Don't forget that it was President Carters administration that actually negotiated the release of the hostages. If memory serves the hostages were released either the day of or within days of President Reagan's inauguration.
But I hardly say that makes this election an interesting "test case" for our support of democracy. It is way too flawed to say that. Yes, Iran MAY be on the right path but the US shouldn't be blamed if it fails, and the US isn't under the gun to support the regime just because it was sorta kinda democratic. The way I see it, this rigged election is just a tactic by the religious leaders to maintain their hold on the country.
You are both right. There were two sets of hostages. The ones Reagan bartered for were kidnapped in Beirut after he was elected.
The elections weren't exactly rigged. There were far more candidates in it than run in most U.S. presidential elections. It is just that the ruling clerics eliminated many candidates before the election started and didn't allow them to run. What Iran had certainly wasn't an example of a true and fair democracy. However the candidates that were allowed to run did include reformers, and people that expressed a desire to change from the totalitarian religious rule in effect, and for the most part the results of the election seem to be derived at fairly, with both sides miffed about the activity at certain polling palces here and there. The point is that Iran is more democratic than most of the U.S. allies in the region. Many of those allies, however, have been praised for their steps toward democracy. I think it is a valid point to see if the administration will apply the standards for democratic reform evenly. It is important to our credibility and presenting a positive image in a part of the world where a positive image may save our soldiers lives. To be honest the U.S. elections aren't the perfect example of democracy either. The two major parties have stacked the deck heavily in their favor. Third party candidates don't have any sort of a level playing field the way they do in some countries. In most democracies around the world the legislative bodies are comprised of at least 3 parties and often many more. I think it is too bad that the U.S. which is the beacon of democracy has the game fixed in order to only allow a choice between two parties which in reality are close enough together in ideology to almost be one. It is kind of like the old Soviet elections where everyone running was from only one party. We are a little better because we have two parties, but nobody else stands a chance.
While Iran does appear to be heading towards democracy, it is too early to tell if it is for real. And we shouldn't use this election of an extremist to stick to George W. Bush. We should continue to press Iran to continue to make more reforms. Hopefully, the election is a sign that things are changing in Iran, but it is highly possible that the whole thing was just a tactic to keep religious leaders in power. Let's say that Iran's religious leaders did have close control over the whole process and ensured an extremist was elected. Do you want the US and other countries to legitimize that? Do you think it's a good idea to say that this type of election is enough to earn our support? I don't. As far as the US democracy, anybody can run. And it's not like every member of their party thinks the same, so you can run as a Democrat with your own ideas. It's not perfect, but I am not sure how that is relevant to Iran's elections where people were barred from running.
Because BigRexx practices what every right winged wacko in this country does. If you are out Knowledged throw out some behind the Bush slam at you that if you accurately decipher he will claim you were being over the top. That or hell call you unamerican and claim your harming troops or hate america.
I agree with you that this election in Iran is not something we should be holding up as a triumph of democracy. Nor do I think because Egypt says it will allow some other candidates to run we should hold that up, or because the Saudis have a coupe of elections regarding insignificant matters we should applaude them which is what we have been doing. I think it is time we get tough with authoritarian regimes all over, not just the ones that have folks who won't play nice with us. I agree with getting tough with Iran on this, I just think we should be tough with other oppressive regimes as well. I'm against the idea that we applaude lesser steps towards democracy while denouncing the bigger ones, and yet still profess to all the world that we don't want to stick our noses in other people's business, because we want them to experience freedom and democracy to decide from themselves. That is the right thing to say, but we have to be willing to live with it when people choose things that the U.S. doesn't like, or might even go against the best interest of the U.S. As for U.S. elections, not everyone is free to run. There are requirements that make it difficult for people from third parties to even get on the ballot. Secondly Federal matching funds only go to the two major paties. Third, the two major parties control the debate, and third party candidates are largely squeezed out of the process. While technically third party candidates can run, the playing field is far from level.
The hostages were released within a few hours <b>after</b> President Reagan's innauguration after more than a year of captivity.
