Protests in Iran

[zoomie08]

What point am I missing exactly? If you think Iran is going to suddenly and spontaneously erupt into some kind of democratic revolution, you need to put your bong down and do little more reading on the subject. The regime there isn't going anywhere any time soon. This is the same line of wishful thinking that got us into trouble in Iraq. Instant democracy is a pipe dream, and you can put that in your bong and smoke it.

Not looking for instant democracy. Not at all. Also, this is certainly not the same kind of wishful thinking as Iraq. In Iraq, we thought we could just make democracy magically appear without a popular mandate from the Iraqi people. Iran's protests for true democracy are entirely internal which is where the fundamental difference lies. And, I have done plenty of reading on the process of democratization, which is why I commented.

The situation in Iran isn't about Ahmadinejad vs Moussavi. It isn't about which entity of the incredibly convoluded Iranian bureaucracy has the real power in the government. It is about the people in the country engaging in open protests to an election result. It is about a population questioning its government and striving for accountability. This is the kind of thing that leads to a politically mobilized citizenry and, eventually, the development of various widespread civic organizations and civil society that have the ability to start the democracy transition process through popular engagement and action.

No one is saying Iran will be a western democracy tomorrow or any time soon. What I am saying, however, is that events like this can be (and historically have been) the begining of the long process of democratization.

 

[Brett327]

Not looking for instant democracy. Not at all. Also, this is certainly not the same kind of wishful thinking as Iraq. In Iraq, we thought we could just make democracy magically appear without a popular mandate from the Iraqi people. Iran's protests for true democracy are entirely internal which is where the fundamental difference lies. And, I have done plenty of reading on the process of democratization, which is why I commented.

The situation in Iran isn't about Ahmadinejad vs Moussavi. It isn't about which entity of the incredibly convoluded Iranian bureaucracy has the real power in the government. It is about the people in the country engaging in open protests to an election result. It is about a population questioning its government and striving for accountability. This is the kind of thing that leads to a politically mobilized citizenry and, eventually, the development of various widespread civic organizations and civil society that have the ability to start the democracy transition process through popular engagement and action.

No one is saying Iran will be a western democracy tomorrow or any time soon. What I am saying, however, is that events like this can be (and historically have been) the begining of the long process of democratization.

As in all things, time will tell, but my money is on status quo Iran for the long term.

Brett

 

[Bevo16]

In Iraq, we thought we could just make democracy magically appear without a popular mandate from the Iraqi people.

Bullshit. One of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on this board. If you think that the problem in Iraq is that the people do not want democracy...well...then you are probably an ignorant kid who has managed to convince himself that they know something because they have done "reading" on the subject.

Iran's protests for true democracy are entirely internal which is where the fundamental difference lies.

Funny. And if we were treating these protests in Iran like their regime has been treating our operations in Iraq, we would have SOCOM/CIA agents buring their government buildings to the ground and blowing up their police HQ's.

The situation in Iran isn't about Ahmadinejad vs Moussavi. It isn't about which entity of the incredibly convoluded Iranian bureaucracy has the real power in the government.

Bullshit.

What you fail to realize is that there is only one part of the government in Iran with real power.

Let me introduce you to him. Zoomie, meet the Ayatollah.

No one is saying Iran will be a western democracy tomorrow or any time soon. What I am saying, however, is that events like this can be (and historically have been) the begining of the long process of democratization.

OK, since you have done so much reading. Why don't you find one of those "historic" examples of a Muslim Theocracy becoming a democratic republic due to "the people" being pissed off about an election fraud. Any time in the last century will do.

 

[zoomie08]

Bullshit. One of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on this board. If you think that the problem in Iraq is that the people do not want democracy...well...then you are probably an ignorant kid who has managed to convince himself that they know something because they have done "reading" on the subject.

You took what I said out of context in order to assume I was making some sort of leftist argument for the sake of making me look out of line with the conservative status quo of this site. It's Bush league to assume someone who disagrees with you is ignorant. I've done plenty of reading on both subject - enough to get a degree in the field. Do you usually just resort to insulting those you have no actual intelligent argument against?

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Anyone else care for some?

 

[Bevo16]

You took what I said out of context in order to assume I was making some sort of leftist argument for the sake of making me look out of line with the conservative status quo of this site.

Bullshit.

Left or Right does not have a goddamn thing to do with it.

I took your exact words and pointed out the fact that READING about this shit in college pales in comparison to the experiences of people who have actually been to that part of the world. I guess that all those missions that we fly on the Iranian and Syrian borders trying to keep arms and forign fighters are were a waste of time. If only the poor Iraqi people had really wanted democracy, then everything would have worked and we could have all come straight home to our family. Don't you know, arabs LOVE dictators. Why did we not understand that before we went over there!??!?!!?

I went on to point out that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about despite what you have "read". Keep reading junior. They don't publish what passport the guys we are zapping in Iraq and Afghanistan have in their pockets, and none of those guys give two shits about right or left. They just want you dead. In that regard, they have everything in common with BOTH of the possible cantidates in the Iranian election.

It's Bush league to assume someone who disagrees with you is ignorant. I've done plenty of reading on both subject - enough to get a degree in the field. Do you usually just resort to insulting those you have no actual intelligent argument against?

OOohhh wow!! You went to COLLEGE!!! Well, then I take it all back. What was I thinking?

Want an intellectual argument? Try this one on for size. Someone really smart and who has done a lot of reading on the subject has been able to boil all of the issues in Iraq down to one sentence:

In Iraq, we thought we could just make democracy magically appear without a popular mandate from the Iraqi people.

Outfuckingstanding.

All we needed was a popular mandate of the Iraqi people. Why we have been wasting all kinds of time killing insurgents and terroists when we should have been seeking a mandate!?!?!? What were we thinking?!?!?!!? That's all we need.

Your pit of ignorance is so fucking deep that you can't even see the edge. Maybe one of these days you will climb out enough to look back and "goddamn, that was deep".

As for this:

The conservative status quo of this site

Welcome to the military. The smartest, best educated, most capable, hardest working group on men and women in the world, and we are overwhelmingly conservative. Think about it. Or read something on the subject. Lord knows that makes you an expert.

 

[exhelodrvr]

The protests aren't going to change anything. As others have noted, they will be repressed, and gradually fade out. It would probably take economic collapse for there to be a reasonable chance of significant change there.

 

[scoolbubba]

Iran cannot change through the election of a new President. The candidates are vetted for their "faith in the Islamic Republic" by the Guardian Council, twelve old dudes led by Ayatollah Khameini. The GC has the final say on everything...every law, every election, every crackdown on the press. There's no way for a candidate with views outside their norms to even have an outside shot at winning an election.

Without a fundamental shift in the Iranian government, ie revolution (think 1979 but in the opposite direction,) Iran will continue to be a regional belligerent and fanatically fundamentalist state.

Without a charismatic leader working outside the system, I don't think Iran is going to change nearly as much as the Iranian people seem to want. The Ayatollahs have too much power at hand in the form of the hard liner elements of the military and police, as well as their own version of the Fedayeen...plain clothes "enforcers" (thugs) of the conservative rulers edicts.

 

[Flash]

The protests aren't going to change anything. As others have noted, they will be repressed, and gradually fade out. It would probably take economic collapse for there to be a reasonable chance of significant change there.

This is the most likely impetus of change, anything else can probably be suppressed by the ruling mullahs right now.

Welcome to the military. The smartest, best educated, most capable, hardest working group on men and women in the world, and we are overwhelmingly conservative.

The officer corps is largely conservative, the enlisted ranks are much more reflective of the rest of the country when it comes to politics.

 

[nursesoon]

Welcome to the military. The smartest, best educated, most capable, hardest working group on men and women in the world, and we are overwhelmingly conservative.

I assumed so, oh well. I'm a liberal, very liberal, but personal politics hardly matter on the job, you don't get to decide where/when/who you fight or not. Politics is for online political boards and voting booths.

 

[Bevo16]

The officer corps is largely conservative, the enlisted ranks are much more reflective of the rest of the country when it comes to politics.

I'll agree to that. The enlisted ranks are well educated, hard working, and well read, and pay taxes.

Those demographics alone explain why the enlisted ranks are also largely conservative (but not by as wide a margin as the officer corps).

 

[picklesuit]

Enemies of Freedom

June 14: Iranian supporter of defeated presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is beaten by government security members during riots in Tehran, Iran. (AP)

This is why I am happy to live here, and not over there...this is how the Iranians deal with dissenters.

 

[Bevo16]

There can be no greater affirmation that I am on the right path than negative rep from Herc Driver, guardian of "dumb JO's" and protector of AirWarriors bandwidth:

from a negative rep comment
Listen...all JOs make dumb posts every once in a while. But you are wasting bandwith with your specious arguments...try using facts vice your rants.

Oh, if only I ever used facts:

By and large, it's all a waste of time anyway.

Who is this "moderate" Mirhossein Mousavi, and why the hell does anyone think he would be any better than the current guy? Remember that every man who runs for office must first be approved by the Iranian Mullahs who control the country. That, more than anything, determines the future of Iran. And that should show us that this man was no moderate. The Weekly Standard gives us this bit of history on the world's reform candidate:

In 1981, when Mousavi first appeared, UPI explained that "Appearances aside, Mousavi heralds a more vigorous propagation of the radical Islamic foreign policy of exporting Iran's revolution." In 1987, Reuters quoted Mousavi at a demonstration in Tehran saying "Tomorrow will be the day we step on the Great Satan. Tomorrow is the time for America to see our iron fists." And in 1989, after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, the Washington Post described Mousavi as "a leading radical who in the past has competed with Khamenei for primacy in setting government policy pledged subservience, along with his entire cabinet, to the new leader."

In 1988, Reuters reported on a radio address by Mousavi to the Iranian people:

In a Foreign Ministry statement read on Tehran radio today, Iran said that Israel should be annihilated and that implicit recognition of it by the Palestine Liberation Organisation ignored the inalienable rights of the Muslim Palestinan people.

The statement said that the only way to achieve Palestinian rights was continuation of all-out popular struggles against Israel.

Iranian Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi yesterday called Israel a"cancerous tumour" and said the Palestinian move to accept UN Resolution 242 would anger Muslim revolutionaries.

In 1989, Mousavi called for Salman Rushdie to be killed. The Times (London) reported that "Mr Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the Prime Minister, said the Ayatollah Khomeini's order that Mr Rushdie should be killed 'will undoubtedly be carried out and the person who has become a tool of Zionists against Islam and brazenly attacked it and the Prophet will be punished', according to Tehran Radio." And in that same year, the Washington Post described Mousavi as a "leading hardliner," with links to regime attempts to assassinate political opponents in exile.

Mousavi is also regarded as the father of Iran's nuclear project.

This is what the world is calling a moderate. One who calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. So it is safe to say that no matter who wins the election, and despite the hope in many quarters of the world that things will change in the middle east, the status quo will remain the same. The names may change, but not much else. And how frightening is it to Israel, that the world can view this man as a reformer?

I put the facts and supporting evidence in bold just to help you out.

Thanks Herc, you made my afternoon.

 

[mmx1]

Welcome to the military. The smartest, best educated, most capable, hardest working group on men and women in the world, and we are overwhelmingly conservative. Think about it.

Quit drinking the kool-aid and get over yourself. Conservatives have no monopoly on work ethic or education.

The military's smartER, more educated, harder working than the average American, sure. But we're not water walkers.

 

[Flash]

I'll agree to that. The enlisted ranks are well educated, hard working, and well read, and pay taxes.

Those demographics alone explain why the enlisted ranks are also largely conservative (but not by as wide a margin as the officer corps).

It is awfully arrogant to assume that if one has those traits that one tends to be conservative, or Republican for that matter if you go by party affiliation. Or that the military has a monopoly on hard work and well educated, I am certain the employes of Google ad countless other companies would disagree. Plus, you can't exactly quantify 'hard working' or 'well read'. I didn't see copies of the paper or War and Peace sitting around the squadron that often, usually Sports Illustrated or Maxim. And the smoke pits or Goat Locker aren't exactly hotbeds of hard work.

Here is some interesting Gallup polling on veterans and active duty political affiliations. I believe they are a little more reliable than the Military Times polling that is often cited by many, since Military Times subscribers are are more likely to be more senior and careerist and are in fact in the minority in the military. While veterans and active duty skew a little bit more Republican it is often not as 'overwhelming' as many believe.