Iranians may be ready to vote Ahmadinejad out of power

On the flipside, it could be a way to save face if they didn't expect this type of reaction. Say you want the truth, establish that there was fraud, say you are horrified by this and fire/execute a bunch of people, then hold a revote to calm the population. At least it keeps you in power if you really fear you're losing control of the people.

 

An interesting take. That assumes that the theocracy really fears a revolution. They just might, having come to power during one not that terribly long ago.

 

The people of Iran deserve freedom. I hope the corrupt mullahs are ousted, for the good of the people.

Seperation of church and state is essential and enevitable.

DD

 

True, but the Obama administration is too gutless to help them even with lip service. Hence, the protestors are doomed to fail.

I just wonder if this type of violence is the future of our next Presidential election considering the potential census / election fraud, IMO, for which ACORN is getting government subsidies to wreak on the American electorate.

 

"And they brought a Cave Troll!"

You have to be more subtle when trying to bring a legitimate thread to its knees.

 

Jesus thumbs! Since when did you become a basso troll?

[edit] Oops! looks like Sam beat me to it!

 

I've just skimmed through this thread and its really interesting. I haven't been following the events that closely in Iran but I have a very hard time accepting that this election was free and fair but I agree with the general sentiment that the best thing the US can do is to let things play out in Iran.

I've been very interested in reading the poster called BobSura's post. I actually was in Tehran briefly when I was 8 about a year before the revolution. I don't remember much of it but I do recall it being very Western looking. Since then I've known some Iranians in the US who have pined for the days of the Shah but almost all of them came from the elite that fled Iran after the revolution. From my knowledge while the Shah might've been Pro-Western and provided some individual freedoms didn't he also loot the country and crack down on dissent? Also from my own limited knowledge regarding the revolution while the Shah could've launched a bloodbath against the demonstrators would most of the country has supported that and instead of ending the revolution just postponed it to an even bloodier end?

Bobsura raised the comparison to Marcos and while Marcos could've also had a bloodbath against the People Power movement but at that point it was pretty clear to everyone that Marcos' support had eroded so much that few would likely have stood for him. For good reason too as he almost destroyed a country that in the 1960's was among the most advanced in Southeast Asia.

 

Am I a troll for wondering how this relates to our future elections? If so, I guess my club was too heavy and landed on a sore toe.

 

Nope, my toes are fine

But you do look ridiculous making such an asinine comparison.

 

basso raised almost the same point in another thread and I was going to ask him this but that would've been too big of a derail.

Seriously do you think action by the Obama Admin, rhetorical or otherwise, will help the Iranian protestors?

 

Thumbs maybe one of the conservative better posters in terms of actually engaging you in a debate, but he's extreme right. that post doesn't surprise me.

 

^ why are you guys giving him the satisfaction?

This is a pretty good thread on the Iranian election, don't let him ruin it. And beleive me I know how to ruin a thread.

 

I agree but its inevitable, its going to be the new GOP talking point. Basso has already brought it in the DOMA thread.

 

Missed that one. Unfortunately, I don't read all the threads anymore.

Yes, I do. Not only is he the U.S. President but also has been trying to polish our image -- and rightly so -- in other countries. If he doesn't condemn this, what is the point in this apple polishing?.

 

it's fine let him do it - it only hurts his cause in the end, and I know that he takes the cause VERY. SERIOUSLY.

 

Ok, so when Obama gives a major speech in Cairo and says a lot of brave things - it's just meaningless words.

But when Obama plays it smart and doesn't say anything because he doesn't want to taint what's going on in Iran - he doesn't want to make it a West vs. Islam sort of thing....when that happens, words mean a whole lot and he's gutless?

You can't have it both ways. Give the man props for one at least. Otherwise you're just being Anti-Obama and a partisan.

 

This point has already been addressed ad nausium. Condemning it would play great in the USA. Not so much in the land of Mossadeq, where foreign intervention has a long negative history.

I've already seen tons of posts from militant hardliner Iranians making the laughable claim that Mousavi is a 'foreign spy' in the pay of the West. If Barak Obama condemns it, it may let you feel self-righteous, but it just makes things worse for the reformist-minded Iranians. Condemning it would be the GWB move, where he did what 'felt right' without understanding the situation. Thankfully Obama appears to be more cognizant of the dynamics at play.

 

Thank you for that, pgabriel, but I always considered myself a moderate when all is said and done -- -- conservative on some things and liberal in others. I guess it all depends on perspective.

Anyway, I do not mean to derail the thread. So, any and all, forget about the "how it pertains to our future elections" but I think Obama's relative silence is germane.

 

irony

Obama doesn't do something that would only serve to score political points here, and yet the right wing complains

 

Then, my apologies. I have not read all 28 pages -- just the first two and the last two. So I will at some point today backtrack to see what I missed. BTW, I enjoy Basso's posts. I don't always agree, but for the most part I do.