To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 20163
20162  |  20164
Subject: 
Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:15:32 GMT
Viewed: 
424 times
  
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 democracy...

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 to say the people are opposed to the government.. but given the
religiousity of the shiite majority, coupled with the reformer khatami being
elected (and not killed or run out by the ayatollahs).. i'd say they're pretty
close to a democracy.

and of course, i'd like to point out how Ataturk basically imposed a secular
democracy upon the turks, and killed whoever wasn't game.

and not that it is in front of me, but i wonder what their voter turn-out is,
because a democracy is really what you make of it.  i've heard compelling
arguments that the USA isn't a democracy because less than half of the
population votes.

my opinion about Iran's democracy is based off a college course, The History of
Central Asia (inc. Iran and Afghanistan).. so I'm unable to cite any websites.
but somehow I think the Economist might be just a tad biased towards the US
and against the Iranians (who nationalized all foreign industries in 1979).

<snip>

Iran is a threat to peace everywhere, democracy or not.

whoa.. a comment like that needs some evidence.  for example, how may military
conflicts has Iran been involved in since 1979? aside from being invaded by
Saddam and the US.  And of course, not counting any sort of activity america is
also engaged in.

i think there is more compelling evidence that the USA is a threat to peace
everywhere than any other country in the world (save N.Korea). We've got the
most nukes.  We believe we're right and everyone else is wrong.  We're not
afraid to invade a country even though the whole world may disagree.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
 
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
 
(...) 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)

30 Messages in This Thread:












Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR