The Iran Thread

[Marx]

Were the reports of acid being dropped from the security helicopters ever confirmed? I know that there was a bunch of different things coming out yesterday.

 

[StorminNorman]

Well, unfortunately this isn't going to be good to watch....and get all excited about as they rise up against their government. What will be harder to watch, is the US staying out of it.......we cannot get involved, because the Iranian government can simply say this is a US backed uprising, and not an uprising of the people. It's going to be hard but I have a feeling we will see more of this type of thing before its over.

The people of Iran are going to have to go through this themselves....unless UN peace keepers want to make an "appearance"...

Since helping the protesters in their attempts to reform Iran would be an act of actual competence, something that would REALLY make the world a better place, the UN is going to stay as far away from that as possible.

 

[Marx]

SENATORS CALL FOR 'REGIME CHANGE' IN IRAN, BUT DIFFER ON HOW
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-for-regime-change-in-iran-but-differ-on-how/

They agreed on wanting regime change in Iran, but leading Republican and Democratic senators disagreed Sunday on what role the United States should play in tying to make that happen.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week" program, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut both said they'd like to see the current Iranian government fall.

"Absolutely," Graham said, while Dodd said he would "love to see a different regime in Iran."

"Who wouldn't?" Dodd continued. "My lord, what's going on there for the last 30 years has been a disaster for the people in Iran."

However, Graham criticized President Barack Obama for failing to take a stronger public stance in favor of demonstrators protesting the announced result of the June 12 election that authorities said re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," Graham said.

He called Obama's statement Saturday for Iran to halt its violent crackdown on protesters the right step, but complained that the president has been "timid and passive more than I would like."

Dodd responded that Obama was taking the correct tone.

"The worst thing we could do at this moment for … these protesters, these courageous people in Tehran, is allow the government there to claim that this is a U.S.-led opposition, a U.S.-led demonstration," he said.

 

[Paradoxium]

Yeah foreigners in an oppressive country asked questions and got stock answers which just said Iran was great the way it is. I don't blame them but I don't believe this anymore than polling data from a house with 20 illegal immigrants living in it. Again this is polling data, not fact not vote, I don't have to prove it wrong cause it's just a poll not the gospel of truth. It holds however much weight you choose to believe polls hold. Again speak to President Hilldog about how dead on this is.

I'm making the cause that to have all the handwritten ballots in Iran counted an hour after the polls closed is almost an impossibility. To have the outcome hold such a standard deviation throughtout all districts is almost an impossibility. To have Amy's lead be stardard and unchanging form the beginning to end is almost an impossibility. And to have this many people protesting in such massive numbers in defiance of a supreme religious authority and a military with no quelms of killing civilians speaks that something ****ed up happened. Put all of this together and to say the (and I'll be generous here) 1% chance of this being legit is anything I need to disprove is ridiculous. There is no burden of proof, this was rigged from the start and it's backfiring badly, that's apparent.

What the actual numbers might have been is unknown, I doubt most votes were even counted to begin with.

One poll from the washington post which is now using twitter for it's news just isn't very convincing.

Where the hell did you get this information from? The accusations I have been reading were they counted too quickly in each successive wave, nothing about totalling all the votes in one god damn hour. The wave pattern is also no different from the American election. While it does not mean it can't be rigged, the wave argument is dubious and weak.

And where did I say gospel of truth? It corroborates with the important thing, Ahmadinejad winning. Your argument has barely a shred of solid evidence. If you make bold accusations and statements, you have to back it. Hell I can even come up a few ways to counter and confound that article I just posted, and you don't even make an effort.

More importantly, the news reporting shows only the support of one side's turnouts, and completely ignores the other turnouts, along with more propaganda fodder. This was done in Iraq as well. For example:

Here is a picture of pro-Ahmadinejad rally:


Here is a picture of "supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi" at the BBC:


The god damn BBC is doing this BS.

When the MSM report in with such a singular, unison and directed purpose, this is the first sign of suspicion for me. This whole mess reminds me of the same level of wishful thinking in the instance of Chavez and HAMAS.

I would love to see Ahmadinejad out, but if you going to get him out, it has to be done the RIGHT way. And even if he is out, it's not a huge change to the status quo; it is by virtue of this fact I doubt the vote rigging is as big as everyone makes it out to be. At most it is the same level of tampering in the American elections.

 

[Kelly]

Since helping the protesters in their attempts to reform Iran would be an act of actual competence, something that would REALLY make the world a better place, the UN is going to stay as far away from that as possible.

We CANNOT get into every revolution around the world. It IS NOT our job.

Hell, even Israel is being cautious in their wording.

We are not the world's police....IF we will show some restraint, I believe, others will step up.

If we cannot do this in the same EXACT manner that we did in Kosovo, then it will turn into another Iraq, and I sure as hell will not go for that. I'll be in the streets.....

 

[voyzovrezon]

I wonder if the U.S. government has covert operations in Iran to undermine its current regime.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22875.htm

On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”

On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”

A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”

 

[kane9321]

we cannot get into this

 

[Arc-Light]

We CANNOT get into every revolution around the world. It IS NOT our job.

Hell, even Israel is being cautious in their wording.

We are not the world's police....IF we will show some restraint, I believe, others will step up.

If we cannot do this in the same EXACT manner that we did in Kosovo, then it will turn into another Iraq, and I sure as hell will not go for that. I'll be in the streets.....

Well said......it is up to the Iranian people to step up, if they really want change then they will do it.

 

[Kelly]

I wonder if the U.S. government has covert operations in Iran to undermine its current regime.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22875.htm

I'm not sure that we have much there.......most of the intel for Iran comes from Israel, its very hard to get any kind of covert anything in Iran.

 

[voyzovrezon]

I found something that counters my earlier post:

WE look over this wall of marching people to see what our friends in the United States are saying about us. We cannot help it — 30 years of struggle against the Enemy has had the curious effect of making us intrigued. To our great dismay, what we find is that in important sectors of the American press a disturbing counternarrative is emerging: That perhaps this election wasn’t a fraud after all. That the United States shouldn’t rush in with complaints of democracy denied, and that perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president the Iranian people truly want (and, by extension, deserve).
Do not believe it. Those so-called experts warning Americans to be leery of claims of fraud by the opposition are basing their arguments on an outdated understanding of Iran that has little to do with the reality of what we here are experiencing during these singular days.
For instance, some American analysts assert that the demonstrations are taking place only in the sections of Tehran — in the north, around the university and Azadi Square — where the educated and well-off reside. Of course, those neighborhoods were home to the well-to-do ... 30 years ago. The notion that these areas represent “the nice part of town” will come as a surprise to their residents, who endure the noise, congestion and pollution of living in the center of a megalopolis.

read whole article here

 

[Paradoxium]

I found something that counters my earlier post:


read whole article here

I have a problem with doctored pictures, partial reporting, fake twitter spam and dubious statistical analysis to justify something. This does not mean I am some Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fanboy or anti-semite.

It would seem to me, this is attempt to shut out dissent and critical thought because they are uncomfortable with the contrarian that scrutinize everything. It reminds me of the Creationist and Environmental movement. The only thing left is to make the claim the contrarians are Holocaust deniers or something.

 

[Dark Vigilante]

we cannot get into this

We already are. At some level the CIA is involved, and I think they should be. All oppressed people of the world should find a friend in the United States. It's our moral responsibility to stand with any group of people attempting to procure their own freedom.

But there doubtlessly needs to be a proactive international response to this. The Islamic regime must be made to understand that any brutal suppression of innocent protestors is unacceptable.

In the end, one of two things are going to happen here...the Ayatollah will kill enough of the protestors to scare the rest of them into line...or each protestor killed will fuel a growing movement toward revolution. Now, if that happens, the U.S. will have to play a pivotal role to ensure it's success.

Imagine if 30 years from now, Iran and Iraq are strong democratic allies in the Middle East and George W. Bush is considred by historians as a foreign policy mastermind. What a world that would be

 

[StorminNorman]

We CANNOT get into every revolution around the world. It IS NOT our job.

Iran is not just some revolution.

Hell, even Israel is being cautious in their wording.

And they have to be. The stakes are higher for Israel than they are for the UN or American.

We are not the world's police....IF we will show some restraint, I believe, others will step up.

Yes we are. America is the largest advocate of freedom, the most significant force for human rights, the defender of democracy and liberty. If America doesn't do it, no one else will. It's vital for America to be this force as their are other world powers that have no problem interfering in international issues to promote their own desires (China and Russia).

 

[Kelly]

I respectfully disagree.....we are not the world's police, nor should we be.

The reason no one else does it, is because we don't wait to build a coalition to do it. We have in the past, and it has worked. We did in the Gulf War, we did in Kosovo. It is not our place to go into a sovereign nation, because we disagree with them. There are ways of taking care of this, unfortunately over the past 8 years we forgot how to do that.

 

[StorminNorman]

This is not about disagreeing with a sovereign nation, this is about protecting the people of a sovereign country. This is about protecting those in Iran who believe in the values we in America stand for against those that wish to destroy those values.

This is about saving a people from their oppressive rulers. This is about doing what is right.

I do not trust anarchy, so I refuse to look at international relations as such. There has to be someone who will stand up for good, stand up for freedom and stand up for liberty. The UN should have this role, in the presence of their incompetence and corruption, America must take their place.

 

[Dark Vigilante]

This is not about disagreeing with a sovereign nation, this is about protecting the people of a sovereign country. This is about protecting those in Iran who believe in the values we in America stand for against those that wish to destroy those values.

This is about saving a people from their oppressive rulers. This is about doing what is right.

Agreed. Its our duty really to do something. I'm not saying we should outright liberate the Iranian people, but we should use some of our covert assets to help them liberate themselves.

 

[Paradoxium]

Whatever well intended ideas some of you have, don't forget the whole BROKE ASS POOR part from GINORMOUSLY HUGE STIMULUS SPENDING t:

 

[Kelly]

This is not about disagreeing with a sovereign nation, this is about protecting the people of a sovereign country. This is about protecting those in Iran who believe in the values we in America stand for against those that wish to destroy those values.

This is about saving a people from their oppressive rulers. This is about doing what is right.

I do not trust anarchy, so I refuse to look at international relations as such. There has to be someone who will stand up for good, stand up for freedom and stand up for liberty. The UN should have this role, in the presence of their incompetence and corruption, America must take their place.

And again, when done right, it strengthens us globally. Iraq weakened us, Kosovo and Kuwait, strengthened us. Blowing in like Wyatt Earp is not what they need. Should Obama be building that coalition? yes.....is he? I certainly hope so, we don't know that at the moment.


Do we pick and choose where we intervene militarily? What about Sudan, what about The Democratic Republic of Congo, what about Tanzania?

Where do we go, and not go? How do we choose? What is the criteria? If we are the police of the world, why are we not in these countries? If we are doing what is right, why are we not doing what is right for these people?

We cannot do it all, OR......do we help those that have the resources we need? Is that the criteria?

 

[StorminNorman]

Agreed. Its our duty really to do something. I'm not saying we should outright liberate the Iranian people, but we should use some of our covert assets to help them liberate themselves.

I think America should bide its time before interfering, but always be prepared to do so.

The last thing we need, however, is a covert war in Iran.

If, and when, we act - it needs to be all over the TV. It needs to be publicized and it needs to be formal. With our history in Iran, we cannot use the CIA to incite riots and promote disorder - our action must be more straight forward.

As long as the Iranians continue to fill the sweeps, the government will continue to strike back. I expect them to go to far. When they do, we should be ready to go in.

 

[StorminNorman]

And again, when done right, it strengthens us globally. Iraq weakened us, Kosovo and Kuwait, strengthened us. Blowing in like Wyatt Earp is not what they need.

I never assume America to fail. I don't ignore the fact America can fail, as it has proven time and time again that it does have that capacity, but I never assume they will.

The stakes are higher than they were in Iraq, than they were in Kosovo and what they were in Kuwait.

I mean just try to picture a democratized Iran. That's a major funder and supporter of terror (presumably) gone. That's a radical enemy of Israel gone - and the threat of an immediate high stakes Israel-Iran war sharing that fate. It's security in a region that controls a resource we need. And it's one of America's greatest threats falling - two thirds of the Axis of Evil gone.

And as big a blow as it is against tyranny, against radical Islam, against evil - it is a victory for good. It is democracy in the middle east, it is revolution. It is brothers and sisters standing together with strangers shouting that they will not be beaten down, they will not be intimidated, that they will not be quieted. It is democracy. It is freedom. It is Good.

 

[Paradoxium]

The huge assumption is a democratized Iran will be stable enough to perpetuate for the long term. The running point I have been making is it won't. Middle eastern politics is a very very different animal.

 

[StorminNorman]

The huge assumption is a democratized Iran will be stable enough to perpetuate for the long term. The running point I have been making is it won't. Middle eastern politics is a very very different animal.

That is very possible. But I am at the point where I want to take advantage of the fact that I am a 19 year old kid and not a policy maker and take a pleasant, if not hallow, joy in my idealism. I see no reason to burden myself with the realities of the situation when I have no means to make any impact on actual policy.

I so very rarely afford myself the luxury of such delusion.

 

[Kelly]

I never assume America to fail. I don't ignore the fact America can fail, as it has proven time and time again that it does have that capacity, but I never assume they will.

The stakes are higher than they were in Iraq, than they were in Kosovo and what they were in Kuwait.

I mean just try to picture a democratized Iran. That's a major funder and supporter of terror (presumably) gone. That's a radical enemy of Israel gone - and the threat of an immediate high stakes Israel-Iran war sharing that fate. It's security in a region that controls a resource we need. And it's one of America's greatest threats falling - two thirds of the Axis of Evil gone.

And as big a blow as it is against tyranny, against radical Islam, against evil - it is a victory for good. It is democracy in the middle east, it is revolution. It is brothers and sisters standing together with strangers shouting that they will not be beaten down, they will not be intimidated, that they will not be quieted. It is democracy. It is freedom. It is Good.

I'm not saying we should not do something, I simply believe doing it within a coalition is the correct way to do it. And who are you going to put into power? The "other guy" is not much different than what they have now. His only problem is that he's still pissed that his title of Prime Minister was taken away because the office was no longer needed. But, when looking at history, and platform....the two candidates are actually very similar. That is who you put in power? What type of Democracy are you talking about? What is in Iraq? Yeah because its doing so well at the moment....what is in Afghanistan? Yeah because thats doing great....


Ignorance is bliss, but it is very seldom reality.


I think your Idealism is commendable, I really do......but the means by which to transform Iran is where we differ, not our desire for people to be afforded the same freedoms I have.

 

[StorminNorman]

I'm not saying we should not do something, I simply believe doing it within a coalition is the correct way to do it.

It, without a doubt, is the preferred way of doing it. Israel would, of course, be forced to sit out though. My point is that we cannot allow Europes lack of will (if there IS a lack of will) to support freedom prevent America from doing what is right.

If I see a woman getting raped on the side of the road, I would rather have two or three buds helping me protect her than just myself - but I would still do it alone if I had to.

And who are you going to put into power? The "other guy" is not much different than what they have now.

The man in power is less important than the system that puts him there. This is where America has failed in the past, in Iran and other countries - we have believed that having a Pro-American leader in power is more important than having a legitimate leader, this cannot be so.

I don't believe a man who gains his power from demonstrators protesting a government refusing to listen to their voices will then go right around and make the same mistake in four years.

His only problem is that he's still pissed that his title of Prime Minister was taken away because the office was no longer needed. But, when looking at history, and platform....the two candidates are actually very similar. That is who you put in power? What type of Democracy are you talking about?

What is in Iraq? Yeah because its doing so well at the moment....what is in Afghanistan? Yeah because thats doing great....

In Iraq, in Afghanistan, Democracy was imposed. This is not America coming in and forcing a system of government on a people - this is America allowing a people the government they are risking their life's to speak in favor of.

 

[Kelly]

Then let them fight for it.....

Can you find me an interview where family or people "in" Iran have asked for "Military Intervention"?

I've heard them say they would like "stronger verbage" from Obama and Europe, but is there anything out there where they ask for "military intervention"? I'm asking, because I haven't....I would be interested to see it.