Seeking Our Iranian Comrades’ Solidarity
Dear Activists in Iran:
We stand in solidarity with you and your movement against the alleged election fraud you’ve claimed. In return we hope you will reciprocate by supporting us in our struggle here in which we’ve been engaged for hmmmm…more or less eight years now – the following is an abbreviated list of our grievances:
- We the people of the United States have been spied upon by our government around the clock. All our communications - phone, cell, e-mail, fax, are being monitored. This even includes our ‘twitting’ with you; that’s right! They keep saying it’s for our own safety and that it’s to catch terrorists among us. They have yet to catch any, but they keep saying ‘it don’t matter - soon the results will show you.’ What do they mean by this? Our representatives are not giving us answers, instead declaring their own solidarity with the spying program targeting all of us. This should matter to you, since many here are afraid to follow you on twitter out of their fear of becoming one of those ‘results’ our government has been promising to show. Imagine how many more of us you’d get without this oppressive pressure! So please join us and declare your solidarity with us in this regard.
- We the people of the United States have been coerced into financing and supporting atrocious torture practices and killing of civilians in defenseless third world countries, who happen to be your neighbors. We’ve been financing it directly with our taxes, and supporting it through those representatives we somehow keep electing to speak and decide for us. We know your media is not that much better than ours, but surely you have heard our torture stories. To make it fit today’s graphic news we even have thousands of pictures to show. Does your government photograph or capture theirs on video? Exactly; it’s that bad! In our name and with our votes our military and their mercenary contractors have been piling up tens of thousands of civilian bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don’t seem to be able to put a stop to that either. We keep going to the booths and voting, but things remain the same; they keep getting our tax dollars at the end of each week’s hard work, they keep getting ‘yeah’ votes from our representatives, and they keep killing, kidnapping, and torturing. We are not bad people, as you are not ‘axis of evil’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘fanatics.’ We really don’t believe in building empires, torturing, and killing. But we are stuck, and we keep continuing the same cycle, only worse with every new turn. Please help us figure out a way to help ourselves. We really need your solidarity in finding a way to stop these atrocious human rights violations committed in our name and with our money.
- We the people of the United States have been kept in the dark on so many issues directly related to us and affecting us due to our mainstream media - which has to come to resemble the ‘Pravda’ we used to look down upon. They don’t tell us much, and what they tell us is usually what they get directly from our government. At least you all know that what you’re getting over there is sanitized and censored, since there seems to be no pretense to otherwise. Our situation is worse! Many of our people still think they’ve got ‘freedom of the press’ and independent reporting, so they don’t bother ‘twitting’ or searching the net for real news. Many who do ‘twit’ limit it to a few key words like Brittany or Brangelina or Kate, and this is after they get bombarded with them from our ‘news’ channels. Please don’t get discouraged or offended when you come across many of us who don’t know where Iran is located, or think you ride camels over there, or that you speak Arabic, or,...Instead come and lend your solidarity in helping us find a way to inform our masses and help them see the light.
- We the people of the United States have our own black-listed people in the hundreds of thousands. Have you heard of our ‘No Fly List’? Last time we heard more than 400,000 of us had made it onto this dangerous but still mysterious list. They don’t even tell us why. If we participate in any peaceful demonstration, we mean any, whether for the homeless or to stop our wars, we get ‘listed.’ Well hell, based on what we choose to wear, such as ‘Doc Marten shoes,’ or a funny T-shirt, we end up on their list. Nobody knows exactly how people end up getting on this list, and certainly no one knows how to get off of it. Our government doesn’t tell us because it says the reasons are classified. Our media doesn’t dig much either. We keep hearing ‘legitimate’ rumors about ‘other’ secret lists and databases, but here in the United States, any whistleblower who chooses to disclose these violations gets punished, fired, even taken to courts - so those who know don’t dare talk about it. In fact, you may know more than we do. Please let us know if you know, and do so via twitting. We encourage you to stand in solidarity with us against these oppressive black-listings.
Posts
57 comments:
I hearby sign my name to this. (In the spirit of the age I haven't given my real name. But that's OK I'm sure it's not really secret.)
Dear Metem: And don't forget 'You must twit this' since nowadays nations' destiny and revolutions seem to depend upon it!!!!!
yeah yep yes yes and yes AGAIN. well said. good on you.
one add on if I may. That:
'We the people were railroaded by trauma into an illegal and immoral resource war of aggression by the premeditated murder of 3000 people in a classic false flag [ inside job] attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, an attack orchestrated from within and protected by our own administration and media for the purpose of advancing a [more or less ] secret agenda, an attack designed to stir up outrage for a war that should never have been.
And that this central lie now colors every possible aspect of our nationhood.'
remorris
Bull's eye, Sibel! This is exactly what is called for. You've got a Nader-like wit and it's refreshing. Thanks!
I agree with Anonymous, on our trauma. The railroad tracks to EvilTown are laid by fear, trauma, and the mind-numbing MSM.
I agree about your wit, dear Sibel. Razor sharp. I'm not going to twitter - though I know a lot of "twits" in government. Have enough trouble with Facebook and Blogs. I must say though that everywhere else in the wide world there are people more aware than we are. Once when I was writing to a friend "over there" after I was embarassed by something our own Alfred E. Newman said or did, I appologized to my friend - who told me not to worry, that their governments were just as bad and they know the difference between the American people and the American Government (which we do not seem to see).
Nice letter Sibel.
.. On Wilkapedia it say's you became aware of Iranian intelligence warning the US about terrorist attacks, a month before 9.11
Is this b.s. or is their a real story here?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry! Right now I am laughing but maaannnn this is very hard hitting. You are genius. Have you tried publishing your work elsewhere? You should or they should come to you. I declare you number ONE on my list Sibel. I love you.
your biggest fan-X Man
You truly are a genius with the written word. Here's hoping this gets picked up everywhere there are those who care enough to at least think about what you're saying.
Brilliant piece of work.
Markum
Thank you Paul Jamiol!
Paul is on vacation for R & R. Today I nudged him with a request for a cartoon relevant to this piece and voila, despite the short notice he produced this great work.
Nice, right?
Yes, the cartoon sums it up (though your writing takes the humor a step further). And maybe (or maybe not) you should edit your piece to use 'tweets' instead of 'twits'.
Also see excellent post:
To You, the new Iran 'expert'
http://travellerwithin.blogspot.com/2009/06/to-you-new-iran-expert.html
Fantastic post. This should be boosted ALL OVER THE NET.
Thank you.
Two quotes I always remember:
If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own...Scoop Nisker
It's a nice, soft night. I think I'll join some of me old comrades...and talk a little Treason....Michaelyn Og Flynn, The Quiet Man.
O/T slightly and back to the media. Found this.
"Headline reads: North Korea Preparing to Launch Missile Towards Hawaii
Here's where pedantry goes into overdrive. Does this headline come down to the choice of a preposition? Is "towards" the same thing as "at?" Or is the firing of the missile just a warning shot in the direction of Hawaii?
The Taepodong-2 ballistic missile, with a range of 4,000 miles, are [sic] being developed to give North Korea the capability to strike Hawaii and Alaska, however analysts say that the technology still falls some way short of that goal."
by Jenna Orkin
from http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/
Of course anyone who actually reads the article will pick this up but still a nice example and analysis of cheap scare tactics.
By the way do you have the following book:
Keeping Government Secrets- A Pocket Guide for Judges on the State-Secrets Privilege, the Classified Information Procedures Act, and Court Security Officers
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/secrets1.pdf/$file/secrets1.pdf
I assume you probably have it. Just thought I'd check.
Comes to mind:
Clip from Wag the Dog
Perception management for sure but the beatings and intimidation are all too real.
Claudia, Good link! But that type of reporting is not limited to twitter such venues. Yesterday I was surfing news programs on the TV and stopped at CNN. The newsreader was excitedly telling me there was breaking news. They had a phone call from a person in Iran. Of course, there was no name or location because the authorities (I don't know if they meant ours or theirs) could find this person.
Anyway, this person whose phone conntection from Iran to Atlanta was better than a call from my mother who lives 100 miles away, gave us the latest on the protests and such in Iran. Not real news in my book. But then again we must consider what is reported as news these days.
Shortly after the "interview" I saw, I had to go and get some bread for I had already seen the circus for the day.
greatdog: I agree. Did you caatch our man 'Kissinger'on the latest in Iran? I'll try to find the link. The real claws are coming out;-)
Anon the Neocon
I see no moral equivalence, between your list, and the possible list in Iran at present.
You enjoy the advantage of expressing yourself, wherever and whenever you want. You are not being murdered in the middle of the night, in your student dorm.
I will not enter into a debate, about equivalence - because if you see equivalence, the distance between myself, and your position, is indeed intractable.
Per earlier comments about democracy - bottom up vs top down.
Name one instance, when democracy developed from the ground up, without struggle.
One will do.
I hope this meme of bottom up, will be exposed for a myth.
Any child of the enlightenment, has a duty, to support the democratic aspirations of others, especially when the opportunity is presented.
What I take for Mrs. Edmonds harping about Tashkent, Baku, and Ankara - is her interest in democracy.
Then why the moment such democracy is possible, would you choose to remain silent?
It is clear, from the lackadaisical response of our president to the aspirations of Iranians, that we have no plan to deal with Iran. The demand for democracy is autochtonous - coming from modernist Iranians, and their electorate.
You should be out there cheering, and complaining about our lack of assistance. One 27 year old in State, reading Twitter!!! Pitiful.
Your stance, is beyond ironic. No degree of historical nit-picking, or sensibilities about NSA filtering, will change this. No ingenue grasp of democratization, nor arguments that supporting Moussavi will undermine him, will dissemble this.
Moussavi will fail. Democracy will fail. Represssion, will be on the uptake.
We will enjoy the liberty of blaming our own government, and the contribution of all those who, contributed to it.
I'd say, Obama is on your page - and its the wrong page. Passivity, is collaboration. There were ways of taking a stand, without compromising anyone.
I'll grant you one point - our reputation is terminally diminished, and Obama is digging our grave.
Anon the Neocon - Are you Michael Ledeen?
Anyway you're being rather obviously disingenuous in the way your attempting to reframe the earlier debate. You said democracy can't be achieved from the bottom up. We said it can't be from the top down. Then you come back with a request for an instance in which it's been achieved from the bottom up 'without struggle'. No one mentioned 'without struggle' before now. Do you take us for idiots? Were you really hoping no one would notice you suddenly changed the terms of the debate?
By 'bottom up' I take you to mean from the masses, i.e. not from pre-established government institutions foreign or domestic. If that's what you mean then isn't the American revolution the most obvious instance of bottom up democracy. Perhaps the French revolution as well, but I confess not to know the detailed history there.
While we're on being disingenuous you also complain that there is no moral equivalence between Iran and the US. No one has claimed there is. And nothing about Ms. Edmonds post requires that there be equivalence. But I'd probably put them closer to equal than you would, though still fairly far apart.
I disagree with you that Obama is doing nothing. You think that's what Brzezinki's telling him? As for 'ways of taking a stand without compromising anyone' I suppose you mean covert ops. But there's always an inherent risk in those things of compromising people and their fate will be worse under those circumstance than if they simply acted on their own. In those cases one has to weigh the risk and the benefits on one side against the most likely cost of not acting. Likelihood and degree of value of the targets on both sides play a role. I think you and Ms. Edmonds partly differ over your assessment of likelihood of success. I'm sure in a perfect world if we could be guaranteed to bring about genuine democracy in Iran without having to kill incredible amounts of people and never get caught or get any one else caught she'd probably agree we should do it. (Correct me if I'm taking too much of a liberty here Sibel) But I think her assessment of the likelihood of success is more realistic than yours. I'd say she, and certainly I, also have a problem with the idea that we over here should decide whether to put other people over there at risk. I think they deserve to make that decision themselves. That's something else that has the WEIGHED. I'm not saying it's absolute. It has to be weighed against the rights of others like anything else.
But probably the biggest point of contention here is your implicit assumption that our government has the Iranian peoples best interest in mind. That's the real joke. Our interventions over the last 60 years tell a different story.
Sibel certainly doesn't speak for all Americans, but I agree with what she has said here. Power corrupts, whether it's the US or Iran and extremism can take the form of fundamentalist religious fanaticism or simple greed.
What we should all be embracing is this newfound ability to aggregate power quickly and democratically, enabled by technology such as Twitter.
What a gift Biz Stone (Twitter's creator) has given the world, enabling anyone to organize and broadcast. Twitter's open source architecture enabled programmers to rig together new ways of disseminating messages, pics and videos even after Iran's government shut down email, texting and Twitter.com.
This can topple the government propaganda machine and the useless, toothless mainstream media. But we must seize the moment because the fascists and Republicans are catching up, learning social networking as fast as they can. Our next step should be organizing locally, by region (Congressional district in the US) to really be organized for the next elections and overwhelm the status quo.
Hi Sibel
A cartoon is worth a thousand editorials.
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs081.snc1/4877_209253590205_629610205_7275065_3903230_n.jpg
I have not twat, but from what I've heard, your message would exceed the character limit.
As to, "We the people of the United States have been kept in the dark on so many issues directly related to us and affecting us due to our mainstream media - which has to come to resemble the ‘Pravda’ we used to look down upon." I dunno. If you want to look for 411 it's not hard to find, but you need reasoning skills to separate the true from the not so true - an amazing number of USians will just believe what they hear on Cable news, or worse: NPR. I think there's a feedback loop with the USians demanding to be told how heroic and exceptional they are and the MSM happily complying in this demand.
How many hundreds of thousands has the Iranian government killed in the last 6 years? How many third-world economies has it tried to ruin?
AtN, you understate the evil going on in our name. There is no equivilency there.
Claudia: I visited that site two days. It's very nicely done. Thank you for providing the link for all.
Anon w/Wag the Dog clip: I am going to watch it again. It's been ages and the film is timeless.
Anon the Neocon: Let me see...what was that line/justification used by the colonialists? Something like...help bring 'civilization' to barbaric who couldn't survive without being colonies...
One more time: I am cheering for the Iranian activists, in fact, for all progressive activists in the world who take a stand against oppression, who fight for democracy. I don't want to see parasitic governments/interest groups to meddle with that process. Period. More importantly, I am encouraging our own people to do the same: get up and really go after our rights; those being butchered everyday.
Metemneurosis: "...implicit assumption that our government has the Iranian peoples best interest in mind. That's the real joke. Our interventions over the last 60 years tell a different story." Certainly.
Amerigus: I never claimed to speak for 'all' Americans. It's a blog, it's my view/opinion/outlook. Some agree and some don't. Either way: perfectly fine with me.
"What a gift Biz Stone (Twitter's creator) has given the world, enabling anyone to organize and broadcast." I don't disagree. So who is stopping 'our' dissenters, us, to organize quickly (Like our Iranian example), and stand up collectively, march in millions, against TORTURE, WAR, NSA SPYING, STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE, ACCOUNTABILITY... Please notify me when you start that kind of a movement, similar to one we are cheering over there in Iran, and let's see if we can get our 'activists' to leave their lap tops and actually take real action. I'll sign up. See if you can get the rest of those millions who are busy typing & cheering via 'twitting.'
Sunshine: Welcome. This cartoon is awesome!!! You bet: said it much better than me:-)) Who is Bors? I will join his/her fan club.
gopol: 'MSM' & most USians: I concur.
Zica: That's my point too. Now who wants to be first to test the power of this 'twitting' business when it comes to our own issues; serious issues? I don;t mean getting 100000s of hits/comments; I am talking about getting them out of their nook, have them stand before the Capitol...
Here is an interesting link, with a powerful picture:
http://rebelreports.com/post/126005056/how-about-a-new-fb-twitter-app-for-victims-of-us
I'd say, Obama is on your page - and its the wrong page. Passivity, is collaboration. There were ways of taking a stand, without compromising anyone.
Anon the Neocon, unless you are personally prepared to have your head cracked open by some Basij in Isfahan you’re cheerleading is at best useless, and at worst counterproductive. If you cannot comprehend that US support will de-legitimize and undermine the protesters cause in Iran; then you are beyond help. The Iranian people do not care America right now. This is not about us; this is about them.
Your notion that “there were ways of taking a stand, without compromising anyone”, shows your ignorance on matters of statecraft. Those ways would be covert and clandestine operations; which, if we were indeed engaged in would be unacknowledged and unseen.
Do you know what's hilariously hypocritical? All the sudden neocon concern over the people of Iran. Check that old neocon rag, the WaPo, to see what I mean.
Now let me think . . . weren't Iranians the very same people that the neocons have been braying about nuking for the last several years? Meaning that the people in the protests are the ones all the neocons wanted to see vaporized and now, suddenly, they express such overwhelming concern for the "freedom" and "democracy" for these very same people?
Isn't that interesting?
These are the same kinds of people who hyperventilate over "Islamofascists" yet express outrage when Muslim women are honor-murdered.
Why is it that I'm just not convinced about the sincerity of these neocons?
You do have to give the Iranians credit. At least they have more guts than the Americans. When was the last time Americans were on the streets? During Vietnam?
Mizgin,
The 'neoconservative' tag has taken on a mind of its own. There have always been cadre's and sub-cadre's, but the meaning has become abused in recent years. As mentioned before the neocons have long have an interest in democracy promotion for the instability it can reap, and because democracies are inherently weak.
The neocons have always had an interest in Iran. It is important to separate rhetoric from actions of neocons, and the Israeli and Iranian governments. Things are not always how they appear. From a strategic standpoint Israel is Iran’s natural ally, and vice versa. Further, what’s they historical relationship between the Jews and the Persian’s? Go back to Cyrus freeing the Jews from Babylonian captivity. Does anybody benefit from maintaining Iran as a pariah nation?
Best,
KF
Many of my friends believe that the Soviet Union never did collapse in December 1990. It just moved to DC. Reform now seems impossible.
Bring back the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Anon the Neocon
I congratulate readers on finally being on the side of neocons. Since your thoughts, are the thoughts of some of my colleagues - forget about Moussavi, forget about Iran. Now you're on their page.
____
Puting people's lives at risk by action?
How about putting them at risk by inaction, or half-action?!
As per US support being counterproductive and me not comprehending statecraft. I have little need to prove my credentials to anyone - including yourself Kingfisher.
It goes without saying, that history doesn't know any revolutions, without external intervention, and absolutely not one case, which succeeded without external support. Call it "struggle" call it "intervention by elites", call it what you will.
If you want that debate, please, try me. I have Britannica on hand, and two big revolutions of which to speak.
No, I am not Michael Ledeen (compliment or put-down?)
Imperialism?
Democratization is imperialism. Take it or leave it.
And if you do leave it, then you don't have a leg to stand on. You have no more arguments for democracy, even in America - because Democracy is an idea, not a spontaneous process. Like all ideas, it requires communication, and a certain social network. Democracy is not spread by flea-ridden quilts and in malaria infested bogs.
Our intervention would in no way undermine Moussavi. In fact, the absence of any criticism on our part, of the Tyrants actions, are homicidal. "Intervention" has a repertoire, about as big as a Classical orchestra.
---
Mrs. Edmonds.
Let's assume you are correct - and we are coordinating this in the background - and you are suggesting this.
We have managed to convince everyone, that we are not. The revolution will look more spontaneous, and genuine than ever. Hence there is no need for Obama to speak publicly, because he is very confident, that his methods are impeccable.
If this achieves genuine Democracy in Iran, where stand your objections?
Best interests not in mind?
Democracy is a best interest. You systematically confuse helping dictators and creating fake democracies, with real ones. Our policies do not suffer from democratization, but from its lack, and inconsistency.
Is that a reason to cheat the Persian people?
Persia, more than some post-Soviet republic, deserves democracy. Culturally, historically, Iranians are too noble a breed, to rot within the confines of Haggarism.
Mr. Neocon
Thanks for responding to some of my points. I'm sure you'd rather hear from Ms. Edmonds and I'm sure you will, but I hope you won't mind if I interject in the mean time. On the question of inaction, I already addressed this point from my own point of view and said that what we ought to do is determined by weighing the value of various outcomes and the likelihood of those outcomes. We just apparently disagree on the likelihood of various outcomes and how these should be weighed against their value to tell us if we should take the risk (and again I think deciding to put someone else at risk is a negative of it's own that has to be factored in).
So these are differences on evaluating our chances. Their difficult to debate. But I think the history of our past methods gives us an ideas about how we would try to intervene and from that we can evaluate our chances of success in bringing real democracy.
But, again all that is premised on the idea that our government has the genuine best interest of Iranians in mind or wants real democracy. In my mind what we want is more control of oil and gas both in Iran and in the Caspian, neutering of potentially powerful rival, further strategic gains against Russia and it's increasingly apparent place as number one holder of many essential natural resources (outside oil though they have plenty of that too), and last but not least to appease our Israeli allies who are afraid of having to contend with a military rival next-door who poses an increasing challenge to their regional hegemony. I also think the current urgency has a lot to do with SCO.
So I don't think anyone is CONFUSING genuine and fake democracies or dictators we're just looking at a solid historical trend, all the aforementioned strategic concerns, and making a sober educated guess about what's really going on. If you think Washington (along with some neocons) has had a conversion experience and they've all become bleeding-heart humanitarians you'd need to provide some evidence. What about, say, the reaction we've been getting to civilian deaths in Afghanistan? Not less bombing, just attempts to stop release of reports on the deaths.
Thanks for clarifying your point about democracy never happening without external support. That may be true. Genuine question though, how much external support did the French have? Anyway, the external support the french gave us was in a very different situation and a very different kind of support than you're suggesting. So this point isn't very strong. It goes back to the chances of success I talked about above.
"Democratization is Imperialism"? Well 'Democratization' has become a cover for it, that's for sure. But otherwise that's an oxymoron.
Let's put the debate in a different context. Let's think of the number of people that have been killed or tortured in the build up of our empire. We can start with Guatemala in the 40's though arguably we could go all the way back to Native Americans. What about seeing Sibel's purpose here as a campaign against the mind set and policies that have killed millions upon millions in the name of 'democracy'. Let's weigh the benefits of stopping that steam-roller against even you're assessment of the cost to the Iranians if we let them have their own revolution.
What do you think about Kingfisher's contention that some want democracy because it makes a nation weak? I think over the short term for new democracies this is somewhat plausible in certain ways. Also, in Iran's case, the sheer political upheaval could leave them reeling for a bit as well. (I wouldn't put a plan to use this to their advantage past the Israelis.) Certainly Iranian reactions to external political threats could become more fraught and internally contentious in this case, but this need not interfere with their military capability. So I'm uncertain whether this is really a factor in Iran.
As for democracy requiring communication I'm sure many Iranians know what democracy is.
Finally you contend that we've convinced everyone we're not intervening. The Iranians have repeatedly accused us of intervening. I'm sure they knew Saberi was CIA. And you overlook the obvious attacks in SE Iran on Ahmedinejad's campaign headquarters and the mosque bombing linked to our likely funding of Jundullah etc.
Ok realized after the fact that French revolution is irrelevant to the historical question about democracies really.
I've posted a couple of replies to Anon the Neocon using Jefferson's words to try to make my point - I don't believe Anon has responded, so maybe that’s a little too archaic for this discussion.
In my own words, the US as a nation must respect the sovereignty of other nations, whether or not we like their government, their leadership, or their political ideology - for we expect that they respect ours. How would we respond if the situation were different and it was Iran who was sending in their CIA equivalent here?
We have no moral, ethical or legal right to interfere in any other country's domestic affairs - period.
And Anon, I agree with you that "democratization is Imperialism" - but Imperialism is death to democracy. So what have we gained in the end? Only our own self destruction.
I applaud those in Iran who are struggling for freedom, and if they are the majority, then ultimately they will succeed, by their own efforts and with their own blood, as it should be.
We interfered in Iran before and forced a tyrannical Shah upon a people who had made another choice - a far more democratic one. So we have no credibility with the people of Iran.
Let’s take our nose, and our CIA, and our distorted media coverage out of the way and let the people of Iran decide for themselves who they wish to govern them.
as I am soon to send this out to the public, I would appreciate any feedback from within this community, which are opinions I have learned to respect:
http://ericpottenger.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-new-banking-plan-to-give-fed.html
thank you
I am reminded of listening to the belligerent H.HUNT talk to John PILGER about the behavioral rights of the interventionists he represented "in the name of" whatever it is you want to headline them as. To do whatever it is 'they' want to. Anywhere 'they' want to. As long as its called ' bringing democracy' or 'enduring freedom' or something waggish like that.
The thought that the strain of western 'democracy' as practiced by the warprogrammers organising whatever black 'interventions' are going on in Iran could be anything to do with "the peoples" right to ANYTHING, is arrant nonsense. It just reeks of perfidity. like watching rumsfeld out on the pentagon lawn 'helping the wounded'.
History has it that power involved in such 'aid networks' are doing it for reasons well and truly their own. 'Democratically' cloaked in secrecy provisions, and that generally ALOT of people die as a result . Also cloaked in the respectability of high wordiness for the home press same as ever . Hypocracy[sic] not democracy. That's what 'we' are good at.
Destabilization by any means.
Intentions have been loudly stated for along time.
'people are busy' in IRAN. The same as they were busy in Iraq, Pakistan , Georgia and ARE anywhere else business interests and geo-politics are being vied for. But calling it 'democracy? That Britannica was printed in 1918
remo
Anon the Neocon: "Let's assume you are correct - and we are coordinating this in the background - and you are suggesting this." I consider it 'a possibility;' not certain at this time. On the other hand, what I know for sure: The intention, the desire, to exploit this development. Various 'interest' groups will exploit it.
"Persia, more than some post-Soviet republic, deserves democracy. Culturally, historically, Iranians are too noble a breed." Certainly. They are also educated, passionate, and obviously they are fighting towards their objectives. So let them do it. Morally support it. But don't impose our 'standards,' 'our own selfish interests,' 'our objectives.' Right now we need to take action, instead of talk the talk, walk the walk, on our own 'objectives;' right here.
Metemneurosis: " But, again all that is premised on the idea that our government has the genuine best interest of Iranians in mind or wants real democracy. In my mind what we want is more control of oil and gas both in Iran and in the Caspian, neutering of potentially powerful rival, further strategic gains against Russia and it's increasingly apparent place as number one holder of many essential natural resources (outside oil though they have plenty of that too), and last but not least to appease our Israeli allies who are afraid of having to contend with a military rival next-door who poses an increasing challenge to their regional hegemony." You and I seem to be on the 'SAME PAGE.' As always, nicely argued/articulated. Kudos!
Jeffersonian: "We interfered in Iran before and forced a tyrannical Shah upon a people who had made another choice - a far more democratic one. So we have no credibility with the people of Iran" Right on. I, my family, was the recipient in this. Colonization of Middle East: that's our history/record there.
Eric Pottenger: I just checked out your link; read the first two pages or so. I'll go back later today and give it the deserved time/attention. Bill Bergman, NSWBC member, frequent commentator here, worked for the Fed Res. and I am sure he'll have plenty to say on this. Bill, are you around?
Okay, I have a new post on MSM. It's loooooooonnnnng. I hope you'll find it interesting, because I am looking forward to reading your take/comments/views/response. Then, by Tuesday, I should have an interesting post on our State Department's View of 'Viable' Iranian Candidate. I think you'll get a kick out of it;-)
first off, brilliant post Sibel. it is both bitingly funny and painfully serious, as it should be. and for those that can't see the humor in this situation without abandoning their fair-minded focus, well, I wish them luck.
as far as the ongoing debate here, allow me to make a couple observations.
many people seem to have trouble with the notion that we can be both supportive of the Iranian people, and critical of the U.S. "helping" democracy at the same time.
perhaps these people don't see that any dependency upon Western "help" includes WHY THE WEST IS HELPING, which doesn't limit itself to democracy.
do we even have to argue this point?
anybody that suggests that the U.S. assisting so-called democratic regime change is implicitly a victory, this notion bastardizes both "imperialism" and "ethics."
although it is true that any number of historical circumstances may provide the spark that true freedom needs (think British colonial oppression of North America as an example); we're not in the position to make that call.
the U.S.-sponsored imperial grab is after one thing: it's own meal.
this ethical framework is neither good for Iranians, nor is it good for us; those of us who are fighting for our liberties at home.
what I want for the Iranian people is the strength and self-awareness to choose their own destiny, just as I want the same for ourselves. I want there to be real institutions of truth and fairness, just as I want for ourselves.
is this strengthened by U.S. sponsored regime change, even though our regime isn't selling truth? or is this strengthened through isolation, which represents the inability of the U.S. to successfully exert their power? I'm not a God; I know not the future; hell, I'm barely even educated; and so I humbly can't tell which is better for the Iranians.
but what I can say is that, to me, a victory for the empire is a defeat for us, and as ALL of this IRANIAN MEDIA COVERAGE is really about "us" (and how we perceive the world), then I am fully against the tentacles of empire making its presence felt.
it's pretty simple once you get right down to it.
Hi Sibel. I've posted some criticisms of your previous two posts over here.
danps: Welcome. Thank you for providing me with the link. I disagree with your position, but respect it nonetheless. Nicely written and argued post, indeed. Hope to have you here regularly, and feel free to voice your opinion, including criticism over here.
Here is a timely article, from Paul Craig Roberts, on Iran, the CIA, and the media.
I picked it up from 911blogger.com and thought those here would be interested.
Anon the Neocon-
Well, I am glad we all agree about the virtue of democracy, and the necessity of pursuing democracy internationally, in a responsible, predictable, and honest manner. This is where I am more consistent than many of my colleagues (though not all).
I agree, that our greatest foreign policy failure, has been inconsistency, and the pursuit of deals with with thugs, and crooks, either by directly supporting them, or ignoring their crimes, when we should have demanded transparency, enfranchisement, and openness. Chile, Taleban, the Shah, good examples.
We are, I believe, in agreement.
Where we disagree, is how we perceive Iran.
Presently, our inability to overtly support Moussavi, amounts to support for Ahmedinejad. We are on the wrong side of the barricade. But this may be purely tactical. Some of you - and the left and right, are genuinely disinterested in supporting Moussavi, genuinly believe he didn't win, and genuinly believ he is the same as Ahmedinejad.
Furthermore, you maintain that since we are interfering clandestinely, this undermines Moussavi, and hence your support for Democracy is only good available if no such interference exists.
I am sorry, these are flawed positions. If you are too choose between doing good and bad, you do not choose to do bad, because you are "forced" to choose . Siding with Ahmedinejad, is to collaborate in repression. You simply do not have the luxury of neutrality, because it implies being on the wrong side.
Supporting Moussavi, is support for democracy. Period. Whatever its origin, whatever the method it was installed, its democracy. We wronged Iran in 1954, now, you would have us wrong it again.
Bravo.
000
@Mrs. Edmonds.
"Morally support it. But don't impose our 'standards,' 'our own selfish interests,' 'our objectives.' Right now we need to take action, instead of talk the talk, walk the walk, on our own 'objectives;' right here."
So you and I agree. We need to take action. Great, that's all I insist we do.
...continued from above
@Memneurosis said...
"we don't have "the genuine best interest of Iranians in mind or wants real democracy." In my mind what we want is more control of oil and gas both in Iran"
I think it matters little. Democracy is a genuine interest in itself. We need interested citizens to ensure, our government does not betray the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. A genuine democracy, allows Iran to define its relationship with the world, in a manner reflecting its own interests. We will always have ours, and they will have theirs, but with democracy, they will finally be able to express them.
"against the mind set and policies that have killed millions upon millions in the name of 'democracy'."
I have not seen any significant numbers killed for democracy, other than our troops. Socialists did not fight for democracy, but for socialism. Guerrillas, and insurgencies, fought for all kinds of fascist ideologies, under the pretext of decolonisation. The only ones fighting for actual democracy, are few, and rare.
"What do you think about Kingfisher's contention that some want democracy because it makes a nation weak?"
Democracies are the strongest states imaginable. But they are not easy to build, and the transition can be weakening of a "state" (generally the kind of states do not even qualify as states, since they are utterly failed). Iran is not a failed state. Of all the Islamic countries, it is best positioned on democracy, because its elite is used to following rules. It's not Egypt, or even Turkey. Democracy will make it the most vibrant, and dynamic Islamic country in the world. A regional powerhouse, and its dates and shawls shall conquer the world.
"As for democracy requiring communication I'm sure many Iranians know what democracy is."
They don't. But they will learn. It's like me saying you know Persian. You probably don't, but you can learn.
@ljeffersonian
I thought I had answered your previous comments?
I think you amount to a radical non-interventionist. You reject, basically, our present international architecture.
Logically, your position is flawed. You can argue against international law, but not logic.
If you ask a friend for help, he is not a friend, if he doesn't help. Sovereignty is never absolutely, and it cannot be a cover to deprive people of democracy.
"democratization is Imperialism" - but Imperialism is death to democracy.
I don't see the oxymoron, or connection.
I applaud those in Iran who are struggling for freedom, and if they are the majority, then ultimately they will succeed, by their own efforts and with their own blood, as it should be.
Applause is not enough. Your friend needs help - smiling won't do it.
Nor does it matter if they are in the majority - since the majority may not want democracy. You might benefit from purchasing item A, but if you are not aware of its existence, you won't demand its put on sale. Same with democracy.
Eventually, you have to admit, that a government destroying the popular majority's desire for transparent elections, deserves to be annihilated.
@AtN:
Eventually, you have to admit, that a government destroying the popular majority's desire for transparent elections, deserves to be annihilated.
Was that last sentence directed towards our own US government?
How can a government, which is trying to destroy the desire for transparent elections, be trusted to take action in support of a transition to democracy?
In all likelyhood, our interests and our means would betray/already are betraying that transition.
We no longer have a democracy, as I read on a bumper sticker this weekend, we have an auction.
Anon the Neocon-
@Zica.
You and I live on different planets.
You never know what you have, until you lose it. It is a sign of the times, that the West is so powerful, and rich, and remains painful uninformed, and out of touch.
Please, move to Iran, and put your bumper sticker on there. See what happens.
Moral equivalence isn't about ideology, its about experience and knowledge.
Zica, the Paul Craig Roberts angle is a good one to explore. I have just posted an article on my own site about strategic regime change that may deepen your understanding. It is about the "color coups" in the former Soviet Bloc...bears a strong resemblence to what we're seeing in Iran. enjoy.
http://ericpottenger.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-twitter-revolution-cousin-of.html
Anon the Neocon - First of all let me pick on a slight pet peeve of mine. You say that arealjeffersonian's isolationist position is logically flawed. Technically that's not correct. There's no logical contradiction there. But never mind, I know what you mean. It's just that to me it's like when people say, for instance, "It begs the question, 'what are we doing there'". They take 'begging the question' to mean 'begs for the following to be asked', when it's really the name of a logical fallacy.
In any case you say it doesn't matter whether we're interested in oil and gas. I suppose strictly speaking it's possible for a friend to come over and help you move and be very interested in the dinner or the beer you'd buy him in appreciation. But the point of mentioning the interests the government has is to suggest that their actions will not be ones purely aimed at what's best for Iran. They will likely try to use any influence to establish as much control in these areas as they can, which involves lessening the control given to the people of Iran. So the Iranians will lose a degree (I'd argue a fairly significant one, you may argue less but you can't say none) of their self-determination with regard to their most valuable natural resources. (And yes I think what happens to your property is close enough to be called self-determination) And they will also lose a degree of the benefits and profits from those natural resources.
In Iraq has the great influence we have in government been used to try and guarantee that the Iraqis benefitted fairly from their own natural resources? Have we made any significant efforts to try to get highly unemployed Iraqis involved in reconstruction? Or have we decided to give no-bid contracts to the same old companies here. I'm sure we hire some Iraqi's and make some efforts but we benefit American interests first.
I'm not arguing that any of this is incompatible with democracy. I suppose that depends on exactly what we'd call a democracy. Is just having non-fraudulent elections with more than one candidate good enough?
I'm arguing that the kind of behavior that we've always seen follow from these interests is incompatible with the moral case you're making for why we should help the Iranians - a case that relies on the idea that Iranian self-determination is good. I'm saying those who would carry it out (our government and industries) if we were to ask them to have proven themselves untrustworthy in this regard.
Government and industry revolving doors, campaign contribution loop-holes, lobbying, special interest groups, have made the government virtually continuous with industry. I think our influence in Iran would look like an attempt at a hostile take-over. You'll say yes but we should support genuine democracy and perhaps you'll say you're not arguing for a take-over like in Iraq, merely for supporting the protesters. I don't think it matters really. Even if they'd be unsuccessful ultimately at accomplishing it, those interests would try to turn any Iranian détente with us into a hostile corporate take-over to whatever minor degree they could manage.
As for the millions in the name of 'democracy' perhaps I should have phrased it better. Only some of our interventions have been explicitly claimed to be for democracy. But one could argue that when we were fighting against communism we were fighting for democracy because of the crazy domino effect theory. Besides good figures give around a million dead in Iraq for 'democracy'.
But before you jump on this last statement and argue that some greater number might have died under Saddam, and then his sons, and then etc., remember that my contention was that stopping imperial interventions would do more good than helping Iranian democracy overall and in the long run. So it should be the same comparison with Iraq if we're to stay on the subject.
@EricP: Thanks for the link to your blog. I've only skimmed it a little so far, but will read it more thoroughly soon. I like your title on the page - "Poignant Ointment". I'll probably check back on your blog from time to time as well.
@AtN: Thanks for the direct response. I do appreciate your voice as not purposefully “dirtying the water” here (my best guess, though one can never be sure) and try my best to listen to your ideas.
Different planets? Maybe different universes, but we'd need to consult some theoretical physicists before making a judgment on that. Or maybe some psychologists.
You've mentioned "equivalence" a couple times now. I thought the NeoCon line used "relativism" more. (I like "relativity" better.)
Maybe it's sort of like "Social Darwinism". That term was created to, not only apply evolutionary ideas to the study of society, but to limit those ideas to "the strong survive", whereas Darwinism considers the strong's sacrifice of life and procreation for the group, including the weak.
While most people can be open-minded and ready for more enlightenment on the outer layers, it's usually difficult to directly affect our inner principles, especially as we grow older. I'm guessing you like things real black and white at every level of thought.
As I said before, I don't think there is an equivalency between the governments, nor societies, and the damage they can do/have done, of Iran and the US. The US employs much greater power to do good and evil. One drop of our election corruption might be equivalent to a thousand cloud bursts of theirs.
Bumper stickers reflect "the writing on the wall". The majority in the US don't trust the muddling of our elections by electronic voting AND by the candidate-owning MSM. My question and comments, about OUR government’s destruction of OUR desire for transparent elections, still stand.
Edit:
@AtN:
Please disregard my comments about my judgement of whether or not you have been dirtying the water.
I've regained my senses and think that you're a tool of the mafia.
I hope that you'll recover some day.
@AtN: You want me to live in Iran to wakl my talk. I want you to live in the US and walk yours.
Have you commiserated with any locals lately?
We aren't happy.
@Metemneurosis
By the way, I like the name "Metemneurosis". What does it mean?
They will likely try to use any influence to establish as much control in these areas as they can, which involves lessening the control given to the people of Iran. So the Iranians will lose a degree (I'd argue a fairly significant one, you may argue less but you can't say none) of their self-determination with regard to their most valuable natural resources. (And yes I think what happens to your property is close enough to be called self-determination) And they will also lose a degree of the benefits and profits from those natural resources.
I agree entirely with your point on the way we have carried out our revolutions, without people's best interests in mind.
What makes me a neocon - is my dedication to democracy. I am not driven by my interest in oil, or geostrategy - I believe democracy, is the one stop solution to every and all geopolitical issues.
I cannot say the same for Kermit Roosevelt. Was he carrying out the work of oil companies? Probably.
Look, the basic problem of US foreign policy is this - we don't believe in democracy.
People like myself, do. I would not have removed Alliende, nor proped up Junta's with Condors. Nor would I necessarily remove Hamas - but then again, I would demand that their charter accept democracy, if they want to participate in it (i.e. no anti-democratic parties in a democracy).
In an ideal world, I would crack down on drug dealers in the Zagros, and the Pampas.
My political orientation is marked by the belief, that only one solution exists, and that's Demos-Kratos. A Greek invetion, which the world deserves free of Copyright. It's freeware, shareware, its omniware. And yes, it is Greek, take it or leave it.
In this case, the media is not backing Moussavi, and we are not behind it. Obama is a man who does not identify with this country, and Western values. He is a kind of off-white.
This is the genuine thing - and it merits our support. It is precisely because oil interests are not involved, that the media are not making the kind of noise, they made about Ukraine and Georgia.
---
Your point about self-determination and natural resources.
Simple.
How much oil did Iran produce in 1978? In 1995? Today?
Do you think they want it this way? Or is there an objective economic reason?
So under which regime would they have more control over their resources?
Democratic, and free-market. It is the market which gives control over one's resources, not cleptocrats.
@Anon the Neocon - I apologize I don't have a lot of time to respond now. Perhaps I'll come back latter and do so more fully.
The name Metemneurosis is a play on Metempsychosis. A term (fitting in with your use of Demos-Kratos) from Greek philosophy meaning 'transmigration of the soul'. In this case 'metem' is a variation of 'meta' which has many meanings but here signifies 'change'. So basically my screen-name means 'change of neurosis'. It just occurred to me that could mean becoming non-neurotic, but I prefer to think of it as trading one neurosis for another.
I'd have to think a little more about what neocon means but in my book a commitment to democracy (unless it's for the purposes - realistic or not - that Kingfisher brought up) is not the mark of a neocon. But maybe I just have too much hatred and bile associated with the name.
I'm nonplussed by your saying Obama doesn't identify with the US. I'm not a fan of Obama's really. But haven't seen anything that jumps to mind as non-American except the Bush policies that he's continued like his stance on State Secrets Priv. and the wire tapping progran etc. etc. If that's what you mean I agree - entirely counter to American values.
By the way you didn't sign Anon the Neocon at the top of your message as usual. I assume I'm not addressing an impostor now.
Mr. Neocon,
First, democracy has been driven into an artificial name especially within the last eight years. During my life time the idea of democracy has had no balance jumping from hard left to hard right, administration after administration. Our foreign policies of intervention, whether it be imperialism or democratization, has failed to acheive its purpose due to the imbalances of our policies. The democrats which I agree tend to be passive however Bush and Cheney's policies backed by the neocons have exceeded any rational boundaries of intervention (example being misleading/fabricating intelligence as the bases for invading Iraq). There was little doubt that Saddam needed to be removed however we (Americans) flushed all our credibility down the toilet when we lured allies into a war based on fabrications when we had many others areas we needed to focus attention to especially in Afghanistan. Then the Bush administration calls it in the name of democracy and freedom.
Where does torture fit into democracy?
Where does the States secrets privilege fit into democracy?
Where does fabricating or falsifying arguments for going to war fit into democracy?
Where does supporting Chechens or KLA terrorists tied to al Qaida fit in to protecting Americans in the war against terrorism in the name of democracy and freedom?
Where does corporate war profiteering fit into the name of Democracy?
It is easier to blame Obama now that he has to clean up the biggest pile of blunders in recent history. He will have some failures however in his defence he is trying to balance the dividends from the eight year destructive impact. I know that all of us whistleblowers official and non official are profoundly disappointed that there is no accountability and want more tranparency but that is why democracy has to be cleaned up in our own backyard before we can play "democracy" with everyone else. It is still important to be outspoken and stand for what we believe in and that is why we have to stop gagging those that have the guts to lay the cards on the table like Sibel Edmonds. Everyone of those who say they stand for democracy but turn their heads against people like Sibel is superficially playing the tune of democracy which no longer defines its value of the idea.
LT (Anon) in Norway
Thanks for the article.
In spite of is going on in the world everywhere and these would- be arm chair computer" activists" would have anyone believe, they are NOT doing anything.
The opposition has computer support too and the money and opposition. If Dennis p. Mc and Synthesised and other NV idiots want to REALLY support the cause of Iran, they can quit their jobs and families etc. and move there and get their hands dirty and REALLY help and they can also give ALL their $$ to help this cause. If they don't and I'll bet they don't, they are blowing a lot of smoke out of their asses.
Other than that, these two men and other people like them are erstaz phony liberal fak-os that pretend to care,but really don't because they DON'T REALLY give. They only THINK they do.
To my dear fellow citizens- there is much going on here in the U.S. that is well outside our Bill of Rights. There has been mention of massive surveillance , but I've seen little to nothing, even in the progressive media re:false reports to federal agencies on "national security", with the targeted individuals being citizens (availing themselves of
1st amendment rights or just living their ordinary lives). Before you dismiss the phenomenon of organized stalking, consider carefully what would happen in a community after use of national security letters (to businesses etc.), unsubtle surveillance and tracking by DHS, and the aftermath of alarm in fellow citizens who witness the shows. I believe that there are many in the intelligence community who know that reform is needed, to stem the tide of horrendous unconstitional abuses against U.S. citizens and residents.
P.s. to above (7/12) comment-
in addition to the abuses of extensive surveillance and harassment, the $ cost must be extreme- what are we paying for with our tax dollars?
And btw, much thanks to Sibel Edmonds for brilliant article.
Post a Comment