Putin's Visit To Saudi Arabia - Hey, what's Going On Here?

I didn't draw up the map what the Middle East should look like after the First World War, France and England did.

Syria is a sovereign nation and Assad is the legitimate leader of that country.

It was Barack Obama who wanted regime change #3 and armed Al Qaeda and his "JV Team" (ISIS)
Then ISIS made a big mistake and adopted terrorism and terrorised Europe and America in particular in San Bernardino, California and it was the liberals political correctness that allowed ISIS to carry out their terrorist attack in San Berdoo.

Not forgetting that it was President Obama and Hillary Clinton's State Department who pretended to vet ISIS terrorist Tashfeen Malik and gave her a visa and welcomed her with open arms to America in the name of diversity and political correctness.

(See something and you say something is politically incorrect and you are a racist xenophobic deplorable.)

 

Wow! You had to go back a hundred years! Is that the era you're shooting for? Most historians contribute our post-war tariff policies and isolationism as major factors enabling the global depression, the rise of Nazi Germany (as well as Fascist Italy and militaristic Japan) and WW II. It was that conclusion that drove our continuing involvement in global affairs following the war, as well as one of the most successful military alliances in western civilization with the formation of NATO. American foreign policy from the end of the war until the break-up of the USSR was a bi-partisan effort, wherein differences in policy stopped at the "water's edge."
The era you are thinking of - wherein the only defense anyone required was a passport - was the high water mark of the British Empire...now long since gone.
Now Trump, in the betrayal of the Kurds, and in his retreat behind our borders, has sent the world a different message.

 

You honestly think that our military backs Trump's betrayal of our allies, the Kurds? And, the Europeans, who formerly thought they could rely on us, won't...in the future...which, ultimately, will bring down the U.S. both economically and militarily.

 

Actually you have to go back 219 years.

Between 1800 and 1934, U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. Most of these small wars were punitive action wars when a foreign government or someone in a foreign country abused American citizens.

There were also a few wars of profiteering like the Banana Wars and wars of pacification and also wars of nation building.

I have a few of my favorite American small wars.
In 1914 some American sailors were detained by Mexican authorities.
The Mexican government apologized and were so sorry that the American sailors just wanted to drink tequila and score some putang.
But this wasn’t good enough for the admiral commanding the local U.S. naval squadron. He demanded that the Mexicans fire a 21-gun salute in honor of the U.S. flag. The Mexican government refused and to make a long story short, the admiral landed U.S.Marines in Veracruz and wound up occupying Veracruz for seven months.

 

The arming of Al Qaeda - and the other Salafist Islamist garbage of the same ilk in to fight a proxy war in a foreign nation was a heinous atrocity. Not just a violation of international law - but in this case .. arming the people we are claiming to be fighting. ... You know ... that 911 terrorist crowd.

The mistake of ISIS was going off the leash into Iraq ... and believing that God was on their side in their quest to turn Syria into an Islamic State.

My issue is the lies and state sponsored propaganda .. the "cover up" .. .and that our MSM is under such control that this cover up can be maintained for so long.

Why on earth would we want to replace a secular regime - one of the most free Muslim nations on the plane .. with an Islamic State ? .. and how is it that the Media - in any detail and forcefulness - is not putting this question to the Establishment ? This and countless others related to this disaster.

That kind of power should shock and disturb people - and I realize that many it does - but it should be more. Most just disregard increases to Gov't power these days .. on both sides of the fence.

 

Thanks for taking the time indulging me. I am skeptical of what our govt and msm says about Iran and that is why I asked.

I have a couple more questions if you will indulge me in education.

Can the people of Iran rejevt living under the current religious law and is there a legal way to so that?
Related to that question who really holds the power in Iran ? The head cleric or the elected president ?

I assume the real power resides in the cleric while the president and other elected leaders answer to the cleric where the real power resides?

 

You should be skeptical. Totally. But that doesn't mean living in Iran is the same as United States or that it should be either. Two different cultures, countries, and histories.

Ultimately, while the ascendancy of 'Western civilization" in the past couple of centuries has created a large class of "Westernized people" in various other countries as well, for many people living in countries with different cultures and backgrounds, living in their own would be 'culturally' more comfortable. Meaning, if you are an American, you are going to be more comfortable culturally living in America than in Iran and the same applies to non-Westernized Iranians in reverse. Most Iranians who immigrate to the West are from Iran's "Westernized classes". The very small minority of Iranians from less 'Westernized' backgrounds who end up immigrating (very few), will be doing so mainly for economic reasons.

To me, the real test of how 'enlightened' a society is relates to the following:

1- How much of that societies actions are guided by reason as opposed to dogma (the latter can take a religious or secular cover -- the main issue is the extent to which reason is thwarted by some ideologically enforced 'truth')?
2- How well or poorly does that society's governmental institutions reflect the attitudes and interests of the majority of its people?
3- How well or poorly does that society allow dissident, minority, attitudes and interests to have appropriate room to challenge the existing order, in order to allow for the evolutionary process to bring about progress?

These are the real issues that I believe should be asked about any country, including Iran. On none of these 3 questions, would Iran get a failing grade, despite Iran being in a region where almost all of its neighbors do get failing grades on at least 1 (and usually all 3) of these questions. Still, in all of them, Iran could do much better than the barely passing grade it gets from me. To be sure, however, even our main Western adversaries (who try to impose governments on other countries that would get a failing grade in at least 2 of the 3 questions I mention above), themselves don't come even near a perfect 10 on any of these questions either.

You will need to be clearer by what you mean as "religious law"? All laws in Iran are enacted by Iran's elected parliament, although legislation that is deemed by the Guardians Council to contradict "Islamic law"(or the constitution) can be stricken down on that basis.

I think the real question you are asking boils down to the contours of "individual liberty" in Iran, namely the extent to which people are bound by certain well-publicized strictures on various things associated with "religion". And the basic, general, (not precise) answer on that issue is that people in Iran are legally expected to conform to such strictures in public, but are legally protected to live their lives in private in accordance with their preferences.

In the meantime, many of the things people associate with "religion" actually reflect cultural and socio-economic divisions in Iran. Attitudes and legal measures relating to these things evolve (and have evolved) based on changes in Iranian culture and socio-economic conditions. For instance, what is unacceptable attire in public today isn't the same things as it was 30 years ago. And what is still unacceptable today won't necessarily be the same 10 years from now.

For a 'Westerner" or Westernized Iranian, the main difference in your routine living in Iran as compared to living in the US, and where you will feel the impact of so-called 'religious laws' (not an accurate understanding itself), relates first to what I alluded to, namely the 'attire' you are expected to wear in public, next your ability to partake in with your girlfriend/boyfriend, wife/husband as it relates to a very limited (but still rather routine in Western societies) set of activities (which I describe below), then, finally, your inability to consume alcoholic beverages in public and in public accommodations. You will, however, not feel any significantly different forces operate to regulate your private behavior (and will find many such activities, including ordering and purchasing alcoholic beverages delivered to your door) easier than elsewhere even though the person delivering the alcohol is breaking the law. (With alcohol consumption in Iran 3 times the MENA average, even many in Iran's government realize that their battle with 'prohibition' hasn't been a successful one either, as reflected in dozens of government sponsored alcohol treatment centers in Iran. Indeed, one thing you might find surprising about Iran is that DUI/DWI laws in Iran are more lax than those in the US, with people caught drinking and driving given punishments that are if anything too lax).

The limited set of activities you cannot participate with along with your wife/husband, girlfriend/boyfriend, relates to swimming (public beaches and swimming pools are segregated based on gender); sports (until recently, women were barred from attending men's football matches but that is changing), and physical training and exercise (the public gyms are also segregated with different hours for women and men).

In all of these, you have a tug-of-war between different socio-economic, cultural and religious elements and classes (and those who represent them). While some (mainly those sponsored from outside) are focused on changing the "public rules" as well, the real fight in Iran is between the contours of what is 'public' and 'private'? For now, private clearly includes your private home or apartment. The most immediately felt tug-of-war relates to homeowner association managed facilities such as apartment club houses, such gyms and swimming pools. As these facilities are managed by homeowners, their attitude towards what should be permitted isn't the same as facilities managed by the government. For now, you have something that reflects more the norms expected from public facilities, but with greater ability to turn them more into purely 'private spheres'. (This is an area where the fight is raging beneath the surface and the first area that needs to change).

Formally, all government decisions ultimately need to be approved (directly or indirectly) by Iran's Supreme Leader. However, on one "really" holds as much power as you assume in your question. Each hold power on behalf of certain constituencies and the tug-of-war between them is waging. Real power in Iran, ultimately, still resides (however imperfectly in some ways) with Iranian society as a whole. The real fight in Iran is between 3 groups: 1- those who (wittingly or unwittingly) want to transfer more power to Westernized Iranians and, ultimately, to the West; 2- those who resist such a transfer of power to outside elements because they want the power to themselves; and 3- those who want as much of the power as possible to remain with Iranian society as a whole.

Ideologically, Iran's 'reformist' leaders claim to fall in the latter category, but in practice it often try to work with #1 to get to #2. Iran's 'opposition groups' sponsored from outside mainly fall in the #1 category. Some more consciously and overtly than others. Iran's Supreme Leader, on the other hand, tries to work with #3 to hold to #2.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful education.


Is it correct to assume that the majority of your people want and prefer that the supreme leader has the final word and molds the daily life with religious based rules of conduct ? And thst the rule of law comes from your holy books and manuals?

Would most Iranians choose a system with a supreme leader wielding such power?

Of course it is my belief that any people have the right to choose whatever form of governance that they want.

If people want theocracy they should have it.

Many americans have been conditioned to believe that Iranians , a majority want a secular govt.

My daughter's best friend has an Iranian father whose family are Christian. He was in pilot training back in the mid 70s and met his American wife here and married her .Somehow he chose to live here and received a degree in engineering here .

I met some of his family when his daughter got married here a few years ago. He had a wonderful family although his daughter is fully American in mind and hated visiting family in Iran. Not the people but the Muslim rules and culture.

I remember the Iranian grand parents were very western and fit right in with our locals.

My sister dated an Iranian in pilot training here and my mom loved the guy whose name was Rezi. Very nice people and he and two friends would come often to visit with my family. This was before the trouble of the later 70s.

A shame really that Americans dont have a better relationship .with the people of Iran. Gov'ts get in the way.

Our govt does not really represent most americans as evidenced by Princeton with a study by the same name.

Most of our people are so tribal, the democrat tribe and the republican tribe and are too busy hating and fighting one another that they dont know they get no representation . Only rich special interests get represented.

We are not a democratic representative republic except in name only.

So criticizing Iranian govt is the height of hypocrisy. And absurd.

 

We paid the kurds well and armed them in exchange for them killing isis.

The kurds and turkey dont get along To defend the Kurds from turkey a member of nato would have been incoherent and not acceptable given nato.

Trump acted properly we have no right to give the Kurds their own nation. That is between kurds and Syria.

Neocons would be elated to stay in syria defending the kurds from turkey that is a member of NATO . You know what being fellow members mean? We dont fight another nato member! Need I say, duh?

Most Americans want to get out of the ME and want regime changing wars to stop. Unless one is a neocon or a democrat who wants to play these disgusting political games that involve losing the lives of other americans.

 

Thanks and you are welcome.

It would be absolutely correct to assume (indeed it would be ridiculous to argue otherwise, even if some might) that Iran's system of government, at its inception, had overwhelming (90%+) popular support of the kind few systems of government can ever claim. It would be correct to assume that overwhelming base of popular support has eroded somewhat over the intervening 40 years since the establishment of Iran's system of government following the Iranian revolution. Whether that erosion means it has lost support by a majority is questionable, although in places like Tehran, it might appear that way. Overall, though, I think an objective and unbiased review of opinion polls, numerous elections (where those who oppose the system advocate a boycott whereas participation rates in these elections remain very high), public rallies bringing together what are still millions on the anniversary of the revolution and establishment of the Islamic Republic, and many other factors, shows that a clear and rather large majority still support the present system (with the office of the Supreme Leader at its helm) over any attempts to impose any other system on Iran. Even in Tehran, where support for the system is lowest, I think a majority prefer not to see any abrupt changes, whether from within and certainly not from without.

I am not sure that is a correct interpretation of the role and power of the institution. Nor is it accurate when it comes to 'sources of law' under Shia Islamic jurisprudence nor as it relates to sources of law in Iran.

The issue is a lot more complicated and I will have to address it some other time.

Most Iranians are clearly opposed to any violent overthrow of Iran's system, but if they had to vote on creating their system anew, it is possible (debatable) whether a clear majority would choose their current system. To be sure, however, if there is a majority for any particular system, it would still be to support a similar system as Iran has now, although probably with reforms in some of the powers of the Supreme Leader. On the other side, a system you could describe as a 'secular democracy' could (not clear) win the largest bloc in Tehran, but nationwide it would not find more than 30-35% support overall. That is my sense of attitudes on these issues in Iran. (You will, however, get very different answers from certain group of Iranians who overestimate how much their views reflect the views of the majority of people in Iran).

I am glad you feel that way.

I am not religious, so I would be deeply disappointed if the people of Iran ever chose a system that would give primacy to dogma (religious or otherwise) over intellect and reason. While there is a good bit of dogma that colors some of the issues debated in Iran, overall the issues in Iran aren't really about religion as much as other things. The (Shia) Islamic tag and label given to them notwithstanding.

 

And exactly how long do you think the Kurds and the Turks will fight? I'm sure most people know it will go on for a very long time and really don't want our military to stay there forever. I also wonder how our American military members feel about fighting another NATO country? Turkey is a key US ally as well and we have a major US airbase in Turkey. You don't seem to see the whole picture. Ask yourself if your opinion is based on a political bias?

 

Religion in Syria refers to the range of religions practiced by the citizens of Syria. Historically, the region has been a mosaic of diverse faiths with a range of different sects within each of these religious communities. The majority of Syrians are Muslims, of which the Sunnis are the most numerous, followed by the Shia groups, and Druzes. In addition, there are several Christian minorities. There is also a small Jewish community.

Syrian Sunnis are NOT Salafi by any stretch of the imagination.

This is has been an ethnic cleansing. Iran has been relocating Shia settlers from Lebanon, Iraq and Iran to Syria to create a Shia corridor from Iran to Sidon. Assad said in December of 2012 they had an overpopulation problem. You can watch the hour long video interview with Assad and Barbra Walters.

 

You forgot icompetent. No description of Trump is complete without noting how pathetically stupid and out of his depth he ALWAYS is.