Iranian Election Continued (Part 2)

Cueball wrote:

Why don't you take your meta-converastion about me to PM, so that it does not really appear as a series of off topic trolling passive-agressive personal attacks.

Many of us have put up with "off topic trolling passive aggressive personal attacks" (and often ACTIVE aggressive personal attacks) from you for a long time. Now all of a sudden you're getting a taste of your own medicine and you don't like it. Tough.

Meanwhile riots continue to rage in Iran against the fascist dictatorship. DXoes anyone have anything to say about that?

Which posts of mine were "off-topic" and solely ad hominem. Erik wants to discuss what he thinks is my position on Kosovo even. Adam T thinks calling me a moron, is worthy of a post, You continue to rant and wail.

Cueball wrote:

Adam T wrote:

Dictatorship is dictatorship, tryanny is tryanny.  This 'western cultural bias' bull is nothing other than an attempt by dictators to suggest that the people living (mostly unwillingly) under them are less interested in democracy than people 'in the west'.  

If that's truly the case, then hold a genuinely free and fair election and the Mullahs should have no trouble getting reelected. 

Asserting that there is no "western cultural bias" is merely to assert its hegemony, as the presumed norm, in this case to say that for a country to assert their own norms is tyrrany, and our own liberation.

Oh, the unelected Mullahs represent "their" own cultural "norm" which must be respected, even if other Iranians, possibly the majority, have to be beaten or jailed to have it imposed on them?  Relativistic bunk.  Iran is no more naturally patriarchal or dictatorial than we are.  Its a matter of hierarchy imposed by force or propaganda, as it was under the Pahlevi Shah.  Its the same battle were still fighting here, with slightly subtler ground rules that fortunately allow us a bit more freedom to express dissent.  No thanks to our own fundies and technocrats.   Fortunately theres more than two choices allowed.

Cueball wrote:

I was asking that if you are going to discuss "me", my views, my behaviour and so on and so forth, in a manner which is totally off topic, and not based on anything I have said in this thread about Iran (which is the thread topic) in the third person (what makes it passive agressive by the way) that you do it by PM. Why waste the thread with your personal opinions about my behaviour and so on and so forth, when you aren't even talking to me, or about anything I have said here, post it to PM, or Rabble Reactions or something.

It is a reaction to what you and a few others have been arguing for years and continue on here.  If you want to make it more honest and forthright, then just tell us all now, do you or do you not agree that the Iranian Regime under the Ayatollahs represent an even more restrictive form of government than our own?  Which in no way admits any necessity for "the West" to invade them or nuke them or whatever.  Simple question from one of those who's seen this argument here hundreds of times before, to no good end, but one which could end these diversions right now.

I mean really what could be more openly ignorant racist and sexist stereotyping, than this beauty :

Stockholm wrote:

There are no women in the religious police in Iran - its all thuggish sadistic men that are the Iranian equivalent of storm troopers in Nazi Germany. Their idea of a fun day is humiliating and beating up women (and then probably fucking each other)

It is not even close to factual. Not to mention a little weird.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Yes yes, but in respect to the many capabilities of the women of Iran, how are they supposed to "rebel" if the government has all the weapons and troops and judges and control the means of mass communication?  That has become a bit of an easy trope on the post-Chomsky left, IMV.  Most rebellions need some outside help starting out, if that is what this is and if of course we could support it without other malevelant interests taking over.  That I think could be a valid arena for debate on the left.  Anyhow, I have to go for now, I have other things to attend to.

The situation in Iran is a very difficult one. On the one hand we have an agressive United States, virtually surrounding the country. On the other Russia, slowly building up its influence with the current regieme. At the same time we have a fairly repressive regieme, set against a desire of many people to see more freedom in the society. It is very hard to tell what the best course is there, and instability could very easily be exploited by either of the two major powers that are vying for control.

How women's rights fit into that equation is very difficult to measure, but at this point in time I suspect that the codified religious cultural prohibitions about clothing are not central to women who are seeking solutions to the complex political problems of the country. I can entirely imagine that some kind of symbolic demonstration against those prohibitions might be somthing that Iranian women might feel appropriate at some point in time, but I think everyone is treading carefully, and focussed on gaining greater control over the political aparatus, before moving on to dealing with side issues like whether or not women should be requred to wear scraves on their head, or not.

That is my sense of it, frankly.

Sven wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Meanwhile riots continue to rage in Iran against the fascist dictatorship. DXoes anyone have anything to say about that?

Not much here, anyway.  Wouldn't want to make any moral judgments about the fascist thugocrats running Iran because they are, after all, struggling against a hegemonic West -- and that is all that matters to too many people.

 

Quote:

It's difficult to put into context the damage to Iran's democratic process that has resulted from the Supreme Leader's ruling that the recent election results should stand.

Imagine, for example, a Canadian prime minister on the eve of certain defeat in a vote of confidence locking the doors of the House of Commons and running to the Governor-General to ask that Parliament be prorogued in order to escape the will of Parliament.

I know - a far-fetched and improbable scenario. But how else could one compare the struggling democracy that is Iran with a mature democratic country like Canada?

Globe and Mail Letter

Cueball wrote:

Just as long as you complain Erik that is ok. The main thing is that the thread should be flagged, so the full breadth of Stockholm's sexist and racist stereotyped prison sex fantasies can be read by the moderators.

Stockholm wrote:

There are no women in the religious police in Iran - its all thuggish sadistic men that are the Iranian equivalent of storm troopers in Nazi Germany. Their idea of a fun day is humiliating and beating up women (and then probably fucking each other)

Ok onemore, just sos you don't say I'm being onesided or ignoring your arguments and therefore can be dismissed as "culturally biased". Yes, he is laying it on abit thick there but then that's Stockholm's usual delicate way with words isn't it?  It doesn't change the overriding issue raised by others ghere or make others anger at what's happening there any less justified.  Complain if you want too, but you (and others) can still answer the questions that have been raised here regardless.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Ok onemore, just sos you don't say I'm being onesided or ignoring your arguments and therefore can be dismissed as "culturally biased". Yes, he is laying it on abit thick there but then that's Stockholm's usual delicate way with words isn't it?  It doesn't change the overriding issue raised by others ghere or make others anger at what's happening there any less justified.  Complain if you want too, but you (and others) can still answer the questions that have been raised here regardless.

I have answered the question and stated my case so many times here that Vaudree is posting in a sly manner to suggest that it is boring. You can read over what I have written several times over. I have never said that I opposed the process going on in Iran at this point in time, just opposed the need some people have to cast the whole business in terms of western perceptions, western cultural norms and western interests.

Western cultural norms also reflect western interests, and often act as the fig leaf used to justify the expression of those interests.

As for Stockholm's obscene comments, there is a point where hyperbolic invective, even that which comes from pure ignorance. steps over the line from expression into racism. Ignorance is no defense in the case of spreading false news and defamation, like anything else. Most Holocaust deniers truly believe the shit that they spout, but that does not mean we do not try our best to shut them up.

Erik, I think the formula, for some people, is as simple as this:

The West oppresses Iran.  Therefore, those in the West should, under all circumstances, refrain from criticizing anyone in Iran (including the obviously fascist theocratic thugs running Iran).  It's class theory run completely and insanely amuck.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Here's a weird twist on things:

Quote:

In private, Israeli officials appeared to be hoping for an ­Ahmadinejad victory even before the polls opened, despite his vitriolic ­criticism of Israel, his denial of the ­Holocaust and his apparent eagerness for a nuclear weapons programme.

Israeli newspapers quoted several senior officials anonymously saying that a win for Ahmadinejad would help Israel because, as they saw it, none of the candidates differed very much on policy and Ahmadinejad's strong language and blunt actions made him easier to criticise internationally. "Considering the circumstances, he is the best thing that ever happened to us," one foreign ministry official was quoted as saying in the popular Ma'ariv newspaper last Friday.

Leaders worried by the rise of people power in Iran

Sven]</p> <p>[quote=Erik Redburn wrote:

If you want to make it more honest and forthright, then just tell us all now, do you or do you not agree that the Iranian Regime under the Ayatollahs represent an even more restrictive form of government than our own?

Unfortunately, Erik, some people have such an extreme self-loathing of the West that even the most ugly theocratic fascists are above criticism -- because, no matter what they do, the West is indisputably worse.  Therefore, criticism of the unelected religious thugs in Iran is clearly unwarranted -- and unacceptable (and, frankly, speech that probably shouldn't even be allowed!!)...  [IMG]http://i34.tinypic.com/11raq06.gif[/IMG][/quote

Pardon me, I was rushed and didn't look close enough assuming it was another flippant one from Cueball. The multiple Res make it confusing at a glance.  There is some complexity Sven that the US government has its own agenda, Cueball isn't wrong about that, bt it doesn't change the reactionary nature of Iramns regime no.  I'll leave it at this.

Sven wrote:

Erik, I think the formula, for some people, is as simple as this:

The West oppresses Iran.  Therefore, those in the West should, under all circumstances, refrain from criticizing anyone in Iran (including the obviously fascist theocratic thugs running Iran).  It's class theory run completely and insanely amuck.

 

Coming from someone who has not the courage to actually directly challenge the people and arguements they are making, but instead cowers like a wallflower giggling in the corner talking about them. Those are exactly the kind of people that the people of Iran need in their time of struggle.

You are truly a inspiration to those who struggle for freedom on rights the world over.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

...and for those of you who think the opposition leader is a Persian version of Thomas Paine:

 

Quote:

Mousavi was (along with a couple of other major "reformists") were hotheaded rightwing Islamists back in the 1980s, and Mousavi in particular was responsible for purging universities of lefties, Jews, and Bahaiis. the other two people most associated with this same move from being university purgers to radical reformists are Abdulkarim Sorush and MohsenKadviar. The former is a philosopher and the latter a cleric, both of whom have very sophisticated arguments (the former based on Gadamer's hermeneutics; the latter based on his extensive training and certification as a faqih) about separating the mosque from the state. All three were involved with the early purges and now face the same fate...the other thing is that although Ahmadinejad has very populist rhetoric he
is actually a neoliberal bastard economicall...

 Mousavi and..."the neoliberal bastard"

 

Thanks for those.

Cueball wrote:

I think everyone is treading carefully, and focussed on gaining greater control over the political aparatus, before moving on to dealing with side issues like whether or not women should be requred to wear scraves on their head, or not.

But Amadinajad has moved to restrict womens entry and participation in the public sector. This IS political. How can you be 'in the van' if you're not allowed on the team? he wants to reduce womens rights regarding to divorce and alimony. Is the personal no longer political here? Do we no longer factor reproductive labour and the reproduction of the workforce into our analysis anymore? 65% of Iranian university students are female. When university dorms are ransacked, who, and what, are they attacking? You sound rather ambiguous and assumptive about the hierarchy of these womens political rights and priorities.

What I don't know is how much Mousavi has changed since the 1980's - especially considering that 70% of the population of Iran is under the age of 30 (and may, therefore, not remember the 80's all that well).

Mousavi promised change.  The biggest thing going for Mousavi seems to be that he is not Ahmadinejad.

RE "neoliberal bastard" - makes Ahmadinejad sound an awful lot like a Milton Friedman groupie.

Iran's Young Rebels starts off talking about underground music but later talks about the press and the likelihood of a social revolution brewing - and first aired May 9, 2009.

Oh my lack of God! Agreement. Everybody! Run away! Run away!

Also, I think I gotta spend about 3 hours reading the AngryArab's blog.

Also, Erik makes the first Network reference. Bing Bing Bing. Your cookie is in the mail

howardbeale wrote:

But Amadinajad has moved to restrict womens entry and participation in the public sector. This IS political. How can you be 'in the van' if you're not allowed on the team? he wants to reduce womens rights regarding to divorce and alimony. Is the personal no longer political here? Do we no longer factor reproductive labour and the reproduction of the workforce into our analysis anymore? 65% of Iranian university students are female. When university dorms are ransacked, who, and what, are they attacking? You sound rather ambiguous and assumptive about the hierarchy of these womens political rights and priorities.

Right.

Issues like gaining access to the public sector, divorce, alimony is probably a more immediate issue than clothing. As you say how can you be 'in the van' if you are not allowed on the team'. Precisely my point.

howardbeale wrote:

Also, Erik makes the first Network reference. Bing Bing Bing. Your cookie is in the mail

Excellent, long as its fresh when you mail it theres no need for chocolate chip....the PO has strict rules about that.

But if Ahmadinejad is dictatorial, does that mean Mousavi's neoliberal reforms wont be? I can remember two elections in Canada when the vast majority of Canadians voted against the free trade deals and some other campaign promises which were renegged on by paternalistic governments. And we don't have to mention how unpopular perestroika was with western meddling in Russia. And the liberalisation of rice farming in South Korea isnt going so well with the president of that country committing suicide recently. Neoliberal ideology is proven to be inherently dictatorial here in the richest English speaking countries where economies are now slowing and even contracting while BRIC countries continue to prosper by comparison of growth rates. And it's due to Keynesian and nationalistic policies in those countries which go against the grain of neoliberal ideology.

It sounds like Ahmadinejad has implemented redistributive policies that have benefitted the urban working and poorer classes. Few of Iran's middle class, and surely a dearth of the upper class, and absolutely none of the neoliberalogues in the west will be appreciating him very much for those policies in addition to Mousavi. And the CIA's annual budgets will still be well fed compared to most countries health care allowances and covert ops probably working double time on this one.

howardbeale wrote:

I think beating a woman up for what she wears is shit no matter where you are. Making it state policy is worse

Howard, what would you say if you knew that western country foreign policies of the last century to now have encouraged rule by religious clerics and militant Islamists in countries like Iran as a deterrent to democracy?