The Case for Iran

[Tom In VA]

So perfectly played.

Propaganda at it's best ?



Even the women ....



Hi Ollie, remember me ?



With his best Ali G impression ....

"Yo 'dis be muh niggah, muhfuggah cold threw down the shiznit in 79. Punk'd dat American azz"




The beginning of the book .... "How to make it really difficult for the United States To Invade You".

I wonder if Saddam will get a free copy in prison.



I wonder if our leftist friends here in the states will draw any parrallels to Hitler in this poster ?

Probably not. Oh well, stay tuned.

[Mikey]

Could you please rephrase that post into something even remotely comprehensible?

Feel free to

• use
• bullets
• if
• it
• helps
• you
• organize
• your
• thoughts

Or maybe just tell us if you like or dislike the results of Iran's election.

[Tom In VA]

I used pics.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/s ... 03,00.html

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran's new president-elect.

Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails. And those four realized they shared the same conclusion - the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.

Iran "elected" a very hard line "conservative". One that was involved in the taking, interrogation and torment of the hostages in 1979 and for 444 days.

This will make it difficult to work with Iran and suggest to them that nukes aren't a good idea.

I believe the entire election was a set up. "Hey look world, we had a "free election".


Making any more sense ?

[Diogenes]

Could you please rephrase that post into something even remotely comprehensible?

Concur.

English translation please?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The group that took the American CIA agents hostage in '79 was MEK.
You might wanna do a Google search on them and find out what eventually became of them before you shoot your yap off.

[Tom In VA]

We've got our work cut out for us as it pertains to Iran.

They just elected a hard line "Death to America" type.

Their election was purposefully well documented.

Their new president was a player in the taking of American Hostages.

They don't plan on NOT building nukes.



Hi, keep your eye on me.

[Tom In VA]

The group that took the American CIA agents hostage in '79 was MEK.
You might wanna do a Google search on them and find out what eventually became of them before you shoot your yap off.

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm


Good call. But what's your point.


Mine is, the situation in the Middle East just got a bit more hairy ... for my people.

[Bizzarofelice]

Their new president was a player in the taking of American Hostages.

I am VERY interested in seeing how this plays out. America won't go after Iran like they did Iraq, but a resurfacing of this massive sack of crap should warrant a strong reaction from America. Dubya should speak out about these allegations and request a response from the Iranian govt.

Maybe we'll go after Iran if the next President's daddy was one of the people taken hostage.

They don't plan on NOT building nukes.

I don't see a solid connection between hijacker douchebag executing the orders of the theocrats and nuclear weapons. The claim was that they were building nukes before this shitbag was elected.

[Tom In VA]

Look I just tried to be entertaining here while bringing the T1B scoop. I was up late and heard it on the radio and now it's going to be all over the air waves.

This isn't Iran saying "Hey guys we really like what you've done with Iraq, we're gonna try the same thing over here".

This is Iran digging in like an Alabama Tick and in no uncertain terms saying "We don't want to chat".


The fact is, we're dealing with the same people or a lineage of people that have set forth on a course of warfare against the entire Western world.


Bace, you go talk to them. I'm sure if you bring 'teh funnay' they'll laugh and hug you and give one of their virgins to your Back Row Middle and we'll finally have world peace after your score a Persian Piece.

[Mikey]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I was pretty surprised to see that this guy won because I was under the impression that Iran has a large "younger" generation that wasn't even born when the revolution and hostage thing happened, and that have been itching for much more liberalized social and political policies. I think it may be difficult for these guys to go too hard line because the youngin's won't stand for it.

[Mister Bushice]

Depends on exactly how opressive this regime is. If they respond to protests by execution, imprisonment, and threats to other family members of the protesters, it could go on for years.

After all, that worked in Iraq.

[Tom In VA]

The information I've been hearing and reading about this "election" is that nobody ever stood a chance. This dude was chosen by the clerics. Just look at him, he doesn't look like the standard Ayatollah looking Haji. That's the "appeal" to the youth I suppose.

I'm just pointing out things, and wondering, I don't think this bodes well for the Middle East situation.

I hope our best and brightest at MIT and such are feverishly working hard on fuel alternatives.

[DrDetroit]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I was pretty surprised to see that this guy won because I was under the impression that Iran has a large "younger" generation that wasn't even born when the revolution and hostage thing happened, and that have been itching for much more liberalized social and political policies. I think it may be difficult for these guys to go too hard line because the youngin's won't stand for it.

You were surprised that this guy won?

He didn't "win" anything. The mullahs control the elections, if you can even call them elections.

And how do you define "too hard line?"

[DrDetroit]

Depends on exactly how opressive this regime is. If they respond to protests by execution, imprisonment, and threats to other family members of the protesters, it could go on for years.

After all, that worked in Iraq.

Dumbshit, the mullahs control the government, period. That "regime" has not changed.

You liberals are completely whacked out of your skulls when it comes to Iran. You treat this sham as an "election" that has some level of validity to it.

[PSUFAN]

SWEET hairdoo.

--RJ

[Tom In VA]

SWEET hairdoo.

--RJ

I think one of the Mullahs was yelling at him and telling him he should vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[Mister Bushice]

Depends on exactly how opressive this regime is. If they respond to protests by execution, imprisonment, and threats to other family members of the protesters, it could go on for years.

After all, that worked in Iraq.

the mullahs control the government, period. That "regime" has not changed.

No shit? The mullahs control things? In a muslim country? Who'd a thunk THAT?

Stay focused. The mullahs dictate direction, not day to day policy. They step in if things are going in a direction they don't like, but if this guy decides to impose martial law on an area where protests and riots are happening, or decides to quietly round up leaders, they will look the other way because that supports their mentality.

You liberals are completely whacked out of your skulls when it comes to Iran. You treat this sham as an "election" that has some level of validity to it.

You become less and less worth responding to every day.

[DrDetroit]

No shit? The mullahs control things? In a muslim country? Who'd a thunk THAT?

If that was self-evident, Bushice, then why did you speculate re: the oppressiveness of the regime?

Stay focused. The mullahs dictate direction, not day to day policy.

Now you're contradicting yourself, Bushice. You just stated that it was self-evident that the mullahs controls things.

So what you really meant was that they control things at a macro level, but not at the micro level?? Evidence?

They step in if things are going in a direction they don't like, but if this guy decides to impose martial law on an area where protests and riots are happening, or decides to quietly round up leaders, they will look the other way because that supports their mentality.

You think the President institutes martial law there?

Please tell us on what basis you postulate...

As if you know anything about Iran... :roll:

[Mister Bushice]

No shit? The mullahs control things? In a muslim country? Who'd a thunk THAT?

If that was self-evident, Bushice, then why did you speculate re: the oppressiveness of the regime?

Because The president DOES have a say. It is the clerics who OVERRULE, they don't always dictate. I'm sure it's made clear to Ahmadinejad what is expected, but withi those boundaries there is play, but it appears as if the guy is headed in their direction:

Ahmadinejad also vowed to return Iran to the principles of the Islamic Revolution more than a quarter-century ago.

Stay focused. The mullahs dictate direction, not day to day policy.

Now you're contradicting yourself, Bushice. You just stated that it was self-evident that the mullahs controls things.

So what you really meant was that they control things at a macro level, but not at the micro level?? Evidence?

NO, you are as usual over ANALyzing my post, nit picking every single word for some shred of argument.

They step in if things are going in a direction they don't like, but if this guy decides to impose martial law on an area where protests and riots are happening, or decides to quietly round up leaders, they will look the other way because that supports their mentality.

You think the President institutes martial law there?

Please tell us on what basis you postulate...

As if you know anything about Iran... :roll:

Clerics led by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have true power in Iran, able to overrule elected officials.

ABLE to, not always do so. Big difference. This guy may well be their puppet, but right now the words coming out of his mouth are his

"Our main goal today is to create an exemplary, advanced and powerful Islamic nation," Ahmadinejad said in a radio address.

What does that mean? Probably nothing good for the future of normalized relations with the west, but one thing he does not have a final say in is nuclear policy.

[Tom In VA]

"Our main goal today is to create an exemplary, advanced and powerful Islamic nation," Ahmadinejad said in a radio address.

What does that mean?

It means war.

[RadioFan]

I suppose we ought to take him at his word, cut right to the chase and nuke them.

Or at least take out their nuclear facilities, before the Isralis do.

Unfortunately, it looks as though some of your earlier predictions about the political direction of Iran are on hold, if not doing a 180.

[RadioFan]

Unfortunately, it looks as though some of your earlier predictions about the political direction of Iran are on hold,

You didn't think the mullahs were just going to lay down and step aside, did you?

No. But so much for the presidential office having any sort of counterbalancing influence, above or below the surface.

[Bizzarofelice]

Bace, you go talk to them.

Good idear. My Bobcat Goldthwaite impersonation and juggling always go over well with state-sponsored kidnappers.

TerryWaitefelice is on the job.

[RadioFan]

It's going to take a revolution to effect change in Iran.

Maybe Rafsanjani can start it from underneath, instead of on top ... if he's not arrested that is.

Edited for ...

Maybe we ought to dust these guys off and put them back to work. See how Iran likes a likes a little taste of its own medicine.

Rack.

[Mikey]

It's the economy, stupid...

For Iranians, It Was the Economy, Stupid
By Reza Aslan
Reza Aslan is the author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam" (Random House, 2005).

July 3, 2005

Anyone struggling to understand how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — the obscure, hard-line mayor of Tehran who had never before run for office, who spent almost no money on his campaign for president and who barely registered in preelection polls — could have steamrolled former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, the enormously powerful political moderate and overwhelmingly favored technocrat, should ask my cousin Karim.

Karim, a 30-year-old engineer from Tehran with a wife, two kids and his own software business, is a member of the city's disproportionately large and technologically savvy middle class. But although in the U.S. the term middle class implies a level of financial comfort and security, Karim enjoys neither of these. Like the rest of Tehran's young and highly educated populace, Karim is forced to wade through an utterly collapsed economy by performing menial jobs. Besides running his software business, he works some nights as an unlicensed cab driver; he helps raise chickens on his aunt's farm; he hires himself out as a tour guide and translator; and, if he's lucky, he sometimes sells American contraband — compact discs, DVDs, designer purses — out of the trunk of his car.

For his life of toil and struggle, Karim naturally blames Iran's clerical regime, which holds all the power and, increasingly, all the wealth in the country. In fact, like many Iranians, he dreams of one day dragging the clerics out of the government by their beards and trampling on their bodies in the streets. But first, he has to figure out a way to feed his family. And that is why he voted for Ahmadinejad.

Despite the shrill rhetoric coming from Washington, where officials are now wasting their time trying to determine whether the incoming Iranian president was or was not a radical student hostage taker 26 years ago, Ahmadinejad did not win because of widespread fraud or because reform-minded voters boycotted the elections (though both played small roles). He won because most Iranians, especially younger voters like Karim who are the natural constituency of the reform movement, saw him as the only candidate willing to talk about what nearly everyone in Iran — regardless of class, degree of piety or political affiliation — is most concerned about: massive inflation, high unemployment and soaring housing prices.

While Rafsanjani and the other half-dozen or so presidential candidates stumbled over each other with promises of social reform and rapprochement with the West, Ahmadinejad promised to stop corruption in the government, distribute aid to the outlying provinces, promote healthcare, raise the minimum wage and help the young with home and business loans. Amid all the talk of head scarves and pop music from the front-runners, Ahmadinejad's message had enormous appeal not just for Iran's poor, but also for the country's youth, many of whom were attracted to Rafsanjani's promises of reform but who ultimately voted with their pocketbooks for Ahmadinejad.

In fact, the crumbling economy — perhaps even more than the mass arrests and political repression — is to blame for Iranian's widespread disenchantment with the reform movement. After all, when nearly a third of the population is unemployed and about 40% live below the poverty line, it is nearly impossible to focus on social reform.

In this sense, the U.S. must bear some responsibility for Ahmadinejad's victory. Because the primary cause of Iran's economic collapse (in addition to domestic corruption and ineptitude) is more than two decades of U.S. sanctions, isolation and containment which, according to a report issued last year by the Council on Foreign Relations, has only strengthened the hard-liners, accelerated Iran's nuclear program and made full democracy a more distant prospect.

Over the last four years, a slew of American foreign policy experts and Iranian intellectuals, such as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, have pressed the Bush administration to abandon its failed policy of isolating Iran. Instead, they recommend a broad program of economic incentives in exchange for meaningful reform (something akin to what the administration is enthusiastically doing for North Korea, a brutal, totalitarian country in the grip of a murderous megalomaniac with nuclear weapons and the will to use them). But the administration has rebuffed these calls, choosing instead to pursue "regime change" by threatening military action, fomenting dissent and encouraging Iranians to revolt against the clerical establishment, even though the vast majority are too preoccupied with eking out a living to consider rising up en masse.

It is too early to say for certain what the election will mean for Iran, let alone for Iran's relations with the West. However, the election of a tough ultraconservative suggests that the time when the U.S. could have helped move Iran toward greater freedom by forcing the country out of its isolation and prying it open to the rest of the world (as it did with the Soviet Union and China), may have come and gone.

[DrDetroit]

This is rich...

Ahmadinejad did not win because of widespread fraud or because reform-minded voters boycotted the elections (though both played small roles). He won because most Iranians, especially younger voters like Karim who are the natural constituency of the reform movement, saw him as the only candidate willing to talk about what nearly everyone in Iran — regardless of class, degree of piety or political affiliation — is most concerned about: massive inflation, high unemployment and soaring housing prices.

1) The mullahs controlled not only who the candidates were, but also the election itself...though I am sure Jimmah Carter will conclude that this was a fair election and the Democrats will ask why Iran can get it right but we cannot.

2) Talk is cheap. I don't buy that young Iranians voted en masse for this guy because they think he will do something for the economy, i.e., they didn't vote for him en masse.

In this sense, the U.S. must bear some responsibility for Ahmadinejad's victory. Because the primary cause of Iran's economic collapse (in addition to domestic corruption and ineptitude) is more than two decades of U.S. sanctions, isolation and containment

Ah yes, the typical Blame America rant...like we didn't expect that.

It's not the mullahs who are raping the economy in Iran...noooo, it's America. :roll:

Not surprised to see Mikey pimping this shit.

[Mister Bushice]

Like YOU know the story behind the lines.

[DrDetroit]

Like YOU know the story behind the lines.

Who are you talking to?

If it's me, then quit hiding, bitch. Post what you have. Show me that I am wrong.

Oooops, you're one of the 'tards who actually believes that elections are fair in Iran, aren't you?

[Mister Bushice]

Well lets see. I see a post by Mikey linking an article by a guy who has written a book about Iran, then there's you with nothing more than a conspiracy theory of faked elections casually referenced but never proven by the Bush Administration and your little pointed head.

I have nothing to prove. Your sources don't appear to exist.

[DrDetroit]

Well lets see. I see a post by Mikey linking an article by a guy who has written a book about Iran, then there's you with nothing more than a conspiracy theory of faked elections casually referenced but never proven by the Bush Administration and your little pointed head.

I have nothing to prove. Your sources don't appear to exist.

Bushice, every other time I have posted sources you have attacked the sources. I will no longer respond to your demands for sources.

Oh? You don't remember maligning the Department of Labor, the Federal Reserve, etc.?

In any case, there was nothing "fake" about the election. They were conducted.

here you go again with the mischaracterization nonsense. I merely noted that the elections were not free and fair. You turn that into me saying that the elections were faked. Why do that?

The elections happened. However, the candidates were determind by the mullahs and the winner was determined by the mullahs.

Oh, and I don't care if the guy has written a book. You see, I don't measure the credibility of an argument based on such bona fides. I think about the argument being presented.

And there's no way that a country rich with oil has been impoverished by the United States, idiot.

[Mister Bushice]

He's inferring the voting was fixed. That's not true, there's no proof that votes were changed.

True that the type of candidates allowed to run were restricted, but hell, we're stuck in a shitty two party system here that prevents any other parties or outside candidates from ever having a chance in hell of winning. I don't see a major difference between narrowing the choice of the parties and candidates by barring others from running and setting up the rules so that no one but the two major parties can participate in national debates and can get their message out in the media through deep pocket financing while other candidates cannot. If the system was fair and fully "Democratic", all parties would be given equal time to be heard.

We Just have a different type of control in place, that's all.


EDIT:

Stop with the " I didn't say that" BS Detroit. You inferred it:

1) The mullahs controlled not only who the candidates were, but also the election itself.

2)I don't buy that young Iranians voted en masse for this guy because they think he will do something for the economy, i.e., they didn't vote for him en masse.

And yet it was a landslide win, so WTF ARE you inferring?

[DrDetroit]

He's inferring the voting was fixed. That's not true, there's no proof that votes were changed.

So fabricating votes wouldn't count?? :roll:

Pressuring voters to vote for candidate x does not count?

And yet, you lefty's in this country lied for years that the 2000 election was a fraud on even less...

True that the type of candidates allowed to run were restricted,

Restricted? How about determined by the mullahs, ass.

Right there that demonstrates that the election was neither free nor fair. End of story.

but hell, we're stuck in a shitty two party system here that prevents any other parties or outside candidates from ever having a chance in hell of winning.

Thought it would take longer for you to draw an equivalency with the US...idiot.

I don't see a major difference between narrowing the choice of the parties and candidates by barring others from running and setting up the rules so that no one but the two major parties can participate in national debates and can get their message out in the media through deep pocket financing while other candidates cannot. If the system was fair and fully "Democratic", all parties would be given equal time to be heard. We Just have a different type of control in place, that's all.

Leave it to the lefties to draw these types of horrible equivalencies.

EDIT:

Stop with the " I didn't say that" BS Detroit. You inferred it:

And yet it was a landslide win, so WTF ARE you inferring?

I did not infer that the election was "faked," asshole.

I did state that election was not free and fair and that it was fixed.

The mullahs controlled the election from the start.

Hussein won by a landslide, too, idiot...I guess that election was free and fair, too, right?

:roll:

[Mister Bushice]

He's inferring the voting was fixed. That's not true, there's no proof that votes were changed.

So fabricating votes wouldn't count?? :roll:

So now you ARE saying the voting was fixed? Link?

Pressuring voters to vote for candidate x does not count?

We do that here.

EDIT:

Stop with the " I didn't say that" BS Detroit. You inferred it:

And yet it was a landslide win, so WTF ARE you inferring?

I did not infer that the election was "faked," asshole.

I did state that election was not free and fair and that it was fixed.

The mullahs controlled the election from the start.

Except the voting part, which you claim was fixed, yet you have no proof, nor is there anything more out there than Bush Administration rhetoric.

Stop now.

[DrDetroit]

So now you ARE saying the voting was fixed? Link?

I said it last week.

And you've already stipulated that fact by acknowledging that mullahs controlled who the candidates were.

The landslide victory just ices the point.

We do that here.

The US government pressures voters under the threat of incarceration or worse??

Link?

I cannot believe you posted that.

Except the voting part, which you claim was fixed, yet you have no proof, nor is there anything more out there than Bush Administration rhetoric.

I see, rather than engage the argument you are compelled to speculate where I get my information from...typical lefty tactic.

[Mister Bushice]

Don't put words in my mouth.

Can you deny that the restrictions of our two party system prevent any other potential alternate party candidate from having even a remote shot at getting elected?

[DrDetroit]

Don't put words in my mouth.

Can you deny that the restrictions of our two party system prevent any other potential alternate party candidate from having even a remote shot at getting elected?

I'm not going to debate a highly subjective and speculative point with you.

"Remote shot?"

WTF is that?

What "restrictions" are you referring to? Specifically, of course...

And, no, whatever "restrictions" might be in place have been through the democratic process in the first place.

That hardly qualifies as an equivalent of a small group of leaders determining who appears on the ballot and ultimately the outcome of the "election."

[Mister Bushice]

Don't put words in my mouth.

Can you deny that the restrictions of our two party system prevent any other potential alternate party candidate from having even a remote shot at getting elected?

What restrictions?

1. They aren't invited to participate in presidential debates.

2. Despite matching funds, they have to spend a lot of money to access that money, and it is usually disbursed over a period of months during the year as it is available. The two main parties did not participate in matching funds this past election because they had 200 times the amount of money in their war chests. Again, not a level playing field by a long shot. Sort of like telling someone that if they spend at least $10,000 in a casino, they will be allowed in to play in the high rollers area.

3. Campaign Advertising practices have done nothing more than make it next to impossible for Parties other than the Dems and Repubs to afford the advertising necessary to compete, thus the playing field is not even close to being level when only two parties have the cash reserves available to advertise themselves on TV, and instead of it being the best candidate who wins it's the candidate with enough money who usually wins.

You can call these "part of the game" if you want, but they are indeed restrictions on any other party getting a toehold in the presidential election . Just by saying, "Sure your partys candidate can run for president, but you will need at least 60 million dollars to get on every ballot in every state, advertise sufficiently to get your face out there, but we will not allow you to be involved in any key debates with the ruling parties.

Restrictions come in many shapes and forms, and rules by omission are just as powerful.

[Mister Bushice]

They will be invited to Presidential debates when there are enough people who actually give a fuck to hear what they have to say.

Huh? And who judges that?

Ross Perot was invited to debates, was he not?{/quote]

Dude spent over 50 million on the campaign, but even he quit when he realized it was virtually impossible for a non dem/repub to win.

You still have yet to point out a single restriction. "Gee, this is really hard" is a complaint not a restriction.

No, It's set up that way to prevent any outsiders from having a chance at winning.

[Mister Bushice]

Dude spent over 50 million on the campaign, but even he quit when he realized it was virtually impossible for a non dem/repub to win.

Maybe if he wasn't a complete loon he would done better.

True, but quitting in mid summer then coming back was what killed him.

Not to mention having Stockdale in there.

[Dinsdale]

True, but not quitting in mid summer then coming back was what almost killed his family.

Dude made huge waves as an idependent, so the status quo lobbed death threats against his family. I think we can rest the case against the two-party system. Conform or die.