Jae Onasi Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526321,00.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/15/iran.elections.protests/index.html Because of the extreme unrest over possible voter fraud in the latest presidential election in which Ahmadinejad was re-elected with a 2-to-1 victory in spite of massive turnout for Moussavi, the Ayatollah has ordered an investigation into the election to look for fraud. I find it highly unlikely that Ahmadinejad won, particularly with that much of a margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmerman Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Here's hoping that the probe discovers something good. If MA was re-elected legally and fairly that's one thing, but to win by cheating the people isn't. That said, massive turnout for the other guy does not mean he won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Given that the Ayatollah and other religious leaders appear to be in Achy's corner, I doubt the investigation, if it takes place, will change anything. Even if I were wrong, a name may change, but the song will pretty much remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rake Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Given that the Ayatollah and other religious leaders appear to be in Achy's corner, I doubt the investigation, if it takes place, will change anything. Even if I were wrong, a name may change, but the song will pretty much remain the same. You keep saying this yet, there is a huge difference between moderates and hard-liners. Like I said in another thread its akin to Gorbachev and Brezhnev, even though its the same regime, a moderate candidate is usually a gateway to a brighter future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 You mean like Khatami? While I agree that moderates are better than hardliners, sayin they are "usually the gateway to a brighter future"is hardly correct, especially in Iran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 speaking of world leaders who scare the crap out of me(just came from the North Korea thread)...that guy Ahmadinejad is almost as insane as Kim Jong Il. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Well...I tell ya what, the intensity of the outrage and outcry over this is intensifying by the day. I have a hard time believing, that the opponent's home town overwhelmingly voted for Ajmadenajad. So far as the situation changing, I cannot say for sure. Probably not significantly on the near term. Hard to say in the long term. Though I am inclined to believe a moderate president will change little if anything as it is. Hard nosed as Iran is, somehow I think a moderate president will just mean more subtlety in the country's dealings. Especially if the country is behind him--which appears the case. From a tactical standpoint: consider anyone no less a threat until they have proven otherwise. Small steps will occur anyway to be sure. However: You mean like Khatami? While I agree that moderates are better than hardliners, sayin they are "usually the gateway to a brighter future"is hardly correct, especially in Iran Master of understatement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 You keep saying this yet, there is a huge difference between moderates and hard-liners. Like I said in another thread its akin to Gorbachev and Brezhnev, even though its the same regime, a moderate candidate is usually a gateway to a brighter future. Well, if you mean that the Ayatollahs will fall from power, great. That would be progress. But it's not remotely the same thing. The 2 guys running for president were nothing more than pawns of the religious dictatorship that runs Iran. All talk about moderates is basically empty in the face of that fact. Now, if the theocracy is deposed and a real "moderate" emerged, then that might actually mean something. Till then, I'm not holding my breath waiting for a "moderate" to be the mask for the Ayatollahs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I remember telling my friend the night we saw the story telling that it was the day of elections and we'll find out the results tomorrow..."I bet there's gonna be some sort of fraud and the guy will stay in office..." Suprise! The Ayatollah calls the shots and pulls the strings again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Iran's Guardian Council (sounds like something off of Star Trek) has said it's prepared to hold a recount in light of the recent violence. Story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltiades Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I wonder if it'll change anything. If the Ayatollah pulls the strings, he can easily influence the election himself. The investigation and the recount could just be a facade. I do agree that the massive turnout wasn't and isn't a certainty for Mousavi to win the election. Ahmadinejad can still be the victor, though the amount of votes he got is a bit unbelievable. In any case, if Ahmadinejad did win the elections by a big majority, then the country looks like it has problems, because the opponents seem to be many, and the division between pro and against could lead to a confrontation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 speaking of world leaders who scare the crap out of me(just came from the North Korea thread)...that guy Ahmadinejad is almost as insane as Kim Jong Il. They both scare the crap out of me, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 They both scare the crap out of me, too.Both are also grossly incompetent when comes to actually delivering their threats; that's why I'm not worried about either Iran or N. Korea developing actually working nukes. Even if they did develop working bombs, they'd be nowhere near as technologically advanced as anyone else; additionally, they'd lack the missiles to actually deliver them to targets other than Israel and Japan, so naturally, Western civilization is spared once again. Either way, even if N. Korea or Iran would use any sort of nuclear weapon against another country, including something of low-caliber, their countries would be reduced to a smoking crater from the amount of ICBMs that the U.S. and NATO would fire back in retaliation. Really, the whole "Third-world country commits nuclear holocaust against Western society" scenario is so cliched to the point that I'm completely unfazed by the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Both are also grossly incompetent when comes to actually delivering their threats; that's why I'm not worried about either Iran or N. Korea developing actually working nukes. Even if they did develop working bombs, they'd be nowhere near as technologically advanced as anyone else; additionally, they'd lack the missiles to actually deliver them to targets other than Israel and Japan, so naturally, Western civilization is spared once again. Either way, even if N. Korea or Iran would use any sort of nuclear weapon against another country, including something of low-caliber, their countries would be reduced to a smoking crater from the amount of ICBMs that the U.S. and NATO would fire back in retaliation. Really, the whole "Third-world country commits nuclear holocaust against Western society" scenario is so cliched to the point that I'm completely unfazed by the subject. This is true; yet this comes to my mind: "Perhaps you refer to the imminent attack by your Rebel fleet?" ―Emperor Palpatine to Luke Skywalker "I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here!" ―Emperor Palpatine to Luke Skywalker Luke: "Your overconfidence is your weakness." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Both are also grossly incompetent when comes to actually delivering their threats; that's why I'm not worried about either Iran or N. Korea developing actually working nukes. Even if they did develop working bombs, they'd be nowhere near as technologically advanced as anyone else; additionally, they'd lack the missiles to actually deliver them to targets other than Israel and Japan, so naturally, Western civilization is spared once again. Either way, even if N. Korea or Iran would use any sort of nuclear weapon against another country, including something of low-caliber, their countries would be reduced to a smoking crater from the amount of ICBMs that the U.S. and NATO would fire back in retaliation. Really, the whole "Third-world country commits nuclear holocaust against Western society" scenario is so cliched to the point that I'm completely unfazed by the subject. I'm not worried about nuclear holocaust against Western society. I'm worried about people in SK or Iraq or Israel getting nuked. We'd end up in a war, albeit rather short-lived, I suspect. Still, the idea of American troops ending up in a nuclear zone is not attractive at all. Also, the Iranians and N. Koreans don't need missiles to create dirty bombs that could be smuggled into the US or other Western country and exploded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think things in Iran may come to a head tomorrow, now that Mousavi has called for mass rallies to be organised. Blood has already been spilt, but there's a strong chance a whole lot more will be spilt tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I'll never cease to be amazed at how easily people can get the capacity to kill each other over trivial things like politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 I'll never cease to be amazed at how easily people can get the capacity to kill each other over trivial things like politics. Freedom and breaking free from oppression comes with a price, Arcesious. You might think differently if you were over in Iran and forced to bow towards Mecca 7 times a day knowing that if you openly declared yourself an atheist, you could be jailed at best and killed at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I'll never cease to be amazed at how easily people can get the capacity to kill each other over trivial things like politics. Do you know anything about Iran? If a woman is raped she can be charged (and imprisoned) with having adultery. An Iranian friend of mine was thrown out of Iran after he became a Christian - before he was thrown out, he was tortured for over a year, and if he returns he will be killed; the only reason he got out is because his family are rich. "Trivial" things like politics, actually control every aspect of your life, and calling them trivial, shows a silly disregard for what actually runs your life. You just happen to be lucky enough to live in a country where your government pretty much lets you do what you want. Just a note, having just spent 2 months living right next to Iran, and that I have a lot of Iranian friends (two of my flatmates were Iranian - I'm liable to shoot down any dumb-ass comments) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I'll never cease to be amazed at how easily people can get the capacity to kill each other over trivial things like politics. It never ceases to amaze me how easily those with freedoms take them for granted and forgot the scarifies of those that fought to ensure our freedoms. While I do not condone violence or war for political gain, those impeding such inalienable rights do not share your astute logic and force becomes necessary to promote change. So I will not denounce those that fought, killed and died in order to bring me the freedoms I enjoy today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Freedom and breaking free from oppression comes with a price, Arcesious. You might think differently if you were over in Iran and forced to bow towards Mecca 7 times a day knowing that if you openly declared yourself an atheist, you could be jailed at best and killed at worst. Freedom shouldn't come at a price though. It just sickens me that we still live in a world where there are places that people have to suffer and die to try to gain freedom. Do you know anything about Iran? If a woman is raped she can be charged (and imprisoned) with having adultery. Yes, and problems with government like that don't have to be resolved with death. An Iranian friend of mine was thrown out of Iran after he became a Christian - before he was thrown out, he was tortured for over a year, and if he returns he will be killed; the only reason he got out is because his family are rich. "Trivial" things like politics, actually control every aspect of your life, and calling them trivial, shows a silly disregard for what actually runs your life. You just happen to be lucky enough to live in a country where your government pretty much lets you do what you want. Just a note, having just spent 2 months living right next to Iran, and that I have a lot of Iranian friends (two of my flatmates were Iranian - I'm liable to shoot down any dumb-ass comments) It never ceases to amaze me how easily those with freedoms take them for granted and forgot the scarifies of those that fought to ensure our freedoms. While I do not condone violence or war for political gain, those impeding such inalienable rights do not share your astute logic and force becomes necessary to promote change. So I will not denounce those that fought, killed and died in order to bring me the freedoms I enjoy today. Jeesh, I wasn't at all expecting this kind of a response... I just think that all this fighting is getting ridiculous, and people dying over it all is completely unneccessary. It is true that force can be nesseccary in matters like this, but not deadly force. I was appalled at how the police were killing all those civilians. The police that were killing people in the crowds - why did they have to use guns on civilians when there are other methods available to regain control that do not involve death? Tear gas, pepper spray, stun/riot-control grenades, etc, etc. The year is 2009; and by now I'd expect that this matter in Iran could all be handled far more peacefully and civily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 The year is 2009; and by now I'd expect that this matter in Iran could all be handled far more peacefully and civily.Welcome to ReaLife™; it doesn't, hasn't, and never will be, all ice cream and lollipops. If you want some more perspective, read some dystopian fiction, or if you lack the patience, then just play Deus Ex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Welcome to ReaLife™; it doesn't, hasn't, and never will be, all ice cream and lollipops. If you want some more perspective, read some dystopian fiction, or if you lack the patience, then just play Deus Ex. That's my point really - Potentially, it could very easily be 'all ice cream and lollipops'. Sadly, deadly force is so much more convenient; even though non-deadly force is easily and readily available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Personally I would not consider deadly force more convenient and it would not be my first option. That said there are a few things in my life that I would be willing to lay down my life for. Does that make me a blood thirsty unintelligent murder or does it make me someone that knows our freedoms were purchase with the blood, sweat and tears of prior generations? Why would the Iranian Government want to use non-deadly means to put down the protestors? After all, if they used nonlethal alternatives these people could just protest again in the future. It is my belief that a government that would willfully murder and torture its own citizenry, is worth fighting and dying to overthrow. At least I’m not going to criticize them for trying since if you look at American history and see we fought, killed and died while fighting for our independence over less than the Iranian people have had to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson My interpretation of this famed Jefferson quote is that even living in the 1700s Jefferson knew that as long as there are human beings on this planet there will always be some that will seek to oppress others and that the oppressed will eventually fight back. The people of Iran and of the middle east in general have been what most people would consider oppressed for decades. They are told how to live their lives and any deviation from that instruction is punished swiftly and often harshly. I believe that if those that wish it could free themselves from their oppression peacefully they would have done so. Unfortunately most freedom from oppression in human history has come through violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.