Are events in Iran partly due to the "Obama effect"

Obama has several President defining crisises on his plate. Talking up a good game with Iran people atm would help a lot to reduce of a problem instead of bluffing on a military option.

I'm not too optimistic on reconciliation though. Too much vested on both sides not to make peace.

 

Moussavi might would carry Iran on much the same way they always have. Continuing the nuke program, just with a warmer smile on his face.

Dont want to pass on strained international relations on to my grandkids, but as long as Middle Eastern threats can be held off during my lifetime its all I can ask for... Just wondering what'll happen when Obama goes from apologist state to accountable president.

 

not sure what Iran has actually achieved with any of this, and to call getting Mousavi a great victory for the US is pretty off base, too

Obama hasn't shown much leadership through this Iran mess

 

I think it's just the natural response of people to repression. With access to information and the ability to organize, people and especially youths, will oppose it every time. Self determination is an innate and universal desire.

In Iran it wouldn't have really mattered who the opposing candidate was as long as he wasn't the incumbent. It's a simple Us vs. Them mentality.

If Obama had any effect in Iran it was the crystallization of the idea that oppressive governments can be changed by the electoral process. Given the history of government on this planet that is a pretty revolutionary concept.

 

Little doubt there has been an "Obama effect" in Iran, but Ahmadinejad's failures as president are the main driving force. Sort of like what happened here. I agree with one of Mousavi's spokesmen when he said Ahmadinejad is the "Bush of Iran".

If Bush hadn't been such a complete failure as president, no way in the world Obama gets elected. If Ahmadinejad weren't such a pathetic failure in Iran, no way these protests happen.

 

What if US had protested after the gore election what would the world be like now.

 

Is there any doubt that the Obama zealots would have done something similar to the Iranian people, had their messiah lost?

 

If McCain won by 20% and the GOP counted those votes, then I could easily see this happening in the American streets.

 

The difference is the 2000 election was an open process where ballots were preserved and publicly recounted in front of representatives of the candidates, the press and other independent observers. If the Supreme Court had come out 2 days after the election and endorsed Bush as the winner without any due-process, there certainly would have been protests. Especially, as someone pointed out, if Bush's people were the ones who tabulated the ballots. Especially, if the U.S. government had done all it could to shut down communications in this country.

Disputed elections happen here, but we have a fair legal process to deal with them.

 

And depending on what method was used either gore or bush could have won. The fair thing would have been to redo it. The fact bunch old ass people sitting in Washington determining who the winner was no different than what is happening in Iran if you really want to think about it. It was farce except the American people don't have 35% unemployment and are complacent so they let it be.

 

Well, yes, and there’s nothing all that stealthy about it. He is standing up for what is right and he is inspiring others to do the same. But even more importantly, his standing up for freedom and justice provides such a marked contrast to what the previous administration stood for that it has unshackled the forces of good in the world to a very significant extent. We know that Bush’s policies helped galvanize support behind Ahmadinejad and undermine the progressive elements in Iran (and even now we see basso and bigtexxx trying to do the same thing), but Obama’s position, underlined by the Cairo speech, showed convincingly that the government of the US believes in freedom and justice again, and that has encouraged people in the ME and around the world to believe that they can begin working towards those goals again without fear of the US storming in and trying to undermine them again.

Of course there are still people in the US who passionately hate freedom and justice, like basso and bigtexxx, and who will try to exploit every weakness and opportunity to grab more power for themselves and their friends. I have no doubt that they see the current situation in Iran as an opportunity for the US to intervene, gain influence, and possibly leave behind a few military bases and a puppet government. This is what the previous administration wanted to do in Iraq, and it truly was not safe for the Iranian people to try this kind of action against their own government during the Bush era because the US could not be trusted not to intervene, but with Obama I believe they now feel safe to do so.

This is one of the most bizarre attempts at revisionist history I think I’ve ever seen, but it does show you what they’re trying to do with their spin on Iran. Let’s remember very clearly that the pretence for the war in Iraq was to find and dismantle Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, which were supposed to be an imminent threat. Remember that? The "bringing democracy to Iraq" line was just the second lie they made up to try to cover their real intentions after their first lie was exposed. Remember very clearly that these people lied to the American public. They lied to the world. They rebuffed the UN and any kind of real coalition effort to intervene in Iraq. They broke international law. And they did all this to try to grab Iraqi oil and extend US power in the ME. And now these same people see a weakness in Iran and they would like the US to exploit it as well, to interfere in Iran to gain more power over it. This is about as close to evil is it gets, imo, and you can see these attitudes reflected on this board again and again in the posts of basso and bigtexxx. These people still exist and everyone needs to be very aware of that, but they are a minority and they do not currently control the US government.

Absolutely correct. He is showing a respect for them and their people, and their right to self-determination, and yet I’m sure that the people of Iran feel and know that when they have achieved their goal Obama will be there to help them, and not to exploit them.

 

I was talking to a friend about whether or not the obama thugs would have hit the streets if McCain won. I think they would considering all the hype that was built up around it. You had a bunch of people who did not know about elections voting for the first time and more than likely those people would be upset if their guy lost. Whether or not there would have been riots is questionable. I guess we'll see in 2012 when the majority wakes up and votes him out of office

 

Unbelievable! The point is I AM thinking about it and the more I do, the more ridiculous your notion is. If (1) Bush had been the incumbent, (2) Republicans had been 100% in control of the ballots and tallying process, (3) the outcome was a ridiculous 30-point blowout that defied sane thinking, (4) there was zero due-process to sort things out, (5) the Supreme Court stepped in prematurely to declare a winner and (6) the government tried to squelch communication in order to reduce discussion of the matter, then there would be a comparison. But there isn't.

You can't have a do-over every time the loser squawks loud enough, otherwise there would be do-overs 50% of the time in America. You cannot reward outlandish behavior like Norm Coleman's. Even Al Gore didn't press for another vote because his legal challenges were legit and sincere. The only time to have a 2nd vote is when a significant number of ballots are lost/forged or, in the case of Iran, nobody has a bloomin' clue what happened with the ballots to start with. Everything has been behind closed doors.

I promise you I dislike Bush with as much passion as anyone. But to say the 2000 election is no different than Iran's sham election is complete and utter nonsense. That said, you are free to disagree. I'm sure a bunch of Dems here are on your side.

 

It's not his place to show leadership through the Iran mess.

As an Iranian, I am very happy with how he has handled this situation. Thank God Bush is no longer in office to make a crappy situation a hundred times worse.

 

Nonsense. How is it fair to redo it? There was an election. All the clear votes were counted. The only question was what to do with unclear votes. How is it fair for all the people that voted clearly to have to revote again (if even possible for them)?

Nonsense again. There's a big difference between an open counting and judicial process which is spelled out in law as opposed to making up vote tallies, picking a winner, and arresting the loser.

 

2009 is calling folx!

As to the OP, ... gads but that seems like a fast cause and effect, even partly. Teh incumbent was pretty unpopular in Iran for the last few years, and this election reeks to high heaven, and the interwebs is starting to surpass the nation state so... I'd wager his effect is 10% max, probably much less.

Perhaps, more than his words at all, his symbol had some minor effect. Like "holy ****ing ****, that country elected a black man! Real elections are some crazy ****!"

 

You are either kidding, or you are really not very bright. I seriously doubt that you would have had buildings burned down and mass hysteria in the streets had McCain won the election.

Good job on losing the last shred of credibility you had. Hope it was worth it.

 

Indeed. Not sure how much better it would be to have Mousavi as opposed to Ahmadinejad, as the news is always saying that Mousavi is "slightly" less extreme, or something to that extent.

To the Iranian people, I think it's just about having somebody else in power, knowing that their election was fair and not a fraud, and possibly having somebody in power who is a little more secular.