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.
Well, considering that he was selected by a bunch of religious leaders, I'm not surprised. That being said, considering the previous Iranian President, it's hard to see how he could be worse. At least Mousavi seems to be more stable and less of a kook.
He's not much different ... maybe one step above a kook. Mousavi calls Israel a tumor. I think the Ayatollah is askeered. We overthrew a democratically elected prime minister and installed a monarch in 1953 ... rock me ahmadinijhad and mousavi and whoever else ran for "president" have ZERO power regardless of who "wins".
He's not much different ... maybe one step above a kook. Mousavi calls Israel a tumor. I think the Ayatollah is askeered. We overthrew a democratically elected prime minister and installed a monarch in 1953 ... rock me ahmadinijhad and mousavi and whoever else ran for "president" have ZERO power regardless of who "wins".
In that regards, IMHO the Iranian election isn't that different than the last US election. While I personally don't have any major beefs with the current administration, I do think that for the most part, Obama won because the majority of the people just hated the way Bush was running things. It didn't matter to them who the Democrats ran as long as he wasn't on the same team as Bush.
Of course, different doesn't necessarily mean better, but it will be interesting to see how things play out in Iran. I agree that the Ayatollah meddled around in the results of the elections and massively misjudged how the electorate was going to handle it. He's probably ****ting in his robes right now.
I heard Mousavi wanted nukes as well. So I don't know if having him in power would be any better. He's probably definitely have to do something for the women if he gets power. I think iranians should overthrow the whole islamic government. In this day and age, a person needs separation of church and state and the respect of freedom of thought.
I wonder why the people chose the mullahs over shah especially the women? religion is in government is a bad thing.
They are fighting for democracy, they say that Obama should stay out of it. it's their country let them fight it out.
I think they know that Obama is not for democracy but socialism.
Its amazing how people in this country see the world trough US glasses.
Socialism, capitalism, Obama....
Not everyone on this planet is obsessive about those issues as some posters on this forum are.
It looks like many Iranians are tired of things been imposed on them from above, without consulting the people. They want to take part in the process, not so much against Islam (although there are many who would like to see the Islamic republic gone), but against dictatorship. Nothing to do with Obama
If it's one version of a theocracy versus another version of a theocracy, then we are DOUBLY crazy to say or do anything.
If we read Domergirl's link, what a sordid tale this has been for 55+ years now. It was an oil grab with two aims: One, to keep Iran's oil wealth in UK hands, and the second aim was to deny the USSR access to that oil, an aspect of the cold war.
Speaking of the Cold War and Iran, the USA had all sorts of radar and listening posts all along the Iran / USSR border. Iran was a key link in keeping the Soviet Union bottled up on the southern flank. I've a 93-year old pal who told me of running trains of military supplies up into Russia during WW-II, from Iran. As soon as the Ayatollah kicked us out of Iran in 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan (imagine that). We supplied the Afghan mujaddein and after being bogged down there for ten years the Soviets retreated. Now we are up to our eyeballs in Iraq, Afghanistan and shooting missiles into Pakistan from drones. We are in way deep.
All that being said, we need to let Iranians work it out for themselves. There's NO way to win when dealing with religious fanatics in Iran, no matter which figurehead they support, we'll only get more dirt and blood on our hands. So far, I'm pleased with Obama for not jumping up and down and making wild threats like some gun-waving reactionary shooting from the hip.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
As an atheist, I am in favor of overthrowing theocracies and replacing them with secular governments. This includes all theocracies, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Scientologist, etc. Having said that, I am not sure if the current unrest in Iran is fueled by a secular movement pushing to replace Islamic theocratic rule. If the dissidents simply want to replace the current theocrats with another batch of theocrats, then I withdraw my support. But if this is a genuine revolt to establish a more open, secular society, I am all for it.
That is good but maybe we should start here at home first!
Who are we to determine what kind of government other nations want? We're not the world's police.
That was supposed to be one of the "lessons" of Viet Nam!
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.