PDA

View Full Version : Iran...



hshduppsnt
06-16-2009, 04:10 PM
... surprised there isn't already a thread...
but then again I'd probably be the most likely to create it and hadn't...

too tired/on vacation to make an update at the moment but if anyone has any questions/comments feel free to ask and I'll do my best to update anyone who's curious about whats going on and the history behind it...

i wonder how my cousin is doing :-/ (he lives in Tehran - haven't gotten a hold of him lately)

IamSam
06-16-2009, 04:51 PM
It's getting intense:

Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4vqWamoQgM)

brothadave79
06-16-2009, 04:57 PM
Sweet Jesus.

Smash_Returns
06-16-2009, 05:24 PM
Iran so far away?

Flock of Seagulls lol.

wheelchairman
06-16-2009, 05:29 PM
From what I've read (and this is very little) the atmosphere of the youth was rather subdued just over a month ago. Its only recently that they seem to have realized that they don't actually like the Ayatollah's regime.

What do you know of this?

It always seems interesting to me that Iran's other revolution was a student one, so will this one be too? Although I think calling the Islamic revolution a 'student revolution' is a bit of an exaggeration (but then again, so is calling it an Islamic revolution, since the Ayatollah made a whole case out of being this crazy democracy loving dude beforehand).i

I always enjoy reading about people who revolt against their government because their government is revolting. Makes me want to watch V for Vendetta (again).

Little_Miss_1565
06-16-2009, 07:11 PM
Rachel Maddow is on CNBC right now discussing that Obama coming out in support of Moussavi would backfire hugely and only serve to prop up Ahmadinejad. Wise words. I saw something on Twitter saying Marjane Satrapi had documentation from the election council in Iran noting that Ahmadinejad only got 8% of the vote or something, and that this is more like a coup d'etat than election fraud.

RageAndLov
06-16-2009, 07:30 PM
I bet if the winner and the loser of this presidential campaign had swaped places, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would also claim the voting for being fixed.

IamSam
06-16-2009, 07:31 PM
It's times like this that I laugh at my friends who laugh at me for having Twitter.

wheelchairman
06-16-2009, 08:03 PM
It's times like this that I laugh at my friends who laugh at me for having Twitter.

They laugh at you cause you're different, you laugh at them cause they're all the same.

hshduppsnt
06-16-2009, 08:59 PM
Rachel Maddow is on CNBC right now discussing that Obama coming out in support of Moussavi would backfire hugely and only serve to prop up Ahmadinejad. Wise words. I saw something on Twitter saying Marjane Satrapi had documentation from the election council in Iran noting that Ahmadinejad only got 8% of the vote or something, and that this is more like a coup d'etat than election fraud.

Yeah I saw both of those, the coup d'etat information seems to be spreading more, it seems Mousavi won the election by a lot more... which is funny because in terms of changing things, he wouldn't have been that different, but now that things are on the move here I imagine Iran will change a bit.

Obama's words the other day were pure gold and makes me love having him as a president so much more, getting involved now would be a huge mistake as hard as it is to just sit back and watch... (read up on 1953 Iran Coup if anyone wants to know why)


From what I've read (and this is very little) the atmosphere of the youth was rather subdued just over a month ago. Its only recently that they seem to have realized that they don't actually like the Ayatollah's regime.

What do you know of this?
[QUOTE=wheelchairman;1317489]

So, in 1999 the students also had a bit of an uprising in terms of the government but it didn't really get backed and shut down. It was assume that sooner or later something would happen, though the country became more conservative after Bush's axis of evil speech. That being said yes it is amazing how quickly this came. I think on the surface people were hoping they could avoid fights and slowly reform the government (ie move from Ahmadinejad the super conservative to Mousavi who is moderately conservative and hopefully continue to over time move over from there).

That, I think, is why this election opened up the way it did. I think Khamenei and Ahmadinejad saw an opportunity to re-elect with a mandate behind a seemingly open election to further pull their weight against the US and it backfired. People saw and opening and took off running with it and they panicked.

I think there were many that were quietly waiting for an excuse. Thus, I don't think its as big a shock that it exploded the way it did when the results came in. And from the support being seen in the streets I tend to believe that the election was fixed and this was, in fact a coup d'etat but at this point I don't think the election matters any more, there are many that found their excuse and are moving on.



It always seems interesting to me that Iran's other revolution was a student one, so will this one be too? Although I think calling the Islamic revolution a 'student revolution' is a bit of an exaggeration (but then again, so is calling it an Islamic revolution, since the Ayatollah made a whole case out of being this crazy democracy loving dude beforehand).i

I always enjoy reading about people who revolt against their government because their government is revolting. Makes me want to watch V for Vendetta (again).

Agreed with the Islamic revolution, it seems the students in Iran often start the movements and the key is if the general population backs them or not. It is amusing, having gone to Berkeley and hearing people tout on and on about what kind of an amazing school that is with its involvement in all its political movements and I can't help but think University of Tehran is above and beyond the center of political movements more than any school I can think of. In any case, I hope it helps this time, and moves them to a more democratic system (though i'd still be surprised if there was a complete overhaul of the system at this point - hopefully it'll just be an impetus for change that moves the country on further).

Also agreed on the people point, its always a feel good story (if it can be called that) when people fight for what they believe in and are able to be successful, especially against those more powerful and oppressive.

And V for Vendetta is an excellent movie!

anywho if you feel like being disturbed, go to twitter, and just look at some of the photos and videos coming out, some of it is pretty graphic :(...

Jesus
06-17-2009, 02:39 AM
Good to see things staying the same. Mass protests, violent repression etc has been going on for months in Georgia (the country). This goes mostly unreported, apart for a little article buried somewhere. But that's an ally and a country where a bunch of the developed world has actual influence and it's also a country to which democracy has already been spread, so that needs to be ignored.

Anyway on to the official enemy: Iran. The election results were obviously fake. But to say that Moussavi had won, and that he deserves to be in "power", is probably as much of a coup d'ťtat. The most likely scenario is that Ahmadinejad didn't have enough votes for an outright win (as most pre election info indicated) and Khamenei and his buddies wanted to avoid a runoff between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi which could more or less split the country more. Typical supporters of Ahmadinejad are the working class, poor (like the Basijis) because he did do some redistribution downwards while natural resource prices were high (sometimes called bribing by people who like to see it go upwards) and Moussavi getting the young, middle class, more secular (in Iranian standards) urban ones. They obviously sucked at faking the results though. Like most authocratic regimes they suck at propaganda, atleast compared to your average liberal democracy.

Moussavi would seem like a nice evolution within Iran, although far from a revolution. It's like choosing between Colin Powell and John Bolton under the Bush regime. One is a nice figurehead, while the other is pretty much a dick. Still two assholes and figureheads though. The advantage of Ahmadinejad is that he's hard to ignore, while with Moussavi we can probably pretend everything is fine within Iran. Just like in Georgia.

Oxygene
06-17-2009, 02:41 AM
Stalin once said that it's not who they vote for, but who counts the votes is what matters most.

President "I'm in a dinna jacket" is scum. Period. He probably didn't win the elections and the whole thing is a charade. Serves them right for letting a regime like that sit on them for 30 years. It's a self rewarding/punishing system, and I love to see Iran collapsing. This is what happens when you let religious hustlers take over. Learn and move on.

Harleyquiiinn
06-17-2009, 06:39 AM
Rachel Maddow is on CNBC right now discussing that Obama coming out in support of Moussavi would backfire hugely and only serve to prop up Ahmadinejad. Wise words. I saw something on Twitter saying Marjane Satrapi had documentation from the election council in Iran noting that Ahmadinejad only got 8% of the vote or something, and that this is more like a coup d'etat than election fraud.


8% ??? and he ended up with 63 ?! Yes, if this is true, it is definitely more than fraud :eek:

hshduppsnt
06-17-2009, 07:59 AM
Good to see things staying the same. Mass protests, violent repression etc has been going on for months in Georgia (the country). This goes mostly unreported, apart for a little article buried somewhere. But that's an ally and a country where a bunch of the developed world has actual influence and it's also a country to which democracy has already been spread, so that needs to be ignored.

Anyway on to the official enemy: Iran. The election results were obviously fake. But to say that Moussavi had won, and that he deserves to be in "power", is probably as much of a coup d'ťtat. The most likely scenario is that Ahmadinejad didn't have enough votes for an outright win (as most pre election info indicated) and Khamenei and his buddies wanted to avoid a runoff between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi which could more or less split the country more. Typical supporters of Ahmadinejad are the working class, poor (like the Basijis) because he did do some redistribution downwards while natural resource prices were high (sometimes called bribing by people who like to see it go upwards) and Moussavi getting the young, middle class, more secular (in Iranian standards) urban ones. They obviously sucked at faking the results though. Like most authocratic regimes they suck at propaganda, atleast compared to your average liberal democracy.

Moussavi would seem like a nice evolution within Iran, although far from a revolution. It's like choosing between Colin Powell and John Bolton under the Bush regime. One is a nice figurehead, while the other is pretty much a dick. Still two assholes and figureheads though. The advantage of Ahmadinejad is that he's hard to ignore, while with Moussavi we can probably pretend everything is fine within Iran. Just like in Georgia.

This is probably true, though Mousavi is likely to win in a runoff.
That being said yeah its not like he's that much of an improvement, but luckily at this point, it seems that people are trying to move on even further than that.


Stalin once said that it's not who they vote for, but who counts the votes is what matters most.

President "I'm in a dinna jacket" is scum. Period. He probably didn't win the elections and the whole thing is a charade. Serves them right for letting a regime like that sit on them for 30 years. It's a self rewarding/punishing system, and I love to see Iran collapsing. This is what happens when you let religious hustlers take over. Learn and move on.

Exactly. Now, the regime in charge gained power because of the Iran Iraq war, and stupid foreign influence made people take the personal abuse to at least keep sovereignty or something ... that being said yes I'd like to see this turn into a collapse so the whole government changes (though hopefully not through the loss of excessive number of lives)

sKratch
06-17-2009, 08:53 PM
Personally, I'm pretty convinced something funny happened. But I'm not fully convinced that there was an outright theft of the election. It's obviously telling that the number of protesters against the election is so large; if the opposition truly got beat 2-1 there should not be such a groundswell of unrest. However, it is very difficult to discern truth from fallacy in what we hear coming out of Iran. Just as we must be vigilant in discerning the veracity of the claims the state makes, we must also do likewise with information from the public. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Jesus
06-18-2009, 02:13 AM
This is probably true, though Mousavi is likely to win in a runoff.
That being said yeah its not like he's that much of an improvement, but luckily at this point, it seems that people are trying to move on even further than that.

Hmm back then maybe Mousavi would have won, but now he'd definitely win though. Which makes the fake results all the more strange though, they should have stuk with more realistic fake results... if that makes sense.

But if the revolution succeeds, it'll be interesting to see how US policy is gonna change. Given that's he still is basically a figurehead of the regime and he'll most likely just continue stuff like their nuclear policy. Are they gonna lift the sanctions? Also since Iran is one of the 3 biggest havens for refugees of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the other two being Syria and Pakistan (funny thing how all 3 are usually considered terrorist harboring countries too, there might be a connection...). Are they gonna transfer money to deal with the refugees, because they are a burden on the Iranian economy. Because up until now this was mostly unmentionable since Iran is to be considered a source for unstability in the region, taking in over a million refugees doesn't quite fit that frame.
If policy towards Iran doesn't change enough, then there is a big change that things will turn more autocratic afterwards like they did after Khatami.

NGNM85
06-19-2009, 05:27 PM
Stalin once said that it's not who they vote for, but who counts the votes is what matters most.

President "I'm in a dinna jacket" is scum. Period. He probably didn't win the elections and the whole thing is a charade. Serves them right for letting a regime like that sit on them for 30 years. It's a self rewarding/punishing system, and I love to see Iran collapsing. This is what happens when you let religious hustlers take over. Learn and move on.

Rhetoric like this damages the discourse on this issue and contributes to the ignorance of the American public on foreign policy issues. First of all, while Ahmedinijad is hardly a saint, it's ver interesting that prolific human right violators like Burma or Saudi Arabia or Israel get a free pass, depending on economic/political significance, this has very little to do with morality. Also whats' commonly misunderstood is the Iraqi president is more like the Queen of england, he has a little more of a direct role, but he's not running the show, he has higher authorities to answer to, and espite his bellicose rhetoric which is just hot air, the Iranian government has been very shrewd in their foreign policy. I'll remind you that Iran attempted at least three times to engage the Bush administration and offered considerable concessions, including halting all enrichment of uranium, of course they were talking to the wrong administration. Also Iran was the most vocal supporter of the FISSBAN treaty on nuclear proliferation which received virtually unanimous support, 179 in favor, to two against, the United States and Palau, which is smaller than Hawaii.

Now, we have to address the more basic question of why the Iranian government and the relationship with the US is the way that it is. this comes down to the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh. This is the singularly most defining moment in US-Iranian history, the biggest presence in Iranian's minds with regards to the US. Sadly, most Americans know little or nothing about this event. During the cold war the US employed aggressive clandestine operations under the pretense of fighting communism. This involved all sorts of morally dubious activities, protecting Nazi war criminals, arming terrorist groups, and selling weapons to dictatorships. The CIA was also involved in overthrowing a number of democratically elected governments, such as in Guatemala, Zaire, Chile, and Iran. (And later Nicaragua, Haiti, etc.) Iran WAS a pro-western democracy. Unfortunately for him,. Mossadegh tried to nationalize petroleum reserves which were monopolized by foreign interests who were basically draining the country's national resources and pocketing the cash, much like in Guatemala with United Fruit. This was totally unacceptable. (Mossadegh was executed four days later.) So the CIA and the British government largely at the behest of British Petroleum engineered a coup, replacing the democracy with an autocratic system under the Shah. To maintain order the CIA helped to create the feared SAVAK secret police force to terrorize the population into obediance, and British Petroleum went on as usual. So when you're bemoaning the absence of moderate leadership in Iran, be mindful that this is because we tortured and killed all of them. Thus, bearing some measure of responsibility.

IamSam
06-19-2009, 05:46 PM
Rhetoric like this damages the discourse on this issue and contributes to the ignorance of the American public on foreign policy issues.

Oxygene isn't American.

NGNM85
06-19-2009, 10:21 PM
Oxygene isn't American.

Whoops. Oh well, that's really secondary, anyhow.

Oxygene
06-20-2009, 02:35 AM
Whoops. Oh well, that's really secondary, anyhow.

Yeah I'm actually in the range of those nukes...

But we have a nice saying where I am from "stop beating the poison ivy bush with my dick" :D

In other words, all the shit you've just said is valid from a "war on Iraq supporter" perspective. I have no issue with burma, with israel with saudi arabia, because they are no threat to my safety. They have no universal beef with the western world. Do I support their shitty actions? No. Iran however directly affects the nazi right wing in my country by harboring them supporting them by giving them a soap box for them to shout out their holocaust denial right wing mindless propaganda, putting them in the news and shit. And I won't even bother going into any detail.

It's really fucking easy to judge something from a velvet chair when it doesn't hit home. Some can't afford that luxury.

IamSam
06-20-2009, 03:05 AM
It's really fucking easy to judge something from a velvet chair when it doesn't hit home. Some can't afford that luxury.

I think I love you.

NGNM85
06-20-2009, 09:30 PM
Yeah I'm actually in the range of those nukes...

Whose? Israel has plenty AND has threatened to use them, not to mention the abysmal human rights record, habit of invading neighbors, etc., but i doubt even they'd commit a first strike. You can't mean Iran because Iran doesn't have any. In fact by our intelligence agencies estimates it will most likely be years before they have the capacity. Also, as mentioned, Iran VOLUNTEERED to suspend all uranium enrichment, blame the Bush administrastion for that one. as it stands the United States is the biggest obstacle to curbing nuclear proliferation, as I mentioned.


But we have a nice saying where I am from "stop beating the poison ivy bush with my dick" :D

Thats' actually an interesting colloquialism. I'll have to remember it.


I have no issue with burma, with israel with saudi arabia, because they are no threat to my safety.

Is that the only reason? Do you believe we have obligations to other human beings who are suffering simply because they are human? If so, what is the extent of that obligation? Also, my country is more directly involved in these countries, we supply the Israeli military, so when they committed recent atrocities in Gaza, I am a part of that because I pay taxes, but even if I didn't I would still feel sympathy and want to help. We are also rather intimately connected with Saudi Arabia, which makes Iran look secular and moderate by comparison, stoning people to death is like a national sport.


Iran however directly affects the nazi right wing in my country by harboring them supporting them by giving them a soap box for them to shout out their holocaust denial right wing mindless propaganda, putting them in the news and shit. And I won't even bother going into any detail.


I don't think theres' any reason to think Iran is any direct military danger to it's neighbors, but you're point about harboring extremists may be quite valid, thats' unfortunate. I have made several posts on my disdain for religious extremism, religion in general. However, I also want to reiterate, as Americans the situation is unique. Our government turned a pro-western democracy into a fascist nightmare, the religious zealots were the only ones left because the stable secular leaders were executed or exiled. That responsibility complicates the issue, although sadly it often goes unrecognized.

TheOldMark
06-21-2009, 06:02 PM
its really fascinating to watch whats going on there via twitter. for an example, theyre sharing guerilla tactics. i read several where they instructed to remove street signs and house numbers to disorient troops from out of town. some discuss how many people should be in each group. I never thought of Twitter as being legitimate, but its definately got its place in history now.

Its hard to process whats going on, its all happening so fast. You must wonder, is the CIA fueling this?

Also, I liked comparing this to the 2000 elections in the US. It is so admirable that Iranians will take to the streets and fight for change. Americans won't do that. Sure, they made Bush's life miserable, but as a country nobody really stood up, cried foul, and fought to right the wrongs. Iranians will. Godspeed.

RickyCrack
06-21-2009, 10:58 PM
lol, are you seriously comparing Iran to the U.S.?

IamSam
06-22-2009, 12:40 AM
I do believe he is.

Oxygene
06-22-2009, 03:30 AM
Whose? Israel has plenty AND has threatened to use them, not to mention the abysmal human rights record, habit of invading neighbors, etc., but i doubt even they'd commit a first strike. You can't mean Iran because Iran doesn't have any. In fact by our intelligence agencies estimates it will most likely be years before they have the capacity. Also, as mentioned, Iran VOLUNTEERED to suspend all uranium enrichment, blame the Bush administrastion for that one. as it stands the United States is the biggest obstacle to curbing nuclear proliferation, as I mentioned.

Not against me or my way of life they didn't.. if Iran is interested in uranium enrichment for energy pourposes like they say, why the fuck would they offere to suspend it, and what's the connection between Iran's internal energy policy, and the Bush administrations foreign policy. Logic eludes me...


Thats' actually an interesting colloquialism. I'll have to remember it.

Thanks I'm glad u liked it!


Is that the only reason? Do you believe we have obligations to other human beings who are suffering simply because they are human? If so, what is the extent of that obligation? Also, my country is more directly involved in these countries, we supply the Israeli military, so when they committed recent atrocities in Gaza, I am a part of that because I pay taxes, but even if I didn't I would still feel sympathy and want to help. We are also rather intimately connected with Saudi Arabia, which makes Iran look secular and moderate by comparison, stoning people to death is like a national sport.

I believe that we do have some responsibility towards other human being who are sufferint simply because they are human, I however don't think that it is my obligation to forcefully intervene.. it isn't a black and white situation like in North Korea for example, the majority is grey. Also if you brush up on your recent history and look up 1956 Hungary for example you'll see just how seriously the west takes the ideological battle when there is no oil involved.. or look at North Korea now. I believe in priroities and Israels threat to use it's nuclear weapons is pretty low on this that worry me personally.

I am sorry you are forced to parttake against your will, but the sheer distance difference between you and me to Iran is what makes this more relevant for me.


I don't think theres' any reason to think Iran is any direct military danger to it's neighbors, but you're point about harboring extremists may be quite valid, thats' unfortunate. I have made several posts on my disdain for religious extremism, religion in general. However, I also want to reiterate, as Americans the situation is unique. Our government turned a pro-western democracy into a fascist nightmare, the religious zealots were the only ones left because the stable secular leaders were executed or exiled. That responsibility complicates the issue, although sadly it often goes unrecognized.

I think any country where the official rhetoric is "wiping so-and-so country off the map" is a direct military danger.

hshduppsnt
06-22-2009, 05:36 AM
Sorry I've been missing for a few days - NGNM85 - thanks for fueling some interesting debate while I've been gone

Oxy - with no disrespect lets talk about this some more because I think you bring up some interesting points that I tend to disagree with


Not against me or my way of life they didn't.. if Iran is interested in uranium enrichment for energy pourposes like they say, why the fuck would they offere to suspend it, and what's the connection between Iran's internal energy policy, and the Bush administrations foreign policy. Logic eludes me...


This I fully agree with and I don't have any doubt. However, that being said let me play devils advocate for a minute here, how would you feel if you were a country who hasn't been allowed to run its own course in over a century (1953 coup being the prime example) that when it came to then doing something as fundamental as developing nuclear energy so you can finally stop using some of your own resources on yourself to better improve your economy and everyone has a shitstorm about it... in some respects I did appreciate that the government tried to stand up for itself.

Of course, it doesn't help that they're nuts, but that's beside the point.
As for the Bush foreign policy - the connection is rough and you may not agree with it but a lot of Iran's reactions of late are because of Bush. In 1999, the students were having different protests/etc against the government for a series of things and the country was perhaps leading to what has now happened recently, but Bush had to include Iran in its axis of evil, and because they didn't want another shah situation the country reacted.




I believe that we do have some responsibility towards other human being who are sufferint simply because they are human, I however don't think that it is my obligation to forcefully intervene.. it isn't a black and white situation like in North Korea for example, the majority is grey. Also if you brush up on your recent history and look up 1956 Hungary for example you'll see just how seriously the west takes the ideological battle when there is no oil involved.. or look at North Korea now. I believe in priroities and Israels threat to use it's nuclear weapons is pretty low on this that worry me personally.

I am sorry you are forced to parttake against your will, but the sheer distance difference between you and me to Iran is what makes this more relevant for me.


I actually don't have anything to say on this matter because of my lack of experience in any such situations given I live in California.




I think any country where the official rhetoric is "wiping so-and-so country off the map" is a direct military danger.

Personally, I'm only going to make one note here, many people in Iran may not like Israel but lets not forget that all of this is happening because they don't like the government spewing this crap any more than the rest of us.

That being said, don't be blind to the media, a lot of Ahmadinejad's comments (and im not AT ALL giving any validity to them) are in relation to why Israel is in the middle east and not in Europe where the people that committed such awful atrocities should be the ones making up for it.

As for the actual rhetoric about wiping so and so country off the map - you're right - and everyone in Iran knows it too - which is why its such a joke that he "won" by such a landslide but don't give countries like Israel a free pass either then - they always claim the reactionary side but how often have they been itching to have an excuse to attack Iran? sooner or later someone was going to pop up in the role to then respond simple enough with "we're done with you" kind of thing. (again not judging right or wrong just trying to shed light on the other side).

@TheOldMark - I can't help but wonder if the CIA has something to do with some of this either - but maybe that's because I'm paranoid that the US can never leave Iran alone

Lynx
06-22-2009, 05:37 AM
Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq.. there's discussion about Iran.. who's next? Norht Korea? Pakistan? Venesuala? Maybe once more Somali? Or Vietnam duble two?

Or Russia?



Its hard to process whats going on, its all happening so fast.
Why so fast? Some things are predicted.




You must wonder, is the CIA fueling this?
Not only CIA. The Government people too... Maybe you should search "Zeitgeist" in the Internet? It's a very interesting documentary movie. There's a few of different sourses where you can read/watch about CIA's role.

hshduppsnt
06-22-2009, 05:42 AM
its really fascinating to watch whats going on there via twitter. for an example, theyre sharing guerilla tactics. i read several where they instructed to remove street signs and house numbers to disorient troops from out of town. some discuss how many people should be in each group. I never thought of Twitter as being legitimate, but its definately got its place in history now.

Its hard to process whats going on, its all happening so fast. You must wonder, is the CIA fueling this?

Also, I liked comparing this to the 2000 elections in the US. It is so admirable that Iranians will take to the streets and fight for change. Americans won't do that. Sure, they made Bush's life miserable, but as a country nobody really stood up, cried foul, and fought to right the wrongs. Iranians will. Godspeed.


lol, are you seriously comparing Iran to the U.S.?

Well I think the fundamental problem is the significantly better life Americans have but if you look at it purely at an election level and believe that Gore won - then you can compare to say Bush simply found a more "legal" way of doing exactly what Ahmadinejad just did. That being said I think a lot of the things in Iran right now have to do with the economic state. Put the US in the same economic state and it might have, in fact, had a similar reaction.


Whose? Israel has plenty AND has threatened to use them, not to mention the abysmal human rights record, habit of invading neighbors, etc., but i doubt even they'd commit a first strike. You can't mean Iran because Iran doesn't have any. In fact by our intelligence agencies estimates it will most likely be years before they have the capacity. Also, as mentioned, Iran VOLUNTEERED to suspend all uranium enrichment, blame the Bush administrastion for that one. as it stands the United States is the biggest obstacle to curbing nuclear proliferation, as I mentioned.


This is a point people shouldn't forget - Iran offered an olive branch, all be it a very small one, and Bush shat all over it - which is why Iran is very reactionary now

As for the first strike thing, I'm siding on this, its a lot of saber rattling but I'd put the first strike on the "pre-emptive" group of people first than Iran (Israel/US)



Thats' actually an interesting colloquialism. I'll have to remember it.

agreed - as will I :)



Is that the only reason? Do you believe we have obligations to other human beings who are suffering simply because they are human? If so, what is the extent of that obligation? Also, my country is more directly involved in these countries, we supply the Israeli military, so when they committed recent atrocities in Gaza, I am a part of that because I pay taxes, but even if I didn't I would still feel sympathy and want to help. We are also rather intimately connected with Saudi Arabia, which makes Iran look secular and moderate by comparison, stoning people to death is like a national sport.




I don't think theres' any reason to think Iran is any direct military danger to it's neighbors, but you're point about harboring extremists may be quite valid, thats' unfortunate. I have made several posts on my disdain for religious extremism, religion in general. However, I also want to reiterate, as Americans the situation is unique. Our government turned a pro-western democracy into a fascist nightmare, the religious zealots were the only ones left because the stable secular leaders were executed or exiled. That responsibility complicates the issue, although sadly it often goes unrecognized.

This is the fundamental problem - and the solution honestly is to let it play out and do what Obama is doing - try to calm things down - while not completely losing sight that a bad move can react in a war in the region so keeping an eye on that.

Regardless - this may all be a moot point if the reformists can find and take the next step. Should all this get put down - then things will be interesting - but at the moment - as for war - I'd personally still be more worried about Israel stepping in should Ahmadinejad manage to stay in power, than Iran developing its nukes then lashing out

EDIT: it's only fair I play devils advocate on the other side too because it isn't simply black and white and I would appear to be too close minded if I didn't do this - I'm not saying Israel doesn't have a right to feel threatened - I'm just saying that they're probably the cause of more trouble than they or anyone else cares to admit from time to time.

IamSam
06-22-2009, 10:06 AM
Not only CIA. The Government people too... Maybe you should search "Zeitgeist" in the Internet? It's a very interesting documentary movie. There's a few of different sourses where you can read/watch about CIA's role.

Haha...oh man. You're funny.:p

Lynx
06-22-2009, 06:36 PM
Haha...oh man. You're funny.:p
Of course I am. That's right, man.

TheNewDiesease
07-02-2009, 01:20 PM
the violence is quelling now.

NGNM85
07-05-2009, 09:15 PM
Not against me or my way of life they didn't.. if Iran is interested in uranium enrichment for energy pourposes like they say, why the fuck would they offere to suspend it, and what's the connection between Iran's internal energy policy, and the Bush administrations foreign policy. Logic eludes me...

Because the United States is a global hyperpower and has both the inclination and the means to exert it's will globally, practically unchallenged. The US likes to dictate who can and cannot acquire nuclear technology, for ANY reason. (Incidentally under the Shah's police state the US was helping Iran to acquire nuclear technology, then management changed and so did the policy.) This might be justified by the fact that with new developments in technology the difficulty of weaponizing nuclear fuel is a lot easier, but this probably is a minor factor.

Also, as I mentioned, Iran was actually the most vehement supporter of the FISSBAN treaty, which would have recquired them to submit to regular inspection and compliance with international regulations, which is precisely why Washington refused. A typical case of "American exceptionalism." Same deal with Kyoto, or Israel/Palestine, we're against the world, but we have the power to do so. Also, our foreign policy, especially under George Bush, was/is often illogical. (actually there has been a school of thought in Washington called the madman theory which asserts the US should periodically react in irrational and extreme ways as a deterrant.) Take the "War on Terror", and I want to come back to this-but our intelligence agencies CIA, NSA, etc., all predicted the presence in Iraq and Afghanistan would radicalize the region and cause a significant surge in global terrorism, which is exactly what happened, and it's still happening.

I sympathize with your plight, I've posted elsewhere about the truly frightening ascendency of the religious right in my country. However, you should be much more concerned about the United States and Israel to a lesser extent. While you're country is not a likely direct target anytime soon you're much more likely to suffer from the fallout, what our intelligence community calls "blowback." If theres' any conflict with Iran it's much more likely it will come from the US/Israel, both of which have threatened preemptive strike. (Incidentally, deemed the "supreme crime of state" at Nuremberg.) This is not without precedent. For example, from all the available factual evidence the former Iraqi nuclear program was entirely benign and dedicated to domestic energy, until Israel bombed the crap out of it, then Saddam became much more interested in nuclear weapons, and the program was eventually abandoned. Or take Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden's network was formed from the US-trained, armed, and financed-mujahideen. (Documents have surfaced that at the time the CIA was aware a third or more of the hardware was being skimmed off to druglords and terrorists, which was deemed an acceptable loss.) The US is also the stumbling block, as I mentioned inna virtually universal consensus on the Israel/Palestine conflict which is spilling over into neighboring countries and providing a rallying cry for all sorts of factions, not to mention nuclear proliferation, which certainly affects you, etc., etc...


I think any country where the official rhetoric is "wiping so-and-so country off the map" is a direct military danger.

To this I must protest. This is a talking point, it has no substance. First of all, Israel is a much greater threat to Iran than the converse, they have nukes and an almost Spartan military state. Second, Ahmedinejad, whom you're quoting, doesn't have the political power to act militarily on his own, the Ayatollah is much more shrewd than that. Ahmedinejad was playing for political points with a certain constituency. Iran remains with the Arab league in desiring to normalize political or economic relations with Israel IF they would comply with the UN and the World Court. I'll also reiterate both the US and Israel have made much more explicit threats against Iran.

NGNM85
07-05-2009, 09:18 PM
Sorry I've been missing for a few days - NGNM85 - thanks for fueling some interesting debate while I've been gone

I certainly try...

Oxygene
07-06-2009, 02:09 AM
To this I must protest. This is a talking point, it has no substance. First of all, Israel is a much greater threat to Iran than the converse, they have nukes and an almost Spartan military state. Second, Ahmedinejad, whom you're quoting, doesn't have the political power to act militarily on his own, the Ayatollah is much more shrewd than that. Ahmedinejad was playing for political points with a certain constituency. Iran remains with the Arab league in desiring to normalize political or economic relations with Israel IF they would comply with the UN and the World Court. I'll also reiterate both the US and Israel have made much more explicit threats against Iran.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept... a state where the official rehtoric of the president is accepted as such is a danger.

End of story.

The shadow
07-12-2009, 01:00 AM
I agree. Although I would place my bet on Israel in case of a conflict, Iran is a huge threat to any country in the region. It's a country filled with religious fanatics and a huge military, not to mention the paramilitary groups. It's unlikely that Israel would use its nukes and the iranians are as "spartans" as the israelis. Second, call me crazy but, I don't see the iranian ayatollahs as more moderate figures than the president, specially when it comes to fighting jews. Third, if Ahmedinejad is "desiring to normalize political or economic relations with Israel", he has a funny way of showing it. Finally, I don't think that either the US nor Israel have ever issued a bigger threat than "Israel should be wiped out of the earth". I kept the response short so, I'm not explaining my points fully.

Again, you're being too extremist.

hshduppsnt
07-12-2009, 03:07 PM
I agree. Although I would place my bet on Israel in case of a conflict, Iran is a huge threat to any country in the region. It's a country filled with religious fanatics and a huge military, not to mention the paramilitary groups. It's unlikely that Israel would use its nukes and the iranians are as "spartans" as the israelis. Second, call me crazy but, I don't see the iranian ayatollahs as more moderate figures than the president, specially when it comes to fighting jews.

On this second point you could not be more wrong. With all due respect there are several senior ayatollahs (the ones speaking up now) that are actually very forward thinking individuals, though the US media never explains most of the things they've said.



Third, if Ahmedinejad is "desiring to normalize political or economic relations with Israel", he has a funny way of showing it. Finally, I don't think that either the US nor Israel have ever issued a bigger threat than "Israel should be wiped out of the earth". I kept the response short so, I'm not explaining my points fully.

Again, you're being too extremist.

Have you ever heard what Ahmadinejad actually said? I'm not trying to justify anything he said but don't buy into some blanket statements you've heard, lest we forget Iran actually issued some annoyance at Christian Amanpour (sp?) for intentionally mistranslating what he has said. (He has said a lot of stupid things and I want nothing more than for him to be gone but he is being portrayed in a way to justify some actions that have been on the table for quite some time now). Otherwise I don't want to get into the issue of Iran/Israel because it is an extremely complicated one of who spoke up first that they're totally shaking fists at each other now

EDIT: Let's also not forget, since you are going to argue the Ahmadinejad point (and rightfully) that a hardliner came into power in Iran directly as an effect of Bush including Iran in the axis of evil. I know that doesn't give him carte blanche but you can't just pick some statements as a cause of trouble and ignore others. Of course from the other point of view I could argue all the way back through the 1900s so that isn't entirely reasonable either but one has to be careful in making blind assessments without fully knowing the stories to some extent.

EDIT2: I forgot the real reason I came back to comment again. Glad to see yesterday the protests picking up again. This hasn't died down and it isn't going to. It may take more time than people hope but things are going to change.

The shadow
07-13-2009, 06:52 PM
OK. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the internal situation in Iran and, therefore, I haven't heard the opinions of all people involved but, if the ayatollahs that are "speaking up now" and that are "very forward thinking individuals" are, as you say, senior leaders in the goverment apparatus; then why must change come from the people and not from their leadership, specifically, the ayatollahs? Maybe the laic tend to be more radical than the clergy in the iranian case, but that is not showing. All we see is the ayatollahs still opresing and keeping the power. Maybe there are winds of change inside their leadership but, at least for now, all I see (from western media) is a reminiscence from Khomeini and the revolution. If they're more moderate now, then they're not acting as such. And if their speech is more moderate now, their actions don't correspond their words.

About Ahmadinejad, an intentional ill-translation (sorry, Ņenglish?) is not only possible, but likely. However, my intention was not to make a blind assessment of the Israeli-palestinian situation, but to state that Ahmadinejad's words are proof that the ones taking a radical stand in this issue are the ones in the Iranian government, not the west. That's, in part, why Iran is considered dangerous: a radical government is usually unpredictable.

But, I'm not defending these arguments as facts, only as opinions. You sound like you're more informed in these matters so, I'm open for corrections, if you can prove that you're right.

jacknife737
08-05-2009, 09:47 PM
It's moments like this, which makes me want to make sweet, sweet love to Fareed Zakaria. About 4:20- 7:10 in the video is where the shit gets real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3SIQs4D5hY

sipptaroowsky
09-01-2009, 08:50 AM
I like Iran, I think Iran survived in spite of overwhelming odds, it's not easy to be neighbor to imperially motivated countries

Oxygene
09-01-2009, 08:58 AM
I like Iran, I think Iran survived in spite of overwhelming odds, it's not easy to be neighbor to imperially motivated countries

I guess their holocaust denial and desire to wipe certain countries off the map on religious grounds is right up your alley.

sipptaroowsky
09-01-2009, 09:42 AM
I guess their holocaust denial and desire to wipe certain countries off the map on religious grounds is right up your alley.

And yet, you donít see the same thing in Germany, you even defend Germany.

Was it so long ago? Or maybe you didnít feel it, maybe all of us felt it, but you didnít.

You canít fight against someone whoís trying to kill you by the rules, you go out of your way to ensure your survival. But youíre right, I donít agree with their crimes, but every country has something horrible they did.

Thank you for not using any bad words against me this time, I apretiate it.

IamSam
09-05-2009, 11:10 PM
And yet, you donít see the same thing in Germany, you even defend Germany.

Was it so long ago? Or maybe you didnít feel it, maybe all of us felt it, but you didnít.

You canít fight against someone whoís trying to kill you by the rules, you go out of your way to ensure your survival. But youíre right, I donít agree with their crimes, but every country has something horrible they did.

Thank you for not using any bad words against me this time, I apretiate it.

So you're fine with the whole 'let-us-kill-people-and-cover-up-a-rigged-election' bit?

NGNM85
09-08-2009, 08:23 PM
I guess their holocaust denial and desire to wipe certain countries off the map on religious grounds is right up your alley.

Those were statements made by President Ahmedinijad, which would be more significant if the Iranian political system was more like ours, but it isn't. Ahmedinijad answers to the Ayatollah, he has to answer to superiors, he's not running the show, he has nowhere near the institutional power of our president. I also suspect those statements were political, and that he's just playing to a certain demographic. Iran's foreign policy has actually been fairly cautious and shrewd, Iran also supports the proposal of the Arab League, which is essentially supported by virtually all of the UN, to normalize relations with Israel if they could just try to follow international law. If anything, Iran should be much more afraid of Israel, and I don't doubt they are. Israel is an extremely aggressive nation, on par with the US, it's also the regions' military superpower.


So you're fine with the whole 'let-us-kill-people-and-cover-up-a-rigged-election' bit?

That makes sense if you forget world history and politics up until this year. The US violently overthrew the democratically elected governments of Nicaragua, Chile, Zaire, and Iran, to name a few. Iran is a perfect example. They tried to nationalize their oil industry which was being looted by British petroleum which was keeping all the profits, so there had to be a "regime change." The democracy was overthrown, the president was thrown in prison, and the protestors and moderates who opposed this were beaten, terrorized or executed. In Chile, the leader of the CIA-backed military junta turned the stadiums into massive torture factories where they ripped peoples' teeth and toenails out with pliers, subjected them to electric shocks and many other tortures, and blew their brains out when it was over. Stephen Kinzer wrote a fantastic book about the US-backed Iranian coup called "All the Shah's Men", I highly recommend it. The most brutal example is Indonesia and East Timor, but I won't go into that right now. You don't have to go back that far, either, for example, the Bush administration did everything it could to PREVENT the much publicized Iraqi elections, there were massive protests, they wouldn't allow it, until they HAD to, then they claimed thats' what they wanted all along like: "I meant to do that." Nonsense.

Or, look at some of our allies, we support and even sell guns to some of the worst human rights violators. We sold guns to Saddam up until he invaded Kuwait, we're very friendly with Saudi Arabia which is about the scariest religious-extremist nightmare state you could imagine, and lastly Israel, who's excessive and repeated violations of human rights accords are voluminously recorded by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and others.
I'm not defending the actions of the Iranian government, but that has to be accompanied by a hard, long look in the mirror if you want to have a serious conversation. Otherwise it's the "pot calling the kettle.."

IamSam
09-08-2009, 08:30 PM
Blah. Blah. Blah

Christ. Shut up already. You ruined a perfectly fine question with a whole lot of back story that no one needed. Christ. I already fucking knew all of what you babbled about which didn't have anything to do with what was being said.

Bugger off.

NGNM85
09-08-2009, 09:30 PM
Christ. Shut up already. You ruined a perfectly fine question with a whole lot of back story that no one needed.

This is part of the problem with American political discourse, and the broader ulture in general, complex ideas can't always be condensed to a sound bite, thus nothing really gets communicated and people get dumber by the generation. Thats' why we have the 'birthers' or this 'death panel' nonsense. None of these people have the most basic grasp of what they're talking about.


Christ. I already fucking knew all of what you babbled about

I find that difficult to believe. Even if it's true that puts you in a minority, statistics show Americans' are pathetically uneducated when it comes to history and world politics, thats' part of why theres' so much confusion. One doesn't often hear about Reagan supporting death squads in South America, thats' relegated to the dustbin of history, so how can people actually understand what makes Hugo Chavez tick? It's like the post-9/11 thing; "Why do they hate us?", anybody who doesn't already know is totally out of their element.


which didn't have anything to do with what was being said.


It's totally relevant. Unless you want to argue that right and wrong are completely subjective and we can just apply rules when it suits us, but the intellectual culture, and the prevailing tendency of the international community would seem to disagree. You can't honestly condemn the Iranian government without acknowledging: 1. That the United States is responsible for creating this situation in Iran, where this can happen. 2. That the United States has, does, and continues to commit, support (directly or indirectly), or enable similar acts. Otherwise you're being dishonest. I mean, it's not very courageous or impressive to sit there and blame the other guy, thats' very easy, the real test is to what degree we're able to look in the mirror, and hold ourselves to these standards. This is also the best way to lead, by example. In short, we'd be in a much better position to criticize human rights abuses if we weren't so involved in commiting or enabling them, elsewhere, that makes it sort of meaningless.

IamSam
09-08-2009, 09:41 PM
This is part of the problem with American political discourse, and the broader ulture in general, complex ideas can't always be condensed to a sound bite, thus nothing really gets communicated and people get dumber by the generation. Thats' why we have the 'birthers' or this 'death panel' nonsense. None of these people have the most basic grasp of what they're talking about.


That's not the point. I was trying to get him to answer the question so I could follow up with a second question thereby trapping him in his own words. You and I actually have a lot in common, however I don't prattle on and act higher and mightier than others.



I find that difficult to believe. Even if it's true that puts you in a minority, statistics show Americans' are pathetically uneducated when it comes to history and world politics, thats' part of why theres' so much confusion. One doesn't often hear about Reagan supporting death squads in South America, thats' relegated to the dustbin of history, so how can people actually understand what makes Hugo Chavez tick? It's like the post-9/11 thing; "Why do they hate us?", anybody who doesn't already know is totally out of their element.

Well asshole, I'm in your minority. Before painting someone into a corner, why don't you learn a little about them first? I am proud of my education and my drive that got me to this point. Quit being a dick and realize that it might be possible that people around here may know exactly what you're talking about. Some of us aren't fresh out of high school around here. Understood?



It's totally relevant. Unless you want to argue that right and wrong are completely subjective and we can just apply rules when it suits us, but the intellectual culture, and the prevailing tendency of the international community would seem to disagree. You can't honestly condemn the Iranian government without acknowledging: 1. That the United States is responsible for creating this situation in Iran, where this can happen. 2. That the United States has, does, and continues to commit, support (directly or indirectly), or enable similar acts. Otherwise you're being dishonest. I mean, it's not very courageous or impressive to sit there and blame the other guy, thats' very easy, the real test is to what degree we're able to look in the mirror, and hold ourselves to these standards. This is also the best way to lead, by example. In short, we'd be in a much better position to criticize human rights abuses if we weren't so involved in commiting or enabling them, elsewhere, that makes it sort of meaningless.

No. It wasn't relevant. I wasn't talking to you, nor was anyone asking for a history lesson about all the bad things the USA has done in the past. We, or I, was/were trying to get to the bottom of sipptaroowsky's rant.

You just like hearing yourself speak/reading what you type.

jacknife737
09-09-2009, 12:27 AM
NGM, dude, you'd get your point across a lot easier if you weren't so condescending.

NGNM85
09-11-2009, 02:18 PM
That's not the point. I was trying to get him to answer the question so I could follow up with a second question thereby trapping him in his own words.

...We, or I, was/were trying to get to the bottom of sipptaroowsky's rant.

Well, in all fairness I can't be responsible for being aware of the plan. I've been elsewhere for some time and I just looked at the most recent posts and..the rest is history. I didn't think his statement was that inflammatory, ill-informed as it may have been. I wouldn't say I "like" Iran, at least not it's government, but they are probably one of the most culturally modern nations in the region. There is a substantial movement in Iran that is very open and curious about western culture. Iran is also in a very dangerous position, with very serious threats from both America and Israel, that’s’ just sort of a basic truism. If it makes you feel any better I excoriated this guy after a very stupid post on the abortion thread which leads me to the conclusion he is, in fact, a moron. I didn't realize it was the same guy until later.


You and I actually have a lot in common, however I don't prattle on and act higher and mightier than others.

..........."Act"?


Well asshole, I'm in your minority. Before painting someone into a corner, why don't you learn a little about them first?

I could try a little harder, but it's impossible to do this all the time. I'd die of exhaustion.


I am proud of my education and my drive that got me to this point.

So am I.


Quit being a dick

No promises.


and realize that it might be possible that people around here may know exactly what you're talking about.

....Theoretically.


Some of us aren't fresh out of high school around here. Understood?

Yes.


No. It wasn't relevant. I wasn't talking to you, nor was anyone asking for a history lesson about all the bad things the USA has done in the past.

It's definitely relevant. You can't make a value judgment on another nations' foreign/domestic policy without factoring in your own. This is something that, as I said, is expunged from our political discourse, so it's important to bring it up, regardless. Also, it's not just directed at you, but anybody who might be watching. If I'm engaging in debate, I'm not just thinking about the person in front of me, it's just as much for anybody who might be in earshot.


You just like hearing yourself speak/reading what you type.

Guilty as charged. (I also kept my responses concise.)