News Iranian Elections: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wins by Landslide

  • Thread starter Thread starter MATLABdude
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a second term as President of Iran with 62.6% of the vote amid an 85% turnout, significantly defeating reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who received 33.75%. The election results have sparked allegations of fraud, with Mousavi and others contesting the legitimacy of the outcome. Reports suggest potential internal dissent, including rumors of Ayatollah Rafsanjani resigning in protest and calls for a re-election. The Supreme Leader and Guardian Council's authority to invalidate election results raises questions about the election's integrity, with some speculating a coup may have occurred. The situation has led to protests and a crackdown on media coverage, complicating the narrative surrounding the election.
  • #151


How good is to help Iran people in opposing their government?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #153
Equate said:
Done. :approve:

rootX said:
How good is to help Iran people in opposing their government?

Hans de Vries said:
Google's Persian (Farsi) to English translation (alpha version) can still
be accessed via the following link:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t#fa|en|

It's not available from their main page.

http://www.facebook.com/mousavi
http://www.leader.ir/
http://www.president.ir/fa/


Regards, Hans.

I think you will do well by helping to clean up your own society. The Iranians will take care of their own. No need to fake concerns. One billion people are hungry tonight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #154
qsa said:
I think you will do well by helping to clean up your own society. The Iranians will take care of their own. No need to fake concerns. One billion people are hungry tonight.

Don't make assumptions regarding the nature of another person's concerns.
 
  • #155
qsa said:
No need to fake concerns.

What makes you think the concerns are fake? You talk as if you have no understanding of the West whatsoever.

Why are the protestors displaying signs written in English?
 
  • #156
qsa said:
I think you will do well by helping to clean up your own society. The Iranians will take care of their own. No need to fake concerns. One billion people are hungry tonight.


Strawman argument?
 
  • #157
We have Iranian members here. I chatted with one of them last night around midnight (thanks for leaving that open Greg - it was nice to touch base.)
 
  • #158
seycyrus said:
Don't make assumptions regarding the nature of another person's concerns.

Ivan Seeking said:
What makes you think the concerns are fake? You talk as if you have no understanding of the West whatsoever.

Why are the protestors displaying signs written in English?

Office_Shredder said:
Strawman argument?

I wish to God that you really mean it. And it is not just politics of interest. That will be a wonderful world.
 
  • #159
Ivan Seeking said:
What makes you think the concerns are fake? You talk as if you have no understanding of the West whatsoever.

Why are the protestors displaying signs written in English?

Sorry if I was misunderstood. I like all the people of the world especially western ones since I have lived with them most of my adult life. I usually do not participate in forums It takes too much time to explain (I do read once in a while to update on people’s minds). But I found the root of all the disputes is in knowing enough details (matched to the statement being made) and in the real purpose of the arguments (if understanding the issue is fundamental or we just want to prove our point regardless).I apologize for any ruddiness.
 
  • #160
qsa said:
I think you will do well by helping to clean up your own society. The Iranians will take care of their own. No need to fake concerns. One billion people are hungry tonight.

qsa said:
Sorry if I was misunderstood. I like all the people of the world especially western ones since I have lived with them most of my adult life. I usually do not participate in forums It takes too much time to explain (I do read once in a while to update on people’s minds). But I found the root of all the disputes is in knowing enough details (matched to the statement being made) and in the real purpose of the arguments (if understanding the issue is fundamental or we just want to prove our point regardless).I apologize for any ruddiness.
russ_watters said:
I've put some effort into cleaning up this thread to keep the off-topic rants down. For the new members, this is a good thread on an important and historic event. Don't ruin it by injecting these off topic rants into the discussion. And consider the purpose of your membership on PhysicsForums.

For the existing members, try to avoid responding to these rants and instead report them. I've also contributed by responding and I'll try to stop as well. I know it can be tough...

I never used the report functionality .. I believe you are going off topic.

The Iranians will take care of their own.
That's what I was talking about. I don't think authorities will change now - they claimed elections were not rigged. Encouraging the opposition would only result in the losses of more lives but I don't think that would change anything.
 
  • #161
rootX said:
I never used the report functionality .. I believe you are going off topic.


That's what I was talking about. I don't think authorities will change now - they claimed elections were not rigged. Encouraging the opposition would only result in the losses of more lives but I don't think that would change anything.

I agree with you ,that is why I think there is no easy way to know if outsiders can help or hurt. Iran is a young democracy of a sort, they will learn from their mistakes,maybe.
 
  • #162
Was the election result a deliberate provocation by the conservatives to bring the reformists on the streets? The election results were so outrageous that you would almost have to believe this.


You can imagine that the government wanted to silence the opposition at this time when they could still do it, rather than the opposition gaining power and then slowly having to sit and watch how Iran becomes a secular state. If in the future they wanted to intervene, it would be too late.


So, perhaps the government thought: "Let's have a Tiananmen moment right now. Let's not rig the votes a little by letting Ahmadinejad win by 1%, let's instead give him a huge lead".


The government can monitor cell phone traffic and the internet, so they would have gained a lot of intelligence about the opposition. The people who would be inclined to defect to the opposition would have done so. The government thus knows who is loyal and who is not. They can now take repressive measures against the people who are not loyal to the regime.


On the foreign policy front there are also advantages. The US will now find it difficult to offer to Iran to lift sanctions in exchange for Iran giving up uranium enrichment. The US position in this dispute will thus be weakened, as it is the US that wants something from Iran here, not the other way around.
 
  • #164
IMO:

What Iran has learned is that the genie is out of the bottle. As a result of the information age, the "Great Satan" nonsense will continue to strain credibility such that change is a foregone conclusion. It is really just a matter of how, and how fast it happens.

The Iranian people will not tolerate a police state - they are much too sophisticated for that and dictators can no longer hide their actions. Also, now the opposition has an entire field of martyrs.

It will become more and more clear that the American people, the West in general, and the Iranian people, are already great friends at heart. The only thing getting in the way now is the time it will take for the politics to catch up.
 
Last edited:
  • #165
Count Iblis said:
Was the election result a deliberate provocation by the conservatives to bring the reformists on the streets? The election results were so outrageous that you would almost have to believe this.

After reading the Khameini Prayer speech from last week, I am afraid that the clerics must think the people really are stupid enough to accept concocted tallies. The hope I suspect was that they couldn't suffer a close election, because a run-off might be a bit too much given the elevated interest and the growing reform for women's rights. So ... I guess if it was going to be dial-a-result already, then they likely figured in for a penny, in for a rial.

Unfortunately I think, regardless of the short term, there is a guaranteed long term loss for the current ruling clique. On the one hand they want to embrace technology, they want the atom bomb, ... but to do all of that they need highly skilled workers. That means education. That means connectivity. That means people thinking for themselves and not just taking orders. That means democracy is an inevitable consequence, regardless of their repression.

I think they only fool themselves if they think that they can continue indefinitely to rule by force. And in this the clerics make themselves hypocrites, if they choose the side of repression against the people. Choosing secular power, over theology. Once again power corrupts, and even the Supreme Leader, apparently lacks the wisdom and the strength to resist its intoxication. The sands of progress are weighing daily against them. And they grow old, while the legions of the young swell and get ever more educated.
 
  • #166
It will become more and more clear that the American people, the West in general, and the Iranian people, are already great friends at heart. The only thing getting in the way now is the time it will take for the politics to catch up.

Most people in the world are friends with one another, it is just politicians and their propaganda machines that drive a wedge between possible friendship. Unfortunately, both the US and Iran have politicians who have an innate distrust of one another. The world will certainly be a better place when that distrust is replaced with friendship.

I think they only fool themselves if they think that they can continue indefinitely to rule by force. And in this the clerics make themselves hypocrites, if they choose the side of repression against the people. Choosing secular power, over theology. Once again power corrupts, and even the Supreme Leader, apparently lacks the wisdom and the strength to resist its intoxication

Unfortunately, you probably will see Iran ruled by a theocracy for at least the next 10-15 years. Already the 'green revolution' is gradually dissipating because many Iranians, no matter how brave, cannot bear to see fellow countrymen mowed down indiscriminately by a brutal security force. And there still is not enough support, they need a few high ranking officials and clerics to speak out against the regime. But these protests are the seeds of a revolution in the making just like the overthrow of the Shah. Things do not happen quickly, they take time and the regime is doomed to collapse.

Was the election result a deliberate provocation by the conservatives to bring the reformists on the streets? The election results were so outrageous that you would almost have to believe this.

Well, the Iranian regime probably expected a few protests which could be handled easily but they were taken aback by the sheer number and support from a few powerful figures within the establishment. I think they wanted to show the world and the reformists that no one can challenge the regime and attempt to send a message that Iran is strong, united and hates Western influence. Well, it did backfire spectacularly!
 
  • #167
I went to a protest in Westwood tonight. The support is huge here because there is such a big Iranian community. The crowds seem to grow every day, and I hope the pictures are making it back to Iran.
 
  • #168
There's irony here.

Iranians learned the power of the press and overthrew the Shah, 30 years ago. The streets would be quite. Western cameras arrived ready to roll. The crowds would gather. "Death to the Shah." "Death to America." Chanting and gesturing to the cameras. US flags could materialize to be burned.

When the cameras stopped rolling, the crowds would peaceful disperse to resume their suspended business.

The sons and daughters have learned from the stories of the parents to overthrow what their parents have made.
 
Last edited:
  • #169
Ivan Seeking said:
The Iranian people will not tolerate a police state

Tolerance? Tolerance has nothing to do with it. Power to change does.

- they are much too sophisticated for that

How does intolerance derive from 'sophistication'? Do you mean disillusionment?
 
  • #171
Then comes this reference:
"The city is on lockdown, and we are like sheep ready to be slaughtered," said one Teherani in a brief telephone interview. "It is important for us to be prepared and to have protection," he added, implying an effort to obtain arms. "Anyway, 40 days from Saturday's bloodshed" - a key symbolic day of mourning - "we will be ready."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184920016&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Not exactly the way Gandhi approached things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #172
US Rescinds Invitations to Iranian Diplomats
By David Gollust
State Department
24 June 2009

The Obama administration said Wednesday it has rescinded invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 U.S. Independence Day celebrations at American diplomatic missions around the world. The State Department said an Iranian presence at such events would be incongruous with a celebration of American values.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-24-voa58.cfm

Apparently it would be lost on them in any event.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #173
LURCH said:
This is for anyone who wants to take an active role:

I don't know how much of this is true, so could someone please verify?

As most of you know, most of the news coming out of Iran is coming via the Internet, especially social websites like Twitter, Facebook, etc.. News through "official channels" is notoriously unreliable, as the government controls the media. The government is also trying to control the Internet channels, and attempting to track down Iranians who post on the social networks.

Anyone who wants to help, and has an account on one of the social networks (or is willing to open an account, as I have) can simply open their "profile," change their location to "Tehran," and their local time to GMT + 3:30. Many bloggers, Facebook ers', and Twits (is that the correct personal form?) Are doing this in the hopes that, every time they post, it gives the Iranian government one more thing to track down. The idea is to introduce hundreds of millions of decoys into the hunt, making their task impossible.

or
http://iran.whyweprotest.net/
 
  • #174
Disorganized unrest from yesterday apparently.
The current regime must know they are in deep doody at this point. They don't look to be in such firm control, at least in the streets. I was reading that they are showing lots of films now on the state TV stations to hopefully occupy people at home ... just like the Shah did in 1979. Khameini might want to think for a moment about how that worked out for the Shah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD13WNKNGQk
 
  • #175
If divisions spread to the security forces and the army as it did at the time of the Shah, then things will change rapidly. Otherwise I don't think anything will change.
 
  • #176
It's illegal for the Iranians to protest peacefully right? All I know is that if protest around here started off this way instead of just a demonstration I would be quite pissed off regardless of if the protestors were right or wrong
 
  • #177
For those who haven't seen it, a great look at Iran (in better times about a month ago) courtesy of Jason Jones and the Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/castBio.jhtml?castId=25158

Canadians can go to Comedy Network online:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/correspondents/#clip186805

A great series of clips chronicling the people of Iran presented with the standard Jason Jones mock-idiot host. Ends on a rather somber and distinctly serious note (shot after they came back probably near the start of the Iranian elections).

EDIT: The last clip (June 25th) probably hasn't yet been posted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #178
  • #179
The inevitable collision of events - culture, propaganda, news:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvOx4avw8WY
 
  • #180
LowlyPion, nice video. It stirred significant emotion within me. It fired me up to see people fighting for their own freedom. Many people in Iran have probably never felt more alive than now.
 
  • #181
The overall message that I got this week from political analysts is that the Iranian government has been fundamentally discredited in the eyes of the world; not because of the election, but because of the brutal reaction to the crowds afterwards. Ironically, by refusing to acknowledge the possibility of election fraud, the theocracy set events in motion that have done far more to weaken their position than would have a challenged election. As one analyst put it, there are no more arguments in favor of Iran.

It is clear that the Iranian Theocracy is not qualified to be a member of the world community. They are an echo from the past. No civilized government brutalizes its own people.
 
  • #182
As one analyst put it, there are no more arguments in favor of Iran.

It is clear that the Iranian Theocracy is not qualified to be a member of the world community. They are an echo from the past. No civilized government brutalizes its own people.

I agree, but then I don't think the current leadership in Iran really wants much beterr relations with the World. It is actually mainly the West who want something from Iran, not the other way around. We want Iran to stoip enriching uranium and we want Iran to stop supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.


If there had been no election fraud and either Moussavi or Ahmadinejad had been re-elected, then the talks with Iran and the US would have been held under a better atmosphere. But this would be mainly an advantage for the US. The US strategy would be to put on the table proposals to limit the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for incentives.


Then, if Iran were to no cooporate well with these proposals, then the US would go to Russia and China and say: "See, we've been very reasonable, and Iran is flat-out rejecting any reasonable proposal. We want you to join us with imposing strong sanctions against Iran"


But, now look at what has happened after the elections. Russia has congratulated Ahmadinejad, China has even blamed the West of trying to change the "legitimate election outcome" by supporting the protests.

So, we now have China and perhaps Russia who are more critical of the West and later this year, if talks with Iran fail, we'll likely have weaker argument for them to support stronger sanctions, as the deal we will offer to Iran will include less incentives.
 
  • #183
Ivan Seeking said:
The overall message that I got this week from political analysts is that the Iranian government has been fundamentally discredited in the eyes of the world; not because of the election, but because of the brutal reaction to the crowds afterwards. Ironically, by refusing to acknowledge the possibility of election fraud, the theocracy set events in motion that have done far more to weaken their position than would have a challenged election. As one analyst put it, there are no more arguments in favor of Iran.

It is clear that the Iranian Theocracy is not qualified to be a member of the world community. They are an echo from the past. No civilized government brutalizes its own people.
I get how stark the events of the past two weeks have been, but for a decade or two, people have been defending Iran and saying we should talk to them on level terms, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc. I guess it is nice that these people have finally come around to the reality of what Iran is, but a great many people, including our last President, who took a lot of flak for his position, already knew all this.

I'm not saying this as a gloating 'I told you so', I'm just pointing out that this isn't some big epiphanny moment for the world: only for that fraction of the world who for so long has denied reality. Consider how different geopolitics would have been for the past decade or two if that fraction had accepted reality.

Obama made a real effort here to be as neutral as possible (and took a lot of flak for it) and A-jad essentially called him a Bush clone. For the supporters of Obama who needed this, I guess it was nice that A-jad provided such a direct response. But it is important to accept just how wrong Obama, his supporters, and others in the world community who would be conciliatory were. The world is a more dangerous place today because such people have ignored this reality for so long. But even more important: what now?

[edit] This is a truly miraculous turn of events for Obama. He made an error in judgement that was revealed in spectacular fashion, but at the same time revealed in a way that presents not only an opportunity for him to show true leadership (for both him and his country) but also an opportunity to use that leadership to make a real and significant difference on the course of history.

What Obama should do now is take some snippets of that quote Ivan posted and repeat it in front of the UN. He should tell the world that he gave Iran the opportunity to engage the US in diplomacy and Iran had their own opportunity to show the world they are an enlightened member of the world community via the election and Iran failed on both counts, and in spectacular fashion.
 
Last edited:
  • #184
russ_watters said:
But it is important to accept just how wrong Obama, his supporters, and others in the world community who would be conciliatory were.

After we had Obama's conciliatory openings to the Arab world we've seen
similar conciliatory voters in Lebanon choosing reconciliation above Hezbollah.
We did see religious Moslims in Pakistan attacking Taliban extremist and we
did see the voters in Iran preferring reformists over Ahmadinejad and going
to the streets after it became clear that Ahmadinejad rigged the elections.

I wonder what we would have seen after the first hundred days of the
neoconservative's "one hundred year war against Islam"?

Nevertheless it's clear now that Ahmadinejad must have been carefully
preparing this ever since his candidates where "wiped from the map" in
the 2006 city elections. http://www.citymayors.com/politics/iran_elections_06.html

What must happen depends on Ahmadinejad. Nobody will trust him on his
words now, but nobody did so, or would have done so, on issues like
nuclear energy and weapons. Trust on these issues is only possible through
free independent investigation.

The recent developments are no cause for optimism that Ahmadinejad
appreciates this.


Regards, Hans
 
  • #185
What Obama should do now is take some snippets of that quote Ivan posted and repeat it in front of the UN. He should tell the world that he gave Iran the opportunity to engage the US in diplomacy and Iran had their own opportunity to show the world they are an enlightened member of the world community via the election and Iran failed on both counts, and in spectacular fashion.

That won't work, because Obama is not the president of the World. The problem with Bush was that he pretended to be the de-facto ruler of the World. So, he ordered Saddam and his two sons to leave Iraq in 48 hours and order Iran to stop enriching uranium etc. etc. But because in reality he did not have the power he pretended he had, his policies were doomed to fail, even if he had been correct on the issues (which he wasn't).
 
  • #186
russ_watters said:
I get how stark the events of the past two weeks have been, but for a decade or two, people have been defending Iran and saying we should talk to them on level terms, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc. I guess it is nice that these people have finally come around to the reality of what Iran is, but a great many people, including our last President, who took a lot of flak for his position, already knew all this.

I'm not saying this as a gloating 'I told you so', I'm just pointing out that this isn't some big epiphanny moment for the world: only for that fraction of the world who for so long has denied reality. Consider how different geopolitics would have been for the past decade or two if that fraction had accepted reality.

Obama made a real effort here to be as neutral as possible (and took a lot of flak for it) and A-jad essentially called him a Bush clone. For the supporters of Obama who needed this, I guess it was nice that A-jad provided such a direct response. But it is important to accept just how wrong Obama, his supporters, and others in the world community who would be conciliatory were. The world is a more dangerous place today because such people have ignored this reality for so long. But even more important: what now?
Some analysts are indicating that the reaction to the voting is in part motivated by Obama's desire to 'talk to' Iran. I don't believe Obama indicated that he would sit down and have a nice friendly chat with Iran or Ahmadinejad.

Bush (and his belligerent rhetoric) that was a factor in Ahmadinejad's becoming president after winning the 2005 presidential election, and thus Bush has contributed significantly to the world becoming a more dangerous place, as did Clinton's indolence, as did Bush Sr's abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda after the Soviets withdrew.

Most people who favor Obama's approach do not defend Iran, but rather realize that a lot of innocent people, those who are demonstrating would be killed if it got to military action as folks like Cheney were suggesting.

Likely Obama is making the world a little safer - because he's not ignoring Afghanistan like his immediate predecessor, he provides a contrast to his billigerent predecessor, and there is more respect for the US now from other parts of the world than before he took office. There is still a long way to go, and Obama has the challenge of cleaning up the mess he inherited.
 
  • #187
russ_watters said:
I get how stark the events of the past two weeks have been, but for a decade or two, people have been defending Iran and saying we should talk to them on level terms, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc. I guess it is nice that these people have finally come around to the reality of what Iran is, but a great many people, including our last President, who took a lot of flak for his position, already knew all this.

I'm not saying this as a gloating 'I told you so', I'm just pointing out that this isn't some big epiphanny moment for the world: only for that fraction of the world who for so long has denied reality. Consider how different geopolitics would have been for the past decade or two if that fraction had accepted reality.

Obama made a real effort here to be as neutral as possible (and took a lot of flak for it) and A-jad essentially called him a Bush clone. For the supporters of Obama who needed this, I guess it was nice that A-jad provided such a direct response. But it is important to accept just how wrong Obama, his supporters, and others in the world community who would be conciliatory were. The world is a more dangerous place today because such people have ignored this reality for so long. But even more important: what now?

[edit] This is a truly miraculous turn of events for Obama. He made an error in judgement that was revealed in spectacular fashion, but at the same time revealed in a way that presents not only an opportunity for him to show true leadership (for both him and his country) but also an opportunity to use that leadership to make a real and significant difference on the course of history.

What Obama should do now is take some snippets of that quote Ivan posted and repeat it in front of the UN. He should tell the world that he gave Iran the opportunity to engage the US in diplomacy and Iran had their own opportunity to show the world they are an enlightened member of the world community via the election and Iran failed on both counts, and in spectacular fashion.

My response is that you fail to understand how change happens. It will not and never would have come through the Iranian leadership. It will come through the hearts of the Iranian people whom I know to be decent and loving people who are ready to join the world. Obama has shown that we are ready to welcome them with an open hand rather than a clenched fist.
 
  • #188
Astronuc said:
Bush (and his belligerent rhetoric) that was a factor in Ahmadinejad's becoming president after winning the 2005 presidential election, and thus Bush has contributed significantly to the world becoming a more dangerous place, as did Clinton's indolence, as did Bush Sr's abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda after the Soviets withdrew.

Most people who favor Obama's approach do not defend Iran, but rather realize that a lot of innocent people, those who are demonstrating would be killed if it got to military action as folks like Cheney were suggesting.

Likely Obama is making the world a little safer - because he's not ignoring Afghanistan like his immediate predecessor, he provides a contrast to his billigerent predecessor, and there is more respect for the US now from other parts of the world than before he took office. There is still a long way to go, and Obama has the challenge of cleaning up the mess he inherited.


Astronuc ,
What is your opinion , if you open a new a topic about Afghanistan, in my opinion, solving of the Afghanistan conflict will happen when America negotiate with Taliban. Every time America kill f Pashtun civilians , this mean more men from Pashtun want to fight and revenge from US army. Now al Qaeda is very week , to defeat them more quickly , you must separate between them and Taliban.
 
  • #189
Count Iblis said:
I agree, but then I don't think the current leadership in Iran really wants much better relations with the World.

The leadership is still stuck in the dark ages. The people, however, clearly wish to be a part of the world community. That is why they were twittering and marching in the streets while holding up signs written in English.
 
  • #190
Look, we have been screwing around in ME politics since WWI. It is no wonder that we and other Western countries are not trusted. We earned the title of the Great Satan. Recall for example that were supplying weapons to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war! No wonder they hated us! Were I in their position, I would have felt the same way. But that is all history and it is time for us all to move on. We cannot undo the sins of our fathers.
 
  • #191
Hans de Vries said:
After we had Obama's conciliatory openings to the Arab world we've seen similar conciliatory voters in Lebanon choosing reconciliation above Hezbollah. We did see religious Moslims in Pakistan attacking Taliban extremist and we
did see the voters in Iran preferring reformists over Ahmadinejad and going
to the streets after it became clear that Ahmadinejad rigged the elections.
...
We also have seen all this after the establishment of a real functioning democracy in Iraq where there used to be a vicious Arab dictator, and of a struggling democracy in Afghanistan where there used to be another theocratic dictatorship.
 
  • #192
mheslep said:
We also have seen all this after the establishment of a real functioning democracy in Iraq ...

The book is still open on that one.

We imposed a democracy on them for the time being. Whether it takes root and grows is something we can't know yet until we are withdrawn. The democracy we implanted there may be no more robust than the one we planted in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000 American lives.
 
  • #193
LowlyPion said:
The book is still open on that one.
As it is on every democracy. They've only been around in true form for a couple of centuries. At the moment, Iraq's is real.

We imposed a democracy on them for the time being.
This is nonsense. Ten's of millions have Iraqis voted repeatedly in fair elections under threat of violence. Thousands have stood for office under threat of assassination to their families and themselves. Nobody marched them to the polls at the point of bayonet. In the North, the Kurds have had little or no foreign troop presence and a flourishing democracy and economy for some time now.


Whether it takes root and grows is something we can't know yet until we are withdrawn. The democracy we implanted there may be no more robust than the one we planted in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000 American lives.
Comparisons of the illegitimate and authoritarian Diem to Nouri al-Maliki are unhistorical. The only legitimate comparison between the former S. Vietnam and modern Iraq as it now exists is the threat of military attack and subversion by its neighbors.
 
  • #194
mheslep said:
Nobody marched them to the polls at the point of bayonet.

Neither did they win this democracy by the conviction of their own blood. It was given to them cheaply as a by product of a misguided, ill-conceived foreign policy by the US.

It remains to be seen as to whether or not they will lapse into another form of totalitarianism.
 
  • #195
LowlyPion said:
It remains to be seen as to whether or not they will lapse into another form of totalitarianism.
The factional violence in Iraq (involving Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam) is troubling, and it may be that when the US withdraws troops from there that all H-E-double hockey sticks will break loose. I haven't seen any signs that the Christians and Jews who fled Iraq now show any enthusiasm for returning to their homes. If anybody can educate me on this angle, I'd be glad to know of any progress. Saddam was an arrogant jerk, but at least he did not allow religious fanatics to take control of the populace and control them. He was a really horrible person, but under his rule, women and minorities had more rights and status than under any contemporary Arab rule.
 
  • #196
This is nonsense. Ten's of millions have Iraqis voted repeatedly in fair elections under threat of violence. Thousands have stood for office under threat of assassination to their families and themselves. Nobody marched them to the polls at the point of bayonet. In the North, the Kurds have had little or no foreign troop presence and a flourishing democracy and economy for some time now.

Democracy is not the same as holding elections. In a democracy you hold elections to get a consensus for a new goverment. The people who voted for the losing party will accept the winning party as their government, even though they had preferred another outcome of the elections.

In Iraq, this process clearly failed. The Sunnis in Al Anbar province stopped their insurgency only after the US forced the Iraqi government to make consessions that could never have been reached via the normal democratic processes. The Shia majority would never have voted for a government who would have made such consessions to the Sunni minority.

In case of Iran, the conservatives have a solid base of support, perhaps 30% of the population. The army and security forces are solidly behind the conservative government. This means that if these conservatives do not want to change, you cannot have a real democracy in Iran. The conservatives will always have a veto, unless the army and security forces would no longer support the conservatives.

So, Iran can only become a democracy if the fanatical supporters of Khamenei will accept that, even though these people will always be a relatively small minority of the population. This means that the success of the current protests must be measured by looking at how many conservatives start to criticize the government and not by the fraction of the populaton who support the protests.
 
Last edited:
  • #197
Astronuc said:
An interesting perspective on Iran and the US response.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231561


According to Reza Aslan, Iran is teetering between [becoming like] China (more open to the world) or N. Korea (more militaristic and closed).

Economically yes, but I would argue that Iran is more of a free country and less abusive of human rights than China. What I see happening is that perhaps the outcome of this protest may be that Iran will end up more like china in terms of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to protest etc, all of which China has absolutely no tolerance.
 
  • #198
Economically yes, but I would argue that Iran is more of a free country and less abusive of human rights than China.

Well, China does have less human rights violations than Iran but in terms of freedom, I think both have the same level of censorship. While China subtly enforces disinformation procedures and works behind the scenes to root out criticism of the state, Iran has both heavy handed approaches like prison terms, torture and state control of all information outlets. That is not to say that China does not practice heavy handed approaches like Iran but it is of a lesser degree.

The leadership is still stuck in the dark ages. The people, however, clearly wish to be a part of the world community. That is why they were twittering and marching in the streets while holding up signs written in English.

We can only hope that the leadership can gradually evolve into a more pragmatic and less belligerent regime than what they are now. The Iranian people tried to fight for democracy and social freedoms but unfortunately, that battle is going to be long and possibly bloody. :frown:
 
  • #199
jreelawg said:
Economically yes, but I would argue that Iran is more of a free country and less abusive of human rights than China. What I see happening is that perhaps the outcome of this protest may be that Iran will end up more like china in terms of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to protest etc, all of which China has absolutely no tolerance.

I think the Chinese struck a bargain with those most likely to ferment and lead revolution (i.e. the young, educated and/or ambitious, and organized). We'll make you rich, we'll give you certain freedoms, but never threaten (or even attempt to threaten) our control. You can grouse, and complain (a good outlet) but never actually (even threaten to) do anything about it.

There was an interesting article over at time, "China's Me Generation" that took in a week in the life of a couple of upwardly-mobile chinese youth (i.e. Yuppies), and they sounded much like the youth everywhere else (pop culture, what they were doing that summer, etc.) The one verboeten topic (whether from disinterest or just from training / indoctrination) was politics and the government:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647228,00.html

That came from a link in a TNR article about how this bargain might be breaking down in light of the global recession, especially in China's favourite customer, the US:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8beb6bb5-123c-4d73-9a49-2aa1e82922a8
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #200
LowlyPion said:
The democracy we implanted there may be no more robust than the one we planted in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000 American lives.

We did? I thought we left South Vietnam to the communist North? Were any of the South's leaders elected? My recollection is that they weren't, although in public at least they claimed that as soon as the war with the North was over that there would be.
 

Similar threads

News Forbes Article claims inevitable war
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Ahmadinejad offers to be an observer at US presidential election
Replies
8
Views
3K
News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?
10
Replies
490
Views
40K
News Hugo Chavez Wins 4th Term in Contested Venezuelan Election
Replies
5
Views
2K
News Iran declares victory over the USA
Replies
45
Views
8K
News A Novel Reform Proposal of the National Election Process
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Alternatives to First-Past-The-Post Voting
Replies
12
Views
14K
News Honduran President, Chavez Ally, Ousted in Coup
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Green Solution to a Political Problem?
Replies
8
Views
3K
News Spin and the Coming Election: The Art of Cherry-Picking Facts
Replies
31
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top