The "Obama Effect" in the Middle East + Elections in Iran tomorrow

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Most Iranians will never vote again... the youth of that country has been dealt a demoralizing blow. Mousavi clearly won the election, because all of that extra turnout was young and youngish people who have never voted before. Fucking Iran doesn't allow international monitoring of their elections so the world will never know what the vote really was.

And you know they will never vote again based on ...?

On what basis can you assert Mousavi 'clearly won' ... because he claims to have won?

Last I checked, the US does not allow international monitoring of US elections ... and as I recall more than a few allegations of 'irregularities' about US elections have been made here. Or can the US be so 'trusted' to uphold [its] democratic principles, it doesn't need checking up on?

This election emboldens hardliners all over the world.

Like they need an incentive.

This is bad, REALLY bad. Obama's chance for diplomacy is gone.

It's certainly bad if you voted for Mousavi, it's quite likely bad if you're in an ethnic minority, or a woman too.

Not that Iran's president has all that much power, but he could have made meaningful negotiations possible, put a kinder face on Iran's public image, open up the media in that country and make it easier for the youth to be themselves in their own country.

Indeed, so what makes you so certain that had Mousavi won he would have been allowed to make radical changes. Putting a kind face on something is irrelevant, it's what happens that matters. Standing on a pro reform platform is no guarantee of actual reform, and remember Mousavi used to be PM, good or bad, he knows the reality.

Now the options for the U.S. have shrunk down to almost nothing.

From ... almost almost nothing? This changes nothing, for all practical purposes, the situation remains the same as yesterday, with the same [lack of] options.

America could probably stike the shit out of Iran's leadership at this moment of social and political unrest and then put Mousavi directly in power. Maybe the youth of Iran would LIKE to see the Revolutionary guard destroyed.

How exactly ... harsh words about [alleged] election fraud. If the US were seen to meddle in internal Iranian politics ... well I hope you're not that naive.

I'm sure a great many would like to see the RG destroyed. I'd imagine rather fewer would like to see their nation or its infractructure destroyed along with it - because that's what it would likely take.

I now have to agree with the supporters of Israel. The time to strike Iran is now... the iron is as hot as can be.

So, because an election doesn't go the way 'you' would have liked, it's time to invade/attack/threaten/undermine. Hmm ... that sounds familiar ... I wonder which nation(s) have employed that tactic before, and been pilloried for it.

Perhaps allowing the dust to settle may be advisable, before 'locking and loading' ... perhaps?
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,695
Media
14
Likes
1,929
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, those were calm words Dong, I appreciate them and feel a little better after your reality check. Iranians were interviewed and had said in the interviews that they will never vote again, I wasn't making that up... and many people that were interviewed said that they simply didn't know anyone who voted for Ahmadinejad. The huge turnout and the youth voting would have put Mousavi over the top. The chances of him having the most votes are pretty damn good. It is the disabling of the text messaging system and the conspicuous appearances of the revolutionary guard in the streets that are bothering me. It seems like a crackdown.

Israel is just gonna nuke them one day if something isn't done. Maybe that's the best outcome, but it sounds absolutely horrible to me. But I agree with you that any military option would be messy and could easily backfire completely.

What would you do if you were president of the United States Dong? You are surely as intelligent if not more so than many of our presidents.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Well, those were calm words Dong, I appreciate them and feel a little better after your reality check. Iranians were interviewed and had said in the interviews that they will never vote again, I wasn't making that up... and many people that were interviewed said that they simply didn't know anyone who voted for Ahmadinejad. The huge turnout and the youth voting would have put Mousavi over the top. The chances of him having the most votes are pretty damn good. It is the disabling of the text messaging system and the conspicuous appearances of the revolutionary guard in the streets that are bothering me. It seems like a crackdown.

I'm sure a great many did say that but consider:

  • Many feel 'cheated' (they may be right).
  • For many this was their first chance to vote, and to 'lose' is never a rewarding sensation.
  • Many (see 2) are young, they tend to overreact.
  • Many will be playing up to western media.
Those who say they know 'noone' who voted for Ahmadinejad are as likely to be reflecting what many would say anywhere - based on their friends and family - people with similar ideal tend to mix so perhaps if one asked those who did vote for Ahmadinejad, perhaps they may say they know of 'noone' who voted for Mousavi.

In other words, it's an emotive time, I would ask the same questions a week or a month from now and see what they answers are then. I'd wager that many will say they will vote again, because a) Ahmadinejad cannot be re-elected and b) because that's the way it [regime change] should happen.

I have also read reports of police action against 'peaceful' demostrations/rallies, but then such actions occur in our nations too, don't they?

Israel is just gonna nuke them one day if something isn't done. Maybe that's the best outcome, but it sounds absolutely horrible to me. But I agree with you that any military option would be messy and could easily backfire completely.

Perhaps, but let that be Israel's decision, and the fallout [literally, perhaps] Israel's responsibility.

What would you do if you were president of the United States Dong? You are surely as intelligent if not more so than many of our presidents.


I'm sure of only one thing, in this case any solution will not come at gunpoint. I see three real choices:
  1. Attack ... and I don't mean tickling with a few smart bombs
  2. Engage/negotiate (carrot and stick)
  3. Ignore/stare down/call bluff
These seem pretty much mutually exclusive, to me.

I think 1 would be a disaster, for generations. I think 2 has been tried (albeit largely without sincerity) over the years but in the real world is the only way - even if the end result isn't what many would wish for.

I think 3 is also viable, at least in the short term (a political shoulder shrug - I'd advocate this approach with NK too). It would then depend on who blinked first.

Israel would never go for 3, it's not in their nature and they have far more to lose than the US ... as in their existence (if Iran isn't bluffing, or perhaps even if it is).

The fallback to 2 and 3 is of course 1. Which is where we came in. If the best political minds (if that's not something of a contradiction in terms) have not solved this, I doubt I could.

Personally, I'd kick both sides soundly up the ass, suggest they stop posturing and behave like adults with a problem to solve. Seriously, somtimes it's like two bald men squabbling over a comb.

Then, I'd lock them in a windowless room, armed only with a notepad and a pen (the pen is ...) - allow only endless reruns of daytime TV, a background soundtrack of running water and each other for sensory input until they signed up to a solution, or killed each other, or themselves - at this point either works for me.

But then, I have nothing but disdain for career politics. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,815
Points
333
Location
Greece
Sadly, we will never likely know.

Personally it smells to me, and add to this the connivance of the entire machinery of State to have made it happen, suggests difficult times to come.
 

thirteenbyseven

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Posts
2,434
Media
0
Likes
1,542
Points
333
Location
Orange County, SoCal
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
sparky,

I don't know too much about the fraud potential in Iran, but the streets are on fire (figuatively speaking) -- with tens of thousands of mostly younger voters waving banners and chanting for "change" in the streets of Tehran. The streets look like Mardi Gras. Mir-Hossein Mousavi has a real chance of unseating Ahmadinejad.

Anyway, I'm seeing thousands of guys and girls filling up the streets and honking horns and waving signs. It seems festive and momentous. Some of the girls are even without a headdress.


I realize this post is like Monday morning quarterbacking after a Super Bowl, but my cynical American reaction to the Ahmadinejad landslide victory was, "this is the best the C.I.A and the Mossad can do to effect the outcome of an election?" Somewhere deep in the bowels of a Washington think tank there must have been some graying early 70's graduate of Kent State University that thought "we'll use the forces of the youth movement, that universally historical political weapon in every regime overthrow. Then we'll piss off the Iranian women by creating a new Iranian feminist rock star..."

Unfortunately all they had was this wife and grandmother of Ahmadinejad's opponent, Zahra Rahnavard, who was hardly a Carla Bruni or Michelle Obama. Even the Western (or Zionist controlled media if you are of that opinion) couldn't generate all that much enthusiasm for her although they tried. Zahra Rahnavard doesn't have the cache of a radical feminist like the late Betty Freidan or a leader of nations like Golda Meir. If you really want to rally women behind you, you need someone to deliver a rip-snorting speech to the nation's women that "we're not going to put-out for men unless there are some big changes, like the right to drive a car and control the household finances. And while we're at it we want you guys to shave off those stupid beards and take us out whenever we want." On that score Zahra Rahnavard was pathetic.

Point number two: Did you ever stop and think how all those students suddenly appeared out of thin air? Who were the rally leaders and where did they come from? I suspect at least some of them had a little help from the outside to organize those last minute banner waving and chanting crowds against Ahmadinejad. The cynical side of me also thinks Bijan, the enthusiastic Teheran twentysomething I saw on TV who spoke perfect English got his cues from Murray Schwartz over in Tel Aviv.

Here in good 'ol Southern California KABC-TV (our channel 7) was interviewing Iranians voting absentee. Surprise of surprises; every one of them voted against Ahmadinejad. You would think the laws of averages would favor at least one Iranian in greater Los Angeles who would say on camera that the current President of Iran was one way-cool dude who deserved another term. Of course that would have sent the executives of "Western Zionist" Disney-owned ABC into cardiac arrest. :biggrin1:
 
Last edited:

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
282
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Thanks, Face, I agree that the media is biased to conservatives. Otherwise, why do liberals have to engage in fake 'controversies' like "Is Obama a secret Muslim" that the MSM encourages. We really should just say, "that is baseless and moronic" and move on.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... CNN, CBS, NPR, NBC and the Associated Press have been right leaning for decades... the media with the viewership we're talking here... not bloggers you are trying to stereotype.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
282
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
And if you believe that result was NOT manipulated you are very naive.


I thought, they way Willtom treats Obama like a messiah (seriously, actually) he woulda fixed that too. What was the point of the whole thread?

Dipshits like you.. who when things don't turn out the way you want... cry foul, but if it goes well... it's the "Obama Effect". STFU.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
282
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripod http://www.lpsg.org/137244-obama-effect-middle-east-elections-2.html#post2177473http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
This election emboldens hardliners all over the world.

Like they need an incentive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripod http://www.lpsg.org/137244-obama-effect-middle-east-elections-2.html#post2177473http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
This is bad, REALLY bad. Obama's chance for diplomacy is gone.


Wait... I thought... all we needed to do was just taaaaaaaaaaaaaaalk to guys like Chavez and Aquavelvadad... it's about diplomacy.

About that stimulus package...
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I really do not know why anyone, believed the outcome would be any different than it was.

The Supreme Leader controls everything...and all the pie in the sky happiness and enthralled cheerleading by the ever hopeful WillTom on the first page, whose genuine desire for peace and goodwill and actual belief in, i applaud, even if it is totally unreachable not to mention naive when considering the country it is being applied to.

It is precisely this type of naivety with regard to the Iranian issue, that had me making snide comments back in the desperately optimistic "Obama reaching out to Iran" thread.

It certainly was a nice try by Obama, but, ultimately futile, considering the situation.

it should be plainly obvious, to everyone now, what the intentions of the Iranian regime is...the one and only intention of all of this...is the drive for nuclear weapons. Khomeini and the Guardian Council controls everything, and they have been following the North Korean playbook from day one, of how to keep stringing the world along while never seriously considering agreement.

Outreach and negotiation have officially failed.

Obama is going to have to strike iran militarily, because if he does not, the Israelis will.

The way this election is being interpreted by the Israeli public and more importantly, in the upper levels of the Israeli Government, military and intelligence echelons, right now, is really rather obvious and simple. There is now no way out, and if the USA does not act within a couple of months there is no other choice

Khomeni has and had no intention of letting anything, even an election, interfere with his plans going forward for nuclear weapons. The IRGC and the police and the militias in the country were and are out in force, to keep tight and total control over the citizens in the aftermath of this obvious outcome.

This should be interpreted in no other way, by Obama and the state department as anything other than a total refutation of any outreach, and confirmation that Iran is saying to the US that there is nothing we can do to stop them reaching their goal of nuclear weapons and the influence and power those weapons will give them in the region.

We have no other choice now.

We must unleash a massive conventional attack, on all the numerous facilities of the Iranian nuclear program, and they are indeed numerous, ranging from research centers, to reactors, to even university research sites, etc. etc...in addition, we must unleash a massive attack no the IRGC, all its bases, both army, navy and air force, as well as all the intelligence and defense facilities of the nation.

there is no other way....because iif we do not wipe them out with a massive conventional bomb and missile attack, the Israelis, who do not have the capability for a massive onslaught, will choose the most effective possible attack, since they know they will likely only get 1 shot. The most effective attack, is with low-yield nukes, and the likelihood of that, IMO, is around 50%

Do not ever underestimate the Israelis possible reactions, as this is the most dangerous and existential threat Israel has faced since the Yom Kippur War, and for those not familiar with the events of that fall, when Egyptian and Syrian armor smashed through in the Sinai and on the Golan, the IDF reserves were a long way from ready to mobilize, the active ground force on the borders had been over run, and the Israeli Air Force suffered devastating losses in the Sinai because of the Soviet supplied SAM's to the Egytians...

within 48 hours, Moshe Dayan told Prime Minister Golda Meir that “this is the end of the third temple" (the impending destruction of the jewish state) and Israel went on only its second ever nuclear alert....the "black squadron" (a special squadron of IAF F-4's outfitted to carry the nuclear payload) went on full alert at Tel Nof airbase. At the same time, the IDF's Jericho missile base at Zachariah, went on full alert, and nuclear artillery shells were prepared to target Damascus.

Now, that occurred after 48 hours of a dire situation, when Israeli reserves had been fully mobilized and begun to push back and stabilize the situation, yet Israel was still on nuclear alert throughout the next week, even as the counterattacks drove back the Syrians of the Golan, and Surrounded and cut off the Egyptian 3rd army in the Sinai.

so now, how do you think the Israelis are going to react, to an enemy who has threatened them with extinction, having the possibility of delivering a nuclear warhead (or several) to Israel in under 20 minutes?

The Israelis simply cannot, and will not live under that threat.


So the question is...based on how we now watch North Korea act, now that they have the bomb, are willing to watch Iran do the same thing?

two psychotic regimes playing nuclear brinskmanship like it is a game of checkers whenever they want something?

It really comes down now, to two choices. When ISrael has gone on nuclear alerts in the past, it is not to scare the Arabs, who are already scared...it is to motivate the US to act, whether by resupply in 1967 and 1973 or by scud hunting in 1990-1991.

It is Israel's way of saying to the USA "handle it your way or we will handle it our way".

So, we are now faced with the ultimate question. an Israeli conventional strike on certain Iranian targets will do nothing other than merely slowing developement of the nuclear weapons.

since they do not have the option of merely delaying the problem, a conventional strike is a poor option.

the Israelis using low yield nukes, is there way of dealing the type of damage to the Iranian nuclear program that we (USA) can deal rather easilty with our conventional forces, without going nuclear.

so, it is up to us. Do we want to be the ones to deal the massive, though conventional destruction of the entire Iranian nuclear program and affiliated targets, with our precision munitions, and ability to limit collateral damage, or, do we want the Israeli's to do it their way?

That is the question Obama must face, and no matter what he says, or how he threatens and pressures Netanyahu, ultimately, when faced with the grave decision, Netanyahu's duty is the protection of the state of Israel, not to be gracious and subservient to Obama.

Netanyahu used to serve in Sayeret Matkal, as did Ehud Barak...and nothing that someone like Obama says, who knows nothing about fighting for one's life or facing existential destruction will deter either of them

Obama is now between the proverbial rock and a hard place. There are only two choices, and both are military.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,256
Media
213
Likes
32,282
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I thought, they way Willtom treats Obama like a messiah (seriously, actually) he woulda fixed that too. What was the point of the whole thread?

Dipshits like you.. who when things don't turn out the way you want... cry foul, but if it goes well... it's the "Obama Effect". STFU.
Does calling me a dipshit or telling me to STFU in some way make you feel better? I thought this was an Adult website. I guess I as wrong.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Flashy does make a good point, I think he's overly alarmist [and biased] but that's his way when it comes to Israel. I understand why that is, but it doesn't change my view.



Let's indulge him with a little worst case scenario-ing. To me, the issues are about risk (real or perceived):
  • Will Iran risk destruction in the persuit of Nuclear weapons?
  • Will Israel risk destruction by doing nothing?
  • Will the US risk offering millions (a significant proportion of those who already hold her in contempt) an open invitation to attack any and all targets, anywhere?
  • Does the US have more to gain or more to lose by leaving Israel to deal with this situation Israel's way?
  • If the US attacks what's the likely resulting scenario ... NK attacks South Korea or Japan? If so, where will the US decide to prioritise - it can't defend them all?
  • Pakistan may soon fall to the Taliban, such an action as Flashy advocates would simply catalyse that process, and the Taliban may well then seek to attack Afghanistan with captured Pakistani Nuclear weapons - assuming Delhi didn't flatten them with their own first, that is.
That would likely bring China and Russia into the fray (oil pipelines, border security, pride ... etc). Is the US ready to take on them too?

Back to brass tacks; if Israel attacks Iran - unilaterally, or in concert with the US it faces annihilation. They may want to go down fighting, who can blame them, but it's likely they would go down.

The question is; does the US want to try to save Israel at any cost - because IMO, if Israel attacks, it can't. Thus I would ask - should the US even try?

OK, let's dial back the tension a few notches. Assume Iran aquires nuclear weapons, will she use them offensively - has North Korea which has had them for some years done so - despite the threats and grandstanding? Most of this is based on assumptions rooted in capability wrapped in bias. Iran (and NK) want the rule book rewritten the same way it was for India and Pakistan.

Iran [and NK] need a way to stop from waking up one day to find the 82nd airborne in their front yard, looking to kick the door down and steal the family silver. Joining the big boys toys club is an effective means to acheive that end.

I have no problem with that motivation. I do have a problem with the means - because I think such weapons are, literally a disaster looking for somewhere to happen.

Of course in the mind of Flashy (et al) mere possession is evidence of intent, but let's also remember that in the entire history of such weapons only one nation has fired one (two, actually) in anger. If Iran wanted nuclear weapons she could obtain them easily enough, at a cost - if she hasn't already.

Flashy is quite right on one thing, it is a game and the stakes are high, even for those with a [theoretical] winning hand.

Back to the doom and gloom ...

Israel is the key to this, and if I were 'Obama', and I couldn't talk Tel Aviv down, I'd cut Israel loose and I'd do so publically and unequivocally. It's quite possibly the only way to 'save' the US, perhaps a lot more. I know that sounds cowardly, a betrayal of an ally etc - and I suppose it is - but the US will [and always has] act[ed] in the US' best interests.

Being drawn into the shitstorm that would likely result from nuclear weapons use in the Mid East doesn't seem to fit that criterion too well, IMO.

I know it sounds harsh and selfish (because it is), but is a [likely] futile attempt to save Israel worth the destruction that might result?

I don't believe this comes down to the US - at least not once the music stops, I believe it comes down to Israel. Centuries of history have shown there can be no military solution in the middle east - only military action.

Meanwhile, the Iranian people have more pressing concerns than Flashy's 'paranoia', they have taken to the streets to express them.
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,815
Points
333
Location
Greece
Outreach and negotiation have officially failed.

Obama is going to have to strike iran militarily, because if he does not, the Israelis will.

And we will let Israel die.

Not because we want to, but because there is a longer term game to be played.

Actually, it isn't a game. Perhaps if more realised this.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
282
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I really do not know why anyone, believed the outcome would be any different than it was

...

Obama is now between the proverbial rock and a hard place. There are only two choices, and both are military.

Seriously... get a bit of polish on this... and you should be posting on Huffpost or RealPoli or one of the legit sites.. you put far too much concise and well-written rhetoric (regardless of opposing opinion) on LPSG (unless you are hopefully posting elsewhere, and just pasting here)... somewhere far more constructive than here.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Iran erupts(and rightly so)
Revolutionary Road...

So it would appear ... But remember, this isn't Iran's first false dawn or organised anti Ahmadinejad protests.

Recall, if you will; '99, '03, '05, '07 ... The question is really one of how long it will be 'tolerated' before being suppressed, again. One should also consider that [some] of this may not be exactly as it appears to be, one must also consider the demographic of the protestors.

If this 'election' has achieved anything with potentially lasting import, it is to further widen an existing crack, along ethnic lines. This is perhaps the issue to watch, not privileged, westernised middle class students protesting their conscience in the streets of the Capital, excellent tabloid fodder though it is.

To gain traction, and actually acheive anything beyond a few cracked skulls, these protests must rapidly extend beyond Tehran - to Mashad and Isfahan, that there's little or no evidence of this [to my knowledge] suggests events in Tehran are a token gesture, although I hope I'm wrong. Pardon my cynicism.

Mousavi has a brief window of opportunity, perhaps - if indeed we're to take events at face value.

In one sense, the result is perhaps less important than the process. For example, Mousavi could not have pulled a 180 on the Iranian nuclear programme, even had he wanted to (which I don't believe he did) he would have his strings pulled the same as Ahmadinejad.