Horza Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Unconfirmed reports coming in that Rafsanjani has resigned from the Expediency Council and possibly the Assembly of Experts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalThor Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Shryke, you got links to the Twitter feeds posting this stuff?I got a twitter account a couple of months ago and promptly ignored it. It has finally become useful today. The IranElection twitter is moving very quickly, mostly with people outside of Iran.This guy, Change For Iran, is there and seems to be posting fairly regularly.I'm going inside the building to inform the others, I hope we can get out peacefully with university's bus, we must be there at 12:306 minutes ago from web I guess we should all go, after all he is the real president #iranelection22 minutes ago from web according to rumor mousavi requested all people to gather near his office at 12:30 pm today.24 minutes ago from web there is a rumor now in Farsi twitting community about mousavi being seen after 12h of no known location #iranelection29 minutes ago from web still no working cellphones here and wireless speed is awful #iranelection32 minutes ago from web it's 9:54 AM -Amirabad street near Pasargad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 And the funny thing is, if you listen closely to Obama's speech in Cairo, he's warning the supreme leader of Iran against shit like this. He said that while he doesn't want to shove Democracy down people's throats like Bush, governments should reflect the will of their people. Seems almost prophetic, in hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 was a coup of the ruling elite against its own people.nothing controversial about the above formulation.that said, designating this as a coup or revolution assumes that what has come before is different than what is now in the making.such a distinction, however, will not seem credible if it is articulated by folks who think iran was previously a member the axis of evil or was ruled by a theocracy. i'm perfectly willing to think of this as another iranian revolution (a bit early for that call, at the moment, though): first time as tragedy, second time as farce. it's an old story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser_not_appearing_yet Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 How the hell is there going to be a revolution? The supreme leader holds all the power, as well as the military. I'm not sure what the people can do (other than resist passively) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gladius Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I can't understand what was the point (if it's true). The president is not much more than a puppet and any candidate who could be a real threat to the supreme leader isn't allowed to run. It doesn't make sense.bah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 How the hell is there going to be a revolution? The supreme leader holds all the power, as well as the military. I'm not sure what the people can do (other than resist passively)Not quite as simple as that - the Supreme Leader still needs the support of the Assembly of Experts and they convene fortnightly at the Great Hall of Eternal Judgement to Commune with the Giant Beagle of Righteous Wisdom, if he recommends via the medium of interpretive dance that Ahmadinej... I'll try that again.The Iranian ruling elite is fractious and the relations between the various organs of the Islamic Republic aren't as simple as Supreme Leader say, you do. There has been a long running split between hardliners, reformists and pragmatic factions and if the riots escalate and the crackdown gets ugly and public the regime might be force to accomodate some of the demands of the reformists or face paralysis and/or outright civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 CNN is now covering the story as Breaking News. They just had the President's speech. It was so horrible. When asked about the opposition leader, he used a sports/traffic violation analogy. He also said Iran was the most stable country in the world, and there isn’t any bipartisan in Iran and there isn’t a political problem. He said the election was real and free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Just so I understand better, what would happen were something to actually happen to the Supreme Leader? Would he not just be replaced by another cleric or something? And if so, what kind of power would his replacement automatically possess?True, but among the clerics there are also divisions on where they think Iran should be going. This is a huge generalisation, but they definitely don't want to go the way of Afghanistan or Pakistan and they are not opposed to progress per se, but they are also suspicious of the 'Westernisation' of Iran and what they see as the lessening of Islamic influence over the political sphere. So the clerics seem to be paralysed, fearing if they crack down and go too fundamentalist they'll end up like the Taliban (whom they loathe) and if they retire to a purely advisory role, the country will end up becoming, as they see it, more corrupt and decadent like they perceive Turkey as going since it outlawed religious influence on political parties.So in short, I'm not sure what a replacement cleric would achieve. Iran could end up with a real hard-liner, and would be more likely to end up with one than with a progressive.Obama has not done much functionally to lesson has a great deal to do with the government feeling the need to clamp down.As Shryke said, Obama's offer of the olive branch to Iran, his hardening of rhetoric against Israel (although still without any noticeable action) and his well-received speech in Cairo has made it much more difficult for the Iranian government to speak out against him, because the people are simply too well-informed by external news services to buy it like they did with Bush. You can tell a bunch of Taliban soldiers in a cave in Afghanistan anything you like about the new US President, but in a well-conncted country with full Internet access (up to yesterday), not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I can't understand what was the point (if it's true). The president is not much more than a puppet and any candidate who could be a real threat to the supreme leader isn't allowed to run. It doesn't make sense.bahThe Iranian president isn't quite a puppet, he does have some executive power but it's mediated by the Expediency Council (which is this wierd organ that watches over the others), the Majlis (Parliament), the Assembly of Experts (the clerics) and the Supreme Leader himself.It's a complicated system and no one understands it but it's woman...(John Shaft!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 CNN is now covering the story as Breaking News. They just had the President's speech. It was so horrible. When asked about the opposition leader, he used a sports/traffic violation analogy. He also said Iran was the most stable country in the world, and there isn’t any bipartisan in Iran and there isn’t a political problem. He said the election was real and free.Wow, do you think the Iraqi Information Minister will sue for breach of copyright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I missed the first part of the speech, but it sounds like he has put the US in a very difficult possition. He says that other countries will show their true selves if they refuse to accept the will of the Iranian people. So if the US officially denies the results of the election, then we look likethe bad guys. He has also claimed there weren't huge protests, but a few crazies. There was a victory rally for him, and they had people bussed in to fill the streets, trying to show that he has support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryphon strike Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I missed the first part of the speech, but it sounds like he has put the US in a very difficult possition. He says that other countries will show their true selves if they refuse to accept the will of the Iranian people. So if the US officially denies the results of the election, then we look likethe bad guys. He has also claimed there weren't huge protests, but a few crazies. There was a victory rally for him, and they had people bussed in to fill the streets, trying to show that he has support.I think it is simple rather than deny the elections you say straight up that he is a bald faced liar and thus it is unreasonable to try and deal with him, ask Iran for someone that is honest in re to negotiations etc. Oh and make sure the request is made public knowledge so the people of Iran can see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor85 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 A democratic revolution in Iran is about as likely as North Korea giving up its plans for world domination :). That is... it won't happen very soon. In both cases the majority and its leaders have to give up their delusions of grandeur and accept their country's humble position in world politic. And that is a very hard thing to do for crazy (insert fanatical megalomaniac of your choice) people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Does anyone think the world would have been better off if Bush had decided to bring Democracy and Liberation to Iran rather than Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Does anyone think the world would have been better off if Bush had decided to bring Democracy and Liberation to Iran rather than Iraq?If he couldn't bring it to Iraq what chance would the fucker have with a mountainous country near triple the population with a much less marginalised government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 If he couldn't bring it to Iraq what chance would the fucker have with a mountainous country near triple the population with a much less marginalised government?To paraphrase some movie : "It sure as hell is marginalised now, bitch." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor85 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Does anyone think the world would have been better off if Bush had decided to bring Democracy and Liberation to Iran rather than Iraq?So by "bringing Democracy and Liberation" to Iraq, you meant destroying its functioning government infrastructure and starting a civil crisis that already killed thousands of Iraqi people? All that progress and he gets a shoe thrown at him? Hey I like Iranians... so don't know if I would want that kind of American-style democratization to happen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 To paraphrase some movie : "It sure as hell is marginalised now, bitch."And if Bush had invaded the place it would get a whole lot less marginalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 So by "bringing Democracy and Liberation" to Iraq, you meant destroying its functioning government infrastructure and starting a civil crisis that already killed thousands of Iraqi people? All that progress and he gets a shoe thrown at him? Hey I like Iranians... so don't know if I would want that kind of American-style democratization to happen to them.You do realize Iraq was quite secular before the American invasion? So instead of going for the Dark Theocracy, you give the neighboring country to the Shiite majority so they can merge with the Dark Theocracy as soon as the Americans leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.