Forums > Social Discussion > Iranian struggle for democracy

Posted: 23rd Jun 2009
and as the Iranian protesters got muffled by police violence, more ppl outside Iran do side their struggle... highlighting conditions under which they are suffering from the islamic regime.

latest news

and especially women are to suffer under a traditional regime:

blog

Originally Posted By: Antonia ZerbisiasAs a woman whose husband refused to divorce her when she escaped the country and came to Canada as a refugee, I am considered this man’s wife as long as I am alive. It does not matter if I lived separate from him for years, have divorced him in my new country and am in a relationship with a new man. Under Iranian laws and the Iranian constitution, which are based on strict interpretation of Islamic laws, I am considered his wife and am at risk of being stoned for “adultery” if I ever go back to Iran. In fact as a woman, I have no right to divorce my husband under the country’s laws while he has the privilege of marrying three more times without divorcing me. This is the case no matter who is the president of Iran; Ahamdinejad or Mousavi.

I would be lashed in public, raped in jail or even executed or stoned to death for selling my body in order to bring food to my family, as so many unfortunate Iranian women have been forced to do secretly including many single mothers who have no access to social assistance in a rich but deeply corrupted country like Iran. Even the simple crime of being in love, engaged in a relationship outside of marriage, or worse yet, giving birth to a human being out of Islamic wedlock is considered a crime against humanity! The product of such a union would be considered a bastard and would be taken away from me, and I would receive 100 lashes immediately after giving birth to my baby. No matter who is the president of Iran.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 3rd Jul 2009
And whilst I'm not really a fan of media hikes - especially after media reports on local conditions were abused by the Bush administration to push the invasion of Iraq, there are a lot of disturbing messages pouring out of Iran

EU summons Iranian ambassadors to protest agains detained UK embassy personnel

Originally Posted By: GuardianThe EU decided today to summon all Iranian ambassadors in capitals across Europe in a co-ordinated protest over the detention of UK embassy staff. The move came after a senior cleric said some of the staff accused of inciting protests following last month's disputed presidential election would be put on trial.

The head of Iran's guardian council, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, said the detained staff members had "made confessions" in connection with the unrest.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 3rd Jul 2009
As odd as it sounds, I'm proud of the U.S.

We haven't shot off our big mouths. We haven't gone in with a military. We haven't spouted off some partisan piece. We've stayed quiet. We've even tried to lead by example for a bit and be humble.

I'm rather surprised at the turn of events, really. I like this Obama dude.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 4th Jul 2009
yea, it would be rather suicidal to invade Iran and meddle with internal affairs of another muslim country.

One major issue I had with the invasion of Iraq was not as much the fact that Bush had deceived the western world with false intelligence but the fact that the US took away the chance of the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam by themselves. In the end it might have paid in corporate gains, but at the costs of many lives and international reputation.

The lesson of Iraq - not to support violent regimes in the first place - should be learned by heart now.

Hence to support the struggle for democracy by democratic means might be unsuccessful in the short run, but it keeps the stains of innocent peoples blood off ones own coat.

Obama - like most democratic presidents/ so far - has taken wiser steps than Reagan and the Bushes have.

IMHO it's not up to the US to police the entire world ahead of fixing their own backyard.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 4th Jul 2009
Originally Posted By: Doc Lightning
I'm rather surprised at the turn of events, really. I like this Obama dude.

yeah its all changed - the Ayatollah Khameini was really berating Brown and the british government for inciting the upheavels, whereas before last year it would have been bush and the americans!

CHAAANGE!!!

No air drumming - Bruford could change the timing up so fast you could snap your wrist!

Posted: 5th Jul 2009
It really has changed. Obama doesn't feel a need to beat his chest about how free we are and how superior we are to everyone else.

He's going to sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it. And that's a very wise course of action.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 5th Jul 2009
*cough* doc, that could be interpreted as if you think the US indeed would be free and superior to everyone else... ...is this just me? or is that what you really believe in?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 5th Jul 2009
Originally Posted By: FireTom*cough* doc, that could be interpreted as if you think the US indeed would be free and superior to everyone else...

Oh no. I assure you that deep irony was implied in that statement. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 6th Jul 2009
Whatever...

According to this article, the US should stay at bay a lot more

Originally Posted By: Hamid Dabashi for CNN Obama can help this budding seed of hope for civil liberties even more emphatically by altogether cutting the budget "to promote democracy in Iran," evidently channeled through the U.S. Agency for International Development. Ken Dilanian of USA Today reports, "the Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents."

This financial aid is not only a waste of taxpayer money under these severe economic circumstances, but is in fact the surest way to kill that inborn and grassroots movement.

It mostly will be abused by expatriate and entirely discredited opposition groups ranging from the monarchist supporters of Reza Pahlavi to the members of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization, and it will in turn strengthen the hand of the regime to denounce the Green Movement as funded by Americans.

The U.S. government shouldn't give a penny to these groups or any other outlet dedicated to promoting "democracy in Iran" from the sunny coasts of California to the green suburbs of Washington.

As the whole world is now a witness to it, the civil rights movement in Iran is a nonviolent demand to exercise people's constitutional rights to participate in the democratic aspirations of their homeland, turned bloody only by the custodians of an Islamic republic who seem to be too conscious of their own illegitimacy.

This movement has been decades, if not centuries, in the making. And it needs no American money to sustain itself. The only thing it needs is the moral voice of the American civil rights movement to come to its aid.

I hope that Obama is listening, because intervention is not the only intrusive measure an outside government can take.

a short history of Iran should be recalled and noted that it had been the US initiative (Operation Ajax) to arrest the democratically elected president of Iran, that subsequently led to

- the islamic revolution (and the islamic state of Iran) and
- the Iraq crisis by supporting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran

The US would be wise to completely keep their hands out of this conflict and stop camuflaging...

Neither CIA (Cash in advance) nor AID (Agency for International Developent) is needed on this planet. Get your own act together and lead by setting an example.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1246879718)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 6th Jul 2009
Originally Posted By: FireTom
I hope that Obama is listening, because intervention is not the only intrusive measure an outside government can take.

It sounds like he is listening. He seems to be the sort of President who believes that you do not interfere unless domestic issues are at stake.

I agree with his decision to intervene in Afghanistan. Finally, 8 years after 9/11, we are actually focusing on the people who did it. The Taliban and the environment they create in which people are taught that mass murder is OK in the mind of God, must be destroyed. There is no room for reason or rationality. They must die because they are too dangerous to allow to live.

Iran, on the other hand, poses no direct threat to the U.S. Nor does North Korea. And they already know that if they do something dumb, like attacking Israel, our response will be swift and devastating. There is no reason to continue to bray and beat chests about it.

IMHO, the best thing we could do for Iran is to open up trade with them, flood them with Western toys, gadgets, and communication. That would destabilize the current government far more than embargoes ever will.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 6th Jul 2009
Good to see some positive comments about President Obama.


Originally Posted By: Fire TomI hope that Obama is listening, because intervention is not the only intrusive measure an outside government can take.

I hope Fire Tom is listening, because President Obama stated categorically, just after his election, that he was going to seek diplomatic solutions to these problems. So far he has succeeded. For example, Obama, Russia 'reset' Cold War relations. However, I think his biggest test will come from North Korea.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 6th Jul 2009
The fear around Iran is to do with their potential ability to create nuclear weapons and then hand them off to a third party to use against the US (Al Quaida or Hezbollah)

This is a scary prospect for the US because it means it would not be able to retaliate with nuclear weapons themselves.

I also agree with a non-interventionist policy because being over there only aggravates governments and terrorist organisations alike. (as well as providing a lot of kids who have grown up in war to lend themselves to the terrorists cause)

Posted: 7th Jul 2009
That’s true Mother Natures Son, but there is change happening in Iran. I think a bigger worry is the Taliban. If they manage to overtake Pakistan, then they will have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, the biggest worry has to be North Korea, who are actually firing rockets all over the place.

'Stand together' on nukes, says Obama

"Russia must cooperate with the international community on the disputes over the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, US President Barack Obama said in a keynote foreign policy speech in Moscow.

"Neither America nor Russia would benefit from a nuclear arms race in East Asia or the Middle East," he said in the speech to students from the New Economic School.
"That is why we should be united in opposing North Korea's efforts to become a nuclear power, and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"This is not about singling out individual nations - it is about the responsibilities of all nations.

"If we fail to stand together, then the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and the (UN) Security Council will lose credibility, and international law will give way to the law of the jungle. That benefits no-one."

Russia has relatively strong ties with Iran, which the United States says is seeking a nuclear bomb. Tehran denies the accusations……”

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 7th Jul 2009
The reason that nuclear weapons don't scare me so much is because their handling and deployment requires a lot of money and a lot of sophistication. Even a dirty bomb.

And our intelligence system has done a very good job of foiling such plots because that much money suddenly moving around leaves all sorts of ripples that can be tracked. And I am not in any doubt that the CIA, FBI, KGB, Mossad, and just about every other intelligence agency in the world has its eyes very closely locked on North Korea and Iran. We probably know how many times Mr. Kim poops every day. And how long it takes him.

Very few established nations have anything to gain from terrorism, so it is in the interest of most other people in the world to stop this madness. And I am very much in line with Mr. Obama on his idea that adding more violence to a violent situation just breeds more violence.

Violence, unfortunately, has its uses. Such as in fighting Al-Qaeda. We simply cannot work against these people today without violence. They don't do diplomacy or reason. But a lack of violence and true goodwill will decrease the supply for these terrorists.

There needs to be a Red Crescent in every village in Afghanistan helping to feed people, vaccinate them, care for them when they are sick, and teach them to read, write, and do math. When Al-Qaeda can't pay people for their children anymore, when the number of Angry Young Men in that area goes down, when the blood stops spilling, that's when the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other religious extremists will suddenly suffer from a severe manpower issue. And they will cease to exist.

That's how you win these things.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 8th Jul 2009
Lightning, unfortunately I’m half inclined to agree. But then when you think about it, the underlying problem is poverty.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 10th Jul 2009
i think thats pretty much what Doc just described without using the word lightning.

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Posted: 11th Jul 2009
Originally Posted By: allegedly Pres. Obama"If we fail to stand together, then the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and the (UN) Security Council will lose credibility, and international law will give way to the law of the jungle. That benefits no-one."

IMO it is less about who "benefits" but about "responsibility" and a possible "future". The US could make a start by ratifying international law and acknowledging the international court of Den Haag.

I feel the credibility of the US is rather depending on their willingness to join other nations rather than trying to bypass or remaining above them.

Funny to see the "final opponent" in the Taliban. I rather side Stone, when he says that the ultimate enemy is poverty. Without poverty and (social) injustice it would be much harder to mislead the people and to stir them up to commit violence.

But I'm also half-way with you, Mike.

There are many many examples proving that fighting violence with violence will not bring peace. It will prolong the conflict.

We need to get clear who is profitting from separation and prolonged conflicts. We need to get clear that all those who take up arms and kill other people are only people (like us, who also have a family and are) believing in their "good cause". Yes, there are people who benefit from terrorism - and it's not only the Taliban.

I agree that violence cannot rage on. And along with fighting the symptoms it's necessary to cure the causes. Much effort has to be undertaken to distribute wealth, to stop ruthless exploitiation of natural resources, to educate people and bring understanding.

I'm not a friend of the "communism" that has been practised so far - but I'm also convinced that this real existing capitalism we have today can not be the final answer.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to