Iran's Presidential Elections

[T@T]

When Ahmadinejad was in the US he should have paid a visit to Florida to learn how to get fake votes peacefully.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by twotoner

PLEASE PEOPLE WAKE UP! This was bought at a price of $400 million by the US Taxpayers in late 2007.

"The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.

Read the whole article, above was just a teaser...
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/062009Roberts.shtml

Well, at least the CIA spent their bailout money well

[Itse]

That election is not an obvious fraud because of when the results were declared, it's an obvious fraud because the voting percentage was more than 100% in some areas, because the end result is not even remotely close to what the polls suggested (a tight race), and because the results in general don't make any sense.

According to the official results, there were counties where Ahmadijenad got something like of 100% of the conservative votes, 100% of new voters and 44% of previous liberal votes. That simply makes no sense.

Among other irregularities, the voting percentage was suddenly up 75% (which is of course theoretically possible, although not likely) and the traditionally huge differences between different areas (cities voting liberal, countryside voting conservative, much like everywhere else in the world) just disappeared overnight, even though they were stronger than ever in the polls.

Just a badly rigged election. They could have easily claimed a comfortable 53 to 47 percent win and gotten away with it. (It's even possible Ahmadinejad could have won it playing fair too.) Instead they got greedy and wanted to claim a massive landslide, which is simply not credible.

EDIT: Also, I cringe when loonies like that writer make the connection that monetary support for a political cause is a terrible underhand tactic. There's nothing that strange about it. Democratic victories need money, and the money has to come from somewhere. Foreign support for political parties is nothing new. It was done in South Africa in the Apartheid era, for example. It's been done in Finland too, although it's questionable if it really had much effect.

What the money is buying is election propaganda, the same stuff that's shoveled at us before every election. If that propaganda gets a required amount of votes, that's democracy. If the opposing propaganda turns enough heads, that's democracy too.

It's just how the world works. There's nothing wrong with handing out money to causes that are "good" by someones own standards. (Taking that money might sometimes be illegal though, but that's a more complex issue.) Because of obvious political reasons, the west can't back the Iranian liberals openly, but that doesn't mean that backing them discreetely is somehow evil.

"Support" does not equal "orchestrated". That's just typical US megalomaniacs talking. It's simply not possible for the CIA to "orchestrate" a revolution in a country like Iran, otherwise they would have done it long ago. They might be able to help the guys the US thinks should be helped, but whether or not someone receives CIA support is not a basis on which to judge someone to be wrong or right.

[Azure]

Oh come on Itse....the CIA recruited all those millions of Iranians to throw the election, then turn around and protest....and then give their lives for the cause.

Like, duh.....conspiracies are all true.

Of course the Iranian Government is going to accuse the US of meddling in their election. They're just trying to deflect the blame on someone else. And all those people who are listening to them, and seriously think the US DID play with the results? The Iranians who have been killed the past two weeks are lining up to kick you in the head for believing that garbage.

[Byrns]

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

Of course the Iranian Government is going to accuse the US of meddling in their election. They're just trying to deflect the blame on someone else.

Which is why it is imperative that the US doesn't give them any material that supports those accusations by making ill-advised messages of encouragement towards the "liberal" parties involved. So far they are playing it just right - stay away from coming out for one side or another, call for peaceful negotiation and don't make moves which look like trying to interfere where they are not wanted.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

Which is why it is imperative that the US doesn't give them any material that supports those accusations by making ill-advised messages of encouragement towards the "liberal" parties involved. So far they are playing it just right - stay away from coming out for one side or another, call for peaceful negotiation and don't make moves which look like trying to interfere where they are not wanted.

Kinda like what Iran did in Iraq.

I'm not a fan of interfering in Iran's so called democratic process. But it would be nice to see them getting a bit of their own medicine.

Whining about western interference is funny at the best of times.

At least the American's aren't supplying the explosives and training the protesters to blow themselves up in public places.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not a fan of interfering in Iran's so called democratic process. But it would be nice to see them getting a bit of their own medicine.

Of course it would, but nations shouldn't let thoughts of revenge dominate their foreign policy. The US can demonstrate that it is not the same nation that supported the Shah's oppression in return for cheap oil; if Iran chooses to continue the feud then it is their image and prestige that will suffer and not the USA's.

There is a time for gunboat diplomacy and there is a time to conciliate. The USA has dissipated a large amount of their prestige in pointless confrontations over the last 20 years, and you can't invade every country that doesn't subscribe to your values. Sometimes it's best just to stand on the sidelines and let history happen, the better to have the standing and ability to intervene when the time is right.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by jammies

Sometimes it's best just to stand on the sidelines and let history happen, the better to have the standing and ability to intervene when the time is right.

Like when people are being executed for fighting for their freedom?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Like when people are being executed for fighting for their freedom?

Yes, if your "help" would cause more problems than it would solve. The USA coming out in support of the protesters would do nothing except polarize the situation even further, and give the hardliners in the government a propaganda victory.

This is not a fight between the West and Islam, so don't make it into such a fight, especially when this is a fight the West would lose. The USA cannot afford to go into Iran and impose their views by fiat, so the best they could do would be to arm the insurgents. Those insurgents would then lose much of their popular support, because the average person in Iran dislikes and distrusts America for solid historical reasons. Now you all have done is start a civil war where you are on the side of the minority. Does that sound like sound foreign policy to you?

[mykalberta]

Again. Canada, not the US should speak out. There is a history of the US using proxies in these situations. It would do no harm to Canada and would help us greatly down the road with our friends.

Its a perfect opportunity to go from waving a tooth pick of a stick, to waving a big stick.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

Yes, if your "help" would cause more problems than it would solve. The USA coming out in support of the protesters would do nothing except polarize the situation even further, and give the hardliners in the government a propaganda victory.

This is not a fight between the West and Islam, so don't make it into such a fight, especially when this is a fight the West would lose. The USA cannot afford to go into Iran and impose their views by fiat, so the best they could do would be to arm the insurgents. Those insurgents would then lose much of their popular support, because the average person in Iran dislikes and distrusts America for solid historical reasons. Now you all have done is start a civil war where you are on the side of the minority. Does that sound like sound foreign policy to you?

Yeah, but on the other hand if you can secretly encourage a civil war in Iran it would sure drop the governments extreme thought processes to merely surviving for a few years.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, but on the other hand if you can secretly encourage a civil war in Iran it would sure drop the governments extreme thought processes to merely surviving for a few years.

I don't view a destabilized Iran as a positive thing for western interests in the region. Regardless of whether the US and Britain were involved, they will blamed by a portion of the Muslim world. There would also be the potential that what emerges after the civil war is even less of a theocracy and more of a military dictatorship. It would also cause other semi-theocracies throughout the region to clamp down on their own citizens to make sure that civil unrest doesn't spread. The benefit is that it would probably draw Iran's operatives in Iraq out of there, and put their nuke program on hold, but there is the potential that it increases the likelihood of nuclear technology getting leaked to other nations.

If, on the other hand, you can secretly work to help west-friendly moderate clerics get into positions of power, there's every reason to expect the country to grow increasingly democratized and west-friendly.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by twotoner

PLEASE PEOPLE WAKE UP! This was bought at a price of $400 million by the US Taxpayers in late 2007.

"The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.

Read the whole article, above was just a teaser...
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/062009Roberts.shtml

Um, if you figured out this trick, who's to say that others haven't as well? And then used it themselves? I know I do things sometimes that I saw other people do that worked....

And no, I did not start a revolution in Iran. Just saying is all.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I don't view a destabilized Iran as a positive thing for western interests in the region. Regardless of whether the US and Britain were involved, they will blamed by a portion of the Muslim world. There would also be the potential that what emerges after the civil war is even less of a theocracy and more of a military dictatorship. It would also cause other semi-theocracies throughout the region to clamp down on their own citizens to make sure that civil unrest doesn't spread. The benefit is that it would probably draw Iran's operatives in Iraq out of there, and put their nuke program on hold, but there is the potential that it increases the likelihood of nuclear technology getting leaked to other nations.

If, on the other hand, you can secretly work to help west-friendly moderate clerics get into positions of power, there's every reason to expect the country to grow increasingly democratized and west-friendly.

One idea is that a destabilized government with protesters lead by youth was bound to happen in the Middle East. We are supremely fortunate it happened in Iran - I would go as far as to say that other than the Iranians that are hurt or dead, Iranians are also fortunate in some way. Still, would you rather the example come from Iran, with protests against hardline rule, or from Egypt, where it would be protests FOR hardliners.

It's rough to watch, but in the end this is a positive, even if it fails.

[Displaced Flames fan]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ces/index.html

Some clerics are active in protests now. Amazing stuff.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Again. Canada, not the US should speak out. There is a history of the US using proxies in these situations. It would do no harm to Canada and would help us greatly down the road with our friends.

I have no problem with this, other than that Canada is in no position to do anything other than talk. Demanding the votes be recounted under the aegis of an international body, or even another election, is all well and good, but if the Iranians ignore that call, there isn't much pressure we can bring to bear.

I would welcome our government taking a much more aggressive stand towards governments that oppress and abuse their own people, but this would need to be consistent to have any moral force. You can't condemn the Iranians loudly and then turn around and quietly do business with dozens of other unfree governments and expect anyone to listen.

[HOZ]

Persian Paranoia rivals Arabian ones.

Whereas Arabs believe the Jews are to be blamed for everything under the sun that is wrong. Iranians have their Great Satan

Hitchens

Fantastic as these claims may have seemed three years ago, they sound mild when compared with the ravings and gibberings that are now issued from the Khamenei pulpit. Here is a man who hasn't even heard that his favorite conspiracy theory is a long-standing joke among his own people. And these ravings and gibberings have real-world consequences of which at least three may be mentioned:

1. There is nothing at all that any Western country can do to avoid the charge of intervening in Iran's internal affairs. The deep belief that everything—especially anything in English—is already and by definition an intervention is part of the very identity and ideology of the theocracy.

[Azure]

Honestly, while I think the US is to some degree doing the right thing by staying quiet, Obama could speak out and tell the world that the fight against oppression and government control is always something that US will stand behind.

If people are stupid enough to believe that equals US involvement, they probably already believe that the CIA is exercising mind control on a bunch of Iranians to destabilize the region.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

Honestly, while I think the US is to some degree doing the right thing by staying quiet, Obama could speak out and tell the world that the fight against oppression and government control is always something that US will stand behind.

If people are stupid enough to believe that equals US involvement, they probably already believe that the CIA is exercising mind control on a bunch of Iranians to destabilize the region.

Not only that, how is staying silent any different than giving into terrorism.

The extremists, terrorists, and totalitarians tell you they will twist any message you send, so you just dont send it? How is that any different than staying in your home because terrorists have told you they are going to bomb the subway or the market?

Well here is an idea. If the audience wants to see your message as coming from the great satan they are probably going to do that anyway. Is your message of freedom really aimed at those people? Or is it aimed at the people fighting against religious police and soldiers who have threatened to execute them on site.

In short, what I am trying to say is that I don't see anyone actually interested in freedom ever buying into what the Ayatollah tells them about a speech Obama makes. If they are, then they're probably not ready for the concept of freedom anyway.