Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Ahmadinejad is declared the victor, we very well may see a revolution begin in Iran. ...it most certainly means something and the repercussions might be more than folks expected.
I was going to post but didnt post the post which would have been the rebuttal.
I hope you are right about a revolution HillTopper. But to summarize what I was going to say: I simply do not think the reformers have the available process/ability/muscle to remove the mullahs, the secret & religious police, and the honor killing super conservative muslims who the gov't empowers and protects. There is a huge push back against the government,agreed, but I do not think the reformers can pull it off. God bless.
It's very likely the reformers lost and very unlikely prolonged popular uprisings will result. Dissent will be dealt with. Very likely the continued oppression and unnecessary killings (honor, gays, apostates) of its citizens continues. I hope I am wrong but unlikely.
It doesn't matter because there is a lot of electoral corruption in Iran (makes Florida in 2000 look on the up and up) and the President of Iran is mostly a figure head and holds little actual power.
The First Lady has the same influence over how America is run than the President of Iran has over how Iran is run. Little actual power and only as much influence as the real leaders allow her.
You're the one conflating the two, not me. The series of events, which our CIA and president were involved in, led to a situation where the Shah came back into power. The deposing of the prime minister led to the reinvigoration of the Shah's power (which was waning). This is what was and is still resented. And rightfully so.
But hey, keep hounding me about how confrontational I am while you call me a freak repeatedly.
You were the one who erroneously claimed the US put the Shah into power in 1953. You were wrong, as usual. Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, a.k.a. "The Shah of Iran", replaced his deposed father as lawful ruler of Iran on September 16, 1941 without any assistance from the US.
You clearly have no clue about what your talking about, which is to be expected from ignorant liberal freaks.
I was going to post but didnt post the post which would have been the rebuttal.
I hope you are right about a revolution HillTopper. But to summarize what I was going to say: I simply do not think the reformers have the available process/ability/muscle to remove the mullahs, the secret & religious police, and the honor killing super conservative muslims who the gov't empowers and protects. There is a huge push back against the government,agreed, but I do not think the reformers can pull it off. God bless.
It's very likely the reformers lost and very unlikely prolonged popular uprisings will result. Dissent will be dealt with. Very likely the continued oppression and unnecessary killings (honor, gays, apostates) of its citizens continues. I hope I am wrong but unlikely.
TNHillTopper is never right about anything. They have been predicting an Iranian revolution for the last 30 years and they have always been wrong. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by "a landslide victory", as expected, and there was no revolution, no rioting, not even a single protest.
TNHillTopper is never right about anything. They have been predicting an Iranian revolution for the last 30 years and they have always been wrong. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by "a landslide victory", as expected, and there was no revolution, no rioting, not even a single protest.
A'hem, you were saying?
VOA News - Ahmadinejad Win Sparks Protests in Tehran (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-13-voa16.cfm - broken link)
I know what you're going to say, it was because of the difference in our time zones.
Sometimes the hilltopper is right. duh.
I was going to post but didnt post the post which would have been the rebuttal.
I hope you are right about a revolution HillTopper. But to summarize what I was going to say: I simply do not think the reformers have the available process/ability/muscle to remove the mullahs, the secret & religious police, and the honor killing super conservative muslims who the gov't empowers and protects. There is a huge push back against the government,agreed, but I do not think the reformers can pull it off. God bless.
It's very likely the reformers lost and very unlikely prolonged popular uprisings will result. Dissent will be dealt with. Very likely the continued oppression and unnecessary killings (honor, gays, apostates) of its citizens continues. I hope I am wrong but unlikely.
Whether or not the reformers win anything or a full blow revolution takes place, I think the important part is that there seems to be a majority of people in Iran that desire better ties with the west. It may happen over night but more likely, it will be a process over time but there is something from this that is positive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
TNHillTopper is never right about anything.
Well I am certainly wrong from time to time, in fact I once thought you were a rational, well reasoned and intelligent person, shows you how much I know.
Dukester: Would you care to explain to the other posters the meaning of the term "neo-con". You do realize that the use of this term (and the fact that you site "Think Progress" puts you in the same category as the white supremacist that just murdered at the Holocaust museum?
Neo-con, is a derogatory term that refers to Jews. No one I have ever asked to explain it has ever done so. Any wonder? They don't want anyone to know of their hatred for a people (Jews).
This man was a leftist extremist, like you. Are you sure you want to continue to use that term?
Neo-con, is a derogatory term that refers to Jews. No one I have ever asked to explain it has ever done so. Any wonder? They don't want anyone to know of their hatred for a people (Jews).
That is just absurd. the term neocon has been accepted in the national lexicon for years and is often used by both the right and left when referring to people beholden to a neoconservative position. Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, all signatory members of the now abandoned Project for a New American Century, the lair of Neoconservatism before the AEI. For Gods sake, they call themselves this... sheesh
Apparently the Iranian elections really didn't matter....
Quote:
Ahmadinejad's triumph in Friday's vote upset expectations that reformist candidate Mirhossein Mousavi might win the race.
Did anyone really expect the challenger to unseat the mad man? Geezzzz............
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
