Ahmadinejad: Not Crazy?

Crazy?


  • Total voters
    53
Dude, he's just a pawn of the supreme leader, who in turn must always be wary of the council that appoints and removes supreme leaders, who in turn are just insignificant expendibles to the great prophet Mohammed, who is nothing more than a afterthought to the almighty Allah.
No he beat the designated pawn of the religious leadership in the first election that made him president. He was the populist acceptable to the Mullahs who managed to get real traction with people in general — part of the selection of candidates the religious leadership OK:d, but his election win was an upset since he wasn't actually their candidate.

By the last election they might have gotten used to him, and people in charge certainly preferred him over the segment of reformers inside the religious leadership itself, calling for a separation of religion and politics in Iran.
 
I've never thought the guy was crazy; he just says and does what he thinks the average Iranian wants him to.
 
well this was true 10 years ago but right now it is sepah who truly runs iran and they support ahmadinejad so right now he has more power then supreme leader and the clerical assembly.

I doubt that Sepah does anything without the Supreme Leader's blessing, or else they would've long ago overthrown him, if they have as much power as you claim. In the same way, Ahmadinejad must still play into the hands of Sepah or the Supreme Leader if he intends to stay in office, even if it is just a figurehead office.

Ultimately, the Presidency of Iran is still for public show, intended to hide the true power base, which is elsewhere.

Sepah, btw, for those who don't know, is the Army of the Guardians of the Revolution, which is the paramilitary division of the Iranian army that has a function similar to the Nazi SS. Did anyone doubt that Iran is a totalitarian state?

btw only around 60% of iranians are persians so i dont think a persian iran is a good idea

And what percentage of government offices are held by Persians? I bet it's more like 99%.

The Iranian people sure seem to think he matters.

And they are as fooled by the trappings of democracy as you are, except perhaps those who rose in insurrection a couple of years ago.

You honestly think that an Iran ran under the slogan of "PERSIA ROCKS!!" is not going to be ANY different? An Iran run by people like Ahmadinejad and his coterie is exactly the same as one run by religious clerics?

Mere words. Iran calls itself the Islamic Republic, yet it is far from a republic. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, yet it is not democratic nor rules on behalf of the people.
 
And what percentage of government offices are held by Persians? I bet it's more like 99%.

That doesn't follow. There are significant amounts of Turkic's, like Mosavi, as well as Azeri's and Armenians who have played a tremendous role in the Iranian government. Azerbaijan has really been the hotbed of Iranian revolutionary sentiment (particularly socialist) since the time of the Constitutional Revolution. Iran doesn't really discriminate on ethnicity provided that the group in question isn't actively attempting to revolt (like the Kurds and Baluchi's).
 
Ahmadinejad is much smarter and more charming than his average fellow country men.

As is always the case with any world leader.
 
I've never thought the guy was crazy; he just says and does what he thinks the average Iranian wants him to.
So stealing an election and crushing protests is what the "average Iranian wants"?
 
And they are as fooled by the trappings of democracy as you are, except perhaps those who rose in insurrection a couple of years ago.

But that somewhat proves my point. Obviously they believe there was some significance in protesting for their preferred Presidential candidate, no matter how insignificant you yourself see the position.

And when did I ever declare Iran a functioning democracy? I'm pretty sure the highlighting I did of the article would clearly show that I think the opposite, Mr. Flippantpants.


Mere words. Iran calls itself the Islamic Republic, yet it is far from a republic. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, yet it is not democratic nor rules on behalf of the people.

You are missing my point. I didn't ask if a Iran called the Persian Republic of Iran would be any different from one titled the Islamic Republic of Iran. I asked about a difference of leadership, between people like Ahmadinejad and people like Khamenei.
 
So stealing an election and crushing protests is what the "average Iranian wants"?

Actually in all likelihood Ahmadinejad most likely won the election despite irregularities. Mosavi's supporters are students and urban middle class and intellectuals while Ahmadinejad is tremendously popular among the poor, the rural areas and so forth due to his populist social programs. After all what made a reformist figure like Rafasanjani so unpopular wasn't the fact that he was a reformist, but the fact that he began to privatize Iranian industry in ways which benefited him personally, and lost a lot of support from that. Economically speaking, Iranians are fairly left.
 
Most people who have been propagandized nearly their entire lives on the subject aren't likely to change their minds over a few new facts which show the opposite of what they believe to be true.


Link to video.
 
The thing is, results showed Mousavi didn't even win his own area or district (Whatever they call it). It's very suspicious that he couldn't even get the majority of votes in his hometown.
 
The thing is, results showed Mousavi didn't even win his own area or district (Whatever they call it). It's very suspicious that he couldn't even get the majority of votes in his hometown.

In the USA's own murky election in 2000, Al Gore lost his home state and I don't think anyone doubts that he really did. I don't know Iranian politics that well but considering Mousavi is from a pretty rural area in north-western Iran, it seems possible he may have just not been popular where he came from.
 
The ballots were all hand counted overnight. Many rural districts had more votes than voters. The election in Iran was significantly less legitimate than the Florida disaster which is one of the reasons it got the sort of response that it got.
 
You mean the Chatham House report which has been debunked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–2010_Iranian_election_protests

In response, a report was authored by Reza Esfandiari and Yousef Bozorgmehr that concluded the Chatham House report to be flawed - their analysis suggested that the results of the election comport to a natural outcome, allowing for the possibility of some fraud at the local level.[62]

In 2006, the United States congress passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act which directed $10 million towards groups opposed to the Iranian Government.

In 2007, ABC news reported that U.S. president George W. Bush had authorized a $400 million CIA covert operation to destabilize Iran.[131] George W. Bush signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

In 2008, journalist Seymour M. Hersh reported in The New Yorker that " Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran" and "the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership."[132]

In an article in the U.S. Foreign Policy Journal, the question of whether there was U.S. involvement in fomenting unrest during the election was: "given the record of U.S. interference in the state affairs of Iran and clear policy of regime change, it certainly seems possible, even likely, that the U.S. had a significant role to play in helping to bring about the recent turmoil in an effort to undermine the government of the Islamic Republic." The article also quoted evidence concerning interference by the U.S. based Twitter, asserting that “in terms of involving the huge Iranian diaspora and everyone else with a grudge against Ahmadinejad, it has been very successful.”[133][verification needed][page needed]
 
The ballots were all hand counted overnight. Many rural districts had more votes than voters. The election in Iran was significantly less legitimate than the Florida disaster which is one of the reasons it got the sort of response that it got.
Exactly. Suspicious to me.
 
Loopy? A bit. Certifiable? He wishes.
 
No he beat the designated pawn of the religious leadership in the first election that made him president. He was the populist acceptable to the Mullahs who managed to get real traction with people in general — part of the selection of candidates the religious leadership OK:d, but his election win was an upset since he wasn't actually their candidate.

By the last election they might have gotten used to him, and people in charge certainly preferred him over the segment of reformers inside the religious leadership itself, calling for a separation of religion and politics in Iran.

But I mean I heard he was pretty low on the actual "people in power in Iran" scale.
 
That doesn't follow. There are significant amounts of Turkic's, like Mosavi, as well as Azeri's and Armenians who have played a tremendous role in the Iranian government. Azerbaijan has really been the hotbed of Iranian revolutionary sentiment (particularly socialist) since the time of the Constitutional Revolution. Iran doesn't really discriminate on ethnicity provided that the group in question isn't actively attempting to revolt (like the Kurds and Baluchi's).

The wikipedia article on Mousavi doesn't mention him to be anything other than ethnic Persian, although he was born in a town in Azerbaijan. He also appears remotely related to Khamenei. I doubt that he's anything but Persian, and I doubt that non-Persians hold a significant presence in the Iranian government. Perhaps you can show me some stats?

But that somewhat proves my point. Obviously they believe there was some significance in protesting for their preferred Presidential candidate, no matter how insignificant you yourself see the position.

History has amply demonstrated that people can be made to believe anything the government wants them to believe, especially in a totalitarian state where the flow of information is tightly controlled, and where propaganda is pervasive. It is quite in keeping of the state's interests that the people believe the president of Iran has any power, since they will waste time paying attention to someone who has no power while those who do have the power can continue to use it.

Btw, I don't come to these conclusions just by observation. All you have to do is look at Iranian politics and see for yourself. The president is always subject to review and veto by other agents and councils, and even his candidacy is subject to review before he's even elected. With checks like this, it's impossible for a candidate to even be elected by the people. This is a candidate elected by the clerics but made to appear as if elected by the people. So the ruse is set, and the Iranian people are fooled.

You are missing my point. I didn't ask if a Iran called the Persian Republic of Iran would be any different from one titled the Islamic Republic of Iran. I asked about a difference of leadership, between people like Ahmadinejad and people like Khamenei.

A pointless question. That would require a complete upheaval of the entire government, which may cause far bigger changes than chair occupation.
 
Maybe. Who's sure what an "average Iranian" actually want, anyway?
i am. we dont want to get crushed just for peaceful protesting

Actually in all likelihood Ahmadinejad most likely won the election despite irregularities. Mosavi's supporters are students and urban middle class and intellectuals while Ahmadinejad is tremendously popular among the poor, the rural areas and so forth due to his populist social programs. After all what made a reformist figure like Rafasanjani so unpopular wasn't the fact that he was a reformist, but the fact that he began to privatize Iranian industry in ways which benefited him personally, and lost a lot of support from that. Economically speaking, Iranians are fairly left.

actually that is not true.cuz i work in a factory that has like 150 employee and most of them are uneducated workers and only 2 of them voted for ahmadinejad and there are lots of other reasons to believe that the election was rigged.
first ahmanidnejad needed all of Conservatives and silent majority's vote and 40% of reformers to win with 24 million vote
second: they cut all form of communication(internet,cell phones) the day after election and if there wasnt something wrong why they did that
third: this(i know you cant understand it because its in Persian but just read the summary) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FakeResults_Iran.jpg
and lots other reasons
 
Top Bottom