Iran Threat Over

[maven]

Iran threat Over?

Next week Mr Mir Hossein Mousavi is set to win the presidential elections in Iran.

Mr Mousavi's platform is simple.

Make Iran's nuclear programme entirely transparent to reassure the International Community that Iran's nuclear programme is entirely for civilian use.

Enter into negotiations with the United States and the EU to end sanctions allowing him to reform Iran's economy and bring prosperity and jobs.

Mr Mousavi has attacked Ahmed Ahmedinejad over his comments on the Holocauset and said that the issue of the Holocaust is none of Iran's business.

Mr Mousavi has called for a peaceful and 'reasonable' solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and wants Iran to work alongside the US, EU and International Community to solve the issue.

Mr Mousavi who campaigns with his wife, says he will take the morality police off the streets and ensure that women in Iran will have equal rights and opportunities to men.

Watch: Mir Hosseins Biog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXliqC5_N88&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Egoogle%2Eco%2Euk%2Fnews%3 Fhl%3Den%26q%3Diran%2520elections%26um%3D1%26ie%3D UTF%2D8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwn&feature=player_embedded


More on this story:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=15811n

[Mediocrates]

We will see when we see, won't we? Iranian electoral cycles are renown for ushering in a brief period of social and political permissiveness, during the elections. People can openly criticize the Iranian government (Not Islam). They can even make fun of the President. But when the elections are over, everything goes back to the way it was. The Cabal of Ayatollahs really decides how much power to give the president.

The #1 domestic issue is the economy. Local papers call this the "Marriage Crisis" since so many young two income couples can no longer afford to live in Tehran. And there are so many of them. Ahmaretard may lose because of it, but what really can the fascist state do to turn things around? Stir up some trouble in the Straits of Hormuz to jack up the price of oil for a month or two? They still have to spend billions on their atomic bomb. They still have to maintain their vast Persian Army of the Photoshop. They still have to send $100 million a month to Hezbollah. Well maybe those guys will get a pay cut now.

Anyway, the Iranian electorate is I'm sure, as stupid, selfish and short minded as anyone. 'Trow the Bums Out!!!!' Ok now what?

[maven]

We will see when we see, won't we? Iranian electoral cycles are renown for ushering in a brief period of social and political permissiveness, during the elections. People can openly criticize the Iranian government (Not Islam). They can even make fun of the President. But when the elections are over, everything goes back to the way it was. The Cabal of Ayatollahs really decides how much power to give the president.

The #1 domestic issue is the economy. Local papers call this the "Marriage Crisis" since so many young two income couples can no longer afford to live in Tehran. And there are so many of them. Ahmaretard may lose because of it, but what really can the fascist state do to turn things around? Stir up some trouble in the Straits of Hormuz to jack up the price of oil for a month or two? They still have to spend billions on their atomic bomb. They still have to maintain their vast Persian Army of the Photoshop. They still have to send $100 million a month to Hezbollah. Well maybe those guys will get a pay cut now.

Anyway, the Iranian electorate is I'm sure, as stupid, selfish and short minded as anyone. 'Trow the Bums Out!!!!' Ok now what?Difference this time Mediocrates is that Iran is broke, people need jobs, the countryside is wasted. By ending the nuclear threat and engaging with the international community to end sanctions and pariah status, Mousavi can bring jobs and prosperity.

Two thirds of the country are young and he is supported by the young.

Half the country are women, mainly young and he has huge support among women.

The Supreme Leader who was supported by Ahmedinejad against women and the young is on the back foot.

It is estimated that 90% of Iranians are breaking the law by having satellite dishes and watching foreign newschannels which shows that the Ayotollahs have lost support and the regime is weak. The state army are young and outnumber the basejis.

Many young people in Iran say the Islamic Revolution is an issue for their parents and grandparents and they wish to move on.

No doubt the regime could do it's best to close him down or slow him down or have him killed.

But this time round it will not be as easy as the days when they emasculated Mohammed Khatemi. The people might seek, to quote yourself to "Throw the Bums Out!!!!"

[takeo]

Iran threat Over?

Next week Mr Mir Hossein Mousavi is set to win the presidential elections in Iran.

Mr Mousavi's platform is simple.

Make Iran's nuclear programme entirely transparent to reassure the International Community that Iran's nuclear programme is entirely for civilian use.

Enter into negotiations with the United States and the EU to end sanctions allowing him to reform Iran's economy and bring prosperity and jobs.

Mr Mousavi has attacked Ahmed Ahmedinejad over his comments on the Holocauset and said that the issue of the Holocaust is none of Iran's business.

Mr Mousavi has called for a peaceful and 'reasonable' solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and wants Iran to work alongside the US, EU and International Community to solve the issue.

Mr Mousavi who campaigns with his wife, says he will take the morality police off the streets and ensure that women in Iran will have equal rights and opportunities to men.

Watch: Mir Hosseins Biog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXliqC5_N88&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Egoogle%2Eco%2Euk%2Fnews%3 Fhl%3Den%26q%3Diran%2520elections%26um%3D1%26ie%3D UTF%2D8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwn&feature=player_embedded


More on this story:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=15811n


The problem is that real power is in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei.

[takeo]

Difference this time Mediocrates is that Iran is broke, people need jobs, the countryside is wasted. By ending the nuclear threat and engaging with the international community to end sanctions and pariah status, Mousavi can bring jobs and prosperity.

Two thirds of the country are young and he is supported by the young.

Half the country are women, mainly young and he has huge support among women.

The Supreme Leader who was supported by Ahmedinejad against women and the young is on the back foot.

It is estimated that 90% of Iranians are breaking the law by having satellite dishes and watching foreign newschannels which shows that the Ayotollahs have lost support and the regime is weak. The state army are young and outnumber the basejis.

Many young people in Iran say the Islamic Revolution is an issue for their parents and grandparents and they wish to move on.

No doubt the regime could do it's best to close him down or slow him down or have him killed.

But this time round it will not be as easy as the days when they emasculated Mohammed Khatemi. The people might seek, to quote yourself to "Throw the Bums Out!!!!"

There is serious resentment against the regime. However, it also depends on the US, the aggresive policy of Bush reinforced nationalist feelings (as during the war with Iraq in the 80's), but now it seems the problem between the US and Iran is mainly induced by the regime itself, since the regime refused to accept the US gestures during the last months. Iranian are really obsessed with the US. On the one hand they absolutely despise US policy against Iran, in Iraq, Pakistan, etc. on the other hand they all watch American-Iranian television channels and they realise good relations with the US would be in the advantage of Iran. Bush was good news for the regime, hostility and threats against Iran didn't come down well in Iran, but now people know Obama is on a different course. If the regime doesn't take the opportunity to end the American embargo and normalise relations, Iranians will blame them.

[Mediocrates]

It matters nothing there is real or perceived resentment against the regime. Fascist regimes don't worry what the people think. The IRGC and intelligence service is there to suppress political problems.

[takeo]

It matters nothing there is real or perceived resentment against the regime. Fascist regimes don't worry what the people think. The IRGC and intelligence service is there to suppress political problems.

It does matter, especially in a more sophisticated society like Iran where pure brutal oppression or a bloodbath against fellow Iranians would not be accepted and turn the entire population as well as the army against the regime. It's somehow comparable to Eastern Europe in the 80's, not to Taliban Afghanistan.

[maven]

-Iran demonstrators aim to see off Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 'empire of lies'-
Martin Fletcher in Tehran
June 10, 2009

It was open insurrection, a rebellion of a sort seldom seen in the 30-year history of the Islamic Republic, an eruption of pent-up rage against the repressive Government of President Ahmadinejad.

“Death to the Government,” chanted the several thousand Iranians packed into a football stadium in Tehran. “Death to dictators,” roared the young men and women, draped in green shirts, ribbons, bandanas and headscarves to signal their support for Mir Hossein Mousavi. “Bye-bye Ahmadi,” they sang as they waved a sea of banners for the man who hopes to topple Mr Ahmadinejad in the presidential election on Friday. “Don’t rig the election,” they added for good measure.

Women have suffered particularly badly under Mr Ahmadinejad, and twentysomethings sporting sunglasses, make-up and dyed hair beneath their mandatory headscarves shouted themselves hoarse as speaker after speaker promised an end to repression, despair and the “empire of lies”.

“I feel danger every second I’m on the street because of the morality police,” an arts student called Nina said. As she was speaking another young woman way back in the mêlée scribbled a note and passed it forward. “We need freedom. We want big change. We don’t want liar government,” it declared.

Men and women scaled the floodlight pylons for a better view. Hundreds more crammed on to a nearby overpass. Astonishingly there was not a policeman or basij (Islamic vigilante) in sight, further evidence of how the regime seems to have relaxed — or lost — its grip in the final days of an election far more competitive than anyone had expected.

The biggest roar of the afternoon was reserved for the main speaker, Zahra Rahnavard, Mr Mousavi’s wife. “You’re here because you don’t want any more dictatorship,” she declared. “You’re here because you hate fanaticism, because you dream of a free Iran, because you dream of a peaceful relationship with the rest of the world.” The candidate himself was nowhere to be seen, but that hardly mattered because the crowd was inspired by a hatred of Mr Ahmadinejad rather than a love for Mr Mousavi.

To anyone arriving in Tehran this week it would be easy to assume that Mr Mousavi was an Iranian Barack Obama. The capital appears convulsed by Mousavimania. It is festooned with posters of his bearded face. Fanatical supporters career around the city in their cars, honking their horns and shouting slogans.

In truth Mr Mousavi, 67, bears more resemblance to Bob Dole, who failed to unseat Bill Clinton in 1996. The bespectacled former Prime Minister lacks charisma, is an uninspiring public speaker and was trounced by Mr Ahmadinejad in their televised debate last week. Aides said that he was resting before another television appearance, which was perhaps a mercy because his wife — like Elizabeth Dole — is a more compelling performer.

Most of the crowd yesterday were too young to remember Mr Mousavi in his previous incarnation as Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, and that may be a good thing too. He steered his country’s economy through the Iran-Iraq War but was a zealous revolutionary who brooked little dissent and has been accused of being behind the massacre of political prisoners.

He retired from politics for 20 years and devoted himself to art and architecture — he designed several prominent buildings in Tehran and his paintings sell for substantial sums. He says that he wants to save Iran from the “danger” of Mr Ahmadinejad, but he is hardly a reformist.

His candidacy had to be approved by the Guardian Council, a body of senior clerics not known for its liberalism. He is seeking to appeal to disaffected conservatives as well as moderates. His platform is one of managerial competence and stability. He wants better relations with the world but would not suspend Iran’s nuclear programme. He promises greater equality for women but has no plans to challenge the political system.

Mr Mousavi’s campaign has skilfully employed the internet and text messaging to circumvent the statecontrolled media, but it is almost certainly financed by Hojatoleslam Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President regarded by many as the embodiment of the corrupt Establishment.

It is a measure of how much Iran’s urban middle class loathes Mr Ahmadinejad that they have thrown their weight behind Mr Mousavi’s imperfect candidacy, and that so many liberals who would normally refuse to vote lest they legitimise the regime are prepared to do so this time.

“I didn’t know anything about Mousavi until a few days ago, but I’d vote for anyone to get Ahmadinejad out,” one English-speaking Iranian woman admitted last night.

Watch: Mr Housseins Biog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXliqC5_N88&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Egoogle%2Eco%2Euk%2Fnews%3 Fhl%3Den%26q%3Diran%2520elections%26um%3D1%26ie%3D UTF%2D8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwn&feature=player_embedded

more:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6466740.ece

[Mediocrates]

Middle Class Iranians aren't going to stick their necks out. Sure Sure everyone 'hates' the government (not really). But DO something about it? Please, we've been hearing this nonsense about spontaneous uprisings for 25 years.

[takeo]

Middle Class Iranians aren't going to stick their necks out. Sure Sure everyone 'hates' the government (not really). But DO something about it? Please, we've been hearing this nonsense about spontaneous uprisings for 25 years.

Not everyone hates the regime, and the majority that does hate it doesn't want another revolution, civil war or blood flowing. And they especially don't want a foreign intervention. So basically they hope the regime will collapse itself or reform itself. If you see the wide range of opinions and factions within the system it self it is very well possible, it is not a monolithic block, the only one holding it together is Khamenei, the strong man behind the scenes, but he's already very old.

[maven]

Unprecedented and previously unheard of revolutionary verbal attack on the forces of the Islamic revolution's Baseji forces by Mousavi supporters.

An attack which would have led to detention and torture even a week ago but such is the force of the growing revolution on the streets that the police and basejis are now keeping their distance from the protestors.

Forgive poor sound quality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_qQkMxF-rg

[maven]

There is serious resentment against the regime. However, it also depends on the US, the aggresive policy of Bush reinforced nationalist feelings (as during the war with Iraq in the 80's), but now it seems the problem between the US and Iran is mainly induced by the regime itself, since the regime refused to accept the US gestures during the last months. Iranian are really obsessed with the US. On the one hand they absolutely despise US policy against Iran, in Iraq, Pakistan, etc. on the other hand they all watch American-Iranian television channels and they realise good relations with the US would be in the advantage of Iran. Bush was good news for the regime, hostility and threats against Iran didn't come down well in Iran, but now people know Obama is on a different course. If the regime doesn't take the opportunity to end the American embargo and normalise relations, Iranians will blame them.takeo, People do have to understand that there will always be a degree of support for aspects of the Islamic regime even if it is just an affection for certain clerics, some of whom are respected and worthy of respect even outside Iran.

However, the younger people are sick of the dictatorship aspect; police brutality, the fact that a nasty force of fanatics called the Baseji, who are the armed wing of the regime, are allowed to exist to repress the people.

Women, who have a majority under thirty are tired of being repressed in the streets by the morality police just because men believe in a form of backward Islam in which women are held responsible for male sexual desires and so should be forced to cover up.

Also young people want to be part of the modern world and not a pariah in the international community. They also sense that using Ahmedinejad the Supreme Leader is taking them closer to war and causing sanctions to be piled on the country's economy.

Now we have seen all this before. We saw how Mohammed Khatemis move to reform Iran was supressed by the state with the help of the Basejis. But this time the upswell is greater and the Supreme Leader is on the back foot.

If the regime falsifies the election, or if Ahmedinjad does win then there will be a greater disunity in the nation which will either find itself moving to violence or repression. Iranians are a highly civilized and proportionally well-educated people and nobody wants violence, they want peaceful change.

[Mediocrates]

You have to read closely - takeo is stating that the reason the young people hate their own government, which by the way is unsubstantiated, is because....wait for it....

The US supported the Shah and then opposed Iran in the past few years.

I can't even make sense of that.

[Mil]

I doubt Iran will all of sudden change its entire geopolitical policy it built for years with a "new" president.

[maven]

Iranian elections: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could lose as Mousavi emerges as leading challenger.

The tide has turned in Iran's presidential elections, David Blair writes, and if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loses, it will create a political earthquake unprecedented in the Middle East.


By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 8:29PM BST 10 Jun 2009

This election is the most open contest since Iran's revolutionary regime seized power 30 years ago.

For the first time, there is a real chance of a sitting president suffering defeat at the ballot box, an outcome that would be a political earthquake with no precedent anywhere in the Middle East.

Until a few weeks ago, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the clear favourite to win another four years in power. His three predecessors had all achieved re-election and served two terms.

Moreover, Mr Ahmadinejad seemed to have every political advantage, including the crucial support of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and all the benefits of incumbency, ranging from the official media's lavish praise to control of the government machine.

His most popular opponent, Mohammed Khatami, the former president, had given him an unexpected bonus by abandoning the race for the presidency.

Yet the campaign's final weeks have changed everything. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister, has emerged as the president's leading challenger.

Mr Mousavi has managed to tap a well of discontent over the hardships inflicted by Iran's stagnant economy and crushing levels of unemployment. Televised debates have allowed him to attack Mr Ahmadinejad directly and appeal to the country's youthful electorate.

Behind the scenes, Mr Mousavi appears to have powerful supporters. Mr Khatami, who served as president between 1997 and 2005 and still commands a large following, has backed him from the outset. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, another former president, denounced Mr Ahmadinejad in unsparing terms on Wednesday.

There are even whispers that Ayatollah Khamenei has quietly shunned the president and extended his favour to Mohsen Rezai, the other hardline candidate.

If Mr Ahmadinejad fails to win more than half the vote on Friday, the election will go to a final round against his leading opponent next Friday. Turnout will be vital. A quiet vote probably favours the president and his core of loyal supporters; bustling polling stations will show that reformers who usually stay at home have decided to make their voices heard, probably in favour of Mr Mousavi.

If the election goes to a run-off, Mr Mousavi's chances will rise dramatically. on Friday, the anti-Ahmadinejad vote will divide between his three opponents. In a head-to-head contest against Mr Mousavi, however, it will coalesce behind his opponent. Mr Ahmadinejad, the only president who bothered to visit all of Iran's provinces during his time in power, may discover that populism is not always popular.

Watch: Electuion Fever Rises In Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUqU4PUKykE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Egoogle%2Eco%2Euk%2Fnews%3 Fum%3D1%26ned%3Duk%26hl%3Den%26q%3Dmousavi&feature=player_embedded

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5498063/Iranian-elections-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-could-lose-as-Mousavi-emerges-as-leading-challenger.html

[maven]

I doubt Iran will all of sudden change its entire geopolitical policy it built for years with a "new" president.The masses are moving, the young are restless, the regime is increasingly nervous. If they try to hold back the dam it will burst. Things have moved on since the days when Khatemi tried and failed to modernise. The Islamic Revolution is becoming old and tired.

[Mediocrates]

If Ahmaretard loses they'll just tear up the results, retroactively disqualify all the candidates and declare a do over. And of course it's all a Jew plot to disrupt the peaceful peaceloving Persian peace.

[Kenneth]

Just two hours ago in his closing speech he blasted his opponents for working with Zionist entities in order to concoct lies about his lack of awesomeness.

[maven]

Mousavi Iran's Obama?

Could there be a Mousavi Effect?


I'm riveted by the unfolding Iranian election campaign. Back in April, I organized a panel discussion on the election with a number of very keen observers of Iranian politics, and came away even more confused than before (not their fault!).. and I've been following the ups and downs of the debates and the energized public discourse as closely as I can. I don't know what's going to happen any more than anyone else does. But suppose that Mir Hossein Mousavi wins -- what might that do to regional politics?

Most people have quite naturally focused upon the spark it could give to U.S.-Iranian dialogue around the nuclear weapons question. This may be exaggerated -- Mousavi would likely drive as hard a bargain on the nuclear question as would Ahmedenejad, especially given the realities of the power structure in Iran, and perhaps mighte even be a more effective bargainer without the incumbent's sideshows and penchant for inflammatory rhetoric. But at least dialogue would get a jolt, and that would be a good thing.

But I wonder if the regional impact of a Mousavi victory might be something else entirely -- strengthening Iranian "soft power" in the region. The Iranian election has already captivated the Arab public sphere -- it has been all over the headlines and the TV stations. I imagine that many of the Arabs who see democracy as an important and positive issue find this Iranian election inspiring (as they did Khatemi's 1997 campaign). The Arab public may regard a Mousavi victory as the same kind of opportunity to rethink relations with Iran as Obama's victory offered for relations with the United States. Arab leaders may find it harder to mobilize opposition to Iran with the seemingly reasonable Mousavi in office than with the cheerfully inflammatory Ahmedenejad.

If a "Mousavi Effect" could open a window of opportunity for Iranian public diplomacy and soft power, the big question -- just as it was for Obama -- would be whether Iran would use that moment to reinforce existing lines of conflict or to break them down. Could direct renewed Iranian soft power towards rebuilding strained relations with Arabs and overcoming the "moderate camp vs resistance camp" narrative preferred by Ahmedenejad (and by the Bush administration and key Arab leaders such as Hosni Mubarak)? How would the Obama administration respond to such an Iranian public diplomacy offensive? In the end, that may be more important than the nuclear question for the future of the region.

Of course, if Ahmedenejad wins, the reverse effect may take hold. When George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in 2004, a very wide swathe of Arab public opinion concluded that this meant that the American people really did bear responsibility for Bush's unpopular policies. If the U.S. is really a democracy, they asked, then didn't Bush's victory mean that his war on terror and invasion of Iraq really did represent the American popular will? If Ahmedenejad wins, the same dynamic may hit Iran in the Arab world: the Iranian people had the chance to correct their policies, and chose to continue as they were. That might lead to a hardening and deepening of anti-Iranian sentiment, at least among elites and leaders.
more:
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/10/could_there_be_a_mousavi_effect

[shravan]

Mousavi Iran's Obama?


I hope that he wins the election.

[maven]

Iran's Revolutionary Guard vows to crush 'velvet revolution'

Tensions are mounting in Iran in the final day before voters decide whether controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will win a second term.

The country's powerful Revolutionary Guard has issued a sharp warning to the president's chief rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, that it would crush any attempt at a popular "revolution" inspired by the huge rallies and street parties calling for more freedoms, the Associated Press reports.

In his final TV appearance Ahmad Ahmadinejad accused his opponents of conspiring with Israelis to falsify documents and graphs to discredit him while using the tactics of Adolf Hitler against him, the BBC reports.

WATCH:ROGER COHEN ON MOUSAVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfhg8zBzBa8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Egoogle%2Eco%2Euk%2Fnews%3 Fpz%3D1%26ned%3Duk%26hl%3Den%26q%3Dmousavi%2Brevol utionary%2Bguard&feature=player_embedded

The political chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard has warned reformists in the country against seeking what he called a "velvet revolution", vowing that it would be "nipped in the bud".
Yadollah Javani's comments appeared aimed at Mir Hossein Mousavi, a reformist candidate in the country's presidential elections and followed another day of bitter exchanges between Mousavi and his rival and current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Revolutionary Guard is one of the pillars of the Iranian establishment and controls large military forces as well as a nationwide network of militia.
In a statement on its website, Javani drew parallels between Mousavi's campaign and the "velvet revolution'' that led to the 1989 overthrow of the communist government in then Czechoslovakia.
"There are many indications that some extremist [reformist] groups, have designed a colourful revolution ... using a specific colour for the first time in an election," the statement said.

Calling that a "sign of kicking off a velvet revolution project in the presidential elections", Javani vowed that any "attempt for velvet revolution will be nipped in the bud".

Javani also accused the reformists of planning to claim vote rigging and provoke street violence if Mousavi loses.
Ahmadinejad, the president, is believed to have wide support in the Revolutionary Guard and among Iran's ruling clerics, though neither have given public endorsements in the presidential race.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Sadegh Zibakalam, professor of political science at Tehran University, said that the Revolutionary Guard chief's statement would not change the course of the election.
"Over the last three weeks, hundreds, thousands - perhaps millions - of Iranians have been pouring onto the streets. More than supporting Mousavi or other candidates, they have been expressing their opposition to Ahmadinejad and his policies," he said.
"I do not think the Revolutionary Guard's interference will change anything because it is not as though there is a conspiracy that requires them to step in."

Ahmadinejad accused his rivals of using Hitler-style smear tactics and said they could face jail for insulting the president.
"Such insults and accusations against the government are a return to Hitler's methods, to repeat lies and accusations ... until everyone believes those lies," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"I believe it is a new beginning and I want to take part in it," Parastou Pazhoutan, a 26-year-old Mousavi supporter, said.
"A month ago, I would have said Ahmadinejad was a sure bet,'' Sharif Emam Jomeh, a political analyst, said.
"There was apathy especially with the youth. But now, until 3am, they are out in numbers and they care ... Below the surface, something was boiling."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961104040823718.html

[Mil]

Unfortunately Iran is not a Democracy..... their elections are a scam and are neither free nor fair. It's a theocracy which, as any other authoritarian regime, needs enemies to survive.

[maven]

WATCH BLOOMBERG ON IRANIAN ELECTION:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVeWuB8lyhQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Egoogle%2Eco%2Euk%2Fnews%3 Fpz%3D1%26ned%3Duk%26hl%3Den%26q%3Dmousavi&feature=player_embedded


-IRANIAN TIANMEN THREATENED-

Iran poll will end in riots if Ahmadinejad cheats, says Mousavi camp
Supporters Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during an election rally in Tehran
Martin Fletcher in Tehran

Iran will hold a landmark presidential election today amid warnings of violence if the vote is rigged to secure President Ahmadinejad’s return.

As the most tumultuous campaign in the Islamic Republic’s 30-year history drew to a close, Mir Hossein Mousavi, the incumbent’s strongest challenger, appealed to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian Supreme Leader, to ensure that the election was fair.

Those close to Mr Mousavi went further, claiming that Mr Ahmadinejad could win only by cheating — and that this could spark riots and chaos on the streets.

Saeed Laylaz, a political consultant, said he feared a “Tiananmen Square-style experience”, with the military moving in to crush any protests.
Related Links

Such warnings were lent credence by Yadollah Javani, a leader of the hardline Republican Guard, who has vowed to suppress any attempt by Mr Mousavi’s reformist supporters to mount a “velvet revolution” after the election.

Officials expect a near-record turnout of the 46 million eligible voters after an extraordinary campaign marked by vast rallies, all-night revelry on the streets of Tehran and unprecedented infighting among the Iranian political elite.

The ultra-conservative Mr Ahmadinejad has again presented himself as a man of the people who has used his first term to challenge a corrupt Establishment at home, defy the American superpower and restore Iranian dig- nity. President Obama’s recent offer of dialogue was vindication for his efforts, he has claimed.

Although he has caused rampant inflation through his reckless spending of Iran’s record oil revenues, he has strong support among the pious and the rural poor, on whom he has lavished visits and largesse, from cheques to potatoes.

He also has the backing of Mr Khamenei, of the Republican Guard and its Basiji militia, and of a nationwide government machine that includes the state broadcaster.

Until a fortnight ago, Mr Ahmadinejad’s re-election looked all but certain, but urban middle-class Iranians began to rally behind Mr Mousavi, a former Prime Minister and relative moderate. He was a dull candidate, but he promised social liberalisation — including an end to the hated morality police — sound economic management and détente with the West. He also broke with tradition by allowing his much more forceful wife, Zahra Rahnavard, to campaign publicly with him.

Mr Mousavi is scarcely a reformist, but young Iranians and women have turned to him as their best chance of ousting a President who has sharply curtailed their personal freedoms. They have flooded on to the streets of Iran’s cities in huge numbers to demonstrate their support.

The Mousavi campaign encouraged the bandwagon by adopting the colour green, which sprouted everywhere, and through the prodigious use of text messages and e-mails. As a fortnight of frenzied political activity finally subsided yesterday, Mr Laylaz and Mohammad Atrianfar, a senior adviser to Mr Mousavi, confidently predicted that he would win 55 to 60 per cent of the vote.

Iranian elections are notoriously unpredictable, however. There are no reliable opinion polls, and the result will be influenced by three extraneous factors.

The first is turnout. In past elections many reform-minded Iranians have refused to participate, lest they legitimise the political system, but they are expected to vote in large numbers today to prevent Mr Ahmadinejad from winning a second term.

Second, the moderate vote will split between Mr Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, a former parliamentary Speaker, while a fourth candidate, Mohsen Rezai, a former commander of the Republican Guard, will lure some disaffected conservatives away from Mr Amadinejad.

Third, there is a danger of voterigging of the sort that is widely believed to have secured Mr Ahmadinejad, a rank outsider, the presidency in 2005. His men now control the Interior Ministry and the committee that oversees the elections. Independent experts believe that he could secure as many as four million extra votes through fraudulent ballot papers, miscounting and other measures.

If no candidate secures 50 per cent of today’s vote there will be a run-off next Friday between the top two — presumably Mr Ahmadinejad and Mr Mousavi. Most experts believe that the anyone-but-Ahmadinejad vote would coalesce behind his main rival and hand him victory.

The campaign has for the first time exposed deep rifts within the regime, with Mr Ahmadinejad and his three opponents hurling accusations of corruption, fraud and nepotism at each other in an unprecedented series of live television debates.

“This campaign shows the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a united entity any more,” said Mr Laylaz.

It has also laid bare the deep divisions in Iranian society between urban and rural, secular and devout, young and old.

Curiously, foreign policy was hardly an issue, despite Mr Ahmadinejad’s constant provocation of the West, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and Mr Obama’s overtures after the deep freeze of the Bush years.

It is Ayatollah Khamenei and not the President who controls Iran’s foreign and nuclear policies. However, diplomats hope for a change of tone, if not substance, if Mr Mousavi is elected and believe that could lead to a resumption of negotiations over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power.

All four candidates have pledged to continue the nuclear programme — a source of great national pride that they insist is for energy generation only — but Mr Mousavi has promised to pursue a less abrasive foreign policy and is willing to meet Mr Obama.

During the campaign he accused Mr Ahmadinejad of reducing Iranian passports to the status of Somalia’s by denying the Holocaust and other antics.

“Our people have not given you the right to disgrace them,” he said.

MORE:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6482011.ece

[takeo]

I hope Mousavi wins. Altough the real power is still in the hands of Khamenei of course, the president can make a difference, as Khatami proved.

[Mediocrates]

It really makes no difference either way. Iran will pursue an atomic capability no matter who they elect. The urban Iranians want more liberalization but they'll continue to flaunt the laws anyway. The current President's base is in rural Iran who don't care what happens to the cities as long as they get their handouts. And the ruling mullahs continue to get the two groups to play off against each other. I couldn't care less how they govern themselves as long as they're not an overt existential threat to anyone else.

[maven]

I hope that he wins the election.Mousavi is claiming victory but so is Ahmediejad. I'ts a tense time and there is the worry the regime will steal the election.

UPDATE 1-Mousavi says he "definite winner" in Iran election
Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:22pm BST

TEHRAN, June 12 ((Reuters) - Former prime minister Mirhossein Mousavi said he was the "definite winner" in Iran's election on Friday, claiming victory over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"We see ourselves as the definite winner," Mousavi told a news conference in Tehran.

Mousavi complained about irregularities in the voting, saying: "We are waiting for the counting of votes to officially end and explanations of these irregularities be given".

He said that many voters had not been able to cast their ballots even after voting was extended by four hours.

"There are still many people behind closed doors who cannot cast their votes. We had centres that, despite the fact the election was extended, were told to close down," he said.

"We were faced with a delay (in receiving) ballot papers. There was a lack of ballot papers in many places, such as (the cities of) Tabriz, Shiraz, Isfahan etc," he said.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKLC49308620090612

[Mediocrates]

A tie always goes to the fascist

[maven]

A tie always goes to the fascistThe polls had hardly closed when the Iranian regime announced Ahmedinejad has won with 69 percent of the vote. It is beginning to look as though the regime have stolen the election.

[orangeblossom]

I am sure Mousavi was the winner of the election. The people are getting tired of all their money going to Hezbollah. It is not just that, but hangings are high, fines are high....students tired of being arrested or denied education because they spoke against the government. It is building up.

There are a few Iranians who come to my business. They cant stand Arhmadinejab.

And from the election, there were people in the streets partying, like Lebanon...but again, state will probably say if was more for arhmadinejab.

Personally, Arhmadinejab needs to be tried at ICC and a warrant issued for his arrest. I know he won't be, but....it sends a strong message across the world.

Luv ya.....OB

[orangeblossom]

Here is a quote from someone in Iran currently....it rather fit what I thought:

"In fact, it may be something less than that, since all three challengers to Ahmadinejad, including Mousavi, are establishment figures. Yet there's no denying the political and social movement that is building against the president, mostly around Mousavi's brilliant campaign. And the contempt for Ahmadinejad is everywhere, from well-connected observers and analysts, government officials, and ordinary Iranians I've encountered. A few days ago, as I headed over to Ahmadinejad's campaign headquarters, I stopped a man to ask directions. "Ahmadinejad! Why do you want to go see him? He destroyed the country!" A few blocks later, a well-dressed man comes up to me, just outside the president's government office and down an alley from the campaign headquarters. He introduces himself as an employee in the office of the president. He says that Ahmadinejad is a fool. And he adds: "The mullahs [the Iranian clergy] are like idols. They must be broken!" He pulls down his shirt to show me a bullet wound from the war.
Source: alternet.org

[bararallu]

I am sure Mousavi was the winner of the election.

How can you say that? Most of the country is countryside. Most of that is extremely conservative.

[Kachah]

Well, it does look like the mad dog will remain at power.BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8098305.stm).I am not even going to specualte if the elections were rigged or influenced somehow else, it's pointless.

This obviously will deal another blow to the softy lefties who keep talking about how democratic Iran is, but most imprortantly this sets Iran on the course of no return. Ahmaidiot has got the "support" i.e. poor brainwashed Iranians have more "pride" fever than common sense. .
This is the old question whether democracy is good for anyone and everyone or the population has to be ready for it i.e. able to accept responsibility for the popular choice.
The Arabs of the territories vote for Hamas
The Iranians vote for mad ayatollahs
The Russians - for KGB
Au contraire, the Lebs voting half-responsibly have just kicked Hezbollah out and brought to power some reasonable folk. I am not saying it's brilliant, but at least they got a chance.
It goes on. People without the history, traditions and practices of freedom and responsibility should learn it first.
The sleep of reason produces monsters.

[Mediocrates]

Iran will Anschluss part of Iraq by 2011 after it goes nuclear.

[Kachah]

Iran will Anschluss part of Iraq by 2011 after it goes nuclear.IF it goes...or rather if it is allowed to by obamas of the world.

[Mediocrates]

Oh he will, no doubt. A nuclear Iran will force Obama to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely and ahead of schedule.

[uriah007]

Israeli paper says strike on Iran could delay bomb

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINLC60776820090812

JERUSALEM, Aug 12 (Reuters) - A major Israeli newspaper ran a front-page story on Wednesday quoting an unidentified "senior defence official" as saying Israel believed a military strike could disrupt what it says is an Iranian nuclear arms program. Under a photograph of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sitting the previous day in the cockpit of an F-15I long-range fighter-bomber, mass-selling Maariv quoted the official as saying Israel could carry out such a strike without U.S. approval but time was running out for it to be effective.

[Mediocrates]

Tehran has more than ten thousand Chinese HQ2-SA2 based AA missiles. IAF ECM (electronic counter measures) can defeat them, still, that's a LOT of missiles.

[uriah007]

Yes, I am sure that is being taken into account by IDF/IAF as we speak, and all measures and all angles to a strike are being reviewed and considered. To pull such a strike will be an amazing feat, but from past experiences and history (Entebe, Osirak, etc.) Israel is capable of amazing things in times of need.

I don't know how true this information is, but I found it quite interesting in regards to this topic here: Russian joke: S-300 sale to Israel: http://samsonblinded.org/news/russian-joke-s-300-sale-to-israel-11909

[shravan]

A nuclear Iran will force Obama to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely and ahead of schedule.

Why do you think that ?

[shravan]

Yes, I am sure that is being taken into account by IDF/IAF as we speak, and all measures and all angles to a strike are being reviewed and considered. To pull such a strike will be an amazing feat, but from past experiences and history (Entebe, Osirak, etc.) Israel is capable of amazing things in times of need.


If IDF/IAF wanted to strike Iran they would have kept their mouth shut.

[Mediocrates]

Why do you think that ?

Because atomic weapons are a strategic threat. NATO will leave AfPak as soon as Nuclear Iran starts talking about regional superpower and hegemony status. The force of nuclear strategy is to never use them, only use the threat of them to push all sorts of other tactical and strategic levers. The US has exactly 3 opposites who are both potential enemies and nuclear armed: Russia, China, North Korea. Iran would be a 4th.

[uriah007]

If IDF/IAF wanted to strike Iran they would have kept their mouth shut.

I am sure the Israelis keep their mouths shut as to whether, when and/or how they would or will strike. They only stated that all options are on the table. Not knowing the exact plans or intentions keeps their enemies on edge, which is a smart strategy.

[shravan]

I am sure the Israelis keep their mouths shut as to whether, when and/or how they would or will strike. They only stated that all options are on the table. Not knowing the exact plans or intentions keeps their enemies on edge, which is a smart strategy.

Seems like you missed this report.

Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097882.html)

[shravan]

Because atomic weapons are a strategic threat. NATO will leave AfPak as soon as Nuclear Iran starts talking about regional superpower and hegemony status. The force of nuclear strategy is to never use them, only use the threat of them to push all sorts of other tactical and strategic levers. The US has exactly 3 opposites who are both potential enemies and nuclear armed: Russia, China, North Korea. Iran would be a 4th.

Only Russia. For Challenging America you need more than 5000+ Nuke Bombs...;)

You may not believe me but in 2025 the biggest threat to America would be India.

[uriah007]

Seems like you missed this report. Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097882.html)
Well, I think this report only makes things edgier for Iran, because they now know that the Saudis would be willing to allow Israel to strike Iran if they choose to do so. Of course, the Israelis deny any such dealings - the same as they deny having any nuclear weapons - just to spice up the matters and keep the Iranians nervous about whether, when or how Israel will strike should they choose to do so.

[shravan]

Well, I think this report only makes things edgier for Iran, because they now know that the Saudis would be willing to allow Israel to strike Iran if they choose to do so. Of course, the Israelis deny any such dealings - the same as they deny having any nuclear weapons - just to spice up the matters and keep the Iranians nervous about whether, when or how Israel will strike should they choose to do so.

Uriah007,

Try to understand the deeper meaning of the above article. This kind of stuff should not come out in the first place. It does not effect Israel but it effects a lot to KSA.

Give me one good reason why should Israel attack Iran's Nuclear Sites ?

[uriah007]

"KSA"? I am not familiar with this term or abbreviation.

One good reason why Israel should attack Iran's nuclear sites? Ahmedinejad's statements about wiping Israel off the map of the world. In other words, existential reasons for Israel and their self-preservation. I don't think Ahmedinejad meant to wipe out Israel with a towel or a rug.

If you think Israel's "talks" about possible strikes are unwarranted, how about Ahmedinejad's repeated comments and Iran's ongoing support of Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas killing Israelis as often and in as many ways as they can?

[shravan]

"KSA"? I am not familiar with this term or abbreviation.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

One good reason why Israel should attack Iran's nuclear sites? Ahmedinejad's statements about wiping Israel off the map of the world. In other words, existential reasons for Israel and their self-preservation. I don't think Ahmedinejad meant to wipe out Israel with a towel or a rug.

Was that really meant for Israel ? Israeli Think-Tanks took that statement with a ton of salt.

If you think Israel's "talks" about possible strikes are unwarranted, how about Ahmedinejad's repeated comments and Iran's ongoing support of Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas killing Israelis as often and in as many ways as they can?

Every country does that and i am sure Israel knows the reason behind it.

We Indian's supported Iran's Nuke Program but has our relationship changed with Israel ? Personally i think it got stronger.

Israel also likes Iran's high-grade oil....;)

[shravan]

Israeli Paper Says Strike on Iran Could Delay Bomb (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/08/12/world/international-uk-israel-iran-report.html)

Published: August 12, 2009

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A major Israeli newspaper ran a front-page story on Wednesday quoting an unidentified "senior defence official" as saying Israel believed a military strike could disrupt what it says is an Iranian nuclear arms programme.
.
.
The official said: "The Iranians are creating fortifications and camouflage to defend against a strike from the air."

The official added: "The military option is real and at the disposal of Israel's leaders, but time is working against them."

[uriah007]

Was that really meant for Israel? Israeli Think-Tanks took that statement with a ton of salt.
If it wasn't meant for Israel, why did the world media report it as such at the time, see, for example:
- Iranian leader: Wipe out Israel: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html (October 27, 2005)
- Iranian paper: Great war to wipe out Israel coming: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3328416,00.html (Nov 15, 2006)

Every country does that and i am sure Israel knows the reason behind it.
Are you saying that EVERY country threatens their neighbors? The USA don't threaten Canada or Mexico. With a few exceptions from recent history, e.g. WW1 and WW2 history and the war in former Yugoslavia, European countries don't threaten each other. Etc. And the only reason Israel talks about a possible strike on Iran is because Iran has made threatening comments about destroying Israel. Do you believe that Israel took or should take that threat lightly?

We Indian's supported Iran's Nuke Program but has our relationship changed with Israel ? Personally i think it got stronger.
But India takes Pakistan's threat of nuclear war or troop build-up at its borders seriously, doesn't it? http://www.acus.org/atlantic_update/pakistan-threatens-troop-buildup-india-border

Israel also likes Iran's high-grade oil....;)
Doesn't everybody? Israeli strike is not meant to destroy Iran, only its nuclear facilities.

[shravan]

If it wasn't meant for Israel, why did the world media report it as such at the time, see, for example:
- Iranian leader: Wipe out Israel: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html (October 27, 2005)
- Iranian paper: Great war to wipe out Israel coming: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3328416,00.html (Nov 15, 2006)

Then why is KSA allowing IAF to fly over her airspace ?


Are you saying that EVERY country threatens their neighbors?

Most of them do.

The USA don't threaten Canada or Mexico.

USA is a superpower so it threatens the world...:D They don't need to threaten their neighbors. When you have such a powerful neighbor you have to Grease Up and Bend Over.....:D

With a few exceptions from recent history, e.g. WW1 and WW2 history and the war in former Yugoslavia, European countries don't threaten each other.

Its human behavior. Maybe the are peaceful now but are you sure in the future it will remain same ?

And the only reason Israel talks about a possible strike on Iran is because Iran has made threatening comments about destroying Israel. Do you believe that Israel took or should take that threat lightly?

Iran nuclear weapons are not meant for Israel. And if Iran really wants to destroy Israel it does not need Nuclear Weapons.


But India takes Pakistan's threat of nuclear war or troop build-up at its borders seriously, doesn't it? http://www.acus.org/atlantic_update/pakistan-threatens-troop-buildup-india-border

We are waiting for their nuclear bomb to drop on India. We are ready to lose one city but after that there will be no Pakistan. That's why we signed No Nuclear First treaty.

Doesn't everybody?

Then why ironclad boycott of all things Iranian ?

Israeli strike is not meant to destroy Iran, only its nuclear facilities.

Iran also can say the same thing.

[uriah007]

I think KSA would be allowing IAF to fly over her airspace because they are afraid of Iran nuclear power as well. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire Middle East. So, while KSA hate Israel, they know Israel is not irrational and won't attack KSA for no reason. They don't have the same guarantees from Iran's side.

[shravan]

I think KSA would be allowing IAF to fly over her airspace because they are afraid of Iran nuclear power as well. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire Middle East. So, while KSA hate Israel, they know Israel is not irrational and won't attack KSA for no reason. They don't have the same guarantees from Iran's side.

So KSA thinks the Nuclear Bomb is a threat to them, right ? Iran is a threat to Sunni's. So let them fight & we should support the Shia's.

Shia's have treated Jews much better than Sunni.

Iran even has a Jew in their Parliament. Do you know that ?

[uriah007]

USA is a superpower so it threatens the world... They don't need to threaten their neighbors. When you have such a powerful neighbor you have to Grease Up and Bend Over...
Well, that's the common view and portrayal of America military superiority. But, think in terms of instead the USA, Russia, or China, or North Korea... being a superpower. What would the world look like then?

The U.S. have not attacked any country that they did not return to its original owners. In fact, most of American wars have been wars not of occupation but of liberation: WW1, WW2, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. I can assure you that either China, Russia or North Korea... or Iran, have not such noble intentions vis-à-vis their neighbors. If the U.S. don't stand up as a superpower, others will and they won't be as altruistic and as decent as the Americans are.

[shravan]

Well, that's the common view and portrayal of America military superiority.

That's not a common view. It is a fact. And i like that about America.


But, think in terms of instead the USA, Russia, or China, or North Korea... being a superpower. What would the world look like then?

To become a superpower you have to do a lot of dirty work. And having few hundred nuclear weapons will not make a country superpower.

As a Indian i would like to see India as a superpower simple as that.

The U.S. have not attacked any country that they did not return to its original owners. In fact, most of American wars have been wars not of occupation but of liberation: WW1, WW2, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.

America's bread and butter....;)

I can assure you that either China, Russia or North Korea... or Iran, have not such noble intentions vis-à-vis their neighbors. If the U.S. don't stand up as a superpower, others will and they won't be as altruistic and as decent as the Americans are.

You then don't know what kind of mess America creates so that it can come later to clean it.

Recently i read it would take another 40 years to leave Afghanistan. Colonization 2.0 ?

[shravan]

uriah007,

I am not against America. I like America for what it really does to remain in Power and how it looks after its Citizens.

But as a outsider if you ask me I will say America is a Ugly Whore.

[uriah007]

Iran even has a Jew in their Parliament. Do you know that ?
Yes, Maurice Motamed. But only one? Here is the list of Arab members in the Israeli Knesset: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset

[uriah007]

To become a superpower you have to do a lot of dirty work. And having few hundred nuclear weapons will not make a country superpower.
A country can be a military or an economic superpower. That's what America still is, although nowadays these foundations are being shaken by both two costly wars the U.S. are waging and the economic crisis.

[uriah007]

But as a outsider if you ask me I will say America is a Ugly Whore.
What do you mean by that?

[shravan]

A country can be a military or an economic superpower.

A country has to be both strong in militarily and economically to become superpower.

What do you mean by that?

America sleeps with countries for her own benefit. And changes sides like a whore.

----
I have to sleep now. Bye.

[uriah007]

You then don't know what kind of mess America creates so that it can come later to clean it.
Where did America create a mess that they had to come later to clean it up? Can you give some examples to support this view?

Recently i read it would take another 40 years to leave Afghanistan.
Colonization 2.0?
The U.S. troops are stationed in Germany and Japan post-WW2 (that ended in 1945) for now some 60+ years, and South Korea since the Korean war in the 1950's. Are Germany, Japan or South Korea colonies of the United States?

[takeo]

You have to read closely - takeo is stating that the reason the young people hate their own government, which by the way is unsubstantiated, is because....wait for it....

The US supported the Shah and then opposed Iran in the past few years.

I can't even make sense of that.

I think you can no longer claim that my statement is unsubstantiated. And yes, the Mousavi camp made plenty of references to Obama, and specifically said that the change in the US policy towards Iran led to a change of mood in Iran. Is it a coincidence that just a few monnths after Obama took power and offered peace to Iran the regime went trough its worst crisis in its existence? And few analy ists doubt that resentment against US interfearance was one of the reasons behind the revolution against the Shah.

[shravan]

Where did America create a mess that they had to come later to clean it? Can you give some examples to support this view?

9/11 could have been stopped.

In Pakistan, America supported the Dictatorship now they have come to clean the mess.

The U.S. troops are stationed in Germany and Japan post-WW2 (that ended in 1945) so now some 60+ years, and South Korea since the Korean war in the 1950's. Are Germany, Japan or South Korea colonies of the United States?

No. But Iraq & Afghanistan are different from those countries.

[uriah007]

9/11 could have been stopped.
How? Could the recent terrorist attack and massacre at the Mumbai Hotel been stopped too? If so, why wasn't it stopped by your country and over 300 people died?

In Pakistan, America supported the Dictatorship now they have come to clean the mess.
What you call "Dictatorship" in Pakistan has kept that country for many years from becoming a mess that it is today. Pakistan has always been a mess, but it was a rather orderly mess under Musharraf who was supported by the U.S. at the time to keep the "poop in a scoop" and even get rid of terrorist factions in his country. Now that Benasir Bhutto is assassinated by those Islamic terrorists Musharraf failed to eradicate and radical Islam is on the rise, the country is in a mess and a havoc, not because of American support, but rather instead of it. At least, that is my opinion.

No. But Iraq & Afghanistan are different from those countries.

How is it different? Didn't you read or hear about the recent American and ally troops' withdrawal from most Iraqi cities? If America wanted to colonize Iraq, they would have not agreed to move out of Baghdad, see: "American combat forces withdrew from Iraq's urban areas at the end of June 2009 and all troops are to withdraw by the end of 2011, according to the agreement. President Barack Obama has ordered the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by Aug. 31, 2010, leaving roughly 50,000 troops to train and advise Iraqi security forces. "Today is a normal day for our forces currently in Iraq," Robinson said, "because our business is already tied closely to our bilateral partnership with the Iraqis." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFalonxIxuJORy6CgZMqGXYGrlIQD99Q8HQG2

[shravan]

How? Could the recent terrorist attack and massacre at the Mumbai Hotel been stopped too? If so, why wasn't it stopped by your country and over 300 people died?

Last reply on this thread.

Do you know the New York Supreme Court appointed an independent referee to oversee a line-by-line review of the NYC CAN petition signatures that were declared invalid by the New York City Clerk and Board of Elections ?

NYC CAN (Most of them are victims of 9/11 & Retired Government Agents) they have some question which are still not answered.

If you have time take a look - Unanswered Questions (http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html)

We did not go on a war with Pakistan that answers your question about Mumbai Attacks. But in future i hope India does something similar to America...;)
Added Later: Similar like America^

What you call "Dictatorship" in Pakistan has kept that country for many years from becoming a mess that it is today. Pakistan has always been a mess, but it was a rather orderly mess under Musharraf who was supported by the U.S. at the time to keep the "poop in a scoop" and even get rid of terrorist factions in his country. Now that Benasir Bhutto is assassinated by those Islamic terrorists Musharraf failed to eradicate and radical Islam is on the rise, the country is in a mess and a havoc, not because of American support, but rather instead of it. At least, that is my opinion.

America supported the mess. You supported not only in Pakistan but lot of other countries. Pakistan is just an example. And here I am not talking about Musharraf or Benasir Bhutto.

Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq was fully supported by America and he is the reason for all the mess which you guys have come to clean.

How is it different? Didn't you read or hear about the recent American and ally troops' withdrawal from most Iraqi cities? If America wanted to colonize Iraq, they would have not agreed to move out of Baghdad, see:

You must be joking. Last i heard the communal violence's have started again Shia V/s. Sunni. Seems like Al-Quida does not want America to leave Iraq....;)
America is not going to leave Iraq as Obama is saying.

America is there for a reason and it was not Saddam Hussein.

Do you even know what the actual target is ? Hint - You owe them more than a trillion dollars...;)

---
Not going to reply anymore regarding America.
I will say it again I like the way America works and how it looks after it citizens.

[uriah007]

Arabs pressure Obama to endorse strike on Iran
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106939

JERUSALEM – For the first time since coming into office, President Obama is under serious pressure to study the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran, a top Egyptian intelligence said.

The Egyptian official said the pressure does not only come from Israel but also from Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia that are at odds with Iran and its Shiite theocracy. The official said Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, has been involved in an intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying effort urging the U.S. and other Western countries to do everything necessary to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. Such weapons would threaten Saudi Arabia's position of influence in the Middle East.

The Egyptian official said his country believes it is not likely Obama will grant Israel permission to attack Iran.

[shravan]

Arabs pressure Obama to endorse strike on Iran
]

Should Israel attack Iran because Arabs are afraid of Iran ? Shouldn't Arabs do the dirty work ?

---
I hope you are understanding what i am trying to say.

[bararallu]

Should Israel attack Iran because Arabs are afraid of Iran ? Shouldn't Arabs do the dirty work ?

---
I hope you are understanding what i am trying to say.

You are 100% right. We dont fight for Arabs. They want to fight Iran, then they should fight Iran... or they will be consumed by Iran. We are stronger than all the Arabs are together, and we will fight when it suits us. Eventually, when the Mullahs (or the new military clique led by Firouzabadi) go, we will be allies, again, with the Persians, as we have been historically since time immemorial.

[uriah007]

Should Israel attack Iran because Arabs are afraid of Iran ? Shouldn't Arabs do the dirty work? I hope you are understanding what i am trying to say.
I agree with you, and I agree with bararallu: if the Arabs want to fight Iran, then they should fight Iran. I think it's just a simple matter of them not being capable militarily and intelligence wise, i.e., military intelligence, but maybe also smarts. IDF/IAF are superb in taking any Arab country or Iran out if they put their mind and hand to it. Again, the Israelis feel threatened directly by Iran nowadays. That is why they must and they do envision the strong possibility of a pre-emptive strike to reduce Iran's nuclear and military capabilities. It is not a small endeavor, but I am sure Israel can do it, and maybe should do it it soon too if they want to survive. Israel is not against the Iranian people in general. But, the Iranian government has been an ongoing threat with their islamic bravado and chutzpah in disregarding the international community's efforts to stop Iran's nuclear build-up. I guess Iran doesn't have enough petroleum to heat their houses and they need nuclear power for domestic energy needs and purposes... Yeah, right.