Iran's Presidential Elections

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

blankall let me introduce you to Azure and Hoz and Displaced Flames Fan and transplant99 to name just a few of the posters on this page although I don't think Dis is Canadian.

I'm pretty sure you can add Captain Crunch and mikealberrta to the list too.

I was for it for the simple reason that Hussein had to die.

I was for it for the simple reason of putting a massive aircraft carrier right in the middle of the gulf.

I didn't like the way they fought the end game, they could have prevented a lot of the post invasion violence if they would have actually put some thought into it.

I was very clear on that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was for it for the simple reason that Hussein had to die.

I was for it for the simple reason of putting a massive aircraft carrier right in the middle of the gulf.

I didn't like the way they fought the end game, they could have prevented a lot of the post invasion violence if they would have actually put some thought into it.

I was very clear on that.

Yep, same here.

I admit I thought that Saddam had WMD, but after a year or so, I began to realize how it was being handled, and saw the mistakes with it.

Does that even matter now? Hindsight is 20/20.

[Nage Waza]

I actually laugh at people that claim they knew before hand that Bush and his team were lying about the WMDs. And their assorted claims after the fact are either complete ignorance to what truly took place or simple lies. The more people say it seems the more they show their complete bias. They almost have a revisionist version of the events. Although many people did disagree with the invasion, they were certainly guessing that the government was wrong or decidedly against any kind of war.

The general academic consensus is that many nations in the world believed that Iraq was still developing the weapons; in fact Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors. The UN was warning Iraq that they should allow inspectors. The US warned Iraq that if they do not allow full freedom to the inspectors, then they will remove the Saddam regime. After the war, the US discovered that the nuclear ambitions likely ended after the gulf war, in the early 90's. The US did discover that chemical weapons might have been the more deadly and closer threat. In fact, long range missiles were certainly being developed. Several investigations by both sides of the political spectrum have found no wrongdoing (not enough at least to accuse the Bush admin of some sort of conspiracy), although there has been much to say about the propaganda used by the Bush admin to justify the war. Keep in mind that the rationale to invade is a totally seperate thing from the media.
We can argue about this all day, but what I have wrote is a pretty good summary. The people that hate Bush and call him a moron or whatnot are IMO, not worth debating. Years from now we can discuss the impact Bush had on the world. Right now it looks bad, but hindsite is 20/20. As a supporter of Israel, dismantling a regime that blindly launches rockets at Israel (or anyone else) is a good thing. Looking at Iraq now though, it might not have been a great thing. They say that Saddam had almost no exposure to the outside world and truly thought what he was doing was great...I think in North Korea we are witnessing another leader doing the same thing. He will brag about nuclear missiles, but when do we take him seriously? I like Obama's approach (if this is true) to open dialogue with some of these crazies.
I don't want to open the debate on Bush, but come on, let's get serious with what we are talking about here. The lunacy of the Jewish connection, what politician invested in what (my retirement mutual fund also has money in lots of the same things) and other assorted crackpot things is way too silly to waste our time on.
I hope they can figure their stuff out in Iran, the nation seems to have a great deal of pride that perhaps can be pointed in a more beneficial direction.

[Hack&Lube]

Good blog with many updates and information from Iran

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

[CaptainCrunch]

A revolution once in a while is a good thing.

Watch carefully folks we could be seeing a revolution in Iran that rivals the one in 79. The mistake that was made by the leaders of that country was the desire for a 20 million man army which lead to a explosion of births which means that 3/4 of Iran's population is in the 20's to 30's.

We might end up seeing a few of these Mullah's lined up against a wall if they don't handle this right.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not here on CP.

I think the majority of Canadians were against it.

I knew the reasons for the war were bogus but I wasn't against it because I wanted to see stuff being blown up on TV.......and they didnt disappoint.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I knew the reasons for the war were bogus but I wasn't against it because I wanted to see stuff being blown up on TV.......and they didnt disappoint.

Maybe you should watch more action movies

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was for it for the simple reason that Hussein had to die.

I was for it for the simple reason of putting a massive aircraft carrier right in the middle of the gulf.

I didn't like the way they fought the end game, they could have prevented a lot of the post invasion violence if they would have actually put some thought into it.

I was very clear on that.

Just wondering. Why did he have to die in your opinion?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yep, same here.

I admit I thought that Saddam had WMD, but after a year or so, I began to realize how it was being handled, and saw the mistakes with it.

Does that even matter now? Hindsight is 20/20.

I'll admit that even though I didn't support the war, I actually thought Saddam had WMDs too. I figured he had to--he had limited conventional military might, he had used WMDs in the past, etc., etc. It just made sense.

But I'm not making the big bucks analyzing intelligence. One hopes that the powers that be in Washington are hiring smarter and better-resourced people than us to make these determinations--so in that sense, what we thought doesn't excuse anything.

[Hack&Lube]

Sigh, wonderful history repeating itself over and over again when the people who are in power who got there by staging a revolution when they were students brutally crush the students of the next generation staging a revolution against them.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I actually laugh at people that claim they knew before hand that Bush and his team were lying about the WMDs.

I didn't *know* that there were no WMDs at the time, but I *did* know that nobody really knew whether or not he did. All the evidence could have been interpreted two ways: either he was trying to hide WMDs, and was successful - or he didn't have any WMDs and he was trying to fool people into thinking he had. Further, I didn't know if the administration was lying about him having WMDs, but I did know they were lying about being "sure" that he had them, because there was nothing but circumstantial evidence - if they had had concrete and unmistakable evidence, they would have used it to get the UN onside.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But I'm not making the big bucks analyzing intelligence. One hopes that the powers that be in Washington are hiring smarter and better-resourced people than us to make these determinations--so in that sense, what we thought doesn't excuse anything.

The problem is that it doesn't matter what the experts think as they aren't asked what they think; they are given scenarios and asked to find supporting data. The raw information can support just about anything, so no matter what fantasies are presented there will always be "evidence" to confirm them.

That same problem is what makes me hope the USA doesn't try to interfere in Iran - they know all sorts of "facts" about the Iranians, none of which are useful in telling them what to DO. The Soviets used to eat the Americas alive in the spy game precisely because "facts" are useless without context in which to understand them, and that context is only supplied by well-trained and placed agents in large numbers and not just communications intercepts, satellite photos and interviews with dissidents.

Look at the search for Bin Laden - it'll be 8 years this fall that he has been the #1 target of US intelligence, and they are no closer to him now than they were in 2001. You'd think it'd be a national scandal, with all the intelligence agencies under severe pressure and congressional investigation for incompetence, but instead they ban shampoo bottles on airplanes and waterboard low-level footsoldiers to make it seem like something useful is going on. The farther away these idiots stay from some kind of active response to Iran's troubles, the better.

[Vulcan]

I don't think the USA is actively promoting this uprising (and it is a feel good story) but it is obviously in their interests for it to succeed. I don't know if Iran is close to having nuclear arms and the missiles to use them or not. I believe they are close but they may be partly bluffing with their WMD, as Sadam was but they are a thorn in the Americans side with their Iranian Oil Bourse which sells oil in currencies other than the Yankee dollar. This may be a threat because it lessens demand for the dollar and lowers it's value. So, if things remain the same in Iran, Obama needs to open up negotiations on a couple of fronts.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jammies

I didn't *know* that there were no WMDs at the time, but I *did* know that nobody really knew whether or not he did. All the evidence could have been interpreted two ways: either he was trying to hide WMDs, and was successful - or he didn't have any WMDs and he was trying to fool people into thinking he had. Further, I didn't know if the administration was lying about him having WMDs, but I did know they were lying about being "sure" that he had them, because there was nothing but circumstantial evidence - if they had had concrete and unmistakable evidence, they would have used it to get the UN onside.



The problem is that it doesn't matter what the experts think as they aren't asked what they think; they are given scenarios and asked to find supporting data. The raw information can support just about anything, so no matter what fantasies are presented there will always be "evidence" to confirm them.

That same problem is what makes me hope the USA doesn't try to interfere in Iran - they know all sorts of "facts" about the Iranians, none of which are useful in telling them what to DO. The Soviets used to eat the Americas alive in the spy game precisely because "facts" are useless without context in which to understand them, and that context is only supplied by well-trained and placed agents in large numbers and not just communications intercepts, satellite photos and interviews with dissidents.

Look at the search for Bin Laden - it'll be 8 years this fall that he has been the #1 target of US intelligence, and they are no closer to him now than they were in 2001. You'd think it'd be a national scandal, with all the intelligence agencies under severe pressure and congressional investigation for incompetence, but instead they ban shampoo bottles on airplanes and waterboard low-level footsoldiers to make it seem like something useful is going on. The farther away these idiots stay from some kind of active response to Iran's troubles, the better.

Also the way I understand it, Bush was only given the information Cheney wanted him to have. Bush was fine with this because while having the same goals, this gave Bush plausible deniability and from all the information he was given, Saddam had WMD. Cheney had learned his lesson during Watergate.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't think the USA is actively promoting this uprising (and it is a feel good story) but it is obviously in their interests for it to succeed. I don't know if Iran is close to having nuclear arms and the missiles to use them or not. I believe they are close but they may be partly bluffing with their WMD, as Sadam was but they are a thorn in the Americans side with their Iranian Oil Bourse which sells oil in currencies other than the Yankee dollar. This may be a threat because it lessens demand for the dollar and lowers it's value. So, if things remain the same in Iran, Obama needs to open up negotiations on a couple of fronts.

I think also Iran will find that this charade has used up a lot of the sympathy that some westerners had for the country. Public opinion is probably no longer a deterrent for Obama to use tactical strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. I don't think it's time for that yet, but the fact that he once again has that as an option means that diplomacy is a more effective tool.

edit: today is going to be very interesting: more Mousavi rallies planned, and the government has countered by planning Ahmadinejad rallies nearby... suspicions are that they're trying to orchestrate conflict so they'll have an excuse to violently intervene.

further edit: I had relayed a rumour earlier in the thread that Rafsanjani had stepped down from the Assembly of Experts and Experiency Council, but it turns out those rumours were false, and there are reports that he's called for an emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts this week. Their main task is monitoring the performance of the Supreme Leader, and they have the authority to dismiss him if they deem that he is not upholding the constitution or the principles of Islam. I'm not sure they actually would, but the move could be designed to pressure Khamenei into overturning the results and holding a runoff.

Also, I don't think I've posted it before, but lately I've found the New York Times blog to be a great source of coverage.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't think the USA is actively promoting this uprising (and it is a feel good story) but it is obviously in their interests for it to succeed. I don't know if Iran is close to having nuclear arms and the missiles to use them or not. I believe they are close but they may be partly bluffing with their WMD, as Sadam was but they are a thorn in the Americans side with their Iranian Oil Bourse which sells oil in currencies other than the Yankee dollar. This may be a threat because it lessens demand for the dollar and lowers it's value. So, if things remain the same in Iran, Obama needs to open up negotiations on a couple of fronts.

Well, publicly Obama isn't saying much, and I think that is a good thing.

The US doesn't need to interfere. Just lets thing progress as is.

Although there are rumors that the State Department contacted Twitter and told them not to do their scheduled maintenance last night.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't think the USA is actively promoting this uprising (and it is a feel good story) but it is obviously in their interests for it to succeed. I don't know if Iran is close to having nuclear arms and the missiles to use them or not. I believe they are close but they may be partly bluffing with their WMD, as Sadam was but they are a thorn in the Americans side with their Iranian Oil Bourse which sells oil in currencies other than the Yankee dollar. This may be a threat because it lessens demand for the dollar and lowers it's value. So, if things remain the same in Iran, Obama needs to open up negotiations on a couple of fronts.

I think the current events in Iran illustrate a very good reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons. The government simply is not stable.

In these kinds of revolutions things have a tendency to go missing. I don't even want to think about what kind of groups might get their hands on these weapons.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

blankall let me introduce you to Azure and Hoz and Displaced Flames Fan and transplant99 to name just a few of the posters on this page although I don't think Dis is Canadian.

I'm pretty sure you can add Captain Crunch and mikealberrta to the list too.

Definately, and still am.

People can choose to believe what they want. The absence of evidence doesnt change my opinion. The simple fact that Iraq became the battlefield instead of the US homeland is evidence enough for me that the strategy workded. Polcie/Fire/EMS are wholly incapable of fighting the war on Terror as they are reactionary only.

The John Stewarts of the world still dont believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to happen - that the US could have negotiated the way out

The divide between the left and right still exists and will always continue to exist. That is what is great about a democracy, sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. But no matter what, secret police wont be trying to run you down on rice rockets waving batons trying to kill you like cavalry of olde'

Coutresy the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/200..._election.html

[Hack&Lube]

I don't want to get in on this but the argument that it was justified because the 'inevitable' war took place on Iraqi land instead of American land is totally falacious.

Iraq never had anything to do with the terrorists of 9/11 and a full scale military invasion and occupation of a country is a completely different thing from acts of terrorism occuring in another country.

The Iraqi people are better off free from Saddam's regime. I'll say that much but I'm not going to get into whether or not I was for or against the war (despite deeply researching writing a paper for it in a poli sci course since it was the more unique thing to write just to be the devil's advocate) It's not that simple and if you make it that simple, you are cheating yourself.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, publicly Obama isn't saying much, and I think that is a good thing.

The US doesn't need to interfere. Just lets thing progress as is.

Although there are rumors that the State Department contacted Twitter and told them not to do their scheduled maintenance last night.

Yeah, the whole twitter/facebook/blogging aspect of this is pretty incredible, and good on the US government to recognize an opportunity to intervene in a very subtle but helpful way.
Whenever photos do come out, one thing you always see is other people with cell-phones taking pictures. I bet there are millions of photos being taken of the protests, demonstrations, and violence, and when the government finally relaxes control on web access back to pre-election levels, a lot of these will surface. Just imagine how much more we'd know about Tianamen Square if everyone there had camera phones.

[octothorp]

Six members of Iran's soccer team wore green wristbands at a WC qualifying match in support of Mousavi. They'd better hope that the Iranian ministry of sport doesn't have the same tactics that their Iraqi equivelents were rumoured to have.

And reports continue that Rafsanjani may have called an emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts in the holy city of Qom, where it's possible that Khamenei could be dismissed from office. Again, this is starting to look like it may come down to a battle between Rafsanjani and Khamenei, rather than Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.