Soxbadger Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well that is the thing, I believe that Khamenei will begin to distance himself regardless of the outcome in an attempt to show that he "wasn't part of this". Im not sure that the entire govt has been shaken to the core where some one could outright challenge him, at least not Mousavi. Now if another high ranking cleric or clerics, began to speak against Khamenei and implicated him, then perhaps you could see both the President and Ayatollah go down at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) Well that is the thing, I believe that Khamenei will begin to distance himself regardless of the outcome in an attempt to show that he "wasn't part of this". Im not sure that the entire govt has been shaken to the core where some one could outright challenge him, at least not Mousavi. Now if another high ranking cleric or clerics, began to speak against Khamenei and implicated him, then perhaps you could see both the President and Ayatollah go down at the same time. Khamenei said something to the effect of "If Achma...ijad (sick of spelling it wrong) loses, I lose," just before the election. So it's hard for him to weasel out of this. Moderates are rising up. It takes a LOT for Moderates to rise up in general. Because generally, they're pretty.... moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Ack-muh-DEE-neh-jahd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) Ack-muh-DEE-neh-jahd My new spelling is easier. In fact I may just move to A...d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 As Balta said a few posts ago this isn't about democracy vs. theocracy and never has been, although some of us in the US wish it was. It's about the theocratic hardliners (Khameini, Ahmadinejad) vs. the theocratic pragmatists (Rafsanjani, Mousavi, also by extension Khatami). This has been brewing for a few years now, has now come to a head, and nobody really knows how it's going to play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nixon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 11am: The man who leaked the real election results from the Interior Ministry - the ones showing Ahmadinejad coming third - was killed in a suspicious car accident, according to unconfirmed reports, writes Saeed Kamali Dehghan in Tehran. Mohammad Asgari, who was responsible for the security of the IT network in Iran's interior ministry, was killed yesterday in Tehran. Asgari had reportedly leaked results that showed the elections were rigged by government use of new software to alter the votes from the provinces. Asgari was said to have leaked information that showed Mousavi had won almost 19 million votes, and should therefore be president. We will try to get more details later. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/j...7/iran-uprising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Nixon @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/j...7/iran-uprising Reminds me of the death in Memphis right after 9/11, when that TDOT staffer was found burned to death in her car (she had provided a driver's license to one or more of the hijackers). Unless it really is coincidence... disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) Reminds me of the death in Memphis right after 9/11, when that TDOT staffer was found burned to death in her car (she had provided a driver's license to one or more of the hijackers). Unless it really is coincidence... disgusting. I know it's cliche for an American to doubt Iran's actions, but I can't see how it's a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 12:16 PM) As Balta said a few posts ago this isn't about democracy vs. theocracy and never has been, although some of us in the US wish it was. It's about the theocratic hardliners (Khameini, Ahmadinejad) vs. the theocratic pragmatists (Rafsanjani, Mousavi, also by extension Khatami). This has been brewing for a few years now, has now come to a head, and nobody really knows how it's going to play out. Except the fight is going to cause an unintended casualty, the Islamic Republic itself. What will happen? Who knows. Certainly, not a suddenly secular Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 http://www.iowastatedaily.com/articles/200...07831945758.txt Vice president of Iran is an Iowa State grad. Blame me and NS. The founder of Hooters is also an Iowa State grad. Win some. Lose some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 Ron Paul Is Sole Dissenter From House Resolution Supporting Iranian Protests The House voted 405-1 today for a resolution in support of the Iranian dissidents and condemning the ruling government. And the one man who opposed it was...Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Paul said in his floor speech that he was in "reluctant opposition" to the resolution -- that he of course condemns violence by governments against their citizens. On the other hand, he also doesn't think the American government should act as a judge of every country overseas, and pointed out that we don't condemn countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt that don't even have real elections. "It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made," Paul said. "I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly." I, for one, agree with Paul on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 White House responds to Khamenei's speech. GREAT point at the end. The Iranian government is ITCHING for the US to get involved so they can use it as a "see, they are trying to intervene" moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I think its obvious that Iranian leadership is trying to bait the west into involvement so that it can gain back popular support. Which is why the West just has to let the chips fall where they may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Some of the op-eds I've read criticizing Obama are unbelievably dumb, they just aren't based anywhere in reality. And why do people assume America's support is automatically wanted, and approved of? Sometimes, in fact most of the time, when thinking about other countries you have to take your "nationality" glasses off and try and see the world differently than a random American from Nebraska would. Otherwise nothing you say or think will make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 It would have been like the USSR getting involved in Watergate. Even if they had good intentions, most would assume that the USSR was up to no good. Which is why the US has to stay completely uninvolved, so that the rhetoric cant resonate. Supposedly they had people on television confessing that they were paid by the West to come from Iraq to incite rebellion and cause terror. Their support is in some ways tied to the "the West is Satan ideology", so you cant give them any fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The problem is Obama's already put his foot in his mouth, which has forced this to become what it is. I know, I know, there's no way in hell that his supporters will see it that way. I see absoluting nothing wrong with a statement that supports the "voters", no more, no less (definitely no more - I get that side of it but saying nothing is speaking very loudly, IMO). But whatever, I guess that doesn't matter after 30 years of telling them we'd be there for them if they ever got their voice heard. New day, new policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:53 PM) It would have been like the USSR getting involved in Watergate. Even if they had good intentions, most would assume that the USSR was up to no good. Which is why the US has to stay completely uninvolved, so that the rhetoric cant resonate. Supposedly they had people on television confessing that they were paid by the West to come from Iraq to incite rebellion and cause terror. Their support is in some ways tied to the "the West is Satan ideology", so you cant give them any fuel. Yeah, that's a pretty accurate analogy I'd say. Of course, someone advocating getting involved would probably refute that and say "How can you compare the US to the USSR? We're not like the communists!" Well, duh, WE know that, but that doesn't matter. It's all perspective. In this case it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Iranian government is already trying to accuse us of meddling, and we haven't done anything except indicate we would like to see free and fair elections, and that the Iranian government should allow the right to protest. Hardly controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) The problem is Obama's already put his foot in his mouth, which has forced this to become what it is. I know, I know, there's no way in hell that his supporters will see it that way. I see absoluting nothing wrong with a statement that supports the "voters", no more, no less (definitely no more - I get that side of it but saying nothing is speaking very loudly, IMO). But whatever, I guess that doesn't matter after 30 years of telling them we'd be there for them if they ever got their voice heard. New day, new policy. He hasn't put his foot in his mouth any more than he meant to. His strategy is pretty calculated and deliberate. And he's already basically said the part you said you'd have no problem with. What these people are advocating basically amounts to taking sides which would be a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:07 PM) He hasn't put his foot in his mouth any more than he meant to. His strategy is pretty calculated and deliberate. And he's already basically said the part you said you'd have no problem with. What these people are advocating basically amounts to taking sides which would be a disaster. He set the stage of this with the Cairo speech. That's where he put his foot in his mouth. He can't say much now because of that speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Ack-muh-DEE-neh-jahd Every time I hear his name I think of that scene from Office Space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) Some of the op-eds I've read criticizing Obama are unbelievably dumb, they just aren't based anywhere in reality. And why do people assume America's support is automatically wanted, and approved of? Sometimes, in fact most of the time, when thinking about other countries you have to take your "nationality" glasses off and try and see the world differently than a random American from Nebraska would. Otherwise nothing you say or think will make any sense. I've actually read someone make the argument that the protesters are emboldened by the fact that the US military is in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 05:17 PM) I've actually read someone make the argument that the protesters are emboldened by the fact that the US military is in Iraq. How's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) He set the stage of this with the Cairo speech. That's where he put his foot in his mouth. He can't say much now because of that speech. What part of the Cairo speech? Where he admitted that the US overthrew their government? That wasn't a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:17 PM) How's that? Well, see, they know that if they really start a revolution, the American military will come rolling in to help out! Which makes perfect sense because 1) We'd actually do that 2) They'd actually want foreign military intervention It was really just someone trying to ad hoc justify the Iraq war still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:18 PM) What part of the Cairo speech? Where he admitted that the US overthrew their government? That wasn't a secret. Of course not. I'm trying to do too much crap at once. Upgrade talkbears/bulls, get the new server, read StrangeSox Roberts debacle, and this. Did I say something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts