Iran Issues

[Andrew]

This is hardly a turning point.

More to do with Iraq, but once I read that it made me think of:

[gunner154]

Just gonna love these political cartoons.

To be frank, my gut feeling tells me there still hasn't been much progress in Iraq.

[GUNWOUNDS]

haha where do you find this stuff Andrew?

[Edric O]

Because, to quote the Spiderman film, "With great power, comes great responsibility."

Yes, but that doesn't mean everyone with great power will act responsibly. In fact, if history is any guide, the opposite usually happens: Those with great power tend to abuse it. One of the big reasons why democracy is better than dictatorship is because power is dispersed among a large number of people rather than concentrated in a few.

The President of the United States should not have the power to act as Dictator of the World - no matter how benevolent you think the US is. Power corrupts.

[Barbarossa]

Because, to quote the Spiderman film, "With great power, comes great responsibility."  U.S.A. has the power to sort out these countries, so it should.  Otherwise, what's to stop Iran nuking Israel?

Yes, there are certain issues that must be dealt with by the United States. But Israel is more than capable of defending itself against Any, and I emphasise Any threats that could ever come from Iran. To put it in mundane terms, Israel's Jets/Missiles make Iran's Facilities go "Kaboom".

Let Israel deal with it's own neighbors. They are more than capable of it. As for the United States- We're up to our neck as it is, we don't need to add "Disarming/preventing the Arming of Iran" to our plate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

[Megashrap]

Whee. The death of a man who couldn't even load a machine gun, whose political role was incredibly exaggerated. Just as the importance of his death has been. This is hardly a turning point.

Also, it doesn't matter what they were looking for because they didn't find anything.  :)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

   

                          Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

I don't think Bush is an angel by any means,or many politicians for that matter. And he too probably can't load a machine gun. The point is it was one madman that thousands praised, admired and saw him as a leader for thier cause/holy war etc.

People tend to look at the mistakes more so than the actual trying to achieve and alleviate the evils of the world today. No,terrorism isn't gone, but I'm personally glad we (USA) didn't just sit on our asses and wait for more attacks. As for Iraq, I think we should pull out,they have a government now. Occupations have always failed throughout history, and still is today sadly. But, at any rate there should be a watchfull eye of SOME kind on the matter of terrorism at the very least.

[Andrew]

Looks like Iran hasn't been a large newsmaker recently.

Even Bush has taken Iran off the Axis of evil list in the past week lifting some trade embargoes.

Here's a pic of Ahmadinejad and his wife

link

[SAND]

Seems nowadays weaker countries get beaten on there cocks more often. This has been an old trend and shows a countries bravery. :P

[Andrew]

So the elections went badly, and looks like they might be having another revolution.

A boy died in protests, so everyone is pissed.

Iran protest cancelled as leaked election results show Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came third

Iranian boy shot dead by the basij at Azadi square in Tehran GRAPHIC #iranelection

BBC sent footage of Iran protests

apparently mainstream american media is ignoring it.

Rumours of 5000 Hizbullah fighters in Iran.

Awesome quality pictures from boston-globe.

Twitter seems to be where fastest news updates are. persiankiwi account.

Cell phone videos

State tv building on fire.

supporters of other candidates can not go to hospitals because plaincloths officers are there.

[Edric O]

I sincerely doubt this will go as far as a revolution. How many times have we seen post-election protests and violence in various countries throughout recent years? Even when they succeeded, they brought little more than a change in the faces of the people in power, not a change in the power structure itself.

[Andrew]

twitterpic of large number of protesters

- warning, slightly graphic if you don't like blood.

Video of shootings outside - blood

photo gallery

There's lots of pics/videos of dead protesters. Doubt I'll show any of the bad ones. Like the one who was shot in the neck. Follow the fark.com threads if you want em.

I sincerely doubt this will go as far as a revolution. How many times have we seen post-election protests and violence in various countries throughout recent years? Even when they succeeded, they brought little more than a change in the faces of the people in power, not a change in the power structure itself.

Remember when people in Italy were protesting over something? Yah me neither.

At least in digital age, everyone has cameras/videocams, and the info can get out. If this happened 20 years ago no one would know about anything happening.

[Andrew]

Heh, video of woman protesting who was shot and killed is extremely popular, and making everyone angry. Quite sad to see.

'Neda' becomes rallying cry for Iranian protests

Government is dropping chemicals on protesters from helicopters. Tanks are most likely in Tehran.

[Sneakgab]

Seems like they have never heard of Machiavelli; wouldn't it be better (for the government) to grant a small concession than to possibly incite the people to overthrowing the government?

Maybe it is better for the people of Iran this way.

Then again, I can't say I know which would be better for the governments to maintain their power and ways, concession or repression (it is probably situational).

However, as Lenin once said (I think), the use of force and repression is the first sympton of a system pregnant with a new one, or something like that.

SA is a fairly good case study here. If the people become convinced that it is time to stand up to their rulers, then there comes a point where the overthrow of the government or large change is inevitable; either the repression will lead to greater and greater anger and action against the government, or the government will be forced to concede to the masses.

Of course, ''large'' (notice I did not say great) change is actually questionable in SA; the majority of the African populace exist in conditions little different. Only a few have been elevated to wealth status, while the rest toil while remaining in poverty.

Anyway, making concessions seems to be a more garuanteed strategy for oppresive tyrants and such ''unpopulars''. They lose a little but they are safe, though a gradual change may be garuanteed. Meanwhile, repression or simply not making concessions is more risky, a gamble to hold on to everything that may result in everything being taken far sooner than it otherwise would.

I guess it is clear which strategy Iran's government has opted for.

[Tatar Khan]

What happens in Iran will all depend on whose side the police, army and etc. are on. If they support the current president than the protectors are doomed if there are dissidents in those organizations than the protectors will have more luck.

And damn, who asked the Israeli PM to talk about his support of protectors. The West and other powers decided to ignore it because even if they make a statement the Iranians will start with their conspiracy theories and so everyone is quiet. Except the Israeli PM. Come on like his moral support is going to help protectors, now the Iranian government has more weapons against protectors --? The protests are result of the Jewish global conspiracy so lets crack down harder now.

[Edric O]

There is still absolutely no evidence that the elections were stolen, nor do I see any reason to believe that Mousavi is any better than Ahmadinejad.

Yeah, the police is cracking down hard on the protesters. That doesn't mean the protesters are right.

Sneakgab, I'm not sure if the Iranian government can make any concessions. After all, the protesters haven't actually asked for anything, except new elections. You can't make partial concessions with a demand like that, because you can't give them half an election.

[Wolf]

I'm afraid you're wrong about that, Edric.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.vote.survey/index.html

I'll post the meat of it here:

" The survey made four main observations:

# In two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100 percent was recorded.

# At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased turnout and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion that his announced victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent conservative majority.

# In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad had received not only all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters and all new voters but also up to 44 percent of former reformist voters -- despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.

# In the 2005 election, as in the elections of 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates -- and Ahmadinejad in particular -- were markedly unpopular in rural areas. That makes it "highly implausible" that the countryside swung substantially toward Ahmadinejad."

In other words, there is evidence that indicates that the vote was stolen. We might assume--out of our general ignorance of Iranian domestic politics--that there's no reason why Mahmoud shouldn't get 60+% of the vote, but to put it in terms that we can understand, imagine if more than the recorded number of registered voters in Texas voted for Barack Obama, or if Connecticut somehow produced a turnout of 88% for John McCain. Naturally, we might suspect that something terribly, terrible wrong occurred. I think this would be analagous to the situation that Iranians actually find themselves in and I imagine that we would take to the streets as well.

[Caid Ivik]

There is still absolutely no evidence that the elections were stolen, nor do I see any reason to believe that Mousavi is any better than Ahmadinejad.

Yeah, the police is cracking down hard on the protesters. That doesn't mean the protesters are right.

Sneakgab, I'm not sure if the Iranian government can make any concessions. After all, the protesters haven't actually asked for anything, except new elections. You can't make partial concessions with a demand like that, because you can't give them half an election.

The protests aren't about Musavi and Ahmadinejad any more. They want to change the supreme leader, if they aren't against the very idea of one, and many of his military/paramilitary groups. Khamenei isn't bad in holding power, by appointing Ahmadinejad it was already clear he doesn't care about foreign image. He goes coldly for the heads, while media are distracted by the terror spread by his militias in the masses.

http://tehranbureau.com/list-imprisoned-iranian-journalists-politicians/

Only chance for Rafsanjani/Musavi etc seems really to have their own "basij", but I think they won't take it so far.

[Edric O]

I'm afraid you're wrong about that, Edric.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.vote.survey/index.html

I'll post the meat of it here:

" The survey made four main observations:

# In two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100 percent was recorded.

# At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased turnout and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion that his announced victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent conservative majority.

# In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad had received not only all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters and all new voters but also up to 44 percent of former reformist voters -- despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.

# In the 2005 election, as in the elections of 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates -- and Ahmadinejad in particular -- were markedly unpopular in rural areas. That makes it "highly implausible" that the countryside swung substantially toward Ahmadinejad."

I knew about some of that, Wolf (though not all of it - thanks for the link). However, with the exception of the over-100% turnout in some provinces, none of it is hard evidence of election fraud. It's circumstantial evidence at best. Basically, it appears that people voted in implausible ways that defy historical trends. Suspicious, yes, but not enough for a verdict.

And there's another reason to be equally suspicious of the opposition: They claimed the elections were stolen as soon as they heard the results. Long before they saw any of the data you just mentioned. It's quite clear that they don't really care if Ahmadinejad won fairly or not. They want to take him down regardless.

...which may well be a good idea, depending on who replaces him, but I'm annoyed at slogans like "Down with the dictator!" or "Where is my vote?" - as well as the insistence of much of the Western media that the protesters are in favour of "democracy." Nonsense. Ahmadinejad was never a dictator, and this whole thing has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with the specific policies of the Iranian conservative establishment.

The protests aren't about Musavi and Ahmadinejad any more. They want to change the supreme leader, if they aren't against the very idea of one, and many of his military/paramilitary groups.

Yes, precisely. I think many of the protesters were really aiming against the supreme leader and the whole political establishment from the beginning, and the election results were just an excuse.

Also, I wonder if the CIA doesn't have some involvement in all of this.

[Wolf]

"Except," was, I believe, the word you used. If everything except for one thing is hard evidence of election fraud, then I believe that means the one thing is sufficient evidence of election fraud. If two provinces reported more than a 100% turnout--for the victor, no less--I believe that is evidence enough. Or is two provinces not enough? Do we draw the line at five? You may disagree with how the protesters may present themselves--certainly, they're not all cookies and milk. But neither is Ahmadinejad. The question at hand here isn't whether or not the protesters want democracy, or whatever it is that they want--I believe some want Moussavi in power and I think others want their votes to be counted--the question at hand is whether or not the election was stolen. There is evidence of that--evidence, I think, that is far from circumstantial.

*Clarification: The exact word you actually used was "exception." I believe "except" is close enough in meaning in context that I do not feel the need to alter the rhetorical style of the above paragraph.

[Tatar Khan]

And there's another reason to be equally suspicious of the opposition: They claimed the elections were stolen as soon as they heard the results. Long before they saw any of the data you just mentioned. It's quite clear that they don't really care if Ahmadinejad won fairly or not. They want to take him down regardless.

Edric you are right. It seems that in number of countries the riots break out among the opposition over the election results. So to me at first it looked just one of those riots like Orange revolution of Ukraine, Rose revolution of Georgia, the second Georgian protests over elections etc.

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, precisely. I think many of the protesters were really aiming against the supreme leader and the whole political establishment from the beginning, and the election results were just an excuse.

Also, I wonder if the CIA doesn't have some involvement in all of this.

Iran has a tradition of strong underground, variety of civil and religious activities and generally social networks independent on the institutional power. In addition to this, at present they have a large community in exile, developed blogosphere and educated youth. The revolution in 1979 went from the people; the tactics of Khamenei to crack the present unrest reflects that he expects the same to happen.

Of course, it doesn't mean the USA and other foreign players aren't involved. There are reports of Afghan militiamen. Mossad chief reacted it would be better for Israel, if Ahmadinejad won, because in that case they could continue their policy. I take it as an affirmation for their support of Musavi  :)  But we shouldn't stuck to it, because in every oligarchy is an opposition and the oligarchs play against each other.

[Edric O]

"Except," was, I believe, the word you used. If everything except for one thing is hard evidence of election fraud, then I believe that means the one thing is sufficient evidence of election fraud. If two provinces reported more than a 100% turnout--for the victor, no less--I believe that is evidence enough. Or is two provinces not enough? Do we draw the line at five? You may disagree with how the protesters may present themselves--certainly, they're not all cookies and milk. But neither is Ahmadinejad. The question at hand here isn't whether or not the protesters want democracy, or whatever it is that they want--I believe some want Moussavi in power and I think others want their votes to be counted--the question at hand is whether or not the election was stolen. There is evidence of that--evidence, I think, that is far from circumstantial.

*Clarification: The exact word you actually used was "exception." I believe "except" is close enough in meaning in context that I do not feel the need to alter the rhetorical style of the above paragraph.

Wolf, you're being excessively formal. I'm not sure if that's meant to preempt any nitpicking on my part or to hammer home your point, but you are, of course, correct. As long as it can be proved that the turnout in two provinces was over 100%, that is irrefutable evidence of fraud.

As long as it can be proved. Your article cited a certain British institute called Chatham House as having analyzed official statistics from Iran's Ministry of the Interior that show the turnout in two provinces to be above 100%. So the Iranian government just served them the evidence of its own fraud on a plate? I find that difficult to believe, and suspect that the findings of Chatham House are at least controversial.

Furthermore, my point about the opposition stands: They do not, and very likely never did, care about election fraud.

Edric you are right. It seems that in number of countries the riots break out among the opposition over the election results. So to me at first it looked just one of those riots like Orange revolution of Ukraine, Rose revolution of Georgia, the second Georgian protests over elections etc.

Yes, it looks like it's becoming increasingly common for opposition groups to refuse to accept election results - in all sorts of countries that doesn't have any obvious connection to each other. I'm not sure what to make of this, hmmm...

[Wolf]

Edric, you're such a... parade-rainer. I still think, however, that my point stands: that many protesters do actually care about the presence of election fraud. Iran has been fabricating elections results for generations, and this is the largest example of unrest since '72. I certainly think that some of it must be legitimately-inspired. The uncle of a good friend of mine was shot in the liver and subsequently "disappeared" by Basij, and the man was the shyest, quietest man you could ever meet--who cared for little else besides electrical engineering and building models of the starship "Enterprise." You're telling me that his chief motivation was protest for protest's sake?

[Sneakgab]

''I still think, however, that my point stands: that many protesters do actually care about the presence of election fraud.''

I was under the impression that you're point was actually simply that there WAS election fraud. Seeing as how that is thought to be common practice in Iran, and considering all things, it does seem that, if we are to be serious, there obviously was election fraud. Of course, maybe election fruad being common practice in Iran is all just misinformation from the media with no true evidence (it simply having been believed because it is so believable). Maybe the same is basically true for this election. However, while it can be argued we don't know for sure, I think it can be said that we can be reasonably sure of it.

''The uncle of a good friend of mine was shot in the liver and subsequently "disappeared" by Basij, and the man was the shyest, quietest man you could ever meet--who cared for little else besides electrical engineering and building models of the starship "Enterprise." You're telling me that his chief motivation was protest for protest's sake?''

You almost appear to be insinuating Edrico's point. These people aren't protesting for any minor thing, such as for getting to select the powerless face of their regime, but for real major change. Of course, what you likely intended to insinuate is that the objective of the protest was truly over this election, but if you look and think of that freind whose uncle was shot and killed (whether he was killed by the bullet or killed afterwards by other means), do you really think he would be in the mood for protesting and demonstration over some minor issue?

Maybe, they are protesting for MORE democracy as opposed to caring about this meaningless election, but maybe they are protesting for better conditions in their lives.

''Furthermore, my point about the opposition stands: They do not, and very likely never did, care about election fraud.''

You've got to wander what they did/do care about; one might hazard that they wished to incite the masses for major change (whether in introducing more democracy or otherwise), but of course the fact that Mousavi is constantly trying to calm the masses urging them away from extreme action and cancelling protest gathering surely shows that that could not be a goal of theirs.

Maybe all they care about is getting into power so they can enjoy some niceties.

I can understand Edrico's suspicion about the election fraud. It is in the interests of capitalist parties and big business that the affair in Iran is seen to be over an election rather than over issues of poverty and exploitation.

However, we should remember that the people may have chosen to the election to express themselves, regardless of it's meaninglessness. Sure, Mousavi is only mildy reformist, holding policies of only minor difference to that of the standing ''prime minister''. However, it should also be noted that he is still the MOST different and reformist of the 4 candidates. One would imagine that the people desire much greater change than what he offers, but through voting their expression of this is limited to voting for the candidate who offers the maximum amount of change in the desired direction.

That their was fraud, it seems there is little doubt of that. That the people are protesting for something more than getting to choose the oppressive face of their terrible regime, their seems to be little doubt of that as well.

The following question would be: Is it more democracy that they want, or is it a major change in policy?

The latter does seem more natural. I can see why Edrico would hope for it; ''democracy'' the likes of which is seen in America (not necessarily a democracy in the state of that of America, I just mention America's democracy to point towards a particulary bad case), does little good and would be the likely result if the movement in Iran is towards democracy. A direct democracy where people can vote on specific issues is a different story, but obviously that is unlikely. Or at least history would suggest that, as a direct democracy has never existed (Well, the Paris Commune provided something of such a democracy, but that was crushed in about 2 months after it's creation). One might say that the typical democracy of today only serves to distract the masses and vent their outrage which might otherwise be more productively spent, while also serving as an excuse that justifies the ruling governments power and actions (these amongst other possible negative elements). If that is the case, maybe it is better for the people to exist under dictatorship where they will be focused and without illusion until they take direct power.

[Edric O]

Edric, you're such a... parade-rainer. I still think, however, that my point stands: that many protesters do actually care about the presence of election fraud.

As Sneakgab said, I thought your point was that there had been election fraud, and that the protests are justified because of this. I argued against that because I believe that the protests are not about election fraud, and one of my arguments was that the evidence of fraud is shaky enough to make it strange that so many people would take to the streets over it.

But if you're only saying that a certain number of the protesters today (to the extent that they're still protesting) actually care about the presence of election fraud - then I agree. There must be some protesters who do indeed care about election fraud, just as there must be some protesters who are there only because they're angry about what the government did to their friends who participated in earlier protests.

But these are not the issues that caused the protests to begin in the first place, and I don't think they are the main issues for a majority of the protesters now. (I might be wrong about that second part - there's too little information coming out of Iran for us to be able to tell what the majority of the protesters want)

Iran has been fabricating elections results for generations, and this is the largest example of unrest since '72. I certainly think that some of it must be legitimately-inspired. The uncle of a good friend of mine was shot in the liver and subsequently "disappeared" by Basij, and the man was the shyest, quietest man you could ever meet--who cared for little else besides electrical engineering and building models of the starship "Enterprise." You're telling me that his chief motivation was protest for protest's sake?

You misunderstood me. Just because I think the protesters don't really care about election fraud, that doesn't mean they don't have other, perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose the government. This is the Islamic Republic of Iran, after all, with a semi-theocratic and repressive regime (which routinely cracks down on socialists and communists, I might add), and a president that has denied the existence of homosexuals in the country and came pretty close to openly denying the Holocaust. I don't know enough about domestic Iranian politics to say if there are any particular laws and policies that are exceptionally bad, but I suspect there are.

My objection to the protesters is that they (or at least many of them) are using the elections as an excuse instead of talking about what's really bothering them. Over the last decade, there have been far too many mass movements and protests across the world in which the protesters took the attitude of "Let's pretend that we completely support all the institutions and practices of liberal democracy, and that our only complaint is that those practices were not followed." To this, I answer: "No, your actions show that your main complaint is about something else and you don't really like liberal democracy, which is perfectly fine with me because I don't like it either, but please be honest about it."

(I think the election process in Iran is close enough to the election process of a liberal democracy, so I can use that term.)

Also, didn't you mean '79 instead of '72? ;)