Not too long ago, 2000 to be exact we had a jackass steal an election (go watch Recount on HBO if you want a narrative) and we really didn't do shit about it. So all Americans, not just those that voted for the dumbshit named W are partially to blame for the destruction that took place over 8 years. Iran is a much different story. People are protesting the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because it is quite apparent to them that he stole the election. Many Iranians have decided that they are not going to stand for it and have taken to the streets to risk their lives in protest. Obviously there is a difference between our lives and the restrictions placed on Iranians, but the extreme difference in the two reactions is enigmatic.
Some Americans think that the President has not been forceful enough in his rhetoric about the situation. Ironically it's many of those same Americans who are mostly to blame for the fact that we are hamstrung in Iraq and unable to fully pressure Iran and North Korea. I would like to see the UN Security Council step in but 2 of the 5 permanent members, each having veto power, are Russia and China which are highly unlikely to agree to sanctions on Iran. The other 3 permanent members are the United States, France and the United Kingdom. Iranian analysts who have already left the country are backing claims that the election was a fraud. There are more votes than voters, family members of those speaking out are being arrested, demonstrators are being hospitalized.
Could this lead to worldwide support of tougher sanctions on Iran?
How much worse does it have to get in Iran before it will get better?
(There are already strict sanctions imposed on Iran making life for citizens difficult)
Any chance Russia or China is critical?
1. Yes, it's clear that the election was stolen (at the best), and possibly rigged from jump street.
ReplyDelete2. I don't know if this would lead to additional sanctions because alot of folks are scared of pissing off both Iran and Iraq causing a mobilzed "Islamic" revolution state. I feel this has been hyperoble, but alas that's how alot of our leaders have acted in the past.
i don't think we will see alot of countries try to do somethinga bout this...plenty of elections have been rigged and stolen and we don't get involved in those...not to mention the countries that don't even have a elections (let's overthrow dictators and military coups before we do something to countries that at least pretend to be democratic)....representative democracies ain't for everyone....
ReplyDeleteCorrection on your statement, America does get involved in rigged elections when they stand to benefit. Point in case, U.S in the Nicaraguan election, the illegal over throw of Venezualian president Chavez when he kicked out a bunch of U.S. oil companies. America has a long history of perturbing foreign elections, covertly, to impose their democratic ideologies on other natioins.
ReplyDeleteCheck the article out on this...
------------------------------
Written from a pro-Sandinista perspective, this study documents, analyzes and indicts U.S. involvement in the 1990 Nicaraguan elections, in which the Sandinista revolutionary movement lost and accepted its defeat. Arguing against the conventional view that the United States and other international observers assured the fairness of the electoral process, Robinson alleges that the U.S. role--public and private, overt and covert--in fact constituted unwarranted, manipulative interference in Nicaragua's politics.
i speaking in pure numbers though....you are right---everyone has a say if it benefits them....but i think vietnam (and korea to some extent) kinda humbled us a bit....there must be 2 factors in order for us to intrude. (1) when there is something to gain (like oil) and (2) WE BELIEVE THE COST WILL BE LOW (the vietnam factor). (2) is code for fear factor basically. if those circumstances are met we use the "America will not stand by and allow another hitler to do what he wills", even when it really doesn't apply.
ReplyDeletebut looking in general terms of conflicts that occur from overthrow and rigged elections, we do not enter that much....never in africa or the carribean mainly because item (2) (and 3rd item i won't mention) is not met. ignoring the african unrest alone keeps our percentage of OPEN, PUBLICIZED, overall intrusion low...
correction...we don't intrude in african affairs because of item (1)...the perception of nothing to gain...there has to be an interruption in the flow of resources you hope to gain after conflict...in many cases in africa unrest the "haves" continue to enjoy and the reap the flow of whatever material value such nation has regardless of the power struggle within...with some of those other cases in which we have intruded there is a threat to our perceived safety or to the common commercial relationship we have currently if person x is in power...
ReplyDeletealso countries that once were powerful become increasingly nuetral as their reign of world super power approaches an end (see italy, france, spain, germany and even the uk)....as your influence dwindles you will flex muscle less and less....
Ok, point well taken
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if the western world wants to get involved or not, as long as Russia and China prop up Iran in spite of sanctions change will be slow to come.
ReplyDeleteIt is more feasible for western governments to interfere in other country's politics when there is no other country trying to influence the same country.
well yeah that what i mean by world dominance coming to an end (or being on a decline)....that is a sign when you start caring about the "other" countries that said country may have on its side....or when countreis start ignoring your threats. that is when you know you are on the back slope of world super powerism....this may not be a bad thing but just something to consider and keep in mind....
ReplyDelete