Iran: Ahmadinejad wins vote by landslide

[Corp 1,427]

Unlike many other countries, in Iran the president does not have full control over foreign policy, the armed forces, or the nuclear policy of the Iranian state, which are under the control of the Supreme Leader.

So instead of having that power in an elected official, which is bad I'm guessing, it's invested in an unelected official, which is good?

I'm really not seeing the point you're trying to make acid. Doesn't seem to me that there would be any different at all if that power was in the hands of a president or a king.

Oh and the CIA theory might be an interesting novel. However as things are given that the role of president is secondary Ahmedinejad would have never gotten this far if he was an agent. The clerics would have killed him long ago. So either he is as he is, or he is the greatest spy in history and should have epic songs sung about him.

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,544]

So instead of having that power in an elected official, which is bad I'm guessing, it's invested in an unelected official, which is good?

I'm really not seeing the point you're trying to make acid. Doesn't seem to me that there would be any different at all if that power was in the hands of a president or a king.

Oh and the CIA theory might be an interesting novel. However as things are given that the role of president is secondary Ahmedinejad would have never gotten this far if he was an agent. The clerics would have killed him long ago. So either he is as he is, or he is the greatest spy in history and should have epic songs sung about him.

That's how the balance of power in Iran's Republic functions.... the president cannot assume dictatorship... without the moolas approval however.

There was a time when America held the same values through their 3 branches of power sharing and control...

The war on terror threw that out the window and created a monster out of a city boy turned fake-Texan son of an ex-CIA and ex-President of USA, Eddie Haskel's with an Army.

Edited June 16, 2009 by acidhead

[Corp 1,427]

Well no the president of Iran can't take complete power because the Ayatollah already has that power. He'd need to remove them first either through revolution or through legal reforms.

[ExpandMyMind 13,287]

after doing some research on this subject i have to retract my previous statement where i stated i believed the election was fixed... that was the wrong choice of words in the first place. i was hasty and more disappointed at things in the run up to the election, rather than the election itself.

while i do definately believe that ahmadinejad had an unfair advantage, in that the entire media of the country was showing massive support for him, i have yet to find any evidence whatsoever of this election being rigged. other than mousavi's claim that it was so... the man who had declared he had won before the ballots were even counted.

i was deeply disappointed to see how much the media favoured 1 candidate over the others but this does not prove that it was fixed... not directly. it just means he had an unfair advantage.

the way western media (american mainly) is writing off this as a fixed election with absolutely no proof other than the other candidates claim, is downright disgusting. they (western mainstream media) have all jumped on the bandwagon as we have come to expect them to do.

the more i actually research the numbers of the election and the public's support for the wee iranian i have to say that he would have won this election no matter what. he was winning on all of the polls beforehand.

ahmadinejad may have had an unfair advantage in swaying public opinion in the run up to the election, which is unfair, but he did get more votes than the other man - as was expected.

the way the media is spinning this, with shouts that obama should close dialogue etc, with no evidence to support the theories, this could quite easily lead to a war. in my opinion.

Edited June 16, 2009 by expandmymind

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,544]

after doing some research on this subject i have to retract my previous statement where i stated i believed the election was fixed... that was the wrong choice of words in the first place. i was hasty and more disappointed at things in the run up to the election, rather than the election itself.

while i do definately believe that ahmadinejad had an unfair advantage, in that the entire media of the country was showing massive support for him, i have yet to find any evidence whatsoever of this election being rigged. other than mousavi's claim that it was so... the man who had declared he had won before the ballots were even counted.

i was deeply disappointed to see how much the media favoured 1 candidate over the others but this does not prove that it was fixed... not directly. it just means he had an unfair advantage.

the way western media (american mainly) is writing off this as a fixed election with absolutely no proof other than the other candidates claim, is downright disgusting. they (western mainstream media) have all jumped on the bandwagon as we have come to expect them to do.

the more i actually research the numbers of the election and the public's support for the wee iranian i have to say that he would have won this election no matter what. he was winning on all of the polls beforehand.

ahmadinejad may have had an unfair advantage in swaying public opinion in the run up to the election, which is unfair, but he did get more votes than the other man - as was expected.

the way the media is spinning this, with shouts that obama should close dialogue etc, with no evidence to support the theories, this could quite easily lead to a war. in my opinion.

I feel most western people felt long ago Ahmedinejad was going to win... because he was always bashing Capitalism, globalism and GW Bush.... I would have voted for him too.

He was the only candidate most have heard of and I'll admit I didn't know who Hossein Mousavi was at all because I never really looked into it and MSM never really pumped up any

particular opposition enough to give anybody any reason to think anybody would win besides Ahmedinejad.

It true...most would probably agree that they didn't know who 'the other guy' was until the MSM jumped on the 'rigged election' routine.

Reminds me of the Georgia/Russia conflict a few months back.

Southern Ossetians are attacked in the middle of the night and Russia gets blamed for the whole incident by the MSM.

[Corp 1,427]

Actually the Iranian election was getting coverage since last week from what I could tell.

[ExpandMyMind 13,287]

extremely interesting. from may 2007.

Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran

President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed.

Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.

Under the plan, pressure will be brought to bear on the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and international financial transactions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ainst-Iran.html

and a nice little abc news video to go with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo...player_embedded

i feel that this is quite relevant at this moment in time given that there is a massive media campaign against this election with no actual evidence.

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,544]

extremely interesting. from may 2007.

Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ainst-Iran.html

and a nice little abc news video to go with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo...player_embedded

i feel that this is quite relevant at this moment in time given that there is a massive media campaign against this election with no actual evidence.

Israel and Hillary Clinton have both stated, this year, that both countries are 'active' in deterring Iran from persuing their nuclear ambitions through sabatoge and infultration.

The political and world arena is changing relatively fast ever since 911(2001)

Mostly Saudi Arabian hi-jackers mixed with a few other middle eastern nationalities were used to attack the center of the world financial institution(WTC) and London...

The removal of Saddam and the increased occupation of Afghanistan that has poured into nieghboring tribal Pakistan.

The tension with North Korea and a persian Iran...

And the battle of words with Russia and Venezuela.... surprisenly China has kept silent, though, what do they care as long as western capitalism wets their backs.

Even France, whose leader appears half cut most of the time, has been very vocal at administrating caution and directing world conferences.

Beginning in the USA last year and spreading all over the planet... an economic crisis.

But when one really looks at all that has happened in this short period of time one thing has become constant talk among all leaders involved.

Calls from, basically, every leader of these countries the need for a NEW WORD ORDER.

The need for a new global system to 'combat' an ever increasing world strategy to fight economic and sovereign differences.

That new system has been in place, the IMF, WTO, and World Bank ever since the end of the 2nd world war.

hmmmmmmm.......... thoughts?

[KRS-One 0]

hmmmmmmm.......... thoughts?

Sure. The first is that you're absolutely obsessed with NWO conspiracy theories and could find a link to vanilla pudding being a tool of it.

The second is a question. What does the term "wet their backs" mean, as you posted it?

[Corp 1,427]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/18/wo...ent;cbsCarousel

Came across this link on another boards. Rumoured to be a leaked document with the 'real' election results. More than likely a fake (it's like saying the NDP won the Canadian election) but figured I'd throw it up anyway. After all one never knows.

Total number of votes: 43,026,078

Mir Hossein Mousavi: 19,075,623

Mehdi Karoubi 13,387,104

Mhmoud Ahmadinejad: 5,698,417

Muhsen Rezai: 3,754,218

Void: 38,716

[questionmark 11,371]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/18/wo...ent;cbsCarousel

Came across this link on another boards. Rumoured to be a leaked document with the 'real' election results. More than likely a fake (it's like saying the NDP won the Canadian election) but figured I'd throw it up anyway. After all one never knows.

hmmm...you sure you did not miss a figure on Mahmoud's count?

[ExpandMyMind 13,287]

Pakistan general: US interfering in Iran affairs

Former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig claims the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has distributed 400 million dollars inside Iran to evoke a revolution.

In a phone interview with the Pashto Radio on Monday, General Beig said that there is undisputed intelligence proving the US interference in Iran.

"The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election," he added.

Pakistan's former army chief of joint staff went on to say that the US wanted to disturb the situation in Iran and bring to power a pro-US government.

He congratulated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election for the second term in office, noting that Pakistan relationship with Iran has improved during his 4-year presidency.

"Ahmadinejad's re-election is a decisive point in regional policy and if Pakistan and Afghanistan unite with Iran, the US has to leave the area, especially the occupied Afghanistan," Beig added.

http://www.presstv.ir/textonly/detail.aspx...ionid=351020401

anyone know which documents he is referring to? could he be referring to bush's plans from a couple of years ago? or something new?

[Corp 1,427]

Haven't heard anything about it, though it does sound like this guy has a ax to grind

[GreyWeather 13]

GreyWeather -- Iran is a Republic. That is why it has a presidency.

Regards,

Karlis

It was sarcasm.

My fault, I didn't do the "/sarcasm".

[Leonardo 10,412]

So instead of having that power in an elected official, which is bad I'm guessing, it's invested in an unelected official, which is good?

Actually, the Supreme Leader is elected, but serves a life term.

[questionmark 11,371]

Actually, the Supreme Leader is elected, but serves a life term.

Ehm, yes...but elected due to the recommendation of his predecessor, who said in his last will that Khameini should take his place. Most probably Khameini will do the same.... and because they are the supreme leaders, whoever they recommend will get the job....

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,544]

extremely interesting. from may 2007.

Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ainst-Iran.html

and a nice little abc news video to go with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo...player_embedded

i feel that this is quite relevant at this moment in time given that there is a massive media campaign against this election with no actual evidence.

On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”

On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”

A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”

On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which 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.”

http://www.infowars.com/are-the-iranian-pr...lor-revolution/

Edited June 21, 2009 by acidhead

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,544]

Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated “Color Revolution?”

A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has somehow not contaminated unfolding events.

The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.

As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri’s charge that the election was stolen, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled politicians.

There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the ayatollahs’ lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad’s attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic. However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is a conservative reactionary lined up with the ayatollahs.

Commentators are “explaining” the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad’s win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government.

On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”

On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”

A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”

On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which 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.”

The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.

Daniel McAdams has made some telling points. For example, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” How would Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan? Why would there be a ‘green revolution’ prepared prior to the vote, especially if Mousavi and his supporters were as confident of victory as they claim? This looks like definite evidence that the US is involved in the election protests.

Timmerman goes on to write that “the National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions . . . Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.” Timmerman’s own neocon Foundation for Democracy is “a private, non-profit organization established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to promote democracy and internationally-recognized standards of human rights in Iran.”

Paul Craig Roberts http://www.infowars.com/are-the-iranian-pr...lor-revolution/

**************

[Pseudo Intellectual 1]

Acidhead, there's a Conspiracy section on this forum, did you know that?