"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Jarg" wrote in message
.com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections.

There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
- the Shah Monarchy.



I see little democracy in Iran, certainly no more than occured under the
Shah. How many of the candidates were disallowed by the mullahs in the last
elections?


I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
productive years in which to evolve.

And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state.


What an absurd idea. Do you live in the US?


Iran has
had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
invasion for future possible transgressions.
Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
media would be far right of center in most countries.



Most Americans are far better educated than the average Iranian with the
added benefit that they have a free press as a source of information. The
US media is much more varied than you allow.




And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.

Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
reformers. This is obvious.

The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy.

Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
Iranian calculations.

It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests

Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
bringing 'true' democracy to America.



Don't try to pretend there is some equivalence between US and Iran. Iran
is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy which has largely had a negative
influence in the world. The US is recognized as the leader of the
democratic world and a source of inspiration for many freedom loving people.
As for the presence of US force, they serve to help protect other nations in
the region from Iran. It's hard to imagine that any US sponsored change of
government in Iran wouldn't be an improvement.


of the civilized world.

This is unadulterated hubris.



Not at all. Examples of uncivilized behavior are abundant, for example
public beatings, sponsorship of terrorists, hostage taking, etc.




Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
improvement over the Mossadegh government?



Indeed it was. Mossadegh's only notable (and foolish) idea was the
attempted nationalization of British assets. He demostrated clear
tendancies towards demogogary. Many of his peers believed he aspired to
dictatorship. Whereas the Shah made a concerted effort to drag Iran into
the modern world, including efforts at increasing literacy, land reform and
voting rights for women. Incidentally, repression under the Islamic
government is well documented and much worse than it ever was under the Shah
and the "savak terror".


And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.

The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown.

A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.



The current Iranian government has only itself is to blame, including its
poor economic policies - centralized planning, lack of diversification, and
state ownership of key industries for example - and the isolation resulting
from efforts to spread Islamic revolution.


Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
policies and how could they have done it different in a state
undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
drain during such times.


Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.




It doesn't follow that an organizations ideoliogical biases would show in
the polls it takes. In any case the polls being discussed are not by any
given organization but by many.

Jarg