Election battles turn into street fights in Iran 63 replies

Please wait...

NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#41 11 years ago
AzH;4924137You're misunderstanding me. Yes, in the past we used armed conflict to solve our problems. But, fucking hell, let's evolve, huh?

You think humankind will ever evolve from the mindset of "he doesnt agree with me so I shoot him in the head and I win"? No, we never will.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#42 11 years ago
Commissar MercZ;4924893Just a bit of warning, this is a long long long long post.

No it isn't, it's just a long post. Long long long would mean I'd expect you to (nearly) break the 25.000 character limit. =p

Oh, and if you didn't notice I left some easter-eggs in my post.

Damn, good posting though.

And yes it's quite clear that te election is kinda fishy and some fraud may have been comitted (the speed the winner was announced with etc.) though that's no indication Mousavi actually won (as he seems mostly popular in the urbanized areas and much less in the rural areas, there being quite some peple living there doesn't make it implausible for Ahamadinejad to be the true winner).

Not that it would matter much for the west, Mousavi could only go so far with his reform (the ayatollah Khaminei coujld veto anything he opposes strongly against). Certainly not when it comes down to the issue of Iran and nuclear power, that's not open for debate. And I can't say I blame them that they want to acquir nuclear energy or even on the longer term, nuclear weapons. It wouldn't really bother me, I'm quite sure they wouldn't use it, unless perhaps as a final straw (read: US invasion) but even then... anyway, I suppose having a moderate reformer versus a conservative would be slighlty better in the eyes of the west. Even though they may be as far apart as McCain and Obama were or US republicans and democrats generally are. ;)

I asume I don't have to explain that referance, do ├Ć? =p

There isn't going to be a world shocking, major difference unless there is a revolution that brings down the Ayatollah & friends (which have been positioned in various power positions).




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#43 11 years ago
Admiral Donutz;4924937 There isn't going to be a world shocking, major difference unless there is a revolution that brings down the Ayatollah & friends

Sounds like a bad saturday morning cartoon show. :lol:




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#44 11 years ago
Admiral Donutz;4924937 And yes it's quite clear that te election is kinda fishy and some fraud may have been comitted (the speed the winner was announced with etc.) though that's no indication Mousavi actually won (as he seems mostly popular in the urbanized areas and much less in the rural areas, there being quite some peple living there doesn't make it implausible for Ahamadinejad to be the true winner).

I know, most of the issue here as we all know comes from that fact that these votes were counted so quickly. Past that, not much.

Not that it would matter much for the west, Mousavi could only go so far with his reform (the ayatollah Khaminei coujld veto anything he opposes strongly against). Certainly not when it comes down to the issue of Iran and nuclear power, that's not open for debate. And I can't say I blame them that they want to acquir nuclear energy or even on the longer term, nuclear weapons. It wouldn't really bother me, I'm quite sure they wouldn't use it, unless perhaps as a final straw (read: US invasion) but even then...

He could, yea, but some of Khatami's stuff managed to slip by, so I guess there's at least some leniency.

anyway, I suppose having a moderate reformer versus a conservative would be slighlty better in the eyes of the west. Even though they may be as far apart as McCain and Obama were or US republicans and democrats generally are. ;)

That's indeed true. This is prominent with any sort of government which doesn't really have plurality in their ranks.

There isn't going to be a world shocking, major difference unless there is a revolution that brings down the Ayatollah & friends (which have been positioned in various power positions).

There really isn't. The only thing is going to be different in regards to the West is that they're not going to be spouting anti-Western rhetoric. But all-in-all, he at least wants to bring Iran's social standards a bit more into modern times. Hell, even with Ahmadinejad's shit, Iran's a better place for women than America's best Arab ally, Saudi ARabia.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#45 11 years ago

I think it's more revealing of the political climate to look at the regime's handling of the issue rather than the public reaction. Yes, some people were killed by security forces. But in general, the protesters have managed to hold rallies in Tehran every day since the election despite opposition rallies having been banned. Khamenei is urging people not to protest, but his reasoning -or at least the reason he's giving- is to accept the democratic vote.

There are strong indications that fraud was involved, although weather or not it legitimate isn't really that important. What's important is that a lot of people are pissed off, and although a lot of people don't believe this, public opinion is in fact important in Iran. The Islamic revolution was not a coup by some elite, but a popular revolution founded on the general public's hatred of the shah, and although the position of Supreme Leader basically has absolute power, Khamenei isn't free to due whatever he wants without gauging the public mood.

Although the Guardian council is listening to complaints I doubt very much there will be a recount that sees Mousavi winning. However, the outrage at the results may serve as a warning to Ahmadinejad to engage a more moderate tone, although then again he is kinda stupid. We'll see.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#46 11 years ago
Karst;4925358 Although the Guardian council is listening to complaints I doubt very much there will be a recount that sees Mousavi winning. However, the outrage at the results may serve as a warning to Ahmadinejad to engage a more moderate tone, although then again he is kinda stupid. We'll see.

This is true and like you said, the Iranian government isn't wholly unresponsive to the people there.

But I think Ahmadinjead had issues within his own party and honestly their faction would have sacked him had it not been for the fact that it would have conceded defeat to their overseas rivals.

Maybe they might, like you said, try to incorporate some of what the opposition wanted that made them vote for Mousavi.

I mean the election was whacked up, but at the same time they let other parties campaign well before then and provided them all room to debate on the sate-run channels. While this could have easily been a sham for Westerners.

Hell, either Mousavi underestimated the power of the socially conservative citizens, or Ahmadinejad's folks didn't do a good job of rigging the votes while maintaining the illusion of a fair vote. We'll see in time.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#47 11 years ago

I've read of a theory that says that they may have rigged the vote in such an obvious way so that the reformers would bound nt to accept the results and demand justice, which in turn would allow the Irany garde (the name escapes me right now) and other powers including those of the current goverment to crush down the opposition, silencing many of the reformers and so on without losing support from the more conservative factions or those in between.




MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,292 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,050 Posts

9 Threads

#48 11 years ago
Admiral Donutz;4925716I've read of a theory that says that they may have rigged the vote in such an obvious way so that the reformers would bound nt to accept the results and demand justice, which in turn would allow the Irany garde (the name escapes me right now) and other powers including those of the current goverment to crush down the opposition, silencing many of the reformers and so on without losing support from the more conservative factions or those in between.

I doubt they'd risk a rebellion of up to 50% of their population. The more tyrannical a government is the more paranoid it is about revolutions.

Also, beating down a rebellion would have a very bad impact on Iran's international reputation, they'd risk UN sanctions which is not in their best interest as they aren't completly shut off from the rest of the world like North Korea.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#49 11 years ago

I agree, it would only make sense if there is a very small but vocal opposition which you need to supress, in which case you might be able to pull something like this off so that the public supports you (are doesn't hold it against you) that you go after the opposition which "doesn't respect the country/leaders/people" etc.

It was a theory that came up a day or two after the elections in my newspaper.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#50 11 years ago

There's also no guarantee that the government would come out of this on top. The Iranians had already deposed a dictatorship, I don't see any barrier to them doing it again if they really wanted.