Boiling the ocean in a teacup!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sleeve
Whoever you are, you've singlehandedly salvaged this thread. Carry on.
That's a tough assignment.
Since Teddy Roosevelt and his Nobel Peace Prize awarded for a stupid decision, US Presidents have had no concept of "internal affairs" of other countries. Meanwhile the US Senate has always had an inflated opinion of the internal affairs of the US (how the members are reelected) vs International Law.
There is little understanding of how much damage was done by the clumsy interference by US agents in Iran which turned the Shah into a brutal tyrant who made the Gestapo look like a Sunday School staff. It has been thoroughly investigated and documented. It remains a "secret" only as a figment of the imagination of the idiots under the supervision of the President who do the devilish details of classification of documents unfit to be seen by citizens. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between state secrets and pornography. They are both marked by a lack of originality -- you have seen one and you have seen all.
Until the US shoots that ignored "elephant in the room" with an abject appology, there will be a never-ending ability of the successor tyrant(s) to justify any oppression as instigated by the foreign devils.
Meanwhile, who won really the election in Iran? Who cares? Why should we be whipped into a frenzy by the Iranian refugees in the US? The best case for comment is how soon they got all those non-automated ballots counted. >>You should notice that your counting system pissed-off a lot of your citizens. The rest of the world has noticed.<< Then leave it there.
It's much more interesting that the maoralistic governor of South Carolina who would not accept Federal "Stimulus" funds could not give up the stimulus of a lover. Do we now debate the relative worth of fiscal morals vs sexual/"family" morals?
Oh, but wait -- an iconic entertainer died before his time. That is far more important than who won the election in Iran. Iran has "the bomb"? A silly governor? So what, we need more background music in our daily life.
:bang:
Election Protests in DC - Hard to Imagine!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Finch
The United States is not saying Mousavi won. ... Going off CoconutKid, if the 2000 US election had caused huge peaceful [peaceful meaning attacking policemen and setting buses on fire] protests in Washington, what would've happened?
Not saying who won is not a good excuse for the content of commentary on the reaction to the announced results. The commentary was very old fashioned. It came out of an automatic typewriter programmed by Woodrow Wilson. Jimmy Carter has improved on that; but nobody asked him - so far as I have heard.
I wondered what those black lines indicated.
I guess you have an attitude about "peaceful" protests in which you wish to catch me so as to ridicule my statements.
Whilst we could debate the line at which peaceful "petitioning the government" ends and insurrection begins, I think the concept of protest of a US Presidental election by a huge crowd in the capital city is a bit of sarcasm. We already know from history what happens when nasty crowds get out of hand in the District of Columbia. They get to burn down their own stuff (but not government buildings) and then are shown who is in control --- just as the writers of the Constitution foresaw.
In 2000, the Electorial College demonstrated its purpose just as the writers of the Constitution intended. The results of the citizens' voting was filtered through a complex system. The critical "swing" state had its vote subjected to a "Guardian Council" and thereby -- well, not too different from Iran except on a matter of scale.
Now -- did the International community raise a huge protest about this process? Was the lack of international consternation and commentary only because there were no riots over the results?
Commenting on riots can have different perceptions amongst the total population, don't you think?
