Iranian Politics; Are things changing or more of the same?
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
The primary reason he has been more tepid is this time it's not just a couple of thousand students in their teens and twenties he can push around.
It's old and young from all walks of life in the hundreds of thousands including the clerics. The last thing he wants to start doing is pushing clerics around.
Ahmadinejad is backing down off of his statements that were critical of the protesters, Rafsanjani who heads Iran's Assembly of Experts (the group which decides who Iran's Supreme Leaders will be) is said to be a supporter of Mousavi.
For the first time an opposition leader Mousavi, is actively inciting his followers to disobey orders from the government not to assemble.
It's going to be interesting because it seems like a whole lot of people there won't be happy unless Mousavi is the president.
Change is coming. The world is shrinking. It has been for some time. The internet and other mass media are greatly accelerating the process. It's just a matter of time until most of the nations George Bush was recklessly determined to democratize on his time schedule end up evolving that way on their own.
Indeed, although ...
One of my high school history teachers said the same thing back over 20 years ago about Reagan and Democracy. She argued that Reagan was pursuing the wrong course of action against the USSR, and that China would open up.
When Tiemann Square occurred, she felt vindicated ... until ... After the USSR came crashing down, she fully admitted that sometimes you have to have both the internal change and external pressure.
Just saying, I never agreed with W. going into Iraq, but there's more to it than just this. Although the US has long been guilty of meddling in Iran until after 1991.
Indeed, although ... and I kid you not ...
One of my high school history teachers said the same thing back over 20 years ago about Reagan and Democracy. She argued that Reagan was pursuing the wrong course of action against the USSR, and that China would open up.
When Tiemann Square occurred, she felt vindicated ... until ... After the USSR came crashing down, she fully admitted that sometimes you have to have both the internal change and external pressure.
Just saying, I never agreed with W. going into Iraq, but there's more to it than just this. Although the US has long been guilty of meddling in Iran until after 1991.
Change will happen if the former (and officially re-elected) i forced to leave the power to another. If he stays, things will continue the same. Or worse...
Re: Indeed, although ...
Considering China hasn't really gone anywhere in a non-economical sense and Russia is already starting to backpedal on most of the changes for the better it has made shortly after doing it I wouldn't be too optimistic.
Considering China hasn't really gone anywhere in a non-economical sense and Russia is already starting to backpedal on most of the changes for the better it has made shortly after doing it I wouldn't be too optimistic.
Today (Friday) is probably the key day. If the opposition can maintain peaceful momentum then there's a chance of progress. If on the other hand, the old guard wrest control today it's as good as over.
This could still be a case of a small but vocal middle-class urban elite attempting to overturn the result of the election against the will of the majority of the Iranian populace.
This could still be a case of a small but vocal middle-class urban elite attempting to overturn the result of the election against the will of the majority of the Iranian populace.
As much as I hate Ahmedinejad for his big mouth, I still believe he won honestly. As noted by political observers, most of his support came from rural areas who lack the means to demonstrate like the population of urban areas.
I think of Ahmedinejad as Bush of Iran. He will have to complete two terms before getting really kicked by his people.
I think of Ahmedinejad as Bush of Iran. He will have to complete two terms before getting really kicked by his people.
bandanoantri
Banned
Thanks ajitpd, at least one voice of reason.
Only because Biden or aynone else on this planet has doubts about the Iranian elections doesn't mean there has been manipulations. None of us can proof one thing or the other, so there will always be doubt of course, but I truly believe that Ahmadinejad has won this election fair and square. To assume from the beginning that it has been tempered with is just typical for the western, non Islamic world, especially the USA of course.
Porblem with this election is that is has been hyped all over the world, again, especially in the US and Europe, and policians as well as the media wanted to tell us that this election will bring change in Iran. And of course Iranians could follow all of this, the ones who wanted Ahmadinejad gone surely were happy with this, and his followers were outraged, and rightfully so. And I think all this hype played a major role on how most Iranians voted, and therefore I think it's a perfectly legal election, if you like it or not.
But everyone who knows at least a little bit more about Persian history and Iran (apart from CNN, FOX or whatever coverage) knows that this is such a complex agenda, that change don't come easy in a country like Iran. So even if Moussavi would have won the election, there's still fundamentalists, the people in rural areas with less or no education than those in the cities or students. Change in Iran will take more than a decade.
Only because Biden or aynone else on this planet has doubts about the Iranian elections doesn't mean there has been manipulations. None of us can proof one thing or the other, so there will always be doubt of course, but I truly believe that Ahmadinejad has won this election fair and square. To assume from the beginning that it has been tempered with is just typical for the western, non Islamic world, especially the USA of course.
Porblem with this election is that is has been hyped all over the world, again, especially in the US and Europe, and policians as well as the media wanted to tell us that this election will bring change in Iran. And of course Iranians could follow all of this, the ones who wanted Ahmadinejad gone surely were happy with this, and his followers were outraged, and rightfully so. And I think all this hype played a major role on how most Iranians voted, and therefore I think it's a perfectly legal election, if you like it or not.
But everyone who knows at least a little bit more about Persian history and Iran (apart from CNN, FOX or whatever coverage) knows that this is such a complex agenda, that change don't come easy in a country like Iran. So even if Moussavi would have won the election, there's still fundamentalists, the people in rural areas with less or no education than those in the cities or students. Change in Iran will take more than a decade.
Good analysis...the Iranians have to really WANT change and WANT democracy before it really takes hold, now certainly their government is not what I would tend to call a democracy in the traditional sense. Is there manipulation in the Iranian election? Probably but then again there has been manipulations in elections in America. I tend to agree it looks like a legitimate election. The tough spot is the USA promoting democracy may not always be what you thought (i.e. the law of unintended consequences). Look at the Hamas victory in elections in the West Bank or Hezbelloah in Lebanon, democractic voting led to terrorist groups have legitimate claims to office. It is sorta like creating a game with rules that you made, then someone beating you at your own game and you cry.
What is your evidence that it's' "fueled by outsiders"??
Mousavi seems to think he has a case so do his followers...the Iranian government even says there were voting irregularities. I guess the media is using trick photography to create all of those cell phone videos of protests and government backed militia cracking their sculls huh?
Bullshit rhetoric ...
And who does Iran attack? The US and, even more so, the UK! WTF?!
That's why this is bullshit rhetoric. Honestly, it's bullshit rhetoric. The UK and US have been tip-toeing around, and only took issue when the protesters started to be harmed.
In comparison to France and Germany, the UK and US have said nothing remotely as harsh. Where are the condemnations of them? Classic Chavez tactic -- don't explain yourself by blaming others, let alone the people not involved (like the Columbia issue and rebel armies that are given havens by Chavez).
Doesn't mean Iran doesn't have legitimate gripes against the US for past meddling, same as Chavez. But it does mean that they are not only beating a dead horse far too long, but they are beating the wrong horse!
It only goes so far before people question it. The UK and US not need say anything.
France, Germany and other nations have been extremely critical of the regime in Iran. The UK and US have been far more restrictive in their comments, by far!
And who does Iran attack? The US and, even more so, the UK! WTF?!
That's why this is bullshit rhetoric. Honestly, it's bullshit rhetoric. The UK and US have been tip-toeing around, and only took issue when the protesters started to be harmed.
In comparison to France and Germany, the UK and US have said nothing remotely as harsh. Where are the condemnations of them? Classic Chavez tactic -- don't explain yourself by blaming others, let alone the people not involved (like the Columbia issue and rebel armies that are given havens by Chavez).
Doesn't mean Iran doesn't have legitimate gripes against the US for past meddling, same as Chavez. But it does mean that they are not only beating a dead horse far too long, but they are beating the wrong horse!
It only goes so far before people question it. The UK and US not need say anything.
The situation in Iran is sad, but not very optimistic. They have a gov't controlled by religion. And there's the old Libertarian Maxim --he who has the guns, makes the rules.
I think Obama's initial cautious approach was sound. I think his latter "tough talk" approach was just a bone to appease the chickenhawk republicans. If the chickenhawks had their way, we'd parachute troops into Tehran...exactly how many wars do the chickenhawks want to fight simultaneously? And, of course, never pay for any of them....
--he who has the guns, makes the rules.I think Obama's initial cautious approach was sound. I think his latter "tough talk" approach was just a bone to appease the chickenhawk republicans. If the chickenhawks had their way, we'd parachute troops into Tehran...exactly how many wars do the chickenhawks want to fight simultaneously? And, of course, never pay for any of them....
Those protest in urban areas are showing something we should already know: the mentalities of urban iraqis is changing faster than the one of rural iraqis.
If the election was legit, it just indicates us that the rural iraqis are still majoritary in Iraq and are slowing any form of changes that will eventually occurs.
:2 cents:
If the election was legit, it just indicates us that the rural iraqis are still majoritary in Iraq and are slowing any form of changes that will eventually occurs.
:2 cents:
Hard-liners in Iran still use (maybe rightfully so) the anger and disdain for our parts in aiding Saddam in killing millions of their people and our role in 1953 orchestrating the overthrow of Mohammed Massadegh.
Those themes still resonate with Iranians and all need be done is to attached the protests to a pro American sentiment.
Now Obama talked a little tougher not because of GOPers but because Iranians were hoping for a more strident tone.
Similar threads
