Mephistopheles;4923271I hope this is meant to be a (bad) joke... :Puzzled: ?
I doubt he can even point out Germany on a map. :cort:
Funny, today I heard a reporter ask if the USA was going to go in and stop this.
I was like... WTF?
Why would he think we would/should go into Iran over this issue? If we did, it would be over the nukes but the US couldn't afford another ground assult.
No one really knows what to think on this yet. Just keep watching
AzH;4923276How fuck did you get that from that?
You made it seem as though all wars are unjustified by all sides. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.
AzH;4923138Many people say the same thing about the US. Personally, I think those calling for armed conflict to illicit social change are wankers.
Wow. The breakoff of America from your country must piss you off in multiple ways then.
Isnt that how most social changes have happened? With armed conflict? But we dont read our history books, now do we....
You're misunderstanding me. Yes, in the past we used armed conflict to solve our problems. But, fucking hell, let's evolve, huh?
It's part of being human, every human has flaws and some of them are aggression and violence. I don't see how the world is ever going to eliminate war.
17th June 2002
Ronald_Jesch;4924310It's part of being human, every human has flaws and some of them are aggression and violence. I don't see how the world is ever going to eliminate war.
Man creates war. War destroys man. Peace inherits the Earth!
Pretty much, as long as we stay out of nuclear war we should be ok.
I didn't make it!
Mr. Matt;4924314Man creates war. War destroys man. Peace inherits the Earth!
Chimps fight over territory, among other animals. War is not solely a human affair.
Just a bit of warning, this is a long long long long post.
Ronald_Jesch;4923120A civil war is what Iran needs to sort out its issues.
Iran has a very powerful SS-like group that Iranians refer to as the Pasdar, and to put it bluntly you do not want to fuck with them. The only reason why they haven't been deployed them out is because the International condemnation would be swift if they were, but they only need to wait for someone to do what you suggested for their wrath to slam down on them.
For an example, the only people who've continuously resisted Iran's control, and not just through the dictatorial power of the current regime but through the Shah's as well, was the Kurdish people.
There's a reason why the citizens of Iran are very careful not to do something on the level of the Kurdish people. The Kurdish people in their corner of Iran have launched one struggle after another, the earliest going back to the 1600s, to win freedoms of their own.
They've launched various organizations to resist this force. Two of them, the PDK-I and Komala, used both diplomatic and violent means to resist both regimes. This resulted in their group virtually being driven underground in Iran, and most of their big members either executed or assassinated. And they'll chase you overseas as well if you get them really pissed off. Check these two-
I'd get better articles, such as news articles made during that time, but unfortunately those can only be found in the archives of European networks.
And then there's the issue with the violent PJAK, a splinter of the Turkish-Kurd PKK, which has allowed the Iranian Army a cover to begin destroying villages and causing a refugee crisis of their own up there.
And you can just be a student and still get the full wrath of the Pasdar. A Kurdish student demonstration in the city of Mahabad resulted in a swift crackdown and the organizer of the event, Shivan Qaderi, was shot and dragged around town until he died as an example.
And quite simply, there's not an open air for debate. Mousavi's supporters know this and is why they're choosing to do this, as it's better for their image in the media. They won't get much sympathy from other countries if they launch armed insurrections.
Now the moral of the story is- don't fuck with the Pasdar.
On to Ahmadinejad. It helps if you know exactly what his administration has done as well as some background on the Iranian Islamic Revolution.
The Islamic Revolution was originally launched by a number of radical groups. The leader of these was the "People's Mujeheddin", a sort of Islamic Socialist organization.
Now some Iranian emigres living in the United States might paint the Shah's time as a great time. This is only nostalgia speaking. The Pahlavi Shah's regime was better for Iranians in terms of social liberties, but in the grand scheme of things they were only slightly better than what's going on right now. Oh, and it doesn't help that Reza Pahlavi (the last one) was installed by British and American interests after the democratically elected Prime Minster Mossadeq attempted to wrest control of Iran's oil from the Anglo-Iranian oil corporation back to the Iranian people.
So shit hits the fan. The gap between poor and rich in Iran grows to the point where extreme ideologies begin to take root. Particularly, a sort of populist religious resurgence begins to take root. With the exiled Khomeini as the figure head, the revolution gets to the point where the Shah virtually lost control of the country and fled.
So you have a civil war between the various Islamic groups, and hold outs of the "democratic" movement, consisting of various assorted "Liberal", "socialist", and "communist" movements. The People's Mujeheddin gets pushed out by Khomeini's faction, who begin infighting. While there's a lot of shit about Khomeini (and quite frankly he was a very socially conservative anti-western nutjob), the man himself really wasn't all that bad. The thing was he was an old man, and as I said was only a figurehead for this Islamic faction. For the most part, various groups fought in this small time period while he gave the image the country was united.
This prompted Saddam Hussein to attempt to invade in the chaos to take some valuable oil fields, under the rouse that some minor island transfer was invalidated as it was done under the previous government. So this war has the mixed blessing of finally uniting the various Islamic factions into one.
So after the Iran-Iraq's war end, some recovery took place and Khomeini died, prompting the current Ayatollah (Khaminei, who was president in the 1980s) to come into power.
During the 90s a more moderate president came into power, Mr. Rafsanjani. He was still a hardline social conservative, but was far more pragmatic and wasn't as confrontational as this Ahmadinijad was.
The next president elected in 1996 was a man named Mohammad Khatami who attempted to reform Iranian society into a more open and free one, with better foreign relations. He launched a number of economic liberalization projects, social welfare initatives, and attempting to better respect personal liberties (Iranian News outlets were able to operate with much more ease).
Now the controversy sets in. Conservatives of the government slammed Khatami for raising taxes, weakening the moral fiber of the country, and short-changing national security in favor of peace. Reformists however slammed Khatami for not being aggressive enough in his initiatives.
In Khatami's defense, the man tried to walk in a centrist position, knowing that any radical changes to policy would inevitably be vetoed by the Islamic council headed by the Ayatollah, which exists outside of the democratic government there.
So comes the 2004 elections of Iran. Khatami's administration ran into some issues torwards the end, and this was beat around continously by various political figures. Ahmadinejad was the main forerunner for the conservatives' faction, who played up his average joe creditionals, slammed the previous administration's corruption, raising taxes, and for being elitist intellectuals who didn't care for the average Iranian.
It seems that during that time (and probably even to this day), that Ahmadinejad's image of being a political outsider working against the so-called "political elite" was contagious among the Iranian people.
Right-wing populism is a very strong spirit in Iran, and is arguably the thing that started the revolution to begin with.
I can feel the rage of these people, I really do, and I honestly hope that this election was infact rigged. It's hard to explain how they managed to count that many votes in such a short time, but it's doubtful that the Ayatollah will reverse the election.
The youth supporting Mousavi have gone into overdrive, even releasing a supposed "official" document they claimed shown that Mousavi had infact beat Ahmadinjad badly, and that the government official who released was later gunned down.
Ahamadinejad has a considerable amount of issues due to the fact that the economy has virtually broken in Iran, social services have become underfunded, and the foreign policy disastrous. However, it seems that somehow people else where have still managed to get re-elected despite those problems. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had legitimately gotten elected. I got to emphasize that sometimes even despite these economic and international problems, citizens of a country, especially traditionalists in more rural areas, will rally around a politician they think is "their man".
Right now, the Mousavi and anti-Ahmadinjead protesters just hope that continuing to bring international attention might change the Ayatollah's outlook. But as I've been emphasizing, they don't want to escalate it beyond riot police shooting at them, as I said, the Pasdar don't give a shit about collateral damage.
Oh, and if you didn't notice I left some easter-eggs in my post.