AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

@FreeDuck,

Oh, certainly, i agree--things will only get worse. However, for as ugly as it is to contemplate, the crushing of an incipient rebellion now may be all that will happen, but also will be sowing the seeds of future rebellion. The hard part for us is to know what really is going on. I've just now heard on the radio news that western correspondents who have been keeping in touch are losing touch because people will not use their cell phones any longer, fearing that the government is capturing the signals.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yes, same with the internet.

I think that if this non-violent revolution is crushed then the next revolution will be a violent uprising and will probably involve getting the military and the civilian police on the side of the people. I think it's best for everyone if this one succeeds, but of course acknowledge that the deck is stacked.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
The people really can't stop now. There's no turning back.

I don't know that i agree with that. The protesters are not a monolith. There is no reason to assume that they are all motivated by a single idea, or are pursuing a single agenda. Some of them may simply be "wild in the streets." Others, inclulding those responding to some political opposition organization, may be intent on sending a message to the theocracy that they will accept just so much, and no more.

I think it is far too soon to assume that there is a genuine revolutionary movement. I also don't think that, right now, a revolution has a hope in hell.

I agree with FreeDuck that the options at this point are to continue forward or face crushing retaliation. My fear is that moderate forces will see the bloodshed and say "no more." Then, once power is fully settled into the hands of the conservatives, the active repression will begin so that the moderates are never again as strong as they are today. Since I agree with you that their is little hope that the moderates will win, I think that things in Iran are going to get very bad, especially for moderate clerics and politicians.

2 Replies

Engineer wrote:

My fear is that moderate forces will see the bloodshed and say "no more." Then, once power is fully settled into the hands of the conservatives, the active repression will begin so that the moderates are never again as strong as they are today. Since I agree with you that their is little hope that the moderates will win, I think that things in Iran are going to get very bad, especially for moderate clerics and politicians.

******************************************************************

Engineer is correct. There is no totalitarianism as fearful as one based on fanatic religiosity. Setanta lives in a dream world derived from romantic novels.

1 Reply

@sangiusto,

Fartbubble strikes again. <click>

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Fartbubble strikes again. <click>

I knew it!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Gee, Drew Dad, I just read where it was not politically correct to call names. Why, the prestigious Parados gave me all kinds of trouble when I wrote a post to someone asking her these questions:

l. Why do you want to de nigrate me?

2. Why are you being so niggardly?

Parados and others immediately offered the opinion that name calling was not a proper approach on these threads.

Do you agree with Parados or do you think there should be exceptions?

If you are an "exceptionist", then I will quote you when hypocrites like Parados name call but censure others who name call. I will also quote you when in order to continue my posts which ask people why they are so niggardly and why they try to de nigrate>

0 Replies

Engineer wrote:

My fear is that moderate forces will see the bloodshed and say "no more." Then, once power is fully settled into the hands of the conservatives, the active repression will begin so that the moderates are never again as strong as they are today. Since I agree with you that their is little hope that the moderates will win, I think that things in Iran are going to get very bad, especially for moderate clerics and politicians.

******************************************************************

Engineer is correct. There is no totalitarianism as fearful as one based on fanatic religiosity. Setanta lives in a dream world derived from romantic novels.

0 Replies

In five years, or less, there will be articles about educated Iranians that lived through this period, and finally realized they must find a better life in western Europe or the U.S. Iran's loss is our gain. That is the good news.

0 Replies

@okie,

Im in the field so I just am catching up. You are mostly guilty of taunting me with what you think Im about. You havent disputed the facts that Bush had seriously pissed off the "feuding factions" in Iran and brought them together at a time when there were hopes of rekindling relations with them. A number of you 9genoves, Finn, squirty, included) seem to want a more direct and stright on role in deling with Iran at this juncture. I recall that someone mentioned that we were not even as assertive in our criticism as was Germany or UK. Remember, of all those mentioned, THEY STILL HAVE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH IRAN and we dont.

UK, today may have to reevaluate their relations since Iran and UK have been busy playing deport the spy.

Khatami was a moderate , much ,more than Mousavi, since Mousavi was on the Revolutionary council that actually created a "SUPREME (read unelected) LEADER". so, while we shouldnt expect a major change in policy from Iranhad Mousavi (including a weapons nuke program), there would not have been the strident holocaust denial and the closer communications with non twelver groups(like Al qaeda).LITTLE STEPS.

When 9/11 happened, you cannot deny that we had the start of some much better relations with Iran because IRAN was as big an enemy to AL QAEDA as we are. Sort of an example of "THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY ...". Khtami was rebuffed by Bush and, when his terms were up, we got Ahmedinejad .

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

I agree with FreeDuck that the options at this point are to continue forward or face crushing retaliation. My fear is that moderate forces will see the bloodshed and say "no more." Then, once power is fully settled into the hands of the conservatives, the active repression will begin so that the moderates are never again as strong as they are today. Since I agree with you that their is little hope that the moderates will win, I think that things in Iran are going to get very bad, especially for moderate clerics and politicians.

Clearly that's the plan of the regime.

Why does anyone surrender in the face of an armed assailant when everything tells them they will be killed either way?

Very often deferred suffering is seen as preferable over immediate suffering, because there is always the hope, no mater how unrealistic, that the deferred suffering will not actually materialize.

The odds are slim that these demonstrations will grow into a full scale revolution, but if there is to be any chance we will need to see general strikes throughout the nation that can bring the country to a grinding halt. I'm not sure the opposition is wide spread enough for this to happen.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I don't think you have the guts to stand up and say your man, Obama, might just be bankrupt in regard to his squeeshy foreign policy stances

. Wht guts, ? This is a BBB, not a duel. (Try to look in a mirror and say "its only an internet conversation, Ill be ok in the morning").
I think that Obamas doing just the right thing, Hes no rookie at dealing with the armchair cookiehawks. I love what he said to McCain today when asked about whether he (obama) should talk toughre in line with what Sen McCin stted. Obama said "WHAT DO YOU THINK? Sen McCin can speak his mind but I am the prsident of the US"
The perfedct squelch to the cookiehawks.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

. . . I think that things in Iran are going to get very bad, especially for moderate clerics and politicians.

Yes, indeed. And that is the kind of situation in which the discontent will simmer, perhaps for decades, before it breaks out again. There were student protests in 1999 and 2003, and many of the veterans of those demonstrations are undoubtedly in the forefront of these protests. That may be a reason why these protests are so prolonged and virulent--because many of the people in the streets are veterans of protests during the past decade. If the army stays in its barracks, there really is no hope for a successful overthrow of the government. So, it seems to me that any real change can only be in the distant future, and by then, there may be few, if any moderates left. If it is another decade before these folks hit the streets again, the protest leaders and organizers will likely be as hardcore in their attitudes as the Mullahs now are.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Worth a read. I'm still mulling it over, but he clearly knows more about this situation than I do.

One other wrinkle -- Iran's population pyramid has a fat bottom and the people in the streets now represent the largest wedge: 18 to 35 year-olds. Seems to me like it's now or never.

0 Replies

That was an interesting article, Miss Duck. What i fear is that the people in the streets don't have the fire power, and i strongly suspect that if the situation becomes threatening enough, the theocracy will reply with firefights in the streets. I think they fully believe their own propaganda to the effect that the protesters represent a minority, and that Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs enjoy wide-spread support in the countryside and among a significant minority of city dwellers. If that is so, they may turn to armed violence to repress this movement.

This is such a tragedy--the economic fairy tale world of the state corporations smothers talent and innovation. A generation of Persian human talent has already been lost, and it looks as though another generation's energy, intelligence and talent may be lost. I am, obviously, not hopeful. I wish i were wrong--i hope i am wrong.

1 Reply

It appears to me that the protesters in Iran tend to represent the cosmopolitan types. The country types tend to be backing the regime.

Now that is the opposite of the current administration in the U.S., I believe. During Bush's watch, it was the opposite.

It does seem that there is this dichotomy in nations between the cosmopolitan types and the country types.

The question is which way is a society going in the long run?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You are mostly guilty of taunting me with what you think Im about.

Strange choice of words, fm. I merely have criticized you for being stuck on the wrong side of issues. I do not wish to taunt anyone. Sarcasm yes, I plead guilty, as should most posters on A2K politics. I pointed out you still have some kind of attachment to Carter, clearly a failed presidency I think. Yet you seem to want to continue to apply the same ideas that have failed before.

My primary point is this, Obama should have spoken out for fair elections right off the bat, plain and simple, there is nothing wrong with that, but instead he played coy. I think he flunks foreign policy. You can try to twist what he has done into some convoluted reasoning of proving he is clever, but I don't buy it.

I think Obama has kind of bought into the Messiah complex, where he may actually believe he can talk to some of the dictators around the world, and they will simply roll over and become mesmerized by Obama and suddenly play fair. But you ignore the fact these guys are not as naive as voters, they are hard core in what they are doing, and they are simply looking for a pushover, and they think they may have one in Obama

1 Reply

@Foofie,

I don't know if your dichotomy is accurate, Foofie.

I think it can be shown(by analysis of the demography of the vote for Bush) that the country types in the USA are not those in the hinterlands but also those in the many many suburbs ringing the cities of the USA.

These people. I am sure, are far more knowledgeable than your Iranian country type. The latest World Almanac gives 77% as the percentage of Literacy in Iran. That means, of course, that a large number of country folk in Iran are illiterate. Since there are only about 200 TV sets per 1000 people, it means that many of the country types get little up to date news.

The same cannot be said for the suburbs and the country in the USA!

1 Reply

Setanta wrote:

This is such a tragedy--the economic fairy tale world of the state corporations smothers talent and innovation. A generation of Persian human talent has already been lost, and it looks as though another generation's energy, intelligence and talent may be lost. I am, obviously, not hopeful. I wish i were wrong--i hope i am wrong.

********************************************************************

The economic FAIRY TALE? world of the state corporations smothers talent and innovation???????????????????

What crap from Setanta who must, of course, be a Crypto-Communist.

The Chinese smother talent and innovation with their "state corporations"???

They are the only ones whose GDP is growing!

0 Replies

Farmerman wrote:

Wht guts, ? This is a BBB, not a duel. (Try to look in a mirror and say "its only an internet conversation, Ill be ok in the morning").
I think that Obamas doing just the right thing, Hes no rookie at dealing with the armchair cookiehawks. I love what he said to McCain today when asked about whether he (obama) should talk toughre in line with what Sen McCin stted. Obama said "WHAT DO YOU THINK? Sen McCin can speak his mind but I am the prsident of the US"
The perfedct squelch to the cookiehawks.

*******************************************************************

Sure and Obama was crucified by a few reporters at his press conference for being too timid. And Senator Lindsay Graham let him have it for being so wishy-washy.

I think Farmerman has forgotten that Obama's father was a Muslim--his stepfather was a Muslim and his close kin in Kenya are Muslims.

1 Reply

AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know