Current Iranian unrest will lead to regime change.

[Roadtoad]

If I wanted to make a moral equivalence argument, I'd probably pick Saudi Arabia. They have all of the despotic attributes of Iran- an absolute monarchy, no free speech, armed thugs enforcing religious "virtue" in the streets, and zero tolerance for dissent. Unlike in Iran, women can't vote, drive a car, or walk about with their faces uncovered. And yet the Saudis are our allies. Go figure.

Obviously you've forgotten the phrase, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."

Sometimes people very much want foreign intervention. I don't think this is the case in Iran though.

The USA should stay out of this one, for the time being. The last thing we need is for this to be turned into another American sponsored coup.

As CD said: At this point, we don't have the ability to organize a kid's birthday party.

 

[alfaniner]

I think this will accomplish in Iran what Bush tried to do in Iraq, i.e., force democracy onto the populace. The change has to come from within. Well, at least it's a start.

 

[icerat]

Not sure how you determined who shot her. A source I clicked on commented that she "had been shot by police." Looked like a throat shot. A bit tough to tell.

Poor girl. The folks trying to render first aid/stop the bleeding by direct pressure seemed to be applying pressure to her throat area. All that blood was not a good sign.

The information is out there. The fellow who uploaded the video was apparently a doctor and attended her immediately, his friend was videoing. The doctor is the one who said she was shot through the heart by a rooftop sniper. There are 2 separate videos of the incident on the 'net.

 

[Oliver]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

...or not.

I am very happy to see thousands of brave Iranians give the finger to Mr. Ayatollah and protest against the police and the army. They face mortal danger.

But yet, a lot less people came out this Saturday. Was it because they fear for their lives? Or because they actually respect the words of the immortal Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah?

Should Obama be speaking out more in support of the protestors? Or would that just add an unneccessary propaganda tool to the Mullahs?

Obama would be even more stupid than Bush if he would side with anyone in the Iranian uprising. Not just for being used as propaganda, but even more importantly because it would destroy every diplomatic efforts so far to rationally communicate with Iran - without both sides using the opponent as propaganda. [See: Bolton, Lieberman, Ahmadinejad, McCain, Kristol, etc...]

 

[geni]

Sometimes people very much want foreign intervention. I don't think this is the case in Iran though.

Notice the protest signs in english? At the very least they want us to take note.

 

[JihadJane]

(given that the new leaders wouldn't dare to steal another election, for example).

Has it been established that the election was stolen?

Part of the Mullah's strategy is to try to blame the unrest on the US. Obama speaking out too much would simply enhance the Mullah's position. He's doing the right thing I think.

Well, the US does set itself up for such accusations. Has Obama, ordered a halt to the covert destabilisation operations that the Bush regime instigated in Iran?

 

[dudalb]

Why am I not surprised that Jihad Jane is sticking up for the regime in Iran?

 

[nota]

we could thoughtfully return all the arms iran sent to the nuts in iraq
and try to see that they fall into the hands of the protesters not the government
as these are the arms from iran they can't really protest to much

 

[Thunder]

Has it been established that the election was stolen?
Well, the US does set itself up for such accusations. Has Obama, ordered a halt to the covert destabilisation operations that the Bush regime instigated in Iran?

You are either on the side of reformists and democrats..or you are on the side of the Islamist fundamentalist Mullahs.

Pick one.

 

[CapelDodger]

Has it been established that the election was stolen?

Not as such. Nor has it been shown to be fair - which would be easier to do.

Well, the US does set itself up for such accusations. Has Obama, ordered a halt to the covert destabilisation operations that the Bush regime instigated in Iran?

Yes, but covertly. I have it on good authority.

Bush and Ahmedinejad were perfect foils for each other, but Obama is not going to fill that role. The US is not Bush.

 

[CapelDodger]

we could thoughtfully return all the arms iran sent to the nuts in iraq

You'd have to find them outside your imagination first. There was no shortage of weapons in Iraq when the invasion took place. It was just a question of redistribution.

and try to see that they fall into the hands of the protesters not
the government

They don't want arms. They have numbers and determination. This isn't a shooting-match.

as these are the arms from iran they can't really protest to much

The Iranian regime protests about plenty of other imaginary things, so why not those?

 

[Tricky]

While like most Americans, I am horrified by the violent suppression of protests in Iran, I am a little less quick to jump on the Mousavi bandwagon than some. First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won. For one thing, he is very popular with the young and more technologically adept, so we are much more likely to hear Twitters from them than from country folk who are more likely to support Ahmadinejad. For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully. Indeed he seems very pleased by what has happened. While he's saying a lot of the stuff we like to hear, let us not assume for a minute that he is going to be our great friend, or that any enemy of the ruling regime in Iran is a friend of ours. We made that mistake once before with Saddam Hussein. Are our memories really that short?

Secondly, while I am no supporter of Ron Paul, I do think it is wise to move cautiously here. It is safe to condemn the brutal suppression of the people, but it is not safe to actively cheer against the government of Iraq. Remember that when all is said and done, they are likely to still be in power, at least for a while. It is important that we not burn any bridges here by supporting a coup. Remember how that endeared Chavez to the US. Dictators are bad, but they are worse when you have no leverage against them.

Third, remember that Iran, though thoroughly religious, is very western by most standards in the Middle East. They are far less repressive than, oh, say Saudi Arabia. If we are looking for a foothold in a Muslim nation, this is one we don't want to kick while they are down. This is a situation that requires greater diplomacy than Obama has yet had to muster. Let us hope that he is up to the task. I feel a lot better with him at the helm than I would have if it were still Dubya, but any number of things could go wrong.

But that being said, I am quietly rejoicing that Iran is starting to throw off the bonds of religious oppression. While I lament the loss of life, I certainly have seen situations where more innocent people died, and for a stupid cause than I have (so far) seen here. Fareed Zakaria, a commentator I have a lot of respect for, thinks this is the beginning of the end for the Mullahs. He made what I thought was an apt comparison.

I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protesters and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.

This is indeed a delicate situation and while the future is hopeful, things are far from over, and there is a good likelihood that things will get worse before they get better. I believe and hope that they will eventually get better.

 

[icerat]

While like most Americans, I am horrified by the violent suppression of protests in Iran, I am a little less quick to jump on the Mousavi bandwagon than some.

I think most people are supporting the protesters, rather than Mousavi per se. Didn't Obama point out their not so different, Mousavi and Ahmadinejad? If the revolution works though, Mousavi will be beholden to those who got him there.

First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won. For one thing, he is very popular with the young and more technologically adept, so we are much more likely to hear Twitters from them than from country folk who are more likely to support Ahmadinejad.

True enough, but aren't the response to the protests is enough to support almost "anyone but Ahmadinejad"?

For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully.

It's a shame you're distressed by something that's not true. Mousavi has regularly called for the protesters to remain peaceful, most recently today.

 

[CapelDodger]

While like most Americans, I am horrified by the violent suppression of protests in Iran, I am a little less quick to jump on the Mousavi bandwagon than some. First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won. For one thing, he is very popular with the young and more technologically adept, so we are much more likely to hear Twitters from them than from country folk who are more likely to support Ahmadinejad. For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully.

He has. Mousavi has explicitly called for peaceful demonstrations, and they have been so in the main. The violence against them has not been provoked.

As for people getting killed while protesting against an authoritarian regime with a thuggish militia, that's going to happen. To quibble at that is to accept the status quo, to give in. The numbers so far are miniscule in historical terms. Each an individual tragedy, but what real change has ever happened without those? Should Martin Luther King have told people to stay quiet indoors because they might get killed?

Indeed he seems very pleased by what has happened. While he's saying a lot of the stuff we like to hear, let us not assume for a minute that he is going to be our great friend, or that any enemy of the ruling regime in Iran is a friend of ours. We made that mistake once before with Saddam Hussein. Are our memories really that short?

Let's be more charitable and think of it from the Iranian point of view. Which is what this is really all about. Not you or me or who's our friend, but the Iranian people now and those yet to come.

Secondly, while I am no supporter of Ron Paul, I do think it is wise to move cautiously here. It is safe to condemn the brutal suppression of the people, but it is not safe to actively cheer against the government of Iraq. Remember that when all is said and done, they are likely to still be in power, at least for a while. It is important that we not burn any bridges here by supporting a coup. Remember how that endeared Chavez to the US. Dictators are bad, but they are worse when you have no leverage against them.

It is simply nothing to do with "us". It's not for us to do anything other than (as Obama put it) bear witness.

 

[JihadJane]

Why am I not surprised that Jihad Jane is sticking up for the regime in Iran?

Because your under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs?

You are either on the side of reformists and democrats..or you are on the side of the Islamist fundamentalist Mullahs.

Pick one.

What are you rambling on about? What has that got do do with my questions?

Yes, but covertly. I have it on good authority.

What sort of authority?

Bush and Ahmedinejad were perfect foils for each other, but Obama is not going to fill that role. The US is not Bush.

The differences between Bush and Obama's Long War policies are cosmetic.

 

[Thunder]

The differences between Bush and Obama's Long War policies are cosmetic.

Bush was forced to sign a treaty that pulls out troops out of Iraq. Contrary to that, Obama WANTS to pull our troops out.

Bush and Obama are night and day. I don't care what the nutcase conspiracy theorists say.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I just saw the footage of the woman. If you do not what I am talking about, you soon will.
My God. Godwin be damned, Heinrich Himmler's Merry Men could not have done much worse.

Her name was Neda, apparently. And she's become a rallying cry for the opposition in Iran. I think that the women in the movement are going to be especially pissed off about it, as they should be.

Here's the video - be warned, it's graphic.

 

[MattusMaximus]

But that being said, I am quietly rejoicing that Iran is starting to throw off the bonds of religious oppression. While I lament the loss of life, I certainly have seen situations where more innocent people died, and for a stupid cause than I have (so far) seen here. Fareed Zakaria, a commentator I have a lot of respect for, thinks this is the beginning of the end for the Mullahs. He made what I thought was an apt comparison.

You just beat me to it, Tricky!

I just got done reading that article, titled "'Fatal wound' inflicted on Iranian regime's ideology". Zakaria does a great job of laying out how this is, indeed, a really big deal and that there's no going back to the way things were just two weeks ago in Iran. The religious class that has, up until now, run the Iranian government behind the scenes since 1979 has now been openly exposed, ironically by their own stupidity, as being nothing more than thuggish theocrats thirsty for power.

And plenty of Iranians see it and are sick of it, and now I think the worm has started to turn in Iran.

Tricky, as for your other points about Mousavi, whether or not they're accurate I think that it may now be moot. The opposition seems now to have taken on a life of it's own with more and more prominent Iranian politicians & clerics joining its ranks, especially in light of Khamenei's attempt to shut down all dissent with a religious decree

 

[JihadJane]

Bush was forced to sign a treaty that pulls out troops out of Iraq. Contrary to that, Obama WANTS to pull our troops out.

Bush and Obama are night and day. You nutcase are a nutcase conspiracy theorist.

(Fixed that for ya)



Dream on. Military spending is up. The war continues, unabated.

 

[Thunder]

Dream on. Military spending is up. The war continues, unabated.

Dream on? The USA is poised to remove all its troops from major Iraqi cities, as scheduled and agreed upon.

It is no dream.

US troops must leave Iraqi cities by June 30th and we are doing just that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090620/wl_nm/us_iraq_usa_security_1