Iran: good election or bad election?

22 Jun 2009

So lightweight Foreign Secretary Milliband has withdrawn some of the Embassy staff from Iran following accusations by the President of "interfering" in the fall out following the recent Iranian elections.
There seems to be no recognition of the fact the President was elected with a 1% increase in his popular vote from last time which is not surprising considering his popularity amongst the Iranian people - if I understand matters correctly.
I can see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laughing his socks off; here is Britain, ruled by a Prime Minister who was never elected and whose popularity has been axed hundreds of fold calling foul on a popular president who was re-elected with a resounding vote!
Is it little wonder that relations between Britain and Iran have faltered?
Is the State Department in Washington keeping quiet so as not to embarrass poor old gawdy? Whilst Obama is looking forward to securing peace in the middle east is Milliband's ineptitude, tinkering and inexperience the real cause of Britain's problems there dunno

22 Jun 2009

The issue with the Iranian election is that it is considered that it was fixed , with the results of the national election being announced before even the local results had come in ! etc
The election was not even democracy as we would know it anyway, all candidates have to be approved by the mullahs, and dissent is silenced on TV etc
In any case, for the ordinary people of Iran, it has become more than this, it is a way of protesting against a totalitarian islamo-fascist regime whose head honcho claims he gets his messages from god (rather like the pope and Peter Sutcliffe !).
I wish the Iranian freedom fighters the best of British luck in struggling against a vile tyranny.

22 Jun 2009

Wasn't there some suggestion that the British elections were being rigged too.. I mean, certain members of the (Labour) Government caught with their fingers in the electoral till rigging postal votes?
At least there was an election - more than the people of Britain were allowed...

23 Jun 2009

This election had about as much honesty as mad Mugabi's had.
This was never going to be anything other than a mad dictator " fixing " the vote through fear. A bit like Mugabi.
History tells us that you cannot hold people down forever, and they will in time rise up in Iran and overthrow this nutcase. Along with all the other nutters that hold the power there.
You seen his eyes though? Well shifty and they move in different directions. biggrin

23 Jun 2009

It saddens me that we will no doubt be shedding yet more blood for oil.

23 Jun 2009

Quote by benrums0n
It saddens me that we will no doubt be shedding yet more blood for oil.

Can't run a car without it. wink

24 Jun 2009

Quote by GnV
At least there was an election - more than the people of Britain were allowed...

... you mean the 55% to Labour 30% Tory vote of '05 (seats), or, by popular vote standard (something which failed in the good ole US), 37% Labour 34% Tory?
There is no "presidential", one man leads the country voting system here (thank fuck). While I agree things are shitty currently, we don't have a "supreme" leader, merely a servant who has been voted in to lead a party to commit to an agenda upon which votes were freely cast.
It may, or may not have failed. Luckily for us, within the next 12 months the people of this forum, and this country will decide and vote for continuance or change.
Not an opportunity afforded to many throughout the world. Your statements are ill thought through.

24 Jun 2009

Quote by SteveClarke

At least there was an election - more than the people of Britain were allowed...

... you mean the 55% to Labour 30% Tory vote of '05 (seats), or, by popular vote standard (something which failed in the good ole US), 37% Labour 34% Tory?
There is no "presidential", one man leads the country voting system here (thank fuck). While I agree things are shitty currently, we don't have a "supreme" leader, merely a servant who has been voted in to lead a party to commit to an agenda upon which votes were freely cast.
It may, or may not have failed. Luckily for us, within the next 12 months the people of this forum, and this country will decide and vote for continuance or change.
Not an opportunity afforded to many throughout the world. Your statements are ill thought through.
I stand by what I said.
Gordon Brown was "installed" as leader of the Labour party after Bliar jumped ship. There was a keenness for an leadership contest but the whips made sure that all the likely contestants were warned off with threats to end their political career if they challenged him.
He bottled out of calling a General Election; if they and their agenda was so popular, what was the problem with going to the country dunno

24 Jun 2009

Quote by GnV
So lightweight Foreign Secretary Milliband has withdrawn some of the Embassy staff from Iran following accusations by the President of "interfering" in the fall out following the recent Iranian elections.
There seems to be no recognition of the fact the President was elected with a 1% increase in his popular vote from last time which is not surprising considering his popularity amongst the Iranian people - if I understand matters correctly.
I can see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laughing his socks off; here is Britain, ruled by a Prime Minister who was never elected and whose popularity has been axed hundreds of fold calling foul on a popular president who was re-elected with a resounding vote!
Is it little wonder that relations between Britain and Iran have faltered?
Is the State Department in Washington keeping quiet so as not to embarrass poor old gawdy? Whilst Obama is looking forward to securing peace in the middle east is Milliband's ineptitude, tinkering and inexperience the real cause of Britain's problems there

that is such a bad way of reading the situation and if you knew anything about it then you would understand why.....
in the 1950's the UK and the US basically toppled then very popular prime minister and put the shah of iran in his place... the resentment is that are the seeds to the islamic revoulution...
can you see why the UK and the US is not liked.... the more the US speak out... the more the people can turn round as say "look they may do it again"....
Bush basically did what you suggested and killed one uprising stone dead.... the leadership in iran turned it into an "america vs us" situation
that why the Obama speech in Egypt was a great speech, he laid down a new direction..... the leadership in Iran saw what then happened in the Lebannon elections and it probably spooked them
But any uprising has to come from within and has to have a figurehead from within, he has to look like his own man and not a puppet of someone else
thats why the US and the UK have to play it low key... the story has to be the people on the street against the leaders, and not Iran vs UK/US.....
otherwise the uprising will be killed stone dead again....

24 Jun 2009

Quote by fabio
So lightweight Foreign Secretary Milliband has withdrawn some of the Embassy staff from Iran following accusations by the President of "interfering" in the fall out following the recent Iranian elections.
There seems to be no recognition of the fact the President was elected with a 1% increase in his popular vote from last time which is not surprising considering his popularity amongst the Iranian people - if I understand matters correctly.
I can see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laughing his socks off; here is Britain, ruled by a Prime Minister who was never elected and whose popularity has been axed hundreds of fold calling foul on a popular president who was re-elected with a resounding vote!
Is it little wonder that relations between Britain and Iran have faltered?
Is the State Department in Washington keeping quiet so as not to embarrass poor old gawdy? Whilst Obama is looking forward to securing peace in the middle east is Milliband's ineptitude, tinkering and inexperience the real cause of Britain's problems there

that is such a bad way of reading the situation and if you knew anything about it then you would understand why.....
in the 1950's the UK and the US basically toppled then very popular prime minister and put the shah of iran in his place... the resentment is that are the seeds to the islamic revoulution...
can you see why the UK and the US is not liked.... the more the US speak out... the more the people can turn round as say "look they may do it again"....
Bush basically did what you suggested and killed one uprising stone dead.... the leadership in iran turned it into an "america vs us" situation
that why the Obama speech in Egypt was a great speech, he laid down a new direction..... the leadership in Iran saw what then happened in the Lebannon elections and it probably spooked them
But any uprising has to come from within and has to have a figurehead from within, he has to look like his own man and not a puppet of someone else
thats why the US and the UK have to play it low key... the story has to be the people on the street against the leaders, and not Iran vs UK/US.....
otherwise the uprising will be killed stone dead again....
You could be a Brown understudy for PMQ's fabio. The only bit missing was the 10% cuts the Conservatives would make if they were in office...
What was it that I suggested :dunno:

24 Jun 2009

Quote by GnV
You could be a Brown understudy for PMQ's fabio. The only bit missing was the 10% cuts the Conservatives would make if they were in office...
What was it that I suggested

okay then (and i am so tempted to use the word "smartass" here)
what soloution do you have knowing the background to the story.....
I'm all ears.........

24 Jun 2009

You are usually pretty good at the American aspect fabs.. I was hoping for a "heads up" from you so that I could form an opinion..

28 Jun 2009

strange that the challenger claimed victory 4 hrs before the end of the election. smells of cia and mi6. the protesters appear to be well heeled, excellent english and very good english writing on their placards. twitter and mobile phone pics abound. thats funny, the overwhelming majority of iranians only speak fhasi and are generally rural. i smell brezinski and kissinger at work here. thats funny, brezinski was bragging about his "manipulation of forces in iran" 2 months ago on cnn

28 Jun 2009

The british people do not vote for a leader, the leader is elected by the party. The british people vote for an mp. G Brown is an elected mp, and his party made him leader of it, and hence prime minister.
The same as the con party, and the lib-dem party.
Who gets elected makes little difference, the extent of what can be done is decided by unelected public servants, and unelected eu public servants.
We already know what the conservative party will do, the same as they always do. Massive cuts in public spending, massive cuts in state servants and the nhs will go back to the dark ages (thatchers ages).

29 Jun 2009

Quote by JTS
The british people do not vote for a leader, the leader is elected by the party. The british people vote for an mp. G Brown is an elected mp, and his party made him leader of it, and hence prime minister.
The same as the con party, and the lib-dem party.
Who gets elected makes little difference, the extent of what can be done is decided by unelected public servants, and unelected eu public servants.
We already know what the conservative party will do, the same as they always do. Massive cuts in public spending, massive cuts in state servants and the nhs will go back to the dark ages (thatchers ages).

It's not the amount of money that is important, its the way it is spent.
By tradition, Labour spend it like its going out of fashion - mostly on themselves.