Iran Election Result

[Steel_Tomb]

Why am I not surprised about him winning again? Does anyone actually believe the 60-30% margin he won by is legit? Looks like a complete farce to me, as from what I've seen it was expected to be a very tight race. What you guys think?

[Lurchi]

I couldn' t believe it this morning. I was pretty confident that Mussawi would make it considering his support from young iranians, especially women.

Either the reports here on TV painted a totally wrong picture or something really went wrong. It certainly smells fishy ...

[Steel_Tomb]

Thats what I thought, from what the BBC and the like have been saying is that the opposition had strong support. But if you look at the final poll its as if everyone hated him. I was really hopeful that these elections would bring a more moderate leader to Iran, and maybe start on mending ties with the western world... but it looks like the revolutionaries have done there bit to make sure that doesn't happen. I wonder what kind of signals this sends off to Washington?

[Skybird]

Let's sit still, be a hole in the water and listen for a while. and most important: stay out of Iranian inner politics. Any interference whatever can only make things worse. Let them settle their affairs (but hold them responsible for their choices).

I perceived a split in Iran like the one I saw in Turkey. In the big cities, Mussawi probably was strong. But in the rural places, when I was there, nationalistic and clerical conservatives were the strong majority.

Although I see it from a perspective from the early to mid-90s. Things may have changed due to the isolation and the failed youth "rebellion" in the 90s (which brought both moderate and extremist young people to the streets of the cities). I haven't been there since then.

Anyway, the president should not be overestimated anyway, for this simple reason:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5794/28172831206wartents.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/i/28172831206wartents.jpg/)
"Waiting for the new president"

[SteamWake]

Waiting for a new president :rotfl:

The Mullah's run the show anyhow.

The election is a sham.

[Letum]

I see no reason to suspect vote rigging.
As SB rightly said, Mussawi may have had a core in the affluent new thinkers
in the cities-modern, but in rural areas and the city-old there hasn't been
much change since the last election. Why should there have been?

If the news here made the Mussawi support look big, it is only because
Ahmadinejad supporters arn't news anymore.

[Jimbuna]

If this election was rigged, I doubt it would be by Ahmadinejad, but rather by the Mullah's.

They obviously have a tight grip on the reigns of power and find it much easier to mould and control Ahmadinejad in their ways than they would have been able to with Mussawi.

[Stealth Hunter]

The Mullah's run the show anyhow.

Don't forget the "beloved" Ayatollah.:nope:

[SteamWake]

Don't forget the "beloved" Ayatollah.:nope:

He is one of the Mullah's.

Mullah is " an educated Muslim trained in religious law and doctrine and usually holding an official post "

[JSLTIGER]

Still though...four more years with this guy?! :damn:

[SteamWake]

Still though...four more years with this guy?! :damn:

At least it wont me the same old. Now he's gonna have nukes. :oops:

[Skybird]

Mussawi made very precise statements over observers being chased out of polling stations and counters at the last moment being replaced by unlegitimised foreigners nobody had seen before. He also pointed out that incredibly short time after the stations closed, almost 8 million votes were claimed to have already been counted - which in the Iranian counting system would not be possible after such an unbelievable short time.

I fear the accusation that the elections had been rigged, has quite some substance. Currently, occasional gunfire is to be heared in Teheran. I am not sure that there will be relections, though. I tend towards a No on that question.

The controversial figure for the Mullahs is not Mussawi himself, but his wife.

[Letum]

Currently, occasional gunfire is to be heared in Teheran.

Isn't that a normal form of celebration in some parts?

[Skybird]

It's not celebrations, but clashes between police and protesters.

[SteamWake]

It's not celebrations, but clashes between police and protesters.

Like he said isnt that 'normal'? :rotfl:

[CastleBravo]

It's not celebrations, but clashes between police and protesters.

Where is the EU secret police helping the folks clashing?

[Letum]

Where is the EU secret police helping the folks clashing?

RIS?

[CastleBravo]

RIS?

I don't inderstand RIS. Is that the EU secret police?

[Oberon]

The EU having secret police would surely mean that the EU has some kind of organisation? :hmmm:

[CastleBravo]

The EU having secret police would surely mean that the EU has some kind of organisation? :hmmm:

So the EU isn't organized. OK now I know....Thank you.

[Oberon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Xvy1r4Pm8

[CastleBravo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Xvy1r4Pm8

Is that the price we all have to pay for being pro-europe? yes minister. too funny.

Defending the in-defenseable.

I think I understand the reason for the EEC and by extension the EU. Parity with the US. But now that we have a weak executive will the EU step up and take responsibility? This is the long wanted chance for the EU and its member nations to show what they are worth.

[Jimbuna]

Is that the price we all have to pay for being pro-europe? yes minister. too funny.

Defending the in-defenseable.

I think I understand the reason for the EEC and by extension the EU. Parity with the US. But now that we have a weak executive will the EU step up and take responsibility? This is the long wanted chance for the EU and its member nations to show what they are worth.

Highly unlikely....they can seldom agree with one another on just about everything :nope:

[Letum]

I don't inderstand RIS. Is that the EU secret police?


RIS? I don't get it.

[CastleBravo]

Highly unlikely....they can seldom agree with one another on just about everything :nope:

That shows how little I understand. But I want to. before our current executive it was our falt for the worlds problems. now that we have a weak president...will the EU step up and protect me and my family?

[CastleBravo]

RIS? I don't get it.

Thank you for your help Letum. I was under the impression that moderators were helpful. Perhaps I was wrong.

You wrote RIS and i didn't understand it. Just looking for clarification. Can you help me?

[Letum]

'RIS' is slag for "I don't get it".

I'm certainly not a moderator, despite being temporally on the list, but I do
apologize if I have been at all unhelpful.

[CastleBravo]

'RIS' is slag for "I don't get it".

I'm certainly not a moderator, despite being temporally on the list, but I do
apologize if I have been at all unhelpful.

Thank you for your response...RIS means I don't get it. RIS as to how that happened. :DL Crazy!

[Steel_Tomb]

Looks like over 100 reformists have been arrested, along with protesters in the streets who had to chase of secret police who had infiltrated the crowds. Foreign media services have been suspended and the offices for the opposition political parties have been more or less blockaded to prevent them holding press conferences.

There hasn't been this much open and public dissent towards the Iranian leadership for 30 years. They thought they could strengthen their position by rigging an election, but instead they've stirred up a hornets nest... I only hope they don't go the way of the Chinese when it comes to silencing public dissent.

[CastleBravo]

Looks like over 100 reformists have been arrested, along with protesters in the streets who had to chase of secret police who had infiltrated the crowds. Foreign media services have been suspended and the offices for the opposition political parties have been more or less blockaded to prevent them holding press conferences.

There hasn't been this much open and public dissent towards the Iranian leadership for 30 years. They thought they could strengthen their position by rigging an election, but instead they've stirred up a hornets nest... I only hope they don't go the way of the Chinese when it comes to silencing public dissent.

Thanks for the update.

I wouldn't worry so much about public dissent as I would about Israeli action.

[Jimbuna]

The situation 3 hours ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8099218.stm

[Stealth Hunter]

He is one of the Mullah's.

Somewhat true, but he's basically above your average member in terms of authority because he's seen as one of the most distinguished members (due in part to several reasons, including extreme devotion to the Moslem faith, an expert amount of knowledge on the Qur'an, and also having passed and proven himself worthy through a few tests).

Think of him as their version of a really high ranking cardinal. He's not exactly like a pope, however, since he's not a Grand Ayatollah. That would go to Khamenei (he's the supreme Iranian leader).

[Steel_Tomb]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090614/tuk-bbc-says-election-broadcasts-disrupt-a7ad41d.html

Some more information on the election, by jamming foreign media aren't they basically confessing their guilt in their actions? Isn't it against some sort of treaty to jam civilian satellites?

[Onkel Neal]

The problem with this whole situation, for me, is that it's impossible to know what to believe. News reports coming out of Tehran about massive protests, suspected vote-rigging, do not necessarily convince me. It's possible the people want a new leader and the opposition carried the most votes...but it would not shock me if the yahoo Akmadeenajad (sp) they currently have won a majority and the losing party is trying to overthrow him in the street. Who knows?


Britian and the US violated the most holy of democratic principles once before with Iran. I hope we learned our lesson.

[geetrue]

Perhaps you can't trust the news reports, but how in the hell did they count all of those votes and announce the winner in just two hours after the polls closed?

Plus the mind set of the nation of Iran's true leader (forgot his name) said several years ago, "Go ahead nuke us ... were going to heaven anyway"

[Platapus]

Plus the mind set of the nation of Iran's true leader (forgot his name) said several years ago, "Go ahead nuke us ... were going to heaven anyway"

His name is Khamenei. And I would like to see a citation of that statement as that does not sound at all like the language Khamenei uses in his statements.

[Stealth Hunter]

His name is Khamenei. And I would like to see a citation of that statement as that does not sound at all like the language Khamenei uses in his statements.

Second'd.

[Lurchi]

It seems to me that Ahmadinedschad's "election helpers" were somewhat over-motivated and did their job a little bit too good :cool:.

Although i think he might have won anyway i still find it highly questionable that he got even better result than last time. During the last election there were lots of non-voters due to an obvious lack of (moderate) alternatives but this time they made their cross.

[Skybird]

The problem with this whole situation, for me, is that it's impossible to know what to believe. News reports coming out of Tehran about massive protests, suspected vote-rigging, do not necessarily convince me. It's possible the people want a new leader and the opposition carried the most votes...but it would not shock me if the yahoo Akmadeenajad (sp) they currently have won a majority and the losing party is trying to overthrow him in the street. Who knows?

I assume there has been vote-rigging, but I also assume that the West and Mussawi have underestimated the popularity of the conservatives in the rural places of Iran, as I also said it was like 15 years ago. I think evenb without vote-rigging Ahmadinejadh would have won, maybe just not by such a wide margin.

What is true of Turkey, is true for Iran as well: do not conclude from the major huge cities, which are more open and liberal, on the rural areas where the majority of the population lives. In both countries, the population in these latter places are arch-conservative.

[geetrue]

His name is Khamenei. And I would like to see a citation of that statement as that does not sound at all like the language Khamenei uses in his statements.


It could have been another Iraian leader, because it was about three years ago. I had limited time to search today, perhaps tomorrow I'll have more time.

However I did locate this Iraian student:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080121020057AAcQELh (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080121020057AAcQELh)



i'm from tehran. i am a student in political science of tehran university and i want u to know this, cause i think most of americans except your leaders and your top political professors don't know it.

THIS IS IT:

but khamenei even love to bush attack them even with nuke bombs cause it changes our people and make them his allies, it makes our poeple to defend iran with most of their ability and make them love ahmadinejad and khamenei and that's make them happy more

and u should know they don't care about how much our people gonna die or wounded, they would tell u they will og to heaven!!!!!!!!!!!!


I also found this ex-Iran/CIA agents comments interesting:

Simple, we nuke them before they nuke us. But we won't we'll negotiat with those ..... You put this phrase in quotation marks so go ahead give me the source of these ..... so long as they're going to heaven, and will do anything necessary to ...... 'Ali Khamenei: “When the president of the Iranian people travels to ...
pajamasmedia.com/blog/former-cia-agent-in-iran-comes-in-from-the-heat/


Going public for the first time in an article and interview on Pajamas Media, an Iranian who infiltrated Iran's Revolutionary Guard for the CIA accuses the mullahs of orchestrating — among other things — the 1988 explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/former-cia-agent-in-iran-comes-in-from-the-heat/2/ (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/former-cia-agent-in-iran-comes-in-from-the-heat/2/)


Khamenei put out a statement to the world in 2008 that God would punish Iranians if they did not support the country’s disputed nuclear program, and any stop in the continuation of the nuclear work would be against God’s will. Ahmadinejad, in a recent 2008 speech, told the audience that the “enemy” (referring to the U.S. and Israel) and their superficial power are on a path to destruction, and that the countdown to their total destruction has begun.

[Takeda Shingen]

There hasn't been this much open and public dissent towards the Iranian leadership for 30 years. They thought they could strengthen their position by rigging an election, but instead they've stirred up a hornets nest... I only hope they don't go the way of the Chinese when it comes to silencing public dissent.

The only reason that the Chinese reaction was effective was because they quietly gave the people what they wanted, ie free markets, so long as they kept the Party in power and shut up about the Tiananmen Square incident. The mullahs cannot do this, as the protesters seek an end to Islamic law, which would, naturally, negate the mullahs' power.

[Skybird]

The Iranian political system is no demoicracy, and it is not available to the reach of attempts aiming at reforming it. One should not have illusions about this grim truth. the mullahs hold the power in their fists, and the revolutionary guards are a tremendously powerful factor, controlling major parts of the military, the industry, the nuclear industry, telecommunication and infrastructure. there also is a nu,mber of addiotnal indepedant militias that are all very loyal to the established order and islamic rule. Iran's counter-internet and counter-computer-espionage capabilities are said to rank amongst the world's very top (you have seen it these days, they have proven to be at least as efficient as the Chinese, some say they acted even faster, and more substantially). All candidates allowed to elections had been set up by the Guardian Council, and all of them are conservative Islamic hardliners, including Mussawi (who also strictly defends the Iranian nuclear program, like Ahmadinejadh). None of them ever has expressed anything that could be understood as a signal he intents to reform the system. and as a president they also would not be in a powerful enough position to do so. And again, all of them, including Mussawi, are Islamic hardliners.

seen that way, there have been no free democratic elections from the very beginning, nor is there any chance for a more democratic Iran without a civil war first that destroys the ruling order.

And Ahmadinejadh, well, one should know that short before the elections his spiritual mentor Ayatollah Mesabah-Yazdi theologically legitimated the rigging of elections if the people did not vote correctly - as desired, that is. An according letter by the respectable holy bastard was published in newspapers short before the elections, and he has not rejected that it was by him. He had argued on occasions before that elections should not be held anymore anyway, since people are too stupid to vote correctly anyway.

but if Obama thought he would have easier play with Mussawi, then HE WAS TOTALLY WRONG from the very beginning.

If you take all this together, then we should not read too much into current events over there. there never was and still is no realistic chance for a more liberal, more open, more free, more democratic Iran. The name of the president is almost irrelevant. The confrontation with the West would continue under a president Mussawi. The nuclear program is not negotiable for him as well. Some more clever, more lulling, less aggressive rehtorics, some superficial cosemtic changes for the street of voters to please the call for grater feeedoms - that would be it. In a way it would be even more difficult with Mussawi than with Ahmadinejadh. Because Ahmadinejadh will not fool anyone in the West anymore.

Damn the old mullahs. I would line them up at the wall for the unexcusable crime they commit against the young generations, and crippling them and keeping them in chains, isolation and opression.

60% of their population is of age 30 or younger. That makes for a huge potential of explosive social, cultural and demographic energy. I count myself into the camp that believes that there is a link between a young demographic structure of a society, patriarchalic orientations, and aggressive expansionism of a given culture. Although it is a grim hope, maybe it is the only hope indeed that this energy will break out indeed and turn against Iran itself. Whether this will wash away the old regime, is somethign else. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime structure is extremely tough and very strong. I see no chance for real change without massive violence.

And a guy like Mussawi - is no change at all.

[FIREWALL]

Why is it I'm never surprised how these elections turn out. :yawn:

[Rilder]

http://i41.tinypic.com/ossair.jpg

Viva La Revolution :3

And do you need any more reason to support the rioters?: :salute:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5398/36290977857ac81972d2.jpg

I'm hearing from three different sources that plainclothes police are going door to door in Tehran and confiscating any satellite dishes.

First twittered revolution it seems.

http://emsenn.com/iran.php
http://picfog.com/search/IranElection
http://iran.twazzup.com/

[Letum]

Well, I've changed my mind.
Looks like things where dodgy indeed.

[SteamWake]

http://i41.tinypic.com/ossair.jpg



This comparison just irks the hell out of me. Wether or not Bush 'stole' the election I dont remember pepole being shot in the streets in protest.

[Rilder]

This comparison just irks the hell out of me. Wether or not Bush 'stole' the election I dont remember pepole being shot in the streets in protest.

Thats the point, the picture is saying that Americans just accept results and whine instead of doing something about it.

[Rockin Robbins]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Ahmadinejad pulled a Richard Nixon and stole an election he legitimately won?

Post 2000 election analysis by the media revealed an election won by Bush in a wider margin than the official results. They quietly abandoned their quest. The only voters disenfranchised were the mostly conservative American military, whose votes were thrown away by the hundreds of thousands, and those casting defective votes, which were all counted in the Democratic category. That was probably correct. If you do not know how to vote you probably DID intend to vote for the Democrat. In spite of all that vote trashing and thousands of attorneys hired by the Democrats to throw out legitimate votes, Bush won.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the votes the Democrats succeeded in eliminating were the margin of victory for them? If Nixon could do it, so could they. Stupidity knows no party boundaries.

[SteamWake]

Thats the point, the picture is saying that Americans just accept results and whine instead of doing something about it.

"Did nothing" are you kidding me it was counted, recounted, disputed, counted again and on and on.

I listend to pepole cavetch for 3 freakin years about it. Hell there still moaning about it.

Well now they have what they wanted. Hows that whole hope and change thing working out for you?

[Rilder]

"Did nothing" are you kidding me it was counted, recounted, disputed, counted again and on and on.

I listend to pepole cavetch for 3 freakin years about it. Hell there still moaning about it.

Well now they have what they wanted. Hows that whole hope and change thing working out for you?

Well I didn't vote because both candidates are utter Douches and I won't vote for a christian either way.

[SteamWake]

Well I didn't vote because both candidates are utter Douches and I won't vote for a christian either way.

That I believe.

[AngusJS]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Ahmadinejad pulled a Richard Nixon and stole an election he legitimately won? It seems like a win-win situation for the opposition. If Mousavi won, then all the opposition has to do is get the government to recognize his victory, forcing Ahmadinejad out of power. If Ahmadinejad actually won a legitimate majority, he should still be forced out of power because of all the vote rigging (it's pretty blatant: Mousavi "lost" his own district for crying out loud). Plus, the protests will put the fear of allah into the Guardian Council.

Go Mousavi go!

[SteamWake]

Obama "Its not right for America to meddle in Iran's affairs"

Yes of course when has America ever meddled in things like Totalarian states, persicution of civil rights, murder, suppression of free voices, and desires for democracy.

Whats really sad all this turmoil, bloodshed is all really irrelevant since the Mullahs pull the strings anyhow no matter whom gets in that office.

[CastleBravo]

Mr. Obama must mean meddling like this........

Ali Larijani, the speaker of the IranianIparliament, told reporters yesterday his government was "leaning more in favour of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational, even though we know American policy [towards Iran] will not change that much".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/us-elections-iran-obama

[FIREWALL]

" A rose by any other name is still a rose "

Same goe's for Dictatorships. :yep:

[Skybird]

Obama "Its not right for America to meddle in Iran's affairs"

Yes of course when has America ever meddled in things like Totalarian states, persicution of civil rights, murder, suppression of free voices, and desires for democracy.

Whats really sad all this turmoil, bloodshed is all really irrelevant since the Mullahs pull the strings anyhow no matter whom gets in that office.
Let's put it different, then. As long as you are not willing to nuke Iran of the map, it is wise not to interfere with their internal struggle.

For if you assist them, and the side you helped loses, the winner will hate you. And if the side you helped turns out to be the winner, the winner again will hate you.

Stay out there. This is a "no win-no win" situation. As I said, it is wise to stay out, then. No matter how it ends over there, for the West almost nothing will change anyway.


BTW, in the 90s, there was a youth movement already, demanding some more freedoms and rights. america watched and said that they should go for an all-out western democracy, that is: they should go for an all-out american model, then. But that is not what they wanted, so America did not only not helped them, but it's rethoric turned against them, and became quite hostile: "you either go our way, or you shall go no way." By that, America assisted the conservatives' cause, and that peaceful uprise of the youth disappeared and soon got forgotten here in the West. So do not make the same mistake again. Simply staying away without commenting is the best you can do. If the youth should win substantially more freedoms (very unlikely), it is of the essence that they make it a win all by themselves.

[AngusJS]

Obama "Its not right for America to meddle in Iran's affairs"

Yes of course when has America ever meddled in things like Totalarian states, persicution of civil rights, murder, suppression of free voices, and desires for democracy.

Whats really sad all this turmoil, bloodshed is all really irrelevant since the Mullahs pull the strings anyhow no matter whom gets in that office.Uh... America's intervention in 1953, which overthrew a democratic government and reinstated the Shah, is what got us into this mess in the first place.

[Max2147]

Obama "Its not right for America to meddle in Iran's affairs"

Yes of course when has America ever meddled in things like Totalarian states, persicution of civil rights, murder, suppression of free voices, and desires for democracy.

Whats really sad all this turmoil, bloodshed is all really irrelevant since the Mullahs pull the strings anyhow no matter whom gets in that office.
I think Ahmadinejad is praying that Obama comes out and publicly backs Mousavi. On the flip side, Mousavi is hoping with everything he has that Obama and other Westerners stay out of this.

Think about it this way: Imagine if Ahmadinejad had come on US television right before the 2008 election, publicly endorsed Obama, and pledged millions of dollars to his campaign. The outrage would have probably been enough to win the election for McCain. Any intervention by Obama in the Iranian election would have a similar result.

Ahmadinejad is going to win this. It's just a matter of how ugly he has to get.

[Letum]

The Boston Globe has the best 1,000 words, as always: LINK (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html)

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/iranelect_06_15/i01_19361479.jpg

[nikimcbee]

So, I see ACORN was involved.:haha:

[Skybird]

Good link, Letum. :yeah:

Haven't visited the Boston Globe for quite some time now. Too long, maybe.

[CastleBravo]

So is the legitimate vote valid?

[Rilder]

Man things are getting bad over there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Ik9evL1pw

[geetrue]

Any intervention by Obama in the Iranian election would have a similar result.

Ahmadinejad is going to win this. It's just a matter of how ugly he has to get.

I'm not so sure of that: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-iran-election,0,689184.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-iran-election,0,689184.story)



Iran accuses US of interference in election feud; opposition stages new mass rally in Tehran

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has accused the United States of "intolerable" meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter post-election dispute.

A state television channel in Iran says the government summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests in Iran, to complain about American interference.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, what American interference? More hanging chads.

[Max2147]

I'm not so sure of that: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-iran-election,0,689184.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-iran-election,0,689184.story)
I think that actually proves what I was saying. Ahmadinejad is desperately trying to make Mousavi look like an American pawn, but Obama's not giving him anything to work with. Wise move.

[geetrue]

" It's not who votes. It's who counts the votes ."....Joseph Stalin

[AVGWarhawk]

I think that actually proves what I was saying. Ahmadinejad is desperately trying to make Mousavi look like an American pawn, but Obama's not giving him anything to work with. Wise move.

That is why I question this 'American interference'. Really, Obama said what, one sentence on it? Obama is correct not to interfer. Iran can implode all by themselves and it just might happen with this election.

[AVGWarhawk]

" It's not who votes. It's who counts the votes ."....Joseph Stalin

One for you. One, two, three for me. One for you. One, two, three for me. :D

[SteamWake]

For christ's sakes the least Barry could do is man up and protest and protest loudley the madness.

But of course we dont want to offend anyone.

While on the subject where is the UN ?

[Skybird]

Why do you guys even care for who makes it? what you should think of Ahmadinejadh, you already know. But do you remember that Moussawi already has been prime minstre in the 80s, and was a leading figure in the revolution 30 years ago, and that under his goverment several thousand intellectuals, reformists, communists and socialists, protesting unemployed, and women, had been executed and murdered? The man is a mass murderer confessing to sharia law, the Islamic republic as outlined by Khomenei, and a strong defender of a nuclear armed Iran. Should we really care for who makes it onto the president's chair, then? I personally do not understand why the crowds in Iran celebrate him. It were people like those cheering him now that he had killed by the thousands in the 80s. That may be the reason why Obama said he does not see so much difference between Ahmaidenjadh and Mussawi as Western media suggest there is . While Obama is right on this, he is a fool when really thinking that just a different kind of talk by the US would make Iran negotiate over its nuclear program seriously - it won't. All it will do is trying to buy the time it needs.

[SteamWake]

Why do you guys even care for who makes it? what you should think of Ahmadinejadh, you already know. But do you remember that Moussawi already has been prime minstre in the 80s, and was a leading figure in the revolution 30 years ago, and that under his goverment several thousand intellectuals, reformists, communists and socialists, protesting unemployed, and women, had been executed and murdered? The man is a mass murderer confessing to sharia law, the Islamic republic as outlined by Khomenei, and a strong defender of a nuclear armed Iran. Should we really care for who makes it onto the president's chair, then? I personally do not understand why the crowds in Iran celebrate him. It were people like those cheering him now that he had killed by the thousands in the 80s. That may be the reason why Obama said he does not see so much difference between Ahmaidenjadh and Mussawi as Western media suggest there is . While Obama is right on this, he is a fool when really thinking that just a different kind of talk by the US would make Iran negotiate over its nuclear program seriously - it won't. All it will do is trying to buy the time it needs.

Frankly it doesent matter whom wins since the place is run by the Mullahs anyhow.

What does matter is a large group of citizens crying out for democracy and being oppressed alas even murdered.

[CastleBravo]

Does anyone think that Israel will deal democracy at the end of its military? Mr. Obama has been openly backing away from Israel. Is this the sign of a pre-emptive strike?

[Skybird]

What does matter is a large group of citizens crying out for democracy
... by wanting to bring a mass murderer into office - the same guy that has killed reformists and protester like themselves just 25 years ago? This should tell you something about the people.

I said it before, and I say it again: during the youth revolt in the 90s the young Iranians wanted some more freedoms of action - but a democracy the way it is in the West really was not so much on their mind. I was there at that time. I learned that Iranians are extremely enthusiastic patriots and nationalists, and in principle do not question the islamic orientation of Iran, based on Sharia law.

Crying out for democracy, you said. You may need to learn that you overestimate them a little. It is not an uprise in some western nation. do not think about it in western terms, then - you necessarily must miss reality if doing so.

[CastleBravo]

I see where Iran is no longer open to independent news coverage. Not that that is a big deal, the US isn't open to it either. ABC news .

[Sea Demon]

Does anyone think that Israel will deal democracy at the end of its military? Mr. Obama has been openly backing away from Israel. Is this the sign of a pre-emptive strike?

Yes. This circumstance is of grave concern.

[Jimbuna]

Just give them time...they'll destroy themselves from within.

It's just a pity so many innocent civilians will lose their lives during the process.

Keep a watchful eye on Israel, they may well take advantage of the situation if it deteriorates further.

I'm only pleased the UK is well out of it.

[Skybird]

Does anyone think that Israel will deal democracy at the end of its military? Mr. Obama has been openly backing away from Israel. Is this the sign of a pre-emptive strike?
not yet, but maybe at soime time in the future. However, I give that no chances to destroy the program (just to delay it a bit), as long as it is no nuclear strike. check the demographic development in Israel, and the ethnic structure of it's population. Assess the to be expected inner rebellion in Israel if they deliver a preemptive nuclear strike. Go figure. I don't think that scenario is very likely. So we will see a nuclear armed Iran sooner or later, or we will see a failed conventional war/strike/operation - and a nuclear armed Iran not sooner but a bit later.

Considering the Western dependance on Muslim oil it is unlikely that the Western powers would attack Iran'S nuclear research and constuction sites with nukes. MOABs, air-absorbing megabombs and cave buster are however useless if you do not have precise target coordinates to hit the armored subterranean sites inside the huge compounds. To know there is an area 15x25 km in size, is one thing. To know where the entrance to the hidden laboratory or factory is on that areal so that a conventional bomb has at least a chance to penetrate at the entrance - that is somethign different. you would need several hundred MOABs to clusterbomb the nuclear research facility sites in a manner that you can assume to have done at least some damage. Even the heaviest bomb dropped from the hi9ghest altitude penetrates the ground only some meter for reasons of elemantary physics. And when it explodes it may still be meter away from the subterranea shelters that are hardened by 1-3 meters or more of steel concrete. If you use 100 MOABs in just one site (assuming you produce them in such quantities), why would anyone assume that they would do less damage to human life on the ground, than a limited nuclear strike would do? I think to make that distinction is sentimental, but irrational.

I do not say i like nukes dropped on iran. I do not like that at all, nor do I think right now already is the time. What I say is that if their is a military strike, I do not consider a conventional strike to be sufficient to achieve the mission objective. You have to make a decision then. The price for bringing the Iranian weapon program to destruction is so and so high - either you are willing to pay that price, or not. How desperately does the West want Iran having no nukes? - i think not desperately enough. I prepare for a future seeing a nuclear armed iran, therefore. and that will have most unpleasant consequences first in the region, and a bit later around the whole world.

[CastleBravo]

Thank you for your reply Mr. Skybird. I don't think a nuclear response is indicated at this time. A conventional bombing would set Iran back, much like it did in Iraq.

The Oil issue is a tricky one indeed. Prices have already started their upward swing.

[Max2147]

For christ's sakes the least Barry could do is man up and protest and protest loudley the madness.

But of course we dont want to offend anyone.

While on the subject where is the UN ?
Ahmadinejad is praying that Obama intervenes. If Obama publicly backs Mousavi, Mousavi will lose half of his support overnight. Ahmadinejad will just call the protesters American puppets, and his job will become a lot easier.

[August]

Some lovely evidence of photoshopping the pictures taken at the pro Ahmadinejads rallies to make the crowd look bigger than it was:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/06/17/ahmadinejads-millions-of-photoshopped-supporters/

[Platapus]

If you don't have a Stratfor account I would recommend getting one. For those who do, please check out

www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090615_western_misconceptions_meet_iranian_reali ty

A most interesting read exploring the hypothesis that Ahmadinejad may have legitimately won.

[goldorak]

... by wanting to bring a mass murderer into office - the same guy that has killed reformists and protester like themselves just 25 years ago? This should tell you something about the people.

I said it before, and I say it again: during the youth revolt in the 90s the young Iranians wanted some more freedoms of action - but a democracy the way it is in the West really was not so much on their mind. I was there at that time. I learned that Iranians are extremely enthusiastic patriots and nationalists, and in principle do not question the islamic orientation of Iran, based on Sharia law.

Crying out for democracy, you said. You may need to learn that you overestimate them a little. It is not an uprise in some western nation. do not think about it in western terms, then - you necessarily must miss reality if doing so.

Most people in iran weren't even born during the islamic revolution. The median age of its population is around 26 years old, by contrast that of the USA is almost 37 years old and Germany is 43 years old. What does that tell you ?

Sources : wolframalpha.

[goldorak]

Thank you for your reply Mr. Skybird. I don't think a nuclear response is indicated at this time. A conventional bombing would set Iran back, much like it did in Iraq.

The Oil issue is a tricky one indeed. Prices have already started their upward swing.

A nuclear response is not indicated now, tomorrow or ever.
Those that think otherwise are out of their ****ing minds literally.

[geetrue]

The state of Iran has agreed tp a parital recount explaining that it would take several days ...

How then did they count all of the votes and announce the winner in just two hours after the polls closed?

[Rip]

To allow either candidate to be declared a winner is a no win for the mullahs at this point. The only correct action to maintain a secure grip on power is execute both and announce new elections and regret that the two leading candidates will be physically unable to participate.

:fff:

[Letum]

The state of Iran has agreed tp a parital recount explaining that it would take several days ...

How then did they count all of the votes and announce the winner in just two hours after the polls closed?

The best way to deal with a tidal wave is just to wait for it to die down.
I'm guessing that's the tactic they are trying.

[Skybird]

Most people in iran weren't even born during the islamic revolution. The median age of its population is around 26 years old, by contrast that of the USA is almost 37 years old and Germany is 43 years old. What does that tell you ?

Sources : wolframalpha.
I know that. However there are the parents of the current youn generation, and I am generation 67 and have not been born when wwii took place. Nevertheless I know about Hitler, and events. What does this tell you, then?

One can learn from a past one has not experienced oneself nonetheless.

[Skybird]

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-iran.html

@Geetrue: in countries the size of Iran it's not unusual to know the election results within 2 hours of the polling station closing. That alone says nothing about fraud or lack of.
not in case of Iran, a delay of 12-24 hours is to be expected. That 8 millions ballots should have been counted almost immediately after the polling stations closed, is highly suspicious.

[baggygreen]

I love that the Ayatollah has come out and said that yes, there appears to have been fraud.

..
.
.


The result was supposed to be 85% in Alphabetty-spaghetti's favour!!:salute:

[Tchocky]

He could have been President

"DAVID GREGORY: Let's get right to it on Iran. How does the U.S. deal with an emboldened Iranian President Ahmadinejad?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Well, we lead; we condemn the sham, corrupt election. We do what we have done throughout the Cold War and afterwards, we speak up for the people of Tehran and Iran and all the cities all over that country who have been deprived of one of their fundamental rights.

[Max2147]

And Mousavi would be toast if President McCain had said that.

The 2003 protests in Iran were given a huge setback when Bush publicly backed them. I think Clinton made the same mistake in 1999. Suddenly what had been grassroots student protest movements were portrayed as foreign plots to take control of Iran. That change in perception made it a lot easier for the Mullahs to crack down.

People have to recognize that doing nothing is sometimes the best decision. George H.W. Bush made one of the best decisions in American foreign policy history in 1989/1990 when he chose to not get involved in the revolutions in Eastern Europe.

[Skybird]

George H.W. Bush made one of the best decisions in American foreign policy history in 1989/1990 when he chose to not get involved in the revolutions in Eastern Europe.

Ehem... Washington and London and Paris (and us Germans anyway) got overrolled and completely surprised by the speed at which Eastern-Germany collapsed. Especially London and Paris were sceptic about a united Germany, fearing the new political heavyweight on the European political scene, and being haunted by bad memories. Bush senior even asked Gorbatchow if in the GDR the russian could do somethign about it.

In case of Germany, Bush did not so much "decide" to do nothing - it went so fast that he was not given the chance to do something (from a German perspective: thank God for that), and Gorbatchev refused his proposal, like according to some theories he also refused any calls by the Eastgerman regime to help them. And later, washington and london and Paris tried to arrange himself as good as possible with the new world. One also has to say that Wahsington gave up these ressentiments sooner than London and Paris did, probably because it does not sit in Europe.

But that is one of the forgotten ironies of history - that Washington asked the Soviets if they could not help to delay and to stop German reunification. - Well, some things indeed better should be left forgotten, maybe.

[geetrue]

He could have been President


"DAVID GREGORY: Let's get right to it on Iran. How does the U.S. deal with an emboldened Iranian President Ahmadinejad?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Well, we lead; we condemn the sham, corrupt election. We do what we have done throughout the Cold War and afterwards, we speak up for the people of Tehran and Iran and all the cities all over that country who have been deprived of one of their fundamental rights.

And Mousavi would be toast if President McCain had said that.


I've learned not to argue with an Irishman, but I must differ with one anyway.

Senator John McCain made the correct responce compared to President Obama. As many of our past presidents that also spoke up for freedom.

"Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay"

Max, max don't be so quick to judge what the Iranians or any country would do just because America speaks up for what is right.

[Max2147]

I'm not being quick to judge, I'm basing my assessment off of what has happened in the past. The events of 1999 and 2003 made it clear that overt American support for Iranian protesters would only hurt the protesters' cause.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101841.stm

About the 2003 protests: "Because those protests were openly encouraged by the administration of the former US President George W Bush, reformist Iranian politicians had to shun them for fear of being dubbed traitors."

[Letum]

It has been interesting to see so many of the protesters placards are written
in English. Is English a common form of written language there or is it more
something that is done for international eyes?

[August]

It has been interesting to see so many of the protesters placards are written
in English. Is English a common form of written language there or is it more
something that is done for international eyes?

I see your point. It's difficult to imagine that they were for domestic consumption.

[Letum]

It wasn't a point so much as a question.
It's not unimaginable that they where for 'domestic consumption'.

[August]

It wasn't a point so much as a question.
It's not unimaginable that they where for 'domestic consumption'.

:) Yeah because you Brits protest in French all the time right?

[Sea Demon]

:) Yeah because you Brits protest in French all the time right?

Excellent point. Yep, these people are looking for moral support from Western governments, primarily the USA and the UK. A good start would be to call out Ayatollah Ali Khameini for what he is, and proclaim open support for the Iranian people who are looking to have their rights legitimized. Our President is leader of the free world, so there is no excuse for not proclaiming solidarity with these people. I was disappointed in his affirmation of "non-meddling". I also have to look at a silent SecState and Congress as well. Republican members of these bodies who have been silent as well. There truly is alot of blame to throw around.

Golden opportunities like these should be exploited and finessed.

[CastleBravo]

This is Mr. Obama reverting back to his senate days and voting present.

Its not leadership but it isn't cowardice either, its just useless.

[Skybird]

Its not leadership but it isn't cowardice either, its just useless.
Yes, born from the illusion of assuming that if he changes language with Iran, they would become less determined and start playing ball during negotiations over their nuclear program.

Add Iraq and the constantly growing Iranian influence there, as predicted since long and now becoming obvious.

The hole policies on that region are a pile of smashed crockery. Saddam's foreign minister Asis said after he was arrested that the day will come when the West wishes Saddam would still be there. Well, I wish that since long indeed. Removing him maybe was as brillian tan idea as would be to remove Mubarak in Egypt.

[Jimbuna]

It's all Britains fault apparently :hmmm:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23709695-details/LATEST:+Ayatollah+brands+British+government+'treac herous'+and+blames+it+for+bloodshed/article.do

[Tchocky]

The American government expressing public support for the protestors would hurt them, and throw a really unneceessary spanner in the works. The US is unpopular in Iran, and associating the protesters with America would give Ahmedinijad a great plank with which to beat them.

Interesting piece on the usage of English in Teheran - http://www.slate.com/id/2220307/

[Max2147]

Excellent point. Yep, these people are looking for moral support from Western governments, primarily the USA and the UK. A good start would be to call out Ayatollah Ali Khameini for what he is, and proclaim open support for the Iranian people who are looking to have their rights legitimized. Our President is leader of the free world, so there is no excuse for not proclaiming solidarity with these people. I was disappointed in his affirmation of "non-meddling". I also have to look at a silent SecState and Congress as well. Republican members of these bodies who have been silent as well. There truly is alot of blame to throw around.

Golden opportunities like these should be exploited and finessed.
What part of "American intervention would help Ahmadinejad" don't you understand?

Sometimes you have to do the policy that works, not the policy that sounds nice or scores you political points back home. Sometimes doing nothing is the best option. As Albright says, choosing to do nothing is a major choice in itself. Sometimes it's the best choice, as in this case.

Obama here is following the example of George H.W. Bush, who very wisely chose to not cheerlead the 1989 Eastern European revolutions.

[Tchocky]

Khamenei speaking today, blamed the protests on Western intervention.


Best not to prove him right, I think.

[Steel_Tomb]

How have we "interfered" ??? "Death to the US, UK and Israel" The blokes of his bloody rocker. :damn::damn:

[August]

What part of "American intervention would help Ahmadinejad" don't you understand?

Doing nothing apparently helps Ahmadinejad just as much so how is remaining silent the best choice?

[geetrue]

Doing nothing apparently helps Ahmadinejad just as much so how is remaining silent the best choice?

Sort of like America before Pearl Harbor ... we're just sitting on the fence while Hillary is getting her elbow fixed.

[JSLTIGER]

How have we "interfered" ??? "Death to the US, UK and Israel" The blokes of his bloody rocker. :damn::damn:

Yeah, well, what else is new? :shifty:

[geetrue]

Like the article states this letter can't be proven, but still worth wondering about: Secret letter (http://adsfree01.mail.com/scripts/common/login_home.cgi?a=8f98139853a8036ef957959c25a354b20 195b96b6234b22c9e70df3a98a9e49c04b2afd53c661d38ee6 b42d5fd2125bcf0472c3dfe29c49a186abcf1d3635330ff4e6 9ed569c6fbba9a7ea4e752c74b12aa10108d6f5c89c6e)

Iranian Film Makers: Document Shows Moussavi Won
by Maayana Miskin


Two Iranian film makers met with members of the Europen Union Parliament on Tuesday and displayed a letter that they said proves the recent elections in Iran were rigged. The letter, allegedly written by the Iranian electoral commission, shows that reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Moussavi won over 19 million votes and was the rightful winner.

After Moussavi was Mehdi Karroubi with 13.3 million votes, followed by incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with just 5.5 million, according to the document. The document's authenticity has not been proven.

The film makers, Marjane Satrapi and Mohsen Makhmalbaf, called on the EU not to recognize the official results of Iran's presidential elections. Iranian authorities say Ahmadinejad won the elections with 62 percent of the vote.
The letter was supposedly sent secretly from Iran's Interior Ministry, which runs the nation's elections, to Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The document includes the alleged real results of the election, and a promise to keep Ahmadinejad as president regardless of the popular vote.

"Following your concerns regarding the results of the presidential election and per your given discretion to have Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remain as president during this sensitive juncture. Therefore, everything has been planned in a way that the public announcement will be made in accordance with the interests of the regime and the revolution,” the letter states.

[Max2147]

Doing nothing apparently helps Ahmadinejad just as much so how is remaining silent the best choice?
How does doing nothing help Ahmadinejad?

The United States can't have a positive impact on the outcome in Iran. There's nothing in our foreign policy toolbox that will give us the desired result. Therefore, it's all about minimizing the damage, and doing nothing is the best way to do that.

I know that saying "we aren't able to do anything" offends the American psyche, but it's better to admit a truth you don't like than to pretend that something false is true.

[August]

How does doing nothing help Ahmadinejad?

The United States can't have a positive impact on the outcome in Iran. There's nothing in our foreign policy toolbox that will give us the desired result. Therefore, it's all about minimizing the damage, and doing nothing is the best way to do that.

I know that saying "we aren't able to do anything" offends the American psyche, but it's better to admit a truth you don't like than to pretend that something false is true.

Well my psyche isn't any more offended than it is by the fact we've never paid them back fully for taking our embassy staff hostage back in 1979.

[CastleBravo]

How does doing nothing help Ahmadinejad?

The United States can't have a positive impact on the outcome in Iran. There's nothing in our foreign policy toolbox that will give us the desired result. Therefore, it's all about minimizing the damage, and doing nothing is the best way to do that.

I know that saying "we aren't able to do anything" offends the American psyche, but it's better to admit a truth you don't like than to pretend that something false is true.

In pricncipal you are correct. Iran is a soverieign nation, however deleterious in nature. But Israel is also a soverieign nation and Mr. Obama has no dificulty chastizing Israel. Why the double standard?

[Letum]

In pricncipal you are correct. Iran is a soverieign nation, however deleterious in nature. But Israel is also a soverieign nation and Mr. Obama has no dificulty chastizing Israel. Why the double standard?

It's not so much a double standard as much as it is dealing differently with
different nations. Diplomacy can't be effective with a one-size-fits-all attitude.

[CastleBravo]

It's not so much a double standard as much as it is dealing differently with
different nations. Diplomacy can't be effective with a one-size-fits-all attitude.

Well adopting the Carter principal is correct in your eyes? Slam our allies to appease the 'enemy'? Or is it economically influenced? Iran has oil and Israel doesn't. Obama is doing this for oil?

[Letum]

"Allies", "enemies"?
There isn't a war on, why use such terms?

Doing so can't possibly lead to healthy relationships with either country.
As for asking why Obama would try to achieve good relations with any
nation; isn't it almost an ends in it's self?

[CastleBravo]

[quote=Letum;1120539]"Allies", "enemies"?
There isn't a war on, why use such terms?
[quote]

Well there is a war on. I guess that is where we part company. Denying the fact is naive and iresponsible. Especially if one has to safe guard 350 million people.

[CaptainHaplo]

Iran - training and supplying terrorists (with stuff like specialized armor defeating explosives) that kill our soldiers as well as terrorize innocent civilians - and continually calls for violence and our national destruction - qualifies as an enemy in my book.....

Israel - not doing any of the above, sharing intel with us, holds a treaty with us and is in good standing per those commitments, etc - qualifies them as allies in my book.

Hope that clears it up.....

[Max2147]

The difference between Obama's comments (or lack thereof) on Israel and Iran isn't an issue of ally versus enemy, it's an issue of domestic affairs versus international affairs.

Given that Obama is actively pursuing the 2-state solution, and the fact that Israel has never formally annexed Gaza or the West Bank (East Jerusalem excepted), Israel's construction of settlements outside of its internationally recognized borders is an international affairs issue. Therefore, Obama's comments about those settlements are not an interference in Israel's domestic affairs.

Now, if an Israel had an election next week and one of the candidates was running on the promise that he would stop the settlement construction, Obama would be wrong to publicly back him, as the election is an Israeli domestic matter. Similarly, if Israelis started protesting that the election was rigged, it would be wrong for Obama to publicly back or publicly criticize the protesters.

On the flip side, if Iran started building settlements inside Kuwait, it would be right for Obama to criticize Iran and take appropriate (but proportional) measures to make them stop.

There's also the issue of backing up our words. Short of extreme measures, there is nothing substantive that the US can do to help the Iranian protesters. If the Revolutionary Guard opens fire on them tomorrow, we won't be able to step in and protect them. It's generally unwise to speak when you and your adversary know that you can't do anything to back up your words.

[Skybird]

That small part of the world is made so much difficult to be turned into a reasonable place, becasue common defintions and accepted rules - do not matter that much over there. everythihng, from international law to a given moral value, seems to be alienated from itself, and seems to be split into different multiple apects in which it can be seen in a good and a worse light. Everythibg seems to be dealocked in a plethora of wider contexts that relativise it again. Ideologic or juristic dogmatism will lead to no solution there. Only pragmatism focussed on the present and future would offer a chnace for that. But I am extremely sceptical about that chance being used. Tjhe position of Israel strategically will become more and more difficult to defend, and tactical anyway. Demogaophcis shift agaimnst it, and very massively and threatening so. Their enemies have made it clear that they plan to outbreed them and taking over the Israeli state from within. To expect the Israelis to follow some international law, is cheap then - when that is only possible at the price of destroying themselves knowingly that way.

Israel has been too exposed from the very beginning, in all aspects. That a national or ethnic entity can survive in such an exposed position for unlimited time, is questionable. I can understand that they try, of course they do - who would blame them for that, two generations after the state was founded. But for me, as an outsider, maybe even an outsider with sympathy, another question is far more important: if they eventually fall down, will they take all the world with them, or not. the potential for the first they have. And soon their enemies seem to have that potential, too.

I wished that a Tsunami or a megavolcanic eruption would have shattered, drowned and destroyed Jerusalem and all of Mekka and Medina alike, and made it all the bottom of the ocean for all time to come. All these places that man describes as being holy, seem to be doomed to breed just hate and violance, since centuries and millenias. All what these places and the cults around them have ever caused, is driving people into madness.

[Max2147]

It sounds like the sh*t is really hitting the fan today. I get the sense that Khameni, Ahmadinejad, and those around them don't really know what to do. They're weaving back and forth between trying to let the protests blow over or cracking down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8110582.stm

[Skybird]

It sounds like the sh*t is really hitting the fan today.

The military sits still. The Revolutionary Guards see reasons for minor reactions only, what speaks against a thesis of a major national crisis in Iran, even if it is the biggest protests since Khomenei. As long as the Guards do not conduct major operations and start taking over the streets visibly, I do not agree to "the establishement being under dangerous pressure". It looks dramatic in Teheran, but that visual impression might be misleading. The rural Iran rests in silence. And I am sure the conservatives won the election in the rural places, and the protesters's vote probably only made a difference in Teheran and some of the huge cities.

the one mistake that maybe is made by some in Iran and most outside of Iran is to simply overestimate the numbers and the power of that voting camp supporting Mussawi.

And again - Mussawi himself throughout his life has been an Islamic hardliner. We should think twice for that reason alone before we prematurely support those who support Mussawi. Maybe their wishes do not lead as far as some of you think, and maybe they define the same political terms slightly different than you do. ;)

[Lurchi]

And again - Mussawi himself throughout his life has been an Islamic hardliner. We should think twice for that reason alone before we prematurely support those who support Mussawi. Maybe their wishes do not lead as far as some of you think, and maybe they define the same political terms slightly different than you do. ;)
You sound as if you know Mussawi personally :hmmm:.

At least many iranians seem to think that it is worth to risk their health and punishment by state authorities to support Mussawi. I would say that they most likely know more than anyone of us, don't they?

That Mussawi is a product of the Mullah system is known by everyone already. Otherwise he would never be nominated as candidate. On the other hand: A man like Gorbachev was also a product of the system but this didn't prevent him from trying to reform it. Sometimes such things happen and i wouldn't necessarily judge Mussawi by the things he did 30 years ago under different circumstances during the islamic revolution.

It seems pretty obvious that the Mullahs cannot prevent the erosion of their system for an indefinite time ...

[Skybird]

I know what Hitler did, but I did not know him personally.

If only you want, you can know what kind of breed Mussawi is - you only need to read about his biography.

and no, I do not think that just because a mass of people is huge, it necessarily knows something. Group size and intelligence are most of the times mutually exclusive.

How many mass murderers and criminals have been celebrated in the past, and have been followed by the mob in the streets? Very, very many. And that includes the very founder of islam himself, so what to expect?

Being responsible for the execution of tousands of people (critics, reformists, socialists and communists who were stupid enough to ally with Khomenei, women) is not what you should minimise by describing it as "things just happening" and that "Mussawi shouldn't necessarily be judged" by them. He is a typical Islamic hardliner willing to enforce the Quran with all inhumanity and brutality as needed. Just that he has more educated manners does not make him any less than what he is.

Maybe you want to be more choosy in the future, regarding whom you accept to give your legitimiation, Lurchi. Else it may end one day with a comparable legitimiation-fiasco like with this great democratic idol and heroic freedom fighter against supression and tyranny, Saakashvili-the-Great of Georgia.

The magic spell "it shall be democracy" seems to make the victim immediately stop thinking. If one would cointinue thinking one would see that Mussawi is as much qwelcomed for the West as a negotiation partner as Ahmadinejadh is. And this should be our deciding criterion whether or not we support an Iranian candidate, or stay out of their mess. Becasue the risk is too high that by interfering we just cause the direct opposite of what we hoped to acchieve.

And it is not as if this has not happened several times with our foreign policies in the past years. That our well-meant intentions backfire on us - has become the rule in certain fields of foreign policy.

[Lurchi]

I know what Hitler did, but I did not know him personally.
No. You think you know about it based on what you were told and what has been written down.

I also fail to understand what Hitler has to do with all this ... except that Ahmadinedschad denies or belittles the Holocaust while Mussawi does not. Maybe it is this difference why i would consider an (unlikely though) president Mussawi a step into the right direction?


Maybe you want to be more choosy in the future, regarding whom you accept to give your legitimiation, Lurchi. Else it may end one day with a comparable legitimiation-fiasco like with this great democratic idol and heroic freedom fighter against supression and tyranny, Saakashvili-the-Great of Georgia.
I don't think it is not up to me to legitimize an iranian president - i am pretty obviously not an iranian citizen. I gained the impression though that Mussawi already took his protest so far that he is in danger of being arrested. This however contradicts your picture of a willingless and blind functionary product of the islamic state somewhat. Maybe this Mussawi is a little bit more complex than you are trying to imply here?

Whatever he stands for - it is seemingly enough for many to stand up and protest, despite all personal risks. Some already paid with their life for it. I am not willing to follow your argument that those protestors are just the unknowing mob - the last one who thought this way was the Shah :cool:.

[Rilder]

Hmmm...

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2083/diewtf.jpg

:rotfl:

[Skybird]

No. You think you know about it based on what you were told and what has been written down.

Ah yes, let's go onto the abstract level again to lead to nowhere.


I also fail to understand what Hitler has to do with all this ... except that Ahmadinedschad denies or belittles the Holocaust while Mussawi does not. Maybe it is this difference why i would consider an (unlikely though) president Mussawi a step into the right direction?


If you do not see why I answered to your statement with that comparison to hitler, that may be a hint for why you overestimate Mussawi.

I don't think it is not up to me to legitimize an iranian president - i am pretty obviously not an iranian citizen. I gained the impression though that Mussawi already took his protest so far that he is in danger of being arrested. This however contradicts your picture of a willingless and blind functionary product of the islamic state somewhat. Maybe this Mussawi is a little bit more complex than you are trying to imply here?

I did not characterise him as a blind functionary product of the Islamic state - he already was with Khomenei, you know. I characterised him as a mass murderer and an islamic hardliner fully basing on his religious beliefs. He is a perpetrator by conviction - not some functionary opportunist.

Be more choosy in whom you support. your choice falls back on yourself.


Whatever he stands for - it is seemingly enough for many to stand up and protest, despite all personal risks. Some already paid with their life for it. I am not willing to follow your argument that those protestors are just the unknowing mob - the last one who thought this way was the Shah :cool:.

Get educated on Mussawi'S biography. You pretty much say it cannot be what should not be in your own personal world view. In history, time and again the masses enthusiastically celebrated murderers, war criminals, liars and slaughterers. As somebody said, most people on the street today were not born during the revolution and in the early 80s, or were too small to remember Mussawi, and obviously in Iran schoolbooks paint a different picture of the revlution and Khomenei anyway, glossing over unpleasant things. Many people are not aware of Mussawi's record, and thus fall for him. He will never do anything that principally questions the rule of sharia law and the order of the state as it is today. He has said that repeatedly to Western reporters in interviews. Don't try to know him better than the man knows himself. And don't lower yourself to the level of lacking knowledge on the man like the crowds in Teheran. Iranians maybe cannot know it better if they stick to the resources of their country only - but you can. the strange problem is that you do not want.

We Westerners are well-advised to stay out of this for the forseeable time to come. none of the candidate options is such that we should have a higher interest in him than in the others.

[Letum]

Regardless of the other credentials of either, we should put our allegiance
behind whoever the Iranian people are most likely to have voted for.

Legitimacy is a desirable quality more so than what ever policy decisions this
candidate or that is likely to make.

[August]

Regardless of the other credentials of either, we should put our allegiance
behind whoever the Iranian people are most likely to have voted for.

Legitimacy is a desirable quality more so than what ever policy decisions this
candidate or that is likely to make.


"Allegiance" is an odd word to use. I owe no allegiance to Iran or it's leaders and never will regardless of who they elect as their president.

[Letum]

"Allegiance" is an odd word to use. I owe no allegiance to Iran or it's leaders and never will regardless of who they elect as their president.

Quite right.
"Support" seams odd too.

"recognition of legitimacy" comes a little closer, but then the rest of what I
said makes less clear sense.

"Preference" perhaps.



OT: See SB; meaning before language. ;)

[Skybird]

Regardless of the other credentials of either, we should put our allegiance
behind whoever the Iranian people are most likely to have voted for.

Legitimacy is a desirable quality more so than what ever policy decisions this
candidate or that is likely to make.
Why ? They have a right to elect whomever they want, yes. But mis that an obligation for us that we must deal with that guy? Do we have no right to say: we refuse cooperation with this man, or with you if you elect such people?

They do not vote in our place. And we have all right there is to hold everybody responsible over his vote who voted for somebody.

We all are responsible for the choices we make. So are "they".

[Letum]

We can support someones legitimacy and simultaneously refuse to cooperate
with them.

I don't see a contradiction there.

I think the pope is the right and legitimate leader of Catholics and I would not
support a unelected usurping pope, but that doesn't mean I have to do
anything the pope asks of me. I don't communicate or cooperate with the
pope at all.

[Skybird]

We can support someones legitimacy and simultaneously refuse to cooperate
with them.

I don't see a contradiction there.


Ah, yes, I got you wrong as long you mean "support" in a purely formal context only.


I think the pope is the right and legitimate leader of Catholics and I would not
support a unelected usurping pope,
There is it again: "support"?

I personally would not care for the pope at all, no matter whether he is an usurping or formally legal pope. And that in principle is the same position I have on the Iranian candidates for the presidency. It makes not much a difference for us who of the four wins, and how.

[Letum]

You don't think there is any merit in legitimacy alone?

[Skybird]

I believe that legitimacy - or lack of - of Iranian elections for us does not make a difference. Thus we must not care - we are not living in Iran.

When elections are being held with a candidate representing a real alternative to the mullah regime whose policy also would make a difference for us (for better or worse) - then caring for the legitimacy of according elections would matter for us.

[Letum]

That's all very well if you are only interested in your self; a little jingoistic
perhaps. I think everyone has the right to be governed by someone who
represents their community/nations wishes, be them Iranian, Japanese,
American or Skybird.
I find it strange that a fellow voter would be indifferent on the matter.

[Lurchi]

Ah yes, let's go onto the abstract level again to lead to nowhere.
Well, if you say it then it must be right, yes?

If you do not see why I answered to your statement with that comparison to hitler, that may be a hint for why you overestimate Mussawi.
I don't overestimate him - and i don't know why you always tend to extremes. I have never described him as more as a step into the right direction. And in direct comparison to Ahmadinedschad he is exactly this from my point of view.
Be more choosy in whom you support. your choice falls back on yourself.
You sound as i am sitting in a courtroom with you as the judge. I haven't made a choice but expressed an opinion. I would like to know what falls back on me?
Get educated on Mussawi'S biography. You pretty much say it cannot be what should not be in your own personal world view. In history, time and again the masses enthusiastically celebrated murderers, war criminals, liars and slaughterers.
You are repeating yourself. Who do you want to teach that Mussawi was part of the islamic revolution? Certainly not me as i am well aware of this. Right now however Mussawi is obviously trying to escape from being arrested and is regarded as public enemy N°1. A strange career for someone who is still in full compliance with the current regime i would say.
And don't lower yourself to the level of lacking knowledge on the man like the crowds in Teheran. Iranians maybe cannot know it better if they stick to the resources of their country only - but you can. the strange problem is that you do not want.
You have a very arrogant and patronizing way expressing your opinions - are you aware of this? You sound like a teacher who claims to have absolute knowledge and i consider this as unacceptable. Excuse me but it is not me who has a strange problem ...

[Letum]

You have a very arrogant and patronizing way expressing your opinions - are you aware of this? You sound like a teacher who claims to have absolute knowledge and i consider this as unacceptable.

This is also the impression I get often enough to be irksome, despite the
excellent quality of the majority of SB's post content.

[Skybird]

Lurchi,

the man is a rival for power for Ahmadinejadh - simply that's why he needs to run now.

In the 80s he was responsible for the execution of thousands of people, as I have said several times now. And that guy today you describe as "a step into the right direction" - and then wonder why I find that queer.

Anyhow, the president is not so important in Iran anyway, so I am maybe stupid when wasting so much time on the issue. No matter how this unrest ends in Iran - for the West the most likely consequence will be that nothing of interest for us changes anyway.

[Skybird]

That's all very well if you are only interested in your self; a little jingoistic
perhaps. I think everyone has the right to be governed by someone who
represents their community/nations wishes, be them Iranian, Japanese,
American or Skybird.
I find it strange that a fellow voter would be indifferent on the matter.
It's a principle that you hate very much - it is Realpolitik. Even the liberation of Europe 70 years ago had realpolitische motives and egoist intentions. Or do you really believe they launched that massive a war over ideals only? I never believed that for just one day. Things were at risk that were too vital of substantial interest for other nations as if they could afford not to care for the fate of Europe. It was no idealistic decision to fight the Nazis. It was Realpolitik: one had no other choice.

Our options on Iran are almost non-existent. We simply do not have influence on the situation, and Iran's policy. Obama'S and merkel'S words today do hagve no chance to cause any effect. Wether we yell and stomp our feet, or not - does not make a difference. Eventually we could shift things more to our disadvantage by idealistically, well-meaningly interfere. But to influence things for the better - at this time, in this situation, we simply do not have that option. We must not think of any of the candidates being better for us than the others.

So relax, lean back and read a book. At the current time, it does not matter if you do this, or think about Iran, or work in the garden. Maybe there will be a better chance for us in the future, who knows. But today is not our day.

[Letum]

I'm not claiming it does make a blind bit of difference what I think or do, but
that doesn't mean I should take up an opinionless political nihilism.

Very little in the world, history and the universe directly effects me, but that
doesn't mean there is no point in learning about it an making judgment when
the opportunity occurs.

Arson has never effected me and I won't reduce the amount or arson by
condemning it, but still I do.

[Max2147]

I think Mousavi would indeed be a step in the right direction. Not a leap, but a step.

Think of it this way: Ahmadinejad is a D-, Mousavi is a D+.

But I think these protests go beyond this one election. There may be some people in the crowd who are legitimately Mousavi supporters and are only protesting because they want him to be President, but I get the impression that a lot more are protesting because they're upset with the way their country is being run. In other words, the protests are more anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-clerics than pro-Mousavi. There are probably plenty of people protesting that Mousavi would throw in jail if he were in charge.

[Skybird]

Patience, or waiting, or being aware of the importance of correct timing, is no nihilism.

Condemning arson does not have any affect on somebody else than the arsonist (eventually), especially does it not have any negetaive effect on sombebody you want to save from it.

But with political support given, it is different. Diplomats and ideologists interpret every syllable you said and turn every word in your mouth, eventually, and if they are fanatics, they never forget nor forgive you. One should not necessarily avoid clear words just to avoid their wrath - certainly not - , but since on the poltical and idelogical stage every word has real effects like shifting attitudes of theirs (to you, to each other, to third parties), one should make sure to take such a position only when the opportunity is worth it. And an opportunity that is worth it is an opportunity when that what you support has a real chance to make an effect matching your intentions or interests. - This is currently not the case with Iran. - If it does nothing at best, or worstens your cause, then it is no opportunity. Ideas of "if only" and "in principle" are totally unimportant then, since they do not make any difference for anybody or anything - except your own ego.

Compare to chess, Letum. Not only do you not launch your attack before your pieces are in position and you have the tempi you need to carry it out and the opponent's position is prone to the kind of attack you are about to unleash - you also need to prepare the moving of every single piece to it's readiness position. - That is tiresome, but that'S how it is done. Everything else does not work as long as the opponent does not make mistakes. While one can argue that Chamenei's speech on Friday was clever in confronting the protesters that directly and offensively, it certainly was no mistake that would open real opportunities to his opposition.

In other words, the protests are more anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-clerics than pro-Mousavi. There are probably plenty of people protesting that Mousavi would throw in jail if he were in charge.

You could be right there. Difficult to assess, currently.

What is suspicious is that the rural areas are calm, and also most cities. I must say that the scenario of Ahmadinejadh nevertheless having the biggest public support of all four candidates, to me is the most likely one. We can't be certain, but it is most likely.

[CastleBravo]

One example of realpolitik is the amount of time it took Mr. Obama to come to any semblence of support for those protesting the election in Iran. His first instinct was to appease, and apologize, and when he found that the vast majority of Americans wanted him to say more than just 'present' he suddenly finds a voice, however fec/kless.

PS I would not be at all suprised if it wasn't Europe which moved him to speak. Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with so many yes men and sychophants to feed his pathological need for approval it makes ones head spin.

[goldorak]

Lurchi,

the man is a rival for power for Ahmadinejadh - simply that's why he needs to run now.

In the 80s he was responsible for the execution of thousands of people, as I have said several times now. And that guy today you describe as "a step into the right direction" - and then wonder why I find that queer.

Anyhow, the president is not so important in Iran anyway, so I am maybe stupid when wasting so much time on the issue. No matter how this unrest ends in Iran - for the West the most likely consequence will be that nothing of interest for us changes anyway.

The West as always has misconceptions about the nature of these violent uprisings. It misinterpretated the Tiananmen protest and it is misinterpreting the Iran protest. People in Iran are protesting not for a democratic president, but for an election that has been presumably "stolen" by Ahmadinejad. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Skybird]

One example of realpolitik is the amount of time it took Mr. Obama to come to any semblence of support for those protesting the election in Iran. His first instinct was to appease, and apologize, and when he found that the vast majority of Americans wanted him to say more than just 'present' he suddenly finds a voice, however fec/kless.

PS I would not be at all suprised if it wasn't Europe which moved him to speak. Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with so many yes men and sychophants to feed his pathological need for approval it makes ones head spin.

I don't agree. Obama has this strange idea that it could be possible in the future to negotiate with Iran an abandoning of it'S nuclear program, the military part of it. He thinks he helps in that when talking less rethorically aggressive with them, and to them. He did not want to risk this outcome by intefering with the current events in Iran too much. On the other hand he thinks that something has to be said about it, and that it should not be completely ignored. Some days ago, in a reaction by him, you saw him formulating extremely carefully, pausing a lot, and you could see on his face that he was weighing every words before speaking it out. that way he just gave an impression of going one step ahead, one step back.

That's all nice and well and reasonable and wellmeant. It's just that this reason is not shared by the other side, and that Iran, no matter the president, has not the smallest intention to ever give up it's goal to get nuclear weapons. As long as you hold these negotiations and have no means to hold a weapoin at their sleeves, they will not give up, and just will try to win time. That'S why Obama will fail with his Iran policy, and it probably will not be the only field where it is like this. Obama is an idealist thinking people are driven by reason, and humanism (although he also is a power politician, because you do not make it into his office and kick several rivals out of your way and survive the Washington shark pool without being a powerpolitician with the will to also act unscrupellous, where needed).

Carter thought the same idealistic way, Carter also is an idealist. In this characteristic, both men remind me of each other. And I would not be surprised if the Republicans again start an intrigue and conspirate with the enemies of the nation to overthrow this president like they did with Carter.

Politics is dirty down to the bones. It holds no place for perfect knights in shining armour. the best you can hope for is a tyrant who means it well with you. But many do not, and prioritise their own power interests over everything else - Reagan no exception.

[Max2147]

The West as always has misconceptions about the nature of these violent uprisings. It misinterpretated the Tiananmen protest and it is misinterpreting the Iran protest. People in Iran are protesting not for a democratic president, but for an election that has been presumably "stolen" by Ahmadinejad. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can't really use one blanket interpretation for all the protesters. Some of them are just like you said - protesting this election and only this election. Others are indeed protesting for a democratic Iran. Others are protesting because they just don't like Ahmadinejad, and others are protesting because they've got nothing better to do!

The key question is the balance of those motivations - i.e. are the majority protesting in support of Mousavi, or are they protesting against Khameni? I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question, not even the protesters themselves.

CastleBravo - Where did you see Obama appeasing/apologizing over this? Do you really want the American President to shoot his mouth off when he knows full well that there's nothing he can do to affect the outcome? That would be the exact opposite of "speak softly and carry a big stick."

[AVGWarhawk]

Watch the Neda video?

[geetrue]

The West as always has misconceptions about the nature of these violent uprisings. It misinterpretated the Tiananmen protest and it is misinterpreting the Iran protest. People in Iran are protesting not for a democratic president, but for an election that has been presumably "stolen" by Ahmadinejad. Nothing more, nothing less.

The people percieve that they have been lied to ... they are in contact with each other having coffee in cafes, univercities, twitter, you tube etc.

They talk at work, they talk among family members, the talk in the seven times a day to worship their God.

They, meaning the people of Iran, are generating a spirit among each other, a spirit that does not trust the news the government is putting out nor the head man in charge of their morale fiber.

They are mad and they are willing to die or be arrested for protesting the election results announced two hours after the polls closed.

This son of the supreme leader (Mojtaba Khamenei) is the one to worry about if you are Iranian that is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/mojtaba-khamenei-iran-protest (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/mojtaba-khamenei-iran-protest)

[Rip]

I believe that legitimacy - or lack of - of Iranian elections for us does not make a difference. Thus we must not care - we are not living in Iran.

When elections are being held with a candidate representing a real alternative to the mullah regime whose policy also would make a difference for us (for better or worse) - then caring for the legitimacy of according elections would matter for us.

But if we purport to support the spread of democracy throughout the world we must act differently when we encounter truly democratically selected leaders of nations. No matter whether that democratic choice is the one we prefer. One of the biggest challenges we face in global diplomacy is the impression that we are hypocrites when it suits us.

[Rip]

You can't really use one blanket interpretation for all the protesters. Some of them are just like you said - protesting this election and only this election. Others are indeed protesting for a democratic Iran. Others are protesting because they just don't like Ahmadinejad, and others are protesting because they've got nothing better to do!

The key question is the balance of those motivations - i.e. are the majority protesting in support of Mousavi, or are they protesting against Khameni? I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question, not even the protesters themselves.

CastleBravo - Where did you see Obama appeasing/apologizing over this? Do you really want the American President to shoot his mouth off when he knows full well that there's nothing he can do to affect the outcome? That would be the exact opposite of "speak softly and carry a big stick."

A new proverb. "Talk **** and fling toothpicks" :hmmm:

[Skybird]

But if we purport to support the spread of democracy throughout the world we must act differently when we encounter truly democratically selected leaders of nations. No matter whether that democratic choice is the one we prefer. One of the biggest challenges we face in global diplomacy is the impression that we are hypocrites when it suits us.
1. I am not supporting this idea of spreading democracy everywhere.

2. I am against missionising in the name of democracy and religions of every kind, including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.

3. Many Western states claiming to support the spreading of democracy, have arranged themselves happily with exactly the opposite kind of regimes in the past if that matched their selfish interests. I also question the democratic nature of Westenr states themselves. there is too much oligarchy, too much plutocracy and too much interweaving between economy and politics (which should be independant from the economy'S lobby).

4. So who is "we", since you talked of "we" ?

5. I also think that democracies have no obligation to assist in the voting of options that bring democracies down by bringing those wanting to destroy or prevent democracy to power - as seen is the votings in turkey, Egypt and with the Palestinians. In turkey the AKP's ruling has destroyed already much of the secular heritage of Ataturk and brought a fundamentalist crew with a missionary sporit to power. In Egypt Mubarak was pressed to hold freer elections - and the conservative Muslim Brotherhood immediately made a jump upwards in the parliament. they would have gained much more if the elecitons would have been all free indeed. And thanks to free elections for the palestinians there is an established terror group named Hamas in command in the Gaza strip now.

6. In case of Germany, the constitution explicitly allows active resistance by everybody against everyone trying to overthrow the constitutional order of the German state. Since this constitution is said to protect democracy, you can conclude from this example as well that there is no obligation that a self-declared democracy must accept the election of powers that try to overcome democracy itself.

7. In France, Sarkozy just once again have spoken out against tolerating the burkha, saying that it is an aggressive and radical expressing of values that are incompatible with values France traditionally stand for. In other words: an existing social community, whether it be democratic or not, has no obligation to tolerate that in it's middle that violates the canon of values that define this social community.

To argue that freedom or/and democracy come at the price of accepting that what destroys oneself, is pathologic, self-damaging, if not suicidal. It also implies that one has no right to fight agai8nst such tendencies or forces, and shall not resist to them. Whoich then builds a brink to another pervertion in especially EU-thinking: that idea of unlimited tolerance. there can be no such thing as unlimited tolerance without denying your own identity, completely. Inly when you totally give up what you are yourself, and whyat you stand for, you can embrace what is not you and is different to you so completely as expressed in the term "unlimited tolerance". In other words: you not only give up yourself, but you also will to become the other what originally was "not you", completely. You delete your own identity. - As I see it, the EU steams with full pressure into this direction of deleting inner-european identities and also making it prone to growing Islamisation ("Eurabia" etc.).

[Skybird]

On Iran, what the media almost completely fail to meditate about is the possibility that the riots and election results already got instrumentalised for very different purposes. Inside the Iranian theocracy, there is a bitter fight taking place since long, between the faction around Rafsandjani, and Chamenei. Rafsandjani is an extremely powerful clergy with a far more pragmatic, earth-based orientation and material power founding in this realm, a man whom is after power for the sake of itself. Chamenei is the national authority in the theological field, but lacking the established material network of Rafsandjani. He also is said to be very ill and trying to establish his son as his successor. Both men's camps are at war with each other since years - and theology has little to do with it, it is about power.

I think it is very likely that Mussawi maybe is just a minor figure in this current time of protests in Teheran, and that it is Rafsandjani boosting the riots as a weapon to damage the power of Chamenei. Mussawi - maybe just happens to lend his name to it. Once Rafsandjani got what he wants, whatever it is, he probably will move Mussawi out of the way, one way or the other.

[Rip]

1. I am not supporting this idea of spreading democracy everywhere.

2. I am against missionising in the name of democracy and religions of every kind, including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.

3. Many Western states claiming to support the spreading of democracy, have arranged themselves happily with exactly the opposite kind of regimes in the past if that matched their selfish interests. I also question the democratic nature of Westenr states themselves. there is too much oligarchy, too much plutocracy and too much interweaving between economy and politics (which should be independant from the economy'S lobby).

4. So who is "we", since you talked of "we" ?

5. I also think that democracies have no obligation to assist in the voting of options that bring democracies down by bringing those wanting to destroy or prevent democracy to power - as seen is the votings in turkey, Egypt and with the Palestinians. In turkey the AKP's ruling has destroyed already much of the secular heritage of Ataturk and brought a fundamentalist crew with a missionary sporit to power. In Egypt Mubarak was pressed to hold freer elections - and the conservative Muslim Brotherhood immediately made a jump upwards in the parliament. they would have gained much more if the elecitons would have been all free indeed. And thanks to free elections for the palestinians there is an established terror group named Hamas in command in the Gaza strip now.

6. In case of Germany, the constitution explicitly allows active resistance by everybody against everyone trying to overthrow the constitutional order of the German state. Since this constitution is said to protect democracy, you can conclude from this example as well that there is no obligation that a self-declared democracy must accept the election of powers that try to overcome democracy itself.

7. In France, Sarkozy just once again have spoken out against tolerating the burkha, saying that it is an aggressive and radical expressing of values that are incompatible with values France traditionally stand for. In other words: an existing social community, whether it be democratic or not, has no obligation to tolerate that in it's middle that violates the canon of values that define this social community.

To argue that freedom or/and democracy come at the price of accepting that what destroys oneself, is pathologic, self-damaging, if not suicidal. It also implies that one has no right to fight agai8nst such tendencies or forces, and shall not resist to them. Whoich then builds a brink to another pervertion in especially EU-thinking: that idea of unlimited tolerance. there can be no such thing as unlimited tolerance without denying your own identity, completely. Inly when you totally give up what you are yourself, and whyat you stand for, you can embrace what is not you and is different to you so completely as expressed in the term "unlimited tolerance". In other words: you not only give up yourself, but you also will to become the other what originally was "not you", completely. You delete your own identity. - As I see it, the EU steams with full pressure into this direction of deleting inner-european identities and also making it prone to growing Islamisation ("Eurabia" etc.).

The we I refer to as I always do in political discussions is the United States.

I understand that we does not include you.

Considering what appear to be your anti-democratic views and apparent disagreement with the basic premise that a free and self ruled people will seek to live in peace, that is a good thing.

Like it or not the official policy of the United States is that we support the spread of Democracy or whatever system allows the people to rule. For the President to indicate anything else would just guarantee him no chance at a 2nd term. Which would not bother me but he is no fool.

BTW How in the world can you use the hypothetical of "The People" electing a person that would advocate taking their right of self rule away? I am used to fighting a strawman, but that would have to be a strawbaby.

[Max2147]

The we I refer to as I always do in political discussions is the United States.

I understand that we does not include you.

Considering what appear to be your anti-democratic views and apparent disagreement with the basic premise that a free and self ruled people will seek to live in peace, that is a good thing.

Like it or not the official policy of the United States is that we support the spread of Democracy or whatever system allows the people to rule. For the President to indicate anything else would just guarantee him no chance at a 2nd term. Which would not bother me but he is no fool.

BTW How in the world can you use the hypothetical of "The People" electing a person that would advocate taking their right of self rule away? I am used to fighting a strawman, but that would have to be a strawbaby.
Opposing missionary-style attempts to spread democracy does not make one anti-democratic.

Also, I don't think the United States' official policy is to actively spread democracy around the world. Our policy is to protect democracy. There's a difference.

[Skybird]

BTW How in the world can you use the hypothetical of "The People" electing a person that would advocate taking their right of self rule away?

several possibilities, some of them are:

- lacking nowledge and awareness of the true nature of the party or person,

- wanting to bring a strong leader to power that must not necessarily be a defender of democracy - people can prefer a king, a tyrant, a clergy, a plutocrat, an ideologist, and they can prefer these for very many different reasons, obviously.

That you claim it to be an Amerian mission to democratise the world does not mean that all rest of mankind necessarily sympathises with that - not to mention that America supported and supports regimes that are anything but democratic, that it even has hindered and fought against democratic movements or decisions democratically made if they are an obstacle to American economic interests, and that it repeatedly did not care if it messed up a situation in a far away country that got democracy enforced onto it by american efforts, the experment failed, and afterwards the situation was worse than it was before. The claim over democracy is often not more than a shield behind which to hide the pushing of it's economic interestes and advantages, dominating other markets by establishing monopoles there.

In fact there are several cultures and ideologies that get supported by the ordinary people that have not much in mind with values that usually are attributed to "democracies". Islam is such an example. For many people, Sharia is much more important as a basis for a state, than this strange Western obsession called "democracy". If you think that all world is just craving for getting blessed by American missionary spirit and US democracy, than you totally overestimate and overrate yourself. Some want that, others not. And it is not only the tyrants and leaders not wanting it, but often it is the ordinary population. For many people in the world, there exist more important things than western values and democracies, like it or not. Not to mention that the state our western democracies are in is far from being a convincing representation of our idealistic claims about ourselve.

[Skybird]

Opposing missionary-style attempts to spread democracy does not make one anti-democratic.

Also, I don't think the United States' official policy is to actively spread democracy around the world. Our policy is to protect democracy. There's a difference.

To think I am a born anti-democrat for simply not liking it, and prefering something different for the sake of that alone, would miss the point about me. I simply do not see it working if the community subscribing to it exceeds a certain size, and I realise that many people in the world for political and/or religious and/or economic reasons do not favour demiocracy for themselves, and have ideas that are dearer to them. I also see private enterprise controlling political decision making, which means the latter is not independant from the first - and this bad circumstance always, always kills any potential for a democracy becoming real.
In fact democracy gets hollowed out - the bigger the community size, the easier business can hide the process in the uncontrollable size and complexity of the resulting construction of politics. andn thta is a reason why so many people defdend this process while being unaware of it, and thinking they would infact defend democracy. But in fact they help to erode it by their support.

Democracy is no holy grail for me. I think of it as a tool, not more, and it is not the only tool available. It either is a benefit for the task ahead, or it is a hazard. If it is a benefit, it is not my problem. If it is a hazard or does not serve the purpose that i want to see succeeding, then I throw it away and try something else.

[Max2147]

Any political system depends on the people in it and around it.

If you get the right dictator a dictatorship is great. Ataturk is probably the best 20th century example. He fast-tracked Turkey out of the Ottoman stagnation and into the modern world. He basically ruled by decree, and the country was better off for it because it allowed him to do a lot more than he ever could have done in a democratic system. As one of my professors once said, he was incredibly difficult to work with because he thought he was always right, but it was okay because he WAS always right.

The problem is that the vast majority of dictators aren't cut from that cloth. They think they're always right, but they're not. The Shah of Iran is a great example - he thought he was Iran's Ataturk, but he wasn't half the man Ataturk was. So instead of bringing Iran into the modern world he provoked a revolution.

The nice thing about a democracy is that it's less dependent on finding that perfect leader, because the checks and balances curb everybody's authority. It also allows you to get rid of an ineffective leader easily. But it requires an educated, engaged, and informed electorate to function properly.

I'd argue that the American democracy is not the most effective in the world right now, mostly due to high levels of apathy. There are several countries around the world that have healthier democracies than the United States.

[Skybird]

In parts I agree, and disagree. A one-man-rulership, and a democracy, both are prone to the same problems: corruption at the top level. Democracy can helpt to lower that problem only as long as it embedded in a communal context that can be overseen and thus is relatively limited in size, beyond that, it gets eroded and turned into an oligarchic and/or plutocratic structure that again sees corrupt individuals runnign the show- and the checks and balances do not help in that once it has degenerated that far, but are becoming turned around and help to legitimise the corruption of the few - and eroding democracy. Also, democratic elections do nothing to make sure the best man wins, or the most qualified. It is juts a coincidence if that is the case (and most often it is not like that, especially at the top levels).

See my two-pages-long reply to UnderseaLanceCorporal just a week ago, where we again "collided" :D over his defence of the market regulating all for the better and me arguing why I see a combination of democracy at the local regions level and a somewhat feudal system at the national and supernational level as worth being thought about, and why I disagree on the strange idea that a market based on egoism would be a benefit for all. It's just a draft idea by me, and I don't say it is perfect and that all details are already thought-out, but you may get my general idea and the "why?" behind it.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=152683&page=2

[Jimbuna]

So now the game of tit for tat expulsions begin :hmmm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8116515.stm

[Happy Times]

Its no news to me that there are secular and civilized people in Iran. But i would bet they are a clear minority. They didnt even have a candidate in the election, they had to vote between fundamentalist options.
The demonstrations also seem to concentrate only in Teheran.
The best we can do is to take these sane people as refugees, instead of the jihadist welfare scammers Europe is currently inviting.

[Jimbuna]

The best we can do is to take these sane people as refugees, instead of the jihadist welfare scammers Europe is currently inviting.

I wonder what sort of response this statement will provoke :DL

[Happy Times]

Like i care, i call it like i see it.
The Persians that fled before have been no problem but integrated.
You cant say the same about a long list of other nationals, especially Somalis.
Other people i would recommend taking instead are Assyrians, Kopts, Burmese, Vietnamise etc..
Im talking about asylum seekers and UN refugees.
Legal and illegal imigration is an other issue totally.

[Rip]

Its no news to me that there are secular and civilized people in Iran. But i would bet they are a clear minority. They didnt even have a candidate in the election, they had to vote between fundamentalist options.
The demonstrations also seem to concentrate only in Teheran.
The best we can do is to take these sane people as refugees, instead of the jihadist welfare scammers Europe is currently inviting.

You are being delusional. There are plenty of civilized and even secular people all over Iran. They can't have a candidate because all candidates have to be approved by the mullahs. Which mean to run you must believe in the type of government they want and swear an allegiance to them.

[Skybird]

You are being delusional. There are plenty of civilized and even secular people all over Iran. They can't have a candidate because all candidates have to be approved by the mullahs. Which mean to run you must believe in the type of government they want and swear an allegiance to them.
That is correct, but these social classes are not "all over Iran". They are formed by an educated social middle class, that is quite bourgeouis and interested in european cultural influence. But that should not hide two facts: another part of the same middle class is very conservative, and even many of the "moderate" are for the most strictly Islamic. Also, they are not all over Iran, but are concentrated in the bigger citiesd and metropoles, especially Teheran of course. I must say I met some extremely kind and very - really: VERY - polite people there, and I know many Westerners who could learn better manners from them. But the rural places are dominated by strict conservatism and orthodoxy. I compare the situation to that in Turkey, where there is a similiar split between city and rural populations.

It's a bit paradox, because in the early history Islam focussed on controlling the cities and ignore the rural country a bit and ignore nomads as well as long as they payed their taxes. It was too difficult trying to control them completely.

[Rip]

To think I am a born anti-democrat for simply not liking it, and prefering something different for the sake of that alone, would miss the point about me. I simply do not see it working if the community subscribing to it exceeds a certain size, and I realise that many people in the world for political and/or religious and/or economic reasons do not favour demiocracy for themselves, and have ideas that are dearer to them. I also see private enterprise controlling political decision making, which means the latter is not independant from the first - and this bad circumstance always, always kills any potential for a democracy becoming real.
In fact democracy gets hollowed out - the bigger the community size, the easier business can hide the process in the uncontrollable size and complexity of the resulting construction of politics. andn thta is a reason why so many people defdend this process while being unaware of it, and thinking they would infact defend democracy. But in fact they help to erode it by their support.

Democracy is no holy grail for me. I think of it as a tool, not more, and it is not the only tool available. It either is a benefit for the task ahead, or it is a hazard. If it is a benefit, it is not my problem. If it is a hazard or does not serve the purpose that i want to see succeeding, then I throw it away and try something else.

Rather than struggle with wording my feelings I will lean on someone more gifted with expression than I.

The American preoccupation with promoting democracy abroad fits into a larger liberal view about the sources of a stable, legitimate, secure, and prosperous international order. This outlook may not always be the chief guiding principle of policy, and it may sometimes lead to error. Still, it is a relatively coherent orientation rooted in the American political experience and American understandings of history, economics, and the sources of political stability. It thus stands apart from more traditional grand strategies that grow out of European experience and the so-called realist tradition in foreign policy, with its emphasis on balances of power, realpolitik, and containment.
This distinctively American liberal grand strategy is built around a set of claims and assumptions about how democratic politics, economic interdependence, international institutions, and political identity encourage a stable political order. It is not a single view articulated by a single group of thinkers. It is a composite view built on a variety of arguments by a variety of supporters. Some advocate promoting democratic institutions abroad, some lobby for free trade and economic liberalization, and others aim to erect ambitious new international and regional economic and security institutions. Each group has its own emphases and agendas, each may think of itself as entirely independent of the others (and occasionally even hostile to them), but over the years they have almost inadvertently complemented one another. Together, these efforts have come to constitute a liberal grand strategy.


This conviction about the value of democracy runs through much American foreign policy thinking in the 20th century. In 1995, Anthony Lake, then director of the National Security Council, declared:
We led the struggle for democracy because the larger the pool of democracies, the greater our own security and prosperity. Democracies, we know, are less likely to make war on us or on other nations. They tend not to abuse the rights of their people. They make for more reliable trading partners. And each new democracy is a potential ally in the struggle against the challenges of our time-containing ethnic and religious conflict; reducing the nuclear threat; combating terrorism and organized crime; overcoming environmental degradation.
Free Trade, Free Countries: Liberals see trade and open markets as a kind of democratic solvent, dissolving the political supports of autocratic and authoritarian governments.
Trade fosters economic growth, the argument goes, which encourages democratic institutions. Hardly anybody doubts that the first part of this proposition is correct. Even the opponents of free trade rarely argue that it doesn't promote growth. Instead, they say that it disproportionately hurts certain groups, or causes social disruptions, or poses a threat to national security.


But does economic growth encourage democracy? The classic case that it does was made by political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset in the 1950s. Lipset argued that economic development tends to increase the general level of education, which promotes changes in political culture and political attitudes. These, in turn, encourage democracy. Most important, economic development creates a rising middle class, with a far greater degree of immunity to the appeal of class struggle and antidemocratic parties and ideologies.
There are many other reasons to accept the prosperity-democracy connection, not least that experience tends to bear it out. Not all democracies enjoy high levels of prosperity, but there is a strong correlation. Political scientists Thomas J. Bolgy and John E. Schwarz offer another reason why this is true: "only under conditions of prosperity and capitalism" are leaders likely to "accept defeat peacefully at the polls, secure in the knowledge that they will have fair opportunities to regain political power, and opportunities for economic benefit when they are out of power."
The liberal emphasis on trade takes a very materialist view: economics shape politics. It is a far cry from starry-eyed idealism. It has a long history in official American foreign policy thinking, showing up as early as the 1890s as part of the rationale for the American Open Door policy, which declared this country's opposition to economic spheres of influence in Asia and around the world.
More recently, the trade emphasis has been at the heart of American efforts at "engagement" with politically unpopular regimes - whether South Africa during the 1970s and '80s, the Soviet Union, or lately China. Trade and market openings are only the tip of a liberalizing wedge - often to the surprise of the antidemocratic leaders who eagerly grasp the opportunity to trade with the United States and its partners.


Just as important as promoting peace, the American vision of openness - a sort of economic one-worldism - would lead to an international order in which the need for American hands-on management would be modest. The system would, in effect, govern itself. The "prosperous neighbor" formula conveys only one of the reasons for believing that trade promotes peace. Again, there are some very realistic arguments behind the proposition. As countries engage in more and more trade, their economies evolve. Industries and sectors that enjoy a competitive advantage in foreign markets thrive, while those that cannot withstand foreign competition wither. The economy grows more specialized, carving out a niche in the larger international marketplace. It also grows more dependent, needing both foreign markets and foreign goods. In the language of political science, trade creates "mutual dependencies." No longer can the state easily determine and act upon narrow nationalistic economic interests. Now it has a stake in the stability and functioning of the larger international order.
At the same time, economic change creates new vested interests with a stake in economic openness and a supportive international political order. Studies of Japan and other industrial countries show that corporations that invest overseas not only develop an interest in international conditions that support those investments but also become a new voice back home advocating the opening of the domestic market.
In the traditional American view, trade also helps "socialize" other nations. Nowhere has this been more explicit than in the Clinton administration's approach toward China. In 1997, President Bill Clinton explained:
China's economic growth has made it more and more dependent on the outside world for investment, markets, and energy. Last year it was the second largest recipient of foreign direct investment in the world. These linkages bring with them powerful forces for change. Computers and the Internet, fax machines and photo-copiers, modems and satellites all increase the exposure to people, ideas, and the world beyond China's borders. The effect is only just beginning to be felt.


Today, Republican and Democratic leaders alike favor a foreign policy agenda organized around business internationalism, multilateral economic and security organizations, and democratic community building. It is a coalition not unlike the one that formed in the 1940s when the United States was contemplating the shape of the postwar world. Its members don't all have the same motives or interests. Some pursue democracy, the rule of law, and human rights as ends in themselves; others see them as a way to expand and safeguard business and markets; still others see indirect payoffs for national security. But this is nothing new. Out of the mix of motives and policies still comes a meaningful whole.
The United States may be predestined to pursue a liberal grand strategy. There is something in the character of the American system that supports a general liberal strategic orientation. Behind it stand an array of backers, from U.S. corporations that trade and invest overseas to human rights groups to partisans of democracy to believers in multilateral organizations. Democracies - particularly big and rich ones such as the United States - seem to have an inherent sociability. They are biased, by their very makeup, in favor of engagement, enlargement, interdependence, and institutionalization, and they are biased against containment, separation, balance, and exclusion.
It may be, as some critics argue, that Americans have been too optimistic about the possibilities of promoting democracy abroad. But this sober consideration does not diminish the overall coherence of liberal grand strategy. The last British governor of Hong Kong, Christopher Patton, captured this truth about America's role in the promotion of democracy: "American power and leadership have been more responsible than most other factors in rescuing freedom in the second half of this century. America has been prepared to support the values that have shaped its own liberalism and prosperity with generosity, might, and determination. Sometimes this may have been done maladroitly; what is important is that it has been done." America has not just been spreading its values, it has been securing its interests. This is America's hidden grand strategy, and there is at least some evidence that it has been rather successful.


http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/exdem.htm

I agree with pretty much everything Mr Ikenberry had to say.

Rip

[Skybird]

And I agree with some - and disagree with some. I also say that this essay to me is the formulation of the ideal case as it was thought to be in theory. Reality looks different, and has created different results putting the theory in question - results that all too often are opportunistically and comfortably ignored so that the theory must not be questioned.

[Rip]

That is correct, but these social classes are not "all over Iran". They are formed by an educated social middle class, that is quite bourgeouis and interested in european cultural influence. But that should not hide two facts: another part of the same middle class is very conservative, and even many of the "moderate" are for the most strictly Islamic. Also, they are not all over Iran, but are concentrated in the bigger citiesd and metropoles, especially Teheran of course. I must say I met some extremely kind and very - really: VERY - polite people there, and I know many Westerners who could learn better manners from them. But the rural places are dominated by strict conservatism and orthodoxy. I compare the situation to that in Turkey, where there is a similiar split between city and rural populations.

It's a bit paradox, because in the early history Islam focussed on controlling the cities and ignore the rural country a bit and ignore nomads as well as long as they payed their taxes. It was too difficult trying to control them completely.

Or so you think. But the truth is many of them will say whatever makes them the least likely to have their head chopped off. There is no way you could get their real opinion while they have to sleep every night under the rule of someone who kills people for saying the wrong thing. If you walked around NK and talked to people you would think Kim was the greatest thing to walk the earth. Even from the people on the verge of starving to death as a direct result of his tyranny. If they ever do manage to ever throw the mullahs and establish a democracy you will find a majority of them would rather have a representative government.

[Skybird]

Sorry, but in the early and mid-90s I experienced the North-West and Teheran a bit different than you imply. It simply was less police-control than you think and more honest conviction showing in people - hope for some more pragmatic freedoms by the young, religious convictions with the wide majority of the rest. People spoke surprisingly free as long as no camera and microphone was around. And - another surprise - especially the younger and the middle class bourgeousie spoke less hate-filled of the West and America than TV-pictures today give an impression: quite the opposite. But that was before the American rethoric turned hostile on them for not wanting an all-out turn towards Western ideals. I still think today that back then America terribly wasted a very great chance to foster more sympathy of the younger generation for America. All it would have taken maybe was not to turn against them rethorically, but behave cautiously supportive towards even the more pragmatic approach on freedoms they wanted - instead of telling them they should go all the way towards Western democracy or they could go to hell.

I saw the same phenomenon in Turkey: the "Westernised" city population, the conservative rural areas (with 80% or so of the national population). And neither at that time nor in that place people were under threat by state police and secret agents. the conservatism was real. If some women feared for their lifes, then it was due to the wrath of their families over their eventual disobedience - not due to the police tracking statements. But you can imagine that they did not tell me such things. Relations I was confronted with were mostly not too relaxed anyway. In Iran I met far more hospitality and warmth, I really must say. Iranians are extreme patriots, too, but in Turkey there was much xenophobia and national arrogance towards the West, in the rural areas I mean. Strange for a people depednig so much on international tourism. But the tourists go to the cities only - that is the difference. And then they go home to Europe and think they have seen the true face of Turkey. Absurd.

[geetrue]

Clues to how they may have rigged the votes ... the villages were no longer allowed to open the ballot boxes and count the votes. See bold type: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1096071.html (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1096071.html)


"In 2005 Ahmadinejad won for several reasons: The reformists boycotted the elections and his rival [Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani was identified with the most corrupt elements in the regime. That is why Ahmadinejad tried this time to claim that Mousavi in effect represents Rafsanjani, but people don't believe him. In 2005 Ahmadinejad was actually running against George W. Bush, whereas this time the U.S. is headed by President Barack Obama. It's therefore reasonable to assume that support for Ahmadinejad declined this time."

Which means you do not doubt the claims that the elections were rigged?

"There's no doubt. Mousavi's chances of winning in the cities were known. That isn't the case in the villages. But people who are involved in what's happening in the villages said that the rate of support for Ahmadinejad there was about 20 percent. The rest supported [Mehdi] Karroubi and Mousavi.

In the past, opening the ballot boxes and counting the votes was done in the villages themselves. This time the Interior Ministry took the closed ballot boxes. When they announced Ahmadinejad's victory, people in the villages were as angry as those in the cities."