The Shrine

You wait until the public is demanding a revolution, and THEN you attack the countries forces

Of course, we're already spread thin on wars in two different countries, so this would never happen. It's a shame, though, as enough people over there would fight to keep things afloat, not unlike our own revolution.

Really moving pictures from Iran, including comments from Iranians.

Probably a bad idea. Attacking Iran would give the Iranian government something they can use to unify the people. People don't like being invaded.

Kupek wrote:Probably a bad idea. Attacking Iran would give the Iranian government something they can use to unify the people. People don't like being invaded.

People also don't like having their voice go unheard. And it seems like the majority of the Youth there who are no different than the youth here, are pissed off and tired of the religious oppression and censoring. This whole debacle shows a completely different side of Iran. It seems like they deal with the same issues we have with voting, only they seem to be more united in their front.

That sounds reasonable, but it's unrelated to my point.

Countries will always prefer their own bad government to another country's "good" government; to paraphrase Gandhi.

If the US ever invaded Iran; yes Iran would fight back; even if there is disatisfaction with the government, an unprovoked invasion by the most hated nation on the planet would be much worse. It would quickly earn a lot of dead Americans, creating disentangle in the US, and would politically split the US from the rest of the world; who I will add, has been very against unprovoked invasion since the WW era. If the US invades another country again, the world will have no reason to trust the nation anymore.

War is a bad idea...the right thing to do is watch Ahmadinejad like a hawk. If he gets territorily ambitious, that is something we would probably have to do something about, but in any case we want to support the Moussavists.

Anyway, what's far more likely is the Obama administration having to frantically restrain Israel from bombing the living shit out of Iran. It's far more likely that the Israelis would declare war long before we would consider it. What the West has to do is draw a clear line between the hardliners and the reformists, and this election and the protests have done a lot for that.

Yes, let's attack those bad middle eastern countries because they are bad and we are good. Also, we are so good, that elections are never corrupt here in our good, western world. Let us judge these other people and tell the people that we think are wrong what is right.

bovine wrote:Yes, let's attack those bad middle eastern countries because they are bad and we are good. Also, we are so good, that elections are never corrupt here in our good, western world. Let us judge these other people and tell the people that we think are wrong what is right.

Yeah, Al Gore and Bobby Kennedy Jr. were crazy in thinking any election could possibly be fixed in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Those psychos should be banished to the land of criminals.....Australia!

Kupek wrote:That sounds reasonable, but it's unrelated to my point.

If some how the government was able to harness or make the youth of Iran believe that we were the good guys (not like in Iraq) then I think an invasion/war would be seen as a liberation more than an occupation.

The BEST thing to do right now is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Let the country fix itself, as others have said any outside interruption will only prove to unify the country against those outsiders.

Seriously Sine, you say some stupid things every now and then but this has got to be one of the top... this would be the WORST TIME EVER to invade EVER!

From what Ive been following on Twitter, and Fark, etc, which seems to be where the real news is coming from, they are wanting help from the UN or the US, as the violence in the street and especially at Tehran University is a lot worse that what the media is portraying. Of course this is mostly the younger generation of Iran that is more into the Western culture than the Ahmedinejad supporters.

And really, supporting them openly will just provide fuel to the fire for Ahmedinejad and his people, saying the US is behind the uprising.

It is dangerous to let a country with signficant capability fall under anarchy. I believe the Western powers are very concerned about Pakistan right now since they possess nuclear capability and they're not a stable government. It's generally assumed even a crazy dictator is still less likely to shoot nukes at you than 5 crazy dictators fighting for power.

That said I don't really think Iran sounds like it's on the verge of a civil war or anarchy based on the information so far.

bovine wrote:Yes, let's attack those bad middle eastern countries because they are bad and we are good. Also, we are so good, that elections are never corrupt here in our good, western world. Let us judge these other people and tell the people that we think are wrong what is right.

We don't beat reporters into submission, beat our citizens and then hold them in a cell where we beat them some more. We don't smash satellites, take away cell phones, cameras, and anything else that could report the truth from the outside world. We don't summon an army to round up students, trap them in, and give orders to open fire. (And the military is resisting that last part, thank god.)

Yes, there is a big difference between a free country and one that is under a supreme leader/dictatorship.

While my comment about invading is off the cuff, just what do you do in a situation like this? Absolutely nothing? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." To me, "do nothing" sounds like one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

I guess the similarities between Iraq and Iran in these cases are closer than I think, but we invaded Iraq when nothing was going on. And while war is stupid and the way we do things doesn't work, the idea of trying to "spread democracy" is still a good idea. Honestly, I don't know how you would do that besides a war.

How the hell did the Russians do that? All I remember was that there was reports of a coup, the public fought back, and suddenly Russia is a democracy. It was so quick that nobody saw it coming.

To CNN, Fox, MSNBC:

When I turn on your TV stations, do I get updates on the situation in Iran? No. Where do I get them? The bloggers.

You guys say that you are the 24-7 news networks, so that I can get the latest on the big topics and up-to-the-minute reporting on current events. So, where do I get these reports? The bloggers.

Your own reporters are getting beaten by Iranian military groups and who reports it? The bloggers!

<big>Old Media, THIS IS WHY YOU FAIL!!!</big>

Letting a country sort out their own problems is quite important... let the tweeters and the bloggers say what they want, but the last thing the world needs is more reason to think of the US as "the world's police". We need to stop pretending we know what's best for everyone better than they do. Iran needs to fix their own problems on their own, let's not treat them like children.

The country's not going to slip into total anarky and nuke itself so let's all calm down and let them deal with it. Very interesting to keep track of though, I hope they get a nice bloodless coup or something. I think the majority in that country have been too long ignored by the government.

An interesting tweet: RT from Iran: I've learned something today. Americans DO care about the world outside America.Their media just doesn't. #IranElection

EDIT: Good article on the technological impacts of this "media war"

SineSwiper wrote:An interesting tweet: RT from Iran: I've learned something today. Americans DO care about the world outside America.Their media just doesn't. #IranElection

EDIT: Good article on the technological impacts of this "media war"

I kinda disagree with that after watching CBS's nightly new cast. They devoted the first 10 minutes of a 30 minute broadcast to just Iran.

The Cable networks suck because they let Nancy Grace and Bill O'really and Sean Hannity run the airwaves.

Imakeholesinu wrote:

Kupek wrote:That sounds reasonable, but it's unrelated to my point.

If some how the government was able to harness or make the youth of Iran believe that we were the good guys (not like in Iraq) then I think an invasion/war would be seen as a liberation more than an occupation.

It would be seen as a Christian invasion army; a common enemy much worse than their current differences which would seem very small in comparison. As a result, you would have war against the entire Shiite world and many millions would be killed and the region would likely not recover for decades.

This thing has been turned up to 11!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/200 ... ran-unrest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/200 ... ran-unrest

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 259&ref=nf

Very, very graphic video of a young woman who was shot in the chest by the basij (the pro-state militia) today while standing peacefully beside the protests. It is a disturbing video to see, but if you can handle it, you'll get a clear notion of the brutality of the present regime and their tactics in dealing with this election and these protests.

I doubt I need to see that video to understand that. :p

CNN had nothing else to report today since the Michael Media circus has semi-left town. They decided to turn their attention back to the middle east. It seems like big media can always find a story in the middle east when they want to shift away from stories here at home.

Today was the first planned protest in Iran for weeks - and it was declared illegal by the government. There has been news from Iran - I've heard it on NPR in the morning - but it's all been announcements.

I would have thought that with all the people in the streets they had early on they would have been able to overwhelm the riot police. I know they are supposed to be non-violent protests but if the mob struck back, I think it would scare the piss out of the Iahotlah.

Imakeholesinu wrote:I would have thought that with all the people in the streets they had early on they would have been able to overwhelm the riot police

They certainly could. But it's guaranteed that some of the protesters would be injured or killed. Most people aren't willing to do that.

Keep in mind that once you've made that choice - using force to overwhelm authority and accepting that can lead to injury or death - you're no longer "protesting." You're now in a violent rebellion whose logical conclusion is revolution. Again, most people aren't willing to cross that line.

Kupek wrote:Keep in mind that once you've made that choice - using force to overwhelm authority and accepting that can lead to injury or death - you're no longer "protesting." You're now in a violent rebellion whose logical conclusion is revolution. Again, most people aren't willing to cross that line.

So if you're protesting and authority advances upon you unprovoked and you stand your ground, you're rebelling?

I'm not proposing it's a binary thing. Further, there is a difference between refusing to move and fighting back. But Barret's phrasing was to "overwhelm" the police, which would require force.

Standing your ground could easily turn into overwhelming if they're trying to push you off and you push back. 100,000 vs 200 even if refusing to move - which will include some level of push back - can be overwhelming even if the group decides not to advance.

My point is, it's very difficult to determine when a protest has turned into an all-out rebellion, not even with violence. It's not as simple as using force or accepting that you may be injured or killed that determines if it's gone into full-out violent rebellion mode. And it's also very much a subjective categorization the vast majority of the time (I don't include extremes here since they rarely are seen in reality) when determining whether or not something is a protest or rebellion.

There will almost surely be escalation - once protesters push back (literally), the authorities usually step-up their level of force. Which means if the protesters are going to continue resisting, they also have to step up their level of force.

My reason for pointing this out is that it's easy to look at the demonstrations on tv and think "Hey, there's more protesters than police, they can take them." The reality is that those kinds of situations are dangerous, and most people opt not to put themselves in that kind of danger.

Also, 200 can take 100,000 if the difference in weapons and tactics is high enough. It's happened in the past - 300 Spainish conquistadors defeated over 10,000 Incan warriors because of superior weapons and horses. The number difference is greater here, but so is the weapon differential. And if you're proposing arming the 100,000, then that's rebellion by any reasonable definition.

British vs. The Zulu is another example of dozens vs tens of thousands; although unlike the Zulus, civilians aren't warriors, they aren't organized, and they will retreat as soon as they see people getting hurt.

Anyway, history has proven that peaceful demonstrations have caused more change than violent ones. Most often violent demonstrations lead to much worse governments.

Tupac Seekur wrote:Anyway, history has proven that peaceful demonstrations have caused more change than violent ones. Most often violent demonstrations lead to much worse governments.

Like America.