Persian Smoke, Persian Fire?

"There is something resembling democracy afoot."
.
There is something resembling stupidity afoot.

Let's hope that no one here does the democracy movement in Iran a setback like Bush did.
.
But also remember, Joe, just because democracy takes place, it doesn't mean that the elected body will be an automatic US ally.
.
After all, look at Hamas. They got elected by a free and fair election*.
.
*As close to free and fair as one could get, given roadblocks, Israeli interference, and an unnecessary occupation.

Yeah 53_3, Hamas' election was "fair"--if "fair" means "reflect will of people", maybe, but where political parties use violence to solve problems (as both Hamas and Fatah do against each other), it's hard to call any outcome "fair".

Doesn't matter spob. I refer you to your own comment:
.
"reflect will of people"
.
That is all.

"There is something resembling democracy afoot."
-
Really Joe? That's an insanely moronic statement. Iran's been a democracy since the Revolution. They have free elections.
-
Now, Iran does sometimes disqualify people the Clerics don't like from running, but its not like they haven't had pro-western reformist presidents in the past. Like say, nine years ago before Mahmoud got elected. And yes, they have a Supreme Council in their constitution that can override anything else in defense of the faith.
-
There democracy is somewhat different in structure from ours, but that doesn't make it less democratic. Just like Britain having a prime minister and a King/Queen doesn't make them less democratic.
-
The disqualification of certain parties is about the only legitimate knock on Iranian democracy. Insinuating that the country doesn't have a strong democratic tradition is inaccurate and insulting. The longest period of non-democratic rule in Iran in modern times is strictly the result of the U.S. enabled Shah's rule.
-
Intellectual honesty Joe. Keep working on it.

"but where political parties use violence to solve problems"
.
Two words:
.
Glenn Beck.

53_3, so as long as the side who would have won anyway wins, it's all good. Ok, gotcha. Self-parody.
.
Sean DeC, your post must be sarcastic. While I agree that "democracy" does not encompass "rule of law", "civil rights" or anything like that (which is why people who only want "democracy" are fools), calling a system where people are beaten when they speak out "democratic" is just propaganda.

"53_3, so as long as the side who would have won anyway wins, it's all good."
.
It's ok spob. Really, it is.
.
Wanda said it all...

So what would your solution be, spob?
.
Let's see what you would have done to conduct that election in which Hamas won.

53_3, nice pivot. The bottom line is that you are arguing that an election where political parties engage in violence is a free and fair election. Wow.
.
I'm guessing that you think Palestinian Christians are not oppressed either.

More for the propaganda file:
.
http://www.alsumaria.tv/en/Iraq-News/1-31458-Pelosi-in-Iraq-for-enhancing-US-cooperation.html

Check out Pelosi's quote. Looks like some revisionist history there. In 2006, Pelosi wanted to end the war by pulling out, no matter what the Iraqis wanted. And Barack Obama thought that we should pull out even if genocide ensued.

spob:
.
I see. The "Party of No" isn't a just an empty statement, after all. Wazzup!
.
Joe:
.
I think Joe, that the mullahs did that at least in part because Bush maintained a constantly hostile and openly threatening posture.
.
Sure, one can point out inconsistencies like spob has, but when it comes to the bigger picture, one needs to keep an eye on the whole forest. The Bush administration is indirectly responsible for the polarization that has taken place in the ME and it's going to take calmer heads and a much stronger hand on the situation than Bush offered.
.
Now we have a situation where we have a nobody (Ahmadinejad) is driving the debate. If the mullahs are sensible (I hope they are), it doesn't show because for every forward step by Iran, Ahmadinejad regularly poisons the atmosphere with his rhetoric, and most people fail to see past the fact that he is a nobody.

53_3, not so fast. Defend your own statements. If you wanted to say that having imperfect, even unfair, elections was better than nothing, since it would express the will of the people, fine. But don't dress up the Palestinian elections as some example of "free and fair" elections. They weren't.
.
pwned.

If the Iranian President is just a PR puppet for the Supreme Leader and the Mullahs are we not investing too much significance into the outcome of the elections? I just think about how long the Vatican effectively ruled southern Europe in the middle ages and despair at the chance of there being significant change in Iran as the result of an election.

Joe,
-
Thanks for the reply. I'd say "results that surprise the powerful" are about as sure of a sign of a functioning democracy as is possible. I know the list barring in 2005 altered the results by keeping most of the strong reformer types off the ballot, and you're right to point that out.
-
But Iran has an organized reformist political apparatus, and Khatami isn't running this year because there are other reformer candidates that he thinks have a better shot than himself. These are all the kinds of things that happen in mature(ing) democracies.
-
Iran only got rid of its U.S. imposed dictator thirty years ago. A lot of the shenanigans that went on during the first fifty years of American politics gets ignored now, but what's happened in Iran so far in terms of tilting elections is definitely within those limits.
-
I think we have a fundamental disagreement here where you see democracy = western democracy, and I see democracy = will of the people. Most Iranians - even the big youth population that wants music and dancing and wears makeup and tight jeans - are very religious and conservative by American standards. They can't imagine a legal structure in Iran not informed by Islam anymore than we can imagine a legal structure in America not informed by Christianity. (and by that I mean common law, which was built up through cases by english judges in the middle ages and renaissance, and frequently cited theology in its decisions.)

Joe,

I was very heartened to see this news today. Any info on what role U.S. diplomacy played in the release of Saberi? I ask because it seems to me that the Obama admin is quietly putting together several small, but important foreign policy victories, not the least of which is getting Pakistan to reengage in the Swat Valley.

Sean DeC, you shouldn't really talk about our legal system. It's patently obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

Agree with Sean D above. Per his cabal, Joe speaks arrogantly about a lack of true democracy in Iran, without acknowledging history or context. Something happened in '53, I forget exactly what. Does that mean he can't condemn shortfalls in Iranian democracy today--no, and, yes. IMO, ignoring the US' longtime role in negating democratic movements in much of the world makes him sound like a flaming hypocrite.
~
NOT TO F'ING MENTION the US in 2000--Gore by 500,000+ in the popular vote. Or Durbin's recent contention that bankers own the US senate. Yes, let's export US "democracy," let's lecture the world about our system's righteousness, where the parasites that have destroyed the nation are receiving truckloads of taxpayer $.

I have some issues with Joe's characterization of Israel as a true democracy, with their steps to strip citizenship from disloyal Arab citizens and not letting Arab parties run. Not to mention the ongoing disenfranchisement of the rights of the Palestinian people within Israel's ever-shifting and ill-defined borders.
.
I am also experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance of Israel as a Jewish State being characterized as a "true democracy" whereas Islamic States are not permitted to be characterized as "true democracies." The Jews in Iran can vote right?