@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
No, but i'm sure no one here would be more readily prepared to provide a very, very large hat. In fact, i don't wear hats, and haven't since i was discharged from the army.
And there have been too many incidents in which your only appearance in a thread was to argue with me for your claim to convince me.
JFK was supposed to have started the fashion of no hats on men. The hat industry died with JFK's presidency, I believe.
I always wondered why he did not wear a hat, since during his youth most men wore a hat?
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
More likely (more's the pity) the protesters are a very loosely organized group of students, women's right activists, and moderate intellectuals who will be crushed under the regime's boot whether the Baseej can handle the job on their own or the Revolutionary Guard eventually needs to step in.
This is my assumption too. The only thing holding the regime back are the sheer numbers of protesters and the fact that people are still watching from around the world. There are reports of tv stations being shut down and attempts to shut down access to the internet, but so far it has been subverted. Numerous arrests, beatings, and some killings. Lots of drama around the university, of course.
Ideally, they could force a re-vote with international monitors. Regardless, I'm wearing green this week.
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
There you go, thinking you're special again.
As enjoyable as this has been, I'm finding this conversation tedious. I'll jump in again if anything interests me.
Yes, do what you want. Waltz in and out, if you wish. Screw anyone who might think that he/she is benefitting the forum by explaining one's posting paradigm. Boring!
An odd thought. Is it coincidental that Israel might feel it is up against the ropes, so to speak, with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and their perception that Obama might have luke warm concern for her safety? Could this all then be "theater," so the proud Persians "save face" for acquiescing to the western nations?
@Foofie,
It sounds like you are saying Iran might give in on the issue of nuclear weapons. I doubt anyone in the country would accept an outside demand on that particular subject. By anyone, I mean any Iranian, regardless of their position on the recent election.
@FreeDuck,
To your point, Finn, there are now rumors of hezbollah forces being imported from Lebanon to help the government. Nothing official yet, though.
@roger,
I agree, an eminently sensible assessment of the likely attitude of the Persians.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Our Secretary of State's reaction was even more sapless...
This administration is right to not make this be about us. No country likes foreign meddling in their politics and to take a more forceful position would just strengthen the hardliners position in Iran.
As you already note, for diplospeak they have made very pointed comments already. Making the point more forcefully would just make it about us again.
@FreeDuck,
The Council has announced they may allow recounts in disputed districts, but I would be very surprised to see the results overturned or a new election decreed.
More likely that they will do a more subtle job of rigging the election, the second time around.
I saw a former Iranian political prisoner on the tube. He's suggesting that a revolution is a real possibility, but I think his may be wishful thinking. He did make the point that it is essential for any chance of democratic reform that the West - and particularly the US - voice their support for the protestors.
I can appreciate the argument that to do so enables the regime to cast the protests as evidence of foreign inteference in Iranian affairs, but I expect they plan on doing so in any case.
However, I think there is vitually no chance that "engagement" with the regime will bear any positive fruit and so I don't know that we have all that much to lose.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Isn't that what he did yesterday, Finn?
Quote:President Obama on Monday said Iranian voters have a right to feel their ballots mattered and urged the investigation into vote-rigging allegations to go forward without additional violence, and the State Department announced that the U.S. is "deeply troubled" by the latest news from the scene.
Tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets in Tehran and other cities, defying a country-wide crackdown to protest the outcome of Friday's presidential election, which declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the victor over Mir Houssein Mousavi.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the ultimate power in the country, has decided to investigate charges of fraud.
Obama said reports of violence that followed Iranian elections trouble him and all Americans. He said peaceful dissent should never be subject to violence that followed weekend elections that gave Ahmadinejad a second term.
"It would be wrong for me to be silent on what we've seen on the television the last few days," Obama told reporters at the White House.
Obama said he had no way of knowing the results were valid -- he said the United States had no election monitors in the country -- but it was important that the voters' choices be respected.
link
@Finn dAbuzz,
Iranians will submit, they may talk revolution but wont really carry one out. They are mostly comfortable in a non-labor driven economy.
AS far as the COuncil, the Mousavi rowd has played into its hands.By only recounting certain districts, the election bexcomes an exercise of "hanging chads". .
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Iranians will submit, they may talk revolution but wont really carry one out. They are mostly comfortable in a non-labor driven economy.
AS far as the COuncil, the Mousavi rowd has played into its hands.By only recounting certain districts, the election bexcomes an exercise of "hanging chads". .
I don't think anyone is going to have any faith in a recount of stuffed ballot boxes. The protesters are asking for them to cancel the election, not recount fake votes.
Note the verb, "to ask." The Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council are still in the driver's seat. As FM points out, they've got it too good to really lay it on the line--or so it seems.
It is interesting though, that the Dutch rebellion (1564-1648), the English civil wars (1640-51), the American revolution, the French revolution and the Russian (as opposed to the Bolshevik) revolution all took place after sustained periods of economic growth and prosperity. With human nature we truly should never say never.
Finn wrote the best post on this entire thread. It has not been rebutted.
Note:
Re: Setanta (Post 3676650)
Quote:
I don't see any reason why the United States has any business trying to "squeeze" Iran. Something it seems many Americans are unable or unwilling to see is that there are just some things, many things, which are beyond the reach of our influence, and beyond the threat of our military power. The internal affairs of Iran are such an area, up to and including their nuclear program.
You may consider that the US has neither the inherent right, nor, ultimately, the ability to influence the internal affairs of Iran, but it's interests are certainly impacted by Iranian internal affairs, and that is particularly so when those affairs include the intent to secure nuclear arms.
No one can predict with certainty what will happen if and when Iran is armed with nukes, but it's a safe bet US interests will not be served, and a possibility that military involvement will be required. This makes it US business to persuade or coerce Iran into abandoning their nuclear ambitions.
I don't think there are many who believe that additional nuclear players on the world's stage is a thing to be desired
"The spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet..."
-Barack Obama-
"(Nuclear terrorism is) the most immediate and extreme threat to global security."
-Barack Obama-
"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies."
-Barack Obama-
Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -- that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
-Barack Obama-
"(Iran could have "peaceful" nuclear power) but not a military nuclear capability and they have to accept this."
-Nicolas Sarkozy-
“We cannot allow them to have a hundred nuclear weapons. We cannot allow a country to, in effect, become the bomb-seller of the world because they're in a snit, and because they can't grow a crop.”
-Bill Clinton-
"Every time I get a chance to talk to them (leaders of Third World nations who may be seeking nuclear weapons), I try to dissuade them of that. And I make the point that I think that it's a wasted investment in a military capability that is limited in political or military utility, and that we have ways of responding and punishing conventionally that you would not wish to see us use." (emphasis added)
-Colin Powell-
"We can't allow the world's worst leaders to blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world's worst weapons."
-George Bush-
"For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeleine Albright -
“The international community must continue to act uncompromisingly to prevent a nuclear Iran and end its activities that assist terror organisations and destabilise the Middle East.”
-Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman-
"They (Iran) are very aggressive in their pursuit of nuclear weapons, in their interference with other countries’ internal affairs, with their funding and deployment of terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah to further Iranian aim. Most of the people in the region who have to live with Iran every day are extremely worried by Iranian actions. We share those worries. Europe and NATO are also with us on that. "
-Hillary Clinton-
"I know that there’s an ongoing debate about what the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons production capacity is, but I don’t think there is a credible debate about their intention. Our task is to dissuade them, deter them, prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which given the range of the missiles they currently have access to threatens Europe and Arab neighbors in the Gulf..."
-Hillary Clinton-
“That strategy will... seek to end Iran's ambition to acquire an illicit nuclear capability and its support for terrorism.”
-US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice-
"...that their attacks or -- or their -- their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon -- that all of those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace.”
-Barack Obama-
"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst forth at once in the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds."
-Bhagavad Gita-
FROM this AMs New York Times:
Quote: Published: June 16, 2009
TEHRAN " Iran’s leaders failed on Tuesday to halt a second day of huge demonstrations against last week’s election results but, placed on the defensive, offered another concession to the sustained rage here, saying they would allow a limited recount.
They received a resounding refusal " first from reformist politicians who said they would accept only a new election and then on the streets of the capital, Tehran. Supporters of the defeated opposition presidential candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi jammed into a line more than a mile long. They marched mostly in silence, some carrying signs in English asking, “Where is my vote?”
The numbers of opposition protesters did not match those on Monday, when hundreds of thousands of Iranians joined in the largest public demonstration since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, enraged that the conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was declared the winner of Friday’s election with 63 percent of the votes.
Fear, many said, was a factor. Seven protesters were killed overnight. Gritty and uncensored images, some taken by cellphone cameras, were beamed around the world via various Web sites.
“Nothing will change if we don’t come,” said one protester, Madjid, 26, an employee of the Foreign Ministry who was afraid to give his family name. “We need to become a big force to achieve what we want.”
Worry over the future of Iran, a country crucially important for its oil, position next to Iraq and Afghanistan, its nuclear program and ties to extremist groups, spilled over its borders.
In Washington, President Obama said that it would be counterproductive for the United States “to be seen as meddling” in the disputed Iranian presidential election. He dismissed criticism that he had failed to speak out forcefully enough about the growing unrest in Iran.
“I have deep concerns about the election,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House. “I think that the world has deep concerns about the election.”
As the confrontation inside Iran continued to build momentum on Tuesday, each side laid down more cards.
Reformers, with substantial popular support but without the power of the state, worked to gain religious backers, urging clerics to break with the government. “No one in his sane mind can accept these results,” a senior opposition cleric, Hassan-Ali Montazeri, said in a public letter posted on his Web site.
The government, meanwhile, sought to limit the damage by cracking down with only limited success on electronic media, revoking press credentials for foreign journalists and ordering journalists not to report on the streets. Supporters of Mr. Ahmadinejad " though apparently less than 10,000 of them " marched through Tehran’s streets proclaiming their candidate the election’s fair winner and chanting, “Rioters should be executed!”
In an intervention that suggested a growing concern over the scale of the protests, the nation’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took the unusual step of meeting with representatives of the four presidential candidates, urging national unity for the second time in recent days. He did not address the protesters’ demands for a new election.
The Guardian Council, the watchdog body that needs to certify the results, said it was willing to conduct a partial recount of the votes, the IRNA news agency reported. Ayatollah Khamenei, who had urged the council on Monday to examine the vote-rigging claims, said Tuesday that the candidates needed to resolve the issue through legal channels.
Mr. Moussavi’s representative, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, said a recount would not meet the demands of the protesters, Ghalamnews, a Web site linked to Mr. Moussavi, reported.
“We believe there has been fraud because our representatives were not allowed to supervise the elections, and we have evidence of many irregularities,” he was quoted as saying.
He gave an example: votes cast at some polling places, he said, exceeded the number of eligible voters in those areas. He also said the Guardian Council had not been impartial before the election because some of its members even campaigned for Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, appearing to try to project the image of a leader with a secure grip on power, left Iran for Russia on Tuesday for a meeting on international security.
In Yekaterinburg, Russia, for a summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not mention the Iranian election but gave a speech in which he referred to regional problems, describing Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories as occupied and unstable.
He added: “The current political and economic order is approaching the end of its mastery of the world. It is absolutely clear that the epoch of empire has come to an end.”
Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, told reporters that Russia had warm relations with Iran. “Elections in Iran are an internal affair of the Iranian people, but we welcome the newly elected president of that state,” Mr. Ryabkov said.
Leaders in Western Europe continued to voice concerns about the election, with the strongest remarks coming from President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who said Tuesday that the “extent of the fraud” in Iran was “proportional to the violent reaction” in the country, news agencies reported.
In response, the Iranian Foreign Ministry summoned the French ambassador to protest Mr. Sarkozy’s remarks, the ISNA news agency reported. The British ambassador was also summoned after Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged the Iranian government to listen to its people.
Despite the crackdown on the news media, an extraordinary amount of information about the protests in Tehran and other cities reached the outside world. On Tuesday, many Web sites posted a wrenching video that purported to show the death of a student in Isfahan in a shooting by pro-government militia members. Other videos showed bleeding and inert demonstrators from Tehran after the large protests on Monday.
In Tuesday’s demonstration here, a witness saw a member of the Basij militia loyal to Mr. Ahmadinejad opening fire on a group of people, hitting one person in the neck. Protesters attacked a group of the militia members and set one of their motorcycles on fire.
There were reports that at least two moderate politicians, Mohammad Ali Abtahi and Saeed Hajarian, as well as two other activists, were arrested on Tuesday. The government arrested more than 100 politicians and activists on Sunday. Some have been released
Finn wrote the best post on this entire thread. It has not been rebutted.
Note:
Re: Setanta (Post 3676650)
Quote:
I don't see any reason why the United States has any business trying to "squeeze" Iran. Something it seems many Americans are unable or unwilling to see is that there are just some things, many things, which are beyond the reach of our influence, and beyond the threat of our military power. The internal affairs of Iran are such an area, up to and including their nuclear program.
end of Setanta quote.
Finn Replied:
You may consider that the US has neither the inherent right, nor, ultimately, the ability to influence the internal affairs of Iran, but it's interests are certainly impacted by Iranian internal affairs, and that is particularly so when those affairs include the intent to secure nuclear arms.
No one can predict with certainty what will happen if and when Iran is armed with nukes, but it's a safe bet US interests will not be served, and a possibility that military involvement will be required. This makes it US business to persuade or coerce Iran into abandoning their nuclear ambitions.
I don't think there are many who believe that additional nuclear players on the world's stage is a thing to be desired
"The spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet..."
-Barack Obama-
"(Nuclear terrorism is) the most immediate and extreme threat to global security."
-Barack Obama-
"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies."
-Barack Obama-
Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -- that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
-Barack Obama-
"(Iran could have "peaceful" nuclear power) but not a military nuclear capability and they have to accept this."
-Nicolas Sarkozy-
“We cannot allow them to have a hundred nuclear weapons. We cannot allow a country to, in effect, become the bomb-seller of the world because they're in a snit, and because they can't grow a crop.”
-Bill Clinton-
"Every time I get a chance to talk to them (leaders of Third World nations who may be seeking nuclear weapons), I try to dissuade them of that. And I make the point that I think that it's a wasted investment in a military capability that is limited in political or military utility, and that we have ways of responding and punishing conventionally that you would not wish to see us use." (emphasis added)
-Colin Powell-
"We can't allow the world's worst leaders to blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world's worst weapons."
-George Bush-
"For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeleine Albright -
“The international community must continue to act uncompromisingly to prevent a nuclear Iran and end its activities that assist terror organisations and destabilise the Middle East.”
-Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman-
"They (Iran) are very aggressive in their pursuit of nuclear weapons, in their interference with other countries’ internal affairs, with their funding and deployment of terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah to further Iranian aim. Most of the people in the region who have to live with Iran every day are extremely worried by Iranian actions. We share those worries. Europe and NATO are also with us on that. "
-Hillary Clinton-
"I know that there’s an ongoing debate about what the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons production capacity is, but I don’t think there is a credible debate about their intention. Our task is to dissuade them, deter them, prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which given the range of the missiles they currently have access to threatens Europe and Arab neighbors in the Gulf..."
-Hillary Clinton-
“That strategy will... seek to end Iran's ambition to acquire an illicit nuclear capability and its support for terrorism.”
-US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice-
"...that their attacks or -- or their -- their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon -- that all of those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace.”
-Barack Obama-
"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst forth at once in the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds."
-Bhagavad Gita-
@farmerman,
FM's NYT article wrote:They marched mostly in silence, some carrying signs in English asking, “Where is my vote?”
The jokers know the value of international publicity--hence a sign immediately legible to people eating dinner and watching the news in the U.S. or Angle-land.
John Bolton, Mr. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, and a famously conservative commentator on the American political scene, comments on Israel, Iran and the nuclear threat in the
Wall Street Journal's online version.
Quote:Whatever the outcome of Iran's presidential election tomorrow, negotiations will not soon -- if ever -- put an end to its nuclear threat. And given Iran's determination to achieve deliverable nuclear weapons, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear program will not only persist but grow.
So what would such an attack look like? Obviously, Israel would need to consider many factors -- such as its timing and scope, Iran's increasing air defenses, the dispersion and hardening of its nuclear facilities, the potential international political costs, and Iran's "unpredictability." While not as menacingly irrational as North Korea, Iran's politico-military logic hardly compares to our NATO allies. Central to any Israeli decision is Iran's possible response.
Israel's alternative is that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs reach fruition, leaving its very existence at the whim of its staunchest adversary. Israel has not previously accepted such risks. It destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. One major new element in Israel's calculus is the Obama administration's growing distance (especially in contrast to its predecessor).
View the entire article by clicking here.
Does it really matter who won this election? The only difference between Ahmadickheadjad and this other guy is the other guy hasn't actually said out loud that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. People in America hear the word "reformist" and think that means he wants to change Iran into a kinder gentler nation, but the guy is only infinitessimally less a scumbag asshole than the current president. And besides, isn't it the Ayotollah Kahmeatme who makes all the decisions anyway? Whoever wins still needs to follow the piece of **** theocrat who is really in charge, right?
I can see how it might matter to Iranians, but to us, it won't change **** either way. Or will it? What do you think?