Shalom, Mr Ahmadinejad

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

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.

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.

[Kralizec]

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

Got any better choices? Same reason why I support Putin. He is not perfect, but in comparison to others - he is a genius.

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.

That makes sense.

[gaelic cowboy]

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

[Subotan]

[CountArach]

Got any better choices? Same reason why I support Putin. He is not perfect, but in comparison to others - he is a genius.

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, 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.

Any words I could say to you would get me banned.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Any words I could say to you would get me banned.

Hehe, I do not like these strict rules either. Nor am I easy to offend. Just VM me . Or PM if it really nasty .

[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.

[Subotan]

I know exactly what the shah was and that was a friend to America in a place where friends are hard to come by.

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!

[Strike For The South]

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!

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.

I would love to play fair, but no one else does.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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!

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.

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...

I would love to play fair, but no one else does.

Right. USSR did not even pretend to be fair - why should US?

[Strike For The South]

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.

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.

See the Russian gets it.

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

[Aemilius Paulus]

Granted we still beat you in WWII but kudos

You better be quipping, you slippery Texan, you better...

[Vladimir]

Granted we still beat you in WWII but kudos

That was the English.

[Aemilius Paulus]

That was the English.

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.

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...

[Vladimir]

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.

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-lien 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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Oh please. You guys were too busy fighting off the Mongols to be of any real help.

Gah, do you not think this thread already has enough trolling to try to pull one off yourself?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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!

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[Strike For The South]

This is possibly a little tangent off the direct topic of conversation but I believe its related to the conversation at large...

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

When that's all you have to choose form in the region it's slim pickings cowboy.

like the Shah (which incidently you/we otherthrew a democratic goverment to install)

I'm fully aware we overthrew a government but we can't go back and change that.

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

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.

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...

Pappy fought in the pacific.

[Louis VI the Fat]

See the Russian gets it.

I always liked that about Russia, they know what they needed to do and they got it done. No frills no sugar coating.

And hence Russia has always been what it is - backward, despotic, and insane.

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

And hence Russia has always been what it is - backward, despotic, and insane.

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...

Why does Backroom even pretend to have justice?? 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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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...

It is a nineteenth century quote. Oh, the foresight! To think Russia's twentienth century had still to come!

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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 . 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

[Louis VI the Fat]

Look what the original Yeltsin has done


Putin is doing well enough to be qualified for a dictatorship for life

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.

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

Why does Backroom even pretend to have justice?? Having at least a single non-American moderator would help (no, Tosa is not a Backroom mod).

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.

I would have thought you would be entirely happy with this state of affairs.

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?

[Strike For The South]

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

[Hax]

You can't sit here and tell me that Ahmadinejad won't use "nuclear power" for the wrong reasons.

Sure we can. It's hypocritical, why should one nation be allowed to use nuclear power and others would not?

I'm sorry, but I'd rather see Ahmadinejad with nuclear power than Sarah Palin, for example.

[Strike For The South]

Sure we can. It's hypocritical, why should one nation be allowed to use nuclear power and others would not?

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.

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.