Nation of Iran Celebrates 33 years of Independence and Self-Determination

[naragdaban]

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2012/02/211_104532.html

With more than 5,000 years of continuous history, Iranian society has a rich set of cultures and traditions that very few other societies can claim.

[...]

The Iranian nation toppled the U.S.-backed Pahlavi regime 33 years ago, ending the 2,500 years of monarchical rule in the country. The Islamic Revolution, under the guidance of the late Imam Khomeini, established a new political system based on Islamic values and democracy.

[...]

Because of its Islamic doctrine, the Islamic Republic of Iran attained political sovereignty and got rid of imposed policies and foreign interference in its domestic affairs. The Islamic Revolution created political awareness in the Iranian people, while under the dictatorial regime of the Shah Iranians could not take part in deciding their fate.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/226087.html

The demonstrations have kicked off in more than 1000 Iranian cities and towns as well as 5,000 villages across the country.

In the capital city, Tehran, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators have since early Saturday been heading towards the iconic Azadi (Freedom) square, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to deliver a speech.

Officials say more than 300 foreign and around 1500 Iranian correspondents will cover the celebrations, ceremonies and demonstrations.

http://www.ridingthetiger.org/2012/02/11/iranians-mark-33rd-anniversary-of-the-victory-of-the-iranian-revolution/

Today, millions of Iranians staged massive rallies both at home and abroad to commemorate this fact, as well as the struggle which gave their nation a new life and marked the beginning of the end for globalist aggression against the Iranian people.

33 years ago, the Iranian people rose up against the corrupt, secular regime of the Shah and established the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Revolution, which was at once anti-communist and populist, marked a unique moment in history. At a time when his nation of Iran was flanked by the secularist, communist Soviet Union and the secularist, materialist United States, Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Revolution, would secure his nation’s place in the world as an independent nation, with Shi’a Islam as the dominant guiding force for his people. Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues on, adding to its thousands of years of culture and history, in no small part thanks to not just to Ayatollah Khomeini, but to the brave revolutionaries who risked life and limb to make a revolution possible.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20120201/171066369.html

The ten-day celebration of the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution began in Iran on Wednesday as thousands of Iranians brought flowers to the mausoleum of the republic’s founder.

The holiday traditionally coincides with demonstrations of the country's recent achievements, mainly in the military sphere. Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said that during this year’s celebrations Iran will test domestically developed “cruise missiles” and unveil other achievements of the country’s defense industry.

[arely staircase]

1. of course said self determination is subject

subject to case by case approval of a small group of misogynist freaks.

[naragdaban]

4. The toppling of a cruel dictator who was propped up by American big oil is no small feat

The Iranians ought to be commended on having overthrown a tyrant, and establishing self-rule.

In 33 years, the leaders of Iran have transformed it into a psuedo-colony of the United States into a nation which is standing on its own two feet, and which embraces its rich cultural heritage. Despite having a costly war in which the U.S. backed Saddam against Iran, and despite embargoes and sanctions, and being threatened on all sides Iran is becoming a regional leader in many fields.

[arely staircase]

6. all that and still no freedom

sad really

[naragdaban]

8. Where did you learn that Iran "has no freedom"?

Was it from the very same controlled media that is trying to incite a war with Iran? The same one which lied about Ahmadinejad saying that he would "wipe Israel off the map"? Or perhaps certain organizations with a cultural and (anti-)religious agenda?

Moreover, have you lived in Iran? Have you talked to Iranian people and been able to weigh both sides?

Iran is more free than most people read about it in the Western media. However, their concept of freedom differs from the European or American concept of freedom.

[arely staircase]

10. Yes their concept of freedom excludes women entirely nt

the country is run by frightened men who despise women. They maintain their power through brute force, but will someday find that the bell tolls for them. I hope I live to see my Iranian sisters enjoy freedom and self determination.

[LooseWilly]

52. It doesn't exclude women entirely... it only half-excludes women

Women are legally "half-a-man", from what my relatives tell me... 2 women's testimony in court = 1 man's testimony... 2 daughter's inheritance = 1 son's inheritance... etc.

I'll have to ask if 2 women getting pregnant = 1 man being pregnant... and what that means for the man in question...

[arely staircase]

54. lovely nt

[Nye Bevan]

11. When's the next election for Iranian Supreme Leader?

Is Ayatollah Khamenei running for re-election?

[naragdaban]

17. The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts of the Leadership

The Assembly is elected by popular vote, so it is an indirect form of democracy. In turn, the Supreme Leader can also be dismissed or impeached by the Assembly. It is a bit similar to having an Electoral College choosing a president, or having congress appoint certain roles in the American government.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Cool. And anyone can start up a political party and run for election?

How frequent are the elections? How many candidates were there last time?

[naragdaban]

22. They members are elected for eight years.

In theory there are no requirements for electing members, and people aren't elected on a Party basis. There are however unwritten requirements to be candidate, such as a knowledge of Iranian Constitutional Law. Thus, in theory everyone is allowed to run, but it doesn't mean they'll win. As Iran is mostly Muslim, the people elect Muslim leaders to the Assembly. There are also some requirements to be a de-facto candidate, such as a knowledge of Iranian Constitutional Law.

The election is carried out by District and in the last election there were 144 candidates, and 86 seats to be filled.

[oberliner]

30. Oddly, there have only been 2 Supreme Leaders since 1979

And the first one ruled until his death in 1989, when the second one (who is still Supreme Leader today) took over.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Iran isn't a free or open society by any stretch of the imagination, however...

It's substantially more free and open than Saudi Arabia or many of our other "allies" in the region. And IMO for many Iranians the concept of freedom isn't a whole lot different than the western concept of freedom. Many of them want free speech, freedom of assembly, and many of them probably also want the freedom to drink beer and have pre-marital sex (probably less of a consensus on those last two). They are certainly skeptical of western nations, though, and rightfully so given their history.

[LooseWilly]

53. It isn't a "free or open society"... but there's a huge underground society that's relativley "open"

They just have to hide their openness...

My family, and many they interact with, in Iran are not only distinctly non-traditionalist Muslims... but barely practicing Muslims. My uncle is a regular customer of the black market in booze. And pork.

I imagine it's like having a pot dealer who swings by the house from time to time to deliver. And he brings by a couple of quaaludes as often as not...

And having to pretend one is Muslim, even if not-so-much, kind of like having to pretend one is Capitalist, even if not-so-much, here in the US.

"Do as the Romans do..."

I can personally attest to the desire of many Iranians for beer, gin, vodka, and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex... they're humans, after all...

Ironically... skepticism of western nations was diminishing, though I suspect that Obama's "sabre-rattling" will cause it to increase... as echoes of the support of Saddam Hussein by the US begin to resonate.

(So much for strategy...)

[MichaelMcGuire]

26. Universal declaration of human rights applies everywhere.

There is no variation in concept.

[etherealtruth]

32. Though the question was not asked of me, I will in any case answer ...

No I have never lived in Iran .... yes, I have talked to many Iranians (ex-patriots) and count several as friends.

If one counts a strict theocracy as freedom ... and if one discounts the freedoms and human rights of women ... one can count Iran as a free society.

While I believe there are many misnomers and misconceptions about the people from this region ... claiming that Iran is a free society is disingenuous at best.

[maddezmom]

40. too bad the Iranian people can't read about all things glorious today

http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/iran-blocks-the-internet/

[Enrique]

2. their independence day is April 1

and meanwhile, Feb 14 is a 1-year anniversary for the opposition, and Amnesty International is expecting demonstrations for that anniversary:

http://www.payvand.com/news/12/feb/1117.html

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. Quite an accomplishment - getting rid of the USA AND all of its gays.

[naragdaban]

18. Iran is not looking to "get rid of the US".

I think it's disingenuous to accuse Iran of trying to stoke the flames of war. Who really wants war? Is it the Iranians, or is it the warmongers in the US? The Iranians know that a war with the US would be a disaster.

If they really wanted to piss of the US and start a war, they could do a number of provacative things. The Iranians could mount an attack on the American forces on either border (Iraq and Afghanistan). They could do a number of things with regard to the nuclear program, like kicking out inspectors, or trying to by Uranium from African dictatorships or North Korea.

Who, then, wants war with Iran?

A war would be devastating for Iran. The people who have the most to gain from war with Iran are the neoconservatives like Gingrich and Santorum, not to mention the Israelis and their lobbyists.

[arely staircase]

21. actually Santorum and Iranian leaders are peas in a pod

mysogynistic, homophobic peas in a hateful little pod. Why are the mullahs so afraid women? Why are they so afraid of gays/lesbians.

[leveymg]

5. This post has an impressively high irony potential. Surprised there are so few takers.

[Odin2005]

7. Have a good stay, Iran shill.

[naragdaban]

9. Another article

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-02/11/c_131404961.htm

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks for sharing...

I have to take exception with your choice of sources, though, I'm afraid.

[2ndAmForComputers]

14. Take those insane, misogynist, homophobic, ignorant theocrats and shove them.

Now excuse me, I need to make sure our counterparts don't gain unlimited power like yours.

[Scootaloo]

15. Wow. The replies on this thread look like Freerepublic circa Feb 2003

[RZM]

23. Iran has an illiberal, theocratic government

Kind of makes sense that they wouldn't be too popular on a left wing board, doesn't it?

Or do we have to support them to show our disapproval of a war that may or may not happen?

[Scootaloo]

36. Maybe a nod in the direction of the fact that the Shah was even fucking worse?

Or that the revolution against him was largely spearheaded and manned by Iranian leftists, and wasn't fully overtaken by the Theocrats until the start of the war with Iraq. You know, the war that the US instigated, funded, supplied, and provided intelligence for? After all, it's a celebration of said revolution, not a celebration of the current Ayatollah's bathroom fatwas. You don't have to approve of the current regime to acknowledge the effort and goals of the revolution, after all.

As for disapproval of a war - I'll tell you what I told Oberliner in a previous thread; show me that you disapprove of a war with Iran, and I will believe you. Right now, you are defending a thread full of brainless reactionary propaganda of the sort we hear from Freerepublic (itself a retread of inane anti-Iran bumper stickers from 1980) in support of blowing up lots of Iranians.

[RZM]

39. What the hell?

'Brainless reactionary propaganda' . . .



People on the thread are saying that they don't care for the Iranian government. That's not propaganda. It's a statement of opinion. So far, I haven't seen a single argument in favor of 'blowing up Iranians.' You're inventing all sorts of crazy stuff out of thin air so you can justify your pro-Iran stance to yourself. It seems like you believe in a bizarre Persian twist on the 'love it or leave it' argument. Apparently, at a time where war may or may not happen, you believe we shouldn't be critical of Iran in any way.

[Scootaloo]

45. Yes, brainless reactionary propaganda. Did I stutter?

The original post is noting the celebration of the anniversary of the revolution that toppled a murderous far-right tyrant who used torture and secret executions to purge his country of "communists." Your reaction is to spit and scream about how fucking awful the current regime is, which is a different topic from the post made. Others in the thread are attacking Naragdaban for posting this, and mocking him for presenting facts about the system of Iran's government, because those facts do not mesh with what WorldNetDaily tells them about Iran.

You do not derail a thread in an effort to spread hate and fear of an entire people unless you have an agenda against those people, RZM. You do not attack that thread's poster for answering your questions with facts you don't want to hear, unless you prefer the lies you already believed. You do not sling around "pro-Iranian" like it's a terrible, vile slur, unless you believe that "anti-Iranian" is a preferable and acceptable standard.

No one here is calling outright for bombs to start dropping. But then, calls for outright murder tend to be frowned on in our society. But creating fertile ground and pre-writing justifications for such acts are almost a national pastime. I suppose it's okay to fill the air with hateful diatribe that results in a lynch mob, so long as no one says, "hey, let's lynch someone!"

[polly7]

46. A - f*ing - men! But, this is exactly what happened to a lot of us who

tried to state that Iraq was more than the evil Hussein.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. To me, this post looks exactly the same

as the posts I see in the I/P group that defend every indefensible thing that Israel does, and attacks any criticism of Israeli policy as being motivated by Jew hatred/anti-semitism.

I think this post is every bit as bogus as the other kind. I do NOT hate the Persian people, and I do NOT want a war with Iran, and I don't think a single poster here would defend the Shah and his regime. But I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that the current Iranian regime is violent, repressive, theocratic, and misogynistic. I also think that their government being deliberately provocative at the worst possible time, as if they actually want someone to bomb them.

I don't hate the Iranian people, I feel bad for them and hope that they will eventually throw off their theocratic regime. I know that they're capable of democracy, as they actually had one in the 50's, before our government engineered a coup and installed the Shah.

I expect you'll probably dismiss me as a reactionary, war-mongering Iran hater, as you seem to have some trouble discerning nuance in other people's posts. I'm used to it though, as I frequent the I/P forum and get plenty of insinuations of being an anti-semite because I'm critical of Israeli policy.

[Scootaloo]

65. What indefensible thing am I defending, here?

The pro-Israeli folks defend apartheid, international assassination, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and seem to be constantly hoping for nuclear war and full-out extermination of not only everyone else in the middle east, but also lust for the death of as many Jews as possible, on top of all that.

I'm making the point that one can speak of the Iranian revolution as the event that it was. This is not any sort of blanket forgiveness for the current regime, it is not a whitewashing of their crimes against the Iranian people. It's a statement that the goals of the revolution were actually very understandable and, for better or worse, it was exactly what the OP states it as - the beginning of Iranian independence.

Instead we have a flock of people who - while knowing absolutely nothing about Iran aside from what WorldNetDaily and ynet tells them about it - seem intent on equating the theocrats with all Iranians, and extending the actions of the current regime into the revolution itself, both of which are quite inaccurate. This is a pretty simple sort of demonization.

Think of a hypothetical thread about the US' Declaration of Independence that got swamped by a lot of people who can only talk about Jim Crow and the Iraq war, and equate all Americans through history with the fundamentalist right wing, and then you have a pretty basic grasp of what's going on here

[Crunchy Frog]

68. You're saying that most DUers read WorldNetDaily?

I'd like to see some backup for that claim.

[RZM]

58. You should look into the fate of the Iranian Communist Party under the current regime

Here's the Wikipedia article to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party

They haven't fared so well since 1979.

[Scootaloo]

64. Quite aware, actually

They were purged for the "crimes" of blasphemy and "collaboration" with the Soviets, as the Theocrats wanted to keep Iran not just an Islamic state, but also unaligned with the "world powers" - a theocratic third way.

What you're missing, however, in your continued rush for mass demonization of an entire population for the hideous crime of existing within a certain border, is again the fact that the OP is talking about a celebration of the revolution, not of the current ruling regime. One can admire the goals of the French revolution without admiring the reign of Robspierre.

[PVnRT]

67. No one is "mass demonizing" anything. They are criticizing the Iranian government.

It's you, in fact, who are conflating the two.

[EX500rider]

42. "You know, the war that the US instigated..."

No, I don't know that, and doubt that you do since it's not true.

The Iran/Iraq war started in Sept of 1980 while Jimmy Carter was still president.

[Scootaloo]

47. Don't know much about our involvement in the region, do you?

We used Saddam as a proxy, EX500. We armed him. We funded him (as did Kuwait, interestingly). We gave him satellite information of Iranian positions, free for the asking. We even used our ships to bombard a few Iranian naval ports, and shoot down at least one Iranian civilian airliner (while politely ignoring when Iraqi MIGS attacked US ships and killed our servicemen).

This was our revenge against Iran for their terrible crime of outing the tyrant we were aligned with and exposing the close ties between the CIA and SAVAK.

[EX500rider]

48. Actually I do know a lot about it..

We did not arm him, the Russians did...that why Iraq had AK-47's and RPG's and T-72's and MIG's, not M-16's, M1A1's and F-15's.
We didn't fund the war, the Arab countries did loan him money. We did give him some intel as we didn't want the Iranian's to win.
We did get in some naval combat when Iran started the tanker war.
No we didn't supply any nerve gas either, Saddam subverted the German built insecticide plants for that.
If we did want any "revenge" against Iran it had more to do with the embassy hostage situation.
It is true one of us doesn't know much about US involvement in the area.

[Scootaloo]

49. We've been seeking that revenge for decades now

It's a big part of the current demonization of the Iranian people that you and the others on this thread are participating in. Pat yourself on the back, you're carrying on a tradition!

At any rate. After the Iranian revolution we renewed diplomatic relations with Iraq, after 12 years of frozen relations. Saddam allowed the CIA to open an office in Baghdad. Hussein got an implicit US green light to attack Iran through CIA channels. The Carter administration threatned military assistance to Iraq if Iran did not release the embassy hostages. We rewarded Iraq with normalized relations, removed Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in order to sell dual-use technology to Iraq, and channeled weapons sales to Iraq through third parties; again directed by the CIA. Yes these weapons were of non-US manufacture, but it was the CIA director William J Casey that approved and directed getting these weapons into Iraq. We delivered tactical advisors to Iraq, and by 1987 we were actually providing day-to-day plans for Iraqi bombers. We gave training for Iraqi soldiers at Fort Bragg. We circumvented a UN embargo on materiel shipments to either warring party through the Bear Spares program, funneling replacement equipment and parts to the Iraqi army on the US Taxpayer dollar. We very certainly did sell biological and chemical weapons to Iraq, including but not limited to at least seventy shipments of weaponized anthrax. What's more, we blocked a UN resolution condemning the use of these weapons against the Iranian people, thereby signalling our SUPPORT for the use of chemical and biological weapons against the people of Iran.

Further, Iran did not start the "tanker war" - That began when Iraq launched attacks against tankers at Kharg Island. I suppose you believe that the war was started by Iran as well, since they're the "bad guy" according to the Reagan narrative you're regurgitating here.

Yes, one of us is very uninformed about the situation.

[arely staircase]

24. creepers were big on gay rights in 2003?

guess I missed that.

[Scootaloo]

37. No, they were eager to kill lots of Muslims, though

Defend human rights through mass murder of people far away, that's the fucking ticket.

[RZM]

16. Iran was independent before 1979 n/t

[Scootaloo]

38. If by "Independent" you mean "ruled by a Tyrannical puppet of the Pentagon" then sure

[RZM]

57. It's amusing that you seem to think support from the US voids a nation's sovereignty

Would you say that about Castro's Cuba, which received a lot of support from the USSR?

How about North Korea, where China has long exerted much influence?

[ronnie624]

59. 1953 Iranian coup d'état

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

[RZM]

60. Yes I'm aware of that. Are you aware of how Mohammed Reza became Shah in the first place?

Two months after Operation Barbarossa in the summer of 1941, the British and the Soviets jointly invaded and occupied Iran. The ostensible reason was Iran's refusal to expel the small German population living there (the Shah was very pro-German - Nazi Germany was Iran's largest trading partner). But a big reason was also the desire to open a secure supply line to the USSR using an ice-free port. Iran didn't put up much of a fight and the Shah's government collapsed. His young son (Mohammed Reza) was allowed to take the throne in his father's stead and he ruled until 1979.

The British left according to an agreed-upon timetable after the war, but initially the Soviets refused to do so. They finally did with a promise of an Iranian oil concession, which the Iranian parliament promptly reneged on in a near-unanimous vote.

So you might as well date it to 1941 and not 1953. You hear a lot about Operation Ajax here on DU, but a lot less about the 5 year long foreign occupation during WWII that put Mohammed Reza on the throne in the first place.

I'll repeat my question. Is North Korea not sovereign? Without Chinese intervention in the Korean War it probably wouldn't exist today. Ever since then China has exerted strong influence in the country. Would you argue that North Korea is not sovereign?

[ronnie624]

62. I don't know what any of that has to do with your claim

that the Shah was not a U.S. puppet. It seems completely irrelevant, actually.

[Scootaloo]

63. And it's funny you think rule by someone you dislike does the same

Let's kill a bunch of Iranians to liberate them from themselves. It worked so well in Iraq, and it's not like they're people or anything.

The Shah was a puppet. The US said "jump" and he was in the air without ever asking "how high?"

I suppose you think the Iranians show an antipathy towards America solely because they're evil subhumans who hate us for our freedoms, eh?

[RZM]

66. I'm starting to think

That you're joking here.

I've never advocated 'killing a bunch of Iranians.' Not a single post from anybody on this thread says anything even remotely like that. Not one.

Nobody has referred to Iranians as 'evil subhumans.' No description comes even close to that.

You're putting words in our mouths and then reacting as if we actually said those things. You're the only one on this thread saying things like that. It's almost as if you're arguing with yourself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. And what better way to celebrate than with a tour by a cardboard cutout?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2012/feb/05/in-pictures-cardboard-ayatollah?newsfeed=true

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16876981

[arely staircase]

25. hey got a question for you

What would get me killed by the government the quickest, being an outspoken woman or a bisexual one?

[rollin74]

27. yay! ultra-conservative gov't controlled by clergy

and they have the death penalty for gay people

good times

[oberliner]

28. Wow - this post was actually not meant to be ironic!

Look at the responses from the poster of the OP to other comments on this thread.

Gosh - even the Supreme Leader is democratically elected, dontcha know!

[arely staircase]

29. and he loves freedom

just a different version than our decadent one. I noticed he stopped responding to me when I mentioned gender and orientation.

[Ikonoklast]

31. Get back to me when Iranian citizens can publicly criticize the bearded theocrats and

remain free from goverment punishment; I won't be holding my breath on that one.

[Swede]

33. Too bad Neda isn't here to see it.

[naragdaban]

70. You know what I find ironic?

There were supposedly up to one MILLION people, if the media is to be believed, at those protests. Out of a million people, at most, a few dozen died. What the media wouldn't tell you is that half of those were actually police who were lynched by angry mobs of rioters. They NYPD probably shoots more innocent people in a day, than died in the entire span of the Iranian riots.

But I digress. Don't you find it coincidental that in all these color revolutions, the most visible victims in the Western media are always young women? In Syria, people were trying to promote "Amina" as being a symbol of the revolution, that is, until she was found to be a fake personality. One wonders if "Neda" could not fall into the same category.

[Swede]

71. Here are a couple more not celebrating

[sufrommich]

34. Yay for the misogynistic, homophobic theocrats!

[JVS]

35. Well that's putting a happy face on it, but sure.

[polly7]

41. US businessman visits Iran

This is just a video I came across once and found it interesting:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/iranus-sabre-rattling/us-businessman-visits-iran.html

Lecture by Rick Steves - "It's a good idea to get to know people before you start bombing them."

[ronnie624]

61. Thanks. Well worth the hour spent. n/t

[EX500rider]

43. This is right up there with that N. Korea thread last year...

.....you know, the one where the N. Korean's were so happy and smiled in all the pictures.

Plus if I had to pick between the Shah or Khomeini that would be a tough one...hmmm.....a Western style repressive police state monarchy or a repressive homo-phobic anti-womens rights theocratric police state.... sounds like fire/frying pan to me.

[EgaLitE]

44. Disturbing propaganda

These bearded theocrats think that men can't control themselves so therefore women must be confined to moving prisons & have acid dumped on them if they "disobey". Only savage barbarians hold such views. Indigenous Amazon tribes that run around naked all day have more self control and integrity than these self righteous religious pricks. If humanitarian intervention is the only thing that stops this mysogynist, Holocaust-denying rogue state, I don't care about anything else.

You're sounding a lot like Ron Paul, who also defends Iran. Why don't you go run off with the paulbots?

And your source of info? "Riding the Tiger"?? Looks pretty sketchy to me.

https://www.facebook.com/ridingthetigerdotorg

Why don't you read the real news?

[naragdaban]

69. How is it disturbing?

You know, for someone with the name "egalite" you sure seem ready to despise and demean those who you don't disagree with. I am sure on one hand you frequently say that "no culture is better than another," but your outbursts belie a belief to the contrary.

I never endorsed Ron Paul on this site, though I confess that on SOME issues, such as getting out of foreign wars, he is 100% correct. Don't jump to conclusions that you can't substantiate.

Also, please tell me why you find these sources "disturbing". How can we have open discussions when we don't even want to understand the other side?

[Liora24]

50. I'm sad to see this thread here...

I can't believe that there are people who would praise Iran on a liberal board. However I am encouraged that most people seem to disagree with the OP.

Iran is a mysogynistic, homophobic, racist, backwards country run by bearded theocratic who shoot at their own people! I can hardly think of anyone who was worse than Bush but if such a person exists it is Ahmadinejad! Even Bush wouldn't deny the Holocaust, but Ahmadinejad did. Even Iran changed its name in 1935 because they were inspired by Hitler.

And Iran is NOT a democracy it is a theocracy. It doesn't matter if people vote because they don't have the right to choose their leaders freely. All candidates are hand-picked by mullahs, and even if they weren't the current government keeps them in so much fear that they won't vote for any candidate who isn't conservative. Why do you think millions protested in 2009?

[Crunchy Frog]

51. While I find Iran's current regime to be disgusting and repressive and backward

I do have a great deal of respect for their culture and ancient civilization.

I feel terrible about the role my own country has played in the destruction of Iranian democracy with the coup that we engineered in the 1950's I hope that Iran will someday be able to throw off that legacy and find genuine freedom.

I really don't think that you will get very far on this board by praising the current Iranian regime. This is a progressive board, and the regime in Iran is pretty much anathema to progressive values.

[LeftinOH]

55. It would be 58 years of self-determination if we hadn't meddled with them

in the first place (back in 1953).