One thing that jumps out about this data is that the share of the vote for the candidates varies a lot from precinct to precinct within a given city. You'll somewhat routinely come across cities where Ahmadinejad won 25% of the vote in some precincts and 90% or more in several others. Let me give you some idea about what I mean
Obviously they have the numbers to back it up.
Also, remember to take things with a grain of salt
What we need to know is whether Iran is more like St. Paul, Minnesota, which is relatively homogeneous across different precincts, or more like Columbus, Ohio, which has big divides between black and white and student and nonstudent populations. If the former, this evidence is pretty damning; if the latter, it may be nothing much.
I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
lol.. Mousavi isn't the one who disputed the voter fraud, the people did. The people took the streets themselves, I don't know what this person is talking about.
On June 24 2009 05:05 Rev0lution wrote: I'm actually surprised that the protests are still going on after 10 days or so... The most important thing for Iran is to not make this into another Tienanmen Square.
What I don't find cool though is people in the media asking for U.S intervention. See, U.S intervention makes us look like opportunistic bastards. Because we pick and choose which country to intervene in. Not for some ideological sense of democracy and freedom but for profit. We have yet to intervene in Darfur and we certainly did not intervene in China or when Egypt rigged its elections with 80% victory for the incumbent.
We didn't like democracy back when Hamas won the elections in palestine. So at best, our administration's sense of what is a democracy comes down to whether it helps to benefit our interests. It seems to me that if we are gonna spread democracy all over the world, then we should be consistent about it. Remember the Saudis? They have the most backwards laws against women. Raping your wife is legal in Saudi Arabia, but since they supply a lot of our oil we keep our mouths shut about it.
From my perspective the United States should not be trampling around the globe supporting democracy, capitalism or anything else. The only time the United States government should be interacting with other nations is to protect the rights of its citizens.
The problem of that guy is that he thinks the US has been trying to promote democracy in the past. And then he doesn't see what he expected which forced him to conclude promoting democracy will reduce freedom.
That guy is just stupid. The US rarely promotes freedom and democracy. Why would he even think the US has?
It's true that freedom and democracy aren't the same thing. But generally promoting freedom will promote democracy to some extent as well and vice versa.
You need partial freedom to have democracy and democracy to have freedom.
On June 24 2009 19:29 Glaucus wrote: The problem of that guy is that he thinks the US has been trying to promote democracy in the past. And then he doesn't see what he expected which forced him to conclude promoting democracy will reduce freedom.
That guy is just stupid. The US rarely promotes freedom and democracy. Why would he even think the US has?
It's true that freedom and democracy aren't the same thing. But generally promoting freedom will promote democracy to some extent as well and vice versa.
You need partial freedom to have democracy and democracy to have freedom.
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
lol.. Mousavi isn't the one who disputed the voter fraud, the people did. The people took the streets themselves, I don't know what this person is talking about.
As far as I gathered myself. Both did. But the support from Mousavi definitely encouraged the people forward a big bunch.
Overcoming the Revolutionary Guards influence seems like a pretty daunting task for the protesters.
What is happening in Iran today is part of a twenty-year power struggle between Khamenei, who assumed power in 1989, and the other veterans of the Islamic Revolution, such as former presidents Akbar Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami, as well as current opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousav
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
These Middle Eastern Leaders don't think about threats like that. They don't see National Security like the western world does. A military threat by us is received by them as a reason to use even more force. In fact, they welcome it, it helps us prove their point.
No, we can't fight their war for them, this isn't the same scenario like in Korea where there was a political split.
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
These Middle Eastern Leaders don't think about threats like that. They don't see National Security like the western world does. A military threat by us is received by them as a reason to use even more force. In fact, they welcome it, it helps us prove their point.
No, we can't fight their war for them, this isn't the same scenario like in Korea where there was a political split.
You seriously belive that difference in scenario is what led to the invasion contrary to todays iran ?
The USA has always sticking his finger in everybody's pie, it only slows down when there a democrat in power.
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
These Middle Eastern Leaders don't think about threats like that. They don't see National Security like the western world does. A military threat by us is received by them as a reason to use even more force. In fact, they welcome it, it helps us prove their point.
No, we can't fight their war for them, this isn't the same scenario like in Korea where there was a political split.
You seriously belive that difference in scenario is what led to the invasion contrary to todays iran ?
The USA has always sticking his finger in everybody's pie, it only slows down when there a democrat in power.
No, I'm not trying to compare Iraq's situation to Irans at all. I'm talking about decades of history prior. All our military might was all for naught in that region. There is no point in even throwing around that type of weight there. Groups like Hama and Hezbollah can be a good of example of whats wrong with this method. They treat western influence like their gasoline.
As for being in everyones pie, we're constantly bitched at if we don't get involved (Like right now for instance there is a lot of call for the USA to back the protesters? Why, so that its not done perfectly, we can be scapegoated? Please) and bitched at when we do get involved so I really tend to ignore how people view the speed of our foreign politics. I'd just wish information was more readily available to the public before rash foreign decisions. Democrat in office has little to do with it. Democrats have generally been what some would call weak in foreign politics, but I called the Teddy Roosevelt style; speak softly and carry a big stick.
On June 25 2009 04:52 D10 wrote: The only reason democrats are weak, its because everytime a republican is elected, all diplomatic efforts towards several nations goes back to 0
I never said Democrats were weak personally. I said they've always had a different approach. For example, right now in Iran, British seem to be doing most of the dirty diplomatic work for the US.
From my perspective the United States should not be trampling around the globe supporting democracy, capitalism or anything else. The only time the United States government should be interacting with other nations is to protect the rights of its citizens.
I believe I understand the spirit of your point and to a large extent agree. But watch your wording: you say that only legitimate reason to go trampling around the world is to protect the rights of its citizens. From a foreign policy perspective, what are the rights of its citizens? Because if cheap oil for their cars is one of them, then this justifies, in theory, a wide range of actions that go against the apparent spirit of your argument. Or consider it from the Iranian's perspective: the government of Iran states that citizens have the right to nuclear energy.
The rights of citizens, particularly safety, has been used to justify wars since antiquity, notably in the years of prominence of Rome, for example.
I highlight this not to censure your diction, but to point to the ambiguity, potentially unresolvable, at issue here.
Frankly, the US shouldn't go tramping about the world unless it has the support of the UN.
And Democrats are only perceived as "weak" because when compared to the "go in guns blazing" approach of the Republicans, the "let's actually negotiate" approach used by the Democrats is pretty weak.
EPT
