Iran Election Result

[Skybird]

I believe that legitimacy - or lack of - of Iranian elections for us does not make a difference. Thus we must not care - we are not living in Iran.

When elections are being held with a candidate representing a real alternative to the mullah regime whose policy also would make a difference for us (for better or worse) - then caring for the legitimacy of according elections would matter for us.

[Letum]

That's all very well if you are only interested in your self; a little jingoistic
perhaps. I think everyone has the right to be governed by someone who
represents their community/nations wishes, be them Iranian, Japanese,
American or Skybird.
I find it strange that a fellow voter would be indifferent on the matter.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

That's all very well if you are only interested in your self; a little jingoistic
perhaps. I think everyone has the right to be governed by someone who
represents their community/nations wishes, be them Iranian, Japanese,
American or Skybird.
I find it strange that a fellow voter would be indifferent on the matter.

It's a principle that you hate very much - it is Realpolitik. Even the liberation of Europe 70 years ago had realpolitische motives and egoist intentions. Or do you really believe they launched that massive a war over ideals only? I never believed that for just one day. Things were at risk that were too vital of substantial interest for other nations as if they could afford not to care for the fate of Europe. It was no idealistic decision to fight the Nazis. It was Realpolitik: one had no other choice.

Our options on Iran are almost non-existent. We simply do not have influence on the situation, and Iran's policy. Obama'S and merkel'S words today do hagve no chance to cause any effect. Wether we yell and stomp our feet, or not - does not make a difference. Eventually we could shift things more to our disadvantage by idealistically, well-meaningly interfere. But to influence things for the better - at this time, in this situation, we simply do not have that option. We must not think of any of the candidates being better for us than the others.

So relax, lean back and read a book. At the current time, it does not matter if you do this, or think about Iran, or work in the garden. Maybe there will be a better chance for us in the future, who knows. But today is not our day.

[Letum]

I'm not claiming it does make a blind bit of difference what I think or do, but
that doesn't mean I should take up an opinionless political nihilism.

Very little in the world, history and the universe directly effects me, but that
doesn't mean there is no point in learning about it an making judgment when
the opportunity occurs.

Arson has never effected me and I won't reduce the amount or arson by
condemning it, but still I do.

[Max2147]

I think Mousavi would indeed be a step in the right direction. Not a leap, but a step.

Think of it this way: Ahmadinejad is a D-, Mousavi is a D+.

But I think these protests go beyond this one election. There may be some people in the crowd who are legitimately Mousavi supporters and are only protesting because they want him to be President, but I get the impression that a lot more are protesting because they're upset with the way their country is being run. In other words, the protests are more anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-clerics than pro-Mousavi. There are probably plenty of people protesting that Mousavi would throw in jail if he were in charge.

[Skybird]

Patience, or waiting, or being aware of the importance of correct timing, is no nihilism.

Condemning arson does not have any affect on somebody else than the arsonist (eventually), especially does it not have any negetaive effect on sombebody you want to save from it.

But with political support given, it is different. Diplomats and ideologists interpret every syllable you said and turn every word in your mouth, eventually, and if they are fanatics, they never forget nor forgive you. One should not necessarily avoid clear words just to avoid their wrath - certainly not - , but since on the poltical and idelogical stage every word has real effects like shifting attitudes of theirs (to you, to each other, to third parties), one should make sure to take such a position only when the opportunity is worth it. And an opportunity that is worth it is an opportunity when that what you support has a real chance to make an effect matching your intentions or interests. - This is currently not the case with Iran. - If it does nothing at best, or worstens your cause, then it is no opportunity. Ideas of "if only" and "in principle" are totally unimportant then, since they do not make any difference for anybody or anything - except your own ego.

Compare to chess, Letum. Not only do you not launch your attack before your pieces are in position and you have the tempi you need to carry it out and the opponent's position is prone to the kind of attack you are about to unleash - you also need to prepare the moving of every single piece to it's readiness position. - That is tiresome, but that'S how it is done. Everything else does not work as long as the opponent does not make mistakes. While one can argue that Chamenei's speech on Friday was clever in confronting the protesters that directly and offensively, it certainly was no mistake that would open real opportunities to his opposition.

Originally Posted by Max2147

In other words, the protests are more anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-clerics than pro-Mousavi. There are probably plenty of people protesting that Mousavi would throw in jail if he were in charge.

You could be right there. Difficult to assess, currently.

What is suspicious is that the rural areas are calm, and also most cities. I must say that the scenario of Ahmadinejadh nevertheless having the biggest public support of all four candidates, to me is the most likely one. We can't be certain, but it is most likely.

One example of realpolitik is the amount of time it took Mr. Obama to come to any semblence of support for those protesting the election in Iran. His first instinct was to appease, and apologize, and when he found that the vast majority of Americans wanted him to say more than just 'present' he suddenly finds a voice, however fec/kless.

PS I would not be at all suprised if it wasn't Europe which moved him to speak. Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with so many yes men and sychophants to feed his pathological need for approval it makes ones head spin.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

One example of realpolitik is the amount of time it took Mr. Obama to come to any semblence of support for those protesting the election in Iran. His first instinct was to appease, and apologize, and when he found that the vast majority of Americans wanted him to say more than just 'present' he suddenly finds a voice, however fec/kless.

PS I would not be at all suprised if it wasn't Europe which moved him to speak. Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with so many yes men and sychophants to feed his pathological need for approval it makes ones head spin.

I don't agree. Obama has this strange idea that it could be possible in the future to negotiate with Iran an abandoning of it'S nuclear program, the military part of it. He thinks he helps in that when talking less rethorically aggressive with them, and to them. He did not want to risk this outcome by intefering with the current events in Iran too much. On the other hand he thinks that something has to be said about it, and that it should not be completely ignored. Some days ago, in a reaction by him, you saw him formulating extremely carefully, pausing a lot, and you could see on his face that he was weighing every words before speaking it out. that way he just gave an impression of going one step ahead, one step back.

That's all nice and well and reasonable and wellmeant. It's just that this reason is not shared by the other side, and that Iran, no matter the president, has not the smallest intention to ever give up it's goal to get nuclear weapons. As long as you hold these negotiations and have no means to hold a weapoin at their sleeves, they will not give up, and just will try to win time. That'S why Obama will fail with his Iran policy, and it probably will not be the only field where it is like this. Obama is an idealist thinking people are driven by reason, and humanism (although he also is a power politician, because you do not make it into his office and kick several rivals out of your way and survive the Washington shark pool without being a powerpolitician with the will to also act unscrupellous, where needed).

Carter thought the same idealistic way, Carter also is an idealist. In this characteristic, both men remind me of each other. And I would not be surprised if the Republicans again start an intrigue and conspirate with the enemies of the nation to overthrow this president like they did with Carter.

Politics is dirty down to the bones. It holds no place for perfect knights in shining armour. the best you can hope for is a tyrant who means it well with you. But many do not, and prioritise their own power interests over everything else - Reagan no exception.

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I believe that legitimacy - or lack of - of Iranian elections for us does not make a difference. Thus we must not care - we are not living in Iran.

When elections are being held with a candidate representing a real alternative to the mullah regime whose policy also would make a difference for us (for better or worse) - then caring for the legitimacy of according elections would matter for us.

But if we purport to support the spread of democracy throughout the world we must act differently when we encounter truly democratically selected leaders of nations. No matter whether that democratic choice is the one we prefer. One of the biggest challenges we face in global diplomacy is the impression that we are hypocrites when it suits us.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rip

But if we purport to support the spread of democracy throughout the world we must act differently when we encounter truly democratically selected leaders of nations. No matter whether that democratic choice is the one we prefer. One of the biggest challenges we face in global diplomacy is the impression that we are hypocrites when it suits us.

1. I am not supporting this idea of spreading democracy everywhere.

2. I am against missionising in the name of democracy and religions of every kind, including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.

3. Many Western states claiming to support the spreading of democracy, have arranged themselves happily with exactly the opposite kind of regimes in the past if that matched their selfish interests. I also question the democratic nature of Westenr states themselves. there is too much oligarchy, too much plutocracy and too much interweaving between economy and politics (which should be independant from the economy'S lobby).

4. So who is "we", since you talked of "we" ?

5. I also think that democracies have no obligation to assist in the voting of options that bring democracies down by bringing those wanting to destroy or prevent democracy to power - as seen is the votings in turkey, Egypt and with the Palestinians. In turkey the AKP's ruling has destroyed already much of the secular heritage of Ataturk and brought a fundamentalist crew with a missionary sporit to power. In Egypt Mubarak was pressed to hold freer elections - and the conservative Muslim Brotherhood immediately made a jump upwards in the parliament. they would have gained much more if the elecitons would have been all free indeed. And thanks to free elections for the palestinians there is an established terror group named Hamas in command in the Gaza strip now.

6. In case of Germany, the constitution explicitly allows active resistance by everybody against everyone trying to overthrow the constitutional order of the German state. Since this constitution is said to protect democracy, you can conclude from this example as well that there is no obligation that a self-declared democracy must accept the election of powers that try to overcome democracy itself.

7. In France, Sarkozy just once again have spoken out against tolerating the burkha, saying that it is an aggressive and radical expressing of values that are incompatible with values France traditionally stand for. In other words: an existing social community, whether it be democratic or not, has no obligation to tolerate that in it's middle that violates the canon of values that define this social community.

To argue that freedom or/and democracy come at the price of accepting that what destroys oneself, is pathologic, self-damaging, if not suicidal. It also implies that one has no right to fight agai8nst such tendencies or forces, and shall not resist to them. Whoich then builds a brink to another pervertion in especially EU-thinking: that idea of unlimited tolerance. there can be no such thing as unlimited tolerance without denying your own identity, completely. Inly when you totally give up what you are yourself, and whyat you stand for, you can embrace what is not you and is different to you so completely as expressed in the term "unlimited tolerance". In other words: you not only give up yourself, but you also will to become the other what originally was "not you", completely. You delete your own identity. - As I see it, the EU steams with full pressure into this direction of deleting inner-european identities and also making it prone to growing Islamisation ("Eurabia" etc.).

[Skybird]

On Iran, what the media almost completely fail to meditate about is the possibility that the riots and election results already got instrumentalised for very different purposes. Inside the Iranian theocracy, there is a bitter fight taking place since long, between the faction around Rafsandjani, and Chamenei. Rafsandjani is an extremely powerful clergy with a far more pragmatic, earth-based orientation and material power founding in this realm, a man whom is after power for the sake of itself. Chamenei is the national authority in the theological field, but lacking the established material network of Rafsandjani. He also is said to be very ill and trying to establish his son as his successor. Both men's camps are at war with each other since years - and theology has little to do with it, it is about power.

I think it is very likely that Mussawi maybe is just a minor figure in this current time of protests in Teheran, and that it is Rafsandjani boosting the riots as a weapon to damage the power of Chamenei. Mussawi - maybe just happens to lend his name to it. Once Rafsandjani got what he wants, whatever it is, he probably will move Mussawi out of the way, one way or the other.

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Skybird

1. I am not supporting this idea of spreading democracy everywhere.

2. I am against missionising in the name of democracy and religions of every kind, including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.

3. Many Western states claiming to support the spreading of democracy, have arranged themselves happily with exactly the opposite kind of regimes in the past if that matched their selfish interests. I also question the democratic nature of Westenr states themselves. there is too much oligarchy, too much plutocracy and too much interweaving between economy and politics (which should be independant from the economy'S lobby).

4. So who is "we", since you talked of "we" ?

5. I also think that democracies have no obligation to assist in the voting of options that bring democracies down by bringing those wanting to destroy or prevent democracy to power - as seen is the votings in turkey, Egypt and with the Palestinians. In turkey the AKP's ruling has destroyed already much of the secular heritage of Ataturk and brought a fundamentalist crew with a missionary sporit to power. In Egypt Mubarak was pressed to hold freer elections - and the conservative Muslim Brotherhood immediately made a jump upwards in the parliament. they would have gained much more if the elecitons would have been all free indeed. And thanks to free elections for the palestinians there is an established terror group named Hamas in command in the Gaza strip now.

6. In case of Germany, the constitution explicitly allows active resistance by everybody against everyone trying to overthrow the constitutional order of the German state. Since this constitution is said to protect democracy, you can conclude from this example as well that there is no obligation that a self-declared democracy must accept the election of powers that try to overcome democracy itself.

7. In France, Sarkozy just once again have spoken out against tolerating the burkha, saying that it is an aggressive and radical expressing of values that are incompatible with values France traditionally stand for. In other words: an existing social community, whether it be democratic or not, has no obligation to tolerate that in it's middle that violates the canon of values that define this social community.

To argue that freedom or/and democracy come at the price of accepting that what destroys oneself, is pathologic, self-damaging, if not suicidal. It also implies that one has no right to fight agai8nst such tendencies or forces, and shall not resist to them. Whoich then builds a brink to another pervertion in especially EU-thinking: that idea of unlimited tolerance. there can be no such thing as unlimited tolerance without denying your own identity, completely. Inly when you totally give up what you are yourself, and whyat you stand for, you can embrace what is not you and is different to you so completely as expressed in the term "unlimited tolerance". In other words: you not only give up yourself, but you also will to become the other what originally was "not you", completely. You delete your own identity. - As I see it, the EU steams with full pressure into this direction of deleting inner-european identities and also making it prone to growing Islamisation ("Eurabia" etc.).

The we I refer to as I always do in political discussions is the United States.

I understand that we does not include you.

Considering what appear to be your anti-democratic views and apparent disagreement with the basic premise that a free and self ruled people will seek to live in peace, that is a good thing.

Like it or not the official policy of the United States is that we support the spread of Democracy or whatever system allows the people to rule. For the President to indicate anything else would just guarantee him no chance at a 2nd term. Which would not bother me but he is no fool.

BTW How in the world can you use the hypothetical of "The People" electing a person that would advocate taking their right of self rule away? I am used to fighting a strawman, but that would have to be a strawbaby.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Rip

The we I refer to as I always do in political discussions is the United States.

I understand that we does not include you.

Considering what appear to be your anti-democratic views and apparent disagreement with the basic premise that a free and self ruled people will seek to live in peace, that is a good thing.

Like it or not the official policy of the United States is that we support the spread of Democracy or whatever system allows the people to rule. For the President to indicate anything else would just guarantee him no chance at a 2nd term. Which would not bother me but he is no fool.

BTW How in the world can you use the hypothetical of "The People" electing a person that would advocate taking their right of self rule away? I am used to fighting a strawman, but that would have to be a strawbaby.

Opposing missionary-style attempts to spread democracy does not make one anti-democratic.

Also, I don't think the United States' official policy is to actively spread democracy around the world. Our policy is to protect democracy. There's a difference.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Max2147

Opposing missionary-style attempts to spread democracy does not make one anti-democratic.

Also, I don't think the United States' official policy is to actively spread democracy around the world. Our policy is to protect democracy. There's a difference.

To think I am a born anti-democrat for simply not liking it, and prefering something different for the sake of that alone, would miss the point about me. I simply do not see it working if the community subscribing to it exceeds a certain size, and I realise that many people in the world for political and/or religious and/or economic reasons do not favour demiocracy for themselves, and have ideas that are dearer to them. I also see private enterprise controlling political decision making, which means the latter is not independant from the first - and this bad circumstance always, always kills any potential for a democracy becoming real.
In fact democracy gets hollowed out - the bigger the community size, the easier business can hide the process in the uncontrollable size and complexity of the resulting construction of politics. andn thta is a reason why so many people defdend this process while being unaware of it, and thinking they would infact defend democracy. But in fact they help to erode it by their support.

Democracy is no holy grail for me. I think of it as a tool, not more, and it is not the only tool available. It either is a benefit for the task ahead, or it is a hazard. If it is a benefit, it is not my problem. If it is a hazard or does not serve the purpose that i want to see succeeding, then I throw it away and try something else.

[Max2147]

Any political system depends on the people in it and around it.

If you get the right dictator a dictatorship is great. Ataturk is probably the best 20th century example. He fast-tracked Turkey out of the Ottoman stagnation and into the modern world. He basically ruled by decree, and the country was better off for it because it allowed him to do a lot more than he ever could have done in a democratic system. As one of my professors once said, he was incredibly difficult to work with because he thought he was always right, but it was okay because he WAS always right.

The problem is that the vast majority of dictators aren't cut from that cloth. They think they're always right, but they're not. The Shah of Iran is a great example - he thought he was Iran's Ataturk, but he wasn't half the man Ataturk was. So instead of bringing Iran into the modern world he provoked a revolution.

The nice thing about a democracy is that it's less dependent on finding that perfect leader, because the checks and balances curb everybody's authority. It also allows you to get rid of an ineffective leader easily. But it requires an educated, engaged, and informed electorate to function properly.

I'd argue that the American democracy is not the most effective in the world right now, mostly due to high levels of apathy. There are several countries around the world that have healthier democracies than the United States.