PDA

View Full Version : Iran 2009 and US 2000, a dual prospective.



LegalSmash
17 Jun 2009, 11:15pm
I want this to be civil, and I want this thread to flourish, so lets start:

In 2000, GW Bush was awarded the presidency after the SCOTUS determined they would not review the Florida Supreme Court's decision to stop the continuing debate over another recount. Many people were very upset, and to this day, people I know claim the world would be nowhere near as damaged as it is today, had Gore been given the decision.

This is the opinion a LOT of people I met in law school and in college firmly believed, I'm not really sure I would be able to conclusively side with one group or another, and I will leave it at that.

This week, M. Amidinejad, and the rival reform candidate had an election, ending in riots, fires, and injuries. Similarly the result of the election was at issue, and people got very upset. I for one, believe revolution, and ousting of the the clerical islamic regime may be at hand... but anything may be possible.

What are your thoughts of the comparisons, and what do you think will come of this?

Discuss

Italian Jew
17 Jun 2009, 11:34pm
I don't think the world would have been drastically different if Gore was named the winner, but you would expect some significant policy changes than what we experienced under (either for the better or for the worse). I think the same thing would occur in Iran if Mousavi won. The big things would stay the same, but at least he would be more open for a more progressive society and better relations with the US. He wouldn't be our best bud in the world, but he would be an improvement over Ahmadinejad's nonsense. However, I would say Mousavi winning over Ahmadinejad would be more important than Gore winning over Bush. It would be more important for Iran to change their direction rather than if we decided Red or Blue.

I would hope for a revolution in Iran, but I would not expect a huge switch in policy if the other guy actually won over Ahmadinejad. You'd have to have about a complete overthrow of their current system for what we would claim as the ideal foreign policy for our interests.

That being said, if any actual revolution were to occur (or if anything drastic were to start), we shouldn't be involved. This is something the Iranian people need to fight themselves as a revolution is to establish a new identity for the country. I don't want to see another Iraq on our hands and have the rest of the Middle East paranoid of the US overthrowing the established order.

Our interference in these affairs would be just as distasteful as a Supreme Court action in the 2000 election. I am sure the people here would be pissed if the Court tried to become a part of the issue, but nothing along the lines of mass rioting. The difference is just the severity of the change, it is one thing to go from one party to another in a society that is used to change, but it is COMPLETELY different in a society that has only known one way of thinking for many years.

Hopefully this all makes sense and is what you were looking for.

Red
17 Jun 2009, 11:50pm
What saddens me is that Obama doesn't want to "meddle" in their affairs because it wouldn't "matter" who won.

But that's where Obama's missing the point. This revolt isn't simply over the two candidates, it's over the very notion of more freedom overall, that's what this revolt is truly over. It's over the fact that 1. the elections were rigged and 2. the Iranians protesting just want more freedom in General, not one candidate over the other. And obama saying candidate A vs B "doesn't matter" is just sad and disheartening to those risking their lives to protest. They want to hear some kind of backing from other countries, some probably even want US backing, even though Obama says he doesn't want to "taint" their protest by putting a US spin on it. Come the fuck on, what difference will that make, will we lose even more love from Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, big whoop.

So to answer you question in the other thread Jew, I would like to see Obama support the protests, for what it represents, the desire for more freedom and true reform in their country. Not just the support of Mousavi, but the possible, even if it's a minute possibility, of a complete government being overthrown.

When we fought to overthrow British rule we did not do it on our own.

The current leadership already despises us so fuck it.

Italian Jew
18 Jun 2009, 12:09am
What saddens me is that Obama doesn't want to "meddle" in their affairs because it wouldn't "matter" who won.

But that's where Obama's missing the point. This revolt isn't simply over the two candidates, it's over the very notion of more freedom overall, that's what this revolt is truly over. It's over the fact that 1. the elections were rigged and 2. the Iranians protesting just want more freedom in General, not one candidate over the other. And obama saying candidate A vs B "doesn't matter" is just sad and disheartening to those risking their lives to protest. They want to hear some kind of backing from the US even though Obama says he doesn't want to "taint" their protest by putting a US spin on it. Come the fuck on, what difference will that make, will we lose even more love from Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, big whoop.

So to answer you question in the other thread Jew, I would like to see Obama support the protests, for what it represents, the desire for more freedom and true reform in their country. Not just the support of Mousavi.

The current leadership already despises us so fuck it.

Its not just the Iranian leadership that will hate us. If we openly support the opposition, we would be alienating other countries. It is also a possibility that our support would cause more violence. You could have terrorist organizations combating the opposition because we support them. You'd have just about every group that is anti-american go against the opposition, which would handicap them severely because we would not be able to actively help them without starting a war.


Obama's reasoning isn't about who wins, but rather the repercussions. If we support Mousavi and he wins, Iran will suffer as Iraq does. Obama is just supporting the "voice of Iranians". This is about as much as you can hope for without causing too many unnecessary problems. He stated the relative lack of difference to tell people that there isn't a big difference to be expected, not that it was his main reason for not throwing in his support. Many people think Mousavi is the opposite of Ahmadinejad when he really is almost the same except for some select differences.

Obama knows it is about freedom, which is why he must let the Iranian people fight for it. He already stated he supports the people's voices, so in essence, he is supporting their freedom to choose.

It would be great to support them without giving them more trouble than they need right now, but that just isn't possible. Of course we know nothing of any indirect or covert aid being given as I'd imagine we are doing something to help the opposition.

EDIT: When we fought the British we had the aid of those who were already at war with the British. We also weren't surrounded by countries with inhabitants that were semi-alienated against the French.

Also, the colonists committed to the acts that led to our revolution by themselves. We needed military aid. The opposition does not need military aid. If a full blown civil war breaks out, then we can discuss military aid if the need arises.

Red
18 Jun 2009, 12:13am
we already are hated by Iran's current leaders and I don't see what further alienation we could garner from other countries, and the countries we would garner more hate from probably already hate us.

Israel could help us help them :D

Italian Jew
18 Jun 2009, 12:15am
Israel could help us help them :D

Israel might go overboard and annihilate everyone...again.


we already are hated by Iran's current leaders and I don't see what further alienation we could garner from other countries, and the countries we would garner more hate from probably already hate us.

We might be crossing their lines of tolerable American influence in the Middle East. There are already enough crazed, religious fanatics that would strap a bomb to themselves for some bastardized version of the Qur'an, we don't need anymore.

The bigger problem wouldn't be the actual countries, but any amount of insurgents or terrorists that would arise out of our aid. Their fight would be against us, but they would be attacking the opposition since we are not there. I wouldn't want to put them in harms way so we can talk tough.

Red
18 Jun 2009, 12:19am
the gin&tonic are making me edit my posts multiple times in rapid succession.

Italian Jew
18 Jun 2009, 12:24am
the gin&tonic are making me edit my posts multiple times in rapid succession.

As long as you can stay in your chair, it's all good.

For me, my caffeine is wearing off.

Red
18 Jun 2009, 12:28am
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We need the CIA black ops on this. Only without the fuckups.

RedOctober
18 Jun 2009, 04:13pm
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We need the CIA black ops on this. Only without the fuckups.

i dont agree, i think we should stay as far away as possible. i truly feel bad for the Iran people. it was pretty sad to see the pictures of those men who the riot police shot and killed, but it isnt our place to intervene.
if we do get involved and the partial recount proves the election was rigged (with it most likely was) then the people will believe they have more of a puppet government than they do now.

i would agree that if the riots continue and the UN calls for peacekeeping forces that we should get our asses in there and help the people out. they even want us there, Iran is properly the most pro-American state in all of the middle east.

anyway, back to the original point of the thread. i do see some simulates between the Bush election and this recent election in Iran. i admire the Irani people standing up for the injustice they believe in. After Bush beat Gore i didnt see thousands of protesters in the streets standing up for what they believe in. there is the difference between us and them.

RedOctober
18 Jun 2009, 04:49pm
should of been more specific,
the PEOPLE of Iran are actually very pro-American.

the average age in Iran is 29. they dont remember the trouble between our nations in the 60's -70's. the people of Iran just want to move on and prosper from democracy and they realize that their government is full of shit and they like open relations with Americans.

Slavic
18 Jun 2009, 05:04pm
I'm not sure about a full blown revolution, but these protests are worrying enough to the Iranian elite that the Ayatollah is willing to hold recounts in certain districts. Any recount done by the Islamic Council will always put the current president ahead in the polls no matter how rigged, but what a recount shows is that the Ayatollah is willing to "loosen the fist" in order to help quell the violence.

As with RedOctober said, a good number of Iranian youth hold a mix of western and islamic ideals and can be considered radical in the eyes of hardliner Iranians. According to the CIA Factbook, 2/3 of the Iranian population is below the age of 30 with the median age of 27. That is a lot of young college/teen angst.

RedOctober
18 Jun 2009, 05:09pm
sorry for the double post.,,

RedOctober
18 Jun 2009, 05:09pm
Hmmmm, still I think you have to take into account two things:

1) There is still a heck of a lot of support for the government and even more for the Ayatollah.

2) Reformist =/= pro-American.

Just because people might want reform doesn't mean that they wouldn't see the US getting involved as an act of cultural or religious invasion and possibly even war.

There's wanting your country to become more democratic, and wanting it to be pro-Western.

your right, there are alot of support for the existing government (apparently this past election 'proves' the majority supports them)

and like it or not reform towards a democratic government eventually leads to a more western culture. this has been proven by just about every country that has adopted some form of American based democracy.

weither they want it or not:

reform eventually = pro-western culture

LegalSmash
20 Jun 2009, 11:02pm
Okay, I'll be as brief as I ever get:

Good posts. I'm reading them, been busy.

My biggest interest in this issue is to see Iranians actually outcry against this despotic government that's hammered the population in that nation down for the past 30 years, and that the rest of the world see it.

PotshotPolka
23 Jun 2009, 07:53pm
Well a large number of the upper class in Iran that flourished under the Shah that could be best defined as progressive fled after 1979. It's actually been called a "brain drain" because so many specialized people in many fields, most notably academics got the hell out as the revolution started. I heard about this a little while ago and I was disappointed with the results, because from what I've discerned it's already fizzled. Unlike the Tiananmen riots in 89 which gained momentum throughout the entire country and was only stopped by extensive military force and media blackouts. The organizations in China reached millions, and were developing from Beijing to Shanghai, these protests in Tehran never reached critical levels, and the political climate of Tehran would most likely never yield much results to open condemnation of voting results or government corruption, let alone an actual revolution.

If the 1979 revolutions hadn't occurred and Iran had transitioned from the Shah's government in a form similar to say, Turkey, the world would be a much happier place today for many reasons, since the Iraq/Iran war, CONTRA scandal, and not to mention the embassy hostage situation would have never unfolded.

To Legal: The difference in voter counts was much larger in Iran than in the U.S. with (MUCH) larger differences in party agendas, I never really made the connection.

About the de-railers on the CIA: They dropped that shit after they bagged Che and kept missing their chances at Castro. The CIA SAD division is no longer active unless its pre/post wartime ops like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

LegalSmash
23 Jun 2009, 10:17pm
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/e1/Disappoint69.jpg

Usually, when strict religious fundamentalists take over anything, the "progressive" less socially concerned people GTFO, and take their money, education, and affluence with them.

sheriff
29 Jun 2009, 12:21pm
I for one, believe revolution, and ousting of the the clerical islamic regime may be at hand...

TO ALL IRANIANS:

DO IT!!!

REBEL FOR GREAT JUSTICE

PotshotPolka
29 Jun 2009, 01:10pm
TO ALL IRANIANS:

DO IT!!!

REBEL FOR GREAT JUSTICE

Sigh... if you'd read beyond the title of the thread dude you'd realize there was never a chance for any actual rebellion/revolution.

sheriff
29 Jun 2009, 01:31pm
Sigh... if you'd read beyond the title of the thread dude you'd realize there was never a chance for any actual rebellion/revolution.

I don't care.

they should still do it

PotshotPolka
29 Jun 2009, 01:35pm
I don't care.

they should still do it

yeah, they should definitely charge at fully automated weapons against soldiers perfectly willing to use them en masse while screaming slogans, that'll definitely be productive. Fucking stupid.

sheriff
29 Jun 2009, 01:37pm
yeah, they should definitely charge at fully automated weapons against soldiers perfectly willing to use them en masse while screaming slogans, that'll definitely be productive. Fucking stupid.

the Iranian government can't kill everyone

or else they'll have no one to boss around.

and I don't think the rest of the world would let the Iranian government get away with pulling another Tianenmen Square...

Dracula
29 Jun 2009, 01:39pm
yeah, they should definitely charge at fully automated weapons against soldiers perfectly willing to use them en masse while screaming slogans, that'll definitely be productive. Fucking stupid.

It worked for the Russians.

Drox
29 Jun 2009, 01:39pm
the Iranian government can't kill everyone

or else they'll have no one to boss around.

Iraq is a good example when Saddam was in power, you dont have to kill everyone just enough to show that you can do it.

PotshotPolka
29 Jun 2009, 04:36pm
It worked for the Russians.

Which time? The breakdown of the Soviet Union was government sponsored.

Dracula
29 Jun 2009, 04:37pm
Which time? The breakdown of the Soviet Union was government sponsored.Against the Germans.

PotshotPolka
29 Jun 2009, 04:38pm
Against the Germans.

Well at least the Russians had potatoes to throw at them.

Dracula
29 Jun 2009, 04:39pm
Well at least the Russians had potatoes to throw at them.

Ha ha

Omar
29 Jun 2009, 05:35pm
the Iranian government can't kill everyone...

No, but they can enough to scare the public



This isn't Irobot

LegalSmash
29 Jun 2009, 07:05pm
TO ALL IRANIANS:

DO IT!!!

REBEL FOR GREAT JUSTICE

Please kill yourself for Graet justice.

Newfag.

Silverman
29 Jun 2009, 08:11pm
IMHO I think the average Iranian citizen is under the same pressure as we were when the world hated Bush a few years back. Just because a few of their leaders are idiots it doesn't mean the average person is (not counting the bible-belt or Midwest, USA). Things will calm down, if not, a few of you younger guys might get drafted first. Aside from that, the Ahmadinejad is just the "president" the Ayatollah is in charge. Remember that the US has checks and balances too. I don't think Iran wants to become another crater in the desert.

VirDeBello
30 Jun 2009, 07:56am
What is a Newfag? :confused1:

Dracula
30 Jun 2009, 07:58am
What is a Newfag? :confused1:

Its the people that we must get rid of for our final mission.:usa2:

Frostbyte
30 Jun 2009, 08:44am
"But Commissar, these are potatoes!"


"BECAUSE REAL GRENADES ARE EXPENSIVE"

PotshotPolka
30 Jun 2009, 11:42am
I'm lolling because you made the connection.

Frostbyte
30 Jun 2009, 11:58am
Irans got jackals in the courtyard.