered due to US intervention. The streets are silent on that in The Homeland. Where's the outrage about Afghani's getting massacred due to US intervention? Nowhere that's where. And why is that?

And now the US media is manufacturing a story and the US citizenry responds, time and gain, in typical fashion with this supposed 'moral outrage'? You don't see the hypocrisy and double standard there?

Gimme a break.

On the question of voter ‘rigging’ in Iran
June 15, 2009

Watching the Iran election results unfold from Brazil is not a major perch, however, the interwebs are alive with information (and disinformation). Thankfully there are dedicated and tireless people on the ground who care about digging for actualities and truths even if their favored candidate did not win.

I have not come across a credible account of voting irregularities as of yet. I’m just as sickened by the thought of four more years of Ahmadinejad’s Bush to Rafsanjani’s proxy-Cheney as most anti-authoritarian Iranians and non-Iranians I know. The disappointment and anger being expressed is understandable. The riot cops in Tehran, the suspension of right of assembly and the harrassment of protestors (the majority of them women) is completely unacceptable and reflective of the deeply flawed character of the incumbent’s administration.

However, instead of pointing to real falsification of results, if they exist, a reactionary effect is being reproduced. ‘This couldn’t have happened because we all thought our candidate would win’ is not enough of a reason to use and re-use loaded political vocabulary about a major election in a developing Middle Eastern country. Every other account about this election is freely throwing around the word coup d’état without serious justification: who can forget what a real coup d’état in Iran looked like, with the US-backed overthrow of Mossadegh’s democratically elected (and secular) government in 1956?

And it is a serious misstep (and I am talking not just about the corporate hegemonic media but about well-meaning leftist Iranians and friends of Iran) to assume that the candidate favored to win must win and will win. Like the Angry Arab has written, ‘When the favored candidates win, the elections are free and fair. And when they lose, elections are certainly unfree and stolen.’

<snip>

http://southissouth.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/on-the-question-of-voter-rigging-in-iran/

[PVnRT]

95. So, we have to express outrage at everything all the time, or none at all?

Logical fallacies are fun.

Yes, the media sucks in their responsibility to air this in historical context. What were you expecting?

[Raskolnik]

105. Really? There hasn't been outrage about the Iraq or Afghan war?

I'll bet that if you spend ten minutes on Google, you can find hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, speeches, blog posts, etc. about the civilian toll in both those wars.

[LeftishBrit]

75. Agreed - and I'm not American anyway

Many people in the world are concerned about this. Avaaz, who are hardly a neocon site, are encouraging people to sign a petition:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/for_the_people_of_iran/97.php/?cl_tta_sign=5512692d93b2042174d561a0ce3dc2f0<br />


I oppose any military action against Iran; but a bit of solidaritly with people trying to defend their electoral rights against an oppressive and dishonest dictatorship is a different matter. There are limits to what can be done from outside, but the Iranian people are trying to help themselves, and that should be recognized as a good thing.

[IrishBuckeye]

40. What kind of U.S. reaction are you objecting to?

The White House is 'concerned' about what they have heard come out of Iran that being the Iran election was fixed. Is that what you are objecting to, their 'concern'?

[jwirr]

54. Isn't that a legitimate concern? Our government in the form of the CIA

and other covert groups have been involved in starting wars in dozens of countries in the past. While I trust President Obama, I do not trust the military industrial complex. I am concerned for the people who are protesting but I do not want the US to become involved in this mess. We seem only to make things worse because to often it is self-interest that drives us. That is what I hear the OP saying.

[ButterflyBlood]

67. Please point me to a country that has been completely peaceful for the last 50 years

I mean OK you can probably come up with a handful of examples (mostly tax havens), but if you expect those countries to be the sole ones with any standing to express concern on foreign policy we might as well just turn the entire world isolationist. None of those countries sit on the UN Security Council, that's for sure.

And really, considering just about every truly peaceful country stays that way by operating as a tax haven and/or banker to most of the world's shitbags, we can't exactly include them either.

[olegramps]

80. Yeah, we ignored the rise of fascism. Not our concern. Get real.

[Zynx]

33. Where oppression exists, I think it is at least prudent to comment on it.

[troubledamerican]

66. Amen.

[anonymous171]

36. Neither is Darfur or Tibet. We need to stop caring about foreigners and deal with our own problems.

[rockymountaindem]

39. It's that attitude that has let a lot of bad shit go down in the last 100 years n/t

[cali]

41. it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS to tell ANYONE what is their business

this is just silly shit. Who the fuck are you to tell anyone else to shut up as you blast YOUR opinion over the internet. You don't like the first amendment, except for opinion that agrees with yours. Funny thing that.

[anaxarchos]

56. Seriously, do you really miss the irony...

...of you saying those words to anyone else?

In the simplest terms, that is what the OP is saying.

[Arkana]

42. A-fucking-MEN.

It's not our place.

They're a sovereign nation and we should know better by now than to mess with sovereign nations that don't ask for our help.

Oh, and all you folks who think the OP said the news should ignore it obviously don't get the thread. There are folks advocating our direct intervention in Iran. That would be absolutely and unequivocally wrong.

Be as concerned as you like, and I don't care how much the news media reports on it. The government can condemn the assault on peaceful protestors, but when you get to direct involvement in foreign elections you're asking for trouble.

[Regret My New Name]

48. Since when is commenting on and discussing something considered "messing with" something?

[Arkana]

51. I don't think that's what the OP meant.

We've got folks here who are advocating listening to Joe Lieberman and getting directly involved.

I don't like the situation in Iran either--I think Ahmadinejad stole the election, and in a fairly blatant manner.

But we've got folks who think Obama should publicly support one side or the other. He can't do that.

[Wednesdays]

52. Huh?

"There are folks advocating our direct intervention in Iran."

That's news to me. You got some links? :shrug:

Plus...the OP wasn't about "direct intervention," it was about "anger over an election." ("So US media and "outraged citizens of America" express "anger" over an election in Iran...")

[Zynx]

58. Just out of curiosity, warp back to the 1970s. What would your stance on Pol Pot be?

[Arkana]

61. My stance would be "Not even sperm in 1970."

[Zynx]

63. My point is that situations have existed routinely and exist today that make

your argument cruel at best and evil at worst.

[Hannah Bell]

79. well, the US got involved with that. In support of pol pot.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

power politics, baby.

without us assistance, the killing fields likely wouldn't have existed.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Ya.

And I'm sure you're just a friggin genius on "complicated Iranian political realities."

[bridgit]

53. The semblance of democracy is too easy to replicate. Set up a civilized little box...

in the commons with a slit in it and people will pray over it, dream over it, they'll lie & die over it, pay for it, even adjust the feng shui of it before dropping pieces of paper down-in like pennies loosed into a Roman fountain for all it is sometimes worth but is it democracy, or is it the semblance of democracy? It's too often the semblance of democracy.

Religion isn't the opiate of the people religion is the crack of the people...democracy is the opiate. It can make people think everything is warm, safe and fuzzy...soon come the purple fingers and the "I Voted!!" pins, it's inspirational ~

Either way; America will be parsing from an enhanced position when she is able to certify her own democratic process, oh, let's say; after several election cycles in a row top to bottom, POTUS to dog catcher

[get the red out]

55. You are right

It is completely wrong to pay attention to the world around us. We should shut down our computers and TVs and hold our hands over our ears so we can't even hear the neighbors. If we pretend all those other countries in the world don't exist, surely they will go away. :sarcasm:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

86. Oh the hand wringing

Give me one example of US involvement with another country's affairs where the result was positive for the people. Just one.

Read the post again and watch the propaganda and hypocrisy all around you all day long. The double standards are so glaring it's embarrassing to even see all this feigned outrage.

How come noone in this country is out in the streets protesting US slaughter of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where is all that caring? Nowhere, that's where.

Gimme a break.

[AnnInLa]

57. This is pure bullshit

Are we citizens of the world, or are we citizens of our own country only? Any time, any place, in this world, where people are fighting because the government took away some of, or all of, their freedoms, it is my business and it should be your business. I heard Richard Engle on Rachel tonight explaining that the protesters felt the current regime had really curtailed many of their freedoms, and that they would fight not to live in a more repressed society than they already live in.

I have seen on DU today expressions that the new Musavi regime that the protesters want would be just as bad as the old one. So what? If the protesters think otherwise and are willing to get in the streets and die for what they think would be a better life, we shouldn't support them? This Green Revolution is only the beginning of a fight for all Middle East people to gain more freedom from their repressive governments...it can spread, spread, spread. It may take time, alot of time, but it's a beginning. Any you want to deny support to that beginning?

I saw a comment by DUer Liberalmuse who said this is not about Musavi, it is about having your votes mean something in your country. She is right...this is not just about Musavi, its about bigger things. It's about losing some of the rights you had....don't you guys remember that feeling during the last 8 years?

I'm probably older than you guys, but I remember the riots after Martin Luther King was assassinated. It wasn't just about King's death, the riots were about bigger and more systemic problems. I remember the riots in Chicago at the Dem Natl Convention, when the young people wanted out of Vietnam, even tho the majority of the country did not want out at that point....the riot then was about bigger and more systemic problems with our foreign policy.

I have been checking out the RW blogs today, and some of you on DU sound just like the wingers over there. You should be ashamed....perhaps the most awful comment I read on the RedState site said something like, "Iranians killing Iranians...what's the down side?" I fully expect some DUer to come up with that one next.

Jesus Christ on a Crutch....America never would have gotten "involved" in World War II if we had sat back and said we shouldn't care what was going on in other parts of the world. Not to get involved in Darfur, Uganda, South Africa? Really?

So Mousavi may not be any better than the current regime. The protesters evidently think differently, and they are fighting and dying for what they believe. So Obama can't come right out and express support for one side or the other....we citizens can express support for any people, any where who are fighting to regain lost freedoms and gain new freedoms. So there are other places, Saudi Arabia or Peru where freedoms are being trampled...that doesn't preclude us from supporting the protesters in Iran.

This is not the DU I once knew if we don't all get behind people who are fighting for freedom, never mind all the extraneous points. I've been on message boards, Yahoo and others, mainly in Europe, where people are riveted to the news, the tweets, the blogs....these people are really rooting for the Iranians because they recognize a "people's cause" when they see it. Oh, and if you reply that maybe most of the people of Iran really did vote for the current regime, then let me remind you that the votes should have been actually counted, regardless. There was no way, 3 hours after close of voting, some say before polls closed, (with paper ballots, with no electronic voting,) that such a lop-sided victory could have been declared. Either votes count or a government counts for nothing. The protesters want their votes...their participation in their government....to count for something.

OK, sit on your smug butts or get involved. Care about something important in the world, not just your country, or your community, damnit.

[rockymountaindem]

59. Excellent post

Someone said the other day, quoting Gilda Radner I think, "no matter how cynical I get I just can't keep up". That's how I feel.

[Hannah Bell]

72. "rooting" = involvement?

[bdamomma]

87. very good post.

[Posteritatis]

60. Isolationists are funny (nt)

[JI7]

62. Iran actually held a fucking election and claiming to be a Democracy unlike Saudi Arabia

the results are a joke.

of course world politics is EVERYONES Business.

the World wanted Obama to win .

[Hannah Bell]

70. only approved candidates are allowed to run, & if the supreme leader doesn't like the results

he doesn't have to accept them.

that's the rules for iranian elections.

interesting version of democracy.

not so different from ours, actually.

[Raskolnik]

106. In your heart of hearts, do you really believe Iran's system is "not so different...

...from ours, actually?"

[bvar22]

117. When it comes to being given a "choice" ....

...between approved candidates?

Yes, there is not much real difference.

[Raskolnik]

118. Sophistry. n/t

[bvar22]

119. Reality.

In 2008, Americans were allowed to "choose" between:

1)A Pro-WAR, Anti-LABOR, Increase Military Spending, Big Business, Status Quo Democrat

OR

2) A Pro-WAR, Anti-LABOR, Increase Military Spending, Big Business, Status Quo Republican

Until something is changed about our "Two Party Only", Winner Take All, Only Big Money Talks election system, the average American will NEVER have any real choices.

[Raskolnik]

120. Ralph Nader, is that you?

We heard that song and dance in 2000 that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush. How's that logic look in hindsight?

Were you not afforded a chance to vote for Kucinich in the primary?

[eridani]

68. Progressives ought to stand up for election integrity, period

Even though our own country is pretty fucked up on that score.

[armyowalgreens]

78. I want what is best for the citizens of Iran.

I won't pretend to know what is best at this time.


But that doesn't mean that I can't feel disgusted at blood shed and political deception. I feel empathy. Sorry.

[harun]

81. Also lack of elections in Egypt. Whom we give tons of aid to.

[Freddie Stubbs]

108. We give aid to Egypt because they made peace with Israel

[harun]

109. Well I never voted for that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

111. But your elected representatives in Congress did

[harun]

112. Lucky me.

[olegramps]

82. I would suppose that you would support getting out of the United Nations.

What business is it of the United Nations to be meddling in countries that are conducting genocide? That's their business.

Your argument seems to hinge ont the fact that the United States has meddled in some countries business solely to satisfy some special interest. Well, not many except for some Republicans, would justify these intrusions. However, that certainly doesn't nullify our concern when innocent people are being brutalized. This is exactly what happened in Germany as the world ignored it. It wasn't our concern that Jews were being rounded up along with gypsies and homosexuals and anyone who opposed the Nazis. This is exactly why the United Nations was formed to protect innocent humans beings. The United Nations has major flaws, but it has also done some things right ion the defense of innocent human beings.

You may ask just why are so many Republicans opposed to the United Nations and have advocated for our removal? The fact of the matter is that they oppose anyone objecting to their self serving adventures and the use of military threat to achieve their objectives especially when has to do with money.

The entire human population of the world should be the concern of everyone.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

88. Your supposition is wrong

Read the OP more closely.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

93. Go complain to Free Republic

There are plenty of people here who think the Saudi Arabian royal family and it's oppression sucks ass just as it does in Iran.

For all your ranting about it being "none of our business", I bet you have a horse in the race.

[PVnRT]

94. I guess the workers in Iran are none of your business either

Or North Korea, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, or Egypt, or Colombia, or Mexico, or Peru, etc.

[Raskolnik]

99. Apartheid was NONE OF AMERICA'S BUSINESS

Gimme a fuckin' break, indeed.

[dos pelos]

110. Bullshit ,they're not

There is an idea,a principle we are supposed to espouse and practice,that of pursuit of happiness by a free people.Perhaps it is so degraded here,by the right and the left,that those who are awake find themselves too jaded to overcome their listlessness and enervation.

The torch may have passed to a more energetic people elsewhere.Look at the weakness the passivity and lack of energy of the left in this country.Fat, apathetic TV zombies arguing about Letterman.

Our government needs to speak to the Iranian people,needs to say,"We are with you in your struggle for freedom",even though the people of the United States are themselves too cynical,too weak,too fat,too satiated, and listless to be energized by the ideals that ,at one time,made this a free country.

[jeanpalmer]

114. Would agree they're none of the government's business

But it looks like that's not the case. Bush and Congress allocated $400 million in late 2007 to destabalize Iran's government and to bring about "regime change." (Isn't that something how Iran's goverment is always referred to by the MSM as a "regime" but Saudi Arabia's and Egypt's governments are never referred to as such.) We already know the US has sent kidnapping and hit squads into Iran. Are we to believe that the $400 million is just sitting there unused, not being applied to overthrowing Iran's government as seems to be happening now?

[mogster]

116. How do you know it is not inspired by your struggle?

I think Iranians are inspired by your election of Barack Obama, and want somebody more like him. Hell, I would want a political leader like him myself ;-)
This is democracy at work, just look at those beautiful kids out there demonstrating!

[mmonk]

121. Sssssshhhhhhh.

Someone might notice the hypocrisy. Hopefully, the true reformers won't suffer too much in Iran with a hard crackdown. Afterall, why was Ahmadinejad elected to begin with?

[dionysus]

122. when the germans took over europe it was none of our business either eh?

:eyes: