FYM -- All Quiet on the Iranian Front

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Sure. But the free world needs some way to show the protesters support. That will provide some of the moral backing to keep them motivated.
 
They'd know exactly what they're doing and where their support is. Other world leaders have been more explicit in their support, but really, the "we're watching, we can see you" line is what would be most important.
 
MadelynIris said:
Sure. But the free world needs some way to show the protesters support. That will provide some of the moral backing to keep them motivated.
Click to expand...



the actions of Google, Twitter, youtube, etc. are all exactly what is needed right now -- and the State Department has done a great job promoting this.

this is soft power in action.
 
I watched the speech and even though Obama has been very measured, the SL still took potshots at the U.S.

So what if the question was phrased:
If we are damned if we do/damned if we don't with regard to being outspoken against the situation, then what is the net positive to either option?

If they are going to attack the U.S. for 'injecting' itself and it's 'Zionist' friends, then would it help or exacerbate the problem to come out with a more hardline approach?

I would think that staying 'cool' on the subject keeps you in good standing with moderates who can see through the propaganda. So I don't know in any case that coming out forcefully helps. How could it help?
 
MadelynIris said:
Sure. But the free world needs some way to show the protesters support. That will provide some of the moral backing to keep them motivated.
Click to expand...

Don't know. If you think back at, for example the Hungary revolution, that was exactly the message perceived by them. But then the Soviets moved in and no one came for help. No one could've come for help. And it's the same here.

I guess the number of people who are really looking for a revolution is too small to be effective. Most protesters seem to be outraged over the apparent voter's fraud, but they are not going to overthrow the system.
 
Vincent Vega said:
Don't know. If you think back at, for example the Hungary revolution, that was exactly the message perceived by them. But then the Soviets moved in and no one came for help. No one could've come for help. And it's the same here.

I guess the number of people who are really looking for a revolution is too small to be effective. Most protesters seem to be outraged over the apparent voter's fraud, but they are not going to overthrow the system.
Click to expand...

If parts of the Iranian military and Revolutionary Guards joined the protest, then there might be a chance to overthrow the system. Right now though, there has yet to be any sign of that.
 
According to a recent Twitter (I just joined a few mins ago in order to follow events in Iran so not sure if that's the right lingo), some of the Western embassies are taking in injured protestors.
The UK and the US don't have embassies in Tehran so they can still claim to be uninvolved in the situation.

ETA: After further research, I think the Brits have an embassy there after all...
 
Moussavi says he's ready for martyrdom. No matter what happens, a movement has been born.

:heart:

Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps now is the time to take out their nuke facilities.:hmm:
 
MadelynIris said:
Moussavi says he's ready for martyrdom. No matter what happens, a movement has been born.

:heart:

Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps now is the time to take out their nuke facilities.:hmm:
Click to expand...

I think you are serious
an attack would galvanize support behind the current leadership
the whole country would be united, instantly.
 
Ron Paul Is Sole Dissenter From Resolution Supporting Iranian Protests

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The House voted 405-1 today for a resolution in support of the Iranian dissidents and condemning the ruling government. And the one man who opposed it was...Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).



Paul's full floor statement

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul Is Sole Dissenter From Resolution Supporting Iranian Protests | Ron Paul Wins! | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul
 
This is a good piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Fragile at the Core

by David Brooks
June 18, 2009

Most of the time, foreign relations are kind of boring — negotiations, communiqués, soporific speeches. But then there are moments of radical discontinuity—1789, 1917, 1989—when the very logic of history flips.

At these moments — like the one in Iran right now — change is not generated incrementally from the top. Instead, power is radically dispersed. The real action is out on the streets. The future course of events is maximally uncertain.

The fate of nations is determined by glances and chance encounters: by the looks policemen give one another as a protesting crowd approaches down a boulevard; by the presence of a spontaneous leader who sets off a chant or a song and with it an emotional contagion; by a captain who either decides to kill his countrymen or not; by a shy woman who emerges from a throng to throw herself on the thugs who are pummeling a kid prone on the sidewalk.

The most important changes happen invisibly inside peoples’ heads. A nation that had seemed apathetic suddenly mobilizes. People lost in private life suddenly feel their public dignity has been grievously insulted. Webs of authority that had gone unquestioned instantly dissolve, or do not. New social customs spontaneously emerge, like the citizens of Tehran shouting hauntingly from their rooftops at night. Small gestures unify a crowd and symbolize a different future, like the moment when Mir Hussein Moussavi held hands with his wife in public.

At moments like these, policy makers and advisors in the United States government almost always retreat to passivity and caution. Part of this is pure prudence. When you don’t know what’s happening, it’s sensible to do as little as possible because anything you do might cause more harm than good.

Part of it is professional mind-set. Foreign policy experts are trained in the art of analysis, extrapolation and linear thinking. They simply have no tools to analyze moments that are non-linear, paradigm-shifting and involve radical shifts in consciousness. As a result, they almost invariably underestimate how rapid change might be and how quickly it might come. As Michael McFaul, a democracy expert who serves on the National Security Council, once wrote: “In retrospect, all revolutions seem inevitable. Beforehand, all revolutions seem impossible.”

Many of us have been dissatisfied with the legalistic calibrations of the Obama administration’s response to Iran, which have been disproportionate to the sweeping events there. We’ve been rooting for the politicians in the administration, like Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who have been working for a more sincere and heartfelt response.

But the comments of the first few days are not that important. What’s important is that the Obama administration understands the scope of what is happening. And on the big issue, my understanding is that the administration has it exactly right.

The core lesson of these events is that the Iranian regime is fragile at the core. Like all autocratic regimes, it has become rigid, paranoid, insular, insecure, impulsive, clumsy and illegitimate. The people running the regime know it, which is why the Revolutionary Guard is seeking to consolidate power into a small, rigid, insulated circle. The Iranians on the streets know it. The world knows it.

From now on, the central issue of Iran-Western relations won’t be the nuclear program. The regime is more fragile than the program. The regime is more likely to go away than the program.

The central issue going forward will be the regime’s survival itself. The radically insecure members of this government will make no concessions that might threaten their hold on power. The West won’t be able to go back and view Iran through the old lens of engagement on nuclear issues. The nations of the West will have to come up with multi-track policies that not only confront Iran on specific issues, but also try to undermine the regime itself.

This approach is like Ronald Reagan’s policy toward the Soviet Union, and it is no simple thing. It doesn’t mean you don’t talk to the regime; Reagan talked to the Soviets. But it does mean you pursue many roads at once.

There is no formula for undermining a decrepit regime. And there are no circumstances in which the United States has been able to peacefully play a leading role in another nation’s revolution. But there are many tools this nation has used to support indigenous democrats: independent media, technical advice, economic and cultural sanctions, presidential visits for key dissidents, the unapologetic embrace of democratic values, the unapologetic condemnation of the regime’s barbarities.

Recently, many people thought it was clever to say that elections on their own don’t make democracies. But election campaigns stoke the mind and fraudulent elections outrage the soul. The Iranian elections have stirred a whirlwind that will lead, someday, to the regime’s collapse. Hastening that day is now the central goal.
 
ladywithspinninghead said:
According to a recent Twitter (I just joined a few mins ago in order to follow events in Iran so not sure if that's the right lingo), some of the Western embassies are taking in injured protestors.
The UK and the US don't have embassies in Tehran so they can still claim to be uninvolved in the situation.

ETA: After further research, I think the Brits have an embassy there after all...
Click to expand...

We use Switzerland to mediate. (Things I learned from watching Not Without My Daughter...)

Canada has an embassy, however. I just started reading up about what happened this weekend right now, so I'm really out of the loop. Time to scan the interwebs!
 
"I was going towards Baharestan with my friend. This was everyone, not just supporters of one candidate or another. All of my friends, they were going to Baharestan to express our opposition to these killings and demanding freedom. The black-clad police stopped everyone. They emptied the buses that were taking people there and let the private cars go on. We went on until Ferdowsi then all of a sudden some 500 people with clubs came out of [undecipherable] mosque and they started beating everyone. They tried to beat everyone on [undecipherable] bridge and throwing them off of the bridge. And everyone also on the sidewalks. They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood and her husband, he fainted. They were beating people like hell. It was a massacre. They were trying to beat people so they would die. they were cursing and saying very bad words to everyone. This was exactly a massacre... I don't know how to describe it."
Click to expand...

The extent of brutalities on Bloody Saturday is still unknown to the world and even to the majority of Iranians. People all around the world have seen the scene of Neda Agha Soltan's murder, but many do not know that she has been one of tens of people who were killed brutally after Khamenei's threatenings in his Friday Prayer.

In fact several independent sources in Tehran hospitals and clinical centres have counted the dead from Saturday at over 150; yes more than 150. Doctors have been silenced from speaking about it. In fact when less than a week before (16 June) the doctors and nurses of Rasul Hospital in west Tehran witnessed 8 killed and 28 wounded from the day's demonstration, in their hospital, they came out on the street to inform people.

But on Bloody Saturday, the situation was totally different after Khamenei's command to slaughter demonstrators. I have a report just from one hospital not so far from my living place... In this hospital alone doctors received 20 dead and many other wounded. Security forces went to all the hospitals to which people themselves had brought the bodies, to gather all the wounded and dead; when paramilitary and military forces gathered the bodies, they sent them directly to military hospitals; they transmitted these bodies to their own centres too.

In an unbelievable event in the hospital, of which I have a report, security forces have shot and killed the wounded persons before transmitting them. When doctors and nurses bacame mad and went out on the streets, they have opened fire on them too. Now, we have reports that when families went to collect the bodies of their relatives, security forces have urged them to sign appeals against Mir Hossein Mousavi and named him as responsible for the deaths of their relatives. (The argument: they have participated in a demonstration which was related to Mousavi; the killers are 'unkown' but they will find them among Mousavi's supporters again!)

In the light of this situation, you can find how the society is shocked. However, people have not put resistance aside. Local demonstrations have continued, and at night people go on the roofs to chant slogans; 'Allah-o Akbar', 'Down with the Dictator' and so on. Even at night the Basiji militia go to some doors and threaten people not to chant slogans. Local strikes have been held too; in Iranian Kurdistan a strike was held yesterday. But in the absence of independent unions, it is hard to organize general strikes.

The coup d'etat regime is using all its means to suppress and exhaust people. The state of terror is trying to dominate. Whether they can win this unequal war against empty-handed people in this period or not, they will not be able to remain a stable regime. This time, they shed the blood of ordinary people who they claim to be their supporters - not just of some political activists.
Click to expand...

.
 
.
Obama Raises Doubts About Dialogue With Iran

By NAZILA FATHI and ALAN COWELL
New York Times, June 26


TEHRAN — Despite new criticism from President Obama, the Iranian authorities showed no sign Friday of bending to domestic or foreign pressure, saying that the disputed presidential vote on June 12 was the “healthiest” in three decades. The uncompromising words emerged as the Group of Eight countries, including the United States, fired a fresh broadside Friday, saying they “deplored” the post-election violence and demanding that the “the will of the Iranian people is reflected in the electoral process.”

In Washington, President Obama accused Tehran of violating “universal norms, international norms,” and saying that the bravery of the Iranian people is “a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice.” “The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous,” the president said, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel by his side. “And despite the government’s efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it, and we condemn it.”

The president also conceded that the crackdown would complicate his plans to have a dialogue with Tehran, saying: “There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks.”

...But there seemed little likelihood that the Iranian authorities would be swayed by the harsh words, as a senior cleric called for demonstrators to be punished “ruthlessly and savagely.” At Friday prayers at Tehran University, a senior cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, referred to the demonstrators as rioters and declared, “I want the judiciary to punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson.” Reuters quoted him as saying that demonstrators should be tried for waging war against God. The punishment for such offenses under Islamic law is death, Reuters said. The cleric’s remarks represented a significant hardening of official rhetoric as the authorities confronted the biggest political challenge since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Yet, because Ayatollah Khatami is not regarded as a high-profile figure, it was not clear how much weight his words carried. However, he is a member of the influential Assembly of Experts and his threats seemed likely to further intimidate protesters whose presence on the streets has dwindled in the face of large numbers of police officers and Basij militias.

...Internationally, European countries were the first to criticize the authorities’ handling of the protests but President Obama, initially cautious, has issued ever more critical comments, drawing a taunt from Mr. Ahmadinejad on Thursday that he sounded like former President George W. Bush and should apologize. At the news conference on Friday, President Obama dismissed Mr. Ahmadinejad’s gibe. “I don’t take Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statements seriously about apologies, particularly given the fact that the United States has gone out of its way not to interfere with the election process in Iran,” he said. “And I’m really not concerned about Mr. Ahmadinejad apologizing to me.” Rather, Mr. Obama said, the Iranian president should “think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people. And he might want to consider looking at the families of those who’ve been beaten or shot or detained.”

...............................................................................................

Mr. Moussavi has maintained a defiant posture but has few options other than to express his outrage, and he is growing increasingly isolated. He does not have a political organization to rally, and during the height of the unrest he attracted a large following more because of whom he opposed—Mr. Ahmadinejad—than because of what he stood for, political analysts said. And on Friday, his personal Web site was shut down by what his associates described as hackers. Mr. Moussavi also seemed to be sending mixed messages. After vowing on Thursday not to “back down even for a second” to the “election criminals,” he later said he would ask for permission to hold future rallies, noting that Mr. Ahmadinejad had been granted two permits in the last week.

With most demonstrations suppressed or canceled, a few dozen people arrived Friday at the Behest-e Zahra cemetery to mourn Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old woman shot dead last Saturday whose image went round the world as an instant emblem of the protests. According to Tehran residents, members of the government’s Basij militia, ordered to prevent any gatherings, have beaten even small groups of passers-by so the mourners arrived in groups of two or three, muttered brief prayers and left, the AP reported, quoting unidentified witnesses. Opponents of the election result said they planned to release thousands of green and black balloons bearing a message in Ms. Agha-Soltan’s memory. There were other signs of continued resistance. A few conservatives have expressed revulsion at the sight of unarmed protesters being beaten, even shot, by government forces. Only 105 out of the 290 members of Parliament took part in a victory celebration for Mr. Ahmadinejad on Tuesday, newspapers reported Thursday. The absence of so many lawmakers, including the speaker, Ali Larijani, a powerful conservative, was striking.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Please Use [Spoiler] Tags On All Setlist / Video Discussions
Replies
0
Views
761
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
862
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
DaveC
2024 NFL Playoff Pick 'Em
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
DaveC
DaveC
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
403
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom