Iranian Presidential Elections

[Eki]

Now that the Americans have elected a more moderate President, it would be nice if the Iranians did the same:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525927,00.html

Then maybe the US and Iran could settle their differences peacefully.

[race aficionado]

Then maybe the US and Iran could settle their differences peacefully.

Yes Eki.

These are important times and these democratic elections are good timing given the U.S. of A's new administration's approach to this volatile region.

let's observe and hope for the best.

peace,
:s mokin:

[Jag_Warrior]

Hasn't the Iranian military already let it be known: "don't you trouble making kids be getting any funny ideas about changing things in Iran"???

I somehow doubt that this will play out fairly. I hope it does and I hope that Ahmadinejad gets tossed out on his butt. Fewer extremists and nutcases in positions of power, the better of we all are. But in this case, I'm not getting my hopes up.

[Hondo]

What has Obama done that makes him more moderate?

[edv]

...and what does the Iranian President have to do with power. It doesn't matter who gets elected...they are on a leash held by the Ayatollah. He's the guy who makes the big decisions.

[Eki]

What has Obama done that makes him more moderate?
He has shown willingness to negotiate with Iran instead of just slinging threats, insults and sanctions on Iran.

[Eki]

...and what does the Iranian President have to do with power. It doesn't matter who gets elected...they are on a leash held by the Ayatollah. He's the guy who makes the big decisions.
Anyway it could be a start to better relationships.

[Hondo]

He has shown willingness to negotiate with Iran instead of just slinging threats, insults and sanctions on Iran.

All he has done is talk. If you followed all his talk while running for office and checked the facts behind it both before and after the elections, you'd realize his talk means nothing. When your words have no credibility, it doesn't matter if they are nice or nasty. Just more CO2 in the air.

[Eki]

All he has done is talk. If you followed all his talk while running for office and checked the facts behind it both before and after the elections, you'd realize his talk means nothing. When your words have no credibility, it doesn't matter if they are nice or nasty. Just more CO2 in the air.
That remains to be seen. He has at least over 3 years to walk the walk.

[cdn_grampa]

Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq - democratically elected.

Ahh - forget it.

[Hondo]

Iran's problem isn't the USA. The USA is merely Iran's excuse.

[A.F.F.]

Iran's problem isn't the USA. The USA is merely Iran's excuse.

With all due respect Fiero but doesn't that work other way around?

[Eki]

Iran's problem isn't the USA. The USA is merely Iran's excuse.
Then what IS Iran's problem?

[Hondo]

AFF, yes it does to some degree, but people in the USA aren't running around blaming Iran for the complete incompetence of the USA's political leadership. You don't see a bunch of dumba$$ Americans burning Iranian flags in the street calling for death to the great satan Iran every time things don't work out for us.

Eki, Iran's problems stem strictly from how the world views them and their stability based on the actions and statements of it's political and religious leadership. Quite frankly, nobody knows for sure who's running the country on any given issue, on any given day.

How stable would Finland be if the government and it's trading partners had to work around the whim of a religious leader that could call for and get a popular revolution on any given day. The current president of Iran strikes much of the world as a lunatic. Look at how many walked out on his UN speech.

Iran has had a few moderate presidents since the revolution and the mullahs ran them out.

Iran is Iran's own worst enemy.

[Eki]

How stable would Finland be if the government and it's trading partners had to work around the whim of a religious leader that could call for and get a popular revolution on any given day. The current president of Iran strikes much of the world as a lunatic. Look at how many walked out on his UN speech.

Iran has had a few moderate presidents since the revolution and the mullahs ran them out.

Iran is Iran's own worst enemy.
Iran has been quite stable for the last 30 years and I can't see any reasons why it wouldn't continue to be like that in the future.

[Hondo]

Then they shouldn't have any problems. On this nuclear thing, the US government is not the only government concerned about the situation but does get the lion's share of the press about it. As far as having plans to attack Iran, the US like other governments, are constantly drawing up and revising military attack and defense plans. It gives them something to do. We probably have attack plans for Finland too. Somewhere.

If it was up to me, I don't care if the little rodent has nuclear weapons or not. Any country today that has a detonated nuclear weapon traced back to them, whether they fired it or the thugs that stole it from them fired it, are going to be in a severe world of hurt.

[A.F.F.]

AFF, yes it does to some degree, but people in the USA aren't running around blaming Iran for the complete incompetence of the USA's political leadership. You don't see a bunch of dumba$$ Americans burning Iranian flags in the street calling for death to the great satan Iran every time things don't work out for us.


That is very true.

I really don't know how a state, for instance Iran, works because whenever I see some TV-footage from there, it's always the same. Hundreds and hundreds of Iranian dudes just hanging out on the streets picking up a fight for whetever reason. And when they find a reason, along comes flags and gasoline. Usually some old lady is cursing and crying at the same time.

Something fundamentally wrong in those countries in that particialr region... amybe it's in the water... or lack of it :confused:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Iran has been quite stable for the last 30 years and I can't see any reasons why it wouldn't continue to be like that in the future.


Most dictatorships are stable too, that doesn't mean we should aspire to have them.

Iran is stable for THAT part of the world. That said, I would hardly volunteer to live in a place where there is so much animosity for a country half a world a way based on purely ginned up hate at this point. 30 years plus have gone by since the Iranian revolution. Any hostility towards the Americans should have died down and hasn't.

That said, the fact they have a democratically elected President on paper is a good thing, and Ahmadinejad would look great if he was tossed out on his tail. The problem is, the Mullahs and Imams that run the show there are the real power, and they are NOT elected and I suspect they will clamp down as the youth (over 50% of the voters are under 30)are pushing for change.

Iran is a paradox. They are having a pretty open election (I suspect the fix may be in but we shall see) and there is some political division in an open forum so I hope things will change.

Most of the hostility in the USA/Iranian relationship has been generated by Tehran's support of Hezbollah and the Bushies responded in kind by tossing Iran in the "axis of Evil" group. It was good domestic politics for both sides, but Bush is gone and hopefully Ahmadinejad will be too.

The Iranians seem to be showing signs of pulling back from their more provocative positions as a people. I have always believed the younger generation of Iranians isn't for this inflamed rhetoric and this election seems to be mirroring the US elections, in that the youth are going for the "hope and change" thing.

As we all said though, will the Mullahs allow more democracy and true freedom? Stay tuned...

[Hondo]

No the mullahs will not allow it at all. To do so would severely erode their own power base over the people and increase the risk of the state gaining an exploitable advantage over them. Very, very, very few people ever voluntarily surrender power.

[race aficionado]

Elections results are "in" and we have a lot of angry protests by Mousavi supporters.

Where is President Carter when we need him :D

any way . . . . all we can do is just watch the news and see what finally happens.


:s mokin:

[Hondo]

Elections results are "in" and we have a lot of angry protests by Mousavi supporters.

Where is President Carter when we need him :D

any way . . . . all we can do is just watch the news and see what finally happens.


:s mokin:

Here's what happens. The plot by the Great Satan USA to rig the elections was discovered in time and defeated. The angry protests are being instigated by the Great Satan USA. The opposition will start getting his affairs in order and check real estate prices in France. He knows nothing will happen too soon, but it doesn't hurt to plan ahead.

The people will run joyously in the streets, burning American flags, burning effigies of Obama (Obama bin Burning), celebrating their victory over the Great Satan USA, and of course, calling for the death of the same Great Satan USA.

Just another day in Iran.

[Roamy]

nuke em

[Eki]

30 years plus have gone by since the Iranian revolution. Any hostility towards the Americans should have died down and hasn't.

I don't think the US has given much reason to that. I guess the US has had sanctions on Iran for all that 30 years, they supported the war Saddam´s Iraq launched against Iran in the 1980s and they still support Israel.

[Eki]

Elections results are "in" and we have a lot of angry protests by Mousavi supporters.

Where is President Carter when we need him :D

any way . . . . all we can do is just watch the news and see what finally happens.


:s mokin:
Four more years for Ahmadenijad then. It was a dissapointment and reminded me of the 2004 US Presidential elections. Maybe next time.

[race aficionado]

Four more years for Ahmadenijad then. It was a dissapointment and reminded me of the 2004 US Presidential elections. Maybe next time.

Ahmadenijad is a contradiction.

He has given the most wonderful speeches at the United Nations and last Christmas sent the most beautiful message to the people of Christian beliefs as we celebrated Christmas.

And on the other end would go into these crazy rants that would not help to pave the road for peace in that volatile area.

Let's just see what happens next . . .
:s mokin:

[Hondo]

Obama seems to think the "robust debates" prior to the elections will have shown Ahmadenijad the people's desire for moderation. Jeeeeze, what's the matter with this guy?

Dear President Obama, the "robust debates" coupled with President Ahmadenijad being re-elected to office, by a larger majority than you got incidently, will only result in President Ahmadenijad continuing his current ways as approved by the majority of his people. The only moderating going on will be you, under his desk. Maybe Monica will let you borrow that fetching blue number.

[anthonyvop]

Four more years for Ahmadenijad then. It was a dissapointment and reminded me of the 2004 US Presidential elections. Maybe next time.
One big difference and thousands of other differences.

The big Difference is that the U.S. were 100% fair and transparent except for a few cases of Democratic party cheating.

The other differences is that Bush was right the vast majority of the times.

[Eki]

One big difference and thousands of other differences.

The big Difference is that the U.S. were 100% fair and transparent except for a few cases of Democratic party cheating.

The other differences is that Bush was right the vast majority of the times.
:lol:

[anthonyvop]

:lol:
That is good Eki.

Being able to laugh at yourself is the 1st step to your journey towards mental health.

[Eki]

That is good Eki.

Being able to laugh at yourself is the 1st step to your journey towards mental health.
Your shrink told you that? Obviously it hasn't worked, or you haven't laughed at yourself enough yet.

[Malbec]

That said, I would hardly volunteer to live in a place where there is so much animosity for a country half a world a way based on purely ginned up hate at this point. 30 years plus have gone by since the Iranian revolution. Any hostility towards the Americans should have died down and hasn't.

A lot of that hostility is for show. I remember an article by a Newsweek reporter trying to get this across where he would go to an anti-American demonstration and find that the people would crowd around him once they found who he was writing for and talk about how much they loved the country he came from. Its also my experience in my travels there, they loved the fact that I'm British but many said they preferred Americans to the British. Also remember that its the only Middle Eastern country that had spontaneous demonstrations in support and sympathy for the US in the days post 9/11, even Israelis didn't go that far.


That said, the fact they have a democratically elected President on paper is a good thing, and Ahmadinejad would look great if he was tossed out on his tail. The problem is, the Mullahs and Imams that run the show there are the real power, and they are NOT elected and I suspect they will clamp down as the youth (over 50% of the voters are under 30)are pushing for change.

Iran is a paradox. They are having a pretty open election (I suspect the fix may be in but we shall see) and there is some political division in an open forum so I hope things will change.

I suspect you wrote this before it became clear the election was a fix.

You're right, the Mullahs are the real power, but religion isn't what they're interested in, as usual its power and money. In Iran if you want money you import goods from overseas or you're in the oil trade. If you want to import goods you need to get a special licence from the government. Not surprisingly this means that relatives of the guys in power tend to get rich quickly, and I guess its no coincidence that the mullahs don't tend to have many financial worries. Its the same as the Communist states like North Korea. If you're in the system life is fine. If you're not, tough. Thats what common Iranians have a problem with.

The problem the Mullahs have is that they are committed to having a semidemocratic system with presidential elections. They reduce the risk of having someone rock the boat by vetting and removing reformist leftie Democratic types. The problem is that the system stinks so much that hardened revolutionaries with CVs that read like America's worst nightmare want to overthrow or reform the system. They can't filter guys like that out and label them as leftie reformists, yet they pose a serious threat to the status quo.

Well we've seen how the Mullahs deal with that kind of threat now, rig the election.

The problem is that they've allowed a serious democratic competition with open TV debating between the candidates of the kind you see regularly in the West, only to deny the reality of the election by committing massive fraud. By raising expectation so high then dashing hope they are running a serious risk.

Then there are the real problems Ahmadinejad faces regardless of how he won the election. This guy does have genuine support in Iran, especially from the poor for whom he always promises massive handouts that the debtridden state struggles to deliver. He's just about managed to deliver on a fraction of those promises during the boom years of sky high oil prices but he's not going to be able to do that with the oil costing what it does now.

Secondly the bureaucracy and even the Iranian parliament that is largely conservative dislike him because he has shown himself clueless about economics (G W Bush looks like a Stanford professor next to Ahmadinejad) and international trade. How is he going to mend fences with them?

Also Ahmadinejad (for all his faults) genuinely feels that he's a man of the people and wants to feel supported by the populace. As a person how's he going to take demonstrations against him?

Finally there's the whole nuclear issue, important to the West, not quite as important to the Iranians except for those who care how foreigners view them. How is Ahmadinejad going to sort that out? I don't believe he's going to change his tune after the election but his management of that one issue can make life much more difficult for ordinary Iranians if more sanctions come into force. Will his vocal but minority support base still support him then?

[race aficionado]

Looking at the multitude of disgruntled Iranian voters protesting the election results in the streets, reminds me of how we never saw this reaction in my U.S. of A. when we felt that Bush Jr. had been gifted the elections.

Something to learn from.

It is very, very interesting to see what is happening in Iran.

The use of the internet as means of communications is also fascinating.

Let's see how far "People Power" can go on this historical moment.

I'm totally for it.


:s mokin:

[Hondo]

Looking at the multitude of disgruntled Iranian voters protesting the election results in the streets, reminds me of how we never saw this reaction in my U.S. of A. when we felt that Bush Jr. had been gifted the elections.

Something to learn from.

It is very, very interesting to see what is happening in Iran.

The use of the internet as means of communications is also fascinating.

Let's see how far "People Power" can go on this historical moment.

I'm totally for it.


:s mokin:

If Obama had lost, you'd have seen it. Don't kid yourself.

[Easy Drifter]

For once I agreed with Eki's hopes in the election as did, I expect, most of the free world.
Unforunately they have not been realized.
Not only that, I do not think Iran can now be described as a stable country, although I think our friend Eki was stretching things in calling it that.

[Valve Bounce]

Looking at the multitude of disgruntled Iranian voters protesting the election results in the streets, reminds me of how we never saw this reaction in my U.S. of A. when we felt that Bush Jr. had been gifted the elections.

Something to learn from.

It is very, very interesting to see what is happening in Iran.

The use of the internet as means of communications is also fascinating.

Let's see how far "People Power" can go on this historical moment.

I'm totally for it.


:s mokin:

The use of the internet is severely restricted. However, you can still get a lot of videos of the violence via Twitter and facebook.
Foreign correspondents are being kicked out or severely restricted in their movements - also, they no longer feel safe there.

BUT if you want the latest news and maybe a few vids, my friend Al can help: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009617151249642655.html
He seems to have a helluva lot of help in getting info out.

Basically, if you want a really good rundown of the situation in Iran, read Dylan H's post above - that is extremely accurate and telling.

I've been to this country twice, the last time I worked there for two months in 2004.

I'll post my thoughts later.

[anthonyvop]

If Obama had lost, you'd have seen it. Don't kid yourself.
Nobody rioted when Obama stole the election.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nobody rioted when Obama stole the election.


Ummm Anthony...he didn't. No more than Dubya stole the 2000 election.

You can be such as suck at times can't ya?

[Malbec]

Things are getting interesting. Khamenei had two choices, be hard and tell the demonstrators to piss off or concede. Either way things would have been difficult, with the former option blood will inevitably be shed, yet annul the election and Ahmadinejad's supporters might run riot.

Today he's chosen the first option and I suspect the riot police will be getting ready for any big protests tomorrow.

The thing about today's speech was its aggression towards the West. Obama has said nothing about the Iranian election beyond expressing a hands off stance yet he's accused of demanding that protesters take to the streets in Tehran. The harshest words are of course reserved for perfidious Albion. Great Britain is the true evil, it always is when it comes to trying to manipulate Iranian politics, one thing every Iranian knows is that the Americans aren't smart enough to manipulate Iranians, the British are.

If Khamenei survives this whole episode then Obama ought to take his toys home and not bother talking to Iran again, there is no way he can come out of any talks with Iran looking good.

Yet by all this Khamenei is painting himself into a corner. What Iranians want is to be accepted by the international community and get some free trade going so they can have a nicer lifestyle. Khamenei's stance guarantees this won't be possible as long as he's in power. This stance may come to bite him in the ass, perhaps not now but definitely at some point.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Things are getting interesting. Khamenei had two choices, be hard and tell the demonstrators to piss off or concede. Either way things would have been difficult, with the former option blood will inevitably be shed, yet annul the election and Ahmadinejad's supporters might run riot.

Today he's chosen the first option and I suspect the riot police will be getting ready for any big protests tomorrow.

The thing about today's speech was its aggression towards the West. Obama has said nothing about the Iranian election beyond expressing a hands off stance yet he's accused of demanding that protesters take to the streets in Tehran. The harshest words are of course reserved for perfidious Albion. Great Britain is the true evil, it always is when it comes to trying to manipulate Iranian politics, one thing every Iranian knows is that the Americans aren't smart enough to manipulate Iranians, the British are.

If Khamenei survives this whole episode then Obama ought to take his toys home and not bother talking to Iran again, there is no way he can come out of any talks with Iran looking good.

Yet by all this Khamenei is painting himself into a corner. What Iranians want is to be accepted by the international community and get some free trade going so they can have a nicer lifestyle. Khamenei's stance guarantees this won't be possible as long as he's in power. This stance may come to bite him in the ass, perhaps not now but definitely at some point.

I have heard a number of people on the right and left who study geo politics and all said Iran was ripe for revolution and the people there wanted a democracy. I wasn't so sure...but I was wrong and I hope they all work this out on their own. I wouldn't want to see a bloody civil war, but from the sounds of it, people are willing to die for their freedom here and for that, you have to respect it.

First rule of dictatorship. Never hold an election with a viable alternative and never give the illusion that the vote is fair. Khamenei and his Mullahs have tried to do what Gorby did with the USSR....give the illusion of democracy. People don't do illusions....

[Roamy]

I don't get it = the Chief Doily Head said that VagFace won the election. So what is the big deal - Doily controls the army and they have the guns. So if you want to protest save your money up and hire Israel to take care of things.

[Malbec]

I have heard a number of people on the right and left who study geo politics and all said Iran was ripe for revolution and the people there wanted a democracy. I wasn't so sure...but I was wrong and I hope they all work this out on their own. I wouldn't want to see a bloody civil war, but from the sounds of it, people are willing to die for their freedom here and for that, you have to respect it.

The problem is that the Iran we see in the west, the people uploading to youtube and keeping you updated on facebook and twitter are the well heeled middle class in Tehran and other major cities who DO want a democracy but not at the cost of chaos. Then there are the ones who don't get heard much outside Iran, the poor and uneducated who quite like the system as it is with its handouts and its social conservatism and who don't want to see the boat rocked too much. Both groups are large in number and obviously what makes one happy will piss off the other. I'm not convinced the 'democracy' movement will amount to much.

There are literally millions of 40-something Iranians reminding their kids that they didn't overthrow the Shah to bring in the Ayatollahs in 1979, they overthrew him without much of an idea who to bring in, the Ayatollahs took the opportunity to seize power afterwards. They don't want their kids repeating the same mistake and sacrifice everything to overthrow the current system and see it replaced by something worse. The kids are listening too, which is why they won't overthrow the Ayatollahs, merely demand reform.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The problem is that the Iran we see in the west, the people uploading to youtube and keeping you updated on facebook and twitter are the well heeled middle class in Tehran and other major cities who DO want a democracy but not at the cost of chaos. Then there are the ones who don't get heard much outside Iran, the poor and uneducated who quite like the system as it is with its handouts and its social conservatism and who don't want to see the boat rocked too much. Both groups are large in number and obviously what makes one happy will piss off the other. I'm not convinced the 'democracy' movement will amount to much.

There are literally millions of 40-something Iranians reminding their kids that they didn't overthrow the Shah to bring in the Ayatollahs in 1979, they overthrew him without much of an idea who to bring in, the Ayatollahs took the opportunity to seize power afterwards. They don't want their kids repeating the same mistake and sacrifice everything to overthrow the current system and see it replaced by something worse. The kids are listening too, which is why they won't overthrow the Ayatollahs, merely demand reform.

They may demand reform, and not want to upset the system totally, but this system wont go away and give them that reform. You keep assuming the Mullahs are reasonable people. These are the same guys with the Revolutinary Guard that kept the US hostages and have been funding Hezbollah. They also have a nasty habit of arresting foreign journalists who die during "questioning". Reasonable governments grant reform, religous theocracies do not. Push will come to shove....and there will be blood.

[Malbec]

You keep assuming the Mullahs are reasonable people. These are the same guys with the Revolutinary Guard that kept the US hostages and have been funding Hezbollah. They also have a nasty habit of arresting foreign journalists who die during "questioning". Reasonable governments grant reform, religous theocracies do not. Push will come to shove....and there will be blood.

I don't assume the mullahs are all reasonable people at all, I think Khamenei is a real turd in fact, and that most of the senior mullahs are corrupt. I don't think Ahmadinejad is much different although he is not corrupt.

I do however believe that many mullahs lead by Rafsanjani have a strong survival instinct and know that reform inside the country and a friendlier foreign policy particularly with respect to the US is essential and unavoidable.

In fact Mousavi who the guys are demonstrating for is from deep within the revolution, ran a purge of intellectuals during the Iran/Iraq war but also now believes that openness and reform are what is required.

BTW what the senior mullahs think and what the lower grade mullahs think are totally different subjects and the difference is very very interesting but is too big a subject to post about here. If left alone the clergy will reform things anyway, that is the way the tide is turning from the bottom up within the religious establishment. The thing is whether Khamenei can be pushed aside or whether people have to wait till he dies and he is replaced.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote=Dylan
BTW what the the lower grade mullahs


..the Mullah Lites you mean..

[Malbec]

BTW Mark in Oshawa, I saw on another thread that you were wondering if the election was rigged or not rigged. Unfortunately that thread is locked so I thought I'd reply here.

Firstly there have been presidential elections in Iran since the Iran/Iraq war ended, possibly from before then. While the candidates are heavily vetted the election process itself has never been fixed before although some people claim that the Iranian equivalent of the primaries last time around had a bit of fraud going on.

I don't think the current election had international observers although I might be wrong. I know that Iranians are demanding them if there's a repeat though. Previous ones have had international observers from the UN and have been declared clean and fair. I know you're sceptical about elections in general in Iran but the whole reason people are so pissed off is because the one guarantee they've had under the government is that the presidential election itself is clean.

You're right, there is no direct evidence that the election was rigged however the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.

- The election result doesn't match either pre-election polling or exit polling which predicted a Mousavi victory.

- The result was announced three hours after the voting finished, the Iranian constitution dictates that the interior ministry spends three days checking and rechecking the results before publicising them. The votes are written by hand and are then input into computers by hand. How can 40 million votes be counted by hand in three hours?

- The voting pattern was uniform across the country, 65% to Ahmadinejad to 30% for Mousavi. The important iffy thing is that Ahmadinejad beat the other candidates in their home towns. Iranians like the local boy to win and also know that presidents tend to award pork-barrel contracts to their hometown making it unlikely that they'll back anyone else.

- In previous elections the rule has been simple, high turnout = reformist victory, low turnout = conservative victory. High turnout = conservative victory simply doesn't compute.

- Whistleblowers in the interior ministry have claimed that the results were dud and were predetermined months in advance.

- Iranians get a personal ID number they need to do anything with the state like an American social security number. They can't vote without one, but there are claims that there are millions of ballot sheets without them.

I don't doubt that Ahmadinejad would have won in some parts of the country without difficulty but to win across the board simply isn't realistic.

[veeten]

and then, there's the young girl named Neda, who has now become a symbol/martyr of the 'new revolution'...

http://gawker.com/5299414/neda-the-face-of-a-revolution?autoplay=true

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1194641/Iran-fury-YouTube-screens-moments-Neda-Agha-Soltani-shot-dead-democracy-rally.html

getting harder and harder for the present Iranian regieme to make excuses, accusations and threats without the rest of the world seeing what they don't want them to see.

as Senator/Emperor Palpitine said, " All those that achieve power are loathe to relenquish it..." We are getting a first-hand look of that playing itself out, with the people being both participant and chronographer.

[Hondo]

You can bet Obama is learning from Ahmadinejad. Obama's "domestic security force" will be his revolutionary guards.

[anthonyvop]

and then, there's the young girl named Neda, who has now become a symbol/martyr of the 'new revolution'...

http://gawker.com/5299414/neda-the-face-of-a-revolution?autoplay=true

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1194641/Iran-fury-YouTube-screens-moments-Neda-Agha-Soltani-shot-dead-democracy-rally.html



Come on Eki and all of his ilk. Go ahead and blame the US for this "GIRL's" death!!!

[Eki]

You can bet Obama is learning from Ahmadinejad. Obama's "domestic security force" will be his revolutionary guards.
Doesn't he already have the National Guard? Or are they just for the Republicans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Shootings


The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre,[2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]

[Hondo]

Doesn't he already have the National Guard? Or are they just for the Republicans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Shootings

National Guard is part of the proper military. Obama wants a 30,000 member strong domestic security force not part of armed forces or police, but just as strong. Sort of like the Waffen SS and answering only to Obama.

[anthonyvop]

Doesn't he already have the National Guard? Or are they just for the Republicans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Shootings

At least they weren't like the Finns assisting the NAZIs!!!

[race aficionado]

Come on Anthony.

Don't go there again . . .

This thread happens to be about one of the most important events happening in our planet right now.

Let's all keep it on topic.


:s mokin:

[anthonyvop]

Come on Anthony.

Don't go there again . . .

This thread happens to be about one of the most important events happening in our planet right now.

Let's all keep it on topic.


:s mokin:

I am on Topic. Iran is a Fascist State.

[Roamy]

well no sense dying for something they can't change. They need to band together get a bunch of sniper rifles from Israel and go pop khomeni if they want change. Burning a bunch of Hondas will not do much.

[Tazio]

In the large picture Iran is, and has been progressing through a movement for fair representative government.
Like the majority of modern democracies, and republics, liberty has almost always sprung from within, and didn't happen overnight.
Unlike Iraq where demographics allowed a plurality, and several minorities to be ruled by another minority,
it appears that Iran, which has a majority of Shia is getting close to experiencing liberty springing from within.
In light of today’s government admittance that millions of votes appeared out of thin air,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/middleeast/23iran.html?th&emc=thI
I have to most strenuously agree with Mark. Blood will be spilled for eventual freedom if the people have the will for it.
It may not come this year or next, but I assure it will eventually come. It most definitely will come,
and at all costs if necessary!
< "Battle Hymme of the Republic" playing in the backround>

JXGYxd6cBeQ&feature=related

[Eki]

At least they weren't like the Finns assisting the NAZIs!!!
I don't have a problem with that. It was better than assisting Stalin and his Bolsheviks like the US did.

[Hondo]

What is happening in Iran right now are the exact reasons for the First and Second Amendments in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Free press and the right to bear arms. Although their presence may create difficulties for some and discomfort for others, those amendments are the people's safeguards against the sort of tyrant that runs Iran. And no, I don't consider Ahmadinehad the top tyrant. He's just like Obama. A guy that talks a good game, popular with the lower classes, but overmatched and unquailified for the job he has.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What is happening in Iran right now are the exact reasons for the First and Second Amendments in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Free press and the right to bear arms. Although their presence may create difficulties for some and discomfort for others, those amendments are the people's safeguards against the sort of tyrant that runs Iran. And no, I don't consider Ahmadinehad the top tyrant. He's just like Obama. A guy that talks a good game, popular with the lower classes, but overmatched and unquailified for the job he has.


I think Iran would never have the right to bear arms as it is interpreted in the US even if they do get a revolution and move on to a true democracy.

Yet I know that is what the consitution as it was written in the early US was getting at. The citizens having the ultimate power. The issue I have with that is I doubt 90% of the US populace gets that, and just carries gun out of fear or for protection. Not that carrying a gun is wrong, but in that the people of the US have continued to ignore why those rights were given to them and how to understand how their government has failed them. I don't think in this day of age an armed rebellion is responsible in the US, just it would require people to think more about what they are getting from their leadership and voting accordingly, and quit spending time voting for the winner of American Idol.

[Jag_Warrior]

I think Iran would never have the right to bear arms as it is interpreted in the US even if they do get a revolution and move on to a true democracy.

Yet I know that is what the consitution as it was written in the early US was getting at. The citizens having the ultimate power. The issue I have with that is I doubt 90% of the US populace gets that, and just carries gun out of fear or for protection. Not that carrying a gun is wrong, but in that the people of the US have continued to ignore why those rights were given to them and how to understand how their government has failed them. I don't think in this day of age an armed rebellion is responsible in the US, just it would require people to think more about what they are getting from their leadership and voting accordingly, and quit spending time voting for the winner of American Idol.

I can't remember the exact figure off the top of my head, but some large percentage (I think it was north of 40%) of the U.S. population doesn't know who their Congressional representative is. So I agree, there's probably some large percentage of the U.S. population that doesn't know the basis for the 2nd Amendment... and probably can't even state what the 2nd Amenment is ("Uh, that's the one about freedom of speech, right?").

Those of us who "get" the 2nd Amendment aren't an homogenous group either. But there are enough of us that I feel we can keep most any administration and most any gathering of Congress on its toes.

How that would work out in Iran, I have no idea? It's a different society and a different culture. More than likely, they'd just run around shooting each other, like they do in Iraq... and South Central L.A. :dozey:

[Jag_Warrior]

And no, I don't consider Ahmadinehad the top tyrant. He's just like Obama. A guy that talks a good game, popular with the lower classes, but overmatched and unquailified for the job he has.

Odd, since I've read that Aki's followers tend to be the rural, less educated religious fanatics and street thugs (Basij). Considering how Ahmadinejad has successfully isolated Iran from the world stage and played the "you're either with us or against us" card, that sounds more like our neocons to me. Plus, he likes to meddle in other countries' affairs. Yep, I recognize that creature. Another interesting parallel is that while Ahmadinejad isn't really an ultra conservative, it was that koo-koo wing of the conservative movement in Iran that backed him in this election. I bet if he and Dubya ever had lunch, they'd have some hella stories to swap.

Students, academics, young people, progressives, liberals and those who support a secular state are the ones who seem to most want "change" in Iran.

Whether the people want Ak-Ak or not, I figure since the Supreme Leader (like the Supreme Court) wants him, that's who they're going to have for awhile. But once he really screws the pooch, they'll probably elect some young guy, who's half Sunni and half Shia. Once he wins, the mullahs will argue about his birth certificate and claim that Iran is dead forever, and that Allah is going to punish them for electing him.

I don't know how it ends, but I've read the book up to this point. :monkeedan

[Hondo]

The true reason for the Second Amendment not being taught properly is the same as why other things are not taught properly. People in positions that decide that sort of thing don't want you to know the truth and reason behind it.

You think the United States Government is going to come out and declare the Second Amendment is in place to allow the citizens prevent governmental tyranny whether foreign or domestic? No. When they acknowledge it at all, it is done from a personal self defense aspect.

[Malbec]

You think the United States Government is going to come out and declare the Second Amendment is in place to allow the citizens prevent governmental tyranny whether foreign or domestic? No. When they acknowledge it at all, it is done from a personal self defense aspect.

Isn't the same true for mainstream pro-firearms groups like the NRA? They seem to concentrate more on the personal security issues rather than the need to keep government in its place.

[Jag_Warrior]

The true reason for the Second Amendment not being taught properly is the same as why other things are not taught properly. People in positions that decide that sort of thing don't want you to know the truth and reason behind it.

You think the United States Government is going to come out and declare the Second Amendment is in place to allow the citizens prevent governmental tyranny whether foreign or domestic? No. When they acknowledge it at all, it is done from a personal self defense aspect.

Actually I think it's the same reason that a lot of kids can't speak standard English and don't have the ability to do more than simple math when they graduate from high school: a failing educational system. Most kids can't tell you anything more about the 1st Amendment (or the 19th Amendment, for that matter) than they can tell you about the 2nd Amendment. They're equally ignorant across the board, IMO.

We did debate and discuss the 2nd Amendment where I went to (public) school. But I grew up in a pro-gun household in the Bible Belt. A kid in southern California might have gotten a different lesson than I did.

Along the same line, I bet I could walk up to any 100 girls at any college in the U.S. and ask them all what the 19th Amendment was, and less than half of them would even have a clue. Hmm, that might make for an interesting game of Strip Jeopardy - I'll get my camera! :D But we just do an extremely poor job of teaching government and civics in this country. The average immigrant, who has become a citizen, knows MUCH more about this nation, its history and our form of government than the average natural born American. That's just my belief, but I bet it's pretty accurate. What do you think?

[Jag_Warrior]

Isn't the same true for mainstream pro-firearms groups like the NRA? They seem to concentrate more on the personal security issues rather than the need to keep government in its place.

Yes, the NRA concentrates mostly on sportsmen (hunters) and then on personal security issues. The average NRA member doesn't want to hear lessons on the true reasons for the 2nd Amendment. That's one of the reasons for the formation of the GOA (Gun Owners of America) some years ago. It's an NRA off-shoot, but I'd say most of the members are current (or former) NRA members. They perceive the NRA to be too soft on firearms rights. The GOA and the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) are perhaps the strongest proponents of firearms ownership in the U.S. for non-sporting and non-personal security reasons. They're the real deal. Some of them are kinda scary, but they ain't playing around.

[Eki]

Along the same line, I bet I could walk up to any 100 girls at any college in the U.S. and ask them all what the 19th Amendment was, and less than half of them would even have a clue. Hmm, that might make for an interesting game of Strip Jeopardy - I'll get my camera! :D
A bit like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE&feature=fvst

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jag..I know more about the US system of governence than most of your population, and I am a Canadian for crying out loud.

What is more, I learned about your system in MY high school history classes and we compared the Canadian system to the US system. I would give you 100 bucks there isn't a high school in the US that even teaches Canada's geography beyond a rudimentry level, much less about the plus and minuses of a Parliamentry democratic system.

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag..I know more about the US system of governence than most of your population, and I am a Canadian for crying out loud.

What is more, I learned about your system in MY high school history classes and we compared the Canadian system to the US system. I would give you 100 bucks there isn't a high school in the US that even teaches Canada's geography beyond a rudimentry level, much less about the plus and minuses of a Parliamentry democratic system.

I'd say you're 100% correct, Mark. I know I didn't learn the first thing about parliamentary style governments at any point during my education. Nothing. Nada. Niente.

To be honest, I like to read the Euro threads on here because I still don't have a very good understanding of that governmental structure.

And unless you guys blow something up or a train crashes, we don't get ANY news about Canada in the mainstream media here. I get (or got) a channel on DirecTV that originates out of Canada. But that's about all.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'd say you're 100% correct, Mark. I know I didn't learn the first thing about parliamentary style governments at any point during my education. Nothing. Nada. Niente.

To be honest, I like to read the Euro threads on here because I still don't have a very good understanding of that governmental structure.

And unless you guys blow something up or a train crashes, we don't get ANY news about Canada in the mainstream media here. I get (or got) a channel on DirecTV that originates out of Canada. But that's about all.

Jag...the sad part is most Americans refuse to look up here either. Yet we know more about you guys out of necessity and just pure cross cultural pollenation. There are Americans down there who are always shocked by what they find up here and are always shocked we are not all French.

The American Media is lazy and introverted. If it doesn't happen in America, someone better be bleeding or blown up to be on the news. That is pathetic......

[Jag_Warrior]

A bit like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE&feature=fvst


You know, I don't know when I have laughed so hard in my entire life!!! :rotflmao: This was better than that sad twit, Miss Teen South Carolina. At least she was just nervous (and stupid).

I suggest that anyone and everyone watch this video!!!

Yeah, I laughed for a solid 3:14 minutes. Later on this evening, I might cry a bit though. But next week, I'm going to find that school, pick out a couple of the cute ones who are at least 18... and they will become my willing slaves. "Hey girls, let's get rid of the 13th Amendment. What do ya say?!" :rolleyes: Damn, that was pitiful. :(

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag...the sad part is most Americans refuse to look up here either. Yet we know more about you guys out of necessity and just pure cross cultural pollenation. There are Americans down there who are always shocked by what they find up here and are always shocked we are not all French.

The American Media is lazy and introverted. If it doesn't happen in America, someone better be bleeding or blown up to be on the news. That is pathetic......

In many ways, I believe we are blessed/cursed with the same attitudes as the ancient Romans. Unless it happens here, or affects us... it probably isn't important anyway.

If you ever get a chance, pick up the book Empires of Trust: How Rome built - and America is building - a New World

I have't really gotten into it yet, but I am told that it's well worth the read. I hope to crack it open this weekend. Go to the Military Book Club and you can get it for almost nothing with a membership.

[steve_spackman]

The American Media is lazy and introverted. If it doesn't happen in America, someone better be bleeding or blown up to be on the news. That is pathetic......

Could not agree more

[Mark in Oshawa]

Could not agree more

Outside of fast cars and drinking beer in pubs, we rarely agree...this is scary stuff man...

[AAReagles]

The American Media is lazy and introverted. If it doesn't happen in America, someone better be bleeding or blown up to be on the news. That is pathetic......
... yet very true. But that's what happens when corporations take over slumping media operations. Which will only get worse as newspapers and other news sources succumb to the appealing, and so far, "free" offerings from the internet. In the meantime it's CNN (Commercials Non-stop Nonsense).

... anyways it would be nice to see Iran upgrade to a form of democracy, and fall into a eutopia similar to that Coca-Cola commercial from the 70's, "I'd like to teach the world to live in perfect harmony..." But then again, the rest of the world isn't so perfect either, as several of you folks pointed out already.

[Eki]

You know, I don't know when I have laughed so hard in my entire life!!! :rotflmao: This was better than that sad twit, Miss Teen South Carolina. At least she was just nervous (and stupid).

I suggest that anyone and everyone watch this video!!!

Yeah, I laughed for a solid 3:14 minutes. Later on this evening, I might cry a bit though. But next week, I'm going to find that school, pick out a couple of the cute ones who are at least 18... and they will become my willing slaves. "Hey girls, let's get rid of the 13th Amendment. What do ya say?!" :rolleyes: Damn, that was pitiful. :(
Women's suffrage is a terrible thing. Especially if you allow those girls to vote.

[veeten]

... anyways it would be nice to see Iran upgrade to a form of democracy, and fall into a eutopia similar to that Coca-Cola commercial from the 70's, "I'd like to teach the world to live in perfect harmony..." But then again, the rest of the world isn't so perfect either, as several of you folks pointed out already.

pretty close there, AAR.

Getting back to the subject at hand, one has to remember that Iran is, since the 'revolution', a Theocracy, guided by the interpretations of the Koran (s) by Khomeini. It is certain aspects of that that the present leadership, including the more secretive councils run by the hard-line mullahs, seem to be circumventing, which have led to present protests about the voting results. By doing what they are at present, including the crackdowns on both the protesters and the opposition parties and how they are still being seen by the rest of the world by use of the internet, aren't helping matters for the ruling parties at all.

What they want is for the problems, and the opposition, to go away, but not at the expense of their newly-hewned power. Like all corrupt stature, they know what's at stake: their own place in history.

[Mark in Oshawa]

pretty close there, AAR.

Getting back to the subject at hand, one has to remember that Iran is, since the 'revolution', a Theocracy, guided by the interpretations of the Koran (s) by Khomeini. It is certain aspects of that that the present leadership, including the more secretive councils run by the hard-line mullahs, seem to be circumventing, which have led to present protests about the voting results. By doing what they are at present, including the crackdowns on both the protesters and the opposition parties and how they are still being seen by the rest of the world by use of the internet, aren't helping matters for the ruling parties at all.

What they want is for the problems, and the opposition, to go away, but not at the expense of their newly-hewned power. Like all corrupt stature, they know what's at stake: their own place in history.

The thing that surprises me though that the Mullahs would risk an election in a free fashion when the obviously misjudged the zeal for reform with the opposition. They allowed this guy who go about the country promising change and reform, and yet the theocracy has to approve both candidates. They ended up making it a true election, rather than the fixed faux elections that a country like Iraq or Cuba might hold.

People in the urban areas, where money is being made, and connections to the outside world are many, are wanting to be part of that world, not to be isolated on an island of hatred for the west and any other religion but Shiite Islam. I am not shocked that there is a push for change, what I found shocking is the amount fight in the people there to make change. The genie is out of the bottle.

[steve_spackman]

One thing we all here have to remember, is that the Middle East has different cultures and sees the world different to us in the West. Although im not too pleased with the way the people in Iran have been treated in the past or are being treated at present, we must not try and dictate to them how they should run the country and how they should live their lives. There has always been a difference in ideals between the West and the Middle East. We try and impose western culture on them and they reject through certain means. We try and boss them around, yet they rightly rebell against it. As they do to us, but not in greater ways as we do to them. At the end of the day, it all comes down to respect. We must respect the way they live..as they should should with us

Also dont forget that their cultures etc have been around a lot longer than ours have...

[Mark in Oshawa]

One thing we all here have to remember, is that the Middle East has different cultures and sees the world different to us in the West. Although im not too pleased with the way the people in Iran have been treated in the past or are being treated at present, we must not try and dictate to them how they should run the country and how they should live their lives. There has always been a difference in ideals between the West and the Middle East. We try and impose western culture on them and they reject through certain means. We try and boss them around, yet they rightly rebell against it. As they do to us, but not in greater ways as we do to them. At the end of the day, it all comes down to respect. We must respect the way they live..as they should should with us

Also dont forget that their cultures etc have been around a lot longer than ours have...

Steve, that is a very libreal and well reasoned idea....and it flies completely in the face of human rights and values. Just because they have suppressed women and treated those they didn't like with great disfavour for a thousand years doesn't mean we have to agree with it or defend it. We certainly are not going to invade the country to make those changes, but we should never condone it either. You wouldn't watch your neighbour beat his wife through the window and think "well, it is his house and his wife; and he has done it for 20 years so I wont call the cops". No...you would call the cops.

[steve_spackman]

Steve, that is a very libreal and well reasoned idea....and it flies completely in the face of human rights and values. Just because they have suppressed women and treated those they didn't like with great disfavour for a thousand years doesn't mean we have to agree with it or defend it. We certainly are not going to invade the country to make those changes, but we should never condone it either. You wouldn't watch your neighbour beat his wife through the window and think "well, it is his house and his wife; and he has done it for 20 years so I wont call the cops". No...you would call the cops.

Dont get me wrong Mark i do condone the way they are treated. I just dont see why the we in the West are getting on the backs of the leaders in Iran, when its going to make no difference in any shape or form. We are in some respects wasting our breath!

Me libreal? Nah mate, i just see things from both sides of the spectrum. I will agree and disagree with some things from either side.

[Malbec]

The thing that surprises me though that the Mullahs would risk an election in a free fashion when the obviously misjudged the zeal for reform with the opposition. They allowed this guy who go about the country promising change and reform, and yet the theocracy has to approve both candidates. They ended up making it a true election, rather than the fixed faux elections that a country like Iraq or Cuba might hold.

People in the urban areas, where money is being made, and connections to the outside world are many, are wanting to be part of that world, not to be isolated on an island of hatred for the west and any other religion but Shiite Islam. I am not shocked that there is a push for change, what I found shocking is the amount fight in the people there to make change. The genie is out of the bottle.

Iran was set up as an Islamic Republic, Khomeini's vision was that of a democratic republic but guided (strongly) by Islamic thinking. It is therefore not surprising at all that there are regular elections, and the Iranians have always taken those elections very seriously. It says a lot that Khomeini's closest allies and even his own children have disowned Khamenei's vision of Iran as not being even close to what Khomeini envisioned when he replaced the Shah. Once you understand how the Iranians place as much importance on the Republic bit as they do on the Islamic bit will you understand how the country works and why the election fixing has proven so unpopular.

To be honest though, I'm not sure there is such a big push for change within the country. We see the same kind of demonstrators on all those youtube videos, affluent articulate middle class Iranian males with a rock in one hand and a mobile phone in the other. Where are the workers? What about the bazaaris who hold huge power within their hands? What about the poor? Whats so striking about the demonstrations is that they've totally failed to grab the support of the bulk of Iranian society. Until they do that there won't be any change.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Iran was set up as an Islamic Republic, Khomeini's vision was that of a democratic republic but guided (strongly) by Islamic thinking. It is therefore not surprising at all that there are regular elections, and the Iranians have always taken those elections very seriously. It says a lot that Khomeini's closest allies and even his own children have disowned Khamenei's vision of Iran as not being even close to what Khomeini envisioned when he replaced the Shah. Once you understand how the Iranians place as much importance on the Republic bit as they do on the Islamic bit will you understand how the country works and why the election fixing has proven so unpopular.

To be honest though, I'm not sure there is such a big push for change within the country. We see the same kind of demonstrators on all those youtube videos, affluent articulate middle class Iranian males with a rock in one hand and a mobile phone in the other. Where are the workers? What about the bazaaris who hold huge power within their hands? What about the poor? Whats so striking about the demonstrations is that they've totally failed to grab the support of the bulk of Iranian society. Until they do that there won't be any change.

You didn't see anyone at times because the Iranian government did their level best to deny the western media any access to any of the protests with cameras.

The workers? The poor? They support the regime because the regime is handing them goodies on a regular basis. The rich, the modern urban dweller and the youth are the ones wanting change. It is the youth in particular that gives me hope because the more they are repressed, the more likely they will keep making efforts in society to effect change, if not now but in time. Also, the regime is now on notice that people aren't buying into the program.

[AAReagles]

... one has to remember that Iran is, since the 'revolution', a Theocracy, guided by the interpretations of the Koran (s) by Khomeini. It is certain aspects of that that the present leadership, including the more secretive councils run by the hard-line mullahs, seem to be circumventing, which have led to present protests about the voting results. By doing what they are at present, including the crackdowns on both the protesters and the opposition parties and how they are still being seen by the rest of the world by use of the internet, aren't helping matters for the ruling parties at all.

What they want is for the problems, and the opposition, to go away, but not at the expense of their newly-hewned power. Like all corrupt stature, they know what's at stake: their own place in history.

That was my assessment of the current situation as well. That the hierarchy isn't going to give way that easily... quiet understandibly when consideration is given to their long standing culture.

I'm surprised that another repeat of Tianamen Square hasn't occurred already.



One thing we all here have to remember, is that the Middle East has different cultures and sees the world different to us in the West. Although im not too pleased with the way the people in Iran have been treated in the past or are being treated at present, we must not try and dictate to them how they should run the country and how they should live their lives. There has always been a difference in ideals between the West and the Middle East. We try and impose western culture on them and they reject through certain means. We try and boss them around, yet they rightly rebell against it. As they do to us, but not in greater ways as we do to them. At the end of the day, it all comes down to respect. We must respect the way they live..as they should should with us

:up: Which is why I would like to see America dispatch itself from imperialism. Going after Bin Laden is one thing - though I realize it was our foreign diplomacy that got us there in the first place - nevertheless I don't think we need to be in everyone else's back yard, particularly when the majority of the population doesn't approve.

[AAReagles]

Whats so striking about the demonstrations is that they've totally failed to grab the support of the bulk of Iranian society. Until they do that there won't be any change.

Hopefully in due time...

[Hondo]

I have to agree with President Ahmadinejad about how Obama should have kept his comments about the post Iran election ruckus to himself. Obama is the one begging for a chance to show a new face in USA-Iran relations, do business, and be an all around great guy. What did you think was going to happen after the election, Obama? How did you think the Iranian Government would respond to the unrest, Obama? This is the way they do things in Iran. You seem to be the only one surprised by whats going on. It's their country and none of your (ours) business. You should be a little more sympathetic to President Ahmadinejad about the position the protesters put him in and he, in turn, may be a little more sympathetic to you when you find yourself shooting Americans in the future.