Iran 2009 and US 2000, a dual prospective.

[LegalSmash]

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]

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 Tampon]

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]

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 Tampon]

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]

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 Tampon]

the gin&tonic are making me edit my posts multiple times in rapid succession.

[Italian Jew]

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 Tampon]

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

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

[Havok]

I doubt if it'll become a full-blown revolution. Ahmadinejad still has many, many supporters and besides, even if they did somehow get rid of him, the big man in charge would still be there.

The president of Iran is a puppet, nothing more.

If it was anger at tha Ayatollah, however...then I think there'd be a heck of a lot more international interest.