Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Iranian Opposition

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The other thread, where we started discussing this, is becoming unbearable, so I decided to open a thread that follows the Iranian Revolution, where we can post anything notable about the demonstrators or the events in Tehran.

I'll start with this, written by someone in Tehran:

“I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…”
Link to post
Share on other sites

What an incredibly brave person.

Today the Supreme Leader basically promised that there would be large scale bloodshed if further demonstrations are staged. Mousavi has a terrible dilemma on his hands. If he calls for more protests, there will most certainly be many people killed. Perhaps something like a general strike would be more practical at this moment.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for Obama to provide some moral support. His silence is embarrassing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why Mousavi is somehow suddenly a revolutionary leader. I think he is just the efficient cause of a rebellion against the theocracy. This rebellion doesn't seem to be organized well enough to accomplish anything, despite its breadth and depth of feeling.

Obama and Ron Paul are both embarrassing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the options are between a hard line an a moderate Islamist camp, simply because all other voices have been systematically suppressed (exiled, imprisoned). But, if the hardliners (including Khamenei) were to fall, the rational elements (which do exist, at least abroad and in hiding) will have a chance to surface. While Mousavi and Rasandjani are Islamists, they are not likely to support the thugs who impose the absolute despotism Iran has under the current regime.

Any small freedoms of expression, or lack of brutal enforcement, would lead to political change, eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I am so thrilled to be an American where I can still enjoy free speech. I fear for this young person. I wouldn't care about her religion or political beliefs all too much. She is opposing dictatorship and despotism. I hope the best for these people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1956, the Hungarian people revolted against their soviet slave masters. They seized the country and established a government in their country. They needed help from America, from Britain, from anyone in the west. And yet, as Soviet Tanks came back and burned the country into the ground and slaughtered the rebels, we did absolutely nothing. We sent nothing, we gave no aid. For a few more decades, Eastern Europe stayed under communist rule.

Today, in 2009, we see history repeating itself. Iranians are coming out en masse to stop Islamic Fascism in their country. And yet, as the rebellion is being crushed in it's infancy, America passes a non-binding resolution of support. Obama doesn't want to come out in support of Mousavi. We are offering no help. If we just loaned military forces to the protesters, we could end the Ayatollah's dictatorship. But no. We stand by, and just wish the protestors good luck.

Damn, we're weak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning the reports are that the protesters have returned to the streets and the Iranian government's thugs are staging brutal attacks against them. From one demonstration alone, I heard there were at least 60 people taken to the hospital with serious injuries. As this happens, the only thing our Weasel In Chief can do is mumble some crap about "the world is watching". And what if the religious fanatics don't give a shit that the world is watching? You know there's a problem when the French have come out with a more firm response than the American president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is, in my opinion, the most disgraceful part of the Obama presidency thus far. It really shows his cowardice and desire to appease both sides.

Its almost as if Obama has made the calculation that the protesters will ultimately lose out and if he sides with them now it will make it that much more difficult to deal with the Iranian govt in the future. He seems more interested appeasing the current regime than in the Iranian people liberating themselves from it. It is a rather disgraceful position for an American president to take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will lose. I'll start thinking they'll win when they start killing off their government's leaders, but right now the streets are running red with the blood of the patriots, not the tyrants. I'm not saying I'm not fully behind them, but I don't think they stand a chance right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1956, the Hungarian people revolted against their soviet slave masters. They seized the country and established a government in their country. They needed help from America, from Britain, from anyone in the west. And yet, as Soviet Tanks came back and burned the country into the ground and slaughtered the rebels, we did absolutely nothing. We sent nothing, we gave no aid. For a few more decades, Eastern Europe stayed under communist rule.

Today, in 2009, we see history repeating itself. Iranians are coming out en masse to stop Islamic Fascism in their country. And yet, as the rebellion is being crushed in it's infancy, America passes a non-binding resolution of support. Obama doesn't want to come out in support of Mousavi. We are offering no help. If we just loaned military forces to the protesters, we could end the Ayatollah's dictatorship. But no. We stand by, and just wish the protestors good luck.

Damn, we're weak.

I agree that the protesters (not so much Mr. Mousavi) desrve the full moral support of the US (which also means we should in no way encourage, or deal with, the current regime), but should we send American soldiers to fight for their freedom? Why?

With Hungary, it was clearly essential for America's survival to fight the Soviets, and promises of support were made to the Hungarian Revolution, which were broken. I don't think that is the case here, in fact I saw no evidence that anyone in the Iranian opposition even asked for American military support. Mousavi in fact expressed plenty of anti-Americanism during the elections, and is an Islamist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mousavi is only the lesser of two evils. It is the Mullahs that need to be overthrown, and it is the responsibility of the Iranian people to do the overthrowing. We have no business intermeddling in the internal affairs of countries we are not in a declared war with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I'm not in favor of sending in US troops, I'll go ahead and argue that it may be in our interest to do so. The Iranian government is not only a supporter of terrorism in Lebanon and Gaza, but also has American blood on its hands by supplying the Iraqi insurgency with Explosively Formed Projectile (EFPs), which are an advanced form of IEDs, that punch through armored American vehicles. They've also supplied the insurgency with money and training, and are a big reason why the country hasn't been secured yet.

A sane Iranian government would GREATLY benefit the US both in terms of lives and treasure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Though I'm not in favor of sending in US troops, I'll go ahead and argue that it may be in our interest to do so. The Iranian government is not only a supporter of terrorism in Lebanon and Gaza, but also has American blood on its hands by supplying the Iraqi insurgency with Explosively Formed Projectile (EFPs), which are an advanced form of IEDs, that punch through armored American vehicles. They've also supplied the insurgency with money and training, and are a big reason why the country hasn't been secured yet.

A sane Iranian government would GREATLY benefit the US both in terms of lives and treasure.

Which is why the Mullahs need to be brought down. It is fundamentalist religious ideology that is fueling the aggression of the East. But it is not our place to diredtly intervene, militarily. Iraq should stand as a lesson in nation building.

Edited by Maximus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is why the Mullahs need to be brought down. It is fundamentalist religious ideology that is fueling the aggression of the East. But it is not our place to diredtly intervene, militarily. Iraq should stand as a lesson in nation building.

Agreed. The Iranian people need to do it themselves, but there's no reason we can't help them out in terms of training, money, and weaponry. Turnabout's fair play :twisted:

Link to post
Share on other sites

America has been recently discredited in the middle east. It makes sense that anything America supports in that region be viewed suspiciously. It is possible that Obama wants the demonstrations to be successful, but he doesn't want to discredit the movement with America's bad reputation in the region. Does that make sense to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't. The Iranian government is going to blame us for any unrest anyway. Hell they're doing it right now, calling on us to 'Stop meddling" etc, etc. The US and Israel get the blame for everything that goes wrong in every country in the middle east. It's one of the main points of demagoguery to keep the mobs in line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PJTV special report with Dr. John David Lewis. This is from a couple of days ago.

The big question is: Are the people protesting the clerics who constitute the regime itself, or merely one presidential candidate over another, all of whom get their marching orders from the Ayatollahs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mousavi is only the lesser of two evils. It is the Mullahs that need to be overthrown, and it is the responsibility of the Iranian people to do the overthrowing. We have no business intermeddling in the internal affairs of countries we are not in a declared war with.

Agreed. The Iranian's need to decide what they want to be. Meddling in their course would be, well, meddling. Trading with a country of individuals with freedom would be a benefit.

I have previous ideas on Iraq from before and now, but I do wonder if individuals in Iran would have felt so emboldened to protest like they are now with Iraq being in its previous state with Hussein, his family, and sidekicks. Obviously, no way to say otherwise, but I wonder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. The Iranian's need to decide what they want to be. Meddling in their course would be, well, meddling. Trading with a country of individuals with freedom would be a benefit.

I have previous ideas on Iraq from before and now, but I do wonder if individuals in Iran would have felt so emboldened to protest like they are now with Iraq being in its previous state with Hussein, his family, and sidekicks. Obviously, no way to say otherwise, but I wonder.

I have no problem with pro-liberty people everywhere doing their part to bring freedom to Iran. Anyone who wants to help should get involved, not just Iranians. Of course, if the US government 'tried to help', i would expect things to just get worse. But as an individual, if you can do something, more power to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a great interview with John Lewis today on PJTV about the Iranian election.

Watching this interview prompted me to relate the Iranian situation to America's new Tea Party movement. There may be elements of good intentions but for the most part their purpose is ill-defined. For either to be of any consequence they need to define their opposition on some fundamental level. Obviously Iran is much more unlikely to do that, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...