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/...ed-supporters/

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

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...ranian_reality

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

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.

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

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

He could have been President

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.