Iranian election protests

Yeah I know, old news. Well, the problem is, It's still happening. I noticed the Tor Network exploded with new servers, nodes, and other services this week. Twitter is nothing but reports of brutality and protest rally organizers. Shit's going down! Niggas gettin' blasted! ¡VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN!

Anyway, Iran government is trying to block communication, so set up some tor servers or something. It's the least we can do besides buy popcorn and watch the fireworks.

It's always like this with true evil, you let it go for long enough and, if they don't get a bomb or can't attack anyone, the regime eventually eats itself.




What are your thoughts on this mess?

My thoughts are: this never would have happened if the US hadn't pushed its' own democratic agenda on the middle east.

If you want to talk about true evil, look a bit closer to home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations#1953_Iranian_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat

lol

The authorities are quietly ushering foreign news crews out of the country, it wouldn't suprise me if they're preparing for a crackdown that'll make Tiananmen Square look like a family reunion.

You know, it's amazing how much shit we caused just trying to stop the goddamn russians. It's one of the reason the Taleban came into power in the first place.

We create our own problems, then deny that our actions have long-term consequences.

I had a history professor that could trace the 9/11 attacks back to a little soviet/US proxy war in the middle east region. It's not that radical of an idea.

Csonicgo said:

You know, it's amazing how much shit we caused just trying to stop the goddamn russians. It's one of the reason the Taleban came into power in the first place.

QFT. I love how during the whole 9/11 patriotism bullshit it was pretty much ignored that Americans were the ones who trained, armed and put the Taliban in power in the first place.

If you look back hard enough, western animosity in the middle east began in the 50s, and it's all just about oil. udderdude's link is quite comprehensive.

Super Jamie said:

western animosity in the middle east began in the 50s

I assume you mean the 1050s? ;)

It's funny, I remember almost exactly 30 years ago watching similar scenes in Iran when they were deposing the Shah.

The election was rigged. 40 million votes counted BY HAND in 2 hours? California has 36 million voters, and this past election took nearly 10 hours to fully count.

The facts don't add up. But honestly, I don't care. It's not my country, and it isn't my issue.

And the US has a good track record for accurate vote counting in recent elections. ;)

US foreign policy is a joke. a terrible joke at best. I fail to understand why it's our, or anyone's, business to "help" other countries with their affairs. i can understand when a country has a natural disaster/war and is asking for assistance, but for anyone to get involved in this is ludicrous. While democracy may work in places, it wont work everywhere. Same with any government. When the people create a government (and i mean the people, not the US setting up some puppet government) they tailor it to their needs. The US founding fathers made something that worked for them. The Iranians need something to work for them.

and how can we complain about election fraud when Florida still has a significant amount of legally dead voters?


* moves to Canada *

People with power don't like to lose it. And it suits the US as the country remains a so-called rogue state.
With oil WMD's.

udderdude said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations#1953_Iranian_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat

lol

this is interesting.

udderdude said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations#1953_Iranian_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat

lol

I quite lol'd at the 1979 revolution, i just kind of take it for granted the US would have a hand in there trying to steer things thier way and boom, suddenly there's a hostile government in charge.

Then again i doubt the British Empire was any better, helping British-friendly Rajah's in the Princely states of India get into power. And i should think Rome attempted to steer the government of places they couldn't quite conquer... it'll always be going on.

Things have been building up to this for quite a while now. We tend to see Iran as full of nothing but radical extremists, but that's really far from the case. Yes, extremists are in power, but they don't really represent the people. Truth be told, one of the things that helped put them in power was simply backlash against US meddling. In the 50s, we helped install a corrupt leader simply because he was friendly to US interest. In '79, we supported the Shah, in the 80s we supported Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war... We really have a long history of trying to control Iran. Hell, we must've scared Iranians shitless with the Iraq war - making it absolutely clear that we have no qualms about invading and conquering countries in the Middle East if it's in our interests.

But despite all that, there is a sizable chunk of the population that would like to see a more Westernized Iran, and I think what's going on right now is evidence of that. In my personal opinion, I think the only reason we hadn't seen anything like this sooner is simply because of fear that we would use any sort of dissent in Iran to catch 'em with their pants down, so to speak.

geekmarine said:
But despite all that, there is a sizable chunk of the population that would like to see a more Westernized Iran,

You mean the urban middle and upper classes, but not necessarily the lower classes and small town or rural people, who tend to back Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, who have a more populist agenda. The situation is similar to what's happening in other countries around the globe, such as Bolivia and Venezuela.

If you check the list of countries either congratulating Ahmadinejad or being concerned about the elections, you'll see there's an ideological divide between them. This divide is present in the conflict in Iran itself, and thus reflected internationally.

Is it Irish week in Iran?