lol true
What do you guys think of this site...
- Thread starter Kraig
- Start date
lol true
Maybe it would help if whenever these things are brought up they weren't responded to with vague comments and broad yet meaningless statements on top of insults to the questioner's character and intelligence such as "being out of touch with reality". We are only talking about one person here, not every enemy of the Bush administration. I thought I was quite clear that I was not sure and I was asking for someone to show me some evidence from some credible sources, that has not been done.
If it's so goddamn obvious, and I'm so goddamn out of touch with reality - for asking a question - then kindly show me. According to you it should not be that difficult at all. You are the one who is sure, not me. Can I be anymore clear?
So they are not a complete democracy and they economy is doing poorly.
That is correct. He has failed to live up to his pre-election promises, is critized by people in his and other parties for his confrontational tactics with the west, and is quite unpopular with the younger population of Iran that makes up the majority.
Reminds me of president Bush. Minus the unjust war.
SeanEdwards
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,407
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/guardian_council.stm
That took me all of 3 seconds to find using google, by searching for "iranian guardian council". It is obvious, and you are out of touch with reality.
How true. A few of my favorite parts from this link.....
"the council banned all but six of more than 1,000 hopefuls in the 2005 elections."
" All the female candidates were blocked from standing. "
That has been established, I appreciate people bringing up the Council of Guardians despite their arrogant attitude towards my lack of in depth knowledge of Iran's government. I also find this irrelevant to my questions, maybe I should be more specific. Sure I would love to see the Iranian people create a government that is free, just, and protects the rights of the individual but that is really up to them. There are dictatorships around the world and it is not our job to hunt and destroy them, not to mention this still seems to be a fairly mild compared to other countries all around the world.
It is also worth mentioning that a democracy does not necessarily equal freedom, as the majority can often easily vote away the rights of a minority - as we are finding in our own country. Ron Paul as explained this concept much better than I could. This is why the founding fathers merged a system of democracy with inalienable rights - rights that despite what any dictator or voting majority say, cannot be justly taken away from you. Democracy, by far, is not the champion of just government. This is why we are a Republic.
So what I really want to know, why is Iran evil? Why is Iran our enemy? Why should we not trade with them? Why should we threaten to go to war with them? Why should we support Israel bombing their reactor when, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that they are developing nuclear weapons? All I've heard from our administration is that they want to build nukes, and they support terrorists - where is the evidence of these two things?
Now I am going to quote Ron Paul on Iran, from his new book, I just read this last night. It starts on page 27 of The Revolution: A Manifesto:
"As with Iraq, Iran has been asked to perform the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. Iran is presumed guilty until proven innocent becacuse there is no evidence with which to indict. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated that treaty's terms - terms which state Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of that treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason."
So please continue. It's also starting to look like my views that we should not support Israel in attacking Iran, and we should not enforce sanctions on Iran, are much closer to Ron Paul's than you guys and your firm grip on reality.
Last edited:
NocturnalC
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 129
Dont those dumb U.S. sanctions on Iran kind of effect Iran's economy a little bit?
I would think so, they'll probably be fine in the long run if they're smart with their oil though.
Nope, you made a big deal on "calling me out" because I made a negative comment on the Iranian president. You claimed I would just disappear instead of providing any proof. Now that I have just done that, you can't just ignore your past comments. Before trying to take the moral highroad here, look back at your past posts and you will see that your negativity was unwarranted.
As for Iran, it is possible that one can find both Bush and Ahmadinejad both bad presidents. No need to attack everybody that has issues with this man.
SeanEdwards
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,407
I'm not searching google anymore on your behalf. Do your own research.
The current U.S. foreign policy towards Iran is a continuation of a long standing foreign policy animosity towards Iran that goes back to the U.S. embassy hostage taking. I'm guessing you weren't alive during that period. I apologize if that's not the case. If you had been living during that period, then you should have some understanding of the source of this animosity towards Iran. The hostage taking dominated the nightly news in America for like a year, and is generally held as one of the primary causes for the election of Ronald Reagan and the crushing humiliating defeat of Jimmy Carter at the polls.
Whether the hostage taking was justified, or whatever, is irrelevant. The U.S. media and government pounded on the issue every night during the hostage crisis, about how evil the Iranian regime was for unjustly imprisoning the embassy workers. The Iranians were pissed at the imperial meddling of America, and Americans were pissed about the humiliation of being unable to do anything about the hostage taking. Current U.S. government attitudes towards Iran are a direct outgrowth of that dispute.
After the Iranian revolution, Iran was blamed, rightly or wrongly, for fomenting and supporting various islamic revolutionary movements across the middle east. As basically all of these movements characterized themselves as in opposition to American imperialism, they naturally drew the ire of the U.S. government.
So, why is Iran evil? Because our government and media has been calling them evil for the past 30 years. Just as the Iranian regime has been referring to the U.S. as the "Great Satan" throughout the same period. It takes two to tango as it were, and Iran certainly contributed to building the current adversarial relationship.
It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the U.S. government's current foreign policy towards Iran, but it's not reasonable to elevate the Iranian regime to some mythical virtuous good guy status. They aren't the good guys in this conflict, any more than we are. The real world is usually a little more complex and nuanced than, "why are they evil?"
If anything, the original question of this thread was "is President Ahmadinejad a two-bit dictator?" This also wasn't even asked by you. However, I think you've actually demonstrated that he is not, because the Counsel of Guardians hold all the real power. If there is a dictatorship in Iran, it is them, according to your own sources. Of course I don't know how well they work hand in hand, and for what purposes, so that separation could also be irrelevant. I still haven't heard anything bad about this man, is all I am saying. What has been demonstrated is that Iran's government is far from ideal, I still don't understand why their one President has become the scapegoat for that by our media and the Bush administration.
I called you out because you ignored my requests to deal with facts and evidence in a different thread, and after you posted comments in this thread with nothing to back them up (you did back them up later), I expected you to do the same. Sorry, but your reputation precedes you. I have also put words into your mouth by assuming your disapproval for one Iranian president was support for other things that have not been mentioned, I simply do not know if that is true, and I apologize for making that assumption. At the same time I would really like for this discussion to be able to evolve past "Iran is a dictatorship" and discuss how we should be treating them as a nation vs. what the Bush administration is doing. This really could have all been accomplished with friendly discussion, so far it's taken us four pages to establish that Iran, does in fact, have a Council of Guardians.
So let me say it without insults or making assumptions, who thinks Iran should be our enemy? From what I can tell they have no desire to be. Does anyone here support the current sanctions on them?
Gadsden Flag
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 389
Has anyone in this thread advocated attacking Iran? Straw man...
Well I actually wasn't alive at that time, born at the end of '81. Also, I don't really expect you to do my research for me, I know I was screaming for sources and that was leftover bullshit from a different thread. When I can't stand is comments along the lines of "if you don't know this your out of touch". When you mention things like the hostage crisis and how it effected our view of Iranian culture, that gives me a good starting point to do my own research, the other comments leave me with nothing.
I have looked into the hostage situation before though, but that doesn't give me a good idea of how it affected American society and it's collective thinking. From what I understand the Shah regime far more oppressive than what they have now, and it was also supported by the United States. I also agree that Iran cannot be elevated to some "mythical good guy status", I don't think any country in the world today could be elevated to that status, including our own. I view morality only on an individual to individual basis. However, wouldn't you agree that our government, our media, and much of our society has attempted to reduce it to such simplistic terms? Hasn't our foreign policy been based on us being the "good guys" who run around to judge and overthrow dictators, "the bad guys", and reform populations for their own good?
Until Americans learn to look at the depth of the problem we are going to keep making the same mistakes.
No, I am asking questions based on what I see as our general society's view of Iran. No one on this thread has advocated war, and I did not wish to imply that anyone did. These are just questions that I have, they are based on what I see the popular view of Iran to be. That is why I said "what I really want to know" and "maybe I should be more specific", to further draw out my questions. This whole thread started as an effort to get opinions from people on this forum, not to prop up and defend my own, because I really don't have one at this time.
SeanEdwards
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,407
I think pracatically every government/society on planet Earth uses that same method to demonize the "other", and portray themselves as righteous. This includes the current Iranian regime, as well as our own.
While I reject the simplistic false dichotomy of good guy / bad guy foreign policy, that doesn't mean I'm going to excuse the very real bad acts of some foreign power. When Ahmedinijad (sp?), declares that there are no Iranian homosexuals, that's pretty oppressive and unacceptable. Those are words that came out of his own mouth, they weren't created by some Karl Rove spin machine.
I agree that is very oppressive, but it is also from a largely religious country that views the act as evil, I am NOT saying that this excuses it. I don't think democracy would protect them from this which is why our "spreading democracy" is not the answer. A country with a vast majority of devout Islamic people is probably always going to be oppressive to homosexuals, the same way the Christian/religious majority has been oppressive to them here. Also, to some degree cultural discrimination is viewed as an "acceptable flaw" by most people when there other acts of virtue to admire. For example most of us here have great respect for the founding fathers, but detest the fact that many of them owned slaves. How could you possibly define when this form of reverence and respect is deserved despite other flaws is very difficult IMO. I guess it is important to remember that no one is perfect, and you have to make a judgment call based on their overall character, acknowledge the good and the bad and make a decision based on both. I also don't think we should accept that governments will always be like this, primarily our own. If we had an honest government that truly served us, as well as an honest media, this would not be the case.
Last edited:
moostraks
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 9,640
Iran: Why Do They Hate Us?
Since it is the last day of Ashura, I thought it would be an auspicious time to reminisce about the history of the United States and Iran and how the U.S. came to be known as "The Great Satan." Many think (or simply assume) that it all began in 1979 when the Iranian revolution used the U.S. as a scapegoat for their internal problems. It is widely assumed that United States undeservedly earned the title of "The Great Satan" by simply disagreeing with a religious revolution that (as all revolutions in Iran) started in Qom. It is a theory that is plausible enough. Religious radilcals want to overthrow the legitimate leadership who happen to be backed by the U.S. (I mean, if they are backed by the U.S. they must be legitamate, right?) and so the U.S. must be portrayed as a great evil. Plausible, but way off the mark this assumption is.
One needs to go back to at least 1953 and Operation Ajax to get any kind of relevant perspective on the hate that is reserved for the United States, known in Iran as "The Great Satan." For those of you poor souls who don't know, the Brittish wanted to overthrow the nationalist leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, and his parliment because they had nationalized BP's oil exploration project which was the first western oil venture in the Middle East. If we look at the situation today in the Middle East, it is easy to say that it all started here.
But that wasn't the only thing that started there. Operation Ajax was initially rejected by president Truman, but president Eisenhower signed on to this, the first of a series of CIA orchestrated overthrows of democratically elected governments. Guatemala was soon to follow and later came many others, most notably Chile and Nicaragua. The irony of the United States overthrowing democratically elected governments for financial reasons is not lost on myself, but I digress.
Some would blame Carter for not giving the Shah of Iran proper riot suppression materials to suppress the revolution that was well underway by 1978. But tear gas aside, the economic fallout that resulted from the poor management of the wealth that sprung from the 70's oil boom rests squarely on the shoulders of the Shah. Perhaps the revolution could have been postponed with a heavy handed approach, but the underlying economic factors that had inflation and unemployment reaching nearly 40% by 1978 were sure to foment the revolution with or without the mitigating efforts of the United States.
Just like the downfall of the reform movement that led to Ahmadninejad's election, and his waning power as evidenced by the recent local elections, and just as with every other group of people in the world, economics makes or breaks a power structure. If the people are suffering economically, your days as a leader are numbered.
So if you wonder why Iran hates us, just remember this. We overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed a decendent of the old Monarch. This "Shah of Shahs" ruled so ineptly that an economy that had enormous welth fell into a tailspin of misery which led to an Islamic revolution. We have never apolgized for this, and yet we wonder why the world doubts our intentions of "spreading democracy."
As one of the top NSA researchers on terrorism said, (paraphrase) "we are clearly loosing the war against Islamic terrorsim. Until our leaders admit that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is the history foreign policy of the United States and it's allies in the Muslim world, we have no chance of winning. You cannot win a war when you haven't even bothered to properly address the threat."
It is high time we made ammends for the transgressions of the past. Then perhaps our calls to spread democracy won't ring so hollow.
http://praguetwin.blogspot.com/2007/01/iran-why-do-they-hate-us.html
Another view other than they typical they hate us because of the embassy hostage taking...
FWIW It is good to question the issues that got us to this point. We seem to take for granted things accepted as general knowledge. There is so much more to one's relationship with another that pushes them to the point of hatred until death. I think it is completely oversimplified by pointing to one specific issue. we have been backstabbing the middle east for so long we deserve their wrath.
As for Ahmadninejad, I think you guys need to step away from the american propaganda machine and realize that we do not exactly have a market on fair elections. Have any of you become delegates?? Most of the nation thinks it is their vote which actually counts in the election process and have to idea about the electoral college.(They also think the federal reserve is a government entity but I digress). The process has its fair share of manipulation going on here, and is hardly open to just anyone.
Ahmadninejad comes across as a charming individual when you watch him in interviews, with a fair enough sense of humour and a good bit of knowledge as to whom the audience is he is speaking to. I think that charm could make him exceptionally dangerous, however he is extremely disliked by his own people. I think he has handled the situation that america is pushing them into extraordinarily well and deserves some credit from his populace. I am rather impressed with the level of transparency that "appears" to exist in their media, as they attempt to get somethings out that our media ignores. Hoisting us on our own pitard so to speak. Amusing how asinine the incident in the gulf recently with the boats seemed after america played one version and they had another.
That said, if he really makes the comments about Israel and the holocaust that we are told he does, that makes him someone to be very wary of as he is clearly manipulating.....
Good luck in your research!!!
Since it is the last day of Ashura, I thought it would be an auspicious time to reminisce about the history of the United States and Iran and how the U.S. came to be known as "The Great Satan." Many think (or simply assume) that it all began in 1979 when the Iranian revolution used the U.S. as a scapegoat for their internal problems. It is widely assumed that United States undeservedly earned the title of "The Great Satan" by simply disagreeing with a religious revolution that (as all revolutions in Iran) started in Qom. It is a theory that is plausible enough. Religious radilcals want to overthrow the legitimate leadership who happen to be backed by the U.S. (I mean, if they are backed by the U.S. they must be legitamate, right?) and so the U.S. must be portrayed as a great evil. Plausible, but way off the mark this assumption is.
One needs to go back to at least 1953 and Operation Ajax to get any kind of relevant perspective on the hate that is reserved for the United States, known in Iran as "The Great Satan." For those of you poor souls who don't know, the Brittish wanted to overthrow the nationalist leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, and his parliment because they had nationalized BP's oil exploration project which was the first western oil venture in the Middle East. If we look at the situation today in the Middle East, it is easy to say that it all started here.
But that wasn't the only thing that started there. Operation Ajax was initially rejected by president Truman, but president Eisenhower signed on to this, the first of a series of CIA orchestrated overthrows of democratically elected governments. Guatemala was soon to follow and later came many others, most notably Chile and Nicaragua. The irony of the United States overthrowing democratically elected governments for financial reasons is not lost on myself, but I digress.
Some would blame Carter for not giving the Shah of Iran proper riot suppression materials to suppress the revolution that was well underway by 1978. But tear gas aside, the economic fallout that resulted from the poor management of the wealth that sprung from the 70's oil boom rests squarely on the shoulders of the Shah. Perhaps the revolution could have been postponed with a heavy handed approach, but the underlying economic factors that had inflation and unemployment reaching nearly 40% by 1978 were sure to foment the revolution with or without the mitigating efforts of the United States.
Just like the downfall of the reform movement that led to Ahmadninejad's election, and his waning power as evidenced by the recent local elections, and just as with every other group of people in the world, economics makes or breaks a power structure. If the people are suffering economically, your days as a leader are numbered.
So if you wonder why Iran hates us, just remember this. We overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed a decendent of the old Monarch. This "Shah of Shahs" ruled so ineptly that an economy that had enormous welth fell into a tailspin of misery which led to an Islamic revolution. We have never apolgized for this, and yet we wonder why the world doubts our intentions of "spreading democracy."
As one of the top NSA researchers on terrorism said, (paraphrase) "we are clearly loosing the war against Islamic terrorsim. Until our leaders admit that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is the history foreign policy of the United States and it's allies in the Muslim world, we have no chance of winning. You cannot win a war when you haven't even bothered to properly address the threat."
It is high time we made ammends for the transgressions of the past. Then perhaps our calls to spread democracy won't ring so hollow.
http://praguetwin.blogspot.com/2007/01/iran-why-do-they-hate-us.html
Another view other than they typical they hate us because of the embassy hostage taking...
FWIW It is good to question the issues that got us to this point. We seem to take for granted things accepted as general knowledge. There is so much more to one's relationship with another that pushes them to the point of hatred until death. I think it is completely oversimplified by pointing to one specific issue. we have been backstabbing the middle east for so long we deserve their wrath.
As for Ahmadninejad, I think you guys need to step away from the american propaganda machine and realize that we do not exactly have a market on fair elections. Have any of you become delegates?? Most of the nation thinks it is their vote which actually counts in the election process and have to idea about the electoral college.(They also think the federal reserve is a government entity but I digress). The process has its fair share of manipulation going on here, and is hardly open to just anyone.
Ahmadninejad comes across as a charming individual when you watch him in interviews, with a fair enough sense of humour and a good bit of knowledge as to whom the audience is he is speaking to. I think that charm could make him exceptionally dangerous, however he is extremely disliked by his own people. I think he has handled the situation that america is pushing them into extraordinarily well and deserves some credit from his populace. I am rather impressed with the level of transparency that "appears" to exist in their media, as they attempt to get somethings out that our media ignores. Hoisting us on our own pitard so to speak. Amusing how asinine the incident in the gulf recently with the boats seemed after america played one version and they had another.
That said, if he really makes the comments about Israel and the holocaust that we are told he does, that makes him someone to be very wary of as he is clearly manipulating.....
Good luck in your research!!!
Similar threads
- Featured
