 | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Um, not exactly a democracy. You may want to do a little more research. For starters, see this article, particularly the illustration of how power actually works: (URL) entire special report that this is a part of is quite good. (...) Yup. No (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) Hmm, is there a similar report that doesn't have a cost to view? Frank (22 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Er, whoops. I'm an Economist subscriber (print edition) so it's no cost to me. But the point of the article, and the diagram in particular, is that Iran is more of a theocracy that has some elected (but basically powerless) appendages, than a (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | (...) the most basic element of democracy is that the people decide how they want their government to work. in 1981, when US backed Saddam invaded their country, people signed up en masse to give their lives for their country. Of course, it is easy (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Which of course has no bias... (...) But NPR is not biased toward the US, if anything, it's biased against, and has the same information, so what IF the Economist is biased in favor of economic systems that actually work and against ones that (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) **snip** (...) A careful distinction must be drawn here, because "bias" is a label thrown around here somewhat indiscriminately lately. Is The Economist biased against economic systems that don't work, or is The Economist biased against (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | | | What a great post! A reminder about the debating definition of bias. Personally, I don't believe that any source of information should ever be disqualified or ignored (philosophically/historically - i have neither the time nor wish to read every (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | (...) this isn't a discussion about economic systems.. but if i recall correctly, Iran is feeding, clothing, and housing most its people.. any other economic information is arguable at best. the Economist, i assume.. i don't nor plan to read it (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually I just learned from a previous post that you are a "booklet historian(1)" but I strongly agree on that one, and I wonder why an average American cannot see that one as obviously as any other non-American can see. US always declaring (...) (22 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) The modernisers in Iran were gaining serious ground until Bush came along with his "axis of evil" nonsense. Scott A (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Scott, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Didn't you hear that the US is fulfilling a divine charter to establish our version of correctness wherever we feel our politico-economic interests may reside? We're on the side of the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Much snippage.. (...) Nothing's changed my view on that: (URL) Iran is a threat to peace everywhere, democracy or not. Nothing's changed my view on that either: (URL) (older but good) (URL) (today) (Note that pointing out that they're not the only (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I think we all know who the biggest threat to "world peace" right now is. Just like we know which country played a big part in 911. Don't allow yourself to be distracted by the media... or even life on mars! Scott A (21 years ago, 15-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
