I agree that people romanticizing the opposition candidate are taking the wrong path. The remarkable part of all of this is the response from the people who are disaffected by the result. It's hard to see how in the short term this will be a success, but hopefully this will at least lead to incremental changes giving the Iranian people more say over who their rulers are.

I just want less full on burkas. Iranian women shouldn't cover up so damn much.


The problem with much of this is that it hasn't effectively been reported. Twitter is not a major reporting device. There is little substantiation and verification, and it can quickly deliver false information from unreliable sources. Hell, we don't actually know how many people died in the organizing, we don't know how many people were actually there, and we don't have unbiased reports from either side. This is mostly the fault of the Iranian government for cutting off access and basically sending their 21st century nation back to the early 1900s for the time being, but it still remains that we DON'T KNOW much of anything.

The gatherings could all be small and full of the same people over and over...they could be huge and all-encompassing. Who really knows? Mousavi didn't win 80-19-1. He doesn't have universal appeal, but to read twitter you'd think he has 150% of the populous behind him.

The article I read in the LA Times (or NY Times) about the Mousavi guy said his younger daughter doesn't wear a burka. I liked that.

jerseyhoya wrote:I agree that people romanticizing the opposition candidate are taking the wrong path. The remarkable part of all of this is the response from the people who are disaffected by the result. It's hard to see how in the short term this will be a success, but hopefully this will at least lead to incremental changes giving the Iranian people more say over who their rulers are.

Yeah. One of the things that was so off about Bush's Middle East policies was that he kept saying that democracy and pro-US would go hand in hand. Instead, you got Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Ahmadinejad (who pretty clearly was legit the first time he won) in Iran, the crushing rejection of the most pro-US slates in Iraq, etc.

Not that the opposite (more democracy, more anti-US) is immutably true either. But the point is that we can put our thumb on the scale for process (fair, open elections) or outcome (a client state, basically), just not both.

There are republics in the Middle East, just not like ours, and just with far too much religious influence.

I would add that many of the politicians here would be well-advised to shut their yaps in public. Them flapping their gums throwing into question the entire election process in Iran does nothing to help. Yes, things were fishy, you don't need to point that out. It's much better NOT coming from our government officials. I think Werthless? wrote it earlier, but I'm happy as hell I didn't back McCain in the 08 presidential race, as he's proving to be awfully trigger-happy with his statements. It's scary to think what he'd have done from the Oval Office.

Obama's much more measured tone is exactly what's been needed on the foreign policy front. For all the things I'd like to see done on a domestic level, we can't forget how well he's been approaching the rest of the world. It's a complete 180 in how we think about our place in the world, in my estimation. We are in and of the world, citizens of not just our somewhat arbitrary borders but also world citizens, and while we have disproportionate power and can and should use it for good, we needn't strut around like the cock of the walk. It's unbecoming. Nobody likes the cocky starting quarterback.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1193941/North-Korea-plan-missile-launch-Hawaii-Independence-Day.html

I generally take the British press with a grain of salt, and I think the Daily Mail is one of the worst papers they have, but if this is for real, wow. I'd say we should bomb them back to the stone age if they actually hurl a missile in our general direction, but they're already there, and their people aren't exactly one with the regime. But things would need to blow up in DPRK if this happened.

If it's not even capable of reaching Hawaii, what would be the point of launching it? Just to show you could? And that you want a vicious hellfire of weapons launched upon your country?

Now let's see... if the article is accurate, NK plans to launch a missle at Hawaii that can't reach Hawaii? That's frikkin brilliant.

Iran's supreme leader said Friday that there was "definitive victory" and no rigging in the disputed June 12 presidential election, offering no concession to protesters demanding the vote be canceled and held again.

now things will get interesting

"There is 11 million votes difference, Khamenei said. "How one can rig 11 million votes?"

The United States, like any belligerent yet insecure male, does not cope well with impotence. Maybe that's the real dynamic around our experience with the Iranian election. Yeah, it might well be fixed, and certainly both idealists (the true believers in democracy) and realists (those who really could give a fig about democracy, but just ache to stick it to that psychotic dickface of a president they have as well as the mullahs) have legitimate rooting interests. But really there's not a lot we can do, and as many here and elsewhere have pointed out, most of what we can do is more likely to do harm than good.

This was probably true for a lot of the Cold War as well, of course. When the tanks went into Czechoslovakia and Hungary, we stamped our little feet and griped at the UN and got all demagogic at home. But "rollback" was never really tried, and a good thing too. We bided our time and ultimately it worked out... which isn't to say that result was inevitable, or that doing so was very satisfying. Just something to consider, I guess.

So I'm listening to Radio 4's Today programme this morning, where the frequently annoying John Humphreys is broadcasting from Islamabad, and he quoted a stat I'd completely forgotten about - 60% of the country's income is spent on the military, 30% on servicing debt, and the people of pakistan get the remaining 10%.

60 FUCKING PERCENT.

I'm firmly convinced there isn't an afterlife, so I hope zia ul haq's very last thought was something the lines of 'fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu......*'. because Reagan and the CIA might have given him the money, but he consolidated the army over the people in that country. and he insisted on it being an islamic state. If there is some kind of afterlife and I'm wrong, I hope Jinnah kicks that fuckers arse from one end of eternity to the other every mother fucking day.

Warszawa wrote:

Iran's supreme leader said Friday that there was "definitive victory" and no rigging in the disputed June 12 presidential election, offering no concession to protesters demanding the vote be canceled and held again.

now things will get interesting

"There is 11 million votes difference, Khamenei said. "How one can rig 11 million votes?"

Thie Khamenei fellow apparently believes no one but him has heard of the Big Lie.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 560

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 18, 2009

Mr. BERMAN (for himself and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

I really just don't understand why someone would vote no on this.

I don't like Ron Paul.

HE IS A BIRCHER

jerseyhoya wrote:I really just don't understand why someone would vote no on this.

I don't like Ron Paul.

He's the only "no" vote on a lot of symbolic resolutions that have nothing to do with Congressional responsibilities.

jerseyhoya wrote:

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 560

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 18, 2009

Mr. BERMAN (for himself and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

I really just don't understand why someone would vote no on this.

I don't like Ron Paul.

He likely recognizes this as a motion aimed at the US electorate that will have no or negative effect on the Iranian demonstrators, simply allowing the government to say it is standing up against pro-American agitators.

What good would have been served by the Russian Parliament expressing its support for the democratic protesters against the US Supreme Court awarding the US Presidency to George W Bush?

Link

In 1993, William Osburne was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and raping a woman in Anchorage, Alaska. He spent the next 14 years of his life behind bars. Osburne insists that he is innocent, the State of Alaska has in its possession DNA evidence which will once and for all prove his guilt or innocence, and Osburne has offered to pay for DNA testing out of his own pocket. Allowing Osburne to prove—or disprove–his claim of innocence will cost Alaska literally nothing.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held today in a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Osburne is out of luck. Although Roberts conceded that “[i]t is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty,” he determined that Osburne has no right to pay for a test that could exonerate him for a crime he did not commit. Allowing Osburne to prove his potential innocence, Roberts said, risks “unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.”

Um....

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I really just don't understand why someone would vote no on this.

I don't like Ron Paul.

He's the only "no" vote on a lot of symbolic resolutions that have nothing to do with Congressional responsibilities.

How dare Congress voice its opinion on issues other than the slave trade and whiskey taxes!?!

jerseyhoya wrote:

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 560

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 18, 2009

Mr. BERMAN (for himself and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

I really just don't understand why someone would vote no on this.

I don't like Ron Paul.

I hope there was more to that resolution... like, perhaps, some details as to what entails said "support" (especially considering that "and for other purposes"... what falls under "other purposes"?). I realize it's largely symbolic and "support" is likely just the assumed "moral support", but it'll be quite a predicament if they called saying "OK, we have your support, so give us monies and guns". Just sayin', you don't want vagueness to bite ya in da butt. Even if just adding the word "moral" before "support". Although most of 'em are lawyers, so the resolution is probably like 400 pages. But if it is in fact vague, I'd likely be a bit leery.

Prolly the only think I liked about Ron Paul was the blimp... and obvously that's because, well, it's a blimp.