Here’s a sad story.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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?!
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 “yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone” 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.[/quote]
Trib,
Somewhere W. is smiling. Surrounding iran with democracies (even in their early stages) was the right move.
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
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.
[/quote]
and I suppose you want these people squashed so you can go on with your “Death to America” chants.
You love irony, I do as well:
One who talks so highly about the Iranian people now thinks of them as sheep.
This is from the Associated Press:
^Iran bars funeral for opposition icon<
^
CAIRO (AP) _ It seems there will be no public funeral today for
a woman who some are calling ``Iran’s Joan of Arc.‘’
Amateur video of a young woman identified as Neda bleeding in
the streets hit Facebook and YouTube this weekend and swiftly
became an iconic image of Iran’s opposition movement. Many are
calling her a martyr.
if Israel did this, we wouldn’t hear the end of it.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
<<< Trib,
Somewhere W. is smiling. Surrounding iran with democracies (even in their early stages) was the right move.
JeffR
[/quote]
I supported the Iraq campaign and still do, but I’m not sure if our actions there have any bearing on what’s going on in Iran now if that’s what you mean.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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?!
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 “yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone” 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.[/quote]
There really isn’t a whole lot we can do. The best thing we can do is pipe as much footage of the crack down as possible and plaster the TV with it. Otherwise, we can’t really do anything, it’s an internal problem. Information is our best weapon…I am all for screwing with the regime…A good media blitz should get their panties in a wad.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
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?!
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 “yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone” 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.
Trib,
Somewhere W. is smiling. Surrounding iran with democracies (even in their early stages) was the right move.
JeffR
[/quote]
Could you please point out the “democracies” Iran is surrounded by, how Iran is less democratic than any of them and why “democracy” is necessarily a good thing, in Iran or anywhere else.
[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]
What the fuck? Are you joking or are you really that stupid?
[quote]pat wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
<<< 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 “yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone” 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.
There really isn’t a whole lot we can do. The best thing we can do is pipe as much footage of the crack down as possible and plaster the TV with it. Otherwise, we can’t really do anything, it’s an internal problem. Information is our best weapon…I am all for screwing with the regime…A good media blitz should get their panties in a wad.
[/quote]
Some may find this surprising, but I don’t believe this nation is responsible for making the world a better place except as an ancillary bonus to our acting in our own self preservation and interest and that of our allies.
My concern with Iran is their potential forced exportation of their way of life. If they want to be a barbaric Islamic state, I would find that very unfortunate, maybe even heartbreaking, but nonetheless their problem until they become a threat to us or our allies. They have been that threat and that in my book is what makes them our problem. Not whether they have a free society as desirable as that may be. The trouble is I am unconvinced at this point, though I may become so, that Mousavi and a bunch of kids are THAT much better for us and maybe even themselves than what we have now.
Mousavi’s major credential is that he is not personally Ahmadinejad. For all we actually know he could be using this whole uproar to simply gain pretty much the same kind of power for himself that has been there already. His track record lends more than a little credence to some version of this. Not to mention the fact that he is the architect of Iran’s nuclear program.
I just don’t see this as a clearly defined case of [quote]“Iran is saved and the west can breathe easy if the protesters get their way”[/quote].
I disagree entirely with conservatives who are saying this is analogous to Reagan’s Berlin wall speech and Obama should necessarily do the same. With the exception of the potential nuclear threat nothing Iran could ever be is in the same universe with what was represented by the Berlin wall. I’m also not saying he maybe shouldn’t do more. Maybe he should. He’ll do whatever he thinks is in his best political interest, that much is certain. I’m just not seeing a night and day difference for us whatever happens there.
As for this Neda person. A heart rending tragedy to be sure and horrible to see. However, by the time I’m done typing this there will have been several acts of unthinkable violence on our own streets with the distinct possibility of being much more depraved and grisly. Why are we so exercised over somebody on the other side of the world while parents here grieve their molested and murdered young children every day? This young woman’s murder, while horrific, is tame compared to the butchery that goes on in our cities all the time.
[quote]PB Andy 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.
What the fuck? Are you joking or are you really that stupid? [/quote]
Did you listen to Obama’s first comments on the uprising where he was quite favorable to the supreme leader and Ahmadinejad? Are you aware of the deals that Obama is trying to make with the Iranians right now or are you just ignorantly spouting off at people who criticize your hero?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This young woman’s murder, while horrific, is tame compared to the butchery that goes on in our cities all the time.
[/quote]
Because it’s not a random act of violence by a criminal.
It is an act of violence showcasing the barbarity of the Iranian government.
(and who says no one here cares about child molestations or violence in this country?)
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
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]
I’ll get to the rest of your post later when I have more time and the inclination to try and articulate my thoughts in detail. For now, we’ll just say I don’t give a shit about the nukes. Well, I do, but I wasn’t even thinking about the nukes when I wrote my posts in this thread. I do NOT want to use force if it can be avoided. Normalizing relations would be my ideal, but that requires people in power other than those currently holding the reins, and a public that favors increased freedoms and a more friendly relationship to the US.
And “normal” as in not so openly hostile, not as in best friend type relations.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My concern with Iran is their potential forced exportation of their way of life. If they want to be a barbaric Islamic state, I would find that very unfortunate, maybe even heartbreaking, but nonetheless their problem until they become a threat to us or our allies. They have been that threat and that in my book is what makes them our problem. Not whether they have a free society as desirable as that may be. The trouble is I am unconvinced at this point, though I may become so, that Mousavi and a bunch of kids are THAT much better for us and maybe even themselves than what we have now.
Mousavi’s major credential is that he is not personally Ahmadinejad. For all we actually know he could be using this whole uproar to simply gain pretty much the same kind of power for himself that has been there already. His track record lends more than a little credence to some version of this. Not to mention the fact that he is the architect of Iran’s nuclear program.
I just don’t see this as a clearly defined case of “Iran is saved and the west can breathe easy if the protesters get their way”.
I disagree entirely with conservatives who are saying this is analogous to Reagan’s Berlin wall speech and Obama should necessarily do the same. With the exception of the potential nuclear threat nothing Iran could ever be is in the same universe with what was represented by the Berlin wall.
[/quote]
First, I agree with you that Mousavi’s major credential is that he is not Ahmedinejad in person. He is not a George Washington type figure or anything remotely near a westernized version of a democratic president. You may very well be correct about him.
However, should he win the day (huge IF), he and most of the other people who remain in power will be forced to recognize the part of the populace that propelled them there and follow up with at least a few things that the reformists could call “increased freedom for all”. It would be political suicide to do anything other than represent them in the short term. Whether that remains the way it would work after a while in power, who knows. But it would be ridiculous to turn around and immediately do anything to offend the part of the population that rioted and got beaten and shot up to get you into office.
Second, as far as the “berlin wall” part of my posts is concerned, this is nowhere near analogous to that time in history. I am acutely aware of the numerous differences. However, that was the only thing I could think of off the top of my head to illustrate that I wished Obama would give open support to the reformists. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
<<< Trib,
Somewhere W. is smiling. Surrounding iran with democracies (even in their early stages) was the right move.
JeffR
I supported the Iraq campaign and still do, but I’m not sure if our actions there have any bearing on what’s going on in Iran now if that’s what you mean.
[/quote]
Hey, Trib.
iranian Shia influence has been and is quite apparent in Iraq. They’ve been talking.
I’m a firm believer that people will usually choose freedom.
Now that the iranians see what real democracy looks like, they are hungry for it.
[quote]pat wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
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?!
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 “yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone” 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.
There really isn’t a whole lot we can do. The best thing we can do is pipe as much footage of the crack down as possible and plaster the TV with it. Otherwise, we can’t really do anything, it’s an internal problem. Information is our best weapon…I am all for screwing with the regime…A good media blitz should get their panties in a wad.
[/quote]
Yep, but, obama should have said from day one: “I’m for democracy. No options are off the table.”
See JFK, “We’ll bear any burden,…”
democrats used to understand.
[quote]orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
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?!
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 “yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone” 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.
Trib,
Somewhere W. is smiling. Surrounding iran with democracies (even in their early stages) was the right move.
JeffR
Could you please point out the “democracies” Iran is surrounded by, how Iran is less democratic than any of them and why “democracy” is necessarily a good thing, in Iran or anywhere else.
[/quote]
Hey, bota.
See new york times, February, 2009.
You might have heard of that paper.
It’s the closest we have to an austrian newspaper.
Thankfully, it’s about to go out of business.
JeffR
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
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?
I’ll get to the rest of your post later when I have more time and the inclination to try and articulate my thoughts in detail. For now, we’ll just say I don’t give a shit about the nukes. Well, I do, but I wasn’t even thinking about the nukes when I wrote my posts in this thread. I do NOT want to use force if it can be avoided. Normalizing relations would be my ideal, but that requires people in power other than those currently holding the reins, and a public that favors increased freedoms and a more friendly relationship to the US.
And “normal” as in not so openly hostile, not as in best friend type relations.[/quote]
Nukes really should be the first thing you think of in terms of Iran and our interests with Iran. All actions should be taken with their ramifications towards Iran’s nuclear capacities/program. This should be the very first thing that goes through your mind when you think about this type of stuff.
How do you think we should work towards normalization? How do you think Obama giving a “berlin wall” speech will push towards normalization?!? To my mind, your ends are completely at odds with your means.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
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?!
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 “yeah well this bunch isn’t into leaving the rest of the world alone” 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.
Trib,
Somewhere W. is smiling. Surrounding iran with democracies (even in their early stages) was the right move.
JeffR
Could you please point out the “democracies” Iran is surrounded by, how Iran is less democratic than any of them and why “democracy” is necessarily a good thing, in Iran or anywhere else.
Hey, bota.
See new york times, February, 2009.
You might have heard of that paper.
It’s the closest we have to an austrian newspaper.
Thankfully, it’s about to go out of business.
JeffR
[/quote]
So you are saying that Iran already was the most democratic nation in the region, that being able to vote for a puppet regime set up by Washington is neither “democratic” nor “inspiring” and that the chances in these countries are pretty good that religious hardliners are elected, like in Algeria, Turkey, Palestine.
Well, I thought so.
Any additional thoughts on how America was never intended to be a democracy with an elected dictator but a republic with a weak executive and how the democratic element grew like a cancer to destroy the republic from within?
Bonus points on why that model is better suited to the Middle east and Iran in particular.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
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.
and I suppose you want these people squashed so you can go on with your “Death to America” chants.
You love irony, I do as well:
One who talks so highly about the Iranian people now thinks of them as sheep.
-
The whole freaking world is uncertain of what the real election results were (too bad obvservers were not allowed, huh?), but dickhead Lixy “knows” that, “It’s Moussavi’s supporters flooding the streets because their candidate lost the election.”
-
The Mullahs themselves have now admitted that there was tampering with the votes (my favorite is how more than 100% of the voters voted – rflmao), so somebdody please tell dys-Lixia that his “if you got evidence of vote tempering, please provide it” is now irrelevant.
[/quote]
I wonder what is really going on here.
Their Guardian Council or whatever it is called concluded that in some districts more than 100% voted any´d yet there is no evidence of voter fraud.
I think that they have been ordered to lie and the are following that order by lying so badly that it is obvious.
I do not think that the ayatollahs have as tight a grip on the country as they would like us to believe. Their threats get shriller and shriller but if they actually put tanks on the street how sure can they be that those young soldiers will obey orders?