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.

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.

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

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/img220/5...7ac81972d2.jpg

First twittered revolution it seems.

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

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

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.

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.

"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.

That I believe.

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!

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.

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...ons-iran-obama

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

Same goe's for Dictatorships. :yep:

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.

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.

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.

The Boston Globe has the best 1,000 words, as always: LINK

http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...1_19361479.jpg

So, I see ACORN was involved.:haha: