Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It appears they were rigged elections, the people are fed up, and that's why the country is in the middle of political chaos. As for Iran, the big foreign policy question is whether or not we step into an election process in a democratic government just because we don't like the way it's being done, or how it turns out, and at what point is it even appropriate to step in. I think it's a question with Egypt as well. I guess for me, it comes down to this--if they're asking for our help, then yes. If they're not, then no. To be honest, I'm still sorting it through.
Yeah...and IF you believe they were "Democratic Elections" I've got some oceanfront property in the Himalayas I'm sure Obama would be interested in.
I do believe they were democratic elections, why, because there were at least three candidates that I know of running for office. Ahmadinejad won by the margin predicted by US analyst and our press. Was there voter fraud, sure, but then again this happens right here in the United States, remember ACORN and Ohio?
Just because you don't want to believe, well, suck it up, they are, too bad.
It appears they were rigged elections, the people are fed up, and that's why the country is in the middle of political chaos
I've heard this statement by a number of people but I can't help but point out that Ahmadinejad won by the margin we predicted he would. Iran unlike some other nations, and while struggling to maintain order, has preemptively thrown its people a bone of reform to keep the unrest from boiling over into an Egypt like scenario.
Lets also not forget that while here in the US we see Ahmadinejad as an almost comedic loud mouth who doesn't know when to shut his pie hole, at the same time he is spouting off to the two nations who threaten to strike Iran on a daily basis, the US and Israel. Our suggesting nearly daily of attacking them, with Aghmadinejad firing rhetoric back actually gives this pinhead more power than he actually has. The Iranians may not like their government as noted by the 2009 protests, but when faced with the choice between that and the US and Israel saying they could attack any day, its a no brainer what the people of Iran would choose.
I liken it to a football team with a bad coach. The fans are all thinking, "Man we really need to get someone good like this guy or that", but then a news program shows that their next opponent calls their coach and team a bunch of sissies and yellowbelly's, and all of a sudden, that not so well liked coach finds his fans rallying behind him to beat that team.
I've heard this statement by a number of people but I can't help but point out that Ahmadinejad won by the margin we predicted he would. Iran unlike some other nations, and while struggling to maintain order, has preemptively thrown its people a bone of reform to keep the unrest from boiling over into an Egypt like scenario.
Lets also not forget that while here in the US we see Ahmadinejad as an almost comedic loud mouth who doesn't know when to shut his pie hole, at the same time he is spouting off to the two nations who threaten to strike Iran on a daily basis, the US and Israel. Our suggesting nearly daily of attacking them, with Aghmadinejad firing rhetoric back actually gives this pinhead more power than he actually has. The Iranians may not like their government as noted by the 2009 protests, but when faced with the choice between that and the US and Israel saying they could attack any day, its a no brainer what the people of Iran would choose.
I liken it to a football team with a bad coach. The fans are all thinking, "Man we really need to get someone good like this guy or that", but then a news program shows that their next opponent calls their coach and team a bunch of sissies and yellowbelly's, and all of a sudden, that not so well liked coach finds his fans rallying behind him to beat that team.
I was referring to Egypt with that comment--that the rigged election process and the abuse of power by Mubarak is exactly why the people of Egypt are on the streets, and why Egypt is in the state it's in today.
My point about Iran was more that for us to become involved in another countries democratic elections, we need to be asked for help vs. just come barging in. The difference I see here is that the people of Egypt seem to want the western world's help in making sure they put in a stable democratic government. Intervention in Iran would have been a disaster, but in this instance it makes sense to me.
I think you're exactly right that we created the hostile situation with Iran and helped Aghmadinejad hold power--if the saber rattlers in DC would have kept their big mouths shut, it never would have deteriorated to the point where the Iranian people pulled around him because they felt they were being attacked by the west. You hit this on the head--if you want to force unity from a group that would normally never come together, just start attacking from the outside. Cowboy politics don't work--especially in foreign policy.
We had our chance with Iran and screwed it up..anyone remember the Shah ?
The US will never get their fingers back into Iranian government.
Eventually the dictators we prop up get too cozy and forget that they have citizens to take care of.
Frontline on PBS did an amazing 2 hour documentary on the Afghanistan war, and much to my surprise, Iran offered assistance on like three or four occasions. The US accepted once, I believe some intelligence on Al Qaeda along the border near Marja, where our offensive last year took place. As the documentary went on to show, Iran was hoping that it could make inroads to open up fresh dialog with the US, but the US rebuffed their attempts at even having talks.
Personally, I think there are those in the US government and arms industry who need the bad guy to keep the status quo alive. Worse thing to happen to the worlds largest arms dealer is for peace to break out.
The Egyptian elections also had multiple candidates.
Obama says we shouldn't get involved with who the Egyptians choose....yet he tells Mubarak he's gotta go....immediately. He is taking a side even inadvertently.
"Immediately" is bad advice. They don't have the systems in place to hold fair elections for an immediate election.
I was referring to Egypt with that comment--that the rigged election process and the abuse of power by Mubarak is exactly why the people of Egypt are on the streets, and why Egypt is in the state it's in today.
My point about Iran was more that for us to become involved in another countries democratic elections, we need to be asked for help vs. just come barging in. The difference I see here is that the people of Egypt seem to want the western world's help in making sure they put in a stable democratic government. Intervention in Iran would have been a disaster, but in this instance it makes sense to me.
I think you're exactly right that we created the hostile situation with Iran and helped Aghmadinejad hold power--if the saber rattlers in DC would have kept their big mouths shut, it never would have deteriorated to the point where the Iranian people pulled around him because they felt they were being attacked by the west. You hit this on the head--if you want to force unity from a group that would normally never come together, just start attacking from the outside. Cowboy politics don't work--especially in foreign policy.
DOH, my bad, pardon me, I worked a late shift last night and haven't downed enough coffee yet, so the ole neurons aren't firing on all cylinders.
I'm in the middle of writing a few "policy people" who I would consider experts in the field of US foreign policy on this idea of winning over nations via blue jeans, big macs and coca-colas instead of bullets, bombs and tanks. When I look at contemporary history, nearly ever culture that gets (chuckling) "infected" with western culture, often finds it better than whatever oppressive government they living under. They WANT the things we have like the freedom of chatting on a forum or going to a drive thru to order a whopper without someone asking, "papers please".
It is when we confront, antagonize and approach by force when we set populations in to a bunker mode in opposition to us and give them a reason for solidarity around whatever iron fisted leader who dares talk smack to us.
The only thing "democratic" about the Iranian elections was that the group of MULLAHS might have voted on who their dictator would be.
Many observers believe that Ahmadinejad cheated. That wouldn't surprise me, but even if true, that does not mean it was an undemocratic election, it simply means someone cheated. People cheat in American elections too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
