Iran's Presidential Elections

[nik-]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

There's nothing wrong with the source.

Except for that the part where Alex Jones is a rambling paranoid ######bag.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by blankall

My point is that people's attitudes change. Regardless of how people see the US in the negative light, they are still seen as the most powerful country in the world.

To the people protesting in the street having the most powerful country give you a few words of encouragement will hardly be perceived as meddling by those people on the streets.

I think the hardliners might use that as an excuse to demonize the demonstrators, but there will always be an excuse for that. I don't see President Obama being taken in the same light by the people genuinely looking for change.

Right, but this isn't about the vocal minority in the streets, it's about the silent majority who are watching the protests and trying to decide where they stand on the election results - some of whom voted for Ahmadinejad, some of whom voted for Mousavi. No doubt there are some soft Ahmadinejad supporters who are having second thoughts based on what they're seeing, but vocal US support will allow them to more easily dismiss this as a western plot.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Right, but this isn't about the vocal minority in the streets, it's about the silent majority who are watching the protests and trying to decide where they stand on the election results - some of whom voted for Ahmadinejad, some of whom voted for Mousavi. No doubt there are some soft Ahmadinejad supporters who are having second thoughts based on what they're seeing, but vocal US support will allow them to more easily dismiss this as a western plot.

Once again I seriously don't see average Iranians dismissing these protests as a Western plot based on a statement from Obama.

Hack&Lube got things pretty bang on. If you look at the demographics of Iran the vast majority of people there are young. Iran tried to entrench their fundamentalist republic by increasing its population. This has now backfired, as they have a large young and progressive population who is demanding their rights.

I understand your point about the swing vote, but based on the number of people at the earlier protests, this is not just a small movement trying to attract members from an undecided population.

[HOZ]

The Great Satan is no longer America....

It's Britain once more!!!

"There is a deep-rooted belief in Iran that Britain is always up to something, is never passive and always devious," said Rosemary Hollis, Middle East analyst at City University in London.

Never did trust the British. As bad as the Dutch if you ask me!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by nik-

Except for that the part where Alex Jones is a rambling paranoid ######bag.

Except Alex Jones did not write the article..............
Just because the article is on his site does not mean that he wrote it.

Now who's the idiot?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Now who's the idiot?

Alex Jones.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Alex Jones.

Good one Blaster...........now go back to reading comic books.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Good one Blaster...........now go back to reading comic books.

Sure will! And while I read those comic books, you can post some looney conspiracy theories so when I'm done my Transformers and Deadpool comics I can come on here and embarass you!

That way I'll never be bored!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Good one Blaster...........now go back to reading comic books.

So he's going directly to the source and dismissing the middle man from InfoWars?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Sure will! And while I read those comic books, you can post some looney conspiracy theories so when I'm done my Transformers and Deadpool comics I can come on here and embarass you!

That way I'll never be bored!

I cannot be embarrassed. You are making the mistake of thinking that I care about what you think.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I cannot be embarrassed. You are making the mistake of thinking that I care about what you think.

Ofcourse you care what I think. Why else would you respond to any of my points, and comments if you didn't care?

Your goal is to change my view of the world so I can see the same things you see. If you don't care what I think, then stop posting conspiracy theories, since you don't care what I think so you should be content to let me remain a sheeple!

You're bad at this

[rockstar]

Can you guys maybe go pee on each other somewhere else?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Ofcourse you care what I think. Why else would you respond to any of my points, and comments if you didn't care?

Your goal is to change my view of the world so I can see the same things you see. If you don't care what I think, then stop posting conspiracy theories, since you don't care what I think so you should be content to let me remain a sheeple!

You're bad at this

I did not call you a "sheeple"...(I haven't called anyone that)...........and I did not post a conspiracy theory. Wow......
Maybe you should have a look at the material instead of jumping to conclusions.

Yes, I respond to posts because this is a discussion board, but I cannot be "embarrassed" by you.....................get over yourself.

[Blaster86]

Fine, killing this now >.>

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

So many Iranians have deep knowledge of the U.S. and the west, and even watch American TV programs and enjoy their culture, fashion, and even government. Heck, last night on the Daily Show, their reporter was in Iran talking to people and they were like: "oh! the Daily Show? Say hello to Jon!"

That was good stuff.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows....aspx?sid=3350

It's segment two of last night's show.

[Cowperson]

In reviewing 1989 as a transformative year, an author in Time Magazine today offer's this paragraph:

Whatever the importance of events after 1989, the year itself is one for the ages. That was understood at the time. In the most famous contemporary analysis of current events, Francis Fukuyama, a brilliant American scholar who was then serving on the policy-planning staff of the U.S. State Department, published an essay in the journal the National Interest entitled "The End of History." The statement of his central thesis was unequivocal: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (Fukuyama turned the article into a book, and over the years, in a spirit of generous intellectual openness, defended and refined his thesis in the light of the many attacks on it.)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...902810,00.html

Will he be right?

Cowperson

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In reviewing 1989 as a transformative year, an author in Time Magazine today offer's this paragraph:

Whatever the importance of events after 1989, the year itself is one for the ages. That was understood at the time. In the most famous contemporary analysis of current events, Francis Fukuyama, a brilliant American scholar who was then serving on the policy-planning staff of the U.S. State Department, published an essay in the journal the National Interest entitled "The End of History." The statement of his central thesis was unequivocal: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (Fukuyama turned the article into a book, and over the years, in a spirit of generous intellectual openness, defended and refined his thesis in the light of the many attacks on it.)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...902810,00.html

Will he be right?

Cowperson

My own view is that sweeping generalizations about the nature of history (particularly ultra-teleological visions like this one) tend to be wrong.

After all, there was another guy who made similar predictions in the 19th century, and his followers have spent the last 100 years explaining why his empirical predictions about reality turned out not to match up with the material truth we observe on a daily basis. You've probably heard of him--his name was Karl Marx.

I will concede that liberal democracy has turned out to be more stable than any of its opponents in the early 20th century could have imagined. But to pronounce it as marking "the end of human history" goes beyond hubris and descends into silliness. After all, the past 20 years, it seems to me, would contradict that hypothesis pretty strenuously.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

My own view is that sweeping generalizations about the nature of history (particularly ultra-teleological visions like this one) tend to be wrong.

After all, there was another guy who made similar predictions in the 19th century, and his followers have spent the last 100 years explaining why his empirical predictions about reality turned out not to match up with the material truth we observe on a daily basis. You've probably heard of him--his name was Karl Marx.

I will concede that liberal democracy has turned out to be more stable than any of its opponents in the early 20th century could have imagined. But to pronounce it as marking "the end of human history" goes beyond hubris and descends into silliness. After all, the past 20 years, it seems to me, would contradict that hypothesis pretty strenuously.

I would say the opposite . . . . . and then I would step outside and go for a nice run in the afternoon sun.

It seems he's going to probably be right . . . . . . although some might argue that cultural differences placing society ahead of self might prevail in places like China, as example, whereas the opposite would be true in America.

Generally though, we seem to be moving towards a central conclusion, sometimes violently but inevitable nonetheless.

Cowperson

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Sorry, that's total B.S. and that's the media's fault for only ever showing you the demonstrations and flag burning from the hardliners who show up in voice because they had nothing to fear in reprisals from their regime.

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

So many Iranians have deep knowledge of the U.S. and the west, and even watch American TV programs and enjoy their culture, fashion, and even government. Heck, last night on the Daily Show, their reporter was in Iran talking to people and they were like: "oh! the Daily Show? Say hello to Jon!"

Well, which is it? Does the media only show the demonstrations and flag burning, or are they talking to people who are saying hello to Jon Stewart?

The information we are getting out of Iran is coming from technologically savvy, liberally biased people. This is not a valid basis on which to determine popular attitudes, any more than reading Slashdot gives you a good grip on mainstream Western thought.

If the internet is your bag, try looking for "iranian american relations" and "iranian domestic politics" and "iranian revolution" and "history persia iran", read a good cross-section of the longer articles, and then come tell us how Iranians feel about America. I've done that, plus read several books on Iran/Persia, and I have an Iranian acquaintance with whom I've discussed the situation and who has many relatives still back home who give him news.

This doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, but watching snippets of interviews and videos and extrapolating from that is not going to convince me I'm wrong. For that matter, video/television is the least convincing evidence possible, as there are endless ways to manipulate source material to give whatever impression you want.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

My own view is that sweeping generalizations about the nature of history (particularly ultra-teleological visions like this one) tend to be wrong.

I read the Fukiyama book and wasn't impressed, so I agree with you. I'd LIKE to think liberal democracy will eventually oust all other forms of government, but assuming it is an inevitable process does indeed smack of Marxism.

I think totalitarianism will be harder and harder to implement, but authoritarian forms of government will remain attractive to underdeveloped nations for the traditional reasons, and so military juntas, fanatic clerics, and technocrats will afflict the world for the forseeable future.