|
On June 15 2009 14:50 Jayve wrote:
As for the issue of democracy, it does suck and it is flawed. It works in theory where you're assuming that everyone's opinion is worth the same, that just isn't the case though. My opinion about Starcraft and how I might feel like Zerg is the weakest race doesn't make my opinion worth as much as the pros or the people who've been part of the community for many years.
Likewise, on one hand you might have someone who has no idea about the world, human rights and the world situation is. Now that person's vote counts for the same as an educated unbiased person who has looked at things from all angles and drawn conclusion from years of discussion and experience.
That's democracy, and THAT sir, is unbalanced and BS.
I'll ignore the first part of your post because comparing opinions and experience isn't what democracy is.
A democracy only works if the population is educated and well equipped to make a decision - that much is a given - but if a population isn't educated in any form of government then they're fucked from the get go so it is moot point.
What you are describing is something called mob rule - which the US solved through slow Bureaucracy (yes not being able to get anything done does allow for the mob not to act completely irrational at a moments notice) and state rights (obviously one states opinion will not completely influence another which is something you described).
I'm not advocating democracy is the best for everyone - but this is a topic about Iran which just held elections which means that they're attempting to be democratic. What they're protesting over is being in a fraudulently democracy. Whether or not this is true isn't up for me to say with great certainty.
I will say one thing, only as basic observation - higher turnouts usually favor reform.
|
On June 15 2009 14:23 RivetHead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2009 10:25 fearus wrote:
Wow the western media has done a real hit job on this. You preach democracy and freedom, then cry foul and cheat when you lose by a landslide.
sighhh lol what the hell are you talking about? Even if Ahmadinejad won fairly, the protests and responses should tell you that he shouldn't rule. I'm not much a fan of democracy in the best of times, however, the voting process seems hardly as transparent as it is here in the states (where voter fraud does still happen, but can only happen on much smaller scale. Though the elections are tighter, too in the US). Its not like i know much of anything about his opponent other than he seems more moderate and more willing to negotiate with the United States and Europe. But anytime you can get someone who is a holocaust denier, who trying to develop a nuclear program out of power, and who has the support of religious fundamentalists, it can only be a good thing.
Uh no?
1) The protests just tell you that there's a bunch of angry kids who couldn't accept the loss. It's in large part the fault of Moussavi for not being a gracious loser.
2) Since when does the transparency have to be the same as in the USA? Just a thought... just because a country doesn't have the same political system as us doesn't make it bad.
3) Ahmadinejad isn't trying to develop a nuclear program out of power.
4) Do you even know what a religious fundamentalist is? You should read up on the origin of the word fundamentalist before ascribing it to clerics in Iran.
5) What's wrong with having support of clerics? Iran is a religious country, that's just how it is. And on top of that, the people WANT it that way.
|
No offense. Despite the fact that all these random twitter postings are cute and all, you have to be able to see through their bias. These people claim they're being attacked for no reason, that's bullshit.
If these morons weren't out on the streets violently protesting there wouldn't be this kind of violence.
sigh...
|
On June 15 2009 16:04 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2009 14:23 RivetHead wrote:On June 15 2009 10:25 fearus wrote:
Wow the western media has done a real hit job on this. You preach democracy and freedom, then cry foul and cheat when you lose by a landslide.
sighhh lol what the hell are you talking about? Even if Ahmadinejad won fairly, the protests and responses should tell you that he shouldn't rule. I'm not much a fan of democracy in the best of times, however, the voting process seems hardly as transparent as it is here in the states (where voter fraud does still happen, but can only happen on much smaller scale. Though the elections are tighter, too in the US). Its not like i know much of anything about his opponent other than he seems more moderate and more willing to negotiate with the United States and Europe. But anytime you can get someone who is a holocaust denier, who trying to develop a nuclear program out of power, and who has the support of religious fundamentalists, it can only be a good thing. Uh no? 1) The protests just tell you that there's a bunch of angry kids who couldn't accept the loss. It's in large part the fault of Moussavi for not being a gracious loser. 2) Since when does the transparency have to be the same as in the USA? Just a thought... just because a country doesn't have the same political system as us doesn't make it bad. 3) Ahmadinejad isn't trying to develop a nuclear program out of power. 4) Do you even know what a religious fundamentalist is? You should read up on the origin of the word fundamentalist before ascribing it to clerics in Iran. 5) What's wrong with having support of clerics? Iran is a religious country, that's just how it is. And on top of that, the people WANT it that way.
I really respect your level headedness here so I'll just respond with what I know.
1) I don't know. I mean yes, most of the reports of violence have come from university grounds but I have seen videos of older men and women in the protest/riot crowds. Just for the record - riots are not a clear way to anything. Protests and Revolutions are one thing, but riots are not 'country first' so that is my poisition.
2) Transparency would stop riots/protests. Transparency can stop the spread of mis-information which could very well what could've stopped all these protests before they began.
3) I'm not going to comment on Geo-Politics, we're not in this mans head.
4) While I know what a religious fundamentalist is the comment was at the person you're quoting so I'll ignore that point for now. I don't know much about the Council enough myself to have a position on the matter, but theocracies just leave bad tastes in my mouth after seeing some States in the US practice it to a small extent.
5) Nothing is wrong with the support of the Clerics by itself. Political runners get Religious backing in the US pretty often - but when the Clerics run part of the government them self is when it comes to question. It is no different when say if...The US Supreme Court outright backed one candidate over another. While this was almost the case in 2000 it never really happened, but if it had happened, there'd public outcry here. The different Branches of Government should never enter twine. (The US Congress as a whole will never back a candidate, just individuals within it) Just for the record, I have nothing against the Theocratic branch of government Iran holds - but it shouldn't enter twine with the public servant position of it otherwise this is when legality comes into question.
I suppose I'll interject my own opinion it so that I don't appear to be hiding behind a curtain.
- The Votes were counted too fast for such a large turnout
- Normal Secular voters weren't voting as expected ( I know expectation is opinion but it is mine to hold)
- The winner of the election has almost downplayed the protest as childish which doesn't help anyone's cause
- Right after the election some services seemed to be cut and reporters expelled - which is eerily reminiscent of what happened in China in '89.
So personally, I believe foul play happened - but not enough to warrant what is going on. If the people wanted, they could wait 4 (is it 4 per term, I honestly don't know) and try again. I doubt foul play would happen when there is no incumbent. They can't fool people twice.
|
Images from the University of Esfahan(?)
|
ok:
1) How can you say the votes were counted too fast for the turnout? You realize that for our Presidential election that had many millions more votes cast we knew the results about 3-4 hours after polls closed? Although I don't know when the final results were posted; I had checked friday (PST) at about 1pm which and there were no results reported and polling was going on for another hour or so, and then I didn't see the official results until 7am Saturday morning (my time). So that's a pretty good amount of time.
2) Where are your statistics to back up that claim? I haven't seen any data that breaks down votes by whether people call themselvs religious or secular.
3) The reason Ahmadinejad is downplaying the protests is because he doesn't want any attention being drawn to it because he wants to move FORWARD and start his new term rather than being held back by these angry Moussavi supporters.
4) The reason services are being cut and reporters expelled is because what's going on isn't HELPING anything. a) Protesters are using media to propagate and fuel further protests and b) the Media is overhyping all the protests to make the government seem like some evil oppressive villain. If I was in charge of the government I'd tell the reporters to gtfo too; it's none of their business, and if they won't cover both sides of the story then they shouldn't cover it at all.
The protesters AND the media are taking advantage of the ignorance of people in order to draw more support. That's fucked up - most people don't understand the political or social situation in Iran well enough to make a judgment about who is right/wrong in this case, and they're being spoonfed shit by these guys that is jading public opinion. That's not journalism and it's no way to try and get the government to change.
Know what results from these activities? More violence and more oppression.
5) To your response to my first point. Obviously there aren't JUST kids out there protesting. In fact I was in Westwood today arguing with some Iranians who were protesting. There are women, old people, young people, etc... what they share in common is that they are Moussavi supporters. They felt cheated because Moussavi didn't win. Moussavi could put this all to rest if he told his supporters to STOP. He is losing credibility by doing what he's doing and he's going to fuck everything up.
|
I mean honestly. It's fucked up how one bitter politician could potentially ruin the country in a drastic way just because he can't accept the results of an election. The longer this goes on the more respect I lose for Moussavi. I thought he was better than this.
Did Americans go out on the streets and start a bunch of violence when Al Gore lost? THAT election was rigged in a more fundamental way than Iran's election might have been. If we weren't out on the streets fighting then what gives Iranians any right to do that? You can't let an election result mess up the democratic process as a whole, that tarnishes the legitimacy of the state.
If a largely free and fair election can't even be honored, what incentive does the government have to run free elections anymore? This will only lead to more authoritarianism and less democracy. If the Moussavi supporters are trying to cause Iran to lose all the progress it's made in the last 20 years because of their petty anger, then they're about to do a really good job.
God damn Iranians piss me off.
|
I'm seriously so fucking frustrated it's hard to put into words, my people are making me want to smash my head against a wall
|
On June 15 2009 16:33 Xeris wrote:
ok:
1) How can you say the votes were counted too fast for the turnout? You realize that for our Presidential election that had many millions more votes cast we knew the results about 3-4 hours after polls closed? Although I don't know when the final results were posted; I had checked friday (PST) at about 1pm which and there were no results reported and polling was going on for another hour or so, and then I didn't see the official results until 7am Saturday morning (my time). So that's a pretty good amount of time.
2) Where are your statistics to back up that claim? I haven't seen any data that breaks down votes by whether people call themselvs religious or secular.
3) The reason Ahmadinejad is downplaying the protests is because he doesn't want any attention being drawn to it because he wants to move FORWARD and start his new term rather than being held back by these angry Moussavi supporters.
4) The reason services are being cut and reporters expelled is because what's going on isn't HELPING anything. a) Protesters are using media to propagate and fuel further protests and b) the Media is overhyping all the protests to make the government seem like some evil oppressive villain. If I was in charge of the government I'd tell the reporters to gtfo too; it's none of their business, and if they won't cover both sides of the story then they shouldn't cover it at all.
The protesters AND the media are taking advantage of the ignorance of people in order to draw more support. That's fucked up - most people don't understand the political or social situation in Iran well enough to make a judgment about who is right/wrong in this case, and they're being spoonfed shit by these guys that is jading public opinion. That's not journalism and it's no way to try and get the government to change.
Know what results from these activities? More violence and more oppression.
5) To your response to my first point. Obviously there aren't JUST kids out there protesting. In fact I was in Westwood today arguing with some Iranians who were protesting. There are women, old people, young people, etc... what they share in common is that they are Moussavi supporters. They felt cheated because Moussavi didn't win. Moussavi could put this all to rest if he told his supporters to STOP. He is losing credibility by doing what he's doing and he's going to fuck everything up.
1) This is still the largest counted and one of the fastest verified. I was under the knowledge that verification usually is a longer process in Iran.
2) I suppose I was playing this one too much like American Politics, but I read history about the loser's home town not voting as it normally would. That much I can't attest too.
3) It is a decision of unity - it makes the losers angrier, which begets more childishness. Yes I know it is foolhardy, but a simple plea to the losers after an election is more then a formality it puts country first. I read a translated quote that he equated these riots to something you'd find after a Soccer Game. Now I don't support the riots, but that just seems belittling to a good portion of the country.
4) They are trying to cover both side. Most of the Western Media reported how big Ahmadinejad's rally was. What can they expect to do. The protesters will be fueled by the fact they have to use proxy and go to the Western Media and shout, "see, see what they've made us do". They have no ground to stand on if the government had held the higher moral ground. All the west is able to rely on is the reports of these small first hand accounts which we know is utter BS.
Like I said, I don't back riots, and I know that it just makes those in charge just push harder down on the populace but you need to look back at the cause still first. It is like the Kent State riots in the USA. Not only did the government stop its clamp down of students, but Nixon heard their demands. There hasn't been a major incident like that since.
5) I agree with you there. He is being a sore loser. I'm not sure if he is allowed to Challenge the results like Gore did in 2000 which is probably leading to a lot of frustration in some people who are fed up. Like I said, I know it is only a small portion who is fed up - but in a good democracy, even a minority has to be protected.
|
On June 15 2009 16:34 Xeris wrote:
I mean honestly. It's fucked up how one bitter politician could potentially ruin the country in a drastic way just because he can't accept the results of an election. The longer this goes on the more respect I lose for Moussavi. I thought he was better than this.
Did Americans go out on the streets and start a bunch of violence when Al Gore lost? THAT election was rigged in a more fundamental way than Iran's election might have been. If we weren't out on the streets fighting then what gives Iranians any right to do that? You can't let an election result mess up the democratic process as a whole, that tarnishes the legitimacy of the state.
If a largely free and fair election can't even be honored, what incentive does the government have to run free elections anymore? This will only lead to more authoritarianism and less democracy. If the Moussavi supporters are trying to cause Iran to lose all the progress it's made in the last 20 years because of their petty anger, then they're about to do a really good job.
God damn Iranians piss me off.
While I put some point into the last post about the Gore fiasco in 200, I'll make a bigger point here since you're trying to compare the 2. It is hard to compare a Republic Election with a Democractic Election. The US couldn't go out and riot like Iran is now - it wasn't our problem Florida caused the problem and we actually still to this day all have doubts in our mind if Florida can fairly hold elections, but is not other states to decide. We know it was rigged in Florida because 2 high Bush officials held office there, but legal options where all exhausted and gore couldn't win. American's were fighting against Florida's inability to hold proper elections but we couldn't do much more then that.
Is it comparable? Possibly - but the legal options were there for Gore to fight for the presidency (see the movie 'Recount' ) does that exist for Moussavi? I'm asking you for I don't know.
|
Xeris how can you be so sure the election was free and fair ? The only reason there was no riots in the US was because the opposition could challenge the results. Expelling the media, shutting down communications with the outside world, and rejecting any investigation into the election is not the actions of a party that has nothing to fear. If they had won fair and square I could see using force to put down any violent riots, but you use the media to let the opposition and public at large know that they will have a chance to challenge the results peacefully. You don't kick them out and try to keep everyone in the dark. Ahmadinejad's is guilty of at best being are terrible leader or at worst a despot.
|
I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
|
On June 15 2009 17:04 InToTheWannaB wrote:
The only reason there was no riots in the US was because the opposition could challenge the results.
no I think it's mostly because we are all complacent
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote:
I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/06/irans_voting_manipulation_indu.html
Ahmadinezhad's rivals have no faith that the Interior Ministry will respect the law and conduct a fair election. Mehdi Karrobi and Mir Hossein Moussavi suggested that a "committee for safeguarding the fairness of vote" supervise the election on behalf of the candidates, but the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council rejected the idea. It is not clear how much voting manipulation will occur on June 12, but it is abundantly clear that Iran's election procedures leave ample opportunity for massive voter fraud.
from june 10th
|
On June 15 2009 17:04 InToTheWannaB wrote:
Xeris how can you be so sure the election was free and fair ? The only reason there was no riots in the US was because the opposition could challenge the results. Expelling the media, shutting down communications with the outside world, and rejecting any investigation into the election is not the actions of a party that has nothing to fear. If they had won fair and square I could see using force to put down any violent riots, but you use the media to let the opposition and public at large know that they will have a chance to challenge the results peacefully. You don't kick them out and try to keep everyone in the dark. Ahmadinejad's is guilty of at best being are terrible leader or at worst a despot.
I'm not saying it was 100% free and fair, but I am saying that if there was any fraud or rigging, it wouldn't have changed the result. What evidence do you have to support any of your claims about Ahmadinejad? I don't even fucking like him but I'm smart enough to be able to look at his presidency in an objective manner and take both positives and negatives. He has not been a particularly good president, but in no way has he been what you claim. Let's look at it:
Terrible leader - that's simply false. In fact, if he's done anything right it has been his image as a leader. He is one of the most popular and recognizable figures not just in Iran but in the entire Middle East. He is seen as an anti-West champion who is leading his country to an increasing regional and world standing despite all the pressure from the West. If anything that makes him a GOOD leader. He has kept a simple lifestyle despite being extremely powerful, and has pursued a nuclear program even though the rest of the world doesn't want him to. Those are good qualities, so I'm not sure how you could claim he is a terrible leader.
He's done a lot of bad things - rolling back reforms, messing up the economy, and failing to distribute oil wealth to the people... but he's not as evil as people are making him out to be. He's a fervent nationalist.
|
On June 15 2009 17:10 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2009 17:04 InToTheWannaB wrote:
The only reason there was no riots in the US was because the opposition could challenge the results. no I think it's mostly because we are all complacent Show nested quote +On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote:
I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale. http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/06/irans_voting_manipulation_indu.htmlShow nested quote +
Ahmadinezhad's rivals have no faith that the Interior Ministry will respect the law and conduct a fair election. Mehdi Karrobi and Mir Hossein Moussavi suggested that a "committee for safeguarding the fairness of vote" supervise the election on behalf of the candidates, but the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council rejected the idea. It is not clear how much voting manipulation will occur on June 12, but it is abundantly clear that Iran's election procedures leave ample opportunity for massive voter fraud.
from june 10th
Yes I'm aware of these factors. Again, this is why I am not claiming that the election was 100% free and fair, there was likely some kind of fraud, there ALWAYS is in Iranian elections, it's kind of an inescapable fact. HOWEVER, voter fraud on such a large scale would have been detected at some point. Not just after the results came in and people found out that Moussavi lost.
Here are the problems:
1) Moussavi's camp has not even explicitly given any sort of proof for election fraud. They've only made these claims like "oh, people KNOW who they voted for! there must have been fraud!!!".
2) None of the protesters or anyone else seems to have given any sort of hard proof that the election was fraudulent/rigged. In fact the best evidence supporting that theory (go back a few pages to the "statistical proof") was rebuked by an equally retarded analysis that can "show" that Obama winning the election was rigged.
3) Until someone can actually provide some sort of empirical claim for voter fraud, all these protests are pointless. Moussavi hasn't even given any real grounds for wanting to contest the election. He's basically just saying he's pissed at the result and he's "sure" there was fraud, but hasn't ever said a word about how specifically there might have been fraud. He talks about "the magicians behind the TV screens" but that's nothing more than rhetoric.
|
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote:
I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
lol how can you say that? That's like saying Saddam Hussein really won his election because he had 100% of the vote lol. ITS SUCH A WIDE MARGIN OF VICTORY HOW CAN IT BE FAKE!!! Lets not even look into it lol. You are likely right and that there is no real way to investigate the results but shit. At least pay lip serves to it and calm people down.
Before anyone brings it up yes i know he ran against no one but the point remains the same
|
Quick story about rigged elections in Iran. Back during the time of the Shah my family (an uncle of mine) owned some land that the government wanted, aka Shah. So basically he was given a seat in the Majlis (my uncle) in exchange for selling the Shah the property. The funny thing was that they held a big party to celebrate my uncle's getting a seat on the Parliament (Majlis = parliament in Iran) before the election results were even announced.
People talk about corruption and stuff in Iran, but they don't realize that during the time of the Shah there was about 100x more corruption. That story that I just told you all can not happen in Iran today. Elections actually mean something in this country now, and the government understands this and does not want to fuck with the people, and therefore has a very small incentive to rig elections.
You all should go and read: Democracy in Iran by Vali Nasr if you want to learn more about why I'm very dubious that the election was rigged in any significant way.
|
On June 15 2009 17:29 InToTheWannaB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote:
I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale. lol how can you say that? That's like saying Saddam Hussein really won his election because he had 100% of the vote lol. ITS SUCH A WIDE MARGIN OF VICTORY HOW CAN IT BE FAKE!!! Lets not even look into it lol. You are likely right and that there is no real way to investigate the results but shit. At least pay lip serves to it and calm people down. Before anyone brings it up yes i know he ran against no one but the point remains the same
That's not even a comparison. Iraq was a dictatorship, Iran is mostly democratic. Nice try. If you want to randomly interject into an argument you might try actually making reasonable and logical posts rather than coming with completely biased/wrong shit that for all we know you just pulled out of your ass.
I'm saying that if there was such mass-scale election fraud, people would have noticed it BEFOREHAND. The government didn't just mysteriously rig 12 million+ votes at the last second under everyone's noses. Remember, Western media was covering that shit in Iran for a little over a week, surely Christiane Amanpour would have sniffed out the election fraud if there was any long ago, right?!
Nope, didn't happen, because until the actual results came in nobody said a word about that shit.
|
btw going to bed I'll be back tomorrow >_>;;
|
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote:
I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
This sort of thing leads to the same complacently that allowed Bush to win the 2000 election in a messed up Florida when he didn't even win the popular vote.
If you want to stop corruption you need to crack down on it no matter the amount. Now i'm not saying violent protests are the way to do that but rigging an election in ANY MANNER even if he won by 12 million votes can't be left unpunished or just forgotten because of the margin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/dsc00238533.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/14062009048660.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/dsc00261533.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/dsc00251966.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/dsc00380986.jpg)
