The Iranian Elections

[BlackPete]

Really, that's the only possible outcome you can imagine?

Bush was about as belligerent as you can get towards Iran, placed them on the "Axis of Evil" and it accomplished nothing useful, really.

So yeah, I'd say that's about the only outcome.

As an aside, though, I willing to bet the government has much better sources than Twitter. At least, I hope so...if our president finds out from Kim Jong Il's MySpace that North Korea launched a missle at Hawaii, I'm going to be pissed.

Myspace is totally unreliable. You should check his facebook page instead.

[Ox]

And is it really unfair to wonder if a large part of the GOP is reflexively contrarian?
No. To suggest that the only two possibilities are either reflexive contrarianism or stupidity? Yes. To deliberately take my painstakingly moderate criticism of Obama's tactics and pretend I somehow called him a "weak-kneed fool"? Certainly yes.

Being stupid is trying to get into Iran's business. That's an equal opportunity stupidity regardless of whether it's an idea coming from a republican, democrat, libertarian, green party, marijuana, etc. To be redundant: The US trying to meddle in Iranian affairs is a stupid idea, period.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Commenting on Iranian affairs is hardly "meddling," unless it's somehow meddling when a Canadian talks about how much he disliked Bush. What's more, it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that any form of meddling in Iran is per se stupid. Perhaps you think, e.g., that the US ought to acquiesce in Iran's nuclear program; but my preference for sending the IAEA in to enforce non-proliferation isn't obviously "stupid" until you make a lot more of an effort to explain why.

But you don't bother to reflect upon any of the counterarguments for your preferred policies or even to acknowledge that it's possible for intelligent people to have good reasons for disagreeing with you. I can't say for certain whether some of the people who disagree with you are stupid, somebody in this conversation is certainly acting like a close-minded idiot.

Bush was about as belligerent as you can get towards Iran, placed them on the "Axis of Evil" and it accomplished nothing useful, really.
See, this is a good example. First, I don't think anyone is calling for additional "belligerence" against Iran. The GOP is calling for increased condemnation of police violence against the protestors, which is somewhat different. Second, I don't believe Bush actually invaded Iran, and that would probably be a lot more belligerent than calling them names. Third, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about a major popular uprising against the mullahs in Iran? I'm not going to emulate the President and claim it was all America's doing, but it's not inconceivable that Bush created at least some of the conditions that led to the current state.

[BlackPete]

No. To suggest that the only two possibilities are either reflexive contrarianism or stupidity? Yes. To deliberately take my painstakingly moderate criticism of Obama's tactics and pretend I somehow called him a "weak-kneed fool"? Certainly yes.

You are right, I was being unfair to you as I was making a generalization based on what the freepers and the more whacko wingnuts were saying. So I admit that it is a kneejerk reaction to immediately interpret criticism of Obama as "Let's invade Iran" as I've been in WAY too meny threads on other sites where people were proclaiming exactly that: Putting troops on Iranian soil to "help" the protestors.

I reacted strongly to that, and I admit I projected that here and overreacted accordingly.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Commenting on Iranian affairs is hardly "meddling," unless it's somehow meddling when a Canadian talks about how much he disliked Bush.

There's a difference between what a citizen says and what the President is saying. When the President speaks, he speaks with the voice of the country. When the citizen speaks, it's just one individual.


What's more, it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that any form of meddling in Iran is per se stupid.

As long as it's just the american people talking, then I'm fine with that, and that's actually more meaningful to the Iranian protestors than anything Obama says. So talk away! It's Obama who needs to STFU.

Perhaps you think, e.g., that the US ought to acquiesce in Iran's nuclear program; but my preference for sending the IAEA in to enforce non-proliferation isn't obviously "stupid" until you make a lot more of an effort to explain why.

Eh, that's a whole another can of worms so I'll save that for another thread if one comes up.

But you don't bother to reflect upon any of the counterarguments for your preferred policies or even to acknowledge that it's possible for intelligent people to have good reasons for disagreeing with you. I can't say for certain whether some of the people who disagree with you are stupid, somebody in this conversation is certainly acting like a close-minded idiot.

The idea of the US (and Obama) doing anything more than finger wagging is a bad idea all around. The Iranians don't want the US to get involved. The majority of Americans don't want to get involved. The people who want to slap on spandex tights and jump in to rescue everyone are the ones I consider to be crackpots. Sorry to be closed minded on that subject. :)


See, this is a good example. First, I don't think anyone is calling for additional "belligerence" against Iran. The GOP is calling for increased condemnation of police violence against the protestors, which is somewhat different.

That's fine, condemn away. As long as that's the limit of involvement.


Second, I don't believe Bush actually invaded Iran, and that would probably be a lot more belligerent than calling them names.

OK I stand corrected. So do you agree that calling them names is a fairly trivial thing to do?

Third, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about a major popular uprising against the mullahs in Iran? I'm not going to emulate the President and claim it was all America's doing, but it's not inconceivable that Bush created at least some of the conditions that led to the current state.

I was actually wondering when you'd say something like this. And the answer is pretty simple: It'd be true only if the Iranians actually cared about what the US president (current or former) said. Which I highly doubt.

[EternalGamer]

Which is why I barged into the thread talking about how everyone who disagreed with my preferred style was "stupid" and a "warmonger." Oh, wait.


I was afraid I had come across as sanctimonious earlier. I realize now I was being too hard on myself.


So you personalize my argument so that it appears directed solely at you, hyperbolize my points to make it sound like I was accusing you of being a war monger, and then imply that I am acting sanctimonious?

...Thanks for responding to my post, I guess.

[Serapth]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Commenting on Iranian affairs is hardly "meddling," unless it's somehow meddling when a Canadian talks about how much he disliked Bush.

If it was the Canadian Prime Minister commenting how much he disliked Bush, during an election, or a Canadian PM condemning the Bush vs Gore election, then yes, that would be meddling.

Nothing is stoping American citizens from speaking out against the violence or election in Iran, nor sadly is it stoping some elected officials, but the head of state is a rather unique position.

What I find odd about all of this is, what is the argument supporting condeming Iran? Is it going to influence the protestors knowing the president supports them, even on the small chance the news actually gets to them in an uncensored form?

On the otherhand, not talking tough as two possible benefits. First, it doesn't make it easier for the Ayotollah to pin this on the US. Second, it possibly positions America to have a less confrontational relationship with Iran when the dust settles.

Speaking out against Iran at this point, seems to be trying to score political capital at home more than any other result.

[BlackPete]

Holy fuck: Clerics join Iran's anti-government protests (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/23/iran.protest.faces/index.html)

In a blatant act of defiance, a group of Mullahs took to the streets of Tehran, to protest election results that returned incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

Whether these clerics voted for Ahmadinejad or one of the opposition candidates is unknown. What is important here, is the decision to march against the will of Iran's supreme leader who called the results final and declared demonstrations illegal.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mullahs rule supreme. They are the country's conservative clerics; the guardians of the Islamic revolution and its ideologies. They're loyal only to God and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

This is huge. Ahmandinejad and Khamenei are more and more alone every day. If the Basijs fuck up and hurt a cleric, there will be MAJOR bad shit happening.

[EternalGamer]

I was reading about Iran's internet filter system earlier tonight. It seems that a BBC subsidary that is an internet company provides them with the filtering service. It would be interesting to see the BBC have political pressure on them to not filter and not cut off the flow of data. Obviously the military could just go around blowing up their broadband infrastructure, but I'm not sure they would be willing to destroy their country's information infrastructure as it is incredibly valuable. Aand there is still always cellular access, which I'm not sure they eradicate.

At any rate, I got this from a friend on Twitter today, thought I would pass it along. I did it as it couldn't hurt to try:

If anyone is on twitter, set your location to Tehran and your time zone to GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location/timezone searches. The more people at this location, the more of a logjam it creates for forces trying to shut down Iranians' access to the internet. Cut and paste and please pass it on" Already changed mine.

If you're not on twitter, it only takes a minute to sign up and it's (of course) free. So a minute of your time might have some positive effect.

[Narradisall]

Well this seems to be getting slowly worse by the day.

Sad thing is, the likelyhood is that if it looks like its going to move into open revolt, they'll crack down, HARD, on those protesters.

[BlackPete]

Revolutionary Guards commander defies Khamenei's orders to use force on protestors. (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/20090622/revolutionary-guards-iran-iranian-protests.htm)

Even the Revolutionary Guard leadership is cracking up... there's two sides to this coin: It helps guarantee that the remaining people are brutal thugs who won't mind using excess violence on anyone. On the flip side, he was a well respected man and hopefully MANY people in the guard will take notice of his actions and possibly even emulate them.

[Ox]

If it was the Canadian Prime Minister commenting how much he disliked Bush, during an election, or a Canadian PM condemning the Bush vs Gore election, then yes, that would be meddling.
That's consistent, at least. Supposedly some foreign leaders (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1062077.htm) endorsed Kerry over Bush in 2004, which led to a bit of conversation about the limits of interference in a country's domestic politics. As I recall, relatively few people thought the foreign leaders had done anything wrong in this, but I may be misremembering.

What I find odd about all of this is, what is the argument supporting condeming Iran? Is it going to influence the protestors knowing the president supports them, even on the small chance the news actually gets to them in an uncensored form?
Again, I don't think the President should make an unequivocal statement of support for the protestors. I think he should make an unequivocal condemnation of the violence against the protestors.*

Why? Partly it's a moral imperative: I acknowledge we can't militarily intervene in Iran at the moment, but simply turning a blind eye to such a travesty is the minimum we ought to do, no matter where in the world it happens. Partly, however, it is practical and in our best interests. When we condemn violence in other countries, we get accused of hypocrisy unless we do it everywhere. Moreover, as I said before, past protestors in other countries have been inspired by the statements of the President, and disheartened when the President has failed to acknowledge their plight. The US took a strong, albeit entirely verbal, stance against the Prague Spring, for example; the Czechoslovakian protestors later said they had heard about President Johnson's support and been inspired by it. In 1956, the US's belated political rhetoric encouraging the Hungarian protestors did inspire them to resist more forcefully, although unfortunately that led to them being massacred by the Soviets. US political support does influence protestors, even ones under government media blackout. It was true in 1956, and it's at least as true in 2009. Indeed, we might take Mousavi's "external spokesman" at his word (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=5018).

Obama has said that there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Does he like it himself [when someone is] saying that there is no difference between Obama and [George W.] Bush? Ahmadinejad is the Bush of Iran. And Mousavi is the Obama of Iran...

[He asks] that the governments [of the world] pay attention to the people in the streets and do not recognize the government of Ahmadinejad as the representative of Iran -- [that they] do not recognize the government of Ahmadinejad as a legitimate government. Iran is a very important country in the region, and the changes in Iran could have an influence everywhere. So as a result, it's not only an internal matter -- it's an international problem.

On the otherhand, not talking tough as two possible benefits. First, it doesn't make it easier for the Ayotollah to pin this on the US. Second, it possibly positions America to have a less confrontational relationship with Iran when the dust settles.
Does it? If you can conjure an international Jewish conspiracy to keep the Muslim world down, I don't think actual facts impede you at all in your conspiracy-theorizing. I'd like a shred of evidence that the "blame America" program is somehow hampered, please. Moreover, it's hardly any secret that Americans oppose Ahmadinejad, or that our government usually tends to reflect the popular will. Our President's staff believes he deserves credit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062203026_pf.html) for the current Iranian unrest:
But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
Now, victory has a thousand fathers, and I'm happy to give the President as much credit as he desires for inspiring the current protests. But obviously saying to the Washington Post that you inspired the protests kind of hamstrings any effort to remain on good terms with Ahmadinejad, even if you could describe the previous relationship as "good terms."

Finally, that Washington Post article is really very good. It notes, for example, that Congressional Democrats have argued that the protestors "should have no doubt" that the Administration supports them. Likewise, it quotes Natan Sharansky as saying that Reagan's strong condemnation of the Soviet Union had "spread like wildfire through the gulag." You'd be surprised how much even people who don't like us pay attention to us.

*Which, I should point out, he now has. I'm actually defending Obama's current policy.

[Voodoo]

This is extremely difficult to listen to : http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2009/06/24/bpr.iran.proests.baharistan.cnn.html

[Generation ABXY]

I don't think he knew quite how to respond to her pleas for help. Seems like he decided to move on, which almost comes off as a little callous...though I'm not sure what I'd do either.

[BlackPete]

Iranian football (soccer to Americans) players apparently banned for life for wearing green wristbands. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5620334/Iran-football-players-banned-after-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-protest.html)

Reports are still pretty sketchy with conflicting news reports, but if this is true, this won't go over very well in a country that's absolutely fanatical about soccer. It also makes the so called "democracy" of the election a joke.

[Serapth]

Does it? If you can conjure an international Jewish conspiracy to keep the Muslim world down, I don't think actual facts impede you at all in your conspiracy-theorizing. I'd like a shred of evidence that the "blame America" program is somehow hampered, please. Moreover, it's hardly any secret that Americans oppose Ahmadinejad, or that our government usually tends to reflect the popular will. Our President's staff believes he deserves credit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062203026_pf.html) for the current Iranian unrest:

This in a nutshell is my problem with a regime vs the people. I am convinced Ahmadinegad is a flaming nutjob with a massive Israel hate on, but I am not so convinced it is true of the rest of the people. The inverse is, I am also not so sure the Iranian people are that dissatisfied with unique ( in imho, highly disturbing ) form of government. I am still not convinced that the rioting represents the will of the (majority of) people, nor am I completely sure how innocent and persecuted the protestors are. By all means, the media sure makes this story look one sided, but I don't quickly assume that is the actual truth. Condeming violence is one thing, picking sides is something completely different. This is one of those reasons I appreciate Obama's muted response. He has condemned violence at a base level, but has been careful not to point fingers.


To put things into perspective, so many people in the west seem to lack these days, the violence in Iran right now are comprable to the violence that swept parts of France in 2005 ( although lower death toll and higher damages, still involved 2300+ rioters being arrested ). Was the world looking to Bush to condemn these acts so quickly or completely??

[Ox]

This in a nutshell is my problem with a regime vs the people. I am convinced Ahmadinegad is a flaming nutjob with a massive Israel hate on, but I am not so convinced it is true of the rest of the people. The inverse is, I am also not so sure the Iranian people are that dissatisfied with unique ( in imho, highly disturbing ) form of government.
I agree with the second but not the first. I'm skeptical that Iranians are calling for Jeffersonian democracy, and I'm highly skeptical that any of their dissatisfaction with Ahmadinejad stems from his dislike of Israel. Everything I've read indicates that it's his poor economic policies that are responsible for the unrest, not his foreign policy.

To put things into perspective, so many people in the west seem to lack these days, the violence in Iran right now are comprable to the violence that swept parts of France in 2005 ( although lower death toll and higher damages, still involved 2300+ rioters being arrested ). Was the world looking to Bush to condemn these acts so quickly or completely??
I think the French violence was (a) the result of far less widespread unrest, (b) mainly perpetrated by the protestors themselves, and (c) conducted in the open with international media free to report on it and criticize the government reaction. Just to maintain my rightwing bona fides, I'll also darkly point out that (d) that was Muslim rioting against a Christian/atheist government.

Did anyone call on Bush to condemn the rioting? I don't recall that. But I think there is a difference between criminal rioting and government oppression. It's not incumbent on the President to criticize every criminal gang in the world, simply because that would be a full-time job.

[ShivaX]

By most accounts yesterday was fairly quiet, but things sound like they're heating up again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

A flood of security forces using tear gas and clubs quickly overwhelmed a small group of rock-throwing protesters near Iran's parliament Wednesday, and the country's supreme leader said the outcome of the disputed presidential election will stand — the latest signs of the government's growing confidence in quelling unrest on the streets.

CNN was also running a line about people being "beaten like animals" and theres (unconfirmed of course) rumors about Iran bringing in Hamas and Hezbollah because Persian men wont strike women.

[Lance Uppercut]

http://twitter.com/persiankiwi has been blogging about the situation since the very beginning, and just sent this message 9 hours ago:

they catch ppl with mobile - so many killed today - so many injured - Allah Akbar - they take one of us


they pull away the dead into trucks - like factory - no human can do this - we beg Allah for save us -

Everybody is under arrest & cant move - Mousavi - Karroubi even rumour Khatami is in house guardwe must go - dont know when we can get internet - they take 1 of us, they will torture and get names - now we must move fast -

thank you ppls 4 supporting Sea of Green - pls remember always our martyrs - Allah Akbar - Allah Akbar - Allah Akbar

Allah - you are the creator of all and all must return to you - Allah Akbar -

[BlackPete]

Jesus fucking christ. What the hell is going on? That last twitter sounds like there's a massacre going on.

EDIT: Uh oh, this doesn't look good: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/24/iran-protests-bloody-clashes-khamenei

Bloody clashes broke out in Tehran today as Iran's supreme leader said he would not yield to pressure over the disputed election. The renewed confrontation took place in Baharestan Square, near parliament, where hundreds of protesters faced off against several thousand riot police and other security personnel.

Witnesses likened the scene to a ­war zone, with helicopters hovering overhead, many arrests and the police beating demonstrators.

One woman told CNN that hundreds of unidentified men armed with clubs had emerged from a mosque to confront the protesters.

"They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood and her husband fainted. They were beating people like hell. It was a massacre," she said.

The opposition website Rooz Online carried what it said was an interview with a man the government had shipped in to Tehran to quell the demonstrations. He said he was being paid 2m rial (£122) to assault protesters with a heavy wooden stave, and that other volunteers, most of them from far-flung provinces, were being kept in hostel accommodation, reportedly in east Tehran.

Positively sickening.

[BlackPete]

More depressing news: Neda Soltan family forced out of their homes by Iranian authorities: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/24/neda-soltan-iran-family-forced-out)

The Iranian authorities have ordered the family of Neda Agha Soltan out of their Tehran home after shocking images of her death were circulated around the world.

Neighbours said that her family no longer lives in the four-floor apartment building on Meshkini Street, in eastern Tehran, having been forced to move since she was killed. The police did not hand the body back to her family, her funeral was cancelled, she was buried without letting her family know and the government banned mourning ceremonies at mosques, the neighbours said.

"We just know that they [the family] were forced to leave their flat," a neighbour said. The Guardian was unable to contact the family directly to confirm if they had been forced to leave.

This family can't seem to get a break. Whatever happens to Ahmandinejad and Khatemenei in the end, I hope it's slow and agonizingly painful.

[Vector]

All of a sudden noone is scoffing at Bush's inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil".

[BlackPete]

All of a sudden noone is scoffing at Bush's inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil".

I'll still scoff as it's a gross oversimplification of Iranian politics.

There's a split in the mullahs, the army is staying neutral, the police are refusing to beat down the protestors, and Rasfanjani is apparently working hard to topple Khamenei (and Ahmandinejad?) as we speak (although this part is unconfirmed as yet).

Ahmandinejad, Khamenei, and the Basij are evil guys, but that doesn't mean everyone in Iranian politics are evil.

[Banacek]

Ahmandinejad, Khamenei, and the Basij are evil guys, but that doesn't mean everyone in Iranian politics are evil.

Aren't they the ones in complete control of the whole Iranian Government?

[Crittias]

I didn't read the entire thread, so if this is a repost, I apologize:
The Devil Is in the Digits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062000004.html), a story over at The Washington Post, discusses how they have statistically shown that the reported numbers from the election are likely fraudulent.

I'm teaching an Intro Statistics course this summer, so this story was particularly interesting to me and my students (...well, to me, at least).

[BlackPete]

Aren't they the ones in complete control of the whole Iranian Government?

Not exactly... as noted before, there's a fracture in the mullahs who pretty much ARE the government. I don't know yet what this'll mean in the long run, but they (right now) definitely do NOT control the police, the army, and even (if rumours are true) the Guard. They "should" control them, but so far they've been taking a neutral stance.

They have the Basijs and that's pretty much it. I'm not even sure if the Basijs are an official part of the government as they are generally regarded by the Iranians as thugs who couldn't make it onto the police force.

When you have clerics taking part in the protests, then there is a very serious chasm in the government.

There's mass arrests going on now to round up these rogues, so we'll see who'll get the last word. It could take months, if not a year, for all this to play out. The last revolution took about that long, so I don't expect to see a speedy end to this revolution.

[Slack3r78]

All of a sudden noone is scoffing at Bush's inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil".
What's happening on the ground in Iran is pretty bad, but that doesn't make the whole 'axis of evil' non-sense any less of a wholesale irresponsible statement than it always has been.

[torrefaction]

What's happening on the ground in Iran is pretty bad, but that doesn't make the whole 'axis of evil' non-sense any less of a wholesale irresponsible statement than it always has been.

Agreed. It's stupid to put a whole country into black and white, good versus evil terms. Maybe if he called Ahmadinejad evil, I could agree (But still think it'd be a stupid thing to say)...but it was nothing but polarizing to label Iran an Axis of Evil.

North Korea though? Yeah...I don't really see anything wrong with that. Those people are brainwashed beyond belief.

[Doogie2K]

North Korea though? Yeah...I don't really see anything wrong with that. Those people are brainwashed beyond belief.

You'll believe anything when you only eat every other week.

[National Kato]

This family can't seem to get a break. Whatever happens to Ahmandinejad and Khatemenei in the end, I hope it's slow and agonizingly painful.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it, always."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)

I don't know, that quote always helps me when it seems like the bad people in the world prevail.

[Generation ABXY]

North Korea though? Yeah...I don't really see anything wrong with that. Those people are brainwashed beyond belief.

Honestly, if even half the stuff I've heard about that place is true, I actually feel kind of sorry for them.

[torrefaction]

Honestly, if even half the stuff I've heard about that place is true, I actually feel kind of sorry for them.

I certainly feel sorry for them. But not as much as I'm worried for the South Koreans.

[BlackPete]

Honestly, if even half the stuff I've heard about that place is true, I actually feel kind of sorry for them.

Hell I feel sorry for them. Even though I know that if I were to say anything bad about Kim Jong Il in front of them, they'd tear me apart into a bloody mess, I still feel sorry for them.

This article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121003855.html) gives you a pretty chilling insight into the North Korean mindset.

[Serapth]

Ahmadinejad wins again! (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009629151258105455.html)

Anyone truly shocked? Warning, that link is to Aljazeera and could get you put on a terrorist watch list! ;)

[Tel Prydain]

Grim stuff, really.
My thoughts are with Persiankiwi and all the others that are now held over there.

[Narradisall]

Ahmadinejad wins again! (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009629151258105455.html)

Anyone truly shocked? Warning, that link is to Aljazeera and could get you put on a terrorist watch list! ;)

Colour me unsurprised. They'll crack down harder on the opposition now (since they've been a bit more subdued recently) and some people will vanish and we'll be back to the good old nuke making back and forth saber rattling inbetween them and the west.

[Lance Uppercut]

The protests seem to have tapered off due to the effective violence against protesters, but it's a Pyrrhic victory at best. The government has lost all credibility in the Middle Eastern and international community (though certain Shia countries like Iraq are afraid to speak out against Khamenei).

I don't think the protests will be going away either. The more the unrest amongst the clerics builds up, the more opportunities the protesters will have to surface again.

[Slack3r78]

Watching this entire situation unfold in Iran has struck me as one of the most effective arguments for private gun ownership that I've ever seen.

[Narradisall]

Watching this entire situation unfold in Iran has struck me as one of the most effective arguments for private gun ownership that I've ever seen.

Yes, because any day now your democracy is going to turn on you and send the police and military out to start shooting its citizens.

[Slack3r78]

Yes, because any day now your democracy is going to turn on you and send the police and military out to start shooting its citizens.
Better to have without need than to lack when necessary.

At this point, it's looking like Iran will not see full blown revolution precisely because the government owns monopoly of force.

It's also a pretty effective counter to the militia argument in terms of American gun politics because the Basij is the militia, and they're what's being used to forcibly put down the revolt.

[Narradisall]

Better to have without need than to lack when necessary.

At this point, it's looking like Iran will not see full blown revolution precisely because the government owns monopoly of force.

It's also a pretty effective counter to the militia argument in terms of American gun politics because the Basij is the militia, and they're what's being used to forcibly put down the revolt.

Kinda like condoms then?

Its still a bit of an apples and pears comparison to me (at least if your comparing US/Iran), because to have got to that point, the majority of the Armed forces would be against you.

I'm sure some people would put up a fight, but wouldn't it make more sense to prevent it becoming a totalitarian state first?

All I need is a Guy Fawkes mask and a lot of fertilizer for, you know, my ...farm..

[Slack3r78]

Its still a bit of an apples and pears comparison to me (at least if your comparing US/Iran), because to have got to that point, the majority of the Armed forces would be against you.
Actually, part of the reason revolution appeared feasible in Iran is because this is not necessarily the case. There's been a fracture in leadership both civilly and militarily.

I'm sure some people would put up a fight, but wouldn't it make more sense to prevent it becoming a totalitarian state first?
Monopoly of force allows the state to drift toward totalitarianism without fear of retribution. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 began as a popular movement.

[Serapth]

For the record, the Basij really aren't that well armed.

[Slack3r78]

For the record, the Basij really aren't that well armed.
They don't need to be if the people aren't armed at all.

[torrefaction]

Kinda like condoms then?

Its still a bit of an apples and pears comparison to me (at least if your comparing US/Iran), because to have got to that point, the majority of the Armed forces would be against you.

You're crazy if you think that the military wouldn't fracture if someone tried to jack power the way they are. I have numerous friends who I'm SURE wouldn't fire on a US citizen...being, you know, against the charter of the US military and all. Direct order or not.

Which means you can also guarantee a revolution in America, both sides would have tanks.

[Ink Asylum]

The Iranian power grab couldn't happen tomorrow in America. It would take decades or more for the government to become corrupt enough for it to be successful here. Even if we didn't have the second amendment.

[ShivaX]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

In fresh displays of defiance, Iran's opposition leader told supporters Wednesday "it's not yet too late" to push for their rights, and he joined a reformist ex-president in condemning the regime for a post-election crackdown both said was tantamount to a coup.

Iran's standoff with the West escalated with the European Union considering pulling out all 27 of its ambassadors in retaliation for the recent detentions of several local employees of the British Embassy in Tehran, despite Iranian claims that all but one had been released.

Embattled opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi said he considered Iran's cleric-led government illegitimate, and he demanded that it release all political prisoners and institute electoral reforms and press freedoms. Former President Mohammad Khatami, meanwhile, lashed out at what he termed "a poisonous security situation" in the wake of violent street protests.

In boldly worded statements posted on their Web sites, Khatami accused Iran's leadership of a "velvet coup against the people and democracy," and Mousavi said the government's crackdown on demonstrators was "tantamount to a coup."

Well those guy's days are likely numbered, but more power to them.

[Shrinn]

I'm surprised he's still alive now. He made a few public appearances didn't he?

Not that the opposition would want him dead, but a random stupid basij or Admaslammalammadingdong supporter at the rallies.

[Ox]

I have numerous friends who I'm SURE wouldn't fire on a US citizen...being, you know, against the charter of the US military and all.
Huh. They must have changed it since the Civil War. Or Kent State. Or New Orleans.

[Doogie2K]

Huh. They must have changed it since the Civil War. Or Kent State. Or New Orleans.

Wasn't Kent State the National Guard, not the Army itself? (And, for that matter, New Orleans.) Might be a relevant distinction.

[Narradisall]

You're crazy if you think that the military wouldn't fracture if someone tried to jack power the way they are. I have numerous friends who I'm SURE wouldn't fire on a US citizen...being, you know, against the charter of the US military and all. Direct order or not.

Which means you can also guarantee a revolution in America, both sides would have tanks.

I think you kind of missed my point.

Similar to the one below your post. I don't think it would happen, unless the military are replaced by robots.

Its why I find it odd when Americans quote about holding guns against this type of stuff happening, not that it couldn't happen, just that it would take some years for it to get to that stage. Some people make it sound like there is a switch somewhere that would suddenly be flipped and the US will start rolling its tanks over civi's to keep them in line.

[Shrinn]

I think you kind of missed my point.

Similar to the one below your post. I don't think it would happen, unless the military are replaced by robots.

Its why I find it odd when Americans quote about holding guns against this type of stuff happening, not that it couldn't happen, just that it would take some years for it to get to that stage. Some people make it sound like there is a switch somewhere that would suddenly be flipped and the US will start rolling its tanks over civi's to keep them in line.

And on top of that, I can't imagine that one of the first steps in a theoretical corrupt American government wouldn't be to outlaw civilian guns because of how dangerous they are to a corrupt regime.

[Khrymsyn]

And on top of that, I can't imagine that one of the first steps in a theoretical corrupt American government wouldn't be to outlaw civilian guns because of how dangerous they are to a corrupt regime.

Ummm... have you paid attention to gun control topics for... I dunno... the last 60 years?

The rights of citizens to own guns HAS been curtailed slowly over decades, and over the last 2 decades especially it's been pushed harder and harder that honest citizens don't need them and they should be outlawed. They've taken away certain types of handguns, "assualt rifles", anything "automatic", and legislated only certain sized clips in some cases. Just because a dramatic "no more guns!" law hasn't been passed, doesn't mean that rights to weaponry in this country hasn't been slowly taken away from legal citizens, and isn't heading towards a possible direction of a ban.

[Slack3r78]

And on top of that, I can't imagine that one of the first steps in a theoretical corrupt American government wouldn't be to outlaw civilian guns because of how dangerous they are to a corrupt regime.
Okay, so now you're basically making the argument for me. They're a preventative.

The idea that we don't need firearms simply because our government hasn't yet slipped into tyranny is entirely missing the point.

[torrefaction]

Wasn't Kent State the National Guard, not the Army itself? (And, for that matter, New Orleans.) Might be a relevant distinction.

Yep. I didn't make the distinction in my post, but the Posse Comitatus act does not apply to either the National Guard or the Coast guard.

Reading more on it appears that over the years that it's been eroded, which I was not aware of, really. It still is a protection against low level officers, but anything at the level of the National Command Authority appears to now have provisions that allow them to effectively bypass the original intent of the act, mostly due to more modern concerns of terrorism and WMD's.

[Slack3r78]

Some people make it sound like there is a switch somewhere that would suddenly be flipped and the US will start rolling its tanks over civi's to keep them in line.
Which isn't the argument I'm making at all.

In fact, the Iran situation isn't analogous to that at all. The Iranian Revolution was a popular movement. Over time it has generally become more totalitarian. With this most recent election, the people have had the one bone of democracy they were thrown taken away from them as well. When they protested this, the protests were allowed for a bit, and the government response to them has become gradually more violent. The government knows they can respond violently because they have a monopoly of force over the people.

My entire fucking point is that what's happening in Iran did not happen overnight.

[Narradisall]

Calm down Slacker.

Yes, it didn't happen overnight, but they still allowed it to happen, by voting for them up to that point. There are plenty of other ways to prevent a change from a Democracy to a Totalitarian state.

I just truely don't believe that the only thing that stops governments ruling the people like cattle is when the people are armed.

Anyway, we went way off topic. Has there been anymore developments in Iran since the 'recount' and announcing win? It suddenly seems to have gone rather quiet there, which probably isn't a good thing.

[torrefaction]

Calm down Slacker.

Yes, it didn't happen overnight, but they still allowed it to happen, by voting for them up to that point. There are plenty of other ways to prevent a change from a Democracy to a Totalitarian state.

I just truely don't believe that the only thing that stops governments ruling the people like cattle is when the people are armed.

Anyway, we went way off topic. Has there been anymore developments in Iran since the 'recount' and announcing win? It suddenly seems to have gone rather quiet there, which probably isn't a good thing.

You're right, the news isn't good.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/iran.information/index.html

[Narradisall]

Yeah, sadly enough I'm not at all surprised the late night 'arrests' are starting to take place. They've regained control and they'll be spending the next few weeks systimatically hunting down all the ring leaders, most of which will vanish, some probably perminantly.

[BlackPete]

Uh oh... this could get interesting very quickly: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8134904.stm)

A group of clerics in Iran has called Iran's presidential vote invalid, contradicting official results.

The pro-reform group's statement pits it against the top legislative body, which last week formally endorsed the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The people at the top levels are definitely breaking apart, so this isn't over yet. Not by a long shot.

EDIT: I found this graphic very cool...

http://images.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/06/22/morning_iran/story.gif

Rasfajani is a former president and now chairman of the Assembly of Experts, group of clerics which is responsible for appointing or removing the Supreme Leader. He's been a key figure since the election, siding w/Mousavi.

Remember that Rasfajani's daughter was briefly arrested a few weeks ago... that did NOT make him happy at all.

[BlackPete]

More protest pics: http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/30472/irans-newest-protests

The revolution isn't going to go anywhere despite the threat of a bloody crackdown.

[DoctorFinger]

In case anyone cares, Obama's press secretary now refers to Ahmadinejad (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-administration-recognizes-ahmadinejad-as-elected-leader-of-iran/) as the "elected leader" of Iran. Meaning Obama has now endorsed the fraud.

[Telefrog]

In case anyone cares, Obama's press secretary now refers to Ahmadinejad (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-administration-recognizes-ahmadinejad-as-elected-leader-of-iran/) as the "elected leader" of Iran. Meaning Obama has now endorsed the fraud.

I'm not sure what you expect Obama to do. The revolutionary furor has pretty much died down to a general rumble of discontent and griping. The overthrow didn't happen. At some point we have to deal with the guy that is in charge of the country, regardless of our feelings about the election.

Europe didn't stop dealing with us when many of them felt that Gore legitimately won the election against Bush, correct?

[Generation ABXY]

Europe didn't stop dealing with us when many of them felt that Gore legitimately won the election against Bush, correct?

No, they didn't have any backbone either. :p

[Johan]

I'm not sure what you expect Obama to do.

Not endorse a fraudulently elected official?
Not endorse an administration that is literally killing people who simply choose to publicly protest the fraud?

There must be other options, besides just going along with it. Hell...we're protesting the situation in Honduras, where their own Supreme Court declared their president's attempt at illegally extending his power as illegal, where the guy ignores them and fires his military leader who refuses to obey him in ignoring their Supreme Court, and then refuses to reinstate him when their highest court orders him too...

and we're siding with him. :rolling eyes:

[DoctorFinger]

I'm not sure what you expect Obama to do. The revolutionary furor has pretty much died down to a general rumble of discontent and griping. The overthrow didn't happen. At some point we have to deal with the guy that is in charge of the country, regardless of our feelings about the election.

Europe didn't stop dealing with us when many of them felt that Gore legitimately won the election against Bush, correct?One, are you really comparing the 2000 election to what happened in Iran? I'm going to assume you aren't.

Secondly Obama should do the right thing and, at worse, say nothing or at best continue to pound the drum. Maybe if he took a stronger stand the furor wouldn't have died down so quickly.

As it is he's explicitly endorsing the result of a clearly fraudulent election. Why? What reasonable gain is there for us.