Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on June 22, 2009, 06:58:46 am
-
I'm amazed no one brought this up. Politics is usually such a hot topic :P
So?
Frankly, I agree with the Alatojah - even if there was some cheating (and there pretty much always is, in any elections), Ahmadinejad won with more than 11 million votes advantage, so it's not like finding a million freudelent votes would change anything.
-
Except for the fact that all 11mil and more were probably fradulent. In fact, the numbers given to both canidates were almost certainly made up. They claim to have counted all the votes from the whole country in about two hours. That's bull**** by any objective standard.
Let's face it: Iran is not a democratic country. The election is a sham. Supreme executive power rests with the Ayatollah, not the President. The only possible method of changing this is revolution.
Which is why there's any hope at all. Iran is place of long memories and long history, and the opposition is not stupid. Strength can be drawn from the institutions of the Revolution, and it is being done so. If nothing else is accomplished by this, it will at least cause great discomfort in the government to see so much reminiscent of the Revolution turned against them.
-
I'm amazed no one brought this up. Politics is usually such a hot topic :P
So?
Frankly, I agree with the Alatojah - even if there was some cheating (and there pretty much always is, in any elections), Ahmadinejad won with more than 11 million votes advantage, so it's not like finding a million freudelent votes would change anything.
hmmm what's this ethnic voting thing and why does it look suspicious
-
I find it strange that the margin by which Ahmadinejad won this 'election' changed overnight when he thought that a 3:1 ratio was too unbelievable. If so many people had voted for Ahmadinejad, then there wouldn't be so many people protesting.
Furhtermore, the government wouldn't be trying to stop people from communicating.
- They shot down cellular service
- They have BANNED Twitter
x.x
-
I hate the country in general. DE-MO-CRA-CY.
-
Iran has major issues, for one thing their economy has really been in the tank for a very long time and no one really does anything to change it.
-
I think a lot of the other posters have gotten the issue mostly right, but there's one thing that should be pointed out: the US should absolutely not get involved with Iran. At all. Supporting Ahmadinejad, well, that;s stupid because he most likely hates us, and the opposition will hate us too if they win. And we can't support Mousavi, because that would most likely make the protesters look like puppets of the West and damage the legitimacy of their complaints.
If nothing else, the Iranian government's responses suggest that the opposition party has a real point- the government is quite obviously corrupt, and a lot of people are tired of it.
My 2 cents.
-
Except for the fact that all 11mil and more were probably fradulent. In fact, the numbers given to both canidates were almost certainly made up. They claim to have counted all the votes from the whole country in about two hours. That's bull**** by any objective standard.
Let's face it: Iran is not a democratic country. The election is a sham. Supreme executive power rests with the Ayatollah, not the President. The only possible method of changing this is revolution.
Proof or it didn't happen. That's how it goes. Regardless of how democrati Iran may or may not be, regardless of how much you might hate or like either canditate - if one wins, and oyu can't prove fraud, you deal with it.
-
I think a lot of the other posters have gotten the issue mostly right, but there's one thing that should be pointed out: the US should absolutely not get involved with Iran. At all. Supporting Ahmadinejad, well, that;s stupid because he most likely hates us, and the opposition will hate us too if they win. And we can't support Mousavi, because that would most likely make the protesters look like puppets of the West and damage the legitimacy of their complaints.
If nothing else, the Iranian government's responses suggest that the opposition party has a real point- the government is quite obviously corrupt, and a lot of people are tired of it.
My 2 cents.
I agree, with one caveat. I can see the US possibly getting involved, but only after there's already a shooting war (God forbid) and only if such an action would help to restore peace and stability quicker (instead of just making it worse, which is what will happen if we get at all involved now). And if the US does get involved, it would be best if it was done (at least nominally) as a UN action.
EDIT: I sincerely hope that nothing of the sort proves necessary. We've been involved in enough war lately.
-
Proof or it didn't happen. That's how it goes. Regardless of how democrati Iran may or may not be, regardless of how much you might hate or like either canditate - if one wins, and oyu can't prove fraud, you deal with it.
Describe unto me a reasonable mechanism for counting eleven million votes in two hours. All such votes are on blank, handwritten cards; all must be checked for voter number and who was voted for, in addition to anything else that may or may not be on them (I have no idea if Iran's presidential election occurs at the same time as any parallel local elections, but this seems unfortunately imminently reasonable).
You cannot. Even if you could, it would not match the election mechanism in Iran, which is small enough they would have to be processing these votes at quicker than one a second to possibly make such a thing work.
And this mechanism we have just described is only for the margin by which the ruling group claims to have won, not even the whole country.
The entire voting system in Iran might as well be designed to be abused, but in this case they did not even make a pretense of a natural vote.
-
And how accurate are your information?
I'm gonna be the devils advocate here - innocent until proven guilty. Period.
B.t.w. - does anyone think that US (or other countries) may already be involved indirectly (backing up the protesters in secret, possibly even starting the whole thing)?
-
I've kept away from the topic because it is way, way too easy to imagine the spectre of the West hanging behind the riots, God knows it wouldn't be the first time the West have worked through those routes before.
But then, not every angry public protest in the East is directly the fault of the West, maybe they genuinely have something to be angry about, but in this situation, more than any other, Iran must be seen to be left alone to deal with the problem one way or another.
-
I think it's pretty obvious that this election was stolen, given that Ahmadinejad's mishandling of Iran's economy had clearly lost him popular support. In a grander sense, however, it doesn't really matter. The election was merely a catalyst for discontent that was going to ignite sooner or later anyway, and given the nature of Iran's government, I think it's quite healthy.
-
Proof or it didn't happen. That's how it goes. Regardless of how democrati Iran may or may not be, regardless of how much you might hate or like either canditate - if one wins, and oyu can't prove fraud, you deal with it.
Well, it's kind of hard to have PROOF when the party making the claims has expelled foreign journalists, cracked down on investigators, banned communications with the outside world, and opened fire on the dissenters. What, exactly, is it they're trying to hide?
-
Before this year is out Iran will either be engaged in a massive civil war or a crater(either from they're own bombs or ours)
This is a perfect example of the kind of leaders that want to obliterate the West and replace it with they're own government and the lengths to which they're willing to go.
-
You cannot. Even if you could, it would not match the election mechanism in Iran, which is small enough they would have to be processing these votes at quicker than one a second to possibly make such a thing work.
With 11 million votes and two hours, you'd have to process about 1528 votes per second! Yeah...
-
Before this year is out Iran will either be engaged in a massive civil war or a crater(either from they're own bombs or ours)
This is a perfect example of the kind of leaders that want to obliterate the West and replace it with they're own government and the lengths to which they're willing to go.
I'm a big supporter of the Iranian protesters, but I have to say - you could say exactly that about America.
"This is a perfect example of the kind of leaders that want to obliterate the Middle East and replace it with their own government and the lengths to which they're willing to go."
The difference being, of course, that we've invaded Middle Eastern countries, and they haven't invaded us...
:drevil:
-
Before this year is out Iran will either be engaged in a massive civil war or a crater(either from they're own bombs or ours)
Really, you totally think the States is ready to go role over another country after Iraq? The fact that the military is needing to stop loss its personnel multiple times to maintain the forces it needs for its current operations has completely escaped your notice? Military is going to be years trying to rebuild itself like it did after Nam' and you think were going to merrily go curb stomp Iran in a year? Wonder how many of you gungho jabronees are willing to give up college to enlist in the Corps to carry out this grand adventure.
-
This has nothing to do with obliterating anyone. This is about the fact that Ahmadinejad utterly failed to fulfill the mandate on which he was elected, which was to overhaul the Iranian economy. Instead he ****ed it up even worse, and anyone with half a brain would've told you that this election was going to reflect that. (Anyone not assuming such blatant fraud, that is.) Don't forget that Mousavi has already been the prime minister of Iran, and is hardly what you could call pro-West. The population of Iran is not vehemently anti-West, but their economy is understandably of more immediate concern.
-
Totally agreed.
-
This morning, I woke up and went downstairs and someone had left the tv on whatever channel The View is on. They showed a video of a sixteen year old Iranian girl being shot and killed in the street by sniper fire.
She's about my age. Damn.
If the revolutionary types in Iran ask for our help (however unlikely that may be), I will back an invasion 100%. Until then, I will just grumble quietly and respect the Iranians' will to do this on their own.
In the meantime, we could always answer the pleas for help in wartorn countries in Africa...
-
We are all soldiers of the revolution.
-
As far as I'm concerned, it's not our business what they do. If they revolt and form a new government, great. If they don't and Ahmandinnerjacket clamps down... not great, but there really isn't much we can do about it.
If they call for the UN to go, in goes the UN.
But if we didn't get involved in Mugabe crapping all over the process, we really shouldn't be sticking our noses in this. Especially given our current economic and military status.
All that said, I hope those protesters topple those SOBs
-
Agreed.
-
Personally i would like to thank the boys over at MI5 who put this whole thing together. Real bang up job. Hope you dont get caught
-
We would know if it was western influenced because Steven Colbert would have won by 20 million votes.
-
Talk about horrible ahmadinejad screwing with the elections. He took out cell services, youtube, and twitter. He also happened to block out every single piece of media from mousavi even on the internet. God knows what else on the internet was also blocked, i think a couple of major social networking sites were blocked too.
The elections might have been screwed with? OH **** NO!!! Ahmadinejad's just a crappy competitor and has the actions of a sore loser (even though he won).
-
I don't see how the west could have influenced the election given that they just pulled numbers out of their arses.
-
And especially when the first results came out for the votes that the iranian supreme religious leader called it a "divine victory".
-
And how accurate are your information?
The information comes via the Associated Press, which is usually fairly reliable, and prior to the crackdown on news out of Iran. The nature of the balloting process is a matter of public record.
-
CAIRO – Iran's top electoral body said Tuesday it found "no major fraud" and will not annul the results of the June 12 election, closing the door to a do-over sought by angry opposition supporters alleging systematic vote-rigging.
Since the vote, Iranian government officials have repeatedly suggested that a revote is extremely unlikely. However, Tuesday's announcement by Iran's top electoral body, the Guardian Council, was the clearest yet in ruling out a do-over.
The announcement on Iran's state-run English language Press TV is another sign the regime is determined to crush post-election unrest, the worst since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, rather than seek compromise with the protesters.
Government warnings to the protesters have intensified in recent days, with Iran's supreme leader ordering them off the streets and the feared Revolutionary Guards threatening a tough crackdown. At least 17 people have been killed in near-daily demonstrations, including at least one that drew hundreds of thousands of people.
In a boost for the embattled regime, Russia said Tuesday that it respects the declared election result, which the Iranian government described as a landslide victory for hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The U.S. and many European countries have refrained from challenging the election outcome directly, but have issued increasingly stern warnings against continuing violence meted out to demonstrators.
Ahmadinejad's main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, has charged the election was a fraud and insists he is the true winner.
The Guardian Council found "no major fraud or breach in the election," a spokesman, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, was quoted by Press TV as saying. "Therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place."
On Monday, the Guardian Council said — in a rare acknowledgment — that there had been voting irregularities in 50 districts, including local vote counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters. However, the council said the discrepancies were not widespread enough to affect the result.
Ahmadinejad won crucial backing from Russia on Tuesday, with the Foreign Ministry in Moscow saying it respects the declared election result. In a statement on its Web site, the ministry said that disputes about the vote "should be settled in strict compliance with Iran's Constitution and law" and are "exclusively an internal matter."
Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has longtime political and economic ties with Iran where it is helping build a nuclear power plan at Bushehr. In his only trip abroad since the vote, Ahmadinejad traveled to Russia last week for a conference where he was seen prominently shaking hands with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
Many Western democracies, including the U.S., have criticized the way in which the Iranian government has dealt with the widespread protests, and renewed Iranian government threats of a crackdown have heightened concerns.
In New York, U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon urged an "immediate stop to the arrests, threats and use of force," U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said Monday.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called on Iran to recount the votes, but stopped short of alleging electoral fraud. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been outspoken in his criticism of Iran's response to the demonstrations, but said doors must remain open to continue talks on the country's nuclear program.
In contrast, China, Venezuela and some other developing countries tended to be supportive of the Iranian government, whose nuclear activities, alleged involvement in terrorism and influence in regional conflicts have alarmed the West for years.
After a huge opposition rally a week ago, protests have become smaller, but demonstrators have been more willing to confront Iranian troops.
On Monday, Tehran riot police fired tear gas and live bullets to break up about 200 protesters paying tribute to those killed in the protests, including a young women, Neda Agha Soltan, whose apparent shooting death was captured on video and circulated worldwide. Witnesses said helicopters hovered overhead as riot police fired live rounds and lobbed tear gas to break up the gathering. Security forces ordered people to keep walking and prevented even small groups from gathering.
Caspian Makan, a 37-year-old photojournalist in Tehran who identified himself as Soltan's boyfriend, said she had not been deterred by the risk of protesting. "She only ever said that she wanted one thing, she wanted democracy and freedom for the people of Iran," he told an Associated Press reporter during a telephone call from Tehran.
Severe restrictions on reporters have made it almost impossible to independently verify reports on demonstrations, clashes and casualties. Iran has ordered reporters for international news agencies to stay in their offices, barring them from reporting on the streets.
A number of journalists have been detained since the protests began, though there have been conflicting accounts. The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders put the figure of reporters detained at 34.
The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said 13 were still in custody, including Newsweek correspondent Maziar Bahari.
The Iranian government must release all journalists and halt "unreasonable and arbitrary measures that are restricting the flow of information," the committee said. "Detaining journalists for reporting news and commentary indicates the government has something to hide."
Round and round they go.
-
Iran - so incompetent/lazy that they can't even make up plausible election results.
-
On Monday, Tehran riot police fired tear gas and live bullets to break up about 200 protesters paying tribute to those killed in the protests, including a young women, Neda Agha Soltan, whose apparent shooting death was captured on video and circulated worldwide. Witnesses said helicopters hovered overhead as riot police fired live rounds and lobbed tear gas to break up the gathering. Security forces ordered people to keep walking and prevented even small groups from gathering.
According to CNN, though, the "live bullets" were just fired into the air. Not AT the protesters as can be implied from the article above. I don't know which is correct, but I think it's important to realize that it isn't clear that protesters were being shot at with live rounds. I don't think the situation has escalated that far...at least not yet.
-
CAIRO – Iran's top electoral body said Tuesday it found "no major fraud" and will not annul the results of the June 12 election, closing the door to a do-over sought by angry opposition supporters alleging systematic vote-rigging.
Round and round they go.
They just massively miscalculated.
Iran has one of the most progressive-minded populations of any country in the Middle East (while the government may be wackjobs, the people aren't). The democractic push in Iran is spread throughout the general populace, and the government just added a catalyst to a sentiment that's been simmering for quite some time.
It's going to be pretty interesting to watch.
-
By the way I just posted the news article, I don't necessarily agree with everything in it. It was just an update.
Unfortunately it looks like it's kinda winding down on the protest side.
-
In a sense the situation is much deeper than that.
The vast majority of the countries population which is over 70 million are very suspicious of the west.
Iran has always had a shaky relationship with Europe. Just look back on previous times, when it was known by the name of Persia and the European invasion or even its own previous empires.
It should be noted that the population of Iran is very young, with an estimated 75% of the people under the age of 30.
Younger people generally do tend to be more 'left wing' or 'liberal' with a strong will for change.
Naturally people within this liberal grouping will have different views on ideology and belief.
By European standards we may not understand Iran clearly. To us some of their laws seem barbaric, backwards, a through back to the middle ages. (Execution of children for crimes) (Illegality for woman and men to dance together)
But the last thing the Western World should do is play into the hands of the current administration.
Its an internal Iranian problem, that needs to be sorted by Iranians. They are a strong proud people. Outside interference will be simply met with hostility and suspicion.
To that user who stated that they could see USA and Iran engaging in military conflict, the chances of that actually happening are very slim.
The USA is still struggling to cope with Afghanistan, not to mention the losses and difficulties it is currently facing in Iraq with a hostile home population towards the war.
On top of that you have a belligerent and defiant North Korea who openly admits its on a nuclear build up. Taking that into account, USA currently has its eyes elsewhere.
The only real scenario that could provoke military action would be an Israeli bombing of Tehran’s nuclear facilities. This would naturally cause an 'Iranian backlash' which USA would be forced to intervene with.
In terms of the election itself? The results do look suspicious. But then again, we are going by opinion polls. We all know, opinion polls can be wrong. Just look back on our own histories. Despite what we may think the current Iranian president is very popular and can draw on a lot of support including armed militias and religious leaders who hold a lot of power within the state. The president himself is answerable to the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader. It does have similarities to democracy prevalent in Europe in late 19th centuries such as Prussia (examine the Bismarckian era), The simply fact is that Iranians do take their limited democracy very seriously. Students were reportedly flying home from parts of the world just to be able to vote in this election. (Something those of us in the free world should bow our heads in shame, some people not willing to get their fat arse of the sofa and walks five minutes down the road)
The Election could simply be a dispute amongst the young of Iran and what direction the country will take in future. While Ahmadinejad is not a likeable man to many in the Western World, he was democratically elected previously by the people. While there are large scale protests on the streets, these do not yet seem to have the momentum and countrywide support that was last seen in the 1979 revolution. Perhaps one of the reasons the current administration of Iran is so worried is because they are seeing and drawing similarities between the events of 1979 and those of 2009.
If the military does crack down on supporters for the opposition it will be a very sad day for democracy in that region which has already seen enough turmoil. It could easily go like Tiananmen square in China, a ruthless massacre of protesters, and then once things calm down, everything returns to normal, people forgot, or simply just don’t care.
but thats just my two cents ;)
-
If the revolutionary types in Iran ask for our help (however unlikely that may be), I will back an invasion 100%. Until then, I will just grumble quietly and respect the Iranians' will to do this on their own.
In the meantime, we could always answer the pleas for help in wartorn countries in Africa...
We have ****ed with Iran's **** quite enough already.
-
If the revolutionary types in Iran ask for our help (however unlikely that may be), I will back an invasion 100%. Until then, I will just grumble quietly and respect the Iranians' will to do this on their own.
In the meantime, we could always answer the pleas for help in wartorn countries in Africa...
We have ****ed with Iran's **** quite enough already.
^ What he said. This matter is internal to Iran and Iran alone. Western influence would probably do more harm than good at any point. If a revolution takes place and the current government is removed and replaced with a true democracy, great. If not, well...Ahmadinejad and his ilk are the devils we know.
-
If the revolutionary types in Iran ask for our help (however unlikely that may be), I will back an invasion 100%. Until then, I will just grumble quietly and respect the Iranians' will to do this on their own.
In the meantime, we could always answer the pleas for help in wartorn countries in Africa...
We have ****ed with Iran's **** quite enough already.
^ What he said. This matter is internal to Iran and Iran alone. Western influence would probably do more harm than good at any point. If a revolution takes place and the current government is removed and replaced with a true democracy, great. If not, well...Ahmadinejad and his ilk are the devils we know.
I agree with that. That's why I added the stipulation "if the Iranians ASK for outside help."
Duh.
-
If a revolution takes place and the current government is removed and replaced with a true democracy, great.
Until they elect somebody we don't like again.
-
I'd be fine with that unless the reason we don't like him is that he subverts his own country's democratic process.
-
You cannot. Even if you could, it would not match the election mechanism in Iran, which is small enough they would have to be processing these votes at quicker than one a second to possibly make such a thing work.
With 11 million votes and two hours, you'd have to process about 1528 votes per second! Yeah...
With 15 000 people counting that's like 1 vote per 10 seconds per person.
This morning, I woke up and went downstairs and someone had left the tv on whatever channel The View is on. They showed a video of a sixteen year old Iranian girl being shot and killed in the street by sniper fire.
She's about my age. Damn.
If the revolutionary types in Iran ask for our help (however unlikely that may be), I will back an invasion 100%. Until then, I will just grumble quietly and respect the Iranians' will to do this on their own.
In the meantime, we could always answer the pleas for help in wartorn countries in Africa...
Get used to it. The world is a warzone for a billion* people.
And I'd support invading Iran, just like I supported Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The elections might have been screwed with? OH **** NO!!! Ahmadinejad's just a crappy competitor and has the actions of a sore loser (even though he won).
Well, Ahmanidinejad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KspQbrWPfnc&feature=related) doesn't give a rat's @$$ about someone on the Internet calling him a loser.
He has the power and that's what counts. Rules of fair play are good for sports, but they do not apply for dictatorships.
*-I pulled the 1 billion out of the same place Ahmadenijad pulled the number of votes he got. Feel free to find stats to correct me.
-
At this point, the only thing obvious is that the ruling elite doesn't know how to handle election protests.
-
Get used to it. The world is a warzone for a billion* people.
And I'd support invading Iran, just like I supported Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unfortunately you have a point. But the causes of these wars are not simply a lack of democracy. Indeed it is democracy in the past which has created dictators. The major underlying reasons for conflict still remain the same since the first human raised a fist against another. Land. Resources. Religion.
Simply removing a dictator does not create a chance for the formation of a stable county. Until the developed world starts giving developing countries a chance to grow, stabilise in terms of markets and economics, the same problems will remain.
These people, whether it be the middle east, Asia or Africa are fighting for survival. Everyday is a struggle to stay alive – in some cases by any means.
If this means we have to pay extra at the petrol pump, for our food, our cheap electrical products, would we be willing to do it? That is for what little we actually have, would we risk losing it for the grand notion of saving the world? Your heart would say yes, but a little voice buried deep within your mind would be shouting ‘no’.
Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan are still a toss up. They can go either way. Its one thing to invade a country, its another thing completely to control it. The Nato and EU forces have done a great job in Kosovo, but it is my no means a rosy picture. A lot of work still has to be done. Lots of old grudges and wounds still exist. Your talking about at least three to four generations to emerge for things to settle down towards normality. Just look at Northern Ireland. It has been relativity a peace for the past few years, but sparks still happen, events can still change. Nothing is written in stone.
In the end, history has proven that war breeds war. Killing simply leads to more killing. At times war is the lesser of two evils, that to sit back and do nothing can be more dangerous and harmful than to get involved. It’s a judgement call. If you make the wrong call, everything can go to hell. And any survivor of a conflict will tell you, war is hell.
-
If the military does crack down on supporters for the opposition it will be a very sad day for democracy in that region which has already seen enough turmoil. It could easily go like Tiananmen square in China, a ruthless massacre of protesters, and then once things calm down, everything returns to normal, people forgot, or simply just don’t care.
Unlikely. This a country that remembers its history very clearly and very well. It also has the Islamic reverence for martyrdom for your ideals, so perhaps the worst thing the government could actually do would be to kill large numbers of the opposition protesters.
However, that's exactly why military intervention is just not an option.
-
when fighting Muslims the side that kills the most early on loses.
-
This just occured to me - why do you think the voting was done too fast? Voting can go really fast, since ID checks are done when you circle your choice on the paper.
Once that piece of paper is in the box, the only job is to count the votes. And that can be done really fast. Or do they use a different voting mechanism in Iran?
-
This just occured to me - why do you think the voting was done too fast? Voting can go really fast, since ID checks are done when you circle your choice on the paper.
Once that piece of paper is in the box, the only job is to count the votes. And that can be done really fast. Or do they use a different voting mechanism in Iran?
All the votes in Iran are handwritten; there are no checkboxes or even a line for the name. You have to write out your choice and your voter ID number on the paper.
-
People have short memories. Nobody wanted the west to get involved when Georgia or Ukraine were having their popular electoral protests. Nobody wanted to get involved when Thailand had two in a year or so from opposing sides. The only reason this one is getting more interest is because it's happeniong in the middle east. That's all. The warmongers who've been trying to get troops into Iran think this'll give them an excuse, and those on the other side think this'll eliminate the problem by having the Iranian people throw out their own government. They're both wrong. Either the protests will be suppressed and nothing will change, or they'll be successful, and a slightly different government will come up and do essentially the same things (at least, in terms of foreign and nuclear policy, the stuff that affects non-iranians) since whoever's in front of the cameras, Khomeni's pulling the strings. Certainly, no-one's going to invade Iran after the ****storms that Iraq and Afghanistan have been, not with Obama in the white house still riding high on the whole "Not Bush" thing and thus keeping the US from taking the first step, and definitely not with Russia and China as close with Iran as they are. And that's not even mentioning the Korean situation, which is far more likely to turn internationally violent than post-election Iran (and even then, it's a bloody small likelihood).
-
People have short memories. Nobody wanted the west to get involved when Georgia or Ukraine were having their popular electoral protests. Nobody wanted to get involved when Thailand had two in a year or so from opposing sides. The only reason this one is getting more interest is because it's happeniong in the middle east. That's all. The warmongers who've been trying to get troops into Iran think this'll give them an excuse, and those on the other side think this'll eliminate the problem by having the Iranian people throw out their own government. They're both wrong. Either the protests will be suppressed and nothing will change, or they'll be successful, and a slightly different government will come up and do essentially the same things (at least, in terms of foreign and nuclear policy, the stuff that affects non-iranians) since whoever's in front of the cameras, Khomeni's pulling the strings.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-22/irans-supreme-revolutionary/)
I think Iran has most definitely passed a point of no return, and one of the first casualties is the Ayatollah's legitimacy.
-
I agree with that. That's why I added the stipulation "if the Iranians ASK for outside help."
Even if they ask, the only way the west should help is to make sure EVERYONE else stays out of it. Basically, slapping an enormous no weapon sales to Iran sticker over the region and taking on anyone who even thinks of supporting either side.
Then keep making the point that the West wants this to be a fair fight decided only by Iranians, without the interference of any outsiders.
-
Yeah...about Ahmadnijad or however the hell you spell it being the devil we know, this being a gaming forum and all, I've spent the better part of my life killing devils in various creative and gruesome ways... :p
-
Even if they ask, the only way the west should help is to make sure EVERYONE else stays out of it. Basically, slapping an enormous no weapon sales to Iran sticker over the region and taking on anyone who even thinks of supporting either side
Then keep making the point that the West wants this to be a fair fight decided only by Iranians, without the interference of any outsiders.
A weapons ban will have little effect. Iran has the ability to mass produce its own weapons, it sometimes buys missile technology from North Korea. Or tests its new weapons out on Iraq. (Its next door playground)
It is an Iranian 'situation' let it be solved by Iranians. Western intervention can usually be a disaster (Somalia, Iraq)
If my country was in the grip of something like Iran. And other countries started to interfere i know who id be pointing my weapons at.
-
Aren't the economy problems - the reason why some people want a change in leadership - tied to the whole US pimpin' various embargos and sanctions?
-
Not really. Iran has always been a cloistered country, and there isn't that much in the way of embargoes and sanctions on Iran in any case I don't think. North Korea is the one that has the embargoes and sanctions, but you have to blame Communism and its corrupt leadership for what happened to it.
-
Not really. Iran has always been a cloistered country, and there isn't that much in the way of embargoes and sanctions on Iran in any case I don't think. North Korea is the one that has the embargoes and sanctions, but you have to blame Communism and its corrupt leadership for what happened to it.
I thought we embargo'd/sanction'd over their nukes?
-
One country's embargo isn't going to do much to a country. I really don't think all of Western Europe embargoed Iran as well.
-
Iran has regional ties for most of its economy, mainly to the east and south, a few across the Straight of Hormuz. Most such countries are not fond of the UN anyways, don't care, or can't exercise any reasonable kind of controls.
Even if it is Western embargos, the truth remains that the problem in that case wasn't worked on either; they stayed confrontational rather than make any concilatory efforts. Either way, the complaints remain perfectly valid.
-
Iran has regional ties for most of its economy, mainly to the east and south, a few across the Straight of Hormuz. Most such countries are not fond of the UN anyways, don't care, or can't exercise any reasonable kind of controls.
Even if it is Western embargos, the truth remains that the problem in that case wasn't worked on either; they stayed confrontational rather than make any concilatory efforts. Either way, the complaints remain perfectly valid.
And dont forget............. they do have a large supply of oil we need................. :nervous:
-
make any concilatory efforts
Um, (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/24/the_contributions_of_iran/) I'd have to say that isn't true (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0525-05.htm)
From the second article:
WASHINGTON - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.
But maybe we are looking at this the riot the wrong way, especially considering that we've been running CIA ops against their country (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html)