Election battles turn into street fights in Iran 63 replies

Please wait...

Phoenix_22 Advanced Member

46 and 2, are just ahead of me

255,785 XP

23rd September 2004

0 Uploads

24,266 Posts

0 Threads

#21 10 years ago

I haven't done much research into this election, but Iran's population is very young on average compared to other western countries, and most of what I heard from that age group was that they supported Mousavvi.

Anyone have any polls from before the election, as in, who was leading before the actual election? From what I saw leading up to the election, it was going to be close, and with 85% turnout, I honestly believe there is no way in hell Ahmedinajad won 2-1 over his opponent.

Then again, is it a surprise that he won anyway?

Jeffro;4918604You're right. We prefer to take it up the ass and throw faggoty tea parties that yield no results or change.

QFT.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#22 10 years ago
Blank Stare;4919149I don't see how this is a good thing. :uhm:

When has the american population ever been 100 % content with election results? Certainly not in my lifetime, and I bet way before that. The loosers are always pissed but they go on with life after they bitch for a bit.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#23 10 years ago
Phoenix_22I haven't done much research into this election, but Iran's population is very young on average compared to other western countries, and most of what I heard from that age group was that they supported Mousavvi. Anyone have any polls from before the election, as in, who was leading before the actual election? From what I saw leading up to the election, it was going to be close, and with 85% turnout, I honestly believe there is no way in hell Ahmedinajad won 2-1 over his opponent.

Though urban young people have different political mindset than young people living in the country side. I believe the election result was rigged, but it's not so easy to say that Ahmadinejad would have actually lost. After all he enjoys great support among poor country side people and have the support of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as has been noted. It may be that Ahmadinejad won with such a small margin that the actual result wouldn't have been satisfactory for him and especially for his presidency and his political leadership of Iran.




Mitch Connor

Spamulous Spamitopian

50 XP

7th August 2008

0 Uploads

6,095 Posts

0 Threads

#24 10 years ago

A civil war is what Iran needs to sort out its issues.




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#25 10 years ago
Ronald_Jesch;4923120A civil war is what Iran needs to sort out its issues.

Many people say the same thing about the US. Personally, I think those calling for armed conflict to illicit social change are wankers.




Mitch Connor

Spamulous Spamitopian

50 XP

7th August 2008

0 Uploads

6,095 Posts

0 Threads

#26 10 years ago
AzH;4923138Many people say the same thing about the US. Personally, I think those calling for armed conflict to illicit social change are wankers.

Look into history then think about what you just said. Your entire world map has been made off the basis of military conflict, every country in existence was formed by some sort of military or forceful action. And the United States' problems aren't extensive enough to warrant military action, the levels of corruption aren't high enough for us to need a civil war/revolution.




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#27 10 years ago

Ronald_Jesch;4923195Look into history then think about what you just said. [/QUOTE] History is only useful for one thing; to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Ronald_Jesch;4923195Your entire world map has been made off the basis of military conflict, every country in existence was formed by some sort of military or forceful action.

Thanks, Capt. Obvious. Nearly every country in existence was formed through bloodshed. Nearly, not all.

But that doesn't mean it's right. You saying, "hey, have a civil war, that'll bring about change" is not only ignorant, but childish. There are other ways of bringing about change without a civil war. Just because that is how it was done, doesn't mean it needs to be done like that anymore.

[SIZE="1"](But then, what the fuck does it matter if the nignogs kill each other. Less for us to deal with)[/SIZE]

Germany reunified without there being a need for a civil war. India cast off the yoke of colonialism without a civil war.

[QUOTE=Ronald_Jesch;4923195]And the United States' problems aren't extensive enough to warrant military action, the levels of corruption aren't high enough for us to need a civil war/revolution.

But it would be such fun! It's okay for Iran (who are so corrupt that they called an inquiry into alleged voter fraud ----- did you in 2000? [SIZE="1"][the answer you're looking for is 'no'.][/SIZE]) to have a civil war to cure their societal ills, but not okay for the US? Or the UK? I'd love change here in Great Britain, but I'm not going to take up arms against the Government.

So I stand by my initial statement:

I said that anyone who suggests armed conflict as a method of social change is a wanker. There are other means and ways to bring about change.




Mitch Connor

Spamulous Spamitopian

50 XP

7th August 2008

0 Uploads

6,095 Posts

0 Threads

#28 10 years ago

Germany reunified because they had to stand together against the French, they also unified against the Romans earlier. I wouldn't say that every war is a mistake, it depends on which side you were on. The side of the Allies during the second world war was justified as human atrocities were being committed and human rights were being destroyed. You could even say the same for the first world war if you look at the Ottoman Empire and it's systematic extermination of Armenians and the like.

You're basically saying that anyone who suggests a war (even if it is in the prevention of human rights atrocities) or participates in a war is ignorant and childish?

And the 2000 election doesn't even compare to the Iran Election, Gore and Bush were both decent people in their own right. Whereas Mousavi was going to bring Iran back into the good graces of the world community and Ahmadinejad is basically making things worse for Iran and isolating them from the world.




Mephistopheles

IME and myself

50 XP

28th December 2004

0 Uploads

2,054 Posts

0 Threads

#29 10 years ago
Ronald_Jesch;4923270Germany reunified because they had to stand together against the French, they also unified against the Romans earlier.

I hope this is meant to be a (bad) joke... :Puzzled: ?




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#30 10 years ago

Ronald_Jesch;4923270

You're basically saying that anyone who suggests a war (even if it is in the prevention of human rights atrocities) or participates in a war is ignorant and childish?

How fuck did you get that from that?