Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Iranian elections are a weirdness. You have a very restricted list of candidates, which are vetted and approved by the maddest of the mullahs. The previous president of Iran, who was an Ayatollah, for Christ's sake, was not allowed to run for re election because he was not bat-5hi7 enough.
Anyway, this election, like all others in Iran is reduced to a choice between Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart. Who would you vote for? (Jimmy had more style is my choice.)
That the average Iranian is disgusted and annoyed by the state of affairs is a given. This protest is kind of interesting. Similar things have happened elsewhere. The end result will be there will be a goofball as president of Iran after the election. It may be a different goofball, which might be progress, and it might not.
Hezballah has been in the government coalition for years. As noted up topic, they have military power over the south given them by Syria. They bribe for votes wholesale. Lebanon is pretty much under Syria's thumb, but they don't like it much. There have been wide scale protests off and on for several years, but the post civil war deal is seen as fragile, and no one wants to break it, and bring on another round of the kind of misery they had back in the 70's where 15% of the population was killed in the civil war. So Hezballah will not loose authority no matter what the election returns say. It is neat that there is some kind of resistance to goofiness over there, but unless things really change, there isn't yet cause for cellebration.
And one might argue that since the terrorists are loosing in Iraq, and Iraq, while creaky, is functioning as an almost free state with elections that do matter, this might be putting pressure on Syria and Iran to pull their horns in, because Democracy might infect those places too. So one could also argue that the Bush/Rice policy is finally paying dividends.
I don't believe a speech appeasing the bad guys is actually going to make them behave. quite the reverse. To paraphrase Bismark, change does not happen though words, but by iron and blood. There has been quite a lot of both over the last six years, and maybe we are seeing the results of the iron. The death rate among the bad guys has been huge, so they may be running out of blood.
You got a link to Hezbollah EVER being ahead in the polls? I would like to see that one. The entire point is there was no CHANGE in the government of Lebanon--for the past many years the government of Lebanon was & has been the SAME. Yet you want to give Obama credit for it. Hezbollah has never been in control of the government of Lebanon--they only act as terrorist guerilla occupation of Lebanon-- because they have a much stronger militia than the government of Lebanon & are backed by Syria & Iran.
Again--Ajmajenadad--has been in trouble for several years. Yet, a news report out shows that he is still leading in the polls. So now you're trying to give credit to Obama before the election has even been held.
As far as Pakistan. The military in Pakistan is filled with Taliban sympathizers. Al Queda & the Taliban as before during the Bush years--once the military envaded their terrority--the swat zone--they started bombing civilian areas in large cities. The government of Pakistan backed off out of fear. You're way to soon here--to give Obama credit for that--especially after a horrendous terrorist bombing over the weekend.
You may believe that because we have a President whose name is Barack Husien Obama--that everyone in the world is just going to walk through the park holding hands now. Or you possibly believe that he is "some kind of GOD"--but I don't believe it. And I am certainly not going to let someone like you try & take certain COMMON incidents & shove them down my throat through ignorant--uninformed statements trying to make me believe that just because Obama is now our 6 month President-- that he had something to do with these COMMON instances.
Chris invents numbers.
He's a realtor...
I love the personal attacks.
It means you have nothing else.
How sad for you.
Iranian elections are a weirdness. You have a very restricted list of candidates, which are vetted and approved by the maddest of the mullahs. The previous president of Iran, who was an Ayatollah, for Christ's sake, was not allowed to run for re election because he was not bat-5hi7 enough.
Anyway, this election, like all others in Iran is reduced to a choice between Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart. Who would you vote for? (Jimmy had more style is my choice.)
That the average Iranian is disgusted and annoyed by the state of affairs is a given. This protest is kind of interesting. Similar things have happened elsewhere. The end result will be there will be a goofball as president of Iran after the election. It may be a different goofball, which might be progress, and it might not.
Hezballah has been in the government coalition for years. As noted up topic, they have military power over the south given them by Syria. They bribe for votes wholesale. Lebanon is pretty much under Syria's thumb, but they don't like it much. There have been wide scale protests off and on for several years, but the post civil war deal is seen as fragile, and no one wants to break it, and bring on another round of the kind of misery they had back in the 70's where 15% of the population was killed in the civil war. So Hezballah will not loose authority no matter what the election returns say. It is neat that there is some kind of resistance to goofiness over there, but unless things really change, there isn't yet cause for cellebration.
And one might argue that since the terrorists are loosing in Iraq, and Iraq, while creaky, is functioning as an almost free state with elections that do matter, this might be putting pressure on Syria and Iran to pull their horns in, because Democracy might infect those places too. So one could also argue that the Bush/Rice policy is finally paying dividends.
I don't believe a speech appeasing the bad guys is actually going to make them behave. quite the reverse. To paraphrase Bismark, change does not happen though words, but by iron and blood. There has been quite a lot of both over the last six years, and maybe we are seeing the results of the iron. The death rate among the bad guys has been huge, so they may be running out of blood.
Khatami did not run for re-election in 2005 because an Iranian president can only serve a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, like the US president. Unlike the US president, the Iranian 2-term president can seek reelection later. Khatami decided to run for reelection this time before he reconsidered and endorsed Mousavi.
For the OP, it is idiotic to call what happens in Iran the Obama effect.
Guess what, Iranians don't need outside supervision and advice to know that they live in an oppressive regime. They have their own problems, mainly economic. Ahmadinejad like every politician promised the Iranians a lot of stuff and the voters will decide if they think he kept his promise.
You think the Iranians are little misbehaving children who need Papa Obama's fatherly advice, or Papa Bush's whip and then they will grow up to be obedient subjects worshipping American values, whatever those may be.
Fuck that.
Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues. But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically. When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner. Now? Lesss so.
The Obama effect is real, but its marginal. Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes. This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.
chris is a total moron, what a shock to see you agree with himIranian elections are a weirdness. You have a very restricted list of candidates, which are vetted and approved by the maddest of the mullahs. The previous president of Iran, who was an Ayatollah, for Christ's sake, was not allowed to run for re election because he was not bat-5hi7 enough.
Anyway, this election, like all others in Iran is reduced to a choice between Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart. Who would you vote for? (Jimmy had more style is my choice.)
That the average Iranian is disgusted and annoyed by the state of affairs is a given. This protest is kind of interesting. Similar things have happened elsewhere. The end result will be there will be a goofball as president of Iran after the election. It may be a different goofball, which might be progress, and it might not.
Hezballah has been in the government coalition for years. As noted up topic, they have military power over the south given them by Syria. They bribe for votes wholesale. Lebanon is pretty much under Syria's thumb, but they don't like it much. There have been wide scale protests off and on for several years, but the post civil war deal is seen as fragile, and no one wants to break it, and bring on another round of the kind of misery they had back in the 70's where 15% of the population was killed in the civil war. So Hezballah will not loose authority no matter what the election returns say. It is neat that there is some kind of resistance to goofiness over there, but unless things really change, there isn't yet cause for cellebration.
And one might argue that since the terrorists are loosing in Iraq, and Iraq, while creaky, is functioning as an almost free state with elections that do matter, this might be putting pressure on Syria and Iran to pull their horns in, because Democracy might infect those places too. So one could also argue that the Bush/Rice policy is finally paying dividends.
I don't believe a speech appeasing the bad guys is actually going to make them behave. quite the reverse. To paraphrase Bismark, change does not happen though words, but by iron and blood. There has been quite a lot of both over the last six years, and maybe we are seeing the results of the iron. The death rate among the bad guys has been huge, so they may be running out of blood.
Khatami did not run for re-election in 2005 because an Iranian president can only serve a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, like the US president. Unlike the US president, the Iranian 2-term president can seek reelection later. Khatami decided to run for reelection this time before he reconsidered and endorsed Mousavi.
For the OP, it is idiotic to call what happens in Iran the Obama effect.
Guess what, Iranians don't need outside supervision and advice to know that they live in an oppressive regime. They have their own problems, mainly economic. Ahmadinejad like every politician promised the Iranians a lot of stuff and the voters will decide if they think he kept his promise.
You think the Iranians are little misbehaving children who need Papa Obama's fatherly advice, or Papa Bush's whip and then they will grow up to be obedient subjects worshipping American values, whatever those may be.
Fuck that.
Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues. But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically. When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner. Now? Lesss so.
The Obama effect is real, but its marginal. Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes. This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.
Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues. But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically. When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner. Now? Lesss so.
The Obama effect is real, but its marginal. Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes. This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.
I can agree with your post, but yours is totally different from the original claim by the original poster.
Well, someone changed the title. shrug.
_____________________________________________________-
The election is taking place right now. No one knows the results.
Two different interpretations for myopic US partisans:
Ahmadinejad loses: Obama effect! Ladila, followed by oops they still have their own agenda, pout pout
Ahmadinejad wins: Obama's approach fails, nuke em!
Both schools of thought, hehehe, are already visible on this subforum.
Apparently, it is hard to understand that non-american people vote with non-american priorities.
Sarkozy did not win because he likes Bush.
Schröder did not lose because he did not like Bush.
why don't you admit you're a fucking idiot who thinks the world operates like this: dem good no matter whatI love the personal attacks.
It means you have nothing else.
How sad for you.
Ah c'mon Chris - just playin' a bit. You're not so bad.
At any rate, if Obama's actions are able to so quickly make him responsible for whatever gains in the Middle East, does not that same logic dictate then he is now far more responsible for the stagnant economy than Bush?
So this economy is now the Obama recession, right?
When you have nothing you resort to personal attacks and changing the subject.
I love it!
Why don't you just admit you are wrong?
Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues. But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically. When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner. Now? Lesss so.
The Obama effect is real, but its marginal. Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes. This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.
I can agree with your post, but yours is totally different from the original claim by the original poster.
Well, someone changed the title. shrug.
_____________________________________________________-
The election is taking place right now. No one knows the results.
Two different interpretations for myopic US partisans:
Ahmadinejad loses: Obama effect! Ladila, followed by oops they still have their own agenda, pout pout
Ahmadinejad wins: Obama's approach fails, nuke em!
Both schools of thought, hehehe, are already visible on this subforum.
Apparently, it is hard to understand that non-american people vote with non-american priorities.
Sarkozy did not win because he likes Bush.
Schröder did not lose because he did not like Bush.
I made some emphasis changes on things I liked in the above posts.
First, all elections are local, and the Iranian elections will be decided on issues that matter to Iranians. Let us not forget that they have a restricted choice and even more restricted access to information.
Second, speeches don't make for much in the world. Especially 0bama speeches, tales told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing. What matters is what he does that actually matters in areas that affect things. I do think his attempts at appeasement are actually a bad thing. But his attempts to show that he understands the arab world's frustration and is willing to accommodate any reasonable movement on their part is good. (But that has been US policy vis a vis the issue since May of 1948. It is the arabs who have not moved off the dime)
As to the other issue.... While I personally wish that the whole world saw things the way I do, I can't expect that to happen. And from personal experience having people from outside lecture me on how to vote so as to make them happy makes me very angry. We get a lot of that every election, worse as each cycle goes through. I don't like it and I don't think the Iranians do either.
I love the personal attacks.
It means you have nothing else.
How sad for you.
right now, both candidates claim an election victory.
right now, both candidates claim an election victory.
Haha, yeah. Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering. Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote. Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.
They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.
it would also blow the hell out of the OP's premiseright now, both candidates claim an election victory.
Haha, yeah. Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering. Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote. Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.
They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.
I'm rooting for Adminiejihadist, so there is no veneer for the european idiots to hide behind and say: "but we need to negotiate more..."
With Moussavi, the Left can say: "But but but we now have a person we can TALK to, as if the iranian pres has any real power, which they do NOT.
Electing the little monkey to another term would allow the realists and intelligent to come out clean and give the US/Israel plenty of cover in which to light the iranian fascists up like the animals they are...
right now, both candidates claim an election victory.
Haha, yeah. Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering. Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote. Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.
They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.
I'm rooting for Adminiejihadist, so there is no veneer for the european idiots to hide behind and say: "but we need to negotiate more..."
With Moussavi, the Left can say: "But but but we now have a person we can TALK to, as if the iranian pres has any real power, which they do NOT.
Electing the little monkey to another term would allow the realists and intelligent to come out clean and give the US/Israel plenty of cover in which to light the iranian fascists up like the animals they are...
actually, who they elect will have little difference to the USSo far, the election is in dispute as it appears to be close.
The conservative, rural vote is voting for President A. They are worried that the election might be stolen out there.
your idiocy is duly noted. now fuck off. play strategic war games with your pals in the sandbox.
