What if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually won the election?

R

RMCF

Registered User
Messages
1,432
Over the last couple of days watching the news about the Iranian election I actually got to thinking "What if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually won the election".We are being bombarded with UK/US biased news reports that it was all a fix. Protestors have taken to the streets in Iran, probably egged on by the West, to claim the same.

But who knows that he didn't win?Those countries are very hardline and their beliefs towards their leaders and the West are strong - I think perhaps they like their current leader and want him to continue.Just because it doesn't sit well with the West makes it an automatic fix.

Just say it was a fair election, it again stinks of the type of democracy that many in the West want. Look at what happened in recent elections in NI and UK. The BNP got a seat, voted for democratically by the people, but thats not allowed according to those that supposedly believe in democracy. And in NI, Sinn Fein minister De Bruin got 125,000 votes (a very large proportion of the voting public), yet some Unionists are claiming they won't talk/deal with Sinn Fein - thus immediately dismissing 125,000 democratic votes in a free election.

And as I type I listen to Gordon Brown demonstrate yet again the UKs (US also guilty of this) total hypocritical beliefs when he calls for Aung San Suu Kyi to be released from prison in Burma, while the West holds and tortures many innocent people in Guantanamo without charge.
 
According to Jon Stewart ..

.. the guy declared the winner outpolled the guy declared the loser 75/25 in his (the loser's) own town.

If there was a General Election here tomorrow, I'd back Brian Cowen to, at least, get a majority from the people of Offaly.
 
Don't fall for the anti-American/ anti democratic propaganda coming out of some police states in the Middle East. Freedom of the press is a good indicator of how free or democratic a country is. America has a free press, Iran does not. Iran may hold elections but it is not a democracy by Western standards.
I think the stance taken by Obama has been very restrained, maybe too restrained.
Comparing Burma and how it treats its opposition politicians to any Western democracy is facile in the extreme (to say the least). Every country is guilty of hypocrisy, especially Ireland (we let police states such as China and Russia decide if and where we deploy out troops overseas). Every country is (and should be) primarily motivated by self interest. There is no Western democratic country that, by any objective measure, treats its citizens worse than the best Islamic country. There is no Western country with a political system designed to oppress its citizens and limit their basic freedoms or which has, as a core aim of its government, the annihilation of another state.

Despite all of their many failings the Americans are still the good guys and while they abuse their power on occasion there has never been a country which utterly dominated the world that has abused its power less.

Willie Brandt said that America was like an elephant in an ant hill, implying that no matter how hard they tried they were going to stand on someone. I think it was a very apt analogy.
 
There election was defiantly fixed. The only question is how fixed it was.

I am not 100% convinced Ahmadinajd would have lost a fair vote.
 
I agree that the election was fixed. However, what's new??
This Iranian government overthrew a US backed puppet government to gain power so they will do anything to keep it from the hands of the west.

I will draw your attention to an article in the Telegraph on 27 May 2007 where it states the "CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.” This has been coming for years.

I believe that the demonstrations are being orchestreated by the CIA on the ground. Furthermore, I am convinced that the blogs and tweets are originating from Isreal.
 
While the election result seems to be the touch paper, I'm not sure that the dissatisfaction is solely with the election.

Iran has a young population who want to be part of a progressive 1st world country. They are tired of theocratic dictatorship. The election has brought their dissatisfaction to the surface.
 
The youth of Iran may be choosing one devil for another. It is impossible to say what will happen if the country falls in to the control of the US again. Isreal will be happy though.

By the well known neo-con Ken Timmerman on 11 June (before the election)
"The National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars during the past decade promoting “color” revolutions in places such as Ukraine and Serbia, training political workers in modern communications and organizational techniques.


Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds."

Now I wonder what "organizations outside Iran" he could be talking about??
The NED is US government funded. Anybody that believes that Obama is not as bad as Bush should go and take a closer look at Iran, drone attacks in Pakistan and the appointment of the special ops specialist Gen McChrystal in Afghanistan. Change you can believe in!!!
 
Who's to say he actually didn't win the election? Some observers are saying he did, only not by the scale that the results seemed to indicate. Remember as well from what we've seen there has been little or no call for the overthrow of the religous leadership(the real power in Iran), this seems to be purely about the Presedential result.

Interesting how an older generation of leaders underestimated the power of modern technology and thought that by simply banning news pictures and reporters, that the story would not get out
 
I think this is all about the overthrow of the religous leadership. The young population in Iran has no desire to live in an oppresive theocracy. Even if the election result is overturned, I still think they will be unhappy - while Mousavi may be a milder theocrats than the others, he is not exactly what the population wants and only won the election because he was the lesser of evils. The writing is on the wall for the old regime, its only a matter of time now. The people of Iran want to live in a modern progressive democracy.
 
VOR said:
The youth of Iran may be choosing one devil for another. It is impossible to say what will happen if the country falls in to the control of the US again. Isreal will be happy though.

By the well known neo-con Ken Timmerman on 11 June (before the election)
"The National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars during the past decade promoting “color” revolutions in places such as Ukraine and Serbia, training political workers in modern communications and organizational techniques.


Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds."

Now I wonder what "organizations outside Iran" he could be talking about??
The NED is US government funded. Anybody that believes that Obama is not as bad as Bush should go and take a closer look at Iran, drone attacks in Pakistan and the appointment of the special ops specialist Gen McChrystal in Afghanistan. Change you can believe in!!!
Click to expand...

What a load of left wing clap trap. As if left wing organisations never spend any money promoting their views and encouraging "revolutions" - sure they even do it in this country (Socialist Workers et al).

I think Obama's silence on Iran has been deafening. As has the silence of the major world democracies. The EU and the USA should be lending their support to the democratic movement and saying that if the theocrats are overthrown, they'll lend their assistance to get the country functioning as a democracy. The lack of clear support could end up being the difference between the end of the mullahs this week and having to suffer them for another couple of years.

One thing you have to say is that GWBs middle east democratisation plan is working. You surround Iran by 2 democracies - Iraq & Afghanistan - and look what happens. Lets hope Obama doesnt drop the ball.
 
csirl said:
I think Obama's silence on Iran has been deafening. As has the silence of the major world democracies./quote]


I am not a fan of Obama , but I think he is doing the correct thing here.

The people who the opposition need to win over think of America as the great evil, and would never want to be on the same side as America.
Click to expand...
 
jhegarty said:
csirl said:
I think Obama's silence on Iran has been deafening. As has the silence of the major world democracies./quote]


I am not a fan of Obama , but I think he is doing the correct thing here.

The people who the opposition need to win over think of America as the great evil, and would never want to be on the same side as America.
Click to expand...

This is why a coordinated approach is needed with all the major democracies in the world calling for a fair and transparent democracy in Iran. If everyone says the same thing, then the USA cannot be signalled out by the Mullahs. Though, I'm not so sure the ordinary folks in Iran hate America - in dictatorships, you need to be careful to distinguish the official viewpoint of the despots with that of the people - they are rarely the same. Just because the mullahs spout out death to American, it doesnt mean the people have this point of view. I agree that a heavy handed intervention by the US would not be welcome as it would be seen as interference, but the option of help should be left open if the Iranian people want it.
Click to expand...
 
VOR, do you think it is a bad idea for democracies to encourage freedom and democracy to take root in countries that are dictatorial and oppress their own people?
I see the “color” revolutions that the USA (and others) have encouraged over the last few years as nothing but positive. Do you think they should mind their own business?
 
Purple said:
VOR, do you think it is a bad idea for democracies to encourage freedom and democracy to take root in countries that are dictatorial and oppress their own people?
I see the “color” revolutions that the USA (and others) have encouraged over the last few years as nothing but positive. Do you think they should mind their own business?
Click to expand...


A country needs to develop at its own pace. We seem to believe in the West that we have a God given right to influence the direction of a nation. Iran will become free again through the actions of its people. Outside influences will not work for the betterment of the people. It is only 4 years since there was a liberal, Khatami, in charge so I am sure it will happen again.

Should the EU have gone in to Florida when Bush got elected? Perhaps we should have tried to overthrow the government of Mexico in 2006? That election was a sham also.
 
VOR said:
A country needs to develop at its own pace. We seem to believe in the West that we have a God given right to influence the direction of a nation. Iran will become free again through the actions of its people. Outside influences will not work for the betterment of the people. It is only 4 years since there was a liberal, Khatami, in charge so I am sure it will happen again.
Click to expand...


Your post presumes that other countries will not seek to influence Iran away from real democracy and keep it a theocratic police state. The last thing that Iran’s neighbours (other than Israel) want is a liberal democracy on their doorstep. I have no problem with the West seeking to influence countries towards democracy. I do have a problem when they coerce them, install their own puppet behind a thin veneer of democracy or force democracy on a state that does not have the civil or legal framework to cope with it or a sufficiently cohesive population to sustain it.

Western interference in underdeveloped countries (particularly former colonial countries) has usually taken the form of ensuring that the government and state is unstable enough to be manipulated from afar in order to maintain the economic influence that was in place during colonial times. The French are the masters at this (with the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands to show for it) but the Americans, British and Belgians aren’t bad at it either.
What we have seen post 9/11 is a realisation that stable political allies are more important than basket cases to leech off. The former norms no longer stand as the US in particular is scared witless by the spread of Islamic fundamentalism through the horn of Africa (even becoming a major force in supposedly stable Kenya, the major port and logistics hub for much of central Africa) and so they now see that the really do have to behave as an honest broker.
In the end it comes down to self interest; it was in the interest of the US to have the Shah in the 70’s, it is in their interest to have a liberal democratic and stable Iran now. Let’s hope they can have a local equivalent of the Orange Revolution (also encouraged by the US) .
 
VOR said:
Should the EU have gone in to Florida when Bush got elected? Perhaps we should have tried to overthrow the government of Mexico in 2006? That election was a sham also.
Click to expand...
No but they can comment on it (which is more than the US is doing on Iran at the moment).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top