Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditForget CNN or any of the major American "news" networks. If you want to get the latest on the opposition protests in Iran, you should be reading blogs, watching YouTube or following Twitter updates from Tehran, minute-by-minute.
Some absolutely riveting and thrilling reporting has been done over Twitter by a university student in Tehran who goes by the moniker Tehran Bureau. The Iranian authorities shut his website down over the weekend and he was attacked by hard-line militias but he's been able to send short posts around the world over Twitter. Via Micah Sifry, here is a list of Iranian bloggers who've been twittering about the clashes between opposition protesters and government forces loyal to Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khameini. I found out about many of these sites thanks to the great twittering by Tom Mattzie, formerly of MoveOn.org
In the US, bloggers such as The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan and the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney have surpassed most traditional news organizations by posting around the clock updates. They've relied on incredible YouTube footage from inside Iran, like this one of a pro-Mousavi rally today.
Outside the US, the likes of the BBC and Britain's Channel 4 have also done brave and courageous reporting, often shooting on their cell phones and in the backs of cars, as the Iranian regime clamps down on coverage of the apparently rigged election and its volatile aftermath.
It's been amazing to watch this coverage amidst all the turmoil. I'm not sure what the Iranian regime expected when they fixed the election, but the outpouring of texts, tweets and video from Tehran has sparked a worldwide solidarity movement. Whatever the outcome, there is no going back.
UPDATE: Also read Marc Ambinder's post on the topic.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Bad day for the neo-cons,huh?
Netanyahu sounding concilliatory...
and Iranians more angry at Ahmadinejad than us or Israel.
How's a decent bombing mission supposed to get started now?!??!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 12:20pm
Bad day for the neo-cons,huh?
Netanyahu sounding concilliatory...
and Iranians more angry at Ahmadinejad than us or Israel.
How's a decent bombing mission supposed to get started now?!??!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 12:20pm
Boy have you misread the "tea leaves".
I don't think you will find very many conservatives who consider this a "bad day" for our political viewpoint of the world. Quite the contrary. I think that the worldview of many conservatives like myself is being confirmed as strongly as ever, if not more so.
The situation in Iran shows that the Mullahs are not interested in either reform or an improved relationship with the US.
Nothing has changed or is about to change in the situation between Israel and the Arabs.
Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran; and nothing has improved the conditions for the threat that Israel believes that Iran and the Arabs present them.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Imagine what a world it might have been had we taken to the streets when our 2000 election was stolen.
Posted by markhammel at 06/15/2009 @ 12:51pm
Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
You KNOW I'm going to save that....and it WILL come in useful, likely within weeks? Right?
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 1:12pm
Imagine what a world it might have been had we taken to the streets when our 2000 election was stolen.
Posted by markhammel at 06/15/2009 @ 12:51pm
Over 1 million people did take to the streets, but the so-called left wing media didn't report on it. When Bush went down Pennsylvania Avenue on his inauguration day, people threw tomatoes at his limo...he certainly didn't get out to walk like the Obamas did. But the so-called left wing media didn't report it.
As for Iran, I am excited to see the Twitter revolution (even though I despise Twitter), because it is in repressive regimes where Twitter and its like can be effective. The Ayatollah came out today seeking investigations of the election; a reversal of his previous statement that the election was fair. I doubt anything will change in the long run, but Iran might be at the beginning of another revolution....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/15/2009 @ 1:25pm
Imagine what a world it might have been had we taken to the streets when our 2000 election was stolen.
Posted by markhammel at 06/15/2009 @ 12:51pm
Gore won? how did that happen?
But just imagine a Gore win.
$6 per gallon gasoline
Rationing of Electricity
no vehicles allowed that are larger than a Yugo.
Buddhist Monks in the Lincoln Bedroom
300-400,000 dead US citizens as jihadists celebrate a weak US with biological and chemical weapons attacks.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 1:46pm
No TRILLIONS spent on installing an Iranian-friendly Shiia government in Baghdad.
No Afghanistan still a mess after being ignored for years.
No dead 4100+ American GIs for the above.
No horse lawyers overseeing hurricane recovery.
No secret energy task forces....
AND likely no dead Americans from chemical and biological weapons....that didn't even exist.
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 1:52pm
Oh, and consider this, Larry...
with President "Algore" to rail against...you guys may have held onto Congress?
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 1:54pm
Not to mention, if Gore had won, perhaps no 9/11. We'll never know....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/15/2009 @ 2:13pm
College students using "twitter" is not coverage of the meltdown taking place in Iran. We don't even know who "Tehran Bureau" is for instance. This could be anyone including Mousavi's nephew hanging out "twittering" unprovable claims on a public web site.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/15/2009 @ 2:26pm
No TRILLIONS spent on installing an Iranian-friendly Shiia government in Baghdad.
No Afghanistan still a mess after being ignored for years.
No dead 4100+ American GIs for the above.
No horse lawyers overseeing hurricane recovery.
No secret energy task forces....
AND likely no dead Americans from chemical and biological weapons....that didn't even exist.
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 1:52pm
Instead we would have Saddam rebuilding his WMD programs and continuing to export terrorism around the world
Mask would have a President Gore let Bin Laden go unanswered, repeating his attacks over and over.
I didn't know that Mayor Nagin was a horse lawyer? Who had first response accountability, the US govt, or New Orleans and the State of Louisiana?
In Mask's leftist world, cities and states have no responsibilty for the problems.
Instead of an energy task force, we would be entering the golden age of 3rd world status from Gore.
Your idiotic attacks on the energy task force continue to be juvenile. It was meaningless. Or perhaps you can phony up some charge on how specifically that task force impacted you and the nation.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 2:27pm
Or perhaps you can phony up some charge on how specifically that task force impacted you and the nation.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 2:27pm
We'll never really know the answer to this charge until the records are released to the public of what was actually said in those meetings. Since Cheney and the Supremes won't allow that, how is Mask supposed to respond to that charge?
And anti, it's the height of naivete to believe that secret energy meetings that were conducted outside of the public sphere at the highest levels of government didn't have SOME impact on the nation. If they were designed to have no impact, then why have the meetings in the first place? And why fight so hard to keep the records secret, when the meeting was for the stated purpose of defining a national (re: public) energy policy?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/15/2009 @ 2:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 2:27pm
I noticed you didn't criticize the "You guys might have kept Congress" part?
ROFL! And just think Larry, the "presumptive nominee" in 2008 would have been.....Joe Lieberman!
Instead not only did Bush and Cheney sink themselves, they took you and Hastert and Frist and Delay with them. AND put the GOP in its worst position since 1974 (at best) or 1932 (at worst).
Oh, but don't worry...5...10...15...20...25...30....35...50 years from now, you and Cheney and Dubya will be "redeemed by history".
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 2:54pm
BTW, we must be kind to Larry this week...
the "Reagan of the Negev", Saint Bibi...
either LIED today, like a cheap, common politician...
or told millions of "Larrys" he was "okay" without "Historic Israel" intact.
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 3:03pm
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 3:03pm
When it comes to Israel, I can't figure out whether you are ignorant, stupid, or just playing the belligerant.
Here is from a letter I received today from Israel on Bibi's speech.
<Dear Rev. Robinson,
Last week, I took a friend to Itamar's tallest mountain. There, with brilliant clarity, we could see the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal as well as the Mountain of Abraham, just above the modern community of Elon Moreh. It was on that mountain that G-d first spoke to Abraham in the Land of Israel and said to him: "To your seed I will give this Land." (Genesis 12:7)
All week, we have wondered and worried about what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would say in this much-publicized address to the nation last night. Today, the morning after, I am not sure how I feel about his speech. The news has been full of Netanyahu's perceived change in his willingness to recognize a Palestinian State, albeit demilitarized. Many on the right are angry that he agreed to this, as this is a concession on the right to the entire Land of Israel that we believe in so firmly. And yet, Netanyahu made it very clear that such a state would be less than a real state - it would be demilitarized, unable to enter into treaties with other nations and subject to Israeli control of its airspace. It would not include Jerusalem, which will remain the undivided capital of Israel. And Israel will not absorb any of the Palestinian refugees - these will be absorbed by the newly formed Palestinian state or in the countries where they are currently residing. Perhaps, then, this is really not that different from the autonomy that Menachem Begin offered the Palestinians back in 1978
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 3:39pm
To Mask, letter from Israel continued
<Netanyahu also did make some very strong statements about the Jewish right to the land and did not concede anything in that regard: "The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah - this is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers." He also made it clear that our right to a state was not a result of the Holocaust, a common Arab claim, but a long overdue right that may well have saved the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust had a State of Israel existed then. "The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: The Land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people." I was proud to hear Netanyahu make these statements, for it has been far too long since an Israeli prime minister declared our right to this land unequivocally and with pride.
Make no mistake - Netanyahu's reference to a Palestinian State was the result of enormous pressure, coming especially from the US. As I try to put myself in Netanyahu's shoes, I really don't know what I would have done in his place. If I had to take responsibility for a harsh break in our relations with the US, could I look my people in the eyes and say we will be alright without the fighter planes that we purchase from the US? That our economy would continue to survive if we were boycotted by countries all over the world? We like to think we're strong, but we are really such a small country, which has struggled to survive ever since we first became a modern state.
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 3:41pm
To Mask, letter from Israel continued
<I hope Netanyahu will stand strong, build in the communities and protect our existence and our right to live in Judea and Samaria. But this is not the time to compromise on the stand you are taking. If Netanyahu hears a strong voice coming from the US and from countries around the world justifying Israel's right to the land, he will have the courage to do what's right and what his conscience is telling him to do. But if you lose your tongues, if you grow timid in the face of President Obama and the new world order he is trying to impose, we will have no one else to turn to. For it is you, our Christian friends, who have been the only strong and powerful voices on our behalf for years. Please, don't let anyone silence you!
I am frightened and sad even as my love for this land, for G-d and for His word is stronger than ever before. There is no time to rest, no time to sit back and hope for better times. We must act. Now! And we must all pray to G-d, each day, for the courage to stand up for the truth and for what's right. May He give us and our leaders the strength to remain true to His promises.
Shalom from Samaria,
Sondra Oster Baras>
This says to me that my initial reaction was correct. I don't believe Bibi has changed significantly and has suddenly abandoned his love for Israel to curry Obama's favor.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 3:43pm
nice chain mail captain cluster- Now post the "obama is a secret muslim" one. Idiot.
Posted by entropy at 06/15/2009 @ 3:53pm
What a chump to fall head over heels for such a blatant, nakedly manipulative screed. It did everything but beg for 10, 20, or 50 dollar, tax deductible donations! What a fucking sucker! I'm laughing so hard i just may piss meself!
Posted by entropy at 06/15/2009 @ 3:55pm
We are 61 years closer to peace in the Middle East now than we were in 1948. Have patience.
Posted by Mistral at 06/15/2009 @ 4:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 3:43pm So antisocialist,
What about the people of Palestine who are not Jewish? You know he people who lived there before the Jews? You know the people the bible says the Jews slaughtered, the people that god told Joshua to slaughter, so that they could steal the land?
Don't take my remarks as antisemitic. They are anti-racist and anti-genocidal remarks and I have a strong aversion to people justifying the injustice they wrought by hiding behind religion.
Israel has the right to exist, but it needs to respect and accept the population that was present on the land before is MODERN creation, sorry but the bible is not a viable source to claim ownership, especially when it all but admits theft of that property. No less important in all of this is a FULL Palestinian state. And yes, both sides need to recognize the other as sovereign entities.
As an act of good faith, Israel needs to repatriate those refugees. No ethnic group should be denied the right to live in their traditional homeland, in the place where they grew up, where there great-grandmothers grew up. No group PERIOD.
If things continue the way they have been then it would seem that Israel is headed down the same paths that the Turks took with the Armenians and the Nazis took with.......do you see my point?
Posted by mlatourelle at 06/15/2009 @ 4:27pm
Posted by mlatourelle at 06/15/2009 @ 4:27pm
Your post is filled with Arab talking points and has little connection to the actual history of that land.
The only nation that has ever claimed that land as it's nation is Israel.
Israel is the only nation that has ever had Jerusalem as it's capital.
Most of the Arabs there called themselves Syrians or Jordanians before the modern state of Israel began in 1948.
There are more Arabs of Israel/Palestine origin living in Jordan which was the state given to the Arabs when dividing the British Mandate of Palestine. That land occupies 3x the land of Israel including the West Bank.
If you've never been, one can be surprised how small that area actually is. It is only about 42 miles from the border of Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. The entire West Bank is only 34 miles wide at it's widest point. this is hardly a scenario that presents much security to Israelis.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 4:48pm
some of you have waaay too much time on your hands -- sy
Posted by syfriendly at 06/15/2009 @ 6:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 4:48pm
Are you saying that the bible is being used for Arab talking points? Wow, that's an interesting development.
I do have a pretty good understanding of the history of the Levant and the British Mandate of Palestine, thank you, and frankly the Brits did a pretty good job of mucking things up. The division of land was essentially arbitrary and did little to respect the ethnic groups living in the region.
As for the establishment of the Jewish state (and this comes from my 75 yo Jewish step-father): it had been a long time coming and had it happened before the turn of the 20th century the Holocaust probably would not have occurred; but the Israelis have become expansionist and have clearly over-stepped the borders established by the UN in 1948 when the state was created.
I don't use anyone's talking points. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And what I see are religious nationalists justifying the expulsion, relocation or extermination of an ethnic group that does not conform to their religion or national identity. I do believe that was a major issue for a certain ethnic/religious group in Europe from the middle ages until the 1940's, wasn't it?
That little note aside, your argument does nothing to reconcile the fact that there were, in fact, people living on the land when the British divided the area. Whether or not they identified with a nation, they lived there. What about those people and their descendants? Why does 'nation' status trump human existence?
Posted by mlatourelle at 06/15/2009 @ 7:34pm
Mr Berman says: I'm not sure what the Iranian regime expected when they fixed the election....
So, is it an established FACT that the election was fixed? Not doubting it, just questioning the assertion that we know for sure it was fixed. I guess I missed that conclusive news item.
Posted by Citizen54 at 06/15/2009 @ 7:52pm
It really is sad to see video from Iran right now. Those people have been through so much already, with Iran being a target for various Western entities and facing an crazed and violent Israeli nation that wants to bomb their country. Now politicians engaged in a power battle are inflaming anger and driving huge crowds into creating civil disorder. And, sadly, people have taken to hurting and killing each other over their choice for the head of state. Both politicians in this case should be demanding calm and non-violence from the masses of people; both seem more interested in having people enraged in the streets. The incumbent head of state appears to have special and deep blame.
The entire situation is awful.
Likewise, it is disheartening to see the babbling and these comments threads amongst a handful of people who appear to think they are somehow "talking politics" but who are really just killing time around the virtual water cooler, lots and lots of it.
Babblers, and you know who you are: its a serious problem in Iran right now. None of us understand deeply what has happened in Iran. We are all simply getting information from journalists on this and other web sites so that we can know anything at all. Quit your squabbling over issues you don't understand and simply hope that the violence and discord dies down soon in Iran, rather than worsens, which may really be likely.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/15/2009 @ 8:10pm
My point is that, instead of bullshitting with online religious freaks and loony-right sign waver types, or entertaining and paying attention to the babblings of people who really obviously just have nothing to do with any of their time at all except put up 250,000 posts on every single comments section month after month as if these babblings have some value, we should all simply try have a sense of sympathy with and solidarity for the Iranian people, who as a nation are in a terrible crisis that is costing lives. That video Ari Berman put up showed real gunshot wounds, suffered by real people, who were shot in riots. Almost none of these men and women who are being injured and killed, or who are having their lives disrupted hugely by a state of crisis, ever did anything to deserve any of it. Its probably not completely easy being Iranian on any given day. We should all just calm down ourselves and try to hope together that this crisis ends for those people. Nobody needs burning buses in the streets and wacko paramilitaries firing automatic rifles into crowds. That isn't a good life for anyone.
And these two asshole politicians who are letting the hurricane go to see in a power game that benefits only them really should be ashamed of themselves, if they can know shame.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/15/2009 @ 8:29pm
Tehran Bureau is not the moniker of a university student in Tehran. Tehran Bureau is at TehranBureau.com. Our site has been down for a few days, but should be back up again soon. We are staffed by real journalists and based in the United States. We do reporting related to Iran from around the world, including Tehran.
Posted by TehranBureau at 06/15/2009 @ 8:47pm
100000 % agreed. Hell, no one likes losing. Some major fraction of the "hardliners" having no way out, just get passionate in the more predictable direction. Same with 'working class whites' 'sailin' with Palin' and 'dittoheads'. They cast their hat with hate and entropy.
Posted by winyahn at 06/15/2009 @ 9:48pm
Bibi:"The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years."
"As a people of innate kindness and compassion, we will grant the Palestinians sovereignty 3500 short years from now"
Posted by winyahn at 06/15/2009 @ 11:11pm
A "Teapot in a Tempest" best describes voter reaction in Iran to the election outcome. Apparently they and the leftist still don't get it!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/16/2009 @ 12:52am
Imagine what a world it might have been had we taken to the streets when our 2000 election was stolen. Posted by markhammel
Thank God the Supreme Court stopped that!
Posted by abell12ct at 06/16/2009 @ 07:03am
Its good to see the Iranian people demonstrating for more democracy. Could this be because they see democracy in neighboring Iraq? Maybe invading Iraq and setting up a democracy in the heart of the middle east was a good plan? We'll see.
Posted by abell12ct at 06/16/2009 @ 07:08am
Posted by abell12ct at 06/16/2009 @ 07:08am
Sunny, warm day in Myanmar....must be because George W. smiled.
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 07:43am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/16/2009 @ 08:04am
Most right-wingers view of the history of Iran is:
pre-1979- "The Shah, a swell guy, was our ally. But that sniveling coward Jimmy Carter didn't 'support him' and 'let him' be overthrown."
1981- "The Iranians in fear of Reagan let the hostages go."
1980s- "Iran fought a war with Saddam, but THEY were the bad guys even though Saddam was a bad guy too...and we were only supporting Saddam because the Iranians were worse bad guys...but that doesn't make us bad guys for supporting a guy we later said poised a grave threat to the world!.....Oh, except when we sold arms to the Iranians for Contra money...that was good too."
1990s- "Iran got away with murder under Clinton because he....uh....he didn't....uh."
9/11- "Despite Iran helping us in Afghanistan, they were bad guys."
2000s- "Ahmadinejad is a raving lunatic a few weeks away from launching 100s of nukes at Israel. We must have 'all options on the table'...except maybe we shouldn't do it, we'll let Israel do it...cuz we're a little 'stretched' right now!"
pre-2009 Iranian election- "Who cares if Mousavi wins? The Iranian President is a figure-head who can't do anything. And what Obama said in Cairo had NO impact on the elections."
post-Ahmadinejad stealing the election- "Why doesn't Obama SAY something?!??!?! That could change everything!!!!"
((And no...I don't think I'm exaggerating...heheh))
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 08:40am
Are you somehow ignorant of everything that transpired in Iran before 1979?
Posted by snowball666 at 06/16/2009 @ 08:04am
Here's a bit of that stuff Triple6. Of course it was prior to GW Bush's emphasis on "freedom" rights for the natives or when US policy, in the region, was directed exclusively toward its own selfish geopolitical interests:
During the Shah's reign, Iran celebrated 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms increased opposition.
While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization and conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel. Clashes with the religious right increased communist activity and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh, eventually leading to Mossadegh's ousting, caused an increasingly autocratic rule. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to reset this intervention by America in their internal affairs."[3]
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2009 @ 09:20am
'Unquestionably, there are fine human beings in all parts of the world, but people do differ widely in their social habits, their levels of ambition, their mechanical aptitudes, their inherited ability and intelligence, their moral traditions, and their capacity for maintaining stable governments.' -- Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) -- 1965
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/16/2009 @ 09:53am
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 08:40am
Mask you really are a hopeless ignoramus. The reason you ask such inane questions is no doubt due to you ignorance of most every topic you stumble into. Here's just one of your schoolboy howlers. No one who knows what went on in that war would consider that was a motivating factor. All that nonsense had its origin exclusively in your own brain.
1980s- "Iran fought a war with Saddam, but THEY were the bad guys even though Saddam was a bad guy too...and we were only supporting Saddam because the Iranians were worse bad guys...but that doesn't make us bad guys for supporting a guy we later said poised a grave threat to the world!.....Oh, except when we sold arms to the Iranians for Contra money...that was good too." (Mask)
It had nothing to do with good or bad guy considerations by the US. Your country at the time and from about the end of WW2, was run, in its external interactions, by foreign policy a-moralists, whom other a-moralists now call FP "realists". Given that is the sort of philosophy that pre-GW Bush was the norm in American FP even you should be able to see how irrelevant your scaling or grading of bad guys is.
The US clearly wanted to contain both Iran and Iraq and didn't mind how many from each side got killed or how many innocents were caught up in the crossfire and got tortured or gassed or raped or displaced, just as long as each side neutralised each other and did not stuff up the beautiful geo-political balance your realist FP wonks decreed as best for America.
If your country had carried on the tremendous job you did in WW2, the world, including Iran is very likely to have been a much better place. By using a sort of neo-con type approach to FP if you like.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2009 @ 09:57am
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2009 @ 09:57am
LR....how exactly did you "refute" my point?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 10:55am
Your list of Iranian Twitterers is unavailable. Please decide if this is your decision or attack. If attack then post on mirror website.
Posted by Arasmus at 06/16/2009 @ 1:30pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2009 @ 09:57am
"The US clearly wanted to contain both Iran and Iraq and didn't mind how many from each side got killed or how many innocents were caught up in the crossfire and got tortured or gassed or raped or displaced, just as long as each side neutralised each other and did not stuff up the beautiful geo-political balance your realist FP wonks decreed as best for America."
Yet you have continually claimed that the legacy of Bush's Iraq invasion & occupation would be positive & set the stage for democratization of the Middle East. With your colonialist mentality, you must believe that Iraqis possess a very short memory span.
Did you dump your Halliburton stock on Obama's election or what? Still upset?
Posted by Sorelish at 06/16/2009 @ 1:35pm
ttp://www.stratfor.com/weekly
Misreading Sentiment in Iran
Limited to information on Iran from English-speaking opponents of the regime, both groups of Iran experts got a very misleading vision of where the revolution was heading -- because the Iranian revolution was not brought about by the people who spoke English. It was made by merchants in city bazaars, by rural peasants, by the clergy -- people Americans didn't speak to because they couldn't. This demographic was unsure of the virtues of modernization and not at all clear on the virtues of liberalism. From the time they were born, its members knew the virtue of Islam, and that the Iranian state must be an Islamic state.
Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization -- a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook "iPod liberalism," the idea that anyone who listens to rock n' roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran -- a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.
Posted by BBFmail at 06/16/2009 @ 2:57pm
Well I think that because the USAīs economy is messed up and the US is losing its grip on the world it does not acept ?the people of Iran think or decide. America and its opresive governemt only wants to control Iranīs oil fields. Remenber the Shad of Iran before Ayatolla Komeni came into Iran to renew it faith in god and its faith in its ownn culture? Sure that the liberalist, conservatives those in the religious belt in the US, who voted for George Bush and who robbed Al Goresīs Presidency? Those are the same jerks who are now killing people in IRAK. What about the ENRON default to the American people. The same mafia who now wants to invade Iran...Its all CAPITALISM AT ITS BEST....Gerardo Villamizar from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela..long live socialism...
Posted by GerardoVillamizar at 06/16/2009 @ 4:09pm
All this voices and viewpoints. The truth is plain, first they want the truth about the vote.No one can count 40 million ballots in few hours. The people like their government if it is an honest government, not taking sides against the people. And still armies should not be used against the people.The great leader has lost on this count, he will have to go and a new one emerge Iranian are smart and want freedom to make their own decision in shaping the country future. God help them.
Posted by lea226 at 06/16/2009 @ 4:16pm
Last week's controversial election outcome in Iran should not deter the United States from pursuing better relations with it, according to Independent Institute Senior Fellow Ivan Eland.
"Although its elections are not perfect, Iran has been--and still is--the most democratic country in the Middle East other than Israel," writes Eland in his latest op-ed. "The United States is embarrassed that its diabolical foe is much more democratic than its autocratic and repressive allies of Saudi Arabia and Egypt."
Eland notes that Washington and Tehran have worked together in an attempt to stabilize Afghanistan, suggesting that both countries might find additional common interests that would be advanced by greater cooperation. "The real problem is that even though Obama wants to negotiate with Iran, he still shares Bush's unrealistic concept of where he wants Iran to go," continues Eland. "In short, the United States could get along better with Iran--no matter who is president in the United States or Iran--if U.S. expectations for change in Iran were more realistic and the U.S. government's threat perceptions of Iran were diminished through rational thought."
Posted by Tiberius at 06/16/2009 @ 4:33pm
This is what should have happened here in the States when Bush stole the '04 election! Good for the Iranians - at least they have the guts to stand up for what is right!!!
Posted by grammyping at 06/16/2009 @ 4:35pm
This is what should have happened here in the States when Bush stole the '04 election! Good for the Iranians - at least they have the guts to stand up for what is right!!!
Posted by grammyping at 06/16/2009 @ 4:50pm
Twittering ain't gonna hack it. To make any progress now will require blood, and I don't think there is an organization able or willing to sustain such bloodshed.
The sudden rise in popularity of Moussavi does not suggest that there is a viable movement against the monolithic theocracy that runs the country. As a long-term observer of Iran, I do not expect the establishment to crumble in response to a few demonstrations. During the revolution of 1979 the government was in chaos. The Shah was ill and had essentially abdicated, and nobody was running the show. Today, the Islamic regime remains fully in control of its resources. Furthermore, there is a strong Ahmadinejad faction willing to take on the Moussavi elements. Therefore, I expect Moussavi to fold rather quickly in exchange for nebulous promises of reform and for some form of personal advantage and/or enrichment that will provide no satisfaction to his followers.
Posted by plover at 06/16/2009 @ 4:59pm
This is what should have happened here in the States when Bush stole the '04 election! Good for the Iranians - at least they have the guts to stand up for what is right!!!
Posted by grammyping at 06/16/2009 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sour grapes over not enough dead voters for the Demoncrats, or just another delusional fool!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/16/2009 @ 11:32pm
Also amazing Flickr photos coming out of Tehran, example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi1388/sets/72157619592664479/show/
Posted by cybergrace at 06/17/2009 @ 01:07am
Looks like it's time again to correct antisocialists wingnut ramblings.
Where to begin?
1. Israel is the only nation that has ever had Jerusalem as it's capital.
Answer: No one recgonizes Jersulaamen as Isral's capital exept for Israel. Jersualem was not even created by Israel, but by the Canaanites.
2. Most of the Arabs there called themselves Syrians or Jordanians before the modern state of Israel began in 1948.
Answer: Rubbish. As early as 1922, everyone in Palestine was refereed to as Palestinians.
3. There are more Arabs of Israel/Palestine origin living in Jordan which was the state given to the Arabs when dividing the British Mandate of Palestine.
Answer: Irrelevant. There were twice as many Palestinians as there were Jews in Palestine in 1948.
4. If you've never been, one can be surprised how small that area actually is.
Answer: Irrelevant. the land given to the state of Israel was what they were given.
5. The only nation that has ever claimed that land as it's nation is Israel.
Answer: Rubbish. The Palestinians claimed the land as it's nation before it was stolen fro them. The only difference is that no one noticed.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 01:34am
This says to me that my initial reaction was correct. I don't believe Bibi has changed significantly and has suddenly abandoned his love for Israel to curry Obama's favor.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009
Bibi's speech was a desparate attempt at bravado and pandering to his base. He knows he has no wiggle room left as is trying to buy time.
When he came to Washington, he was expecting to pull a fast one on Obama they way he did with Clinton. This time, Obama was ready for him and cleaned his clock.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 01:37am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009
More information to overcome your ignorance.
Saddam stopped building WMD in the early 90's and NEVEr exported terrorism around the world.
Bin Laden attacked on Bush' watch and has been a free man ever since.
Your beloved energy task force remains a top secret becasue the derragnged Cheney has refused to allow anyone know know what was discussed with the likes of Enron.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 01:41am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 $6 per gallon gasoline
Under Bush it went from $20 a barrel to over $100.
>> Rationing of Electricity
You mean like the rolling blackout that Bush's buddies at Rron unleashed on California?
>> No vehicles allowed that are larger than a Yugo.
Which might have saved GM from bankruptcy and turned Toyota into American's Number 1 car producer.
>> Buddhist Monks in the Lincoln Bedroom
As opposed to Geoff (militarstudd.com) Ganon?
>> 300-400,000 dead US citizens as jihadists celebrate a weak US with biological and chemical weapons attacks.
Only in your christal ball. Mind you, they did allow the anthrax attacks to go unpunished.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 01:45am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009
According to Pat Buchanan, the situation in Iran shows that the Mullahs were frightened by Obama's speech as his moderation meant they could not rally their following.
>> Nothing has changed or is about to change in the situation between Israel and the Arabs.
Correction. You don't ant anything to change between Israel and the Arabs becasue that would mean that Jesus would have to delay his return to five you your angel wings.
>> Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran
But the only people who are calling for any bombing mission now in Iran are conservatives.
>> and nothing has improved the conditions for the threat that Israel believes that Iran and the Arabs present them.
Wrong again. A recent poll shows that most Israelis believe they could live with a nuclear armed Iran. Meanwhile, support in the US for Israel is falling like a stone.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 01:49am
Sour grapes over not enough dead voters for the Demoncrats, or just another delusional fool!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/16/2009 @ 11:32pm
Not at all. Democrats have the White House, and both Houses. Meanwhile the republicans have falling from being a minority to becoming completely irrelevant.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 01:54am
Sour grapes over not enough dead voters for the Demoncrats, or just another delusional fool!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/16/2009 @ 11:32pm
Not at all. Democrats have the White House, and both Houses. Meanwhile the republicans have falling from being a minority to becoming completely irrelevant.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 01:55am
Yet you have continually claimed that the legacy of Bush's Iraq invasion & occupation would be positive & set the stage for democratization of the Middle East. With your colonialist mentality, you must believe that Iraqis possess a very short memory span.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/16/2009 @ 1:35pm
That claim is overwhelmingly supported by what is happening in the ME at present including the political agitation for change in Iran.
The following are excerpts from Friedman's "Winds of Change" article. Friedman in this piece is not very complementary of the way Bush handled the war but is forced to concede that the Iraq invasion made what is now happening possible. It's a long time since he was a GW Bush fan:
"Twenty years ago, I wrote a book about the Middle East, and recently I was thinking of updating it with a new introduction. It was going to be very simple -- just one page, indeed just one line: "Nothing has changed."
"It took me two days covering the elections in Beirut to realize that I was dead wrong. No, something is going on in the Middle East today that is very new "
"What we saw in the Lebanese elections, where the pro-Western March 14 movement won a surprise victory over the pro-Iranian Hezbollah coalition, what we saw in the ferment for change exposed by the election campaign in Iran, and what we saw in the provincial elections in Iraq, where the big pro-Iranian party got trounced .."
"There are a million things to hate about President Bush's costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades."
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 03:48am
"Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous," said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. "It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14friedman.html
A careful observer didn't need Friedman to state the obvious.
I haven't been saying future tense "would be" but rather" is". And that should be evident to anyone who has been following what has been happening in Iraq since the early 1990s. Iraq was the litmus but it is now obvious in the wider ME.
What has surprised me and obviously Friedman also, is that it has so quickly affected the whole Arab world positively in terms of a desire for better more democratic governance.
I've suggested more than once here that the presence of such a large US military force on the ground has helped this process. One only needs to think for a moment what effect that presence has had on Iranians as close to them as Iran's own border. It is hard to not think that many of those Iranians agitating for change are greatly encouraged by the presence of the force which brought democratic change to its neighbour, Iraq.
Friedman floats the idea that Obama's conciliatory approach toward the Arabs as well as the Iranians can only contribute to the growing movement toward democratisation. That seems to me to be a pretty reasonable proposition. But without GW Bush "smashing down the walls" that prevented that process there would be no part for Obama to play.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 03:48am
LR....how exactly did you "refute" my point?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 10:55am
Please Mask do I have to do all your thinking for you?
Think about it for a day or two and if you are still "oblivious", tell me what you don't understand.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 03:56am
Saddam stopped building WMD in the early 90's and NEVEr exported terrorism around the world. posted by Shingo
Wrong. Saddam supported palestinian suicide bombers and their families.
Posted by abell12ct at 06/17/2009 @ 08:30am
Let's see: The US Government would like to see a change in Iran's regime. So, it makes sense to assume that there are CIA agents in Tehran helping to foment and augment these demonstrations, even if they're home-grown.
Since we know that our foremost psuedo-progressive blogger in the US (Markos Moulitsas Zúņiga of DailyKos) has acknowledged spending two years training at the Central Intelligence Agency, doesn't it make sense to assume that at least some of the Twitterers and bloggers in Tehran have also been trained and are assets of the Central Intelligence Agency?
http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com
Listen to the audiotape in which the USA's best-known blogger admits that he spent two years training in Washington, DC with the Central Intelligence Agency.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/06/06-06zuniga-audio.html
So, we have to assume that at least some of the blogging and twittering is being facilitated or managed or simply done personally by CIA operatives.
The alternative is to assume that although Iran considered one of the US's biggest problems in the region, the CIA is taking a hands-off approach to Iran and has no agents there. Does that make any sense? Isn't it more likely that the CIA has infiltrated the opposition to the Iranian government and is doing everything possible to exacerbate that Government's problems and the disorder in the streets?
Sure, read what Iranian Twitterers and bloggers have to say, but also remember that Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos has admitted that he was training at the CIA at the very same time that he started DailyKos. So we really can't take even bloggers' views and information at face value, but must look critically at their motives and study their resumes.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Markos_M
Posted by francislholland at 06/17/2009 @ 09:47am