What do you think of Iran?

[raynai]

I think the US should seriously consider military action there. It\'s very good that Israel is thinking about it. Ahmadinejad is horrible leader, whose regime is very corrupt. He sponsers terrorism! Regarding Iran, what should countries like the US do?

[RedAnarchist]

I think the US should seriously consider military action there.

That would be political suicide right now. Besides, Iran poses no real threat to America, but the American government likes to make the world think that it does.


It\'s very good that Israel is thinking about it.

No, its not. Not only would Israel be attacked by every country around it, it would lead to the deaths of many working class people. The argument is between the governments of Iran and Israel, not the people of those nations.


Ahmadinejad is horrible leader, whose regime is very corrupt. He sponsers terrorism!

You could easily say that about Bush or any other leader of a country.


Regarding Iran, what should countries like the US do?

Nothing right now. Iran poses no real threat to America.

[raynai]

ahmadinejad said he wants to \"wipe israel off the map\" how is that not a threat? israel is an ally of US and they should thus support 100%, the US can create democracy there. sponsering terrorism is a huge threat. he hates the US!

[RedAnarchist]

Ahmadinejad said he wants to \"wipe israel off the map\" how is that not a threat?

That is a threat to Israel, not to America.


israel is an ally of US and they should thus support 100%, the US can create democracy there.

Where, in Israel?


sponsering terrorism is a huge threat. he hates the US!

Bush sponsers terrorism just as much as Ahmadinejad does. And Ahmadinejad doesn't hate the US, he is opposed to the US Government, so try not to take attacks on your government personally.

[raynai]

no in iran, isreal is already a democracy. the US must support their allies so a threat to the israel is a threat to the US. bush does not sponser terrorism btw.

[RedAnarchist]

no in iran, isreal is already a democracy.

Its a democracy if you're an Israeli. Not so democratic if you're a Palestinian.


the US must support their allies so a threat to the israel is a threat to the US.

Support doesn't have to mean attacking Iran.


bush does not sponser terrorism btw.

Can you prove this?

[spartan]

no in iran, isreal is already a democracy.

Try telling that to the Palestinians who think that Israel has a funny way of showing it's democratic side.


bush does not sponser terrorism btw.

Yes he does as has most US administrations after the second world war.

[Kami]

no in iran, isreal is already a democracy
Iran was a democracy too, till the US overthrew the democratically elected government for nationalising their oil. Keep your noses out of there this time and do everyone a favour.


the US must support their allies so a threat to the israel is a threat to the US
Who cares what the US Gov. want to do, and who their allies are? it's certainly not in the interest of the people to start silly wars like that.
That aside, do you really think Iran is stupid enough to turn itself into a glass crater by actually taking action against israel or anywhere else?


bush does not sponser terrorism btw.
No, bush sponsers mass-murder as the leader of the world's most powerful government. That's worse than any terrorism.

[raynai]

palestinians are terrorists anyways, because they constantly attack israel when it has every right to exist. support means attacking iran because they will contribute to a peaceful resolution, by attacking iran. bush does not support mass-murder! you\'ve got to be kidding me?

[RedAnarchist]

palestinians are terrorists anyways, because they constantly attack israel when it has every right to exist.

Israelis are terrorists anyways, because they constantly attack Palestine when it has every right to exist. See what i did there?


support means attacking iran because they will contribute to a peaceful resolution, by attacking iran.

How will you attack Iran peacefully?


Bush does not support mass-murder! you\'ve got to be kidding me?

How many civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan because of his wars? And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

[Lost In Translation]

no in iran, isreal is already a democracy
So a democracy is anything that the US likes...i see.


the US must support their allies so a threat to the israel is a threat to the US. bush does not sponser terrorism btw.

Why should the US support Israel? Wouldn't it just get itself into deeper shit?

Bush doesn't sponsor the terrorism of the Middle East variety. However, he has his own form of terrorism: have some made-up reason to attack the country, suck all if its resources up dry, and then leave, saying this country is good enough to establish its own government, when in reality, it's barren wasteland.

[raynai]

israelis only attack palestinians because they are aggressing them in the first place, and do not respect them. they do not want peace, while israel is a generally peaceful country. you cant attack a country peacefully. however, it will eventually bring peace in the LONG RUN, destroying all the terrorists. do you know how many people the US has saved from freeing the people from the taliban and killing saddam? they certainly than the US, because their life has improved severely.

[Justin CF]

I'm going to address two of raynai's posts at once. I hope this doesn't cause too much confusion.



I think the US should seriously consider military action there. It\'s very good that Israel is thinking about it.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of dying in a nuclear exchange, so I don't want Israel involved in any wars in the middle east. Doing so would provoke (many) other countries to bomb Israel, and America would end up striking back in defense of Israel, which means America gets bombed too. Or at least, that's how I figure it would probably happen.



Ahmadinejad is horrible leader, whose regime is very corrupt. He sponsers terrorism!How is his regime corrupt? I'm not saying it isn't... in fact, seeing as he's a politician it it probably is. But what has he done that goes above and beyond the norm?



Regarding Iran, what should countries like the US do?I don't know if it's really the US's place to be dishing rules concerning the possession of nuclear weapons. The UN should offer to help them with energy options other than the obvious (nuclear). If they're totally unwilling to comply, I think it would be fair to take strategic, extremely pin-pointed military action against them in order to neutralize any nuclear threat.



ahmadinejad said he wants to \"wipe israel off the map\" how is that not a threat? israel is an ally of US and they should thus support 100%, the US can create democracy there. Why should the US support Israel? I hate to break it to you, but the main reason that the US is an ally of Israel has to do with a little book called "the bible". I haven't read the musty old thing, but from what I gather the state of Israel must be established and then thrown into chaos in order for the end of times to come, which is somehow a good thing. US politicians (and people) are so deluded that they think it's okay to base our foreign policy on archaic religious beliefs which could very well end in quite a lot of unneeded bloodshed.



sponsering terrorism is a huge threat.Before I say anything that will get me on a watch list, a couple main points that are independent of anything else:


After the whole "Saddam has WMDs!" bit, you should no longer trust your government to provide accurate information about foreign governments (if you did before).
"Terrorism" is a blanket term which the government has defined in several different ways. Until you define it in the context of your post, you shouldn't be throwing it around.

Okay, now for the good stuff. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that every US soldier kill one Iraqi civilian. Would killing a soldier become just in that doing so would prevent the death of an innocent member of society? I would argue "yes".



he hates the US!As do I. What's your point?

[mykittyhasaboner]

no in iran, isreal is already a democracy.
:lol:


bush does not sponser terrorism btw.
how is the US invading another country not terrorism?



israelis only attack palestinians because they are aggressing them in the first place, and do not respect them. they do not want peace, while israel is a generally peaceful country.
:laugh:israel is generally a peaceful country!?? what israel are you talking about?


you cant attack a country peacefully. however, it will eventually bring peace in the LONG RUN, destroying all the terrorists. do you know how many people the US has saved from freeing the people from the taliban and killing saddam?
no care to provide evidence for it?

[raynai]

seems as if iran wouldnt want to comply, pretty content with nuclear energey sources because they can abuse it. killing a soilder is not justified if the soilder\'s attempt is to bring freedom to their country as well as create a sense of security. doing such is not terrorism. responsing to aggression is hardly terrorism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

^^you really are a complete tool arent you?

[Justin CF]

Another few posts:



no in iran, isreal is already a democracy.Ahmadinejad was democratically elected. Khamenei wasn't, but Ahmadinejad (who you've been going after) was.



the US must support their allies so a threat to the israel is a threat to the US. I've already covered why the US shouldn't be an ally of Israel, so all you're left with is the claim that threatening Israel is the same as threatening the US. What you don't have is a reason to back this up.



bush does not sponser terrorism btw.The US government has definately supported terrorism in the past. If you provide me with a solid definition of your favorite buzz word, I'll see if I can dig up anything done under Bush that would fit the bill. The contents of the recently leaked "FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL FORCES" manual comes to mind.



palestinians are terrorists anyways, because they constantly attack israel when it has every right to exist.Nice generalization there. While we're making generalizations, Israelis do the same thing to Palestine. Oh, and the "right to exist" bit... I think that the existence of the state of Israel puts the entire world in great peril, so I don't really know if it should exist...



support means attacking iran because they will contribute to a peaceful resolution, by attacking iran.If you're trying to bring about peace, attacking Iran is BAD idea. It will only provoke other countries that don't like Israel to strike.



bush does not support mass-murder! you\'ve got to be kidding me?You know how many dead civilians there in Iraq now?



israelis only attack palestinians because they are aggressing them in the first place, and do not respect them.Uh... no. The Israel/Palestine deal is an extremely complicated mess, and claiming that "Palestine started it" is ridiculous. It's like saying that the British shot first at The Battle at Old North Bridge, and are, therefore, responsible for the entire American Revolutionary War. Not only is the first ascertain unproven, but what follows... well, it doesn't really follow, now does it?



they do not want peace, while israel is a generally peaceful country.Bullshit. You should read up on how Israel got started. They did some pretty crazy stuff in order to gain power, and they continue to do so to this very day.



you cant attack a country peacefully. however, it will eventually bring peace in the LONG RUN, destroying all the terrorists.The war in Iraq has created more terrorists than it has destroyed. A war with Iran would probably do the same.



do you know how many people the US has saved from freeing the people from the taliban and killing saddam?You're kidding me, right? We've killed way more people than Saddam would have in the same time period.



they certainly than the US, because their life has improved severely.I'm assuming that you meant to say that Iraqis "thank" the US. While it's true that the majority of Iraqis say their lives have improved, and even think that US forces should stay for the time being, they hate the fact that there was a war to begin with. So no, they Iraqi people aren't thanking anybody.

EDIT: While the above statistics are true, the ABC poll I had read didn't cover as many issues as it should have. A better poll can be found here: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=brme Note that 47% of Iraqis approve of attacks on US led forces! That's not what I would consider to be "thanking"!

[RedAnarchist]

They are banned now, so they'll probably not read your post, Justin.

[Justin CF]

seems as if iran wouldnt want to comply, pretty content with nuclear energey sources because they can abuse it.Indeed, which is why the UN might have to step in. But once again, it's not our place to do so.



killing a soilder is not justified if the soilder\'s attempt is to bring freedom to their country as well as create a sense of security.I never said the soldier would deserve to die... in fact, I think that the concept of "deserving" is outdated. My argument only applies when comparing two lives, and you've only addressed the worth of the soldier, not the civilian.



doing such is not terrorism.Please define "terrorism".



responsing to aggression is hardly terrorism.Once again, please define "terrorism".

[spartan]

israelis only attack palestinians because they are aggressing them in the first place, and do not respect them.
No it is the other way around my friend.

You see before 1948 the majority of people who lived in what is now Israel were muslim Arabs.

The land was administered by the British after they had acquired it from the Ottoman Empire whom they defeated in WW1.

In the years before 1948 there was alot of Jewish immigration into this area for two reasons mostly, one being the deluded Zionist belief that this was "their" (Jewish) land even though the last time their ancestors stepped foot on it was thousands of years ago and the other was escaping persecution in Europe.

After increasing tensions between the two main communities in Palestine (Arabs and Jews) the land was partitioned into Jewish areas and Palestinian areas by the UN in 1947.

This wasn't accepted by Palestine's Arab neighbours and the Arab League representing all middle eastern Arab majority states who saw this as an injustice against Palestinian Arabs and who also wanted to gain a foothold in the area for their own benefit.

On May 14th 1948 the Jewish provisional government declared Israel's independence and the Arab nations invaded starting the Arab-Israeli war of 1948.

Of course Israel won the war and forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians off land that they had lived on for thousands of years and only allowing them to live in Palestinian areas as defined in the UN partition plan before the war even though these areas are constantly subject to encroachment and open settlement by Israel at the expense of Palestinians to this day!

So perhaps the Palestinians wouldn't be attacking Israel if the Zionists hadn't of forced them of their own land, occupied it and subjected them to ethnic cleansing and poverty?

It kind of makes you understand why a Palestinian thinks it perfectly acceptable to strap explosives to himself and blow up civilians dont you think?

It doesn't justify it but i am not going to criticise them for resorting to these desperate acts as they are powerless in the face of a modern state supported by the world's only superpower.

[Justin CF]

They are banned now, so they'll probably not read your post, Justin.Heh. I still can't help but smack down the bad logic :lol:

[Sharon den Adel]

I think the US should seriously consider military action there. It\'s very good that Israel is thinking about it. Ahmadinejad is horrible leader, whose regime is very corrupt. He sponsers terrorism! Regarding Iran, what should countries like the US do?

The US should stay out of Iran. Iran poses no threat to the United States, so there is no need for the US to march in, guns blazing, and kill another hundred or so thousand civilians.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think the US should seriously consider military action there. It\'s very good that Israel is thinking about it. Ahmadinejad is horrible leader, whose regime is very corrupt. He sponsers terrorism! Regarding Iran, what should countries like the US do?

You're an idiot.

First of all the US "sponsers [sic] terrorism" as well, it's just that when the state does it, or rather, when the US state or one of its allies does it, it's not considered bad in the mainstream media, the place where you get all your garbage information from.

If you want to compare the state-terrorism of Iran with the state-terrorism of the US, the latter far outweights the former in gravity and destructiveness.

So if we go by your logic, it is the US state that "needs to have military action taken against it", not the Iranian state.

There is no doubt that "something needs to be done" about the Iranian regime, just as "something needs to be done" about all capitalist states, but we don't call on the more advanced capitalist states to attack the less advanced capitalist states so that the former can safeguard their interests while the latter is decimated.

We call on the working-class in both nations to rise up and destroy the capitalist-states and create their own proletarian states.

This is political ABC for any revolutionary leftist, but it seems like you still haven't learned the alphabet so it needs to be spelled out for you.

I'm glad you're banned.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Even if, for argument sake, Iran was under a despotic rule (which would be under the "Supreme Leader of Iran", or , Ali Khamenei, not the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), was developing nuclear weapons, etc, it would be a bad move for the U.S. to move against Iran.

The U.S. troops are already spread too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. I recall hearing several times about a local air force base (Scott Air Force Base), in addition to other military facilities being understaffed because so many troops were committed in Iraq/Afghanistan. Also, the National Guard has had a presence in Iraq; the National Guard is intended for domestic protection exclusively; deployment of the National Guard in Iraq is an act of desperation.

U.S. troops would also sustain significant casualties in Iran that they have not experienced in Iraq or Afghanistan. While the U.S. is seeing constant casualties, it is a small trickle; only a few at a time. In Iraq, the people were obviously not content with the regime, and the population was divided among 3 major demographics. Afghanistan's government and population were similarly hindered; it was overrun with rival warlords (many of which worked with U.S. troops rather then against), and it's population was dominated by these warlords.

In Iran, the government (whether just and benevolent or harsh and cruel), is strong and unified. The president is elected through a democratic process incorporating universal suffrage and serving no more then 2 four year terms, and the Supreme Leader is elected through the Assembly of Experts, who in turn are elected by the people. The people of Iran are reasonably satisfied with their leaders, since they have a political role, and would support their government, especially if an outside intervening force invaded. Indeed, popular support likely would skyrocket, much like it did in the U.S. following Sept. 11, 2001.

Additionally, Iraq and Afghanistan had a weak military presence when they were invaded. Iran does not. First of all, Iran has a population (70million) over twice as large as either Iraq (30million) or Afghanistan (31million). This means they have a significantly larger pool to recruit a military from.

Iran has an air force and a navy, something Iran and Afghanistan didn't really have, and Iran has modern weaponry.

Under the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's military industry was limited to assembly of foreign weapons. In the assembly lines that were put up by American firms, such as Bell, Litton, and Northrop,Iranian workers put together a variety of helicopters, aircraft, guided missiles, electronic components and tanks.

In 1973 the Iran Electronics Industries (IEI) was established. The company was set up in a first attempt to organize the assembly and repair of foreign-delivered weapons. The Iranian Defense Industries Organization was the first to succeed in taking a step into what could be called a military industry by reverse engineering Soviet RPG-7, BM21, and SAM-7 missiles in 1979.Today Iran builds much of their own weapons, and Iran builds the same weapons that Russia and the U.S. use.

I'm not saying that the U.S. could not conquer Iran if it so wanted (that would have to be determined), but the cost would be horrible. Rather then a slow trickle of U.S. deaths, there would be actual battles, and many soldiers on both sides would die.

Even if the threat of a nuclear programme was legitimate, Iran would be no more dangerous then several countries known for possessing nuclear weapons. Need I remind anybody that only one nation has ever used nuclear weapons in warfare? A larger threat to the world are the unknown nuclear powers (nations with a secretive nuclear programme such as S. Africa and Israel which may or may not have weapons. Look up the Vela Incident.) A known enemy is less dangerous then an unknown threat.

The potential benefits of an U.S. invasion of Iran are heavily outweighed by the certain negative consequences.

[Led Zeppelin]

In Iran, the government (whether just and benevolent or harsh and cruel), is strong and unified. The president is elected through a democratic process incorporating universal suffrage and serving no more then 2 four year terms, and the Supreme Leader is elected through the Assembly of Experts, who in turn are elected by the people. The people of Iran are reasonably satisfied with their leaders, since they have a political role, and would support their government, especially if an outside intervening force invaded.

What a load of nonsense.

The "Assembly of Experts" isn't elected by the people in a democratic election process, you made that up.

The list of nominees is screened by the government and only the "acceptable" people are allowed to be added to the vote, the same is the case in the election process for all positions in the government. During the last elections for example a large number of "reformist" candidates were not allowed to run.

As for real political opposition to the ruling clique; they are all arrested and either executed or jailed.

To say that the people of Iran are satisfied with the leadership is idiotic, in fact your entire post was filled with innacuracies.

This is what happens when you get your information from Wikipedia and then think you're an expert on the subject when in reality you are clueless.

I have refuted the lies about the Iranian government being "democratic" and being supported by its people already, here:




I don't doubt President Ahmadinejad won the election, no....what's your point?

In an elections where only 62% of the eligible voters voted, only 19.43% voted for him in the first round of elections (5,711,696 people), and 61.69% voted for him in the second round (17,284,782 people).

Let's ignore the fact that hundreds of people are disallowed to even run for elections - and thousands more can't because they're either in jail or executed - and go with the numbers we have.

The total votes cast in that elections were 29,317,039, so he received a small majority in a police-state which literally arrests and executes members of any anti-government organization.

Now, Iran has 46,786,418 eligible voters, so he didn't even receive half of the vote.

Then there's the fact that during the municipal elections of 2006 he lost significantly. (http://www.citymayors.com/politics/iran_elections_06.html)

Then there's the fact that a recently conducted poll stated that 94.7% would not vote for him, and that 62.5% of the people who voted for him last time would not do so again. (http://www.iraniantruth.com/?p=960)

And the same numbers from a different source: Link (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ahmadinejads_popularity_fading/)

It disgusts me when so-called "progressives" come to the defense of Iran's government because they happen to be the target of US imperialism at the moment. Yes, it's bad that the Iranian people are the target, but that doesn't mean that you should blind yourself to the realities of the reactionary Iranian government.

The people support the regime? I have been to Iran, I have family living in Iran, only those who directly benefit from the current regime, that is, the people who are in pay of it, have some vague support for it, and even they would prefer another system because they realize that the people are getting sick and tired of living in a police-state.

After hundreds of thousands of opponents to the government have been executed (just recently students were killed simply for opposing the government) you say that Iran's people are satisfied with the government?! After hundreds of thousands are jailed for political dissent you say it is democratic?!

I hope you will take back what you said as I hope it was based on ignorance.

[Chapter 24]

That would be political suicide right now. Besides, Iran poses no real threat to America, but the American government likes to make the world think that it does.


^ This.

Ahmadinejad as a leader doesn't have a great deal of support domestically, and as a person he does not strike me as someone very positive (i.e. his Holocaust denial statements).
However this whole "Iran is a threat to the Middle East", "Iran's nuclear build up is a danger to the world", "Ahmadinejad is the antichrist", etc. is totally ridiculous. It is, as RA said, build-up to encourage nations in using physical force against Iran. Comments regarding Iran as a threat to the world are utter exaggeration.
Whenever the United States prevents an "axis of evil" nation from having nuclear weapons, such as Iran or North Korea, as they are a "threat" to the world, I always think back to the one country that actually has used atomic weapons as a war tactic.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

The "Assembly of Experts" isn't elected by the people in a democratic election process, you made that up.I did not say that the Assembly of Experts was elected by democratic process, I said they are elected by the people.
It is true that the Iranian government goes through a screening process to determine who is acceptable as a candidate (regulated in turn by the Guardian Council), but ultimately it does go to election.

The fact is that the Iranian screening process is official rather then unofficial, as it is elsewhere (even though I could technically run for office, many unofficial screening elements would prevent me from coming close to getting on a ballot, let alone a reasonable chance to win.)

I did make the mistake of stating that the President was elected through democratic process; I was wrong there (I just meant universal suffrage, and I suppose I got carried away.)

While I'm on the president, as far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, perhaps you'd prefer if Akbar Hashemi Rafasanjani and his free-market approach had won? His education reforms were a joke and inflation reached 49% under his administration. Ahmadinejad is no better then Rafasanjani, but Rafasanjani was no better then Ahmadinejad.

Not that it matters much; the Supreme Leader is responsible for the armed forces, foreign policies, economic policies, and the nuclear programme.

That, in addition to the fact that the Supreme Leader is the one who appoints the Guardian Council, is why I stated that any Iranian despotic rule would be under the Supreme Leader and not the president.


To say that the people of Iran are satisfied with the leadership is idioticOnce again, my statement has been taken out of context.

My point was that if a foreign power were to invade, the population won't stand idle as said power destroyed their very way of life (as we all watched happen in Iraq); they would resist. In fact I find it likely that such an invasion would spark heightened patriotism and nationality among Iranians.

By your own numbers, 62% were content enough to turn out to vote, and while there is opposition (as there is in any government), more people then not feel they have played a role in politics.

Iranians may not be happy with the present leaders, but they are content enough that they are not on the verge of revolt (or apathy as in Iraq).


In an elections where only 62% of the eligible voters voted, only 19.43% voted for him in the first round of elections (5,711,696 people), and 61.69% voted for him in the second round (17,284,782 people)
Now, Iran has 46,786,418 eligible voters, so he didn't even receive half of the vote.Okay, and so that would make the election no less legitimate then many others in the world (such as the 64% voter turnout in the 2004 U.S. presidential election.)


It disgusts me when so-called "progressives" come to the defense of Iran's government because they happen to be the target of US imperialism at the moment. Yes, it's bad that the Iranian people are the target, but that doesn't mean that you should blind yourself to the realities of the reactionary Iranian government.Perhaps somebody other then myself defended Iran's government?

I simply conveyed the message that the Iranian government is more stable and that their military is stronger then either Iraq or Afghanistan, and a military intervention into Iran would result in mass casualties for both sides.

I approached the issue with as much objectivity as I could; I introduced what information was needed for my justification for U.S. not to intervene with Iran (keeping in mind that moral issue are not a legitimate reason to go to war.)

If you must know, I believe the humane conditions in Iran are appalling (esp. the Iranian stance homosexual and women's rights), and a theocratic government is a disturbing idea to say the least.

However unless you support some sort of global moral police force for the former, or a new wave of crusades for the latter, neither is a just cause to go to war.

[Led Zeppelin]

I did not say that the Assembly of Experts was elected by democratic process, I said they are elected by the people.

Which is blatantly false as I demonstrated.

They aren't "elected by the people", they are simply ratified "by the people", they are chosen by the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council, who have the real power in their hands.


It is true that the Iranian government goes through a screening process to determine who is acceptable as a candidate (regulated in turn by the Guardian Council), but ultimately it does go to election.

And given the fact that all anti-government parties are banned and that even many reformist candidates are excluded during that screening-process it makes Iran as a dictatorship, not a democracy as you try to portray it as.


The fact is that the Iranian screening process is official rather then unofficial, as it is elsewhere (even though I could technically run for office, many unofficial screening elements would prevent me from coming close to getting on a ballot, let alone a reasonable chance to win.)

You really are good at making things up and then presenting them as semi-coherent concepts, aren't you?

That "unofficial screening process" that you are talking about doesn't officially exist which is the entire point of bourgeois-democracy.

In the Netherlands for example anyone is allowed to run, and even though communists don't get many votes, they're still allowed to be included (in Iran they're either jailed or killed, if you didn't know), same in the US and any other bourgeois-democratic country.

Now, you may say that the fact that no communist has a chance of ever getting elected has to do with the system of democracy being flawed...well duh, that's why it's a bourgeois-democracy and not a proletarian-democracy.

However, to say that such a system is exactly the same as an outright dictatorial system such as the one in Iran now or during the Sjah, or Franco's Spain, or Hitler's Germany etc. turns you into a political stooge.

See, here I can be a communist (or socialist or anti-government in general) and I won't get jailed or executed, in Iran I would be.

Even an infant would be able to tell the difference based on that simple fact.


While I'm on the president, as far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, perhaps you'd prefer if Akbar Hashemi Rafasanjani and his free-market approach had won?

Yes of course because if you don't support one you are supporting the other.

What is this deterministic nonsense? The world isn't black and white so our political actions shouldn't be based on black and white type of thinking.

I opposed both Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad, as most people in Iran did and still do.

You misspelled Rafsanjani by the way, I think that perhaps in the future you shouldn't try to flaunt your knowledge of Iran in a conversation with a person who's Iranian and has studied and followed the situation there carefully and thoroughly for several years now.


His education reforms were a joke and inflation reached 49% under his administration. Ahmadinejad is no better then Rafasanjani, but Rafasanjani was no better then Ahmadinejad.

I know, and so do most of the Iranian people, that's why we shouldn't be thinking in "either/or" terms like political dinosaurs.


Not that it matters much; the Supreme Leader is responsible for the armed forces, foreign policies, economic policies, and the nuclear programme.

That, in addition to the fact that the Supreme Leader is the one who appoints the Guardian Council, is why I stated that any Iranian despotic rule would be under the Supreme Leader and not the president.

You didn't mention the Guardian Council once, actually.

You only mentioned the Assembly of Experts.


Once again, my statement has been taken out of context.

My point was that if a foreign power were to invade, the population won't stand idle as said power destroyed their very way of life (as we all watched happen in Iraq); they would resist. In fact I find it likely that such an invasion would spark heightened patriotism and nationality among Iranians.

Agreed.


By your own numbers, 62% were content enough to turn out to vote, and while there is opposition (as there is in any government), more people then not feel they have played a role in politics.

It doesn't have anything to do with "being content", it has to do with survival.

The Iranian people are living in a police-state. Most people know at least one person who was either jailed or executed by the regime for political reasons.

Again; an entire generation of politically active people was wiped out.

Why do people come out and vote? Well, if you see a person on TV who's telling you lies (Ahmadinejad has made quite a few of them) and you believe that either that someone improves your life, or your life will remain as shitty as it is (living in fear, poverty and misery), what would you do?

The better question would be; What have you got to lose?

Well, your job for one, but besides that; nothing.

That is why 62% of the people voted, not because they actually believed it would change anything or because "they are content" (what the fuck is that shit?), they're not morons, but because for better or worse they hoped it would change something even if it was slightly.

The breaking point is coming nearer with every election, and the more "reformist" the president becomes, the more near a break with the Islamic Republic the people are.


Iranians may not be happy with the present leaders, but they are content enough that they are not on the verge of revolt (or apathy as in Iraq).

Again, it doesn't have anything to do with "being content", it's a fucking police-state we're talking about.

If you are "not content" you get arrested and jailed for life, tortured or shot.

When you write things like this I can't even take you seriously.


Okay, and so that would make the election no less legitimate then many others in the world (such as the 64% voter turnout in the 2004 U.S. presidential election.)

I don't care about any election "being legitimate", I care about how the bourgeoisie operates the state and to what degree it allows democracy and freedom.

In bourgeois-democracies it is much higher than in bourgeois-dictatorships, this is not to say that I prefer the former over the latter, I prefer a socialist system over both, but it is to say that there's a difference between dictatorships and democracies, even if they are both bourgeoisie in character.


Perhaps somebody other then myself defended Iran's government?

You've been doing quite a lot of it, see above.


I simply conveyed the message that the Iranian government is more stable and that their military is stronger then either Iraq or Afghanistan, and a military intervention into Iran would result in mass casualties for both sides.

And there is no disagreement there, but you didn't just say that, you actually defended Iran's political system (by saying that it is just the same as any country) and you also said that the Iranian people support the government and are "quite content" with it, which is absurd.


I approached the issue with as much objectivity as I could; I introduced what information was needed for my justification for U.S. not to intervene with Iran (keeping in mind that moral issue are not a legitimate reason to go to war.)

I'm sorry but that wasn't objective at all, and you didn't approach the question from a revolutionary leftist point of view.

I was and still am quite offended by what you said, not just because I have actually lost family members due to the Islamic Republic, but also because what you said was not based on facts at all and it infuriates me to think that there are people out there on the left who believe that Iranians are "quite fine" with the current government when each day people are dying to have it destroyed!


If you must know, I believe the humane conditions in Iran are appalling (esp. the Iranian stance homosexual and women's rights), and a theocratic government is a disturbing idea to say the least.

However unless you support some sort of global moral police force for the former, or a new wave of crusades for the latter, neither is a just cause to go to war.

Of course they're not just causes to go to war, and only Neo-Cons believe that they are.

I never called on war on Iran by imperialist powers, that's crazy, it would only strengthen the current regime as you quite rightly said.

There is no disagreement there, but please don't fabricate or sugarcoat things in order to be in a better position to "defend Iran", that's not our job, we don't have to defend Iran's government, we call it as it is: A reactionary bourgeois-dictatorship, a police-state, a theocracy. We call the US as it is too: An imperialist nation, a bourgeois-democracy, ruled by one of the most reactionary wings of the bourgeois political spectrum.

Look, sorry if I came over hostile in my post, but this is a very important issue and we have to think clearly about this and stay level-headed, we're on the same side here, but don't abandon your principles in the heat of the battle, because even though you may think you are in a stronger position, you have actually already lost.

Don't defend a state that has killed (and still is) hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries and to this day has thousands of them languishing in jails.