Iran's Election

[Sir Bandelot]

We in the West live in liberal democracies where people are free, more or less, to say or do what they want. People in countries such as Iran are not.

One of the slogans of the people in the streets of Tehran was: "We want freedom."

Compared to them we have much greater freedom, but we cannot say anything we want. Some kid wrote on her facebook that she wished someone would kill the president, or some such, very likely in jest as she was about 14 years old. A few hours later, you know what happened. The guys in the black suits came and picked her up from school for questioning. She was in serious trouble!

There's plenty of other examples. You cannot give a speech to incite a riot, or say something thats considered hate crime. And most of these things do make sense.

Some of the signs in Iran say, "Death to the Dictator". Masawi called for more protests. The response from Iranian police has been tough, but not excessive as the riots still continue. If they'd have done a Tiannamen Square, it would be over quickly. So I think it hints at some moderation and tolerance. Any government would be concerned when tens of thousands are protesting with violence, smashing windows and burning cars, don't you think?

[sharkman]

Bandelot, that's why in his comment, August said, "more or less". As for the heavy handed response to Iranian protesters, let's hope it doesn't get worse. The Iranian authorities are capable of pretty evil practices, as has already been mentioned.

[dub]

Bandelot, that's why in his comment, August said, "more or less". As for the heavy handed response to Iranian protesters, let's hope it doesn't get worse. The Iranian authorities are capable of pretty evil practices, as has already been mentioned.

i sure hope they don't shoot rubber coated bullets and kill people and blame it on the protesters. hopefully they don't start demolishing homes and bombing houses against the protest.

[dub]

US is being very careful in how they respond to this situation. the EU has already started responding and they're mainly against ahmadinejad.

i guess no one really knows how this will turn out.

[August1991]

Well it did once upon a time. Now the link displays a different article.

But, I searched using the title that I copied, "Mousavi rally draws tens of thousands in Tehran"

and found other sites that still have this article. The sites show the source as Reuters.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5654465...ands-in-tehran/

Here is a link to an article in the Washington Post by the original pollsters, Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty. They state that they conducted the poll by phone from a neighbouring country (presumably Iraq or Turkey).

I frankly question whether many people in Iran would answer honestly political questions over the phone but the article nevertheless supports my main point:

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.

The Washington Post helpfully provides a link to a critique of this poll where I read this:

More to the point, however, the poll that appears in today's op-ed shows a 2 to 1 lead in the thinnest sense: 34 percent of those polled said they'd vote for Ahmadinejad, 14 percent for Mousavi. That leaves 52 percent unaccounted for. In all, 27 percent expressed no opinion in the election, and another 15 percent refused to answer the question at all. Six Eight percent said they'd vote for none of the listed candidates; the rest for minor candidates.

One should be enormously wary of the current value of a poll taken so far before such a heated contest, particularly one where more than half of voters did not express an opinion.

Washington Post

the process may be different, but at the end, guys like ron paul or ralph nader will not win.

don't you agree with that?

barack seems like a genuinely nice and caring guy who wants the best for the american people but in order for him to reach where he has reached, he would have had to agree to play by the rules. the type of money he was able to raise came with conditions set by the special interest groups. same goes with a recent past president in iran like khatami. a genuinely nice and caring guy but he had to play by the rules.

don't you agree with that?

On the contrary, Ron Paul had every opportunity to state his case. He appeared on the Jay Leno show and participated in televised primary debates. The reason he didn't get elected is because American voters realized that he's a nutbar.

Dub, more fundamentally, in liberal societies like Canada or the US, every possible opinion is debated openly. That is just not the case in Iran.

[dub]

On the contrary, Ron Paul had every opportunity to state his case. He appeared on the Jay Leno show and participated in televised primary debates. The reason he didn't get elected is because American voters realized that he's a nutbar.

Dub, more fundamentally, in liberal societies like Canada or the US, every possible opinion is debated openly. That is just not the case in Iran.

you keep missing the point i am making.

i never said ron paul didn't get to go on tv or be heard. i said that the end result is the same.

in U.S. one of two candidates always wins. candidates who are heavily influenced by special interest groups.

in iran, one of 4 candidates always win. candidates who are heavily influenced by special interest groups.

if majority of the special interest groups are not behind you, you will not get a shot at being the president.

do you disagree with that?

Edited June 16, 2009 by dub

[dub]

what's taking place is very interesting to observe from the outside. this is the first 21st century revolution i've witnessed. technology is being used to the max. social networking sites like facebook and youtube are being heavily used to spread articles and videos from the protests taken by mobile phones and digicams. twitter is being used to spread the word about the protests and meet up places.

Edited June 16, 2009 by dub

[August1991]

in U.S. one of two candidates always wins. candidates who are heavily influenced by special interest groups.

in iran, one of 4 candidates always win. candidates who are heavily influenced by special interest groups.

if majority of the special interest groups are not behind you, you will not get a shot at being the president.

do you disagree with that?

Yes, I disagree with you unless you simply mean that in the US, they have one president and in Iran, they also have one president.

In recent memory, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford and Barack Obama all rose from obscurity to become president. You refer to special interest groups. Well, what stops anyone from getting special interest groups to support them? (Keep in mind that to become president, a candidate must ultimately get around 50% support among some 100 million voters. That's alot of interests and I'm not surprised that Ron Paul will never be president.)

Dub, your viewpoint terrifies me because you only see the surface. Superficially, it appears that Iran and the US choose their leaders in similar ways. In fact, there is a vast difference in the way the two societies operate.

For starters, the US does not arrest and bludgeon to death in secret its own citizens merely because they oppose the regime. Dub, have you ever been to Iran, or any other country with an authoritarian regime?

-----

I have one simple criteria to determine whether a country is a democracy: can you throw the buggers out. Bush Jnr is long gone (replaced by someone who disagreed with Bush on many points). Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i, the Supreme Leader of Iran has been there since 1989 and he'll be there until he dies, or is violently overthrown. Iran's Council of the Guardians has a similiar longevity. (I note that even wikipedia describes the Council of the Guardians as "conservative". It is sad that some westerners view "authoritarian" and "conservative" as synonyms.)

In short, Iran is not a democracy. It is an authoritarian regime where thugs rule by intimidation. It is absurd to compare the US with Iran.

what's taking place is very interesting to observe from the outside. this is the first 21st century revolution i've witnessed. technology is being used to the max. social networking sites like facebook and youtube are being heavily used to spread articles and videos from the protests taken by mobile phones and digicams. twitter is being used to spread the word about the protests and meet up places.

I would like to believe that technology encourages a free society and makes authoritarian regimes less viable but the the history of the 20th century implies otherwise. Edited June 16, 2009 by August1991

[dub]

Yes, I disagree with you unless you simply mean that in the US, they have one president and in Iran, they also have one president.

In recent memory, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford and Barack Obama all rose from obscurity to become president. You refer to special interest groups. Well, what stops anyone from getting special interest groups to support them? (Keep in mind that to become president, a candidate must ultimately get around 50% support among some 100 million voters. That's alot of interests and I'm not surprised that Ron Paul will never be president.)

ipod and MS are not necessarily the best products in their industry, but they're the most widely used. without the advertising money, they wouldn't be where they are.

money from the special interest groups drive U.S. politics. this is politics 101. not sure why it needs to be discussed at length.

obama could not be where he is without the backing of the special interest groups. in order to get the backing, he'd have to agree to a lot of their demands.

Dub, your viewpoint terrifies me because you only see the surface. Superficially, it appears that Iran and the US choose their leaders in similar ways. In fact, there is a vast difference in the way the two societies operate.

"i" only see the surface? heh.

who did you vote for? obama or mccain? bush or kerry? him or him? 1st choice or 2nd choice?

For starters, the US does not arrest and bludgeon to death in secret its own citizens merely because they oppose the regime. Dub, have you ever been to Iran, or any other country with an authoritarian regime?

the process is different but the end result is the same. you get to choose who they've put in front of you.

will you make me repeat that again?

-----

I have one simple criteria to determine whether a country is a democracy: can you throw the buggers out. Bush Jnr is long gone (replaced by someone who disagreed with Bush on many points). Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i, the Supreme Leader of Iran has been there since 1989 and he'll be there until he dies, or is violently overthrown. Iran's Council of the Guardians has a similiar longevity. (I note that even wikipedia describes the Council of the Guardians as "conservative". It is sad that some westerners view "authoritarian" and "conservative" as synonyms.)

so what? mousavi disagrees with a lot of ahmadinejad's policies as well. both domestic and foreign.

In short, Iran is not a democracy. It is an authoritarian regime where thugs rule by intimidation. It is absurd to compare the US with Iran.

only one of two people are elected in every election.

[Bonam]

Dub, how do you not understand the difference? In the US, the elected president holds the real power, in Iran, the elected president holds only relatively minor power compared to the "supreme leader", who is not elected.

[dub]

Dub, how do you not understand the difference? In the US, the elected president holds the real power, in Iran, the elected president holds only relatively minor power compared to the "supreme leader", who is not elected.

special interest groups are also not elected either.

[Sir Bandelot]

Forget for a moment the political rhetoric which I will not entertain. It seems absurd that anyone can make any claims about what they believe is going on, such as John McCain claiming the election was corrupt. How can he say that, does he have any evidence? No. he is just adding his biased opinion, or what he wants to believe, using his position to catapult the propaganda.

Getting back to the actual topic, my first impression was surprise that these protesters almost immediately became violent. This was not a peaceful protest right from the beginning they were smashing windows and burning cars. And Mousavi actually fanned these flames, yet it seems the governments response has been measured, not using overwhelming force. As Amanopur tried to say on CNN, they are going after the violent ones, not the peaceful ones and I believe this could be true. Why- because if they cracked down ala Tiannemen, sending in the troops and tanks this would be over now. But they allow it to continue, showing what appears to be patience with the people.

If these reformers were sensible they would know that violence works against them. They are behaving stupidly and risking a harsh crackdown. If anything they should hold strikes, prevent business and commerce from functioning until they get some action, but attacking buildings, firebombing and killing individuals, that seems like the actions of a dangerous group of radicals, not the kind of people I would support.

In this article, we get more of a glimpse of what they seem to be about-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31380861

"The gathering was largely peaceful, but NBC News reported that plainclothes militia beat some pro-reform protesters with sticks and chanting, “Death to America.”

Other witnesses said they heard gunfire from the roof of a building used by a state-backed militia after some supporters of Mousavi set fire to the building and tried to storm it.

Khamenei said representatives of all four candidates should be present for any limited recount of disputed ballots, which the country’s cleric-led Guardian Council said Tuesday it would be willing to conduct."

Khamenei actually seems to be taking the actions of a reasonable man, not a hardline cleric. This is great stuff, I hope they resolve the problem without further violence and prove the John McCains of the world to be wrong. But in any case, let the truth out itself, let the liars be exposed, whoever they are.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Khamenei seems to be taking the actions of a reasonable man, not a hardline cleric. This is great stuff, I hope they resolve the problem without further violence and prove the John McCains of the world to be wrong. But in any case, let the truth out itself, let the liars be exposed whoever they are.

Indeed...only the Americans have corrupt elections, especially in Florida and Ohio!

[Bonam]

special interest groups are also not elected either.

Please name one special interest group that has as much power in the US as the supreme leader has in Iran.

[dub]

Please name one special interest group that has as much power in the US as the supreme leader has in Iran.

the 'supreme leader' is the figurehead and mouthpiece for iran's power which is made up of clerics who have business interests in iran and abroad. rafsanjani, another former president also has a lot of power. in fact, he's the one behind mousavi and khatami.

here is a short but decent analysis of khamenei: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/mi...t/16cleric.html

as to name interest groups; how about AIPAC? they have much influence over U.S. foreign policy. here is some good information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_...e_United_States

then you have the oil companies and arms companies who also have major influence on U.S.'s policies.

[Bonam]

Hahaha, I totally knew you were gonna bring up AIPAC. When AIPAC can ban presidential candidates from running, can imprison people with no charges for arbitrarily long, and can install the leaders of America's military, judiciary, and religious institutions, get back to me.

The US is full of a multitude of different special interest groups. Each want something done for them, each is pulling in a separate direction. Individually, they have little power. Politicians balance between the demands of such groups, the opinion of the population, and their own (and their party's) ideas and principles.

In Iran, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council have almost unchallenged power and authority.

It is a completely different situation. Not that the US is perfect in its democracy, far from it, but it's certainly in a whole different playing field compared to Iran.

[dub]

Hahaha, I totally knew you were gonna bring up AIPAC. When AIPAC can ban presidential candidates from running, can imprison people with no charges for arbitrarily long, and can install the leaders of America's military, judiciary, and religious institutions, get back to me.

AIPAC can make or break someone's political career. look at what happened to:

Charles "Chas" Freeman, Obama’s pick to head the National Intelligence Council, has withdrawn from contention for the job. The Daily Beast’s Max Blumenthal reported that the leader of the campaign against Freeman was Steven Rosen, a former director of AIPAC awaiting trial on espionage charges, who has a long history of attacking and undermining anybody he deems hostile to Israel.

all you really got to do is look at where the major donations are coming from and you'll know who has the power.

The US is full of a multitude of different special interest groups. Each want something done for them, each is pulling in a separate direction.

can you name a few of the biggest lobby groups that are pulling in separate direction?

Individually, they have little power. Politicians balance between the demands of such groups, the opinion of the population, and their own (and their party's) ideas and principles.

you know how much they'll fuck you up if you don't speak in tune with israel?

In Iran, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council have almost unchallenged power and authority.

power is exerted in different ways. some use force and some use propaganda. some like stalin and hitler used both.

It is a completely different situation. Not that the US is perfect in its democracy, far from it, but it's certainly in a whole different playing field compared to Iran.

at the end of it all, you always have a president who was elected between two groups. you want to argue against the facts, go for it.

[Bonam]

Well, another day of protests and riots in Iran. And an even bigger rally planned for the next day. The unrest continues. Looks like the Iranian people aren't buying the idea that the elections are legit, as you would have us believe, dub.

[Oleg Bach]

Well, another day of protests and riots in Iran. And an even bigger rally planned for the next day. The unrest continues. Looks like the Iranian people aren't buying the idea that the elections are legit, as you would have us believe, dub.

See - Israel did not have to bomb the place - they are bombing themselves...I just hope that MR> God man that over rides the politicals has the common sense to bring about peace in HIS own little theocracy ---- Ha - see there must be a God -----and it lives in the people - the great theocrats have run out of power - now they must submit to the people - and to what is really GOD - submit to goodness or no one will surive.

[dub]

Well, another day of protests and riots in Iran. And an even bigger rally planned for the next day. The unrest continues. Looks like the Iranian people aren't buying the idea that the elections are legit, as you would have us believe, dub.

wtf are you talking about? when did i say that?

can you, for once, attempt at typing something that isn't bullshit?

[Sir Bandelot]

What I see is that Iran is divided into two main regions, much like in Canada or the US there is a percentage of the population living in the big cities, in high density and also a large number of people living in rural areas, but more spread out. Again as in the west, the people in the cities are generally more liberal minded, many of them younger people. Large cities is also where tourists will come, where you find more diversity and elements of foreign cultures, cosmopolitan. So there can be two cultures living in the same land, whose ideologies differ greatly. I suspect that the electoral map in Iran would look similar to the map when George Bush won his second term, divided by region, rural conservative areas generally going with Bush, and big urban areas going with Kerry. Everyones vote is equal, so it comes down to the numbers.

I would not be deceived that what we see on TV is representative of the people of Iran. Those in the rural areas are scattered and do not have the same visibility, or perhaps the motivation to attend political rallies. Tehran may have voted for Moussavi, but in a democracy the decisions are made at the voting booth, not in the streets. Iran would do well to have international observers monitor their elections in the future... although that too is not a perfect guarantee that the vote is legit.

My view is, these people are genuinely unhappy about something. But what that something is, is not clear- this Mousavi is not tremendously different from Ahmedinejad. To be honest, I think they are protesting at the wrong level of government, it isn't even these people they want to change, it should be the untouchable, unelected theocrats. If the islamic revolution is whats bothering them they should have the courage to protest against that... but again it comes down to the rural conservative versus the urban liberals, and the right to predetermination.

Sounds familiar.

[Sir Bandelot]

Interesting discussion panel

[Sir Bandelot]

Interesting little aside that I just came across.

US cuts funding to Iran opposition

BBC 20 October 2009

In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.

While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.

It's no surprise to me, I expect this sort of thing is happening everywhere. Even here, in Canada, where Stephen Harper met with GWB when he was still leader of the opposition.

Not that I necessarily think it is a bad thing to promote regime change, without direct war or violence. But if the funding (and training) is used to stir up violent protests and revolution, it amounts to the same. If you read the article you'll see that the Iranians knew about it, and it harmed legitimate NGO's who were trying to work within the boundaries of law, to promote democracy and human rights.