But never fear. Bush is standing for electoral democracy!

quote:

---

US President George W Bush has criticised the presidential election taking place in Iran on Friday as ignoring the demands of democracy.
"Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world," he said in a statement released by the White House.

...

Mr Bush criticised Iran for blocking hundreds of reformist candidates from running.

"Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy," he said.

---

Of course, he is right. But Bush is hardly in a position to lecture anyone on democracy.

quote:

---

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's spy chief used two words to respond to White House criticism of Iranian presidential elections last week: "Thank you."

The sharp barbs from President George W. Bush were widely seen in Iran as damaging to pro-reform groups because the comments appeared to have boosted turnout among hard-liners in Friday's vote. The result is that an ultraconservative is now in a showdown against a former president and relative moderate, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani.

"I say to Bush: 'Thank you,'" quipped Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi. "He motivated people to vote in retaliation."
...

"Unknowingly, [Bush] pushed Iranians to vote so that they can prove their loyalty to the regime, even if they are in disagreement with it," said Hamed al-Abdullah, a political science professor at Kuwait University.

Liberal dissidents had urged a boycott of the vote, but the turnout, at nearly 63 percent, was unexpectedly strong.

---

quote:

---

"Unknowingly, [Bush] pushed Iranians to vote so that they can prove their loyalty to the regime, even if they are in disagreement with it," said Hamed al-Abdullah, a political science professor at Kuwait University.

---

Wow. Should I use my vote to support the candidate that I think could do a good job of running things, or should I vote for someone I disagree with in a petty and futile attempt to flip George Bush the bird?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

You get the government you deserve, eh?

---

Yes, and in 1953, the CIA felt that Iranian's couldn't be trusted with democracy and installed the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi. It only took a nine hour tank battle and killing hundreds of protestors in the streets of Tehran. Rez's father was a good ol' boy from way back(a pro-Nazi). It seems the democratically elected Mossadegh was going to nationalise the oil. We can thank the CIA for the religious fundamentalist rule in Iran today - because any backwards, oppressive, narrow-minded s.o.b.'s will do in place of the left;.

It seems that the new religion, free market fundamentalism, is so natural that it must be enforced with bullets.

Viva la revolucion!

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

We can thank the CIA for the religious fundamentalist rule in Iran today

---

Fascinating.

quote:

---

I hope you'll at least concede that Bush's ham-handed meddling is counter-productive, Magoo.

---

It would appear that that's the end result, so it's hard to argue against it in a de facto way, but it's also incredibly counter-intuitive too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Seriously. Vote for the right-wing whackos just to spite Georgie? Uh, that makes exactly zero sense to me.

---

quote:

---

I just saw on the news that the Iranian election results are inconclusive, but one thing is for sure - it certainly wasn't a legitimate election since women candidates were banned from running, according to the report I saw.

---

quote:

---

Seriously. Vote for the right-wing whackos just to spite Georgie? Uh, that makes exactly zero sense to me.

---

quote:

---

What are their choices in Iran, Magoo ?.

---

Well, as Bush's criticism of their elections has apparently steered Iranian voters from more progressive candidates toward less progressive candidates, I'm going to go with:

1. More progressive candidates
2. Less progressive candidates

Now the question for them is just a matter of what's more important. Will it be "voting for a candidate who can improve the standard of living in Iran" or will it be "voting for a reactionary Mullah-type to spite George Bush for criticizing the elections"?

quote:

---

Swallow said: That was the Bush election campaign too, though. Vote for me, to spite Osama.

---

pffffff!

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

and should be criminal, since it most likely will lead to the harship and death of innocent people

---

Huh?

You appear to be transferring blame for whatever government Iran ends up with from the voters who, of their own free will, voted for that government, to George Bush.

quote:

---

You appear to be transferring blame for whatever government Iran ends up with from the voters who, of their own free will, voted for that government, to George Bush.

---

Figured that out by yourself, did you? The exact same criticism of the Iranian elections could from any number of sources, and I would agree. Coming from Bush, it's self-serving and dangerous, not to mention abysmally hypocritical.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Well, as Bush's criticism of their elections has apparently steered Iranian voters from more progressive candidates toward less progressive candidates, I'm going to go with:

---

quote:

---

Fuck Bush, Magoo.

---

I get that.

But your dislike of Bush doesn't mean he's in any way responsible for the outcome of elections in Iran. Iranians are adults and they can make their own choices. What, exactly, does Bush have to do with that? And what does what the U.S. did over half a century ago have to do with the choices Iranian voters have and make today, here, right now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
And what does what the U.S. did over half a century ago have to do with the choices Iranian voters have and make today, here, right now?

---

The thing of it is is that the last time Iranian's were able to make a clear choice was with the democratic election of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1950's. The CIA overthrew him in a bloody coup. This is an ongoing theme with the CIA, Magoo. It takes years, even decades for these bastards to relinquish power. The CIA intervention in Chile is another example of where the people were afraid to choose anything other than the recommended right-wing candidate again until the year 2000 when they chose a socialist.

The formula goes something like this:

1. CIA installs a despot with a bloody coup - usually after a left winger is assassinated sometime after being elected by the people(see rules for democracy, Magoo)

2. Washington criticises successive despotic regimes after original non-elected despot hands power over to one and then another.

1. George Bush's intervention likely swayed some Iranians to vote for the hard-liners.

2. Iranians are repsonsible for whatever results from their electoral choices.

quote:

---

Fidel: Who's the socialist candidate in Iran, btw ?. Anyone know ?.

---

The Tudeh Party. I'm pretty sure that they are illegal and have the distinction that their members have been tortured by both the Shah's regime and the current clerical regime.

Tudeh Pary of Iran (in Arabic as far as I can see)

The above link shows a gallery of Tudeh Party figures. One of them is a woman.

Tudeh Party in English (latest entry seems to be April 2004)

Brief History of the Tudeh Party of Iran (looks more like a communist party than a socialist party)

Iran Chamber Society (has a history of the Tudeh Party - no idea of their political orientation)

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Strangely, Saddam Hussein was in the process of leading Iraqi's away from religious fundamentalism as has Moammar Gadaffi done in Libya. Osama bin Laden was with the program until the military industrial complex needed a bogey man to justify more Keynesian-militarism for the rich. It all started with the corporate backing of Hitler. First they profit by arming them, and then a double return when taxpayers have to declare war on their "mistakes."Notice which of Saddam and Osama have been given the hook. Has the CIA ever installed a sonofabitch that ever screwed-up and turned out ok for the people ?. I think the streak is safe from democracy.

Between NSA and CIA, with thousands of agents in every major city in the world, they can't find a six foot five Arab with a wonky kidney?. Better spend like hell on creating more government and military while undermining social programs. Imagine Brian Mulroney or Stephen Harper with the bible belt propping them up. bwbwbw scary!

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

One of the most heroic but tragically under-reported human rights movement in the world is the 26-year struggle to establish democracy in Iran. Since th Islamic revolution of 1979, a brave cadre of democratic activists -- moving in and out of prison and subjected to frequent home padlockings and demolitions - have been able to sustain a courageous civil society that challenges one of the mos repressive dictatorships

Apologists for the Iraq war tried to justify the country's invasion on the grounds that apart from a cowed underground opposition based on cells of exiled political parties, there was no ability for civil society to challenge the authoritarian Iraqi state. This is not the case with Iran, where mass demonstrations and strikes have challenged the regime through enduring organizational structures.

---