Change happening in Iran?

It's quite interesting because it seems fairly clear that Ahmedinejhad won, but Mir-Hossein Mousavi is politically well connected to the neo-cons and Iran/Contra so is a natural western ally. Clearly the Ayatollahs are well aware of this and while Ahmedinejhad may rub them the wrong way from time to time, he is at least a loyal Iranian and not a western stooge.

Obviously though, the propaganda about election irregularities has been well orchestrated so Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is pretty much forced to say he'll investigate simply to diffuse any angst and give time for the results to settle in.

This looks like another western backed colour revolution - most notably because it gets press attention in the west.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the people have been protesting for the removal of Saakashvili for months, but since Saakashvili is a western ally there is no news coverage of that in the west.
 
And just as relations between the US and Iran may have been thawing, this happens. I wonder how Obama will handle this situation. It's kinda tricky as he's been trying to establish some form of dialog with Iran, but after this nonsense it'll be rather difficult.

I thought this was rather interesting:
Ahmadinejad traveled to Russia Tuesday after delaying a trip for a day but did not mention the Iranian election or unrest. Instead, he focused on the traditional target of the Islamic Republic's ire, the United States.
Click to expand...
Seems he had to go pay Putin a visit and thank him for his support and his useful tips on how to properly rig an election.
 
smithy said:
Until all this kicked off, I wasn't aware that Iran had a "religious police" whose job is, amongst other things, walk the streets harrassing women.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha. Sounds like New York Police!!!


But seriously, don't you remember when they kicked the Shah out? It was a theocratic coup. The country became an Islamic Republic, so they had religious laws and laws need enforcers.

Saudi Arabia has religious police and they are our "friends" so obviously having "religious police" is not, in itself, a matter of any great importance in international relations.

Now, if only British Petroleum (formerly Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) and the CIA and MI6 had not overthrown Mosaddeq in 1953 and replaced him with their hand picked king Mohammad Rez? Sh?h Pahlavi (Shah of Iran) who was a bastard and much hated (not by the wealthy though) and set the conditions for the rise of theocracy, then Iranians would be much better off. Mossadeq's Iran was a modern secular democracy - but he nationalized the oil fields (i.e. exerted sovereignty) and "had to go".
 
Glaucus said:
Seems he had to go pay Putin a visit and thank him for his support and his useful tips on how to properly rig an election.
Click to expand...

He doesn't run anything. The Ayatollahs do, so it's kind of irrelevant.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
He doesn't run anything. The Ayatollahs do, so it's kind of irrelevant.
Click to expand...
People don't martyr themselves over irrelevant things.
 
Glaucus said:
FluffyMcDeath said:
He doesn't run anything. The Ayatollahs do, so it's kind of irrelevant.
Click to expand...
People don't martyr themselves over irrelevant things.
Click to expand...
Certainly they do. Thousands have died for God and Christ and they still don't exist.
 
@Glaucus

From the article you linked
"That sets you up for a tremendous split," said Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "It could be tremendously destabilizing because if the office of (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) is damaged, then the whole shape of leadership ... moves into flux."
Click to expand...

i.e. well worth funding and backing, to the point of engineering the whole thing. This new presidential challenger has worked for US intelligence before.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It's quite interesting because it seems fairly clear that Ahmedinejhad won, but Mir-Hossein Mousavi is politically well connected to the neo-cons and Iran/Contra so is a natural western ally.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Despite his involvement in Iran/Contra, that doesn't mean he's on side with the neocons. On the nuclear issue, Mousavi sees it as Iran right to develop the technology. This would clearly put him at odds with even non-conservatives in the US, never mind the neocons. His main differences with Ahmadinejad were domestic issues which are probably far more pressing then foreign policy is right now in Iran.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Glaucus said:
FluffyMcDeath said:
He doesn't run anything. The Ayatollahs do, so it's kind of irrelevant.
Click to expand...
People don't martyr themselves over irrelevant things.
Click to expand...
Certainly they do. Thousands have died for God and Christ and they still don't exist.
Click to expand...
But they believe it exists and so it's relevant. I have to say your argument here is pretty weak.
 
Glaucus said:
FluffyMcDeath said:
Certainly they do. Thousands have died for God and Christ and they still don't exist.
Click to expand...
But they believe it exists and so it's relevant. I have to say your argument here is pretty weak.
Click to expand...

In that it gives the appearance that they must have been right because they believed so strongly that they were right, it has psychological value to those who wish to capitalize on it. However, the exact thing that a martyr dies for is utterly irrelevant. They may not even have deliberately chosen death for a cause but merely been killed incidentally. The fact that they are dead and that the death can be used is the only thing that is relevant.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
i.e. well worth funding and backing, to the point of engineering the whole thing. This new presidential challenger has worked for US intelligence before.
Click to expand...
That's funny because before the election there were (Iranian) conspiracy theories that Supreme Leader Khamenei requested Mousavi run for president in a bid to prevent former (reformist) president Khatami from running again. I guess there's a conspiracy theory for every agenda. It's like a buffet, pick one you like, and if it doesn't work for you, go pick another.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
In that it gives the appearance that they must have been right because they believed so strongly that they were right, it has psychological value to those who wish to capitalize on it. However, the exact thing that a martyr dies for is utterly irrelevant. They may not even have deliberately chosen death for a cause but merely been killed incidentally. The fact that they are dead and that the death can be used is the only thing that is relevant.
Click to expand...
So explain to me why average citizens are risking not only imprisonment, but physical harm and even death. Is this a favorite pass time in Iran? No. I'm thinking they're protesting against the election results. I can simply not understand how people would do this if the elections were truly irrelevant. You have to explain this to me using small, simple words because it just boggles my mind.
 
Glaucus said:
Ok then Fluffy, explain to me why average citizens are risking not only imprisonment, but physical harm and even death.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason is normal human psychology. They don't believe anything will happen to them. That's what makes it possible for criminals to commit crimes - they know that some people get caught - but it won't happen to them. Then there is the crowd effect. Something bad may happen to someone else in the crowd but it's unlikely to be me. The crowd is empowering and dilutes the consequence for the individual. Why would anyone be willing to risk physical harm and police custody and potential death for a team not winning a game? I don't know. It boggles the mind, doesn't it.

I can simply not understand how people would do this if the elections were truly irrelevant.
Click to expand...
People are lead to do such things by those who it will benefit - or at least that is the historical reality. Who wins an election is generally not relevant to the average shmoe. If Hitler had overrun Europe most people's lives would not have changed. On the other hand, there is a very large impact on the ruling classes because - they end up not ruling, so they encourage their vassals to fight for them and give them inspiring concepts to fight for.

One farmer is much the same as another to a cow, but owning cows or not owning cows makes a big difference to the farmer.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Glaucus said:
Ok then Fluffy, explain to me why average citizens are risking not only imprisonment, but physical harm and even death.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason is normal human psychology. They don't believe anything will happen to them. That's what makes it possible for criminals to commit crimes - they know that some people get caught - but it won't happen to them. Then there is the crowd effect. Something bad may happen to someone else in the crowd but it's unlikely to be me. The crowd is empowering and dilutes the consequence for the individual. Why would anyone be willing to risk physical harm and police custody and potential death for a team not winning a game? I don't know. It boggles the mind, doesn't it.
Click to expand...
Yes I know about mob psychology, but it's not that simple. Entire cities don't protest in the streets for no reason. There is clearly unrest in Tehran and people aren't confronting the police head on for so long JUST because they feel invincible. A more realistic explanation here is that there is a deep cultural divide in Iran and this election has exposed it to it's core. Just looking at the Mousavi supporters and Ahmedinejhad supporters the cultural divide is obvious. The religious police and strict Islamic laws are about as popular as Zionism in Tehran these days. I'm not sure why you must always assume that just because someone doesn't hate the US they are nothing more then neocon puppets.

[quote:gb62i6q8]I can simply not understand how people would do this if the elections were truly irrelevant.
Click to expand...
If Hitler had overrun Europe most people's lives would not have changed.[/quote:gb62i6q8]I beg to differ. If you were to sit here and tell me that democracy is nothing but an illusion that allows people to feel empowered, then I may give you some credit for that. However, the moment one sees through an illusion the game is up. Hitler would never provide that warm cozy feeling of empowerment, and in the same way the people of Iran aren't feeling it right now either. The leaders always run the show and do things no one wants, but what keeps a democracy going is that it goes both ways. Leaders do have to give something - no matter how small - back to the people. In this case Iranians are feeling they're not getting what they paid for and they want their money back.
 
@fluffy

I'm with Glaucus on this one for sure. It seems as if you will look for an anti-american slant in anything at times.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If Hitler had overrun Europe most people's lives would not have changed.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is an incredibly stupid statement. I hope that was a simple off the cuff remark and you really don't believe it. Hilter would have wiped out the jews, gypies, gays, blacks, handicapped and mentally challenged, probably Russians and many other groups. After all these were gone, he would start a witch hunt among germans too. Hitler was an evil madman, period. No need for revisionist history.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It's quite interesting because it seems fairly clear that Ahmedinejhad won, but Mir-Hossein Mousavi is politically well connected to the neo-cons and Iran/Contra so is a natural western ally. Clearly the Ayatollahs are well aware of this and while Ahmedinejhad may rub them the wrong way from time to time, he is at least a loyal Iranian and not a western stooge.
Click to expand...

Mousavi doesn't appear to be pro-western. Different story for his student supporters on the other hand. And it's all the young student supporters with their designer handbags who've been getting all the air-time on the TV.

The Ayatollahs know that both candidates are pro-Islamic-revolution. They won't want to risk the Revolution by sitting around waiting for the protests to get worse, just for the sake of the opposition candidate they would quite happily stomach anyway.

As for the recount, I read on a few blogs reports of ballot boxes being delivered to polling stations already half full of ballot papers. If any fraud happened before the counting then the recount won't make any difference.
 
redrumloa said:
Wow, that is an incredibly stupid statement. I hope that was a simple off the cuff remark and you really don't believe it. Hilter would have wiped out the jews, gypies, gays, blacks, handicapped and mentally challenged, probably Russians and many other groups. After all these were gone, he would start a witch hunt among germans too. Hitler was an evil madman, period. No need for revisionist history.
Click to expand...
This is true. Hitler would exploit undesirables for his own gain. Blaming jews for the economic collapse was an easy way for him to get support from the majority, non jews. As the jews would eventually get eliminated, and thus no longer a viable scapegoat, other groups would eventually be targeted. In other words, Hitler would always need to target one group or another to hold on to power, or at least, that's how his mind worked. The likelihood that Hitler would have become moderate once he captured all of Europe is completely preposterous. Just look at Stalin, he got worse after WW2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top