[Scotty]

I'd be fine with that unless the reason we don't like him is that he subverts his own country's democratic process.

[BengalTiger]

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 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.

[TrashMan]

At this point, the only thing obvious is that the ruling elite doesn't know how to handle election protests.

[TESLA]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Bobboau]

when fighting Muslims the side that kills the most early on loses.

[TrashMan]

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?

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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).

[Ford Prefect]

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.

I think Iran has most definitely passed a point of no return, and one of the first casualties is the Ayatollah's legitimacy.

[karajorma]

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.

[Liberator]

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... 

[TESLA]

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.

[TrashMan]

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?

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[iamzack]

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?

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[TESLA]

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................. 

[Kosh]

make any concilatory efforts

Um, I'd have to say that isn't true

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