Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 pm**

On the other, other hand if this piece from Steve Clemons is accurate (or rather if his source is on the mark), all of this may be a moot point:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/06/iran_there_will/

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:25 pm**

Hmm. I no longer take the predictions of political scientists (or economists...) seriously, due to the many innacuracies. Anyways...

It is true that the "Supreme Leader" Ayatollha Khameini still holds much of the political power, as well as having his own private army (See: Revolutionary Guards), but the Presidential office was partly autonomous before Ahmadinejad came to power, he did increase the office's power. Not that Khameini cared, because he was such a loyal puppet...
Anyways, even with having a president with little power, there is still symbolism, and it still is a way for people to show their views. The current election violence serves only to prove that the people are discontented with their current system, and desire something else. Perhaps the Tudeh Party could step in now. :twisted:

Seriously though, the Tudeh Party is alright. The :twisted:

was only a joke.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:21 am**

I asked my Iranian student about it yesterday - she said she thought the protests would last 4/5 days then Ahmedinejad would send in the troops, and that would be the end of it - she certainly didn't sound like she believed anything would change, she seemed resigned rather than angry. I hope she's wrong.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:51 am**

So many election experts.You'r opinion is formed by the mainstream media.
Personaly i think that the riots are coordonated by CIA agents that are tring to overthrow the iranian president.He is veri unconfortable for the american corporation interest in the region.Iran is the last fortres in the region against the oilcompanies.
If they will not succed overthrowing Ahmadinejad, they will find a reason(maybe the "frauded" election)to send in troops to "free" the iranian people, like they did whit the irakians

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:24 am**

Night Strike wrote:What will be even worse is when Obama's administration chooses to sit down and talk to him, which will just legitimize his illegal keeping of the Iranian Presidency. I hope Obama steps up and calls Iran out for the frauds they've committed. I'm not holding my breath though.

What the Iranian government would love would be for Obama to make a big noise, it would give them the perfect opportunity to divert attention from the present crisis by whipping up anti US sentiment. No doubt Bush would have blindly jumped in but Obama will show more sense, there is no need to wave a big stick just because you have one.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:29 am**

joecoolfrog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:What will be even worse is when Obama's administration chooses to sit down and talk to him, which will just legitimize his illegal keeping of the Iranian Presidency. I hope Obama steps up and calls Iran out for the frauds they've committed. I'm not holding my breath though.

What the Iranian government would love would be for Obama to make a big noise, it would give them the perfect opportunity to divert attention from the present crisis by whipping up anti US sentiment. No doubt Bush would have blindly jumped in but Obama will show more sense, there is no need to wave a big stick just because you have one.

Indeed. If he does it will nearly completely negate the speech in Cairo he made. The Iranians themselves need to solve this.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:32 am**

EvilPurpleMonkey wrote:Hmm. I no longer take the predictions of political scientists (or economists...) seriously, due to the many innacuracies. Anyways...

It is true that the "Supreme Leader" Ayatollha Khameini still holds much of the political power, as well as having his own private army (See: Revolutionary Guards), but the Presidential office was partly autonomous before Ahmadinejad came to power, he did increase the office's power. Not that Khameini cared, because he was such a loyal puppet...
Anyways, even with having a president with little power, there is still symbolism, and it still is a way for people to show their views. The current election violence serves only to prove that the people are discontented with their current system, and desire something else.

Indeed. If the President really didn't have any power or symbolism there would be no protests about this.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:01 pm**

This clarifies the situation a bit:

The End of the Islamic Republic, the Beginning of the Islamic Government

A friend called who with a shaking voice asked me for an explanation on what is happening in Iran, in our country.

I said, the Supreme Leader has decided to replace the Islamic Republic with an Islamic government and that we all have to participate in this "great celebration" and be "deeply happy..."

These young people who are being beaten in the streets of Tehran and other provinces, whose faces look stunned, Mr. Mousavi and fighting clergies who issue statements, think it is possible to protect the Republic and the people's votes. It is very clear to me that 22 Khordad 1388, four months after the revolution turned 30, the time of Republic has come to an end in our country. Ahmadinejad, with confirmation of the Supreme Leader, has obtained the necessary votes and won. Congratulations on this victory...Although no celebration happens without victims and the bigger the celebration, the larger the number of casualties...

22 Bahman was the beginning of the Islamic Revolution and 22 Khordad is the beginning of the Islamic Government.

My friend started crying louder; bitterly crying.

This is reportedly coming from Ayatollah Mohajerani.
http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/updates-from-iran-liveblogging-post-election-unrest/

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:22 pm**

Reports are starting to come in about shootings in crowds of protesters. I'm surprised it has started already since they were trying to get the international media out (and I'm sure they haven't finished). When the government controls your lives, you lose your life.

(I didn't give any links because it's still breaking/unconfirmed news.)

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:33 pm**

Night Strike wrote:Reports are starting to come in about shootings in crowds of protesters. I'm surprised it has started already since they were trying to get the international media out (and I'm sure they haven't finished). When the government controls your lives, you lose your life.

(I didn't give any links because it's still breaking/unconfirmed news.)

... Here's the link:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

...

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:24 pm**

Monday, June 15, 2009
Down Time Rescheduled

A critical network upgrade must be performed to ensure continued operation of Twitter. In coordination with Twitter, our network host had planned this upgrade for tonight. However, our network partners at NTT America recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran. Tonight's planned maintenance has been rescheduled to tomorrow between 2-3p PST (1:30a in Iran).

Our partners are taking a huge risk not just for Twitter but also the other services they support worldwide—we commend them for being flexible in what is essentially an inflexible situation. We chose NTT America Enterprise Hosting Services early last year specifically because of their impeccable history of reliability and global perspective. Today's decision and actions continue to prove why NTT America is such a powerful partner for Twitter.

http://blog.twitter.com/

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:17 pm**

cyrenius wrote:So many election experts.You'r opinion is formed by the mainstream media.
Personaly i think that the riots are coordonated by CIA agents that are tring to overthrow the iranian president.He is veri unconfortable for the american corporation interest in the region.Iran is the last fortres in the region against the oilcompanies.
If they will not succed overthrowing Ahmadinejad, they will find a reason(maybe the "frauded" election)to send in troops to "free" the iranian people, like they did whit the irakians

You're kidding, right?

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:44 pm**

There's no way the US will send troops to Iran. Losing two wars in the region is already two big a stretch.

I think the best approach is to with hold judgement about the legitimacy of the elections until real evidence is presented. I admit I'm sceptical of the results, but also that the analysis I heard was that the majority of people in cities voted for the opposition while the majority of people in the rural areas (which make up a majority of the population) voted for Ahmadinejad. The people protesting and claiming that the voting was rigged live in cities so it seems conceivable that the vote was correct.

Certainly Obama and other world leaders would not openly state that they thought the vote was rigged without strong evidence, which is why they haven't.

Nether the less, I hope that the protests are successful and that we see a change of government in Iran.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:13 pm**

owheelj wrote:There's no way the US will send troops to Iran. Losing two wars in the region is already two big a stretch.

I think the best approach is to with hold judgement about the legitimacy of the elections until real evidence is presented. I admit I'm sceptical of the results, but also that the analysis I heard was that the majority of people in cities voted for the opposition while the majority of people in the rural areas (which make up a majority of the population) voted for Ahmadinejad. The people protesting and claiming that the voting was rigged live in cities so it seems conceivable that the vote was correct.

Certainly Obama and other world leaders would not openly state that they thought the vote was rigged without strong evidence, which is why they haven't.

Nether the less, I hope that the protests are successful and that we see a change of government in Iran.

Do you mean the evidence like the ballots, that are being burned so that there can be no recount? Or the arrest of the opposing party? Which, to you, is evidence of fraud? Maybe you could find evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won elections in areas that he surely lost.

Bush stole his elections here, what makes you think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can't steal an election over there?

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:23 pm**

I'm not denying that the election was rigged, I'm saying there isn't enough information for me to make a judgement either way, but also that I'm sceptical of the result, which means I think it probably was rigged, I'm just not prepared to say that it definitely was.

I haven't seen evidence that ballot papers are being burned, or that the opposing party was arrested. Indeed the fact that the leading opposition candidate spoke at the recent and ongoing rally seems to suggest he is currently not under arrest. Again, I'm not saying that these things haven't happened, just that it will require reliable evidence for me to accept that they have or have not. In the case of those two accusation, the evidence I've seen suggests that these are just lies spread by people who favour the position that the elections were rigged, but unfortunately damaging to that cause.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:48 pm**

owheelj wrote:...the analysis I heard was that the majority of people in cities voted for the opposition while the majority of people in the rural areas (which make up a majority of the population) voted for Ahmadinejad. The people protesting and claiming that the voting was rigged live in cities so it seems conceivable that the vote was correct.

This is not consistent with the analysis that I've seen. Although it's true that about 65% of the population lives in rural areas, the northern part of Iran (which is the most densely populated) is the bastion of the Kurds and the Azeri (among other groups). Both of these groups have had grievances with the revolutionary gov't in general and Ahmadinejad in particular. Whereas Mousavi (and the other opposition candidates) did very well with these groups. Now bear in mind that the Kurds and Azeri together account for about 25% of the population. And although the north is more densely populated, it does have some rural areas (there is also a very large uninhabited region of Iran in the south). So the 65% of people in rural areas must include a significant number of Kurds and Azeris. Further more, the majority of Iran's population is below the age of 28. Mousavi also had tremendous support among the younger Iranians (as you can see by the footage that's been coming out of Iran - mostly younger people participating in the demonstrations against Ahmadinejad's claim of victory). We'll almost certainly never know the truth about this election, but the numbers really don't seem to add up to an Ahmadinejad victory.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:13 am**

owheelj wrote:I'm not denying that the election was rigged, I'm saying there isn't enough information for me to make a judgement either way, but also that I'm sceptical of the result, which means I think it probably was rigged, I'm just not prepared to say that it definitely was.

I'm pretty much sure of it. The way he won is so unlikely that it's nearly impossible for it not to be a fraud. It's like McCain had won Illinois and Hawai by a big margin.

I haven't seen evidence that ballot papers are being burned,

Jup that's just rumors at the moment.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:17 am**

Admittedly, I'm completely ignorant on these issues relative to Iran... so I'll start with that.

Anyway, has this kind of thing happened before in Iran in the recent past? If so, what was the US response then? I think President Obama's response, whether verbal or otherwise, should be tempered by the lack of concrete information coming from Iran. It is unfortunate that there is a lack of concrete information, but, well, I think we should wait and see what happens. These issues may take care of themselves.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:44 am**

thegreekdog wrote:Admittedly, I'm completely ignorant on these issues relative to Iran... so I'll start with that.

Anyway, has this kind of thing happened before in Iran in the recent past? If so, what was the US response then? I think President Obama's response, whether verbal or otherwise, should be tempered by the lack of concrete information coming from Iran. It is unfortunate that there is a lack of concrete information, but, well, I think we should wait and see what happens. These issues may take care of themselves.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/06/obama_its_up_to_iran_to_determine_own_leaders.php?ref=fpb

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:28 am**

Snorri1234 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Admittedly, I'm completely ignorant on these issues relative to Iran... so I'll start with that.

Anyway, has this kind of thing happened before in Iran in the recent past? If so, what was the US response then? I think President Obama's response, whether verbal or otherwise, should be tempered by the lack of concrete information coming from Iran. It is unfortunate that there is a lack of concrete information, but, well, I think we should wait and see what happens. These issues may take care of themselves.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/06/obama_its_up_to_iran_to_determine_own_leaders.php?ref=fpb

What I read here is that President Obama is troubled, but is not going to do anything. That sounds pretty reasonable.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:06 am**

thegreekdog wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Admittedly, I'm completely ignorant on these issues relative to Iran... so I'll start with that.

Anyway, has this kind of thing happened before in Iran in the recent past? If so, what was the US response then? I think President Obama's response, whether verbal or otherwise, should be tempered by the lack of concrete information coming from Iran. It is unfortunate that there is a lack of concrete information, but, well, I think we should wait and see what happens. These issues may take care of themselves.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/06/obama_its_up_to_iran_to_determine_own_leaders.php?ref=fpb

What I read here is that President Obama is troubled, but is not going to do anything. That sounds pretty reasonable.

Indeed. It's really the only way to deal with this.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:22 pm**

Robert Fisk, as usual the best voice on the conflict;

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 06912.html

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:57 pm**

The President yesterday denounced the "extent of the fraud" and the "shocking" and "brutal" response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.

"These elections are an atrocity," he said. "If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?" The statement named the regime as the cause of the outrage in Iran and, without meddling or picking favorites, stood up for Iranian democracy.

... Unfortunately, the President who spoke those words was Nicolas Sarkozy (that's France, morons).

... What did our glorious leader have to say? ...

"I have deep concerns about the election. When I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people.

"I understand the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. How that plays out, is ultimately for the Iranian people to decide."

... In other words, "You're on your own. Good luck with that, then".

... It took him 3 days to say even this meaningless dodge of responsibility. No mention of fraud whatsoever.

... Hillary was right about this guy. That call at 3 in the AM commercial... this guy can't handle it.

... Oh, but did you guys see how cool it was when he killed that fly?

... It's just embarassing.

...

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:40 am**

France and the US are in totally different positions politically. It's of no benefit of the US to openly oppose the election result, and we've seen most leaders express concern while being careful not to openly say that the election results are fraudulent.

The US already has a big reputation for interfering in Middle Eastern politics. Doing so at this election would only perpetuate that reputation and lose Islamic support.

Also I think it says more about the US media than about Obama that him killing the fly is deemed news worthy.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:51 am**

owheelj wrote:France and the US are in totally different positions politically. It's of no benefit of the US to openly oppose the election result, and we've seen most leaders express concern while being careful not to openly say that the election results are fraudulent.

The US already has a big reputation for interfering in Middle Eastern politics. Doing so at this election would only perpetuate that reputation and lose Islamic support.

Also I think it says more about the US media than about Obama that him killing the fly is deemed news worthy.

...

You thought that was a slam against Obama? No, as you said, our "news" is pathetic.

...

Conquer Club

Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections

Re: Iran Elections