Iran's Presidential Elections

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would suspect that they were the 6 that were employed in Europe. Sorry to be a pessimist, but Iranians that defy this gov't will be bloodied. Soccer players wearing bands is like me pissing on my TV screen at Shorty. He don't care.

[Bagor]

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. 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.

To address your bolded points.

NO-ONE knew beforehand that they had WMD's. Including the British and Americans. I laugh at people that swallowed the whole WMD line, hook, line and sinker.

What IS known now is that (to quote Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of Britain’s MI6) following a meeting in Washington is that: (Bolded for effect).

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route..."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle535913.ece

Basically ... if the head of MI6 who was in direct meetings with the head of the CIA is quoted as stating that the facts were being "fixed" what more conspiracy do you want?

Disagree and ... self praise is no praise.

[blankall]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8108661.stm

The Ayatollah is siding against the protestors. He is demanding and end to protests.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by blankall

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8108661.stm

The Ayatollah is siding against the protestors. He is demanding and end to protests.

Hopefully this means the end of the government in Iran as it sits now.

[Akai-Sesui]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Hopefully this means the end of the government in Iran as it sits now.

The danger of having Khamenei declare the elections to be valid, is that it effectively brands all protestors as dissidents. It provides an excuse for 'legitimate' police forces to restrain/enforce the presiding regime.

In either scenario (Revolution/Status-Quo), the people of Iran will ultimately be the ones that face pain and suffering. Based on the violence we've seen thus far...even if Khamenei/Ahmadinejad are removed from power, there will be a bloody struggle for power.

On a sidenote; http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...n_resolu_1.asp

[Caged Great]

But in order to win what they voted for, they have to fight for it. Freedom is seldom given without a fight.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Bagor

To address your bolded points.

NO-ONE knew beforehand that they had WMD's. Including the British and Americans. I laugh at people that swallowed the whole WMD line, hook, line and sinker.

What IS known now is that (to quote Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of Britain’s MI6) following a meeting in Washington is that: (Bolded for effect).

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route..."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle535913.ece

Basically ... if the head of MI6 who was in direct meetings with the head of the CIA is quoted as stating that the facts were being "fixed" what more conspiracy do you want?

Disagree and ... self praise is no praise.

No way..........you don't say?.........

[RougeUnderoos]

Here's a weird twist:

The Supreme Leader (great title, btw) is hacking on Hilary Clinton for the Waco catastrophe.

[Akai-Sesui]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

But in order to win what they voted for, they have to fight for it. Freedom is seldom given without a fight.

Here's the thing...we don't know if Mousavi actually won.

There are a couple of valid points at the moment:
1.) Ahmadinejad's supporters are largely rural voters.
2.) The voting was definitely tampered with (to the point where only an idiot would believe that wasn't the case). The degree to which the results were faked shows how 'brilliant' Ahmadinejad's supporters are.
3.) Exit polls implied that the race was tight...and that it was highly likely they would need a run-off.

They just want their voice heard...which is frustrating to the establishment.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Akai-Sesui

Here's the thing...we don't know if Mousavi actually won.

There are a couple of valid points at the moment:
1.) Ahmadinejad's supporters are largely rural voters.
2.) The voting was definitely tampered with (to the point where only an idiot would believe that wasn't the case). The degree to which the results were faked shows how 'brilliant' Ahmadinejad's supporters are.
3.) Exit polls implied that the race was tight...and that it was highly likely they would need a run-off.

They just want their voice heard...which is frustrating to the establishment.

Yes, he might not have won, but if half the country wants to have some extra freedoms, like the right to express themselves in the manner they want to and the other half the country are a bunch of hardline conservative religious people that want to have things done their way or you die or go to jail, it's understandible why they should continue fighting, even if they are in a slight minority.

I just hope that the results are as painless as possible, and the people who want a change get it.

[Akai-Sesui]

I guess that brings up the point; are they protesting for human rights or for democracy? (and yes it can be for both).

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Akai-Sesui

Here's the thing...we don't know if Mousavi actually won.

There are a couple of valid points at the moment:
1.) Ahmadinejad's supporters are largely rural voters.
2.) The voting was definitely tampered with (to the point where only an idiot would believe that wasn't the case). The degree to which the results were faked shows how 'brilliant' Ahmadinejad's supporters are.
3.) Exit polls implied that the race was tight...and that it was highly likely they would need a run-off.

They just want their voice heard...which is frustrating to the establishment.

Five-thirty-eight had a great column debunking the argument about Ahmadinjead's rural support.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...ral-votes.html

I had expected a run-off as well, but the inconceivably small number of votes for Kourabbi made a run-off pretty much impossible.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Akai-Sesui

I guess that brings up the point; are they protesting for human rights or for democracy? (and yes it can be for both).

It's arguable that both are the same thing. Is it not a human right to participate in Democracy as opposed to having someone make your decisions for you. I dont see how that's any different than the right to freedom of speech or the right to freedom of religion.

The real questions are: are they protesting for true change in Iran and how far are they willing to take it?

[T@T]

If I live to be 500 i'll never understand these religious fanatics, they go to a rally to listen to the big guy Khamenei and the crowd repeatedly interrupts him to chant "Death to Israel" / "Death to America" and burn american flags. Way to stay on topic folks.

Bunch of wingnuts who are inviting annihilation.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Bagor

To address your bolded points.

NO-ONE knew beforehand that they had WMD's. Including the British and Americans. I laugh at people that swallowed the whole WMD line, hook, line and sinker.

What IS known now is that (to quote Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of Britain’s MI6) following a meeting in Washington is that: (Bolded for effect).

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route..."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle535913.ece

Basically ... if the head of MI6 who was in direct meetings with the head of the CIA is quoted as stating that the facts were being "fixed" what more conspiracy do you want?

Disagree and ... self praise is no praise.

If you laugh at people that swallowed the WMD issue, then you sir should be laughed at. The US intelligence has officially apologized for being incorrect about the WMDs. If you think for a second there was some conspiracy, you are wrong. The administration certainly said a lot of stuff as part of their propaganda blitz, but that info is certainly not what justified war. THey did use that information though to try to get the public behind them. You can listen to all the left wing loonies you want, but please seperate the propaganda to what their intelligence was telling them.
The conjuction of terrorism and WMDs was the propaganda, don't get sucked into the rhetorical debates.
This does not change what my point was...what if WMDs were found? Simple...the side that was correct would 'laugh' at the side that did not believe it. It is really stupid to even be arguing this. If the US knew there were no WMDs, why did they even look?
Does North Korea have them? Are they a risk to us? How the hell do I know if what I am seeing is falsified news on tv. Many appear to claim to somehow have an inside scoop that allowed them to know something was fake regarding the Iraqi invasion.
If nothing was done to Iraq in the early 90's, where would we be today? The CIA I am sure tries to determine a nation's risk, some countries they can ignore, some countries they feel should be dealt with. If you think Iraq did not need to be dealt with, then say so. Was it correct in the 90's? Was it wrong in the later instance? What about Iran now? Jolly for you that you now have the ability to second guess everything Bush did.

To me, Iraq was like a loaded gun laying on the ground in the park. At some point, something very bad was going to happen unless someone did something about it. Doing nothing would only lead to another nuclear power, except one that has a deathwish.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

If you laugh at people that swallowed the WMD issue, then you sir should be laughed at. The US intelligence has officially apologized for being incorrect about the WMDs. If you think for a second there was some conspiracy, you are wrong.

What part of the bolded part of my post did you not understand?

The intelligence wasn't wrong. It was F-I-X-E-D.
The facts weren't wrong. They were F-I-X-E-D.
Fixing of intelligence and Facts = a damn good conspiracy in my world.

Not from a left wing loonie. From the head of MI6 reporting back to Downing street after a meeting with the head of CIA.

Here .... Take the McClellan challenge. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/05/24/...lan-challenge/

INTEL: In 1997, the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report saying there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future. In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
HOW IT WAS USED: In March 2003, Cheney definitively claimed on Meet the Press that Iraq “has reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

INTEL: In April 2001, the the Energy Department told the White House the aluminum tubes Iraq bought couldn’t be used for nuclear weapons production. In late 2001, the State Department also sent word they were ill-suited for that use.
HOW IT WAS USED: On Sept. 8, 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN the tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.” Bush in his 1/03 State of the Union said the tubes which were “suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

INTEL: In the fall of 2002, the CIA told white house officials not to include the uranium-from-Niger assertion in speeches.
HOW IT WAS USED: Bush included it in his 2003 State of the Union.

INTEL: A September 2002 DOD intel report found “”no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”
HOW IT WAS USED: In October 2002, Bush claimed, without doubt, that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.”

And they apologised for being "incorrect?". They were blatantly misrepresented. Laugh -out-loud.

[Flame Of Liberty]

I may have missed it in the news, but has the man of hope and change issued official stance with words of support to these demonstrants in Iran who are, incidentaly, hoping for a change?

[CaptainCrunch]

I had the evil laugh while I listened to Iran's leadership bitching about U.S. interference last night. since the start of the war in Iraq, Iran has been supporting and training and sheltering a lot of the trouble makers in Iraq which have lead to the countless deaths of U.S. service men.

So if the American's were funding, arming and helping out these protesters in Iran. F#ck'em turnaround is fair play and it looks good on em.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I may have missed it in the news, but has the man of hope and change issued official stance with words of support to these demonstrants in Iran who are, incidentaly, hoping for a change?

it's not that simple FOL. Iran and most of the islamic world has made the americans out to be Satan. How if Obama tries to interfere, they will say that the protesters are working on behalf of satan and would then have an excuse to punish them because they're unholy.

It's a sticky situation because all the western nations are unable to do much of anything.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I may have missed it in the news, but has the man of hope and change issued official stance with words of support to these demonstrants in Iran who are, incidentaly, hoping for a change?

He did speak out. He didn't question the election as that isn't his place. But he did say ask that the gov't "stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."