Dolo......while you are correct about Mousavi and the fact that he is truly the "lesser of two evils" many Iranians see him as a stepping stone away from a cleric ruled government and a step closer to Democracy.
To expect a 180 degree change in one fell swoop is not realistic.
Baby steps.
I won't deign to speak on behalf of mousavi's iranian supporters but I see it as highly unlikely that they see him as a step away from cleric ruled government because a)he played a key role in actually installing it, b) he has served within it for decades in a number of positions going as high as prime minister, and c) he has openly vowed his support for khameni and the ideals of the islamic revolution in his campaign.
The majority of mousavi's support seems to stem from his advocacy of the iranian state taking a less intrusive role in iranians day to day lives. That is surely a valid reason for his iranian supporters to support him. It is not, however, a valid reason to present this butcher as some kind of iranian ghandi and it not a valid reason to depict a dispute over who will perform the managerial role in a regime(and that is all the president is. It is the supreme leader who is, well, the supreme leader) as an uprising against the regime itself.
Dolo, like many Neocons, hopes Ahmadinejad wins so that we can continue to rely on the "hard power" that has worked so well for them over the past decade and gain position against a weakened regime.
Translation: I cant dispute a single thing you've said so i'll just ascribe it to sinister motives.
That's exactly right - your entire world view is drawn from sinister motives and it is the motives themselves I dispute. Your motives lead to your sinister ideas and conclusions. They're not always factually inaccurate - I simply do not share your beliefs. For instance, here, I see the revolts and installation of a different president as a good thing on the whole, you would prefer the status quo. It's not a factual dispute, we disagree on the course of action. You can have all the facts right and still be dead wrong.
A BBC news program last night had an Iranian lady on there offering the opinion that the real story isn't about Mousavi, rather that his wife is heavily involved in this (I don't know either way), and that the real revolution is a woman having a such a 'visible/prominent' role in events... anybody know more about this?
I need to get in touch with my friend L*** and ask him what his wife thinks. She's in Iran now waiting for L*** to sort out paperwork with the British Embassy to get her over here (England).
I just spent an hour discussing this with a business associate who is from Iran, very politically active and has been in the U.S. for just short of 20 years.
Here were some of his comments.
Mousavi is an evil man with a lot of blood on his hands but is better than the cleric ruled government of Ahmadinejad......he sees Mousavi as a slight move in the right direction with a long way to go before they have a government he will be able to get behind.
He's very disappointed that President Obama hasn't spoken out in a direct and forthright way about what is going on their since the election. He is taking Obama's near silence as a sign that he does not really understand what is happening there.
He's afraid that U.S. citizens see the protests and think it's a dispute between good and evil when it's really a fight between Evil #1 and Evil #2 with one of them being just slightly less evil than the other.
He says that reports of kidnappings and killings by Ahmadinejad's army are somehow being downplayed and/or kept quiet....he thinks the U.S./Euro media is not reporting on them but has no idea why....he claims 7-10 protestors have beeen "murdered" so far based on reports he's getting from relatives.
I disagree with your colleague on Obama's stance... I think he does get it, in that he's making a very concerted attempt to appear uninvolved - U.S. involvement or even the appearance of it would corrupt the movement. I think it's shrewd, although I can see why some think he should be more vocal... I just don't think that's particularly smart for the U.S. to do just now.
And ditto to what soulhawk said, if you are following any of the mainstream blogs the killings and kidnappings are being very widely reported; cable news on the other hand is not reporting this much at all - much to their own detriment.
Yeah, I was flipping around last night, and Maddow had an expert saying that for the US to appear involved in Mousavi's fight would be counter-productive.
Flip over to Hannity to see whats going on in bizarro world, and he's saying "Forget how it would appear, this is APPEASEMENT, why can't we just come out and call evil evil." His three panelists put up a little fight, then agreed with him completely. What I would pay to have seen Mousavi's past listed after Hannity professed his undying devotion to the cause.
I think Obama's hands off approach is the only way, for now. He should continue to advocate positions that no one can twist to their agenda, calling for free elections, oversight, voice to the people, etc. It sounds like boiler plate, but the book I'm reading right now talks a lot about the kind of impact these distinctions can have, and how important it is to avoid making reformers look like US puppets.
I love that certain Republican are trying to compare the plight of Mousavi supporters to their own "disenfranchisement" in the Democrat administration.
The mockery of Rep. Pete Hoekstra's recent tweet -- "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House" -- is totally hilarious.
But there's more, this from Texas Republican Rep. John Culberson. These people are truly delusional:
"Good to see Iranian people move mountains w social media, shining sunlight on their repressive govt - Texans support their bid for freedom.
Oppressed minorities include HouseRepubs: We are using social media to expose repression such as last night's Democrat's clampdown shutting off amends."
I just spent an hour discussing this with a business associate who is from Iran, very politically active and has been in the U.S. for just short of 20 years.
Here were some of his comments.
Mousavi is an evil man with a lot of blood on his hands but is better than the cleric ruled government of Ahmadinejad......he sees Mousavi as a slight move in the right direction with a long way to go before they have a government he will be able to get behind.
He's very disappointed that President Obama hasn't spoken out in a direct and forthright way about what is going on their since the election. He is taking Obama's near silence as a sign that he does not really understand what is happening there.
He's afraid that U.S. citizens see the protests and think it's a dispute between good and evil when it's really a fight between Evil #1 and Evil #2 with one of them being just slightly less evil than the other.
He says that reports of kidnappings and killings by Ahmadinejad's army are somehow being downplayed and/or kept quiet....he thinks the U.S./Euro media is not reporting on them but has no idea why....he claims 7-10 protestors have beeen "murdered" so far based on reports he's getting from relatives.
It's always good to hear from someone with personal connections. I appreciate you sharing his comments.
but is better than the cleric ruled government of Ahmadinejad
You might have misunderstood your friend if you think he was saying that Mousavi's government would not be cleric ruled.
Obama is doing the right thing for the reasons stated above. But I appreciate his desire for Obama to do more.
I am glad that I get most of my international news from NPR & BBC Radio. The Iranian elections have been headline news with indepth reporting for weeks. I heard about the killing of 7 protesters and attempts to stop demonstrations.
The biggest stories coming out this morning is the virtual house arrest of all foreign journalist. They are not allowed in the streets, visas are being pulled... And the governments attempts to shut down internet, twitter, cellphone communication. Also the talk of the recount.
The quick election count did make things look very shady. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad may well have won it fairly. From what I understand, Iran is very large country. While Tehran is cosmopolitan much of the country (I would guess) is more isolated, conservative and afraid of change.
I love that certain Republican are trying to compare the plight of Mousavi supporters to their own "disenfranchisement" in the Democrat administration.
The mockery of Rep. Pete Hoekstra's recent tweet -- "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House" -- is totally hilarious.
But there's more, this from Texas Republican Rep. John Culberson. These people are truly delusional:
"Good to see Iranian people move mountains w social media, shining sunlight on their repressive govt - Texans support their bid for freedom.
Oppressed minorities include HouseRepubs: We are using social media to expose repression such as last night's Democrat's clampdown shutting off amends."
just signed up for twittr today... how am I supposed to keep track of that #iranelections feed??.... seems useless - how do you know it's not just a bunch of 12 yr olds (no scotch!) who just, basically, spams that feed constantly - is there any way to verify that any of those reports are actually coming out of Iran?
I love that certain Republican are trying to compare the plight of Mousavi supporters to their own "disenfranchisement" in the Democrat administration.
The mockery of Rep. Pete Hoekstra's recent tweet -- "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House" -- is totally hilarious.
But there's more, this from Texas Republican Rep. John Culberson. These people are truly delusional:
"Good to see Iranian people move mountains w social media, shining sunlight on their repressive govt - Texans support their bid for freedom.
Oppressed minorities include HouseRepubs: We are using social media to expose repression such as last night's Democrat's clampdown shutting off amends."
Regarding your concerns for the 10th presidential elections and due to your orders for Mr Ahmedinejad to be elected President, in this sensitive time, all matters have been organised in such a way that the results of the election will be in line with the revolution and the Islamic system. The following result will be declared to the people and all planning should be put in force to prevent any possible action from the opposition, and all party leaders and election candidates are under intense surveillance. Therefore, for your information only, I am telling you the actual results as follows:
Regarding your concerns for the 10th presidential elections and due to your orders for Mr Ahmedinejad to be elected President, in this sensitive time, all matters have been organised in such a way that the results of the election will be in line with the revolution and the Islamic system. The following result will be declared to the people and all planning should be put in force to prevent any possible action from the opposition, and all party leaders and election candidates are under intense surveillance. Therefore, for your information only, I am telling you the actual results as follows:
All for candidates were chosen by the clerical leaders of Iran so supposedly any of them would be acceptable to the clerics. Candidates who were not acceptable were barred from running.
All for candidates were chosen by the clerical leaders of Iran so supposedly any of them would be acceptable to the clerics. Candidates who were not acceptable were barred from running.
Part of the issue is that the Mullahs are having a power battle themselves.
what will they do if it turns out ahmadjinehad won? continue?
There are some reports that he might've won. The problem is the government apparently lied about the percentage, which undermined their authority and legitimacy. That's something that will be hard to gain back. Of course, they could eventually call out the security forces and put everybody back in their place by force.
I don't think whether he won or not is really the issue. It could well have been rigged so he won. I think the people protesting want a fair election more than anything.
If all the Mullahs and other important figures were united behind Ahmadjinehad, it would just be game over. But they're not. So as well as 'suppressing' the protestors, they've already started arresting important figures on the reform side (including journalists). Restricting the media, and access to it. The typical dictatorship reaction.
what will they do if it turns out ahmadjinehad won? continue?
There are some reports that he might've won. The problem is the government apparently lied about the percentage, which undermined their authority and legitimacy. That's something that will be hard to gain back. Of course, they could eventually call out the security forces and put everybody back in their place by force.
True that.
Protests are growing.
The government screwed up the election.
No new count will be acceptable now.
It might be a little late to call out the security forces. China and Burma have kept a lid on things by making the first response the strongest response. Once a movement has a toehold, as they do now in Iran, calling out the security forces might be as bad a move the phony vote count.
I think declaring a state of emergency with the promise of new elections in 2-6 months might allow the government to regain control.
I think if the opposition can get support and demonstrations across the country, out side of Tehran, that could greatly strength their hand.
I know squads of dudes on motor bikes, dishing out beatings and shooting indiscriminately into crowds of protestors isn't exactly 'calling out the security forces' but it's as good as. And unlike China or Burma this is not a 'people' verses 'government' issue. There are plenty of powerful supporters of Mousavi, and he's still a close ally of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who ultimately controls Iran.
I disagree with your colleague on Obama's stance... I think he does get it, in that he's making a very concerted attempt to appear uninvolved - U.S. involvement or even the appearance of it would corrupt the movement. I think it's shrewd, although I can see why some think he should be more vocal... I just don't think that's particularly smart for the U.S. to do just now.
And ditto to what soulhawk said, if you are following any of the mainstream blogs the killings and kidnappings are being very widely reported; cable news on the other hand is not reporting this much at all - much to their own detriment.
On Obama???s reticence to comment on Iran, any American commentary on democracy in Iran is ludicrous without reference to the 1953 Iranian coup d'??tat, which is curiously absent from this thread. While not many US citizens know about this event, you can be sure that every Iranian knows about the US involvement in this catastrophic event. The Iranian view of the US cannot be understood without reference to the 1953 Coup.
News that the US Government has asked Twitter to postpone maintenance to help the current protesters would have caused Iranians with strong memories of 1953 Coup to question who is behind the demonstrations. One minor aspect of the 1953 coup involved the CIA paying for the fomenting of civil disturbances and street protests in Tehran.
One should always remain sceptical when the US government starts spouting pro-democratic language. They are of course behind most of the world???s anti-democratic coups. So I applaud Obama???s unwillingness to comment. He should really demand the same of his vice-president and secretary of state, but he hasn???t. He should also prepare an apology for the US involvement in the coup, but you can bet he won???t.
Comments
I won't deign to speak on behalf of mousavi's iranian supporters but I see it as highly unlikely that they see him as a step away from cleric ruled government because a)he played a key role in actually installing it, b) he has served within it for decades in a number of positions going as high as prime minister, and c) he has openly vowed his support for khameni and the ideals of the islamic revolution in his campaign.
The majority of mousavi's support seems to stem from his advocacy of the iranian state taking a less intrusive role in iranians day to day lives. That is surely a valid reason for his iranian supporters to support him. It is not, however, a valid reason to present this butcher as some kind of iranian ghandi and it not a valid reason to depict a dispute over who will perform the managerial role in a regime(and that is all the president is. It is the supreme leader who is, well, the supreme leader) as an uprising against the regime itself.
b/w
someone either tell me why Dolo isn't banned or ban him already.
That's exactly right - your entire world view is drawn from sinister motives and it is the motives themselves I dispute. Your motives lead to your sinister ideas and conclusions. They're not always factually inaccurate - I simply do not share your beliefs. For instance, here, I see the revolts and installation of a different president as a good thing on the whole, you would prefer the status quo. It's not a factual dispute, we disagree on the course of action. You can have all the facts right and still be dead wrong.
I need to get in touch with my friend L*** and ask him what his wife thinks. She's in Iran now waiting for L*** to sort out paperwork with the British Embassy to get her over here (England).
Dolo is creating a strawman in trying to contrast Mousavi's history with Ahmadinejad, it's really not about Mousavi at all.
Here were some of his comments.
Mousavi is an evil man with a lot of blood on his hands but is better than the cleric ruled government of Ahmadinejad......he sees Mousavi as a slight move in the right direction with a long way to go before they have a government he will be able to get behind.
He's very disappointed that President Obama hasn't spoken out in a direct and forthright way about what is going on their since the election. He is taking Obama's near silence as a sign that he does not really understand what is happening there.
He's afraid that U.S. citizens see the protests and think it's a dispute between good and evil when it's really a fight between Evil #1 and Evil #2 with one of them being just slightly less evil than the other.
He says that reports of kidnappings and killings by Ahmadinejad's army are somehow being downplayed and/or kept quiet....he thinks the U.S./Euro media is not reporting on them but has no idea why....he claims 7-10 protestors have beeen "murdered" so far based on reports he's getting from relatives.
And ditto to what soulhawk said, if you are following any of the mainstream blogs the killings and kidnappings are being very widely reported; cable news on the other hand is not reporting this much at all - much to their own detriment.
Flip over to Hannity to see whats going on in bizarro world, and he's saying "Forget how it would appear, this is APPEASEMENT, why can't we just come out and call evil evil." His three panelists put up a little fight, then agreed with him completely. What I would pay to have seen Mousavi's past listed after Hannity professed his undying devotion to the cause.
I think Obama's hands off approach is the only way, for now. He should continue to advocate positions that no one can twist to their agenda, calling for free elections, oversight, voice to the people, etc. It sounds like boiler plate, but the book I'm reading right now talks a lot about the kind of impact these distinctions can have, and how important it is to avoid making reformers look like US puppets.
I'm hoping he's played in the movie by one of my favorite actors, Mr. Bruce McGill
Taken from HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
The mockery of Rep. Pete Hoekstra's recent tweet -- "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House" -- is totally hilarious.
But there's more, this from Texas Republican Rep. John Culberson. These people are truly delusional:
"Good to see Iranian people move mountains w social media, shining sunlight on their repressive govt - Texans support their bid for freedom.
Oppressed minorities include HouseRepubs: We are using social media to expose repression such as last night's Democrat's clampdown shutting off amends."
It's always good to hear from someone with personal connections. I appreciate you sharing his comments.
You might have misunderstood your friend if you think he was saying that Mousavi's government would not be cleric ruled.
Obama is doing the right thing for the reasons stated above. But I appreciate his desire for Obama to do more.
I am glad that I get most of my international news from NPR & BBC Radio.
The Iranian elections have been headline news with indepth reporting for weeks.
I heard about the killing of 7 protesters and attempts to stop demonstrations.
The biggest stories coming out this morning is the virtual house arrest of all foreign journalist. They are not allowed in the streets, visas are being pulled... And the governments attempts to shut down internet, twitter, cellphone communication. Also the talk of the recount.
The quick election count did make things look very shady.
On the other hand, Ahmadinejad may well have won it fairly.
From what I understand, Iran is very large country. While Tehran is cosmopolitan much of the country (I would guess) is more isolated, conservative and afraid of change.
Rep John Culberson is just like Rosa Parks.
http://petehisameme.wordpress.com/
"Interior Ministry's letter to the Supreme Leader
Salaam Aleikum.
Regarding your concerns for the 10th presidential elections and due to your orders for Mr Ahmedinejad to be elected President, in this sensitive time, all matters have been organised in such a way that the results of the election will be in line with the revolution and the Islamic system. The following result will be declared to the people and all planning should be put in force to prevent any possible action from the opposition, and all party leaders and election candidates are under intense surveillance. Therefore, for your information only, I am telling you the actual results as follows:
Mirhossein Mousavi: 19,075,623
Mehdi Karroubi: 13,387,104
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 5,698,417
Mohsen Rezai: 38,716
(signed on behalf of the minister)"
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...ll-1707896.html
Looks made up.
I heard that the stated results give Ahmadinejad something like 70% of the vote. That's way more above.
Part of the issue is that the Mullahs are having a power battle themselves.
There are some reports that he might've won. The problem is the government apparently lied about the percentage, which undermined their authority and legitimacy. That's something that will be hard to gain back. Of course, they could eventually call out the security forces and put everybody back in their place by force.
If all the Mullahs and other important figures were united behind Ahmadjinehad, it would just be game over. But they're not. So as well as 'suppressing' the protestors, they've already started arresting important figures on the reform side (including journalists). Restricting the media, and access to it. The typical dictatorship reaction.
True that.
Protests are growing.
The government screwed up the election.
No new count will be acceptable now.
It might be a little late to call out the security forces.
China and Burma have kept a lid on things by making the first response the strongest response.
Once a movement has a toehold, as they do now in Iran, calling out the security forces might be as bad a move the phony vote count.
I think declaring a state of emergency with the promise of new elections in 2-6 months might allow the government to regain control.
I think if the opposition can get support and demonstrations across the country, out side of Tehran, that could greatly strength their hand.
Full Episodes
On Obama???s reticence to comment on Iran, any American commentary on democracy in Iran is ludicrous without reference to the 1953 Iranian coup d'??tat, which is curiously absent from this thread. While not many US citizens know about this event, you can be sure that every Iranian knows about the US involvement in this catastrophic event. The Iranian view of the US cannot be understood without reference to the 1953 Coup.
News that the US Government has asked Twitter to postpone maintenance to help the current protesters would have caused Iranians with strong memories of 1953 Coup to question who is behind the demonstrations. One minor aspect of the 1953 coup involved the CIA paying for the fomenting of civil disturbances and street protests in Tehran.
One should always remain sceptical when the US government starts spouting pro-democratic language. They are of course behind most of the world???s anti-democratic coups. So I applaud Obama???s unwillingness to comment. He should really demand the same of his vice-president and secretary of state, but he hasn???t. He should also prepare an apology for the US involvement in the coup, but you can bet he won???t.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/crackdown-in-iran-as-anger-rages-over-vote/article1181953/