President Clinton made comments last year at Davos that show how short sighted and removed from reality we were on Iran.
Here is what Clinton had to say about Iran in March of 2005:

“Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”
-source



The guys he identifies with? While Clinton had all this to say thousands of Iranians were murdered and imprisoned for committing the crimes of freedom of speech.


Iran was welcomed, fawned over and highly represented in the international community. The West ignored the mass murders and political prosecutions of thousands that happened in Iran and instead chose to negotiate with the Iranian face shown to us at Davos seminars. We blabbered on about her liberalism and how we adored them so and felt so sorry for our crimes.
We did this out of our own greed and out of a desire to fulfill the prophecy of the West that shared prosperity brings peace.

But does it?
Does shared prosperity bring peace..and how can it when each has such a different view or perception to what prosperity is? Give examples.
And
Should we be asked to set aside some of our own society's greatest accomplishments of prosperity... human rights, women's rights, freedom speech etc. and focus only on the economic side of prosperity?

Clinton was a foreign policy boob. Completely clueless.

Of course, now that the political winds have shifted, I'm sure Clinton does not remember his remarks from last year.

Does shared prosperity bring peace..and how can it when each has such a different view or perception to what prosperity is? Give examples.

I think that prosperity carries with it an inclination towards peace. After all, those who are successful rarely want to rock the boat. It is poor people, oppressed people, and people who feel like victims that are most likely to stir up change (be that reform, restructuring, or revolution).

The trouble is when political leaders convince people who are otherwise prosperous that they are not (envy) or when leaders redirect righteous outrage onto innocent third parties.

The second method is what keeps many autocracies in place in the Middle East. Instead of the people questioning why their Sheiks have so much and they have so little, they trust the Sheik when he says it is the Jews that are keeping them from being happy. Instead of questioning their rulers where all the oil money goes, the believe the mullahs that America is cheating them and corrupting their youth.

Should we be asked to set aside some of our own society's greatest accomplishments of prosperity... human rights, women's rights, freedom speech etc. and focus only on the economic side of prosperity?

Of course not. Prosperity comes in the form of freedom: religious freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. Oppress someone in any of these three areas and they will not feel they are treated fairly. Of course, economic freedom (and success) is often a prerequisite for obtaining other freedoms, since money is power in many ways.

But that rise of the Islamist "revolution" proves that theory wrong. It is mostly highly educated, intelligent, often Western educated men and now even women who seem to be the biggest champions for this cause. Often I feel like radical Islam is more comfortable and freely flowing in Western nations, where these people are not poor, or oppressed and do have a political voice.



I agree with this as I must admit the shared prosperity belief is one I hold, but I think it requires us to have to often greatly compromise our own values and beliefs, Human Rights, political and religious freedoms, freedom of speech and the press etc.
Is that right?

Look at China ..she is a communist state with no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, terrible human rights record and yet people over the world cite her as having a far more positive image than they do the USA. What is wrong with this picture? Why? Since when did we choose to overlook our most prized values and beliefs in our society?

Then take what is happening in Europe all this fuss about how important freedom of speech is and how we must show solidarity and support and yet if asked China is far more popular amongst Europeans than the US, so how important are these beliefs and values of ours to us all?

OK, before this gets out of control, can I just point out that this is an excellent question, but should not be framed in this obvious attack on Clinton. The source you drew this from is not exactly what I would call 'reliable', and in fact if you read through Clinton's speech at the World Economic Forum held in Davos Switzerland last year, you find these comments as quoted are TOTALLY out of context.

He also says in the same speech (though not quoted here oddly) that he agrees with Bush for not taking the military option off the table, that Iran is a fundamentalist regime and dangerous to the peace process in the middle East, and so on...

I mean, I know lots of people here hate Clinton, and thats fine, but do you really think he 'admires and respects and identifies' with Iran and its fundamentalist Islamic regime?

Oh no we are out of control are we...best get us back in line.

I used Clinton's comments not because I hate hate hate him, I don't. In fact the first time I ever got to vote in a presidential election when I was 18 yrs old was for President Clinton and I didn't even live in America for most of his presidency.

I used them to show what happens in those enclaves of international deal making, namely Davos. That not just the business men of the world appease to these nations citing their resources and markets. But some of the most highly recognized and globally known politicians have also recognized these countries for what they claim political "liberalism".

And where has it gotten us? How much political legitimacy must we give in order to receive? And by doing so, by citing their political achievements..are we not greatly ignoring and corrupting our own values?