Ahmadinejad wins re-election

C: You told me it was Ipswitch!

O: ...It was a pun.

C: (pause) A PUN?!?

O: No, no...not a pun...What's that thing that spells the same backwards as forwards?

C: (Long pause) A palindrome...?

O: Yeah, that's it!

C: It's not a palindrome! The palindrome of "Bolton" would be "Notlob"!! It don't work!!
 
Merko said:
I think it depends on the nature of those 'indications'. What you absolutely don't want to do, is to interfere for reasons that to the average Iranian looks like "they didn't like the result".

Consider the possibility that 63% actually did vote for Ahmadinejad. What do you think the popular reaction would be if some other country turned up and said that they won't accept that result?
Click to expand...
We are 100% in agreement. What I think is that in this case other reasons are readily available (and being added to as we speak)
 
I'm just annoyed that, once more, the tiny minority of extremists is calling the shots and ruining it for everybody, when it comes to setting the policy of those countries fortunate enough to live under the benign rule of the religion of peace, about subjects such as human rights, terrorism, freedom, etc.

Just my Islamophobic thought of the day.
 
Skeptic said:
I'm just annoyed that, once more, the tiny minority of extremists is calling the shots and ruining it for everybody, when it comes to setting the policy of those countries fortunate enough to live under the benign rule of the religion of peace, about subjects such as human rights, terrorism, freedom, etc.

Just my Islamophobic thought of the day.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you honest labeling of your opinion.
 
Skeptic said:
His policy is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's: it's to speak grandly and carry a small stick.
Click to expand...
This is idiotic. The fact is that these two guys are not all that different when it comes to policy, suppression of minority views, etc. When all this settles down, we are still going to be left with the potential of a nuclear Iran. So if Obama gets into the middle of the fray and backs the wrong horse, our leverage in Iran will be zero - or less.

If you want to eff up our relations with Iran for another generation, then root for Obama to start carrying a big stick. For now, speaking with a soft voice AND carrying a small stick make for good long-term policy.
 
Exactly how important is it which Mullah-appointed satrap Obama has to deal with?

The only difference will be the debating style.

Channelling Bill Hicks here:
Would you like to vote for the puppet on the left? Or do you feel more comfortable voting for the puppet on the right?

The West's position should be that we don't care as this cannot be called a democracy by any definition.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Exactly how important is it which Mullah-appointed satrap Obama has to deal with?
snip
Click to expand...

When it comes down to it the loss of life is pretty pointless.

The Supreme Leader must be having a chuckle to himself, the people actually believe the elections mean something. Half the battle is won for the ruling elite.
 
Delscottio said:
When it comes down to it the loss of life is pretty pointless.

The Supreme Leader must be having a chuckle to himself, the people actually believe the elections mean something. Half the battle is won for the ruling elite.
Click to expand...

The elections mean nothing hypothosis is not consistent with past differences in iranian policy as result of different people winning.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Exactly how important is it which Mullah-appointed satrap Obama has to deal with?

The only difference will be the debating style.
Click to expand...

False. Apart from anything else the two candidates have different set of clerics behind them. So one will broadly speaking want to kill obama and there other will want to trade with him.

The West's position should be that we don't care as this cannot be called a democracy by any definition.
Click to expand...

Its an Islamic republic.
 
geni said:
False. Apart from anything else the two candidates have different set of clerics behind them. So one will broadly speaking want to kill obama and there other will want to trade with him.
Click to expand...

Now that I've read that Indian Times article, i understand that my position was a gross oversimplification.

As I understand it now, the presidential candidates are backed by different clerics.

Hard-liners on the right, pragmatists (with a strong hint of corruption) on the left.

Some professor on BBC radio this morning thought that the regime will have to cave in to all the pressure and A'jad will have to go.
Fat chance! It looks like he really won the election, is backed by the Mullah's in power and has control over all the security forces and army.

Also interviewed this morning: the eldest son of the Shah!
In exile in the US, he is waiting in the wings so he can "play a role in bringing freedom to the Iranian people".
I bet they can't wait to have him back. LOL
 
brumsen said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem is a difference of perspective.

To you, the US is probably a force for good, freedom and democracy.

To Iranians, the US is a threat to its political independence (1953), its position as a regional power (US military presence dominates the region), its economic and nuclear energy development (sanctions), and a military danger (threat of invasion a few years ago or air strikes in the future).

In short, they don't trust you. And whoever you side with in Iran, regardless of how noble your motivations are, you'll cost that side its popular support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom