PDA

View Full Version : Ahmadinejad wins landslide in disputed election



SarasotaRepub
06-13-2009, 08:41 AM
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a landslide election victory despite protests by his main challenger of "blatant violations."

Ahmadinejad won 62.63 percent of the vote while chief rival Mir Hossein Moussavi received 33.75 percent, the Iranian government said Saturday.

Before the final results were announced Moussavi addressed the people of Iran in a sharply worded letter. "I recommend to the authorities that before it is late to stop this process immediately, and to return to the path of the rule of law and the holding of the public trust through the votes of the people," he said.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, called the voters' turnout a show of Iran's "pride" and "honor."

Sadeq Mahsouli, the country's interior minister, on Saturday lauded the "unprecedented" turnout. He had said 70 percent of 46 million eligible voters had gone to the polls. Turnout could have been as 80 percent of eligible voters, Iran's poll chief said.

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/index.html)


No surprise here.

Bubba Dawg
06-13-2009, 09:40 AM
Like you said, no surprise. Jeez.

I figured they'd be stuck with this turkey if he was the choice of the religious leaders.

stsinner
06-13-2009, 01:00 PM
Wow, that's quite a reversal of yesterday's hopeful news..

lacarnut
06-13-2009, 02:04 PM
That sorta puts a damper on those that theorize that a coup may be possible due to the people's dissatisfaction with the current administration.

Odysseus
06-13-2009, 06:24 PM
That sorta puts a damper on those that theorize that a coup may be possible due to the people's dissatisfaction with the current administration.

There are riots going on all over Iran right now. That usually doesn't happen when a popular incumbent is reelected. Here are some analysts' comments from Reuters: (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE55C0W620090613)

KARIM SADJAPOUR, ANALYST AT CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE:

"I don't think anyone anticipated this level of fraudulence. This was a selection, not an election. At least authoritarian regimes like Syria and Egypt have no democratic pretences. In retrospect it appears this entire campaign was a show: (Supreme Leader) Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei wasn't ever going to let Ahmadinejad lose."


MARK FITZPATRICK, SENIOR FELLOW FOR NON-PROLIFERATION AT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES IN LONDON:

"I'm surprised at the regime's audacity in declaring such a large margin for Ahmadinejad, given that in the run-up, the momentum seemed to be in the other direction. The hardliners in the regime seem to have exercised all their levers of power to keep Ahmadinejad in place. Undoubtedly, one of the key reasons was their concern about losing control of the country through policies such as willingness to engage with the United States.

"All of the candidates wanted U.S. engagement, including Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader, but the Supreme Leader wanted it to be on his timetable and his agenda. So Ahmadinejad's victory does not mean there cannot be engagement. He just wants credit for it. What it does mean is that there will be no change in the management of the nuclear portfolio. Ahmadinejad wants engagement with the United States without making any concessions at all in the nuclear program. So it doesn't augur well for an early and peaceful settlement of the nuclear dispute."

ALI ANSARI, DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTE FOR IRANIAN STUDIES AT UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS IN SCOTLAND:

"The election results are incredible. It's just nonsense ... If it was a genuine election landslide, surely people should be out on the streets in euphoria ...

"The potential for unrest is high. People will wake up today in Iran in a state of shock, not that Ahmadinejad has won, but that he has won on such a dramatic scale ... The scale of the election victory that they have given Ahmadinejad means he must have won big in the cities. That is simply not borne out by what people were saying in the major cities (before the vote)."

ELLIOTT ABRAMS, FORMER SENIOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL NOW WITH THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS:

"Both the apparent victory and the apparent fraud greatly complicate the Obama strategy. My advice is that they had better be thinking about more sanctions. The one hope might be that if a new Ahmadinejad government is viewed as illegitimate by many Iranians, that government might be anxious to avoid further economic distress. In that context, sanctions that bite might be a powerful tool and might push the regime into a serious negotiation. But it is more likely that the engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.

"At this point one has to wonder about vote fraud. The two-to-one margin for Ahmadinejad may well appear to millions of Iranians as bizarre and unlikely, and meant to avoid a run-off he might lose. If that's what millions of voters think, especially young voters in this very young country (70 percent of the population is under age 30), there could well be large demonstrations. And the legitimacy not only of an Ahmadinejad second term, but of the whole regime, would be in question in the eyes of many Iranians."


TRITA PARSI, PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL IRANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL:

"I'm in disbelief that this could be the case. It's one thing if Ahmadinejad had won the first round with 51 or 55 percent. But this number ... just sounds tremendously strange in a way that doesn't add up ... It is difficult to feel comfortable that this occurred without any cheating.

This has apparently happened before. Here's part of an article from Iranfocus.com about the previous election:


Iran election fraud: 298,000 votes from 270,000 eligible in NE province
Wednesday, 22 June 2005
Iran Focus

Tehran, Jun. 22 – In Iran’s South Khorrasan province (north-eastern Iran) 298,000 ballots were counted in the first round of the presidential elections despite the fact that there were only 270,000 eligible voters, a defeated presidential candidate stated in a conference yesterday evening.

Mehdi Karroubi, a long-time confidant of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and two-time former Majlis (Parliament) Speaker, said, “298,000 votes were placed in the ballot box from 270,000 eligible voters in South Khorrasan”.

snip

Iran’s Interior Ministry placed voter-turnout at 62 percent, a figure previously “predicted” by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while the Iranian opposition Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK), having unofficial monitors at 15,000 polling stations across the country, put voter-turnout at about 10 percent.

Karroubi’s allegations and a similar statement by the main student union inside the country seemed to lend credence to the opposition claims that a large majority of Iranians stayed away from the polls on Friday...

They're not fooling anybody.

lacarnut
06-13-2009, 06:35 PM
There are riots going on all over Iran right now. That usually doesn't happen when a popular incumbent is reelected. Here are some analysts' comments from Reuters: (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE55C0W620090613)








This has apparently happened before. Here's part of an article from Iranfocus.com about the previous election:



They're not fooling anybody.

I don't know who or what to believe. The Iranian resistance should not count on much help from the Magic Negro though.

SarasotaRepub
06-13-2009, 08:13 PM
I'm sure the DUmmies will say that this is all
a conspiracy to embarrass President Obama by:

1.) Bu$hitlerMcCokeSpoon
2.) BFEE
3.) Lord Rove
4.) Darth Cheney
5.) Rummy.

OR...

The DUmmies will say it was all fair and square
and proves no one...including:

1.) Bu$hitlerMcCokeSpoon
2.) BFEE
3.) Lord Rove
4.) Darth Cheney
5.) Rummy.

can interfere with obviously 100% accurate and corruption free elections from those
freedom loving Mullahs in Iran!

:rolleyes::D

AHeneen
06-13-2009, 09:47 PM
I'm hoping for a second revolution. It was students who led the first one...

Rockntractor
06-13-2009, 09:58 PM
I'm hoping for a second revolution. It was students who led the first one...
I hope the real winner keeps his head about him or on him. Whatever!

PoliCon
06-13-2009, 10:33 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

oh fun

Rockntractor
06-13-2009, 10:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

oh fun
It warms my heart to see them yelling at each other instead of us for a change.

PoliCon
06-13-2009, 10:59 PM
It warms my heart to see them yelling at each other instead of us for a change.

and what about when Barry wants to go in and prop up Amadinjihad?

Rockntractor
06-13-2009, 11:07 PM
and what about when Barry wants to go in and prop up Amadinjihad?
Arm both sides and make some popcorn.

stsinner
06-14-2009, 12:10 AM
Damn, ACORN is in Iran, too? I heard the other guy won.

Japandroid
06-14-2009, 05:11 AM
If this is Barack Obama's idea, he's a pretty smart guy.

lacarnut
06-14-2009, 07:56 AM
If this is Barack Obama's idea, he's a pretty smart guy.

What, his apology tour or checking out the Prince's crotch.

Japandroid
06-14-2009, 08:35 AM
What, his apology tour or checking out the Prince's crotch.

No, destabilizing a supposed nuclear threat by turning the constituency of one of our most outspoken critics into a rioting frenzy. Wanna know how you get democracy in the Middle East? Take notes.

Of course, Obama was not behind this. The people who fixed those polls were just incredibly complacent and lazy.

lacarnut
06-14-2009, 09:21 AM
No, destabilizing a supposed nuclear threat by turning the constituency of one of our most outspoken critics into a rioting frenzy. Wanna know how you get democracy in the Middle East? Take notes.

Of course, Obama was not behind this. The people who fixed those polls were just incredibly complacent and lazy.

The election of a figure head President has zero effect on the nuclear threat by Iran. In other words, the election makes no difference in that respect.

Sucking up to our enemies is a sign of weakness that Iran and North Korea has picked up on. What is the Magic Negro going to do about the rockets N.K. is shooting off. Bush screwed up by taking several santions off that need to be put back on.

Teetop
06-14-2009, 09:37 AM
Damn, ACORN is in Iran, too? I heard the other guy won.

As a matter of fact.... (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/13/acorn-in-iran/)

Odysseus
06-14-2009, 04:53 PM
I don't know who or what to believe. The Iranian resistance should not count on much help from the Magic Negro though.
Not a bit. He'll reach out to Ahmedinejad and legitimize him in hope that it will start a "dialogue" and alienate the resistance.

If this is Barack Obama's idea, he's a pretty smart guy.
But it isn't, and he isn't.

No, destabilizing a supposed nuclear threat by turning the constituency of one of our most outspoken critics into a rioting frenzy. Wanna know how you get democracy in the Middle East? Take notes.
Of course, Obama was not behind this. The people who fixed those polls were just incredibly complacent and lazy.
This isn't how you get democracy in the Middle East, it's just how one power structure fights to stay in power against a challenger. There are only two democracies in the Middle East, Israel and Iraq. Every other country there is either a monarchy or a dictatorship. Democracy in the Middle East comes from somebody knowing what it looks like and being willing to fight for it.

lacarnut
06-14-2009, 06:01 PM
Not a bit. He'll reach out to Ahmedinejad and legitimize him in hope that it will start a "dialogue" and alienate the resistance.

But it isn't, and he isn't.

.

Correct, Obama is going to suck up to our enemies (Iran) and kick our friends (Israel) in the ass.

megimoo
06-14-2009, 09:53 PM
Correct, Obama is going to suck up to our enemies (Iran) and kick our friends (Israel) in the ass.It looks like Obama just started a civil war in Iran !

Teetop
06-14-2009, 10:33 PM
It looks like Obama just started a civil war in Iran !

Obama lied, Persians died? :o

Japandroid
06-15-2009, 05:41 AM
This isn't how you get democracy in the Middle East, it's just how one power structure fights to stay in power against a challenger.
Why? Because America isn't bombing the piss out of Iran right now? Is this first prerequisite for becoming a Middle Eastern democracy having America wipe its fingers all over your country?


There are only two democracies in the Middle East, Israel and Iraq. Every other country there is either a monarchy or a dictatorship. Democracy in the Middle East comes from somebody knowing what it looks like and being willing to fight for it.
Like a BUNCH OF ANGRY CITIZENS RIOTING IN THE STREETS?

You're stupid. Really. Fucking. Stupid.

Odysseus
06-15-2009, 02:21 PM
Why? Because America isn't bombing the piss out of Iran right now? Is this first prerequisite for becoming a Middle Eastern democracy having America wipe its fingers all over your country?
Like a BUNCH OF ANGRY CITIZENS RIOTING IN THE STREETS?
You're stupid. Really. Fucking. Stupid.

I'm stupid? What do you know about Middle East culture and politics?

Look at the "reform" platform of Mousavi. Does he oppose expansion of the Islamic revolution and subordinating secular governments in the surrounding states to Sharia law as interpreted by the Council? Does he advocate disarming bloodthirsty proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah and abandoning Iran's nuclear program? Does he intend to stop providing funding and weapons to Shia militias in Iraq and attempting to destabilize the government there? If the answer to any of these questions were yes, do you really think that he'd have been on the ballot in the first place?

The election was a sham from the get go. The Council of Guardians vetted all of the candidates prior to the election and eliminated anyone who would seriously challenge their authority. The riots are a reflection of popular outrage, but they won't change anything because whichever candidate is appointed, the mullahs are still in charge.

He's the good cop to Ahmedinejad's bad cop, but they're two sides of the same coin. It's that simple, and if you can't see that, then you need to watch who you call stupid.

xavierob82
06-15-2009, 07:09 PM
Mousavi was the liberal in this race. His strongest base of support = women, young people, urban dwellers, college-educated, reformers, and not to mention he was seen as the more pro-Obama, pro-Western candidate of the two.

Ahmedenijad = the religious conservative whacko who enjoyed support amongst the rural voters, the paranoids, and the relgious. Like an Iranian version of Dumbya. Though not quite as stupid.

Rockntractor
06-15-2009, 07:20 PM
Mousavi was the liberal in this race. His strongest base of support = women, young people, urban dwellers, college-educated, reformers, and not to mention he was seen as the more pro-Obama, pro-Western candidate of the two.

Ahmedenijad = the religious conservative whacko who enjoyed support amongst the rural voters, the paranoids, and the relgious. Like an Iranian version of Dumbya. Though not quite as stupid.
Well now arn't you just extra special. Did you just come crawling up from a well.

Gingersnap
06-15-2009, 08:43 PM
Mousavi was the liberal in this race. His strongest base of support = women, young people, urban dwellers, college-educated, reformers, and not to mention he was seen as the more pro-Obama, pro-Western candidate of the two.

Ahmedenijad = the religious conservative whacko who enjoyed support amongst the rural voters, the paranoids, and the relgious. Like an Iranian version of Dumbya. Though not quite as stupid.

To my knowledge, Bush didn't drag an extra chair around with him on the off chance that Christ would need additional seating after the Second Coming.

That was one of the less insane beliefs of Ahmedenijad.

Odysseus
06-15-2009, 10:05 PM
Mousavi was the liberal in this race. His strongest base of support = women, young people, urban dwellers, college-educated, reformers, and not to mention he was seen as the more pro-Obama, pro-Western candidate of the two.

Ahmedenijad = the religious conservative whacko who enjoyed support amongst the rural voters, the paranoids, and the relgious. Like an Iranian version of Dumbya. Though not quite as stupid.

If you were wondering if you were missed, you weren't.

WatersEdge
06-16-2009, 12:20 AM
Why? Because America isn't bombing the piss out of Iran right now? Is this first prerequisite for becoming a Middle Eastern democracy having America wipe its fingers all over your country?


Like a BUNCH OF ANGRY CITIZENS RIOTING IN THE STREETS?

You're stupid. Really. Fucking. Stupid.

--Dood. You sound angy; and seriously confused.

PoliCon
06-16-2009, 12:29 AM
http://jenden.us/storage/JD/img/must_not_feed_the_troll.jpg

Rockntractor
06-16-2009, 12:35 AM
xavier And jappy are mad because they can't legally marry and are taking it out on us.

noonwitch
06-16-2009, 09:13 AM
I think the election results are bs. The Today Show was showing the protests in Tehran-it's a very large crowd. If they can do like the russians did, and get the army to take their side, it could be good, for them and for the sake of their neighbors.

I just hope it doesn't end like the Tiannaman Square protests.

Odysseus
06-16-2009, 11:07 AM
I think the election results are bs. The Today Show was showing the protests in Tehran-it's a very large crowd. If they can do like the russians did, and get the army to take their side, it could be good, for them and for the sake of their neighbors.

I just hope it doesn't end like the Tiannaman Square protests.

Iran has several armies, for lack of a better term. There is the actual armed force that is analogous to a regular military, with a total active strength of about 945,000, but there is also the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij. Think SS and Sturmarbeilung as analogies. The Revolutionary Guards is basically the Iranian military in microcosm, with its own navy, air force, conventional ground forces and Special Forces (called the Quds Force). Their estimated strength is around 125,000, which puts them at about an eighth of the regular military, but they're better equipped and trained.

The Basij is sort of a combination SA and Hitler Youth. It's a paramilitary volunteer force that is controlled by the Revolutionary Guards and provides them with recruits and reserve manpower. The official membership is 12.6 million, including women, with a further claim of 3 million combat ready troops, but a 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated a more realistic 90,000 active-duty, 300,000 reservists, and possible1 million mobilization reserve.

If the army came over to the side of the protesters en masse, they'd find themselve up against the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, which would mean a full on civil war, but that's assuming that the military isn't loyal to the mullahs. This is where the CIA would normally have lots of HUMINT assets on the ground in order to determine the most likely course of action that the military would take and to attempt to bring them over to the opposition in the event that the riots continue, but given the sorry state of our intel agencies, and the fact that Panetta is busier attacking Dick Cheney than he is doing his job, I have very little confidence in our ability to influence events there without overt aid.

Teetop
06-16-2009, 04:14 PM
Iran has several armies, for lack of a better term. There is the actual armed force that is analogous to a regular military, with a total active strength of about 945,000, but there is also the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij. Think SS and Sturmarbeilung as analogies. The Revolutionary Guards is basically the Iranian military in microcosm, with its own navy, air force, conventional ground forces and Special Forces (called the Quds Force). Their estimated strength is around 125,000, which puts them at about an eighth of the regular military, but they're better equipped and trained.

The Basij is sort of a combination SA and Hitler Youth. It's a paramilitary volunteer force that is controlled by the Revolutionary Guards and provides them with recruits and reserve manpower. The official membership is 12.6 million, including women, with a further claim of 3 million combat ready troops, but a 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated a more realistic 90,000 active-duty, 300,000 reservists, and possible1 million mobilization reserve.

If the army came over to the side of the protesters en masse, they'd find themselve up against the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, which would mean a full on civil war, but that's assuming that the military isn't loyal to the mullahs. This is where the CIA would normally have lots of HUMINT assets on the ground in order to determine the most likely course of action that the military would take and to attempt to bring them over to the opposition in the event that the riots continue, but given the sorry state of our intel agencies, and the fact that Panetta is busier attacking Dick Cheney than he is doing his job, I have very little confidence in our ability to influence events there without overt aid.

I read about 20 blogs a day for news and information. This one (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-free-iraq-coming-home-to-roost-in.html)
might interest a few people...

In the weeks prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Johns Hopkins Professor and noted Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami wrote (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003064) that a free Iraq might have a profound impact on neighboring Iran:


It is in the nature of things today, in an Iranian society deeply divided between those who would bury the revolution and join the world, and others hell-bent on keeping the theocracy, and their own dominion, intact, that the American drive against Iraq would be defined by that chasm. For those who want to normalize Iran, the thunder of war against Iraq is the coming of a blessed rain. The Americans would be nearby, but what of it? Liberty is rarely a foreigner's gift, and no American war in Iran's neighborhood will settle the fight between theocratic zealots and those in Iran who have twice, in presidential elections, cast their votes for a reform that never came. But the "contagion effect" of a liberated Iraq will no doubt have a role to play in the fight for Iran's future. In Persia, there will be multitudes hoping that the foreigner's storm will be mighty enough to clear their foul sky.


In light of the protests by hundreds of thousands of Iranians over election fraud and in favor of reform, one has to wonder whether Ajami's prophecy has come true. While I have not seen reports of protesters shouting "Iraq is free and so should we," one would not expect such a direct correlation.

Nonetheless, the effects of a free Iraq, in which there is a multitude of competing parties and widespread economic freedom, must be great on the Iranians. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iranians visit Iraq annually. Iraq has maintained a Shiite Islamic character for the most part without the repressive policies of Iran.

While Iraq still is subjected to violence, the contrast between the direction Iraq is moving, and the stagnant Iran, could not be more clear, and must not be lost on Iranians in the streets

Odysseus
06-16-2009, 05:11 PM
I read about 20 blogs a day for news and information. This one (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-free-iraq-coming-home-to-roost-in.html)
might interest a few people...

In the weeks prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Johns Hopkins Professor and noted Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami wrote (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003064) that a free Iraq might have a profound impact on neighboring Iran:




In light of the protests by hundreds of thousands of Iranians over election fraud and in favor of reform, one has to wonder whether Ajami's prophecy has come true. While I have not seen reports of protesters shouting "Iraq is free and so should we," one would not expect such a direct correlation.

Nonetheless, the effects of a free Iraq, in which there is a multitude of competing parties and widespread economic freedom, must be great on the Iranians. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iranians visit Iraq annually. Iraq has maintained a Shiite Islamic character for the most part without the repressive policies of Iran.

While Iraq still is subjected to violence, the contrast between the direction Iraq is moving, and the stagnant Iran, could not be more clear, and must not be lost on Iranians in the streets

I really enjoy Ajami's columns and you've reminded me that a few years ago, right after the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, there was a moment when even the most delusional BDS sufferers were questioning whether Bush was right about democracy in the Middle East. I'm surprised that so few outlets picked up on the rejection of Iran by the Lebanese in their election last week as a harbinger of this rejection of the mullahs. Unfortunately, no matter who wins the election, it's not likely to change much in Iran as long as the Council of Guardians is the real power behind the government. The best outcome that could happen right now would be if Iran followed the Russian model in the late 80s, when Gorbachev's reforms failed, the entire government apparatus was rejected by the people and the USSR collapsed. A complete collapse of the mullacracy would be in Iran's favor in the long run, but unfortunately, I don't see Mousavi as another Yeltsin (despite his claims to liberal reform, he's a cleric and I don't see him attacking the legitimacy of Islam as the governing model), much less a Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa, which is what Iran really needs.

Teetop
06-16-2009, 05:24 PM
I really enjoy Ajami's columns and you've reminded me that a few years ago, right after the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, there was a moment when even the most delusional BDS sufferers were questioning whether Bush was right about democracy in the Middle East. I'm surprised that so few outlets picked up on the rejection of Iran by the Lebanese in their election last week as a harbinger of this rejection of the mullahs. Unfortunately, no matter who wins the election, it's not likely to change much in Iran as long as the Council of Guardians is the real power behind the government. The best outcome that could happen right now would be if Iran followed the Russian model in the late 80s, when Gorbachev's reforms failed, the entire government apparatus was rejected by the people and the USSR collapsed. A complete collapse of the mullacracy would be in Iran's favor in the long run, but unfortunately, I don't see Mousavi as another Yeltsin (despite his claims to liberal reform, he's a cleric and I don't see him attacking the legitimacy of Islam as the governing model), much less a Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa, which is what Iran really needs.

I believe the older Iranians have told the younger one's about the freedom's they had under the Shah. Although the Shah was brutal, they still had more freedoms than they do now.

The Cedar Revolution was just one, of many to come (hopefully).

thinker
06-16-2009, 11:09 PM
Developing:

http://www.americasright.com/2009/06/pence-introduces-resolution-supporting.html

Congressman Mark Pence is tendering a resolution in support of the Iranian people on behalf of the US. I heard an interview on my way home from work tonight between him and whatever tool is the BBC's 10:00pm EST interviewer; the BBC man basically argued every which way but sideways that this was a "horrible idea" and that Pence was "risking meddling" in another country's internal affairs; Pence was very well spoken and defended himself admirably, without having to bash Obama (in fact, several times he supported the President, which I found rather interesting, because it only puts more pressure on Obama to make stronger and clearer actions regarding this entire mess [which is a good thing]).

At one point, when the BBC interviewer questioned whether or not America should be making statements at all, Pence replied "well, I suppose if Ronald Reagan had said that the Berlin Wall was an internal matter between the German people and the USSR, we could have avoided meddling in their affairs, too."

Zing! Why haven't I heard more from this guy before? He's a much more effective Republican counter to Mr. Obama than Bobby Jindal or Rushbait.

The one concern I have over this entire resolution is that I hope that it's nuanced correctly - while the BBC head was a complete jerk, he did have one germane point - if the pro-Ahmedinajad (sp, I know, I know) factions in Iran can turn this around into a "Great Satan" debate, then it could hurt a lot more than it helps. But if it is done right, the Berlin Wall scenario just might repeat itself.

The ramblings of an overactive mind, I suppose.

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 11:29 AM
Pence does not get favorable press coverage - he's an actual conservative. I had hoped that he might run in the last election but it was not meant to be. Perhaps this time he'll run . . . .

Nubs
06-17-2009, 04:25 PM
Musavi is a moderating force who presided over the executions of 7,000 persons in a three month span shortly after the revolution in '79. Still think we should back this agent of "Change" without question?

For all our hopes of Iranian "sunshine and lollipops", we should be more critical. "Yes, we can" can quickly turn into "Oh sh*t, we did".

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 10:15 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/jun/17/iran-election-rigging sounds like ACORN has been active in Iran as well . . . .

thinker
06-17-2009, 10:39 PM
I couldn't care less who we back. I just want Amedinijahd out, and Iran to have to deal with something other than nuclear weapons or the Great Satan. About time they had internal issues of their own to deal with; they've been meddling in the rest of the region without issue for far too long.

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 10:41 PM
I couldn't care less who we back. I just want Amedinijahd out, and Iran to have to deal with something other than nuclear weapons or the Great Satan. About time they had internal issues of their own to deal with; they've been meddling in the rest of the region without issue for far too long.

Seems the Bush doctrine has been successful. :)

thinker
06-17-2009, 11:10 PM
:rolleyes:

CueSi
06-18-2009, 08:08 PM
If anyone is interested and has twitter, they can follow in real Time on Twitter here----------> Iran Election (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23iranelection).

Some of the contributors are from w/in Iran and are doing this at great risk, Twitter said they'd stay open for them. Many are using proxies to log in and post their updates.

~QC

Odysseus
06-18-2009, 09:03 PM
If anyone is interested and has twitter, they can follow in real Time on Twitter here----------> Iran Election (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23iranelection).

Some of the contributors are from w/in Iran and are doing this at great risk, Twitter said they'd stay open for them. Many are using proxies to log in and post their updates.

~QC

What a magnificent contrast with Google, which has aided and abetted the Chinese Government's censorship of its search engine.

AlmostThere
06-19-2009, 02:17 AM
Friday's events will be interesting. Mousavi has been told to stand along side the Supreme Leader in unity or be cast our, whatever that means. It will be interesting.

thinker
06-21-2009, 01:59 AM
What a magnificent contrast with Google, which has aided and abetted the Chinese Government's censorship of its search engine.

Which has pissed me off to no end, to be perfectly honest. Although I suspect if Twitter came under the same pressure from the Chinese government that Google has (and had the potential profit loss Google would face with the denial of service to hundreds of millions of customers not clicking their ads) they'd probably bend too.

As a developing note, it's interesting that Khamenei isn't nearly as beloved as Khomeini. If the original article had still been running the country, I very much doubt that Iran would still have a so-called "disputed" election. He'd have said jump, and the population at large would have said "How high?"

Odysseus
06-21-2009, 10:54 AM
Friday's events will be interesting. Mousavi has been told to stand along side the Supreme Leader in unity or be cast our, whatever that means. It will be interesting.
This is a sign of abject weakness on the part of the mullahs. They are so insecure that they cannot allow a candidate that they vetted and approved to beat another candidate that they vetted and approved, because one represents dissent, however mild and ineffectual.

Which has pissed me off to no end, to be perfectly honest. Although I suspect if Twitter came under the same pressure from the Chinese government that Google has (and had the potential profit loss Google would face with the denial of service to hundreds of millions of customers not clicking their ads) they'd probably bend too.

As a developing note, it's interesting that Khamenei isn't nearly as beloved as Khomeini. If the original article had still been running the country, I very much doubt that Iran would still have a so-called "disputed" election. He'd have said jump, and the population at large would have said "How high?"
This is true, but remember that Khomeini died when the Islamic Revolution itself was still relatively new and had not become the corrupt oligarchy that it is. Had Khomeini been in charge for the last thirty years, it's likely that his popularlity would have diminished. But, you are definitely right about Khamenei. Khomeini was a genuine scholar, while Khamenei is considered something of an embarassment on that account. He's said to be semi-literate and not at all well-read in Islamic law.

thinker
06-21-2009, 05:34 PM
The whole idea of a supreme leader that was in charge of religious and political life worked because Khomeini was a very canny individual (if very hostile to the West). Since then, it's been a succession of general fuckups, which is proving the system to be flawed.

I have no love for Khomeini, but I'm not sure I agree that Iran would be where it is in terms of corruption and general belligerence if he were still running the show. He was very much focused on the internal issues of Iran and Islam as a whole, as opposed to being fascinated with nukes like the current regime appears to be (part of that assertion is based on the fact that the Grand Council is propping up Ahmedinijahd, who was taken to task pretty hard by almost all of the presidental challengers over the nuclear issue).

CueSi
06-21-2009, 08:44 PM
What a magnificent contrast with Google, which has aided and abetted the Chinese Government's censorship of its search engine.

It's a passive act that may have saved the dissenters.

~QC

Odysseus
06-22-2009, 02:41 AM
The whole idea of a supreme leader that was in charge of religious and political life worked because Khomeini was a very canny individual (if very hostile to the West). Since then, it's been a succession of general fuckups, which is proving the system to be flawed.

I have no love for Khomeini, but I'm not sure I agree that Iran would be where it is in terms of corruption and general belligerence if he were still running the show. He was very much focused on the internal issues of Iran and Islam as a whole, as opposed to being fascinated with nukes like the current regime appears to be (part of that assertion is based on the fact that the Grand Council is propping up Ahmedinijahd, who was taken to task pretty hard by almost all of the presidental challengers over the nuclear issue).
Khomeini was a fanatic, and eventually, he'd have gone for nukes for the same reason that the current leadership wants them. When they talk about defeating the "Great Satan" and imposing Islam on the rest of the world, it isn't hyperbole, it's their intent. Khomeini was just better read that Khamenei, but they're both fanatics.

It's a passive act that may have saved the dissenters.

~QC
Sometimes, the only requirement for evil to be defeated is for good men to do nothing. :D