If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets the single vote of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, does he really need any other votes? It seems to me that the Supreme leader's vote trumps all the paper ballots, exit polls, purple fingers, etc. People are questioning whether the "election" was rigged. But what difference does that make, Ahmadinejad got the vote that he needed.

It did no good for the Iranians to follow that old Chicago election day strategy, "Vote Early and Vote Often". The Supreme Leader could have slept in until noon, then voted. At that point the election was over.

We keep thinking some of those countries that have elections are actually democracies. Iran is but one example; when Egypt's Mohamed Hosni Mubarak wins elections by getting 97% of the vote, do we even bat an eyelash? Or do we care that King Abdullah II doesn't even have to have elections in Jordan? Same in the Emirates and Kuwait. And even though Greece has elections, the military really runs the show there. Do we care? Nope, not so long as they agree to be our "allies" in the Middle East.

Why don't we just do things the way we want to do them here and let those other guys choose whatever political system they like if they seem to be happy?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets the single vote of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, does he really need any other votes? It seems to me that the Supreme leader's vote trumps all the paper ballots, exit polls, purple fingers, etc. People are questioning whether the "election" was rigged. But what difference does that make, Ahmadinejad got the vote that he needed.

It did no good for the Iranians to follow that old Chicago election day strategy, "Vote Early and Vote Often". The Supreme Leader could have slept in until noon, then voted. At that point the election was over.

We keep thinking some of those countries that have elections are actually democracies. Iran is but one example; when Egypt's Mohamed Hosni Mubarak wins elections by getting 97% of the vote, do we even bat an eyelash? Or do we care that King Abdullah II doesn't even have to have elections in Jordan? Same in the Emirates and Kuwait. And even though Greece has elections, the military really runs the show there. Do we care? Nope, not so long as they agree to be our "allies" in the Middle East.

Why don't we just do things the way we want to do them here and let those other guys choose whatever political system they like if they seem to be happy?

When we mind our own business, we're called "isolationists." Think of all the diplomats that would put out of work...

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets the single vote of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, does he really need any other votes? It seems to me that the Supreme leader's vote trumps all the paper ballots, exit polls, purple fingers, etc. People are questioning whether the "election" was rigged. But what difference does that make, Ahmadinejad got the vote that he needed.

It did no good for the Iranians to follow that old Chicago election day strategy, "Vote Early and Vote Often". The Supreme Leader could have slept in until noon, then voted. At that point the election was over.

We keep thinking some of those countries that have elections are actually democracies. Iran is but one example; when Egypt's Mohamed Hosni Mubarak wins elections by getting 97% of the vote, do we even bat an eyelash? Or do we care that King Abdullah II doesn't even have to have elections in Jordan? Same in the Emirates and Kuwait. And even though Greece has elections, the military really runs the show there. Do we care? Nope, not so long as they agree to be our "allies" in the Middle East.

Why don't we just do things the way we want to do them here and let those other guys choose whatever political system they like if they seem to be happy?

Vk, let's put thing in perspective on at least some of the nations you referenced.

Jordan is a Constitutional Monarchy with a hereditary Monarch and an elected bicameral legislature. Universal suffrage at the age of 18. The King appoints members of the Senate; members of The Chamber of Deputies are elected by popular vote. Of the 110 seats, six seats are reserved for women, nine seats are reserved for Christian candidates, nine seats are reserved for Bedouin candidates, and three seats are reserved for Jordanians of Chechen or Circassian descent. A system very similar to that of England up to WWII but assuring minority representation.

Kuwait is a Constitutional Emirate with a hereditary Emir. It has a unicameral National Assembly or Majlis al-Umma (50 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms; all cabinet ministers are also ex officio voting members of the National Assembly). The Prime Minister is appointed by the Emit and appoints the cabinet members with the assent of the Emir. Somewhat similar to Germany prior to WWI. Universal suffrage occurs at the age of 21 with the exception of members of the Police Force who are not allowed to vote – I guess they are not buying into Chicago style politics.

The United Arab Emirates is a Constitutional Federation of seven separate and distinct states – much like the United States under The Articles of Confederation with specified powers delegated to the UAE federal government and other powers reserved to member emirates. It has a unicameral Federal National Council (40 seats; 20 members appointed by the rulers of the constituent states, 20 members elected to serve two-year terms) Recognition of woman’s rights varies by Emirate, but overall includes women as full members of society. The UAE is a very tolerant state that accepts Christians, Jews and other minority populations as equal in status.

Iran, on the other hand, is a Theocracy operating under Sharia law and having no real constitution that cannot be immediate voided by ‘The Supreme Leader.’ Basic freedoms that take for granted, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free and fair elections and equal representation under the law no longer exist in Iran. The law is the law as the Supreme leader and his fellow members of the council interpret it as Sharia law.

Have Kuwait, Jordon and the UAE come to embrace 21st century democracy? No. Are they in synch with 20th century democracy in the West? Absolutely! Moving from a Monarchy/Emirate to a democracy is a process, not a sudden jump. The Shah was moving Iran towards such a change, but we asked/required him to go too fast. The result of our well-intentioned interference is what we see today. Rejection of human rights including women’s rights, rejection of freedom of religion, rejection of the will of the people and an acceptance of Sharia as interpreted by a group of uneducated clerics. Boy did we f*** *p!

While I believe that we should continue to not respect dictatorships, we should continue to support countries moving towards a democratic system of government. IMHO Kuwait, the UAE and Jordan deserve our support. Iran does not under its current government. It has earned our enmity. We should not support Theocracies nor having a country under Sharia. We should support those countries that are moving towards a democracy even if that is a Constitutional or Emirate democracy. As long as basic human rights are respected, the form of democratic government select should be fine with us.

Thanks.

It's too bad that a significant portion of the Iranian population apparently wishes for a different form of government. With the Supreme Leader and his "appointed" President in charge of the laws and the militia, I'm guessing their demonstrations will wither in not too long a time. If those in charge were able to determine the outcome of their election so easily, what hope do they have for the future?

I do agree with President Obama in the U.S. staying out of the differences within Iran. It sees that there would be significant risks whether any involvement on our part was successful or not. As was pointed out, we've made that mistake once before. Best to let the Iranians sort it out themselves, I think.

I believe that our foreign policy should be based on what's good for the U.S...accomplishing our objectives...regardless of what form of government our sovereign counterparties choose. What's important is that we really have what our objectives are well-identified. Somehow I get the impression that for a time now we've concentrated our efforts on planting democracies instead of really knowing and acting on achieving a broader set of national objectives. It seems to me that China and India, even Russia, have used our narrow national focus to significantly further their national interests while we've chosen to be busy elsewhere. That really needs to change.

Ooops, I used that word, didn't I?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I believe that our foreign policy should be based on what's good for the U.S...accomplishing our objectives...regardless of what form of government our sovereign counterparties choose. What's important is that we really have what our objectives are well-identified. Somehow I get the impression that for a time now we've concentrated our efforts on planting democracies instead of really knowing and acting on achieving a broader set of national objectives. It seems to me that China and India, even Russia, have used our narrow national focus to significantly further their national interests while we've chosen to be busy elsewhere. That really needs to change.

Ooops, I used that word, didn't I?

You are dead on VK and in this case 'change' is not a four letter word.