Ahmadinejad wins re-election

Alferd_Packer said:
There is no way the clerics are going to surrender power.
Click to expand...
It's not about them, it's about Ahmedinejad surrendering power.

And the differences between him and Mousavi aren't even that great. For the Mullahs it really doesn't matter all that much who of the two wins.

To stay in power the Mullahs need to keep the population happy. If that requires Ahmedinejad to be sacrificed for election-fraud, so be it.

brumsen said:
Anyway, my question is this: should this battle be left to the "Iranians in the streets"? Or would rigged elections be a convenient excuse for an attack on Iran "to bring democracy"?
Should we just wait and see what the inquiry ordered by Khamenei finds (where it is already beginning to be pretty clear what it ought to find, if it were aiming for the truth?)
Click to expand...
If you want the Iranians who now riot against Ahmedinejad to rally behind him, then the West should call for him to resign. If we get involved to support Mousavi, he loses all credibility among Iranians. They may not like Ahmedinejad, but they would pick him a thousand times over anyone who appears a Western puppet.
 
a_unique_person said:
Evidence of vote rigging.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2598847.htm

MARK COLVIN: And what's more [Karoubi] has a party with 400,000 members and they say that his vote was only 320,000.
Click to expand...

Huh?
If all those members are elligible to vote, then there is a real problem there... Did they fall for the "election cancelled" line?


Good questions asked in the TIME article. And it confirms that the votes were hand counted, making the speed of the count (and re-counts) quite fast.
 
egslim said:
It's not about them, it's about Ahmedinejad surrendering power.

And the differences between him and Mousavi aren't even that great. For the Mullahs it really doesn't matter all that much who of the two wins.
Click to expand...

This is why I suspect the mullahs didn't arrange the fix. They didn't need to. I also think they'd have been more subtle if they had fixed it. Ahmedinejad the the RG are not the sharpest tools in the box and have left their grubby fingerprints all over it.

To stay in power the Mullahs need to keep the population happy. If that requires Ahmedinejad to be sacrificed for election-fraud, so be it.
Click to expand...

This is not what they wanted. If they've been bounced into it they will not be at all happy with that small-town jerk-off Ahmedinejad. They made him : they can unmake him.
 
CapelDodger said:
This is why I suspect the mullahs didn't arrange the fix.
Click to expand...
That's a possibility, but I don't know if Ahmedinejad could have organized such a fraud without tipping the mullahs off.

This is not what they wanted. If they've been bounced into it they will not be at all happy with that small-town jerk-off Ahmedinejad. They made him : they can unmake him.
Click to expand...
If the mullahs really were deceived by Ahmedinejad after they supported him, they'll be pissed and he'll be gone.

But even if they were in on it, these riots might actually convince them to blame everything on Ahmedinejad and get rid of him.
 
egslim said:
That's a possibility, but I don't know if Ahmedinejad could have organized such a fraud without tipping the mullahs off.
Click to expand...

I doubt A'jad could organise a piss-up in a brewery. The RG, on the other hand, with connivance from a clerical faction ... it could maybe be done. The mullahs may simply not have been looking for it.


If the mullahs really were deceived by Ahmedinejad after they supported him, they'll be pissed and he'll be gone.
Click to expand...

That's my opinion too. It's obviously too early to tell what happened, but if it was a coup d'etat by the RG and an uber-conservative faction we may see an alliance of legitimists - the Supreme Council and the reformers - against an irresposible extreme.

Remeber what happened to the Jacobins ...

But even if they were in on it, these riots might actually convince them to blame everything on Ahmedinejad and get rid of him.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And the easiest way to say "Not us, guv" is to find against A'jad and re-run the election with a great deal more care.

We do live in interesting times, don't we?
 
Toke said:
The recent EP ballot in denmark was done with pen and paper. I was a volunteer at a locat voting site.

At the end of the day we piled the votes on a table and started seperating them into piles by party. Then we counted each pile, the final tally fit the number of voters cards and x´s in the voter list.

The civil servant in charge of the election site then phoned in the result.
Next morning the votes were counted at city hall and distributed by candidate.

No voting site have an exact mach to the national result, byt there are alot of vitnesses who have a close guess.

The simplest way of faking it would be to ignore the final tally, and declare the decired result.
That means leaving scared witnesses all over the place.
I guess they will start popping up soon.

I wonder why Sceptic and others have not taken the line that students are not all of Iran and their demonstrations have gotten the reactionaries off the couch to set things strait. You cannot have both a dictatorship faking the election and a population of muslim reactionaries.
Click to expand...

The usual way the international community monitors an election is to do extensive exit polling. If the "official results" are hugely different, you know something is awry.

Does anyone know if any organization conducted anything like this in Iran?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
The usual way the international community monitors an election is to do extensive exit polling. If the "official results" are hugely different, you know something is awry.

Does anyone know if any organization conducted anything like this in Iran?
Click to expand...

If you read the article I linked to, the answer is no.
 
Pardalis said:
We saw a real democracy work in the US in late 2008, and we saw a mock democracy fail in 2009 in Iran.
Click to expand...

I'd say that now we're seeing real democracy work in Iran... check out some of the latest photos!

And this bit from NBC news. I like what they called it in the report: the first true Internet revolution.

I have an Iranian friend (he lives in the U.S.) with family in Iran, and he is indicating that it certainly is a revolution now in progress. Wow.
 
The Hitch gives his $0.02 on the subject, agreeing, incidentally, with my original post that those who call these Iranian events "elections" at all -- let alone "skeptically" wondering if the "election" results were really fake, as in this forum, I may add -- should be ashamed of themselves.

It's truly pathetic, he notes, to see people speaking of "elections" or "robust debates" or "budding democracy" in Iran, (let alone, I add again, actually defending the result of this farce "elections") when it was blindingly obvious from the start that nobody except the ayatollah's favorite could possible win, as indeed happened.

Suckers and useful idiots. Useful to the ayatollahs, that is, because they do their best to make them look as something different than they obviously are, that is, dictatorical theocrats.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
The Hitch gives his $0.02 on the subject, agreeing, incidentally, with my original post that those who call these Iranian events "elections" at all -- let alone "skeptically" wondering if the "election" results were really fake, as in this forum, I may add -- should be ashamed of themselves.

It's truly pathetic, he notes, to see people speaking of "elections" or "robust debates" or "budding democracy" in Iran, (let alone, I add again, actually defending the result of this farce "elections") when it was blindingly obvious from the start that nobody except the ayatollah's favorite could possible win, as indeed happened.

Suckers and useful idiots. Useful to the ayatollahs, that is, because they do their best to make them look as something different than they obviously are, that is, dictatorical theocrats.
Click to expand...

Charming.
 
egslim said:
If you want the Iranians who now riot against Ahmedinejad to rally behind him, then the West should call for him to resign. If we get involved to support Mousavi, he loses all credibility among Iranians. They may not like Ahmedinejad, but they would pick him a thousand times over anyone who appears a Western puppet.
Click to expand...
My suggestion to intervene by force was only in jest (see my scare quotes around "to bring democracy"). Interesting though how people seem to know enough about Iran to state with conviction that the way Iraq and Afghanistan were handled is not the way to go this time, 'cos Iran is way different. Or - hold on - maybe we've learned something there?!

Anyway, if there were united international pressure to annul the elections and to hold them again, with international observers, that might help? That's to say, diplomatic pressure to organize real elections? That's not supporting any particular candidate, it's simply supporting a democratic process.
It might be more useful than awaiting the results of the inquiry ordered by Khamenei - as if the outcome of that is likely to be any help - while blood is being shed on the streets.
 
brumsen said:
Anyway, if there were united international pressure to annul the elections and to hold them again, with international observers, that might help? That's to say, diplomatic pressure to organize real elections? That's not supporting any particular candidate, it's simply supporting a democratic process.
Click to expand...
The Iranians would consider it a thinly veiled foreign attempt to get rid of Ahmedinejad. And rightly so, I don't believe for a second the West would call for re-election had Mousavi fixed it.

If we want Mousavi to win, we have to avoid every perception of foreign support for him. The Iranians have to do this themselves. They may not succeed, but foreign interference can only make it worse.

It might be more useful than awaiting the results of the inquiry ordered by Khamenei - as if the outcome of that is likely to be any help - while blood is being shed on the streets.
Click to expand...
Sometimes bloodshed is necessary, these people made the deliberate decision to risk it.

And don't underestimate the inquiry. If Ahmedinejad fixed the elections without the mullahs knowing about it, they'll be furious. If they did know, the danger of riots to their regime may still convince them to dump Ahmedinejad.

ETA: Remember, the mullahs want to stay in power. Elections fixed without their knowledge are a threat to them, but so are massive riots in the streets.
 
Last edited:
egslim said:
The Iranians would consider it a thinly veiled foreign attempt to get rid of Ahmedinejad. And rightly so, I don't believe for a second the West would call for re-election had Mousavi fixed it.
Click to expand...
A meaningless counterfactual. Mousavi being the kind of candidate that he is, he has no way of vote-fixing.
And even if you were right, it does not matter. The regime should be forced to give up the pretence of having held fair elections. If by definition that means getting rid of Ahmedinejad, so be it.

egslim said:
If we want Mousavi to win, we have to avoid every perception of foreign support for him. The Iranians have to do this themselves. They may not succeed, but foreign interference can only make it worse.
Click to expand...
This is not just about Mousavi. It is about how clerics run Iran.

egslim said:
Sometimes bloodshed is necessary, these people made the deliberate decision to risk it.
Click to expand...
Even if they made that decision, that is not a reason not to help them. Firstly because any revolution requires that somehow enough support builds up during the process, yet if nobody starts anything, nothing at all will happen. Secondly, there is no shame in coming to help when that is in defense of values you believe in: the right to self-determination through a genuine democratic process.

egslim said:
And don't underestimate the inquiry. If Ahmedinejad fixed the elections without the mullahs knowing about it, they'll be furious.
Click to expand...
How likely do you think that is?

egslim said:
If they did know, the danger of riots to their regime may still convince them to dump Ahmedinejad.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. The clock is ticking, though, and they'd better act fast.
 
brumsen said:
And even if you were right, it does not matter.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? The Iranians may dislike Ahmedinejad, but they hate foreign intervention into their political proces infinitely more. They'll turn against anyone who attempts to intervene uninvitedly, they're still angry about 1953.

The regime should be forced to give up the pretence of having held fair elections.
Click to expand...
The rioters have taken care of that already.

This is not just about Mousavi. It is about how clerics run Iran.
Click to expand...
No, it's about how Iranians run Iran.

Even if they made that decision, that is not a reason not to help them.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's not the reason. The reason is because they haven't asked. It's their country, they have to take charge.

This whole "they can't do it, we have to do it for them"-attitude is counterproductive.

Secondly, there is no shame in coming to help when that is in defense of values you believe in: the right to self-determination through a genuine democratic process.
Click to expand...
No shame, just stupidity. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, what matters are the consequences. If the West tries to interfere in some way, the country will rally behind Ahmedinejad to keep the foreigners out. He'll therefore get away with it, and fixed elections become the norm in Iran. Congratulations, you just set democracy in Iran back 20 years.

How likely do you think that is?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but CapelDodger's arguments make some sense. We know the fix was poorly organized, the mullahs are usually smarter than that. And Mousavi is no revolutionary, after all, the mullahs even approved his candidacy - 4 out of 100 were approved, I think.

Perhaps. The clock is ticking, though, and they'd better act fast.
Click to expand...
We'll see, it's in the hands of the Iranians.
 
egslim said:
Are you kidding? The Iranians may dislike Ahmedinejad, but they hate foreign intervention into their political proces infinitely more. They'll turn against anyone who attempts to intervene uninvitedly, they're still angry about 1953.
Click to expand...

You're not seriously comparing my proposal with the 1953 intervention, are you? It is quite the opposite.

My proposal is not at all to take things "out of the hands of the Iranians". Yet you continue to speak as if it was.

The thing that makes me doubt is the opinion poll reported on in the Washington Post article.
 
FireGarden said:
The washington post has an article on an opinion poll, which is consistent with the results:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757_pf.html

Ahmadinejad very popular, even among Azeris and 18-24 yr olds. No mention of Karoubi tanking, as has been discussed upthread.

Ken Ballen, co-author of the article, works for Terror Free Tomorrow:
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/template.php?section=AU

John McCain is listed as being on their advisory board.
Click to expand...


So, it seems that the best evidence available indicates that the election results may actually be legitimate?
 
Meadmaker said:
So, it seems that the best evidence available indicates that the election results may actually be legitimate?
Click to expand...

It looks like it.
Perhaps the main result of student demonstrations before the election was to get the more reactionary voters off the couch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom