OT - Iran presidential elections - fraud?

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:09 pm

Should be able to stay away from politics on this one. Lots of protests in Iran today regarding Friday's elections. Ahmadinejad claims victory with 62%+ of the vote, but all the reporting running up to the election certainly seemed like Moussavi would take it. The 2-to-1 margin, frankly, seems a bit bogus given the economic downturn in Iran (in large part due to Ahmadinejad) and spirited support by younger Iranians. Granted the Iranian president is a bit of a figurehead (the real power is with the grand ayatollah), Iran would take a step forward without such a jackass as president. Iran is changing in front of us, and on the surface it seems like repression of its citizens. Could be some interesting times in the coming weeks...

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:11 pm

Honest question:

Would the competitor be any better than Ahmadinejad in terms of US interests/relations?

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:45 pm

Khamenei is in charge anyway. He can veto anything and appoints all the positions of power.

EDIT: http://iranquest.com/blog/?p=6402

Under Iran’s revolutionary constitution, Ayatollah Khamenei wields more power than the President and controls the national police and security agencies. He appoints the head of the military, the top Revolutionary Guards and the judiciary and controls national television and radio and hundreds of revolutionary charitable foundations that manage much of Iran’s economy.

As Supreme Leader, he has the authority to override virtually every other member of government; can veto legislation, dismiss a sitting president and invalidate election results.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:58 pm

The Mullahs are in charge, with control of the military, the social infrastructure and many of the young people.

I'd be more optimistic about these protests leading to something if Iran wasn't still fairly stable economically with a relatively prosperous middle class. That tends to retard meaningful revolutionary change.

One can hope, however, that the openly Chicago-esque stealing of the election serves as a catalyst despite these impediments.

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:45 pm

Naples39 wrote:Honest question:

Would the competitor be any better than Ahmadinejad in terms of US interests/relations?

In terms of policy? Probably not (considering the nuclear is the biggest issue between US-Iran and Iran feels it's their right to develop nuclear power). But in terms of rhetoric, the leading opposition candidate would not be as polarizing, which is a good thing IMO.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:08 pm

F308GTB wrote:
Naples39 wrote:Honest question:

Would the competitor be any better than Ahmadinejad in terms of US interests/relations?
In terms of policy? Probably not (considering the nuclear is the biggest issue between US-Iran and Iran feels it's their right to develop nuclear power). But in terms of rhetoric, the leading opposition candidate would not be as polarizing, which is a good thing IMO.

There would be a bit of slate cleaning. Ahmadinejad has said and done so many inflammatory things that it makes it very difficult to find an opening for talks. A new president may not change things very much, but it would present a diplomatic opening that could be somewhat fruitful.

The number of protesters and the simple act of the Ayatollah calling for an inquiry are pretty indicative of how powerful these protests have been. The inquiry may be bogus but this is too big to just sweep under the rug.

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:54 pm

Strife in Iran certainly hasn't let up. Trying to quash internet to no joy, state is arresting students in the darkness of night from their dorms, Iran national football players protesting overseas at their qualifier match in Seoul...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... ml?cnn=yes

By no means is this stuff over yet. Seems it could end 1 of 2 ways - well, or not so well (think China circa 1989).[/url]

BTW, it's awesome stuff like this can get out (ain't technology grand) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b68YttA0oMU

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:29 am

A nice rundown of all the major players involved in this revolution.

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4453900

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:32 pm

As close to real-time accounts as you can get at this website - http://iran.whyweprotest.net/

In the "News and Current Events" section of the forum, you'll find a thread for "Live" reporting. One of the things they are trying to do from the outside is take down/cripple/block access to websites that are hosting photos of protesters. Also set up links for protesters to host data. One thing that is somewhat dubious is they are "outing" militia members as they identify them. Incredible stuff.

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:00 am

A friend sent me this today. No idea if it works or not:

"If you're on Twitter, set your location to Tehran & your time zone to GMT +3.30. Iranian security forces are hunting for bloggers using location/timezone searches. The more people at this location, the more of a logjam it creates for forces trying to shut down Iranians' access to the internet." Cut & Paste & Pass it on."

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:25 am

The situation in Iran now is really unbelievable. Innocent young people getting shot just because they are at a rally. Soccer players getting banned just for showing support. It makes me feel so lucky for being here in the USA.

Question is....if a full out revolution against Ahmadinejad gets underway, do we jump in and help or do we stay out of it? I am guessing we are going to stay out of it no matter what happens, as long as it stays an internal struggle.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:54 am

JackB1 wrote:Question is....if a full out revolution against Ahmadinejad gets underway, do we jump in and help or do we stay out of it? I am guessing we are going to stay out of it no matter what happens, as long as it stays an internal struggle.

I have a comment about our government's current response to the Iran situation, but that would plunge this thread into politics. So I shall shut up and remain passive, non-committal and reactive rather than pro-active, which should seem familiar to those who have followed the official U.S. response ...

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:30 am

pk500 wrote:
I have a comment about our government's current response to the Iran situation, but that would plunge this thread into politics. So I shall shut up and remain passive, non-committal and reactive rather than pro-active, which should seem familiar to those who have followed the official U.S. response ...

Take care,
PK

From your response, it seems like you don't like the "passive approach" we currently are taking.

I guess the big question is....Is it up to us to settle other countries internal struggles? I guess we need Jared's approval in order to discuss further?

Note: I responded quickly, but then edited it because it would probably would be deemed "too political", but if anyone caught that pre-edited response, please don't paste/quote it back here. Thanks.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:15 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Note: I responded quickly, but then edited it because it would probably would be deemed "too political", but if anyone caught that pre-edited response, please don't paste/quote it back here. Thanks.

Almost but I thought it would be better to let it go as it is an internal matter.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:26 pm

It's a good thing they don't have horse racing in Iran because if they did Jack's head would explode.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:45 pm

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."-
Edmund Burke

In the words of Forrest Gump..."That's all I have to say about that."

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:56 pm

let them all kill each other. World would be a better place.

Post by **Jared** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:13 pm

JackB1 wrote:I guess the big question is....Is it up to us to settle other countries internal struggles? I guess we need Jared's approval in order to discuss further?

Note: I responded quickly, but then edited it because it would probably would be deemed "too political", but if anyone caught that pre-edited response, please don't paste/quote it back here. Thanks.

My rule of thumb re: threads that touch on politics totally depends on how heated the discussion gets, or is about to get. I'm fine with people talking about the Iranian situation (or any world event, for that matter), and it's pretty difficult not to talk about it without touching on international and domestic politics. I don't have a problem with that. Once things start to get heated, then I will quickly come in with the lock.

And in this vein, the whole reason for banning politics threads was because of what inevitably happened (they'd turn into pissing matches). People can talk about things that involve politics in the forum - but I don't want a) dedicated threads to politics or definitely domestically political subjects and b) for threads that touch on these subjects to even have a hint of partisan/ideological pissing match.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

OK, with that directive from Jared -- thanks for the guidance, dude -- here's my opinion.

The U.S. should not directly meddle in Iran's affairs, especially militarily. But people seeking freedom around the world, like the Iranian public, DO look to the U.S. for affirmation. After all, the U.S. is supposed to be the shining example of freedom and democracy for people around the world to follow.

And I think Obama blew it initially because he was conspicuously quiet and mealy-mouthed about the situation. He should have offered a much stronger condemnation of the Iranian government's response to the protesters and much stronger verbal support for those seeking freedom in the early days of this rebellion early last week.

Those strong words came only early this week, after Obama faced withering criticism from the GOP. His tough talk appeared to be more a political parry to his domestic rivals than the true support for the Iranian people that it could have been if issued earlier, like Sarkozy and other European leaders.

I'm not saying the GOP would have handled it any better. It probably would have put on Lee Greenwood albums and brandished the sword, as usual. That's the wrong approach, too.

But Obama's tepid early response to people crying out for freedom in an area of the world where a democracy or increased freedom also would benefit the security of the United States deserved a poor grade in one of his first foreign policy tests.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the Iranian rebels looked to Washington early last week and thought: "If the Americans aren't supporting us in our quest for democracy, then who the hell will? Hell, America invaded our neighbors all in the name of democracy, yet it won't even tell us, 'We're behind you?'"

That's my beef.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:39 pm

pk500 wrote: like Sarkozy and other European leaders.

France?

...Oh well...

Somebody has to lead the free world.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:42 pm

XXXIV wrote:
pk500 wrote: like Sarkozy and other European leaders.

France? ...Oh well...

Somebody has to lead the free world.

Say what you will about the Frogs, but I believe Sarkozy was one of the first Western leaders to condemn the Iraqi government and support those seeking democracy. A dude needs to do something between rack sessions with his hot wife.

Yes, that really is his wife.

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:27 pm

pk500 wrote:OK, with that directive from Jared -- thanks for the guidance, dude -- here's my opinion.

The U.S. should not directly meddle in Iran's affairs, especially militarily. But people seeking freedom around the world, like the Iranian public, DO look to the U.S. for affirmation. After all, the U.S. is supposed to be the shining example of freedom and democracy for people around the world to follow.

And I think Obama blew it initially because he was conspicuously quiet and mealy-mouthed about the situation. He should have offered a much stronger condemnation of the Iranian government's response to the protesters and much stronger verbal support for those seeking freedom in the early days of this rebellion early last week.

Those strong words came only early this week, after Obama faced withering criticism from the GOP. His tough talk appeared to be more a political parry to his domestic rivals than the true support for the Iranian people that it could have been if issued earlier, like Sarkozy and other European leaders.

I'm not saying the GOP would have handled it any better. It probably would have put on Lee Greenwood albums and brandished the sword, as usual. That's the wrong approach, too.

But Obama's tepid early response to people crying out for freedom in an area of the world where a democracy or increased freedom also would benefit the security of the United States deserved a poor grade in one of his first foreign policy tests.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the Iranian rebels looked to Washington early last week and thought: "If the Americans aren't supporting us in our quest for democracy, then who the hell will? Hell, America invaded our neighbors all in the name of democracy, yet it won't even tell us, 'We're behind you?'"

That's my beef.

Take care,
PK

I don't understand how "strong words" from the US leader actually makes any difference to what's going on in Iran? Is it really our President's job to take a side whenever a country has an internal struggle and to strongly voice that opinion? Obama spoke out after day one of this turmoil, clearly stating his disapproval. I think Obama is being extra careful about the perception of US involvement in another hostile Middle Eastern situation, after what happened in Iraq. He is trying to improve the way the rest of the world looks at us and in doing so, may be perceived as "not hard enough". I think the young people of Iran, who are demonstrating, realize that we as a country are behind them. I for you, think it's time we stop trying to decide what's best for other countries. There are hundreds of other "situations" going on throughout the world where we could strongly voice our opposition, but we are strangely silent.

Another thing is that how can we criticise another counties elections after the debacles that have gone on here during the recent past? We haven't exactly been an example of a fair and just electoral system.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:36 pm

JackB1 wrote: Another thing is that how can we criticise another counties elections after the debacles that have gone on here during the recent past? We haven't exactly been an example of a fair and just electoral system.

There ya go again...f*** it...I ll respond your never ever ending partisan bullshit

A bunch of sore losers whining like c*** about punch ballots they are too f***in stupid to punch correctly does not equate to this s*** in Iran in any f***in way except a partisan way.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:37 pm

JackB1 wrote:Another thing is that how can we criticise another counties elections after the debacles that have gone on here during the recent past? We haven't exactly been an example of a fair and just electoral system.

Apples to oranges. The last US election actually was monitored by international organizations, who gave positive reviews of the process.

The U.S. elections clearly reflected the will of the people and demonstrated convincingly the country's commitment to democratic elections, reports the International Election Observation Mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly in its report released today in Washington, DC.

On the other hand, Iran refused all outside monitoring of the elections, and their own investigation showed that in 50 counties more votes were counted than there were registered voters. The real issue though is Iran's unfortunate habit of attacking and shooting protestors, which last time I checked doesn't happen in the United States.

I'm not sure what Obama should do. His last move reeks of a token statement purely to quell domestic critics, but personally I don't believe we could or should do much more anyway.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:41 pm

I thought we all agreed on no more political threads?