PDA

View Full Version : Hassan Rohani is Iran's next president. What will change?



Absinthe Anecdote
06-15-2013, 08:48 PM
I think most Iran watchers will agree that the political power structure in Iran is one of the most intricate and confusing in the world.

The office of the Iranian president is nothing like the office in the US as he has no real official power or role in foreign affairs. I have often heard the role of the Iranian president compared to that of a state governor in the US.
None-the-less, this recent election has a lot of people scratching their heads in light of what happened in their 2009 elections.

It seems the popular candidate actually won! I don’t know if this means that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards were afraid to cheat again or if something deeper is going on.

Below is a pretty good article from CSM:

Hassan Rohani is Iran's next president. What will change?
Political moderate Hassan Rohani defeated a host of conservative challengers to win Iran's presidency. His style is a sharp contrast with that of outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / June 15, 2013 at 11:27 am EDT

Politically moderate cleric Hassan Rohani won a first-round victory in Iran’s presidential election, a stunning result that heralds change – both in tone, and almost certainly in substance – for the Islamic Republic.

Mr. Rohani, a former nuclear negotiator, polled three times as many votes as his nearest rival to garner 50.71 percent of all ballots cast, enough to avoid an expected runoff. He faced down a host of conservatives in Friday’s vote, stating at the ballot box that he had “come to destroy extremism.”

Rohani built his campaign around promises to ease Iran’s tensions with the West, end international sanctions, allow greater freedom of the press and reduce government interference in private lives. Ahead of the vote many said that Rohani’s candidacy was little more than window dressing, permitted by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to boost turnout among disillusioned Iranians and erase memories of the violent, fraud-tainted 2009 election.
But with the cleric now officially Iran's president-elect, after capitalizing on discontent within the electorate and divisions in the conservative camp, Khamenei may be as surprised as anyone about the result. The surge for Rohani began just 72 hours before the vote – fueled by endorsements from former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani – and has now shocked Khamenei and the rest of the conservative establishment.

There is shock, too, for all those Iranians who planned to boycott the election because they considered their votes “useless” in a rigged system, yet voted anyway – pushing official turnout to roughly 72 percent – and found their choice accurately reflected in the result.

“The Climax of a Political Epic – World was Stunned Again,” proclaimed the hardline Kayhan newspaper. One Iranian Tweet distilled the surprise: “Four years ago today we were on the street in disbelief, chanting ‘Where is my vote?’ This is a different kind of disbelief.”

Khamenei had called for a large turnout to defeat Iran’s “enemies,” and to restore legitimacy to an Islamic system tarnished by Iran's fraud-tainted 2009 election, which brought millions of Iranians to the streets in weeks of protest that were violently crushed amid chants of “Death to the Dictator!”

Iranian pendulum
“What we are seeing is a swing of the pendulum, with a clear understanding of what happened before,” says Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the University of Hawaii. Critical was the ability of Mr. Khatami and Mr. Rafsanjani to work together, “prodded by…the rank and file in the provinces” to do something “no matter how flawed [the election] is."

“Once they became convinced that conservative forces have a stake in running an adequately fair election – a proper election, in terms of its mechanism – then the game became extremely political and strategic. It worked, and one has to give kudos to two former presidents who now are leaders of the country, because they have proven they can mobilize voters,” she says.

In the months prior to the vote, the regime insisted that the “sedition” of 2009 would not be repeated. Journalists were arrested or harassed months ago. Revolutionary Guard commanders issued warnings against interference at home and abroad.

The 686 people who registered to run were whittled down to just eight candidates by the Guardian Council, which disqualified Rafsanjani as well as the chosen successor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose second term ends in August.

Khamenei and other elements of the ruling system made clear their preference that one of the six hardline contenders should win. Among them are the popular Tehran mayor Mahammed Baqr Qalibaf and current nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. Against such well-known opponents close to the Supreme Leader, Rohani was given little hope.

But events combined to provide the “hope” and “prudence” that were the catchwords of his campaign. Conservatives were divided, their votes split among themselves. And after a third televised debate – in which Rohani claimed he had “never lied” to the Iranian people – fellow reformist candidate Mohammad Reza Aref withdrew from the race. High-profile endorsements began to pile-up and Rohani began to ride the crest of a popular surge.
“We are seeing again that the Islamic Republic is a wizard at turning the elections into an event, and always provides us with a surprise,” says a mother in Tehran, who had vowed not to cast a "worthless" vote before the election.
Today she marvels that the vote count was “so measured and meticulous” compared to 2009, and quipped that her “jaw is hurting from repeated falling motion, chest getting bruised... this election is merely an indication that maybe the Leader is feeling less bloody-minded after learning a hard lesson through his selection of Ahmadinejad [in 2005 and 2009] and is now ready to be more pragmatic to save the Islamic system."

Hardliners and blame

Hardliners did not blame Khamenei for the result, but in some cases themselves. An editorial today in Tabnak, which is run by candidate and former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohsen Rezaei, explained the loss under the
headline: “Why is defeat necessary?"

“People of Iran said no to fundamentalists because they were unhappy about the way the country was being managed and were hurt because of it,” Tabnak said. Iranians wanted a president who “does not only chant slogans inside and outside Iran and bring fundamentally negative changes to their lives.”

Votes were counted far more slowly than in 2009, when complete results were published by a semi-official news agency while the polls were still open, then taken down only to be re-posted with precisely the same numbers later.
The reformist candidates in that election, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, leaders of the so-called Green Movement who challenged the 2009 result and Khamenei, remain under house arrest in Tehran. The Supreme Leader said today’s result would help overcome the ghosts of 2009. Khamenei did not speak as ballots were being counted, but his office tweeted: “In 2009 was same excitement but w/ insults; this election has no disrespect. It’s valuable that we’ve progressed so much in 4 years.”

In another tweet, Khamenei said: “2009 unrests were all about to hurt [popular] base of Revolution while West propagandized 'people lost confidence.' No! People & System got mutual confidence.”
Rafsanjani appears to agree with him. Iranian media quoted the former president today saying it was the “most democratic election in the world and there are not flaws in the election.”

Gracious in victory and defeat

Overnight all six candidates issued a joint statement calling on their supporters not to demonstrate or make celebrations until the results were out. By late afternoon, Rohani had called on his supporters not to “gather against the law,” and that any gathering would only be after official announcements and with legal permission.

“If this result stands, the Western narrative stating that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the [Revolutionary Guard] are all-powerful needs to be revisited,” wrote Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, in an analysis from Washington. “Though hardliners remain in control of key aspects of Iran’s political system, the centrists and reformists have proven that even when the cards are stacked against them, they can still prevail due to their support among the population."

Mr. Parsi wrote that “Rohani will likely try to move to the middle now and be a unifying president.”
As voting was extended by five hours on Friday, there were noticeable differences compared to 2009. State TV channel IRIB broadcast that candidate representatives were allowed to stay in polling stations until the counting was done. The head of the election headquarters Seyed Solat Mortazavi last night said he would look into reports of Jalili campaign material being distributed at polling stations and “we will confront such behavior.” Journalists were not kicked out of the Interior Ministry as results were coming in, as they were in 2009.

“Now because people are so shocked, they think that Mr. Khamenei has planned all these things to reinvent the Islamic system,” says Farhi in Hawaii. Instead, the results illustrate that there is “real politics going on [across] contested political terrain” in Iran, which shows the limits of Khamenei’s ability to shape events. “The Islamic Republic has developed so many competing institutions, and competing political forces” that the consolidation of conservatives since 2005 was not likely to last, says Farhi.

“The policies of the last eight years so clearly failed, in terms of improving the lot of the Iranian population, that now there is an adjustment. If it didn’t happen, then there was something wrong.”
Yet Khamenei would have been as surprised as any at the Rohani victory. “[Khamenei] is the leader who made the decision in 2009 to come out and say publicly that his views are closer to Ahmadinejad. He identified himself not as the father of the nation, but as player in these things,” adds Farhi. “So he is paying for that political mistake,” she says. “Does this mean that he’s going to disappear, and the office of the Leader is not going to be powerful anymore? Absolutely not.”

(This story was updated after first posting to show that Rohani had won).

© The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.

Banned
06-15-2013, 09:35 PM
This is good news - hopefully good will come of it. As I've been saying, if we really want these third world countries to improve... leave them the hell alone and let the progressives within their own culture do their work. If we emplace sadistic sanctions, and/or bomb people... that only makes people hate us and empowers the extremists. I'm just glad that despite all the shit we give them, the moderates appear to still be gaining some momentum.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2013, 03:23 PM
This is good news - hopefully good will come of it. As I've been saying, if we really want these third world countries to improve... leave them the hell alone and let the progressives within their own culture do their work. If we emplace sadistic sanctions, and/or bomb people... that only makes people hate us and empowers the extremists. I'm just glad that despite all the shit we give them, the moderates appear to still be gaining some momentum.

I am not so sure that is exactly what is going on after reading a little more about Hassan Rohani. While he is considered a moderate, he is also most definitely a regime insider with ties to founders of the 1979 revolution and has worked a number of years on Iran’s nuclear program.

I think the most visible change we will see is that Rohani will not engage in the crazy rhetoric that Ahmadinejad is known for. I doubt we will see Rohani engage in holocaust denial and call for Israel’s destruction like Ahmadinejad would sometimes do. What I’ve read about Rohani is that he is a smooth talker and not a hot head and is a bit more educated and worldly in comparison to Ahmadinejad.

In short, I think we will see sound diplomacy on the tactical level but it is very much in doubt if the Iranians will shift their strategic diplomatic goals or nuclear ambitions.

I’m hoping he will be a positive influence on the internal political landscape in Iran but that might take a few years to play out.

We can hope for the best but Iranian politics and civil liberties are complex and confusing to outsiders like us.

I do agree with you that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards are more likely to lose power and influence if we leave them alone and let them fall on their own.

However, we really don’t want the Revolutionary Guards to have nuclear weapons, there is nothing good that can come from that.

Banned
06-16-2013, 03:28 PM
I am not so sure that is exactly what is going on after reading a little more about Hassan Rohani. While he is considered a moderate, he is also most definitely a regime insider with ties to founders of the 1979 revolution and has worked a number of years on Iran’s nuclear program.

I think the most visible change we will see is that Rohani will not engage in the crazy rhetoric that Ahmadinejad is known for. I doubt we will see Rohani engage in holocaust denial and call for Israel’s destruction like Ahmadinejad would sometimes do. What I’ve read about Rohani is that he is a smooth talker and not a hot head and is a bit more educated and worldly in comparison to Ahmadinejad.

In short, I think we will see sound diplomacy on the tactical level but it is very much in doubt if the Iranians will shift their strategic diplomatic goals or nuclear ambitions.

I’m hoping he will be a positive influence on the internal political landscape in Iran but that might take a few years to play out.

We can hope for the best but Iranian politics and civil liberties are complex and confusing to outsiders like us.

I do agree with you that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards are more likely to lose power and influence if we leave them alone and let them fall on their own.

However, we really don’t want the Revolutionary Guards to have nuclear weapons, there is nothing good that can come from that.

Getting nuclear weapons is just common sense. They would be idiots to NOT want nuclear weapons.

Iran's "strategic ambitions" as you call them seem pretty sound as well - build ties with other nations that can help them establish work-arounds past the embargo.

Bottom line - we are hypocrites for critiquing Iran. America is filled with Christian fanatics foaming at the mouth for the apocalypse, and we have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world - we need to look within our own borders for extremists with nukes!

Point is, its the job of Progressives in Iran to reign in their religious zealots - we should just focus on our own.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2013, 03:59 PM
Getting nuclear weapons is just common sense. They would be idiots to NOT want nuclear weapons.

Iran's "strategic ambitions" as you call them seem pretty sound as well - build ties with other nations that can help them establish work-arounds past the embargo.

Bottom line - we are hypocrites for critiquing Iran. America is filled with Christian fanatics foaming at the mouth for the apocalypse, and we have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world - we need to look within our own borders for extremists with nukes!

Point is, its the job of Progressives in Iran to reign in their religious zealots - we should just focus on our own.

Wow!

Do you really view world political affairs and our domestic situation in that manner?

Are you just being a flippant with your remarks and your actual views are more tempered?

Sure, I’ll agree that an Iranian diplomat should do what is best for Teheran but on the same token an American Diplomat should do what is best for Washington DC.

Our country isn’t always right but there is nothing wrong with looking out for our best interests either.

A nuclear armed Ayatollah isn’t in our best interest, trust me.

As far as Christian zealots in control of our nuclear arsenal, I’m not seeing that and remember, I’m an atheist.

Banned
06-16-2013, 04:22 PM
Wow!

Do you really view world political affairs and our domestic situation in that manner?

Are you just being a flippant with your remarks and your actual views are more tempered?

Sure, I’ll agree that an Iranian diplomat should do what is best for Teheran but on the same token an American Diplomat should do what is best for Washington DC.

Our country isn’t always right but there is nothing wrong with looking out for our best interests either.

A nuclear armed Ayatollah isn’t in our best interest, trust me.

As far as Christian zealots in control of our nuclear arsenal, I’m not seeing that and remember, I’m an atheist.

And that's exactly our problem - we need to get rid of this mindset that we need to manipulate and control everyone. I find it sad and pathetic that the USA is fighting so hard to destroy democracy movements in other parts of the world. This is a very destructive mindset. We need to get back to minding our own business, and quit acting like the whole world belongs to us.

Our hysteria over Iran is nothing but manufactored saber rattling.

As for the Christian zealots... I think there is a good chance that some time in the near future - next couple decades - the United States is going to nuke someone. The rhetoric and fear mongering in this country is just too strong - we're going to act on it sooner or later. We'll slaughter millions of people, and the Christians will cheer and praise "god's will".

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2013, 04:35 PM
And that's exactly our problem - we need to get rid of this mindset that we need to manipulate and control everyone. I find it sad and pathetic that the USA is fighting so hard to destroy democracy movements in other parts of the world. This is a very destructive mindset. We need to get back to minding our own business, and quit acting like the whole world belongs to us.

Our hysteria over Iran is nothing but manufactored saber rattling.

As for the Christian zealots... I think there is a good chance that some time in the near future - next couple decades - the United States is going to nuke someone. The rhetoric and fear mongering in this country is just too strong - we're going to act on it sooner or later. We'll slaughter millions of people, and the Christians will cheer and praise "god's will".

No offense but I was hoping to talk about Iran’s new president and his potential influence on Iranian foreign and domestic affairs. I’ll happily discuss the short comings of American foreign policy in another thread if you start one.

I think Rohani is an intriguing new political player and worthy of discussion.

Banned
06-16-2013, 04:43 PM
No offense but I was hoping to talk about Iran’s new president and his potential influence on Iranian foreign and domestic affairs. I’ll happily discuss the short comings of American foreign policy in another thread if you start one.

I think Rohani is an intriguing new political player and worthy of discussion.

Fair enough. So why do you hope he will end the nuclear program? He sounds like a moderate... not a moron.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2013, 07:24 PM
Fair enough. So why do you hope he will end the nuclear program? He sounds like a moderate... not a moron.

I don’t think Rohani will end Iran’s nuclear program, largely because he dedicated a portion of his life working on it.

My earlier comment on being hopeful was directed at what influence his mere presence on the Iranian political scene might have on the Iranian people to push for more civil liberties. I think if there are more moderate political figures (moderate on Iran’s domestic policies) in the Iranian government there is a better chance that a true civil rights movement will gain a foothold and possibly lead to the current regime’s demise. We will have to see if that plays out and it could take years to happen; although it almost did happen in 2009. I still think the biggest threat to the Ayatollah is the people in the streets of Iran.

On the international front I think that Rohani presents an even greater challenge to the West and Israel than Ahmadinejad ever did.

Take a look at what Israeli political pundits are already saying:

"Israel has lost an asset in Iran. That asset was Ahmedinejad. With his belligerent talk, he did the work for Israel by creating international consensus against Iran’s nuclear program," says Meir Javedanfar, a lecturer on Iranian politics at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, a college in a Tel Aviv suburb. "Now we have the anti-Ahmedinejad as a president: Someone who is moderate and talks about rapprochement. That means there is a change in Iran and it is probably going require a change in Israel regarding its narrative toward Iran."

Rohani appears to be a far more sophisticated diplomatic opponent to the West than Ahmedinejad.

The thing to remember is that the office of the Iranian president is focused more internally than abroad. Rohani doesn’t have ultimate power, the Ayatollah does. Again, I’m more interested what influence he will have on the will of the people to push for more freedoms, it will be interesting to see how that develops.

Banned
06-16-2013, 08:05 PM
I don’t think Rohani will end Iran’s nuclear program, largely because he dedicated a portion of his life working on it.

My earlier comment on being hopeful was directed at what influence his mere presence on the Iranian political scene might have on the Iranian people to push for more civil liberties. I think if there are more moderate political figures (moderate on Iran’s domestic policies) in the Iranian government there is a better chance that a true civil rights movement will gain a foothold and possibly lead to the current regime’s demise. We will have to see if that plays out and it could take years to happen; although it almost did happen in 2009. I still think the biggest threat to the Ayatollah is the people in the streets of Iran.

On the international front I think that Rohani presents an even greater challenge to the West and Israel than Ahmadinejad ever did.

Take a look at what Israeli political pundits are already saying:

"Israel has lost an asset in Iran. That asset was Ahmedinejad. With his belligerent talk, he did the work for Israel by creating international consensus against Iran’s nuclear program," says Meir Javedanfar, a lecturer on Iranian politics at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, a college in a Tel Aviv suburb. "Now we have the anti-Ahmedinejad as a president: Someone who is moderate and talks about rapprochement. That means there is a change in Iran and it is probably going require a change in Israel regarding its narrative toward Iran."

Rohani appears to be a far more sophisticated diplomatic opponent to the West than Ahmedinejad.

The thing to remember is that the office of the Iranian president is focused more internally than abroad. Rohani doesn’t have ultimate power, the Ayatollah does. Again, I’m more interested what influence he will have on the will of the people to push for more freedoms, it will be interesting to see how that develops.

I can agree with that - from what I understand the role is far more similar to that of a prime minister than the American president, far less unilateral power. For me, his election seems to be an indicator that the democratic process in Iran is working very well, despite the hiccup in the last election. Iran is virtually the only real republican government in the Middle East - the democratic process and steady improvement in education and the progressive movement is the only way to end their extreme religious practices.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-16-2013, 08:23 PM
I can agree with that - from what I understand the role is far more similar to that of a prime minister than the American president, far less unilateral power. For me, his election seems to be an indicator that the democratic process in Iran is working very well, despite the hiccup in the last election. Iran is virtually the only real republican government in the Middle East - the democratic process and steady improvement in education and the progressive movement is the only way to end their extreme religious practices.

Their power structure is very unique I would not call it a "real" republic, er well, an Islamic Republic. I went to a series of briefings on Iran put on by the Cato Institute a couple of years ago, a very interesting country indeed.

Here is a graphic from the Washington Post:
3061

That is hard to read, try this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/06/iran-power-chart.png

Banned
06-16-2013, 08:35 PM
Their power structure is very unique I would not call it a "real" republic, er well, an Islamic Republic. I went to a series of briefings on Iran put on by the Cato Institute a couple of years ago, a very interesting country indeed.

Here is a graphic from the Washington Post:
3061

That is hard to read, try this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/06/iran-power-chart.png

Yup - unfortunately - separation of church and state is not a requirement for a republican government. I re-read Persepolis recently - it makes the point about 20/20 hindsight - the leftists who originally envisioned democratic government in Iran should have realized that they were far outnumbered by religious conservatives, and a new elected government would inevitably be extremely religious in nature.

This puts perspective on people who make the argument that we should tear down separation of church and state in America. The United States is deeply religious - if we didn't have these secular protections, we probably would be very similar to Iran, and probably equally extreme. And frankly, I think these evangelical leaders realize that, but actually deep down, admire Iran for their theocratic internal policies, and wish we could be more like them.

I read Glenn Beck's site, "The Blaze", regularly, and the comments there are terrifying. When the Russians crack down on homosexuals, you see readers cheering for Russia. RUSSIA. For God's sake!

wildman
06-16-2013, 08:43 PM
The whole area is a mess as we have found out. Any time you have radicals who get political power you wind up with this sort of thing. The ideal situation would be to eliminate the radicals. The question remains how to accomplish this. Oh yes we have radicals in this country as well and IMO they are no better than any of the others and should be eliminated as well. I'm all ears if anyone can come up with a solution.

Always.
Wildman

Banned
06-16-2013, 09:11 PM
I'm all ears if anyone can come up with a solution.

Separation of church and state.

wildman
06-20-2013, 02:19 AM
Separation of church and state.

Sounds good to me how do you propose to get the Islamic radical religious leaders to go along with this? I sort of think they want the religion to be the control over the state and the law to be the Islamic one. Hassan Rohani is not the true power the Ayatollah is.

Always,
Wildman

Measure Man
06-20-2013, 05:30 AM
Sounds good to me how do you propose to get the Islamic radical religious leaders to go along with this? I sort of think they want the religion to be the control over the state and the law to be the Islamic one. Hassan Rohani is not the true power the Ayatollah is.

Always,
Wildman

It would be nice if they had a constitution that maybe didn't mention god, and rather required a separation of church, mosque, synagogue...and state.

No, we can't enforce that on them...we can only protect it here.

Banned
06-20-2013, 06:35 AM
Sounds good to me how do you propose to get the Islamic radical religious leaders to go along with this? I sort of think they want the religion to be the control over the state and the law to be the Islamic one. Hassan Rohani is not the true power the Ayatollah is.

Always,
Wildman

There's nothing we in America can do except stand back and allow progressives in Iran to do their work unhindered.

Let's also let Iran stand as a lesson for why we need separation of church and state - and the deadly consequences of allowing American religious fanatics to have their way!

MrMiracle
06-20-2013, 03:00 PM
Back to the originating topic, if you please;

I had a lot of hope for Lybia, hope for Egypt, and I even had some hope when North Korea changed hands. I think I ran out of hope when the death toll in Syria passed the 50K mark.

But this one might be a little bit different. The power overlap between the two sides of government tends to favor the Supreme Leader. Rohani either slipped in under the radar or Special K let him run as a token dissident, expecting to be able to control the election as he did in 2009. Either way, something changed even before the elections to make this possible, something I'd imagine coming from the religious side of the government.

wildman
06-20-2013, 05:56 PM
There's nothing we in America can do except stand back and allow progressives in Iran to do their work unhindered.

Let's also let Iran stand as a lesson for why we need separation of church and state - and the deadly consequences of allowing American religious fanatics to have their way!

We tried something like this in Iraq and look what is starting to happen there. Time to get hard ass with the radicals and if it takes a long time then so be it. I include those in the U.S.A. as well. Enough of this political correctness crap.

Always,
Wildman

wildman
06-20-2013, 05:58 PM
???? We did the exact opposite in Iraq! We invaded, destroyed their government, now the whole country is in chaos.

UM history lesson: We got rid of ole Sad helped them hold elections and elect a leader of their choice. Now the Islamic factions are once again in a civil war mode and the radicals are getting a foot hold again. If your going to site history at least be a wee bit accurate.

Always,
Wildman

Banned
06-20-2013, 06:02 PM
We tried something like this in Iraq and look what is starting to happen there. Time to get hard ass with the radicals and if it takes a long time then so be it. I include those in the U.S.A. as well. Enough of this political correctness crap.

Always,
Wildman

???? We did the exact opposite in Iraq! We invaded, destroyed their government, now the whole country is in chaos.

Banned
06-20-2013, 08:50 PM
The Iraq war was a bloody clusterfuck from the start. The "elections" were corrupt, the government was and still is corrupt, religious extremists gained a foothold immediately after we dissolved Saddam's security forces. If you think that's an example of Imperialism being good for the local country you sir are delusional.

BTW - it's "cite," not "site."

wildman
06-21-2013, 01:17 AM
The Iraq war was a bloody clusterfuck from the start. The "elections" were corrupt, the government was and still is corrupt, religious extremists gained a foothold immediately after we dissolved Saddam's security forces. If you think that's an example of Imperialism being good for the local country you sir are delusional.

BTW - it's "cite," not "site."

You sir are a revisionist and need to go back and view the events of the first gulf war and then move forward to the second and the ultimate riddance of Saddam. However we are getting away from the topic of this thread and need to return to it.

Always.
Wildman

garhkal
06-21-2013, 05:33 AM
The thing to remember is that the office of the Iranian president is focused more internally than abroad. Rohani doesn’t have ultimate power, the Ayatollah does. Again, I’m more interested what influence he will have on the will of the people to push for more freedoms, it will be interesting to see how that develops.

One can hope he works to give his people more freedoms..

Banned
06-21-2013, 04:35 PM
You sir are a revisionist and need to go back and view the events of the first gulf war and then move forward to the second and the ultimate riddance of Saddam. However we are getting away from the topic of this thread and need to return to it.

Always.
Wildman

No, this is a relevant topic - because it highlights the American attitude that we need to play world policeman in these countries - illustrated by our meddling in Iran as well as Iraq.

The first Gulf War was brilliant. We humiliated Saddam, pushed back his forces, suffered minimal casualties, and got the heck out.

You're falling into a very common right-wing thread of trying to pin the failures of W. Bush on his father. Re-visiting Iraq was completely needless. And I'll bet my next paycheck that the only justifications you could possibly come up for it are the exhausted ones we've all heard before - "WMDs!" "He gassed the Kurds!" blah blah blah.

wildman
06-22-2013, 12:39 AM
No, this is a relevant topic - because it highlights the American attitude that we need to play world policeman in these countries - illustrated by our meddling in Iran as well as Iraq.

The first Gulf War was brilliant. We humiliated Saddam, pushed back his forces, suffered minimal casualties, and got the heck out.

You're falling into a very common right-wing thread of trying to pin the failures of W. Bush on his father. Re-visiting Iraq was completely needless. And I'll bet my next paycheck that the only justifications you could possibly come up for it are the exhausted ones we've all heard before - "WMDs!" "He gassed the Kurds!" blah blah blah.

Needless? Meddling? A individual who killed over two hundred thousand of his own people! A individual who used chemical weapons on his own people! We did not finish the job in the first gulf war IMO and that was to eliminate Saddam. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not we had the backing of quiet a few countries and some Arab ones as well. Hopefully there are still places in the world who do look to the U.S.A. as a super power and the example to emulate.

Always,
Wildman

Juggs
06-22-2013, 12:44 AM
Needless? Meddling? A individual who killed over two hundred thousand of his own people! A individual who used chemical weapons on his own people! We did not finish the job in the first gulf war IMO and that was to eliminate Saddam. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not we had the backing of quiet a few countries and some Arab ones as well. Hopefully there are still places in the world who do look to the U.S.A. as a super power and the example to emulate.

Always,
Wildman

Maybe Guatemala or Mexico.

Banned
06-22-2013, 10:10 PM
Needless? Meddling? A individual who killed over two hundred thousand of his own people! A individual who used chemical weapons on his own people!

Yes. Using chemical weapons that WE GAVE HIM - so he could slaughter Iranians, all because we didn't like the fact that Iran had the nerve to overthrow their American puppet government.

Yet did we learn from this experience? Nope - we went into Iraq, slaughtered tens of thousands of people, utterly destroyed their infrastructure... and even to this day there's Americans insisting that it was the right thing to do, despite the mountains of evidence (and bodies) to the contrary.


We did not finish the job in the first gulf war IMO and that was to eliminate Saddam.

Wrong. It was to push Saddam out of Kuwait, and deter him from trying that again. Which is exactly what happened. Again, you're so desperate to justify W. Bush's stupidity you're willing to tell blatant lies about Bush Sr. as justification.


Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not we had the backing of quiet a few countries and some Arab ones as well. Hopefully there are still places in the world who do look to the U.S.A. as a super power and the example to emulate.

Always,
Wildman

Yes... we DID have the backing of quite a few countries. Now we have quite a few countries royally pissed off at us because we dragged them into a stupid and endless war for reasons based on a lie.


Just a reminder:
Let's make sure continued discourse revolves around the topic:
"Hassan Rohani is Iran's next president. What will change?"
I understand these may be related topics, but please don't get sidetracked with these other topics (unless they directly relate).

Thank you for your concerted efforts thus far. I am only hoping to deter any potential future distractions.

Saddam was an instrument of the American government for the express purpose of destroying Iran. So it is very relevant.

wildman
06-23-2013, 12:38 AM
Yes. Using chemical weapons that WE GAVE HIM - so he could slaughter Iranians, all because we didn't like the fact that Iran had the nerve to overthrow their American puppet government.

Yet did we learn from this experience? Nope - we went into Iraq, slaughtered tens of thousands of people, utterly destroyed their infrastructure... and even to this day there's Americans insisting that it was the right thing to do, despite the mountains of evidence (and bodies) to the contrary.



Wrong. It was to push Saddam out of Kuwait, and deter him from trying that again. Which is exactly what happened. Again, you're so desperate to justify W. Bush's stupidity you're willing to tell blatant lies about Bush Sr. as justification.



Yes... we DID have the backing of quite a few countries. Now we have quite a few countries royally pissed off at us because we dragged them into a stupid and endless war for reasons based on a lie.



Saddam was an instrument of the American government for the express purpose of destroying Iran. So it is very relevant.

I leave it up to the rest of you who may read this as to whether once again Joe is full of it. Weapons of mass destruction was bad intel plain and simple but a good many people believed it and based on that we acted. Hind sight is great but it is just that hind sight. I also leave this for you to ponder, war should be used as the very last resort but once entered into ya don't end it until you have lost or the other side is forced to accept unconditional surrender. We have not done this since the end of WWII IMO and quiet frankly it royally pisses me off. Also the folks like Joe with their isolationist attitude is unrealistic IMO.

Always,
Wildman

Banned
06-24-2013, 03:37 PM
I leave it up to the rest of you who may read this as to whether once again Joe is full of it. Weapons of mass destruction was bad intel plain and simple but a good many people believed it and based on that we acted. Hind sight is great but it is just that hind sight. I also leave this for you to ponder, war should be used as the very last resort but once entered into ya don't end it until you have lost or the other side is forced to accept unconditional surrender. We have not done this since the end of WWII IMO and quiet frankly it royally pisses me off. Also the folks like Joe with their isolationist attitude is unrealistic IMO.

Always,
Wildman

I like how you refer to "the rest of you" - as if you have legions of people who agree with you on this forum... when in reality, even the religious right-wingers gave up trying to defend you ages ago.

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 03:50 PM
There's nothing we in America can do except stand back and allow progressives in Iran to do their work unhindered.

Let's also let Iran stand as a lesson for why we need separation of church and state - and the deadly consequences of allowing American religious fanatics to have their way!

I beg to differ....we have yet to stop meddling in the affairs of Iran so obviously there is something else we CAN and are doing... Whether right or wrong, we for some reason support the IDEA of democracy but only when it is done how we want it to be done.

How exactly is Iran a lesson on "the deadly consequences of allowing American religious fanatics to have their way"?

Rusty Jones
06-24-2013, 03:52 PM
I like how you refer to "the rest of you" - as if you have legions of people who agree with you on this forum... when in reality, even the religious right-wingers gave up trying to defend you ages ago.

I've pointed this out to him numerous times. This dude is delusional.

Banned
06-24-2013, 03:53 PM
I beg to differ....we have yet to stop meddling in the affairs of Iran so obviously there is something else we CAN and are doing... Whether right or wrong, we for some reason support the IDEA of democracy but only when it is done how we want it to be done.

Yes absolutely. I phrased that poorly.


How exactly is Iran a lesson on "the deadly consequences of allowing American religious fanatics to have their way"?

Christian fanatics in America are constantly attacking separation of church and state, saying we don't need it... Iran is a good example of why we can't let that happen. If we let the Christians control our legal system - they would be hanging 16 year old girls and stoning gays. I guarantee it.

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 04:06 PM
Christian fanatics in America are constantly attacking separation of church and state, saying we don't need it... Iran is a good example of why we can't let that happen. If we let the Christians control our legal system - they would be hanging 16 year old girls and stoning gays. I guarantee it.

So what you MEANT is that Iran COULD be a lesson in what MIGHT happen if American religous fanatics (christian or otherwise) were allowed to have their way? If so, I agree completely BUT, with the caveat that the United States has (IMO) made the situation in Iran WORSE by meddling instead of letting them do what they wanted to do unfettered. I GET why we did what we did and in some cases we didn't have much choice but....

Banned
06-24-2013, 04:26 PM
Vatican City? Tibet?

The Vatican City is the center of what could be the largest rape scandal in history. Tibet is experiencing genocide.

Banned
06-24-2013, 04:33 PM
So what you MEANT is that Iran COULD be a lesson in what MIGHT happen if American religous fanatics (christian or otherwise) were allowed to have their way?

We KNOW it would happen - its happened in every single country where a religion was allowed to have political power.


If so, I agree completely BUT, with the caveat that the United States has (IMO) made the situation in Iran WORSE by meddling instead of letting them do what they wanted to do unfettered. I GET why we did what we did and in some cases we didn't have much choice but....

I agree.

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 04:36 PM
The Vatican City is the center of what could be the largest rape scandal in history. Tibet is experiencing genocide.

You can't seriously be intimating that the buddhists are committing genocide in Tibet? Seriously?

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 04:36 PM
We KNOW it would happen - its happened in every single country where a religion was allowed to have political power.

Vatican City? Tibet?

Banned
06-24-2013, 04:38 PM
Vatican City? Tibet?

The Vatican City is the center of what could be the largest rape scandal in history. Tibet is experiencing genocide.

Banned
06-24-2013, 04:39 PM
You can't seriously be insinuating that the buddhists are committing genocide in Tibet? Seriously?

You claimed (incorrectly) that the Buddhists control Tibet. China controls Tibet.

Banned
06-24-2013, 04:47 PM
You can't seriously be insinuating that the buddhists are committing genocide in Tibet? Seriously?

So how are the anti-religious doing at ruling? Soviet Union? People's Republic of China? People's Republic of Albania? Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? Democratic People's Republic of Korea? They all have a STELLAR record when it comes to human rights don't they?

Yep, the anti-religious are SOOOOO much better at governing than the religious....

The majority of secular governments, with a few exceptions, are doing just fine.

Every single theocratic government in the history of the world has resulted in a bloodbath. Because religion has no useful purpose - it only exists to promote hate and fear, which leads to blood baths.

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 04:48 PM
The Vatican City is the center of what could be the largest rape scandal in history. Tibet is experiencing genocide.

You can't seriously be insinuating that the buddhists are committing genocide in Tibet? Seriously?

So how are the anti-religious doing at ruling? Soviet Union? People's Republic of China? People's Republic of Albania? Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? Democratic People's Republic of Korea? They all have a STELLAR record when it comes to human rights don't they?

Yep, the anti-religious are SOOOOO much better at governing than the religious....

Banned
06-24-2013, 04:48 PM
You can't seriously be insinuating that the buddhists are committing genocide in Tibet? Seriously?

So how are the anti-religious doing at ruling? Soviet Union? People's Republic of China? People's Republic of Albania? Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? Democratic People's Republic of Korea? They all have a STELLAR record when it comes to human rights don't they?

Yep, the anti-religious are SOOOOO much better at governing than the religious....

The majority of secular governments, with a few exceptions, are doing just fine.

Every single theocratic government in the history of the world has resulted in a bloodbath. Because religion has no useful purpose - it only exists to promote hate and fear, which leads to blood baths.

garhkal
06-24-2013, 04:55 PM
We KNOW it would happen - its happened in every single country where a religion was allowed to have political power.


I don't here it happening in countries that have christianity, catholicism etc as their religion, but only in those with islam as theirs.

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 04:56 PM
I don't here it happening in countries that have christianity, catholicism etc as their religion, but only in those with islam as theirs.

Oh it HAS happened... Crusades anyone? Joe just likes to blame religion for EVERYTHING and completely ignore the fact that those of his ilk (the anti-religious) are guilty of some of the worst atrocities in history. Personally, I think it should be somewhere in between-neither pro-religion nor anti-religion (sounds vaugely familiar doesn't it?)....

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 05:01 PM
You claimed (incorrectly) that the Buddhists control Tibet. They don't. They're getting massacred.

Apparently you still don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your arguments...Buddhism was the state religion of Tibet with the Dalai Lama as the ruler from 1913-1950. Yet when I mentioned Tibet as an example refuting your statement that;


We KNOW it would happen - its happened in every single country where a religion was allowed to have political power.

Your response was;


Tibet is experiencing genocide.

I would like for you to explain how buddhists getting massacred is the fault of the religious government previously in place in Tibet and what heinous crimes were committed by that government.

garhkal
06-24-2013, 05:04 PM
Happened, yes. Happening now, no.

Banned
06-24-2013, 05:05 PM
Apparently you still don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your arguments...Buddhism was the state religion of Tibet with the Dalai Lama as the ruler from 1913-1950. Yet when I mentioned Tibet as an example refuting your statement that;

Your response was;

So are you alleging that Tibet was peaceful and non-violent in its history under Buddhist control before the Chinese takeover?

However - I will concede one point - Buddhists are far less stupid and violent than Christians.

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 05:07 PM
The majority of secular governments, with a few exceptions, are doing just fine.

Every single theocratic government in the history of the world has resulted in a bloodbath. Because religion has no useful purpose - it only exists to promote hate and fear, which leads to blood baths.

So...to summarize, all theocracies are bad except the ones that aren't and all secular governments are good except the ones that are bad....

Good job proving your argument!!

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 05:10 PM
I don't here it happening in countries that have christianity, catholicism etc as their religion, but only in those with islam as theirs.

Oh it HAS happened... Crusades anyone? Joe just likes to blame religion for EVERYTHING and completely ignore the fact that those of his ilk (the anti-religious) are guilty of some of the worst atrocities in history. Personally, I think it should be somewhere in between-neither pro-religion nor anti-religion (sounds vaugely familiar doesn't it?)....

garhkal
06-24-2013, 05:17 PM
Happened, yes. Happening now, no.

TJMAC77SP
06-24-2013, 05:48 PM
However - I will concede one point - Buddhists are far less stupid and violent than Christians.

Yes..............indeed

3102

wildman
06-24-2013, 06:09 PM
Do the rest of you who do have some manners lend any credence to these individuals? I think their numerous negative individual attacking posts speak for themselves. They can not stay on topic, they never post anything of a positive nature and they frequently bash others yet they remain. Oh well!

Always,
Wildman

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 06:27 PM
Do the rest of you who do have some manners lend any credence to these individuals? I think their numerous negative individual attacking posts speak for themselves. They can not stay on topic, they never post anything of a positive nature and they frequently bash others yet they remain. Oh well!

Always,
Wildman

I may get a bit off topic but the reason for that is quite simple. When someone posts something that is patently false (like saying all government that incorporates religion is BAD and all anti-religious governments are good), I call 'em on it. If they continue to argue that their lies are the truth, I will continue to show them how wrong they are. Some (like Joe) will occasionally admit they are incorrect or misspoke. Others (like Corny) will NEVER admit that a single word they typed might possibly be incorrect. :lalala

:focus

I don't know if the change will be good or not but I am cautiously optimistic. Baby steps right?

Rusty Jones
06-24-2013, 06:35 PM
They can not stay on topic, they never post anything of a positive nature and they frequently bash others yet they remain. Oh well!

Always,
Wildman

^^^ I give you Exhibit A ^^^

CYBERFX1024
06-24-2013, 06:38 PM
So are you alleging that Tibet was peaceful and non-violent in its history under Buddhist control before the Chinese takeover?
However - I will concede one point - Buddhists are far less stupid and violent than Christians.

Tibet was VERY warlike in it's past. Why don't you read you history first and that includes history going back a few hundred years and you will see the truth.

Everybody has violent tendencies in their religion and culture. That is the fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/21/i-am-proud-to-be-called-a-radical-buddhist-more-burmese-buddhists-embracing-anti-muslim-violence/

wildman
06-24-2013, 06:46 PM
^^^ I give you Exhibit A ^^^

Yup don't ya just love it? Right on topic RJ! Now can we get back to the topic of this thread or do you still have more bashing to accomplish?

Always,
Wildman

Rusty Jones
06-24-2013, 06:46 PM
But was religion the cause of these wars? From how I interpret Buddhism, it really isn't even a religion. There are no gods to be worshipped, nor is there any explanation for the origins of Earth or the life upon it thereof. There's no belief in anything supernatural that hasn't already been disproven by science.

TJMAC77SP
06-24-2013, 07:40 PM
But was religion the cause of these wars? From how I interpret Buddhism, it really isn't even a religion. There are no gods to be worshipped, nor is there any explanation for the origins of Earth or the life upon it thereof. There's no belief in anything supernatural that hasn't already been disproven by science.

This will be a repeat for Joe but regardless of how you interpet Buddhism it is a religion. At least those that practice it (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm) consider it a religion.

I understand that it is your opinion that there are no gods to be worshipped but what do you mean by "nor is there any explanation for the origins of Earth or the life upon it thereof. There's no belief in anything supernatural that hasn't already been disproven by science"?

Banned
06-24-2013, 08:21 PM
Yes..............indeed

3102


Tibet was VERY warlike in it's past. Why don't you read you history first and that includes history going back a few hundred years and you will see the truth.

Everybody has violent tendencies in their religion and culture. That is the fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/21/i-am-proud-to-be-called-a-radical-buddhist-more-burmese-buddhists-embracing-anti-muslim-violence/

Wait hold on, how did this get turned around on me? Pullinteeth was the one claiming Buddhists were nice and peaceful in Tibet...


So...to summarize, all theocracies are bad except the ones that aren't and all secular governments are good except the ones that are bad....

Good job proving your argument!!

Nowhere did I claim that Buddhists aren't violent - that's your lane. How TJMAC and Cyber somehow got your posts confused with mine is beyond me.

But anyways - no - theocracy will ALWAYS result in violence and bloodshed. Every single time.

Pullinteeth
06-25-2013, 02:38 PM
Wait hold on, how did this get turned around on me? Pullinteeth was the one claiming Buddhists were nice and peaceful in Tibet...

Nowhere did I claim that Buddhists aren't violent - that's your lane. How TJMAC and Cyber somehow got your posts confused with mine is beyond me.

But anyways - no - theocracy will ALWAYS result in violence and bloodshed. Every single time.

Nice try there slick....you claimed that theocracies=bad and secular=good. In the case of Tibet and China, under the Dalai Lama, Tibet was quite peaceful it was your beloved secularists that committed and are committing the genocide.

China is an example of how bad your secularists CAN be and Iran is an example of how bad a theocracy CAN be...neither one is absolute proof that either one is absoulutely bad....

TJMAC77SP
06-25-2013, 02:41 PM
Wait hold on, how did this get turned around on me? Pullinteeth was the one claiming Buddhists were nice and peaceful in Tibet...



Nowhere did I claim that Buddhists aren't violent - that's your lane. How TJMAC and Cyber somehow got your posts confused with mine is beyond me.

But anyways - no - theocracy will ALWAYS result in violence and bloodshed. Every single time.

Joe, I quoted your post. How did I confuse your post with Pullin's?

Of course my post was mostly in jest..............trying to quantify which religion has a more violent past seems a fool's task to me.

Just to stay on topic, lest posts get moved again (good luck with that BTW)..................only time will tell what the result of Rohani's election will bring to Iran.

Banned
06-25-2013, 04:07 PM
Nice try there slick....you claimed that theocracies=bad and secular=good. In the case of Tibet and China, under the Dalai Lama, Tibet was quite peaceful it was your beloved secularists that committed and are committing the genocide.

China is an example of how bad your secularists CAN be and Iran is an example of how bad a theocracy CAN be...neither one is absolute proof that either one is absoulutely bad....

Wow, now you're REALLY getting desperate. I never claimed that no genocide was committed by a secular government. I'm just pointing out that SOME secular governments are bad.... ALL religious governments are evil.

Pullinteeth
06-25-2013, 04:29 PM
Wow, now you're REALLY getting desperate. I never claimed that no genocide was committed by a secular government. I'm just pointing out that SOME secular governments are bad.... ALL religious governments are evil.

Still waiting for you to provide examples of the "evil" done by the Dalai Lama's government.....