PDA

View Full Version : Iran: WTF is going on there???


Davian93
06-14-2009, 11:55 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/14/iran.election/index.html

There are reports that there was a little bit of rioting and now everything is good. There are reports of a possible civil war and a vast crackdown on anything even resembling moderates.

We'll probbably never know what is really going on but its disturbing to say the least.

Sinistrum
06-14-2009, 02:13 PM
Iran being repressive to its people? No WAY!!! :rolleyes:

Neilbert
06-14-2009, 04:01 PM
Authoritarians ruin it for the rest of us.

From what I've read the election was almost certainly rigged, for example he with the long name won in districts that were Moussavi's strong hold. Another that I've heard was that results came in with such regularity that based on that alone it was almost certain the thing was rigged.

But the way I understand it is that the President of Iran doesn't really have the power, so it's all just theater anyways.

Edit:

On that note maybe the Ayatollah called the election a scam. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/an-ayatollah-dissents.html) Could just be a populist appeal?

Frenzy
06-15-2009, 01:17 AM
Why does it seem like Iran and North Korea are in a pissing contest to see who's the baddest badass on the planet? Because it's almost comical.

Uno
06-15-2009, 02:27 AM
Why does it seem like Iran and North Korea are in a pissing contest to see who's the baddest badass on the planet? Because it's almost comical.

That sounds like an excellent summary of the Cold War, if you ask me.

Sinistrum
06-15-2009, 02:41 AM
Because they smell blood coming from the White House. It must be that time of the month...for the next four years. ;)

Anaiya Sedai
06-15-2009, 04:24 AM
Iran should solve those problems for themselves. Sadly, I don't see a way in which that would be possible without enormous bloodshed.

I'm following the stuff on twitter.. scary things going on, by the sounds of it.

StrangePackage
06-15-2009, 09:03 AM
Ahmedinijad and the Ayatollah's overplayed their hand, now they've been called on it, and the Grand High Poobah whoever is calling for an investigation.

I think the Iranian theocrats remember pretty clearly how they came into power, and won't risk another popular uprising just to protect a puppet that they don't have that much fondness for.

Zanguini
06-15-2009, 09:20 AM
Ahmedinijad and the Ayatollah's overplayed their hand, now they've been called on it, and the Grand High Poobah whoever is calling for an investigation.

I think the Iranian theocrats remember pretty clearly how they came into power, and won't risk another popular uprising just to protect a puppet that they don't have that much fondness for.


Unfortunatly for everyone the ayatollah is the grand high poobah and has already blessed the outcome of the election and since you dont sneeze in iran with out his express written permission i dont see any investigation comming at all peoples feelings be damned

Sarevok
06-15-2009, 09:25 AM
Unfortunatly for everyone the ayatollah is the grand high poobah and has already blessed the outcome of the election and since you dont sneeze in iran with out his express written permission i dont see any investigation comming at all peoples feelings be damned
Zan, you might wanna take note of the fact that the ayatollah is that one that called for the investigation today. :cool:

Btw, where have you hidden the fairy?

Terez
06-15-2009, 09:55 AM
He put her in a bottle. :D

Ozymandias
06-15-2009, 10:58 AM
Zan, you might wanna take note of the fact that the ayatollah is that one that called for the investigation today. :cool:


Of course its a totally meaningless gesture. Even if Ahmedinijad had lost crushingly, it wouldn't have mattered. The President has no real power. Khomenei controls every important apparatus of power/gov't; yeah, he likes the current Prez (no way I'm typing that name again) because he's a hardline conservative who ALMOST hates the US/West as much as Ayatollah Khomenei does, but in the end, it behooves him to appear as fair as possible because his hold on power, while absolute, is more tenuous than that of the previous Ayatollah, who was a national hero.

And besides, its easy to play the good, democratic guy when you know that at the end of the day you get to make the decisions anyways, regardless of who won. Even if Mousavi is elected, most critical stances will remain the same.

Whats insane about the whole thing is that he's allowing the investigation at all. Most people thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Neilbert
06-15-2009, 01:02 PM
Cross posted from another forum:

Iran was a much different place, and it still is a much different place compared to "Arab Countries".

Most people here don't give a shit about Islam, or Religion, or any of that shit. It's just forced on the quiet educated free thinking minority by the loud violent backwards religious might.

Imagine the United States run ENTIRELY under the fist of a population of backwater trailertrash.

If the fundies win, we become Iran. This should surprise nobody.


To be fair, 65% isn't out of the ordinary in Iran. Ahmadinejad won last time with 60% and Khatami won with around 70%.

Those were rigged too, it's pretty widely accepted here too.

I wouldn't consider myself an Iran expert, but I haven't seen any indication of a hyper-nationalist youth a la Russia or China that would account for the discrepancy of such a large turnout but so few votes for Mousavi.

There's no way that Ahmadinejad could have such a lead. It's just straight up impossible, even with all the little towns voting for him (many of which actually didn't)..

Aaaand

ALSO I'd just like to say that making Persian girls cover up (no matter how little they actually do cover it), is the biggest goddamned travesty in the world. God the women here are so drop dead gorgeous i have seriously considered not going back to Canada, even with all this bullshit.

lol

You can set twitter to geographic areas. I had a link to Iran, and most of it was in arabic, but you could read about violence and police brutality in english in real time. Woah.

Zanguini
06-15-2009, 01:03 PM
i have little control over the fairy her cats boss me around

Ozymandias
06-15-2009, 01:28 PM
If the fundies win, we become Iran. This should surprise nobody.


Any interesting attempt to stir up criticism of the American religious right; normally, I'd approve, since most of them are nutjob quackos who are heirs to the worst lgeacy of violence and bigotry the world has ever seen.

However, in this case, your almost certainly wrong. Or the guy your posting for is. The American tradition of secular authority and the rule of law is too deeply ingrained to be erased without generations of effort. Even attempts to inject "religion" into politics in this country only amount to admitting that the US legal code is based heavily on Judeo-Christian moral themes, which is true enough as it is. Or asking that its executives follow some sort of internal religious compass, not actually rule the country under religious law.

As for the elections; most experts and analysts consider Iranian electoral practices to be fair, at least excluding the initial vetting period, but not open. Ahmadinejad won legitimately in '05 based on opposition indifference and the support of the Grand Council. This one was clearly not fair, but that doesn't mean the others might not have been.

GonzoTheGreat
06-15-2009, 01:37 PM
Even attempts to inject "religion" into politics in this country only amount to admitting that the US legal code is based heavily on Judeo-Christian moral themes, which is true enough as it is.Well, I do not think that it is very true. But the extremely little bits for which it is true are possibly indeed based on Judeo-Christian moral themes.

But if you want to find out how "Judeo-Christian" your foundations are, then just have a look at what people thought of Jews in the time of the Founding Fathers.
And, just for laughs, you could try to list some of the values you think are based on Judeo-Christian moral values. Start with obedience to a king (David's heir, whoever that may be) and work your way up from there.

Ozymandias
06-15-2009, 02:04 PM
But if you want to find out how "Judeo-Christian" your foundations are, then just have a look at what people thought of Jews in the time of the Founding Fathers.


First off, Judeo-Christian is an umbrella term for Western values. Ultimately, all Christian values are basically slightly altered rip-offs of Jewish law and tradition. I mean, two of the only huge deviations are the belief that the Messiah has already come (Jesus) and entire concept of prosletyzation. Not only, for all you nitpickers, but those are two biggies. So say "Christian," if you want, but it still reflects the underlying Jewish philosophy.

And, just for laughs, you could try to list some of the values you think are based on Judeo-Christian moral values. Start with obedience to a king (David's heir, whoever that may be) and work your way up from there.

First off, obedience to a king isn't really original Jewish or Christian thought. That came later, when rulers inevitably tried to corrupt Christian values into self-serving purposes. In fact, the entire basis for books Samuel-Chronicles is the idea that in asking for a king, the Israelites have damned themselves. And early, original Christian thought was highly communal and decentralized in nature.

If it were in an Excel spreadsheet, your reasoning would get the dreaded "circular reference" message. You can't use a moral fabricated by elites to justify why certain people follow those elites. In fact, the entire "the meek shall inherit the earth," idiom kind of gives the lie to your point; in early Christian thought, especially, the impoverished and downtrodden are those most likely to go to Heaven.

Sarevok
06-15-2009, 02:28 PM
prosletyzation
Even dictionary.com couldn't help me here... :confused:

Terez
06-15-2009, 02:31 PM
Even dictionary.com couldn't help me here... :confused:
Try proselytization (well, Firefox dictionary tells me that's not a word, but the extended root is proselytize).

Neilbert
06-15-2009, 02:35 PM
However, in this case, your almost certainly wrong. Or the guy your posting for is. The American tradition of secular authority and the rule of law is too deeply ingrained to be erased without generations of effort.

You have an interesting definition of "win" that seems to somehow encompass not actually winning.

JSUCamel
06-15-2009, 02:39 PM
Proselytizing is a fancy schmancy word for preaching, Sare.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-15-2009, 02:55 PM
Actually, it's preaching with the intent to convert. Doesn't necessarily mean religious in nature. Terez proselytizes Anthropromorphic Green House Effect and LTT is a Construct ideas. Frenzy and I proselytize that you don't have to bash men to be a Feminist. Gonzo proselytizes Atheism, and The West is teh Evul.

StrangePackage
06-15-2009, 02:58 PM
And what do I prostelytize, Gil?

Sinistrum
06-15-2009, 02:59 PM
Mostly just that Duke Basketball is Teh Evul.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-15-2009, 03:08 PM
And grilled cheese sandwiches are god's gift.

JSUCamel
06-15-2009, 03:08 PM
Mostly just that Duke Basketball is Teh Evul.

And the virtues of fried gold.

Me? I proselytize the virtues of men receiving daily grilled cheese sandwiches from their significant others.

...probably why I'm single.

GonzoTheGreat
06-15-2009, 03:23 PM
Gonzo proselytizes Atheism, and The West is teh Evul.Actually, I do not limit it to The West. But I still have some (small) hope that The West is redeemable (somewhat, at least)*, while I do not think it likely that (for instance) the Saudi Arabian royals will abandon their totalitarian ideology.

As for the atheism, that's entirely true. But I am a rather civilized proselytizer, when it comes to that. I don't ring any doorbells in order to bring the happy message. Not even on saturday mornings. As Terez may have noticed, I even behave myself when I enter a church.

* I hope I haven't inserted too few disqualifiers.

Terez
06-15-2009, 04:12 PM
As Terez may have noticed, I even behave myself when I enter a church.
More so than me, I think. :D

GonzoTheGreat
06-15-2009, 04:18 PM
More so than me, I think. :DYou were just bouncing up and down with musical enthusiasm. I think they understood that; you're probably not the first musician who got in there.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-15-2009, 04:21 PM
What, Gonzo? You're not struck by lightening upon crossign the threshhold?


To paraphrase Calvin: It's hard to believe in God when certain people are not incinerated by lightening.

And yes, I'm kidding.

Terez
06-15-2009, 04:24 PM
@Gil - that was Calvin as in Calvin and Hobbes; just figured I'd mention that since I mention Calvinism in this post.

You were just bouncing up and down with musical enthusiasm. I think they understood that; you're probably not the first musician who got in there.
Yeah, they did seem to understand it.

The people I went to Vienna with were almost all church musicians. Out of the 11 of us, though, only one was actually religious, and he wasn't a typical fundie southerner.

All of the church musicians said that they wouldn't go to church if they didn't get paid, except for the one religious guy.

Also, we learned about what happened in certain Viennese churches when the church leaders decided to get more conservative by cutting out the music (the pews got rather empty).

Also, the church we went to was Calvinist, was it not? Calvinism was once known for being strict about not having music in the churches, IIRC, but there was plenty of music that morning, so I imagine that Calvinism didn't fare any better without music than most others did.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-15-2009, 04:33 PM
Calvinism by any other name is Puritanical. Pun intended.


There's a reason the old-school Puritans died out, too. Life without fun, is well.... torturous.

Birgitte
06-15-2009, 04:43 PM
Side note that I find interesting. My best friend in high school, who is a Muslim, has a full ride to a Christian school named Calvin College. They can't be that bad.

JSUCamel
06-15-2009, 04:48 PM
I got a full ride to a Catholic college, but I went to JSU instead. "School Ties" sticks with me too strongly to be a Jew in a Catholic school. I know it's 30 years later than the movie, but still.

Well, there were other reasons why I declined, but that certainly stuck out in my mind.

GonzoTheGreat
06-15-2009, 05:03 PM
Also, the church we went to was Calvinist, was it not?Well, yes. Here is an overview (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Gereformeerd.svg) of some of the Dutch churches. Of course, this only deals with the last 200 or so years, but it might give you an idea why I do not consider it quite as simple a case as you're suggesting it is.

Calvinism was once known for being strict about not having music in the churches, IIRC, but there was plenty of music that morning, so I imagine that Calvinism didn't fare any better without music than most others did.The Taliban also tried that. At least we weren't liberated by the Americans. Perhaps because those hadn't been invented at the time.

Terez
06-15-2009, 05:07 PM
I do not consider it quite as simple a case as you're suggesting it is.
I wasn't aware that I was suggesting it was simple. :D

GonzoTheGreat
06-15-2009, 05:08 PM
I wasn't aware that I was suggesting it was simple. :DCompared to the reality, any hint of a suggesting would be too simple.

Terez
06-15-2009, 05:23 PM
Now you're just being difficult.

GonzoTheGreat
06-15-2009, 05:32 PM
Well, to answer your actual question: yes, they're Calvinists. Actually, for a while at least, the Dutch were rather strict Calvinists. There was a big quarrel between moderates and fundamentalists in the early 17th century, and naturally the moderates lost. The rest is history, and far too convoluted for even me to want to remember accurately.

To get back to Iran: more or less the same seems to be going on there. Only there it's a president, not a prince, who is using his position to support one of the two groups, and it is that president instead of a prince (stadholder, whichever of the titles you want to use) who gets the support of the fanatics.

Sinistrum
06-15-2009, 05:48 PM
Now you're just being difficult.

Gonzo being difficult?!!! No way!!!

Cary Sedai
06-15-2009, 06:07 PM
i have little control over the fairy her cats boss me around

Our kitties don't boss you around! They just love you, like I do! :)

Frenzy
06-15-2009, 11:51 PM
To paraphrase Calvin: It's hard to believe in God when certain people are not incinerated by lightening.
That's the kind of Calvinist i am. :D

and i have to agree with Neil's friend: Persian women are hot.

Jalyn
06-16-2009, 12:42 AM
Does this have to be about religion? At this point I think it's fairly obvious that the underlying issue is the Iranian people being denied the limited democracy that they believed that they had and how both their government and the "Western" governments will react to this denial.

Certainly, looking in as true free societies we can note that a) both candidates 1) sucked 2) were chosen by Iran's ruling religious regime b) no real change would/will occur from the presidential election, but doesn't it matter that the people of Iran have decided that their votes should have mattered in this election? And isn't that what we, as members of free societies, should be paying attention to and supporting?

Frenzy
06-16-2009, 12:49 AM
Certainly, looking in as true free societies we can note that a) both candidates 1) sucked 2) were chosen by Iran's ruling religious regime b) no real change would/will occur from the presidential election, but doesn't it matter that the people of Iran have decided that their votes should have mattered in this election? And isn't that what we, as members of free societies, should be paying attention to and supporting?
You'd think the Revolutionary Council would have let the moderate win to appease the young and quiet them down with a few meaningless reforms. That way they'd hold onto their power for longer.

Jalyn
06-16-2009, 01:02 AM
As a complete side note, the most important tweet, for the United States, not Iran, that I've seen today may have been the unattributed, other than "from Iran" is:

RT from Iran: Learned something today. Americans DO care about world outside America.Their media just doesn't.

And here is where twitter may have actually mattered. Iranians would have made their voices heard somehow, God knows how, but a portion of the opposition in Iran understands that Americans did their best to be sure that the communications that they had available remained open - because they cared about human beings all the way across the planet. This wasn't a religious issue, it was a simple human rights issue - people have the right to have their voices heard by someone.

Twitter has proven, in the last few days, that it doesn't matter what your political or religious beliefs are, there are people who will help you make them heard. (Even to the point of asking a major corporation to keep change their network downtime schedule in order to keep the twitter lines open - see the old #nomaintenance hash for information.)

Sinistrum
06-16-2009, 01:04 AM
Does this have to be about religion?

Yeah sort of. I mean religion is kind of the reason the Iranian elections are a sham in the first place. Its kind of hard to separate religion from government when you're dealing with a theocracy.

Jalyn
06-16-2009, 01:17 AM
You're still talking broad scale. I'm not talking about the Iranian regime, it stopped, on a humanitarian scale, being about that around the time people started to believe that the election was rigged, and certainly when the first protester died.
We're now talking about individuals who believed that they had a measure of control over their government who have been shown, by that government, that this was an illusion - and some of them are dying to make that limited amount of control a reality. Isn't that, really, more important than religion?

JSUCamel
06-16-2009, 01:40 AM
Twitter has been an amazing tool in this Iranian situation. Here's a post a friend of mine wrote on Facebook:

The Iranian election was a sham. This much is clear. Not necessarily because of any fraud or tampering, although that may later be proven true as well. I refer to the idea of the Iranian elections in principle being inherently false.

A popular election is a reflection of pure mathematics, cold and quantitative. One plus one plus one plus one is greater than one plus one plus one, and within that simple algebra will you decide the next few years of your march forward through time.

Iran has gone beyond mathematics. The numbers have been exposed as teacup tyrants, chicken scratches in sand to which we one day assigned value and to which we handed over control for the sake of order. Iran is throwing its body against the bars until they start to bend, Iran is a beast of fire and fury. Iran never really wanted a popular election; it had merely convinced itself that this was the most proper manner in which to attain the outcome it most desired. As it became clear that the proper manner had failed, Iran saw no other alternative but to demand the change it needs.

And my God. My God, Iran. So noted.

Earlier this week America's major news outlets found themselves deserving objects of ridicule as they aired fluff stories while a major Middle Eastern country tore itself in two. In the silence of mainstream media failure, the vacuum was filled by individual Iranians taking to the Internet, finding channel after channel to release reports of the chaos on the ground.

The state shut down the blogs. It shut down the alternative media. So the protesters found Twitter. For days you could read brief gasps of horror and courage at the trending topic #Iranelection.

An hour or so ago the state managed to shut down #Iranelection. Immediately, the world was instructed to switch their focus to #Iran9, #Tehran, and #Iranians. When the state shuts these down you can be certain more will spring up, like heads of hydra, to continue issuing forth the signal. Under duress from its own users, Twitter rescheduled a maintenance hour, understanding that history didn't have downtime.

The situation is ugly but the struggle is, in its grim way, beautiful.

Communication is beautiful. People speaking to each other is beautiful, people listening to each other is beautiful. People slipping their voices free of what used to be an airtight iron-fisted grip is beautiful. The understanding that not even one generation ago this sort of ability to effectively counter an oppressive state-run media machine was unthinkable, that understanding is beautiful.

Remember this boy from twenty years ago in China:


And imagine him attempting to hold back the tank with more than the power of his will. Imagine him wrestling the tank to a stalemate. Imagine him pushing the tank back along the road, and you understand the power now available to anybody willing to use it.

A news report from earlier today referred to the protesters staging a "rally" in Tehran, and then added that the rally was 1-2 million people strong.

That is no mere rally. That is a pronouncement.

Your voice will be heard. There are fewer and fewer means to stop it being heard.

Use it.

Jalyn
06-16-2009, 01:58 AM
Thank you.

You made me cry again, damn you, but I've been doing that alot over the last few days. I was one of the people that begged twitter, and then their network provider, (NTT, for any major corporation looking to strike a human relations coup) to keep twitter up.

I'm afraid that this is going to be another Tiananmen Square in results - even if Mousavi somehow manages to have the results overturned, perhaps especially.

The regime, unless the Iranian people manage to do something completely unexpected and set up a completely secular and free government is not going to significantly change. At the same time, being able to read about the horror that is happening there, even when brought about by the protesters themselves, has allowed Americans to understand what is happening. And, as I mentioned before, have the Iranians understand that Americans are watching and are horrified. I can only hope that our understanding and horror can be passed down and understood - as well as our true helplessness to do anything to resolve the situation - to the next generation.

Sinistrum
06-16-2009, 03:57 AM
Isn't that, really, more important than religion?

To attempt to take radical religious belief out of this discussion does a disservice to those who are fighting against it. It is through contrasting them with their enemy that we truly see how valiant they are.

GonzoTheGreat
06-16-2009, 05:35 AM
It's not as simple as that, Sinistrum. Quite a few of the opponents of the regime are also motivated (at least in part) by their religious beliefs. Just as had happened in the build up to the fall of the Shah, they were shouting "Allahu Akbar".
Just as in the American Civil Rights 'quarrels' both sides also used religion and were motivated by it.

Of course, in both cases there were also people involved who weren't religious, but had other reasons for picking one side or another. But it is definitely not a simple case of religion versus secularism.

Ivhon
06-16-2009, 10:57 AM
Rep to JD for posting :)

Ozymandias
06-16-2009, 02:00 PM
To attempt to take radical religious belief out of this discussion does a disservice to those who are fighting against it. It is through contrasting them with their enemy that we truly see how valiant they are.

I both agree and disagree. Agree that religion is the vital, nay, only issue of importance at stake here, but disagree with the implicit statement that the reformists are also secularists.

They are not. Religion is merely the cloud that hangs over the Iranian political landscape; it doesn't matter whats going on below, because the cloud above still influences every action and policy no matter what those look like.

People came out against Ahmadinejad because of frustration with the results of the system, not the system itself. This is made apparent by their complete indifference when the even more undemocratic screening of the candidates themselves took place. Its evident in the fact that despite the obvious complicity of the Supreme Leader, an Ayatollah and therefore someone who is by definition supposed to act in the most moral and upright way possible, few if any Iranians are decrying his role in the sordid situation.

And finally, its implicit in that anyone who pays more than the slightest lip service to a higher power is not using all of their faculties. And compounding that complete lack or reason or logic is the fact that in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the all pervasive "Islamic" bit has done a great deal of harm and literally not a shred of quantifiable good in all of the three decades that it has held unquestionable, unchallengeable political precedence. When you have a country of 70 million people, (we assume) 50% of which are completely under the megalomaniacal hand of an insane theocrat and the other 50% don't even have the internal consistency to rebel against that tyrannical crackpot, except in the slightest instance of undemocratic hypocrisy and not at any of the other times he uses an arrogant and slightly insane religious philosophy to justify massive oppression and repression, you know religion MUST be not only at the core of the issue, but is (in a fantastic case of circular reasoning) also the reason that religion will continue to dominate public life, even if the reformists win. Because the scale of illogicality we see here can only be the result of religion, and furthermore, cannot possibly engender anything other than more theocratic government, because any other type of political system at all would be incapable of functioning with such a group of people in it.

Ozymandias
06-16-2009, 06:03 PM
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904989,00.html?cnn=yes

and a respected journalistic institution agrees with me.

Terez
06-17-2009, 02:46 PM
This is pretty sad:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/17/743478/-Ahmadinejad-Rally-Photoshopped-to-Appear-Larger

Ahmadinejad Rally Photoshopped to Appear Larger

by thereisnospoon (http://thereisnospoon.dailykos.com/)

Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:19:53 AM PD


Via the twitter feeds at #iranelection (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23Iranelection) and #gr88 (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23gr88) comes this interesting tidbit: yesterday's rally for Ahmadinejad's supporters was photoshopped to appear larger than it really was.

(N.B.: the original image comes from a website with a .ir extension: I'm not providing a direct link lest the domain be taken down)

See the circles showing where crowd images have been copied and repeated to add volume to the crowd that did not truly exist.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Terez27/photoshop.jpg

Of course, the only way the regime thought it could get away with such a blatant maneuver was through the ban on media coverage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8103491.stm) of all rallies and protests--a ban being ignored by regular Iranians on the street, but which is severely hampering media estimations of crowd sizes, as well as decent shots of crowd sizes.

When a thuggish government is so desperate that it has to photoshop pictures of its own rallies to give them more credibility vs. the opposition rallies, it's in some serious trouble.

Here's hoping the real rallies (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/17/743472/-Iran:-Wheels-Are-Turning) can effectuate real change in Iran. The regime has moved from simply thuggish to pathetically so.

Update: Several commenters have reminded me that this would not the first time the Iranian regime has doctored photos for propaganda purposes. Remember the faked missile launch photos (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/) as well. Potemkin missiles, Potemkin rallies.

StrangePackage
06-20-2009, 01:24 PM
A translated blog post from Iran:

"I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I'm listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It's worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I'm two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow's children..."

Terez
06-20-2009, 01:34 PM
Thanks for sharing that. :)

StrangePackage
06-20-2009, 03:23 PM
I can't believe this isn't getting more attention on this board. This may be the beginning of an open revolt in Iran.

JSUCamel
06-20-2009, 03:32 PM
The only reason I haven't posted anything about it is that I don't really know what to say other than what's already been said.

Terez
06-20-2009, 04:12 PM
It's one of those things where I seriously hope they can come up with the numbers and the persistence needed to pull it off - but I am hesitant to cheer them on because I know how likely it is that the protests will get put down violently. It's easy to cheer on the protest from my air-conditioned box across the pond...a lot harder to actually get out there and risk your life for something. I hope that there are enough people in Iran who have that kind of determination, but I don't really expect it of them.

Also, if those protests get put down violently and repeatedly, the pressure for other nations to step in and do something about it will mount. And things could get really scary then.

Neilbert
06-20-2009, 05:22 PM
Not to mention the fact that us cheering them on might be counter productive.

cottillion
06-21-2009, 12:03 AM
I have a feeling this is going to be decided tomorrow with the sea of green rally. The army and Qom still seem to be sitting on the fence and I think depending on where they fall, this is either going to turn into a revolution or a massacre.

Jalyn
06-21-2009, 01:53 AM
I have a feeling this is going to be decided tomorrow with the sea of green rally. The army and Qom still seem to be sitting on the fence and I think depending on where they fall, this is either going to turn into a revolution or a massacre.

Tiananmen or the fall of the wall... Either way, all we can do is watch.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Watch and pray (hush all you athiests. ;) ).


It would be heavily ironic that the result of the Iraq war was another revolution in Iran.

I hope that young person you posted for us SP doesn't end up a casualty of this uprising.

Neilbert
06-22-2009, 11:51 AM
Please don't. Studies have shown that prayer, if anything, has a negative effect. :p

(People who know they are being prayed for think there's a need for them to be prayed for, creating a sort of placebo affect that makes them get worse.)

Gilshalos Sedai
06-22-2009, 12:12 PM
Actually, it just pisses me off. ;)

Sei'taer
06-22-2009, 12:27 PM
I have a friend who is a Marine reservist, Captain, Force Recon, speaks Persian, Azeri, Farsi, and something else (German or Portuguese...not sure) who got a call this morning to appear in a location unknown to all by 6 am tomorrow morning. Scary considering the languages he speaks. He's hoping it's simply translating and not actually going anywhere. Of course, he won't know til he gets there and we'll prolly never know.

Neilbert
06-22-2009, 12:27 PM
Actually, it just pisses me off. ;)

And being angry is bad for your health. :)

JSUCamel
06-22-2009, 12:47 PM
And being angry is bad for your health.

It's her religious right to be angry, for as the Good Book says: "He [Jesus] looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored." And so anger hath been shown by the Savior to lead to health and vigor. So saith the Lord. If the Bible says it, why, it must be true!

Gilshalos Sedai
06-22-2009, 01:12 PM
Nah, it only leads to the Darkside.


But yes, my biggest of the 7 is Wrath followed by Pride.

Terez
06-22-2009, 01:44 PM
My mom hasn't much spoken to my dad at all since they divorced 20 years ago (mostly just in court), and my she only knows my stepmom through the crazy stories I tell her. So, mom was nice and forwarded them ultrasound pics of my brother's incoming baby, and my stepmom wrote back, ostensibly to thank her for sending the pics and congratulate her. But of course, my stepmom tells my mom that she's praying for her every day. Did she really expect my mom to be happy about that? There's always the obvious implication that you're not churchy enough, and obviously not a real Christian, and you need praying for by the good Christians so that you might get right with God.

Davian93
06-22-2009, 07:20 PM
My mom hasn't much spoken to my dad at all since they divorced 20 years ago (mostly just in court), and my she only knows my stepmom through the crazy stories I tell her. So, mom was nice and forwarded them ultrasound pics of my brother's incoming baby, and my stepmom wrote back, ostensibly to thank her for sending the pics and congratulate her. But of course, my stepmom tells my mom that she's praying for her every day. Did she really expect my mom to be happy about that? There's always the obvious implication that you're not churchy enough, and obviously not a real Christian, and you need praying for by the good Christians so that you might get right with God.

T, I'm praying for you...;)

Davian93
06-22-2009, 08:11 PM
So how long till the T-72s and T-80s roll down the protestors...live rounds used to break up protesters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31481798/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/page/2/

BTW, I'm shocked at the lack of interest here about Iran...I really thought we'd have a huge thread about it.

JSUCamel
06-22-2009, 08:22 PM
It's hard to contribute when we're all really thinking the same thing.

Davian93
06-22-2009, 08:26 PM
It's hard to contribute when we're all really thinking the same thing.

Yeah, I know. Its far from over yet. They very well might overthrow their gov't. Or at least plant the seeds for a successful future revolution (1905 vs 1917 in Russia).

Its also far far larger than we can generally see.

Brita
06-22-2009, 08:48 PM
Has anybody here seen the video of Neda dying? I haven't- but it sounds like the kind of tragedy to galvanize the protesters. Again, technology has brought it to the world via youtube...it is very hard for a regime to close it's doors to outside eyes now. And that is a good thing.

Davian93
06-22-2009, 08:55 PM
Has anybody here seen the video of Neda dying? I haven't- but it sounds like the kind of tragedy to galvanize the protesters. Again, technology has brought it to the world via youtube...it is very hard for a regime to close it's doors to outside eyes now. And that is a good thing.

It's not pleasant. I wouldn't recommend watching it. I've seen worse things (real life not movies) but its still not an enjoyable thing to watch. Its not as gruesome as that reporter that was beheaded (a few years back)...I wish I had never seen that video.

Terez
06-22-2009, 08:57 PM
I purposefully avoid watching such videos.

Brita
06-22-2009, 09:08 PM
Ya, that's why I haven't watched it either. The still frame is bad enough...

Sei'taer
06-22-2009, 10:02 PM
I saw the vid. It was bad but not as bad as I've ever seen. My friend translated it and that was worse in a way than the video.

cottillion
06-23-2009, 06:17 AM
Iranian tv has confirmed that 30% of workers were absent from work today which means the number is likely over 50%. I think this is a much more efficient way to fight the government. This can bring a government to its knees without the bloodshed.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-23-2009, 08:38 AM
Maybe. I'm not sure how effective it would be in the long run unless mortgage companies and landlords and electric companies refuse to discontinue service or evict.

Sei'taer
06-23-2009, 01:52 PM
I heard Amedineblahblah slit his wrists today after he heard BO's speech. The tone of voice alone was enough. After he heard the translation he really freaked about the "strongly condemn" part and promised to put his soul in hell if Neda would be washed of the pain of bleeding from every orfice in her body after being brutally killed for expressing her opinion and support. Obama...seriously a badass motherfucker.

The protesters are expressing some doubts about Obama on twitter today. It's scary. Kind of puts a knot in my throat.

Terez
06-23-2009, 02:02 PM
The protesters are expressing some doubts about Obama on twitter today. It's scary. Kind of puts a knot in my throat.
Calm yourself - apparently a good number of Tweeters 'from Tehran' are actually from the US (something to do with confusing Iranian efforts to censor its citizens there too), or from other countries.

Obama made it perfectly clear that we have no intention of interfering. He's just a world leader with an opinion (an opinion that most of us happen to share).

Good speech:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6564551.ece

Anaiya Sedai
06-23-2009, 02:04 PM
UK expels two Iranian diplomats in a tit for-tat-action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8115358.stm)

JSUCamel
06-23-2009, 02:16 PM
I heard Amedineblahblah slit his wrists today after he heard BO's speech. The tone of voice alone was enough. After he heard the translation he really freaked about the "strongly condemn" part and promised to put his soul in hell if Neda would be washed of the pain of bleeding from every orfice in her body after being brutally killed for expressing her opinion and support. Obama...seriously a badass motherfucker.

The protesters are expressing some doubts about Obama on twitter today. It's scary. Kind of puts a knot in my throat.

What do you think we should do?

Ozymandias
06-23-2009, 02:49 PM
What do you think we should do?

haha well lets go back the policies that have been failing us so well for the last 60 years! I mean... not like we're in this mess because of intervening in an Iranian election. Oh, right...

Well, thats okay! There are plenty of other times that the US has supported benevolent, kind regimes over elected officials, like Pinochet, or Fulgencio Batista, or... oh, wait.

So coming back to the initial point and dropping the sarcasm, what possible action could Obama take which wouldn't have a negative effect on whats going on in Iran? Its not our place to play kingmaker, and if the Iranians don't want it enough to take it themselves, then us propping up some iron-fisted dictator semi-secretly isn't going to guarantee universal happiness or dispel civil unrest. America is the Great Satan in Iran because of stupid, interventionist, senile fools like John McCain. Honestly, when you look back, McCain had the worst possible credentials to be commander in chief. A hawkish military man whose only action of note was sitting in a hellish prison for a while? Yep, it makes him a national hero... but it doesn't mean he's qualified to make delicate political decisions, and as we can see, he's already come out strongly on the "I'm literally senile but can read out a good soundbyte" camp.

Sei'taer
06-23-2009, 03:00 PM
How about something like

We in the US will not stand by while the leaders in Iran shit on the liberty and democracy of the citizens of Iran to peacefully protest unfair election practices on their country. The protesters can rest assured that they have the full support of the US and its people.

Obama can't do that though. The promises he makes to us are fluid and revisable, the promises he made in his speech in Egypt are not.

You can strongly condemn my use of the word shit, my Mom has for the last 25yrs, guess what...shit. As far as I'm concerned, condemnation doesn't change much, support, even moral support, changes a lot.

Terez
06-23-2009, 03:03 PM
There was a great deal of moral support in his speech, I think, and a great deal more than a simple "I condemn this" as well - he's reiterated the obvious, that Iran will not have any respect on the world stage if it does not respect its own citizens. There might be a few Iranians who would like for us to do more, but I think it's clear that the majority of them would not.

GonzoTheGreat
06-23-2009, 03:07 PM
It is noticeable that Obama does not have the guts of Bush senior, who promised to support the people of Iraq if they would rise up against their oppressive regime.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 03:09 PM
All I really want is something along the lines of "While this is an internal matter for Iranians that the United States must not interfere with, rest assured that our hopes and sympathies are always with freedom loving people everywhere. As there appear to be issues with the Iranian election, the United States will not be recognizing any government until the matter has been laid to rest in a legitimate fashion." Hits the three main points: we aren't going to do anything - because we can't, we aren't going to recognize an invalid election, and hey! all of you people over there dying for freedom - we do actually care.

(Whoops, meant to note - I haven't heard the statement from today, he may have finally hit those points, don't know)

Also? DISINIVITE the SOBs from the INDEPENDENCE DAY BBQ.

Sei'taer
06-23-2009, 03:11 PM
It's pretty apparent to me that Iran, unlike the US, doesn't give a rats ass if they are respected by the rest of the world. Respect appears to come through power for Iran. This put down of the protesters shows power and so do nukes.

GonzoTheGreat
06-23-2009, 03:28 PM
It's pretty apparent to me that Iran, unlike the US, doesn't give a rats ass if they are respected by the rest of the world. Respect appears to come through power for Iran. This put down of the protesters shows power and so do nukes.I wish I'd made this supremely sarcastic remark. The casual mention of "unlike the US" is a real masterpiece.

Ivhon
06-23-2009, 03:31 PM
Agreeing with Ozzy on the wonderful results we have consistently achieved by interfering with middle-east politics.

But let's say, for sake of argument, that Obama does what the hawks want and issues ST's statement of "we wont stand by while Iran shits on its people."

That puts us in the position of either not backing the statement up (which the conservatives would use to paint the President as even weaker than they are already doing...and is probably the reason why they are wanting him to do this) OR backing it up and putting our already vastly overextended military in Iran...as well as Iraq...as well as Afghanistan...as well as trailing N. Korea ships. Meanwhile do we really think that the Russians and Chinese wont use the impossibly stretched US military as an excuse to march right in to Georgia or Taiwan?

Economic sanctions dont work, btw, since we have no economic leverage in Iran.

So what do we do? Hot air? Start WWIII? Meddle in Mid-East politics one more time and hope that this time we get it right? Or do what the President has done and condemn the violence and say that it is up to Iran to fix its problems. Isnt that the libertarian thing to do?

Side note: While there is little doubt that the election was fixed, I have heard nothing to suggest that Mousavvi was at all commanding the polls. All I have heard from experts was that the election was supposed to be close from whatever they can tell.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 03:32 PM
"Unlike the US" is reasonable. We give a rat's ass what the world thinks, we just, generally, aren't willing to sacrifice our security for it.

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 03:32 PM
"Respect appears to come through power for Iran", implying that the US is any different was a brilliant touch as well.

Country with the worlds most insane defense budget says what?

"Unlike the US" is reasonable. We give a rat's ass what the world thinks, we just, generally, aren't willing to sacrifice our security for it.

Some of us do, some of us don't, which is why it makes generalizations about a nation like these pretty worthless for the most part.

But as far as foreign policy is concerned, we don't give a flying rat fuck what other people think of us.

We in the US will not stand by while the leaders in Iran shit on the liberty and democracy of the citizens of Iran to peacefully protest unfair election practices on their country. The protesters can rest assured that they have the full support of the US and its people.

The protesters don't want the full support of the US and its people. They have seen what American corporations do to countries. McWorld is something as abhorrent to them as oppressive theocratic leadership.

GonzoTheGreat
06-23-2009, 03:34 PM
"Unlike the US" is reasonable. We give a rat's ass what the world thinks, we just, generally, aren't willing to sacrifice our security for it.Is that why you invaded Iraq, because if you hadn't done that then your security would have been at stake?

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 03:37 PM
I think suggesting that the "Hawks" are disingenously suggesting things that they know will make the president and (more to the point) the US look weak is ridiculous.

And we'll leave the further US political point I considered making alone. :) Let's just say I don't think anyside of this debate, or any other, is trying to destroy this country.

Terez
06-23-2009, 03:37 PM
It's pretty apparent to me that Iran, unlike the US, doesn't give a rats ass if they are respected by the rest of the world. Respect appears to come through power for Iran. This put down of the protesters shows power and so do nukes. Gonzo's observation aside, what you say only really applies to certain people who have been in power over the years - it doesn't necessarily apply to the citizens at all. I think that a lot of them would like to be respected.

(Whoops, meant to note - I haven't heard the statement from today, he may have finally hit those points, don't know) Here's a quote of the speech:



First, Iíd like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iranís affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iranís borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries wonít work any more in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they and only they will choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian governmentís efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iranís own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 03:38 PM
Is that why you invaded Iraq, because if you hadn't done that then your security would have been at stake?
That was the argument that was made at the time, yes.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 03:41 PM
I'll take it. It's certainly better than "deeply concerned" or whatever his first BS response was.

GonzoTheGreat
06-23-2009, 03:43 PM
That was the argument that was made at the time, yes.And when I said it was nonsense then, no one managed to come up with a plausible scenario for suggesting that the danger war real. Yet for Iran, the danger from the USA is quite clearly very real, so in their case an unwillingness to sacrifice security for the sake of world opinion might actually be a valid excuse. I'm not saying it is, but I am saying that in this case it is nowhere near as easy to dismiss as in the "Saddam will swim through the Gulf, turn left, go around India, cross over to Indonesia, swerve around all the islands, cross half the Pacific, crawl ashore and conquer Hawai if we don't act now" scenario that I gave as an example of the threat that he posed.

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 03:47 PM
Oh ok. I guess that settles it then.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 03:49 PM
I am not going to reargue the Iraqi war. Mostly because I've killed enough brain cells between now and then that I don't remember the arguments.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 03:52 PM
It settles the particular question I was asked, in the context of the comment I had made.

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 03:54 PM
It settles the particular question I was asked, in the context of the comment I had made.

The arguments made at the time do not in any way address the real reason we went into Iraq, whatever that may actually be.

How many people still believe Saddam was connected to 9/11? I remember that being one of the reasons given.

JSUCamel
06-23-2009, 03:57 PM
Well stated, Ivhon.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 04:07 PM
A) That wasn't the question I was asked or was answering
B) See my last response to Gonzo

Ivhon
06-23-2009, 04:37 PM
To be clear, I do not think that those like McCain who thinks that the US should be taking a tougher stance on Iran are intentionally trying to harm the country for political gain. I DO think they are putting electoral politics ahead of clearly considered national interests without thinking the consequences through.

The only public figure I think that hopes we are actually attacked is Cheney. But that guy has been off his rocker for longer than just the 10 years.

Yellowbeard
06-23-2009, 04:39 PM
most of the comments quoted from rank and file protesters in iran seem to be of the type "we want freedom"....

think they'd be uprising like this if it weren't for the fact that there's now a democracy next door in iraq that's beginning to stablize and function in an okay manner?

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 04:45 PM
A) That wasn't the question I was asked or was answering
B) See my last response to Gonzo

Gonzo: "Is that why you invaded Iraq, because if you hadn't done that then your security would have been at stake?"

Jalyn: "That was the argument that was made at the time, yes."

Neilbert: "The arguments made at the time do not in any way address the real reason we went into Iraq, whatever that may actually be."

:confused:

Gonzo asked why the US invaded Iraq, he didn't ask for the justification.

I am not going to reargue the Iraqi war. Mostly because I've killed enough brain cells between now and then that I don't remember the arguments.

You never answered the question Gonzo asked but I don't really blame you.

think they'd be uprising like this if it weren't for the fact that there's now a democracy next door in iraq that's beginning to stablize and function in an okay manner?

Yes, I do. Blaming it on the war in Iraq is one hell of a stretch. Iran's revolted (successfully) before without the US invading a neighbor.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 04:46 PM
most of the comments quoted from rank and file protesters in iran seem to be of the type "we want freedom"....

think they'd be uprising like this if it weren't for the fact that there's now a democracy next door in iraq that's beginning to stablize and function in an okay manner?

Well, it certainly has more to do with it than any speeches in Cairo.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 04:49 PM
I also mentioned context. The arguments that pulled most people into agreeing with the war in Iraq regarded National Security. Meaning the reason most people decided "to heck with international opinion," which is what I was talking about, was due to national security, which was the exception that I made.

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 04:57 PM
You might have intended it that way, but I've reread everything you posted a couple times now and it's more confusing than anything else.

People agreeing with the Iraq war was irrelevant. We were going anyways, the decision was up to elected officials who, until the next election year, didn't need to really worry about public opinion.

To go back to "context" Sei'tear said Iran didn't care about blah blah blah, which clearly means the leadership not the people, so in "context" we are talking about the leadership, not the people.

At no point did you make it clear you were talking about public opinion, and not the Bush Admin.

In fact:

I'll take it. It's certainly better than "deeply concerned" or whatever his first BS response was.

This rather strongly implies you are still talking about the Bush Admins motivations, not public opinion.

If I've misinterpreted you I apologize, but you certainly made it easy.

Yellowbeard
06-23-2009, 05:12 PM
Yes, I do. Blaming it on the war in Iraq is one hell of a stretch. Iran's revolted (successfully) before without the US invading a neighbor.

well, i'd argue it's not due to the war in iraq that they're clamouring for freedom now. i'd argue it's partially due to the example of freedom in iraq now, as opposed to the war.

the last time they successfully revolted, they put in the hardline theocracy they have now. i think the mistreatment by their own government is probably just as much a cause as well.

and for the record, we better not try to send any american assets to interfere. would be totally stupid to do so. i think the iranians have gotten exactly what they deserved in the aftermath for the 1979 revolution. now they're gonna have to bleed to get rid of what they created themselves.

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 05:22 PM
An alternate explanation would be that they revolted against perceived western meddling, and the theocracy took advantage of the chaos and a revolution weary public to seize power.

Iraq might have helped, but I doubt it was a deciding factor.

now they're gonna have to bleed to get rid of what they created themselves.

The rest of your post might be accurate, but this isn't. The West was meddling in Iran enough that it's impossible to say the people of Iran created this mess themselves. They most certainly had help.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 05:29 PM
You are now conflating two completely different conversations.

Let's make this simple. Whether the reasons were right or not, there were an awful lot of people, in and out of government, that believed that the Iraqi war was a matter of national security. This includes people in the US Senate, for example. My comment is simply that the US, in general, does care what the world thinks but will not allow it to determine their national security policy. I have said nothing that contradicts that statement.

The comment that started with "I'll take it" had nothing to do with the Bush Administration and everything with the quote that Terez provided me with of Obama's statement on Iran today.

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 05:31 PM
You are now conflating two completely different conversations.

Fair enough, and for that I apologize, but you still made it really easy to do.

My comment is simply that the US, in general, does care what the world thinks but will not allow it to determine their national security policy.

I disagree. I would think opinion on this would be at best sharply divided, especially considering the widespread contempt for the UN.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 05:35 PM
Er, if you mean that I talked about multiple things in one thread, I guess I made it easy. I believe that I hit reply on the post that I was responding to so that the thread would show what I was talking about. If not, sorry for the confusion.

Why is my name showing as "Jonai" in your quotes? Is that a board malfunction or some sort of weird commentary that I'm not understanding?

Ivhon
06-23-2009, 05:39 PM
Why is my name showing as "Jonai" in your quotes? Is that a board malfunction or some sort of weird commentary that I'm not understanding?

You gotta stop with the mind-reading.

Terez
06-23-2009, 05:42 PM
The comment that started with "I'll take it" had nothing to do with the Bush Administration and everything with the quote that Terez provided me with of Obama's statement on Iran today. FYI:

1. Most people don't use the tree, so it helps to quote people to keep the conversation easy to follow for everyone. I used the tree at ezBoard, but vBulletin's version is I think not really good enough to be worth harassing every noob to learn it (not to mention harassing stubborn old-timers to use it).

2. Neil is probably the most stubborn and generally offensive member of Theoryland currently. I like him, but most people don't care what I think.

3. Like Taimandred, the US-Iraq invasion is one of those "I told you so" things for Gonzo, and if you let him, he'll harp on it forever.

Sinistrum
06-23-2009, 05:43 PM
Oh look, Gonzo turned another foreign policy thread into an opportunity for him to grandstand on Iraq. God, he's like a broken record.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 05:43 PM
You gotta stop with the mind-reading.

You mean brain sharing ;)

Terez
06-23-2009, 05:44 PM
Oh look, Gonzo turned another foreign policy thread into an opportunity for him to grandstand on Iraq. God, he's like another broken record.
Fixed.

Ivhon
06-23-2009, 05:56 PM
You mean brain sharing ;)

OMG...how did you KNOW that?

Aright...gonna stop with the Progressive Insurance commercial rehash now.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 05:59 PM
FYI:

1. Most people don't use the tree, so it helps to quote people to keep the conversation easy to follow for everyone. I used the tree at ezBoard, but vBulletin's version is I think not really good enough to be worth harassing every noob to learn it (not to mention harassing stubborn old-timers to use it).

2. Neil is probably the most stubborn and generally offensive member of Theoryland currently. I like him, but most people don't care what I think.

3. Like Taimandred, the US-Iraq invasion is one of those "I told you so" things for Gonzo, and if you let him, he'll harp on it forever.

1. *Sad* I've been using the linear thread for standard reading and then go back and look at the threading for what people were responding to (like verifying what Neil was talking about in his first comment to me!) The threading is not particularly convenient in this SW, I will admit.

2. Yes, I'd already determined that from reading other threads. Hence my not being particularly patient with him when he decided to start in on me.

3. Yes, I know. It always has been. I did note that lost brain cells were the primary reason for not continuing the discussion, not that they were the only one.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 06:00 PM
Oh look, Gonzo turned another foreign policy thread into an opportunity for him to grandstand on Iraq. God, he's like a broken record.

Everyone's got a topic.

GonzoTheGreat
06-23-2009, 06:08 PM
Oh look, Gonzo turned another foreign policy thread into an opportunity for him to grandstand on Iraq. God, he's like a broken record.Why don't you do the same?
You could show us how well your opinions matched reality. Look for example in this thread (http://theoryland.yuku.com/topic/8966):
You say he's not a threat? I say he's already struck us. Ya see there was the little event about a year ago that ended with the collapse of two towers and the death of about 3,000 people. That event happend to occur in the U.S. That event also happened to be publicly celebrated and financially supported by Mr. Hussein. Mr. Hussein is even at this moment allowing the organization who conducted the event to set up shop in his country.Just one example; plenty more where this came from, and from the similar threads from that period.

Jalyn
06-23-2009, 06:14 PM
You know... This thread is starting to remind me of the conversation I had while talking to someone about the Iranian situation.
They commented "Sucks that so-and-so is over there."
I replied "So-and-so is in Iraq"
"Right"
"This is in Iran"
"Right. OH. Right, sorry"

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 06:19 PM
Why is my name showing as "Jonai" in your quotes? Is that a board malfunction or some sort of weird commentary that I'm not understanding?

Uhhhh... no comment. :o

Just one example; plenty more where this came from, and from the similar threads from that period.

Wow. That's... that's... really sad.

GonzoTheGreat
06-23-2009, 06:25 PM
Basically, when it comes to Iran, there is nothing we can do but hope. As someone already pointed out, even praying may very well be counter-productive.
Considering how often we (the West) have screwed over the people of Iran, and how well aware they all are of that, any interference at all will only strengthen those that are most strongly against us: Ahmadinejad and his henchmen.

What I think is going on there is that the principle of "one accepted leader who stands above the parties" is breaking down. Khomeini could manage that, Khamenei does not quite have what it takes to continue this. So eventually he will have to resort to raw power, at which point his claim to a divine right to rule will be down the drain. I'm not sure it will go that far this time, yet, but it may.
I don't think Khamenei will actually be overthrown now, but he is facing serious opposition from Rafsanjani, from what I've heard. Basically, some Iranians are disputing Khamenei's claim to being the undisputed leader.

Sinistrum
06-23-2009, 07:04 PM
I don't see how throwing that in my face takes away from my point, that you're being a pompous, soap box preaching assclown on the issue. I've already admitted I was wrong on Iraq. Nothing shocking or embarassing about that. See, unlike you, I don't make a claim as to my own infallibility. Speaking of, so has that Hamas charter changed its language yet to reflect your views on it? ;)

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 07:16 PM
Hey sinistrum, what say you to this (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html) if were talking about Palestine/Isreal?

In light of this calling for the destruction of Isreal seems much more reasonable to me, since there seems to be no potential for "legitimate" recourse.

Sinistrum
06-23-2009, 08:22 PM
Hey sinistrum, what say you to this if were talking about Palestine/Isreal?

In light of this calling for the destruction of Isreal seems much more reasonable to me, since there seems to be no potential for "legitimate" recourse.

I say teehee. You called the U.N. "legitimate recourse."

Davian93
06-23-2009, 08:25 PM
I say teehee. You called the U.N. "legitimate recourse."

The UN is a complete joke that needs to be imploded. The only reason we even keep it around is our permanent spot (and veto power) on the Security Council.

Sei'taer
06-23-2009, 08:51 PM
I wish I'd made this supremely sarcastic remark. The casual mention of "unlike the US" is a real masterpiece.


Thank you.

But let's say, for sake of argument, that Obama does what the hawks want and issues ST's statement of "we wont stand by while Iran shits on its people."


Not what I said.

We in the US will not stand by while the leaders in Iran shit on the liberty and democracy of the citizens of Iran to peacefully protest unfair election practices on their country. The protesters can rest assured that they have the full support of the US and its people.

That puts us in the position of either not backing the statement up (which the conservatives would use to paint the President as even weaker than they are already doing...and is probably the reason why they are wanting him to do this) OR backing it up and putting our already vastly overextended military in Iran...as well as Iraq...as well as Afghanistan...as well as trailing N. Korea ships. Meanwhile do we really think that the Russians and Chinese wont use the impossibly stretched US military as an excuse to march right in to Georgia or Taiwan?


The last thing we need to do is go into Iran. Thats why I said:

As far as I'm concerned, condemnation doesn't change much, support, even moral support, changes a lot.

Right now moral support is the best we can do. The Iranians don't like us. They probably never will. But viewing polls from there and listening to them on the news and reading their thoughts online, they hunger for democracy and liberty and freedom. (CBSNews) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/08/world/main5072202.shtml?source=related_story) Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, there is not much we can do to help them other than offer to listen. Telling the regime they are unjust is pointless, they already know that. Telling the citizens we are here, even if it is just to listen to them dream gives them some semblance that it is possible for them to achieve. From what I understand, Mosavi may not have been a better choice, but he was a different one and one they should have been allowed to choose if they wanted.

Gonzo's observation aside, what you say only really applies to certain people who have been in power over the years - it doesn't necessarily apply to the citizens at all. I think that a lot of them would like to be respected.

True, and I was applying the part about the US to it's leaders. I personally don't care, but I'm like that IRL too. You do or you don't and it doesn't matter.

To be clear, I do not think that those like McCain who thinks that the US should be taking a tougher stance on Iran are intentionally trying to harm the country for political gain. I DO think they are putting electoral politics ahead of clearly considered national interests without thinking the consequences through.

McCain is an idiot. On the second part...It's sad, but true. Thats the way our politicians will work until we change the system. It's not only the reps doing it, the dems are all over it too.

FYI:

1. Most people don't use the tree, so it helps to quote people to keep the conversation easy to follow for everyone. I used the tree at ezBoard, but vBulletin's version is I think not really good enough to be worth harassing every noob to learn it (not to mention harassing stubborn old-timers to use it).

2. Neil is probably the most stubborn and generally offensive member of Theoryland currently. I like him, but most people don't care what I think.

3. Like Taimandred, the US-Iraq invasion is one of those "I told you so" things for Gonzo, and if you let him, he'll harp on it forever.

1. Tree sucks on Vbulletin
2. yup, except I don't like him and I think that's fine with both of us. He does have this uncanny knack for coming up with a brilliant point now and then though, so it's good to read what he says even if you don't agree.
3. Gonzo is a member now, but he's still Gonzo.

The UN is a complete joke that needs to be imploded. The only reason we even keep it around is our permanent spot (and veto power) on the Security Council.

True Dat

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 09:01 PM
I say teehee. You called the U.N. "legitimate recourse."

I put legitimate in quotes for a reason smartass.

What other options are there?

Matoyak
06-23-2009, 10:56 PM
As a side-note, I wonder if the American revolution had these same arguments going on during that time? (And before someone pulls some kind of historical stuff out with quotes and such, this is just a comment, nothing deep meant by it...and if that does happen, who the hell keeps around old conversations between random joes in order to quote from later?)

Neilbert
06-23-2009, 11:56 PM
2. Neil is probably the most stubborn and generally offensive member of Theoryland currently. I like him, but most people don't care what I think.

I miss Callandor.

He does have this uncanny knack for coming up with a brilliant point now and then though, so it's good to read what he says even if you don't agree.

Aww stoppit you'll make me blush.

When I sit down and calmly think I'm actually really good at it, it's just that the expectations game has left me perpetually pissed off (nothing to do with you guys... well not nothing... but pretty much) which tends to make the thinking not so good.

Terez
06-24-2009, 01:45 AM
I miss Callandor. I'm sure he'd be thrilled to hear that.

When I sit down and calmly think I'm actually really good at it, it's just that the expectations game has left me perpetually pissed off (nothing to do with you guys... well not nothing... but pretty much) which tends to make the thinking not so good. I think that's why you mostly stopped bothering me a long time ago - you're pretty much always rude, so it ceases to have any negative effect on me. I can be rude in return without even being mad.

Sei'taer
06-24-2009, 09:36 AM
Aww stoppit you'll make me blush.

When I sit down and calmly think I'm actually really good at it, it's just that the expectations game has left me perpetually pissed off (nothing to do with you guys... well not nothing... but pretty much) which tends to make the thinking not so good.

Even a dog that bites gets/needs a pat on the head now and then.;)

Brita
06-24-2009, 10:23 AM
Even a dog that bites gets/needs a pat on the head now and then.;)

Just be careful....you may lose that hand!

Neilbert
06-24-2009, 10:31 AM
Yeah, but I get a free meal, so for me it's win/win.

Oatman
06-24-2009, 10:43 AM
Careful Neil, you don't know what else he's been doing with that hand.

Neilbert
06-24-2009, 10:56 AM
:eek:

Sei'taer
06-24-2009, 11:11 AM
Careful Neil, you don't know what else he's been doing with that hand.

It's clean...just some of last nights beer sweating out on it. But bottle beer sweat doesn't smell nearly as bad as keg beer sweat.

Yellowbeard
06-24-2009, 02:47 PM
An alternate explanation would be that they revolted against perceived western meddling, and the theocracy took advantage of the chaos and a revolution weary public to seize power.

Iraq might have helped, but I doubt it was a deciding factor.

The rest of your post might be accurate, but this isn't. The West was meddling in Iran enough that it's impossible to say the people of Iran created this mess themselves. They most certainly had help.

The theocracy would not have been able to grab power initially w/out the support of the people, regardless of the circumstances.

I do agree that western meddling also helped a lot in that regard, and while I don't like Obama much, I'm glad he's keeping the current Iran issue distant right now. Better to the let the Iranians work out their issues on their own.

Also I'm glad we agree that the present situation in Iraq has had an influence w/ regards to the Iranians becoming more vocal and pro-active in seeking their own freedom from an oppressive government.

Ozymandias
06-24-2009, 07:08 PM
It is noticeable that Obama does not have the guts of Bush senior, who promised to support the people of Iraq if they would rise up against their oppressive regime.

Because Obama isn't the douche Bush senior was, who, when those very same Iraqi's rose up, refused to lend them a shred of support that wasn't written or spoken. I mean, unless you were being ironic and I missed it, it takes real balls to use THAT example as the justification for bashing Obama's Iran policy.

Which ties right in, Sini. Lets say Obama HAD said "we will not stand by and see the Iranian gov't oppress its own people." Well, they're oppressing. Either Obama orders the cavalry in, in some PUBLIC way or another, or he is made a liar and a fool of, with the same lack of effect and greater potential to damage the resolve of the protestors.

Ozymandias
06-24-2009, 07:13 PM
well, i'd argue it's not due to the war in iraq that they're clamouring for freedom now. i'd argue it's partially due to the example of freedom in iraq now, as opposed to the war.


You mean the nearly-failing democratic experiment in iraq? The one where politicians are routinely killed for the crime of believing they can help their country to a brighter future? The country which is hardly a state, but more like three ethno-religious sects competing to gain control of a resource? Iraq can't even be considered a true nation-state; they don't have a monopoly on force in the country.

No, my guess, and this is pure speculation, mind you, is that the Iranians revolted because they were upset at the blatant oppression of not only their civil, but political/legal liberties as well. They were upset because the economy has been in the toilet for years, and one Ahmadinejad has made it incalculably worse. Iraq had nothing to do with it. Anyone who claims Iraq had anything other than a discouraging effect (the ultimate example of the US meddling, trying to export its democratic, secular government, and failing miserably) is daydreaming.

Sinistrum
06-24-2009, 11:49 PM
Hey don't draw me into this debate Ozy. All I did was call Obama a poonany (and that had nothing to do with anything he's done specifically with regards to Iran, more just a general observation of his overall foreign policy) and call out Gonzo for getting out his soap box on an issue completely irrelevant to this topic. When I actually want to get substantively involved in it, I'll let you know. ;)

GonzoTheGreat
06-25-2009, 06:32 AM
Because Obama isn't the douche Bush senior was, who, when those very same Iraqi's rose up, refused to lend them a shred of support that wasn't written or spoken. I mean, unless you were being ironic and I missed it, it takes real balls to use THAT example as the justification for bashing Obama's Iran policy.Let me just say that you need to recalibrate your irony meter. It seems to have given you a false negative in this case.

Sei'taer
06-25-2009, 09:11 AM
Either Obama orders the cavalry in, in some PUBLIC way or another, or he is made a liar and a fool of, with the same lack of effect and greater potential to damage the resolve of the protestors.


Psssst...Ozy, he's a politician. That's how you get the job.

Terez
07-06-2009, 07:16 AM
Update (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6644817.ece).

Davian93
07-06-2009, 10:49 AM
Update (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6644817.ece).

Now why the heck didn't they do that a few weeks ago when it could have pushed it over the edge and changed things. Amadinnerjacket has a pretty iron grip on things now.

GonzoTheGreat
07-06-2009, 11:12 AM
Now why the heck didn't they do that a few weeks ago when it could have pushed it over the edge and changed things. Amadinnerjacket has a pretty iron grip on things now.Because they were still arguing amongst themselves, of course. Considering that they're a bunch of old religious leaders, I have to say they did it pretty quickly. For instance, it took the Roman Catholic Church quite a bit longer to decide that Galileo might've been sort of right after all.

Davian93
07-06-2009, 11:16 AM
Because they were still arguing amongst themselves, of course. Considering that they're a bunch of old religious leaders, I have to say they did it pretty quickly. For instance, it took the Roman Catholic Church quite a bit longer to decide that Galileo might've been sort of right after all.

That Galileo thing is still up for the debate...despite your newfangled "science"...

Uno
07-06-2009, 05:52 PM
Now why the heck didn't they do that a few weeks ago when it could have pushed it over the edge and changed things. Amadinnerjacket has a pretty iron grip on things now.

Well, you know, if we're going to be realistic about things, as long as the government keeps control of the military and the police, and doesn't lose its nerve in face of popular protest, there's very little chance of overthrowing it. Street protestors shouting slogans just can't stand up to soldiers with guns, at least not as long as the soldiers are willing to use their weapons. As Mao pointed out, "power springs from the barrel of a gun," and as long as the supreme leader does not emulate Louis XVI and proverbially tells the Swiss Guard not to shoot, popular protest may prove ineffective, in spite of the rather naive belief in people power touted by the press.

Davian93
07-06-2009, 10:04 PM
Yeah, but sometimes there is enough pressure for the military to change teams so to speak and in some cases it only takes a small portion of the military to flip for it to start a domino effect. Tehran today could very well have turned into 18th century Paris had the local military flipped or even stepped aside.

Uno
07-06-2009, 10:48 PM
Yeah, but sometimes there is enough pressure for the military to change teams so to speak and in some cases it only takes a small portion of the military to flip for it to start a domino effect. Tehran today could very well have turned into 18th century Paris had the local military flipped or even stepped aside.

But what I'm referring to is the various comments in the press that the popular uprising is necessarily unstoppable, when, in fact, popular uprisings are put down all the time. China twenty years ago comes to mind, but there's also Burma a couple of years ago, and, in fact, the rising in Xinjiang province in China being crushed right now. It just takes enough brutality. A government as strong as that of Iran has many means at its disposal, and if the regular army may be unreliable, a radical revolutionary regime tends to have politicized and ideologically reliable troops to call on. In Iran, that would be the Revolutionary Guard.

Davian93
07-06-2009, 10:57 PM
But what I'm referring to is the various comments in the press that the popular uprising is necessarily unstoppable, when, in fact, popular uprisings are put down all the time. China twenty years ago comes to mind, but there's also Burma a couple of years ago, and, in fact, the rising in Xinjiang province in China being crushed right now. It just takes enough brutality. A government as strong as that of Iran has many means at its disposal, and if the regular army may be unreliable, a radical revolutionary regime tends to have politicized and ideologically reliable troops to call on. In Iran, that would be the Revolutionary Guard.

Yup...pretty much. That's why its good to have a loyal group of shock troops if you are a dictator.