Iran

What if the twittering, internet link-upping, Starbucks sipping portion of Iran that voted for Mousavi doesn't actually represent the majority of average working class Iranian Joes?

Food for thought...

The students there that are wearing green support liberty and justice.  Personally, I'll be doing the same.

...

Green.

Eh... I've watched the Neda video and it was pretty frickin intense.  I appreciate coverage of what's going on in Iran and am saddened to see the lengths that certain governments will go to oppress and censor its people.  Ironic how this all happens after an election - a supposed demonstration of democracy in action.  Any interesting links about the conflict occuring over there posted on here would be appreciated.  Thanks.

How would you explain the announcement of Ahmadinejad's victory something like 2 hours after the polls closed?  That's awfully quick counting.

Not to mention the margin they came up with was pretty hard to believe...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/iran_numbers/

Also, to the OP, I'm pretty sure Neda was 26 or 27.  Not that it really makes a difference.

1. Mousavi declared victory just as quickly. If you want question the quickness of Ahmedinejad's victory, make sure you also question Mousavi's claim to the same.

2. No election actually counts all the votes. Our last election certainly did not take more than a day to have a winner announced (around midnight on the 4th, I believe.) That's pretty quick considering the total number of ballots - much greater than Iran's. This in itself is not evidence of anything.

3. If you look on the article on wikipedia, they list a set of pre-election opinion polls with wilddly varying numbers. These margins are only hard to believe if you trust one set of opinion polls over another. I don't claim to have the knowledge to determine the trustworthiness of various news sources in Iran. I don't think you do, either.

4. As for the Wired article, the two main arguments that the Mousavi camp is making are: the numbers not following Benford's law, and the linear correlation being too accurate (which the Wired article talks about). 538 has articles of the persuasion that these statistical analyses are flawed.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-pro...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/unconvincing-to-me-use-of-benford...

Aside from these supposed statistical anomalies, the Mousavi camp's only claim to victory is that the western world wants Ahmedinejad to win. For some inexplicable reason, I'd rather trust statistics (that have been thoroughly and holistically analyzed, of course.)

correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US we use electronic ballots. Machines that can quickly count ballots..large number of votes can be counted by Midnight.

In Iran, however, all of their ballots are paper. Which means someone has to individually count them. Theres no way they counted them right. When you add in Iran's iron-fisted reaction to the protests, the smell of guilty seems pretty strong. If they won fairly then a simple recount wouldn't be an issue, in a democratic nation. In a nation where 'democracy' is a front for despotic rule, they have to crush all opposition harshly in order to maintain their rule. The Ayatollah and Amadinejad and the whole regime is corrupt and up to something, i don't have a doubt in my mind.

I hope the protests gain strength and we've another '79 revolution, that will correct the problem. The Former queen of Iran blames the theocratic rule for Iran's problems. I agree with her. A theocracy is bound to breed radicalism, just like Communism is bound to breed blind nationalism. A theocracy is akin to a monarchy and in Iran's case, where the theocracy isn't even 'constitutional' (as opposed to Britain's ol' constitutional monarchy) and the Ayatollah's word is law, democracy is bound to be a joke, and Iran is laughing. At least it's people aren't.

I'm a big supporter of Obama, but i think his stance on the issue is too jelly-spined. Being afraid of turning out to be a scape-goat is a good thing to keep in mind when dealing with Iran, but America is the Champion of Justice, or so we act. History has shown that we won't hesitate to open a can of whoop-ass in a place we deem wrong. We didn't let looking like a bad guy stop us from waltzing in on Iraq and taking out their leader. Nor marching through Afghanistan looking for terrorists.  At least, in Iran, the people are looking for exactly what we can offer. We can walk into there and give them democracy and I bet the majority will be pleased. And while we're there we'll get rid of some radicals whose idealogy does harm to the region and destablizes peace.

Unless I'm mistaken, Mousavi's "victory" wasn't declared by a state-run news agency.

As Locke points out above, Iran counts by hand.  No it's not evidence of anything, but it certainly raises questions.

I don't have such knowledge.  But with the polls varying so wildly (some in favor of Mousavi and others not), would you really expect to see Ahmadinejad winning by such a huge margin in the end?  And in specific places he was not thought to be favored?  Again, it raises questions.

The Wired article is only one of many, and the 538 articles you're pointing out are too.  Take a look at some of the links within your articles:

http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/another-iranian-oddity.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/iran-does-have-some-fishy-numbers...

No I'm not claiming that this is absolutely a fraud.  But there are, as everyone is saying, strange things about this election. The most compelling evidence for me is the way much of the Iranian government is handling the protests and accusations of fraud.

It certainly seems to be the case that if they wanted Ahmadinejad to win, they could guarantee it.  And maybe they did.  Fraud or not, that alone is scary enough.

Not sure what you mean by this.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have read recently.  I seriously hope you're kidding, but if not...

Let's not forget that we took out the leader of Iraq along with thousands upon thousands of people that had nothing to do with him or his regime, and we're not stopping there.  Don't be fooled by our government's claims that we're there to give them democracy.

Iranians aren't looking for anything we can offer.  We cannot "walk in there and give them democracy."  We certainly didn't do that in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world we've "tried."

There are always ulterior motives. If we go into Iraq looking for cheap sources of oil or w/e bs reason the Presidency makes, and turn the country towards democracy, then the good has outweighed the bad.

taken from this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31473724/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said a slow or muted U.S. response risks undermining the aspirations of Iranian voters to change or question their government.

"If America stands for democracy and all of these demonstrations are going on in Tehran and other cities over there, and people don't think that we really care, then obviously they're going to question, 'Do we really believe in our principles?'" Grassley said.

I don't think it can be doubted that the US is a leader of democracy. History has shown we will even fight for other's democracies. Hell, we'll even fight to give you democracy you didn't even know you wanted. We can give the Iranian's support. It doesn't need to be a bunch of ak-47's or bombing their Ayatollah. Simply letting the Iranians, whIo want freedom from their oppresive regime, know that we support them, should be enough to keep them on the path to freedom. If they're looking to see what the other countries think, and all they see are democracies hesitant to step forward and tell the Iranian government that what they are doing is wrong then the people themselves will be hesitant to do the same. On the other hand....

I dont mean to be offensive to anyone here, but MSNBC can [text edited by moderator]

"Hell, we'll even fight to give you democracy you didn't even know you wanted."

"...whIo want freedom from their oppresive regime."

Your the one who seems to have decided the Iranians want democracy. Have you actually talked to any Iranians? Your whole arguement seems to be based on this assumption...

I say America involves itself by flying cargo-planes over Tehran and all fo Iran dropping millions of ballots.  Ballots > Bombs!

Not really.  Have you read the news lately?  Iraq isn't better because of us.  I'll also mention that, probably more often than not, the U.S. government has at least some interest in maintaining the conflict.  I know it's hard to believe, but when you see modern warfare as a business (it often is), you'll realize that a lot of very powerful people have an interest in these sorts of conflict.  Oil or not.

I like your math. :)

did the CIA really spend like 300 million US bucks on destabilization efforts over there?