Some Iranian Clerics call Election Illegitimate

[Jimbeaux]

Perhaps a break in the wall?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530093,00.html...

[10 Pence Short]

I would have thought the US would prefer the incumbent to remain. Better the devil you know etc.

[Jimbeaux]

Here is more from another official:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/04/iran.raf...

[350GT]

The BBC describe these people as the "pro-reform cleric group", so maybe they aren't as objective as we'd like. Still, the other bloke in the election, isn't he the one that oversaw the terrorism in the 80's? Be careful who you support.

[Jimbeaux]

10 Pence Short said:

I would have thought the US would prefer the incumbent to remain. Better the devil you know etc.

Could be; but I am thinking a little beyond that. If there is a paradigm shift due to the backlash, bringing that nation toward a more western stance, it would be a beacon for the rest of the region. The more the protestors are resisted the more likely they are to rebel against the Islamic foundation instead of just a candidate.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 5th July 15:56

[350GT]

Why do you assume they want a Western stance? Last time that happened in Iran it led to the revolution, and the Islamic authority they have now. You certainly don
't want to be seen to be meddling, or pushing them that way, especially after the news that Obama, and Bush have both acknowledged that money has been sent there for the prime objective of upsetting the apple cart. I think it is quite clear that one thing folks in the middle east cannot abide is western meddling.

[Jimbeaux]

350GT said:

Why do you assume they want a Western stance? Last time that happened in Iran it led to the revolution, and the Islamic authority they have now. You certainly don
't want to be seen to be meddling, or pushing them that way, especially after the news that Obama, and Bush have both acknowledged that money has been sent there for the prime objective of upsetting the apple cart. I think it is quite clear that one thing folks in the middle east cannot abide is western meddling.

I sort of expected a response to that phrase, so I left it in....thanks. I believe the youth of Iran, which outnumbers other demographics, has made it clear that they want a more Western style. In the least, they may get a government that is more willing to get along with the West.

[tinman0]

350GT said:

Why do you assume they want a Western stance?

Hmm, let me think. Living in the stone age or living in the modern world? Must be a tough choice.

[350GT]

tinman0 said:

350GT said:

Why do you assume they want a Western stance?

Hmm, let me think. Living in the stone age or living in the modern world? Must be a tough choice.

I take it you're not a big reader of history, or have actually been to the country. Instead, you'll take your opinions from elsewhere? Well done.

Edited by 350GT on Sunday 5th July 21:24

[Jimbeaux]

350GT said:

tinman0 said:

350GT said:

Why do you assume they want a Western stance?

Hmm, let me think. Living in the stone age or living in the modern world? Must be a tough choice.

I take it you're not a big reader of history, or have actually been to the country. Instead, you'll take your opinions from elsewhere? Well done.

Edited by 350GT on Sunday 5th July 21:24

Yea, yea, we have all been hearing about how they are civilized, cradle of civilization, etc. Zimbabwai, etc. is the real cradle of civilization, have a look at how great that is going. I have little doubt that the people of Iran are refined; however, the government has shown their true face very quickly, it was very uncivilized in this event....and it is the government we are talking about here.

[350GT]

Yup... The government that came into power when the PEOPLE overthrew the Shah, a VERY western government indeed. My point is that the Iranian PEOPLE need to do the overthrowing, NOT the west, as Bush/Obama seem to be doing. That will only increase the resentment that we have seen in the last 30 years or so. But still, si Mousavi going to be a better guy than Dinnerjacket? His last time as Prime Minister would suggest not. As they said, better the devil you know.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160727.html

[Jimbeaux]

350GT said:

Yup... The government that came into power when the PEOPLE overthrew the Shah, a VERY western government indeed. My point is that the Iranian PEOPLE need to do the overthrowing, NOT the west, as Bush/Obama seem to be doing. That will only increase the resentment that we have seen in the last 30 years or so. But still, si Mousavi going to be a better guy than Dinnerjacket? His last time as Prime Minister would suggest not. As they said, better the devil you know.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160727.html

The people did that 30 years ago and one of the leaders of that group was Dinnerjacket....that turned out well; times have changes. I am all for the people doing the throwing. I applaud the government's heavy hand as it will hasten their overthrow....and the change to a more western style government that I believe the people want.

[Blib]

350GT said:

Yup... The government that came into power when the PEOPLE overthrew the Shah, a VERY western government indeed.

I take it that you're being ironic?

ETA: Ah, I get it.

Carry on.

Edited by Blib on Sunday 5th July 21:46

[tinman0]

350GT said:

tinman0 said:

350GT said:

Why do you assume they want a Western stance?

Hmm, let me think. Living in the stone age or living in the modern world? Must be a tough choice.

I take it you're not a big reader of history, or have actually been to the country. Instead, you'll take your opinions from elsewhere? Well done.

Spent the last week on the edge of the Sahara and in the High Atlas thanks. Had plenty of insight, not for the first time, in how poor people live. If you think that they enjoy living in the something close to the stone age, then you are somewhat misinformed.

[Jimbeaux]

Blib said:

350GT said:

Yup... The government that came into power when the PEOPLE overthrew the Shah, a VERY western government indeed.

I take it that you're being ironic?

ETA: Ah, I get it.

Carry on.

Edited by Blib on Sunday 5th July 21:46

As clever as you may feel 350 is being, is was the PEOPLE (to imitate his capitol lettering) that overthrew the western syle Shah, with the urging of the Islamic fundis. Now, 30 years later, the PEOPLE ar beginning to see that maybe something a little back in the other direction is what they would like.

[350GT]

tinman0 said:

350GT said:

tinman0 said:

350GT said:

Why do you assume they want a Western stance?

Hmm, let me think. Living in the stone age or living in the modern world? Must be a tough choice.

I take it you're not a big reader of history, or have actually been to the country. Instead, you'll take your opinions from elsewhere? Well done.

Spent the last week on the edge of the Sahara and in the High Atlas thanks. Had plenty of insight, not for the first time, in how poor people live. If you think that they enjoy living in the something close to the stone age, then you are somewhat misinformed.

No.. You are right, you SHOULD equate how people live in the Atlas mountains, on the edge of the Sahara with the people in Iran. Seriously, are you equating how they live, with how they live in Iran? Do you have any idea about how life is in Iran?

And Jimbeaux... The point I was making is entirely valid. The Shah was overthrown, and they were a VERY western government, going so far as to ban certain Islamic traditions. Now whether you believe in these traditions or not, that was how it went. They were very west pally. The people overthrew them. Now you can say they did it rightly, or wrongly, BUT they did it, and they can do it again, however, and for the 3rd time in this thread, so maybe you are struggling to understand, but if the WEST interferes in Iranian politics, then that can make the situation waorse, and lead more people into the Islamic arms. You can agree, or not, but there it is. I think that we have given them enough excuses to 'hate' the west, and if you really want democracy in Iran, you need to let the people bring it on, not push them towards it.

[Jimbeaux]

350GT said:

tinman0 said:

350GT said:

tinman0 said:

350GT said:

Why do you assume they want a Western stance?

Hmm, let me think. Living in the stone age or living in the modern world? Must be a tough choice.

I take it you're not a big reader of history, or have actually been to the country. Instead, you'll take your opinions from elsewhere? Well done.

Spent the last week on the edge of the Sahara and in the High Atlas thanks. Had plenty of insight, not for the first time, in how poor people live. If you think that they enjoy living in the something close to the stone age, then you are somewhat misinformed.

No.. You are right, you SHOULD equate how people live in the Atlas mountains, on the edge of the Sahara with the people in Iran. Seriously, are you equating how they live, with how they live in Iran? Do you have any idea about how life is in Iran?

And Jimbeaux... The point I was making is entirely valid. The Shah was overthrown, and they were a VERY western government, going so far as to ban certain Islamic traditions. Now whether you believe in these traditions or not, that was how it went. They were very west pally. The people overthrew them. Now you can say they did it rightly, or wrongly, BUT they did it, and they can do it again, however, and for the 3rd time in this thread, so maybe you are struggling to understand, but if the WEST interferes in Iranian politics, then that can make the situation waorse, and lead more people into the Islamic arms. You can agree, or not, but there it is. I think that we have given them enough excuses to 'hate' the west, and if you really want democracy in Iran, you need to let the people bring it on, not push them towards it.

It appears to me that they are doing fine screwing themselves into another revolution without the West's help. I simply am stating my hope that they get a western style government, a real one this time. What the Shah did, banning religious traditions, is NOT very western; religious tolerance is a part of a Western government....The Shah was simply western-friendly. I am with you in non-interference, I don't think they need it. Do you feel that the current unrest is down to Western interference?

[350GT]

Well when Dinnerjacket started moaning about foreign interference, I was as dismissive as anyone else. But then, someone emailed me a link about money from the US to Iran for the sole purpose of toppling the authority.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/...

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/cia-has-d...


MAYBE Dinnerjacket isn't as wrong when he says there is meddling? Who knows, but the Whitehouse/CIA have not denied it as of yet. Maybe they haven't, maybe it is press specualtion, and the pakistani official has another agenda, but maybe we shouldn't be so quick to denounce everthing that comes out of Iran?

[Jimbeaux]

350GT said:

Well when Dinnerjacket started moaning about foreign interference, I was as dismissive as anyone else. But then, someone emailed me a link about money from the US to Iran for the sole purpose of toppling the authority.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/...

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/cia-has-d...


MAYBE Dinnerjacket isn't as wrong when he says there is meddling? Who knows, but the Whitehouse/CIA have not denied it as of yet. Maybe they haven't, maybe it is press specualtion, and the pakistani official has another agenda, but maybe we shouldn't be so quick to denounce everthing that comes out of Iran?

Sort of like the Iranian operatives and hardware going to Iraq for IEDs? Not sure if your links are correct or not; I think they might be. I actually hope that MI-6 or the CIA is working in our interests. Let's just see what happens.

I think that that both candidates are about the same. However, the more the current regime beats down the opposition, the more likely the protestors are likely to rebel against the Islamic rulers and not just the other candidate.

[350GT]

It's not a matter of doing right, or not. It's the image it gives in the region. I'm sure you will admit that the middle east is very sensitive to interference, especially to the supposed detriment of a Islamic state. So, it matters not that you may see it as good, it is whether they se eit as good, otherwise you may end up with another period where 'hatred' of the west is prevalent.

As for Iranian stuff in Iraq, I'm still not sure there is any evidence of government sanctioned stuff. However, i think the iranians probably have more right than the west to be meddling there, after all, they are next door neighbours. Imagine if Russia had invaded Canada. Do you think you would be right in sending weapons, and aid to the Canadians?