mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-06-16, 02:58   #1
flouran
 
flouran's Avatar
 
Dec 2008

83310 Posts
Default Political Turmoil in Iran

Any comments, views, etc are appreciated.

In my opinion, this turmoil looks like the same one 30 years ago in '79.
flouran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 03:58   #2
xkey
 
xkey's Avatar
 
Apr 2009
near Chicago

2·11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flouran View Post
Any comments, views, etc are appreciated.

In my opinion, this turmoil looks like the same one 30 years ago in '79.

79 was more of a "right wing" religious push
The present turmoil of 2009 is a rather broad spectrum - mostly left/liberal with some centrists and even a few religious figureheads from the right supporting the 'opposition' candidate/movement rather than the current regime(that may or may not have won the election).

A big part of the anger in 79 was also "anti-American" [America the great Satan etc yada yada; America always meddling blah blah blah].
The US has kept relatively quiet during this Iranian election process and so the current regime wasn't able to use that as one of it's radical platforms/ideologies for why it should get the people's vote.

Also I don't think there was much of a nationwide popular vote in 79? I think it was more by religious leader votes .. ayatollah ousting the Shah was another aspect too. This time there was a nationwide popular vote ...

SO a LOT of DIFFERENCE in the turmoil if you ask me :-p I can still semi-vividly remember the taking of American hostages :(

x
xkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 04:05   #3
flouran
 
flouran's Avatar
 
Dec 2008

72×17 Posts
Default

True, you have some valid points. But, Iran has been on a horrible decline. Shah was rather bad, Ayatollah was shittier, and Ahmadinejad is worse.

I am Iranian by extraction, and my parents came to the US in '79. My family always discusses political situations and how Iran has become so horrible. I hope if this "mini-revolution" does go through, a better government (not controlled by the West (no offense to the West, since I was born in the US)) will come into play. But that's optimism and nothing more.

Last fiddled with by flouran on 2009-06-16 at 04:09
flouran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 05:14   #4
flouran
 
flouran's Avatar
 
Dec 2008

11010000012 Posts
Default

BTW, I should let you guys know, Ahmadinejad is a mere figure-head. He hardly possesses any comparative power to that of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader that has complete control. The presidential position in Iran is only something the gov't created to ease the meddling US (under the Bush administration) in the affairs of the Middle-East (or I guess in ex-president Bush's eyes, "Meddle-East").
flouran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 15:56   #5
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

2×73×17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flouran View Post
BTW, I should let you guys know, Ahmadinejad is a mere figure-head. He hardly possesses any comparative power to that of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader that has complete control. The presidential position in Iran is only something the gov't created to ease the meddling US (under the Bush administration) in the affairs of the Middle-East (or I guess in ex-president Bush's eyes, "Meddle-East").
I think most people who are semi-informed about the region realize this - Ahmadinejad is in many respects just the public face of the Ayatollahs who have the real power and mostly prefer to operate behind the scenes. They sure picked an ugly public face this time around, though, didn't they? ;)

I'll be interested to see whether Khameini (= the real power) calling for a "review" of the election "results" proves in any way genuine, or whether the review will be as big a sham as the lecetion "outcome" apparently was. The diversity of the gathering pro-reform coalition is very impressive ... makes it hard for the PTB to marginalize (think "radical students seeking overthrow of the regime").

I liked the one Twitter message (sorry, I refuse to call them "tweets" - makes me feel like a right twit) a protester sent in response to Ahmadinejad's comparing the protesters first to disgruntled soccer fans and then calling them "dust" (i.e. insignificant):

“He Called us Dust; We Showed him a Sandstorm.”


Good luck to all fair-minded Iranians - may you peacefully achieve the positive change you seek for your country.
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 16:28   #6
flouran
 
flouran's Avatar
 
Dec 2008

72·17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
They sure picked an ugly public face this time around, though, didn't they? ;)
Yep, they sure did. I think the situation in Iran is an example of why Church (or in their case, Mosque) and State should not be so closely intertwined. Unfortunately, for most of the Middle-East, Islam has been institutionalized, and its original message of peace has been warped into a message of warfare and strife which is advantageous for the greedy government, but not necessarily the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
I'll be interested to see whether Khameini (= the real power) calling for a "review" of the election "results" proves in any way genuine, or whether the review will be as big a sham as the lecetion "outcome" apparently was. The diversity of the gathering pro-reform coalition is very impressive ... makes it hard for the PTB to marginalize (think "radical students seeking overthrow of the regime").
This morning in the news, Mousavi pulled out, and said that he didn't want anymore people killed. So I guess Iran is stuck with the Ahmadinejad idiot (a Farsi pun is "Ahmaghinejad". "Ahmagh" means idiot and "nejad" means genes. Thus, Ahmadinejad is an idiot all the way down to the core of his existence). I don't hate Ahmadinejad, I am just sick of Iran being controlled by idiots like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad (who is the figure-head).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
Good luck to all fair-minded Iranians - may you peacefully achieve the positive change you seek for your country.
I hope so too. I have never been to Iran, and do intend to go when the turmoil dies down. But that probably won't happen for a long time.
flouran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 22:16   #7
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Let me point out an insightful article that goes against the grain of our general wishes for success of the current Iranian reform movement and Mousavi. I think its analysis with regard to the vitally important issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions are on-the-mark.

When/if Iran tests a nuclear bomb, IMO we'll all realize that the election of a reform-minded candidate to the not-so-powerful office of Iranian president will have become practically meaningless compared to the nuclear threat to Middle-East peace.

Until Iran's nuclear-weapon ambitions are permanently thwarted, this nuclear issue is far more important (IMO) than any public expression, by Obama or anyone else, regarding the value of democracy, reform, election to the figurehead office of Iranian president, and so forth. I'm completely sure that Obama realizes that, too, and thus is being careful not to say anything meaningful about the election (for which, some commentators are misguidedly calling him cowardly or his "silence" shameful - see, for instance, http://www.u.tv/News/Obama-administr...2-92bdb0e8fa99).

Other media articles are chasing this reform fox in the wrong direction, but the following Time article has its priorities straight.

"Why the White House Views Iran's Election as a Diplomatic Coup"

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...904628,00.html

Quote:
When Obama Administration Iran czar Dennis Ross and top U.S. Iran negotiator William Burns were planning the details of the President's outreach to Tehran with senior European diplomats earlier this spring, they discussed a possible nightmare scenario for the June 12 presidential elections in Iran. It was not, however, the prospect that incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might win, or even that he might steal the election, as many are alleging he now has, that had them worried. Quite the opposite, it was the possibility that the provocative Iranian President might lose to a moderate challenger.

"We even had a nightmare scenario yesterday," a senior European diplomat said the day after the meeting with Burns and Ross in March. If a moderate were elected and negotiations with Iran still went nowhere, how would the U.S. and Europe stop Iran from going nuclear? With its centrifuges spinning, Iran could continue to amass enriched uranium while presenting to the outside world an openness to compromise, the diplomat explained. When it came time to confront a stalling Iran by dropping the carrots and applying the sticks, said the senior European diplomat, "Try to imagine how difficult it would be to say 'I stop, I don't negotiate anymore,' " if a moderate were in charge in Tehran.

... Despite all the attention paid to the office of the Iranian presidency, nuclear policy is set by the religious leaders of the country, and they have shown a determination to amass enriched uranium regardless of whether hard-liners or moderates have been President.

Still, in addition to his power over domestic and economic policy, the Iranian President is the face for the country abroad. And in that respect, a victory by Mir-Hossein Mousavi would have presented a worst-case scenario for Western efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear program, senior Administration officials said Sunday. He would have presented a softer, less confrontational face to the outside world. And he would have been able to stall even before he entered into negotiations with the excuse of taking all summer to get a new Cabinet and negotiating team in place.

By contrast, Ahmadinejad's win may increase Washington's chances of getting tougher sanctions on Iran if they refuse to negotiate, the officials said. Ahmadinejad personifies Iran's unpredictable, dangerous side. He made even more hostile and threatening statements toward Israel and the U.S. during the campaign. And though they dare not say it publicly, Administration officials privately say that the messier and more contentious the postelection period, the more it sends the message to the outside world that even if some Iranians want moderation the hard-liners will not allow it.

. . .
It is the hard-line religious leaders that are most important in Iran, not the elected president, and they want nuclear weapons.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2009-06-16 at 22:28
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 22:21   #8
flouran
 
flouran's Avatar
 
Dec 2008

72·17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
It is the hard-line religious leaders that are most important in Iran, not the elected president.
Which is what I have been saying......

And here's the thing, these religious leaders do not know how to run a country. They may be cultured and educated in the Qu'ran, but they unsuccessfully are controlling the Islamic Republic. And guess what? The young people know this very clearly, and thus they protest.

Unfortunately, there was at least one person who was killed during the protest. One of my relatives emailed me this picture. Supposedly this guy (weapon circled) killed that person. Dunno if the picture is real or not:

Click image for larger version

Name:	image001.jpg
Views:	122
Size:	139.5 KB
ID:	3788


Feedback is appreciated....
flouran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 22:32   #9
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

170148 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flouran View Post
And here's the thing, these religious leaders do not know how to run a country. They may be cultured and educated in the Qu'ran, but they unsuccessfully are controlling the Islamic Republic.
Would you be willing to modify those statements by saying that you (and the young protestors, and I) disagree with the way that the religious leaders run Iran, rather than claim that they "do not know how"?
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 22:35   #10
flouran
 
flouran's Avatar
 
Dec 2008

83310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
Would you be willing to modify those statements by saying that you (and the young protestors, and I) disagree with the way that the religious leaders run Iran, rather than claim that they "do not know how"?
Sure. That's a better way of phrasing it. I apologize for letting my emotions run the show.

OTOH, if the religious leaders knew how to run the country, the country would not be in such political unrest for the past 30 years.
flouran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-16, 22:52   #11
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flouran View Post
Sure. That's a better way of phrasing it.
Thank you!

Quote:
OTOH, if the religious leaders knew how to run the country, the country would not be in such political unrest for the past 30 years.
Now, now ... that's the emotion still showing (remember that this is from someone well-known here, since long before you joined, to let his own postings be overly emotion-driven at times :). I think the religious leaders have shown that they have known very well how to run the country the way they want it to be run. But, naturally, the young generations born since 1979 tend to want something different.

Here, let me remind the other readers of this thread of what I'm sure you know:

Iran (along with some other Middle Eastern countries) has a far higher percentage of its population under that age of 30 than the US or any other Western country! Iranian young people are a much larger fraction of that country's population now than we (me and others my age, not you) Baby Boomers were of the US population when Vietnam War protest was at its height in the late 1960s and early 1970s. So their young-people's protests are easily of more relative magnitude there now than ours was then.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2009-06-16 at 22:55
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dutch Election Day (a.k.a. political nightmare!) VictordeHolland Soap Box 19 2017-10-31 12:35
Political Commentary R.D. Silverman Soap Box 62 2016-01-28 19:46
Iran? Xyzzy Soap Box 120 2009-06-21 05:32
More Political Commentary R.D. Silverman Soap Box 3 2008-05-20 18:18
Your favorite political jokes Fusion_power Lounge 5 2004-09-11 21:51

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:11.


Thu Oct 28 16:11:13 UTC 2021 up 97 days, 10:40, 0 users, load averages: 1.22, 1.52, 1.51

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.