How Come Iranians Fight for Democracy More than We Do?

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 15, 2009 12:57 AM GMT
    People there are taking to the streets and demanding justice because they had an election stolen from them

    And when It Happened here we stuck our fingers in our asses icon_confused.gif

    280
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 1:14 AM GMT
    Because we have institutions to deal with these situations....and the above situation was so nebulous with those butterfly ballots and hanging chads it wasnt clear if something was going down. Ahmadinejad might have done better if he hadnt made the margin of victory so big so that it was more believable.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 15, 2009 1:38 AM GMT
    Nebulous?
    When the majority of the votes (over 50 thousand) across the country were for the man who wasn't placed there
    When there were clear ways to recount disputed elections and a Supreme Court stops the process
    .... in a "Nonprecedent Binding" partisan decision

    That ain't Nebulous
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 1:39 AM GMT
    Actually the US has taken to the streets throughout its history. Our nation was founded in revolution. Even the Southern secession of the Confederacy was a kind of revolt, if not in retrospect for entirely noble reasons.

    The Black Civil Rights movement of the 1950s & 60s was very much fought in the streets at times, even with terrible riots that burned major sections of our cities. And let's not forget the widespread Vietnam protests we saw for years, which is my generation.

    The US has indeed had a long recent period of relative domestic calm, and I don't know if that means we've become more complacent, or if there simply hasn't been anything serious enough to motivate us. I would have thought Iraq came close, but it both lacks the military draft, and the higher casualty rates of Vietnam that had Americans marching in the streets.

    I agree with Caslon, that the likely fraudulent 2000 election of George Bush was adjudicated in the courts in a drawn-out way that defused the dispute and the outrage. I do find it significant, however, that a flawed election gave us the most flawed Presidency in our entire history. Suggesting that only clean elections produce clean results in the long run.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 1:45 AM GMT
    jprichva saidAnd the previous stolen Presidential election, Tilden-Hayes, resulted in the enshrining of Jim Crow for a century.

    Yes, so that perhaps we see a predictable pattern. No good comes from elections won in questionable ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 2:12 AM GMT
    GQjock saidWhen the majority of the votes (over 50 thousand) across the country were for the man who wasn't placed there

    That a flaw in our legitimate system, which isnt the same as a fraudulent election.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jun 15, 2009 2:37 AM GMT
    Then why don't you all get your panties out of a bunch and support National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 15, 2009 2:43 AM GMT
    Mr.DCEric saidThen why don't you all get your panties out of a bunch and support National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.



    Interesting idea Mr. Eric. I wondered if that idea was going to surface in this thread....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 4:33 AM GMT
    No election was stolen from anyone. They're just upset their candidate lost. Don't be surprised at the fact that the majority of Iranians are conservative and staunch supporters of the status quo (Revolution). The 13 million that voted against the current president basically want their own revolution, and they will get it one-day regardless of wether they lost or won. Don't fall for the hype that our media creates by broadcasting ONLY the images and videos of the green movement. These protests have happened before, and tomorrow they will end and people will get back to business, just as we did after Bush won TWICE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 4:40 AM GMT
    the reason for this rest with Americans believing that their voice does not matter. It also has to do with the illiteracy rate as if you know anything about this country's government you would know that the govt works for you and listen to your demands not the other way around and Americans have given up their voices because they are comfortable with whatever little democracy they have. And as for Iran.....i watched a documentary last night "the queen and I" focusing on the exiled empress and wife of the late shah. Was he that bad of a ruler as it seems to me as soon as he left the country, everything turned to shit. From what i found out by research he was not a believer in communism. He was against the regimes that supported this idea. Is that bad? From what i have learned Communism might not be a bad idea its the rulers that use the concept of communism to lure voters and in return go against the ideology of what a real communist state should be. The Iranian people i believe have made many mistakes in regards to their welfare. I think its time they stand up to the govt and this last outburst is just the start of them regaining control.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 5:14 AM GMT
    I don't really want to start what you would look at as basically a conspiracy theory. You can take an entire course to learn the truth behind the mystery surrounding Iran. But in SHORT, the U.S. brought the shah here and allowed the Iranian Revolution to flame. for years, Khomeni was in exile, and while in France, he was given residence and security with the support and consent of the U.S. before they gave him the green light to return to his country and take over. Of course you can't take it literally that they gave him the green light, but basically they didn't stop him from organizing. In other words, they didn't bother to KILL HIM. I don't really know the motive, other than at that time, the Shah was becoming increasingly powerful and we just couldn't accept that. So instead we slowed their progress down but we have to deal with it now. However, now, we realized that we underestimated, just as we did with Saddam, and came to the conclusion that we can't just overthrow that government as we did before. So here comes Obama (new foreign policy) advocating a peaceful solution, which will ultimately fail because it will only be temporary and basically just slow them down again. But still, it's better than what would be a devastating war that we just can't handle AT THIS TIME, but possibly can in the future. Hard to believe ha? just keep an open mind. There's more to our mysterious foreign policy than what you learned in middle school.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 6:46 AM GMT
    Simply because Oppressed people don't want to stay opressed. They know the good that can come from actually fighting for it when the opportunity is at hand. The people that have it all already tend to take their freedoms for granted.

    we as gay people should knwo this answer already.
    especially the gay minorities.
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Jun 15, 2009 7:18 AM GMT
    The Ahmedinejad government made many mistakes, not the least of which was blocking Facebook. In doing so, it freed thousands from FB's quiz- and optimistic-but-pointless-group-induced lethargy, allowing them to participate in the real world once again and stand up for their rights through offline means.
    /snark

    In broad terms, Iran has had a contentious struggle for democracy with the first attempt before the externally-imposed Shah regime, and then the (half-assed) attempt incorporating democratic structure within a theocratic model. Though the theocracy claims legitimacy through its connection to the divine with a highly peculiar interpretation, it also claims legitimacy through the representation of the Iranian people; when that latter legitimacy is in tatters due to suspected and likely heavy election fraud, that only leaves the former, which is itself compromised due to its reliance on massive deception (which hardly seems appropriate for the [self-proclaimed] divinely inspired) and on the subversion of the will of the people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 8:40 AM GMT
    people are taking to the streets because the election was highly fraudulent. when ahmadinejad gets more votes in the opposition's own strong holds it's like obama winning texas, you know something's wrong. in the us we weren't running the risk of a tyrant with the florida issue, in iran they fear they are. the rioters don't want ahmadinejad to return the country to its more socially conservative past, and in their eyes undo the islamic revolution.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 15, 2009 9:35 AM GMT
    As far as that smug and stupid remark about how we "got back to business after the Bush election", the fact is that Iran has a different history than ours, and the revolution of 1978 began in almost exactly the same way, with street rioting in urban centers. This was before you were born, but it's still no excuse for you to pontificate when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


    But I Know what I'm talking about and a fraudulant election is a fraudulant election
    Thank God our illegitimate leader is gone and we're cleaning up his mess
    But on the world stage we can't even say anything without looking like a complete fool
    We've given our enemies ammunition to say
    .... How can you chastise us when You can't even run a fair election
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 9:39 AM GMT
    2) As far as that smug and stupid remark about how we "got back to business after the Bush election", the fact is that Iran has a different history than ours, and the revolution of 1978 began in almost exactly the same way, with street rioting in urban centers. This was before you were born, but it's still no excuse for you to pontificate when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.[/quote]

    except those rioting back in the 70s were part of the urban and rual poor, not the educated middle and upper classes like they are now
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 11:41 AM GMT
    I think it'd be nice to see some back bone from our citizens and revolting when the shit hits the fan here in America, at some point it will happen again, I'd put money on it. At some point it's not very civilized to just bend over and take it icon_wink.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 15, 2009 12:11 PM GMT
    Problem is ... Jay

    We DID and then we asked for More Sir ......
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 12:21 PM GMT
    GQjock saidProblem is ... Jay

    We DID and then we asked for More Sir ......


    lol...i know it does seem that way sometimes.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 15, 2009 12:51 PM GMT
    To cruelsummer: Log Cabin Republicans are not Independents. I say that because again, you defend the Republican side moreso than the Democrat side. That's not independent..that's taking a side!

    The fact of the Bush vs. Gore decision is that the West Palm Beach County votes in Florida, where it is decidely Democrat, were not counted altogether because they only had a week to recount the votes. The Supreme Court decided that the rules of recounting the votes were more important than the legal votes that were cast.


    EDIT: Is it just me or did cruelsummer delete his post related to this post?
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 15, 2009 1:05 PM GMT
    I don't think we "fight for democracy" the way those who don't have it do... We have it... I think we all take it for granted. To compare those who have to those who don't kind of misses a point.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 15, 2009 1:36 PM GMT
    I disagree with you Kansan. We have protests in our country almost always somewhere in our country. Just because it doesn't touch the cusp of a revolution doesn't mean that it's not as passionate as some other country's residents thirst for democracy.

    I would think that the last time we had a violent protest was in '99 in Seattle with the WTO protests.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 2:16 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidI don't think we "fight for democracy" the way those who don't have it do... We have it... I think we all take it for granted. To compare those who have to those who don't kind of misses a point.


    There you have it, most people think we already have it good enough, we shouldn't have anything to complain about right?
    (Rhetorical question icon_wink.gif )
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2009 2:45 PM GMT
    polar_bear_failure.jpg
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 15, 2009 2:49 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidI disagree with you Kansan. We have protests in our country almost always somewhere in our country. Just because it doesn't touch the cusp of a revolution doesn't mean that it's not as passionate as some other country's residents thirst for democracy.

    I would think that the last time we had a violent protest was in '99 in Seattle with the WTO protests.


    I'm not saying we aren't passionate, my point is we grew up with it, there are many here (like everybody) who haven't personally experienced what it is like NOT to have a democracy. It doesn't mean we don't value.. or can't improve upon it.