I wanted to start this thread days ago, but the amount of information coming out of Iran over the past week and a half has been so overwhelming that I didn't even feel up to the task of trying to open the discussion.

For those who haven't been following, Iran held their Presidential election on the 12th. Government controlled television stations began reporting the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner before polls had even closed. Unlike the United Sates, Iran does not use computerized ballots - they're all hand-counted paper ballots. This fact caused many to declare that the election was stolen.

Amadinejad's main challenger, reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who according to the current government only recieved 33% of the vote, called the election a "charade". Protests broke out, the government called in riot police. Videos began to pop up on Youtube showing the escalating situation. Twitter became and remains a constant source of information about the true situation in Iran, as the government has strict control over Iranian papers and TV. Reporters from outside Iran have been sent home or kept confined to their hotels. The Iranian government began to crack down on the constant "leaks" from inside the country, shutting down phone lines, blocking sites like Twitter, Digg, and Youtube. They've started hunting down the Twitter users, taking them into custody and torturing them. They've set up their own fake accounts to try and lure those with a voice into giving up their real names and location.

Essentially, Iran's citizens are being silenced by their Theocratic government.

There are video all over Youtube that display the situation, too many of course to post here. But there are two videos that define this situation. The first is of a young woman named Neda Agha Soltan, who was shot and killed while protesting in Tehran. It has since been reported that she was shot for singning in public, something women are apparently forbidden to do in Iran. Knowing that she was quickly becoming the symbol of the revolution, the Iranian government forced mosques to ban her family from holding a proper funeral for her. The video is below, but be wary that it is incredibly graphic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3wZIYrmsc


The other video is an eyewitness from within Iran that has called into CNN a few times during the week. I believe this was her most recent call. The amount of distress in her voice is heartbreaking, and in many ways more haunting that any other video I've seen so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU4XcXAz40s


Over the course of this week, many of the Twitter feeds I've been following have started to dry up. Many of the citizens inside Iran reporting on Twitter have been rounded up, arrested, and possible tortured. One in particular that I follow, the last few updates unsettled me so much I had trouble sleeping. From http://twitter.com/persiankiwi

"we must go - dont know when we can get internet - they take 1 of us, they will torture and get names - now we must move fast - #Iranelection"

And earlier that day, persiankiwi reported:

"in Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping ppl like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher - Allah Akbar - #Iranelection RT RT RT"


Now the Iranian government is planting plain clothes agents into groups of protesters, trying to incite violence. Mousavi has urged his supporters to keep things peaceful, but the government seems dead set on antagonizing violence. The way things are going now, we're looking at the genocide of the Iranian people who refused to roll over and watch Ahmadinejad steal the very country from them.


A lot of my friends think our government should step in, but I'm not sold on that plan. Many Iranian don't want our help, and they don't need it. They all have the power to turn things around, mass strikes are being planned by many workers in key industries such as the power plants.


This post was already longer than I expected, but hopefully it can open up some real discussion on this.

As I watch this on the news and read about it online, a quote repeats over and over again in my mind.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”

With all this happening, is it really arrogant of the United States to at least provide aid?

We have a government right now who will do, literally, nothing over this situation.

Well what aid can the United States offer really?

It might be hard for some to accept, but we really should take a hands-off approach on this subject, and let the Iranians handle this. It's important to point out that all Iranian candidates must be approved by the ruling clerics, and that the Iranian president is primarily a figurehead. Mousavi served as prime minister during the 1980s, back when Iranian-backed terrorists killed over 200 US Marines in Beirut. So although he might be seen as a "moderate" - especially compared to Ahmadenijad - he's not exactly a Lech Walesa or Boris Yeltsin.

Besides, things have a rather nasty habit of backfiring on us whenever we get involved in Middle Eastern politics, no matter what our intentions are.

quote:

Originally posted by Brimtown:
It might be hard for some to accept, but we really should take a hands-off approach on this subject, and let the Iranians handle this. It's important to point out that all Iranian candidates must be approved by the ruling clerics, and that the Iranian president is primarily a figurehead. Mousavi served as prime minister during the 1980s, back when Iranian-backed terrorists killed over 200 US Marines in Beirut. So although he might be seen as a "moderate" - especially compared to Ahmadenijad - he's not exactly a Lech Walesa or Boris Yeltsin.

Besides, things have a rather nasty habit of backfiring on us whenever we get involved in Middle Eastern politics, no matter what our intentions are.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Any intervention by the U.S., especially if Ahmadenijad remains in power, will be seen as the U.S. trying to influence their politics (even if that isn't the case.) And we all saw how well that has worked out in the past.

A lot of people in Iran don't want the US to interfere and right now we shouldn't. Things in Iran are going to be tough and that's something the Iranians have to take care of themselves (at least right now). Nobody wants to see innocent people get beaten or murdered, but if the US interferes right now that would take a lot of credit away from the Iranian people if/when they do succeed. The last thing I want to see is failure of the Iranian protesters. I think if things do get worse we'll need to re-evaluate our stance on Iran because genocide may be where this is heading.

It is amusing most people forget that without the French's help in our own revolution, we'd probably be sipping tea and watching cricket right now.

I am not suggesting we do anything at the moment. Obama appears to be playing this correctly. A civil war must be started by its own people, but if this happens, we must ensure that the righteous prevail and do not get slaughtered.

Of course, where was the U.S. in Rowanda? Darfur? Hands tied behind our backs by politics. I like to think Obama would not allow this. I like to think so anyways...

Except the French and the British had been fighting each other for centuries prior to our little revolution. World views, politics, morales and warfare have changed since then.

I seriously doubt the U.S will intervene at all. I would be more worried about North Korea if war is to be taken.

Unfortunately with our involvement, it's all politics. The previous administration would've likely been very vocal about it, using little diplomacy in voicing their disapproval. Obama and company are taking a far more tactile approach, although it may backfire in the end.

It's a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation. If Obama were to come out with more stern vocal disapproval, that would just further strain relations with Iran if the revolutionists fail to remove Ahmadinejad from power.

On the other side of the coin, the revolutionists could become bitter towards us for our refusal to help, regardless of where the political power in Iran ultimately lands. Iranians are not exactly big fans of our country, although the vocal minority on Twitter and Youtube express quite a bit of joy over the amount of support seen within the United States and around the globe.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JJ Rage,

Which, interestingly, is why certain people are so angry with the U.S. Our prior history of arbitrarily helping some people and not others (I use the term "arbitrarily" with slight exaggeration,) has normally backfired and whomever wins the conflict turns it around on us.

No matter what the U.S. does with Iran, if it's not (at most) beneficial to the victor, or at least neutral to the victor, we'll be blamed in some form or fashion.

quote:

Originally posted by IversonXover83:
It is amusing most people forget that without the French's help in our own revolution, we'd probably be sipping tea and watching cricket right now.

I am not suggesting we do anything at the moment. Obama appears to be playing this correctly. A civil war must be started by its own people, but if this happens, we must ensure that the righteous prevail and do not get slaughtered.

Of course, where was the U.S. in Rowanda? Darfur? Hands tied behind our backs by politics. I like to think Obama would not allow this. I like to think so anyways...

Except we aren't talking about some smaller country being occupied by Iran. A more accurate analogy would be the French helping the South defeat the Union during the American Civil War.

God, it would be a nationwide Bible Belt

quote:

Originally posted by Pino_GruntFest:

God, it would be a nationwide Bible Belt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vZUAfL-gI

1. Iran will never like us no matter who is the elected "Leader".

2. The guy who lost isn't exactly much better than the one he ran against.

3. Lots of people are horrified by the militias acts but I really doubt Iran gives a **** what other people think. Let alone the US.

On a side note stopping ambulances and shooting the patients that are protesters seeking aid is pretty ****ed up even by in my book.

quote:

Originally posted by Boo_Master:
1. Iran will never like us no matter who is the elected "Leader".

2. The guy who lost isn't exactly much better than the one he ran against.

3. Lots of people are horrified by the militias acts but I really doubt Iran gives a **** what other people think. Let alone the US.

On a side note stopping ambulances and shooting the patients that are protesters seeking aid is pretty ****ed up even by in my book.

1. There are plenty of people that don't have a problem with us in Iran.

2. This isn't even about who gets elected anymore, this is about the entire regime.

3. You're probably right about Iran (the government) not giving a **** because the Iranian government wouldn't be doing this to their own people if they did. When they started to drop a chemical mixture on the protesters via helicopter that pretty much set that in stone.

Obviously not enough people and not the right people to make a difference.

As seriously bad as this situation is, the worst thing this country could do would be to get directly involved with the turmoil in Iran.

That would change the tone and direction as well as the focus of the uprising and undermine the sacrifice of the Iranian people.

The Ayatolla is currently seeing his base of power slipping away and is making a desperate attempt to keep it.

The citizens of Iran are very westernized and have a mostly democratic outlook when compared to all other Mid East nations.
However they are still a theocracy and until they overthrow that form of Government with a cou nothing will change.

The last time we Interfered with Iranian politics was in 1979 during the revolution. We put the Ayatolla in power because we could not work with the Shah.

Everytime we put someone in power for our own benefit, it always, always turns around and bites our hand.

The continuing campaign of violance will tear Iran apart and bring about more change that is needed there.

Trust me when i say that the rest of the middle east is watching what is happening.
None of those countries wants Iran to become strong again.

Opinion; Everyone needs to put religious beleifs aside when considering Interaction with Iran. Failure to do that is what causes most of our problems to begin with.

Neither of the men who were running for President over there are really that good. As was pointed out earlier, they both have major skeletons.

The reason Amadinnerjacket was chosen was because his veiwpoints reflect that of the Glorious leader. Moosovi actually leans more towards the former Shah who heads the council of Elders. Who happens to be hated by Khamenieie.

HAve faith that if it does get really out of hand over there, we will be asked to intervene.

quote:

Originally posted by IversonXover83:
A civil war must be started by its own people, but if this happens, we must ensure that the righteous prevail and do not get slaughtered.

Because it worked so well in Korea and Vietnam.

We need to make sure that if something does happen it is the United Nations that makes the decision, not the president. Every country of the world needs to be part of any interferring in another countries politics.

I also believe zee is right. This whole problem in Iran wouldn't have happpened if the US would have minded their own business 30 years ago. it is all because of America's need for oil, and its manipulation of mid eastern countries to try to get it from their control.

I'm rather conflicted on this topic. One part of me thinks that you guys are right and it would not be such a good idea for the U.S. to get involved. On the other hand, this line of thinking didnt exactly work out very well for the 12,000,000 people that Hitler slaughtered. So I'm not really sure.

quote:

Originally posted by JJ Rage:

quote:

Originally posted by Pino_GruntFest:

God, it would be a nationwide Bible Belt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vZUAfL-gI

Oh give me a break. Less that 9% of the southern population even owned slaves. The Confederates were fighting for independence not slavery. Robert E. Lee didnt even own any slaves.

quote:

Originally posted by stonelance:
...the United Nations...