Do you think a revolution is going to take place in Iran? I mean, today in my newspaper someone claimed that there were 200.000 to 1,5 million on the streets. That's pretty much I think, but on the other side I read that Ahmadinejad really won the elections because he did some good things for large groups of people so he was sure that they would vote for him (he allowed poor people to go to university etc..., actually pretty good things).
I'm not some sort of expert on this but it seems to me that Iranians are people who like revolutions (30 years ago against the Sjah). | Roald wrote: |
Do you think a revolution is going to take place in Iran? I mean, today in my newspaper someone claimed that there were 200.000 to 1,5 million on the streets. That's pretty much I think, but on the other side I read that Ahmadinejad really won the elections because he did some good things for large groups of people so he was sure that they would vote for him (he allowed poor people to go to university etc..., actually pretty good things).
I'm not some sort of expert on this but it seems to me that Iranians are people who like revolutions (30 years ago against the Sjah). |
It's a totalitarian State, I doubt that it will allow any more rioting. Now that it has been "voted in" 
Obviously the elections were a great "sham" almost like the ones in Zimbabwe of earlier in the year.Hmm...I smell several large rats.
Let's look at the chronology.
For months the independent opinion polls show that Ahmadinejad is going to get around 65% of the vote.
A week before the election the press begin to talk-up Mousave.
The result is that Ahmadinejad gets 62% of the vote on an 80% turnout and foul is immediately cried.
Now, it is almost certain that there were several anomalies in the vote system/count. Some people didn't get to vote and papers ran out. I think Americans should be a bit careful about making too much of that, however - given the farce of the Florida 2000 election....
Was there widespread voting fraud? I don't think so on the balance of probabilities. The result was not a surprise from a historical perspective and was in-line with predictions from opinion polls.
Sure, the West would like Mousave to have won - he is seen as more liberal and likely to be less confrontational with the west. Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so.
What we are now seeing is large scale protest in the major cities - where Mousave is strongest.
I remain to be convinced that Mousave won, or even that there was widespread systematic fraud...
Unless we can see all the votes (which we cant, and I dont want to) we cant be sure as to who won... Thats the point of a free vote...
If they voted for someone who they trust and/or believe will make their country great, then thats all that matters at the end of the day.
The people of the UK voted two members of the openly fascist and racist party (The BNP) and yet have doubts over people voting in other countries...
The silent majority are the ones who win every time, when people sit on their bums and decide not to vote... thats why we should always vote! Not rock the vote like a 40/50 year old rocker would say... just flipping do it... MOTHA FLIPPERS! haha
| Quote: |
Sure, the West would like Mousave to have won - he is seen as more liberal and likely to be less confrontational with the west. Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so.
What we are now seeing is large scale protest in the major cities - where Mousave is strongest. |
That's not the main problem. The problem is formed by two facts:
1 - Mamud wants Israel to get sweept off the globe;
2 - Mamud wants to keep the development of his nuclear program.
Now take this two information together... and take your own conclusions. | Da Rossa wrote: |
| Quote: | Sure, the West would like Mousave to have won - he is seen as more liberal and likely to be less confrontational with the west. Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so.
What we are now seeing is large scale protest in the major cities - where Mousave is strongest. |
That's not the main problem. The problem is formed by two facts:
1 - Mamud wants Israel to get sweept off the globe;
2 - Mamud wants to keep the development of his nuclear program.
Now take this two information together... and take your own conclusions. |
Actually this is pretty irrelevant to the topic under debate - which is the Iran elections, not a critique of Iranian foreign and domestic policy.
(PS - it is spelt Mahmoud).
I'm pretty sure that Mousave would also like to keep the Iranian nuclear programme going - if only because it is a very strong negotiating chip in dealings with the West. As for the rhetoric about Israel - Armadinajad was speaking for a 'home' audience and, like many politicians doing so, he said things which he thought would play well with the audience. All politicians do this - remember Bush and the 'axis of evil' speech designed to pave the way for the invasion of Iraq?
The difference is that Iran has not actually invaded, or tried to invade, Israel.... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Da Rossa wrote: | | Quote: | Sure, the West would like Mousave to have won - he is seen as more liberal and likely to be less confrontational with the west. Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so.
What we are now seeing is large scale protest in the major cities - where Mousave is strongest. |
That's not the main problem. The problem is formed by two facts:
1 - Mamud wants Israel to get sweept off the globe;
2 - Mamud wants to keep the development of his nuclear program.
Now take this two information together... and take your own conclusions. |
Actually this is pretty irrelevant to the topic under debate - which is the Iran elections, not a critique of Iranian foreign and domestic policy.
(PS - it is spelt Mahmoud).
I'm pretty sure that Mousave would also like to keep the Iranian nuclear programme going - if only because it is a very strong negotiating chip in dealings with the West. As for the rhetoric about Israel - Armadinajad was speaking for a 'home' audience and, like many politicians doing so, he said things which he thought would play well with the audience. All politicians do this - remember Bush and the 'axis of evil' speech designed to pave the way for the invasion of Iraq?
The difference is that Iran has not actually invaded, or tried to invade, Israel.... |
I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. | Da Rossa wrote: |
| Quote: | Sure, the West would like Mousave to have won - he is seen as more liberal and likely to be less confrontational with the west. Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so.
What we are now seeing is large scale protest in the major cities - where Mousave is strongest. |
That's not the main problem. The problem is formed by two facts:
1 - Mamud wants Israel to get sweept off the globe;
2 - Mamud wants to keep the development of his nuclear program.
Now take this two information together... and take your own conclusions. |
Is this actually 2+2?I've watched some videos on Youtube these days and it's pretty crazy out there. Those paramilitary forces there actually started shooting at people and some were fataly wounded. And the civilians started burning some of their buildings and killing some too. They're posting alot of info on youtube and some even on Twitter under this keyword #iranelection. They're trying to be heard.
Vlad
| deanhills wrote: |
| I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
So precisely what bearing does that have on the question of whether the elections were generally fair or rigged? Non at all that I can see....
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are?Is it just me, or does that girl's(Neda) murder seem eerily familiar to the beginning events of a South American CIA backed coup?
I'm not at all crying 'conspiracy', but it seems like I have seen this all before in Venezuela and Chile and many other countries.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are? |
I have not had a chance to chat to him about it Chris, but a pretty good no-brainer guess would be that he would like to wipe Israel completely off the face of the earth and hand the territory over to the "legitimate" residents of Palestine. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are? |
I have not had a chance to chat to him about it Chris, but a pretty good no-brainer guess would be that he would like to wipe Israel completely off the face of the earth and hand the territory over to the "legitimate" residents of Palestine. |
Well, if your supposition is correct then (according to your reading of what both Mousave and Armadinajad believe - ie exactly the same thing) the Israel issue is completely and utterly irrelevant to the election.
Which is what I said before.... | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are? |
I have not had a chance to chat to him about it Chris, but a pretty good no-brainer guess would be that he would like to wipe Israel completely off the face of the earth and hand the territory over to the "legitimate" residents of Palestine. |
What are you basing any of this on? Iran is definitely no friend of Israel and vice verse, along with much of the Middle East, but if you are referring to Ahmadinejad's famous misquote about "wiping Israel off the map", it was something of a hoax. As you can read about here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html
or here
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html,
| Quote: |
| Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. |
So basically he said there must be regime change in Israel. Also, there is no reason to believe that Iran is going to suddenly commit suicide by attacking Israel. And if you want to accuse a country of trying to wipe another country off the map, the best example of that lately is what Israel did to Gaza.
By the way, I am not defending the disgusting gov't of Iran, which I feel about the same way I feel about the nearby disgusting gov't of Saudi Arabia, the USA's big ally.
And as Bikerman said, it's all off topic anyway. But repeating this lie about Iran is a disservice to all. | handfleisch wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are? |
I have not had a chance to chat to him about it Chris, but a pretty good no-brainer guess would be that he would like to wipe Israel completely off the face of the earth and hand the territory over to the "legitimate" residents of Palestine. |
What are you basing any of this on? Iran is definitely no friend of Israel and vice verse, along with much of the Middle East, but if you are referring to Ahmadinejad's famous misquote about "wiping Israel off the map", it was something of a hoax. As you can read about here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html
or here
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html, |
I suggest you come and live in the Middle East for a while. Maybe you will then have an understanding for what I said. You are interpreting his comments Western style. It is his wish that Israel could disappear. If it were a slip of a tongue, it is still a deep-seated wish. This is local talk. You have got to be joking that his wish is only for a regime change! Governments come and Governments go and Israel Governments can hardly be referred to as "regimes", compare a democracy in Israel with that of Iran or any of the other countries in the Middle East, and there is no comparison at all. | deanhills wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are? |
I have not had a chance to chat to him about it Chris, but a pretty good no-brainer guess would be that he would like to wipe Israel completely off the face of the earth and hand the territory over to the "legitimate" residents of Palestine. |
What are you basing any of this on? Iran is definitely no friend of Israel and vice verse, along with much of the Middle East, but if you are referring to Ahmadinejad's famous misquote about "wiping Israel off the map", it was something of a hoax. As you can read about here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html
or here
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html, |
I suggest you come and live in the Middle East for a while. Maybe you will then have an understanding for what I said. You are interpreting his comments Western style. It is his wish that Israel could disappear. If it were a slip of a tongue, it is still a deep-seated wish. This is local talk. You have got to be joking that his wish is only for a regime change! Governments come and Governments go and Israel Governments can hardly be referred to as "regimes", compare a democracy in Israel with that of Iran or any of the other countries in the Middle East, and there is no comparison at all. |
It is also my wish that the Israeli Apertheid can dissappear too. Israel is an illegal, immoral, and unjust state. It was wrong for Israel to be created on the wishes of the European Jews, which went against the wishes of the Muslims, Christian and even the Jews (e.g. Jews of Jerusalem rejected the idea of a Jewish state) living in, what is now Israel, at that time.
I am not against a homeland for the Jewish people, but to deprive an entire people of their homeland - home which has been theirs for hundreds of years, in favour of a people making claim to it living hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away,and for a crime committed also in a land hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away furthered their cause.
All historians agree: Israel/Palestine pre 1918 (i.e. under Muslim occupation), Jews and Christians and Muslims were living more free than any other era in history (especially when compared to Christian Europe), and probably more free than they will ever be in the middle East. | deanhills wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are? |
I have not had a chance to chat to him about it Chris, but a pretty good no-brainer guess would be that he would like to wipe Israel completely off the face of the earth and hand the territory over to the "legitimate" residents of Palestine. |
What are you basing any of this on? Iran is definitely no friend of Israel and vice verse, along with much of the Middle East, but if you are referring to Ahmadinejad's famous misquote about "wiping Israel off the map", it was something of a hoax. As you can read about here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html
or here
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html, |
I suggest you come and live in the Middle East for a while. Maybe you will then have an understanding for what I said. You are interpreting his comments Western style. It is his wish that Israel could disappear. If it were a slip of a tongue, it is still a deep-seated wish. |
Really? So if you tell me that sky is polka-dot in the Middle East I am supposed to believe you? I am not interpreting any comments in any way-- Middle East experts and translators are explaining what the comments clearly were. It wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was as the analysts said... oh wait, you didn't even click on the links and read the proof, did you? | handfleisch wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are? |
I have not had a chance to chat to him about it Chris, but a pretty good no-brainer guess would be that he would like to wipe Israel completely off the face of the earth and hand the territory over to the "legitimate" residents of Palestine. |
What are you basing any of this on? Iran is definitely no friend of Israel and vice verse, along with much of the Middle East, but if you are referring to Ahmadinejad's famous misquote about "wiping Israel off the map", it was something of a hoax. As you can read about here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html
or here
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html, |
I suggest you come and live in the Middle East for a while. Maybe you will then have an understanding for what I said. You are interpreting his comments Western style. It is his wish that Israel could disappear. If it were a slip of a tongue, it is still a deep-seated wish. |
Really? So if you tell me that sky is polka-dot in the Middle East I am supposed to believe you? I am not interpreting any comments in any way-- Middle East experts and translators are explaining what the comments clearly were. It wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was as the analysts said... oh wait, you didn't even click on the links and read the proof, did you? |
I agree with you bro... This is something that I have commented on many times when people bring it up... It is Zionist propaganda, which would perhaps lead us to another war based on another lie.
The American media, along with their politicians, are perpetuating hate towards the arab/muslim world, and it is a dirty game they are playing. | handfleisch wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I can't agree Chris, Da Rossa has it 100% correct. And Iran is not the only country in the Middle East that wishes Israel to be swept off the globe. This is heartfelt and sincere rhetoric. Especially also after the latest war in January. |
Do you even know what Mousave's views on Israel are? |
I have not had a chance to chat to him about it Chris, but a pretty good no-brainer guess would be that he would like to wipe Israel completely off the face of the earth and hand the territory over to the "legitimate" residents of Palestine. |
What are you basing any of this on? Iran is definitely no friend of Israel and vice verse, along with much of the Middle East, but if you are referring to Ahmadinejad's famous misquote about "wiping Israel off the map", it was something of a hoax. As you can read about here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html
or here
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html, |
I suggest you come and live in the Middle East for a while. Maybe you will then have an understanding for what I said. You are interpreting his comments Western style. It is his wish that Israel could disappear. If it were a slip of a tongue, it is still a deep-seated wish. |
Really? So if you tell me that sky is polka-dot in the Middle East I am supposed to believe you? I am not interpreting any comments in any way-- Middle East experts and translators are explaining what the comments clearly were. It wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was as the analysts said... oh wait, you didn't even click on the links and read the proof, did you? |
Handfleisch if you would like to believe that Ahmadinejad is twinkle toes, that is your choice. And if you would like to create the impression that most people have the wrong opinion because Jonathan Steele's opinion is an expert one that is your choice too. All I can say is that I am very relieved that the US Government is not relying on the same "experts" as you are for their intelligence about Iran. | deanhills wrote: |
| All I can say is that I am very relieved that the US Government is not relying on the same "experts" as you are for their intelligence about Iran. |
Well, it could rely on the same experts as it relied upon for intelligence about Iraq.
Clearly that would be much better....wouldn't it?...err... | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | All I can say is that I am very relieved that the US Government is not relying on the same "experts" as you are for their intelligence about Iran. |
Well, it could rely on the same experts as it relied upon for intelligence about Iraq.
Clearly that would be much better....wouldn't it?...err... |
LOLLL | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | All I can say is that I am very relieved that the US Government is not relying on the same "experts" as you are for their intelligence about Iran. |
Well, it could rely on the same experts as it relied upon for intelligence about Iraq.
Clearly that would be much better....wouldn't it?...err... |
This is perhaps an extreme example Chris. Perhaps along the lines of Devil's Advocate? Even Bush agreed that Iraq was a huge blunder. People do make mistakes, but in general, America is still standing, so imagine the expert advice in total could not have been that bad ... or was Saddam Hussein also similarly misrepresented? | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | All I can say is that I am very relieved that the US Government is not relying on the same "experts" as you are for their intelligence about Iran. |
Well, it could rely on the same experts as it relied upon for intelligence about Iraq.
Clearly that would be much better....wouldn't it?...err... |
This is perhaps an extreme example Chris. Perhaps along the lines of Devil's Advocate? Even Bush agreed that Iraq was a huge blunder. People do make mistakes, but in general, America is still standing, so imagine the expert advice in total could not have been that bad ... or was Saddam Hussein also similarly misrepresented? |
Err...
'Expert advice' - Saddam has WMD
'Expert advice' - Saddam is a clear and present danger to western countries
Both wrong.
Now, is that because the advisers were full of it? No. It is because of;
a) Who you choose to advise
b) How you represent their advice to the population at large.
It is not an 'extreme' example - it is simply the latest available example. | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | All I can say is that I am very relieved that the US Government is not relying on the same "experts" as you are for their intelligence about Iran. |
Well, it could rely on the same experts as it relied upon for intelligence about Iraq.
Clearly that would be much better....wouldn't it?...err... |
This is perhaps an extreme example Chris. Perhaps along the lines of Devil's Advocate? Even Bush agreed that Iraq was a huge blunder. People do make mistakes, but in general, America is still standing, so imagine the expert advice in total could not have been that bad ... or was Saddam Hussein also similarly misrepresented? |
Err...
'Expert advice' - Saddam has WMD
'Expert advice' - Saddam is a clear and present danger to western countries
Both wrong.
Now, is that because the advisers were full of it? No. It is because of;
a) Who you choose to advise
b) How you represent their advice to the population at large.
It is not an 'extreme' example - it is simply the latest available example. |
You're twisting words viz. "expert advice", trying to make things look rediculous for argument sake (those two examples are also a little stale by now). With regard to your second paragrah that is hardly a rocket-science statement Chris. | deanhills wrote: |
| You're twisting words viz. "expert advice", trying to make things look rediculous for argument sake (those two examples are also a little stale by now). With regard to your second paragrah that is hardly a rocket-science statement Chris. |
I'm doing nothing of the sort. The run-up to Iraq is now fairly well documented - though I hope that the new enquiry over here will bring much more into the public domain.
It is a fact that Blair sought advice from the Foreign Office experts (including David Kelly) and then deliberately misrepresented that advice - on some occasions sending advice back to be 'altered', and on at least one occasion plagiarising a student thesis from the internet and presenting it as 'expert' advice. This is all well documented.Seems that once again even the question of revolution in Iran, which was started by an election scandal, somehow goes back to Israel and its existence. Amazing how powerful Israel is. 
As I read this forum it just progressively eluded to Israels existence being at the source of things.
Seems Iran has a personal accountability as all nations should for what goes on within their borders.
Well back to sending out out Zionist propaganda, my goal is to take over the world by Tuesday. 
| deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | All I can say is that I am very relieved that the US Government is not relying on the same "experts" as you are for their intelligence about Iran. |
Well, it could rely on the same experts as it relied upon for intelligence about Iraq.
Clearly that would be much better....wouldn't it?...err... |
This is perhaps an extreme example Chris. Perhaps along the lines of Devil's Advocate? Even Bush agreed that Iraq was a huge blunder. People do make mistakes, but in general, America is still standing, so imagine the expert advice in total could not have been that bad ... or was Saddam Hussein also similarly misrepresented? |
Do you actually believe that the United States went into Iraq to free Iraq?
Come on, if haven't understand by now that almost no nation in the world would wage war against another nation in a far away land unless they can directly benefit from it, they surely you don't undertand politics, world affairs or history.
The United States went into Iraq under the banner of capitalism - not for democracy or liberty, but capitalism - so that it would benefit American enterprises.
You look at when the United States went into Vietnam, Guat., el salvador, panama, afghanistan, iran (1951) and even WW2 and u will see the same story. Bush made no blunder. He just lied to the world about his aims/objectives of going into Iraq.A revolution is possible if the majority of Iranians in Iran wants change and more freedom. Iran should have a government freely and fairly elected by the Iranian people. It shouldn't matter what the US or other countries think, it should be the choice of the Iranians.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
Do you actually believe that the United States went into Iraq to free Iraq? |
Where did I say that? Have I EVER said that? And even that is becoming very stale as all of us have repeated almost ad infinitum that it should never have happened. | deanhills wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
Do you actually believe that the United States went into Iraq to free Iraq? |
Where did I say that? Have I EVER said that? And even that is becoming very stale as all of us have repeated almost ad infinitum that it should never have happened. |
I think maybe when you suggested that at least some good came from the Iraq war, that Polemistis took it as the "freeing" of the country.
| deanhills wrote: |
| This is perhaps an extreme example Chris. Perhaps along the lines of Devil's Advocate? Even Bush agreed that Iraq was a huge blunder. People do make mistakes, but in general, America is still standing, so imagine the expert advice in total could not have been that bad ... or was Saddam Hussein also similarly misrepresented? |
Maybe? 
| pampoon wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: |
Do you actually believe that the United States went into Iraq to free Iraq? |
Where did I say that? Have I EVER said that? And even that is becoming very stale as all of us have repeated almost ad infinitum that it should never have happened. |
I think maybe when you suggested that at least some good came from the Iraq war, that Polemistis took it as the "freeing" of the country.
| deanhills wrote: | | This is perhaps an extreme example Chris. Perhaps along the lines of Devil's Advocate? Even Bush agreed that Iraq was a huge blunder. People do make mistakes, but in general, America is still standing, so imagine the expert advice in total could not have been that bad ... or was Saddam Hussein also similarly misrepresented? |
Maybe? |
Thanks pampoon, that must be exactly it. 
| deanhills wrote: |
| pampoon wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: |
Do you actually believe that the United States went into Iraq to free Iraq? |
Where did I say that? Have I EVER said that? And even that is becoming very stale as all of us have repeated almost ad infinitum that it should never have happened. |
I think maybe when you suggested that at least some good came from the Iraq war, that Polemistis took it as the "freeing" of the country.
| deanhills wrote: | | This is perhaps an extreme example Chris. Perhaps along the lines of Devil's Advocate? Even Bush agreed that Iraq was a huge blunder. People do make mistakes, but in general, America is still standing, so imagine the expert advice in total could not have been that bad ... or was Saddam Hussein also similarly misrepresented? |
Maybe? |
Thanks pampoon, that must be exactly it. |
Pampoon is right. My reply was a reply to your statement which you made to Chris in the above statement.
And personally I don't think the election in Iran was rigged - the Supreme council admitted that it wasen't and I have no reason to believe why they would lie: Mousavi was permitted to run for election and they knew he would get strong supporters especially after Khatemi backed him.
However, I do feel the way in which the govt is trying to supress the demonstrations is strong especially after the unfortuate case of Neda Soltani. But then again, what else can they do? | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| And personally I don't think the election in Iran was rigged - the Supreme council admitted that it wasen't and I have no reason to believe why they would lie: Mousavi was permitted to run for election and they knew he would get strong supporters especially after Khatemi backed him. |
If you can answer the following, then maybe I can believe it, common sense though says this is almost impossible to do:
| Quote: |
How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner? That’s a key question in Iran’s disputed presidential election.
|
The source below is from an Iranian, interesting reading from an Iranian:
http://iranian.com/main/blog/artificial-intelligence/did-iri-hand-count-40-million-votes-12-hours-0
I believe the counting was rigged. There is really no democracy in Iran.A lot of old hypocritical nonsense.
| Quote: |
| How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner? |
I don't know - how do you count almost 130 million ballet papers in a US election and declare a winner within MINUTES? You tell me...
You do it via exit polls and your 'pronouncements' are merely a statistical probability based on the most up to date information. All countries do this and I cannot see why you think Iran is somehow different. I suggest you look at US elections in recent history and tell me what the major differences are.
The simple fact is that no credible account of large-scale vote-rigging has emerged. Now, you may believe that this is due to the fact that the Iranian authorities are masters of subterfuge and have managed to keep such details secret. I don't. I think the vote was largely fair' - which is as good a test as a US (or UK) citizen would accept in their OWN elections.
I may be wrong - there may well have been something unusually smelly about these elections - but I have been watching closely and, to date, have seen little or no evidence to support that hypothesis.
I have no sympathy with the current regime in Iran - in fact I am on record as repeatedly saying that ANY system of theocratic government is to be condemned. That does not mean that one can assume that the Iranian officials are covering-up some massive electoral scam. They MAY be - but let's see the evidence.
Bikerman's reply is decent enough I guess.
| deanhills wrote: |
I believe the counting was rigged. There is really no democracy in Iran. |
How is there no democracy in Iran? The people elect a President. The supreme leader is chosen by the council which is chosen to run in interests of people. Sure, the supreme leader can veto laws passed by parliament and the president, but isn't that the same in England with the house of commons and the house of lords (and probably the queen)?
The real debate is that not all candidates can run for election. But some can argue this is to ensure "extremists" can run for election. But come on, for the middle east, you should be praising Iran's democracy. It's far from perfect, but it is a glimmer of hope for that region of the world.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I have no sympathy with the current regime in Iran - in fact I am on record as repeatedly saying that ANY system of theocratic government is to be condemned. That does not mean that one can assume that the Iranian officials are covering-up some massive electoral scam. They MAY be - but let's see the evidence.
|
I don't particular have sympathy with any regime in the world - politics is a dirty game.
However, I also agree with this statement of yours (which you may find suprising given some of our discussions): "ANY system of theocratic government is to be condemned".
I believe Religion and military should not interefere with politics. | Bikerman wrote: |
| A lot of old hypocritical nonsense. |
This "hypocritical nonsense" as you called it caused a human protest in Iran of almost 9 kilometres long that was reacted to forcefully in very certain ways. Go figure how hypocritically democratic that is 
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
How is there no democracy in Iran? The people elect a President. The supreme leader is chosen by the council which is chosen to run in interests of people. Sure, the supreme leader can veto laws passed by parliament and the president, but isn't that the same in England with the house of commons and the house of lords (and probably the queen)?
The real debate is that not all candidates can run for election. But some can argue this is to ensure "extremists" can run for election. But come on, for the middle east, you should be praising Iran's democracy. It's far from perfect, but it is a glimmer of hope for that region of the world. |
Clamping down on the media while there is an election on the go is hardly a sign of a democracy. Either it is democratic or it is not. And in Iran it is not. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | A lot of old hypocritical nonsense. |
This "hypocritical nonsense" as you called it caused a human protest in Iran of almost 9 kilometres long that was reacted to forcefully in very certain ways. Go figure how hypocritically democratic that is |
About as democratic as the UK going to war after an even larger March (between 1 and 2 million people) against doing so.
The reaction of the security forces is not something I support - I have already said that I am not a particular fan of the regime - but is not really addressing the issue of whether the election was rigged or not.
The fact is that Mousave has his main support in Tehran and other large cities. Armadinajad is more popular in the rural areas. One would expect a large number of people in Tehran to be Mousave supporters and to come out in support. That doesn't really tell us anything - certainly not whether the election was rigged or not. | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | A lot of old hypocritical nonsense. |
This "hypocritical nonsense" as you called it caused a human protest in Iran of almost 9 kilometres long that was reacted to forcefully in very certain ways. Go figure how hypocritically democratic that is |
About as democratic as the UK going to war after an even larger March (between 1 and 2 million people) against doing so.
The reaction of the security forces is not something I support - I have already said that I am not a particular fan of the regime - but is not really addressing the issue of whether the election was rigged or not.
The fact is that Mousave has his main support in Tehran and other large cities. Armadinajad is more popular in the rural areas. One would expect a large number of people in Tehran to be Mousave supporters and to come out in support. That doesn't really tell us anything - certainly not whether the election was rigged or not. |
Well we probably then need to agree that we disagree. The current regime in Iran is not a democracy. There is no real evidence that the election was rigged, but neither is there real evidence that it was not rigged. The fact that this could not be openly verified is already a good indication that all of it was not that kosher.[several postings removed by moderator - Bikerman]
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
| deanhills wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | How is there no democracy in Iran? The people elect a President. The supreme leader is chosen by the council which is chosen to run in interests of people. Sure, the supreme leader can veto laws passed by parliament and the president, but isn't that the same in England with the house of commons and the house of lords (and probably the queen)?
The real debate is that not all candidates can run for election. But some can argue this is to ensure "extremists" can run for election. But come on, for the middle east, you should be praising Iran's democracy. It's far from perfect, but it is a glimmer of hope for that region of the world. |
Clamping down on the media while there is an election on the go is hardly a sign of a democracy. Either it is democratic or it is not. And in Iran it is not. |
The tv station is state owned just like almost every other arab/middle eastern nation. Satellite stations are illegal and have always been.
The newspapers may have been clamped down (not sure) but since when was the media in the middle East ever free?
| deanhills wrote: |
The fact that this could not be openly verified is already a good indication that all of it was not that Halal.
|
FIXT 
I also agree that countries that control media (especially for political news) is not democratic, no matter what the countries' titles are.
