First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
USA Drumbeats of war with Iran.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
52086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/09
The US needs to be strong against North Korea and Iran. Pacifism only causes genocide and wars. America is becoming to become politically weak. UN sanctions don't solve anything, and men motivated to use force need to be stopped by force. Ahmedinejad is a crazy Muslim who thinks the world needs to be rid of Jews and Americans so some kind of Muslim messiah can come out of a well and lead the world into the slaughter of the infidels. The guy is a loon that needs to be stopped. I'm sure most Muslims think that too, I know in Iran they are demonstrating that, yet the world is turning a blind eye to the massacres and violations of human rights that are going on in Iran right now.
1946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Labyrinth of Amala
Offline
Posted 7/5/09 , edited 7/5/09
Isn't just Israel and the U.S. that view the Iranian regime as a threat to the region. It is basically every country in the region (regardless of what is publicly stated).


Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran:


5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 7/5/09
how many more countries does the american media have to slate? no wonder everyone else hates america!
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 7/5/09

KinkyBear wrote:

how many more countries does the american media have to slate? no wonder everyone else hates america!


I know you're from America, correct?
5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 7/5/09
^ nope! Londres is spanish for London!!! it's the capital of UK if u didnt know!
617 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Indiana
Offline
Posted 7/6/09
Did you just compare the Iran situation to the Iraq one. hahahaha
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 7/6/09
Was Iran's Election Stolen?
By Mark Weisbrot
co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Since the Iranian presidential election of June 12, allegations that the announced winner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad' s victory was stolen have played an important role in the demonstrations, political conflict, and media reporting on events there. Some say it does not matter whether the elections were stolen because the government has responded to peaceful protests with violence and arrests. These actions are indeed abhorrent and inexcusable, and the world's outrage is justified. So, too, is the widespread concern for the civil liberties of Iranians who have chosen to exercise their rights to peacefully protest.

At the same time, the issue of whether the election was stolen will remain relevant, both to our understanding of the situation and to U.S.-Iranian relations, for reasons explained below. It is therefore worth looking at whether this allegation is plausible.

According to the official election results, the incumbent president Ahmadinejad won the election by a margin of 63 percent to 34 percent for his main competitor, Mir Hossein Mousavi. This is a difference of approximately 11.3 million votes. Any claim of victory for Mousavi must therefore contain some logically coherent story of how at least 5.65 million votes (one half of the 11.3 million margin) might have been stolen.

This implies looking at the electoral procedures. There were approximately 45,000 polling locations with ballot boxes, not including mobile units. If these ballot boxes were collected by a central authority and taken away to a central location, and counted (or not counted) behind closed doors, this would be consistent with an allegation of massive vote theft.

However, this does not appear to be the case. After searching through thousands of news articles without finding any substantive information on the electoral process, I contacted Seyed Mohammad Marandi, who heads the North American Studies department at the University of Tehran. He described the electoral procedures to me, and together we interviewed, by phone, Sayed Moujtaba Davoodi, a poll worker who participated in the June 12 election in region 13 (of 22 regions) in Tehran. Mr. Daboodi has worked in elections for the past 16 years. The following is from their description of the procedures.

According to their account, there are 14 people working at each polling place, in addition to an observer representing each candidate. Most polling places are schools or mosques; if the polling place is a school then the team of 14 people would include teachers. There are 2-4 representatives of the Guardian Council, and 2 from the local police. After the last votes are cast, the ballots are counted in the presence of the 14 people plus the candidates' representatives. All of them sign five documents that contain the vote totals. One of the documents goes into the ballot box; one stays with the leader of the local election team; and the others go to other levels of the electoral administration, including the Guardian Council and the Interior.

The vote totals are then sent to a local center that also has representatives of the Guardian Council, Interior, and the candidates. They add up the figures from a number of ballot boxes, and then send them to Interior. In this election, the numbers were also sent directly to Interior from the individual polling places, in the presence of the 14-18 witnesses at the ballot box.

Each voter presents identification, and his or her name and information is entered into a computer, and also recorded in writing. The voter's thumbprint is also put on the stub of the ballot. The voter's identification is stamped to prevent multiple voting at different voting places, and there is also a computer and written record of everyone who voted at each polling place.

If this information is near accurate, it would appear that large scale fraud is extremely difficult, if not impossible, without creating an extensive trail of evidence. Indeed, if this election was stolen, there must be tens of thousands of witnesses -- or perhaps hundreds of thousands - to the theft. Yet there are no media accounts of interviews with such witnesses.

Is it possible that, in most of the country, the procedures outlined above - followed in previous elections - were abruptly abandoned, with ballot boxes whisked away before anyone could count them at the precinct level? Again, many of the more than 700,000 people involved in the electoral process would have been witnesses to such a large-scale event. Given the courage that hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in taking to the streets, we would expect at least some to come forward with information on what happened.

Rostam Pourzal, an Iranian-American human rights campaigner, told me that it is common knowledge in Iran that these are the election procedures and that they were generally followed in this election. Professor Marandi concurred, and added: "There's just no way that any large-scale or systematic fraud could have taken place."

The government has agreed to post the individual ballot box totals on the web. This would provide another opportunity for any of the hundreds of thousands of witnesses to the precinct-level vote count to say that they witnessed a different count, if any did so.

A number of other arguments have been put forward that the vote must have been rigged. Most of them have been refuted. For example, the idea that the results were announced too quickly: How long does it take to count 500-800 ballots at a polling place, with only the presidential candidates on the ballot? It could easily be done within the time that it took, as it was in 2005.

The New York Times' front page story on Tuesday, June 23 begins with this sentence: "Iran's most powerful oversight council announced on Monday that the number of votes recorded in 50 cities exceeded the number of eligible voters there by three million, further tarnishing a presidential election . . ." This was widely interpreted as the government admitting to some three million fraudulent votes.

Here is the Guardian Council's statement: "Candidates campaigns have said that in 80-170 towns and cities, more people have voted than are eligible voters. We have determined, based on preliminary studies, that there are only about 50 such cities or towns. . . . The total number of votes in these cities or towns is something close to three million; therefore, even if we were to throw away all of these votes, it would not change the result."

The letter from the Guardian Council also offers a number of reasons that a city or town can have a vote total that exceeds the number of eligible voters: some towns are weekend or vacation destinations, some voters are commuters, some districts are not demographically distinct entities, and Iranians can vote wherever they want (unlike in the United States, where they must vote at their local polling place). On the face of it, this does not appear implausible. Contrary to press reports, there is no admission from the Iranian government that any of these votes were fraudulent, nor has evidence of such fraud been made public.

The only independent poll we have, from the New America Foundation and conducted three weeks before the election, predicts the result that occurred. And a number of experts have presented plausible explanations for why Ahmadinejad could have won by a large margin.

Does it matter if the election was stolen? Certainly there are grounds for challenging the overall legitimacy of the electoral process, in which the government determines which candidates can compete, and the press and other institutions are constrained.

But from the point of view of promoting more normal relations between the United States and Iran, avoiding a military conflict, and bringing stability to the region, the truth as to the more narrow question of whether the election was procedurally fraudulent may be relevant. If in fact the election was not stolen, and Washington (and Europe) pretend that it was, this can contribute to a worsening of relations. It will give further ammunition to hard-liners in Iran, who are portraying the whole uprising as a conspiracy organized by the West. (It doesn't help that the Obama administration hasn't announced an end to the covert operations that the Bush administration was carrying out within Iran).

More importantly, it will boost hardliners here - including some in the Obama administration - who want to de-legitimize the government of Iran in order to avoid serious negotiations over its nuclear program. That is something that we should avoid, because a failure to seriously pursue negotiations now may lead to war in the future.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 7/6/09
New info on Neda I read The president of Iran is now issuing an investigation for the death of her. I hope they find the culprit and punish him accordingly.

Eye witness claim that there were no police around when she was shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Q8cZwAiHE&feature=email
471 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Detroit
Offline
Posted 7/7/09
I'm the son of a former US Soldier. I had four friends deployed to Iraq & Afghanistan. 2 came back mutilated, 2 in body bags. I am sick of paranoid people dominating the government and media. While diplomacy takes a long time and seems like it isn't working to the impatient eye, war has failed to permanently solve anything. WWII, the "War to End all Wars," has actually spurred conflicts in Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan with the 1948 Partitions. The Korean War has just created a country divided along an imaginary line, with South Koreans being held hostage by a paranoid leader of North Korea. Americans and Japanese will speak kindly about each other in public, but smear each other in private (some ignorant people in both countries won't even hesitate when in front of the other). We in the US cannot afford to invade everyone. Let the Iranians fix their own country. Until one side or the other asks for help, neutrality is our best option.
1946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Labyrinth of Amala
Offline
Posted 7/7/09 , edited 7/7/09
^ True (but no such thing as neutral there).

The U.S. should stay directly out of this issue.
The Iranians / other countries in the region should deal with it.
1946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Labyrinth of Amala
Offline
Posted 7/7/09

KinkyBear wrote:

how many more countries does the american media have to slate? no wonder everyone else hates america!


Other countries hate America like the way children hate their parents.
But as soon as the child gets in trouble / bullied he comes crying to parent to save him.

Have you silly Brits got rid of that idiot Gordon Brown yet?
Very amusing at his failure to be 0bama's lapdog.
5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 7/7/09
^ america only 'helps' another country if there's something in it for them!
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 7/7/09 , edited 7/7/09
Kinky bear is right if there is no interest in it for the USA then shit we aint helping nobody. This was the case we be helping Africa out with all their problems. Middle east is the jack pot. They got all the oil and we also have a trouble making friend called Israel who can't stop bullying a third world country but wants to play victim. These useless wars is what keeps the cycle continuing. I will always state it as long as Americans stay in this ignorant mindset that we are hated because we are free and prosperous rather then the actions we do this will never end.

Edit: I am pretty sure those "silly brits" and people around the world who hated Bush asked Americans why his lieing ass hadn't got impeached? Why was he able to continue with his lies and complete his term.
1946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Labyrinth of Amala
Offline
Posted 7/8/09

drizza wrote:

Kinky bear is right if there is no interest in it for the USA then shit we aint helping nobody. This was the case we be helping Africa out with all their problems. Middle east is the jack pot. They got all the oil and we also have a trouble making friend called Israel who can't stop bullying a third world country but wants to play victim. These useless wars is what keeps the cycle continuing. I will always state it as long as Americans stay in this ignorant mindset that we are hated because we are free and prosperous rather then the actions we do this will never end.

Edit: I am pretty sure those "silly brits" and people around the world who hated Bush asked Americans why his lieing ass hadn't got impeached? Why was he able to continue with his lies and complete his term.


No country does anything for nothing. Period.

The opinion of "silly Brits" and other non-US (on our leaders) means about as much your/my opinion of the leadership in Iran.

You rambled on about Africa and Bush (not in the same thought). FYI, No person has ever done more for Africa than Bush. Do some research.

As far as lies go. All Politicians lie.
0bama has already lied more than Bush has in his 8 year term.
And contrary to MSM brainwashing, is completely destroying this country.
Should he be allowed to complete his term?
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 7/8/09 , edited 7/8/09
Yes thats why Africa is still in the same situation before and after bush left thats a lot he did for Africa. Somalia and Zimbabwe especially still living like shit. Obama didnt so much as lie but he didnt keep any of his promises he made but Bush regime lied about a war and now people are dieing over it. My opinion of the leadership of Iran is we the USA shouldnt just take sides of anything because we have no damn proof whats so ever that the elections was stolen but just word of mouth. Like I said countless of times all the MSM has to do is repeat the same phrase over and over without proof and one will start to believe. They did the same with Iraqs WMD's and now they doing it with Irans nuclear weapons with like I said before zero proof.

Obama is bad but he isnt no Bush. No he wont pull us out of this economic situation as he takes the exact same approach as we always do which is bailing out the rich. About the only change I can see with him is he negiotiates more and tries to reach out to the arabs. But like I said this all falls short if US continues its foreign policy there.

That silly brits comment was funny as hell because how can any American talk about a leader when we had Bush get away with everything rather it be with torture, patriot act, aggressive wars etc then try to come back and tell someone else to get rid of their leader.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.