October 28, 2004
John Kerry for president
Not that I am an important person with lots of readers here (couple of hundreds at best), but as an Iranian whose country has been repeatedly mentioned during the U.S. presidential election campaigns, I officially announce that I'd vote for John Kerry, had I been an American citizen.
Now that global terrorism and U.S. national security is on the table in this election, I have to say that George W. Bush, with his business-oriented, arrogant, and short-sighted approach to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, has not only failed to "defeat" terrorism, but also has effectively helped the ideology of muslim fundamentalism by not realizing the real roots of it, including widespread poverty, corruption and dictatorship in almost all muslim countries.
In the case of Iran, the Bush administration has harmed the ongoing and natural process of democracy in Iran by refusing to distinguish between unelected hardliners and elected moderates, and moreover, with its actionless and useless rhetoric of regime change, gave a good reason to hardliners to perform the heaviest crackdown on moderates in all level since the 1980s.
Although I'm not sure about the results of John Kerry's foreign policy, I believe his style of leadership, which is based on facts and unbiased analysis rather than faith and wishful thinking, could provide a deeper understanding of the problems that face the United States and the whole world.
He is also wise enough not to continue the unrealistic policy of regime change in Iran and hopefully, by adopting a new policy of politically and economically engagement, would change the way the Islamic Republic behaves in regard to its people, neighbors and the world.
The world can not afford four more years of ideology-driven blindness to reality.
P.S: Kerry does have a passport before he is elected president, by the way!
Posted by hoder at October 28, 2004 8:22 PM
I don't think Iran has to worry about America bothering them. The funny thing about the election is that there was suppose to be a huge turn out of younger voters. Well, it was about the same amount that turned out four years ago.Well I am 18 and voted for Bush. I believe Kerry would have been more harmful for America and the world. Bush is more experience now than he was. I believe he will work alot harder for peace. One thing is Sept. 11 really affected America, if you understand what I mean. It just put alot of fear into people. That is why American politicans are so focused on certain countries. Part of the problem is America is so vast and so are the people. In each part of the USA the people are different. Well I would just like to say I enjoy this site. And I respect everones opinoin. God Bless you all.
---------
I am amazed at the ignorance shown by the first commentor. Kerry has repeatedly noted in his public speeches that he is a Catholic...your commentor has such an ignorang knew jerk bias that all she or he dislikes must be Jews. wake up
---------
John Kerry is a sly Jew who will be worse for IRan than Bush and his neocon Jews. Kerry will make much use of Mossad and Middle East intelligence whereas Bush is unlikely to risk military action against IRan and is simply not smart enough for anything else. Kerry will be the downfall of the Islamic Republic. American Democrats do secretly what Republicans and Christian Zionists would like to do openly; democratic inerludes are periods of false hope and phoney peace. Even if four years pass without Kerry doing something drastic - unlikely - the next four will bring back Christian Zionism on the seesaw we have been on for decades. IRan's lifespan is thus measured in terms of four-year chunks; in the end it will be worn down to nothingness and take its place as the coming centerpiece in the MidEast of Zionist word hegemony. Many factors determine this end: infiltration of vile Western media; Israeli interference; feminist agitation; the general spell of leftist cant which now rules the world; clandestine operations; possible outright invasion; all taking years and so wearing down the might of the Islamic Republic. Ultimately, Jews will conquer, impose slut-law on Iranian women, occupying the country with negro troops to demoralize the men and confuse the women; pumping Jew media into the Iranian mind for a generation to produce docile vulgarity; and so on.
---------
I liked your letter of support.
However I think, another 4 years of Bush will be bad enough to bring down the whole concept of the good old US of A, thus accomplishing something far more practical and important than helping social justice for all.
Despite the above reasons for supporting Bush in this election, you have my whole-hearted sympathy on your analysis of the situation in Iran.
---------
Before I get to your post, one quick point. There are loads of Iraqi blogger, blogging in English from Iraq. Somehow I have singularly failed, in spite of hours and hours of searching, to find a single Iranian blogger, blogging in English from Iran. Are there any? Links? I'd be really appreciative and thankful.
So, onto your post:
Unless Iran actually deploys nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands, the country isn't going to get invaded, and I do think that their nuclear programme is peaceful (and I am in favour of Iran generating nuclear electricity).
I think that Iran is in many ways much better governed than Iraq was under Saddam. I could go into some detail, but let's leave it at that for the moment.
And I think both Bush and Kerry know this. Neither is going to approve an invasion, full stop, it's not going to happen.
---------
Democrats in the White House have always resulted positive moves in Iran (not all of them ended up happily though like the Iran's revolution that fell into the hands of fanatics).
1963's Land Reform in Iran was a huge positive move that uprooted feudalism in the country. It was an Iranian branch of a bigger move initiated by Kenny around the world. It had huge positive social effects. You can easily see how Iran's society has drifted apart from the still tribal societies of the neighbouring countries.
What did the Republicans bring to Iranians? Well, a coup against a progressive government in the 50s. What else did the Democrats bring to Iranians? 8 years of calm in foreign policy during the Clinton's that split the ruling system in two camps (reformers and conservatives). What else did bring the Republicans to Iranians? An axis of evil label that undid that.
Now with the election of Kerry, things will not turn the other way overnight. I think he will be tougher with Iran than Bush would be. In the short term I think that will be even much harder on ordinary Iranians' lives. There migbt be more sanctions more efficiently implemented when a Democrat government is in power.
In the end, I think there are too many challenges ahead of a Democrat administration in the White House that they cannot easily do anything about them.
---------
Note:
* Required
The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments: <a> <b> <i>. To make line and paragraph breaks, press return (don't use <br> or <p>).
The bold, italics, and link buttons (and associated shortcut keys) only work in IE 5+ on the PC.