|
so what are your thoughts on the new Iranian president?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
I think the people are ed now,this guy is a big time islamic hardliner,and this is not good for the people of Iran.
so whats are your thoughts on this and where do you see Iran heading with this president. |
|
|
| Dupz |
I heard it was a landslide victory for this guy..
I find it hard to believe that the Islamic hardliners can gain so much support over moderates. I mean, who would vote for extremists in ANY case, whether it be in Iranian, US or any other election??
It seems that people WANT to be dictated on what to do with their daily lives..
But that's my opinion.. I've never been to Iran, never plan on going, and have no idea what it is like to live under an Islamic regime. For all I know they might actually be pretty good leaders :) |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
At least there won't be the reform/conservative neverending debate as to where things stand in Iran. Not that it mattered much after all everyone felt that Khatami was a rationale guy to deal with and how far did he get with the Guardian Council and Conservative Parliament. At any rate its like a wear down effect, if the Iranians want him as their President it is their choice, just wish the U.S. would be quiet and let these people live their lives the way they want before we have to hear how undemocratic things are here in America and how wonderful China will be as the next superpower, etc.
If Iran wants a revitalized Islamic government that continues to make empty promises about tackling the issues then so be it. We know where the real power lies and its not with Mr. Ahmadinejad |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Considering how 'rigged' the elections were, should we surprised??:rolleyes:
| quote: |
Iran's 'Democracy'
A rigged election, no reformist victory.
Monday, June 20, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
The most astonishing aspect of Friday's presidential vote in Iran is not that the elections will go into a second round but that Tehran managed to convince so many in the West that this is a real demonstration of democracy.
All power is held by Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, his Council of Guardians and the small clique of military officers and businessmen around him. The Council disqualified more than 1,000 candidates before the election, vetting only contestants who support the regime's ideological lines. The example of outgoing "reformist" President Mohammad Khatami, who presided over eight years of economic decline and worsening repression, has proven that the President cannot change anything against the Council's will.
The one number worth parsing in Friday's election is that of voter participation. Many Iranians had called for a boycott as the only way of showing resistance. Knowing this, the mullahs seem to have taken their usual election manipulations to another level. Intimidation by the Revolutionary Guards and the fact that proof of voting is needed for certain jobs and welfare payments have always pushed up turnout. Still, voter participation has steadily declined in the past few years to barely 50%.
But this time turnout was 62.7%, exactly the level Supreme Leader Khameni had predicted. "Something is fishy here," Patrick Clawson, who follows Iran for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told us. Contradicting all reports about the mood in the country ahead of the vote, hard-line candidates received unprecedented support, while the main reformist candidate, Mustafa Moin, came in fifth. Mr. Moin also suggested the elections were rigged, but since the regime allows no neutral observers the real extent of fraud or Iranian discontent can't be known.
The runoff election will now have former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani facing hard-line Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who surprised Western observers by finishing second. Neither man is a moderate in any Western sense. Mr. Rafsanjani stood by the late Ayatollah Khomeini from the first day of the Iranian revolution and was in power as Iran promoted international terror and rounded up political prisoners. He is also the father of Iran's nuclear program and openly mused in 2001 that the Islamic world would need only one nuclear bomb to destroy Israel.
The temptation will be strong, especially in Europe, to consider Mr. Rafsanjani to be the regime's "pragmatist" and someone who can be trusted to agree to end Iran's uranium enrichment program in return for the right "economic incentives." But it's more accurate to read these election results as the regime's attempt to tighten its control and to present a united, hard-line front as it sprints to develop the bomb under cover of the talks.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal last week, Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel Peace laureate, warned the West against offering any concessions to the regime, urging Europe and the U.S. instead to help Iran's democracy movement by highlighting Iran's human rights violations. One day before the vote, President Bush finally reached out to the Iranian people:
"Today, Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world. Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy. . . . And to the Iranian people, I say: As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you." Unfortunately, Iranians are still waiting to hear from Europe.
|
emphases added
>>Source<< |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
i heard an analyst suggest that the election of the hardliner was in part a reaction to bush administration's overt threats, drone flights, criticism of iran's democracy and its nuclear development programme. seems like a plausible reason to me. attacking a country always seems to unite them.
how in the world can the administration not see this? unless this is precisely what they want, to elect a hardliner and set off the series of events that will lead to another war.
yet another reason to admire this adminstration.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
i heard an analyst suggest that the election of the hardliner was in part a reaction to bush administration's overt threats, drone flights, criticism of iran's democracy and its nuclear development programme. seems like a plausible reason to me. attacking a country always seems to unite them.
how in the world can the administration not see this? unless this is precisely what they want, to elect a hardliner and set off the series of events that will lead to another war. |
I thought about this too and it makes sense,this administration is always looking for excuses,and this would be a great excuse for them and they can make up lots and lots of bulls,so this is all a good reason for Bush to attack Iran in the near future. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
This is going to sound strange, but perhaps this is just the medicine Iran needed. Electing a hard-core conservative to power with already-divisive popularity often can have the effect of alienating the people from the government.
I think that's what we're going through in the US to some extent as well. Though Bush obviously isn't AS conservative as the Iranian hardliners, his administration has been very divisive, and we can already see his tentative popularity waning. If it continues, there will be a mass upheaval in the 2006 midterms and the 2008 election, bringing a new party to power for some time to come.
This could happen in Iran. The demographic statistics are compelling as well. The vast majority of the Iranian population is under 25. Many of that proportion haven't reached voting age yet. Yet this is the single biggest anti-government age group. With the rise of this age group to voting age (a tremendously large voting bloc), and the continued administration of a radical conservative dividing the country ever more, Iran could now be poised for the type of democratic revolution that we've been waiting for.
Of course, the election was unfortunate, but it's really no different than the status quo. The Mullahs already had tremendous influence on all branches of government. So hopefully in 2-4 years we'll see the final vote of approval on a declining system of governance that empowers the Mullahs to use their influence to the detriment of Iranian citizens. |
|
|
| xxxtasy |
An Iranian quoted from BBCPersia.com which can pretty much sum the mood of this nation.
---------
The Iranian nation has just spoken. Political and social freedom, in view of the election results, are not high on the Iranian people's list of priorities. Battling rampant poverty, corruption and a high unemployment rate clearly is. We experienced eight years of a "reformist" premiership and, frankly, nothing improved on the economic front for the majority of Iranians. If anything, most of us got relatively poorer while a select few lined their pockets.
----------
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected mainly by poor rural people because he promised day-to-day security which matter most to these people.
I am sure the nuclear dispute with the West mattered least to them. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Former hostages allege Iran's new president was captor
Takeover leader: Ahmadinejad 'absolutely' not involved
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The White House said Thursday it is taking seriously the allegations by former hostages that Iran's hardline president-elect, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of their captors at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran a quarter century ago.
President Bush told foreign reporters he has "no information, but obviously his involvement raises many questions."
"As soon as I saw the face, it rang a lot of bells to me," Don Sharer, who served as the embassy's naval attache at the time, told CNN.
"...Take 20 years off of him. He was there. He was there in the background, more like an adviser."
Abbas Abdi, the man well-known to be the leader of the 1979 hostage-takers, told CNN that Ahmadinejad, the Tehran mayor, "absolutely was not" part of the event that involved the captivity of 52 people.
Abdi later became a supporter of reformist President Mohammed Khatami and was recently released from jail for advocating closer ties with the United States.
Iranian officials also deny Ahmadinejad was involved.
The November 4, 1979, embassy takeover followed protests demanding that the United States return the Shah of Iran to Tehran for trial. He had been overthrown by the Islamic revolution 11 months prior and was receiving cancer treatment in New York at the time.
The embassy seizure lasted 444 days and resulted in a botched rescue mission that left eight U.S. soldiers dead and the severance of U.S.-Iranian ties ever since.
The Associated Press, in its archives, has a series of photographs showing a student hostage-taker that some of the former hostages believe to be Ahmadinejad.
His official biography says that as a student at the University of Science and Technology, he was a member of the Office for Strengthening Unity, the student organization that planned the takeover.
Abdi told CNN that of the Office for Strengthening Unity members involved, none were University of Science and Technology students.
Ahmadinejad joined the Revolutionary Guards in 1980 and served in the Iran-Iraq war.Last Saturday he was declared the winner of Iran's presidential election, winning more than 61 percent of the vote over former two-term President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
"I saw his picture in the Washington Post on Saturday morning, recognized it immediately and then sent an e-mail out to some of my former colleagues ... telling them what I thought and seeing what kind of responses they might have to it," said William Daugherty, a former CIA officer who now lives in Savannah, Georgia.
Daugherty said he remembers "seeing him acting in a supervisory or leadership capacity during the first ... 2 1/2 weeks (but) on the 19th day, I was moved into solitary confinement and had limited contact with even my Iranian guards after that."
Sharer said he was 99 percent sure Ahmadinejad was involved.
"In one incident he just called (Army attache Col. Charles Scott) pigs and dogs and we deserved to be locked up forever," he said. "When you're placed in a life-threatening situation of that nature, you just remember those things."
The AP reports that one person who did not recognize Ahmadinejad as a captor was senior defense attache at the time, Col. Tom Schaefer. The AP reported him being more concerned about the return to power of hardliners in Iran than by the thought Ahmadinejad might have been a hostage-taker.
Asked about Schaefer's recollections, Daugherty and Sharer said memory works different ways for different people.
"We were all in different circumstances," Daugherty said. "We were exposed to some of the Iranians more than others. So, you know, if Tom was actually quoted correctly in saying he didn't remember, again that's not the same thing as the guy not being there."
The hostage crisis ended after intense negotiations. Minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as U.S. president on January 20, 1981, the 52 hostages were released.
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/m...dent/index.html |
|
|
|
| d-miurge |
| The 2003 Peace Nobel Prize Shirin Ebadi call the iranians to do not vote. The Islamic Republic will fall soon imo. People are angry. |
|
|
|
|
