Iranians may be ready to vote Ahmadinejad out of power

Their current president is ****face Ahmadinajad, anyone is better than that clown.

Your choices are bad and worse so take your pick. Progress is progress and hey maybe people do change.

But yes I dunno what's going to happen to Iran.

 

People who think Obama's speeches are meaningless should take note.

Part of what is happening is that the world saw an African American with a Muslim name become POTUS. This contradicts what so many Mullahs and guys like Ahmadinejad have been saying.

People start to believe, and believe that "change' is something that can happen. Create a scam election and take that away, and just as people can be inspired to believe, they can be inspired to take to the streets and protest.

 

Don't know if that is totally true. Look up the history of Mousavi.......pretty sick individual. IMO....worse than douchebag Ahmadinajad. Way worse.

Hopefully your right. Maybe Mousavi is a changed man. Maybe not. Maybe @%$# myself right? This whole thing is nothing more than a supreme power struggle between a bag of crap and a douchebag. Really sickening that the people in Iran, that want something new......are caught in the middle.

 

Every revolution-era politician is a snake and a fraud. Yes, they're all completely ****ed and were complicit in terrible things. Mousavi's term as PM was terrible for the Iranian people. I'm well aware of Mousavi's history.

But we're in 2009. Ahmadinajad is the WORST thing for Iran right now. He is systematically ruining a terrible economy with backwards economics. His foreign policy has only served to discourage what little foreign investment exists and he's dismantling the oil industry by ignoring fundamental flaws with it. Aside from the sham that was this election, 4 more years of him will only make things worse.

Like I said Iran has little in the way of choices and the Mullahs inadvertantly made Mousavi and Karroubi martyrs with this whole charade. But we're left with what we have and I'd roll the dice with a revolution-era has been than a guy who's ****ing the country over right now.

It absolutely sucks that this country is relying on clowns like Mousavi and Rafsanjani, but what choice is there anymore. Like I said, hopefully they've changed because we know one thing, Ahmadinajad and the Mullahs dont appear to be changing.

 

This is why in the end it may be better. If people are fed up enough with what's going on, it may end up bringing about real change. Folks in Iran might be tired enough of the whole mess, that they won't settle for the choices of only bad or worse.

 

I have a couple of notes to make here. First, Iranians tell me all the time that the post of president in Iran does not hold any real power and cannot affect change all that much. At the same time, many of you guys here are saying 'jad is the worse thing ever and that he is to blame for destroying Iranian economy and destroying Iran's foreign policy. If he really has that extensive a reach, then you are acknowledging that an elected president of Iran can have real impact, and is more than just a figurehead.

Another note: it is my understanding that Mousavi is the establishment guy and part of the old guard of the revolution, and is basically an insider of the core regime. At the same time, 'jad is not and never was too popular with the Mullahs because he is 1) not one of them and 2) has occasionally attacked them for being a bunch of fat cats who prospered at the expense of the average Iranian. When 'jad was elected, he was hailed as an outsider and a true man of the people who the rural types could appreciate and connect with. This is for all intents and purposes still true of 'jad and how his supporters felt about him. He is a guy who worked his way up and was not ayatollahed into his position, correct? If so, and you claim to detest the current regime and everything it stands for, how can you possibly support a core element of the revolutionary regime (Mousavi)?!

Finally, and this is a related note, why would Mousavi supporters be so riled up about him allegedly getting jibbed at these elections, when he is nothing more than a cog in the larger islamist regime in Tehran that you so passionately detest? The way I see it, had Mousavi won these elections, with all the excitement and much talked about openness of the pre-election period, it would have done nothing more than cement and legitimate the system already in place , and it would have been a MAJOR boost to the Iranian regime's claims of legitimacy and fairness in its international standing. The way I see it, the system is either wholly corrupt and should be replaced in its entirety OR the system is largely good and needs a few tweeks here and there, but the majority of Iranians are not that dismayed with the essential structuring of their political institutions.

A few thoughts, because I am seeing a LOT OF hypocrisy and flip flopping on the status of the Iranian regime.

 

For all my fellow persians in houston or anyone who wants to join,,protest at post oak and westhiemer on tuesday..

http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/event.php?eid=117866370305

5-8 P.M.

 

The estimates I've seen indicate he has about 10% of the total power, most of it related to domestic economic policy. This is where he has most tangibly screwed things up with relation to the inflation.

Ahmadinejad is also 'head of state', and meets with foreign heads of state, etc. It is in this role that Ahmadinejad has screwed foreign policy. Simply having the head of state deny the Holocaust to the whole world and being so belligerent, he has done grave damage to Iran's image, without exercising any real power.

I seriously believe that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi could be the difference between and the Israelis attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, or not (which, of course, could then lead to a general war, or not). Whenever Ahmadinejad says these stupid things, the Israelis mark it down and point to it as “proof” of Iran’s intentions. It makes justifying attacking Iran much easier. This is why the hardliners in Israel and the USA are so embarrassingly cheering on Ahmadinejad's victory.

The breakdown here is between the more moderate Mullahs and the core of the IRGC. I'm sure it seems hard to believe given the way it is thrown around, but mullah isn't inhernetly a bad word. There are even good ayatollahs who genuinely are interested in being virtuous and realising a positive vision for the people of Iran. Many of these guys were hardcore early in the revolution, and as they have gotten older have mellowed with age. Some of them aren't necessarily good so much as practical (or possibly greedy, which can be a very pragmatic vice at times) like Rafsanjani.

Mousavi is a guy who has been out of politics for more than a decade. For whatever reason, this makes him an outsider. During the revolution he was a radical, which is where his pedigree comes from, but his campaign platforms as previously stated were very liberal. He is sometimes considered an extension of the aforementioned Rafsanjani, who is either a "moderate" or a greedy corrupt pragmatist, depending on whom you ask.

Essentially, this election brakes down to a battle between the IRCG (which is much more than just a military unit - it has all sorts of business interests and is intertwined through and through with Iranian State Capitalism) and the forces who favor something closer to free market capitalism.

So liberal and moderate are kind of relative terms. If you aren't going to be happy until there are "gentlemen's clubs" and liquor stores on every street corner you are probably not going to like anybody. But if you think that some significant elements of the current Iran can be incorporated into the future Iran that people hope for, the process has to start with someone like Mousavi getting elected and being able to push for some reform policies, which would then result in more liberals getting elected, and so on and so forth.

If you don't think it is possible to reform the system, but rather think it requires total destruction, you might express happiness, not because of the actual election but more for the simple fact that people are rioting and standing up for their rights, independent of what caused it.

 

Beautifully written, you seem to not get my point either young man, before you point fingers stating that I was part of the Utopian bubble the shah built, you have to know me first, I lived in a mediocre household in Chalus, I had 7 brothers and my parents were factory workers and my dad worked part time selling perfumes and barber shop equipment, I dont even have pictures of them nor pictures of us together, I still regret that to this day... I could go on and on what I didnt have but that is how life is right but I know people used to take for granted what they have that time and the promise of free oil was too good to be true...

my reasoning is that the shah was more for the people than most people expected, instead of a quelling a rebellion he acted out as a human being, as I said with a flicker of his wrist he would have killed ten thousand people and the rebellion would be over such as what has happened in China ten years later, his father wouldnt made the same mistake but that is how he is. People dont like the sight of blood, they tend to shy away if there is blood shed or if their lives are endangered, its just how people are, that is how routing in battles used to occur. His mistakes were the same as those of Ferdinand Marcos, he didnt quell it because of two reasons, number 1 because as he said and the army had his back and were ordered to stand down, he wanted no more bloodshed, number 2 he is sick, same with ferdinand marcos.

 

by the way young man, when I was a kid, I didnt give a rat's behind who was in power but when I got older I saw what the shah did for the country was ten times better than these people hence I came to respect him, please dont state that you know me better than myself. I got to America thanks to the savings of my parents, I lost my brothers in the war so unlike you, I have ample reason to hate this damn regime, I lost most of them in the latter stages of the war and because of the stupidity and pride of this regime, we kept fighting iraq even though peace terms were already being given. that piece of crap, Mousavi, I hate him as well, the man was the prime minister of Iran at that time, he was opposed to ending the war as well.

 

Out of respect for you and the fact that you seem to be in a tough place right now, I will just move on from debating you here. I will just say that I did not mean to say that you, personally, lived in some utopia courtesy of the Shah, what I meant was I cannot possibly know if your experiences make you more or less objective. I apologize for the misunderstanding there. I meant no disrespect.

As for your last point about the Iran-Iraq war (I assume that is what you are referring to here), I am going to have to forgive the mullahs for dragging the war on a bit longer, given that Iraq was the clear aggressor in that war, and I am guessing a lot of Iranians supported a final push to punish Iraq for its transgressions. That crazy SOB Saddam (may he fry in hell, if there is one) used chemical weapons against your people. He was going for mass murder, and intentionally targeted civilians for a greater impact on the psyche of Iranians, trying to get them to surrender. I am sure you know all this, which is why it should not be surprising that Iran wanted to humiliate Saddam and his lynchmen for a little bit longer, to teach him a lesson or two. Afterall, Saddam wanted a peace treaty because he was running out of options, it was out of weakness and not love of peace, if he could he would have continued the war.

 

Very nice analysis, thanks for the response. I understand the reform movement in Iran, I guess I am just not sure that a former revolutionary strongman in Mousavi is the right man for the job. His anti-mullah rhetoric after losing the elections seems to be more about him being deprived of power for so long than any genuine concern for the country. He seems too much like an opportunist, but I could be wrong. That is just my read on the whole thing.

 

Ok I'm growing tired of this honestly.

I'm all for a change in Iran. My grandparents lived there. It was horrible for them because the Shah only cared about luxury around himself. He didn't care for the rural areas. Nevermind his hypocrisy - only a few days ago I was shown a video of him toasting champagne on international tv. What he does in his own home is his business, but he is a figure-head and a role model, sitting in a chair which requires you to be a Muslim (by blood). Far be it from me to say that drinking renders you a non-Muslim or that no one should drink on tv. But for his position he was absolutely wrong to do so publically.

You claim that he could have killed but I submit to you that he couldn't do anything by the time he realized it was over for him. We all know his healthy apetite for killing, so his claims that he doesn't want to hurt Iranians was bullcrap to me. A quick search of the word SAVAK will explain a lot of things, but I am sure that you are fully aware of what they did and in total denial of what a mob-mentality they maintained.

Again. I am pro-change in Iran. But this pendulum swing from extreme Islamic to extreme non-Islamic will continue to polarize the nation. For those who are corrupt, put them on trial. But Islamist Mullahs have a place in a Iranian democracy. They should not be shnned because the head Mullahs are rotten apples.

I fear that you miss your youth more than you miss political and economic stability. What Iran needs is to crush the corrupt worms, whoever they may be, and establish a Republic which holds true in allowing religious freedom and affording everyone the same rights regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. Yes, it is possible and no, there are absolutely no examples of this happening succesfully thus far. Butt you are absolutely wrong to suggest that Mullahs should not have a voice in that kind of system. They have a following and any group of people should be represented in government because the government should be a reflection of the people it governs.

Here's hoping that Iran doesn't make the same mistake AGAIN and become a puppet for others. Here's hoping that there are free elections, good candidates and that Iranians think about the long-term future with their brains rather than just their hearts. It is a country with incredible potential and a Shah, Supreme Leader or dictator would not do it justice.

Good luck Iran.

 

We recently hired this young (and very cute) Iranian girl who is seemingly "americanized" due to how she dresses, but we were speaking during break about this and I could tell that she felt strong about it and worried since she has family still there.

The thing that bothers her is this fact of people want moderation, and greater freedoms but know the protests could have repurcussions somehow.

 

Or a token gesture that will pronounce everything legitimate - it's hard to trust a government that has no transparency.

 

CNN: Hatred, chaos and savage beatings in Tehran

A country divided.

So sad for me to read....

 

I think it's the token gesture. The Supreme Mullah Dude declared Ahmadinejad the victor, when I have no doubt that he knew who had really won, or at the very least that the announced numbers were absurd. It's an attempt to keep the lid on, IMO

 

This is just sad, too bad the Shah didn't quell that horrid Islamic revolution back in 1979, the world would be better off if the majority of Iranians had a true voice.

DD