Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:It takes Obama a week and Clinton prodding to decide, sort of, to speak out about the killings going on in Iran.

But he immediately supports someone trying to set himself up as a Chavez dictator in Honduras. Interesting that.

Not particularly. The latter statement is capable of affecting the situation, the former is not. Welcome to international affairs; the place where morality doesn't exist.

Frazzled wrote:So he supports wannabe dictators but only if they can't shoot rockets at us?

Yes. Where have you been for the last 40 years.

I'm sorry, when was it policy to support people trying to overturn democracies again? I thought Democrats were all against that.


I guess not.

Frazzled wrote:I'm sorry, when was it policy to support people trying to overturn democracies again? I thought Democrats were all against that.


I guess not.

Wait, so you want us to support an Iranian initiative to overturn their democratic process, but cringe at the prospect of doing the exact same thing in Honduras?

Here's some news for you: the fact that a state is democratic does not make it inherently favorable to the United States, or the larger West. Often times supporting those who wish to overthrow a democratic state is in our best interest. That's why IR doesn't possess a moral consciousness.

1. What happened in Iran was anything but democratic. Are you saying Ahmadinnerjacket won that election?

2. IIRC the USA has never had a war with a freely elected, democratic government, outside of Indian tribes and the British.

It was as democratic as having a court stop a recount.

Righto. American Ideology was soo 43rd president.

It was as democratic as having a court stop a recount.

So you support Ahmadinnerjacket's "election?" You must love North Korea's elections then.

Man I thought this thread was about Saturday Night Live getting a Senate seat. I wonder if he'll make his arguments on the floor in skit format... CSPANS ratings would double! "Holy crap Bob we've got a second viewer!"

I'm Al Franken, and Gosh darn it, at least a few people like me!

I didn't support the 2000 "election", and I don't support Iran's "election"... because they're both frauds. Yes, Bush's "election" was much more slickly done, but it was still a fraud.

I don't care about Iran or Honduras, I just care about getting $7000 because I bought a house this year.

Frazzled wrote:1. What happened in Iran was anything but democratic. Are you saying Ahmadinnerjacket won that election?

Are you saying, definitively, that he didn't? It isn't like all those people in the street were standing against the current regime. Many of them were actually supporting it.

Anyway, that's not the point. What matters is that the Honduran situation revolves around a public official stepping beyond his constitutionally permitted role, and being removed via constitutionally permitted means.

Ahmadinejad was elected per the means prescribed in the Iranian constitution. That election was challenged, and supported, with force. The government moved in to retain control; using violence against both supporters and protesters.

When did democratic process equate to permitting the people to do as they please, regardless of the rule of law?

Frazzled wrote:
2. IIRC the USA has never had a war with a freely elected, democratic government, outside of Indian tribes and the British.

Yeah, that's the foundation of democratic peace theory. The basic premise being that democracies don't go to war with each other. Its a great theory, until you realize that it is directly contradicted by history. India v. Pakistan being the most obvious example.

Frazzled wrote:I'm Al Franken, and Gosh darn it, at least a few people like me!

He won the election after a legitimate, and automatic, recount.

But its not. The US has not fought a war with a democracy.

Frazzled wrote:But its not. The US has not fought a war with a democracy.

Which is absolutely irrelevant because democracies fight wars with each other all the time. The fact that the US hasn't encountered this phenomenon is a testament to our position in the power hierarchy, not any ideological matter.

Frazzled wrote:It takes Obama a week and Clinton prodding to decide, sort of, to speak out about the killings going on in Iran.

But he immediately supports someone trying to set himself up as a Chavez dictator in Honduras. Interesting that.

It's pretty simple really: Obama wants the rest of the world to swing as far Left as possible so he looks more moderate.

Can't have a piss-ant third world Banana Republic or Iran's general populace upstaging us.

Frazzled wrote:But its not. The US has not fought a war with a democracy.

... other than Iraq ?

So he supports wannabe dictators but only if they can't shoot rockets at us

add "or threaten our oil supply" and you've pretty much got USA foreign policy for the last 60 years.

Or are you suddenly saying then that the USA should invade Saudi Arabia as well ?

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:But its not. The US has not fought a war with a democracy.

... other than Iraq ?

Yea, Saddam Hussein always won 100% of the electorate because he was awesome on the campaign trail.
My point stands, excellently. Democracies almost never go to war with each other. Its not beneficial.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Good to see the US is firmly on ths side of Chavez and the Castro brothers on the Honduras issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

It isn't surprising that the administration is taking a hit for its foreign policy choices. America is notoriously idealistic with regard to international affairs, and the last President to conduct this type of engagement was Nixon.

Also: 40% say we weren't aggressive enough in supporting Iranian reformers? What do the idiots want? Nixonian interventionism without the accompanying diplomatic tact? That's just warmongering.

This is something I've never understood about this country, and it comes from the right and left. Why do we care if Iran, Iraq, Honduras, whatever, is a democracy, or even is particularly friendly to the United States? Are we supposed to be the moral compass for the world? Those nations have different cultures than we do, so I don't think we should risk our lives trying to impose democracy on the world, so long as they don't threaten ourselves or our allies, or damage our national prestige.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:But its not. The US has not fought a war with a democracy.

... other than Iraq ?

So he supports wannabe dictators but only if they can't shoot rockets at us

add "or threaten our oil supply" and you've pretty much got USA foreign policy for the last 60 years.

Or are you suddenly saying then that the USA should invade Saudi Arabia as well ?

Iraq was a great democracy. Vote for Sadam or him and his sons will mutilate your genitals and murder your family. That is effective campaigning.

Change I can believe in!

Worked for Kennedy !

....I would argue that whilst you might not hve used your own troops your oinvolvement in things like the overthrow of Allende in Chile could count.

....I believe Spain was also a democracy during your war with them. A lot of people couldn't vote.... but that was the case in the USA as well.

Frazzled wrote:
My point stands, excellently. Democracies almost never go to war with each other. Its not beneficial.

Your point has been refuted ad nauseum for the last 30 years in IR scholarship. Here is a fairly comprehensive list of conflicts which stand in contradiction to the theory.

The correct way of phrasing your point is 'prosperous, politically free, nations do not go to war with one another'. This makes perfect sense because 'prosperous, politically free, nations' generally do not suffer from an overabundance of reasons for war, let alone with those states that are likely to be significant trading partners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:
This is something I've never understood about this country, and it comes from the right and left. Why do we care if Iran, Iraq, Honduras, whatever, is a democracy, or even is particularly friendly to the United States? Are we supposed to be the moral compass for the world? Those nations have different cultures than we do, so I don't think we should risk our lives trying to impose democracy on the world, so long as they don't threaten ourselves or our allies, or damage our national prestige.

You would get along famously with Kissinger. His take on the matter essentially revolves around how the relative isolation of the US meant that we never had to make deals with anyone, let alone the devil.

Your list cites WWI. Er, ok...

Your cite is a list of "could vote buts."

Germany was not a democracy.

Sorry, Envy89, having renowned Nazi Madman Glen Beck in your sig kinda destroys your credibility right off the bat.

Also, the fact that Bush had the same majority in both Houses and did terribly with it. I can't see Obama doing any worse.

By the way, Frazzled, you realize that everyone in Iran dislikes the US, right? I mean, us endorsing them is a death sentence for the anti-Ahmadinijad forces, because they will be seen as puppets of America, just like the Shah, who was overthrown before in a similar way.

Frazzled wrote:Your list cites WWI. Er, ok...

Your cite is a list of "could vote buts."

Germany was not a democracy.

If Germany wasn't a democracy at that time, then neither was England, or the United States.

Hell, several international bodies have produced reports that call the democracy of the current US electoral process into question.

This leads to what is really the most damning criticism of democratic peace theory. In general, the extent to which democratic states are considered totalitarian correlates negatively with a decline in the relationship between those two states. The perception of WWI Germany is actually a prime example of this.

Frazzled wrote:1. What happened in Iran was anything but democratic. Are you saying Ahmadinnerjacket won that election?

Frazzled, I read an article from a polling firm that did a little work in Iran that said he very well might have, and it might have been a comfortable margin. Like a good article should do, it really made me rethink my position.

The great irony here is that maybe the government didn't need to jump the gun on the election results. The windbreakered one might have won without so much turmoil if they had just let the votes be counted. Instead they decided to monkey around fairly blatently, which is what really got people upset. How awesome is it that their actions might actually have hastened their demise?

Mad Rabbit wrote:
By the way, Frazzled, you realize that everyone in Iran dislikes the US, right?

Exactly. Even the Iranian reformers have no love for the West. They just aren't quite as adamant about standing up to it regardless of the potential cost.

I haven't read the thread since it only has two comment: "liberals are socialists" and "conservatives are warmongers". Why not develop some form of adult thinking and break away from the dichotomy of communism and fascism?

LiterateWolf wrote:I haven't read the thread since it only has two comment: "liberals are socialists" and "conservatives are warmongers". Why not develop some form of adult thinking and break away from the dichotomy of communism and fascism?

Why not read the thread before developing an opinion which can only be described as uninformed?

It also might be a good idea to avoid equating socialism with communism. Not to mention the problems inherent with considering communism and fascism as ideological opposites (they're more like kissing cousins).

dogma wrote:
Wait, so you want us to support an Iranian initiative to overturn their democratic process, but cringe at the prospect of doing the exact same thing in Honduras?

Here's some news for you: the fact that a state is democratic does not make it inherently favorable to the United States, or the larger West. Often times supporting those who wish to overthrow a democratic state is in our best interest. That's why IR doesn't possess a moral consciousness.

Hold on a minute. You're calling the election in Iran a democratic process? Is this the same election with over five million voters, most of them using hand written ballots, that the victor was announced HOURS after the polls closed? The same election with more votes than the entire population of the nation (I can't remember but it was something like 112% of the people would have had to vote for the numbers to be correct?) The election that in the past few days announced a partial recount that last all of half a day proved there was no voter fraud? The same election where people excersising thier democratic right to protest were shot and killed like animals for no reason other than they were gathered in protest of what the vast majority of the world sees as a fraudulant victory? Is it that democratic process we're talking about?

How about Honduras? The President takes a page from Hugo Chavez and trys to alter the nation's constitution so he can avoid his term limit and stay on as President, is told it would be against the law for a Constitutional refferendum within six months of an election. The President declares a vote by fiat. The Supreme Court nullifies the decree and orders the head of the armed forces not to distribute the ballots, as is their charge in normal times. The President fires the General. The Supreme Court orders his reinstatement. The President refuses. The Supreme Court Lobbies Congress who reinstates the General. The Supreme Court orders the military to remove the President from office for violating the Nation's constitution, and Congress elects a new President.

Sounds pretty frakken good to me. The guy atempted to alter the Honduran constitution for his own good at will! No votes, nothing! He's told no and fires those who are standing up for their Constitutional Law! It's not a Military coup. The Military was ordered at the behest of the other two branches of the Honduran Government. That's a Democratic Government acting against a power mad President with no regard for their Constitution and OUR President is siding with the would be dictator! That's freakin scary, and for the Love of America I hope it's not prophetic.

Tyras wrote:
Hold on a minute. You're calling the election in Iran a democratic process?

Yep.

Tyras wrote:
Is this the same election with over five million voters, most of them using hand written ballots, that the victor was announced HOURS after the polls closed?

You mean nearly 40 million voters, right?

Also, its standard practice to announce a winner long before all votes are tabulated. Take the US electoral process as an example.

Tyras wrote:
The same election with more votes than the entire population of the nation (I can't remember but it was something like 112% of the people would have had to vote for the numbers to be correct?)

Uh, no. There are 70 million people living in Iran, and there were less than 40 million votes.

Tyras wrote:
The election that in the past few days announced a partial recount that last all of half a day proved there was no voter fraud?

Not the most in depth investigation, but that isn't necessarily damning given the outcome of the process.

Tyras wrote:
The same election where people excersising thier democratic right to protest were shot and killed like animals for no reason other than they were gathered in protest of what the vast majority of the world sees as a fraudulant victory?

By 'democratic right to protest' do you mean looting, arson, and general violence?

Tyras wrote:
Is it that democratic process we're talking about?

Yep.

Tyras wrote:
How about Honduras? The President takes a page from Hugo Chavez and trys to alter the nation's constitution so he can avoid his term limit and stay on as President, is told it would be against the law for a Constitutional refferendum within six months of an election. The President declares a vote by fiat. The Supreme Court nullifies the decree and orders the head of the armed forces not to distribute the ballots, as is their charge in normal times. The President fires the General. The Supreme Court orders his reinstatement. The President refuses. The Supreme Court Lobbies Congress who reinstates the General. The Supreme Court orders the military to remove the President from office for violating the Nation's constitution, and Congress elects a new President.

Sounds pretty frakken good to me. The guy atempted to alter the Honduran constitution for his own good at will! No votes, nothing! He's told no and fires those who are standing up for their Constitutional Law! It's not a Military coup. The Military was ordered at the behest of the other two branches of the Honduran Government. That's a Democratic Government acting against a power mad President with no regard for their Constitution and OUR President is siding with the would be dictator! That's freakin scary, and for the Love of America I hope it's not prophetic.

Your facts are wrong, again.

Zelaya wanted to call for a non-binding consultative poll of the citizenry on the matter of whether or not a referendum should be held along side the upcoming Presidential election. This referendum, if passed, would have called a Constitutional National Assembly which would then redraft the Honduran constitution in order to permit President's to serve more than one term. However, as any change would not have taken place until AFTER the upcoming election Zelaya would not have been directly affected by the change.

Zelaya is accused of attempting to abolish the Honduran constitution. He did not do this. Instead, he attempted to have it redrafted. The members of the alleged coup, on the other hand, are accused of violating these articles:

Article 74, which prohibits the restriction of mass media.

Article 81, which provides for freedom of movement within the country.

Article 82, which declares that the right to self-defense in inviolable.

Article 84, the person must be clearly informed of his rights and the reason for his arrest; the person has the right to communicate with another person of his choosing at the time of his arrest.

Article 85, the person may only be arrested at a place determined in the law.

Article 88, any declaration by the detainee is invalid if not made in the presence of a competent judge.

Article 90, which establishes due process.

Article 102 states that "no Honduran can be expatriated or handed over by the authorities to a foreign state."

Article 182, the right of habeas corpus