4 ms·

Well, I guess that depends on whether you think a people's right to self-govern depends on you liking them or not.

by sho 17y ago

bilbo0s 17y ago
Just a question, do you believe that Ahmadinejad lost?
- sho 17y ago
  I have no idea! However, it doesn't matter what I think, or even who won or lost. A lot of people there obviously don't believe the results of the election, and they are vigorously demanding further proof. That's their right and I see the whole thing as a fairly healthy process. Regardless of who ends up the victor, a large number of people are demonstrating that they deeply care about the matter, and won't be intimidated by the state - this is a good thing, IMO. Time for the rest of the world to just stand back and let Iran decide its own future.
  - bilbo0s 17y ago
    It's late and I'm tired so I'll just come to the point. The OP advocated intervention on the part of the US. Now presumably he or she is advocating intervention on the side of the opposition. An opposition that may have been unsuccessful at the ballot box it must be said. At the same time he is being upvoted by people, I am assuming like yourself, who are saying it's: "Time for the rest of the world to just stand back and let Iran decide its own future" What is being discussed by the OP, and on this thread however, is how to help the protesters. I was giving my reasons for a careful consideration of the consequences of helping these particular protesters. Let's be honest and admit that people here are discussing something other than self rule. And it is my opinion that whenever we start talking like that, things go horribly wrong. Perhaps now, perhaps twenty years from now, but they do go wrong. Or perhaps you don't consider CIA airdrops of encrypted satellite phones interference?
    - sho 17y ago
      I think I misunderstood you then. I am also opposed to any sort of active interference in the situation, including this ridiculous idea of airdrops. Passive support, such as ensuring communication tools like Twitter are running at crucial moments, is OK. What I objected to was (what sounded like) your position that helping pro-democracy agitators we like is OK, but those we do not like (your mention of Allah Akbar was telling), we should not support. I disagree rather strongly with that sort of side-picking. Your mention of nukes was also a red herring - what does that have to do with anything? We're either pro-democracy or not. In this case, however, I think we should just wait it out. I also objected to your claim that OBL was once aided as a pro-democracy agitator; this is very far from the truth. He was aided to strategically undermine the USSR, nothing to do with democracy. However I agree that the USA should learn a lesson from its experience with him - hands off unless you're willing to go all the way, and the USA is not.
      - bilbo0s 17y ago
        OK. Then we agree on non interference. Which is the material point. Just some points in the way of precision . . . I am as vehemently opposed to helping Tibetan pro democracy agitators as I am to helping Iranian pro democracy agitators. Or, more accurately, I believe that the pro democracy agitators that we "like" should be left to sink or swim as well. Also, I disagree on your assertion that passive support should be offered to pro democracy movements. It is "side picking" of the sort you said you disagree with. Then again, it might be illustrative to ask you whether you would want Twitter to forego their maintenance if Ahmadinejad's followers were using it to organize their rallies? I strongly suspect that the State Department would have made a call of a different nature to Twitter under the circumstances that question postulates. In any case, in the end, we screw up passive interference as well. Anyone care to hazard a guess at what Facebook and SMS have in common? Their communication channels are, by default, private. Either the Facebook friends list or the mobile phone address book has to be accessed to send a message. And then only the receiver will get it. Interesting, is it not, that the communication channel that is by default public has been left unfettered through all of these disruptions.
- quizbiz 17y ago
  I don't think it matters. More importantly, trust in the system has been lost.
  - bilbo0s 17y ago
    Again, just a question. Are you implying that the form of intervention being advocated will restore that trust?

Well, I guess that depends on whether you think a people's right to self-govern depends on you liking them or not.

by sho 17y ago

Well, I guess that depends on whether you think a people's right to self-govern depends on you liking them or not.

bilbo0s 17y ago

Just a question, do you believe that Ahmadinejad lost?

sho 17y ago
I have no idea! However, it doesn't matter what I think, or even who won or lost. A lot of people there obviously don't believe the results of the election, and they are vigorously demanding further proof. That's their right and I see the whole thing as a fairly healthy process. Regardless of who ends up the victor, a large number of people are demonstrating that they deeply care about the matter, and won't be intimidated by the state - this is a good thing, IMO. Time for the rest of the world to just stand back and let Iran decide its own future.
- bilbo0s 17y ago
  It's late and I'm tired so I'll just come to the point. The OP advocated intervention on the part of the US. Now presumably he or she is advocating intervention on the side of the opposition. An opposition that may have been unsuccessful at the ballot box it must be said. At the same time he is being upvoted by people, I am assuming like yourself, who are saying it's: "Time for the rest of the world to just stand back and let Iran decide its own future" What is being discussed by the OP, and on this thread however, is how to help the protesters. I was giving my reasons for a careful consideration of the consequences of helping these particular protesters. Let's be honest and admit that people here are discussing something other than self rule. And it is my opinion that whenever we start talking like that, things go horribly wrong. Perhaps now, perhaps twenty years from now, but they do go wrong. Or perhaps you don't consider CIA airdrops of encrypted satellite phones interference?
  - sho 17y ago
    I think I misunderstood you then. I am also opposed to any sort of active interference in the situation, including this ridiculous idea of airdrops. Passive support, such as ensuring communication tools like Twitter are running at crucial moments, is OK. What I objected to was (what sounded like) your position that helping pro-democracy agitators we like is OK, but those we do not like (your mention of Allah Akbar was telling), we should not support. I disagree rather strongly with that sort of side-picking. Your mention of nukes was also a red herring - what does that have to do with anything? We're either pro-democracy or not. In this case, however, I think we should just wait it out. I also objected to your claim that OBL was once aided as a pro-democracy agitator; this is very far from the truth. He was aided to strategically undermine the USSR, nothing to do with democracy. However I agree that the USA should learn a lesson from its experience with him - hands off unless you're willing to go all the way, and the USA is not.
    - bilbo0s 17y ago
      OK. Then we agree on non interference. Which is the material point. Just some points in the way of precision . . . I am as vehemently opposed to helping Tibetan pro democracy agitators as I am to helping Iranian pro democracy agitators. Or, more accurately, I believe that the pro democracy agitators that we "like" should be left to sink or swim as well. Also, I disagree on your assertion that passive support should be offered to pro democracy movements. It is "side picking" of the sort you said you disagree with. Then again, it might be illustrative to ask you whether you would want Twitter to forego their maintenance if Ahmadinejad's followers were using it to organize their rallies? I strongly suspect that the State Department would have made a call of a different nature to Twitter under the circumstances that question postulates. In any case, in the end, we screw up passive interference as well. Anyone care to hazard a guess at what Facebook and SMS have in common? Their communication channels are, by default, private. Either the Facebook friends list or the mobile phone address book has to be accessed to send a message. And then only the receiver will get it. Interesting, is it not, that the communication channel that is by default public has been left unfettered through all of these disruptions.
quizbiz 17y ago
I don't think it matters. More importantly, trust in the system has been lost.
- bilbo0s 17y ago
  Again, just a question. Are you implying that the form of intervention being advocated will restore that trust?