Iran Elections

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Never mind all that.
These people are incredibly brave. I think it’s a shame that we’re not doing anything to help them.
(Actually, I’d be surprised if we didn’t have some kind of covert presence.)

Agreed. But I don’t think we have any presence there at all, save outside news coming in. That’s why I want Obama to do his impression of the “tear down this wall” speech. Take a stand.[/quote]

If Obama gives that speech, the hardliners will have the excuse they need (“foreign interference”) to crack down. Opposition will be crushed, and the hard-liners will take over. In this country, neocons like this scenario because then they will have the excuse they need to invade Iran.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pat Buchanan explain it better than I could here (About 6:15): MSN

Obama won’t say shit, he is waiting to see what evolves from all this.

Here’s Kissinger explaining why he supports Obama’s position. Jump to 4:25 to see him .
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/23082168/ahmadinejad-vs-mousavi.htm#q=Kissinger

[quote]lixy wrote:
Regardless of the outcome, the Iranian people will not give up their inalienable right to enrich uranium. This fight is about their freedoms. [/quote]

Yeah, the right to enrich uranium trumps anything else. If they were protesting against that “right” the Iranian government would have to break out the mustard gas I guess. Then things wouldn’t be so “restrained.”

Judging solely from your posts I’m surprised any of this is happening. I mean the Iranian people should be content livng in their anti-US, anti-Israeli anti-Western, soon-to-be nuclear armed utopia…no? I mean, what else could these people possibly want?

Oh yeah, is Hezbollah on Europe’s terrorist list?

[quote]nik133 wrote:
I thought this was an interesting quote “In Iran they riot for freedom, here we Riot when the LA Lakers win.” I thought it was also interesting to add that 2/3 of Iran’s population is under 30, I wish young people here would take an interest in the people running the country. Video discussing the issue:

is this video showing Iran’s “restraint”? So the Iranian govt. isn’t using Mustard gas (but Egypt, a US ally, surely would, according to Lixy), their using live ammunition against bystanders…even the Israelis use rubber bullets against unarmed crowds.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
nik133 wrote:
I thought this was an interesting quote “In Iran they riot for freedom, here we Riot when the LA Lakers win.” I thought it was also interesting to add that 2/3 of Iran’s population is under 30, I wish young people here would take an interest in the people running the country. Video discussing the issue:

is this video showing Iran’s “restraint”? So the Iranian govt. isn’t using Mustard gas (but Egypt, a US ally, surely would, according to Lixy), their using live ammunition against bystanders…even the Israelis use rubber bullets against unarmed crowds.[/quote]

Lixy would most likely say the same thing he said about the Iranians hanging 15 year old rape victim Atefah Sahaaleh. She got what she deserved for being a slut.

Knowing Lixy’s leanings he is probably in Iran right now working for the Basij.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Never mind all that.
These people are incredibly brave. I think it’s a shame that we’re not doing anything to help them.
(Actually, I’d be surprised if we didn’t have some kind of covert presence.)

Agreed. But I don’t think we have any presence there at all, save outside news coming in. That’s why I want Obama to do his impression of the “tear down this wall” speech. Take a stand.

If Obama gives that speech, the hardliners will have the excuse they need (“foreign interference”) to crack down. Opposition will be crushed, and the hard-liners will take over. In this country, neocons like this scenario because then they will have the excuse they need to invade Iran.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pat Buchanan explain it better than I could here (About 6:15): MSN
[/quote]

Firstly, I’m not a neocon. Secondly, I believe that the gov’t will crush the opposition anyways, and from following this situation it is clear to me that most of the opposition has no idea how much any of these events are getting out to the world outside Iran. They want people in the outside world to know about what’s going on, and many people don’t know if anyone does.

Thirdly, I think that if this movement fails the middle class and educated reformists will sink back into the disillusionment towards democratic change and apathy that has prevented much serious change for decades now. They know the gov’t controls the media, the newspapers, everything. If this fails they will sink into oblivion for years again. In this scenario, having Obama taking a stand with a very public and strong “reagan-esque wall” speech will stand a very good chance of encouraging this faction of people. The news will seep into the country and maybe end up encouraging the reformists to not sink back into apathy.

One thing I think should be noted, and that is that that Ahmedinejad IS a hard liner, and IS already claiming American interference, and we haven’t even done anything. He will claim American interference REGARDLESS of whether we interfere or not. The only thing that will prevent that is Obama coming out and strongly endorsing Ahmedinejad’s presidency. That will not happen, nor should it, and that is the only way that the U.S. will avoid being accused of tampering. Therefore I believe that it will be better to encourage the opposition faction publicly and possibly embolden them, rather than do nothing or temporize and be accused of the inevitable tampering.

Obama is not going to come out strongly against Ahmadinejad/Khamenei because he is way too heavily invested in them politically. A big part of Obama’s presidential campaign was he would talk to Ahmadinejad. If Ahmadinejad is replaced by someone more negotiable Obama loses the opportunity to score politically.

Additionally Obama doesn’t want to offend Ahmadinejad before he talks with him because it may make it impossible for Obama to get anything out of the talks so Obama will lose a chance to score politically.

What it comes down to is the freedom of the Iranian people is inconsequential compared to Obama’s political career. Having a talk with Ahmadinejad is going to do more for Obama than the Iranian people sorting the matter out themselves.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Firstly, I’m not a neocon. Secondly, I believe that the gov’t will crush the opposition anyways, and from following this situation it is clear to me that most of the opposition has no idea how much any of these events are getting out to the world outside Iran. They want people in the outside world to know about what’s going on, and many people don’t know if anyone does.

Thirdly, I think that if this movement fails the middle class and educated reformists will sink back into the disillusionment towards democratic change and apathy that has prevented much serious change for decades now. They know the gov’t controls the media, the newspapers, everything. If this fails they will sink into oblivion for years again. [/quote]

Because as we all know, there are no satellite dishes in Tehran, the country disconnected from the Internet and radiowaves are stopped right at the border by the Ayatollah’s superpowers. Give me a break!

This is not a revolution. It’s Moussavi’s supporters flooding the streets because their candidate lost the election (if you got evidence of vote tempering, please provide it). Moussavi promised “change” which rang true with the women, and “hope” that caught up youngsters eager for more media access.

Reformists will shit on you, Obama and everything remotely connected to the underlying reasons they’re in the current predicament.

Nobody gives a damn what the US is accused of. And if you don’t think Washington is trying hard to destabilize Iran, you’re just naive.

It’s about perceptions, and Obama wants to keep plausible deniability. Iranians are about as likely to believe that the US is keeping off, as you are to believe Hamas doesn’t get help from Tehran.

After considering the views of lots of people on all sides who are decidedly much more qualified than myself to analyze this fiasco, as well as reading this whole thread, I am still stuck with the tentative conclusion that I don’t know what I think about this.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Nobody gives a damn what the US is accused of. And if you don’t think Washington is trying hard to destabilize Iran, you’re just naive.

It’s about perceptions, and Obama wants to keep plausible deniability. Iranians are about as likely to believe that the US is keeping off, as you are to believe Hamas doesn’t get help from Tehran.[/quote]

And if you have any evidence of this, please provide.

The last thing the U.S. needs is an unstable Iran.

No surprise you support the hard liners pumping hot lead in to the crowd.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
After considering the views of lots of people on all sides who are decidedly much more qualified than myself to analyze this fiasco, as well as reading this whole thread, I am still stuck with the tentative conclusion that I don’t know what I think about this.[/quote]

I know what to think. I think it rocks. I admire the balls of the Iranian people that even getting beaten and shot, they have not given up the fight. The ayatollah is not a supreme leader, he is just a supreme dick head. Ahmadinejad is a dick too, and I hope the crowd gets these fuckers out in a lynch mob and hangs them. No I don’t think it will happen, and I thin the actual body count is higher than 17, but who really knows.

My sincerest wishes and prayers go out the the Iranian protesters. May they succeed in getting their country back.
It’s a long shot, but just imagine if they succeed?!

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Obama is not going to come out strongly against Ahmadinejad/Khamenei because he is way too heavily invested in them politically. A big part of Obama’s presidential campaign was he would talk to Ahmadinejad. If Ahmadinejad is replaced by someone more negotiable Obama loses the opportunity to score politically.

Additionally Obama doesn’t want to offend Ahmadinejad before he talks with him because it may make it impossible for Obama to get anything out of the talks so Obama will lose a chance to score politically.

What it comes down to is the freedom of the Iranian people is inconsequential compared to Obama’s political career. Having a talk with Ahmadinejad is going to do more for Obama than the Iranian people sorting the matter out themselves.[/quote]

That is probably the most ridiculously biased spin I have ever heard on that. You should work for FauxNews

[quote]pat wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
After considering the views of lots of people on all sides who are decidedly much more qualified than myself to analyze this fiasco, as well as reading this whole thread, I am still stuck with the tentative conclusion that I don’t know what I think about this.

I know what to think. I think it rocks. I admire the balls of the Iranian people that even getting beaten and shot, they have not given up the fight. The ayatollah is not a supreme leader, he is just a supreme dick head. Ahmadinejad is a dick too, and I hope the crowd gets these fuckers out in a lynch mob and hangs them. No I don’t think it will happen, and I thin the actual body count is higher than 17, but who really knows.

My sincerest wishes and prayers go out the the Iranian protesters. May they succeed in getting their country back.
It’s a long shot, but just imagine if they succeed?![/quote]

That’s where I’m at too. What began as a simple election has spiraled out of control into a movement that has the potential to seriously change the landscape there. Remember that the French Revolution began over a bread riot…

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

If Obama gives that speech, the hardliners will have the excuse they need (“foreign interference”) to crack down. Opposition will be crushed, and the hard-liners will take over. In this country, neocons like this scenario because then they will have the excuse they need to invade Iran.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pat Buchanan explain it better than I could here (About 6:15): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#31443396

Firstly, I’m not a neocon.[/quote] Fair enough, but neocons are those primarily advocating this approach.

[quote] Secondly, I believe that the gov’t will crush the opposition anyways, and from following this situation it is clear to me that most of the opposition has no idea how much any of these events are getting out to the world outside Iran. They want people in the outside world to know about what’s going on, and many people don’t know if anyone does. [/quote] I’m not sure what extent you’re talking about here. People in the country are talking with people outside of the country. Media is curtailed but certainly lots of information is flowing both ways and no leaders are blind to this.

I agree with Kissinger on this one. What we don’t want is for the hardliners to have an excuse to crush the types of people you’re talking about. You’re worried that they’ll become “disillusioned” and “apathetic” I’m afraid they’ll become dead. The US DOES interfere in foreign elections and politicking (and often rightly so). In this case IMO they should not because nerves are still so raw.

[quote]
One thing I think should be noted, and that is that that Ahmedinejad IS a hard liner, and IS already claiming American interference, and we haven’t even done anything. He will claim American interference REGARDLESS of whether we interfere or not. The only thing that will prevent that is Obama coming out and strongly endorsing Ahmedinejad’s presidency. That will not happen, nor should it, and that is the only way that the U.S. will avoid being accused of tampering. Therefore I believe that it will be better to encourage the opposition faction publicly and possibly embolden them, rather than do nothing or temporize and be accused of the inevitable tampering.[/quote]

Yeah, he’s claiming interference. But there’s not much really. And a lot of people know there isn’t really interference. If this changes more people will move towards the hard liners. And what, exactly, would you like to embolden them to do? Violent revolution? Do you think they have a chance to win? They cannot win this through violence. But maybe if they continue on this course they can change their country (albeit only a small shift). Obama HAS said he supports them and their cause, to imply that we might help them militarily when we are not prepared to do so is dangerous beyond belief.

Neocons want action because neocons want to use American force to eliminate the nukes. They believe that if the hardliners are able to take over, or if they do crush the opposition, our hand will be forced. What makes you think the neocons are wrong?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Obama is not going to come out strongly against Ahmadinejad/Khamenei because he is way too heavily invested in them politically. A big part of Obama’s presidential campaign was he would talk to Ahmadinejad. If Ahmadinejad is replaced by someone more negotiable Obama loses the opportunity to score politically.

Additionally Obama doesn’t want to offend Ahmadinejad before he talks with him because it may make it impossible for Obama to get anything out of the talks so Obama will lose a chance to score politically.

What it comes down to is the freedom of the Iranian people is inconsequential compared to Obama’s political career. Having a talk with Ahmadinejad is going to do more for Obama than the Iranian people sorting the matter out themselves.

That is probably the most ridiculously biased spin I have ever heard on that. You should work for FauxNews
[/quote]

You’re right, he’s absolutely being absurd.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
After considering the views of lots of people on all sides who are decidedly much more qualified than myself to analyze this fiasco, as well as reading this whole thread, I am still stuck with the tentative conclusion that I don’t know what I think about this.[/quote]

I agree.

We need more pictures of Persian women protesting to make an informed decision.

Protesting what? I don’t really care, but protesting clothing would be a good start.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
After considering the views of lots of people on all sides who are decidedly much more qualified than myself to analyze this fiasco, as well as reading this whole thread, I am still stuck with the tentative conclusion that I don’t know what I think about this.

I agree.

We need more pictures of Persian women protesting to make an informed decision.

Protesting what? I don’t really care, but protesting clothing would be a good start.[/quote]

HAHAHA. Seconded.

[quote]pat wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
After considering the views of lots of people on all sides who are decidedly much more qualified than myself to analyze this fiasco, as well as reading this whole thread, I am still stuck with the tentative conclusion that I don’t know what I think about this.

I know what to think. I think it rocks. I admire the balls of the Iranian people that even getting beaten and shot, they have not given up the fight. The ayatollah is not a supreme leader, he is just a supreme dick head. Ahmadinejad is a dick too, and I hope the crowd gets these fuckers out in a lynch mob and hangs them. No I don’t think it will happen, and I thin the actual body count is higher than 17, but who really knows.

My sincerest wishes and prayers go out the the Iranian protesters. May they succeed in getting their country back.
It’s a long shot, but just imagine if they succeed?![/quote]

I meant I don’t know what I think our role, if any, should be.

It’s anything but a given that even if the protesters get their way, that that will spell a significant improvement in Iran’s international relations. It’s not even a given that Ahmadinejad actually lost this election. What if it turns out he actually won regardless of the precise numbers? That the majority of the people there actually voted for him?

I would find it interesting to say the least if people who usually decry our undue influence in the affairs of other sovereign nations suddenly find it a moral imperative that we support the overthrow of a duly elected foreign politician because he’s “a dick” (not you, but generally speaking)

Don’t get me wrong, I’d like nothing more than to see every nation be free, but contrary to popular belief about guys like me, I don’t see it as our responsibility to enforce democracy upon people who don’t want it as long as they leave the rest of the world alone.

As soon as somebody says [quote]“yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone”[/quote] we’re right back where we started and this whole protest thing is irrelevant.

If Mousavi got more votes it makes no difference. Ahmadinejad continues as the ayatollah’s guy. Truth is we’ll never know who got more votes so we’re left with the sensational assumption that the election was stolen because we can’t conceive of any scenario wherein people might approve of that government for themselves. Arrogant self absorbed Americans huh?

If the election WAS stolen, is it our problem to do anything about it any further than the long standing leadership threatens us or our allies? Maybe, maybe not.

If it WASN’T stolen the question is essentially the same except we find ourselves at odds with more of the Iranian population than some may wish to accept.

Bottom line is without the aid of foreign forces these protesters don’t have a prayer unless Iran’s military turns and sides with them. If force (from us) is deemed appropriate then why wasn’t it appropriate in Iraq? Or any other country where a certain % of the population wants change? If it isn’t appropriate then all we can do is cheerlead for either the utter instability of Iran and it’s nuclear program if the ayatollah is overthrown and or it’s essential continuation if Mousavi were to become the honcho.

On a very significant level I agree with Lixy. (Did I really just say that?) Every single one of these protesters in these crowds we’ve seen on TV still represent a small % of the overall Iranian population. If 10 million people stormed DC it would be a huge problem and a colossal news story making for some incredible video footage, but still only 3% of the population settling nothing.

There are no possible immediate outcomes very favorable to The United States and that’s I’m most concerned about. Yes, arrogant self absorbed American that I am.

EDIT: I reserve the right to revise any or all of the content of this post as, like I say, I’m far from settled on most of this topic.