nickie on 20/6/2009 at 13:22

---

Well, for those who were wondering, I've heard that our wandering mission author is fine but things are a little 'busy' at the moment.

demagogue on 20/6/2009 at 13:38

---

Just a note to let our friends know we're thinking about them and concerned about what's going on.

Re: "sovereignty".

In international legal theory the way it usually plays out is 'sovereignty is as sovereignty does' ... that is, the sovereignty of a country gets treated with respect by other countries (in practice, whatever they say) just to the extent it behaves like a responsible, sovereign state; and that's a very minimum standard.

Doesn't matter what type of gov't they have ... China, the USSR back in the day, and Cuba get that kind of respect because they can keep their basic international obligations and treat other states decently. But Iran and North Korea often get lumped into the pariah-state category because they (have a reputation to) toss out the rules of basic respect for the sovereignty of other countries and can't keep their basic obligations; so they shouldn't be surprised when those other countries find it hard to fully respect their's back, on the things that the pariah states have already opened the door to. Iran has a reputation for regularly violating its basic international obligations, interfering in the internal affairs of its Arab neighbors, and supporting anti-gov't terrorist groups in those states, to say nothing of actively promoting the annihilation of another sovereign state. And the outcome of this election isn't neutral on those issues, I think.

SD brings up actually a slightly different point, which is that at this point in history democracy has become a basic human right, and to deny the democratic voice to a people is a human rights violation that everybody has a reason to be concerned about, to say nothing of the abuses of its public on the side. That doesn't automatically give a right for anyone to interfere -- the responsibility is still the state's -- but it is a kind of universal wrong that other states don't have to feel neutral in having an opinion or responding in their field of influence.

Then there's a third idea being brought up here, which is realpolitik strategy. Even once you know the rules, you still have to pick a good strategy -- So even if there were some wiggle room to interfere in Iran or take a softer approach, you might not want to for strategic reasons (what Obama seems to be doing). Or even if you insisted there weren't room to interfere, you might find it imperative to do something for your own survival (though those situations are probably going to be covered by self-defense norms), or more soft-opposition short of internal interference (what you guys are terming "not playing into the hands of the regime"), things like forming a public opinion, or public signs of disapproval. That's a live debate.

Edit: On that, the US has long had a policy of prejudiced neglect to pariah states, let them do their crap as long as they aren't risking the stability of other states or regional stability, and just to the extent they are do we get involved (Iran & NKoera's nuclear program). So "not playing into the hands of the regime" isn't something the US is going to care much about, especially since from the US perspective both candidates are intolerable from a liberal democratic stance. Since there doesn't seem to be any chance for real liberal democratic reform here, the US is content to take its hands off and not push one side or another (esp since the "other" side may likely win this in the end, then the US has to deal with that gov't). Then there's the point that it would probably only inflame the situation for the US to get involved, but the cutting edge to that point is still 'it risks making things worse, without any potential for gain to US or liberal democratic interests', so there's no motivation. I'm just reciting US strategic thinking.

For civil society, they have good reasons to be more vocal in support of the protesters, because sometimes even the appearance (even illusion) of liberal democratic yearnings has a halo effect (cf the Helsinki Treaty in the USSR). But part of that point is that the halo effect appears brighter when it isn't sullied by anything that appears improper. As I have read things, most normal Iranians have a good opinion of America and Americans and trust them, just not its gov't policy where there's distrust (and even then, their understanding of US policy), but anyway, the point is the halo effect might be sullied if it were coming from the US government, but shines brighter when it's coming from US civil society. And I think the Obama adminstration feels that too; let civil socity shout its strong disapproval and insistence on democratic norms for him. It will have more impact, and him getting involved might only risk dulling that.

Ixitixl on 20/6/2009 at 16:44

---

Yes. We, as in individuals, should be giving them help if we can. However, elevate that to "our country should assist them" and I'll strongly disagree with you.

Many times have countries meddled into the affairs of other countries, and it almost never leads to a good result. Take the most obvious example of today, the USA - the famed "world policeman". The land of the free and home of the brave, enacting its mission in the world by liberating oppressed countries and bringing democracy. Heh heh.

So, when the USA invades a country, or replaces its government with a more "democratical" one, they do it for the good of the people, right? They remove all sorts of horrid dictators etc.

For instance, in Iraq. So we had Saddam Hussein, who as we all know was a dictator who did some pretty bad stuff to his people, not to mention supporting terrorists. But that's strange - actually, from what I've heard/seen, Saddam did not endorse muslim fanatics - in fact, they hated his guts. Saddam's quasi-socialism and the islamic extremism associated with terrorists didn't exactly go hand in hand... oh, and his relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the land where religious doctrine was the law, weren't exactly rosy either - in fact, as soon as he came to power Iraq and Iran went into a war that lasted for 9 years. This doesn't seem like a grand supporter of terrorists to me :erm:

But even if he didn't actually support Al-Qaeda & co, he did kill and torture his own people on a regular basis - we can all agree on that. So do dozens of countries all over the world - there are tons of dictatorships all around the world. For instance, there are a whole bunch of such nasties in Africa, and they're even not militarily powerful. IMO, the USA (or whoever) could liberate half of Africa without too much sweat. So why don't they? Why go just after Iraq, and not so many others?

Well, the main answer is - I'm sure everyone heard it so many times - oil. Africa just doesn't have it, or anything of great worth that the US of A needs and doesn't already have. Oh, and I suggest you ask your regular normal Iraqi how they feel about being liberated. Now the country is in a constant state of civil war, and every day a person comes out of their home in the morning there's a high probability they won't make it back. During Saddam's reign at least there was peace, and you could go to school without having to dodge bullets and rapists. How free the Iraqis are!

The point - America, or just about any other similar country, doesn't give a rat's ass about liberty, democracy, human rights and justice. No, the only thing they (or, to be more precise, their governments / ruling groups) care about is their own behind. Their economic or political gain.

Who cares about some backwater country with no natural resources? It will get ignored. Sure, from time to time some caring people will remember that what's happening there is wrong. The government will then lament how bad that is, send a note of protest, perhaps even send some aid in medicine or food. Because they care for the people? No. It's because that will bring them votes as they'll appear to be the good guys. And they'll only do as much as they really need to for that purpose, and not an iota more.

I grew up in the Balkans, and this taught me an important thing - politicians (at least those who ever get to have any real power) and tycoons don't care. The political elite will only help you for as much as is necessary to further their own goals, or maybe the goals of their group. And if it's in their advantage to step over people's rights or to impoverish them, then they will unhesitatingly do so. If you're a moral person, you'll always stay marginal and never become a part of the political elite. They won't let you. Such is the case in the Balkans, in the rest of Europe, in the USA and elsewhere.

So, who could be a good 'world policeman'? I think nobody. The best candidates are probably the most civilized, normal countries - New Zealand, Australia, Scandinavia, maybe Canada and Germany... but even they would not be up to the task, as there will always be politicians/tycoons/criminals/nutjobs who will unwaveringly ruin everything. As for the USA's place on the candidate list... I would put it very low. The number of US interventions worldwide is staggering, and I find it difficult to name one which had a positive result for the people being 'liberated' (even the US involvements in WWI&II are dubious).


And Iran... this may have started as an internal matter, rather than meddling from outside, but that won't stay so for long. Iran has the unfortunate position of geographically being smack in the middle between a whole bunch of world powers - China, Russia, Israel and the USA (which gets everywhere), and at the same time lying on a sea of oil. Even now, their involvement is plainly obvious: Ahmadinejad is backed by Russia and China, while Mousavi has the support of Israel and (silently) USA. Russia and China try to keep things as they are (in their favour), while Israel and the US aim to weaken Iran in any way possible, thus undermining a country which is hostile towards their interests. To the governments of these countries, this is not about freedom for Iranian people... it's about geopolitical influence, resources and boosting popularity in their home countries. :(

Now, whenever a war, rebellion or coup happens somewhere in the world, I ask myself:
1) what's in it for Uncle Sam?
2) what's in it for large companies based in the USA, but operating in this country?
3) what's in it for Vladimir Putin?
4) what's in it for China, Israel, Saudi Arabia...
5) what sort of personal gain is there for the local warlords?


Freedom, liberty, democracy, compassion, "in God we trust", "land of the free", "Bog i Hrvati", invading others to protect ourselves or even to protect them from themselves, "serving your country" - blah, all a load of crap. The only thing that really matters is who gets the biggest slice of the cake. :grr:

fett on 20/6/2009 at 18:48

---

Post more.





Edit: Also, Starrfall is the most consistently intelligent person on these boards and the rest of us are retards. :p

SubJeff on 21/6/2009 at 01:30

---

I've had a look and there is a vid of a young woman dying from a gunshot wound to the chest and another one supposedly of basij shooting into the crowd but you can't tell what happened in the 1st vid as it starts of with the woman down and the other one is too unclear.

I'm not saying it didn't happen (and in all likelyhood it did) but its just not that clear atm. What is clear is that protesters are being shot at and it looks like this could run and run and it could be Revolution 2.