Iranians are stocking up on candy and flowers with which to bestrew invading US troops, according to Thomas Friedman who says “many young people apparently hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq.”. His evidence for this proposition is the following
Oddly enough, when I last visited America, I met plenty of people who “love anything their government hates,” and assured me that the kind of thing I saw on Fox was not really the way most Americans felt. They didn’t feel able to confess to me that they were longing for the arrival of a Franco-German liberation army, but no doubt if I’d had the benefit of an Oxford education, I would have been able to detect their eagerness for an invasion, civil war and so on.n Oxford student who had just returned from research in Iran told me that young Iranians were “loving anything their government hates,” such as Mr. Bush, “and hating anything their government loves.” Tehran is festooned in “Down With America” graffiti, the student said, but when he tried to take pictures of it, the Iranian students he was with urged him not to. They said it was just put there by their government and was not how most Iranians felt.
Iran, he said, is the ultimate “red state.”
{ 79 comments }
m 01.20.05 at 11:29 am
The context in which the comment from the Pakistani student was placed is just as ridiculous. As an someone who has been back several times — the only thing less popular than the Mushareff govt. (because of his cooperation w/America) would be the American govt and George Bush.
I only hope some oxford students were trying to see how stupid freidman really is.
Matthew 01.20.05 at 11:44 am
It’s funny how this little table (or an equivalent) is rarely part of the endless Airmiles-type discussions about Iran…
conrad barwa 01.20.05 at 12:03 pm
Iranians are stocking up on candy and flowers with which to bestrew invading US troops, according to Thomas Friedman who says “many young people apparently hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq.â€
To be honest, as usual, there is some truth here which is lost in the typical TF over-reach. A lot of people, perhaps even the majority in Iran are deeply unhappy with their govt and its policies and would prefer a replacement; by some sort of political upheaval if necessary. It doesn’t follow from this that they (a) want the US to do via an armed military invasion and (b) would like the way any such invasion would be carried out once it was actually implemented. One would have thought that post-2004 this would have sunk into members of the chattering classes like TF, but obviously no.
Still you have to admire the sheer balls at work here; having only half finished a botch-job liberation in one country; already the next expansion of “the borders of the Free World†is being contemplated and rationalised.
Iran, he said, is the ultimate “red state.â€
There is an irony here that I think might have escaped the moustachioed one (I am not sure since I couldn’t see the link to the article and haven’t read it in its glorious entirety). In many ways Iran might resemble what a “red state†is usually used as shorthand for in that it would be a very religious society, with a particular interpretation of that religion and on the whole quite conservative on issues regarding gender, homosexuality etc. One could argue there also the same phenomena of class-based politics being subsumed by identity-based ones; that is so popular amongst some critiques of Rightwing ascendancy in the US (not an entirely accurate analogy but one which I guess might not have occurred to TF and even if it did, isn’t exactly reassuring).
but no doubt if I’d had the benefit of an Oxford education, I would have been able to detect their eagerness for an invasion, civil war and so on.
Ooooh, now this is a bit of a cheap shot!!! Friedman, from what I know, did a postgrad course at Oxford; given the time he would have been there and the way the latter institution is set up, this isn’t the most rigorous or exacting of qualifications or training one can undergo at this level. Still, it is baffling that some prominent dons are, in public at least, quite proud of his attendance there.
MFB 01.20.05 at 12:24 pm
The cheapest, quickest and most thorough way of rescuing an unpopular, despotic government’s public opinion rating is to have the United States government start trying to overthrow it.
Works every time.
John Quiggin 01.20.05 at 12:43 pm
Conrad, I wasn’t referring to TF’s own education but to his source for the story.
Adrian 01.20.05 at 12:58 pm
“Oddly enough, when I last visited America, I met plenty of people who “love anything their government hates,†and assured me that the kind of thing I saw on Fox was not really the way most Americans felt. ”
…and how many of those people risked being tortured to death for expressing such views?
Andrew Brown 01.20.05 at 1:02 pm
Only the muslim ones. Next!
Jeremy Osner 01.20.05 at 1:02 pm
Conrad — nice catch wrt “red state”.
dsquared 01.20.05 at 1:07 pm
Airmiles doesn’t seem to realise that:
“many young people apparently hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq”
would be two requests, not one. If I was a young Iranian, I think that my position would be:
“remove our despotic leaders” – yes please!
“act the way he did in Iraq” – no thanks!
“a portfolio of the two” – on balance, probably still no thanks!
Rob 01.20.05 at 1:13 pm
Oxford students are the new cab drivers!
Adrian 01.20.05 at 1:44 pm
“Andrew Brown”
Yes of course. The risks of expressing anti-government opinions are the same for Muslims in the US as for Iranians in Iran.
You guys are beyond parody
Uncle Kvetch 01.20.05 at 2:02 pm
Adrian, I think Andrew treated your earlier comment with all the seriousness it deserved.
The old “You live in a free country, so shut the f*ck up” schtick is really old.
Adrian 01.20.05 at 2:52 pm
Uncle Kvetch
Not quite.
“You live in a free country so respect the bravery of the Iranian protesters and if you don’t, shut the f*ck up”
I’ll settle for that
conrad barwa 01.20.05 at 2:54 pm
I wasn’t referring to TF’s own education but to his source for the story.
Yeah, okay, this actually makes more sense; in which case I should retract the ‘cheap shot’ remark (even though it was tongue in cheek ;) it wasn’t entirely clear from the post but I see that it now makes sense. Just to engage in a bit more ass-covering I hunted down the original article which seems to have been TF’s usual rostrum in the NYT, since I was confused as to the identities of who was being cited and in what context and it didn’t exactly fill me with confidence as to the accuracy of some of the views. There seems to be bit of an ideological filter at work here, the American student he cites as mentioning wanting to observe the filling in of absentee ballots for the US elections since “this is the closest he will get to actual voting†in his country was quite amusing, given that Pakistan lies next to the most populous democracy in the world. I have to say, I am somewhat sceptical by this stage of TF’s ability to report opinions or others without distorting them. Difficult to believe that any student of Iran (as I assume the Oxford student was) or who has worked on/in some part of Iran would say that there is a strong pro-Bush constituency there; I mean the 1979 Revolution and overthrow of the Shah happened for a reason; people are upset with how the Islamist regime since then has governed but it doesn’t follow that they want to return to some sort of Pahlavi halcyon days. Either something has been left out in what was said, or somebody was pulling TF’s leg to see if it would come off. Either way, while I don’t exactly have a high opinion of an ‘Oxford education’ it seems still a mite unfair to include it for blame in this fashion.
Two other things are worthy of mention, but which aren’t covered in his article. In opinion polls conducted after the November election internationally, most countries polled quite negatively about current US policy and the Bush admin; the only three clear exceptions were: the Philippines, Poland and India. While these results are problematic and can be criticised on a number of grounds (frex, I have no idea who the hell they asked in India as the result seems way out of line with reality) I am surprised that he doesn’t consider that at least on the basis of this evidence these countries might have to put it in his words “elected†Bush. Secondly, there is a potential counter-example which can be used as a basic thought experiment as a rejoinder to his Iranian “pro-US†anecdote and this is to consider why it is in other ME countries, including US allies, opinions towards the current admin are so negative. From the little I know and have seen, many students coming to study in the UK from countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are more in line with what TF would see as the “European†view of the White House admin. It also seems to be the case from the reports from the region where the authoritarian regimes invariably have to rein in demonstrations and protests that are anti-American and anti-war (wrt Iraq at least). Marc Lynch wrote a good article in the March 2003 volume of Politics and Society, unfortunately there isn’t a version available online but this older article from Foreign Affairs covers some of the same ground.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82506-p30/marc-lynch/taking-arabs-seriously.html
Nasi Lemak 01.20.05 at 2:59 pm
Surely TF’s “Oxford student” is an American Rhodes doing two-years-of-networking-on-a-masters rather than an actual student?
Uncle Kvetch 01.20.05 at 3:09 pm
“You live in a free country so respect the bravery of the Iranian protesters and if you don’t, shut the f*ck upâ€
I’ll settle for that
How awfully generous of you.
Unfortunately, there’s been no evidence in the original posting, nor in the comments, of ‘disrespect’ for the Iranian protestors. So what was the real point of your comment?
Donald Johnson 01.20.05 at 3:15 pm
No one was dissing Iranian protestors, Adrian, so your posts are still pointless. If someone starts to do so, then we may need you to step in.
mw 01.20.05 at 4:03 pm
Well, Khomeni’s grandson did suggest an American invasion to depose the mullahs some time back, didn’t he?
And I do remember reading the comment of an Iranian women about Afghanistan to the effect of, “I can’t believe those peasants are going to have free elections before we do!”
But don’t worry–there’s no way that the second Bush administration is going to invade Iran with the idea of deposing the Mullahs and rebuilding the country.
Targeted attacks on nuclear installations? That’s a different question, but a countrywide invasion? No way.
Adrian 01.20.05 at 4:04 pm
John Quiggin sarcastically drew a parallel between his own “vox pop” survey of US political protest and TF’s “vox pop” insights into Iranian political protest.
There is simply no equivalence between the free and unfree expression of political protest. It was disrespectful to the Iranian protesters not to acknowledge this distinction.
Andrew Brown’s comment only makes this disrespect more evident.
jet 01.20.05 at 4:24 pm
Nothing more liberal than mocking those who face death in their country for merely voicing their opinions. Maybe next you can make a documentary about Castro’s treatment of dissenters. We’ll just call you Oliver Stone or maybe Darius the fucking forth.
Andrew and Kvetch must be moles planted by Bush, just like Michael Moore.
Motoko 01.20.05 at 4:48 pm
Friedman was funny last week too. He wrote: “These fascist insurgents have never given politics a chance to work in
Iraq because they don’t want it to work. That’s why they have never issued a list of demands. They don’t want people to see what they are really after, which is continued minority rule, Saddamism without Saddam. If that was my politics, I’d be wearing a ski mask over my head, too.” Which was a strange echo of his infamous July 7, 1991 column: “Sooner or later, Mr. Bush argued, sanctions would force Mr. Hussein’s generals to bring him down, and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein.”
Joe O 01.20.05 at 5:02 pm
John wasn’t mocking the Iranian protestors. He was merely pointing out that not all Iranians favor a regime change and most Iranians that favor a regime change don’t want the US to invade.
Columnists often try to find one person in a country to give the “real” scoop on a country. Thinking about doing the same thing in the US (i.e. quizzing some cabby out of JFK) points out the absurdity of this attempt.
Andrew Boucher 01.20.05 at 5:06 pm
“Surely TF’s “Oxford student†is an American Rhodes doing two-years-of-networking-on-a-masters rather than an actual student?”
There are plenty of Americans (and others) who study at Oxford who are not Rhodes Scholars. So I don’t know how one can infer that “an Oxford student who had just returned from research in Iran” is a Rhodes Scholar (and one who is only networking to boot – networking in Iran?). Angell (who was quoted by Friedman in his op-ed), however, is a Rhodes.
Barry 01.20.05 at 5:08 pm
Posted by conrad barwa:
“Still, it is baffling that some prominent dons are, in public at least, quite proud of his attendance there.”
Power and influence. They’re as much an aphrodesiac as anything else, and work well on Oxford Dons, obviously.
abb1 01.20.05 at 5:21 pm
Get a grip, Jet, cut the dramatics. No one faces death in Iran for merely voicing their opinions.
Uncle Kvetch 01.20.05 at 5:41 pm
Jet, Adrian:
OK, once more with feeling: neither I, nor Andrew, nor anyone else here, “mocked” the pro-democracy movement in Iran. You can keep saying it (and I don’t doubt that you will), but that doesn’t make it true.
abb1 01.20.05 at 5:41 pm
I listened to a radio show this morning: Is Iran Next? and the administration stooge on the show was repeating exactly the same anecdotes: everyone he has ever met visiting Iran demanded the US invasion immediately.
This is simply their favorite propaganda talking point at the moment. I am kinda curious if Mr. F is a paid mouthpiece or a useful idiot, althought the latter seems less and less likely.
Jack 01.20.05 at 5:42 pm
jet, adrian, are you suggesting that there is no parallel between the likely reaction to invasion of people who complain about their country in the US and those who do the same in other places? Or do you think John is contending that the US is as oppressive as Iran?
roger 01.20.05 at 6:12 pm
Hey, I am glad Adrian respects the democratic feeling of the Iranian masses. From what I understand via Iranian experts who are otherwise anti-mullah, the one thing that the Iranian government is doing that has widespread support is turning the country into a nuclear power.
So, of course, they are probably very supportive of that endeavor. A-Bombs for Iran should be their motto. Otherwise, one is showing disrespect for the brave Iranian people.
Here’s a story about it:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/
newsid/20753/story.htm
h. e. baber 01.20.05 at 6:14 pm
when I last visited America, I met plenty of people who “love anything their government hates”…they didn’t feel able to confess to me that they were longing for the arrival of a Franco-German liberation army
I, an American, would welcome the invasion of EU liberation forces to dismantle our WMD and install a puppet regime to establish a decent socialist welfare state.
roger 01.20.05 at 6:16 pm
Oops — ‘They” should be ‘he, as in Mr. Respect-the-freedom-loving-Iranian people.
cleek 01.20.05 at 6:46 pm
Still you have to admire the sheer balls at work here; having only half finished a botch-job liberation in one country; already the next expansion of “the borders of the Free World†is being contemplated and rationalised.
yes, that would be outrageous.
cleek 01.20.05 at 6:48 pm
Still you have to admire the sheer balls at work here; having only half finished a botch-job liberation in one country; already the next expansion of “the borders of the Free World†is being contemplated and rationalised.
honestly, i didn’t think it was too ballsy the last time they did it – i thought, rather, that it was really freakin dumb.
x 01.20.05 at 6:58 pm
It’s pure marketing genius. Repackage! reissue! Operation Iranian Freedom: The Best of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Deluxe edition, enhanced, with video extras, and special embedded content. I can’t wait. Friedman obviously got the advance promo copy. The lucky bastard.
abb1 01.20.05 at 7:06 pm
honestly, i didn’t think it was too ballsy the last time they did it – i thought, rather, that it was really freakin dumb.
But they’ve learned their lesson now: don’t invade Iraq; Iraq and Vietnam are not doable.
Walt Pohl 01.20.05 at 7:09 pm
John Quiggin must have done something terrible in a previous life to deserve the commenters on this thread. Trying to argue that John was disrespecting Iranian protesters is just too dumb to even be offensive. Really, you’re not fooling anyone except maybe yourselves.
Could Thomas Friedman be the human equivalent of a weathervane? Hasn’t he over the years managed to point his little column in the direction of all possible policies?
Adrian 01.20.05 at 7:27 pm
Uncle Kvetch,
I didn’t say you did but John Quiggin’s original post certainly did (see previous post) and Andrew’s rejoinder to my first comment did so even more.
Jack
No I am not suggesting that. I am saying that John Quiggin’s original post drew a parallel between US and Iranian political protest that was disrespectful to the Iranians. John didn’t suggest that the US was as oppressive as Iran (though Andrew did). Rather he treated Iran as as free as the US.
Joe O
I know that’s the point he is driving at and it’s not one I disgree with, it’s how he gets there that I object to. It is, in my opinion, a bit more than poetic licence to come up with the “Oddly enough…” paragraph and equate US poitical protest with what goes on in Iran. The heavily sarcastic tone sounds like mockery to me.
Evidence of dissent should be accorded much greater significance and relevance in a country the cost of voicing that dissent can be death. John Quiggin’s original post didn’t do that. I have a problem with that.
Walt Pohl
I think he did and have given my reasons. If you think I’m wrong, tell me why.
Roger
You on drugs or what?
abb1 01.20.05 at 7:49 pm
Adrian,
why do you think to draw a parallel between US and Iranian political protest is disrespectful to the Iranians?
Furthermore, what’s wrong with being disrespectful to the fuckin’ Iranians?
jet 01.20.05 at 7:56 pm
Uncle Kvetch,
I didn’t find anything wrong with the original post. It was the assclownery in the comments that followed, mocking the tortured and dead in Iran by comparing the consequences of their actions to what protestors in the US face. That kind of rhetoric barely inspires already on your side and just pisses everyone else, who gives a shit about suffering, off.
Abb1,
You are still dillusional if you believe that a non-influencial (or influential) citizen of Iran (are they really citizens?) can talk shit about the mullahs and not pay for it with torture, jail time, or death.
h.e. baber,
While I love a good work of fiction, the more likely episode will be something like this:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=591&id=56762005
Check out the growth rates of the largest economies of the EU for the last 15 years and compare them to the US.
luci phyrr 01.20.05 at 8:07 pm
Conservatives’ concern for the people of the developing world – basic human rights, treatment of women, etc. – it’s touching.
The “serious-minded” folk are bringing me around from my leftie, mullah-lovin views.
abb1 01.20.05 at 8:11 pm
Jet,
you have no idea what you’re talking about, you’re full of crap. Iranians protest a lot and do it quite freely. Iranian students protest all the time, the Kent state-style. And they riot. And the government doesn’t kill or torture them. They are attacked by militant wingnuts, rednecks, your and Adrian’s friends.
h. e. baber 01.20.05 at 8:22 pm
Wow, Jet, I see the source of these predictions about the collapse of the EU come straight from the CIA–yet another astute analysis by US Intelligence that gave us those virtual WMD and projections about the liberation scenario for Iraq.
h. e. baber 01.20.05 at 8:23 pm
Wow, Jet, I see the source of these predictions about the collapse of the EU come straight from the CIA–yet another astute analysis by US Intelligence that gave us those virtual WMD and projections about the liberation scenario for Iraq.
nanpotnan 01.20.05 at 8:30 pm
This must be a joke, and anyway you can’t stock up on flowers.
x 01.20.05 at 8:32 pm
How can anybody not love the respectful way in which the conservatives treat not just Iranians, but the whole world? But especially with dissidents, it’s so touching. Totally disinterested and so very non-patronising. There must be literally millions of dissidents in Iran queuing up to get the Operation Iraqi treatment. Friedman’s only fault is that he must be seriously underestimating the number of those longing for an American invasion.
Uncle Kvetch 01.20.05 at 8:37 pm
For the love of god.
John’s original post drew an analogy between protests in Iran and those in the US as a means of pointing out the inherent idiocy of Friedman’s column–and I found it both effective and pretty damn funny. To suggest that it was disrespectful of pro-democracy protestors in Iran is nothing short of ludicrous.
The actual point of John’s posting was that the same Tom Friedman who peddled the “We Will Be Welcomed as Liberators” snake oil back in 2002 is back again, pushing the exact same bullshit, on the basis of the exact same flimsy anecdotes. But that’s of no interest to either of you, because you’re only interested in telling people who disagree with you how stupid and/or immoral they are, without actually presenting an argument.
Adrian, Jet: you don’t seem to be convincing a lot of people here. Why don’t you run along to LGF, or Powerline, or Tech Central Station, and tell everybody there that the liberals at CT are pissing all over the democratic reformers in Iran, and laughing at their oppression. Everyone will believe you unquestioningly, and you can all engage in a nice comforting circle jerk of a thread about grand it will be when Our Boys are welcomed in the streets of Teheran with cheers & flowers.
Pathetic.
Donald Johnson 01.20.05 at 9:01 pm
John Q doesn’t need any defense on this idiotic charge about dissing Iranian students. He was dissing Tom Friedman, but if that’s a crime then every sentient being ought to be in jail.
Walt Pohl 01.20.05 at 9:02 pm
Adrian: I see approximately zero evidence that you can be dissuaded from your belief. John’s point was that you can dislike your government and still not want to be bombed by foreigners. This is totally obvious from his post. The fact that you deliberately read it to say otherwise says something about you, not John.
roger 01.20.05 at 9:03 pm
Adrian, I must be on drugs. As must the analyst Ray Takeyh, in Ted’s
post. The druggy Takeyh, according to Ted, said this:
Iranians are not discussing the “Libyan optionâ€, giving up their program entirely. He had some interesting thoughts about how nuclear weapons are quickly becoming enmeshed in Iranian nationalism and identity. They quickly become too popular to give up. When he was teaching in Pakistan, he had students give him keychains shaped like nuclear missiles as token gifts. He saw clock radios shaped like nuclear missiles in Pakistani stores.
Furthermore, like any big program, it attracts a constituency of scientists, contractors, and so on, who have a direct interest in its continuation. He noted that Candidate Clinton campaigned against SDI, but President Clinton funded it every year. He thinks that, if Iran hasn’t already hit the political point of no return, they will very soon.
Someone asked if the liberal Iranian student movement might lead to disarmament. Just the opposite; the dissident students are big proponents of nuclear arms. They’ve conducted multiple demonstrations in support of the nuclear programs.”
He must be whacked –everybody knows those students want unilateral disarmament and Bush to be president of Iran.
dsquared 01.20.05 at 10:18 pm
There’s a wonderful Peter Cook line where someone asks him “Do you think you’ve learned from your mistakes” and he replies “Yes, I’m confident I could repeat them exactly”.
Adrian 01.20.05 at 10:19 pm
Walt Pohl
I read the comment exactly the way you did. I also saw, as you are obviously unwilling to acknowledge, that the sarcastic analogy he drew showed disrespect for the circumstances of the people that were being discussed. I have a problem with that and, frankly, so should you and so should all the readers of this blog who respect John Quiggin. I’m a neutral. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don’t but this post has an ugly quality that should not, in my opinion, go unremarked.
DrFrankLives 01.20.05 at 10:34 pm
I am deeply unhappy with my government, and would love to see W toppled by a scandal, impeachment, resignation or even another adventurous pretzel.
But let me make it clear to the neo-cons that if another country were to invade the US and seek to overthrow George W. Bush, I would do everything in my power to defeat the invaders. The enemy of my opponent is not necessarily my friend.
Why can’t they understand that?
Uncle Kvetch 01.20.05 at 10:52 pm
The enemy of my opponent is not necessarily my friend. Why can’t they understand that?
Because we’re not just any ol’ country…we’re AMERICA, a force for absolute good. The people whose countries we invade will welcome us because they recognize our inherent goodness. And if they don’t…well, we’ll just have to make them recognize it, by any means necessary.
Walt Pohl 01.20.05 at 11:12 pm
Okay, Adrian, you’ve stumped me. I have no idea why you’re offended, or how it possibly could be regarded as disrespectful.
h. e. baber 01.21.05 at 12:03 am
I am deeply unhappy with my government, and would love to see W toppled by a scandal, impeachment, resignation or even another adventurous pretzel…if another country were to invade the US and seek to overthrow George W. Bush, I would do everything in my power to defeat the invaders.
Why? Wouldn’t it depend on who the invaders were and what kind of system they proposed to establish?
jet 01.21.05 at 1:48 am
Uncle Kvetch,
Perhaps I stay here so that I can measure my beliefs against those who disagree with me. You should pull your head out of your ass and give it a shot sometime. You are so ate up with cynicism you can’t even seem to engage the opposition in any meaningful way. As an example, you called me pathetic because I took the view that comparing US protesters and the “horrors” they face to Iranian protesters and the horrors they face was turning their plight into some sort of sick joke (but haha, it was on those shifty conservatives heads). If taking umbrage at showing no respect for Iranian protesters’ plights is pathetic, I would have to say you are so foreign in culture to me as to almost count another species.
Maybe for an encore you could compare the poor in the US with the tsunami victims, because America does treat its poor so horribly, right?
jet 01.21.05 at 2:03 am
Conrad,
That is an interesting interpretation of the phrase “red state”. Is that really becoming a commonplace amongst the left that “red state” means a religious state and not just a Republican state?
Walt Pohl 01.21.05 at 2:20 am
Jet: I’m trying hard to be polite, so let’s just say that your characterization of John’s post is… off-base. No one is saying the difficulties faced by Americans is in any way comparable to that faced by Iranian protestors. John was trying to make his point more vivid: you can hate your government, and not want to be bombed by foreigners. Are you offended by any comparisons whatsoever? If I say that Peyton Manning is the Dan Marino of his generation, are you offended that I’m somehow disrespecting Dan Marino?
jet 01.21.05 at 2:51 am
Walt, with all due respect I think we have a failure to communicate here. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Quiggin’s post. I was responding to Andrew’s comment comparing Muslims in America and the dangers they face with Iranians and the dangers they face.
I actually agree with John’s and Andrew’s intent. But Andrew’s flippant attitude towards those who are still summarly executed for whatever the mullahs make arbitrarily illegal tomorrow is disgusting.
So once more for the record. I wasn’t responding to John. I was pissing in Andrew’s cherrios for being an assclown.
Since I’m being a post-a-holic on this thread, I’ll add something else. Why don’t we hear more from the left about how to achieve democracy in the middle-east via alternative means to what the right proposes? The right and left agree whole-heartedly on democracy for everyone, but the right seems to be the only ones willing to say fuck it and roll the dice.
ruds 01.21.05 at 4:12 am
jet: How was democracy achieved in the strongest democracies in the world? The citizens forced it on their governments, through protest, wars, or political fights over time. Though some had help (e.g. Lafeyette in the US), the main effort was by the people in the affected country. How can a government of the people be imposed by an outside agent?
I’m all for US assistance to people looking to overthrow tyrants and establish democracies. But barging in without an invitation from a serious revolutionary effort seems doomed to failure.
wood turtle 01.21.05 at 4:15 am
“There’s a wonderful Peter Cook line where someone asks him “Do you think you’ve learned from your mistakes†and he replies “Yes, I’m confident I could repeat them exactlyâ€.”
Yes, Dsquared, you have made us perfectly aware of that. haha.
Zep 01.21.05 at 4:25 am
Because the left (well, the bit I’m in anyway) believes that democracy is inevitable and will develop in the Middle East if it is left to its own devices. Is it worth pointing out, yet again, that were it not for Western intervention Iran and Iraq wpuld have become democratic nations in the 1950s – and again, in Iran, in the early and mid-1970s? Broadly speaking, these countries didn’t need us to remove dictators – what they needed was for us to stop propping dictators up (as we did yet again, for instance, in the wake of the Gulf War, when Bush I chose to keep Saddam in power to preserve stability).
There is a healthy, growing movement for democracy in Iran. If we can avoid creating an association in peoples minds, between this movement and perceived colonialism on the part of America, then it stands a good chance of making Iran a democratic nation within the current generation. Without bombing, without destroying infrastructure, without occupation and the inevitable terrorist insurgency. The danger today is that America will pursue a strategy with Iran that will make democracy less likely even though it opposes the regime in power, as it did throughout the 90s with Iraq. Second to that is the prospect of a currently uneccessary invasion.
If the current flow in Iran changes, if there is a reversal in progress and things start going backwards or there’s an impending humanitarian crisis, then an invasion may be justified. But at the moment it would at best speed democracy at the cost of tens of thousands of lives which would otherwise not be lost, and at worst it would lead to that reversal in progress, just as keeping the Shah in power did.
Ajax Bucky 01.21.05 at 4:28 am
As Jet says “The right and left agree whole-heartedly on democracy for everyone…”
And since there are no other categories available, except the lukewarm center, which can be counted on to agree “on democracy for everyone” – that’s pretty well that.
Except for those of us who don’t – agree, I mean. On democracy for everyone.
It’s a nice idea – but then a benevolent monarchy is also a nice idea isn’t it? The danger with monarchies is not the structure itself, it’s the vulnerability of the structure; a malevolent king, or queen, exercising his, or her, omnipotent power to accomplish bad things, and there being no way short of revolution to stop them.
The danger with democracy would seem to be its vulnerability to subversion through chicanery and cunning manipulation of the voting public. For instance what’s happened in the U.S.
Right now. Today.
A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken control of what many people still think of as the largest and most powerful democracy humanity’s yet seen, to the detriment of every creature still living on earth.
So, inasmuch as “democracy” has somehow managed to place world-destroying power in the hands of a delusional nincompoop, I, for one, have to say I’m not “agreeing on democracy for everyone”.
Zep 01.21.05 at 4:28 am
Sorry – that was in reply to Jet’s “Why don’t we hear more from the left about how to achieve democracy in the middle-east via alternative means to what the right proposes?”
Walt Pohl 01.21.05 at 7:03 am
Jet: Sorry, my fault. I thought your comment referred to John’s original post.
Dave F 01.21.05 at 7:05 am
abb1, you are incorrect. Student uprisings and campus protests are put down ruthlessly by police and the feared Basiji, the strong bullyboy arm of the government (esssentially a kind of Hitler Youth). Such students have been flung in jail, beaten, tortured and even killed. Despite your analogy with rednecks, I’m afraid that Iranian political and social structure are not analagous to that of the US. It is spurious. I suggest you read it up a little more comprehensively.
ChrisPer 01.21.05 at 10:01 am
dave f, right on.
I have spent some time in Iran, and their killers and goons scare the shit out of me. The stories that people tell, things I saw myself – that is an evil regime, one which routinely kills, tortures and rapes for dissent.
This stuff is not just a Steve Biko out the window ever few years, it is every day and people you know.
abb1 01.21.05 at 12:24 pm
Dave f,
could you post a few links for me to educate myself more comprehensively, please.
From what I’ve read so far it sounds like the government arrests and prosecutes both student rioters and wingnut thugs, but I am open for reassessment. Give me some material.
Thanks.
jet 01.21.05 at 1:26 pm
Ruds,
“How can a government of the people be imposed by an outside agent?” Germany and Japan were some of the most despotic governments in the world before the US forcefully changed them to constitutional democracies. And the US’s success in this (in Japan more so than Germany) was quite astounding. Taiwan, the Philippines, South Korea were all made more democratic through pressure from the US. The list goes on. This is more a debate for historians because in some cases outside force works wonders, and sometimes it doesn’t work at all.
Zep,
I disagree that democracy is inevitable. Democracy as a concept has only been around for about 2,500 years. Out of those 2,500, I’m going to guesstimate that for the most part, 99.99% of humanity did not live under a democracy. It is the statistically unlikely exception, not the rule. Theocratic rule, like in Iran, has been the norm along with despotic tyrants like Saddam.
As for the Gulf War 1, I’d like to hear your argument about how Bush 1 could have removed Saddam. He was planning on it, but the entire coalition would not go along with it. It would have been much more unilateral than Gulf War 2.
As for the 1950’s and 1970’s, you are leaving out the context of the cold war. You think 1950’s communism was better than what they had?
As for Iran, I agree with you about trying to be supportive without compromising their integrity, but how do you supply arms, money, and training to pro-democratic insurgents without branding them your CIA operatives? And if we know anything about the middle-east, their governments are aces at putting down insurgencies, so they will have to have help. Too bad we can’t magically make the CIA behave while also keeping their actions out of the media.
jet 01.21.05 at 1:46 pm
Ajax,
What makes Democracy so beautiful is that once a majority agrees with you that “A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken control”, they can vote to replace those in power. When a majority decides that their “benevolent monarchy” (Wasn’t it Machiavelli who summed up the problems of benevolent monarchies in his “Discourses”?) is a “A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken control” they can only die by the thousands in a bloodily suppressed revolution.
Uncle Kvetch 01.21.05 at 3:10 pm
The right and left agree whole-heartedly on democracy for everyone, but the right seems to be the only ones willing to say fuck it and roll the dice.
Oh, is that the new term?
You say “fuck it and roll the dice,” I say “invade a country and kill thousands of innocent people–for their own good, of course.”
You’re right, Jet–we are from very different “cultures.” Let’s call the whole thing off.
c 01.21.05 at 3:44 pm
Jet, claiming that the Philippines have become more democratic because of the USA is a bit rich. And about that 99.9% figure. Do you realise how many people who lived in the last 2500 years are still alive. It is a lot more than .1% Also the reason why Saddam could subdue the rebellion after the first Gulf War was by using its airforce and Bush the wiser could have stopped those helicopters if he wanted to. But, and that is the big problem, i don’t see why America would want a democratic Iraq. It is just not in their interest.
jet 01.21.05 at 3:52 pm
Uncle Kvetch,
You mis-characterize me. I was for taking action, but I was against the invasion. The US did not invade with the intention of causing massive civilian casulties and the administration thought that civilian deaths would be minimal and that the war would long be over by now. This was a long shot in the first place, and far too risky, obviously so in hindsight. But at least they did something. Another 10 years of Saddam would have resulted in his kids taking over power except now armed with nuclear weapons, no sanctions, and less scruples than their crazy assed dad.
All I hear from the left is carping about how wrong the right is. They don’t have a game plan for tackling the issues the right is willing to tackle.
c 01.21.05 at 6:25 pm
But the war between Saddam and the US is already long over. This is a different war and is fought about the independents of Iraq.
roger 01.21.05 at 7:27 pm
“The right and left agree whole-heartedly on democracy for everyone, but the right seems to be the only ones willing to say fuck it and roll the dice.”
I disagree. If this were true, we would certainly not be giving Pakistan 3 billion per annum.
I think the basic disagreement about democracy between the left and right is over its meaning as a form of governance, and that primary disagreement spills over into foreign policy. The left believes that democracy entails separation of power, grants the right to organize labor — even across national lines — as strongly as the right to private property, and requires, for its continuance, a strong civil society that tends towards measures to equalize wealth in a given society. I hasten to add, the left doesn’t believe that perfect equality will happen, or even should happen — rather, the egalitarian impulse should, other things being equal, be encouraged. In effect, this means there are mechanisms to lessen inequality, rather than decree equality, vide Rawls.
What this means, practically, is that the left believes in engagement with the working and middle class in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Egypt. The right’s inclination is always to link to the military, or to the highest level of wealth — hence, in Iraq, the fascination with Chalabi and the export of his militia, and the neglect of social democrats, or those elements of the Ba’athist party who wished to retain a strong state role in the economy. A good example of the right’s instinct here is the support for Allawi, a former Ba’athist and not a very clean one,and the people around him, who all come from the military ranks of the Ba’athist party.
So the left, for example, in supporting democracy in Iran, would presumably support students there, who have been protesting the privatization of higher education. They’d pick up on the mullahs bent to engage in globalization to their own profit. In other words, they’d emphasize traditional left themes. The right’s instinct, on the other hand, is to support Pahlavis, and to mix the ‘liberation’ of Iran with free enterprise rhetoric.
abb1 01.21.05 at 7:37 pm
What makes Democracy so beautiful is that once a majority agrees with you that “A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken controlâ€, they can vote to replace those in power. When a majority decides that their “benevolent monarchy†(Wasn’t it Machiavelli who summed up the problems of benevolent monarchies in his “Discoursesâ€?) is a “A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken control†they can only die by the thousands in a bloodily suppressed revolution.
Are you sure your monarch (i.e: a bunch of plutocrats) isn’t playing you for a fool by letting you vote to replace tweedle dee with tweedle dum?
Anyway, you’re happy and that’s what counts.
jet 01.21.05 at 8:49 pm
abb1,
You say that because Kerry was just like Bush? Have you gone mad? Maybe their foreign policy looked somewhat alike, but on domestic issues they couldn’t have been farther apart. That should be proof enough that the evil cabal that controls the world, all from mountain fortresses high in the Andes nestled deep in the farthest recess of your imagination, don’t really exist.
And did it also escape you that for the last 15 years the foreign policy of the US government concerning Iraq on both sides of the aisle hasn’t looked that different?
But I’ll tell you what. You keep believing that it is all futile and your vote doesn’t count. It is kind of like giving me two votes :D
abb1 01.22.05 at 11:11 am
Yeah, right, I forgot: Kerry’s plan was to break up the GE into 10,000 small companies, abolish the Pentagon and nationalize Texan oil-wells. Silly me.
jet 01.23.05 at 4:22 pm
abb1,
Why do you think there wasn’t a candidate who stood for drastically limiting the size of corporations, abolishing US military dominance, and socializing US mineral rights last election? An evil hidden oligarchy in a mountain fortress in the Andes controlling the media? Or because that is batshit crazy-talk to most people?
Comments on this entry are closed.