Iran's election a sham

[toomuchtime_]

While it might not be surprising if the election was fixed, what makes you so certain Ahmadinejad didn't legitimately win? There are always complaints about election irregularities here in the US, so while there may have been some in Iran, what makes you so certain he didn't win a majority of the votes anyway?

Cole and I have never agreed on anything else I am aware of, including the need for humans to breathe, but we both agree on this fact, iran's election was a sham:

Informed Comment: Stealing the Iranian Election

"1. It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense. In past elections, Azeris voted disproportionately for even minor presidential candidates who hailed from that province.

"5. Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations.

6. The Electoral Commission is supposed to wait three days before certifying the results of the election, at which point they are to inform Khamenei of the results, and he signs off on the process. The three-day delay is intended to allow charges of irregularities to be adjudicated. In this case, Khamenei immediately approved the alleged results."

These were just a few of the items people have taken note of, and realize how obvious this fraud/theft was.

Thanks, I hadn't seen a breakdown of the vote.

 

[rhodescholar]

You are the one that has failed Rhodes

A week ago I stated that Ahmadinejad would easily and fairly win the election. And you were all over me tell me I was wrong.

It's laughable how any American can point fingers at the election process of any other nation and claim alledged irregularities.

After the blatant fraud and theft of the Bush/Gore election.

I was correct, Moussavi would get the most votes - the fascist government just stepped in and stole the election.

"Blatant fraud and theft" of the Gore election, you really are fucking stupid. What was stolen, idiot?

 

[Blair Wright]

Going by your username and the title of this site, I have to assume (even if you do not claim it at the point of location) that you are an American citizen.

I am not. That's why I don't advocate the overthrow of a regime each time it differs from the views of my country. I am no supporter of Iran but if you call them a fascist regime of thugs and murderers, what do you think they call the USA when they have a viewpoint that considers the USA as cold blooded civilian killers in Iraq and Afghanistan? And if you consider yourself a middle of the road person, would an Iranian viewpoint of America as the most meddlesome country in the world, surprise you?

What I am and from where I post is of no relevancy whatsoever.

Second, I will accept no moral equivalency...

of course you won't, since to do so would be an admission that US foreign policy for the last 50 years was intended to ensure that the rabble remained a rabble. Which other country has invaded over 50 other countries since the end of WWII?

....between the US' invasion of Afghanistan, along with the events of iraq falling only on the US' shoulders. I find it hilarious that you make no mention of the Taliban or Al Qaeda operating in Afghan, nor of it and iran's activities in iraq - as if anything that occurred there was solely the fault of the US.

I can't recall any other country backing the Taliban before the Taliban turned it's back on it's backer

And you have the nerve to ask if my approach was balanced.

Further, please explain how you can compare the US with iran who actively suicide bombs innocent civilians in several other countries, regularly murders its own citizens for simply demonstrating for their own civil rights, and operates as THE rejectionist force against peace in the middle east, attacking countries like israel it doesn't fucking even share a border with.

There is only one country that has up to date used atomic warfare and in doing so wiped out 250,000 civilians in less than 2 seconds. I wasn't aware that the US and Japan bordered each other either.

Last, I find it even more hysterical how you, like every other leftist tool, whose sole existence is predicated on attacking the US NO MATTER HOW FUCKING BADLY some third world dictatorship is acting.

You may find it hysterical but that's because you are a Republican and consequently believe that only you and your party can be right. Generally, everyone else pays the price.Why doesn't the US invade Zimbabwe and return it to democracy? The white population are suffering to the extreme due to Mugabe's dictatorial role. Could it be that the US isn't interested because Zimbabwe has no oil reserves?

Are you so racist against poor muslims that you cannot expect them to have done anything BUT had a stolen, criminally manipulated sham "election"?

?????????

 

[Sunni Man]

You are the one that has failed Rhodes

A week ago I stated that Ahmadinejad would easily and fairly win the election. And you were all over me tell me I was wrong.

It's laughable how any American can point fingers at the election process of any other nation and claim alledged irregularities.

After the blatant fraud and theft of the Bush/Gore election.

I was correct, Moussavi would get the most votes - the fascist government just stepped in and stole the election.

"Blatant fraud and theft" of the Gore election, you really are fucking stupid. What was stolen, idiot?

What fascist government?

Iran is a democracy just the same as the United States.

 

[Xenophon]

Only suckers thought Imadingyslob would lose that election.

 

[rhodescholar]

of course you won't, since to do so would be an admission that US foreign policy for the last 50 years was intended to ensure that the rabble remained a rabble. Which other country has invaded over 50 other countries since the end of WWII?

Yes, all of the US' foreign policy has been a failure, just ask the Germans, Japanese, Europeans on whose land Americans are buried fighting TWO FUCKING wars to save their asses is buried in places like Normandy, the Iraqis who for the first time EVER, can now vote and choose their own leadership, etc.

I can't recall any other country backing the Taliban before the Taliban turned it's back on it's backer

The support of the taliban was a choice made at the time to fight against the greater enemy, Russia. Hindsight is always better than 20/20, a concept you seem unable to grasp.

There is only one country that has up to date used atomic warfare and in doing so wiped out 250,000 civilians in less than 2 seconds.

DO NOT go there, the choice to conduct an invasion of Honshu which would have cost over 2 million japanese lives, and several hundred thousand US troops', was the better option? Duh...

I wasn't aware that the US and Japan bordered each other either.

I seem to vaguely recall an event called the bombing of pearl harbor, i.e., an attack conducted by the japanese imperial military. Guess you never heard of it...

?????????

Yeah, that's a good description of your simplistic grasp of history and the facts...

 

[rhodescholar]

What fascist government?

Iran is a democracy just the same as the United States.

Sorry sweetie, but this is trolling, and I won't take the bait. For the adults, read this:

Politics of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Supreme Leader of Iran

Although he remains aloof from the competition of politics, the most powerful political office in the Islamic Republic is that of the Supreme Leader, of which there have been two: the founder of the Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and his successor, Ali Khamenei.

The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts - the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[9]"

 

[mememe]

Yes, all of the US' foreign policy has been a failure, just ask the Germans, Japanese, Europeans on whose land Americans are buried fighting TWO FUCKING wars to save their asses ...

...

Let’s not go down melodramatic road. The US industrial and financial elite was making money by supporting allies as well as Hitler and fuelling WW2 from before it started up until 1944! Despite the fact America was officially at war with axis and Americans were dying fighting Hitler. How sick is that?

Your former president comes from a family that was using slaves from the concentration camps!

From an article written by Paul Plaganis (Legislative Representative T.C.U. District #861 Albany, NY) based on a report presented to the Committee of the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, United States Senate, February 26, 1974, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1974, pp. 16-24.
“In 1938 Ford opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....

in September 1939 GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3- ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system."....

After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing...Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...” Henry Ford Supplied Hitler!
“Henry Ford… not only did he develop the assembly-line method the Germans used to kill Jews, but he launched a vicious anti-Semitic campaign that helped the Holocaust happen.”
“Ford vehicles were crucial to the revolutionary Nazi military strategy of blitzkrieg. Of the 350,000 trucks used by the motorized German Army as of 1942, roughly one-third were Ford-made. The Schneider report states that when American troops reached the European theater, "Ford trucks prominently present in the supply lines of the Wehrmacht were understandably an unpleasant sight to men in our Army." Indeed, the Cologne plant proved to be so important to the Reich's war effort that the Allies bombed it on several occasions. A secret 1944 US Air Force "Target Information Sheet" on the factory said that for the previous five years it had been "geared for war production on a high level."
“…the Nazis never nationalized Ford's German property… Dearborn maintained its 52 percent share through the duration of the war…. By 1943 half of Ford Werke's work force comprised foreign captives, including French, Russians, Ukrainians and Belgians. In August of 1944 a squad of SS men brought fifteen prisoners from the Buchenwald concentration camp to Ford Werke.”
Major U.S. multi-nationals were also very well represented in the later Heinrich Himmler Circle and made cash contributions to the S.S. (the Sonder Konto S) up to 1944 — while World War II was in progress.
Henry Ford
“George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany….
Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world. ..
More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz.” How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian

 

[mememe]

The support of the taliban was a choice made at the time to fight against the greater enemy, Russia. Hindsight is always better than 20/20, a concept you seem unable to grasp.

...

So was it a failure then?

DO NOT go there, the choice to conduct an invasion of Honshu which would have cost over 2 million japanese lives, and several hundred thousand US troops', was the better option?

...

You are going by the assumption that such invasion was necessary. The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki for two reasons:
1. after the bombings the USSR participation in the Far East became unnecessary;
2. it demonstrated to the USSR what could happen to it.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply the first victims of the Cold War.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The election in Iran was won by Ahmadinejad fair and square.

The people of Iran know that they have a great leader and a patriot who cares about his citizens and country.

I onlt wish the U.S. had politicians as faithful and dedicated to America as he is to Iran.

Interesting that Iran practices the same kind of politics that they do in Chicago. We now know two politicians you support.

"Under Iran’s tangled, quasi-democratic system, however, voters do not have the final say in elections. The ultimate responsibility for the outcomes of elections falls to two unelected entities -- The Guardian Council and the Interior Ministry -- that are not directly responsible to the Iranian people. Both institutions are packed with Ahmadinejad partisans. Both also have a track record of meddling in elections."

In the 1999 parliamentary elections, for example, the Guardian Council annulled about 700,000 votes cast by Tehran residents in order to ensure the election of a favored hardliner candidate. And in the 2005 presidential election, the council, acting in tandem with the Revolutionary Guards Corps, reportedly engineered irregularities -- including voter-intimidation and ballot-stuffing -- that enabled a then-obscure hardliner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to win the presidency."
EurasiaNet Civil Society - Iran: Ahmadinejad Backers Lay Groundwork for Massive Vote-Rigging

And this:
"To lend vote-rigging an air of religious legitimacy, a prominent hardline cleric has reportedly issued a fatwa, or religious edict, that would condone fraud in the name of supposedly defending the spirit of the 1979 Islamic Revolution."

And:
" Ahmadinejad has signaled his intentions through the devastating use of corruption charges against some of his fiercest political foes. He aired his corruption allegations during televised presidential debates, thus assuring that the maximum number of Iranians would hear his attacks, without the accused having an ample opportunity to refute them or for observers to fact-check their accuracy...the head of state television and radio, Gen. Ezatollah Zarghami, denied Rafsanjani an opportunity to respond to the corruption allegations on television prior to election day...the Basij Militia’s involvement in the campaign on Ahmadinejad’s behalf. Meanwhile, a website run by conservative Revolutionary Guards elements recently published a directive, in which senior Revolutionary Guards commanders purportedly issued instructions to Basij operatives to mobilize turnout for an Ahmadinejad campaign rally. "
EurasiaNet Civil Society - Iran: Is Ahmadinejad Carrying Out a Coup?

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to enlighten you.

 

[mememe]

"Under Iran’s tangled, quasi-democratic system, ...

Iran has its own quasi-democratic system, US has its own quasi-democratic system, so what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Under Iran’s tangled, quasi-democratic system, ...

Iran has its own quasi-democratic system, US has its own quasi-democratic system, so what?

Your ignorance is showing.

 

[Sunni Man]

What fascist government?

Iran is a democracy just the same as the United States.

Sorry sweetie, but this is trolling, and I won't take the bait. For the adults, read this:

Politics of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Supreme Leader of Iran

Although he remains aloof from the competition of politics, the most powerful political office in the Islamic Republic is that of the Supreme Leader, of which there have been two: the founder of the Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and his successor, Ali Khamenei.

The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts - the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[9]"

So what's your point?

Our President (Leader) appoints the heads of many powerful posts.

All democracys, be it England, France, Spain, etc.

Have different ways their democracys work and governments function.

Iran's is unique and reflects their society and culture.

Just the same as say, Sweden or Japan's democracy is indictive of their society and culture.

 

[DiveCon]

What fascist government?

Iran is a democracy just the same as the United States.

Sorry sweetie, but this is trolling, and I won't take the bait. For the adults, read this:

Politics of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Supreme Leader of Iran

Although he remains aloof from the competition of politics, the most powerful political office in the Islamic Republic is that of the Supreme Leader, of which there have been two: the founder of the Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and his successor, Ali Khamenei.

The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts - the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[9]"

So what's your point?

Our President (Leader) appoints the heads of many powerful posts.

All democracys, be it England, France, Spain, etc.

Have different ways their democracys work and governments function.

Iran's is unique and reflects their society and culture.

Just the same as say, Sweden or Japan's democracy is indictive of their society and culture.

but he doesnt get to appoint who can run for the other political pffices

 

[mememe]

"Under Iran’s tangled, quasi-democratic system, ...

Iran has its own quasi-democratic system, US has its own quasi-democratic system, so what?

Your ignorance is showing.

I wouldn't call disregard for US propaganda "ignorance".

 

[mememe]

but he doesnt get to appoint who can run for the other political pffices

So? Regardless of the party in the W.House the US is run by your power elite. In Bush times it was oil mafia...

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Ok, here is what I don't understand:

There are elections in many countries in the world. Many times elections turn out violently. Many times people do not respect the results of the elections, from either side. Many times the opposition, even when they legitimately lose, refuse to accept the results. However, when does this happen? This usually happens in a close election. Take the huge disaster after the Kenyan elections in 2007, the margin of victory was 200,000 votes out of 10,000,000. Some might recall the last Mexican presidential election, where the losing side claimed irregularities and all sorts of trickery, and the losing party's (PRD) candidate said he'd fight through to the end, etc. That was a difference of a bit over 0.5% of the vote. It is usually in THESE sort of situations in which an opposition is loud, vociferous, and fighting tooth-and-nail for recounts and claiming fraud.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Who in their RIGHT MIND, knowing full well that they live in a more-than-imperfect democracy, and someone of stature, someone who knows the system and has worked in it, like the losing candidate Moussavi, who in their right mind would make all this noise about the elections if they had gotten absolutely, totally, completely CRUSHED? I mean, that is what keeps bugging me. Ahmedinejad has already said there could [see: would] be reprisals; "punishments". This Moussavi guy could seriously spend the rest of his life in a cell; he could get "disappeared" if he keeps saying the election was a sham. Why would anyone, unless they were insane, keep saying these things unless they really believe that they have great popular support? I mean, someone who got crushed by 2-to-1 would NOT be putting his life on the line. It wouldn't be worth it. And it's not just Moussavi, but the 100 opposition supporters that have already been imprisoned, the big street protests that are probably breaking out as we speak getting beaten by riot police? I don't doubt the possibility that Ahmedinejad might have won - how am I to know, I've never been to Iran, I don't know any "real" Iranians, only elite and expat Iranians, really - but 66% to 33% and madness ensues? 2 candidates openly calling to anul the election AFTER the SUPREME rulers have already "finalized" the election? Please. It just looks, sounds, and smells like election fraud, and if the election fraud is MEANT to make it look like a crushing defeat of reformism, there is little reason to go a bit further and doubt Ahmedinejad's win at ALL.

And that is fucked, because if the legitimacy of the democracy really deteriorated for a large segment of the population, it will be more unrest, and more police to quell the unrest and the same vicious cycle that we've seen develop in every place where repression is the only way to keep a regime afloat- it falls apart; it speeds up the process but makes it far bloodier than if internal elements move slowly toward reform.

What can be done from the outside? The wrong answer is military intervention, as some here [rhodescholar and others] would have you believe. That recommendation displays extreme short-sightedness. Military intervention against Iran would accomplish only two things- unite the country behind the regime and against the invader, and pretty much legitimize the regime's hardline international stance (i.e. everything it's been saying about the "foreign enemy"). If these protests continue, it will become obvious maybe not today or tomorrow but in the not-too-distant future that the Iranian people must and will solve this by themselves. Foreign intervention must help the democratizing forces inside the country but maintain a fair bit of distance lest the collusion itself becomes a point of contention. And well... for now we have to wait and see. Ideally, the protests would grow. But if it is indeed true that the results have delegitimized the regime in the eyes of a huge segment of the population (the majority if the opposition won, or a significant minority even if it lost), then the regime's days are counted, foreign intervention or not.

And well, that's my take on the issue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Iran has its own quasi-democratic system, US has its own quasi-democratic system, so what?

Your ignorance is showing.

I wouldn't call disregard for US propaganda "ignorance".

Many times one with limited knowledge, yet having a desire to appear knowledgeable, uses vague terminology to accomplishe this goal.

Does the shoe fit?

 

[Care4all]

Ok, here is what I don't understand:

There are elections in many countries in the world. Many times elections turn out violently. Many times people do not respect the results of the elections, from either side. Many times the opposition, even when they legitimately lose, refuse to accept the results. However, when does this happen? This usually happens in a close election. Take the huge disaster after the Kenyan elections in 2007, the margin of victory was 200,000 votes out of 10,000,000. Some might recall the last Mexican presidential election, where the losing side claimed irregularities and all sorts of trickery, and the losing party's (PRD) candidate said he'd fight through to the end, etc. That was a difference of a bit over 0.5% of the vote. It is usually in THESE sort of situations in which an opposition is loud, vociferous, and fighting tooth-and-nail for recounts and claiming fraud.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Who in their RIGHT MIND, knowing full well that they live in a more-than-imperfect democracy, and someone of stature, someone who knows the system and has worked in it, like the losing candidate Moussavi, who in their right mind would make all this noise about the elections if they had gotten absolutely, totally, completely CRUSHED? I mean, that is what keeps bugging me. Ahmedinejad has already said there could [see: would] be reprisals; "punishments". This Moussavi guy could seriously spend the rest of his life in a cell; he could get "disappeared" if he keeps saying the election was a sham. Why would anyone, unless they were insane, keep saying these things unless they really believe that they have great popular support? I mean, someone who got crushed by 2-to-1 would NOT be putting his life on the line. It wouldn't be worth it. And it's not just Moussavi, but the 100 opposition supporters that have already been imprisoned, the big street protests that are probably breaking out as we speak getting beaten by riot police? I don't doubt the possibility that Ahmedinejad might have won - how am I to know, I've never been to Iran, I don't know any "real" Iranians, only elite and expat Iranians, really - but 66% to 33% and madness ensues? 2 candidates openly calling to anul the election AFTER the SUPREME rulers have already "finalized" the election? Please. It just looks, sounds, and smells like election fraud, and if the election fraud is MEANT to make it look like a crushing defeat of reformism, there is little reason to go a bit further and doubt Ahmedinejad's win at ALL.

And that is fucked, because if the legitimacy of the democracy really deteriorated for a large segment of the population, it will be more unrest, and more police to quell the unrest and the same vicious cycle that we've seen develop in every place where repression is the only way to keep a regime afloat- it falls apart; it speeds up the process but makes it far bloodier than if internal elements move slowly toward reform.

What can be done from the outside? The wrong answer is military intervention, as some here [rhodescholar and others] would have you believe. That recommendation displays extreme short-sightedness. Military intervention against Iran would accomplish only two things- unite the country behind the regime and against the invader, and pretty much legitimize the regime's hardline international stance (i.e. everything it's been saying about the "foreign enemy"). If these protests continue, it will become obvious maybe not today or tomorrow but in the not-too-distant future that the Iranian people must and will solve this by themselves. Foreign intervention must help the democratizing forces inside the country but maintain a fair bit of distance lest the collusion itself becomes a point of contention. And well... for now we have to wait and see. Ideally, the protests would grow. But if it is indeed true that the results have delegitimized the regime in the eyes of a huge segment of the population (the majority if the opposition won, or a significant minority even if it lost), then the regime's days are counted, foreign intervention or not.

And well, that's my take on the issue.

And a pretty well thought out "take" on the issue...as we always have said, Democracy or rebellion against ones government, needs to come from within....and this seems to be heading in that direction...

 

[Nik]

Ok, here is what I don't understand:

There are elections in many countries in the world. Many times elections turn out violently. Many times people do not respect the results of the elections, from either side. Many times the opposition, even when they legitimately lose, refuse to accept the results. However, when does this happen? This usually happens in a close election. Take the huge disaster after the Kenyan elections in 2007, the margin of victory was 200,000 votes out of 10,000,000. Some might recall the last Mexican presidential election, where the losing side claimed irregularities and all sorts of trickery, and the losing party's (PRD) candidate said he'd fight through to the end, etc. That was a difference of a bit over 0.5% of the vote. It is usually in THESE sort of situations in which an opposition is loud, vociferous, and fighting tooth-and-nail for recounts and claiming fraud.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Who in their RIGHT MIND, knowing full well that they live in a more-than-imperfect democracy, and someone of stature, someone who knows the system and has worked in it, like the losing candidate Moussavi, who in their right mind would make all this noise about the elections if they had gotten absolutely, totally, completely CRUSHED? I mean, that is what keeps bugging me. Ahmedinejad has already said there could [see: would] be reprisals; "punishments". This Moussavi guy could seriously spend the rest of his life in a cell; he could get "disappeared" if he keeps saying the election was a sham. Why would anyone, unless they were insane, keep saying these things unless they really believe that they have great popular support? I mean, someone who got crushed by 2-to-1 would NOT be putting his life on the line. It wouldn't be worth it. And it's not just Moussavi, but the 100 opposition supporters that have already been imprisoned, the big street protests that are probably breaking out as we speak getting beaten by riot police? I don't doubt the possibility that Ahmedinejad might have won - how am I to know, I've never been to Iran, I don't know any "real" Iranians, only elite and expat Iranians, really - but 66% to 33% and madness ensues? 2 candidates openly calling to anul the election AFTER the SUPREME rulers have already "finalized" the election? Please. It just looks, sounds, and smells like election fraud, and if the election fraud is MEANT to make it look like a crushing defeat of reformism, there is little reason to go a bit further and doubt Ahmedinejad's win at ALL.

And that is fucked, because if the legitimacy of the democracy really deteriorated for a large segment of the population, it will be more unrest, and more police to quell the unrest and the same vicious cycle that we've seen develop in every place where repression is the only way to keep a regime afloat- it falls apart; it speeds up the process but makes it far bloodier than if internal elements move slowly toward reform.

What can be done from the outside? The wrong answer is military intervention, as some here [rhodescholar and others] would have you believe. That recommendation displays extreme short-sightedness. Military intervention against Iran would accomplish only two things- unite the country behind the regime and against the invader, and pretty much legitimize the regime's hardline international stance (i.e. everything it's been saying about the "foreign enemy"). If these protests continue, it will become obvious maybe not today or tomorrow but in the not-too-distant future that the Iranian people must and will solve this by themselves. Foreign intervention must help the democratizing forces inside the country but maintain a fair bit of distance lest the collusion itself becomes a point of contention. And well... for now we have to wait and see. Ideally, the protests would grow. But if it is indeed true that the results have delegitimized the regime in the eyes of a huge segment of the population (the majority if the opposition won, or a significant minority even if it lost), then the regime's days are counted, foreign intervention or not.

And well, that's my take on the issue.

There is a shit ton of evidence that this one was fraudulent tho. Add that to the power of the internet, and this is what you get.