Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Unrest in Iran
If you want a rundown of reasons to suspect that Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's victory in yesterday's Iranian election was fixed,
Juan Cole makes the case here.
Cent Uygur offers some similar thoughts
here. In The New Yorker, Laura Secor
writes that "dissident employees of the Interior Ministry,
which is under the control of President Ahmadinejad and is
responsible for the mechanics of the polling and counting of votes,
have reportedly issued an open letter saying" the vote was stolen.
Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, on the other hand, believes it was a
more-or-less legitimate election in which western journalists
mistook Mir Hossein Mousavi's articulate and educated supporters in
northern Tehran for the voice of the people at large.
Mousavi himself clearly thinks the contest was rigged, and a lot of his supporters do as well:
Thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets of Tehran in protest against the outcome of the country's elections, in the biggest unrest since the 1979 revolution.
Riot police were deployed in the capital on Saturday after about 3,000 supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, a reformist candidate, rioted following the announcement of his defeat by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president....
Al Jazeera's Teymoor Nabili, reporting from Tehran, said major streets in the north of the city had come to a standstill.
The Iranian human rights activist Hadi Ghaemi offers some wise thoughts about the proper U.S. reaction here. Michael Totten has a bunch of links and video clips about the revolt here, and Smart Mobs is following the coverage in social media here. And BigSoccer.com, of all places, has a bunch of protest photos here. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised to see that at a soccer board -- it isn't the first time the sport has intersected with Iranian dissent.
EJM|6.13.09 @ 10:34PM|#
I plugged a similar new
GlobalPost item earlier; meanwhile, here are some excerpts from
the latest DPA round-up...
As the situation grew out of control, police had to resort to
using tear gas against large numbers of protestors. There were
reports of shooting near the Vanak square in Tehran, causing fear
among residents in the rather crowded business district.
What started as a widespread feeling of deep frustration with the
electoral process rapidly transformed into anger. While police
banned demonstrations and cancelled a press conference for foreign
correspondents, the protestors - mainly Moussavi's supporters -
wouldn't back down.
As they hurled stones at the police and burnt tyres and garbage,
the protestors shouted slogans: 'We want our voices back,' 'Death
to the dictator,' [']We don't want the Taliban in Tehran.'
Observers described the situation as 'explosive,' as thick plumes
of smoke rose over Tehran.
There were no immediate reports available of deaths or
injuries.
Some voiced their displeasure more passively - carrying banners
that said, 'I want my vote back,' or praying, [']Allaho Akbar' (god
is great).
[...]
Moussavi had already declared himself the victor shortly after
polling closed, and later claimed there had been large-scale
irregularities.
'The Iranians know very well for whom they have voted and will
neither accept the vote counting charade on (state) television nor
follow those who have come to power with cheating and deception,'
Moussavi said in a statement on his website.
A confidant of Moussavi's said that the fraud was apparent because
the official IRNA news agency knew at about midnight that
Ahmadinejad would remain president, even though the official
results were to be announced on Saturday morning. The source called
the counting process a sham, mere drama.
The other fallout of Ahmadinejad's re-election and the ensuing
violence was that the government clamped down on internet services
and cellphones, with Tehran residents complaining that they were
unable to send or receive SMS. Popular social networking website's
like Facebook were also blocked, as was Moussavi's personal
website.
Alberta Libertarian|6.13.09 @ 10:53PM|#
Any bets on how quickly the Iranian government starts to really crack down?
mahan|6.13.09 @ 11:00PM|#
This election was fixed period. The results in the most record
breaking turnout was out faster then the polls closed. I have
friends and family on the ground and NO they are not from Tehran
and are from the provinces and they all say the same: the results
were turned around for this bastard.
Shame on the ilks of Christopher Dickey who pronounce a judgment of
fairness from these sham elections. The only people happy about
these elections is Bibi Netanyahu and his supporters in Newsweak,
Fox and other right winger neocons. Now, they can use
Ahamadibaboboon as a porpoganda for another 4 years and build
settlements and stcik it to Obama! Shame on all of you!
EJM|6.13.09 @ 11:46PM|#
Also, FWIW, both FP's "Passport" and Mr. Kristof are plugging this post by Gary Sick.
Underzog|6.14.09 @ 12:07AM|#
More utter garbage from Reason "Ernst Rhoem Today"
magazine!
The humane for the United States to do would be to invade Iran and
overthrow the Mullahs. Since the U.S. will do nothing, Israel will
probably have to nuke Iran to prevent Armanidinnerjacket from
nuking Israel.
The latter action would make "Reason" Magazine scream hysterically,
but that is a good thing. If Israel takes action to defend
themselves from a second holocaust and it bothers the deviant
Libertarians, then it's a double bonus.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
underzog|6.14.09 @ 12:14AM|#
Did Ayn Rand (whom the Libertarians parasitize off of) really
say that "Arabs are savages who just don't want to use their
minds"?
I know that Ayn Rand said during the Iranian hostage crises that
they're savages. They steal our oil and try to murder us with
it.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
Your Majesty|6.14.09 @ 12:22AM|#
Considering that the mullahs pre-approve all candidates for
figurehead offices, Iranian elections are -- by definition -- fixed
regardless of outcome.
If the mullahs are stupid enough to provoke the masses by denying
them a placebo, good.
Hugh Akston|6.14.09 @ 12:27AM|#
Did Ayn Rand (whom the Libertarians parasitize off of)
really say that "Arabs are savages who just don't want to use their
minds"?
[citation needed]
I know that Ayn Rand said during the Iranian hostage crises
that they're savages. They steal our oil and try to murder us with
it. [citation needed]
Also, for the record, "parasitize" is not a word.
underzog|6.14.09 @ 12:27AM|#
Also, does anyone want any pictures of me blowing myself? If so,
just let me know and I will email them too you. I have tons of
them.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
|6.14.09 @ 12:46AM|#
For Ahmadinejad (that sucks w/o a spell checker) to have carried
the election by the margins he did in the cities would have been
the equivalent of McCain carrying 90% of the minority vote in the
'08 election here. Didn't happen, no way, no how.
I agree with the sentiments of Alberta Libertarian. The police in
the raw footage of the riots aren't really laying into their
victims with those riot sticks. They're intelligently more
concerned with the angry mob around them. A military action will be
taken, and I would expect to see human rights jettisoned almost
immidately.
However, I am extreme distressed to see reports from SoS Clinton
that the US is "monitoring" the elections. Talk about something
that needs to be at the top of the list of "Not Our Problem"...
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad|6.14.09 @ 1:01AM|#
I won you pig fuckers!
Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad homs, as
libertarians concede my points and show their childish,
anti-intellectual nature.
|6.14.09 @ 1:15AM|#
How old is underzog? Because if that's a grown man,that's just
sad.
I mean, sure it's fun to troll sometimes, but
constantly?
cosanostradamus|6.14.09 @ 1:28AM|#
.
You SEE how these primitives handle a small political problem? Why
can't they simply go before their Supreme Court and let the
Justices pick their leader? It's the Christian thing to do.
Democracy just doesn't work when you get too many people involved.
Having only one side is SO much easier. They just haven't evolved
sufficiently. Thank GAWD we don't have any of these crazed
religious fanatics and political extremists in America!
.
|6.14.09 @ 1:30AM|#
Any bets on how quickly the Iranian government starts to
really crack down?
They've been really cracking down for decades, just like the
Romanian and East German governments used to.
When the people see how many others share their dissatisfaction,
there comes a tipping point that can destroy a tyrant. I hope the
Iranians can bounce the clerics out of power with a minimum of
bloodshed.
-jcr
|6.14.09 @ 1:33AM|#
The only people happy about these elections is Bibi
Netanyahu
I'm sure that Netanyahu would be happier than anyone if Iran
overthrew their rulers all by themselves.
-jcr
|6.14.09 @ 1:42AM|#
The only people happy about these elections is Bibi Netanyahu and his supporters in Newsweak, Fox and other right winger neocons.
Newsweek? Right wing neocons?
Even all that Daniel Pipes said was that he sympathized with the
Iranian people, but that the Council of Guardians and other
ayatollahs would never let a real reformer win the Presidency and
actually make changes. If anyone else did win, they either wouldn't
be sincere or would have no power to make changes. Any candidate
who was sincere and might be able to have power wouldn't be allowed
to win. Therefore, under his opinion, if Mir Hossein Mousavi won,
there would be no change. Only if Mousavi lost would there be a
chance that there could have been change if he had been allowed to
win.
I'm afraid that events are proving him right. I would have
loved to have been proven wrong, though. I'd love for the
students to be able to overthrow the government, too.
If the election was fixed, that makes me feel better about Mousavi,
then.
|6.14.09 @ 2:27AM|#
I'm not saying the outcome of the election was predetermined, but there's a possibility Vince McMahon was involved.
|6.14.09 @ 2:27AM|#
Shame on the ilks of Christopher Dickey who pronounce a judgment of fairness from these sham elections...stcik it to Obama!
mahan:
Let's suppose that the protests are unable to succeed,
unfortunately. Then for Obama to live up to his plans of engaging
Iran, he will be forced to publicly act as though these elections
are legitimate. He will not be able to engage Iran's government
while insisting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not actually win the
elections. Will that be shameful, if he pretends that the elections
were fair?
The people "sticking it to Obama" are those fixing the election. He
may be forced to make a difficult decision.
|6.14.09 @ 3:10AM|#
And to continue the wrestling metaphor, Ahmadenijad's going to
continue to get a lot of heat, because he's like the Corporate
Champion instead of the People's Champion. He's the heel that gets
a huge push from the management, both kayfabe and real.
It's kind of dissapointing because I'm sure he's not going to lose
his belt on Monday Night Raw.
Alberta Libertarian|6.14.09 @ 3:21AM|#
and it begins....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6495691.ece
//At least 10 leaders of two Iranian reformist groups who backed
defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi have been
arrested after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election in a
deeply-disputed vote sparked riots across Tehran.//
On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high percentage
of Iranian women are hawt.
|6.14.09 @ 3:29AM|#
On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high percentage of Iranian women are hawt.
Yes. I'm sure the conservative mullahs have tried not to notice, though.
zoltan|6.14.09 @ 4:53AM|#
Let's suppose that the protests are unable to succeed,
unfortunately. Then for Obama to live up to his plans of engaging
Iran, he will be forced to publicly act as though these elections
are legitimate. He will not be able to engage Iran's government
while insisting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not actually win the
elections. Will that be shameful, if he pretends that the elections
were fair?
How should Obama "engage" Medvedev? This is weird. Then again, he
should also unequivocally condemn both governments and their
pseudo-elections.
|6.14.09 @ 5:03AM|#
How should Obama "engage" Medvedev? This is weird. Then again, he should also unequivocally condemn both governments and their pseudo-elections.
Well, with Medvedev and Ahmadenijad, the correct response is to either A) Stroll up on them in the middle of the ring, microphone in hand, impugn their legitimacy, slap them and then run away, jump over the ropes and exit up the ramp with theme music playing or B) Wait until they're in the middle of a match with another wrestler, then slide into the ring with a folding chair. Multiple chairshots ensue and maybe one of those foreign dignitaries ends up "wearing the crimson mask".
Elemenope|6.14.09 @ 5:19AM|#
B) Wait until they're in the middle of a match with another
wrestler, then slide into the ring with a folding chair. Multiple
chairshots ensue and maybe one of those foreign dignitaries ends up
"wearing the crimson mask".
Foreign relations usually boils down to some variation on "B".
|6.14.09 @ 5:40AM|#
Foreign relations usually boils down to some variation on "B".
Yeah, true. Of course, half the time it ends up backfiring.
|6.14.09 @ 6:46AM|#
The key force behind this is the next generation, the
Millennials, who elected Obama in America and may oust Ahmadinejad
in Iran. They want freedom; they are sick of lies; they enjoy life
and know hope.
Is it just me or does Andrew Sullivan make everyone want to
vomit?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-revolution-will-be-twittered-1.html
|6.14.09 @ 7:14AM|#
Why are those slut Iranian women not wearing their Hijab? Why
isn't Iran enforcing proper dress like the United States great ally
in the Middle East Saudi Arabia. Why is Iran even having elections,
hasn't the US shown that by its support that hereditary
dictatorships is the proper form of government. The US even fought
a war against Iraq to make the world safe for the hereditary
dictatorship of Kuwait
Iran needs to follow US demands and install the proper kind of
hereditary dictatorship. The Shah was OK but too soft hearted, they
needs someone tough who will keep those Iranians in line. Maybe the
Saudis can provide a prince to take over? [/s]
|6.14.09 @ 7:26AM|#
"On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high
percentage of Iranian women are hawt."
You are not kidding. Wow, they are beautiful.
@Joshua and JR.
Me either. I can't read Sullivan without choking my own vomit. How
he still has a job is beyond me. I guess they feel sorry for him
because he is sick. What a clown. Every event in the world is just
another excuse to lick Obama a little harder.
|6.14.09 @ 7:29AM|#
"Then again, he should also unequivocally condemn both
governments and their pseudo-elections."
He won't because he honestly thinks that his shit doesn't stink. He
has all the wisdom and knowldege of foreign policy as a college kid
who just joined the Peace Corps. He really believes that he can
just solve everything once he has a chance to talk it out with
people. He ought to support the dissendents publicly and not
recognize dumb ass as the President. But Obama won't, he will set
up some meeting and blow Amedinejad in front of the entire world
and give the Mullahs legitimacy in crushing dissent.
Tricky Prickears|6.14.09 @ 7:42AM|#
I foresee long, drawn out battles, between teams of lawyers that are in the pockets of special interest groups, in both the established court system, and the court of public opinion. The final decision will be made by a split decision of judges, who ignore the actual vote counts, and make their decisions based on their own self-serving, self-righteous opinions.
Tricky Prickears|6.14.09 @ 7:44AM|#
Don't be surprised if Warren Christopher and Jim Baker make an unexpected trip to Iran.
|6.14.09 @ 7:54AM|#
Me either. I can't read Sullivan without choking my own
vomit. How he still has a job is beyond me.
Well they hired that Ta-Nehisi Coates guy to blog about rap videos
and video games, so the standards can't be too high at the Atlantic
these days.
|6.14.09 @ 7:57AM|#
"Well they hired that Ta-Nehisi Coates guy to blog about rap
videos and video games, so the standards can't be too high at the
Atlantic these days."
True. Their idea of deep thinking is Megan McCardle.
|6.14.09 @ 7:59AM|#
"On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high
percentage of Iranian women are hawt."
"You are not kidding. Wow, they are beautiful."
It is almost enough motivation to seriously consider converting to
Islam in order to get a piece of the action.
Their political system is shitty, but their women are one hell of a
consolation prize.
|6.14.09 @ 8:08AM|#
True. Their idea of deep thinking is Megan
McCardle.
McCardle ain't so bad though - she posts some interesting links and
isn't an Obama cheerleader.
|6.14.09 @ 8:19AM|#
"McCardle ain't so bad though - she posts some interesting links
and isn't an Obama cheerleader."
She is not so bad. But she can't get over the fact that she is a
rich white girl from Manhattan. She gets on these "it is
irresponsible to live in the suburbs" kicks and her stupid white
girl shows. Whenever she talks about cities and driving and global
warming, she is beyond annoying. This is a woman who admits that
she can't spend a night in the suburbs of Washington because being
in a house with a yard alone scares her. No kidding. She can't take
spending a night in the wilds of Bethesda.
|6.14.09 @ 8:21AM|#
"It is almost enough motivation to seriously consider converting
to Islam in order to get a piece of the action."
There is a woman who works in my office who is Iranian and she is
Christian. So you never know. She is so hot it is hard to have a
conversation with her. She is very nice and pleasent. But, she is
so hot any straight male has a hard time thinking straight. She is
literally distractingly attractive.
me|6.14.09 @ 9:08AM|#
The most important fact in knowing whether or not the results were fixed is the record high turnout. While there are unlikely but possible scenarios in which Ahmadinejad gets 60% with a low/normal turnout, there's no way that there are that many Ahmadinejad voters. All the people who ordinarily boycott came out to vote for... the status quo? When unemployment is rampant?
|6.14.09 @ 9:26AM|#
LOL, Bought and paid for thats all I can say! Bought and paid
for!
Jiff
www.absolute-anonymity.us.tc
|6.14.09 @ 9:43AM|#
Depsite hating their government, Iranians still don't like the US. No one should think President McHopey can get naked and ride his unicorn over to Iran and patch things up. At this point, I don't see what we can do beyond voicing support for the dissenters and staying out of it. I fear, however, that McHopey will find a way to do something stupid and counter productive.
hmm|6.14.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Isn't this election basically a matter of elected dictator v.
elected dictator backed by religious dictator and a few old dudes?
It's basically what we have going on here in the U.S. You can have
an elected asshole in flavor A or flavor B, but you're still
getting a worthless asshole.
The last time they had a revolution they started the process of
being ostracized by the "free" world. If it gets as far as last
time lets hope the outcome is a little better.
None the less it sucks for them. At least their population is
willing to take up arms for their rights. Unlike some nations that
just roll over like a beat dog.
|6.14.09 @ 10:00AM|#
"It's basically what we have going on here in the U.S. You can
have an elected asshole in flavor A or flavor B, but you're still
getting a worthless asshole."
Please cast your votes for either Giant Douche or Turd
Sandwich.
MaterialMonkee|6.14.09 @ 10:22AM|#
Have to agree with the Andrew Sullivan view
that the reformist movement in Iran and the recent election result
in Lebanon are a reciprocation of internet savy Muslims responding
to the open arms that internet savy Americans sent out by choosing
Obama.
The problem here is that internet using voters make up a far
smaller percentage of the Iranian population (Iran 34.9%)(USA
72.5%).
www.payvand.com/news/08/sep/1146.html
www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm
If you assume that people without internet access are more likely
to vote for a conservative candidate and maybe 25% of people with
internet access are still fairly culturally conservative.
The election results in Iran look very realistic
expected % of vote for reformist = 0.75 x pop% with internet
access
54% in the USA
26% in Iran
Even if there wasn't vote tampering I get the feeling the silent
conservative moral majority would have won it fair and square in
Iran.
(I dont consider either Obama or Mousavi socially
liberal/libertarian but they are the least conservative in either
respetive countrty(can't be arsed to start an argument on that
one!))
Nemo|6.14.09 @ 10:26AM|#
Shut the fuck up Lone-
Shut the fuck up Underzog. Also, Iranians aren't Arabs.
|6.14.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News's new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news - and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration's "totalitarian" agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).
Paul Krugman's vagina hurts.
A
lot.
|6.14.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Fourth, the political class is going to attempt the politically unthinkable. The U.S. is going to have to move toward a consumption tax, to discourage spending and encourage savings. There's also a crying need for tax reform. As economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin points out, the tax code is rife with provisions that encourage leverage and discourage investment. The government will have to spend less on transfer payments and more on investments in science and infrastructure.
The members of the Obama administration fully understand this and are brimming with good ideas about how to move from a bubble economy to an investment economy. Finding a political strategy to accomplish this, however, is proving to be very difficult. And getting Congress to move in this direction might be impossible.
Congressional leaders have been fixated on short-term conventional priorities throughout this entire episode. There is no evidence that the power brokers understand the fundamental transition ahead. They are practicing the same self-indulgence that got us into this mess.
-David
Brooks
Unfortunately, I think this part:
The members of the Obama administration fully understand
this and are brimming with good ideas about how to move from a
bubble economy to an investment economy.
is one hundred per cent wishful thinking.
Tricky Prickears|6.14.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Since the U.S. will do nothing, Israel will probably have to
nuke Iran to prevent Armanidinnerjacket from nuking Israel.
In all fairness, this action would probably gain support
from the Cristian Conservatives who believe that all of this
"nuking" will bring about the second coming.
yikes!|6.14.09 @ 11:16AM|#
No one should think President McHopey can get naked and ride
his unicorn over to Iran and patch things up.
That's a disturbing glimpse into John's fantasy world.
|6.14.09 @ 11:41AM|#
All of this (presidential election) would be very important if
the president of Iran was anything more than a front man for the
Ali Khamenei led theocracy. My guess (and that is all that this is)
is that Mousavi was perceived as not being sufficiently sycophantic
and Ahmadinejad was given the go ahead to rig the election.
I alternate between cynical amusement and righteous infuriation
regarding the sham elections in so many parts of the world.
Alice Bowie|6.14.09 @ 11:49AM|#
Iran would probably NOT have developed nuclear weapons had GW
Bush not named them as members of the "Axis of Evil".
If Israel were to Bomb Iran, rest assure that the Mid-East NUCLEAR
ARMS Race would be ON!!!
If these countries would not be able to develop them...they will
probably buy them...from somewhere.
It is NOT TO HARD TO UNDERSTAND why Iran wants Nuclear Weapons.
And, contrary to popular belief, it is NOT to destroy Israel...It's
from stopping the US/ISRAEL from destroying them.
You see, the President of Iran does not want to be executed
on www.YOU-TUBE.com. The Iranian people don't want to be
invaded by the US or Nuked by Israel. The only way to avoid
this is with a Nuclear Weapon. Once they have one, Israel
and the US will leave Iran alone...as they do to North Korea,
China, Russia, Pakastan, Indea, Israel, and other countries with
NUKES.
Do you know you can be PERFECTLY SURE THAT GWB and Dick Cheney knew
that IRAQ had no weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION...they INVADED.
Once Iran tests that nuclear weapon in the Indian ocean or
underground...I know 100% from WORLD EXPERIENCE that there will be
NO war between US/ISRAEL and IRAN.
|6.14.09 @ 11:56AM|#
He won't because he honestly thinks that his shit doesn't
stink. He has all the wisdom and knowldege of foreign policy as a
college kid who just joined the Peace Corps. He really believes
that he can just solve everything once he has a chance to talk it
out with people. He ought to support the dissendents publicly and
not recognize dumb ass as the President. But Obama won't, he will
set up some meeting and blow Amedinejad in front of the entire
world and give the Mullahs legitimacy in crushing
dissent.
How is that any different than this?
I looked the man [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.
I was able to get a sense of his soul.
|6.14.09 @ 12:04PM|#
"I looked the man [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be very
straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good
dialogue.
I was able to get a sense of his soul."
It is not. And how did that work out for us? But who cares? In case
you missed it, Bush isn't President anymore. You need to get some
therapy over your obsession with the man.
Elemenope|6.14.09 @ 12:26PM|#
I'm not understanding exactly people's objections to Andrew
Sullivan's point about how communications technologies are playing
a serious role in how dissidents can organize.
Is it simply that "we hate Andrew Sullivan" and thus whatever he
writes, correct or not, we should dismiss? Or is there something
wrong with his point?
Is he the Libertarian's gay, British Oliver Wendell Holmes, the guy
you love to hate...'cause?
|6.14.09 @ 12:34PM|#
It is not. And how did that work out for us? But who cares?
In case you missed it, Bush isn't President anymore. You need to
get some therapy over your obsession with the man.
My point was that with the change of administration we are
still saddled with a leader who is both gullible and an
egotist.
Perhaps I should have added the Pete Townsend lyrics for those who
are unable to detect nuanced cynicism.
Feel free to link to any H&R comment of yours mocking or taking
to task GWB's statesmanship. I've found the site search function at
the top of the page is actually pretty good for digging up my old
comments.
Richard Hoste|6.14.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, on the other hand, believes
it was a more-or-less legitimate election in which western
journalists mistook Mir Hossein Mousavi's articulate and educated
supporters in northern Tehran for the voice of the people at
large.
There's probably something to that. Elites, for all their supposed
open-mindess, do live in a bubble. Remember when the neocons
thought all Iraqis were like educated, secular Ahmad Chalabi?
HBD Books
Alberta Libertarian|6.14.09 @ 1:11PM|#
//The key force behind this is the next generation, the
Millennials, who elected Obama in America and may oust Ahmadinejad
in Iran. They want freedom; they are sick of lies; they enjoy life
and know hope.//
Andrew Sullivan's a moron. Has he ever written something half
decent before joining the Jim Jones club?
//It is NOT TO HARD TO UNDERSTAND why Iran wants Nuclear Weapons.
And, contrary to popular belief, it is NOT to destroy Israel...It's
from stopping the US/ISRAEL from destroying them.
You see, the President of Iran does not want to be executed on
www.YOU-TUBE.com. The Iranian people don't want to be invaded by
the US or Nuked by Israel. The only way to avoid this is with a
Nuclear Weapon. Once they have one, Israel and the US will leave
Iran alone...as they do to North Korea, China, Russia, Pakastan,
Indea, Israel, and other countries with NUKES.//
Yep, we just want to steal their hawt women.
//Once Iran tests that nuclear weapon in the Indian ocean or
underground...I know 100% from WORLD EXPERIENCE that there will be
NO war between US/ISRAEL and IRAN.//
Glad you could share your "100% world experience" with us
proles.
Paul|6.14.09 @ 1:33PM|#
If you want a rundown of reasons to suspect that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in yesterday's Iranian election was fixed, Juan
Dude, they declared a 63% landslide victory for Ahmadinejad 18
seconds after the polls closed. That's your first sign right
there.
Paul|6.14.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Oh, and help me out with this Iranian politics thing here. NPR
and BBC world service, gushing about how young, university students
are driving this new reform minded push in Tehran. Fine. Great.
Swingin' with the young people. They always go for freedom and
openness, right?
Wasn't it university students who were behind the revolution in the
70's that made Iran the kick-ass, lively and free democracy it is
today?
University students, keep your eye on them is all I'm sayin'.
|6.14.09 @ 1:53PM|#
The we don't really disagre J Sub D. Where Bush failed was in his belief that big fixes, rather than incrimental fixes or at best living with the least bad alternative, were possible. Obama is the same way. He thinks he can go over take the measure of people and solve things by talking it out like some Hollywood movie. Sadly, the world is not Hollywood.
|6.14.09 @ 2:02PM|#
John,
Yep.
And reality is also that in realistcdiplomacy, you have to
deal with unsavory and illegitimate regimes. That includes those
who are despised by blue teamers and those hated by team red.
|6.14.09 @ 2:13PM|#
"And reality is also that in realistcdiplomacy, you have to deal
with unsavory and illegitimate regimes."
Sometimes. But that shouldn't be an excuse to be a crapweasel like
the Europeans. Some people really are our enemies and can only be
delt with force or threat of force. As a general rule no country is
going to side with us unless it is in their interest to do so.
Sometimes, the only way to make it in their interest is to make it
clear that not doing what we want will result in us bombing the
shit of them. That is the only kind of diplomacy some
understand.
The Angry Optimist|6.14.09 @ 2:18PM|#
the fastest way to set Iran back 100 years is to follow your
advice about treating them as outright belligerents, John.
I mean, really, enough with the warmongering already. Have the
going-on-ten-years of war not worn you out yet?
|6.14.09 @ 2:22PM|#
"the fastest way to set Iran back 100 years is to follow your
advice about treating them as outright belligerents, John."
Who said I was talking about Iran? About Iran, it is totally in
their interest to build nuclear weapons. Possessing nuclear weapons
will make them the only nuclear middle eastern power other than
Israel. It will mean that every time they confront the US, the US
does so with the knowledge that they are risking a nuclear war.
Like China and Russia, it would give them the ability to crack down
dissidents with impunity. I mean is anyone going to risk nuclear
war over the Iranaian people?
We have three choices with Iran, pay them not to make nukes and
hope they honor the deal, bomb them or let them have nukes and
understand that if they should say attack us via terrorism or do
anything else short of all out war, we are going to have to take it
like a man an do nothing. No amount of talking and bullshit changes
those options or givess us any others.
The Angry Optimist|6.14.09 @ 2:39PM|#
given that the thread is about Iran and you were
responding to a post by J sub D about dealing with Iran, I
just kind of assumed that you were talking about Iran.
How, exactly, would Iran "attack us via terrorism", John? Do you
think you can just carry nuclear missiles around in your pocket or
something?
Perhaps if we didn't have a 160,000 Soldier target sitting
right next door, we might not be sabre-rattling yet again. If you
want to make sure United States interests are protected from Iran,
withdraw U.S. interests outside of the limited range of whatever
non-ICBM they can get their hands on.
|6.14.09 @ 2:51PM|#
"How, exactly, would Iran "attack us via terrorism", John? Do
you think you can just carry nuclear missiles around in your pocket
or something?"
Every terrorism intel person I know says that Hezbollah is about
100 times better organized the Al Quada and has sleeper cells all
over the US. They wouldn't use nukes against us. They will attack
us using low level terror. What are we going to do about it?
Imagine if the purpetraitors of 9-11 had been funded by a nuclear
Iran rather than AFghanistan, what would we have done? Not a God
damned thing. Once they have Nukes, Iran can pretty much do
whatever the hell it wants internally and in places like Lebanon
and anywhere else in the middle east.
They really do mean us harm AO. Will they nuke us? I doubt it. But
who knows. People have done crazier things. Even if they don't nuke
us, they certainly can cause us lots and lots of problems with
impunity. Confronting a nuclear power is a lot different than
confronting a conventional one. That is why they are going to get
nukes. When they have them, I guess we can hope for the best and
hope they like us or feel sorry for us or something. Because our
ability to do much to them will be limited.
|6.14.09 @ 2:53PM|#
AO,
You may have a point. One option of dealing with a nuclear armed
Iran is just to go home. Let them have Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If
they had nukes and no one but Isreal did, they could pretty much
walk over any of the other countries or certainly dominate them
into orbit. We can always roll the dice with a united nuclear armed
middle east ruled by the Mullahs. I mean really, how coud anything
bad happen there?
The Angry Optimist|6.14.09 @ 3:15PM|#
good Christ, Chicken-Little, yes, the sky really is
falling.
Does Iran show any signs or interest in rolling through Iraq and
Saudi Arabia? Given that the most powerful military in the world is
having difficulty in Iran, why would you assume that it would be
all peachy-keen for Iran to hold it?
you're willing to toss about the words "nuclear" and "terrorism" to
scare people into being worldwide bullies.
it's just fucking amazing. 9/11 happened and we didn't hesitate to
invade Afghanistan, but you assume that the United States will sit
there like a dumbass and just take whatever Iran has to dish out,
all because they have...dun dun dun...a couple of medium-range
missiles.
you really act like a coward sometimes. we do not need to keep
acting like dickheads with that nation, and we certainly don't need
to keep implying that we're going to bomb their populace at the
drop of an isotope.
Neu Mejican|6.14.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Depsite hating their government, Iranians still don't like
the US.
Yet 60% favor open, honest negotiations as the way to bridge the
gap between the countries.
BTW, John...thanks for the morning chuckles...have you considered
suing Stephan Colbert?
The Angry Optimist|6.14.09 @ 3:18PM|#
I mean, really, the United States coexisted (tensely sometimes,
we should readily admit) with the Soviet Union for seventy years,
and forty of those years, the Soviet Union had nukes (more nukes
than we did, probably). But now we're afraid of one pissant country
with buffoonish leadership?
When did we lose our balls?
|6.14.09 @ 3:25PM|#
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iran_poll
Currently 29% of Iranians hold a positive view of the US New
Mexican. They don't like us. They never will. Some of them in fact
hate us. And the fact that they hate us has nothing to do with who
is President.
Of and thanks for being your normal dickhead, uninformed self. It
is good to know some things never change.
|6.14.09 @ 3:27PM|#
"I mean, really, the United States coexisted (tensely sometimes,
we should readily admit) with the Soviet Union for seventy years,
and forty of those years, the Soviet Union had nukes (more nukes
than we did, probably). But now we're afraid of one pissant country
with buffoonish leadership?
When did we lose our balls?"
Tersely my ass. We almost went to nuclear armagedon with them
several times. Further, we know now that the Russians almost
accidently launched a nuclear war in 1983. The cold war and MADD
sucked. It was a miracle we didn't destroy the planet. No sane
person could ever want to repeat that kind of madness.
|6.14.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Nue Mexican,
You are by far the most unpleasent ill informed smug poster on Hit
and Run. You never know anything. You never have anything new or
interesting to say. It is just the same bullshit day after day.
Hell, at least Lonewacko is kind of funny sometimes. At least Joe
sometimes made a good point. You? Not so much.
Neu Mejican|6.14.09 @ 3:31PM|#
John,
The 60% figure comes from the same poll you are citing. 29% hold a
favorable view. 60% favor restoration of diplomatic relations and
unconditional negotiations with the US.
The Angry Optimist|6.14.09 @ 3:33PM|#
john, you have a whole series of questions to answer:
1. Have you any evidence that Iran desires a "unified, nuclear
middle East" under its banner?
2. What evidence do you have that, even if Iran desired that goal,
that they would have the troops, abilities or wherewithal to commit
to such a huge project?
3. Why do you think that Iran can easily hold Iraq when not even
the United States can easily do so?
4. Are you really trying to justify the Iraqi invasion because of a
possibly-nuclear Iran?
|6.14.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Dude, they declared a 63% landslide victory for Ahmadinejad
18 seconds after the polls closed. That's your first sign right
there.
Maybe their exit polling technology is superior to ours.
|6.14.09 @ 3:45PM|#
3. Why do you think that Iran can easily hold Iraq when not
even the United States can easily do so?
Well that one's easy -- Iran is willing to do what it takes to put
down insurgencies, not worry about those pesky human rights
concerns. The same way Saddam was able to hold power there for 25
years until he got a bug in the Bush family's ear.
Neu Mejican|6.14.09 @ 3:50PM|#
An informed view of the world?
Every terrorism intel person I know says that Hezbollah is about 100 times better organized the Al Quada and has sleeper cells all over the US. They wouldn't use nukes against us. They will attack us using low level terror. What are we going to do about it? Imagine if the purpetraitors {sic} of 9-11 had been funded by a nuclear Iran rather than AFghanistan, what would we have done? Not a God damned thing. Once they have Nukes, Iran can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants internally and in places like Lebanon and anywhere else in the middle east.
Neu Mejican|6.14.09 @ 3:58PM|#
And while we are looking at polls about public opinions as the
the right approach...
60% of Iranians favor open, unconditional negotions...
53% of Americans agree...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5081696.shtml
Also,
Moreover, there is little desire among the public to engage Iran militarily. A February CBS News/New York Times Poll found that just 13 percent of Americans expressed the view that Iran is a threat to the U.S. that requires military action now. Most - 58 percent - said Iran is a threat that could be contained through diplomacy. In recent years, Americans have consistently favored diplomacy with Iran over military action. On this matter Democrats (69 percent) and Republicans (50 percent) agree that Iran can be contained through diplomatic means.
|6.14.09 @ 4:05PM|#
One of the comments on the HuffPo was very good.
Why are people surprised that Ahmadinejad won? Until the past couple of weeks, when Mousavi support became a little more visible, there was never any sign that any of his challengers would even come close. No polls - nothing. I'm sorry - but a few badly constructed questions by journalists too lazy to talk to Iranians who aren't the suave educated types in the North of Tehran (notice how they all speak English) does not a reliable polling method make.
As for the Azeri part of Iran - yes, Mousavi is an Azeri - but Ahmadinejad is a former governor of that province and responsible for opening the only university in the country that teaches in Azeri. He is popular in that part of Iran - it is perfectly possible that people voted for their self-interest and not on ethnic lines.
I think wealthy Iranians have been living in an echo chamber - they are interviewed by the foreign press (because they speak English and slum-dwellers don't) and tell them they are voting one way. The foreign press reports back to them that this is how it will turn out - etc...
The election of moderates only extends the life of the revolution. People seem to think that Mousavi would ride in on a white horse and *presto* Iranians would be free.
Mousavi was PM during the Iran-Iraq war - during the worst abuses against Bahais (a very repressed political sect) and political prisoners. "Reformer?" I think not!
Followed by
I only have one thing to add to your well informed response which was how In 1989, Mousavi called for Salman Rushdie to be killed.
|6.14.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Dude, they declared a 63% landslide victory for Ahmadinejad 18 seconds after the polls closed. That's your first sign right there.
All of our news agencies declared Obama the winner before all the
polls had even closed.
Mike|6.14.09 @ 4:17PM|#
"60% of Iranians favor open, unconditional negotions...53% of
Americans agree..."
Great. Here's how it would go:
Obama: Could you stop sponsoring terrorism? It really makes us
worried about what you're going to do when you get nukes.
Ahmadinejad: Terrorism! We don't have anything to do with that! How
could you say such a thing!
Obama: Well, you sponsor Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are
sworn to destroy Isreal.
Ahmadinejad: Nonsense, Hezbollah and Hamas are just charitable
organizations.
Obama: But, they fire missles are Israeli cities.
Ahmadinejad: That's just Zionist propaganda!
Golly, I can't wait for that to begin. When a nuclear bomb goes off
in either Tel Aviv or Los Angeles, don't say you weren't
warned.
MNG|6.14.09 @ 4:42PM|#
"They will attack us using low level terror."
So THEY are respondible for the latest Terminator film? Fucking
Hezbollah!
MNG|6.14.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Wouldn't a nuclear strike by either Iran or Israel on the other have very likely disasterous effects on the striking nation as well? I mean from things like fallout. I'm not a nuclear physicist though...
|6.14.09 @ 6:07PM|#
Due to wind patterns it would probably hurt Iran more to attack Israel than vice versa. But they're also batshit crazy, so it might be a moot point.
|6.14.09 @ 6:21PM|#
Wouldn't a nuclear strike by either Iran or Israel on the
other have very likely disasterous effects on the striking nation
as well? I mean from things like fallout. I'm not a nuclear
physicist though...
Tel Aviv and Tehran are seperated by 955 mies.
Lots of folks lived within that distance for the above ground nuke
tests in the southwest. It's not that big a deal actually.
|6.14.09 @ 6:34PM|#
Didn't I just hear eight years of pinkos telling me that GWB was
going to do this?
-jcr
|6.14.09 @ 6:44PM|#
JsubD,
Those were just A-bombs, though, much less powerful than the stuff
we have today (as ONDCP would say). And there's a lot more weather
in the fertile crescent to carry fallout and such than we have in
NM.
hmm|6.14.09 @ 7:41PM|#
Paul Krugman, the economist that will take a single incident and claim it is directly correlated to and possible representative of an entire news channel or group of people with zero statistical backing. The man is a disgrace to his profession.
|6.14.09 @ 7:56PM|#
"Tel Aviv and Tehran are seperated by 955 mies.
Lots of folks lived within that distance for the above ground nuke
tests in the southwest. It's not that big a deal actually."
The world almost had a nuclear war several times during the cold
war. We got very lucky during the cold war. There is nothing to say
the middle-east will get so lucky. Maybe it will. I hope dumb fucks
like Neu Mexican are right in their belief that the Iranians and
Mullahs are just groovy religous people with a few exotic views,
because ultimately we are betting a lot of people's lives that they
are.
|6.14.09 @ 9:38PM|#
Anyone who thinks that what the situation in Iran needs is for
the US to butt its nose in probably thinks it was a good idea for
John Yettaw to make an uninvited swim to visit Aung San Suu
Kyi.
Ahmedinejad would love an excuse to paint the opposition as another
US coup attempt.
John wrote:"Currently 29% of Iranians hold a positive view of the
US New Mexican. They don't like us. They never will. Some of them
in fact hate us."
Why shouldn't they? We toppled their government and installed a
dictator.
I'm guessing how *you* feel about people is determined by how
they've treated you in the past.
Neu Mejican|6.14.09 @ 9:46PM|#
I hope dumb fucks like Neu Mexican are right in their belief
that the Iranians and Mullahs are just groovy religous people with
a few exotic views, because ultimately we are betting a lot of
people's lives that they are.
John...
I know you are a simple man, but you can't really be equating the
idea that the solution to a problem proposed by the majority of
those polled in both countries (diplomacy, open negotiations) is
premised on the non-existence of the problem.
If everyone in the US who supported diplomacy (recall that is 53%
of Americans) thought that the current Iranian regime was groovy,
then there would be no need for a diplomatic approach to the
problem...'cuz there wouldn't be a problem to solve.
You, on the other hand, see the solution to the problem as
????????????????? Threats? Military strikes? What?
Neu Mejican|6.14.09 @ 9:51PM|#
Back to the issue at hand...the election.
Given that only those approved by the supreme leader were allowed
to run, the election was illegitimate from the get go. I am not
sure how this election being even more fucked up than usual is
really much of a game changer. Sure we should point out the irony
to the leaders and sure we should support those that call for free
elections. But if the leaders of Iran decide to change their mind a
pick a different puppet, I am not sure we should call that a win
for democracy.
dhex|6.14.09 @ 10:33PM|#
I am not sure how this election being even more fucked up
than usual is really much of a game changer.
pretty much. their democratitude or lack of 'tude is more akin to
trivia.
|6.14.09 @ 11:13PM|#
Golly, I can't wait for that to begin. When a nuclear bomb
goes off in either Tel Aviv or Los Angeles, don't say you weren't
warned.
Good. Now that I've been warned, what happens exactly? It's not as
easy or fun as preparing for zombies.
the innominate one|6.15.09 @ 1:10AM|#
joshua corning, jr, and John:
If Andrew Sullivan makes you want to vomit, you should reconsider
deep-throating him.
Hugh Akston:
Many, many biologists, including myself, will be surprised to hear
that "parasitized" is not a word.
Tulpa:
"Tulpa | June 14, 2009, 6:44pm | #
JsubD,
Those were just A-bombs, though, much less powerful than the stuff
we have today (as ONDCP would say). And there's a lot more weather
in the fertile crescent to carry fallout and such than we have in
NM."
What "we have today" is irrelevant in a discussion of Tehran
ordering Israel to be bombed.
"No one should think President McHopey can get naked and ride his
unicorn over to Iran and patch things up." - John
Ok, that's pretty funny, as long as you don't actually form the
mental image.
|6.15.09 @ 2:45AM|#
joshua corning, jr, and John:
If Andrew Sullivan makes you want to vomit, you should reconsider
deep-throating him.
Hugh Akston:
Many, many biologists, including myself, will be surprised to hear
that "parasitized" is not a word.
Is it irony that you totally missed how Sullivan parasitized the
events in Iran to aggrandize Obama's election?
Les|6.15.09 @ 3:53AM|#
Thinking that the U.S. government can keep us safe from other
governments by threatening them and/or invading/bombing them, is no
different at all than thinking that the U.S. government can
efficiently provide high-quality education and healthcare for all
its citizens.
Both beliefs require a devout faith in the state.
|6.15.09 @ 10:04AM|#
"On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high
percentage of Iranian women are hawt."
Oh yeah. Have known this for years.
|6.15.09 @ 10:09AM|#
Unfotunately, Obama-style negotiations-without-preconditions will send the message that we regard the current Iranian regime as legitimate negotiating partners, and hence, well, legitimate. We will become invested over time in maintaining our negotiating partner as a partner, and hence as the rulers of Iran. Regime change, including peaceful regime change, will not be a goal, really, of the United States. We will not even the little we can to encourage the popular resistance to the mullahs, and will thus discourage it.
Neu Mejican|6.15.09 @ 10:56AM|#
RC Dean,
Although I appreciate your point, not engaging does nothing to
encourage popular resistance. Not engaging does nothing to reduce
the internal power the current leadership has over their country.
The only party that matters in terms of their legitimacy is the
Iranian people. Since the leadership uses our rift with them as a
distraction/excuse, non-engagement plays into their hand.
There is not a perfect solution. But the course we have been on for
the last couple of decades ain't been too productive.
|6.15.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Although I appreciate your point, not engaging does nothing
to encourage popular resistance.
Who said anything about not engaging? Its the way we engage that
matters. My fear is that Obama is so committed to dialogue that he
doesn't care who he is talking to, and doesn't see how
dialogue-without-conditions legitimizes his negotiating partner and
demoralizes the opposition.
By all means, talk to the Iranians. But don't do it like some naif
fresh out of grad school.
Tell them we think their regime lacks legitimacy, that we think it
is a destabilizing influence on the region, that we offer our moral
support to those elements of the population seeking a more
legitimate government, and that we are prepared to reward behavior
that is conducive to those ends.
Neu Mejican|6.15.09 @ 11:35AM|#
RC Dean,
Indeed, it matters how we engage.
Please explain how "negotiations WITH preconditions" does anything
to de-legitimize the Iranian leadership. It seems to me, it
primarily helps them maintain their position with their people,
which adds to their hold on power.
Open negotiations without condition takes away one of the excuses
the leadership has for their belligerent stance with the US and the
world.
It seems.
Neu Mejican|6.15.09 @ 11:41AM|#
I think this comes down to an interesting feature of political
life. Leadership says things they don't mean to the populace that,
in the end, can keep them as leaders or rise up and kick them out.
They say things that they think the people want to
hear...platitudes about all men being equal before the law,
democracy, etc...
They may not mean these things, but the people who hear them
believe them, and begin to expect them. When the leadership does
not live up to those ideals, the people push for them and chip away
at the limits the leaders attempt to impose.
Open negotiations with the US, could push this process forward in
Iran, just as, I believe, this election cycle has (however
minutely).
Get the leaders saying that they are not the aggressors, that they
don't want nuclear weapons, that they want peaceful engagement, and
their people will expect them to follow through. As long as they
can, however, point to the outsiders threatening them at every
turn, they have a rationale to present to their people.
|6.15.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Please explain how "negotiations WITH preconditions" does
anything to de-legitimize the Iranian leadership.
Preconditions is really code for non-negotiable demands that we
make that must be met before any of our commitments are engaged. I
would suggest:
(1) Shutting down their nuke program, or at least re-engineering it
under complete transparency so that it cannot be weaponized.
(2) Shutting off all support for Hamas and Hezbollah. If they want
to support peaceful humanitarian efforts elsewhere in the region,
go right ahead, just not those two. Perhaps we could even offer to
match their contributions dollar for dollar in joint humanitarian
projects.
(3) The internal dynamics are the hardest. On that one, probably
our best course is to make lots of flowery speeches about how the
Iranian people should be enfranchised, blah, blah. I know just the
guy to make those speeches.
Open negotiations without condition takes away one of the
excuses the leadership has for their belligerent stance with the US
and the world.
Without doing one thing to reduce their belligerent stance, while
legitimizing and entrenching the current regime. Our diplomatic
stance toward Iran is a pretext, not a cause, for their
aggression.
Neu Mejican|6.15.09 @ 12:07PM|#
RC Dean,
Our diplomatic stance toward Iran is a pretext, not a cause,
for their aggression.
I agree. In fact, that is what I just said.
I don't have a problem with your list, however, I believe those
would be the GOALS of the negotiations. If they are
non-negotiables, then there is no reason to talk and you maintain
the pretext.
JB|6.15.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Go look at the data. It's obviously rigged and rigged badly. The retards can't even rig an election properly.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245