Originally posted by Krypton
Iran's government might finally wake up from the Dark Ages.
FIXED ;)
whiskers
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
This video shows a group of protestors saving one man from being arrested. After he escapes the police try to get him back but are rushed by a massive crowd. It seems that the people are winning.
A small victory for the people
Another video showing Basij forces retreating from the mob
Once the police puts down their weapons, it's all over. I doubt that the army/revolutionary guard will oppose the crowds.
bullet fees are one of the most vile acts I can conceive. Disgraceeful is an understatement.
Krypton
Bullet fee? :wtf:
Chryz707
You know the Iranian people are Rioting, but what will really change, whether it goes to either Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mir Hossein Moussavi, the fact is they are still run by the Mullahs and Ayetollah. They both hold similar views toward Israel and the west so what will really change, not a lot...
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lemonad
This is friggin disgraceful!!
From a friend of an acquaintance. He is described as a "political science professor and very knowledgeable of Iranians."
quote:
well, everybody was caught flatfooted, including -- as is not uncommon in these cases -- the Iranians themselves. the regime certainly underestimated a lot of things, beginning with the unwillingness of the youth to accept the election results and the importance they placed on voting. you'll recall that after their disappointment with the suppression of the earlier reformist regime (Khatami) the youth sat out the 2005 election, which contributed to Ahmadinejad's election. it looks now as though the regime thought that the apathy of the youth would continue. polls were all over the place because it was really impossible for any polling group to get any sort of accurate count (many Iranians don't have phones and of those who do no telling how many would be afraid to speak their true feelings). but great turning points in history often are spontaneous events which surprise everyone. just for one example, no one anticipated the Hungarians would open their border to Austria in 1989, including the Hungarian regime which decided to do so only hours before it happened. yet that was the first crack that eventually brought down the east German regime.
it's not just Hungary in which the US urged a population to act against an oppressor -- the Czechs in 1968, the Iraqi shia in 1991, and Georgia in 2008. and then when a hostile regime violently cracks down the US is left with only two options, go to war or verbal condemnation. if the rev guards were to institute what would basically be a military dictatorship, it will last for decades. better the be reticent and careful than to be rash and aggressive. Obama has not been silent -- he just hasn't spoken out as often or as strongly as critics wish. and for my taste, while i would like to have seen an earlier statement along the lines of the house and senate resolutions, better to be cautious than otherwise, given the consequences. consequences, i might add, those who seek a louder and harsher voice won't have to deal with because they were rejected by the voters last November.
and i note that the voices calling for more forceful action (including regime change on the part of John Bolton, again -- apparently a one trick pony), were the same ones who called for war with Iraq and talked about war with Iraq being a cakewalk, not to mention the occupation. and how'd that work? so their track record on middle east stuff is not particularly admirable. Iraq and its society and government were not anywhere as complex and opaque as Iran, Iranians, and the regime, and yet Iraq was botched badly (not to mention the misjudgments about WMD, an Iraq-al-qaeda connection, etc in the first place.) so why should any of us have any confidence in voices like Bolton's or what's coming out of the AEI?
as for speaking out, what can a senator or out of power Bushie say to the Iranians that they don't already know themselves? we gonna tell the Iranians that the election was stolen? that their regime is repressive? that we share their grief over the deaths? the proper role for the US (or Israel, or the Brits) is to be ready to apply needed pressure at the margins -- let the Iranians do what they are, the heavy lifting, and be ready to provide a game changing covert nudge when the opportunity presents. that's how covert action works best and would seem to me to be even more important given the suspicions of the regime about outside meddling.
why would we want to close the straits of Hormuz and invite attacks by the rev guard naval forces, as well as allow the regime to try to justify repression? if their oil and natural gas are to be a target (and that's a pretty good idea, because about half of the gas in particular is used domestically and not sold)) better to do it covertly by supporting strikes by the oil and gas industries, very subtle covert sabotage, and gaining a consensus among nations not to buy Iranian oil and gas.
as for signs in Iran asking for US support, they are not numerous at all -- many demonstrators do not want blatant US support other than moral support and criticism of the violence. remember that many Iranians don't -- or did not -- want a change of regime,only a change of policies. and just because they produce signs doesn't mean that it would be wise to respond directly.
frankly, if McCain was president I'm willing to be he'd be more cautious and a lot of the present critics would be saying, way to go, john. it's easy to call for force when you're not going to be down in the arena with the gladiators. and now is not the time for the neocons to put what they *perceive* the Israeli interests to be ahead of the interests of the Iranian people. the Israelis themselves have been relatively quiet and there's a lesson there.
The17sss
Despicable: White House takes credit for Iranian people's uprising, saying Obama's speech is why it happened.
From the Washington Post:
quote:
Since taking office, Obama has argued that reclaiming America’s moral authority by ending torture and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay provides essential diplomatic leverage to influence events in such strategic parts of the world as the Middle East and Central Asia. The speech he delivered to the Islamic world in Cairo eights days before the June 12 Iranian election sought to do that by providing what the president saw as an unvarnished accounting of U.S. policy in Iran, Iraq, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“We’re trying to promote a foreign policy that advances our interests, not that makes us feel good about ourselves,” said a senior administration official who, like others, declined to be identified, citing the sensitivity of the issue.
Obama’s approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president’s words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. [COLOR=orange]But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic’s Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
As Mr. Morrissey so accurately points out, "This is the most despicable, self-serving, and arrogant spin I’ve seen yet from this White House, and that’s saying something. Obama gave a speech, and suddenly the people of Iran discovered that they’re being ruled by tyrants? Never mind that two weeks passed between the speech and the uprising, and that the very obvious trigger for the unrest was the incompetent manner in which the mullahs rigged the election for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Never mind the fact that this President took a full week to even sound like a watered-down Nicolas Sarkozy, let alone the leader of the free world.
On the grand scale of things, I’d say that the establishment of democracy in Iraq had more influence on the Iranians than anything Obama’s managed to say, and I wouldn’t go so far to make it a proximate cause, or much more than a tertiary influence, after the stolen election and decades of repression by the mullahs.
Besides, how impressed do you think Iranians are with Obama’s open invitation to the mullahs for a 4th of July BBQ? Think that inspires them to demand liberty?"
Great follow up point by Jim Geraghty
Remember how it was important to recognize that these protests in Iran were triggered by ordinary Iranians’ response to the election, and it was important for the U.S. government to be quiet, soft-spoken, and understated in its response to evolving events? Remember when the most important thing was that the Iranians, and the world, conclude that this uprising was generated entirely by internal sources? Yeah, apparently that’s no longer the case.
Lebezniatnikov
Your tirades against this administration have stopped being vexing and have landed squarely in the land of the comical. A staffer in the White House privately credits his boss with giving a speech that influenced people, and you work yourself up into a froth about it?
At least when you were criticizing Obama for not inserting the US directly into the conflict, your issue was with policy. Now it's... well, I don't know exactly what it is that you're on about.
