So, the vast majority of comments from my first Do We Have the Right post seemed to indicate that you all thought that our glorious country had the right and the obligation to go into, and mess with, the system in Iran. Though I disagree with the logic behind this (being a student of poli-sci and all), I want to go ahead and harbor that thought and idea and extrapolate a bit, if you let me.
So, let's start this off by looking back at our own history. In 2000, one of the closest American presidential elections occurred. In Florida, there were twenty-some electoral votes up for grabs, and the two candidates, Vice President Albert Gore and Son-in-Chief George W. Bush, were fighting for the state. Whomever won Florida would win the election. Well, the results were in doubt, the courts were brought in, and eventually the Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment. Bush won. Frankly, he won fair and square.
Now, this is similar to the situation in Iran, but it has one big difference. In Florida, instead of wanting other countries to come in and do something about the fiasco, the American people wanted to let it work out via our own legal system, in accordance with the Constitution, and have no outside input. Frankly, had any country dared to question, or even imply, fraud we probably would have attacked them, or at least embargoed them (anybody want a Freedom Fry or Liberty Cabbage?). So, here we have the American people wanting our own country to solve our own problems. Why is it different in Iran?
See the hypocrisy yet?
Now, there are also others who want to "deal" with Iran because we believe that it is our duty to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world. For starters, we are not a democracy, and we have never been one. We are a republic, and arguably, an oligarchy. A democracy is unlimited rule by the people, a republic is rule under a constitution. Big difference.
Anyway, people are arguing that it is our job to ensure that these ideals are available to people around the world. While this sounds all nice and dandy, let's take a quick look at some of our major allies:
- Italy – The Roma people are persecuted and banned from several public places
- Britain – She spies on all of her people
- Iraq – They make a Constitution forbidding ex post facto and then try Saddam under laws they just created
- France – They are so secular that they are not allowed to wear headscarfs in schools
- Germany – try saying 88, HH, or the 14 words without going to jail
- Israel – ignoring the fact that the only reason we like this country is that it is needed for the Apocalypse, the government is removing and destroying an entire people
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dan(Miller)
I'm very happy to learn that what's happening now in Iran is about the same as what happened in Florida a few years back. I had feared that it was quite different. Now that it's been explained, I understand: the mere handful of Iranians demonstrating and getting jailed, killed and that sort of thing are just having fun complaining about hanging chads* and the Iranian courts will produce a result in which someone will win "fair and square."
I was a bit concerned about "human rights" and such nonsense, but now I can just sit around content in the knowledge that it's just a harmless spectacle presented for my amusement.
Gosh golly! That fella Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sure is one cool dude! Iran is lucky to have him fully in charge.
*Chad is a very popular name in Iran, I understand.
Dan(Miller)
2 - Dan(Miller)
I sure am glad this article before I read this. Otherwise, I might have been unprepared to understand what fools some Iranians can be.
Thanks much!
Dan(Miller)
3 - roger nowosielski
I totally concur. Now that we're absolutely certain that no human rights have been violated - except for voting irregularities here and there, but that's no biggie because if it can happen in USA, it can happen anywhere - we can retire to our living rooms and watch the spectacle unfold, knowing full well that no real harm has been done.
I'd sure hope to see the repeat of the Tribe-Olsen argument before the Supreme Court. Now, that was entertainment. Perhaps the Iranian National Television will broadcast the proceedings on cable.
4 - roger nowosielski
Dan (Miller),
Concerning the link in #2, it brings to mind Orhan Pamuk's"Snow." Though fiction, it's a hell of an account of the ways that elections are systematically being rigged (in this case, in Turkey) not only through "conventional" means but such tactics as intimidation and terror.
5 - El Bicho
"I want to go ahead and harbor that thought and idea and extrapolate a bit, if you let me."
I'll pass. You have completely misinterpreted what the majority of comments were saying, and appear to lazy have done the simplest of research to learn FL had 25 votes at the time.
Considering how off base you were in Part 1, it doesn't bode well for me to bother with the rest of this.
6 - Clavos
See the hypocrisy yet?
Actually, no. I don't.
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines hypocrisy thus:
hypocrisy
• noun (pl. hypocrisies) the practice of claiming to have higher standards or beliefs than is the case.
Nothing you describe fits that definition.
7 - roger nowosielski
Good call. The popular opinion, though, is - a discrepancy between action and speech.
Care to elaborate?
8 - STM
When will Americans, even educated ones who should know better, stop this hair-splitting nonsense about America not being a democracy.
True, it's not a democracy in the ancient Greek sense, but the term is now in common usage for countries like America and Britain (one a republic with a constitution, the other a constitutional monarchy, which have near-identical political systems - in function at least, if not form - and laws and lifestyles).
Both are what are aptly described - in the modern sense - by even the most biased commentators as "modern liberal democracies".
That's because that is essentially what they are. So in that sense, America is indeed a democracy.
Robert - for what's it's worth, you lost me at that point. But a lot of the rest of it is wrong too.
As for the British spying on their people, it's a fallacy. They use CCTV cameras in town centres, railway stations and airports to keep and eye on criminals and would-be terrorists. Traffic police also use in-car devices to stop lawbreakers who think it's OK to drive without insurance and motor-vehicle registration while everyone else obeys the law.
They still can't walk into your house or tap your phone without a warrant.
I don't live in the UK, but given their track record of using CCTV to help solve crimes, including the London terror attacks, I wouldn't have a problem with it if I did.
There are strict laws on how the police can use the images and if you're not doing anything wrong - like breaking a law - they don't give you a second look.
It's not that different bit to every store, bus station, airport, and police car or what have you in the US that has a CCTV camera recording the action.
Also, the US is the only country in the world that demands fingerprints and biometric information from every visitor.
I for one don't trust the US government to have that stuff on file, but what choice do you have?
Once again, you've bought into the dangerous myth of American exceptionalism.
US police and law enforcement agencies in my experience are among those in the developed world MOST likely to deny a person their rights, one way or the other - if they think they can get away with it.
And just remember, it's not that long ago that black couldn't sit in the same restaurant as whites in somwe states.
It took nearly 200 years for the good intentions set down in the constitution to catch up to reality in the US when it came to rights for ALL Americans.
It still isn't totally there.
9 - STM
IMO, proliferation of firearms (legal, which also leads to a proliferation of illegal weapons), the death penalty, the treatment of prisoners in America's jails (punishment and revenge rather than rehabilitation), the trying of far too many juveniles as adults and the decision to suspend due process and habeas corpus in some cases are also serious indictments on the current state of American society.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't be tough on many of those issues, especially crime, but the extremes now in operation in regards to some make you look every bit as bad as places like Iran.
Take the blinkers off and look at yourselves seriously.
10 - STM
And yes, back to topic, the US has every right to expect that Iran changes its stance on a whole range of issues, especially with the olive branch being offered, although right now its people seem to be doing a reasonable job of making that call for themselves judging by what's being reported out of Teheran this week.
However, until that all changes, Iran remains a rogue state given to sabre rattling under its present dictatorship (yes, it is ... Ayatollah Khameinei pretty much has absolute power and is unelected - Ahmadinejad is his puppet) and a serious and paranoid threat to world peace and wellbeing.
11 - Robert M. Barga
@1
human rights is addressed by point #2 of the article,
try again
12 - Robert M. Barga
@3
yet again, i handled the whole issue of rights and if we should consider interfereing with their system of resolving this
13 - Robert M. Barga
@6
don't try to insult me, definition of hypocrisy.
14 - Robert M. Barga
@8
the term democracy started to be used for america during the cold war when we didnt want to be associated with the 'republics' that were commies. We are not a democracy on any official form, and lable ourselves as a republic at the UN
Don't go all detockville on me with american exceptionalisim
And i believe that the country should work it out the way we did (with laws and struggles), not because some bigger country showed up
15 - Robert M. Barga
@9
i hate all of those thigns too
16 - Robert M. Barga
@10
why do we have the right to interfere with another country?
17 - Jeannie Danna
I agree totally with your article and you Robert!
Why does the United States Senate Believe that they should interfere with all matters all around the world while not taking care of the matter at hand, Our own domestic crisis. health care ? [I added health care:)]Ask most people accept the politicians and the media, some of it, "Should we let Iran be?" the answer is a resounding, "YES!"
It is "big money" that controls all of us and
I don't believe we will ever get out from under it's oppressing big thumb...
18 - Jeannie Danna
we are not a democracy, and we have never been one. We are a republic, and arguably, an oligarchy. A democracy is unlimited rule by the people, a republic is rule under a constitution. Big difference.We should try to make the constitution work for the people shouldn't we? ALL THE PEOPLE EQUALY?
19 - Clavos
The US is not exceptional. Not when compared to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Israel (especially), etc.
Oh, and BTW:
The OED trumps M-W any day of the week -- twice on weekends, as any English major can tell you.
20 - STM
Robert: "the term democracy started to be used for america during the cold war".
Perhaps it was used in that period, but that is not the whole of the story Robert, as it was also used a lot prior to that.
Most famously, FDR used it liberally during WWII, describing the US as the great arsenal of democracy and Britain as the spearhead of resistance to world conquest. He was talking about the US as a democracy in the modern sense. In fact, one city of the US -Detroit - happily took up that mantle even after the US entered the war.
Woodrow Wilson also went before Congress in 1917 to argue his position for US entry to the Great War, using the words: "Making the world safe for democracy". He obviously meant the US, and also made liberal use of the term.
I would imagine many other US presidents have used it as well.
Democracy in the modern sense simply doesn't mean the same as it does in the ancient Greek sense ... the key: the notion of modern, liberal western democracy doesn't preclude either a republic under a constitution like the US or a constitutional monarchy like Australia, Canada or the UK (to name but a few that readily fit the moniker).
Today, it's splitting hairs, semantics - call it what you will - to try to debunk that idea. I don't really understand why Americans do it, to be honest.
The US as an entity has always been a liberal democracy in the modern sense, right from the moment of its birth, and always will be as long as nothing changes.
And given that the US was founded upon and operates under rule of law, I don't see it changing any time soon despite its (not insurmountable) problems.
However, letting everyone else in the world do whatever they like whilst the US sits back and sticks its head in the sand is a recipe for real disaster.
That kind of isolationism caused all kinds of dramas in the lead up to WWII and would have caused all kinds of dramas during the Cold War had the Soviets been allowed to run unchecked (even the Vietnam War held Soviet expanisionism in check to a certain extent because it indicated to the Soviets that the US would be decisive enough to act if needed).
Remember, too, this modern world is a world largely of US making, so it also has responsibilities and obligations that stretch way beyond the borders of the US and affect citizens of many other nations other than its own.
So, yes, the US should be telling this Iranian regime where to get off. They DO represent a genuine danger, and not just to US interests.
21 - STM
FDR's references to democracy are well-documented, but Wilson's seem less well-known among Americans.
Woodrow Wilson's speech in part: " ... It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilisation itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts " for DEMOCRACY, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free."
22 - Dave Nalle
The main problem with your thesis here is that no one credible in the US is actually advocating direct unilateral US intervention in the Iranian election. Multinational oversight? Sure. UN involvement? Why not. Public pressure? Absolutely. But the US going in there and solving their problems doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda so you're addressing an issue which seems not to exist.
Dave
23 - STM
Yep, you're right there Dave.
That's not happening, nor does there seem any chance of that happening. Besiodes, would the US really want another Iraq? Don't think so.
Maybe Robert is taking straw polls from what he's hearing on campus or around the traps (and I don't mean that to be derogatory). I don't know how Americans are viewing this as I'm not in the US gauging anyone's feelings, but I'd wager London to a brick no one actually wants unilateral action, military or otherwise - and I'd say that applies especially the US government.
But does the US have a right to express its disquiet?
Of course it does.
24 - Deano
I'm sensing some basic confusion over how international politics works..."right" has nothing to do with it. International law and practical convenience recognize that states have a "right" of sovereignty - nominally what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas, if I can use a bit of a metaphor. As a nation-state you have sovereign control over your territory and population - the long standing "right of Kings".
However in practice your ability to assert sovereignty is limited by the practical impact of your internal capabilities, your neighbors interests and the international community in general. I could personally claim "sovereignty" over territories I could manifestly not have any overt control over, a "right" that noone recognized or attributed as valid. In short sovereign rights end whenever someone else's interests intercede.
It all comes down to capabilities and interests. Typically nation states have a wide range of interests - security (of territory, of populace, of political control), economic stability, trade, etc. In the international sphere, nation-states have developed a wide range of practices and approaches that formulate the basics of international law and international sovereignty. I am assuming that when you carp about having no "right" to interfere in other nation-states, this is what you are referring to - the right of a sovereign national to manage its own internal affairs without interference or outside intervention.
On the practical side (and most international law is so loosely developed as a practice, so the practical side tends to win out) it is not nor has it ever been absolute. Nations do not exist in a vacuum but rather as groups, often in opposition, often in open or covert conflict over their interests.
The primary measurement of what is legal in international law is what you get away with.
To pretend that the Iranian election and the crackdown on Iranian opposition has no external impact and is a matter that the outside world has no comment or say on is, well, bluntly, poorly reasoned. Iran has a geographic proximity to a key resource area that impacts on a significant portion of the world's energy supply. It has been governed for the past 30 years by a theocratic, anti-western government that has a paper-thin veneer to its democratic elections. It regularly uses the western nations as an excuse to repress its own population, is guilty of significant and ongoing human rights violation and outright murdered the family of someone I went to school with.
It has exported and funded terrorist factions and is now working towards developing nuclear weapon capabilities....
So feel free to argue whether the US should intervene or comment on or ignore the events in Iran, but don't pretend that the sovereign right of nations is anything sancrosanct. There is no "right" just what nations can, can't, will or won't do in pursuit of their interests and capabilities.
25 - Michael Petrick
Dave gets it right:
"The main problem with your thesis here is that no one credible in the US is actually advocating direct unilateral US intervention in the Iranian election. Multinational oversight? Sure. UN involvement? Why not. Public pressure? Absolutely. But the US going in there and solving their problems doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda so you're addressing an issue which seems not to exist."
That was why people were disagreeing with your first post. Not because "the vast majority of comments from my first Do We Have the Right post seemed to indicate that you all thought that our glorious country had the right and the obligation to go into, and mess with, the system in Iran."
The vast majority of posts DIDN'T ARGUE THAT. Please learn to read people's comments carefully and seriously. You entirely misread my first comment - in addition to many other people's rather precise and clear arguments. I don't think the issue is that we're all poor writers. I think you're not seeing, or not bothering to see the distinctions we're making.