That doesn't sound much like a debate between those two gentlemen; it's more like ganging up on a third person. Where was the mod???
I am curious, of the remarks I am about to quote, how much of this is truth and how much of this is posturing? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8082386.stm I get the feeling that his words are more to change the focus of the election away from the real problems that the reformers are highlighting and trying to hide them behind the 'evil' US threat. Sounds like he is channeling Karl Rove there. It also comes across that he is worried that his pet Ahmadinejad is going to lose and he will have to deal with a strong reformer who will expose the failed domestic problems that have been hidden behind the anti-Israel and anti-US banner. I hope that the reformers win easily and that with Obama they can forge a relationship that will see the end of the current animosity between the 2 nations and work towards building a new relationship between the US and Iran. In the long run it can only help both countries.
On the point of who won the debate, it depends on 2 things: what your criteria may be and secondly, on an issue who won/lost. On the first point, my criteria was substance. If you look at style, I agree, AN is a good speaker and the fact that he no problems lying makes him an even more effect "tool". Karrubi is blunt, however by no means a speaker who speaks with clarity, precision etc. Hence, I agree, AN won on style and to the uninformed, looked good. Karrubi won on substance. Secondly, while much of the discussion appears to be on who won that particular debate, I am more interested in who lost. Mousavi scored point by not resorting to the petty and infantile flunging of faeces. Karrubi on the other hand came for a fist and did what Mousavi couldn't. In a way, he did Mousavi a favour by exposing AN and causing himself some strife in the process, but making Mousavi look better. So in the debate between Karrubi and AN, it wasn't as important who won between the two; but that AN lost compared to Mousavi as Karrubi highlighted AN's checkerd past. Yes, I agree that after that it became largely a two horse race. The point I made with regards to AN's lies were highlighted by Mousavi very clearly. His charts and statistics were exposed as such by Mousavi; complete lie with regards to inflation, as well as many others. The other with simply the charts not portraying the actual numbers!!! I had provided a link earlier to some of these lies.. Here is the halo comment lie. Everyone has seen the video clip and AN brazen denial. Well, here is Javadi Amoli himself saying AN did make the comments. http://www.ghalamnews.ir/news-19729.aspx I don't know how you can say that no party has a monopoly on honestly/lying and that they have all been doing it. I cannot find a single instance of insincerity from Mousavi or Karrubi - the only thing AN could attack Mousavi with was those who have supported him or lies about his wife (I can provide a link for that too if you wish). While Karrubi responded quite well to the accusations AN levelled against him. AN on the other hand has lied and refused to respond to any point put to him. I should stop saying that AN often lies; I should instead say he seldom tells the truth. The rule for most is truth and the exception the lie. For him the rule is to lie and should by some miracle the truth benefit him, he may occassionally dabble in telling the truth. Finally, I agree that Rezaei has come across very well. His policies are sound and he has fared very well. I await to see how the debate tonight is going to go. Whether he will stand up to AN and level criticism against him, whether AN will decide to pick a fight with Mousavi instead, whether the moderator will call him out (I am sure you have the reports of how Mousavi's campaign were up in arms because the note that was supposed to be passed to him and during the debate was not in breach of all the rules. Instead it was torn up by those in charge - who all seem to be AN's "friends".) and finally whether AN will bring up Rezaei's son as means of character assassination. The only issue I take with Rezaei is that because he has been on the fringe, he could concentrate on his own campaign with caring for the other candidates. So he may be portrayed well because he doesn't have the pressure of trying to actually win and face the organised force of the government (and AN). Here is another; all the civil service workers being given a day "order" to attend AN's speech!! http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...43250271217_1526303810_30349390_6861308_n.jpg Or the irregular army stations (basij) to have at least 80 people present each in his next speech in Tehran. He is basically forcing people to turn and bribing them to vote (you have stories of potatoes or giving gold coins to hospital workers, or hiking the pension for a month, or the suitcases of cash etc. etc. etc.) http://www.ayandenews.com/fa/pages/?cid=8649 There are countless examples of this type of abuse of governmental power that he isn't supposed to be doing and using government resources for his campaign, yet he does!!
I realize that internal issues are key in the forthcoming election, but how influential is foreign policy going to play into this election? Thought this was interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/08/ballen.iran/index.html This next part though I found very telling. And I think with Obama there is potential for it coming to fruition.
Another great debate tonight. AN's veneer was exposed a few times by Rezaei (the other conservative candidate) and Rezaei showed himself to be reasonable, eloquent, intelligent and with a series of good ideas where to take the country and how to improve it, in particular economically. He would have been a worthy candidate to support - shame he has little chance of succeeding. Although, in terms of economic and social policies, I still think that Mousavi may have the edge in my mind.
Khamenei for all his faults tries not to get involved in the elections. Those comments were actually analysed to have been a veiled criticism of AN for his personal attacks which had resulted in other candidates starting to take a similar approach. AN is by no means his pet. Many are even questioning the true extent of Khamenei's power because whilst he has a lot of religious influence, he isn't the most senior religious figure. Whilst many consider the irregular armies (basij and sepah) to have been at his command, many are questioning that now that both have gained significant power and seem to be aligned with the powers behind AN (AN is by no means the head of the group). He only has some political power in terms of overall policies of the country but even that is questioned given the power of those like Rafsanjani. There are many poles of power in Iran; Khamenei is one; AN's group which includes as one of its main true behind the scenes power Mesbah Yazi (I posted this link before but it does show how complicated power centres in Iran really are and I don't even begin to pretend to understand all the nuances; Mesbah is number 10 on the list: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199145/page/1 ) The failed policies are not only exposed by the reformers but also by the conservatives. Whereas in the US because of the 2 party and 2 candidate system there is a lot of cohesion between the members of one party, it isn't so in Iranian presidential elections. Both the reformers are on independent tickets!! They are merely being supported by the reformist camp. Mousavi calls himself a mix of reformer and conservative and Karrubi created his own party (he actually reminds me a bit of Ralph Nader - except in Iranian politics he has a chance of winning or at least getting a significant number of votes!) Similarly, your second article actually showed what I would have highlighted. Iranians care more about internal economics right now than anything else. That's why foreign policy (while corollary and relevant) takes a back seat. Even a conservative candidate like Rezaei may be willing to engage the West and in particular the US if Khamenei indicates an interest and he deems to be important for economic reasons. He quite candidly stated that AN's policies have caused economic strife because of Iran's isolation and that he would try to increase foreign investment. That may mean engaging the US. At least it does certainly means better relations with the West as a whole. I'll make one brief point. There is a big difference between engaging the US and Israel for Iranians. US many agree with. Israeli some (in particular in the economic sector) don't have a problem with but the atrocities continuously committed by Israel make is very difficult. Even if the government wanted to engage Israel, public opinion would be very much against it. Most see US' interest follow a similar path to Iran's; and in fact US' often over the top support (in particular in the past and less so under Obama so far) of Israel to have been a hindrance. Israel is doing too much wrong in humanity terms for Iranians to find much appeal in developing better ties with.
Videos of today's human chain on Valiasr Street [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF-XG9tW3yM"]YouTube - Valiasr Street[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mce39HgyyEc"]YouTube - Valiasr Street[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UqwmE0lNfk&"]YouTube -Valiasr Street[/ame]
A CNN report on the Iranian election [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgbZ9dI4DVw"]YouTube -CNN, June 8[/ame]
Thanx for the clips & articles. What was last election's turnout and what's the expected turnout for this time? Hopefully it's gonna be a lot higher than last time...
An Associated Press report on the Iranian election [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUqU4PUKykE"]YouTube - Election Fever Rises in Iran[/ame] Another CNN report on the Iranian election [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xj5Xb_ZFws"]YouTube - Iran's Presidential Elections & Ahmadinejad's 'YouTube Video'[/ame] A BBC News report on the Iranian election [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH0GmjknbTo"]YouTube - Political divide in the Iranian election[/ame]
Turnout in the last presidential election was around 60%. The turnout this year is expected to be higher, matching or perhaps even surpassing the 80% turnout in the 1997 (presidential) and 2000 (parliamentary) elections. Generally speaking, the higher the turnout, the better are Mousavi's chances of winning this race. At 60% turnout, on the other hand, Ahmadinejad would still win this race today as I project that he will get at least 14 million votes.
I posted this in another forum and repost it here... This has become a 2 man race between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. And this is how I see them as I try to decide who to vote for: Ahmadinejad: Smart, well versed in public policy issues, confident, courageous, but stubborn, with a thin skin, and a penchant to indeed disregard expert advice when that advice runs counter to his own beliefs. His biggest problem has been standing against 2 very powerful groups, one domestic and one foreign. The combination has seen him attacked relentlessly for 4 years in an organized campaign to discredit his government. That tactic was taken by the US/Israel previously because he was unwilling to bend or compromise on the demand placed against Iran on the nuclear issue and because the necons still were following "regime change" ideas that required that he be discredited. That tactic was adopted by his domestic enemies for obvious reasons. His other problem is that he is forced to rely on some of the more reactionary elements in Iranian politics to fight the challenges he faces, while he himself is not such a reactionary by any means. While he believes in the principles of the revolution, and holds to the belief that those principles can pave the way for Iran becoming an independent power of some consequence, he does differ on many points with the base that support him. While the criticisms of Ahmadinejad have often been unfair, the truth is that he is somewhat akin to "damaged goods". If the US is indeed interested in a genuine dialogue with Iran, a different interlocutor might help stunt some of the internal political pressures that Obama would face going down that route. Mousavi: In the mold of the less corrupt, less ideological, elder bucreauts and managers in IRI. A decent enough person, but ultimately a light weight without much to commend him as president, whether in terms of his public policy prescriptions, or in terms of his vision for Iran, or in terms of being charismatic. In his younger days, he was certainly influenced by leftist ideologues that had a near monopoly on what passed as "intellectual thought" in Iran. Today, he is probably more pragmatic on some of these economic issues, while I suspect that on social issues he is a moderate. On foreign policy issues, he will be unexceptional, not making any waves or noises and trying to go with the flow. His success or failure ultimately totally dependant on what kind of hand the other side is willing to show. What I dislike about him the most is that his election will probably set the ground for the return of the old monopolistic forces within IRI, as those are the figures who are funding and fueling his campaign. What I like about him is that there are a lot of well meaning, young, Iranians who aspire to see a brigher and better Iran, supporting his campaign and feeling enfranchised again by his candidacy. If the US, under Obama, is truly willing to deal with Iran on terms that are not imposed by Israel, a rather unexeptional figure like Mousavi can indeed become the vehicle for major changes for a better Iran. But if that were to happen, without knowing it, Mousavi would owe a great debt of gratitude to Ahmadinejad, without whom the present realities in Iran could have been much worse. I still don't know who I will vote for, but this is basically how I see the two candidates.
On june 8th in Tehran, 4 days before the election, a human chain was made to show support for Mousavi, from north to south of Tehran. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP-iji4VTQQ"]YouTube - 20 Km Human Chain in Tehran-June 8th[/ame] North Tehran [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xs_nn0q_ww"]YouTube[/ame] South Tehran [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=482-aX08rEA"]YouTube[/ame]
IM, there is more that I disagree with your post but I will pick up on 3 points: 1. You mention AN's two frontier battle. What you fail to mention is that in the elections, AN himself has been using the foreign pressure to his advantage and moreover, AN has not faced any pressure from the foreign side for quite some time. I think it happened to coincide with Obama coming into office and the general idea that the US is waiting to see what happens in Iran. You seem to only concentrate on foreign policy issues and failed to mention the domestic reasons and tactics of attacking him; funnily eough, for most voters, it is those domestic reasons that matter and not foreign policy! Basically, for the elections many may vote for him because of his confrontational attitude to the West, but those who won't vote for him will be for 3 reasons: 1 - disasterous economic policies. 2 - repeated lies, accusations and pandering to the masses regardless how immoral or wrong his actions may be. These immoral acts include using the government resources and powers, contrary to any rules or laws that may be in place to stop this from happening. 3 - poor social policies. That is why many are voting for Mousavi and many of those who only agree with the first two will be voting for Rezaei. It has been reported that there has been a massive surge away from AN to Rezaei, largely because of Rezaei (and others) exposing AN on the first two. You made a statement and I provided you with numerous links. And that was simply on his statistics and his "halo". There are others including the infamous power station that was started under AN!!! I said AN lied and made accusations against individuals on TV with some 40 million viewers watching without taking the correct procedure of going through the judiciary. In any country that is a crime as is the case under the Iranian constitution. He came in 4 years ago promising to stamp out corruption and did nothing. 4 years later, he decides to come out with the same rhetoric. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Here is Ayatollah Sanei on liars. He was apparently a student of Imam Khomenei. If you are religious, what justification would you have for even considering AN? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvIQbMF-sLM"]YouTube - ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ? ??? ?? ???? ????‎[/ame] 2. My second point is similar to what I mentioned above. Again you say Mousavi's success will depend on what the other side show him. Mousavi's success will first be gauged by his domestic policies where there is no other side! Or at least I should say to a far lesser extent. 3. Monopolistic forces. This is exactly what AN said and I thought, does anyone buy this crap? Evidently so. And someone who seems smart, educated with access to information! Mousavi, Rafsanjani and Khatami just happened to have been 3 past president/prime ministers. The 3 did not get in on the same ticket. Mousavi was the post revolution prime minister. Rafsanjani was the old powerful guard with support from the system. And Khatami went against the candidate of the system (Nateq Nouri) and beat him. The reason that both these presidents are behind Mousavi is not because of any monopolistic forces, but because everyone is united in thinking AN is destroying the country.
Interesting article: The Woman Ahmadinejad Should Fear By Ulrike Putz in Tehran Zahra Rahnavard could turn the tide in Friday's elections in Iran. The former university chancellor is the wife of presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and her popularity with Iranian women could be his secret weapon against President Ahmadinejad. more: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,629729,00.html
haha nice videos Mani I was there, but the human chain was nothing compared to what went down today in meydoon enqelab and azadi I will try to upload the videos on youtube and post em later.