Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran Election June 09

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
    *Because Pakistans nukes are somewhat controlled by the Chinese and neither of the two pose a radical religious type threat that Iran does.
    If Pakistan wanted to launch a nuclear missile at New Delhi in the event of a conflict, it would not have to take China's permission (Also, why would China hesitate if indeed what you're saying is correct).
    As far as the radical religious threat goes - the only difference is that Iran funds terror against Israel and Pakistan funds terror against India.

    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
    *I think at this point nobody cares as to the Iranian government, The people after being bent over probably harbor some serious feelings towards the government at this point and made clear the point that Iran is nothing more then a dictatorship controlled by religious theocracy. In other words radical and untrustworthy. Not the people, the government so this also plays bad for their offshhots such as Hezbollah and Hamas and a few others.

    It wont get nuclear weapons though. The world is trying to coax her away from this but in the end and if it comes to it I doubt sanctions will be the road that is chosen to bring the matter to end. Syria learned this lesson not long ago and unveiled who she was dealing with reactor wise.
    1. Exactly my point. I don't think trying to convince America/West that their elections were fair is top on their priority list right now.

    2. There we disagree. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, it will get them. Launching a war against Iran right now would be a horrible idea, which is why it hasn't been done so far. Short of doing so, you can only slow down their nuclear programme, not kill it.

    Comment


    • I think beside the nuclear and terrorist matter, we should care a little bit about Persian people. Why they (most of population, I believe) don't like their government and why we should help them?

      Comment


      • 1. Exactly my point. I don't think trying to convince America/West that their elections were fair is top on their priority list right now.

        The whole point is that it is not only the West. All nations that were on the fence about sanctions and the use of force are now convinced that Iran will be ran by a extremeist religious theocracy and a dictator that does not respect the rights of anyone including the very basic rights of their own people and that they will stop at nothing to retain a deathgrip on the country. This will force other countries that do repect free elections, voters rights among other things to view Iran with distain and suspect at every move she makes and every word that comes from A-jad's mouth. Basically in attempting to defraud his own people his rhetoric about the West will now fall upon deaf ears since the people focus will be on the plight of the good people in Iran.

        Did'nt cost us a thing and well unfortunately, it did require shots to be fired at a completely helpless protesting crowd. Pity the dead for they only wanted what many take for grantit here in the West and curse anyone who attempts to remove those basic human rights by force or defraud.

        2. There we disagree. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, it will get them. Launching a war against Iran right now would be a horrible idea, which is why it hasn't been done so far. Short of doing so, you can only slow down their nuclear programme, not kill it.

        *Do you honestly think that the US AND ALL ALLIES will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons to point at Iraq and Allied forces not to mention the tens of billions of dollars invested in Iraq and a possible monopoly on the Straits of Hormuz by threatenting the use of Nuclear weapons? On top of that the Israeli concerns over the very same? I see disappointment on Irans end.;)
        Last edited by Dreadnought; 23 Jun 09,, 18:05.
        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
          A-jad is nasty, loudmouthed, deeply offensive & an embarrasment, but don't get sucked into the whole "he's going to nuke Israel" schtick. It is BS. Even if he did control nukes (in itself unlikely) I can't see any evidence he'll use them. He & the others who run Iran have a clear idea of what will happen if they nuke Israel - they all die. End of story. End of Iran. I can't think of a single nation in history that has undertaken an action knowing it will end in its destruction (lots of them should have known, but that is different).
          It is entirely logical that you cannot find any "evidence he'll use them" because future events cannot be proved. It is impossible by definition.

          The observation that no nation has ever committed suicide is somewhat valid and relevant, but it is also arguable, and most significantly, it is explicitly denied by different figures of the regime, who have stated in so many words that MAD doesn't concern them - History has provided plenty of "evidence" about the the folly of not taking people at their own words.

          There is a similar negligence in your characterization of A-jad. Not only is he nasty, loudmouthed, deeply offensive & embarrasing. He is also positively insane. He thinks that when he talks to the UN assembly people can't blink for 30 minutes. And if he has doubts, he goes to a well to listen to a voice for consultation.

          That said, I think it is unlikely that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons. But I'm absolutely sure that it would be foolish to discard the possibility.

          Because there is an additional, even more troublesome point: the regime's policy on this issue is driven by the belief that once and for all a Persian, Shiite strain of Islam can recapture age old honor and prestige long denied by the Arabs and Sunnites, by being the people and the sect that are finally willing to end the Zionist entity.

          And some within the Iranian leadership would be willing as they themselves have pointed out, to lose several million people which they feel they could afford with the assurance that Israel would be gone.



          Out of interest, take a look at the region & take a look at the nations that actually have a track record of attacking their neighbours over the past 30 years. Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan & Syria all have form, while Israel is a serial offender.

          My English is far from perfect. Did I understand you correctly and you just stated that Israel has attacked anybody in the last 30 years or in its entire History for that matter?

          Because if that is the case it is completely false. A lie that you should retract immediately, lest your knowledge of History be totally discredited.


          Iran certainly supports terrorists, but that is something of a regional cottage industry (Afghanistan Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, the US, Saudi Arabia, probably Jordan & definately Israel have all done this within recent memory). It doesn't have a record of directly attacking or invading its neighbours.
          Amazing. Now the US and Israel "definitely" support terrorists.

          And yes, is true the regime uses proxies to attack its neighbors. Like in Lebanon 2006. I suppose that saves their face, since it is a method of waging War but is not "directly attacking or invading its neighbours", no?

          A-jad is a threat to other Iranians. He is something of a threat to regional stability (though not the largest). He is not a threat to world peace.
          You are completely wrong. If the brave Iranian people don't save the day, there is going to be a crisis as predictable and grave as 1938, and you don't even suspect it.

          I am amazed. Really.
          Last edited by Castellano; 23 Jun 09,, 19:22.
          L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

          Comment


          • This whole thing is going to get very complicated...............

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
              *Do you honestly think that the US AND ALL ALLIES will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons to point at Iraq and Allied forces not to mention the tens of billions of dollars invested in Iraq and a possible monopoly on the Straits of Hormuz by threatenting the use of Nuclear weapons? On top of that the Israeli concerns over the very same? I see disappointment on Irans end.;)
              Sooner or later, the equation will change. The West is clinging on to the Mid East on the support of a few dictators, which, like the Shah, are prone to be taken down by the people sooner or later. I see Iran as the biggest emerging power, and even if it goes nuclear, it wont be such a bad thing, as long as the Iranian people find the power to rule their country, rather than being ruled themselves. Nuclear power coming into the region is inevitable.
              Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
              -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                Sooner or later, the equation will change. The West is clinging on to the Mid East on the support of a few dictators, which, like the Shah, are prone to be taken down by the people sooner or later. I see Iran as the biggest emerging power, and even if it goes nuclear, it wont be such a bad thing, as long as the Iranian people find the power to rule their country, rather than being ruled themselves. Nuclear power coming into the region is inevitable.
                Tronic, Nuclear arms have been in the region for some time. Although the ones that have them do not call for the destruction of others based upon race or any other matter. Iran may one day get this power but in all hopes by then will not be ruled by some insane religious theocracy that is bent on the destruction of another due to religious beliefs. It is unhuman to imagine such a regime with that kind of power to wield over some made up relious edict. If Iran does aquire that power there are many that would call for Iraq to be armed as well to protect herself.

                These men in power in Iran are dam sure not worthy of wielding such power as they act like spoiled children with a chip on their shoulders and could never be trusted. Not now not ever. If the people overthrew them and formed a more stable government with more sound thought and vision then perhaps in time. But I dont forsee that so long as that regime and anyone that could fill the vaccum if they were overthrown but yet still maintained that way of thinking was still alive. These are evil men that cannot wait to be able to project their religious edicts across their borders and at their neighbors including Israel. Destroy the regime, Basij, Hezbollah, Hamas and all other factions and now we are making progress. Until then deny them nuclear weapons at all costs because if we dont they will bring about the destruction of those weaker then themselves with some kind of twisted religious reasoning. All in the name of pride. Evil men.
                Last edited by Dreadnought; 23 Jun 09,, 21:14.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                  Because there is an additional, even more troublesome point: the regime's policy on this issue is driven by the belief that once and for all a Persian, Shiite strain of Islam can recapture age old honor and prestige long denied by the Arabs and Sunnites, by being the people and the sect that are finally willing to end the Zionist entity.
                  I think the regime will loose its monopoly on good propoganda material if Israel cease to exist. The Shia strain of Islam has always been about being the opressed. In this case, opressed by the imperialist and zionist.

                  Take out Israel and U.S. from the equation, than the regime will have a hard time sellings its propoganda to middle easterners.

                  In other words, they need to be the underdog - aspiring to go to the top - not the champion who goes to the top.

                  Comment


                  • how do you think us and israel should be taken out from equation??
                    Last edited by omon; 24 Jun 09,, 01:32.
                    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ArmAnt View Post
                      I believe the election was not rigged, and was fair i support Amadinejad because he will stand up to the Americans and keep the country pure.
                      Welcome to the board. It would be good if you introduced yourself as all new members do.

                      Amadinejad supporters are welcome to speak openly here, even though the same may not be said of his opponents who wish to speak openly in Iran.

                      As for whether elections were rigged, of course no one outside of the Iranian government knows for certain. However, the Council of Guardans has reported irregularities in 50 election districts where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters. This may not mean anything since Iranians can vote wherever they wish.

                      Today, the Supreme Leader extended the time for reporting election irregularities by 5 days. Any and all indications of vote fraud cast doubt on the entire election.

                      I doubt that Amadinejad is standing up to America to keep Iran pure. He's a wily politician playing on the fierce nationalism of Iranians who strongly resent any outside interference in their nation's internal affairs.

                      In any case, it would be interesting to hear your reasoning why the elections were not rigged. How is Iran better off with Amadinejad as president and what exactly do you mean by a "pure" Iran?
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ArmAnt View Post
                        I believe the election was not rigged, and was fair i support Amadinejad because he will stand up to the Americans and keep the country pure.
                        Pure of what? Those who want their voice to be heard and not follow a hitler wannabe loon and a bunch of power hungry charlatans who defame the word of God for their own end? They're not going to keep anything pure, they're going to end up starting a war you have no chance of winning and getting a lot of your countrymen killed.
                        F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

                        Comment


                        • What does this means? Does it mean the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader are softeningly adjusting their announced positions?

                          TV: Iran's supreme leader agrees to extend vote probe deadline
                          TEHRAN, June 23 (Xinhua) -- Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah AliKhamenei has agreed to extend the deadline for the probe into the complaints over the country's presidential election, Iran's Press TV reported Tuesday.

                          Khamenei accepted the Guardian Council's request to extend by five days the deadline for the investigation into the complaints over vote irregularities, Press TV said.

                          In a letter to the supreme leader, the election watchdog has asked for more time to remove any ambiguity over the disputed election.

                          Local daily Tehran Times has reported that the Guardian Council would announce its final position on the complaints about the election results on Wednesday.

                          Earlier Tuesday, Press TV quoted Guardian Council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaii as saying that the Council has rejected any annulment of the election results because it had found no major irregularities in the election. ....
                          Last edited by Merlin; 24 Jun 09,, 01:36.

                          Comment


                          • Last night a friend who follows these things said that Iran's supreme leader Khamenei was ill with lung cancer and was poised to name his son as supreme leader. I said impossible. The supreme leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts. So, to settle the dispute she called an Iranian woman who lives in Washington. The woman confirmed that I was right...technically, but that in the past, the man chosen for the position--Khamenei is only the second to hold it--would need the full backing of the Revolutionary Guard, and that Khamenei 's son has. The woman said he is as hardline as they come and would tolerate no dissent.

                            As for Khamenei health, it's been up and down. After a bout of illness not oo long ago, people who saw hiim up close said he looked poorly. Who knows, he's only 8 days older than me and I am still fighting off young chicks and climbing roofs.:))


                            Mojtaba Khamenei: gatekeeper to Iran's supreme leader

                            Julian Borger The Guardian, Monday 22 June 2009

                            Iran's supreme leader's second son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has emerged as one of the driving forces behind the *government's crackdown, diplomats and observers said .

                            Mojtaba is an ally of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the disputed president, and was credited with winning his father's endorsement for the then Tehran mayor in the 2005 elections, leading to Ahmadinejad's shock second round victory.

                            Mojtaba is an austere figure, *generally seen as more hardline than his father and has become a gatekeeper for access to the beit-e-rahbari, the supreme leader's home, and the supreme leader himself.

                            According to some Iran analysts, Khamenei, 70, is manoeuvring to position his son as his successor.

                            Formally, the position is supposed to be awarded by the assembly of experts, an elected group of clerics led by the most powerful rival to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, Hashemi Rafsanjani.

                            But the first supreme leader, *Ruhollah Khomeini, had a powerful say on who his successor should be.

                            Khamenei has been increasingly described in the official media as the "Ali of our times", a reference to Ali, the Shia imam who passed on the position to his son Hassan.

                            "There has been a lot of talk lately that this is all about Mojtaba and the succession," said Ali Ansari, an Iran analyst at St Andrews University.

                            "He may be securing the position for the long term, and protecting it. The argument is that he is protecting his future."

                            Mojtaba Khamenei: gatekeeper to Iran's supreme leader | World news | The Guardian
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                              Last night a friend who follows these things said that Iran's supreme leader Khamenei was ill with lung cancer and was poised to name his son as supreme leader. I said impossible. The supreme leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts. So, to settle the dispute she called an Iranian woman who lives in Washington. The woman confirmed that I was right...technically, but that in the past, the man chosen for the position--Khamenei is only the second to hold it--would need the full backing of the Revolutionary Guard, and that Khamenei 's son has. The woman said he is as hardline as they come and would tolerate no dissent.

                              As for Khamenei health, it's been up and down. After a bout of illness not oo long ago, people who saw hiim up close said he looked poorly. Who knows, he's only 8 days older than me and I am still fighting off young chicks and climbing roofs.:))
                              If this is correct, then Iran is about to get another shah in all but name. Also what if the Council of Experts refuse? Will the Guard place him on the throne?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                If this is correct, then Iran is about to get another shah in all but name. Also what if the Council of Experts refuse? Will the Guard place him on the throne?
                                Something tells me they won't. It smacks too much of a dynasty.
                                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X