I really do wonder why this kind of stuff didn’t happen in the U.S. in 2000, except that I guess people just didn’t care:
It’s also interesting how in all that footage of street protests, it’s almost all men to be seen, hardly any women…
watch it: “BBC – Protest against Iran election results”
share and enjoy
I think there are people in the US who think that if the “reformer” is elected, Iran will become more Westernized. There are many in Iran who may not want what they currently have, but they do not want something radically different either. The conservative-traditional element is formidable, and the cultural and societal roles for women are well rehearsed.
If the 2000 electrion had been announced as %66 for Bush instead of down to a few thousand votes in the face of polling showing the opposite, and the election results had been given the day after the election, maybe we would have…
Regardless a disaster in either case. Then we had the Washington State “recount ’till I win” election…arg.
This stuff doesn’t happen in the US because we have a system of succession that works and has worked since the country’s creation. Sure, it’s not perfect, but no man-made system is.
In the end it doesn’t really matter who wins the Iran presidential election. The true power of Iran is a theocracy with its Supreme Leader having the highest authority.
We didn’t end up marching in the streets back in 2000 because, even with all the confusion over the South Florida ballots, as a whole we Americans accepted on faith that our voting methods work.
They’re marching in Iran now in 2009 because there’s no frakking way Ahmadidejan (sp?) won by 63 percent of the vote (even Reagan never did that well in 1984 (58 percent), and *that* was a butt-stomping on Mondale); because the Supreme Leader Khamenei announced about ten seconds after the polls closed that it was a ‘divine victory’ for the hardliners; and because there’s enough Iranians who know by pure instinct (and by twitter reports from people reporting tampered ballot boxes) that a majority of their fellow citizens didn’t vote for the Ahmad-man.
Most of the coverage I’ve seen has focused on female protestors, with scarcely a mention of the boys…that’s odd, isn’t it? I imagine there’s no shortage of women who want to reform the regime, but maybe they’re afraid to march, since even showing their faces is a crime.
I am absolutely ashamed by the disgraceful reaction by the white house and the congress. President Obama giving tacit support to the regime right now is deeply upsetting. There are so many ways we could be helping the Iranian people that don’t include war: we could be using pentagon hackers to try to bring down the Iranian firewalls, we could broadcast live news so that the protesters have a better understanding of what’s happening in the wake of the information blackout, we could holding daily hearings in the UN Security Council to keep the heat on the Regime, and most importantly, we could let the brave citizens of Iran know that they have our support. The current administration is doing none of this so that they don’t upset the theocracy and risk future negotiations. As if those negotiations have any hope of convincing the Regime to change its behavior. Say what you will about Bush but at least he gave support to the Lebanese kicking out the Syrian occupiers. So much for hope and change.
David, you seem unaware of the events of 1953-1979, like many other Americans who never bother to find out what their own government has done.
You may have forgotten it, but many people in Iran still deeply resent the decades of American interference in their country. That history places strict limits on the ability of today’s American government to affect the outcome of current events in Iran.
In fact, the worst thing that could happen to any Iranian reform movement would be to receive direct and open support from the United States government. All Obama could achieve by the actions you propose would be to guarantee the doom of the reformists.
Finally, some news coverage of women in Iran: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/iran.protests.women/index.html
So you think Obama should come out in support of Mousavi because Mousavi is not a “regime” candidate?
Are you aware that Mousavi was approved by the theocracy, otherwise he wouldn’t even have been on the ballot?
My hatred for Republicans grows day by day. They would hand the Supreme Leader of Iran a banner of American interference to wave just because they are desperate for any political traction they can get here at home.
Truly ignorant and despicable.
No use hating on the Republicans. Not much more they could do to guarantee Mr. Obama a second term than what they’re already doing.
(Yeah, I know, easy for me to say. Nobody will let me vote in the primaries, but at least I can use words like “them” and “they” to talk about both Republicans and Democrats.)
Yeah, Obama picking sides would be a bad move. I would extend upon Victor’s point, because after the period of being ruled by an American installed dictator Victor refered to, we also had economic embargos against their country for having the gall to kick that dictator out, and the CIA helped subsidize the Iraqi invasion of Iran back in the 80s, leading to a million Muslim deaths (the KGB subsized Iraq, too, because they didn’t want a spreading Islam Revolution to infect Soviet Republics with large Muslim populations) and the original Islamic suicide bombers (the Iranians were trying to make up for the Iraqi advantage in Western/Soviet weapons).
Both sides are pro-nuke, pro-theocracy anyway. Sort of like picking between a hard ass and a tight ass argue with. The challenger might be more sane, but I’ve never read about his speeches.