Alcohol is banned in Iran. it would be tough for it to become a problem.
Sheesh, everytime I raise something, there’s always someone to jump on it and take the wrong conclusion. NO, I’m not saying because of lack of democracy there’s drugs and violence, but I’m trying to raise parallels between the social breakdown in Soviet society in the 80’s and Iranian society are similar, the Iranians already have a huge drug problem and prostitution problem, I’m just thinking these problems are exacerbated by the rigid laws and rules laid down by the Islamic Republic.
So are satellite dishes receiving Western broadcasts, yet nearly everyone has one, your point being? The Iranian government likes to sweep some of it societies ills under the carpet, like it has with alcoholism, prostitution and drug abuse. I could be wrong, but that’s the way I see it.
Oh please, telepathy is not required here. Any pretense to a lack of subtext on that one is silly. You are a humorous fellow and humorous fellows know what they are saying and how it will be received, and subtext is the substance of wit. Therefore it is unreasonable to believe that you were referring to anyone other than George W. who has been referred to derisively as King George a la the King you just referenced. So please spare us the, ‘telepathy’, certification.
There is a distinct goal that has been in place since the beginning of the war in Iraq. If that strategy goal is achieved then it is a ‘success’. That is regardless of your personal opinion regarding the auspices under which hostilities commenced.
What a load of crap. I read what luci said strictly as a commentary on King George’s policy towards the colonies over here in the late 18th century.
No, the goals have been lowered since the beginning of the war every couple of weeks to the point where they are meaningless.
Umm no. That’s just a slogan.
Whether Iraq functions as a Democratic government in ten or twenty years determines success. Nothing else. Tactic goals shift on the battlefield. That is the strategic objective and always has been.
In times past the presidency of Iran was a largely symbolic post compared to that of Supreme Leader. But, according to ex-Foreign Minister Ibrahim Yazdi, Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards have gradually carried out what amounts to a coup d’etat, marginalizing Khamenei by controlling his access to information. This election is merely the capstone.
Ahh so we are playing the ‘context doesn’t apply’ game. Anyway I’m not going to debate it, he wants to say that a direct response to a comment about Iraq succeeding as a Democracy had no subtext regarding George W. Bush, then fine, you all can hold that position, it’s not part of the main topic and I don’t give a rats ass.
Except for those regarding political Islamism, all of these arguments could have been (and substantially were) made for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I hope we’ve learned a lesson by now. Iran is every bit as volatile as Iraq and five times as big. Iran, like Iraq, is a multinational state, and there are Kurdish nationalists, Arab Khuzestani nationalists, Balochi nationalists and maybe even Azeri nationalists waiting for a chance to break up the country. And then, cutting across the ethnic divisions, there’s the religious-hardliner/secular-reformist split, both sides of which have significant popular support. That’s a formula for a really bloody war-to-the-knife civil conflict. Let’s not stir up something too hot to handle. There’s no way it wouldn’t spill over into neighboring countries. And we can’t expect an oil-producing country to keep pumping and exporting oil while a civil war is going on – can we? Watch out for horrors at the gas pump.
And if the Iranian Kurds take advantage of the chaos to secede, they and the Iraqi Kurds are bound to get the idea of splitting off and merging to form a united independent Kurdistan – and then start making overtures to the Turkish Kurds – which will only provoke the Turkish government even more.
Likewise, if the Iranian Balochis (at the east end of the country) secede, they’ll want to unite with the Afghan and Pakistani Balochis to form an independent Balochistan – and, since we’re trying so hard to pacify Afghanistan and keep Pakistan as an ally, which side does the U.S. support then?!
Things are seldom simple, and this is clearly not one that is.
Best just not to go there in the first place.
Newsifact: Katherine Harris applauds Iranian election results - declares process "free and fair." It has been settled. The elections were fair.
You know that’s a spoof, don’t you? Here’s another link from that site, since you forgot the smiley:
Some interesting observations about how news is being reported from Iran:
It was a comparison, not a direct allegory; King George’s attitudes towards the colonies versus the Bush administration’s actions in Iraq and the ME in general. You’re being ridiculous.
Here’s a great blog about what’s happening in Iran.
Yes, it was a comparison, and I treated it as such. I’m not being ridiculous at all. You’re inflating a straw man and telling it that it’s ridiculous.