Nothing that happens in Australia can change the shameful nature of the abominable acts committed in Iran’s prisons, against those who were peacefully exercising their human right to voice their dissent and appeal for remedies to their grievances. No “global arrogance” can justify this criminal, un-Islamic regime’s behavior.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/23/on_military_occupation

Why They Hate Us (I): on military occupation
Mon, 11/23/2009 – 11:58am

One of the many barriers to developing a saner U.S. foreign policy is our collective failure to appreciate why military occupations generate so much hatred, resentment, and resistance, and why we should therefore go to enormous lengths to avoid getting mired in them. Costly occupations are an activity you hope your adversaries undertake, especially in areas of little intrinsic strategic value. We blundered into Somalia in the early 1990s without realizing that we weren’t welcome; we invaded Iraq thinking we would be greeted as liberators, and we still don’t fully understand why many Afghans resent our presence and why some are driven to take up arms against us.

The American experience is hardly unique: Britain’s occupation of Iraq after World War I triggered fierce opposition, and British forces in Mandate Palestine eventually faced armed resistance from both Arab and Zionist groups. French rule in Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, and Indochina spawned several violent resistance movements, and Russia has fought Chechen insurgents in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. The Shiite population of southern Lebanon initially welcomed Israel’s invasion in 1982, but the IDF behaved badly and stayed too long, which led directly to the formation of Hezbollah. Israelis were also surprised by the first intifida in 1987, having mistakenly assumed that their occupation of the West Bank was benevolent and that the Palestinians there would be content to be governed by the IDF forever.

Military occupation generates resistance because it is humiliating, disruptive, arbitrary and sometimes terrifying to its objects, even when the occupying power is acting from more-or-less benevolent motives. If you’ve ever been caught in a speed trap by a rude or abusive policeman (I have), or selected out for special attention crossing a border (ditto), you have a mild sense of what this is like. You are at the mercy of the person in charge, who is inevitably well-armed and can do pretty much whatever he (or she) wants. Any sign of protest will only make things go badly — and in some situations will get you arrested, beaten, or worse — so you choke down your anger and just put up with it. Now imagine that this is occurring after you’ve waited for hours at some internal checkpoint, that none of the occupiers speak your language, and that it is like this every single day. And occasionally the occupying power kills innocent people by mistake, engages in other forms of indiscriminate force, and does so with scant regard for local customs and sensibilities. Maintain this situation long enough, and some members of the local population will start looking for ways to strike back. Some of them may even decide to strap on explosive vests or get behind the wheel of a explosives-laden truck, and sacrifice themselves.

It is sometimes said that Americans don’t understand this phenomenon because the United States has never been conquered and occupied. But this simply isn’t true. After the Civil War, a “foreign army” occupied the former Confederacy and imposed a new political order that most white southerners found abhorrent. The first Reconstruction Act of 1867 put most southern states under formal military control, supervised the writing of new state constitutions, and sought to enfranchise and empower former slaves. It also attempted to rebuild the south economically, but the reconstruction effort was undermined by corruption and poor administration. Sound familiar? However laudable the aims may have been, the results were precisely what one would expect. Northern occupation eventually triggered violent resistance by the Ku Klux Klan, White League, Red Shirts, and other insurgent groups, which helped thwart Reconstruction and paved the way for the Jim Crow system that lasted until the second half of the 20th century.

Nor should we forget how long a profound sense of anger and resentment lasted. I was recently discussing this issue with a distinguished American journalist who grew up in the South, and he told me that one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, he was still being taught songs that expressed a lingering hatred of what the Yankees had done. Here are a coupl of stanzas from one of them — “I’m a Good Old Rebel” — written by a former Confederate officer and first published in 1914:

I hates the Yankee nation, and everything they do,
I hates the Declaration of Independence too.
I hates the glorious Union, ’tis dripping with our blood
I hates their striped banner, I fought it all I could.

Three hundred thousand Yankees lie stiff in Southern dust;
We got three hundred thousand, before they conquered us
They died of Southern fever, and Southern steel and shot,
I wish they was three million, instead of what we got.

Or to take a more recent (1974), less poetic example, from Lynyrd Skynyrd:

Well I heard Mr. Young sing about her,
Well I heard old Neil put her down.
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember,
A Southern man don’t need him around anyhow.

This is what defeat in war and prolonged occupation does to a society: it generates hatred and resentment that can last a century or more. Hatred of the “party of Lincoln” kept the South solidly Democratic for decades, and its political character remains distinctly different even today, nearly 150 years after the civil war ended. (Among other things, Barack Obama has favorable job approval ratings in every region of the country except the South). And don’t forget that unlike our current presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the occupying forces of the North spoke the same language and had been part of the same country prior to the war; in some cases, there were even strong family connections on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Yet defeat in war and military occupation were an enduring source of division for many years thereafter.

The bottom line is that you don’t need to be a sociologist, political scientist, or a student of colonialism or foreign cultures to understand why military occupation is such a poisonous activity and why it usually fails. If you’re an American, you just need to read a bit about Reconstruction and reflect on how its effects — along with the effects of slavery itself — have persisted across generations. If that’s not enough, visit a society that is currently experiencing occupation, and take the time to go through a checkpoint or two. Then you might understand why the local population doesn’t view the occupying forces as benevolent and isn’t as grateful as occupiers often think they ought to be.

By the way – we have quite a lot of Iranians here. Most of them that I have met are Bahai (Smile). They are very harmless as far as I can see and don’t ever proselytize

Barry

Fair enough. I often address other topics like the story on Revolutionary Cuba above.

This forum isn’t about me – or you. It isn’t really about Iran either – it is called “Enduring America”

Yet – for some reason, Iran seems to have attracted most attention here.

My country is not perfect – but it is not in civil turmoil. Your’s is in turmoil. It doesn’t have to be. It is your choice – and others like you.

Barry

The difference between you and me is that I see a chicken and call it a chicken. You see a dog and explain why there are “long and complex reasons” why it is a goat. And if someone tells you that your “long and complex reasons” are simple biases on your part you call them a German Nazi.

But again why could the country/continent which is so large, so rich, so empty not be shared fairly? Not enough LEBENSRAUM?

I have blood of the original Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia in my veins. You should not assume that because I have an obviously English sounding name that I have no Aboriginal blood. I also have other bloods in me – my full- blood Aboriginal G-G-G Grandmother conceived a child ( my G-G-grandmother ) to an Irish convict, who had been sentenced to 14 years transportation to Australia for stealing a sheep.

Let me tell you that you do not know what “they” do to dark skinned people in Australia. All people in Australia now have equal rights – this admittedly was not always so, BUT we have moved on into a more enlightened time. They all have the same rights and priveleges. If anything – it is their very old but valuable culture which can and does hold them apart from 21st Century, in a similar way as your country’s Medieval mindset holds you back.

Yes – in all countries there are commonly “long and complex reasons” for why certain situations exist. The BIG difference between me and you – and between my country and your country is that I do not choose to force others to conform to my beliefs, religious or political. My country is “free” – it’s people are not subject of a controlling ideology. Religious freedom is total, including the freedom from religion. We no longer have the death penalty. Never could a single person be arrested and held without due legal process, as is happening right now in your country. Many many differences between us.

But – I am wasting my time.

Barry

“(CNN) — A European Union commissioner Monday told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that Europe’s policy toward Cuba in the future will place less emphasis on human rights in the island nation than now.
The EU commissioner for development and humanitarian aid, Karel De Gucht, who is just back from a visit to Havana, Cuba, told Amanpour, “We have relations with a lot of oppressive regimes and we have a special regime for Cuba. It makes no sense singularizing them.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/23/europe.cuba.us/index.html

What is the significance of this for Iran? Well let’s look at the two key quotes:

1. Europe’s policy toward Cuba in the future will place less emphasis on human rights in the island nation than now.

2. “We have relations with a lot of oppressive regimes and we have a special regime for Cuba. It makes no sense singularizing them.”

In each case one can change “Iran” for “Cuba” and the sentence still makes sense.

The truth is that so called “human rights” issues have nothing to do with principles and all to do with politics. When was the last time the Americans criticized “human rights” in Wahabbi Saudi Arabia or Israeli war crimes? Or how about the dictatorship of that great American friend Mubarak in Egypt? Venezuela and Iran on the other hand are always targeted by the Hypocrites in the name of “human rights”.

For all the opponents of American Imperialism it is good to see Revolutionary Cuba about to receive fairer treatment.

“(CNN) — A European Union commissioner Monday told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that Europe’s policy toward Cuba in the future will place less emphasis on human rights in the island nation than now.

The EU commissioner for development and humanitarian aid, Karel De Gucht, who is just back from a visit to Havana, Cuba, told Amanpour, “We have relations with a lot of oppressive regimes and we have a special regime for Cuba. It makes no sense singularizing them.”

His comments come amid indications that Spain, which will hold the presidency of the EU for six months beginning in January 2010, intends to soften the organization’s policy toward Cuba. The European Union currently criticizes Cuba’s human rights record, but does not support the U.S. trade embargo against Havana.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/23/europe.cuba.us/index.html

_____________________________________________

How does this relate to Iran? Well look at the key quotes:

1. …will place less emphasis on human rights in the island nation than now.”

2. “We have relations with a lot of oppressive regimes and we have a special regime for Cuba. It makes no sense singularizing them.”

One can easily substitute the word “Iran” for “Cuba” and it still makes sense.

The truth is that the West uses so called “human rights” abuses as weapons to attack those regimes and nations it does not like, those nations deemed too independent. When was the last time the Americans criticized abuses in Wahabbi Saudi Arabia??? What about Israeli war crimes? Venezuela, Cuba and Iran on the other hand are always targetted by these hypocrites.

To all opponents of American Imperialism it is good to see the Cuban Revolution receiving fairer treatment.

Your memory is failing you. I mentioned the Jews of Iran and their member of Parliament. I do not deny that the Bahais have been mistreated in Iran and other Muslim countries for hundreds of years. To use your favorite words “there are long and complex reasons” for this. Christians and Jews have been treated differently. I personally do not have any particular animus towards this group.

As for discrimination you never adressed the issue of the Aborigenes in Australia. I asked you in another what you had done for Aborigene rights in Australia but no answer. Interesting.

Such a large country/continent and you could not even share it fairly with the original inhabitants.

I only bring it up since so many of your posts start with “In my country…” Yeah we know what they do to the dark skinned in your country. Let me guess, “there are long and complex reasons…”

Looks like they put a picture of a Bahai temple in their newspaper.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsfzPlm28ap1d9GI5u7vdQRNGKWQ

Where is Samuel – when I need him. He told me that it is OK to be a Bahai in Iran.

Barry