Iranian democracy

[padraig (u.s.)]

I mean, can you imagine how apeshit Americans would be going if there were Chinese soldiers stationed in Canada & Mexico? not that any of that paranoia excuses the regime or makes me like it any more. I'm just saying.

 

[vimothy]

don't see as any of that contradicts anything i said.

I agree.

 

[vimothy]

Saurdaukaur:

Ahmadinejad:

 

[Mr. Tea]

From the article: "To collect your reward, it's not sufficient to cite press reports or anecdotal evidence of election irregularities, or to claim as authority Western commentators or NGOs who have not themselves put together a coherent story.

"All you have to do is go into a notoriously authoritarian theocracy which is currently committing crimes of oppression against its own people on an almost unbelievable scale, and come back with incontrovertible evidence of vote-tampering in a recent election. I mean, what could be simpler?"

This is ridiculous. Given the momentum the reform movement's been gathering there over the last few years, the overwhelming show of support for Mousavi and the utter savagery of the suppression with which this support has been met - to say nothing of the sheer statistical unlikelihood of the claimed results - I'd say the onus of proof lies squarely on anyone who says the election wasn't rigged.

 

[scottdisco]

i blame Israel.

 

[scottdisco]

i wish i had Robert Naiman's contact book, given the ease and frequency with which he gives interviews to Iranian state media.

has Naiman given up on the Terror Free Tomorrow poll yet?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

@ Vim - yeah I thought we were agreeing (we read the same paper, after all!). plus Sting for the M-F-ing win, for serious. but in the spirit of gamesmanship:

Rafsanjani:

Khameini

@ Scott - of course. who doesn't? I have it on good authority that Mr. Tea is a Zionist agent (no offense Mr. Tea). he was Paul Newman's stunt double in "Exodus". Dissensus is a Mossad front, of course.

 

[scottdisco]

reinforces how badly they must have been mismanaging the economy to not even be able to spread the oil/gas wealth around.

interesting point.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

well I mean - isn't that like the one big success of most oil states? to spread wealth while failing to invest in infrastructure so that you're screwed when oil prices drop? that was certainly the case in (surprise) Mexico - oil boom in the late 70s that just dropped the hell off. but the Iranian regime couldn't even manage that. even Putin managed to do some populist oil wealth spreading.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I have it on good authority that Mr. Tea is a Zionist agent (no offense Mr. Tea).

Oi vey, rumbled already!

In the spirit of the thread, we could have:

The Fremen...

The 'Spice'...

...although the status of melange as an ultra-valuable resource that holds the known universe together perhaps makes it more like:

Let's hope it doesn't come to, er, 'family atomics'!

I bet Negarestani could really go to town on this.

 

[scottdisco]

Tea works for the Shin Bet.

ignore him.

 

[craner]

Just so we know, the IRI regime is so paranoid about the BBC and, in particular, BBC Persian service, with funds from the Foreign Office (thank you, Dai Milliband and others) that it set up Press TV in reaction. That's why it exists: to counteract the BBC, not RFE/RL.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

...although the status of melange as an ultra-valuable resource that holds the known universe together perhaps makes it more like:

Dune is a somewhat thinly veiled allegory for the Middle East & oil; religious desert people, substance which controls everything but is dangerous & costly to obtain, etc. Or at least, that is one thing Dune is, among other things, including a commentary on religion, government & the relationship btwn the 2. tho, alright, enough Dune.

@craner - I mentioned way back in the thread about hearing Joe Lieberman say, during an interview, that the U.S. needs to kick up funding to Radio Farda (farda = tomorrow), formerly known as Voice of America Persia.

 

[craner]

VOA has been pumping stupid bollocks (pop songs, not information) for years, and been underfunded, for all those years too (pop songs AND information would've been great). Your dreaded neocons have been pushing for a more serious re-vamp of this since, at least, 2005. So, I guess, you're on our side. Unless you think a openly political version of Radio Farda is going to be hostile and counterproductive, like, say, a pro-dissident Obama speech.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

first off - check that "your dreaded neocons" bullshit at the the door. for the 2nd or 3rd time - I dunno where you got this idea that I'm fixated on neocons. I don't like/agree with most of them, sure, but that's hardly exclusive to neocons & I don't, unlike some people, fetishize them. if it helps I dislike neoliberals even more.

I think an openly political Radio Farda would have pros & cons. like, yunno, anything. but is it smart for a conservative senator welded to Israel at the hip to be saying, on live TV, while the Iranian regime is trying to blame everything on foreign agitators, that the U.S. should upgrade it's Iranian propaganda station? perhaps not.

lastly, don't try to tar me as some kind of Obama cheerleader (which, anyway, I find quite amusing). the admin has, of course, been unimpressive on any # of issues - rather middling on this one. I'm sorry that this is happening, that you're personally invested, but if you want to spew invective find someone the shoe fits, please. aside from which you still haven't offered any benefits a strong pro-dissident speech would've brought.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

a few days old, but from NIAC, but several views in re: Obama's reaction:

from "an ordinary Tehrani":

Tell your contacts in the Administration that their point of view regarding Iran is by far the best position that an American Government has ever taken. We appreciate this and thank the President.

During the last two or three decades not one American president had “understood” Iran. All of them got caught in the traps of the mollahs, despite themselves having to play the bad cop .. but this time the intelligent president has decided not to join in their game, bravo.

from an Iranian, now living in the U.S., who took part in the student uprising in '99:

I have read fairly thoughtfully regarding obama’s response to iran in your site. It is clear that taking the imperialist intervention card from the regime was obama’s intention which was effective. he has been consistent here by refering to the regime as the islamic republic of Iran as he did repeatedly in the norouz message and by speaking about the plight of the Palestinians in cairo. he explicitly has moved away from regime change. however I believe that it would not be taking sides or interfering in iran if ahmadinejad’s government and his envoys to all western countries be held to be without credentials when his term ends. this can be done within the context of respecting the constitution of the islamic republic which is in accordance to the US government’s acceptance of the plebecite in Iran in 1979. This simply raises iran above the level of a third world country that need not explain its legitimacy past its guns. For your information in the last protest and probably this time I witnessed iranians hoping the the americans would step in and got hurt in the process.

as well as some foreigners:

Stephen Kinzer (taken from here):

Carrying a picture of Mossadeq today means two things: “We want democracy” and “No foreign intervention”. These demands fit together in the minds of most Iranians. Desperate as they are for the political freedom their parents and grandparents enjoyed in the early 1950s, they have no illusion that foreigners can bring it to them. In fact, foreign intervention has brought them nothing but misery.

America’s moral authority in Iran is all but non-existent. To the idea that the US should jump into the Tehran fray and help bring democracy to Iran, many Iranians would roll their eyes and say: “We had a democracy here until you came in and crushed it!”

President Barack Obama seems to grasp this reality.

& from the Christian Science Monitor

But here is one legitimate criticism , the Iranians are missing two words from Obama: “I condemn.” Protesters and political leaders I’ve spoken to in Iran want the US to speak out forcefully against the government’s human rights abuses and condemn the violence. Philosophical formulations about respecting the wishes of the Iranian people aren’t enough: The president should clearly condemn the Iranian government’s violations and use of brutal force against its own people.

After all, condemning violence is different from taking sides in Iran’s election dispute. Not only would it be compatible with American values, it would also reduce pressure on the president to entangle the US in Iranian politics. Clarity on the human rights front strengthens the president’s ability to avoid siding with any political faction in Iran.

as regards this last one he of course did come out & condemn the violence last Monday (I don't know if he actually used the words "I condemn"). tho tbf his condemnation should have come sooner & it could have been worded more strongly.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

& just to neocon-bait Lord Craner, from a certain liberal rabbi:

I think the answer is that many neocon partisans care little about the actual people of Iran. They are merely pawns in a geo-strategic chess game between Islam and the west. The Iranian regime must fall. Whoever helps in that goal is useful, but not terribly important. That is why the Israelis and neocons, during the election, disparaged Moussavi as warmed-over Ahmadinejad. These rightist ideologues do not want a reformed Iran, as Moussavi does. They want an Iran shorn of Islam, or at least political Islam. That is something almost no Iranian wants. But again, that matters very little to the Krauthammers and Wolfowitzes of the punditocracy. They would be just as happy seeing democracy “imposed” on Iran as they were to see it imposed on Iraq. And it would work just as “well” as it has in Iraq.

 

[vimothy]

Scott Horton: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-26/inside-khameneis-police-state/full/

 

[3 Body No Problem]

Apropos nothing in particular: Journalism Rules Are Bent in News Coverage From Iran (NYT).

 

[vimothy]

Missed this: Bob Baer -- Khamenei on the Ropes?