Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:00:03 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We don't have to worry. No such thing as a "successful" revolution in Iran, no matter who wins. Mullah's run the show, and will continue to no matter what stooge is in office.


You weren't alive in '79 were you?


I was... and he is right, There is no chance of a successful revolution in Iran.



That might have been said about going up against Pahlevi and the Savak, but it happened.


It will not this time.

You do not understand wrong comparison... think China 20 years ago and then you may.


Tiananmen Square? That could easily have gone the other way. When that went down the communist party was a lot closer to losing power than they will ever admit. The leadership was seriously divided. There were party cadre among the protesters, there were protests in other parts of the country. There were reports of military units firing on each other.

No it was never a close thing, it had no chance of going the other way. The only question at the time was when would the Party crackdown and how hard. What you fail to grasp is the massive scale of the crackdown and the brutality of it when it came.

What we saw on TV was small scale murder compared to the totality of it.


The peasants in the Chinese Army never flinched in putting it down and they did so with glee, just like the poor peasants in the Iranian Military will.

 


I'm sorry, but you've got this wrong. It wasn't just a student protest - it was a full blown crisis of national leadership. The Chinese leadership was seriously divided in 1989 over how to deal with the protesters. It was Deng that broke the deadlock and when he did the Chinese military very nearly did not enforce the government's orders. At least one general was arrested for refusing to enforce martial law. There were soldiers abandoning their vehicles, dropping their weapons and deserting.  There were PLA units actually attacking each other in Beijing after the massacre.

You can read about it for yourself:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/56873/lucian-w-pye/appealing-the-tiananmen-verdict-new-documents-from-china-s-highes?page=show

As the crisis mounted, China's leadership became increasingly divided between Zhao's group, who respected the students' patriotism and thus favored dialogue with them, and the hard-liners, who stood firm and eventually called for the use of military force.


And here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19900611/munro/3

And here:
The documents indicate that the officials who formally held the top posts — the members of the Politburo Standing Committee — were split two to two, with one abstention, over whether to use force to end the protests. Without a majority, the hard- liners lacked standing to call in the troops.


China may have come closer to a Romanian-style military revolt than is generally recognized. According to a report in the South China Morning Post on December 28, P.L.A. Chief Political Commissar Yang Baibing revealed in a confidential speech earlier that month that "21 officers and cadres with ranks of divisional commander or above, 36 officers with ranks of regimental or battalion commander, and 54 officers with the rank of company chief 'breached discipline in a serious manner during the struggle to crush the counterrevolutionary rebellion' in June. In addition, 1,400 soldiers 'shed their weapons and ran away.'"


And here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/index.html

After the square had been cleared Chinese Army troops continued to occupy the city5, with continuing reports of sporadic gunfire and interfactional fighting among PLA units. The possibility that units of the PLA would turn on each other was raised in the June 6th edition of the Secretary of State's Morning Summary as well as embassy cables from June 5-6. An embassy cable from June 5 (Document 18) reports that armored units from the PLA's 27th Army "seem poised for attack by other PLA units," and notes that a "western military attaché" largely blames the 27th for the June 3 massacre, and says that the 27th "is accused of killing even the soldiers of other units when they got in the way." The June 6 edition of the Secretary of State's Morning Summary (Document 19) states that the 27th Army is "being blamed for the worst atrocities against civilians during Saturday night's attack on Tiananmen Square," and also notes that "some clashes between military units reportedly have occurred." Document 20, an embassy cable from June 6, refers to "persistent rumours of splits among the military and fighting among military units."




That was one reason China expanded the paramilitary People's Armed Police force after 1989 to deal with incidents like this - they don't trust the military to deal with domestic unrest. It's also one reason their military has gotten lavish budget increases: they're trying to keep the PLA on the side of the party. The PRC almost changed governments in 1989 - the memory of it still haunts the communist party.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:08:57 AM EDT
[#2]
Possibly bullshit, but there's some internet chatter now that numerous Iranian military officers have been arrested, including an Admiral Ali Shamkhani, former MOD and presidential candidate, accused of plotting a coup.  The guy who leaked the election results apparently had an unfortunate accident.  The Iranian military is supposedly entering Tehran, US sources don't know what they plan to do when they arrive...
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:10:00 AM EDT
[#3]
It would be a small price to pay for change in Iran.

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:19:06 AM EDT
[#4]
I'm impressed by the uprising so far, but unless the US gets covert aid to them (and guns - lots of guns) it will not only be quashed, but they will be made examples of.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 6:34:43 AM EDT
[#5]
Let's assume for a moment there is a successful revolution and the mullahs and their IRG supporters end up decorating lamp posts.  Clean slate, fresh start.  Anyone willing to hazard a guess at the character, composition, and foreign policy stance of the new government?


Jane
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 7:06:43 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Let's assume for a moment there is a successful revolution and the mullahs and their IRG supporters end up decorating lamp posts.  Clean slate, fresh start.  Anyone willing to hazard a guess at the character, composition, and foreign policy stance of the new government?


Jane


Pro-Western, modern, increasingly secular, and looking for alliances with the US and possibly with Israel, against their traditional enemy, the Sunni Arab nations.  

If this revolution succeeds the new government would be a staunch ally in the fight against Sunni Wahhabi Fundementalism, there is no group of people the Persian Shia detest more.  

Under the Shah Iran was the US's best friend in the ME after Israel, also under the Shah Iran was closely allied with Israel, and there was significant trade between the two nations.

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 7:10:24 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's assume for a moment there is a successful revolution and the mullahs and their IRG supporters end up decorating lamp posts.  Clean slate, fresh start.  Anyone willing to hazard a guess at the character, composition, and foreign policy stance of the new government?


Jane


Pro-Western, modern, increasingly secular, and looking for alliances with the US and possibly with Israel, against their traditional enemy, the Sunni Arab nations.  

If this revolution succeeds the new government would be a staunch ally in the fight against Sunni Wahhabi Fundementalism, there is no group of people the Persian Shia detest more.  

Under the Shah Iran was the US's best friend in the ME after Israel, also under the Shah Iran was closely allied with Israel, and there was significant trade between the two nations.



And what many don't know, or won't remember is that Pahlevi's reign supplanted a some what similar system to what Iran has today.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 8:20:13 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:

Pro-Western, modern, increasingly secular, and looking for alliances with the US and possibly with Israel, against their traditional enemy, the Sunni Arab nations.  

If this revolution succeeds the new government would be a staunch ally in the fight against Sunni Wahhabi Fundementalism, there is no group of people the Persian Shia detest more.  

Under the Shah Iran was the US's best friend in the ME after Israel, also under the Shah Iran was closely allied with Israel, and there was significant trade between the two nations.


Well, that certainly would be grand.  But haven't the mullahs used the people's hatred of Israel as a way of focusing them away from the suck that is the current regime/situation.  I'm told that is a common practice throughout the ME.

And that would be nice also.   But we'd have two allies with a certain antipathy for each other and a mutual hatred of a third party.  Both of them would be soliciting our aid to gain a position of advantage against the other ally in exchange for their support against the Summis.  And don't the latter possess most of the oil?

I understand that the Shah was a good friend of America and determined to westernize Iran into the twentieth century. What concerns me is that the Iranian people threw him out twice, once to replace him with a ardent nationalist determined to stick it to the west by nationalizing the oil industry and once to replace him with a bunch of frothing at the mouth religious nut bags.  So I'm not sure that the Iranian people have what you'd call an historic affinity for the West.

Not saying that the scenario you're describing wouldn't be a good thing, but I'm not convinced just yet.

Jane


Link Posted: 6/16/2009 10:44:44 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Pro-Western, modern, increasingly secular, and looking for alliances with the US and possibly with Israel, against their traditional enemy, the Sunni Arab nations.  

If this revolution succeeds the new government would be a staunch ally in the fight against Sunni Wahhabi Fundementalism, there is no group of people the Persian Shia detest more.  

Under the Shah Iran was the US's best friend in the ME after Israel, also under the Shah Iran was closely allied with Israel, and there was significant trade between the two nations.


Well, that certainly would be grand.  But haven't the mullahs used the people's hatred of Israel as a way of focusing them away from the suck that is the current regime/situation.  I'm told that is a common practice throughout the ME.

The Mullahs days are numbered, and they know it, that's why they called the election and let pro-western candidate run, and that's also why they are having a recount.  Under a progressive pro-western government, the powers and influence of the Mullahs would steadily decline.  The two are incompatible with each other.  While it is common for nations in the ME to talk of how "Evil" Israel and the US are, it's just rhetoric, something that has always played a huge role in governments in the ME.  

And that would be nice also.   But we'd have two allies with a certain antipathy for each other and a mutual hatred of a third party.  Both of them would be soliciting our aid to gain a position of advantage against the other ally in exchange for their support against the Summis.  And don't the latter possess most of the oil?

Antipathy for Israel is nothing compared to the hatred between Persian Shia, and Arab Sunni, the two groups have been at war for almost 1500 years.  Allies don't have to like each other all the time, they just need to share a common interest, in this case weakened Sunni Arab nations.  

Yes the majority of the ME oil is in Sunni Arab Nations: Saudi has about 25% of the entire world's oil reserves, about 20% is in Iraq, and good amount also in Kuwait.  There is some speculation that greater exploration of Iraq's oil fields could put Iraq with 30% of the entire world's known reserves.  The really has not been any serious oil field exploration done in Iraq in 30+ years.

Iran does have a decent amount of oil, but it has some of the world's largest natural gas reserves.


I understand that the Shah was a good friend of America and determined to westernize Iran into the twentieth century. What concerns me is that the Iranian people threw him out twice, once to replace him with a ardent nationalist determined to stick it to the west by nationalizing the oil industry and once to replace him with a bunch of frothing at the mouth religious nut bags.  So I'm not sure that the Iranian people have what you'd call an historic affinity for the West.

Not saying that the scenario you're describing wouldn't be a good thing, but I'm not convinced just yet.

Jane




While the Shah's Iran was pro-western it did not, as history showed, resonate with enough people in Iran's population.  

But times have changed, after 30 years of horseshit/religous suppression, the majority of Iran's population is young and pro-western, they don't remember the Shah, who was no angel.  

They don't want to be repressed by religion any more, they want MTV, booze, reality TV, Internet porn, drugs and all those things we hold so dear in America today.  

The Iranian people who might not have been quite ready for sex, drugs, rock n' roll 30 years ago, are now ready to begin their moral decline into Western Civilization.  

The Iranian people have tried takin it up the ass from Khomeni and Ineedahandjob, and they're ready for their reach around.

As always Jane, I enjoy debating discussing this and other topics with you, and I hope my language does not offend you.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 12:55:48 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
As always Jane, I enjoy debating discussing this and other topics with you, and I hope my language does not offend you.

No problem, I'm a big girl.  

Your answer is pretty much what I expected and what I'd have said myself if someone asked me the same question.  I just wanted to see you make the case.  It's how I learn.

I hope you're right.  I feel no particular animosity for the Iranian people.  On the other hand, I believe if you can't or won't clean up your house, don't bitch when your neighbor do it for you.  We'll see how it plays out.


Jane
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 5:04:44 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
As always Jane, I enjoy debating discussing this and other topics with you, and I hope my language does not offend you.

No problem, I'm a big girl.  

Your answer is pretty much what I expected and what I'd have said myself if someone asked me the same question.  I just wanted to see you make the case.  It's how I learn.

I hope you're right.  I feel no particular animosity for the Iranian people.  On the other hand, I believe if you can't or won't clean up your house, don't bitch when your neighbor do it for you.  We'll see how it plays out.


Jane


I hope I am right too, but I could be wrong also, and I will be the first to admit I am not always right.  

Were Iran to throw off the Islamic Theocracy run by the Mullahs and adopt a pro-western government it would be the best thing to happen to the US in the region for a long time.

A pro-western Iran, allied with the US and Israel, would be a very good thing for US ME foreign policy, not to mention, the Iranians could use their sales of Oil and Natural Gas to the West to help in their building of a truly modern nation.  

Furthermore, a pro-western Iran would be a very valuable ally in the war on terror.  I cannot over emphasize the hatred they have for Wahhabi Fundementalism.  
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 5:28:35 AM EDT
[#12]
The Tweets coming out of Iran are interesting.  It would seem that the protesters are mostly fighting the Basijis.  The army has been twiddling it's thumbs and probably waiting to see which way things are going to swing.  



At this point a declaration that the first election was void and calling for a new one would be a huge concession of power by the Mullahs.  That may be their best hope of staying in control.  The hardliners are getting served notice that the population isn't buying what they're selling anymore.  It's becoming obvious that the religious authorities don't have the muscle to take on the protesters.



The result of this will probably be less than a complete change of government in Iran.  There will be a change of direction possibly but it will take a few years for all the players to be shuffled around.  
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 5:40:09 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As always Jane, I enjoy debating discussing this and other topics with you, and I hope my language does not offend you.

No problem, I'm a big girl.  

Your answer is pretty much what I expected and what I'd have said myself if someone asked me the same question.  I just wanted to see you make the case.  It's how I learn.

I hope you're right.  I feel no particular animosity for the Iranian people.  On the other hand, I believe if you can't or won't clean up your house, don't bitch when your neighbor do it for you.  We'll see how it plays out.


Jane


I hope I am right too, but I could be wrong also, and I will be the first to admit I am not always right.  

Were Iran to throw off the Islamic Theocracy run by the Mullahs and adopt a pro-western government it would be the best thing to happen to the US in the region for a long time.

A pro-western Iran, allied with the US and Israel, would be a very good thing for US ME foreign policy, not to mention, the Iranians could use their sales of Oil and Natural Gas to the West to help in their building of a truly modern nation.  

Furthermore, a pro-western Iran would be a very valuable ally in the war on terror.  I cannot over emphasize the hatred they have for Wahhabi Fundementalism.  


Which goes back to the original question, would Barry THE ONE claim credit from one rambling self serving speech that he gave in Cairo?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 5:49:16 AM EDT
[#14]
Most people are ignorant about Iran and what the people in the street are all about.

This is not about 'democracy' or embracing the United States.

This is about one thug, President Ahmadinejad, stealing the election from another anti-USA thug Mir-Hossein Mousavi who was Ayatollah Khomeini's (the guy who took US embassy hostages) Prime Minister.

Wow, great two choices there.

One is a religious hardliner who wants Israel wiped off the map and 'Death to America'.

And the other who lost, had 1000 of his political opponents executed.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 5:52:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
A pro-western Iran, allied with the US and Israel, would be a very good thing for US ME foreign policy, not to mention, the Iranians could use their sales of Oil and Natural Gas to the West to help in their building of a truly modern nation.  

Furthermore, a pro-western Iran would be a very valuable ally in the war on terror.  I cannot over emphasize the hatred they have for Wahhabi Fundementalism.  

I think you may be a little over optimistic, but never in my life have I ever so hoped to be wrong.   What you describe would change the world as we know it and vastly for the better.


Jane


Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:25:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A pro-western Iran, allied with the US and Israel, would be a very good thing for US ME foreign policy, not to mention, the Iranians could use their sales of Oil and Natural Gas to the West to help in their building of a truly modern nation.  

Furthermore, a pro-western Iran would be a very valuable ally in the war on terror. I cannot over emphasize the hatred they have for Wahhabi Fundementalism.  

I think you may be a little over optimistic, but never in my life have I ever so hoped to be wrong.   What you describe would change the world as we know it and vastly for the better.


Jane



It can be summarized simply.

The Shia / Sunni split occurred right after Mohammad died.
The argument over who would succeed him became bloody with more than a few murders, wars and never resolved.


ETA: Jane, Iran has had a pro-western undercurrent for a long time now.

This is due to the fact that Iranian's majority ethnic group is Persian.
Who are descended from the Aryans. Their entire social identity and morals are different from the Arab's.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:31:33 AM EDT
[#17]



Quoted:


What ever happens in Iran, I hope it doesn't spill over into Iraq. We have spent too much blood and money there for Iran to fuck it up.


Hopefully, what happens in Iran cripples Iran's ability to fuck with Iraq...





 
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:33:02 AM EDT
[#18]



Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:

No such event shall occur.




Yep



one side has all the guns.




And you can bet that THE ONE has issued standing orders that no assistance is to be rendered, through official channels or otherwise.







yeah, he'd probably like to see a new caliphate installed in the ME.


'Caliphate' = An Arab Thing...



Not an Iranian thing...



 
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:34:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:

It can be summarized simply.

The Shia / Sunni split occurred right after Mohammad died.
The argument over who would succeed him became bloody with more than a few murders, wars and never resolved.


ETA: Jane, Iran has had a pro-western undercurrent for a long time now. [False]

This is due to the fact that Iranian's majority ethnic group is Persian.
Who are descended from the Aryans. Their entire social identity and morals are different from the Arab's.


Perhaps you missed the hundreds of thousands in the streets of Iran shouting "Death to America"?

Iranian's buttressed by US liberals view the USA as the source of all their internal problems stemming from a coup the CIA worked in 1954.

Plus, throw in the Islamic hatred of the "Great Satan" and you have a population that would love to see the US fall.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:38:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A pro-western Iran, allied with the US and Israel, would be a very good thing for US ME foreign policy, not to mention, the Iranians could use their sales of Oil and Natural Gas to the West to help in their building of a truly modern nation.  

Furthermore, a pro-western Iran would be a very valuable ally in the war on terror.  I cannot over emphasize the hatred they have for Wahhabi Fundementalism.  

I think you may be a little over optimistic, but never in my life have I ever so hoped to be wrong.   What you describe would change the world as we know it and vastly for the better.


Jane




While the change in government would change things domestically in Iran quickly, the re-alligning of Iran's foreign policy regarding alliances with the US and Israel would be more gradual, but I think eventually that it would happen.

Yes it would change the world for the US significantly for the better.  Once the situation in Iraq is finally under control, and Iran has adopted a pro-western government, it would bring a great deal of desperately needed stability to the region.  


Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:42:04 AM EDT
[#21]



Quoted:





Quoted:

What ever happens in Iran, I hope it doesn't spill over into Iraq. We have spent too much blood and money there for Iran to fuck it up.


Hopefully, what happens in Iran cripples Iran's ability to fuck with Iraq...



 
I believe it will in the short term.  The long term will be determined by what passes for a government in Iran after the next few months.  



The Tweets I'm seeing now indicate that some police are wearing green armbands, while doing crowd control at a large protest in Tehran.  That's something to listen for over the next several hours.  If the violence declines and the protests continue I would think some of the Mullahs are about to decide to "spend more time with their families".  





 
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:45:32 AM EDT
[#22]



Ahmadinejad has prepared for a uprising...





















Irans Hidden Revolution



By DANIELLE PLETKA and ALI ALFONEH
Washington
JUST after Irans rigged elections last week, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, it looked as if a new revolution was in the offing. Five days later, the uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Meanwhile, the real revolution has gone unnoticed: the guard has effected a silent coup.
The seeds of this coup were planted four years ago with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And while he has since disappointed his public, failing to deliver on promised economic and political reforms, his allies now control the country. In the most dramatic turnabout since the 1979 revolution, Iran has evolved from theocratic state to military dictatorship.
Disenchantment with clerical rule has been growing for years. To the urban youths who make up Irans most active political class, the mullahs represent the crude rigidity of Islamic law. To the rural poor, they epitomize the corruption that has meant unbuilt schools, unpaved roads and unfulfilled promises of development.
This hostility overflowed during the 2005 presidential race, with the defeat of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a cleric widely considered corrupt, by Mr. Ahmadinejad, a former officer in the Revolutionary Guards.
In Mr. Ahmadinejad, the public saw a man who repudiated the profligacy of the clerical class, a man who was ascetic, humble and devout. And he capitalized on that image to consolidate power and to promote his brothers in arms. Fourteen of the 21 cabinet ministers he has appointed are former members of the guards or its associated paramilitary, the Basij. Several, including Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, are veterans of notorious units thought to have supported terrorist operations in the 1980s.
This creeping militarization has not been restricted to the central government: provincial governors, press commissars, film directors, intelligence officers and business leaders are increasingly former members of the guard. The elite force controls much of the economy either directly  the Basij has rights to oil extraction  or through proxy companies like Khatam al Anbiya, which dominates construction throughout Iran.
Technically, the pinnacle of power in Iran remains Ayatollah Khamenei, along with the 12-member Guardian Council. Yet he has proved eager to fall in with the presidents overthrow of the clerics. Indeed, Western intelligence services suspect Ayatollah Khamenei approved the rigging of the second round of the 2005 presidential election to throw decisive votes to Mr. Ahmadinejad. And this time around, the supreme leader made clear his preference with coded references like his exhortation to vote for a man of the people, sincere, with a simple lifestyle.
Why would he deliberately undercut his own clerical class? Survival. Far from fretting about an impending attack from Israel or America, guard leaders have been warning the ayatollah that the most formidable threat to the Islamic Republic is a soft regime change policy involving the use of orange revolutions (as the hard-line Iranian newspaper Kayhan recently editorialized).
Encircled by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, besieged from within by disgruntled citizens, the supreme leader has turned to a bellicose strongman to preserve the system that elevated him. Indeed, Ayatollah Khamenei  who was scorned as a religious lightweight by many more established mullahs when he was chosen for the top post in 1989  has repeatedly shown himself willing to undercut the Islamic in Islamic revolution. In doing so, he has painted himself into a corner  a permanent alliance with Mr. Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards. And this fraudulent election will only push them closer together.
Many have been struck by the crudeness of the recent vote rigging, with reformist candidates losing even their hometowns. The unusually speedy certification of the election and Ayatollah Khameneis quick blessing a divine miracle only served to underscore an obvious sham.
Yet you dont have to be paranoid to wonder if events were following a script: protesters pour into the streets only to be beaten down by Revolutionary Guard and Basij gunmen; the regime is prepared to detain dissidents  reportedly using Facebook and Twitter to locate them; Mr. Ahmadinejad is so unworried he jets off to Russia; and every element of the confrontation has provided a pretext for an overwhelming assertion of domestic power by the Revolutionary Guards.
What does this mean for President Obama and the policy of engagement he hopes to pursue? Some will argue that Mr. Ahmadinejad may be in a conciliatory mood because he needs talks with the United States to underscore his own legitimacy, but that can only be read as a self-serving Washington perspective. Meanwhile, the Iranian people will have suffered the consolidation of power by a ruthless regime and the transformation of a theocracy to an ideological military dictatorship. That Iran neither needs nor wants accommodation with the West.








 
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:45:39 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:

It can be summarized simply.

The Shia / Sunni split occurred right after Mohammad died.
The argument over who would succeed him became bloody with more than a few murders, wars and never resolved.


ETA: Jane, Iran has had a pro-western undercurrent for a long time now. [False]

This is due to the fact that Iranian's majority ethnic group is Persian.
Who are descended from the Aryans. Their entire social identity and morals are different from the Arab's.


Perhaps you missed the hundreds of thousands in the streets of Iran shouting "Death to America"?

Iranian's buttressed by US liberals view the USA as the source of all their internal problems stemming from a coup the CIA worked in 1954.

Plus, through in the Islamic hatred of the "Great Satan" and you have a population that would love to see the US fall.


Perhaps you can tell us the last time "hundreds of thousands" came out like that instead of a few thousand government employees on paid time.

There has been many reports in the news over the last few years about how the Mullahs have been astro turfing demonstrations.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:49:46 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:

It can be summarized simply.

The Shia / Sunni split occurred right after Mohammad died.
The argument over who would succeed him became bloody with more than a few murders, wars and never resolved.


ETA: Jane, Iran has had a pro-western undercurrent for a long time now. [False] TRUE

This is due to the fact that Iranian's majority ethnic group is Persian.
Who are descended from the Aryans. Their entire social identity and morals are different from the Arab's.


Perhaps you missed the hundreds of thousands in the streets of Iran shouting "Death to America"?

Iranian's buttressed by US liberals view the USA as the source of all their internal problems stemming from a coup the CIA worked in 1954.

Plus, through in the Islamic hatred of the "Great Satan" and you have a population that would love to see the US fall.



While there are many in Iran that are anti-western, the majority of the Iranian population is young and pro-western.  

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:51:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A pro-western Iran, allied with the US and Israel, would be a very good thing for US ME foreign policy, not to mention, the Iranians could use their sales of Oil and Natural Gas to the West to help in their building of a truly modern nation.  

Furthermore, a pro-western Iran would be a very valuable ally in the war on terror.  I cannot over emphasize the hatred they have for Wahhabi Fundementalism.  

I think you may be a little over optimistic, but never in my life have I ever so hoped to be wrong.   What you describe would change the world as we know it and vastly for the better.


Jane




While the change in government would change things domestically in Iran quickly, the re-alligning of Iran's foreign policy regarding alliances with the US and Israel would be more gradual, but I think eventually that it would happen.

Yes it would change the world for the US significantly for the better.  Once the situation in Iraq is finally under control, and Iran has adopted a pro-western government, it would bring a great deal of desperately needed stability to the region.  




Grand Ayatollah Sistani has said for years that Shia faith and Democracy are not mutually exclusive, and that intertwining religion and politics is corrosive to both.  Make your own conclusions.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 6:55:41 AM EDT
[#26]





Quoted:




Quoted:




Quoted:





It can be summarized simply.





The Shia / Sunni split occurred right after Mohammad died.


The argument over who would succeed him became bloody with more than a few murders, wars and never resolved.
ETA: Jane, Iran has had a pro-western undercurrent for a long time now. [False] TRUE





This is due to the fact that Iranian's majority ethnic group is Persian.


Who are descended from the Aryans. Their entire social identity and morals are different from the Arab's.






Perhaps you missed the hundreds of thousands in the streets of Iran shouting "Death to America"?





Iranian's buttressed by US liberals view the USA as the source of all their internal problems stemming from a coup the CIA worked in 1954.





Plus, through in the Islamic hatred of the "Great Satan" and you have a population that would love to see the US fall.

While there are many in Iran that are anti-western, the majority of the Iranian population is young and pro-western.  








Mousavi is anti-American and anti-Western he is part of the establishment the idea he will change things in that regard is laughable, or change much else for that matter.





 
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 7:06:28 AM EDT
[#27]



Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:

A pro-western Iran, allied with the US and Israel, would be a very good thing for US ME foreign policy, not to mention, the Iranians could use their sales of Oil and Natural Gas to the West to help in their building of a truly modern nation.  



Furthermore, a pro-western Iran would be a very valuable ally in the war on terror.  I cannot over emphasize the hatred they have for Wahhabi Fundementalism.  



I think you may be a little over optimistic, but never in my life have I ever so hoped to be wrong.   What you describe would change the world as we know it and vastly for the better.





Jane









While the change in government would change things domestically in Iran quickly, the re-alligning of Iran's foreign policy regarding alliances with the US and Israel would be more gradual, but I think eventually that it would happen.



Yes it would change the world for the US significantly for the better.  Once the situation in Iraq is finally under control, and Iran has adopted a pro-western government, it would bring a great deal of desperately needed stability to the region.  









Grand Ayatollah Sistani has said for years that Shia faith and Democracy are not mutually exclusive, and that intertwining religion and politics is corrosive to both.  Make your own conclusions.


And THAT is going to be the REAL interesting question... Not Iran <> Israel, but Iran <> Iraq....



A secular revolution in Iran would be VERY GOOD for the situation in Iraq.



 
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 7:07:18 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A pro-western Iran, allied with the US and Israel, would be a very good thing for US ME foreign policy, not to mention, the Iranians could use their sales of Oil and Natural Gas to the West to help in their building of a truly modern nation.  

Furthermore, a pro-western Iran would be a very valuable ally in the war on terror.  I cannot over emphasize the hatred they have for Wahhabi Fundementalism.  

I think you may be a little over optimistic, but never in my life have I ever so hoped to be wrong.   What you describe would change the world as we know it and vastly for the better.


Jane




While the change in government would change things domestically in Iran quickly, the re-alligning of Iran's foreign policy regarding alliances with the US and Israel would be more gradual, but I think eventually that it would happen.

Yes it would change the world for the US significantly for the better.  Once the situation in Iraq is finally under control, and Iran has adopted a pro-western government, it would bring a great deal of desperately needed stability to the region.  




Grand Ayatollah Sistani has said for years that Shia faith and Democracy are not mutually exclusive, and that intertwining religion and politics is corrosive to both.  Make your own conclusions.

And THAT is going to be the REAL interesting question... Not Iran <> Israel, but Iran <> Iraq....

A secular revolution in Iran would be VERY GOOD for the situation in Iraq.
 


A secular Iraq undercuts the foundation of the Islamic Republic.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 7:15:46 AM EDT
[#29]
You do that Iran has a National "Death to America Day", right.

Notice the young students in the crowd.

Iranians delight in 'Death to America' day
 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ff_1196981671

2)     Iranians Chant Death to Obama, Death to America/Obama

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8b_1232499250

3) 'Slogan Continue's To Be "Death To America" Until You Change US Policies' : Khatami To Obama.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=239_1227116305

4) Iranian Kids: "Death to Israel, Death to America"

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=109_1198401274
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 7:17:31 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

It can be summarized simply.

The Shia / Sunni split occurred right after Mohammad died.
The argument over who would succeed him became bloody with more than a few murders, wars and never resolved.


ETA: Jane, Iran has had a pro-western undercurrent for a long time now. [False] TRUE

This is due to the fact that Iranian's majority ethnic group is Persian.
Who are descended from the Aryans. Their entire social identity and morals are different from the Arab's.


Perhaps you missed the hundreds of thousands in the streets of Iran shouting "Death to America"?

Iranian's buttressed by US liberals view the USA as the source of all their internal problems stemming from a coup the CIA worked in 1954.

Plus, through in the Islamic hatred of the "Great Satan" and you have a population that would love to see the US fall.



While there are many in Iran that are anti-western, the majority of the Iranian population is young and pro-western.  


Mousavi is anti-American and anti-Western he is part of the establishment the idea he will change things in that regard is laughable, or change much else for that matter.
 


He wants too:

End government control of TV stations and promote privately owned and operated media outlets.

Create an Iran where there is freedom of access to all information.

Wants to end the "Moral Police."

Promote fair treatment and equality for women.

Wants to seek to enter into negotiations with the US.

Strongly condemned Ineedahandjob's anti-semetic and anti-Israeli remarks.

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 7:20:00 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
You do that Iran has a National "Death to America Day", right.

Notice the young students in the crowd.

Iranians delight in 'Death to America' day
 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ff_1196981671

Speaker: Before the speech of Mr. Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic, I would like to call out several slogans, and you will answer me out loud.

   Today, throughout Islamic Iran, from south to north and from east to west, there is one cry only: Death to America.

   Crowd: Death to America

   Death to America

   […]

   Speaker: The hatred and rage of the Muslim people…

   Crowd: The hatred and rage of the Muslim people…

   Speaker: is directed towards America, the infidel Satanic regime…

   Crowd: is directed towards America, the infidel Satanic regime…

   [...]

   Speaker: No way will we have relations with America…

   Crowd: No way will we have relations with America…

   Speaker: No way will we have relations with America…

   Crowd: No way will we have relations with America…

   Speaker: Our struggle with America is eternal…

   Crowd: Our struggle with America is eternal…


The majority of the population is actually pro-western, these people are a minority.

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 7:20:53 AM EDT
[#32]
100% chance Maobama would take credit for it.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 7:25:01 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:

The majority of the population is actually pro-western, these people are a minority.



Right. Sure, I believe you.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 7:28:35 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:

The majority of the population is actually pro-western, these people are a minority.



Right. Sure, I believe you.


Why not?  It's the truth.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 8:02:07 AM EDT
[#35]





Quoted:





Ahmadinejad has prepared for a uprising...


















Irans Hidden Revolution


By DANIELLE PLETKA and ALI ALFONEH





Washington





JUST after Irans rigged elections last week, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, it looked as if a new revolution was in the offing. Five days later, the uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Meanwhile, the real revolution has gone unnoticed: the guard has effected a silent coup.





The seeds of this coup were planted four years ago with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And while he has since disappointed his public, failing to deliver on promised economic and political reforms, his allies now control the country. In the most dramatic turnabout since the 1979 revolution, Iran has evolved from theocratic state to military dictatorship.





Disenchantment with clerical rule has been growing for years. To the urban youths who make up Irans most active political class, the mullahs represent the crude rigidity of Islamic law. To the rural poor, they epitomize the corruption that has meant unbuilt schools, unpaved roads and unfulfilled promises of development.





This hostility overflowed during the 2005 presidential race, with the defeat of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a cleric widely considered corrupt, by Mr. Ahmadinejad, a former officer in the Revolutionary Guards.





In Mr. Ahmadinejad, the public saw a man who repudiated the profligacy of the clerical class, a man who was ascetic, humble and devout. And he capitalized on that image to consolidate power and to promote his brothers in arms. Fourteen of the 21 cabinet ministers he has appointed are former members of the guards or its associated paramilitary, the Basij. Several, including Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, are veterans of notorious units thought to have supported terrorist operations in the 1980s.





This creeping militarization has not been restricted to the central government: provincial governors, press commissars, film directors, intelligence officers and business leaders are increasingly former members of the guard. The elite force controls much of the economy either directly  the Basij has rights to oil extraction  or through proxy companies like Khatam al Anbiya, which dominates construction throughout Iran.





Technically, the pinnacle of power in Iran remains Ayatollah Khamenei, along with the 12-member Guardian Council. Yet he has proved eager to fall in with the presidents overthrow of the clerics. Indeed, Western intelligence services suspect Ayatollah Khamenei approved the rigging of the second round of the 2005 presidential election to throw decisive votes to Mr. Ahmadinejad. And this time around, the supreme leader made clear his preference with coded references like his exhortation to vote for a man of the people, sincere, with a simple lifestyle.





Why would he deliberately undercut his own clerical class? Survival. Far from fretting about an impending attack from Israel or America, guard leaders have been warning the ayatollah that the most formidable threat to the Islamic Republic is a soft regime change policy involving the use of orange revolutions (as the hard-line Iranian newspaper Kayhan recently editorialized).





Encircled by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, besieged from within by disgruntled citizens, the supreme leader has turned to a bellicose strongman to preserve the system that elevated him. Indeed, Ayatollah Khamenei  who was scorned as a religious lightweight by many more established mullahs when he was chosen for the top post in 1989  has repeatedly shown himself willing to undercut the Islamic in Islamic revolution. In doing so, he has painted himself into a corner  a permanent alliance with Mr. Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards. And this fraudulent election will only push them closer together.





Many have been struck by the crudeness of the recent vote rigging, with reformist candidates losing even their hometowns. The unusually speedy certification of the election and Ayatollah Khameneis quick blessing a divine miracle only served to underscore an obvious sham.





Yet you dont have to be paranoid to wonder if events were following a script: protesters pour into the streets only to be beaten down by Revolutionary Guard and Basij gunmen; the regime is prepared to detain dissidents  reportedly using Facebook and Twitter to locate them; Mr. Ahmadinejad is so unworried he jets off to Russia; and every element of the confrontation has provided a pretext for an overwhelming assertion of domestic power by the Revolutionary Guards.





What does this mean for President Obama and the policy of engagement he hopes to pursue? Some will argue that Mr. Ahmadinejad may be in a conciliatory mood because he needs talks with the United States to underscore his own legitimacy, but that can only be read as a self-serving Washington perspective. Meanwhile, the Iranian people will have suffered the consolidation of power by a ruthless regime and the transformation of a theocracy to an ideological military dictatorship. That Iran neither needs nor wants accommodation with the West.





 
It would take a whole lot of head busting to disperse a crowd like this.





From about an hour ago...










I'm not calling it a done deal yet, but the Mullahs are going to have to do something pretty soon.  





This is what happens when you rig an election.  The thing now is either they get back in front of the issue or the issues take on a life of their own.  It's too soon to call.



Edit:  A video of the riot police at this rally....





 
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 8:50:47 AM EDT
[#36]
so what it comes down to is will the Iranian military turn it's guns on the people, and nobody knows that until it happens or not.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 9:02:33 AM EDT
[#37]





Quoted:



so what it comes down to is will the Iranian military turn it's guns on the people, and nobody knows that until it happens or not.





Why exactly do you think reporters are being ejected from Iran and the Iranian Government is trying to shut out internet communications?





Preparation for what follows, so when the real carnage starts they can minimize the reporting of it.





 
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top