The issue of Iran...and Iran's crazy President

[...of J.Temperance]

I'm thinking that if Iran could only get some reasonable, rational and responsible leadership, then a crisis could be averted.

The Iranian people, by and large are good people and they're extremely well-educated and intelligent and they don't deserve all of this threatening be it with sanctions or anything else.

Unfortunately, the Iranian President seems to be totally batshit crazy...by his statements which are pretty much him sabre rattling as well.

If Iran could only have reasonable, rational and responsible leadership...then a crisis could be averted.

On Edit: Dammit I hit send before time.

[Loonman]

1. The bulk of the Iranian people are young people

16-24. And they want rock 'n roll and blue jeans. Win the kids over to the West and the mullahs and their crazy prez are gone

[...of J.Temperance]

5. Yes and they don't want to die for the crazy President and Mullahs

They want to live in a normal Iran.

[Loonman]

6. Just like any young people would

They're stuck in the middle as much as we are.

[...of J.Temperance]

18. Yes I agree n/t

[blm]

2. And that's why Bush antagonized Iran before their vote. W's sabre-rattling

ASSURED that nationalistic fervor would cause the vote to tip to the RW fundamentalist who now rules Iran, over the moderate who SHOULD have won.

[VaYallaDawg]

3. A past crisis might have been avoided if

we had had reasonable, rational and responsible leaders in the US too.

[JuniperLea]

4. I hope the rest of the world

is saying that about us as well.

Two nujobs going at it and all of us in the middle. Nothing good can come from this.

Now we know why The Bush Regime made comments about lowering the military presence in Iraq... they need them for Iran.

To be fair, Iran's leaders have no reason to comply. Iraq did and got attacked anyway.

[...of J.Temperance]

8. Pakistan and India are allowed to have a nuclear program...if Iran had a

Moderate President and responsible leadership, then I don't see why Iran shouldn't be allowed to have a nuclear program either.

I'm not sure about this Iranian President...his comments are very scary and I don't trust him.

[Loonman]

9. Why India and Pakistan were so keen to get nukes

And point them at each other is beyond me. The nuclear club ain't the Mouseketeers.

[JuniperLea]

13. This could be said of GWB as well...

"his comments are very scary and I don't trust him."

He certainly hasn't shown responsible leadership... It scares the bejeebus out of me that he has access to "the button" and I'm sure it is frightening to many countries. That being said, who is he to decide or even express an opinion on who should or should not have the bomb?

[...of J.Temperance]

17. My views about Junior are well known on DU, people know what I think

Regarding Junior. I've posted this thread, because I was hoping that it could be more about Iran.

[JuniperLea]

23. Oh, but this is about Iran

Why should they comply? Iraq complied and was attacked anyway.

[colonel odis]

7. iran doesn't have a lock on crazy presidents

at this point, though, with bush falling further every day, it wouldn't matter if mother teresa were president of iran. they're going to be attacked.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Both sides of the conflict are motivated to be unreasonable...

The hardliners in Iran stay in power only so long as the average Iranian perceives a US threat.

The Republicans are positioned to lose the midterms in the US unless there's a major conflict.

This is how World Wars start. :scared:

[Bridget Burke]

25. "In this time of war" is an all-purpose excuse.

Who needs social programs or civil rights? We're at war!

Too bad both crazy presidents can't be allowed to fight it out personally. That's Reality TV I'd gladly watch.

[dusmcj]

11. The issue of the US...and the US's crazy Resident

It takes two to tango. At least. Would Ahmedinezad have been elected if we were not in Iraq ? Would the Iranians be firing up their enrichment program if we hadn't been waggling our fingers at them for the last few years and telling them not to be "dangerously defiant" ?

Of course, we can't leave out the other empire boy wannabes in the equation, Putin and whatever clown from the Central Committee runs China these days. These folks as well as Bush seem to think that "Leadership" involves having the "Confidence" to whip out your pud in public, show the world how "Firm" it is, and expect everyone to be impressed. Especially your own electorate. Why be surprised when people of a similar ilk are elected elsewhere ? We've set the tone after all. "Fuck me with your rod of iron, Amrika." Keep waiting...

[JeffR]

14. Well spoken

:kick:

[yourout]

12. Funny....

I'm thinking that if the USA could only get some reasonable, rational and responsible leadership, then a crisis could be averted.

[louis-t]

15. I believe they elected a hardliner because of

stupidface threatening and calling them evil empire. Iran was moderating before shithead came along.

[AngryAmish]

16. The iranian president does not rule the country

The is an ayatollah who leads a council of clerics that run the country. However, the president does their bidding and does it willingly.

[wakeme2008]

19. Iran was going moderate BEFORE Bush Invaded Iraq

The hardliners only start to win after the invasion.

[BlueManDude]

20. IMO we're dealing with two batshit crazy leaders.

[...of J.Temperance]

21. We are...and it's insane n/t

[Armstead]

22. Iran had moderate leadership, and we helped drive them into the crazies

Iran did have moderate leadership by their standards. It's true they had to contend with the Mullahs, but they did have political power.

But because they didn't fit into the mold of what the US Corporate Fundamentalist leadership wanted, instead of supporting the more moderate elements and trying to reconcile the differences, we put them into the Axis of Evil.

Hence, we helped drive Iran into the hands of the crazies. Whether that was stupid bungling or delibrate I don't know. But we blew our chance to actually deal with Iran in a more constructive way and help t move them to a more moderate role in the world.

[Heewack]

24. I don't know if I agree with that.

Iran did indeed have a more moderate leadership on the public front. If you recall their recent elections and the build up beforehand it was basically cosnidered a complete fraud. You had the unelected "General Council" who oversees all elections disqualifying many of the moderate candidates, which led to threats of boycotting the elections from the moderates. Then you had numerous government officials citing rampant fraud during the election process itself. IMO, the people of Iran were not heard.

""Students will join professors of all universities in Tehran today to support disqualified prospective hopefuls and denounce hard-liners who are restricting people's choice," reformist student leader Hossein Baqeri said Monday.

The Guardian Council veto likely will provoke a boycott of the Feb. 20 parliamentary elections as reformists have warned they would not participate in polls where more than a third of the candidates were prevented from running."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/28/world/main596526.shtml

Iran official alleges election fraud

Saturday, June 25, 2005; Posted: 8:33 p.m. EDT (00:33 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- An official with Iran's Interior Ministry has accused Iran's Guardian Council of election fraud in the presidential runoff vote and said he was arrested when he objected to voting irregularities, Iran's official news agency reported.

"I was personally witness to interference of Guardians Council monitors' serious interference in voting stations where I was commissioned to survey the sound process of election," Ali Mirbaqeri, the managing director of the Interior Ministry's Majlis Affairs, told IRNA.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, mayor of Tehran, was declared the winner in the presidential runoff Saturday with more than 61 percent of the vote over Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani's 36 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.claim/


To me the timing of this confrontation with the U.S. and U.N. is completely baffling. I'm not sure how they feel this is going to help them no matter what their true ambitions are?