Iranian Election

We need to seriously stop meddling in Iran's electoral politics. There is a reason that Iran's leaders are militaristic towards the U.S., it's because they are worried that we will attempt to overthrow them like we have in the past. Iran is a sovereign country, and it's electoral system is it's own business, our House of Represenitives has no reason or right to pass a resolution pertaining to another sovereign countries election.

Iran could never let any of their people vote and it is still none of our business this country was founded on the basis of freedom not on the basis of imposing what we thing is moral on other countries.

Props to Ron Paul for the only no vote on the resolution today.  

U.S needs to leave the middle east to figure shit out for themselves for the past 10 years all they've done there is fucked with it

while both of the previous posts hold merit and are worthy of understanding and debating, is it not as much a responsibility of the united states government, the leader of the free world, to fight for those who cannot? Iran is a totalitarian government who suppresses its people. While we cannot become a bully in world politics I do believe that we as Americans do hold a responsibility to uphold our founding fathers ideals of justice, freedom, liberty, and the god given right of pursuit of happiness to all who are being oppressed.

Meddling in Iran's electoral politics? Wasn't it Obama earlier this week who said that "meddling" would be counterproductive? The House passing this resolution is not meddling at all either. But the United States, as a free, democratic republic, has a special duty to support those who are protesting oppressive governments. The people of Iran have made themselves very clear by saying that they want change, they want their vote. As a role model for voting nations, the US has a duty to support the protesters -- as long as they don't get violent.

This definitely isn't meddling -- it's exactly what should be done, on behalf of both the Congress and the President. They're waiting for it all to unfold, but at the same time, they're supporting those who want their votes counted. Tomorrow (or today in Iran), we should see more occur. It could be a pivotal day in Iran.

How is it the responsibility of our government (ie, you and I people forget that the government represents its constituents) to meddle in the affairs of another country. It's not like Iranians were choosing between Freedom and Oppression in this last election, it was between Ayatollah approved candidate A and Ayatollah approved candidate B (in all 400 candidates applied to run, only 4 were approved). If the Iranians want freedom from the oppression of their state, which they very well may not,  they should follow the lead of our founding fathers and take up arms against their oppresors. Then and only then should the United States interveen and not by sending our men and women there to die for Iranian freedom, but by trading with the rebels and financially supporting them. In much of the way the French supported us in our revolution.

Involving ourselves in foriegn affairs that are none of our business has taken us down a long and very dark path that has included atrocities like viatnam, and both gulf wars. It will only end in bad things which I will not specifically say so I don't sound like an alarmist.

How is saying that we support one of the factions competing for the presidency not meddling? How is telling another sovereign nation how to run its electoral system (or telling them they need or have to have one) not meddling?

And how is it yours and mine (us the government represents us) responsibility to promote electoral democracy. I'm an American and I think that the Tyranny of the Majority (ie. Democracy) is an abhorrent thing  and would very much like to see the idea demolished. If I don't consent to be ruled but the majority of those around me do, I still never gave my consent and it doesn't mean someone has the right to rule me even if he was elected.

In order to properly assess the situation that is becoming quickly volatile in Iran, the United States and its allies must take steps to secure our financial and literal physical well beings. While it is a nice thought to believe that the problems in the middle east are going to stay in the middle east, it is infantile and quite naive of you. The problems there will only expand outward at a ever increasing rate, and much like a plague it is the job of others to step in and take measures to ensure that the small flame that has been lite does not turn into a full on inferno. This problem would be much easier to debate if the political arena was in a seperate much less militant area of the world, however with the political stratosphere of Iran and its infamous militant Wahabist background of Islam it is fair to say that leaving them alone will only assure our destruction. Most concepts of modern warfare state that MAD (mutual assured destruction) apply to all soverign governments who hold a genuine concern for its own well being. That being If the United States used weapons of mass destruction against an enemy they sure would use theirs as well and both would be eliminated, which keeps both sides hesitant and very much alive. However with militant Wahabist Islam its followers have no regard for the sanctity of life or safety of its country's inhabitants. The United States is only doing what is prudent for the safety of our beliefs, ideals, and the safety of our citizens.

Lets start by clarifying a gross error in your post, Iran does not and has never subscribed to Whaddism. Whaddism is part of the Sunni sect of Islam and originated in Saudi Arabia, and is now followed in Afghanistan and Pakistan (a state which already has nuclear arms and the means to deliver them) as well as elsewhere in the Muslim world.  Our own president attended a Whaddi primary school (a madrasa) in Indonesia as a boy. Iran on the other hand is over 90% Shi'a as is the power elite there none of them have anything to do with Whaddism or Sunni Islam, and in fact Shi'as and Sunnis have been at war with each since Islam split into the two sects, ie the ongoing struggle in Iraq is that between Sunnis and Shi'a.

Beyond that lets assume that you are right and Iran is a militant Whaddist Theocracy that is hell bent on destroying the United States. How would they do it? Their most advancded missles have ranges under 1,000 miles, they would barely reach the Balkans. Even if they did have missiles that could make it to the US they don't have the ability to make nuclear warheads small enough to fit on those missles. They simply do not have the capibility to attack us.

How does supporting voting rights there make the situation less volatile? If anything we are egging on these protestors and revolutionaries by giving them support thus destabilizing Irans government and making the region more volatile. Our actions towards Iran can only move to harm us that is why we should leave them alone and let them fight their own fights.

#1. The resolution did not say anything about supporting the Moussavi campaign or Moussavi. It only expressed support for the people of Iran for their right to protest. It did not say anything about the vote being rigged or fixed. It did not say anything negative about Ahmadinejad. It only said that the US officially supports the right of the Iranian people to protest.

#2. Welcome to the democratic system. Sometimes your pick wins, sometimes your pick does not. That's how it works. But the United States is a world leader and a leader of democracy. We have a unique responsibility to act when we see people that are defying their leader and protesting their elections. It is clear that the Iranian election was rigged. There were allegations of ballot stuffing and 40 million votes were apparently counted BY HAND in two hours. Impossible. We have a duty to support these protesters.

Completely false, Whabbism has infested almost all Arab nations in the middle east. Just because your interpreation of the stability of the social climate in Iran is that Shi'Ites (proper spelling of their sect there) that does not mean that all terrorists are Sunni's. Quite the opposite....As well on the addition to your second rebutle being that Iran does not have the militaristic background in ICBM's to reach mainland America, for clarification a missle launch is not the only way to delever a nuclear payload to a destination. In the former Soviet Union there are many nuclear warheads that can if wanted to fit into a suitcase, and CARRIED to their destination which I am sure Islamic Fundamentalists would be dying (no pun intended) to do to reach their 40 virgins in paradise and the afterlife. Along with all the oil dynasties that have a stranglehold on the middle east, which much of the oil barons pouring money into terror organizations such as Al Queda, Taliban etc, it would not be a far reach into their very deep pockets to purchase one of these suitcase nukes. But I digress on top of both of these points, the whole point of this arguement is not to only protect America's safety, but to ensure our democratic ideals. We are a a beacon of hope to those oppressed all across the world, with ideals such as freedom of speech, press, and religion, democracy, liberty, and the god given right to the pursuit of happiness. America would not be such a great country as it is, if we let such things as the supposed false "democracy" in Iran be uphold with such a shame to our system government. We have a resonsibility to protect those who cannot.

We arent meddling. what the fuck are you talking about.

Obama is the only president in US history to not stand up for freedom and democracy.

I dont think we should send troops over there or anything, but the people in Iran like the US. Most of them are not hard core Muslims and many reject the religion. They want freedom and they want the US to help them. This is coming from a man who lived in Iran and moved to the US. I dont think we should go there and fight, but we can at least support opressed people fighting against a totalitarian government.