I have enjoyed it as well..

It's nice that two people on opposite sides of the world and political spectrum can discuss issues w/o acrimony..

This is the kinds of discussions I live for.. :D

Michale.....

This exchange with you was very stimulating. Our points of view are different, in Italy we say "Il mondo è bello perché è vario" (Something like "Variety is the spice of life").

Thank you

SJ

Because, you are correct, SJ.. All things being equal, basic respect SHOULD be afforded to all peoples. For example, I respect your opinions and such...

That kind of respect should not have to be earned..

The word I SHOULD be using is trust... In the concept of Democracy, trust must be earned. We trusted the Palestinians and allowed them to have democratic elections.

The Palestinians betrayed that trust by electing terrorists and murderers...

So, I concede your point. Respect should be afforded to all peoples, all things being equal..

However, within the concept of Democracy, trust is the key...

And that trust must be earned...

Michale.....

It comes from over two decades of military and law enforcement experience..

Even if you don't have a high opinion of the person you are talking to, I believe it is more intelligent
to keep it to yourself and show respect for their opinions, beliefs, etc. Listening goes a long way in solving problems, and you may still get advantages.

Oh, I am not saying don't listen..

In this regard, I simply follow the sage Road House advice.

"You be nice. Until it's time not to be nice"
-Patrick Swayze, ROAD HOUSE

:D

Like it or not, there DOES come a time when NOT being nice is the best course of action..

As I mentioned above, respect should not be freely given.

Respect must be earned or it is meaningless.

Michale.....

The problem is precisely that you believe to be entitled to judge if a country and its people are worthy of respect.
If a country is worthy of being a democracy.

The colonialist mentality has produced many many disasters, not to mention how unethical it is.

And from a more pragmatic poit of view: in is not efficient. To govern conflicts in a colonialist framework you need a lot of resources. I believe those resources could be better used differently.

Even if you don't have a high opinion of the person you are talking to, I believe it is more intelligent
to keep it to yourself and show respect for their opinions, beliefs, etc. Listening goes a long way in solving problems, and you may still get advantages.

SJ

It's not about showing respect for the intelligence of other countries..

It's about the other countries being WORTHY of said respect...

Respect is earned, not given...

We gave the Palestinians the respect to be self-determining..

They proved that they are not worthy of such respect by electing terrorists to represent them..

It is this type of example that should govern US diplomacy...

Michale.....

There is no role that was thrusted upon anybody. Interest is the engine.
It's not the other way around.

I've been writing and erasing a more specific answer for you all day, but a post is not enough.

I for one am glad that Obama is showing respect for the intelligence of the people of foreign countries. It's a good start for talking and it goes a long way.

You seem to be making the point the article makes. If the "wrong" people get elected, then we just ignore the results of the election, or try to overthrow them. That's gotten us into a lot of hot water in the past, and in the present. I don't have any magic answer as to what to do differently, but I thought it was at least worth pointing out.

Yes, that's exactly the point... There isn't no GOOD answer, other than to make damn sure that, when we promote "democracy", that the people in question are ready for it and won't step on their wee-wees.. Again, like the case with the Palestinians...

As for your point regarding my #9 post, you are correct.. To a person, each one interviewed said that Obama's intervention would have been worse..

But that is what you would expect them to say, given the anti-American climate of the region...

With apologies to SJ, it would be like asking a child if it is a bad thing that his parents make him drink his milk and go to bed at 7:30 every night.

Of course, the kid is going to say, "Yea, it's horrible!!"... But that doesn't mean that the kid's perspective is accurate...

If the goal was overthrow of the government, Obama did exactly what he should have to achieve that goal -- not get involved. He took heat for it domestically, but not among the actual Iranian protestors themselves.

We'll never know what might have been...

"Of all sad words of tongue or pen....
The saddest are these, it might have been....."

While Obama may have stayed true to SOMEONE's ideals, he surely did not stay true to AMERICAN ideals..

And that seems to be the problem with Obama, a LOT of the time...

When American ideals and Leftist ideals come into conflict....

Obama seems to always choose the Leftist ideals....

We do it all the time. Tiananmen Square ring a bell? We're still doing business with the Chinese, aren't we?

Yea, don't remind me... China should have been dealt with back then... Now they are too big and too strong to take down...

Michale.....

You seem to be making the point the article makes. If the "wrong" people get elected, then we just ignore the results of the election, or try to overthrow them. That's gotten us into a lot of hot water in the past, and in the present. I don't have any magic answer as to what to do differently, but I thought it was at least worth pointing out.

As for [9], when it was happening, the only calls I heard for Obama to "do something" or "say something" came from his domestic political opponents. Without exception, when actual Iranians were interviewed (both those who supported the people power movement and those who didn't) UNIVERSALLY agreed that Obama stepping into the middle of it -- even by just offering words of support -- would have had exactly the opposite effect. It would have branded the movement as an American puppet, and delegitimized it completely. American politics aside, I listened closer to the people who actually knew the country and knew what they were talking about -- and they were all saying the same thing: don't interfere, because the unintended consequence would have been to pull the rug out from under the very protesters we were trying to show support for. They were basing this thought on the fact that there are plenty of people in Iran with personal memories of what happened in 1953 -- it is not some dusty footnote in a college-level history text to them, it is personal memory and they have NOT forgotten about it.

If the goal was overthrow of the government, Obama did exactly what he should have to achieve that goal -- not get involved. He took heat for it domestically, but not among the actual Iranian protestors themselves.

As for:

How can we claim we are for Democracy then let a scumbag psycho-path crush a democratic revolution??

We do it all the time. Tiananmen Square ring a bell? We're still doing business with the Chinese, aren't we?

-CW

See, I know you were being ironic, but I can assure you that to the people involved it's never funny. It means death, prison, torturing, dictatoriship, limitation of democratic powers to vote or protest...and more.

And yet, as in the case with the Palestinians, it's those exact kind of people, the dictators, the torturers, the murderers and the terrorists, that the people actually elected...

That is what I mean when I say that, sometimes, you can't have Democracy just for Democracy's sake.

There are people out there who simply can't handle it. As in the case with the Palestinians and Hamas..

And thinking to be entitled to a parental role is extremely insulting. And dare I say racist in a Victorian kind of fashion (the burden of the civilized man/American).

It's not a question of being "entitled" as it is a question of it's the role that's been thrust upon the US, as the only remaining superpower.

It IS insulting.. And for that, I apologize.

Perhaps a better analogy would be a big brother/little brother situation.

But it all boils down to the same thing. One cannot allow a people democracy if it's a proven thing that they can't handle it..

As far as it being racist?? Not even close. :D Just a logical acknowledgment of the facts on the ground.

Although the American people can be extremely generous, there is not one intervention abroad the US has made that I can think of that was solely moved by selflessness. Each and every time it was to maintain some kind of interest.

What's wrong with that? I don't think there is anything wrong with making sure our aid does not harm our interests..

The fact that it HAS happened (our aid harming our interests) also belies your claim..

But I see nothing wrong with wanting to ensure that first and foremost, we do no harm to the US.

That's "real politik", ok, I understand. But I would define the self appointed role the US has given itself as "Police" not parental.

Once again, it's not a "self-appointed" role, but rather a role that the world has thrust upon the US..

Your "police" example is a good one, but I would think that would be even more insulting than the parental one..

Regardless, if the countries of the world do not want the US as the world's police, then they need to stop accepting our aid to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year...

I'm heated, but I can assure you this tipe of attitude is what enrages masses of people against American policy all over the world.

I am sure it does pisses the masses of the world off.

But, I think it's mis-directed anger. They are not angry at the US. They are angry at themselves for being in the position of supporting the US's role as the world's police..

OK, OK, that's a bit too psycho-babble, I admit. :D

But there is some truth to it..

When someone is dependent on another, gratitude can often turn to anger.

Anger at the dependency, but directed towards the provider..

All things being equal, I tend to believe the best in people. I don't think the US, as a whole, is out on a big power trip, eager to control the world. I would imagine it would be very nice to be a nice small country like Austria or Costa Rica with absolutely no responsibilities outside of our own borders..

But that is not the role the world has chosen for the US.. So, we simply play the hand we're dealt in the best way we can. Sure, we make mistakes.. Sure, we have some leaders that are assholes and scumbags..

But, by and large, we try our best and, more often than not, our best is pretty damn good... :D

Good talk.. :D

Michale.....

Grazie! Molto gentile.

Look at it as a Parent/Child relationship..

Parents are allowed to do many things that children are not..

See, I know you were being ironic, but I can assure you that to the people involved it's never funny. It means death, prison, torturing, dictatoriship, limitation of democratic powers to vote or protest...and more.

And thinking to be entitled to a parental role is extremely insulting. And dare I say racist in a Victorian kind of fashion (the burden of the civilized man/American).

Although the American people can be extremely generous, there is not one intervention abroad the US has made that I can think of that was solely moved by selflessness. Each and every time it was to maintain some kind of interest.

That's "real politik", ok, I understand. But I would define the self appointed role the US has given itself as "Police" not parental.

I'm heated, but I can assure you this tipe of attitude is what enrages masses of people against American policy all over the world.

Look at it as a Parent/Child relationship..

Parents are allowed to do many things that children are not..

On the face of it, it's hypocritical...

Yet, it is simply the way things are....

Like it or not, as the sole remaining Superpower, the US is often placed in a parental role vis a vis the rest of the world.

Granted, that role is weakening..

Not because the rest of the world is "growing up", but rather the "parent" is developing a drinking problem.... :^/

Michale....

Actually, a lot of people do say it would have been a lot worse if Obama had involved America in any way in the Green Revolution in Iran.

Perhaps.. But what do they base that on?? General run-o-the-mill anti Americanism???

Or something more concrete??

If the potential for a much worse outcome is extremely high, and the potential for a better outcome exists but is lower, which do you choose?

Tough call... I would have to have some ironclad intel to back up either position.. If it's just some vague, "Oh ya better not go there!! It would be bad!!!" then I would have to err on the side of the best interests of the US....

And, in the case of Iran, the best interests of the US is to get that psycho Ahmedjihadist out of power, along with the nutso religious fanatics...

The US, under Bush (and probably under Obama, as well, to be fair) has been pouring tens (possibly hundreds) of millions of dollars into Iran in the past 5 years to undermine the regime. This is a fact. Given this fact, the potential for the Green Revolution to be painted as US puppets was extraordinarily high -- which is why Obama's hands were tied. Also, because of Mossedegh and what happened in 1953.

But my point is still valid.. The Green Revolution failed... Could it have been worse if Obama did back them??

Possibly...

Could it have been better??

Possibly...

How can we claim we are for Democracy then let a scumbag psycho-path crush a democratic revolution??

What would America think if another country did the same to us? You think we'd resent outside influence? So why are you so surprised that others would react the same?

Call it an elevated sense of exceptionalism :D But if another country can influence how we do things here (intentionally, mind you) then maybe we deserve it... :D

I say "intentionally" because, while many countries DO influence how we do things (Mexico, for example) it's in a way that they definitely did not intend. :D

"With great power, comes great responsibility"
-Peter Parker

Michale.....

Actually, a lot of people do say it would have been a lot worse if Obama had involved America in any way in the Green Revolution in Iran. If the potential for a much worse outcome is extremely high, and the potential for a better outcome exists but is lower, which do you choose?

The US, under Bush (and probably under Obama, as well, to be fair) has been pouring tens (possibly hundreds) of millions of dollars into Iran in the past 5 years to undermine the regime. This is a fact. Given this fact, the potential for the Green Revolution to be painted as US puppets was extraordinarily high -- which is why Obama's hands were tied. Also, because of Mossedegh and what happened in 1953.

What would America think if another country did the same to us? You think we'd resent outside influence? So why are you so surprised that others would react the same?

-CW

First, let me say welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation (to combat comment spam), but you should be able to post comments now immediately, as long as you don't post multiple links in your comments.

As for your comment, "Non ti preoccupare" -- your English is better than some folks who comment here.

:-)

Sadly, Italy is not alone in knowing the difference between America's stated goals and our actions. What is ironic to me is how America would react if any foreign country tried to meddle in our politics the way we so routinely do in other countries. We'd be outraged... but then, we wonder why others get outraged when we do so...

Sigh.

Anyway, as I said, welcome to the site!

-CW

The suffering of the Palestinian people has been prolonged because Hamas was "democratically" elected..

Sometimes, the US must act as a parent and do what's best for developing countries in spite of what they may think is best for them...

As far as Obama and the Iran protests...

The protests died an ignoble death even with Obama's hands off approach. Who's to say that things wouldn't have been better if the US had gave more assistance to the protesters??

"If we are to be damned, then let us be damned for what we truly are."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard

Michale.....

Noises of support, yes. Actual support, I'm not convinced. If Obama had gotten on the secure phone lines with Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, and a few other bigwigs, and said "I want to see this Green Revolution work, and I'm willing to give some ground on ___, ___, and ____ if you can make the difference in Iran."

No, I am not leaving CW.COM :D

Whew. You really had me worried there for a second. Seriously.

Very nice gesture - good luck with the offer!

A Belated XMAS Gift to all CW.COM Readers....

As many of you know (at least those who read my posts) I am the proverbial pain in the ass here at CW.COM.. For the most part, ya'all indulge (or ignore :D) my little idiosyncrasies and respond with insight, humor and, (usually :D ), respect.

It is in the spirit of the season (belated though it may be) that I make the following XMAS gift to all..

No, I am not leaving CW.COM :D

For all of 2011 I offer to the readers of CW.COM full repair services for PC laptops, XBOX 360s and Playstation 3s....

There are a few caveats....

"There are a few, uh, provisos. Ah, a couple of quid pro quo. "
-Robin Williams

1. This offer only applies to PC Laptops (no MACs or Apples), XBOX 360s and Playstation3s. I can also repair Plasma TVs and LCD TVs, but shipping on that would probably be prohibitively expensive. But hay... If you want to ship it to me, I'll repair it.. :D

2. This offer applies to service only. Any parts required are responsibility of the repairee (that's you :D ). However, I am able to acquire quality parts at greatly reduce prices. For example, if you were to take a laptop into Best Buy for a motherboard replacement, they would charge you about $750, if they would do it at all.. I do the same motherboard replacement for around $250, parts and labor. In this offer, labor would be free, but parts would be the responsibility of the repairee. I have professional grade reflow equipment that allows me to repair laptop motherboards, XBOX 360s and PS3s with fixes that are usually permanent..

3. Any repair arrangement would be completely and utterly separate and distinct from chrisweigant.com. CW would have absolutely no obligation or responsibility here at all..

"I have no responsibilities here whatsoever."
-Sam Weinberg, A FEW GOOD MEN

4. Repairee would be responsible for shipping costs, both to me and return shipping. The only exception to this is that, if I can't fix the item in question (yes, it occasionally happens :D) I will pay for return shipping.

5. This offer is only available to readers of Chris Weigant commentaries. If anyone would like to partake of this offer, simply send an email/msg to Chris requesting service and he will forward the msg to me. Once that is accomplished, CW.COM is absolved of ANY connection with the service.

That's about the extent of ya'all's "Xmas present"... :D

It's just my way of "giving back"..

Michale.....

I would suggest that the irony is that the "wrong person" may win an election in many instances precisely because the US government is only conceptionally in favour of democracy. If any lessons are being re-learned in the White House these days, I hope one of them is that support of authoritarian dictatorships for the sake of stability over democracy does not, ultimately, lead to the desired outcome.

I hope it's not too late for Obama/Biden/Clinton to take advantage of this historic opportunity and act to mitigate against the ill-effects of a decades long policy of supporting this decidedly undemocratic government and demonstrate a little faith in the Egyptian people who long for democracy, including free and fair elections.

If President Obama is making decisions based on the unsubstantiated fear that Muslim extremists might prevail in a democratic Egypt, then he won’t be doing anything to improve US credibility in Egypt or throughout the Arab world. And, that is very bad for US national interests.