Don't know how credible this is tho.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...wish-past.html
Ironic to say the least.
Printable View
Don't know how credible this is tho.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...wish-past.html
Ironic to say the least.
I deleted the email that debunked it. It's 'not quite' accurate, but I can't give you the exact article. Entertaining though. Maybe a planted story.
bah
Bah, this sounds like all those times I hear "Jewish jokes" (read: anti-semitism done for humour) and the bloke telling the joke starts off saying "I am 1/x Jewish, so this is OK". :gah2:
Who cares if he is right? Little comfort I receive from knowing that the world's second largest anti-Semite whose idea of a wet dream is a load of atomics falling on Israel is a Jew and thus not anti-Semitic. Call it flu or call it influenza - either one kills.
That said, I support Ahmedindzhad much more than I do anyone else in Iranian politics...
Even such sincere and righteous hate as yours does not justify spam... Although I see little else you can say, still, I know your fondness for post count :devilish:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
The world is full of anti-Semites. They always fail. Except the ones who turn out to be part Jewish.
Even in this respect anti-Semites are beaten by the Jews. :tongue2:
W..why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Got any better choices? Same reason why I support Putin. He is not perfect, but in comparison to others - he is a genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Ahmadinezhad is the right person for Iran. Well, almost. He really should tone down his war-hawk image, and his Israel-hating, but otherwise, he keeps Iran stable without turning it into a hellhole. There is some semblance of freedom in Iran, and at least it is not as strict as, for example, Saudi Arabia - whom we (as the US and the West) support.
Put Mousavi, and you will have chaos. For one, :daisy: the youth. Half of them, if not more, were just looking for an excuse to riot. This happens all the time. Nor does the youth have any understanding of real politics, or of what is possible in Iran, and what is not. Iran is a theocracy. You can slowly decrease the clerical influence, but this process is best executed slowly (unless for some reason you gain overwhelming popular support). My bet was that with Mousavi, little would change. If he tried to do any real reforms, that would be his end.
Too much instability. Iran is not ready for Mousavi. Try something centre-right - that by itself will be a miracle.
It's not like he's the first anti-Semite that's got some Jewish blood in him...
He's not anti-Semitic, he's anti-Zionist.
Technically, you are correct. So most of his speeches indicate. He himself declared himself to be an admirer, not hater of Jews, merely disagreeing with their polciies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
But one never knows - his zeal is intimidating - with so much hate towards the state of Israel, who knows if some of that hate cannot sip through and drip down on the Jews as a whole. His statements are quite radical for a simple anti-Zionist. Send all the Jews to Alaska? Hmmm...
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with yo, Hax. I am not completely certain myself.
Well you know...I think it's hard for people generally not to generalize at a certain point. There are quite some Jews living in Iran, though, and they haven't had it too tought (as far as I know). I'm pretty sure some high-ranking figures have visited Jewish communities.
EDIT: A short visit to Wikipedia:
Quote:
The Constitution of Iran says that Jews are equal to Muslims. Imam Khomeini visited with members of the Jewish community and issued a decree ordering the adherents of Judaism and other revealed religions to be protected. Jews are entitled to self-administration and one member of the 290-seat Majlis is elected by only Jews. Jewish burial rites and divorce laws are accepted by Islamic courts. Tehran has over 20 synagogues. Iran has one of only four Jewish charity hospitals in the world. The hospital has received donations from top Iranian officials, including President Ahmadinejad.
Jews are conscripted into the Army like all Iranian citizens. Many Iranian Jews fought during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) as drafted soldiers. About 15 were killed.[59] It has been reported that Jews in Iran are proud of their heritage. Thus, they have not settled in Israel despite being encouraged by some groups.[58]
Does the position of President hold more power than that of Prime Minister in Iran?Quote:
Put Mousavi, and you will have chaos. For one, the youth. Half of them, if not more, were just looking for an excuse to riot. This happens all the time. Nor does the youth have any understanding of real politics, or of what is possible in Iran, and what is not. Iran is a theocracy. You can slowly decrease the clerical influence, but this process is best executed slowly (unless for some reason you gain overwhelming popular support). My bet was that with Mousavi, little would change. If he tried to do any real reforms, that would be his end.
Too much instability. Iran is not ready for Mousavi. Try something centre-right - that by itself will be a miracle.
Yes, the President is more powerful, but no if by PM you mean the Supreme Leader. In theory, the Supreme Leader is more powerful. In practise, it is difficult to tell. Supreme Leader has the final say in many matters, but of course, the President carries out the majority of the executive responsibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Are you trolling or is this truly your belief?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
HOLY :daisy: is he still President of Iran? *Goes to google news to see the flashnews of Ahmadinejad killed by a random Bassij*Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
What happened to Mousavi? He was a loyal PM during the 80s.
It's called elitism. Jusitified, perhaps.Quote:
Are you trolling or is this truly your belief?
Of course it is my belief. By now, I know better than to troll in the Backroom. By now, I have received a warning or sometimes even an infraction for every little thing I can think of. I would be out of my mind to attempt trolling. Not to mention, the only place I troll is in the EB Tavern, where nearly everything is permitted. Backroom is the last place I can think of to troll…Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Two questions. Why would you call it elitism? I see little connection. Two: why justified? I am lost…Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
In general, I have noticed most teenagers and young adults have severely skewed sense of politics, or more often, do not take enough interest in politics to vote, let alone riot. If that is not enough, most adolescents do not participate in politics at all. I’ll be sodomised in the rump if more than 5% of the youthful rioters actually deliberated for an hour, at the minimum, on the political/social/economic/or at least personal aspects of Mousavi and/or demonstrating before going out to “peacefully protest & demonstrate”. Instead, all throughout history and our planet, youth tends to be easily inflamed, easily drawn into rebellion, and to be easily consumed by it.
It is no peculiar concurrence that so many social and political upheavals feature the youth as the driving element. And if you are to suggest that this is a positive fact, that the youth is energetic and dauntless, then I will disagree, and point out that you, as a middle-aged adult, Lemur, or any elderly citizen are both quite often fond of reminding us, the young, that you, the older segment of the populace know more than us, that you are wiser than us, the young. This is a fact I do not dispute. I would rather entrust critical governmental reforms to the middle aged than the young. Maybe not the old, though, as for all their wisdom, their reason may be clouded by various impediments, such as nostalgia, stubbornness, complacency, and such.
By now you are likely to have an image of me in the form of a sour-faced, die-hard Republican gramps in your mind, but I merely call it realism, or pessimism - whichever you prefer. I am no Republican, nor a social conservative. I do not wish to regulate behaviours, religions, or lifestyles. That does not stop me from criticising perceived (IMHO) foolhardiness as I see fit, however.
Lastly, I have witnessed the Ukrainian Orange Revolution from its beginning moment of insurrection to what the effects are today. I am Ukrainian on my father’s side. My family was closely monitoring the progression of events, and so was I. I remember those days with a hearty laugh.
I was twelve years old at the time, and already well into politics and history, and often debated politics with other adults. I remember my parents at that time, full of hope for Ukraine, supporting Yushchenko wholeheartedly. Especially my mother, who always relied more on feelings than logic, despite very educated, with two Uni degrees. She was always, IMHO, the more naïve one. Then there was my more pragmatic father, though he still supported the change. I, on the other hand, was the skeptic, skeptical of Yushchenko’s talent overall, and sceptical that he would pass any legislation in such a brutally, bitterly divided nation. Sometimes, it is my weakness. I admit I am overtly pessimistic. However, with the nature of this world, the more common outcome in such large scale enterprises is the opposite of meaningful success.
Right I was. Yushchenko is now called a weak leader, even when the most uncooperative climate surrounding him. His supporters see him as a well-intentioned, but an ineffective politician. His opponents… well, let us not go there. The end result is that there was no change. Russia is provoked enough by Ukraine to the point where it would love nothing more than to intervene, if not for the long-term effects of such folly. Yanukovich, the opponent of Yushchenko is an imbecile, suspected to have almost raped a woman (the degree of consent is debated). He was but a puppet.
Yet for all this, he would have difficulty doing any worse. Especially with Russia. Why should Ukraine look to West? They have nothing certain to offer. Siding with Russia is not exactly progressive, but at the very least you have an assurance of a solid, and proximate trading partner. Who cares if Russia wants to influence Ukraine? Ukraine is in deep, deep manure, controlled by oligarchs. Putin would be an improvement, as would nearly anything.
I hope you read it, Lemur, because I doubt anyone else will :grin: - too tl;dr for a casual passerby.
Your generalizations are what they are, generalizations. Different groups of people at different points in history have different reactions, actions, and motivations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Iran is not the Ukraine. For one thing, it does not have a grumpy superpower on its immediate border, holding the reins of the military, gas and oil, etc. Also, unlike Ukraine or Russia, Iran has a long history of a middle class, a reverence for education and a distinct religious tradition that sets it apart from its neighbors.
Also, the primary force in the demonstrations, if you believe the blogs, tweets and reports coming out of Iran, was not young students, but rather women. That has huge meaning, none of it easily condensed into generalizations.
Honestly, I think you're applying your very real and sobering experience with the Orange Revolution and assuming that most of the lessons learned apply to the Green. By that same logic, if you lived through the French Revolution, you'd be utterly convinced that the American Revolution would eventually lead to auto-genocide.
Lastly, a sizable chunk of the Iranian population has been marching, fighting and dying for greater freedom. Maybe I'm just being a typical American, but I think that deserves some respect.
Nonsense, it's a good read, and I hope many Orgahs do take the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
TBH I usually find your (AP) posts a fascinating read and recently have been agreeing with alot of what you say despite a difference in our political views...
At the very least when I disagree I can usually see the logic behind your views...
True, and I cannot argue against that. Although I am utterly stunned time after time at the seeming hostility and negative sentiments towards generalisations. I swear, I have yet to meet anyone with a penchant or even an acceptance of generalisations... As a historian or any sort of analyst, you have to generalise. One cannot examine every single fact. One has to compare one event to another in hopes of drawing parallels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That is the only logical solution I can discern, aside from pure speculation. No matter what the multitude of the facts one possesses, past history should be the defining argument in a projection. I believe that only history can answer the Iranian issue, for in history, Iran is as common as snow in the Himalayas.
However, to be more fair, one should exhibit bias towards more recent events, as times do change, although not as radically as some may perceive. Another such modern revolution is the Rose one, in Georgia. Result -Saakashvili. You decide. Needless to say, both him and Yushchenko, especially the latter, have approval ratings approaching zero Kelvin (16% and 7% respectively).
Iran, not unlike the other two, has a sizeable, almost or more than equal opposition, in size. In voice, in influence, the opposition is yet more omnipotent, as the opposition is firmly entrenched, corporate, and generally composed of high-ranking individuals who have prospered in the preceding system. The two “Colour” Revolutions were popular ones, and regrettably, the public has low tolerance for undercoming matching by a yet lower patience. Few if any can distinguish long-term benefits. I cannot. I am no politologist or economist. I may speculate, but I am merely another citizen.
Well, now, I would like to see you say the same for Georgia and Ukraine :devilish: Eh? :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I can buy all of that except reverence for education. Russians and Ukrainians, regardless of the attitudes towards intellectualism, heavily favour education in the most direct sense - post-secondary erudition. In Russia and Ukraine, as well as in all of USSR education is the key to adult life. Nearly every non-manual/blue collar worker has at least one post-secondary degree. You must have it if you wish to be something other than a common labourer. Finally, the literacy rates in former USSR nations are the highest in the world - Russia is on the 5th place, tied with four other nations. Iran has 82.4% literacy rate. Russia has 99.4%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I most certainly do not trust someone in the middle of the event, a heavily biased and fallible propagandist to know what the composition of the event was, and then use hodgepodge self-reported accounts of varying validity, accuracy, and precision from some regions but not the others, to assess the country-wide data. That is unless by “reports” you mean respected news organisations who (hopefully) relied on something more plausible to determine the ethnic and gender makeup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Try to find (if you can and wish) statistics on the makeup of the protesters, and then I will further deliberate on this. For now, I cannot accept your assertion. Without a doubt, the role of women was emphasised, not merely recorded from an objective point of view. But you may still be correct. I cannot say anything right now, because I do not have the statistic.
You certainly have a point. I am overusing the Orange and Rose Revolutions. But that is all I have, and you are not presenting much current hard evidence… Nevertheless, you do have a point, despite your lack of relevant data. That said, I will debate your French Revolution assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The key factor here that you did not take into judgement that you should have was the fact that American Revolution was a fight for independence from another entity, a separate political organisation in a different place. American revolution was a war of secession. That is one, very distinct category.
The other is the change of government, which was the French Revolution. Those types of revolts are almost always doomed to some manner of a failure, historically and logically - since in a change of gov’t uprising you normally have stronger opposition which can always strike back and return to the past structure with greater ease than say, Loyalists/Tories could gain America back for Britain.
You Americans and freedom :grin:. So noble, idealistic and yet so naïve at times… There is freedom and then there is American version of freedom. For one, there is always a “sizable chunk” “marching” or “dying” for something. Al Qaeda is marching and (you can bet a dollar to doughnut!) dying for what, in their view is a holy vision of world according to what Allah, the Creator of all humans and Universe mandated. That does not make it right nevertheless. Nor is truth defined by the number of people who believe it is true (although I am apt to pessimistically concur with that sobering statement).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Many a crusade exist in this world - we are in no manner obligated to respect them. Why should we? Politics is dirty business. No matter what you replace with what, the end result is not normally much better than the beginning - at the best. I am not insisting we should stop all change and progress, but I am chastising those who are overeager, overzealous, and overoptimistic.
Why not respect the other side of Iranian politics, the ones supporting status quo? And what is freedom? Really. Because there is not much of it outside the First World. Coups in the Third and Second Worlds do not lead to more freedom, but to more instability and a whole host of other effects, some positive, most not.
Thank you :bow:. To be complimented by a moderator is an honour I receive for the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
God, another tl;dr post. While it may not be utter rubbish, I do feel as if I am impeding the thread development. Although in theory, everyone should not complain because someone actually takes time to formulate their posts...
No argument here. However, what I was responding to was your broad-brush approach to all young people everywhere, not your historical comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I don't understand this sentence, and it seems to be important. Could you elaborate or re-phrase it for a grumpy old lemur?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
A fair point, and I accept it completely. However, Iran has a (relatively) long tradition of a middle class. That's an important distinction when it comes to political stability and change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Impossible. Straight-up impossible. You did follow the events, right? The press expulsion? The information blackout? The ham-handed attempts to shut down the internet? The only source of information was YouTube videos and firsthand accounts. If the mass of these firsthand reports don't satisfy you, then you're just going to have to be content not knowing. And your assertion that young people were the cause of the ruckus will also have to go by the wayside, friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
A few respectable news organizations did have people on the ground, and all of them reported on the prominent role women were playing in the protests. But nobody has statistical data, so asking for it is a very polite way of saying "Shut up."
If hard data existed, I would be happy to share it. Again, you're demanding a meal the restaurant doesn't serve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
An excellent point, and I have no ready response. Is there an example of an internal revolution that produced good, even great results? There must be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Let's try this one on for size: Country exists in monarchy for centuries, then goes through a revolution that starts out as a noble effort to spread power among the people and results in a religious dictatorship. That would be England and Cromwell, maybe? And after a while, the people get sick of the tyranny and re-instate a parliamentary monarchy. There you go. Positive example, and a seemingly apt one for Iran.
Why are you "abusing" quotation "marks"? And how does the religious totalitarian fantasy of AQ play into this? Have you pulled an updated Godwin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
If you're going to run around posting long, thoughtful comments that argue your position well, you'd better get used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Yeah, I could have done better, generalisations of people do not do as well, but I was outlining a trend. I hope you can understand that and agree that young people fall into that trend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Sorry, I just noticed myself that it did not make sense the first time I read it. Meaning it would be exponentially more difficult for someone other than the author to comprehend it. What I meant to say is that the Revolutions were Popular Revolutions, made by mostly, somewhat exclusively the people, and not other isntitutions, parties, narrow special interests, or corporations. Then I said that people have low tolerance for seeming ineptitude and inability to produce expedient results. On top of that, I stated the people have yet less patience. That is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Yes, and I accepted your post, save for the education. Now we have completely common ground. I have strong doubts about the "middle class" but I am in no position to debate this, as I am poorly informed. I need hard data. However, given the British oil boom in Iran, I would lean towards accepting your statesman. Oil does have a tendency to create wealth...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I did not doubt it would be difficult. Firsthand, unrevised information on such as statistic-reliant topic is my nightmare. I rely on statistics more than any other casual debater I know. Without statistics, I feel naked and exposed. Thus, I will not continue this part of the debate and concede it to you. I see no point in continuing this - as no reliable information can be given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I care not for the role, but for the statistical make-up. The make-up determines how many women were motivated to go out for the cause. Their prominence has little to do with this. Not to mention the prominence comes out of the reporter and not the situation itself. Given the lack of foreign, objective reports this is yet another reason to end the “role of women” debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I would settle for a couple of newspaper articles from respected, somewhat objective (on this specific issue) organisations indicating that the statistical proportion of women was larger than men. But I realise this is unlikely to happen, as it will take too long to find.
I am apologise, but I can assure you, I did not mean it this way. It is simply not my nature to discuss matters in the Backroom, in which I am not knowledgeable in. This is too dangerous of an environment to make mistakes :grin:. I have a reputation to work for, and I would not like to think that all hope is already lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Then so be it :shrug::beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
There most certainly is, but it will be an exception. If you with your knowledge and I with mine both cannot readily think of it, this means that it is already uncommon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Hmmm, sorry, I disagree. For one, the English monarchy was one, millennia-long road to liberalisation. It was slow, gradual, and in no way inevitable, but it did nevertheless happen. King John, King Charles, King Charles II, King William of Orange were all very prominent examples of slow, irregular, but ultimately beneficial trend towards constitutional monarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
While at the same time all the other major European powers went the other way, in line with Louis XIV and his absolutism¢ralisation. England too centralised, but became more democratic. Poland did neither, kept its loose, noble-centred elective monarchy with a nearly powerless king - typical for Mediaeval times (to the contrary of the all-powerful king stereotype) and it fell from its previous status as the most powerful Kingdom of Europe to the ever-partitioned client state it was until after WWII.
The lesson is that rapid change towards liberalisation almost never works. The process is usually slow and natural, or at least accommodative to the specific culture and politics of the indigenous country. As miracle of a nation America is, emulating it rigidly or even semi-rigidly produces little positive results. All the emergent but successful democracies did it their won way - usually.
To indicate yours words, why else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Unquestionably, I was using dramatisation for illustrative-persuasive effect. But the point remains the same. We are should not respect foreign political movements/established regimes, but rather stay neutral, criticising their shortcomings indiscriminately. Who are we to decide if they are right? Nothing is right in politics. Perhaps better, but not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
To the contrary, that is what I always do - look at my posts here. I have a tendency of inconciseness and verbosity that especially grotesquely oversteps all bounds in my school and university essays. I have written thirty-page essays when the instructor requested only six. I endeavour to reduce my output, especially here on .Org, but in relative vain. I know that most people will not read such long posts, so I attempt to accommodate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Just as there is no point in using elevated diction to convince regular voters, there is no point to post long posts here. That is not so say either is intellectually lacking, for the voters will generally understand the speech and the Orghas will generally read at least some of the post, but merely that you facilitate the understanding, and thus the effectiveness of the message by employing appropriate tone, word choice, length, types of argumentation, etc that would prove to be optimally efficient for the given audience.
EDIT: wait, nvm, for some reason I thought you meant that "I better get used to writing long posts if I am to be thoughtful", as opposed to writing long posts and receiving compliments, which is what your really mean. Thanks! But, that is what I usually did... All I got was infractions/warnings :sad:, although usually quite fairly. :shrug:
this is taking the self-loathing thingie rather far lol
Hmmm. interesting topic... I should read about this more.... nice Info
Considering Ahmadinejad is just a populace mouthpiece for the Ayahtollah it doesn't really matter what he says.
He panders to the LCD, which in Iran is hating the Joo. It's really nothing more than sabre rattling and deflecting Irans nemerous problems on Isreal.
It's laughable to think any middle eastern country would even think about launching a full scale attack on Isreal considering its nuclear subs are the worst kept secret this side of Galilee.
Though it's obvious the french revolution has its dark episodes (the civil war in Vendée and the Terror being the main ones, though the killing of the Royal family wasn't a top notch idea either), it did produce great results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
France became - and stayed - the world 1st superpower for nearly 2 decades. Science and arts made a huge jump forward (mostly for military and propaganda-related reasons).
The french revolution brought the idea of freedom pretty much everywhere in Europe, much more than the American revolution ever did (though the french revolution would probably never have happened without the american one).
Obviously, this freedom was swiftly trampled by the very people who brought it (ie. the revolutionnary armies), but it was too late, the idea was here: people could take up the arms and overthrow their rulers.
Then, there's equality (which wasn't really a concern of most previous revolutions). The idea that all men should have a decent life, despite their cultural, economical and social background. The idea that one man couldn't enslave another one. It shattered the rule of tyrants all over Europe (and it later shattered the rule of Napoléon). It tried to introduce reason and logics as the basis of all form of governement, and to get rid of all the religious dogma and millenia-old tradition that have been used as reasons to enslave 80% of the European population.
Short story long story, the french revolution might have been a disaster for France (though that's highly debatable: the Sun King's rule caused probably as much harm), the (first) Republic might not have lasted long, but it is the single most important event that gave birth to modernity (with all of its flaws). If this isn't a great result, then I don't know what is.
Sorry for highjacking the topic.
See my sig. You can click on Neda. All she wanted, was for her vote to count. This was why she protested. She was a 26 year old with an education and a future. Then Ahmadinejad murdered her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The big laugh is the status quo would have been returned anyway according to several commentators in america at least names escape me now.
However the fear of a close result mad them over reach they stuffed enough boxes to make sure and declared the winner.
Then people who voted felt cheated even though its likely to have been the same result so obviously they went out protesting.
My own experience of Iranian people is of a largely young middle class well eduacated especially women but this demographic has little outlet for venting steam.
In Europe we can go out do what we like stay in if we like its our choice. They on the other hand may do same but they must be very careful of consequences. My own friend was not some hook handed eye patch zealot he liked hip hop and was a DJ he left to come to Ireland and flourished his stories of Iran were not of overt oppression but a feeling of self censorship in order to get along.
As regards the actual thread the history of revolutions past shows us that many times the people who carry the banner into the future were still the people who had it before. By this I mean George Washington if you want to be mealy mouthed about was nothing more than an anglo-american aristocrat In Ireland we had Sir Roger Casement TBH it does not surprise me had had Jewish ancestry
And? Undeniably regrettable, but so what? How many martyrs exist in this world? Does a death of a largely innocent person make a movement legitimate? Really? Then I will go die for Russian Nationalism and see what you say :P. Alright, look, I know her death was very different and that my comparison was quite lousy, but the point remains. People here have the most peculiar ideas about the treatment of political movements. ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Neda was used by a shameless Mousavi who thrust the deluded youth into the demonstrations by his calling. Not that the youth needed much prodding - they would have done it themselves. Still, they were dying for an unworthy cause. Mousavi is another demagogue, a wannabe reformer, whose ideas are quite attractive, but by now my political heart and mind has been hardened far too much to respond to such stimuli. He was not realistic. He was far too confrontational. He should have self-styled himself as centre-left and advocate moderate reforms. Perhaps in this manner, he could have won the election without Ahmedenizhad resorting to the risky practise of ballot-stuffing.
Even if he did lose the election, what is the chance a youth, and as Lemur said, predominantly women’s demonstration could succeed in? This is pure farce – what are the women going to do that would unseat the ruthless, and seemingly well-backed incumbent such as Ahmadinezhad (supported by both the clergy along with the Supreme Leader and the Republican Guards – a military force that is perceived by many as more powerful than even the religious movement in Iran)? What could they do besides what the Greek women fictitiously pulled-off in Lysistrata by Aristophanes, or the denial of sex to their men??
Sometimes, the probability of success is far too low to justify the involvement. Just the youth, especially composed primarily of women, without corporate, political, military, or even foreign support (the world did not provide any significant tangible support to Iranian demonstrations) has no cards in its hands. They can be suppressed with ludicrous ease. The demonstrations were an act of helpless defiance.
This is an excellent point, and one which I all too often fail to consider.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
You could argue that the French Revolution did eventually create a demmocratic republic from what had been an absolute monarchy, but the key word would be eventually. They're on republic number five now, I believe [cher Louis will correct me at need], and that's the only one that's really lasted. By contrast, South America very much corroborates your assertion. Bolivar and the others seceded from foreign control successfully, but all the regime changes, juntas, etc. subsequent to this seem to only exchange one set of people for another, all of whome end up in the same rut.
I like the secessionist v regimist distinction you are drawing.
History is full of examples of this actually happening against the grain suppression works only if the middle class agree the suppression is in there interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The real problem with those two politicians is they are actually the same side of the same coin as opposed to two opposite side's of the same coin.
The entire row is really an internal row over the direction of Iranian governance many conservatives in the government seem to have a dislike or have an outright hatred of Amhadinejad. Amhadineajad has the same for them really I cannot support either they would still be autocratic implementing policy that has been judged as not contradicting the theocratic foundations of Iran.
However the Green side should be careful because people who are shown how to organise will eventually do it on there own and then completely unknown consequences ensue the same goes for the current leadership too the fundamentalist side if you want to call it is called to use same ideas against reform but the genie is very hard put back in the bottle.
Hax, the Iranian constitution:
1) contradicts itself
2) is about as effective at protecting people as the toilet paper I wiped my backside with this morning
I see...you dismiss the Iranian protestors because they've got skewed views of political reality, yet support Putin because he cultivates an image of a strong leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
That makes sense.
The way I see it the best vote a person can give in Iran at the moment is an application for a visa to Europe or America
Any words I could say to you would get me banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Hehe, I do not like these strict rules either. Nor am I easy to offend. Just VM me :wink:. Or PM if it really nasty :grin:.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
To bad he's no longer in power. Then I would have no problem with Iran holding a nook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Apart from the fact that he was a brutal tyrant, who lavished millions of pounds on pathetic parties and dresses, whilst Iranians wallowed in poverty, under constant threat of kidnap by the secret police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly an "Islamic Republic" sympathiser. I'm just saying that just because the current regime is bad, it doesn't mean the old was good.
I know exactly what the shah was and that was a friend to America in a place where friends are hard to come by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
So being a friend to America makes domestic human rights abuses acceptable? Well that's just fine and dandy! Batista, Pinochet, Karzai, come in from the cold! All is forgiven!Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Not acceptable, it's just how the world works. Being a starry eyed idealist has never gotten anything done. It's a comfort the west can afford when they are sitting on there couches yelling at the TV becuase something bad is happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I would love to play fair, but no one else does.
Of course it is fine, even with the notorious SAVAK that the Shah instituted. America supported all three that you mentioned, and the Shah. Do not be naive, Subotan, and I know you are not, but do not even joke about it. I see nothing wrong, from a political perspective, of America preferring an oppressive, but friendly regime to a more liberal, but hostile regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I myself, actually, to some degree, support the old Shah. I read a great deal about him and his policies. He aspired to do to Iran what Ataturk did to Turkey, although his methods were not always so idealistic. He was a great seculariser, and he steered his nation on a course of Western culture, free of the oppressive burden of modern-day Islam. You, as a fellow atheist, should at least give him a bit of credit for that.
Plus, it is not as if the current Iranian regime is noticeably freer than the past. Sure, no SAVAK, but still, as witnessed by this year's demonstrations and voting frauds, this theocracy is not much better. Although the people are happier, given their religion...
Right. USSR did not even pretend to be fair - why should US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
See the Russian gets it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I always liked that about Russia, they know what they needed to do and they got it done. No frills no sugar coating. It just happend.
Granted we still beat you in WWII but kudos
You better be quipping, you slippery Texan, you better... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
That was the English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
A.K.A. the ones who have America to thank for their survival? USSR primarily won the war, and I doubt anyone in the Backroom will seriously debate that. Even Churchill conceded to that - I forgot the exact quote, but the was saying how Russia was bled white by the Allies, who let the Soviets do the vast majority of the work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Do I even have to mention the mostly fourth rate troops that the Germans stuck in the Atlantic Wall? The former Polish and Russian POWs? The crippled former front-line troops? The older-aged recruits in their forties and fifties? That was what the Normandy invasion forces initially fought against. Especially the first category surrendered in droves. Those Russians and Poles may have hated Stalin, but they had little or no quarrel with the Western Allies. They would have been more useful fighting the Soviets...
Oh please. You guys were too busy fighting off the Mongols to be of any real help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Gah, do you not think this thread already has enough trolling to try to pull one off yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Back to Ahmadinejad et al. please.
If you simply must bait A.P. this way regarding WW2, please do so in the Monastery, where he can: a) defend the honor of the Rodina using all the historical evidence he wishes, and
b) some other moderator has to deal with it.
Thanks!
This is possibly a little tangent off the direct topic of conversation but I believe its related to the conversation at large...
I know exactly what the shah was and that was a friend to America in a place where friends are hard to come by.
Aside from Israel (we'll put that to the side for the moment) why do you think America is so hated in the ME, because of support for tyrants like the Shah (which incidently you/we otherthrew a democratic goverment to install)
If your going to constantly think like that, us vs them, then you are constantly going to make policy which makes them even bigger enemies, rather than trying to work past your differences your continuing the conflict with your attitude.
The reason you have hardly any friends in the middle east is because you go around pissing people off, the peoples off the middle east didn't declare you an enemy when your country formed, its your actions over the years that caused you to become the enemy. Continuning such actions now, because they are now your enemies is going to do nothing to reverse the course you set yourself
Russia did most of the work in WW2 (against the nazis at least) anyone who says differently is a troll or doesn't know WW2...
When that's all you have to choose form in the region it's slim pickings cowboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I'm fully aware we overthrew a government but we can't go back and change that.Quote:
like the Shah (which incidently you/we otherthrew a democratic goverment to install)
I support the libreals in Iran and until they get into power I would like to make dinnerjackets life as hard as possble. But make no mistake we pull out of the ME tmrw and people will still hate us. We are past the point of no return with a majority of these people. I'm fully aware that we did some BS to start but it's useless to go back and say "THIS IS WHYYYYY" without offering anything else.Quote:
If your going to constantly think like that, us vs them, then you are constantly going to make policy which makes them even bigger enemies, rather than trying to work past your differences your continuing the conflict with your attitude.
The reason you have hardly any friends in the middle east is because you go around pissing people off, the peoples off the middle east didn't declare you an enemy when your country formed, its your actions over the years that caused you to become the enemy. Continuning such actions now, because they are now your enemies is going to do nothing to reverse the course you set yourself
Pappy fought in the pacific.Quote:
Russia did most of the work in WW2 (against the nazis at least) anyone who says differently is a troll or doesn't know WW2...
And hence Russia has always been what it is - backward, despotic, and insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
So no. I'll take the starry-eyed idealists. They build America. And France. And the Netherlands. And Switzerland. This last one back in 1291, when some starry eyed idealists got together and said 'you know what..stuff this. I'm not going to be a slave all my life. Let's build ourselves a state of free men'
Don't fall for the authoritarian trap. The despot you know isn't better than the progress you fear.
Bah, I got an infraction (and my post was deleted) for saying matter-of-factly that America was the most hated country in the world (true fact) - and I do not even dislike America, as I live in it, and you get away with this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Why does Backroom even pretend to have justice?? :wall: Having at least a single non-American moderator would help (no, Tosa is not a Backroom mod).
Not that you should get an infraction, Louis, as I would much rather both of us be allowed to say what we feel in this case - you cannot offend a nation, a state has no feelings.
It is a nineteenth century quote. Oh, the foresight! To think Russia's twentienth century had still to come!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Here's another one, especially for those Russians who espouse the merits of Russian despotism: Russia, Russia - unwashed, backward, appealing Russia, so ashamed of your own backwardness, so orientally determined to conceal it from us by clever deceit.
Clever, humorous, yet curiously empty and unproductive talk you excel at, Louis. Russia will not get forward under another Yeltsin. Look what the original Yeltsin has done - you better look well, for it is difficult to find positive effects of his presidency.
Granted, Putin has not advanced as far as many, including me, expected him to advance, but at least he is doing something beside sitting with thumbs up his :daisy:. For a Russian leader, he is doing well enough to be qualified for a dictatorship for life, such is the pervasiveness of incompetency in our political machine.
So Louis the Fat, tell me, in the gaze of your piercing intelligence, who is to replace Putin? Give me someone who can direct Russia in the path you approve of. I challenge you. Give me a Party that will do the job of nominating that candidate. Give me someone who can keep a rein on the Russian oligarchs, on the Mafia, on the unruly Duma, on the perfidious voters, on the Soviet-era tangle of bureaucracy - someone who can keep a rein on the aforementioned, instead of the other way around.
Perhaps you can finally make yourself useful, instead of sitting from your comfortable computer chair, pointing out the flaws of a vast, colossal governmental system. Easy to say what is wrong, much more difficult to fix it. Yet, I have faith in your political prowess, for you are no ordinary fellow. Thus, show me the way, Louis, tell me what you see as best fit.
Yours Truly,
SS
The great sorrow of Russia is that just when it finally threw off its shackles, a few drunks squandered the country to crooks while the West applauded this neo-liberalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Putin may have had a historical role to fulfill. To restore a semblance of order and discipline on Russia.
Now it is time to move on again. Russia can not only be governed by the *whatsthewordabigstickyouhitpeoplewith*. Russia is not destined to be despotic for all eternity. Ever since Peter the Great, there have been forces in Russia that look to the outside world, that want to liberalise Russia.
Whereas Putin says that liberalism is not entrenched in Russian culture, as it is in the US or the UK, and hence means nothing to Russia. My solution would be to stubbornly work towards an open and pluralistic democracy, drawing from ancient liberal currents in Russia.
Who the people are that could do this for Russia - I do not know. Putin does, therefore he had them killed or silenced.*
Alas! Except to a mere handful of scared and silent intellectuals** in Moscow, democracy is a dirty word in Russia.
*Just as Ahmedinijad has done just now in Iran. Kill and silence the forces that want a transparant, accountable democracy.
**Even so, Russia is rather unique in Eastern Europe, in that dempcracy is mistrusted even by its intelligentsia
Justice is over-rated, as you are so keen to point out with regard to Russia. What the Backroom has is moderation, in relation to a set of arbitrary rules, where disruptive individualism is ruthlessly stamped on depending on who happens to be a favourite at the time so that society as a whole is made safer and happily constructive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I would have thought you would be entirely happy with this state of affairs. :wink:
More seriously, Ser Clegane is German, Papewaio is Australian and I am Irish. Only Seamus is American, so I hope you feel helped.
Anyway, back to topic. Is there anything more to say about President Ahmedinejad's ancestry?
Ideals are fine and dandy but sometimes a spade is simply a spade. You can't sit here and tell me that Ahmadinejad won't use "nuclear power" for the wrong reasons.
Therefore we should try and stop him.
That's what it boils down to. KISS
Sure we can. It's hypocritical, why should one nation be allowed to use nuclear power and others would not?Quote:
You can't sit here and tell me that Ahmadinejad won't use "nuclear power" for the wrong reasons.
I'm sorry, but I'd rather see Ahmadinejad with nuclear power than Sarah Palin, for example.
Becuase as of right now it hurts US interests . If the libs were in power, maybe but Ahmadinejad is an enemy and giving Iran Nukes will only hurt our position in the region ergo no nukes for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
The second part of the post is just stupid. Sarah Palin maybe legally retarded but would never nook teh muzlimz to score political points. You can't convince me Ahmadinejad won't do that to the Isrealis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I doubt he is that much into MADness.
Well Im sure theres loads more reasons than that some of which I can't think off but thier support for unpopular tyrants has certainly been one of themQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I really doubt there is such a thing as being beyond the point of no return. Germans and Jews can talk to each other today, Russians and Germans also... sure that may have took some time, but apologys and stopping off the negative treatment will start to make the hate go away eventually. You need to somewhat work with popular opinion in the ME and ride the crap storm you created, once you are truely not working as thier enemy you will soon enough convince enough people and outlive those that cannot be saved...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Which is why I put my disclaimer in there....Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Americans should more accurately have claimed to save Asia from Japan or Europe from a future Russian dominance than that speaking German crap I hear...
Yes, and plenty a Russian still despise or mildly dislike the what we still call "The Fritz". Those may not be the brightest individauls, but the bitterness remains, especially among those who have experienced the horrors.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Now, with Jews I have no experience on that matter, but I am certain there are at least "some" of them who share the same sentiment. I do not think it was a coincidence that the Ehud Barak-Angela Merkel meeting was the first of its kind...
Yes, and plenty a Russian still despise or mildly dislike the what we still call "The Fritz". Those may not be the brightest individauls, but the bitterness remains, especially among those who have experienced the horrors.
Now, with Jews I have no experience on that matter, but I am certain there are at least "some" of them who share the same sentiment. I do not think it was a coincidence that the Ehud Barak-Angela Merkel meeting was the first of its kind...
Do not get me wrong the hatred is not completely eradicated, I do remember some Israeli youths burning German flags when Mr Scroehder (sp?!) visited a while back... though im fairly sure there was an element of youth's just like rioting you mentioned in another topic...
But the hatred is dieing off, most of the Russians, Jews and Germans alive back then are dead, very few remain and not all of them have the hatred. Those from generations on can learn the hatred somewhat but it never passes down as fully and the hatred never has any personal events fueling it, only stories to motivate the hatred. Basically my point is without continuing negative actions hatred will eventually go away... it may take a few generations for it to literally die out but you can help make it happen...
Who cares? I want as many advantages on the international stage as I can get. America is a fellow member of my military alliance and a friend, Iran is hostile to my interests in the region including, but not limited to, Israel. Ergo, I desire as little power for them as possible. The world isn't fair, and the Chamberlains of the world who think it ought to be will be trampled into the dirt by the much smarter Machiavellians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
See, I am debating that point within myself. I know that most kids in their early teens in Russia passionately hate Germans. But those persons happen to not be very bright either... Since I do not live in Russia year-round, I am not certain how that individuals at late adolescence feel about it. In any case, I know that almost all grown adults today do not dislike Germany at all, not blaming the mistakes of the past on the general populace of Germany today (although we do view Germans as rather "cold" in temperament).Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
So I am still wondering if that German-loathing is a sign of teenage foolishness or if it is a new trend... I am guessing it is more likely to be the first, as most of today's adults certainly did not have a favourable opinion of Germany in the 50s though 70s, when most of them were born, under USSR.
Sorry for taking this off track :sweatdrop:
I can just about remember being 6,7 or 8 and having a very very mild dislike of Germans simply because of the world wars (I was too stupid at this point to realise WW1 was not thier fault) I think this is probably similar to what these rather stupid Russian adolescents you refer to think like (although I was always fairly peaceful so thiers isn't as mild) thier probably at a similar intellectual level to the 8 year old Grizz. If im right and its along a similar level it is probably something these teens will grow out of and assuming no new German Russian tensions arise the thing will slowly die off even in the minds of angry teens as it will just be too long ago...
As an example of it dieing off the younger stupid Grizz never really had a problem with the French despite our huge history of wars.... theres some jokey rivalry between the French and the English but i think you would struggle to find a Frenchman and an Englsihman who would hate each other for thier nationality... because the history simply isn't recent enough...
Ohh and don't worry about the topic diversion... I think we stopped talking about Ahmadinejad possible Jewish ancestory a page or two ago...
certainly true in poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
older poles have a casual racism towards jews, and a very particular xenophobia towards russia and germany.
younger poles are globe-trotting pragmatists with limited ties to rural catholicism, so they just smile tolerantly at the jewish remarks of their seniors, and while a definite distrust of russia and germany persists, the tales of starvation, executions and ghettos are second hand and thus the 'memory' less embittering.
The problem with Ahmadinejad getting nukes is that if he does indeed get them, the Saudis will also begin a nuclear weapons program. After them, Egypt will most likely follow. Nukes will spread like plague in the most volatile region of the planet, and that is not good news. It's not about the U.S. or Israel, it's about that whole region getting armed to the teeth with nukes, ready to slug it out at a moment's notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
This is all fine and dandy - you are correct if we restrict our scope just to these recent years. However, with history in mind, it is Israel and United States who are responsible for the current situation. Unfortunately, Israel sometime ago decided it would be splendid if they had their own atomics. US found out about it, but kept quiet. Nuclear Iran will not provoke as many in the Middle East today than Nuclear Israel provoked when it started its own program. The (perhaps) unintentional hypocrisy of your post is simply comical, rvg. Change “Ahmadinejad” to “Israel”, remove the later reference to Israel, and voila!Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
US was shockingly hypocritical yet unsurprisingly predictable in its response to the Israeli nuclear program. Now the time of payback began, and to deny Iran their right to atomics is merely piling up on America’s burden of hypocrisy. Sure, I hate to see them get their paws on atomics. But this is the cruel justice, the anticipated retribution for the past actions. Once Israel, the sole adversary of the Muslim Middle East obtain something, someone is sure to want that “something” for themselves as well.
I am not personally condemning Iran, Israel or America. I could care less. They all have their own interests, and international politics is a cruel, hypocritical and unjust place. What I am however doing, is pointing out that US and Israel should not be feign astonishment, for they brought this on themselves. The weak response to DPRK fission programme was hardly helpful either.
Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Perhaps you should care more. Nuclear armed Iran is just as dangerous to Russia as it is to Israel. Today, they are on good terms with Russia, but who knows what happens tomorrow. Maybe Ahmadinejad backed by nukes will decide to resurrect Greater Persia and make a move against Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. Russia stands as much to lose from nuclear armed Iran as Israel does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.
One wonders the relative military strength between the nations and one also wonders how many nations in the middle east threaten Israel militarily.
well, maybe at the time the other nations were a threat.
That's kind of the point. If Israel doesn't have the ability to :daisy: them all up at once, then it itself is :daisy:.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
But Israel had nukes since the mid-60s, and Iran under the Shah was an ally of Israel.Quote:
Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.
That doesn't change the fact that every other Arab nation was quite willing to drive Israel into the sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Hell If Israel needs nukes to combat its enemies than what about the Iranians ?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
On the one side you have a bunch of fairly poorly equipped forces divided in opinion, on the other side you have two of the most powerful military's in the world...
If anyone was asked (from a purely mathmatical POV) which side needed defensive nukes more in that equation the overwhelming answer would be Iran...
well, maybe at the time the other nations were a threat.
My point is more along the lines of...
If you consider Israel's position in the 60's bad enough to need defensive nukes (by looking at the military strength of her enemies) then surely you can see the definite need for Iran to have defensive nukes (America + Israel = outside of Russia and China no one could put up much resistance AFAIK)
The only thing those other countries could possibly do is threaten them back with Nukes... which is porbably what the Iranians are thinking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Good thing you put "simplistic", because if you did not... :laugh4:
For one, Iran is not merely a hound going after a hare. Israel is by no means a weak power, and it is not exactly a peaceful country that minds its own business while the bad guys keep attacking it. There should be no justification for further nuclear proliferation. None. Because when you begin acknowledging "exceptions", things happen. Not positive "things" either. The more nations have atomics, the more factors are created. The more factors, the higher probability of a nuclear combat.
First Israel obtained a fission device. Then goes Iran, not to be overpowered by its mortal enemy. Then goes Saudi Arabia, because it is wary of both and has the funds. Then goes Syria, because they too hate Israel, because they have long yearned for nuclear capabilities, because DPRK is aiding them. Then goes Egypt because they simply cannot stand the thought of being the only strong power without atomics, driven by their nationalism. And if Saddam was still in power, Iraq would already have an arsenal of atomics. There goes rvg's logic, which is very much correct and probable.
Now what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I did not mean that I do not care in absolute terms. No, I simply do not care who is right or wrong, and who wins or loses. I have no passionate stance on this. As Regan remarked on Iran-Iraq War - “Can’t they all just lose?!?”. True, Iran is certainly more unstable, but they also are slower to Russia than US or Israel. I do not see much in it for my nation if US gains yet more influence in the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Uh-huh. So the only justification needed to obtain some fission munitions is to be an underdog? For one, Israel is not an underdog and it does not live under a probable threat of a united Arab attack. Otherwise, it can take any of the nations one-by-one, albeit at a heavy economic cost.
But if Israel was to publicly surrender its atomics, it may have well defused some tensions, and once possessing the infrastructure to produce fission or even fusion weapons, Israel could restart the production should tension escalate or an Arab nation decides to grab hold of nuclear weapons anyways. Creating the Piles and waiting for the enriched product may take some time, but it is highly unlikely an Arab nation with no or little previous experience could outpace Israel, which is already adept at atomics production.
Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?Quote:
Becuase as of right now it hurts US interests .