Shalom, Mr Ahmadinejad

[Lemur]

I’ll be [surprised] 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.

Your generalizations are what they are, generalizations. Different groups of people at different points in history have different reactions, actions, and motivations.

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.

I hope you read it, Lemur, because I doubt anyone else will - too tl;dr for a casual passerby.

Nonsense, it's a good read, and I hope many Orgahs do take the time.

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Your generalizations are what they are, generalizations. Different groups of people at different points in history have different reactions, actions, and motivations.

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.

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.

Iran is not the Ukraine. .

Well, now, I would like to see you say the same for Georgia and Ukraine Eh?

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You Americans and freedom . 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).

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.

Nonsense, it's a good read, and I hope many Orgahs do take the time.

Thank you . To be complimented by a moderator is an honour I receive for the first time.


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...

[Lemur]

One cannot examine every single fact. One has to compare one event to another in hopes of drawing parallels.

No argument here. However, what I was responding to was your broad-brush approach to all young people everywhere, not your historical comparison.

The two “Colour” Revolutions were popular ones, and regrettably, the public has low tolerance for undercoming matching by a yet lower patience.

I don't understand this sentence, and it seems to be important. Could you elaborate or re-phrase it for a grumpy old lemur?

Russians and Ukrainians, regardless of the attitudes towards intellectualism, heavily favour education in the most direct sense - post-secondary erudition.

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.

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.

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.

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."

[y]ou are not presenting much current hard evidence… Nevertheless, you do have a point, despite your lack of relevant data.

If hard data existed, I would be happy to share it. Again, you're demanding a meal the restaurant doesn't serve.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why are you "abusing" quotation "marks"? And how does the religious totalitarian fantasy of AQ play into this? Have you pulled an updated Godwin?

To be complimented by a moderator is an honour I receive for the first time.

If you're going to run around posting long, thoughtful comments that argue your position well, you'd better get used to it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

No argument here. However, what I was responding to was your broad-brush approach to all young people everywhere, not your historical comparison.

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.

I don't understand this sentence, and it seems to be important. Could you elaborate or re-phrase it for a grumpy old 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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But nobody has statistical data, so asking for it is a very polite way of saying "Shut up."

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 . I have a reputation to work for, and I would not like to think that all hope is already lost.

If hard data existed, I would be happy to share it. Again, you're demanding a meal the restaurant doesn't serve.

Then so be it

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.

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.

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.

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.

While at the same time all the other major European powers went the other way, in line with Louis XIV and his absolutism&centralisation. 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.

Why are you "abusing" quotation "marks"?

To indicate yours words, why else?

And how does the religious totalitarian fantasy of AQ play into this? Have you pulled an updated Godwin?

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.

If you're going to run around posting long, thoughtful comments that argue your position well, you'd better get used to it.

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.

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 , although usually quite fairly.

[Fragony]

this is taking the self-loathing thingie rather far lol

[Cute Wolf]

Hmmm. interesting topic... I should read about this more.... nice Info

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

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.
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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....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....

This is an excellent point, and one which I all too often fail to consider.

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.

[Subotan]

[Strike For The South]

To bad he's no longer in power. Then I would have no problem with Iran holding a nook.

[Subotan]

To bad he's no longer in power. Then I would have no problem with Iran holding a nook.

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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

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.