[ctt1wbw]

Shocking news out of Iran

Wow, I never thought I'd see this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Shocking news out of Iran

Wow, I never thought I'd see this.

Unfortunately, it won't last.

[Wiskedjak]

Political riots are nothing new in Iran
Iran student protests, July 1999 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Shocking news out of Iran

Wow, I never thought I'd see this.

You never thought you would see what?

elections in Iran?
the possibility of rigged elections in Iran?
protests against the outcome of an election in Iran?
government-backed violence in response to protests against the outcome of an election in Iran?


What exactly is so surprising that you never thought you'd see it?

[ctt1wbw]

Rigged elections.

[turtle777]

Well, it seems like there's still not enough people tired of the current system to really push for a change. Change will come once most people want it badly enough.


-t

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, it seems like there's still not enough people tired of the current system to really push for a change. Change will come once most people want it badly enough.


-t

Agreed. And im actually pleased to see Iranians protest against such a person. I hope (foolishly perhaps) that change will come about soon. The monkey seems to be the biggest issue/threat on the world stage imo, and getting him off the world stage completely, will do a lot for peace and stability.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Rigged elections.

Really? If elections can be rigged in the US, I'm pretty sure they can be rigged anywhere else in the world.

[Big Mac]

Iran Fails Again - Forbes.com

I know only the general history of Iran. I find this to be an interesting article, although even to me it sounds harsh to say that Iranians aren't fighting against their government when they're conducting mass rallies and getting killed in the streets over this election.

[k2director]

Gee, this is certainly inconvenient for Obama's plan to show "respect" and not "demonize" the leaders of the Islamic Republic, as he has pledged to do many times. Hard to show respect when they're blatantly stealing an election, and then beating and shooting demonstrators in the streets.

I am enjoying this on one level, though, which is watching Obama back pedal and have to condemn the Iranian government using stronger and stronger language, just like Bush did. It's satisfying to see his totally unrealistic "change change change" message going up in smoke.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unfortunately, it won't last.

Unlike the past, we have a face (and a video) to put to this one.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Gee, this is certainly inconvenient for Obama's plan to show "respect" and not "demonize" the leaders of the Islamic Republic, as he has pledged to do many times. Hard to show respect when they're blatantly stealing an election, and then beating and shooting demonstrators in the streets.

I am enjoying this on one level, though, which is watching Obama back pedal and have to condemn the Iranian government using stronger and stronger language, just like Bush did. It's satisfying to see his totally unrealistic "change change change" message going up in smoke.

Seriously? Watching people getting beaten and shot in the street on the other side of the world, and the part you want to share with us is how you're "enjoying this on one level"?

Dial it back people. This isn't about US, nor is it about cheap political point-scoring. I don't think the Iranian people give a **** right now whether we think this has something to do with Obama or not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Unlike the past, we have a face (and a video) to put to this one.

This thought occurred to me too. I may have underestimated the amount of resolve among the Iranian people and the strength of these images. The cell phones and video cameras in the air have been an eery, but informative, and inspirational glimpse into what's really going on.

Interesting that the beautiful face in these clips becomes the peace sign in the hand of the Iraqi woman. Depending on this wave of protests, she could be the face of a martyr.

ebuddy Quatrain 1:3: A single woman's death. From her womb the birth of a new home for a people that will honor this day, a that shall bear her name.

[Chongo]

Another photo, what is that she is wearing?

[Big Mac]

A Muslim Cross. Hmm.

I guess she was part of the 2% religious minority of the country.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A Muslim Cross. Hmm.

I guess she was part of the 2% religious minority of the country.

i dont know what religion she is but jesus is a very important figure in islam

on another note im disappointed in obamas neglecting to help the iranian people with their attempted revolution.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Seriously? Watching people getting beaten and shot in the street on the other side of the world, and the part you want to share with us is how you're "enjoying this on one level"?

Dial it back people. This isn't about US, nor is it about cheap political point-scoring. I don't think the Iranian people give a **** right now whether we think this has something to do with Obama or not.

I wasn't speaking for the Iranian people, and I wasn't suggesting what's going on in Iran should be "about the US". I'm speaking as an American who has to suffer through an imbecilic Jimmy Carter reincarnation whose policy decisions stem from a fantasy world of how the world *should* be, instead of how it is.

Of so many incredibly naive promises Obama has made, his pledge to rebuild relations with Iran's leadership based on "mutual respect" has got to be one of the very worst (I say "one of the very worst" because there are still a bunch of Obama doozies that share that honor).

Obama's Iranian position is one of the worst because it empowers these thug regimes, instead of checking them. Thug regimes know that when you show them "mutual respect" and talk about "diplomacy" you're merely giving them more time and more latitude to continue their bad behavior. Really, as Iran's mullahs march towards a nuclear weapon, do you think Obama's election made them feel more secure in pursuing that goal, or less? The answer is: Obama makes the mullahs feel more secure.

Obama's feel-good position on dealing with despotic regimes is dangerous, and so yes, watching a jackass publicly have to back away from his own jackass position is *very* enjoyable (not to mention a relief).

There's another benefit to all this mayhem, too: I think a lot more Americans will think twice about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, now that they've gotten a fresh look at the mullahs who will have their finger on the "Launch" button. Hopefully, this will give Obama a little more backbone than usual in trying to prevent Iran from going nuclear. He may even realize that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities may be necessary, even if it means his celebrity status will take a hit, and the press won't be throwing quite so many flowers at his feet anymore.

But that's a long shot. Obama will probably just sit around doing nothing until Israel has to attack Iran itself. And then Obama will issue somber but useless statements about "respecting the sovereignty of nations" and "the need to resolve differences non-violently", blah blah blah.

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by k2director 

I am enjoying this on one level, though, which is watching Obama back pedal and have to condemn the Iranian government using stronger and stronger language, just like Bush did. It's satisfying to see his totally unrealistic "change change change" message going up in smoke.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

on another note im disappointed in obamas neglecting to help the iranian people with their attempted revolution.

So what should he do?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by k2director 

He may even realize that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities may be necessary, even if it means his celebrity status will take a hit, and the press won't be throwing quite so many flowers at his feet anymore.

We could always ignore the threat and invade Iraq again. You know, like George Bush.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

We could always ignore the threat and invade Iraq again. You know, like George Bush.

Invading Iraq was a direct move against Middle East terrorism, I'm not sure how you can call it "ignoring the threat". Sept 11 was a result of general Middle East dysfunction, and installing even a semi-functional, semi-democratic government in the former "poster child" for Middle East dysfunction (ie, Iraq) was a highly constructive move. Despite the blood and chaos and cost, it created more significant change (for the good) in the Middle East than any event in the last 40 years. And that change can keep paying benefits as the years role by....

By the way, one of the payoffs for Bush's work in Iraq is the democratic movement we're seeing now in Iran (not that the young Iranians will be very successful this time around, but it's a start). Do you really think it's a coincidence that shortly after the Iraqiis are freed from an authoritarian tyrant, and they start having elections, and freedom of the press, and political parties, etc, etc, that the Iraqii's next-door neighbors, the Iranians, start to wonder why the hell they shouldn't expect the same things?

It's not a coincidence. Iraq, as hoped for by Bush and others, is demonstrating that real change is possible in the Middle East, and there are alternatives to the same old dictators and oligarchs keeping power to themselves.

I just hope Obama doesn't let Iraq slip away. Obama already showed his complete ignorance when he said Bush's Surge wouldn't work, and would only make things worse. In fact, the Surge stabilized Iraq, cut the violence steeply, and allowed the national government to get on its feet. But Iraq is still not quite out of the woods, and yet Obama seems to think a sh*t-hole, dead-end place like Afghanistan is a better place to focus attention. God knows why, since Afghanistan will never influence the Middle East like Iraq can. But our Community Organizer/Commander-in-Chief knows what's best, right?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

i dont know what religion she is but jesus is a very important figure in islam

Jesus is important to Islam, yes (at least the Muslim conception of him), but the Cross as a symbol is most decidedly not. In fact, Muslim end-times scriptures teach that the Cross will be destroyed.

on another note im disappointed in obamas neglecting to help the iranian people with their attempted revolution.

Although I am naturally critical of the administration, I can somewhat understand Obama's hesitancy in this area Presidents get condemned if they speak out because they're told they are putting America at risk of being attacked by terrorists for meddling in the political affairs of the Middle East. On the other hand, failing to speak out gets presidents condemned for doing nothing for those who are fighting for liberty.

k2director, your posts are very much right on. We should start the MacNN California Conservative Coalition.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by k2director 

It's not a coincidence. Iraq, as hoped for by Bush and others, is demonstrating that real change is possible in the Middle East, and there are alternatives to the same old dictators and oligarchs keeping power to themselves.
I just hope Obama doesn't let Iraq slip away. Obama already showed his complete ignorance when he said Bush's Surge wouldn't work, and would only make things worse. In fact, the Surge stabilized Iraq, cut the violence steeply, and allowed the national government to get on its feet. But Iraq is still not quite out of the woods, and yet Obama seems to think a sh*t-hole, dead-end place like Afghanistan is a better place to focus attention. God knows why, since Afghanistan will never influence the Middle East like Iraq can. But our Community Organizer/Commander-in-Chief knows what's best, right?

Bingo! I've been saying this for as long as I can remember. Iraq was as much about Iran as it was Iraq. We implant democracy smack dab in the center of the Middle East where her neighbors will witness it and want it for themselves. Once people get beyond the tired "but the WMDs!" and "blood for oil" rhetoric, I think history will judge Bush much more kindly than the present.

We station ourselves in the newly toppled region and draw terrorists into our theatre as opposed to chasing them around the mountain ranges of a historically impossible Afghanistan and worse; drive them into a nuclear Pakistan. Remember the whole "WE'RE CREATING TERRORISTS" argument? Well, that's exactly what we're doing in Pakistan. Remember the whole "WHAT'S THE EXIT STRATEGY?!?" argument? I guess now it's to get OBL; a man who for all intents and purposes is already dead to his movement if not physically six feet under. Or maybe we just sit there and fight terrorists from now to perpetuity with no greater goal of addressing the viruses of Fascism and Totalitarianism that have infected the entire region for centuries?

Where's the progress reports by the way? Where's the media?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Bingo! I've been saying this for as long as I can remember. Iraq was as much about Iran as it was Iraq. We implant democracy smack dab in the center of the Middle East where her neighbors will witness it and want it for themselves. Once people get beyond the tired "but the WMDs!" and "blood for oil" rhetoric, I think history will judge Bush much more kindly than the present.

You CANNOT "implant democracy" anywhere. You CANNOT create democracy from the barrel of a gun. Overthrow of a tyrannical leader and an embrace of open government of, by, and for the people can only come about when the people of an oppressed nation come together, rise up, and overthrow their oppressive government structure*. That is what is happening in Iran now. And what this shows us is NOT that citizens of Iran looked to Iraq for inspiration--The Persians of Iran hate most of their Arab neighbors, *especially* the Iraqis--but rather the citizens of Iran are achieving democracy through the natural foment of a people desiring a greater voice in the running of their country. This process would have happened in Iraq if we had left it alone. I have no doubt the people of Iraq are/were just as capable of rising up and overthrowing their tyrannical leader. Think about the handful of assassination attempts that took place on Saddam Hussein's life during the course of his rule? The people of Iraq *were* trying to get rid of him. The people of Iraq were not as far along as the people of Iran in overthrowing their leader but their is no doubt they would have eventually succeeded in removing Saddam and creating their own form of self rule.


*Look at all your former eastern bloc countries for recent historical examples of this process in action prior to the events in Iran.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So what should he do?

what should he do..

he should help the people with their revolution.

just like we were helped in ours....................


this whole hippie thing with nations being sovereign and having unlimited rights is bull ****.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

what should he do..

he should help the people with their revolution.

just like we were helped in ours....................

I agree. We have the opportunity to create a good relationship with a new, progressive Iranian government, but instead we're leaving them hanging in the wind, because — well, I don't even know why. Because we don't want to piss off a belligerent, racist madman who already hates us and all our allies? That's far too asinine to be the real reason. Because this administration lacks the will or the guts to make any bold moves, even if they have a chance of doing real good? That's a possibility.

[OreoCookie]

Some Polish scientists have submitted an article to Annals of Applied Statistics where they conclude that it is very probable the elections were rigged. (Not that anyone is surprised, but it's always nice to have some solid scientific data. (Thank science )

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Some Polish scientists have submitted an article to Annals of Applied Statistics where they conclude that it is very probable the elections were rigged. (Not that anyone is surprised, but it's always nice to have some solid scientific data. (Thank science )

I saw something on Reddit that was similar. It was an analysis of the published vote totals looking at the last and second-to-last digits for the vote totals from the various precincts in Iran. The conclusion of the researchers in the article I read was that the vote tallies were likely fabricated.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Despite the blood and chaos and cost, it created more significant change (for the good) in the Middle East than any event in the last 40 years. And that change can keep paying benefits as the years role by....

Originally Posted by k2director 

It's not a coincidence. Iraq, as hoped for by Bush and others, is demonstrating that real change is possible in the Middle East, and there are alternatives to the same old dictators and oligarchs keeping power to themselves.

Saddam Hussein was the alternative. We just removed him. Now Iraq is, once again, a country governed by a theocracy based on an Islamic Constitution. It's like taking North Korea and turning it into Iran, then calling that positive change. All Iraq has to do is vote in a Supreme Leader and they'll be identical to Iran.

You honestly think it's going to change after 2000 years? I hope you're right.

Originally Posted by k2director 

In fact, the Surge stabilized Iraq, cut the violence steeply, and allowed the national government to get on its feet.

It's only the 5th most unstable country in the world. I guess that's better than 4th.

Originally Posted by k2director 

But Iraq is still not quite out of the woods, and yet Obama seems to think a sh*t-hole, dead-end place like Afghanistan is a better place to focus attention.

Afghanistan is hosting the main hub for the terrorist organization that was responsible for 9/11. You know, not Iraq.

Originally Posted by k2director 

God knows why, since Afghanistan will never influence the Middle East like Iraq can.

I would hope God knows why since it's His name they're yelling when bombing school children and driving planes into office buildings.

Originally Posted by k2director 

But our Community Organizer/Commander-in-Chief knows what's best, right?

That excuse worked for Bush.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

he should help the people with their revolution.

just like we were helped in ours....................

I agree 100%, but it's not realistic. First of all, Iran has nuclear weapons. They may not have the rockets to deploy them onto American soil, but North Korea does. They also don't need rockets to deploy their weapons on their close neighbors or themselves along with an invading military. That would be a lot of martyrs.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

this whole hippie thing with nations being sovereign and having unlimited rights is bull ****.

I'm unsure how to approach that statement. Mexico certainly thinks so, they want an open boarder policy with the U.S. However, people bitch and complain about immigration problems. The Native Americans would disagree, seeing as how they've been relegated to a few plots of land and want to protect what little sovereignty they're posses.

Would you be willing to forfeit your home to some Native Americans?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Bingo! I've been saying this for as long as I can remember. Iraq was as much about Iran as it was Iraq. We implant democracy smack dab in the center of the Middle East where her neighbors will witness it and want it for themselves. Once people get beyond the tired "but the WMDs!" and "blood for oil" rhetoric, I think history will judge Bush much more kindly than the present.

While the interim government was democratically elected, it's still a theocracy abiding by an Islamic Constitution just like Iran.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Some Polish scientists have submitted an article to Annals of Applied Statistics where they conclude that it is very probable the elections were rigged. (Not that anyone is surprised, but it's always nice to have some solid scientific data. (Thank science )

The Poles are only saying that because they haven't figured out how to count 14 million ballots in only a few hours.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree. We have the opportunity to create a good relationship with a new, progressive Iranian government, but instead we're leaving them hanging in the wind, because — well, I don't even know why. Because we don't want to piss off a belligerent, racist madman who already hates us and all our allies? That's far too asinine to be the real reason. Because this administration lacks the will or the guts to make any bold moves, even if they have a chance of doing real good? That's a possibility.

I think for the same reason we don't just up and invade North Korea. Nukes.