Thread: Iranian Presidential elections, '09

Originally Posted by Panda

For once I agree with you.


The hypocritical "sugar coated" part to deceive the US voters into thinking this is a war of good verses evil, rather than just a greedy grab to exploit the people of some less fortunate nations for their natural resources is what I object to most. The Chinese government doest have to lie to its people and pretend its expanding its own economic interests at some other countries expense as USA does. At least the Chinese are honest about their foreign interests and motives. The US governments hype about freedom and democracy globally is nothing more than propaganda to deceive the very gullible US voters into backing their illicit international activities which involve suppression and control of poorer nations.

I doubt very much that you agree with me "for once".

I see American behaviour in this context as normal for powerful nations throughout history and at the present time.

I see the constant emphasis on "democracy and freedom" as sugar-coating for electoral and diplomatic purposes, but like all good sugar-coating it contains more than a grain of truth. The number of democratic states functioning worldwide at the moment is directly attributable to the dominance of the USA since WWII. To say that it is "nothing more than propaganda" is to ignore reality in a way that goes far beyond "sugar coating". It is downright "French".

"Suppression and control of poorer nations" is what powerful nations do. On balance, the way the US has conducted itself in this vein over the past century or so makes just about every other powerful nation in history look really bad.

Apparently, you would like to believe that living in a world dominated by a refreshingly "honest" nation like China would be preferable to living in the world shaped by the American hegemony over the past 6 decades. It isn't just American voters who are gullible.

^ The era we are shifting into now will be multipolar, with no single country or alliance having hegemony. It will breed it's own challenges of course, but also will mean the US will no longer have to spend (or be able to spend) 50% of the worlds total defence expenditure. I actually think this will be a good thing for the USA and it's people, this 'global policeman' stuff was always crap.

Originally Posted by Panda

One does have to wonder if Obama would endorse massive and sometimes violent street protests (burning buses etc...) as an expression of the will of the people if it happened in USA and against his own government?

Good point, but it also reminds me of the illegal activities of the reds, which incidentally you were supporting despite the government being "legally" representative of the people. I guess, Obama is not the only one with double standard.

Originally Posted by sabang

I actually think this will be a good thing for the USA and it's people, this 'global policeman' stuff was always crap.

The supporters of the American military hegemony are always threatening to take their bat and ball and go home if they dont get their own way.

But its not just the threat of military invasion or withdrawal of military protection that USA uses to manipulate other countries governments. There is also the stick and the carrot of trade sanctions or on the other hand, favourable trade agreements to reward subservient foreign governments. And of course for the poorer nations there is the matter of foreign aid money on which they become dependant and which the US can cut off if such a nation declines to be subservient to US interests.

During the lead up to the Iraq invasion I vividly remember that fat pig of a man, Richard Armitage (then US Dep. Ass. Sec. of state), appearing on Australian TV threatening that USA "might have to rethink" their military alliance with Australia if Australians did not support their push for war against Iraq in the UN. There were many other overt instances of coercion by USA both militarily and economically, used by USA with the intent of corrupting the honest vote in the UN at that time.

As someone else posted earlier, USA does not have allies. It has strategic partners in its own interest.

Yea, the worlds policeman has been a corrupt bastard acting primarily in his own financial interests, (not so unlike what we see from the corrupt Thai police force).
But then again, in the big school playground, who could we trust to be more honest? Certainly not Russia or China. It seems like we are stuck with the American corrupt world police for the time being and their replacements might be a lot worse.

The saddest part about this whole evolution in world power is that USA has now peaked, and while they had the opportunity to bring about a more fair and just world order they choose to blow that chance in the name of greedy self interest.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

It's odd how the neocons are backing the very same man to overthrow Iran that organized the Barrack bombings of the 80s that killed 220 or so US marines in Lebanon.

It's good to see that someone has managed to climb out of the Memory Hole created by the Western press. From former Ronald Reagan government official Paul Craig Roberts:

"Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who served as prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran from 1981 to 1989, the decade following the overthrow of the American puppet government by Khomeini, has been fingered as the Butcher of Beirut, responsible for the bloody attacks on the US embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut during the Reagan administration that blew to pieces 241 US Marines, Sailors, and Army troops.

According to Jeff Stein writing in the June 22, 2009, CQ Politics, Mousavi “personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur,” who presided over the terror cell responsible for the attacks.

The National Security Agency had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, according to Admiral James Lyons who was deputy chief of Naval Operations at the time. Admiral Lyons told Jeff Stein that “the Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target US personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a ‘spectacular action’ against the Marines.”

Stein reports that Lyons “also fingered Mousavi for the 1988 truck bombing of the US Navy’s Fleet Center in Naples, Italy.”

Bob Baer, a CIA Middle East field officer at the time, says that Mousavi “dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah,” the person responsible for both attacks.

All of these facts have gone into the Memory Hole. The US media and government have turned Musavi, the bloody butcher of US servicemen, into the would-be liberator of Iran from theocracy.

Only in America and in George Orwell’s fictional population in his predictive book, 1984, can we find such citizen ignorance.

Every day in America, a.k.a. Oceania, we see the growing power of Big Brother’s three slogans: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

From ignorance comes the strength to create a hero out of America’s terrorist enemy, Mousavi."

Ignorance is Strength – Paul Craig Roberts « Dprogram.net

so American conservatives are not only promoting domestic terrorism, but also supporting ME terrorists who were directly responsible for the killing of US soldiers ? you couldn't make that shit up,

I bet Jet has a cute and sensible answer for all this

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Panda

One does have to wonder if Obama would endorse massive and sometimes violent street protests (burning buses etc...) as an expression of the will of the people if it happened in USA and against his own government?

Good point, but it also reminds me of the illegal activities of the reds, which incidentally you were supporting despite the government being "legally" representative of the people. I guess, Obama is not the only one with double standard.

As you well know there Butterfly, the "legally " appointed government in Thailand would not survive a general election where the will of the people were allowed to decide who governs instead of the corrupt courts. While the current "legally" appointed government is technically within the law, it is certainly not the will of the people under a democratic system. Hence Abhists greatest fear of some day having to face the people of Thailand in a general election.

^ sure, but what if the people were to decide to have a corrupt leader instead ? how would it be different ? Democracy is not only about election or the people choice, which is a very narrow view of Democracy and a very simplistic view. It's also about balance of power and counter balance, like the judiciary and parliament. What do you do when Parliament and the PM is chosen by a corrupted election process ? how does it make it better for Democracy ?

Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo

"Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who served as prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran from 1981 to 1989, the decade following the overthrow of the American puppet government by Khomeini, has been fingered as the Butcher of Beirut, responsible for the bloody attacks on the US embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut during the Reagan administration that blew to pieces 241 US Marines, Sailors, and Army troops.

Not surprising at all.
As someone pointed out earlier--- USA does not have allies, it has strategic partners in their own self interest.

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin-Laden were once American allies too.
As I am sure Hitler and Hirohito could have become too had they not been so foolish as to attack American interests.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and real politik trandcends media mudslinging.

Gerry Adams?

It may be a photoshop but I still like it!

^ at least she is not hurling boots at him.

Nice disclaimer BTW.